A Church is Not Just a Building

I've always thought of a church as a building, a place where people go to worship. That’s probably how most of us would define it. But today I realized just how inadequate that definition is.

For most of my life, I've gone to church. To some building, somewhere, usually with lots of people in it. They were usually dressed up, some in robes, and normally an organ played something. It was nice. It felt like church was supposed to feel.

But today, for the second time in a few weeks, I worshiped in a garage. And I never felt more like I was at church than I have these last few weeks. I don’t know how to explain it really, but somehow it was just “right.” Nobody complained because they didn't like the music, or the sermon was too long, or it was too cold, or the kids weren't dressed right…. Nobody cared when the prayer music was probably a bit too loud, or when I hit a D chord instead of a C. But everyone did listen to the message, everyone seemed to appreciate the prayers, we all sang, and we all took communion feeling that this was more than just a blind ritual.

Things that sometimes seem important many times turn out to be meaningless. The style of music? I've been to moving services with majestic organs and inspiring choirs, as well as those with just a guitar and and keyboard. I’m guessing God appreciates all kinds of music. Jeans or suits? It really just doesn't seem to matter.

In two weeks, our group will begin regular services at a very small room in a basement downtown. Just one room. I’m pretty sure it won’t look like a regular church. But we’re all excited about it. It will be a home, at least for a while, in which we can share with each other, and hopefully others as well, everything that we feel church can be.

No, church is not just a building. Church is more about people, and their mission, and their oneness in a belief they want to share. Church is about trying to follow Christ, and what he taught us. Church is about acceptance of everyone, even if they’re not just like us or don’t always agree with us, because that's what Jesus did.

You know, I’m not really sure exactly what church is. But I know it’s not just a building. In fact, I’m sure that the building is the least important part of it.

Ashamed of Christians?

First off, let me explain the title. I am NOT ashamed to be a Christian. Not even close. Although I will be the first to admit that I often struggle with my faith, I never hide it from anyone.

Also, I’m not saying I’m ashamed of all Christians, either. For the most part, the people that I know who seem to have the strongest faith are incredibly wonderful people, who nobody in his right mind could be ashamed of.

But then there are the others. In theory, a Christian is supposed to try to model his life after Christ, or so I’ve been told. Of course we all fall way short of that. That’s to be expected…we’re not Jesus.

But really, can’t we all at least try? From what I know of the New Testament, Jesus seemed to be about love, forgiveness, and helping others. In fact, he himself said “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Notice he said “love.” But it seems to me that many Christians kinda forget all about that part. They seem to think he said

• “Follow the rules” or 
• “Ostracize people who don’t agree with you” or maybe
• “Take revenge on people who have done you wrong”

Now, I know I’m not allowed to judge. And no, I don’t know what is in the hearts and minds of others. So it would be wrong for me to condemn these people. (He who is without sin...) But while I cannot condemn these people, I can be ashamed of their actions.

I know Christians who have “revenge lists” in their heads. And they seem to be proud of it. Proud of a list of people that they vow they will someday get back at for some perceived wrong these people have done. Somehow, I’m guessing Jesus didn't have that list.

Realistically, we all have people we would like to take revenge on. But most of us do our best NOT to follow on that impulse. Of course, sometimes we fail. But we try.

You know, I have lost count of the people I’ve talked to who refuse to go to church because they feel the leaders are the nastiest, most arrogant, and most hypocritical people they know. Maybe they're just using it as an excuse to sleep in on Sunday morning, but I have to admit that I understand what they’re saying. And it makes me ashamed.

This post might offend you. Honestly, it offends me, and I’m the one writing it. It pains me to say what I’m saying. Yet I can’t argue with one simple fact: some of the nastiest people I’ve ever met are every-Sunday church goers. Who say they love Jesus.

I just don’t get it.

Issue 2

Of course you could figure I’m for No on Issue 2. A "no" vote repeals SB5. I’m a teacher, and I’m simply trying to protect my own pocket book, right? Well, yes and no.

