We Really Have to Come Together

No. We don’t. Not always. Maybe not even usually.

“You have to work it out and come together” is something that’s said when two sides are having a disagreement. Maybe it’s Republicans and Democrats, or owners and players, or any two groups you want to plug in there. But we don’t always have to “come together.”

What’s more, not only don’t we have to, I think more often than not we shouldn't. In any disagreement, almost always, “truth” is somewhere between the stances of both sides. I think we can all agree on that. Which is why we are told to “come together.”

But the flaw with that is that, while “truth” is probably between the two sides, it doesn’t mean it’s right smack dab in the middle. Maybe it is, but it also could be 90% to one side. And here’s the trouble. Contrary to what people like to believe, a lot of times there really is a “good guy” and a “bad guy” involved. And the bad guy knows that if he keeps insisting on unreasonable positions, the good guy will try to “come together” and meet him. (Because, of course, he’s a good guy!) So even if truth is 90% toward good guy, bad guy will just dig in and wait for the the position to come to him. And usually it will. Because good guy wants to settle the conflict.

Imagine if in 1939, Hitler and Churchill had just tried to “come together.” Actually, they did try that at first. All of Europe, fresh off a World War, certainly didn’t want another one. So they tried to “come together” with Hitler, and kept making deals and compromises. In those deals, Hitler (bad guy if there ever was one) gave away little. Europe (good guys) gave a lot. But finally all of Europe could see that Hitler was never going to give in at all. That’s when the war started. You can preach about the immorality of war all you want, and I’ll probably mostly agree with you. But the fact is, if Churchill hadn't stood his ground, drawn a line in the sand, Hitler would not have been stopped.

There are times when even the most honest, righteous, and peace-loving person has to make that stand, draw that line in the sand. Churchill did it. Roosevelt did it a few years later. Even Jesus did it with the money changers in the temple. He didn't try to reason with them, make a compromise, and "come together." And I think he was a good guy if there ever was one.

So next time you see a disagreement, and say in disgust “Why don’t they just put their differences aside and just come together,” keep in mind that there’s a good chance that one side already has done that, and given away much.

It’s funny, that we say we value honesty, integrity, and fairness. Yet in a disagreement, we always brand the one who gives away more as “weak.” When in reality, it’s probably the good guy, in his quest to settle conflict, that has given more. Apparently we actually value dishonesty, cheating, and stubbornness.

Unfortunately.

Uncle Chuck

Life is short. And the older I get, the more apparent that becomes. If you’re like me, you go through life, trying to “make a difference.” I try real hard to do things right, to teach people, to set an example. I want to make sure that when I’m through with this life, I will have left a mark of some kind. And hopefully a good one. 

That’s one of the reasons I became a teacher, and it’s one of the reasons I’m still coaching. Now this doesn't mean I want to be rich, or famous, or even well known. It just means that, when I’m gone, there will hopefully be at least a few people who say “You know, that guy really taught me something.” I’m pretty sure more of us than not think along those same lines.

Which brings me to Uncle Chuck. Although we never talked about it, I’m pretty sure Uncle Chuck didn’t think about this at all. He never gave talks about “life lessons.” He never told me what was right and what was wrong. He never really tried to influence me, or anyone, to any great degree about anything.

No, Uncle Chuck was a very simple man. He loved his family, and anything outdoors. He made his living working in the cement plant, which was probably the cause of the lung disease that would eventually take him. But his love was outdoors. Fishing, hunting, hiking, boating, snowmobiling. Anything outside. So much so that it seemed odd to see him inside when the weather was decent.

It was a sad day when Uncle Chuck died. We went to the funeral, where Aunt Annie was a rock, comforting all of us, even though inside she was dying herself. But instead of a lunch in the church basement, Chuck made sure his “party” was at the legion. They served us beer and pizza, along with a bunch of other good food. (Actually I can't remember if there was pizza or not, but the event certainly had a “beer and pizza” feel to it.) He wanted all of us to have a good time, nothing fancy, because that’s how he lived.

