OVER COFFEE by Jerry Wilson
1995 Archive

The Guano Problem -- January, 1995
    
 It would appear as though downtown Edinburgh has a problem of
monumental proportions -- and it's not a new one.  The problem, according
to some business owners and apartment residents in the downtown area,
is guano -- that is to say, pigeon droppings.
 
    TRICOUNTY NEWS sent its team of investigative reporters out for the
"scoop."  What was discovered was altogether shocking.  As suspected,
bird doo-doo was abundant in the alley between E. Main Cross and
Thompson Street.  Pigeons stand in large numbers on the window ledges
and roof tops of the downtown buildings, their waste products falling like
rain to the pavement below.  It was really a "fowl" condition.
 
    Dirt, bird feathers, and other airborne particles become stuck to the
excrement before it dries.  When it does dry, it forms a solid mass that is
difficult to scrape up.  Some residents feel the situation could lead to
disease.
  
   One business owner, who refused to be named, said the town sends over
a fire truck about once a year and washes it all away.  But that in no way
fixes the problem.  The pigeons remain, and it doesn't take long for the
droppings to accumulate again.
  
   Many ask what can be done to alleviate the problem.  One suggestion
was to construct a small "pigeon potty" on the top of each building for use
by the birds.  That proposal, however, was thought to be too expensive.
Another suggestion was to hire a full-time "pigeon guard" to patrol the
alleyways and make sure the birds do not roost on the eaves of the
buildings.  But, again, with salary, fringe benefits, and union dues this
idea was judged unfeasible.
  
   It was then decided to call in an expert.  A pest-control company was
contacted to see if it had any ideas on how to avoid pigeon-dropping build-
up.  They said there had been some experiments using drugged corn.  In one
town, the doped corn was spread around the tops of buildings and in the
alleys where pigeons hang out.  After consumption, the birds became dazed
and went into a stupor.  In trial tests of this corn, the intoxicated birds
would do strange things, such as fly in circles, fly into the sides of
buildings or stagger around in the streets.  The pest-control company
recommended against using this method because, not only did it not get rid
of the bird droppings, it aggravated the condition due to the fact that the
birds, when they awoke from their stupor with a hang-over, would
typically regurgitate the undigested bits of spurious grain, thus making a
bigger mess than before.
   
  Fortunately, there is an alternative that seems to work better.  As it
turns out, there is a device that can be attached to the edge of buildings or
window ledges that looks a little like barbed-wire, but with prongs that
are much longer and sharper.  Birds can't roost on it, else they would be
skewered.
 
    So, there is a possible solution to the pigeon dilemma.  What remains
to be seen, however, is whether or not the birds will retaliate -- Alfred
Hitchcock not withstanding.


No Eating in the Office -- February, 1995

  The name of this column is "Over Coffee."  And although it is borrowed
from another newspaper editor that I had the good fortune of knowing,
sometimes the subjects discussed in this column are true to its name.  I
really do get an inspiration or two over a cup of coffee at a local
restaurant.
     I have my publisher, and my love of biscuits and gravy, to thank for it.
Once upon a time, I would run over to the restaurant and get a half-order
of biscuits and gravy and a cup of decaf to go.  I would bring it back to the
office, sit in my little cubby hole, and eat while I was working.  I could
still answer the phone, look through the mail, and even type a line or two
between bites.
     But then, the pleasant aroma of the gravy and coffee permeating
throughout the office air seemed to make the other staff hungry.  So
obviously, they had to get them something to eat as well.  The publisher,
Gary Storie, noted that things were getting a little out of hand with
everyone eating at his or her desk.  It wouldn't be so bad if one were stuck
away in his cubby hole, out of view of the public, but even the former
front receptionist would get into the act.  It is not considered proper
office etiquette to wait on a customer when you have a mouth full of
biscuit, a coffee cup in your hand, and gravy dribbling off your chin.  That
would help explain the word "former" in my previous sentence.  So Gary put
an end to any eating in the office -- and rightfully so.  He said if we were
that hungry, he'd prefer we take ten minutes and go to the restaurant.
     Well, as it turns out, it was not only a good policy for office decorum,
it even helps spark the imagination as well.  Now, I spend a few minutes a
couple of times each week in one of our local restaurants downtown, just
to have the biscuits and gravy and coffee that I crave.  But in the process,
I get involved in a conversation or two with the other restaurant patrons
about such diverse topics as politics and pigeons.  It doesn't take too much
conversation to plant the seed of an idea in my mind about what topic I
can write about in my next column.
     I wonder if Gary knew that's what would happen all along?  Hmmmm....


ECOnet Explained -- February, 1995

   It was brought to my attention lately that, although there has been a
lot of press coverage about the ECOnet, a significant number of residents
who do not own computers are still not at all familiar with just what
ECOnet is and what it means to the town.
     So far, all the articles have been geared toward computer users, or
those who might be considering purchasing a computer.  But it is entirely
possible that a large segment of Edinburgh's population are interested in
what's going on, but are baffled by the techno-jargon that has been used.
     Well, to that audience, let me see if I can explain it in pure English and
with the idea that some of you may never even wish to get online.   Oops, I
goofed already.  I promised plain old English and I've already used the word
"online."  Sorry about that; it's a force of habit.
     In simple terms, ECOnet stands for "Edinburgh Community Online
Network."  It is actually just a single computer, tucked away in the corner
of teacher Vince Laine's office in the high school / middle school's music
department.  It is nothing special, in that many people own home
computers very similar to the one that houses ECOnet.  The biggest
difference is that this computer is connected to five modems.
     There I go again!  What is a modem?  It is a device that connects to a
computer that allows the computer to connect to a telephone line.  Most
home computers that have been purchased within the last year or two
already have a modem built in.  It allows the user to be able to instruct
their computer to call other computers, like the one that houses ECOnet.
ECOnet's computer has five modems in order to allow more than one caller
to access its memory banks.  When you connect to a distant computer with
a modem, you are said to be "online."
     So just why would anyone want their computer to call another
computer?  There are several reasons.  If the computer you call is ECOnet,
for example, the user would be able to type in a message addressed to any
other person, anywhere, that also has established an ECOnet account.  So it
is an easy and quick way to correspond.
      For example, in my job as editor and reporter for this newspaper, I
often find it necessary to interview community leaders.  Late last week, I
needed to ask the superintendent of schools, Ron Mayes, a few questions
concerning the recent school board meeting.  The problem was that he was
out of town.  Under normal circumstances, I would have been out of luck.
But because Mayes has an ECOnet account, and he carries a portable
computer with him on business trips, I was able to type my questions on
my computer, dial ECOnet, send the questions to his ECOnet address, and
simply wait until he signed on again.  He did so later that same day, read
my questions, and sent me a reply.  So I was able to complete my school
board article in a timely manner thanks to ECOnet.
     Electronic mail is only one thing that is possible with ECOnet.
Computer users can download programs, such as games or educational
programs.  To "download" simply means that you tell ECOnet to send a
program that you've chosen over the phone line to your own computer.  This
is after you have asked ECOnet to give you a list of all programs available
for downloading.
     A really nice feature of ECOnet that is very popular is the
Teleconference.  Since several users can be connected to the ECOnet
computer at the same time, it is possible for each user to select an item
from the main menu called "Teleconference."  Selecting that option allows
you to carry on a live conversation with anyone else who also is using
ECOnet and have selected the Teleconference option.  This is not only a lot
of fun, but it is a practical way of holding a conference with a group of
business associates, family members, or any other group without leaving
the comfort of your own home.
     Another really nice feature is that students are able to start a writing
assignment at school and finish it at home (or vice versa).  Students can
call the ECOnet, access their own assignment, and continue working on it.
Or, students who are ill and can't attend school can call ECOnet to get
their assignments, do them on the computer at home, and send them to
school through ECOnet to be graded.
     As with anything else that involves technology, ECOnet takes a little
getting used to even after you sign on.  There are a few keyboard
commands to learn, and users need to be able to follow onscreen
instructions.  But after a couple of times being on, it gets much easier.
It's a great tool.  I'm already wondering how we managed to get along with
out it for so long!


