The Huckeby Saga Draws to a Close

In case you don't know already, the school board unanimously chose not to extend Barry Huckeby's teaching contract into next year. It's the only action they've taken in this case that makes any sense.

Unfortunately, we still have to wait for his trial to find out the real facts of the story.

A brief recap for those who may not know, Barry was hired to be the high school basketball coach at Columbus North. He was also a math teacher and assistant athletic director.

Only a couple of months into the job, Barry was in charge of counting and depositing the proceeds from a football playoff game. Unnamed school officials determined that approximately $3,000 of the gate receipts from that game were missing. In the process, Barry confessed to taking some money from the gate receipts, but reportedly only admitted to taking around $50 to buy supplies for the office printer.

He was placed on paid leave while the investigation took place, and finally his case was brought to the school board, which decided to strip him of his coaching and assistant athletic director duties but allowed him to stay on for the rest of the year as a math teacher.

His supporters claim that some of those unnamed school officials acted on a vendetta against Barry, and that the claim of missing $3,000 was falsely created to that end. Others believe that, for reasons only he knows, he did steal approximately that amount, and made up the story about the printer supplies as a cover.

Unfortunately, no details of the investigation have been made public. We don't know what the police investigators know. All those details are being carefully protected from public disclosure, presumably keeping it safely under wraps until the trial. I have a number of questions that I hope will be answered when the trial gets underway -

How do they know $3,000 is missing? The logical explanation can be one or both of these: Nobody gets in free to playoff games, and they have a headcount at the gate to match against receipts. Doing the math showed that they were $3,000 short. Secondly, the ticket sellers at the gate counted the money before handing it off to Barry, and the total sum they gave him was $3,000 more than what he deposited. The first by itself doesn't necessarily mean Barry stole the money; the second almost certainly does.

What high school athletic department anywhere is stupid enough to put one individual in charge of processing the gate receipts? Making it an absolute requirement that a minimum of two people handle the money at every step through the bank deposit is just common sense. Not just to protect against theft, but also to protect the individual involved from any accusation of theft or mishandling of the funds.

If the evidence was strong enough to convince the school board to remove Barry from his coaching and assistant athletic director positions, why was it not strong enough to remove him from teaching? It seems on its face to represent a double standard: A thief can't be allowed to coach the basketball team, but is OK to teach math? Where's the logic in that?

To accept Barry's story of grabbing a few bucks to buy office supplies, you have to believe that he didn't know any better. Stories say that he's been a teacher and coach for something like 11 years. It stretches all credibility to accept that, given all those years around high school athletic programs, he was ignorant about basic practices in handling of gate receipts and requisitioning office supplies.

As an outside observer who has never met Barry, the information that has been released about his case leads me to the logical conclusion that he is more likely guilty than not guilty. The exact amount is certainly questionable, and unless the ticket sellers have solid evidence of their total gate receipts, it may never be known. But it seems unlikely that 500 people were mis-counted or allowed into the event for free.

The losers in this case are the Columbus North varsity basketball team. They had to survive this turmoil and go through a difficult season with an interim coach. The program has been damaged heavily by this incident, and likely will take years to recover.

Too bad.

Church Music

Now that I've ventured into the music topic, it's time to explore the music with which I have the most experience - sacred, or church music.

My family enjoyed singing, and I grew up singing. I started singing in church at a very young age - maybe as early as 4 or 5. In the next 45 years, I've spent more sunday mornings in the choir loft or as the Cantor than in the pew.

I've had the interesting experience of a lot of time in both Protestant and Catholic music programs. I enjoyed the protestant traditions of strong, 4-part congregational singing out of the hymnals. Protestants can sing, and generally sing pretty well. My favorite hymn-singing practice in the Protestant churches is to switch between parts in each verse. Melody, alto, tenor, bass. It's fun.

The Catholics, in contrast, don't sing. Most Catholic masses feature a small choir or guitar group of variable skill singing to the congregation, who at best mumble quietly through the songs. Catholics don't provide hynmals with 4-part harmonies, but simple songbooks with only the melody line printed. Sometimes the books don't even provide the melody line, but just the lyrics.

But the Catholic church has the best sacred music library in the world. The Latin Masses written by history's greatest composers are some of the best music anywhere. I miss the brief times that I've been able to participate in presenting some of those wonderful choral works.

Unfortunately, these days it's hard to find good music in churches. Good organists, or even pianists for that matter, are few and far between. The great old traditional choral music has been replaced by guitars and "contemporary" unison choruses of very simple songs. It's sort of like musical kindergarten.

Most disappointing for me is the trend away from the whole congregation participating in the music, to now the guitar "praise bands" that use the church service or mass as their own performance platforms. I absolutely despise the churches I've visited that project the words to the simple songs on a screen behind the "praise band". As an individual in the pew who has never heard the songs before, I can't sing along, let alone harmonize. Nor do I want to, because the amplifiers are cranked up to a level where you can't hear yourself think and the song is of poor quality anyway.

I'm not suggesting that I'm some sort of musical snob. I enjoy a well-composed contemporary song and a good guitar. Some of the modern sacred music is pleasant, if not very sophisticated.

My complaint is more that music is meant to be shared by all in a common worship experience, not performed by a small group of musicians for their own gratification and egos. I've come to the point where I prefer to sing from my church's balcony. The ideal I attempt to find in my singing is to enhance the experience of the Mass for everyone, where they don't even know or think much about who is up there in the balcony providing the music.

After all, we're not there to praise the musicians.

I wish more church musicians could get that.

Musical Illiteracy

What an interesting social experiment in Washington DC.

Would you have stopped to listen?

Would you have recognized the music or the musician?

Would you have recognized the quality of the performance?

Would you have thrown some cash in the violin case?

The actual results of the experiment are disheartening.

Good Friday Sermon

A couple thousand years ago, an itinerant Jewish preacher wandered the countryside, preaching about basic philosophies like faith, hope, and love.

He became a sort of celebrity among the ancient Judeans, drawing huge crowds with his simple, common-sense sermons and miraculous healings of the sick and disabled. He hung out with the outcasts of society and disdained the priestly elite. Those outcasts were inspired by his message to change their lives for the better, while the elite leaders of his faith sought to silence him.

So when he entered Jerusalem for the Jewish Passover, the priestly elite arrested him in the middle of the night and held a kangaroo court in which they convicted him of religious blasphemy and political sedition.

But Judea was part of the Roman Empire, and the priests didn't have authority to execute their judgement on this poor preacher. So they took him to the Roman governor, who interrogated the pitiful preacher and decided that he represented no threat to the Empire, and decided to let him go.

But a riotous crowd was gathered by the priests to demand the preacher's execution, so the governor relented, not wanting to foment a riot among the Jews of Jerusalem over one of their own that had somehow offended their priestly elite.

So the preacher was severely beaten, then nailed to a wooden cross for a slow and excruciating death.

The Christian faith was born when this itinerant preacher got up and walked out of his tomb three days after he died on that cross. He was seen, heard, and touched by hundreds of people who attested to that resurrection. And thousands were so affected by the experience that they willingly went to their own horrible deaths only because they refused to renounce their faith in what they had witnessed directly and felt compelled to spread the message to the rest of the world.

Today, Christians are once again vilified and branded as evil by non-Christians. Christians are accused of being "weak-minded" and are considered more dangerous than today's radical Muslim terrorists, even though no actual examples exist of Christian churches conspiring to do anything more dangerous than trying to influence politicians to stop abortion and homosexual marriage.

I wonder why there remains as much hatred today for that 2,000 year old preacher from the other side of the world as there was back when that hatred led to his crucifixion? What so upsets people that they will persecute followers of the preacher who asked us only to love and care for one another? Why does a message of love and redemption strike such fear into people that they would seek to persecute those who wish to convey that message?

Such hatred does not cause me, as a Christian, to hate in return. It only makes me sad. Such hatred must come from some horrible life experience or a misguided brainwashing that has prevented these people from learning the true nature and message of that poor Judean preacher, Jesus Christ.

Brain Programming

Conflict is less upsetting to me lately, although it is still true that I generally prefer to avoid it. In the business setting, it doesn't upset me at all when I know I'm right. That is, if the issue is about something and not about me. What upsets me the most is when I'm personally accused unfairly, especially when the guilty party is either looking on silently or actually making the accusation.

When the issue is not personal, it's fascinating to note that people solve problems in different ways. So many times I've seen people make decisions based on the way their brains are wired. Some make decisions based on feeling and intuition, and others based on available facts and research.

In the business world, intuitive decision-makers are only right when they get lucky. Rational decision-makers are right because they did their homework.

I experienced the contrast directly this week, dealing with managers from two different clients. The first was an excellent manager. She is always pleasant and positive, but at the same times knows how to ask the right questions. She listens carefully to the answers and asks more questions until she understands the problem and possible solutions, then is decisive about her chosen solution. She then assigns the task to a member of her staff most competent to carry out the task, and follows up to make sure it is completed on time and according to her instruction. Finally, she enthusiastically praises the staff member for a job well done.

In contrast, there is a second manager with a very different approach. Whenever she's around, her staff cowers, afraid they will be upbraided for some unknown failure. She knows there is a problem, and is visibly angry, although her staff has noticed that she never seems to have any emotion other than anger. Rather than seeking to understand the problem, she probes deeply to try to find the guilty party. When the guilty party is self-identified, given up by a co-worker, or just chosen as the most likely candidate, a public lynching takes place. Then this manager proceeds to order a staff member to correct the problem. She doesn't identify the solution or give any guidance to that staff member, but simply demands the issue be fixed by that person immediately. The frightened and demoralized staff member then goes off and tries his best to fix the problem, knowing that he doesn't really know how and will be upbraided again tomorrow for failing to fix it properly.

