Yesterday we went up to Gilgal Gardens in Salt Lake City. I took this photo of a Sphynx with the face of Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon church.

This is my first attempt at HDR photography using CHDK (a third party firmware enhancement for Canon cameras).

It is amazing to me how many people misunderstand national doctrines like the first amendment and the separation of church and state.

Roseanne bar (who actually used to be a Mormon herself, believe it or not) recently posted on her blog:

we citizens gay and straight pay for the police and the firemen that protect the property of the mormon church, which spans entire blocks of los angeles and orange county. let's stop doing this until this backward hateful racist and homophobic organization which allows child and plural marriage organization called the mormon church steps up and becomes american, and starts to respect the laws of freedom that this country was based on!!! the church is going down over prop 8..this is my prophecy!!! [sic]

Ignoring for a moment her poor writing skills (I would think her shift key is broken except she does sprinkle capital letters every once in a while throughout her blog) and misunderstanding of the LDS church, let's focus on her claim that the church is not respecting the "laws of freedom that this country was based on." I saw this claim echoed elsewhere, such as on Daily Kos:

It seems the LDS does [sic] not understand there is a separation between church and state (and they well should given their history).

Does anyone really believe that an organization should not have a right to weigh in on a political position simply because they have tax exempt status as a faith-based organization? The first amendment is granted to all Americans and protects either side of the debate. In this case, both sides felt very strongly that they were in the right and that the other side wanted to trample on their rights.

Should we limit free speech based on how offensive some people might find it? While Hollywood and the media in general push more and more increasingly perverse material, they yell at others whose political ideas differ from theirs and claim that their opinions are offensive.

Maybe they are offensive, but a country which would silence people who come in strongly on one side of a controversial issue may not have allowed the discussion on gay marriage in the first place.

Let me say it again: such a place may not have allowed arguments in favor of gay marriage to begin with.

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people whose opinions we despise, then we do not believe in the freedom of expression.

The people of California already made their voices heard on this subject and said that they did not want gay marriage in their state. Then, four judges decided that they were smarter than the people and that they should allow gay marriage after all. The will of four people outweighed the majority of the entire state of California.

Nobody can claim gay marriage was intended as a guarantee under California's constitution. It wasn't written that way and it had never even been a serious question until recent history!

So four judges usurp control of California law. This is not a democracy. A democracy is a place where majority rules. A place where minority rules is called an Oligarchy. It is counter to everything this country was founded on. If you want a place where minority rules, you would do better in some other country. To reverse the decision of California's Oligarchy will require a democratic process. Seems a bit unfair, right?

Now we have people picketing outside of places of worship in California because they supported proposition 8. The fact that this is their right does not erase the fact that they appear to be completely blind to their own hypocrisy. They are crying for investigations into the tax exempt status of the LDS church while ignoring the many faith based organizations that supported their side of the argument.

The protestors want their cake and to eat it too - they say any faith based organizations that supported prop 8 should have their tax exempt statuses stripped while nobody complained when they were getting money from churches on the other side of the fence.

If you don't believe me, look at these tons of churches listed as supporting opposition to proposition 8 on the noonprop8.com website.

So I guess a church is only acting illegally if their opinion isn't the same as mine?

This is nothing short of a direct and disgusting abuse of speech rights. You cannot enjoy the umbrella of the first amendment while denying it to others. Anyone who reads the first amendment and thinks it should not apply to faith based organizations needs to learn how to read. Imagine where we'd be if the government were to step in and start telling church leaders of any religion what they can and can't preach to their people. We fought wars over this. It's not a complicated thing.

These protestors want religion out of public discourse. They want separation of faith from influencing state matters. Yet they want the state to come in and dictate what they're allowed to believe in. It's really despicable when you think about it. A perversion imagined by those attacking the very thing that allows them to sit in luxury and attack things.

Think about this: should state employees be entitled to religious opinions when the state is paying their wage? Under the protestors inane re-imagining of the separation of church and state doctrine, the answer seems to be no.

Please, before commenting remember that this article is not about the rights and wrongs of gay marriage. It is about the horrible and hypocritical way in which gay marriage's supporters have gone about promoting it.

I watched the election coverage in our "Super Spectacular 2008 Election Coverage Obamanation McCainification Center MegaScreen Ultra-Def Extratacular 2008 Election Coverage Headquarters" that we put together in our living room. I kept noticing that the speakers and reporters kept saying it was "an historic night."

