OVER COFFEE – 2001


GOOD-BYE TO AUNT RUBY 
Jan. 5

The month of January, despite its desolation and wintry 
winds that cut to the bone, devoid of green leaves or 
blades of grass, still kindles a warm and cozy feeling in 
my heart.  The feeling stems from memories of my youth 
during this time of the year, and of family.

I was a teenager in the early 1970s.  Dad had recently 
built a new room onto our house, but it was not heated by a 
furnace.  It got its warmth from a wood-burning stove.

After the holidays, it was time to start thinking about 
ordering plants and flowers for the coming spring.  Of 
course it was too early, but I found it pleasant to look 
through the Spring Hill Nursery catalog and imagine the 
shade trees and flowers depicted therein occupying the 
ground around our house.

I shared this experience with my Aunt Ruby.  She spent most 
of her time crocheting or quilting out in that back room.  
She seemed to take a lot of pleasure in sharing my desire 
to plan for springtime.  As we enjoyed the heat from the 
wood-burning stove on those cold January nights, we would 
thumb through the flower catalogs together and think of 
spring.

During this time, she would also relate stories of her 
youth to me.  She had plenty of stories to tell.  Some were 
funny; some were scary; some were just sad.

She would tell of her "blind granny" and the songs she used 
to sing to her when Ruby was a child, and how her granny 
was finally able to see for a few moments just before she 
died.  She would tell me about the "something" that paced 
alongside her father in the woods as he walked home from 
work one dark night.  And she would relate how my father, 
whom she helped to raise as a child, loved music so much 
when he was little that he made a guitar out of a fence 
slat and pie pan and would sing gospel songs to his pet 
rooster.

When I was very young, I remember that Aunt Ruby would 
teach me songs after I went to bed at night, and we would 
sing them together.  They were silly little songs, but I 
can still remember the words to a few.  She would also tell 
me riddles, the answers to which would amuse me, even 
though I did not understand what they meant.  

"A man rode across the bridge on a horse, but yet he 
walked," she said with a grin.  "Explain that."  I said I 
couldn't.  She said that "Yeti" was his horse's name ("and 
Yeti walked!).

Aunt Ruby lived in our household, helping to take care of 
my four brothers, my sister, and me while my mom and dad 
worked overtime, earning a living for us.  We all remember 
her as a second mom during our early childhood years.

And now, she's gone.  She made it into the 21st century, 
but just barely.  She died on New Year's Day.  I shall miss 
her, but I will always cherish the memories.  As my 
daughter, Shana, is fond of saying,  "The only things you 
really have in life are your memories, so make them worth 
remembering."   My memories of Aunt Ruby are priceless.


PROTECT KIDS FROM SMOKINGJan. 10

Remember the days, not so long ago, when anyone could smoke 
anywhere?  Smokers could puff away on planes, anywhere in 
restaurants, even in hospitals.  And remember when parents 
could send their young children to the corner market for a 
gallon of milk and a pack of cigarettes?

In less than a generation, smoking has gone from being 
socially acceptable to being almost taboo.  Kids are no 
longer legally able to purchase, or even possess tobacco 
products.  And given the malevolent nature of smoking, 
that's a good thing.

It's not a secret.  It's no longer conjecture nor 
hypothesis.  Everybody knows that smoking is dangerous to 
the health of both the smoker and those in the immediate 
environment.  That's a fact.

But despite that fact, and everyone's knowledge of it, 
people continue to smoke.  Most do so because they are 
addicted.  Others do so because they just want to.  Most 
likely, there will always be those who choose to smoke.

And that's fine.  People ought to have the right to slowly 
destroy their health if they want to, as long as they are 
not also slowly destroying someone else's health, in the 
process.  That's why there are now bans on smoking in most 
government buildings, on airplanes, and in many restaurants 
and workplaces.  

But there are some innocent victims of smoking that do not 
have the choice of quitting.  Nor can they escape the toxic 
respiratory exhaust by moving to the non-smoking section of 
restaurants.  The young children of smokers are those 
innocent victims of their parent's malicious habit.

One of the most disturbing sights that is too commonly seen 
in public places is the spectacle of a parent puffing smoke 
into the face of an innocent child while dining in the 
smoking section of a restaurant.  Although some parents may 
turn their heads when they exhale, the smoke billowing from 
the tip of the cigarette encircles the head of the innocent 
little ones like an evil shroud.  Many of the parents seem 
oblivious to the discomfort they are inflicting upon their 
own children.

One can only imagine the other venues of torture that these 
children are exposed to.  Many children must endure a car 
full of toxic fumes from a smoking parent driver.  They are 
slowly suffocated in their own homes.  There are no laws or 
restrictions that exist to protect innocent children from 
the deadly vapors issuing from smoking parents.

This is not to suggest that all smoking parents are 
flagrantly jeopardizing the health of their children, or 
that they purposely blow smoke into their little faces.  
Many parents who smoke take steps to assure that their 
children are protected as much as possible.  Some even step 
outside when the urge to smoke strikes.

But isn't that the way all parents should behave?  All but 
the most careless or neglectful parents instinctively 
protect their children from other dangers in life.  They 
should be just as careful in making sure their children are 
protected from their own second-hand smoke.

Laws to regulate smoking in one's own home are out of the 
question.  Although there should be a ban on smoking in all 
restaurants and other public buildings, laws that ban 
smoking outdoors or in homes are out of place.  Still, 
children must be protected from the second-hand smoke of 
parents.  

Everybody knows how dangerous smoking is to his own health.  
All parents must realize that the smoke from their 
cigarettes is harming their young ones, too.  They must 
then voluntarily take all appropriate steps to make certain 
their children are protected.  And that includes eating in 
the non-smoking section of restaurants when they have their 
kids with them, refraining from smoking in vehicles 
carrying children, and going outside to smoke at home if 
there are children in the room.  

It's common sense that is so often ignored.


WE ARE OUR MEMORIES
Jan. 10

How much of our lives are built upon our memories?

Memories are what link us to the person we used to be.  
They are what makes our lives fluid, ever flowing from the 
past into the present, even into the future.  Our legacies 
are but memories for our descendants to share.

What would life be like without memories?  Each day would 
be as if we were a newborn baby.  There would be no 
experiences for us to build upon.

I remember watching a TV documentary about memory a few 
years ago.  In it, there was a segment about a man who had 
lost his short-term memory, due to an accident.  He could 
remember people he had met prior to his accident, and all 
other events of his past.  But he could not remember 
anything that happened since his accident.  But it was more 
than just amnesia.  He could not retain any new memory 
longer than about two minutes.  Every moment of his life 
was as though he were just waking up from a long, dreamless 
slumber.

Suppose a similar accident happened to a child, who later 
grew into a man or woman without memories of any kind.  How 
empty this person's life would be.  He or she could 
remember nothing or nobody, nor learn anything new, for it 
would be gone in a couple of minutes.

Memory is important to us, as humans.  It takes the place 
of instinct.  It is no wonder that memory has become the 
subject of verse, song, and literature.  Songs such as 
"Memory," from the musical "Cats," or "The Way We Were," or 
"Try to Remember" remind us how important our memories are.

Authors have written volumes on the subject, in every form 
of literature.  Dostoyevsky wrote, "You are told a lot 
about your education, but some beautiful, sacred memory, 
preserved since childhood, is perhaps the best education of 
all."  Essayist Susan Sontag wrote, "Everything remembered 
is dear, endearing, touching, precious."  And Scottish poet 
Alexander Smith wrote, "A man's real possession is his 
memory."

My earliest memory is when I was three years old.  I 
remember what I got for Christmas that year--two train 
sets.  One was an electric train set from my dad; the other 
was a wind-up train from my mom.  Apparently, they did not 
consult with each other in advance of purchasing my gifts.  
I know I was three, because I also remember what my younger 
brother got for Christmas that year.  It was a string of 
plastic bells meant to stretch across a crib.  It was his 
first Christmas, and since I am two years older than he is, 
that would have made me three at the time.

I have lots of memories that I recycle in my mind 
regularly.  It helps to keep them fresh.

I try to teach my children how important the memories they 
are forging today will be to them when they are old.  We 
occasionally watch video home movies that I took of them as 
they were growing up.  I have more than 30 hours of home 
movies!  Sometimes I wonder if the memories my kids have of 
their younger days are of the actual events, or of the 
video tape playback.

Memories are much more than just a connection to a past 
event, however.  They are what allows us to see the things 
we want to see when those things aren't around.  British 
playwright J. M. Barrie once wrote, "God gave us memory so 
that we might have roses in December."  In fact, anything 
we have ever seen, heard, touched, smelled, or felt, we can 
experience again in our minds, thanks to that wonderful 
device called memory.

But just as our muscles will atrophy if they are not used, 
memories will weaken and die if they are not remembered.  
Memories can be permanent; they can also be ephemeral.  The 
key to keeping a memory is the frequency of its use.

Comedian Colin Mochrie said, "As long as I can remember, 
I've always had memories."  Bob Hope never forgot to tell 
us, "Thanks for the Memories."    Memory is a truly 
important commodity.   Playwright Tennessee Williams summed 
memory up best when he wrote, "Life is all memory, except 
for that one present moment that goes by you so quickly you 
hardly catch it going."



EMAIL GRAMMAR
Jan. 17

If there is one positive side effect of the computer era, 
in which more and more of us are communicating through e-
mail, it is that it forces us to communicate via the 
written (that is to say, typed) word.  And that means we 
have to spend more time considering such things as spelling 
and syntax.  

But "considering" is typically as far as we go.  If you've 
looked at most electronic messages that appear in 
newsgroups on the Internet, you will see that many message 
writers simply blow off grammar and spelling, in much the 
same way they do when they speak.  But at least when they 
write a message, they have to consider how a word is 
spelled or used.  When speaking, they don't have to give it 
a thought.

A clue that some people do give it some thought when 
writing e-mail, is when they write things like "(sp?)" 
following a word that the writer is unsure of.   For 
example, "I don't know if my computer will acomodate (sp?) 
such a large hard drive."  Although the writer spelled 
accommodate incorrectly, at least he had to think about it 
long enough to realize that he probably did get it wrong.  
That's why he put the "(sp?)" after it.  I guess it makes 
some people feel less stupid if they at least acknowledge 
that they may have spelled a word wrong, even if they don't 
bother to correct it.

In fact, correcting one's spelling in e-mail is not the 
norm.  It has become quite common to totally disregard 
spelling and proper grammar.  Just read some of the 
messages appearing on the various newsgroups on the 
Internet and you'll find many examples of this.  Even 
though mistakes will always be made, and some misspellings 
will get by us, we should at least attempt to identify, and 
then correct, those mistakes.

Although I may rant about poor spelling and grammar in e-
mail and Internet postings, I'm not totally guiltless, 
myself.  It's a convenience thing. Many text-entry programs 
designed to send e-mail, such as the editors contained in 
most Internet browsers, have only recently incorporated 
built-in spell checkers.  Full-fledged word processors, 
like the one I am using to type this column, do have spell 
checkers, and even thesauruses.  But e-mail editors 
traditionally did not.

Although some of the lackluster spelling and grammar usage 
found in e-mail can be forgiven, it remains the 
responsibility of the writer to at least make an attempt to 
get it right.

But despite the abundance of misspelled words and usage 
errors contained in e-mail, it is still my contention that 
e-mail does at least force people to consider how a word 
might be spelled or used.  It might even open up the 
possibility of a new class in school - "How to Write E-
mail."  If not a class, it could at least be offered as 
part of the English curriculum.  With the growing use of e-
mail as a part of the mainstream communications media, it 
certainly couldn't hurt to address it early, even in 
elementary school.

If you have comments about this column, you drop me a line 
via e-mail.  My address is: jwilson@wilstar.com.  But 
beware; your spelling might be graded!



I HATE SPAM
Jan. 17

I really hate spam.

Now, before any of the lunch meat junkies out there get the 
wrong impression, I'm not talking about Spam, with a 
capital "S"--that much-maligned concoction of the Hormel 
Company.  I'm talking about spam, with a small "s," the 
colloquial expression used for junk e-mail that is used to 
solicit products, services, and scams over the Internet.  
It's what constantly harasses me every time I log on to my 
Internet account.  I like Spam, but I detest spam.

I'm not certain of the etymology of the term, although the 
lunch meat Spam got its name from a contest held when it 
was first canned in 1937.  It's a contraction of "spiced 
ham."  The winner received $100; the lunch meat got a place 
in history.

But unlike the meat, the other spam has no redeeming 
qualities whatever.  It is a nuisance, plain and simple.  
It ranks up there with telemarketers and the old-fashioned 
form of junk mail that clogs your mailbox.

Still, I believe spam is even more malevolent than the 
physical junk mail.  For one thing, if you don't want to 
read the postal junk, you can just toss it in the trash.  
Spam e-mail consumes more of your time while you read 
enough of it to decide if it's legitimate or not.

Secondly, there are some people who even make good use out 
of the junk mail they get from the post office.  I remember 
seeing a news story once about a man who purposely signed 
on to every mailing list he could find, so that he could 
get tons of junk mail each year.  He had a wood-burning 
stove, so he rolled the junk mail into "logs" to burn as 
free fuel.

You can't do that with spam.  Although I would love to 
figure out a way to burn it.

I probably get several dozen spam messages every day.  Some 
days I may get more than 100.  It's safe to say that I get 
more spam messages than legitimate ones.  

