Goodbye, 2007

How could it be that I haven’t posted a blog since July? I guess you could say that the 2^nd half of 2007 was a bit crazed for me. On the personal front, my mom and her husband visited the Oregon Coast for two weeks in August. On the business front, business is good; customer engagement to new heights; trips to Atlanta, Austin and Baltimore; a new self-imposed, earned title of “Information Architect and Field Liaison.”

Overall, 2007 was a year of enormous Spiritual, emotional and professional growth. I was confirmed as an Episcopalian (what I call "the thinking person's Christianity"; where a woman leads the U.S. contingency; a gay man in New Hampshire is a confirmed Bishop; and "priests" do not have to be celibate). I had a significant epiphany about life - (and I will do my best to make it NOT sound like a cliche); that our major objective is to live a daily life of loving-kindness; to give love always in the expectation of zero recompense. What does this mean? It’s really mind-blowing in its simplicity. It is a core tenet of Jesus Christ; that we must give love even though we know we may get nothing in return, except for the joy we get from giving unconditional love. That we must find a sense of equanimity from kindness and calmness, rather than vicissitudes from discord and strife.

I am eagerly anticipating 2008, for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that I turn “the Big 4-ZERO” in September. Allelulia! I feel like I’ve been waiting to turn forty my whole life. (There’s a reason people often refer to me as “an old soul.”) I clearly, distinctly remember when I was 9 or 10 years old, calculating the fact that I would be "32" at the turn of the Century, and then just "8 more years" until I'd turn 40. What would possess a 10-year-old to contemplate such a thing?

Living by “The Four Agreements”

I read many fascinating books in 2007; probably one that most influenced my perspective is “The Four Agreements: A Practical Guide to Personal Freedom, A Toltec Wisdom Book,” by Don Miguel Ruiz. It’s a short book and very accessible; nothing Earth-shattering in terms of depth and complexity. In a nutshell, the author cites ancient Toltec Wisdom as the thrust behind the following mandates for living a full and joyous life:

* Be Impeccable With Your Words: Think carefully about what you say; remember the power your words have to give love. Speak the truth, speak with integrity, and speak lovingly.

* Don't Take Anything Personally: What others say and do is a projection of their own reality. When you are immune to the opinions and actions of others, you won't be the victim of needless suffering.

* Don't Make Assumptions: Find the courage to ask questions and to express what you really want.

* Always Do Your Best: Under any circumstance, simply do your best, and you will avoid self-judgment, self-abuse, and regret.

Be Impeccable With Your Words

I wholeheartedly agree with this idea of being "impeccable with your words." I think we underestimate how powerfully our words can affect people, both positively and negatively. I think this power emanates from the various aspects of the human condition. For example, the wide variety of sensitivity amongst humans. Some people are just much more sensitive than others in terms of how they respond to people's words. What one person may brush off as a casual but marginally offensive remark, another person may be devastated by its implications. Also, think about the richness and ambiguity of language itself. For example, the word "love." Love has so many different definitions and manifestations. I "love" my partner, my child, my friends, my parents and siblings, my dog; but I might also "love" vegetarian lasagna, traveling to New Zealand, a pint of Guinness, the Oregon Coast. With no ambiguity whatsoever, I do love God and Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. And then I also "love" the fantasy I have of seducing Natalie Portman. We can "love" concrete things such as people and places, but also ethereal things such as ideas and fantasies. (This discussion reminds me of that rather cynical Howard Jones song from the late 1980s, "What is Love?") So we have to remember the richness of language, the ambiguities of language, when we speak to other people, in terms of how our words may affect them. And also, we have to remember the various ways our words will be interpreted by various people.

Don't Take Anything Personally

I'm not sure I fully understand, "Don't take anything personally." If we never take anything personally, how can we engage deeply enough with other people to achieve intimacy? Or, is it saying we should avoid intimacy? I guess a lack of intimacy would diminish some pain, but would also cause other kinds of pain. The point, I think, is to not obsess over another person's words or behaviors in terms of what we may or may not have done to "cause" the other person to speak or act in such a manner. That is, I am in no way "responsible" for another person's words or actions. It's easy to dismiss the comments or behaviors of strangers and not take them personally; the challenge is to not take personally the comments and behaviors of our intimates.

Don't Make Assumptions

This is a tough challenge, to not make assumptions. We are conditioned to respond to the world from our own perspective; we're constantly making assumptions based on our own perspectives and our personal filters for how we interface with other people. I think this edict throws a wrench into one of our beloved mantras, "Treat others as you wish to be treated." Because this mantra "assumes" that everyone likes to be treated in the same manner; it allows for very little nuance. Of course, in general, we all like to be treated with respect and kindness. But overall, the way we wish to be "treated" will vary, based on culture, gender, religious beliefs, personal attitudes, and so on.

Always Do Your Best

This one seems like a no-brainer to me. Why wouldn't people always do their best? Well, I guess it depends a lot on our personalities; on what we find inspiring; on the "incentive" factors. I "do my best" to take care of my body, because I want to be healthy and live a full life. I "do my best" at work, because I enjoy the challenges and I need the monetary compensation. I "do my best" with my personal relationships, because I know that personal relationships are a key to providing meaning in life.

"Lead Us Not Into Temptation..."

One line from the Lord's Prayer reads as follows:

”And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”

I thought of this prayer as I watched a fascinating movie over the weekend, Todd Field's “Little Children,” starring Kate Winslet and Patrick Wilson. Based on a book by Tom Perrotta, the movie is richly layered, superbly acted, deeply moving, and profoundly provocative. This review is categorized into two sections: “temptation” and “evil.” Let's look at the following questions:

* Is falling into “temptation” necessarily a bad thing? Are there circumstances in which we become enriched by indulging in temptation?

* How do we characterize “evil”? How do we interface with “evil”?

Warning: the following contains "spoilers" - if you haven't seen the movie "Little Children," and you don't want to know the plot, skip reading this!

"Temptation"

Winslet plays Sarah, a disillusioned young woman, bored with her life as a mother to young Lucy. As a housewife in an upscale New England suburb, many aspects of her life are alien to her, except for her “Room of One's Own,” (Virginia Woolf reference duly noted), where she reads and contemplates her beloved novels and poetry. To make matters worse, she is estranged from her husband; one afternoon she discovers to her disgust that he regularly masturbates while surfing Internet porn (“Slutty Kay” and kitchen utensils?!). This discovery imposes a wide gulf between Sarah and her husband. So wide, in fact, that she relegates her husband to the couch, implying a complete lack of intimacy.

Sarah has a Master's degree in English (she never quite finished her dissertation), and she longs for the intellectual stimulation that her studies provided; but instead she spends her days at the local park with other local moms and their children. The other stay-at-home moms cause conflicting emotions within Sarah. She is alienated by what she perceives as their smallness and cattiness; and yet she also feels inadequate because she's not a militantly organized “super-mom” as the other moms are. This is the community she's “supposed to” feel close to, but she can't bring herself to identify with these women.

Then, a local “house-husband” named Brad enters the picture to stir things up. Though they never actually speak to him, the women at the park have tagged Brad the “Prom King,” as he is exceptionally handsome. Sarah agrees with their assessment, but isn’t as intimidated. On a dare from the other women, Sarah approaches him at the park one morning. (She perceives this as an opportunity to differentiate herself from the other women.) Brad and Sarah strike up small-talk as they push their respective children on the swings. Sarah is struck by how authentic and vulnerable Brad seems as he describes how he’s failed the bar exam twice. As Brad prepares to leave the park, Sarah makes a bold and spontaneous move; she proposes to Brad that they hug in front of the other women. Though they’ve just met, Brad plays along. Immediately after the hug, Sarah follows an impulse to crank up the tension; she suggests that they kiss. Suddenly they share an awkward but intimate kiss on the playground, to the great shock and horror of the other women at the park. This hug and kiss assuages Sarah's sense of alienation and inadequacy (temporarily, at least). And so begins an adulterous affair between Sarah and Brad. The two share their summer days at the local pool with their kids, and then, while the kids nap, indulge in steamy unbridled sex.