I’ve heard it before. Teachers are overpaid, get too much time off, have too good a pension... First of all, I don’t agree with those, but I'll agree that those things are certainly fair game for discussion. But SB5 makes no sense for a number of reasons.

First of all, republicans are behind it. That doesn't make it bad of course. I used to be a republican. Back then, we stood for small government, keeping government out of peoples’ lives whenever possible. Republicans hated big government telling local people what to do. So here comes SB5, a totally republican initiative. SB5 imposes the state’s idea of how schools should be run onto the local school districts. Let me say that a different way. SB5 takes control of many aspects of local education from the local school districts and turns it over to Ohio. It tells local school districts in what ways they can negotiate with staff. It tells local school districts how to resolve disputes. It tells local school districts how to decide which staff gets laid off. You get the idea. I’m guessing even Reagan himself would have hated this. But then, republicans today show no resemblance to the republicans I used to be proud of.

But the most amazing part of SB5 is rarely mentioned. In SB5, teachers (and firefighters and police) are allowed to have collective bargaining for a few items, determined by the state of course. Salary is one. But according to this law, if the school board and the teachers can’t come to an agreement, after a short period of time, it goes to the "governing body," whose decision is final. And that governing body: is it an impartial negotiator? Maybe a judge? How about a jury? Nope, the governing body is the school board. So if the school board proposes a huge pay cut and we don’t like it, the school board gets to decide whose side to take, and their decision is final. No, I can’t figure that one out either.

If you call yourself a conservative, maybe you object to the “excessive pensions” (as stated on a commercial) of teachers or firefighters, or police. Or maybe you think we have cushy jobs, or we get paid too much, or any of a thousand other things. Fine. But I have yet to understand how a true conservative can support this as a proper solution.

And don’t even begin to tell me that this law is needed because the unions are all-powerful. Union membership in America is at an all time low. They don’t have the power they used to. And besides, how often do you hear about teachers striking? If our unions were so all-powerful, that would happen a lot. But it doesn’t. For two reasons: our unions are not that strong, and, believe it or not,  teachers don’t want to mess with the kids’ education. Really.

SB5 is a bad idea.  I just can’t say it any other way.

Occupy Wall Street?

Let me guess. You’ve heard of this movement. You know it’s a bunch of college age kids mostly. And they’re camping out on Wall Street (obviously) to protest... what exactly? And how long have they been doing this? And what do they want? And what's this 99% stuff? And...

Yeah, me too. Turns out it’s been going on for almost a month, and it started with just a few people. Nobody really noticed. I didn’t read much, if anything, on the web, and I don’t remember it being a big deal on the news either. But it’s grown. Now, everybody knows about it. But still, what is it?

It’s a bunch of people who are frustrated. They are frustrated that the top 1% in this country make a disproportionate amount of income, while many of the 99% struggle. Now I'm sure that 99% is an exaggeration, but Wall Street continues to rack up huge profits, and upper level executives continue to make huge salaries. And this is AFTER we bailed them out.

And the reason all that frustrates them is because they, themselves, can’t find jobs. Yeah, I know, a bunch of whining kids living off mom and dad, too lazy to look for work, and that’s what’s wrong with America. I’ve heard them described that way.

Well maybe not. I know two young women, 23-24 years old. They both have four year college degrees. And they’re both looking for jobs. And no, they are not hanging out at home on dad’s couch, as they’re often portrayed. No, these kids aren’t lazy. In fact, they’ve both been working two jobs. Because none of their jobs pay much more than minimum wage. You know how this goes: a 9-5 job all week, then waitress at night. Both are working way more than I ever did, and desperately trying to get ahead. Without much luck.

I know another woman the same age, who didn’t have the money for college. She went right into the work force. Guess what. She’s in the same boat.

Didn’t they do everything right? They all were good students. They studied hard, got good grades, and graduated in good standing. Then.... nothing.

