Another flash-journalism fail

As you probably know by now, the reporters got this story wrong.  We now know that the Supreme Court ruled that the "mandate" was really just a tax in disguise and a "mandate," were it to happen, would not pass muster.  This is what a three-minute skimming will lead to when the camera is on and the microphone live.

I have read many, many opinions written by the Supreme Court of the United States.  All of them are long.  None of them are simple.  Cases reach the Supreme Court because the answer was not an easy one.   I have read cases multiple times and still felt like the meaning escaped me.

What I am trying to say is this stuff isn't simple.

This stuff is dense.  And, the above clip represents a convergence between the over-simplifying and overly-rushed world of the 24-hour news cycle and the intense and deep jurisprudence of the Supreme Court.

The news anchors chose to be first and wrong rather than late and right.  I blame them as journalists, but ultimately it is a losing battle.  Why?  Because as soon as a reporter says, "no, I'm not going on the air while skimming a one-inch thick opinion until I have figured out what it says and I will not go on the air looking lost and clueless," that reporter will be fired and a talking head willing to look like a talking ass will be hired.

The business model demands that your viewers not wait even five minutes to know an answer.  And, the channel that gets the answer first seems to be celebrated as a winner.  However, I think only news personalities know any kind of score because scoops last about 3 minutes in this world before it is echoed into oblivion by everyone else.  Who was actually first becomes irrelevant and the "victory" is fleeting.

I am so glad I don't work in journalism anymore.  The pressure to be fast with information has completely outpaced the old notion that it is better to be a little late and right than first and wrong.  I feel sorry for the lady who was skimming the opinion while holding a microphone, but I am also conflicted.  I feel for her because she is doing what she was asked to do.  But, my inner-journalist says she should have insisted on getting it right first.  Trying to read from a random section of a Supreme Court opinion is no way to accurately report on its outcome.  Maybe you have to have read many of them to get that, but it seems obvious to me.  I have read some of the most convincing arguments against a case within the case itself written by the majority.  It's how they "show the math."

So, what is the lesson?  It seems that we're all just going to have to deal with this in journalism.  And we will tolerate it because the fix will come nearly as quick and the "wrong" information won't be allowed to sit and rot.  In a perverse way, the need for accuracy has been made irrelevant because the instant media cleans up its own mess so quickly.  Well, that is if you don't mind looking clueless.  And they don't.

For me, the credibility has been long gone.

The article I read about the decision on CNN.com was 15% about the decision and 85% recitation of what polls indicated that people wanted to see happen.  Our news is now a quick nugget of new information followed by how we "feel" about it.  Lost in the entire process was articulation of the reasoning, meaning or ramifications of the decision.  We do know how we "feel" about it and how each side will spin it, though.  And, I guess that's what everything boils down to.

But the talking heads don't even need to worry because they will be on to the next vapid distraction before the tear streaks are wiped off of the make-up caked face of whichever talking head was pushed on camera to boil it down while figuring it out.

It's a really dumb way to report news, but it is apparently what the public wants.

When to Crush Dreams

I shudder to think about where I would be if I had gotten what I wanted.

I was reminded of this truth and my own dumb luck while reading a CNN.com list of the ten most worthless degrees a person can get... and discovered that I held two of them.

The reminder served a purpose, however.  I decided to sort out exactly how I managed to land on my feet despite my attraction to apparently-worthless degrees.  The story I reconstructed made me think of Mr. Magoo stumbling around a construction site without getting a scratch on him as onlookers prepared to witness the gruesome end of a man destined to die in a brutal way.

The story started when I was determined to become a doctor like my father.  He talked me out of that by explaining how stressful it was and how hard he worked and how much liability could attach to him for the most innocent of mistakes.  He basically sold me on working in the toy department, and I gladly took the bait.  It was the only time I could remember him advocating an easy way and I jumped on it quick.

Thus began my pursuit of a career in sports journalism.  I set goals and knocked them down as always when an end result comes to focus.  I badgered my way on the Campus Press as a freshman, found an unpaid internship, then paid internships, traveled to New York for a better internship, worked nights, graduated and found work as an editor of a sports publication.