The emotional aspect of the affair is most interesting to me. Clearly, both Sarah and Brad share a lustful appetite for each other. But Sarah longs for something more; she covets an emotional connection to mitigate the idea that this affair is exclusively sexual. One afternoon, during sex, Sarah asks Brad, "is your wife pretty?" (According to the book, the character of Sarah is supposed to be a somewhat homely, frumpy woman who feels insecure about her looks. But frankly it's hard for Kate Winslet to look homely and/or frumpy; she's such a beautiful woman, though not the typical "Hollywood-type" beauty.) Brad pleads, “do we have to talk about this now?” and ignores her inquiry, as if it's an inconvenience. She asks again, saying this time, "it's a simple question." But Brad lacks any pretense of emotional intelligence. "Yes, she’s very pretty," he says, without a hint of irony. Later he confides that his wife is “a knock-out,” but then follows up with, "but beauty is overrated." As the narrator points out, this is an easy statement for a beautiful person to make. Sarah is quietly devastated. The subtext of Sarah's question was to engage Brad to notice and acknowledge her own beauty, as he saw her. Rather than sing the praises of Sarah's beauty, Brad answers the question literally, and he completely fails to respond to her desire for an emotional (rather than a purely sexual) connection. We also gain insight from another brief exchange; Brad asks Sarah as they're having sex, "Do you feel bad about this?" "No, I don't," replies Sarah emphatically. Brad replies, "I do. I feel really bad." (Though his “feeling bad” doesn’t seem to diminish his carnal enjoyment.) Sarah's lack of guilt and shame is an offering to Brad of her genuine emotional engagement in this affair. To Sarah, this isn't just sex; she perceives this relationship as having the potential to grow into something "real." But for Brad, this affair is a happy carnal diversion, with none of Sarah’s earnest emotional engagement.

Brad's narcissism ultimately dooms the affair. Sarah is so desperate to “legitimize” her relationship with Brad that she tells Brad that she “can't go on” in the shadows anymore. Brad takes the bait and tells her, “...let's run away together and figure this thing out.” Sarah is elated with the prospect of it. Like two teenagers, they agree to “run away together.” Except that Brad's cowardice combined with his allegiance to his wife (and perhaps his fear of his mother-in-law) ultimately triumph. (Or perhaps it is not entirely fair to characterize Brad as a “coward,” since I think he feels somewhat emasculated as a “house-husband,” completely reliant on his wife and her family for income. Surely it is a blow to his ego when his wife chastises him for ordering magazine subscriptions that he doesn't really “need.” But Brad may be too comfortable with his house-husband status, and unwilling to grapple with the implications of entering the work-force to earn a living in this “man's world.” He might have to actually study and take the bar exam!)

Within this context of compromise, Brad writes a “Dear John...” letter to his wife, but takes the letter with him rather than leaving it where she'll find it. Then, on his way to meet Sarah to enact their great escape together, Brad decides on a whim that it would be more entertaining to skateboard with the local teens at the skate park. When Sarah realizes that Brad has stood her up, her devastation is compounded by her ultimate realization that she was willing to risk her child's safety and future to pursue this ill-fated relationship with an emasculated man. Sarah returns home with her daughter and tucks her in bed, utterly crushed by Brad's choices as well as her own perceived failings.

So what's the “moral” here? Both Sarah and Brad freely chose to “live in the moment” and indulge in temptation. Both Sarah and Brad were dissatisfied with their respective home lives, and found passion and excitement in each other. Despite the ultimately ill-fated course of the relationship, was there nothing redeeming about it? Sarah was able to live out her “Madame Bovary” complex and indulge in an affair that briefly assuaged her assaulted sense of self as a suburban housewife. She took solace from the idea that she was different from other stay-at-home moms. At the end of the affair, she can go on knowing that she made choices and took actions to free herself from her current unhappiness, even if these choices and actions resulted in an outcome she did not anticipate (or perhaps she did anticipate, but chose to ignore). Brad was less vulnerable to the emotional entanglements of the affair (since he was “the beautiful one” and clearly a narcissist), and he benefited from realizing that, despite the alienation from his wife, he did not want to risk losing her and all the comforts that she provides for him. And both Sarah and Brad learned that while we may no longer be teenagers, we can still experience the same ferocious euphoria and profound devastation that can come from indulging in lustful desire. Indulging in temptation can have the temporary but profoundly real effect of making us feel “alive.” Are Sarah and Brad “sinners,” or are they fallible human beings subject to the most basic human frailty of desire and longing, despite the inherent risks and unknowable outcomes?

"Evil"

If the core of the movie is "temptation," the sub-plot of "Little Children" is "evil." A sex offender named Ronnie, having served time for exposing himself to minors, lives in the same neighborhood as Sarah and Brad. Ronnie lives with his elderly mother, in an old house filled with antique clocks. A local ex-cop leads a campaign to inform the community of this sex-offender within the neighborhood, posting flyers and harassing Ronnie at all hours. He even goes so far as to spray paint "EVIL" on the front walk leading to Ronnie's house. The relationship between Ronnie and his mother is touching but also somewhat unnerving. During one conversation, Ronnie's mother prophetically marvels at how fragile life is. "You're a miracle, Ronnie. We're all miracles. Know why? Because as humans, every day we go about our business, and all that time we know... we all know... that the things we love... the people we love, at any time now can all be taken away. We live knowing that and we keep going anyway." His mother, growing concerned at her failing health and the prospect of Ronnie living alone, decides to put a singles ad in the paper for her son. "Mom, I have a psycho-sexual disorder," Ronnie protests. But he agrees to go on the date. The date seems to go well, as Ronnie gently attempts to relate to the young woman - a tragic victim of mental illness herself. At one point during the date, Ronnie says to his her, “…you’re not so bad.” (Pathetically, the woman finds this bland attempt at a complement as rather endearing.) But gentleness evolves into monstrosity on the way home, as he asks her to stop the car and then proceeds to perform a lewd act in her presence. Aghast and terrified, she drops him off at home and speeds away.

Clearly, Ronnie is mentally ill, and he is aware of his illness. But is he "evil"? The tragedy is that he isn't getting the treatment or attention he needs. He is cast as a social pariah, rejected and scorned where ever he goes. One afternoon, he visited the local pool and was publicly humiliated; the entire pool was vacated and the cops arrived to demand that he leave the premises. "I was just trying to cool off," he protested. The mob mentality exhibited at the pool surely cemented Ronnie’s feelings of isolation.

Ronnie certainly suffers from tendencies that are arguably "evil," but society's “mob mentality” and lack of empathy and compassion are arguably just as evil. When his mother dies, he decompensates, as the only thread he had to humanity unraveled. He reads a note from his mother that she wrote on her death bed, which simply states, "Be a good boy." Utterly distraught, because he knows he can't be a "good boy" without her, he mutilates himself with a knife, and the tragedy is complete. Despite his illness, Ronnie is a human being who deserves our compassion and mercy to help him treat his illness, instead of ostracizing and dehumanizing him. But as long as the "evil-doer" (in this case, Ronnie) is available as the easy target for scorn and fury, it exonerates the local suburbanites from looking too deeply at themselves. Ronnie's "evilness" is insidious precisely because it's too obvious, and because it diverts us from the genuine Spiritual path of examining our own behaviors, actions and attitudes toward our fellow humans.

We're All African

The following article originally appeared in Vanity Fair's "Africa" Issue, Summer 2007.

Get this: every single one of us is from Africa! Read this, it will blow you away. It really underscores the fact that everyone is our neighbor.

Out of Africa

Somewhere between 80,000 and 50,000 years ago, Africa saved Homo sapiens from extinction. Charting the DNA shared by more than six billion people, a population geneticist—and director of the Genographic Project—suggests what humanity "owes" its first home.

by Spencer Wells July 2007

For more about the Genographic Project, visit nationalgeographic.com.

Guest editor Bono as a toddler, circa 1961, with maps showing the migrations of his matrilineal (top) and patrilineal ancestors (middle), based on analysis of his DNA. His father's ancestors were among the first modern humans to enter Europe. Courtesy of the Hewson family.

Do you think you know who you are? Maybe Irish, Italian, Jewish, Chinese, or one of the dozens of other hyphenated Americans that make up the United States melting pot? Think deeper—beyond the past few hundred years. Back beyond genealogy, where everyone loses track of his or her ancestry—back in that dark, mysterious realm we call prehistory. What if I told you every single person in America—every single person on earth—is African? With a small scrape of cells from the inside of anyone's cheek, the science of genetics can even prove it.

Here's how it works. The human genome, the blueprint that describes how to make another version of you, is huge. It's composed of billions of sub-units called nucleotides, repeated in a long, linear code that contains all of your biological information. Skin color, hair type, the way you metabolize milk: it's all in there. You got your DNA from your parents, who got it from theirs, and so on, for millions of generations to the very beginning of life on earth. If you go far enough back, your genome connects you with bacteria, butterflies, and barracuda—the great chain of being linked together through DNA.

What about humanity, though? What about creatures you would recognize as being like you if they were peering over your shoulder right now? It turns out that every person alive today can trace his or her ancestry back to Africa. Everyone's DNA tells a story of a journey from an African homeland to wherever you live. You may be from Cambodia or County Cork, but you are carrying a map inside your genome that describes the wanderings of your ancestors as they moved from the savannas of Africa to wherever your family came from most recently. This is thanks to genetic markers—tiny changes that arise rarely and spontaneously as our DNA is copied and passed down through the generations—which serve to unite people on ever older branches of the human family tree. If you share a marker with someone, you share an ancestor with him or her at some point in the past: the person whose DNA first had the marker that defines your shared lineage. These markers can be traced to relatively specific times and places as humans moved across the globe. The farther back in time and the closer to Africa we get, the more markers we all share.