There are a finite number of seconds in each day.  It 
takes, say, ten seconds to open a piece of spam and read 
enough of it to decide that it really is junk.  And if you 
get 100 spams a day, that's 1000 seconds--almost 17 minutes 
a day wasted!  And it will only get worse.

Another negative aspect of spam is that it uses up valuable 
Internet bandwidth.  Those of you who surf the Net know 
that the connection speed gets bogged down quite a bit, 
thanks to the heavy cyber-traffic.  When someone sends out 
10,000 junk e-mail messages all at once, that just adds to 
the congestion.

I can't see how sending spam to potential customers would 
be a very effective marketing tool, anyway.  Personally, I 
don't read any more of them than I have to.  As soon as I 
see I'm being solicited, I trash it.  Plus, even if I were 
interested in what the spammer was selling, I wouldn't buy 
it from him.  He annoyed me when he sent me the spam, so 
I'm not giving him my business.

Still, it can be somewhat amusing to see the evolution of 
techniques used by spammers to grab your attention.  One of 
the latest gimmicks is to put an "Re:" at the beginning of 
the subject line.  That's e-mail terminology meant to let 
you know that the message is a reply from someone to whom 
you had sent a message previously.  Then there are the 
spams that pretend to be a personal greeting from a friend, 
or a personal message from a stranger that was sent to you 
in error .   The ruses used to get you to read spam are 
endless.

Laws against spam are probably not in the foreseeable 
future.  After all, it is a form of speech that is 
protected by the First Amendment.  It's annoying, but 
there's not much one can do about it legally.

The only thing that might eventually diminish the 
promulgation of spam is for the recipients to always ignore 
the solicitations.  Never, ever, under any circumstances 
purchase any product or service from a company that 
solicits business using spam.  If you desire the product or 
service, buy it from a competing business.  

It might take some time, but if nobody ever responded 
favorably to a spammer's solicitations, the spammers would 
eventually get the message that sending unsolicited 
messages using e-mail mailing lists isn't good business.



YOU’RE ON CANDID CAMERA
Feb. 14

From a segment on NBC’s "Today" program to countless 
editorials in newspapers across the country, the debate 
goes on about the propriety of a decision by the police to 
use scanning video cameras to identify possible criminals 
at the Super Bowl last month. 


The cameras, mounted so they could get a good view of the 
faces of fans as they entered Raymond James Stadium, sent 
digital images back to the police command post so they 
could be compared using sophisticated computer software to 
the mugshots of known terrorists or suspected criminals. 
Police found no terrorists, and only a handful of small-
time thieves were identified.

So what’s the big deal? Does this sort of snooping foretell 
a less innocuous form of domestic espionage to come, marking the 
real beginning of George Orwell’s “1984”? Or is 
it just a high-tech way of protecting large groups of 
citizens from the threat of potential terrorists?

The same camera technology is being used in many cities 
across the country to catch traffic offenders as they run 
red lights. In fact, the use of such cameras to identify 
those who run red lights is being debated in Indiana’s 
General Assembly this session. But this is a less 
controversial use of the technology.

The American Civil Liberties Union has formally complained 
about the police action at the Super Bowl. They say it 
violates privacy rights of citizens. Some believe it is a 
blatant form of fascism.

These people, and the ACLU, need to lighten up.

Would there be any complaining if dozens of police officers 
equipped with notebook computers containing a database of 
mug shots were stationed at the entrances of the stadium, 
eyeballing every person who entered? Probably not. In fact, 
it would probably make people feel safer.

So what’s the difference? Instead of using dozens of cops 
and wasting hundreds of man-hours, the police opted for a 
more reliable, less intrusive high-tech approach.

Granted, it would have been nice to post signs informing 
patrons that they are "on camera." But in reality, courts 
have ruled that people pretty much give up their rights to 
privacy while in public places. The Super Bowl game 
certainly counts as a public place.

Besides, whether you know it or not, you are on camera 
almost continually, everywhere you go. Just log on to the 
Internet and take a look at the cameras that run 24 hours a 
day with a street-level view of Times Square. Take a look 
at all the "restaurant cams" and "street cams." There is 
even a "taxi cam."

Many colleges and universities have cameras watching their 
campuses all the time and sending these images out over the 
Internet for everyone to see. From ferryboat docks in Puget 
Sound to skiers in Colorado, there are live cameras everywhere.

And everyone knows that your mug is being identified every 
time you walk into Wal-Mart, your local bank branch or the 
drugstore on the corner. It’s commonplace.

Half a dozen live cameras are taking pictures 24 hours a 
day in downtown Edinburgh. These images are sent directly 
to the police department. No one complains about these 
cameras. In fact, they were placed there because of public 
pressure to "do something" about teen-age loiterers 
downtown.

So what makes the surveillance by cameras at the Super Bowl 
more menacing? Is it only the fact that they captured 
images of patrons’ faces and compared them to mug shots? If 
you’re not a criminal, you would have nothing to worry 
about, would you?

I don’t hear much complaining from the general public about 
the use of these surveillance devices. No, the big 
complaints come from the ACLU, and from those who make 
their living trying to find problems where none exist.

And to the general public, the best advice is simply to 
"smile," because everywhere you go, you’re really on candid 
camera.


TEACHING EVOLUTION
Feb. 15

In science, sometimes proven facts and theories are weirder 
than even the most far out fiction.  Take the old 
hypothetical question that asks, "If a tree falls in the 
forest and there's no one around to hear it, does it make a 
sound?"  

The answer depends on your definition of sound.  Is sound 
something that must be heard by a listener, or is it 
sufficient to say that sound is simply the compression 
waves that travel through the air, whether they are picked 
up by an ear or not?

To a quantum physicist, however, the question is moot, 
because he would say the tree does not exist at all unless 
there is someone there to observe its existence.  Until 
then, it exists only as a wave function.  Now that's weird!

Speaking hypothetically again, let's say two identical 
twins decide to do an experiment involving space travel at 
near-light speeds.  One twin boards a rocket ship and heads 
off to a distant planet going 99.9 percent the speed of 
light (which is clearly outside the realm of current 
technology, of course).  The planet is 10 light-years away, 
meaning that a beam of light traveling at 186,000 miles per 
second would take 10 years to get there.  The other twin 
stays at home on earth.

If the traveling twin reaches the planet and immediately 
turns around and heads back home, he could make the trip in 
just over 20 years (10 years out and 10 years back), 
according to his stay-at-home twin.  However, the traveling 
twin would notice that only a few hours had passed since he 
started his trip.  When they again meet on earth, the 
traveling twin is now almost 20 years older than his 
brother!  Weird again!

These examples may be fictional, but the science behind 
them is not.  Real life experiments have proven that atomic 
clocks really do lose time when traveling at high speeds.  
And using subatomic particles instead of trees, the quantum 
theory used in the first example has been proven true, 
also.

But just as the real facts of science can occasionally be 
strange, sometimes the attitudes people have, or the 
decisions they make, about certain aspects of science can 
be just as weird.
For example, in 1999 the state board of education in Kansas 
ruled 6-4 to de-emphasize the teaching of evolution.  Just 
as quantum theory is central to physics and the atomic 
theory is central to chemistry, evolution is the central 
theory of biology.  Nothing in biology can make sense 
without it.

Fortunately, two of the board members who helped put this 
misguided policy in place were voted off the board by the 
people of Kansas last year.  This past Wednesday, the new 
board of education in Kansas voted to put the emphasis back 
on the teaching of evolution in public schools.  If they 
hadn't, Kansas teens who planned to opt for a career in any 
field of science would have been at a serious disadvantage.

The governor of Kansas called the board's original decision 
"tragic" and "embarrassing" for the state.  Harvard 
professor Stephen Jay Gould termed the decision to teach 
biology without evolution as equivalent to teaching 
American history without studying Lincoln.  A Washington Post 
columist wrote a "memo from God" to the board saying 
"Man, I gave a brain.  Use it, OK?"  And Bill Nye, the 
"Science Guy" termed the decision to kick evolution out of 
Kansas schools "nutty."

Now, however, science teachers in Kansas can feel free to 
emphasize biology's premier theory again.  But will they?

You see, that is one of the weirdest things of all about 
science.  With the mountains of evidence that support the 
theory of evolution, including the brand new DNA and 
genetic evidence that so far has verified the more 
traditional evidence of fossils and carbon dating, many 
biology teachers still do not emphasize evolution in their 
science classes.  If they have time, they might give a 
brief introduction of it.  But given its place in science, 
and its importance to all aspects of biology, evolution 
should be one of the first things taught in science 
classes, even in elementary school.

It's true.  Science (and science teaching) can be stranger 
than fiction.


ASTRONOLOGY AND OTHER SCAMS
Feb. 20

One of the tasks I get to do on my job is to teach a group 
of teenagers how to set up an e-mail account.  Invariably, 
however, once the accounts are established and they have 
spent a few minutes e-mailing each other to check them out, 
someone will always wind up checking his or her horoscope 
for the day.

I've never put much stock in horoscopes, but I decided to 
check mine, too, just to see what the attraction was.  

It was Tuesday, February 20 and I logged onto Yahoo! and 
clicked the Daily Horoscope link.  Then, I selected Gemini, 
because my birthday is May 25.  

Yahoo! said, "Your mind is likely to be on spiritual or 
philosophical subjects, considering fascinating new ideas. 
Some of these ideas may come from faraway lands, which 
might have you considering travel to these places."

Wrong!  They obviously didn't know what I was thinking.  So 
I visited another astrology site to see if it could do any 
better.

"Noted" Astrologer Michael Thiessen at astrology-online.com 
gave me this horoscope:  "Big heads and big mouths set your 
teeth on edge today and you muster all your resolve to turn 
your charm on people and get them to leave you in peace for 
a few hours."

Not even close!  I tried one more time.

The Horoscope Zone told me, "You may be given a special 
task that is fairly pleasant today, but you may resent it 
anyway because you are underpaid or unappreciated.  Don't 
take your personal unhappiness out on a loved one." 

This one was correct about the "underpaid" part, but 
sometimes the astrologer gets lucky.  The rest of it was 
just good advice for anyone, regardless of when they were 
born.  Besides, if astrologers use the same planets to tell 
my fortune, shouldn't all my horoscopes be the same, or at 
least similar?

It has always fascinated me how astrology has retained its 
ancient popularity, and even grown in popularity in modern 
times.  Perhaps it's because some people confuse the 
pseudo-science of astrology with the legitimate science of 
astronomy.  The latter deals in the real phenomena of the 
heavens; the former deals in superstition.

Consider this.  Astrologers tell us that the relative 
position of the sun, moon, and planets at the time of a 
person's birth can help to determine his personality 
traits, and can foretell coming events in a person's life.  
But how does it all work?

In metaphysical circles, you hear a lot of jargon bandied 
about, such as "energy," "force," "vibration," and "aura."  
There are only four forces in nature, and scientists are 
paring the list down as they find ways of merging them into 
a single unified field theory.  Traditionally, the list 
included the gravitational force, the electromagnetic 
force, the strong nuclear force, and the weak interaction.  

The trouble with astrology is that it relies on a force 
that does not exist.  The electromagnetic force is quite 
strong, but since there are just as many positive 
components as there are negative components, this force 
tends to cancel itself out over long distances.  So a 
planet can't use the electromagnetic force to affect 
anyone.

The strong force is very powerful, but it acts only over 
very tiny distances and is confined to within the nucleus 
of atoms.  The weak interaction governs something called 
beta decay of subatomic particles and is, as its name 
suggests, very weak.  It also acts over tiny distances.

That leaves gravity.  It has no negative component and it 
acts over very large distances.  So perhaps gravity is the 
key to astrological predictions.  But gravity is very weak.  
Gravity only feels strong on Earth because the earth is so 
big.

Anything that has mass has gravity.  The more mass an 
object has, the stronger is its gravity.  Gravity weakens 
considerably over a long distance.  Therefore, the 
gravitational force exerted by the obstetrician who 
delivered me was greater than the gravitational force of 
even the closest planet in our solar system.  It's 
difficult, therefore, to understand how any of the planets 
could have had any effect whatever on my personality.

But even assuming that a planet did have some strange and 
undiscovered force that could somehow affect our destinies, 
astrology would still be wrong.  The reason is timing.

The astrology charts used my modern astrologers are the 
same as those that were first developed centuries ago, 
before there was any such thing as astronomy.  The trouble 
with that is, the earth's axis has precessed.

The earth spins on its axis like a top.  And, like a top, 
the earth wobbles slightly.  The effect of this wobble is 
that the positions of the constellations in the sky are 
different now than they were when the astrological charts 
were created.  In fact, they are off by a full two months.

So even in the unlikely event that the charts could ever 
have predicted one's destiny, they are now out of synch 
with the true position of the moon and planets.

Astrology, horoscopes, Chinese fortune cookies, and TV 
psychics might be fun and a source of pure entertainment.  
Just keep in mind that they really are "for entertainment 
purposes only" as the disclaimers say.  I would hate to 
imagine anyone actually believing this fakery to be true 
and making decisions accordingly.


SELLING SOFT DRINKS AT SCHOOL
Mar. 1

You hear it said all the time.  "They are going to do it 
anyway, so why bother to have a rule against it."

The fact that some individuals or groups of individuals 
will behave in a certain manner anyway, regardless of 
whether that behavior conflicts with rules or laws, is a 
questionable reason for not having those rules or laws.

