Home Blog Page 115

The Mindy Project – a Model Show

0

I’m a big fan of sitcoms – popular ones, hip ones, old-lady ones – and my current favorite (now that 30 Rock is off the air) is The Mindy ProjectAmy, Tina, and Mindy – my trifecta of amazing, incredible, funny role models.  I adore them all.

Mindy is smart, funny, and very appealing.  And the show keeps getting better and better (although they’re clearly strugglingto find the right girlfriend for Mindy).  Danny and Mindy are the new Sam and Diane.  We know they’re meant for each other but, in the meantime, they bicker while pining over exes.  Danny’s ex-wife has been played on the show by the great Chloe Sevigny.  As Christina, Chloe plays a photographer.  And last week we found out that she took sexy photos of Danny during their brief effort to rekindle their romance.

Danny admitted that he signed a release but then went to a lawyer to see if he could stop Cristina from displaying the photos anyway.  But the lawyer wasn’t any help.  And that’s because Danny was in a tough spot.  A model release is a type of contract, which usually signs over unlimited use of the photographs for lawful uses (display, advertising, etc.) and waives the subject’s right to inspect or approve the finished product.  So if the agreement is valid (e.g., Danny understood what he was signing) and the release language is broad enough to cover displaying his image in an art gallery, then he can’t claim that Christina breached the terms of their agreement.  And if he wanted to revoke the release (i.e., essentially tear up the release like it never existed), then he would have to claim that Christina fraudulently induced him into signing the agreement.  And that’s a tough argument to make.

So Danny couldn’t stop Christina – no matter what he tried.  And the office came out to support his Weiner Night.  And everybody should take a lesson from this: no matter how much you think you love and trust someone, those dirty pictures are going to turn up somewhere eventually!

Remembering Tom Clancy

0

I will miss having Tom Clancy in the world. Few people can study up on subject matter to become an amazing writer. Clancy represented what someone could do in their life through hard work and creativity. We should not forget he was an insurance broker before publishing The Hunt for Red October.

Josh_HuntforRedOctober_BW_3819_edited-1I was not the only lawyer to read Tom Clancy novels; many Judges did too.

Here are highlights of Court opinions referencing Tom Clancy:

As anyone familiar with the novels of Tom Clancy will know, a towed sonar array is a listening device dragged behind submarines and surface ships. Silence is essential; a noisy towed array reduces optimal sound detection and increases the possibility that enemy submarines and ships will go undetected.

Martin Marietta Corp. v. Gould, Inc., 70 F.3d 768, 770 (4th Cir. Md. 1995).

We suspect that if the arbitrator had truly wanted to hide bias, he would simply have kept his mouth shut. Tom Clancy novels do not have plots as thick as the one Smothers suggests.

Smothers v. Cigna Health Plans of Cal., 2001 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1330 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. Nov. 27, 2001).

Certain pro se cases consume more resources than others. Plaintiff’s Complaints, for example, have generated hundreds of pages of motion papers and affidavits from defendants. Were I to address each of plaintiff’s claims individually  and each defendant’s corresponding arguments this Opinion would be the length of a Tom Clancy novel. However, the legal issues raised by plaintiff’s claims and defendants’ motions are not terribly complex. Furthermore, many [*6]  of the defendants’ motions share common ground. Thus, for efficiency’s sake, I will address plaintiff’s claims and defendants’ motions in appropriate groups.

Jones v. Trump, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7324, 5-6 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 1997).

Josh_WithoutRemorse_BW_3822I’d say any nominees for Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Director of the CIA and Homeland Security should be questioned by the Senate on Tom Clancy books. Clancy’s view of what could be a threat often had a real chance of happening. Like how do defend against a plane crashing into the Capital Building during a joint session of Congress.

An interviewer asked Tom Clancy after the collapse of the Soviet Union what he was going to do for “bad guys” in his books.

Clancy’s answer was hauntingly true with, “There will always be bad guys.”

The man understood national defense, had great respect for the military and helped children with cancer. We certainly could use more people like him.

