Parenting Advice from John Adams - A How Not-To Guide

With parenthood just over a month away, I've been spending a lot of time wondering if I'm up to the challenge. In many ways, I still feel like a kid myself.

Thinking about parenting has made me take an interest in other people's relationships with their kids - and my continuing interest in the history of America got me thinking about John Adams - Founding Father and second president - and his relationship with his children.

On the surface of it, most people would probably imagine John Adams to be a wonderful parent. After all, he himself had a reputation as a grumpy, pessimistic but scrupulously honest man and his oldest son, John Quincy, went on to become president of the United States himself a few years later.

But not many people know that John Adams had four other children, two girls and two boys. Sadly, his youngest daughter died in childhood, but his other three children lived to adulthood and the way their lives turned out paints a pretty dim picture of Adam's parenting skills.

The most obvious example is Adam's second child, Charles. A sweet and kindly child, he was pressured by his father to follow family tradition and enter Harvard, before pursuing a career in law. Charles, however, was far too free-spirited and artistic for the constraints of the legal profession and hated being forced into a career he didn't want to pursue. He'd much rather have been a farmer back in Boston.

John Adam's surviving daughter, Nabby, was likewise a sweet and intelligent young woman who wanted to marry a young man by the name of Royall Tyler. John Adams would have none of it and forbade the marriage - forcing his daughter to dutifully marry one of his father's colleagues, Colonel William Stephens Smith.

Nabby probably had good reason to be reluctant to marry Smith. He was an excellent soldier, but a miserable businessman and they spent most of their marriage in debt. The man Nabby had wanted to marry, Royall Tyler (whom John Adams had considered unlikely to make anything of himself) went on the have a very successful career as Chief Justice of Vermont and was one of the first accomplished American playwrights.

Youngest son Thomas was also not cut out to be a lawyer, but was forced into the business by his overbearing father. Despite early success, his legal career led him into debt - eventually forcing him to move into his parent's home with his wife and seven children. They lived the majority of their lives totally dependent on his parents.

Even John Quincy Adams, the 'success story' of the Adams family, was berated and belittled by his father for many years - warning him: "You come into life with advantages which will disgrace you if your success is mediocre. And if you do not rise to the head not only of your profession, but of your country, it will be owing to your own laziness, slovenliness, and obstinacy."

John Quincy rose to the challenge and become one of America's most noted presidents - but the effect his upbringing had had on him was noticeable even to himself. John Quincy admitted that his upbringing had left him "a man of reserved, cold, austere, and forbidding manners."

John Quincy's life story is familiar to most Americans. The fate of his siblings, however, is not. Charles Adams, after being virtually renounced by his father, died of alcoholism at just thirty years old. Nabby lived only thirteen years longer, dying in poverty after a long battle with cancer. Thomas Adams lived with his parents until he, too, drank himself to death in 1832.

So what went wrong? How did an inspirational American like John Adams prove to be a wonderful parent to the fledgling United States, but such a miserable one to his own flesh and blood?

Some people blame his New England puritanical sensibilities. Although not a particularly religious man, John Adams was filled with a rather Protestant predilection for criticism, both of himself and his children. He and his equally overbearing wife, Abigail, constantly berated and belittled their offspring and as a result, Charles, Thomas and Nabby were all noted for their lack of confidence and self esteem.

Perhaps this is why they surrendered to their father's pressure to follow marriages and careers that made them unhappy.

It's not even as if John Adams had been a particually good parent in other regards. Charles Adams, in a rare moment of self-confidence, confronted his father once about how he was so critical and demanding of his children, while at the same time such a frequently absent parent. John Adams had spent many years abroad, in the courts of France and England, and the correspondence he occasionally wrote to his children tended to be full of unwanted 'advice' and criticism.

All in all, it's a very tragic story - more so because of the nature of John Adams himself. Although not a very likable man - he admitted to Thomas Jefferson that he was "obnoxious and disliked" - Adams was a principled man of scrupulous honesty who was immune to the temptations of corrupt politics. Although he crossed swords with most of the Founding Fathers, including Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, they all regarded him with immense respect.

Even when it comes to his children, Adams clearly just wanted the best for them. He wanted his sons to pursue the career that had given him such success and notability. He wanted his daughter to make a good marriage to a man who could support her. All the overbearing pressure he put on his children's lives was well intentioned.

But part of growing up is finding your own path in life and pursing what makes you happy. If John Adams had loosened the reins a little and allowed Charles, Thomas and Nabby to follow their own destiny, perhaps their lives wouldn't have had such a tragic outcome.

I've been very lucky. My parents have supported my ambitions, even when they haven't always agreed with them. I hope that whatever my child is, I'm going to be able to encourage them to pursue their dreams too, whatever they may be.

Bastante es bastante!

Okay, it's time America cut this Spanish-language appeasement crap.

I'm sick to death of it. I'm sick of the fact that Bank of America sends me my credit-card statements in Spanish (despite four complaints I've made) and I'm sick of every sign, leaflet, document and television program having Spanish translations or subtitles.

America is an English speaking country. American-English, to be precise, and if you're expecting to live here, you damn well ought to make a stab at speaking it.

