True colors

I have changed the settings for comments to allow only registered users to comment.  In other words I don't allow anonymous comments anymore.  As wonderful as the Internet is and has given so many people a chance to express themselves who wouldn't have had a chance otherwise, it has also allowed people to post their thoughts and opinions anonymously so we get to see their true colors and integrity.  Just read comments on any blog or news article online and you'll see all sorts of slander, bigotry, and prejudice in all forms and from all sides (left and right).  It's possible those people would say things like that directly to people, but chances are they wouldn't say something like that straight to someone's face or even in a comment that has their name attached to it (like a letter to the editor).

I had previously changed my comment settings a little while back requiring all comments to be read and approved by me before being posted.  That happened after someone, most likely from Wikipedia, kept making comments I really didn't want on my blog and my brother suggested I moderate comments.  Since making that change, it has all but stopped. This latest change was prompted by a comment I just read (and deleted) in regards to my previous post about Prop 8.  As has been the case all too often when this issue comes up, this comment was very angry and upset and full of prejudice and bigotry.  For someone with such a strong opinion, however, it was only fitting that the person left the comment anonymously.  As I said in my blog, I am not opposed to changing the laws so that gays and any couple can live as they choose.  What I oppose is the changing of the definition of marriage itself and the whole idea behind the movement to change it knowing it has nothing to do with "equal rights" and everything to do with advancing a particular agenda and crushing (not working with) those who disagree.  Finding common ground and compromise are not part of the plans, hence "civil unions" (which are legally the same as a marriage) not being good enough.  It also continues to cement my belief that too many liberals think that those who disagree with them are just stupid as opposed to having had different experiences or seeing things in a different way.  For all their talk of diversity and accepting differences, apparently religious and conservative differences aren't included.  

So, to my anonymous commenter, please keep your hate and prejudice off of my blog (and bad comparisons too).  Thanks.  I'm always open for civil discussion and enjoy getting response to what I write, but leaving angry--and especially anonymous--comments is not the way to get there.  People can disagree without resorting to name calling and stereotypes.  If your hope was to change my mind (or anyone else's) attacking me (and stating some incredibly false things about me, who I am, and what I think) isn't a good way to start changing minds.  In fact, it only strengthens my belief that this whole "struggle" isn't for equal rights and living together in harmony but forcing an agenda and belief system down the throats of everyone.  In that way, how are you any different from the very Evangelical Christians you criticize and detest?

Prop 8 Saga

I had originally intended to write about this sooner, but am glad I waited as I have really wanted to think about this and write a calm, logical post about it.  There is so much to think about here I didn't want to miss anything.  I honestly wasn't surprised by the ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, at least in the eyes of the judge who reviewed it, though I wasn't really paying that close of attention to the story as it was initially developing.  I knew it was happening, but many of the events surrounding the judge, particularly his attempt to sensationalize the trial (and his rebuke by the U.S. Supreme Court), I was not aware of until recently.  The more I hear about this judge, the less the ruling surprises me.  While I initially thought there would be no way this could get to the U.S. Supreme Court (since marriage is a state issue), the judge in this case cited the U.S. Constitution's 14th amendment stating that Prop 8 denied gay and lesbian couples "equal protection" under law and the case itself was tried in federal district court.  Basically, this is now a federal case, so it is likely the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case eventually and the decision they render would have effect on all 50 states, not just California.

I've been pretty clear about my feelings on "gay marriage" in general.  I personally think there is a way for gay and lesbian couples to have the "rights" they claim they are being denied without redefining marriage and in many cases they are already available to them and others as well.  Opponents say that marriage has always been redefined, and while that is true to a degree, marriage has always been between people of the opposite gender.  Never before has marriage been defined as a union between two people of the same gender, so yes, including "gay marriage" would be a radical change in the definition.  But as I've said many times, the real issue has nothing to do with equal rights.  In New Jersey, a state which has civil unions that basically function with the same "rights" as traditional marriage, gay and lesbian activists aren't satisfied.  It has to be called "marriage", not because of any rights they are being denied, but more to bring their agenda to the mainstream and force their beliefs on others.  I find it interesting that gay activists pride themselves on being different, yet fight so hard for stuff like this to "be like everyone else."   If the rights they claim aren't there are already there, what IS the problem?