What I wonder about is who hired the second manager, and does that person have any idea what they have done to their organization by doing so?

Confusing Messages

The people in charge are really feeling their oats. It's hard to miss them when channel-surfing, crowing in front of the cameras about how they will use their new power to change things.

But I'm confused. I keep trying to understand what they believe in, but keep getting mixed messages. Maybe somebody with insider knowledge can explain these apparent contradictions to me:

They say they believe in free speech. Except that speech they find offensive. Burning American flags and publicly wishing for the assasination of the President and Vice President are not offensive. But a cross or monument containing the Ten Commandments are offensive, and must be removed from public sight post-haste.

They care about all forms of life. Some of them would like to force us all to become vegetarians so we don't kill any more cows and chickens and pigs. They despise the death penalty for our most hardened criminals. But they vigorously defend the "right" of a woman to kill her own baby anytime up until it emerges from her womb. And they want to help the sick and elderly die early so they are less of a burden on the rest of us.

They despise war and are pacifists. Those who threaten us from abroad must be negotiated. If we give them what they want and try to make them like us, there will never be a need for war. But they love United Nations Peacekeeping missions, where soldiers in blue helmets go to third world countries for show while mostly unarmed and trying to avoid being shot.

They support legalization of so-called "recreational" drugs from marijuana to cocaine. At the same time, they pass laws against smoking and certain foods that contain trans-fats. So do I understand this correctly? I can shoot up with my drug of choice even if it kills me, but I can't smoke tobacco (but a joint would be OK), and I can't eat a cheeseburger and fries?

They claim that the evil rich don't pay their fare share in taxes, even though the rich actually pay more of the national tax burden than everyone else combined. But the evil rich somehow don't include these elites who inherited their wealth or acquired it through political activities. Hollywood celebrities are also exempted from the evil rich category. It seems that the evil rich who are paying the freight on everything the government spends should be punished. But if they're punished, where will the government go next to get their money? Because the rich won't have it anymore after the government takes it from them, and the poor don't pay any taxes.

Finally, somewhat related to the last item, these people fancy themselves as the modern verions of Robin Hood. They claim to want to take vast amounts of money from the wealthy to "help" the poor with everything from housing to food to welfare. Yet somehow most of the money they collect doesn't go to the poor. Instead, it goes to political pet projects and the bloated bureaucracies managed by the friends of the elites, where most of it is spent on salaries for bureaucrats who sit around thinking up new rules for the programs and documenting them in voluminous books nobody reads or understands.

I'm very curious. Why again do Americans vote these people into power?

I just can't figure it out.

Adventures in the Southwest

It's pretty nice staying at the client's resort here in the Albuquerque area. Great time of year to visit the area, too. The only problem is I'm working 12-hour days and can't enjoy it beyond the morning and evening drives.

It's probably not the place to live, though. The locals tell me the area's got pretty serious crime issues. It seems most of them have had their homes or their neighbors' homes broken into, which isn't something I'd want to face.

The really bizarre thing about this area is I've had two strange women try to flirt with me this week. Albuquerque women must be really wierd. Or blind.

Every day, despite working 12 hours, I keep falling further behind. All of a sudden I seem to be popular. Previous clients are calling to ask for me again for new projects, and I think my summer will be fully booked within a week or so. Plus I keep getting pressure to "please, can you just squeeze in a couple days for ...?" I'm buried and in danger of sinking deeper if I'm not careful.

This client wants me to look into a later flight, which I have. I could go home later for about double the original airfare, which of course means I wouldn't get home until around 3AM Saturday. Topping that off, I set an appointment for Saturday at 10. I think I'll try to talk these guys out of the flight change. I like to sleep sometimes, and have to drive to Chicago on Sunday anyway.

It's good to be busy and in demand. It's not so good to be stressed and overworked. Everything in life is a trade-off.

Evangelical Conservatives?

Was scanning radio stations over the weekend, which was mostly spent in the car. NPR was interviewing some guy that was supposed to represent an organization called the National Organization of Evangelicals. They were talking politics, and the evangelical guy shocked me.

Shocked because of his positions, which sounded just like Al Gore and John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. Glossing over the sticky abortion issue, he proceeded to declare that Evangelical Christians are on board with Al on the Global Warming thing, with Hillary on Universal Healthcare, and with Edwards on the "Two Americas" theme.

The guy covered a wide ranging set of Democrat themes, from the "mistake" in Iraq to torture to mercury poisoning to environmental and economic rape by evil big oil to businesses who refuse to pay a living wage or provide health insurance to their employees. And of course, any poor person from south of the border should be welcomed without restriction.

So either he's some sort of renegade, or the folks you would think are the most reliable conservatives have gone over the cliff.

Whenever somebody keeps going on and on about those themes, I just want to ask them a few questions -

If we do what you want and run away from Iraq, what exactly do you think will happen next? To the Iraqis, the Israelis, Us?

Where's everybody that's supposedly being poisoned by mercury? Do you know anywhere in the US that mercury levels are even close to harmful levels? Do you know how the whole mercury story came about? (Bill Clinton left it as a political land mine for Bush when he left office, signing an executive order in his last days requiring impossible and arbitrary mercury standards that Bush would have no choice but to rescind. There's more to the story, if you have enough curiosity to do a bit of research)

Al Gore and his Global Warming alarmists said our coastlines would be under water years ago. Actual serious scientists dispute both the degree and the level of human contribution. Politicians are drooling at the "Carbon Credits" idea as a great new taxation source. Guess how much their solutions will actually impact greenhouse emissions. Are you a sheep?

Ever take economics? Heard of Supply and Demand? What depresses wages? Evil employers who refuse to pay their employees, or politicians who purposely fail to do their jobs enforcing existing immigration laws so millions of poor people stream across happy to take jobs for $5 an hour or less that used to pay two or three times that?

What prisoners are being tortured? What's your definition of torture? What exact forms of torture can you say for certain are currently authorized and utilized?

Health insurance for everybody! Who could be against that? I'm just a bit curious about something, though. The only way you can guarantee universal coverage is to have the government take over. How do you feel about a government bureaucrat making all the decisions about your healthcare, from what medications you can have to what surgeries you can have and when? Do you know anything that the government does efficiently or well? And you want to trust your life to bureaucrats? What are you thinking?

Things are no longer about conservative or liberal. They're now about common sense versus ignorance and stupidity.

Ignorance and stupidity have won.

Almost Free

Just a few minutes and I'll be locking the office for a long weekend.

It's my first break since the Christmas holiday, and it feels very overdue.

One stop before the day is over, to present a proposal and hopefully gain some business locally. It's always good when I can work in my own office instead of some random city in North America.

The temperature actually got to 70 today, making this an even better time to take a break.

Off to New Mexico and the old grind Sunday.

Missing the Point

I've heard and read various discussions on Education, and find it interesting to hear all the theories about what's wrong and how to fix it, since nobody has really found the point.

Just a few examples of pontifications on why our schools are messed up -

Too much emphasis on sports, especially boy's football and basketball

Too much extraneous politically correct stuff getting in the way of the basics

Bad teachers

Bad parents

Not enough money

God is banned

Distracted and disruptive students

There may be some basic truth to many of the theories presented above, but I think they all miss the larger point.

With the exception of the worse inner-city schools, most American schools turn out a few students who go on to excel in the best colleges in the world. To me, that seems to indicate they at least got something out of their education.

So what separates those high achievers from their non-achieving classmates?

You could say racism, but that wouldn't be correct. It doesn't explain why, for example, students from predominantly black inner-city schools tend to do much worse than their middle-class counterparts from the suburbs and countryside. It also doesn't explain why Asian students seem to do extremely well regardless of where they attended primary and secondary schools.

There does seem to be an economic variable, where it seems someone from a poor family is much less likely to excel in their education than someone from a middle or upper-class family. But even though it does show a trend, I don't think the problem is purely socio-economic.

I think it is simple individual motivation.

What kid who has no particular goals or dreams for himself will bother doing his Math homework? If someone feels abandoned or without personal value because nobody has expressed interest or caring for them as an individual, why would she care what grade she receives in Social Studies? If the kids one "hangs out with" treat anyone who studies and gets decent grades with derision, what's the likelihood he will want to make an effort in class?

The problem with education is that government schools cannot and should not be parents. And only parents can teach children to dream, to be disciplined, to set and achieve long-term goals, and to excel.

Unfortunately, with each passing generation, the dregs and dropouts of society reproduce offspring they teach to continue the family tradition. Unless someone, somewhere, can get hold of these children when they are very young and help them develop a curiosity about the world and big dreams for themselves, nothing will change. And expecting government institutions to do that is neither practical nor appropriate.

Not that it's hopeless. I have some ideas, some borrowed, others my own, that I think could really make a difference. Almost none of them have been proposed by anyone I've ever encountered. Maybe someday I could whisper them into the ear of someone with enough influence to drive them forward.

But not now. Now it's more important to be a Democrat or Republican, Conservative or Liberal, and blame each other for the problems as they continue to deteriorate.

Too bad.

March MadFun

Saw some good basketball over the weekend. As I've always said, College Basketball always beats the NBA hands-down in terms of entertaining basketball.

