OVER COFFEE by Jerry Wilson
2000


NEW MILLENNIUM?

Welcome to the year 2000!

There's no doubt this is a new year, but is it also a new century 
and a new millennium?  Are we now in the much-heralded 21st 
century, or is the 20th century still dragging on?

Technically, a millennium is simply a period of 1000 years.  So 
the question about whether or not we're in a new millennium is at 
least partly academic, because every year begins a new 1000-year 
period (millennium) and ends the previous such period.  However, 
since most of the modern world uses the Gregorian calendar to 
reckon time, the question should be asked in terms of that 
calendar.  In such case, the 20th century and the second 
millennium have about one more year to run.

To understand why, one needs only to understand the meaning of the 
word "millennium."  Its definition has already been given in the 
paragraph above -- it is a period of 1000 years.  Therefore, if 
one begins counting the passage of years, they would count off a 
millennium when they reach the number 1000.  So far, so good; it's 
pretty simple.

So where should we begin counting?  At what year, and on what day 
of that year do we start?  Well, since the Gregorian calendar 
begins with the year AD 1, (not 0), let's start counting there.  
And since the first year didn't end until December 31, in the year 
1, we count off the first year on that date.  We count off the 
second year on December 31, in the year AD 2.  Finally, we count 
1000 on December 31 in the year AD 1000, right?  Sure!  That's the 
first millennium, years 1 through 1000.  

Now let's continue counting.  The next period of 1000 years 
(second millennium) starts on December 31, 1001.  We don't reach 
2000 until December 31 in the year AD 2000.  Therefore, that is 
the date of the end of the second millennium, and that date isn't 
here yet!

OK, so we're still in the 20th century for a little while longer.  
Does that mean we'll have to go through this whole Y2K bug thing 
again at the end of this year?  The answer is no.  The Y2K bug 
really had nothing to do with the actual millennium.  It was 
related to the fact that the calendar year now starts with a "20" 
instead of a "19."

To save valuable and expensive memory cells, early computer 
programmers didn't bother including the 19 in the date that is 
stored in computer memory.  Instead, the computers were programmed 
to add a 19 to the front of the 2-digit year.  Obviously, that 
wouldn't work this year.  Computers would see the year "00," add 
19 in front of it, and interpret it as the year 1900.  

That would create chaos.  Computers would show all credit cards as 
having expired.  Interest rates would be computed based on an 
extra 100 years of compounding.  And utilities or other devices 
that rely on regular automated maintenance would think that they 
had not been maintained for 100 years, so the computer would shut 
them down.

As I write this, it is still 1999.  I have every confidence that 
all the banks and utility companies have had sufficient time to 
correct the computer glitch associated with Y2K, and that nothing 
sinister happened last Saturday, January 1.  However, I do hope 
computer programmers learned something.  If not, we will be 
destined to go through this same last-minute fix-up when Y3K rolls 
around.  Maybe we should start preparing early just in case.  
After all, we have only a millennium to get ready!



RESOLVE TO QUIT SMOKING

My  fourteen-year-old daughter and I went out for breakfast a 
couple of Saturday's ago, as we usually do.  It has become 
somewhat of a father-daughter tradition, since we typically are 
the first two people in our house to get up on Saturday mornings.  
Anyway, after we were finished, my daughter noticed a mother and 
her baby in the nearby smoking section of the restaurant.  The 
baby was probably about six months old or so.

The mother was apparently getting ready to leave; she was hovering 
over the child, buttoning its coat.  My daughter noticed that the 
young mother had a cigarette sticking out of her mouth, smoke 
billowing downward into the baby's face.

She told me, "I don't understand people like that.  How can they 
consider themselves to be good mothers when they smoke around 
their children?  Don't they know any better?"  She went on, "I 
think it should be considered the same as child abuse.  Those 
innocent kids are forced to breath that filthy smoke.  Why doesn't 
the mom just go ahead and stick the cigarette into the kid's mouth 
and light it; it's the same thing!"

Of course, I was forced to agree with her, and could offer her no 
resolution to her query, "Why do parents smoke around their 
children?"  I understand how difficult it is for smokers to kick 
the habit; smoking is addictive.  But they should make every 
effort not to smoke around their kids.

If you are a smoker, the best New Year's resolution you could make 
is to resolve to quit smoking -- and then just do it, whatever it 
takes.

I feel sorry for all the adults in this country who have been 
duped by the cigarette manufacturers in the past.  For many years, 
the tobacco companies declared that their products were safe and 
that they were not addictive.  They ran commercials featuring 
cartoon-like characters that were obviously meant to attract the 
attention of children or teenagers, to lull them into feeling good 
about tobacco and cigarettes.  They ran commercials showing 
smokers as popular, active, and athletic.  They didn't mention, of 
course, that many of the people featured in those commercials are 
dead now -- poisoned by the tobacco smoke they propounded.

Now, the people who started smoking years ago, lulled by Big 
Tobacco into thinking it was somehow "cool" or "prestigious," are 
addicted to a deadly chemical substance.  Those are the ones I 
feel sorry for. 

I don't feel quite as sorry for the young adults, or teens, who 
began smoking only recently.  They should have known better.  It 
shows a lack of maturity and foresight on their part, thinking 
that somehow they can avoid tobacco's dangers so that they can 
look "cool" around their friends.  How naive they are.

I also don't feel sorry for those young parents, barely into their 
20's, who take their babies to the smoking section of restaurants 
and sit there puffing chemical carcinogens into the faces of their 
innocent progeny as though it were a breath of fresh air.  I do, 
however, feel very sorry for their children who must endure this 
pollution from the mouths of Mommy or Daddy.

Resolving to quit smoking, knowing full well that it will be a 
difficult uphill battle, and then acting on this resolution, 
sticking with it, shows intelligence and courage.  If you are a 
smoker who has made this resolution, I salute you.  I would wish 
you good luck, but I know it will take far more than just luck.  
It will take willpower and desire.

In the long run, if you are successful, you will be among the 
elite.  You can then rightfully call yourselves, "cool."  You will 
be better in the knowledge that you will be saving yourself 
hundreds of dollars a year, money that you can use for things you 
really want instead of things you are addicted to.  More 
importantly, you will be better in the knowledge that you are now 
healthier, and you will not be creating polluted air to be 
breathed by those around you -- your friends and family.  You, 
your house, and your car will no longer reek with the stench of 
burned tobacco.  You will be free.

If you quit smoking, or do not start, you will be the winner, Big 
Tobacco the loser, in a game with the highest of stakes -- your 
own life, your health, and the health of your children.



HATE CRIMES

Well, here we go again.  Our illustrious Indiana General Assembly 
has again decided to use up valuable time and resources in this 
short session, deliberating the need or desire to pass a law that 
would make it illegal to hurt, kill, or maim somebody that you 
hate.

Now, keep in mind, it is already against the law to hurt, kill, or 
maim somebody B anybody.  In legal terminology it is called 
battery, assault, murder, or whatever.  These are already against 
the law.  However, if the Hate Crimes Bill passes and you do this 
to someone you hate, it will really, really be against the law!

But there's a catch.  Included in the Hate Crimes Bill is a list 
of people that you're allowed to hate and those you're not allowed 
to hate.  The bigger crime, carrying extra time in jail for 
killing someone you hate, does not apply to just anyone that you 
hate, only people that belong to certain groups.  If I were to be 
attacked by someone who, say, hated all newspaper columnists, that 
person, if caught, would suffer only standard punishment, because 
newspaper columnists are not one of the protected groups!  Go 
figure.

So what's a criminal to do?  Does such a law place an undue burden 
on a potential thug?  If passed, potential criminals and hate 
mongers would need to check a list of special groups of people 
that would bring on a higher penalty if they were to be attacked 
due to hatred.  They would need to check the law prior to each 
offense to make sure that, if caught, they would be charged with 
the much less serious murder crime than the dreaded murder-due-to-
hate crime.  Perhaps as an amendment to the bill, lawmakers could 
require all those people you can't hate to wear some kind of badge 
or sign, "Hate Crimes Against the Wearer Not Allowed Under Penalty 
of Law."

The proposed law would provide a stiffer penalty for crimes 
against people of different races, religions, nationalities, or 
against those with disabilities -- the groups you're not allowed 
to hate.  Standard punishment would suffice for criminal acts 
against other people you might potentially hate, such as lawyers, 
politicians, blondes, rap singers, gays, or fat people.  These 
folks get no added protection.

Criminals could use this loophole.  What if an attacker really 
hated anyone from rural South Yemen, but because that is a 
nationality (and on the list), they took out their anger on a 
group of upstart politicians?  The crime was caused by hate, but 
the penalty would be only standard, not enhanced, because 
politicians are not protected, (a clear oversight by the bill's 
writers, I'm sure).  

And what about taxicab drivers or convenience store operators in 
the big city?  Would those who hate foreigners have a field day?  
They could claim their hatred was not directed at the foreigner 
driving the cab or standing behind the cash register, but rather 
at all taxicab drivers or store clerks!  The latter two groups are 
not protected in the proposed bill.

I guess the bottom line is, if you want extra protection under the 
proposed new law, all you have to do is join one of the groups 
that you're not allowed to hate, and start wearing that sign!	
				



MINORITIES SHOULDN'T USE RACE CARD

Let us take a journey of the imagination to another country, a 
purely fictional country -- similar to the United States, but 
different in important ways.

This country is filled with much diversity.  There are people from 
different nations, people of different races, colors, sexes, 
religions, and creeds.  Yet, everyone in this country behaves as 
though, and is treated by others as though, there were but one 
race, one religion, one sex, and one nationality.

A person in this increasingly hypothetical country who applies for 
a job or for admission to a university is either accepted or 
rejected based upon nothing but merit.  Race does not enter the 
equation.  A prospective boss does not have to meet any racial or 
ethnic quotas.  An individual who is turned down for a job doesn't 
even consider playing the "race card."  It just never enters 
anyone's mind in this fictitious land that decisions are ever made 
about anyone based upon their color or race.

Now, let us come back to reality.  America has one thing in common 
with this hypothetical land of ours -- its diversity.  America has 
been termed both a "melting pot" and a "salad bowl."  The melting 
pot camp is closer to our hypothetical world than the salad bowl 
camp, but neither is a complete picture of America, nor does 
either description convey the optimum condition depicted in the 
fictitious country.

Those who say America should be a melting pot believe that 
everyone living here should be considered Americans, and that any 
racial or ethnic differences should be checked at the front door 
upon arrival.  On the other hand, the salad bowl people say that 
America's strength lies in its diversity, and that all the 
different cultures represented here make America better.

It just doesn't quite work that way in real life, however.  It has 
happened throughout all of history, in all parts of the world.  It 
is still happening today, in Northern Ireland, in the Balkans, in 
Russia, and in parts of Asia.  People of different cultures have 
never learned to get along.  We would be failing again to learn 
from history if we expect anything different in America.

We can, however, learn  how to suppress our latent tendencies to 
maintain ethnic purity.  We can do this, but only if all races 
decide to do it together.  We can all denounce hate groups such as 
the Ku Klux Klan or the Neo-Nazis.  And we have no real problem in 
denouncing these fringe groups of supremacists.

We do, however, have a problem in denouncing the more extremist 
members of minority groups, probably out of fear that if we do 
denounce them, we ourselves will be labeled as racist.

With the racial tensions that exist in this country still today, 
and that have existed for decades, do we really need to highlight 
racial differences by marking the anniversary of the birthday of 
Martin Luther King, Jr.?  Do we really need to celebrate a Black 
History Month, or to celebrate ethnic culture at a Black Expo 
event?

Do people like Jesse Jackson really need to get involved with the 
disciplinary decisions of a local school district in Illinois?  He 
said he was involved because he felt the expulsion of some young 
men for fighting was too extreme.  But would he have gotten 
involved, or even taken notice, if these same young men were white 
instead of black?

It is very easy in this country to denounce hate groups -- those 
who bash blacks, gays, Jews, or any other minority.  And it should 
be easy to denounce these lunatics.  It is not quite so easy, 
though, to jump on the bandwagon to oppose the racist practices of 
minority groups, for fear of being labeled racist ourselves.

Should this country be more like a melting pot or a salad bowl?  
Perhaps the answer is neither.  Maybe America should strive to be 
more like a stew kettle.  In a stew, the vegetables are all 
recognizable, yet their flavors meld together, becoming richer and 
more robust than the flavors of any of the separate vegetables 
alone.

Americans should acknowledge the different cultures and histories 
of its constituent peoples, and assimilate them into the culture 
of America.  We should be a country of Americans that happen to 
have disparate histories, not a country of African-Americans, 
Mexican-Americans, Cuban-Americans, or other ethno-Americans.  
That tends to separate us, back into the salad mix.  

In this land of e pluribus unum, we must acknowledge our diversity 
while not allowing our diversity to control us.  We should be a 
country of different colors, but one in which all inhabitants are 
color blind.  There should be equality of opportunity for all 
races, but those opportunities must be made by the individual, 
through drive, perseverance, and strength.  Opportunities should 
never be handed out based upon race, religion, or ethnicity.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas once related how difficult 
it was for him as a young black man trying to make something of 
himself in the 1950's.  It was tough back then because of legal 
discrimination.  Thomas also related how much more difficult it is 
for today's black youths, not only because of any lingering 
prejudices, but primarily because many of today's minorities 
believe they are owed compensation for past practices.  This 
stifles personal drive and motivation.  They become their own 
handicap.

Thomas is correct.  The sooner men like Jesse Jackson and groups 
like the NAACP stop pointing out how bad minorities have it, the 
sooner the majority can forget that minorities actually exist.  
And once there are no more minorities in our minds, then everyone, 
by default, will be treated equally.  Isn't that what everyone 
really wants?



ABOUT WINTERTIME

Our brief bout of icy weather recently caused me to wax nostalgic 
about the winters I endured when I was a kid.

I enjoyed snow -- and cold.  And I don't really remember why I 
liked it so well, because I never really played in it that much.  
Well, for one thing, I don't recall having very many winters when 
there was enough snow to matter much.  I can remember sitting in 
the classroom at school staring out the window while my teacher 
would drone on about literature and irony or something, watching 
gigantic flakes of snow drift to the ground in sporadic showers.  
Near the end of class, I just knew there had to be a couple inches 
on the ground already, but not so.  I was on the third floor of 
the old "School on the Hill" and was not able to see the ground 
until I stood up.  So, when class was over, imagine my 
disappointment when I peered out onto the lawn and saw nothing but 
grass.  All the snow had melted as it hit.

Oh well, better luck next time, I guess.  I always held out hope 
for a big snowfall, but was seldom rewarded in my youth.  
Occasionally, however, I would get "lucky."

I vividly remember one winter; I must have been in the sixth 
grade, and we had plenty of snow on the ground -- maybe six or 
eight inches.  The packed snow on the sidewalks was at least an 
inch thick.  It was cold, too.  Puddles were all frozen over.  
Kids my age were getting running starts to see how far they could 
slide across the large frozen "pond" on one of the sidewalks.

I really hated that.  I was never a slider -- more of a slip-and-
faller.  I did my best to avoid the frozen puddles.

The school used to sit on the hill, near Holy Trinity Church.  
Every day, our class would have to walk from the main building, 
down the grade to the parking lot on the way across the street to 
the gymnasium and the vocational shops.  One day, while going to 
my shop class, the snow was packed thick.  I was apprehensive at 
the thought of having to walk down the embankment.  I knew I would 
slip and fall; I just knew it.

I took a deep breath, gritted my teeth, and started my trek down 
the slippery slope.  I had no choice; I had to get to shop class.  

It wasn't bad at first.  I was about half way down when I remember 
thinking to myself, "I'm going to make it!"  Then, it happened.  
The slope became a little steeper.  There were three girls in 
front of me, walking as if it were mid-summer.  I started to 
slide.

I crouched down a bit, to give myself more stability, but I 
couldn't stop myself from sliding.  I crashed right into the back 
of one of the girl's legs.  She and I both hit the pavement.  It 
was quite embarrassing, probably for both of us, but especially 
for me.  Guys were supposed to be able to handle this sliding 
stuff.

I vowed not to let anything like that happen again.  I devised an 
alternate route to my shop class.  It involved a substantial 
detour around the front of the building and down the steps to the 
front sidewalk, and then to the gym, but I wasn't about to go down 
that slope again.

Snowball fights were another hazard of winter.  I had my share of 
poundings.  I didn't enjoy that much, either.  

Come to think of it, I didn't enjoy much about the snow at all.  I 
just remember that I loved it when it finally came.  Why?  Who can 
say.  I feel the same way about snow today.  I love it when it 
comes; I hate it when it's here.  Is that irony?



VALENTINE'S DAY

t wasn't too long ago we were talking Santa Claus or Y2K.  Now 
that we are in the second month of the new millennium (unless 
you're still
holding out for celebrating the real new millennium in 2001), all 
that is behind us, and we can start thinking about that romantic 
of all holidays, Valentine's Day.

Valentine's Day has never been a favorite of mine.  I tend to lean
toward the pragmatic and away from the romantic, but then that's 
just
me.  Some Valentine skeptics insist that the day was created by a
conspiracy between candy makers and greeting card companies.  In
actuality, however, St. Valentine was a real fellow, and his day 
has
been commemorated in some form or other for hundreds of years.  
And even
before that, the Romans celebrated love and romance (well, 
actually sex)
during the middle of February.

For eight hundred years prior to the establishment of Valentine's 
Day,
the Romans had practiced a pagan celebration in mid-February
commemorating young men's rite of passage to the god Lupercus. The
celebration featured a lottery in which young men would draw the 
names
of teenage girls from a box. The girl assigned to each young man 
in that
manner would be his sexual companion during the remaining year.

In an effort to do away with the pagan festival, Pope Gelasius 
ordered a
slight change in the lottery.  Instead of the names of young 
women, the
box would contain the names of saints. Both men and women were 
allowed
to draw from the box, and the game was to emulate the ways of the 
saint
they drew during the rest of the year. As you might expect, many 
of the
young Roman men were not too pleased with the rule changes.

Instead of the pagan god Lupercus, the Church looked for a 
suitable
patron saint of love to take his place. They found an appropriate 
choice
in Valentine, who, in AD 270 had been beheaded by Emperor 
Claudius.

Claudius had determined that married men made poor soldiers. So he
banned marriage from his empire. But Valentine would secretly 
marry
young men that came to him. When Claudius found out about 
Valentine, he
first tried to convert him to paganism. But Valentine reversed the
strategy, trying instead to convert Claudius to Christianity. When 
he failed, he was stoned and beheaded.

During the days that Valentine was imprisoned, he fell in love 
with the
blind daughter of his jailer. His love for her, and his great 
faith,
managed to miraculously heal her from her blindness before his 
death.
Before he was taken to his death, he signed a farewell message to 
her,
"From your Valentine." The phrase has been used on his day ever 
since.

I guess it is only fair that most men today consider Valentine's 
Day a
holiday that favors the women.  The guys buy their loved ones 
flowers,
candy, and cards, and take them out for romantic dinners.  And 
that's
fine; after all, the guys had their day  in February for 800 years 
back
in the days of old Lupercus.  The pendulum has swung.



WHY DO KIDS SMOKE?

Why do kids smoke?

That is a perplexing question; it's one that has a lot of answers, 
but
none of them sufficient to explain what seems to be an epidemic,
especially among teenagers in Edinburgh.

Not to single out Edinburgh teens as the only teens in the world 
who
smoke, but a casual observation seems to show that a rather high
percentage of local teens partake of tobacco products.  One does 
not
have to observe a person smoking to know that they smoke; just one 
sniff
of their clothing will give them away.  And yet, the reason they 
smoke
remains an enigma.

There is, of course, the usual peer pressure involved.  Kids and 
teens
want to emulate their peers, even if that emulation leads to 
unhealthy
habits.  And since smoking was historically an adult habit, kids 
may
feel as if they are being more "grown up" if they engage in grown-
up
vices such as smoking or drinking.

There are also those who use the excuse of nervousness.  "It helps 
to
calm my nerves," is the claim.

Many teens also have a sense of invulnerability.  Death is 
something
that is far off into the future, as is serious chronic illnesses.  
They
perceive that they are somehow invincible.

None of these reasons is sufficient enough to excuse the habit.  
The
facts remain.  Smoking is an unhealthy, even deadly habit that 
also
happens to be very expensive.  Adults know it, and so do kids.  
The fact
that kids know that smoking is deadly, expensive, and makes them 
stink
doesn't seem to quell their desire to start smoking.

Teenagers often engage in risky behavior.  It is almost a right of
passage into adulthood.  Yet much of the risky behavior they 
engage in
is fleeting.  Smoking is not.  It is a habit that will stay with 
them
for the remainder of their shortened lives, unless they somehow 
muster
up enough willpower and desire to one day quit.

Most teens that I've talk to who smoke say that they are trying to
quit.  That says something about why they started.  Perhaps they 
know
that cigarettes are addictive, but yet, down deep, they don't 
quite
believe that it will addict them.  Or maybe the kids are not 
really
trying to quit at all; maybe that's just their way of saying they 
wish
they had never started.

Many kids who smoke have parents who also smoke.  Some even have 
parents
who supply them with cigarettes.  Do they not realize that they 
are
literally poisoning their own children?  It's one thing to take 
poison
yourself; it's quite another to offer it to your kids.

I don't know whether teens in Edinburgh smoke at a greater rate 
than
teens in general.  I do know there are a lot of them who smoke.  I 
also
know they realize it is a deadly habit, an expensive habit, and 
they
know it is against the law.  Yet they do it anyway.

