Why don’cha speak English?

By John Gascoyne

Politely stated, English is a polyglot language – a tongue derived from many sources, many parent tongues.

Less politely said, ours is a mongrel language, a convoluted bastard tongue resulting from someone doing a cannonball in the gene pool.

John Gascoyne is a writer and lawyer in Fort Collins, Colo. Learn more about him…

Thus, when someone archly asks, “Why don’cha speak English?” they are, however unknowingly, demanding you speak a tongue with deep roots in Spanish, Greek, Italian, German, French, Latin and, yes, the sometimes indecipherable English that is spoken in England. Other languages have contributed to the verbal and written stew.

Before the commie-crazed and hyper-religious days of Dwight D. Eisenhower, our nation’s motto was “E Pluribus Unum” – “From many comes one.” This original and still-beautiful motto speaks of a country populated by immigrants from many other nations coming together as one homogenized and functioning social entity. (For this discussion, we’ll stick with the Doris Day happy, happy view – and not talk about thousands of people who were kidnapped and brought here, the many thousands who originally owned the place and were largely subjugated after we got here.)

E Pluribus Unum could also be said fairly of the English language – one tongue born of a great many other tongues.

Try explaining this to a Bunny Bread-white person who is yelling at someone else: “Speak English, this is America and that’s the only language we allow.” The common Facebook rendering of such an encounter most often deals with someone having the audacity to speak Spanish in public. Speakers of other tongues, while less numerous, still have to deal with the same nonsense.

Perhaps an armchair trek around the country will reveal some reality problems in speaking the redneck conception of our common language. Let’s start with names in English – as spoken in the U.S. – that sound disturbingly Spanish.

If you live in Colorado, as too many of us do, you’re living in a state that, in pure American English, should be called Dark Red. Moving on, we learn that, properly, California needs to be called Lime Oven; Nevada – Snow-covered and Florida – Land of Flowers. The name of the state known as New Mexico comes from Nuevo Mexico, and Texas was originally a Native American name, later Hispanicized.

“We need to be able to stand next to someone being criticized for using their own beautiful native tongue, to put a hand on their shoulder and just stand there with them.”

Around the nation, there are many, many dozens of Spanish-named towns, cities, counties, islands, rivers, and lakes. If we decide to cater to the “pure” English aficionados, we’ll need to organize a great many re-naming committees. One of the most eye-catching changes will occur when the Sangre de Cristos Mountains become the Blood of Christ Mountains.

Recently, there have been instances of Native Americans using their own language and being chastised for not “speaking American.”

It would be nice to think that pointing out some of these realities to the haters would help them to shut the hell up. We’re beyond that. Thanks mostly to the loser of the popular vote, a scary percentage of our fellow Americans are caught in a downward spiral of mind-crippling fear. Unable to admit to or contend with that fear, their default position is to spew hate-filled vitriol.

We’ll either get over, through, and past this nonsense or we won’t. In the meantime, we need to be able to stand next to someone being criticized for using their own beautiful native tongue, to put a hand on their shoulder and just stand there with them.


Little Plays in Four Acts

By John Gascoyne

You’ve settled down with your spouse and the kidlets to eat popcorn and watch a bit of after-dinner TV. The program, only so-so, invites lassitude, but the commercial jolts you into wide-eyed, amazed alertness.

John Gascoyne is a writer and lawyer living in Fort Collins, Colo. Learn more about John…

The ad is a cartoon representation of Joe’s gastrointestinal tract. There is blockage in the tract and we get to view cartoon doo-doo. You’re not comfortable with this and sideways glances reveal that the kids, also not comfortable, are looking at you, searching for a parental explanation of relevance and okay-ness. You have no idea of how to respond, so you sit there ignoring your parental obligation. Your spouse does likewise.

Back to the program and, too soon, to the next medical commercial.

What you are watching is an almost purely American phenomenon – the hawking of prescription medications over your TV set. New Zealand also allows such ads; no other country does.

