Computer Woes: Tech Issues that Apparently Only Happen to ME

I am so tired of computer and technology issues that seemingly only have ever happened to me. It's a pattern that I've put up with--as a PC Guru, a title I've unwillingly taken on--for many years. It goes like this:

A problem or quirk--sometimes very minor, sometimes quite major, but always annoying--will crop up on my PC, or in recent years on my MacBook Pro, Android Phone or other electronic device. I'll try to sort it out myself, but then will seek out answers on the Googles and Bings. Rarely, I'll find the answer I'm looking for, and bada-bing, problem solved.

More often, it goes like this:

- Problem crops up. Usually, it's replicatable, and often it has happened before to me on other systems, and was never resolved.
- Seek answers via Google, Bing, what have you.
- Find several responses that seemingly fit my query.
- Several responses lead to paid "help" sites, arcane uber-techy sites, hard-to-navigate forums, and often, dead links.
- Some answers list steps for resolution that either a) have no effect, or b) have steps that simply can't be done, because that menu or link or button doesn't exist on my system.
- Some answers begin with fishing expeditions by other techies who obviously have no idea what the issue is, because they start with, "well, what were you doing when it happened," "what programs are you running," "what are the CPU loads when that happens," "why are you trying to do that," "try turning off your virus checker/firewall/whoziewhatzit," and on and on. They don't know. They're fishing for a cause, because this problem has no known resolution to them.

I end up frustrated, mostly because it's impossible I'm the only one this happens to! Let me give you some examples of the problems that regularly occur that piss me off:

- Typing--just typing--slows to a crawl in a browser, usually in a simple response box, such as a comment board in Slate, Salon, or other news/blog area. It can be something as basic as a comment box using Facebook's or Disqus' format. Glacial, character-dropping, time-delayed typing. Something that should be so simple and basic that it never happens.

- While trying to scroll a Twitter feed, the feed begins bouncing around, pictures inflate and deflate, sending the whole feed up or down, and making reading very frustrating.

- A browser tab will bring up a white screen with no text, and the twirling "wait" cursor icon. This isn't too odd, but then it will knock out the rest of the computer's brain, affecting other programs, the task bar, dimming the display, sometimes everything, until the wait state is done. . .doing whatever the hell it's doing.

- My old Samsung Galaxy S4's overheating and battery devouring problem. A known issue that the Googles apparently don't remember, and offer no useful solutions for (I feel guilty for trading that phone in, for the guy who buys it reconditioned).

- My old Samsung Galaxy S4's (and The Other Half's S4's) inability to work properly with Bluetooth, in cars, and often other devices, and seemingly birthing a secondary problem where the speaker and/or microphone would simply stop working.

This is a very short list of the things that have happened to me, mostly across multiple devices, where I'm met with. . ."well, what is your model number/serial number/processor version/Windows version/Android version," and other forms of fishing. I totally get that a person has to ask questions with unfamiliar troubleshooting issues. But why are these problems unheard of, if they happen to me across devices???

I'd like to point out also that I'm kind of an early adaptor, and when it's financially possible to have the latest-and-greatest, I try to get it. Well, maybe not top-of-the-line, but decent, well above entry level. My main PC is 64-bit with a high-speed, quad processor, and scads of RAM. Should time delayed typing really be an issue? It can't be just me if it's happened on all of my systems, at work and at home, in various versions of Windows for years.

/rant

Back to Ohio: Why do the Roads in Central Ohio Suck so Badly?

There was a common joke I heard in my youth, that the state flower of Ohio was the orange construction barrel. Every spring, the barrels would spring up, complicating any work commute in every direction. When I moved to Las Vegas in the early nineties, I realized that it's not a geographic thing, particularly. For the entire two decades I lived in the Vegas valley, I don't remember a time when Interstate 15 didn't have construction somewhere along its stretch through town.

Upon my return to Ohio this year, I had another revelation. There are huge differences between these two places as to what's going on behind those barrels. In Las Vegas, if there is a choke point on a highway, they fix it. If there is too much traffic trying to join or exit a freeway ramp on a daily basis, they build new interchanges, either replacing the existing exits, or adding new ones at different intersections. Complicated pinch points yield astonishing changes, like fly-overs, superstreet intersections, criss-crossing (and high-flying) ramps, extending and expanding roads that were previously inadequate, access roads, express lanes, and other improvements. Yes, Vegas still has The Spaghetti Bowl, and the Rainbow Curve--nobody's perfect--but by-and-large, if a section of town experiences terrible traffic, NDOT goes to great lengths to find a solution, and usually a quick one.

Not in Ohio. Sure, there have been changes. During my 20 year absence, State Route 161 was rerouted and expanded (with the efforts of Limited owner, Les Wexner), I-670 was completed as something of an innerbelt from Downtown Columbus to the Airport (it peters out in the suburb of Gahanna). I'm sure there have been other improvement projects (I saw a novel interchange at Roberts Road and west I-270, for example), and roundabouts have sprung up in both logical and unnecessary locations. Roundabouts seem to be a prestige thing for some reason, even in Las Vegas. But there are a distressing number of congested areas that are absolutely inadequate, and were inadequate in 1990, 1980, 1970.

Many of the freeway exits and junctions, for example, are of the original design: cloverleafs. They force drivers to cross each other, often requiring not only cooperation with other drivers (yeah, right), but also snap decisions. One in particular, at I-270 and State Route 3, allows almost no time to complete the maneuver. It's been that way since it was built. Traffic jams abound, and need have no other cause beyond competing drivers trying to cross each other to exit and enter.

Getting off the freeway, things can be just as bad on surface streets. Traffic jams can happen anywhere, at any time, and have no obvious cause. I can't tell you how many times I've found myself driving on a major road, and having to make a snap decision, because my lane is coming to a sudden surprise end or "turn only." Attempting to drive about three miles down State Route 256 (a major road), I had to change lanes three times to continue south, and this occurred no matter which lane

you're travelling in. Going through the town of New Albany (Les Wexner's baby), there are sequential intersections where through travel requires shifting lanes twice, neither particularly intuitive. I find this all over the place, left lane, right line, or middle lane (if there is one). Even in prestigious areas like Grandview Heights.

