When Satire Becomes History

In a world where civic education is increasingly marginalized and political discourse seems dominated by soundbites and social media posts, the loss of comic strips like Doonesbury represents more than just the death of a medium. It's the loss of a particular form of civic engagement, one that combined entertainment with education, irreverence with insight, and daily habit with long-term perspective.

"Good news, kiddies! Time for another exclusive WBBY 'Watergate Profile!' Today's obituary—John Mitchell! John Mitchell, the former U.S. Attorney General, has in recent weeks been repeatedly linked with both the Watergate caper and its cover-up. It would be a disservice to Mr. Mitchell and his character to prejudge the man, but everything known to date could lead one to conclude he's guilty! That's guilty! Guilty, guilty, guilty!!"

— Mark Slackmeyer, Doonesbury, May 29, 1973

---

One year ago today, our democracy faced its most serious test since the Civil War. As I watched the events of January 6, 2021 unfold—the breach of the Capitol, the Confederate flag carried through the halls of Congress, the threats against elected officials—I found myself thinking about a comic strip from nearly fifty years earlier, and how it first taught me that paying attention to politics isn't optional for citizens in a democracy.

I discovered Doonesbury the way most teenagers discover the things that shape them: accidentally, and at exactly the right moment.

It was fall of my junior year of high school, and I was taking an American Foreign Policy class—one of those electives that seemed sophisticated and important, the kind that made you feel like you were finally learning about the "real world." Our teacher, Dr. Alan Sheffer, was the sort of educator who believed current events should be current, not relegated to dusty textbooks. He'd bring in newspaper clippings, magazine articles, and political cartoons to supplement our discussions about détente, the Cold War, and America's role in the world. He taught us via simulation and was the first adult I knew who played board wargames.

One day, I read a comic strip I'd never seen before. Four panels of a character named Mark Slackmeyer doing a radio show, gleefully declaring former Attorney General John Mitchell "guilty, guilty, guilty" of Watergate crimes. It was dated May 29, 1973—I was old enough to remember Watergate and Nixon's resignation—but Dr. Sheffer relayed how this single strip had caused such controversy that more than a dozen newspapers, including The Washington Post and The Boston Globe, refused to run it, concerned that such a statement of Mitchell's guilt would compromise their journalistic integrity even on the funny pages.

That strip was my introduction to Doonesbury, and through it, to the radical idea that comic strips could be more than just entertainment—they could be journalism, commentary, and history all wrapped up in four panels. More importantly, they could teach civic responsibility through irreverence, showing me that democracy works best when citizens think critically about power, hold leaders accountable, and aren't afraid to call out wrongdoing—even when it's uncomfortable.

I was hooked.

The Daily Ritual

Throughout the rest of high school and into college, I developed what became a lifelong habit: checking the comics section first. Not just Doonesbury, but a carefully curated selection that formed my daily media diet alongside the news and sports pages. Peanuts for its philosophical depth disguised as childhood simplicity. Calvin and Hobbes for its perfect marriage of intellectual curiosity and pure imagination. Bloom County for its satirical edge and cultural commentary. Shoe, that wonderfully cynical bird-filled newsroom satire that felt like a master class in both journalism and gallows humor. And later on post college early-career, Dilbert for its dead-on corporate satire (this was the early 1990s, when Scott Adams was still just a brilliant observer of office life rather than... well, whatever he has become).

Each strip served a different function in what I now realize was my civic education. Peanuts taught me about resilience and the quiet dignity of persistent failure—essential qualities for any democratic citizen. Calvin and Hobbes showed me how imagination could transform the mundane into the magical, but also modeled the importance of questioning authority and thinking independently. But Doonesbury did something unique: it made current events feel immediate and urgent, and taught me that citizenship requires paying attention, especially when the news makes us uncomfortable.

As cartoonist Garry Trudeau noted, because electronic media bring the harshest realities into every home, there was no need to avoid a satirical, humorous approach to these same topics in the comics. What he created was something unprecedented: a comic strip that refused to stay safely in the realm of make-believe, one that engaged directly with the messy realities of politics, war, and social change.

Learning History Through Satire

In college, I began reading Doonesbury differently. What had started as entertainment became a form of historical education. I'd haunt the campus bookstore, drawn to the collected Doonesbury volumes like "The Doonesbury Chronicles" and "Dare to Be Great, Ms. Caucus." I should have been reading assigned chapters about détente and Cold War diplomacy, but instead I'd find myself absorbed in Trudeau's take on the same events, learning about Nixon's presidency through Uncle Duke's gonzo antics and Vietnam through B.D.'s tour of duty.