And sometime during that party, it hit me. That Uncle Chuck probably never tried to “make a difference.” Yet that’s exactly what he did. Listening to the stories people told, talking to friends and family, and going back through my own memories of him, it suddenly became obvious that Chuck had “made a difference” to all of us. That he lived simply, but honestly, without pretension, and without ill will toward anyone. He was a friend to everyone, and would always lend a helping hand. Complete with a smile. As I left his party, I realized that living like Uncle Chuck would be a good way to live.

Thanks for the life lesson, Uncle Chuck. By just being yourself, you did alright.

I Really Should Have...

I don’t know about you, but I have a tendency quite often to step back from what I’m doing or thinking or saying, and ask myself if it really makes any sense. I don’t know if this is a good thing or a bad thing, a common thing or uncommon thing, but I do it a lot. Some of my friends tell me I think too much. (Is that possible?) But maybe they’re right. I know it brings to my mind a lot of really strange thoughts.

Like this one. I remember one time I was mowing my lawn. As I was mowing, I saw my neighbor just finishing a run. I hadn't run that day yet, and there was a good chance I wasn't going to have the time. And I remember thinking “Man, this lawn could have waited. I should have gone running instead.” I felt kinda irresponsible for not running.

Fast forward about a week. As I’m returning from a fairly long run, I see my neighbor mowing his lawn. And I remember thinking “Man, this run could have waited. I should have mowed the lawn instead.” And I felt kinda irresponsible for letting my lawn grow.

Now, I quickly realized this logic made absolutely no sense. And as I started thinking about things I do, or don’t do, I came to an odd, and somewhat troubling, conclusion about myself: No matter what I’m doing, I tend to feel I should be doing something else.

If I read a book, I get mad at myself for not being more productive. If I work real hard, I wonder why I can’t just stop and relax, maybe read a book! If I go on vacation, I wonder why I didn't stay home and get something done. If I stay home, I wonder why I can’t travel a little and enjoy myself. If I write this blog, I wonder why I’m not working on other things. (Things that really matter!) But if I do those other things, I wonder why I'm not spending some time on the blog.

This list goes on and on. It’s an incredibly frustrating way to live, that’s for sure! I have no idea if this is normal for your average human, or if it’s just me. I just know it’s annoying.

Of course, if I didn’t think so much, I guess I’d never even know.

The Best Care Money Can Buy

I was recently reading about Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. And about how she’s making great progress after that shooting. That even with the incredible brain damage she suffered, she’s improving with leaps and bounds. She’s even considering a run for the senate. That’s pretty cool.

Last week a friend was telling me about her cousin who is in her 40’s. She suffered a stroke, I believe, and was left with significant damage to her speech, her motor skills, and her thought processes. She had a couple of therapy sessions, but then the insurance ran out. The family doesn’t have much money, so she’s done with therapy. And this is probably just about as “healed” as she’ll get.

I find these two cases interesting. One woman gets the best health care money can buy. And is recovering. The other one gets, well, NOT the best health care money can buy. And is NOT recovering.

Now if I have a better job than you, if I make more money than you, then there’s a good chance that I’ll have a better car than you. I’ve earned that, by virtue of my income. We all understand that.

So, is health care like a car? The people who make more money, the people with better jobs, get better health care? Well, apparently, it is, at least in this country.

But should it be? I’m not sure. I know we can’t afford to pay complete health care costs for every single individual in this country. I understand that. I'm not saying we should have free, unlimited health care for all. That I'm not sure about. Yet, somehow it seems that good health is somehow different from a Mercedes convertible.

At least, you would think so. 

I’m Sure I Can Get this Camel Through that Needle!

I really have to be careful on this one. Because it’s a difficult subject. With no real simple answer. Also, I’m not a Bible scholar, by any means. But I've read a little. And I listen to the Gospel (usually) on Sunday mornings. And while I don’t know the whole thing, I think I've read or heard enough of the New Testament to at least get a “feel” for the kind of guy Jesus must have been. And I’m pretty sure He wasn't about rules. In fact, he seemed to go out of his way to break a lot of the rules. And he was proud of it. No, he wasn't a “rule” guy. He was an “accepting” guy.