What set these migrations in motion? Climate change—today's big threat—seems to have had a long history of tormenting our species. Around 70,000 years ago it was getting very nippy in the northern part of the globe, with ice sheets bearing down on Seattle and New York; this was the last Ice Age. At that time, though, our species, Homo sapiens, was still limited to Africa; we were very much homebodies. But the encroaching Ice Age, perhaps coupled with the eruption of a super-volcano named Toba, in Sumatra, dried out the tropics and nearly decimated the early human population. While Homo sapiens can be traced to around 200,000 years ago in the fossil record, it is remarkably difficult to find an archaeological record of our species between 80,000 and 50,000 years ago, and genetic data suggest that the population eventually dwindled to as few as 2,000 individuals. Yes, 2,000—fewer than fit into many symphony halls. We were on the brink of extinction.

And then something happened. It began slowly, with only a few hints of the explosion to come: The first stirrings were art—tangible evidence of advanced, abstract thought—and a significant improvement in the types of tools humans made. Then, around 50,000 years ago, all hell broke loose. The human population began to expand, first in Africa, then leaving the homeland to spread into Eurasia. Within a couple of thousand years we had reached Australia, walking along the coast of South Asia. A slightly later wave of expansion into the Middle East, around 45,000 years ago, was aided by a brief damp period in the Sahara. Within 15,000 years of the exodus from Africa our species had entered Europe, defeating the Neanderthals in the process. (Neanderthals are distant cousins, not ancestors; our evolutionary lineages have been separate for more than 500,000 years.) We had also populated Asia, learning to live in frigid temperatures not unlike those on the Moon, and around 15,000 years ago we walked across a short-lived, icy land bridge to enter the Americas—the first hominids ever to set foot on the continents of the Western Hemisphere. Along the way we kept adapting to new climates, in some cases lost our dark tropical skin pigmentation, developed different languages, and generated the complex tapestry of human diversity we see around the world today, from Africa to Iceland to Tierra del Fuego. But the thing that set it all in motion, the thing that saved us from extinction, happened first in Africa. Some anthropologists call it the Great Leap Forward, and it marked the true origin of our species—the time when we started to behave like humans.

Africa gave us the tool we needed, in the form of a powerful, abstract mind, to take on the world (and eventually to decode the markers in our DNA that make it possible to track our amazing journeys). Perhaps just a few small genetic mutations that appeared around 50,000 years ago gave humans the amazing minds we use to make sense of the confusing and challenging world around us. Using our incredible capacity to put abstract musing into practice, we have managed to populate every continent on earth, in the process increasing the size of our population from a paltry few thousand to more than six billion. Now, 50 millennia after that first spark, times have changed. A huge number of things have contributed to Africa's relative decline on the world stage, perhaps most important geography. As Jared Diamond describes in his masterly book Guns, Germs, and Steel, Eurasia, with its East-West axis, allowed the rapid latitudinal diffusion of ideas and tools that would give its populations a huge advantage after the initial leap out of Africa. Couple that with the results of colonial exploitation over the past five centuries, and Africa, despite many strengths and resources, is once again in need, as it was 70,000 years ago. This time, though, things are different.

The world population that was spawned in Africa now has the power to save it. We are all alive today because of what happened to a small group of hungry Africans around 50,000 years ago. As their good sons and daughters, those of us who left, whether long ago or more recently, surely have a moral imperative to use our gifts to support our cousins who stayed. It's the least we can do for the continent that saved us all thousands of years ago.

For more about the Genographic Project, visit nationalgeographic.com.

Dr. Spencer Wells is explorer-in-residence at the National Geographic Society and the director of the Genographic Project.

Dr. Weil's "8 Weeks"

Dr. Andrew Weil is one of my heroes. He's written many books abouts about health, and many revisions thereof. Perhaps his most widely read book is called "8 Weeks to Optimum Health." This book is a God-send for people in this crazy, modern world. In a nutshell, he espouses all the "standard" healthy behaviors that we should all aspire to, such as:

* quit smoking
* exercise (gently; walking is great - no need for torture machines at the gym)
* eat nutritious, whole foods; nothing processed, fried, transfat-ladden, etc., et al.
* drinks lots of water
* limit alcohol consumption
* get enough sleep
* reduce your stress levels
* ...blah blah blah, and all the other pretty much "common sense" behaviors that we've all heard before, from a million different "experts" in a million different ways. None of these recommended behaviors should come as a surprise.

But these "standard" recommendations are not why I love Dr. Weil. What I truly appreciate about Dr. Weil's approach is that he espouses two things that are not necessarily "common sense":

* include beauty as an integral part of your life
* go on a "news fast"

The first one, "include beauty...," I think is something that is just as critical as eating right and exercising (and all the other standards). Dr. Weil recommends that we should always consider our surroundings, and make efforts to "beautify" our world. How? In simply ways. For example:

* buy fresh flowers every week; better yet, plant your own
* take a walk in a local park, a Japanese garden, or visit the beach and/or the mountains as frequently as possible
* visit museums and art galleries often
* attend cultural events, such as the ballet or a concert
* decorate your home and office with beautiful things
* etc. Use your imagination!

In this "beauty" recommendation, Dr. Weil recognizes that our spirits are central to our well-being; beautiful things uplift our spirits, and can have a profound effect on our spiritual and emotional lives. It's cliched, but we can't live on bread alone. One of the things that differentiates us as "human" is our ability to create and appreciate beautiful things. We shouldn't underestimate how important beauty is to our health and overall sense of well-being.

The other aspect that Dr. Weil touts is something he calls "news fasting." What in the world is "news fasting"? "News fasting" is essentially just what you think it might be: go on a "fast" from consuming "the news." That is, stop watching the nightly news, CNN, Headline News, Fox News, MSNBC. Also, stop surfing the various and myriad sources of news on the Internet. Why? Because let's face it: the "news" can be overwhelmingly depressing. And whether we realize it or not, it can have a profound effect on our "state of mind" when we are constantly bombarded with tragedy. Now, Dr. Weil does not suggest that we bury our heads in the sand and live life as a Pollyana. He simply recommends that we consume "news" in smaller doses and avoid the indulgent "rubber necking" that is frequently associated with gratuitous consumption of the "news." Think about this: if you only read The New York Times every Sunday, from cover to cover, there's a good chance that you'd be "up-to-date" on current affairs. And you could instead spend the time that you'd normally spend "consuming news" on such activities as going for a walk, pursuing a hobby, or sitting in the stands of your local AAA baseball team.

Thank you, Dr. Weil, for providing such beneficial recommendations that truly will contribute to health.

Desire, Divinely Inspired

One of the common misunderstandings of Buddhism is the notion that "desire" is the root of all suffering. Actually, it's not exactly "desire" that causes suffering; it is our behavior in response to our desire. More precisely, great suffering is caused when we "cling" to the objects of our desire. And the "object" of our desire is not merely the "object" of our desire; we must come to grips with the fact that he or she is a whole human being. When we acknowledge and truly embrace the other person's whole humanity, our desire is mitigated in a healthy way.

Freud also dabbled in this notion of "desire" as a cause of suffering. But he also believed that we don't control who we desire, but that we do control how we respond to that desire. It's another way of saying that we can't control who we desire; but we don't have to feel guilt and shame about it.

Indeed, I would agree that we don't control who we desire. It's something that we just "feel." This can be somehow liberating if we understand that we are not "responsible" for our feelings of desire. Mark Epstein, author of "Open to Desire: The Truth about What the Buddha Taught," expounds on the idea that desire need not be a cause of suffering and can actually deepen our spiritual lives. He suggests that if we can free ourselves from the guilt and shame of our desire, and just "be" with our desire, we can potentially experience it in new ways that we may not have predicted. From the book:

"Seeing desire as having its own agenda frees us to look at it more evenly. As Sappho observed so many years ago, it comes from elsewhere, stirs us up, makes us question who exactly is in change, and carries the possibility of enrichment as well as the threat of obsession. From this perspective, the arising of desire becomes an opportunity to question, not what we desire, nor what we do with desire, nor even how we make sense out of desire, but what does desire want from us? What is its teaching? We have to be very quiet to listen to desire in this way."

And let's face it: throughout life, we will encounter many situations in which we cannot consummate our desire. Of course, there are many reasons why we don't pursue desire; some of these reasons are:

* one or both parties is in a monogamous relationship
* religious convictions (denying the "flesh," so-to-speak)
* there is simply too much at stake to risk it
* the timing is all wrong
* the desire is unrequited (perhaps the most painful reason)
* the pursuit of desire may put at risk an underlying friendship
* all or any of the above

The list of circumstances that prevents the consummation of desire is long and often complicated. So the key really is to just "be" with our desire, to listen to it, to experience it quietly and not cling to idealized manifestations of consummating the desire.

