What about the children?!?
This newborn (newborn!) has been denied insurance because he has a pre-existing condition.
And you say that you care about the unborn? And the babies? I don't really think you do.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Friday, 26 March 2010
Monday, 16 November 2009
One word: plastics
A disturbing new study is out which has found high levels of BPA in many of our food-preserving vehicles (by which I mean "cans"). BPA is already known to have effects on erectile/reproductive function and hormone production/reception. Also, news articles upon news articles (reporting on scientific studies, of course) continue to warn the public about the dangers of phthalates, chemicals added to tons of plastics to improve their plasticity.
Right, okay, so throw out all those canned tomatoes (cans of acidic foods tend to leach more BPA than cans of alkaline foods), stop drinking stuff bottled in plastic, or cans (yup, soda cans too), start buying phthalate-free cosmetics (moisturiser, nail polish, eyeshadow, powders, hairsprays, and more!), don't forget the phthalate-free vibrator (just when you thought your vag was safe from chemicals) - why am I still upset about all this information?
Both BPA and phthalates are "xenoestrogens", which means that they act like estrogen in the body. *All* of the hullaballoos I've been reading in major news sources about the dangers of these chemicals have only addressed the dangers these chemicals pose to *boys* and *men.* Are women not affected by excess estrogen? Are girls and women miraculously exempt from the consequences of these endocrine disruptors**?
No! But, of course it is only when the masculinity of young boys and the reproductive abilities of grown men are being threatened that journalists and the government feel the need to raise the red flag. God forbid my son be effeminate! (Or grow up with undescended testicles, or tiny penises.) God forbid that adult men not be able to stick it to their ladyfriends (or manfriends)! God forbid that all these fetuses come out female instead of male!
Thank you, sexist media, for warning us about threats to male health.
My question: where the heck are the studies about women?? And since there are such studies, why the heck is Big Media not reporting on it? Doesn't our health count?
**Disclaimer: I am a lady who is quite sensitive to excess estrogen and xenoestrogens in my body. I would hate to develop breast cancer, ovarian cysts, reproductive problems, diabetes, etc. because health organizations and the government failed to see that putting hormones into everyday products was a detrimental thing.
Right, okay, so throw out all those canned tomatoes (cans of acidic foods tend to leach more BPA than cans of alkaline foods), stop drinking stuff bottled in plastic, or cans (yup, soda cans too), start buying phthalate-free cosmetics (moisturiser, nail polish, eyeshadow, powders, hairsprays, and more!), don't forget the phthalate-free vibrator (just when you thought your vag was safe from chemicals) - why am I still upset about all this information?
Both BPA and phthalates are "xenoestrogens", which means that they act like estrogen in the body. *All* of the hullaballoos I've been reading in major news sources about the dangers of these chemicals have only addressed the dangers these chemicals pose to *boys* and *men.* Are women not affected by excess estrogen? Are girls and women miraculously exempt from the consequences of these endocrine disruptors**?
No! But, of course it is only when the masculinity of young boys and the reproductive abilities of grown men are being threatened that journalists and the government feel the need to raise the red flag. God forbid my son be effeminate! (Or grow up with undescended testicles, or tiny penises.) God forbid that adult men not be able to stick it to their ladyfriends (or manfriends)! God forbid that all these fetuses come out female instead of male!
Thank you, sexist media, for warning us about threats to male health.
My question: where the heck are the studies about women?? And since there are such studies, why the heck is Big Media not reporting on it? Doesn't our health count?
**Disclaimer: I am a lady who is quite sensitive to excess estrogen and xenoestrogens in my body. I would hate to develop breast cancer, ovarian cysts, reproductive problems, diabetes, etc. because health organizations and the government failed to see that putting hormones into everyday products was a detrimental thing.
Thursday, 3 September 2009
Apples and Oranges
Two arguments against Health Care that just don't cut it (in response to some stuff I read on Facebook comments this morning):
1. Health insurance should work like car insurance - we pay for all the routine stuff, and the insurance kicks in for all the major expenses.
Why this doesn't work: Who decides what is "routine"? Is a once-a-month checkup routine? Or only once every six months? What if I find a breast lump - would it be "routine" for me to go to the doctor's to get it checked out? What if I end up getting charged for four or five "routine" visits in a month's time? That could rack up some serious debt.