Just this week, Browse through a bookstore bargain bin, I stumbled across "Dbury@50: The Complete Digital Doonesbury"—a massive compilation celebrating the strip's 50th anniversary. Reading the back cover brought back vivid memories of those college afternoons when I'd choose Trudeau over my political science textbooks, often learning just as much (sometimes more) from his irreverent commentary as from whatever academic analysis I was supposed to be absorbing.

The infamous "Guilty, guilty, guilty" strip wasn't just a joke—it was a snapshot of a moment when American journalism was grappling with how to cover an unprecedented political scandal. The character of Mark Slackmeyer became a kind of tour guide through five decades of American political culture, from Watergate to Iran-Contra to the War on Terror to Trump.

Through Doonesbury, I learned about events that textbooks either glossed over or hadn't yet had time to process. The strip pioneered coverage of issues like Vietnam War protests, AIDS, gay rights, and premarital sex—often years before mainstream media was ready to address these topics openly. Reading through collections of old strips was like taking an alternative history course, one where the perspective was irreverent, unfiltered, and surprisingly insightful.

I began to understand something that traditional news coverage often missed: that political events aren't just about policy and process, but about human behavior, ego, and the often absurd theater of power. When Trudeau lampooned the "bloodlust" surrounding Watergate with Mark's gleeful pronouncement of Mitchell's guilt, he wasn't commenting on Mitchell's innocence or guilt—he was satirizing those who were obsessed with seeing justice done. It was a level of meta-commentary that went over my teenage head initially, but gradually taught me to look beyond the surface of political coverage and think critically about how we process democratic discourse.

This kind of media literacy feels more crucial than ever. In an era when misinformation can fuel actual violence against democratic institutions—as we witnessed one year ago—the ability to think critically about what we read and hear isn't just useful; it's essential for the survival of our republic.

The Disappearing Daily Ritual

But here's the thing about discovering your civic worldview through newspaper comic strips: you're depending on an ecosystem that was already beginning to crumble. And when that ecosystem collapses, we lose more than entertainment—we lose a shared foundation for democratic discourse.

The golden age of newspaper comics—when strips like Peanuts and Calvin and Hobbes could command massive audiences and cultural influence—was built on the foundation of daily newspaper readership. In 1931, George Gallup's first poll had the comic section as the most important part of the newspaper. Comics sections were often arranged at the front of Sunday editions, and comic strips were created by editors and publishers for a very good business reason: to attract and hold readership and, by extension, create an informed citizenry.

That shared civic foundation has largely vanished. Newspaper chains like Lee Enterprises have cut back comics pages across nearly 80 newspapers, with many transitioning to "uniform sets of offerings" rather than the diverse, locally-curated selections that once defined different papers. In Australia, major chains like News Corp have eliminated comic strips entirely from over 100 newspapers, citing "changing readership habits" and focusing instead on puzzles and games.

The economics are brutal and undeniable. While small-town newspapers still get sufficient revenue from local advertising, large metropolitan papers have lost both national advertising (which moved to television) and classified advertising (which moved online). As newspapers shrink, comics sections are often among the first casualties—seen as expendable entertainment rather than essential content.

What We've Lost

The decline of the daily comics page represents more than just the loss of a few laughs with morning coffee. It's the erosion of a shared cultural experience that once connected generations of readers—and more importantly, generations of citizens. As cartoonist Patrick McDonnell, creator of "Mutts," observes: "Over time, the characters are like family. Newspapers should consider this bond before they decide to make drastic changes."

But the deeper loss is one of civic cohesion. When we all read the same comics section each morning, we shared not just entertainment but a common reference point—a set of cultural touchstones that helped us navigate the complex realities of democratic life. In an era when we increasingly retreat into information silos and echo chambers, that shared foundation feels more precious than ever.

Perhaps no moment captured this better than the final Peanuts strip, published on February 13, 2000—the day after Charles Schulz died peacefully in his sleep. That last Sunday strip featured Snoopy at his typewriter atop his doghouse, with panels showing remembered scenes from nearly 50 years of the strip, and Schulz's own farewell message: "Charlie Brown, Snoopy, Linus, Lucy... how can I ever forget them..."