He accepted anybody: the poor, the sinners, the tax collectors, all the people in society that the “Very Important Jews” looked down on. He even hung out with a lot of those people. And while they may have been sinners, he accepted them. Because that’s what he did.

But you know who he had real trouble with? Rich guys. He had a lot to say about those guys. Remember this one? “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”  That was Jesus himself talking. Now I suppose you can argue that he technically never said being rich is a sin, but he does say a rich man is not going to heaven, so I think it’s a safe assumption to say he didn’t think being rich was a good thing.

Yet, so many of today’s “Very Important Christians” are extremely wealthy. Somehow, they don’t think of that as a sin. Because if they did, they’d give everything away. He said this to a rich man once: “Go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me. “ Wow. We just kinda ignore that one.

I find it strange that many Christians who think wealth is OK, are very strongly anti-gay. Because if we look the other way on the rich thing, we definitely should treat homosexuality the same. Keep this in mind. There are over 1,000 references in the Bible instructing us to help the poor or needy or oppressed, and Jesus himself backed this up grandly. And you know what he said about wealthy people. But Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. Not once. Of course there are other places in the bible that condemn it. But way less than 1,000. And Jesus himself never mentioned it. Maybe he forgot about it. It could have just slipped his mind maybe.

Yet many of us latch onto the “Homosexuality is a sin” thing, and just kinda ignore the “Rich man and a camel” thing. Personally, I find that odd. You may, of course, have a different word for it.

Like I said, it’s not a simple topic. You can think what you want. Honestly, I’m not sure how I actually feel on all this, so try to refrain from sending me hate mail. After all, a sin is a sin, I think. Feel free to check out my ideas, dispute them if you want, and maybe you can prove me wrong. Like I said, I’m no expert. But I know what Jesus said. And what he didn’t say. 

And so do you.

Of Scientists and Politicians, Revisited

I have to admit, I’m biased. I’m a science guy. I’m not a politician, and like most Americans, I don’t especially care for politicians. So maybe my bias is getting in the way here. Maybe.

I recently read a study that says 97% of climate scientists presently engaged in active atmospheric research believe there is global warming going on, and that humans are a significant cause. Yes, 97%!

Now of course, they’re only scientists. But our representatives in Washington, and a significant portion of our population, think they know better. They think those foolish scientists are wrong. Or maybe they’re all bought off. (Or at least 97% of them apparently) Or maybe they’re all just stupid. Or something.

It reminds me of the woman I heard complaining about how her stupid doctor was making all the wrong choices: diagnosis, treatment, everything. And of course this woman, a music teacher, was convinced she knew better. She had no college, no medical school, no training, and no experience, but she was sure SHE was right on everything, and the doctor was wrong on everything. But what I found even more troubling was that everyone she was talking to, believed the woman. Why, I have no idea. Except that they wanted to.

Now back to the climate. Let me repeat. Ninety-Seven Percent believe global warming is a human problem. But because some guy on the radio or TV or in the senate says it’s not, we believe THEM? Does this make any sense at all?

Well, I suppose you could attack the survey. Maybe the questions were biased. Or maybe they lied about the results. Yeah, I’m sure that’s exactly what happened!

I get it, to a point. I mean, none of us WANT there to be global warming. Because the solutions to it are not easy, they’re not painless, and they’re not cheap. But just because we want something to be, doesn’t make it so. We can all close our eyes and wish real hard that the earth isn’t getting warmer, but that doesn’t make it true.

Argue all  you want. Listen to the politicians, and ignore the climatologists. But really, unless we’re 100% sure greenhouse gases aren’t a problem, do we really want to take a chance? Nobody can predict exactly what’s going to happen with the warming, but none of the predictions are good.

