Swami Uptown Archive: February 2005

Thought for Today

February 28, 2005 | 2:00 p.m.

Pinocchio's had his nose done!

Sleeping Beauty is popping pills!

The Three Little Pigs ain't kosher!

Betty Boop works Beverly Hills!

Fred Flintstone is dyslexic,

Jessica Rabbit is really a man,

Olive Oyl is really anorexic,

Casper's in the Ku Klux Klan!

--

Robin Williams was going to sing these lyrics

at the Academy Awards as a way of making fun of James C. Dobson, head of Focus on the Family. Last month Dobson's group attacked SpongeBob SquarePants and other cartoon characters for appearing in a video about tolerance that was allegedly "pro-homosexual." ABC found the song offensive and cut it from the show.

Checking In: 'As Happy As a Jew can be in Berlin in 1936'

February 28, 2005 | 2:00 p.m.

I'm baaack. Huge thanks, Hollywood hugs and, where appropriate, wet kisses to Amy Sullivan, Surya Das, Asma Hasan, and Karen Collins for the brilliant pinch-hitting stints. I learned a ton from this quartet--first about the range of spiritual experience, but also about my own beliefs in the light of theirs. That is, I was brought up short by who I'm not and may never be.

Eons ago, in a time when a normal person did a joint every night and acid every other weekend, a friend went to medical school. To keep his mind clear, he stopped taking any substances. The unanticipated result? After three weeks, he declared, "Reality is like LSD--what a trip."

That's what February was for me: a showdown with sobriety. I'm not talking about substances and vintages. I mean a deeper look into the news, more attentive listening, a willingness to follow thoughts to their destination, however unpleasant. I had no specific aim--I just wanted more congruence with reality.

And where do I find myself after a month of repose? Answer: more pissed-off than ever. And less tolerant of the people and policies that piss me off.

Here's the thing about reality: It's real. Yeah, it's Maya. Yeah, it's a dream that is real only because large numbers of people collectively agree about it. But cutting a monthly check to the aged....dropping after-school programs.....dispatching suspected terrorists to countries where we know they'll be tortured--this stuff happens. This reality has shape and solidity and effect. It changes reality...forever.

Can the words of one blogger stop it? No. But the words of a hundred have weight. And the words of those who feel as we do have a little more weight. Remember

Mario Savio's speech at Berkeley in 1964

?

There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop.

We're not there yet. But we're getting there. So forgive me if I don't spend much time affirming the sweetness of my personal life and the satisfaction of my personal quest. Let's leave it at this: I am as happy as a Jew could be in Berlin in 1936.

Baby, It's You

February 28, 2005 | 2:00 p.m.

[NOTE: If you have not seen "Million Dollar Baby" and you plan to and you do not know the plot twist at the end of the movie, you are advised to stop reading now.]

I never voted for a winner until I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. My favorite CDs never get nominated for Grammys. I doubt anyone else even has heard about most of the books I read. But last night at the Academy Awards, a film I adored--"Million Dollar Baby"--walked off with Oscars for Best Picture, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor and Best Director.

I loved this movie precisely because it was a movie, not a cleverly-packaged marketing strategy. It was made on a small budget, shot in just 37 days and not particularly loved by the studio that released it. But Clint Eastwood, director and star, had faith in the film--and the audience. And while very few people have seen it (gross to date: $64 million), those who went generally found themselves moved to tears. And, even more, when they went home, the movie stayed with them.

We talk about "Million Dollar Baby" because, like life, it's messy. Things happen that you wish would not have occurred. Characters make decisions you might not have made. So you debate. You argue. You are, in short, engaged by the film--and when was the last time that happened for you?

That "Million Dollar Baby" even exists is a small miracle. That it's been honored makes me feel there is some hope for Good Work in our bland, pandering, no-risk culture.

But poor

Loose Canon

! She put the whammy on "Million Dollar Baby"--her least favorite film of the year and, worse, in her view, a nasty piece of propaganda: "a pro-euthanasia sermon"--and it goes on to win four Oscars. And then the Academy Award for Best Foreign Film goes to "The Sea Inside," another film about a paraplegic who wants to die.

