I was in the locker room before a hockey game last night, taking my time getting dressed. I am very regimented and arrive, usually first in the lockers, to begin my pregame routine. My teammates all think I am nuts. I lay out my equipment, stretch and begin to dress. I wear over-the-knee, argyle socks for practical reasons related to a knee brace and a desire to keep my knees from chaffing under perpetually wet shin pads, though I suppose I could just wear plan coloured socks - but what would be the fun in that. I get my skates on and then sit, usually for at least 20 minutes, waiting for the zamboni to finish its rounds and most of my teammates to show before donning my shoulder pads, jersey, helmet and gloves. I don't really ever deviate and I almost never show up late. It screws up my game. I am a prima donna and I know it and am happy with it.
Last night, while working through my pregame, a teammate of mine arrived and a curious discussion began, which became more curious as he lifted his shirt to reveal a shaved abdomen and some black magic markings. The discussion became a broad locker room address in which the teammate wanted those of us who were unaware to know that he had just been diagnosed with cancer. The prognosis was good post a round of radiation treatment, which had significantly shrunk the tumour, and he was in good spirits and grateful for all the support from the team members who were aware of his situation.
It was sobering.
The teammate in question is a good guy, a father and family man and fun to be out on the ice with. He is very self-deprecating about his skills on the ice, but generally hustles his ass off to play his position (every now and again getting a stupid penalty, but then who doesn't other than Lady Bing). He is no different than you or me. There is no reason why this devastating disease sought him out and chose to, at least in the near term, turn his life upside down. It certainly has no correlation to his inability to back check.
Shhhh. He has (cancer).
There is no reasoning at all with this disease. We don't understand it: only the strain and pain caused by its arrival. We don't seem to be able to find a cure for it (sure, some cancers are more manageable than others). The National Cancer Institute says that cancer care was approximately $104.1bn in 2006 and growing. Another article says that annual cancer medical research spending is now in the area of $95bn per year. Cancer death rates have declined 21% among men and 12.3% for women during the period of 1991 to 2006, according to the American Cancer Society and the rates of cancer are declining (-1.3% per year among men and -0.5% among women). Yet armed with this data, the facts are no comfort when facing the diagnosis of friend or family and we seem to know more and more (maybe it is measure of our aging) who are afflicted or touched by this disease.
I am no expert here. You can talk to my brother who is battling a fairly rare form of cancer (lipo myxoid sarcoma). He is my expert. His cancer, which we thought we had beat, appears to be back. He and his wife have had a rough go of it as she lost her brother to cancer and is now dealing with a father who also has it (as, of course, does her husband - my brother). He has his own illness to contend with against the backdrop of a mother who is a breast cancer survivor. It is a lot to manage in his household, and yet he has (they have). The cancer has energized him. He spearheads a foundation dedicated to the type of cancer he has and has touched the lives of some who suffer, and in some tragic cases, lost their battle with the disease.
His courage is admirable. He has set an example which should inspire all (and he is not alone in his battle with this stealthy assassin). That said, he is my brother and while his illness makes me grasp my life and what I have, in family and friends, all the more tightly, his illness, cancer, leaves me terrified, hiding under the proverbial bed, hoping that no news is good news.
So, why don't we yell from the tops of the mountains instead of hiding under a bed or in a closet? Call this disease out. Make it a national cause. Not that we have not found great support in our efforts to meet cancer on the field of battle. But why do we tolerate those we love doing things like smoking? What part of the warning on the package don't they understand? If they don't understand that writing, what will they understand? What do we do for those who wake up one day to find a murderer in their bedrooms and kitchens with no provocation whatsoever? Can't we take a megaphone, yell from the top of our cancer free lungs and figure out how we beat this thing to a pulp, make it a piece of our past and enable our friends and family (and ourselves) to live a much calmer, happier and healthier lives?
