7.08.2010

Connect with my church on Facebook

<!-- Facebook Badge START -->REUNION Hawaii<br/><br/>Promote Your Page Too<!-- Facebook Badge END -->

Posted via email from Kahu Gary's posterous

7.07.2010

If ever, NOW!

As a pastor and church leader I make it a point to see that my church never endorses candidates or takes partisan sides in elections. We certainly encourage our people to vote and participate in the political process, but we never tell anyone WHO to vote for.

I wanted to make that clear, so that what I say next is clearly understood to be my personal view as a citizen, completely apart from my role as a pastor.

If ever Hawaii needed to wake up and be sure we elect the right person as our next Governor, that time is NOW. There are three major front-runners in the race… Honolulu Mayor Mufi Hannemann, former U.S. Representative Neil Abercrombie, and Lt. Governor James "Duke" Aiona.
I like Mufi, generally. He is smart, often church-friendly, and — other than being a Democrat — is someone I could find marginally acceptable. He is tap-dancing around the issue of same-sex marriage a bit. Mufi is LDS (Mormon) and the LDS church has been very active in the fight against legalizing and legitimizing same-sex marriage, but Mufi has yet to come out with a strong traditional marriage only position for fear of alienating his Democrat voter base.

Neil? Mr. Abercrombie is your basic classic, ACLU 60s radical leftwing liberal. He lists his religious preference as Non-denominational Protestant, but every position he takes on matters of morality is the opposite of my own, so I am not quite sure what brand of protestantism he means. I think I'd prefer almost anyone over Neil for Governor, but he is a frontrunner. The Democratic Party has anointed him as their choice and he is getting the endorsements of the usual suspects. Thanks, but no thanks.

Which brings us to Duke. Lt. Governor Aiona is a born-again Catholic believer. Of the three major candidates he is the only one who is decisively on the side of righteousness in the matter of same-sex marriage. I have personal confidence that he will push for a public referendum on the issue over further legislative action, and -- if the legislature does take the matter up again -- he would certainly veto it.

For that reason, among others, I will be voting for Duke Aiona for Governor of Hawaii and hope all my friends will do the same.

Posted via email from Kahu Gary's posterous

"But... I was BORN this way!"

The debate over nature vs nurture in the matter of same-sex marriage keeps coming up. The argument goes like this: you can't hold it against me that I am attracted to people of the same gender… I believe i was BORN this way, so it is just how I am wired!"

The science on this matter is inconclusive, at best, and confusing, at worst. Battling experts make claims refuted by the studies of others.
For the sake of discussion let me work from the assumption (flawed, in my view) that some people are born with a propensity to be attracted to members of their same gender. An aside is necessary at this point: since some people seem to drift in and out of gayness (Anne Heche, former partner of Ellen DeGeneres seems to be a classic example) and some people in prison become "gay for the stay" it is obvious that no such blanket pronouncement that "all gays are born that way" can be made. A second disclaimer: I frequently hear "who would willingly CHOOSE to be gay when it means being rejected by family and disdained by society?" -- you can understand why the straight world sees that argument is specious during Gay Pride Week. There is no "Gay Shame Week" or "Please help me, I hate being this way week." Gay Pride Week is a time when the most outrageous, flamboyant, in-your-face aspects of the gay lifestyle are celebrated and paraded, so, yeah, it looks a lot like a choice to most people despite the coy denials. (But, I digress…)

So, the argument goes, since gays are born that way, society should not only tolerate, but celebrate that difference, and remove all legal constraints and silence any voice that disagrees. Let's follow that logic to its natural conclusion.

I am a 60-year-old man. I was probably born with a natural propensity to be attracted to beautiful 18-year-old girls. But I have been married for 39 years to a lovely woman who is no longer 18, but in her late 50s. I am able to keep my propensity for young hard-bodies firmly under control and focus my affections on my wife. If we buy the "I was born this way" argument, what are we to do with those who swear they were born with a natural attraction to children? After all, they can't help it… they were BORN that way.

Posted via email from Kahu Gary's posterous

7.06.2010

Lingle's veto - my thoughts

There's a way of life that looks harmless enough; 
   look again—it leads straight to hell.
Sure, those people appear to be having a good time, 
   but all that laughter will end in heartbreak.
Proberbs 14:12-13 (The Message)

I am old enough, at 60, to have a bit of perspective on issues that the passionate young often lack. I hear people saying that the issue of same-gender marriage, or the exact equivalent by another name, is a civil rights issue. I can understand that argument to an extent — I honestly can… but it is really not that simple.

