Realistic, not bitter

As much as I've wanted to blog lately, my mind has been so fragmented that nothing made sense enough to post.  I'll say it upfront right now, this post is the result of a situation on Facebook that is ongoing but hopefully will be resolved later today.

3 years.  It's been 3 years since my pancreatic cancer diagnosis.  In that 3 years, I've done things I never thought possible.  I've met with congressional aides, met the widow of one of my heroes, raised more than $500 for pancreatic cancer research, and spoke during an internet chat radio show.  I've also had some interesting plans percolating in my head for the future that I'm really hoping to complete.  All of this is more than I dreamed of in the year leading up to my diagnosis. 

All of that makes me feel like a really lucky person.  Every single day when I wake up, I celebrate with a blessing ceremony taught to me by an incredible shaman.  I thank the Universe for being alive and ask to be shown my lesson for the day.  I also ask for healing energy to be sent to my friends and to people who are in difficult situations.  And then, I start my day to day living.

I work hard to keep my balance of positivity and truth because my life has been out of balance and filled with lies for a long time.  For reasons I'm not going to go into here, truth hasn't always been a part of my life but fr the last 4 years, I've worked to be truthful more than not.  For someone who used lies as easily as eating favorite foods, it's not easy but it is worth it.  So it's hard when someone I barely know starts in on me, especially when I feel I've done nothing as terrible as they seem to think.

On October 17, I had a phone call with someone who had been told by a new doctor that they were near the end of their life.  I felt they were panicking at the news, (who wouldn't?) and felt that they needed to take a deep breath and calm down a bit.  We talked for about an hour and I gave them my standard advice: try to calm down, get more opinions if they thought it best, then carefully think about the options.  Make a decision based on what's right for you, not what everyone else wants you to do.

And then, I said something that is now being used against me.  I told this person that doctors aren't always right, and that I saw this person being alive at least 18 months more, not the 1-5 months the doctor had told them.  It was my opinion that this person felt some relief upon hearing that.  Maybe I was wrong and I shouldn't have said anything at all about time.  I know one thing from personal experience:  I would have loved hearing someone tell me 18 months when my doctor said I'd be dead in 6.  But then again, not everyone is like me. 

Two weeks and one day later, I had an online message chat with this person because I had expected to call them and hadn't.  We talked about results from my doctor's visit and about her latest doctor's visit. I ended that chat with the words "Remember, I said 18 months and not one day less."  12 hours later, I received a personal message from this person that told me not to give a time frame again, that while I might mean it positively, all it did was add to their confusion and pain.  I accepted what this person said and responded simply with an "As you wish."

In the days after that message, several people online posted about their own personal issues.  Most of my responses were my usual "I'm sending positive thoughts and energy your way" messages.  I've gone over those responses and not once have I said anything about a time frame.  I've also reviewed my private messages with the individual and my last message to them was the one mentioned above, the "As you wish" comment. 

Imagine my surprise and confusion and finally, anger, when this person posted a message on our closed forum, saying they wouldn't name me personally but that I wasn't who I claimed to be, that I gave out death time frames that only hurt people, that sending energy was only a game for me, and that I'd pestered them with repeated phone calls and requests for them to call me, that they were not going to respond to me further and would never again trust me in anything I said.  All this 5 days after my last exchange with this person.

I shut down my browser and tried to read.  I tried to calm my thoughts and meditate.  Nothing stopped my feelings of anger and hurt.  I'd done exactly what this person had asked and yet, 5 days later, they were still upset enough to post such a message?  I opened my browser and started to write a note on Facebook to post.  I wanted to quote their comment and went to the closed forum, only to find that post was gone.  The person appeared to be gone, as well.  I asked another friend to verify that the comment was gone and they did.  It looked like this person was gone.  Truth was, they had de-friended me and blocked me from seeing any of their comments.  I deleted my note without ever posting it.

Yesterday, I started seeing posts by this person again.  I've not responded to any of them, thinking my best bet was to just let it go. 

Another person in that group posted an interesting blog piece that I thought was incredible.  There have been several comments about the piece and some cute quips posted.  I did my usual bit of research and offered my own opinion as to why breast cancer awareness exploded and pancreatic cancer hasn't.  I commented on two other posts, both vague-ish answers. Nothing negative at all, in my mind.

An hour ago, I opened my Facebook to see I had a message.  I opened my messages and read the new one.  It was from the person above and it was short.  It said, and I'm quoting here, "Bitter till the end you will be...I pray for you."  I am unable to respond to them directly.

I'm not bitter.  I'm realistic.  I thank the Universe daily for still being here when I have no idea WHY I'm still here.   I will continue to offer positive thoughts and energy for anyone who is going through a hard time.  I will continue to live my life as if I have a million tomorrows ahead of me.  I will continue to be me, a flawed human being who has made a huge amount of mistakes and will make more before I die. 