So go ahead. Deny it. Say all the scientists are wrong or lying. Say it’s all some socialist plot. And while you’re at it, next time you need to go to the doctor, save some money and just have some music teacher treat you. That makes just about as much sense.

Girl Scout Cookies are Here!

It’s that time of year. My Girl Scout Cookies have arrived.

I’ve always thought this was an odd time of year to be selling cookies. This is exactly the time when so many adults are trying to lose some of their winter weight before summer. Yet, right in the middle of prime weight-loss season, 8 boxes of thin mints, tagalongs, and various other cookies arrive to test my will power.

Well, I have a plan. See, each cookie is about 40-80 calories, depending on which variety you’re munching on. I suppose I could muster the will power to eat a cookie or two each day. (Actually, no I couldn’t, but it sounds cool to say that.) But even if I did, I’d be eating cookies for weeks, absorbing all those extra calories, and completely ruining any attempt at becoming one of the beautiful people by summer. Well, you know what I mean.

Nope, that’s not my plan. My plan is I’m going to eat them all. I mean all 8 boxes. In one day. Really. Think about it. It’s somewhere around 10,000 calories. I’m not a physiology expert, but there is absolutely no way that my body can absorb that many calories in one day. Just impossible. We’re not designed for that. I mean, when Joey Chestnut eats 66 hot dogs in 10 minutes, does he absorb all that? If so, he’d gain about 5 pounds right then. And that guy’s pretty skinny.

Just so you know, I have absolutely no data to support this plan, but it makes sense to me.

Tomorrow is going to be a good day.

My Unsustainable Pension...

I heard a guy talking today about the "unsustainable pensions" that the public school teachers are getting, and how they are causing such a problem with Ohio's budget.

But here's the problem with that statement. The State Teachers' Retirement System of Ohio (STRS) doesn't get any money from Ohio's budget. None. Really. I even called them and asked.

It is true, that when I retire in two years, I will get a pretty good pension for life. But every penny of that will come from money that teachers and their school boards have put into STRS along the way. STRS of course invested this, and the fruits of those investments are what fund my retirement. Of course, as a public school teacher, that money came from taxes. But it is a "public" school, so I kinda think that's expected.

If you want to say we're overpaid, get too much sick time, top notch health care, work too little, and have cushy jobs, that is your right. I will disagree, but at least those are judgment calls, and a fair discussion would make sense. If we have to give up some of those things to help Ohio balance its budget, those would be fair negotiations. But to say my pension is breaking Ohio, well that's just plain wrong.

Will I get a better pension than you? I don't know. If you're only counting on social security, then yes I will. But while you and your employer have been putting away somewhere around 12% of your salary, my employer and I have been putting in almost double that. And whether it's out of my paycheck, or from the school board, that's all money that could have gone directly to me. Instead it went to my retirement.

I honestly think that a lot of people assume my retirement is going to be paid by Ohio taxes in the coming years. No, STRS is self-contained. If I die early, I won't come close to getting all my money back. If I live till I'm 100, then I'll be using the money of somebody who died early. Actuary tables figure that all pretty well.

And why is it such a problem now? If you think it's because our pensions have grown, then you're wrong. The pension payout plan from STRS has stayed pretty constant over the last 40 years or so, with only minor changes. What hasn't stayed the same is the value of STRS' investments. When the economy came crashing down a few years back, everybody's investments tanked, including those of STRS.

So if you want to blame someone for the "pension problem" of public employees in Ohio, blame whoever caused the economic crash in 2008. And I don't think that was the teachers.

Overachiever!

Overachiever!

Is that word meant as a praise term, a term to honor? Or as a slam, a cut, a dismissal of sorts. Actually, that depends. On where that person is overachieving.

OK, take Rudy. You know, the movie. The no-talent athlete who had a dream to play football at Notre Dame. You know how this goes. Rudy has no chance as an athlete. But through incredible perseverance, he actually makes it into Notre Dame, then in almost an act of pity, he’s allowed to be on the team. Finally, because of incredible hard work, dedication, and single-minded effort, he actually makes it into a Notre Dame football game. The crowd goes berserk, they scream “Rudy, Rudy, Rudy” and the players carry him off on their shoulders. Or something like that anyway.

