There’s a reason why you can’t pound a square peg into a round hole (unless you’re a three year old). Because Pi…

3.1415926535897932384626433832… so on and so on, etc.

…is an irrational and endless stream of digits.

Eventually (or so we’re told) increasing the number of digits beyond the decimal will simply make any relevant computation ‘close enough’ so that the inexactness of Pi doesn’t matter.

But it does matter. You can’t square a circle.

The rational understand this. Mathematicians though try to rationalize the irrational and twist themselves into algorithmic knots. Unwilling to accept that some things just are (or are not).

But as any country boy could tell you: Pie ain’t square at all.

Pie are round. Cornbread are square.

(…and brownies.)

Both are delicious, but not the same.

Circles and squares were created different to be different. They share neither form nor function, and are not interchangeable.

Squares are, well… rigid, and their dimensions… well defined. Angular dispositions lend themselves to more mechanical endeavors. You don’t have to like ‘em, but there’s a reassuring consistency to them. And they’re not all that complicated: If you’ve seen one side, you’ve seen them all.

Circles on the other hand possess this air of mystery. Flowing lines create a natural artistry with captivating curves that are at once intense, carefree, and deceptive.

There was a time when such differences were celebrated and enjoyed (or at least accepted as mathematical constants).

Back in the sixties dope smoking hippies painted every *Okie From Muskogee* as a ‘square’ for their rigid set of values. But even then as today true squares are rare (and getting harder to find).

Culture is not only geometric, it’s double entry: Shapes drawn on one side of society’s ledger must be erased from the other. *Which means…*

If you trade *Lace-trimmed Petticoats* for *Digital Urban Camo,* then you must also deduct *Full-grain 4×4 Stetsons* and inflate *Latte-sippin’ Sandal-clad Cupcakes.*

Even still… some cotton calico’d circles can (at times) fail to see their own balance sheet imbalance: If want your square to be a square, then you need to let him wear his own pants.

In the pursuit of some mythical equality, cultural arsonists equate equity with sameness. But insisting that every shape can be *any* shape denies the uniqueness of squares. And necessity.

*Heather May Have Two Circles* but she needs a square to shape her life (and not just any ol’ four-cornered trapezoid). Preferably the square that *gave* her life.

That’s right, I said it.

And for pointing out obvious differences in configuration (as well as basic biology and the creation of the Almighty) square pegs are divorced from society as geometric misogynists.

There is beauty in truth, whether writ on tablets of stone or a repentant heart. Of course, the truth nobody wants to hear is hate.

Circle-squarers hate being circles. They cannot be squares. And they hate squares for it.

Square and Circle created He them.

^{Genesis 1:27}

In the presence of **THE ARTIST**, the disobedient demand their freestyle be accepted as ‘lifestyle’. But truth is neither personal nor convenient. It can be ignored but cannot be made untrue. And it hurts.

Ugly truth is math.

Who Ya Gonna Call?

Women should demand men be men. And they could help by letting men wear their own pants. And fire helmets. And proton blasters.

Once Upon a Time…

Well, of course, they are – all couples are odd. So, he likes stand-up bears and five strings. And she, anything but… so what?