Few, perhaps none, of these commercials are more than a minute in length. Nonetheless, almost all are carefully contrived plays, each with four discernible acts:

  • Act One – the bad thing – designed to scare the hell out of you. Depending upon the drug being peddled, it can be, among other things, an obstructed gut, serious skin problems, a heart that’s ready to blow, or a brain that’s about to fail you big time.

    Viagra is advertised on TV and in print. This advertisement is from 1970. Source: ProCon.org

  • Act Twohelp is on the way. If you will just invest in our product, you can be saved from the bad thing. This promise is underscored by fluffy depictions of people learning to smile again, going for walks in grassy meadows, or tossing their grandkids up in the air.
  • Act Threedon’t say we didn’t warn you. This contains a litany of at least some of the truly negative things that have happened to some of the folks who invested their retirement savings in our product. The litany runs the gamut – from itchy scalp to bloating, to worsening of the condition we want to save you from, to premature death.
  • Act Four – really upbeat again, striving to induce gauzy forgetfulness over the scares induced in Act Three. Trust us, just trust us. More kids being tossed into the air.

The sales pitch often includes weasel words, subtle exculpation. Listen for the words “have happened.” This is a smoothing over of the scary language used in Act Three. E.g. “Incidents of uncontrollable itching, horrible heartburn, and early death have happened.” No ad cops to the reality that the cure is sometimes worse than the malady.

Remember to take the short survey at the end of this article

Remember this advertisement? “Lady, Your Anxiety Is Showing,” Ad for Triavil, a tranquilizer antidepressant in 1970. Source: ProCon.org

An honest statement would be more like: “In some instances, use of our product has produced negative results, sometimes serious ones, such as…… Nonetheless, you may benefit from our product and the odds are in your favor that there will be no downsides.”

Another part of the hype is, “Ask your doctor to prescribe….” Let’s examine this. You cannot, of course, obtain controlled medicines without a prescription. Consider that your doctor is hammered by clever salespeople touting their product, offering inducements to prescribe.

A 2016 New York Times opinion column said the drug industry, which annually spends over $5 billion on TV ads, spends about seven times more than that trying to induce doctors to prescribe their product. The OxyContin fiasco could not have gotten to epidemic status without many doctors over-prescribing it.

Long before television: Medical drug advertising in 1885 relied on printed materials. Source: ProCon.org

The American Medical Association once favored the airing of these ads. In more recent times, however, the AMA has come out against them. No one is listening.

Ask yourself why these ads are swarming your TV. Simple – it’s all about a money transfer – your money becoming the drug industry’s money – there is no stronger motivator. Yes, some or many of these products may produce some or all of the hoped-for relief. Don’t consider that as the main reason why you are looking at Joe’s gut.

Learn more

Why is your TV swarming with ads about prescription drugs?

Pop quiz: The Twitter-in-Chief’s tweets – Nasty or Meaningful?

By John Gascoyne

Pop quiz: Who is the biggest loser – the present occupier of the White who issues the mindless, mean-spirited tweets, or the audience – media and the public alike – who are suckered into reading and discussing them ad nauseum?

John Gascoyne is a writer and lawyer living in Fort Collins, Colo. Learn more about him…

My vote would go to the people – us and the media – as the biggest losers. Donald is trolling us and we fall into his web, needlessly, just about every day.

Mika, Joe, Chelsea, and Hillary have all been attacked by tRump recently. That nastiness, while hateful and spiteful, has no meaningful or valuable place in the national dialogue. These are all tough public figures who can look out for themselves. It just can’t matter how Mika and Joe respond or that Chelsea or her mom may have scored a zinger of a reply back to the Tweeter in Chief.

Don’t forget to take the short pop quiz at the end of this article.

Trump and his Twitterfingers have replaced baseball as the national addiction: we wake up to news agencies – TV and press – talking about the latest back-alley issuance as being worthy of dissemination and discussion. We get suckered into following the back-and-forth as if there must be some greater meaning.

There isn’t.

We are being played, badly, by a careless and uncaring person who substitutes pointless and nasty attacks for meaningful commentary.

