Cancer

My father died of cancer. He died a few decades ago, when he was in his early seventies. That's kind of an awkward age at which to die. You can't really say, "He died young," but you also can't say, "He lived a long life." Aside from the cancer, he spent most of his life healthy, strong, and active. He lived about ten and a half years after his cancer was first diagnosed. From the time he was diagnosed until the time he died, he had the full range of cancer treatments used at that time, including surgeries, months of radiation treatment, and years of chemotherapy.

The first step in his treatment was months of radiation therapy. He did some research prior to beginning treatment, and found that his best chance -- the place most likely to be able to cure his particular cancer -- was at a major university hospital, hundreds of miles away, in a region where the weather stays pleasant most of the year. So he arranged for his treatment, hopped on a plane, and lived in a motel for a few months. The actual treatments and medical appointments did not take up much of his time. While not busy being treated, he went sightseeing, took long walks, read books, and attended some university classes. At this completion of his initial series of radiation treatments, he returned home to a midwestern winter, tanned, toned, and energetic. He would joke about the fact that after his return, people who had heard about his cancer would say, "You LOOK good!" -- always with the emphasis on the word "look", since they believed that he was in fact dying.

I have already admitted that he DID die, following a full range of treatments over more than a decade. There are different ways to look at those ten and a half years. Certainly, the cloud of cancer was always there -- although there was always SOME hope of a sort of "cure", or at least a few more good years. Eventually, some of the treatments, and some of the progress of the disease, left him with some permanent discomforts and disabilities, such as the possibility that he might need to get to a bathroom in a hurry, and might not make it in time.

Truth is complicated. Another way to look at those ten and a half years is to say he lived them ... well, I like to say he lived them like a beer commercial. Aware of his own mortality, and of the ticking clock, he lived life to the fullest. About a year after his initial diagnosis, he built -- with his own hands, and the help of a more experienced friend -- a cabin in the country. Three years after his diagnosis he took his first trip all the way around the world. I say "first" because seven years after his diagnosis he took his SECOND round-the-world trip (in the opposite direction; we used to say it was to get back in sync with where he was supposed to be). He had always been a traveler, but the travels got more adventurous and exotic. In fact, shortly before his death he had to cancel an African safari, in order to have surgery on a newly-discovered tumor.

There is a downside even to living life to the fullest. On some occasions, he became less patient ... the clock was ticking. He sometimes had less tolerance, deciding, for instance, that if he had never enjoyed eating some particular food, he would no longer eat it, and instead eat the food that he enjoyed. This is not to say he became selfish and self-centered. If anything, he became more compassionate, and encouraged others to also live life to the fullest -- though I should acknowledge that these are MY words, not his; he wasn't one to regularly use phrases like "live life to the fullest".

Though I was busy living my own life, I was privileged to be involved in many of the travels, and, like all his loved ones, shared and helped with the various experiences. A few months before he died, Halley's Comet made one of its regular visits to our neck of the solar system. It was my father's first and last opportunity to view the famous comet, but at that time it was almost invisible to the naked eye. I set up my small telescope out in our icy driveway (it was January), and my weakened father made his way out to it, assisted by a cane hand-carved long ago by his father. He grumbled all the way to the telescope -- that was sometimes his way -- but he viewed the comet, and thanked me for ... well, I'm not sure whether he said, "Making me look at it," but he MIGHT have.

A few weeks later, we were amazed to learn that aggressive chemotherapy had succeeded in obliterating a tumor that had previously been called "incurable". A few weeks after THAT, a CT scan was done to confirm that the tumor had totally disappeared. THAT tumor had indeed vanished, but the scan revealed new tumors. He lived a month or two after that.

My father died too young. But the same cancer that ultimately ended his life also contributed to his life in positive ways. I cannot quite bring myself to say, "The cancer was a good thing." I will never know what might have become of his (and my) life without the cancer. Everyone dies. My father lived a good life. I miss my father.

Truth is complicated.

Scars and slack

I was recently involved in an argument/conflict with a person who suffered a great personal tragedy a few decades ago -- an especially tragic death of a loved one.

Our disagreement had no particular connection to that tragedy, though I suppose a person could make the argument that everything in life is connected, or at least that everything in life that follows a great tragedy is somehow connected to that tragedy. Still, there was no tangible relationship between the two topics.