Sub_3839_edited-1

 

Eyes on Agents of SHIELD

0

The fourth episode of Agents of SHIELD “Eye Spy” presented several legal issues for criminal activity in foreign countries. How exactly would former Agent Akela Amador get a fair trial for the crimes she committed?

I Had a Bomb in My Eye Defense

Agent Amador had been very busy stealing diamonds and Lord knows what other crimes. A defense attorney would be able to look a judge right in the eye and say, “She had a bomb in her head.”

In a blink of an eye, we have the necessity defense.

Everything Amador did was done while she was under the control of whoever was controlling The Englishman, because 1) her controller could see through her right eye; 2) Amador felt pain when she did not comply with orders and 3) the bionic eye contained an explosive device for a fail safe.

Judge Robert Boochever summarized the necessity defense as follows:

Necessity is, essentially, a utilitarian defense. See Note, The State Made Me Do It: The Applicability of the Necessity Defense to Civil Disobedience, 39 Stan. L. Rev. 1173, 1174 (1987). It therefore justifies criminal acts taken to avert a greater harm, maximizing social welfare by allowing a crime to be committed where the social benefits of the crime outweigh the social costs of failing to commit the crime. See, e.g., Dorrell, 758 F.2d at 432 (recognizing that “the policy underlying the necessity defense is the promotion of greater values at the expense of lesser values”) (citation omitted). Pursuant to the defense, prisoners could escape a burning prison, see, e.g., Baender v. Barnett, 255 U.S. 224, 226, 65 L. Ed. 597, 41 S. Ct. 271 (1921); a person lost in the woods could steal food from a cabin to survive, see Posner, An Economic Theory of the Criminal Law, 85 Colum. L. Rev. 1193, 1205 (1985); an embargo could be violated because adverse weather conditions necessitated sale of the cargo at a foreign port, see The William Gray, 29 F. Cas. 1300, 1302 (C.C.D.N.Y. 1810)(No. 17,694); a crew could mutiny where their ship was thought to be unseaworthy, see United States v. Ashton, 2 Sumn. 13, 24 F. Cas. 873, 874 (C.C.D. Mass. 1834)(No. 14,470); and property could be destroyed to prevent the spread of fire, see, e.g., Surocco v. Geary, 3 Cal. 69, 74 (1853).

United States v. Schoon, 971 F.2d 193, 196 (9th Cir. Cal. 1992).

Defendant Amador could point to her eye patch and eye-bomb debris as Exhibits A and B to show she was under duress to commit international crimes. Exhibit C could be the body of The Englishmen to prove what would have happened to her for non-compliance. It would be extremely difficult to rule against Amador for the crimes she committed while being controlled through pain and threat of death.

However, as Amador’s body count goes up (she did after all kill a bunch of guys), her defense would be significantly weakened. Killing innocents out of necessity is something Courts would not give a free pass to a Defendant, no matter how creepy the red masks.

Skye is a Peeping Tom

The final moments of the episode show Skye is not just a hacker, but a Peeping Tom.

Skye “life hacks” Agent Ward’s own vision, which enabled her to see through his eyes. Just to make life interesting, this privacy invasion also includes x-ray vision: Skye could see Ward naked (and anyone else Ward was looking at).

Skye is a very bad girl.

Ward and anyone within his field of vision would have multiple invasion of privacy claims against Skye. HR would also have a field day with the sexual harassment allegations.

Agent Ward could demonstrate that Skye violated his right to privacy by showing the following:

1) Ward had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his own eyes and everything he sees in private, such as himself naked;

2) Skye intentionally intruded into Ward’s vision;

3) Skye’s intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; and

4) Ward would be harmed if he learned of such invasion, let alone the damage to manager-direct report employment relationship.

See generally, 3-18 California Forms of Jury Instruction 1800.

It is unlikely Ward could prevail on a cyber-stalking claim, because most cyber-stalking statutes require electronic communications. See, Fla. Stat. § 784.048(c), “Cyberstalk” means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose, or Miss. Code Ann. § 97-45-15(a) Use in electronic mail or electronic communication any words or language threatening to inflict bodily harm to any person or to that person’s child, sibling, spouse or dependent, or physical injury to the property of any person, or for the purpose of extorting money or other things of value from any person.

