Position Paper: Gay Marriage

I am not against gay marriage.  And I don't care if it's called marriage or civil union or something else.  I'll call it gay marriage here because most of the people I know call it that.

Religious basis

The Old Testament calls out any sexual activity outside of marriage as worthy of stoning.  So is disobedience to parents, blasphemy, and sabbath-breaking.  So the OT is not a good compass to guide us in punishments for certain behaviors.  Whether something is considered "good or not", maybe.  What to do about it?  Not so much.

The New Testament does not have anything to say about homosexuality.  Maybe those parts were taken out over time, maybe the subject was such a given at the time that it was ignored.  Maybe it's not worth special mention.  Sexual sin does get a few mentions.  In what I think is the best example of what do about sexual sin, Jesus simply told the woman to "go and sin no more".  So it is not clear from the Bible that homosexual activity is any worse than heterosexual activity.

  

The Book of Mormon has nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality, either.  Nor does the Doctrine and Covenants as far as I know.  So there is little classical scripture to base such opinions on.  There is a fundamental document, though, called "The Articles of Faith" that lays out the basic tenets of Mormonism.  Joseph Smith wrote these 13 short paragraphs to explain what Mormons believe.  Here's the 11th:

"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

The decision to marry or not and whether and what kind of sexual activity to engage in is a moral matter for individuals to decide.  If the church a person belongs to, or doesn't belong to, accepts gay marriage, then that's part of their belief system, and it's not my right to abridge that freedom of conscience.  I may not agree with their decision, but I don't have the right to stop them from making it.  Much like those I love who listen to country music.  Same thing ;)

Social Basis

With the moral/religious conundrum resolved, the next question is: what is best for society as a whole?  Is gay marriage good or bad for society?  If bad, how bad?  Is it bad enough to put other issues on hold?  Or is it worthy enough of focus to devote time and money to seeing it stopped?

As a father of little kids, my first thoughts on societal changes are always about how they may play out 20-30 years from now.  That's my first societal lens.

The single largest determinant for adult poverty and adult incercaration is growing up in a home without 2 parents.  A different study calls out the fact that homosexual couples were just as good at rearing children in that sense as heterosexual couples were.  So the single most important key for reducing incarceration (and most likely crime as well) is to encourage 2-parent families.  

One can always argue that some homosexual couples will be bad parents.  Certainly.  One can just as surely argue that there are heterosexual couples who will be bad parents.  Most of us know some of them.  Other data show that kids who grow up in "turbulent" households, where 2 people may be there, but who those people are changes, fare no better than kids in single-parent homes.

So - what is the bigger problem?  The 46 out of 1000 unmarried women who give birth each year?  Or homosexuals getting married?  My answer is obvious: I'd much rather be a child born to a single mother and adopted by a loving homosexual couple than live with the more probable negative outcome that growing up under a single parent brings.

I know that this part of the argument may infuriate single parents.  Single parents have a spectacularly hard decades-long task.  Holding down a job that pays the bills and raising kids at the same time is a tremendously difficult balancing act.  It is such a difficult balancing act that many single parents can't succeed at it.  The odds are stacked against them.

It's a Matter of Time

I'm no constitutional scholar.  Given that various state Supreme Courts have ruled that their state constitutions prohibit barring homosexual marriages, it seems just a matter of time before the Supreme Court rules the same way.  Either that, or our current conservative Supreme Court will hand the matter down to the states to decide. 

In such an event, states will battle back and forth on the issue for years.  Eventually, the Supremes will have to deal with it to settle it.  They had to step in to deal with segregation, sexual harassment, and equal pay for equal work.  The matter of "I got married in California, but Montana won't recognize it" is really a federal issue and should be decided at that level.  Whether the message is "Any marriage recognized in any state in the union must be recognized by any state in the union" or whether it gets more explicit than that is not very important in my view.  

Possible Negative Outcomes

I don't think there will be many that are measurable.  Most people already know openly gay people.  Many of us know homosexual people in a committed, long-term relationship.  There are a few such couples at my kids' elementary school.  

Whether the law says it or not, Heather may have 2 mommies.  Are my kids supposed to think Heather is bad because of that?  That she's weird, or not worthy of friendship?  If the school curriculum includes discussion of divorced parents, single parents, parents who are dating, then there is no logically consistent argument to exclude discussion of homosexual couples as well.  