We all love that guy. We admire his dedication, his optimism in the face of certain defeat, his incredible refusal to give up or be defeated. We make movies about that kind of guy.

But let’s change venues. Let’s say Rudy is a 15 year old girl of average intelligence, and her goal is to graduate at the top of her class, because she knows that’s the only way she has a chance of getting a college scholarship. So she studies nonstop, works with incredible focus, and sacrifices all other things, so that she can excel. Not in sports, but in academics. Finally, because of incredible hard work, dedication, and single-minded effort, she finally realizes her dream. She makes it to the top, and at her graduation day, do we hear the crowd go berserk? Cheer her name? Carry her away on their shoulders? No, what we’re most like to hear is “Yeah, she was valedictorian, but she’s not really that smart. She just works hard. She’s an overachiever.” 

First of all, trust me on this one. I've seen it over and over. When a student excels because of hard work, that is almost exactly the “praise” he or she earns. People say he or she is an “overachiever” almost like it’s somehow cheating if you become a good student by hard work. Sure, we say we want them to work hard, study, and try to excel. Yet when it actually happens, nobody outside of Mom or Dad admires what that student did. The rest of us? Well, she’s just an overachiever.

Feel free to disagree, but I’ve heard it a million times. And, for what it’s worth, the term “overachiever” is invariably applied to a girl. Almost 100% of the time. I’ll let you make your own interpretation about this one. I know what mine is.

You know, I've never figured this out. In sports we admire the Rudies, the Rockies, the Titans. Whoever wins in the face of adversity. But in academics, no.

Somehow, I don't like it at all..

Light Red

Yeah,  I know. There is no such thing as light red. I’m not sure why, really. Follow me on this one.

Take blue paint, and mix white paint with it. What color do you get? Light blue, obviously. Or maybe sky blue, or robin-egg blue, or columbia blue, or whatever you want to call it. But for most of us, it’s just light blue.

How about green? Mix green paint and white paint, and of course you get light green. And honestly, I have no idea what else you’d call that one.

Finally, let’s mix red paint and white paint. What do you get? Light red? Of course not; you get pink. Not light red, or easter bunny red, or even Susan G. Komen red. No, you get pink.

Really, why does pink get it’s own name? But light blue is just light blue.

I have no idea.

I hope you didn't think that maybe this post was going to be important. I'll try not to waste your time next time!

Cheating. And Schools. And Unions?

Hypothetical scenario here. I'm a 12th year teacher, and during one of my classes, I find the principal's daughter cheating. As a good teacher, I reprimand her and give her a zero on the assignment, according to the school rules.

Or do I?

I guess that would depend. On how much integrity I have, and how badly I need a job. And whether the rumors and ideas being tossed around here are true. According to people I've talked to, articles I've read, and the talking heads on the radio, some lawmakers in Ohio are trying to ban public employee unions and end collective bargaining.

If those are just rumors, please comment and tell me. I hope they ARE rumors. Honestly, they really sound like something that some people are throwing out there just to get people really pissed off. And if so, then there's no reason to read the rest of this post!

But just for fun, say those rumors are true, and they do come to pass.

So as this hypothetical teacher,  I follow the school rules. Then the girl goes home and tells her dad (like just about any kid would) that "No I didn't cheat. That teacher just doesn't like me, and he's being unfair to me."  A month later my contract comes up. Hmmm.....

What's to keep the principal from having me fired, or maybe just laid off? Or maybe lower my salary. Since there's no collective bargaining, each teacher would negotiate independently I assume. (Or so the talking head on the radio said.)

Don't tell me to just go get another job. Even if I could find one, I'd have to move my family, completely change my life, and move my kids to another school, all because that girl was cheating.