Teachers Don't Smoke, Do They? -- March, 1995

 Back in the late 1980's, when I was a teacher at Lake Station High
School, a colleague and I led a campaign to eradicated all smoking in the
school building by teachers and staff.  Students, of course, could not
smoke in the building, but they did have a designated smoking area in the
parking lot.  We sought to eradicated that as well.
     At the time, teachers could smoke at will in any of the building's three
teachers' lounges or in the boiler rooms.  Our efforts were resisted
vehemently by many of the teachers who smoked, as well as a few of the
non-smokers.  We were labeled "fascist" or dictatorial.
     We knew this would happen, but decided it was worth the wrath of
some of our fellow teachers if we could get the smoking ban in place.  And
we didn't seek an immediate ban; we were willing to wait until the
beginning of the next school year, so everyone could get used to the idea.
     Our intentions were honorable, I believe.  They were based on the fact
that students are discouraged from smoking by health teachers and PE
teachers, and yet, they were consistently exposed to this bad example on
the part of the teachers themselves.
     When I was young and in school, I was, admittedly, naive.  I thought
teachers did not smoke.  I gave them too much credit.  Both my parents
smoked at the time, and I have no idea WHY I developed such a negative
opinion of it, but I assumed that all teachers, whom I respected greatly,
had more common sense than to start smoking.  I was a little crushed
when I knocked on the lounge door one day and was nearly suffocated by a
blast of cigarette smoke when a teacher answered.  I remember that I lost
a little respect for teachers as a whole that day, because I realized they
were only regular human beings, like me.
     Anyway, admitting that teachers are human and can have as many bad
habits as the rest of us, I still respected them enough to know that I
wanted to become one.  So I did.  But I still thought that it was a bad
example for them to smoke at school, hence my efforts to abolish smoking
by anyone in that environment.
     Our efforts were only moderately successful.  We didn't get a smoking
ban -- just a single teachers' lounge designated as a non-smoking area.
And it was the smallest lounge, too.
     But, starting this year, the Federal government has come to my rescue.
It seems as though a law was passed that forbids smoking by anyone in a
school building at any time.  There is no allowance for "designated
smoking areas."  Edinburgh school teachers have just recently been advised
of this new law.  Hopefully, most of them support the concept.  In any
event, my colleague back in Lake Station, who was a health teacher, will
probably take the same degree of pleasure that I take in the knowledge
that we had the right idea after all.  We were just 7 years ahead of our
time!


Who's Who in High School Scam -- March, 1995

 Back when I taught high school, I was often asked to select some of my
students to receive this honor or that honor.  Most of the time, the honors
were legitimate.  The Bausch & Lomb Science Award, for example, was
given every year to a junior who excelled in science.  The National Honor
Society also sought top-notch students for membership.  And there were
others.
     Once or twice per year, however, I would get a solicitation from a
company that wanted me to pick out several students, with at least a B
average, for inclusion in their publication of "high-achieving high school
students."
     There is nothing wrong with a B average, but realistically, an
exhaustive list of every student in the U.S. with a B average would require
several volumes with small print.  Teachers were asked also to judge
students based on other criteria, but still, it was very clear that the only
real reason for selecting students to receive this "honor" was so that the
publishers of this "distinguished volume" could sell it to the parents of
those students who were chosen to be in it.
     As a teacher, I decided not to play their little game.  If I felt a student
needed to be honored, I would create an award for him or her to be given
out at Awards Day.
     This is not the only such scam operating.  Another one potentially could
affect a broader range of people than just high school students.  There are
at least two companies operating under the pretense of "poetry societies."
They entice would-be poets into sending in entries of their work.  Each
entry, however, must obey certain criteria of length and verse.  Evidently,
their publication limitations cause them to place restrictions on artistic
expression.
     The main purpose of these so-called "contests" is simply to gather
enough poems to produce a large volume of poetry.  Each "winner" of the
contest would have his or her poem published in the volume at no charge.
Of course, the poets would be free to purchase said volume at the going
rate.
     Obviously,  parents who wish to purchase a "who's who" book containing
the name of their child have that right.  And if an aspiring writer wishes
to purchase a volume of poetry that contains his or her "winning entry,"
that is also up to the writer.  The important thing to remember is,
shrouded in the exaltation of it all, there is a publishing company that is
in it for nothing more than the profit.  If you don't mind donating money to
these companies in order to stroke your egos, that is, of course your
business.  Personally, I'll pass.


Vacations with No Planning -- April, 1995

When I was in my early teens, I collected road maps.  I had road maps of
just about every state.  Back then, you could get road maps for free at just
about any service station.  So my collection didn't cost me much.
     Around February each year, I would get out my map collection and start
planning where I wanted our family to go on vacation in the summer.  I would
plan a destination, such as Florida, and I would then write to the tourism
department requesting that they send me all the information they had.  When I
received it, I would plan the itinerary to the last detail.
     I could tell you which routes we would take, how long it would take to get
there, how long we would stay, and how much it would cost for gasoline.  In
fact, I could tell you how much the entire trip would cost, including tolls,
admissions, and souvenirs!
     The only problem was, after all my good planning, we never actually took
any of those vacations, except one.  The one we did take was to Mackinaw City,
Michigan, and it didn't turn out exactly as planned, though we did have a good
time.
     After several disappointments, I decided not to plan vacations anymore.  I
would just play it by ear.  As it turns out, we actually did start taking family
vacations in 1971 (with the Michigan trip).  But they were not planned at all.
In 1972, for example, we were heading back to Michigan when Dad decided to take
an unexpected left turn.  We ended up in Colorado!
     Now, I try to take a family vacation at least once per year.  And I haven't
yet changed destinations in the middle of a trip.  But I don't do a lot of
planning, either.  I might go as far as reserving a motel room, but usually only
for the first night of our stay.  I figure I can wing it after we get to our
destination.
     This year, we went somewhere new.  I have always thought going to the Smoky
Mountains would be an acceptable destination, but there were always places I
wanted to see first.  Last year, for example, we headed out for Tennessee, with
plans of either going to the Smokies or to Nashville.  We didn't know where we
would finally end up until we got to Louisville.  I asked the family about a
mile before the bridge, "This is your last chance to decide; do we go straight
and head for Nashville, or turn left on I-64 and head for the Smokies?"  The
family voted for Nashville.
      So this year, we thought we would give the Smoky Mountains a try.  And I
am glad we did.  We enjoyed ourselves there just as much as any other place we
have ever gone.  And the only thing we actually planned was what week to go.
Actually, the school planned that part for us.
     I am already starting to dream about where we can visit next year.  But I'm
not planning an itinerary yet; I'll save that part until we actually hit the
road!

Changing My Mind on the Issues -- April, 1995

  There is one thing I've never hesitated to share with others, and that is
my opinion on whatever issue is current.  Like many others, I have opinions
on a wide variety of issues and I enjoy letting others know what those
opinions are, in hopes that maybe they will come to see things my way.
That usually doesn't happen, though.
     I have found that most other people have opinions of their own.  And
most of those people hold their opinions as dear as I hold mine.  And that's
fine, because it creates fodder for good debate on the issues.  I enjoy
nothing better than a good debate.
     A really good debate is one in which the contending parties use logic
and solid reasoning to support their points of view.  It is very difficult for
someone to prove his point from an emotional standpoint alone.  Passion
adds flavor to a debate, but it must be backed up with rational thought and
logic.
     Often,  issues are debated from a position of emotion, rather than
logic.  These debates soon turn to arguments, and nobody is ever persuaded
to change their minds or even to understand the other person's views.  But
if the contenders can back up their views of an emotional issue with
pertinent facts, and present them in a logical manner, then both parties
may come away from the debate with at least an understanding of the
other's viewpoint, even if they still don't agree with each other.
     Although I hold strong opinions, they are not forged in solid rock.  I
have, on occasion, been known to change my mind.  Usually, at least on a
major issue, I have thought through the topic well enough to be able to
cover most counter-point arguments.  So I do not change my mind very
often.
     On the issue of flag burning, however, my conviction that it is a
protected right has wavered.  I still don't believe that the burning of the
flag by a small number of citizens warrants an addition to the
Constitution.  That is akin to over-compensating for an unwanted behavior.
But I have modified my original opinion that flag burning is a protected
right, guaranteed by the First Amendment.
     A letter appearing in The People's Voice last week by Dr. Ross Sharp
was written with passion, but he did not try to prove his point with an
emotional argument.  Rather, he used solid reasoning and unerring logic to
convince me that laws against flag burning should not be struck down as
unconstitutional.
     The letter also suggested that amending the Constitution does not
always mean changing the rules established by the Founding Fathers.  An
amendment can also be a way around an erroneous decision of the Supreme
Court.
     I am still not ready to jump on the anti-flag-burning bandwagon.  But
thanks to Dr. Sharp's letter, I no longer disagree with those who think that
burning the U.S. Flag should be illegal.
     You see, when someone makes a point using cold, hard logic, I can be
convinced to change my mind.  There is nothing wrong with standing firm
for what you believe.  But there IS something wrong with never allowing
yourself the right to change that belief.  For the first time in a long time,
I have changed my mind on a national controversy.  Score one for Dr. Sharp;
I concede.  Maybe on the next debate, I'll convince him!  (For example, the
Constitution DOES imply separation of church and state!)


