2009 Christmas Thoughts

As I write this, according to NORADSANTA.ORG, Santa Clause has distributed over a billion gifts to little boys and girls throughout the world and he is currently in the Maldive Islands.

For hundreds of millions of Christians the Christmas season has become perverted by rampant consumerism, boxes, wrapping paper and bows. We annually tally up thousands of dollars of consumer debt so that when our kids return to school after the holiday break they aren't left out of the "WhadidyagitferChristmas?" conversations. Simple games and clothes have given way to game consoles, cell phones and other electronic gadgets.

Our family decided this year that it was out of hand. So we threw names into a hat, and we each drew a name. The budget: Get as close to $100.00 as you can. That doesn't necessarily include stocking stuffers and the annual Christmas jammies. My own budget will probably come to about $200.00 because my mom, who now lives with us and hasn't participated in our Christmas traditions, hasn't quite caught on this year. So between the five of us, that's about $600.00 bucks. That's down considerably from the two-thousand we spent last year and the three-thousand the year before that.

And this year, I don't think one electronic doohickey was purchased. I know that my own Christmas list this year was for some nice shirts, some new socks and some really nice tobacco for my pipe.

And yet, the tree still has lots of presents under it.

But more importantly -- I will be spending Christmas with four of the seven most important people in my world right now: Laura (my wife), Mom, Heather (my daughter) and Mat (her husband). Chris is stationed in Norfolk Virginia and his girlfriend, Alex, is spending the holiday with her folks in Salt Lake City.

We will eat holiday ham and I will enjoy hot buttered rums and smoke my pipe while enjoying the company of my family while we sit in front of the fire and watch "A Christmas Story", "It's A Wonderful Life" and "The Greatest Story Ever Told".


But just as importantly, that's twelve-hundred less credit card debt than the previous year. Which means that we are that much closer to completely getting rid of all our credit card debt, which will take at least a couple more years.

Here's my Christmas wish list for the future.
1) That we all stay healthy.
2) That we all continue to keep our jobs.
3) That after we get rid of this credit card debt, that I can give Laura the following:
3.1) A decent kitchen.
3.2) A nicer living room.
3.3) Finish the front yard.
4) Be able to afford to contribute more money to charity that really counts:
4.1) Shriner's hospitals
4.2) Fraternal Order of Police
4.3) Modest Needs (a new charity that I really think is on the right track).
4.4) Order of DeMolay (a young man's organization).
And I'd like to start tithing. I just haven't figured out which church yet...

No new cars, no new computers, no new games. I'd like to fix the place I live in a little bit and then really ramp up the contributions to charities that I already support.

I don't need the Federal government to be charitable. They're not good at it anyway. They don't hold themselves nearly accountable enough. But every American who has some extra coin in their pocket should be asking themselves... "How can I help? How can I give back?"

Freemasons have been doing this for over four hundred years (and longer if you believe the "myth" of Freemasonry). I strongly suggest to anybody that reads this blog that you should become more active in your church charity programs. If you aren't currently active in a church, please, please, please consider joining a Fraternal Organization (like Freemasons, The Elks, The Eagles, The Moose, Knights of Columbus, Fraternal Order of Police, Volunteer Firefighters) or simply contribute to charities.

Christmas is not about wrapping paper and gifts under the tree, although the smile of a child on Christmas morning is hard to beat.

But consider this: How about the smile of a child in a burn ward who got the care she needed because men like Shriner's care? And how about the smile on a young man's face when he graduates from college because the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement fund paid for his education after his parent list his/her life on the streets of Chicago or in the fields of Afghanistan? Or the single mother of two who received enough money from Modest Needs to be able to put down the security deposit on an apartment so that she has a safe, warm place for her kids to live? Or how about the smile of your mother who is grateful that you have given her a place to live in your own home? I get that smile every morning.

Those smiles might be even better to see on a Christmas morning.

Christmas should be about caring for the people in our families and communities that are less fortunate than ourselves. It's about taking on their burdens, putting our shoulders to the wheel and making our communities a little better place because we care.

Isn't that what Jesus did?

CBS Airs "Dirty Frosty the Snowman" ads.

I'm not going to link to anything. Look it up if you don't believe me. Simply put, CBS ad executives have aired a couple of voice-overs of snippets of the beloved Christmas classic cartoon "Frosty the Snowman" that are ads for their child-inappropriate comedies Two and A-half Men" and "How I Met Your Mother".

Millions of children will now have to be shielded from YouTube searches for "Frosty" that have him talking about his "Porn stash" and other inappropriate topics.

Thanks CBS. As much as I love "CSI", I'll catch it on reruns now. You won't see another minute of my viewer time.

Adulation of the MAN vs. the INSTITUTION (Follow up to previous posting)

The American system of government is greater than any one man or even group of men. This why adulation for the MAN instead of the INSTITUTION is so scary to me and many who share my point of view.