There are ways to deal with this:

  • The media can all refrain from disseminating attack trash from the White House. They can, of course, cover legitimate political issuances, should there happen to be any.
  • We, the people, can urge media to begin acting like responsible news organizations rather than unwitting puppets.
  • As individuals, we can just ignore the silliness – following it, repeating it, or offering it any credence whatsoever.

One way to deal with this is to create a Bull-O-Meter Rating System. If a particular tweet is 25 percent, or less, pure Bull, and has national relevance, sure, go ahead and disseminate it. Contrariwise, if the tweet exceeds that amount of pure Bull, don’t do the Tweeter-in-Chief’s nasty business for him – don’t promulgate hate-filled, pointless speech.


Twitter is Trump’s direct link to Americans to attack people, distribute lies

The results of an ABC/Washington Post poll released July 17 showed 67 percent of Americans disapprove of Donald Trump’s tweet. The poll also found that 68 percent said the tweets were inappropriate; 65 percent said they were insulting, and 52 percent said his tweets were dangerous. Read the USA Today article about the poll.

More than any other president, CEO or movie star, Trump has learned to use Twitter to his personal advantage, often with disregard for truth and dignity.

According to TwitterCounter.com, he averages eight tweets a day. As of July 13, @realDonaldTrump had 33,697,688 followers, ranking his account 31 for number of followers among all Twitter users. He has sent out 35,277 tweets since joining Twitter in 2009.

An extraordinarily high number of his tweets contain personal attacks on anyone who speaks critically of his politics, business tactics or morals. He also relies on Twitter to distribute lies and fake news: the size of the inaugural crowd, voter fraud was in the millions, to name just two examples. Here’s a look at his recent tweets.


Read a previous Writers With No Borders article about Trump’s tweets: Why Trump’s bait-and-switch tweets confuse Americans by Gary Kimsey.


Take the following pop quiz, please. We will report the results in the right narrow column of the next article posted by Writers With No Borders. 

Civil Disobedience – a Primer of Sorts

By John Gascoyne

Let’s start with a definitional reality check: Civil Disobedience (CD) is an intentional, non-violent criminal act, committed in support of a perceived worthy public need or ambition. Inherent in an act of CD is that it will be done in public and that the actor makes no effort to conceal her/his involvement.

John Gascoyne is a writer and lawyer living in Fort Collins, Colo. Learn more about him…

If you engage in civil disobedience and are arrested, be aware of some of the consequences to you and to those close to you:

  • Your freedom of movement will be immediately curtailed for an unknown, but usually fairly short, period of time – e.g. overnight or over the weekend. Yes, it could be for a longer time. This time frame contemplates your being able to make bail; it does not consider a possible jail sentence following a trial.
  • Your access to other people, to work, to school, etc. will be severely or completely limited for an indefinite period if you are serving time as a result of your involvement
  • If convicted for your action(s), you will carry some kind of criminal record – one that may very well stay with you. Consider having older activists perform the civil disobedience with younger folks being part of the support group – and thereby avoiding the stigma of a career-endangering rap sheet.

On the other hand:

  • Historically, acts of civil disobedience generally have been regarded as both noble and effective. Henry David Thoreau coined the term in 1849 and his writings influenced the thinking and actions of Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King and thousands of other heroes. Thoreau said, “Let your life be a counter friction to the machine.”
  • If someone is convinced that the stakes are great enough, and that other redress isn’t going to work, civil disobedience can be a meaningful personal response.