Somewhere in there I got spooked by the journalism job prospects and added Political Science as a degree, which bought me a fifth year of college.  Political Science felt more academic and served to fill the gaps left by the trade-school like Journalism classes.  For whatever reason, I chose to "cover my bases" with a degree that really only prepares a person to become conversant in a topic (the Cold War mostly) that, although interesting, applies very little to the world today.


I must give the Poly Sci department due credit, though, because it revealed a very important fact to me through the voice of Edward Rozek.  Prof. Rozek inspired me in many ways, but his first such feat was unintentional.  He challenged each of us to write down our life's goal, laminate it and put it on a key chain or hang it on a wall. Mine was going to say Sports Illustrated.  And I never did it. At first I meant to.  Then I elected to think on it.  Then, I decided I could not do it.  Then the goal started to feel shallow.  I didn't want it seen on my keychain.  I wanted more.  I wanted something worthy of the shoes I always wanted to fill.  Something more "meaningful."  He showed me what I didn't really want before I had any idea.

In short, Prof. Rozek force-shifted my paradigm.   From that point on, journalism became a short-term plan.


So, to be clear (and get back to the story)... I graduated with two degrees that would later be designated "worthless" in a top-notch fashion (and probably were at the time as well).

About the same time I added Political Science, Jen faced a similar dilemma.  Her choices were between Psychology and Computer Science.  Because of my apparent irrational love of dreamworld scenarios, I argued hard for Jen to choose Psychology (another proud entrant in the top-ten of futility).  Her reason for choosing correctly involved money.  I remember arguing that finances should not be a deciding factor.

(read that last sentence again... sigh).

Had I gotten what I wanted, Jen and I would have marched down the aisle of matrimony with three of the ten most worthless degrees a person can buy (and boy are they expensive!).  Yikes.  This is like when Mr. Magoo steps from one dangling steel beam to another about 50 feet in the air.

So, I graduated.  Jen made money and I made peanuts for three years and I started to feel the pull of graduate school.

This may sound shocking, but working in the toy department is not fulfilling.  Not even a little bit.  It does, however, convert something a person enjoys for leisure into a job and a distasteful pastime.

The reader might think at this point that I would have decided right then and there to correct my thinking and pursue something with great job prospects.  Instead, Mr. Magoo (me) just kept stumbling his way miraculously across the entire construction site.  That's right, I started to prepare my eventual application to graduate school to pursue a masters degree in political science.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is when Prof. Rozek slapped some sense into me.

My favorite professor, and a man I admired as much as any other person I had known, refused to write a recommendation for me unless I promised (unless I would swear!) to apply for law school.  I'm not going to lie... that was a bit rough.

He then gave me the best math lesson I ever received.  He explained how many applicants the university expected to receive for his soon-to-be open professor position (professor Rozek retired shortly after he wrote my letter).  As many as 300 applicants were expected.  All would have a masters degree.  Many would have a Ph D.  Many would also have experience teaching.  And one of them would become the next professor of Political Science at CU.

I applied to law school and completely gave up on graduate school. Prof. Rozek used the word "perspicacious" in my letter of recommendation, which I am certain impressed the heck out of someone who read it and probably got me into law school.  My path was set.  I didn't even take the GRE.  And, much like Mr. Magoo stepping safely onto solid ground from a beam suspended by rope by a slip knot, I managed to find myself a living and was the last one to know how close I came to disaster.

So, what is the lesson?

I may have a stressful job, and I may work hard, and I may have to worry about liability.  But, I do fulfilling work that feels worthy of my opportunities and I am happy doing what I do.  I may have two of the ten worst undergraduate degrees a person can have, but I traversed the construction site because someone had the guts to crush my dream and show me reality before I fell on my head.

Thank God I didn't get what I wanted.