If Loose Canon was short of proof that liberals with an anti-life agenda have seized control of Hollywood, she has it now. Oh, my, what a scandal. A full-fledged conspiracy to rid the world of anyone too decrepit to drive a Volvo. I fully expect her idol, Ann Coulter, to hold seances with a view toward exhuming her idol, Senator Joseph McCarthy. Now there was a guy who could get to the bottom of this! Subpoena those LA Yids! Make them admit their twisted desires to kill the weak, the terminally ill, the aged poor....No, sorry, got that wrong--that's the President's plan to "fix" Social Security.

Hey, if you want to talk about conspiracies, let's talk about Loose Canon and her cadre. They had no problem revealing the "secret" of the ending of "Million Dollar Baby"--a violation of one of the oldest codes of film-reviewing. (On the other hand, just last week, LC was oddly scrupulous about a film with a "secret" no one could care less about: "Loose Canon isn't going to spoil Constantine, the new movie in which Keanu Reeves plays a failed suicide/exorcist who has the ability to see fallen angels and demons, by revealing the ending." Consistency, please, LC!)

Give LC credit--she was blunt about it. Michael Medved is the influential conservative film reviewer who dispenses marching orders to lesser conservative writers. Here he is in the Wall Street Journal last week (no link available). on the controversy he generated about "Million Dollar Baby" by disclosing the ending:

As a matter of fact, I never disclosed specifics on the movie's dark surprise, nor indicated which of its endearing characters chose to exercise "the right to die."

Do you love it? He ruins the end for those who haven't seen "Million Dollar Baby," but doesn't tell you if it's Clint, Morgan Freeman or Hilary Swank who dies. What a sweetheart!

I go on at this length about matters seemingly unrelated to the movie because, in an effort to defame the film and all connected to it, LC and a bunch of conservatives revealed something more important than the plot's surprise--their view that everything is political. And, of course, any political message they don't agree with must be crushed.

I find this way of thinking stupid in the extreme--and considering the crudeness of the position, astonishing to see under the bylines of educated, otherwise sensitive people. I mean, I know LC. She was raised right. She can cut her meat with a knife and fork. And here she is, along with Rush and Medved and a handful of others, advancing an argument from the intellectual gutter--that Clint Eastwood set out to make a film glorifying euthanasia.

I have spent hours on the Web, looking for a single quotation from Eastwood that suggests he has ever stated a position on euthanasia--any position at all. He never has.

Why did Eastwood make the movie? Because the characters and plot were compelling. A man who's lost a daughter gains another. A woman who's lost a father finds a new one. And then a terrible thing happens, and he must decide whether to help her end her life--and, symbolically at least, his as well. (For a nuanced discussion of this seemingly simple but terrifically sophisticated film, please see my

interview with Sufi sheikh Kabir Helminski

.)

Here's

James Wolcott

on Medved and this attack on Eastwood's movie:

The movie tells a story, the story deepens and darkens, and the dilemma the characters face is dramatized as a wrenching quandary, a mortal decision; like most tragic stories, it carries the pall of the irrevocable. To vulgarize it as disguised propaganda is to miss its artistry entirely, but then again to Medved, art is something that should carry warning labels so that gullible doofuses (his target audience) won't be lured astray.

He says now that his "main objection" to the movie is its "misleading marketing," which barely hints at its "pitch-dark substance." The man clearly doesn't know how to read images or interpret visual tones. The very sombre, purgatorial look of the film and its ads more than hints at what Medved thinks should have been slapped on the counter like fresh fish.

And here is David Mamet, removing personalities to talk about the role of drama:

Bad drama reinforces our prejudices. It informs us of what we knew when we came into the theater - the infirm have rights, homosexuals are people, too, it's difficult to die. It appeals to our sense of self-worth, and, as such, is but old-fashioned melodrama come again in modern clothes (the villain here not black-mustachioed, but opposed to women, gays, racial harmony, etc.).

The good drama survives because it appeals not to the fashion of the moment, but to the problems both universal and eternal, as they are insoluble.

To find beauty in the sad, hope in the midst of loss, and dignity in failure is great poetic art.

