My Colonoscopy: Nothing to Fear But Fear Itself

I went for my first colonoscopy this week. I'm 52-years-old, and technically, by medical standards, two years late in taking the examination. The truth is, I put it off out of an absolute dread of the procedure and the preparation.

It's important to understand and appreciate a few facts: The American Cancer Society estimates an annual 141,000+ Americans will be diagnosed with colorectal cancer and that roughly 35% of those stricken will die. It is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer and the third leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States. Approximately 90% of all cases occur in people over the age of 50, and at a 35-40% higher rate in men. It's a particularly slow growing cancer, developing over a period of 10-15 years. Which is why it's critical to have a screening exam such as a colonoscopy every five years.

So at the aggressive urging of my girlfriend Phoebe, I finally made the appointment, albeit with uber-trepidation. Full disclosure: I'm a really lousy patient. I have obsessive fears of sickness and death (exacerbated by the shocking murder of my wife Adrienne five years ago) and tend to avoid doctors and hospitals unless I am incapacitated.

I'd heard horror stories about the prep part. Guys would tell me how the night before, after eating nothing all day, they had to drink about 42 gallons of a disgusting liquid that tasted like a pasty vomitous combo of chalk and Elmer's Glue, and that that the rest of the night was filled with nightmarish bowel movements and desperate prayers to Jesus. I also made the mistake of watching videos on YouTube that demonstrated in gory detail every single aspect of this hellish ordeal. It literally scared the shit out of me (pun intended).

About a week before the exam my doctor mailed me instructions. I was told to purchase two 10 oz bottles of Magnesium Citrate and a Fleet enema. Leading up to prep day I was an emotional wreck. You'd have though I was going in for penile reconstruction surgery. At 6:30pm I bravely stuck a straw in one bottle, put it in my left hand, and held a raspberry lemonade chaser in my right. I was pleasantly surprised to find the medicine tasting almost like a Sprite. I sipped it up pretty quickly and waited an hour to drink the second bottle.

During this period I felt slight gurgling in my stomach, but little else. I drank the other bottle and naively asked Phoebe around 8:30 "Shouldn't something be happening by now?" Perhaps I did something wrong. Maybe the lemonade cancelled out the Magnesium Citrate? And then it hit. And hit. And hit again. And...then hit some more. And some more after that. Then a lot more. And even more. And even more than that. I basically spent the next ten hours in and out of the bathroom experiencing things no human being should ever experience.

Throughout the night I heard sounds coming from my stomach that I suspect the people of Pompeii never heard even as Vesuvius erupted. My bowel movements had the speed and ferocity of a tsunami. If I could only get a shower head this powerful. And it was like a Great White Shark had been cut open by Roy Scheider. All sorts of things came gushing out, like the pennies I swallowed as a kid, missing keys, beer cans and some small fish.

To be sure, I left my soul, and my dignity, in that bathroom that night. The experience left me weak, utterly exhausted and thirstier than I've ever been in my life. And if that wasn't enough I then had to insert the enema, just to make sure my insides were fully depleted before we left the house. "Lie on your left side and stay that way until you feel the need to evacuate" the instructions read. Evacuation? Is that what we're calling it now? At this point "evacuation" was what I thought my neighbors might be doing to escape whatever the hell they thought was happening in my apartment that might hurt them.

An hour later I was inside the exam room, my horribly dispirited ass exposed by the always-humiliating open-back gown they had me wear. Waiting for the anesthesiologist and doctor, I curiously glanced around the room and immediately spotted the dreaded beast: the seemingly 40-foot black Anaconda-like hose-camera they were going to insert up my now empty canal.

Minutes later, as they were prepping to give me some Propofol, we talked about how this stuff killed Michael Jackson. They assured me my fate would be different than the drug-addicted bizarro King of Pop. "Think of someplace nice for a vacation" they then said and in seconds I was dancing like Dorothy in the poppy fields. I woke up about an hour later. Hadn't felt a thing, and felt pretty good albeit a little groggy. I lay there alone thinking about the events of the past 24 hours and was glad it was over.