Getting My Computer Repaired on Sunday -- April, 1995

   Many years ago, if something happened to your television that made it
impossible for you to watch your favorite Western, like Gunsmoke or Have
Gun will Travel, you could call the local TV repairman and he would come
out to your home, probably the same day, and fix the problem for you.
There was naturally a charge for this service, but it wasn't unreasonable.
     Have you tried getting electronic equipment fixed lately?  A couple of
years ago, lightning fried the components in my computer.  In order to get
it back online, I had to take it to Greenwood (to the store where I had
purchased it), and leave it with them for repair.
     They, in turn, had to ship it to a branch store where repairs were made.
Technicians then determined that it needed new components, which
naturally had to be ordered.  Estimated time of delivery:  two weeks.
     The first components that came in were not the ones that fit, so they
had to order new ones (another two weeks).  Finally, after approximately
six weeks of waiting patiently, I called the store to ask when my
computer would be ready to pick up.  They said I could "pick it up today."
     Overjoyed at the prospect of finally getting my computer back, I rushed
up to Greenwood to retrieve it.  When I got home, I plugged it in, turned on
the power, and -- NOTHING!
     With a mix of emotions, all of which were negative, I quickly called the
repair shop to inquire if the technician had tested it.  After being placed
on hold for about 15 minutes, I finally found out that he had tested it and
it worked.  He asked if I had added any additional equipment since I had
gotten it back.  I told him only my modem.  So he instructed me to remove
the modem to see if it would work without the added device.
     It did, which meant the modem was also bad.  So I had to go back to
Greenwood and purchase a new one.
     Well, just this past week, I had a bit of deja vu.  Lightning struck
again, and my computer went south for the winter.  I even had a surge
suppressor on the power cord, but it didn't stop the damage.  My circuits
were fried again -- and so were those of my computer!
     This time, I was even more emotionally devastated because, unlike two
or three years ago when I used my computer for productive things only
about 15% of the time, I now literally depend on it for many tasks.  It's
kind of like a refrigerator; once you throw out the old ice box, you pretty
much depend on the refrigerator working.  If it fails, you can't waste much
time repairing or replacing it.
     Remembering the six-week waiting period the last time my computer
was stricken dead, I began to panic.  Then, I remembered we have a local
computer technician.  It was Sunday afternoon.  I knew there was
absolutely no chance of getting it repaired that day.  But I was hoping it
wouldn't take longer than a couple of weeks this time.  But I decided to
call George at Mainstream Computers that Sunday just to see if he was in.
     He was, and he told me to bring it on over.  After three hours of work,
he had my machine back in operation!  He even let me sit there and watch
him work!  There were still some parts he had to order, but the computer
would function without them temporarily.  And it only took two days (as
opposed to two weeks) to get the parts in.  By the end of the first week,
my computer was whole again.  Had I taken it back to Greenwood, I would
not have had use of my computer during any of that time, and it most
likely would still be sitting on the shelf, waiting for parts.
     If you know where to look, you can still get that same, friendly and
expedient repair work that was commonplace 30 years ago.   But you can't
get it just anywhere.   Where else but here in Edinburgh can one expect to
get his computer repaired on a Sunday evening?


The Dreaded Double Consonants -- April, 1995

    As a writer, I find that it is quite helpful to know a little bit about
the rules of English grammar and usage.  That is not as much of an
understatement as it might initially appear to be.  I find it somewhat
annoying that convicted felons, (as well as some who are not yet convicted),
can "write" bestsellers from behind bars.  I am fairly certain that some of
them, upon release of their first book, may have actually written more books
than they have read.
     But let me crawl down from my soapbox and get back to the subject I
really intended to write about -- English usage and spelling.  Although I know
more about that subject than the average fourth grader, I find that I still
have quite a difficult time spelling words that have double consonants.  I am
convinced that whoever it was that invented the English rules of spelling was
intoxicated at the time, or he was a practical joker.
     I applaud anyone who has mastered the technique of determining what form
of a verb should have a double letter and which one should not.  For example,
taking the word "occur," which already has a double c, the rule is that the
past tense should have a double r -- occurred.  The word "occurring" also has
a double r.  But now, take the word "offer" and apply the same rule.  It would
be incorrect.  Even though both words start with an o and have a double
consonant following the first letter, and both end in r, the rule is applied
differently to each.  The correct inflections are "offered" and "offering."
Why?
     Now take the word "cancel."  According to Webster's, the past tense can
be either "canceled" or "cancelled," with the former prefered; -- sorry, I
mean, preferred.  But the noun "cancellation" has the double consonant only.
     Double consonants within root words are a little less puzzling, but they
sometimes still present a problem.  Basically, the rule is that the vowel
sound that precedes a double consonant is the short vowel sound, whereas a
long vowel sound precedes a single consonant.  Consider matted and mated; or
bitter and biter; or latter and later.  I named my daughter Shana, which,
according to the rule, should be pronounced Shay-na, but people insist on
pronouncing it as though her name were spelled Shanna.
     It's probably because even that simple rule has many exceptions.  Take,
for example, cannon and canon.  The former is a big gun; the latter a set of
laws, but both are pronounced the same -- with a short "a" sound.
     There are many irritants in the English language other than double
consonants; (why does smoke, smoked, and smoker all have an "e" but smoky does
not?)  But whether or not to use a double letter will probably annoy me
forever.
     Try it yourself:  Is it accommodate, accomodate, or acommodate?  Is it
refered or referred?  Is it totaling or totalling?  Is it necessary, or
necesary?  Is it withhold or withold?  And what about threshold or threshhold?
One thing is certain -- I would not want to be a bookkeeper!


The One True Religion? -- May, 1995

 Some of my faithful readers may have picked up on the fact that I like
a good debate occasionally.   I hesitate to say "argument;" it's too
negative.
     Most debates center on politics, trends, or other societal issues.  But
this past week, I had a debate with a friend of mine on that one subject
that few people ever win a debate on -- religion.  Knowing full well the
odds against converting him to my views on the subject, I nevertheless,
felt up to the challenge, if for no other reason than to allow him the
chance to convince ME of his opinions.
     His argument was that truth is relative and there is no universal
"truth."  My counterpoint was that Christianity has in its founder, Jesus
Christ, the one unerring "truth" from which all else can be measured.
     "But how can you say to a Muslim, a Hindu, or a Jew that Christianity is
the one true religion," he asked.  "Followers of those religions staunchly
believe that their religion is the right one."
     "But the foundation of Christianity is faith," I replied.  "You have to
accept the tenets of Christianity on faith in the word of God as found in
the Bible."
     "But followers of other religions have faith, too.  Are you saying that
just because they choose to believe in a different religion that they will
all be condemned to hell?" he asked.
     "Who am I to say," I responded.  "'Judge not that ye be not judged.'  Only
God can judge them and their motives -- not me."
     "But you are judging them," he replied.  "You're saying that Christianity
is the only religion that counts and that, therefore, everybody who doesn't
believe in it is a second-class citizen, condemned to hell."
     "I can judge a religion without judging its followers," I said.  "I'll leave
that up to God."
     "But how do you know for sure that Christianity is correct, and that
Jesus is the Son of God and was resurrected?" he asked.  "I've looked, and I
can find no proof -- nothing to convince me it is true."
     "And you're searching in vain," I replied.  "There is no proof.  If there
were proof, then there would be no competing religions.  It's simply a
matter of faith."
     This had my friend a little puzzled, because he knew that I was one of
the most logical-minded people he knows.  "How can you accept something
like that on blind faith when everything else you do is based on pure logic?
he asked.  "It doesn't make sense.  Where's the simplicity of it?"
     "The simplicity of it is fairly complex," I said, with some admiration
of the irony.  "When you can logically reason that logic doesn't apply, then
you must, logically, arrive at the decision to throw out logic in favor of
faith."
     "But faith in what?" he asked.  "Christians are no better at keeping the
peace than any other religion has ever been," he said.  "If the word 'jihad'
strikes fear in the hearts of Christians, the the word 'crusade' will surely
strike fear in the hearts of Muslims."
     "Don't judge Christianity by the actions of most Christians," I said.  "To
be Christian is not only to be a believer in Christ, it is also to be 'Christ-
like.'  And no one has mastered that since Christ himself.  The important
thing is to set that as a goal to strive for, knowing that you will never
actually achieve it completely."
     "And then what, you go to heaven?" he asked with a touch of sarcasm.
"I'm not sure I buy into this heaven and hell stuff.  I think that it's more
important to do what's right and what's ethical and be kind to your fellow
man, not because of fear of going to hell, but just because it's the right
thing to do.  I believe there is some kind of heaven, or reward, for anyone,
regardless of their religion, as long as they live a just life," he said.
     "Oh, so you do admit that there might be life after death?" I asked.
"And you believe it is available to those who earn it, rather than simply
given to those who believe in Christ?"
     "Yes," he replied.  "It makes a whole lot more sense than thinking only
those who believe in some arbitrary religion will be the 'chosen few.'"
     "You're back to using logic again," I said.  "Remember, logic doesn't
work with matters of faith.  But if you insist, try this reasoning:  If you
concede that their may be a Heaven, and if you concede that Jesus may
have been able to heal or perform some of the 'miracles' mentioned in the
Bible, then you obviously believe that miracles are possible, and that
there may be a place called Heaven.  And if miracles are possible, then
why limit your beliefs to those miracles that are convenient for you to
believe in, or that fit what you think religion should be?  If you believe a
little of it, why not believe it all?"
    "I'm still not totally convinced.  I want to keep an open mind, but I don't
think that Christianity is the only true religion," he said.
     "And what if you ARE wrong?" I asked.  "What if you erred in your logic
and you find yourself at the gates of Heaven and can't get in; what will you
say THEN?"
     He thought a minute, shrugged his shoulders, and said, "Oops!"