Everyone who has deeply held core beliefs bases them on something. (Read the first few chapters of Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis) For me, and historically in America, our shared fundamental values have flowed from the Judeo-Christian understanding of moral values. Even though we try to be tolerant of those who base theirs on something else, the strength of America has been built upon our mutually shared understanding that it is important for society to express a public morality that transcends religion: regardless of faith, we have a public morality that seeks to discourage public intoxication, while allowing the private consumption of alcohol. We recognize that married people sometimes cheat on their spouses, but we heap upon those who commit adultery appropriate shame. We know, as a society, that we can never completely eliminate the use of recreational narcotics, yet we, as a society, continue to maintain laws against such use, and express our displeasure toward those who indulge. In other words, we, as a society have always legislated matters of morality as perceived by the majority.

Homosexuality is one of those public morality issues. I don't really care what any two consenting adults want to do with each other, or to one another in private. I have some pretty definite opinions about the morality of such behavior, but I recognize that private behavior is impossible to control. In the early days of the so-called "gay rights" movement, the cry was for an end to active persecution of homosexuals. The Stonewall riots in NYC took place the year I graduated from high school. They were a reaction to police raids on a gay gathering spot. 

Gays of the 60s said "Just leave us alone and we'll be happy. That's all we want, is just to be left alone!" That was a position most people found reasonable: leave them alone. But, once left alone (at least somewhat) and given tacit permission of the greater society to gather in private, the progression began…

From "leave us alone", to
Accept us for who we are, to
Celebrate us!, to
Remove every legal difference between us the rest of society.

It was at the "celebrate us" stage that the push back began. The overwhelming majority of Americans find homosexuality repugnant, as evidenced in referendum after referendum. They may be willing to look the other way and give tacit approval to private conduct they find deviant, but they are unwilling to applaud that behavior or celebrate it. 

So now we have reached the stage of gay demands to be afforded all the rights and privileges of their straight neighbors, and they can't understand why everyone is not on board. It is because we, as a society still reserve the right to legislate a common civic morality. Yes, it is at its root faith-based, but it far transcends people of faith. Agnostics, atheists and people of faith share the understanding that there are things about which society takes a civic morality stance and says "this far, and no further."

The proponents of moving toward same-sex relationship acceptance never want the matter to be decided by the people; they aways try to end-run the civic morality views of the community by attempting to utilize activist judges or liberal-Democrat-dominated legislatures to overrule the clearly expressed will of the people.

The canard most often used is, "Well, if the issue of SLAVERY had been put to a popular vote in the 1860s we would still have slaves today!" The obvious — laughable — flaw in that emotional argument is that if we had voted on slavery in the 1860s the slaves would have had no vote and no voice, but this is not slavery, and it is not 1860: it is 2010, and if we hold yet another referendum on whether to override our sense of common civic morality and elevate gay relationships to the equal position of straight relationships, the gay people will have the same right to vote as I have.

The outcome will be the same as every public referendum on the subject. People don't care so much about private, consensual activity, but they prefer a common civic morality that attaches disapproval to gay relationships. 

Posted via email from Kahu Gary's posterous

6.28.2010

TEDTalks (video) - Derek Sivers: Weird, or just different? - Derek Sivers (2009)

Check out this episode of TEDTalks (video) at Derek Sivers: Weird, or just different? - Derek Sivers (2009) - http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TEDTalks_video/~3/u7p6qmHV1s0/755


Sent from my iPad

Posted via email from Kahu Gary's posterous

5.03.2010

Strike up Ruffles and Flourishes! GOAL!

This morning I achieved my goal weight of 180 pounds.

(He pauses, waiting for the cheers of the crowd to die sown…)

I am very happy to have attained this goal, and hope to keep losing; I'm setting modest incremental goals, so I think I will go for 175 and see how that works.

Posted via email from Formerly Fat

5.01.2010

4.30.2010

So close!

Under two pounds now until my first goal weight.

Posted via email from Formerly Fat

4.29.2010

Hawaii Voters – Please remember in November

Here are the people who need to file for unemployment. They are the members of the Hawaii House of Representatives who ignored the expressed will of the electorate and pulled a Pearl Harbor style sneak attack in the final hours of the Legislative Session, Passing HB444, the Civil Unions bill. Keep this list handy. If any of these people are from your area, please vote for anyone with a pulse who runs against them.

