Foremost on my Mind: The Whole Tooth

 

A friend of mine recently lost his tooth. Well, actually he didn't lose it (though it was loose): He only misplaced it...inside his mouth. One swallow too many, people, and we're talking a new definition for over-bite.

Fortunately for my friend, those dressed to drill, also known as dentists, were able to retrieve the errant enamel, plunked it back into its proper place, and now everyone can eat happily ever after.

As I heard this story, I did the usual inner-mouth rolling tongue routine, in case my many molars may have moved. I missed one spot, inadvertently stuck my tongue out, and offended the lady next to me. (Sorry, just a normal tongue-in-cheek check, chick.)

What would I do without my teeth? I heard one guy accidentally put his wife's false teeth in when he woke up. He hasn't stopped talking since. Okay, okay, hold your suspenders, humans, I am just kidding. But it did get me thinking about a life without (better: a mouth without) teeth.

No teeth? No eating pleasure. It's hard to imagine wolfing down the best meal on earth (that would be a Hawaiian pizza, people) without teeth. What's so pleasurable with sucking on ham and pineapple? Is there any joy in sucking and slurping?

No teeth? It would be hard to pucker up. In fact, one would look perpetually puckered out. (Oops, I think I meant tuckered out.) In fact, it would be really hard to do anything assertive, romantic, or even normal when your lips are flapping every which way.

No teeth? No beauty. You may argue that a baby has lots of beauty, but no teeth, and I would agree. So let me tweak my argument: Once the mouth (which includes every imaginable expression) has been formed around teeth, it is a step backwards to see the same face, sans teeth.

I suppose I could find some solace in sitting down and watching a movie about an ageing great white shark. They could call it, "Gums." Or, maybe get the gang together and play "Tooth and Consequences."

Even false teeth don't do justice to a face that once had true (?) teeth. No matter how hard any denturist tries, he can't replicate the natural look of a face that once possessed its own ivories. But I will admit that false teeth are still better than no teeth at all.

Let me play devil's advocate for moment here: Think of the advantages there are without teeth. Let me count the ways: 1. No time wasted brushing, flossing, or gurgling every morning and evening. 2. No leftovers stuck between teeth No. 7 and No. 8, with pieces of fish and lettuce and nuts clinging to one's grin like they were a picnic for the trip home. 3. No cavities. And with that point, no hot or cold sensations when one is enjoying a hot or cold one—or at least were supposed to. 4. No root canals, crowns, or plugs (whatever that is: just heard that term last week).

But even bigger than my mouth (if that's possible), there is the whole dentist industry that would be at stake—if we all lost our teeth. How could students miss hours of classes for that one fifteen minute appointment, if we didn't take care of our teeth? And what about the chaos (sorry, I meant "routine") at night over brushing, flossing, and gurgling? What would Mom and kids do with all that extra time? Finally, how would we know when we are over the hill? True teeth out and false teeth in is a sign of maturity--a coming of agedness, if you will.

So I am writing out of both sides of my mouth (with teeth intact, no less). I am arguing for teeth in and teeth out. But I don't think this double-minded argument would stand up in court. Do you know why?

Because they would want the tooth, the whole tooth, and nothing but the tooth.

Foremost on my Mind: Running for Office

 
Once again, our hero, El Fungo, is faced with the dilemma of answering his phone, knowing—thanks to Call Display—full well that Maurice, his second cousin twice-removed, is fixin' for a debate. Politics, as you know, does that to otherwise sane men.)
 
Hello? Oh, it's you, Maurice. (Bit of a white lie here, people: Call Display already spilled the beans.) Yes, how's it going? Not, not literally, Maurice; it's just a mindless expression here in the West that means something like, “How are you doing?” Doing what? No, again, Maurice, just one of those stupid idioms that—What? I did not call you an idiot!
 
Anyways, dear Second Cousin Twice-removed (but you keep coming back), what's on your mind? Uh huh, and then? Oh really? They said what? You've got to be kidding! No, no, Maurice, just another stupid idiot, er, idiom, that means “you can't be serious!”
 
Maurice, tell them that I'm flattered that they want me to run in this next election. I have actually spent some time thinking about it, and I can see some reasons why I wouldn't qualify for the task; but I suppose there are others reasons why I might.
 
I think the main reason why I wouldn't run for office is my skin. No, no, not skin colour, my friend: I'm too thin-skinned. I tend to be too touchy, and I hate being constantly criticized, especially if what has gone wrong is not my fault. I like people and I want people to like me. But when one is in public office--or even in any public limelight, for that matter--one is forever being harangued, skewered, and thrashed. I love putting myself out for people, but I also love being appreciated.
 