My bucket list

For the last several years, quite a few people have asked me what's on my bucket list.  To be honest, I never really wrote down a bucket list because it is forever changing.  Some things that were important to me 3 years ago just aren't as important anymore.  But the idea of a list of things I want to do before I die is intriguing.  How many things would I put on it and how many would be considered really frivolous?  Would it sound stupid to others?  Could I actually write such a list?  

The answer is yes, I could write such a list.  And here it is.  My bucket list as of August 8, 2012.  Subject to change, depending on my mood. 

• Meet President Obama, Former Presidents Clinton, Carter, and George HW Bush, and their wives.
• Meet Sam Harris, Barbra Streisand, all 4 members of ABBA, and Taylor Hicks.
• Finally travel to the last 5 states so that I've been to all 50.
• Drive cross country at least 2 more times, in each direction.
• Own a house.  (Doesn't matter if I'm paying a mortgage)
• Travel to see England, Scotland, Ireland, France, Germany, Russia, Australia, New Zealand, and Africa.
• Skydive once.
• Take a hot air balloon ride.
• Record my own album of duets with several of my favorite stars.
• Sing the National Anthem at a major league baseball game.
• Weigh under 200 lbs.
• Do one of the swim with a dolphin/beluga whale interactions somewhere.
• Have a party and be able to give all my guests gifts.
• See Garth Brooks in Vegas while sitting in the front row.

See, not that big a list so far.  But like I said, changes can happen at any time.
   

Religious freedom

Today I did my usual check on the NOM blog, which for the last few days has been more the Chick-fil-A blog.  But today, they put up a segment from a NY Times opinion piece on religious freedom.  Since NOM likes to shorten it to what they feel was important, I read the entire Times piece online and several of the comments.  I wanted to comment but apparently, they have only a short window for comments and it was already closed.  Then I read the comments left on the NOM blog and decided to post a section of the article here, the link to it (so you can read the entire piece), and the 5 comments that are listed as of 1pm EDT today, Friday August 3, 2012.  

From the article: 

I cannot improve upon the way the first lady of the United States explained this issue, speaking recently to a conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church. “Our faith journey isn’t just about showing up on Sunday,” Michelle Obama said. “It’s about what we do Monday through Saturday as well ... Jesus didn’t limit his ministry to the four walls of the church. He was out there fighting injustice and speaking truth to power every single day.”

But Mrs. Obama’s words notwithstanding, there seems to be a great deal of confusion about this point in the Western leadership class today.

This article is by Ross Douthat, a columnist at the New York Times and can be found by clicking this link: Defining Religious Liberty Down.

The article is, to me, a bit disjointed because it doesn't focus solely on religious freedom in the United States.  Nevertheless, it is a good article for the most part.

Now, for the NOM blog comments.  Since I can't post comments there, I'm posting them here and in a different color font, so that anyone can tell they're MY comments.

JC wrote:  

Let's also be honest enough to admit that your desire to block other groups of citizens from the benefits of civil marriage just because they don't live according to the dictates of YOUR religion has anything at all to do with freedom of religion. Just admit that you don't like people living their lives in ways that conflict with your religious beliefs and you are willing to any and everything in your power to bend them to your will.

OvercameSSA wrote: 

JC -

Only a man and a woman can create a child; despite what homosexuals would like to believe, that's a fact and it is a big deal worthy of special attention by the government and society.

Sure, there are those who believe this is purely a religious issue, but there is a secular purpose that true marriage serves that so-called same-sex "marriage" cannot: the union of a mom and a dad with their offspring.

In fact, every same-sex couple who adopts a child, adopts a child who was taken away from one or both if his/her parents: the very opposite of what marriage is designed to encourage!

And no matter what anyone keeps saying, having a child is not a requirement in order to get married.  If marriage is solely about having children, then make it a requirement and stand by it.  Otherwise, stop bringing it up.  People who aren't married have children every day.  Not being married doesn't stop that.  And same-sex couples don't steal children or take them away from their parents.  The government does that when a parent isn't fit to be a parent.  Should that child have to be without adoptive parents just because the biological parents couldn't act like adults and provide a real home? 

From Cameron: 

While sounding nice, unfortunately, Ross is incorrect about exercising religion being a convenient carte blanche to behave as your conscience dictates.
The borders of discrimination and religious freedom are blurred. Who is to say where one's rights ends and another begins? It's easy to say that the religious texts have far-reaching implications so anything that offends those texts is fair game for discrimination. If someone's religion says that they can't dispense marriage licenses to mixed-religion couples, whose religious liberty is being infringed upon?
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) subjects federal policies to strict scrutiny if they substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion. So to be the tie-breaker, the law states that for something to infringe on religious freedom, that part of your job must actually be part of your religion. Under existing case law, the provision of health care or chicken sandwiches or dispensing of marriage licenses is arguably not the exercise of religion.
So while Ross' article is passionately written, it doesn't make much of an argument for religious discrimination.
That said, I'm not sure what laws Chick-fil-A would be breaking in Boston for the mayor to say that they couldn't set up business there. But if he's saying it for reasons that the law doesn't support, I think that's despicable. Everyone needs to follow the law, regardless of religious affiliation. That is religious liberty.