---

Della Au Belatti

25th Representative District

Hawaii State Capitol, Room 331

415 South Beretania Street

Honolulu, HI 96813

Phone 808-586-9425; fax 808-586-9431

email repbelatti@Capitol.hawaii.gov

---

Lyla B. Berg

18th Representative District

Hawaii State Capitol, Room 324

415 South Beretania Street

Honolulu, HI 96813

Phone 808-586-6510; fax 808-586-6511

email repberg@Capitol.hawaii.gov

---

Joe Bertram, III

11th Representative District

Hawaii State Capitol, Room 311

415 South Beretania Street

Honolulu, HI 96813

phone 808-586-8525; fax 808-586-8529

From Maui, toll free 984-2400 + 68525

e-mail repbertram@Capitol.hawaii.gov

---

Tom Brower

23rd Representative District

Hawaii State Capitol, Room 315

415 South Beretania Street

Honolulu, HI 96813

phone 808-586-8520; fax 808-586-8524

E-mail repbrower@Capitol.hawaii.gov

---

Rida Cabanilla

42nd Representative District

Hawaii State Capitol, Room 442

415 South Beretania Street

Honolulu, HI 96813

phone 808-586-6080; fax 808-586-6081

E-mail repcabanilla@Capitol.hawaii.gov

---

Mele Carroll

13th Representative District

Hawaii State Capitol, Room 405

415 South Beretania Street

Honolulu, HI 96813

Phone 808-586-6790; fax 808-586-6779

From Maui, toll free 984-2400 + 66790

From Molokai and Lanai,

toll free 1-800-468-4644 + 66790

E-mail repcarroll@Capitol.hawaii.gov

---

Pono Chong

49th Representative District

Hawaii State Capitol, Room 404

415 South Beretania Street

Honolulu, HI 96813

phone 808-586-9490; fax 808-586-9496

E-mail repchong@Capitol.hawaii.gov

---

Denny Coffman

6th Representative District

Hawaii State Capitol, Room 317

415 South Beretania Street

Honolulu, HI 96813

phone 808-586-9605; fax 808-586-9608

E-mail repcoffman@capitol.hawaii.gov

---

Faye P. Hanohano

4th Representative District

Hawaii State Capitol, Room 303

415 South Beretania Street

Honolulu, HI 96813

phone 808-586-6530; fax 808-586-6531

From the Big Island, toll free 974-4000 + 66530

E-mail rephanohano@Capitol.hawaii.gov

---

Robert N. Herkes

5th Representative District

Hawaii State Capitol, Room 320

415 South Beretania Street

Honolulu, HI 96813

phone 808-586-8400; fax 808-586-8404

From the Big Island, toll free 974-4000 + 68400

E-mail repherkes@Capitol.hawaii.gov

---

Jon Riki Karamatsu

41st Representative District

Posted via email from Kahu Gary's posterous

4.27.2010

Turning 11, Pushing 60

Today is April 27, 2010 -- a milestone day for my Compassion sponsored child, Felma. I sent her Birthday Cards weeks ago, and arranged for a gift to be purchased for her, but I wish I could be in Davao to sing "Happy Birthday" to her and give her a hug.

She's an adorable kid. I told people that I thought I won the sponsored child lottery when I met her. I pray for her often, think of her often, and have incredible hopes and dreams for her future. She is young, and poor, and has no easy access to a computer or internet access. It is unlikely that she will see this, at least any time soon. But when she is released from poverty, educated and financially secure, she may have her own computer and she may be able to discover this post from her past. I want her to know that her sponsor loved her, worried about her welfare, and supported her dreams.

Happy Birthday, dear Felma. May your 11th year be your best year so far.

I have her birthday on my mind as I ponder my own pending birthday. On May 19 I will turn 60. Sixty. SIX-OH. It sounds implausible… impossible to me that I will be sixty in three weeks. I don't feel sixty, but when I look in the mirror I see a face staring back at me that I hardly recognize. Sixty. In three weeks. Wow.

Posted via email from Kahu Gary's posterous

4.25.2010

2 Pounds to go!

The goal is in sight... so very close. Just two more pounds til I hit my 180 target! You can do it, too.

Posted via email from Formerly Fat

Almost there!

My goal was to lose down to 180, and I am only 2.4 pounds from reaching that goal! Once I hit it, I'll set a new goal of 170-175 range. I feel better without lugging around basically the weight of a heavy bowling ball, most of which was in my gut.

