Job Search

Recently I was seduced to the dark side of the internet. I embraced my destiny as a total loss and joined Facebook. And a little while ago, I posted a status update:

"Don Gwinn is looking for a new job."

That brought some concerned phone calls and some guessing, and in retrospect, I suppose if your mother-in-law is a Facebook friend, you should probably call her before you post such an announcement. Many of my friends have asked whether I was laid off, a natural thought in today's economy.

I'm not going to say a lot about the details on the internet, but I'll say this: I resigned from my position, but I'm not necessarily leaving teaching. I'm going to put in at some other places and see what happens. I'd like to stay in special education, but if there's someone in the area who would like to have a regular-education elementary or middle-school teacher who's "Highly Qualified" in math, science, social studies and language arts, AND has an intimate firsthand knowledge of special-education mandates, AND knows how an IEP is intended to work inside and out, AND has years of experience as a classroom teacher, a direct-instruction special-education teacher, and as a co-teacher in an inclusion classroom including kids with and without IEP's . . . . well, I'm available. I'm also experienced in the assessment/records required by the new coming Response To Intervention (RTI) standards, especially in reading fluency and reading comprehension.

Because of the way I have my pay schedule structured, my pay from my current employer won't change until the end of the coming summer, so I have some time to find something else. I'm going to be applying at a lot of places in the next month to try to beat their early hiring deadlines, but it wouldn't be surprising if it took a lot longer at some places, since there's always a lot of last-minute hiring over the summer.

So, among my assets, I have an early start, a lot of varied experience, and the experience I gained from working for a district that was getting a real jump on the new legal mandates that haven't taken effect yet.

Among my liabilities? Well, I have a wheelbarrow, but there's not a holocaust cloak to be found in this country. Also, rumor has it that a relatively large number of other special-ed personnel were or soon will be released from the same district--which means a lot of competition for those special-ed openings. Still, I'm more flexible than a lot of other people out there, and that's an advantage.

What I should do is write the great American novel and put all this sordid working-class nonsense behind me. I have this great idea for a story about a colorful band of guns-for-hire who hunt mythical monsters for a living . . . . . oh, right.

"Abnormal Behavior," Huh? Scary!

The ironically-named "Freedom States Alliance" is trying a new tack--now they're accusing "the gun lobby" (that's you and me, folks, in case it wasn't clear) of working to "normalize abnormal behavior." They've got a handy quiz you can take to tell whether you're properly scandalized, appropriately frightened, or, presumably, another one of those abnormal weirdos.

Would you be willing to:

• Sip hot chocolate with your toddler at Starbucks while a fellow patron openly displays a gun at the table next to you?
• Attend a church service with your entire family knowing that the fellow parishioner sitting next to you has a handgun tucked in his belt?
• Stand in line at a bank to make a deposit as two men enter with baseball hats on and what appear to be guns in their pockets?
• Board a crowded bus with your newborn child with upwards of 5 other passengers carrying concealed weapons?

Well, let's think about that, shall we?

"Sip hot chocolate with your toddler at Starbucks while a fellow patron openly displays a gun at the table next to you?"

Absolutely not! I don't pay Starbucks prices.

"Attend a church service with your entire family knowing that the fellow parishioner sitting next to you has a handgun tucked in his belt?"

Heck no! I don't go to church, either. (No disrespect to my Christian friends, but you don't go to your local mosque for the same reason I don't go to church.) I think I'm doing pretty well on this quiz.

"Stand in line at a bank to make a deposit as two men enter with baseball hats on and what appear to be guns in their pockets?"

Aha! A place I go. Let's see, I'm at the bank, and two guys have what appear to be guns in their pockets . . . how am I figuring that? Are their pockets bulging in the shape of guns?

"Board a crowded bus with your newborn child with upwards of 5 other passengers carrying concealed weapons?"

