OVER COFFEE – 2001


GOOD-BYE TO AUNT RUBY 
Jan. 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


PROTECT KIDS FROM SMOKINGJan. 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's common sense that is so often ignored.


WE ARE OUR MEMORIES
Jan. 10

How much of our lives are built upon our memories?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



EMAIL GRAMMAR
Jan. 17

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



I HATE SPAM
Jan. 17

I really hate spam.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



YOU’RE ON CANDID CAMERA
Feb. 14

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


TEACHING EVOLUTION
Feb. 15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


ASTRONOLOGY AND OTHER SCAMS
Feb. 20

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not even close!  I tried one more time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


SELLING SOFT DRINKS AT SCHOOL
Mar. 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



PENCE WANTS TO REPRESENT THE WHOLE COUNTY
Mar. 6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



CURFEW SHOULD BE UP TO PARENTS
Mar. 8

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



WATCHING THE POPULATION SIGN
Mar. 15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



2000 CENSUS SHOWS NO GROWTH
Mar. 19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



BAD SCIENCE
Apr. 2

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



FREE MUSIC ON THE INTERNTE
Apr. 3

Should music be free?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



SHOULD EUTHANASIA BE LEGAL?
Apr. 16

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



VIRTUAL CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Apr. 16

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



LOOKING BACK
Apr. 20

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



USES VICES TO EASE BUDGET DEFICITS
Apr. 26

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



FIGHTING AGAINST TELEMARKETING
May 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



BOTTLED WATER PHENOMENON
May 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



I-69: BUILD IT ALREADY
May 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



DOCTORS ON THE INTERNET
May 16

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



CELL PHONE COURTESTY
May 18

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



RESTRICTING SPEECH ON THE WEB
May 22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



30-YEAR REUNION
May 24

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



KEEPING AN ELECTRONIC EYE ON KIDS AT SCHOOL
May 30

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



MITOCHONDRIAL EVE
May 31

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



MUSIC OF BEAN BLOSSOM
June 7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



RESTRICTING CIGARETTE ADS
June 12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



SOME NEWS IS FUNNY NEWS
June 14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Police begin campaign to run down jaywalkers."

"Survivor of Siamese twins joins parents."

"Farmer bill dies in house."

"Iraqi head seeks arms."

"Is there a ring of debris around Uranus?"

"Teacher strikes idle kids."

"Juvenile court to try shooting defendant."

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

"War dims hope for peace."

"Cold wave linked to temperatures."

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



YOU CAN PRAY IN SCHOOL AGAIN
June 24

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



CELL PHONES AREN’T THE ONLY ROAD DANGERS
June 27

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



IT’S THE BAD FAT THAT COUNTS
June 29

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


HOLIDAY WORLD
July 12

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

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

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

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

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

Since my first visit to Holiday World (and second visit to 
Santa Claus Land), our family has returned on several 
occasions.  Our latest excursion to the family theme park 
was just this month.  Yes, they still had Santa's little 
animated village.  It even had a brand new button that you 
could push to start the figures moving.  It still didn't 
work.

In the mean time, though, the park is now home to two 
world-class roller coasters - The Raven and The Legend.  
They are both wooden coasters.  I'm not a roller coaster 
fanatic myself; I've never even ridden one.  But I still 
take a certain pride in the fact that the theme park I've 
known since childhood, the one in my home state of Indiana, 
can boast two top-ten roller coasters.  In fact, The Raven 
was voted by coaster enthusiasts as the best wooden roller 
coaster on the planet.

Holiday World also has built a fantastic water park, called 
Splashin' Safari.  It's a nice place to cool off after a 
long afternoon of riding the thrill rides.

Personally, I prefer the more relaxed rides, like the old 
fashioned cars, or the bumper boats.  But my biggest thrill 
is taking pictures of my kids having fun.  That is my best 
souvenir from any vacation that we take as a family - the 
photos and videos that I take.

There are many theme parks that are bigger.  There are many 
roller coasters that are longer, higher, and faster.  There 
are parks that attract more people.  But there are few 
parks that are as friendly and clean as Holiday World.  
They even give away free soft drinks!  They have several 
"Pepsi Oases" where park-goers can fill their cups for free 
all day long.  

It would be perfect, if only they would also give away 
their food!



SUIT AGAINST PLAY UNFOUNDED
July 12

Twenty-one of our state legislators, including four from 
the local area, apparently do not have any more pressing 
business to take care of than to collectively file a 
lawsuit to stop some college students from putting on a 
college play.

 State Reps. Woody Burton of Greenwood, David Frizzell of 
Indianapolis, Ralph Foley of Martinsville, and state Sen. 
Mike Young of Speedway, all Republicans, joined 17 other 
legislators in filing a federal lawsuit requesting to block 
a performance of the play "Corpus Christi" at Indiana 
University-Purdue University at Fort Wayne.

The reason for their outrage is that the play's main 
character is a Christ-like figure, who happens to be gay.  
Most of the twelve other male characters in the play have 
the same names as Jesus' disciples.

The play's first performance is scheduled for August 10.  
The case will be heard before a U.S. District Court before 
that date.

Rep. Burton said he has never seen the play, nor read the 
book.  Yet he has joined in the lawsuit seeking to prevent 
the students from performing it on campus.  Burton claims 
the production is offensive to Christians and that it 
should not be performed at a tax-supported university, with 
the assistance of professors who are paid by tax dollars.

Rep. Young said he read parts of the play, calling it 
"...the most vulgar piece of trash I've ever read."

Vulgar?  Perhaps.  I've never seen, read, nor even heard of 
the play.  But chances are very good that none of the 21 
state lawmakers seeking its censorship would have anything 
at all to say if the students were putting on a pro-
Christian play, such as the "Passion Play" or the story of 
the Nativity at Christmas.  They probably wouldn't have any 
problems with university students performing "Godspell."

All but one of the lawmakers filing suit to prevent the 
play's production are republicans.  Republicans are 
generally right on when it comes to matters of economic 
policy, foreign policy, taxation, and race relations.  
Their big problem seems to be a desire to force their own 
moral agendas on the rest of us, by means of legislation or 
lawsuits.  Many of them still haven't caught on to the 
meaning of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment guarantees that all Americans have the 
right and freedom to worship the way they choose, or not to 
worship at all.  It gives all Americans, including 
university students, the academic freedom to put on the 
play of their choosing, even in a public university 
setting.  Students do not shed their constitutional rights 
at the schoolhouse gate, as declared by the U.S. Supreme 
Court.  This should also apply to college students who 
simply want to perform a play.

Nobody is being forced to attend this play.  There is no 
captive audience.  There is no major government interest 
being trod upon.

The play may, indeed, be vulgar.  It perhaps is 
sacrilegious.  It probably does annoy or even offend many 
Christians.  But, contrary to popular opinion, this country 
was not founded on Christianity, or any other religion.  It 
was founded on religious freedom.

The play, "Corpus Christi" is included in the category of 
performing arts.  Like other artwork, plays can sometimes 
offend a certain group of people.  The price we pay, as 
Americans, to maintain our own freedom of choice, is that 
we must grant that same right to those that we may utterly 
and totally disagree with.

It is unfortunate that some of those that we have elected 
to write the laws of our state just don't understand or 
accept the idea that a piece of artwork must be protected 
as free speech, even if it offends them personally, and 
even if it is displayed or performed in a publicly 
supported university.  Otherwise, these same legislators 
will certainly try to take it upon themselves to invent a 
college curriculum that reflects their own moral slant at 
the expense of academic freedom of choice.



RESEARCH USING EMBRYO STEM CELLS
July 19

What if there were a research procedure that held the 
promise of eventually curing grave diseases that are 
presently incurable?  What if this research were to make it 
possible for diabetics to live without having to inject 
insulin?  What if this same research could also lead to 
cures for Parkinson's disease, heart disease, and muscular 
dystrophy?

Now, what if this promising new research were put on hold 
because of a few people's religious beliefs?   Would it be 
fair to all the sufferers of disabling diseases that would 
stand to benefit, even be cured by the results of this 
research if it were halted due to the moral reservations of 
a conservative minority?

The research in question is not hypothetical.  It is real 
and it holds real promise.  The research involves stem 
cells.  Stem cells are human cells that are 
undifferentiated and can be prodded into turning into 
almost any type of body tissue.  It might one day be used 
to grow anything from skin grafts to new heart tissue, from 
new insulin-producing pancreatic cells to tissue that would 
produce hormones that would halt the destructiveness of 
muscular dystrophy.

The rub is that the best stem cells are those that are 
extracted from human embryos.  And that is a problem to 
those who believe that embryos are real people.

In America, everyone has the right to believe in whatever 
religion he or she wishes.  And if those who have moral 
qualms about using human embryo tissue to harvest stem 
cells do not want to reap the benefits of this type of 
research, they have the right to refuse treatment made 
possible by it.  They should not, however, have the right 
to prevent me, my family, or anybody else from reaping 
medical benefits from a procedure that may not be 
forthcoming without stem cell research.

Researchers use discarded embryos from in vitro 
fertilization procedures.  Religious conservatives believe 
that these embryos are human life, which should not be used 
for experimentation.  Recently, scientists at Jones 
Institute for Reproductive Research announced they had 
succeeded in creating human embryos from donated egg and 
sperm cells.  The announcement drew even more criticism 
from the Catholic Church and other conservatives.

But Alta Charo, a professor of law and medical ethics at 
the University of Wisconsin, said it's all a matter of 
priorities.  "We must consider the interests of the 
patients as paramount, because the patients are sentient, 
they're aware, they're currently suffering," she said.

On the contrary, human embryos are not sentient.  They have 
no feelings, no memory, and they can feel no suffering nor 
disappointment.  A human embryo is only a potential human 
being if it is placed inside a receptive uterus with the 
intent of being taken full term.  In a laboratory test 
tube, it is simply a group of cells.  But it is a group of 
cells that holds great potential for medical research.

Given a choice between the life of a clump of cells and the 
life or health of a living, breathing human being, I choose 
the latter.  And I don't want those who have decided they 
have a personal moral objection to this important medical 
research to have the power to make my decisions for me, or 
for others who find nothing morally wrong with the use of 
embryos.



DOG DAYS OF SUMMER
July 20

“It’s not the heat; it’s the humidity.”  How many times 
have we heard that expression to describe the pea soup 
atmosphere of summer?  Actually, what makes us the most 
uncomfortable is the combination of high heat and high 
humidity.  Increased humidity interferes with our body’s 
natural air conditioning system – the evaporation of 
perspiration.

We are smack in the middle of the hottest part of summer, 
sometimes known as “dog days.”  Dog days officially began 
on July 3 and they will run through mid-August.  Along with 
being the warmest time of the year, there are also several 
aphorisms associated with dog days.

“Snakes go blind during dog days,” is one such saying.  
Undoubtedly, it was meant as a warning to woodsmen to 
simply be careful of snakes, which are much more active 
during warm weather.  

Actually, the period of time known as dog days gets its 
name from ancient mythology.  Mid-summer is the period of 
time when the brightest star in the sky - Sirius - rises 
and sets with the sun.  Sirius, being in the constellation 
Canis Major (big dog), is called the “dog star” and is a 
prominent star in the night sky during December and 
January.  But in July and August, it is invisible because 
it is out during the daytime.  The ancients believed that 
the intense heat of summer was due to the heat from Sirius 
being combined with the heat of the sun.

Actually, although Sirius is indeed a star that is much 
bigger and hotter than our sun, it is so far away that the 
earth receives no warming effect from it at all.  
Nevertheless, the term “dog days” was derived from that 
ancient superstition.

Ever since cave men found refuge in the cool, dank caves 
humans have sought relief from the summertime heat.  In the 
old days, about the only way to cool off, other than going 
into a cave, was to use a cardboard fan.  Anything that 
produces a breeze across the face has a cooling effect 
because it enhances the evaporation of perspiration.

Given our modern air conditioned homes, offices, and cars, 
one wonders how society survived the heat of summer in 
olden times.  

Take, for example, the Constitutional Convention, which 
convened in Philadelphia in May of 1787 and lasted through 
September.  It was a hot summer.  More than 70 delegates 
gathered in the meeting hall, all dressed is long-sleeved 
clothing and wearing wigs.  The discomfort level must have 
been tremendously high.  It’s a wonder any work was 
accomplished at all, let alone the writing of the most 
important document in U.S. history.

It wasn’t until the late 1800s that mechanical devices were 
used to refrigerate food and beer.  The textile industry 
was the first to use air and humidity control devices.  The 
first building to have mechanical “air conditioning” was 
the newly-built New York Stock Exchange in 1902.

The first wide-spread commercial use of air conditioning 
was by movie theaters beginning just before World War I.  
Aside from the movie, it was probably the biggest 
attraction for early movie-goers who wanted a brief respite 
from the summer heat.

It wasn’t until 1940 that we began taking air conditioned 
comfort with us.  The first car with an actual evaporative 
cooling system was the 1940 model year Packard.  Cadillac 
followed suit the next year.

Following World War II, air conditioning really took off.  
Comfort was a big seller, and people wanted their homes, 
cars, and places of work to be cool in the summer.

Nat King Cole sung about the “Lazy, Hazy, Crazy Days of 
Summer.”  It’s a time for swimming, picnics, baseball, and 
fishing.  But when it gets too hot and too humid, during 
those steamy dog days, it’s a time to seek shelter indoors 
and take advantage of that most wonderful invention – air 
conditioning.


EGO SCAMS
July 26, 2001

     The United States is a great country, with the roots of the 
free-enterprise system staunchly entrenched.  Few will deny that.  
It was founded on certain premises, such as life, liberty, the 
pursuit of happiness, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, 
freedom of religion -- and making a profit.

     Profit is the motivating factor behind any free-enterprise 
economy.  It has become increasingly evident over the past few of 
years that nations that are based on controlled economies, such as 
the old Soviet Union and the nations of Eastern Europe, cannot 
survive the long haul.

     The free-market system is what gives the U.S. its great 
wealth and huge Gross Domestic Product.  However, the free-market 
system is not without its sleazy side.

     There are, of course, the rip-off artists who specialize in 
taking people's money from them and providing nothing of 
substantial value in return.  There are the false advertisers that 
exaggerate, or even lie, in order to make their products more 
appealing to the consumer.

With the proliferation of the Internet, hucksters have gone 
online.  They send out vast quantities of unsolicited e-mail 
messages hawking their phony get-rich-quick schemes.  They are an 
annoyance to anyone who has an e-mail address.

     What ruffles my feathers just as much, however, are the sly 
and sleazy entrepreneurs who offer a service or product for a 
profit, but who use the ambient emotions of their prospective 
customers to close the sale.  I'm not referring to the rampant use 
of emotion-provoking gimmicks or commercials that pervade society, 
but the ones who take advantage of people's egos.

     Take an example from the world of academics. There are at 
least a couple of companies out there who send letters to school 
teachers and administrators every year along with a form that can 
be used to nominate students who have a relatively high academic 
standing.  Now, there may be many students in any school system 
whose grades would qualify them for "nomination."  And anyone who 
is nominated by a teacher, and who is at least a "B" student is 
accepted to receive this "honor."  The honor is a listing in a 
book that is printed simply to list the names of students who have 
been nominated as having good grades.  Then, the company will 
gladly sell this book to the parents of the nominated students.

Although the nominated students are high achievers, the book 
offers nothing of particular value, other than a bit of ego 
stroking.  Students, parents, and teachers should not fail to see 
these schemes for what they are - the blatant profit-making 
exploitation of good students.

There are other "who's who" publications besides those directed 
toward high school students.  Most of them make their profits the 
same way.

A similar scam involves those who picture themselves as poets or 
songwriters.  They offer the budding songwriter or poet a forum to 
publish their work.  Then, of course, they offer to sell the 
publication to all the contributors.  