And don't tell me to file a wrongful termination suit. I don't have the money for that, but of course the school does.

No, if I turn that girl in for cheating, unless we have a superintendent of extremely high integrity, I'm pretty much done.

Disrespect

I’m not sure where to go with this. But I’m having a problem with disrespect. I’ve seen so much of it lately. And so many times, there’s no reason for it.


Before the Super Bowl, Bill O’Reilly interviewed President Obama. During that interview, he asked the president how it felt to be hated by so many people. Three times he asked this. And he interrupted the president 42 times. Yes, 42! You know, I don’t care if you like the president or not. But he’s the president, and he deserves some measure of respect. It was just wrong to treat him like O'Reilly did. 


Toward the end of George Bush’s second term, a lot of people were calling him out, treating him with that same kind of disrespect. I have no probem with disagreeing with the president, and pointing out what one feels he’s doing wrong. That’s part of democracy. But this doesn’t have to be nasty, or sarcastic, or disrespectful.Yet many behaved that way, and that was just as disgusting.


I recently watched a very small man treat a very strong woman with disdain and disrespect. Her crime? She had the audacity to stand up to him, to be strong. Even if this small man disagrees with her, he has no right to ridicule her, scold her like she’s a child, or make faces when she speaks, (I’m not making this up!) Yet, he did. But of course, she’s only a woman. So I guess it's OK.


I personally faced it a few months back. I do my very best to be fair as a teacher, and I think I have that reputation. Yet when some favored student didn’t get the grade needed, the people who should have been supporting me, turned on me. I can live with that, but the things they said, and the disrespect they showed, astounded me. I really think I’ve earned more respect than that. But apparently not.


Maybe it’s always been this way, and I’ve just never noticed it. But I don’t know about that. Maybe it’s because our political dialog is so nasty, on all sides, that respect is no longer in vogue. Or maybe as America becomes more and more secular, with less and less attending church, this is the logical outcome. Like I said, I just don’t know.


To be honest, I see some of this in myself, and I don’t like it when I see it either. When I ask myself why I do that, I think it’s because by showing them disrespect, putting them down, I build myself up in my own eyes. I hate to admit that, but I think it’s accurate. I can only assume it describes other disrespectful people as well. But once again, I just don’t know.


But what really bothers me is not just the disrespect. No, what bothers me is that we now accept it, just let it go, let the disrespected person suffer on his or her own. How many times do we just watch as it happens? Way too often, unfortunately. I’ve seen it way too often.


And I don’t see how that can be a good thing.

We Use These Up - Magically

I remember once when I was so busy, it felt like I didn't even have time to breath. We’ve all had times like that. Mostly, we hate them. We always say that when we get through it, we’re going to kick back and relax. Or read more. Or something. At least that’s what I said. And when I finally got through it, that’s exactly what I did. For a while. But a short time later, somehow I realized I didn’t have that free time anymore. I wasn’t involved in as many things, but somehow, all that extra time just kinda got used up.

Almost everybody I know who retires, within a short time says “I’m so busy right now. I don’t know how I got by when I was working.” Time: no matter how much we have, we use it. We all do. Human nature I guess.

But it’s not just time. The same goes for money. Yeah, we all know that. One time many years ago, my wife got laid off. Our income was cut just about in half. We felt so poor. For a while. But then somehow, we got by. Pretty much the same as when she was working, or it sure seemed that way. Then, when she got a new job a few months later, we had all kinds of cash rolling in. We felt rich. For a while. But then somehow, we seemed to adjust, and we didn’t feel any richer than before.

Time and money. Two things we always use up. But there's one more, at least in my mind: Space. As in living space, or storage space. Think your house is cramped? Too much stuff? Not enough room for it all? Go ahead, add on. I dare you. Build an extra bedroom or two. Or maybe a barn. Whatever. I can guarantee, within a year, it will be just as full as before. It’s almost magical.

Time. Money. Space. You’re just not going to get ahead with these. And honestly, we’d probably all be better off if we didn’t even try.

