The Mystery of Love

I have watched Shakespeare in Love maybe a half-dozen times; one of my all-time favorites. Several times in the movie a form of the following conversation takes place, each time precipitated by a seeming crisis with no obvious resolution:

"But what shall we do?"

"Don't worry; it will work out."

"But how?"

"I don't know—it's a mystery."

Life is surely a mystery in many ways, not least in the area of love. I have watched two movies recently that are filled with the playing out of that mystery: people hurt by the failure of previous love; people afraid to take a chance on new love; people burdened by regrets over a failure to be more loving; people finding freedom to love through forgiveness . . . . And both movies are the playing out of a mystery. Not a who-done-it mystery, but the mystery of exploration, of discovery, of new-found freedom, and how things sometimes work out in unexpected ways; mysterious ways. What seems like a mystery to us is not a mystery to God, of course. We see only the frontside of the tapestry. The backside—where the threads are connected and interwoven—faces only towards heaven. But knowing there is a backside to the tapestry is what pushes us forward into the mystery, anxious to see what we might discover.

Twenty or thirty years ago I would have thought these two movies were a bit cheesy; maybe a lot cheesy. But today, I see them differently. In fact, I really like them. I saw them first on the Hallmark Channel, which tells you they are feel-good movies; stories with a moral. But what's not to like? The main characters are likable, the relationships are based on respect, and the crises that develop are handled responsibly. Imagine that!

But I mostly like them because they are about mature people in the 50-60+ age range. I've been surprised to discover how much I like movies (especially romantic comedies and dramas) about people my age (like Somethings Gotta Give and the upcoming It's Complicated—both of which are a bit silly while touching serious themes). I feel entirely different about love at 61 than I did at 31—not better (maybe a little wiser), just different—and I am moved by the stories of characters who have experienced what I have experienced. And I'm especially moved by movies like the two I've recently watched that have positive, loving outcomes. It's those movies, though they are fiction, that reveal a bit of the tangle on the backside of the tapestry, but end with the frontside in full view.

Because I've never read any of the deluge of dramatic or romantic fiction written by contemporary Christian authors, I didn't know these two movies were based on characters developed by Christian fiction writer Angela Hunt. (In a DVD special feature on one of the movies, an interview shows her to be "my age," clothed and in her right mind—a relief for some of us who cringe at what is sometimes produced under the "Christian" umbrella.)

The two movies are a continuing story. Part 1, first shown in 2007, was apparently so successful that the stories of the main characters were continued in a sequel. The first is titled The Note, the second being The Note II—Taking a Chance on Love. They could easily fall into the "date movie" or "chick flick" category because they are romantic dramas. Also to their discredit, the main characters are strikingly attractive, amazingly talented, and live in polished, warm (not lavish) homes. (Like I said, they're fiction. But what's wrong with idealism?) And there are more than a few places where movie critics could complain.

But I like them nonetheless simply because of their message: Love is always there to be experienced; we ought never give up on the prospect of love; we ought never conclude that our past failures in love disqualify us from finding love again; forgiving oneself for failing in love removes the greatest obstacle to receiving love—the feeling of unworthiness.

So, stick these two in your Netflix queue and watch them both on a weekend. They're another good example of, "I don't know—it's a mystery."

(P.S. There are a couple ecumenical references to God that are part of the background, not the story; otherwise, they have been sufficiently sanitized for a secular audience to watch and not feel like they are being preached to. Also, since I'm often late to the party, my apologies for the long review if you and the whole world have already seen these two movies.)

Doctors, the AMA, and ObamaCare

A few days ago President Obama made a special trip to the White House press room to announce that the AMA (American Medical Association) is now supporting the current healthcare plan grinding its way through Congress. The president's point was to emphasize that America's doctors are now lined up behind the effort to nationalize America's healthcare system.

At least, that was the intended impression. But, as is so often the case, there's another side to the story.