I’m not sure how it was when you were in college, but when my friends and I graduated, almost all of us got jobs when we graduated. In our field of study. Making enough money to actually survive. Not rich of course, but we could buy used cars, get married, have children, eventually buy a house, and gradually get ahead.

But this generation isn’t getting that chance. Sure, some of them are getting good jobs in their chosen field. But a higher percentage than ever before are just... stuck.

The average college graduate now has $22,000 in student loans. Incredible. And even if they go through bankruptcy, the college loans don’t go way. They’re sunk before they even get started.

That’s what they’re protesting about. When Wall Street collapsed and brought down the economy through their own doing, they got bailed out. But the students have done everything right. And nobody’s bailing them out.  Yeah, I’d be pissed too. In fact, I am.

But don't be fooled into thinking this is a right/left issue. These people have made it clear that they are angry with both parties. That makes sense. Almost nobody, right or left, feels good about the bailouts. And everyone wants more jobs. This is not party related.

You know, I’m sure there are some lazy ones in there, and I guarantee some news outlets will make a point of showing us this. But really, these protesters have a point.

What is happening to the 20 somethings today; it’s just plain wrong.

Tony Romo

Yeah, that Tony Romo. The quarterback for the Cowboys. He’s a bum. Wait, no he’s a hero. Well, I guess that depends on when you’re talking about it.

Last week, the Cowboys were winning pretty handily in the fourth quarter. Well, until Romo fumbled. Then threw a really bad interception. Somehow, America’s Team managed to lose that game, and Tony Romo was to blame. It became obvious that the quarterback didn’t know how to manage a game, he couldn’t make the tough decisions, he couldn’t handle pressure, and in general was just a bad leader. And while nobody actually said it, apparently he was inadequate as a human being as well.

Yesterday, it was a whole new ball game. Literallly. In this game, Tony was knocked out early with two broken ribs, and without him, the ‘Boys went behind by 10 points. But almost miraculously, Romo came back in, broken ribs and all, and guided the Cowboys to a very stirring overtime win. He was now strong, intelligent, a clutch player, and a great inspirational leader.

Really? No, of course not. I obviously don’t know Tony Romo at all, but I can guarantee he was never as bad a person, or leader, or quarterback, as they said he was last week. And he’s not as good as they say he is this week. I’m guessing Tony is just a guy who tries real hard to be good at what he does. Sometimes he succeeds, and sometimes he doesn’t. But in our world of absolutes, where someone has to be blamed for everything, there's no room for reality. And I'll admit I’m getting real tired of the way people, in all walks of life, are painted as either wonderful or terrible.

And really, I should know. Because I know I've been portrayed both ways. Some people think I'm a great guy, but I know there's at least as many that think I'm the biggest jerk around. I certainly can't be both, and I'm probably not either. Like most of you, I'm sure I'm somewhere in the middle.
You know, there are some wonderful people in this world. I know some. And there are some terrible people as well. Unfortunately, I know some of them too. But most of us are just people, trying to do our best at whatever we do, whether it’s teaching, plumbing, parenting, being a friend, or whatever.

If you know someone who you want to complain about as being horrible, or a complete idiot, or a tremendous jerk, or whatever you want to call him, think about that. Honestly, is he really that bad? Is he really the worst doctor/teacher/boss/boyfriend/person there is? Maybe. There are some that, yes, really are that bad.

But for the other 98% of us, try to cut us a little slack. Maybe we’re pretty good people who just made a mistake. Or said the wrong thing. Or had a bad day.

Or threw an interception.

Back to School!

Well, it’s started. Once again, we heard those three dreaded words: Back to School. Only an experienced teacher can truly appreciate everything involved with them.

First of all, this year set a record. It was July7 when I first saw “Back to School” items at Meijer. July 7? Really? Can’t we just enjoy our summer in peace, without bombardment from the corporate establishment reminding us of our next obligation?

Now for all you non-teachers, the ones with real jobs: No I’m not complaining. And honestly, most teachers really like what they do. I’m just saying the changing of the gears is a tough move. No, we’re not asking for sympathy. That would be pretty foolish (yes, feel sorry for us poor teachers that after 10 weeks of summer bliss we actually have to work for our living!) Somehow that just wouldn’t fly.