The Truly Conservative Hypocrisy-free Argument

If people are truly concerned about the spread of immoral acts and seek to enshrine those values in law, they must start with the most prevalent immoral acts.  The next ballot initiative should not start with a small minority, but should instead provide penalties in law for non-married sex between heterosexuals.  Ignoring this particular thing turns a blind eye to those people we all know who are not married but are sexually active, every bit as guilty in a Biblical sense as any homosexual.

Wasn't there something in the Bible about a mote and beam?  Somewhere?

Olympus Stylus 850 SW review

When I'm out cycling and hiking, I like to take lots of pictures.  I cycle almost every weekday.  In Oregon, that means I've got water to deal with quite often.  I had looked for waterproof camera cases for point and shoot digital cameras, but was not impressed.  I wanted a camera that was fundamentally waterproof.  Since we'd broken 2 point-and-shoot cameras in 2 years through droppage, I wanted it to be tough, too.

As I looked for cameras, I came upon the Olympus Stylus SW series.  The SW stands for shockproof/waterproof.  I was a little skeptical at first.  Then I stopped into a camera store and asked about it.  The salesman reach behind him and slapped the camera from the back, where it fell 4 feet into the concrete floor.  He says he does that every day for 3 months before one of them breaks.  They always get a replacement for free.  The unique thing about this camera is that the lens doesn't pop out of the body.  The outermost piece of glass is fixed; it's the lenses inside the camera body that move to focus.

So that was impressive.  It seemed to take decent pictures in the store, and the salesman was sold on it.  I went home, read some reviews, figured I'd want the 8MP version and not the 10MP, and looked for pricing.  

I found a great package price at BestBuy.  For $340 I got the 850 SW, a 2GB card, an extra battery, and a flotation strap.  I found out later it wasn't such a good deal - the battery priced at Best Buy is $40.  I found it online for $12.  So the package was actually not a good deal at all.   But hey - I got it at one stop in 15 minutes, and I was done.

I ended up with the orange one.  I wanted a camera that wasn't silver or black, and this one comes in cool metallic colors.  The package required that it be the orange one, which was cool for me.  The flotation strap matches.

I took the camera first on a 2-day backpacking trip in the Oregon Cascades.  That's the trip to Marion Lake from last month.  On the trip, I tested it at night, underwater, portrait, landscape, vibration reduction, video, and full-auto.  I've also used it cycling around the Portland area.  This is what I found:

Battery life: amazing.  These teeny tiny batteries last longer than the huge battery packs my Nikon 4300 required.  I got about 150 pictures per battery.  With 2 batteries, that gave me lots of picture-taking power for 2 days in the woods.  I even got some video.

Power save mode: this setting is adjustable, but the default is great for me.  The screen turns itself off after about 15 seconds of non-use.  Because the lenses are all inside the camera body, there is no need for the lens to retract.

Auto shut-off: if the camera goes into power save mode and sits for a while (I don't know how long, but it seems like 5 minutes or so) the shutter closes and the camera turns off.  This is super cool.

Lens cover: the lens cover is integrated into the camera body.  It's a simple mechanism - 1 piece of metal that slides over the lens glass.  None of this dual-action stuff or external lens cover stuff.  Integrated and reliable.

Reboot from power save: push either the power or shutter buttons, and about half a second later, you're ready to go.

Reboot from shut off: push the power button, and it's about a second until the camera is ready to shoot.  Fastest boot time I've ever seen.

Autofocus: the camera has a built-in AF algorithm that finds the "best" place to focus.  A green square shows up in the view finder to tell you where it focused.  This can be cool.  Last week, I was shooting some leaves turning colors, and the dang thing wouldn't focus where I wanted it to.  Those shots didn't turn out.  I could go in to the menu and turn off this feature, but for the most part I like it.

Shutter lag: The single most annoying thing about digital cameras is the lag between pushing the shutter button and the picture being taken.  This keeps getting better.  This camera is very good.  It's not digital SLR-type, but lag is barely noticeable.  I'm very happy with it.  As a measure of comparison, it's a little better than the $600 Panasonic camera we got in 2007.