Eastwood has done exactly that. The members of the Academy recognized him for it. I don't hold this group up as an example of infallibility--far from it, I usually disagree with their choices. But my disagreement is on the Mamet level: I found Film X to be more powerful/funny/artistic than film Y.

You can say a film with Sean Penn sucks because he went to Iraq and wrote about his opposition to the war--and if you're of a certain mindset, you'll hate "Mystic River" for that reason alone. Yes, but what about that moment when he knows the dead girl in the woods is his daughter and 20 policemen can scarcely hold him back? One of the most heartbreaking moments in the history of film. Too bad Sean Penn was the actor. Wait, wasn't that pinko Tim Robbins in that movie? Another reason to hate it.

Yes, it often happens that actors with liberal or leftist politics appear in films that have social and political content. But they appear as characters, not as cartoons--they check their egos at the door and "become" other people. That's why they call it acting.

It's also why writing isn't necessarily preaching, and directing isn't necessarily promoting. And why distribution companies and publishers put out movies and books and CDs by artists who do not share their values.

This is one of the glories of America. It's strange that people who have benefited from diversity and tolerance don't get it. And frightening that, rather than disagree with artistic works on the merits, they feel compelled to slander and defame. The good news--this time--is that Hollywood didn't listen.

Beyond the dust-up over "Million Dollar Baby" is what comes next. This cadre is so sure of its mission we'll surely see it attack some other filmmaker who's made the mistake of doing a film that's--gasp!--About Something. And then we'll have this fight all over again.

I'm reminded of a John Cheever story, "Goodbye, My Brother." It's about a family get-together at a beach house. A brother arrives. He's impossible. It's not that his ideas are offensive or his manners ruffle the others--it's that his basic assumptions about life and human relationships are so nasty, so off, that no one can deal with him. This is how the story ends:

Oh, what can you do with a man like that? What can you do? How can you dissuade his eye in a crowd from seeking out the cheek with acne, the infirm hand; how can you teach him to respond to the inestimable greatness of the race, the harsh surface beauty of life; how can you put his finger for him on the obdurate truths before which fear and horror are powerless? The sea that morning was iridescent and dark. My wife and my sister were swimming --- Diana and Helen --- and I saw their uncovered heads, black and gold in the dark water. I saw them come out and I saw that they were naked, unshy, beautiful, and full of grace, and I watched the naked women walk out of the sea.

Medved and LC and Rush would never recognize themselves in that paragraph. Nor would they recognize it as art. But you can be damned sure they'd be interested in Diana and Helen. And they'd want to know if those naked women had had abortions, or something like that, so they would have a reason to condemn this gorgeous piece of writing.

The Beauty Part

February 28, 2005 | 2:00 p.m.

You've heard a snatch of his music, but never seen an ad for it because he made this 4-song CD on his own and is selling it at $7.99. If you make the mistake of buying it, be warned:

Alexi Murdoch

will turn you into an acolyte, and you may never play another CD again.

Karen Collins (Mrs. Swami Uptown) is an ecumenical spiritual seeker and lifelong progressive whose prize possession is an autograph from Hubert Humphrey. A recovering Rapture Christian, she flirted with Catholic Charismatics, attempted levitation according to the Rosicrucian method, attended Naropa Institute to study Buddhism and has spent time at Gurumayi Chidvilasananda's ashrams. All her major crushes have been Jewish men, and then she married one. Thich Nhat Hahn is her spiritual teacher now, which helps her stay in every precious moment with her three-year-old daughter, Little Uptown.

Thoughts for Today

February 25, 2005 | 4:40 p.m.

I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.

-- Susan B. Anthony

I imagine one of the reasons people cling to their hates so stubbornly is because they sense, once hate is gone, they will be forced to deal with pain.

-- James Baldwin

Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.

-- John 8:7

Valuing Families

February 25, 2005 | 4:40 p.m.

Some of you have asked me about my spiritual experiences. I won't bore you with a long tale, but I think I can tell a quick story that will help my readers understand where my point of view comes from.