In all honesty, there was truly nothing to dread. My intense, almost paralyzing fear had been overblown and unwarranted. Sure, it was a mighty unpleasant experience the night before, but the worst part of that was simply having to go to the bathroom so much. The prep drink was more than bearable and the procedure itself felt no different than had I taken a simple nap in the exam room.

There was one final piece of this story that is a bit nerve-wracking: getting the results. After sitting a few minutes in the waiting room I was asked to meet the doctor in his office. He stood up, smiled (oh God, why is he smiling?) and proceeded to close the door (oh God, why is he closing the door?"). He's smiling, I thought, because he wants to be reassuring that this cancer I now have is a "good cancer." And he's closing the door so that no one can hear me scream "What the fuck do you mean "good cancer!?"

"You're exam went as well as I could possibly hope for," he quickly said. "Everything is perfect. See you in five years."

Music to my ears, and colon...

The Komen Controversy: Enough Already with "The Power of Social Media"

First off let me say that I find the Susan G. Komen Foundation's decision to end funding of Planned Parenthood irresponsible and reprehensible. Caving to right-wing anti-abortion extremists is both despicable and shameful. There's simply no place for politics in the on-going struggle to fight breast cancer. But I also have to say I am sick of hearing about the "power of social media to harness protest," as the New York Times reported Friday. While I completely understand, appreciate and accept the benefits the Internet provides, we as a society have to stop making it as important to the story as the story itself or, as in some cases, making it even bigger than the story.

Remember the demonstrations in Iran in 2009? And how quickly the media, and just about everyone else, rushed to give credit for this "revolution" to Twitter and Facebook? Back then I wrote:

What do the American Revolution, the French Resistance and the Civil Rights Movement have in common? They all somehow managed to change history without Facebook and Twitter. But if you listen to our technology-obsessed media this week as post-election unrest unfolds in Iran you'd get the distinct impression that the current opposition rebellion could not exist without these social-networking sites.

To be sure, Demonstrations, protests, boycotts and revolutions have existed since the beginning of time. We all know what the Boston Tea Party protests of the 1700's led to, right? More recent examples include Cesar Chavez's Delano Grape Strike in 1960, the 1955 Montgomery Bus Boycott and Anita Bryant's 1977 legislative victory against homosexuality (which, much to her ultimate embarrassment and disappointment, served to fuel a new era of aggressive gay rights activism and protest).

I know it sounds terribly sexy and is highly seductive to discuss social media and its role in major current events, but I fear the "me generation" of the 2000's risks patting itself on the back way too much (which, really, is what Twitter and Facebook is all about, isn't it?) rather than keep the focus on the story. A protest or boycott movement should be about the core issue and not on which medium those who protest are spreading the word. When that aspect starts to dominate, then it becomes more about the protester than what he or she is actually protesting.

If this were the 1960's and we were expressing outrage over Komen's decision, the word would ultimately be spread just as effectively and with the same outcomes...albeit with less speed. Let's not take away from the power of protest, and what we as citizens can achieve, by wasting so much time fawning over technology's role in all of it. At the end of the day, it's the people who use Twitter and Facebook, just as they used other media throughout history to foment dissent and harness protest.

Let's keep the relevance of Twitter and Facebook in their proper perspective. As I wrote in '09:

What would we have without these two sites through which to spread information about the massive protests? We'd have cell-phone cameras, Youtube, digital cameras and email. And what would we have before that? Phones, videotapes, 35mm photographs and underground newspapers. And what would we have before that? Well, we'd have the American Revolution, the French Resistance and the Civil Rights Movement, which last time I checked, profoundly changed the course of history without the ubiquitous Twitter and Facebook.