     I offer this as a bit of a warning.  If you want to fall for 
one of these schemes that pray on human emotion or ego, that's 
fine; just be aware of the true motives behind them.



PHILIP MORRIS STUDY
July 27

Two years ago, the tobacco companies settled a lawsuit filed by 
several states claiming that the diseases caused by smoking were 
eating away at Medicaid funds.  The amount of the settlement, 
which is currently being divvied out to the states, was more than 
$200 million.

But according to the world's biggest tobacco company, Philip 
Morris, smoking might actually save the government money.  That's 
because smokers tend to die young, thereby saving the government 
an average of $1,227 per smoker in money that doesn't have to be 
spent for extended health care and pensions.

Philip Morris commissioned a study in the Czech Republic that 
showed smoking not to be a drain on that country's budget because 
of the premature deaths of smokers.  The study concluded that 
smokers die young and, therefore, are not alive long enough to 
cost the government money for health care for the aged, or for the 
payment of pensions.  

The release of the data from that study last month created quite a 
tumult in this country because of its callous conclusions.

The uproar has since caused Philip Morris to apologize for doing 
the study in the first place.  But, given its past practices of 
deceit, one wonders if the company is actually apologizing for 
commissioning the study or for letting the data collected become 
public.

It's a bit of an irony that the company, a decade ago, denied any 
solid evidence that cigarette smoking was dangerous, but now 
insists that their product is, indeed, deadly.  Yet being deadly 
might be a good thing because it saves tax dollars.

Philip Morris might be on to something.  Using the same logic, 
perhaps we should promote other deadly activities.  Why waste 
money on programs to stop drug and alcohol abuse, when we should 
simply let the drug addicts and alcoholics die young and cease 
being a drain on society?  And why fund costly medical research 
aimed at finding cures for cancer, Alzheimer's disease, and heart 
disease when we can save money by allowing those diseases to 
simply take their toll?  

Smoking might even be the salvation for this country's fragile 
Social Security system.  Retirement funds don't have to be paid to 
those who die prior to reaching retirement age.

But, alas, Philip Morris has repented.  It even promises to behave 
itself in the future.  According to one company spokesman, "This 
is not something that we should be doing and we won't do it 
again."  After all, the repercussions from the Czech study caused 
its stock to fall in the U.S.

Yes, the tobacco companies have certainly changed their ways since 
the days of denial.  They once denied that their products were 
deadly, even amid overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  Now they 
freely admit it, and they're using this information to help poorer 
nations figure out ways of saving money.  Tobacco companies once 
covered up evidence that they knew of the dangers of smoking.  
Today, they are shelling out hundreds of millions of dollars to 
help fund anti-smoking campaigns.

Tobacco companies have made amends and become benign and 
responsible members of corporate America.  And if you believe 
that, you'll probably believe that the tobacco companies really 
don't want teenagers to start the smoking habit.



CLONING BAN
Aug. 1

It’s funny how many laws there are on the books that we now think 
are absolutely bizarre, but which, at the time they were passed, 
might have seemed appropriate and necessary.  For example, in 
Tennessee a man must walk in front of any car driven by a woman, 
while waving a red flag as a warning.  And in Indiana, it is 
against the law for a monkey to smoke cigarettes.  In 1924, a 
monkey in South Bend was convicted of doing just that and fined 
$25.

We can look at these antiquated laws and giggle at their absurdity 
today.  One might wonder if, when these laws were passed, there 
was anyone who had the foresight to predict that they would soon 
be meaningless.

Is the U.S. Congress presently about to create such an unnecessary 
and shortsighted law?  Just recently the House passed a bill that 
would prohibit the cloning of human embryos for any reason at all, 
even for medical research.  If this bill finally becomes the law 
of the land, one can predict that it will become one of American’s 
silly and absurd laws in 50 years or so.  It might be high on one 
of those “Silly Laws” lists that are published on Internet 
Websites, just like the law in Boston that makes it illegal to 
take a bath unless one has been ordered by a physician.

If the U.S. succeeds in banning cloning for medical research, it 
will put this country well behind other countries, such as Great 
Britain.  That country’s parliament recently passed a law allowing 
cloning of human embryos for medical research, as long as the 
embryo is not kept alive past 14 days.

Although it is too early in the game for anyone to seriously 
consider cloning a human being for reproductive purposes, and a 
law prohibiting such practice is well within the realm of 
sensibility, the bill that was just passed by the House went too 
far.  It not only would ban cloning for reproductive purposes, but 
would also make it illegal to use cloned embryos to do important 
medical research.

The shortsightedness of some of the elected officials engaged in 
this debate is staggering.   Rep. J.C. Watts, R-OK, said, “This 
House should not be giving the green light to mad scientists to 
tinker with the gift of life. Cloning is an insult to humanity. It 
is science gone crazy.''  One wonders whether Watts, if he had 
been a Congressman back in the 1950s when Watson and Crick were 
doing their Nobel-Prize-winning research on genetics, would have 
strove to ban their research, too.

Rep. Jim Greenwood, R-PA, had a more reasonable alternative to the 
bill.  His amendment would have allowed cloning of embryos for 
medical research, but not for human reproduction.  “Why would we 
condemn the world and future generations not to have this 
miracle?” Greenwood asked.  He commented that some of his 
colleagues might suggest that if one of his cheek cells were 
scraped off and caused to divide that it might then possess a 
soul.

After only a couple of hours of debate, the House passed a bill 
that would thwart important genetic research for years to come.  
Only 162 of the Representatives, those who voted “no” on the bill, 
apparently gave any serious thought to its consequences.  The 
other 265 members who voted, including the two Representatives 
from Johnson County – Mike Pence and Dan Burton – voted “yes” to 
prohibit human embryo cloning of any kind.

Although it is prudent for our lawmakers to stay one step ahead of 
the ever-changing face of technology, it is sad that many of them 
have tripped up while taking that step.  Some are still stuck in 
the middle of the 20th century, instead of taking the stride into 
the 21st.  And the thoughtlessness of their votes on technology 
issues shows it.



MORAL LEGISLATION
Aug. 2

The U.S. is a democratic republic.  We elect officials to 
represent our needs and desires because there are too many of us 
to hold a public referendum on every single issue.

In electing our representatives to Congress, we expect that they 
will uphold the wishes of a majority of their constituents.  
What's more, the wishes of their constituents, us, must be weighed 
prior to any lobbying efforts on the part of our representatives 
to change our minds.

Too often, a Congressman or Senator decides an issue based upon 
his moral convictions.  He might say, "I voted my conscience."  
And that's fine as long as his conscience is in line with the 
collective conscience of the majority of his constituents.  All 
too often, though, it is not.

Granted, sometimes a bill that is up for a vote is too esoteric 
for the majority of voters to have formed an enlightened opinion 
about, one way or the other.  In such cases, it is up to our 
representatives to vote in a manner that would bring the most 
benefit to society or to his district.

But all too often our representatives, especially those on the 
Republican side of the aisle, vote for their own moral imperative 
rather than what might be best for society.

A good example of this is the current debate in Congress over 
whether or not the cloning of human embryos for use as medical 
research should be allowed.  The debate isn't about whether or not 
the government should fund such research, but whether to allow it 
to occur at all.

Last week, the House voted to ban all human cloning, whether for 
reproductive purposes or for scientific research.  Our own 
representative to Congress, Mike Pence, voted in favor of the ban.  
If the bill finally becomes law, the U.S. would find itself far 
behind other countries that permit such research in medicine.

Embryos are rich sources of valuable stem cells -- those 
undifferentiated cells that can be coaxed into turning into almost 
any human tissue.  The potential for future medical applications 
of stem cell research is enormous.  

Using stem cell research, it will eventually be possible to grow 
new organs that are genetically designed to match the individual 
in whom it will be transplanted.  There will be no more need for 
organ donors.  

Grave diseases such as diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, and muscular 
dystrophy might become a thing of the past, thanks to the promises 
of stem cell research.

But if the shortsighted behavior of the House of Representatives 
is any indication of the future of this important research, it is 
probably in trouble.

Based not upon the desires of their constituents, and certainly 
not upon the beneficial impact to society, 265 members of the 
House voted their "conscience" by voting against the use of cloned 
embryos for medical research.  An amendment to the bill offered by 
Rep. Jim Greenwood, R-Pa., would have allowed cloning of embryos 
for research, but not for human reproductive purposes.  That 
version of the bill would have held the greatest potential benefit 
for society.

But the majority of representatives decided that is was morally 
wrong to use embryos in such fashion.  Morally wrong?  By whose 
standards?  

This country was founded on religious freedom of choice.  It is up 
to each individual to decide what is moral and what is not -- 
within certain boundaries that almost everyone agrees upon.  If an 
elected official is not able to set aside his moral convictions 
long enough to weigh what is truly beneficial for society, then he 
should abstain from voting at all.

Morality is a good thing.  It is what keeps many of us out of 
trouble.  It is what soothes the souls of those with religious 
convictions.  It is the guiding light of our conscience.  But 
morality is also personal.  There is no solid line in the sand 
where everything on one side is moral and everything on the other 
is not.  Some people would like for their to be such a line, as 
long as it is drawn where they would put it.  But such is not the 
case.

For elected officials, the practice of using their own moral line 
in the sand to decide whether or not to outlaw a process that 
holds so much promise for benefiting society may itself teeter on 
the verge of being unethical.  In voting their conscience, they 
may have soothed their own souls, but at what price?



SEATBELT LAW
Aug. 7

According to a statement issued recently by the Governor’s Council 
on Impaired and Dangerous Driving, the number of traffic 
fatalities in Indiana has dropped dramatically since 1999 – down 
by 13 percent.  The council attributes the drop in auto deaths to 
Indiana’s new mandatory seatbelt law.

The good news is that fewer people are dying in traffic accidents.  
The bad news is that Indiana does have a mandatory seatbelt law.

But if the results are positive, then why is having such a law bad 
news?  Just ask anyone who doesn’t like to be treated like sheep 
that need herding.  The wearing of seatbelts saves lives.  That’s 
a fact.  But to be forced to wear them by our government is not 
the answer.

Capt. Mike Diekhoff of the Bloomington Police Dept. said “We want 
to increase awareness about the importance of seatbelts, because 
they do save lives.”  Increasing “awareness” is fine.  Education 
is fine.  But Diekhoff said his awareness campaign takes the form 
of handing out large numbers of traffic tickets to drivers who are 
not wearing seatbelts, at $25 a pop.

Police departments across the state are receiving grants to pay 
officers so that they can work overtime in an effort to catch 
drivers who are not buckled up.  Although the end result might 
have been positive, this is one circumstance in which the ends do 
not justify the means.

Why not use that grant money to fund real education campaigns 
designed to make motorists aware of the importance of using 
seatbelts.  The key is to make sure everybody who gets into a car 
realizes the danger of driving or riding in an automobile without 
seatbelts.  Then, once everyone knows the danger and risk they are 
taking by not buckling up, they should be free to decide for 
themselves if they are willing to take that risk.

Indiana also has a child safety seat law.  That law is a good one.  
It is designed to protect young children from the possible 
negligence of their parents, who otherwise might not bother to 
fasten them into a car seat.  Children are in the custody of their 
parents and have less free will than adults.

However, adults do have free will.  If they possess the knowledge 
necessary to exercise that free will, then the government must 
allow them to do so.  There are far too many laws on the books 
that are designed to protect a person from himself.  Such laws 
are, for the most part, unwarranted.  

The world is full of people who like to take risks.  If the danger 
is only to them, then they should be allowed to take those risks.  
Skydiving, skiing, mountain climbing, bungee jumping, 
skateboarding, and smoking are all risky behaviors.  All are legal 
– and they should be.  Driving while not wearing a seatbelt is not 
legal.  It is a risky behavior, sure.  But it’s a risk that should 
be free to take.

Wearing seatbelts is important.  I wear them every time I drive.  
Most people in Indiana do – 62 percent.  But people should wear 
them because they recognize the danger of not wearing them, not 
because they’re afraid of getting a ticket.



STEM CELL RESEARCH
Aug. 10

President Bush has made his decision on the funding of embryonic 
stem cell research.  And, while those on the far right contend he 
made a mistake and broke a campaign promise by allowing any 
research at all, the sad reality is he did not go nearly far 
enough.

Bush is allowing federal funding for research involving those 60 
or so stem cell lines that are already in existence, although 
fewer than a dozen of those lines are in the U.S.  The embryos 
that produced them have already died.  But he refused to allow 
funding to do research on new embryos.

Politically, Bush had to walk a tightrope.  And it is apparent 
that he did just that.  He bent slightly away from his earlier 
staunch opposition to any kind of embryonic stem cell research, 
but he did not bend enough to anger most of his conservative 
constituents.

Although Bush claims otherwise, in trying to examine all the 
ethical, legal, and scientific fine points on the issue, he may 
have failed to see the big picture.  And that could spell peril 
for the future of medical research in the United States.

Here is one possible scenario:  Research will continue for a 
couple of years or so on stem cells that already exist.  
Privately-funded researchers will develop new lines from newly-
acquired embryos, but federal funds cannot be used to help in that 
research.  Researches will eventually become disenchanted with the 
oppressive climate that exists in the U.S. regarding their work.  
Some may even leave the country in order to continue their efforts 
in countries that are more open to stem cell research, such as the 
UK.  

The brain drain has already started to happen.  A prominent 
researcher, Roger Peterson of the University of California at San 
Francisco, announced he was going to go to the United Kingdom, 
where they support this kind of research.

Eventually, stem cell research will become quite commonplace in 
other countries.  Embryos will be cloned.  Research will continue.  
Cures will be developed.  And we, in the U.S., will have access to 
those cures developed in other countries.  It is unlikely that 
even the staunchest opponents of stem cell research will refuse 
new treatments derived from that research if they or their 
families ever needed it.

But because of the political foot-dragging and the intermingling 
of religious beliefs with the governmental decision-making 
process, the length of time it will take to develop these cures 
will be considerably longer than necessary.

There are those who cry that we are “playing God” by experimenting 
with living embryos.  Those same claims were made after the first 
successful heart transplant took place.  They were made when the 
first test tube baby was born.  And those same antagonists were 
there when genetic research made gene splicing a reality.  That 
research has led to the production of hormones like human insulin 
for the treatment of diabetes.

It is the epitome of conceit to believe that humans could ever 
“play God.”   God’s plan for us goes far beyond any human’s 
ability to comprehend it.  He allowed humans to evolve into 
sentient organisms, capable of understanding themselves and the 
universe around them.  He gave us the tools to expand our 
understanding of ourselves and our environment.  

Unfortunately, those who would stand in the way of human 
understanding are the ones who come the closest to playing God, by 
denying humanity an important component of its very nature – that 
of exploration, and of investigating new ways to improve itself.



TOBACCO ADVERTISING
Aug. 15

Today, across America, about 3,000 kids will start smoking 
cigarettes.  That is in addition to the 3,000 who started smoking 
yesterday.  And tomorrow, 3,000 more will start the deadly habit, 
according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Why?  That’s the ultimate question.  Given that teenagers aren’t 
stupid, they know that smoking is bad for them, that it is 
expensive, that it will make them stink and yellow their teeth, 
and that it will probably make them die younger than they 
otherwise would.

There may be lots of reasons given, but probably most kids don’t 
even know why they started smoking, or will start.  One thing is 
for sure, though, advertising has a powerful influence on young 
people.  And the tobacco companies have been spending record 
amounts on making sure that kids see their products in the most 
positive light.

In 1998, as part of an agreement between the tobacco companies and 
the attorneys general in 46 states, the companies promised to stop 
marketing cigarettes to children under 18.  The deal stipulates 
that tobacco companies may not take any action, directly or 
indirectly, to target youth.  

