I didn't know until now...

For the last few years we have been getting our glasses from Market Optical at the University Village.  HWMBO needed new frames before the benefits reset at the turn of the year so we went down on Sunday to get him sorted out.

I like visiting the MO at U-Village. It allows you to try on different frames that let you envision and re-invent yourself.  Getting different glasses, whether they are super-hip and groovy or ultra professional, helps you realize that your calcified idea of who you are and how others see you isn't as fixed as one might think.

It's unlikely that I would ever have picked the frames I wear now to try on.  That's what I rely on the people at MO to do - to be un-blinkered by who I am and instead see who I might be. 

It was Dan who convinced me to try them.  Dan wasn't working last Sunday when we went in.  As HWMBO tried on this and that frame, finding it hard to settle on anything definite, I tried on a few frames that were totally wrong for me and tried to find a place to be out of the way as the store got busy.

I was standing in the small well of quiet near the desk when I saw the framed photo.  I blinked and began to shake my head and then stopped, as I saw Dan's smiling face with the legend "Our Beloved Dan" above two dates - May 29th, 1980 and May 30th, 2007. 

Dan was killed by a drunk driver in a hit and run.

We didn't know Dan that well, perhaps to him we were just some guys who came in a couple of times a year.   Yet, we remembered each others names, cars we drive, vacation plans, and current romantic updates.  He was the kind of person you were happy to have talked to.

As is the custom in our home, a candle burned that evening for Dan.

His family and friends remember him with joy and sadness.

And it seems we were not the only ones to be similarly affected.

"Chan eil saoi air nach laigh leòn."

Not Homophobic, just Athazagoraphobic

In the rare cases when Pastor Ken Hutcherson is actually asked whether he is homophobic, his response is a confident smile and a practiced statement that he is "not afraid of homosexuals". 

His response plays on his persona as a rough and tumble NFL player, a plus-sized black man and reduces the question to a "What-could-*I*-have-to-fear-from-homosexuals?" dismissal.

For some reason, the media is completely disarmed by this narrow and literal interpretation of the word.  It's like they've never seen, let alone opened, a dictionary in their entire lives.

How much effort does it take to discover that:

Homophobia (from Greek ὁμο homo(sexual), "same, equal" + φοβία (phobia), "fear") is a non-clinical term^[3][4] used to describe the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.^[5][6] It can also mean hatred, hostility, disapproval of, or prejudice towards homosexuals, or homosexual behavior or cultures.^[7]

And:

ho·mo·pho·bia: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

Hutch spends so much of his time and energy opposing domestic partnerships, same-sex marriage, anti-discrimination, hate crimes, etc. so wouldn't you think one person in the media might have nailed him for being a supremely ineffective and homophobic man of god?

All this musing on meanings got me wondering what else Hutch might be afraid of.  After some digging around, I think I have uncovered what his real phobias might be:

• Athazagoraphobia- Fear of being forgotten or ignored or forgetting.
• Demonophobia or Daemonophobia- Fear of demons.
• Hadephobia- Fear of hell.
• Hamartophobia- Fear of sinning.
• Metathesiophobia- Fear of changes.
• Paraphobia- Fear of sexual perversion.
• Poinephobia- Fear of punishment.
• Proctophobia- Fear of rectums.
• Theophobia- Fear of gods or religion.
• Zeusophobia- Fear of God or gods.

Here are a few things he doesn't seem to be afraid of but should be:

• Kakorrhaphiophobia- Fear of failure or defeat.
• Numerophobia- Fear of numbers.

And here are a few things Hutch definitely loves:

• Autovoxiphillia - Love of one's own voice
• Notaphilia - Love of bank-notes and checks
• Pathenophillia - Love of virgins
• Russophilia - Love of Russia and/or Russians
• Scripophilia - Love of bond and share certificates
• Theophilia - Love of God

I'm looking forward to discovering many more Hutch-phobias in the new year!

