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.

Two fuzzy lumps of shedding, puking joy.

We have two cats. One is a fur covered blob of a cat. Autumn's life began as a truck cat. She was the companion to an over-the-road-trucker friend (Lobster) of Wyfster (my beloved). Then, Lobster was dating someone whose daughter was allergic to cats, so he had to get rid of Autumn.

Thus, we adopted her. It took her a couple of days to acclimate, but once she did she was just fine.

Lobster kept a large bin in the truck for her litterbox, and food and water dishes that I guess were rarely empty. Autumn had to adjust to litterbox, food, and water dishes that were shared with another cat (Klanci D. Kitty-cat, rest her fluffy soul). This worked out pretty well, and fights between the fuzzy girls were rare. Except Autumn ate more than Klanci.

Well, as you could guess, Klanci died (from old age, not from anything Autumn did), and we had Autumn. She got used to eating as much as she wanted, any time.

Well, Lobster had another cat that he had to get rid of, this one living at the house he kept in the boonies, so Delilah joined our family. Delilah is a long-haired calico, and when she doesn't have the rips, is somewhat affectionate. When we first got her, she was not a pleasant kitty.

She had fleas, and was in a brand new environment. Within two days at her new home, Delilah was subjected to a flea bath at my hands, and she wanted nothing to do with me for days. But, she ate, and Autumn didn't take to kindly to the interloper eating her food.

Fast-forward a bit, and we have two cats who are mostly civil to one another. There are occasional pouncing incidents, and pawing at one another (both are front-declawed), but for the most part, the two cats tolerate one another.

We use a storage tote as a litterbox (the standard litterbox we had just wasn't cutting it), and put food and water down for the cats. They take turns at the food dish, and there have not been fights at the food bowl, so things are okay there.

But Autumn has decided to take to "grazing". She steps into the kitchen to take about two mouthfuls of food about 7-8 times a day, not counting when she is in there actually eating (spending more than 10 seconds at the food bowl).

We have a couple of problems though. If the food bowl is empty, Autumn will look at us with a gaze that screams "feed me! I'll starve!". We put food down, and try to keep some amount of food in the bowl at all times. But when we sleep, it's tough to do that, and if we forget to check the food before bed, it could be totally empty by morning, which leads to the first problem.

If the dish is empty, we put food in. And Autumn eats. Actually, she does the kitty equivalent of binging. And, following a good binge, usually comes a purge. Autumn picks the white dining room rug upon which to purge, which usually leads to one of my kids announcing loudly, "Mommy! Daddy! Autumn puked again!".

All I can say is thank goodness we have a steam cleaner.

The other problem has to do with Delilah. As a long haired cat, she sheds (Autumn does to, but Delilah makes it known). She likes to hold herself up, in a proud kitty pose, with all her fluff clean and groomed.

One of the ways she keeps herself groomed is the other problem.

She likes to plop on the living room carpet, which is darkly colored, and roll around, back and forth, working any loose fur out of her coat. On any given day, the carpet has little tufts of shed calico fur that stand out in sharp contrast to the carpet's dark color. We normally vacuum the carpet and try to keep it clean, but sometimes its easier to just let it go for a day or so, because no matter what else happens, a freshly vacuumed carpet will, within 2 hours have new tufts of fur.

I almost wish I could train the cats to work together.

Delilah could shed all over the dining room rug, making a "shield" of her fur, so that when Autumn throws up, it's on the fur. That way we could just collect Autumn's leavings on top of some shed fur, keeping the living room carpet looking nice and clean, the white dining room rug looking nice and clean, but keep the puke from actually REACHING the dining room rug.

I know it sounds gross, but when you live with two fuzzy bundles of joy who lick their own butts clean, your thoughts on such things tend to change.

Ahhh, snow at night...

Some say it's a beautiful thing, and I must admit, there is a certain charm.

Seeing snow fall out of the night sky takes one back to thoughts of a snow day from school. It coats all things in a coat of white, evoking images of purity and hope. When it melts, things will live again.

All sounds seem muffled, and the world seems to take on an image of total peace.

It blankets, and when it's falling it seems to cover all things.

Looking at it fall, while it is lit by lights of all colors makes one think of Christmas, snuggling up next to the fireplace (if you own one) and sipping cocoa with marshmallows that look just like the snow.

Of course, snowfall at night only brings these things to your mind.

The reality is different.

The snow falls, and causes "white out" conditions in some cases. It falls at such a rate that you cannot see too far ahead of where you are, and lighting it from your position is no better than trying to find your way in fog with a light. It simply reflects all light back at you.

But, unless you are in a white-out, it's not too bad. Sure, you want to slow down a little if you are driving, to allow for a little more reaction time, but not too bad in a typical snowfall.

But, as with anything, there are those who take it too far.

I was coming home in some snow last night. The speed limit is 35 mph. The person two cars in front of me has his hazard lights blinking, and is going less than 20 mph.

The snow was just starting to stick to the grass, and any cars that have been sitting long enough to reach ambient temperature, but wasn't sticking (and with this particular snow fall, never did) to the pavement. The pavement was, at most, a little damp, as if from a drizzle.

And this person was going very slowly. A trip on a part of the road that normally takes me a minute and a half, took almost 5 minutes, because in addition to driving slowly, this person was swerving all over the road.