I discussed the situation with several friends and relatives. Everyone I consulted expressed the view that I was “right” and the other person was “wrong” -- though of course these were MY friends and relatives, listening to MY side of the story, so this is certainly no proof that I was right. One relative, however, expressed the opinion that since this other person had suffered that great personal tragedy, I must “cut them some slack”, forgive their sins, and bow to their will.

This is a complicated issue, related to strength of emotion (discussed elsewhere in this blog), and dependent upon the precise details of the situation. My GENERAL response, however, is that there is simply no practical way to go through life analyzing each other’s past tragedies. I assume that we ALL have scars. Some are more visible than others, and some are worse than others, but on a practical, general level I am uncomfortable favoring one person over another based on my perception of their scars. Ideally, we should ALL treat each other with compassion, and with the awareness that we all have scars, and we should be willing to cut EVERYONE some slack.

I am speaking only in generalities. I believe there are specific cases in which people absolutely SHOULD receive special consideration because of their past tragedies -- but I also believe that this should generally be more directly related to that past tragedy. OR if YOU choose to give them special consideration, and it is YOUR choice, fine.

The general problem with giving preferential treatment to those with known past tragedies is that we end up favoring THEM over all the people with less-known past tragedies, including ourselves. This is not a situation that I feel qualified to judge, nor do I feel ANY mortal is qualified to judge. We all have scars. We all deserve slack.

Beyond that, the truth is complicated.

Political labels

Political labels -- terms like “liberal” and “conservative” and “left” and “right” and even “Republican” and “Democrat” -- are a necessary evil. Necessary, because they express certain valid and valuable ideas, and greatly streamline communication. Evil, because, like many labels, they are almost always oversimplifications, are sometimes misleading or in themselves political, and sometimes make meaningful communication more difficult. As with ALL words, each of us has our own continually-evolving internal definition of each term, which may or may not resemble any other person’s definition.

In contemporary American society, there tends to be a close relationship between “liberal” and “left” and “Democrat” on one side and “conservative” and “right” and “Republican” on the other, though each of the terms has at least a slightly different meaning, and theoretically there can be conservative, right-leaning Democrats, as well as liberal, left-leaning Republicans, though the reality tends to be that Democrat politicians are judged by HOW liberal and left-leaning they are, while Republican politicians are judged by HOW conservative and right-leaning they are, with the less extreme members of both parties being labeled “moderate”. When it comes to actual VOTERS rather than politicians, there is nothing saying a registered Republican cannot be a left-leaning liberal, and there can be conservative, right-leaning registered Democrats.

This is a strange area of terminology for me. As a general rule, I strive to choose my words with a certain degree of precision. With political labels such as these, I do almost the opposite, striving for a certain degree of vagueness. I freely interchange terms like “liberal” and “Democrat”, even while I believe the truth is that there are plenty of conservative Democrats. In short, the truth is complicated.

With regard to the six terms I listed above, I personally am most comfortable using “right” and “left” to describe political leanings. One of the reasons is that they seem to be the least emotion-charged; there is nothing particularly “good” or “bad” about the terms “right” and “left”. One could argue that there is nothing intrinsically good or bad about the words “liberal” or “conservative” or “Republican” or “Democrat”, but in our current polarized society ALL of these terms -- including “left” and “right” -- have taken on some emotion-charged attributes.

Another reason I use “right” and “left” is that they seem to be the vaguest and most generic of the six terms, and therefore the most accurate. The fact is that none of these labels necessarily predict the behavior or beliefs of the person claiming the label. I believe it is mostly those on the opposing side of the issues that BELIEVE the labels accurately reflect the behavior and beliefs of the person. While there are stereotypes associated with the various labels, these stereotypes are at best generalities that do not necessarily apply to any single individual, and at worst these stereotypes just plain wrong.

As I already stated, I view these labels as necessary. There are times when it is good to be able to make references to a broad, general group of people or ideas, such as “liberal” or “conservative”. At the same time, we should always be aware that these terms are only generalities, and can never be relied upon to precisely represent a person or idea.

Among the factors that complicate the truth of these terms is that any given unique individual may have different views on different issues. For example, someone may be a “fiscal conservative” while being a “social liberal” -- and it is impossible to determine whether that same person will choose to register as a Democrat, Republican, or Independent.