And while I'm on a rant, I'll point out that this is a state of few legal U-turns, and many intersections with signs that say, "No turn on red, except curb lane." Both of these things cause traffic tie-ups, the former because it forces drivers to make snap decisions, and the latter because many Ohio drivers are clueless, and read the sign as simply "No turn on red." That's a problem that funding roads can't fix, I suppose. Many Ohioans can't properly yield either, whether at roundabouts (something that I admittedly had problems with at first), or on continuous turn lanes. People in Ohio are also permitted to talk on the phone while driving without the assistance of Bluetooth, which is a huge traffic issue, just from my own observations.

But because of these side-issues about the driving-challenged in Ohio, improved infrastructure is just that much more important. And it's not getting done. I just wonder why. Yes, it's expensive. But it's important. I'd also like to point out that in Las Vegas, we had no city tax, no state tax, and property tax that was about 1/3 the amount in central Ohio. With all of this extra cash at their disposal, where does the tax money go in Ohio? Sure, those orange barrels are out all over the place, so clearly a lot goes to fixing the existing roads after the harsh winter destruction every year.  But here we are in the middle of May, and every excursion out of my house in Reynoldsburg is like a driving obstacle course. So, even that isn't getting done at a very rapid clip.

It's a daily aggravation, for me. I can only assume that your average Ohioan has come to accept the status quo as "just the way things are." When stuck in a traffic jam on East Broad Street out in the relative boonies of Blacklick to Pataskala at 2pm on an odd Saturday, they must just shrug, and think, "it's always been this way." But it doesn't have to be! I've seen it done better! There are many things about my Vegas experience I could bitch about, but attention to infrastructure isn't one of them. Why does Ohio allow this woefully inadequate condition to go on indefinitely?

Bush Era Torture: Too Risky to Politically to Pursue?

Right-wing noise machine, from American Insurgency

Now that the hows and whys of the Bush Administration's torture policies are becoming more apparent, the new Obama Administration is sort of getting backed into a corner on what to do about it. On the surface, it would seem that President Obama just wants it to go away. As someone who voted for him, I'm hopeful that there's a little more to it than that, some sort of "master plan" for dealing with the issue in a way that doesn't let war crimes go unpunished.

Politics is tricky business, I know. Timing is very important. Not irritating your own party is important. Dealing with the right-wing noise machine, and making sure that it doesn't drive public sentiment is important. But you know what else is important? Rule of law. Torture is a federal and international crime. Despite the innumerable protestations by George W. Bush, Dana Perino and others, the United States did torture. As policy.

The Republicans (and their apologists) are having a little bit of trouble with this issue too. They can't--most of them--outright endorse torture. They have to downplay the torture that did happen as "not torture." Which is getting more and more implausible the more that we learn. So to muddy the issue, they've got to paint this as a liberal vendetta. A way to get even for years out of power. A way to even the score for Clinton's impeachment. Look for the bulk of conservative outrage on this to focus on that, rather than to take apart the actual issues.

Obama has one big advantage here, and that is the President isn't really the guy to pursue this anyway. It's the Justice Department's and Congress' job to investigate, and if Obama wants, he can pretty much leave it in their hands. Still, many of us peons probably don't know or see the divisions there, so it will be difficult for Obama to steer completely clear.

Nancy Skinner, the radio talk show host who took Randi Rhodes' place when Nova M Radio folded, is of the Peggy Noonan "walk away" crowd on the issue. Skinner is ostensibly a liberal/progressive, but of the token FOX "News" variety. There is too much to do, Skinner argues, from global climate change, to the economy, to health care. The torture issue would be a distraction, and would derail the rest of Obama's agenda.*

Maybe. And that would be unfortunate. But anti-torture laws are laws. There simply isn't a legal argument to not investigate them. As pretty as "looking forward and not back" might sound, it is terrible reasoning. All crimes happened in the past. You don't just decide to be magnanimous about theft, murder, or other crimes because they happened in the past. This might be sticky politics, but it is necessary.

We know how the right-wing noise machine works now. We can guess what they're going to squawk about before they even get revved up. It is incumbent upon the Obama Administration and its supporters to fight the screaming with facts, as fast as they lob a "poutrage" outburst. It's a big task, but it's an important fight.

*UPDATE: Nancy Skinner herself has a response to my opinion of her opinion. I don't ever intentionally misrepresent the facts or try to mislead, but I'm completely capable of being wrong. So read Nancy's comment below, and make up your own mind. Thanks!

West Virginia Next "Protect Marriage" Battleground

Image from Sydney Morning Herald

Last week I ran a post about the silliness of people who complain about the definitions of words. "Marriage" and "gay" are two words that have changed over time, and many right-winger/religious-type people have their garments in a twist over it. It's a smokescreen for their real agenda which is: "I think gays are icky," which is basically what any anti-gay rhetoric boils down to.

But assuming the "word definitions" argument actually had merit (big assumption), people on my side of the aisle could complain about the same thing. After all, the word "family" has been co-opted by the other side, to only include their ideal version of family. And, going a little further, you could say they're corrupting the meaning of "protect" when they say "protect marriage." Marriages themselves are not under any threat by same-sex couples. The only thing that conceivably be considered "threatened", is the legal definition. This fact is obscured by every single person arguing against same sex marriage. Everything else is a load of crap.

Which is hardly surprising. This video, arguing for a law to "protect" West Virginia marriages, is ladled with crap. For one thing, they're using religious arguments to change a law, something which should NEVER BE ALLOWED IN THIS COUNTRY. Secondly, they are flat-out lying when hey claim that "one man-one woman" is the Biblical standard definition of marriage. I remember a lot of polygamy in the "good book," don't you? And thirdly, they claim that every "civilized" society defines marriage as they do. Canada, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, and two of our states, Connecticut and Massachusetts are not civilized? Because all of those places have legal same-sex marriage.

