Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Every year in April, the City of Lights (Paris) and the City of Angels (Los Angeles) get together at the Directors Guild of America building on Sunset Boulevard and delight film-loving audiences with a week of French film premieres in Hollywood. The dizzying array of films presented includes new features, shorts, documentaries and classics of French cinema. It’s a blast. And since I’m lucky enough to live close by, my husband and I can walk (yes, here in L.A.!) to the festival known as COL COA.

On the same sad day, where the city of Boston fell victim to extreme violence, it is fitting that the first film I got to see was titled The Attack (L’Attentat in French), based on the international best-seller by Yasmina Khadra. Director and Beirut native Ziad Doueiri has crafted a powerful observation on the seemingly insoluble challenges facing even the best-intentioned players in the Israeli-Palestinian narrative.

We know this story is complex. We understand the history that all sides can’t forget. And we’ve seen the many films that have portrayed both the peace-seeking and revenge-centered characters presenting their convincing raison d’être. I am not a film critic nor a film historian, so I can’t say that the story told in this film is a “first.” Is there such a thing, anyway? Isn’t it how well the story is told, no matter how many times before?

After seeing the film, and then engaging in a Q&A with its impassioned co-writer and director, all I can say is that it is a testament to the power of the natural bonds that form when one human being takes the time to see his enemy through a personal lens — whether it be one of friendship, family, love or art.

In The Attack, a successful Palestinian surgeon, well established and surrounded by loving friends in Tel Aviv, suddenly finds his world turned upside down when his wife’s remains are found among the victims of a suicide bombing, and, impossibly, he is suspected of being an accomplice to the crime. The doctor’s journey to uncover his wife’s shocking secrets brings him face to face with the troubling nature of love and grief, loyalty and anger, and the intractable blood-stained color of passion.

To hear Ziad Doueiri tell it, his heart was changed through the making of his film, as were the hard-held beliefs of several Palestinian members of his cast and crew. And although he dares not hope for a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict in his lifetime, he knows it will come to pass someday if only because he recognizes that human beings yearn to connect with one another, and that meaningful cultural engagement can bring a fresh outlook on old conflicts.

Doueiri says that, according to a law in his country, it is illegal for a Lebanese citizen to enter Israel or engage in any way with Israeli citizens. In order to tell the truest story, he knew the film had to be shot in Israel, so he went anyway. He may go to jail for it, but he felt it was important to do it right. With that kind of passion, I can almost see the light through all the smoke and tears, blood and rubble. Even in Boston.

The festival ends on April 22. Many of the films are already sold out, but check it out anyway. You may get lucky! For more information, visit COL COA.

Can a lack of basic reading skills make you sick?

I would not have readily made that connection but the answer is yes. According to the NNLM, a U.S. government agency:

“…poor health literacy is a stronger predictor of a person’s health than age, income, employment status, education level, and race.”

I had never heard the term “health literacy” before and came across it while researching the impact of illiteracy in the U.S. It makes sense. If your reading and comprehension skills are sub par, there’s a good chance you don’t understand how to follow the instructions on your vial of prescription medication. Ditto for your ability to evaluate quality and credibility of information. Pick any outrageous claim made in late-night infomercials. Ask your doctor. Or maybe, don’t! Ignore the potential hazards and side effects delivered at hyper speed and just buy this stuff NOW!

I once wrote about a t-shirt line that my friend Stephen was contemplating. His idea was to shine a light on the sad state of affairs in the realm of grammar, literacy and critical thinking, and to use smartass slogans to advance the idea that being smart is cool. I suggested he get on it pronto! I so nagged him that he coaxed me into doing it with him, which is when I started researching stats on illiteracy’s devastating left hook. Did you know that:

One in seven adults in the U.S. cannot read this sentence.

This factoid never fails to slay me. And here’s just a tiny sampling of how this works in our cities and states:

75 percent of state prison inmates can be classified as low literate.

And…

Low literacy adds $225 billion in loss of tax revenue due to unemployment.

I am a Haitian native. I care about this issue. Only 53 percent of Haitians over the age of 15 can read and write. This explains a lot about why the island is so challenged in so many ways. Microcosm that it is, Haiti has its crazy-scary illiteracy rate hiding in plain sight, showing where many American communities could be headed.