Some do’s and don’ts if you plan to engage in CD:

  • Carry yourself and your objectives with dignity and reserve.
  • If arrest is imminent, you can submit to law enforcement peacefully. If you choose to not do so – e.g. by going limp – you may face additional charges such as resisting arrest. Try to chart your own course ahead of time. There is never good reason for you to physically engage with or be aggressive toward authorities.
  • Don’t insult or demean arresting authorities. On the other hand, the deputy sheriff or police officer is not your friend – during arrest, transportation, or incarceration. No digas nada – don’t offer anything beyond your name and address.
  • Historically, some political and social movements have been infiltrated by government agents. Be wary of the stranger who wants to run the show or who is encouraging excessive actions.
  • Don’t assume that the friendly stranger in your cell can be confided in. Jailhouse snitches earn points by ratting on you.
  • Plan ahead – let one or two non-participating friends know your intentions. Carry their contact information with you. Consider giving them access to your rainy day bail money.
  • If necessary, carry prescribed medications with you. You will be searched after arrest, so don’t carry anything that will embarrass you in front of Officer Friendly.
  • If you have attorneys who will likely represent you, keep their card with you if possible. Memorize their phone number or write it on your arm or leg. Be aware that advising your attorneys in advance of the particulars of an act of civil disobedience will put them in an awkward position as they cannot condone a criminal action of which they have prior knowledge.
  • If you do have an attorney, or intend to have one, the first thing you should say to the police is, “I want to contact to my lawyer.”
  • The Public Defenders are extremely busy and tend to handle mostly serious offenses. It may be difficult for them to engage on your behalf.
  • Try to record everything about the action, about your arrest, and about your post-arrest experience. If possible, keep a pen and paper with you after the initial search.
  • Have non-participating confederates witnessing from a secure position and recording the action on cell phones and video cameras. These witnesses should avoid impeding arresting officers; on the other hand, they cannot legally be ordered to stop recording. Not every authority will respect the law in this regard; you may have to verbally stand your ground.
  • Develop rapport with local and national media personnel. Advise them of when and where they should be on hand.
  • Some CD actions can result in the use of tear gas or other irritants. Your handkerchief, soaked in water and tied behind your head, can offer some protection for your breathing.

One organization’s How-To Guide and Suggestions

In order to move from the abstract to the real, the following commentary depicts one successful group’s operating procedures:

Direct Action means the overall effort to achieve an important social or political objective at a particular location. We employ circles of Direct Action and Civil Disobedience – Green, Yellow and Red-zoned participation levels. These are designed as concentric levels of support at levels which participants feel they can comfortably contribute to the issues and actions.

Naturally, all factors must be discussed and thoroughly evaluated before an action is taken. Every part of every element for every person and action must be analyzed and projected in order to assure the advancement of the social objective. In The Art of War, Sun Tzu states: “Those who can see the outcome before they start will always win the battle.

Red: Imminent arrest. A situation where a known law(s) will be broken and where the participant faces almost assured arrest. The participant is well aware of the laws that may be broken at this time, the subsequent consequences, and their effect on the direct action as a whole. If arrest is not going to escalate, i.e. serve the purposes of the direct action issue, then arrest is generally avoided where possible.

Yellow: This is an immediate outer circle layer of support of the “arrestables”. The word “support” has many meanings, some of which can include, but not be limited to film, photography, equipment, and safety in support of the person in the red zone. Yellow participants assume a certain level of risk of arrest, but generally do not participate directly at the same level of involvement in the direct action as someone in the Red Zone.

Green: The green zone is generally the safest of all and arrest is unlikely. This zone generally provides legal observation, scouting, communications with a legal team, media agencies, social networks and other resources.

Have legal support

One of the most critical aspects of what we have done nationally or internationally has been to always have legal support. If someone is going into the red zone, they use a permanent marker and write, on the inside of the thigh or arm, the phone number of their personal legal counsel and any other phone numbers necessary to their release from custody. No phone numbers should give away extra information regarding the group or their tactics.

Volunteer legal observers – lay persons – are always on site and document every movement of persons in the red zone, any interactions with authorities, etc. These documents can be utilized in court actions to defend an arrested person. This is also true of any video or audio content that might be captured from the location and the direct action.

If a person who is engaging in civil disobedience “goes limp” when given lawful orders by police authorities, they may have to deal with an added charge of resisting arrest.