Still, while any individual may have totally unique, thoroughly complicated opinions, most attempts to fruitfully examine or discuss a particular issue must involve a certain degree of oversimplification, such as “Republicans favor THIS approach, while Democrats favor THAT approach.”

It is unfortunate that many insist on “spinning” both their own views and those of their opponents. For example, in our current society the Republican Party generally favors LESS government, while the Democratic Party generally favors MORE government -- but even this statement is not only an oversimplification, but inflammatory. As an extension of this idea, a Republican can truthfully argue that Democrats tend to favor higher taxes, while a Democrat can truthfully argue that Republicans tend to favor cutbacks in all sorts of programs that may improve the lives of common people. An ordinary voter can be forgiven for wanting both lower taxes AND a continuation of government programs.

For now, I will continue to freely interchange these political labels, realizing all the while that they are oversimplifications, and not particularly accurate, and that the truth is complicated.

P.S. The recent death of Andrew Breitbart is a great tragedy for all of us, regardless of label. The world needs more people like Andrew Breitbart.

Serious

I can find humor in almost any situation. Humor is one of my main coping mechanisms. At funerals, I will often make jokes as I cry. There are those who will find this inappropriate or unsettling. So be it. Truth is complicated, and we are all different.

At the same time, if we choose to live around others, we must find a way to deal with each others feelings. Among the most frustrating phenomenons in human interaction are not being taken seriously, and not knowing whether to take someone else seriously.

Since I use humor as a coping mechanism, and am aware that some may be troubled by this, I try to always be ready to clarify my true feelings, and be aware of the true feelings of others. I do this by being straightforward. If I have made a joke, and someone incredulously asks, "Are you SERIOUS?" I will tell them the truth. Likewise, when I am serious, but someone incorrectly assumes that I am joking, I will attempt to assure them that I am serious.

This is the point at which I draw a clear line. Some people refuse to clarify their true feelings, and seem to believe that causing someone emotional pain makes their joke even funnier. Others refuse to acknowledge when someone is no longer joking.

This is a difficult subject to discuss, and definitely calls for examples. Imagine a situation with a group of people, especially children. One child snatches something away from another child, and then the children toss it between themselves while the original owner of the item tries to grab it back. This is a common scenario, and most people would consider it "playing around", and it MIGHT involve laughter by everyone involved. However, it could easily degenerate into crying and/or fighting. Even if it degenerates into clear emotional and/or physical pain, there are those who may continue to insist that it is all "in fun". This is a case in which people may be refusing to accept that what is "fun" for some is "serious" for others, or it may be that they ACCEPT it but still see no need to modify their actions.

This same basic scenario may play out in an infinite number of ways, with the common thread being that one or more people are "serious" while one or more people are "just having fun." Sometimes, those who are "just having fun" may truly be unaware that others are "serious", or those who are "serious" may be truly unaware that others are "just having fun."

This issue is perhaps more complicated than it appears to be, since it combines elements of communication, sensitivity to others, and questions regarding whether or not to modify one's own behavior in deference to the feelings of others. Personally, I find little humor in causing pain to others, even if I claim it is "in fun". At the same time, if I am having fun, and a complete stranger passes by and takes offense, I will not necessarily alter my activities.

More importantly, if I SAY I am serious, then I AM serious.

Truth is complicated.

CPR

I recently read an article on the World Wide Web regarding an unfortunate case in which someone had collapsed at work, and a supervisor stopped a fellow employee from performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and now the person is dead.

As with many articles on the World Wide Web, there was a place at the end where readers could leave comments. The vast majority of the comments were very upset by the incident. Many stated that the supervisor was responsible for the death of the employee. This all occurred at a major corporation, and many stated that the corporation should be sued for the death of the employee.

Based on what was presented in the article, I agree that the supervisor was wrong to have stopped the co-worker from performing CPR. However, the comments illustrate the phenomenon that Americans wildly overestimate the effectiveness of CPR in saving a person’s life. Currently, the FACT is that CPR is truly effective somewhere between two and thirty percent of the time, depending on a variety of factors. This means that, statistically, there is a seventy to ninety-eight percent chance that the employee would have been dead even if CPR had been administered by the co-worker. The idea, voiced by many of the commenters, that the supervisor should be charged with manslaughter, or even murder, seems to be a bit of a stretch.