Indiana has several million dollars coming each year from the 
tobacco
industry.  It might be a wise investment to use some of this money 
to
find out why kids start smoking, so that we will have more of an 
idea of
how to stop them before they start.



EDINBURGH'S TRAFFIC PROBLEMS

Edinburgh may be a small town, but have you ever noticed how there 
is no good way to get from
the west side to downtown?  A driver going downtown from Prosser 
Addition, or from the east
side of town to the Dollar General Store has to make about a 
zillion stops and turns, or backtrack
at least a couple of blocks.                 

That is not the only traffic problem in this small town of ours, 
either.  Parents taking their kids to
East Side Elementary in the morning, or swimmers going to or 
coming home from the Aquatics
Center via Shelby Street are in for some stop-and-go driving, 
since there is a stop sign at every
single intersection until you get passed Grant Street.

And what about visitors from out of town looking for an address on 
Center Cross Street?  Center
Cross is the same as State Highway 252 between Eisenhower Drive 
and the railroad tracks.  Yet
there is no sign that labels it as Center Cross.  The State of 
Indiana is responsible for labeling
their state highways with numbers, but if that highway also has a 
name given to it by a
municipality, then the local government should place appropriate 
street labels on it.  You will
notice, however, that all the street labels along the highway 
label it with the state's designation,
"St. Hwy 252."  None of the signs tell visitors to town that it is 
actually Center Cross Street.

And, while I'm on the topic of Highway 252, is there no way to 
construct a sidewalk between
Pleasant Street and Eisenhower Drive?  There are pedestrians and 
bicycles that travel that road
every day, and that hidden curve just west of Pleasant Street is 
quite dangerous.

How can the town remedy the situation?                           

The street label matter is easy.  Just change the signs to reflect 
the true name of the street.  The
Aquatics Center and East Side School can be made more accessible 
by removing all stop signs
on Shelby Street from Grant to Franklin, and making the cross 
traffic on Lincoln, Clay, and
Franklin stop instead.  Two out of those three streets already 
must stop at Shelby.

The other two problems are fixable, but to do so would require 
more expense.  Still, it would be
worth it in order to make Edinburgh more "driver friendly."                

The best solution to the accessibility problem of the far west 
side would be to widen Hougham
Street the one block that it exists as an ally, between Pleasant 
and Main Streets.  Then remove the
stop signs all along its path from Eisenhower to Main, making the 
cross traffic stop, instead. 
That would give motorists a straight shoot between Prosser 
Addition and the main north-south
artery going into downtown.                                      

And the solution to the pedestrian problem along Center Cross is 
simply to build a sidewalk. 
Sure, it's easier said than paid for, but do we really need to 
wait for someone to get run down
before we build a sidewalk there?



COINS AND THE NEW DOLLAR

Coins are one of life's small nuisances.  They are a minor 
necessary evil you must put up with if you want to purchase 
anything with cash.

Change is heavy in your pocket, if you're a man, and it can 
accumulate in a woman's change purse to the point of almost making 
it burst open at the seams.  And don't you just hate to wait in 
line at the store while the little old lady ahead of you digs 
around in her purse for exact change?

That being said, coins do have their positive characteristics, 
especially for numismatists.  I get a little excited every time I 
get a brand-spanking new shiny quarter that looks as though it 
were just minted yesterday.  They're pretty to look at, and the 
engravings are an art form.

I especially like the new "Golden Eagle Dollar."  It is different.  
It is embossed with the likeness of Sacagawea, the Indian lady who 
helped guide Lewis and Clark on their expedition of the Louisiana 
Purchase.  Although it is the same size as the ill-fated Susan B. 
Anthony Dollar that was scorned by the public in the late 1970's, 
its color, and the lack of  ridges on its edge, help to 
distinguish it from the quarter.  

The U.S. Mint veered from its usual path of releasing new money to 
banks with the dollar coin.  In order to get them into circulation 
more quickly, they released them to Wal-Mart.  That was probably a 
good idea.  Unfortunately, it means the government has given a 
boost to the retailer that is already the biggest one in the 
country.  The coins should have been released to smaller 
businesses at the same time.  It also profits Wal-Mart because 
they make you buy something before they will give you any of the 
new coins!

Of course, all Sacagawea dollars are shiny and new right now.  But 
give them a few years of wear, and I'm afraid they might start 
looking like old dirty pennies.

The penny -- now there's an anachronism.  What's the point in 
having them?  You can't buy anything with a penny these days.  Oh, 
you can buy a dozen CDs or tapes from the Columbia House Record 
Club, or you can buy a cellular telephone from Radio Shack for a 
penny, but there are strings attached to both offers.  Pennies 
accumulate in your pocket; you're constantly losing them, and it 
takes forever to save up enough of them in your change jar to make 
it worth the trip to the bank to cash them in for real money.

I wish the U.S. Mint would stop making the penny.  If your grocery 
bill (or whatever) comes to $65.72, just pay $65.70.  If it comes 
to $65.78, then pay $65.80.  You lose a cent here and gain a cent 
there, but it would average out in the end.  Besides, the 
government would save a bundle in minting costs.

Another coin that might reduce the pocket load would be a two-
dollar coin.  Canada has one.  We should, too.

With the new Sacagawea dollar,  the State Quarters series, and the 
newly-designed bills, the U.S. Mint is finally showing some spunk.  
It was about time those bills got a facelift.  Unfortunately, the 
Mint missed a golden opportunity to make the bills even more user-
friendly.  They should have made each denomination a different 
color, thereby making them easier to sort in your wallet.

In a few more years, there may be no need to complain about 
overly-heavy pockets filled with coins, or about sorting the bills 
in your wallet.  With the advent of cash machines and card readers 
at almost all checkouts, we may be closer than anyone thinks to 
being a cash-less society.  Everything from cars dealerships to 
grocery stores to vending machines will accept debit cards or 
credit cards.  Everybody will carry around a portable computerized 
card reader for private monetary transactions.  Imagine, instead 
of giving your kid a $10 bill for his allowance, you would just 
swipe your card across his reader, and the transfer would take 
place electronically!  Maybe that's why the U.S. Mint has loosened 
up; they figure their days are numbered.



SUNSHINE LAW

The State of Indiana has a law on its books, sometimes referred to 
as "The Sunshine Law," which dictates openness in government 
decision making processes.  This law applies not only to the 
state's General Assembly, but to county and local governing bodies 
as well.

The purpose of enacting this open door policy into law was to keep 
the public informed of all deliberations and decisions being made 
by government at all levels.  The law states, "In enacting this 
chapter, the general assembly finds and declares that this state 
and its political subdivisions exist only to aid in the conduct of 
the business of the people of this state. It is the intent of this 
chapter that the official action of public agencies be conducted 
and taken openly, unless otherwise expressly provided by statute, 
in order that the people may be fully informed."

In essence, with very few exceptions, all legislative bodies, 
including town councils, must deliberate on, and then make all 
decisions in public meetings.  The few exceptions include matters 
of collective bargaining, personnel evaluations, litigation, or 
negotiations involved in the purchase of real estate.

Watchdog groups and the media do a fairly decent job ensuring that 
decisions made at the state level have been made in compliance 
with the Sunshine Law.  However, there are fewer watchdog groups 
to make sure that local communities are also playing by the rules.  
It is mainly up to the residents of small towns and cities to 
attend council meetings regularly and to insist that their leaders 
abide by the Sunshine Law.

It is far too easy for residents to sit back in complacency and 
allow their elected officials to take care of the town's business 
without continually checking to make sure everything is above 
board.  For example, it is entirely possible to count the number 
of citizens at most Edinburgh Town Council meetings using only one 
hand.  Sometimes, lack of attendance can be misconstrued by the 
elected officials as lack of interest, or even as an endorsement 
of their decisions.

Would the citizens of Edinburgh knowingly endorse actions taken by 
the town council that were in violation of the Sunshine Law, or 
any other law?  Probably not.  

Is it possible for a town council to deliberate on and then make 
all decisions about the town's business in the span of 15 or 20 
minutes twice each month?  A 20-minute meeting of the Edinburgh 
Town Council would be a long one.  Compare that to the Edinburgh 
School Board meetings, which typically last several hours, because 
every item is deliberated at length before a decision is made.

I am not making any accusations of illegalities or wrong-doing on 
the part of the Edinburgh Town Council.  However, citizens are 
free to make intelligent inferences.

What can the public do to ensure that their representatives at all 
levels are following the statutes?  They can attend meetings; they 
can talk to their representatives and let them know of their 
concerns about the way they conduct business.  And, if all else 
fails, they can speak with their votes.  Public officials, 
including those at the local level, must never be allowed to 
become indifferent when it comes to following the Sunshine Law, or 
any other law.



SECOND HAND SMOKE

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug 
Administration are both charged with keeping the public safe from 
dangerous substances in the environment or in food and drug 
products.  That is the reason why, over the years, these agencies 
of the Federal Government have either banned or restricted the use 
of many substances found to cause cancer or otherwise adversely 
affect public health.

For example, leaded gasoline can no longer be sold for use as a 
fuel, because lead is a poison.  Asbestos can not be used in 
building materials, and any asbestos that already exists in public 
buildings must be removed, because asbestos is a carcinogen.  Even 
substances such as saccharin, which is only tentatively linked to 
cancer, carry warning labels.

The EPA lists only eight Class A carcinogens, which are substances 
known to cause cancer in humans.  These include asbestos, benzene, 
radon, arsenic, and environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), generally 
referred to as second-hand smoke.  It is illegal to expose workers 
to any Group A carcinogen except tobacco smoke.  Tobacco smoke, 
however, kills more people than the other Group A carcinogens 
combined. 

According to the EPA, second-hand tobacco smoke is a known human 
carcinogen that poses a serious public health threat and is a 
primary factor in the development of lower respiratory infections 
in children. 

Smokefree Indiana lists the following facts about the effects of 
environmental tobacco smoke on children:

 Children of smokers have a greater chance of developing colds, 
asthma, bronchitis and pneumonia, chronic coughs, ear infections, 
chronic eye irritation and reduced lung function. 

 Children exposed to secondhand smoke are three times more likely 
to get several respiratory infections, including pneumonia, 
bronchitis and bronchiolitis. 

 Secondhand smoke can lead to a buildup of fluid in the middle 
ear in children, the most common cause of children hospitalized 
for an operation. 

 ETS produced by parents who smoke around their children in the 
home also accounts for thousands of new asthmatic cases and 
hundreds of thousands of  lower respiratory tract infections in 
children.  

 For a child who spends 24 hours with a pack-a-day smoker, it is 
as if the child smoked three cigarettes. 

Advocates against second-hand smoke are not prohibitionists.  They 
do not want to prohibit smoking.  Smokers have every right to hurt 
themselves.  They should not, however, have the right to hurt 
innocent people who don't want to breathe their smoke.  This not 
only includes innocent children whose parents smoke, it also 
includes people in the workplace, customers of restaurants, and 
patrons of other establishments where smoking is allowed.

The tobacco cartel claims that businesses will be hurt when laws 
require them to go smokefree.  The evidence proves otherwise.  In 
jurisdiction after jurisdiction, industry after industry, 
smokefree environments have proved popular with customers.  Going 
totally smoke free does not hurt business; it actually tends to 
improve business.

Indiana should join the ranks of states such as California, and 
cities such as Bloomington that have banned smoking in all public 
restaurants and other establishments.  Even smokers like to 
breathe fresh air in public buildings.  And our children certainly 
deserve protection from the menace of second-hand tobacco smoke.



GAS PRICES

It really doesn't seem that long ago, but it has been more than 25 
years since the last time America was "held hostage" by the oil-
producing nations of the world.  Back in 1973, the Arabs decided 
to place an embargo on oil exports to the U.S.  The result was 
disastrous.

I can remember vividly the good old days of cheap gasoline prices, 
and we took them for granted.  I was a senior in high school, back 
in 1971, and was driving around in a black Ford convertible.  I 
remember pulling up to the pumps of the Texaco station that used 
to be in Taylorsville, and driving away after I saw the outrageous 
price of their gasoline.  It was 42.9 cents per gallon!

I was used to paying something like 34 or 35 cents per gallon at 
the time.  Heck, at the price Texaco wanted, it would have taken 
me nearly $10 to fill up my tank!  I had never spent that much on 
gas at one time.

Then came the tensions in the Middle East, and as usual, the U.S. 
sided with Israel.  That ticked off the Arab nations, so they 
responded by cutting off our supply of crude oil.  That sent 
supplies tumbling and prices soaring.

It was the summer of 1973; our family was on its way to Michigan 
for a vacation.  We pulled into a gas station, one with no lines 
at the pumps, only to find out that they were sold out of gas!  
Dad was understandably quite upset.  He pulled in to the station 
down the street only to have to wait in line for nearly an hour to 
get gas that was, by then, well over 50 cents per gallon --  for 
the cheap grades.

Over the next few years, even after the Arabs decided to relent, 
America kept talking about alternative fuels.  There were 
advocates of electric cars, solar-powered homes, wind-generated 
electricity, and geothermal energy.  High-tech windmills started 
popping up all over the place.

Remember Gasohol?  It was a mixture of 90 percent gasoline and 10 
percent ethyl alcohol.  They still have it today; they just no 
longer call it Gasohol.  The gasoline-alcohol mixture was more 
expensive than plain gasoline, but it was supposed to be higher 
octane, and more importantly, the alcohol portion was domestically 
produced from corn.

Gasoline pumps back in the late `70's were not designed to 
dispense gas at the higher prices.  I remember Johnny Carson used 
to joke at the prospects of gas selling for a buck a gallon, but 
it finally happened.  Gas stations had to sell it by the liter or 
the half-gallon, because most pumps couldn't be set to dispense it 
for more than a dollar a gallon.

That was soon corrected.  The electronic pumps used at most places 
today can be set to dispense gasoline at virtually any price.  
Now, we're talking about the possibility of two-dollar-per-gallon 
gasoline.

Again, as in 1973, the oil-producing countries have us by the 
throat.  We are pretty much at their mercy when it comes to fuel 
supplies.  Did we not learn our lesson in the 1970's, or did we 
learn it and then forget it back in the more recent good times of 
cheap energy in the late 1990's?

Whatever it takes to cut the umbilical cord that connects us with 
OPEC, America must somehow do it.  We must develop reasonably-
priced alternative fuels.  We must develop ways of using renewable 
fuel sources, such as alcohol, to run our vehicles.  We must find 
alternatives to heating oil and other petroleum-based products for 
our energy needs.

It might cost us a little more in the short run, but in the long 
run, it will guarantee that we will never be "held hostage" by 
OPEC again.



ABOUT GUNS

Do you ever wonder why every time there is a school shooting or 
rampage by some gunman in a restaurant that there is always the 
obligatory call for more gun control, but nothing ever comes of 
it?  Every time a good bill starts to get some attention, the 
encumbering influence of the National Rifle Association renders 
the bill's transit through congressional committee as viscous as 
molasses in winter, until it is finally mired in the muck of 
politics.

There is lots of gun legislation pending, and none of it would be 
100 percent effective at keeping guns out of the hands of kids and 
criminals, but the measures would indeed save lives.  Americans 
must decide that it would be far better to be momentarily 
inconvenienced when purchasing a gun by having to obtain a license 
than to allow society to go unprotected from guns in the wrong 
hands.  The protection of the masses must outweigh the convenience 
of the individual.

Few people object to the requirement in every state that motorists 
be licensed to drive.  Yet the NRA would have us believe that 
licensing lethal weapons would lead to the collapse of democracy 
and liberty.  This is a scare tactic.  Our liberty is at greater 
risk if we, as a society, continue to make it easy for children to 
obtain weapons.  We should have the freedom to send our kids to 
school or to walk into a restaurant knowing that we are safe.

Gun control opponents point to statistics that show a decrease in 
gun deaths over the past few years.  That statistic is welcome 
news, but it leaves out the fact that America still has more gun 
deaths than any other country -- more than the next nine countries 
combined.  And many of these deaths are innocent children being 
killed by other children with guns.

The NRA points to our Second Amendment right to keep and bear 
arms.  But under closer scrutiny, our Founding Fathers gave us 
that right so that the citizenry could collectively fend off a 
foreign enemy.  The Amendment says, "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."  Unlike the 
other amendments in the bill of rights, the second amendment 
specifies the reason and condition under which the people are 
granted the right -- "A well-regulated militia...."  The United 
States, unlike in the early years of this country, now has a well-
regulated militia -- the Armed Forces.  Therefore, there is no 
need for individual citizens to keep and bear arms without 
regulation.

Eventually, the best hope of controlling weapons in the wrong 
hands will be to develop "smart gun" technology, so that only the 
licensed owner of a handgun would be able to fire it.  Funding on 
this research should be provided, at least in part, by the Federal 
government.  It would be useless for a thief to steal a gun if he 
knows he will not be able to fire it.  And accidental shootings by 
children who find loaded weapons in their homes would be virtually 
eliminated.

Laws restricting the purchase or possession of handguns must be 
passed by Congress.  The politicians must somehow find the 
fortitude to stand up to the powerful NRA lobby.  And if it comes 
down to whether or not controlling handguns is judged to violate 
the Second Amendment, Congress and the states should then consider 
doing what they have done twenty-seven times before -- modifying 
the constitution by the amendment process.



DESTROY ALL STRAYS

A recent unscientific online poll by the Daily Journal indicated 
that most respondents would rather see money spent on improving 
the conditions at the Johnson County Animal Shelter rather than on 
other possible projects, such as improving roads or building 
parks.  This begs the question, "why even have an animal shelter 
at all?"

Some of the reasons given for spending money on improvements to 
the shelter included overcrowded conditions, under staffing, and 
odor problems in the neighborhood of the shelter.  These problems 
would obviously be non-existent if there were no shelter.  But 
then, what do we do with all the stray animals?

The most obvious answer, but one that may yield a gasp of 
disbelief from the animal lovers in the county, is that all strays 
must be destroyed by euthanasia immediately upon being picked up 
by the authorities.

Here's how it would work: All cats and dogs must be licensed by 
the county.  The licensing fees would go toward administering the 
program of capturing and humanely destroying stray pets.  All dogs 
and cats that do not bear a tag, showing they are licensed, would 
be captured and destroyed.  All dogs that do have tags would be 
captured and returned to their owners.  If the same owner is 
guilty of multiple occurrences of allowing their dog to run 
astray, they would be fined.  Obviously, tagged cats could run 
free; that's the nature of the beast.

Throughout history, humans have had a rather dichotomous 
relationship with their domesticated animals.  Some of them are 
used as pets, and are loved as members of the family.  Others are 
raised to be killed for food.  And some animals can fill both 
roles.

When I was a child, I had a baby chick that I had gotten for 
Easter.  My younger sister accidentally squeezed it until it died.  
I was devastated at the loss of my little pet.  Yet, I had no 
qualms about having chicken for dinner that night.  You see, I 
hadn't known that chicken personally.

Humans breed horses as beloved pets, or as thoroughbred race 
horses.  Humans breed cows to be slaughtered.  We breed dogs and 
cats as pets to raise as part of the family, but we breed pigs to 
eat.  Some people pay money to buy pet rats and mice to keep in 
cages in their homes; other people pay money to have rats and mice 
that are already in their homes exterminated.  Some people buy 
fish to keep in their aquariums; the same people may also buy 
earthworms to act as sacrifices to catch other fish on a hook, to 
be eaten.

Human beings have taken the right to determine the fate of animals   
especially domestic animals.  As the examples above show, we use 
this control to decide which animals live and which will die. It 
happens all the time and nobody gives it a second thought.  

From both a biblical standpoint and an evolutionary one, human 
beings have dominion over the animals.  Animals have no rights 
other than the rights man decides to give them.  Although it can 
be argued that wild animals have a right to existence, domestic 
animals do not even have that right   only the privilege to exist 
granted to them by humans.  After all, domestic animals were 
created by man, for man to use as he sees fit.

That is not to say that any animal, domestic or otherwise, should 
be mistreated without cause.  Cruelty should not be tolerated, 
except in laboratory conditions in which the ultimate aim is to 
improve the human condition.  And even then, lab animals should be 
treated with as little discomfort as is feasible.

Although stray pets should not be mistreated, we humans do not owe 
them a continued existence.  To maintain them is a drain on our 
resources that could better be put to use elsewhere. For that 
reason, the logical alternative to spending more money to house 
stray animals, is simply to terminate them, humanely.


EAT AT FAT DADDY'S

Have you figured out where to eat lunch today?  Edinburgh has some 
fine places to eat, but one place that is not typically in 
everybody's dining-out rotation is Fat Daddy's Restaurant, located 
in the heart of the Atterbury Job Corps Center.

Frankly, it isn't surprising that Fat Daddy's does not make most 
people's dining-out list, since it is open to the public only an 
hour and a half each week--Tuesdays from 11:30 to 1:00.  But then, 
it is not supposed to be a money-making venture.  It is part of a 
training facility that teaches its students how to be everything 
from dish washers to master chefs.

The "restaurant" is actually the banquet room in the Culinary Arts 
department, which is run by Mike Schorr and Gary Shake.  Schorr is 
a man who loves his job.  He loves it so much, in fact, that he 
spends an hour and a half on the road twice a day making the 
commute between Edinburgh and his home in Cincinnati.

To say Schorr is enthusiastic about what he does would be an 
understatement.  He is the quintessential cheerleader for the Job 
Corps program, and it rubs off on his students.

"If you have people that want to be here, and who bring enthusiasm 
to the job, it becomes contagious," he said.  "As I have told my 
students, I have never worked a day in my life.  If it is taxing, 
or difficult, or something that you don't want to do, it becomes 
work.  But coming here is a joy."