It's tough for me to really define what I think.  I have lots of gay friends, so this isn't an issue of me having some sort of vendetta against the gay community.  In the end, I have my beliefs based on how my life has unfolded and how I see things.  The reality is that the "rights" available through marriage are largely already available to anyone, gay or not, married or not.  And gays are by far the only group that cannot marry the person they want to either, so including just them in a new definition of marriage wouldn't be "equal" rights.  Unless anyone can marry anyone without limit and have access to those rights, there will be inequality.  Are we prepared to allow someone to marry more than one spouse?  How about a close relative or even a minor?  Any of those groups could successfully argue that they are being discriminated against and being denied "rights".  

It's funny that not all conservatives see this the same way either.  Sure you have religious conservatives who have beliefs about the definition and purpose of marriage, but you also have conservatives who simply believe that the government shouldn't have any role at all in marriage; that it's strictly a private contract between two consenting individuals and thus anyone can marry anyone.  I see both and the more this debate drags on the more I see myself thinking that government should just abolish marriage as a government institution and leave it to religion.  I definitely believe in the importance of a healthy marriage particularly in supplying children with not only a safe and loving environment, but role models of each gender.  Single and gay parents are certainly capable of providing loving and safe environments--that's not the issue--but I firmly believe every child needs a steady male and female role model in their life (like an everyday part of their life) and the best people to fill that role are their parents.  It takes far more than just love and support to raise a child.  Having grown up in a home where my male role model was largely absent, there are definitely things I did not learn how to do simply because there was no one around to show me; basically I know what I missed out on.  

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.  The Supreme Court is currently a majority conservative court, so there is a chance they will rule that Prop 8 is not unconstitutional since gays and all individuals are free to marry anyone of the opposite gender and are not denied basic rights.  This isn't even close to the civil rights era of the 1960s where we had people in inferior schools being denied basic protection by officers of the law and even the right to vote in many places.  And of course nothing stops anyone from living with another person of their choosing.  I hope we can come to a solution that satisfies everyone, but it doesn't look like that will happen anytime soon.  You have the far right that wants to eliminate anything close to marriage for gays and lesbians and you have the far left that wants to redefine what marriage means and calling it anything else is not good enough.  Basically, the far ends of the spectrum want to force their beliefs on everyone.  Pointing out the failures of heterosexual marriages as a reason to change the definition of marriage, though, is a weak argument too.  The divorce rate isn't high because we haven't allowed gays to legally marry; it's high because you have many people who should've never been married getting married, bad choices (like infidelity) within a marriage, AND divorce is easier than ever.  Sigh.       

My thoughts on "The Decision"

Unless you have been in a cave for the last few weeks or simply don't read the news, chances are you have certainly heard about all the drama surrounding LeBron James and his eventual decision July 9 to sign with the Miami Heat after 7 years with the Cleveland Cavaliers.  Not only was this dragged out about as long as it possibly could with new rumors seemingly every day or more, but it culminated with a ONE HOUR ESPN special that James himself named "The Decision" and announced he was "taking his talents to South Beach" in addition to an entire program about himself.  There was quite a negative reaction as you may have guessed from Cleveland fans, even though a lot of us had been expecting that he'd leave anyway.

As a Cavs fan of course I'm disappointed to see a player of this magnitude leave.  As a Cleveland sports fan I've seen it all before: Albert Belle, Manny Ramirez, Jim Thome, CC Sabathia, Cliff Lee, and more.  It seems if a Cleveland player in any sport does well, off they go.  I have a hard time believing LeBron would've ever played for the Cavs if he hadn't been drafted.   But even then, most people (myself included) aren't so upset he's leaving but HOW he decided to leave: dragging everyone through a drama-filled dog and pony show that was all about him.  On top of that, now there's just tons of misinformation out there about WHY he left.

