I'm Still Here

I have been thinking a lot about blogging.

Missing it...thinking of ideas...meditating on it.

But unfortunately, generally avoiding it.

It's kind of like when you have a really good friend who lives far away and you miss them dearly and really want to catch up, but you avoid calling them because the time is never "exactly right" or you don't want to call because you know you'll end up talking for a super long time.

I feel that way about blogging.

Sometimes I get inspired to write something meaningful based on current events.

Recently for example, I found myself shaking my head at Elizabeth Hasselbeck's disdain for Kathy Griffin and starting to wonder about what makes her type tick. You know, the humorless, ultra conservative, Sarah Palin types of women.

I'm being serious. I think the problem lies in my sort of starry-eyed vision of women being superior to men in many ways. I had this romantic notion of women from the 70's burning bras and marching for rights in order to change the bullshit that men had been putting them through for years. I envision the Gloria Steinems, the Bella Abzugs, Madeleine Albrights and the Hillary Clintons of the world as representative of the entire female population.

It confuses me when I see women who lobby against their own rights. Just like it confuses me to see a gay or African American person in the Republican Party. Let me clarify: an openly gay person in the Republican Party.

And it's more than just the political, it's the personal rage and bitterness that confuses me even more I think.

Yes, I also am confused by men (usually white men) who vote against their own interests out of some warped sense of patriotism or racism or classism or some other "ism".

I honestly do try to understand the anger that people feel and express when they join groups like the "Tea Party" (which doesn't really seem to be "for" anything, just against stuff that makes them upset).

It's not difficult to understand why people might be motivated by fear with an economy in crisis and two wars and terrorism everywhere it seems. I can even understand why watching the culture that you grew up with change might be threatening.

After all, if two men or two women can get married and live happy, productive lives, then maybe you have to question if you're really doing the right thing yourself if you married someone of the opposite sex when you were young because your parents said that's what you were supposed to do.

Not that everyone is a closeted gay mind you (unless you're a GOP politician it seems), but there's probably just enough identity insecurity out there to make fuzzy boundaries seem like the gateway to hell.

Fear and confusion have to land somewhere I guess.

So you're afraid that you're going to lose your house. Your daughter's a lesbian. Your cholesterol is high and your blood sugars are out of control. What do you do?

You watch TV and wait for someone to identify with your insecurities.

Or you go to church where they don't make you actually THINK about these issues.

You just want someone to tell you what to do.

Progressives and most good hearted women and men wouldn't think of telling you what to do or think.

We've all learned that (a) it's not our place to tell someone else what to do and (b) we learned to respect others even if you don't understand them or agree with them (as long as they're not harming someone else). It's the American Way right?

On the other hand, there are plenty of people out there who have decided to ignore (a) and (b), tell others what they SHOULD think and do, and a few even have made a very successful living out of doing so.

Rush Limbaugh was one of the first to figure it out on a massive scale. Just say out loud what frightened, frustrated people are saying to themselves and they'll adore you.

Glen Beck has co-opted the conspiracy theories and invests them with the power of good acting.

Sarah Palin finally addresses the concerns of frightened/pissed off women (and a few horny frightened and pissed off men) who forgot about the Steinem and Abzugs or feel trapped and insecure as America changes.

Entire organizations, some political and some religious, are structured around boosting self-esteem by condemning others (i.e. "I'm better than you so I must be ok").

Some are sincere in their beliefs, not intending to harm others, but gullible enough to follow like sheep.

Others find a way to profit from this ignorant paranoia, stooping to saying almost anything if it raises the ratings or garners publicity.

Kathy Griffin does it when she screams "suck it".

Elizabeth Hasselbeck does it when she screams "scum".

Meg Whitman seems like an angry woman who will say anything to get elected.

I take a deep breath and remember the majority of powerful women in my life who are sane.

Thanks y'all.

Achieving the Here and Now

Although I've been an avid student of various theologies over the years, it was only about four years ago that Brad and I took a six week course together on mindfulness meditation at Sequoia Hospital.

Everything I knew about meditation and Buddhism came from my readings and discussion (and one gay Buddhist sangha meeting I attended 12 years ago).

There are so many things that are attractive about Buddhist thought to me from the emphasis on acceptance of things as they are to the active practice of detachment from things that may cause suffering.

I am especially drawn to the idea that loss is inevitable, and becoming excessively attached to our things, our ideas and even our self, will lead to more suffering. Walking the middle ground between the extremes of self-indulgence and self-punishment is a worthy goal achieved through the practice of nirodha, which is essentially learning to become dispassionate about things that lead to suffering. With much practice, Buddhists believe that you can ultimately achieve nirvana, which is a state of freedom from worry, troubles, ideas and fabrications.

Coming from a fundamentalist Christian background, it has not been easy for me to comprehend a world without right or wrong, judgment and penalty.

