Which came first? The chickening out, or the getting out of it?

I find myself in an interesting position.

I had a root canal done the other day. I have taken rotten care of my teeth, and it's a wonder I don't have more problems. Novocaine is really good stuff. Get a shot of that placed by a dentist who knows what he is doing, and chickening out of a dental procedure suddenly seems like too much effort (mostly because if you try to drink anything while running away, you'll drool like an infant because of numbed lips. At least for a coupe of hours).

I'm pretty sure I had a point...

Oh right. Root canal.

Okay, so I go in and endure several x-rays, Novocaine (did I mention that's good stuff?), some drilling (heard it, but didn't feel a blasting thing), and with the application of the filling, I smell cloves (?). But the whole procedure, from the fist glimpse of the Blessed Novocaine Needle to the last x-ray to make sure all's well before leaving, it took less than an hour.

Overall, I would recommend that you do all you can to avoid the root canal. Take care of your teeth. But if you must see the dentist for the procedure that gets too much of a bum rap, make sure he knows his way around a needle. It'll make things go by pretty easy.

Jury Duty on the other hand...

Jury duty is hard enough on a good day. When you live in a county that has just arrested 2 judges for corruption and a week-long docket of something on the order of 80 trials to get through with only four judges/courtrooms, it can make things s-l-o-w w--a--y d---o---w---n.

Where I live, the rules are pretty simple. You are called based upon your possession of a driver's license (rather than voter registration, as is/was usually done). You show up on Monday at 8:30, wait until you are either called to a voir dire (if you need to ask, look it up), or the day is over (about 4 or so). If you haven't been selected for a jury by this point, you get to come back and do it all again the next day. And the day after that. If it stretches to a full week, and you still haven't been placed on a jury, they thank you, and send you home.

Basically, jury duty around these parts is one trial or one week, which ever happens to you first.

I got away with only one day. Not because i was selected for a jury, but because My son was running a temp of 102, and my lovely bride had to be able to get to work the next day.

For me, jury duty was the longest 8 hours of my life. Out of 150 people or so, only 40 were called for a voir dire. This was after one of the judges came down, explained the process to us, explained that he alone had about 22 cases on his docket for the week, and might get to 3 or 4 if he were lucky, and that the other three judges had similar caseloads (that's where my math came in above).

I and a couple of contractors were given permission to be dismissed early, because of our situations. Based upon the 8 hours on Monday with a whole lot of nothing going on, I shudder to think what the other 147 people had to go through.

So, we come back to where I started this ramble. I'm in an interesting position.

I had a root canal and jury duty close enough together that I can compare the two with fresh memories of both.

While nothing hurts like dental pain, at least it can be dulled with drugs (Novocaine. Ask for it by name). Jury duty can be dull, but its a dull that seems like it LEADS to pain.

And no needle contains enough magic elixir to make that pain (not to mention lost time that you will never get back) go away.

It makes me like my cats all that much more...

It seems that some people forget that it costs nothing to be nice.

Sure, people disagree about all sorts of things. Married couples do it. Friends do it. Acquaintances do it. Total strangers do it. It's part of being human and having opinions that are yours and yours alone.

But when is it appropriate to say something, without being spiteful? If you disagree with a person, do you make random comments about how you want to harm them if they speak of something you don't want to hear? Do you simply ask them to not behave in such a manner? Or do you simply ignore it, and allow things to proceed as they will?

I personally think that disagreement is great. Robust debate is what keeps people thinking, keeps minds sharp, and allows for people to exchange ideas and concepts that one might not think about otherwise. But does that mean that civility should take a break?

Is it possible to disagree about something and NOT make things personal? Maybe gently communicate to a person that you would like to change the subject from the debate at hand, and oh, by the way, how is your brother?

I'd like to think so. I know several people who like to discuss topical issues, several who like to talk shop, and still others who want to talk about nothing more than personal feelings, relations, and the weather. If you want to change from one type of conversation to another, great. Make it known, and I'll change gears. I'm easy.

But if you don't make it known, can a person really be held to blame for continuing on one conversational track, while you have already switched?

If you haven't guessed it, I pay attention to politics and frankly the world around me. I know that most of it I cannot control, impact, and according to some, should even care about. But I do. I have cast some small amount of thought to running for public office (a thought that was dismissed, because I really don't want to put my wife and children through all that).

I have a curiosity about damn near everything, and as far as I am concerned, I have never, nor will I ever, stop learning. And I have a serious desire to make sure I understand the world that I am leaving to my kids, so I can teach them all I can about what I have observed in it. Learning from books is one thing. Learning from the spoken words of one who has observed, or better yet, experienced something is miles and away better.

Discussion about most any topic is a fantastic way to learn, especially if you do not agree with what is being said. As soon as you close your reception of that with which you disagree, you have taken yourself out of the learning continuum, and planted yourself firmly in a single stage of immovable ignorance.