Okay, now for what I consider the "Why do you really like this camera?" stuff.

Picture quality

Overall quality is pretty good, although it suffers from the unconventional lens design.  At least, I think that's the cause.  I have not noticed any chromatic aberration, astigmatism, or distortion.  That means that the lenses are machined and polished really well.  There's a little flare (when something really bright in the shot produces extra pale circles in a straight line), but I honestly like a little flare in some really sunny shots.  I've taken a fair amount of shots in full, bright sunshine, and usually I notice no flare in the final product.  I have seen it in a few though, and it always looked good.

Sharpness is also pretty good.  The pixels seem to be pretty clear.  In-focus shots are good enough for full-screen viewing with no discernable pixelation.  

The camera performs as advertised in extreme situations.  I took it swimming in Lake Marion.  I let my 6 year-old son take pictures with out around our campsite while I was swimming.  The underwater shots look pretty good for being in kinda murky water.  If you intend to use this camera like I do, it's a very good idea to have a lens cleaning tool with you.  Having some lake muck on the cover glass is going to mess up your pictures for the rest of the day if you don't.  When you submerse the camera and bring it up out of the water, the lens clears right up.  It has a coating on it, and the coating seems to be hydrophobic, which means that water tends to bead up and roll off it instead of spreading out into a film.  

ISO sensitivity is the camera's Achilles heel.  If you force the flash off, expect to get some fuzzy pictures.  The auto mode requires flash a lot of the time.  I didn't have good luck with the digital stabilization, either.  So this camera, more than most, works much better in portrait-type flash situations and in bright sunlight.  Overcast outdoors is a crapshoot.  My impression of night shots isn't very good, either, but I haven't used it with a tripod, so that's likely a premature judgment.  

The waterproofness is pretty cool.  There's a waterproof port for the data cable.  It's proprietary, even though it looks very close to a USB mini-B.  The waterproof cover for the battery and xD memory card is really secure.  It has a switch with a positive lock on it.  It's easy to open, easy to close, and from what I can tell completely waterproof.

The coolest single thing about this camera for me is that the instruction manual very clearly states that if the lens gets dirty, you should put it under running water and turn it on and off repeatedly. 

Overall verdict: picture quality is good, though not excellent.  For an adventurer or outdoorsman, though, you can't beat it.  It's small, inexpensive, and will allow you to get the pictures snowboarding, waterskiing, cycling, hiking, or boating that you were always afraid to get with your less-tough camera.  It was a great buy for me - no regrets.

Some Sobering News

We got a call last night from a close friend of our family.  She had gone in for a check up, and her mammogram came out positive.  Fortunately, they caught it early.  She does regular self checks, but neither she nor her doctor found it during the exam.  It was the mammogram that caught it.

After a short surgery and radiation treatment, she'll be back in action.  The prognosis is very good.

So, a reminder and a request: get your physicals and take them seriously.  And remember our friend in your prayers.

Time for Music!

Wahoo!! 

Wahoo!!!

Wahoo!!!!

Okay.  Got that out of my system.  I started a men's singing group this week.  We met at my house last night for our first rehearsal.  It was small - just 4 of us.  But we got all 4 parts, and were able to sing a capella in 4 parts, which was pretty cool.

I've wanted to start a group like this for years, but the timing just wasn't right.  Either the kids were too little, or I was in school, or work was too busy.   But the timing is right now.  

We sang through a few songs, learned a new one, and had a good time.  A really good time.  We ran half an hour over our rehearsal time, but that was fine, it seemed.  We decided to work on What Child is This?, O Holy Night, and The Carol of the Russian Children for starters.  We'll reserve some time to try new things each week.  

It sounds like a blast to me.  We're not great with blend yet, we don't all agree on some points of diction, and we still miss a lot of notes.  But that's where you start, not where you end.  I'm so thankful to have the chance to make music - last night was a dream come true for me.  Good people, good music, and a group that is about the love of music more than it is about getting something ready for performance.  

Love it.  Can't get enough of it.  It's a good day to be me.

De-bate De-brief

I watched an hour of MSNBC last night after the debate, but haven't done any reading on reactions yet.  Here is my take on my predictions from yesterday:

1) The economy.  Obama did not take this home like I would have liked to see.  It is clear that Joe the Plumber would get a tax break, even if he buys the business.  Obama didn't come out and say that, he said everything but that and relied on viewers to put it together.  