So are we bound to a life of longing and the ache of unconsummated desire? No, not necessarily. There are coping strategies that we can employ. So this idea of just "being" with our desire, to be open to it, to acknowledge it, to experience it "as is," is fascinating to me. So, what we "do" with our desire will determine how much we suffer. If we can feel our desire "as is," and not cling to it, and not reject it, we have a better chance of diminishing our suffering. Within this context, we have to realize that the satisfaction we think we can get through the consummation of desire is in and of itself ultimately elusive (this reminds me of the Stones' song, "Satisfaction," as in, "I can't get no..."). Deep personal contentment and satisfaction are internal to ourselves; it is a myth that another person can assuage our loneliness and satisfy all our desires.

Another coping strategy is to revere desire as beautiful and mysterious and even divinely inspired. Another passage from the book:

"The next principle of working with desire is to see it as divine. By this, I do not mean simply idealizing the beloved in the manner common in early stages of falling in love, although this is an eye-opening experience in itself. I mean the recognition of how incredible it is to be capable of desiring, or being desired, in the first place. Especially when stripped of all the addictive fixations that can accrue, the mere existence of desire as an energy that can enthuse us is awe inspiring. The recognition of the divine in desire is less about moving toward an ideal than it is about acknowledging its immanence."

I love this excerpt! So, our very emotions are divinely inspired. He continues:

"Everything we see and whatever we desire can be experienced as signs of God's presence. The blue threads, knotted to Moses's clothing, are visceral reminders of this truth, but our own desires can function in much the same way. They, too, are threads of blue, living representations of God's blessings. This is where the spiritual possibilities of desire begin to make sense. Just as the Indian cosmologies refuse to make a distinction between the microcosm and the macrocosm, between the erotic and the divine, so does the Sh'ma seem to indicate a similar linkage. By attending to desire with the same care that we might listen to our souls, we can move out of our usual way of thinking where there are always two: an observer and an observed. The Sh'ma points to non-clinging, toward the dakini, toward the shared subjective reality where there is no object of any kind."

So, in other words, it's all good. It's OK to feel how we feel. Just don't cling to idealized notions of how you "want" things to be. Experience desire "as is," respect the feelings you have, and feel the beauty and wonder and mystery and divinity of just having those feelings in the first place. One more excerpt from the book:

"By learning to see desire as more of an impersonal force, as happens under the spell of prayer, meditation or psychotherapy, the soul is invigorated. The links between desire and the divine are opened as the self's appropriation of desire is loosened. Like a knot around the finger, desire, ever present and often troublesome, can serve as a vivid reminder of our connection to something vaster than over everyday minds."

And finally, this thought: that love (Platonic, "pure" love, that is) is superior anyway to sexual desire. I would tend to agree with this idea overall, because it seems that sexual longing often wanes, while love is a continuing cycle of renewal and replenishment. And it is a reminder that our bodies are transient and temporary, while our spirits are forever. In a way, I can take solace from the idea of nourishing my spirit (especially if my body suffers from longing). Let us live and walk by the Spirit.

Walk by the Spirit, Galatians 5:1, 13-25

1It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

2Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.

3And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.

4You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

5For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness.

6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.

7You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?

8This persuasion did not come from Him who calls you.

9A little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough.

10I have confidence in you in the Lord that you will adopt no other view; but the one who is disturbing you will bear his judgment, whoever he is.

11But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? Then the stumbling block of the cross has been abolished.

12I wish that those who are troubling you would even mutilate themselves.

13For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.

14For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."

15But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.

16But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.

17For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.

18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.

19Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,

20idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions,

21envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

23gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

24Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

25If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.

To Have a Child or Not to Have A Child

One of the great quandaries of modern life for young adults (let’s throw a date range out there and say, those people from 20 to 40) is whether or not to have children. Actually, I think this date range is significant. Those in their twenties (perfectly able physically to procreate) probably aren't feeling so much pressure to "make a decision" about becoming a parent; it's when you cross the threshold of 30 (and certainly, the threshold of 40) that the pressure to decide comes down like a nuclear bomb. (For women, this pressure is directly related to the fact that our fecundity diminishes significantly as we cross the 30 threshold, and only continues to diminish as we age. The biological clock is merciless.)

Much has been written on this subject on my favorite online rag, salon.com. I think about the book I read recently, “Eat Pray Love,” in which the author begins her tale by depicting an image of herself in dire emotional straits, sobbing into the tiles in the bathroom floor, because she’d recently past the “30” threshold and everyone expected her to begin the “baby” process with her husband. Only, she didn’t want to have a baby (even though she loved her husband). She greeted her period every month with a sense of unbridled relief and almost glee. But how can it be, she wondered, that she didn’t want to have a baby? Isn’t that what every woman is “supposed to" want? She suffers through profound emotional turmoil as she wrestles with this quandary of whether to become a parent. And since her husband did want to pursue the traditional parenting path, she figured the only true course was to divorce him; and that she did. He, of course, felt wildly betrayed; he seemed to be deeply shocked, and subsequently devastated, over her decision. Isn't every couple "supposed to" procreate? It's only natural, right? (Well, yes, for straight couples; but that's another blog post.)

I think about the movie, "The Hours," in which the Julianne Moore character, a 50's suburban house wife with the traditional husband and two young children, is talking with her neighbor. This neighbor is having difficulty conceiving a child and is clearly distraught over it. She is seeking medical attention to reverse her perceived misfortune. "I don't think a woman can even call herself a woman until she's a mother, " the neighbor says morosely. And yet, the Julianne Moore character, who supposedly "has it all" with her husband and two kids, is profoundly unhappy. She is so unhappy that she ultimately abandons her family.

Why exactly do people have children? We have the luxury of asking this question because we can now control conception, which is a very recent fact of human history. Before the 1960s, a woman had a baby because she had sex with a man and got pregnant. The advent of the Pill actually had a profound effect on what it means to be human (and also, what it means to be a woman), because for the first time in history, women had real control over their reproductive lives. So the statement "Biology is Destiny" is very much colored by the advent of the Pill in terms of reproduction. The Pill enables people (and especially women) to genuinely consider parenthood.

So, back to the question: why do people have children? I think for many people, there is just an assumption that they will "grow up, get married, and have children." Certainly in most of Middle America (literally and figuratively speaking), this is just "what you do." A child is often seen as the ultimate manifestation of love between a man and a woman; and I would say it's "par for the course" for most people.

But what if you never find "the right person" to marry? What about pursuing single parenthood (and all that that implies?) What if you do find "the right person," but he or she doesn't want children? Or, what if you do find "the right person," and he or she already has children? What if you do a ton of soul-searching and come to the conclusion that you simply aren't prepared (emotionally, financially, spiritually, for any or all reasons), to become a parent? Will you regret not becoming a parent as you age? What if you pass that "40" threshold, and are still not a parent, but desperately want to be? What need or issue do we think we'll be addressing if we become a parent? Does this need or issue actually get addressed as we'd anticipated when we do become a parent? Oh, and, what if you're gay? What implications does sexual orientation impose on parenthood? (again, a different blog post)

I would argue that these are all profoundly personal questions; that there is no "right" or "wrong" answer; and that none of us should be judged by the decisions we make regarding parenthood. (And yet, it seems that we are frequently judged; by our families, our friends, our colleagues, and society.) But I'd say that for every parent you ask about his or her decision to become a parent, you'll invariably get a different answer. (The one common thread is probably that it turned out to be much more difficult than anticipated, but is very enriching none-the-less. But this borders on cliche.)

When a person decides to become a parent, that's just the beginning. Then there's all the logistics to consider, which are truly overwhelming these days (especially for a lesbian couple, but again, that's another blog post). How will the child be supported financially? Who will work, who will stay home? Day care? Telecommuting? How will the baby affect my career? How on earth will I have time to work full time and be a parent? What happens to my needs as a person? Will my spouse suffer neglect because I'm too exhausted with work and the baby? The list of considerations is substantial and infinite. But in pre-1960s history, these logistical questions weren't so much hypothetical questions for prospective parents; these logistical questions were faced by people already expecting (whether or not they had the luxury of considering these questions pre-conception).

Now, I don't want to end this post with glib or superficial statements like, "it's all worth it to become a parent" or "you'll just know what to do, it will come to you naturally." Because I'm not convinced that either of these statements are necessarily true for everyone. I think many modern-day adults have suffered many dark nights of the soul when wrestling with these questions of parenthood. Because remember, we're not talking about "parenthood," per se. We're talking about bringing another soul into the world, and all that that implies. So yes, the question of "why do we have children?" is an extremely important question to consider.