It is a matter of fact that many, if not most, teenagers 
smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol occasionally, if only as 
an experiment.  Since they are going to do it anyway, 
should schools go ahead and sell tobacco or alcohol 
products on school grounds?  

Maybe they could place a cigarette machine in the 
cafeteria.  I'm sure the tobacco companies would pay big 
bucks to school systems for the exclusive rights to sell 
their brands on school premises, assuming of course that it 
wasn't against the law.

Maybe schools could bring in even more huge sums of much-
needed cash by allowing students to choose a beer or glass 
of wine with their lunches, instead of milk.  Hey, they're 
going to drink anyway--right?

These "ideas" may sound ludicrous, because they are.  But, 
to a lesser extent, schools are doing just as described for 
another product that carries health risks.  The biggest 
difference is that this product isn't illegal for minors.

In Johnson County, four out of its six public school 
districts are paid substantial amounts of money by soft 
drink companies for the exclusive rights to sell their 
name-brand products at school.  Greenwood, Center Grove, 
and Indian Creek have sold out to Pepsi, while Clark-
Pleasant has sold out to Coke.  Thankfully, Edinburgh 
hasn't joined the bandwagon yet.

"Kids are going to drink it anyway," echo school officials.  
So the schools might as well get paid for allowing it to be 
sold on site.  Besides, drinking sugar-filled soft drinks 
is not against any laws.

Perhaps not, but drinking and eating too much sugar is a 
proven cause of obesity.  It is also linked to many other 
maladies that come later in life, such as diabetes, 
anxiety, high cholesterol, and hypertension.

A study at the Children's Hospital in Boston recently 
showed that the incidence of obesity increased 
significantly in kids that drank sugar-sweetened soft 
drinks over those who did not.  The obesity rate was in 
direct relationship to the amount of soft drinks consumed.

Other research suggests that adolescent athletes who 
consume sugary drinks are more likely to get broken bones.  
In fact, girls who drink soda regularly were five times 
more likely to break a bone than girls who do not drink 
soda.

Although the sugar industry would argue the point, sugary 
drinks, desserts, and snacks are probably the single 
biggest cause of childhood obesity.  Sugar consumption 
certainly leads to adult obesity and adult-onset diabetes, 
even among the people who were not overweight as teens.

While smoking and drinking by minors are illegal and should 
certainly be discouraged by school systems, sugar can be 
almost as harmful to some people in the long run.  Despite 
the revenue generated, it is a bad practice for schools to 
endorse sugar-sweetened soft drinks by allowing their sale 
on school property.



PENCE WANTS TO REPRESENT THE WHOLE COUNTY
Mar. 6

Should all of Johnson County be in the same Congressional 
District?

Newly-elected Congressman Mike Pence (R-Edinburgh) believes 
it should be.  He also believes it should be in his 2nd 
District.

Before Indiana was forced to eliminate its eleventh seat in 
Congress, all of Johnson County was in the same district.  
But for the past ten years, it has been divided between the 
2nd District and the 6th District.  The only township in 
the county that is in the 2nd District is Blue River 
Township, which includes the town of Edinburgh.  The other 
eight townships are in Congressman Dan Burton's (R-
Indianapolis) 6th District.

Once again, however, Indiana is faced with having to reduce 
its representation in Congress by one seat, thanks to a 
population that is not growing as rapidly as states in the 
South and West.  And when redistricting is complete, Pence 
hopes the 2nd District will encompass the entire county 
once again.

"We've taken an optimistic posture," Pence said.  "And we 
hope ours is not the district that is eliminated during 
redistricting."

He said he favors putting all of Johnson County in the 2nd 
District for two reasons.  First, he attends church in 
Greenwood and has ties there.  "We have strong ties to 
northern Johnson County and we know people there," he said.

Secondly, he ran for Congress once before, when all of 
Johnson County was in the same district.  "In 1991, I ran 
for Congress in all of Johnson County," Pence said.  "I 
would like to represent all of Johnson County's people 
during my term."

But what does Dan Burton think about Pence's desire to have 
all of Johnson County united in his own district?  
"Redistricting is a matter for the state legislature to 
decide so I'm not going to comment on it at this time.  
However, I do enjoy serving the people of Johnson County 
and I hope to do so in the future." Burton stated.  

One factor to consider is what, if any, impact 
redistricting might have on Edinburgh.  Has being the only 
Johnson County community in the 2nd District caused 
Edinburgh to be left out of the loop?

Pence doesn't think so.  "I don't think Edinburgh has been 
ignored any more so than any other modest-sized community," 
he said.  

Long-time Edinburgh Town Council member Larry Taulman 
agreed.  He said he has always gotten fast responses from 
former 2nd District Congressmen David McIntosh and Phil 
Sharp.

However, Taulman also believes Pence is off to a great 
start and agrees with him that the rest of the county 
should join Edinburgh in the 2nd District.  "I'd like to 
see him represent the whole county," Taulman said.  "He's 
reaching out to everyone in the county, and that says 
something to me."

As for Pence, he continues to claim Edinburgh as his home 
town.  Although he has moved his family to Washington so 
that he can remain close to them, he still owns property 
near the Timbergate Golf Course.  "We will continue to 
maintain our home in Edinburgh and continue to call 
Edinburgh home," he said.

"The community has embraced us.  People in Edinburgh were 
very engaged in our campaign.  Edinburgh has a bright 
future and I believe wonderful things are happening there."  

In the mean time, it will be up to Indiana's General 
Assembly to decide where the district boundaries will be.  
The state lawmakers have not started the process yet, 
because they are still awaiting final numbers from the 
Census Bureau.

Although neither Pence nor Taulman believe that Edinburgh 
has become the forgotten stepchild of the 2nd District over 
the past ten years, there would be significant advantages 
for both the town and the county if they were in the same 
district.

There are people in portions of Blue River Township that 
are served by Pence, but who have a Franklin address.  And, 
there are portions of Johnson County outside Blue River 
Township where the residents have an Edinburgh address but 
who are served by Burton.  It is sometimes tough to 
determine just who represents whom.

Edinburgh has not only been stuck out in the no-man's land 
of the 2nd District, it is also "that little town way down 
in the corner of the county" to the rest of Johnson 
County's resident's.  Uniting the county under one district 
would at least get Edinburgh out of one of those corners.



CURFEW SHOULD BE UP TO PARENTS
Mar. 8

Despite public support, the General Assembly probably won t 
pass legislation changing Indiana to Daylight Saving Time 
this year. And redistricting is likely to be a long, drawn-
out battle.  
 
But it does appear that the legislators can agree on one 
thing--setting up another curfew. And it appears just as 
likely that any new curfew law will be challenged in court 
just as the last law was. 
 
I understand the motivation of the legislators. They want 
to protect minors. But it is not clear that making them 
stay home passed 11 o clock will result in any increased 
protection. What s more likely is that there will be 
increased inconvenience and burden for many parents and 
teenagers. 
 
If the state lawmakers insist on passing some kind of 
curfew law, they should make it clear that the parents have 
the ultimate authority over how late their children stay 
out at night.  
 
There are many reasons why teens might legitimately be out 
late at night. Not all minors that stay out passed 11 at 
night are causing trouble, so it is not fair to punish 
those who are doing no harm. 
 
For the most part, kids need to be at home and in bed by 
11. But it should be up to the parents to provide the 
curfew as necessary and convenient for each individual 
family. The state should not try to play the role of 
parent. 
 
Obviously, if police find kids out on the streets in the 
middle of the night, they need to be checked. Any new law 
should provide police with the rights to check minors who 
are out passed a certain hour. Their parents can then be 
called to verify that the teens have permission to be out 
late. If they do not have permission, then they should be 
escorted home. 
 
It appears likely that if the new legislation is at all 
similar to the old law, it will find the same fate. The 
courts struck down the former curfew law because it was too 
broad and did not allow for legitimate exceptions. 
 
Any new law should not only allow for exceptions, it should 
allow the parents to decide what those exceptions are, 
rather than trying to itemize them in the law itself. 
 
If teens are out causing trouble, they should be arrested, 
regardless of what time of day or night it is. But if they 
are simply out, doing whatever legal activity that has been 
approved by their parents, then they need to be left alone. 
 
With all the more important legislation that could be 
debated, passing an ill-conceived curfew law seems a waste 
of time and effort, especially considering that it will 
probably wind up being declared void by the courts anyway. 



WATCHING THE POPULATION SIGN
Mar. 15

When I was a kid, riding around town on my bicycle, picking 
up old tossed-out pop bottles to sell at Ralph’s market for 
two cents each, I remember seeing the sign at the entrance 
to Edinburgh, welcoming visitors.  “Welcome to Edinburgh, 
population 4700,” the sign said.

This was in the mid-1960s, so the sign probably reflected a 
rounded-off 1960 census figure.  The number was more or 
less confirmed by the Indiana road map.

One of the things that interested me as a kid was 
collecting road maps.  I had one for almost every state.  
They were free.  You could pick one up at any filling 
station.  So I would make my rounds of the local stations 
in town and collect a copy of any state that I didn’t 
already have.

I remember looking at Edinburgh’s population designation on 
the Indiana map.  There were a number of different symbols 
denoting the population of towns and cities.  A small 
single circle represented a village of less than 1000 
people.  A double circle meant the town had up to 3500 
residents.  A dot surrounded by a colored rectangle 
symbolized that the town had as many as 5000 people, and 
that’s the symbol that always sat next to Edinburgh’s name 
on the map.

I don’t know why, but I remember looking forward to the 
year 1970, because I knew that was the year of the next 
census.  I was sure that Edinburgh’s population would go 
above 5000, meaning that it would get a new symbol on the 
map!

Believe me, I realize now, as I did then, that I was 
probably the only kid rooting for numbers on a map.  But to 
me, it was a matter of pride--for my hometown.   For a town 
to have more than 5000 people meant that its map 
designation would be more than just a circle or a small 
rectangle.  The town would be represented by an actual 
colored polygon depicting the shape and size of the town’s 
boundaries.

I didn’t know it then, but having a population of at least 
5000 means more than just a change in map designation.  It 
means more federal tax dollars can be accessed.

Well, 1970 came and went.  A lot of things changed.  I no 
longer maintained my map collection, though I was still 
interested in maps.  I was looking forward to becoming a 
senior in high school.  But one thing that didn’t change 
was Edinburgh’s map designation, because its population did 
not reach the magic 5000 mark.  It inched closer, but 
missed by 94 people.

“I’ll just have to wait until 1980,” I thought.

Although I didn’t exactly spend the decade of the ‘70s 
sitting around, twiddling my thumbs, waiting for the next 
census to come out, when 1980 finally arrived I did take 
the opportunity to look up Edinburgh’s new population 
figures, even though I lived out of town at the time.  I 
was disappointed to find that the population had actually 
dwindled.  So Edinburgh would still not get its map 
polygon.

The next census, in 1990, was no help either.  Although 
there was a slight gain in population, it was still lower 
than it had been in the 1960s, so Edinburgh remained just a 
rectangle on the map.

Things started looking up in 1995.  A population estimate 
released by Indiana University showed that Edinburgh’s 
population had risen to just over 5000.  I remember 
thinking to myself, “It’s about time!  Just wait until the 
2000 census and Edinburgh will finally become a polygon on 
the map!”

Well, the 2000 census numbers are now official.  
Edinburgh’s population did not climb above 5000.  In fact, 
the official numbers show that it actually lost over 100 
residents.  We are a town of about 4500 people, and we’ve 
been hovering around that mark for more than 40 years.

Despite new housing developments in that time period; 
despite new mobile homes; despite all the non-population 
related improvements, Edinburgh can’t seem to break the 
magic 5000 barrier.

There is some hope in Timbergate.  Maybe within the next 
ten years, those 200-plus homes that are planned there will 
be built.  With an average of 2.6 people per household, 
that should put us over the top.  But, then again, I 
thought the same thing about the construction of Heather 
Addition, Pruitt East, Rainbow Apartments, and Applewood 
Park.

The year 2010 might be the year we go over the top.  Or 
maybe Edinburgh is destined to remain a rectangle on the 
map forever.



2000 CENSUS SHOWS NO GROWTH
Mar. 19

The figures are in and they show what had been expected for 
several years, that Johnson County has grown substantially 
and is one of the fastest-growing counties in the state.  
Almost all areas of the county have shown an increase in 
population.  The lone exception is Edinburgh.

But why should Edinburgh be the exception?  Why has the 
rest of the county shown tremendous growth over the same 
period that Edinburgh's population has actually dwindled 
slightly?

The population of Edinburgh has been hovering right around 
the 4,500 mark for at least the past 40 years.  There was a slight 
surge in population in the 1970s, to around 4,900, 
but the latest census count shows that the figure has 
shrunk to 4,505.

Over the same forty-year period, there have been a number 
of housing additions and apartments built in Edinburgh.  
Pruitt East, Heather Addition, Old Towne Estates, and of 
course, Timbergate were nothing more than corn fields in 
1960.  And the older homes remain occupied.  Add to that 
the new Applewood Mobile Home Park, Rainbow Apartments, 
Country Place Apartments, and White Oak Apartments, and the 
population of Edinburgh should have risen substantially--
but it hasn't.

A deeper look at the census figures gives a clue as to the 
reason Edinburgh's population has remained stable while its 
housing has increased.  The 1980 census statistics, for 
example, show that Edinburgh's population was 4,856 with 
1,668 households.  Compare that to 1990, when the number of 
households increased to 1,713 while the population shrank 
to 4,536.

