There are big dreams like climbing Mount Everest, playing in the Olympics or seeing a democrat elected to something in Lititz.

And there are smaller, more attainable dreams that we just never seem to have time to convert into reality.

Today is the day that I pull one of those little dreams from my little head into my little fingers to be transferred to my little wordprocessor. I hope by now you have figured out that what I am about to do will not qualify as one of those big dreams.

My dream is to describe someone as an iconoclast and see it printed in a newspaper. I know it will be difficult to quell the excitement that such a revelation will have in the breast of every reader--but bare with me as we travel this road together.

First and foremost (an acceptable redundancy used for effect), we must agree on the definition of iconoclast. Without going to the dictionary or reading ahead, what is the definition of iconoclast?

I thought so. Like me, you really need to look it up.

According to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company (because it's on the disk that came with my Windows 98), an iconoclast is one who attacks and seeks to overthrow traditional or popular ideas or institutions or one who destroys sacred religious images.

Unless throwing out all those Sunday School pictures that I drew and my grandmother horded away is considered destroying sacred religious images, we are talking about the first definition.

My first thought was to give a group adjective to all six of the Democrats in town. Unfortunately I could only find four of them--the other two were probably away at the ACLU convention. Of the remaining four, three threatened to sue if I revealed their names and since we all know about the one remaining, it's just not worth it to waste such a good word as iconoclast.

Then I got this vision of a wrecking ball slamming into the old Lutheran Church at Broad and Orange. But then that is more correctly the second definition since Borough Council would be the recipient of the dubious title. Two problems: First, both definitions start off with the word "one" and; second, it's a building not an institution.

The congregation, the synod, the denomination--those are institutions. And the congregation of Saint Pauls'Lutheran Church is not the building at Broad and Orange anymore than they were the building at Spruce St. and Lockup Lane. Their first church became an underwear factory where my grandmother found enployment and membership in the International Ladies Garment Workers Union. Today it's Bob Miller's Print Shop.

Simply, a building is not an institution. My wife suggested that I give the appellation to myself. Hmmm, from some of my columns one may come to that conclusion but that is not my intent. Quite the contrary. I care. I care enough about the institutions that surround and support us to stay informed and to keep asking questions until I get a reasonable answer. My goal is to strengthen those institutions, improve communication and pull everyone into the fold.

Steve Gibble, the true contra-iconoclast, encourages everyone to participate in government and society by serving on borough, church or organizational boards. I could not agree more. Even the job of U. S. Congressman, which Steve made a bid for, was designed with two year terms so that involved, qualified and capable citizens could take a sabatical from their work and bring some reality into the Federal government. I truly believe that many of our current problems would go away if each representative was required to hold down a real job while a member of the House of Representatives.

So who in Lititz is tearing down established institutions?

Got it! Those people who don't vote (or vote without knowing the candidates), who don't pay attention to what their elected officials are doing and who assume that since we elected good people (meaning Republicans) everything will be fine. Lititz is a hot-bed of rampant apathy. So I am incluned to name as iconoclasts those individuals whose disinterest is the first step in anarchy.

And thus it is done.

But wait, they are a they and not a one--we already ruled out one group because of the word one.

Guess what. I don't care.