All of this boils down to the "ick" factor as I said. Some people just cannot hear "gay" without imagining vivid same-sex couplings. I suppose some are "icked-out" by what they imagine, and some are "icked-out" by the fact that they are not "icked out!"

It's all very stupid, and makes me angry. Not just because I actually got married to my same-sex partner last year in California. These types of campaigns offend me on many other levels, starting with the fact that every single one of them relies on twisting the truth, misleading people, and often outright lying. They also rely on scare tactics, illogical slippery-slope arguments, and the hope that voters accept what they say without thinking too deeply about it. And right at the tippy-top of my outrage mountain, is the fact that invariably, the biggest fulcrum their argument tips on is religion. THEIR religion. Which again, should never, EVER be used as an argument for law in the United States of America. And don't forget the tugging at heartstrings employed by the music, the urgent narrator, and the ever present "won't someone PLEASE think of the CHILDREN???" As though there is any threat to children from two guys or two girls marrying. It's all so ridiculous.

And now, the dishonest, misleading, illogical, fear-mongering video that prompted my rant. . .



By the way, it took enormous restraint for me--a former Ohioan--to not make some sort of "Aunt Mommy/Uncle Daddy" Appalachian West Virginny joke. Oh hey, wait, I just did!

Late to the Party: I Understand Texting Now!

OK, I'll admit, while I'm in general pretty smart, I can be a little slow sometimes. I didn't get my first cell phone until around 2004. "Why would I need one?" I thought. But with The Other Half flying about 1/3 of the time, it has proven very handy. I use it much more than I ever thought I would, though I don't much like to talk on the phone. It's great for little things, like finding out if you need to stop at the store, or countless other things you may have forgotten to ask when going out the door.

But you know all that. You've had a phone much longer than me. I'm a little slow. And when it comes to texting, I was even slower. I could not fathom the popularity of texting, a seemingly very backward way to communicate when you're holding a phone in your hand.

Well, I've seen the light there too. Text messages are short and sweet. Perfect for when you don't think the person you want to contact might be able to answer the phone. Great to send just a nugget of information. I've used the texting feature on my new phone more than I've used the actual phone! And I've got to say, a text message can be sweet, even touching, in a way that a voice mail just doesn't capture. And that's coming from black-hearted, slow ol' me.

But I'm glad I got one of the phones with a full keyboard. I may be slow, but even I realize that typing on a keyboard is far superior to using a number pad. Do yourself a favor. If you like to text, or think you might, get a phone with all the keys. I have the Samsung "Rant," and so far it's great. Now, what other things am I missing?

A Rant About Over-inflated Conservative Opinions

There is only one reason for this post, and that was an extreme irritation with an on-air promotion on the local Las Vegas right-wing talk radio station. Well, the leading one anyway, there are lots of them, and none is liberal/progressive.

Anyway, what got my dander up was a simple promotion for Sean Hannity and Mark Levin. Hannity has christened Levin "The Great One," for no other reason than their snake-eating-its-tail relationship. And Hannity also calls each of his callers "Great Americans" if they've mastered the ability to dial a phone, and bleat echos of his viewpoints. They almost unfailingly return the favor.

Both monikers have stuck in the world of conservo-talk, and so KXNT has made a commercial touting that you don't have to go anywhere else, because all the Great Ones and Great Americans are in one place. This made me want to hurl, but all I did was yell at the radio. Both men have done a great deal to tear down and divide America, despite their incessant metaphorical flag-waving.

Levin has the most obnoxious voice in radio (which is saying a lot), and is smart enough to know that he's stoking an already unstable base of listeners. Hannity isn't smart enough to know any of that, but he's still good at it. I'm apparently immune to being "Hannitized," which is good, because it is brainwashing by a brainless man.

To make matters worse, the little commercial was followed by another promo for a new program, The Curtis Sliwa Show, which--given what a freak that guy is--shows they'll play anything associated with FOX "News." Of course, it airs at 2am, so only the craziest of the crazy will ever hear it. Just yuck.

New Year's Toy: Samsung Rant Phone

I was a late joiner to the cell phone machine. I'm not a big phone talker, don't understand the texting phenomenon, and am usually near a computer, so I didn't need internet connectivity. But with The Other Half away much of the time due to his job, the practicality became undeniable. So, about four years ago, we took the plunge.

The first phone was nice in its day, but fairly clunky now, with an extendable antennae, and a rudimentary camera. The second phone--now two years old--is basically an updated version of the first, with a slightly better camera and a sleeker appearance. But it is still just basically a utilitarian phone. No more.

This year, we've cast off our Luddite ways entirely, and have entered the digital age for reals. No, it isn't an iPhone, or that swanky new touchpad Blackberry. But it is a quantum leap for us. We got "Rant" phones, by Samsung (the same brand as the previous two). But this one is a wholly different experience. It has a sliding, full-Qwerty keyboard, a mega-pixel camera, video capability, a micro-SD card. . .it's decked out.

So, to take advantage of all of this, we've taken the leap into a full service plan, which is a big bite for someone who initially didn't even want a cell phone. But thanks to The Other Half's company discount, not too hard to swallow. Time will tell if we use the high-tech new features, but I've already pulled up Greenlee Gazette on the little screen! Maybe I'll give mobile blogging a try.

So, I Got a Speeding Ticket. . .

Photo from AutoBlog

On my way home from work on Wednesday afternoon, I was frustrated by an extremely slow semi truck. As I took my usual route down Dean Martin Drive (a road formerly known as Industrial Road), I was slowed to a crawl by a big rig pulling out of the truck stop at Blue Diamond Road. For some reason, they pull out of there (usually heedless of traffic in either direction) going about five miles per hour, and do not pick up speed unless the light is green at the intersection. They block the southbound traffic, until the last possible minute, and then (almost always) get into the left turn lane.

This is predictable (if baffling), so I don't know why I was so annoyed by it. Probably because I'd been delayed at work, and had to stay three hours past everyone else, in order to complete my work before going on vacation. Anyway, due to my annoyance, I was ready to hit the gas pedal, and just go. Big mistake.