In 1980, there were 2.9 people per household.  By 1990, 
that number had diminished to 2.6 people per household.  
That trend has apparently continued through the 1990s.  The 
average family size in Edinburgh is decreasing, so that 
there are fewer people living in more houses.

Still, there are not that many more houses.  While new 
homes seen to spring up like mushrooms after a rain in 
Whiteland, Franklin, Greenwood, and Trafalgar, the growth 
of new housing in Edinburgh has been closer to a snail's 
pace.

The reasons for this slow housing growth in Edinburgh may 
be many, but two factors stand out.  For one thing, 
Edinburgh has not historically had very much land to grow 
into.  It can't grow to the west because of Camp Atterbury 
and the Driftwood State Fishing Area.  Until a few years 
ago, it couldn't grow east because of the Shelby County 
line.  Edinburgh now has an agreement with Shelby County 
which allowed it to annex land out as far as Interstate 65, 
but that still presents a barrier.

Growth to the north was hampered by the natural boundary of 
Blue River.  It is difficult and expensive to run utilities 
across a water barrier.  Growth to the south was possible, 
and it has taken place, but the growth has been in the form 
of industry and business, not homes.

So as the children of Edinburgh have grown up and left home 
over the years, they have had no place to settle and raise 
a family of their own, unless they left town.  There was 
just not enough new housing in Edinburgh to accommodate 
them.

The second, and perhaps biggest factor that has hindered 
Edinburgh's population growth is the high tax rate.  
Edinburgh has the highest tax rate in the county.  The 
combined town, school, library, and township rates are 
pushing 12 cents per $100 of assessed valuation.  The 
school rate is about average, but the municipal rate is 
much higher than nearby towns and cities.  That makes a big 
difference to prospective home buyers.

The Timbergate housing addition was supposed to alleviate 
the tax burden, but therein lies a "Catch-22" because in 
order for the tax burden to be relieved, the addition has 
to be fully developed.  But in order for the addition to 
develop in a timely manner, the tax rate must be lower.

It is important for Edinburgh's population to grow.  Larger 
communities find it easier to get federal grants and other 
amenities.  Businesses tend to locate in growing 
communities, not stagnant ones.

There is, however, some hope for future growth.  In 2004, 
the Interlocal Agreement expires between Edinburgh and 
Bartholomew County, giving Edinburgh the opportunity to 
annex Prime Outlet Mall.  That will mean additional tax 
revenues from all the development south of town.

By then, there may be several more homes in Timbergate, 
further increasing the assessed valuation of the town.  It 
would also be prudent for the town council to take another 
look at the possibility of annexing land to the north, to 
include the newer homes that have been built there.  

The town should also do a feasibility study to see if it 
would make economic sense, in the long run, to annex 
Talberton and Pleasant View additions.  The population of 
these two housing additions alone would send Edinburgh's 
population above the magic 5000 mark.

Edinburgh is a quiet little community, and many people want 
to keep it that way.  But they also want to keep their big-
town amenities, like a viable parks department, adequate 
police and fire protection, a first-class library, and a 
swimming pool.  To afford these things, the town needs an 
influx of people.  The best way to get that is to annex 
more land, and reduce the tax rate.  It will certainly be a 
balancing act.



BAD SCIENCE
Apr. 2

Science is supposed to be the study of natural laws and how 
they work. The application of science to everyday life is 
called technology. Although pure science is a little too 
esoteric for some people's taste or understanding, they 
know that if something is "scientific" it carries a label 
of validity. 
 
That's why the widespread propagation of bad science can be 
very misleading, even dangerous. What I call "bad science" 
is the misinterpretation of staunchly unscientific ideas, 
devices, and entertainment products as being derived from 
scientific principles. 
 
At the very least, it can mislead people into buying into 
old wives' tales, which in turn might cause people to 
behave in a manner that is unwarranted for the situation. 
 
For example, how often as a child did you hear your mother 
tell you in the wintertime, "Bundle up! You'll catch cold!" 
Or, "Don't go out with wet hair; you'll get pneumonia!" 
That is bad science. 
 
There is not a shred of scientific evidence that being cold 
will give you a cold, or that going outside with wet hair 
will do any more harm than make you uncomfortable. Colds 
and pneumonia are caused by germs, not discomfort. 
 
Another example of bad science can be seen nightly on TV. 
The so-called psychics or tarot card readers make a living 
off the gullible by pretending that their "gifts" are 
somehow tied to scientific principles. 
 
Horoscopes can certainly be labeled as bad science. They 
sound scientific, because they depend on complicated 
formulas dealing with the position of the planets and the 
moon. But it's all quite bogus. Real science tells us that 
there is no force of nature that emanates from a planet 
that is strong enough to have any effect on the personality 
traits of a person being born. 
 
One of the worst examples of science, and the best example 
of bad science, is Creationism. Its proponents would 
actually like for it to be taught in schools as real 
science. But there is nothing scientific about it. It is, 
in fact, the opposite of true science because of the manner 
in which it was developed, going completely against the 
scientific method of reasoning. 
 
Superstitions are bad science. There are all kinds of 
superstitions, ranging from black cats to broken mirrors. 
Good luck charms and bad luck oracles, they're all examples 
of bad science. 
 
Finally, this time of year, an example of bad science that 
is sometimes even propagated by science teachers and TV 
weathermen rears its ugly head. It's the old wives' tale 
that one can balance an egg on its end only on the first 
day of spring. With a little care and a lot of patience, 
you can balance and egg on its end on any day of the year, 
including the Vernal Equinox. 
 
Horoscopes and psychic readings might be fun and 
entertaining, as long as you understand that their value 
lies only in the entertainment they provide, not in their 
validity. And old wives' tales are best left to old wives. 
They should be taken with a grain of salt.  
 
When making decisions based on science, the best advice to 
follow is to make certain you're not dealing in bad 
science. 



FREE MUSIC ON THE INTERNTE
Apr. 3

Should music be free?

It’s a simple question with a seemingly simple answer, but 
the whole concept of free music has landed the recording 
industry and the leading online purveyor of free music, 
Napster, in court.  And now, the two sides have squared off 
before Congress.

Obviously, the people who create and perform music for a 
living must be paid for their efforts, or there soon will 
be no music, free or otherwise.  But if you ask almost any 
one of the 60 million users of Napster, they would tell you 
that, at least in some cases, music should be free to 
exchange and share.

Napster, which began as an idea of a college student in 
late 1999, now claims a user base in the tens of millions 
worldwide, though it has yet to figure out a way to profit 
from this huge user base.  With the assistance of legal-
foe-turned-partner Bertelsmann AG, Napster plans to unveil 
a subscription service later this year.  Bertelsmann is one 
of the five major record companies that have sued Napster 
for copyright infringement.  None of the other four have 
joined the partnership.  The record companies won a court 
injunction against Napster, requiring it to filter 
copyrighted material.

The day before Napster took its case before a Senate 
Judiciary Committee, three of the record companies--
Bertelsmann, AOL Time Warner, and EMI--along with Real 
Networks, announced plans to build a subscription 
infrastructure that could eventually be licensed to Napster 
and other services.

Perhaps that announcement finally indicates some progress 
toward the acceptance by the music industry of the 
distribution of music online.  The obstinacy of the 
recording industry and its reluctance to offer its products 
for download over the Internet was the catalyst that 
allowed Napster-like services to flourish.

Recording artists, musicians, and songwriters get a tiny 
fraction of the cost of a compact disk.  The record labels 
get the lion’s share of the profits.  But now that artists 
have the option of publishing their works directly to the 
Internet, coupled with the fact that music fans continue to 
find ways to download copyrighted music, the recording 
industry apparently is starting to bend.

The record industry should have learned a lesson from 
history.  In the 1970s, movie studios went to court to try 
to stop the use of VCRs.  They feared it would cause 
consumers to stay away from theaters in droves.  The 
reverse happened.

Before that, in the 1940s, the movie industry feared that 
the upstart television industry would mean its demise.  
That fear also proved to be without merit.

Though the recording industry denies it, it is clear they 
have been afraid of the Internet for a long time, when they 
actually should have embraced it and developed an algorithm 
to profit from it early on.

Dick Parsons of AOL Time Warner said, “It's not a question 
of fear. It's a matter of doing it in a fashion that 
respects the rights of the people who create the music.”  
Yet it took them an awfully long time to even start 
thinking about using the Internet to distribute their 
wares.

Now, perhaps, the recording industry is finally realizing 
that instead of trying to fight online music sharing, they 
might actually be able to profit from it.  But it took a 
giant kick in the complacency from Napster to force them 
into that position.  For that reason, in addition to the 
zillions of free songs that have been “shared,”, all music 
lovers, including musicians, song writers, and those of us 
who buy the CDs, owe Napster a debt of thanks.  

One day soon, it might be possible to legally download 
music selections a la carte from the Internet and create 
your own customized CD of your favorite artist, or even a 
mix of different artists.  No more will you have to go 
purchase an entire album just to get the two or three songs 
that you really want.

That was the beauty of Napster.  That will be the beauty of 
any new service created by the recording industry, in 
Napster’s image, that will allow customers to download 
their favorite selections after paying a reasonable 
subscription fee.  

Most people won’t mind paying a fair fee for the music they 
get online.  They just want to get what they want, instead 
of what the recording industry wants to sell them.  It’s 
all a matter of choice.



SHOULD EUTHANASIA BE LEGAL?
Apr. 16

Have you ever noticed that most protests and demonstrations 
tend to be led by those who are against something?  From 
the anti-war protests of the 1960s through the anti-
pollution demonstrations of the 1970s to the anti-abortion 
protests today, people have taken to the streets to 
demonstrate against something they don’t want to take 
place, or something they want to stop.

In most cases, these activists seek to block or take away 
individual freedoms.  Most do so on the grounds of some 
higher morality--a morality that they possess, of course.

Take as an example the recent passage of a law in The 
Netherlands that legalized euthanasia.  Large groups of 
people in staunch opposition to the law gathered around the 
parliament to protest.  Their protests fell on deaf ears, 
because the law was passed handily.

The Dutch health minister, Els Borst, even challenged other 
nations to debate enacting similar laws.  “I hope other 
governments will find the courage to enter into similar 
debate,” said Borst.

The Netherlands became the first country in the world to 
legalize euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicides.  Oregon 
is the only state in the U.S. that allows doctor-assisted 
suicide.

But why is this practice so rare?  Why do 98 percent of 
U.S. states and almost every other country in the world 
have laws against the humane and voluntary ending of life 
of those who are terminally ill and suffering?

As Dr. Jack Kovorkian discovered, there are many 
terminally-ill patients who would make the choice to end 
his or her life rather than to continue to suffer.  Yet the 
Michigan law against assisted-suicide finally caught up 
with Kovorkian.

So why should it be illegal to assist a person to 
voluntarily end his own life?  Is it not his own life to 
end? 

Naturally, those who are suicidal, but otherwise well, 
should be stopped and counseled.  It is speculated that the 
majority of jumpers change their minds on the way down.  
Most often, a suicidal person doesn’t really want to die; 
they may just want attention.  Or they may not know exactly 
what they want, except to escape the anguish or depression 
they may be feeling.  

But depression can be treated.  A terminal illness cannot 
be successfully treated.  Sometimes, the only relief from 
the suffering is death.  As long as the decision to die 
comes from the individual who is suffering, and not from 
his caregivers or family, then he should be allowed to 
request to be put to death in a humane manner.

Opponents of euthanasia point out that the laws allowing it 
could be abused.  But any law can be abused.  In fact, any 
law can be ignored, as was the case in The Netherlands 
before euthanasia became legal, and as was the case in 
Michigan with Dr. Kovorkian.

Although there will always be those who insist on trying to 
limit and abridge the freedoms of others, based on their 
own personal morality, the trend is in favor of personal 
liberties.  Euthanasia may be one of those future rights 
most free countries will adopt.  In fact, an unscientific 
Internet poll recently showed 67 percent of the respondents 
favored laws permitting euthanasia in the U.S.

As one Dutch euthanasia supporter said, “Within 25  years, 
most countries will have a euthanasia law.”  Perhaps, but 
not if the self-appointed defenders of public morality have 
their way.



VIRTUAL CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Apr. 16

One of the most heinous types of crime that exits in the 
modern world is the type of crime that exploits children in 
a sexual manner.  And that includes child pornography.  
Child pornography is criminal behavior, carrying stiff 
penalties, and it must remain so.

Why is child pornography a crime?  It sounds like a silly 
question, but think about it.  The reason that it is a 
crime is to protect innocent children from being exploited 
and harmed.

So what if someone were to draw a picture of a child 
engaged in sex--not a real child, but just an image of some 
fictitious child--would that drawing be considered child 
pornography?  What if that drawing were done using 
sophisticated computer software that could make the child 
look real, even though the child is not real?

Remember the real reason why kiddie porn is illegal is to 
protect real children.  So if someone were to make drawings 
of  child porn, or even life-like computer images of fake 
children having fake sex, then what child has actually been 
exploited?  The answers is that no child has, because the 
images were all fake. So now the question becomes, “should 
fake kiddie porn be illegal”?

That is the question the Supreme Court will be considering 
when it opens its next session in October.  It will 
consider the challenge to a 1996 law that makes even 
artificial child pornography illegal.

