Sometimes they Work

Recently it was reported that traffic deaths had reached their lowest level since 1949. While the details are unclear, it is clear that the RATE of fatalities per mile driven is the lowest since 1949. And the ACTUAL number of deaths is the lowest since at least 1961.Considering we have a whole lot more cars on the road today than in 1961, that’s pretty amazing.

But why is this? What caused the deaths to drop so dramatically? First of all, look at our highways. They’re built differently now: rumble strips on the edges, barriers in the medians, different edge materials, different road substances, and that’s just for starters.

But obviously, a lot of this also has to do with how much safer our cars are now. Since the 1960’s, a whole lot of things are on cars that weren’t there before.

Off the top of my head, here are a few:

• Elevated brake lights
• Head rests
• Seat belts in all cars
• Air bags in all cars
• Seat belt laws
• Drunk driving laws
• And about a million more.

And I’m pretty sure that all of these things are government mandates. Sometimes called “government regulations.” These seem to me to be ones that work. Unfortunately, it is popular for politicians and other “really important people” to speak of all government regulations as things that can only destroy businesses, ruin the economy, and just add to the "nanny state."

It is doubtful that we really want to get rid of these government regulations. But yet, all we seem to hear about government regulations is negative. While I would certainly agree that the government can really step in where they are not needed, we really do a disservice by characterizing any kind of government regulation as a bad thing.

Sometimes they work. Imagine that.

Which Way Will I Go?

I've noticed something about getting old.  It seems that people either go one way, or the other.

I don't mean health wise, (Obviously, we all go down hill health wise eventually!) No, I mean spirit wise. I've noticed that as we get older, we either get nicer, or we get real mean. I've seen it over and over.

Take “Bob.” He’s a nice one. You know, the one who says “Hey, what do you need? I got some time.” He’s the one who doesn’t complain if your dog goes in his yard. He’s the one who waves you on in your car when you’re trying to get into the busy traffic. He’s the one who lets you cut in line at the grocery store when you are holding 15 items because you didn’t really think you’d need a cart. And he’s the one who asks how things are going, then actually waits to hear the answer.

Then take "Don." He's a mean one. He’s the one who scowls at the parents of the crying baby in the grocery store. He’s the one who just knows that kids nowadays are all lazy and disrespectful. He’s the one who tips 10% because “hey, they get paid anyway.” And he’s the one who is sure that everyone in the government is a damn fool.

His attitude goes something like this: "I've lived a long time, and I'm tired of trying to be nice to everybody. Now, I just say what I think. I'm old enough, I don't care any more."

Don forgets that just because you think something, that doesn’t mean you should say it. Even if you think that somehow you’ve earned that right, you still can hurt someones feelings. And just because you’re old, it doesn’t make that hurt any less. And just because you’re old, it doesn’t necessarily make you wise.

So I wonder which way I’ll go. Maybe I’ve already made one of those turns, and I’m already on my way. Honestly, I watch for this. When I hear myself getting nasty with the customer service rep on the phone, I start wondering.  When I start screaming at the car in front of me because it’s not going fast enough for my liking, I notice it. I don’t want to be Don. I want to be Bob. Is this something we can choose? Or is it just part of our DNA, like our eye color or height? I hope not. I like to think that, when it comes to behavior, we all have choices. We all have different natural tendencies, so maybe the right choice is harder for some of us. But I hope we still have the option to do what is right.

I really hope I make the right turn.

Could I Have Done That?

We’ve all heard all kinds of stuff about the bin Laden killing this week. About the Navy Seals, the intelligence gathering, the President, and on and on. It got me wondering whether I would have had the right stuff for something like this. I have trouble with war, I have trouble with killing. And while I can’t be excited at the death of even someone as obviously evil as bin Laden, I definitely feel that this was the right thing to do, and I’m glad it happened. But could I have done it?

Take the Navy Seals. They’re just one of the Special Forces in the military. I’m not sure of all of them, but I know the Green Berets are their army counterpart. And whether it’s the Seals or the Green Berets, I know only certain guys can make it in. We’ve all heard about the mission, and what they had to do. Could I have done that? Just pretending I was young enough, smart enough, in shape enough, and tough enough to make it in, could I have done that mission? Could I have boarded that helicopter, rapelled down, gone through the compound? Not knowing whether I was going to step on a mine or ignite a bomb with my next step? Not knowing whether there was a sniper waiting to take me out? Not knowing what was around each corner? And then, when I faced the target, could I have done what they did? Could I have pulled the trigger on an old man standing there with his wife and child? I don’t know.