But a recent study by the Harvard Business School and Boston 
University, which was published in the New England Journal of 
Medicine, tracked cigarette ads in 38 national magazines.  The 
study concluded that the tobacco companies continue to target 
youth.  In fact, the study showed that tobacco companies spent $20 
million last year on ads for each of the three brands of 
cigarettes that are the most popular among teens - Camel, Marlboro 
and Newport.  That compares to only $6 million spent on brands 
that are more popular with adults.

From a business standpoint, it makes sense.  Why spend money to 
advertise to a group of people who are already hooked on your 
product?  Instead, spend it on those who are still making up their 
minds about whether to start smoking or not.

But from an ethical standpoint, the cigarette manufacturers still 
dwell in the gutters of society.  Otherwise, why did cigarette 
advertising in youth-oriented magazines increase dramatically 
immediately after the settlement to $67.4 million?

Philip Morris, the world’s largest tobacco company – you know, the 
one that runs those TV commercials that give you a warm and fuzzy 
feeling about such a socially-aware and benevolent company – 
promised that it would stop buying ads in youth-oriented magazines 
as of September of last year.  But the Harvard/Boston University 
study showed that Philip Morris apparently reneged on its promise.

In the years since the tobacco agreement was reached, the study 
concluded, cigarette manufactures have consistently spent the bulk 
of their advertising dollars in youth-oriented magazines, on 
brands preferred by youths.  The tobacco companies have increased 
advertising revenue by 22 percent since the agreement with the 
states was reached.  

The agreement requires the tobacco companies to pay $206 billion 
to the states over the next 20 years.  But, unfortunately, most 
states are not using a significant amount of that money to pay for 
anti-smoking campaigns.  The CDC said that only 5 percent of the 
money divvied out so far is going for smoking prevention.

That needs to be changed.  States need to understand that smoking 
by youths is epidemic, that it will have serious consequences, and 
that something must be done to remedy the situation.  The money is 
there.  It just needs to be used properly, and for the right 
purpose – to counteract the voluminous amount of advertising by 
the tobacco industry.  



MUSIC THAT LASTS FOREVER
Aug. 24

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.  The saying is typically 
applied to the beauty of people, but it could also apply to other 
types of beauty, such as that found in good music.

What constitutes “good music”?  

As a frequent beholder of music, I have my own bias.  Sometimes, 
you just know when you like a song, but don’t really know why.  
Most often, you don’t care to analyze why – if you like it, you 
like it.

However, with all due respect for their intelligence, I’m fairly 
certain that many teenagers decide what music is good by its 
popularity.  It’s another “chicken-and-egg” conundrum.  Is the 
music popular because it is good, or is it perceived as being good 
because the recording industry and radio stations have made it 
popular?

Granted, there is a lot of variety within popular music.  Some of 
it is truly original, artful, and produced with talent and 
passion.  Most of it, however, was poured straight from the rim of 
a mass-produced tin can.

Take as one example the boy band, ‘N SYNC.  Like all so-called 
“boy bands” ‘N SYNC is not a band at all in the classic sense of 
the word.  They play no instruments; they are dancers that also 
happen to sing.  They also don’t write their own songs, but rely 
mainly on hits that have come before them.  (Compare that to the 
more highly talented group, Hanson – three close-knit brothers who 
write their own songs, play instruments, and sing in good harmony.  
They just don’t prance on stage, and they’re loath to sell out to 
pop culture, so they are less popular, though they have a large 
cult following.)

Although, every member of ‘N SYNC can sing better than I can, that 
isn’t saying much.  Actually, most members of most boy bands do 
have what it takes to be a vocalist.  But that is not generally 
what makes most singers popular.  Popularity arises from a 
combination of factors, and talent is probably not the most 
important of them.  

Physical appearance is a bigger factor.  How else could a young 
girl named Britney, who has a voice like Bart Simpson, make it to 
the top of the music charts?

A recent movie, “Josie and the Pussy Cats,” is a low-brow satire 
of the music industry.  The premise is that a record producer can 
take any group of want-to-be singers off the street and make them 
a sensation by using a mix of hype and subliminal mind control.

Although it is doubtful that the record industry is using 
subliminal messages in the music they produce, the storyline of 
the movie, exaggerated as it may be, is perhaps not that far from 
reality.

One criterion I use to judge whether a piece of music is really 
good is its longevity.  Therefore, I can’t always make up my mind 
about a song for, say, twenty years or so.  If a song is made 
popular only by hype, it will fade away in a couple of years.  If 
it’s a song that is truly good, it will last forever.

The Beatles deviated from their traditional teen beat music back 
in the ‘60s to record a song called “Yesterday.”  It was produced 
using a guitar and a string quartet.   It has become one of the 
most-recorded and most-played songs in all of Pop Music history.  
There is little doubt that it is a “good” song.

Going back even further, about 300 years ago a man named Johann 
Pachelbel who was an organist and composer, wrote a piece of music 
that he simply called “Canon in D Major.”  Today Pachelbel’s Canon 
is not only one of the most often played pieces of music from the 
Baroque era, its many variants have weaved their way into 
mainstream music.  A song by Vitamin C called “Graduation” uses 
the basic melody and chord changes of the Canon.

Another ancient piece of music by Bach, “Minuet in G,” ended up as 
the melody of a Sixties Rock ‘n’ Roll classic by The Toys, 
“Lovers’ Concerto” (which is a misnomer, as it is clearly not a 
concerto).

This is not to suggest that everyone has to enjoy listening to 
these classic pieces.  But it is hard to argue with their 
longevity and their appeal to multiple generations of listeners.  
It takes talent to accomplish that – not just hype.

It is difficult to imagine any one of the songs by ‘N SYNC, 
Britney Spears, The Backstreet Boys, Alan Jackson, or any Rap 
artist known to man, keeping their popularity for 35 years, let 
alone 300.



IS EDINBURGH DYING?
Aug. 28

Is Edinburgh dying?

Sitting in the far southeast corner of Johnson County, and 
spilling over into Bartholomew and Shelby Counties, Edinburgh is 
unique in the state.  No other municipality in Indiana can boast 
an official presence in three counties.

In square mileage, Edinburgh has shown considerable growth over 
the past several years.  Its borders have expanded almost a mile 
deeper into Bartholomew County and half a mile into Shelby County.  
But its geographic expansion has done nothing to increase its 
population.  Edinburgh’s people are leaving.

It was reported recently that Johnson County schools must make 
room for nearly 1,000 new students this year.  Every school in the 
county has shown considerable growth, even to the point of 
becoming a problem – except for Edinburgh.  The student population 
of Edinburgh Schools has dropped again.  And although it didn’t 
drop as precipitously as was originally estimated based on early 
enrollment figures, Edinburgh is still the only school in the 
county to show a decline in student enrollment this year.

It’s not a southern Johnson County problem; Nineveh-Hensely-
Jackson School Corporation showed significant growth.  It’s not 
even a Blue River Township problem.  The 2000 census data shows 
that the population of the township actually increased slightly.

No, the problem lies within the borders of Edinburgh itself.  
Edinburgh’s population is shrinking.  And while other school 
systems in the county are expanding and adding teachers, Edinburgh 
is actually using attrition to decrease its teaching staff.  

The lower student population is reflective of the decrease in the 
town’s overall population over the past ten years, as told by the 
census figures.  This decrease is despite the annexation of new 
land, the construction of a new mobile home park, and the 
construction of a new upscale community surrounding a new golf 
course.

Still, the growth of the Timbergate Golf Course community has been 
lethargic at best.  Fewer than a dozen new homes exist where there 
ought to be 50 or 60 by now.  It was the promise of a large 
upscale housing development that motivated the town to construct 
the golf course in the first place.

Long-time town council member and former school board member Larry 
Taulman said he was puzzled by Edinburgh’s lack of growth, too.  
And he was not sure why the Timbergate addition was progressing so 
slowly.  “The golf course itself is doing fine financially,” 
Taulman said.  “But I don’t know why the housing is not 
progressing as rapidly as thought.  I still think it will develop 
over the next two or three years, though.”

Taulman was on the Edinburgh School Board for twenty years, from 
1970 to 1990.  He said during that time, he saw a gradual decrease 
in enrollment.  “I thought about it a lot at the time, but I never 
could figure out exactly what was going on to cause a decrease in 
enrollment,” he said.

Edinburgh has more land area and more homes than it did 20 years 
ago, but it has fewer people.  “It must be the demographics,” 
Taulman said.  There are fewer people living in the same houses 
because the kids grow up and move out of town, leaving the aging 
parents behind.  That results in a decrease in population.

One solution is to build more homes and to attract new residents 
to the area.  That was the purpose for building Timbergate.  But 
even if the Timbergate community takes off, it doesn’t help the 
school system, because those kids would attend Southwestern 
Schools in Shelby County.

What is needed is growth to the north of Edinburgh, in Blue River 
Township.  If the town annexes land north of Blue River and 
targets the area for development, it could not only help out the 
town but also the school system.

“Growth north of the river could happen if a developer becomes 
interested,” Taulman said.  “But right now we seem to be in a 
holding pattern.”  Although he did say a small housing addition is 
in the works just north of County Line Road on the east side of 
town.  That might bring an additional 20 homes to Edinburgh.

But the incredible shrinking Edinburgh remains an anomaly in 
Johnson County.  It is the only part of the county that is 
shrinking while every other community is showing significant 
growth.  It is a conundrum that no one seems to have a simple 
solution for.  But if a solution isn’t found, it could mean that 
Edinburgh might eventually become just a memory as it gets 
swallowed up by Franklin, Columbus, or even Taylorsville, which 
itself has shown tremendous growth.

Perhaps the time has come to form a task force to address the 
issue and to make long range plans designed to stimulate 
Edinburgh’s growth.  There is far too much history behind 
Edinburgh to allow it to wither and die.



FALL FESTIVAL
Sept. 5

It's that time again!

That's right; one of the longest-running traditions in Edinburgh, 
the Fall Festival, is back for another run.  And there's one thing 
about the Edinburgh Fall Festival that, to me, is different from 
almost all other fairs – I enjoy attending it!

I'm not a big amusement park fan.  I can't think of very many 
things I would like to do less than go to an amusement park, or 
even a county fair.  

There are many reasons why I dislike fairs and amusement parks.  
They are expensive; they require you to spend hours broiling in 
the hot sun in large crowds, and most of them have long lines for 
everything.  And, besides, the only good parts about them are the 
food booths and entertainment, since I've never been much of a 
carnival rider.  I tend to get dizzy.

However, the Edinburgh Fall Festival is different.  Yes, it's 
usually crowded, and some of the lines at the food booths can get 
long.  But the Fall Festival takes place when the weather is not 
so atrociously hot, and the midway is only two blocks long, so one 
is not apt to get tired out so quickly.  Besides, the crowd is 
composed of people you know, but perhaps haven’t seen for a whole 
year – since the last festival.

However, the main reason I enjoy the Edinburgh Fall Festival more 
than most carnivals is because of where it takes place - in 
Edinburgh.  It is more than a carnival or festival; it is a 
tradition.

When the Fall Festival comes to town, it gives me a feeling of 
coziness, because it represents the advance guard of my favorite 
time of year - autumn.  It is more than just carnival rides.  
There are booths, barbecue dinners, fish fries, antique and craft 
exhibits, a parade, musical entertainment, the Little Prince and 
Princess, the Fall Festival Queen, and much more.  This year there 
will even be a dog show.

The history of the Fall Festival goes back to the early 1930's 
when a group of downtown merchants got together and decided to put 
on a Merchant's Street Fair.  There were no rides, but there was 
plenty of musical entertainment, food, and sidewalk sales.  The 
festival died out during the war years, but it was revived again 
in the early 1950's.

In the 1960's, the Fall Festival was held downtown.  It was 
customary for school to be released about 2 hours early on Friday 
of festival week so students could take advantage of discount day, 
when rides were only 10 cents each.  School doesn’t let out early 
any more, but there are still discount days when kids can ride all 
evening long for $12.

Different organizations have sponsored the festival over the 
years.  But in recent years, the Lions Club has taken on that 
responsibility.  It is a major undertaking.  Although some of the 
rides of recent years have been somewhat substandard, it is not 
the fault of the Lions Club.  The best amusement ride companies 
are booked years in advance, and prefer larger venues.

Nevertheless, the Fall Festival continues to supply that 
traditional autumn get-together for Edinburgh residents.  For 
some, it is the only time during the year they see long-lost 
acquaintances!  

It's a nice diversion from the routine, and a nice forerunner of 
the holiday season.



SCHOOL RATINGS
Sept. 7

Next month, the State Board of Education will decide on whether or 
not to implement a plan that would rate schools according to their 
performance.  In anticipation of that action, educators across the 
state have started their obligatory protests against the plan, as 
they typically protest anything that might resemble an initiative 
that would hold them accountable for the education of their 
students.

However, in this case, the opponents of the proposed labeling 
system have bona fide reasons why such a plan may not work.  At 
least the way it is proposed, the plan has some serious flaws.

Educators have called the proposal to categorize schools based on 
their performance “unfair and counterproductive.”  And without 
changing the laws that govern how schools are funded and which 
students get to attend which schools, the ratings measure will be 
ineffective.

Under the proposed rule, every school in the state would receive a 
label based on the percentage of students who pass proficiency 
tests.  School improvement would be based on the changes in 
students’ test scores from year to year.  If implemented, the 
change would take place beginning with the 2003-04 school year.

Each school would receive one of five rankings: exemplary, 
commendable, adequate, marginal, or unsatisfactory.  A school 
ranked as unsatisfactory would have three years to get its act 
together.  If it didn’t, the state would step in.

According to an Indiana University study, the vast majority of 
schools across the state would currently rank in the two lowest 
categories, with only a handful being good enough for “exemplary” 
status.

Supporters of the proposed rating system say it will provide 
schools and parents with the information they need to make 
improvements.  Certainly, parents and students need the 
information that the rating system would provide.  Nothing about 
school performance should ever be swept under the rug.

But the use of ratings based only on test scores in questionable.  
David East, principal at Edinburgh High School, is one of the 
administrators who is opposed to the rating system.  “It’s pretty 
shallow,” he said. “There are other criteria that need to be taken 
into account when rating a school.”  

The ratings would also have a wider impact, beyond the school 
system.  “The label is not just for the school, but for the whole 
community,” East said.  He also said the kind of incentive it is 
designed to give simply doesn’t work.  It uses negative 
reinforcement methods.

More importantly, the proposed rating system does not adequately 
address what poor-scoring schools can do to improve themselves.  
Most administrators and teachers in those schools whose students 
score poorly on standardized tests already know that they need to 
improve.  Most schools that are in the lower third in the state, 
based on ISTEP scores, SAT scores, or graduation rates, are 
already trying to improve themselves.  How much extra incentive 
would schools have if they were simply given a label telling them 
what they already know?

Under current law, schools are primarily funded by property taxes 
levied within their own districts.  The problem is some school 
districts are in low-income communities with few large businesses.  
These schools do not receive as much funding as schools in wealthy 
communities.

In Johnson County, Center Grove Schools are well funded based on 
the affluence of the community they serve.  On the other hand, the 
Edinburgh School Corporation is located in an area of the county 
that has a larger number of poor and at-risk students.  Until the 
law is changed to allow every school in the state to share an 
equal piece of the revenue pie, based only on their enrollment and 
need, there is little that poor school systems can do to improve 
themselves.

Children from low-income families or from broken homes need a good 
education just as much as those children from well-to-do 
households.  But under the current funding formula, they seldom 
get it.