What made that final strip so poignant wasn't just Schulz's death—it was his insistence that the strip die with him. "There's a clause in my contract that says if I retire or die, the strip ends," he had said just months before. In an era when comic strip properties are often handed off to other artists to continue indefinitely (think Garfield or Wizard of Id), Schulz understood that authentic artistic voice can't be corporately maintained. His family honored his wishes: no new Peanuts strips would ever be created, only reruns of the nearly 18,000 strips he had drawn over five decades.

The contrast with today's comics landscape is stark. For someone like me, whose understanding of current events was shaped by the interplay between news reporting and comic strip commentary, the loss feels particularly acute. Doonesbury still exists, still comments on current events, still maintains its edge after more than 50 years. But it no longer reaches the broad, diverse audience it once did through daily newspapers. Instead, it exists primarily online, reaching people who already know to look for it rather than discovering new readers through the serendipity of flipping through a newspaper.

The same is true for all those strips that once formed my daily media diet. Peanuts ended with Charles Schulz's death in 2000. Calvin and Hobbes concluded in 1995 when Bill Watterson chose to end it rather than let it overstay its welcome. Bloom County has had various revivals but never recaptured its original cultural impact. Only Doonesbury soldiers on, still sharp, still relevant, but increasingly invisible to all but the faithful.

The Enduring Power of Satirical Truth

What strikes me now, looking back on that high school classroom where I first encountered Mark Slackmeyer's gleeful proclamation of John Mitchell's guilt, is how prescient that moment was. Mitchell was indeed found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury in 1975, and served 19 months in prison. The "Guilty, guilty, guilty" line became such an iconic piece of political satire that Trudeau recycled it decades later during the Trump administration, demonstrating his ability to connect past and present political scandals.

The lesson wasn't just that satirists can sometimes see truth more clearly than straight journalists—though that's certainly part of it. The deeper lesson was about the power of sustained, honest observation. Trudeau has been watching American politics for more than five decades now, developing the kind of institutional memory that allows him to spot patterns, call out hypocrisy, and provide context that 24-hour news cycles often miss.

That's what we lose when newspapers abandon their comics sections: not just entertainment, but a particular form of cultural memory, a way of processing current events through the lens of humor, irreverence, and long-term perspective. The comics page once served as a kind of national conversation, where different strips offered different viewpoints and approaches to making sense of the world. When we lose that shared conversation, we lose part of what holds a diverse democracy together.

Digital Displacement

The strips I grew up with have found various forms of digital afterlife. Doonesbury maintains a strong online presence. Classic Peanuts and Calvin and Hobbes strips circulate endlessly on social media. New webcomics have emerged that tackle political and social issues with the same fearlessness that once characterized the best newspaper strips.

But something profound has been lost in translation. The daily ritual of sitting down with a physical newspaper, the shared experience of readers across a community encountering the same strips on the same day, the serendipitous discovery of new perspectives while flipping through the paper—these created a kind of cultural cohesion that fragmented digital consumption struggles to replicate. When everyone reads different things at different times in different ways, we lose the common ground that healthy democratic discourse requires.

Moreover, the economic model that supported comic strip creation has largely collapsed. Modern newspaper comics often prioritize licensing and merchandising over actual storytelling, leading to what one critic describes as "inane, artless garbage" that bears little resemblance to the medium's greatest achievements. We've traded civic engagement for corporate branding, sharp social commentary for safe platitudes. The result is a comics landscape that entertains but doesn't challenge, that comforts but doesn't educate.

The Classroom Connection

I've pondered Dr. Sheffer's decision to bring that Doonesbury strip into his classroom. He understood something that many educators miss: that learning about civic life requires more than just studying institutions and policies. It requires understanding how citizens actually process and discuss political events, how humor and satire shape public opinion, and how comic strips can sometimes capture truths that straight journalism misses.

That single strip opened up a way of thinking about politics that has stayed with me through decades of elections, scandals, wars, and social changes. It taught me to look for the human drama behind political theater, to appreciate the power of persistent observation, and to understand that sometimes the most serious insights come wrapped in humor.

The Legacy of Looking

The comics section taught me how to read—not just literally, but how to read between the lines, how to spot patterns, how to find humor in darkness and hope in absurdity. Doonesbury showed me that politics is fundamentally human drama, full of the same petty motivations, grand aspirations, and comic failures that characterize all human endeavors. But more than that, it taught me that paying attention is a civic duty.

