I'm Not Buying It

So, I guess, Somehow I'm supposed to work up a tear, or sigh an exhale of - isn't that wonderful that this 'fairytale' has a happy ending.

http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&username=xa-4be9943c2de1875b

For years this bigot-acting-straight-wanna-be has thrown the community under the bus. Now, he would seek to have us sigh a sigh of relief that he's now on 'our side'. But, from the many people I know in my life who have a change of heart, after finding themselves in handcuffs - I'm certain he wouldn't be the rainbow flag waving supporter he's attempting to portray himself as if he hadn't been pulled over and made to pirouette on a straight line.

While I'm happy he's no longer actively legislating and advocating against human rights - It's going to take far more than an apology to erase the years of advocacy that has undermined the community he now has the fortune to find himself in and on the receiving end of some of the intolerance that for years he has fostered himself. Like anyone who indicates "I'm sorry". I'd rather see "action".

In the famous words of Miss Janet Jackson "What have you done for me . . . lately?"

I understand this politician is ending the his tenure at the end of this legislative session - but I hope he will aspire to a position of true advocacy, rather than taking a retirement and sulking away with the hollow "I'm sorry" still ringing in our ears. I will hold my empathy/sympathy until I see what the Honorable Roy Ashburn does with this new found appreciation for all things humane and born-again fuzzy feeling for the community he's bashed for years. THEN, I may work up an applause. Holding til then.

Apathy by Any Other Name

Wow. Recently I was speaking with a young person. I know young is a relative term, just like "old". But, for the sake of this conversation, let's say - under 25.

And, "Jake", not his real name - was recounting a recent sexual escapade. I didn't find this particularly shocking or even strikingly interesting. It's not uncommon for young people to launch into detailed accounts of their personal lives, particularly as it relates to sex.

Hell, when I was under 25, I'm certain - if my recollection allows - that this WAS the forefront of my life. After all, there was no mortgage, no health issues, no other life distractions which come along sometime usually after the late teens, so what else would be the focus??

But at some point in the conversation, when I was admittedly half-paying attention. (Remember, I said it's not uncommon to have these types of open-frank discussions with young people. I guess my status as now 'officially' old enough to be their father, AND being openly gay, AND being in a long-term relationship engenders me some sort of good-listener-potential-good-advice-giver status) Any way - at some point I stopped thinking what I was thinking, doing what I was doing and brought the full force of my attention to the conversation and what this young man was telling me.

"What?"

I made him repeat what he had just recounted. I don't know if it was the force of my voice, or the look of my face which was quickly contorting to disapproval against all the efforts I was exerting to remain stoic and unaffected.

"What?" I repeated. Mostly because I needed time to digest what he had just conveyed, rather than not hearing or even disbelieving what the topic had moved to.

It appears that Jake's boyfriend may have just passed HIV to him. How can that be, I was formulating my question to my lips but he offered that their love-making had been without benefit of protection - as though he were reading my mind or fending off the first volley in a litigious cross examination of how this occurred.

To be fair, to be discreet and to be respectful, I'll end this portion of my discussion with Jake now. Because I wouldn't want him to read this and think I'm being disrespectful of our conversation or the implied and explicit discussion that followed about privacy. So from this point forward will just be my view.

Perhaps it's because of the generation I'm from. Perhaps it's because I have known what a world with HIV is like before there were drugs and treatments to keep it in check. But, I fear some of our young people don't have the same approach or hold the same fear over this disease that say someone "old" like me would. I don't know whether I should be sad, or apalled. I guess some of each. I'm trying to maintain an open mind about such things. Sure. Okay. Yes - there are drugs yes which render the virus nearly a non issue in most people's lives. And, more and more everywhere I turn, as a gay man, you're in the minority if you DON'T have the virus. But, this just appears to be fostering an acceptance, if you will, with something I still view as unaccpetable. Accepting that you that you should just go on ahead and have unprotected sex, because A.) it feels better. B.) not doing it might imply you don't care as much or trust the person you claim to love or C.) you're going to get it anyway, so what's the use.

The personal responsibility for one's health is not something any of us should take lightly or approach with a cavalier attitude (and Jake, I'm NOT just talking about you - I'm talking about me and all of us).

Watching many of my friends die, as young as Jake is right now, in the late 80's and early 90's still is seared in my mind. It would appear that it has definitely imprinted it's impact on my approach to the subject.