The Free Speech Coalition, along with a publisher of nudist 
books and an artist who paints nudes, challenged the law in 
court, saying that it violated the constitutionally 
protected rights of free speech.

A federal court in California upheld the law, but a U.S. 
appeals court overturned the verdict, saying that a law 
prohibiting “virtual pornography” would violate the First 
Amendment.  So now, the case is on its way to the Supreme 
Court.

Now, shift from child porn to adult porn, and enter one of 
the Internet’s biggest success stories--Yahoo!  Yahoo! has 
been dealing in online pornography for a couple of years, 
but it never made a big deal about it.  Recently, it announced it 
was expanding its porn business to include X-
rated DVD movies.  The move was designed to prop up 
Yahoo!’s flagging profits.

This announcement brought on a media frenzy.  And within 
two days, Yahoo! announced it would pull all its porn 
business off the Web.

Of course, the criticism didn’t come from Yahoo!’s 
investors; the day after its announcement, its stock prices 
shot up.  The criticism didn’t come from its mainstream 
online visitors, or even its advertisers.  Most criticism 
came from a vocal group of conservative watchdog groups 
who’s main quest in life is to restrict the rights and 
freedoms of the masses in the name of their superior 
morality.

And now, Yahoo!’s knee-jerk reaction has brought it further 
criticism--this time from those who are in more of a 
position to cause it financial distress.  Yahoo! has always 
been the brick in the jellyfish farm of online business 
ventures over the past few years.  It has generally had a 
solid vision and stuck to it.  This time, it wavered.  
Everyone in the know agrees the vacillation was 
uncharacteristic of Yahoo! 

So what do these two stories have in common, other than the 
fact that they both are about pornography?  They are 
reminders that there is always some group, some coalition, 
some government entity, that is more than willing to 
sacrifice everybody’s First Amendment freedoms for some 
perceived higher good.

What does it matter that Yahoo! wanted to peddle porn?  
Nobody was being forced to buy it.  You can find it in the 
back rooms of most video rental stores; you can find it 
hiding high on the magazine racks of many convenience 
stores; you can find it on your satellite-fed TV receiver.  
Those who are offended by it, or who would rather not be 
exposed to it can simply avoid purchasing it at stores.  
They don’t have to subscribe to it from their cable 
providers, and they don’t have to go into that back room at 
the video store.

As for the virtual kiddie porn law, if there was no real 
children involved, then where was the crime?  If there is 
no victim, there is no offense.

Let it not be construed that a defense of pornography is 
the same as an endorsement of it.  There is a big 
difference.  Americans are sometimes put into a peculiar 
predicament.  They are very proud of their freedoms.  They 
honor those who fought and died to protect the rights we 
all enjoy.  One of those freedoms, the one we hold above 
all others, is the right to unfettered speech.  

Protecting our freedom of speech is an all-or-none 
endeavor.  We either protect it all, even that which we 
find distasteful or offensive, or we run the risk of 
allowing all speech to be censored.  

Voltaire said,  "I may disagree with what you say but I 
will defend to the death your right to say it."  We take 
our freedom of speech for granted.  So much so, sometimes, 
that we forget that there are those whose life’s mission is 
to find ways to limit the speech to only that which they 
find acceptable.  For that reason, it is imperative that we 
defend freedom of speech, even the most offensive forms of 
it.  To not do so would mean that we have agreed to allow 
others to draw the lines of morality for us.



LOOKING BACK
Apr. 20

Occasionally, somebody will send me one of those e-mails 
that keep getting passed around on the Internet--you know, 
the ones that have about two dozen of those little pointy 
brackets that let you know it’s been previously quoted from 
an earlier e-mail.
Less often, someone will send me one that is actually 
either useful or entertaining.  The other day, someone sent 
me one about all the things we take for granted today that 
did not even exist prior to World War II.

World War II was a terribly tragic event in human history.  
There is little good that can be said about it, except for 
one thing--it was the major catalyst for the growth of 
technology.

Those who are old enough to remember what life was like 
before World War II may remember a simpler and less hectic 
life.  They will also probably remember that some of the 
words used back then had an entirely different meaning than 
they do today.

People born prior to World War II were born before 
television, before penicillin, before polio shots,  frozen 
foods, copiers, contact lenses, Frisbees and the Pill.

They were born before radar, credit cards, split atoms, 
laser beams and ball point pens; before panty-hose, 
dishwashers, clothes dryers, electric blankets, air 
conditioners, permanent press clothes--and before anyone 
thought it possible to go to the moon. 


As for the terminology, time sharing meant togetherness, 
not what you do with computers or condominiums; a  chip 
meant a piece of wood, hardware meant hammers and nails,  
and software was comfortable clothing.  And the only word 
processors were pencils and fountain pens.

Bunnies were small rabbits and rabbits were not 
Volkswagens.  They thought fast food was what  you ate 
during Lent.  And being gay just meant you were happy.

A “byte” was a piece of food you put in your mouth; a hard 
drive was a trip through the snow without snow tires, and a 
mouse pad was a small rodent’s home.

Those born before World War II didn’t know of house-
husbands, gay rights, computer dating,  dual careers and 
computer marriages.  They were born before day-care 
centers, group therapy and nursing homes. They never  heard 
of FM radios, tape decks, artificial hearts, yogurt, and 
guys wearing earrings. 

In 1950, "made in Japan" meant junk, and the term "making 
out"  referred to how you did on your exam. Pizzas, 
McDonald's and  instant coffee were unheard of.

Back then there were 5 and 10 cent stores, where you bought 
things  for five or ten cents. Ice cream cones were a 
nickel or a dime at the  Dairy Queen.  For one nickel you 
could make a phone call, buy a  Pepsi or enough stamps to 
mail one letter and two postcards. 

In those days, cigarette smoking was fashionable; grass was 
mowed;  Coke was a drink and pot was something you cooked 
in. Rock music was a grandma's lullaby and AIDS were 
helpers in the principal's office.

They were certainly not born before the difference between 
the sexes  was discovered but they were surely born before 
the sex change, and they were the last generation  that 
thought you needed a husband to have a baby! 

I wonder if, 50 years from now, people in those days will 
look back on this time period and say, "Those were the good 
old days!"  What fancy gadgets are we currently doing 
without that will be indispensable then?  What medical 
advances will have taken place?  Perhaps, in fifty years or 
so, people who are 100 years old will be thought of as 
middle aged.  Personally, I hope I'll be around in 50 years 
to find out!  



USES VICES TO EASE BUDGET DEFICITS
Apr. 26

Not long ago, Indiana boasted a huge budget surplus.  But 
what a difference a year makes.  Current budgetary 
estimates put the state at a deficit of nearly a billion 
dollars.

And unless the General Assembly can find some more money, 
it looks as though Indiana’s schools will feel the pain of 
the budgetary pinch.  Indianapolis Public Schools has 
already announced a hiring freeze in anticipation of the 
belt tightening that will be necessary.

It is unfortunate, because adequate funding of education is 
an investment in the future.  And funding cuts are 
unnecessary, because two sources of new revenue could 
easily be tapped, but for the playing of political games.

The revenue generated from dockside gambling could wipe out 
nearly half the projected budget deficit.  And new revenue 
produced from increasing the cigarette tax by 50 cents per 
pack could alleviate most of the remainder of the budget 
shortfall.

The governor supports the cigarette tax.  In fact, he 
suggested it.  But he doesn’t support dockside gambling.  
The General Assembly is loathe to increase any taxes, and 
it’s approval of dockside gambling is not a good bet.  So 
where does that leave education in Indiana?

Gambling, whether one agrees with it or not, is a reality 
in Indiana.  We have the lottery; we have horse race 
betting, and we have riverboat gambling.  Dockside gambling 
simply means people will be able to gamble on the 
riverboats while they’re docked.  It doesn’t seem like such 
a big deal, especially if it means saving school funding.

An increase in cigarette taxes would not only help the 
state out of its budgetary dilemma, there would also be a 
side benefit.  It is a statistical fact that the more a 
pack of cigarettes cost, the fewer people choose to light 
up, especially teenagers.  

Increasing the cigarette tax would produce a double benefit 
for the state, despite the belly-aching from the few 
legislators representing tobacco-growing counties in 
southern Indiana.  It has been years since the state has 
increased taxes on cigarettes.  Many other states tax 
cigarettes at much higher rates.

Historically, Indiana is near the top of the list of states 
with the greatest number of smokers per capita.  One reason 
might be that cigarettes are more affordable here than in 
states with lower smoking rates.  Regardless, increasing 
the cigarette tax can be looked upon as an investment in 
our future health; the budgetary benefits are just a 
welcome side effect.

Passing legislation that would effectively decrease teen 
smoking, enhance recreation and tourism, while at the same 
time filling the state’s coffers should be a no-brainer.  
It would seem a logical move.  Unfortunately, logic doesn’t 
always dictate the General Assembly’s actions. 

There is no rational reason why Indiana’s budget problems 
can’t be fixed by allowing dockside gambling and by 
increasing cigarette taxes.  The General Assembly, in the 
waning days of its session, should seriously consider both 
these options--for the sake of education.



FIGHTING AGAINST TELEMARKETING
May 2

You get home from a tough day on the job and sit down at 
the dinner table for a nice meal.  You start to dig in 
when, suddenly, the phone rings.

So you drag yourself away from the table and pick up the 
receiver, only to hear something like, "Hi,  my name is 
[fill in the blank].  And how are you doing today?" 

Unless you have Caller ID, this is your first clue that the 
call is actually from a telemarketer.  You reluctantly say, 
"Fine."  Then the man or woman on the other end begins to 
joyfully tell you about some super-duper offer that you 
would be a fool to pass up.  He or she talks incessantly, 
blissfully telling you about all the great benefits you'll 
enjoy if you would only listen to reason.

At that point, most people either hang up or, despite the 
feeling of rudeness, interrupt the caller to tell them, 
"I'm not at all interested."  Of course, when you say that, 
they only pause long enough to go into a quick recovery 
mode, again telling you of the enormous necessity of buying 
their product or service.  They are relentless, never 
taking "no" for an answer.

So you hang up on the caller and return to your meal, 
feeling a little diminished for being forced to be rude, 
and also because your mashed potatoes have grown cold.

What many people don't understand is that they may be able 
to slowly prune back the sheer number of invasive phone 
solicitors, especially by the repeat offenders.  Federal 
law mandates that phone solicitors must remove you from 
their call list, for a period of ten years, if you inform 
the solicitor to do so.  So instead of just hanging up or 
saying "I'm not interested," it might be best to just 
interrupt them and tell them to take you off their call 
list and not to bother you again.

Doing so only insures that you won't be called again by 
that particular company.  But there are plenty more out 
there, and you're probably on their lists, too.

Fortunately, the State of Indiana has finally come to the 
rescue.  A very popular bill that would curb those unwanted 
sales calls passed the Indiana General Assembly on the last 
day of its session.  After the governor's signature the law 
will become effective this summer, with the actual results 
expected to be seen by January 1, 2002.

The new law would create a master list of people who do not 
want telemarketers to call them.  The state Attorney 
General would be responsible for keeping and updating the 
list.  And if last year was any indication, the list will 
be substantial.  

A similar bill was under consideration by the General 
Assembly last year, with 28,000 people signing up 
immediately to be on the no-call list.  But the lawmakers 
killed the bill at the last minute.  This year however, the 
bill, sponsored by Sen. David Long, R-Fort Wayne, survived.

The law has some bite to it, so that if you get called by a 
telemarketer, and you have placed your name on the do-not-
call list, a complaint by you to the Attorney General might 
yield a fine of up to $15,000 assessed against the 
intrusive caller.  A second violation could result in a 
fine of up to $25,000.

Although the fines are flexible, most telemarketing 
businesses probably would not want to risk the penalty, 
since calling those on a no-call list would probably yield 
far more complaints than sales.

Now, if lawmakers could only come up with a reasonable 
solution to prevent my electronic mailbox from filling up 
with dozens of unwanted e-mail solicitations, I could not 
only eat dinner in peace, but surf the Internet in peace, 
too.  Maybe next year.



BOTTLED WATER PHENOMENON
May 3

There is a product on the market today, in every grocery 
story, convenience store, and drug store, that has to 
produce burning envy in everyone who has ever dreamed of 
coming up with a get-rich-quick scheme.

It may or may not be a fad, but this product certainly has 
the mark-up value equal to that of the pet rock.  I'm 
talking about bottled water.

Why would anyone buy a rock with a string attached to it?  
Probably because it was just the latest gimmick of the 
time--about 20 years ago.

So why would anyone want to spend a dollar or more on a 
small bottle of water when you can get the same stuff from 
your tap for less than a penny?  For most people, the 
answer is probably either for taste or health reasons, or 
both.

Of course, taste is a personal thing.  You either like the 
way something tastes or you don't.  Personally, I don't 
think tap water tastes much different than bottled water, 
but others may disagree.  However, even allowing for a 
slight improvement in taste, is it worth paying perhaps 
1000 times more than is necessary to get it?

As for health benefits, a recent study shows it isn't so.  
The World Wildlife Fund recently commissioned a study that 
shows that bottled water is not healthier than plain old 
tap water in most countries of the world.

"Bottled water may be no safer or healthier than tap water 
while selling for up to 1000 times the price," the study 
found.  It also found that most people who buy bottled 
water do so because they believe it is safer than municipal 
water supplies.