Scared of the Knife -- May, 1995

    One of the things I recall from my youth was having to battle recurring
tonsillitis.  After an attack of the sore throat, and just about the time my
voice was getting back to normal, it would strike again.
     It was worse when I was very young -- 5, 6, and 7 years old.  The
malady didn't bother me quite as often as I grew into my teens, but it
would still come back for a return engagement now and then.
     I am remembering these infections of my childhood at this juncture
because, well, I have a sore throat now.  Yes, even as an adult I get
tonsillitis an average of three times per year.  It is something I've had to
learn to live with.
     But as a kid, it scared me to death!  It wasn't the disease itself that I
was afraid of; it was going to the doctor and facing his continual
recommendation that I "go have them out."  He wanted me to have a
tonsillectomy; and I would have gladly suffered through the pain of many
sore throats before I would submit to the knife.
     But I had a scheme that, I hoped, would dissuade my parents from
taking the doctor's advice on this matter.  First, I would never admit to my
folks that my sore throat was as bad as it really was.  Secondly, I
subscribed to the notion of "If you ignore it, it will go away."  In other
words, I figured the more I kept my parent's minds off my condition, the
less chance they would have of deciding to take me in for removal.  I never
mentioned the possibility of having my tonsils taken out to them, except
just after the doctor's recommendation that I should have them removed.
Then, I was simply pooh-pooh his notion.  I wanted to keep my parent's
minds off my tonsils; and that was almost a full-time task, considering
the number of times I was stricken with tonsillitis!
     Once, my younger sister, Darlene, had a bad case of tonsillitis.
Although I don't recall whether or not the doctor recommended that she
have her tonsils removed, I do remember her asking my mom, "Do I have to
have my tonsils pulled?"  It sent chills down my spine.  I couldn't
appreciate the humor of the moment regarding her choice of phrasing,
(after all, they pull teeth, not tonsils).  All I could think about was
changing the subject, else it might turn insidiously to my tonsillar
condition.
     Another frightening episode occurred when I was about 10.  We were
visiting Mom in the hospital at the time; she was recovering from surgery.
Dad decided we should go on an elevator tour of the hospital.  Now, I was
very nervous around hospitals, for obvious reasons.  I just wanted to get
my visitation over with and get out of there.  But Dad insisted we all get
into the elevator.  So, I got in, and noticed he pushed '3.'  It was the floor
on which surgeries were performed, or so I had heard.  My young mind
decided it must be a sly trick on my dad's part to get me into the operating
room for my tonsillectomy!  I quickly jumped out of the elevator just as
the door was closing.
     Dad stuck his arm through the half-closed door and pushed it open
again.  He grabbed me and pulled me back on, and then scolded me for my
"fear of elevators."  I was really relieved when, upon arrival to the third
floor, a nurse stopped us and told my dad that kids under 12 were not
allowed.
     Although my tonsils have never been "normal," and I still have sore
throats regularly, I don't dread them nearly as much as I did when I was a
kid.  Not only are doctors refraining from recommending tonsillectomies
except in extreme cases, but, now that I'm an adult, I don't have to worry
about someone making me go "under the knife" because of my tonsils
anymore!


Get Your Free Stamps Here -- May, 1995

There is a charitable movement going on in Edinburgh that few people
are aware of.  In fact, even the donors may not be aware of the fact that
they are making these precious donations to the citizens of this town.

The charitable contributions are being made at one particular location
-- the Edinburgh Post Office.  But I'm not talking about the Postal Workers'
Food Drive that wrapped up last Saturday.  That effort resulted in a
significant addition to the Edinburgh Food Pantry, and the postal workers
say they hope it does even better when they do it again next year.

But the Post Office is also the site of another charitable event that
results from a lack of effort on the part of its patrons, as opposed to a
great deal of effort that went into the food drive.  The recipients of these
"donations" do not necessarily have to be low-income citizens, either.
They can be just about anybody.

You won't find any "collection boxes" for this charity.  Nobody actually
brings anything in to donate.  But the donations are there, ready for the
taking, with no questions asked.

By now, you must be rather curious as to what type of "charity" I am
referring to.  But, if a person knew how to work this system, and if he
didn't have a whole lot of letters to mail, he might be able to get most of
his postage for free!  That's right -- I'm talking free stamps!

Now, don't get me wrong.  The postmaster is not giving away free
stamps.  There are also no coupons or half-price offers provided by the
Post Office.  In fact this charity is provided by unwitting contributors
that are postal patrons.

The large stamp machine that is located in the lobby is the source for
these "contributions."  And it also provides the reason why the "donations"
are made in the first place.  Try purchasing a 32-cent stamp from the
machine.  It doesn't take pennies, so you have to put in 35 cents.  Since the
U.S. Postal Service is a non-profit organization, it can't just keep the
extra 3 cents; instead, it gives you three 1-cent stamps to go along with
the stamp you really wanted.

Many people don't bother removing the 1-cent stamps from the machine.
They just leave them hanging.  The next person who comes along to buy a
stamp might tear them off and lay them on the table in the lobby.  So they
begin accumulating until there are enough of them to do someone some
good.

If you were really frugal with your postage, you could go check the Post
Office Lobby two or three times a day and collect all the "donations" of 1-
cent stamps that are left there by other postal patrons.  It might even be
fruitful to investigate what time of day most of the stamps from the
machine accumulate; who knows -- there could be a pattern!

Oh, and while you're in the Post Office lobby, getting your free stamps,
it might benefit you to walk down to the corner and check the coin return
on the pay phone.  You might get lucky there, too!


Liberal or Conservative?  -- June, 1995

     I have had many labels placed on me during my life.  I have been called
a conservative.  In fact, one man once described me as being "just to the
right of Hitler."  I, of course, disagreed with him.
     In a letter that appears in today's newspaper, I am labeled as a
"liberal."  Yet I have been blamed for costing the local democrats votes in
last year's general election because of a column I wrote.
     I don't mind being labeled.  It is just interesting to me that I can carry
so many conflicting labels, placed there by people trying to further their
own agendas.
     I was hesitant to write this column, because many may think it is self-
serving.  But, because so many disparate labels have been attached to me
by others, I have decided to capitulate to their wishes and try to label
myself.
     I, of course, found out what I knew all along.  I can't really be pigeon-
holed.  To an ultra-conservative reactionary, I am a bleeding-heart liberal.
But, to a bleeding-heart radical, I am a fascist!  In reality, I can straddle
the fence on many controversial issues.  I can also hold strongly liberal
views on one topic while being ultra-conservative on another.  I take each
issue separately, and decide on each using criteria that I feel applies
specifically to that issue.  And, when possible, I rely on logic more  often
than I rely on emotion.
     So, as a service to those who would put a label on my ideological
tendencies, I have developed a guide to my personal philosophies on a
variety of topics.  They are included below:
     Abortion -- I believe that elective abortion as a means of birth control
is wrong.  However, I also know that a fetus that is so young as to be
unviable is little more than a foreign organ inside a pregnant woman's
womb.  Therefore, I believe that a woman should have the right to CHOOSE
what to do about her pregnancy, as long as she makes that choice before
the fetus becomes viable.  (Ideology:  slightly left of center.)
     Gun Control -- I believe that assault weapons and guns of mass murder
should be outlawed for sale, manufacture, and importation.  I believe that
heavy restrictions should be placed on the sale of hand guns.  (Ideology:
left of center.)
     Affirmative Action -- I believe that affirmative action, and its
associated tenets, is probably one of the worst mistakes ever made by
Congress.  I believe that similar rulings made by federal court judges
regarding forced busing, quotas in the workplace, etc., are similarly
misguided.  I believe a private employer should have the right to hire and
fire whomever he or she wishes, for any reason.  (Ideology:  far right.)
     Welfare -- The best way to feed a person is not to give him a fish, but
to "teach him to fish."  Welfare should be "workfare" in that all able-
bodied recipients should be put to work.  In addition, they should be
trained and given job skills, then sent through a placement program which
will ultimately lead to their being employable, contributing members of
society.  (Ideology:  right of center.)
     Government -- I believe in the Federalist doctrine, where that applies
to everyone, such as in foreign affairs, domestic policy, and education.  I
believe in strong states' rights on issues which are more effective if
handled locally, such as what speed limit to enforce.  I don't believe that
the federal government should create unfunded mandates.  And, yes, I do
have a good deal of faith in the government.  It is the people who govern.
After all, the people elected the leaders who make up the government.  If
they prove untrustworthy, they can be voted out of office during the next
election.  The government is not a foreign entity trying to covertly
influence Americans' lives and liberties.  There are a lot of whiners out
there who complain a lot about their government.  Do they not realize that
the best way to effect change is to be elected to office themselves?  In
other words, if you don't like the policy, then become a policy maker, and
change it!  (Ideology:  basically neutral.)
     Prayer in school -- There has always been, and there currently
remains, no ban on prayer in school.  Every student, every teacher, and
every administrator has the right to pray in school, (even out loud), as
long as it does not interfere with the educational process.  There is, and
there should remain, a ban on organized prayer.  I don't want any law or
school policy dictating to my kids how or when they should pray.
(Ideology:  left of center.)
     Overall ideology -- Both liberals and conservatives believe in equality.
The point of contention is what should be equal.  It is said that liberals
believe in the tenet of  equality of condition; that is, the wealth should be
spread around so that everyone has what he needs.  It is also said that
conservatives believe in the idea of equality of opportunity, in that
everyone should have an equal opportunity to make it, or to fail.  They
must then live with their accomplishments, or lack thereof.  Personally, I
agree with the conservatives on this one.
     In the end, I guess my conservative side balances out my liberal side,
making me more or less "middle of the road," but with a slight lean toward
the right.  But I'm not a centrist on most individual issues, as I have just
pointed out.  I guess that is why I always order my steaks cooked "extra
medium!"