At 32, I checked myself into rehab at St. Mary's in St. Paul, Minnesota. (I think of Minnesota as "the land of ten thousand treatment centers.") The counselors said I was going to need a "higher power" to replace the Jack Daniels that been keeping the pain at bay. I had long ago abandoned organized religion, so there I was, feeling very alone, sitting on a cold metal chair in an empty hospital meeting room, wondering what on earth I was going to do. I asked myself: "What can I believe?" I was pretty sure there is some consciousness that lives on after physical death. In that case, other departed spirits might be hanging out; I decided to "talk" to them. That might be Jesus, Buddha or someone's great aunt--whatever, just do it. And I did. I am now 16 years sober, so there must be someone there who heard me.

I contacted God all by myself, with no priest, no rabbi and no holy book. Yes, I had much wisdom from my studies of the world's religions and holy men and women in my subconscious, but for once, I had my own organic experience with God. I often felt when I was a Christian, or trying to be, that I was living off the experiences others had, hoping it might rub off on me. The scriptures are heresay--someone thousands of years ago saw or heard something, assumed it was from God and told someone else, and at that point, it becomes Chinese telephone. Everyone in the churches, ashrams and sanghas I attended seemed so clear about God. But I never got there myself. Until I stripped it all away and just spoke from my heart.

There is much value in organized faiths, but not for me. While I respect everyone's choices, I just can't believe that any man or woman living now or long ago has the whole truth. I abhor the certainty of most religions because I don't believe any of us can define God for anyone else.

But the Christian Right insists that only people who believe in the Bible have morals. And that leads me to today's theme: Morality and Family Values--and why don't I have them?

Just what are "Family Values?" The press and everyone else assume that the GOP is the party of Family Values, but has anyone defined this? I want only the best for my child and my husband, I have a strong loving marriage, I don't want my daughter to dress like Britney or drink until she is of legal age or have sex until she is fully mature and in love or see age-inappropriate programs on TV. I want my neighborhood and parks to be safe for my daughter. We visit her grandmothers as often as we can, spend holidays and summers with my family. Swami calls his mother almost every day. I don't know, what else is there?

Could it be the rejection and vilification of homosexuals that makes one full of Family Values? Isn't that really what this coded term means?

Alan Keyes--who's always a candidate for something, somewhere--must have Family Values as he's a conservative Republican. He just threw his 19-year-old daughter Maya out of the house and stopped paying her tuition at Brown because she decided to be honest about her sexual orientation. Here is

some of what Maya Keyes had to say

:

"Most parents would be thrilled to have a child who doesn't smoke, have sex, do drugs, hardly drinks...does well in school, gets good grades, gets into the Ivy League...goes regularly to church, and spends free time mentoring kids.

I would be thrilled if my daughter turned out as well as Maya Keyes. But then, I obviously don't understand Family Values.

I can't think of anything--apart from hating homosexuals--that separates my family values from Alan Keyes's. What am I missing?

What Will We Tell the Children?

February 25, 2005 | 4:40 p.m.

When I have debated the gay marriage/parenting issue with members of the Religious Right, they always ask: "What will we tell our children?"

I guess they resent the thought of having to be kind and accepting if their child should ask about the new kid, Tommy, who has two mothers. Is it too hard for them to simply say: "We don't believe that God wants two women or two men to live together, but we will be nice to Tommy and not say anything bad about his family." Why is that so hard for followers of Christ? And isn't this the only problem for them? Why did PBS have to pull a cartoon when one of its characters visited a kid in Vermont who had two mothers? The mothers were never mentioned, yet the Secretary of Education had this episode pulled. Why? Well, what would we tell our children when they ask who those two women are?

The Christian Right is unable to treat alternative families with simple decency and respect. They resent being asked to be tolerant. They want homosexuals back in the closet so they don't have to confront the issue. My mother used to say, "It takes all kinds to make a world." But the Christian Right wants anyone who is not their kind, hidden away. Christian Reconstructionists and Dominionists want them rounded up and executed. I kid you not.

