I have just written a rather lengthy essay on the subject aging and death.  So my blog this week will consist of an excerpt from that essay, "Way Beyond Time."

                                                                      . . . . .

Death somehow always comes as a surprise, as an aberration, though it is the experience that we surely hold most in common with all living things.  We learn that we are "terminal," as they say of the place where you get off, the last stop, and we feel misjudged, even betrayed.  Won't I be the exception?

We know others die.  And we think, it's too bad isn't it.  But it's always someone else.  A woman says to her husband, "Sweetheart, if one of us should die first, I think I'll go and live in Paris."

Years ago one of my minister friends told me a story about a pastoral visit he had with a man who was 89 years old.  The man had been told that he had cancer, and that the disease was advanced.  He was "terminal."  When my minister friend approached the man's hospital bed to bring him some comfort of whatever kind can come when there is nothing to be said, the old man looked at him, incredulous, and asked, "Why me?"

Five years later I am visiting that same minister friend.  His name is Dan.  Before he became a minister, he was a postman.  Now he has brain cancer, and he is dying.  The ministers of his acquaintance have pooled their money to buy him and his wife a new washing machine and dryer so they won't have to go across town to the laundromat.  I was one of Dan's closest friends when we were seminary students, and I love the man, so I have flown down to say good-bye.  His head is shaved from his surgeries, and he is thin.  A Buddhist who has meditated for years, Dan is calm and quiet.  On the other hand, I am frustrated and angry, and tears edge out in spite of myself.  I want to rant and rave.  Dan says, "It's all right.  I'm all right."  And I see that he is.  He died a few weeks later.  Every time I dance to "Three Dog Night" I remember how Dan used to leap into the air, dancing to their music: "Joy to the world, all the boys and girls, joy to the fishes in the deep blue sea, joy to you and me."

  Share this

We have lost Howard Zinn, an old lion of the Left, who never stopped writing and speaking for the underdog.  With his passing, there's "a hole in the sky."

There are not too many books of which you can say, "Reading this changed my life."  I can probably count them on the fingers of one hand.  One of those is Zinn's "A People's History of the United States."  It is the history of our country from the perspective of those who generally remain voiceless: native Americans, slaves, women, immigrants, poor laboring people.  It's what you never learned in high school or college when you took American history and read about all the conquering men and heroic deeds of U.S. past.  If you haven't read Zinn's book, read it now.  You will be shocked, you may weep.  You will be changed.

  Share this

Those of you who have been following my blog for several years know that occasionally I publish a recipe, one of the many recipes which I find in a newspaper or magazine and cut out, but never actually use.  I will rip a recipe out of its moorings, thinking that one day I may in fact make this delectable dish, but thus far, I've never done so.  I must face facts: I collect recipes, but I don't cook.  My weakness, however, should not prevent my passing on to readers a recipe that catches my eye, so here goes:

                                           LOADED OATMEAL COOKIES

                      (from some out-of-date women's magazine in the doctor's office)

1/4 c. butter, softened                                   3/4 c. all-purpose flour

1/2 c. brown sugar, packed                         3/4 c. rolled oats

1/3 c. granulated sugar

1 t. ground cinnamon                                    1/4 c. flax seed meal

1 t. baking soda                                            1/4 c. wheat germ             

1/8 t. salt                                                        2 oz. dark chocolate, finely chopped

1 egg                                                             1/4 c. dried cranberries

1 t. vanilla                                                      1/4 c. chopped walnuts, toasted

(Note on ingredients: I like all of the healthy stuff in the cookies, although I might, if I ever actually cooked them, reduce the amount of sugar.  Also, I might substitute raisins for cranberries.  And I wouldn't bother to toast the walnuts, since I'm going to bake the cookies, after all.)

Preheat oven to 350F.  In large mixing bowl, beat butter with electric mixer for 30 sec.  Add brown sugar, granulated sugar, cinnamon, baking soda, and salt.  Beat until combined.  Beat in egg and vanilla.  Beat in flour.  Stire in rolled oats, flax seed meal, wheat germ, chocolate, cranberries, and walnuts (dough will be a little crumbly, and you will think,"Oh, what have I done wrong!")  Drop dough by rounded teaspoons 2 inches apart onto ungreased cookie sheets.  Bake for 9-11 minutes or until tops are lightly browned.  Cool cookies on cookie sheet for a minute and then transfer to a wire rack to cool.  Makes about 30 cookies.

Good luck with this!  If anyone our there in cyberland actually makes these cookies, please let me know how they came out.