Pursuing a Career in Glove Science -- June, 1995

    I was watching the news the other day and, as usual, the headline
story was about the O.J. Simpson trial.  The anchorman told of how
the prosecution had brought in a "glove expert" to explain why the
glove being used as evidence did not seem to fit well when Simpson
tried it on.
     So I started thinking -- glove expert?  Now that must be an
interesting field of employment to get into.  Perhaps I should advise
my children to pursue that as a career goal.   I could help them out by
investigating what avenues are open and what sort of training is
involved to become a glove expert.
     Are their "glove colleges?"  Might there not be one named MIG,
(Massachusetts Institute of Glovology)?  Or perhaps there is one
called the California College of Glove Science.
     Once enrolled, a student might be able to take such courses as
"Handware 101," or "The Influence of Glove Design during the Baroque
Era."  There could also be special campus events, such as Michael
Jackson Appreciation Day.
     As with any other good college or university, GU (Glove
University) might offer degrees such as the BSG (Bachelor of Science
in Glovology), the MG (Master of Gloves), or the PhG (Doctor of Glove
Philosophy).  And, of course, one could major in such areas as "glove
contours for the big and tall" with a minor in mittenology.
     A career in gloves would be nice to have.  If I were not already a
writer, I might take it up myself.  After all, the art of gloveware has
even been used to define what is meant by the term "high class."  For
example, what is the ultimate "class act?"  One writer described it
this way:  A young lady boarded a train and took her seat.  Just as the
train was pulling out, she noticed she had dropped one of her gloves.
She looked out the window and saw it lying there on the concrete.
She saw another lady pick it up, so she immediately through the
other glove out the window of the moving train so the finder could
have a pair.
     Anyway, there might be one drawback of going into the glove
field.  Now that glove experts are all over the TV news, other
parents will want their kids to become glove experts, too.  The field
could become over-crowded.  But it is an upwardly-mobile career, so
I'm sure the job market will expand.
     One day, if a child of mine does pursue a career in gloves, maybe
he too will be called as a forensic  witness at a trial of national
importance.  One can only dream.  I just hope neither of my children
opt to become, dare I say, an earmuff expert.  There's just no glory in
that!


Supreme Court's Controversial Rulings -- July, 1995

    The U.S. Supreme Court does not "pass laws," as some people
believe.  The Congress of the United States, as well as the various
state legislatures pass the laws of the land.  The Supreme Court
does, however, interpret the laws to make sure they are in
compliance with the supreme law of the land -- the U.S.
Constitution.
     The net effect of the decisions of the Supreme Court, however, is
to produce wide-ranging case law which is then used by lower
courts to decide the legality of cases brought before them.  So, in a
sense, the Supreme Court does make law.
     Sometimes the decisions handed down by the high court are
popular; sometimes they are quite controversial.  In recent weeks,
the Supreme Court has handed down a number of rulings that fall
into the latter category.
     One of these rulings concerns whether or not high school students
who wish to compete in sports can be forced to undergo random drug
testing.  The ruling clears the way for schools to set up drug testing
for its student athletes.
     Though controversial, this ruling was a good one.  Does it, as
some claim, remove a constitutionally-protected freedom from
student athletes?  Although well-educated individuals on different
sides of the political fence may disagree with that question, the
question itself becomes irrelevant in light of the public good.
     Freedoms granted by the constitution are not, and have never
been, absolute.  For example, is one's freedom of speech violated if
he is arrested for shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater?  No, because
the result of that "speech" would be to create a dangerous panic
situation.
     By the same token, a student's right to be free from unreasonable
search and seizure can be abridged if the ultimate result is
increased public safety from the effects of drug abuse.  The abuse of
drugs is a societal menace that must be halted.
     In fact, high schools should go a step further.  Instead of
randomly testing student athletes, all students entering high school
should be forced to undergo a drug test.  In addition all students
should be forced to undergo a drug test prior to graduation.  If they
fail, they should be given a reasonable amount of time to become
drug free before their diplomas are given to them.
     Of course, parents should be informed of the results of each drug
test so that, in the event a student shows positive for drug use, the
parents can immediately begin appropriate steps, in conjunction
with the school, to correct the problem before it worsens.
     Just as states require that each student be vaccinated against
certain types of illness in order to protect the public from
epidemics, states and school districts should also enforce
mandatory drug testing in order to slow the drug-abuse epidemic
that is apparent now.


To the Year 2000 -- July, 1995

Did you know that there are only 1626 days until January 1,
2000?  At least that's what my computer program says, and I
have to believe it's true, because I wrote the program.

Why would I write a computer program that counts down the
number of days until the year 2000?  Well, I would like to think
it's because I'm a forward-looking individual.  But with only 53
months to go to the magic moment, one doesn't really have to
look too far forward to see it.

Just about all my life I have heard people make references to
the year 2000, and most of those references were of futuristic
visions with flying cars and robots.  Although robots have been
widely-used for years in industry, and there are some
experimental robots that sort of mimic human tasks, it would
seem quite unlikely that in the next 4-1/2 years that robots and
flying cars will become commonplace.

There really isn't anything about the year 2000 that is
particularly special, except for all those zeros.   After all, the
calendar is an artificial measuring device invented by humans
who happened to choose, quite logically, the birth of Jesus as its
starting point.  (Although, due to an error in the original
calculation, Jesus was actually born about 7 years earlier than
originally thought.)  But it does gratify the imagination to realize
that few humans in history have ever observed the changing of
a millennium.   The folks who witnessed the changing of the last
millennium in the year 1000 couldn't even appreciate the
aesthetics of all the zeros.  They used Roman numerals, and their
new year was simply designated as "M".

But a new millennium is certainly fodder for the imagination of
science fiction writers.  Some of the science wasn't fiction,
though.  Technology has indeed taken giant steps forward in
many areas over the last 25 years.  But technology does not
always, (nor even frequently), follow the predictions of the
futuristic soothsayer.

I still recall the early '60's, when I was in the second grade,
seeing a book picturing various types of telephones that had
existed through the years.  The "modern" phone pictured was
the standard black, cradle-type desk phone.  The "phone of the
future" was shown as a picture telephone, where callers can see
each other while conversing.  This was supposed to be "coming
soon."  More than 30 years later, I'm still waiting!

It's not that the technology needed to produced picture phones
is lacking.  In fact, there have been attempts to market picture
phones in the past.  A phone featuring a black & white still-
picture image  went on sale in the 1980's, but not many people
bought it.  Lack of demand, coupled with the technological limits
of existing phone lines, are the culprits responsible for the
absence of picture telephones.

On the other hand, we do have many items that we now take
for granted that nobody in 1960 predicted we would have.
Battery-powered digital watches, hand-held calculators, and
desk-top computers are but three of the many technological
wonders that did not exist in the 1960's but that almost
everyone can own today.  In fact, computer technology has
increased at such a rapid pace that the 486DX2-66 computer
that I'm using to type this column has more computing power
than the 1980-ish computers that are on-board the space
shuttle Columbia.

And so, I continue to look forward to  the year 2000 and
beyond -- not because something "magical" is supposed to
happen in that year, but just because it has become a symbol of
the future.  And when that year arrives, we'll have to establish a
new futuristic marker that science fiction writers and
prognosticators can rally around.