Don't tell me to shhhh.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Not In My Backyard
So, I was asked this morning when I was going to tackle the debate over the mosque in lower Manhattan, two block from the ruins of the Twin Towers. I have thought long and hard about tackling this topic and have hesitated for fear of the vitriol it might induce. I am not a fan of current Islam. Not because of any tenants of the religion, but because decent, moderate Muslims do not stand up and decry the radical elements of the religion which have hijacked it on the public stage, preaching death to America and blowing themselves, and others sky high, to promote their true cause of chaos and subjugation - something which Islam, in its basic doctrine, does not support.
Islam, like all other religions, has been manipulated by minorities which have sought to override the rational and genuinely balanced needs of the general masses, seeking comfort and guidance with a moral compass from belief in a divine being and a tablet of how to treat each other (We, Christians, have had plenty of our own lunatics should Muslims feel aggrieved at being singled out. That said, America is not singling out Islam for extermination, as we have largely welcomed Islam, as other religions, with some understandable adjustment pains). The uneducated and vocal minority which screams of the "Great Satan" dressed in tails and stripey pants with a top hat and beard should be taken for what it is, a rabble of miscreants (amusingly often pictured drinking a coke while wearing a polo shirt and nikes). They hate us because some bearded moron, with his own agenda, which strikes fear in their hearts and coin in his purse, speaks to them at a level we never will, with a knife and gun and the threat of death to their families and a perpetual trip to their vision of hell (as opposed to their promoted vision of heaven, achieved through a sacrifice in a vest of explosives and giving one a shot at 27 virgins in perpetual bliss).
As the Great Satan, our foreign policy missteps have not helped our cause, but they are often used as a cheap excuse on the global stage. We may not have entered Iraq with the most just of intentions, but, while the full end game is still to be determined, the situation seems to have played out in our favor as the last of our 56,000 combat battalions exited last Friday. Sure Shiites and Sunnis will likely still kill each other based on centuries old rivalries and conflict in doctrine, but the leaders of that country, including the supreme Shiite religious leader (Ali-Sistani) genuinely seem to want to create a calm and democratic environment. Iraq may not be the thorn between Islam and America many would like to make it. As a matter of fact, Iraq has been more of a secular and regime-related issue with an overlay of religion, and as a result somewhat easier top deal with.
Afghanistan is another story. The country has defeated Khan (he chose to treat it as an autonomous region within his empire rather than attempt to fully subjugate it), the British Empire, the Russians and now seems to be chewing us up. It is a country created by an imperialist rivalry which carved up tribal territories and sought to make a state where only an ideological and geological wasteland exists. Like much of the world (Africa and Asia as well), the West placed its map among tribes, peoples and religions where borders did not exist and do not belong. The USA has perpetuated much of this missmarking, especially during the period of superpower hegemony rising from WWII and the impact of ideology in the Cold War, but do we bear the sole blame? Let's not forget the role of the French, English and others here. But I digress...
Does anyone really care about Afghanistan? There is no oil or any other natural resource of any measure or matter. They have poppy crops which delightfully gives the world heroin (is it a problem when the only major cash crop you have is effectively a drug crop?). They have widespread and massive corruption and their current defacto leader (defacto as there is no one in that political hierarchy worth the salt and water they are composed of) is as big a crook as the rest of their long list of graft-driven criminals. They have the Taliban, and there is not a lot to say about them that is encouraging. They harboured Al Qaeda. They beat women and do not allow their education. They destroyed cultural and historical icons in a bid to create a state of controlled chaos and complete intolerance. The world welcomed our decision to invade to free a people probably (now with hindsight) not worth freeing for their complete inability to lift themselves up by the bootstraps (One has to want a better life and has to contribute to get it). Now the world condemns our use of force and the resulting civilian casualties as our troops give their lives to try to give the Afghans a better life (No matter what you say about America and its motivations, the end result there, as we have envisioned it, CANNOT be worse than what they have had).
