Please Don't Ruin This For Me

As a child I would fantasize about the Viet Cong waiting to ambush me as I hiked around the woods near my house.  We would constantly scan the trees looking for trip wires and other tell tale signs of imminent danger.  It made an otherwise routine walk around a rather routine park seem exotic and perilous.  If the hiking wasn't so dicey at least the perceived threat of capture and torture spiced up the stroll.  But if you think the threat was totally imaginary you would be mistaken.  Hempstead Lake State Park on Long Island might be surrounded by the entitled but it is also situated adjacent to the not so privileged.  And one day they wanted mine and my brother's bicycles.  A ten year old on his new five speed Schwinn sting ray and his twelve year old brother on the latest ten speed Peugeot with Simplex gears cruising down the bike path only to be stopped dead in their tracks by a felled tree laying across the path. And two sixteen year old boys from the hood laying in wait.

Fortunately they were outfitted with two beat up old bikes.  So when they demanded our rides we just high tailed it the hell out of there.  They chased us but their single speed banana bikes were no match for our high tech steeds.  The only reason I bring up this true story is to illustrate the fact that my backwoods trepidation is not totally without merit.  While traipsing about in the woods, I have learned to always be prepared.  Even if the woods you are traversing are a five acre lot between your house and the Walgreens parking lot.

Even at the age of 51, I like to pretend that a winter hike in the Catskill Mountains is an epic adventure worthy of the planning and preparation of an Ernest Shackleton expedition to Antarctica-even though we are at most 6 miles from the parking area.  It wouldn't even occur to me that we could be driving along on our way to a luncheon date and suddenly decide to take a hike.  But that is what looks like occurs with many of the people we meet along the trail; that they just hopped out of the car, with not so much as a canteen or map, and started up the trail, not realizing that there is ice, rocks, snow,  thorny brambles, slick roots, two hundred foot drop-offs, and angry bears.  Not to mention the always imminent threat of  sleet, rain, wind and/or blizzard conditions.  Any of which could lead to a twisted ankle or worse.  Thereby necessitating a potential night out on the mountain while waiting for the rescue helicopter to arrive.  Which might or might not ever show up because there is spotty cell service and no record of their whereabouts either, because none of these people ever bother to sign the trail register.

Here is a-quite possibly incomplete-list of the minimal gear I have in my pack for a winters day on the mountain: Small first aid kit, emergency foil blanket (the type you thought only Boy Scouts purchased), headlamp, matches and/or lighter, whistle, knife, compass, map, water purifier tablets, toilet paper (and hand cleaner), 1-2 qrts of water, lunch, snacks, puffy jacket (down or polyester), rain jacket, hat, gloves, and quite possibly some type of rope.  On my body there is not a single fiber of cotton.  I am not even a big fan of cotton/poly hybrids for winter hiking.  I am wearing a first layer of polyester underpants, long sleeve undershirt and Smartwool hiking socks.  Layer number two is a microfiber hoodie or sweatshirt and softshell pants.  I wear a sofshell jacket to top it all off.  Unless it is very, very cold, you should not hike in your down jacket.  You will quickly overheat on the first hill.  If I may dispense some advise at this point  it would be that you should always start out a little cold on a hike.  I cannot tell you how many people I pass within a few hundred yards of the parking lot who have already stopped to shed layers.  On my feet are leather/Goretex hiking boots and my micro spikes if the trail is immediately icy.  Finally, in my hands are a set of trekking poles to save my knees and prevent a bad fall. 