This picture has nothing to do with anything.

This sounded odd to me, and I thought that there was perhaps a secret rule of the English language at work that I was not aware of. To the best of my knowledge, "an" goes before any word that starts with a vowel sound and "a" goes before any word with a consonant sound. Since "historic" starts with a consonant sound, it seems correct that it would be proceeded by an "a."

Some words that start with the letter H do so silently, and have a vowel sound first. It makes sense that these words should be proceeded by "an" as in "an heir." But "historic doesn't fall into this category.

I did some googling.

The first site I came to claims that "an" is appropriately used because some speakers prefer to use "an" before any word starting with an H that is three or more syllables. This seems like a pretty obscure rule. While "I have an hypothesis" sounds just a little bit weird "I had an hysterectomy" sound really stupid.

Another site I came to brought out the big guns with references from real printed books. Shamelessly, I will republish the relevant part here.

For choosing a or an, spelling doesn't matter; pronunciation does. A is for consonant sounds; an is for vowel sounds. The ever-popular an historic is incorrect, at least for American speakers, because historic does not begin with a vowel sound. Even those Americans who say "an istoric" will admit that they say "historic," with the consonant h, when the word stands alone. I don't care whether "an istoric" rolls off your tongue more easily than "a historic"; you don't go altering your pronunciation of a word in order to change the article you use before it. Your comfort is none of the language's concern.

Most of the times I've heard "an historic," however, it has been from blustery types who heartily pronounce the h. Think Howard Cosell.

So maybe people who use "an historic" simply don't know how to pronounce the word "historic." That doesn't seem right though, I'm pretty sure Obama didn't say it was "an istoric" night like some kind of 19th century street rat.

Okay, here's a quiz. Put the appropriate article in front of the following words:

• hotel
• historic
• heroic

According to the stylebook for the London Times, each of those words should be proceeded by an "an." Like "I'm going to go stay at an hotel." But fortunately this is British english and their language is even more screwed up than ours (like when referring to a singular noun that denotes a group they use "were" instead of "was"). There is no such rule in American English.

So the sources seem unsure - some saying "an historic" is technically incorrect but okay to use, and some saying it is correct because of some obscure rule. I would tend to agree with this writer and their list of authorities on the subject and will use "a" before historic.

Mike Rowe, the guy from the show Dirty Jobs, has had an exciting career. Probably his least known (but most important?) professional accomplishment was being the uncredited singing voice of Spike in The Land Before Time XIII. For non-Romans, that means 13.

Now you know, and knowing is half the battle.

Hey people! I'm in a band called The Powerless and we're playing a show on Thursday, Oct. 23rd with Quasi-Stellar Radio and Coup De Grace. The show starts at 8:30pm and it would be an honor if you came and brought every single last person you know.

It is rare for us to play live as Oli is usually too lazy to pack up his drums. We have been working on many new awesome songs that we will be playing. You won't want to miss it. Please come. Bring your friends.

The Powerless

Velour Live Music Gallery: 135 North University Ave.
Thursday, Oct 23rd 8:30pm
$5 probably

When it comes to small electronics, I usually live by the opinion that by the time it's worn out physically, I will have moved on to something else anyway. I don't normally protect my phone, mp3 player, computer, or what have you in any special way and they usually show evidence of this fact by the time I'm done with them.

I also hate cases. The first thing people usually get after buying a new phone or iPod is a new case for it. I hate the added bulk - if the engineers of the iPod wanted it to have a case, they would have made one for it. A case just turns a sleek beacon of technology into an ugly leather-wrapped mess. Not into it.

My attitude towards electronics was challenged after I got a HUGE scratch on my phone's screen after only having it a couple of months. It was annoying to say the least. Shortly after that I was given the opportunity to try a new screen protector from a company where a friend works. He sent me one for my phone and for my Sony eReader. I decided that if I was going to put a screen protector on my phone I might as well buy a new screen for it so I had something worth protecting.

I received and installed the new screen in my phone and found that it was defective. The screen displayed fine, but the touch part didn't work. This ended up providing me with a good testing opportunity. While I was waiting for the replacement screen to arrive, I set out with reckless abandon to stress test the new screen - sans protector. I put it in my bag with keys and pens, set things on top of it, pretty much let everything happen to it that any normal person would freak out about.