Our "Legitimate" Addiction

Addiction: what does this word conjure to you? I think of the following:

• alcohol (our officially sanctioned "legal" drug)
• the long list of "illegal" drugs (heroin probably the most nefarious, pot the most benign)
• food (how many of us rely on food to address an emotional vacuum?)
• gambling (one of the most insidious addictions)
  
• cigarettes (I can vouch for this one; I've struggled with nicotine addiction since my early teens)
  
• porn (there's a reason why crime went down in the 1990s; porn exploded on the Web! people were too busy with porn to commit crimes)
• sex (the most basic human urge which can literally become an all-consuming addiction)

All of these addictions can have profoundly negative consequences, and to a large degree are socially reviled. But I think there's another type of addiction that's infiltrated our society, and that is addiction to media. What do I mean by "media"? I mean:

• your iPod
• your cell phone
• your 64" plasma (and its accompanying TiVo and 500 channels)
  
• your laptop (and its accompanying WiFi)

All of these media machines are perfectly socially acceptable. In fact, I would argue that two of them (the cell phone and the iPod) have practically become ubiquitous extensions of our physical selves. This "media" addiction is hardly socially reviled. In fact, we would be perceived as strange if we didn't have a cell phone, right? "Get with it!"

Now, the cell phone is a somewhat different form of media than the others listed above, because you are using it to communicate with another person; there is interaction, instead of passive consumption. But this other person is only "virtually" there. When we are speaking on a cell phone, it can alienate us from people who are physically with us. The same could be said for a laptop; there are opportunities for interaction (email, chat), but again, these are "virtual" interactions in cyberspace. What implications does this have for how we interact with other people in the physical world?

My concern with media addiction is that it contributes to our modern-day sense of alienation. How can we engage with someone with ear buds? How can we talk to someone who's blathering into his blue tooth ear piece? We can't just sit in a coffee shop anymore; we have to stare into our laptop screen, surfing blogs. And we certainly can't sit at home without the TV on!

Not only does it serve to alienate, but I think media addiction also robs us of opportunities for serious contemplation, introspection and solitude. The media bombards us constantly. (I was at the Rose Garden in a suite the other day, and there's a TV in the bathroom. Why do I need a TV in the bathroom?!)

In this day of constant media exposure and engagement, it requires us to purposefully and mindfully resist media so that we can open ourselves to the real potential for engaging with meaningful things, such as, other human beings!

A larger question is, what's feeding our addictions, be it "traditional" addictions of drugs and alcohol, or "new" addictions, such as media? I think all of these addictions are an attempt to anesthetize ourselves. Addictions are an attempt to escape the daily and compounding emotional pain that we all experience, to one degree or another. An addiction is something that makes us feel good and relieves pain, however temporary the good feeling and pain relief may be. The continued pursuit of addictions is because we're striving to recapture that good feeling and pain relief.

Surgery Report

As I mentioned, I had emergency surgery in early May. The following is the surgery report, verbatim. I am truly amazed by the sophistication of modern medicine. This is extremely high-tech stuff, folks! We are genuinely lucky to have access to such sophisticated medical care and competent doctors. Check this out: (and no, you're not misreading this; they really did stick a camera inside me!)

Operation/Procedure Report
Steve E. Lester, MD-Kaiser
Adm Date: 05/02/2007
Dis Date: 05/05/2007

Date of Surgery: 05/03/07

Preoperative Diagnosis: Acute cholecystitis

Postoperative Diagnosis: Acute cholecystitis

Operation(s): Laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Surgeon(s): Steven Lester, MD

Assistants:
1. Eugene Chang, MD
2. Monica Arora, MS3

Anesthesia: General endotrachael anesthesia

INDICATIONS: The patient is a 38-year old woman who presented to the Emergency Room with right upper quadrant abdominal pain. She had a white blood cell count of 10,000. An ultrasound of the right upper quadrant demonstrated stones within the gallbladder with pericholecystic fluid and gallbladder wall thickening and a common bile duct of 7-10mm. Liver function tests demonstrated a total bilirubin of 1.0, AST and ALT of 34 and 31 respectively and an alkaline phosphatase of 51. Her lactase level was 17. Based on these findings, she was felt to have acute cholecystitis. A PARQ conference was held with the patient and she agreed to a laparoscopic cholecystectomy. She was brought to the operating room for this purpose.

FINDINGS: Very inflamed, edematous gallbladder filled with multiple large, hard stones. Some stones came out of the gallbladder when the gallbladder was entered and each stone was scooped up and removed as it came out of the gallbladder.

PROCEDURE IN DETAIL: The patient was brought to the operating room. General anesthesia was established and the patient’s abdomen was prepped and draped in standard sterile surgical fashion.

A vertical incision was made inferior to the umbilicus in order to place our camera port. This was performed after infiltration with local anesthetic. Blunt dissection was used to carry the incision down through the fascia and a Veress needle was inserted. A drop test was performed, confirming our position inside the peritoneal cavity. A carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum 11-mm trocar was placed through the umbilical site and a laparoscope was inserted. The gallbladder was inspected and found to be very edematous, indurated and inflamed. We decided to proceed with the laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Attention was turned to the subxiphoid site where an 11-mm transverse incision was made after infiltration with local anesthetic. Using the Step System, an 11-mm trocar was placed. Similarly, two 5-mm ports were placed in the right abdomen. Again, local anesthetic was used to infiltrate these sites prior to placements of the ports.

The gallbladder was then decompressed using a needle to suction out the bile. The gallbladder was then grasped with graspers and retracted cephalad and laterally. There was some fat adherent to the surface of the gallbladder and this was stripped off using Maryland dissectors. The peritoneal membrane overlapping the base of the gallbladder and the cystic duct was stripped off. Due to the amount of inflammation that we encountered, a very meticulous dissection of the cystic duct and cystic artery was then carried out in order to identify them. This was performed by the triangle Calot and identifying the node of Calot. The attachments to the node were electrocauterized and the node was removed. Further dissection was used to demonstrate a cystic duct that branched and then entered the gallbladder after it branched. It also gave some smaller branches to the cystic duct.

Additional dissection was carried out in the triangle of Calot to remove the scar tissue present in the area, demonstrating a critical view of safety. The branches from the cystic artery to the cystic duct were clipped and divided. The cystic duct was then clipped with one clip on the gallbladder sude and two clips on the opposite side and divided. Each branch of the cystic artery leading into the cystic duct was then clipped and divided. The gallbladder was then retracted away from the liver and was dissected off using electrocautery. In this process, the gallbladder was entered, revealing a large number of stones within. The stones which escaped were noted immediately and were scooped up with a stone scoop and removed. Once the gallbladder was fully dissected off of the liver, it was placed in an EndoCatch bag and removed through the umbilical port with visualization through the subxiphoid port. This was facilitated by extending the fascial and skin incisions vertically downward. The gallbladder was handed off the field as a specimen.

The trocar was reinserted and the gallbladder was inspected. No active bleeding was seen. The clips on the cystic duct and cystic artery were inspected and found to be intact. This area was irrigated and the irrigant was suctioned out through a site lateral to the liver. The irrigant ran clear. A fluted Jackson-Pratt drain was placed through one of the right-sided incisions down into the gallbladder fossa and on the underside of the liver. It was sutured into place using a nylon suture. The camera was swiveled around in order to provide a 360-degree view of the abdomen which revealed no other pathologic abnormalities. The trocars were then removed under vision through the laparoscope and no bleeding was seen. This final trocar was removed as the layers of the abdominal wall were visualized. No bleeding was seen at this point either. The pneumoperitoneum was allowed to escape. An umbilical site was closed with 0 Vicryl to the skin in a subcuticular fashion. The incisions were dressed. The drapes were removed. The patient was allowed to awaken, having tolerated the procedure well.

SPECIMENS: Gallbladder

ESTIMATED BLOOD LOSS: 75 mL

COMPLICATIONS: None interoperatively

Some Thoughts on "Babel," Part II

Another aspect of Babel that permeates the film is desire as an expression of pain alleviation. The young couple Richard and Susan engage in a tender, almost desperate kiss while Susan is recovering from her gunshot wound. The young Morroccon boy is so consumed with sexual desire for his sister that he hides behind a rock to masturbate. The Mexican nanny Amelia steals away with a long lost boyfriend to indulge in a quick but heavy make-out session. And the Japanese teen-age girl is completely sex-obsessed; she attempts to seduce diners at a restaurant, her friend's cousin, her dentist, and a police detective. (Pathetically, all of her seduction attempts are rebuffed.)

And all of these exchanges are within the context of severe emotional anguish. The young couple is still reeling from the recent death of their infant child. The young Morrocoon is afflicted with profound isolation. The Mexican nanny longs for attention from a male suitor to assuage her loneliness. And the Japanese girl is utterly destroyed by her mother's recent death. In the face of emotional turmoil, sexual desire is often an outlet for alleviating pain.

The Prayers of Sarah

On May 3, I had emergency surgery to remove a swollen gall bladder. To make a long story short, I have emerged better and stronger than ever; but it was a harrowing experience. I do perceive this event as a blessing in disguise, though, because it reminds us of the fragility of life. And it also reminds us how good we feel 95% of the time.