2. People who have health care debt are just not fiscally responsible (i.e., they spend their money on cable, cell phones, clothes, eating out, etc.)
Why this doesn't work: Health care expenses are usually on a completely different scale from that of our normal living expenses (and I'm including mortgage/rent in this equation). Having done some research on that oh-so-routine procedure that half of us will likely go through at some point in our lives (no, I don't mean hip replacement), pregnancy and childbirth is one hell of an expensive operation. Even if you do it at home, even if you get a midwife and have no complications, it can cost in the region of $1500-$4000. If you do it in a hospital (or if complications necessitate that you do it in a hospital), it will run around $6000 (though, according to actual people's testimony, it usually ends up costing more like $10,000-$20,000). If your fetus for some reason needs a c-section, or if you need an epidural, or if you need a little snipping of your perineum, those are extra expenses, and cost extra! In short, it would likely cost me more money than I make in a year to give birth to a child in a hospital right now.
1. Health insurance should work like car insurance - we pay for all the routine stuff, and the insurance kicks in for all the major expenses.
Why this doesn't work: Who decides what is "routine"? Is a once-a-month checkup routine? Or only once every six months? What if I find a breast lump - would it be "routine" for me to go to the doctor's to get it checked out? What if I end up getting charged for four or five "routine" visits in a month's time? That could rack up some serious debt.
2. People who have health care debt are just not fiscally responsible (i.e., they spend their money on cable, cell phones, clothes, eating out, etc.)
Why this doesn't work: Health care expenses are usually on a completely different scale from that of our normal living expenses (and I'm including mortgage/rent in this equation). Having done some research on that oh-so-routine procedure that half of us will likely go through at some point in our lives (no, I don't mean hip replacement), pregnancy and childbirth is one hell of an expensive operation. Even if you do it at home, even if you get a midwife and have no complications, it can cost in the region of $1500-$4000. If you do it in a hospital (or if complications necessitate that you do it in a hospital), it will run around $6000 (though, according to actual people's testimony, it usually ends up costing more like $10,000-$20,000). If your fetus for some reason needs a c-section, or if you need an epidural, or if you need a little snipping of your perineum, those are extra expenses, and cost extra! In short, it would likely cost me more money than I make in a year to give birth to a child in a hospital right now.
Wednesday, 12 August 2009
More on health care
I thought I'd link to Mike Madden's article on Salon.com about the present existence of health care rationing and refusal to cover necessary expenses (which are exactly what Obama's so-called 'death panels' would be). The insurance companies already deny care to their customers, and Madden gives a run-down of some particularly horrifying examples.
This is why we need a government option.
This is why we need a government option.
Monday, 10 August 2009
Public Health option and my thoughts
I've been busy writing, but y'all should check out the new White House website clarifying their proposed public health option. I think it's a fabulous idea, given the fact that this information has not been able to be dispersed through typical channels, due to counterproductive disruptions (at the 'town-hall' meetings), media spinning, and strategic misinformations put out by conservative politicians and pundits alike. Here's what I think:
1. Decent health care should be a guaranteed right (ideally for everyone, regardless of birthplace, but certainly in this country for citizens and workers).
2. Preventive care should be the concern of the government: it's our tax dollars that pay for the treatment of diseases and problems which could have been prevented.
2a. The government should turn their backs on the food industry lobby. They want us to buy their products and get addicted to them, regardless of how much they hurt us in the process (oooh, but on a side note, someone should do some actuarial studies on the effect of the modern food industry on the lifespan of the consumer - in terms of pure profit, it doesn't benefit the food industry if they are losing years of product consumption because their consumers are dying earlier due to diseases caused in part by their products).
2b. The government should regulate the hell out of the food industry - I'm talking no more trans fats (and full disclosure on food labels, none of this 'rounding down' shit), no more MSG (or MSG-like neurotoxic additives), and get all that processed soy out da biz!
2c. The government should wake the hell up and realize that xenoestrogenic and antiandrogenic chemicals in our water - which are detectable but not filtered out in modern water treatment plants - are harming us! We need better filtering, better testing, and, finally, DISCLOSURE on the uptake rates and effects of these chemicals and the levels in our local water supplies.