OK, I admit it, I don't want to ride a crowded bus with a newborn. I get what they're after, here, of course. I'm supposed to be horrified at these scenarios, right? But there's something they left out: nobody is doing anything threatening or scary with these guns. There's no threat. I'm not frightened of some guy peacefully sipping his coffee, nor do I particularly care whether a couple of guys want to walk into a bank. I don't mind if five guys want to sit on a bus, either, and since the scenario doesn't say they're doing anything wrong . . . . or even giving an indication that they might do something wrong later . . . . I guess I'm missing the part where I decided that they're a threat. Actually, the one on the bus is particularly puzzling, since it specifies that their weapons are concealed. I'm supposed to be frightened of their guns without even knowing they're there? That's asking rather a lot.

Of course, that's not the question I'm supposed to be asking. What they're really hoping for here is the kind of reader who will pick up on their implied fear and adopt it as his own. They'd like the reader to realize, on some level, that the people in their examples are to be feared and hated because they possess those guns--the reader should make the logical leap that a person behaving normally with a weapon in his possession is no longer acting normally. You really have to wonder how they would feel about eating lunch at McDonald's next to a police officer with a Glock on his hip.

Unbeknownst to most Americans, these scenarios are already perfectly legal in many parts of the United States and are occurring with more frequency and bravado. Next time you take your child on an outing with you, think about how many people within earshot may be carrying a gun as you wait in line at the aquarium, sit in a theater watching a movie, or shop at the local grocery store.

Yes, think about. And while you're at it, check yourself for gunshot wounds. Then listen carefully for the screams of the wounded and dying. Look around and see if you can spot the bullet holes in the aquarium and the theater.
No? None of those things are happening around you? But if the guns cause violence, and you're in a room with people with guns, then clearly there must gun violence going on . . . . unless someone is lying to you.

Civil Immunity for Self-Defense in Illinois--How Did I Miss This?

At the ISRA annual meetings in Springfield this weekend, FST_Kent of IllinoisCarry.com (actually Kent Peacock of Firearm Safety Training) gave a presentation on the use of force and self-defense. A lot of it was review for IllinoisCarry members (which shouldn't be surprising, since the guy posts here) but was clearly new to some members of the standing-room-only audience. He mentioned one thing in particular that caught me completely by surprise. The subject had turned to "Castle Doctrine" laws; many in attendance felt that Illinois should immediately enact one. Kent was explaining that Illinois has no duty to retreat in our statutes, and therefore no need to pass a "Castle Doctrine" law to repeal the duty to retreat, when the subject of civil liability was raised. A member of the audience asked Kent about the well-known old chestnut most serious gunnies have heard before: "If you have to pull the trigger in self-defense, expect it to cost you a minimum of $10,000--and that's only if you do everything right."

This is where Kent surprised us. He agreed that the old saying is still a good guideline, but then he mentioned that Illinois actually has more protection against the biggest financial danger than most states. It's a given in most states that if you're involved in a self-defense shooting, there are two legal hurdles: first, you may be charged criminally. Then, even if you are not charged or are acquitted of criminal charges, you'll probably face a civil action from your attacker or their estate. Conventional wisdom says that this is the bigger danger for most, because the standard of proof is lower, and the judgment is likely to be enough to ruin most people permanently.

But in Illinois, Kent continued, the 93rd General Assembly passed a statute (it was SB 2386 when it was a bill) amending the "Self-Defense: Exoneration" section of the criminal code to say that no civil liability can arise from an act of self-defense as defined in the statute. In other words, if you're not liable criminally by reason of self-defense, you are not liable civilly by reason of self-defense. This is a HUGE difference from most states:

CRIMINAL OFFENSES(720 ILCS 5/) Criminal Code of 1961..


(720 ILCS 5/Art. 7 heading)
ARTICLE 7. JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE; EXONERATION

(720 ILCS 5/7‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑1)
Sec. 7‑1. Use of force in defense of person.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.
( In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7‑4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93‑832, eff. 7‑28‑04.)