(One of the ways I do my bit for Haiti is in the realm of the arts, exposing people to the side of Haiti that does work. I feel in my heart that Haiti’s rich arts culture can play a huge part in fostering its renaissance, and have started organizing art-buying tours to the island.)

But I live in the States, and this blight right here at home gnaws away at me. Not only does illiteracy in the nation impact us in unexpected ways, as referenced above, but the resultant lack of critical thinking has begun spreading like a virus, even infecting people who can read and write above high school level. Like being smart is something to be ashamed of.

Can a deficiency in critical thinking lead to buffoonery?

Meet Donald Trump (here’s my birth certificate, Bill Maher) and, Dennis (Guess What?) Rodman! Please note that these men are rich and famous, and thus are interviewed by the media just as if they weren’t buffoons.

At this point in time, we might even be reaching epidemic (and epic!) proportions of buffoonery! Look at all these exclamation marks! I’m getting so worked up! Buffoons, clowns and train wrecks are accepted as pundits, mere mouse and remote control clicks away, ever-present on our insatiable, indiscriminate news channels, which have stopped pretending to be anything other than naked grabs at larger audience shares. Something must be done, and every little bit helps. Don’t think that it doesn’t.

So, we give you Thinkware, a line of smartass t-shirts that encourage reading, literacy and not being a moron. These shirts may not replace an Ivy League education, but they’ll make us think, laugh and hopefully do some good (part of our proceeds will go to literacy organizations). There’s a Kickstarter campaign in the works. Get in on the act and help spread the word! Or in this case, words. red a f male

Originally published on Huffington Post.

And the Oscar goes to… Drumroll, please… Ego!

There seemed to be a dominant thread weaving itself through all the male gynecologists I had the pleasure of visiting in the last three months, but I was stumped as to what it was. Impatience? Boredom? Self-importance? Repetitive motion syndrome? Lack of empathy? No compassion? Disinterest? Inability to listen? Disdain for all things “natural” no matter how reasonable? And then it finally dawned on me. Yes! Ego! Big ones!

Dangerous intruders calling themselves “pre-cancerous cells” broke down the door of my cervix late last year, sending me on a chain of doctor visits, hospital outpatient procedures and really fun phone conversations with my insurance provider. Luckily, these intruders came, created some stress and left. I’ll be surprised if I ever see them again. So, while I thank my lucky stars for being spared the horror of a real home invasion — where the bad guys take over and threaten never to leave — I did get to spend more time than I wanted to with the cops. I’m talking about the doctors — those who come in to save the day and keep you safe. The way they handle the situation has a huge impact on your emotional state, peace of mind and the inevitable fear that the intruders might return.

I would have preferred female cops — or in this case, female gynecologists — but my HMO plan didn’t offer any except for the one who originally handled the investigation, and, well, I had issues with her. I don’t speak Korean; she barely speaks English. And for some reason, she was unfamiliar with some of the likeliest suspects involved in the break-in — hormones. Plus, she had these dead eyes that reminded me of a reptile. Call me silly, but she made me uneasy. So, I went to see Doctor #2, the nightmare.

Upon seeing the results of the first procedure, which indicated the presence of said intruders, Doctor #2 recommended a biopsy but informed me that I would need to have a hysterectomy regardless of the outcome. “Really?” I said. “Why is that?”

Well, he wasn’t going to put up with me questioning his authority, so he repeated what he said the first time, only louder. When I had lingering cramps from the first procedure and asked if that was normal, he said, “No, but there’s cancer in there!”

“Really?” I said. “I thought you said I have ‘pre-cancerous’ cells.” (Pre-cancerous cells are intruders that, if left to their own devices, may or may not become cancerous.) He brushed aside my ridiculous semantics. I hung up the phone and had a really bad day.

Still cramping one month later and worried about it, I went in to see Dr. #2 again. He said he had no idea why I was cramping. Period. I was obviously an alarmist. But still, I persevered and asked him whether I did or did not have cancer, and could that be the cause of my cramps, as he had indicated on the phone. He denied ever having said that to me and we engaged in a “yes, you did”/”no, I didn’t” exchange that almost went into the comical.

