Anti-gay marriage zealots are repeating the mistakes of 50-150 years ago. Their shaking fists raised in the air must be blocking the light of truth. Or, perhaps they’re not breathing well. Its really a small bit of insanity…or poor thinking.

1. One rationale in the founding of our country was religious freedom; its the 1st amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, to our United States Constitution. This same amendment also gives rise to the separation of church and state. This particular wording is from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists. These anti-gay zealots, are double-faced. Opportunists. Cheaters. Which is likely behavior which should be against their own religious rules. Why? Because our ancestors fought to keep religion out of the laws. And now, because they don’t like something, they want to not put religious dogma in our laws.The 14th amendment says,
   

   “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

   Yet here is California and many other states doing just that. Invading the private lives of homosexuals and depriving them of life and liberty; also denying equal protection by forbidding marriage which grants approximately 1,400 benefits and rights of marriage. Things like hospital visitation, inheritance, not testifying against your spouse…very core basic human rights.

   Given all that, I believe any reasoning or proof that includes reference to a deity or religious text should be dismissed. Why? Because our governmental laws (especially constitutions) should not codify religious dogma because of our separation of church and state, equal protection, and religious freedom.

2. Moving a bit more recent in history, slaves and interracial marriages were forbidden. Here’s just a few examples of our past stupidity. As you read these, substitute in same-sex marriages where you see interracial references.
   • After the Civil War, California chose to specifically prohibit “intermarriage of white persons with Chinese, Negroes, mulattos, or persons of mixed blood descended from a Chinaman or Negro from the third generation inclusive.”
   • In 1869, a Georgia judge blocked the marriage of a white Frenchman and a black woman by saying, “The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural but is always productive of deplorable results.”
   • In the widely known 1959 Loving case in Virginia, Judge Leon Bazile sentenced a black man and white woman to prison for trying to circumvent Virginia law by marrying in Washington D.C. He said, “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Maylay and red, and he placed them on separate continents…And but for the interference with His arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriages.”

   Finally, on June 12, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court put an end to laws preventing interracial marriages. A unanimous opinion by Chief Justice Earl Warren ruled that Virginia’s “white supremacy” marriage law and similar interracial marriage prohibitions in 15 other states did indeed violate the 14th Amendment. Decreeing that marriage is a “fundamental” civil right, the court told the nation that “the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the state.”

   That was less than 50 years ago. Seems our zealots have a short-term memory. Or…perhaps they have selective memory because they don’t remember about separation of church and state, not casting stones, not committing adultery, rape victims that don’t cry out loud enough (Deuteronomy 22:23-24), and big ones like, “He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. (Exodus 21:17)”

3. Separate but equal doesn’t work. The propaganda that civil unions are an equal substitute for marriage is horrible. It would not give the 1400+ rights and privileges of marriage. Proven time and again is the abolishment of separate but equal laws, institutions, schools, buses, and bathrooms. They are never equal. They are unfair. They favor the ruling class (many times the majority). This Rosa Parks summary of separate but (non) equal transportation in the southern states captures the issue well.

I was born and raised in Alabama. I have seen past and current racial and ethnic discrimination; some from my own family. I deplore their behavior and offer correction when I hear it. Alabama is not the best educated state in the country. It has the 6th highest divorce rate in the nation and one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the nation. This is also the same state that four times elected George Wallace governor. In 1963, George Wallace stood in front of Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama in defiance of the Deputy U.S. Attorney General and said, “Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” Wallace was an idiot and a bigot. But a popular idiot and bigot elected four times by Alabama voters.

I’m not proud of the state of Alabama. However, I am proud of most of my family. My mother taught me about fairness and treating people well. My father was a helicopter pilot in the US Army where my parents and I traveled to Germany and Kentucky; I was exposed to different people and cultures. When my father left the army, I was nine. We moved back to Enterprise, Alabama where I remember going to a public school (rather than military) for the first time. One day, I was making friends with an African-American. Later that same day, a Caucasian kid pulled me to the side and asked me, “Why are you talking to that black kid? We don’t talk to them.” I was a little kid and didn’t really understand the weight of what he was saying.