Another reason for not running for office is that I have a family to lead. I can't see the good in taking care of the national forest when my own lawn goes uncut. No, Maurice, that's just a word picture! In other words, why worry about everybody else's business when my chief business (raising my own family) remains ignored, or at least marginalized? That doesn't make any sense at all at this stage of my life.
 
Ironically, on the other hand, I think that the experience from raising my family is likely one of the best qualifications to run for office--even take up a cabinet post, if successful. Who better than a parent to run the Ministries of Justice, Health, Finance, Agriculture, or Education? Who better qualified to dictate policies that create law-abiding, healthy citizens than dedicated parents who have slogged for years to do the same within the confines of family life? On a tight budget, to boot?
 
Experience aside, I think another qualifier in running for office should be character. I don't think it should be based on whether one is a lawyer or not, or whether one has the (financial) wherewithal. Those aren't qualifications, Maurice; those are mere considerations.
 
When I speak of character, I can use it in one of two ways: I identify someone as quite a “character,” or I can admire his “strength of character.” I'm thinking of the latter when I talk of a qualification for public office.
 
And when I speak of said character, I am thinking of punctuality, dependability, honesty, integrity—well, you get the picture. Mind you, those should be the same qualities for hiring people, following people, and grooming people. Sometimes methinks we have lost the focus on what makes a good leader. And I mean that for any type of leader.
 
I think politics is a messy business, partly because of the process itself, partly because of the people that perpetuate it. When I see the ugly antics of the leaders and their desperate lackeys, I want to hold my vote. That would, of course, accomplish absolutely nothing. I need to help vote the rogues out and the good guys in.
 
So, tell your friends at the Yap Yap Cafe, “thanks, but no thanks.” I'll contribute in my own little way for the time being. Perhaps someday I throw my hat in the ring—no, no, just another one of those expressions—and run for office.
 
In the meantime, I have to run to take care of some other important legislation in my own little kingdom, something about dinner table rules. Right things first, you know.
 
 
 
 

Foremost on my Mind: Up with the Cup

 
Let's see now: Heads are starting to roll, suds are starting to flow, and the golf courses are starting to get packed with scores of hockey players. It must be that time of year, namely, when our teams are once again playing what some call the real NHL.
 
Well, at least some of our teams are playing hockey. The rest are playing golf.
 
I admit that I know little about hockey, both from an experiental and a technical point of view. Still I find this time of year (mid-April to to mid-June) one of the most exciting times of the year. As I have stated here before, I still get a rush over the trade deadline day, as well as the first week after July 1 (also known as “Grovelling-to-the-Highest Bidder Day.”)
 
As I write this, the Vancouver Canucks (you may remember them: winners of the President's Cup, the William Jennings Trophy, the Art Ross Trophy [and we're just starting the hardware store]) are about to play the Chicago Blackhawks in the first round. To be sure, Chicago is worse off than they were last year and Vancouver is better off, but it still gives any diehard Canucks' fan a few of the heebie-jeebies.
 
By the time you read this, the heebie-jeebies may have turned into the cowabungas.
 
So far, within a week of the season ending, four coaches have been turfed (fired, dropped, dumped, let go, terminated) for not producing winnning records at worst, playoff-bound teams at best. And a fifth coach has quit. And there may be more victims of unemployment. That should make for some interesting musical chairs, come the end of June. Traditionally, general managers like to have their coaching staff in place before the draft.
 
Apart from predictions, also known as a scientific guesswork, there are further questions for other teams that failed to make the playoffs. Calgary will have to take a long, hard look at overhauling their roster, assessing which players stay and which ones go. Edmonton may allow Tom Rennie another year of re-building before he gets turfed, fired, dropped, dumped, let go, then terminated.
 
The questions of Atlanta and Phoenix are always on the minds of hockey purists, especially those who live in Winnipeg and Quebec City. There is no question in my mind that those two teams should shift north, to say nothing of the viable market for the greater Toronto area, as well as in either Saskatoon or Regina. Whether teams with uncertain futures like Dallas and Florida would be the next two to go is up to Bettman and his henchmen.
 
While we're visiting NHL trivia, here's further random thoughts: Have you ever noticed how many teams have a predominence of red, white, and blue, or just red? Even teams where there is another colour (eg., Washington and Atlanta) have red as their third jersey. I have always wondered at the lack of creativity in mixing colours. (Probably the worst professional league for limited creativity is the MLB.)
 