 

 

  Share this

Those of you who have been following my blog for several years know that occasionally I publish a recipe, one of the many recipes which I find in a newspaper or magazine and cut out, but never actually use.  I will rip a recipe out of its moorings, thinking that one day I may in fact make this delectable dish, but thus far, I've never done so.  I must face facts: I collect recipes, but I don't cook.  My weakness, however, should not prevent my passing on to readers a recipe that catches my eye, so here goes:

                                           LOADED OATMEAL COOKIES

                      (from some out-of-date women's magazine in the doctor's office)

1/4 c. butter, softened                                   3/4 c. all-purpose flour

1/2 c. brown sugar, packed                         3/4 c. rolled oats

1/3 c. granulated sugar

1 t. ground cinnamon                                    1/4 c. flax seed meal

1 t. baking soda                                            1/4 c. wheat germ             

1/8 t. salt                                                        2 oz. dark chocolate, finely chopped

1 egg                                                             1/4 c. dried cranberries

1 t. vanilla                                                      1/4 c. chopped walnuts, toasted

(Note on ingredients: I like all of the healthy stuff in the cookies, although I might, if I ever actually cooked them, reduce the amount of sugar.  Also, I might substitute raisins for cranberries.  And I wouldn't bother to toast the walnuts, since I'm going to bake the cookies, after all.)

Preheat oven to 350F.  In large mixing bowl, beat butter with electric mixer for 30 sec.  Add brown sugar, granulated sugar, cinnamon, baking soda, and salt.  Beat until combined.  Beat in egg and vanilla.  Beat in flour.  Stire in rolled oats, flax seed meal, wheat germ, chocolate, cranberries, and walnuts (dough will be a little crumbly, and you will think,"Oh, what have I done wrong!")  Drop dough by rounded teaspoons 2 inches apart onto ungreased cookie sheets.  Bake for 9-11 minutes or until tops are lightly browned.  Cool cookies on cookie sheet for a minute and then transfer to a wire rack to cool.  Makes about 30 cookies.

Good luck with this!  If anyone our there in cyberland actually makes these cookies, please let me know how they came out.

 

 

  Share this

Those of you who have been following my blog for several years know that occasionally I publish a recipe, one of the many recipes which I find in a newspaper or magazine and cut out, but never actually use.  I will rip a recipe out of its moorings, thinking that one day I may in fact make this delectable dish, but thus far, I've never done so.  I must face facts: I collect recipes, but I don't cook.  My weakness, however, should not prevent my passing on to readers a recipe that catches my eye, so here goes:

                                           LOADED OATMEAL COOKIES

                      (from some out-of-date women's magazine in the doctor's office)

1/4 c. butter, softened                                   3/4 c. all-purpose flour

1/2 c. brown sugar, packed                         3/4 c. rolled oats

1/3 c. granulated sugar

1 t. ground cinnamon                                    1/4 c. flax seed meal

1 t. baking soda                                            1/4 c. wheat germ             

1/8 t. salt                                                        2 oz. dark chocolate, finely chopped

1 egg                                                             1/4 c. dried cranberries

1 t. vanilla                                                      1/4 c. chopped walnuts, toasted

(Note on ingredients: I like all of the healthy stuff in the cookies, although I might, if I ever actually cooked them, reduce the amount of sugar.  Also, I might substitute raisins for cranberries.  And I wouldn't bother to toast the walnuts, since I'm going to bake the cookies, after all.)

Preheat oven to 350F.  In large mixing bowl, beat butter with electric mixer for 30 sec.  Add brown sugar, granulated sugar, cinnamon, baking soda, and salt.  Beat until combined.  Beat in egg and vanilla.  Beat in flour.  Stire in rolled oats, flax seed meal, wheat germ, chocolate, cranberries, and walnuts (dough will be a little crumbly, and you will think,"Oh, what have I done wrong!")  Drop dough by rounded teaspoons 2 inches apart onto ungreased cookie sheets.  Bake for 9-11 minutes or until tops are lightly browned.  Cool cookies on cookie sheet for a minute and then transfer to a wire rack to cool.  Makes about 30 cookies.

Good luck with this!  If anyone our there in cyberland actually makes these cookies, please let me know how they came out.

 

 

  Share this

This little essay on the film "Crazy Heart," which I just saw this afternoon, cannot in all good faith be considered a "review," I suppose, in that it is in no way comprehensive or even objective.  It falls under the category of "What, again??"

First I should say that I did enjoy the film.  Jeff Bridges was excellent in the role of the down-and-out country singer, and the talented Maggie Gyllenhaal can hardly miss, whatever role she plays.  And I really like country music--good country music, not "that artificial stuff," as Gyllenhaal calls it.  I grew up listening to Hank Williams and first heard Johnny Cash back in the '60's in New Orleans.  Bridges sings well, and the song writers do a more than decent job.

