Our Little Bear: A Trip Down Memory Lane

I was asleep.

I don’t recall whether I was dreaming or not, but I was sleeping well. While it wasn’t too late in the morning — around 9am or so — since I was working nights at the time, I hadn’t been asleep for more than a few hours. What I do recall is that I awoke to my wife’s frantic cries.

“Get up! My water just broke!”

For some couples expecting a baby, that might be a happy, even welcome occurrence. For us, it was not. My wife was just a few ticks over 26 weeks pregnant. And even though she’d just had a good checkup with the Doc a few days earlier, we knew this was bad. And certainly unexpected.

Our first child a couple years earlier had been a handful for my wife. She had suffered pre-term labor beginning at 26 weeks, and though her water never broke, she endured labor pains roughly every 15 minutes for the last 10 weeks of the pregnancy, on bed rest the whole time, finally delivering our oldest son at 36 weeks. He was four weeks premature, but relatively healthy, and home with us after a short, three-day stay in the hospital.

Because of this, our OB Doc was watching my wife very closely this second pregnancy. Considered an “at-risk” pregnancy, she was being checked every week, and after some small, very early-term issues, she was doing well and everything was proceeding normally with no problems.

Until this.

We were in a new home, and less than a week earlier had just finished remodeling our new bedroom. We’d been sleeping on the couch and in a chair up to then. That morning, as I slept in our new bedroom, she had wakened earlier and was sitting in my recliner reading a book to older brother when it broke loose. No labor pains, no trauma: it just broke.

In my recliner… but more on that later.

We scrambled ourselves together quickly. I honestly do not remember what we did with our son, but he was secured somewhere, and we rushed to the hospital. I remember our car had a problem with a tire that I had planned to get fixed that day, but instead we were breaking the speed limit on the way to the hospital, fighting a significant tremor in the steering wheel because of the tire.

We check in and get ushered back to a room. The wife was not having labor pains, that was the weird part. We simply didn’t know what to do, or what to expect. The doctor comes in, and explains that if it were just one week earlier and we’d had the baby, we would actually have the choice of just holding our baby and allowing it to die, or asking the doctors to do what they can to save it. We’d actually be given the choice to allow our child to die. But since we were at 26 weeks, they were mandated by law to deliver the baby and do whatever they can to save it. And then, I will never forget what he said next. I remember it verbatim:

“But you don’t want to have this baby today. If you have this baby today, you’re gonna have problems.”

All well and fine, I say, but what does that mean, since her water has broke? He explains that given her condition, she is at risk of infection, and so they are gonna take a “hands-off” approach to her, and while they won’t do anything to prevent labor should she go fully into it, they will give her muscle-relaxers if she simply has labor pains. They’ll put her on meds to help the baby develop more quickly, but that’s about it. He then tells us that’s she’s gonna lay in that bed there in that hospital until she delivers.

“When will that be?” I says. He says, “98% of women who’s water breaks go into labor within 48 hours, regardless of when their water breaks. However, I’ve seen some woman like this carry to term.” That’s 40 weeks, I say. Does that mean she might have to stay in the hospital for the next 14 weeks?

“Yes,” he says. “She’s not leaving here until she delivers.”

And so we wait. The next week goes relatively smoothly. She lays in bed in the hospital. I go back and forth to work, to the hospital, to home with the son, bringing him up periodically to see Mommy. The following week, not so well. She begins to endure regular labor pains, and as a defense, they keep her drugged up on muscle relaxers. The final three days, she’s in a constant drugged stupor.

I finally go to the doctor with concerns that such a state can’t be good for her health. I explain clearly: “I want my baby to be well, I really do. But I will sacrifice the baby in a heartbeat to make sure my wife is OK. So you need to do something.”

He breaks down and does a physical check of my wife and discovers that our baby has decided to stick his foot out of the birth canal, and she’s ready to go. I say “she” because we were absolutely convinced we were having a baby girl. We hadn’t confirmed it officially, but all indications were it was a girl. And there was no evidence of a boy. We hadn’t found out the gender of our first son, and we didn’t want to find out with the second either. But we were speculating. We hadn’t gone as far to decorate the baby room for a girl, but we were virtually certain our oldest son was going to soon have a baby sister. Little Tori Michelle was on her way — early, apparently.

“It’s time to take this baby,” Doc proclaims.

A C-Section is scheduled immediately, and I ask if I can go in and watch and be with my wife. And here is where he tells me the other thing which I remember verbatim. He get’s right up in my face and says, “Dude, if you go in that room and pass out on me, or cause me any other kind of problem, I’ll kill you myself after I’m done.”

The marching orders being firmly set, I assure him he won’t have any problem with me. From that moment, they had my wife prepped, in surgery, and our baby delivered within 30 minutes. 

I’ve heard stories about women scheduling C-Sections like they might a simple dental appointment, and they make it all sound so easy. I was surprised to find out just how vigorous a C-Section is. And while I’ll spare you the details, I’ll just say that it isn’t a mild, minimally-invasive procedure. I watch the whole thing from the head of the bed. The wife is awake, but totally numbed and feels nothing below her chest. In the end, our baby was delivered.

And it was a boy.

We’re stunned, yet still thrilled. 2 lbs. 11 oz. Apparently it wasn’t Tori Michelle who was in such a hurry, but rather a little baby boy. After he’s disconnected from his mother, we don’t get to hold him. Rather, he’s whisked away to some unknown place and we’re told we’ll be allowed to see him at a later time after he’s stabled. They begin to put my wife back together, which was a fun scene to watch, but a story for another time. After 10 minutes or so, the door opens to the room and in walks a nurse holding our new son. She brings him to us and says, “Would you like to hold your son for a few minutes?”

Of course. And we do. Well, Mommy does. I watch, because I am genuinely afraid of breaking him in half. He’s SO tiny. Tinier than I’d ever imagined. Apparently, he’s doing well. After just a couple minutes, the nurse says she’s needs to take him back, and she’s gone again with our son in her arms. I ask the Doc how often do they bring preemies back into the delivery room for the parents to hold? He replies, “He must really be doing well, because I’ve never seen them do that.”