Jacob just "graduated" from kindergarten (how I feel about a graduation from kindergarten is a post for another day).  I want him to fulfill his dreams.  I want him to be happy and live a fulfilling life.  I want him to achieve.  I will give him every opportunity I can.  And, because I want all of that for him, I will not hesitate to stomp his dream if he starts stumbling around construction sites like Mr. Magoo.  I won't pay for certain degrees.  I don't care what line of work he chooses to prepare for so long as it has a future.

My philosophy in this area may not be popular, but my job as a parent is not about that.  My job is to help an extremely bright kid find his way in the world as I know it.  To do that, I will have to remind him of factors not usually considered by twenty-somethings who make career choices (including but not limited to "how will I make enough money to survive?").

None of us consider the basics when we dream. I didn't. We all need help to see that.  The paradigm shift can be rough, but I know many people who were eventually grateful for it even if it was infuriating at the time.

Biblical Snapshot

I found my parents' bible on our bookshelf a few weeks ago while poking around my bookshelf. I had forgotten how marked up it was. My dad's handwriting is all over it.

There are notes in the margins, slips of paper with citations and just all sorts of stars and scribbles. I'm sure I had noticed this before or had stumbled across it previously, but such things become a commodity when the author is gone.

Most noteworthy, however, was a brief section in the back. My dad wrote the following:

"The Lord's will for me:
1) Micah 6:8
2) Matthew 22:37-40
3)Ecclesiastes 12:13
4) Habakkuk 2:4 and 3:17-19
5) Nehemiah 8:10
6) Ephesians 6:11-19
7) Acts 10:28
8) Psalms -
9) Math 16:24-28 1)Deny yourself 2) take up his cross 3) follow me
10) John 3:16 - Believe in Jesus"

How should a person take this? One of my last talks with my dad included his wish that he had raised us with a better foundation of religion. Whether that would have been better or not, it was his expressed regret. I, for one, appreciate being able to find my own path, but I take his regret to be that of any parent who looks back. I'm certain it happens with every parent and I can't wait to start forming my own list of regrets (it'll be a party!).

I cannot say when this was written, but I would guess it was done in the 1970s sometime. I don't know if it was study on his own or for a class in college. I just don't know, and I almost don't want to know. I do know that it potentially represents a snapshot of what passages he took to heart at one point in his life. And that is interesting to me.

We change as people throughout life and this outline could provide a very small glimpse at the aspirations of a person I know to have been driven for most of his life at a time when I did not know him. But-for this snapshot, this window would be unknown to his children.

So, I'm quoting each passage here briefly for my own curiosity. I have not done so before and will be doing so in real time. As such, I will record my brief reactions to these passages as I look them up.

1) Micah 6:8
He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

The classic simplification of being good. Can't go wrong there.

2) Matthew 22:37-40
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

A wise man once said "all you need is love."

3) Ecclesiastes 12:13
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

Rule following. I get that.

4) Habakkuk 2:4 and 3:17-19
Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.

Although the fig tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vines: the labor of the olive shall fail, and the fields shall yield no meat; the flock shall be cut off from the fold, and there shall be no herd in the stalls:
Yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will joy in the God of my salvation.
The Lord God is my strength, and he will make my feet like hinds' feet, and he will make me to walk upon mine high places. To the chief singer on my stringed instruments.

I really just don't know what to make of this.

5) Nehemiah 8:10
Then he said unto them, Go your way, eat the fat, and drink the sweet, and send portions unto them for whom nothing is prepared: for this day is holy unto our Lord: neither be ye sorry; for the joy of the Lord is your strength.

I'll take this as a call to charity, but it seems like celebration as well. The snapshot seems blurry.

6) Ephesians 6:11-19
Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Wherefore take unto you the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
And your feet shod with teh preparation of the gospel of peace;
Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;
And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel.

War-like metaphors for peace. It takes strength to live in the world and resist temptations. Still not sure what I'm getting as for a picture into his thinking, but I'll have to ponder on it.

7) Acts 10:28
And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come into one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

I take this to mean, "be nice to people."

8) Psalms -
(no citation)
I hate it when I forget to go back and finish my notes. I now know I get that from dad.