In my upbringing, there was an ultimate truth and there was no middle ground.

It was only when I left the household I grew up in, and made my way to college, was I exposed to other ways of thinking and believing.

This, of course, is the very reason that education and intellect is so frightening to evangelicals in my opinion. Maintaining control is much more difficult when you allow freedom of perspective.

In his extraordinary book, Man's Search for Meaning, Victor Frankl, a Jewish neurologist and psychiatrist described his internment at Theresienstadt and the development of his existential theories of mental health and suffering (called Logotherapy). One crucial concept that he vividly illustrated was his realization that no matter what the Nazis took from him- whether his belongings, his family or even his life- what they could not take from him was his ability to view the situation however he chose.

This was a powerful point for me, that I believe has underscored much of my own search for meaning in the events that occur in my life.

Dr. Frankl helped me see that I am in control of my suffering and my pain.

And meditation offers me a specific path to achieve less suffering with the caveat that I must practice.

Interestingly, my family would be quite threatened by my exploration of thinking that is outside of their box. Leaving the box would mean abandoning the safety that comes with having all the answers in black and white and facing the potentially frightening shades of gray that fall in between. Maybe it's just me, but I see more compatibility between the words and actions of Christ and Buddhist thinking than I do between the actual examples of Christ and modern day fundamentalist evangelism.

I realize that I have been avoiding meditation because at some level, I must be avoiding the gray areas too.

In my case, I think those gray areas include the feelings that I would rather not feel, which in all likelihood blossom from thoughts that I have become too attached to.

My anger/fears/sadness arise only from thoughts.

Living in the moment seems like a nice alternative.

Stillness is Hard

I find myself with more time than I can fill these days.

It is an odd place, not one that I am used to.

Even after my surgery, I filled my time with healing, or resting. And resting is doing something I realize because now, I'm not resting, nor do I need it.

Usually, I am a busy person. Except for two short periods of time, I'm worked fulltime, usually had at least something else on the side to do like teaching or writing. Before I met Brad, I was into training for marathons, playing softball on weekends and Match.com dating.

With my ex, at one point, I was working three jobs and writing my first book on chronic pain.

Now, it seems that the stars have aligned to give me pause.

As I begin to start my private practice, I find that I have large gaps of time in my day.

It is uncomfortable to be "not busy". I realize that I have had a motor inside that pushes me to go go go. Find something to do. Don't sit still. Sitting still is lazy. Idle hands are the devil's workshop.

But busy work for the sake of business doesn't interest me right now.

Organizing my closet would be productive, but ultimately not satisfying.

Surfing the net has lost it's glamour.

So I'm wondering if the natural next step is to try to be in the quiet.

I am curious and frightened by the silence, the unknown.

Will I like it? hate it? Can I get over the need to keep moving, challenging? Today, I spent a few seconds doing nothing. It was ok. It didn't kill me.

I have been saying that I will start meditating this year. I have been avoiding it for some reason.

Life is giving me this opportunity.

This week, I will give it a chance.

Me and the See

It's been an interesting couple of weeks in the news for the Vatican.

First, there was a question about how much the Pope's brother, Gerog Ratzinger, knew about the abuse of boys in the choir that he led for years. His first impuse was to deny and later Ratzinger eventually admitted to, and apologized for, slapping around a few boys.

Then there was the whole explosion of media attention around the sexual abuse of children that ran rampant in the Irish Catholic Church for years and then Benedict's letter of "apology", that condemned the abuse but dodged accepting responsibility.

And over the past week, we learned that the Pope himself apparently stopped the prosecution of U.S. priest who had systematically abused children over many years and was moved from diocese to diocese without consequence into positions that gave him continued access to children.

What seems surprising to me is the continued shock that people seem to have that (a) sexual abuse is rampant in the Catholic Church and (b) the hierarchy continues to deny that there was any organizational responsibility for these crimes despite losing huge court battles and paying out major settlements to victims The incredible, award-winning documentary, Deliver Us From Evil, does an amazing job of exposing the chilling callousness with which the case of a specific serial molester was handled by those in authority, even when he admitted his crimes and at some level wished for someone to stop him.

What I've really been thinking about however is less about the abuse itself, or even making judgment about the church's decision-making when these accusations arose, but more about the man himself, Joseph Ratzinger known now as Pope Benedict XVI.

He is a curious man, born in Germany in 1927 and as the official story goes, he was "forced" to join the Hitler Youth at 14, although he an "unenthusiastic member and refused to attend meetings" according to his Wikipedia bio. He had a long career in academia, as a professor of theology before working his way into higher and higher posts within the church until he reached the pinacle on April 19th, 2005, when he was elected to succede John Paul II.

He has spent much of his tenure fighting for conservative values and a return to the belief in absolute, rather than relative truth within the church, ironically paralleling the rigid dogma he supposedly was so opposed to in the Nazi era.