Dr. Dobson of Focus on the Family--he believes in corporal punishment; that's another way, I guess, my family values are not as good--is afraid of cartoon characters who appear to be teaching kids to be tolerant. We have a relative-- a conservative and religious Republican--who writes for a major newspaper. She was going to write a piece about the harmful effects of gay marriage on families, but had to abandon the project because there was nothing to say. And, trust me, she was really looking to prove this.

Vermont has had civil marriages for five years now. If there were some detrimental effect on straight marriage, we would have heard. Proud to say my state of New York may be next. Interesting to me that the Right feels it has to pass amendments to constitutions to stop the courts from requiring equal rights for gay couples. That can only mean that our federal and state constitutions actually do guarantee equal rights for all. Can't have that!

Marriage, to the State, is a contract. Just like the contract you sign when you sell a house or enter into a business partnership. The State is not in the sacrament business. Why is it not enough for religious organizations to deny gay people a God-approved marriage? Why do they have to deny them any kind of legal contract? Oh, yeah, what will we tell the children?

Low Down Tactics

February 25, 2005 | 4:40 p.m.

The GOP uses homophobia to get Black churches on their side. This is deeply cynical and

outright dangerous to Black women

.

In 2003, the rate of new AIDS cases for black women was 20 times that of white women and five times greater than the infection rate for Latinas.

"

On the Down Low

," a bestselling book by J. L. King, explains why acceptance and openness of homosexuality in the Black community could save lives:

These men live "on the down low," the "DL," for short, and their sexual activities have gained significant notice as the rate of HIV/AIDS infection in black women has skyrocketed, with the vast majority of cases coming from heterosexual sex. King is a veteran of the DL himself and his book serves partly as a social and psychological survey of the other men he has surveyed and partly as highly candid memoir. King was well regarded in his community, popular at his church, successful in his career, and married to a woman who had no idea that his secret life existed. But when she caught him in a lie and with another man, the marriage collapsed and King's long and painful path to self-awareness began. King cites the negative image many socially conservative black men have of homosexuality as an obstacle to those men being honest with their partners and themselves about who they are.

The GOP's support for intolerance of gay relationships in the Black community is literally killing people--Republicans should be ashamed of their party.

If Christians really want to "save" gay people and other Liberal sinners from an eternity in hell, their time would be better spent reaching out and accepting people--living as an example of Christ's love--rather than trying to legislate sin out of existence, or, at least, out of their extremely limited field of vision. There is lots of behavior that offends my sensibilities--like Hasidic boys playing in the hot sun wearing heavy black clothes, big hats and curls--but if something only offends my sensibilities, do I have a right to try to legislate it away? And don't get me started on the arranged marriages of young girls in the Mormon community. I don't like it. I think it's wrong, but should I try to stop them? Wish I could. But then, I wish I could make everyone a Buddhist. But I can't. And, for so many reasons, shouldn't try.

Rick Santorum, the extreme right-wing Senator, doesn't get it:

"I'm talking at a very protective level about what is important to our society if we are to be a free people," he said. "The less virtue we have in our society, the more the need for government to control our lives, to govern our lives."

In other words, government needs to enforce virtue in order to keep government out of our lives.

Einstein said: "Force always attracts those of low morality." He got that right.

Are We There Yet?

February 25, 2005 | 4:40 p.m.

What if homosexuality is natural and not--as homophobes claim--a "choice"? This might be

another clue

:

Dr Qazi Rahman and colleagues from the University of East London reported in Behavioural Neuroscience that homosexual men used more landmarks during map reading than did heterosexual men, adopting a blend of male and female navigational strategies.

And then there are

those darn gay penguins

:

Four Swedish female penguins were dispatched to the Bremerhaven Zoo in Bremen after it was found that three of the zoo's five penguin pairs were homosexual.

Keepers at the zoo ordered DNA tests to be carried out on the penguins after they had been mating for years without producing any chicks. It was only then they realized that six of the birds were living in homosexual partnerships.

She said that the birds had been mating for years and one couple even adopted a stone that they protected like an egg.

Speaking of eggs, we are friends with three sets of gay parents. In fact, we have already "promised" Little Uptown--in jest--to the son of some lesbian parents. My hairdresser has pictures of his child all over his refrigerator just like any "normal" father. He moved out of Manhattan so he could have a house with a yard for his son. These are well-loved, happy kids with responsible parents. That is what I will tell my child.