What that kid said to me at nine was stupid. I ignored him and kept making friends no matter what their skin color. My early exposure traveling to different countries forever gave me a broader view of the world and possibilities within it; appreciating diversity. My mother then educated me about fairness. She wasn’t really exposed to homosexuality and we didn’t talk about it much in my youth. When it did come up, she always spoke fairly and with grace.

African-Americans in the 1900s were able to change the laws to officially end segregation and discrimination. They are a proportionally large group (13%) of Americans; the single largest racial minority in the United States. Homosexuals and others that desire same-sex marriages are at most 10% of the population. This is a small group of Americans that are being discriminated against, harassed, fired from jobs, denied hospital visitation rights, and some are even murdered in hate-crimes.

I am asking for those people that easily have those 1400+ rights and privileges of marriage to consider their own history, America’s past mistakes, and learn from them. If they would stop their mindless histrionics of hate for a few days, perhaps they can calmly gather all the facts and information and make an informed decision. Otherwise, its time for you to leave my country. If you want a religious zealot-based government, I hear of other places for you where they still stone their women.

I’m a 38 year old gay man. I’ve made and received booty calls. They are no-strings attached sex between consenting adults; usually arranged with little notice. However, if long-distance booty calls can be setup in advance due to the logistics. Here are my tales of two recently botched booty calls.

Booty Call Rule #1
Declare that the meeting is a booty call. A booty call is a no-strings attached meeting for sex. Therefore, there should be no ambiguity in its declaration.

About a month ago on a Saturday night, I was at the New York City Eagle with my friend Gary. Gary was visiting from Seattle and we both wanted to have fun in a gay bar that night. The Eagle was as it is and I started talking and flirting with a guy. As the night moved on, I invited him home. He said no but that he wanted to get together again to continue where we left off. Fine with me. I got a call from him the next day to setup a time. We agreed on the coming Tuesday night.

On that Tuesday, we spoke on the phone several times to adjust our meeting time; eventually agreeing on 7 pm. As seven neared, he called to get a meeting place. I said that I only ate once that day and it would be great to meet somewhere for dinner. He joked that he was only planning on beer and pot at his place. I said that I needed to eat before drinking and that pot puts me to sleep so I don’t smoke it. We agreed to meet at Ramen Setagaya, a Japanese noodle restaurant.

Over noodles, we got to know each other a little better; normal first date stuff. As we left, he offered his place and I agreed. Over at his place in Chelsea, we opened two beers and started talking again. I sat on the couch and he sat on a chair nearby. I thought this was odd because us both sitting on the couch would have been more prone to making out. Which I wanted to do. A little later, I even asked if he wanted to come sit by me and he said no thanks. Odd. Once, he even took off his socks and rubbed it against my ankle and calf. Which I though was a bit reserved and again odd.

I needed to use the restroom so I asked him where it was and left the room. When I got back, he was finally sitting on the couch next to where I was sitting. When I sat down by him, we started kissing. Then he paused and said, “Its taken us three hours. Now we can finally continue where we left off.”

Right then in my head, I was saying, “What a dick. If you wanted a booty call just say lets get together for sex, bed, play around, etc.” It was completely unclear that this was a booty call. Don’t agree to dinner if you don’t want it. Just say that you don’t have time for dinner and would prefer if we just got together. And finally, don’t be some smartass saying it was taking too long when I asked you to come over to the couch earlier.

Booty Call Rule #2
Declare when a booty call has been canceled. A booty call meeting is not to be used to meet for drinks. If there is no booty, then the time commitment should be released so that all parties have that time available for other activities.

Tonight, I had a meeting for a long-distance booty call or a date with implied sexual activity. You need the backstory. I’ve known this guy for at least five years. We have been attracted to each other but one or the other of us were in relationships; most recently he was in a multi-year with a friend of mine.

Shortly before I went to New York City in summer of 2007, we saw each other out in a local Seattle bar. He was more heavily flirting with me and I noticed. A day or two later, I think, he told me in an email that he had broken up with his partner. Unfortunately, I was packing up for my summer in New York City. So, off I flew to my new adventure there.