It was cool to see Butler take down Maryland to advance to the Sweet 16. It's always great to get a smaller school in the mix, especially one from Indiana. I was thinking that Maryland fans must have been upset with the color commentator calling the game for CBS, because he sounded like a Butler fan. Why not? Everybody should be Butler fans, because here's a small school with a bunch of small guys who don't look like they belong on the same court with the big boys, yet they play hard, disciplined basketball and can shoot like, well, Indiana farmboys. Wouldn't it be great if they could somehow find a way to steal their next game from Florida?

Bad news for the Big Ten, though. Indiana was clearly outclassed by UCLA in talent, but showed pure guts in getting a tie with under a minute left. Then they couldn't get the ball inbounds. Game Over.

It really seemed for awhile that Purdue was going to pull off the upset against Florida, but just seemed to fold at the end of the game. It's amazing how far Purdue has come after their last two dismal seasons.

Wisconsin and Illinois and Michigan State all were unceremoniously dumped, although Michigan State played a tough game.

Only Ohio State remains alive, and needed overtime to accomplish that.

Who will be the Final Four? Your guess is as good as mine. That's why this tournament is so much fun.

This is supposed to be Spring Break. But I'm working, as usual. Except Thursday and Friday, when I do expect to be off.

Age of Feelings

I seem to be a member of a small and shrinking group of people that believe reason should be the basis of decisions in life and politics. It seems that there may be a majority of people these days who draw their conclusions about a variety of issues from how they feel about each issue instead of trying to understand pesky little elements like facts and root causes.

Name any issue bandied about in the public square today. One side embraces a point of view with religious fervor because they think they're being compassionate, while the other takes a position based on available fact and historical experience. The religious (and I'm not talking about Jews, Muslims, Christians, or Hindus) become highly offended when one of the tenets of their faith is challenged.

Here's a quick rundown of the big issues of today.

War: You could say it's the war in Iraq, but I think that's morphed into war in general. The acolytes of the new religion say that war is universally bad. In the words of Seymour Indiana's great musician-philosopher John Mellencamp, no war is morally justifiable. So in their world, if we just pull all the soldiers out of Iraq and stop harassing the people there, peace will reign. All that is needed is communication and understanding.

When I read the history books, every single case I've seen where one side stopped fighting and laid down their arms for peace has a name: Surrender.

Gay Marriage: The priesthood of the new religion says that homosexuality is not a behavior, but an intrinsic part of a person, like hair or eye or skin color. Therefore, if two people of the same gender want to marry each other, anybody who says "no" is just a mean bigoted homophobe on par with the old KKK.

Actually, marriage is a holy sacrament that the government has come to recognize as a positive foundation for forming stable families that produce solid citizens. Nobody ever raided any ceremony where two people of the same gender chose to make marriage-like promises to each other, and there's no law against same. If the gay marriage issue is really about obtaining marital benefits from employers and the government, then why limit those rights to gays? Any and every possible alternative definition of a family should then also be given equal rights to marital benefits. If you allow gays, why not grant the same benefits to any other arrangements, whether the people involved are having sex with each other or not? If the government is going to recognize gay unions and say there is no moral standard allowed, then why continue to discriminate against polygamy?

A side note, despite studies that support the opposite conclusion, most people seem to have been brainwashed into believing that gay is something one "is", rather than something one "does". The real story is that homosexuality is a chosen behavior, not a genetic feature.

Global Warming: The planet is burning! We must stop all carbon emissions immediately! The oceans are rising, the glaciers and icecaps are receding, and wildlife is dying! All because selfish Americans drive SUV's and like to heat and air condition their homes to a comfortable temperature.

Beware politicians (Al Gore) masquerading as climate scientists. Guess what his solution is - levying big taxes on people who exceed their allotted "Carbon Footprint". So what's this really all about? Saving the planet or empowering government? Given a few "inconvenient truths" that for every glacier and ice cap that's shrinking, there's one somewhere else that's growing; that no coastal areas I know of have gone underwater that Mr. Gore said should have done so years ago; and that the global warming priesthood has excommunicated all scientists who question their science (calling them "global warming deniers"); I don't think we need to trade our cars in for bicycles just yet.

I could do more, but I'm tired of writing and need to get some real work done.

Have a great weekend!

Hump Day Musings

Taxes are done. The rest of the mountain is being moved one shovelfull at a time. The good news is I've shut off any further booking between now and late May. There's comfort in knowing I'll be staying busy for awhile. Now if I could just get the comfort that I'll stay busy for the next 10 years, I've got it made.

Talked with an old co-worker today, who filled me in on the current state of corporate politics. It's nice to be reminded how blessed I am to be immune from the machinations of real-life caricatures from Dilbert land.

The silliness of state and national governments still keeps me on a tightrope between guffaws and sobs, but I'm ignoring it more all the time. I know that when too many people like me tune out it just helps the kooks gain even more power, but how much silliness can a citizen take? The silliness either means most of our country is stupid or that they aren't paying attention. I'm hoping it's the latter.

Posting only because of a lull in the storm that has been today. After juggling several things all day long, suddenly I'm now waiting for others to do their part before I can continue. Just the nature of this business, I suppose.

Got a big check in the mail but I don't know what it's for. Too bad it's probably a mistake. Otherwise, I think I'd take it out and plop it down on a new car.

Good Weather and No Travel Just What Doc Ordered

It's not a week off, because I'm still way behind, but it's shaping up to be a decent week. No travel and the weather's great. What more could I ask for?

Looks like I'll have a back-to-back next month again. Tim thought it sounded great, since it's in Jamaica, but I'm a bit concerned whether I'll be in an area that's safe. My luck I'll get put up in a shack somewhere, have no beach access, and have to watch out for muggers on the way to and from the client every day. I guess Tim thinks that's how an old guy would think.

Maybe so. On the other hand, maybe it will be fun. We'll see.

The air's beginning to smell like spring, and we can finally air out the house. It's probably the old stale inside air that made us all sick last month.

Maybe I can find a way toward a personal attitude change. Things I used to think were fun now just seem tiring. That's how my energy level is (or isn't) these days.

When the Story isn't the Story

The disturbing trend of a monolithic news media acting more like the Soviet's Pravda than a free press was fully evident with the conviction of Scooter Libby this week.

How many people actually know the true story behind unfortunate Scooter's indictment and conviction?

How about you? Do you think that Scooter was:

1. Found guilty of knowingly leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent in an attempt to discredit her husband, who proved that George Bush lied in a speech where he said that Saddam's Iraq tried to purchase mass quantities of yellow-cake uranium from Niger?
2. Was a pawn in the whole affair, taking the fall for Carl Rove and Vice President Cheney, who were really behind the "leak" but pushed Libby under the bus to save themselves?
3. Was the victim of an overzealous special prosecutor determined to make a name for himself, who caught Scooter making an inaccurate statement about when he first learned of the CIA agent's involvement, and prosecuted him simply for lying to investigators and the grand jury?

If you get your news from the three networks or CNN, you are probably somewhere between number 1 and 2.

Just in case you want some basic facts on the case that you never heard from news reporting, let me try to be concise.

1. In the buildup to the Iraq war, the White House asked the CIA for an analysis of whether British intelligence reports that Iraq was working on a trade relationship with Niger for the purpose of acquiring Yellow-Cake Uranium were accurate.
2. A woman named Valerie Plame worked as some sort of analyst in the CIA, and recommended her husband, a guy named Joseph Wilson, to go to Niger and talk with government officials there to see if he could substantiate the story.
3. Joe Wilson was a former low-level State Department employee that served as an assistant to an Ambassador to a country I don't recall. He is a Democratic political operative who hates Bush and his administration, and worked for the Kerry campaign for President.
4. Wilson went to Niger, where he actually found out that Iraqi government representatives had met with Niger officials to discuss establishing a trade relationship. Niger's only unique export of value is Uranium.
5. Wilson came back and gave a verbal report to someone at the CIA, which never went to the White House. Then he wrote an Op-Ed for the NY Times, claiming that he was sent by Vice President Cheney to investigate the uranium intelligence, and found no evidence, therefore Bush lied.
6. That became a big story, amplified by an incurious media, who for the most part didn't try to find out who Wilson really was, who sent him to Niger, or where the uranium story came from. Instead, they focused heavily on supporting Wilson's claim that Bush lied.
7. Robert Novak wrote a column about the event, where he exposed the fact that Wilson made the trip to Niger on his wife's recommendation. He and other journalists more interested in the true story than the hyped one began to find out little things, such as the fact that most of Wilson's op-ed was inaccurate and untrue.
8. The media erupted in a firestorm when Wilson himself, disgruntled about his integrity being challenged by Novak, came up with the idea that releasing his wife's name to refute his story was a crime because she was a covert CIA operative.
9. Bush finally gave into extreme media and Democrat pressure, and appointed a special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, to investigate whether or not a crime may have been committed by someone in his administration.
10. The investigation dragged on for years. Eventually, there was only one person indicted in the affair, Scooter Libby, who was an aide to Vice President Cheney. Libby wasn't indicted for leaking the name of a covert CIA operative. He was indicted because he told investigators that he thought Tim Russert of NBC News was the person that first told him about Valerie Plame, the CIA agent in question.
11. Libby was tried and convicted of lying, because Tim Russert testified that he never even discussed the case with Libby.

So here's why the story isn't the story. It turns out that the original source who identified Valerie Plame was a guy named Richard Armitage, a State Department guy who has no love for the Bush administration. Fitzgerald knew about that almost from the beginning, but didn't allow it to become public until after Libby was indicted. Libby had no role in releasing Plame's name to the press.