Location “lock downs” are usually considered among the most effective tactics. For example, where someone’s arms are handcuffed inside of a large iron pipe, it can take a great deal of time to arrest them, thus providing lots of time for media coverage – one of the main goals of civil disobedience.

Lastly, protection of all parties is paramount. The safety of participants, law enforcement agents, and observers must be maintained.

I Pledge…I Guess

By John Gascoyne

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Confession time: yes, I frequent Facebook. In fact, it’s become more than just a habit – it is, however mild, an embarrassing addiction.

John Gascoyne is a writer and lawyer living in Fort Collins, Colo. Learn more about him…

I recently responded to one of those frequent and superficial Facebook polls. The question for this one: “Should children recite the Pledge of Allegiance daily in our public schools?”

A raft of responses was unanimous-zip in favor of pledging – until I started typing.

In somewhat snarky words, I asked if all schoolchildren should be required to pledge and if that should also hold true for middle and high school kids, and what about college students? Now I was on a roll: what about adults? What about those apparently unpatriotic miscreants, students and older, who would rather not feel forced to declare their allegiance – can their property be confiscated? Can they otherwise be forced into compliance?

Some context: we live in a time of oughts and ought-nots. We ought to feel just fine about the new regime; we ought to manifest our patriotic righteousness in manifest ways; we ought to assume that there will be elections in 2018; we ought to cheerfully pay our taxes while the elite evade theirs; we ought to be okay with critical classified information being peddled as a blue light special on Aisle 3, etc.

So…we ought to force our children to have their voices daily ring with the Pledge of Allegiance; we adults ought to recite it daily; we ought to think about placing our hands over our exposed hearts and reciting it in the bedroom with our lovers just before we…the possibilities are endless.

Before we get too far down the patriotic road, however, let’s learn a bit about the Pledge and student participation in it and with it.

The first known recital of the Pledge by students was on Columbus Day in 1892. Although it soon became something of a cultural hit, there were some who objected to reciting it in school and elsewhere – some extremist groups for religious reasons, some extremist individuals for a myriad of personal reasons.

Francis Bellamy was the author of the first version of the Pledge and wrote it in 1892. Three different sources describe Francis in three somewhat different ways:

  • According to one, he was the son of a Baptist preacher and a socialist, wanting to criticize, via the Pledge, the excessive greed and extreme individualism of the time.
  • In a Smithsonian-released 2003 article, Bellamy is described as an ordained minister – with no mention of socialist inclinations.
  • In something of a tie-breaker, the Huffington Post identifies the author as a Christian Socialist.

Whether to pledge or not to pledge became an issue that roiled through our society for many years. In 1943, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that students do not have to participate in the Pledge. The ensuing legal history of the issue seemed to settle corollary issues:

  • Students do not have to stand while their comrades recite the Pledge.
  • Students cannot be compelled to leave the room during the Pledge.
  • Teachers cannot single out a non-complying student nor can they comment upon an individual’s decision to exercise their choice.

Whether these laws of the land are actually respected is, of course, a different question, one to be determined by tracking individual schools and classrooms.

The wording of the Pledge has some elasticity and has seen modifications over the years. The most recent, and likely the most controversial change, was finalized in 1954. Consider the historical context of the time: we were hotly engaged in the Cold War and “godless communism” was the enemy du jour. What to do, what to do?

Dwight D. Eisenhower was President at the time and not a member of any particular religion when he entered office. Assumedly influenced by his wife, Mamie, he was baptized into her church and became a serious Presbyterian.

Many groups had begun advocating to insert “under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance. Perhaps most prominent was the Knights of Columbus, an activist group of laymen Catholics. (My dad was a member of the Coral Gables, Fla., branch at the time; don’t recall any discussions on point.) The Knights are generally found at the head of the line when credit for the added two words is accorded.

Eisenhower, then, with overwhelming support, effected the introduction of the two words “under God into the Pledge of Allegiance. Despite occasional efforts to go back to the older phrasing, the two words have been there ever since. There is little reason to believe that things will change in the foreseeable future. (“In God We Trust” replaced E Pluribus Unum as our national motto, also during Eisenhower’s reign. We’ll reserve comment for a subsequent rant.)

