Circling

We circle.

This is what we do.

We circle.

This is from a friend's friend's funeral.

A surfer's funeral.

Where they all paddle out,
on their own boards,
on their own strength,
to face their own waves,
their own tides,
their own splash of salt in the face,
their own thrill,
their own struggle,

and then, they circle

and

[reflect]
[pray]
[inspire]
[mourn]
[praise]

and

be together in this one place

as one community,

yet so profoundly

on their own,

and will ride their own wave,

back to shore,
back to sand,
back to today.


I have no idea why I find this image so damn profound right now.

For some reason,

right now,

when I think of Eva Luna
and this blasted
"breast cancer back again" and
promises that you will never do chemo again
are broken

and

now

new treatments,
new plans,
new diversions,
new options,
new hopes,
new expectations,

are now part of this line
back to shore.

I think about this circle

and it makes me smile.

It reminds me,
to paddle out,
but also
to ride the wave.

I have really missed you.

I just need to paddle out from time to time.

Back Again

I really have nothing new to say,
other than trying to get back into the habit again.

As for my life goals for self-improvement,
(exercise, diet, less/no alcohol, etc.)
I have not improved at all or taken any measurable step towards such goals.

So.

I just finished a short day.
(11 hours)

And I am debating grabbing a beer...
or yoga
or gym
or something high-brow like cable television.

My money is on inactivity, but we will see.

We will see.

Transcending

Are you there, blog, it's me Filoli

So.

Things have been busy - too busy -
too busy...

too busy, indeed,

again, I say, so;

let's see,

since we last spoke

I have changed jobs twice
and we have moved once

things are different
very different
and for the most part in wonderful ways:

it is still just the 2 of us,
or 4 of us if you count the blessed, four-legged ones;

so

in some ways
things are very much the same;

this brings me to the unlikely scenario
that brings me to this odd feeling that it is

indeed

time to chat a bit

again, I say, so,

so

I just thought it would be best to let you know

since you were so wonderful last time

and I think you deserve to know

that unfortunately

the most amazing, gracious, and wonderful Eva Luna

is no longer in remission

and we are

she is

unfortunately

forced to fight cancer

once again

so what happened?

here is the situation:

(highlights if you will)

so

the Monday after a Saturday service to celebrate

our beloved uncle's wonderful life

lost to cancer

Eva Luna had one of her standing mammograms

this is simply part of the follow-up

unfortunately,

very unfortunately,

they identified a mass or swollen lymph node that concerned them

this resulted in a fine needle biopsy scheduled for Friday

this should not be a big deal

we have had a couple of times since the first round where things are identified and they biopsy and we all eventually exhale deeply when we hear that this was merely an exercise of extreme caution and "all is well, all is well."

but

unfortunately

this time

the biopsy identified 2 other suspicious masses for additional review

the results

adenocarcinoma

again

so

back to surgery to remove the masses (or lymph nodes)

and additional exploration and removal, as indicated

result:

21 lymph nodes removed

1 mass (may or may not be an overtaken lymph node)

Stage 4(ish - given mystery mass that may or may not be a lymph node) Cancer

good news:

we still have a curative option

and will be pursuing it

bad news:

there is no way to scream fuck loud enough to change this reality

the real bad news:

poor, sweet, amazing and teary-eyed Eva Luna must do chemo again

and that fucking sucks

really fucking sucks

so

fuck

this time

things are more advanced

more problematic

we didn't manage to clear even 3 years

Please see the aforementioned, fuck.

Fuck.

substantially more activity in the lymph nodes

(including thoracic node activity)

and, well... fuck

chemo, radiation oncology, hysterectomy and 10 more years of hopefully this time successful hormone therapy

yippee

(sarcasm for fuck)

also

the new rules:

no alcohol

no sugar

no white breads and such

yippee

in response

I have eaten like crap

absolute crap

and alcohol

well... let's just say that Corona has earned a byline for today as well

when does all of this brave new exciting action start

March 22

another MRI

chemo-teach

a port

and the first of 6 cycles of chemo

yip-fucking-ee

so

here is the deal

I am thinking that I need to do the following:

figure out how to do a pre-treatment healthy ass eating dinner party

to celebrate life and the amazing blessing of Eva Luna

in addition to

a bit of a pep rally of sort

that Ms. Eva Luna can indeed kick this bullshit cancer's ass

so

I need to

(a) quit drinking so damn much

(b) lose an effing 10-13 lbs

(c) exercise

(d) exercise

(e) seriously, exercise -preferably yoga

(f) get a damn mammogram for myself - for good measure

(g) get back to focus at work

(h) focus, focus, and focus (see a-g)

so

that is what is going on

my apologies for radio silence

I just didn't really know what to say before because it all seemed so damn much the same

still just us

still just carrying on

still just trying to be

now

still just trying to be

with one more hurdle

so

we can do this

I think

Eva Luna can do this

will do this

we will do this

and

all will be well

all will be well

all will be well

well indeed.

