Inauguration

Barack Obama and his Vice President, Joe Biden took their ceremonial oaths of office during the Inauguration ceremony on Jan. 21st. The traditional inaugural parade followed the ceremony (actually, both Obama and Biden were officially sworn in the day before the parade and speech making inauguration ceremony) and the President's second Inaugural Address. As with every previous inauguration I ignored the whole thing.

It seems a little an anachronism and pretentious to have such a ceremony in the 21st century, particularly in a democratic nation like the U.S. I think such things are more fitting for the tradition rich British or for dictators who have garish swearing in ceremonies in order to pretend they are really justified in being in power or are loved by their enslaved subjects. As much as I like tradition, and I do love many old things and ideas, I find the inauguration to be over the top for the U.S. It's as silly as all the hoopla over the marriage of the British "nobility" last year.

In the nineteenth century inaugurations were necessary because people simply didn't know who was elected and needed a dramatic presentation to feel a part of the democracy. Today our communication technology gives us to much information and contact, which may explain why I find an inauguration today to be irrelevant. Uh, but then...Obama seems to think himself a dictator or king rather than a democratically elected segment of the government here. Perhaps an inauguration ceremony does better fit Obama than any other recent president we have had.

If Obama were as smart as he thinks he is he would have made his inauguration short and simple, satisfying both those who feel one is necessary and those like me who feel they have outlived their usefulness. Of course, he did not. The shortest inauguration speech was ny our first President George Washington, who in his second inauguration gave a two paragraph statement and went home. Any President who did that and also told the masses that there was a "Free liquor bar at the White House and all are invited" would not only win re election, but would see his popularity ratings soar at the same time.

This idea is not as novel as you may think. In 1829, Andrew Jackson, America's seventh president, opened the White House's doors to the inaugural mobs and escaped the crush of the crowd only when aides formed a wedge and escorted him out through a back window. The mansion's furnishings were ruined, and the staff could not get the 20,000 partiers to vacate the premises. They then hit on the same idea as mine, to put tubs of whiskey away from the White House until the crowd was beyond the White House gates. This proves either that politics and whiskey make a great couple or that one has to be drunk to attend and enjoy an inauguration ceremony.

Down With The New

I finally got around to take an old chair to an upholsterer. After years of storing it in attics I decided to spend the money to re upholster the early 1900's Victorian high back that I just can't part from. The fabric is torn in several places but the style and construction so far superior than the machine made chairs one would buy today. I cast the antique status aside (re upholstering pushes the value downward but the condition of the original fabric made it un usable). Point is, I like old things far better than new.

When the chair is re done I will have a relic of the distant past and it will impart a personality to my house that a new piece of furniture will not. Strange, I like new houses but old furniture. It's probably because I am realistic enough to know that new houses need far less care and expensive maintenance than do old ones. I have always bought newer houses and placed my old furniture in each, this even though I prefer to look of old construction. My schizophrenic sides show...old versus new.

Maybe my resistance to technology is because of my life-time enchantment with things old. Though it's true that as we age we cling to and embrace old things, I have always done that. My daughter is amused by my stance and my vow to not only never own or use a cell phone, but to have an inscription on my gravestone that reads, 'He Never Had A Cell Phone'. I suspect that those in the future who might read that will think I was either a visionary or a nut. No need for your opinion! I know which you think applies.

Humans have to adopt some new ideas and technology. To not do so would be to ostracize oneself from society and to deny oneself of some of its improvements. The problem today is that technology changes so fast people now don't judge which new invention or idea is improved and which is not. They simply accept the new. Hence we have mindless use of the new, some of which is detrimental to maintaining a kinder and more sensible society.

Those of us old enough to remember the world prior to technological invasion that began in the 60's will admit that things work more easily and efficiently today, but that those using the devices have become coarser and less caring toward other members of society. While providing us with amusement and efficiency, the new has also isolated us from our fellow humans. No wonder I need that old chair to speak to me again!

Worst Mom Of The Year

I have a candidate for 'Worst Mom of the Year'. Ok, there is no such award. But in this age of parental neglect, parents doing their own thing rather than being responsible for the children they produce, and just plain ignorant parents, I have a sure fire winner to nominate when that award is created. Tajhma Deary, a 32-year-old woman from New Orleans has been arrested for teaching her 8-year-old son how to break into a house. Yep! She home schooled her kid in how to break into homes.

According to the arrest warrant, dreary Deary Tajhma and her son were caught on surveillance video trying to break in to a house. The video the homeowner's security camera took shows junior sticking his right arm inside the home's mail slot to make several attempts at unlocking the locks on the door while the mother stood nearby offering assistance to him. After her young crime trainee failed to open the front door, Deary hopped a 6-foot-tall wrought iron fence to gain access to the side of the house.

She then removed a screen from a window and tried to lift the window, but failed because it was locked. Dreary Deary then dismantled one of the victim's video surveillance cameras off the exterior of the house, the warrant says. The pair then ran away. But fortunately the video fingered the two and mom sits in jail awaiting prosecution. Junior is being held temporarily by juvenile detention.