In trying to assess my personal feelings about the Pledge, particularly the “new” Pledge, and by inference how I feel about the Flag, I’m all over the board:

  • December, 1958, my 19-year-old brother Peter is lowered into the ground at Denver’s Fort Logan National Cemetery. My last memory of him is the U.S. flag covering his coffin, giving him more accord and honor than might have otherwise been true.
  • November, 1962, in Hong Kong harbor, aboard the guided missile cruiser USS Topeka. The Cuban Missile Crisis erupts, my tour of duty is extended a year but I was okay with being there—serving under my country’s flag.
  • May 8, 1970: Four days after Kent State, the University of New Mexico is one of the many schools shut down amid the national chaos. The nation’s flag has been flying at half-mast in honor of the students murdered at Kent State. After four days, the flag is scheduled to be returned to full-staff and a group of veterans has gathered to ensure that this happens. I’m at the flag now, totally adrenalized and needing to act. The paradox manifests: I’m a student striker and feel the flag should remain lowered; I’m also a veteran and sympathetic to the other vets and their ambition to raise the flag. I’m not able to choose; I wander away and soon joined and began to lead the student marshals – student strikers dedicated to seeking peaceful resolutions on campus. A few days later, the New Mexico National Guard storms the campus and bayonets a dozen people, including three of my young marshals. The flag was flying at the top of its mast as this took place.
  • When I see tired old white politicos sporting Chinese-made flag pins on their lapels, I bristle and resent this supposed support of the flag. I see it as a sacrilege and resent their smug misstatement of patriotism.
  • When I’m standing for the Pledge of Allegiance, I go silent when we get to the words “under God,” then I pick it up on the flip side. My belief is that this “God” of the Pledge is not a Buddhist, a Hindu, or a Moslem god. No, I can’t get past the conviction that those two words are a Christian invention and that most everyone knows, even while vehemently denying reality, that this is an homage to Jesus Christ and that we are pledging our fealty to a particular god – the god of white Christian America.
  • There’s an old and somewhat stained U.S. flag in my hall closet. When the occasion warrants, I take it down from the shelf and fly it from my front porch. Any reservations are put aside: this always feels like the right thing to do.

I don’t know if we truly need pledges or if other people need to hear us making them. Nonetheless, I’ve drafted one that would work for me:

I Pledge Allegiance to the Constitution of the occasionally United States of America and to the Democracy for which it may or may not stand (depending upon situational considerations), one Nation which recognizes the separation of church and State, indivisible (other than gerrymandering for the benefit of Nazi wannabees) with liberty (after the end of the reign of King Donald and his gang of anti-American sycophants) and justice for all – not just for those who can buy it. 


SOZUTI – My Last Chance To Get It Right

By John Gascoyne

Mnemonics, those memory-tickling acronyms and phrases, have been around for hundreds, maybe even thousands, of years. Without these clever reminders, scores of students would have to settle for lower test scores and artists would struggle to remember the essential colors of their palette.

John Gascoyne is a writer and lawyer who lives in Fort Collins, Colo. Learn more about him…

Why, then, approach the telling of my own concocted mnemonic—SOZUTI—with trepidation bordering on embarrassment? I’d like to think that the need for these reminders is not a function of the aging process. I’d also like to think that my hair is not thinning and that I don’t resort to hearing loss denial.

SOZUTI, in large high-liter letters, is posted on a note card next to the inside of my front door—the last thing I see before leaving home. The last thing, of course, if I remember to look at it. The good news is that, on occasion, I do notice the combination of coded admonitions and, on occasion, am saved from a red face or possibly more serious problems.

Simply put, SOZUTI stands for: Stove Off, Zip Up, Teeth In. Seemingly simple, yes, but let’s take it in parts:

STOVE OFF is fairly straight forward—have any burners been left burning; is the oven off? Inside of this question is another, equally serious, question—is there anything in the oven, on the burners?