Barack Obama's accomplishment of becoming the first American President "of color", especially considering our checkered history with the institution of slavery, specifically the slavery of Africans is momentous. But the accomplishment of Barack Obama pales when viewed in light of the greater context that our system permits any person regardless of creed, race, sex to achieve the highest levels of success and authority.

But are these children being taught to praise that system? I doubt it. I suspect that Dr. Denise King, the principal of the school where this song was recorded, would probably say that the American system is full of inequalities and injustices and that minorities are repressed. She is probably teaching children that capitalism is "evil" and "uncaring". She probably dwells on the mistakes of our nation's past, such as the nearly successful genocide of the Native American or the institution of African slavery.

I suspect she does NOT teach much about the indentured servitude (economic slavery) of Irish, Scots, Germans, Poles and Italians in the 1800's or the Chinese and other Asians in the late 1800's and early 1900's. I also bet she doesn't talk much about the current genocide taking place in both eastern and southern Africa, where Africans are enslaving or destroying whole other tribes of Africans solely on basis of clan affiliation. Or how about the sexual enslavement or mutilation of African women by African men? Hmmm? Or how about the current repression by China of Tibet and it's eastern Muslim population, or the destruction of millions of lives in Myanmar (formerly Burma)?

Then there's India with it's caste system. Does she spend much time talking about the purely social discrimination of the Bhangis ("untouchables") by the Brahmins, even though those people are genetically the same family? Or the "honor killings" practiced in much of the Islamic world? Or the outright racist attitudes of most Asians? To this day, Japanese print media depicts Africans with big lips and low foreheads and the book "Little Black Sambo" is a popular children's picture book. In fact, there is no redress for "hate crimes" in Japan because there is NO JAPANESE LAW protecting civil rights.

The American system of government and the society it has created is far from perfect. And by definition, a capitalistic economic system means that people will fail although that does not mean that those people are failures. People become failures only when they prove unable to overcome adversity. But in our society, which is now dominated by an arguably corrupt and non-representing representative system, the charged are still presumed innocent until proven guilty and people like Bernard Madoff or the CEOs of corrupt companies like TYCO, Enron or MCI Worldcom go to jail for destroying the financial future of others. While perfection eludes us what other nation on Earth presents as much opportunity as the United States? Even in decline with possibly our best days now behind us are still one of the freest, safest places on Earth to live.

So when I see children pouring out their adulation for only a MAN instead of the INSTITUTION, in my opinion I am justifiably concerned. If this is an innocent act then it's wrong. If it's purposeful then it can only be called one thing: INDOCTRINATION.

Palin Quits.

Governor Sarah Palin announced on July 3 that she will step down as Alaska's governor. She claimed she wanted to spare her family from continuing media-spawned attacks on her and her family's character as well as her state from more "pain and expense"as ongoing ethics investigations continue to shadow her administration.

The "chatting classes" speculated all weekend on what this might mean. Is this her opening gambit for a 2012 Presidential election run? Is she seeking to hide from an FBI investigation?

Well, for me, it simply means that she is a quitter. I say this very sadly because I thought she was the only true conservative voice in the McCain campaign. But politics in America is pain. Politicians and regrettably, their families are targets of malicious lies and super focused scrutiny that practically no household could endure. She knew this when she was Mayor of Wasilla, and she knew it when she took the Governor's Oath of Office.

When she accepted the nomination and later the actual vote of the people of Alaska she made a contract with them that she would see this through. She has now welched on that contract.

I cannot in good conscience vote for a candidate who has proven that they will not see it through to the bitter end. George Bush, for all of his perceived faults, stuck to his principles right to the last day of his administration.

Good bye, Sarah Palin. Don't count on my vote in 2012.

Let Me See If I Get It. You Make a Mistake, But You Want the School District to Eat the Cost.

So I'm perusing CNN today. Ok, sidebar. Any of you who read these rants know that I'm something of a conservative. Can you "neocon"? Now back to today's rant. So I'm perusing CNN today and I see a story about a Florida high school student who apparently decided that she did not want to have her pantylines visible on school picture day. Her solution was to not wear any panties to school. I don't know if this is something she does frequently or if she only did it on this particular day. The article did not specify.

However, in a group photo that she was in for some club that I do not recall she is sitting in such a manner that there is a question as to whether you can actually see up her skirt to territory that should remain unknown to all except her mother and her future husband. Note I say "question". This is because the school administration believes that what we are looking at is not indecently exposed flesh but simply a shadow. However, the student is allegedly so humiliated that she hasn't returned to school since the yearbooks were handed out. Moreover, her mother is angrily demanding that all of the yearbooks be confiscated and new ones printed and passed out.

I have some thoughts on these demands...

First, wearing a skirt that isn't at least knee length while also going "commando" on school picture may not be in the top ten list of dumb things to do as a high school student, but the consequences of such a decision are certainly both probable and predictable. As in, "Duh!"