Then there is the commenters’ widespread notion that this major corporation should be sued for the death of the employee (based on the idea that by preventing CPR, the supervisor caused the death of the employee). Even with CPR, the employee probably would be dead, so this idea has little merit. Still, it remains true that the supervisor was wrong, and that CPR MIGHT have helped keep the employee alive. I have already discussed monetary damage awards in my earlier blog entry entitled “Damages”. Even if the supervisor WAS directly responsible for the death of the employee -- which this supervisor was NOT -- I fail to see the “correctness” of taking a large amount of money from this corporation, or from the corporation’s customers, or from all of the customers of the insurance company that insures the corporation, and giving it to the heirs of the dead employee. Fire, or even jail, the supervisor, if that is what the law deems appropriate, or perhaps punish the supervisor’s superiors, for failing to adequately train the supervisor -- but no amount of money will bring back the dead employee, and the idea that money will compensate for the death seems to me to be obscene.

As I stated in “Damages”, perhaps there could be some sort of voluntary pool into which sympathetic individuals could contribute money to go to the heirs of the dead employee. That would be fine with me.

Actually, I am a bit less sympathetic since the employee is already dead, and beyond the reach of monetary compensation. IF the employee had been left alive but disabled due to the actions of a supervisor, then monetary compensation seems more valid … but the idea that the employee’s HEIRS are now entitled to a million dollars (many commenters stated that the corporation should now be sued for millions of dollars) seems far-fetched.

Truth is complicated.

Newt Gingrich

For months, and continuing today, political supporters of President Obama have pointed to the lack of a dominant Republican Presidential candidate as "evidence" that potential Republican voters are divided, and unsatisfied with the present pool of candidates. The truth is that Republican voters are remarkably united in their desire to have ANYONE other than Barack Obama elected President in 2012, and the lack of a clear frontrunner MAY indicate only that most Republicans would be satisfied with most of the candidates.

Increasingly, however, Newt Gingrich seems to be splitting off from this view, instead embracing the idea that the winner of the 2012 Presidential election should be anyone other than Mitt Romney. I suppose if you came right out and ASKED him directly whether he would prefer Romney to Obama, he would say that he WOULD, but his recent words and actions seem to indicate otherwise.

Unless he knows something about Romney, and something about Obama, that I do NOT know, I find this to be deeply troubling for someone seeking the Republican nomination to challenge Obama next fall. At this point, given the likelihood or at least the possibility that Romney will be the Republican nominee, Gingrich seems to be working more FOR the re-election of President Obama than he is working AGAINST the re-election of President Obama.

Many Americans are working for the re-election of President Obama. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with working for the re-election of President Obama. He might be the best candidate. However, for one of those seeking the Republican nomination for President, it is puzzling and deeply troubling.

There are some, perhaps including Gingrich himself, who argue that even the most vicious personal attacks against Mitt Romney serve to harden and prepare him for the contest against Obama. While there may be a small degree of truth in this, I see it as an unintended consequence of Gingrich's true malice toward Romney.

IF Mitt Romney is the eventual Republican Presidential candidate, and Barack Obama defeats him, then I will believe at least some of the credit or blame should be assigned to Newt Gingrich. I do not know Newt Gingrich, and I cannot claim to know what is in his head, let alone his heart, but I have faith that he is politically experienced and knowledgable, and I cannot understand how HE could be looking at the present situation any differently than I am looking at it. Unless he truly IS working to secure the re-election of President Obama, then his only semi-plausible explanation is that he believes Mitt Romney has absolutely NO chance of defeating Barack Obama, with or without the assistance of Newt Gingrich, and therefore his weakening of Romney's candidacy is insignificant. IF this is his explanation -- and I am NOT saying that it IS -- then he would be guilty of either horrendous judgment, great arrogance, or presumed ability to predict the future ... none of which I particularly desire in a President of the United States.

The situation remains fluid, with three recent wins by Rick Santorum. I do not claim to know who will win the Republican nomination. At this point, Newt Gingrich does not seem to deserve it.

Modifying Art

In a previous blog entry, I have attempted to discuss “art”.

Art is regularly modified. The modification takes different forms, depending on the form of the original art. Famous paintings are reproduced in various ways, sometimes parodied, and sometimes restored. It is important to note that only the “restoration” involves direct modification to the original artwork itself, and, theoretically, the aim is to return the painting to a form more closely matching its original state.

