The Treachery of Images

Of relevance to the day thing, it was time to revamp this classic.

Also
Ceci n'est pas une author.

Our Personal Myths

Huhn, well, that was interesting. So, I'm researching some part of my personal past in regards to certification for the reboot. All this time I was under the impression that part of my severance from the Air Force was the result of a court martial. However, going through my papers packet and can't find the words "court martial." Everything I read is that it was an investigatory committee. It sure felt like a trial at the time.

What the fuck? Why the hell was it always referred to as a court martial? I'm fairly certain that's where I got that impression. Also, I was given reasons which weren't a part of the official record. Son of a bitch.

Okay, so I was a very different person back then. But I've always been observant and exact, those are some of the character traits I've keep. You have noticed how anal I can be about facts, haven't you? Yeah, it's a curse. I wouldn't have just made that part up. It's been over 25 years now, so I don't have clear memories of the whole thing. That's why I was rereading all the documents.

That event is a part of my personal identity, something I look back on as the impetuous for changing who I am. I'm not the same person I was then. There's a reason for that.

So, I'm sure you'll all be happy to know that I never was through a court martial.

I know I am at this point.

In case you're wondering, I have an honorable discharge. That was a little tricky to arrange, but well worth it (and deserved I might add). The certificate is hanging up in the office as a reminder.

Linkee-poo, special edition on cancer

"The worst case scenario here is we accidentally treated a 9-11 responder's cancer even though his cancer may not be proven to have its genesis on 9-11." While, "yes, this," also somewhat a part of the whole "Fukushima/Chernobyl disaster and cancer, not a direct link" debate. You might remember me pointing out that, "well, all those increases in cancer can't be directly tied to Chernobyl" argument. Welcome to its US cousin.

Speaking of cancer, Jay Lake speaks of his own cancer. He also points to this xkcd on the subject of survivability.

It's a hard struggle, and my heart goes out to Jay. Staring one's own mortality in the face isn't easy, even when you've done it before and are prepared. It is made especially harder with the stories we tell ourselves of the "fight until the last breath" struggle, "stay strong", or the "miracle remission," or the ever popular, "you'll be okay/things will turn out okay" and finally the guilt ridden, "you have so much to live for." Couple that with the myth of "tell Laura, I love her" death bed scenes. Death is not the nice person he's made out to be in modern movies. He is like how the ancients saw him, a thief in the night.

I've promised to write a post on "Cancer and Me", this is not it. It's complex, and cancer is the barrel of the Armalite I look down every morning. At sixteen I watched cancer devour my Grandfather. Watched it take him away from me, piece by piece. And I know, when the cancer came back the year before, he knew what it was. It wasn't his first dance with that devil. He knew why he was losing so much weight. By the time the rest of us did, and imposed our version of the story of his life on him, it was too late. His surgical team changed direction mid procedure from "eradication" to "palliative care." The person who taught me what it meant to be a man, what it meant to love someone fully - cancer ripped him from me just as I was becoming a man and trying to love someone fully.

I have gone into days of my life with a chip on my shoulder and embracing the philosophy of "today is a good day to die." I know what that phrase really means (as, unfortunately, too many kids now know). And I've put on that cloak of invincibility to swagger forth and either use my shield or come home on it. I know what a life struggle is like, know the lay of the land for that particular Hell.

Two more people I know were diagnosed with cancer this year. Last night at class, one of my class mates shared her story of "walking" her parents down with their cancers. I should have gone up and hugged her. I know that pain, and that fear. You may also remember this year I had a sarcoma removed (on my ear). Given my family history, you can bet I wigged out a little.

Fuck cancer.

One way the stories we tell ourselves screw things us concerns the whole debate of "not giving pain meeds" to terminal patients, or "heroic extremes" to keep someone alive (the opposite of "can you pull the plug?" conversations that go on behind shuttered windows). It's a pervasive myth we hold. It's part of why Terri Schiavo's ordeal was allowed to go on for so long (and also why that fight was personal to me).

When it comes to it, I will probably fight hard. That's just the way I'm put together. Other people have their own stories to live, and each one is just as valid and acceptable as the next. But, if I get like my Grandfather or Grandmother in their last months, get the damn Hospice involved. I am not your fucking made-for-TV movie.

You can't always get what you want

In class the other night, the phrase, "Looking back on it, you can see you got what you needed when you needed it" was spoken out loud. This was in context of the discussion on how to stop worrying (how this fits into Effective Personal Communications is a bit too long to explain, let's just say I don't believe it does).

It rankled me then as a simplistic tautology similar to "That which survives, survives." It was thrown out by the instructor as a "humanist" way of saying, "Let go and let God" (although there followed a discussion on who was what religion).

I could go into the various subtextual meanings about "what you need" and "when you needed it" and how that differs from what you want and what would be sparkly. But instead it's the very ignorance of the phrase that galls me. It's an argument of privilege that gives succor to the living and ignores a vast ocean of troubles. It is the mantra of those who live the unexamined life. It's an excuse to not go beyond yourself and stay behind your wall. It's the battle cry of those who skate through life.

What bothers me most about this simple minded, asinine concept is that I know people for whom this isn't true. And in my future career I expect I will meet scores more.