Over the next six months, we casually flirted over email and cellphones; exchanging messages and pictures like this one he sent me of him [note: has been obscured and cropped]. We tried to get together when I visited Seattle in October, but I was selling my house and was extremely busy with packing. When I got back to New York City, we kept in touch. Then, when I planned a trip back to Seattle for January 2008, the guy said that he wanted to definitely get together with me and “we need to make it a priority.” I agreed.

When I got to Seattle, I sent him some messages and started to setup a time for us to get together. He showed excitement and we agreed to get together tonight; strangely…another Tuesday. Earlier in the day, I met with a movie director in downtown Seattle about my investment in his film. Tonight’s guy and I exchanged emails while I was on a break during that meeting. After the meeting, I went through rush hour traffic back to my friend Maryam’s house in Kirkland to quickly eat dinner and change clothes. He called about 45 minutes before us meeting to suggest a different bar, Quinn’s, and I agreed.

I drove back to Seattle, parked, and walked over to the new bar. He was sitting at the bar…with his boyfriend. Yes. Boyfriend. Boyfriend of three weeks.

I have no problem with canceled booty calls; schedules can change, situations, relationships, etc. Just call and say you can’t do it anymore. I have no problems with changed dinner or drink plans. Call and change them. Changes DO include adding a third person. A one-on-one meeting for drinks does not include a third without notifying all parties involved. Did he want a three-way? I don’t think so nor would I have accepted such an invitation.

The guy knew about his relationship for no less than three weeks. He knew his boyfriend was with him when he called me 45 minutes before our planned meeting time because I later found out the two of them were meeting early at Quinn’s. At no time did he mention he had a boyfriend, he was in a relationship, or that his boyfriend was joining for drinks. If I knew there was no possibility for booty with him tonight, I would have rather spent my limited time in Seattle with my friend Maryam at her house in Kirkland.

A large set of new laws governing content in Australia have been passed and go into affect on 20 Jan 2008. Here’s the skinny on what their government will do:

• “Content service providers” are required to check the consumers age and apply restrictions according to an examination done by the Australian Office of Film and Literature (OFLC)
• The examination sets a rating of the content based on their own rating system
• They can enforce it by banning content or sites, sent take down notices to hosts, or even blacklist whole sites or companies with themandatory Australian Internet sensor.

Australian government, I’m happy to consider complying with your new Australian laws even though I live and am hosted in the U.S.A. I will need the following from you:

1. An overview or summary of these new laws.
2. Clear detailed documentation, in electronic form, on the laws, rating process, ratings, and any other related items needed to comply with these new laws.
3. A government accepted method to check the age of Australian consumers. All electronics or servers involved will need clear documentation along with a one year proven track record of 99.999% uptime before integrating it with my systems.
4. An Australian government liaison to work with my project manager and my accountant.

After this information is provided, I’m happy to consider it with the intention of finding an acceptable solution between us both. At this point, any delays, blacklisting, censorship, or take-down will be due to your own delays or neglect. I am ready and waiting to jump into action.

All expenses will be summarily tracked by my accountant and invoiced to you; each due within 30 days. Please have your liaison provide a clear method for reimbursement back to us. Starting in 2008, these are the hourly rates (outside of hard expenses) for taking on this project:

• Project manager, $175/hr
• Accountant, $250/hr
• Owner supervision, $275/hr
• Web developer, $75/hr
• SQL developer, $125/hr
• C++ developer, $125/hr

Thank you, and I look forward to this new cross-Pacific partnership. You may contact me using the information listed in the WHOIS database for this domain.

MasterCard SecureCode is a greedy, bad, poor, sucky, irritating, failure prone piece of shit. Ah…that feels a little better.

Recently, I visited the website for Toys-R-Us to purchase a baby gift for my friend. She had registered there. I was excited looking through the gifts, choosing ones that I wanted to be associated with like a cool baby sling and a music play toy. So I headed off to the checkout part of their website to purchase them all. After a needlessly lengthy process (remember, I have 13 years of Microsoft experience specializing in web UIs), I finally got to the part where it will charge my MasterCard.