Blessed Ignorance in Connecticut

I've been having a discussion with a guy called Nick at Pray Connecticut who posted with what can only be wilful ignorance:

Why have civil unions dropped almost in half from 2006 to 2007?

Is it because people are waiting for full marriage rights or is it because there really isn't that much demand for it?

I suspect the latter.

I responded pointing out:

This is hardly a new trend in states with domestic partnership and civil union laws that still fall woefully short of civil marriage. The lack of national recognition makes them less useful and desirable.

Most importantly, there is a case before the Connecticut State Supreme Court challenging the state's restriction of marriage to only opposite-sex couples. Arguments were heard in May and the court has yet to rule.

As a result many same-sex couples are waiting to see of they will be able to get equal recognition and rights for their relationship.

There was some more back and forth with me providing statistics showing that despite the recent fall off in civil unions, the same-sex couples who have entered civil unions from October 2005 to October 2007 still accounts for 23.7% of the same-sex couples identified in the 2006 American Community Survey. 

To which he responded:

"I think this cuts both ways. If the numbers are as you say, why is it that less than 1/4 of same-sex couples have taken the plunge in two years of civil unions? Because the rest are waiting for full-blown marriage?"

Rather than deal with the limited formatting in Blogger's comment system, I'm going to continue my response here:

The numbers are as I say which is why I included citations so that you could verify them in order to form a cogent argument in rebuttal.  You show astounding ignorance and intellectual laziness for someone making such sweeping statements.  You don't have an argument based on data - you have "a belief".

I started by looking at the data in the 2006 American Community Survey but the problem with the data is that with marriage having been available to opposite-sex couples for so long, the incumbency doesn't give much useful comparative data. 

That so many as 23.7% of same-sex couples reported in the 2006 American Community Survey have entered into fundamentally unequal "civil unions" is a surprise to many people who understand just how unequal they are to marriage.  For comparison, the number of opposite-sex couples marrying in the same period is 34% of the Opposite-sex Unmarried Partner category.  What these numbers don't take into account are those entering into marriage and civil unions without officially having cohabited first.

Of the 73,447 unmarried partners living together, 90% (66,061) are opposite-sex and 10% (7,386) are same-sex couples.

Why is it that with free and unfettered access to marriage, opposite-sex couples comprise the overwhelming majority (90%) of couples "living in sin" in Connecticut?

It's hard to draw any other conclusions from the ACS since it's hard to compare overall marriage and civil union statistics when they have very different benefit and utility and you are only looking at couples that are already cohabiting.

You are asking the wrong question, Nick.  A better question would be: 

Given that marriage has been available to opposite-sex couples for longer than our entire lifetimes, why are 10% of all cohabiting opposite-sex couples still unmarried?

When we take a look at the one year where we have complete data on per capita "run rates" for both opposite-sex marriage and same-sex civil unions (2006) and no legal case offering an alternate, the run rates are the same - 1% of the relevant population.

You further opined:

"And how much "gay bashing" goes on in Connecticut? Haven't we all heard by now that Hartford is one of the gayest cities in the US? And still less than 25% take advantage of this provision."

Hartford ranks 10th in the U.S. in population of gay, lesbian, and bisexual adults with 5.6% of the metro population and 6.8% of the city population.  

However, if you look at the Hate Crime Statistics for Connecticut in 2005 and 2006 you will see that they have increased dramatically in a single year. I don't think it is a coincidence that increases in Hate Crimes against gay, lesbian, and bisexual people appear positively correlated with divisive public debates on same-sex issues like anti-discrimination and marriage equality.

In 2005 there were 8 reported Hate Crimes with "sexual orientation" as the motivation.  Unfortunately, 10 cities didn't file statistics for all quarters of the year so the numbers are far from complete.  This is especially worrisome as bias crimes are already grossly under-reported by the victims with only 44% ever being reported.  In fact, Hartford had one (1) sexual orientation motivated hate crime in the 3 months it did report for, it failed to file for the other 9 months.