Because I was unable to attend church on May 6, Mother Julie visited our house for an intimate service. It was lovely. I wrote a few prayers and said them at the service. The following are the prayers.

To all my wonderful friends and family, both here and around the country, for supporting me and taking care of me during this sudden and harrowing health crisis.

To Dr. Chang and Dr. Lester and all the care providers at St. Vincent's, for treating me with both their medical expertise and their kindness.

To the Departed, to all the souls who have come before us who have suffered pain at the hands of primitive medicine, may they now rest in peace.

To all the women who have died while trying to bring a new soul into the world. May they rest in peace.

To all the people alive today in desperately poor countries around the world - in Sub-Saharan Africa, parts of the Far East and parts of Central and South America, and even those poverty-stricken amongst us, may they all mercifully receive the medical care they need, and especially may they receive relief from pain and suffering.

To all the doctors and nurses and others who mercifully administer medical care and pain relief. May God protect and encourage them as they pursue these endeavors. May they always have the supplies and equipment they need to alleviate pain for everyone who suffers.

"Equanimity" - a beautiful word

As an English major, I've always loved parsing individual words to seek meaning and understanding. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "equanimity" as:

"Evenness of mind or temper; the quality or condition of being undisturbed by elation, depression, or agitating emotion; unruffledness."

This reminds me of the "self-control" aspect of the fruit of the Spirit (from Galatians 5:22-23):

"...the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control;..."

Similarly, self-control and a tamed ego are two of the principles of Buddhism. (For example, Buddhism espouses the benefits of channeling our energy toward positive, life-affirming endeavors. To do this requires a great deal of self-awareness and self-control.)

This idea of equanimity also reminds me of that quote, "Lord, give me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."

The challenge is to really understand ourselves well enough to know what we can change, what we might want to consider changing, what we probably can't change, and what we definitely can't change. This requires us to be real truth-seekers. One of Jesus Christ's teachings is for us to always seek the truth, to expose the truth, to hold TRUTH in absolute reverence. Again, this is similar to one of the Buddhist principles that delusion (that is, the opposite of truth) is a root of suffering.

Too Few Acts of Mercy

In the movie "Babel" starring Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett, we are bombarded with images of suffering and misery. The Buddha says that suffering is universal, that we all suffer; and that the only way to escape suffering is to free ourselves from desire and material possessions. Most of us, if we are even aware of the cause of our suffering, will struggle with the implications and the results of our desires. And in our material, shallow culture of consumerism, many of us will have to work diligently to resist the seduction of material possessions. A truly "enlightened" state is one in which our desires and our possessions do not own us.

How else might we diminish our suffering? We can help one another by diminishing each other's suffering through tender acts of mercy. One way is to follow Jesus Christ's teachings, one of which is to put others' needs ahead of our own, and show mercy. Within the context of the movie Babel, the lack of mercy is heart-breaking. Ego-centric, selfish, self-absorbed behavior penetrates the film. We are frequently so blind to one another's suffering, that we fail to grasp the common opportunities for showing mercy.

For example, a young American tourist in Morocco randomly gets shot on a tour bus. Her frantic husband directs the tour guide to seek the closest medical care, which unfortunately is in a rural town with very remedial medical care. Over the course of several hours in this town, the other passengers on the tour bus, some of whom have their own health problems, become distraught and threaten to leave the couple stranded. The husband literally says, "...if you leave, I will kill you." He is possessed by his all-consuming mission to ensure that his wife gets the medical care she needs. Understandable, perhaps. But where is his mercy towards a bus full of tourists, some of whom are dealing with their own medical issues? And where is the mercy amongst the other tourists, for a man caring for his critically wounded wife? No mercy evident. Meanwhile, the young woman writhes in agony as a local "doctor" crudely sews up her wound to prevent her from bleeding to death. Shortly after this scene, we finally see an act of mercy. With a keen sense of purpose, a very old woman - acting as a nurse - lights a marijuana pipe for the wife, and gently hands it to her. As the wife takes several drags, we can literally feel her pain subside. This tender act of mercy is one of the few exhibited throughout the movie.

The couple's two young children, back home in San Diego, are under the care of an illegal Mexican immigrant. She loves these children as if they were her own; she has cared for them since their births. They play games of hide-and-seek, and in a highly prophetic muse, she calls out, "...donde esta los ninos...", while the children scatter about the house. In a desperately cruel twist of circumstances (which I won't reveal here), the nanny and the two children end up across the border in Mexico, wandering through the desert on a hot day, without aid and in mortal danger. Finally she decides that she must leave the children in the desert so that she can seek help unimpeded. She stumbles through the desert in frantic but muted desperation, since she physically can't muster the strength to do anything more. When she sees a border patrol car, we are tricked into thinking, "ok, she's saved; they will find the children, and it will all be ok." But no; the border patrolman promptly arrests her and handcuffs her. He flagrantly lacks mercy. She is promptly deported and faces criminal charges. Worse, she is forever separated from the children she loves, as she continues to suffer from a lack of mercy.

What other acts of mercy do you see in "Babel"? I can think of one more, in which a deaf/mute teenage girl in Tokyo attempts to seduce a middle-aged under-cover cop in her apartment; the cop promptly refuses, yet is tender towards her. (The girl's mother committed suicide a year earlier. She is starving to fill an emotional vacuum, which she thinks she can fill by seducing every man she meets. The pathetic nature of these seduction attempts is that casual sex will not fill her emotional vacuum.) The middle-aged cop recognizes the girl's vulnerability, and mercifully does not take advantage of her emotional state. A true act of mercy. But the cop does not emerge unscathed; he promptly heads for the local bar to ease his pain. What hurt him, exactly, is not clear; the girl's pain? or how close he came to giving into temptation?

Acts of mercy, in which we truly put the needs of others ahead of our own, are unfortunately rare. Think about how "Babel" could be remade if it were dominated instead by acts of mercy. Think about our own lives and how we could affect the world if we were to engage in more tender acts of mercy.

Seizing the Joy and Spontaneity of Every Day

Our lives can be so serious and morose (I say this with trepidation as April 15 approaches quickly; how about an IRS audit as "serious"?). There is an endless list of tragedy and grave conditions, locally and around the world. (I won't even begin the list.) How do we cope? For me, it is a combination of faith and humor, to extract the joy of everyday living.

We tend to think that life is a series of major "events" - births, graduations, weddings, funerals. We devote much time and energy into these events. I would not diminish the relevance of these major events; but I think "life" happens in between these major events. Life happens in both our regular routines and the aspect of serendipity.

The other day, I picked up my daughter from after-school care, to discover that they were celebrating one of the teacher's birthdays by throwing cream pies in his face. The teacher had graciously agreed to this (actually, knowing this teacher, I think he encouraged this idea). The kids took turns throwing cream pies at his face, to the great amusement of all (especially the teacher). Seeing the kids (and other adults) regale with laughter brought out a sense of joy amongst everybody there. It's little moments like these that are worth seizing whenever they evolve in front of us.

Or how about that complement you get from a colleague? Or that peck on the cheek you give your spouse as you run out the door? Or the joke you share with two friends at lunch? Or the wave you exchange with your neighbor? Or the brief conversation you share with another parishioner after church? Are these insipid instances that don't "matter"? No, in fact I think each one matters a lot. Each one can evoke a sense of joy if we let it.

Our grasp on life is tenuous. The Japanese have a phrase, "Mono no aware," which essentially describes the awareness of the _transience of life_ and a sadness of its passing. We can mitigate the sadness by seizing the joy of everyday, "little" events.

"Wherever You Go, There You Are"

"So, the cross is always ready and waits for you everywhere. You cannot escape it no matter where you run, for wherever you go you are burdened with yourself. Wherever you go, there you are." —Thomas a Kempis, Imitation of Christ, ca. A.D. 1440

This quote seems to be particularly relevant to our American way of life, which is very oriented around "mobility." We've always appreciated adventure and liberty; the ability to just "pull up stakes" and make a "fresh start" elsewhere. This idea that we'll go wherever we "need" to go to pursue education, or a new career, or retirement, or a lover.

But no matter how "mobile" we become, we cannot escape our respective selves. No change of scenery, no matter how radically the departure from our current scenery, will ever free us from ourselves. Have you ever thought, "...if I could just change jobs, go to a different school, move to a new city, find a new boyfriend/girlfriend, it would solve all my problems..."? Actually, if only it were that simple. The truth is, our innner lives, our mental and emotional patterns, have just as much to do with our state of mind as our external lives.

Remember this before you decide to make a radical departure.

Quick "Kinsey Scale" Test

For a more serious post on the Kinsey Scale, see "The Fluidity of Desire" below.