While not nearly as spectacular, what the President did might have been, in it’s own way, just as difficult. Yes, I know as President, he has to be able to give the order to kill. That alone would be difficult enough. But in this situation, a lot was on the line. Many of his advisers counseled against this plan: they recommended bombing, or drone strikes, or possibly other ideas. But he chose this one. The risk was enormous, both for the country and for him personally. There were so many things that could have gone wrong. If that mission had failed miserably, which was likely, we would have been branded as terrorists ourselves, who invaded a sovereign ally, and on and on.  And Obama would have been smeared across every news outlet in the country as hopelessly unfit for the position of Commander-In-Chief. When Jimmy Carter attempted a similar mission 30 years ago, that’s exactly what happened. It failed horribly, and Carter never recovered.

You know, none of us ever know what we’re made of until we get in that situation. Will we react, or will we retreat? Will we have the courage, or will we back away? Will we have the strength to stand, or will our weakness consume us? Until we’re there, we just don’t know. In many ways, I’m glad that I will probably never be in that position. Yet in some strange way, I want to be. I would like to know if I have, inside me, the courage, the strength, the determination, and the desire, to do what the Seals or the President did.

The fact that I may never know, is both comforting, and troubling.

You’re a Christian

An odd thing happened to me today. Not a bad thing, just an odd thing. Odd, because it never happened before. So much so, that I didn’t know how to react.

A few days ago, I stopped at a computer store to ask about some problems I was having with my computer. I was talking to the woman who owned the shop, and I told her my name, which caused no reaction. Logical, since I didn't know this person at all. But when she found out I was a teacher, that's when I got the “Oh, Mr. Morgan,” with a tone of recognition. Now for those of you who are teachers, you know this happens all the time. When someone you don’t know, calls you “Mr.” (or “Mrs.” or “Miss”) you can be pretty sure you taught one of her kids. And it could go either way. At that point they may praise you like you're the greatest teacher since Carl Sagan, or somehow infer your relationship to Hitler. So I held my breath and asked, steeling myself for the worst. She just said that her daughter had attended my school, but didn’t have me as a teacher. Somehow she knew about me though. Whew! Crisis avoided.

So today I took my computer back to her to get it fixed. (Yes, I know I usually fix them myself, but this one is beyond me.) I mentioned her daughter, and what I remembered about her. At that point, the woman looked right at me and said “You’re a Christian.” I just stood and looked at her, not really knowing what to say. Nobody had ever said that to me like that, especially someone who I don’t even know.

A hundred thoughts went through my mind all at once. How did she know? Was she pleased? Did her daughter tell her? And if so, how did the daughter know, as I barely knew her. And I don’t normally give sermons at school. And on and on...

I finally just said, “Yes, I am. But how did you know?” I mean, I wasn’t carrying a Bible, I don’t have a Jesus tattoo. And it’s not something I just come up and tell people. (Hi, my name’s Richard. Nice to meet you. I’m a Christian....)

She told me her daughter was a Christian. Like somehow that just explained the whole thing right there. (Must be a secret network or something that I’m not aware of?) So I prodded a little further, asking how her daughter knew. And she replied. “All the Christian kids talk. They know who the Christian teachers are. It’s good to have them.”

You know, I haven’t really been a Christian all my life. Maybe if I had been, this wouldn’t have seemed so strange. Yet it was odd. And cool. And neat. And eerie. All at the same time.

I cautioned her that I may not be the Christian she is picturing. That while I’m a Christian, I’m also a scientist, and I accept the views of both disciplines without conflict. I’m probably not what non-Christians think of, when they think of a Christian. She seemed fine with all that.

I’m not really sure of any conclusion here. Although it definitely took me aback, I was secretly pleased, I think, that some student I hardly knew realized this about me. It made me feel good, in a strange way.

And to be completely honest, even a little proud.

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.