We got new textbooks at school last year. As I began to flip through them, I noticed that they used the traditional B.C./A.D. dating convention rather than the newer B.C.E./C.E. convention that has become more popular in recent years. Personally, I don’t have a problem with using either system, but it seems that folks on both sides of the debate are somewhat more worked up over it.

In certain precincts of a world encouraged to embrace differences, Christ is out.

The terms "B.C." and "A.D." increasingly are shunned by certain scholars.

Educators and historians say schools from North America to Australia have been changing the terms "Before Christ," or B.C., to "Before Common Era," or B.C.E., and "anno Domini" (Latin for "in the year of the Lord") to "Common Era." In short, they're referred to as B.C.E. and C.E.

The life of Christ still divides the epochs, but the change has stoked the ire of Christians and religious leaders who see it as an attack on a social and political order that has been in place for centuries.

For more than a century, Hebrew lessons have used B.C.E. and C.E., with C.E. sometimes referring to Christian Era.

This raises the question: Can old and new coexist in harmony, or must one give way to the other to reflect changing times and attitudes?

Now I don’t see why both sides cannot exist in harmony. The breaking point is still the same, and that is the life of Christ. But while I am generally accepting of the B.C.E./C.E., I was initially taught it as Before Christian Era and Christian Era. In my classes, I present both dating systems, and discuss the underlying reasons for using each. I also tell my students that they ultimately have to make a choice in what system to use, and that either one is acceptable – and then proceed to use B.C. and A.D myself for the rest of the year.

Now I am particularly shocked at this criticism that shows up in the article, indicating extreme ignorance or extreme bias.

Although most calendars are based on an epoch or person, B.C. and A.D. have always presented a particular problem for historians: There is no year zero; there's a 33-year gap, reflecting the life of Christ, dividing the epochs. Critics say that's additional reason to replace the Christian-based terms.

Hold on just one moment. There is no 33-year gap between the eras. The year 1 B.C. is followed by 1 A.D., marking the traditional year of the birth of Christ (who probably was born between 7 B.C. and 4 B.C.) – there are no years floating around in limbo, falling into neither category. And the lack of a Year 0 is a rather absurd idea as well. After all, when we start counting something, we do not begin by labeling the first one as zero. No, we count them out sequentially, beginning with the number one. The arguments the article makes are just plain stupid, and I cannot imagine any serious scholar offering them.

Now there is a legitimate argument to be made against using B.C. and A.D., and that is the fact that it makes every date into a statement about a religious figure who is rejected by about 75% of the people of the world – more, if one recognizes there are a lot of folks out there who call themselves Christian who have no particular faith in Christ. I certainly understand where making a religious profession every time one uses a calendar might trouble them.

"When Jews or Muslims have to put Christ in the middle of our calendar ... that's difficult for us," said Steven M. Brown, dean of the William Davidson Graduate School of Jewish Education at the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City.

I accept that argument, which is why I’m not troubled by the usage of B.C.E. and C.E. as meaning Before Christian Era and Christian Era. It accurately acknowledges the reason for the reason for making a change in dating in the traditional Western calendar system, but avoids requiring anything that resembles a profession of faith. At the same time, it does not engage in religious cleansing, in that it acknowledges the historical centrality of Christianity in the Western world.

Not everyone agrees with me, though.

Candace de Russy, a national writer on education and Catholic issues and a trustee for the State University of New York, doesn't accept the notion of fence-straddling.

"The use of B.C.E. and C.E. is not mere verbal tweaking; rather it is integral to the leftist language police -- a concerted attack on the religious foundation of our social and political order," she said.

For centuries, B.C. and A.D. were used in public schools and universities, and in historical and most theological research. Some historians and college instructors started using the new forms as a less Christ-centric alternative.

"I think it's pretty common now," said Gary B. Nash, director of the National Center for History in the Schools. "Once you take a global approach, it makes sense not to make a dating system applicable only to a relative few."

Now I think de Russy overstates the case. The original use of the term in Hebrew schools was designed to be sensitive to both Christians and Jews, and I think that principle certainly extends beyond those two groups and into the world as a whole. But I think Nash carries the argument too far, given that the logical implication of his position is that we should develop a whole new calendar that begins with the year 1 B.W.S.S. (Because We Say So). And that ignores the fact that for some 15 centuries, dates in the West have been calculated according to the system set up by Dionysius Exiguus. It has become the de facto dating system of the world.

In the end, I find myself coming down on the same side as the Professional Association of Georgia Educators’ Tim Callahan.

"Is that some sort of the political correctness?" said Tim Callahan, of the Professional Association of Georgia Educators, an independent group with 60,000 educator members. "It sounds pretty silly to me."

The entire debate is rather silly. There are much greater issues for us to look at. In the end, any of the usages should be considered acceptable. This is a battle that does not need to be fought by either side, and from which all should disengage with an understanding that all three dating conventions will be tolerated. Anyone who cannot do that does not deserve to be taken seriously.

The liberal wing of the US Supreme Court upheld the right to keep and bear arms today, against the dissents of conservative judges who sided with the Bush administration in its attempt to restrict firearms ownership. And the entire case revolved around the question of whether or not a statute should be read literally.

