As the Supreme Court hands down its decision on capital punishment, saying that it is unconstitutional for any state to execute someone for a crime committed while under the age of eighteen, most news outlets are missing the larger issue. Forget the particulars of this decision and the moral debates it will certainly spawn. It's how they came to this ruling that is far more frightening and consequential.

When looking at the word "unconstitutional," most of us would interpret it to mean that the Constitution forbids something. In this case, that is far from the definition being applied. Capital punishment is an issue decided by each state, nineteen of which decided that some crimes committed by minors are indeed punishable by death.

Rather than letting the citizens of those states make their own decisions, the Supreme Court decided by a 5-4 margin that we were out of line with the rest of the world in allowing this. That's right, our nation's highest judicial body sought guidance from other countries -- countries where we have given money, time, and blood to defend the oppressed from their own governments -- over the judgement of our own people. States are (at least for now) considered within the bounds of the Constitution when making certain decisions on the age someone may begin voting, driving, working, and drinking. How is this any different?

What's truly unconstitutional is the Supreme Court limiting the ability of states to apply powers explicitly given to them by a Constitutional amendment. Not that such powers being expressed is even a requirement, but it certainly makes this ruling even more of an insult than most.

Now that I have a young daughter, I'm stuck watching a lot of channels geared towards children. In celebration of Black History Month, many of them have featured short segments on "major" figures throughout history. I put that word in quotes because I think it's a bit of an exageration.

I've seen segments on Dr. Dre, Grandmaster Theo, and a few athletes. But I've seen very little on anyone I would consider and important figure in history. These networks seem to be unaware that one of the first men to reach the North Pole was black, that the first open-heart surgeon was black, and other more notable figures than athletes and hip-hop stars.

I saw nothing of Dr. King on any of these segments. I did happen to hear a Malcolm X speech on the radio, but that was on Eminem's satellite radio station of all places.

The last time I checked, human history was comprised of more than entertainers. If there were a white history month, would Elvis be honored? For Asian history month, would there be a feature on Jackie Chan? Maybe Jennifer Lopez could cover months for both women and Latinos, since she clearly represents both of those demographics so proudly.

I'm not saying that I have any business deciding for the black community who is worthy of mention and who isn't. I just can't help but wonder who is actually making these decisions. Whoever it is, I doubt seriousy that they have any serious appreciation for history, black or otherwise.

Whether one agrees with the politics of President Bush or not, I just can't understand what people don't like about the man. Most of us found President Clinton likeable, but never in as sincere a way. He was just a fun guy that even his most loyal voters knew was largely superficial.

Just this morning, I learned that the White House cook will be leaving. When asked about a replacement, the First Lady remarked that she'd like someone who can showcase American food. She then reminded us how fond the first family is of barbecue, Tex-Mex, and anything spicy. How can anyone not love hearing that?

Recently, a few unauthorized tapes of private meetings with George W. Bush were released. When I read about this, I was nervous about what would be on them as I know how people tend to in private when the nobody is watching. Much to my amazement, W. was everything that he is in public. I'd blush to even think of someone hearing my words spoken in private, much less those of any politician.

Agree with him or not, the man is sincere, consistent, and has the courage to do what he thinks is right even during those tough times when the majority disagrees with him. That's a little thing called "character" that I thought wasn't even possible in a politician.

I've been accused many times in my life of being naive. There could be nothing further from the truth.

I often assume that people around me have good intentions, are upstanding people, and are worthy of at least basic trust. This is intentional. I simply see nothing more fair than everyone the benefit of doubt until I know differently.

I make a conscious effort to presume the best in people I meet. And then I give them the chance to prove me wrong, if they choose.

Whether one agreed with the Iraq war or not, this is an exciting opportunity for the young people in this country. For the first time that I'm aware of, we're getting the chance to watch very closely the development of a representative republic in another country.

We have a tendency to take for granted the beauty and simplicity of our own founding documents. For instance, our Constitution is only around 7,000 words, a length of which we struggle to write even simple laws today. It says so little and yet so much, both as literal contract with out government and as a symbol for our freedom from tyranny. I wonder what the Iraqis will do the same and differently.