2) William Ayers.  Again, not as strong as I would have liked to see.  On the one hand, he wasn't defensive (good) and on the other he wasn't offensive (good).  But he did not send back some mud to McCain.  In hindsight, I think this infuriated McCain, because I bet he had some good comebacks for Keating ready to go.  "Dang, I wasted all that time again!"  Listing the members of the charity board was masterful.  

3) Campaign tatics.  This was a very good exchange.  I cringed when Obama said all McCain's ads have been negative.  It's true for the past 2 weeks, but not for the past few months.  Otherwise, I loved it.  For Obama to say "terrorist" and "kill him" was just chilling.  He tacitly stated that there are people who support John McCain who want to kill the first African-American candidate for President.  John McCain's reply: the people that come to my rallies are the most patriotic people in America.  Huh???  You just defended this stuff?  For McCain to then get defensive and say that people at Obama rallies say mean things, too was fair.  But he had not one example.

4) I was 100% right on this one.  McCain was visibly angry and frustrated.  He kept interrupting both the moderator and Obama, which just looked rude and unpolished.  He would attack, Obama would successfully repel the attack, and I could almost see him going, "Okay, where's my next zinger?  Ooh, he won't be able to do take that one!"  This is not the guy who could go in negotiations with any group and get something done.  In the Senate, they all have to hang together.  It's a captive negotiating group - Senators have to talk to each other.  The world is not such a stage.  Picture McCain in a group of other national leaders, interrupting and rolling his eyes, and you quickly understand that this guy is not the guy who can get anything done with other world leaders.  They are free to disengage from people who are condescending and mean-spirited.

5) I didn't give Fox viewers enough credit.  Even they gave Obama a significant margin of victory.  I was right on other polls: Obama 2:1.  

Given the McCain we saw last night, I don't think he has a chance.  First, he doesn't have a consistent strategy except for attack.  And attacks show over and over that they don't work any more.  Obama is a clean enough politician that there just isn't much dirt on him.  For McCain, who is just as dirty, to keep attacking looks hypocritical.  Because it is.  People are sick of Bill Ayers.  They don't care.  People want to understand the economy and what to do about it. 

In marketing, one key thing you must do to be successful is differentiate your product.  McCain has an economic differentiator, but it's not one that will get him votes: another tax cut for the rich.  He's playing to the Republican base now.  They were going to vote for him anyway.  Obama knows he can't get them.  So Obama doesn't even address things that only the Conservative base will care about.  He addresses things that people in the middle and people on the left can talk about.  He's a big-tent guy.  McCain, as he recognizes that he's losing more and more of those middle voters, is increasingly a small-tent guy.

Pundits like to talk about swing voters.  That's the 10-15% whose vote is completely up for grabs.  Obama has taken most of the swing voters, and is encroaching on those who voted reliably Republican in the past but are willing to listen to other ideas.  That's how he's winning across America.

Debate Expectations

I've already predicted an Obama win for tonight's debate.  Here is a little outline of what I expect to see:

1) The economy.  McCain's plan resembles Obama's plan an awful lot.  Except that he wants to give a capital gains tax cut, which is paid 66% by people who make over $1M per year.  These are not millionaires.  They make a million every year.  Expect Obama to drive that home in a bunch of different ways.

2) William Ayers.  McCain pretty much promised to bring up William Ayers in an interview on the radio yesterday.  Expect Obama to counter with either a "We all know people who have made mistakes and made up for them.  30 years of exceptional cummunity service earns a little forgiveness, does it not?" or a "The Bill Ayers I knew and worked with was busy helping improve Chicago's schools.  The Charles Keating you knew and worked with was busy greasing the hands of Senators like you."  I expect a little of both.  Obama was pretty direct in the 2nd debate and I don't think he'll be shy in this one, either.

3) Campaign tactics.  Many people of all political stripes have denounced McCain's recent tactics that have stoked hate.  It is unclear how much of that is McCain and how much is his campaign staff.  Nevertheless, expect some talk about divisiveness from Obama.  A riff on "Who is the real Barak Obama?" could easily come forth, and it would be devastating to McCain if Obama delivers it in his regular conversational, non-adversarial tone.  