Another issue is school choice.  Ratings for restaurants, movies, 
or airlines work because people can choose which restaurant to eat 
at, which movie to see, or which airplane to fly on.  But unless 
they opt for expensive private schools, parents do not have a 
choice of which school their children can attend.  What is the 
point of giving a school a label if it can’t help parents decide 
where to send their kids?

In order for the labeling system to function as intended, two 
things must happen.  First, the uneven funding issue must be 
addressed.  Secondly, parents must have the option of sending 
their children to any school they wish, regardless of which school 
district they live in.  Only then would a school’s rating be 
meaningful.  Only then would it provide a true incentive for 
improvement.



VILLAINS WITH POWER
Sept. 13

“The world is going to Hell in a hand basket.”  It’s an old 
cliché.  And I’m not really sure what a “hand basket” is or why it 
should be the vehicle that carries the world into Hell, but I 
still hear that aphorism used from time to time.  And recently, in 
the wake of all that has happened, I’ve heard the expression used 
more often.

In the past few days, there have been editorials and opinion 
columns by the hundreds decrying last week’s acts of terrorism.  
Enough has already been said about the heinous acts themselves, 
the perpetrators, and how this country should retaliate.  There is 
no need for me to add to the volumes already written.

But there is another side to the story – one that has been told, 
but much less frequently.

It certainly is a fact of modern life that those who do evil have 
a greater capacity to carry out their treachery than in times 
past.  But that doesn’t mean the evil in their hearts and minds is 
any greater, or that there are proportionately more evil-doers 
than their used to be.  It only means the evil they do affects 
more people in a shorter amount of time.

A handful of misguided souls – perhaps 50 or 100 – who represent 
the quintessence of evil developed and carried out a sinister plot 
to destroy the icons of America, along with many thousands of 
human lives, without cause and without purpose.

But despite the disproportionate effects of their actions, those 
50 or 100 malevolent individuals represent the tiniest fraction of 
the collective human heart.  

Witness the many thousands of caring souls who stood in line for 
hours waiting to donate their blood to help the victims of the 
tragedy.  Witness the hundreds of volunteers who risked their own 
lives trying to pull one more living being from the carnage where 
the World Trade Center used to be.  Witness the dozens of heads of 
state who offered condolence and support to our president and the 
people of this country in the aftermath of the attack.  Witness 
hundreds of our elected officials, from both sides of the aisle, 
coming together in support of the leader of the free world, 
declaring to grant whatever it takes to eek out some justice from 
the rubble.  And witness the innocent children who voluntarily 
smashed their piggy banks in order to donate their pennies to the 
Red Cross.

People are, by nature, benevolent.  They are not evil.  The world 
is not going to Hell in a hand basket, for there are far too many 
good souls to prevent that.

History is replete with villains.  For every Jack the Ripper, 
Genghis Khan, Nero, Hitler, or Stalin, there are millions who 
could not bring themselves to do harm to a fellow human being.  
The problem has always been that when the villains gain power, 
either by force or by deceit, they often become the major 
characters in world history books.  In the hands of villains, 
power can lead to catastrophe.

Unfortunately for our society, it is no longer necessary for 
villains to be generals or dictators.  Any man with a homemade 
bomb or any terrorist group with a hijacked airplane can bring the 
world to its knees, if only for an instant.

It has been claimed that America has lost its security, that we 
have lost our comfort zone.  Our lives may be different now in 
some respects.  But what we haven’t lost is our humanity.  The 
compassionate actions of millions this past week has proved that.  
And that is one thing we can all take comfort in knowing.



BIASED RESEARCH
Sept. 21

One of the biggest strengths of pure science is its detachment 
from emotional considerations or societal prejudices.  At least 
that is supposed to be one of its strengths.  

Sure, there are those pseudo-scientists like the Creationists who 
pretend to use the principles of science in order to further their 
religious cause.  And lay people often use scientific terms, such 
as “theory” in a less-than-scientific manner.  But, for the most 
part, real researchers know better.

But scientists are human, and sometimes an individual scientist or 
researcher may allow personal biases to infect her conclusions, if 
not her data.  This has apparently happened to one medical 
researcher in the UK, Adrianne E. Hardman of Loughborough 
University in Leicestershire.

Hardman recently reported on a new study she was undertaking on 
dieting.  Her research compared three different types of diets to 
see how each affected serum cholesterol levels and triglycerides 
(fats in the blood linked to heart disease risk).

Her research showed that the typical low-fat, high-carbohydrate 
diet causes an increase in triglycerides.  The same diet also 
reduces the level of HDL, or good cholesterol.  Low HDL levels can 
also lead to heart problems.

However, her study also showed that moderate daily exercise can 
reverse the negative aspects of the low-fat diet with regard to 
increased triglyceride levels.  Exercise, however, did not prevent 
the drop in HDL.

“Our study shows that moderate exercise--brisk walking for most 
middle-aged and older people--negates at least some of the 
potentially negative effects of a high-carbohydrate diet,” Hardman 
commented.

Her recommendation:  Eat a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet and do 
moderate exercise daily.

That would seem to be a prudent recommendation except for one 
little thing.  She total ignored the data in her research that 
suggested an alternative – a low-carbohydrate diet.

Hardman’s study involved three types of diets.  One was a high-
carbohydrate diet without exercise.  One was a high-carbohydrate 
diet with moderate exercise, and the third was a low-carbohydrate 
diet regardless of exercise.

It is the low-carbohydrate diet that reduces triglycerides, 
increases HDL, and reduces LDL, or bad cholesterol.  Yet the 
objective, non-biased, scientifically-based conclusion that should 
have come out of her study, that a low-carbohydrate diet is best 
for maintaining a healthy blood lipid profile, was not the 
published result.

Hardman concluded that a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet with 
exercise “may be the best of both worlds for coronary heart 
disease risk.”  Why?  Her research suggested a different 
conclusion.

Her obviously-biased conclusion is likely the result of 15 years 
of brainwashing by the USDA “Food Pyramid” hoax that recommends 
high doses of carbohydrates daily.

It may take a number of years and a lot more research, but 
eventually, most doctors and dieticians will have to yield to the 
facts about carbohydrates.  Refined sugars and starches are the 
number one cause of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.  Dietary 
fat, especially the polyunsaturated and monounsaturated oils, are 
much healthier than carbohydrates.



BEAM ME UP?
Sept. 27

To Star Trek fans it seems like an ordinary, everyday occurrence.  
The fact that objects, and people, get teleported from place to 
place is nothing unusual.  It’s simply the preferred method of 
travel.  

But, of course, it’s all just science fiction.  “Beaming” things 
all over the place couldn’t really happen.  Or could it?

The writers and producers of Star Trek have taken great pains to 
make their sci-fi special effects seem scientifically plausible.  
There is even a computer program that contains the entire 
technical manual for the star ship Enterprise.  It goes into great 
scientific detail about how the Enterprise is able to go faster 
than light speed, and how transporters and food replicators work.

To transport an object from place to place, for example, the 
particles of matter in the object first have to be converted into 
energy via Einstein’s famous E=mc(squared) equation.  At the 
destination, the energy beam is reconstituted back into matter.

Although the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics do allow 
for such transformation, the bandwidth requirements necessary to 
beam a person or object and the inefficiency of the process make 
doing so just not practical, even in the foreseeable future.

However, there might be an alternative method.  Interestingly 
enough, on the date of the premier of Star Trek’s newest 
incarnation, “Star Trek: Enterprise,” scientists in Denmark 
announced that they had, indeed, succeeded in an experiment which 
could lead to teleportation in the future.

Eugene Polzik and his colleagues at the University of Aarhus have 
successfully managed to use a process called quantum entanglement, 
which allows for the entwining of two or more particles that are 
not in physical contact with each other.  In other words, as 
Einstein put it, “spooky action at a distance.”

It doesn’t involve the tricky and very inefficient process of 
converting matter to energy and back.  Instead, the process makes 
use of quantum field theories that somehow cause objects at a 
distance to “entangle” themselves.

This could not only lead to practical teleportation one day, but 
it could also be a breakthrough in the field of quantum computing 
and quantum communication.

“We have produced entanglement at a distance which means you and I 
can share entangled objects which is important for quantum 
communication, including quantum teleportation,” Polzik said.  “It 
is the first result where two macroscopic material objects have 
been entangled.”

Although the concept is quite intriguing, if esoteric, it doesn’t 
necessarily mean that you should start reserving tickets for the 
teleportation terminal just yet.  Polzik’s experiments are just 
the preliminary steps of what probably will be a long and 
complicated line of research.

But in a few decades, who knows.  The most widely recognized line 
from Star Trek might eventually come into practical use.  So, 
“beam me up!”



MANDATORY PLEDGE
Sept. 27

In times of crisis the people of America invariably unite as one 
against a common cause or enemy.  The country stands united in 
spirit and in mind.

But how united is it really, especially when it comes to tolerance 
of differing views?

The framers of the Constitution were smart enough to realize that 
sometimes people change their minds.  Before September 11 the U.S. 
Congress was divided along party lines on a number of important 
issues, including spending programs.  After September 11, members 
of Congress stood 100 percent united in spending $40 billion to 
fight terrorism.

This is what our Founding Fathers recognized as a transient 
majority.  A transient majority occurs when most of the people of 
this country unite behind a common cause or goal, for whatever 
reason.  But just because the cause is backed by a majority, even 
a sizeable majority, does not mean the minority should be ignored 
or, worse, maligned.

In this time of national crisis everybody, it seems, wants to 
display the American Flag.  It is the ultimate symbol of freedom.  
So many people want to display the flag that stores have run out 
of them. 

In schools, students are voluntarily reciting the Pledge of 
Allegiance again.  Some schools are not only encouraging saying 
the pledge, but are virtually requiring it by virtue of the fact 
that most everybody volunteers to recite it.  And therein lies a 
problem.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said that schools may not require 
students to say the Pledge if they do not wish to.  It is the same 
court that also upheld the right of protesters to burn the flag.

An informal opinion survey on an Indianapolis TV station last 
Thursday morning indicated a vast majority of Central Indiana 
residents want to make reciting the Pledge of Allegiance mandatory 
at schools, in direct violation of Supreme Court case law.

It certainly is understandable that those who are rallying behind 
our president and country in this crisis situation find it 
appalling that some others may not wish to display the flag or say 
the Pledge of Allegiance.  But it would be interesting to find out 
how many of those people who now believe saying the Pledge should 
be mandatory thought so before September 11.

It is indeed an irony that many Americans who proclaim the virtues 
of liberty with the loudest voices are also the ones who seek to 
deny freedom to those with whom they disagree.

Just what does it mean to have freedom in this country?  Is 
freedom of speech, religion, and expression granted only to those 
who agree with the views of the majority?  In America, if 99 
percent of the people believe a certain way, does that compel the 
other one percent to believe that way too, or is that one percent 
free to believe something different?

Are we only free to believe what the majority agrees is 
inoffensive, or are we free to offend the sensibilities of others 
with radical opinions?  Are we free to be different, or must we 
all assimilate our thoughts with the thoughts of the majority?

Requiring students to learn the words to the Pledge of Allegiance 
may be a bona fide assignment.  But requiring them to say it 
tramples on their individual liberties that they possess by virtue 
of being in America.  

A pledge is a solemn, binding promise.  Allegiance refers to the 
obligation of loyalty to a nation.  Most Americans have no problem 
pledging their allegiance to their country.  

But what freedom has been lost if we mandate that everyone recite 
the Pledge, even if they do not wish to make such a solemn and 
binding promise?  Samuel Butler wrote, “He that complies against 
his will is of his own opinion still.”  Even if you could force 
verbal compliance, you can’t change what’s in the heart.

An old bumper sticker slogan says, “America – Love it or Leave 
it.”  But do we really want to exile those who tend not to be 
patriotic.  Must we banish those who choose not to say the Pledge 
or fly the flag?

Those who place that sticker on their vehicle are exercising their 
freedom of speech and expression.  They enjoy that right and may 
have even fought for it.  But those who hold a different opinion 
of America also have the right to voice that opinion, or to keep 
silent about it.  Like it or not, those who fought for this 
country were also fighting for the rights of those they vehemently 
disagree with.

A better bumper sticker might say “America – However you feel 
about it, you’re free here.”



THE BLUE MOON
Oct. 3

It happens only once in a blue moon.  

What happens?  A month containing two full moons, the second of 
which is commonly referred to as a “blue moon,” occurs only about 
every 32 months.  And this month is one of them.

The aphorism “once in a blue moon” is used to denote an occurrence 
that happens only very rarely.  Two full moons in a month are 
rather rare, considering that over a two-and-a-half-year period 
there are generally 31 full moons.  Only one of them is a blue 
moon.

This month’s full moon is even more unusual.  It also occurs on 
Halloween.

Given that there is only about a 1-in-29 chance that any 
particular day, including Halloween, will be the day of a full 
moon, and that a blue moon occurs only once every 32 months or so, 
it is quite unusual for a blue moon to occur on Halloween.  It 
won’t happen again until 2020.

The rarity of full moons on Halloween might seem surprising to 
some, given that the standard “spooky night” depiction of 
Halloween always contains a full moon.  Full moons are one of the 
icons of the season, along with black cats, jack-o-lanterns, 
ghosts, and witches riding broomsticks.

This year, the Halloween full moon will live up to its billing – 
and more, being not only a full moon but a blue moon.

But how did the term “blue moon” come to apply to the second full 
moon in a calendar month?  Strangely enough, the nomenclature was 
arrived at by accident.

Originally, a blue moon was used by the Maine Farmers’ Almanac to 
denote the third full moon in any season that contained four full 
moons.  Generally, a season contains three full moons, and each 
one is named for an event that is typical of that season.  For 
example, the “Harvest Moon” occurs in the autumn.  Last week’s 
full moon was this year’s Harvest Moon.

Once in awhile, a season will contain four full moons, and the 
Maine Farmers’ Almanac used the term “blue moon” to describe the 
third full moon of such seasons.  The fourth full moon retained 
its usual descriptive name.

By that original definition, the “Maine Rule,” blue moons could 
occur only during May, August, November, or February.  But the 
second-full-moon-in-a-month definition of a full moon allows the 
blue moon to occur in any month.

This definition can be traced back to an article by James Hugh 
Pruett in the March 1946 issue of Sky and Telescope magazine.  In 
the article, Pruett writes, “Seven times in 19 years there were--
and still are--13 full moons in a year. This gives 11 months with 
one full moon each and one with two. This second in a month, so I 
interpret it, was called Blue Moon.”  Pruett misinterpreted an 
article in the 1937 Maine Farmers’ Almanac about the occurrence of 
blue moons.

Still, Sky and Telescope adopted Pruett’s new definition of a blue 
moon when it referred to it again in an article in the May 1950 
issue of the magazine.  Since then, pop culture has adopted the 
Sky and Telescope rule for the determination of a blue moon – that 
it is the second full moon in a calendar month.

Regardless of which definition one chooses to use, blue moons are 
still rather rare.  They are not unique in appearance, in that 
they are not actually blue in color, only in terminology.  But 
they’re still an interesting aspect of astronomy.  And the lunar 
event that will occur this Halloween night is indeed noteworthy, 
for it happens only once in a blue moon!



IT’S EDINBURGH’S MALL
Oct. 11

What’s in a name?  Plenty if you think about it.

Names, whether for people or places, can carry a lot of baggage.  
What comes to mind when you hear the name O. J. Simpson?  What 
about Mother Theresa?

It works the same for cities.  If someone mentions San Francisco; 
it might immediately conjure up images of streetcars, cool ocean 
air, and wharf-side restaurants.  Or it might connote images of 
hippies, flower children, or homosexuals.

Pittsburg might bring to mind a smog-filled cityscape or images of 
steel mills belching smoke.  And, of course, the images that come 
to mind when someone mentions New York has surely changed 
dramatically since before September 11.