We can throw our largely blind backing of the Israelis in their attempts to stave Middle Eastern extinction (though I think the constant friction they create by building in the West Bank is inexcusable provocation) as an excuse for Muslim ill-will. We can point to our desire to get rid of the lunatic in Tehran. We can be blamed for a lot, but what we cannot be blamed for is a growing belief that the Mmoderate Muslim populous, abstains from standing up and decrying the radicals within its ranks. Until they do, there is every reason to believe we are in the midst of crusade. The thing that is crazy about this crusade is the perception that is Christian against Muslim, when, in fact, it is really a conflict of good versus evil, citizen versus criminal, Samaritan versus terrorist.
This leads us back to NYC and "The Mosque". The U. S. Constitution is founded on a few basic beliefs: one of which is the Freedom of Religion ["Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances"]. We all know that. Our forefathers were persecuted right out of England and founded a largely Christian/Protestant state which did seek to ensure that the civil liberties of its citizens would also include the liberty of freedom to practice "their" religion (they were also largely motivated by the prospect of eliminating taxation without representation - a topic for another day as I think those who do not pay tax, do not vote - the Declaration of Independence did not envision votes for all). This freedom has enabled us to welcome Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims (among others) into our borders in waves of immigration and liberation from regimes which repressed what we consider an absolute: the freedom to pray to any god you like. That said, the Constitution does mandate that this worship also respect the other basic tenants in its foundation: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity (do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America).
Domestic Tranquility. Does a Mosque in that location really promote tranquility? Two blocks was well within the cloud of poison which enveloped lower Manhattan courtesy of a handful of the deranged manipulators of Islam (the idiots on the plane were also clearly manipulated by their handlers, who notably were not on the plane but probably at home watching reruns of the Simpson's while eating a combo meal from McDonald's). Manhattan is 23 square miles. Is there no better real estate space within that acreage to site a mosque? The Imam associated with the project actually has a very good track record of moderation and has been asked by a number of state agencies to speak and promote a rational face of Islam in America. The administration has promoted the cause on the basis of freedom of religion, but has yet to sort out the trials of the co-conspirators in the 9/11 bombings. As a matter of fact, remember this administration had proposed trying these criminals in NYC at the risk of further symbolic violence and civil strife and massive cost, so it's sensitivity to domestic tranquility is clearly in question, as is its judgement in these matters. On the other side of the argument, we have the likes of Sarah Palin moaning about a topic she knows as much about as the process of nuclear fision, and who only proves that Seward's Folly was a great buy for natural resources but not for intelligent women politicians.
When we take out the complete bias of the lunatic left and right and the fully biased 3rd estate which no longer shows any impartiality in reporting news, as opposed to opinion, should we just be asking whether it is really necessary to rub salt in the wounds. Sure, the developers have the right to build their place of worship, but shouldn't they also have the decency to be sensitive to the memory of the nearly 3000 who perished within a stone's throw?
Islam, like all other religions, has been manipulated by minorities which have sought to override the rational and genuinely balanced needs of the general masses, seeking comfort and guidance with a moral compass from belief in a divine being and a tablet of how to treat each other (We, Christians, have had plenty of our own lunatics should Muslims feel aggrieved at being singled out. That said, America is not singling out Islam for extermination, as we have largely welcomed Islam, as other religions, with some understandable adjustment pains). The uneducated and vocal minority which screams of the "Great Satan" dressed in tails and stripey pants with a top hat and beard should be taken for what it is, a rabble of miscreants (amusingly often pictured drinking a coke while wearing a polo shirt and nikes). They hate us because some bearded moron, with his own agenda, which strikes fear in their hearts and coin in his purse, speaks to them at a level we never will, with a knife and gun and the threat of death to their families and a perpetual trip to their vision of hell (as opposed to their promoted vision of heaven, achieved through a sacrifice in a vest of explosives and giving one a shot at 27 virgins in perpetual bliss).
As the Great Satan, our foreign policy missteps have not helped our cause, but they are often used as a cheap excuse on the global stage. We may not have entered Iraq with the most just of intentions, but, while the full end game is still to be determined, the situation seems to have played out in our favor as the last of our 56,000 combat battalions exited last Friday. Sure Shiites and Sunnis will likely still kill each other based on centuries old rivalries and conflict in doctrine, but the leaders of that country, including the supreme Shiite religious leader (Ali-Sistani) genuinely seem to want to create a calm and democratic environment. Iraq may not be the thorn between Islam and America many would like to make it. As a matter of fact, Iraq has been more of a secular and regime-related issue with an overlay of religion, and as a result somewhat easier top deal with.