What followed was an eight-week emotional roller coaster, the likes of which I would never wish on anyone. Not due until the end of January, our baby was born October 22, a full 11 weeks premature. At under 3 lbs., he barely fills the palm of my hands. He’s given baths in what is essentially little more than an average sized cereal bowl.

Even though he’s tiny, he’s generally well developed. The problem is his lungs. His lungs are so small, and so little developed, that he has trouble breathing on his own. I can barely hold him. He’s so small, I’m afraid of him. But his Mommy and the nurses aren’t afraid at all, and they move him and shift him and turn him over like it’s nothing, despite all the wires and tubes attached to him. None of which makes him happy at all. When they’re so little, preemie babies like that can’t cry yet. So our baby grunts and growls whenever he’s unhappy. So much so that we begin to call him “Bear” and his Big Brother picks out a little white teddy bear from the gift shop and gives it to him. “Little Bear,” as the toy becomes named — not more than 5 or 6 inches tall — is placed in the incubator with our own “Bear” and dwarfs him in size.

It’s here that I have to make an honest disclosure. Relatively-speaking, our baby was pretty healthy. There were lots of babies that came and went during the next eight weeks who had real problems, far worse than ours. We saw it physically, and we knew it instinctively, but it didn’t make our ordeal any less scary to us. One minute he’d be doing really well, the next he’d be moments away from going on a respirator and being rushed off to the far more serious Riley Hospital. We’d go home one evening with him breathing great and feeling well, only to arrive the next morning to find the nurses scrambling to get him stabilized again.

Every day, up and down, back and forth. For eight weeks.

Finally, with a mandate that he could not leave our house except for Dr. appointments until the following Spring, on December 23 — two days before Christmas — he was allowed to come home and be with his Mommy and Daddy and Big Brother.

I tell you this story because this past Saturday, our “Cody Bear” graduated high school. He’s grown into a stunning young man, both intellectually and physically. Aside from some asthma issues in his early years, you’d never know today that he was ever a preemie, or ever so tiny.

He’s smart and witty and handsome and stubborn and a handful. The past 18 years have been fun, exasperating, adventurous, exciting, frustrating, and ever so wonderful, and I could not be more grateful that our miraculous little 29-week preemie pulled through. He’s known what he wanted ever since he stuck his foot out the birth canal. And he’s grunted and growled his way into a Godly young man we couldn’t be more proud of. He is our proof that God answers prayers.

Oh yeah, about my recliner. It was dried and cleaned. It survived. No worries.

Harriet Tubman and the Sad Saga of the $20 Bill.

Let me start by unequivocally stating this: I’m all for honoring Harriet Tubman. She’s a great American worthy of our recognition. I don’t even mind that its being done on a currency bill. In fact, I think it might have been better served if a new bill had been created specifically to honor her, such as when a new silver dollar was created to honor Susan B. Anthony all those years ago. Perhaps a $25 dollar bill, or something of that sort.

But in this instance, replacing Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill, right now, at this time, is just dumb. And it certainly isn’t going to achieve what they are intending it to achieve. In fact, it’s going to do the opposite.

About a year ago, when the Treasury Department starting floating the idea of replacing Jackson or Hamilton on the $10 or $20 bill, I told my wife, “Mark my word, they will be replaced with a black woman. Count on it.” There was no question the intent was never to actually honor someone deserving. (Not to say Tubman isn’t deserving.) Instead, it was blatantly obvious what the intent was.

This is pandering at it’s worst level. At this moment in our history, when race relations are at an all-time low, thanks to our black President, we have virtually every segment of our society, especially every government entity, going out of its way to prove to everybody we’re not racist.

It’s precisely why Obama was elected in the first place. He didn’t win in 2008 because he won the black vote, or the Latino vote, or even the women vote. A good portion of those segments are already liberal Democrat and would have voted for Obama anyway. Rather, he won because a significant portion of white people voted for Obama BECAUSE he was black, and virtually no other reason. Of course, many of the blacks, Latinos and women voted for the same reason. They all wanted to prove to themselves — and everybody else — that they’re not racist. You remember… if you made it known you weren’t voting for Obama, you were immediately labeled as racist.

In 2012, when everyone realized he’s actually a lousy President, millions of people who had voted for him previously only because he was black decided to not vote at all, which still made them feel better about themselves. That’s why his vote total dropped by over 3 million votes from 2008.

Unfortunately, it’s that same mindset that’s at play here with Harriet Tubman, and, quite frankly, almost every other anti-racism venture you see on the news these days. It’s not about doing anything of any substance to actually fight racism, but rather throw out some symbolic measure that does little more than keep the issue of racism in the forefront of everybody’s thoughts.

Years ago, the actor, Morgan Freeman, did an interview with Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes. Freeman was asked how we can end racism in our society. His response was simple: “Stop talking about it!” Look it up on YouTube. It’s pretty fascinating.

He’s absolutely right. While I believe that because of sheer human stupidity, we will never really end racism for everybody, I do think the best way to get there is to simply stop making it an issue.

Which is exactly what this Tubman thing does. It will do nothing to curb racism and instead fan the flame that keeps it alive.

First of all, NOBODY, and I mean nobody, cares about our currency. Nobody cared about Andrew Jackson, or Alexander Hamilton, or Abe Lincoln or George Washington, for that matter. And the only people who care about Jackson now probably only do so because someone on the news told them they should care.

Meanwhile, you can honor Tubman. She’s certainly deserving. But to what end? There’s no direct family left. (Even one of her descendants says there’s no point to this.) There’s no black people around who actually felt the sting of slavery. The truth is, this is so pointlessly token and pandering, black people ought to be offended. I mean, what are we really doing for them?

And moreover, all you’re going to do is bring every moronic, racist redneck out of the woods to hear them scream about how they’re never going to use the $20 bill again. AND you’ll push the value of Jackson $20 bills through the roof for collectors in the future. It is already becoming a debate in the media. NOBODY looks at this and goes, “Oh yeah, maybe we ought to treat black people better.”