The GOP Has Never Before Seen Liars Like Gingrich and Romney

Make no mistake: politics is dirty game. To play, and to play to win, you have to sell your soul to to the devil. You're on a 24/7 spin cycle. You disparage your opponents. You stretch the truth. And you lie. Every candidate is guilty of these tactics. And none in the history of the Republican Party have done it better or more blatantly and consistently than Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. They've taken the art of lying into a whole new stratosphere.

Romney and Gingrich are different in the sense that, while most politicians tell the truth most of the time and toss in a bit of truth-stretching, with a few lies here and there, these two lie all the time. Their entire candidacies are built on the re-writing of history. It's a waste of time for voters to listen to anything either of them have to say because it's likely every single thing they claim about themselves, and each other, is a lie.

The picture each candidate has painted of himself is utterly laughable. Romney, the 1%'er with the Swiss bank accounts and 13.8% effective tax rate, portrays himself as the economic steward most able to help the little guy. This despite a business career at Bain Capital, and myriad political positions, that exist solely to line the pockets of rich folk like him at the expense of said little guy. He's lied about his views on abortion, gay marriage, immigration, climate change, health care and practically everything else on which he's ever staked an opinion.

Gingrich, the consummate K Street Washington insider with the ethics-violations monkey on his big-spending earmark-lovin' serial-philanderin' back, has been running as the "anti-establishment" values candidate, leading a "rebellion" against the amoral "elites." But if we judge him by his political career, his academic accomplishments or his wealth, he's as elitist as they come. And while Newt whines about the "unfairness" of Romney's attacks, he's been responsible for more invective and extremist rhetoric than anyone in D.C. history, single-handedly changing the overall tenor of political discourse since he emerged in the late 1980's. Then there's the colossal hypocrisy of his personal life. Newt never met a mistress he didn't like...or married.

These two presidential hopefuls, as evidence by their many debate performances, lie so much it's virtually impossible to distinguish between their reality and fantasy. Neither can remember what commercials they've produced, what investments they have, what they've said in the past, what they currently believe or anything factual about each other. They'll literally say anything to become elected. Anything. And the debates themselves have become a spectacle that we watch just to see which one will catch the other in the biggest lie.

One thing's certain: one of these political Pinocchios will be running against President Obama later this year. So strap on your seatbelts, because the ride's gonna get a whole lot bumpier. The Mitt/Newt Traveling Lies Show is just the warm-up act...

Why I'll Be Watching Yet Another Republican Debate Tonight

It seems like there's been a Republican debate every two days for the past several months (because there basically has been). And no matter how many I've watched so far (and I've dutifully watched them all), I'll be siting by the television yet again tonight watching. Just waiting....

The truth is, these debates have become so predictable that I could practically script them out in advance. To be sure, we'll see more of Rick Santorum's "I've-Done-Everything-Before-Everyone-Else" routine. We're certain to hear Rep. Ron Paul Sr. declare again that we should withdraw all of our troops from military bases around the world. We're sure to hear Mitt Romney bash Newt Gingrich again for being "disgraced out of Washington" over ethics violations. And we'll no doubt see Gingrich rip Romney apart again over his massive wealth and "job-killing" days at Bain Capital. And now that the audience is allowed to cheer again, we may also even see more of Newt's moderator-bashing bit he clearly enjoys so much (and is quite good at). None of this is new, and it's become quite boring to sit through it all. But I'm just waiting...

What I'm waiting for is that delicious moment all politicians dread. The moment in a debate where a candidate suffers from humiliating foot-in-mouth disease, in some cases blowing the campaign. We've seen plenty of them over the years: when George Bush Sr.looked at his watch as if he had somewhere more important to be, or when he didn't know the price of milk. Or Gerald Ford's incredible misstatement that "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe." Or when Michael Dukakis said he'd still oppose the death penalty even if his wife Kitty had been raped and murdered. Or Dan Quayle's embarrassing "You're no John Kennedy" moment with Sen. Lloyd Bentsen. And more recently, Gov. Rick Perry's "oops" debacle. So I sit waiting...