But honestly, unless you’re a teacher, you just can’t appreciate the emotions, as well as the practical changes, that take place. You have to relearn things all over again.

• You live your life according to bells.
• You go to the bathroom when you’re allowed, not when you have to.
• You eat in 18 minutes
• You wear real clothes
• You go extended periods under sleep deprivation (well some of us do anyway.)
• You always - always!- feel like you’re just not quite prepared for the next class
• You constantly try to reinvent the wheel, because you’re sure the last wheel is now flat!
• Your first name becomes “Mr.”
• You remember that just because you’ve said something three times, that doesn’t mean a teenager will actually have heard it.
• You remember that all children are perfect; just ask their parents. (Yes, Mrs. Manson, I’m sure that deep down inside, Charles is really a very sweet child)
• The alarm clock becomes important again.
• The book you just started in August is still, well, just started.

Now if you’re still wondering what all the noise is about from all of us over-paid underworked teachers, ask a newly retired person what they’re doing with all their free time, and you’ll most likely get an answer like this “Free time? What free time? I’m so busy, I have no idea how I survived when I was working.”  Or something like that. Now imagine it’s like that for 10 weeks, you get into the groove of being “retired,” then you have to go back to work full time. You find immediately that you have no time to do anything. Of course, after a while, you readjust to the new norm. But it takes a while.That’s kinda the situation.

Of course, if you’re not a teacher, I’m not sure how you could ever understand.

When Apple Rules the World

Come on, Apple, let’s get real.

You know, I just don’t get it. I don’t like Apple. Not the fruit, the company. It’s not that I don’t like their products. No, for the most part, the products are very good, well designed, and work very well. Although I don’t use many Apple products, I’ll believe the people who say how great they are. Well, to an extent. I use iTunes, and while I used to love it, not any more. I could go through all the reasons why it annoys me, but this blog isn’t that long.

Apple can really do no wrong, at least in the eyes of people who write about these kinds of things. Just recently  the new MacBook Pros came out. PC Magazine website titled their review “Oooh, nice. MacBook Pros.”  OK, they might really be that good. But the 17” version starts at $2500! I can buy 3 or 4 really good Dell laptops for that price. At such a premium, they better be “Oooh nice.”

Or how about this one: One reviewer said he heard the the new MacBook Airs might “actually come out in black.” He was all excited about it. Really? Black? I mean that’s nice, but I don’t think it’s something to get excited about. Unless of course, it’s from Apple, apparently.

And then I saw this headline: “iPhone 5 could launch in October, not September, tension now unbearable.”  I thought they were joking. But no, apparently it’s really unbearable...

Maybe, just maybe, these people are just a tad overboard about this stuff?

Honestly, they make great stuff. But come on. One of my friends says she loves “i-anything.” Guess it doesn't matter what it is, if Apple makes it, it’s great. Or another friend wants an iPhone. She’s never seen one, she doesn't know anybody who has one, but somehow she wants it. “Because it’s cool.” Her Blackberry is soooo yesterday.

But apparently designing good products isn't enough for Apple. Now, they’re trying to sue everyone in sight. For “patent violations.” Did you know, for instance, that Apple owns the color “white?” Well they think they do. Samsung is releasing a phone that’s white, and Apple has sought an injunction, saying that “White is OUR color.” Really? The sad thing is that some court will probably side with them.

Or how about “Appstore?” Yeah, they own that word too. Seems a little generic to me, but hey, I’m not a lawyer.

They actually have dozens of these law suits going on at once. Come on, Apple, you make good stuff. Rely on that.