So when I come upon some inappropriately dressed hikers at an altitude of 1000 feet above sea level or greater during the months of December thru March I take their nonchalance quite personally.  On my most recent winter hike, pictured above, I happened to pass one such group coming up the trail as I was walking down after an exhausting hike to the summit of Panther Mountain.  They were two young couples literally looking as if they expected for there to be a nightclub on Giant Ledge, a nice view point on the way to Panther summit.  Granted, Giant Ledge is only 1.5 miles from the parking lot but the trail is steep and very icy as you can see in the picture above. While I was stumbling down the icy trail praying I wouldn't slip and break my neck, this group of four came sauntering up the hill dressed very nearly like the woman pictured below.  Except I believe one of these hikers was even more fashionably dressed than her.  She was wearing a cowl neck sweater, sexy looking leggings, lace up boots and no coat of any sort.  And their attitude was the same as this woman's as well.  As in "What's your problem, nerd?".  Or perhaps that thought was just in my own mind.  The men were equally ill-prepared in jeans, cotton shirts, Yankees baseball caps, and leather bomber jackets.  But there they were on the same dicey trail as me.  A trail, by the way, on which I slipped on some ice after taking off my spikes near the car.  My rib is still bruised.  It could be broken.

Nor was this a one time occurrence.  A few weeks ago on Slide Mountain, the highest peak in the Catskills, we came across an older couple (our age) at the summit, during a snow storm, wearing jeans and the man was wearing a jeans shirt as well.  He looked as if he were horseback riding in Arizona during a Memorial Day vacation.  She had on a fashionable wool (acceptable) sweater and scarf but the ensemble looked more like the kind you would wear while window shopping in Manhattan during Christmas.  They had the good sense, at least, to be wearing real hiking boots. But what really got my attention was the paper bag and muffin from Dunkin Donuts she pulled out of her pack and proceeded to eat as if she were sitting in a downtown coffee shop.  There isn't a Dunkin Donuts for fifty miles around!  I have seen plenty of gourmet food being eaten at the top of a mountain but it is usually repackaged in zip lock bags.  These people looked like they decided to hike up the highest mountain around, during a snow storm, on their way to a baby shower in Albany.  And lucky for them, they had stopped on the Thruway for a cup of coffee and donuts.  But the most off-putting thing of all was that they were standing there on the summit, next to me, oozing with a galling nonchalance . This after my half day of planning, packing, anxiously watching the weather reports, and fighting with Tammy about her gear. 


Well, at least I have the summer hikers to look forward to:

Dentist Kills Wife and Other Assorted Topics

 

I need to clean out all the notes about potential blog topics I have strewn about the cabin.  I know I make it seem easy, but it is very difficult to get an entire blog post out of a single punchline.  So I will attempt to write an entertaining stream of consciousness post out of random topics.




Number one: Dentist Kills Wife.
Have you ever noticed that when a dentist kills their spouse the killers profession is always mentioned in the headline?  If a plumber killed his wife the headline would read "Man Kills Wife".  Then five paragraphs down the reporter would finally get to the killers profession.  As in "The local plumber faces a life sentence if convicted".  But if a dentist kills his spouse it needs to be stated at the outset.  You might not be aware of this but murder is a criteria for immediate loss of a dental license in the state of New Jersey.  I question the validity of this policy because I don't understand how killing your spouse means you are not competent at doing root canals.  Perhaps this is a perfect example of the regulatory over-reach that Chris Christy is trying to abolish.  I wish him good luck. 

Number two: High School.
Perhaps it is just me but why do we spend the last sixty or seventy years of our lives making up for the first eighteen years?  I am not pointing fingers and if you recognize yourself it is strictly coincidental.  But I have noticed that the sibling who, while growing up, gave the parents the most amount of grief is the one to do the most amount of sucking up later in life.  As in inviting the grandparents to attend even the most minor grandchild milestone.  Like kindergarten graduation.  Or the grand kids second grade violin concert where Mary Had a Little Lamb is the featured song.
And this might seem extremely pathetic but every time I make it to the top of a mountain I wish Mr Bigelow, my high school gym teacher, was there to witness the achievement because I could never even get to the top of the ropes in gym class.  It was assumed I would one day become a successful professional but my athletic achievements in adulthood are what fill me with the most pride.