In a 5-3 decision, the court ruled in favor of Gary Sherwood Small of Pennsylvania. The court reasoned that U.S. law, which prohibits felons who have been convicted in "any court" from owning guns, applies only to domestic crimes.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the majority, said interpreting the law broadly to apply to foreign convictions would be unfair to defendants because procedural protections are often less in international courts. If Congress intended foreign convictions to apply, they can rewrite the law to specifically say so, he said.

"We have no reason to believe that Congress considered the added enforcement advantages flowing from inclusion of foreign crimes, weighing them against, say, the potential unfairness of preventing those with inapt foreign convictions from possessing guns," Breyer wrote.

He was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that Congress intended for foreign convictions to apply. "Any" court literally means any court, he wrote.

"Read naturally, the word 'any' has an expansive meaning, that is, 'one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind,'" Thomas said.

He was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy.

Small had answered "no" to the felony conviction question on a federal form when he bought a handgun in 1998, a few days after he was paroled from a Japanese prison for violating weapons laws in that country.

Small was indicted in 2000 for lying on the form and for illegally owning two pistols and 335 rounds of ammunition. He later entered a conditional guilty plea pending the outcome of this case.

The Bush administration had asked the court to apply the statute to foreign convictions.

It seems somewhat ironic here that the conservative reading of the statute brought the dissenting justices into support for one more liberal gun-grabbing scheme, and that the liberals supported gun ownership. After all, these folks would usually line up the other way on Second Amendment issues. However, Thomas has the matter right in noting that the plain language of the statute does not exclude foreign convictions. Breyer’s disregard for the plain meaning of the word “any” is one more example of the tendency of liberal judges to make the law say what they want it to say, not what it actually says.

On the other hand, I would have preferred that the entire statute be tossed as a violation of the right to keep and bear arms.

I’m not an Ann Coulter fan by any stretch of the imagination, but I feel I should comment on this story. It shows the hypocrisy of liberal academics when it comes to conservative speakers.

The Rev. Dennis Dease, President of Minnesota’s University of St. Thomas, condemned a speech by author and columnist Ann Coulter given last week at his school.

The president of the University of St. Thomas on Monday condemned a speech at the Catholic school last week by conservative author Ann Coulter, saying "such hateful speech vulgarizes our culture and goes against everything the University of St. Thomas stands for."

The Rev. Dennis Dease wrote in Bulletin Today, a university newsletter, that "although her presentation may have been meant as an 'act' or a 'shtick' to entertain by provoking those who disagree, such behavior unfortunately contributes to the growing dark side of our culture -- a disrespect for persons and their sincerely held beliefs."

Now I find Coulter a bit to vituperative for my taste, but you won’t find me condemning her speech at St. Thomas. After all, I wasn’t there, and haven’t seen a transcript.

That didn’t stop Dease. You see he didn’t attend the speech either, but has merely relied on second-hand accounts of the event. It’s sort of telling when an intellectual feels he can condemn the content and tone of a speech that he didn’t attend. Doesn’t THAT go against everything the University of St. Thomas stands for? Or does Rev. Dease think that “respect for persons and their sincerely held beliefs” doesn’t include giving them a fair hearing before condemning them for expressing those sincerely held beliefs? And would Dease have made the same sort of statement against Ward Churchill?

Robert Downey, Jr. had this unusual exchange with interviewer Lorraine Kelly on the UK show This Morning.

The former Hollywood bad boy had daytime viewers choking on their cornflakes when he made the remark on ITV1 show This Morning.

Kelly, wearing an orange cardigan and black camisole which revealed a hint of cleavage, was hosting the show in place of Fern Britton.

She welcomed Downey Jr to the show by telling him: "You look fantastic, you look really well."

The 40-year-old actor replied: "Thanks. I was going to say that your t*ts look great too!"

A clearly shocked Kelly, 45, said "Thank you, that's nice," as Downey Jr added: "Particularly today."

Kelly managed to say: "Oh good, well I'm glad I made you happy."

Gazing down at her cleavage and adjusting her top, she said: "I didn't realise they were so out."

Kelly's co-host Jeremy Kyle, on his first day as temporary replacement for Phillip Schofield, stepped in to change the subject by saying: "Let's move swiftly on."

An embarrassed Kelly agreed: "I think we should."

Could you imagine such an exchange with Katie Couric?

Some stories are just too good to ignore.

PIKESVILLE, Md. (AP) - A herd of buffalo somehow got loose and wandered around an upscale neighborhood Tuesday, disrupting traffic and alarming homeowners before officers managed to corral them in a tennis court.

More than a dozen police cars and a police helicopter were used to herd the roughly 10 beasts, authorities said.

"Somehow they figured it out; I've got to give a lot of credit to the creativity of our officers," police spokesman Shawn Vinson said.

Authorities have identified the owner of the buffalo but did not release the person's name immediately.

Residents in the Baltimore suburb first reported that buffalo were meandering along the road about 7 a.m.

Police shut down several major traffic arteries, including a section of the Baltimore Beltway, while they tried to anticipate which way the buffalo would roam.

Officers eventually managed to maneuver the buffalo onto the tennis court about a mile from where they first were spotted.

No word on deer and antelope sightings.