"The Cavs has 7 years and didn't do anything."  Yes, the Cavs had 7 years, but to say they didn't do "anything" is incredibly misleading and inaccurate.  The first 2-3 years don't really count because we have to remember the Cavs were only able to draft James because they were bad enough to be in the lottery.  It's pretty difficult to go from a 17-65 team one year to a championship team the next.  In James' first season, the Cavs improved quite a bit, but still didn't even make the playoffs.  The Cavs didn't even make the playoffs until James' third season.  Changing a team involves not only good management, but also players on market who want to come to the team or are available from other teams via trade.  On top of that, the current owner didn't arrive until 2005, so there was a total change in management and direction at that point.  Finally, just take a look at how well the Cavs have done the last few years, the last 2 seasons in particular.  Both seasons they finished with the best regular-season record in the NBA and were the HEAVY favorites to win the title, only to lose in the playoffs.  How convenient we have hindsight to say the team "wasn't that good" when in reality most people (not just Cavs fans) were stunned how easily the Cavs were beaten by the Magic in 2009 and the Celtics in 2010.  The fact the Cavs didn't win the NBA title in '09 or '10 was not the fault of management for assembling the team.  The only group to blame with the overall number one seed falls early is the team itself.

"LeBron doesn't owe fans anything."  This is the biggest fallacy of all.  Basketball (and all pro sports) is ENTERTAINMENT.  They exist ONLY because of fan support, so athletes and entertainers DO owe fans A LOT; they owe fans their very existence.  Fans are willing to spend money on game tickets, merchandise, TV packages, and more.  If fans didn't spend the money, a team wouldn't pay someone MILLIONS of dollars to play basketball the same way a film company wouldn't pay an actor millions to star in a film if it wasn't going to draw fans.  All businesses have to appreciate their customers or they will lose them, but especially non-essential business like entertainment.  I don't think anyone expects LeBron to give us free tickets or anything; most people just wanted a simple "hey thanks for all the support.  It means a lot and I will miss you all.  This isn't because of you..."  kind of thing.  And not just Cavs fans either, but those fans who have cheered him on from grade school through high school in Akron.  Don't forget, fans regularly filled the 5,500-seat Rhodes Arena in Akron while James was in high school and his team played there.  In fact, his school, tiny St. Vincent-St. Mary High School, regularly outdrew the NCAA Division I University of Akron Zips in their own building while LeBron played there.

The more I see of professional sports like this, the more I question the point of it all.  Don't get me wrong, I LOVE watching sports and "getting into the game."  Even then, I can only go so far and have little sympathy for professional athletes making statements regarding "what's best for my family" when the two choices they have both involve making millions of dollars a year.  As long as we accept, as a culture, that it's OK to live in absolute excess, we will always have poverty; the "haves" and the "have nots".  By no means am I arguing for socialism or communism, no, what I'm arguing for is a voluntary change in our mindset as opposed to a legislated change (i.e. "redistribution of wealth").  As long as there are people willing to spend big bucks on entertainment, entertainers will continue to be paid outrageous salaries.  Not just athletes, but all entertainers.  And remember, I LOVE being an entertainer; I love performing and would love to entertain for a living.  But can I honestly say I think an entertainer plays the same important role in our society as, say, a teacher?  Not at all.  If the NBA went bankrupt tomorrow and shut down, yes, a lot of people would be out of work from food vendors to executives.  But would the world stop turning because we didn't have pro basketball?  Hardly.  Now, say the schools go bankrupt and shut down.  How would that affect our world?  I'd say quite a bit.  Substitute any of our "essential" services (healthcare, law enforcement, military, etc.) into "schools" and you can see my point.  In the end, pro sports and entertainment are great outlets for people, but we don't NEED them in their expensive "professional" states to entertain ourselves.

In the end, I'm still a Cavs fan as I learned long ago not to get attached to certain players because you end up getting burned more times than not.  I could totally relate to Cavs owner Dan Gilbert's open letter to the fans criticizing LeBron James.  Not sure I would've said the same things or in the same way, but heck, he paid the guy millions of dollars and pretty much did everything he could to build the franchise around him, so I'd be pissed too!  Yes, LeBron has the right and ability to take his "talents" wherever he wants, but as fans we also have the right and ability to express our opinions on the matter.  All I can say is go Cavs and I hope James has the same "success" he had in the playoffs with the Cavaliers!