Locally, the names of nearby towns and cities might also be loaded 
with preconceptions.  To someone who has been living in a cave for 
the past 20 years or so, the name Indianapolis might conjure up 
“Naptown,” where the sidewalks were rolled up at 5:00 p.m. and 
there was not much to do at night, or anytime.  Today, it brings 
to mind a thriving city that is gaining global recognition.

When one talks about Columbus, it almost always provokes thoughts 
about its grand architecture.  But it is also sometimes thought of 
as a city filled with snobby and stuffy residents.

White River Township, although not incorporated as a city or town, 
still brings to mind images of upscale housing, nice schools, and 
well-manicured lawns.  Mention Edinburgh, however, and people 
might imagine poverty-stricken trailer trash, high crime rates, 
and poor living conditions.

Are the images that are immediately brought to mind when one 
mentions any of these names fair to the communities?  Do they 
really represent what is there?  

Is everyone in White River Township well-off financially?  Does 
everyone there own a fine home?  Is everyone in Columbus a snob?

Is everyone in Edinburgh poor?  Are the school buildings in 
Edinburgh about ready to cave in?  Are there no places to go in 
Edinburgh to eat or be entertained?  Does everyone live in a 
trailer?

A co-worker who lives in White River Township said that the 
prevailing image of Edinburgh in that part of the county is 
basically that it is a dump.  He called it the “arm pit of the 
county.”  But he had never visited Edinburgh.

When he first started working near the town, he was invited by a 
fellow employee to have lunch at a local restaurant.  He confided 
that his initial reaction was that Edinburgh surely didn’t have 
any decent places to eat, but he agreed to go along.

When he arrived in town, he was pleasantly surprised.  It was 
clean, bustling, and had plenty of choices of where to eat.  His 
dining experience was equally surprising – and filling.  

He decided to tour the streets, look at the schools, and visit the 
golf course and other areas of town.  He came away with a totally, 
drastically different image of what had been in his mind before he 
paid a visit.  In fact, he was so surprised that he went home 
after work, got his wife, and returned to Edinburgh for dinner.  
He wanted to show her what a nice little town it was.

To those who do not live in the immediate area, Edinburgh does not 
have a negative image.  Most people from Indianapolis, Louisville, 
Cincinnati, or other places around Indiana, if they’ve heard of 
Edinburgh at all, think of it as simply a nice place to shop.  
That image is a positive one, and it is primarily thanks to Prime 
Outlets of Edinburgh.

But locals still have a tough time connecting the shopping 
experience with the town.  They continually refer to it as the 
“Taylorsville Mall.”  Recently a news story that appeared in two 
area newspapers told of a robbery at a branch bank near the 
“Taylorsville Outlet Mall.”  That is but one example of the 
mindset of people in Johnson and Bartholomew Counties.

Never mind that Edinburgh supplies the water and sewer lines to 
the mall.  Never mind that Edinburgh provides police protection 
and rescue service to the area.  And it doesn’t seem to matter 
that the mall itself has “Edinburgh” in its name, and that it has 
an Edinburgh address and an Edinburgh phone number. Finally, it 
doesn’t really matter that the Town of Edinburgh was instrumental 
in attracting the mall in the first place.

What seems to matter most is that Edinburgh’s image causes most 
area residents to loathe saying the phrase “Edinburgh Mall,” or 
the “mall near Edinburgh.”  Edinburgh has problems just like any 
other town, but its negative image is no longer deserved.  It 
isn’t right, and it isn’t fair.



RELIGION AND WAR
Oct. 11

War is fought for many reasons, including territory, politics, 
oppression, and religious differences.  Throughout history 
religious differences have been a major excuse for declaring war.  
More people have lost their lives in the name of God than for 
almost any other reason.

Our current war is really rooted in religious differences.  Sure, 
it’s officially a war against terrorism.  But the terrorists are 
religious fanatics who use their religion as an excuse to attack 
innocent people.

The fanatics we’re dealing with now are Muslims.  They follow a 
very strict and oppressive form of Islam, but they twist its 
meaning to suit their own selfish agendas.

But Islam is not the only religion that has fanatics, either now 
or in the past.  Christianity has also had its share of them, and 
some have been just as treacherous and deadly.

Fanatical Muslims talk about “jihad,” meaning “holy war.”  Some 
are willing, even proud, to die for the cause of their religion.  
That is why the terrorist groups have no trouble in recruiting 
suicide bombers.  They believe to die in a jihad secures their 
place in the afterlife.

But, although early Christians were persecuted, once Emperor 
Charlemagne was converted to Christianity, it was they who did the 
persecuting, the plundering, and the oppressing.

If the term “jihad” makes Christians feel uneasy, the term 
“crusade” sends chills down the spine of Muslims.  The Crusades 
were campaigns fought by Christians against the Islamic nations.  
The Crusades were a series of five wars fought over a 200-year 
period beginning in the 11th century after Pope Urban II exhorted 
all Christians to take up war against the infidel Muslims.

Then there was the Inquisition, which brought imprisonment or 
torture to those Christians who were judged to have committed 
heresy, or to converted Jews and Muslims who were not Christian 
enough in their new way of life.

Christians have invaded new lands, such as Scandinavia and the 
Americas, and have sought to spread their “Gospel” to the 
infidels.  The ones they could not convert, they enslaved or 
slaughtered.

Even within Christendom itself there are fighting factions.  
Witness the unrest that has plagued Northern Ireland for decades.  
It is unrest fueled by the religious intolerances of Catholics and 
Protestants in that region.

One must be very careful not to judge a person solely on what 
religion he chooses to believe in.  Just as all Muslims are not 
terrorists, all Christians throughout history have not been 
crusaders, oppressors, and marauders.

It is interesting to note, however, that what compels the 
religious fanatics to take up arms and riot in the streets is the 
same motive that compels some fundamentalist mainstream Christians 
to proselytize.  They have a staunch, deep-seated conviction that 
their religion is the right one, and that their god is the true 
one.  Other gods are false; other ways are evil.

The people of this planet, if they belong to a religion at all, 
belong to one of about four or five major belief systems.  Among 
those are Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism. 

One can view each major religion as a giant bubble on the surface 
of the earth, unable to combine into a single larger bubble.  The 
occupants of one bubble realize that the other bubbles exist, but 
they do not really understand what it’s like to be inside any 
bubble but their own.  They can’t see the whole picture.  Their 
own bubble is right and righteous; the other bubbles are flawed or 
imperfect.

Sometimes, the residents of one bubble try to expand their own by 
devouring neighboring bubbles or by seducing those other bubble’s 
residents to come over to the good side.  That attitude either 
leads to war, or at the very least causes ill will between 
bubbles.

We might all do well to step outside our own little bubbles and 
look at the world from a different perspective.  View it from a 
perspective outside of any bubble.  One might then come to the 
conclusion that all bubbles are equal.



SECOND HAND SMOKE INITIATIVE
Oct. 17

Many years ago it was discovered that a substance that had been 
used in the construction of most school buildings in order to 
protect the safety of children was itself unsafe.  The substance 
was asbestos, and regulations now prevent it from being used as 
construction material in public buildings.

Some years later, another environmental hazard was identified – 
lead.  Again, regulations popped up preventing lead from being 
used in gasoline formulas or in paint.  The entire automobile 
industry had to retool its engines and add catalytic converters to 
exhaust systems so that the cars they manufactured could run well 
on unleaded gasoline.

Over the past 25 or 30 years, several other substances long used 
have been identified as dangerous, especially to children, and 
either regulated or banned outright, including the use of mercury, 
DDT and other pesticides, and food additives.

Through all of it, however, children have continued to be exposed 
to another environmental poison that could be just as dangerous to 
their health as any of those substances that have been banned.  
Dr. Martha White, director of research at the Institute for Asthma 
and Allergy, says that as many as 15 million children are exposed 
to cigarette smoke in their own homes on a daily basis.

Children who are exposed to second-hand smoke are more likely to 
develop asthma, suffer ear infections, be hospitalized for 
pneumonia and other respiratory illnesses, and die from SIDS than 
are children in smoke-free homes.  Second-hand smoke is especially 
harmful to children with asthma, and may even cause it.

For that reason, the Bush administration has finally begun to take 
steps to prevent children from being exposed to this deadly toxin 
that issues from the mouths, noses, and cigarette tips of their 
parents.

Last week, the Bush administration kicked off a new environmental 
health effort that seeks to protect millions of children from the 
dangers of second-hand smoke in their own homes.  The program is 
called the “Smoke-Free Home Pledge Initiative” and is being co-
sponsored by several medical, community, and consumer 
organizations.

“The message is clear...quit or take it outside,” EPA 
administrator Christine Whitman said.  The message will be 
hammered home using a nationwide television and print media 
advertising blitz.  

Whiteman said, “Smoking is such an obvious trigger for so many 
negative health problems.”  And it should be obvious to smoking 
parents who still do not go outside to light up that they are 
harming their children.

Adults have the right to smoke if they wish.  Most smokers, 
however, desperately want to quit.  Most wish they had never 
started the vile habit.  And, fortunately, recent statistics show 
that young people might be just beginning to get the message that 
smoking is not something they ought to try.  Teen smoking rates 
have begun to decline somewhat over the last two years.

But young children of smokers have not made the choice to start 
smoking.  Yet they have to tolerate it anyway, unless their 
parents are mindful enough to take it outside.

To those parents who continue to smoke in an enclosed environment 
around their children, whether it is at home, in the car, or 
sitting in a restaurant, I encourage you to be aware of what you 
may be doing to your offspring.  

If you have kids, and if you smoke, please take it outside.



PERSPECTIVE ON TERRORISM
Oct. 18

President George W. Bush has said the war on terrorism might last 
two years or longer, but he is adamant that the United States, 
along with the rest of the civilized world, will ultimately win 
it.  He may be right.  When the U.S. citizens unite behind a 
common goal, it is difficult to stop their determination.

But regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the war will be, we 
are already losing some important battles.

Bush has asked Americans to go about their business, but be 
vigilant.  He said we must not allow the terrorists to win by 
upsetting our lifestyles.  But haven’t they already done that?

For the past two weeks, not a day has gone by without the news 
media reporting some story about anthrax.  The Bayer Company has 
ramped up its production of the antibiotic that is preferred in 
the treatment of anthrax because people are ordering prescriptions 
for it over the Internet in record numbers.

In addition to that, people are reluctant to get back on 
airplanes.  And they are leery to go into high-rise buildings.  
They are becoming afraid to open their mail.

Terrorism is, by definition, an unlawful use or threatened use of 
force or violence by a person or an organized group against people 
or property with the intention of intimidation or coercion.  
Haven’t we all felt intimidated?  If the goal of a terrorist is to 
coerce or intimidate by the threat of violence, then bin Laden and 
his vermin have succeeded.  He has us scared to death.

But we need not be.  Here are a few facts to ponder.

It is not easy for a person to become infected with anthrax.  
Weapons grade anthrax is extremely difficult to produce.  Since it 
is difficult and costly to produce, any weapons grade anthrax that 
is likely to be made and used by terrorists will be used against a 
very select group of people – high-profile people in Congress, the 
news media, or high-ranking government officials.  If you are not 
one of these people, or if you do not work for one, you are 
probably quite safe from an anthrax attack.

That is not to suggest that reports of possible anthrax 
contamination should not be investigated.  But a report that a 
letter in some local office contains white powder should not cause 
any mass panic.  There is probably a 99-percent chance that it is 
a mistake or a hoax.

Local businesses and communities must continue their operation, 
unimpeded by the fear of contamination.  

This situation must be put into proper perspective.  Anthrax is 
not new.  It has been on this planet for 3,500 years or longer.  
It has ravaged whole nations in the past.  The importance of a few 
scattered cases due to one or more terrorists today is trivial 
compared to the death and destruction anthrax has caused 
throughout history.

A few years ago another type of terrorism was taking place on the 
home front.  Some sick individual decided he was going to 
contaminate Tylenol capsules with poison.  People became sick and 
died when they took tainted capsules.

It wasn’t long until a rash of copycat poisonings were occurring.  
Everything from soft drinks to medicines were being tainted with 
various poisons.  People were afraid to consume anything for fear 
of being poisoned themselves.  

The situation became so bad that manufacturers started producing 
tamper-proof containers for their products.  And manufacturers of 
pain relievers such as Tylenol started to produce caplets instead 
of capsules, which are more prone to contamination.

The likelihood that any particular product was contaminated was 
relatively small.  Still, people were wary, and rightly so.  But 
the odds that any individual would acquire a tainted Tylenol or 
drink from a contaminated soft drink were probably much higher 
back then than the odds of becoming infected with anthrax are 
today.

The threat back then was to the average consumer.  Most of us fall 
into that category.  The threat from anthrax is not only on a much 
smaller scale, but the focus of the threats is toward high-profile 
individuals.  

The terrorists know that targeting VIPs will initiate a trickle-
down effect and cause everyone to go into a panic.  And that is 
exactly what has happened.

The biggest difference between going to war against terrorists and 
going to war against a nation is that terrorists can act 
individually and independently to create their terror.  They don’t 
need a homeland to do it.  Even if we wipe out Osama and his gang 
of thugs, and even if we manage to identify and wipe out all the 
terrorist cells scattered around the world, there will remain 
individual terrorists bent on continuing the crusade against 
American involvement in world affairs.

It is safe to say that terrorism will continue.  It may be slowed 
down.  It may be stopped for awhile.  The methods of future 
terrorists might, by necessity, be very basic.  But it will 
continue to crop up at various times.

It is up to the American people to not allow the goals of 
terrorists, namely the spread of terror and chaos, to be 
accomplished.  This they can do by going on about their daily 
lives as though everything were back to normal.

As the president has told us, we must act normally, we just need 
to use common sense and keep our eyes open.



FIGHTING TERRORISM
Oct. 31

Remember the good old days when Americans didn’t have to worry 
about terrorism on their own soil?  Oh, sure, there were 
hijackers; there were idiots who called in bomb threats, and there 
were those who poisoned consumer goods.  But there were no foreign 
terrorist groups that blew up buildings.  The U.S. was safe 
between two large oceans.

All that ended in 1993 when the first attempt was made to blow up 
the World Trade Center.  Then, later, a home-grown terrorist 
bombed a federal building in Oklahoma.

And, of course, most recently, a well-choreographed terrorism 
rampage annihilated the World Trade Center in New York and part of 
the Pentagon in Washington, DC.  Terrorism has finally come to 
America.

So what do we do about it?

The government has vowed to fight a war on terrorism, to wipe it 
out, no matter how long it takes.  The U.S. has started a massive 
bombing campaign in Afghanistan, home of the Al Qaeda terrorist 
network and its leader Osama bin Laden.

But the military has run into some difficulty.  According to some 
analysts, the Pentagon has made at least a couple of 
miscalculations.  First, it was expected that Taliban forces would 
defect in droves, much like the Iraqi soldiers did during the Gulf 
War.  That hasn’t happened.

Secondly, the U.S. expected the Northern Alliance to move in more 
quickly to retake some of the Taliban-held cities and territory.  

It was always known that it would be difficult to locate bin Laden 
himself.  There are just too many places for him to hide out.

So how, then, do we rid our country of the terrorist threat?  
Basically, we don’t.  Terrorism is like crime; we can try to 
control it and minimize it, but we can never completely get rid of 
it.  We just bring it down to a level that we can live with.

The best way to do that is to make sure that there are no 
terrorist networks training and working here in the U.S.  One of 
the biggest intelligence blunders this country made prior to 
September 11 is that the terrorists who were training for the 
attack in this country were not identified and halted.