Dr. Robert Bentley is a practicing physician and a Republican candidate for governor of Alabama. On November 4 his office issued a press release to set the record straight on the president's announcement of AMA support. The truth is that less than 20 percent of America's doctors are members of the AMA (something I didn't know) which radically changes the import of "the AMA's" backing of ObamaCare. Dr. Bentley said in the press release, "The vast majority of practicing doctors are not members of the AMA. Most doctors that I know are completely against 'ObamaCare.' By standing on national television and telling the American people that this endorsement means your doctor supports the liberal agenda, the President grossly exaggerated the truth."

It would have been easy for the President to say in his announcement that "the AMA, in which 20 percent of America's doctors hold membership, has announced support for . . . ." Even of that 20 percent, there are no doubt many AMA members who don't support the president's plan.

The lesson for me is to resist the temptation to leave out part of the truth if I know doing so will help my agenda.

Sumo Bikers

Hey -- even sumo wrestlers need their exercise! (Thanks to Bicycles East of Matthews, NC, for the photo).

Slow Money Alliance: Making a Living Instead of a Killing

The Slow Money Alliance is a new movement with a different take on capitalism—slowing money down so there is meaning attached to its creation and investment. Like water and wind, there is an appropriate velocity for the movement of money, says the SMA. The disruption in the global economy of late is the natural outgrowth of money moving faster than it should; of money becoming disconnected from how it was earned, spent, and invested.

The Slow Money Alliance plans to become a non-profit seed fund to support small, sustainable food production enterprises of all sorts. But their vision goes far beyond that simple statement. You can read more at their web site. I confess to not understanding a couple of things I read—especially the non-profit part. I wondered a few years back why there was no VC (venture capital) industry (or even a single fund) supporting the start-up and success of sustainable agriculture and lifestyle companies. VC funds by definition are "for profit," and agriculture should be profitable as well. Indeed, the very idea of planting one seed and getting hundreds in return makes "profit" the heart of agriculture. So I'm not clear on the non-profit aspect of the Slow Money Alliance—but am impressed enough with what I've read to recommend learning more about it.

The SMA is new, having held its first organizational conference this past September in Santa Fe. So this is a grass-roots effort, but it has attracted the support of a lot of leaders in the sustainable agriculture movement (listed on their web site).

Here's an intriguing short video of Woody Tasch, chairman and CEO of the Slow Money Alliance:

The above clip is from a longer interview (29 minutes) where Woody Tasch fleshes out the thinking behind the Slow Money Alliance. This longer discussion is terrific—very insightful about the BIG PICTURE of how our "growth for the sake of growth" economic system is unsustainable, the food supply being the prime example:

The Beauty of Children

A current Wal-Mart commercial playing on television has captured me. I stop everything as soon as it comes on. In a vignette surely to be played out a thousand times in the coming holidays, a dutiful grandfather packs his suitcase, schlepps through the airport, arrives at his destination city, and we see him at baggage claim. Then we see a young family of four headed his way—dad, mom, and two little girls about the same ages as my own granddaughters. They are coming to pick up gramps for a holiday visit.

The youngest of the two daughters is the image of the youngest of my granddaughters. She is short, walking on tiptoes through the crowded terminal, looking tentatively for her beloved grandfather. When she sees him her face lights up—yet she hesitates for a second before breaking into a sprint to be caught up in his arms. It's the innocence and tentativeness of a child all rolled into one. The look on her face is so genuine that I wonder if they used her actual grandfather in the scene.

Yes, they're actors, but the scene is full of emotion. I'm so thankful for my own granddaughters who come flying out the door if they see me drive up for a visit. Why do they do that? It's not that I come bearing gifts to jump-start their enthusiasm. They're just doing what happy children do. It's a beautiful thing.

I've seen other beautiful children recently in much more challenging situations. I can't imagine what must go through the minds of Afghan children who have suffered so much. They haven't breathed a breath their whole lives that didn't smell of war and suffering. Yet their beauty, in body and soul, remains vibrant—and convicting.