Oh, Canada

February 25, 2005 | 4:40 p.m.

Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin

gave a powerful address in support of the Civil Marriage Act being considered by the Canadian parliament. I urge you to click and read the entire text. His eloquence in defense of minority rights is thrilling:

This is an important day. Our deliberations will be not merely about a piece of legislation or sections of legal text - more deeply, they will be about the kind of nation we are today, and the nation we want to be.

This bill protects minority rights. This bill affirms the Charter guarantee of religious freedom. It is that straightforward, Mr. Speaker, and it is that important.

The Charter was enshrined to ensure that the rights of minorities are not subjected, are never subjected, to the will of the majority. The rights of Canadians who belong to a minority group must always be protected by virtue of their status as citizens, regardless of their numbers. These rights must never be left vulnerable to the impulses of the majority.

We embrace freedom and equality in theory, Mr. Speaker. We must also embrace them in fact.

There is one question that demands an answer - a straight answer - from those who would seek to lead this nation and its people. It is a simple question: Will you use the notwithstanding clause to overturn the definition of civil marriage and deny to Canadians a right guaranteed under the Charter?

This question does not demand rhetoric. It demands clarity. There are only two legitimate answers - yes or no. Not the demagoguery we have heard, not the dodging, the flawed reasoning, the false options. Just yes or no.

Will you take away a right as guaranteed under the Charter? I, for one, will answer that question, Mr. Speaker. I will answer it clearly. I will say no.

To those who value the Charter yet oppose the protection of rights for same-sex couples, I ask you: If a prime minister and a national government are willing to take away the rights of one group, what is to say they will stop at that? If the Charter is not there today to protect the rights of one minority, then how can we as a nation of minorities ever hope, ever believe, ever trust that it will be there to protect us tomorrow?

Of course, the American Christian Right is funding opposition to this Canadian initiative. Spending time and money winning hearts and minds--that's "hard work," as Bush would say.

Can You Hear Me Now?

February 25, 2005 | 4:40 p.m.

I am sure you have all heard about Doug Wead, an author and former aide to President Bush's father, who secretly taped phone conversations with then Governor George W. Bush. It's not the content that is interesting, it's the cynical attitude Bush has about his coveted Evangelical voting block. He wants to use those Christians to get elected, but he was wary of unnerving secular voters by meeting publicly with evangelical leaders. When he thought his aides had agreed to such a meeting, Mr. Bush complained to Karl Rove, his political strategist, "What the hell is this about?" He also says on the tapes that he won't fire gays because he doesn't believe in discriminating against people and he won't "kick gays" to make the Religious Right happy.

Where has this man been hiding these past 5 years?

The George Bush who was elected President is more than happy for his party and his followers to kick gays whenever possible. His entire 2004 domestic election strategy was scaring homophobes with the prospect of a legion of gay marriages to get them to the polls. At the same time, while he says he supports an amendment to the Constitution to keep gays from marrying, he doesn't lift a finger to help make this happen. His education secretary pulls cartoons encouraging tolerance; he says nothing. The Swift Boat liars run an attack ad against AARP that accuses this senior advocacy group of hating our soldiers and loving gay marriage, and he says nothing. Bush cynically uses religion and homophobia to divide and conquer, so I might ask, what does Mr. Steely Resolve really believe in? Getting elected at any cost. As he says on the tapes:

I may have to get a little rough for a while," he told Mr. Wead, "but that is what the old man had to do with Dukakis, remember?"

'Hey Hey Ho Ho'

February 25, 2005 | 4:40 p.m.

"Social Security has got to go." Oops--not sure the groups trying to sell Social Security "reform" wanted it known that their true agenda is to eliminate Social Security as we know it in favor of market-dependent private pensions. But that is what happened when Senator Rick Santorum was entering a town hall meeting on Social Security at Drexel University. The College Republicans were shouting down other protesters with that unfortunate chant.

Embarrassing video

can be seen here.