Suddenly, I was presented with a screen with USAA’s branding asking for my MasterCard SecureCode. I had no idea what it was. I wasn’t told ahead about it. There was little information on the screen. I didn’t know if I would loose my gifts chosen. It was having problems because my spam security software detected it was doing suspicious cross-domain things. I guessed a few times by typing in codes and finally gave up.

I called USAA because that screen had the USAA logo on it. They explained to me that the retailer was requiring it and USAA had no part in it. I told USAA I read the Terms of Use for the SecureCode and that I didn’t want a SecureCode and I deny it. They said I could do that but then I couldn’t purchase. I asked to escalate the issue and they transfered me to the SecureCode department. Which turned out to be MasterCard and not USAA. I hung up.

After doing more research, here’s what I figured out. MasterCard has a new online feature called SecureCode. It adds an additional burden of authentication for using a MasterCard online. Not all retailers or host banks support the feature. Both retailer and host bank must support the feature before the customer is presented with the screen to enter the code. Therefore, USAA lied when they said they have no part of it. Phone representative ignorance is no excuse; especially when I escalate it.

Forcing customers to remember codes and passwords is troublesome. There has to be some incentive for it. In this scenario there is zero incentive. There is only benefit for the host bank and MasterCard. Consumers are protected, by law, from illegitimate charges. They are only responsible for the first $50. MasterCard goes one step further and won’t hold you responsible for unauthorized purchases in a store, over the telephone, or online. So I, for example, don’t give a rats ass if someone uses my credit card illegitimately. I’ll pay nothing and get a new card.

Now look at it from the perspective of USAA and MasterCard. Both of them already have their profit models designed to account for this illegal card use. Just like they have customer bankruptcy built in. In Q3 of 2007, MasterCard International made a net of $314 million dollars; well on their way to make ONE BILLION dollars this year. They have huge banks of people and computers looking at spending patterns to catch illegitimate use. All of this is built into their profit model. One potential of this burdensome SecureCode layer is to reduce this illegitimate usage. Therefore, reducing their built-in losses which leads to increased income. And guess what…they are not going to reduce customer fees or interest rates. Instead, they will pocket this extra income for themselves. Greedy fucking bastards.

So MasterCard SecureCode helps the host bank and MasterCard make more money. It doesn’t help customers.

I sent USAA a written complaint about the scenario. Here’s what they said.

Dear Mr. Phurrough,

Thank you for your e-mail regarding MasterCard SecureCode. Please be advised that the merchant has chosen to participate in this program.

MasterCard SecureCode is a service from MasterCard and USAA Savings Bank that provides greater peace of mind when you shop online by providing added protection against unauthorized use of your enrolled card. For this reason, you must register and set up a SecureCode to make online purchases with this merchant.

Once you’ve registered and created a SecureCode, each time you make an online purchase at a participating merchant, a window will pop up asking for your SecureCode, just like using a PIN at the ATM. When you correctly enter your SecureCode, USAA Savings Bank confirms that you are the authorized cardholder and your purchase is completed. No SecureCode, no confirmation, no purchase.

If you do not wish to enroll in SecureCode, then you may want to consider making your purchases by phone.

We appreciate your business and the opportunity to be of assistance.

If you need further assistance, please contact us by e-mail using the ‘Contact Us’ feature at usaa.com.

Thank you,
USAA

“Pease of mind” my ass. Bull shit. So I replied back challenging their misleading “piece of mind” marketing message. Warning them that it will reduce my use of MasterCard online and that if forced I will choose a simple password which makes SecureCode useless. They replied:

Thank you for your e-mail regarding MasterCard SecureCode. We understand your opinions on this matter however; certain merchants have signed up for this online security feature. Therefore; if you are prompted to use the SecureCode feature while performing online purchasing it is at the request of the Merchant and not USAA. We are not able to make the merchant change the way they wish to accept payments therefore; we suggest that you contact the merchant if you have any additional issues.

The poor e-mail representative is really unprepared to enter into a discussion. It looks like I’m being fed prepared-ahead-of-time answers. They don’t understand that if USAA didn’t implement SecureCode, then none of this would be a problem. Since I was on a ranting roll, I sent a reply including specific quotes from the MasterCard SecureCode website saying that either USAA or MasterCard is now misleading me in written material.