We will never end racism with token moves like this. It’s not even a step in the right direction. It’s just plain stupid. There’s absolutely nothing good that can come from it. Tubman is a great patriot, deserving of recognition as a historical icon. She’s certainly worthy of her place in our history classes in our schools and universities, and there’s great museums, such as the Underground Railroad Museum in Cincinnati, that do a fantastic job of highlighting her place in history.

But this move will, and already is, doing the exact opposite of what they claim they want, which, of course, is somewhat laughable, because one can question if they — in this case, the government, and, more specifically, the Obama Administration — really want to do anything at all. In light of their response to events in Ferguson and Baltimore over the last couple years, and the ongoing, absolutely absurd Black Lives Matter movement, and they’re continued war against our police officers, its apparent Obama doesn’t want to end racism, but rather pander to it to exploit it politically, and profit from maintaining the racial divide.

And that’s a shame, because Harriet Tubman deserves better.

Don't Like Your Baby's Race? Kill It!

Fundamentally, I am unabashedly pro-life. That being said, aside from being a symptom of the overall decline of morality in our society, I do not believe abortion is the #1 problem our country faces. I believe our legislators have far more pressing issues with which they should be concerned, and they spend a disproportionate amount of time on the problem.

In fact, back in 2012, I wrote a blog wherein I premised there actually could be cases, albeit a minute few, in which abortion might be a viable option.

But I want to weigh in on the most recent abortion issue here in Indiana, namely Senate Bill 313, which you can, and should, read here. Despite all the hubbub all over the news, it's really not very long. Just a big paragraph.

I want to say unequivocally that I stand with Indiana Governor Mike Pence, and applaud him on his unwavering stance in protecting the lives of innocent unborn children.

The problem I have is that there have been few other issues that have highlighted the hypocrisy of the left more than the Liberal response to this bill.

First, to break it down. Upon reading the bill, you will find: 1) There is indeed a provision wherein a woman can get an abortion for a lethal fetal anomaly, provided she receives proper counseling and is provided with options for perinatal hospice care. 2) A woman cannot get an abortion for the sole purpose of race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, or because the baby has some disability, specifically Down Syndrome. 3) Anyone attempting to do so, or performing an abortion for these reasons, is subject to prosecution. 4) Lastly it provides language regarding the proper and illegal usage of fetal tissue.

What's important is that there is no language whatsoever in the bill regarding a decision about an abortion when it involves the health of the mother. What that means is that this bill does not in any way prevent the ability to receive an abortion when the health of the mother is at stake, and specifically provides options for an abortion when the health of the baby is at stake.

So, what is the problem? That's the million dollar question.

And it is here that the hypocrisy of the Left comes into play. Their rallying cry in opposition to this has been that this bill puts the health of the mother in jeopardy, but upon reading the bill, we see that's not the case. So what are they complaining about?

The only logical conclusion is that they want the ability to kill their baby if they don't like it's color, or race, or ethnicity, or sex, or if it has Down's. She wanted a boy, and it's a girl? Abort it. She wanted her baby with her black husband to be white, and it's black? Kill it off. Down's baby? Blind, or deaf? Get rid of it.

Is this not the party of Black Lives Matter? Is this not the party of gender equality? Anybody should be able to use any bathroom they want? Compassion for the poor, and immigrants, and refugees, and the needy, like the disabled? Civil rights?

Do you see what I see? Are you getting it? The same people who tell you Black Lives Matter want to be able to kill off their baby because it's black. (Not to mention that black people are killing off their own through abortions in truly astonishing numbers.) The same people who want you to believe each person should be allowed to decide their own gender want to be able to kill off their baby because it's not the gender the mother wanted. The same people who are admonishing us for not taking in refugees (and who protested Gov. Pence for halting the unfettered acceptance of refugees in our state) want to be able to kill off their baby if it is Latino instead of Caucasion.

Sounds absurd, yeah? But what other conclusion is there? The rallying cry that we're putting the mother's health in jeopardy just doesn't fly.

Go figure.

And letting the argument get bogged down on the issue of rape and incest is pointless. Because, as my previously-mentioned blog above notes, abortions in the case of rape or incest are less than 1% of all abortions. It's such a small percentage of the big picture, it's moot.

Of course, in the absence of standing up and making some sort of logical argument, they have resorted to the deplorable and vulgar exercise of the "Periods for Pence," an effort that doesn't even warrant my justifying an explanation, and which I'm ashamed to say has garnered the support of nearly 40,000 women. Only the liberals.

I'm proud we have legislators and a Governor who are willing to take a stand and not give in to political and societal pressure, but rather remain steadfast in doing the right thing.

Of course, what does it say about our society that we have so many who are so willing to kill off babies?

RIP: Sharon Raymond

My Jr. High school choir director, and my high school choreographer, Sharon Raymond, passed away recently. Sharon and her husband Gene, who was the high school director, had founded the Mooresville Spotlighter show choir back in the mid '70s. It was one of the very first show choirs in the Midwest, and has gone on to become one of the premiere show choirs in the country over the past 40 years, and is still nationally known today.

I was a member of the Spotlighters for 3 years in high school, as both a guitarist and a performer. And I have had the privilege of serving as the emcee for the annual Spotlighter Invitational since its inception in 1993, an event they had dreamed of starting, and was ultimately launched a few years after they left Mooresville.

They had lived out of state for many years, but upon her passing, her family had decided to hold a memorial service for her back here in Indiana. They were kind enough to allow me to say a few words, as one of her former students. Here is what I offered at the service:

Like many of you, I met Sharon Raymond in 7th Grade. Initially, in my under-developed, adolescent mind, if you had asked me what I thought about her then, I would have told you that she wasn’t my favorite teacher in the world. She was loud, and brash, a little bit scary, and not in any way afraid to let you have it when you weren’t doing things as she would like them done.