But the biggest reason I don’t like Apple is because the company is dangerous. Really. In the world of Steve Jobs, the Apple CEO,  Apple doesn't only make the hardware, they make the software as well. And they control the distribution of it. In his view, if you're using an iPhone or iPad, you should buy the software from them. Odd, because I have a Toshiba laptop, and I can buy stuff online from anyone I want. But that's not how Apple sees it. If Apple would come to dominate the market, Steve Jobs would have final say on what hardware is made, and what software you can buy. Really. If he doesn't like it, it doesn't go into his “AppStore.” Yeah, that’s real market freedom for you. Not my idea of how the tech world should work.

Go ahead and buy their stuff. You’ll think it’s cool. No matter how much it costs. And whether it’s any good or not.

The 27 Club

I never knew about this club before. Well, I didn’t know it had a name. But I knew it existed. And it’s sad, very sad, that we have one. The “27” Club just got a new member: Amy Winehouse. For those of you who don’t know, she’s the 27 year old singer who was found dead last week.

Yes, 27 years old. Which makes her part of the “27 Club.” Along with a few others, such as Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, and Kurt Cobain. All musicians, all incredibly talented, all incredibly troubled, and all dead at the age of 27. Those are just the famous ones of course. My own “favorite,” if that is the right word, would be Pete Ham, lead singer and writer of the group Badfinger. 

Pete Ham is certainly not as well-known as the others, but somehow this one really hits me. For you non-Badfinger fans, you might remember some of their biggies: Day After Day and Baby Blue. And almost all of you remember “Without You,” written and originally performed by Badfinger, but covered with huge success by Nilsson. Badfinger was ”discovered” by the Beatles, and the band was sometimes confused with them. (Listen to the guitar solos in “Day After Day.” Definitely George Harrison influenced.) Anyway, to make a long story short, they had lots of success, and were cheated out of most of their money by their manager. Eventually, penniless and despondent, Ham hanged himself after drinking 10 shots of whisky, when he was 27, one month before the birth of his only child. Just for icing on the cake, Tom Evans, his writing partner and best friend in the band, never got over his loss, and eight years later, hung himself as well. Somehow, it’s harder to listen to those songs, knowing that both co-writers met such an end.

Most of these deaths are drug and alcohol related. Maybe not directly, but drugs seem to play a role in all of them. I’m sure a psychiatrist could probably give me a decent answer, but I do wonder what makes people with such talent, so much to live for, so much to offer decide to go this route? Is it a result of fame, and a way to deal with it? Or is it just another way to get a high when the rush of stardom wears off? Obviously, there’s not just one right answer, because there is not just one story. Amy Winhouse’s life and death were not at all like Pete Ham’s, except they both came to a premature closing.

I think I’ll listen to “Day After Day” one more time right now. Maybe you should too. It really is a great song.

Republicans, really?

(Republican friends, you won’t like this one. Move along, there’s nothing to see here!)

First of all, I have to say: I hate these partisan posts. I really do. I have friends on both sides, and I don't like offending half of them. I really don't. But they usually have no problem saying what they think, so I guess I have the right as well. Still, I don't like it. But sometimes it just gets crazy.

I am a republican. At least I was. I’m registered that way.  But honestly, right now I just don't understand that party. Mind you, I don’t think the democrats are exactly always the wisest and best either, but right now at least, the republicans are just crazy.  I’m not sure how else to describe them.

The “debt crisis.” Really? During the Bush administration, with republican congresses, the debt limit was raised seven times—SEVEN. With no fanfare, and almost no notice. (Do YOU remember those votes? Probably not.) It was a bookkeeping item. But now, when a democrat is the president, the congress has essentially wasted an entire summer fighting over what is normally a routine vote. What legislation has congress passed in the last three months? Basically nothing.

But that’s not the worst part of it. Even though the debt went from a surplus (yes I said surplus) at the end of the Clinton administration to record debts at the end of the Bush administration, somehow now “spending is out of control.” Why didn't they say that 5 years ago? In reality, spending has increased of course, but what has made the record surpluses is the lack of tax revenue due to a dead economy. When people aren't working, they aren't paying taxes. And while you can argue all day about whose fault it is that the economy hasn't recovered, we all know it went south during the last republican administration.