Dean Martin Drive is 45 miles per hour over much of its lengthy course (Martin got a much longer stretch of road than Frank Sinatra or Wayne Newton here in Las Vegas). But beginning at the truck stop, and stretching a block or so around Silverton Lodge and Casino, the road slows to 35. Silly me, I wasn't paying attention. So, going 46 miles per hour, I was pulled over by one of Las Vegas Metro's finest, yards away from the magic 45 transition. I sat there off the road, staring at the 45 MPH sign, waiting for Mr. Copolice man to come to my window.

He wasn't unpleasant exactly, though he was a bit curt. The weather was brisk, the sky gray, and threatening rain. He'd been waiting on a side road, probably picking his spot strategically, waiting for people who sped up a little to quickly, or didn't slow down soon enough. Outside of a badly timed right-turn-on-red, I haven't had a moving violation in the 14 years I've lived in Las Vegas. I've been driving the same 1998 Jeep Wrangler for over eight of those years. And most of the time, I've had my registration and proof of insurance right in the glove box where it belongs.

Not this time. I finally dug out the registration, but my insurance card was expired. Not the insurance itself, mind you, just the paper I had in the truck with me. So, the policeman cited me for speeding. He cited me for having my license sticker in the wrong location (I'd had seven years' worth of stickers on the right corner, and stuck this year's on the other side). And he cited me and The Other Half separately for not having proof of current insurance in the vehicle. It seems that though my title shows both names, my registration does not. Like that's my fault.

So, I'm not complaining that I'm not guilty. I was speeding. But I'm irritated that the policeman was lying in wait in a location where many people could make an honest mistake. I'm annoyed that I got a $190 fine for putting my sticker in the wrong corner (who knew that was illegal?). I'm annoyed that the officer couldn't call my insurance agent while checking everything else, to confirm my valid insurance. And I'm irked that there was no leniency for an almost spotless driving record on Christmas Eve.

All told, my fine is almost five hundred dollars. For going a speed that would have been legal 50 yards down the road. No one was in danger from my "reckless" speed. No public interest is served by fining me for putting a sticker 11 inches further left than dictated. My insurance is current, so ticketing me (and The Other Half) was unnecessary. But Mr. Man neglected to notice that I don't have a front license tag--and haven't had for eight years! So I guess I got a little over on him!

Proposition 8 and the Tyranny of the Majority

Image from SimpsonCrazy

I've read a lot of comments about the passage of Proposition 8 in California (the measure that stripped same-sex couples of the existing right to marry). A lot that I've read is quite simply appalling. Some of it is bigoted. Some of it is from people who simply aren't getting a basic point. That point is, that the tyranny of the majority is not supposed to be able to trample on the rights of a minority in the United States.

But the point gets lost in the emotion and good ol' holy-rollin' spew of anti-gay rhetoric (and righteous indignation from the supporters of same-sex marriage). Many people--for unclear reasons--don't find the argument persuasive. They don't consider homosexuality analogous to civil rights for ethnic groups or religious groups, or for women. Fine. Then let me lay out an analogy that is a little closer, m'kay?

Imagine a state similar to Utah, one dominated by a religion that most do not consider mainstream. In this state, the dominant religion has some prohibition against a specific human trait--pick one--left handedness, dwarfism, albinos, red heads, people with freckles, vegetarians, whatever. In most of those cases, the trait is inborn, as I believe homosexuality is. But if you don't believe that, use vegetarians. Or for the better analogy, southpaws, who may be born that way but theoretically can change or at least change their behavior. Follow me?

Now, imagine that in this state, public sentiment has turned against this group, and has decided that they shouldn't be a party to something the rest of the state is allowed to do. Marriage is the obvious example, but I'm sure you can think of others. Because this state is populated with enough public support for a prohibition of this group's inclusion in the activity, they propose an amendment to their state's constitution, and it passes. And so, left handed people in the state of Hypothetica are now banned from marriage. Because the majority says so.

Or, maybe the left handed people of Hypothetica are already brow-beaten into not raising a fuss. So the elders of the church encourage their members to send money to another state to prevent the marrige of southpaws there. But they don't include the name of their religion in the campaign or advertising, and they don't officially as a religion have anything to do with it. Nonetheless, 80% 50% [sorry, originally over-stated a bit] of the money poured into the effort comes from members of their church.

This is the crux of what has happened. A big, but minority religion, has flexed its muscle, and gotten one of its beliefs codified into a state constitution, at the expense of the rights of a minority group. And while I'm not a big fan of "slippery slope" arguments, it is not unreasonable to believe that such a religion--having gotten a very appetizing taste of power--might try again.

In Hypothetica, they might try to ban the right for left-handed people to cohabitate. They might ban them from adopting kids. They might ban them from. . .who knows. . .drivers' licenses, while we're being hypothetical.

Now, do you think it is unreasonable that gay people are upset about this? Do you see why they might be protesting? Do you see why they might be a little angry at the very un-hypothetical church that organized this thing?

End of rant.

UPDATE: It occurred to me, after writing this post, that this is kind of a new wrinkle in the "tyranny of the majority." Here we have a minority religion, teaming up with two majority religions (Evangelical Christians and Catholics, making strange bedfellows indeed) influencing the majority to stomp on the rights of the minority. That's the tyranny of a minority over a majority over a minority! Possibly a first?

Proposition 8, Same-sex Marriage and the Internets

I've stated before that the intent of this blog is not to focus on gay rights or gay issues. It's not that I don't care about them, it's just that there are many other blogs and websites who do that work and do it well. My focus has usually been elsewhere, and will likely continue to be.

But this "Proposition 8" business in California is ongoing, newsworthy and personal to me. As I've said in other posts, The Other Half and I got married in Palm Springs this summer, and we now have our 4-month-old marriage in a state of legal limbo. . .still technically valid, but vulnerable to a challenge by virtually any Californian who decides to make it an issue. Can you imagine that? Your marriage up for discussion--for termination--by anybody else, for any reason?