But it didn’t take long, even at that young age, to begin to appreciate her love and passion for her job, and for her students. And for some reason, she saw a talent in me that I’m not sure I even knew I had at the time. By the next year, she had placed me in the select choir in 8th Grade at Paul Hadley — PH Factor. She gave me my first solo, a number during which I was supposed to sing and shimmy, like Elvis.

Prior to performing our first show for our parents, we performed that show for the rest of the students at school during lunch. I was ready — I shimmied up to the microphone stand, grabbed the mic like Elvis would do, and promptly smacked myself right in the teeth with it, causing the sound system to screech as though it had frapped out. I don’t know how many of you here today might remember that, but as I do not embarrass easily anymore, I can assure you I remember it well.

My freshman year, I met Gene for the first time. I was in the Freshman choir and found out soon enough that not only did Sharon teach at the Jr. High, but she choreographed all the choirs at the high school. Like most Freshman, after I saw the Spotlighters for the first time, I knew I wanted to be in that group.

My sophomore year, I joined the group as the guitar player. Some of you might not remember that, because I wasn’t very good at it. But I was the only Sophomore male to make the group that year. I felt pretty cool. Until, that is, I had to go to my first Spotlighter class and sit next to Tony West and Mike Bridgewater. THOSE guys were cool, and I was instantly humbled.

The next 3 years were some of the best years of my life. Being in Spotlighters, and spending my junior year in Gene’s music theory class provided me with some of the best memories of my teenage years. And as I’ve continued to earn at least a portion of my income over the years as a musician and entertainer, the lessons I learned from Gene and Sharon during that time have been invaluable to me as an adult.

Being in high school, we obviously spent more time with Gene than we did Sharon over those years, seeing her only on the few days she would come to class during the day to teach us our choreography, and again at our evening practices and our performances themselves.

Most of my memories from that time center around the interaction I had with my friends and fellow Spotlighters. I could probably share with you 20 or 30 stories about Sharon, and probably have forgotten 20 or 30 more. But here’s something I think we all remember:

She was a crier.

Not a wailer, or a bawler, mostly just tears and sniffles. But she would cry at the drop of a hat. She’d cry when we did a particularly good performance, and she’d cry when we stunk up the place. She’d cry when she had to yell at us for something, or she’d cry when we nailed our ballad. She’d cry when she talked about her kids. She’d cry telling us about a song she’d heard, or a movie she’d watched that moved her to tears. I can still remember the day after she’d seen the movie Dirty Dancing for the first time. She came to class raving about the dancing and choreography in the film. She told us all to go see it right away. And she cried the entire time she told us about it.

You could carry on an entire conversation with her, with tears streaming down her face, and her sniffling away.

Most often, we, as students, have to grow up, graduate and move on before we are able to see our teachers as the humans they are, before we realize the love and the passion they have for what they do, and to see how cool they really are.

I was fortunate to have a close relationship with several of my teachers, that was able to reach beyond the barriers of the normal parent-teacher relationship. Gene and Sharon weren’t just my choir teachers. They were my friends. But many of you in this room today had that same type of relationship with Gene and Sharon that I did. Because it is what they allowed us to do. They invited us into their lives and shared with us that passion they had for the perfect song, the perfect move, the perfect performance.

We CALLED them Gene and Sharon, for crying out loud. How many teachers did you address by their first name? I don’t remember many of us at all calling them Mr. and Mrs. Raymond. But then, maybe we should have after all.

All those tears Sharon used to cry… we all saw it pretty quickly. It was her passion. That’s really what we’re all here to celebrate today. A life FULL of passion. And she passed that on to all of us. Look around you. We’re not here because of some great dance move she came up with. We’re all here because she placed something into each of us that we’ve never been able to shake.

I’ve seen Gene and Sharon maybe 3 times since they moved away. Only the few times they’ve come back to serve as judges for the Spotlighter Invitational, an event I’m so thankful I get to be involved in every year. I bet some of you haven’t seen them for 30 years or more.

And yet, here you are. Why? Because she means something to you. She means something to all of us. She instilled something in us — her passion and her love for what she did — and that will be with us forever. We will never forget it, and we will never forget her.

I’m thankful they were my teachers. I learned and trained under the absolute best. But I’m even more proud to call her and Gene my friends. To all her family, I’m so sorry for your loss, and my wife and I offer you our deepest sympathies. Thank you all for allowing me a few minutes to honor such a wonderful person. Like you, I will miss her.

Donald Trump: Yea or Nay?

First, I want to say clearly that this is not my endorsement of Donald Trump. My goal with this is to first explain why he is winning and continues to resonate with so many voters, and second to suggest what we, as Conservative voters, should do when and if Trump wins the nomination.

To begin, I believe the best two candidates for the Presidency were the first two men to drop out of the race -- Gov. Scott Walker from Wisconsin and Gov. Rick Perry from Texas. Those two men had the most experience -- and the most success -- doing the things in their state that so badly needs to be done on the federal level. And one of the bottom dwellers still -- Dr. Ben Carson -- would make a fantastic President.

Moreover, I believe fully that any of the Republican candidates so far -- including Trump, Rand Paul and Chris Christie -- would have made fine Presidents, despite any individual faults, and certainly would have been far better than Obama, or Hillary or Sanders could ever hope to be. I believe this to be one of the best crops of Republican candidates we've had in some time, as an overall group.

The reasons for Donald Trump's ascension in the polls, and his position atop the GOP ladder right now are very simple. So simple, in fact, that I've been shocked at even the media dope's inability to figure it out.

He's not one of them. Nothing more, and nothing less.

He doesn't fit in the box. He's an outsider. He's not a political insider, and he's not a media darling, at least not in the sense that they control him. Never has been. He plays by his own rules, even if those rules change on a daily basis. If they do, Trump himself decides the changes, not anyone else.