But that’s not the worst part of it either. When Reagan, the god of the conservatives, had a debt crisis early in his term, you know what he did? He raised taxes. Yes, really. He raised them. Many times. He cut spending as much as he could, but when the government couldn't afford what they were spending, he raised taxes. Remember Bush 1? When he had a debt problem, he raised taxes. So why can’t we do that now? Because now any tax increase is a “job-killing” tax increase. Even though before Bush 2 made his tax cuts, we had the best economy anyone can remember, somehow going back to those tax rates will be “job killing.” That makes no sense.

But that’s still not the worst of it. No, what’s the worst of it is, Obama is being vilified and belittled by his own party because he’s trying to give away so much. Recommending huge cuts which the democrats hate, to get very tiny tax increases.  If the republicans had accepted Obama’s proposal, they would have won almost everything they wanted, and the democrats would have lost almost everything. But Boehner said no. Because he knows the crazies in his party won't support any tax increases, of any kind, on anybody.

I think it’s pretty simple. The republicans will do anything to make Obama look bad. They probably do care what happens to the country, but not as much as they care about defeating Obama in 2012. And they’ll destroy everything to accomplish that.

This isn't a football game. It’s not about who wins. It’s about what’s right.

And don’t even get me started about the republican governors.

Sometimes We Just Want to Complain

Today I was running with some of my Cross Country kids. They routinely run about a mile, then stop to stretch. Well, one of the girls was sitting in the street doing her stretches. Yes, she could have used the grass or the sidewalk, but she chose the edge of the street. Probably not the best choice, but she was right at a 4-way stop, so the few cars that came by were traveling very slowly. And there was plenty of room for those cars to get by. I watched as two cars passed, the drivers smiling at her, apparently getting a chuckle at the incident. But when the third car came, this driver was not amused. A very sour look was on her face, and I could tell she was mumbling something at this girl. This girl was not in her way, and she didn’t affect this driver in any way, but still she complained.

Yesterday I was in church. Before the service started, one man came in, and was moving up to his seat in the front, where he has sat every single week for at least twenty years. He noticed there were some ropes along the back pews, and asked me what they were doing there. I replied “I don’t think they want you to sit there.” (The ropes were put there to try to bring the congregants a little closer, trying to make a slightly more “together” atmosphere.) He looked at me, with basically the same look as the driver from this morning, and said “Now they’re telling me where I can SIT!” Keep in mind that this man NEVER sits in those pews. It didn’t affect him in any way, but still he complained.

To be fair, to keep this from becoming a rant against all those complainers, I have to admit that I sometimes fall into this category as well. Which brings me to my point; sometimes we just like to complain.

In fact, there are times, I hate to admit, when deep down inside I think I actually want things to go wrong, just so I can complain about them. Does that make any sense at all? Of course not. Yet it is so. And these are not my proudest moments!

I think we’re all this way, just to different extents. The best and most positive among us hope for the best, and live with what happens. On the other extreme, some of us expect the worse, then complain nonstop about it. But as in most things in life, none of us are either extreme. We’re all somewhere in the middle. The best we can do is try to be as much toward the positive end as possible.

But my question is, what makes us this way? Why can some of deal easily with things that don’t really inconvenience us, while others feel it’s necessary to make a big deal and tell everybody how horrible things are.

All I know is, I don’t like those people. Nobody needs them, and they're not helping. Anything. In any way. No matter how important and justified they feel.

And I really don’t like myself when I am one.

Do Dogs Really Go To Heaven?

Yesterday we buried our dog, Pepper. At 13 years old, she'd been around most of my kids' childhood. In their minds really, we've always had Pepper. If you've ever had a dog, then you know how she really becomes one of the family. And Pepper was no different. It was very difficult to let go of her. So when Emma was saying her good-byes, she told Pepper that when she went to heaven, she'd be able to run and jump like she used to, not just shuffle and fall like in her old age. Later Emma asked me if I thought that she was telling Pepper the truth. Emma doesn't like to lie. So I wondered: Do dogs really go to heaven?