Joe Loughmiller is a quality control specialist for Indiana 
American Water Company, which supplies tap water to the 
Greenwood and Franklin areas.  He agreed that municipal 
water is as safe as bottled.  "We meet or exceed all 
Environmental Protection Agency standards," he said.  "We 
have strict quality standards and we have a lot of 
disclosure."  Loughmiller said he personally does not buy 
bottled water.  And what about those who do?  "It's in the 
eye of the beholder," he said.

Not only is bottled water no safer than tap water, it might 
actually be detrimental to your dental health.  One benefit 
of tap water, in most communities, is fluoridation.  
Municipal water is better for your teeth than bottled 
water.

Bottled water sells for anywhere between about thirty-five 
cents per gallon at some grocery stores up to about two 
dollars per 20-ounce bottle at concession stands.  But 
given its popularity--a $22 billion-a-year business--it 
probably won't be long until someone gets the notion to 
bottle fresh air. 

If I'm going to pay big bucks for a drink, I at least want 
it to have some kind of fizz or flavoring in it.  If I were 
really, really thirsty, and if buying one of those two-
dollar bottles was the only alternative I had to quench my 
thirst, I might spring for it.  Otherwise, when I imbibe, 
it comes straight from the tap.



I-69: BUILD IT ALREADY
May 4

The U.S. Interstate Highway system is the largest 
engineered structure in the world.  Like buildings, the 
system was planned and specified prior to its being 
constructed.

Consisting of more than 42 thousand miles of road surface, 
The Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense 
Highways, its official designation, was initially funded in 
1956.  Seventeen years later, in 1973, the nationwide 
system of highways was more than 98 percent complete.

I-69 is a relatively minor segment of the Interstate 
system, running from southern Michigan to Indianapolis.  
But, thanks partly to the North American Free Trade 
Agreement, I-69 started getting a lot more attention as the 
best direct route for trade from Canada to Mexico.

Initial planning for the extension of I-69 began in the 
mid-1990s.  In 1998, Congress gave its approval for the 
extension of I-69 from Indianapolis to the Rio Grande.  
Since then, much progress has been made in other states 
along the highway's proposed route, including Texas, 
Louisiana, and Tennessee.  But virtually no progress has 
been made in Indiana.

Thanks in part to opposition groups, it seems as though the 
construction of I-69 will take longer to complete through 
Indiana than did the rest of the nation's Interstate 
Highway system.

Obviously, it is necessary to determine the best route for 
any proposed highway.  Studies are necessary to ascertain 
the most appropriate route, and to determine what the 
environmental impact will be.  However, special interest 
groups have delayed construction of I-69 much longer than 
was necessary to do a study.

As a side note, when I-69 is finally completed from Canada 
to Mexico, it will be the only major north-south Interstate 
highway to end with a digit other than 5.  The original 
naming system for the Interstate Highway system called for 
north-south routes to be designated with odd numbers, with 
major routes ending in 5.  East-west routes were given even 
numbers, with major routes ending in 0.

Regardless of its designation, the need is certainly there.  
The Federal Government has recognized the benefits of 
extending I-69.  The Indiana Department of Transportation 
recently released the results of a study showing that 
construction of the highway on a direct route from 
Indianapolis to Evansville would have a positive influence 
on the economy of the area and that the need exists to 
construct it.

There is another reason why Indiana should get started.  If 
I-69 is completed from the south to Memphis before Indiana 
starts construction, the probability is that Indiana would 
lose the project altogether, as an alternate route of 
existing Interstate highways through Illinois would be used 
instead.

The people who travel Indiana would certainly see the 
benefits of an easy route to the southwestern corner of the 
state.  It's just about time to stop studying the project 
and start hauling earth.   Southwest Indiana has been 
isolated long enough.



DOCTORS ON THE INTERNET
May 16

A recent survey showed that 75 percent of doctors have 
computers and 70 percent of them use the Internet.   As 
some of the most highly-trained people on the planet, it is 
not surprising that a large number of them make use of 
online technology.  What is surprising, though, is how few 
of them actually use the Internet as an adjunct to their 
practice.

The survey, conducted by the American Medical Association, 
showed that only seven percent of physicians had actually 
visited the AMA’s Website in the last prior months.  Only 
about half the 1,001 doctors surveyed acknowledged the 
importance of the Internet in accessing drug information.  
And only a quarter of physicians have their own Websites, 
the same percentage as two years ago.

Although the study showed a slow trend toward integrating 
the Internet into their practices, most doctors are 
apparently overlooking the vast potential of online 
technology.

For example, doctors could use e-mail to remind patients of 
their scheduled appointments.  They could post office hours 
and available appointment times on their Websites, to make 
it easier for patients to schedule appointments.  And 
people who are searching for a doctor could look to 
individual doctors’ Websites to find information about the 
type of services they provide and where their specialties 
lie.  Yet only one in four doctors use e-mail to 
communicate with their patients and only one in four have 
Websites.

The Internet has become an invaluable tool for patients to 
find information about prescription drugs, diseases, and 
disorders.  More and more people are using the Internet to 
find such information.  

Insurance companies have developed Websites with databases 
of covered medical expenses and formulary prescription 
drugs.  But only 13 percent of doctors use the Internet to 
obtain insurance or managed care data.

Pharmacies have their own Websites where customers can not 
only purchase prescriptions online, but they can check for 
drug interactions, find generic equivalents, and read 
technical information about prescription medications.  Yet 
very few physicians use online technology to write 
prescriptions.

There’s an old story that tells of a nurse that goes into a 
patient’s room and tells him to turn over onto his stomach 
so she can administer liquid medicine to his behind.  Just 
then, the doctor comes in and inquires as to why she is 
putting ear drops into his patient’s bottom.  She tells the 
doctor, “because your prescription says to put 3 drops into 
his rear every four hours.”  The doctor replies, “No, that 
says 3 drops is his R. Ear.  I just forgot to put the 
period after the R.”

True or not, this humorous little mistake in reading a 
prescription wouldn’t have been life-threatening.  
Unfortunately, there are many more real-life errors in 
interpreting doctors’ prescription that are life-
threatening.  Writing prescriptions electronically would 
eliminate the vast majority of these errors.

Eventually, all doctors will have Websites; they will all 
write prescriptions electronically; and one of these days 
they all will use the Internet to transfer medical records, 
communicate with patients, and to file insurance claims.  
The sooner doctors decide to take their practices online, 
the better, safer, and more convenient it will be for them 
and their patients.



CELL PHONE COURTESTY
May 18

Cellular telephones--cell phones, mobile phones, wireless 
phones--whatever you call them, almost everyone has one 
these days.  What was, several years ago, a status symbol--
affordable only by wealthy business executives--are now 
carried by many teenagers. 


Fifteen years ago, cell phones were much larger than 
today’s tiny models.  Most were mounted in cars, requiring 
outside antennas.  Such was the status symbol of owning a 
cell phone that some novelty catalogs even sold cheap 
plastic replicas of the cell phone antenna that you could 
stick on your car, to fool others into thinking you were 
important enough to own one.

Today, in spite of its popularity--and because of it--the 
cell phone has become much maligned.  There is a push in 
some states to make it illegal to use one while driving a 
car.  They are said to be the cause of many accidents.  And 
many people are simply annoyed by them and the way others 
use them.

There are those who misuse their cell phones.  They use 
them in theaters or the doctor’s office waiting room, or in 
other areas where it is inappropriate.  But that’s not the 
fault of the cell phone, only its owner.

Some people have developed a negative attitude toward the 
devices.  My teenage daughter, for example, says she 
doesn’t like them because they make those who use them in 
public look "pretentious."  She does, however, acknowledge 
that they can come in handy in an emergency.

Rules of etiquette are emerging, designed to dictate how 
and where cell phones should be used.  Some say they 
shouldn’t be used in a restaurant.  But why not?  Most 
restaurants I’ve eaten in have people sitting around the 
table eating and talking to each other.  What makes any 
difference whether they are speaking to the person next to 
them at the table, or to someone on their cell phone?

To me, and to most people who own one, cell phones are the 
greatest invention since the toaster.  No more do I have to 
find a pay phone, pull over and get out of my car, then 
fumble for change and hope I have thirty-five cents in 
order to make a call.  I have a second cell phone that is 
shared by the rest of the members of my family.  It’s a 
great security feature and enhances peace of mind.

Basically, the rules for using a cell phone should be the 
same as the rules for talking in general.  Don’t use it 
during a movie; don’t use one in church; don’t use one in a 
quiet waiting room or other place where you’re expected not 
to interrupt the peace and quiet.  And don’t use one while 
driving.  Otherwise, use it anywhere you want--including 
restaurants, public rest rooms, or while walking down the 
sidewalk.

It’s no longer a status symbol.  It’s no longer for use 
only by business executives.  They have become affordable 
enough for almost anyone, and the convenience of owning one 
is worth every cent.



RESTRICTING SPEECH ON THE WEB
May 22

In 1996, in its infinite lack of wisdom, Congress passed 
the Communications Decency Act, which, among other things, 
made it a crime for "patently offensive" material to be 
distributed over the Internet.  That part of the law was 
immediately challenged and was eventually struck down as 
unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, which basically 
said that "patently offensive" could mean different things 
to different people.

Two years later, Congress did it again.  This time it 
passed, and President Clinton signed, the Child Online 
Protection Act of 1998.  This law would require commercial 
site operators on the World Wide Web to impose electronic 
proof-of-age systems before allowing Internet users to view 
material deemed harmful to minors.

Again, the law was immediately challenged by the ACLU and 
17 other groups and individuals who claimed the law 
violated free speech rights.  Again, a federal court, then 
a federal appeals court, agreed that the law was 
unconstitutional.  The appeals court was especially 
distressed by the law's application of "contemporary 
community standards" to determine if online material could 
pass muster.

The Supreme Court has upheld the concept of "contemporary 
community standards" in allowing individual communities to 
pass ordinances prohibiting pornography.  Small 
conservative communities in the South or Midwest would 
probably have a stricter standard of judging what is 
pornographic than would larger cities in the East or on the 
West Coast.

The problem with the 1998 law, as pointed out by the 
appeals court, is that Webmasters have no idea where their 
visitors are coming from.  The Internet is world-wide in 
scope.  Indeed, as the judge stated, the law would force 
Website administrators to taylor their online content to 
what would be acceptable "by the most puritan of 
communities in any state."

The Justice Department has challenged the ruling in the 
U.S. Supreme Court, which recently decided to hear the 
case.  A decision is expected sometime after the High Court 
begins its fall session.

Given the conservative nature of the High Court, it is 
difficult to predict how it will rule.  If it uses a 
similar test as it did in declaring the 1996 CDA 
unconstitutional, it should uphold the appeals court's 
decision on this law.

But regardless of how the Supreme Court finally rules, the 
fact still remains that Congress still doesn't get it.  As 
ACLU attorney Ann Beeson said, "Congress has once again 
fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the Internet."

Even if the High Court should declare this latest incursion 
on free speech by Congress as unconstitutional, the 
legislative body will probably try again next year.  It is 
understandable what Congress is trying to do--protect 
children from pornography.  But there are much better ways 
of protecting children than by restraining adult free 
speech.

The best way to protect children from pornography is for 
parents to monitor their kids' online activities, or to 
install filtering software.  Once again, Congress has taken 
over the role of the parent, and in doing so, has 
restricted the free speech of poets, book sellers, online 
art galleries, medical Websites, sexual advice columns, and 
a host of other legitimate online content.  If the law is 
upheld, these legitimate sites will become illegal, and 
their site administrators and content providers will become 
criminals.

No, when it comes to the Internet, Congress just doesn't 
seem to get it.



30-YEAR REUNION
May 24

Like so many other high school gradutates, I went to my 
class reunion this year.  It was only the second one I’ve 
attended since graduation.  It doesn’t seem possible, but 
it was my 30th.  As I mingled, I realized that probably the 
most common sentence heard in the room was, "It doesn't 
seem like thirty years!"  And it doesn't.

I’ve come to realize that the older one gets, the faster 
time seems to pass.  It’s like a law of physics.  When 
you’re a kid, time drags on.  The first 10 years of your 
life seems like 20.  The second decade seems pretty much 
like a decade.  But it seemed like it only took five years 
to get through my 20s, and another five to make it to 40.  
My 40th birthday surely wasn’t more than a couple of years 
ago--but it’s been eight.  I’m pretty sure that most of my 
classmates have experienced the same time acceleration 
phenomenon.

Some of the members of the Class of ‘71 are local, and I 
see them from time to time; some I saw five years ago at my 
twenty-fifth reunion, and some of them I haven’t seen since 
graduation.  

I’m glad I attended, although the feelings evoked were 
mixed.   It was both pleasant and at the same time a bit 
melancholy.  The pleasant part came in the resurrection of 
so many memories that had been tucked away, deep within the 
inner synapses of my brain; and in getting reacquainted 
with some long-lost friends.  The melancholy part was the 
realization that thirty years can be such a short time when 
looking at it with retrospect.  And it was sad to know that 
two members of the Class of ‘71 had died since our twenty-
fifth reunion, the first members of our class to pass on.

My classmates have all gone through changes in varying 
degrees.  A few had changed beyond all recognition.  Some 
had barely changed at all.  Some looked as though they 
could be my children, while others looked like they could 
be my parents.  Many, including myself, had developed a bad 
case of middle-aged spread; others remained trim.  