Schorr likes to tell people that Job Corps is the best-kept secret 
around.  Which, he said, is too bad, because "We're in the 
business of manufacturing success here.  This is one place where 
you can honestly get a second chance in life."  

And, in an attempt to make his program less of a secret, Schorr 
has opened up a little part of his curriculum to the public.  
Tables are set with real plates and glasses, and each is decorated 
with a centerpiece.  Meals are served buffet style; they include a 
main course, two side dishes, bread, a salad bar, a drink, and a 
dessert.  The cost is $3.00 per person.  

"Is the food here good?  You bet it is, and it's getting better 
every day," Schorr said, answering his own question.  And as one 
who partakes of the service on a regular basis, I have to confess 
I agree.  The food is good.  It is "homemade" in that it all is 
prepared from scratch by the students in the program.

Schorr hopes inviting the public out on a regular basis will throw 
a positive light on Job Corps' image.  Culinary Arts also hosts 
the Business & Industry Council luncheon on the last Thursday of 
each month.  The Council is composed of community and business 
leaders from Edinburgh, Franklin, Columbus, and the surrounding 
area.

The Job Corps program, funded by the U.S. Department of Labor, is 
open to disadvantaged young people who wish to develop marketable 
job skills.  Many are high school dropouts, although some have 
diplomas or GEDs.  There is an academic program at Atterbury which 
allows students who have dropped out to earn their GED.  But the 
trade classes are the cornerstone of the Job Corps program.  



TRIP TO WASHINGTON

When one home-schools his kids, he looks for educational 
opportunities wherever he can find them.  And that includes taking 
full advantage of Spring Break.

I typically schedule my vacation to coincide with Edinburgh 
schools' spring break.  This year was no exception.  But since my 
daughter is being home-schooled this year, I wanted to take the 
family to a place that was both historic and fun.  We decided on 
Washington, DC.

Washington is a rather peculiar city, as cities go.  There are no 
tall buildings.  In fact, no structure can be taller than the 
famed Washington Monument, which towers majestically over the 
center of downtown.

It is a city of contrasts.  Right in the middle of town there are 
the government buildings, the museums, and the monuments.  It is 
clean and wholesome, and filled with history.

Only a few blocks away, however, forming a concentric circle 
around the beauty of downtown, lies a dirty, stagnant zone of 
poverty--in stark contrast to the post card views of Washington, 
DC.  Yes, we visited those areas, too.  For they also offer some 
educational benefit.

A few miles farther out lies another concentric ring.  This one 
comprises the suburbs, most of which are more like the interior of 
the city--clean and pretty.  Here, you'll find places like 
Bethesda or Chevy Chase, Maryland, and Arlington, Virginia.

When driving down one of the "inner circle" streets, seeing all 
the filth and garbage that line the sidewalks, one wonders why the 
people who live their can't clean it up a bit.  They may be poor, 
but do they have to live in such squalor?  A little neighborhood 
pride is all it would take to put a shine on the streets and to 
clean up all the litter.

After our trip to DC was over, we took a shorter jaunt up to 
Indiana's capitol city.  There we found, as in Washington, a clean 
and pretty downtown area.  We visited Circle Center Mall, walked 
around the Monument Circle, visited the Indiana State Museum, and 
saw the outside of Conseco Fieldhouse.

And, like Washington, we drove through the "poverty circle" that 
surrounds the downtown area.  But, unlike DC, we didn't see much 
filth.  There was not a whole lot of trash or litter strewn all 
over the small side streets.  There were areas where some houses 
were in poor condition, but even there the streets were not filled 
with muck and debris.

Washington is a great place for a visit.  The museums and 
monuments are part of our American heritage, and I recommend a 
visit to DC for those who haven't been.  Personally, however, I'm 
still glad to call Indiana home.  It, too, has a lot to offer.



WHAT IS RELIGION?

Just what is religion, anyway?  And why must it be so complicated?  
Why are there so many different religions?

The dictionary says that religion is, "a set of beliefs, values, 
and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader."  Ok, 
so what, then, is "spiritual"?  Again, turning to the dictionary, 
we find that it means, "of, concerned with, or affecting the 
soul."  Ah, the soul.  That's a biggie.  What is a soul?

Going back to our the dictionary, we find that "soul" has several 
definitions.  But the one most closely related to the original 
question of religion is, "the spritual nature of human beings, 
regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and 
susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state."

Well, that helps a little, though as is typical, the dictionary 
definition is somewhat circular--using "soul" to fine spiritual, 
and "spiritual" to define soul.

So can we tie it all together to find out what religion means and 
what it has to do our immortal souls?  It can be summarized as, "a 
set of beliefs or values, based on the teachings of a leader that 
concerns himself with that part of our being that is immortal and 
will live on after we die, going either to a place of eternal 
happiness or sorrow."

Using that definition, it can be fairly easy to see why there are 
different religions in the world; there must be one based on the 
teachings of each different "spiritual leader" in history.  

Did I say "one" for each spiritual leader?  Well, that would make 
the most sense, but it certainly isn't reality.

The vast majority of people in the United States, and other 
Western nations, who claim to have a religious belief call 
themselves Christians.  The "spiritual leader" they follow is 
Jesus Christ.  But Christianity is not a single religion, as it 
should be based on the definition of what religion is.  

Christianity includes the differing belief systems of Catholics, 
Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant religions.  Protestants can be 
further broken down into Baptists, Mormons, Disciples of Christ, 
Methodists, Lutherans, Pentacostals, Nazarenes, and many others.  
Even many of the different denominations have denominations:  
There are Southern Baptists, Separate Baptists, just plain 
Baptists, and so on.

It's funny, and ironic, how the teachings on a single man whose 
mission in life was to unify the world under the banner of a 
single Godly Kingdom has been interpreted so many different ways, 
caused so many conflicts, and has been the object of so many 
different debates.

If there is but one Jesus Christ, then why isn't there a single 
religion that follows his teachings?  There once was.  In the 
first few centuries after Christ, if you believed in him, you were 
a Christian--period.

Eventually, a great schism occurred in the Church, based primarily 
on the fact that people were isolated geographically in those 
days.  The Eastern Church, based in Greece, split with the Roman-
based Catholic Church.

Over the next few centuries, the Catholic Church became rather 
corrupt.  The church even began selling "indulgences" supposedly 
granting the remission of punishment due for a sin in exchange for 
money.  This, and other dubious practices, didn't set too well 
with  a man named Martin Luther.  So he led a reform movement 
against the Catholic Church and established his own religion, 
which eventually became the Protestant Church, with the Lutheran 
denomination being the first, closely followed by the Calvinists 
and the Wesleyan Methodists.

Over the past two hundred years, several other denominations 
sprang up, including the Presybiterians, the Disciples of Christ 
and, even more recently, the Pentacostals.

Some of these denominations are more ecuminical than others.  Some 
believe that the only true way to Heaven is through their own 
interpretation of the Bible.  Others believe that God might be 
more broad-minded, allowing people from many different faiths to 
enter into everlasting life.

I've always wondered how some denominations who claim their way is 
the one true path to Heaven can explain how all the hundreds of 
millions of people who were born prior to the founding of their 
denomination ever had a chance at getting into Heaven.



TOBACCO ROAD CIGARETTE COMMERCIALS

Remember cigarette commercials on TV?  That was 30 years ago.  
They have now gone the way of the dinosaur.  

Or have they?

Joe Camel is gone, but he is being replaced in Central Indiana by 
darling pictures of playful kittens.  That's right; Tobacco Road, 
a convenience store that specializes in cigarettes and other 
tobacco products, is using cats to sell tobacco now.  And they are 
doing it with television commercials.

The Federal Trade Commission banned tobacco ads on TV three 
decades ago.  The Marlboro Man has been banished from the small 
screen.  There hasn't been a Benson & Hedges 100's commercial in a 
generation.  And the Virginia Slims TV ad went out with the 
slogan, "You've come a long way, baby.."

But now, it seems, tobacco ads are back on TV, although in a 
somewhat veiled presentation.  No, they don't show a burly macho 
man in a cowboy hat lighting up a cigarette.  They don't show 
cigarettes or tobacco products at all.  They simply show pictures 
of those playful little kittens.

One ad says, "We don't sell pets," and then proceeds to show the 
kittens for the "entertainment pleasure" of the viewer.  The 
commercial ends with the tag line, "We have cheap prices on gas 
and other stuff."  Guess what that "other stuff" is.  

Right.  It's tobacco.

And how would one know it's tobacco?  Because, immediately after 
the "other stuff" remark, they mention the store's name-Tobacco 
Road.

The commercial  is clever, and somewhat amusing, reminiscent of 
those humorous Benson & Hedges commercials of the 1960's.  It 
tries to sidestep the illegality of running tobacco ads, because 
it doesn't mention tobacco products, per se.

But the ad most certainly is about tobacco.  The message is plain 
enough for any child to understand.  

Smokefree Indiana, an organization composed of a group of health 
promotion specialists who work to reduce tobacco use, agrees.  
"Their intentions are clear," said Mike Magan, Media Director for 
Smokefree Indiana.  "We feel Tobacco Road is thumbing its nose at 
the spirit of the law banning cigarette ads on TV." 

He said Tobacco Road ran similar commercials a couple of years ago 
in Evansville and Louisville.  "We took issue with them, claiming 
they were illegal TV ads for tobacco," Magan said.  Smokefree 
Indiana contacted the FTC, which then sent a letter to Tobacco 
Road asking them to justify their ads.  "They then pulled the 
ads," Magan said.

Magan said the current round of ads running in the Indianapolis 
market are the same, but with a slightly different tag line.

The bottom line is that Tobacco Road is hawking cigarettes on 
television, and they're doing so using kid-friendly gimmicks, like 
kittens.  And, unlike liquor stores where kids are not allowed to 
shop, kids can shop at Tobacco Road.

The ad's content might be veiled, but its intentions are crystal 
clear.  If one were of a suspicious nature, one might think Big 
Tobacco was subsidizing these commercials.



THE METRIC SYSTEM

Quick-how many inches are there in 2.7 yards?

Most people would need a calculator to compute that the answer is 
97.2. That's because the relationship between inches and yards, 
36-to-1, is arbitrary and not based on the decimal system.

Now, how many centimeters are there in 2.7 meters?  That's easy; 
there are 270 of them.

If you know that the relationship between centimeters and meters 
is 100-to-1, you can quickly do the math in your head by just 
moving the decimal point.  No calculator is necessary.

Notice, too, that the number of centimeters in 2.7 meters is a 
whole number, whereas the number of inches in 2.7 yards is not.

In 1971, Congress passed a resolution requiring that the U.S. 
convert to the Metric System within ten years.  When it became 
obvious that not much progress would be made by 1981, the 
government relented and let us off the hook.  But in doing so, it 
relegated us to being a relic among nations, being the only 
country in the world to continue to use, as its standard, a 
traditional and archaic system of measurement.

Oh, we buy pop in two-liter bottles, and anyone who has a computer 
is certainly familiar with such measures as kilobytes or 
megahertz. Certainly the medical and scientific communities have 
converted to metrics entirely.  But the population in general 
still measures things in feet, inches, pounds, ounces, quarts, 
gallons, and degrees Fahrenheit.

We are all familiar with our traditional system of measurement.  
That is why we are so reluctant to let go of it.  But the metric 
system, or the International System of Units as it is more 
properly called now, makes so much more sense.

Not only are conversions much easier to make using metric, as 
demonstrated above, but also the system itself is actually based 
upon something.  It is not arbitrary.

For example, why is an inch an inch long?  Why are there 12 inches 
in a foot, 3 feet in a yard, and 1,760 yards in a mile?  Why does 
water freeze at 32 degrees F. and boil at 212?  And why are there 
16 ounces in a pound, unless you mean troy ounces, in which case 
there are 12?   It doesn't make a lot of sense.

In metrics, for example, the unit of length was originally based 
on the distance between the North Pole and the Equator.  A meter 
was defined as being one ten-millionth of that distance.  In the 
newer SI system, the meter is basically the same length, but it is 
actually defined in terms of the speed of light.

What actually defines these units is not nearly as important as 
the relationship between them, and the fact that they are not 
arbitrary. For instance, once the meter was defined, it was then 
possible to define a unit of volume using that length.  A cube 
that measures one centimeter on each side becomes one milliliter.  
A thousand milliliters are in a liter.  Also, we can now relate 
the length and volume measures to weight.  One milliliter of water 
weighs exactly one gram, by definition.  So all the measurements 
are somehow interrelated.

Each metric unit, whether it is length, weight, volume, time, or 
whatever, can be divided into smaller units or multiplied into 
larger units by using the same standard prefixes.  Kilo- means 
1000.  Milli-means 1/1000.  Centi- means 1/100.  Mega- means a 
million.

So a kilometer is 1000 meters and a kilobyte is 1000 bytes.  A 
millimeter is 1/1000 of a meter and a milliliter is 1/1000 of a 
liter.

The metric system is so elegantly simple that all the nations of 
the world have officially switched over to it, except the U.S.  We 
still use the old British system, which even the British no longer 
use.  The old expression, "a pound's a pound the world 'round" no 
longer applies.

The U.S. is the world leader in many areas.  Measuring things 
isn't one of them.



WHY WE'RE FAT

One of the Clinton Administration's final dictums, as the 
president prepares to leave office early next year, is a decision 
to study why Americans eat the way they do, even when they know it 
is unhealthy.  

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman said that only 12 percent 
of the U.S. population eats a healthy diet.   And obesity has 
increased from 12 percent of the population in 1991 to more than 
18 percent today.  The increase in obesity is ironic, in light of 
the low-fat lifestyle that the United States Department of 
Agriculture has been recommending for the past decade.

During that time, low-fat food alternatives have appeared 
everywhere.  Potato chips and other snack foods are now made with 
a non-nutritive fat substitute.  Ice cream comes in low-fat and 
no-fat varieties.  There's fat free puddings, hot chocolate mixes, 
even bacon.  And most restaurants offer low-fat choices as well.  
Yet Americans continue to bloat.

The government finds the trend so enigmatic that they are 
preparing to perform a scientific study on why people choose to 
eat the way they do, and why we continue to get fat.

But one does not need a formal investigation to divine the answer 
to the question why most Americans have an unhealthy diet.  Just 
go to the grocery store and look up and down every aisle.

There you will find package upon package of highly processed, 
high-carbohydrate foods of every variety.  There are cupcakes and 
Twinkies; there are snack crackers and donuts; there are potato 
chips and pretzels.  Almost everything that is for sale in a 
supermarket, except perhaps fresh meat, contains sugar or starch 
as an ingredient.

Read the label on any package of anything, even items such as hot 
dogs and deli luncheon meats.  It will probably contain one or 
more of the following ingredients:  food starch, sugar, high 
fructose corn syrup, wheat flour, or dextrose.  All of these 
ingredients, and a few others, are highly-refined and processed.  
They are totally devoid of nutrients; they are empty calories.

More importantly, though, they tend to stimulate the over 
production of insulin in those who are prone to insulin 
resistance.  And almost all overweight people are, because it is 
the excess insulin that causes obesity.

Now, go into a restaurant and order almost any entree.  The meats 
are almost always either breaded, battered, or smothered in gravy.  
If you're lucky enough to find a nice baked or broiled meat dish, 
it always comes with a big helping of potatoes, which are pure 
starch.  Then of course, you'll want to top it off with a nice big 
dessert.

And don't be fooled by those "sugar free" or "no sugar added" 
products.  A no-sugar-added piece of pie contains almost as many 
refined carbohydrates as a piece of regular pie, and since the 
body converts all refined carbohydrates directly into sugar, the 
pie isn't really "sugar free" after all.  The same is true of "no-
sugar" ice cream and other desserts, too.

Scientific studies are not needed to show why Americans are 
getting fat.  Reading the labels on grocery items is all it takes.  
And until food manufacturers stop adding sugar, starch, and flour 
to everything they make, Americans will stay fat, and get even 
fatter.



THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE

This is Flag Day.  It comes right between the two most patriotic 
of all holidays, Memorial Day and Independence Day.  The three 
form a sort of patriotic trilogy of holidays to kick off the 
summer.

But exactly what does it mean to be patriotic?

We can certainly respect and admire those who fought in battle to 
protect the freedoms we enjoy in America.  We can love and respect 
our Constitution and the liberties it promises.  But when we love 
our country, exactly what is it that we're loving?

To be patriotic is to love one's country; sometimes it means to 
fight or even die for it.  But again, to fight or die for what?  
Do the people make the country?  There are people in China and in 
Vietnam, Cuba, and North Korea.  Some of them have the same hopes 
and fears in life as we do in America.  They go to work each day 
to earn a living, and some of them would be willing to fight and 
die for their "country" as well.

There are certainly wonderful and marvelous sights to see in 
America.  As the song says, "from sea to shining sea" there are 
"purple mountains majesties," and of course, the "fruited plain."  
There are forests, rivers, lakes, deserts, and hills all across 
this land.  Does that make the country?  

The geological features would still be here no matter what kind of 
government we had, or what the ideological beliefs of the people 
are.  And, in any war, the people in the losing countries are not 
replaced with a new set of people from the winning countries.  The 
people remain the same.

The people, the scenery, the natural resources, the beauty--none 
of them make our country; they are only components of it.

The only real variable that separates our country from other 
countries of the world is the government that leads us.  As author 
Robert Ringer defines it, a country is merely a group of people, 
living in a geographic region, that are led by a smaller group of 
people in charge.  So, it's mainly the "people in charge" that 
defines the country more than anything else.

Remember John Kennedy's famous speech in which he said, "Ask not 
what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your 
country"?  If you substitute the phrase "the people in charge" for 
the word "country," the directive has less of a patriotic sound to 
it, doesn't it?  "Ask not what the people in charge can do for 
you; ask what you can do for the people in charge."

I suppose one other thing that separates a democracy like ours 
from the communist, military, or fascist dictatorships of the 
world is that, in a democracy, the "people in charge" are on the 
side of the people, for the most part.  After all, they, too, are 
civilians.

We the people simply need to keep reminding them, the "people in 
charge," that they are in charge because the rest of us put them 
there, and we don't have to let them stay in charge if we don't 
want to.  The people in China, Vietnam, North Korea, and Cuba 
can't make that claim.



STATE OF MIND

A movie was released in 1971 called Bless the Beasts and Children.  
I first saw it when I was in college.  I hadn't seen it in more 
than 20 years, but for some reason, it entered my thoughts the 
other day and I got in the mood to see it again.  So I rented the 
video.

The movie centers on a group of misfit teenagers who have been 
shipped off to summer camp by their parents.  The group doesn't 
get along well with the other campers.  The main plot of the 
movie, however, is the quest these teens take up to free a herd of 
buffalo from captivity, where "hunters" are permitted to shoot 
them.  The penned animals were supposedly the weakest of the herd 
and were to be "weeded out."  It's a story of misfit kids helping 
misfit animals.

Before their escape from camp to rescue the buffalo, the camp 
director gathers the cabins together around a campfire and reads 
them a poem.  It was one of those you-can-do-anything-if-you-try 
inspirational poems that camp counselors are fond of reciting.  
The poem was called, "It's All in a State of Mind," and 
reminiscent of the story about The Little Engine that Could.

Although a bit corny, these bits of poetic wisdom can certainly 
ring true at times.  And, though I am no poet, and I have no 
intention of inflicting my feeble attempts to write poetry on my 
readers here, I will share some thoughts that I've had in the past 
that are reflected in these types of  "you-can-do-it" poems.

On having to go to work:  You can whine about having to get up and 
go to work, or rejoice in the fact that you have a job.

On going to school:  You can complain about having to go to 
school, or take advantage of the opportunity to learn something 
new today.

On rainy weather:  You can be blue because it's gloomy outside, or 
be thankful that you don't have to water your lawn today.

On parents:  You can be disparaged because of all the things your 
parents didn't give you when you were grown up, or be grateful 
that they gave you life.

On finances:  You can sulk about all the material possessions you 
wish you had but can't afford, or you can be thankful that you 
have an abundance compared to the homeless.

On friends:  You can be sad that you don't have friends, or you 
can embark upon a quest to develop new relationships.

On hardship:  You can sulk because you have been dealt a hardship 
in life, or you can take pride in the experience and the character 
you gain by overcoming it.

On success:  Not everybody is good at everything.  Instead of 
mourning your failures in life, take pride in the things you have 
accomplished.  Find what you are good at, and do it.

Or, to sum it up in an all-encompassing metaphor, you can cry 
because roses have thorns or you can celebrate that thorns have 
roses.

To come full circle, remember that everybody is a misfit at 
something, but as Bless the Beasts and Children showed, even 
misfits can make a difference in things they believe in.



SCHOOL PRAYER

Once again, for the third time, the U.S. Supreme Court has made 
itself crystal clear on the issue of allowing official prayer in a 
public school or at a school-sponsored function.

In 1963, the Court ruled that teachers and principals cannot lead 
their students in prayer.  That would be tantamount to the 
establishment of a state religion by the government, the court 
declared.

Nearly three decades later, a different and more conservative 
Supreme Court extended its earlier decision to include a 
prohibition of school-sanctioned prayer at graduation ceremonies.  
Then, this past week, the Court again declared the 
unconstitutionality of mixing public schools and religion when it 
ruled that students cannot lead the crowd in prayer at football 
games.

The latest decision came as a result of the practice of some 
schools in Texas, which permitted students to lead prayers over 
the loud speaker system prior to football games.

It might seem ironic, but some of the biggest opponents of 
allowing school-sanctioned prayers are religious leaders.  It 
should, however, come as no surprise upon closer scrutiny.

