It's Time to End Prohibition.

Copy of my letter to Mark Weprin, New York State Assemblyman, 24th Assembly District:

Dear Mr. Weprin,

VoteForWine.com offers a letter suggesting that wine should be allowed to be sold in supermarkets in New York State. I'm sure you've seen the letter before, but it got me thinking.

I have been telling my friends and family (and, frankly, anyone who'll listen) for years, that I resent that the government feels that it has to protect me from myself. So, along the same line of thought that would allow wine to be sold in supermarkets, I believe that New York State should allow casino gambling in the New York Metropolitan area. It's practically criminal that we allow all those busloads full of money to travel to Atlantic City and Connecticut every day. All those tax dollars and jobs should stay right here in New York, where they belong. I would venture to guess that a significant proportion of Atlantic Cty and Connecticut casino visitors are New Yorkers. Think about all that money!!

And on another related topic, while I'm at it, although I don't do drugs, and I hardly drink alcohol, I firmly beleive that the war on drugs is far too costly to our country. Now, I'm not a radical, but I think that most 'illicit' drugs should be made legal and sold through proper channels.

Not only would we save the billions and billions of dollars spent nationwide trying to enforce drug laws, but look at all the tax dollars that could be realized. Another big advantage to a plan like this would be to remove the illegal dollars from the black market and the criminals associated with it, placing all that money in the tax rolls. End of deficit.

Lastly, quality would be ensured, virtually eliminating accidental overdose or poisoning due to impurities added by unscrupulous drug dealers trying to stretch their product further. When was the last time you heard of blindness caused by moonshine?

Granted, alcoholism is a problem in our society, but I think that the American Government should be protecting my freedoms, not protecting me from myself. In my eyes, the advantages in ending 'drug prohibition' far outweigh any disadvantages that can be shown. We can provide help to any people who cannot control thir drug habits for a tiny fraction of what we spend on our current drug war. The single biggest objection to this plan will come from the vast anti-drug machinery that we've set up over the last several decades. To disband the entire DEA, much of the Departments of Corrections, numerous other agencies, along with large percentages of local police departments, just for starters, will surely cause great pain for those whose livelihoods depend on the war against drugs.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, here's the letter suggested by VoteForWine.com that made me start thinking about this stuff:

I support the idea of allowing New York grocers to sell wine. New Yorkers deserve this convenience that many other Americans in 35 other states already enjoy. With our state budget deficit looming large, it is irresponsible to turn our backs on the more than $150 million in potential revenue for the state’s general fund that the New York State Division of Budget projects as a result of this much needed policy change. In addition, this proposal will support the New York grape growing and wine industries. These combined industries generate over a billion dollars in revenue and employ tens of thousands of workers. Don’t let the liquor distribution monopoly bottle up this good idea just to protect their profits. Selling wine in food stores makes sense for all New Yorkers. Please support this proposal that will allow food stores in New York to provide this basic convenience.

About Sean Avery

To Arthur Staple at Newsday:

It might be just you, Tom Renney, and me, who think that Sean Avery should come back to the Rangers. I was very sorry to see him leave New York for Dallas, but I know he went for the money. Allow me to defend.

New York and Avery can be very good for each other, and especially good for the NHL in general. His ego can flourish in the bright lights of MSG, and our city, like no other, can get behind a tough-guy antagonist. I believe him when he says that he tried to rile up the Flames with his off-color comments. I do not condone his language, nor do I approve of the underlying attitude that would allow for such comments, but I understand his supposed motivation.

He showed that he can control himself during last year's playoffs by keeping his elbows down and his nose relatively clean. He made solid hits, took very few penalties, and played very well. Of course, he caused the writing of the 'Avery Rule' during the Devils' series, but at the time, getting in Brodeur's face as he did wasn't against the rules. I watched it live, before any spin, and it made me jump up out of my chair and cheer. I thought it was quite inventive.

Hockey in the USA, as you well know, has a very poor following in relation to the other major sports. You get one football, and you can have a few dozen guys play a game. Same with soccer. Basketball. Even baseball, to a degree (with the addition of a bat and a few mitts.) In order to play hockey, each player needs lots of equipment, putting the game out of reach of many would-be players. Nothing creates fans like people who play the game watching the pros play the game that they love (or a bandwagon to jump on.) We need to rely on other methods to increase the fan base of ice hockey. One method would be to have a headliner in a major city like New York. (Of course, Canada doesn't need to promote the sport - it's a gimme up there!) A big-mouth media hound like Avery would bring fans to the game (there's no such thing as bad publicity), and I think the sport itself has a good chance of keeping them there once they're in.