Rush Limbaugh has been saying for years that there is an extreme disconnect between the Washington elites and the rest of us "out there." And he's right. The Washington establishment -- Democrat and Republican included -- have simply lost touch with he people. As a collective group, they truly do not know what's going on out in the real world. They spend their election cycles bashing each other, and when they get elected, they quickly forget that they work for the people. They are not elected to go further their own agenda; they are elected to further their constituents' agenda.

Which is why all the talk about "getting along" and "reaching across the aisle" and "compromising for the greater good" is all horse-puckey. We all, no matter who we are, elect our representatives to go do what we want them to do. Not to compromise with the other side. I don't want my representative, Todd Rokita, to "work" with Obama. I want him to defeat Obama's agenda, because I think it's bad for America. And if we can all be honest, that's what we all want our reps to do; defeat the other side. It's been that way forever.

But the problem increasingly has been that once our representatives get to Washington, they seem to have a brain fart and forget what we sent them there to do. Once they become a part of the establishment, they begin acting and voting the way they think THEY ought to, rather than the way their constituents mandated them to. (See: GOP landslide win in November, and Obamacare.) And without Congressional term-limits, they're pretty much left to their own devices, because most voters don't see the problem in their own guy or gal, but rather believe it to be a problem with all the others.

And there's an additional issue at play as well. Voters, especially Conservative voters, are simply fed up with all the political-correctness, the dumbing down of society, the absolute bone-headedness of the left (See: A washed-up, old, transgender whacko who hasn't competed in anything in nearly 40 years wins a sportsman courage award) and the entitlement-mentality that has permeated and denigrated our society almost to the point of no return. Cops can't do their jobs, illegal immigrants get free and better healthcare than our veterans, and you can't say or do ANYTHING that doesn't offend someone else. We're sick and tired of it all.

Enter Donald Trump. FINALLY, someone saying the things, and often DOING the things, we all really want to say and do and yet don't have the guts to pull off. Trump doesn't care. He simply does not care who he offends, who he ticks off, and who doesn't like him. He may often be wrong, but he's gonna say what's on his mind and what he believes. And that is resonating with the vast majority of the Conservative voters "out there" who have come to believe that no one in Washington speaks for them anymore.

That's why they ignore all his faults and slip-ups. Because the truth is, ALL the candidates have faults -- some more than others -- but they are willing to overlook those with the one guy who seems to be telling it like it is, and not speaking in the same old tired Washington-ease. The voters are fed-up with the Establishment, and they're letting it be known.

You may say he doesn't speak for you, and that's OK. But in a way, he does indeed. You see, before he was a viable Presidential candidate, you made him into the billionaire he is. You bought his products, you stayed in his hotels, you gambled at his casinos, and mostly, you watched his TV shows, and fed the advertising that fueled every media outlet who covered his every move. You did all this because you were OK with him being a sideshow. You never thought that sideshow would someday try to run the country.

And it is now that sideshow that is fueling his campaign bid. He's played the whole thing like a genius. He boasts about how he has spent the least amount of money of any candidate. That's because the media has whored out his every move, his every word. He doesn't HAVE to spend money on advertising because the media splashes every little thing he says or does across the front page every day. And moreover, they've turned every campaign issue into a battle between the candidates. They don't care about the candidates' position on an issue. They care about what Trump has to SAY about the issue, and what the other candidates reaction to his statements will be. They don't care about a wall; they care about what kind of wall Trump wants to build, and they care about what the other candidates think about Trump's wall. It's reality TV at its finest. Trump knows it, and has played it to the hilt, far better than all the other candidates.

That's why I stopped watching the Republican debates. Not one of them -- NOT ONE -- has been about the issues. They have all been about whatever Trump has said about the issues, and the other candidates' reaction to Trump's thoughts and words. Never did a moderator ask, "Mr Bush, what do you think about immigration?" Instead, they asked, "Mr Bush, Donald Trump said {this} about immigration. What do you think about that?"

And Jeb Bush took the bait, to his detriment. And so have all the others. They all spent all their time fighting with Trump, just like the media set it up, to the point that they never got their own message out. I like Jeb Bush. But he cut his own throat but worrying WAY too much about Trump.

Does anybody REALLY care about what Donald Trump thinks about David Duke? (I bet half of YOU don't know who David Duke is.) No, they don't. But it makes great TV.

I quit watching after the third debate because I saw what it was all about. There's been 10 or so now because they're the best Reality TV on the air, and the networks know it. And so does Donald Trump. Unfortunately, the rest of the candidates still haven't figured it out.

So, where does all this leave us? Well, as I write this, it is Super Tuesday, and Trump is more or less lapping the rest of the field. It's a pretty sure bet that at this point, he is going to be the GOP nominee. (There still could be some shenanigans behind the Republican scene that will try to pull the rug out from under him, and if that happens, there's a good chance Trump will go independent, but lets ignore that for now.)

If Donald Trump is the GOP nominee, I will vote for him hands down.

Let me be clear, he's not my first choice, not from the beginning, and not now among the remaining candidates. Given the chance, I will vote for Ted Cruz, for many reasons. But being from Indiana, our late-in-the-season primary will likely ensure that I won't get that chance, or at least that chance won't matter much, as the nomination will likely be locked up before I get to cast a primary vote.

But if it is indeed Trump, I will vote for him.

No, not because I'm a die-hard, tow-the-line, Republican. I will do so because I believe, despite all his faults, that he is considerably smarter, and far more qualified for the job that needs to be done at the federal level than Hillary or Bernie Sanders.

Trump is infinitely more qualified now for the job than was Obama when he was elected in 2008. Obama was as clueless about things as Trump is on many subjects, AND had far less experience in running a business and global finance issues than does Trump. In fact, Obama had no experience in ANYTHING -- at all.

And remains clueless about most things almost eight years later. Hillary is Hillary. She's no different today -- aside from adding criminal, felonious activities to her resume -- than she was eight years ago when she couldn't beat a nobody from Illinois with zero experience. And Bernie Sanders? Please. Did you ever dream that we would actually be considering an admitted socialist as the President of the United States? Ever? I have to re-read that sentence just to remind myself that its actually really happening. A socialist! Yeah, like the one in Germany some years back.