My biopsy report was full of excellent words like mild, non-invasive and low-grade. Dr. #2 said I obviously needed to have my uterus, ovaries and fallopian tubes removed. “Really?” I said. “Why is that?” He said it was best to destroy the bedroom, living room and dining room of my house so that the intruders would have fewer places to invade should they return. And then he gave me a Wikkipedia article on the über common practice in the United States of removing female parts at the drop of a hat.

“But don’t believe me,” he said with hostility, “get a second opinion!” I asked to be referred to a gynecologist/oncologist, and he complied with my request. Turned out, I would have to wait over a month to see him.

Since I knew I didn’t want to continue seeing Dr. #2, I went in search of another gynecologist for the long term. Dr. #3 was a real cool dude. Black jeans, combat boots, great guy, who took lots of time explaining exactly why he thought I needed to have a hysterectomy where only my uterus would be removed. He said removing my other moving parts was tantamount to cutting my leg off at the hip because I might break my ankle someday. He drew me a very clear picture with arrows that made the reasons for removal of my uterus quite obvious. (Plus, he gave me a prescription for an antibiotic that cleared up the low-grade infection that was causing the cramps!)

However, in the throes of his dissertation, he talked over me every time I tried to ask a question. When he was done speaking, I left feeling a lot more informed about why I should have my uterus removed, that he would probably be my new gynecologist, and that he sure did like to hear himself talk!

Finally time came to visit Dr. #4, cancer expert. After reviewing my biopsy report, he said that a hysterectomy was absolutely unnecessary, and that I was good to go with bi-annual pap smears. He drew me a picture too, taking the time to explain everything, and when he was through, he stood up to indicate the visit was over. “I have a couple of questions,” I said. Okay, I admit it. Maybe I was just feeling rushed and nervous, but what I said was, “I have a couple of questions?”

“Oh?” he said, but did not sit back down.

Looking up at him, I asked about several related concerns that I had been waiting weeks to discuss with him. He quickly dispensed with my questions as if they were unimportant and showed an undisguised lack of interest in a recently-published study showing a 100 percent success rate on the healing of pre-cancerous cells with a natural product commonly available on the market.

He was obviously a busy man, so I was very lucky that, as I was leaving, he mentioned in passing that since the intruders had been removed during the biopsy, I had to stay vigilant in watching for their improbable return via the recommended pap smears. “What?” I said. “Did you say the intruders were removed from the property?” All that time I thought they were still there, lurking in the house! Somehow, no one had thought it important enough to tell me.

Needless to say, I was very relieved when I left the office of Dr. #4. I loved hearing that I wouldn’t need a hysterectomy and that I no longer had pre-cancerous cells on my cervix. But I couldn’t help being shocked at how little curiosity he’d shown over a promising new treatment for his patients, and how much he liked to hear himself talk!

Cops* have a rough job, it’s true. So used to dealing with the scum of the earth, you almost can’t blame them for treating you like scum when you come in contact with them. But we’re not all scum. And although cops, armed with their power, and doctors, armed with medical knowledge, hear the same stories day in and day out, they need to remember that each one of our stories is unique, and that they too might learn something if they would occasionally engage in the vanishing art of listening.

Ego may get the Oscar, but a little humility would make for a far better movie.

*Obviously there are great cops and wonderful doctors out there, too.

Originally published on Huffington Post.

Shame and Anger were having lunch one day at a restaurant of Shame’s choosing. They often hung out together because they had so much in common: feelings of helplessness, despair, guilt, confusion and a belief that true happiness is beyond reach. Acquaintances didn’t understand the friendship because Shame seemed so weak and pathetic, while Anger, though aggressive and unpleasant, enjoyed a reputation for toughness, grittiness and a refusal to accept life’s unfair lessons. Anger seemed to take great joy in bullying Shame whenever he could. Sometimes Anger would ignore Shame’s emails, texts and phone calls just because he could. It made him feel vital and strong. He loved calling the shots. If he couldn’t always control the events of his life, he was at least in command of this relationship; knowing Shame had its benefits!

