Last night one of my best friends died of colon cancer, the disease that stole Farrah from us a few months ago. My friend fought gallantly. She kept a positive attitude. She prayed. We held vigils and prayer circles. She changed her diet. She did whatever the doctors told her to do. She looked at many of the alternatives promising miracles as she had time to look at.
I'd like to write f-word. I'd like to write mother f-worder. I'd like to use profanity that would make George Carlin blush, Sam Kinison roll over and Lenny Bruce cringe. But I can't. Not here. At oped, like virtually everywhere else, these words get flagged and we're asked to change them. I know this because I used the crude term for prostitute in a piece the other day and I received an auto-response lecture about how some people might find this offensive. I'm not sure what happens if we don't change them. Maybe stories don't get published, or maybe they get published behind one of those "Are you at least 18" power security questions that remind you of the questions we were asked pre-9-11 at the airport.
Profanity isn't the f-word. F-word is simply a crude word someone made up sometime ago which means sticking a penis somewhere. "feces, urine, copulate, vagina, rooster sucker, mother intercourser, breasts" aren't, as George Carlin defined, "the heavy 7." These aren't profanity any more than telling someone "go google yourself."
There's some profanity for you.
"Eat cancer and die;" now there's profanity.
"Cancer yourself;" another big one.
Want to know the real "heavy 7?"
Here they are: "Cancer, malignant neoplasm, malignancy, cluster, abnormal cells, cancerous tumors, survivability."
Here's a factoid from http://www.webmd.com/cancer/understanding-cancer-basics: "Today, more than half of all people diagnosed with cancer are cured."
2009, almost 2010, and we're topping 50% survivability rate. Whew. Be still my heart. I did a crude search of the internet to find that in many instances, rather shockingly, the top killers are not terrorists and war.
I say rather shockingly because, with all the hoopla in a country like ours, the U.S., and the untold trillions of dollars we waste in "defense" of whatever it is we're in offense of, I would think the threat would be astronomically higher than say cancer, or heart disease. But in fact cancer and heart disease are generally the top killers in many areas of this country (worldwide yearly starvation and related diseases are more potent than all the IEDs used for all time).
The argument against the preceding statement and in support of our out of control military spending is "9-1-1." There doesn't have to be even a complete or coherent thought to back up this singularly asinine statement. There doesn't have to be even a cursory exploration of the facts. There doesn't need to be even any contemplation or conversation.
Following the second war to end all wars, WW II, we had the red scourge overrunning us from Russia and China via Vietnam and Europe. Now we have a few thousand spineless vermin wearing dresses and living in caves who we have elevated to omniscient terrorists. And these threats require the consumption of the vast riches of easily the most militarized and militant nation, some state foolishly Christian nation, in the history of our planet.
Meanwhile if you're reading this article I can say without hesitation that your life has been directly touched by cancer or heart disease. Not so with terrorists. I can say with near certainty that you have a family member who has experienced the after taste of chemotherapy or had a surgery to remove all or part of some organ whose cells decided it was time to begin replicating uncontrollably. Not true of the "Iranian threat."