When tax-supported, public entities, such as school districts, are 
permitted to sanction public prayer services it automatically 
becomes a slap in the face to the people who happen to hold a 
religious belief that is different from the one upon which the 
prayer is based, or to those who hold no religious beliefs at all.

The Bible itself plainly tells us that there is a time and a place 
for everything, ("To every thing there is a season, and a time to 
every purpose under the heaven." Ecc. 3:1).  The time and the 
place to lead a group of people in prayer is in the church or in 
the home, or at some church-sponsored event, or when a group of 
people get together for the purpose of worshipping their God, or 
in a church-affiliated private school.

Public schools are for all students, not just students who are 
religious, or who probably ought to be religious.  Contrary to 
popular notion, our country was not founded on the premise of 
spreading Christianity, nor any other religion.  Our Founding 
Fathers were fairly diverse in their religious beliefs.

One of the foremost guiding principals of early America, however, 
was that its citizens were given the right to worship the way they 
chose, or not to worship at all, without government interference 
or intervention.

The separation of church and state, as defined by the Supreme 
Court, and again contrary to the popular notion that prayer is not 
at all allowed in school, says only that schools cannot officially 
sanction any kind of group prayer, nor can they take time away 
from their educational day to allow students to pray in an 
organized manner.  Students can, however, pray in school anytime 
they wish, even out loud as long as it does not interfere with a 
classroom activity.

Students routinely say grace before they eat lunch in the 
cafeteria.  Sometimes even a whole table of students of like mind 
say a prayer together.  There is nothing wrong with that activity, 
and there is nothing illegal about it.

Some teachers routinely pray for guidance and patience before the 
start of their classes in the morning.  And silent prayers are 
said by many students just before the final exam.

Student athletes routinely say a prayer after making a touchdown 
in football, or after winning the big game during a basketball 
playoff.  And valedictorians often give thanks to God during their 
speech at graduation.  It is within their constitutional right of 
freedom of speech to be able to do so.  

Prayer in school has always been, is now, and will continue to be 
ubiquitous in schools and at school functions.

What the courts have demanded, however, is that school officials 
must not engage in the "establishment of religion" by sanctioning 
prayers over the PA system, or by allowing anyone to lead a prayer 
in front of a classroom of students or the general public at a 
school-sponsored event.  This is as it should be.

The sooner schools learn this lesson, the sooner they can get back 
to their exclusive business of teaching their students academics 
and vocations.  Leave the teaching of religious dogma to parents 
and churches.



GAYS IN SCOUTS

It wasn't surprising to me that the U.S. Supreme Court recently 
decided
in favor of the Boy Scouts when it ruled that the organization 
does not
have to permit gays to be scoutmasters. What was surprising was 
the
closeness of the vote. It was 5 to 4.

The Boy Scouts of America is a private organization that has a 
motto and
a creed that is pro-Christian in nature. All boys wanting to join 
the
ranks of the Boy Scouts must affirm their allegiance to God and
Country. It is the belief of the Boy Scouts that homosexual 
behavior
is a sin and should not be encouraged. Therefore, the code of 
ethics
set by the Boy Scouts does not permit those who are openly gay to 
join,
or to lead.

A private organization generally has the right to accept or deny
membership based upon the rules and standards it sets. The Boy 
Scouts
of America is no different.

But what is surprising is that not all nine justices on the bench
agreed. Justice John Paul Stevens was one dissenter, saying 
prejudice
against gays still was prevalent and has caused serious harm. 
"That
harm can only be aggravated by the creation of a constitutional 
shield
for a policy that is itself the product of a habitual way of 
thinking
about strangers," he said.

That's fine. If Stevens wants to believe that a pro-homosexual way 
of
thinking is more progressive and that anti-gay rules in private
organizations are a product of habit, he certainly has a right to 
his
opinion. But what does that have to do with the law?

The case wasn't about whether or not homosexuality should be 
considered
an acceptable alternative sexual practice, or whether it should be
considered sinful. Every person has the right to believe whatever 
he
wishes--it's in the First Amendment. And, as a private 
organization,
the Boy Scouts of America also has the right to set forth its own 
set of
guiding beliefs and principles.

Homosexuals are people, and as such, they should have all the 
rights
that are assigned to each of us as individuals. But in recent 
years, as
more gays come out of the "closet," many of them have demanded 
extra
rights based on their sexual preference. Now, they have started to
demand that private organizations change their codes of conduct to
accept a behavior that is still considered to be immoral by many.

I am willing to accept as fact that most homosexuals did not 
choose
their sexual preference, just as those with muscular dystrophy or
hemophilia did not choose their affliction. But, in the same 
sense,
those who are afflicted with a genetic disorder generally try to 
get
medical or other professional treatment.

Homosexuals, on the other hand, have parades and kiss on 
television to 
celebrate their difference.


HOLIDAYS IN AUGUST?

Independence Day has come and gone, and the dog days of summer are
here. We have entered the longest stretch of the year during which
there are no holidays or significant observances.

In fact, August is the only month of the year that lacks anything
resembling a holiday, unless Easter comes early, in which case 
April
doesn't have anything either. That doesn't happen often. It will
happen in 2002, when Easter is on March 31, and two other times 
before
2010.

But even April has April Fool's Day. August has nothing-zilch!

January has New Year's Day and Martin Luther King Day. Valentine's 
Day
comes in February, as does Presidents' Day. March has St. 
Patrick's
Day. April usually plays host to Easter. May has Mother's Day and
Memorial Day. June has Father's Day and Flag Day. Then there's 
July
with Independence Day. Skip August, then comes Labor Day in 
September.
In October there's Columbus Day and Halloween. In November, 
there's
Veteran's Day and Thanksgiving. And the year wraps up with 
Christmas in
December.

Not only is the month of August holiday poor, it connects up with 
the
last 3-and-a-half weeks of July, which also offers nothing of
significance besides stifling summertime heat and humidity.

There ought be some kind of celebration or observance in August-
not
necessarily a bona fide holiday, but something to break the 
sizzling
summer doldrums. Of course, August is a time when many people take
vacations, but those are personal observances. We need a national
observance in August, preferably near the middle of the month.

Holidays and observances are begun in one of three primary ways: 
They
either start as a church observance of an event or a person. New 
Year's
Day, Valentine's Day, St. Patrick's Day, Easter, Halloween, and
Christmas fall into this category. They mark a secular historical
event, or significant person in history. Martin Luther King Day,
President's Day, Independence Day, Columbus Day, and Veteran's Day 
are
examples. Or, a person or a group might champion the observance of 
a
particular day to celebrate a cause or event. Memorial Day, Labor 
Day,
Mother's Day, Father's Day, and Thanksgiving fall into this 
category.

In order to create a holiday in August, it would help if some 
historical
or religious event of major significance would have occurred 
during the
month. But if that had happened, there probably would already be a
holiday commemorating it. So it is up to some individual or
organization to make up some special occasion to celebrate during
August. Start it at a local level, and then lobby the media, the
president, and Congress to recognize it nationally.

It can't be done overnight. I certainly lack the time, the energy, 
and
the inclination to do it myself. So I'll just sit back with a 
glass of
diet lemonade and watch the weeds grow while I wait for someone 
else to
create a new summer holiday for me. The ball is in your court, so 
good
luck!



YOU HAVE TO DRAW THE LINE SOMEWHERE

Drawing lines has become an obsession, and a way of life for some 
people--those who apparently have no life of their own.

When we were kids, drawing lines basically meant to, well, draw 
lines, as on a sheet of paper, to represent houses or stick 
people.  Then, as we grew older, we learned that we could "draw a 
line in the sand" and dare or challenge someone to cross it.  It 
became a way to measure courage or determination.

Then, for some, line drawing became an art form.  It no longer 
meant to literally draw a line on paper or in the dirt; it became 
a metaphor for an artificial boundary that no one should cross.   
"Somebody has to draw the line somewhere."

Habitual line drawers are those people who set moral and ethical 
standards for themselves and then try to force everyone else to 
follow them.  Those who don't have "crossed the line."

Some lines are easy to draw, and can be agreed upon by the vast 
majority of reasonable humans.  Murder, thievery, arson, rape, 
embezzlement, and disregarding a traffic light are examples of 
societal rules that most people would agree should be obeyed.  If 
you cross the line by breaking one of these societal rules, you 
could go to jail or get ticketed.

Other societal rules, such as the ones against prostitution or the 
use of marijuana, are not so clear cut.  Many reasonable people, 
though probably not the majority, believe that these rules are not 
necessary.  These rules are based on morality, not on public 
safety, and no two people have exactly the same opinion as to what 
is moral.  Some people believe morality can be governed only by 
what the Bible says.  Other's have a broader view of morality:  
Hemingway wrote, "What is moral is what you feel good after."

The big problem arises when people of the strictest moral code try 
to mandate their standards on those who have a more lenient moral 
code.  The reason is because almost everyone believes that his own 
personal moral code is the best one and that everyone should 
follow it.

A couple of recent examples come to mind.

A few days ago, a group of like-minded individuals who belong to 
an organization called ALF, the Animal Liberation Front, took it 
upon themselves to vandalize a chicken feed truck in Jennings 
County.  They also spray painted graffiti on the chicken farm 
property.

David Barbarash, a spokesman for ALF, said "When property is used 
to kill animals...then we feel the destruction of that property is 
a justified and moral act to do." 

Well, you see Mr. Barbarash, the trouble with that statement is 
that your act of vandalism might be "justified and moral" in your 
eyes, but who are you to draw your lines for me, and for the 
majority of others?  I love to eat eggs, and poultry.  You have 
just made it more difficult and expensive for me to do that.  I 
will not stop eating eggs and poultry, so your little act of 
violence has done nothing to free the chickens; it has just made 
me mad at you.

Another example of  how most people have drawn their own moral 
lines is on the abortion issue.  A recent poll showed that more 
than 70 percent of the respondents feel that abortion is murder.  
It also showed that a majority feel that a woman should have the 
right to terminate her pregnancy if she wants to.  This shows 
that, although most people draw their lines conservatively, they 
are willing to allow for others who are more liberal in the 
placement of their own lines.

The biggest problem with the people who call abortion "murder" is 
that they apparently do not know what murder is.  Abortion is not 
murder.  The dictionary says that murder is "the deliberate and 
illegal killing of a person."  Notice it says murder is an 
"illegal act."  Abortion is not illegal, therefore, regardless of 
how one feels about the morality of it, it is not murder.

Nonetheless, some narrow-minded fanatics apparently feel that 
abortion is so wrong that they are willing to commit real murder 
to stop it.  The killing of abortion doctors by anti-abortion 
fanatics makes absolutely no sense.  The perpetrators commit 
actual murder, an illegal activity, in order to prevent a legal 
activity from taking place, because they believe it should be 
illegal.  How screwed up is that?

One more example of line drawing can be found in how people 
perceive our right to freedom of expression.  One of the things 
that makes America a great country is the freedoms that are 
granted to the people by the Constitution.  Most people will agree 
with that statement.

A few years ago, during the time of the national debate on whether 
or not flag burning should be banned, a man wrote a letter to the 
newspaper urging the creation of a law to make burning an American 
flag illegal.   

His letter ended with a really absurd statement.  It said, "These 
flag burners should all be sent to China, where they have no 
freedoms."  Think about the irony in that message.  The writer 
wanted to "draw a line in the sand" that would prevent certain 
Americans from exercising their freedom of expression because he, 
himself, felt their expression was insulting.  In one breath, he 
praised America for its freedoms while condemning another country 
for the lack thereof, and then threatening to send someone to that 
other country unless they chose to give up one of their freedoms 
in this country.  Is "freedom of stupidity" in the Bill of Rights?

If there is a lesson here, it is that everyone likes to draw 
lines, and everyone should have the right to draw lines in the 
sand, as long as the boundary established is a personal one.  
Freedom is jeopardized when one person tries to make his personal 
moral line a societal one.



IT'S THE WORST VICE OF ALL

Those who read this column on occasion must understand by now that 
if there is one human vice that incessantly gets under my skin, it 
is the use of tobacco, especially by young people.

Some readers have wondered why I take such a strong stance against 
tobacco, but seldom take on some of the other vices of society, 
such as drinking or drug use.  Many see smoking as the lesser of 
the evils.  I do not.

In order for drinking alcohol to be considered a "vice," a 
habitual defect or shortcoming, it must either be done to excess, 
or be done by those under age 21.  I certainly do not advocate the 
use of alcohol by minors, no more than I would encourage them to 
start smoking.  But there is a difference between drinking and 
smoking as a vice.  And of the two, smoking happens to be the most 
destructive.

Drinking alcohol, if done in moderation and by an adult, is a 
perfectly acceptable form of social behavior and produces no ill 
effects for the drinker nor for those around him.  Most people who 
drink do so in moderation.  Alcoholics are an aberration.

Even most underage drinkers do not go on to become alcoholics.

On the other hand, when one begins using tobacco, he has sentenced 
himself to a potential lifelong habit that he will eventually 
loathe and yet, in all probability, be unable to break himself of.  
It will negatively affect his overall health, and may wind up 
killing him.  It will cost him thousands of dollars over his 
lifetime.  And it will negatively affect all those around him who 
must breathe the polluted air that issues from his lungs and from 
the tip of his burning cigarette or cigar.

In addition, the societal costs are tremendous.  According to the 
calculations of Patrick Barkey, director of the Bureau of Business 
Research at Ball State University, Hoosier smokers cost the state 
$3.5 billion a year in medical, labor, and related expenses.  "It 
just struck me how many different ways this one behavior can work 
its way into our pocketbooks," he said.

Recently, juries are starting to agree and are beginning to hold 
tobacco companies liable.  Last week, a Florida jury imposed the 
largest punitive damage award in history on the tobacco industry--
a staggering $145 billion.  Although that amount will likely be 
reduced by the judge, and the appeals process will last for many 
years, the jury managed to send a strong message to Big Tobacco 
that it can no longer deceive the American public about the evils 
of smoking.

Admittedly, drunk driving and illicit drug use take a whopping 
toll on society.  But these activities are already illegal.  
Smoking is not, nor should it be.  Yet smoking remains the number 
one preventable cause of cancer and other serious illnesses.  It 
costs our society big bucks to help sustain the nastiest of all 
habits--habits that may not have formed in the first place if 
tobacco companies had been up front and honest about the products 
they push.

There are many human vices, some more destructive than others.  
But in terms of overall costs to society, costs to the individual 
smoker, serious illnesses that could be prevented by abstention, 
and negative health effects to innocent bystanders, smoking is the 
most destructive vice of them all.



FASTER THAN LIGHT

Well, I'm still here, writing this column, so apparently the world 
didn't come to an end.  Perhaps that fact just means that the 
scientists who recently performed an experiment in New Jersey in 
which they made a pulse of light travel faster than it should have 
gone did not manage to break the laws of physics after all.

The laws of physics, a.k.a. nature, are immutable.  They are 
unbreakable by anyone, even scientists.

As a former science teacher, I was often asked by my students, 
"What would happen if someone broke one of the laws of physics?"  
I would then have to explain that a law of nature is not like a 
man made law.  The laws of man must be enforced by fallible 
humans.  One can get away with breaking man made laws 
occasionally.  And if you do break one and get caught, you must 
suffer the consequences--the punishment created to fit the crime 
committed.

But in nature, there are no such "punishments" for breaking 
natural laws.  There is no one to enforce the laws of physics.  
They simply are incapable of being broken.  So the question of the 
students becomes a moot point.  "Nothing happens to someone who 
breaks a law of physics, because no one can do it."

That is why I was a bit shocked when I read a blurb in the 
newspaper recently that said three scientists working in a 
Princeton, NJ lab had caused a pulse of light to break its own 
speed limit.  The scientists, Lijun Wang, Alexander Kuzmich, and 
Arthur Dogariu, apparently manipulated a pulse of laser light by 
sending it through cesium vapor contained in a glass tube.  The 
pulse of light exited the tube before it completely finished 
entering it at the other end.  It evidently managed to speed 
itself up by a factor of 310 percent.

Now, as we all learned in high school science, nothing can travel 
faster than the speed of light.  We also learned that the speed of 
light, according to Einstein's theory of relativity, is a 
universal constant; it never varies regardless of the speed of the 
observer.

So what gives?  Did these scientists manage to break one of the 
immutable laws of physics or not?

Well, no, not really.  The theory of relativity only restricts the 
speed of light in a vacuum, where it always travels at a constant 
186,000 miles per second.  It is well known that the speed of 
light is usually slower when traveling through other things, like 
air or water.  But in this case, the speed of the light pulse 
apparently increased, instead.

And it is only light that was able to cross its own speed 
threshold, not matter.  Light has no mass.  Matter cannot travel 
at the speed of light.  That would, indeed, be a violation of the 
laws of physics.

A side note to this and what is not widely known among non-
scientists is that nothing in the theory of relativity prohibits 
matter from exceeding the speed of light.  Matter just can't 
travel at a velocity equal to the speed of light.  But in 
practicality, in order to go faster than light, you would have to 
cross the light speed barrier, which is impossible.

Though the experimenters did not wander outside the framework of 
physics theory, what they did manage to do was extremely 
intriguing, even to other scientists.  Aephraim Steinberg, a 
physicist at the University of Toronto, said, "The interesting 
thing is how did they manage to produce light that looks exactly 
like something that didn't get there yet?"  In other words, since 
it left the tube before it finished arriving, that is intriguing 
indeed.

One may wonder what the practical implications of this experiment 
are.  Right now, there are none.  This experiment represents pure 
science, not technology.  We can do nothing with it--yet.

But in generations to come, it might become quite useful.  
Scientists might develop optical fibers filled with cesium that 
can carry light, and information, much faster than what we can 
manage today, even with our current fiber optics technology.

I am reminded of the story of how Michael Faraday, who invented 
the electric dynamo more than a century-and-a-half ago, was 
showing off his new discovery of how an electric current could 
change the direction of a metal pointer.  An astounded member of 
the audience stood up and said to Faraday, "That's amazing, but of 
what practical use is it?"  Faraday simply smiled and answered, 
"Of what practical use is a newborn baby?"



MALL AGREEMENT

A dozen years ago, the land adjacent to the northeast cloverleaf 
of the I-65 and U.S. 31 interchange was nothing more than a 
cornfield.  At some time in the past, the other three sections of 
the same interchange contained truck stops.

That all seems like ancient history.  Today, there is a large 
outlet mall where there was once corn.  There are fast food 
restaurants, convenience stores, three large motor inns, and a 
Cracker Barrel restaurant, all on the north side of I-65.

In addition, the traffic is much heavier, and has changed from 
mostly big trucks to mostly cars, vans, and pick-ups as the truck 
stops have given way to retail stores and fast food franchises.

In 1988, the Horizon Group announced plans to build a large outlet 
center at the interchange.  It asked for Edinburgh to annex the 
land on the northeast corner of the interchange so that the town 
could furnish the needed utilities for the planned project.

Edinburgh, seeing the benefit of growth, quickly filed for 
annexation and everything looked like a "go."  Unfortunately, some 
of the residents in nearby areas, fearing continued growth of 
Edinburgh, challenged the annexation in court.

Horizon threatened to back out.  

To prevent this, Edinburgh gave a little in order to get a lot.  
The town agreed not to annex the land in question for a period of 
15 years.  They would provide the water and sewer utilities as 
well as police protection to the mall.  In turn, the town would 
get half the county taxes taken in on anything constructed in the 
area south of County Road 900N, the current boundary of Edinburgh. 

In addition, Edinburgh would partner with Columbus and Bartholomew 
County to form a joint district planning commission, which would 
oversee the zoning of the land around the mall.

Edinburgh took a calculated risk by signing the interlocal 
agreement.  It gave up its right to annex the land.  Annexation 
would have meant that Edinburgh would get 100% of the municipal 
taxes instead of 50% of the county taxes.  But it gained not only 
the mall, but all the mall's peripheral perks--new restaurants and 
motels, and a new positive image of the town and name recognition 
by people from all over the state, and even from other states.  
The mall, now Prime Outlets at Edinburgh, has expanded at least 
twice since it was built in 1989.

The risk has paid off.  Edinburgh has its name all over highway 
billboards for miles around.  Its name is mentioned in the TV and 
radio ads that Prime Outlets at Edinburgh sponsors.  And people 
from all over know that Edinburgh is "where that outlet mall is."

It has also benefited downtown merchants.  Although there probably 
couldn't be a viable "dime store" or shoe shop in downtown 
Edinburgh anymore, the specialty shops and antique stores have 
flourished.

The next step in the saga may come in 2004.  That is the year the 
interlocal agreement expires and the land will be available for 
annexation again.  Since Edinburgh already services the mall with 
utilities and police protection, the town may have the upper hand 
when it makes its next annexation attempt.  However, there are 
other scenarios if Edinburgh becomes too complacent.

Although Columbus is now too far away to annex the land around the 
mall, it could conceivably come down the highway in incremental 
annexations and eventually swallow up the mall.  

What is more likely, however, is a possibility that few have 
thought about.  Taylorsville could get it. 

Taylorsville is not officially a municipality.  It has no town 
government and has no authority to annex anything--yet.  But 
Taylorsville has seen tremendous growth in population over the 
last ten years.  With population comes clout.

If Taylorsville residents were to vote for incorporation, they 
could annex the land on which the mall now stands in 2004.  
Edinburgh could be broadsided by its neighbor to the south unless 
it acts in a decisive and timely manner.

What was once something to worry about in the distant future is 
now almost upon us.  Edinburgh came out on top 11 years ago; it 
needs to make sure it stays there four years from now.



THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM

Are you a Democrat or Republican?  Maybe you're a Libertarian.  
Perhaps
you belong to some fringe party.  Or it could be you have no party
affiliation at all.