Second, since both mom and "victim" decided to go public on CNN with this little story, it would have been nice to get some indication of mom's disapproval with her daughter's indiscretion. Nope. Instead, we were treated with a mother's misplaced righteous indignation that the school would dare to leave these yearbooks in the hands of pubescent young men and woman which now apparently contains pictoral evidence of her daughters most intimate ... you get the idea.

Were I able to speak to mom, I would remind her that her daughter's own poor decision is what resulted in the questionable photo being taken. Had I found out that my high-school aged daughter had EVER gone to school without wearing the full complement of correct underclothing there would have been absolutely no question as to my displeasure.

Another thought that occurs to me is that yearbooks are pretty expensive. When I went to high school back in the late 1970's, they were twenty to thirty bucks apiece. They were printed on high-quality glossy paper. It took all year to make those year books. And when they get handed out, the American ritual is for the students to pass those books around to as many of their friends as they can to get a signature or little written token of their affection. It would cost several thousands of dollars to repeat the printing. Further, there is no way that the school is going to get all of those handed out copies back, with their precious signatures that some of these students will have no opportunity to collect again.

For this mother to DEMAND that the school confiscate those books and reprint them at public expense is a shockingly glaring example of just how "me" centric we have become.

This is a very tough learning experience for that young, indiscreet student. I hope that she recovers from it, learns from it and can move forward. But to be clear, for her family to make the demands that it is of the school administration and all of those students for what is clearly a bad decision on one student's part is selfish. It also fails to address the root cause of this problem, which is the belief by this student that it is acceptable to go to school in a short skirt without wearing underwear. Mom, do you have a comment on that?

17 Year-old Girls are now Adults According to the FDA.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/22/plan.b.age/index.html

The Honorable U.S. District Judge Edward Korman of the Eastern District of New York today ruled that the FDA must make the "morning after" drug (Plan B or Levonorgestrel) available as an over-the-counter medication to17 year-old girls.

In making this decision, the judge determined that the FDA had failed to follow it's own guidelines and rules with respect to this drug and the intention to make it an OTC drug for women 18-years of age or older.

While I can understand how the judge came to the conclusion concerning the enforcement of FDA rule consistency, I completely fail to understand how the judge can be so blind as to the enormous moral and social implications that this decision will result in.

Essentially, what the U.S. District Court has done is make it significantly easier for a child, who is the responsibility of a legal parent-guardian, to engage in illicit sexual activity, which is clearly considered a "mature" or "adult" act and to hide this activity from her parents. In other words, by order of the courts, U.S. parents are yet one more step removed from being able to legally supervise or monitor the behavior of their legal wards.

In his opinion, Judge Korman cited that since the FDA had research that concluded that a 17 year-old can use "Plan B" without danger of serious side effects, and in fact the FDA had solicited an application from the drug's manufacturer to apply for a permit to sell the drug OTC to 17 year-olds, then the FDA's current rules with regard of the availability of "Plan B" to 17 year-old girls was "inconsistent" with it's own findings. This is certainly technically correct.

But technicalities are only one side of this issue. What about the social, moral and cultural implications?

Essentially, within the narrow scope of his ruling, the Honorable Judge Korman has essentially made the 17 year-old independent of her parent's or legal guardian's wishes concerning her sexual behavior by making it possible for her to buy "morning after" pills without their consent or knowledge.

Doesn't this make the 17 year-old an adult? Isn't the decision to perform the sexual act and accept the risk all the consequences thereof primarily an adult decision? Doesn't this relieve the parents of their responsibility of their wayward child in this regard? And if so, why do we continue to employ a legal double standard? How come a 12 year old child has to pay adult prices to go see a movie at the theater but cannot drive a car? How come a 16 year old child can be trusted with driving a 3,000 thousand pound car but not smoke a cigarette? How come an 18 year old can be trusted to serve the United States armed services but they can't enjoy an alcoholic beverage? How is it that a judge can permit a 17 year old to buy "morning after" pills because she is having sex but she cannot enter into a legal and binding contract?

If the government isn't going to allow me to be responsible for raising my child, and requiring society to help me to keep my child accountable (like pharmacists who provide birth-control to minors), then please please please allow my child to become an adult at 17 or 16 and be done with it.

(1) http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-12.pdf

Who in the heck needs the US Gov, Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae? We need FAMILIES!

Ask any kid of a normal working-class family "What's the hardest part about buying a new house?" Most will say "Coming up with the down payment." And they'd be right.

So here's what we're doing. Laura and I made this offer to Mat and Heather (son-in-law and daughter) when they announced their engagement: You can live with us for three years. You will pay us $700.00 per month. We will put that money in a separate bank account. On month 37, we are going to kick you out, but we will also give you your rent money back, which should be worth about $25,000 at that point. That's 10% of a quarter million dollar house. To date they've already saved nearly $8,000.

That's how my kids are going to get into a house without using Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae or one of these dumba** risky loan types.

More Americans need to think like families again, and solve problems for each other by helping each other, instead of expecting government to bail them out.

I thought I'd share this with you just to let you know that I'm not just ranting because I'm some right-wing neocon unsympathetic psychopathic nut job.