As for the idea that the white house orchestrated some sort of illegal "leak" about Plame in an attempt to discredit Wilson, it actually was never illegal. Because Plame had not been a covert operative in many years, during which she has been working behind a desk at the CIA as an analyst. Fitzgerald claims her role was "classified", but whether or not that's true, it's irrelevant.

Even if people in the white house knowingly leaked her identity to discredit her husband, there's no crime. Even posed as an ethical question, why shouldn't any administration be able to tell reporters the truth about the story to offset the lies and deceptions put out publicly by Wilson? Are they not allowed to at least try to get the truth to the public, even if the majority of the press don't want that truth to get out?

Did Libby lie on purpose or have a faulty memory? I don't really think it matters. Is it obstruction of justice if someone lies, but the lies have no bearing on the facts of the case?

No, Libby isn't a white house scapegoat. He's simply a trophy for Fitzgerald's wall, celebrated by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

I feel sorry for Libby, and hope he gets a light sentence or even a pardon. Because what he did, even if he consciously lied, doesn't deserve a bunch of prison time. What I think is the bigger problem is the news media, who have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in this case that they are incapable of unbiased, fair, and factual reporting.

How to tell it's time for a new car

When you come out of the restroom in the interstate rest area to find a state police officer checking out your vehicle to see if it's abandoned.

The irony is that I've been working like a maniac - the fact I just finished working for the day at 10:30PM in evidence - and still don't feel like I can really afford to go buy a new car.

Just a little tidbit of information related to the new car idea: I got all my stuff together for tax preparation, and found that if not for all the money that went to Healthcare and College expenses last year, I could have bought a pretty decent new car for cash!

Gotta stop thinking about that.

After 2 straight 15 hour workdays, I think I'll cut off tomorrow's workday at 8. I don't care about all the work that's still waiting for me, I need a break!

Yes, there are still about 5 things I'm way behind on, but I'm burned out. I want to just disappear for about two weeks, somewhere warm where nobody can find me.

Gotta stop thinking about that.

Maybe I could apply for the WalMart Greeter job. Seems like a very low-stress job. What do you think it pays? Not quite six figures, is it?

Oh well.

This weekend I hope we have decent weather, because at the very least I better wash old Jed. If I don't get the jalopy washed pretty soon, some cop might decide it's junk and have it towed away.

Oh yeah, and the client I'm working with this week is the same one I worked with last year when Jed broke down. Twice. They asked me if I was still driving the same car, you know, the one that kept breaking down last year. I was kind of embarrassed to tell them, "Yes".

Gotta either laugh or cry.

Ready or Not

Time to go back on the road for almost two weeks solid. I hoped to be completely recovered, but not quite. I'm better, but not all the way back yet. Doesn't matter, I have to get on the airplane today. I'll be home for one overnight this Sunday, then have to go right back out again.

Since I had a CASA hearing yesterday afternoon, I took the rest of the afternoon off. I went home and took a nap. Although it just put me even further behind, I enjoyed it immensely.

Here goes ...

Logic Pretzels

The change in the public political debates since last year's election put Democrats in power is becoming rather fascinating. Sure, the Iraq fight (not the one actually happening in Iraq, but the one in Washington) still gets lots of play. But I'm noticing that there are lots of new left-wing ideas beginning to pop up, because of course, domestic socialism is what that party's really about.

Take a recent tax discussion I caught briefly when channel-surfing. The argument was the usual soak-the-rich thing. One side says the rich don't pay enough, while the other says they actually make up a very large chunk of the national budget.

What I wished I could ask them was this: Most of the biggest supporters of the political left are very rich. From Soros to all the Hollywood crowd to recording artists. Do I understand you to be saying you will reward their millions in support for bringing your party to power by slapping them with a 90% tax rate? How do you think that will go over with them?

My suspicion is that if and when they get a 90% rich tax passed, they'll cleverly write exemptions into the tax code carefully targeted to include their supporters while excluding the rich people they don't like. Those being people like surgeons, CEOs, stockbrokers, and such.

How else can it make sense that a political party would bite the hands that feed it?

I find it interesting that the argument is based on a twisted logical exercise that goes something like this: Rich people have obscene amounts of money they can spend on vacation homes and private jets and the like, while the poor worker barely gets paid enough to take care of his family.

The flaws in the logic of that whole story are many. First, what are you going to do with all the money you confiscate from those rich people? Give it to the poor families? Please. We all know better. The "programs" you want to create to "help" people are really the creation of big bureaucracies in which you hope to get appointed to a top job so you can make a good living without having to work much.

Next, since when do you care about families? You're a feminist, which means you would prefer women remain childless. But if they really want children, they certainly don't need men around. And you also believe a gay couple is the moral equivalent (if not superior) to a traditional married couple. Finally, from what I hear, you believe the planet is overpopulated, so even if a hetero couple get married and want a family, you think they should be limited to only one child.

You might think these are strange people with strange ideas. I tend to think they are actually people with visions of great power. Taxing the rich isn't about helping the poor or any sort of "fairness" idea. It's about power. The power of elite people in government to tell the citizenry how they are to live their lives. And make a very nice living for themselves with cushy positions deep within their bloated bureaucracies.

Could be Worse. But Not Much.

This week has been about the worst on record.

It started with the contraction of the awful disease the rest of the family carried around and I thought I had missed. But it came back with a vengeance for the second time to Claudia, and I couldn't duck it this time.

So just as I was getting sick I had to get on a plane to Toronto. Ever been sick on a long plane trip? I would not recommend it.

Getting in well after midnight Tuesday morning, I got a couple hours sleep in between the misery and got up like a trooper to go into the client office.

My directions were wrong. By the time I realized I was going the wrong way, the scheduled start time was already a dead issue. First meeting with client, you get lost and are late. While sick. Keep up with me here.

But I call and explain my dilemma, fight my way through horrible Toronto traffic, and eventually reach my destination.

My primary contact for the event is the most unpleasant woman I think I have ever met. Ordinarily she would seem to be an attractive female; blond, trim, well-dressed. But her face is permanently screwed into a terrible sour snarl. Sort of like someone who was peeling an onion and sucking on a lemon at the same time.

I felt like the guy who just ran over her cat and now had to work for her for a week as penance. She was angry, bitter, acerbic, haughty, distrusting, and downright mean. She made it clear from the very moment of our first meeting that she absolutely despised the software system I was there to help her understand. And so, by association, she apparently hated me as well.

Ok, Mr. Dan, your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to help a woman understand the software her company has been running for 8 years. But the woman hates that software, hates you, and thinks the software she used back at her old company sliced bread, put the children to bed and cleaned the floors. This tape will self-destruct in ...

So for three days I go in to work with the dragon lady in perhaps the most openly hostile situation I have ever experienced in my 25 years doing this. I go back to the hotel, which takes an hour at night through rush-hour traffic, because she specified a hotel that's cheap and 30 minutes away in good traffic.

At the hotel, I do some of the incessant work that never stops that I have to do every night, sick or not. Then I collapse in bed and try to sleep. But whenever I start to drift off, a choking coughing fit wakes me up. Only about 4 or 5 AM does it seem to settle down enough that I actually am able to sleep a bit. But I have to be up by 6:30.

Then the trip home consists of flight delays, so again it's around midnight when I pull into the garage. I still can't sleep, so I try the reclining sofa. Doesn't help, I still only get about 2 or 3 hours. I drag myself into the office, still lots of work to do and a big pile of messages to return.

So of course, here I am at 7PM on Friday, having quit for the day even though I'm far from finished. In fact, I didn't even get to start on what I had planned for today, because another client popped up with a fire they wanted me to put out for them. So that backs up today's work to Monday, but Monday was already promised for two other things, and something's going to back up to Tuesday, and the client with the fire sounds like they'll be back as well. It means I get no weekend to recover from my illness, let alone relax or do something fun. Wednesday I go to Phoenix and will get back Sunday night, just in time to do late-night laundry, re-pack, and drive off to Chicago early Monday morning. Makes me imagine being even more tired than I am now.

Is there anything good about this week? One thing I can think of. I'll get paid. Not nearly enough for what I went through, but there's that.

I'd be a Pacers Fan, if only

I want to follow the Pacers. It would be fun to have a pro basketball team in Indy that was as much fun to watch as the Colts.

But not this team.

I grew up in Indiana. I played basketball in Indiana. Probably the best place in the world to be a high school basketball player, at least back then. Class basketball has wrecked the mystique, but that's another story.

Still, I think it holds true that Indiana is a basketball paradise. The state is full of people who love the game, understand the game, and appreciate a team that knows how to play the right way.

We don't appreciate a pro team made up of a bunch of hip-hop thugs who don't respect the game, don't respect their responsibilities to be examples for young players, and don't respect the fans who make their multi-million dollar salaries possible.

Donnie Walsh and Larry Bird, if you want the Pacers to generate the interest, excitement, and profits of their Colts cousins, there are some basic requirements.

Sure, winning helps, but it isn't the first requirement. Hoosiers, first and foremost, want a team that is fundamentally sound, hustles every play and every night, and shows strong character. We don't care much for flashy dunks and chest-pounding by players, especially when the team is down 20 points. We especially don't like players who get arrested for brawling in strip clubs and trashy bars in the wee hours of the morning.

We want guys who play for the love of the game first, and money second. Who come to work every night with the attitude to do whatever it takes to win. Who bond closely with teammates and help each other toward achieving team goals.

We want a point guard who plays like Jason Kidd, Steve Nash, John Stockton. (Magic is one of a kind, so that would just be dreaming.) A shooting guard like, well, Reggie Miller. Small forward like, duh, Larry Bird. Power forward, well, we think Jermaine O'Neil is alright. And a center like Bill Russell or Kareem or Tim Duncan. Real pros, who play with great fundamentals, are great teammates, and aren't gangsters off the court.