Number three: Stop the world, I want to get off.
Let me summarize every self help book for you.  I will save you countless dollars and years of fruitless therapy;  The world is not going to change so you have to.  The issue is not that people are putzes.  They are.  The problem is how you react to them.  So say all the books in the self help section.  These books would have you believe that you are capable of change.  This is a very silly notion.  I outright reject this proposition.  I certainly am not going to change so the world will have to.  Instead of lecturing me about mindful breathing, flow, drawing on the right side of the brain, change your thoughts change your life, and my erroneous zones, why don't they do something about the aggravating behaviors of the people who actually do need to change.  For example those inconsiderate drivers who aren't passing any cars while hogging the passing lane.  I wouldn't have road rage in the first place if the other nitwits knew how to drive on the New Jersey Turnpike. The Declaration of Independence didn't mention driving slow in the fast lane as being one of the natural rights of man.

Number four:  Man vs nature.
Why do Republicans like jet skis, ATV's, motor boats, off roading, snowmobiles, hunting, and hamburgers while Democrats like kayaks, mountain bikes, sailing, hiking, cross country skiing, nature photography, and veggie burgers?  I don't know. Perhaps for the same reason Republicans believe they are getting screwed by welfare queens and Democrats believe they are being screwed by Wall Street kings. It's the difference between sharing and subjugating.

Number five: Man vs mountains.
The hike from my cabin in Woodland Valley to Winasook Lake is approximately 7 miles.  The drive from my cabin in Woodland Valley to Winasook Lake is approximately 25 miles.  If it weren't for the mountains, we would be close to everything.  And were it not for the Appalachians and the Rockies, Manifest Destiny would not have been so triumphant a goal.  Glory resides in the mountains, not the plains.

Number six: Not every idea is a winner.
Procrastination is the best purgative.  What seemed important two months ago is not so much today.  And I feel way better.

You, Sir, are a Nattering Nabob of Negativity

I am not one to crow but this could be the crowning achievement of my short career as a bloggist.
I had the rare good fortune to be able to dress down a very prominent and nationally syndicated conservative columnist.  The Philadelphia Inquirer, a newspaper known for its Pulitzer Prize winning reporting, decided to publish a letter to the editor I wrote in response to a column by the conservative political commentator Charles Krauthammer. A fellow member, I might add, of my own tribe, The Chosen People.  I only mention this in response to my previous blog post in which the target of my scorn implied that members of the same faith automatically have similar values.  We do not.
Here, then, is the article and my response:  Click on each link.

Krauthammer article link

Charlie

My letter to the editor link (scroll down to my letter)

Richie

Here is my letter reprinted in case the link is ever broken.  Reprinted from the Philadelphia Inquirer January 25, 2012:

Krauthammer is a Sore Loser

Charles Krauthammer's beloved Republicans haven't even lost the presidential election yet, but he is already behaving like a sore loser ("Republicans self-destruct," Monday). He readily admits that the president "is a very smart man." However, "if he wins in November, that won't be the reason. It will be luck."
Krauthammer is nothing more than a verbal bully who has to resort to cheap shots more suited to an elementary school yard game of tag. Calling a potential November victory by President Obama mere luck is an insult to our electoral process and is offensive to all Americans who will exercise their right to vote for the person of their choosing. Krauthammer should be ashamed for behaving like a child who hasn't learned good sportsmanship.
Richard Feuer, Woodbury

Us vs Them

This is a direct quote from the Philadelphia Inquirer January 19, 2012:
"Morality will be the deciding issue for me.  It's hard to trust someone who doesn't share your faith and values" (italics are mine).  So says Adam Burger, 31, a computer programmer from Lexington, South Carolina and a member of the First Baptist Church. 

I did not personally interview this person.  He might have been misquoted.  The statement might have been taken out of context.  He might just have been trying to make a point without fully thinking through its implications.  I don't know.  I am more Matt Drudge than Walter Cronkite so source verification is above my pay grade.  Mr. Burger was quoted in an article discussing the importance of the evangelical vote in S.C.  But to me this quote very clearly points out the fundamental flaw in political discourse today; the Us vs. Them mentality.  The use of the operand "and" when lumping faith and values together as opposed to faith or values is very telling for me and a key difference between free thinkers and fundamentalists.