The mayor of Boston never said they couldn't set up business there.  He said they might want to think again before setting up business there, not quite the same thing.  The mayor of Chicago said he would support an Alderman's announcement to block the company.  He didn't say he'd ban them.  And finally, the mayor of San Francisco said he would strongly recommend that the business not come closer to San Francisco than they already were.  Can they be interpreted as threats to use their power to keep them out?  Yep.  But in the end, they're still doing the same thing Mr. Cathy did, exercising their first amendment right to free speech.  You don't like it, fine.  Protest.  But at least don't lie about what they said.

From GoodNews:  

“the pornography-saturated, fertility-challenged, family-breakdown-plagued West"
Say it again New York Times – and it will feel even better! Say it a thousand times, and it might start to be heard. Say it a million times, and it might motivate a nation. And bring health to a people! (And bring a little healthy challange to the easy money economy lovers as well).

Find a way to make pornography totally illegal.  Find a way to make women and men more fertile.  Find a way to stop families from breaking down.  That would be wonderful.  But quit blaming all of this on religion or a lack thereof.  Men in general are the majority of pornography purchasers.  How are you going to stop them from buying it?  Religion can't make humans produce babies, only sex can.  And some people just don't belong together but got together anyway.  Can you stop that from happening?  Last of all, if money is to be made from doing something, there is always going to be someone willing to do that something.

And finally, from TC Matthews:

JC in all the hundreds of years that this country has been around, no one has done anything like what you're describing. Don't you think it's a little odd to bring it up now as a cover for the hissy fit you're pulling because people disagree with you?

32 states have written into their constitutions, via popular vote, that marriage is solely between a man and a woman.  If you look at the breakdown of the voters who voted for that definition, more than 90% did it because of their religion.  Look at the groups that are out there now trying to use that definition and only that definition in 5 states this November.  Every one of them are religious in nature.  Every one of them uses nothing more than a religious viewpoint for why marriage is man and woman.  It is their religious beliefs they are trying to (and in 32 states, succeeding) pass as law.  And you're going to say it hasn't happened?  Disagreement is one thing.  Telling people they aren't human, that God hates them, that AIDS is their punishment for being gay, is quite a bit more than disagreement. 

The bottom line to all of this is your right to religious belief or non-belief is granted by the first amendment to the United States Constitution.  But that doesn't mean you have the right to force someone else to believe the same way.  Stop being surprised when people fight back against your beliefs.

Open letter to Rick Santorum

Mr. Santorum,

You were asked a very simple question in Concord, NH on January 5th. You were asked why your definition of equality did not include allowing gays and lesbians to get married. You didn't respond with an answer, but with more questions. And when some members of the audience shouted out questions or comments, you said you were going to discuss this civilly. At another point in this short, 2 minute discussion, you said that to have a discussion based on rational reasoned thought, then we employ reason. But you didn't employ reason, Mr. Santorum. All you did was try to change her question into something she didn't ask. You tried hard to get her to answer your question, rather than answering hers. All you needed to do was say that you believe marriage comes from God and belongs to man and woman, something you did say before you left the venue.

I don't like you, Mr. Santorum, and I'm going to state my reasons outright. You believe that religion should be the underlying reason in everything the United States does, in every law that is made. You believe that YOUR religion should be THE religion the U.S. uses as the basis for laws. You don't really care if there are others who don't believe in the same religion or even, for that matter, God at all. As long as YOUR values are followed, who cares if everyone agrees? You also believe that it's okay for you to accept money from special interest groups, from earmarks, because you're trying to guide this great country the right way and they believe the same way you do. You don't truly care for Americans, you care for Americans who believe as you do.

For the record, traditional, Biblical marriage is one man and several women. Women are never to speak up or teach, only men. Women were property. The United States outlawed polygamy years ago, not because it couldn't bring happiness to some but because it usually relies on the principal of one main wife and several 'lesser' wives, not equality among all. And marriage as a means to have children and raise a family? Then you need to deny marriage to those who are infertile, those who are beyond child-bearing age, and those who plan to never have children. After all, their happiness doesn't matter, it's whether or not they have children that counts, right?.

1-1-2012

January 1st. A new year, a new day to start living fresh again. Each day should be taken that way, as a new day to start fresh, but we don't. Most of us can't help but carry baggage from the past, even if the past is just a day ago. It takes strength to let go, to live each day as it comes, fresh of mistakes and fresh of baggage.

This will be short and sweet today. I hope that all of us can learn from the past, move forward into the present, and think about the future, living each moment fresh. The past exists as a lesson only. Repeat it at your own risk. I prefer to be more like the Starship Enterprise, to boldly go where I've never been before, to seek out and explore new ventures. (Paraphrased but dammit Jim, I'm a person, not a spaceship!)

Happy 2012!