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.

What is an Independent?

You realize, politically, there really is no such thing as a "moderate" or an "independent." You know that, right?

I realize that's going to ruffle some feathers, but it's true, nonetheless.

Oh sure, there are those who are frustrated with aspects of their chosen political party. Indeed, I couldn't be more frustrated with the Republican Establishment right now, who have gotten a little too comfy in their government careers here lately.

But the concept of a "moderate," or an "independent," only exists within the confines of liberalism or conservatism. While we don't have the time or space here to go into the specifics of what defines each of those ideals, what we can say is that we all fall into one of those two camps. Each of us, deep inside, aligns ourself with one side or the other.

To be sure, there are those among us who agree or disagree with various tenets that cross the line of a particular platform. In fact, it would probably be more accurate to say that very few of us agree 100% with every party line that gets drawn.

But that's not the same thing as being a "moderate" or "independent."

Those ideals are born out of the idea of not wishing to be labeled. An "independent" is nothing more than a Liberal who doesn't want to be labeled a Liberal.

You see, Liberals are really the only ones who don't like the term "liberals." That's why they created alternative terms like "progressives" and "independents."

Every time I've ever had a discussion with someone that involved classifying someone as liberal, almost without fail I've had someone who jumped in offended because they didn't like being "labeled."

But I've yet to hear anyone who identifies as being conservative ever be upset by being "labeled" a Conservative. In fact, I don't think I've ever heard anyone -- outside of professed Liberals -- who's been called a Conservative be offended by it, even if they didn't think they were one.

It's precisely why, every election cycle, one hears stories about how the Conservatives are going to be able to sway the "moderates" and the "independents" to vote for them. One never hears liberals needing to get the "independent" vote. It's presumed in most political circles that Independents are going to vote Democrat by default unless they can somehow be swayed to vote Republican.

That's because they are by default liberal. And more precisely, Liberals who don't like being called Liberals.

Moderates and Independents are not necessarily the same thing, although those who identify with either rarely know the actual difference between the two.

As I've mentioned, an Independent is a Liberal who doesn't "like" being labeled a Liberal. A Moderate, on the other hand, is an Independent who is "afraid" of being called a Conservative. Simple, yeah?

The bottom line is, Conservatives are virtually without fail proud of being conservative, and have never "needed" Moderates or Independents to win an election. In fact, if our last two Presidential elections have taught us anything, it's that the more "moderate" our Republican candidate is, the worse he get's beat. John McCain and Mitt Romney have been two of the most "moderate" candidates we've ever run, and they got their butts handed to 'em both times.

The last "ultra" conservative we ran won his two elections in landslides, and if we'd run one again, I think the results would be the same. There are a lot of Conservatives out there who are aching for their candidate to be proud to be conservative again.

It wouldn't matter what the Liberals or Moderates or Independents do.

The Hard Part of 9/11

It's easy to say we remember... that's the easy part.

It's easy to post some meme or picture on Facebook or some other social media site each anniversary. You can Google "9/11" and come up with literally hundreds of pictures from that day. Or even easier, just "share" somebody else's post or picture.

It's easy to ask yourself, "Where were you that day?" Or, "What were you doing when it all happened?" There's even a very popular song that asks those questions.

Yes indeed. That's the easy part.

The hard part is far more complicated, but so much more vital.

The question today, 14 years later, should be, "What are you doing to help make sure things like this never happen again?"

Some of us had small children when this happened, who are now all grown up. We talked with them. We tried to explain there are bad people in the world. People who hate us, and who hate everything we stand for. Yes, even people who hate God. And they hate us so much that they are willing to kill thousands of innocent people just to get their point across.

But what about you? What about those who have had children after those attacks? Have you had that same conversation with them? Have you taught them that it is important to stand up for what they believe in, and that sometimes there will be people who might want to kill them for those beliefs?

And what about our emergency responders? The people who would rather die than walk away and leave someone in danger? Do you support them now? Have you thanked a policeman, or hugged a firefighter? Or are you one of those who are spreading the idiocy that they're actually the enemy, out to get us at every turn, just waiting for some innocent victim to shoot? Just like the venom that is being spewed by our very own President now? Are you that person? Or do you really "remember?"