The truth is that this election really might come down to the lesser of two evils, if indeed you see Trump as evil. But here's the problem: I've had friends -- good, intelligent friends, who are smart -- tell me that they cannot and will not vote for Donald Trump. Christian friends of mine have shared the fact that we can't vote for a Godless man like Trump. (Which, of course, presumably means they cannot vote for Clinton or Sanders either.)

And so the question is, who do you believe will do the least damage? A good friend of mine stated, "The choice seems to be slow poison or the electric chair," which, at the end of the day, may sum up our options. Then again, what if Trump is for real? Because the truth at this point is not so much that he's saying the wrong things, as far as Conservatives are concerned, but rather what he's saying doesn't jive with the things he's said in the past.

The basis for his non-Conservative support seems to swirl around the idea that he's not really a Conservative at all, and we're all falling for his schtick, which is just a ploy to get elected. Tickle the itching ears, as it were. But my answer to that is this: If he just wanted to get elected, he could just as easily have run as a Democrat. You don't think Trump would be slaughtering Hillary or Sanders right now? He'd win the Democrat vote in a heartbeat, because 1) Liberals LOVE guys like Trump usually, and 2) Liberals will vote for whoever you put in front of them.

Trump would never have had to deal with what he's dealing with now on the Democrat side. So why travel that road? Is there a chance he's sincere in his beliefs, and his "conversion," as it were? Is it possible he has seen the light and truly believes in the Conservative tenets he's so earnestly trying to adhere to now? Reagan used to be a Democrat, you know. (Please, don't plaster me with the stupidity of trying to compare Trump to Reagan. I'm not.) I'm just saying that it does happen. People do switch sides, and often times for very good reasons. Maybe Trump believes in what he says after all. We can look at past behavior all we want. If choosing him is thrust upon us, what else can we do but hope he is being sincere now?

I'd rather take my chances with someone who, though he has some question marks (as do all the other candidates), has so far has been willing to fight on my side, rather than someone who I KNOW stands against everything I believe in, and who's stated policies, beliefs, and intentions have NEVER done anything but topple nations. Hillary and Bernie have both had their chances in Washington. Has either of them done one thing to help the country?

Not voting at all is simply not an option. (I'm of the opinion that everyone of voting age should be required to vote.) Because not voting at all is casting a vote for the other side. (5 million registered Republican voters did not vote in 2012 because they didn't like Romney. Obama's win in the general election was barely over 3 million votes. You do the math.)

And for all his faults, Trump does indeed bring some things to the table that Hillary and Sanders do not. And as a Christian, I vote my morality as much as I possibly can, but I've also long believed that our government should get out of the business of trying legislate our morality. (Our founding fathers did a nice job of establishing moral principles for us. Most everyone else along the way has screwed it up.) If I can't vote for someone who shares my Christian values, all things being equal, I'm going to vote for the person most qualified for the job. I can't fathom that anyone could truly believe that Sanders or Hillary is any more qualified than is Trump.

So yes, I will vote for Donald Trump if he is the choice I have.

The Park in Downtown Mooresville

Until now, I have chosen to stay out of the debate regarding the “beautification” of Mooresville, and kept my opinions to myself regarding the proposed downtown park at Indiana and Main Streets.

Until now.

I should preface this by disclosing that it would be easy for me to keep quiet and ignore the issue because, as many now know, we are planning to relocate out of state in the near future. It would be easy to simply turn my head and say, “In a few months, it’s not my problem.”

As my wife and I prepare to move to warmer climes and sandier earth, we do so with a twinge of melancholy. Mooresville is our home. We are born and raised here. We grew up here, graduated school here, fell in love here, married here, worked and raised our family here. Mooresville is all I’ve ever known. It is my hometown, and forever will be, no matter where our house is located. I love this town, and always will. And I love it’s people even more.

Which is why it saddens me to see and hear the infighting going on right now. Usually, I jump right in. But this is one that goes deeper than having some flighty opinion about it on Facebook. I would hope that at some point, we can all see that really all any of us want is a better Mooresville, a town that is inviting and open to new families, and we can all find some common ground on seeing that happen.

First, the facts, put as simply as possible.

Many years ago, Mooresville was given the opportunity to annex the entire development of Heartland Crossing. For a variety of reasons — some that were just dumb, and others that had a hint of logic — the decision to do so was rejected.

Flash forward a few years. A ballot measure was introduced in an attempt to raise taxes to build a new high school. It too was rejected.

Those two decisions did more to harm and stunt the growth of the Town of Mooresville over the past decade and a half than any other single decision.

The reasons are simple. First, Heartland Crossing was a huge boom in terms of population and tax revenue over the past 15 years. Unfortunately, because Mooresville chose not to annex the development, most of that boom went to neighboring towns and counties. Most of the children in Heartland Crossing went to other schools, and the tax money went to other towns. Indeed, it was hard to envision what Heartland would become all the way back in 1999 and 2000, but the short-sightedness is evident today.

As Plainfield and Avon in Hendricks County, and Center Grove and Franklin in Johnson County spent huge sums of money to either build new, or make huge additions to their high schools, Mooresville refused to do so. (To be fair, we have recently made a significant improvement to our high school without raising taxes, but it did little to increase its size and capacity, and was much more of a makeover than an addition.)

What did this mean? Census numbers show that from 2000-2010, population numbers boomed in Hendricks and Johnson counties, particularly in families wth school-aged children, while Morgan County numbers remained flat. Moreover, were it not for the additions Morgan County DID receive from Heartland Crossing during that time, our census numbers would have plummeted.

Which means, simply, “if you build it, they will come.” Many in Mooresville ridiculed Plainfield at the time as they were spending millions of dollars to build a new school complex. We mocked the idea of spending $8 million — or whatever it was — on a new football stadium. But it drew — and continues to draw — families to that community. It’s a sad reality we live in, I’ll admit, but if most school administrators were honest, they would tell you, spending more money on teachers doesn’t draw people. Building a new football stadium does. In the end, they have more than made up for what they spent with the addition of so many taxpayers to their town, and the resulting businesses that followed to gladly sell their wares to the town folk.