Although many voters belong to a political party by choice, some 
have
been thrust into one by default.  Since I was raised by parents 
who
called themselves democrats, I always considered myself one as 
well,
without actually knowing what a democrat was.  I'm sure the same 
thing
happens in republican families.

As I became more politically savvy, however, I came to realize 
that I
was actually more aligned with the more conservative ideology of 
the
Republican Party, even though I always vote for the person I feel 
will
do the best job, regardless of political affiliation.

What does it mean to be a democrat or a republican?

The two terms represent different, though fairly similar 
ideologies.  At
least they are much more similar than they were in the past.

But to understand what the two major parties represent, it might 
be
helpful to take a broader look at the entire political spectrum.  
It
might help to visualize a long stick, like a yardstick, that is 
balanced
in the middle by your finger.  Everything to the right of your 
finger
represents the "Right Wing" of the political spectrum, and 
everything on
the left of your finger represents the "Left Wing."

Starting on the far right would be political parties such as the 
Nazi
Party.  Far right-wing ideology is generally termed fascism.  
Fascism,
as it is typically defined, is marked by extreme nationalism, with 
a
tendency toward a desire to create ethnic purity.  However, it is 
also
marked by varying degrees of capitalism, but not democracy.

On the opposite end of the stick--the far left--there is 
communism, an
extreme form of socialism.  Communism is the philosophy that the
community (or nation) is central, and that individuals are not so
important.  It contains the premise that each individual should 
labor
according to his abilities and be paid according to his needs.  
Nobody
"gets ahead in the world."  Nobody owns property, land, or 
businesses.
The government owns and operates everything, and divvies out the
production equally to the populace.

Even though fascism and communism are on opposite ends of the 
political
spectrum, they both require an authoritarian form of government.  
Both
forms of government repress the individual in favor of a 
centralized and
all-powerful government.

Closer to the middle of the yardstick you will find the radicals 
on the
left and the reactionaries on the right.  These are the typical
"left-wing" or "right-wing" fanatics.  An example of a reactionary 
might
be a member of the Ku Klux Klan or the Neo-nazis, or it might be 
someone
like Ted Kazinski.  A less extreme example might be someone
associated with the religious right.

An example of a radical might be a member of the Black Panthers or 
the
Animal Liberation Front.  A less extreme example might be someone 
who is
a member of the feminist movement or gay rights movement.

Near the center of the yardstick lie the more moderate forms of
government that most Western nations enjoy.

Most people say that America is a democracy.  However, this is not
exactly true.  In a true democracy, everybody votes for 
everything--all
laws of the land must be put to a referendum.  The U.S. is 
actually a
republic.  We elect representatives to pass laws for us.  If we 
don't
like the laws they pass, we vote for someone else in the next 
election.

But everybody in America is not exactly dead-center on the 
yardstick.
Those that tend toward the right wing are republicans, and those 
that
tip the balance slightly to the left are democrats.

Although this is an over-generalization, democrats tend to be more
liberal.  They tend to favor equality of status.  And to achieve 
this
goal, they vote in favor of laws that create social programs such 
as
welfare, Medicaid, and affirmative action.  Democrats tend to 
favor more
government regulation.  The emphasis is on the society as opposed 
to the
individual.

Republicans are more conservative.  They generally believe in 
equality
of opportunity, as opposed to equality of status.  They are more
capitalistic.  They believe that everyone should have an equal 
chance to
succeed, but that government has no place helping them out.  
Republicans
also tend to restrict certain freedoms that democrats tend to 
grant.
These include things such as abortion rights and certain extreme 
forms
of expression, such as flag burning.  Emphasis is placed on the
individual.

Some views of the political spectrum also include a vertical 
component,
with the top representing total governmental control and the 
bottom
representing anarchy.  A libertarian would be near the bottom 
right of
this spectrum.

So there you have it.  You can now go back to the first question 
and
find out where you really stand on the political spectrum.  Are 
you a
Democrat, a Republican, or neither?  Personally, I tend to think 
of
myself as an extreme moderate!



THE WONDERS OF THE INTERNET

Remember back in the old days, five or six years ago, if you 
needed to
look something up in the dictionary or encyclopedia, you opened a 
bulky
book.  The Internet existed back then, but few people had heard 
much
about it, and even fewer people were "online."

The only way you could read a newspaper was to pick up a copy at 
the
newsstand or off your front porch.  To read a magazine also 
required a
trip to the newsstand, or a subscription.  The only way to see the
weather radar was to tune into the local news or the Weather 
Channel.
You had to rely on the time schedule of the broadcasters, the
publishers, or the paperboy.

Not anymore, though.  If you want to read your local newspaper--
pretty
much any local newspaper--just get online and type in the home 
page of
the paper.  The Edinburgh Courier has a home page, as does the 
Daily
Journal.  Of course, the papers are still printed the in the 
traditional
manner.  But the Internet versions can keep up with breaking news, 
and
you can read your hometown newspaper even if you're not at home.

If you want more in-depth news, look up your favorite magazine 
online.
You can even see some of the up-to-date news photos, in living 
color.
Most wire services are also online.

Is a storm approaching your area?  There's no need to wait for the
newscast to see the weather radar, just go to one of the many live 
radar
sites on the Internet.  You can also get the latest temperature 
and
other weather statistics, as well as the forecast.  You can even 
see
up-to-the-minute satellite imagery.  And you can do it all on your 
own
schedule.

When I was in high school, my hobby was keeping weather records.  
I did
it for several years.  I always imagined myself having my own 
"home
radar" so that I could more accurately predict the arrival of 
storms.

Well, although I don't have a home radar unit, I can see the local 
radar
anytime I want online.  It's just about as good, and much less 
expensive
than owning my own.

And, yes, I still keep local weather records.  But now I use a 
computer
instead of a filing cabinet.  And the local stats for Edinburgh 
also can
be found online.  I upload them monthly for everyone to use as 
they
wish.  You can even see what the weather looks like via a live 
video
feed from my office just west of Edinburgh.  It is live 24 hours a 
day,
7 days a week.

The Internet has truly become the new-age medium for the twenty-
first
century.  I can't imagine how I ever survived all those years 
without
it.

The Internet is a medium for entertainment and for information.  
It
serves both functions quite well.   You can find almost everything 
you
would ever need to know about just about anything.  Did you know 
that
there are whole Web pages devoted to such esoteric subjects as the
metabolism of polydextrose, the dissection of an earthworm, and 
the
treatment of systemic yeast infections?  Then, after engaging in 
the
more cerebral endeavors, you can unwind by switching over to 
leisure
activities. You can read the comics, play online games, and solve
crossword puzzles.

There are Web pages about almost every celebrity ever born.  There 
are
Web pages devoted to sports and to outdoor activities.  There are 
Web
pages that feature the latest deep space images.  There are Web 
pages
designed and maintained by the kid next door, and by the world's 
largest
corporations.  And you can buy almost anything online, either at 
the
planet's largest yard sale known as eBay, or at the sites of the 
various
e-merchants.

I no longer write checks, except on rare occasions.  I pay all my 
bills
online.  You can now even get some of your bills sent to you via 
email
instead of through the Post Office.  You can pay everyone from 
your
credit card bills to the paperboy online.

Most cities and towns have their own Websites.  Before going on
vacation, or traveling to another city, I can look up information 
about
motels, restaurants, and businesses at my destination long before 
I
leave home.  I can even print out a detailed street map of any
neighborhood in the United States, along with complete directions
telling me how to get there.

Edinburgh, of course, is no exception.  It has a home page, at
Edinburgh-in.com.  It includes a virtual "tour" of the town, a
downloadable screen saver containing pictures of the town, a 
listing of
places to eat, shop, and stay overnight, maps of the town, and a 
message
board where former residents can leave messages for their old 
friends or
classmates.  It's a way to keep in touch or to find a long-lost 
friend.
The Greater Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce maintains Edinburgh's 
Website,
since the town council decided to cease maintaining it more than a 
year
ago.

Of course, many of you still do not have access to the Internet.  
Many
of you don't want to have it.  People can survive without it.  But 
it
does tend to make life a lot easier for those who are connected.  
In a
few years, or sooner, the Internet will be considered just as
indispensable as the refrigerator.  It already is for me.



BAD LAWS

To prevent anarchy, a civilized society must have laws.  In a 
Democratic
Republic, like the United States, we elect representatives to 
write
those laws for us.  Then we elect prosecutors and sheriffs to 
enforce
them.

The purpose of laws is to protect society from those members who 
would
cause harm to other members of society, or to society as a whole.  
When
so enacted, laws are good things.  And most people have no problem 
in
obeying them.

But, there are many laws on the books that do not serve to protect 
one
member of society from the acts of another.  There are laws that 
do not
seem to have any purpose other than protecting someone from 
himself.
Those are the bad laws.  In fact, it ought to be against the law 
to
enact such laws, because society is not served when its government 
tries
to inflict upon everyone the frivolous demands of the majority.

One such law that should not be on the books is the seatbelt law.  
It is
against the law to drive or ride in the front seat of a car 
without
wearing a seatbelt.

"It saves lives," cries law enforcement officers.  Well, maybe so.  
But
if we passed laws against contact sports, skydiving, mountain 
climbing,
and skiing we could also save lives.  If we passed another 
motorcycle
helmet law we would save lives.  If we made it a crime to have
unprotected sex we could save lives.  Passing laws to save the 
lives of
those who choose to take chances is simply a bad legislative 
practice.

Those who choose to participate in risky behavior must accept the
consequences of that behavior themselves.  We, as a society, allow
certain risky behavior, like those already mentioned.  Yet we pass 
laws
against other risky behavior.  There is no consistency.

Morality is another questionable reason for passing laws, because
everybody's morality is not based upon the same set of principles 
or
beliefs.  For example, according to each church's doctrine, it is
immoral for a Catholic to take birth control pills, but it is not
immoral for a Methodist to use them.

A few years ago, it was against the law to set up gambling
establishments in Indiana.  In fact, it was unconstitutional.  
Although
there are those who believe gambling is immoral the state decided 
it
could bring in huge amounts of revenue from gambling, so that law 
was
changed--with the help of the voters who decided the state 
constitution
was out of step with the wishes of the majority on that issue.  It 
seems
money can overrule morality when it comes to deciding which laws 
to
pass.

Smoking is the leading cause of preventable deaths in America.  
Yet
smoking tobacco is legal.   Smoking marijuana, on the other hand, 
is
not.  What's the difference?

Drinking is legal, but it can lead to alcoholism, which can be 
deadly
and devastating.  It also leads to deaths from drunk drivers.  But
therein may lie the answer to the conundrum of what should and 
what
should not be legal.

Drinking may be legal, but driving while drunk is not.  The act 
itself
is fine and socially acceptable, but the behavior that it might
induce--public intoxication, drunk driving, etc.--is illegal.

Why not apply the same criteria to other vices.  Smoking should be
legal, in general, because it brings harm only to the smoker when 
it is
done alone or with other smokers.  But smoking should be illegal 
in a
public building, like a restaurant, because it then brings harm to
others who might choose not to smoke.

Whether or not one chooses to wear seatbelts should not be 
dictated by
law.  It should be up to the individual whether or not he wishes 
to take
that risk.  However, it should be a requirement for children to 
wear
seatbelts, because if their parents choose not to protect them, it 
is up
to society to do so.

Society should apply the same lesson it learned from legalizing 
gambling
to other "victimless crimes."  Legalize the activity; tax its use, 
and
enforce the laws that are already on the books regulating specific
behaviors that might arise from participating in the legalized
activity.  In the case of gambling, enforce the racketeering laws, 
for
example.

Laws are an important part of a civilized society.  But passing 
laws
that protect someone from the harm they may cause themselves by
voluntarily engaging in a risky behavior, or passing laws based 
solely
on what the majority considers moral is overstepping the bounds of 
good
government.



EVOLUTION REVISITED

Last year, when I heard that the Kansas Board of Education had 
passed a resolution demoting the scientific theory of evolution to 
optional status in the Kansas Public Schools, I could hardly 
believe that those in charge of the education of children 
throughout an entire state could be so shortsighted.  I wrote an 
opinion column saying so.

Well, a couple of weeks ago, those shortsighted individuals got 
what was coming to them; they were voted off the Board of 
Education by the voters of Kansas in favor of more moderate 
representatives.  I salute the voters of Kansas for being far more 
open minded as a populace than their former educational policy 
setters were.

After I heard about the results of the election in Kansas, it 
occurred to me that maybe I had been underestimating the vast 
majority of the citizens of this country.  I have written several 
columns over the years trying to explain why evolution does not 
necessarily conflict with religion.  It certainly doesn't conflict 
with my beliefs as a Christian.

But it could be that most people need no convincing.  In a poll 
conducted by People for the American Way Foundation, 83 percent of 
the respondents said they believe that Darwin's theory of 
evolution, not creationism, should be taught in the public 
schools.  And 70 percent of those surveyed saw no real conflict 
between evolution and the story in Genesis.

In fact, the majority of mainstream Christian denominations, other 
than the fundamentalists, have no problem accepting the theory of 
evolution at face value.  

About five years ago, the Pope came out in support of the theory 
of evolution, saying that it posed no threat to Christian beliefs.  
But Catholics are not the only Christians who are not threatened 
by the teaching of evolution in schools.

Rev. C. Edward Weisheimer, Indiana Regional Minister for the 
Disciples of Christ, wrote, "The creation stories in Genesis 1 and 
2 are poetic, not laboratory reports on the process of making the 
heavens and the earth."  He further stated, "The Bible was written 
to tell us about God, whose handiwork is seen in evolution."  And 
he had this warning to parents, "Do not be misled by those who 
want to impose their religious beliefs in the public schools under 
the guise of it being a science."

Creationism is not a science.  It does not follow the scientific 
method of inquiry.   All facts that are found to be in 
disagreement with creationism are quickly ignored or warped into 
compliance.  Evolution, however, like all scientific theories, has 
withstood the test of time and the test of many generations of 
scrutiny by the scientific community.

As with all scientific theories, evolution did not start out as an 
answer in search of supporting evidence.  It started as an 
unanswered question and was developed over time using empirical 
data and observation.  

Regardless of what one's faith is, one must admit that creationism 
is not science.  If it is not science, it doesn't belong in a 
science classroom.  On the other hand, evolution is science.  In 
fact, all biological sciences rest on the foundation of evolution.  
Therefore, evolution does belong in the science curriculum and 
should not be disregarded or diminished.  All biology teachers 
must be encouraged to include it in their classrooms.

Kansas has apparently rejoined the rest of the civilized world 
with its recent vote, as its citizens have collectively embraced 
evolution in the classroom and kicked creationism out.  That's the 
way it should be, for the sake of the children and their future.  
As Rev. Weisheimer was quick to point out, religious teaching is 
the bailiwick of the church, and of parents.  There is no place 
for it in science classrooms, regardless of what you call it.



STEM CELL RESEARCH 

Think about it--we might be on the verge of a whole new era in 
medical treatment for just about any of the major debilitating 
diseases, like diabetes, cancer, heart disease, Parkinson's 
disease, and muscular dystrophy.  Unless, of course, the right-
wing moralists have their way.

It was announced last week that the government will now provide 
funding for research on stem cells from human embryos.  Stem cells 
are the master cells, which can develop into almost any 
specialized tissue of the human body.  They are present in 
abundance in embryos, because that is the period of development in 
which cell differentiation is beginning to take place.

Scientists hope their research into stem cells will lead to 
methods of growing heart, nerve, muscle, blood, and other tissue 
to replace that which might be diseased or damaged in humans.  

President Clinton called the possible benefits of stem cell 
research "potentially staggering."  He said, "I think we cannot 
walk away from the potential to save lives and improve lives, to 
help people literally get up and walk, to do all kinds of things 
we could never have imagined, as long as we meet rigorous, ethical 
standards."

Those rigorous ethical standards are designed to make sure 
researches do not attempt to harvest embryos that are grown 
specifically for the purpose of producing stem cells.  Instead, 
the cells will be obtained from frozen embryos left over from in-
vitro fertilization.

But, as it was after the first heart transplant and the first test 
tube baby, there are those who worry about the morality of it.  
Yes, those self-righteous defenders of public morality see it 
differently.  Never mind the staggering potential this research 
might have.  Never mind that it might one day become a literal 
panacea for curing diseases that are now incurable.  Forget about 
the fact that it might one day lead to longer, healthier lives for 
those who are stricken with genetic disorders.  No, if it's new 
and different, and involves embryos or genetics, it must be 
somehow immoral, so it must be banned.

Senator Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican, called research 
"illegal, immoral, and unnecessary."  Opponents of the research 
believe that all embryos are potential human beings and, 
therefore, must not be used for experimentation.

But embryos are not humans; they are embryos.  They have no 
feelings, memories, nor sentience.  They are a clump of organized 
tissue, mostly undifferentiated, which might develop into a human 
only if given nine months in a healthy womb.  But the embryos used 
for this research are not being harvested from a womb, but from a 
freezer.

Britain has gone a step further, and because of it might surpass 
the United States in this important research.  That country has 
not only allowed funding for embryonic stem cell research, it has 
also permitted embryos to be cloned from humans, so that there 
should never be a supply problem.

Opponents should realize the benefits of cutting-edge medical 
research.  They need to take a look at the big picture.  And they 
should stop trying to force their personal moral standards onto 
society in general.  If they feel so badly about it, perhaps they 
should just vow never to make use of the benefits of this 
research, even if they, or their children, should ever need it.



ANOTHER KIND OF SCHOOL PRODUCES SUCCESS

Edinburgh Community High School and Middle School, East Side 
Elementary, and Head Start are the educational establishments in 
Edinburgh.  And, although Edinburgh does not have a college or 
university, it does have one educational institution that is often 
overlooked--a Job Corps center.

Just as Edinburgh's other educational institutions have their fair 
share of success stories, so, too, does the Atterbury Job Corps 
Center.

Contrary to popular belief, Job Corps is not a juvenile 
correctional facility.  No one is sentenced to attend.  In fact, 
those who have criminal records are ineligible for the program.  
Students at Job Corps have chosen to be there, in order to gain 
the experience and education necessary to make their lives 
successful.

Keith Bullock is one success story of our local Job Corps center.  
Keith is from Illinois, and his future seemed anything but bright 
until he enrolled at Atterbury.  He spent two years in training to 
be a welder.  Now, he is one of the welding instructors at the 
Center.

But more than that, Keith has had a significant degree of 
recognition over the past three years for another accomplishment 
that grew out of his Job Corps experience.  He is not only a 
welder, he is a sculptor of welded metal.

He recently received the "Young Entrepreneur of the Year" award.  
The award was presented to Keith by actor Sinbad during the kick 
off  luncheon for the Indiana Black Expo held July 13 in 
Indianapolis.  Keith was chosen from approximately 5000 
applicants.  Governor Frank O'Bannon and Indianapolis Mayor Bart 
Peterson were in attendance.  Keith sat at the VIP table with the 
Governor and other dignitaries.   The award was presented to Keith 
for his determination and love for the arts. 

In his acceptance speech, Keith praised Atterbury saying if it 
were not for the Center and staff he would not have had the 
opportunity to excel to this high point in his life.  He is very 
grateful and does not hesitate to let everyone know.  

But the recognition didn't stop there.  Two of Keith's sculptures 
were selected to be displayed in the Governor's Mansion.  In 
addition, he has been chosen to display his work at the upcoming 
Coca Cola Circle City Classic Coaches' Luncheon to be held October 
6.  "It's very exciting, and feels a little weird," Keith said of 
his near celebrity status.

Keith has displayed his art work in several places, including at 
this year's open house at Atterbury.  His work is currently on 
display in Indianapolis at "In Style," an art studio and clothing 
store.  

He has even sold some pieces.  His sculptures sell for between 
$2,500 and $6,500 each.  Currently, he is working on a piece for 
the Urban League, which commissioned him to do a welded metal 
sculpture of an earth globe for $6,500.

Keith has extraordinary ambition and has put a lot of hard work 
and effort into his success.  He has become one of Atterbury's 
most famous success stories, and therefore one of Edinburgh's, as 
well.



MUSIC TECHNOLOGY

In the old days, consumers purchased their favorite music on LP 
record albums.  The albums, made of vinyl, stored the sound as a 
analog wave form.  The groove on the record was notched in such a 
way that it caused the phonograph needle to vibrate in exactly the 
same manner as the sound waves produced by the singer and the 
accompanying instruments.

The only way to copy the music was to record it onto a cassette 
tape, which also used the analog method of reproducing sound.  The 
problem was, every time a copy was made, a significant amount of 
sound quality was lost in the process.  You could easily tell 
whether you were listening to a copy or the original recording.

Fast forward to today.  Music is now stored digitally on CDs 
(compact disks), and as computer files.  To be stored digitally 
means that the music is encoded as a series of bits.  A bit can 
have one of two values, a 0 or a 1.  So, in its basic form, the 
most complex musical composition recorded digitally is really 
nothing more than a very long stream of 1s and 0s being processed 
with incredible speed by a computer.  The computer chip might be 
in an actual desktop computer or laptop, or it might be in your 
stereo system.

One of the advantages of digital recording is that it produces a 
cleaner sound, with no hiss.  Another advantage is, since all 
information is either a 1 or a 0 with nothing in between, sounds 
can be copied with perfect precision with almost no loss of 
quality.  A copy of a copy of a copy sounds exactly like the 
original.