Speaking of our President, do you realize that in some ways, we all have George W. Bush to thank? He took the fight to them, you know. Yes, those people who every year on this date we claim we want to hold responsible... President Bush actually did that. Are you one of those people now who blame him for "two, unnecessary" wars, even as you post something on Facebook asking us to "never forget?"

Are you one of them?

Do you remember that during Bush's remaining years as President, while we took the fight to those who knocked down those towers, not another innocent American life was lost on our soil? There were no gruesome videos released almost daily of some beheading of an innocent hostage. Do you know that all those barbarians we see on TV today were all off hiding in a hole somewhere fearing for their lives because they knew the American Military was looking for them?

Are you someone who cried for a terrorist because we had to get tough with them in our interrogations, or cried because they were "mistreated" in one of our prisons? Did you cry for them when you posted your picture of the Pentagon this morning?

And how do you vote? Have you voted for leaders who truly do remember, and who want to once and for all defeat the thugs who killed 3000 people on 9/11, or have you voted for leaders who claim the whole thing was our own fault? That it's our fault those thugs don't like us and that its better to run away and leave the barbarians to their barbarian ways, rather than to stand up to them and fight them? Do you vote for leaders who believe it's better to try to negotiate and appease these people?

Is that how you've shown your children that you "remember?" Is that what you've taught your kids?

You see, posting a pic on Facebook on this date every year imploring us all to "never forget" is pointless if you've forgotten. Our world is vastly different today than it was prior to September 11, 2001, and isn't George Bush's fault. And everything you do that enables any of our leaders to somehow appease these murderous monsters, everything you do that somehow portrays us as the bad guys, betrays any attempt you make to "always remember," and worse, dishonors those innocent people and hundreds of heroes who died on 9/11.

Every time you blame a policeman for doing his job, every time you vote for a leader who doesn't absolutely promise to take the fight to the bad guys, every time you try to strip those around you of their right to stand up for their belief in God, every time you tell a citizen he doesn't have a right to pick up a gun and defend himself, you are in turn supporting the kind of people who attacked us on 9/11.

So please, if it makes you feel better to post a picture on social media on this date every year, if you feel more patriotic when you post a picture of a flag and an eagle flying around the twin towers, then great, I'm happy for you. But if you really want to do something that matters, something that shows you "never forget" and will "always remember," then do something really meaningful: Support your police force. Vote for a candidate who will stand up for America, instead of tearing it down. Teach your kids about a true, loving God, and teach them to stand up for Him even in the face of adversity. THAT'S how you "never forget." THAT'S how you honor those 3000 people who gave their lives on 9/11.

Because if you don't do it soon, our next "9/11" will be right around the corner.

The Round Hotel

My favorite hotel in the entire world sits near the bank of the Ohio River in Covington, Kentucky. It’s a round hotel that’s had five or six different names since I first stayed there in 1984. I’ve stayed there what seems like 100 times since then, although the real number is probably far less than that.

If you’ve ever been in Cincinnati, and paid attention, you’ve seen it. Heck, you may have even stayed there yourself. If you have, and you’ve stayed on the side of the hotel that overlooks the river and the Cincinnati skyline, then you may know why I love it so much.

What’s so special about this hotel, you might ask? I mean, there’s thousands of other hotels out there that are probably nicer, swankier, priced better, I don’t know. The Covington that sits below is nothing to shout about. There’s a couple other hotels I see, a Waffle House, Wendy’s, Frisches, and a Lexus dealership. There’s two Speedway gas stations, literally right next door to each other.

But I have to admit, for a Reds fan like me, the view is spectacular. And a city lit up at night is always a pretty cool sight. But it’s not the hotel, or the view, really. It’s so much more than that. It’s the memories.

I fell in love for the first time at this hotel. That very first stay way back in 1984, I had a picture of a little freckled-faced girl I’d just fell for in my pocket. I took it out and just stared at it for hours as I sat out on the balcony for the first time. I had no way of knowing then that it would never work out, but I fell anyway. And the memory has never left me.