She Needs a Pep Talk

Handsome

Citzens United

For those tired of political or random posts, I apologize.

Indeed these are odd times.

I wonder how as an individual I can accept my own resposibility for this current climate and seek to correct it. What can I do differently? How can I hold the process more accountable?

I try to spend every dollar knowing that it is in effect "my vote" to corporate America.

But I wonder what else can I do?

I still remember this,

"In the face of impossible odds, people who love their country can change it."
- Barack Obama, February 10, 2007 Presidential announcement.


Here is a link to one of the more important Dissenting Opinions of our time.

As Laurence Tribe writes, "There is no doubt that Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission marks a major upheaval in First Amendment law and signals the end of whatever legitimate claim could otherwise have been made by the Roberts Court to an incremental and minimalist approach to constitutional adjudication, to a modest view of the judicial role vis-à-vis the political branches, or to a genuine concern with adherence to precedent."


Some highlights of the dissent by Justice Stevens for you to cruise through, if you so wish:

"The basic premise underlying the Court’s ruling is its iteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based on a speaker’s identity, including its “identity” as a corporation. While that glittering generality has rhetorical appeal, it is not a correct statement of the law. Nor does it tell us when a corporation may engage in electioneering that some of its shareholders oppose. It does not even resolve the specific question whether Citizens United may be required to finance some of its messages with the money in its PAC. The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case.

In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.

...

Faced with this gaping empirical hole, the majority throws up its hands. Were we to confine our inquiry to Citizens United’s as-applied challenge, it protests, we would commence an “extended” process of “draw(ing), and then redraw(ing), constitutional lines based on the particular media or technology used to disseminate political speech from a particular speaker.” Ante , at 9. While tacitly acknowledging that some applications of §203 might be found constitutional, the majority thus posits a future in which novel First Amendment standards must be devised on an ad hoc basis, and then leaps from this unfounded prediction to the unfounded conclusion that such complexity counsels the abandonment of all normal restraint. Yet it is a pervasive feature of regulatory systems that unanticipated events, such as new technologies, may raise some unanticipated difficulties at the margins. The fluid nature of electioneering communications does not make this case special. The fact that a Court can hypothesize situations in which a statute might, at some point down the line, pose some unforeseen as-applied problems, does not come close to meeting the standard for a facial challenge.

...

The final principle of judicial process that the majority violates is the most transparent: stare decisis . I am not an absolutist when it comes to stare decisis , in the campaign finance area or in any other. No one is. But if this principle is to do any meaningful work in supporting the rule of law, it must at least demand a significant justification, beyond the preferences of five Justices, for overturning settled doctrine. “(A) decision to overrule should rest on some special reason over and above the belief that a prior case was wrongly decided.” Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey , 505 U. S. 833, 864 (1992) . No such justification exists in this case, and to the contrary there are powerful prudential reasons to keep faith with our precedents.

...

The novelty of the Court’s procedural dereliction and its approach to stare decisis is matched by the novelty of its ruling on the merits. The ruling rests on several premises. First, the Court claims that Austin and McConnell have “banned” corporate speech. Second, it claims that the First Amendment precludes regulatory distinctions based on speaker identity, including the speaker’s identity as a corporation. Third, it claims that Austin and McConnell were radical outliers in our First Amendment tradition and our campaign finance jurisprudence. Each of these claims is wrong.

...

Today’s decision is backwards in many senses. It elevates the majority’s agenda over the litigants’ submissions, facial attacks over as-applied claims, broad constitutional theories over narrow statutory grounds, individual dissenting opinions over precedential holdings, assertion over tradition, absolutism over empiricism, rhetoric over reality. Our colleagues have arrived at the conclusion that Austin must be overruled and that §203 is facially unconstitutional only after mischaracterizing both the reach and rationale of those authorities, and after bypassing or ignoring rules of judicial restraint used to cabin the Court’s lawmaking power. Their conclusion that the societal interest in avoiding corruption and the appearance of corruption does not provide an adequate justification for regulating corporate expenditures on candidate elections relies on an incorrect description of that interest, along with a failure to acknowledge the relevance of established facts and the considered judgments of state and federal legislatures over many decades.

In a democratic society, the longstanding consensus on the need to limit corporate campaign spending should outweigh the wooden application of judge-made rules. The majority’s rejection of this principle “elevate(s) corporations to a level of deference which has not been seen at least since the days when substantive due process was regularly used to invalidate regulatory legislation thought to unfairly impinge upon established economic interests.” Bellotti , 435 U. S., at 817, n. 13 (White, J., dissenting). At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."