That fact has made the recording industry cringe lately, because 
communications technology has now reached a point that allows 
music lovers to transmit a piece of music over the Internet to 
someone else.  The receiver of the transmitted piece of music is 
actually receiving the complete set of 1s and 0s (bits), not the 
actual sound itself.  But when those bits are run through a piece 
of computer software designed to decode them and turn them back 
into sound, the music is every bit as clear and clean as the 
original.

An Internet start-up company called MP3.com decided to make use of 
this transmission technology to allow its customers to store their 
music on its disk space.  The user could upload the contents of a 
CD, then listen to his own music anywhere in the world by 
downloading it to whatever computer he was on at the time.

But, to speed things up, MP3.com decided that it would go ahead 
and copy all 80,000 of the most popular CDs into its database of 
music, and then allow anyone to download a song only if they 
proved that they already owned that CD.  This was accomplished by 
making the user place his CD into his computer once.  The MP3.com 
computer would then verify that the CD was authentic.  After that, 
the user could download any song from that CD anywhere in the 
world, without having to physically take the CD with him.

Sounds good.  But in comes the Recording Industry Association of 
America (RIAA), which represents all the big record companies, 
crying foul.  "You can't do that because it violates copyright 
laws," they said.  Unfortunately, a federal judge, who apparently 
has his head planted firmly in the antediluvian sand, recently 
agreed with the RIAA, awarding Universal Music, the world's 
biggest music company, damages that could amount to $250 million, 
effectively driving MP3.com out of business.

It is difficult to see how the record company, which saw its sales 
of CDs increase again this year, was damaged at all by MP3.com.  
It is also difficult to see how providing a new way for people to 
make use of their own music collections violates any copyright 
laws.

If an individual who owns a CD wanted to upload the contents of 
that CD to an Internet database with the intention of downloading 
it again elsewhere so he could listen to it without having to lug 
the physical CD around with him, that would be an acceptable use, 
even according to the recording industry.  But if a copy of the 
music he owns is already on the database, copied there by someone 
else, then it apparently is a copyright infringement, even though 
it is the exact same set of 0s and 1s in the online database.

This case, which MP3.com says it will appeal, and a similar 
lawsuit now pending against Napster, brings to light a real need 
for lawmakers to take another look at the copyright laws and apply 
them to the latest methods of digital dispersal.  It also shows 
that some judges need to take a look at what is really being 
damaged.  Is it the record companies, who have been overcharging 
consumers for years, or is it the consumers who have merely found 
a new way to take their music with them?

In the end, it might be the consumers who win out, but it will be 
an uphill battle, thanks to Goliaths like Universal Music.  Eric 
Scheirer, analyst with Forrester Research, put it this way, 
"They're winning in court, but the court is the battle and not the 
whole war. The marketplace is the war."



DRUG TESTS AT SCHOOL

Edinburgh Community School Corporation became the first school 
system in the state to require drug testing of its coaches, some 
of whom are also teachers.  This policy is a reasonable method to 
ensure that students are not being influenced by those who take 
drugs, despite the obligatory objections of the teachers union who 
consisitently places a higher priority on the "rights" of its 
members than on the education and welfare of students.

But a recent court ruling has put a halt to random drug testing of 
student athletes, claiming that it violates their rights to 
privacy.  It is unclear what effect, if any, this ruling will have 
on the school's new drug testing policy for coaches, which is 
itself being challenged in court.

Once upon a time, all students in school, and all teachers, were 
routinely tested each year for tuberculosis.  Although it was a 
minor inconvenience, nobody complained about privacy issues.  It 
was just something that most people agreed was necessary in order 
to keep the school community safe.  And it worked.

Drug testing is not much different.

A school has the obligation to make sure the students under its 
charge are in a safe environment.  Drug testing is one way that 
schools can encourage its students and staff to remain drug free.

For that reason, schools should test all students and all 
employees for drugs on an annual basis.  It would be more 
effective to test at random times throughout the year, but the 
test should be administered to everyone, just as the old TB tests 
were.

Thanks in part to an aggressive campaign against tuberculosis, 
which included mandatory testing of students and school personnel, 
tuberculosis is no longer a feared and widespread disease.

Drug use could be sharply curtailed as well, if schools employed 
the same process it used in reducing the incidence of tuberculosis 
to reducing the incidence of drug use.  Test everybody, every 
year.

Sure, it might be somewhat expensive.  But as with anything else, 
bulk rate discounts would probably apply.  And as it was with the 
TB tests, the costs may well be worth it to ensure a drug-free 
school environment.



EVERYONE HAS AN OPINION

During the eight years that I have been writing this column I have 
received a significant amount of reader feedback about the 
opinions expressed herein.  Some of that feedback, most of it 
actually, has been positive and supportive.  And then there are 
those who disagree, some vehemently.

But this is an opinion column and disagreement is not only 
allowed, but encouraged.  What better way to expand one's mind 
than to consider the alternatives to an ingrained conviction?  
This goes for both the reader and the writer.

In general, those who agree with an opinion do so verbally, saying 
things like, "nice column," or "I agree wholeheartedly."  Those 
who disagree tend to write letters to the editor, or to me, or to 
call me early in the morning and scold me for my heresies.

Over the years I have found that there are three topics that 
garner more written responses than any other.  They are evolution, 
abortion, and animal rights.  If I write on any of these subjects, 
I can always expect one or two letters of disagreement to follow.

Of course, these topics are the ones that generate lots of emotion 
in people.  They are subjects that people tend to firmly agree 
with or firmly disagree with.  And when you attack something that 
someone firmly believes in, you're bound to get a response.

I am just like most everyone else.  I have strong opinions on each 
of these topics.  I know without doubt that all plants and animals 
on earth, including humans, evolved.  And I can prove it to anyone 
with an open mind.  I believe that, with certain restrictions, a 
woman should have the right to decide what to do with an embryo 
growing in her womb.  And the phrase "animal rights," to me, is an 
oxymoron.  Animals have no rights.

And because I hold these opinions on these three topics, and 
because I profess to being a Christian, that has led some people 
to question my convictions.  Some have even said outright that I 
am not a true Christian.

Some write letters quoting one Bible verse after another to prove 
their point of view.  The Bible can be used, if manipulated 
properly, to prove almost anything.  I can quote a couple of 
verses myself.  They happen to be my favorites: "Judge not, that 
you be not judged." (Mat. 7:1)  And, "Judge not, and you shall not 
be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, 
and you will be forgiven." (Luke 6:37)   Isn't it funny how those 
who seem to proclaim the Word of God the loudest are the ones who 
often overlook these two verses?

Opinions are like noses; everybody has one.  And my opinions are 
no more, and no less valid than anyone else's.  Although I do try 
to back up my opinions with facts and evidence whenever that is 
possible, they still remain my opinions--open for discussion, 
dissection, and criticism.

The thing about an opinion is that it can provoke either anger, 
leading to retaliation; or reflection, often leading to 
enlightenment.  If it provokes neither, then it is either an 
opinion shared by everyone, or mindless drivel.



ABOUT AGING

One of my favorite lines of dialogue in any episode of Star Trek 
took place in the first episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation 
called "Encounter at Far Point."  Data, the android, was escorting 
Doctor Leonard "Bones" McCoy down the hallway of the starship 
while making casual conversation about the doctor's extreme age.  
He was 132, I believe.

After Data mentions his age, Bones utters one of his 
characteristic acerbic remarks, which prompts Data to ask if the 
subject of his age is troubling to him.  Bones then replies, 
"Troubling?  What's so troubling about not having died?"

When the oldest people on record seldom live beyond the ripe old 
age of 120, someone who is in their 130s may seem quite ancient.  
But the voyages of Star Trek are supposed to be taking place more 
than 300 years into the future.  It struck me that Bones, at 132, 
should certainly have been thought of as a senior citizen, but not 
as particularly noteworthy because of his age.

Looking back on the original episodes of Star Trek, when Captain 
Kirk was at the helm, it is sometimes amusing to see the old-
fashioned gadgets aboard the first Starship Enterprise.  What 
could be more anachronistic than a 24th century space vehicle 
being fitted with early 20th century toggle switches and 
mechanical clocks?

It makes one wonder what will seem laughably archaic in the most 
recent episodes of Star Trek when we look at them 30 years from 
now.  One of the things that may seem to be a bit odd is the idea 
that McCoy's age of 132 was still considered to be unusually old, 
even in the 24th century.

I would hope that, by then, people will routinely live 150 to 200 
years, or perhaps longer.  After all, life expectancies are 
gradually inching upward and have been every decade for at least 
100 years.

The aging process has always fascinated doctors and scientists.  
Why does our bodies deteriorate as they age?  After all, we grow a 
whole new set of cells every few months, so it's not like our 
bodies are composed of the same cells we had when we were born.  
The cells themselves mature, age, die, and are replaced.  So why 
does the body as a whole deteriorate?

Recent research has pointed to a likely culprit in the aging 
process: free radicals.  These are the nasty remnants of the 
body's metabolic processes, the waste products of living, that 
accumulate in our tissues and reek havoc on our system.  Free 
radicals are groups of atoms that have an "open hitch," so to 
speak, in that they are very reactive.  They will combine with 
almost any other tissue they come in contact with, altering it in 
the process.  They destroy tissue, cause cancer, and are generally 
rather destructive.  And there is nothing that can prevent their 
manufacture in the body as by-products of our metabolism.

There is, however, a way to "mop them up" before they can do much 
damage.  Scientists have learned that the ingestion of substances 
known as antioxidants can react with these free radicals and allow 
them to be harmlessly excreted from the body.  Some common 
antioxidants include vitamins C and E.

The latest research, involving roundworms, shows that the life 
spans of these tiny creatures can be easily doubled by injecting 
them with powerful antioxidants.  And they don't seem to simply 
live longer, but they seem to remain active during their extended 
maturity, too.

Of course, it is quite a leap from the lowly nematode to a human 
being.  But the science is still the same.  It should, 
theoretically, work with humans, too.

The time may not be too far off when we can, if we choose, take a 
pill a day to extend our lives well past 100.  And there is no 
reason to believe that those future centenarians will be feeble.  
Extending life does not necessarily mean extending the most feeble 
time of life.  It may mean extending that period of life we call 
middle age.  Being old and feeble will last no longer than it 
already does, it will just be pushed several years into the 
future.

It's true that there are negative aspects of extending the human 
life span.  The earth is already becoming overpopulated.  Making 
it possible for humans to routinely live to be 150 or 200 years 
old will probably aggravate the overpopulation problem.  But that 
is something to be addressed separately.  No matter how old one 
lives, producing only two children per couple will still produce a 
stable population.

At any rate, I certainly am willing to give this life-extending 
technology a try, should it ever come to fruition.  I want to live 
long enough to see if we can every really develop matter 
transporters.  I've always had a fear of flying.  But once the 
technology is perfected, I might could stand to be "beamed."



MAKE IT A LOCAL RADIO STATION

Edinburgh finally has a radio station of its own!  Or does it?

A new radio station, calling itself KORN Country is officially 
designated by the FCC as "WYGB Edinburgh," but the station's 
studios and transmitter are located in Columbus.  And based on its 
on-air promos, Columbus is the market it primarily serves.

Back in the late 1960s, another Columbus radio station, WCSI, 
opened up an actual studio in Edinburgh.  The studio was located 
downtown, in the building currently occupied by Blue River Savings 
Bank.

WCSI scheduled only a few hours of programming each week from its 
Edinburgh facility.  It broadcast a country music show from its 
Edinburgh studio every Saturday morning for more than a year.  
Then it pulled out of town.

Edinburgh has never had its own commercial broadcast radio 
station, and since WCSI discontinued its local studio, Edinburgh 
hasn't had any kind of on-air presence of its own.

However, about five or six years ago, another Columbus radio 
station, WRZQ, which calls itself "QMix," became interested in 
acquiring the FCC broadcast license for Edinburgh.  Apparently, 
the stations owner, Keith Reising, studied the possibility of 
building a transmitter and tower in or near Edinburgh.  The actual 
studio, however, would be in Columbus, at the site of the QMix 
studios.

But when the new radio station finally came into existence, both 
its transmitter and broadcast studios were located in Columbus.  
In fact, the only connection it has to Edinburgh is the fact that 
it owns the license for the frequency that is assigned to 
Edinburgh by the FCC.  So far, the only time it mentions Edinburgh 
is once per hour during its FCC-mandated station identification.

Scott Dugan, program manager for WYBG, said that the station will 
service both Columbus and Edinburgh, along with all the 
surrounding area.  "We're trying to service all areas," he said.  
He pointed out that WYBG's sister station sponsors the fireworks 
each year at Prime Outlets, and that it always reports on news 
events from Edinburgh.

That is certainly true enough.  WRZQ has taken an interest in 
Edinburgh during its existence.  But the fact remains that the new 
radio station is promoted as a Columbus station.

According to FCC regulations, "Each AM, FM and TV broadcast 
station will be licensed to the  principal community or other 
political subdivision which it primarily serves. This principal 
community (city, town or other political  subdivision) will be 
considered to be the geographical station location." (Sec. 
73.1120)

Although federal regulations do permit stations to be physically 
located within 25 miles of the "principal community," the station 
is still bound to "primarily serve" that community.  WYGB's 
principal community is Edinburgh.  Therefore, all the language in 
its promotional campaigns should include the fact that Edinburgh 
is the community that it primarily serves.  Columbus can be served 
as well, of course, but not as the principal community.

George Carpenter, president of the Greater Edinburgh Chamber of 
Commerce, said that Edinburgh should get proper recognition from 
the new station.  "I think Edinburgh needs to have the credit if 
the call sign is designated as Edinburgh's," he said.

Having a new radio station in the area is a good idea.  It 
provides the listeners with yet another choice.  However, in 
recognition of the fact that the station is using a broadcast 
license assigned to Edinburgh, the station should adopt the 
following guidelines in its promotions and programming:

1.  Edinburgh should be identified as the station's primary 
community, not Columbus.
2.  The station should become an active member of the Greater 
Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce.
3.  The station should seek to broadcast news, public service 
messages, and announcements that are specifically local to the 
Edinburgh area.

The fact that the physical location of the station is in Columbus 
doesn't really matter if all one is doing is listening to the 
music.  But the listeners should all know with certainty that 
Edinburgh is the community that KORN Country "primarily serves."



GASOLINE TAX

Indiana Governor Frank O'Bannon extended his moratorium on 
gasoline sales tax for the third time last week.  That's pretty 
good news for Hoosier motorists, but the action falls short of 
what really should happen.

The sales tax on gasoline amounts to a tax on a tax.  The federal 
and state governments already add a hefty excise tax to a gallon 
of gasoline--something like 34.5 cents per gallon total.  Then, on 
top of that, is the 5-percent sales tax.

And the sales tax is even more regressive, because you pay more of 
it as the price of gas goes up.  In other words, as gasoline 
becomes less affordable, they charge you more tax on it.  At least 
with the excise tax, it's a flat rate per gallon, regardless of 
how much a gallon costs.  If the state must add on sales tax, it 
should be on a per-gallon basis, not as a percentage of the price.

Years ago, the state legislators saw the desirability of 
eliminating the sales tax on most grocery items.  "Food for human 
consumption" bought in a grocery store to be eaten later is not 
taxable.  Food that is purchased for immediate consumption still 
is taxable, as is gasoline after the moratorium finally wears off 
later this month.

Lawmakers decided that the tax on groceries was a regressive tax 
that hurt lower- and middle-income Hoosiers much more than it hurt 
the wealthy.  The gasoline sales tax is the same thing.  Why not 
just eliminate it altogether, instead of imposing a temporary 
moratorium?

While they're at it, lawmakers should simplify the sales tax law 
as it pertains to buying groceries.  All packaged food, whether it 
is a single serving to be eaten right away, or family-sized 
packages designed to be taken home and cooked for dinner should be 
tax-free.

Even many retail stores do not know for certain which products to 
tax and which ones not to tax.  Consider that in some convenience 
stores, the small bottles of juice or the single-serving cartons 
of milk are taxed, but in other stores they're not.  Consider that 
the packets of drink mix are not taxed, but that the pre-made 
fruit drinks are.  Where's the logic?

But at least groceries don't have an excise tax tacked on.  
Gasoline does.  Not only is sales tax on gasoline a regressive 
tax, it is also a tax on a tax.

Realistically, the sales tax moratorium on gasoline doesn't really 
mean much.  At an average price of $1.50 per gallon, the motorist 
is saving only about 7-1/2 cents per gallon purchased.  Over the 
course of the three months of the moratorium, a person filling his 
tank once per week, at 15 gallons per fill-up has saved a whopping 
$13.50!  That's about $4.50 per month--not a lot, but still a 
savings.

And it's a savings that should continue forever, if only our 
lawmakers would decided what they should have decided years ago--
that gasoline is like groceries, something everybody needs, and 
something that should not be taxed.



THE RELIGIOUS SPECTRUM

There's an old maxim that says there are two things you should 
never argue about because there can never be a winner.  Those two 
things are religion and politics.

That saying certainly has a lot of merit, because those two 
subjects tend to provoke a lot of emotion in people, especially 
the subject of religion.  Nevertheless, despite the maxim's 
warning, those topics are probably the two that are most debated, 
and most argued.

It's not without good reason.  After all, what good is a debate if 
everyone is on the same side?  And the two taboo subjects of 
religion and politics each have so many "sides" that there is 
plenty of room for disagreement.

Although politics, in general, doesn't touch the emotions as 
deeply as religion, the broad span of the political spectrum 
provides a lot of fodder for disagreement.  Nevertheless, if the 
political spectrum were miles longer, it still could not come 
close to matching the diversity of opinion--the beliefs--that 
exist within the "religious spectrum."

Whereas the political spectrum stretches from the far left to the 
far right, one end being communism and the other fascism, with its 
second dimension from top to bottom going from total government 
control (authoritarianism) to anarchy, the religious spectrum goes 
from the atheist at the bottom to the crusading evangelist at the 
top.  But it's the horizontal component of the religious spectrum 
that confuses things, and provides a new basis for religious 
debate that politics does not have.

There are many parallel diminsions along the horizontal axis of 
the religious spectrum.  I'll oversimplify it a bit by defining 
the left end as being total evilness and the right end as being 
total piety.  

These terms can apply fairly equally, though not perfectly, to 
different belief systems.  The most common belief system in 
America is the Judeo-Christian ethic.  In that belief system, 
Satan would be on the far left and God on the far right.

Of course, as with politics, the views of the majority lie 
somewhere near the middle of the vertical component of the 
religious spectrum.  But unlike politics, the vast majority of 
people tend to lean toward the right end of the religious 
spectrum.  

Moderate politics include both the democrats and republicans, 
whose views differ only slightly when compared to the extremists 
in history, such as Hitler and Stalin.  And most people 
acknowledge that some government is necessary, but too much 
government often leads to oppression.  

In religion, agnosticism is more moderate than atheism, and a 
missionary is more moderate than a crusading evangelist.  Yet both 
are still more extreme than the average church-going Christian, 
Jew, or Muslim.

The reason that both religion and politics are favorite topics for 
debate, and the reason that differences in ideology or religious 
belief has led many-a-nation to war throughout history, is because 
once you establish yourself somewhere along either spectrum, it is 
difficult to change.  To do so would be to change your belief 
system.

Digging deeper, though, it is not simply a person's unwillingness 
to alter his belief system that creates tension, but the 
perception by many that one's own personal set of beliefs, 
regardless of where they may lie along the religious spectrum, is 
the one and only "truth" and that all other points along the 
spectrum are commensurate by default with the "other end."  In 
other words, regardless of the point chosen along the spectrum, it 
automatically becomes the extreme "right" and all other points are 
equivalent to the extreme left in terms of one's final destiny.

Religious arguments, therefore, are the result of one's own 
distillation of the whole religious spectrum down to two opposite 
points--right and wrong.  Since all points but one are equivalent 
to "wrong," to give in at all to a religious argument, or to 
compromise, would be to abandon one's belief system in favor of 
what is "wrong."

To lessen the futility of a debate about religion, one of two 
things are necessary.  Either avoid the debate altogether, or 
acknowledge the fact that your own belief is but one point along a 
complex two-dimensional spectrum, and that all other points are 
just as valid as the one you have grasped onto.  The first option 
may be much easier.



LOOKING FOR AN OLD SONG

Have you ever had a song running through your head, an old song, 
that you remember liking but can't think of the title to?  I 
certainly have, and I know I'm not alone because I run an Internet 
Website that features "computer music" of old standards, and I get 
quite a few email messages from people asking if I know the name 
of a certain tune they knew as a child.

About thirty years ago, when I was a teenager getting ready to 
graduate from high school, I purchased a "homemade" 8-track tape 
that I had ordered from a shop in Columbus.  Never mind that it 
was a blatant infringement of copyright laws; I knew nothing about 
that stuff, nor cared.  I just wanted the fellow to make me a tape 
of one of my favorite Country singers of the time--Bobby 
Goldsboro.

That evening, he called me at home to tell me the tape was almost 
ready, but that there was some blank space at the end.  He wanted 
to know if he should add a little Glen Campbell to the tape to 
fill up the space.  I told him to go ahead.

There were only about three or four songs of Glen, and the last 
one cut off in the middle because the last channel was filled up.  
But I enjoyed listening to the tunes, despite the low fidelity and 
poor quality of the transfer.

I remember really liking one of the tracks from the Glen Campbell 
section.  I had no idea what the title of the song was, because I 
did not actually own the album it was recorded from and, of 
course, the guy who worked at the shop never bothered writing the 
titles on the outside of the tape for me.  

I listened to that tape over and over, until 8-track tapes went 
out of vogue (which didn't take long).  But I never found out the 
name of that tune.