Here's where I have to admit what may already be clear: what I know of the man I do not like.

From my perspective, he has been irresponsible in the way that he speaks and teaches about homosexuality. His words have provided the foundation for hate crimes and violence against people who either are gay, or are perceived to be gay. It was Hitler's goal to dehumanize Jews. It is Ratzinger's goal to pathologize gays. His words and his actions speak for themselves.

I remember when things began coming out about the magnitude of the problem of sexual abuse within the U.S. church, the first public response (after finally being forced to admit that there was even a problem) was to blur the issue of pedophilia with homosexuality. I would like to believe that this strategy was just a vestige of ignorance about homosexuals within an aging hierarchy and not just a cynical, way to distract attention away from the failings of the church itself.

Of course raising the old "all homosexuals are pedophiles" slur goes way back. Although studies have shown that the majority of pedophiles identify as heterosexual and that pedophilia is a disorder separate from one's sexual identity, iit is still a favorite of right wing politicians, and others, who need to raise money or distract from the real issues.

In fact, one could explain the Pope's homophobia in three major ways.

First, he is deeply ignorant about the current and overwhelming scientific evidence about gay people that do not support his opinion that homosexuality in and of itself is a disorder. This however, is hard to believe, given his long tenure in the academic world, surrounded by scholars and scientists who have long recognized the errors of the church's teachings.

Second, if he is therefore aware of the disconnect between science and his tortured dogma regarding sexuality, then his homophobia may be symptomatic of his own deep-seated psychosexual confusion. As I have explored before in my posts, the same sad and irrational fears that drives the Larry Craigs of the world into denial may be responsible for the inept handling of sexuality by this Pope and on a larger scale the issue of sexuality within the priesthood.

Third, and hopefully least likely, he has risen to the peak of authority within the hierarchy not because of random chance or divine inspiration, but through hard work and ambition, much like the CEO of any large organization or the President of a country. That means then, that to maintain your authority, sometimes you have to tow the line, talk the talk and protect the company. This is the most cynical of the three I realize, and may have components from the first two mixed in like some fancy cocktail.

But, for whatever reason, I want to dislike him as a person VERY, VERY much.

And then I realized that I do not know the person, I only know the image.

I know Joseph Ratzinger only through his words and his actions (and sometimes inaction as in the case of the Uganda situation), not from real life conversation or connection.

It hit me that by judging him, based only what I have read or heard, which most certainly could be biased, I am doing to him what he does to me.

The Pope does not know me.

He in fact, may not know any healthy gay people.

He may only know the closeted men in robes who also struggle with their secrets and who advise him from their own biased lives as well.

Like me, much of the time he probably avoids what he doesn't want to feel and focuses on what he believes is truth.

I'm imaging the pressure that he must be under to hold together a large organization that appears fractured to the core on the precipice of breaking apart.

Compassion for one's "enemies" is central to Christianity I've heard. I feel sorry for him, despite whatever wrong choices I believe he has made.

I wish Benedict would do the same for me.

Taking Time to Heal

I have truly missed blogging for these last few months although I have been keeping a private journal just for my own sanity I guess.

I owe it to my readers to 'splain.

About May of last year, with health insurance costs rising and services provided diminishing, I opted to switch my insurance to Kaiser. I was a healthy guy after all, in reasonable shape for my age and no history of smoking or abusing my body otherwise.

I made a special effort to find a gay-friendly physician within the network, whom I decided to see for a routine physical, as a way of getting to know him and setting a baseline.

I really like how Kaiser uses email and online communication to get you your results by the way. Love being able to email my doctors whenever I want and they personally respond, usually within 24 hours.

I see the doctor who does the typical exam, lab work, etc. and within a week, my cholesterol and electrolytes results were posted in my online account and everything looked just peachy keen.

So a week goes by, and I think it's all good, and as I'm walking in the door from work, the phone is ringing. It's my doc who says that one of my blood tests has come back with an elevation, the PSA. I'm a little embarrassed to say that I had no idea what a PSA test was and that I had even had one done. He explains that PSA stands for Prostate Specific Antigen test and can be elevated with benign prostate enlargement, a prostate infection, or it can indicate the presence of prostate cancer. He tells me not to worry because it would be unusual at my age (under 50) for it to be cancer, but that he's referring me to the urology department for followup exam.

Two weeks later, I see the urologist who does a manual exam and who also reassures me that she doesn't feel any abnormal growths or enlargement, but maybe just a little "firmness". When she hears that my mother had a fairly aggressive form of breast cancer, she prods me a little to go ahead with a biopsy in another couple of weeks. I agree, but I'm still thinking that this is all just a bunch of excitement over what will be nothing.