My dad began having cognitive difficulties in the last few years of his wonderful 90-year span. My mom, also elderly, was as patient and caring as she could be. The incidents, however, increased in number and seriousness. One day Pop left a wooden cutting board on the burner and walked away. That was it, the final incident. Pop spent his last few years in a rest home serving life with no hope for parole.

I have two wooden cutting boards in my own home. The smaller one, suggesting that even family history repeats itself, is scarred with concentric black rings. I’ve thought about sanding the rings off and, in effect, starting over. So far, however, it serves as a good reminder: turn the damn stove off, now; you might not glance at the front door.

ZIP UP, contrary to what you are probably thinking, does not refer to winter jackets. Those are fairly easy to work with—if it’s cold enough, Nature will offer sufficient clues. No, the reminder has to do with that most feared of male sartorial oversights, the unzipped pants zipper. I’ve done fairly extensive research and believe there are only two categories of men in our society: those who are willing to admit that they’ve walked around with an unzipped pants zipper, and those who insist on lying about it.

So, if it’s a near universal, hopefully infrequent, omission, what’s the big deal? Well, duh, it’s downright embarrassing, that’s what—for more reasons than we’ll discuss here. Okay, here’s a couple of points: no matter how well-acquitted a man may be, e.g. by putting on an expensive three-piece suit in preparation for a public appearance, the unzipped zipper totally destroys the attempted image, and his audience, whether in church, lecture hall, or social gathering simply can’t focus on the intended man-in-charge-of-the-world persona.

Second, and of more concern to me personally, the man with the too-frequently unzipped zipper may be seen as a candidate for relocation to a less-desired environment. In this regard, refer to Stove Off, supra.

TEETH IN—as with the other pointers, this should be more or less self-explanatory. Some words of explanation, nevertheless, seem to be in order:

I was having some fairly major dental work done in the recent past and it served two legitimate purposes: first, the work was needed and, second, my dentist had two kids in college. To resort to the trite phrase, it was a win-win situation. The remaking of my smile required a single false tooth (to the left of the two big ones in front, as I am looking at you). Before the work could be made permanent, however, there was a period of many weeks when I had to wear a flesh-colored insert that held a single temporary false tooth in the correct place. Okay, maybe I’m a bit wimpy, but I didn’t enjoy or appreciate the apparatus. So, in the privacy of my home, there seemed to be no reason to keep the tooth, and its intrusive anchoring plate, in my beleaguered mouth.

The gap in my thinking, of course, was those few occasions when I left home with a serious gap in my toothy smile. The worst episode took place in Lyons, Colo., when I met up with some companions for coffee and rolls prior to a mountain hike. These were not very forgiving people and the missing tooth was a source of rowdy amusement—for some of those present at least. (A historical note: the dental fix is now permanent and the “TI” in SOZUTI is not really needed these days; I leave it in because “SOZU,” short the TI, does not seem to flow as mellifluously as the original creation. And, yes, it may yet again gain some practical utility.)

I never use the word “old” to describe myself or any of my colleagues who are geriatrically inclined. The word “older,” however, seems sufficiently vague to be acceptable.

So, to my older friends, I say make your own mnemonic version of SOZUTI; I neither hold nor wish for a copyright on the word and certainly make no claim on the nearly infinite number of variations that might fit one’s personal situation and needs.

As for myself, SOZUTI is not the end; no, it is merely the beginning of a word that will grow in size and import as I move down life’s road. That is, of course, if I can only remember to look at the word—and, of course, if I can only remember what the letters stand for.

A postscript of sorts: this work-in-progress began a while ago. Since the beginning of the piece, I’ve shelled out $6,000 for a matched brace of hearing aids—by my estimation, about $400 for the technology and $5,600 for the good folks who hold the medical gun to our heads. And, yes, I frequently neglect to stuff these concessions to aging into my head while I’m remembering to turn off the stove and bring the zipper tab toward the ceiling.

So—how does SOZUTI-HA work? Sounds a bit elaborate, but maybe it will help.