I suspect this is why the writer felt it necessary to mention Mr. Burger's occupation as a computer programmer.  Perhaps it gives him some intellectual gravitas.  His vocation, after all, is of no significance to the point of the article or his opinions.  It only serves to emphasize the disconnect between faith and reason.  A computer programmer, at the very least, must be a logical thinker.  Algorithms, the fundamental building blocks of computer code, are ultimately based on logic.  If p implies q , and x follows y then blah, blah, blah.  So I am forced to conclude he is a logical thinker.  If Mr. Burger was a cashier at McDonald's, not that there's anything wrong with that, would we have felt something different toward his statement?  Perhaps.  But that would be just as judgmental as Mr. Burger's statement itself.

The statement " share your faith and values" can be very narrowly defined or, if we are being generous, we can think of it as being very inclusive.  The "and" modifier just makes this more difficult.  Granted, a society, in order to be successful in the long term, should share a fundamental set of values.  Respect life (a loaded proposition in and of itself), liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Whether or not these values are irrevocably connected to a single faith is the question at hand.  Though I assumed this issue was settled by Jefferson and Madison in 1787, but apparently not in South Carolina.  Or Iowa for that matter.

And what exactly does he mean by his faith?  Evangelical Christianity specifically?  Does he immediately distrust Jews and Catholics?  Western religious thought in general?  Does he only immediately distrust Muslims and Hindus?  Islamic terrorists aside, don't all faiths teach a respect for human life and dignity?  I could therefore assume he only mistrusts atheists, but since he was speaking within the context of the Republican primary I must assume he has Mormons (Romney), and Catholics (Gingrich) in mind. 

I never met Mr. Burger, but for some reason I  imagine he is a pretty good guy and I might possibly enjoy having a beer with him (the computer programmer thing.  He can't be totally unreasonable).  I further suspect he certainly does not think of himself as a bigot, but that is exactly what his statement says about him.  He is judging what would amount to be the overwhelming majority of the world's population, whom he has never met, to be untrustworthy just because they don't share his faith.  I guess it could be argued that what he meant was he doesn't trust a non-believing politician to vote for the things he values even if he says he would.  But that is not a matter of faith.  That is a matter of record.  So once again I am left to assume he specifically has Romney in mind since Romney seems to be the guy who has a history of flip flops. Mr. Burger even admits to such near the end of the above referenced article.  But what does flip flopping have to do with Mormonism?  People of faith have changed their views throughout all of history.  Just ask Galileo and Copernicus. Or Brigham Young. Perhaps Mr. Burger had the abrogation of polygamy by the Mormon Church in the nineteenth century in mind when he stated that he doesn't trust people of other faiths not to pull a switcheroo.  I doubt it. I am pretty certain he lacks even the most fundamental idea of the tenets of Mormonism.

I wonder if he has interviewed his dentist about his or her faith.  Does he trust that, no matter what their faith, his health care providers have his best interest in mind?  Of course he does.   I have many patients with whom I don't necessarily share their faith but they trust me very much.  It is because they trust my values.  Very, very different from faith. I have many patients who are deeply devout Christians but they trust me to do what is best for them.  Why?  They don't know a thing about my faith, but for the fact that I was born a Jew.  They trust me because they know I am a smart decision maker and I value their health over my purse.  Maybe my being for or against gay marriage is not so important when doing a painless root canal so the analogy is unfair.  I don't know.

A human being should never be judged solely by his or her faith.  To do so is bigoted and  in direct conflict with the spirit of the First Amendment of our Constitution.  I wish I could meet Adam Burger and tell him how deeply offended I am by his statement.  How deeply offended all of us should be.