They better hurry up and pick one, there are only 39,096 hours
left in this millennium!  But, at least nobody but movie makers
will call it the year MM.


Evolution: No Conflict with Relgion -- August, 1995

    I was reminded once again this week that closed-minded religious
dogma still has a solid anchor in this neighborhood, and elsewhere, I'm
sure.  I'm not saying I was too surprised by that reminder; it had just been
a couple of years since I found it necessary to defend the theory of
evolution against those who obviously do not understand anything about it.

     My wife was reading a passage to me that was in her Sunday School
study guide.  It said, "The teachings of evolution represent a deliberate
and methodical attempt to suppress the truth of God in creation."

     Think about that assertion for a moment.  If it were true, it would
mean that all biological scientists since Darwin would have been, and
would still be, involved in a massive propaganda effort with the express
purpose of trying to suppress religion.  That is absurd.

     The theory of evolution itself evolved in the same way that any other
valid scientific theory evolves.  And a theory in science does NOT mean a
mere guess or supposition.  It carries far more weight than that.

     In a nutshell, there are only three levels or degrees of knowing in
science.  A scientific law is a principal that is generally agreed to be true
by all scientists.  It is applicable over the entire universe, and it can
usually be expressed as a single mathematical expression or group of
expressions.  The law of gravity and the laws of thermodynamics are
examples.

     On the other end, there is the hypothesis.  This is an explanation of an
observed phenomenon based upon the best observations and suppositions
that are available.  It can be thought of as an educated guess.  Darwin
hypothesized evolution during his travels aboard the H.M.S. Beagle that
took him around the world.

     Then, in the middle, there is the theory.  A theory is just about all any
scientific hypothesis can ever expect to become.  It is much more than a
guess.  It is a total and complete explanation of an event or set of events
that is based upon years of verifiable facts and data.  A theory can be
modified as necessary as new facts become evident, but theories are
seldom abandoned entirely.  Once a hypothesis becomes a theory, by being
verified over a period of years by many different scientists, it is then
accepted as being true.  So, if schools teach that evolution is true, while
at the same time calling it a theory, then that is perfectly acceptable.
There need not be any disclaimers that evolution is ONLY a theory.

     I am a newly-baptized, repentant Christian who believes in Jesus as
Christ.  That is my belief.  I also know for a fact that plants and animals
have evolved and are still evolving.  I could write several pages of facts
and evidence to back up that statement.  I also know that humans have
gone through the evolutionary process.  And yet, I find no disparity in what
I believe as a Christian and what I know to be true as a person of science.
I can live with both notions.

     Science does not try to prove the existence of God.  Nor does it seek to
disprove that existence.  Science stays within its realm, making no
attempt to explain, prove, or disprove any religion.  The realm of science
is to explain the whats and the hows.  It is up to religion to explain the
whys.

     The Bible tells us that God created Heaven and Earth, man and beast.
The science of evolution just explains, from a modern perspective, how He
did it.


Give with Anonymity -- August, 1995

Well, it's that time of year again.  The heat of summer finally shows
some signs of subsiding (if only in the imagination); kids go back to
school; people start thinking about the Fall Festival; and Jerry Lewis has
his umpteenth telethon.

Labor Day is upon us.  It is not only a time to take off work, to have
picnics, and to enjoy the last vestiges of summer.  It is also a time when
motorists are met on almost every street corner in every town in America
by people carrying boots, asking for donations.  And it's a time when
almost every organization and business in the U.S. forks over a bunch of
money to Lewis' cause.

The Muscular Dystrophy Association is certainly a worthy charity, as
are many other associations whose purpose is to eradicate a disease.
But the MDA drive is a little special.

First of all, it is associated with a particular holiday.  That doesn't make
it totally unique; after all Easter Seals help the fight against birth defects,
and youngsters often trick-or-treat for UNICEF.  But there is seldom as
much hoopla surrounding a cause as there typically is for the MDA,
thanks to Mr. Lewis.

Lewis has had his critics -- I being one of them.  And, while admitting
that the MDA cause is a worthy one, at the same time, I can't help but
believe that Lewis uses it to enhance his career.  Sure, he donates his
time for the telethon, but that only keeps his name and face in the
limelight.  You hardly ever see him the rest of the year, (unless you live
in France).

To me, a true philanthropist is a person who not only gives time and
money to a cause, but does so in the most humble way possible --
anonymously.  There is nothing anonymous about Mr. Lewis.


Top 10 Reason Edinburgh Needs a Jet -- September, 1995

So, the Town of Edinburgh might become the proud owner of an Air Force
T38 jet aircraft?  That is quite a nice piece of machinery.  It begs the
question though, what would Edinburgh do with its own jet plane?
Ive been giving this matter a lot of thought, and have come up with
several good ways the town could use the aircraft.  In fact, I have compiled
a Top Ten list.

So, here are the Top Ten Reasons why Edinburgh Needs a Jet:
Reason #10 - Park and Rec. could place it at the new ball diamonds and
use the hot exhaust from the turbines to roast hot dogs for the new
concession stand.

#9 - With the proper attachments, it would make a terrific snow plow for
this winter.

#8 - With a reduced police force, a single officer could patrol the streets
very quickly with just a couple of fly-overs.

#7 - It would be great for providing up-to-the-minute rush-hour traffic
reports for Edinburgh.

#6 - Armed with a couple of smart-bombs, it could be used to take out
some of those deteriorated lots on S. Roosevelt St.

#5 - The town could use it to dust the greens and fairways at Timbergate
Golf Course, to keep the weeds and insects down.

#4 - It could be used during the Fourth of July pre-fireworks show for the
skydivers to jump from.

#3 - Instead of horse-drawn carriage rides during the Holiday of Lights,
we could hitch the carriage to the back of the jet, so the exhaust could keep
the riders warm.

#2 - It could be painted yellow and used as an express school bus for all
the new enrollees.

And the #1 reason why Edinburgh needs a jet -- Edinburgh could really
use a nice rapid-transit system.


Creationism is Not Science -- October, 1995

I've written on this topic before, and I do realize it is controversial.
But I hold a strong opinion on it -- an opinion that is rooted deep in
scientific truths obtained via rigid laws of order.  I am referring to the
scientific theory of evolution.

Last week, a good friend of mine, who obviously knows my bias
toward the subject, invited me, no actually, he challenged me, to go to a
seminar on creationism.  He even gave me a pamphlet.

The seminar is being conducted by Dr. Walt Brown, Director of the
Center for Scientific Creation.  Now theres an oxymoron for you!
Scientific creation goes hand in hand with military intelligence and
jumbo shrimp.  There is no such thing!

Now, I will grant that everyone has a right to believe whatever they
wish; it is a free country and people can make up their own minds
about things.  Anybody who prefers to ignore the vast array of truly
scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution has the right to
do so.

But the thing that is a little scary, and which has the potential of
undermining the advancement of science, is what one of the teachers
who took the seminar has to say about it.  This quote from a teacher
was printed on the back of the pamphlet:  I have a huge responsibility
to present both sides.  Thank you for providing me with some of the
evidence [for creation].  Another says, It gives me a way to
intelligently support my faith.  And the pamphlet also states, his is
an appropriate program for high school students.

Now, as I said, everyones faith is their own business.  But the thing
that scares me is that evidently, some teachers are using the drivel that
is obtained at these seminars as bona fide evidence of a scientific
nature.  And yet, creationism has no scientific foundation on which to
stand.

Theories derived from the scientific process MUST have these things
in common:  First of all, there must be some original, unexplained
event or observation for which no answers are known.  For evolution,
the observation, made by Darwin and others of his day, was the wide
diversity of plant and animal species, but with an undercurrent of
similarity among the species.  How could this be explained
scientifically?

Second, a hypothesis must be formed.  This is a well-thought-out
explanation of the observations which does not contradict any other
established scientific law or theory.

Third, there must be some sort of data-gathering and experimentation
phase.  Darwin spent many years of his life working out the exhaustive
details of his observations.  Since Darwin, other biologists have built
on his foundation by fine-tuning his ideas in order to encompass new
pieces of evidence.

Fourth, the hypothesis must be verified by independent research.  It
must stand vigorous testing by other scientists who may actually hold a
bias against the original hypothesis.

Finally, if the hypothesis stands the tests, it is considered to be a
theory.  It remains a theory forever, and is generally accepted by the
vast majority of scientists and lay people as representing the truth, even
if incomplete truth.  And such is where the theory of evolution rests.

Creationism is not now, has never been, and will never be a valid
scientific theory.  Its proponents have violated almost every aspect of
the scientific method.

First, it did not start out as an observation for which there was no
answer.  It started out as an answer looking for a question.  The answer
was already established, that God created everything pretty much the
way it is today, and that species have not changed much over time.