Skye was stalking Ward with his own eyes by electronic means, however she was not sending him messages, thus missing an element of the violation.

Finally, while Skye did have a valid HR claim against Agent Ward after being told to use a water bottle for bathroom facilities, “life jacking” Ward’s vision was not the proper response. Go to HR with such claims.

Vice President Howard Stern…Would the FCC Be His First Target?

0

IMG_2578Howard Stern for President!  Or Vice President!  Jesse Ventura, former governor of my home state (ugh, so embarrassing) was on the Stern Show this week to pitch Howard on being his running mate in 2016.  It’s certainly a joke, but if this government shutdown goes on much longer I may have to seriously consider them.  And if Howard were to make it to the White House, how much fun would he have messing the FCC?

To those of us of a certain age, Howard Stern’s battles with the FCC are legendary.  For a younger generation, they may never have known Stern before he made his move to satellite radio and a world without FCC censorship.  He now lives in a world where he can curse with abandon (not that he curses much) and discuss “adult” topics in great detail (he does do that).

dumb hot girlBack in the day, on terrestrial radio, Stern was often the focus of the FCC’s crackdowns.  Always one to feel persecuted, Stern even released a box set of bits from his radio show that had either been heavily edited because of government regulations or that had actually resulted in FCC fines.

But while Stern was a target of the government’s scrutiny, radio stations in other languages were getting off with barely a glance.  For example, during a big crackdown at the beginning of 2004 (spurred on by the Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake incident at the Superbowl), the FCC levied $1.5 million in fines against English-speaking broadcasters.  Meanwhile, some of the Spanish-language stations were going far beyond anything Stern would have dared, yet the FCC wasn’t paying attention.

The FCC’s apparent inability to spot inappropriate words isn’t just limited to Spanish.  The brilliant Joss Whedon, in his short-lived Firefly, was able to use some pretty foul language thanks to his incorporation of Mandarin Chinese into his vision of the future.  If Howard had said any of these things on terrestrial radio, the FCC would have been all over him.  But Firefly got away with it, thanks to its cursing in another language!  (By the way, my favorite expression is number 9 on the list.)

The FCC’s ability to regulate radio and television is based on broadcasters’ use of the airwaves to distribute their content.  The idea was that the airwaves are a public resource, like a federal forest, and the people were allowing radio and television broadcasters to use them.  In exchange, the broadcasters had to agree to abide by certain conditions put forth by the FCC.  Cable and satellite providers, on the other hand, don’t use public resources so they don’t have to agree to comply with FCC requirements (although they still have to comply with other state and federal laws, like obscenity laws).

GavelOf course, the broadcasters still challenge how the FCC regulates them.  Just last summer, the Supreme Court sided with Fox and ABC against the FCC.  The FCC had fined Fox for fleeting expletives and ABC for partial nudity and the Supreme Court ruled on behalf of the networks, but only because they found that the FCC hadn’t provided them with proper notice.  The justices ignored the underlying question, however, of how much authority the FCC still has over the broadcast networks.

But if Howard were in office that all could change…he might not be able to get rid of the FCC but he would certainly do his darndest to stop them from patrolling the airwaves.  Maybe then he’d even move back to terrestrial radio (given his disputes with his current employer).

 

Impersonating a State Leader in Doctor Who Enemy of the World

0

Tessa_SecondDoctorTeam_9689Raise your sonic screwdrivers and raise them high!

Doctor Who fans around the world are absolutely gleeful to have two classic Second Doctor stories found from the abyss of time. It is literally “new” old Doctor Who.

Enemy of the World takes place before December 31, 2018. The Second Doctor finds out he looks exactly like a would be global dictator named Salamander.

Patrick Troughton showed his acting chops playing both the hero and villain.

The Doctor is asked whether he was a doctor of law after saying he was not a medical doctor. The answer: Which Law?