Draft, trade, whatever. But find guys who can live up to the legacy of the great players, and Hoosiers will be there to support the franchise.

Keep the thugs and slugs you've had in recent years, and we will find other things to do.

I'm Angry

I'm angry with Congress. Especially Democrats, but also Republicans who screwed up their chance to do something positive.

The socialist pacifist left has pulled off the most outrageous plot in history by yanking the rug out from under our troops during wartime. Their next step is reportedly a not-so-secret series of little bills that will defund the war by denying funds for any Iraq-related use. While still publicly pretending they "Support the troops".

When millions of people die in the middle east because of what they just did and will do, they will say, "Bush's fault."

When Iranian nukes start going off in Israel and Europe and, God forbid, the United States, they will say, "Bush's fault".

When we're incapable of fighting back because of a decimated military and intelligence agency, resulting in rampant bombings and shootings right here at home, they will say, "Bush's fault".

When gas prices at the pump go to 5, 6, even 10 dollars, they will say, "Bush's fault".

But they first succeeded in making ignorant fools of enough of the American population to grab power. So the same ignorant fools will believe them when our living standard disappears and we all live in fear. While Hillary pretends to be working hard on the problems from her seat in the Oval office, the fools will continue to repeat the mantra after her, "Bush's fault".

It's treason.

On Retirement

My half-century milestone is visible ahead, which has me contemplating the idea of retirement.

But when I think about the traditional model we know as retirement, it holds no appeal. I don't want to join the masses of grayhairs who sit at home watching television, gather together in Florida condominium complexes and trailer parks, and for whom an eventful day is their monthly trip to the doctor.

That's not what I want for myself. I'd rather never reach the point where I admit to being "retired". Because the very word implies I'm too old and feeble to do anything useful. If this software consulting work continues to keep me busy, I'd be happy to keep doing it until they won't let me anymore.

Not at the pace I'm on right now. These days I'm working like a maniac because I need the income, two kids in college and all. I've got other financial goals as well beyond college for the boys: A home remodel, a new car, saving enough to be able to retire if I want to.

In about 10 years, assuming I can keep busy with the consulting that long, I envision slowing down, not quitting. Instead of working all the time, maybe I'll work half the time. I'll spend more time with CASA or other volunteer activities. Maybe I'll finally find the time to get halfway decent at golf.

So many retired seniors that have so much to offer, but instead seem to be ignored by our society. I know that many of them do great volunteer work for social agencies, but it seems they could do so much more.

Those that volunteer are terrific, but I realize that some of them would like to do something part-time for pay. It's not like Social Security benefits are enough to live on. I wish there were some way to pay them a decent wage for doing things that really help everyone. Like mentoring and tutoring at-risk kids. Coaching soccer or basketball. Making sure nursing home patients are getting proper care and somebody to talk to now and then. Running errands for homebound. The list is endless.

Hopefully I'll be able to pick my own things from the list to do while I continue to consult. I just want the flexibility to make a decision to take a week or two off whenever I feel like it. I want to be able to afford to spend that week or two in a nice vacation spot. I want to be able to get season tickets to my favorite sports teams. I want to be able to go see my grandchildren in their various activities.

I hope my non-retirement is the best time of my life.

A Personality Trait

I've become more convinced than ever that political orientation is a personality trait.

The conclusion was reinforced by about a half hour spent watching CSPAN last night. Groups of congressmen and women took turns voicing their views on the Iraq no-confidence vote. The personality differences between the Republican and Democrat speakers were incredibly obvious.

Republicans were speaking against the resolution. They backed up their positions with logic, facts, and reason. The resolution does nothing but poke Bush in the eye, demoralize the troops, and encourage the enemy.

Democrats spoke in favor of the resolution. Passionately, they repeated each other's mantra. War is terrible, Bush sucks, we have no business being in Iraq, people are dying. Facts, logic, and reason played no role in their positions, which they poured out from the depths of their souls.

It's less accurate to say that political party affiliation is based on one's personality traits. Because there are many Republicans who lean left and Democrats who lean right. Maybe a more accurate statement would be to say a Conservative and a Liberal have quite different, almost opposite, personalities.

Liberals feel. They don't really care about facts, because their feelings and beliefs are more important. They wear their emotions on their sleeve, and place their good intentions above practicality. Interestingly, when it comes to this war, their main emotion is hatred. Deep, intense hatred, not for the terrorists and countries that support them, but for their own President. They hate him because they hate war, and he took us to war.

Liberals only want everyone else to understand that if only we talk to our enemies, we can convince them that we're really good people. People like Ahmadinejad and bin Laden would like us and stop trying to harm us if they just got to know us better. The solution for Iraq is not war, but talk! Maybe if we bring our soldiers home and engage the Shia militias and Iran and Syria in earnest discussions, all will be at peace.

Conservatives think. They analyze. They see that Iraq is a complex, multi-faceted problem. They understand that we didn't foresee the types of conflict between factions in Iraq battling for power and control of the country. They also understand that Iran is salivating at the prospect of a premature withdrawal of the American forces from Iraq, which for them will be the green light to invade and conquer. They understand that as distasteful and difficult everyone finds the war, our own national security depends on its success.

Yes, I'm a thinker, not a feeler. I can't deny that's probably the biggest reason I'm a conservative. To you feelers out there, I understand your emotions, and share some of them, but not the hatred. I just wish you could put aside those emotions for a moment and consider the facts and think through the consequences of the actions you support.

But I understand that isn't going to happen. Because of another personality trait. We all have to be right, especially when we've chosen sides in an important issue such as a war. Our pride and self-image will not permit any critical analysis that might prove we have been wrong.

As the war in Iraq continues, so also does the war at home, between the thinkers and the feelers.

The Sky is Blue

The simple analogy for my experience these crazy days is a sunny day.

It's a bright and sunny day, and I am outside enjoying it. So I make a comment that's overheard by many other people nearby, "Isn't it a beautiful blue sky?".

The other people say, "What are you talking about? The sky is red! How dare you say it's blue!".

I respond, "No, look, it's blue. Why do you think it's red?".

This agitates them and they begin to turn into an angry, red-faced mob. They begin shouting at me, calling me all sorts of nasty names. They accuse me of all manner of evil, calling me a bigot, a fascist, a right-wing fanatic, a hateful oppressor of red-sky people. A red sky denier.

I begin to fear for my safety. But I persist in saying, "Won't you just look? The sky is indeed blue. Why call me evil for stating such a simple and obvious truth?"

This only enrages them further. Their words become increasingly hateful. The advance on me in a threatening way, so I finally walk away slowly and sadly.

We seem to live in an age where people are so wrapped up in their chosen worldview that they refuse to acknowledge anything that deviates from it. Even if it is as clear as a blue sky on a sunny day.

Troubling Times

Simple logic. Critical Thinking. Informed Opinion.

All missing from a seeming majority of the public these days.

If what I see, hear, and read these days is correct, I'd say that the majority of people support things they don't understand. If you support these things, have you thought about the consequences?

Get out of Iraq. A breathless lovefest on 60 Minutes last night on their favorite Presidential candidate, Barak Obama, included that candidate's declared priority. What do you think will happen if we pull our forces out of Iraq before their government is established and capable of providing their own security? Does complete domination of the entire middle east by Iran seem OK? What if such domination includes the death of millions of Muslims who don't subscribe to the radical version of Islam required by Iran? What if it triggers a new holocaust for the Jews in Israel?

Healthcare for everyone. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the front-runners for President on the Democrat side, both want universal healthcare. Are you looking forward to some Washington bureaucrat making decisions about whether or not you can have a surgery, or see a specialist, or take a prescription drug? Does it make you feel justice is somehow served when you get your medical care for free, which really means that someone who works for a living paid more than half their earnings to the government so you could get that care? Maybe you just figure it was paid by some rich person, who deserved to have more of their income taken away so people like you could get your free healthcare. How much more tax are you willing to pay on your own income to get free healthcare? At that rate, is the healthcare really free?

Gay Marriage. Democrats generally either support Gay Marriage, or an alternative domestic partner benefit. Their over-the-top rhetoric suggests that denying gay couples the same rights and benefits as married couples is akin to apartheid. Do you think gay couples should get the same insurance coverage for their partners as married people do now? Do you think spouse and survivor benefits from Social Security should go to gay partners? Do you think churches and religious organizations should be jailed and/or denied their tax-exempt status if they refuse to employ or perform marriage ceremonies for gays? Do you think an employer who will not hire openly gay people should be fined and/or jailed? What if the employer also refuses to hire hetero couples who are cohabitating? Should gay couples be given equal or preferential treatment for adoption of children? What if the couple are active members of NAMBLA?

Tax the Rich. Do you think the rich are undertaxed today? Do you know how much the wealthiest people pay in taxes? Expressed as a percentage of income, what should those who earn high salaries give up to the government? 50%? 70%? 80%? If you won the lottery, would you then happily give up the same percentage before you get your winnings? Who do you consider rich? What annual salary should be subject to those high tax rates? $1 Million, $500K, $100K? If you worked hard and moved your way up in your company to the point of earning $250K in a year, would you then be happy to let the government take $125K or $150K or even more?