9) Math 16:24-28 1)Deny yourself 2) take up his cross 3) follow me
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his father with his angels; and then shall reward every man according to his works.
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

This just says to me that you should not compromise principals for selfish gain. My dad wrote the following under the passage: "above - the life of a follower of Jesus." I do remember a man who grilled me on bible stories until I was about 5 or 7. That all stopped and somehow religion became a difficult issue in our household after that time. It became downright unpleasant. We stopped going to church for the sake of peace. At least that's how I remember it.

10) John 3:16 - Believe in Jesus"
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

A popular citation at sporting events.

As I go through this, the passages have a scholarly feel, especially when his notes are considered. He states "the life of a follower of Jesus" as if studying for a test or something. Knowing my dad, this is how he would approach anything, which is not terribly illuminating.

Well, it was interesting, I guess, if not illustrative. He said he wished he could have included religious teaching in my upbringing and he accomplished this in a round-about way. I now want to read all his notes to complete the picture. He got me to read it.

Getting Ready for Crazy

I read Fear & Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72, by Hunter S. Thompson this week to prepare my nerves for the beating they are about to take as we approach election time.

What better way to inject much-needed cynicism than to absorb from the master cynic?

HST followed the 1972 campaign, but most of the book is about the Democratic nominating process as the party prepared to face Richard Nixon in the general election. Somehow, HST tells a captivating story of the race that will lead to the winner getting the living hell beaten out of him by Richard Nixon. That "winner" was George McGovern.

McGovern had to weather challenges from Hubert Humphrey (HST hates this man with a burning passion... and it shows), George Wallace (yes, THAT George Wallace... and he WON Florida in 1972... won it big... he later got shot while campaigning before he won too many delegates), Ed Muskie (HST absolutely tortured poor Ed Muskie) and a cast of many, many flawed candidates.

While as many as 11 candidates campaigned for the nomination, some familiar themes developed that reminded me of an important lesson: Nothing much has changed in politics in the last 40 years. See if any of these themes sound familiar:

- The party kept waiting for a "savior" candidate to swoop in and snatch the nomination from a weak bunch (in this case Ted Kennedy);

- Senators suspending campaigns so they can fly back to Washington to save the world (this time from escalation bombings of North Vietnam);

- A decision by the candidate who lost California that the "winner take all" format was unfair only weeks after embracing that reality;

- A young adviser shows great political acumen years before his career ends when he is caught in a shameful adulterous scandal involving a boat (Gary Hart);

- Dirty, dirty tactics to close a gap (a button that said, "Acid, Amnesty, Appeasement, vote McGovern" came courtesy of Hubert H. Humphrey);

- You are NOT going to believe this, but a shocking number of people predict horrific consequences to the country if candidate X were to somehow either become or continue to serve as President of the United States. I know! (Take a moment to compose yourself if you need it, I'll wait.)

- Losing candidates court favors in exchange for "pledging" his or her delegates to the candidate who makes the best pitch, er... would make the best president; and finally...

- Appearances by the same types of candidates we see every year: "the inevitable nominee" (Muskie early on, followed by several candidates as they surge, then McGovern), the "only Democrat who can beat Nixon" (Muskie again); the "Crazy candidate" (Wallace... I mean, he tried to block school doors with his body to stop integration... and he WON FLORIDA); the "Old Guard guy who won't go away" (Humphrey, who actually ran against Nixon in '68 and wanted a rematch); and finally, the left wing candidates (John Lindsay, Shirley Chisholm and "Mad Sam" Yorty) who somehow think they can win.

I think everything listed above happened in one form or another in 2008. It's surreal. And, it takes the sheen off of the whole process. But, that is exactly why this book was fun. HST mocks the entire process, tells some great stories and exposes the charade for the farce it can be.

So, I have now been properly steeled to deal with the zany world of primary elections and later the general election. I am prepared to bite my tongue, try to be diplomatic, and (when sufficiently annoyed) lose my composure over this silly stuff. I may even go hunting for Chicken Little.

Most of all, it puts me in a mood to douse the flames of "seriousness" that surround these elections while wholeheartedly supporting my candidate.

Fallacy News

You can't make this stuff up.