Over the years, the chorus of the song stuck in my head, and I 
found myself singing it from time to time.  Every time I would ask 
someone if they'd heard it, I got a negative answer.  It wasn't a 
megahit for Glen.  It apparently wasn't even a minor hit--just a 
track on an album.

Now, here it is, thirty years hence, and I started thinking about 
the song again the other day.  I remembered the chorus and tune, 
but none of the verses.  This time, though, I was determined to 
find out the title of the song with the intention of buying it, if 
by some chance music stores were still selling it.

So, I logged onto the Internet and went to Amazon.com, the biggest 
online music and book store, (or so they claim).  I did a search 
for Glen Campbell, and up popped a couple dozen recordings, at 
least.  I searched through the tracks of each one, but I didn't 
see anything that looked like it might be the song I had stuck in 
my head.  None of his original recordings had been converted to 
CD.

I almost gave up; then I thought, as a last-ditch effort, I would 
check the news groups at Daja.com.  These are online message 
boards that cover every subject imaginable.  Surely somebody would 
know the name of that tune if I typed out the chorus for them.

So I went to the Country Music message board and posted the 
chorus.  "If anybody recognizes these lyrics, please reply with 
the title of the song," I said in the post.

"Today while the blossoms still cling to the vine; I'll taste your 
strawberries and drink your sweet wine; A million tomorrows shall 
all pass away; Er I forget all the joy that is mine today."

I checked back a couple hours later and there it was!  Somebody 
had recognized it and not only informed me of the title but also 
which album it was originally on and who wrote it!  It was called 
simply, "Today."

I had half of what I wanted--the name of the song.  Now my quest 
was to find a copy.  So I went back to Amazon.com and searched 
again, but to no avail.  It wasn't on any track listing.

Then, I remembered the legal battle over copyrights that was 
embroiling Napster, a music sharing service that allows users to 
see what songs other people have saved on their computers, and 
then to download them directly.  I figured nobody would have that 
old song.

But I was wrong.  I typed in the title and the artist, and pressed 
"Search."  A few seconds later, there it was.  One user, out of 
about a half million that were online at the time, had the song on 
his hard drive.  Apparently he copied it from the old vinyl album 
and digitized it.  

I quickly downloaded the song before he went off-line.  The I 
clicked the "Play" button on the Napster software, and out came 
that familiar melody that had been haunting me for 30 years!  It 
was indeed the song I had remembered.

Students and teachers use the Internet every day to do research on 
various intellectual projects.  I use it to read the daily news, 
to look at the radar when it's storming out, and to pay all my 
bills online.  And now, I have found one more use for this 
remarkable medium we call the Internet--to stay connected with my 
past, and the music I used to love.



OIL SUPPLY

The United States uses 25 percent of all the world's oil 
production.  At the same time, the U.S. has only three percent of 
the world's untapped oil reserves.  It doesn't take a math wizard 
to figure out that, even if we tap into all the oil deposits we 
have, we will still have to import the vast majority of our oil 
from OPEC or other countries.

Presidential candidate George W. Bush last month unveiled a $7.1 
billion, 10-year plan to reshape U.S. energy policy by opening the 
coastal areas of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to oil and 
natural gas drilling, along with other measures aimed at cutting 
dependence on foreign oil.

The goal of cutting our dependence on OPEC is certainly a worthy 
one.  However, the effort will be futile in the long run, because 
we have only so much oil available from domestic sources.

In a recent poll a slight majority of Americans, 56 percent, said 
they opposed drilling for oil in the Arctic refuge.  Vice-
president Al Gore also opposes the plan, saying, "Some places are 
simply too special, and we need to pass them along to future 
generations just like they are."

It is a debate reminiscent of the Alaskan Oil Pipeline controversy 
of the early 1970s.  Environmental groups opposed the pipeline, 
saying that it would interfere with wildlife migration patterns 
and melt the permafrost.  Oil companies said the benefits of 
increased oil supplies would outweigh any risk to wildlife.  The 
pipeline was eventually built, but much of it was placed on stilts 
to allow migrating wildlife to pass underneath and so that its 
heat would not melt the delicate permafrost.

But if new drilling is allowed in the Arctic, even if it were done 
in such a way as to not disturb the fragile tundra ecosystem, the 
benefits would be only short term.  It would be nothing more than 
an expensive, and perhaps environmentally risky, stop-gap measure.

Even if the foreign oil supply is never again disrupted by 
political leveraging, war, or natural disasters, the fact is that 
one of these days, the oil wells will run dry.  That is a given.  
It will happen, because the world is using oil much more rapidly 
than nature can produce it.  The only question is when it will 
happen, not if it will happen.

The world will eventually need an alternate fuel supply.  The 
United States will need one sooner than the oil producing 
countries.  

But if history is any indication, it will take a prolonged oil 
crisis before we start searching in earnest for those elusive 
alternative fuels.  It is human nature to put off doing the 
impossible until a lack of any alternative forces us to do so.  
Yet, prudence should tell us that we need to start working on 
achieving the impossible before we are forced into it.

During the oil embargo of the 1970s, it didn't take us long to 
start coming up with alternatives to Arab oil.  Certainly we 
stepped up domestic production, and the government created its 
strategic oil reserve.  But people also began to experiment with 
using geothermal energy, solar energy, even windmills.  We 
developed Gasohol, which was a mixture of 10 percent ethanol and 
90 percent gasoline.  Using Gasohol was supposed to reduce the 
need for gasoline by that 10 percent.

It is not called Gasohol any longer, but many gas stations still 
use the same mixture.  It is cleaner-burning than pure gasoline 
and can be used by all cars without any engine modifications.

Ethanol can be made from domestic grain production.  It is a 
renewable resource, unlike crude oil.  It wouldn't take much 
tweaking to adjust car engines to run on a 50- or 60-percent 
ethanol mix.  That measure would reduce our gasoline consumption 
by half.

Wind, geothermal, and solar alternatives should be explored and 
exploited to their fullest potential.

Whatever alternative we eventually decide upon, there is no 
question that, eventually, we must develop one.  But will we wait 
until we absolutely have to?  Will we wait until the oil supply is 
disrupted again, or runs out entirely?  Or will we take the 
necessary steps to ensure that we will be ready when that 
eventuality finally happens?

Oh, there will be a few scientists and engineers working on the 
problem in a leisurely manner over the next few years.  But it 
will probably take a prolonged oil crisis before our government 
establishes a national policy with the goal of eventually 
eliminating our dependence on crude oil for energy.

In 1960 a trip to the moon was thought by many to be possible only 
in the realm of science fiction.  But we, as a nation, achieved 
that goal within a decade.  We need to approach the goal of 
developing viable and inexpensive fuel sources with the same zeal 
we showed back then.



BAD DRIVERS

 If you are a driver, you know that certain things other drivers 
do can really annoy you, right?  Almost all drivers think that 
they and they alone are worthy of driving the nation's highways!  

Take me for instance; I truly wish they would build a freeway 
system for me to use all by myself! 

Anyway, back to reality.  One of the most annoying kinds of 
drivers is the slowpoke, especially one who darts out in front of 
you at an intersection and then slows down to a snails pace once 
he gets on the road.

An incident happened to me just recently while driving on U.S. 31.  
Two cars pulled out from a county road in front of me.  One sped 
across the roadway into the media section; the other driver was 
directly behind him and turned in front of me, going in the same 
direction as I was but much slower.  I couldn't whip around him 
because the first driver was still crossing the passing lane.  I 
had to brake hard to avoid a tail-end collision.

Another incident I recall happened while driving to work one 
morning.  I witnessed an incident that could have easily turned 
into a major traffic accident. The driver who was about 1000 feet 
in front of me slammed on his brakes in response to a slow-moving 
car that was in front of him.  He couldn't pass, because another 
car was in the left lane at his side.  He must have miss-judged 
just how slowly the driver in front of him was going because he 
went into a skid that resulted in a fishtail wavering motion.  

As soon as the car to his left had moved ahead, he darted into the 
left lane and accelerated in a manner that was designed to show 
the slow-moving driver that he was not at all pleased. The slower 
driver evidently did not get the message, because when I 
approached to pass him, he was still going only about 30 miles per 
hour, tops. 

This slow-driving behavior has to be one of the rudest and most 
annoying behaviors that a driver can exhibit.  Not only is it 
annoying, but it can be quite dangerous.  It is my belief that a 
driver that is driving too slowly is every bit as dangerous as a 
speeder, maybe more so. 

It is even more disturbing when you get behind one of these slow 
pokes when there is no possibility of passing, such as on a two-
lane road that is very busy.  Traffic can back up for miles behind 
a slothful driver who seems to take no notice of the discomfort he 
is dishing out to others. 

For the benefit of some of my readers who may recognize themselves 
as an offender (although I would doubt that any of you are - 
anyone who can't read a speed limit sign probably can't read a 
newspaper column!), let me just remind you of what a good driving 
speed would be in a variety of circumstances: 

On an interstate highway, such as I-65, keep the needle at, let's 
just say, 65.  On U.S. 31, or similar roads, go no slower than 54. 
On two-lane highways, 50 to 55 would be appropriate.  On streets 
in town, the recommended speed is 30 in most cases, not 10! 

Although it is a fact that speeding contributes to accidents, it 
is also a fact that many accidents occur due to the difference in 
driving speeds among all the drivers on the highway.  Rather than 
having a speed limit of 65, I believe a better alternative would 
be to force all drivers to drive between 65 and 75 miles per hour 
- and enforce it!  

Traffic that is moving along at a constant speed is much safer 
than traffic that must keep a constant vigil for drivers with a 
light foot.  

As long as there are highways, drivers will be annoyed at their 
fellow motorists who are not following the rules of the road.  And 
I'm no exception.  Unless, of course, everyone would like to pitch 
in and build me my own highway system!



DO TEACHERS REALLY SMOKE?

When I was in elementary school, I considered teachers to have 
almost god-like perfection.  I thought they had to be pretty much 
perfect to have been given that much authority over students.  
They were our guides, mentors, surrogate parents, and they seemed 
to have all the answers to all our questions--even the ones our 
parents didn't know the answers to.

It wasn't until I reached the middle grades of elementary school 
that I received a rude awakening:  Teachers were actually mortal 
humans, who had vices and faults just like everybody else.  My 
little mind was severely disappointed, for although I still had 
great respect for my teachers, I lost a little bit of it one day, 
thanks to a trip to the teachers' lounge.

In the basement of our old school building on Keeley Street, on 
the south end, next to the boy's restroom, was the teachers' 
lounge.  It was off limits to the students--a place to be avoided 
except in dire emergencies.  After all, it was not permitted for 
lowly students to enter the realm of gods.

But one day, during a moment of uncharacteristic boldness, when 
another student had dared to knock on the door of the hallowed 
room to find a certain teacher, I crept closer to take a peek 
inside.

That's when I discovered that teachers were just normal humans, 
who just happened to know a lot.  I thought I could hear a swear 
word or two coming from inside, among some laughter.  But more 
importantly, the room was filled with the stench and the 
nebulosity that could only have come from a large number of 
cigarettes being smoked in a confined space.  Teachers, it seemed, 
actually smoked!

Now, I had lived all my young life with two parents who smoked 
heavily--even in the car in the winter time with the windows 
rolled up.  It was just a fact of life for me.  I thought nothing 
of it except during those occasions when I was in the car with 
them and was forced to breathe their exhaust.  Then I protested a 
little, to varying degrees of success.

I knew other adults smoked.  It was nothing new to me.  My parents 
did it; their friends did it; strangers on the street did it.  Yet 
I always thought of it as a vice--something to be avoided if one 
knew better.  And I thought teachers knew better.  They were, 
after all, much smarter than anyone else I knew.  That's why it 
was such a shock to discover that some of them were smokers, too.

Fast forward 25 years.  I was now a teacher myself.  I was an 
inhabitant of that ivory tower known as the teachers' lounge.  

I had, a long time ago, grown accustomed to the fact that teachers 
were just regular people, and that they, too, had their vices.  
Smoking was one of them, and I was faced with the same problem I 
had been faced with in my parent's car a generation earlier.  I 
had to breathe someone else's nasty exhaust fumes from the 
cigarettes, pipes, and cigars that were being smoked.

That's when I decided to join forces with a non-smoking colleague 
who happened to be the health teacher.  I was the Student Council 
Advisor at the time, so we decided to get together and start a 
campaign through the Student Council to discourage smoking by 
everyone at school.

Although it was a school policy that students were not allowed to 
smoke in the building, they could smoke in the parking lot.  
Teachers could smoke pretty much anywhere in the building except 
their classrooms and in the hallway.  They could smoke in either 
of the two teachers' lounges, the boiler room, their personal 
offices, the front office lounge, and the broom closets.

The health teacher and I, with the help of the Student Council, 
started a non-smoking campaign with the goal of decreasing student 
tobacco use, and a secondary goal of reducing smoking in the 
building by teachers and other staff.

Our plan was to promote a ban on smoking inside the school 
building by everyone, and to permit smoking on school property 
outside only by teachers and staff, but not students.

Although we made posters and banners, and even handed out free tee 
shirts with the no-smoking logo to every student and faculty 
member who wanted one, we failed miserably in our efforts.

The most we could accomplish was to officially ban smoking in the 
smallest of the two teachers' lounges.  Yet we did manage to 
alienate many of the other faculty members.  Some even accused us 
of be fascists--even a couple of the non-smoking teachers.

We didn't want to ban smoking altogether.  We realized that adults 
have the right to smoke.  We just felt that a school was the wrong 
place for it.  We, as teachers, were supposed to set a good 
example for the students.  (We also thought hospitals should 
completely ban smoking, too, but we were in no position to fight 
that battle.)

Now, it's fifteen years later.  Almost all hospitals now totally 
ban smoking inside their buildings.  Most schools ban smoking in 
the buildings, too.  And, of course, the State of Indiana bans 
smoking by anyone under the age of 18 anywhere.  We were 15 years 
ahead of our time, I guess.

Now, there is some controversy by at least one Johnson County 
school over whether or not to ban smoking by anyone on all school 
property.  That would mean neither students nor adults could smoke 
outside at football games or in school parking lots.

Back in the "old days," we had to settle for a ban on smoking in 
one small lounge.  Now, the debate is over whether or not to ban 
it altogether on school property.  I completely support such a 
ban.  Schools are no place for the use of tobacco.  

Schools do not allow the use of alcohol on their property at any 
time, by anybody.  Smoking should be equally prohibited at all 
school functions.

Fifteen years from now, we might look back and ask ourselves why 
smoking was ever allowed at school at all.  Maybe then the naive 
tots in elementary school can maintain their image of teacher 
perfection for a few years longer.



STUDENTS HAVE RIGHTS

Does a teenager have the same constitutional rights of free speech 
and expression as an adult?  What about at school?  As long as it 
does not cause a disruption or detract from the educational 
process, does a student, during his lunch period, have a right to 
express an opinion to another student in a calm and peaceful 
manner?

Anyone who might have thought so might have changed his mind if he 
read the recent news story about Wayne Denno, a student in Pine 
Ridge High School in Florida's Volusia County.  Denno was 
suspended from school in 1995 when an assistant principal caught 
him showing a small 4-inch Confederate flag to one of his 
classmates during lunch in the school's courtyard.  By refusing to 
hear an appeal, the Supreme Court has upheld that suspension.

Despite the fact that, until recently, a larger version of that 
flag flapped proudly above the State House in South Carolina's 
capitol city, the assistant principal determined that the flag was 
a racist symbol and that the student should not be displaying it 
on school grounds.

Denno is a scholar of Civil War history.  He participates in Civil 
War reenactments and collects memorabilia from the period, 
including the small flag.  He tried to explain this to the 
administrator, who promptly suspended him from school for nine 
days.

Denno sued the school system, claiming his right to freedom of 
speech had been abridged.  He lost the initial round in a summary 
judgment.  He also lost his appeal in Federal Circuit Court.  So 
his attorney filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.  The High 
Court's refusal to hear the case means Denno's appellate process 
is over.  He lost the case.

When I read the news story, my first thought was, "Why?"  It is 
difficult enough to understand why an assistant principal would 
have thought this incident was serious enough to warrant 
suspension.  After all, the young man was not brandishing the flag 
in a hateful manner.  He was only showing it to a friend.  But 
what was even more difficult for me to understand was why the 
courts upheld the school district.

In a landmark 1969 Supreme Court Decision (Tinker vs. Des Moines 
School District), Justice Fortas wrote, "It can hardly be argued 
that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights 
to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

Was not the judge who first heard this case, Anne C. Conway of a 
U.S. District Court in Florida, aware of this Supreme Court 
ruling?  Apparently not, because she ruled summarily for the 
school district.

But what about the appellate court?  Surely the justices would 
take this ruling into consideration in deciding the appeal.  And, 
in fact, they did.  Had it not been for the fact that Denno sought 
a resolution in the courts instead of first appealing to the 
school superintendent in a timely manner, the appellate court 
would have ruled in his favor.

Justice J. Owen Forrester, 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, wrote 
that school policy "...provided for meaningful review of the 
school officials' disciplinary decisions," but that "...Denno did 
not timely comply with the requirements for seeking review...."

So I can breathe a little easier.  Students really do maintain 
their constitutionally-protected freedoms, even at school, as long 
as the expression of those freedoms does not hamper the 
educational process in any way.

And, although the Supreme Court denied a hearing on the case 
without comment, it can be assumed that this procedural 
technicality was the reason.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the assistant principal who started 
all this in motion must be questioned.  The First Amendment rights 
of students may be tempered a little by the greater burden that 
schools have to provide an atmosphere conducive to learning, but 
schools cannot force students to check those rights at the door 
upon entry.  Had Denno followed correct procedures in the first 
place, his rights to display his flag would still be intact.



THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

Since we just had an election, just for fun, let's do a simple 
civics trivia test on the electoral process.  The test has but one 
question:

"What percentage of votes must a candidate obtained in order to be 
elected president?"
A.  A plurality
B.  A simple majority
C.  A two-thirds majority
D.  None of the Above

In many democratic nations, the correct answer would be B, a 
simple majority.  In those countries, candidates that receive only 
a plurality would be faced with a run-off election with the 
second-highest vote getter.

In the United States, however, the answer is D.  As we all learned 
in our high school social studies classes, the people of the 
United States do not elect the president; the electoral college 
does.

For all practical purposes, the "B" answer applies to us.  That's 
because the candidate who receives the highest popular vote total 
will, in all likelihood, also receive the majority of votes in the 
electoral college.  But that does not have to be the case.  And, 
in fact, there have been three presidents in U.S. history that did 
not receive the majority of the popular vote.

The last President of the United States that was elected by the 
electoral college, but did not win the popular vote was native 
Hoosier Benjamin Harrison.  In 1888, Grover Cleveland received 
100,000 more popular votes than did Harrison, but Harrison won a 
solid majority of electoral college votes.  So Harrison became 
president.

How can this happen?

The electoral college is an archaic system that dates back to our 
Founding Fathers' apprehension about letting the common people 
make such an important decision as who should be their leader.  
After all, most common folk back then were illiterate bumpkins.  
So they devised a method whereby the people would vote for 
president, but the states would actually decide who wins the 
election.

Each state is given a certain number of votes that is equal to the 
total number of Representatives and Senators from that state.  The 
electoral college, therefore, consists of the same number of votes 
as there are Senators and Representatives in Congress.  Indiana 
has 10 Representatives and 2 Senators, for a total of 12 electoral 
votes.

States get to determine their own method of electing the 
president.  All but two states assign all of their electoral votes 
to the candidate who received the highest number of popular votes 
in that state.  Two other states assign their electoral college 
votes in proportion to the popular vote.

So if one presidential candidate wins a slight majority of popular 
votes in most of the big states--the ones with a lot of electoral 
votes, and the other candidate wins by large majorities in many of 
the smaller states, it could well mean that the loser of the 
presidential race would actually get the majority of popular 
votes.

At this writing, I do not know who won the presidential race.  But 
I can safely predict that Bush took Indiana.  

According to most polls leading up to the election, it was a dead-
heat race.  Some Hoosiers went to the polls thinking that, because 
the race was so close, their vote might actually count this time.

Not so!  The race might have been a dead heat nationally, but Bush 
had a big lead in Indiana in the polls.  So it wasn't close at all 
in this state.  And remember, it is the states that get to 
actually determine who wins.

That's not to insinuate that voting is futile.  After all, there 
were plenty of state and local elections to settle.  And those 
candidates do count on the popular vote to get elected.



TECHNOLOGY IN SCHOOL

When I was in school, the teachers used state-of-the-art 
educational materials: chalk, pencils, blackboards, notebook 
paper, crayons, and of course, textbooks and workbooks. In the 
upper grades we used additional tools designed for specific 
disciplines, such as protractors, slide rules, and T-squares.

I say "state-of-the-art" because I realized, even back then, that 
we were using better classroom tools than schools had available in 
earlier years. I remember sitting at desks in several classrooms 
that had wells used to hold bottles of India ink for dipping stick 
pens.

But there were no teachers at all still using stick pens when I 
was in school. They had all switched over to the more modern 
ballpoint. And none of the teachers were still using soapstone to 
write on slates. No, they all had actual chalk. Even some of the 
"blackboards" were no longer black. They were green because it was 
supposedly easier on the eyes. And, of course, we occasionally got 
to see an educational film on our modern 16-mm film projector.

Today, students still use ballpoint pens, number-2 pencils, and 
textbooks. Teachers still use blackboards and chalk.

But these tools of the classroom may be on their way out. 
Computers have already replaced the drafting table, and 
calculators have replaced the slide rule. Computer screens are 
beginning to augment the chalkboard and textbook, too.