Drastically cut emissions to slow "global warming": Do you know what "global warming" is? Do you know anything about the science behind it? If all the coal-fired electric generation plants are shut down, how do you think it will effect the electricity you use in your home? If it only doubles your monthly electric bill, will you happily pay it, because it's your small price to pay to stop "global warming"? Would you be OK with the government forcing all gas-powered vehicles off the market, so you can only buy electic or hybrid cars you can't afford? How will you get to work every day? What if the government decides to force you to stop driving your 10-year-old car, that you haven't traded in yet simply because you can't afford the new hybrid vehicles?

Abortion Rights. You think women have a right to "choose" to have a baby or not. What if it's your daughter? What if your daughter is 14? Are you fine with someone from her school driving her out of town or out of state without your knowledge or consent for a fairly major and invasive medical procedure designed to exterminate your grandchild? All because your daughter was afraid of getting embarrassed or in trouble (grounded for a few months, for example) if she told you? Are you prepared to deal with the emotional scars the experience will inflict on your little girl for the rest of her life, because she let some activist feminist at her school talk her into the abortion? Do you know what "partial-birth" abortion is? Do you think it's still a matter of a woman's "choice" to kill a healthy, viable infant just before delivery because of a legal loophole?

If you have thought about all these issues and questions, and still support these policies and those who want to fully implement them, I guess I'm incapable of understanding you. If there's somebody out there that wants to take a stab at explaining the logic behind these things that I find incomprehensible, feel free.

Risky Travel

Tuesday afternoon was planned for the drive to Chicago. Going into the office first thing in the morning with my bag already packed and in Jed's back seat (Jed = my '99 Mercury Mountaineer), I heard weather forecasts on the radio predicting somewhere between 3 and 6 inches of snow later in the day.

But I had lots to accomplish in the office before hitting the road, so I got to work. By around 11AM, Claudia called to tell me it was snowing pretty heavily and she was hearing reports of people sliding off roads everywhere. Maybe I should postpone my trip for another day.

I responded that I had to go, because there were people coming to my training class up there from other parts of the country, and if I cancelled I'd be messing up their schedules and wasting their travel expenses. I decided to try getting as much of the most important work done in the office, then getting an earlier start on my drive north.

It was 2:00 when I finished the last of the most urgent tasks and began my trip. As I made my local stops at the ATM and gas station, I wondered whether it was a good idea to try driving all the way to Chicago in the storm.

Temperature was about 5 Farenheit, and so the snow had a sandy consistency, rattling the windshield as I drove. The roads were snow-covered and slippery, and I noted a couple of cars in the ditch as I slowly and carefully made my way to the interstate. Despite the heavy snow and poor road condition, I was able to drive through it all with about a quarter-mile of visibility, so I decided to try a few miles on the interstate and if it was too bad, I'd turn around.

The interstate wasn't too bad at first. The right lane was mostly open, and although it was snow-covered in places, I was able to move along at about 45MPH, so I decided to keep going.

But as I passed through Indianapolis, the road got worse. The extreme cold made the granular snow hit my warm windshield, melt briefly, then re-freeze against the windshield wipers until the wipers were completely encased in hard ice and useless.

I kept moving north of Indy, but gradually the average speed dropped to 30-35 as conditions worsened. I pulled off in the first roadside rest stop for a bathroom break, and cleaned off my windshield as best I could while knocking the ice off the wipers.

Then as I approached Lafayette, traffic came to a halt. Not being able to see ahead of the trucks I was parked behind, I found a report on the radio that there were a couple of jacknifed trucks in the Lafayette area that had stopped traffic. It was about an hour before the traffic moved beyond the jam, but even then I could not get up to speed on the icy highway.

I drove from Lafayette through the Region at about 30MPH, passing cars and trucks stuck in the median and the ditch on both sides of the road as I went. And getting rather stressed and tired. When I finally reached the Region, I considered pulling off the road for a break and some dinner, but decided that would just make the already long trip interminable. So I soldiered on.

Finally I made the turn on the 80-94 highway toward Chicago, and it looked pretty clear. I started to increase my speed, until an SUV ahead of me spun from left to right into the snow on the right shoulder. The road looked clear, but it was black ice. I tested my brakes and immediately felt Jed's back end begin to fishtail. So I backed down again to 30.

I finally reached my hotel after 8 hours after a trip that normally takes about 4 and a half. Exhausted, I went to bed and fell asleep fairly quickly.

Should I have made the trip? Probably not. But I got there, taught my class, and drove home Thursday night in the normal 4 and a half hours.

Good Can Win

Having followed the Colts a little since they won the Super Bowl back in Baltimore when I was a kid, then much more closely when they relocated to Indy, I was of course very happy to see them win the Super Bowl finally this year.

But for me, it's more important that this victory showed that people of character and morals and ethics can win. It's true that any organization reflects its leader, and the Colts are no different. Their leader, Tony Dungy, is a soft-spoken man of integrity, sincerity, and strong faith. You don't catch him using profanity or yelling in the face of officials or players.

Tony's stated priorities are always faith, family, and football, in that order. I saw the televised celebration at the RCA dome from last night, where the stadium was jammed with people showing their appreciation for their championship team. Tony spoke to the crowd breifly, and told everyone that he was proud of his team, not as much for winning the Super Bowl, but for being great men of integrity. He assured everyone that we would be proud to have any one of those guys on the team as a son.

Sure, one could be cynical and suggest that multi-millionaire professional athletes can afford to portray whatever image they like to the public. But I think this group is unique. I know that the stars on this team do great things for charities of all sorts. Unlike our neighbors to the east in Cincinnati, we don't hear much about Colts players being arrested for drugs or assault or domestic issues.

Even the fans seem to have taken a page from Tony Dungy's playbook. The fan celebration in the city after the Super Bowl victory was exuberant but law-abiding. Unlike the stories you hear from many cities after big sports wins, Indianapolis did not experience vandalism or outrageous disorderly conduct on the streets after the Super Bowl.

I hope the message goes far and wide and is embraced by people everywhere.

Good Can Win.

Double Super

Whatever happens, this would have to be the best Super Bowl ever, if you're a Hoosier and fan of both the Colts and the Bears. The Colts are favored, and I'm personally hoping they win, but that hardly means that will happen. If the Bears were playing against any other team, I'd be solidly behind them.

The guys on the sports shows overanalyze the game. By now everybody knows that the Bears hope to win through their defense and rely on their running game over a small Colt defense. The Colts hope to get a lead early and force the Bears into a passing game, where their defense is best at pressuring the QB and forcing turnovers.

That all may be true from a strategy standpoint, but I think the winner will be determined on a much simpler level. The winner will be determined by which individuals on either side are able to play their best despite all the hype and pressure.

Somebody's going to get so emotionally pumped up before the game that he presses and tries to play above his abilities. When that happens, instead of playing the inspired football he wanted, the player can't seem to do anything right. Before he has the chance to settle down and rediscover his normal game, it's too late.

Somebody's going to have partied so hard all week that he arrives at the game dazed and sluggish.

A quarterback is going to overthrow his receivers because of the adrenaline. One or more receivers will drop easy passes because they're scoring a touchdown in their mind before the ball got to their hands. A running back will fumble the ball trying to make an extra effort to get one or two more yards. A defensive end will run past the quarterback while trying to get a sack, leaving his side wide open to the draw play. Linebackers will run fast to the ball carrier and overrun the play, leaving a wide open cutback lane. A kicker will miss a critical field goal after thinking about how everything in the Super Bowl hangs on that one kick.

These things are very likely to happen. The question is, which team will suffer more than the other? This is what will determine the outcome, more than strategy, more than talent, more than preparation.

Sunday's going to be a lot of fun.

Immigration Misinformation

I had to comment on an article in the local newspaper today. The entire article was written to convey a message that the immigration system badly needs an overhaul. Such overhaul must make it easier and quicker to import workers from other countries.

The core of the argument came from the owner and HR manager of a local software company. They were quoted as griping about the terrible delays in importing programmers from India, because there were no qualified candidates here.

"No qualified candidates" is absolute baloney. Why can't they at least tell the truth, which is they can't find qualified candidates who are US Citizens because the market wages are two or three times what they can pay Indian immigrants.

This is my industry, so they can't fool me. In my little business, where I'm not even hiring, I get resumes from qualified candidates all the time. They're out there, and they're looking for work. But their potential employers are ignoring them while they pull every string possible to import technology workers from India at a fraction of the salary.

For just a moment, let's say there is a lack of available candidates for programmer jobs. This company's offices sit within a hundred yards of three community colleges. It's a ready-made pipeline for entry-level talent that the company can recruit, train, and mold into exactly what they need. Why aren't they taking that route? The simple answer is that the best programmers they recruit and develop will leave within 2 years for better pay elsewhere.

Still feel sorry for them? Still think we need to import people from India to take jobs people in Indiana would love to have?

Ridiculous.

Consequences

There's a bit of irony in the fact that the anti-war left need only look in a mirror to find the answer to their foremost question about why the Muslim world hates the west so.

A review of the cultural norms in North America today can't avoid finding that the results of the progressive ideals of tolerance, diversity, and multiculturalism are, in practice, the opposite. Tolerance has become code for acceptance and even celebration of immoral lifestyles; only the intolerant oppose homosexuality and cohabitation. Diversity doesn't mean respect for other races and ethnic groups, but is a hammer used to bludgeon the white Christian "majority". And multiculturalism celebrates any minority culture while disdaining and attempting to marginalize Judeo-Christian standards as bigoted and oppressive.