After a few days, the screen had built up a healthy amount of scratches. Nothing big, but it just wasn't as nice and shiny as when it was new.

The new screen arrived and I installed it along with the screen protector my friend had sent me. That was a few months ago and I have treated my phone with the same carelessness as before. This time, not a single scratch has appeared. It looks the same as the day I got it. I also installed a screen protector to my Sony eReader, which I then tried to cut with a steak knife - it didn't even leave a mark. I'm impressed.

Apparently this stuff is the same material they put on the blades of helicopter blades to protect them. It's thin, doesn't add to the bulk of your device at all, and is super effective. I have recommended them to a few friends already and would recommend them to anyone looking to protect anything from scratches. They have protectors cut to fit almost any device at the invisible shield website.

Also check out their youtube channel, which shows invisible shield employees mistreating electronics and performing various tests on their material (the one where they put like 1,000 pounds of weights on one thin sheet of material and it holds without a problem is pretty amazing).

This didn't make big news, so I thought I'd post it here. Nick Reynolds of The Kingston Trio, a band I gained a love for after having listened to them on every road trip growing up, has died at 75. Enjoy a great song from a great group in his memory:

(Reynolds is the shorter of the three.)

Even though I sent my letter to Cap'n Crunch less then 24 hours ago, it has somehow already found its way to the S.S. Guppy and I have receive a response from the First Mate! This can mean only one thing: even though the captain is presumably roaming the high seas, he still has an Internet connection. That's my boy!

Here's the letter:

Desk of the Executive Officer, S.S. Guppy

1st Squadron, 1st Expeditionary Fleet,

Crunch Island Merchant Marine Base

Bountiful Bay Harbor, Crunch Island

Ahoy Sam!

The Cap'n and crew are very happy that you have been enjoying our Cap'n Crunch cereal since you were a kid. My favorite part is slurping up the last of the milk in my bowl which has some of the crushed up crunch in it too.

However, I'm not sure we would be able to keep it nice and powdery; even in a cool metal can like you suggest. It might start clumping up into big globs and that might disappoint a lot of crunch lovers.

On top of that there are legal reasons why we are unable to accept your suggestion. Misunderstandings may develop if suggestions from outside the Crunch Island Merchant Marine are accepted, especially if we are currently working on a similar idea or if we decide to pursue a similar idea in the future. We hope you understand.

But I hope you keep those creative juices flowing. To help inspire you we are mailing you out a Cap'n Crunch recipe brochure and a couple other goodies. Please look forward to receiving them via US Mail in about a week.

Don't worry too much about the Soggmaster and his wet end cronies, Sam. We have installed a whole new battery of Crunch cannons on the good old Guppy and keep them primed and loaded at all times.

Fair winds and safe voyages,

Michael

First Mate, S.S. Guppy

I love cereal dust.

As all the tiny pieces of breakfast cereal are jostled around and handled during shipment, tiny little chunks break off and collect at the bottom of the box. This stuff is like a highly concentrated version of whatever you're eating. It's the nuclear bomb of cereal flavor experience.

I think Quaker Oats should come out with a dust version of Cap'n Crunch (whose full name, I recently learned, is Captain Horatio Magellan Crunch). In fact, I think I will write them a letter to that effect.

Do you eat the dust?

Dear Haratio Magellan Crunch,

I've very much enjoyed your cereal ever since I was a kid. It's pretty much the most delicious breakfast cereal ever. My favorite part is the cereal dust you get at the bottom of the box - cap'n crunch in its purest form, like highly refined weapons grade uranium.

This got me to thinking - why not come out with an entirely cereal dust version of your cereal?! It could come in a metal can that look all ominous and serius and has health warnings all over it and stuff. You probably don't even need to make a new machine to produce the cereal dust, I'm sure you can sweep it up right off the floor of your existing factory!

Let me know what you think of my idea. If you decide to use it, I do not expect to be compensated in any way (except perhaps a ride on your boat sometime?)

Yours,

Sam Garfield

p.s Soggies suck!

Here's how to make a lot of money really fast.

1. Get elected to congress.

2. Wait for the market to fail.

3. "Reject" the plan to bail out the market.

4. As consumer confidence hits an all time low and stocks begin to come crashing down, invest everything you have.

5. Wait a day or two and then "reconsider" that whole bail out thing.

6. Profit as confidence returns. Yes sir, a piece of that $700 billion can be yours!