brethren priestess online

These movies are not tickets to escapism. If you don’t want more proof that some people’s (too many people’s) lives are way too hard, don’t watch them. But you should watch them, and you should bring friends. And tissues.

LA MISMA LUNA (Under the Same Moon)

A mother and son through a week of their respective journeys to be reunited across borders, despite all who stand in their way (be they La Migra, exploitative employers, police, or even folks trying to help). Bonus: this film has one of the best nine-year-old actors I have ever seen.

STOP-LOSS

A soldier and his fellows as they return from Iraq to civilian life, only to find that the President has “stop-lossed” them, sending them back to Iraq, regardless of whatever they have to say about the matter.

These two movies deal with different communities facing different battles, and yet their core features, which make them great movies, are shared:

1. They’re both really good movies.

2. They have strong female characters.

3. They show that the government is not always our friend.

4. They pull you in one way and then another, ripping your heart along with you, so much that you never know just how things will turn out.

5. Some of the saddest characters are the ones I would least expect.

6. They give glimpses of worlds rarely portrayed with such richness in movies: the nuts and bolts of the US economy in the former, the mortar fire on the ground in the Iraq war in the latter.

7. They both present the real life decisions we have to make (or we don’t have to make - in which case, we should be wondering why we don’t).

8. You should really see them both. But maybe not on consecutive nights - I speak from experience on that.

On the anniversary of the war, the BBC runs the history of the US and UK peace sign, which started as a symbol for nuclear disarmament:

And back in Chicago, my family and fellow congregants take to the streets with their own peace signs:

Yet again, we mourn this hellish incarnation of war. This war is on Iraq, and it is showing yet again why all war is humanity’s great sin.

Here are some pictures: one sign from today’s rally at San Francisco’s Civic Center (put to good use); the other sign from the two-way protest at Berkeley City Council a few weeks ago (the one where the Lafayette Flag Brigade deigned to enter Berkeley city limits in order to sing patriotic songs (poorly) and make it known to anyone who would listen that they didn’t like the Berkeley City Council’s decision to support the Code Pink protests at the Berkeley Marine recruiting station; in response, ‘Code Pinklets’ (as the Flag Brigadiers called them) and folks from the World Can’t Wait campaigns staged a counter-protest; I’ll let you guess which protest this sign is from).

The pictures below are from the memorial vigil at Grace Cathedral. As an acolyte passed among the crowd dispersing incense, clergy from various faiths (among them Christian, Buddhist, and Jewish) read off the names of victims of this war on Iraq. We crowded around them, standing among pairs of shoes placed on the cathedral steps.

The effect of the shoes was profound. I appreciated the somber tone of the vigil, even while my soul is fed by the liturgy of street protests just as much. The memorial vigil allowed me a few moments to pause and try to really remember the loss, as Jesus urged us to do as his disciples.

I imagined the people who, but for being murdered by this war, might have stood there on the steps filling those shoes. There would have been hundreds of them, thousands, hundreds of thousands - the actual number don’t really matter when mourning. Too many. I wondered if they would stand in those shoes staring out from the steps, as the shoes were pointing, facing the world with accusing eyes, or if they might turn around and listen to the prayers being spoken from the top of the cathedral steps.

With the lessons from my Swedenborgian friend still fresh on my mind, I understood for the first time the concept of angels, at least as she describes them: the disembodied presence of those humans who have died but are still among us. And even though fear (and its companion, hatred) was the source of their deaths, these angels only love, and ask us to remember.

I also knew that a pair of shoes was not nearly enough to remember the complexity of even one single person lost in this war. Standing next to my partner and amongst many of my dear friends, I felt just how much effort it would take to properly remember anyone so dear to me as them.

Shoes were not made to memorialize murders; they are not strong enough to bear the burden. But they are an important start.

Dear Iowa Relatives;

Merry Christmas to you and yours! Little did you know it, but I have been thinking about you especially this time of year! So as not to prolong the suspense, and to admit the shamelessness of this letter as soon as possible, I will get down to business: I think you (and many people like you) should vote for Barack Obama.

Do I dare to tell my family what to do? Well, not exactly. I do venture to add my views to the many clamoring for your attention. My boyfriend and I have been active in the Obama campaign in our area, tabling at the local farmer’s market, throwing Obama parties, and canvassing door-to-door. I got to thinking that before talking to more Californians, I should spend an hour or two contacting my own relatives with those coveted primary votes back in Iowa.

To risk crossing beyond the typical intellectual-orientation of our family’s discussions, I want to say that for me, supporting Obama is not just about the “issues.” I figure you can see his policy statements for yourself online at www.barackobama.com. On the major political issues of our day, Obama pretty much matches up for me as well as anyone. I also don’t like Obama just because he’s from Illinois, either.

I am supporting Obama because I really think he will be the best president out of all the candidates running. He’s not just the best collection of political slogans; he is the best all-around person to lead our country. When I imagine our country under his presidency, I feel proud (perhaps even patriotic?) in a way that I have never had the chance to feel. Obama will bring a careful, eloquent dignity to the office, which is what our country sorely needs both domestically and internationally.

After watching one of the debates a few months ago, I finally realized what made Obama stand out for me. All the other candidates sounded as if they were trying to convince the viewers that they were the most qualified for the job of being president of the United States of America (with varying degrees of success). But Obama sounded as if he was articulating a new vision for what the president of the United States of America should be.