The story poses a legal issue of the Doctor impersonating Salamander. What happens when someone impersonates a state leader?

As for which laws, I will focus on the United States:

Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

18 USCS § 912

Lisa_Team4thDoctor_1557Statutes forbidding impersonation may require a showing that someone was deceived into following a “course [of action] he would not have pursued but for the deceitful conduct.” United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537, 2554 (U.S. 2012), citing United States v. Lepowitch, 318 U.S. 702, 704, 63 S. Ct. 914, 87 L. Ed. 1091 (1943).

In episodes one and two of Enemy of the World, the Doctor impersonates Salamander.

The Doctor was successful in convincing Salamander’s security officer that he was Salamander. But for the Doctor’s conduct, the security officer would have taken a different course of action in carrying out his orders. If Salamander had been a US President, the Doctor would have broken the law.

Luckily, Salamander was not a US official, but a very mean man with dreams of global domination. That being said, I do not recommend ever to impersonate a world leader, especially a crazy one with dreams of conquest.

Tased By SciFi in Court

0

Judges are not shy when it comes to referencing science fiction in their opinions.

District Judge WM. Terrell Hodges should get an award for mentioning the 1911 story Tom Swift and his Electric Rifle AND Star Trek in discussing whether someone is “tased” or “tasered” in a footnote. Here is the full quote from Chambers v. United States:

In a number of its decisions the Eleventh Circuit has confronted the need to describe succinctly the act of using a taser (an acronym for “Thomas A. Swift’s electric rifle” [a fictitious weapon] and an echo of “maser,” “laser,” and perhaps the science fiction “phaser” [from Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek]). Although uniformly deploying “tasing” as the participle and gerund, the court has created some precedential inconsistency by using “tased” as the simple past tense on some occasions, and by using “tasered” at other times. It appears that “tased” is the most frequent choice, and in the absence of an en banc resolution to the contrary, I will lemmingly follow the present majority and used “tased” as the simple past tense. This results finds support in the authoritative American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language which offers “tased, tasing, tases also tazed or tazing or tazes,” but no verb with the root “taser-.” Although stating no decision on the proper past tense or participle, the latest iteration of the Oxford English Dictionary declares for the adjectival and past participial form “tasered,” as in “the tasered inmate.”

Chambers v. United States, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114288, 4-5 fn3  (M.D. Fla. Aug. 13, 2013).

The concept of a taser is not new. Jules Vern described such weapons in the eternal classic 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea with the Leyden Ball in 1870. I am sure there are similar non-lethal weapons recurring across science fiction from the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Hats off to Judge Hodges for a footnote breaking down whether it is “tased” or “tasered” and including classic science fiction.

LeslieCrystal_Redshirt_Stunned_3120

 

Cancer, the First Amendment & I [Heart] Boobies Bracelets in Schools

0

BCRibbonOctober is Breast Cancer Awareness month. One would not expect Breast Cancer Awareness to intersect with the First Amendment, but there have been multiple cases on the issue involving public school students.

I lost my grandmother to breast cancer. My grandmother was a dynamic and elegant woman who was Ms. Sioux City before World Ward II. Grammy was also the resolute country school teacher from Iowa who taught my dyslexic brain how to read using building blocks.

My grandmother dealt with school children who left a live snake in her desk. She picked the evil creature up by its head, held it up in front of the class and asked, “Who does this belong to?”

No student messed with her after that.

Today’s teachers have many other challenges that range in complexity from learning disabilities to broken homes to students who cannot speak English. One of the challenges today are children who wear “I ♥ Boobies! (Keep A Breast)” bracelets to school that have caused three different First Amendment lawsuits in Federal Court.

Is wearing such a bracelet to school a good idea? I do not think so. It is only done for shock value by children in my opinion. Moreover, anyone who wore such a bracelet to work would find themselves facing sexual harassment and hostile work environment allegations. The same would hold true in many schools.

I can only imagine what my German-Irish grandmother would say to a student who wore a “I ♥ Boobies! (Keep A Breast)” bracelet. However, we do know what three different Federal Courts have held on the issue of student First Amendment Rights at a public school.