When I asked the county official who shared those census numbers with me if he thought the numbers reflected the new schools in Hendricks and Johnson counties, and our refusal to build our own, his reply was, “Absolutely.”

So, what does all this have to do with a downtown park in the middle of Mooresville today?

Quite a bit, actually.

First, as any business owner will tell you in Mooresville, Heartland Crossing has pretty much become the place for Mooresvillians to shop and eat. The center of commerce has shifted away from Downtown, away from the Kroger parking lot, away from the Bridge St. complex on 67, all the way out to Heartland. Which wouldn’t be so bad in and of itself if Mooresville was actually reaping the revenue benefits of that shift, which, by and large, it does not.

While there are, to be sure, many viable and profitable businesses within the town limits, even those that are legitimate destination spots, the reality is that the shopping and dining focus for many in Mooresville lies in Heartland Crossing, (and neighboring towns) and the town reaps very little of the benefit of those dollars.

As for the school, that ballot measure was defeated for one simple reason: Mooresville is, by and large, an old town. A great deal of its inhabitants have lived here for decades. And many of them no longer have kids in the school system. And many of them, unfortunately, are short-sighted enough to essentially say, “I no longer have a dog in that fight, so why should I vote to have my tax dollars raised?” It’s a vicious cycle. The fewer families you have with school-aged children, the less voters you have willing to raise taxes to pay for a school. And the sad truth is that more people WITHOUT children voted no because they didn’t want their taxes raised, than did people WITH children who supported a new school. As families who have children saw that reluctance in the town, more of them relocated to other towns that were spending the money. And the decline continues.

So what’s left? For years, town officials have lived by the mantra that if we keep our property taxes low, people will come to live here. While that seems logical — and Mooresville indeed has some of the lowest property taxes around — it isn’t working, as we’ve seen by the aforementioned census numbers. And hasn’t worked for some time, as it turns out.

Attracting more business to within the town limits has shown some promise. And the town and the Economic Development Commission have made strides in that regard. But that remains a daunting task, especially when those same short-sighted townsfolk give so much pushback on the tax breaks and incentives that are virtually required to attract such business.

So, in the absence of a new school, and with the difficulty in attracting new business, beautification projects become more and more important. Simply put, you’ve got to find a way to make the town visually inviting enough to make people who wouldn’t otherwise come into town WANT to, to visit the businesses that ARE there.

I’ve felt for years that Mooresville should aspire to do what Nashville, IN has done. And that is, to make it more of a tourist destination. And there’s no reason that couldn’t happen. Nashville doesn’t really offer anything Mooresville doesn’t have.

And that starts with beautification. But therein lies the rub, and the crux of the debate we have going on right now.

Just to be clear, I have seen and heard and read many viable arguments and concerns on both sides of the issue. The truth is that both sides make reasonable points that should be considered. And while I think it would be wise to touch on some of those issues, I want to try to stay focused on the bigger picture.

First, the dollars. While it is true that the town has secured what can essentially be called loans to fund some of these projects, what is also true is that a good deal of the funding has come from tax dollars that have not only already been collected, but that are also exclusively earmarked for projects such as these. They CANNOT be used otherwise, and are essentially forfeited if they are not spent. So in essence, we CAN’T spend those dollars on, say, more teachers. They HAVE to be spent on beautification projects.

What is also true is that some of the funding has come from both state and federal grants. So, while there is a genuine concern about the town acquiring debt to fund these projects, and there is also a genuine concern over what funds will be used to maintain these projects in the long term, the reality is that a good deal of these funds were already available exclusively for projects like these, and must be used as such, or lost to the town. Essentially, the town would be leaving money on the table if it DIDN’T spend it to spruce things up.

Second, the park. And the parking it would replace. I’m sorry, but I have to admit that this one issue on which I fall to the side of the town.

I know virtually every argument has been made in this regard, but I’ll go ahead and make mine. If you visit other towns similar in size and scope to ours (and Nashville is another good example here) you will be hard pressed to find a parking lot smack dab in the middle of town. It is not at all uncommon to find parking lots a block, and sometimes several blocks away. While street parking remains — as it would here — in a town like Nashville, most parking lots are blocks away from the main hub of town. It does not deter people from visiting downtown.

What are we talking about? 18-20 spaces or so? First, RARELY is that parking lot full, at anytime of the day, at anytime of the week. And I’ve been watching for this very reason. Second, virtually every business downtown that has patrons who use that lot is a business who’s patrons are not REQUIRED to be there. What I mean is this: It’s not like a BMV, or a Dr.’s office where you HAVE to go occasionally even if you don’t want to.

No, instead they are businesses essentially where people only visit if they want to. Go up and down the street. Insurance agents, salons and boutiques, knick-knack shops, restaurants, mortgage offices, a flower shop, private service businesses, etc. They’re all businesses people only go to WHEN THEY WANT TO. What does that mean? It means that if you want to go to eat at Zydeco’s, or buy flowers from Bud and Bloom, or get your hair cut at Beauty Call, or buy jewelry at Iconic Brilliance, you’re probably going to, even if you can’t park right next door.

Think about it this way: When you want to go to the Greenwood Mall, you go, even if you have to park at the very end of the parking lot. You don’t just leave if you can’t get into one of the first two or three spots. And think about this: Parking at the end of the lot of Greenwood Mall is actually a farther distance from the mall than, say, parking a block or even two away from Zydeco’s.

All I’m saying is, looking at it as a consumer myself, and despite the cries of doom otherwise, I find it very hard to believe that the loss of that downtown lot’s 18 or 20 spaces will signal the end of the line for any business down there. Given the availability of parking that will remain on the street, next to both Citizens bank locations, and next to the Town Center, I would be hard-pressed to think that the loss of those spaces will cause that much trouble. I’m no engineer, of course, I’m just trying to look at it logically.