Over the years, countless times I’ve literally taken the mattress off a roll away bed and slept on it out on the balcony, (more than ten stories up, with nothing but the railing between me and a plunge to the ground) with the roar of the traffic from the nearby interstate as my lullaby, and the wail of a fire truck as my morning alarm clock.

Many has been the time I’ve sat out on that balcony and smoked a cigar with a friend, or chatted until the wee hours of the morning, or watched a storm rage around us, with the balcony above as our only umbrella. Or just sat and stared and let the view and noise take me away.

Many times (notice the plural, again) has a wiffle ball and bat been employed as entertainment in the room, with the goal of hitting the ball out through the open balcony door to see how far it would travel in the parking lot below. On the river side, the goal, of course, was to clear the pool on the first floor. Some shot, that. This was with adults, you know, like me.

Me and most my family watched the demolition of Riverfront Stadium from the top of that hotel. The day they announced the date of the demolition, I booked two rooms in that hotel for the perfect view. I have it on video of you want to watch it.

There are names: yes, there are lots of names. Friends, family, partners in crime. Scott Moore, Paul Shupe, Danny Bradley, Scott & Ted Johnson, Kevin Uhls, Bryce Mansfield, Tammy Cooper, Tony Wilson, and so many more. All who have ventured to join me on a Reds excursion, this hotel serving our overnight stay.

I’ve stayed here when the Reds weren’t even in town. A great place for a few days getaway. The other side of the hotel offers a view of Old Town Covington. The Mainstrasse as it is known, for it’s German heritage, complete with the Clock Tower that shows the story of the Pied Piper every hour during the day.

I’ve stayed in every type of room they offer: double, king, the suites with the hot tub! I’ve dined in the revolving restaurant above, the one that offers a 360 degree view of Cincy and Covington. And I’ve looked longingly at the hotel from the windows of other hotels in which I’ve stayed in Cincy over the years. Yes, I come to Cincinnati a lot.

But the best memories I have — oh, the best of all — are the ones with my family. My wife, and my two boys.

I’m sitting out on the 11th floor balcony as I write this, in the desk chair I’ve moved out here with my laptop on my lap. It’s 1:02 in the morning. The interstate is busy as ever, and the river is as calm as I’ve seen it in a long time. It’s an absolute beautiful night. We watched the Reds win tonight, and Great American Ball Park is still lit up with a faint glow across the river. In the room, directly in my line of sight, the absolute love of my life is asleep in the bed, still in her #19 Joey Votto t-shirt. This is rough livin’, let me tell ya.

My wife and my two sons have stayed here with me more times than I can remember. And for every memory I have with them, I’m sure there are a hundred I have forgotten. And for every memory here at this hotel, there are a hundred more associated with it around the city on one of our trips here.

In the early days, before the kids, it was our go-to vacation getaway spot. Often was the time Ginger and I would sneak away for a couple days, stay in the round hotel and watch a couple Reds games. When the boys arrived, things didn’t change. They just got packed along!

As the hotel is round, as I’ve noted, the hallway on every floor goes in a complete circle. Every time we’d leave our room, the boys would run one direction, and I the other, to see who would reach the elevator first.

I bet me and my kids have splashed more water out of that pool over the years than it actually holds. And if management knew about the pillow fights, the ball playing (yes, me and the boys hit wiffle balls out of the balcony doors too — not to mention off the walls of the room) and the jumping and wrestling on the beds, they’d probably kick us out for good.

And I can’t even tell you about the memories with my wife — those are just for me and her.

I miss my boys immensely tonight as I sit out here on the balcony by myself. But I’m also boundlessly grateful for this time together with my wife. I’m excited my kids are moving on with their lives, and so looking forward to the time I will now get to spend with my wife in the coming years, God willing.

But I miss those times of the past, and a little part of me hurts. What I wouldn’t give for one more swing of the wiffle bat, or for one more pillow fight, or one more wrestle on the bed with my boys.

Perhaps they’ll find a place to make memories of their own with their own friends and families someday. And Lord willing, there will come a day when my grandkids get to hit wiffle balls out the balcony door with me. I’m looking forward to that, and so much more.

And as for me and Ginger, well, there’s more memories to be had. (A few on this excursion, already!) Because that’s all I’ve really ever wanted to do, was to make memories with her. And I intend to continue to make it a priority. Soon, we’ll be moving to a place well south of here, and home. And there will be a beautiful ocean nearby, and we will make memories there watching sunrises and sunsets.