The biopsy, scheduled as a separate appointment is not pleasant but not horrible, basically involving an ultrasound and then a series of about 12 quick bee stings, which aren't too bad after the local anesthetic injection. All done and I go home. There is some mild discomfort and blood later, which goes away eventually.

I go about my life again, barely even thinking about what I've just been through.

A week later, my phone rings at work and it's the urologist. "We have the results" she says, "and they came back positive for cancer."

As is my pattern for facing big stressors, I go numb. I remember vaguely that she tries to reassure me that it "looks like it's very early stage" and "the cure rates are excellent". She tells me to take a few days to absorb it all, talk to Brad and then come in for a face to face appointment with her to discuss the options.

As we hang up, I pinch myself in my brain. "She just said I have cancer," I remember thinking, still stunned.

I call Brad and haltingly repeat what she said. He's quiet for a moment and just says, "I'm sorry honey, but we'll get through this." My rock.

Over the next few months, I visit five different specialists. I find out that I have a range of options, which is great. I can have external radiation everyday for two months, or radioactive "seeds" implanted once. Or, I can have the thing removed through open traditional surgery or with the newer robot-assisted surgery. After weeks of advice, research and discussion, I decide on the robotic prostatectomy and on the surgeon I like the most. The research suggests that surgeons with more experience have better outcomes and I find one that I like personally. He's done 150 of them and he has a sense of humor. I think I'll need that.

February 9th this year, I entered the hospital and on February 10th I leave the hospital, sans prostate and sans cancer.

I am at home now recovering. My body is healing. The postop report was excellent.

Removing the prostate is a little more complicated than say, removing the appendix. The nerves in the area serve multiple functions and in some people the nerves never return to normal again. I'm sending good thoughts to my nerves everyday.

Now I face the future and I wait and I try to be patient.

There has to be meaning in this experience and I want to discern it.

For now, there are deep breaths and taking one day at a time.

Colbert Destroys R.I. Governor For Denying Gay Couples Death Rights (VIDEO)

Wow bmathers! First, I have to commend you on your honesty about your personal discomfort around gays and about the beliefs that you have about gays that are responsible for those feelings.



Honesty is a good start.



I have to admit that I too had a secret fear...being around someone who boldly calls him or herself a "Christian". In my experience, many Christians are extremely hypocritical, preaching one thing and acting completely the opposite. Many Christians use their status to justify every bit of hatred and ignorance that they hold. Most Christians that I've met only hold a very superficial understanding of the Bible and do not follow even the most basic of his lessons, including "love they neighbor as thyself" or "judge ye not lest ye be judged". I have seen people who fervantly proclaim the gospel of Christ while doing horrible things to innocent children and adults.



However, I have learned over the years that actually, not all Christians are like that. Some Christian truly are kind, compassionate and loving people. A few are able to transcend the popular, self-serving version of the Bible and find within it a way to live peacefully with other people, without the need to judge or stereotype. I am proud to call them friends.



It was scary at first to step outside of the box of fears, irrational beliefs and even personal experiences with religious zealots, but ultimately was worth it.



I hope you consider doing the same.
About Stephen Colbert
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

PC Update

No, this isn't about the "PC" making the round on the talk shows about whether the military was being too "politically correct" in the case of Nidal Malik Hasan, the alleged Ft. Hood shooter, when they didn't reprimand him for bad performance on the job severely enough in the past because he was Muslim.

Come on. I just didn't imagine that 2009 would be the year of the neo-racist!

I probably should have thought a little more about it like Jimmy Carter did and realized that electing a black President, no matter how smart or qualified or handsome (yes, I said it..he's hot!), he symbolizes everything that racist whites have been fearing for years. The "takeover" of America by nonwhites who will then pay us back for years of not minding our own "stewardship" very well as the majority race.

And for eight years, the fires of hatred and fear were stoked daily by the Bush-Cheney-Rove machine to maintain control and power.

No, this PC is not about all that today.

It's the thing that's been on my mind the most lately. Protracted constipation...

Kidding...my prostate of course.

You know, for a little guy that I hardly ever used to think about, he's managed to make himself known in a big way over the past few weeks.

Come to think of it, he's kinda like the Ft. Hood shooter afterall, going from obscurity to the objection of all attention.

He's acted up in a bad, bad way and now he must die for it.

My quandry is whether I should give him the death penalthy by radioactive injection, where he dies a slow death over time, or we anesthetize him and cut him out within a matter of hours.

Or, I could put him on parole, and just actively surveille him with checkups every three months to check his behavior and a full on parole board meeting once a year. Maybe he won't act up again? Hmmm, but who's responsible for him if he breaks parole and really spreads the damage around?

Hard to really have straightforward feelings at this point. Lots (too much) of information but no definitive answers.

It feels a little like that sensation you get when you've just rounded the top of the rollercoaster and you're just about to go flying down.