On my way up

I finally moved into the world of professional sports in terms of singing the National Anthem, though I haven't hit the big leagues yet.  This past Monday I sang for the Akron Aeros at Canal Park in nearby Akron, Ohio.  The Aeros are the class AA affiliate of the Cleveland Indians.  If you aren't familiar with the baseball hierarchy, AA ("double A") is two steps below the majors.  Just below the major leagues is class AAA ("triple A") and there is also class A ("single A") and rookie league.  The minor leagues are known as a "farm system".  All teams except one single-A team in Kinston, North Carolina (Kinston Indians) and the Rookie League team (located in Goodyear, Arizona at the Indians' spring training complex) are located right here in Ohio.  The AAA team is in Columbus (Columbus Clippers), the AA team in Akron, and 2 A teams in the area, one in Lake County (Lake County Captains) and one in Niles (Mahoning Valley Scrappers).

Singing in the middle of the field...thanks Manda Garvin for this shot!

One of the shots from Dad...although the Aeros gave us GREAT seats in the first row right behind home plate, they weren't so ideal for getting pictures of me singing since I had to face the flag in left-center field!

Walking off the field, feeling pretty good!!  Thanks to Khris Garvin for this shot!

Walking up to Orbit, the Aero's mascot, after I sang.

Canal Park is a nice minor league stadium that opened in 1997 in downtown Akron.  We've gone to several games there over the years and I've always had a good time.  It's fun to be so close to the action, though being from Kent, I have discovered I can't utter the phrase "Go Akron" so I say "Go Aeros!"  :)  Anyway, I was very happy with how my singing went, though I wasn't able to get a recording of it.  I was able to get several pictures thanks to several family members who came and a group from my local ward (congregation).  There were some problems with my family getting into the stadium as the tickets that were supposed to be reserved weren't, so some confusion.  Even when I got there I got the feeling people didn't know what to do with me.  Having never sung for them before I certainly didn't know where to go!  Once things got straightened out where I was supposed to go and everyone got in, I had a great time and even surprised myself how well I did.  I was worried warming up it wouldn't be so hot, but for whatever reasons, I can "turn it on" when I need to.  The 90 degree and somewhat humid weather didn't hurt either!  I will say I honestly felt like my heart was going to stop after I started singing.  I was standing in the middle of the field thinking how bad it would look if I passed out right there.  Thankfully I made it!  :)

I sent the CD of myself singing the Anthem back in March around my birthday.  I actually sent recordings to 10 teams including the Aeros.  The Aeros were the first team to get back to me, calling the very next day after I sent the recording in regular mail (granted, it didn't have to go far since all our mail goes to Akron anyway).  Of the 9 other recordings I sent out (all to major league teams), I heard back from the Baltimore Orioles (who are the only ones who have an online way to send recordings!), Boston Red Sox, Chicago Cubs, and Pittsburgh Pirates.  The Cubs had already filled the spots for the season and the other teams simply acknowledged that they had received my recording.  The Cleveland Indians, Cincinnati Reds, Detroit Tigers, New York Mets, and Toronto Blue Jays never sent any notice that they received anything.  What I learned is to start sending the recordings out in early February instead of March.  I am planning on sending recordings to the Cleveland Browns and Cleveland Cavaliers soon.

This is Kirtland! 2010

"This is Kirtland!" has opened for the 2010 season.  We opened last night and had our second performance tonight.  There is one more performance tomorrow night followed by 4 more next week and three the following. So far things have gone pretty well.  There are still a few things that need to be worked on and tweaked, but for the most part it really can't get much better than it already is.

I am again playing Sidney Rigdon, marking the first time I've ever reprised a role in the five years I've been part of the show.  I've been part of this show in some form since it started back in 2004 and have been part of the cast since 2005 every year except 2008 when I was in graduate school (hard to believe it's been 2 years already since grad school!!).  Every year prior I've been a different part: 2005 I was more or less a flexible role having lines as John Johnson but being credited on the cast picture board as Titus Billings.  In 2006 I played Professor Seixas and was a general member of the mens chorus; I also didn't dance that year.  I played N.K. Whitney in 2007.  I came back last year and got the role of Sidney Rigdon and also got put not only in the men's dance numbers but also the couples' dance.  This year, already being familiar with the Sidney Rigdon part, rehearsals were pretty easy as I didn't have to spend much time learning lines or music.  Basically all I had to do this year was learn some slightly new blocking and new dance moves for two of the dances I do in the big feast scene.