On first thought, no, dogs don't go to heaven, any more than cats or squirrels or cockroaches. Humans are God's people, not animals. And if we assume our dogs follow us to heaven, then how about our hamsters. Or fish. Or even mosquitoes. Hmmm... Not likely.

In Pepper's final hours, we laughed and cried, similar in so many ways to other loved ones' deaths I have witnessed before. We petted her, comforted her, and talked to her like she could understand (which maybe she could after all.)

But heaven? I suppose that depends on how you picture heaven. Or if you believe in heaven at all. Because I'll guarantee that if you have ten people in a room discussing heaven, you'll get ten different descriptions. Personally, I don't know what to expect, assuming I even make the cut. And those of us who say they know for sure, well that's just wishful thinking. But somehow I'm not expecting anything as literal as streets of gold, that's for sure. I don't know what heaven will be, but I dont' think it will be like that.

We had our times, Pepper and us, that's for sure. The time she ate the $80, we almost killed her. And there was the time she ate the bag of chocolate chips. Trust me, you don't want to know the details of that escapade. Except that she almost died from it, and it was not pretty. Or the time she ate Sara's jeans, or Emma's German book, or... Yeah, you get the idea.

But through it all, Pepper really was our best friend. I know that sounds trite, but you dog people know exactly what I'm talking about. She was never mad at us, she never called us names, and she never ignored us. No matter what happened, she would always greet us with her tail wagging, always nuzzle us for just a little more attention, and in general remind us that, even in our lowest moments, there was at least one living being that still loved us.

But through the years, her run became a gallop, then maybe a shuffle. As her legs succumbed to old age, it became almost impossible for her to go up or down the stairs to the back yard. It got harder and harder for her to even get up off the floor. When Sara came home after being gone for months, Pepper finally got to the point where she couldn't even stand with our help. Almost like she held on to see her one last time. Maybe that's crazy, but it sure seemed like it.

One thing I do know. I want to die like Pepper did. Surrounded by all her loved ones, she waited patiently for the injection, and then she quickly just seemed to go to sleep. I could go for that kind of death.

We buried her in a very big hole in the back yard, by all the cats, the guinea pigs, and more than a few fish. Mary put a dog treat and a dollar bill in the grave, "her favorite foods." We all helped cover her up. It was very sad, but somehow death is a part of life, and it was as it should be.

When I got back from my run today, I sat on the porch to cool down, like I always do. And I instinctively took a few steps to the door to let Pepper out to join me, like she always did. Then I remembered. She was not coming out today.

But heaven? No I'm not sure. Seeing Pepper with me there really sounds like just wishful thinking. But we've been promised great things for heaven. And I know one thing that just simply can't be there, and that's sadness. Heaven and sadness are mutually exclusive. God has promised us that much I think. If heaven is even close to what's promised, then we just can't be sad there.

So at the risk of this being one of those "Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus" answers, I really have to rethink this one. Because if my kids go to heaven and Pepper's not there, that will make them sad. And there's no sadness in heaven. So by that logic, yes Emma, Pepper will be there in heaven too. You'll see her again, and yes, she'll be running and jumping.

Seeing my kids happy, would make me happy. And there is no sadness in heaven.

Do Jerks Know They're Jerks?

OK, that question may be obvious to you, but it isn't to me. Really. I don't know the answer to this one, but I'm guessing it's one of those questions that is best answered with "Well, that depends..."

Take me, for instance (since I'm writing this.) I think I work really hard at doing the right thing, treating people fairly, being honest, and acting with integrity. I try to help people whenever I can, and I try to forgive people and not hold grudges. In other words, I try to be a good guy. Sometimes I succeed, and sometimes I don't. Now I know there are people who say "Morgan is really a good guy." Yet I also know that there are those reading this in bewildered amazement, thinking "What a jerk (or worse) Morgan is. What an arrogant $#%*&@^."

So in my case, even if I am a jerk, no, this jerk doesn't know he's a jerk.