I have some personal experience with Social Security. My parents died when my sister and brother and I were all quite young, but we were kept afloat by Social Security Orphan Benefits. Has anyone heard what Bush's plan is for these survivor benefits and the monthly payments that most disabled people depend on for basic necessities? (And there will be no more big settlements to help the disabled if malpractice or corporate malfeasance is to blame for their inabitlity to hold a job, thanks to "torte reform." ) Both of my grandmothers existed almost exclusively on Social Security, supplemented by their modest savings, until they were in their later 90s.

In a world called Perfect, every family is close-knit and loving and we all have houses big enough for our parents to move into when they are too old to work, and everyone has enough discretionary income to feed and clothe and provide medical care to 2-4 more people. But we don't live in Perfect. And those of us in the reality-based community feel that it is our duty as human beings to make sure that people who worked all their lives, raised families or not, are comfortable in their old age. What kind of a society abandons its elderly, widowed, orphaned and disabled to the whims of the capitalist free-markets?

Can you imagine Jesus picking up his carpenter's paycheck and complaining about the Social Security deduction: "I don't care if it puts others at risk, I know I could make more investing this money myself." Again, the people who want this country to be more "Christian" have joined the chorus of complainers.

Social Security works. Operating expenses are only 1% of its total budget. With a little tinkering, like raising the cap on taxable income, which is now $90,000, and raising the retirement age by a couple of years, Social Security is saved. Ok, next non-crisis please.

Helping Women

February 25, 2005 | 4:40 p.m.

Women For Women International

is helping the female victims of war in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Rwanda, Kosovo, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Colombia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. They have assisted more than 24,000 women, distributing $14 million in direct aid and microcredit loans. These women, most victims of vicious campaigns of rape, are cultural outcasts through no fault of their own. The stories these women tell will shock and horrify, yet they keep going with the help of this organization.

Societies where woman are repressed or invisible have more chaos and violence. Literate women raise literate children. I really believe that improving the lives of woman will go a long way to promote peace and lift nations out of poverty. If you want to do something to help this crazy world, take a look at the work of this worthy organization. In the words of the one of the women:

"This is the first time I am talking about what has happened to me in such details, and confiding in someone. I have never told these things to anyone. This is the first time that I found someone who is sincerely interested in me. I have told you all these details because you are another woman. You have treated me with humanity and respect; you have expressed an interest in me and who I am despite my situation. You have expressed a willingness to listen. It is one thing to have been through what I have been through, but to have no one acknowledged your pain enhances that pain threefold. To suffer in silence is the greatest kind of suffering. Your willingness to recognize my humanity has given voice to my distress and meaning to my pain."

Reasons to Be Cheerful

February 25, 2005 | 4:40 p.m.

Is there any hope for the tolerant, live and let live, rule of law America I believe in? Where there is life, there is hope. And also, where there is internet access.

It's getting harder for policy makers to keep their nefarious plans under the radar. Example: Recently in Virginia a lawmaker introduced a bill requiring all women to report a miscarriage to the local police within 12 hours, no matter how many weeks or months along the fetus was before the miscarriage. Through the power of the internet, this item made the rounds of all the progressive blogs--including this one. The attention this brought, along with emails and phone calls, shamed the Virginia lawmaker into withdrawing the bill. National ridicule also forced another Virginia lawmaker to withdraw a bill that would have fined people $50 if their underwear showed above their pants in public. So we need to be vigilant to keep the internet free and uncensored and to protect the opportunity it affords us for dissent to flourish.

Thanks for reading me this week and for all your kind words and for the not-so-kind words--provoking discussion and allowing dissent are good for all of us. And thanks to Beliefnet for allowing me to empty out part of my backlog of outrage. I really wanted to talk about morality and the Federal Budget, the real crisis--health care--which I consider a basic human right and the Family Values issues of jobs and the economy, but it is time to let go of the keyboard...

The Beauty Part

February 25, 2005 | 4:40 p.m.

She's Canadian, she doesn't tour much, and she releases CDs when she feels like it. So it's entirely possible that you have never heard of

Jann Arden

or her compelling, deceptively straightforward songs. Lucky you. Joy awaits.

Continued on page 2: »