For his part, Shame, who without a doubt lived under the umbrella of Small and Inconsequential, was not as subservient as he seemed. In fact, because Narcissism was at the core of Shame’s moral structure, Shame’s needs, Shame’s feelings and Shame’s priorities always led the band, clamoring, demanding, insisting they have their way. So, while Anger considered himself top dog, he was mistaken; and nowhere was it so evident as on that day at lunch.

“I feel really horrible about what I did to Alex the other day,” Shame said to Anger, head hanging low as he reached across the table for the salt.

“What did you do this time?” Anger said.

“I’ve been such a bad friend in general,” Shame said. “Wasn’t there for him when he was down, haven’t stood by my commitments, been too involved in my own dramas to notice that things were deteriorating between us. And then the other day, I totally forgot to show up to drive him to an important appointment. I really suck… Of course, he could have called to remind me.”

“Damn straight, my brother.”

“I mean, he knows what I’ve been dealing with these past few weeks.”

“Didn’t that therapist give you all kinds of homework to do? Got to put yourself first, my man.”

“Still, I should have remembered,” Shame said.

“Hey, if someone needs a favor from you, the least they can do is stay on top of things. All he had to do was send you a text; goddamn parasite is what I think he is.”

“Well, I don’t know about that. Maybe I just need to apologize like crazy and beg his forgiveness.”

“You know something, Shame, you make me want to puke,” Anger said. “What you need to do is tell him to get a life! What are you, his personal valet or something? I have a good mind to give that jerk a good kick in the ass. Hey, isn’t that him now?”

“Oh, yeah, he’s heading our way!”

Anger stood up. “Look here, Alex,” he said. “Where do you get off giving Shame a hard time for not showing up the other day? People like you are disgusting, you know that?”

“What in the world are you talking about? You’re crazy,” Alex said before walking away.

Haitians have a famous saying about shame and anger; my mother says it all the time when talking about someone who hides behind a wall of anger because they are ashamed of their own behavior but won’t or don’t know how to admit it. Li fe la wont sevi kole. The literal translation goes like this: He/she made shame serve anger. But because it actually means the opposite, I have for years translated it for friends as putting anger at the service of your shame. My mother agrees that this is the correct translation. But as I’m endlessly fascinated by the wisdom and depth of this saying, along with the mysterious workings of these two emotions in human relations, I was once again thinking about the apparent error of the saying in the Kreyol language. And it finally occurred to me that there is no error at all. Because while it is true that anger is often used to mask shame, at the same time, anger is also served when shame gives it grounds to revel in its own raison d’être. Two meanings hiding in one proverb! Gotta love those Haitians.

Having observed this interplay more often than I care to say, I suggest that the next time you are verbally abused by someone who should be asking your forgiveness or simply seeking frank communication, just remember this saying about shame and anger serving each other. It will not only clear up the puzzle, it will serve to remind you that you are dealing with an emotional cripple. I’m no therapist, mind you, just Haitian.

Originally published on Huffington Post.

“Foolish, foolish heart, you’ve been wrong before, don’t be wrong anymore…”

Remember that Steve Perry song? I so related to it in my 20s. Um, actually, I meant my teens! Okay, I admit it. My foolish heart fell prey to the bad boy syndrome far too long, although I was lucky — some women never escape it. You know what I’m talking about, right? That passionate surrender to the siren call of someone who really turns you on and makes you feel so good but who often treats you like crap. A wild card, doesn’t value you, rarely shows up emotionally, the guy you’re unsure of, afraid to let him know your true feelings because it may drive him away or give him too much power, blah, blah, blah. So boring, that scenario; and yet, like a drug, you find yourself unable to resist him and others like him, again and again.

Even after outgrowing the lure of the bad boy, the syndrome still perplexed me. Why was this self-defeating pattern so prevalent among women?* (A few years ago, I even started a book and interviewed a bunch of women on the subject.) The poor relationship choices of my youth must have left a searing mark, because I’ve never stopped trying to understand what folly had made me act so meanly toward my little ole self. Unsolved mysteries stay with me, and this one was no different.

However! I am happy to report that a recent piece in the New York Times called “I Heart Unpredictable Love” finally solved the puzzle for me. (Damn good paper, that NYT.)