I do not blame the "No on 8" people for not winning this fight. They didn't ask for this fight, and they didn't have massive religious institutions pumping money into their effort. And they were doing a pretty good job toward the end there. And I am heartened by all of the protests and legal challenges being waged to fight this. We don't see people "taking to the streets" much in America, even after the lawlessness of the Bush Administration. This activism and action is the silver lining in the very dark cloud.

But I am infuriated by what I'm finding on the internet regarding the aftermath of Prop. 8. I'm not talking about the far-right wingnut sites, the religious sites, the pre-existing anti-gay sites. . .they're always vile on the subject. I'm talking about ordinary sites like The Los Angeles Times, The San Francisco Chronicle, AOL News, and any other mainstream site that allows comments. The amount of ignorance, hatred and absolute stupidity on these comment boards is stunning, and deeply insulting.

I've been participating in online message boards almost since they've existed. And the arguments being used whenever a gay topic is raised--any gay topic--have been repeated and refuted on them ad nauseum. They're always the same, and they all boil down to the "ick" factor. Plain and simple, people who are against gay rights cannot stop thinking about the mechanics of gay sex. What kills me is, marriage rights aren't even about sex. Gay people will have sex regardless. But that's where the discussion always goes. Oh, and with a heaping dose of usually hypocritical religious dogma.

I've been with my husband for almost eleven years. We're as typical--and probably as boring--as your average Jane and Joe down the street. We pay our taxes, we vote and yet we are second-class citizens. We're not the same. We're "less than." Our relationship, we're told, cannot be put on equal footing with a married man and woman. Sorry, I call bullshit.

Most of the straight people I know who have been married have also been divorced. Some more than once. Is anybody "protecting marriage" from them? Is their second or third marriage "sacred?" Here in Las Vegas, where same-sex marriage is also prohibited by our constitution, a man can get drunk, find some chippy at the craps table, run off to the wedding chapel, and voila, they automatically gain the sanctity of marriage.

Don't tell me it is a privilege and not a right. Not when the requirements are an unrelated, of age, penis and vagina, and that's it. Some privilege. And don't tell me that I have the same right, and can run right down and marry a woman. Then you'd just blast me for being gay and ruining the woman's life, right? Right.

I've seen my relationship compared to a man marrying a dog. I've seen it compared to polygamy, incest and pedophilia. I've usually seen this all from people claiming to be moral and religious. Can you see why that might piss a person off? Can you see why that might make a person lash out at religions? Especially religions that actively dabble in politics?

It is quite simply stunning to see what people are willing to say in a public forum. And it isn't limited to the online world. The same phenomenon exists in talk radio, in churches and in political speeches. Nothing is off-limits as it pertains to gay people. You can say anything, no matter how nasty, and get away with it. Only the very extreme get any rebuke, and that's usually when they extend their attacks to others, like slain soldiers. So spare me for being intolerant of intolerance. Spare me for not respecting your "opinion."

I am not an opinion, and I am not an issue. This is not on par with believing in a woman's right to choose, or legal medical marijuana, or any other social issue. I cannot divorce myself from my sexuality. I am not fighting for an issue, I am fighting for my life. Homosexuality is not a behavior, it is a sexual orientation. A gay person is still gay, whether or not they have sex at all. And shoot, if you want to end gay sex, let us all get married (heh, had to throw in a joke somewhere!).

Minority rights issues are seldom popular. That is why historically, they are not put up to a popular vote. If they were, women would never have gotten the right to vote. Black people either. Slavery might still be legal. Segregation surely would be. So, why have we allowed gay rights issues to come up for a vote? And tell me, if gays are a ripe target, who's next? Fat people? Jewish people? Left handed people? All could be backed up with one religious text or another. But no one would stand for that, would they?

Finally, I want to reiterate that the vote in California was different from other (still wrong) state constitutional amendments in a very fundamental way. This was not a measure to block same-sex marriage. It was a vote to take away a right that already existed. And if you don't think that the fanatically religious--given a taste of power after all of these anti-gay amendments in 40 states--won't want more, you're nuts. Have you seen their issues? It ain't just the gays folks. It's sex before marriage. It's contraception. It's adultery and divorce.

"The people have spoken," some will say. Yeah, great. The people have voted to give a state the right to invalidate my marriage. Nice. Have a party. But just remember this when they come after something you care about that they disagree with.

And now the story that inspired this rant:

Prop 8 Protesters March Into Night at NBC Los Angeles

Why I'm For Barack Obama

Barack Obama image from: ObeyGiant.com

There are a lot of arguments being made for and against Barack Obama and John McCain. The reasons against McCain are detailed extensively in the posts below, and in the archives, should you care to read them. The case against Obama so far has consisted of innuendo, lies, attempted guilt-by-association, and lack of experience.

But who is the most experienced person in the race? McCain has been in the Senate for 26 years. He was also--as has been drilled into our heads endlessly--in the military, and held captive for five years. Those are notable credentials for anybody, and I do not care to try and diminish them. But what exactly do they show us about the experience needed to be President of the United States?

I've got to say, they really don't let us know much of anything. The office of the President is unique. Nobody has experience there, unless they've already been President. The only people who have it and are eligible are Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush, both well past the age of interest or viability. You could even argue--as she did--that Hillary Clinton had a leg up as First Lady, having lived the life of a wife of a President. It really did give her more experience in what the job is all about than any of the other candidates in the primaries.

The only thing either candidate has in the experience department is life experience. And John McCain has had a longer life, so I guess he gets an advantage there. But his very long life in Congress has also tied him into the political machine. And the GOP political machine is a rusty, creaking, eeevil device.

Casting aside the positives and negatives of both candidates, one of the strongest reasons I have to vote for Obama is the rejection of that GOP machine. All of the Karl Roves and Rick Davises absolutely need to go. The ones who are young enough will surely pop up again in the future, but they seriously need a time out. And the older ones, the ones who came back from Ford's, Reagan's and H.W.'s tenure will finally be put out to pasture.