For a more humorous angle, take this quiz to determine whether you're a "0" or a "6" (or somewhere in between) on the Kinsey Scale:

Question: whom would you rather meet on a movie set, seduce, and then indulge in a wildly inappropriate yet satisfying tryst: Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt?

A) Angelina
B) Brad
C) Angelina and Brad
D) It depends on how well we bond during the seduction
E) Neither; beauty is only skin deep


Your answer will give you some clue as to where you might fall on the Kinsey Scale. (Chances are, you already have a pretty good idea.)

;-)

The Absurdity of the Anti-Gay Marriage Agenda

The Right's vehement opposition to "gay marriage" is fundamentally flawed (that is, if you want to apply logic). How in the world does my monogamous, domestic partnership with a woman negatively impact a straight couple's marriage? I completely fail to see how the union of a same-sex couple in any way jeopardizes or inhibits that of straight couples. If anything, gay couples who want to "commit" to monogamous, domestic relationships should be lauded by the Right as "correct" family values. Therein lies the fierce irony. If "we" (gay couples) want to act just like "them" (straight couples) and commit ourselves to life-long monogamy, we are vilified?????

I think it has more to do with family structure. Many gay couples have taken the leap of faith to have children (either biologically or adopting). I say it is a "leap of faith" because the world is still unsure on whether it wants to embrace "gay families" as legitimate. The Right characterizes gay families as illegitimate. Yet, what exactly is a "family"? A "family" unit is built on a foundation of mutual love and respect. How is "love and respect" wrong?

If the Right's opposition to gay marriage were truly authentic, they would instead channel their energies toward outlawing divorce. For divorce, surely, is anathema to the Right's marriage-loving agenda, right?

The Fluidity of Desire

"...The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects." - Alfred Kinsey

Alfred Kinsey's groundbreaking work in research on sexual behavior and response was a turning point in terms of how we might understand ourselves. Kinsey's research yielded very compelling data that said that people are not necessarily exclusively "gay" or "straight," but instead fall on a seven-point scale that accommodates nuance and various degrees:

• 0 - Exclusively heterosexual
• 1 - Predominately heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
• 2 - Predominately heterosexual, but more that incidentally homosexual
• 3 - Equally heterosexual and homosexual
• 4 - Predominately homosexual, but more that incidentally heterosexual
• 5 - Predominately homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
• 6 - Exclusively homosexual

This scale is fascinating to me because of its ambiguity; just what does it mean? As an English major, I immediately start parsing the words; "incidentally" homosexual? What does that mean? To me, it's all about desire; that is, whom do we find appealing as a sexual partner? If "incidental" is "not intentional," what does this tell us about our orientations and attitudes? Does this mean if I'm a "5" on the Kinsey scale, I might "unintentionally" find a man attractive as a sexual partner? Is "intention" pertinent?


I think what it might indicate is that we all have an "innate" sexual orientation, that drives our attraction to others as sexual partners. (I strongly believe that our orientation is deeply intrinsic, and that we cannot ever be "cured" of homosexuality.) The gradation is in terms of how "potent" or "powerful" that orientation is, within the context of how "open-minded" we might be about potential sexual partners.

The real beauty of the Kinsey scale is that it reflects the ambiguity, the shades of gray (not just the black-and-white), the nuances, the messiness of life; the very fluidity of identity. It acknowledges that people evolve and grow and sometimes experience new feelings, especially if they maintain an open mind and an open heart. The Kinsey scale extols the idea that "real" life is not as restrictive or as neatly defined as our cultural, social and ethical mores might dictate.


I remember at the 1993 "March on Washington" for Gay, Lesbian, Bi, Trans rights, there was a film crew there, asking people, "how did you know you were gay?" People had all kinds of elaborate stories about this and that. And then one woman summed it up quite succinctly, I think: "Because I fell in love (with a woman)." While I firmly believe that sexual orientation is a deeply innate human characteristic, I also believe that for people who are neither a "0" nor a "6" on the Kinsey scale, that individual people we meet can sway us one way or the other. I love this concept, because to me it reveals that "desire" is not exclusively "sexual" - that desire and attraction are imbued with a whole host of characteristics and elements, some of which remain mysterious.

Lesbian "Mythbusters"

The "Mythbusters" are two guys (Jamie Hyneman and Adam Savage) that basically take it upon themselves to debunk myths. (They have a show on the Discovery Channel.) According to Wikipedia, Jamie and Adam "...use their skills and expertise to test the validity of various rumors and urban legends in popular culture." They are like truth seekers; they like to challenge what people just accept as "true." Well, here's my attempt at debunking some "lesbian" myths:

• "Lesbians hate men"

Ugh, I hate this myth. We do NOT hate men! Some of our best friends are men! Many of us actually adore men! Our families are filled with wonderful men: ever heard of fathers, brothers, sons, uncles, and cousins? Now, some lesbians might hate men; but some straight women hate men, too. Most lesbians are perfectly fine with liking men; it's just that we don't want to have sex with them. It's really that simple. From there, it just depends on the individual relationship we have with each given man.


• "Lesbians are strange; I don't know any lesbians!"

The fact is, lesbians span the broad spectrum of humanity. You may have convinced yourself that you don't know any lesbians, but unless you live in a remote corner of the earth and are strictly home-bound, you probably know at least one lesbian. Enjoy!


• "Lesbians are so severe-looking; they shave their heads!"

Well, yes, some lesbians do shave their heads. And ride Harleys (ever heard of "Dykes on Bikes"?). And have multiple tatoos and piercings, and wouldn't be caught dead wearing anything but black and chains. Then there are those average-looking, regular, every day (boring) lesbians, that blend right into the crowd. Again, that "broad spectrum of humanity" thing. (Oh, and have you ever heard of Britney Spears? She shaved her head, and last I heard, she's not a lesbian.)


• "Lesbians are ugly and are gay because they can't get a man"

I can't bring myself to even address this myth. Would you characterize Portia di Rossi as "ugly"? Anyway, just remember that the cliche of beauty being in the "eye of the beholder" is true.


• "Lesbians are butch and really good with power tools"

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I'm going to sound like a broken record: it's that "broad spectrum of humanity" thing again. Yes, some lesbians are good with power tools and wear fannie packs because it reminds them of their toolbelts. But for some other lesbians, this is their idea of a toolkit:





















• "In lesbian relationships, one of them plays the 'man'"

Are people that limited in their range of thinking that a 'man/woman' coupling is the only viable relationship model? The fact is, each lesbian brings to the relationship what she brings to the relationship. Yes, some are "butch" and some are "femme" - but these are overly used stereotypes; we don't all fit neatly into a category of "butch" or "femme". Actually, I'm more convinced that each of us (that is, each person - not just each lesbian) has both "butch" and "femme" characteristics.


• "Lesbian couples experience 'bed death'"

This myth basically implies that lesbian couples completely stop having sex. Well, yes, probably some do. But this circumstance is certainly not unique to lesbian couples. Many straight couples suffer through droughts as well. If I were a betting woman, I'd bet that more lesbian couples would be willing to cope with a celibate relationship than straight couples, which may be the cause of the 'bed death' label for lesbians. But I have a theory, that has nothing to do with sexual orientation, that 99.99% of break-ups (regardless of whether it's a straight or gay couple) are caused by difficulties in the bedroom combined with an unwillingness of one or both parties to strive to fix it.


• "Lesbians want to have sex with every woman they meet"

Where do these myths come from? This one is completely absurd. No, we don't want to sleep with every woman we meet. As an analogy, do straight women want to sleep with every man they meet? Actually, this is a very personal thing for each person (regardless of sexual orientation). Yes, some lesbians might have a particular penchant to get to know lots of women on a sexual basis. But you know what? I bet there are some straight men that fit into this category as well.


• "Lesbians can't have children"

Total myth; the efficacy of lesbians' reproductive systems is the exact same as straight women's. In fact, there is a veritable baby boom of lesbians having biological children. (I got pregnant on the very first try; and I don't like to call it "artificial" insemination, because technically there's nothing "artificial" about the actual insemination.)

Any more myths you'd like me to bust? Let me know, I'd be glad to.


Anyway, have you noticed any trends in all these "myths"? Stereotypes are a convenient vehicle for diminishing our humanity. Lesbians may be this or that (or may not be), but I'd like to underscore that we are human and so are as varied and unique as the rest of humanity.