Once the run is over July 17, I'll probably blog a little more about my overall experience.  For the most part I've enjoyed it again, mostly because of the people I work with; they're tons of fun to be around.  We've definitely had some challenges this year with the changes that were made and with all the new people.  I'll admit I was pretty bummed when I saw how many people from last year weren't coming back.  Last year was so special for me for so many reasons; if I could replicate it I would, though I wouldn't trade this year's cast away either.  For anyone interested, more information can be found at www.thisiskirtland.com.  Doors open at 6:30 PM every night and the show starts at 7:30.  We have comment cards in every program, so if you do come, please fill out the cards even if you just do so anonymously.  I'm anxious to read some of these comments as the show progresses.  Hopefully we'll have some bigger crowds too.  Opening night was half full or less and tonight wasn't a whole lot bigger.

This article was in the Record-Courier today.  There was also an online version which used the full picture I sent and didn't crop it.  My dad took the picture during last year's run and I liked it.  Since I'm the same character and have pretty much the exact same costume this year I figured I might as well use it.  No one in the background, though, is in the show this year ironically enough!

Follow up to last post

So I got a comment from an anonymous poster that the <center> and </center> tags are "depreciated," which basically means they don't work in all browsers (though they do obviously work in mine) and will eventually not work at all.  This commenter recommended I Google new "center" codes in CSS.  The one I found is only slightly different.  I placed it in the same place as the previous post.  At the front end of the code I placed <div align="center"> (instead of <center>) and at the back end I have </div> (instead of </center>).  It worked on my laptop (Windows Vista) in my Firefox browser, but my Internet Explorer 8 browser (which I rarely use) seems to be having some problems adding extra padding to the right side of the page.  When I edited it in the Blogger design program, the extra padding disappeared in the preview, but was still there even after applying the changes.  Of note, IE 8 also adds the extra padding when I open the blog on my desktop (Windows 7 but in 4:3 view) but it's not initially; it opens correctly, then adds the extra padding as it finishes loading.  Looks like I'm back to searching for some solutions here.  If you want to see the blog the way it's SUPPOSED to look, use something OTHER than Internet Explorer (which is what AOL uses for their browser too, by the way).  

Success!

If only this were job related, then I'd be REALLY happy!  But for now I'll take my small consolation prizes and small victories.  In relation to my previous blog post, I was finally successful last night in getting my blog header centered and getting the margins and spacing where I wanted it.  After all the countless hours reading blogs and help pages, I finally figured out on my own through trial and error how to center it.  Turns out it was far more difficult to find than I thought, but of course all it needed was the <center> and </center> tags around it and voila!  On my desktop, which uses a standard 4:3 monitor, nothing looks different because the header image is slightly wider than the blog's margins.  On my laptop, though, which has a 16:9 monitor, it is definitely centered now!

The trick was finding just where the command was in the script.  What made it difficult is that it was in the more detailed version, so I first had to click on "Expand Widget Templates" when I was in the "Edit HTML" part of the blog design (not to be confused with the "Edit HTML" tab above the area where you compose your posts).  Once I expanded the HTML to basically show everything, I was able to locate the section on the main header "widget".  There I found three "options" written into the code; the three you can choose if you upload an image to use as your blog header: behind title text, above the title text, or in place of the title text.  Since I was using the image in place of the title text, I found the small section that dealt with it.  It was under <!--Show the image only-->.  I placed the "center commands" (seen above) around this:

<img expr:alt="data:title" expr:height="data:height" expr:id="data:widget.instanceId + "_headerimg"" expr:src="data:sourceUrl" expr:width="data:width" style="display: block;" /> 

Of course that doesn't mean much to anyone, but it's basically telling the computer how to display the image when it's in place of the title text.  I figured I needed to find the specific command because everything else I was trying wasn't centering my image and I noticed the header itself was centered, just not the image in the header.  I was able to figure that out when I put a border around the header and the box itself was centered, but the image inside the box was still on the left.  Whew...