But the "What, again??" refers to the portrayal of male/female relationships.  I found myself asking the following questions, as I viewed the film:

--Would a beautiful young thing like Maggie really fall goo-goo in love with a 53-year-old gross, unkempt, chain-smoking, pot-bellied alcoholic with a series of failed relationships (4 marriages and a son he has essentially deserted)?  Even if he is a sincere, charming, talented country singer?

--Why does a man always need a female muse to allow him to create his art?  (Read art history, and weep, women.)  And by the way, when a female artist needs a muse, where does she go to get hers?

--When are we going to see a movie about a talented woman who is well past her youth, destitute, overweight, and a promiscuous alcoholic to boot, who attracts a young handsome man who saves her from her decline and inspires her to do her best work ever?

Now the film does get a few things right.  "Bad," Jeff Bridges' character, is a true portrayal of an alcoholic.  He is careless about his health.  He doesn't really understand the consequences of his behavior--in particular, the hurt and distrust he evokes in others.  Nothing is more important than the next drink--not the woman, not her child, not his child, not his music.  He is, however, charming and courtly--qualities which characterize many male alcoholics, in particular from the South.

And what else the film gets right is Bad's losses--his quick and quite unbelievable recovery to sobriety is too little, too late.  He is surprised that his woman turns him away.  "Hey, I'm different now.  Everything has changed."  She tells him she loves him, but she can never trust him again with her child.  Never.  Much can be forgiven, but nothing is forgotten.  What is done, or not done, clouds our experience ever after. Bad walks away, bewildered.

When the movie ends, Bad (now calling himself by his true name, Otis) has left alcohol behind, has written terrific new songs, and has made a load of money.  I wish I could believe it.  Johnny Cash conquered his addictions with the help of June Carter and Jesus.  Ray Carver was saved from alcoholism by the poet Tess Gallagher.  I don't believe Bad had the character to rid himself of his addiction--at least without a whole lot more support than he had--or that the film portrayed, in any case. 

I think producers believed the film needed a (somewhat) happy ending, as almost all Hollywood films do.  This was no Nicholas Cage "Leaving Las Vegas."  The theater was crowded--"Crazy Heart" is packing them in.  Redemption just feels good, even when it's unlikely.        

  Share this

It seems that a luxury cruise line based in Florida is continuing to have its ships stop off in Haiti to let passengers "tour" the country and buy trinkets--in spite of the current devastation by the earthquake.  When interviewed by the BBC, and challenged by the reporter for allowing pleasure tours in the midst of the death and destruction, the spokesperson for the cruise line explained that it was important to continue the present practice, because the cruise ships brought much-needed jobs to the Haitians and spurred the economy of this very poor country.

Now on the surface of things, this seems like a perfectly logical position to take.  We're doing the Haitians a favor, to pump up business!  To be sure, the country is poor--the poorest in the Western hemisphere.  So why was the reporter (and this writer) so clearly astonished and disgusted with this decision by the U.S. cruise line and by the justification articulated by its representative?

I think it is because we intuitively know that when great loss and suffering take place, the only appropiate response is grief--and then an outpouring of heartful help, in whatever way is possible for those of us who have had the good fortune to be spared by Fate this time around.  We know at moments like this that we are one human family, and our hearts are wounded, heavy with the vastness of the tragedy and distraught at our feelings of helplessness in the face of it.

If there are tourists on board luxury liners who can consider "touring" Haiti at this terrible time, they and the ship's masters are drastically out of touch with their humanity.  They are denying their own flesh and emotions surely, if they can separate themselves from the suffering all around them.  There are so many dead that there can be no proper burial for most.  In fact, many may never be identified.  Huge communal graves are being dug with earth-moving equipment, and the bodies of men, women and children are tumbled in together, in a last embrace. 

What makes us human, at last?  Is it not the understanding that there are some accidents, some terrible losses, some acts of nature, some evil-doing that is so profound that we must be silent in the face of it?  Surely we will continue to eat our dinners and laugh over trivial things and wonder at the beauty of the sky at dusk--but at times like this, we must stop and notice, we must mark the moment.  There is no business as usual.  We breathe deeply, we know once again the fragility of our flesh, and all flesh, and our hearts are broken open.  The fantasy of safety is gone, we float into the unknown, on the edge of time, and we are one.

  Share this

I have an article in the January issue of Portland Monthly--it's a conversation with Christopher Hitchens, the well-known British atheist whose big book is God Is Not Great.  (Someone quipped that his book title is just one word too long.)  If you want to check it out, go to their web site, and then go to "Current Issue."  Or try the following link: www.portlandmonthlymag.com/arts-and-entertainment/category/book-and-talks/articles/religion-god-0110/

I also had dinner with Hitchens and around a dozen others on Tuesday evening after his talk at Portland Arts and Lectures.  He must be one of the most articulate people on the planet, and there is great pleasure in watching his mind play with words and entertain with turns of irony.  However, Hitchens is as well known for his drinking as he is for his wit, and as the evening wore on, I found he became more and more acerbic and insulting.  The man is brilliant, but not wise; clever, but not deep; and a fundamentalist, in regard to religion, rejecting any form of liberal Christianity as bogus religion, not to be respected. 