My biggest concern for the Rangers taking him on would be his health. I'm concerned about his wrist, his spleen, and whatever else we don't know about yet. I thought Avery initially went to Dallas for the big payday because he knew his health was deteriorating, and he looked short-term, rather than long.

His brooding, bad-boy attitude did not fly in Dallas, but with the right structuring and smoothing over, Renney and crew might allow a good fit in his former team, making a winning (or at least entertaining) combination on Broadway.

Thanks for listening,

Wayne Cohen,

NYC

Original article: http://www.newsday.com/sports/hockey/ny-spstaple0207,0,641576.column

The reason for fighting in The National Hockey League

Copy of my Letter to the Editor of The Hockey News

In response to "The Big Question"
The Hockey News
January 26, 2009
Vol 62, No. 15
-------------------------------------------------------

Like Pierre McGuire said, it was bound to happen eventually, that "...somebody would die during a fight."
I, too, would like to begin with my condolences and sympathy to the family of Don Sanderson.

I am a long-time hockey fan, and I have no problem with on-ice fighting in a contextual setting; that is, if the fight is for more that the fight's sake. A fight is a welcome interlude. A rare spectacle of modern gladiators, observing a code of honor, while answering a call of duty. That code of honor allows a player to decline to fight, if necessary, to stop when a serious injury has occurred, and to fight fair. (Except in cases of biting, stomping with a skate on a prone player's leg, or swinging for the fences with a player's head, of course.) Not too many things bring fans to their feet so quickly as the pairing off of two willing heavyweights.

Hockey mom Jacqueline Kovacs brushed by my personal remedy, when she alluded to the tight officiating during the WJC. My feeling is that most on-ice fights are initiated by a player who feels that an injustice has been done, or is about to be done. An enforcer will approach a player that has thrown a cheap hit, or has made some kind of dirty play, that he feels was missed, or was otherwise not called by the officials, and challenge a fight. (Usually from the front, but how is Steve Moore, by the way? - Okay, another topic...) By starting the fight, he is telling the other team that no one is going to take advantage of his teammates - this is the 'self-policing' that players talk about. An honorable system, but one of last resort. The calls should be made, in all fairness to the game.

One solution is to have a camera on every player on the ice, and enough off-ice officials to monitor every one of them for personal fouls. Leave the big-picture calls to the on-ice officials. There are already plenty of isolation cameras in use, just place a few more, and monitor them. EVERY call should be made.

There is plenty of action in our game without gratuitous fighting. The speed, finesse, ability, and talent of the players in professional ice hockey are like that of no other sport in the world. The game can stand on its own without any on-ice extra-curricular activities brought about by players trying to correct injustice. Level the playing field and remove the perceived injustices, and the debate over fighting will erode rapidly. These actions will force even the "agitators" to eliminate the "cheap hits" from their games, forcing them to find a way to perform the same function, but legally. This strategy will probably not eliminate fighting, but will likely reduce the incidence greatly.

-Wayne Cohen
NYC

PS - While we're at it, why not make it a high sticking call when everyone's sticks are up in everyone else's faces during those scrums after the whistle behind the net? Don't pretend that it's accidental when a player rakes his stick across another's face; a player always knows where that stick is. It may as well be part of his arm. It's just more convenient not to drop it when there's no penalty for it, and while everyone else has his up too. IMO, that's a place where dirty tactics go unnoticed and unpenalized.

Cheap shots

Following is my response to Joe Michelletti's comment during the Rangers' game of January 10, 2008:

Joe - While you're right that the sucker punch by Downie on Blake was the fault of the linesmen, I always thought there should be a rule, among men of honor, that once the fight is 'called,' the fighters must go to their "neutral corners," just like in boxing's "clean break."
Don't laugh - pros are, indeed, men of honor, and will, I believe, abide by this rule if set down in black and white.
.
On this subject, I think players must be trained to drop their sticks in every scrum. Sticks inevitable get up around faces, and this should be make illegal. I'm not talking about 'dropping the gloves' in preparation of a fight, just in these chippy confrontations in the corners, along the boards, or in front of the net.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So ends my comments to MSG, but to continue my thoughts...

This is not the time or place for me to argue whether fights belong in hockey or not. For now, let's assume they are a part of the game, and will, for at least the near future, continue as such.