IHeartBoobies_3335

Back to School

First Amendment rights and public school students have provided fascinating case law of students who wear black armbands to school in protest to more provocative statements.

Here is an overview of the legal standards that apply to students and their First Amendment Rights:

Students do not check their First Amendment rights at the door when they enter the school. Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Comty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1969). However, the First Amendment does not compel schools to “surrender control of the American public school system to public school students.” Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 686, 106 S. Ct. 3159, 92 L. Ed. 2d 549 (1986) (quoting Tinker, 393 U.S. at 526 (Black, J., dissenting)). The students’ rights are curtailed by the schools’ “countervailing interest in teaching students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior,” Fraser, 478 U.S. at 681, and to protect “students from offensive speech.” Nuxoll ex rel. Nuxoll v. Indian Prairie Sch. Dist. No. 204, 523 F.3d 668, 671 (7th Cir. 2008). This interest flows from the schools’ responsibility to teach students the “‘habits and manners of civility’ essential to a democratic society.” Fraser, 478 U.S. at 681.

J.A. v. Fort Wayne Cmty. Sch., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117667 at *5-6 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 20, 2013).

The United States Supreme Court held in Fraser that “essential lessons of civil, mature conduct cannot be conveyed in a school that tolerates lewd, indecent, or offensive speech.” Fraser, at 683. Moreover, the school board has the authority to determine what manner of speech is inappropriate. Fraser, at 683-85.

Schools under Tinker can restrict speech that is reasonably expected to substantially
disrupt the school. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1969).

The East District of Pennsylvania: The Bracelet is Not Lewd

The Court in B. H. v. Easton Area Sch. Dist., held that the ban on the “I ♥ Boobies! (Keep A Breast)” bracelets was NOT an objectively reasonable exercise of a public school’s authority to ban lewd or vulgar speech under Fraser. B. H. v. Easton Area Sch. Dist., 827 F. Supp. 2d 392, 405 (E.D. Pa. 2011).

The Easton Court summarized the test in Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393, 127 S. Ct. 2618, 168 L. Ed. 2d 290 (2007) that apply to schools as follows:

(1) Plainly lewd speech, which offends for the same reasons obscenity offends, may be categorically restricted regardless of whether it comments on political or social issues,

(2) Speech that does not rise to the level of plainly lewd but that a reasonable observer could interpret as lewd may be categorically restricted as long as it cannot plausibly be interpreted as commenting on political or social issues, and

(3) Speech that does not rise to the level of plainly lewd and that could plausibly be interpreted as commenting on political or social issues may not be categorically restricted. Because the bracelets here are not plainly lewd and because they comment on a social issue, they may not be categorically banned under Fraser.

The District Court held, and the En Banc order affirmed, that the school district failed to show the bracelets threatened to substantially disrupt the school under Tinker. B.H. v. Easton Area Sch. Dist., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16087 at *4 (3d Cir. Pa. Aug. 5, 2013). Effectively, the only disruption that was argued were the two students refusing to take off the bracelets (If we also ignore the Federal lawsuit and attorney’s fees).

IHeartBoobies_3602

The Easton Court held the bracelet were not plainly lewd, because teachers had to seek guidance on how to respond to students wearing the bracelets. B.H. v. Easton Area Sch. Dist., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16087 at *69 (3d Cir. Pa. Aug. 5, 2013).

In the words of Judge Brooks Smith, “Indeed, the term ‘boobie’ is no more than a sophomoric synonym for ‘breast.'” Id., at *70.

Meanwhile, in the Northern District of Indiana: The Bracelet is Lewd

The Court in J.A. v. Fort Wayne Cmty. Sch., held that the school’s interpretation of the bracelets as lewd or vulgar was reasonable. J.A. v. Fort Wayne Cmty. Sch., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117667 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 20, 2013).

The Defendant school first encountered the bracelet when a male student wearing one harassed a female student. The school determined that the bracelet’s terminology was “offensive to women and inappropriate for school wear” making the bracelet “lewd, vulgar, obscene, solicitous, and/or plainly offensive speech.” Those wearing bracelets have had them confiscated. Fort Wayne, at *3-4.