I wonder, when mom gets out they will the state return her son to her...this time to teach him to kill rather than rob? No doubt that child is already a criminal of the present and future and intervention with him at this point is unlikely to change his future. We should get a good look at dreary Deary's face because we might see it again on TV in 8 years or so, screaming and crying at the top of her lungs because "someone shot my baby".

What a classic illustration how criminals are made not born. Hmmmm On the other hand I am beginning to doubt the old adage, "It is important that parents are involved in their child's education." A sensible government would terminate her rights to her son and send her to prison for a longggggggggggggg time. But that isn't the way the society operates in our age of entitlements. Mom will probably be portrayed as a victim of drugs or poverty or stupidity. And in the end she will be released, reunited with her son and resume her classes for him in how to be a thug.

Sigh....there's nothing like learning at mom's knee.

2012 Banished Words

The 38th annual List of Words to be Banished from the Queen's English for Misuse, Overuse and General Uselessness is out. I love it because it is a reminder of how badly the English language has been and is mutilated by the endless and boring communication devices and sites that make me scream for mercy every time I hear the nonsense propagated as English. The list is complied by a university in Michigan's, Lake Superior State University, and is based on nominations submitted from the United States, Canada and beyond. It's not hard to find agreement on what should be on the list, given that the internet and cell phone chatter repeats the latest nonsensical trendy expression over and over each day.

Nominations used to come by mail, then fax machines and then from the school's web site. But now most come through the university's Face book page. Face book....sigh... That's fitting, since social media has helped to create the mindless ;parroting of the words and to keep them alive longer than they should. Here are the 12 most annoying and overused words and phrases of 2012. Let's hope we will hear or read them only sparingly this coming year.

1) fiscal cliff- This is the number one overused phrase and is parroted by the media to describe the economic problems the U.S. government has with too much debt, too little taxes to pay for it and too much willingness of the politicians to allow the problem to cause the U.S. to go into bankruptcy by not fixing the debt problem.

2) kick the can down the road- to procrastinate in fixing problems, as in how the government kicks the 'fiscal cliff' problem 'down the road'.

3) double down- is to engage in risky behavior, especially when one is already in a dangerous situation. I think we used to call that 'double trouble'

4) job creators/creation- The 'job creators' are those we used to call the wealthy, but those who rename them job creators means they deserve not to be taxed since they say that they need all their money to create jobs for we peons.

5) passion/passionate- Turn on a TV commercial these days and every company will say that it is passionate that they make the product they want you to buy. This means that
because of their passion they are overcharging you for that piece of junk you buy from them

6) YOLO- 'You only live once' (and if you use these words too much you deserve to die many times).

7) spoiler alert- It's the. "I am going to tell you what happened in that movie tv show or book before you see it to ruin it for you."

8) bucket list- Your bucket list is what you want to do before you die. Please add to your bucket list that you want to not use any of these words when communicating with me or I may kill myself before I finish completing my own 'bucket list'.

9) trending- A trend is something temporary, a noun. Even though it is not a verb the news mediums keep calling some of the subjects of their broadcasts 'trending'

10) superfood- The 'superfood' is whatever trendy, awful tasting mess a celebrity swears makes him or her healthy, wealthy and wise. The only thing worse than that stupidity is if one of the suppressed purveyors ads tofu to the list.

11) boneless wings- These are white meat chicken pieces that have no bones when served. Didn't they just used to call them 'chicken strips'?

12) guru- A 'guru' is the guy who thinks he knows everything and imparts what little he knows with great effect and no substance whatsoever. In other words, I am a guru.

If you think one or more of these words or phrases deserves to be taken off the list go for it and use them. After all, YOLO!

Keep Those Pants On

Donating sperm to a woman or couple who can't produce their own child naturally is not the most sensible or common thing. It's is supposed to be an act designed by financially distressed men in order to raise some extra cash or to help a couple achieve their parenting dreams. I think most men have been asked to do that (I know I have) and in some situations it may make sense. But one thing it's not supposed to lead to is a lawsuit for child support payments from the donor.

The, "Yes you can have my sperm" arrangement between sperm donors and couples seeking fertility treatment usually means that the donor relinquishes parental rights and financial responsibility for any of the children produced by his seed. She gets the sperm, he gets assurance that is the end of his legal responsibility. In the majority of cases, he gives the sperm and walks away from the relationship with no legal responsibilities thereafter.

A Topeka, Kansas donor named William Morotta, thought so too. Three years ago he answered a Criagslist ad placed by a lesbian couple who wanted an a baby, and the couple agreed to use William's seed. But now one of the women involved, the one who worked to provide funds for the child, in the transaction has fallen on hard times financially and applied for welfare (Medicaid) for the daughter, who was created with Marotta’s sperm. But the state of Kansas says , "NO! Get the money you need for your daughter from daddy William, not us." Further, Kansas is now suing William for that child support.

Interesting....the state of Kansas is saying that in this case an individual can not sign away parental rights, including financial obligations. So instead of the state of Kansas paying the couple welfare, it wants William to pay in its place. Does that sound reasonable? The basis for the state's claim is the agreement William and the couple had to never hold William financially responsible for the child is invalid because Kansas statute 23-2208(f) says that the mom must have a licensed physician perform the artificial insemination. The couple did not do that.