A high school friend, Jan Underwood Bradley, and her fine (recently retired USAF general) husband, John, have started the Lamia Afghan Foundation to help children in war-torn Afghanistan. Janny and I had a connection as the only two banjo players in our high school (she better than me; her twin brother Steve played bass in our garage band), and now she and her husband are taking hope and help to Afghan children. Here are two pictures of Jan and John with some of the children they are helping. (Please—don't give these pictures a hurried look. Take a minute to study their clothes and their surroundings—and the smiles on their faces.)

How resilient are children!—to have smiles on their faces in the midst of all they have been through. The beauty of children.

I, along with millions of other Americans, was touched last Friday night, and again this past Monday night, with segments about Afghan children on the NBC Nightly News. The beautiful Afghan children, mostly orphans, were just heartbreakingly noble—mainly because they seemed so happy in the midst of such desperate circumstances. The creative, driven young Afghan woman who manages 100+ children in the orphanage she started is amazing. I can't help but think that it's her optimism and hope that washes over her young charges. The following two NBC clips—first, from last Friday, then from the following Monday—tell the story and show the beauty of these little ones:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

After the Friday night report, I went to the NBC site to see what I could do to help and the servers were so busy that I never got through. But it's heartening to see how many Americans did and how many more children will be helped in Afghanistan. Who can just sit by when children, so often the ones who bear the scars of adults' foolishness, are at risk? I have supported various children the last 20 years through World Vision International. I have watched Peri in Indonesia grow up over the last 7-8 years. Now 16, he'll be moving on from the World Vision program and I will re-channel my support to another younger child.

I told my 32-year old twin boys on their birthday recently that I couldn't believe they were so old. I still think of them as the innocent, joyful, and pleasurable little guys they were 25 years ago. While they are still all that (okay, maybe not as innocent), the beauty of young children is irreplaceable by any other quality. I'm happy to have witnessed the beauty of my own five and how I learned through them to keep a compassionate corner in my heart for all children—especially those two Halloween-ready granddaughters I mentioned earlier (thanks to Jen for this great pic):

"The Worst Bill Ever"—WSJ

A November 1 editorial in The Wall Street Journal says, "The health bill [Speaker Pelosi] unwrapped last Thursday, which President Obama hailed as a 'critical milestone,' may well be the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced." Read why here.

This paragraph serves as fair warning:

As Congress's balance sheet drowns in trillions of dollars in new obligations, the political system will have no choice but to start making cost-minded decisions about which treatments patients are allowed to receive. Democrats can't regulate their way out of the reality that we live in a world of finite resources and infinite wants. Once health care is nationalized, or mostly nationalized, medical rationing is inevitable—especially for the innovative high-cost technologies and drugs that are the future of medicine.

Pregnant Women and H1N1 Vaccines

Any pregnant woman considering taking the H1N1 vaccine should listen to the testimony of neuroscience researcher Dr. Russell Blaylock who says the risks to an unborn child are far greater from taking the vaccine than not. You can listen to the audio here at mercola.com.

The Danger of Early Detection for Cancer:The Pinking and PSA'ing of America

For the last month America has been draped in pink as the breast cancer awareness movement has colored everything (NASCAR, pro sports teams, the White House) in its trademark hue. (Who's going to refuse to be part of breast cancer awareness month?)

The movement's efforts hit the news big time this week when a Washington, D.C., TV station aired a segment of a 28-year-old woman doing a self-exam on her breasts. Because the TV station waited until the last two days of the breast awareness month-long campaign to air the segment, and because it was aired during the first two days of the TV sweeps/ratings period, MSNBC's "Dr. Nancy" Snyderman asked on her (barely watched) TV show whether the segment was a ratings ploy (would be interesting to know how many males viewed the segment on female breast self-exam, right?) or a legitimate breast awareness piece. She had two medical "experts" respond, both of whom agreed it was probably a ratings ploy and should have been done on a 50-plus-year-old woman instead of a 28-year-old since the older demographic is much more vulnerable. (You decide why the segment used a 28-year-old rather than a 50-year-old—no offense, ladies.) The segment is on YouTube, but I'm not posting it here because it does require an 18-or-older sign-in since it shows nudity. The "exam" is very brief and non-offensive, and the majority of the piece is taken up with the interview between Snyderman and her two guests -- yada yada yada. Here is the YouTube link if you want to watch the segment and hear the interview.