Afghanistan is another story. The country has defeated Khan (he chose to treat it as an autonomous region within his empire rather than attempt to fully subjugate it), the British Empire, the Russians and now seems to be chewing us up. It is a country created by an imperialist rivalry which carved up tribal territories and sought to make a state where only an ideological and geological wasteland exists. Like much of the world (Africa and Asia as well), the West placed its map among tribes, peoples and religions where borders did not exist and do not belong. The USA has perpetuated much of this missmarking, especially during the period of superpower hegemony rising from WWII and the impact of ideology in the Cold War, but do we bear the sole blame? Let's not forget the role of the French, English and others here. But I digress...
Does anyone really care about Afghanistan? There is no oil or any other natural resource of any measure or matter. They have poppy crops which delightfully gives the world heroin (is it a problem when the only major cash crop you have is effectively a drug crop?). They have widespread and massive corruption and their current defacto leader (defacto as there is no one in that political hierarchy worth the salt and water they are composed of) is as big a crook as the rest of their long list of graft-driven criminals. They have the Taliban, and there is not a lot to say about them that is encouraging. They harboured Al Qaeda. They beat women and do not allow their education. They destroyed cultural and historical icons in a bid to create a state of controlled chaos and complete intolerance. The world welcomed our decision to invade to free a people probably (now with hindsight) not worth freeing for their complete inability to lift themselves up by the bootstraps (One has to want a better life and has to contribute to get it). Now the world condemns our use of force and the resulting civilian casualties as our troops give their lives to try to give the Afghans a better life (No matter what you say about America and its motivations, the end result there, as we have envisioned it, CANNOT be worse than what they have had).
We can throw our largely blind backing of the Israelis in their attempts to stave Middle Eastern extinction (though I think the constant friction they create by building in the West Bank is inexcusable provocation) as an excuse for Muslim ill-will. We can point to our desire to get rid of the lunatic in Tehran. We can be blamed for a lot, but what we cannot be blamed for is a growing belief that the Mmoderate Muslim populous, abstains from standing up and decrying the radicals within its ranks. Until they do, there is every reason to believe we are in the midst of crusade. The thing that is crazy about this crusade is the perception that is Christian against Muslim, when, in fact, it is really a conflict of good versus evil, citizen versus criminal, Samaritan versus terrorist.
This leads us back to NYC and "The Mosque". The U. S. Constitution is founded on a few basic beliefs: one of which is the Freedom of Religion ["Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances"]. We all know that. Our forefathers were persecuted right out of England and founded a largely Christian/Protestant state which did seek to ensure that the civil liberties of its citizens would also include the liberty of freedom to practice "their" religion (they were also largely motivated by the prospect of eliminating taxation without representation - a topic for another day as I think those who do not pay tax, do not vote - the Declaration of Independence did not envision votes for all). This freedom has enabled us to welcome Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims (among others) into our borders in waves of immigration and liberation from regimes which repressed what we consider an absolute: the freedom to pray to any god you like. That said, the Constitution does mandate that this worship also respect the other basic tenants in its foundation: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity (do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America).
Domestic Tranquility. Does a Mosque in that location really promote tranquility? Two blocks was well within the cloud of poison which enveloped lower Manhattan courtesy of a handful of the deranged manipulators of Islam (the idiots on the plane were also clearly manipulated by their handlers, who notably were not on the plane but probably at home watching reruns of the Simpson's while eating a combo meal from McDonald's). Manhattan is 23 square miles. Is there no better real estate space within that acreage to site a mosque? The Imam associated with the project actually has a very good track record of moderation and has been asked by a number of state agencies to speak and promote a rational face of Islam in America. The administration has promoted the cause on the basis of freedom of religion, but has yet to sort out the trials of the co-conspirators in the 9/11 bombings. As a matter of fact, remember this administration had proposed trying these criminals in NYC at the risk of further symbolic violence and civil strife and massive cost, so it's sensitivity to domestic tranquility is clearly in question, as is its judgement in these matters. On the other side of the argument, we have the likes of Sarah Palin moaning about a topic she knows as much about as the process of nuclear fision, and who only proves that Seward's Folly was a great buy for natural resources but not for intelligent women politicians.