(720 ILCS 5/7‑2) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑2)
Sec. 7‑2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent,

riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or
(2) He reasonably believes that such force is

necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.
( In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7‑4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93‑832, eff. 7‑28‑04.)

(720 ILCS 5/7‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑3)
Sec. 7‑3. Use of force in defense of other property.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
( In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7‑4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93‑832, eff. 7‑28‑04.)

I don't know how many other states have a provision like this, but I was flabbergasted to find that Illinois offers this protection. Several firearm and personal protection instructors were in the audience, too, and we all agreed that this was something completely new to us--but it's been the law of the land for over four years.* As far as I'm concerned, that one piece of Kent's presentation was worth making time to get to the annual meetings if the rest had been a waste. Now I'd really like to keep looking into this and see how it actually works. Who decides, for instance, whether your conduct qualifies under the statute if you don't get charged? If you were charged and acquitted, I think it would be pretty clear that you'd met the standard for self-defense. If you were charged and the charges later dropped, I can see how that would be at least an "affirmative defense"--if your attacker brought suit, you could show the judge that your charges were dismissed and they might rule your way. But if you weren't charged at all, would that be treated as proof that your conduct qualified as self-defense? The way the statute is worded, it sounds like they can't even bring a civil action, but if that were the case, there'd be no party with the power to decide that issue.


*"Us" is used here to mean "the instructors and I." It doesn't mean I'm claiming to be an instructor; I'm not one.

ISRA Convention In Springfield

I'm not liveblogging, so I have to be quick while my pants are in the dryer before I run out the door (if I time this right, I'll have the pants on before I get outside.)

• I got a chance to meet up with several of the crew from IllinoisCarry.com last night. That was a good time!
• I'm really looking forward to the legislation seminar today. We all agreed last night that we've never seen the kind of neutral, if not positive coverage of CCW in the press that this year has brought. The Sheriff's Association endorsement of the idea has been a big boost. I'm not predicting that it's going to pass this year--yet--but we're going to have a fight about it. I'm a lot more comfortable predicting that there will at least be a floor vote on at least one good CCW bill this year, which means a lot of fence sitters will have to go on record.
• In addition to the ISRA convention, I'll also be at the New Berlin gun show just outside Springfield today, working at the Sangamon County Grassroots table. Stop by and say hi.
• I met more than one person last night who was clearly drunk on celebrity. One lady was leaning in very close and regaling me with stories. It was almost embarassing. . . . of course, the celebrity they were so excited about was Richard Simmons. Say what you want about the man, but he was apparently singing into cell phones for people in an elevator in Springfield, Illinois. You think Obama did anything like that for people when he was in the same hotel the week before? Well, OK, maybe that's for the best, but still, Richard Simmons.
  

An Epic Tale of Two Brothers--The Chicago Way

John Kass has a new column up. It's an epic tale, a drama of family love, loyalty, and devotion. I call it The Brothers Boyle.

You see, the Boyle brothers are good old boys from Chicago. They're good boys, loyal boys, but sometimes they get a little high-spirited. "Quarters" (over there on the left) likes to take other peoples' money; he's most famous for stealing millions of dollars in quarters from Chicago's infamous toll road system (Official motto: "Abandon hope and speedometers, all ye who hazard this path of the damned.") But he got out after that one, so he's not in prison for it anymore. He's in prison for a totally unrelated matter; he took a LOT of bribes in the Hired Truck program in Chicago. That would be the Hired Truck Scandal that did not result in an impeachment because it happened under Daley instead of Blagojevich. You might be adding all this up and wondering how Quarters could have been in a position to demand bribes after he was convicted and served time for stealing public funds; on the other hand, you might be familiar enough with Chicago or New York or New Orleans to realize that The Chicago Way does not allow for silly grudges when a good ol' boy who has always been good at getting out the vote gets himself into trouble with a spot of high-spirited hijinks like embezzling a few million. Quarters served his time, he kept his mouth shut, and clearly he deserved to be taken care of. It's regrettable that he got caught again, but whaddya gonna do, right?