Why not green or burgundy as primary colours? I think burgundy and silver would be an awesome combination. The Canucks, of course, have blue and green as their primary colours, though not normally a great combination. However, I'm sure you'll agree that it looks stunned, er, stunning on them. Minnesota, so far as I know, is the only other team with somewhere.
 
My own bias coming through here, but I really like the logos of the Origninal Six teams. I like the simple, distingushed style. I think graphic artists call this minimalist. (I do like the Canucks' witty artwork: A killer whale leaping out of the “C”/sea. However, I still think the hockey rink with the inverted stick looks the best of all the ones they've had over the years.)
 
So, up to the Cup! May the next few weeks be as exciting for the players and fans alike as the real NHL season unfolds. Unless, of course, your team is on the golf course.
 

Foremost on my Mind: Promises, Promises, Promises

 
Hello? Oh, is that you, Maurice? Good to hear your voice again (sure beats spilling the beans over coffee, face-to-face). What's that? No, I was mumbling to myself about spilling coffee on my face...
 
Have I heard of the election? What election? No, just kidding. It seems I am bombarded everyday from every corner of the political spectrum with promises, polls, and platitudes. What's that—you're thinking of voting for Michael “I've-had-enough”? You're not serious, are you? Maurice, I think you've been watching too many Flames games these days, and coming to the same faint conclusions.
 
In fact, there's a parallel there: In both cases, I believe when the big day comes, they will both be on the outside looking in.
 
Maurice, just a word to wise (or at least to the wishful): Where has Mr. Ignatieff spent the better part of of his working career? (Hint: The initials start with “U” and end in “A.” Here's another one: It doesn't rhyme with C-A-N-A-D-A.) You must wonder where his loyalities lie, don't you? I don't doubt he has some good points, but I do doubt he represents the best interests of everyday Canadians (which would be commoners like you and me, Maurice).
 
You know, if you ask me, and I'm sure you wouldn't, Mr. “I've-had-enough” should run for senate—the US senate. He is likely far more familiar with their system than ours, having spent years and years outside of Canada.
 
What's that? Now, you want to know what I think of Gilles “Deception”? Well, very simply, Maurice, when a party has one main plank in its platform, that is weak. And when that one plank is the break-up of the nation through the emergence of a sovereign state within that existing nation, that is sad. And dangerous. I'm thinking he represents a small yet vocal minority in Canada, almost like a glorified lobby group.
 
That's all we need—another minority representation.
 
Actually, Maurice, I think it's great to be a bilingual country. And I sincerely believe we should acknowledge our French heritage. To be sure, I struggle with French being crammed down our throat as students and educators, as consumers and bureaucrats, but—as I have said repeatedly here before—that's fodder for another column. The second language out West, in a very practical sense, should be German; further west, in certain parts of BC, it should be Punjabi.
 
But I digress. Mr. Duceppe has no substance, no concrete plans, and no means whereby he can offer most Canadians anything. The best (or is it worst?) he can do is help form a coaltion with the Liberals. Therefore, even in a moment of weakness, do not vote for a separatist. I would rather you not vote at all, if that was the case.
 
I know, I know, Maurice, you're thinking I left out the, uh, left. (Well, I did discuss Ignatieff and Duceppe, didn't I?) Jack Layton is one of many NDP'ers who is articulate and likeable, but he's leading the wrong party. That would be “wrong,” as in the wrong side of center; and “wrong,” as in the wrong side of what's best for Canada.
The New Democratic Party always makes the best leaders of the opposition—yet the they have the worst record when in power. Just for the record, some of the erstwhile premiers include Bob Rae (ON), Dave Barrett (BC), and Gary Doer (MB).
 
So, Maurice, thanks for phoning. I don't know if you wanted (or even needed) an earful on this upcoming election, but you got it anyway. Tell your friends that every vote counts. And tell them that they should examine the leader's policies long before an election is called. You see, by the time they hit the hustings, leaders are more than willing to promise anything to get themselves (re-)elected.
 
Promises, promises, promises. One may promise the moon, but then only deliver moondust. Watch out for politicians of every stripe that make out-of-the-world guarantees. Vote for a party with a consistently honourable track record, both at home and abroad.
 
Well, I guess that leaves just one reasonable option to govern the country well for the next few years, so long as people are wise enough to vote in a majority. And by the way, that party's name doesn't rhyme with G-R-E-E-N.