Now, I could see snow falling in my headlights, as well as this guy's. As we got to a small town, with street lights, visibility dropped a little bit, because the street lights reflected a little more light than just our headlights.

The guy sped up.

The one place in the trip he should have slowed down a bit, he sped up, because suddenly he had a little more light. All I can say about the way this guy sped up is thank goodness no kids were out and crossing the street.

Once past the town, we we back to our cruising "speed".

Now, I understand that some people don't like driving at night.

I also get that some don't like driving in the snow.

But, for the love of all that's holy, if a combination of these factors will paralyze you behind the wheel, and make your common sense skip out of the window, please stay off the roads in the mountains in the winter.

Snow. It's pretty.

And annoying. Shoveling, clearing off cars, and driving with people who don't understand how to drive in it.

It's enough to make a person consider moving to Jamaica.

But then I couldn't pelt my kids with snowballs, so I guess on balance, I'll stay where I am, and gripe about it.

I just wish that the other drivers wouldn't help the snow drive me to insanity.

We're just a couple of months away.

The first celebration of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day since B.O. was elected to lead the nation.

There will be much pomp and circumstance. Much will be made of the fact that B.O. is a black man, elected to the highest office in the land.

Dr. King would weep.

His dream has been given a terrible blow.

Dr. King said:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

This has taken place. My children play with black children in school. My children know as "Uncle Ryan" a black man who is one of my closest friends. To them, these children, and their "uncle" are not black. They are simply good people. Their skin color is not even a secondary concern.

Dr. King's dream has been fulfilled by not just my family, but families all across this nation.

In this past election, 95% of blacks voted for now president-elect B.O.

It is difficult to say that skin color did not play a factor, because clearly 95% of whites did not vote for John McCain. Many whites voted for B.O. as well.

Since the election, we have heard how it was "historic". Frankly, every election is historic. There have been less than 50 men who have held the office of the American presidency. B.O. is the latest man to join that elite club. But that is not why the media and other call this election historic.

As far as I am concerned, the nation elected a Democrat to office, not a black man. I focus, not on his skin color, but on what I have been able to determine about his character.

But many who sing the praises of Dr. King do not, and by this lack of proper focus, have set his dream back quite a bit, simply by making such a big deal about his skin color.

Dr. King said:

"...we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

I, Like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. long for that freedom, when skin color does not matter to anyone.

Now that we are being told that history has been made by electing a black president, it looks like that dream is further away than ever.

There will be bitterness, though no blood...

And that's a good thing.

Power will change hands in a few weeks in America, and not one drop of blood will have been spilled to do it. Compared to other ostensibly democratic nations, the fact that intimidation was not widespread (and dealt with swiftly where it was encountered), and there was not any sort of civil unrest that resulted from a popular or unpopular decision being made, America has this democracy thing pretty well figured out.

I mention this, because people in some other democracies question how we can claim such superiority when we can't even figure out one universal method to elect our leaders (paper ballots in one state or precinct, electronic voting machines in another, and mechanical machines in another, etc).

But our elections have always ended in a peaceful transition of power. That is why America has kept superiority in the realm of democracies.

And, though I dislike the man's views, and will likely have serious issues with his policy decisions, Barack Obama (one of the last times I will not refer to him by his initials) will be my president. No, I did not vote for him, and no, I do not support many of the tactics that were used to ensure his too-quick rise to power.

But I live in a democracy. And the majority has spoken, even if I don't like what was said.

As long as Obama is president, he will have my support and defense, inasmuch as I do not live in some alternate United States where he is not MY president (as many felt about George W. Bush).

That doesn't mean that I will agree with, or even like him. That just means that I recognize who he is, by virtue of the system of government that I choose to live under and participate in.

It's a new day...

Okay. We've just elected to the presidency a man we know virtually nothing about.

There's celebrations all over. My facebook friends are falling over themselves with happiness. My Celiberal.com friends are dejected and fearful for the future of America.

President-elect B.O. (following the tradition of presidents being alluded to by their initials, like JFK, LBJ, etc. The H is missing, because liberals hate when a conservative makes any mention of Obama's middle name) ran on the idea that the last 8 years have been an abysmal failure in American history. As of yesterday, he has 4 years to make it better before he has to answer for those charges.

It's his chance to show what kind of leader he is, because he has no experience as a leader that we can look to.

Will he actually seek to work with those of another political party? His record would indicate no, because in Illinois and in the US Senate he voted along with his party in all things. Most leaders will try to at the very least, acknowledge those with whom they disagree.

Will he stand and make the declaration on which he balked in the campaign, specifically, deciding when his administration will acknowledge that life begins? Again, his record would seem to indicate no, with his voting record including opposition to saving the life of a child who survives an abortion attempt.

Will he stand strong, and put the interests of America first, regardless of what world opinion and the corrupt United Nations state? According to his rhetoric, not really.

So, from what we do know about B.O., he will not work with those with whom he disagrees (according to the polls, about 46% of the voting public), he will sign legislation that allows for the continued killing of unborn children, without determining an actual moment when they should be granted rights as human beings, and, according to his campaigning, will sit down with known enemies of America and our Allies and speak to them as equals.

We have what we wanted, apparently. We have change.

And now I have the other half of what B.O. ran on. Hope.

I hope that in 4 years, either I am proved wrong in my opposition to the president, or that the country survives his time in office.