Another reason, again outside of the merits of the candidates, is the Supreme Court. The court has teetered ever closer to a hard-right leaning bunch, and I simply don't like that. Roe v. Wade is not a pet issue of mine, but for anyone who counts that as an important one, a McCain vote would surely put that decision in jeopardy. But my view is a little broader than that.

George W. Bush already got a couple of appointees in there. Several others are ready to retire. A McCain Presidency might get several appointments to the bench, and I just think that would be a horrific idea. Justices are supposed to be impartial, but we've all seen that they are not. And Supreme Court Justices outlast their Presidential appointers by decades. No, there needs to be a more equal balance there.

But back to Obama. And I'll be brief, because I've been windy thus far. He's very obviously smart. More than that, he's smarter than me. He's calm, cool and collected in harsh situations. He doesn't blow his top like a roman candle when he's attacked. He's an scholar of the Constitution. He was first in his class at Harvard. He can focus on more than one issue at a time. He doesn't try to insult my intelligence (like with the whole sorry "Joe the Plumber" and "Drill, Baby Drill" memes). And to tie it all in a bow, he is not a Republican. That's enough. It's more than enough.

So, yeah, I'm for change. Change in direction. Change in attitude. Change in policy. But mostly, change from the behind-the-scenes, neo-con, arch-rightwing group of politicos in Washington. I don't think they'll be resting quietly. . .they'll be up to the shenanigans that dug up dirt until they found it on Bill Clinton. But at least they'll be out of power. I hope.

Editor's Rant: Radio Commercials and False Advertising

Image from MV Recycling

I listen to a lot of talk radio, probably too much. Especially in a "political Christmas" like what is going on now. I probably would have half as many posts on the blog if I wasn't as plugged in as I am to Rachel Maddow, Randi Rhodes, Thom Hartmann and Stephanie Miller. I've even been known to work in a little Rush Limbaugh, Sean [ack!] Hannity and Mark [accckkkk!] Levin, from time to time.

But one thing you get along with the talk, is commercials. Lots and lots of commercials. And that goes for most of radio, not just talk, not just right or left-wing. And the common trait among these commercials (excluding most of the local ones) is that they are annoying, too repetitive and usually deceitful.

The ads use many tricks to deceive. One tactic is the fake interview, where they make it sound like the host (or a faux host) is talking to an expert on some product. Often, they'll even flub a line or two to sound more "live," throw in a chuckle here or there, and rarely ever actually tell you exactly what they're selling. You have to buy the book or the product to find out what's in it!

They sell time shares this way, notably Tahiti Village right here in Las Vegas with an overly exuberant Tanya Roberts trying to give you a "free getaway" (note: not a vacation, and not actually at Tahiti Village). They sell get rich schemes, work at home schemes, home security schemes. All using trickery, and very careful wording to do it.

The ad that inspired this post is one that plays on KTLK out of Los Angeles (and undoubtedly elsewhere) about a grocery bag tax. A very concerned female voice laments the price of gas, and of groceries, and implores Californians to vote against a grocery bag tax that would add $400 to each family's budget. That's a 25 cent tax per bag. My math works that out to 1,600 grocery bags per year! How many families do you know that buy 133 bags of groceries per month?

This ad is sponsored by some nebulous sounding group that turns out to be--wait for it--the Progressive Bag Affiliates of the American Chemistry Council and The California Film Extruders and Converters Association. No wonder they're worried.

When I get a deceptive sales pitch, I'm almost 100% guaranteed not to buy what is being sold. If your product, plan or idea is valid, it should not need to be sold with tricks and lies. 'Nuff said.

What CAN We Americans Do Right These Days?

Guest posted by NevadaJoe

What can we Americans do right these days?

Many things, but a lot less than we did in the past. Sounds like I hate my country doesn't it? I'm a liberal, union member, and I don't own a gun. I guess I could also be an atheist and or a communist to really sully my reputation. But regardless of all of the above I am a middle-aged American who has no idea if he will still have a job by this time next year. And from what I am reading I am a member a fast growing fraternity.

We all know that jobs come and go, as do industries. Know a barrel maker or carriage manufacturer? "The only constant is change." Blah blah blah.

Yeah I get it, but we should be able to manufacture cars that everyone wants. . .to operate airlines that aren't second-rate in comparison to most of the international carriers. . .to have moderately priced health care. . .to have an air traffic control system that doesn't tell you your flight is number 52 to depart JFK. . .a financial/banking system that doesn't have to be bailed out because the CEOs are not the brilliant strategists they purport to be (and demand compensation for that brilliance). . .drug companies that don't charge Americans more for the drugs than consumers in other countries. . .a legal system that isn't just the best that money can buy (OJ, Robert Blake). . .and a group of lawyers willing to sue anyone for anything with no shame.

OK, I am rambling, but come on. Do we ever take the bull by the horns as a people and demand change? Hell, I know things are complicated and nuanced. But we need leadership that says we have to invest in our basic infrastructure again. We need unions and manufacturers to face the music and work together before industries die completely.

Is it Too Late to Stop an Orwellian Society?

Photo of The Decider, from Earth Open Network

I'm feeling a little bummed this morning. Last night I watched HBO's superb Recount, a dramatic re-telling of the Bush vs. Gore 2000 election and its aftermath. Then, this morning, I finally got around to finishing PBS's Frontline: Bush's War, a documentary outlining the timeline of the Iraq War through January 2008.

The cumulative effect of revisiting this history was to give me an overview of the Bush Administration from start to finish (fortunately not covering 9/11 or Katrina--which would have been way too much to revisit in under 24 hours). Doing so dredged up all of the feelings I've felt over the last 8 years: denial, anger, bargaining, and depression--four of the five "stages of grief." The one I'm having problems with is acceptance, and here's why.