I wait for Gingrich to blow a gasket and literally become emotionally unhinged, maybe even telling Romney to "fuck off." I wait for Santorum to look into the camera and whine like a five-year-old to voters "Why aren't you supporting me over that serial cheater Gingrich?!" I wait for Paul to break out into "Oompa Loompa" for no apparent reason. And I wait for Romney to ask all the other candidates if he can pay them to quit the race.

So I wait...

The State of the Union Address: Can't Republicans Even Pretend to Care About the Little Guy?

If anyone still has a doubt as to the true intentions of Republicans in the House and Senate all they needed to do was watch President Obama's State of the Union Address Tuesday night. The strategy is quite clear: say no to everything Obama wants, hope for a worsening economy, and win the Oval Office in November.

How else do we explain how one side of the House Chamber cheered enthusiastically while the other sat stiff, straight-faced and motionless when Obama said "Businesses have created more than three million jobs;" "No bailouts, handouts, and no copouts; "Teachers matter;" "American consumers finally have a watchdog in Richard Cordray with one job: To look out for them;" and "An economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share and everyone plays by the same set of rules." Can you guess which side of the room sat Republicans?

Someone in the GOP should remind House Speaker John Boehner that his freakishly orange mug is on camera the entire time the president speaks, which means his constant expressions of discomfort and discontent over job creation, education and fairness were on full display. Someone should suggest to Majority Leader Eric Cantor that smug smirks don't paint a picture of cooperation and compromise. And for Pete's Sake, regardless of how they ultimately vote, wouldn't it simply make more political sense to at least cheer and applaud along with Democrats the notion of hiring more teachers, creating jobs, reigning in Wall Street, and treating all people fairly? Apparently their venomous hatred of Obama, Democrats and everything both stand for simply won't allow them to even pretend to be good guys.

Obama's smart. He now 100% understands and accepts that his enemies across the aisle stand only for (1) lowering taxes for the rich; (2) ending entitlement programs for the poor and middle class; (3) reducing government regulation of their fatcat corporate pals' businesses; and (4) ending his political career. At this point all he can and will do is take his message to the people, continuing to draw clear distinctions between his agenda and that of Republicans: 'Vote for me and I'll use government to help you, or vote for them and have them kick you to the curb in your time of need.'

The GOP's Massive Problem

So now I've watched yet another in a seemingly never-ending series of Republican debates, and I'm convinced of two things: the GOP presidential race is in a total state of chaos, and, President Obama will be re-elected. One thing's for sure, when conservatives aggressively bash each other for being rich Wall Street capitalists, you know the party's in serious trouble.

The GOP's problems are multiple: three contests into the season (Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina) have not produced a clear front-runner. In fact, they've been won by three different candidates--Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Populist (and I say that with a tinge of facetiousness) Ron Paul Sr. has fared moderately well in each, and will continue to play spoiler, syphoning away key votes from the young and the restless Libertarians. Or, he will at some point attempt to barter delegates for influence. Or he will end up running as an independent and really screw things up for the party.

In what has got to be incredibly frustrating to Romney and his campaign, Mr. Inevitable is looking more and more like Mr. Improbable with each passing day. He can't seem to break out of his 25% range (with the exception of the very Mitt-friendly "Live Free or Die" state) and his increasing desperation has made him extremely negative, a quality that, unlike Newt, does not come naturally to him nor, unlike Newt, is one he's good at. At last week's debate he vowed to stay positive yet within the first minutes of Monday's debate he went for Gingrich's jugular, claiming he was "disgraced" out of Washington in the late 90's. Moderator Brian Williams dutifully called him on this clear flip-flop. "Here we are again," lamented Williams.

After a landslide victory in South Carolina, it would appear that Gingrich's momentum in the South will continue--the next big primary being Florida on January 31--while Santorum continues to split the evangelical vote. But the truth is, Gingrich has zero chance of winning the nomination. He's under-funded, has little organization on the ground in most states, and is the king of self-destruction. He's a cranky, bitter, baggage-laden old insider who's laughably portraying himself as the outsider most qualified to reign in Washington's excess and crony capitalism. The man who helped break the system wants voters to believe that only he can fix it. This is a campaign that has, for all intents and purposes, already imploded. Like a volcano, the visible eruption simply has yet to surface.