Like most other schools in the country, Edinburgh has computers 
and Internet access. Edinburgh also has modern audio-visual 
equipment and a satellite feed for up-to-the-minute news 
broadcasts geared toward students. It even has the potential of 
producing its own broadcasts to show on local cable TV.

All these high-tech educational tools available to today's 
students were not dreamed of in the days when I was in school. 
Today, most of them are taken for granted.

But there is another difference between then and now. As I recall, 
none of my teachers longed for the days of stick pens and 
soapstone. They all took full advantage of the minimal gains in 
the "technology" of the day. And although today's teachers 
probably do not miss the 16-mm film projectors or slide rules, the 
high-tech tools that most schools have today are rarely used to 
their fullest advantage. And that's a waste.

Five years ago, Edinburgh School Corporation was a leader in 
technology. It was one of the first and only schools in the nation 
to run its own computer bulletin board system (BBS). It was one of 
the first schools to embrace the Internet, and to even set up its 
own Internet server that could be used by the entire community.

Other school systems looked at Edinburgh as the model for building 
their own technology programs. School personnel traveled 
extensively to conduct seminars and demonstrations of what had 
been accomplished at Edinburgh.

We were in the news. Newspaper stories highlighted Edinburgh's 
technological accomplishments. When it was announced that 
Edinburgh schools would support free Internet access to all local 
citizens and businesses, a television station even took notice, 
showing a segment that spotlighted the plan.

But things have changed. Someone who might have left town four 
years ago and returned today may be surprised at Edinburgh's 
almost total lack of progress since it led the way in technology 
back then. 

Although the schools are still wired, community access has long 
been crippled by time restraints on usage and by a proxy server 
that censors Websites, even many legitimate ones. The official 
school Website is but a shadow of its former self, so much so that 
a group of students have taken it upon themselves to build the 
"Unofficial Edinburgh Schools Website" to take up the slack. It 
was begun by a student named Cody Martin, who wrote, "My friends 
and I are starting a website of the school since the official one 
is hardly updated."

Teachers, not only in Edinburgh but everywhere, are severely 
underutilizing Internet technology. The possibilities are almost 
endless, but they remain only possibilities until school personnel 
begin to take the lead in taking advantage of them.

All students and all teachers should have their own email 
addresses. Parents, teachers, and students should keep in 
continual contact via the computer. Every student should be 
required to maintain their own Website, hosted by the school's 
Internet server. Homework, essays, and other assignments can be 
posted on Websites or turned in via email. Teachers should rarely 
have to actually grade "papers." It is now possible for almost 
every kind of communication to be conducted electronically.

Every classroom should have a Webcam to send live images over the 
Internet so that parents, and principals, can observe the learning 
activities at any time. I have one in my home as well as in my 
office. The cost is minimal. Anyone can take a look at me most any 
time by accessing one of the Websites that host my live images.

Distance learning is a reality, but it is seldom used by most 
school systems. Classrooms of the future may indeed span the 
planet. But why wait for the future when the technology exists 
today, and at a reasonable cost?

Schools are given the task of preparing students for the future. 
Like it or not; right or wrong, the future will be the Internet 
and information technology. It's inevitable. The sooner schools 
realize this and start taking full advantage, the better off their 
students will be.




LOW-TECH VOTING BOOTHS

High technology has infiltrated all aspects of American life.  
Well, all except for one place--the voting booth.

In the vast majority of precincts in the United States, a punched 
card is still used as a ballot.  It is century-old technology in a 
modern world.  And Johnson County's precincts are among those 
still stuck in the past.

Bartholomew County voters are at least using twentieth-century 
technology when they go to the polls.  That county uses a 
computerized voting booth that allows voters to simply press a 
button next to the name of the candidate they wish to vote for.  
There are no "chads" to worry about--not even pregnant ones.

Phyllis Gill, of the Bartholomew County Voter Registration Office 
says the electronic voting booths are fast, easy, and accurate.  
"We've been using them for about ten years," she said.

Johnson County Clerk, Brenda Jones-Matthews, said that she could 
see some benefits to switching over to a more modern system.  "I 
inherited this system when I was elected," she said.  However, she 
also said that punched-card systems have their advantages.

"Our voting booths do not need to be connected to electricity to 
work," she said.  "They are easy to use, easy to store, and our 
absentee ballots are of the same type, so they can be counted with 
the rest of the votes."  

She said cost was the biggest obstacle to upgrading the system.  
However, she admitted that the cost of printing paper ballots for 
every election was substantial.   She said it is her desire to 
eventually see the entire country on the same system.

It may not happen anytime soon, but there is already a system in 
place that could be used by voters all across the country to cast 
their ballots.  It is the Internet.

Jones-Matthews said she would be apprehensive about using the 
Internet to vote, because of security concerns.  And, obviously, 
any Internet voting system would need to be made very secure.

But security is a possibility on the Internet.  People use the 
Internet every day to send millions of dollars bouncing around the 
planet.  The U.S. Postal Service uses it to print postage on 
envelopes in businesses and in people's homes.  Thousands of 
people pay bills, sign important documents, buy Christmas 
presents, and even purchase their license plates over the 
Internet.  If these transactions can be made secure, why would 
voting security be any more difficult to accomplish?

In truth, it wouldn't be any more difficult to make Internet 
voting secure. It certainly would be as secure as a paper ballot 
system, and more secure than the old voting machines.  The real 
difficulty would be in persuading the masses. 

It will take awhile to convince everyone that Internet 
transactions, whether voting or purchasing, are safe.  They read 
about the occasional hacker getting into some government site, or 
even into Microsoft's site.  But they don't read about the tens of 
millions of sites that have never been hacked into, or about the 
billions of dollars that flow over the Internet each year, 
unimpeded by hackers.

Of course, not everyone has access to the Internet in their homes, 
so there would still need to be polling places.  But instead of 
punching a paper ballot, voters could use a computer terminal set 
up in the precinct.

Using the Internet to vote would be cheap, easy, accurate, and it 
could be made secure.  The votes could be counted instantly, and 
there would never be a need for a recount, because the initial 
results would always be digitally accurate.

Although some military personnel were able to use a trial Internet 
voting system this year, widespread Internet voting will probably 
not occur anytime soon.  Institutional inertia is probably the 
main reason.  It's the old, "If-it-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it" 
attitude.

However, the closeness of this year's presidential election, 
coupled with recount after recount, might indicate that perhaps 
the system is broken.  At least it could be improved upon.  We 
have the technology in place.  We now have a real reason to take a 
look at changing the manner in which we vote.  Only time will tell 
if we bring voting into the twenty-first century, or leave it in 
the nineteenth.



DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME

The issue of whether or not Indiana should join with most other 
states in observing daylight-saving time will come up again in the 
2001 General Assembly.  Attempts to bring Indiana in step with the 
other states have failed in the past.  But  there are more reasons 
than ever for Indiana to "spring ahead" and make the time change.

What is daylight-saving time anyway?  Does it mean that we place a 
few minutes of daylight in savings at a "time bank" to be used in 
case of a total eclipse?

Obviously, the length of daylight is the same whether daylight-
saving time is in effect or not.  The difference is, with standard 
time, it gets light earlier in the morning, and with daylight time 
it stays light later in the evening.

In our society, more people are active in the evening than early 
in the morning.  So, in order to extend their summertime outdoor 
leisure activities, daylight-saving time was invented. It was 
actually first proposed by Ben Franklin, but was not widely used 
in the U.S. until World War I.  It wasn't until the Uniform Time 
Act of 1966 that Congress standardized its observance by law.

All but three states observe daylight-saving time.  If 47 out of 
the 50 states have determined that daylight-saving time is a good 
idea, then for the sake of consistency, maybe Indiana should go 
along with it.  The Indiana Chamber of Commerce and The Hoosier 
Daylight Coalition have come up with several good reasons why 
Indiana should observe daylight time.  The Indiana Farm Bureau 
Coop has a couple of fairly lame reasons why we should remain a 
hold-out.  However, after having spoken with a man at the Farm 
Bureau who says he's "officially" in favor of keeping the status 
quo although he, personally, would like to see Indiana change, one 
may wonder why the General Assembly hasn't rectified the 
situation.

Why should Indiana change time?

The most obvious benefit for most Hoosiers is the extension of 
daylight in the evenings during the summer, when most people enjoy 
leisure activities.

But, there are other reasons to change.  Being on daylight-saving 
time also saves energy.  In fact, during the Arab oil embargo of 
the mid-1970s, states that observed daylight-saving time were 
required to observe it all year in order to save energy.

Another advantage of daylight-saving time is auto safety.   In 
1995 several professors at the Insurance Institute conducted a 
detailed study for Highway Safety and the Preusser Research Group, 
Inc.  This study compared DST with fatalities of passengers and 
pedestrians and showed a dramatic benefit of daylight-saving time, 
especially with the safety of pedestrians.

The implementation of daylight-saving time also reduces the crime 
rate.  In a Congressional hearing held in1985, Committee Chairman 
Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-MA) said, "Daylight-saving time is a 
crime stopper." Studies of crime statistics in the 1970s showed 
that violent crimes drop by 10 percent during months when 
daylight-saving time is in effect.

Other benefits of daylight-saving time include an increase in 
interstate commerce.  Indiana and Johnson County lose business 
because of the state's determination to use standard time all 
year.  This past August, Dan Theobold, Executive Director of the 
Johnson County Development Corporation, stated, "Kohl's 
Distribution Center was unhappy with the state's lack of daylight-
saving time in the summer. We were actually advised that we had 
the project, but the decision swung at the last second to 
Cincinnati...."

The most recent addition to the reasons why Indiana should observe 
daylight-saving time is global communications.  The Internet and 
television are becoming marriage partners.  Interactive TV is 
already a reality with shows such as "Who Wants to be a 
Millionaire?"  Others are bound to follow.  It makes it impossible 
to "interact" with a TV program that is broadcast from New York if 
Indiana's time clocks are out of synch.  That's because, during 
the summer, there are no truly live network programs in Indiana.  
Programs are tape delayed by the local stations so that they may 
continue to be shown during their normal time periods.

Sure, moving the hands of your clock twice a year may be a slight 
inconvenience.  And there may be some farmers who would prefer the 
extra hour of daylight early in the morning instead of in the 
evening, but farmers are a minority—even in Indiana.  Switching to 
daylight-saving time would be of great benefit to the majority of 
Hoosiers. 



LEARNING

I heard somewhere that by the time a person reaches the age of 25, 
he has accumulated pretty much all the knowledge he will use the 
rest of his life.  I guess that is how the aphorism, "You can't 
teach an old dog new tricks" originated.  

There was a book published a few years ago by Robert Fulghum 
called "All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten."  It 
stressed that the really important things for survival, like 
sharing and getting along with others, are taught in kindergarten.

Even before that, Father Guido Sarduci, a character on the old 
"Saturday Night Live" program, in one of his comedy routines, came 
up with the "Five Minute University."  The premise was that in his 
fictitious university, it would only take five minutes to teach 
everything that a typical college student remembers after they 
graduate.

Comedy aside, it is obvious that people do learn new things all 
the time, regardless of their ages.  It's called experience.  

But there's another kind of learning that does tend to get lost in 
the shuffle.  How many people seek new knowledge, not because they 
need to or because it's a by-product of experience, but just 
because they want to learn? 

I find the experience of learning to be exhilarating.  In fact, I 
make a conscious effort to learn something new just about every 
day.  It's not like my brain is ever going to fill up.  The 
average human only uses about ten percent of his brain's capacity 
anyway. 

It is also not very difficult to learn something.  Watching a 
documentary on television or reading the newspaper may provide you 
with knowledge you did not possess before. The trouble comes not 
in acquiring new information, but in retaining it for later use.  
Everybody acquires many times more information than is ultimately 
retained.  Hence the "Five Minute University" parody.

The key to retention is repeated use. It makes it easier, however, 
in that the use of knowledge does not necessarily mean sharing it 
with others, talking about it, or applying it to any activity.  
You can use knowledge simply by thinking about it and analyzing 
it.  It's almost like listening to a great piece of music, over 
and over again.  Every time you hear it, you get more enjoyment 
out of it. In a like manner, when a new bit of knowledge seeps 
into our brains, we can help to retain that knowledge by thinking 
about it often; by analyzing its repercussions, or by mentally 
applying the new knowledge to an existing situation.  In that way, 
our own database of useful knowledge will continue to grow, and 
our mental powers won't atrophy quite as fast with age.  

We might even use up some of that extra gray matter in our brains 
that's just taking up space in our heads.  A mind really is a 
terrible thing to waste. 

So, what have you learned today?



ELECTION THOUGHTS

The best suspense writers in the world would have had a tough time 
coming up with a fictional story that would have had any more 
twists and turns than the reality of the presidential election and 
its aftermath.  

One of these peculiar twists was the stunning decision by the 
Florida Supreme Court last week, reversing a lower court ruling 
that denied a hand recount.  What was even more surprising is that 
the U.S. Supreme Court decided not only to get involved by 
agreeing to hear a Bush appeal of the Florida Supreme Court's 
ruling, but that the High Court actually reversed the state court 
on the matter of hand recounts.

Soothsayers would have had a difficult time divining the roller 
coaster ride that Bush and Gore have been riding since the 
election on November 7.  It all could have come to an end last 
Friday, but for one person--one of the Florida Supreme Court 
justices.  If any one of the four who voted to overturn the lower 
court ruling had voted the other way, the election would have been 
over then.

But it wasn't over then.  The U.S. Supreme Court got involved a 
second time.  Americans waited for another five days to hear a 
very complexly-worded set of instructions from the High Court 
vacating the Florida recount ruling and sending it back to be 
fixed by the Florida Supreme Court, but within a time frame that 
had already expired.

What the deeply divided Supreme Court did was to decide the 
election without actually having to decide the election itself.  
In essence, it said to the Florida Supreme Court, "What you did 
was unconstitutional and we reverse your decision to recount the 
votes.  The votes may be recounted if you do it right, but 
unfortunately, your time has run out to do a recount.  So Bush 
wins."

The High Court obviously did not want to tarnish its image by 
directly deciding the election itself, but its ruling made any 
other alternative but a Bush victory impossible.  I will leave it 
to the legal experts and history to decide if the decision was 
shrewdly brilliant or ill-conceived.

Two things are striking about this whole post-election debacle.  
First, it has become intensely apparent that this country needs to 
revamp its election laws to require a uniform system of voting in 
every state--a system that does not use punchcard ballots.  In 
fact, some legal experts believe that the Supreme Court ruling 
virtually mandates that Congress act to standardize our voting 
system.

Secondly, although many states use archaic, Third-World voting 
methods, the behavior of those in charge of the counting, and 
recounting, has not been Third-World in nature.  It has become a 
cliche, but we are, indeed, a nation of law.  When the Florida 
Supreme Court said "count the ballots," officials started counting 
them.  When the U.S. Supreme Court said "stop counting," they 
stopped counting.

We may disagree with the opinions of the courts, but we, as a 
nation, abide by those opinions anyway.  And whoever loses a 
presidential election, even a very close and bitterly-fought 
election, always concedes and throws his support behind the new 
president-elect, for the good of the country.

That is what Al Gore finally did.  And now, we can get on with our 
lives, knowing that the system does work, even if it needs oiling 
occasionally.



WE CELEBRATE CHRISTMAS

Every December you hear the same lament, if you listen hard 
enough: "Christmas is getting too commercial," or "Why don't we 
put Christ back in Christmas?"

To most Christians, Christmas is a religious holiday.  To most 
non-Christians, it is a secular holiday.  It is, in fact, both.  
But even among some Christians, Christmas has its detractors.  To 
some fundamentalists, Christ was never in Christmas in the first 
place.

Christmas critics point to passages in the Bible that prohibit the 
mixing of Christian and pagan observances.  They also correctly 
point out that there is not even a suggestion anywhere in 
Scripture that legitimizes the celebration of Christ's birth.  The 
birth of Jesus was only mentioned in two of the four Gospels, and 
then only as a minor story.

The idea to celebrate Christmas on December 25 originated in the 
4th century.  The Catholic Church wanted to eclipse the 
festivities of a rival pagan religion that threatened 
Christianity's existence. The Romans celebrated the birthday of 
their sun god, Mithras during this time of year. Although it was 
not popular, or even proper, to celebrate people's birthdays in 
those times, church leaders decided that in order to compete with 
the pagan celebration they would themselves order a festival in 
celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. 

Although the actual season of Jesus' birth is thought to be in 
either the spring or the fall, the date of December 25 was chosen 
as the official birthday celebration as Christ's Mass so that it 
would compete head on with the rival pagan celebration, and 
eventually, infiltrate it to the point where Christmas would take 
its place.

Christmas was slow to catch on in America. The early colonists 
considered it a pagan ritual. The celebration of Christmas was 
even banned by law in Massachusetts in colonial days. 

Another sticking point to many fundamentalist Christians is Santa 
Claus.  Superficially, some play a game of semantics by 
rearranging the letters in Santa Claus to get Satan Lucas.  Lucas 
is a diminutive form of Lucifer, another name for the devil.  They 
point out that by teaching young children to believe in an all-
knowing Santa Claus,  we are setting them up to be disheartened 
when they find out the truth.  Then, because their parents lied to 
them about Santa, they find it difficult to believe in the real 
omniscient being, God.

Some ministers have advocated moving Santa's holiday back to the 
original feast day of St. Nicholas, December 6.  They say that, 
although St. Nicholas was certainly a Christian, it is not right 
for his modern day persona to have invaded the commemoration of 
Jesus' birthday.

The modern Santa Claus, like Christmas itself, has a mixture of 
Christian and secular attributes.  The original Santa, St. 
Nicholas, was born in Turkey in the 4th century. He was very pious 
from an early age, devoting his life to Christianity. He became 
widely known for his generosity to the poor. 

The Romans held him in contempt. He was imprisoned and tortured. 

But when Constantine became emperor of Rome, he allowed Nicholas 
to go free. Constantine became a Christian and convened the 
Council of Nicaea in 325. Nicholas was a delegate to the council.  

He is especially noted for his love of children and for his 
generosity. He is the patron saint of sailors, Sicily, Greece, and 
Russia. He is also, of course, the patron saint of children. 

The Dutch kept the legend of St. Nicholas alive. In 16th century 
Holland, Dutch children would place their wooden shoes by the 
hearth in hopes that they would be filled with a treat. The Dutch 
spelled St. Nicholas as Sint Nikolaas, which became corrupted to 
Sinterklaas, and finally, in Anglican, to Santa Claus. 

In 1822, Clement C. Moore composed his famous poem, "A Visit from 
St. Nick," which was later published as "The Night Before 
Christmas."  Moore is credited with creating the modern image of 
Santa Claus as a jolly fat man in a red suit, driving a sleigh 
pulled by eight reindeer.

Whether one is a Christian or non-Christian, believer or pagan, 
conservative or liberal, the best advice would be to commemorate 
the season in a manner that is consistent with one's own beliefs 
and philosophy.  And don't try to deny other people's rights to 
celebrate the season in their own way.  At the very least, we all 
can agree that the long-standing Christmas motto of "Peace on 
Earth and good will toward men" is a goal worth striving for.  It 
is, indeed, what ties it all together.



2001: A NEW MILLENNIUM

Is everybody ready for the start of a new millennium?

Wait a minute.  Again?  Already?  Didn't we just celebrate the 
start of a new millennium last year?

Well, yes and no.  It depends on how you look at it.  Technically, 
the third millennium AD begins on January 1, 2001.  The reason 
2001 starts a millennium  is because there was no year 0. They 
used Roman numerals back in the early days, and there is no Roman 
numeral for zero.

The calendar jumps from the year 1 BC to the year 1 AD. So, if you 
count the years of the first century, you start at 1 and go 
through 100 -- that is a hundred years of the first century AD. By 
the same reasoning, the first millennium would start at year 1 and 
go through year 1000. Therefore, the second millennium would start 
at year 1001 and go through the year 2000. The third millennium 
starts in the year 2001 and goes through the year 3000. 

To get a little more technical, if our calendar is supposed to 
start with year 1 being the year of Christ's birth, a slight error 
in calculation by an early church bishop placed the year 1 at 
least four years too late.  Most biblical scholars agree that 
Christ was probably born in the spring (or perhaps the fall) of 4 
BC.  So, that would have made the year 1997 the start of the third 
millennium.

Now, add to that the ten days that were removed from our calendar 
in the year 1753 by order of Pope Gregory, as a way to synchronize 
the old Julian Calendar with the present-day Gregorian Calendar, 
and you have even more confusion as to when the third millennium 
actually starts, or started.

Realistically, any period of 1000 years in a row is a millennium.  
So the period between May 25, 1953 and May 24, 2953 is a 
millennium.  We reconcile our decades that way all the time.  We 
talk about the decade of the 1950s as the period of time from 1950 
to 1959, or the 1990s as the period of time between 1990 and 1999.  
That's because those ten year periods have something logical in 
common--the digit in the ten's place.  So we could use the same 
logic to justify identifying the period between 1000 AD and 1999 
AD as a millennium, because all the years in that period have a 
"1" in the thousand's place.  There certainly isn't anything wrong 
with doing that.

But, again, if we want to get technical in trying to decide when 
the actual third millennium AD begins, we must account for that 
extra digit in the sequence of numbers, owing to a lack of a year 
0.

It certainly isn't nearly as important for us to decide on what 
year the third millennium begins as it was for us to finally 
decide whom our next president would be.  But if we want an excuse 
to "party like it's 1999" again, we can give ourselves permission 
to do so this New Year's Eve, as we ring in the technical new 
millennium!

Now, if we can only decide what to call the first decade of this 
new millennium, we'll have it made.  I vote for the "naughts."