Some additional feedback which requires no reply. At http://www.mastercardsecurecode.com/ it clearly indicates that it’s the “financial institution” which enables this horrible feature. Direct quotes are:

“A private code known only to you and your bank, your SecureCode enhances your existing MasterCard account by protecting you against unauthorized use of your card when shopping online at participating online retailers.”

and

“Please note that while many financial institutions offer SecureCode, not all offer this service. New institutions are being added often.”

So either Mastercard or USAA is misleading me. One of you choose to enable this feature. Not the merchant. If this feature wasn’t on my USAA mastercard, then I wouldn’t have this horrible experience regardless of the merchant.

They replied:

Thank you for your e-mail expressing your concern regarding MasterCard SecureCode. We apologize for any confusion caused; unfortunately this service was introduced and is offered by MasterCard. Feedback from concerned cardholders is essential to our continuing efforts to improve service. Your comments have been forwarded to the appropriate area.

In the end, I purchased the baby gifts for my friend. I gave in. Oh…but I have the simplest SecureCode possible. If I have illegitimate charges, I’ll pay zero dollars and USAA/Mastercard will pick up everything.

As I was trying to fly home from my grandmother’s 80th birthday, Delta turned me away from my flight with little information. The gate was in disarray with no information coming from the gate agent other than which people DO get on the plane. While waiting in a very long line I called Delta; who knew nothing…they thought the flight was fine and taking off. Once I got to the front, I put on a little southern drawl, a big smile, and used sugar rather than vinegar because I could see she was frazzled. She said the airport decided to make repairs without telling Delta so they have to use a shorter runway. This doesn’t allow the plane to accelerate to a speed great enough to liftoff with a full load of passengers.

She sent me to the ticketing/check-in area to get rebooked on a flight. Once there, I overheard other passengers fuming but I decided to take the sugar route again. While standing in line, I called Delta on the telephone to try to get on another airline. Unfortunately, all the flights which could have gotten me to Seattle had left for the day. One of them about an hour before my original flight.

When I was talking, with sugar, to the ticketing agent, she explained again the reason…but this time in more detail. They said this situation was the airports fault because the Birmingham airport decided to do some repairs on the long runway. Delta staff didn’t have any notice and found this out early in the morning. She rebooked me on a flight the next morning, provided me a hotel voucher, and threw in some frequent flyer miles for my inconvenience.

I’m not upset. But, there was no reason that I had to be inconvenienced. Delta admitted they knew about this work in the morning. They had at least 10 hours to contact me and rebook me on an earlier flight. They have my email and cell phone. They have automated systems to alert passengers of flight problems; I signed up for them. I could have easily made that flight which was an hour earlier. Delta did none of this. So instead, they don’t accept responsibility and irritate customers. Seems pretty dumb to me. All they needed to do was send me an automated page saying something vague like “somethings wrong with your flight, please call us.”

I decided to enjoy myself with my night. I stayed in Birmingham, had sushi, and watched The Bourne Ultimatum at a theater.

Damon Chang was sloppy and chose what I believe is the least restrictive Creative Commons license (Attribution Only). It is the default on Flickr but that’s no reason to be sloppy, lazy, slothful, or ignorant. Quiet simply, that’s what he was. Being ignorant of the law, contracts, agreements, etc. is again the avenue of the lazy and dumb-minded. And now he’s suing which demonstrating his litigious nature; all of which are a horrible problem in the US. And are we to believe that Chang, a film maker which he claims himself, somehow doesn’t know about rights and how they relate to creative things like photos and film? Did he forget that Justin Ho-Wee Wong, the actual photographer that took this photo, owns the rights to the photo and therefore Chang misappropriated his ownership of the photo by posting it and assigning the Creative Commons license himself?

Bull shit. I’ll concede that Wong probably happily allowed Chang to post it not thinking about the licensing terms. And Wong is probably not going to sue Chang about it given they are friends.