In 2006, there were 29 reported Hate Crimes with "sexual orientation" as the motivation. Once again, 11 cities failed to file statistics for all four quarters of the year.  Still, that is an alarming increase of 262.5% over the 2005 numbers.

Despite passing the expanded Hate Crimes bill intended to address this problem in both houses, the U.S. Congress isn't sending it to the President's desk because of Election Year politics.  Meanwhile, more dead, injured and harassed gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered - oh well. 

I live in the second biggest "gay city" in the U.S. (Seattle has a GLB metro population of 6.5% and 15.9% of the city) and with recent hate crimes like this, and this, and this, and the general increase in hate crimes across the country, I feel less safe than at any time since I moved here. 

You really are an integral idiot if you think that political and religious organizations can use the lives, the relationships, the very existence of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people as wedge and fundraising issues and believe that it doesn't have a material impact on the life, health and safety of those same people.

Nick, you either don't understand or are willfully obfuscating the real issue here.  It is not the number of people that take advantage of a right or legal protection that validates it or makes it just.  If that were so, there would be no Hate Crimes protection for Protestants, Catholics or Muslims at all.  Yet, they are all protected.

The real test of such things is that anyone needs it. 

But I know that there is no argument that can persuade you - you haven't even made one for your own questionable assertions.

You mentioned that statistics "cut both ways" but since I'm the only one wielding them in this conversation, so far they have only served to make my case and revealed that you don't have one...

...just "a belief".

Revolting: Pastore strokes Hutch on KKLA

In similar news, Hutch made what I believe was his first appearance on Frank Pastore's radio show on KKLA 99.5 - amusingly and, it turns out, incorrectly titled as "The intersection of faith and reason".

Hutch was supposed to be on at 5:30pm but he started late and I had a chance to catch the flavor of the station before he came on. 

Imagine my delight when before Hutch came on there was an advertisement about dealing with your divorce from Duchanin Law Firm the oldest and largest in California.

"Ouch! I hope Hutch is listening" I thought. "As a biblical literalist, he must be going apeshit since divorce is a total no-no in the bible." I imagined that stoning scene in Life of Brian when an enormous rock is dropped on someone as the big finale for their heinous crime.

"No, wait!" I gasped. The thought bubble with the image from "Life of Brian" popped over my head, covering me with a sticky ironic residue. I suddenly remembered that Hutch's biblical literalism on divorce stops well short of any political advocacy to make it illegal or at least stop passing laws making it easier. Given these statistics, I can see why.  His biblical literalism ends in political advocacy only when it comes to $pecific i$$ues like homo$exuality.

There was also a segment with three women who had written a book called "The Faith Club".  The women, a Christian, a Muslim and a Jew, had apparently got together in the wake of September 11th to put together a picture book for children that would highlight the similarities between their religions and how their different faiths were connected. 

The impetus to write "The Faith Club" came out of the many misunderstandings and challenges they found when they started talking about how to explain each of their faiths to their children in the picture book.

As "host", a term normally reserved for someone who makes people feel welcome, Frank Pastore was surprisingly obnoxious, superior and dismissive of the three women. He boiled interfaith communication down to the question "Do you think your faith is the one true path to God?"  When each of the women said that they agreed that there was one God and that there are many paths to Him, not a single correct path, Pastore declared that none of them really believed anything if they didn't believe that their religion was the one true path. 

"If you don't believe everyone else is wrong, you don't believe anything" sounds more like the intersection between arrogance and ignorance to me.

Finally Hutch came on with Frank making much of hearing him on Rush Limbaugh and that he sounded like a great guy so they wanted to have him on the show.  He described Hutch as "a former football player still playing in the big leagues going after Microsoft".  In my mind's eye I imagined Hutch getting an ego hard-on and smoking a cigar as Pastore stroked him shamelessly.  Then he asked the question "What’s going on with you and Microsoft? This is a very unique idea, I’ve never heard this before..." 

Trying to force change as shareholders isn't a new idea at all, people like Thomas Strohbar have been attempting this for several years.  The only new wrinkle here is that Hutcherson is tying to bilk Christians of $1.1 billion dollars in the process. 