To take things one step further, and not only stop listening, but insult what you disagree with, and you have simply deepened the ignorance.

It is in that ignorance that we, as a society, find ourselves. Many think themselves above it, but frankly there is no person alive who has any excuse to not be civil. I am not saying that one needs to gush over what anyone else says. The last thing the world needs is more suck-ups. But to toss basic civility out the window and engage in the self-aggrandizement of casting insults shows not only that one's opinion is weak, but that one lacks the ability to carry on as a decent human being.

Too many people think that they can say what they like, to whomever they like, at any time they like, and then tell all their friends how clever they were for "putting thus-and-so" in his/her place. Their friends all laugh about it, tell their friend how great he/she is, and go on with a skewed sense of the world around them. This is how stereotypes form.

It is wrong, unfair, and makes the world a worse place for our children to grow up in. It is how white children who have never met a black person hate those with dark skin upon first meeting them. Parents who pass on closed-minded prejudices have a greater impact on the world of tomorrow than all the civil rights bills passed by Congress. Decency has taken a holiday in the modern world, where one opinion must rule over all, and you can't conform, then you need to get over it and if you can't, then you can "suck it".

Morgan Freeman in the "Bonfire of the Vanities" said it best:

"Be decent to each other, like our mothers taught us."

Disagreements over whatever issues there are, be it sports teams, politics, or favorite ice cream flavors, are natural, and will occur no matter what is desired.

But Mama Wolfknight didn't teach me to insult others over those disagreements. I was taught to be better than that. Be bigger than the small ones who feel the need to insult because they have nothing else to fall back on. Recognize that those who do so are people who shouldn't be seen as worthy of hate, but of pity, because they can only lash out in such a sad manner.

But above all, be decent. Even to those who show you hatred. Respect costs your soul less than hate.

Sure, it sounds like something from an after-school special.

But maybe it's a lesson that needs to be reviewed once in a while.

At least if we want a decent world.

Michael Phelps, a dopey swimmer...

Okay, so Michael Phelps has been photographed using a bong. According to reports, he didn't seem to be a stranger to it either.

Now the media is eating him alive. Sponsors are dropping his endorsements of their products. He's basically being roasted alive worse than that welfare-receiving single mother with the dozen plus two kids.

Now, I'm of the opinion that Phelps SHOULD suffer some. This is someone who was a hero. He was supposed to be better than his contemporaries. During the Olympics the reporters oohed and ahhed about how Phelps got to where he was with having never failed a drug test.

Looks like he finally failed one.

But at the same time, the media's failure in all this needs to be brought to light.

Sure, he was photographed by probably an amateur using a cell-phone camera who turned around and sold it to a tabloid for some cash. And that trickled into the "legitimate" media, and became a huge story.

There almost seems to be some bitterness in the voices of some of the mainstream media talking heads covering this story. Almost like they feel betrayed. How could this... kid who they built into an icon do this to THEM?

I think that it may be a little different.

I think the media is put off by the fact that it was not one of their own to "out" Phelps as a pot-head, but rather some guy who happened to be at the party (the right place at the right time). I think the bitterness has to do with the parallel to the lack of due diligence that took Dan Rather down.

They bought into the phenomenon aspect of Michael Phelps, and didn't bother to do more than look at the surface. He never failed a drug test, so he's gold. Had they dug deeper, as they did in the case of another "instant celebrity" figure like Joe the Plumber, maybe they would have found Mike's pot connections. But they didn't.

They bought their own hype. And now they have egg on their face, because a tabloid with a picture taken by an amateur out-did them. Since they cannot blame themselves, they can take solace in the fact that Phelps, while still having never failed a drug test, will lose all his multi-million dollar deals, and the icon that they were duped into propping up will take the fall, and they will report each and every blow he takes on the way down.

Meanwhile, we will watch either disappointed ("He seemed like such a nice kid") or gloating ("Huh. Punk kid. I never did like him. He seemed too good to be true"). We will tune in to see what merchandising deal he lost now. And the media will be, once again, held to no standard but whatever they decide is a appropriate now.

The media of course will not say anything, and will attack those who say that the media bears any responsibility. After all, they just report the news. But when they make the news, and they deny it, that never gets reported. The media thinks that their job is to make sure that public figures are held accountable, but who does the accounting of the media?

It's asked "who watches the watchers". I would like to ask, "who reports on the reporters?"

How long will we allow the media to behave with impunity, never held accountable for what they say or do to get the story?

Yup. Michael Phelps is human. He's a 21 year old who smokes pot. Why is this a story?

The question should be, why is Michael Phelps known to anyone outside of the swimming world?

Fame, it seems is fickle, especially when the media is involved.

What they have given, they can take away. I hope Michael has some non-swimming related job to fall back on. I'm sure when he starts there, the media will let us know, so they can close this book before anyone looks too closely at their failure.