It won’t be easy now that they are here.  But it is an important 
front, if not the most important front, in our new war on 
terrorism.  We must abolish the terrorist organizations here at 
home and we must not allow foreign would-be terrorists to enter 
the country.

As for the war in Afghanistan, it is a war that had to be fought.  
It is a war that must be won.  To do so, the U.S. must not be so 
cautious about what other Islamic countries might think of us.  We 
just need to get the job done as quickly as possible.  If that 
means 24-hour massive bombing campaigns, then we must do it.  If 
it means sending 100,000 or more troops into the desolate country 
to find and kill bin Laden and his supporters, then we must do it.  
Even if it means using limited numbers of low-yield tactical 
nuclear weapons, then we should use them, as a last resort.

Then we must go and eliminate Saddam Hussein in Iraq.  It is 
something we should have done in 1991, but it is even more 
important that we do so now.

And the most important thing of all in this war on terrorism, the 
U.S. must not allow individual terrorists to think they may be 
able to win a victory.  For every action there is a reaction.  In 
terrorism lingo, it’s called blow-back.  Every time the U.S. acts, 
some terrorist eventually tries to punish us or get even with us.

Blow-back is something we must be forever wary of.  We must 
intercept all attempts at terrorists’ revenge.  We must find a way 
to teach all would-be terrorists that their evil practices will 
earn them nothing but their own death – a death without honor or 
reward.

Perhaps, in fighting a war on terrorism, we must learn to think 
and act more like terrorists.  It certainly is an unconventional 
war.  We must use unconventional means to win it.  And that 
includes infiltrating their networks, assassinating their leaders 
from within, and creating fear, panic, and terror in the 
terrorists themselves.



CALENDARS
Nov. 1

What time is it?

It’s a straight-forward question and one that most people would 
give a simple answer to just by looking at their watch.  Today, we 
reckon time using seconds, minutes, hours, weeks, months, and 
years.  It is what we all grew up with and it seems fairly 
natural.

But there is really nothing natural about time keeping.  And 
throughout history scholars have had a tough time figuring out 
exactly what time it was.

Take the month of November, for example.  November gets its name 
from the Latin, Nove, meaning nine.  It was the ninth month of the 
ancient Roman calendar.  When Julius Caesar revised the calendar 
in the first century BC, the Roman Senate honored him by naming a 
month after him – July.  Of course, his successor, Augustus, had 
to have his own month.

The word “month” is derived from “moon.”  It was originally used 
to measure lunar cycles.  One lunar cycle is about 28 days, which 
includes four phases of about seven days each.

Unfortunately, nature did not cooperate in synchronizing the lunar 
cycles with the seasons.  Although lunar cycles were important to 
many cultures for religious reasons, the solar cycle and the 
seasons were important to most agricultural societies.  People 
needed to know when spring arrived.

In addition, the Roman Catholic Church had to have a fixed date 
for spring, because that is how they computed their holiest day of 
the year – Easter.  Easter always occurs on the first Sunday 
following the first full moon that occurs on or after the vernal 
equinox, or first day of spring.  So for Christians, the lunar 
cycle and solar cycle had to be intermingled, and it all had to 
fit with the changing of the seasons.

It was quite a task to come up with a suitable calendar.  Caesar’s 
calendar, known as the Julian Calendar, was pretty good, but it 
was out of synch with the sun by a factor of about seven days 
every 1000 years.

In 1582, Pope Gregory XIII decreed that ten days would be stripped 
from the current year, in order to bring the calendar in phase 
with the seasons.  From then on, leap years, in which an extra day 
is added to February, would occur in all years divisible by 4 
except in those century years that were not also divisible by 400.  
So the year 2000 was a leap year, but 1900 was not.

Still, there were those pesky weeks.  A week is a period of seven 
days.  And a week does not fit neatly into either a month or a 
year.  Our 7-day week probably is a legacy of the ancient 
Babylonians.  They were fond of seven because it was the number of 
days in one lunar phase.  

But that meant fitting a seven day week into a month that had 28, 
29, 30, or 31 days, depending on the month and the year, and then 
fitting 12 of those months into a seasonal cycle of 365.2422 days.  
It was pretty much impossible.

The Gregorian Calendar, from Pope Gregory, is the one we use 
today, because it is the best at keeping things straight, although 
it doesn’t even bother trying to fit the week in neatly.

And what about the days of the week?  They are mostly named for 
ancient gods, except Sunday and Monday which were named for the 
Sun and Moon respectively.  Why is Sunday the first day of the 
week, and why is it considered holy to Christians?

In Hebrew, the seventh day of the week is shavat, meaning Sabbath.  
It is the Jewish holy day and lasts from sundown on Friday until 
sundown on Saturday.  In a seven-day week, therefore, Sunday would 
be the first day.  

In 321 AD, newly converted Emperor Constantine established the 
official seven-day week and decreed that the first day of the 
week, Sunday, would be used to relax and worship the Lord.  It is 
a day in remembrance of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.  
Besides, he didn’t want his Christian observances to be tied in 
any way with Jewish custom.  Sunday as a day of worship and 
communion can also be traced back to the Acts of the Apostles 
(Acts 20:7).

In more recent years, there have been failed attempts at revising 
the calendar again.  It would be nice, for example, to have a 
calendar in which every month began on a Sunday and ended on a 
Saturday, with the same number of days in each.  All holidays 
would always fall on the same day of the week and date of the 
year.  But creating such a calendar would mean several “leap days” 
would be left over at the end of every year.  They would not be 
given dates or names, but would simply be extra days, probably 
designated as holidays.

Don’t look for any such reform to happen soon, though.  It took 
over 500 years for Pope Gregory’s reforms to be adopted by the 
whole world.



THE MIND OF GOD
Nov. 6

My brother once wrote a song called “Some Things You Just Know.”  
It is a Gospel song meant to describe the feeling one has when he 
knows God is present, but doesn’t know how he knows it.

Of course, being a skeptic, I usually need to know how I know 
things.  I get an uneasy feeling that I might be wrong if I can’t 
pinpoint the source of my knowledge.  In such cases, knowledge 
becomes mere opinion.

When I was young, I had no hesitancy in believing things.  If I 
could see it, touch it or taste it, it was real.  If my parents or 
my Aunt Ruby told me something, it was true.  I didn’t question 
their knowledge.  Later, when I started school, if my teachers 
told me something, it was true.  After all, they were paid to tell 
me the truth about stuff.  And if my Sunday school teacher told me 
something about God or Jesus, then I had no qualms at all about 
believing it whole-heartedly.

It wasn’t until high school that I started questioning some of the 
things my parents, teachers, ministers, and even Aunt Ruby had 
always told me.  It was then that I developed my skepticism.  

I was told something by my science teacher that was in direct 
conflict with what I had earlier been told by my Sunday school 
teacher.  The subject matter was the theory of evolution.

I was faced with a conundrum.  How could two people I trusted both 
be right when they were telling me opposite “truths”?

Well, they forced me into doing something that I hadn’t done much 
of before – think for myself.  I realized then that perhaps there 
are no absolute truths that everybody agrees upon, except of 
course to look both ways before crossing the street.  

I started questioning everything.  I began desiring proof, or at 
least evidence, that what somebody told me was true, even if it 
was Aunt Ruby.  I come to understand that most of what she told me 
as facts were based largely on old wives’ tales.  She hadn’t lied; 
she just didn’t know any better.

And maybe that was why I was getting conflicting information from 
school and church.  Maybe neither of them was lying to me.  Maybe 
one or the other of them, or both to some degree, just didn’t know 
the real truth.

I began to understand that there were many conflicting ideas 
between science and the church.  But because of my newly-developed 
sense of skepticism, I found myself leaning more and more toward 
what science told me was true and away from what religion said was 
true, even though I didn’t want to let go of religion, because it 
had been a part of my life for so long.

Still, science had a reason for all its answers.  Science had 
evidence, proofs, facts, and empirical data to back up its 
contentions.  Religion just expected me to trust it.

Oh, sure, there was the Bible.  My mom and all the religious 
people in my life told me the Bible was proof enough, for it was 
the inspired Word of God.  But how did I know that?  Was it 
because the Bible told me so?  I would never have trusted a 
science book that propounded a theory and used only itself as the 
proof.

I believe there is a God.  I believe it not because I was raised 
that way, or because my Sunday school teacher told me so, or 
because the Bible says there is.  I believe it because it is the 
most logical explanation of the existence of the universe.  There 
are too many variables that have exactly the right values for the 
universe to have been accidentally created.

But that belief in God, based on my own reckoning, is as much 
faith as I can muster right now.  I’m glad there are those who 
believe they have it all figured out, even if it is only within 
their own minds.  It brings them peace and comfort.  But, 
personally, I have great doubt that anyone really has it figured 
out yet.

In history, there have been but a handful of special people who 
seemed to really “get it.”  Confucius, Buddha, Mohammad, and Jesus 
Christ understood.  Most of their followers do not, and never 
will.

Personally, there is only one thing I know for sure about God - 
that there is more to Him than anyone can possibly ever begin to 
comprehend.  Yet there is an abundance of proselytizers who will 
gladly give you their version of God’s reality.

Einstein once said, “I want to know the thoughts of God. 
Everything else is just details.”  Perhaps we can figure out the 
details, and learn to appreciate the beauty in them.  But the mind 
of God may remain eternally incomprehensible and ineffable, even 
to those who “just know.”



HIGHWAY 252
Nov. 8

Johnson County’s economic development advocates have most of their 
attention focused on the possibility that an extension of 
Interstate 69 might be built through the northwest part of the 
county.  It is an important consideration and one that requires 
adequate attention, especially with regards to economic planning.

But there are other areas of the county that have their own 
priorities regarding transportation issues.  One of them is at the 
opposite end of the county, in Edinburgh.

State Highway 252 meanders through the town of 5,000, from I-65 on 
its way to U.S. Highway 31 and points west.  One of those “points 
west” is Camp Atterbury, which often generates a large volume of 
military traffic for the two-lane highway.

In addition, Edinburgh being an industrial town, the truck traffic 
on Highway 252 is considerably higher than on most other narrow 
highways in the state.  And that presents a big problem due to the 
sinuous nature of the road through Edinburgh; it takes no fewer 
than six curves, some of them sharp, to make the trek.  Sometimes 
trucks can barely make the turn at Grant Street.  And the entire 
corridor is through residential neighborhoods.

The Greater Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce has accepted the 
challenge of trying to convince the state that it is time to 
rebuild Highway 252.  At its meeting last Thursday, Chamber 
president Kathy Richmond announced that the Chamber would be 
directly involved in a lobbying effort to help persuade the state 
to build a new Highway 252 by-pass on the northern edge of the 
town.

Richmond acknowledged that it would be an uphill battle that would 
take years to accomplish, if ever.  And the construction of such a 
by-pass would cost millions.

A by-pass, connecting Highway 252 at Exit 80 off I-65 to U.S. 31 
just northwest of Edinburgh would be the ideal solution to the 
truck problem.  It would also deflect military traffic and make it 
easier and safer for those coming into town from the east to make 
it to destinations on the west side of town.

But the logistics and the cost of relocating the highway would 
probably be prohibitive, especially since, in INDOT’s view, 
traffic can simply come off I-65 at Exit 76b directly onto U.S. 31 
and head north for two miles.  That still, however, doesn’t 
address the heavy truck problem in town.  Many of the trucks are 
destined for Kyle Street on Edinburgh’s east side.

Rather than advocating the construction of a new by-pass, it might 
be more fruitful to lobby the state to straighten out the curves 
in Highway 252 a little.  This would be more cost-effective and 
still accomplish the problem of truck bottlenecks.

One solution might be to rebuild the part of Highway 252 on the 
east side of town so that it runs straight from I-65 all the way 
to Kyle Street.  At that point a choice could be made to either 
continue the new road on to Sconce Hill where it would converge 
with the existing road, or simply to divert traffic to the south 
on Kyle Street, which would become the new highway for a couple of 
blocks before traffic must turn west onto the existing road again.

This would involve the construction of far less new roadway. The 
existing surface, however, would have to be completely 
reconstructed and widened all the way through town.

It is no secret that the state would like to abandon the section 
of Highway 252 that runs through Edinburgh.  Town Manger Mike 
Weddle has said he would be in favor of the town accepting the 
responsibility for the highway, but only after appropriate 
upgrades are made by the state.

Over the long run, it might be in the state’s best interest to 
sink several million dollars into making Highway 252 a much better 
and safer roadway now, then abandoning it to the Town of 
Edinburgh.  It certainly would be in Edinburgh’s best interest for 
INDOT to at least take a look at the various alternatives that 
exist for the road.

Perhaps the Town of Edinburgh, working in concert with the Chamber 
of Commerce, can effect a change by first bringing the problem to 
the state’s attention, and then by actively lobbying for highway 
improvement funding.  But it will take continuous pressure, not 
just a single hit, to make it happen.



SPELLING AND GRAMMAR
Nov. 16

As a writer, I find that it is quite helpful to know a little bit 
about the rules of English grammar, usage, style, and spelling.  
That is not as much of an understatement as it might initially 
appear to be. 

Although I know more about the subject than the average fourth 
grader, I find that I still have quite a difficult time spelling 
words that have double consonants – especially verb inflections.  
I am convinced that whoever invented English rules of spelling was 
intoxicated at the time, or perhaps he was just a practical joker. 

I applaud, and am envious of, anyone who has mastered the 
technique of determining which form of a verb should have a double 
letter and which one should not.  For example, in the word 
“occur,” which already has a double c, the rule is that the past 
tense should have a double r — occurred.  The word “occurring” 
also has a double r.  But now, take the word “offer” and apply the 
same rule.  It would be incorrect.  Even though both words start 
with an o and have a double consonant following the first letter, 
and both end in r, the rule is applied differently to each.  The 
correct inflections are “offered” and “offering.” Why? 

Now take the word “cancel.”  According to Webster’s, the past 
tense can be either “canceled” or “cancelled,” with the former 
prefered — sorry, I mean, preferred.  But the noun “cancellation” 
must have the double consonant. 

Double consonants within root words are a little less puzzling, 
but they sometimes still present a problem.  Basically, the rule 
is that the vowel sound that precedes a double consonant is the 
short vowel sound, whereas a long vowel sound precedes a single 
consonant.  Consider matted and mated; or bitter and biter; or 
latter and later.  I named my daughter Shana, which according to 
the rule should be pronounced Shay-na, but people insist on 
pronouncing it as though her name were spelled Shanna. It’s 
probably because even that simple rule has many exceptions.  Take, 
for example, cannon and canon.  The former is a big gun; the 
latter a set of laws, but both are pronounced the same — with a 
short “a” sound. 

There are many irritants in the English language other than double 
consonants; consider inflections of the word “smoke.”  Why does 
smoke, smoked, and smoker all have an “e” but smoky does not? 

Word processors have become an invaluable tool for those of us who 
find it tough to remember every spelling variation in the English 
language.  Some of them draw a little red line underneath 
misspelled words.  Some even automatically correct the word for 
you if it is pretty certain which word you meant to use.

Still, if you’re going to have rules, you might as well follow 
them all the time.  “It’s ‘I’ before ‘E’ except after ‘C’ and when 
sounding like ‘A’ as in neighbor or weigh.”  Oh yea?  What about 
Einstein?  His name breaks the rule twice! 

It makes it cumbersome and difficult if every rule has one or more 
exceptions.  As one college language professor once said, “There 
ain’t no rule in the English language what can’t be broke.”  But 
if you break it on a word processor, be aware of the little red 
underlines.

I suppose sticking to the rules in every case might make your 
speech sound awkward in certain instances.  When Winston Churchill 
was asked by a reporter about someone on his staff constantly 
using prepositions at the end of his sentences, Churchill quipped, 
“Sir, that is one thing which up with I shall not put.”