No, It Most Certainly is Not All Good

I am beginning to notice an alarming trend in the vernacular.   A phrase once the province of teenage slackers is now being heard among the baby boomer set.  When spoken, it subtly pigeonholes the addressee into student footing while elevating the addressor to mentor status.  I am not usually interested in a lecture on what I am and am not supposed to be burdened by when I accidentally bump my shopping cart into the person in front of me.  Nor does being lectured about what my priorities should be when the contents of my gym locker spill out and my sweaty sneakers hit my neighbor's head.  Since when did the simple apology "excuse me" need to be answered with a short dissertation on how fair-minded the offended party is?  Indeed, just three words uttered in exculpation, "it's all good", is an indictment of an entire life devoted to the idea that "if we only strive for good enough, nothing will ever be good enough".

Of course every generation and culture has its own version of this tedious expression but this incarnation seems particularly vapid to me.  In Australia, if you accidentally happen to shoot your hunting buddy in the leg, you will be forgiven with a hearty "no worries mate".  This is analogous to our expression "don't worry about it" or don't sweat it".  Two expressions that specifically address the incident at hand, not the idea that no matter what, you are doing good.  The same is true of "no problem" or a simple "that's okay".  They excuse the immediate behavior as opposed to all behaviors past, present, and future. 

I used to attribute the retort "its all good" as an annoying verbal expression of the self-esteem generation.  But I can now recall at least five episodes in which a baby boomer, who should know better than to think it's all good, used the phrase to demonstrate that even though I might have accidentally butted in line I should take the long view that, like them, whatever I do is okay.  Perhaps it's just me, but I usually just get annoyed, not philosophical, when someone who obviously arrived at the deli counter after me, claims, "I am" when the clerk asks "who's next?".  And if they do realize their faux pas and apologize, I am inclined to respond with a non-judgmental "that's all right, just don't let it happen again asshole".

Go Ahead, Take It. I Dare You.

Will someone please tell me from whom the  Ricks (Santorum and Perry) want to take back America ?  I notice them intoning this sentiment at all of their campaign rallies-"Let's take America back!"  From whom???  Me?  What did I do? Vote for Obama?  What, I am not allowed to express a few words in support of Occupy Wall Street?  Have I stolen America  if I express my doubts about our economic future being left in the hands of a cadre of Wall Street executives and bankers who have already proven that the only deity they worship is the up arrow on the Dow Jones graph?  Do they think that my liberal World War II veteran Dad, who spent his early adulthood protecting our Atlantic coast from German U-boats, should relinquish the America he believes in and fought for?  An America that belongs to no single interest group and a government that guards against the tyranny of the majority?  A moral majority, btw, that doesn't even exist except in Iowa.


Did Thomas Jefferson want to take America back  from John Adams?  Okay, perhaps he did.  But that was about state's rights versus federal hegemony.  And we all know what that was about.  At least you should know.  Now that I think about it, maybe that is what they do mean.  That the states should take America back from the federal government.  It is possible I take their bombastic rhetoric too personally.  I'm no James Madison but I realize all that stuff about not infringing upon the free trade between the states and c. (that is how the founders expressed "etc") was about the North not infringing upon the slave based economy of the South.  Of course I am distilling 200 years of Federalist debate into one sentence but you get my drift.  John Rutledge wasn't so interested in fending off  federally mandated health care as he was in opposing a federally mandated economic system not based on enslaved three fifths of a human, human beings.

In any event, I don't even agree with this excessive emphasis on states rights.  Taken to it's logical conclusion, as expressed by the likes of Ron Paul and c., we might as well devolve into internecine tribes.  Not unlike Afghanistan.  Or Native America (not that there is anything wrong with that). Or pre-celtic Britain.  I have no idea what that means except I envision fur clad Vikings flinging scary looking maces at petrified villagers and catapulting flame engulfed tar balls at their grass roofed huts.  An analogy not so far removed from Newt Gingrich's campaign rhetoric;  metaphorical flaming tar balls hurled at any idea that did not originate in his own head.

For me the debate was settled when Ben noted that "We must all hang together or most assuredly we will all hang separately".  He was talking about the War for Independence of course, not about state's rights, but like Newt, I enjoy a good rhetorical flourish every now and then.  It took the thoughtfulness of many enlightened men to realize that compromise is the incubator of a civil society.  Let us not blow it now.