But there will always be a place and a time for a particular round hotel. And it will be as cherished to us in the future as it has been in our past.

P.S. Thanks, Bob, for setting this up for us. We needed this one.

Guest Blog: What I’ve Learned About High School in Three Years - By Cody Uhls

My son asked if he could write a piece and post it on my blog. He's my son. Could I say no? So, enjoy...

(Cody Uhls is my 17 year old son. He is finishing up his Junior year of High School at Covenant Christian High School in Indianapolis. He hopes to study law in college, has a beautiful girlfriend, and an absolutely stunning set of parents!)

What I’ve Learned About High School in Three Years...

Long, tiring, caffeine filled nights are not uncommon. Nights with six or more hours of sleep are not common. When teachers see times are hard, they tell you they’re sorry but they have to give you another hour of homework that night, piling onto the three hours you already have. What I’ve learned in three years of high school is it’s long, boring, and sometimes a big waste of time, but also full of the best experiences someone will ever have. High school, to some people, is the highlight of their entire life. Just not mine.

When I say high school is not the highlight of my life, I don’t mean it hasn’t been fun. It has. High school has been full of laughter and friends and emotional conversations. It has also been full of boring classes, long papers, and a ton of sleepless nights. In middle school, everyone wants to be in high school. Typically, in the first three years of high school, everyone just wants to be at the top of the food chain and be a senior. When you’re a senior, you just want to be in college. I’ve just wanted to be in college ever since I started high school. I always heard about the joys of college and the freedom you receive with your classes. Also, once you hit your junior year of high school, everyone starts asking if you know what you want to do or where you want to go to college. I always explain my plans for the future and my collegiate thoughts and plans as to what college I chose to attend and why (I am choosing to go to college in Florida and study Law, in case you were wondering).

On a softer note, I’ve learned teachers don’t get a ton of credit. It is hard to make tests and quizzes and grade all of them in a short amount of time. Kids are impatient. Some kids will come into school the day after the test and ask the teacher if he/she has graded the test yet. The answer 99% of the time will be no and they need to be patient and wait some time before the grading is actually finished. I’ve noticed how annoyed teachers get with those kids also. It's quite amusing at times. The Bible says not to judge and not to hate anyone, but it's hard not to judge impatient people; they’re annoying. Teachers get a lot thrown at them they don’t deserve. Most of them are really doing their best, but there is always one teacher who is really lazy and makes their “Teacher Assistant” do all of their grading and all of their work for them; I don’t have sympathy for those teachers. Those are the kind of teachers who give busy work and test over things nobody looked over. But overall, I have sympathy for teachers. They don’t deserve what people throw at them.

Some teachers are mean though. Some teachers have no sympathy for kids. Retakes are life-savers to students who don’t always get the best grades, but some teachers won’t give retakes no matter how much you beg. Sometimes kids are just having a bad day and they can’t think during the test. We all have “brain farts” every once in a while, but they still won’t give you sympathy. Also, no matter what, those teachers know every aspect of the subject; well, at least they think they do. We aren’t allowed to question them about anything or ask them about their teaching style because they are teachers and they are always right, of course. They treat you like you don’t know anything about the subject, but give you homework like you should already have a Master’s Degree in the subject. These are the kind of teachers that treat you like idiots but then say, “You should have learned this last year so I won’t go over it,” even though we have no idea what he/she is talking about. They are also the kind who are surprised with how poorly the class does on their tests because they don’t know how to teach.

Students are mean. Teachers have spent most of their lives and all of their time trying to teach a student something they are passionate about and all the students do is tell them how awful their class is and how much they can’t wait for the next break. English class is the worst for students. Reading classic literature for the quality reading doesn’t appeal to most kids. Students groan and complain about reading The Great Gatsby and The Catcher in the Rye, but if you spend time to actually read them, they are fantastic books. Most students wouldn’t know how good they are though because the grade is more important than the quality of the class. Students are mean to teachers. If the teacher moves them away from their friends, students throw tantrums like little kids. I don’t care whether I sit by my friends or not because I want to get the most out of the class, not out of my friends. Students don’t care about class, they care about what they are doing the upcoming weekend or what they did the previous weekend. No one cares about what J.D. Salinger means when Holden says, “What happens to the ducks during winter?” in The Catcher in the Rye.