This is not an argument about, "I didn't get the pony I wanted for Xmas." This is about, "My friend didn't get a heart in time for a transplant." This is about, "My friend didn't get enough space to avoid the car that ran over his moped." This is about all my friends who have experienced (and some are still experiencing) the deepest, darkest realms of their souls. It's even about friends who just never seem to get a fair shake in life.

This phrase waves a hand at their suffering and tragedy magically immunizing the speaker from guilt or empathy and a need to help.

This is also about that person who did get a heart transplant in time, because the person who donated it didn't get what they needed when they needed it. It about that person who didn't see my friend on the moped until it was too late. It's about those who may have had a hand in pushing my friends into those pits and may have done it from their own fortress of pain.

To be fair, my instructor who put it out there has had some tough times in the past. My guess is that those times for her are magnified by the life of relative privilege she grew up in. Of course, I'm sure there's much more to her story than what she's shared. And everybody's personal pain is the greatest pain in the world, and you really shouldn't compare them to others (the "buck up, you could have it worse" arguments).

There are legions, however, who didn't even get the chance, for whom there were no real options. The nations of individuals for whom the cavalry didn't arrive in time.

"You get what you need when you need it." What a stupid, fucking, moronic aphorism.

At least I now know why my blood boils when I think of it.

The Stories We Tell Ourselves, Our Christian Founding

On the myth of "America (ie. the United States) was founded for religious freedom."

I think I just read this canard one too many times today. Nothing. Nothing. Not one thing could be farther from the truth.

Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492 for religious freedom? The Spaniards came to pillage and rape the Caribbean, Meso-America and South America for religious freedom? De-Soto traipsed about the American South from Texas to Florida for religious freedom? English traders came to the East coast to pillage and raid (not to mention spread diseases), taking Native Americans as slaves back to England for religious freedom? Jamestown was founded in Virginia swampland for religious freedom? Georgia was founded as a debtors/penal colony for religious freedom? The Dutch swindled the local indians (who actually may not have been local at all, but on a fishing trip) to found New Amsterdam (which they later sold to the English who renamed it New York) for religious freedom? The colonies of South and North Carolina introduced the concept of "transportation", indentured servitude, and fueled the trade in African Slaves for religious freedom? Maryland with her verdant fields of tobacco, Delaware with her banking interests, New Jersey because, well, because it was between England and Pennsylvania (Jerseyites, I kid, I'm one of you, but, really, the state is a sand bar with pretensions), these were founded on religious freedom?

Pennsylvania and WIlliam Penn... okay, he pretended it was for religious freedom, but did you notice how rich he got from selling the land? Also, please note that because of his Quaker hauteur the colony of Delaware was formed to get away from "teh Crazies" in Pennsylvania (btw, while Penn was back in England cleaning up his own and his son's mess, the Pennsylvania colonists revolted and replaced his charter with their own). So you get a barely true with that one.

Next we have Massachusetts, which was, for the most part, founded because the Puritans didn't want their children to speak that evil language, Dutch. And the King of England didn't want them in his country. So he gave them some leaky boats and sent them West. So you can say they were religious refuges. They, however, intended to land in NY when they were blown off course to Plymouth. Not having a lot of money and seeing it was "God's Providence" they petitioned to start their own colony of which the King was glad to do something with that land, and really, anything to keep them from returning (Want to know why? Look up Oliver Cromwell, Lord Defender. Now you know.). So, okay, you have Massachusetts. However, good ol' MA people then went on to found New Hampshire as a place of refuge from the religious fervor of the Pilgrims (as they were now called). Connecticut was founded to kick the Calvinists from MA. And Rhode Island was founded for good Connecticut people to get the hell away from those Calvinist crazies, avoid the Dutch, and not return to MA. So while two of those colonies were founded in an effort to get away from religion, I guess you could say all four were founded based on religious freedom. Let's not discuss the religious intolerance of the area.

Tell you what, I'll throw in PA as a gimmee.

So you get 5 out of 13 colonies founded for "religious freedom" of one sort or another, or 38%. Now that's just raw numbers, like an electoral college and doesn't represent actual land mass or population.

Next up, so you're saying that the colonist revolted against the English Crown after what, their religious freedom was threatened? The battle cry was "No Praying Without Representation"? The Stamp Act revolt was about having to buy religious stamps for Advent Calendars? The original Tea Party dumped Anglican Bibles into Boston Harbor to prevent standardization? I don't seem to remember that part.

This isn't meant to say that one of our greatest freedoms is not religious freedom (which includes the right to not be religious, and no where in the 1st Amendment do you see the word "Christian"). By all means, it's one of the reasons why it's in there with the other number one rights (speech, press, assembly and association). But even there, it's 20%.

So no, this one fails the reality test. Sorry.

As a linkee-poo, there is also this post on if "In the Year of Our Lord" as referenced in the standard issue of the Constitution was actually a scrivener's (printer's) addition. And as they say, referencing the date that way was a standard of the time, much in the way we say AD (which is the abbreviation of Anno Domini, which is "Year of our Lord"). See also, consternation over the use of C.E. (common era). It's as much a nod to Christianity as when people these days say, "Bless you" when you sneeze. Which is, it's a part of the background culture that most people don't even think about enough to even either take offense or claim evangelical pride in. (Grokked from Jay Lake)