Posted via email from Formerly Fat

4.19.2010

Not as bad as I feared

After 2 weeks in Korea, eating what was served to me, I really worried that I had gained all my weight back. After resuming my treadmill habit today I weighed in and... TA-DA!... only 1.7 pounds gained!

Posted via email from Formerly Fat

4.11.2010

The effect of the American Diet?

Michelangelo's David...

…after eating the American diet for a couple of years.

Posted via email from Formerly Fat

4.08.2010

Land of the Morning Calm? Really?

I am in Korea, which, I am told, is the Land of the Morning Calm.

That name is either meant to be irony, or it was given by someone who has never been to Korea. Koreans get up early. Really, really early. It seems to be part of the national DNA. They get up early, I am told to pray. This is a practice near and dear to Korean Christians' hearts, but I learned this week that the practice predates Christianity as a Korean tradition. In any case, churches, mountains and pretty much all of Korea stir very early and go to prayer at about 5:00 AM. Koreans, in case you are unaware, are a fervent and vocal people, and they pray with great vigor… and great volume. At 5:00 AM.

I am — for those of you who are unfamiliar — very much a night person. If my clocks even HAVE a 5:00 AM I am totally unaware of it, having almost never actually experienced a 5:00 AM.

Morning Calm. Maybe somewhere, but not in Korea.

Posted via email from Kahu Gary's posterous

4.06.2010

Eye-opening international perspectives

I am in a class with a very diverse international group of students. They come from all across Asia… India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Myanmar… many of them from Muslim-dominant nations. I have listened today to hours of those students expressing their world-views in regards to Islamic fundamentalism, America and our American leadership.

It has been an eye-opener.

There is pretty much universally a view among them that the election of Obama as U.S. President was celebrated in their nations as a major victory among the Islamic citizens of their nations with dancing in the streets. BHO has been referred to in those countries as Mubarrack Hussein Obama.

It has been sobering and a bit frightening to hear them express their hearts.

Posted via email from Kahu Gary's posterous

4.03.2010

Pre-Korea weigh-in

Down another pound+!

Gary Langley

Posted via email from Formerly Fat

3.30.2010

Travelocity - Hawaiian Air - Korean Air problem

Just had a frustrating circular pass-the-buck customer service fiasco, and thought I would issue a warning.

The story: I am traveling to Korea with an associate this Saturday. I booked the flight months ago using Travelocity, a service I have used successfully before. I purchased a ticket on Hawaiian Airlines because the dates and flight times were right, and the price was right. As it turns out, the flight I booked is a code-share route with Korean Air… in other words, that Hawaiian Air ticket bought a seat on a Korean Air flight.

So far, so good. I like Korean Air. I am even a card-carrying member of their frequent flier program. I am also a Hawaiian Air frequent flier.

The problem arose when I started trying to get a seat pre-assignment. I am one of those people who must (emphasis on the MUST) get up and go to the restroom frequently during flights, so I always book an aisle seat: I'd much prefer to have others climb over me than to inconvenience them by climbing over -- and on an 11 hour flight, it can be a lot of climbing!

I called Travelocity - "We can't help you with that… the seat assignments must be done by the airline, so call Korean Air."

I called Korean Air - "I'm sorry; your ticket is actually a Hawaiian Air ticket, so they have to issue seat assignment."

I called Hawaiian Airlines - "I'm sorry; this is a code-share flight, and you will actually be on a Korean Air flight, so they have to issue the seat assignment."

So, in short, I am in seat assignment limbo. Each responsible partner points at one of the others and says "Sorry - see them…" and nobody seems able to assist me. I am, needless to say, very frustrated and highly disappointed in two airlines and a company I use often. Everyone is polite. Everyone is apologetic. Everyone is powerless. This is an epic customer relations fiasco, and I am not looking forward to the two long flights.

Posted via email from Kahu Gary's posterous

3.23.2010

Hang on - they're coming for your freedom

20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms

The sections described below are taken from HR 3590 as agreed to by the Senate and from the reconciliation bill as displayed by the Rules Committee.

1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501)

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).

3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).

4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712).

5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employers’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.
You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).

7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d)(1)(A))

8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).

9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 101 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).

10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)).

11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))

12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A)).

13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a country where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).

14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)

15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).

16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).
The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405).

17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)

18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014).

19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).
That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).

20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).

Posted via email from Kahu Gary's posterous