Also, students are immature. Why do they scream in the hallways? No one cares if you haven’t seen your best friend since Friday; there’s no reason to be screaming to them and telling them how much you’ve missed them. They also scream during the passing period to their friends across the hall. I want to smack them, but I resist.

Three years may sound like a long time, but these three years have flown by. I will be a senior this fall and part of me thinks I am ready to be a senior then to move on to college. The idea of being on my own is a scary, fascinating, and heartbreaking idea. Scary because I don’t know what the future holds, fascinating because I get to start a new adventure, and heartbreaking because I have to let go of my youth. I think I am ready though. I wrote this to give whomever may read this a glimpse into the life of a teenager at school. Hopefully this was a little humorous and enjoyable. School isn’t always awful, but I took a very cynical stance on it. Maybe if you enjoy reading this I can write another about the joys of high school some time soon. But until next time, thanks.

Gay Apocalypse?

Awhile back, a friend of mine were discussing the issue of homosexuality as it relates to the Bible. He asked me my thoughts on a passage in the Gospel of Luke, specifically, Luke 17:34-35. I admitted that it was not a passage I was familiar with, at least in terms of the gay issue, and I promised I would research it and give him my thoughts. After a few weeks of study, that response is below.

I encourage you, first, to read this article. It was an article my friend sent me regarding the issue. It's interesting, to say the least. Later, in my response, there is a link to another article, one of many I found refuting the claims of the first article. Specifically, it breaks down the terms in the passage regarding the original Greek texts. I encourage you to read that article too.

Anyway, here is my response....

I didn’t want you to think that I forgot about your request that I check into the passage of Luke where you assert homosexuality is mentioned. I’ve researched it, and here’s what I’ve found. This is lengthy, but I hope you’ll take the time to read through it.

First, I wondered why I’d never heard of this passage before. I’ve read through the gospels many times, and one would think that with my study of homosexuality as it pertains to Scripture, I would surely have noticed this passage. But I hadn’t.

The reason, it turns out, is simple… I’ve never read through the Gospels using the King James Version. I’ve always used, primarily, either the NIV or the NASB versions. It is only the KJV, as translated in English, that gives the idea of homosexuality in this verse. Here are the three different versions.

KJV: 34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. 35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

NIV: 34 I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35 Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.” (Verse 36 is omitted in some versions.)

NASB: 34 I tell you, on that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other will be left. 35 There will be two women grinding at the same place; one will be taken and the other will be left. 36 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other will be left.”

As you can see, there are subtle, yet distinct differences in the versions. So to get a clearer understanding, you have to dig a little deeper. Before I get to the original greek writings, let’s look at a couple other things.

The idea of context, as noted in the link you gave me, is important, but I think you have to look at it in a broader sense (which has been one of my arguments against those who claim I just “cherry pick” the verses I want to follow.) It is not only vital to understand the context of the entire chapter or passage containing a particular verse, it is also vital to understand the entire context of the Bible as a whole.

The Bible isn’t just a book of laws, or a good book of principles to live by. It is also a comprehensive history book. The Bible is an account of God’s creation, from start to finish. It shows the history of every way he’s interacted His people since the beginning of time, and how He moved within each culture, and everything He did preparing us for the saving grace of Jesus and beyond. It’s filled with many great twists and turns over time but has a central theme throughout. When one reads the book from start to finish, and views it as a whole piece, one will begin to understand that it is not contradictory of itself. But it is also definitely true that by showing the history of mankind, we see that over time, cultures change, values change, and certain rules and regulations change. But it is important to remember that those changes always came from God and/or Jesus. The basic rules and precepts we live by were never just changed by some random guy. It was always Jesus who said something like, “I know our forefathers told you this… but now I tell you this…” Or something of that nature.

Laws enacted by various governments throughout time have changed, but the basic rules and precepts given by God usually did not.