What Day is Your Birthday?

Is it on a Tuesday this year? Maybe Thursday. Admit it: you don’t know (and probably don't care either.) But the point is that it’s always different. And of course the same goes for Christmas, the 4th of July and every other day as well. 


Is that a bad thing? Well, yes and no. True, it adds diversity to our calendar. Every year, school starts on a different date, the Super Bowl is a different date, Presidents’ Day is a different date. You get the idea.


But to me, that’s also a bad thing. Think how much time and energy is spent each year, in every organization, setting up, revising, and tweaking a calendar. And think how many times there are unexpected conflicts. The county fair conflicts with the state fair this year, or Halloween is on the same day as the football game, or any of a million different scenarios.


The trouble is that the sun takes 365 days to orbit the sun. That time period is a year. That’s 52 weeks plus one day. That one day extra is what really messes up our calendar. There’s not much we can do about the sun. But we can still fix the calendar. It’s simple. We just make December 31 a “No-Day.” Really. It’s not a Monday, or a Tuesday, or any day of the week. It’s Noday.


How does that fix it? This year, January 1 was a Saturday. December 31 is also going to be a Saturday, which makes January 1 of next year a Sunday, and everything is already screwed up. In my calendar, December 30 of this year will be Friday as it’s supposed to be, but December 31 is Noday. Which makes January 1 a Saturday, just like this year. And our calendar will be the same every year! Magic.


Lest you scoff, think how nice it will be when you know exactly what day and date every day of the year will be. And once you get your organization’s calendar to work, you never have to change it. For instance, school can always start on August 24, the NFL will always have its first game on September 12, and your birthday will always be the same day. And you will never wonder if something you’re planning conflicts with something else. You’ll just know.


Of course, on leap year, will have to drop February 29 and add a December 32, and have two Nodays in a row. But we can deal with that. It’s only once every four years.


Sure the calendar can change. In 1582, the Gregorian Calendar replaced the Julian Calendar. The world went to bed on October 4, and woke up the next morning and it was magically October 15! They skipped 10 days. We’re asking for something a whole lot less disruptive than that. 


I say go for it. We can call it the Morganian Calendar. Sounds good to me.

Calyx and Beau

About a week ago, a woman was driving her 13-year old son Beau to soccer practice, when for reasons nobody can quite figure out, she pulled out a handgun and shot him. Dead. Right there. Then, she went home, found her 16-year old daughter Calyx at the computer, and shot her as well. In the face. Dead. Right there. Apparently the kids were "mouthy." Then she went and sat on the back porch, which is where the police found her.


You know, this is one I have trouble with. I mean, the second amendment states it very clearly: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” And I hate it when people pick and choose with the constitution. Yet…


What I find so compelling about this story are the words I heard in the very first report about it: “the gun, which she had bought five days earlier.” This has been a week now, and for some reason I can’t seem to find any story anywhere that deals with where she got that gun. WalMart? Bass Pro? I don’t know. I’m not even sure it matters. Still I find it odd that I haven’t found even one left-wing bleeding heart liberal blog that seems to care. Maybe I just don’t know where all the liberal blogs are.


You know, to a point I agree with the cliché: “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” Because the bad guys will figure out where to get them, even if honest people don’t. But this woman was no hardened criminal. She was a 50-year old mother of two with no criminal past of any kind. If she had to sneak around some dark alley to buy a gun, she would have had no idea how to do that. And nobody really believes she would have killed them, say, with a knife. No, that wasn’t going to happen.


Do we regulate guns, more than we do now? There’s that pesky second amendment you know. On the other hand, according to that amendment, firearms are needed for “a well regulated militia.” I don’t think shooting your kids was exactly what the founding fathers had in mind.


I don’t know the answer. Regulate more? Regulate less? Outlaw guns completely? To me, no solution is right. Who knows, maybe I'm "unAmerican" for even thinking about it. But I do know this. If handguns were illegal, those two kids would still be alive. 


And that’s a tough statement to live with.