I think about my friends who have died. Some who meant, truly a great deal to me. None, who I knew shrugged when they talked about HIV. None, who would not have gone back in time and taken a different approach to sex and their health if science permitted. None, who wouldn't trade places with any of us to be here with us today. These are people who desperately wanted to live! And at that time, there was no choice. HIV was a preliminary sentence, on the way to AIDS which was a death sentence.

So maybe rather than asking here today that my younger friends try and understand where I'm coming from - maybe I'll ask myself to try and re-look at the whole topic. I don't know if I'm out of step, or that folly of youth which fools us into believing we're invincible because we can't conceive how much time and life lay ahead. A lifetime of taking drugs to keep a condition in check just can't be a solution - especially if it's for something preventable.

Or maybe I should just shrug, like everyone else. Or cry. I can't decide.

At the pioneer museum

At the pioneer museum
Originally uploaded by ChristopherSolis.

Rob knows the answer

We are in a Texas Schoolhouse

America Hosts the Great Benedict Arnold

What on earth is the President and our country doing welcoming this man here. His latest rantings and dangerous behavior warrant a shun, not a full diplomatic reception and red carpet. Our country, while admittedly not the most effective in Afghanistan, still has done much to attempt to support the country and raise it up.

And maybe not effective in Afghanistan is too simple a description. Certainly some of our attempts in that country have been just bad.

But we're talking about a country that, when we entered, openly harbored and supported the very people who undertook the attack on America in 911. Viewed in those terms, I don't think we necessarily owe them any courtesy. But, trying to understand that the complexities of the political situation - I concede that if we merely went in, took out the taliban and departed the resulting vacuum would be a potential breeding ground for worse and more radical regimes. Good. Got it.

But, Karzai, who was supposed to be our partner in the endeavor of limited rebuilding and our departure seems to be milking us like a cow he can't stop embracing. That's with one hand. While he has one arm around the cow that is the United States, the other has a torch in it he keeps setting to our side. Ouch.

Ouch indeed. His statements about joining the Taliban are not laughable. They are to viewed in the most serious way and should be immediate cause for dismissing him as ignorant, a mad man, dangerous or all of the above. (I vote for the last choice). I know we keep hearing we have no alternatives but to support him. Really? Isn't that the precise same thing this county said/did during the Hussein regime in Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war? Years later, he was the great Satan.

It seems like history repeating itself. Why on earth would we not believe he'd bite the hand, when he's already nibbling. Duh.

It's time to come up with a strategy of withdrawal, vacuum be damned. I don't want to hear the arguments about it being another Vietnam either. It was a failed strategy the moment Bush diverted his attention from it, split our focus and resources, to settle the family vendetta in Iraq with the man that threatened his father's life. At that point it became hopeless. It's time to admit it, and depart before the continued spending there costs higher and higher dollar and lives.

To be blunt. I care far more for the lives of our troops than what happens in that part of the world at this point.

Joe hate-that-guy Liberman @ it again!

No. For real. Republicans - I'm speaking of Joe Liberman, so for all intense and purposes - Republicans are proposing having the power to strip Americans of their citizenship on the basis of their affiliations or beliefs. Wow.

Well, that's an end run I didn't see coming. Actually - I don't think any 'sane' person could have seen that coming. I'm not throwing out the insanity allegation as a quick put-down to someone I disagree with. Really - I call into the question of any of these conservative leaning types who cry for less government, still less government and then come up with all manner of ideas which put the very power of our citizenship in the hands of the government.

Ok. Maybe insane is too generic a term. Maybe full on schizophrenic is more accurate. These inconsistencies which show up among the conservative nay-sayers, make me scratch my head. I think I have a bald spot from all the scratching. Perhaps you can explain it to me? I'd love to hear from you.

Does It Matter? Should it Matter?

I don't know if it matters. I'm not sure if it should matter. But, you can be assured there will be plenty of folks on both sides of the orientation to try and convince you it does matter.

In this age of tug-of-war over the "gay agenda" or civil and human rights, from whichever the spectrum you land - some folks will argue it most sincerely matters whether we nominate and confirm a Supreme Court Justice that is a lesbian.

Certainly it mattered when the first woman was seated. Also too when the first African American donned the robes. And, most recently, of course when the first Latina was given the gavel. So, why not a lesbian?