4) McCain will be desperate, and although I don't expect him to melt down, I expect Obama will be the cooler hand.  McCain will make same rash mistakes (as bad as "that one"), and viewers will see Obama, once again, acting Presidential.

5) Fox News viewers will agree overwhelmingly by 70%-30% margin or so that McCain won.  The whole rest of the world will give it 60%-40% to Obama.

Countdown is on - 3 hours and 38 minutes until it starts.

How Often Do You Replace Your Toilet?

A few months ago, we caught our little ones in the master bathroom.  And we saw some things in the toilet that don't belong there.  We cleaned it out as best we could and hoped.  In vain.

Sometimes we could get a good flush.  Most of the time, no such luck.  I put off looking into it because we were still in the middle of figuring out Japan, and getting ready for our big road trip.  Yesterday, I took the gloves (and the toilet) off.  

This is the 3rd time I've had to do such a thing in 4.5 years.  The first was when our older son flushed a shoe down the kids' toilet.  I tried everything I knew to get it out, but no luck.  New 17 golf ball toilet.  The next time, our youngest was playing in the master toilet and put something down.  My dad and I removed the toilet, took it outside, poured gasoline in it and lit it.  The lego burned and shrunk enough to come out.  I cleaned the toilet, reinstalled it, and we were back in business.

This time, I did it solo.  I'd had practice.  I took the toilet bowl out to the yard, put the gas in, and lit it.  It burned.  Quite well.  And then I heard it crack.  And crack again.  And then a large chunk of the bowl fell off.  Hmmmm....  So fire is not a tried-and-true method.  But nothing else had worked, anyway, so I was probably going to have to get a new toilet.  

Wanting some vindication, I took a large paving stone and broke the trapway open.  The culprit?  A gum stimulator that we had recieved from the dentist for free.  It was metal.  Burning no so useful.

So now we have a new toilet.  This one is a Kohler, and so far it's quite nice.  I'm hoping this is our last toilet purchase.  I really didn't think they were consumables.  

The Frenzy, the Hue and Cry

Politics has been crazy this last week.  The Rep ticket is tanking and spewing ugly stuff everywhere.  The Dems have been mostly quiet.  Pollls look very strange, with Dems winning 2:1 on an electoral vote count.  Pundits are talking about an 8-seat Dem pickup in the Senate, which is absolutely unheard of.  

Should I be shouting "Hosanna!"?  Not sure.  I am certainly glad that it is likely we'll actually get our health care up to the standard of the rest of the industrialized world.  I'm certainly glad that we'll finish the war in Iraq, and concentrate on Al Quaeda instead.  I'm certainly glad that there will likely be improved tax policy for most of America.  

But our national political life is larger than that.  It includes things like truth, common sense, transparency, and courtesy.  And that is whithering under the hot Republican lights of this election.

I'll give just to for-instances.  I'm very good friends with 2 very intelligent conservative women with whom I discuss politics from time to time.  From one, I received a note about a special that Sean Hannity is going to run tonight about Obama.  Sean Hannity is no source of truth, common sense, or courtesy.  From the other, I received an email where she notes that she hopes Obama is no longer a Muslim.  Obama was never a Muslim - his mother sent him to a Muslim school when he was a kid because it was the best school in the neighborhood.  She also made him go to Catholic church for Easter and Christmas, and they celebrated Jewish holidays, too.  

I love both of these women.  Both have been very kind to me.  Both are very smart.  Both have still been tricked by the lies and distortions coming from the political right.  Judging from news reports of McCain supporters yelling "Terrorist!" this week at rallies, references to William Ayers in every stump speech, and this new Hannity piece, it won't stop any time soon.  Our civil discourse is disrupted.

Obama has made a concerted effort to run a high ground campaign.  The Rep ticket is just as vulnerable on guilt-by-association as he is.  But he's not running on that.  He's running on the issues.  Obama and his advisors and campaign staff are not trying to maximize McCain's connections to Keating, Hagee, or his lobbyist-heavy campaign staff.  Nor do they point out Palin's husband's DUI, pregnant daughter, witchcraft-hunting pastor or failed record in Wasilla.  