But if Kansas is successful in its suit against William, it could deter other men from becoming sperm donors, which would put couples (same sex and heterosexual) in a pickle, since they would be unable to find men willing to give their sperm for...uh....the cause. Maybe Kansas should legalize gay marriage and make the "husband" and wife financially responsible, not the sperm donor. I wonder too, if William is ordered to pay the welfare to the couple because he is the "father", could he not then file a claim to gain custody of "his child", taking the child away from the couple? What a mess.

On thing is certain, that being a message to learn from it all is what mom always says to her boys...."Keep your pants on, not on fire."

Living In Irrational Fear

Some people... err...too.many Americans are acting strangely in response to the horrendous school shooting on Dec. 13th in Connecticut that killed 20 first graders. The approximately 50% of Americans who own firearms (I don't and want no part of any firearms) are now further arming themselves with more guns in order to "protect" themselves from whomever they think is a threat to their safety. This even though statistics say that it is a rare occasion when an American is the victim of a violent crime.

The Connecticut tragedy has generated record sales in many states. One politician has even called or teachers to be armed with handguns. I suspect that is the dumbest idea yet known to man. In point of fact, statistics say that a person who keeps a gun in his or her home for "protection" is 10,000 times more likely to be shot by a firearm (and often by his own gun). Those occasions for which a person in the U.S. would need a firearm for protection are rare, but the media hype about safety has them sacred and looking for more firepower. I guess it is the "my gun is better than your gun theory". Many criminals get their weapons from those same gun owning people who have their guns stolen and used by the criminals in commission of crimes. The more firearms sold to fearful protectors, the more will get into the hands of the few criminals who would use them.

And ironically, the same people who are buying more and more guns are also the ones who are buying the most offensive items related to guns I have yet heard about. At least three companies make an armored backpacks designed to shield children caught in a shootings. Those sellers are are reporting a large spike in sales and interest. Yep! Panicked parents are buying combat style backpack armor (they sell for about $150 to $300) to put on their children when sending them off to school. That is the greatest over-reaction since Lindsay Lohan said she was a "responsible driver". Fear of terrorists, fear of Mexico, fear of gangs, fear of general criminals, fear of a tyrannical government taking power..... Its paranoia of way too many Americans. The media feeds them the fear and they expand it.

Fear drives irrational behavior, as in "armor can help children just as it can help soldiers". But with children its important to act maturely and responsibly to a tragic event such as the Connecticut shootings. Sending children to school in armored backpacks is not a healthy response to fear about mass shootings. Armor plated backpacks do not serve to keep children safe. Instead they serve to increase the child's fear and their suspicion of their school mates, and to teach that fear is a good behavior for which to guide one's life.

As always, My dislike of the communication devices thrust upon us makes me lay much of the blame for the mindless paranoia of the gun nuts on the electronic media that feeds us so much (useless) information that we fail to process intelligently and adequately.
Having written that, I hope I don't have to arm myself with one of those backpacks.

Sobering Thoughts About New Year's Eve

Why do I think New Year's Eve is not only boring, but also deadly...According to a report released in year 2007 (the latest I could find) by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), drunk-driving related fatal crashes in the U.S. rise significantly in the two-week period encompassing Christmas and New Year’s Eve. On average, there are 36 fatalities on American roadways every day. During the Christmas season the average rises to 45 daily deaths and jumps to 54 on New Year’s Eve. It seems that long car trips to see family combined with feasts filled with eggnog and Champagne are the perfect recipe for drunk driving. And then the, "Let's get drunk it's New Year's Eve" mentality makes it even worse on December 31st and January 1st.

Even when driving outside of the holiday season the odds that a driver involved in an accident are that he or she had a blood alcohol content over the legal limit about one on five times, which is about the same odds as having your next flight delayed at the airport. Seems to me that alcohol is a deadly problem that the grownups refuse to recognize. It could be that way because society, with media assistance, far more often makes being drunk appear "cute" rather than deadly. The "don't drive if you drink" campaigns are largely ignored by the drinkers since so many are either addicted to alcohol or do not see alcohol as a deadly substance. Too, penalties for drunk driving are laughably lenient.

Deterrents like tickets and jail time for those caught driving while legally drunk aren't working. A first time drunk driving offender averages 87 other undetected drunk driving trips before getting caught. I shake with dread to hear what percentage of those drunks drivers on New Year's Eve drove past me. Fact is, on New Year's Day, alcohol related deaths due to crashes were 150 percent higher than average for the same day of the week during the holiday season.

With car ignition devices available that (judges should make them mandatory for anyone convicted of driving while intoxicated but rarely do) do not allow a car to start when anyone who is driving is legally drunk, much of that carnage could be reduced if that were really the desired outcome. Instead, governments ban the discharge of fireworks on New Year's Eve as being "too dangerous". Yet they wink at the' good ole boy' hobby of soaking the brain in alcohol before driving their vehicle of death.

It's enough to drive a person to drink!