The real tragedy of The Quarters Saga is the effect it had on Quarters' devoted brother, "Matches" Boyle, a Chicago firefighter. If "Matches" seems like an odd nickname for a Lieutenant in a major metropolitan fire department, it could be because Matches like starting fires at least as much as he liked to put them out. Now that the rest of his story can be told, however, it turns out that among the many ways that this cold, hard world drove poor Matches to commit multiple acts of arson, the cruelest was this: people in the media kept talking about his brother, Quarters, as if the man was some sort of news story just because he kept committing felonies and then getting plum city jobs. It's enough to make you wonder how any of us manages to get through the day without torching few buildings, isn't it?

Now, in one way, Matches' story has a happy ending. There were those who thought that he'd have to serve a lot of time for committing arson while collecting a paycheck as a firefighter, especially since a few people seem to be holding a real grudge about that elementary school he tried to burn down. But he's apparently out of prison already after serving less than two years. Unfortunately, his battle is not over. Even though the man had a good reason (well, a lot of good reasons) for what he did, and even though the real culprit that really caused those fires (society) never spent a day in prison, there are apparently still people out there holding a grudge. These small-minded, negative people are going so far as to demand that Matches be denied his pension as a Chicago firefighter. It's a measly 50k or so per year, apparently, but it appears that they've found some tiny little lawyer's loophole that says that if you have to leave the force because you're convicted of committing felonies . . . . on city time . . . . in your capacity as a firefighter . . . they can keep your pension!

Sometimes there's no justice in this world, but I'm not too worried about it. I bet there's somebody in Chicago who can find a city job for Matches if it comes to that.

Eek!

Some college kid found a round-"a" as in ONE round--of .45 acp in a washing machine. After a moment's break to soil himself and have a good cry, he apparently called the campus police, who shrieked like girls for the real police, who brought in "bomb-sniffing dogs" to search out any additional rounds of ammunition, or the .45-caliber assault weapons that fire them.

I'm guessing it took a long time to get the dogs in; you'd have to find one that wasn't trained to find pot, or you'd be in that dorm for days.

"45-caliber bullets are used in assault weapons such as handguns,"

Seriously? Shut up, sissy.

WGN Chicago Reports Pro-CCW Poll Results

How odd . . . WGN in Chicago put a poll on CCW in Illinois on their website.

Well, OK, that's not odd.

The poll ran for about a day (actually, it's still running, apparently until midnight central time) and, last time I checked, was running 77% "yes" on CCW and 23% "no."

You're right, that's not odd either . . . but I'm getting to it.

The odd part is that WGN news reported these results on the 9:00 news broadcast. They didn't even attach a sarcastic editorial about how dumb their viewers are. The words "cowboy," "swagger," "tragedy," "hidden guns" and "blood in the streets" were conspicuous by their absence. I have to admit, I'm not sure what to make of this. Earlier in the same broadcast, they discussed the CCW bills in the legislature and mentioned the Sheriffs' Association's resolution in favor. Illinois is beginning to have a different feel politically on this issue, even if all the other issues are depressingly consistent.

Overheard in a Kitchen

"I can't believe the comics page today. Even Family Circus was funny. I mean, I didn't laugh out loud or anything, but I wasn't angry at myself for reading it. See?"

"HA! That's pretty good."

"The thing is, I'm compelled to read the whole thing. It's like I'm punishing myself; I hate me, so now I'm going to read Mary Worth. And you'd better stay on my good side, or I'll read it to you."

(Brandishing rolling pin)
"I DO NOT NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS!"

"That was awesome."

"Did I make blog today?"

"Yes. Yes, you did."

Just Some Blogger Calling for Illinois Concealed Carry . . . .

. . . . except that this blogger is an opinion columnist for the Chicago Tribune. Steve Chapman has never exactly been hostile to gun owners, but this is still a step forward.