Honestly, I would not despair if Clinton won the nomination, but I would be greatly disappointed at the opportunities for progress that would be lost. Right now, the only person who I can see preventing a Clinton win, on either the right or the left, is Obama. If you love Hillary, I say vote for her. But if you are opposed to her election, or just think we Democrats could find someone more progressive, the best candidate is Obama.

One of the major reasons I’m supporting Obama is that he is the most ‘electable’ Democratic candidate. My greatest concern with the possibility of a Clinton nomination is that her chances of beating the Republican nominee are much slimmer than Obama’s. My boyfriend and I have been tracking the polls at www.realclearpolitics.com, and in match-ups between Democratic and Republican front-runners, it’s alarmingly evident that there are only two ways a Republican could reach the White House: 1) election fraud, which we should come to expect by now; 2) Clinton being the Democratic nominee.

There is a lot of (admittedly extreme) fear of a Clinton administration, baggage which Obama does not carry. Just last night I talked with a Republican Iowa woman about living through the thick of primary season. She didn’t like much about any of the Republican candidates. But then she started shaking her head, saying, “Oh, we don’t want Hillary… no, we don’t want Hillary,” over and over. I broke her from this strange mantra by suggesting that Obama offered the best alternative and she agreed, pledging to support whoever would make sure it wasn’t Clinton in office. For some reason, Obama’s articulate, hopeful message is attractive to Republicans as well as Democrats, even while his policies place him further ‘left’ of Clinton. And the fact that Obama offers appeal that can cross religious and political bounds will serve him well not only in the 2008 election, but while he runs the country as president.

Your votes are crucial because the Iowa caucuses will be the decisive election for the nation. If Obama wins in Iowa, I think he can carry the national nomination. If Clinton or Edwards win in Iowa, I foresee Clinton winning nationally.

So, there you have it. That’s my political evangelization pitch. Being a bit of a politics nerd, I would be happy to hear from you about your experience of this exciting primary election season in Iowa, even if you end up supporting another candidate. In addition to my ulterior motives, I do sincerely wish you a happy and healthy holiday season, with all of my heart.

P.S. Obama On Some Issues of Import for Me:
• From his experience working as a community organizer in Chicago, I believe Obama has the best grasp on the demands facing those living in poverty.
• From his consistent record of opposition to the war in Iraq, I believe Obama would consider the moral implications of waging war, as well as the political ones.
• From his speeches, he seems to understand the nuances that go into choosing how to face an unwanted pregnancy and that the choice goes deeper than bumper sticker simplicity.
• From his willingness to engage with people of faith across the political spectrum, I believe he actually understands and practices the same Christian religion I am committing my life to.
• From his creativity in leading a campaign that does not rely primarily on large corporate donations, I see him breaking a new mold in campaign financing.

I do believe that any of the Democrats would be much, much better than any of the Republicans on these important issues, as well as others such as health care and protecting the Earth’s environment. But I am still holding out to work for the very best in all these issues, within a presidential package that is grounded in the grassroots and reaching for the sky….

So, it doesn’t increase the risk of dying from most illnesses to be 15-30 pounds ‘overweight,’ or to have a Body-Mass Index (BMI) of up to 30, according to a study published by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association. Being highly obese can still lead to some problems, the study finds, but it doesn’t make much difference at all to be just a bit heavier than the ‘ideal’ people have decided on.

Except that it might keep you alive. You see, another finding in the same study was that people who are about 15 pounds ‘overweight’ actually are more likely to survive some illnesses.

The AP article on this study in the Oakland Tribune expressed absolute shock and dumbfoundedness about this finding. How in the world could it be healthier to be even one pound fatter than a stick figure? Being skinny is supposed to be an ultimate, unmediated good! Does this mean we have to stop harassing fatter people as if they are committing an ongoing, mortal sin?

But it’s hard to be surprised at the ‘news’ that being a little bit fat helps you get through periods of sickness. Duh. Don’t we all know that? Haven’t we all seen friends or family members get sick and visibly drop weight? Well, then, how could it not be better for someone in that situation to have a little buffer weight, instead of being nearly-bone-thin and then losing even more weight because of illness?

The article cites as one remaining supposed danger of being slightly ‘overweight’ (we have to retain some reason to feel smug about being thinner than other people, now, don’t we, mainstream media?): that being overweight could lead, down that slippery slope, to being obese. Yet, the article fails to note the equally obvious observation that being underweight can lead just as easily to anorexia or bulimia or other forms of starvation.

It never seems to cross the minds of these folks who are so concerned about other people’s eating habits that eating too little and being too thin is a problem worth their concern. Even when research smacks them in the face, these journalists and scientists and businesspeople and others cannot even fathom that their moral hierarchy of size, which deems overweight people second-class citizens, might be wrong.

What would they do without their prejudices? Perhaps do real science?

Free Burma! - International Bloggers’ Day for Burma on the 4th of October

International bloggers are preparing an action to support the peaceful revolution in Burma. We want to set a sign for freedom and show our sympathy for these people who are fighting their cruel regime without weapons. These Bloggers are planning to refrain from posting to their blogs on October 4 and just put up one Banner then, underlined with the words „Free Burma!“.

www.free-burma.org

Every little bit helps…