Modifying is more complicated with other forms of art, such as literature, music, or video. Books are routinely translated into different languages, or sometimes a more “current” version of the same language. In this case, the stated goal is generally to retain as much of the author’s intentions as possible. Music is always subject to new “arrangements” and interpretations. Even a particular recording may be modified and re-issued, hopefully taking advantage of technical advancements. Movies can be completely re-made, with new actors and variations in plot, OR the original film may be colorized or added to or subtracted from. Again, in all these cases, theoretically the “original” art remains unchanged and unharmed.

For me, an important aspect of art modification involves WHO is doing the modifying. If, say, a painter chooses to modify one of their own famous paintings, or even destroy it, it’s hard for me to argue with their decision -- though the fact that the “original” work of art may be totally lost in the process is still deeply troubling. If a composer or film-maker chooses to modify their composition or film, chances are that the original work will still exist in some form, and still be somehow accessible. This is not to say that I will not regret their decision. Often, I consider artist’s original efforts to be superior to their modified versions.

When someone other than the original artist is doing the modifying, my emotions are much less conflicted. In 2001, the Afghanistan Taliban deliberately destroyed a pair of large Buddha statues, on religious grounds. While this is a special case, complicated by the religious aspect, I believe that this destruction was an atrocity against all humanity.

The question of what constitutes art becomes important here. It would be theoretically possible for anyone with enough wealth to acquire well-known great works of art and then deliberately destroy them, usually without specifically violating any laws (moral laws, perhaps, but not legal laws). While destroying something such as da Vinci’s “Mona Lisa” would be universally condemned, lesser-known and unknown works of art -- such as things from forgotten elementary school art classes -- are destroyed every day, often without objection. While there is clearly a difference between the Mona Lisa and the wastebasket I painted with tempura paints in elementary school, I do not know precisely where the line falls between art that should be preserved and art that is disposable. (Incidentally, the wastebasket has lasted for decades, and will probably survive for at least the rest of my lifetime.)

Recently, there have been several cases in the news of art being modified to make it more politically correct, or less objectionable. One of the most famous debates in recent years has to do with the book “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” and its repeated use of a derogatory term for members of a certain race -- a recent edition of the book replaces this word with the word “slave”. A similar, though less lofty and well-known, case cites the 1985 song “Money for Nothing”, which uses a derogatory term for people of a certain sexual orientation. Defenders of both the book and the song point out that the creators of the art were using the terms not only to accurately reflect other people’s uses of those terms, but to criticize the use of these terms. These are complicated cases, and I am uncertain of the correct course in cases such as this, although my sentiments generally favor leaving the original art uncensored.

The situation is even more complicated when the original artists cannot be considered to have had such noble goals. For example, there are hundreds of songs -- probably thousands, world-wide -- that originally used lyrics that are now considered controversial or objectionable. In some cases, the songs are now commonly performed with a few words altered. In other cases, the objectionable terms are so deeply ingrained in the song that they can either no longer be publicly performed, or can only be performed without words. Although I acknowledge that this is extremely complicated, I generally favor still performing the songs, including all the objectionable words. Just as an actor in a play or motion picture is not actually advocating the actions performed by his character, the singer of a song is not actually advocating the point of view expressed in the song. It is, after all, art. And, art that depicts murder or racism or intolerance is NOT intrinsically advocating murder or racism or intolerance -- though, to be fair, sometimes art IS advocating some particular point of view.

An especially controversial case involves making things “gender neutral”. The church where I often attend Christmas Eve services no longer sings the Christmas carol “Good Christian Men, Rejoice” -- they now sing “Good Christian Friends, Rejoice”. Personally, I find this modification deeply troubling … but I realize that there are other intelligent, thoughtful, rational people who find the un-modified version of the song deeply troubling … so I have no clear answers.

This entire discussion leads to a separate but related discussion regarding intolerance and over-simplification and labeling. As a general rule, I do NOT go around publicly singing songs with lyrics that are now considered objectionable, even though I firmly believe that many of these songs SHOULD be sung. The problem is that as an occupant of this world, I must live with others who may simply condemn me forever, rather than contemplate the fact that truth is complicated.