Illinois should allow concealed handguns

If you're in a minority of 48 to 2 on an issue, you may be seeing truths that other people miss. Or you may be refusing to admit reality. In the case of Illinois' refusal to allow citizens to get permits to carry concealed handguns, it's the latter. It's the only state but Wisconsin that doesn't allow it. But there is a glimmer of hope of change: The Illinois Sheriffs' Association has endorsed a law to afford Illinoisans this type of protection.

Do I need to say "RTWT"? OK, then, go read the whole thing.

IL Sheriffs Association Resolution in Favor of CCW

Just for the record, and so I can find it when I want it:

Illinois Sheriffs’ Association
RESOLUTION 2009-1

Whereas, the Illinois Sheriffs’ Association is a statewide organization representing the one hundred and two Sheriffs of Illinois who are constitutional officers who have sworn to uphold the constitution of the United States and the State of Illinois; and

Whereas, the Illinois Sheriffs’ Association conducted a survey of Sheriffs across Illinois; and,

Whereas, ninety percent (90%) of those responding support concealed carry in Illinois if adequate training and safeguards are included; and,

Whereas, the Illinois Sheriffs’ Association Legislative Committee met on November 19, 2008, and appointed a special committee consisting of Sheriffs from all geographic areas of the state and that committee has met and discussed the specific recommendations for the procedures in obtaining a concealed carry permit; and;

Whereas, the committee has formulated their recommendations to the Executive Board of the Illinois Sheriffs’ Association and the Executive Board has recommended that this resolution be presented to the full body at our General Session on Tuesday, February 3, 2009, at the Winter Training Conference in Moline, Illinois; and,

Whereas, the general provisions of a conceal carry act in Illinois should include the following:

1. Permits should be issued by a state agency to insure consistency in evaluation and screening.
2. Individuals who receive a concealed carry permit should receive adequate training including basic knowledge of firearms, the proper handling of a firearm, live fire exercises for range qualification, instruction and testing on use of force as a citizen including the liability of that use.
3. Applications should be processed by the Sheriff’s office including the ability of the Sheriff to articulate specified reasons why the permit should be denied and those objections should be considered by the state before issuing a permit.
4. For the purpose of officer safety, a concealed carry permit should be an identifiable code, background or other means to show that an individual has been issued a permit to carry a concealed firearm on the person’s driver’s license, FOID card and state identification.

Therefore, be it resolved, this 3rd day of February, 2009, that the Illinois Sheriffs’ Association, by a majority of those voting, support the right of law abiding citizens to possess and carry a concealed firearm for the purpose of protecting their life and families; and be it further resolved that a suitable copy of this resolution be delivered to the General Assembly of the State of Illinois.

Freakin' sweet. And yes, I know some of their conditions above look onerous to some of us, but hey, folks, we're already negotiating for the "right" to purchase a license in order to exercise a Constitutional right. This is still major progress in Illinois.

We're The Only Ones Pleasantly Surprising You Enough

Police in Illinois take a lot of flak.

They're stuck enforcing the law in a place where a lot of the laws stink on ice. And a significant number of them work in the Chicago metro area, a place even worse than Illinois when it comes to stupid laws. All this is true . . . . but:

The Illinois Sheriffs' Association has come out in favor of concealed carry in Illinois.

Why? Well, there could be a few reasons. Here are a few I think are most likely:

• 48 other states have some form of legal concealed carry. Some of them have a form that's practically indistinguishable from our "no way, no how" system, but most are shall-issue, including most of our neighbors. Of Illinois' neighboring states, Iowa is may-issue, Wisconsin is as weird as us, and Missouri, Kentucky and Indiana are all shall-issue states. It's working for them. It would work for us.
• Sheriffs, unlike Chiefs of police, have to stand for election. That means they have to think about what the voters want.
• Sheriffs, unlike Chiefs of police, do not have to get appointed to their positions by Mayors. That means they don't have to suck up to weasels.
• Sheriffs, unlike Chiefs of Police, are not represented in Illinois by an organization bought and paid for by the Joyce Foundation. I'm just sayin', is all.
• Last and most, the Sheriffs Association has been talking to some very forward-thinking Illinois gun-rights lobbyists from the ISRA and IllinoisCarry. I'm not going to name names here because I'd probably leave someone out, but these people are pulling the freight for gun owners in Illinois.
  