3. A note on definitions: if the government *were* planning to institute "death panels" as part of their health care plan, and if the government *were* then planning to euthanize all the unsavory grannies in our country, this would not be an example of "eugenics". Why? Because eugenics aims to get rid of the "unsavories" *before* they reproduce, eliminating their contribution to the gene pool. These old people are presumably well beyond the age of reproduction, and they have probably already passed their genes down to the next generation. Thus, killing them off would not be eugenics. Ha!
1. Decent health care should be a guaranteed right (ideally for everyone, regardless of birthplace, but certainly in this country for citizens and workers).
2. Preventive care should be the concern of the government: it's our tax dollars that pay for the treatment of diseases and problems which could have been prevented.
2a. The government should turn their backs on the food industry lobby. They want us to buy their products and get addicted to them, regardless of how much they hurt us in the process (oooh, but on a side note, someone should do some actuarial studies on the effect of the modern food industry on the lifespan of the consumer - in terms of pure profit, it doesn't benefit the food industry if they are losing years of product consumption because their consumers are dying earlier due to diseases caused in part by their products).
2b. The government should regulate the hell out of the food industry - I'm talking no more trans fats (and full disclosure on food labels, none of this 'rounding down' shit), no more MSG (or MSG-like neurotoxic additives), and get all that processed soy out da biz!
2c. The government should wake the hell up and realize that xenoestrogenic and antiandrogenic chemicals in our water - which are detectable but not filtered out in modern water treatment plants - are harming us! We need better filtering, better testing, and, finally, DISCLOSURE on the uptake rates and effects of these chemicals and the levels in our local water supplies.
3. A note on definitions: if the government *were* planning to institute "death panels" as part of their health care plan, and if the government *were* then planning to euthanize all the unsavory grannies in our country, this would not be an example of "eugenics". Why? Because eugenics aims to get rid of the "unsavories" *before* they reproduce, eliminating their contribution to the gene pool. These old people are presumably well beyond the age of reproduction, and they have probably already passed their genes down to the next generation. Thus, killing them off would not be eugenics. Ha!
Saturday, 26 July 2008
and I'm back...
with today's "hilarious and horrible irony":
From the Washington Post:
From the Washington Post:
President Bush yesterday signed an executive order expanding sanctions against companies and individuals linked with Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, part of an effort by Western nations to ratchet up the pressure on a government accused of killing and terrorizing political opponents in order to remain in power.
The move by Bush, which followed a similar maneuver earlier in the week by the European Union, freezes any U.S. assets and forbids U.S. financial transactions with a list of companies controlled by or affiliated with the government, particularly in the mining and minerals industry, a key sector of Zimbabwe's ailing economy.
"This action is a direct result of the Mugabe regime's continued politically-motivated violence, disregarding calls from the Southern African Development Community, the African Union, and the United Nations to halt the attacks," Bush said in a statement.
"No regime should ignore the will of its own people and calls from the international community without consequences," he added.
Let's have a contest to see who can name the most instances of the Bush regime ignoring the will of their own people. No, really. I'm laughing and crying on the inside.
Thursday, 24 April 2008
Food prices
Food prices are rising - especially for "staple" foods like wheat, corn, and soy.
The President of the World Bank (and a fuckton of other public commentators) have blamed biofuels for these rising prices. According to them, your ethanol-powered vehicle is forcing Haitians to eat mud.
I say, how about this: "Animals raised for food in the U.S. consume 90% of the soy crop, 80% of the corn crop, and 70% of its grain." From the USDA
Oh, and how about this: "'To produce 1 pound of feedlot beef requires about 2,400 gallons of water and 7 pounds of grain (42). Considering that the average American consumes 97 pounds of beef (and 273 pounds of meat in all) each year, even modest reductions in meat consumption in such a culture would substantially reduce the burden on our natural resources.'" From the NIH
I think that blaming biofuels for the rise in cereal prices is like blaming that donut you had this morning for the fact that you are 30 pounds overweight.
The President of the World Bank (and a fuckton of other public commentators) have blamed biofuels for these rising prices. According to them, your ethanol-powered vehicle is forcing Haitians to eat mud.
I say, how about this: "Animals raised for food in the U.S. consume 90% of the soy crop, 80% of the corn crop, and 70% of its grain." From the USDA
Oh, and how about this: "'To produce 1 pound of feedlot beef requires about 2,400 gallons of water and 7 pounds of grain (42). Considering that the average American consumes 97 pounds of beef (and 273 pounds of meat in all) each year, even modest reductions in meat consumption in such a culture would substantially reduce the burden on our natural resources.'" From the NIH
I think that blaming biofuels for the rise in cereal prices is like blaming that donut you had this morning for the fact that you are 30 pounds overweight.