When we take out the complete bias of the lunatic left and right and the fully biased 3rd estate which no longer shows any impartiality in reporting news, as opposed to opinion, should we just be asking whether it is really necessary to rub salt in the wounds. Sure, the developers have the right to build their place of worship, but shouldn't they also have the decency to be sensitive to the memory of the nearly 3000 who perished within a stone's throw?
Friday, August 20, 2010
Fuel Gage or Gauge
Let me introduce you to my local gas station. It is a "Mobil" branded station. It has one full set of self-service pumps - front and back side. It has one set which is half (one side) self-service and one side full service. It has a convenience store, which one could argue is no more convenient than, say, the local grocery stores 3 to 4 blocks away, or the local news stand across the street, or a rug bazaar in the back alleys of Marakesh. What it does have is the most predatory and outrageous attitude towards gasoline prices and it's local denizens.
I think we all know within a few cents, the price of 93 octane (or if you are too cheap maybe 89 octane, or being really cheap and, owning some Korean piece of crap, and don't really care maybe 83 octane fuel) gasoline. Given roughly $80/barrel oil, the price you and I should pay, less the goverment misuse tax, is approximately $3.00/gallon. At the New Canaan Mobil, you pay $3.55. Let me help you with the math: that is 55 cents per gallon of usury. On a car which holds a 15 gallon tank, you are paying the amount of an extra bottle of good Aussie Shiraz to this petrol plundered, which quite frankly would be better consumed in your tank than lining his shyster pockets.
Why does the pernicious proprietor of this filling station charge so much? I have heard all the carte Blanche excuses. It costs more to bring the gas to New Canaan. The real estate is more expensive, so the gas must cost more to offset the higher fixed costs. The fact that we live in Camelot means that the gas is actually made from spun gold to line the streets as one drives over them. Okay, that last one is not really a true reason, but neither is any of the other excuses I have heard given. Let's call it what it is: highway robbery.
So, as we have no navy to deal with this particular economic pirate, I propose we all boycott the Mobil station in New Canaan. Let the guy sell lottery tickets to the desperate and slurpies to the school dodging dropouts, but no gasoline to us. Buy your gas elsewhere. Let's show this guy and Mobil that lack of morals equals lack of dollars.
I think we all know within a few cents, the price of 93 octane (or if you are too cheap maybe 89 octane, or being really cheap and, owning some Korean piece of crap, and don't really care maybe 83 octane fuel) gasoline. Given roughly $80/barrel oil, the price you and I should pay, less the goverment misuse tax, is approximately $3.00/gallon. At the New Canaan Mobil, you pay $3.55. Let me help you with the math: that is 55 cents per gallon of usury. On a car which holds a 15 gallon tank, you are paying the amount of an extra bottle of good Aussie Shiraz to this petrol plundered, which quite frankly would be better consumed in your tank than lining his shyster pockets.
Why does the pernicious proprietor of this filling station charge so much? I have heard all the carte Blanche excuses. It costs more to bring the gas to New Canaan. The real estate is more expensive, so the gas must cost more to offset the higher fixed costs. The fact that we live in Camelot means that the gas is actually made from spun gold to line the streets as one drives over them. Okay, that last one is not really a true reason, but neither is any of the other excuses I have heard given. Let's call it what it is: highway robbery.
So, as we have no navy to deal with this particular economic pirate, I propose we all boycott the Mobil station in New Canaan. Let the guy sell lottery tickets to the desperate and slurpies to the school dodging dropouts, but no gasoline to us. Buy your gas elsewhere. Let's show this guy and Mobil that lack of morals equals lack of dollars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)