But I know other people. To me, it seems like their whole goal in life is "to win," to look better than the next guy. They put people down, to their face and behind their backs, whenever they get a chance. They show concern when they think it will make them look good, but disrespect for others at all other times. They usually claim to be Christians, but it's really hard to see any "Jesus-like" behavior coming from them. The only people they treat decently are their friends. You know these guys too. They're arrogant, controlling, and firmly convinced that they're always the smartest guy in the room. Do these guys know their jerks? Obviously, I don't know what's in their heads, but listen to their friends.

Because the friends, or supporters, of these guys, usually defend them. But the defense goes something like: "Yeah, I know he comes across that way, but deep down inside..." Or maybe "Yeah, but trust me, he really means well." And sometimes like this: "Well, you know, he's just being (insert name here.) He's always been that way. That's just him." As if these things somehow excuse all the bad behavior.

Personally, I think that guy knows he's a jerk, and "deep down inside" he's actually proud of it, because it makes him look tough, like a fighter. I'm just guessing, of course.

You know, I  think it comes down to what I've said many times before: we believe what we want to believe. If we have personally gained because of someone, we want to think he's a good guy, so we do. Maybe we got an A in his class, or he gave us a promotion. But if that person hurt us somehow, no matter how well deserved, we think he's a jerk. Maybe we flunked his class, or we were fired. Even if we deserved those things, we don't want to believe that, so we don't. In our minds, the guy must be a jerk.

I think it is commendable, and the right thing to do, to try to be a "good guy." But don't expect rewards from it. That may happen, but it may not as well. Do it, just because it's the right thing to do.

Tax Cuts: What I Don't Want to Believe

I’m a scientist. Well, that’s probably an exaggeration. I actually teach science; chemistry and physics. But I know I tend to look at things somewhat “scientifically.” Which means I look at data and evidence. I try not to make excuses for facts that don’t fit what I think. While I’m sure there are times that I do that, I try really hard NOT to. That would not be good science.

A good scientist will not adjust data to fit his ideas. He will adjust his ideas to fit the data.

So I’m always surprised when I hear people talk about how we need to lower taxes to spur our economy. They say that by lowering taxes, the economy will grow, and the government will then actually collect MORE revenue, due to all that income increase. Really? When I look at the evidence, I just don’t see anything that justifies that.

In the early 80’s, Reagan lowered taxes. What happened? We had a huge deficit. Really. I know conservatives hate to think that. Honestly, I hate to think that as well. But that’s what the data shows.

Next came Bush 1. Despite his infamous “Read my lips: No new taxes” pledge, he soon realized that without doing so, we were going to have huge deficits. So he raised taxes. Slightly. Deficits were still large, but less than they would have been.

In the early 90’s Clinton raised taxes again. The result? The deficit went away. We actually had a budget surplus! And the economy boomed. Incredibly.

Enter Bush 2. He lowered taxes. The result? Surplus gone, deficit huge. Really huge. Way more than anyone ever saw before. And the economy? Well, most people agree it’s the worst we’ve had since the depression of the 1930’s. 

I know we all believe what we want to believe (see this post) but really, if you’re looking at this information, how can you really say “We have to lower taxes to spur our economy?” I’ve looked hard the last couple years, and up to now at least, nobody has shown me any data at all that supports this idea. But they keep saying it anyway.

By nature, I’m a fiscal conservative. I’ve always thought the government should spend as little as possible, and they should always balance their budget. And just like everyone else, I want my taxes very low. But when I look at the evidence, the only reasonable conclusion I can draw is that in the America we know now, this model just doesn’t work like we want it to. And up till now at least, nobody has given me any significant data to refute this.

It’s pretty simple. If we want to decrease the deficit and spur the economy, it looks to me that we have to raise taxes somewhere. I really hate to say that. Maybe you can show me my facts are wrong. If so, that’s great. But by all the evidence I’ve seen, I can come to no other conclusion.

And if you’re honest with yourself, you’ll probably admit it as well.

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.