Good Boy!

Goooood groundhog . . . . hat tip to Ambiguous Ambiguae, who titled his email "Marmots Good Judges of Character."

Indeed. In other news, no one in central Illinois needs a rodent to figure out that winter's not over at the beginning of February.

Super Sunday

_____I heard there was a football game today, but as I understand it, the Bears weren't playing in it. I fail to see the appeal, frankly. I went ice fishing with my dad and my sons instead. Today was what I call "Ice Fishing Spring Training." It happens at the end of a cold snap; there's good, thick ice, but the temperature has risen and it's a pleasant day out there. It was supposed to get up to 40-some degrees today, and when the sun was out, I think it was warmer than that. Although I wore my insulated deep-freeze boots, a couple of good warm shirts and a warm hat, I didn't need my coat or gloves until the sun went behind the clouds. I think I might actually have picked up a very slight sunburn on my neck. That's a strange feeling when you're standing on ice; I haven't been ice fishing in years, but I recall it as a hobby involving insulated overalls, thick gloves, and grim determination.
_____It was a good thing dad was there, too. If he hadn't been, I probably would have gone home without doing any fishing, because the top of the ice showed long cracks and there was a distinct "pop" when I stepped onto the pond. That's . . . . not a good sound, but it turned out to be nothing. It seems the snow on top of the ice had been melting down the day before, then refrozen during the night, and was now melting again. So what we were walking on was actually a sandwich of frozen layers. The top was the crust of refrozen snow, maybe half an inch to an inch thick. Below that was 2-3 inches of slushy, grainy frozen stuff about halfway between ice and snow. None of that would have held me for a moment! But below those layers was a solid crust of ice almost 8 inches thick. It was perfectly safe and solid footing as long as we stayed away from brush sticking up through the ice. Dad went as far as to stop and drill a hole to check the ice, which convinced me . . . but not Donovan, who remained convinced for some time that we were about to go through the ice at any moment. For my part, if dad says it's safe, that's good enough for me. The man is an ice expert.
_____We were fishing a huge pond surrounded by wooden hills, a place owned by a distant relative out west of town. Things started out slowly, but soon we were pulling fish out of the dark, watery holes every few minutes. Kane loves ice fishing, and he's good at it, which makes sense; he struggles with casting, but on the ice, there's no casting to be done. He has a hard time seeing his line or a bobber out on the water, but on the ice, he can just lower his baited jig straight down over a brushpile or a small rock reef and wait for the bite. Donovan had a much harder time; he was just not setting the hook, and he was soon convinced that he had never caught a fish and never would. The poor kid was just looking for an excuse to be depressed. Dad came to the rescue again in the end, just as he often does; he hooked a bluegill and handed the pole to Donovan to reel him in. This he did without a smile or any indication that he was happy to be doing it, but he did it, so when I next found myself with a small bass on my hook, I called Donovan over and let him reel mine in, too. We did this a few times, and it was almost as if Donovan had only needed the practice. Maybe that was it, after all--maybe he just needed to get used to the feel of a live fish on the line. Whatever the reason, he perked up, started setting the hook with more authority, and began to catch fish. By the time we were ready to leave, he had a respectable pile of bluegill and crappie at his feet and a smile on his face.
_____By about 3:00 we were ready to go. We were nearly out of hot chocolate, the sun had gone back into hiding, the temperature was dropping, and we intended to follow Rule 6: Always get off the pond early enough to clean and fry the fish for dinner! This we did with alacrity and aplomb, and a fine dinner was had by all.