As for the Park itself, what is so bad? I mean, would there be this much hoopla about it if it WASN’T replacing a parking lot? What is so terrible about having a nice little park where people can sit and relax, or go to watch a summer concert, right in the middle of downtown? It is a destination spot. Perhaps someone might like to sit and enjoy a summer evening outside after having just eaten at Ralph and Ava’s. Or better yet, what if someone went to the park to enjoy a show, and then said, “Hey, while we’re here, let’s have a bite at Ralph and Ava’s.”

I’m sorry, I just don’t see the problem, and I don’t understand the sheer hatred I’ve seen about it. It’s a Park! So what if you think it’s silly. So what if you won’t visit. It’s a Park! What is so terrible?

The signs, and the torch, at both ends of the entrances to the town are nice. Have you seen them? They look good. And so does the landscaping. (Although they’re going to have to figure out a better drainage system.) Have you ever driven through downtown Plainfield, or Carmel, or Westfield, and thought, “Wow, this looks good.”

Why can’t Mooresville look good? (As an aside.... think what you want, but isn't the torch cool looking?)

And in the end, whether we like it or not, it’s one of the only ways we’re going to be able to attract people into downtown, whether to visit or shop, or even move their family here. Beautification, for better or worse, is one of the few tools we have left to attract people to Mooresville.

There are legitimate concerns as to the long-term maintenance of these projects, and the funding for that maintenance. And there are good, upstanding Mooresville people who care deeply about this town who have rightly been asking for proper answers to those concerns. But that concern alone isn’t worth killing the whole thing off and leaving things unchanged. If properly thought out and planned, this could indeed be a first step into transforming Mooresville into a true destination location, and possibly a cool little tourist stop.

How to Win the War.

You realize, of course, that there is only one way to defeat ISIS? You know what it is, right?

It's the one thing we wouldn't do in Korea, in Vietnam, and so far, in the Middle East.

We started to do it in Japan in 1945, but the Japanese surrendered as soon as they saw we were serious.

It will also mean collateral damage in the form of innocent lives, which is the primary reason we don't do it.

Complete, and utter annihilation.

Indeed, it is the only thing that will truly defeat ISIS, and Al Queda, and the Taliban, for that matter. We must wipe them from existence. It is the only course of action that will truly defeat them, once and for all.

We have the capability. We just don't have the stomach for it.

The problem is simple: these little mamby-pamby bombing raids do little more then flush them out of their holes and force them to move elsewhere. We're celebrating France's response to the horrible attacks they suffered last week as "heroic" and "massive" and so forth. But the truth is that the United States has been bombing Muslim terrorist outposts for years, and it has done little, if anything, to stop them.

And diplomacy... please. Not with these neanderthals.

France will drop their share of bombs because they're pissed off -- right now. In a few months, this will all blow by and we'll all be standing around for whenever and wherever the next terrorist attack will occur.

President Obama -- capitulation and weakness personified -- is on the news this very moment telling everybody how awful these terrorists are, but almost in the same sentence attempting to justify why going after them with any real force is not the best course of action, saying that putting boots on the ground would be a "mistake."

In a way, he's probably right. Because if we did put boots on the ground, we would very likely not send anywhere near enough to actually get the job done.

And they're not needed anyway. We have the technological -- and superior -- firepower to wipe them from existence once and for all, possibly without losing a single American life.

But it's that pesky collateral damage we can't get past.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not heartless enough to want to see innocent lives, especially women and children, mowed down just to get the bad guys. I also am not naive enough to not understand the international ramifications of such an endeavor. (Although I'm not sure not being "liked" by other countries is deterrent enough not to take such action.)

But I also am not blind. And I understand that when you're in war -- which we are, make no mistake -- that sometimes innocent people have to die.

I find it interesting that in the Bible, when God would order His people to make war (which He did, frequently) He often commanded His people to wipe out every living thing, including the livestock. (See I Samuel 15, and Deuteronomy 20, wherein he tells His people, "Do not leave anything that breathes.")

Why did God make such commandments? It's fairly simple, really. You cannot risk leaving behind anyone who might take up the cause against you again. You cannot risk not getting every single possible enemy. Often, the bad guys would hide behind their innocent loved ones in attempts to save themselves. And you certainly can't leave the message that you might be soft, and not fully committed to achieving your objective. You have to say, "We will win, at all costs."

Surely there are peoples in those lands who are innocent, and not supporters of the evil of ISIS, and yet, the vast, overwhelming majority are Muslim, a religion at its very core that is at enmity with God, and a Christian nation like ourselves. (Yes, we are a Christian nation, founded on the principles of the God of the Bible, despite what some numbskulls are trying to convince everyone of these days.) And it is a political ideology that by its very nature hates America and everything it stands for. When you see on the news hundreds and thousands of Muslims rioting in the streets shouting and holding signs that read, "Death to America!" what do you think they mean by that?

How are we to weed out the innocent lives anyway? There are most certainly female and child suicide bombers. Yes, forced, perhaps, in some cases. But not all. How can we tell?

You see, that was a major problem in Vietnam. In our efforts to try to weed out the good from the bad, and with all the shouts of "Baby Killers" over here, we often passed over sometimes entire villages that would claim to be "innocent." Often, like cowards, parading their wives and children out front as a ruse. Only to see them take up arms against us later. And we all know how that whole Vietnam thing turned out for us.

We have no real way of knowing, of course, which is why nothing but complete destruction will work. As was the case with Japan, the loss of innocent lives today would save the loss of millions upon millions of innocent lives in the future.

Beginning likely with Afghanistan, it must be wiped from the map. Which we are capable of doing, even without nuclear weaponry. If they don't give up then, you move to Syria, Iraq, and so forth.

Until we are willing to do that, attacks like 9/11 and now in Paris will continue, and it will be OUR innocent lives that continue to be lost. Because it is only a matter of when -- not IF -- another attack hits here on US soil.

You know it's true. It is the only way.