Understand that the following question was NEVER at issue in the interview: Is there real value in mammographies (for women) and PSA tests for men when it comes to early detection of cancer? The prevailing opinion is YES -- women should get a mammography and men should have PSA tests regularly. Those tests have created a $20 billion industry in America -- for the tests ALONE -- not counting the additional billions spent on surgeries to "remove the early-detected cancers before they spread."

That was the prevailing public opinion until October 21, 2009—a little over a week ago—when Dr. Otis Brawley (who has never had a PSA test), chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, told The New York Times (reprinted in the San Francisco Chronicle), "We don't want people to panic, but I'm admitting that American medicine has overpromised when it comes to screening. The advantages to screening have been exaggerated."

As usual, Dr. John McDougall is on the case. He has written a thorough piece on the fallacy that early detection tests have reduced the rates of cancer, and why—especially the fact that many doctors now make lots of money from the screening industry. Dr. McDougall explains cancer cell growth (multiplication) rates and why cancers have always metastasized (spread to other body parts) long before they are detectable by current screening methods. Because the pre-screening gospel has been spread so thoroughly in our lifetimes, every man and woman who has considered having a mammography or PSA test should read his article so as to have a realistic understanding of what these tests can and can't accomplish.

I find it amazing that the chief medical officer of the ACS has never had a PSA and "doesn't desire one," and yet most of the doctors who support his organization have pushed for these tests for years. Dr. McDougall also asks and answers the questions, "How should the American medical establishment say 'I'm sorry' to the huge number of women who have lost breasts and men who have lost physical intimacy due to unnecessary surgeries? And how could the $20 billion currently spent on screening be better spent?"

Here are the last three paragraphs of Dr. McDougall's article, the whole of which can be found on his newsletter website here:

Human traits of greed and dishonesty have prevailed. Righteousness and giving are also human traits and now is the time for these two to triumph. $20 billion (the same amount that is currently spent on annual screening for breast and prostate cancer) should now be spent annually doing the right things for saving people from cancer, the unreliable tests, and the harmful treatments. Physicians, screening clinics, hospitals, medical associations, and medical societies must be forced, under the penalty of law if necessary, to tell the truth: Their testing does more harm than good.

Furthermore, they should be made to spread the good news about diet and cancer. Presently the American Cancer Society’s dietary messages for cancer prevention are, for women to “…stay at a healthy weight throughout your life and avoid gaining too much weight,” and “men who eat a lot of red meat or high-fat dairy products appear to have a slightly higher chance of getting prostate cancer. These men also tend to eat fewer fruits and vegetables. Doctors are not sure which of these factors is responsible for raising the risk.” These are downright timid messages about the importance of a healthy diet.

The truth is breast and prostate cancer are caused by the rich Western diet full of beef, chicken, cheese, milk, and oils, and contaminated with powerful environmental cancer-causing chemicals. A sizable share of that $20 billion must be spent on advertising, education, and subsidy programs to bring about monumental changes in our eating. The American Cancer Society needs to put meaning behind their apology by enthusiastically spreading the message that a starch-based diet with fruits and vegetables is fundamental for cancer prevention and good health.

P.S. To get Dr. McDougall's monthly newsletter, you can subscribe using the "Signup" link on the newsletter homepage. Mary McDougall's monthly vegan recipes make the newsletter doubly worthwhile—like these from the current newsletter. (All the recipes from previous newsletters are archived and easily printed.)