I went to a new sandwich place in town and brought my Kindle. I'm reading a book called 42 Fallacies, which has been a great refresher on the basics of logic and argumentation. The book illustrates fallacies in all forms.

This particular sandwich shop chose to play Fox News on its two TVs. They also cranked up the sound pretty loud, so I couldn't ignore the show completely.

It was like listening to my 42 Fallacies book in audiobook form. Specifically, I listened to Megyn Kelly's mid-day show. I lasted 15 minutes.

I was reading about the fallacy of relying on experts outside of their area of expertise while she interviewed Ronald Reagan's son (the conservative one, not the one who rebelled) about something other than being raised as a spoiled rich kid. They actually argued about whether his father would be welcome in today's Republican party. She presented him as an expert, and then she argued with him on his father's views. The questions were really just statements accompanied by opportunities to agree with those statements. ... followed by punishments for failure to agree with those statements.

It was insanity. I was literally reading the perfect fallacy description as I listened. Although, to be fair, that was going to happen eventually so long as I chose to read that book while sitting there.

FLASHBACK: Years ago, I was at Dave's place watching a national title football game (I believe a certain iconic running quarterback was involved) when we decided to switch to Fox News for dumb curiosity. I had never actually SEEN Fox News beyond background noise to that point and proceeded to throw pillows, shout obscenities and lose my lid over what I thought was an intellectually-insulting presentation. On that night, Bill O'Reilly provided the fodder.

That was the night I learned that Fox News cannot be taken seriously. And my memory of that night came back to me at lunch.

BACK TO THIS WEEK: I then listened as Ms. Kelly made leaps in logic that would scare a daredevil while reading about (you guessed it) massive leaps in logic and how they are intellectually lazy.

She interviewed Mr. Bolton (the former ambassador to the UN who was philosophically opposed to the UN) explain how Egyptian extremists are not worried about losing funding for their country by resorting to violence because the "current administration" will just allow that. Her questions were softballs and she injected a "pshhhawww" quality of sarcasm into every sentence to make her disdain for the president clear.

I pushed on in my book to the "fallacy of fear tactics and appeals to emotion" when this happened:

The TV darkened into an ominous teaser on pet snakes that escape. The teaser had a "lock yourself in your house" hysteria feel and featured dramatic music and pictures of gigantic snakes. I started to pack my stuff up during the commercial. As I was leaving, the snake story came on and included the quote (paraphrasing from memory) "they are actually harmless, but they eat a lot and grow quite big."

Wait, what? I was living this book in real time.

Things were getting surreal, and I bolted that place in hurry. I even debated about explaining to ownership that their choice of network damaged my desire to ever return, but then thought I'd leave them to the Social Darwinism they so cherish. The market shall decide that store's fate.

That said, it's not usually a great business model to waive any political flag when your goal is to maximize money people spend on your product. Then again, it's also not a good idea to associate with fools, but there seems to be a pretty big market for that as well.

Looks Can Be Deceiving

I got an e-mail from my friend Dima a few months back. Dima was an exchange student at my law school and he became a very close friend. I hope to never lose contact with Dima. I always love getting an e-mail from Dima, and I've been thinking about his most recent e-mail because of how he described Spain.

Dima was born and raised in Russia and he lives near Moscow with his new wife. They traveled to Spain for their honeymoon and seem to have had a great time. So, what did Dima say that got me thinking?

Here is a portion of his e-mail.

"We didnot feel any crises in Spain, but when we came back to Russia - the TV says every day that Europe is in very poor situation. Some countries - like Greece, Portugal, Italy and Spain are very clouse to defoult. What do you think about it?"

I responded later in a general way, but I have been thinking much about it. I wrote:
"The default issue is a concerning one. Too many countries have spent too much money. The world financial situation will be a challenge for this generation."

But, I think I have more to say on the topic because I finally know why Dima's observation seems so illuminating to the issue. It would take non-Western eyes to see what would be too normal for me to notice. Spain, by Dima's account, looks beautiful. He complimented the architecture and called his trip fantastic. So, why does Dima's question illuminate the issue?

