Friday, December 26, 2008

The Mormon case against the gays

I participate in an online community that is ostensibly about baseball, but the most heated discussions there are about Dubya Bush and Proposition 8. The most vocal person on the right pointed us to this screed from the Mormon (Latter Day Saints) church on the latter issue.

This person claimed we "might be surprised" by what we see there, and he was right, I was. I could not believe how completely wackadoo their position is. Check it out for yourself, but I think I'm paraphrasing it fairly as follows:

"Although we consider homosexual behavior a sin, we do not hate gays. We do not even find it sinful that they experience homosexual urges. They are facing temptation from the devil, as we all do, and whether that temptation is being quick to anger or acting gayly, it is a virtuous person's goal to defeat sinful temptation. If a man can not muster attraction to women, then he should live a celibate life... suck it up and play the hand God dealt you."

Yeah that's right, you heard me. "Being gay = just not OK." I appreciated getting the link to some source here, because the guy we talk to is much much cagier than this. He'll go on and on about how he thinks he supports equality with regard to civil rights, just not marriage, but he skips right over points he can't win and never comes right out and says anything as blatantly condescending towards the gay failure of will as my paraphrase above.

So I just wanted to write down my take on that position, right while I'm quick to anger, as that's often when the main points are the clearest. If you are a member of a church, then that's your choice, and it is protected by our constitution. If your church wants to have rules on gay marriage, multiple wives, or extended bong hits, you go right ahead. Gopod knows I've seen too many people tortured by their own church, but at least it's their own choice to participate.

But where does your jurisdiction end? Right outside of your fucking church! In a constitutionally secular country like ours, your church should have no legal impact on anybody who chooses to reject it. Isn't that why you numb nuts came to America in the first place... to escape religious persecution? Nothing, not even your God, gives you the right to force your crap on anyone who doesn't want it!

It's time we separated church and state from the business of partnership once and for all. Let religion have "traditional marrage." Let them define it any way they want. Hell, I don't even care if different religions agree. But that definition should have no impact on America's laws. If you want the legal benefits accorded to "marriage" today, then straights, gays, omnisexuals, and polygamists have to answer to the same rules.

I'm even for instituting this retroactively. Pick a date in the future in which all marriages are legally null and void. Give everyone time to apply for the new credentials before that date hits. Heck, you should be able to do it online in ten minutes if you can supply some information about where your current legal documentation is on file.

The wackadoos are entitled to their own lives. But they should stay out of everyone else's. Hell, if Republicans understand that about money, surely they can grasp the concept when it rises to subjects that are indisputably more personal.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Spoon-feeding the non-techies

The alleged talent of a product manager is to be able to bridge communication and thought between technical and non-technical people. This talent was best mocked in the movie "Office Space," and yet it is a valid yet ephemeral plus.

Occasionally, I like to roll it out in full bloom, and foist in on a user population who hopefully get as much entertainment out of reading it as I do writing it. Here's my latest offering:
Team,

A long time ago, perhaps centuries in dot-com years, a substantial portion of our Customer Support time was spent assuring clients and publishers that the variances between publisher-reported impressions and MOJO reported impressions were either minor, publisher mis-implementations, or simply misunderstood. To illustrate this, I made an “Error Analysis Tool” (dart board) of six causes and said, “If you need an answer for your case right away, you can choose one of these because I assure you that one of them is right.”

It wasn’t long before the clamoring for a less flippant and more elaborate (albeit not any more accurate) version of these cases moved Barak Ben-Gal, Director of No-One-Really-Knows-What, to write the original Discrepancies white paper. This was pretty – it had pictures and text boxes. It had credibility – it was thick. More importantly, Account Managers had something they could throw over the wall to clients and many times it answered their questions. Victory!