Nowhere is this more evident than among the leaders of the anti-war march over the weekend. The likes of Fonda, Robbins, and Penn epitomize the Hollywood anti-traditional hypocrisy. A brief listen to their rhetoric made it clear that they don't care about our soldiers - they hate the military. They don't care about the Iraqi people, because two seconds of reasoned thought about the consequences of an immediate US withdrawal is all that's needed to realize it would precipitate a horrific bloodbath.

Actually, you don't need to listen to them for long to find out their real motivation: A visceral hatred of George W. Bush. I'm fairly convinced that had Bill Clinton taken us into Iraq, their anti-war marches wouldn't be happening. They're not anti-war, they're just anti-Bush.

Interestingly, these people think they are allied with the radical muslims that wish to eradicate our society, when I'd suggest they're likely the first among those to be eliminated should the likes of bin Laden and Ahmadinijad succeed. Because when many muslims hear Americans speak of freedom, they equate that freedom with the hedonistic and narcissistic culture represented and portrayed by Hollywood.

We're told that the schools are to be accepting of all cultures, and should be neutral when it comes to religion. What has resulted is horribly underperforming and often unsafe government schools in which atheism is the official religion. Those who can have fled the public schools for private, parochial, and home schools, to the dismay of those who created the mess but refuse to acknowledge that fact.

The campaign for gay marriage and rabid support of abortion have put people of faith on the defensive. Vilification of religion has cowed or marginalized people of faith, who are the only citizen group for which it is acceptable to treat with contempt.

I do not suggest that some miraculous return of the coutry to our Judeo-Christian roots would immediately resolve the terrorist problem. But I do think that if American icons changed from the likes of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton to people of faith and character like Billy Graham and, say, Tony Dungy, the great majority of the world would have to at least respect us for being a sincere and principled people.

Instead, I'm convinced we are within a generation or two of a new dark age. Liberalism is leading to ignorance, which leads eventually to despotism and anarchy.

Is it a Sin?

In a world where sin gets only a sneer from many, I recently had an interesting discussion about sin. The discussion was interesting in terms of sins large and small, and the question of whether we've lowered the morality bar so far that we might think we're morally clean, when we're really not.

Let's assume we're honestly trying to be good people. We successfully avoid the big ones - we don't murder, steal, covet, have sex outside marriage, etc. But how do we handle the smaller things?

For example,

Is it sinful to work in the yard on Sunday? To work for a retail shop that's open on Sunday? If the shop sells alcohol? To patronize stores on Sunday?

If it's stealing to take office supplies home from your employer for personal use, is it sinful if you happen to have a pen from the office in your pocket and use it at home just because it's handy?

Suppose you're in a shop looking for something specific, but the shop is out of stock. An employee at the shop hands you a partially used and open packet of what you want, telling you, "No charge, just take it". Suppose the value of what you were given at the shop was less than a dollar. Are you stealing from the shop?

Suppose you make a purchase in a store, and some time after you think the store clerk may have made a mistake and given you more change than you were due. If you don't immediately go back to the store to return the change, are you a thief?

If you don't tithe (give 10% of your income to God's work), is it a sin? If you do tithe, but grumble about it every time you write the check, is it a sin? If you give your money to worthy Christian causes but shut off funding to your own church because you disagree with something there, are you sinning?

If you voice your disagreement in your church over what you believe is improper behavior by the church's leadership, are you guilty of fomenting disunity and harming the congregation?

If you buy an expensive car, a vacation home, a boat, etc., is it sinful to indulge yourself when the money could have been spent doing God's work? Can it be fairly said that it's sinful simply to desire such luxuries?

If you hand cash to a panhandler on the street, knowing it will be used for alcohol or drugs, are you mistreating the panhandler? If you pass by and do nothing, is it better or worse than handing over the cash?

Is it a sin to do consulting and training for casinos? To work for one full-time?

Even if you are innocent, it it a sin to spend a lot of time with people who are currently, actively, and unapologetically living a sinful lifestyle?

If someone asks you to lie to another, even if it's meant to protect the other from the truth, should you lie, tell the truth, or keep silent?

You can probably make up your own list. The fundamental question boils down to, how can someone sincerely trying to live a good life and set a good example do so in a culture that despises good?

Hiatus Over for Now

There hasn't been time to post, so I've been on a sort of hiatus for awhile. This week's been spent in Vegas, where at least the sun shines every day.

I've nothing to say about politics for now because my isolated voice from the wilderness doesn't count. I'm trying to avoid television news, because nearly all of it makes me so angry it almost wrecks my day. Insanity is epidemic, ground zero being Washington, so I've decided to go into quarantine for awhile for my own good.

The Super Bowl is the matchup I could hardly dare hope for, but really happened. My two favorite NFL teams are playing each other. I'd rather soak up the enjoyment of this rare occasion than subject myself to depressing stupidity elsewhere.

Speaking of which, I'm sort of wondering if Las Vegas, Nevada may be the home of the stupidest people anywhere? Not meaning to be unkind, and I'm sure there are plenty of highly intelligent individuals residing in Sin City, but why does it seem that nearly everyone I meet here is about as intelligent as a ficus plant?

And for those who think Vegas is fun, I don't really see it. To me, sitting around playing cards or pushing buttons on slot machines is more like torture. A show might be fun, if the good ones didn't all cost a small fortune. There are lots of attractive women here, but there's nothing relevant to me except that now and then I see one and think, "there's an attractive woman". I can do the same thing watching television. Besides, if I actually talk to one, the attractiveness sort of declines as the ditzy airhead materializes.

Next week is officially Administration Week. That means cleaning up the office, closing the books on 2006, meeting with the accountant, signing a new lease on the office, and generally getting the decks cleared for the new year. It's the 'cleaning up the office' part that's going to take the most discipline - I've avoided that job so long I'm almost afraid to tackle it.

I'm ready for the long flight home tomorrow. And hoping to get the upgrade that makes it a comfortable trip.

Marriage Passe

Or at least according to recent reporting that says 51% of women are living without a husband. Apparently there was some pretty questionable statistical fudging used to get to that 51% number - such as counting girls down to age 15 and married women who weren't living under the same roof with their husbands at the moment for one reason or another. But the fudging is another topic.

The fact remains that marriage is in trouble. Part of the gay marriage argument is that it's pretty cheap among heteros anyway, so why lock them out? Sounds like the old "two wrongs don't make a right" sort of argument to me. I think gay marriage isn't about gay people wanting to marry each other. It's really about gay people wanting the government and employer benefits of marriage, treated equal to hetero couples in consideration of adoption, and undermining churches still trying to hold on to basic moral values. But that's another topic.

The story accompanying these managing statistics used them as some sort of evidence that feminism has taken over. Basically, that women have decided that they don't need men in their lives, and are now liberated in big numbers to demonstrate the fact. Maybe some women don't need men (I'd have to say I don't need women with that sort of attitude either), but I would strongly and passionately state that their children do! (Need fathers, that is). But that's another topic.

What the story really leads me to is the fact that this information, fudged as it is, represents something tragic, not something to be celebrated.

Behind the numbers, there is no doubt about the tragic impact this has on children, and by extension, the society. Take out the 15 to 21 year old unmarried girls, the huge numbers of widows, and you still have way too many poor unmarried mothers raising children certain to become poor unmarried mothers themselves.

The reporters telling us about this topic want to pretend it's about the liberation of women to pursue self-actualization and fantastic careers without the oppressive restriction of some jerk husband. What they conveniently leave out of the story is the relatively tiny population that can be reasonably identified in this utopian category.

What's really happening is this: Single women shacked up with a guy who may or may not hang around when the baby (or babies) arrive. Or women that don't let the guys move in but still have 2 or 3 or 4 or more babies that are housed, fed, and raised by taxpayers. I can't ever run for office, because I'd be publicly crucified for daring to "judge" people like this.

Don't misunderstand - I'm not just judging women. The men who shack up with them, get them pregnant, then won't take responsibility for their own kids deserve just as much judgement. As a businessman, if I were interviewing a man who tells me without prompting that he's currently living with his girlfriend, I would not hire him. Here's why - if the guy is willing to move in with a woman while keeping the door wide open to bolt as soon as he gets bored or something doesn't go quite right (say she gets pregnant, for example), then how can I trust him to show any commitment or strong ethical practices as a representative of my company?

I've heard it in person from young, supposedly intelligent people:

Marriage is an anachronism.

We have such a great relationship, why ruin it by getting married?

We don't need to be married to have love and commitment for each other.

Sound familiar?

Know what happens to kids raised by single mothers? I do. Especially boys - how can a boy ever learn how to be a man if there isn't a "real" man present as a father figure?

A few months ago I was working with a client where they needed some help setting up their employee benefits. I spent several hours reviewing the employees and their company-provided benefits - you know, health insurance and life insurance and so on. I was astounded at what I saw.

Most of the men were married, especially those in skilled and management positions. Most of the women were single. Almost all the single women over 25 had children. A large majority of married men and women had children with different last names. And it was not unusual to see 3 or more different last names among the children.

Were the unmarried women with children liberated career women? No. Almost none of them. The single women with kids had the lower-level jobs. Because they have to leave work at 3:30 every day to pick up the kids from school. Overtime is impossible. If a meeting goes past 3:30, they just have to miss it. If something goes wrong and needs to be addressed at the end of the day, somebody else has to do it, because she has to go home and take care of the kids. They can't afford day care, unless they're lucky enough to have a grandparent in town. They barely made it through high school, and college is an old, dead dream given up long ago.

Of course I didn't meet but a few of them at that company, but many I did meet had boyfriends. Some live-in, others not. Think they consider themselves liberated? Interested in a bet on how they'd answer if you asked them how liberated they feel? What do you think they'd say if you asked them whether they needed a man?