Secondly, all the vidence that is presented in favor of creationism
was found and brought forth for the express purpose of establishing
creationism as true.  Real science does not pick and choose evidence.
A theory must withstand all verifiable evidence and it must stand
within the framework of that evidence.  If a piece of evidence strongly
goes against a hypothesis, then the hypothesis must be modified or
thrown out.  But creationism doesnt work under those rules.  If a piece
of evidence does not fit the nswer then it is either ignored or
rationalized.  A creation scientist would never toss out his theory, or
even modify it, just because a piece of evidence contradicts it.  Instead,
he would simply manipulate the evidence so that it seems to fit.

Finally, creationism did not go through the hierarchy of the scientific
method.  It never was a hypothesis.  It started out carrying the label of a
full-blown scientific theory by its proponents.  Real science doesnt
work that way.

Regardless of what anyone believes to be true regarding how we got
here, the fact remains that creationism is not scientific and it is not a
theory.  For this reason, it must never be taught as a bona fide theory in
any science class.  Science teachers who are presenting both sides by
using the tenets of creationism as an alternative theory are not teaching
science.  They are teaching religion, no matter how you slice it.  By
law, it can't be done.

Creation can be taught in a comparative religion class.  But then so
must all other valid religious theories of creation, not just the Christian
view.

Science, and the theory of evolution, does not deny the existence of
God.  Science says nothing at all about God.  The belief in God is a
matter of faith, not science.

But in this case, its not vice versa.  There are those who would love
to teach their view of religion in the public schools.  No teacher or
scientist would even want to come into a Sunday School class and
teach a lesson on evolution; its not the right place.  So too, the
classroom is not the right place to espouse religious theories.

Everyone, especially teachers, must be aware that there exist scoundrels
out there who are trying their best to introduce religious dogma,
masquerading as science, into the classroom.  And even if you believe
in that dogma, you must accept the fact that a science classroom is not
the appropriate place to present it.


Top 10 Reasons I Should Stop Doing Top 10 Lists -- October, 1995

If you've read page 2 of this newspaper over the past few weeks, you 
know that I've taken some biting criticism because of an Over Coffee 
column that appeared on September 20 regarding the jet plane that the 
American Legion recently decided to accept as a static display.  That 
column consisted of a "Top Ten List" outlining my reasons why 
Edinburgh needs a jet.

Of course, it was all done in good humor and most people realize that 
my intention was not to upset anyone.  Nor was I criticizing anyone's 
efforts directed toward acquiring the jet.  I believe the jet really would 
be a positive addition to the town.  It was also not my intention to 
belittle the contributions of anyone who has ever served in the armed 
forces.

However, I do not apologize for writing the column.  I can't control 
how some people may interpret what I write.  I must say that, for each 
letter that was critical of the column, I received at least 10 verbal 
compliments from folks who enjoyed it.  But then, most people who 
agree with something they read in the paper do not generally take the 
time or effort to write a letter saying so; that is understandable.  Only 
those who vehemently disagree are provoked into taking up the pen.

But if my column was not as humorous as some people thought it 
should be, keep in mind that a certain late-night TV talk-show host has 
a dozen writers to help him come up with his top-10 lists.  I have 
myself alone.  Nevertheless, I must consider the advice of one letter 
writer who thinks I should not attempt any more top-10 humor.

So, in an effort to comply, I have developed a list of ten reasons why I 
should not write any more top-10 lists.  Here are my "Top Ten Reasons 
Why I Should Not Write Any More Top-10 Lists:"

Reason #10 - People keep calling me dyslexic because I always begin 
with #10 instead of #1.

9 - My staff of writers keep going on strike for more recognition.

8 - I don't have a "home office."

7 - I keep thinking I'll get sued by Letterman because TRICOUNTY 
NEWS has more readers than CBS has viewers.

6 - My columns have been called an "embarrassment" to the 
community -- most likely by those who have trouble counting as high 
as 10.

5 - There's no room in a classy newspaper like this for semi-humorous 
jibes at life in Edinburgh.

4 - The publisher says if I offend just one more person I will lose my 
fringe benefits package.

2 - I keep forgetting which number comes after 4.

Oh, that's right, #3 - I have decided to replace the "Top 10 List" with 
the print version of  "Stupid Human Tricks."

And the #1 reason why I should not write any more top 10 lists -- I was 
advised by that guy on "Tough Target" not to.


Baseball Sucks! -- November, 1995

It's finally over for another year -- and I'm not talking about 
Halloween. The World Series and all those baseball playoffs are, 
thankfully, a thing of the past.

There are three kinds of people in the world:  Those who follow the 
baseball playoffs; those who don't; and those who not only do not 
follow them, but wish the players would go on strike every year.

Now I don't necessarily hate baseball as a sport.  It certainly isn't as 
popular as football, but at least the little league teams give the kids something 
to do in the summer.  Baseball is a kids' sport.  So why do 
grown men get paid millions of dollars to play it?  Nobody paid me any 
money when I played little league, so why should some guy get paid 
megabucks for standing in the outfield, scratching his groin on national 
TV?

Anyway, that aside, I suppose I will have to acknowledge the fact that 
there are those who enjoy watching the game.  I have gone to watch the 
Indianapolis Indians myself, on more than one occasion -- not because 
I really like baseball, but just because it was a diversion, and the 
Indians are a Hoosier sports team.  I always support Indiana teams.

I'm not saying baseball as a game should be eliminated.  But the 
endless playoffs and the World Series should be banned from 
television.  When people ask me to make a prediction about the World 
Series, I always tell them, "I predict the World Series will completely 
mess up my television viewing."

Remember when June rolls around and all the TV networks start 
playing reruns or old movies?  That is when TV really becomes a "vast 
wasteland."  Well, the same thing happens in October!  Between the 
American League playoff, the National League playoff, and finally, the 
World Series, many of my favorite TV shows are preempted.  And the 
networks that are not showing the games are showing reruns.  They 
don't want to waste a perfectly good first-run show by placing it up 
against the World Series.

Last year, when the players were on strike, October television was 
good.  This year, it was not.

Now, I'm not saying I'm a couch potato, with absolutely nothing better 
to do than watch TV.  I could surf the Internet (or ECOnet); or I could 
write another column, or play a game with the kids.  But when I want to 
watch TV, I want to watch the shows that are supposed to be on, not 
some rerun or baseball playoff.

Baseball is unlike any other sport when it comes to its television 
coverage.  Football has its own scheduled time slot.  Seldom does a 
football game preempt another show.  NBA basketball is the same.  It 
has a playoff series, but generally, the games are not televised in prime 
time.  And if they are, it's no big deal because the TV season is over by 
then anyway.  But baseball series preempt the NEW season of shows.

If they must have a baseball playoff, why not have something like the 
"Superbowl of Baseball."  Let it all come down to a single game.  Can 
you imagine having a football world series?  The winner would be the 
team who wins the best of seven football games, played over the period 
of a week.  There could even be a "double-header" or two!  Of course, 
there wouldn't be much left of the players when it was over!  So each 
year the NFL would need to recruit a whole new set of players.

The point is, there are far too many baseball games during its season, 
and the playoffs last far too long.  Also, the playoff games should be 
played during the daytime, not at night.  Let them preempt the soap 
operas and those disgusting talk shows instead of interfering with my 
prime-time viewing!


The Communications Revolution -- November, 1995

Communication isn't what it used to be.  

Now I'm not old enough to remember using the old crank telephone, but I do remember 
when we got our first phone, when I was about eight years old and lived on Holland 
Street.  The phone was one of those black classics with the rotary dial.  But, as it turned 
out, the rotary dialer back then was a little too "high tech" for the Edinburgh system, 
because nobody could actually dial numbers.  The dialing feature was not activated yet.  
Instead, when you picked up the receiver, a local operator would ask you for the 3-digit 
number you wanted to reach.

Calling long distance was really a pain, and very expensive as well.  I remember listening 
in while Mom was calling a relative in Kentucky once.  I had to listen to the conversation 
of at least a dozen operators between Edinburgh and Kentucky before the call finally went 
through.  The Edinburgh operator would have to call Columbus, who in turn would call 
Seymour, and so on, until the call finally reached its destination.  The process took about 
5 or 6 minutes.

The cost of those calls were quite high; meaning we didn't call relatives in Kentucky very 
often.  I can't remember exactly how much it cost, because I was only a kid and didn't 
concern myself with paying bills.  But I do know it was somewhere around $4 or $5 for 
the first three minutes -- in 1960 dollars!

For comparison, I recently made a long-distance call to Washington.  I dialed it directly 
(with push buttons), and the waiting period between the moment I press the last number 
until the time of the first ring was less than two seconds.  The cost of the first minute was 
about a quarter!  Communication isn't what it used to be.

But even the electronic switching, fast connections, and relatively low cost of telephone 
communications is rather mundane compared to the information retrieval capabilities of 
another method of electronic communication -- the computer.