Why not indeed.

I would argue that a lesbian might just be the perfect person for the job. With so many arguments looming on the horizon, doesn't it make sense to have someone seated who actually can not only visualize both sides of an argument but actually has experience with some of the issues?

I fully support a justice who is impartial and wouldn't allow their personal experiences to weigh their decisions for or against a particular topic based solely on their identification factors. But, in the end, aren't we all a sum of identification factors? And, don't those factors feed into our decision making processes? And, don't those same factors provide us the empathy we need to have shared experiences with others in society?

Not necessarily people of the same ilk - but certainly experiences like discrimination, or prejudice are human experiences and can't really be weeded out of anyone's psyche. Nor, would I argue, should we try. These are the very things that make us relate to others - that give us hope to help one another and to see each other's sides.

All this may be mute, because Elena Kagen is reported to not be a lesbian. So, I raise all this hypothetically, because if not this woman, why not a lesbian? The time may be right to continue to add a representation of the bench that is as diverse as America itself.

The Governor Indicates God Creates Oil Spills

Rick Perry: Oil spill may be 'act of God' - Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com

Why on earth should we pull the birds from the gulf and wipe them clean when clearly our creator intended them to die a death of suffocation from crude.

I hardly think God's hand was anywhere near putting a rig off shore and drilling into the earth. Maybe if the proceeds were used for good rather than the continued plunder of our natural resources to line the pockets of the few.

Come on. You do know that Exxon made over 6 Billion dollars last year and paid NO U.S. federal taxes right?

Now, I'm not a proponent of stopping all of off-shore drilling but each state should have the right to determine this for themselves. If California prefers no drilling off their coast, let em. If Governor Rick Perry would embrace the whole Texas coastline be covered in black as homage to the Heavenly Father, that's the Texas right too. The Federal government should stay out of this issue.

Continued Evidence Arizona has Racism behind Some of its Ideas

There are people who will continue to argue that Arizona is within its rights to pass laws against illegal immigration. While I don't think that illegal anything is moral or should be condoned, the truth is that when laws are broken there are various ways of dealing with that. For drug addicts, some state laws require medical rehabilitation. Not a bad approach. It's humane, and it keeps our prisons from being clogged up with people who may have physical addiction issues rather than truly criminal intent.

For illegal immigrants too we need to find a humane approach to dealing with this problem. Deportation should always remain an option. But the manner in which we look at these individuals should be dealt with case x case. I say this because one of my friends is the daughter of an illegal immigrant. She was unaware of their status until recently. She grew up here in Texas, went to public school. Her father has worked most of his adult life here. He unfortunately has been using a false identification and social security. He has however worked. He has bought a home. He has paid property and payroll taxes. He has supported his community through the PTA, and being a otherwise law abiding citizen.

Recently he's been discovered and is scheduled for deportation after living here over 40 years. It's sad, because while I understand he's broken the law, when I look at some of other offenders in our society there doesn't seem to be parity in the way infractions are handled. I mean, I would trade this hard working, otherwise-law abiding person for some of the crack heads who were born here, who mooch off society and the tax payers. Could we deport one of them in his place? That seems like a good idea.

This notion that some folks have that ALL illegal aliens are bad people who, by the very nature of their illicit entry into this country, are law breakers who deserve to have the book thrown at them. Many of them are just folks who want the same thing citizen Americans want for their children - access to good schools, access to decent medical care, and hope for a brighter future. Many of them teach their children to be good citizens, to love their country, to pay their taxes and the like.

The notion that we should be able to challenge individuals to prove their citizenship in any form will give us all reason to pause for concern. This is not just scary big brother talk. This is a preliminary step to a national ID card. After seeing how I can have difficulty operating in society for just a day by forgetting my license or ATM card, I dread the thought of a government that could issue (or suspend!) a card which would be vital just to move around society. This is a seriously dangerous progression in our society. Aside from the arguments about whether a state can enforce a federal statute, etc. it's just a bad evolution.

I hope people really examine these issues. I don't oppose a boycott of Arizona. Truth be told, I don't know that save the Grand Canyon, there's any reason to visit, or do business there in the first place. But, I support them to sort out these issues as state citizens themselves. I just find it sad that they don't value folks in their midst whose intentions might actually be honorable but for lack of legal entry into this country could be singled out and harassed while some "citizens" in our midst deserve our attention and ire.