All in all, the evening was very enjoyable.  There was good 
food, good company, and a lot of reminiscing.  There was 
music -- including our class song, "Let It Be."  The Class 
of `71 is fortunate to have members who are willing to put 
together these reunions every five years.  Even though I 
was not able to attend the the first three, I was glad they 
were taking place.  

I don’t know if we will have a thirty-fifth reunion or not, 
but if we do, I probably will be there.  But with the time 
flying by so quickly, I should probably put the string 
around my finger sometime this week.



KEEPING AN ELECTRONIC EYE ON KIDS AT SCHOOL
May 30

If you are a parent, how would you like the ability to keep 
tabs on your child even when he or she is at school?  Would 
you like to know that they are eating a nutritious lunch, 
or just snacking on chips and soft drinks?  Would you like 
to know that they are actually studying in class?  Would 
you like to have the ability to find out first hand what 
all their homework is in all their classes before they even 
get home from school?

That day might not be far off.  Schools across the country 
are adopting computer programs that let parents check up on 
their children.  Parents can get daily updates on the 
Internet to see whether their kids skipped class, handed in 
homework, and even what they ate for lunch.  The system is 
scheduled to be installed in Washington state schools 
sometime next year.

And some Indiana schools are starting a pilot program next 
year that makes use of the same kind of technology.  "In 
the fall, we're going to install a program called E-
Parent," said David East, principal at Edinburgh High 
School.  The pilot program, of which Edinburgh Schools will 
be a part, is a joint venture between Intelnet Corporation 
and the Indiana Department of Education.  "It allows 
parents to access students' grades, attendance, and 
homework assignments," East stated.

The use of the new software is not considered a violation 
of privacy, according to the Electronic Privacy Information 
Center in Washington, D.C.  Yet many students see it as just that, 
an invasion.  

Danielle Derrico, who will be a sophomore at Edinburgh High 
School in the fall, says it might have a place if not 
abused.  "I think that to a certain extent it's alright, 
but I don't think it's a good idea for parents to know 
every little thing about you, like what you ate for lunch," 
Danielle said.  Most parents, on the other hand, would 
probably welcome the extra input on the activities of their 
offspring.

Already, some schools, and most colleges, have small 
cameras connected to the Internet that provide updated 
images of what is happening on campus.  And several day-
care centers have "Web cams" that send live images of their 
classrooms to parents.

The new software would not mean that every classroom would 
be broadcast live over the Internet.  But it would give 
live updates to parents about their own children's school 
day activities.  The system would be secure so that you 
couldn't check up on someone else's kid.

There are ways that information technology in the classroom 
could be used more widely.  The same type of system could 
be used by parents to get assignments for students who are 
absent from school due to illness, for example.  They could 
just log on to the Internet and access the database for a 
particular teacher's class and pull up the needed 
information.  If the student is going to be absent for more 
than a day or two, he or she could finish the assignment 
and hand it in via the Internet to be graded by the 
teacher.

Of course, e-mail and other Web-based technologies have 
existed for some time to allow much of this type of 
communication to take place, but most schools, parents, and 
students have critically underutilized it.  The latest 
software system is designed to facilitate just this sort of 
school-parent communication.

Communication is a key ingredient in helping students 
become successful.  Any technological advancement that 
enhances communication between parents and schools is a 
positive step.  It only remains to be seen whether parents 
will make effective use of this new tool.



MITOCHONDRIAL EVE
May 31

It is not what any adult has ever learned in his high 
school biology class.  No, this is cutting-edge stuff.  To 
think, scientists may have actually identified "Eve," the 
mother of mankind, and you can pay money to find out which 
of Eve's ancestors you are descended from.

Professor Bryan Sykes of Great Britain, one of the world's 
top geneticists, has spent the last decade mapping out 
where we come from.  He hasn't been digging around for 
fossils in Africa, nor has he been trying to piece together 
a skeleton of the so-called missing link.  Instead, Sykes 
has been busy peering through microscopes and chemically analyzing 
DNA samples taken from our ancestors, including 
the 5,000-year-old remains of a man trapped in glacial ice 
in Italy.

His conclusions:  That all of humankind is descended from a 
single protohuman woman who lived in Africa about 200,000 years 
ago.  For obvious reasons, she was dubbed "Eve."  Her 
more immediate descendants who spread over the globe make 
up 33 "clans" from which all humans are descended.  And, 
for about $215.00, you can send in a sample of your own 
body tissue, scrubbed from the inside of your cheek, to see 
which ancestral clan mother you are personally descended 
from.

Sykes said that in order to make the relationships we share 
more meaningful, he gave each of the 33 clan mothers names.  
For example, Ursula lived in Greece some 45,000 years ago, 
while Jasmine lived in Syria about 10,000 years ago.

Sykes studied the maternal DNA found in the mitochondria of 
cells.  Everyone knows that our genes, segments of the DNA 
chromosome, reside in the nucleus of our cells.  A person 
gets half his DNA from his father and half from his mother.  
But mitochondrial DNA is different; it all comes from the 
mother.

The mitochondrion is a cell organelle that is the cell's 
power storage unit.  It's the Duracell battery of the cell.  
But more important than what it does, for Sykes' study, is 
what it holds--the mitochondrial DNA passed on virtually 
unchanged through many generations of mothers.

Former studies of mitochondrial DNA have shown that the 
fossil record has been largely interpreted correctly.  It 
confirms the relationships that have been deduced between 
modern animals and their evolutionary ancestors.  Sykes has 
simply applied this technique to human ancestors.

"This shows how closely connected we all are," Sykes said.  
"Eventually it all comes down to Mitochondrial Eve in 
Africa 200,000 years ago."

If all the humans in the world are so closely related, does 
that mean all the wars that mankind has fought over the 
centuries have been nothing more than family spats?  Is it 
global sibling rivalry?

The study sort of puts things in perspective.  We are all 
much more alike than we are different, at the most 
fundamental level.  From road rage to world wars, humans 
have not historically behaved like one big family.  We no 
doubt still won't behave as such.  But with this new 
genetic evidence in hand, we now have fewer excuses than 
ever for acting poorly toward one another.



MUSIC OF BEAN BLOSSOM
June 7

Bean Blossom.  It's a tiny unincorporated village 
straddling State Highway 135 in the rolling hills of Brown 
County.  Its peculiar name is rivaled only by another Brown 
County village, Gnaw Bone.

But for a few days each year, the population of Bean 
Blossom increases dramatically, to about 20,000, as 
visitors from every state flood in, to partake of the old-
time music at an event known as The Bill Monroe Annual Bean 
Blossom Bluegrass Festival.  The 35th such festival is 
taking place this week.
Formerly known simply as the "Brown County Jamboree," there 
stood on the site at which the Bluegrass Festival takes 
place a large and rickety old barn with a stage at one end.  
There was another building that passed as a public 
restroom, but which was rivaled in cleanliness by most 
portable toilets.

The old barn had a perpetually sagging roof, a concrete 
floor, and old-fashioned wooden theater seats.  It was 
heated by coal-burning stoves that had to be stoked 
throughout the performances if they were held in cold 
weather.  But, more importantly, it was a place where many 
friendships were forged among those who shared a common 
musical interest.

Every Saturday night, local bluegrass bands would perform 
while square dancers tripped the light fantastic on the 
newly-poured cement floor.  Every Sunday, a "big name" band 
or personality from Nashville, Tennessee would grace the 
old stage.  

Bill Monroe, who died in 1996 at the age of 84, purchased 
the barn and the property on which it stood in the 1960s.  
Monroe is known as the "Father of Bluegrass Music."  He 
invented the genre during the 1940s and '50s.  Although it 
never became a mainstream music genre, it developed a huge 
cult following, and it influenced what would eventually 
become Rock 'n' Roll.

One of those cult followers of Monroe was my father, Bryant 
Wilson.  He was a budding Bluegrass musician in the 1950s 
and became one of the staff bands at Bean Blossom even 
before Monroe bought it.  He remained as one of the staff 
bands at the Brown County Jamboree in the 1960s.  I can 
vividly remember making the trip from Edinburgh through 
Trafalgar and Morgantown en route to Bean Blossom every 
Sunday, and many Saturday nights.  Dad was the opening act 
for the more famous Bluegrass and Country stars, such as 
Ralph Stanley, Jimmy Martin, the Stoneman Family, Loretta 
Lynn, and Monroe himself.  Occasionally, he would be one of 
the highlight acts when no Nashville star was booked.  He 
and his "Kentucky Ramblers" were the main, and sometimes 
only, band to play at the square dances on Saturday nights.

Dad and Bill Monroe became well acquainted--even friends.  
Naturally, he got to know most of the popular Country stars 
of the day.  In fact, it was Ronnie Stoneman of "Hee Haw" 
fame who spent an appreciable amount of time backstage with 
one of my little brothers, helping him overcome a nagging 
speech impediment which she, herself, had once shared.

I even played a few shows myself at Bean Blossom, with my 
dad's band.  I played the upright bass, mainly to square 
dance music.  I deluded myself into believing that I might 
actually become a musician.  But to me, it was only a 
passing fad; to my dad, it was a passion.

Thirty-five years ago, when Bill started his annual 
Bluegrass Festival at Bean Blossom, Dad was there to play 
with the rest of the bands.  But sometime thereafter, a 
rift developed between Dad and Bill.  Dad could never 
really pinpoint the cause, though he had a working theory.

Years later, Dad even drove down to Nashville to set things 
right with Bill.  I went with him, just for the diversion.  
He drove down, talked to Bill, then drove back.  It was not 
what one would call a vacation.  

Although Bill was cordial to him, Dad came away not knowing 
whether their friendship had been rekindled or not.  He 
never heard from Bill again until December of 1992.  Dad 
was bedridden, suffering from emphysema due to years of 
smoking cigarettes.  

Just days before Christmas, Dad called my mom into the 
bedroom and told her that he was dying.  Mom sat him up at 
the side of the bed.  Then the phone rang.  Mom answered it 
to discover that it was Bill Monroe, asking to speak to 
Dad.

Mom told Bill that he was dying, but Bill asked her to put 
the receiver up to his ear.  There was a hint of 
recognition in Dad's face; then it was over.  

Nobody will ever know what Bill Monroe said to him as my 
dad was drawing his final breaths.  But it is a safe bet 
that both Bluegrass musicians died knowing that each was 
the other's friend.



RESTRICTING CIGARETTE ADS
June 12

One characteristic of adolescent behavior that does not 
appear to change over time is their desire to look more 
grown up than they actually are.  Add to that an 
overwhelming need to be "cool," to be independent, and to 
be accepted by their peers and what you get is an 
increasing number of teenagers who have made the decision 
to start smoking cigarettes.

Over the past ten years, the rate of adult smoking has 
decreased.  But more teens are smoking than ever.

Why do they smoke?  Teens understand that smoking is an 
adult behavior.  Teens want to look like adults.  Throw 
into the mix the advertisements by the tobacco companies 
that make people who smoke cigarettes look exactly like 
what teenagers want to be, and you've got them hooked.

Under a 1998 agreement with the tobacco companies, 
cigarettes can no longer be advertised on billboards or at 
sporting events.  But cigarette ads can still appear in 
magazines.  These ads often depict smokers as attractive, 
healthy, "cool," carefree, and independent individuals.  
It's exactly the image that adolescents want for 
themselves.

In a survey, teens could clearly recall cigarette ads in 
magazines that depict these carefree young adults engaged 
in social behaviors, smoking a cigarette.  Kids want to be 
like the Marlboro Man, or like the sexy young woman with a 
cigarette in one hand and a tennis racket in the other.

Teens often underestimate the health risks of smoking.  
They realize that smoking is a health risk, but they also 
believe it is only bad for old people, not themselves.  
They underestimate the addictive nature of tobacco.  Most 
believe they could quit at any time, if they wanted to.

Besides the obvious health risks, the cost factor, and the 
fact that smoking yellows their teeth, makes them cough, 
and causes them to smell bad, the results of one Indiana 
University study indicate that teenage girls who smoke are 
also more likely to engage in other risky behavior, such as 
having sex with multiple partners.  Of course, pubescent 
boys didn't need a study to tell them what they already 
knew--that they are more likely to "get lucky" with a girl 
who smokes than with one who doesn't.  For girls, then, 
smoking also creates an image that they may not wish to 
project.

Regardless of all the reasons why teens should not start 
smoking, they still believe that smoking causes them to 
project an image of maturity and independence to their 
peers.  And this is most likely the fault of cigarette ads.

For that reason, their should be even more restrictions put 
on the advertisement of tobacco products.  Cigarette commercials 
have been banned from the electronic media for 
30 years; they've been banned from billboards for three 
years.  Perhaps they should be banned from the printed page 
as well.  At the very least, tobacco advertisements should 
be limited to black-and-white, text-only displays.  In 
addition, the health warning should take up no less than 20 
percent of the space within the advertisement.

Obviously, adults should continue to enjoy freedom of 
choice when it comes to smoking in designated areas 
(although many who would like to quit smoking are so 
addicted that they no longer have that freedom of choice).  
On the other hand, the choice should not be available to 
kids and teens.   Teens must not be encouraged to use 
tobacco by the prominent depiction of ultra cool smokers 
plastered on full color pages within magazines.

It's time to take one more step in helping to discourage 
young people from smoking.  Either ban all cigarette 
advertisements altogether, or make them so boring to look 
at that no teenager would bother to read them.