In short, a psychiatric study, which monitored subjects’ brains via MRI scans, found that when presented with rewards in an unpredictable pattern, people’s pleasure centers lit up far more than when the pattern was predictable. The greater joy was in the surprise. To come back to our issue, most people seek a stable, loving, desirable and supportive partner, but the uncontested reality of infidelity among married partners and the enduring attraction to “bad boys” bears out the study’s findings. Call it a conscious desire for “variety” or a subconscious jones for “unpredictability,” there is now a possible reason why human beings have a hard time resisting pleasure that is erratic — even when it goes against our self-interest or belief system. We’re just wired that way.

What the hell?

Betrayed by our very own synapses! Is that fair? I’d like to have a talk with that supposedly intelligent life force, which designed us this way. What about all this blather about free will? On that front, the article’s author, Professor Richard A. Friedman, takes the time to point out that we can’t expect to fall back on these findings as an excuse for bad behavior because we’re supposed to “use our conscious knowledge to override our unhealthy or undesirable impulses…”

So, bottom line, we’re back to where we started. We already know what’s good for us — stay away from Mr. Hot Stuff, Married Lady! — now we just have to do it. Ah, responsibility is a bitch.

See, the thing is that my life worked out pretty well. I’m happily married to a guy who is a bad boy in many ways but one big one: I can count on him showing up. So the question that sometimes gnaws at me is this: Despite my longstanding and grown-up mindset on the subject, could I be seduced again if faced with the right (or in this case, very wrong) rogue? I hope I never have to find out!

In the meantime, I am encouraged by another study I saw in the NYT a few days after reading the first article. Remember that two-faced character known as familiarity? Yes, it breeds contempt; but, the other side of it is that it also brings us comfort and “evolutionary benefits,” including helping “spouses stick together through mood swings, piles of dirty clothes left on the floor and other annoying things that never seem to go away.” I’m guessing that intelligent life force wanted to make sure we stayed awake.

*It certainly happens with men too. The study did not differentiate men from women; but in my terribly unscientific survey of the situation, it sure seems as if I hear about it a lot more often from women.

“… there are occasional prostitutes, and sometimes they’re top models who try to make ends meet. They aren’t miserable women on the sidewalk.”

That’s a quote from a guy named Hubert Delarue, a lawyer for one of the men allegedly involved in the prostitution ring that catered to the sex parties attended by alleged rapist and former French International Monetary Fund (IMF) chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn, or DSK if you prefer using his sexier-sounding initials; you know, like OJ.

This casual assertion—which aims to differentiate between streetwalkers and women who occasionally charge for sex when they can no longer afford trips to the hairdresser—leapt off the page as I read a recent New York Times article on DSK’s attempt to define himself as a victim badgered for being lustful, which he contends is not a crime.

A friend of mine once lived the life, both on the streets with a pimp and as a highly paid escort. With persistence and determination she managed to escape from the trenches, and according to her, the one and only reason women ever go into this line of work is because they have “zero self-esteem.” But there are binders full of idiotic men out there who will argue with you that, although this may be true for some or maybe even most sex workers, they have proof that many women do it because they really, really love sex. Everyone has a story about a very sexual roommate or friend who found a way to make money out of something they love. It’s true! they will tell you, It’s true!

Repeat after me, idiots, a woman who charges you for sex is not doing it because you’re such an enjoyable fat guy (or fit guy, for that matter). There are nymphomaniacs in the world, that’s for sure. But you do know the definition of the word, don’t you? Inordinate sexual desire in a female. Inordinate, as in exceeding normal bounds. Women do not aspire to become nymphomaniacs. If they are, they usually consider it a dysfunction. So, just to be clear, a prostitute is not a nymphomaniac. If a prostitute convinces herself—and you—that she sells herself because she so enjoys sex, when she is ready to face the truth, she will admit that charging for sex to earn a living makes her feel like shit.

Still, for many, it is a living; and a woman should be able to do as she pleases with her body. Like abortion, prostitution should be safe and legal; but that doesn’t make you, the john, a stud. And if you, Mr. John, have talked yourself into believing that there is a difference between the woman who sells her body on the street and the woman at a chic party who charges you 50 times what the streetwalker would, sorry, they are one side of the same coin. And one more thing, if you somehow feel superior to a prostitute—maybe because you’re paying her—make no mistake about it, you and she are on a level playing field: two equal partners involved in one transaction neither one of you is likely to write home about.