As newspapers continue to struggle and comic sections continue to shrink, I find myself grateful for that accidental education I received through the funny pages. It was an education in media literacy before that term existed, a lesson in critical thinking disguised as entertainment, and an introduction to the idea that democracy works best when its citizens are informed, engaged, and just a little bit skeptical of those who claim to lead them.

Forty-four years after Mark Slackmeyer first declared John Mitchell "guilty, guilty, guilty," Trudeau recycled the gag for Donald Trump, demonstrating how certain patterns in American politics seem to repeat themselves. The medium may be dying, but the need for that kind of sustained, satirical observation remains as urgent as ever—perhaps more so after what we witnessed one year ago today.

Maybe that's the real lesson of Doonesbury: that paying attention is a civic duty, that humor can be a form of resistance, and that sometimes the most important truths are hiding in plain sight, waiting for someone brave enough—or foolish enough—to point them out in four panels or less. In an era when lies can incite violence against the very foundations of our republic, we need voices willing to stand up and say, clearly and without apology: "This is wrong."

So thank you, Garry Trudeau, for fifty years of fearless truth-telling. Thank you, Dr. Sheffer, for showing a sixteen-year-old that citizenship begins with paying attention. And thank you, Doonesbury, for proving that sometimes the most important lessons come disguised as entertainment, hidden in plain sight on the funny pages where we least expect to find them.

Wanting to Be Snoopy, Feeling Like Charlie Brown

Lately, I've been thinking a lot about Peanuts. Not just the Sunday comics or the TV specials we all grew up with, but the deeper psychology behind Charles Schulz's simple genius. It's amazing how much truth he packed into those four-panel strips—truth about human nature, loneliness, imagination, and the quiet struggle to keep showing up.

If I'm honest, most days I feel like Charlie Brown.

There's something so painfully relatable about Charlie Brown—the kid who tries and fails, who organizes the baseball game no one wants to play in, who never kicks the football but always runs toward it anyway. He's the eternal optimist living under a rain cloud, and I think that's why so many of us see ourselves in him. But the genius of Peanuts lies in its cast of characters who don't just support Charlie Brown, but actively challenge him. Lucy, for instance, is more of an antagonist than a friend. She's confident and outspoken—with a streak of bully in her personality—and she delights in pulling the football away just as Charlie Brown is about to kick it. Her actions aren't meant to help or encourage; they're meant to knock him down, test his limits, and sometimes mock his persistence. Yet, what makes Charlie Brown so endearing is that he keeps running toward that football anyway. His perseverance isn't because of Lucy's encouragement—it's despite her attempts to trip him up. Lucy embodies those voices in our lives that push back, that doubt us, or that challenge our optimism. Charlie Brown's struggle against her reminds me that resilience often means standing strong not with the help of others, but in defiance of those trying to hold us back.

But then... there's Snoopy.

Snoopy is everything we want to be. Confident. Cool. Imaginative. Unbothered. He reinvents himself daily: Joe Cool, World War I Flying Ace, bestselling novelist. While Charlie Brown is down in the mud, Snoopy's dancing on the doghouse. He doesn't worry about fitting in or getting it right—he just is. And isn't that the dream?We all want to be Snoopy. But most of us walk around feeling like Charlie Brown.

I've noticed this theme popping up in my own writing more than I realized. In The Unfinished Work, I stood on the battlefield at Gettysburg, grappling with Lincoln's call to continue the work of democracy—wrestling with whether we're living up to the sacrifices made there, whether our civic understanding is strong enough to sustain what so many died to preserve. That kind of deep reckoning—questioning whether I'm doing enough as a citizen, whether we're all worthy of what we've inherited—feels very Charlie Brown to me. It's earnest. A little anxious. Overwhelmed by the weight of history and responsibility. But it's also rooted in hope, in the belief that showing up matters even when the task feels impossibly large.

Still, there's a part of me that longs for Snoopy's spirit. His creative energy. His ability to turn a boring afternoon into a full-blown saga. As I look back at older posts—from travel reflections to musings on leadership or family—I see flashes of that spirit. Those are the moments when I'm trying to channel Snoopy. When I let my imagination run, when I let humor or curiosity lead, when I step out of the box long enough to ask bigger questions.

But inevitably, I come back to Charlie Brown. I come back to doubt, to duty, to the desire to do better even when the odds aren't great. And maybe that's okay. Maybe the goal isn't to be Snoopy, but to let his spirit visit us when we need it most—to balance the worry with a little wonder, the failure with some flair.