Because Europe and the rest of the Western world has brought itself to the knife's edge financially to maintain an obscene lifestyle. So many countries are ready to default because they were willing to borrow not just to fill emergency needs or invest in itself, but to finance an unsustainable standard of living without long-term sanity.

It would be like discovering that a millionaire went bankrupt. The thing is, though, that millionaire's go bankrupt all the time. When I learned that former Denver Nugget player, legend and coach Dan Issel went bankrupt, I was surprised. The newspaper listed debts of a lavish lifestyle. Horses, a leveraged mansion, and more vet bills than should be incurred in 10 lifetimes (in a related note, horses will ruin even the very rich... I've seen this particular thing happen many times).

Yet, if I were to have visited Issel the day before he went bankrupt, I bet I would have been impressed with his estate. I cannot know what it was like for sure, but it seems fair to guess that it would have seemed fancy. Mr. Issel aside, I bet some millionaire somewhere paid for the house cleaning service while skipping house payments. And, the place would look wonderful!

It seems to be the side-effect of having too much.

I visited Dima in 2003 and had a great time. While there, I took detailed mental pictures of the little differences. Russia seemed like the burgeoning capitalist society everyone says it is. It was rough around the edges and looked like a country trying to make its way. Much was similar, but it was wilder, unregulated (I do not think regulation exists there) and rugged.

Dima once complained about seat belt laws while a student here in the states. I remember him saying, "and you guys say you are so free!" We all laughed about that one. As I think about it now, it makes me think of the Internet comedy sensation "First World Problems." These pictures feature people who look absolutely miserable, sad or frantic and feature saying like: "I poured a bowl of cereal before checking to see if we had any milk. We didn't."

The point is that his perspective makes this "crisis" look so much different to me. When someone is going broke, we think of that person selling the extra toaster or downgrading vehicles. What Dima showed me was that broke people can also go down the drain while lighting cigarettes with $100 bills. Russia looked like a country trying to upgrade to own its very own toaster. Meanwhile, Spain and much of the West in general is "supposedly" going broke without selling any of its 10 toasters.

We bitch. Things are comfortable, but we bitch. And we can't give up any of our 20 toasters even though we can't pay rent. In fact, we "consider" giving up one toaster even though everyone should know that won't solve anything. Seriously, have you listened to our political discourse on this? We don't want to give up ANYTHING of any actual value. Fighting a 3% tax hike on the wealthy is like saying we shouldn't give up ONE toaster even though that wouldn't help much anyway.

We won't even go down the drain lighting $50 bills instead of $100. So, we look a little too much like Dan Issel's house probably looked before he filed the bankruptcy, complete with stables and spotless banister.

In short, we all must look like fools.

Updates

... Jacob is rocking Kindergarten. He's destroying it. The kid likes to learn and he's good at it. He's lapping the field. We're very proud of him.

... We went to Arizona for the week of Thanksgiving. It was a good time. I enjoy warm weather. It was good to see Jen's Uncle Bob and Tommy boy. Best of all, we could wear shorts comfortably.

... I'm sick of games of chicken with everything. Politics is a series of brinkmanship tactics and it's getting really really old. Even the NBA ended up being a big game of chicken. We will have a 66 game season. I am happy the NBA is back, but the first Nugget news is that Nene won't be re-signing with Denver. Just when I was getting happy to have basketball back in my life. D'oh!

... I'm going to be reading a few science fiction books to end the year. That should be interesting. This year has been a good reading year.

... I now work for Kaufman & Findley, P.C., which is nice.

... I'm only asking for amazon gift certificates for Christmas so that I can load up on kindle books. Lots of good books to read.

... Jacob and I have been going to a church in town I discovered through a funeral service. Very good pastor who preaches very intellectually. It's very entertaining to hear him preach.

... I finished War & Peace and changed its ranking from 8 to 2 on my all-time list.

... One new year's resolution at a time will lead a person to success. With that in mind, I'm thinking of making the expansion and sharing of my story that goal. That and more books read than this year.