Fast forward eight regular years to today, and the treasured white paper has become a relic. Much more has developed in our industry requiring explanation or analysis yet still falling into the big bucket of discrepancies. A young knight named Michael Hauptman joined the Company and has proceeded to deftly dispose of the old and write a completely new version of the document. This version is, I am pleased to say, delightfully concise, yet detailed. Accurate, yet comprehensible. It has a full mid-palette highlighting pepper and nutmeg with a long, lingering finish of smoky elderberries. In short, those of you faced with either diagnosing discrepancies or educating clients on them will find this one satisfying read.

Accordingly, I have placed it on the client-facing Adserver documentation tab of Sharepoint. The direct link is here. If, as a creature of habit you cling to the Internal Documents link of Adserver, I am one step ahead of you. If you do not have the Firefox plugin for reading PDF’s, you can get that here.

But if you ever want to see the original dart board, you’ll have to come by my office.

Thanks Mike,
(achiappanza)
As my wife often says, I like turning something mundane into something fun.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Baseball. No longer the national pasttime, but still great

OK, I'm back. It wasn't an intentional hiatus, but I got lazy about handling it when Google released the new blogger and then things got busy.

Viewership for the World Series has been sinking like a stone for decades, and this year's matchup between the Philadelphia Phillies and the Tampa Bay Rays continues the trend.


It's a crying shame because baseball is a terrific game, and this year's matchup is one of the most appealing in years. I'll expand on both of those points.

Baseball is a terrific game. Anyone who's been raised to play it or at least has seen "Field of Dreams" has some idea of why that is. It is extremely different from most sports in that most others have a few things in common:
  • Rectangular field with scoring at the ends
  • Game clock
  • Same equipment (or lack of) on offense and defense
Baseball has none of that. As such, there's a real barrier to entry for fans, especially if they haven't grown up playing the game. And as that requires special equipment and fields, the effort to do so becomes more and more to overcome.

Despite the ratings decline, the game itself has been doing very well for a few decades as you can most evidently see by attendance numbers and team sale prices. This can be attributed to a few things:
  • New fan-friendly ballparks with attention to the quality of the experience beyond the game itself (food, views, attractions, location, luxury levels)
  • The home run boom of the 90's, regardless of its various reasons. As the commercial says, "Chicks dig the long ball."
  • Wild card teams in the playoffs and intraleague play. This is something Bud Selig got right.
But still, the game is hard to understand at its fundamental level, which is the batter-pitcher matchup. The best book I've ever read on the subject is Keith Hernandez's _Pure Baseball_, which is out of print, but you can still get a copy on Amazon.

This year's matchup is pretty good. Aside from rooting for my home teams (Giants and A's), I generally like teams who make the World Series that don't meet any of these criteria:
  • A team with a top payroll, especially when that money was used on free agents. Money still has too much influence in baseball, and I don't like teams that have spent their way there.
  • A team from a major media market, especially New York, because those teams get disproportionate attention anyway.
  • Natural enemies of my favorite teams. That's pretty much just the Dodgers.
  • Teams that have won more than one title any time recently.
Both the Phillies and Rays pass my test. They have acquired some players shrewdly (trade or medium-cost free agents), but for the most part they are homegrown players whose team is finally making it. The Rays in particular are a great story.
  • The last expansion team to make the World Series. They've got a big history of not-so-loveable losing.
  • Last place in baseball last year; chance to make first this year
  • Great trading: Victor Zambrano for Scott Kazmir was a steal from the get-go, though Met fans who don't follow the minors (like my father in law) didn't realize it. Also, Delmon Young for Matt Garza and Jason Bartlett was gutsy, as Young was the #1 prospect by consensus a few years ago.
  • Low payroll. All these guys came up with them. If they spend a little, they can keep that team together for years.
Right now the Phillies have the upper hand, and they have great players to root for too. Ryan Howard was asked his opinion of the Rays' five-man infield late in game 3 and he said, "Wow, I thought they were going to blitz." Off the cuff, and it's the funniest thing I've heard from an active ballplayer since hearing Mark Grace's explanation of slump-busters on Jim Rome's show. Chase Utley is not only a terrific hitter, but he made a fantastic tag and throw double play last night.

So I could be happy for either team. I hope it goes seven.