Then Hutch went into his spiel saying that "It’s not the news or the homosexual agenda that's killing us, it’s the corporations that is killing us."  He talked about how "Equality for homosexuals passed in Washington" and got into his version of what happened between him and Microsoft over the Washington State Anti-Discrimination Bills HB 1515 and HB 2661. 

Hutch did his I-got-Microsoft-to-role-over-and-drool routine and then complained that "When the homosexual community attacked them (Microsoft) on it (changing their stance to neutral), Microsoft went back and called me a liar."  Then he repeated his claim that Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer called him a liar saying "I stepped up and called him a liar back."  I wished that I could tell the, well, I'm going to go with hundreds of people listening at that moment that in reality Microsoft's CEO never called Hutcherson anything directly or even spoke to him, he just called Hutcherson publicly on his bullshit.  I guess in Hutch-World claiming that someone important called you a liar makes you important too.

Then we had a wind-up into some big powerful black-pastor-man chest thumping with "Now you have started a battle you’ll never be able to recover from."  So I was personally disappointed when Hutch devolved to a strange and whiny-baby comment that “There is even a group at Microsoft devoted to advancing the homosexual agenda”. 

Begin inevitable digression. 

This is a reference either to the GLEAM (Gay, Lesbian, bisexual and transgender Employees At Microsoft) Diversity Advisory Council, or to Microsoft's larger Global Diversity and Inclusion group which represents the all the Diversity Advisory Councils for different communities. 

These groups cover categories like racial group or national origin (Blacks at Microsoft, Israelis at Microsoft, Chinese at Microsoft, Africans at Microsoft, etc), gender and sexuality (Women, Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender), disabilities (Attention Deficit Disorder, Visually Impaired, Hard of Hearing), and life stages and situations (Adoption, Single Parents, Dads, Working Parents, etc). 

When dealing with minorities in a workforce, there is always a lower case "a" agenda.  Mainly to get their expertise to make you more effective in the marketplace, but also to get them equal time and fair treatment compared with everyone else in the workforce.  I guess that means that there is also a Black agenda, a Women's agenda, and an Adoption agenda.  As a proud black man Hutch obviously supports the Black agenda, and adoption is one of his pet projects he should be pleased with that, but as a biblical literalist I don't think he'd be comfortable with Women working. 

Damn and tarnation, I forgot.  It'$ only the gay$, le$bian$, bi$exual$, and tran$gendered that his biblical literalism applies to. 

End of inevitable digression. 

Then Hutch got on to his "This is not a traditional boycott. Do you know how much economic power Christians have?" shtick and segued into a variation on one of his favorite themes "You (Microsoft) don’t care about blacks, whites and homosexuals, you care about green (money)" and talked about how his plan would hit them where it hurts.

They he talked briefly about his illegal and ineffective Microsoft Buy and Dump stock scheme and complained that "They (Microsoft) had a big sell off but they would not give me credit for it". 

Err, I think he's forgotten that he didn't get credit because it was nothing to do with him and everything to do with Microsoft surprising the stock market on 3rd quarter 2006 earnings and lowered earnings guidance.

He may consider himself "a child of the king", but when he whines and complains so pathetically, he sounds like nothing more than a Grade-A "Drama Queen".

Finally he got to the call to action for the Christian soldiers listening with their holy spirit infused hands clasped tight to the radio.  He asked Christians to buy three (3) MSFT shares, send one (1) to Hutcherson, and assign the proxy votes for the other two (2) to him.  Then Hutcherson talked about the huge response saying that "People are calling from all over the country and all other the world asking when we are going to kick this off".

Then I got a bit distracted, Hutch started talking about Genesis 11 and Nimrod, and I started to chortle and snicker.  Apart from it's older meaning of a famous hunter, "Nimrod" also has a more modern context. His point being that when Christians unite "...they are one voice, they are unified, and there is nothing impossible for them to do".  Great rhetoric, but for proof I'd like to see them ski through a revolving door.