Apple - Losing its Underdog Status

Oh, remember back when. I'm not speaking to all of you at this point. Only folks like Rob and I. We who started our very first foray into the the cultural shift of home computing with our very first computer, back in 1992. An APPLE.

Back then Apple was just a very minor player - minuscule in fact. We might not have invested in a computer that had almost no software available for it had it not been for an award from an employer that was in the form of this tiny little lap top. This laptop was so small the HARD DRIVE was just 40 MB. I think I might have e-mail files with attachments that large!

This was when the Internet was new and e-mail with sophisticated attachments, Java script, pdf files, video blogs, hell - blogs themselves - none of those existed.

We liked our little apple. Grandpa rough was amazed at what it could do, and by comparison to today's computer in our home, it couldn't do squat. It essentially was a glorified word processor. But, we marveled none the less. As time passed we soon joined the throngs of consumers who flocked to technology shows (do they even have these anymore?) and perused isles of CompUSA (also out of existence) and shopped for computers. There was no "Apple store". Apple's share of the market was so small as to practically make it an 'underground' market.

You had to search to find the hard ware, and search equally hard to find compatible software. Our friends who had all only recent discovered home computing and the proliferation of the PC scratched their heads as we attempted to explain why we were reluctant to jump on this same band wagon. We liked our Apple. It was different, it was innovative it was "intuitive".

While our friends called us for technical assistance, most of which left us perplexed as it sounded like a different language - we wondered why everyone didn't have an Apple. They were so simple, they required none of this in depth, challenging-for-the-day installations and worse, de-installations and viruses were only just becoming a new scary idea.

Apples were immune.

Now, nearly 20 years later. Our wish has come true. Well, mostly. Not "everybody" has an Apple. But, one by one, we've seen friends and family convert to the way of thinking that embraces a product that is simpler, more intuitive to use, is genius in the area of multi-media manipulation and this was all before the advent of Itunes and the like. Companion products like iPods and iPhones and now the ill-named iPad, all have created a cascade and exponential effect that no one could have imagined.

So, now it's a different world. We all speak the same language when we talk about "apps" and "syncing". And, that's good. But, I'm wondering if the thing that I liked most about my apple, that intangible that I was never able to identify until now, has gone away.

That would be I was "unique".

I wasn't necessarily smarter than anybody. I wasn't a visionary, or a psychic. I wasn't a braniac or any other manner of genius that allowed me to float above anyone else, but -- I was different. I felt like I was part of a secret club that no one else knew about. We had a secret handshake.

In groups and discussions when folks were belaboring the challenges that came with home computing. The constant barrage of updates and outdates, incompatible peripherals, networking issues, crashes and rebuilt motherboards, and on-and-on. We sought out the members of the parties that didn't seem to be jumping in on the bitch-fest and we would meet eyes. We'd grin and know - that we had identified another one. A minority like we who knew we didn't experience most of these issues. We just had a computer that plugged in, with printers and other devices that also just plugged in and it all worked. No drama. No problem.

Those days are gone. At least the exclusive club part. And as a result, Apple is no better a company. It's now a behemoth that attempts to continue to capitalize and exploit it's "cult" status. Like it's still a secret club that cool people belong to. Um. Not so much. With half a million iPads alone sold in the first month, the numbers Apple moves in hardware is staggering.

It's more and more difficult for them to portray themselves as the picked-on underdog of the computing world. Their Rodney Dangerfield bit of not getting any 'respect' has worn thin.

I'm reminded of this now when my iPhone won't do a simple thing like send text messages to more than 10 people like my 3-generation-ago sanyo phone could do. Somehow when talking to the tech support people at apple, it's not the same friendly corner-store kind of experience it used to be.

In fact. I want to reach through the phone - grab the 20 something on the other end and scream, "I've been supporting this line of products and company since you were in diapers!!!". Somehow that wouldn't quite be satisfying though. Like Barbara Mandrell used to sing.. I was Apple, when Apple wasn't cool... (isn't that how that song goes?).

Now, if Apple could find a way to identify the TRUE Apple fans, the originals, and give those folks the same cult feeling they had when they pulled their first 40 MB hard drive lap tops out of the card board box in 1992. Now, that would be something.

Multimedia message

Happy sober Wednesday. :)