The Plaintiff wore the banned bracelet for three months before a school administrator confiscated it.  Id.

The Court determined that the bracelet “falls into a gray area” between being “plainly lewd and merely indecorous.”Fort Wayne, at *18.

Federal Courts defer to school administrators when there are ambiguously vulgar slogans. For example, a Federal Court in Massachusetts upheld a ban on the phrase, “See Dick Drink. See Dick Drive. See Dick Die. Don’t be a Dick.” J.A. at *19, citing Pyle ex rel. Pyle v. S. Hadley Sch. Comm., 861 F. Supp. 157, 159 (D. Mass. 1994) vacated on other grounds Pyle v. South Hadley Sch. Comm., 55 F.3d 20, 21 (1st Cir. Mass. 1995).

The Court explained that the J.A. facts were distinct from the Easton case. The Court explained:

In that case, administrators waited several months to ban the bracelets, and did so even though they had not “heard any reports of disruption or student misbehavior linked to the bracelets.” Easton, 827 F. Supp. 2d at 397. There was also evidence that the administrators did not “actually consider the word boobies to be vulgar.” Id. at 407. In contrast Defendant responded swiftly to a reported disruption caused by a student using the bracelet’s slogan in an offensive manner. Additionally, the record indicates that they consistently enforced their ban, including confiscating similar bracelets such as one that said “Save the Boobs.”

The Court explained its holding as follows:

If the Court adopted Plaintiff’s analysis and issued an injunction, Defendant’s ability to regulate speech that is lewd but supports a noble cause will be limited. As the dissent in Easton noted, this bracelet is not the only one with a slogan that toes the line between mildly inappropriate and vulgar in the name of supporting cancer awareness. One organization the dissent highlighted was The Testicular Cancer Awareness Project, which sells bracelets imprinted with the words of its website “feelmyballs.com.”  B.H. 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16087 at *123-24 (Hardiman, J., dissenting). Defendant has dealt with this challenge first hand. One of the bracelets confiscated by the school used the slogan “Save the Boobs.” If the “I ♥ boobies” bracelet is allowed it is difficult to articulate a principle that distinguishes it from “feel my balls” or “Save the Boobs.” School officials, who know the age, maturity, and other characteristics of their students better than federal judges, are in a better position to decide whether to allow these products into their schools. Issuing an injunction would take away the deference courts owe to schools and make their job that much harder.

Fort Wayne, at *19-20.

Should We Make Fun of Serious Diseases?

The proponents of the “I ♥ Boobies! (Keep A Breast)” state they are speaking to women between the ages of 13 to 30 in language that they can relate to. They have a very noble goal of promoting women’s health.

I have done a substantial amount of volunteering with young adults. I have learned the best way to address a serious issue with a young adult is to actually treat them like a young adult. I do not believe getting women to wear “I ♥ Boobies! (Keep A Breast)” is consistent with treating the issue, or the intended audience, seriously.

As the dissent in Easton noted, one only needs to look at the Testicular Cancer Awareness Project’s bracelet campaign to see how we can race to the bottom in the name of cancer awareness.

Cancer is a horrible disease. Everyone should be educated on how they can detect threats to their health. This is often a challenge, because I have yet to meet a woman who looks forward to a mammogram or man who does not dread a prostate exam. Moreover, any procedure with “oscopy” in the name frightens people, not just because of what the procedure is, but what it could find.

I am reminded of the speeches of Brutus and Mark Anthony in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. Brutus addressed the crowd from up high, speaking down to them in “their language.” Mark Anthony walk among the people and addressed them as equals.

Telling teenagers “I ♥ Boobies!” for breast cancer awareness is speaking down to youth like Brutus. I would hope parents and educators take a lesson from Mark Anthony in talking with their children about healthcare.

You Need More Than A Bracelet

I have never been a fan of wearing a bracelet to show my support in helping those with cancer. I believe actions speak louder than words.