I think if you boil down the problems I have with the Bush Administration, what rises to the top (outside of their lawlessness, which I've covered in many other rants) is the fundamental lack of respect they have for the American people, even their own "base." There has been a constant effort, from the 2000 election debacle right through to Dana Perino's most recent press conferences, to mislead us all. Using the tactics of key GOP figures like Frank Luntz and Karl Rove, they twist and mold facts and events to fit their narrative. And they are staggeringly effective at it, much of the time.

During the last eight years, words like freedom, patriotism, democracy, liberty, and victory have been turned from words into slogans. Phrases are constructed, and repeated ad nauseum, until they become part of the language of public discourse: We're fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here. Shock and awe. Liberal media. Clear, hold, build. Weapons of mass destruction. The surge is working. Half the nation becomes a flock of parrots, the other half tears their hair out trying to combat "conventional wisdom."

Surely, this group of Republicans are not the first politicians to use spin and deliberate obfuscation to manage their message. But they have perfected it, and have relied on it to the point that I'm not sure some of them can do their daily jobs without it. Like pathological liars (very much, indistinguishable in fact), they come out of the gate spinning and dodging when just telling the truth would probably be easier. I wonder if it has been so "par for the course" that it will become precedent setting. Can even an "agent of change" like Barack Obama avoid the temptation to activate a network of permanent spin-meisters, talking only in New speak?

There is one thing I'm sure of. If John McCain gets elected this November, he will have access to the same machine that has been in place over the last 8 years. And if Hillary Clinton gets elected, she'll have the old rusted remnants of the machine that preceded this one (and likely be able to meld the two machines together). At least Barack Obama holds out the promise to be a different sort of politician. Just looking at the three campaigns, and seeing how differently they operate shows me that.

I'm still not ready for acceptance. I've got to believe that the American people--those paying attention at least--are growing weary of having the wool pulled over their eyes. There are times when a President must be secretive, but I am sick to death of everything being lied about. I think the success of the blogosphere shows that people are taking a more active role in politics. And I'll do my level best to continue exposing New speak wherever I find it--even if it is in my tiny little corner of the blogosphere.

I've Had Enough: No More Logos With Swooshes!

Image from source, Logo Hell

Though the appearance of this blog may belie the fact at times, I am a graphic artist. And as a graphic artist, I have tired--to say the least--of logos with swooshes. It seems that if a company has existed for years, be it Dairy Queen or Triple-A, they "spruce it up" with swooshes.

It's tired, and it's over-used. They're as ubiquitous as Trajan Bold as a font. They're worse than droopy pants (a trend that won't die). Just stop it! There are other choices available! Rant over.

[Excerpt]

Do you need a cool new logo? Is your old logo lacking coolness? Well, why not join millions of other companies by adding a design element that screams cutting edge. That shouts future. That bellows progress. . .

Read more at: Logo Hell

Confessional: I Don't Understand MySpace

Intentionally difficult to read graphic by Editor (click to enlarge)

It is a fact of life that when we get older, we will not understand what the younger generation is "into." That means music, fashion, and slang. And right now, for me, that includes MySpace.

Many times, I've found links to people's MySpace pages that seem to have some sort of interesting content. Invariably, once I click the link, I'm taken to a page that is a horror to behold--unintentionally I'd imagine. My profession as a graphic designer probably accentuates this attitude. And understand, I'm aware of some of the limitations of the medium. My blog here on Blogger.com doesn't look quite as nice as I'd like it to either. Going outside the parameters of Blogger's templates is hard work.

That in mind, let's say you find that your favorite actor has a MySpace page, and the story you find about it talks about great pictures and video on that page. Intrigued, you click the link. . .and are taken to hell. Visual and audio hell, that is. On the background, there is an image that fairly obliterates most of the text, unless you scroll it to just the right place where you can read half a line. An audio file begins playing. . .with no obvious source, and no way to turn it off. You see that the actor has 28,562 "friends," with pictures of themselves, and inane, fawning chatter. If you happen to find a link to photos or videos, the link goes to a generic MySpace page. And you find none of the things you clicked through for.

This happens every time I try. And to be honest, I don't try it much anymore. I just simply and completely don't get it. And hey, I'm no dummy. I'm the "go-to" guy for coworkers and friends alike with virtually any computer issue. It's got to be an age thing. But word of advice, kids: if you're going to use a background image on a web page, dim it by 75% or something. Otherwise, it's just awful.

My Friends, John McCain Irritates Me!

Photo from McCain email

I'm on various mailing lists, due to this blog and other internet petition signings, and the like. Strangely, I get stuff from both Democrats and Republicans (and not just a few religious mailers, if you can believe it). And yesterday, I got the latest email from John McCain's campaign.

Now, I know that the Karl Rove way of doing things is to embrace your negatives, and attack your opponent's positives. It's amazing that this stuff works, but the American populace is incredibly easy to hoodwink. Just check out the "bittergate" flap Barack Obama has had to deal with. Ridiculous, really.

But back to McCain. One of the most irritating things about him as a speaker (in addition to his incessant blinking when talking) is his use of the phrase "my friends." He uses it more than The Book of Mormon uses "and it came to pass." Occasionally, he changes it up a little, saying, "my dear friends." But it's like your step-dad who sniffs every few seconds, the aunt who clears her throat five times a minute or the friend who tells stories punctuated by "uhhhs" every four words. . .once you clue into it, all you can do is cringe (and count) with each instance of the irritating thing.

So, the email I received from McCain, in true Rovian fashion, embraces this weakness. It starts with those very words. . .

[McCain Campaign email]

Lower Gas Prices?

My Friends,

This week, I laid out an economic plan aimed at providing immediate and long-term relief for all American families. One of the key components of this plan is a suspension of the federal gas tax on gasoline from Memorial Day to Labor Day of this year. . . .

Yes, he seriously said "long term relief" and then followed in the next sentence with a short-term plan. Like Bill Maher said, it's like Grandpa giving us $5.

Blogging and Web Surfing: I Don't Get It

I do this blog mostly for personal gratification. I enjoy the creative outlet, I like to rant, and I want to share it with people--rather than muttering to myself. Occasionally though, I get frustrated. My site tends to attract an average of under 100 people per day. That's OK, I mean when I started I thought I'd have no readers.