Santorum is simply too extreme to catch fire among moderates and independents. His campaign is running on fumes since his big Iowa surprise. But fumes won't propel him much further, especially as Newt remains the temporary favorite among hard-core conservatives. The former Pennsylvania Senator with the humiliating 18-point defeat in 2008 will soon be forced to join the Suspension Club and watch from the sidelines with Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann and Jon Huntsman Jr.

Which brings us back again to Mr. Improbable. It's hard to imagine a party nominating someone whom it seemingly despises. Someone so fake, so disingenuous, so elitist, so unable to connect with regular folk on any conceivable level. This guy's so stiff I could iron my shirts on him. He's flip-flopped so many times that Birkenstock should name a sandal after him. No one, especially Mitt himself, seems to have a clue what he truly believes in his core. And that's a disaster for a politician. Plus, he's a Mormon. Don't underestimate how big a problem this has already been for him. It just might be one big reason he can't break from 25%.

In their rapacious hunger for the nomination, Gingrich and Romney are ripping each other to shreds, putting each other on the defensive over wealth, scandal and electability. And they're creating the templates for Obama's eventual ads. To be sure, the Newt & Mitt Show is going to get even uglier by the minute. So ugly in fact that by the time someone is left standing in August, whoever the hell that is, he and the party will be so weak that Obama will have a cakewalk to re-election.

Is there a chance there will be no clear winner by August? Is there a possibility of a brokered convention? Will the party's leaders entice a Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie or Paul Ryan to come to Tampa for a chance to grab the Oval Office keys? At this point, anything's possible.

The Hypocrisy of South Carolina's Conservatives

Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina primary Saturday by a landslide. Exit polls showed that 60% of voters said that religion, and a candidate's faith, was the primary reason they voted for someone. And an overwhelming majority of those folks voted for Gingrich, the thrice married philanderer whose current wife Callista is an admitted cheater who slept with another woman's husband for six years. Then there's Rick Santorum, the bible-thumpin' pseudo-preacher with the seemingly rock-solid marriage, who came in a distant third. What's wrong with this picture?

Perhaps South Carolina's uber-religious believe that absolving Newt of his past indiscretions simultaneously absolves them of their own, maybe even giving them license to continue this salacious behavior. It's a little club of rich, white, God-fearing male philanderers with a self-serving philosophy towards faith and fidelity:

"We are Christians. We believe in Jesus. We believe that people should live a clean, wholesome, family-values life. We believe in the sanctity of marriage, and that this great institution should be between a man and a woman. We believe that those who don't share our views on God and religion are not people of faith. Now, we do accept the fact that some of us may chase some tail every now and then, and when we do, the Lord will be be quick to forgive and forget. No sense gettin' all crazy over a silly little affair...or two...or three. But we'll continue to lecture everyone else in the world about how they should behave."

The hypocrisy in Saturday's primary results is mind-numbing. Gingrich arrogantly preaches about the "sacrament of marriage" and rants on endlessly about President Obama being the most "radical" president in history, yet when it comes to his own bedroom and relationships he's been so radical he's practically re-written the marital laws single-handedly. True conservatives, especially evangelicals, should be running from him like he was Lucifer incarnate. Instead they lavish him with a landslide. They believe Newt and Callista make for a perfect First Couple; the perfect symbols of American marriage, and appropriate role models for our children (one wonders just what Callista's official "cause" would be if she were First Lady. Loyalty? Honor? Integrity? Fidelity?)

South Carolinians, and perhaps conservatives elsewhere as the primary season continues, appear oddly happy and eager to forgive Gingrich, the "69 year old grandfather," for his sins. I think that says an awful lot about religion, and its role in Republican politics, in America today.