I can only hope that after the emotions of the election have worn off (maybe early January) and we're all used to the idea that the next 4 years are going to be very different from the last 28 years, we'll see both sides and their surrogates come to common sense.  We must work to build together, not tear down.  The contest for our nation's future can not be won by one side destroying the other.  If an election is won that way, the winner loses its honor.  The other only loses the election.

Presidential Debate #2

Day before debate #1.  Storyline: Foreign Policy is McCain's Strong Suit.  Obama under pressure.

Result: Obama wins.

Day before debate #2.  Storyline: Town Hall is McCain Strong Suit.  Can Obama fake it 'til he makes it?

Result: Obama wins.

Day before debate #3.  Storyline: Domestic Policy is Obama's Strong Suit.  Can McCain fake it 'til he makes it?

Result: Obama wins.

So debate #3 is a prediction, but does anybody have doubts any more?  I noticed a couple things.  I'll leave out specific policy positions for the most part, because I don't think the debate was won or lost on those.     

First, Obama answered questions more directly overall than McCain did.       

Second, McCain was able to connect with the Navy Chief better than Obama, but Obama connected with the others in the room better.  I wish Obama was less afraid of military personnel.  Any genuinely grateful American can give a hearfelt thank you and handshake to those who have served in the military.  Not that Obama is not, but this is one area in which he can use improvement.     

Third, Obama came across as Presidential and calm.  McCain, while he didn't look out of place, clearly looked like the scrappy new guy trying to make a name for himself.  Does that make Obama look like an insider instead of the agent of change?  Not sure.  Obama is sure comfortable in this role by now.     

Fourth, Obama can explain things in very real terms.  His description of how the credit crunch hurts taxpayers was the single best explanation I've heard or read.  This in-touch-ness is something we haven't had for a very long time.  I get a sense that Obama has had to make a household budget and knows what it's like to get the used car you can afford instead of the new car you want.

Fifth, I am upset with McCain's use of "that one".  Was it intentionally racist?  I don't think so.  But it was definitely derisive/dismissive, and McCain might have been more likely to say something like that to a person of color.  Even if it wasn't racist, it was still intended to belittle Obama.  That wasn't presdiential; it was petty.

Obama won in my mind.  I think his biggest gap is the "Who is this guy and can I trust him?" gap.  This debate is going to get more people comfortable with him, calm the butterflies, and solidify votes for those leaning-but-still-unsure.  McCain needs a game-changer.  Aside from (God forbid) a terrorist attack, there ain't one in the offing.

Rat Poison Jakers

 Do those three words fit together easily and comfortably in your brain?  Not mine, either.     

Today we had a rather large scare while visiting with Grandma and Grandpa.  We were playing Canasta, and the kids were all together watching TV and playing with Legos.  Our 3 year-old came over to us adults and told on her brother: "Jakers made a big mess with soap."     

Usually, we don't bother with this kind of thing.  But I thought it might be liquid soap, and that would be unpleasant, so I went over to check it out.  And Jakers had a lot of rat poison spilled on the floor.  There was also some in the pantry (whence it came).  We had no idea if he had eaten any, or how much if he had.  I swiped his mouth, but didn't find annything, and I didn't see any color, either.       

So we abandoned the game, and Katrina and I drove out to McKenzie-Willamette hospital in Springfield.  The ER took us straight back after they'd gotten his name, hooked up his little foot to a heartbeat monitor, and called poison control.  We had brought the box of DCon with us.     

The result?  After getting a dose of charcoal ready for him, filling us with images of how the vomited charcoal would be everywhere, but toerhwise being very helpful, the doctor told us that in rat poison cases, poison control doesn't recommend doing anything.  Turns out the failure mode the poison brings out is a vitamin K blocker.  So your body stops making clotting factors.  When that happens, the poisoned creature bruises easily and bleeds to death.       

So the hospital sent us home after taking our home phone number and giving it to poison control.  If we notice bleeding when brushing his teeth, then he'll get a vitamin K supplement.  In any case, nothing to worry about, just something to monitor.      

We got back in the car and said a prayer of thanks that we were going home with our little boy.  This day could have been so much worse.  It turned into a good lesson on child safety (grandma and granpa won't have that stuff where little fingers can reach it any more) and thankfulness to God for his mercy and kindness to us.