Then Hutch framed a frightening question "What would happen if Christians become unified in righteousness?"  The obvious answer springing to my mind was a drive toward theocracy with an upgrade from disregard for other beliefs, to enthusiastic and active contempt and violence - it won't be just for Russian speaking church members any longer. 

But this is the heart of the pitch and Hutch says "We’re going to buy stock, and we are going to put the fear of god in every corporation."

Step 1: Realize that as an average Christian you can change the world for $100

Uh-oh, Hutch is starting to make this sound like an Amway pitch or a Pyramid selling scheme.

Step 2: I'll give you our web site and you send me the stock and the proxies - in 1 year we need 100m shares and their proxy votes

Then Hutcherson again doubles back on how Microsoft CEO Ballmer allegedly called him a liar and lays blame for the latest scheme at his door saying, "I spoke to the CEO and said if you haven’t called me a liar we wouldn’t be here. Ballmer started this..."

Frank ended the interview with more ego stroking for Hutch and letting his listeners know that they would be having him back on to track Hutch's progress.

Media Sucks - Swallows Hutcherson Scam

Ever since his bizarre and incoherent oration at the November 13th Microsoft Stockholder meeting, we've all had to tolerate the media bloviating on Hutcherson's latest cunning plan.  

All this has been happening without anyone really pinning down what Hutcherson intends to do and how achievable it might be.

In case you missed it, Hutcherson turned up at the public Microsoft stockholders meeting, vaguely threatened them with dire consequences, but completely failed to say what his issue was and what he wanted Microsoft to do differently.  Here's his speech:

Fortunately, Hutcherson did an interview with Toby Harnden, the Washington DC correspondent for The Daily Telegraph newspaper in the UK where he laid out his plan a little more coherently. 

An advocate of a "biblical stance" against divorce and homosexuality, Mr Hutcherson, 55, is asking millions of evangelical activists, as well as Orthodox Jewish and other allies, to buy up Microsoft shares and demand a return to traditional values.

Microsoft, he declares, will be just the first company targeted in an escalation of the culture wars between evangelicals and corporate America.

The interview with Hutcherson was part of a series called Crossing America, which resulted in video posted to YouTube, the story posted to The Daily Telegraph site, and a blog entry.  There is a little more to be gleaned from the video:

Harnden's piece is otherwise perfunctory franken-journalism. It takes the thin first person interview Hutch gave, and rehashes quotes from old stories which paint colorful stereotypes that the mug punters in the UK will easily recognize.

It is interesting to note that Hutcherson wasn't able to engage the US mainstream media at all.  Perhaps the somewhat deserved reputation of the UK press as sensational, inflammatory and indiscriminate made the choice of mouthpiece a no-brainer.  It is somewhat heartening that he had to go as far the UK to find someone who wasn't already wise to his track record of failure and media whoring, or bored with his serial failure to ever achieve his goals. 

Does Harnden ask what it is that Microsoft is doing and should stop, or do differently? Does he assess how credible Hutch's nebulous plan is?  Does he ask Microsoft for comment?  Does he recount Hutcherson's history of abject failure in all his high profile media whoring endeavors?  Does he try and put forth a counterpoint to Hutcherson?   No, not at all.

No journalism to see here, folks.  Move along.

In the video, Hutcherson says:

"Corporations are the number one fighters against traditional values."

"They are putting more money against traditional marriage, against Judeo-Christian values, against Christ's influence in our society than any other entities, and they have been virtually untouched.  They have been under the radar.  I'm gonna put them on the radar screen."

I have no idea what this means.  It seems that Hutcherson has a problem with Microsoft's "promotion of a Homosexual Agenda" and is a "number one fighter against traditional values".

I called Antioch Bible Church to enquire and even they couldn't tell me what Hutcherson had meant.  I'd contend that you have to be fairly desperate for press coverage to publicly announce an initiative like this without having even a high level set of talking points pulled together on what your goals are and what is supposed to happen next.