Most importantly, how do you think their children are doing? What's the chance their kids, especially their daughters, will go to college?

See, it's not cause for celebration. It's a tragedy. It's an outrage. All sold every day by nearly everything we see on TV. Isn't everybody on TV shacking up or having sex with any hottie that shows up? And despite all that, isn't it interesting that the characters never get pregnant or catch a disease? Even if a baby comes along, somehow it doesn't in any way change the lifestyle of the TV mom, does it?

It's a gigantic lie. If I were a public figure, I'd be crucified for holding the mirror up to the lie. But isn't it time somebody did?

Crazy

The craziness goes on.

Only 30 years ago if you told the average adult these things would be happening now, they'd have called you crazy.

Terrorism strikes here at home, we respond by going to war, then when we get tired of fighting, want to say "never mind" and quit. Then again, I suppose that did happen in a little war in Vietnam. For everyone comparing this war to Vietnam and saying we should retreat just like we did there, they seem to have forgotten how many people died after we quit. To a seeming majority, it doesn't matter if a couple million Iraqis, then millions more across the rest of the middle east, die as a direct result of our retreat.

Gays want to get married. (Legally, that is. Nobody's stopping them from making a marriage-like promise in whatever ceremony they like on their own.) And are taken seriously.

Our taxes are to be increased to kill human embryos for experimentation because some have convinced most Americans that there might be miraculous cures in doing so. (Even though there's been nothing even close to success in lots of such experimentation so far)

The borders are open and illegal immigrants are streaming through in higher numbers than ever. And the national leaders tell us this is a good thing, and even tell us we're too lazy so these illegals are necessary. The insanity extends to a conviction of border agents for wounding a drug smuggler to a large prison term, while the drug smuggler (who's not a US citizen) goes free.

An entire political party, supported now by over half the population, openly espouses Socialist and Marxist doctrines. Most of their supporters don't even know what Marxism is. Or what life is like for the average citizen in those regimes.

God has been banished from society. The citizenry has been told, in no uncertain terms, to keep their religious faith to themselves. Schools teach atheism and eastern mysticism and even Islam, but can't even mention Christianity or Judaism. And most people of faith have accepted it with little complaint.

Companies have finished moving their plants out of the country, and are now moving foreign workers into the country to take the jobs of native-born Americans at a fraction of the pay. And most people go along.

There's something called "Political Correctness", which by definition is avoiding any speech or writing that might be taken as insulting by a particular group of minority ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. Even if such speech is not intended to insult said group; if one or two members of the group finds it offensive, the offender is persecuted mercilessly. But it's quite acceptable to actually be insulting and vulgar and even abusive toward white Christians.

The country has divided itself into two distinct groups, now labeled Blue and Red. And the color codes are opposite what you would think - Red is attached to conservatives. The Blues appear to have won, with full support of nearly all broadcast media. Which happens to be the only media seen by the majority of Americans.

The most dangerous enemies of the US are building nuclear weapons, and our leaders wring their hands but do nothing.

It's history repeating itself. Our great civilization is crumbling under the weight of its own ignorance and decadence. And when disaster strikes, most will be clueless as to its cause.

Go Colts!

Can't ask for better than another shot at the Patriots, this time at home.

I have to travel on Sunday. Hope I get where I'm going before the game starts.

This is fun.

Fighting Cynicism

I'm becoming a terrible cynic. I used to believe that people were mostly sincere, even though they often use poor judgement.

For example, I think the average Liberal is driven to their left-wing views and beliefs because their lives are driven by emotion. Conversely, a Conservative discounts the emotional in favor of cold hard logical fact. I generally think it's a good thing as long as the two sort of balance each other.

But now I'm rapidly approaching the decision that national leaders on both sides care little about either logic or emotion, but are focused solely on power. The power of their political party and of themselves individually.

Democrats would fling open the doors to outside marauders if it means they can get more power for themselves, even if it's temporary. Republicans would likewise permit other marauders to damage their country's population in return for their own power and wealth.

Last night was an illustration. The President went on television to announce what is really a modest troop level increase to support a new strategy developed to pacify Baghdad. Then Dick Durbin came on to tell us we should just bail out and leave Iraq to settle it's own problems.

I'm tired of hearing all about how we're "losing" in Iraq, or how the Democrats think if we "win" in Iraq, that's somehow bad for them politically. Heaven forbid Bush actually succeeds.

Here's my radical idea: We already won the war in Iraq. We defeated Saddam's troops, removed his government, and helped install a new democratically-elected government. All military objectives met, and rather spectacularly at that. We're only still there to help the new government get on their feet, because if we don't, Iraq will become a province of Iran. If anybody thinks that won't lead to a major explosion in terrorism, along with a continued expansion of Iranian power in the region, they live in a fantasy world.

Ironically, the President just did everything the Democrats have been hammering him to do for the past 3 years. He fired Rumsfeld. He commissioned an "Iraq Study Group" to give him recommendations. He met with all the generals in the field. He talked with Democrat and Republican leaders. He even publicly admitted to past mistakes. Then he made a decision, and says he has the Iraqi government on board with that decision. Did he get credit for doing everything the democrats asked? Did anyone actually believe he would ever get any credit from them for anything at all? Get real.

Will it work? I don't know. But I also don't think all the congressional blowhards on both sides know either. He's the Commander in Chief. Wars can't be fought by committees. It's the President's job to decide and implement strategy, and the generals' job to implement the strategy. Just let them do it.

Next year we're voting for a new president anyway. Whether Bush succeeds or fails in this new strategy will probably have an impact on that vote. Then we'll get a new president who can decide where we go from there.

And we'll either march ahead toward a socialist, perhaps marxist country, or we'll stay pretty much the same. I think most people want a third way, and want to elect people who actually care more about the country than themselves. But it won't happen, because only those who agree to toe the line drawn by their campaign financiers will get into office.

The cynicism is winning.

Stem Cell Deception

During the campaign last year, I found it objectionable that one political party supported distorted messages suggesting that evil opponents of stem cell research were denying people with all manner of disease and injury hope for a cure. What they conveniently didn't mention was that the only thing being opposed was tax money spent on embryonic stem cell research, which by the way requires destruction of a human embryo. Nobody's stopping privately funded research in this area.

As I do with many controversial issues, I checked it out and discovered that stem cells are indeed proving valuable in many cases. But not embryonic stem cells. The truth is that adult and placental stem cells are widely and successfully used, and new applications are being developed all the time. But embryonic stem cells haven't yet proven therapeutic for any disease. They just can't get them to work.

I tried to give the benefit of the doubt to the very vocal proponents of selective taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cells, thinking that maybe they were being duped by researchers in search of grant money. Or, like Michael J. Fox, they simply held out hope for a cure from any source for their own debilitating disease, even on the barest sliver of probability for success.

But now I'm more fully inclined to believe that the whole issue was manufactured. First of all, the announcement this week of the discovery that stem cells taken from amniotic fluid have all the properties of embryonic stem cells without the problems that researchers haven't yet been able to overcome.

Problem solved, right? You can now harvest stem cells that are better than embryonic without destroying a human embryo. So we can all celebrate and move forward!

I guess not. The Dems have told us to ignore that news, it's full speed ahead on their big bill to throw millions of dollars into embronic stem cell research. In other words, facts and science don't matter, and people with moral objection to such human experimentation certainly don't matter either.

Why? I think at least two reasons: First is money. Democrats have been given huge campaign contributions from those who champion this issue for their own reasons. Second is the reason isn't actually the reason. It's not about finding cures, but creating justification for abortion. See, with embryonic stem cell research funded by the government, women can say, "I'm not ready to be a mother just now, so I gave my embryo to science to help develop a cure for (insert disease here)."

What other explanation is there?

Football Entertainment

The first weekend of playoffs in the NFL was fun to watch, mostly I think because the Colts won. The bowl games were also somewhat interesting, even though Notre Dame seemed to hang up the cleats at halftime.

It seemed that KC had almost the right strategy for beating the Colts, at least on defense. In the first half, they kept the Colts out of the end zone. And you have to tip a hat to them for picking off Peyton 3 times.

Their problem was that they didn't count on Indy's defense actually showing up. In hindsight it may be easy to say they should have mixed the run and the pass to keep the Colts defense off-balance, but anybody who watched Indy this season would have to believe that the best rushing offense in the league should have run up and down the field all day long.

Bob Sanders helped - he made plays and brought lots of energy - but he didn't do it by himself. Kudos to the Colts defense. Let's hope they can do it again Saturday in Baltimore.

Interestingly, the two NFC games were very similar to each other. Except that Romo muffed the snap for what would have been the Cowboys' game-winner, and the Eagles had no such trouble.

It's gotta be tough to be Tony Romo right now. But then again, maybe not - he's sure to get a big contract boost and he's young. He'll do just fine, I think.

Ohio State and Florida tonight. Personally I don't care too much which team wins, but would enjoy a close game. Like Boise State against Oklahoma - too bad I didn't see that one as it happened.

People find entertainment in a variety of ways. Football is mine. And college basketball. And I don't bet.

Surviving the Holidays

Taking an entire week off for the first time in the nearly 3 years since becoming self-employed was a mixed blessing, to say the least. There were many things that came into sharp focus over the course of the week, and I was not happy to look. There's nothing more I dare say about that subject.

I'm back at work, planning to take every opportunity possible to earn as much as I possibly can. It's the only thing I can control.

Ever come off vacation thinking, "Boy, do I need a vacation!"?

Yeah, it's like that.