This tension... surfaced deeply in my Christmas reflections from 2010. I admitted to dreading a certain kind of Christmas—the one filled with "lasts." Last Christmas with all the kids at home. Last Christmas with a true believer before the Elf era began. That felt very much like a Charlie Brown moment: the melancholy, the ache of change, the worry that the magic might fade.

But then came the Snoopy side of that Christmas—the passing of the torch. Inviting my youngest into the quiet fraternity of Christmas elves, just as my mom once did for me. That difficult but hopeful conversation wasn't a moment of loss, but of legacy. We talked about belief—not just in Santa, but in something deeper: the enduring magic of generosity, wonder, and love passed down through generations. That's pure Snoopy—the imaginative spark that turns endings into new beginnings, that celebrates mystery and keeps the magic alive.

And it's the same dynamic in Trains, Presidents, and Baseball, my account of a cross-country road trip with my daughter. What started as a practical move to Philadelphia for medical school became a journey of reconnection. We shared national parks, presidential history, and ballgames, but it was the quiet, in-between moments—the misfires, the museum closures, the unexpected laughs—that brought us back to each other. That felt like Charlie Brown's honest longing for connection paired with Snoopy's joyful improvisation. It reminded me that relationships, like life, don't come wrapped up perfectly—they unfold in fits and starts, with hope and humor intertwined.

All of these reflections—ranging from solemn civic duty to family celebrations and travel adventures—trace the emotional arc between Charlie Brown and Snoopy that runs through my life and writing. They remind me that we don't live fully at either extreme, but somewhere in between. We ache, we aspire, we stumble, we imagine. That's what makes the journey real.

What Schulz understood—and what I'm starting to accept—is that we contain both: the melancholy and the magic. We are Charlie Brown with a little bit of Snoopy inside, trying to break free.

So I'll keep chasing the football. I'll keep pitching no matter the score. I'll keep showing up. And maybe, just maybe, I'll dance on top of the doghouse every once in a while too.

A Father-Son Journey: Baseball, Heartbreak, and Redwoods

Eel River in Humboldt Redwoods State Park

Sometimes the most meaningful trips aren't the ones that go according to plan. Our journey to Eureka, California for the 2009 Babe Ruth Pacific Southwest 13-Year-Old Regional tournament was supposed to be about baseball glory. Instead, it became something far more precious—a father-son adventure that taught us both how to find joy in disappointment and beauty in the unexpected.

The Road North

The drive up to Eureka was electric with possibility. I squeezed into our minivan alongside three of Ted's teammates, their energy infectious as they talked strategy and dreams of making it to the World Series. The hours melted away with teenage banter, music, and that particular brand of nervous excitement that comes before a big tournament. These boys had worked all season for this moment, and watching them—especially Ted—live in that bubble of pure anticipation reminded me why I love being a baseball dad.

Discovering a Different California

Before the games began, we had a chance to explore Eureka itself—a revelation for a bunch of kids from Southern California. This wasn't the California we knew. Gone were the palm trees and endless sunshine, replaced by towering redwoods, cool ocean breezes, and a misty climate that felt almost otherworldly to us high desert dwellers.

A Samoa Cookhouse server

We wandered through the historic Timber Heritage Museum to learn about Eureka's logging heritage. The boys were fascinated by the massive lumber operations that once defined this region, and seeing those enormous logs stacked along the waterfront gave them a new appreciation for the redwood forests surrounding us.

One evening, the entire team piled into vehicles for dinner at the legendary Samoa Cookhouse. Sitting at those long communal tables, being served family-style meals just like the loggers of old, was like stepping back in time. The boys devoured plate after plate of hearty food while listening to stories about the cookhouse's history. For kids used to fast food and chain restaurants, this felt like dining in a living museum. Ted was particularly impressed by the endless platters of food—though I suspect that had more to do with being a perpetually hungry teenager than historical appreciation.

Five Days of Baseball Drama

The games at Eureka Babe Ruth Field were a rollercoaster that would have made any screenwriter proud:

Game 1 (August 6): We opened strong, beating the host team Eureka 4-2. Ted slid safely into home in the fourth inning—a moment captured in a photo that still makes me smile. That slide somehow encapsulated everything about Ted's approach to the game: fearless, determined, and just a little bit reckless.