So, on the subject of fights, dropping the gloves before a fight should not lead to a penalty if the opponent does not. To clarify, for those who don't know, when two skaters skate towards one another with the intention of fighting, they are expected to remove their gloves before fighting, or else there is an automatic penalty to the player for fighting with gloves on.

In my opinion, it is too easy to be goaded into a situation where one player tricks the other into, or at least takes advantage of the opportunity, to make the other guy drop the gloves, and then skate away. It doesn't happen often, but the threat is there enough for players to be concerned about it.

And lastly, I think that Chris Simon does not belong in the NHL. If he was a felon, he'd have taken his third strike already. In my opinion, he cannot control his anger. It's sheer luck that he hasn't hurt someone severely yet. It's only a matter of time before he does. Maybe he's someone you'd like to have on your team, I don't know; his teammates seem to love him, and his coaches all get behind him, but really, I believe he's a catastrophe waiting to happen.

Obviously, NHL players, obviously.

Please, please, please, stop saying "obviously" so frequetly during your interviews.

Jason Blake is, to my ear, the worst offender, tallying 3 instances of "obviously" in a recent 75 second interview with Deb Kaufman at the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum. But the overuse and abuse of the word is an assault on my ears and my intelligence.

In the modern NHL broadcast, player interviews are commonplace. In the spirit of "Player Access," before, during, and after games, players are called upon to offer their views on what they expect to see, or have seen. Sometimes a player might recall a play that has been made, or he might make suggestions as to what might soon occur. In either case, the experienced hockey fan does not really need to hear the word "obviously," as in, "Obviously, we need to get the puck to the net." And to a less-than experienced hockey fan, it might not be "obvious."

I guess the player does not want to hear someone tell him, "No kidding," but please, enough with the "obviously," already.

Hummer Metro Ice Challenge

The Hummer Metro Ice Challenge, sponsored by the New York Metro Hummer dealers, rewards the winner of the regular season NHL games between the New York Rangers, New York Islanders and the New Jersey Devils with a $50,000 donation to the charity of their choice.

Pardon my cynicism, but $50,000 as a donation? While it is indeed noble to donate money to worthy charities, I can't help but think that the donation amount is dwarfed by the cost of airtime that the Hummer dealers spend to advertise their program.

Want to impress me? Advertise it only once per game, and increase the amount of the donation.

On the road

It's amazing there's not more road rage than is reported.

My daughter asked me what bothers me the most about how people drive. If you think about it, it usually boils down to people being inconsiderate to each other. NONconsiderate might be a better word People are sometimes inconsiderate; that is, they go about their way, forcibly, in spite of the needs and wants of others. More often, it seems, people go about their business completely oblivious to the needs of, in fact, the very existence of, other people around them. If not for that, if drivers were intentionally courteous to each other, the roads would be a lot better, safer, and more easily navigated.

My friend Mark pointed out the difference between 'skunked' and 'snaked' once. 'Snaked' is an aggressive maneuver that gets you in front of the other guy without making him avoid you by braking or steering away. Sure, the guy might perceive that you 'cut him off' or something like that, but in reality, you got in and never really got in his way. 'Skunking' him, however, is a different animal. That's pretty much making the other fellow avoid you by using his brake or steering out of your way.

I admit that I am an aggressive driver. I am fast but I am careful. I slow down when the roads are wet. I change lanes and go fast, but I never get in your way. I will wait for my turn at the intersection. I clean ALL of the snow and ice off of my vehicle before I drive away. I always signal well in advance of my turn, giving you plenty of warning - should you choose to be observant enough to see it. I make my right turn into the right lane, and my left turn into the left lane, as I'm supposed to, leaving you the other lane to use. I recognize drivers attempting to parallel park, and leave them room to do so. The only way I've discovered to leave room enough for me to parallel park is to move abruptly, pointing my nose toward the middle of the street, stopping quickly with my signal on, signaling the driver behind me by making him say, 'whoa! What's this guy doing?" Otherwise, he's on my tail, waiting for me to move forward.


I sometimes wave a pedestrian across a busy street, placing my vehicle in the way of other cars that do not want to wait to pass through. I always wear my seat belt, and I insist that every one of my passengers do the same.


I park my car well between the marked lines in the parking lot. Do you? So many times I see cars parked haphazardly in spots in a lot, that I wonder if that's as well as the drivers can park, or if they simply don't care about anyone else. I mean, backing up and straightening out one more time couldn't take that much time or effort, could it? Or do they truly not notice?