Still, there’s no logical reason for so many variations in simple 
spelling rules.  Try it yourself:  Is it accommodate, accomodate, 
or acommodate?  Is it refered or referred?  Is it totaling or 
totalling?  Is it necessary, or necesary?  Is it withhold or 
withold?  What about threshold or threshhold?  One thing is 
certain — I would not want to be a bookkeeper!



PRAYING FOR PEACE
Nov. 16

There is a handwritten placard nailed to a tree on U.S. 31 between 
Franklin and Edinburgh.  The printing says, “Pray for Peace.”

It’s a noble sentiment.  But as I pass the sign almost every day 
on my way to work, I often wonder who put it there and for what 
reason.  They obviously went to some trouble to hang it there; it 
is rather high off the ground, so they probably had to use a 
ladder.  And they had to take the time to print it by hand.  But 
for what real purpose did they hang such a sign as this?

“Pray for peace.”  It is a simple directive.  It is also fairly 
simple to do.  Praying for peace, or for anything else, is not 
difficult.  It is somewhat more difficult, however, to expect 
those prayers to be answered, for that expectation requires a 
certain degree of faith.  Most people have to work at faith.

But what degree of faith would be necessary to expect that a 
prayer for world peace might actually be answered?  How far back 
in the history of humanity must one go in order to find a world at 
peace?  I suppose that might depend on what your definition of 
peace might be.  You can have peace under a ruthless dictator, but 
you might wish for war under such oppression.

Still, world peace has been extraordinarily rare throughout all of 
history.  In fact, civilization may never have achieved it for any 
substantial length of time, ever.  So why should we pray for it?  
It’s not like we’ve ever had it before and have now lost it.

Besides, the act of praying for something means that you expect it 
might actually be God’s will for it to happen.  But, from the text 
of the Old Testament, one might wonder how much stock God actually 
puts in peace.

“For the Lord is enraged against all the nations, and furious 
against all their hordes; he has doomed them, has given them over 
for slaughter.” – Isaiah 34:2.

Does that sound like a peace-loving God?  Is this the God to whom 
we should pray for world peace?

And besides, if we prayed for peace, are we not really praying for 
an end to war?  And if we are praying for an end to war, are we 
not also praying that one side or the other might win it?  I mean, 
it would really be unprecedented for both sides in a conflict to 
simply give up and start hugging each other.  We need a little bit 
of realism even within our prayers.

So if we pray for peace through a victory, does that also mean we 
are praying for the defeat of the other side?  It might possibly 
sound something like this:

“Oh God, please bring down defeat upon all those whom we call our 
enemy.  Send down your wrath upon them so that they may be 
destroyed by our superior righteousness.”

That little commandment, “Pray for peace,” certainly seems to 
carry a lot of baggage.  But if it makes those who propound it 
feel better, who am I to admonish them for advocating such a 
prayer.  After all, many a Miss America contestant has made world 
peace her wish when asked by the host what she would like to 
accomplish in her role.

Still, be careful what you pray for.  If those prayers are 
answered, there may be unexpected consequences.


SCIENCE EDUCATION
Nov. 21

During World War II, one of the things that ultimately led to the 
defeat of Hitler’s Germany was the brain drain that occurred due 
to the defection or expulsion of good scientists from that 
country.  Most notably, Hitler confiscated the property and 
revoked the German citizenship of one Albert Einstein, who became 
a U.S. citizen in 1940.

Are there parallels in the U.S. today that may eventually lead to 
a nationwide science brain drain?  Unfortunately, it may be true 
for two reasons.

First, some highly-capable scientists have already made the 
decision to go elsewhere because of the Bush administration’s 
policy regarding stem cell research.  The best stem cells come 
from fetal tissue, and Bush has declared that no government 
funding can be used for research on fetal stem cells, except on 
the cells that have already been taken from fetuses prior to his 
order.

Secondly, and probably more ominous, is the fact that only about 
half of all high school seniors have even a basic understanding of 
science.  And that is worse than four years ago.

According to recent national test results, only one in five U.S. 
high school seniors has a good grasp of science.  In fact, “The 
Nation’s Report Card: Science 2000” test results indicate that 
while students in lower grades showed no improvement in science 
scores since 1996, scores for seniors actually declined.

According to the test results, 34 percent had a basic grasp while 
47 percent did not even have this knowledge of the subject.  Only 
two percent of seniors showed a high degree of understanding of 
science.

The results have Education Secretary Rod Paige worried about our 
future, and rightly so.  “After all, 12th-grade scores are the 
scores that really matter. If our graduates know less than their 
predecessors four years ago, then our hopes for a strong 21st 
century work force are dimming just when we need them most,” he 
said.

So who’s filling the gap if American students are not proficient 
in science?  Foreigners are, according to Paige.  He said American 
companies are bringing in foreign workers to perform specialized 
jobs in the high-tech industry.  Instead of acting on the problem 
and doing something to improve science education in this country, 
we’re simply hiring brain power from other countries.

“There's something wrong when foreign workers are getting jobs in 
America because we failed to teach American graduates the skills,” 
Paige said.  To meet the increasing demand for workers in high-
tech fields, Congress had to increase the visa cap to 195,000 last 
year in order to allow more foreign workers into the U.S.

The bottom line is we can’t expect improvements in science test 
scores when we have failed to improve the way we teach science to 
students at the high school level.  It should be obvious that 
changes have to be made if the brain drain is to stop.

One thing that schools might do immediately is to start hiring 
teachers with science majors, rather than teachers who have an 
athletic major and a science minor.  There are far too many 
science teachers who view their primary job as coaching, while 
their science students suffer under second-rate instruction.

Beyond that, states must form commissions and task forces to seek 
out improved methods of teaching science, and making it more 
meaningful to students.  If we don’t start improving our science 
education now, America may one day become a second-rate country 
when it comes to technology.  We can’t afford to allow that to 
happen.



HUMAN CLONING
Nov. 26

President George W. Bush may be a master at international 
coalition building, much as his father was when he was president.  
He has a very high approval rating, as most presidents do during 
times of national crisis.  And his budget initiatives may go a 
long way in helping to get the economy going again.

But the president does, nevertheless, possess some of the 
characteristics of the religious despots of the Islamic world when 
it comes to certain issues of domestic policy.

Women under Taliban rule were not allowed to show their faces in 
public, and men were compelled to wear long beards, because 
Taliban rulers were forcing their strict interpretation of Islamic 
law upon the citizens of Afghanistan.  In Saudi Arabia, drinking 
alcohol is a violation, subject to severe penalties, because it is 
against the king’s interpretation of what is moral under Islamic 
doctrine.  Women can’t drive cars for the same reason.

In this country we have religious freedom and tolerance - 
presumably.  Citizens of the U.S. are free to worship however they 
choose, or not to worship at all.  Our government is supposed to 
be tolerant of differences in the religious beliefs and 
convictions of its diverse citizenry.  

But apparently, Bush is only open to religious tolerance as long 
as it does not go against his interpretation of morality.  When 
our president calls for a certain type of medical research to be 
banned simply because he believes it to be immoral, one has to 
wonder how much different our government is from the religious 
autocracies of the Middle East.

In October Dr. Michael West, president and CEO of Advanced Cell 
Technology, Inc., succeeded in creating a clone of a human embryo.  
This clone was not intended for reproductive purposes, but for 
research only.  In fact, West himself does not believe that 
research into cloning for reproductive purposes should be pursued.   
“I don't think this is safe yet for human reproduction,” he said.

But the therapeutic possibilities are virtually limitless.  If 
scientists are allowed to continue their research into embryonic 
cloning for the purpose of producing human stem cells, there is a 
very high likelihood that grave illnesses such as heart disease, 
diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, cancer, AIDS, and a host of others 
might eventually become maladies of the past.

But President Bush called this exciting new research “morally 
wrong” and said that any such research should be outlawed.  Bush 
has already forbidden the use of federal dollars to fund research 
using stem cells from human embryos.  And last year, the House of 
Representatives voted to ban entirely research on all human 
cloning, for any reason.

High school students in this country are already largely 
scientifically illiterate.  According to recent national test 
results, only one in five U.S. high school seniors has a good 
grasp of science.  “The Nation’s Report Card: Science 2000” test 
results indicate that while students in lower grades showed no 
improvement in science scores since 1996, scores for seniors 
actually declined.  In fact, less than half do not even have a 
basic understanding of science.  What kind of message is Bush 
sending to these already-at-risk science students?

And because of the Bush administration’s policies, some good 
researchers are choosing to head for greener pastures.  Some have 
already left this country for Great Britain where the government 
is more tolerant.  Will Bush’s narrow view of right and wrong send 
this country down the same path that Nazi Germany followed prior 
to World War 2 when Hitler kicked out his best scientists because 
they were Jewish?

Bush, like all Americans, has a right to choose his moral 
convictions.  The difference is that Bush, and members of 
Congress, are in a position to impose their religious intolerances 
on everybody else.

What about the many people who would stand to benefit from this 
research and who do not have a moral dilemma with cloning?   If 
Bush gets his way, these people will never have a choice to seek 
treatment.

Morals and ethics are not always black-and-white.  If everybody 
agreed on what is moral, then there would be no need for the 
various religious denominations.  

There are some things – lying, cheating, stealing, and murder – 
that everyone agrees is immoral.  But on other issues, such as 
human cloning, reasonable people often disagree.  On issues like 
these, one person’s moral slant should not be imposed on the 
masses.

But if Bush gets his wish, he will have inflicted his view of 
morality on all of us.  And that goes entirely against the premise 
upon which this country was founded – religious freedom.



INDIANA DAY
Nov. 29

Although there is a dearth of holidays during the summer months, 
with the exception of Independence Day, holidays are in no short 
supply during the fall and early winter.  Starting with Labor Day 
there is at least one legal holiday each month, with two in 
November.  The holiday smorgasbord culminates with the Christmas 
and New Year holidays, which are but a week apart.

But there is one special day for the people of Indiana which often 
gets overlooked during the holiday season.  And that’s too bad, 
because several other states not only acknowledge the day they 
were admitted into the Union, but even proclaim it a state 
holiday.

Indiana Day, as it is proclaimed by the governor, occurs on 
December 11.  This year the day will mark Indiana’s 185th 
birthday.  Last week, I called Governor O’Bannon’s office to make 
sure he was prepared to make the official proclamation of Indiana 
Day this year and I was told by Mary Beth Davis, who handles the 
governor’s proclamations, that she was getting ready to issue it 
within a few days.

I like to check on such things occasionally, because I believe 
Indiana’s admission day is important to remember.  For many years, 
from the 1960s up until 1991, Indiana Day did not officially 
exist, even though it was supposed to by law.  Gov. Evan Bayh 
began issuing the proclamation again in 1991 after a phone call 
from me reminded him of his legal obligations on the matter.

Since then, governors have been upholding the law by proclaiming 
Indiana Day.  But the proclamation alone does nothing to make the 
day special to the state’s citizens.  

Some states take their admission day very seriously.  Hawaii, for 
example, has declared it an official state holiday.  And Nevada 
even holds a three-day celebration honoring its admission day.

Since Indiana Day comes smack in the middle of what is already an 
active holiday season, it’s little wonder it gets overlooked.  
Still, it is a day that should be honored and remembered, even if 
it is not an official state holiday.

Although fireworks and parades may not be warranted, the 
historical nature of December 11 should cause Indiana Day to be 
more widely recognized than it is.  Mention the date to most 
Hoosiers and they won’t know what you’re talking about.

It began in 1811 as a petition to Congress for admission.  The 
original petition got lost in the shuffle due to the War of 1812.  
But then, in 1815 another petition was sent to Congress.  This 
time Congress acted and President Madison signed the enabling act 
in April of that year.  After the first Indiana Constitutional 
Convention in June of 1816, Indiana officially became a state on 
December 11 when Madison signed the Congressional resolution 
formally admitting Indiana into the Union.  Indiana’s population 
at the time was a mere 63,000 residents.

Today, Indiana is the Crossroads of America.  Although in area it 
is the smallest state west of the Appalachians (except for 
Hawaii), it is an important state for manufacturing, agriculture, 
and transportation.

Hoosiers should be proud of their state’s history and heritage.  
And although a yearly proclamation by the governor is certainly 
appropriate, more effort should be made to spread the word about 
Indiana Day so that school children, and the general population, 
will learn to appreciate it more fully.

And remember, there are only six more shopping days until Indiana 
Day, 2001.



CHRISTMAS SHOPPING ONLINE
Dec. 3

The Christmas shopping season is in full swing.  For most people 
it means fighting the traffic and the crowds at the shopping 
malls.  One can easily spend an entire day waiting in one line 
after another: lines of traffic, lines at the checkout, lines at 
the lay-away counter, and lines at the fast-food restaurant.  

Some economists predict that the downturn in the economy will mean 
a less brisk Christmas shopping season this year.  But the throngs 
in Greenwood on a Saturday afternoon should belay any perception 
of a gloomy economic forecast.

Some people like the flurry; it is a part of the holiday season.  
There’s even a Christmas carol about all the happy hustle and 
bustle that precedes Christmas; it’s called “Silver Bells.”  
Others, however, detest having to go out in the traffic and 
confusion.  

Although some may look back on a finished shopping trip with a 
sense of relieved accomplishment, most people do not enjoy waiting 
in long lines, fighting for a parking place, and slithering 
through huge crowds in order to purchase merchandise that they are 
going to give to someone else anyway.

For those who hate the crowds, but enjoy the giving, there is an 
alternative.  Just do your shopping online. 

Let’s compare.  Last Saturday, my family and I drove to Greenwood 
in order to do a little Christmas shopping.  We left Edinburgh 
around 1:00, hoping to eat lunch and get a little shopping done 
before 6:00 when prior commitments required out return.  I should 
have known better.

The traffic between Franklin and Greenwood was heavy.  But it was 
stop-and-go by the time we got to the shopping areas.  I finally 
managed to pull into one of the strip malls, but I probably wasted 
half a tank of gas trying to find a place to park.  Finally, after 
parking a good day’s walk from the store’s entrance, we got out of 
the car to make the trek when I looked at my watch and saw that it 
was already 2:05.  

I overheard a man in the parking lot, who had already done some 
shopping, tell the woman with him, “I knew we shouldn’t have come 
on a Saturday.”  I thought, “Dare I proceed?”

When we finally entered the building, we realized that there was 
no way we were going to buy anything and get out of there in time 
to still catch lunch and be home by 6:00.  But we were committed 
to doing at least a little shopping.

After waiting in “the checkout line from hell” we traversed the 
maze of the parking lot once again; it took us a good ten minutes 
to get back out onto U.S. 31.  

We were destined for a Mexican restaurant.  I was sure the wait 
time would be prohibitive, but I was hungry and decided to go for 
it.  Luckily, since it was between lunch and dinner, and since 
everybody else in the world was shopping instead of eating, we had 
to wait for only about ten minutes to be seated.

After we ate, we battled the traffic southbound toward Franklin, 
realizing that time had run out for us to do any more serious 
Christmas shopping that day.  

But the next day, I sat down in front of my computer with shopping 
list in hand and started surfing.  Within three hours, I had 
managed to locate and order almost everything on my list.  I was 
in the privacy of my own home, with no throngs of people, no 
traffic jams, and absolutely no waiting in line.  I placed my 
orders from about four or five different sites, checked each item 
off my list, and then just smiled.  I had finished about 90 
percent of my Christmas shopping from the comfort of my chair.

Now, a few days later, I can use the UPS online tracking service 
to track each package on its way from the warehouse to my front 
door.  The first of them arrived today.