First, it is questioned whether Virgin Mobile appropriately attribute the photo. I’ve read and seen that there is “photo is from flickr.com/photos/chewywong” in small print at the bottom of the picture in the print ads. Linking to a profile on Flickr does give a unique identifier for him. He’s not Bruce Weber so having something better than “Photo by Damon Chang” is much better. Both his location in Fort Worth and a way to contact him with FlickrMail is in his profile. This seems reasonable to me…but then Damon misappropriated that he took the picture.

Chang waxes on about Virgin Mobile not contacting him. While that might have been a nice thing to do, its not required by law or license.

So the only interesting and questionable area in my opinion (yes, I’m a layman) was that Virgin Mobile might not have gotten permission to use the model’s image. The “model” is Chang’s niece Alison. The ad in question appeared in Australia and their laws should be considered in regards to model rights in advertisements. So regardless of the licensing mistake Damon Chang made, Alison Chang may have a case. This is discussed by the person who took a picture of the poster down in Australia.

My opinion on the rest of the Chang claims about Creative Commons having a duty to them and “breached this duty by failing, among other things, to adequately educate and warn him … of the meaning of commercial use and the ramifications and effects of entering into a license allowing such use.” Grasp…strain…waaaa…waaaa.

Bull shit.

Its plainly available at http://creativecommons.org and on Flickr. Here’s some of what was available to Chang:

• Once you upload a photo to Flickr, you can set a photo’s license with the visible and easy to see link on the right of the photo page. You can also change licensing of many photos using the batch feature on Flickr and choosing Permissions/Change licensing.
• Licensing defaults on Flickr which give links to the below.
• An easy step by step wizard.
• Clear description of the specific license Chang had.
• A section of frequently asked questions, FAQ.

The family is suing both Virgin Mobile (ok, give it a whirl) and Creative Commons. The latter is…what’s the word…come on come on…BULLSHIT. Creative Commons is innocent in this situation. They did legal research and published a no-cost license that people can freely use. Chang used it (incorrectly since he wasn’t the photographer). And now Chang wants to sue them because he’s an idiot. A film making idiot who doesn’t know about copyright and licensing yet makes films.

Several other news sites have their own comments such as The Register, WTOP, and Houston Chronicle if you’re interested.

Oh…and an update on my fourth amendment civil rights broken by the New York Police Department (NYPD). I called two law firms in Manhattan specializing in this. Both gave identical answers. Yes, my rights were probably broken and we would probably win the case. However, cost of prosecuting the case would be more than the compensation that I would receive in the judgment. It is in the NYPD’s favor to search without warrants. They can say things like, “I don’t care, I’m doing one [intrusive body search] anyways.”

So how do you cause change? You inflict pain. Its sad, but pain is still our society’s tool. We take away their money with levied fines. We take away jobs. We send people to prison. In this case though…no fines…no court action. The NYPD can continue to break our civil rights again and again and there is no court means to stop them unless I was “harmed more” like being jailed and held there for two days. The NYPD violated my fourth amendment rights and harmed me, a citizen of the US. It was small harm, but harm nevertheless.

I do have the New York Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) and they have issued complaint number 200712794. I’ll update you all with progress as I hear of it from the CCRB.

This is fucking out of control. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck.

I want to see Chemical Brothers at the McCarren pool this saturday. The band charges $44. The ticketing service charges $11.10. That’s 25% the ticket cost. That is completely unreasonable and, given my online service creation experience at Microsoft, unmatching a reasonable profit margin above their cost of service. It doesn’t cost $11.10 per ticket to host and run their ticketing service. Unless…they are idiots running a poor service.

The Chemical Brothers gets their $44 and probably don’t care beyond that. They may even have a flat fee and the promoter chooses the per ticket cost. The band has a single promoter (Made Events) and that promoter choose an exclusive ticket provider (TicketWeb), there is no free market. There is no competition. It is locked in. The only choice I have is to not choose to see Chemical Brothers.

Fucking thieves are TicketWeb, TicketMaster, and the lot of them. EXCEPT for Brown Paper Tickets. They charge reasonable service fees and have excellent service. I’ve used them as a promoter and its excellent.