Let's say I decide to raise money for a group, charity, or individual. I raise a decent amount of money then suddenly find out that the particular group, charity, or individual no longer exists. Which of the following do you think would be an appropriate response?
I'm going to go ahead and say 99.9% of you would prefer one of the first two options. These things would just be decent and ethical. However, this doesn't seem to be the case with one Greta Christina.
You may remember that I mentioned here and on Twitter a few months back that I was going to leave Ms. Christina alone as she was dealing with a cancer scare. In my past and currently, I've dealt with and am dealing with a cancer scare.
Greta decided to ask for help back on October 18, 2012. She apparently received quite a bit of money as she was covered for her mortgage and other expense for a few months. In my world, that accounts for at least $6-8K (low-ball as we have a $1,700 mortgage and utilities are around $400 or so a month). When she had raised enough, she did ask for people to donate to something else if they felt the need. Well enough. Do keep in mind that Greta has insurance so this was money to cover her in case she was out of work for a bit. Most of us prepare in advance and have a bit of a "rainy day fund" or something set aside in savings just for this sort of thing. But this is beside the point.
The next time we heard about Greta Christina's cancer scare was November 1, 2012 where she let us know that she had stage 1 cancer and a hysterectomy would take care of this problem. She states her cancer is completely gone and that she will need to rest for a few weeks. A few weeks, not months. And oddly enough, not a lot of information on what she'd do with the months of support donations she received.
She updates us again on December 3, 2012 - pretty much saying that it's taken her a bit longer to recoup and how hard it is to write (as if the hysterectomy has somehow had an effect on her brain and writing skills). Again, no mention of what is going to be done with the obvious extras she received in monetary support. Skip ahead now to January 4, 2013. It's "Fashion Friday" on Ms. Christina's blog and she regales us with how totally awesome her new $259 Fluevog shoes are. Yeah. Here's the sticky point.
Now don't get me wrong. I don't begrudge anyone the desire and ability to buy new shoes. Hell, I'm in desperate need of some winter boots at the moment but am holding off. The issue I have is that she hasn't even once stated what will be done with the obvious extra amount of money she received. Not once.
I mentioned my outrage on Twitter and it was picked up by people I don't follow but whom obviously have a hard-on for me and like to read everything I put out. Fair enough. But these people are actually calling Greta a "cancer survivor". While I know technically she is, she has not had to go through the sheer hell most cancer survivors have been through. At this very moment I'm having to wait until the end of the month to find out if my guy has lymphoma. He has a growth in his neck that is going to be removed and analyzed as well as a back of the throat camera check to look at another "anomoly". I was with my mother when her husband was ravaged and eaten up by squamous cell carcinoma. I lived across the street from a woman who had a mastectomy. These people I call cancer survivors. I had pre-cancerous cells on my cervix a number of years back and had cryrosurgery done. It was cleared up. I don't fucking call myself a cancer survivor.
So, that halt I had on criticizing Greta Christina? Oh, it's back on baby. Back on and at full blaze. There's something just very slimey and unethical about what Greta is doing. The scary thing is...these are people that are supposed to be representing the rest of us atheists. This is something I will not abide.