I do enjoy the Christmas shopping experience, but I don’t enjoy it 
enough to voluntarily spend all the time it would take to buy 
everything I need at the malls.  Once upon a time I had no choice; 
now I do.  During the past three Christmas shopping seasons, I 
have made one or two trips to the mall, when I’m in the mood, just 
to buy the few things I have to touch before purchasing.  
Everything else, I buy on the Internet.

Now, if they ever figure out a way to send me my stuff 
electronically instead of making me wait 3 to 5 business days for 
delivery, I might never go into a real store again.



IN RESPONSE TO A READER
Dec. 5

This week I want to do something that I have done only once before 
in the eight years that I have been writing this column: respond 
to a letter to the editor that was responding to a previous column 
of mine.

Generally, I believe it to be bad policy to use this column as a 
forum to debate my readers.  I feel that if I am freely able to 
express my opinions here, then others have the same right to 
freely express their opinions in a rebuttal letter, even if they 
have totally misunderstood my original message.  I may get the 
urge to reply, but I always let it ride, knowing that the vast 
majority of my readers usually understand my meaning.

One of those readers who apparently got the message right was 
Faith Biddle of Edinburgh.  In her letter to the editor last week, 
Biddle put a previous column (Nov. 14) into context with several 
others I have written over the months and years and came to the 
conclusion that I was in search for the ultimate truth.  “If I 
detect a central theme in many of your writings, it seems to be 
your search for truth,” she wrote.

But unlike many other letters and comments that I have received 
over the years, not only in response to “Over Coffee” but to my 
column in the Daily Journal, Biddle’s letter was supportive in her 
ultimate disagreement with my conclusions, not condescending.  Too 
often I receive replies that tend to pronounce judgment on me, 
typically from those who call themselves Christian.  Many not only 
presume they have all the answers, but they are smug and self-
righteous about that presumption.

For example, I recently received several emails from a local man, 
presumably in rebuttal of one of my columns, with nothing in them 
but bible verses.  Every time I would reply to one of his messages 
with an honest attempt at communication, he would reply back with 
nothing else but another bible verse.

Ms. Biddle also quoted the bible, but she did so from within the 
context of the rest of her letter.  She also showed her open-
mindedness while she was imploring me to be open minded myself as 
I read the bible and pray to God:  “…Earnestly pray to God for a 
revelation of the truth, whether it lies in scientific evidence or 
in Scriptural inspiration.”

Although Ms. Biddle was correct in her assertion that I am in 
constant search for the truth, I truly believe that some people 
have found it within their own faith and that, as she points out, 
no further searching is necessary.  “…My search for the truth is 
ended and I feel completely satisfied and have no need of further 
proof,” she wrote.  Yet at the same time, she acknowledges that 
different people may come to understand truth in different ways: 
“I believe everyone should examine the question, ‘What is truth?’”

One of the things that has caused me to recoil from Christianity 
over the past few years has been the attitudes and actions of many 
of those who call themselves Christian.  Many of those with whom I 
have communicated have had an air of arrogance, self-importance, 
smugness, and condescension about them, whether they realize it or 
not.  

Many also seem to “feel sorry” for those who have not found the 
“right way” as they have.  Open mindedness is not in their 
vocabulary.  And it is they who tend to turn people off to the 
Gospel rather than to draw them to it.  One truth I have 
discovered is that no one can cause the infidels to be repulsed by 
Christianity more efficiently than can a Christian thumping the 
bible.

Thankfully, not all Christians are of this sort, as Ms. Biddle has 
demonstrated.  My own pastor, too, is one of the most open minded 
people I know.  

It is my belief that, even if there is but one God, there may be 
many paths to Him.  Everybody doesn’t share that belief.  But it 
is nice to know that there are those, like Faith Biddle, who are 
willing to listen with an open mind and to share their insight in 
a positive, non-judgmental way.



GIVING AND RECEIVING
Dec. 12

It is the season of giving.  But there are rules of propriety that 
apply to those who donate, as well as to those who receive.  If 
those provisos are ignored, it can cause the act of giving to 
become an obligatory chore instead of a heart-warming tradition.

Several years ago, in a high school in northern Indiana, there was 
a group of students who, as members of the student council, took 
on an annual project of collecting cans of food to distribute to 
the underprivileged families in the community during Christmas. 
The project went on for several years with different groups of 
students participating each year as the student council membership 
changed. Sometimes thousands of cans of food and packaged goods 
were brought in by the students in an inter-classroom competition. 

On the last day before Christmas vacation, the student council 
would separate the donated items into food baskets, each 
containing similar amounts and varieties of groceries. The student 
council also purchased hams or small turkeys to supplement the 
cans and packaged foods. The baskets would then be distributed by 
numerous student runners to those families appearing on the free-
lunch program, or to those who had been referred by others. 

During a four-year period, the student council members heard 
several complaints from the recipients of these food baskets. 
Either there was not as much food as last year, or someone had not 
received a ham this year, or another wanted a ham instead of a 
turkey. Most of the recipients said nothing at all, which was far 
better than hurling complaints. But during that same period of 
time, only one family — just one — took the time and effort to 
send a thank-you card to the student council. 

The student council had not begun the project to receive praise. 
The students did not expect to hear “thanks.” But it would have 
been nice if more of the recipients had offered it. 

As Christmas approaches, many of us feel compelled to donate to 
those who are less fortunate. But some charitable organizations 
have reported drops in donations in recent years. Some of the 
decrease may be attributed to economic factors, but what might be 
just as important in a person’s decision to donate to charity is 
the spirit with which donations are sometimes accepted. 

Many receivers of charitable donations do not accept those 
donations with the appropriate amount of humility and grace. That 
is not to say that those in need must humble themselves to the 
rich or well-off; not at all. But anyone, regardless of 
socioeconomic standing who accepts gifts from charitable 
organizations should display the proper amount of gratitude when 
accepting the gifts. 

Too often those who are on the receiving end of a charitable 
donation do so with the attitude that they have it coming to them; 
that they deserve what they’re being given, or better. If the 
donation is less than what they believe they deserve, they may 
even become angry or rude. 

Of course, those who decide to give to charities, or directly to 
others, have obligations, too.  And those obligations go beyond 
the act of simply giving.  The gift of money is easy and 
straightforward.  But those who decide to give clothing, toys, or 
other goods must be sure that the items they are giving are worth 
having.  A ragged old coat or a rusted can of soup that’s been 
sitting in the pantry for years is hardly an appropriate donation.

Perhaps there should be voluntary guidelines that all those who 
donate, and all those who receive, should abide by.  But rather 
than enumerating them here, the guidelines might be summed up with 
one simple tenet: “Give from the heart; receive with 
appreciation.”

There is a certain feel-good quality about giving.  And that’s 
fine.  Just remember, the purpose of giving is not to make you 
feel better, but to help others who are less fortunate than 
yourself.



CHRISTMAS TRADITIONS
Dec. 13

Christmas is steeped in tradition, not only through cultural 
customs and ancient rituals, but individual families often have 
their private Christmas traditions, too.  Sometimes, as family 
members mature, these traditions are passed on to the younger 
generations.  Sometimes, old traditions simply fade away.

My family has had its share of Christmas traditions, too.  While 
most families are starting to cook the turkey or ham for Christmas 
dinner, our extended family is already sitting at the table, 
eating our traditional Christmas breakfast.  We reserve the turkey 
tradition for Thanksgiving.

Opening presents at a certain time or in a certain manner is 
traditional in some families.  We usually pick one present each to 
open on Christmas Eve; then we open the remainder of the presents 
on Christmas morning.  Then each individual family gathers at my 
mother’s house for our traditional breakfast and the opening of 
all the rest of the presents.

Today, Christmas is a big deal to most families.  But it wasn’t 
always the case.  In Colonial Massachusetts, for example, 
Christmas celebrations were banned by law.  Christmas was 
considered to be a pagan ritual because its origins are rooted in 
a pagan winter celebration.  The fourth-century Roman Catholic 
Church established Christmas on December 25 in order to more 
easily infiltrate the already-established celebration in honor of 
the Roman sun god, Mithras.  Even today, many fundamentalist 
Christians refuse to celebrate Christmas for the same reason, or 
because they say there is no biblical directive for its 
observance.

Another Christmas tradition that most families observe is Santa 
Claus.  The saint behind the legend, of course, was St. Nicholas 
of Turkey.  He is the patron saint of children because of his 
great generosity and gift giving, especially to the young people 
of his day.  Although persecuted in his home country, his legend 
was immortalized by the Dutch, who later brought the tradition to 
America, where Clement C. Moore provided the model for Santa’s 
physical appearance in his poem, “The Night Before Christmas.”

Almost every household also has a Christmas tree.  But that 
tradition didn’t begin until the sixteenth century, in Germany.  
The German people often decorated fir trees with flowers, apples, 
and colored paper.  It is thought that Martin Luther was the first 
person to actually illuminate a Christmas tree, with candles.

Many people decorate their Christmas tree with candy canes.  The 
candy cane is a more recent addition to the Christmas tradition.  
In the late nineteenth century, a candy maker here in Indiana 
decided to make a Christmas symbol out of candy.  He used a white 
peppermint stick, bent into the shape of a cane and striped red.  
The red stripes, he said, represent the suffering of Jesus, and 
his shed blood.  The white candy represents purity.  And the shape 
is a shepherd’s staff to represent the belief that Jesus is man’s 
shepherd.

It is often customary, during Christmas, to purchase a pot of 
poinsettias in honor of a loved one who has passed on.  These 
flowers are red and green, which make them perfect for the 
Christmas season.  Poinsettias are native to Mexico.  They were 
named after America's first ambassador to Mexico, Joel Poinsett, 
who brought the plants to America in 1828.

There are many other symbols of the season, both new and old.  
Holly, mistletoe, reindeer, stockings, and the Nativity are but a 
few of the symbols we recognize as being associated with the 
Christmas season.

Whatever traditions your family employs to help celebrate the 
season, I hope yours is a pleasant and safe one.  Merry Christmas.



CHRISTMAS IN A DIFFERENT PLACE
Dec. 17

I always enjoyed visiting Uncle Bob and Aunt Lena.  It was a long 
trip for a kid – about 200 miles.  But they lived so far back out 
in the country that they didn’t even have electricity until I was 
about 10 years old.  And that’s one of the things I enjoyed about 
visiting them; the simplicity of their way of life is one 
touchstone by which I judge life in a modern world.

They had a two-room house, with an upstairs consisting of one 
large room.  Aunt Lena cooked on a wood-burning stove and they 
kept their house warm in the winter with a fireplace.  Using “air 
conditioning” meant keeping the screen door open.   They had no 
indoor plumbing, and as far as I can remember, they didn’t even 
have an outhouse – don’t ask!

I vividly remember the water bucket, used for drinking and 
cooking.  It came complete with a community dipper.  I never drank 
out of the same side that everyone else did – the side where the 
granite had been worn down.  I didn’t want to drink after the 
grown-ups; some of them chewed tobacco!  The water was drawn from 
a spring that flowed out from under a large tree that grew at the 
bottom of a hill that sloped down from the back of their house.

Since they had no electricity, they did not store food in a 
refrigerator.  They didn’t have much food that needed 
refrigeration, but they did keep their milk and butter – which 
they obtained by milking their own cow – in the same spring from 
which they drew their drinking water.

The spring ran into a small creek.  It was my favorite place to 
play.  I loved to wade through it in the summertime and catch 
minnows with my bare hands.

At night, when I was very young, I got to sleep in a big old 
featherbed on the lower floor of the house.  I slept between my 
mom and dad.  But later on, when I was 10 or 11, they put my 
brother and me upstairs.  The bed was comfortable, but having no 
lights, the room was pitch black.  It made me a bit uneasy, but my 
eyes soon got used to it so that what little starlight or 
moonlight shone in from the one window illuminated the room just 
enough so that I could barely make out my hand in front of my 
face.

Although we usually made the trip during the summer, I remember 
once we visited at Christmastime.  I must have been about seven 
years old, because I remember worrying that Santa Claus might not 
be able to find me.  I was afraid he might look for me at home, 
and discovering that I was not there, pass me by.  

What made it worse was that Uncle Bob didn’t even have a Christmas 
tree.  Where was Santa to leave the presents even if he did show 
up?  But Dad assured me that Santa would know where I was and that 
he would find a place to leave my toys.  And sure enough, on 
Christmas morning, there they were, stacked neatly by the front 
door.  Santa Claus seemed to know everything. 

As we grow older, out lives and priorities change.  We no longer 
make the time to allow ourselves to worry about whether Santa 
Claus can find us.  We have more immediate, more important things 
to keep us busy.  But once in a while, especially at this time of 
year, it’s nice to give yourself permission to hark back to those 
early, simpler days of childhood, when Santa Claus really 
mattered.



CIGARETTE TAX
Dec. 20

Gov. Frank O’Bannon wants a 50-cent-per-pack increase in the 
state’s cigarette tax in order to help offset a budget shortfall.  
A recent survey indicated that at least two-thirds of the state’s 
voters would support an increase in the cigarette tax.  When the 
General Assembly convenes in January, the lawmakers will have an 
opportunity to demonstrate whether they support the views of their 
constituents or those of the tobacco lobby.

Indiana, a state that does not grow a significant amount of 
tobacco, still ranks high in tobacco usage – fourth in the nation.  
And of the nation’s big cities, Indianapolis ranks third in 
tobacco use.

One possible reason why Indiana has such a high smoking rate is 
because cigarettes are still relatively inexpensive here.  The 
current state tax on a pack of cigarettes, 15.5 cents, is among 
the nation’s lowest.  The governor’s plan would increase that to 
65.5 cents per pack, bringing the tax more in line with other 
states.

A survey conducted recently by Massie, Inc. for Tobacco Smart 
Indiana showed that 67 percent of Hoosier voters would support a 
tax increase of up to 85 cents per pack.  Seventy percent said 
they would support a tax increase of 50 cents per pack.  The 
survey showed support for an increase among both Democrat and 
Republican voters.  With such broad-based public support for a 
cigarette tax hike, state lawmakers should consider it a popular 
mandate for approving the increase.

The benefits of increasing the cigarette tax would be two-fold.  
First, it would generate an additional revenue stream of an 
estimated $430 million by June of 2003, thus helping to alleviate 
a budget shortfall.  Secondly, and probably more important in the 
long run, it would reduce the amount of smoking in the state, 
especially by teenagers.  Studies have indicated that there is a 
direct correlation between increasing cigarette taxes and a 
reduction in smoking.  It would certainly cause new generations of 
young people to think twice before starting such an expensive 
habit.

A report just released by the University of Michigan’s Institute 
for Social Research shows that tobacco use by teenagers nationwide 
has been dropping over the past five years.  For example, among 
eighth graders, only 12.2 percent said they had smoked within the 
past month, compared to 21 percent who had reported smoking in 
1996.  That is certainly welcome news.

Lloyd D. Johnson of the University of Michigan said the drop in 
teen smoking didn’t just happen accidentally.  “A lot of 
individuals and organizations have been making concerted efforts 
to bring down the unacceptably high rates of smoking among our 
youth,” he said.  Hoosier lawmakers are now in a position to show 
that they are among those exerting a “concerted effort” to help 
reduce teen smoking in this state.

The governor proposed a similar cigarette tax hike last year, but 
he was rebuffed by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.  This 
year, with a greater need for more state revenue and with the 
public firmly in support of a cigarette tax increase, the 
lawmakers will be in a much better position to make it happen.  
Dr. Richard Feldman, a former state health commissioner, said, 
“Raising the tobacco tax is the right thing to do, and it’s the 
right time to do it.”

If the General Assembly does not pass a cigarette tax hike during 
its upcoming session, it will have missed a golden opportunity to 
both help the state’s budget problems and to encourage the state’s 
many smokers to kick the habit.