It was Mr Noah Webster, following American Independence, who defined 'American English.' He wrote the essential American dictionary, the Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language.

If I've got to sacrifice my British idioms to fit in here (saying gas instead of petrol, 'zee' instead of 'zed') I don't see why my fellow immigrants feel compelled to demand that Americans accommodate their ignorance of English.

I worked in Paris for four years - and certainly didn't expect to get business done in any language other than French while I was there. When I arrived, I barely spoke a word - but I made the effort to learn. These days, I might not be the most graceful linguist, but I certainly know enough to get complex things done.

Not so our Spanish-speaking friends in America! Vile nationalist organisations like La Raza are promoting the idea that not accommodating Spanish-speakers is racist. What rubbish! By that logic, tourists in New York are being discriminated against daily because signs aren't in French, German or Japanese.

What really gets my goat is the attitude some pro-Spanish speakers have. After gently explaining to one fellow immigrant that I didn't speak a word of Spanish, she snootily responded: 'I think it's rather ignorant not to learn a second language, no?'

Her smile soon faded when I explained my fluency in French - and a basic grasp of German I still vaguely remember.

The fact is, American English defines the United States as much as the Stars and Stripes or Declaration of Independence. When Noah Webster established the spelling and grammar that differentiated American English from it's British cousin, he set a precedent.

"The appropriate standard for the American language," argued Webster, "is the same republican principles as American civil constitutions."

In this belief, Webster created 'Americanized' English, replacing "colour" with "color", substituting "wagon" for "waggon" and printing "center" instead of "centre." He also added newly invented American words, like "skunk" and "squash", that didn't appear in British dictionaries.

He created a new language to suit the newly created American Republic.

In the United States, we rightly celebrate our differences and enjoy an enormous amount of freedom to live the way we choose to. What makes us truly American, however, are not the differences, but the few things we have in common. The English language (or the American version of it) is one of them.

By refusing to learn American English - and demanding that the country accommodate their own language - millions of immigrants are taking the opportunities and freedoms given to them by American society, but refusing to consider themselves a part of it.

Growing old disgracefully...

It's never been cooler to be a septuagenarian.

What with John McCain running for the presidency and Harrison Ford running from the Soviets (in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,) it looks like hitting 'the third age' isn't the handicap it used to be.

I can't wait to see the new Indy movie. Some people treat the 'elderly' with such disdain - forgetting that they've done things and seen things that would blow their socks off.

By the time my father was my age, he'd lived in Jamaica, done the Milan to Turin run in under an hour, driven a Land Rover to Pakistan and helped build a nuclear power station. In comparison, my life's been pretty tame.

Hopefully, seeing Indy practicing his uniquely destructive brand of archeology once again (after a nineteen year absence) will help educate us snotty youngsters that a few creaks and rattles doesn't mean the machinery's ready for the scrap heap.

In the words of Indiana Jones himself - "It's not the years, Honey. It's the mileage."

Law & Disorder

Having watched many episodes of Law & Order, I understand Detective Logan and Briscoe's frustration when District Attorney Jack McCoy tells them they don't have enough evidence to drag a suspect into court.

But there are cases in which life doesn't imitate art, such as wildly popular rapper R Kelly finding himself in court on 14 charges of producing child pornography - which could land him prison for 15 years.

If he's guilty of those vile charges, he's getting off lucky with a decade and a half behind bars.

But the case isn't exactly watertight. Law and Order's Jack McCoy would never approve.

The primary evidence is a grainy video-tape, supposedly filmed in the late nineties and showing R Kelly having sexual relationships with a 13 year old girl (who's now in her twenties.)

The problem? R Kelly's lawyers say it's not even him in the video - the subject's face is never clearly seen and there's a suspicious mole on his back that R Kelly says proves it's not him.

Even worse for the Chicago District Attorney's office, the alleged victim refuses to testify against R Kelly and likewise denies that it's her in the videotape.

This leaves the question - who are the stars? And if they're not Kelly and his 'victim,' what's this tape doing as the primary piece of evidence in a child pornography trial?

There's not even any evidence that the female 'star' of the tape is underage. Concensus amongst those who've seen the tapes is that she certainly doesn't look it.

I'm not a fan of famous people getting lenient treatment for their crimes - but I'm also not a fan of famous people getting dragged onto court with less-than convincing evidence. It highlights serious lapses of judgement within the American legal system.

The Chicago District Attorney have a spotlight on them at the moment. They need to respond by putting together an utterly convincing case based on firm evidence. So far, they've failed miserably.

Polite

I think the major problem with any form of long-term human relationship is that 'familiarity breeds contempt.'

Specifically, the better some people get to know each other, the worse they treat them.

Generally, we're all pretty polite to strangers - but some of us can be outrageously rude to family and friends.

We make an effort to impress people we've just met - but we're bitchy to people we know intimately.

How come people say 'please' and 'thank you' in a coffee shop, but don't dream of saying it over the dinner table?

I think, to be brutally honest, the way people act behind closed doors, amongst the company of their closest family and friends, is how people really are - and sometimes it's not very pretty.

"Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength." Eric Hoffer

"Treat everyone with politeness, even those who are rude to you - not because they are nice, but because you are." Author Unknown

Dicky Bird

There's at least one member of the local wildlife who's willing to defy the squirrel mafia. This Robin Red-Breast has taken up proud occupation of the garage and won't fly off even when I climbed up the steps to take this picture.

I still say Ava would have made short work of him.

'Cops and Rodders' Classic Car Show

I've been too busy to post my pictures from the North Brunswick Classic Car show, sponsored by Malouf, the local car dealership. So finally, here they are!

It was in support of the local emergency services and a very pretty girl was walking around with an adorable dog taking donations.


The show itself was interesting. Unlike the Flemington Classic Car show, there were a wide variety of cars on display including many modern vehicles and lots that were modified in a way the classic-car purist might frown at. This Corvette with wing-style doors was a prime example.

There were also plenty of cars from my vintage, including quite a few Camaros that were the same age as Tiffany III. There were a couple of the latest generation of Firebirds and even an '88 Trans Am that didn't look that much smarter than mine!

Here's a very sexy Camaro from the seventies - just the sort of car I used to lust after.

This Ford F40 shouldn't even qualify as a classic car! It's a modern reinvention of the endurance-race classic. But it was lovely.

This Thunderbird was fascinating because it was 'unrestored.' That meant chipped paint and the odd ding - but not much considering the car was nearly sixty years old!

Right next to it was the restored version - which looked beautiful (but I secretly preferred the dented version.)

And, of course, no 'cops and rodders' show would be complete without some Hot Rods to enjoy.

This is a Dodge Viper truck, just like my brother-in-law Justin has.

This coupe (pronounced 'coop') had fold-up seats for extra passengers - as long as they didn't mind getting wet! Next time you're in your air-conditioned back seat, be thankful!

Compared to the Flemington show, the Cops and Rodders event was a little more low-key, but I enjoyed the cars they had on display a bit more. These were 'real' classic cars. The sort that got taken out and driven on a regular basis. That's what it's all about, if you ask me.

California Supreme Court gives Thumbs Up to Gay Marriage

The California Supreme Court has overturned a state law banning gay marriage, declaring that it violates the state constitution.

But despite that fact, conservative groups in California are pushing to amend the state's constitution to add a clause: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

My question is: Why?

I mean, seriously... Why bother? Why is it so important to conservative idiots like the National Organization for Marriage to ban same-sex couples from committing to a life-long relationship?

You don't have to like it. You don't even have to condone it. But this is America and one of the most fundamental rights is that of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'

The US Supreme court even recognized that: "Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Two people of the same-sex getting married does not affect me in the slightest. It doesn't have any impact on my life whatsoever. Since nobody's life is altered in any way by the right of same-sex couples to get married, why should anybody have to right to oppose it?

By supporting gay marriage, I'm not advocating homosexuality or what conservatives laughingly refer to as 'the homosexual agenda.' All I'm doing is supporting an American's personal freedom. The right to make their own decisions.

I find it hypocritical that so many conservatives vote Republican - the party that's meant to protect Americans from the government interfering in their personal choices.

Conservatives demand the right to bear arms and the right to practice whatever retarded religion they want. Yet when somebody else demands their rights, like two consensual adults deciding to have a committed relationship, the conservatives want to the government to stick their oar in.

What these idiots don't realise is that they're weakening their own positions. After they've empowered the government to decide who can and can't get married, they'll find themselves in a much more vulnerable position when it comes to defending their own rights.

Second amendment gun-nuts and fundamentalist religious loonies really ought to be reaching out to the gay community instead of attacking it. They're both actually fighting the same battle. The conservatives are just too stupid to realise it.

Philadelphia in the Rain

There are probably better ways to enjoy America's Constitution City than stuck in the hard shoulder of I-95 in the pouring rain. But that was how Philly welcomed me this morning.

Suitably disgraced, my formerly reliable chariot went off for a new starter motor and I went off to work in the downtown district of the birthplace of the American Republic.

Now people say a lot of bad things about Philadelphia. So far, I think it's a lovely place.

One of the older cities in America, it's beautifully designed and the buildings in the centre of the city are gorgeous. Elegant sky-scrapers, historic museums, ritzy art galleries and tree-lined boulevards that glisten in the rain (I'd have preferred more glistening and less rain, but I can't get everything, can I?)

What's more, the people in Philly are different.

Now I've always had a fondness for New Yorkers (I married one, didn't I?) But from the breakdown driver to my Camaro obsessed mechanic, everybody's been incredibly nice to me. There's just a different attitude here - like people are willing to say hello to you before they demand what they want.

Of course, it's not New York. The pizza's not as good, it costs $30 a day to park here (rather than $30 an hour) and the public transport's provided by authentic 1940's trams, rather than urine-scented subways.

But while New York is the gateway to America - where a million American dreams began - Philadelphia is where the American Dream got started - when 13 fledgling colonies met in congress to sign the Declaration of Independence and give birth to the American nation.

The unassuming red-brick building where the Continental Congress signed this historic document is less than two miles from my hotel. I'd visit there tonight, except my boss suggested I didn't roam the streets on my own after dark!