Again, I admit that I'm aggressive behind the wheel, but if we're entering the same narrow passage from opposite directions, I'll pull over to let you by if you're nearer the bottleneck. But I expect you to do the same. More often than not, you just barrel through, expecting me to get out of your way.


You don't really need to sit in the left lane going the speed limit unless you're the Highway Patrol. It goes like this: right lane, exit and entry and slow-moving vehicles. The middle lane is meant for highway speeds. The left lane is properly used for passing.

My wife tells me I complain too much behind the wheel; that I shouldn't take these insults personally. I can't help it - it feels personal. I point out all these offenses to her, all day long, and she tells me to laugh it off. I probably should. I'll live longer.

Migrane Machine?

So Eyewitness News tonight (February 10, 2005), on WABC New York, showed an electromagnetic device aimed at relieving migraine headaches. Some of the interviewees indicated that they thought it was ridiculous. I, however, fully understand the motivations of the patients who would give it a try. I also understand the diabetic who will walk around with an insulin pump inserted into their skin.

The reason is that people with conditions that cause pain will do whatever they can to alleviate any part of the pain. In the case of migraines, pain is occasional but acute, in the case of diabetes, pain comes from sticking one's self with a needle several times each day. For an insulin-dependent diabetic, the pump allows the user to avoid, perhaps, 2 or 3 out of 10 needle-sticks per day. As I said earlier, this 'migraine buzzer' might look ridiculous, and it is a little big to be comfortably stowed into any pocketbook or briefcase, but I get it.

I have my own chronic pain issues, and I know that I would do anything to avoid even a portion of it. I've tried many things: a few surgeries, physical therapy, massage therapy, even acupuncture. So I live on pain medicine. I'm very hesitant to have more surgery, because I guess, as the saying goes, the devil I know is better than the devil I don't know. In the most extreme, I'm afraid of complications from surgery, which may include infection, or worse, paralysis. At the very least, I'm afraid of the horrible, excruciating recovery.

My point, though, is that it's not ridiculous. It's grasping at straws, perhaps, but desperate people are willing to go to extreme measures for the slightest relief.

Christopher Reeve

Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation


Back in 1995, I was very sorry for Christopher Reeve, having heard about his equestrian accident. Scary stuff. He fell off of his horse after making a jump, and snapped his neck. He never walked again. Spinal cord damage. Paralyzed. Respirator. Wheelchair.

I felt a connection with him, however, two months later, when, in July, I broke my own neck in a swimming pool mishap. I was much luckier than he. I am able to (type this,) walk, talk, think, and do almost everything I could do before.

Although I live in pain every day, I think that he was much braver and more optimistic than I ever was, or could be. I'm not crying 'foul,' or wallowing in my misery, but it's hard to be me. But I always look at the bright side. I'm not Christopher. Poor SOB. He never let on, though.
What's great is that he was so selfless. He was driven to walk again. He had the best attitude. His legacy, not the Superman role, but the important one, is that his name will live on, long after his recent, untimely, sad death, in October of 2004, in the form of his Foundation. The Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation, http://www.crpf.org/index.cfm , is one of my favorite charities. I have made contributions, with my family, for the last several years, and I plan to continue to do so, to honor his name, his work, and especially his selfless attitude.
A tip of my hat, too, to his wife, Dana, and the rest of his family, for standing by him and supporting him in so many ways.

It is truly astounding, that in our modern society, where sports figures, movie and television stars, and popular musicians are idolized, a true hero emerges from a freak accident. Although I admired his acting and directoral talents, they pale in comparison to the work he was obviously meant to perform.

He has become immortal. I wish continued success to his Foundation, his family, the causes he championed, and the people he loved. May his Foundation find ways to improve the lives of the many people he wanted to help. May his family find peace and fulfillment.

May I make a fraction of the mark of goodness he left on this world.

One Nation Under God?

Okay, we've all seen it.

The e-mail says that 86% of America's population believe in God, and if you're a good person (read "true American"), you should have no problem with the "One Nation, Under God, Indivisible, etc." part of the Pledge of Allegience. Well, whether I believe in God or not is nobody's business but my own and my family's.

Our country was primarily founded on the principle of freedom of religion (or not). The Pilgrims escaped to the new world to flee religious prosecution. What is God doing in our Pledge? And who are you to say that I'm not a good American if I want to pursue my right to practice, or to not practice, any religion of my own choosing.

