I use FutureQuest to host my domains. I found them a few years ago after conducting exhaustive research into web hosts that supported PHP and MySQL. They are not the cheapest, but I decided on them because they were highly recommended by people who actually use these technologies.
In the several years that I’ve hosted my sites with FutureQuest, I’ve been impressed by the technical expertise of the FQ staff. Well, they came through for me once again this weekend.
Yesterday, Katie and I were not able to send email via FQ’s SMTP server. After doing some diagnosing, I concluded that our home ISP, Cox Internet, had started blocking outbound port 25 (to keep people on their network from sending spam). I sent a support request to FQ, asking whether it would be possible to run my SMTP server on a different port. Their answer: they already run customers’ SMTP servers both on port 25 and another port, just to deal with this problem. So, I set my email client settings to use this other port, and I’m back in business!

This afternoon I ran to Home Depot for a few items. When the man in front of me got to the register, he handed his debit card to the cashier. She looked at it and then asked him for an ID. He said it was his fiancee’s card. The cashier called the manager, the manager said he couldn’t use it, he pulled out his own card and paid. I was pleased to see that Home Depot was taking such security measures.
When I saw the cashier call the manager, I jumped to the next register. My cashier didn’t ask to see my debit card. I happened to walk out at the same time as the guy who was ‘carded’–who happened to be black. I told him, “They didn’t ask to see my credit card. You think it was racial profiling?”
He shrugged and answered, “Probably.” We parted ways. I got the distinct impression that it was a scenario he’s used to. Pretty sad state of affairs.

I don’t mean to blow my own horn, but I’m a man of many talents. Yesterday, I baked two different types of Christmas cookies; today I pulled up the bathroom toilet (though I think I’ll hire a contractor to replace the rotten sub-flooring under the toilet). Last weekend, I sewed a Christmas tree skirt and hemmed pants for the kids.

John Scalzi has compiled The Ten Least Successful Holiday Specials of All Time (that never were). Funny, but some real ones were just as bad (I’m thinking the Star Wars Christmas Special).

Speaking of cute dogs, one of my favorite sites is The Daily Oliver. Canadian Dean Allen, who lives in rural southern France, posts a photo every day of his Weimaraners Oliver and Hugo (he named the site when he only had Oliver). A visit to the site always brightens my day.

Our Golden Retriever Xena has enough retriever instincts that she carries objects–balls, small stuffed animals–around in her mouth frequently, but not enough to reliably play fetch. When I manage to get ahold of her flat ball and throw it off the deck into the yard, she runs after it and picks it up, but she doesn’t want to give it back. If I come near her when she has the ball, she runs the other way, because she doesn’t want me to take it from her. Oh well; she’s cute.

The United Church of Christ, a mainstream Christian denomination with 1.6 million members in the United States, has launched a new ad campaign to emphasize its inclusive nature. But the CBS and NBC televisions networks are declining to air the UCC’s television ad (see also CNN)because they say the ad is ‘too controversial.’
CBS’ written response to the the UCC said in part:

Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups by other individuals and organizations,” reads an explanation from CBS, “and the fact the Executive Branch has recently proposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast on the [CBS and UPN] networks.

As far as I can tell (I haven’t yet seen the ad, only read descriptions of it), the UCC’s television ad doesn’t say anything about gay and lesbian couples, only that everyone, including gays and lesbians, are welcome in their church. Yet, CBS and NBC view the ad in the context of the current civil debate over gay marriage. This is not a good sign of the direction our society is going in.

A comment on MeFi puts it much more eloquently than I did in my recent blog post:

Typical anti-Christian MeFi thread unfolding… so I’d like to remove a couple of the straw man arguments from the discussion if I can.
Leviticus 18:22 and 22:13 – cited above – are Old Testament. In the broadest terms, the Old Testament chronicles the failure of God’s chosen people to live under the Law. Anyone who wants to try to live under the strictures of Old Testament Law is faced with this command: Persons committing homosexual acts are to be executed. This is the unambiguous command of scripture.
But Christians today live under the New Covenant of Jesus. Unable to meet God’s standards, we stood in need of someone to intercede for us. Jesus played that role. His teachings were all about love. There is only one passage in the NT that is unambiguously critical of homosexual behavior, Romans 1:26-27, and it is really about the absence of love, not homosexuality per se. The Message translation brings this out clearly:

26Worse followed. Refusing to know God, they soon didn’t know how to be human either–women didn’t know how to be women, men didn’t know how to be men. 27Sexually confused, they abused and defiled one another, women with women, men with men–all lust, no love. And then they paid for it, oh, how they paid for it–emptied of God and love, godless and loveless wretches.

The Bible has no sexual ethic. It accurately describes the rules that were in place 2000+ years ago, which were the sexual mores of the time. Mores change over time. Behaviors that were commonplace then are condemned now. Prostitution, polygamy, concubines and very early marriage (for the girl, age 11-13) are just a few examples. Behaviors that were condemned then are commonplace now. Nudity (under certain conditions), birth control, masturbation, naming sexual organs (the Bible uses “foot” or “thigh” instead!), intercourse during menstruation, and yes, homosexuality were all forbidden. But the Bible does have a love ethic. Ethics don’t change over time.
Rather than focusing on how archaic laws from thousands of years ago might be prejudiced against homosexuals today, why not focus on the new message, delivered by Jesus Himself when he asked, “Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?” (Luke 12:57).
In order to judge for yourself what is right, you need to have a firm ethical foundation. The Bible offers one that has stood the test of time for 2000 years. It is an ethos of love, and truly adopting it means living it to the standards set by Jesus. How you live it is up to you, but at least in part it surely means rejecting any mores – including sexual mores – that violate your own integrity and that of others, and striving to meet the standard of “love thy neighbor as thyself” as exemplified by Jesus. Some Christians are going to oppose homosexuality on that basis, others will not. It is, however, sad to see it politicized by both Christians and non-Christians. Christians, at least, should approach the issue from the perspective of love.
The Bible could be a valuable tool for homosexuals who seek to dialogue with conservatives or fundamentalists or evangelists on modern day issues of sexual mores and politics. Meaningful dialogue is easiest when parties approach a topic from a shared perspective, and when the perspective is “love” that’s even easier. You should read the Bible. It’s a good book.

The following line from a radio ad for life insurance caught my attention this morning on the drive to work: “Ask about our term life policies that guarantee your money back even if you don’t die.”
Pretty safe offer for them to make, I guess.

Conservatives often claim that America is ‘a Christian nation.’ Although I can counter that claim generally, I’ve often wanted to be able to cite specific evidence. Ms Magazine has summarized that evidence. Nice.