And this is as much for me as for you, so the number per day is sort of irrelevant to my desire to post things. But then I check my site meter, and find that I've gotten 125, 150 or even more posts, and I start to get excited. Wow! What if it hits 200? 250? 500??? That'd be cool! And then the next day, I barely squeak out 55 hits. What gives? What did I do differently?

I will often then make a big mistake, and check out other people's site meters. Some of my favorite sites might hit 1,500 hits a day, maybe as much as 5,000. Then I might check out AmericaBlog, one of my inspirations, and find out that they get 17,000 hits by 10 am! Shoot, what am I doing that's so different? And then there is the RSS count, which maddeningly will fluctuate here from 8 to 25. . .never more, never less, and never obvious why.

A couple of my posts, one about tattoos, and one about a streaker at the White House, will get 50 hits in one day. Even though I've updated those posts to ask "why did you come here?" I've gotten no answers. Maddening!

Check out the graphic at the top of this post. I've been writing the same basic mish-mash of pop culture, politics, news and personal observations, and yet the hit count fluctuates wildly. I just don't get it. But if you've found me, thank you, and please bring your friends!

Cult of Mac: iDon't Get It

Photo from source, Cult of Mac

Despite the group of posts I've written about difficulties with PCs--usually under the banner "Computer Woes," I still don't get the Cult of Macintosh. Sure, Macs probably are easier to configure, and have less problems overall. Some of them are very pretty (though certainly not all--remember the toilet seat notebook?).

It's strange that I have such MacPhobia (iPhobia?). I'm usually a sucker for the underdog. Part of it is the air of superiority many Mac users display. Also, there is a lack of options; the monitor is often attached, or part of the case. I like options. But mostly, I think it's the over-simplification. I don't want my hand held by my computer. I like to roll up my sleeves, and tweak and change things.

I grumble and grouse a lot about getting under the hood of my computer, but the truth is, on some level I really like it. I'm thought of as something of a guru when it comes to computers, even though my powers are waning, with the speed of technological improvements. But in the (supposedly unlikely) event that a Mac breaks down, most of its users would be forced to iTrek to the Apple Store. Me, I take the sucker apart and fix it.

Lastly, I don't want to be forced into using (ugh) Adobe graphics products. iCan't stand them. I'm aware they're the "standard," but that doesn't make them better in my book. All of it is personal preference. I suppose I can take refuge in the fact that this whole Cult of Mac thing is deliriously silly. Next time a Mac addict gets high and mighty with me, I'm just going to point and laugh. See what I mean, here:

The Gay Thing: Revisited

As I've said in the past, this blog's mission is not primarily (or even secondarily) to promote gay rights issues. Other outlets are better equipped to do that. But occasionally, real life intrudes, and current events compel me to comment.

The other day, I posted a piece about Ellen DeGeneres' plea to her viewers to change the tone as it pertains to gays in America. She was motivated by a young teenager, Lawrence King, who was murdered recently for being gay. But we need not wait for something as dramatic and vile as a murder to occur to make us cry out for a change.

Sports stars, celebrities and Democratic politicians cannot get away with anti-gay statements or actions. They get vilified by gay rights groups, the media, and even the public in general. But Republican politicians, religious leaders, and right-wing radio hosts and pundits can and do get away with it. There is almost nothing they can't or won't say when it comes to gay people. Awful, nasty things are said about gays, things they would not dare say about any other group, except maybe criminals, terrorists, Muslims and atheists.

Don't get me wrong, say whatever you want about criminals. Terrorists are pretty fair game, but it might not be wise to egg them on. Targeting Muslims and atheists with vitriol just shows prejudice and ignorance. And so does targeting gay people. Religion and sexuality are very different issues, but they are quite similar one important way. Many religions are learned, but society also views some (Muslims, Jews, and others) as more than a religion. It is cultural, something you are born into. So, while your beliefs are learned, your identity is also thrust upon you. It's a combination of nature/nurture, right? And like with sexuality, you can find out through time that you don't fit in the mold you were cast from.

Sexuality isn't exactly learned; "discovered" would be my preferred word choice. But you do learn about it, learn what it means in society, and decide what to do with that information. So there is a sort of combination of nature/nurture involved, if not as it is usually framed. And if you don't believe people are born "wired" to be gay, ask yourself if you've ever seen a child, and just knew they were? And did you ever then find out later you were right? There you go.

To these right-wingers, who think gay bashing is fair game, homosexuality is just an "issue." Guns, God and Gays has become shorthand for Republican base values. But, gun ownership is an issue that can be argued for or against. Religion (as it pertains to government) has a lot of gray areas that can be argued. Gay people, though, aren't an issue. . .they are people. Citizens. Americans. You can argue until you are blue in the face, they are still going to be there. People say they don't "agree" with homosexuality. That's like saying you don't agree with headaches or pancakes or bar stools. They exist. Deal with it.

I join Ellen DeGeneres in her plea to Americans to drop the rhetoric. If you secretly despise, fear or grossed out by gay people, do what most bigots do. Keep it to yourself. It long ago became absolutely forbidden to use "the n word" in almost any context. Slurs against gay people are no different, and should be made just as culturally unacceptable. And now, the piece that inspired this rant. . .

[Excerpt]

Obama: Hey HOMOS, I'm your dude!

For every Obama supporter who has written me criticizing me for statements I've made in so many previous outlets they would be impossible to tally - OBAMA likey the GAY MARRIAGE. He has issued a written statement saying to the homosexual elite radicals that he will REPEAL the National Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). And that on the issue of redefining the institution by which ALL of society has been built upon he would allow state by state any jolly perverted idea or arrangement that can be signed into law to take place. [snip]

And of course merely saying that engaging in homosexual behavior is in fact unhealthy, detrimental and even deadly - would qualify as outright "homophobic" views in Obama's world. SO we can't teach Biblical sexuality... i.e. HEALTHY... only the gospel of condoms!

Read more of this crap at: Townhall