Two of the three women who raised me died horribly from cancer. I have crystal clear memories of closing my mother’s lifeless eyes after a brutal battle with lung cancer. I can never forget taking her home after the doctor appointment where hope was ruled out. This was a woman who was among the first women to be a paramedic. Her training involved running up four flights of stairs with a guy over her shoulder. My mother actually did wear combat boots. Only a fool would have doubted her strength of character.

But cancer is not a fool, it is a disease.

My mother had the look of total terror on her face from the knowledge that there was nothing to save her. Tears streamed down her face and her expression is burned into my memory. I have never seen pure fear like that before. I do not need to wear a bracelet to remember that.

Others, however, wear cancer bracelets like they are an Ichthys. It gives them a sense of community. Many find strength in that.

Helping others in need should be encouraged over simply wearing a bracelet. Luckily, there are many people who answer the call to help those in fighting cancer.

I was impressed with the professionals and volunteers at Stanford. Whether it was a kind volunteer in a red coat, or a person playing a harp, guitar or piano, there was always compassion for those in need.

My aunt took care of my mother in the last 18 months of her life. My aunt had a front row seat to her sister’s decline. Sadly, this was not the first time my aunt had seen a family member’s life fade away, as my aunt also on the front line caring for her own mother in the last months of her mother’s life.

Today my aunt volunteers with both Hospice and an organization called Drivers for Survivors. “Drivers” are volunteers who take cancer patients to their chemotherapy or radiation treatments, because they have no one else who can help them. The last thing someone with cancer needs is an outrageous taxi bill every time they need chemo. Those who volunteer to drive those to cancer treatments are truly doing God’s work.

Lasting Impressions of My Grandmother

Grammy002My grandmother had all the makings of a saint. She raised two daughters and spoiled three grandsons.

My grandfather retired from dentistry early in 1984 because he and my grandmother wanted to volunteer to help others. They spent a year down at an Apache Native American Reservation, with my grandfather setting a record number in making dentures and my grandmother working in Headstart.

She was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1986. She started a super-human treatment process that included flying back to New York from California for what was then revolutionary treatments. Every day she took over 150 vitamins and gave herself a gallon coffee enema twice a day.

There was also a lot more.

Most people would surrender to death with such a daily routine.

My grandmother endured for seven years.

My grandmother knew she was dying in the fall of 1992.  She gave her credit cards to her daughters in November with the marching orders “to go big for Christmas.”

Her daughters delivered.

Grammy grew up in the Great Depression on a farm in Iowa. She understood hardship. She understood working hard on the farm and the importance of a hot meal. She also knew kindness and told how her own grandfather sneaked roller skates passed her as a Christmas gift during the dark days of the Depression.

She also enjoyed throwing blow out birthdays, Thanksgivings and Christmas celebrations. The woman made it an art form. There are photos of her sitting proudly in the living room with gleeful children tearing apart wrapping paper on Christmas Eve. I think she considered it a matter of honor to ensure her grandchildren; grandnephew and grandniece had happy childhoods.

My grandmother excelled at kindness and making anyone feel loved. Whether it was helping a former convict get their life back together or inviting others into a family that had none. The woman was the living embodiment of virtue, kindness and the resolution to take action.

Her ability to take positive action knew no limits. I had spinal meningitis when I was five years old.  She visited my hospital room daily, each time bringing a Hot Wheels car.

I was hospitalized for an extended period in 1990 from Crohn’s Disease. My grandmother had a tumor removed from her skull in the same hospital. My grandfather brought her by my room in a wheelchair to visit as soon as she was able.

That was who she was.

Watching cancer destroy her put everyone she loved through an emotional meat grinder. The beauty queen’s body was broken and her mind shattered as cancer overcame her.

She had forgotten I even existed.

I am fairly certain my grandmother would not look kindly on any bracelet with “boobies” on it. However, I am confident she would be extremely proud of her daughter for taking cancer patients to their chemotherapy treatments.

It is important to be a force for good and help those in need. That is probably the biggest lesson I learned from my grandmother and the best way to honor those who we have lost: help others live.