While "surfing the net" the other day, I found that I could look at live pictures being 
transmitted from such diverse places as New York (where a camera is always trained on 
the Brooklyn Bridge), Boulder Colorado, Hawaii, San Diego, and Antarctica.  And if 
there is really nothing on the TV, you can also watch the live "Iguana Cam" or the "Fish 
Cam" which features live pictures of someone's aquarium.

These things are fun to explore, but on a more pragmatic level, I also found I could access 
the entire Indiana Code, which is a complete listing of all the laws of the State of Indiana.  
I also accessed the Library of Congress card catalog; I browsed through the latest issue of 
USA Today, including pictures; I read excerpts from the Indianapolis Star; I could read 
the complete news script the anchor people use on Channel 6 news broadcasts; I talked 
live with people in Ireland, Australia, Canada, and the U.S. all in a place called the 
"Virtual Irish Pub;" and I took a look at the latest weather radar and satellite imagery for 
Indianapolis.  And all of this communicating was done via a local telephone call by my 
computer modem!

Almost anything you would ever want to find, you can probably find it on the Internet.  
For example, my son, Aaron, was looking for information about dragons.  He tried 
looking in the encyclopedia, including the CD-ROM version, and he couldn't find what 
he was looking for.  I suggested trying the Internet.  He had never been on it before and 
was skeptical.  "Oh, that won't have anything about dragons," he insisted.  So, I 
connected to the Internet (via ECOnet) and clicked on the Search icon.  I typed in the 
word "dragon."  And within 5 seconds a list of 100 locations containing the word 
"dragon" popped onto the screen.  I scrolled through the list and found a listing called 
"Forgotten Realms Home Page," which is exactly what Aaron had been looking for.  
There were pictures of dragons and other monsters that blew him away.

The point is, whether it's dragons or law books, fish tanks or weather maps, if you need 
information about almost anything, it is probably on the Internet somewhere.  In the short 
amount of time that I've had access, I have found more interesting sites than I could list in 
this column.  In addition to those I listed above, I have found the "Lost in Space" home 
page, which includes information on the original cast and updates on a planned movie.  
I've found a Brady Bunch screen saver, (And yes; I hate to admit it); a fortysomething 
chat area; the latest photos taken by the Hubble telescope; and the AP and Reuters wire 
service news releases.  It is fascinating and informative.

And just as the telephone went from being a luxury that few could afford to being an 
absolute necessity of life, the computer will, very soon, become just as indispensable.  
And those of us who try to keep up with the times can't wait, because that just means 
there will be something even more fascinating over the horizon.


The Imagination and Technology -- November, 1995

When I was in school, I had quite an imagination, and I'd like to 
think some of it is still with me.  I used to daydream a lot.  I 
would think about how, in the future, a student's life would be 
better because of new and different educational gadgets.  My 
daydreams, as a kid, focused mainly on how the traditional 
methods of teaching could be enhanced by some high-tech 
add-ons.  The devices I imagined could really make a student's 
life easier.

For example, while sitting in my history class, copying down 
endless notes that the teacher had written on the chalk board, I 
would conjure up in my mind an image of the teacher writing on 
some futuristic electronic chalk board pad while sitting at his 
desk.  Everything he wrote on his desk pad would then appear 
on the big display board behind him.  

For the students, we would have our own miniature version of a 
desk pad and an electronic pencil to take notes with.  All the 
notes we wrote would be stored inside the notepad for us to 
retrieve at the push of a button.

Sounds a little far out -- right?  Remember, these thoughts 
occurred to me while I was in junior high school, or maybe early 
high school.  That was well over 25 years ago, when there were 
no such things as personal computers or even calculators.

The technology I imagined is probably possible today, if not very 
practical.  From a modern perspective, I can foresee a time 
when every desk in every classroom will be furnished with a 
built-in computer.  And I don't mean that each desk will have a 
typical desktop computer sitting on top of it with wires going 
everywhere.  The computer desk would be an integrated piece 
of furniture, with a keyboard up front, a small color monitor, and 
a trackball for cursor control.  The desk would feature a sliding 
cover for the keyboard, to hold a book, or in case a student 
needed to take notes on a paper pad.

But most of the work would be done on the computer itself.  I 
was always a pretty poor note taker.  I found I could learn more 
just listening to the teacher instead of trying to write down 
everything.  But in my new daydream, students would not have 
to take notes.  The teacher would prepare a lesson, but instead 
of writing down examples or notes onto a chalk board for the 
students to copy, he would simply transmit the information to 
each display screen while he lectured.  

The displays would show more than just words, too.  Teachers 
could program in lesson plans that included color sketches or 
photos, even animation.  For example, a biology teacher might 
plan a lesson on dissecting a frog.  The notes for the dissection 
could be transmitted to each display screen.  Then, a still-picture 
of a frog, with parts labeled, could be transmitted.  Finally, an 
animation of the planned dissection could be shown.  All the 
notes, including the diagrams and animation, could be saved by 
the student in his own "virtual folder," in the computer's vast 
memory.  Each student would have his or her own password to 
access all the information in the personal folders.  Homework 
assignments, completed tests, lecture notes and diagrams, and 
everything else that is now contained in a trapper keeper would 
exist in each students electronic folder.

When the student changes classes, he would simply sit down at 
a new computer in another room and do the same thing.  But, 
supposing he finished his history early, he could access all his 
biology notes even on the history class computer.  All computers 
would be networked, so all personal information could be 
accessed from any desk.

And at the end of each week, the teacher could instruct his 
computer to calculate all grade summaries and transmit them to 
each student's personal folder for viewing at the student's desk.

At home, the student could just fire up his home computer, dial 
the school's network, and retrieve assignments or notes.  When 
finished with the homework, the student could then send it to his 
personal folder at school.

Text books would, of course, also be in electronic form.  There 
would be no more torn pages, and no more used books with foul 
language etched in it from prior years.  Textbooks, including 
pictures, could be accessed at each student's desk.  And the 
only gradebook a teacher would have would be inside the 
computer's memory banks.  Brief cases may become obsolete.

And when a teacher wanted to show an educational video, 
instead of wheeling in a television and VCR, he would just push 
some buttons on his computer and call up any one of hundreds 
of educational videos stored on a video disk library.  The video 
would then play on each student's display screen.

If all this sounds a bit far-fetched, it's only because these ideas 
have not been implemented yet.  The technology to do all of the 
things I just listed in my "daydream" is available today.  The only 
thing preventing it all from happening now is the lack of money 
to install the equipment in an all-electronic school.  But, some 
day, it is my belief that such a school will exist right here in 
Edinburgh.  We are certainly on the right track!


Exotic Foods?  --  December, 1995

The family was sitting around the dinner table the other day, 
nibbling on some roast beef and chatting, when the conversation 
turned to unusual foods.  I'm not sure what brought the subject 
up, but the eating of rabbit and squirrel meat suddenly became 
the topic.

We began to verbally compare meats, and naturally, concluded 
that rabbit and squirrel tasted a lot like chicken.  Rabbit tastes 
like the white meat and squirrel tastes like the dark meat.

My son, Aaron, was not aware that one could actually eat 
squirrels.  I pointed out to him that some people do go squirrel 
hunting, and not for their hides.

But that conversation led me to ask about meats that are even 
more exotic.  For example, if you know where to look, you can 
also find buffalo meat and kangaroo.

I became curious as to why some animals are considered fit to 
eat while others are not.  Who makes those decisions?  For 
example, somebody had to decide that it was perfectly okay to 
eat a pig, but not a horse.  Why do we not eat horse?

And why is it fine for hunters to haul in their limit of squirrels and 
rabbits to consume, and yet it's taboo to eat such animals as 
raccoon or beaver?  

Think about it; if it were considered proper by modern society to 
eat cat and dog meat, then Bob Barker wouldn't have to "hound" 
us about spaying and neutering our pets!  Don't start moaning 
and groaning -- after all, some farm children have pigs as pets, 
and yet I bet they still eat pork.  What's the difference?

If our taste in meat were a little broader, we wouldn't have to be 
confined to eating just beef, pork, and chicken.  People could 
make a nice living raising such animals as hamsters and guinea 
pigs for their flesh.  

Can you imagine -- "Honey, what's for dinner?" 

"I have the chipmunks thawing out; they're about ready for the 
grill."

I, for one, would not be averse to trying some of these exotic 
delicacies.  I have consumed such creatures as squid (calimari), 
snails (escargot), and French-fried caterpillars.  The first two are 
yummy.  The latter was very bitter and I don't intend to eat those 
little buggers again.  But at least I gave them a try.

I guess most Americans are a little up-tight about what species 
of animal they put into their mouths.  I guess maybe that is why 
there are so many different ways a person can eat a pig -- 
bacon, ham, pork chops, sausage, tenderloin, pigs feet, souse, 
etc., etc.  

And that's another thing -- if some restaurants can serve 
something called "hog fries," or "Rocky Mountain oysters," then 
what would be so bad about serving up a nice plate of gopher?