Game 2 (August 7): Reality check. Tri Valley shut us down 4-1. The boys were quiet that night, but you could see the fire in their eyes. One loss wasn't going to define them.

Game 3 (August 8): Redemption came in the form of a 13-5 demolition of Somervile-Yaqui from Arizona. The bats came alive, and suddenly we were back in contention.

Game 4 (August 9): A 15-8 slugfest victory over Madera put us in the championship game. The boys were flying high, and I was already mentally packing for the next round.

Then came August 11th. The championship game, a rematch against Tri Valley. Ted started at shortstop and then moved to the mound in relief. Just when everything seemed within reach, a line-drive back up the middle ricocheted off of Ted's knee...an injury...

I won't dwell on the details of that moment—any parent who's watched their child get injured in a sport they love knows that sick feeling. What matters is that we finished second, our World Series dreams ended, and suddenly it was just Ted and me facing a 12 hour drive home.

The Healing Power of Highway 101

Here's where the real story begins.

Instead of rushing home to nurse our wounds, we decided to make the most of our time together. Sometimes life's detours lead you exactly where you need to be, and our meandering journey south became one of my most treasured memories.

It was the redwoods that first worked their magic.

Standing among those ancient giants in Humboldt Redwoods State Park, our baseball disappointment seemed to shrink to its proper size. These trees had been growing since before baseball was even invented, surviving ice ages and droughts and countless human dramas. Ted posed by the welcome sign, in his hoody, and I watched him crane his neck up at the towering canopy, maybe gaining some perspective on what really lasts.

We could have spent hours in that cathedral of trees, talking or just walking in comfortable silence. Ted climbed over fallen logs the size of train cars, and for a while he was just a kid exploring, not an injured athlete carrying the weight of a lost championship. But we had many more miles to go...

On the way south, we stopped at the Charles M. Schulz Museum and Snoopy's Home Ice in Santa Rosa. Walking through the museum dedicated to the creator of Peanuts, seeing Charlie Brown dressed as a hockey player and Snoopy in his dapper formal wear, brought some much-needed lightness after the heaviness of the tournament's end. Ted humored his old man as I snapped photos, both of us finding comfort in Schulz's gentle humor and the reminder that even Charlie Brown knew something about dealing with disappointment.

One final stop before it got too dark was the Golden Gate Bridge. Seeing Ted pose there—still wearing that gray hoody, his injury making him move a little slower but his smile genuine—reminded me that some moments transcend wins and losses. The bridge stood there in the fog, magnificent and enduring, a reminder that some things are bigger than baseball.

The drive continued past the scenic bridges spanning San Francisco Bay, through foothills, mountains, and farmland valleys. We stopped for photos, shared gas station snacks, and talked about everything except baseball. Well, mostly everything except baseball.

The Gift of Going Slow

What strikes me now, looking back at those photos, is how this "disappointing" trip became something invaluable. If we'd won the tournament, we would have rushed off to the next competition. We would have missed the redwoods, missed the long conversations, missed the chance to just be together without the pressure of the next game looming.

Ted's injury was heartbreaking in the moment, but it gave us something we rarely had during those intense baseball years: unscheduled time. Time to be tourists in our own state. Time for a teenage son to let his dad take goofy pictures without rolling his eyes too much. Time to remember that the relationship matters more than the results.

The drive home took us the better part of two days, when it could have been done in one. We saw things we never would have seen, talked about things we might never have discussed, and created memories that have outlasted any trophy we might have won.

What Lasts

Ted's injury healed. The sting of finishing second faded. But those photos from our journey home—Ted by the Golden Gate Bridge, among the redwoods, grinning despite everything—those capture something that winning never could have given us.

Sometimes the best trips are the ones that don't go according to plan. Sometimes the most important conversations happen when you're not trying to have them. And sometimes, when your baseball dreams end in disappointment, you discover that the journey home can be the most beautiful part of the whole adventure.

The redwoods taught us something that day: the things that really matter take time to grow, and they're strong enough to weather any storm. Including the storm of a thirteen-year-old's broken baseball dreams and a father's broken heart. Resilience isn't about avoiding disappointment—it's about growing deeper roots that can sustain you through whatever comes next. Those trees had witnessed countless storms, countless seasons of loss and renewal, and they were still reaching toward the light.

But hearts heal, and memories grow stronger with time. And sometimes, if you're very lucky, you get to take the scenic route home.