According to my friend, she was finally able to leave the life with the help of a wonderful organization called The Mary Magdalene Project, which aims to assist women “who are victimized by domestic trafficking and street prostitution permanently exit the lifestyle.” Listening to her, it sounded like leaving prostitution was every bit as difficult as being a former drug addict and staying sober. For a lot of reasons, it turns out that for recovering prostitutes, the recidivism rate is high. Sounds like alcoholism. Maybe we should call it a disease?

To many (and possibly to many prostitutes), this will sound extreme. But I have an urgent need to make my point because of the closing paragraph from that same NYT article:

“…two French entrepreneurs are promoting a saffron-flavored soda to mix for cocktails at fashionable Paris bars. They are branding it as an aphrodisiac with a memorable label: Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s initials, DSK.”

Something’s got to be done. Binders full of idiots are on the loose.

Mitt may not remember me but I remember him like it was yesterday. I’ve been married nearly 25 years now, but if you’ve ever been intimately involved with a pathological liar, it’s an experience you never forget. The eight months I spent with my own fabulist were so traumatic that I came to think of all liars as one and the same person. Pathological, chronic, habitual, compulsive—whatever, they all have the same uncanny ability to stir the pot, creating dissention and drama wherever they go. My teeth start grinding in fear (compulsively!) whenever I even consider the idea of Mitt in the Big House.

My personal Mitt felt compelled to tell you whatever you wanted to hear. You could forgive him when he said harmless stuff like, “I can’t imagine why he ever called you Thunder Thighs, sweetie, he just doesn’t understand the pleasures of a juicy woman.” In fact, I still pay good money for lies like that. It was the other kind of crazy, nonsensical lying, which often deposited me at the center of pointless maelstroms. It would start out innocently enough, like the time I overheard him on the phone chatting excitedly with someone about having landed a role on a soap opera. After he hung up, I asked him why he’d said that since he had not even auditioned for that particular soap.

“Well, the job is as good as mine,” he said, accusingly, his usually twinkling eyes now dead cold. “Joe said he’d spoken about me to his agent, who told him I sounded like the perfect replacement for Jake, that character who sleeps with all the women and makes them crazy.”

The person he was on the phone with turned around and called everyone to say that Mitt would be a rich man very soon; and that’s when the pone started ringing non-stop with loan requests. We were penniless at the time.

Can’t you just see Mitt saying to Vladimir Putin, “I just spoke to Hu Jintao (leader of the People’s Republic of China) and he told me he’s working on a speech in which he is going to renounce communism and embrace capitalism. So, really, you should consider getting the jump on him!” And later, as he explains to the press, “Jin specifically said that capitalism is a nice idea!”

Watching that first presidential debate, I couldn’t stop thinking about my time with Mitt. No, I didn’t! That’s not true. You’re not entitled to your own facts, Mr. President. The striking thing about pathological liars is this: they think everyone else lies, too! This almost makes sense for Mitt because all politicians do lie at one point or another; it’s the habitual part that’s problematic. Obama can certainly be accused of reneging on or ignoring some of his campaign promises; but is he a habitual liar? I think not. And as I mentioned earlier, it’s what they lie about that really matters. Bill Clinton lied repeatedly about his sex life, but I’m giving him a pass on that one because as Robert Heinlein famously said, “Everyone lies about sex.”

The other really creepy thing about pathological liars is that, well, they’re creepy. Looking at them in action, you can’t tell whether they really believe what they’re saying or whether they take you for a total idiot, landing you in that Twilight Zone of repeated self-examination for not being able to figure it out.

Most people thought Mitt was fun! But being his girlfriend was tough. It was also disconcerting, frustrating, destabilizing and weird—just how you want to feel about the leader of the free world.

Remember Jon Lovitz as the Pathological Liar character on Saturday Night Live? The thing about Tommy Flanagan was how much he enjoyed telling one outrageous lie after another, each one building on the next. There was that loony gleam pouring from his eyes as he inwardly rejoiced in taking you for a fool. Yeah, that’s it. That’s the ticket! The GOP ticket.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.