From the above video and other articles, it looks like the plan is this...

1. Get enough influence to change MSFT policy by securing the proxy votes for 100 million shares by the next Stockholder meeting in November 2008
1. Getting Christians to buy three MSFT shares each
2. $end one $hare to Hutch
3. Assign proxy voting rights for the other two shares to Hutch
4. Submit a stockholder proposal making your case by the November 2008 meeting

Hutch has said that Microsoft is "nothing but a feather in the wind of God".  Boy-howdy, I hope that wind has a better grasp of math, the law, and business than Hutcherson does. 

But just how wrong is he?  Let us review by specific domain:

Math

Total MSFT Shares: 9.4 billion
Total MSFT Market Capitalization: $323.5 billion ($34.58 per share)
Shares needed for Controlling Interest (51%): 4.8 billion
Funds needed for Controlling Interest: $165 billion

• Hutcherson's 100 million share goal is 4.7 BILLION short of the 4.8 billion shares needed to get a 51% share of MSFT
• At three shares per Christian, Hutch would need 1.6 billion Christians to respond to his call to action - there are only 232 million Christians in the United States of America
• If every single U.S. Christian rose to Hutcherson's call, they would each need to buy 21 MSFT shares to meet the 100 million share goal.

Law

Even if Hutcherson were to get a majority of voting proxies and attempted to change company policies or actions, the Business Judgement Rule provides significant protection to company boards of directors enabling them to make decisions and set policies in the best interest of the company.

Business

59% of all Microsoft stock is held by institutional, and not individual investors.  Institutional investors overwhelmingly assign their proxies to the Board of Directors.

The Microsoft Board of Directors would oppose any shareholder proposals that were not in the best interests of the company.

This includes voting down anti-competitive shareholder proposals like Proposal No: 2 which was put forward by Thomas Strobhar from Ohio at the 2006 Microsoft Stockholders meeting.  Strobhar is a pro-life, anti-gay activist who made similar proposals at stockholder meetings for Ford in 2006 and 2007, and at American Express in 2006.

Strohbar's Proposal No:2 to Microsoft Stockholders appears on the 2006 Proxy Statement and proposed that Microsoft put together a committee to figure out how to rewrite the companies Equal Employment Opportunity policy without “sexual orientation”. 

Like his attempts at Ford and American Express, it was defeated.

So to recap the findings so far:

• Hutcherson set a share proxy target so low that he has no hope of influencing Microsoft policy - less than 1% of total MSFT shares.
• To meet his guaranteed-to-fail goal at three shares per person, Hutcherson would require 24% of the entire world's population to participate.
• It is practically impossible for Hutch to get 51% of voting stock with around 59% of Microsoft shares in the hands of Institutional investors at any one time.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Hutcherson is mentally competent, we can deduce that "taking over" or even seriously attempting to influence Microsoft can't really be his goal.

Now let's consider the fiscal impact of complete success and near total failure.

If by some miracle Hutch were to meet his goal of 100 million shares, he'd have 33.3 million shares resulting in a "donation" to his coffers of approximately $1.1 billion.

Even in an "abject failure" scenario where he achieves only 1% of his stated goal, Hutcherson would hold 333,333 shares at a value of approximately $11.5 million dollars.

He wouldn't be able to force the company to do a single thing, but $11.5 million isn't a bad result for keeping his name in the media and continuing his unbroken record of failure.

The delicious irony of this would be Hutcherson's dependence on Microsoft's success and his diminishment at it's failures, just like every other stockholder.  Behold the magic of capitalism!

Hutch also needs to beware The Law of Unintended Consequences. 

The last time Hutcherson tried messing with MSFT stock the only claim he could legitimately make is that he created a May 1st rally during a $5 decline in the stock. The decline began several days earlier after MSFT surprised the street by taking a multi-billion dollar hit in earnings to fund investment in emerging markets.

In short, Hutcherson achieved the reverse of what he intended.  I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the same prove true this time.

Shiny.