Crawling out of the muck and mire of crass commercialism

OK, so I've been a terrible slacker these last few weeks. The annual holiday morass of shopping, wrapping, and eating (not to mention weeks of crushing boredom at work) has left me so utterly drained of energy and wit that I haven't been able to string together more than a sentence or two at a time. Blar.

But there's nothing like an international disaster to shake me free of my lethargy. The death toll continues to rise in the wake of the horrific devastation wrought by tsunamis in the coastal areas of south Asia - official counts have reached 52,000 and are still climbing. And that doesn't even include the casualities that are sure to follow from disease and starvation.

Meanwhile, our good friend Sheelzebub observed earlier today that the U.S. has pledged a paltry $15 million in aid to the battered region.

Interestingly, the Washington Post now reports that USAID is preparing to increase its aid efforts by another $20 million. Guilt is a wonderful thing, eh? Still, it's a drop in the bucket coming from the wealthiest country on the planet. Then again, what else should we expect from an administration whose raison d'etre is to line the pockets of the uber-rich? As Sheelzebub points out, "Between the invasion of Iraq, the "war" on terror, and tax cuts for the super-wealthy, we're just strapped."

For those who'd rather not wait for the government to get off the proverbial dime and pony up more funds, there are plenty of organizations lining up to offer assistance; check out this list. All of them are eminently worthy, but I'll put in my own personal plug for Oxfam.

I can't help reflecting on the irony that at the very moment so many of us were wallowing in wretched excess, tens of thousands were being stripped of their homes, their livelihoods, and even their lives. If God exists, s/he has a viciously perverse sense of humor.

So what if the country's going to Hell in a handcart? At least my hair looks good!

Coming back from lunch today, I got in the elevator with two older men. One asked the other, "Are you over the election yet?"

"Not really," came the reply. "It's been rough."

"Well," said the first, as he exited the elevator, "the holidays will help. Have a good Christmas."

The doors closed and the second man, who looked to be in his late sixties, asked, "How are you today?"

I smiled and said, "I haven't gotten over the election, either."

To which he replied - and I swear I am not making this up - "Well, you look great. I love the way you've done your hair."

Now why didn't someone tell me this before? Here we liberals have been lying awake nights, grappling with the aftermath of the election and its implications for our future - but hey, it's all right, kids, because I have great hair!

I realize that this man was making banal elevator conversation for two floors. And I realize, too, that he's of a different generation. But what does it say when a woman offers a political opinion, and the response she gets is, "Well, you look great"?

It says that, reflexively, her mind is valued far less than her appearance. It says, "No one cares what you think, little girl - just shut up and look pretty."

It says that in 2004, in the United States of America - land of the free and home of the brave, or so they tell me - women still don't get taken seriously.

Abstaining from good sense

Thinking people have long understood that abstinence-only sex education (and I use the term "education" lightly here) is a farce. Telling teenagers to abstain from sex has never worked. God's own self could come down from the stratosphere and threaten teens with eternal hellfire unless they keep their paws off each other - and huge numbers of them would still do the horizontal mambo. Call it nature, call it the urge to merge, call it whatever you like... but thus has it e'er been, and thus shall it e'er remain. Meanwhile, scientific analysis has found no conclusive evidence that abstinence-only education is effective.

This reality, of course, hasn't deterred the "moralists" in the White House, who could never be accused of letting the facts get in their way. They and their upright, uptight cronies have stormed our schools with their "just say no to sex" blitzkrieg, and have nearly $170 million earmarked in next year's budget for abstinence programs.

A new congressional staff analysis gives a boost to sex-ed programs that offer comprehensive info about everything from abstinence to zygotes. Out of 13 abstinence-only curricula examined, the report concludes that 11 give teenagers misleading or downright false information - including these howlers:

• A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person."
• HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, can be spread via sweat and tears.
• Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse.
• Women who have an abortion "are more prone to suicide" and as many as 10 percent of them become sterile.

So not only aren't kids getting the full range of information about sex, the information they are getting is ... hmm, what's the word? Oh, yeah: wrong.

The White House says it's trying to prevent abortions and HIV infection. But if that's what it really wanted, it would make sure kids have every available piece of scientific information about safe sex at their disposal. And it also might pay some attention to issues like poverty, self-esteem, and abuse - factors that contribute enormously to unwanted pregnancies and HIV infection.

But to this administration, information is the enemy. And the next generation is going to pay dearly for that willful ignorance.