U2 - "Beautiful Day"

The heart is a bloom
Shoots up through the stony ground
There's no room
No space to rent in this town

You're out of luck
And the reason that you had to care
The traffic is stuck
And you're not moving anywhere

You thought you'd found a friend
To take you out of this place
Someone you could lend a hand
In return for grace

It's a beautiful day
Sky falls, you feel like
It's a beautiful day
Don't let it get away

You're on the road
But you've got no destination
You're in the mud
In the maze of her imagination

You love this town
Even if that doesn't ring true
You've been all over
And it's been all over you

It's a beautiful day
Don't let it get away
It's a beautiful day

Touch me
Take me to that other place
Teach me
I know I'm not a hopeless case

See the world in green and blue
See China right in front of you
See the canyons broken by cloud
See the tuna fleets clearing the sea out
See the Bedouin fires at night
See the oil fields at first light
And see the bird with a leaf in her mouth
After the flood all the colors came out

It was a beautiful day
Don't let it get away
Beautiful day

Touch me
Take me to that other place
Reach me
I know I'm not a hopeless case

What you don't have you don't need it now
What you don't know you can feel it somehow
What you don't have you don't need it now
Don't need it now
Was a beautiful day

My favorite movies

• Tootsie
  A brilliant take on human relationships, sexuality, gender identity and roles, and the trifecta centerpiece that underscores it all, compassion, humor and humility. Michael Dorsay (Dustin Hoffman) is an unemployed actor in New York, and through a series of unexpected events, gets cast as a woman on a daytime drama. His transformation into "Dorothy Michaels" is fascinating as he literally "walks in a woman's shoes" and embarks on a very revealing personal journey. Julie Nichols (Jessica Lange) is a cast member on the daytime drama as well, and the friendship that evolves between she and Dorothy is complex and satisfying, and yet also humorous since we're "in" on the conceit. One of the funniest and most touching movies you'll ever see. Hoffman's performance is genius, Lange is sublime. (If you become a real fan, you'll want to memorize the staircase scene at the end.)



• Star Wars series
  As a 9-year old, Star Wars captivated me and every other soul breathing at that time. But what is it about this series that so captivated people? Yes, it was the whole sci-fi/special effects angle, but I think the family drama provides many flashes of recognition for us all. And George Lucas is a magician, the way he manages to morph Vader from innocence to evil to compassion. Remember the scene in Jedi when Luke is calmly pleading with his father, "I know there's good in you..." And Lucas somehow manages to evoke tenderness from this "monster" - watch it again, you'll be amazed.



• Sophie's Choice
  I was so drawn to this movie, even as a young teenager. Movies that dealt with the Holocaust were of interest to me; I just couldn't fathom it. I think Streep's Sophie is truly sublime - a masterpiece of vulnerability and strength. Even before I had a child, I was completely destroyed by this movie's premise. You'll find yourself gasping for breath. Not to be missed.




• The Unbearable Lightness of Being
  I saw this movie during my junior year in college (1989), and I was so blown away. It was an especially vulnerable time for me in my own exploration of identity. I will always identify with the core conflicts of intimacy in this movie. That is, what is "intimacy"? How do we define it? How do we engage in intimacy? Are there boundaries we shouldn't cross, and what if we do? Can we achieve fulfillment in life without intimacy? Is there such a thing as non-monogamous intimacy, or is that a contradiction in terms? Can "non-sexual" intimacy be just as fulfilling as "sexual" intimacy? The time/place setting of this movie is particularly relevant, I think, in terms of shining light on the "personal is the political" philosophy, as it takes place during the 1968 Russian invasion of Prague. And the "ballet of eroticism" (as Ebert calls it) between Sabina and Tereza is truly masterful filmmaking. Another film not to be missed. "Life's so light. It's like an outline you can't ever fill in or make any better." Tomas
  




• The Sopranos

Yes, "The Sopranos" is a tv series, not a movie; but in terms of character development and overall quality of writing, the series is arguably on par with the best movies. I find the characters to be almost Shakespearean in terms of contradictions. Here you have Tony Soprano, the most feared and powerful Mob boss, who has, on multiple occasions, committed horrific and repugnant acts (where shall I begin? How about with murder and adultery.)

And yet, he has this remarkable sensitivity to certain things. For example, his fondness for animals. The series begins with the tenderness he displays for ducks in his backyard; he develops an intense fondness for these ducks, and is truly saddened when they leave. Or, horses. Tony is devastated when he learns that a barn fire has killed a number of horses. When he realizes that Ralph set the barn on fire, his grief evolves into fury, which leads him to kill Ralph in a fit of rage.

Tony also has a certain moral compass in terms of how "family" is "supposed" to be; unfailing, devoted, completely loyal, respecting elders, cherishing and spoiling children. He rationalizes his cheating on Carmela that he has her complicit approval. And it's not entirely a rationalization; Carmela actually confesses to Father Intintola that she "looks past" Tony's infidelities, in exchange for all that she "gets" (a lovely home, cars, furs, jewelry, vacations to Paris: and of course the status as the Boss's wife). The "code" that Tony, his family, and his "soldiers" live by is exacting and non-negotiable. To a great extent, this is the "moral compass" that drives him.

And then there are some absurdly petty things that Tony seems to care about; for example, the young man in the restaurant, dining with his baseball cap on. This annoyed Tony enough that he approached the young man and "strongly suggested" that he might want to remove the hat. Was this just a brute show of force for the sake of it? No, I don't think so; I think Tony really was annoyed that a man would be disrespectful enough to wear a baseball cap in an upscale restaurant. Or how about Tony's faithfulness to the Sunday evening meal. He may miss dinner during the week ("...that's what microwaves are for: inconsiderate husbands"), but he never misses Sunday dinner with the extended family.

And then there is Christopher; also a morally repugnant character to a large extent. And yet, he has a love for cinema that rivals my own. Christopher is convinced that he could be a screen writer, and early in the series, he begins work on a screenplay on his ThinkPad. (Yes, it's a Mob drama, but with sci/fi twist!) Christopher becomes obsessed with finding an "arc," and is very frustrated by how disinterested his Mob counterparts are in his screenwriting pursuits. (At one point, he attempted to share his quandaries with his "arc" development to Pussy (...to be continued).


• Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
  


How happy is the blameless vestal's lot!The world forgetting, by the world forgot.Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind!Each pray'r accepted, and each wish resign'd. -- Alexander Pope, "Eloisa to Abelard"

• The Hours


• Lost in Translation
  A wonderful, if atypical, romance/comedy, Sofia Coppola's "Lost in Translation" is a dead-on portrayal of two lost souls who unexpectedly find intimacy in each other. "Bob" (Bill Murray), a washed-up middle-aged actor on location in Tokyo, meets "Charlotte" (Scarlett Johansson) a young newlywed accompanying her husband on assignment. Charlotte finds herself in a very dark place because she is alienated from her disengaged husband; and she's unconsoled by the beauty and wonder of Japan. Bob and Charlotte become close companions, though never actually consummate the relationship. Yet the relationship is not diminished (and is maybe even enhanced) by the lack of consummation. Murray exhibits his usual understated comedic brilliance. The ending is heart-breaking and yet fulfilling, because we know both characters have been enriched by their brief yet intimate friendship.
  
  
• Transamerica
  
  
• Bend it Like Beckham
  


A hugely entertaining film about two teen-age girls who are "all about" soccer, each with their own distinct struggles, yet who find friendship in each other. Set in London, the film is centered around a girl from a traditional Indian family; her mom is driven to teach her to cook and to marry her off to a nice young Indian boy. The other girl is a local Londoner, whose Dad is delighted with her soccer pursuits (because, he thinks, she'll spend less time thinking about boys), while her mother is terrified that her "jockness" must mean that she's a lesbian (she isn't). The two soccer friends come of age, despite the inevitable trials. Funny and touching and engaging.

Many more to come...

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others"

I love this quote from Winston Churchill. To me, it so exquisitely defines the importance of context and relativity in any situation. As far as government systems are concerned, democracy is certainly not a panacea; but compared to other systems, it generally works well for the greater good. That is, we must always consider the alternatives in any situation before making an assessment about whether or not something is "good" or "not good."

I'll give you another kind of example. How about road rage? So many drivers are rude, impatient, even hostile. Yet how "bad" can it be if you can afford to drive a car, to conveniently and quickly reach places? A very small percentage of the world's population actually owns a car; but instead of perceiving it as a luxury, many people complain about traffic. Well, your choices are: complain about traffic and act all hostile and rude to your fellow drivers; or, recognize how lucky you are to be able to hit the beach in two hours. Better yet, relinquish your car and then see how life is without it. Challenge yourself to take public transportation everywhere, or even ride your bike. There are always alternatives to your current situation; you can make choices and act instead of complaining. Live for a year without your car; then, when you start driving again, how hostile will you be? It's all contextual and relative.

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."

Another inspiring quote from Eleanor Roosevelt. This quote speaks to the idea that you and you alone control how you react to other people's behavior toward you. Think about the power of this quote. No one can diminish you unless you allow their words or actions to affect you. Instead of imagining how you're "supposed to" react, you can control how you react. You can extinguish insults or rude behavior by ignoring them. As challenging as it may seem, you can mitigate the hurt of cruelty by rising above it. It certainly is easier to rise to this challenge if you are grounded with a strong sense of self-esteem. But you can build your self-esteem by following Eleanor Roosevelt's timeless advice.