Hitchens clearly has never studied theology, and most of the comments he made concerning the Bible, Jesus, salvation, etc., were shockingly naive.  Where he has something to offer, of course, is his critique of religion and society, and all of the horrors and nonsense done in the name of religion, which I have no argument with.  It's not exactly news that the Inquisition was a bad thing.  And that Catholic priests shouldn't abuse altar boys.  And (his particular nemesis) jihadists shouldn't blow up innocent civilians. 

Hitchens is  the ultimate intellectual "bad boy."  He performs.  He "debates."  He entertains. All of which he does very well.   But this should not be confused with thoughtful discourse. 

  Share this

Thanksgiving is just about here, and then early in December I'm moving house--and then there's Christmas!  I'm realizing that I will not be able to write regularly for a while.  But stay tuned--I'll be back!
  Share this

I got a call from Kaiser Permanente several days ago informing me that I was due for my yearly mammogram.  That call came the day before I saw the headline in the NY Times telling me that having a test every other year is now the recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force for a woman my age.  Besides, they say, nevermind the breast self-exam, or even the exam by my primary care physician.  None of this is going to save my life.  Statistically, anyway.  And besides, more frequent exams may lead me to extreme anxiety when a lump is found that turns out to be benign (which has happened 2 or 3 times already), and I may be subjected to unnecessary treatment for an early-stage cancer which might have gone away on its own--unnecessary treatment being more tests, and perhaps radiation and/or chemotherapy, and even surgery.  Whoa!  What should a woman do?

Robert Aronowitz gives a fascinating history of the treatment of breast cancer in his article "Addicted to Mammograms" (NY Times, 11/20/09).  Aronowitz tells us that in the 19th century, doctors had cottoned onto the germ theory, conquering diseases like cholera, but were frustrated in their attempts to cure cancer.  Cancer had been considered a systemic illness, running throughout the body, and so why operate on a specific tumor. 

In the 1870's doctors began to believe that cancer begins locally and remains local for some time before spreading (what we now call metastasis).  Concurrently, anesthesia was being developed, and so doctors were encouraged to operate--in the case of breast cancer, to remove the breast of the patient.  By the turn of the century, William Halsted of Johns Hopkins was promoting an approach that included the removal of the breast as well as the lymph nodes in the armpit and the muscles attached to the breast and chest wall.  This approach soon became medical dogma--even though Halsted's own clinical observations indicated that the operation did not save lives: he became aware that patients died of metastatic cancer.

Early in the second decade of the 20th century, doctors began advising women to see their doctors "without delay" if they discovered a breast lump.  The message was that if you discovered the cancer in time, surgery could provide a cure.  This claim was, unfortunately, based on wishful thinking and not hard scientific evidence--and resulted in the creation of what Aronowitz calls "a culture of fear" around breast cancer, as women understandably tried to gain more and more control over cancer, believing that surveillance and early detection and treatment would save lives.  During the 1930's and '40's more and more cancer was being diagnosed and treated, much of it in the early stages, and cancer survival rates seemed to support the early detection theory.

However, by the 1950's some researchers were pointing out that despite the seeming progress, mortality rates for breast cancer had hardly improved.  And they continued in the same vein from 1950 to 1990, with about 28 cancer deaths per 100,000 people.  In 1971, evidence showed that mammograms were of little value to women under 50--but this news collided with the prevailing practice, and so it was ignored.

As with all medical decisions, there are trade-offs--some are clearer than others.  To prevent one death from breast cancer, you have to screen 1,900 women in their 40's for 10 years.  During the screening you will find more than 1,000 false-positives, and these women will have to endure all the resulting overtreatment. 

Not to mention the financial piece--and to be sure, cost will be considered by the government and by insurers.  Medical diagnosis and treatment is limited in every country and every culture--because resources are finite.  Every society has to decide where to best place those resources.  Some citizens are afraid that medical care will be "rationed" under the new health care plan Congress is now considering.  It is being rationed already, in favor of those who have money.  It should be rationed on a more logical and scientific and just basis. 

But this begs the question: so should I have my mammogram?  I'll probably discuss this with my doctor, who is a wise man.  My mother died of breast cancer, and her sister died of cancer, too.  In fact, all my 6 aunts and uncles on my father's side died of cancer, too.  Does this make me "high risk"?  Like all women, I've been socialized to be frightened of my body--it's too fat, it's not the right shape, it's sure to become "diseased" if I don't worry about it every moment.  What's the balance between prudence and pathological concern?  Like many women, I just don't know.

  Share this