SOME NEWS IS FUNNY NEWS
June 14

I've heard people say that they don't even watch or read 
the news anymore because it is all so bad and depressing.  
Well, for the most part, it is.  After all, that's sort of 
the definition of news.  If everything always went 
smoothly, there would be no reason to report it as news.

Nevertheless, there are plenty of news stories that 
certainly would not fall within the definition of 
"depressing."  In fact, some are downright hilarious.  And 
what makes many of them hilarious is that they are also all 
too serious.  

Take for example the recent news story about an Akron, Ohio 
woman who called 911 because her babies were on they way.  
When the rescue crews arrived at her home, they didn't find 
a medical emergency.  They didn't find a woman in labor. 
What they found was a litter of newborn puppies.

The lady had delivered thirteen pups herself after calling 
911 for emergency delivery assistance.  She is now facing 
criminal charges for calling in a false alarm.  One of the 
rescue personnel said, "We're trained to save human lives, 
not animal lives.  Women in labor, we do.  Dogs, no."

Then there was the story of a toll-taker on the 
Massachusetts Turnpike who insisted on stopping each truck 
and making the driver pay a toll before lifting the gate.  
What's wrong with that?  Isn't that his job?  Normally, it 
would be.  But the trucks he was stopping to take toll from 
were fire trucks, sirens blaring and lights flashing, on 
their way to putting out a blaze.  The toll-taker received 
counseling.

And how about the story of a young woman in Kentucky who 
was working at a Dairy Queen when she discovered that 
someone had paid for his dessert with a counterfeit bill?  
She called the authorities who promptly came out to 
investigate.  After examining the bill, they determined 
that it was, indeed, a phony.  However, they decided it was 
not appropriate to charge the perpetrator with 
counterfeiting, because the bill was such an obvious fake 
that anyone should have been able to spot it instantly.  It 
even sported the likeness of then-president Bill Clinton.  
The "counterfeiter" got off, but if stupidity were a crime, 
the waitress would surely be in trouble.

The local newspapers have had their share of news stories 
from the seriously misguided as well.  Take for instance 
the police report several years ago about a woman driving 
her car in Irwin Park who called the police because her 
former boyfriend passed by in a pick-up truck and made an 
obscene gesture at her with his finger.  Then there was the 
woman who called the police and told them to bring a 
camera.  When they arrived, all she wanted them to do was 
to take a picture of her husband who had fallen through the 
floor of their mobile home.  She wanted the owners of the 
property arrested for renting substandard units, and the 
picture was for evidence.  Police advised the woman it was 
a civil matter.

In addition to insane news stories that make one wonder 
about his fellow man, there are also headlines that tickle 
the funnybone.  Jay Leno has a regular feature every Monday 
night that highlights some of the ones sent to him by 
viewers.

Here are a few I found on the Internet.  If you read them 
carefully, you'll see that most can have a double meaning.

"Police begin campaign to run down jaywalkers."

"Survivor of Siamese twins joins parents."

"Farmer bill dies in house."

"Iraqi head seeks arms."

"Is there a ring of debris around Uranus?"

"Teacher strikes idle kids."

"Juvenile court to try shooting defendant."

"2 sisters reunited after 18 years in checkout counter."

"War dims hope for peace."

"Cold wave linked to temperatures."

Sure, the news is not always good, and is often depressing.  
But sometimes, if you pay attention, you'll find a story or 
a headline that's a real gem.  People can be funny 
creatures.



YOU CAN PRAY IN SCHOOL AGAIN
June 24

So is prayer back in public schools or isn't it?  
Apparently, someone finally found a constitutionally 
permissible way of leading a public prayer at school.  
Either that, or the Supreme Court simply didn't want to get 
involved in the debate this round.

Last year, the Supreme Court overturned a Texas law that 
allowed a prayer to be said over the public address system 
prior to high school football games.  But last week, the 
same court refused to overturn an Alabama law that allows 
student-led prayer at all school functions.

In actuality, the High Court said nothing.  It simply 
refused, without comment, to hear an appeal by the ACLU of 
an 11th Circuit Court ruling that through out a lower court 
decision against the law.  In other words, the last word 
now seems to be that prayer is OK at school functions, even 
via the public address system, as long as the students and 
not school officials initiate it.

The Supreme Court has a long history of overturning laws 
that permit prayer in public schools.  Even officially 
scheduled moments of silence are not permitted.

The trend began in 1962 when, in a landmark ruling, the 
Court outlawed organized prayer in public schools.  Since 
then, the prohibition against school prayer has been 
expanded.  In 1992 the High Court ruled against clergy-led 
prayers at commencement ceremonies.  And then, last year, 
came the Texas ruling.

Why the change of heart?  Has the Supreme Court's more 
conservative members finally convinced the moderates to 
lighten up?

Alabama's Attorney General Bill Pryor said, "While the U.S. 
Constitution calls for neutrality toward religion, it does 
not require, and in fact does not permit, public schools to 
suppress student-initiated religious speech."  The key word 
in that statement is "speech."  Although the Constitution 
does not permit the government to establish a religion, or 
to prohibit its practice, the same Amendment also does not 
permit the government to prohibit individual speech.

That is the key.  If the valedictorian at a graduation 
wants to say a prayer into the microphone, that is his 
right, since his speech cannot be infringed.  By the same 
token, the 11th Circuit Court said that as long as students 
lead the prayer, the state can do nothing to prohibit it.  
Apparently, the Supreme Court agrees.

Of course, it could be simply that the High Court didn't 
have the time to hear the case.  Or, because the student 
whose father brought the original case to court has now 
graduated, the Court might consider the case moot.  If so, 
a similar case in the future might be heard by the High 
Court.

But at least for the time being, student-led prayer at 
school functions (though not during classes) seems to fit 
within the bounds set forth in the Constitution.

It seems to be a prudent decision.  It's a balanced 
judgment that upholds both the guarantee of free speech and 
the prohibition against government-sanctioned religious 
practices.  It's a ruling that even the ACLU should be 
prepared to live with, despite its protests.  In fact, the 
courts have left it no other option, at least for now.



CELL PHONES AREN’T THE ONLY ROAD DANGERS
June 27

Should drivers use hand-held cellular telephones while 
driving?  In most cases, the answer to that question is no.  
Should states pass laws that make it an offense to drive 
while using the phone?  That question is being debated in 
many states and the answer is not totally clear.

New York’s legislative body, just this week, passed and 
sent to the governor a bill that would ban the use of cell 
phones while driving.  If Gov. Pataki signs the bill, as he 
is expected to do, New York will become the first state in 
the nation to enact such a law.

The sponsor of the New York bill, Assemblyman Felix Ortiz 
said, "We want drivers to keep both hands on the wheel and 
maintain their concentration, concentrating on driving and 
road conditions."  That certainly is good advice for any 
driver.  But does passing such legislation guarantee that 
drivers will, indeed, keep both hands on the wheel?  
Obviously not.

There are many reasons why drivers become distracted.  Some 
of those reasons are better documented than the assumption 
that cell phone use causes accidents.  Although it is a 
logical assumption, their is precious little hard data 
proving that cell phone use while driving is responsible 
for a significant increase in traffic deaths.

If the goal of any legislative body is to pass laws that 
would force drivers to keep both hands on the steering 
wheel, then why not go all the way and ban eating while 
driving?  Eating by drivers is estimated to be the number 
one cause of preventable traffic accidents.  And what about 
smoking?  It is also fairly clear that drivers fumbling for 
a cigarette or lighting one up behind the wheel results in 
an increased risk of having an accident.

Why just pick on cell phones?  They are simply the latest 
diversion drivers contend with.  There is also the radio 
and tape deck.  Changing radio stations or trying to find 
your favorite song on a cassette tape or CD also takes the 
driver’s eyes off the road momentarily, which may increase 
the risk of an accident.  Why not simply outlaw all these 
diversions?  Why not just make it illegal for drivers to 
eat, smoke, talk on the phone, operate the stereo, or even 
talk to passengers while they are driving?

Obviously, such a law would not gain wide support.  
Government intrusions on our private lives are great enough 
without advocating the passage of such extreme measures.

But it may also be too soon for states to start passing 
laws restricting the use of cell phones.  Although most 
people believe that using a cell phone while driving is 
dangerous, the passage of legislation making that activity 
illegal may be premature.  

The evidence linking cell phone use with automobile 
accidents is really only anecdotal.  Absent scientific 
studies that prove a connection between traffic accidents 
and cell phones, state legislatures should act 
conservatively when considering action to restrict their 
use.

In Indiana, as in other states, it is still legal to use a 
cell phone while driving.  A few counties and local 
governments around the country have passed laws or 
ordinances prohibiting drivers from using the devices, 
however.  And there is a high expectation that a bill will 
be introduced in the Indiana General Assembly next session 
that would prohibit cell phone use by drivers.

Although it seems apparent that cell phones are an added 
diversion, the General Assembly should not act hastily in 
passing any laws restricting their use by drivers.  
Instead, the lawmakers should support a study that would 
gather objective data about any hypothesized relationship 
between cell phone usage and traffic accidents.  It may be 
that the link is weaker than most people believe.  Or it 
could be that cell phones could replace eating as the 
number one cause of preventable traffic accidents.

But before any law is passed regulating cell phone use in 
cars, the General Assembly should gather valid scientific 
evidence to support the assumed risk.



IT’S THE BAD FAT THAT COUNTS
June 29

Way back in the 1960s, butter was bad; margarine was good.  
That is when people started switching from butter to 
margarine in droves, thanks partly to the lobbying of a 
consumer group, the Center for Science in the Public 
Interest.

The reason for the switch was because scientific studies 
showed that a lot of saturated fats in food lead to heart 
disease.  Butter has saturated fat while margarine has a 
type of manufactured fat called trans fat.  Trans fat is 
made by manipulating the molecules of vegetable oil in 
order to make the oil more solid at room temperature.

But in the mid-1990s, CSPI did an about face.  It 
discovered that it had made a grave error in the late 1960s 
when it called for the replacement of saturated fats with 
trans fats.  As it turns out, the latest scientific 
research proves that trans fat is at least as bad, and 
probably worse, than saturated fat in contributing to heart 
disease.

So now, CSPI is lobbying the FDA to change its food 
labeling requirements to make manufacturers of processed 
foods include the amount of trans fat on the nutrition 
facts label.  The FDA has been considering that 
recommendation since 1999 and may be close to modifying its 
guidelines on the labeling of fats.

The problem with current nutrition labels is that they show 
the amount of total fat and the amount of saturated fat, 
but consumers have no idea how much trans fat is contained 
in the food.  That can be confusing, because there are at 
least two additional kinds of fat that do not cause heart 
disease.  In fact, polyunsaturated fats and monounsaturated 
fats may be beneficial in helping to keep cholesterol low.

The most recent evidence, which even many dieticians and 
health organizations have yet to totally embrace, shows 
that fat is not as big a villain as once thought.  More and 
more studies are now proving that sugar and starchy foods 
are the biggest culprits in causing health problems such as 
high cholesterol, diabetes, and heart disease.

Although the FDA admits that including the amount of trans 
fats on food labels would save lives by informing people 
about which foods to stay away from, their final ruling on 
the matter may still be months or years away.  So what can 
consumers do in the mean time?

First, throw out all the margarine, especially the stick 
margarine, which has the highest amount of trans fat.  
Instead, use real butter.  If you prefer margarine, use the 
soft or liquid forms and read the label to make sure that 
the first ingredient is liquid oil.

Secondly, limit your consumption of baked goods.  Cookies, 
cakes, and crackers usually contain a lot of trans fats.  
Also, increase your use of liquid vegetable oils, 
especially olive oil and canola oil in cooking.  Do not use 
shortening.

Finally, cut way back on your consumption of highly 
processed starchy foods or foods containing sugar.  Believe 
it or not, this also includes baked potatoes.  Potato 
starch is quickly converted into sugar by the body.
Surveys show that 59 percent of Americans are now 
registering as either overweight or obese.  And the rate of 
diabetes has increased dramatically over the past ten 
years.  Following these guidelines might help to improve 
those statistics.


HOLIDAY WORLD
July 12

When I was five or six years old, my parents decided to 
take me to see Santa Claus.  That wouldn't be so unusual, 
except that it was summertime.  

We went to a place called Santa Claus Land, in a town 
called Santa Claus, Indiana.  I don't remember a whole lot 
about the trip.  But what sticks in my mind most are the 
memories I have of the animated figurines.  I could push a 
button on the front of a glass case and watch the figures 
of Santa and his elves busy making toys.  It was a 
Christmas wonderland in miniature.

They had some kiddy rides, too.  I don't remember much 
about them.  But I do remember being intrigued by the 
animated figures.

Fast-forward about thirty-five years.  Back in the early 
1990s, I decided it was time I took my two kids to Santa 
Claus Land.  I had not been there but once, the time 
mentioned above.  But I knew the place still existed, and 
had expanded to include a theme park centered on several 
holidays.  It was now called Holiday World, with Santa 
Claus Land being just one of the park's sections.

The park had added a large array of big-people rides.  But 
the kiddy rides were still there, although they probably 
had been upgraded.  My kids loved the rides, but I wanted 
to check out the animated figures again, to see if they 
were still there.  They were, although the buttons didn't 
work any longer.  Still, it brought back some nice 
memories.

Since my first visit to Holiday World (and second visit to 
Santa Claus Land), our family has returned on several 
occasions.  Our latest excursion to the family theme park 
was just this month.  Yes, they still had Santa's little 
animated village.  It even had a brand new button that you 
could push to