I look forward to hearing frequently on the Iraqi progress as they write their own constitution. I hope the youth of our country shares my curiosity for the successes and mistakes that will take place. It will be especially interesting to see how a new democracy looks at our system as a guideline, getting the chance to learn what they do the same and differently and the reasons behind it.

... of Madi.

When times are rough, there isn't much that comforts me. The more my friends and family try, the more I resist. But of all things, a single question soothes me more than anything else...

What am I supposed to learn from this?

We've all found ourselves, at some point, on the short end of the IQ stick. It's a simple fact of life that no matter how intelligent one is, there will always be people both above and below.

Like everyone, I've found myself on both sides of this plenty of times. When I meet someone smarter than me, it doesn't change my behavior, with the possible exception of expecting more and better out of him or her. Not only should that be taken as a compliment, but it is one of the few useful things I took from my training to become a teacher. It's important to challenge the most intelligent among us and there is nothing unfair about it.

If you don't believe me, try talking to a child or adult who has never been challenged on anything before. All the brains in the world mean precisely nothing without the ability, nerve, and experience to face obstacles. Occasionally losing to such speed-bumps on life's windy road is an essential precursor to developing character. Find me a person who can pick him or herself up after life hands out a beating and I'll show you the kind of person I want as a friend, employee, or coworker.

Whatever way you choose to react in those situations, don't do what so many people instinctively do -- don't interpret the intelligence of someone else as a personal shot at you. They can't help it any more than you can. If they are rude and pompous, treat them just as you would any rude or pompous person. But if they are just trying to do what's right and best, don't feel obligated to bring them down.

It won't make you feel any better if you try. Or any smarter, for that matter.

Oh, and one more thing. I'll let you in on a little secret about people near that "genius" range on the IQ scale: most days, they would change it if they could. That's because most days, it brings them nothing but resentment and grief from their peers.

I'm sure we've all been through at least one time where we felt a strong connection with someone, only to get burned in the end. I'm not talking about romance, but more a kinship that you've felt with someone that was instant and seemed real.

Once things fall apart, your first instinct is to assume it was all an act. It was just you being played and manipulated. That's what you think and what others will tell you. It's easiest to explain things away like that and it hurts less if you can believe it.

But once in a while, things just aren't that simple. Though it's rare, you occasionally meet someone that you really do share something deep and meaningful with and they burn you anyway.

Sometimes you look back on those times and still miss them. For some reason, the years don't make you look at the friendship through cynical glasses as one might expect. In those rare times, you look back and realize that not only was it real, and not only did they make or at least let something bad happen to you, but they felt guilty when they did it.

And they did it anyway.

I tend to avoid writing about tragic events here. This is partly because I try to keep things positive here, but mainly because by the time I'd get around to writing something, it's already a cliche. But in this case, I have things I want to say.

Johnny Carson was always an entertainer that I could relate to. Maybe not to his beliefs or how he lived his personal life, but the way he talked to people was both comforting and familiar.

You rarely heard Carson use a big word. Though he migrated to the coast, he always had a folksy style and manner that hit home with sons of the midwest such as myself. He had a way of talking to guests that was disarmingly informal. He always seemed to have a genuine interest in those lucky enough to find themselves on his couch; whether it was authentic or not, it certainly was light-years beyond the condescending style we have all become tragically accustomed used to.

His humor always pushed the proverbial line of the given decade, but never crossed it. Even if you were offended with a bit of his innuendo, you always knew that it was the filth from your own mind that filled in the blanks.

Carson was almost a Renaissance man, at least when compared to most celebrities we see. He was interested in magic, science, the arts, philosophy, history, and true stage craft, not just rhetoric glitz and fame. Guests always got their assorted plugs in, but the topics discussed typically drifted far from the realm of self-promotion.

I'd say I'll miss Johnny Carson, except that isn't completely accurate. The truth is, we've all missed him for several years now. And yet, he's still there in so many ways. His influence is and will continue to be felt in all manner of talk and interviews for years to come.