I am a good American. I only buy American automobiles, and "Made in the USA" goes a long way in my decisions of any and all goods and services that I buy. (Another whole blog for that one.) I know that several American name cars are mostly made overseas, and I know that several 'imports' are made right here in the good old USA by American workers, and I decide accordingly. I pay my taxes, I vote, I support the US Olympic team. I fly the flag, and I know (and observe) the rules for it. I contribute to Veterans' charities. I am well read, and I know my current events and political issues.

I have no problem with the President saying "God bless America" at every opportunity, just don't force me to incorporate it into my vocabulary. It's my right to do as I choose.
In fact, it's my right to do as I choose in many more ways than this, but that's a topic for another day.

Francis Bellamy, a Baptist Minister, wrote the original Pledge of Allegiance in 1891, and did not bow to pressure to include a line tipping his hat to God. He felt that the separation of Church and State was more important than his own personal inclination. The Knights of Columbus persisted in a 3-year campaign until the "under God" line was added in 1954, under President Eisenhower.

I say the Pledge as it was taught to me, including the "under God" line. That's the way it is. I'm not an extremist who has to change the world, I only resent the fight surrounding it. If our legislature agrees that the separation of Church and State should be preserved, and rewords The Pledge, then don't start a war over it. The Crusades are over. Live with it.

Made in the USA

I like to support my fellow American worker. It's my responsibility, and I try to instill that as a value in the people I love.

I take note of the place of manufacture when I buy my vehicles. It would be great if someone would set up a web site that would contain a database of products, of all kinds, and show where they are manufactured, and who makes the profit on the sale too. I would like to see indications, too, on advertisements, and articles.

I think that I'm probably not alone in this desire. I've heard of movements in certain industries, beef, for example, if memory serves, that tug at the patriotic heartstrings of the American consumer to buy product made in the good old USA. I know that I would visit a site like that frequently. It would be important for me to know as much as possible about the source of raw materials, parts, labor, final assembly, packaging, shipping, in order to help me make my buying decision.

Obviously, a Toyota or BMW, for example, assembled domestically, supports the American worker, but the profits for that car leave the country and enrich a foreign company. I'm not saying that we should shut our borders to imports; that's not my point. In this current global economy, there are some good reasons that we should support imports with our dollars. I would like to be as educated in this area as possible, so that I can make an informed choice.

I've used automobiles as a good example, but if you stop to consider it, an automobile purchase usually happens less than one every two years or more, for most people. Although it is a large expenditure, I would like to concentrate on more day-to-day items. Toasters. Clothing. Gasoline comes to mind. Now, I don't expect that any large portion of the world's oil reserves come from the USA, but I would like to know that I am supporting a company that makes the effort. Or at least does not support countries suspected of questionable activities.

I am a big gadget fan, and I own many pieces of electronic equipment: MP3 and CD players, personal, portable TVs, more than two computers, and so on. My digital camera, which I love, is a Sony. (Shame on me? I don't know, I do what I can.) When I bought my Cybershot camera, it was on the open-box rack at Sears. It had all the features I wanted, and I couldn't pass up the offer. It was too good. I've been very happy with it for almost four years now. But when I bought it, I thought about an American-made product. Let's at least keep it in mind. Think about it. Be aware of your purchasing dollars, and where they end up. Some agency ran an ad campaign targeting the illicit drug user, on TV, radio, and in print. They said that every time someone bought illegal drugs off the street, they were supporting terrorism. Similar thought, I guess. Think about where your purchase dollars end up. But illegal drugs, and the black market that supports them, is a story for another day.

I do not have the ability or resources to arrange such a website, but I can certainly envision one. It would look like this: The user would drill-down to the product from a list, pull-down menu, or search, and be able to see a graphical representation of the national origin of that product, in a list of equivalent items for comparison. I see a simplified pie-chart graphic, with various colors, representing the USA (perhaps green), our closest allies, such as Canada, Great Britain, etc. (in blue, maybe, or yellow), another color for less favorably associated countries, all the way through black, or red, for enemy countries, or ones that are under economic embargo. Each product would be available for further detail of origin, as mentioned earlier, like raw materials, parts, labor, assembly, prep, distribution network, etc. Also, various factors should be footnoted for special circumstances (such as one country's exclusive, or virtually exclusive, access to a production material (like Hungarian paprika)).