Which is important to understand and remember when we look at things like, say, the stoning of an adulteress in Deuteronomy. That was a law that was handed down for a particular purpose, with particular reasons, for a particular culture at a particular place in time. When Jesus later pardons an adulteress centuries later, it’s not a contradictory action, but rather Jesus fulfilling centuries of prophecy that showed ancient rules and regulations were no longer needed in light of Jesus’ own saving grace. His pardon can by no means be misconstrued as an endorsement of adultery, (He didn’t all of the sudden make adultery legal, as it were) but rather shows that such drastic punishment is no longer needed as we can find forgiveness and grace and salvation in Jesus. (As an aside, it is also important to note that even as Jesus pardoned the young adulteress and shamed her accusers, He tells her to go and, “Sin no more.” — an admonition He would make of almost everyone he pardoned or healed.)

This is why the argument that claims that if I still believe homosexuality is a sin, then I must still believe that we should stone adulterers, or own slaves, or wear purple, or any other such nonsense is just that: nonsense. Those precepts were put in place for a particular time and place and purpose. Moreover, it presumes, in some way that doesn’t exist, that God or Jesus came along somewhere and somehow began condoning homosexuality, and that simple is not the case.

From start to finish, nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality condoned. NEVER is it spoken of in a good light. Not once. Not ever. Moreover, when it IS mentioned, it is almost always mentioned in the context of a myriad of other sins, among them murder and thievery. That’s an awful slippery slope when trying to justify it as something with which God is OK.

Which brings us back to the passage you sent. Contextually speaking, we must remember that the Gospels are, more or less, the same account of events as seen through the eyes of four different men. Which means that often, an event that is listed in one Gospel can also be found in another Gospel. That is true of this account.

The same conversation is mentioned in Matthew 24:40-42. For our purposes, I’ll just list the NIV version:

40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left. 42 "Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come.

Again, here, the subtle, yet distinct differences. To read this, no one can see any hint of homosexuality. The “context” here, as it were, as well as in the Luke passage is not one of homosexuality, but rather the idea of the suddenness of Jesus’ return at the rapture. Moreover, the idea that none of us will know the actual time and date of His return.

Both passages mention the story of Noah, and the sudden destruction of the flood, and the idea that most people were totally unprepared for it. Only Luke mentions the destruction of Sodom, but the context, again, is not homosexuality, rather the suddenness of the destruction of the city. One can even picture the imagery of Lot’s wife being instantly turned into a pillar of salt for her disobedience.

So we’re left to look at things logically. What makes more sense? That Luke is relating a passage about homosexuality that is totally and 100% contradictory to every other passage about homosexuality in the Bible, a book that nowhere else contradicts itself? Or rather, that Luke and Matthew are both relating a story about the impending suddenness of Jesus’ return, a concept that is in no way contradictory to solid Biblical doctrine? You’re a logical man: Which is easier to believe?

Finally, to break down the actual Greek translation of the Luke passage, I’ll in turn give you a link to an article (one of many, I might add) I found that totally refutes the assertions made in the article you gave me. I’ll let you read it yourself. There’s no need for me to try to rehash it when this article breaks it down pretty well.

In the end, it’s important to remember that lots of good people aren’t going to Heaven. That’s not my judgment, that’s simple, Biblical fact. The story of the Sheep and the Goats in the Bible (Matthew 25:31-46) is proof of that. I know you know a lot of good gay people. I do to. But the truth is that I know tons of “good people,” gay AND straight, who are not Biblical believers. In my interpretation of the Bible, there is ONE way to Heaven, and that’s through Jesus. And if we are followers of Jesus, I believe we have to follow the Bible, and all it contains.

I’m not perfect, and I’m a sinner. But I have saving grace through Jesus. I ask forgiveness, and I repent of my sin, and it is that repentance that is distinctive. To say I’m a sinner just the same as any homosexual is true. But because of my repentance, and my desire to TURN AWAY from those sins the best I can, and try to “sin no more,” and that it is in my heart to live right and not continue in sin is what separates me from someone who is not willing to turn away from their sin.

I know this can lead to a whole other discussion about homosexuality as a choice, or it’s biological origins, or whether a gay man can be “delivered” or “cured,” etc. But we’ll leave that to another day.