This is this weB log’s first leap day. In case you missed it it is not a common year, this is a leap year. I will assume that everyone knows that about every four years we need to add an extra day into the year to keep our calendar in sync with the astronomical alignment that defines a year. This is all based upon keeping the vernal equinox close to March 21st.

Did you notice that I said about every four years? That choice of words was intentional and the topic of this post.

In the Gregorian calendar (our calendar system), most years that are divisible by 4 are leap years. In a leap year, the month of February has 29 days instead of 28. Adding an extra day to the calendar every four years compensates for the fact that a solar year is almost 6 hours longer than 365 days (almost ¼ day longer). However, some exceptions to this rule are required since the duration of a solar year is slightly less than 365¼ days, which means that adding a full day every four years pushes our calendar ahead of the actual day - ever so slightly every leap year.

Here’s the little known addendum to the rule: Years which are divisible by 100 are not leap years, unless they are also divisible by 400, in which case they are leap years. For example, 1600 and 2000 were leap years, but 1700, 1800 and 1900 were not. Going forward, 2100, 2200, 2300, 2500, 2600, 2700, 2900, and 3000 will not be leap years, but 2400 and 2800 will be. By this rule, the average number of days per year will be 365 + 1/4 - 1/100 + 1/400 = 365.2425, which is 365 days, 5 hours, 49 minutes, and 12 seconds.

However, even this fine tuning introduces an error of about .000125 days per year. Therefore that means that in 8,000 years the calendar will be behind by a day. To top it all off, the exact position of the earth in 8,000 years can’t be predicted to that that kind of accuracy (the Earth is slowing so the day is becoming ever so slightly longer), therefore at some unknown date in the future we’ll have to add an extra day to keep it all in sync.

Way too technical? How about this, what is a person born on a leap day called? A leapling, of course.

Here I am again posting about being heard. The topic makes me wonder how many people think the same of me - that I do not hear them.

In the last few years I have tried to work more on active listening skills - but find myself constantly falling into old habits. It’s not that someone else isn’t important enough for me to listen to, there’s just something in me that says “hey, I know something about that, here’s my two cents.” When I have those moments it’s all too quickly I find that I have taken over the conversation. Yucch, I hate that. Here I am really wanting to listen and then I find that I have taken the conversation. Why do I do that?

Active Listening = listening to find the meaning in what is being said.

Active listening involves watching body language, hearing what is being said not with just the words and mannerisms, but also “hearing” what the emotions are saying. Is the person speaking out of fearfulness, anger, sadness or hurt? The emotions can tell us more than the words are able to express. I know for me that is so often true.

Its goal is to improve mutual understanding. A side effect is that you and I feel heard - it makes us feel important, worthy, valuable.

My challenge is to be that active listener.

Lately I have been struggling to discern the difference between needs and wants. So many wants can look and feel like needs. Now complicate that issue by looking toward another person to meet or fill that need or want. In my thinking needs are reasonable requests that you would reasonably expect to be met by someone close to you. Wants can also be quite reasonable but they seem to have an “optional” quality about them.

What’s reasonable? For that matter is it even reasonable to expect anything from another fallible human being?

In order to understand what another person is saying, you must assume that it is true, and try to imagine what it could be true of.
George A. Miller, Ph.D.

This is a fascinating quote indeed. I stumbled upon this when researching George A. Miller for his work on short term memory.

Basically he says that if I tell you I am a styrofoam airplane your response would be something to the effect of, “Is it advantageous to be lightweight when you fly?” You would then exercise your attentive listening skills and ask appropriate questions as the interchange continued.

The theory is that it would reduce a great amount of wasted time over your arguing with me and prevent you from leaping to conclusions.

Instead of trying to get our message across we should stop and listen to the significance of what others are saying.

Good question and a tough one. We applaud intervention. We want to help others - for their own good and oft times ours as well. At the same time nagging is rejected as an unacceptable behavior.

Let’s take something clearcut, like alcohol. A drink or two daily - problem or not? If there is no negative consequences to the drinking should intervention take place? What if the person NEEDS to drink everyday? There are so many “drugs of choice” that we all use to numb the pain. When is it appropriate to point out, and how often? At what point do you take more serious action?

Is nagging something in which the eventual outcome judges the behavior?

rash –adjective
1. acting or tending to act too hastily or without due consideration.
2. characterized by or showing too great haste or lack of consideration: rash promises.
dictionary.com

I have acted rashly. In relationships this can be very detrimental if the breech is not addressed and restoration of relationship made.

Thank goodness for SMS (Short Message Service) aka ‘texting’.

Careful words make for a careful life; careless talk may ruin everything.
Proverbs 13:3 - The Message (MSG)

Never doubt in the dark what God told you in the light.
- V. Raymond Edman

I’m not there, but there have been times where this quote would have gone a long way.

When you feel God has Disappeared

When Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States, took over the office from John Adams, the transfer of power occurred in an orderly manner which was an extremely rare event especially in light of the vastly different political views.

During the presidencies of George Washington and John Adams the was no political party system in America. Both Washington and Adams were strong believers on a strong central government and Jefferson felt equally passionate about a significantly weaker central government in favor of strong states rights. There was no small chasm between the viewpoint of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Sharp barbs were exchanged between the two during the election of 1800.

The exchange of power was a test of an infant nations ability to prove that power could be handed over without a coup. A rare event indeed, in the history the world.

Test passed on March 4th, 1801

-to unwind

verb (used with object)
1. to undo or loosen from or as if from a coiled condition: to unwind a rolled bandage; to unwind a coiled rope.
2. to reduce the tension of; relax: to unwind a person with a drink.
3. to disentangle or disengage; untwist: to unwind one’s legs from around the stool.

verb (used without object)
4. to become unwound.
5. to become relieved of tension; relax: After work we can have a drink and unwind.

Why is it when we carry a lot of stress we can’t just “get over it” when the stressors are removed? You blow a balloon up and stretch it until it’s ready to pop, as soon as you let it go it quickly returns to its resting state. You compress a spring and when the pressure is released the spring returns to its resting place. So why is it that when we people carry a large burden for a long time that we don’t immediately return to our “resting” state once the burden is removed?

I find that the amount of time I am under a large stress seems to be indicative of how long it will take me to “unwind.” It’s not a one to one correlation but there is definitely a correlation.

Why is that? Why doesn’t my body return to its resting place with relative ease?

I am currently studying the American Revolution in my history class and ran across some interesting facts with fascinating parallels.

The British military of the eighteenth century was mightier than all other European or colonial forces. The continental (colonial) military was composed of undertrained, under armed militiamen from each of the 13 colonies. Discipline was lacking, enlistments were typically 1 year and men walked away when their enlistment was over.

An analysis of the military campaigns waged by the British were amazingly restrained. In general the British expected to be supplied from ships traveling 3,000 miles across an ocean. They did not want to pillage the land and resources. They did not advance when they had the obvious advantage. Why?

The British did not intend to conquer the colonies and establish rule. Their intention was to reestablish allegiance and restore preexisting relationships.

Fast forward twenty-three decades and change the roles. Now America has the mightiest military. America invades a small country which has no chance of standing against the might of its military. Yet, rebels and insurgents stall progress and prolong the war. How can this happen?

Maybe, just possibly, the U.S. has no intention of conquering this country. Maybe the goal is to establish an ally in a troubled area.

Will history repeat itself with the big, mighty country finally admitting defeat? Or will its goal succeed?