Wednesday, 23 January 2008
A Fetus.
So in my neverending quest to read about things that make me deeply disheartened with this world, I came across this article in the LA Times (unfortunately subscribers-only, but I'll sum it up for you):
A New Generation of Anti-Abortionists. Young people, women, in their teens and twenties, who would like to ban abortion entirely. My particular favorite is a now 20-year-old woman who has campaigned to emend the Colorado state constitution such that a fertilized egg is now defined as a person. A fertilized egg. (That couldn't work legally in America, because fetuses would either have to get visas or be declared illegal immigrants because, after all, they wouldn't have been born here).
Now, putting aside all the traditional pro-choice arguments I keep handy in my back pocket, I think that history has something very important to teach us on this subject.
First, 'abortion' (by which I mean an intended miscarriage of a fetus) has always been practiced by humans. Always. There is no point in history where one could say that no one on earth had an intended miscarriage. Abortion has as true and universal a history as religion, government, and war.
I was originally going to write a long explanation of the legal murder and enslavement of children in ancient Greece and Rome (about 1000 years' worth of Western civilization's 3000-year lifespan), but instead I would like to posit some of the legal ramifications of defining fetuses as persons today.
The Funny ones: being able to drive in the carpool lane while pregnant; filing tax reports for your fetus (and claiming them as a dependent?); ordering off the kids' menu at any restaurant; parking in handicapped spots (since the 'person' inside you is unable to walk); preboarding on airplanes (since the 'person' inside you requires assistance to get down the jetway).
The Scary ones: getting arrested and prosecuted for endangering the life/liberty/happiness of your fetus if you do any of the following while pregnant: drinking alcohol or caffeine, smoking, being near other people who are smoking, eating basil or pesto (or any number of other miscarriage-inducing herbs), taking antacids, being near paint fumes or mercury, dyeing your hair, running, jogging, jumping rope, other strenuous exercise (including sex?), petting or owning a cat, working overtime, getting stressed out, reaching upwards, lifting heavy things, etc.
My point is this: there's a lot of stuff out there that can kill a fetus, and many women miscarry for completely unexplainable reasons. Are we going to have to investigate every single miscarriage as a possible homicide? Are we going to police the movements and decisions of pregnant women? Will you be prosecuted if you fail to report witnessing a pregnant woman eat chocolate or walk past fresh paint? (After all, you may have witnessed an involuntary manslaughter or attempted assault!)
It's absurd.
A New Generation of Anti-Abortionists. Young people, women, in their teens and twenties, who would like to ban abortion entirely. My particular favorite is a now 20-year-old woman who has campaigned to emend the Colorado state constitution such that a fertilized egg is now defined as a person. A fertilized egg. (That couldn't work legally in America, because fetuses would either have to get visas or be declared illegal immigrants because, after all, they wouldn't have been born here).
Now, putting aside all the traditional pro-choice arguments I keep handy in my back pocket, I think that history has something very important to teach us on this subject.
First, 'abortion' (by which I mean an intended miscarriage of a fetus) has always been practiced by humans. Always. There is no point in history where one could say that no one on earth had an intended miscarriage. Abortion has as true and universal a history as religion, government, and war.
I was originally going to write a long explanation of the legal murder and enslavement of children in ancient Greece and Rome (about 1000 years' worth of Western civilization's 3000-year lifespan), but instead I would like to posit some of the legal ramifications of defining fetuses as persons today.
The Funny ones: being able to drive in the carpool lane while pregnant; filing tax reports for your fetus (and claiming them as a dependent?); ordering off the kids' menu at any restaurant; parking in handicapped spots (since the 'person' inside you is unable to walk); preboarding on airplanes (since the 'person' inside you requires assistance to get down the jetway).
The Scary ones: getting arrested and prosecuted for endangering the life/liberty/happiness of your fetus if you do any of the following while pregnant: drinking alcohol or caffeine, smoking, being near other people who are smoking, eating basil or pesto (or any number of other miscarriage-inducing herbs), taking antacids, being near paint fumes or mercury, dyeing your hair, running, jogging, jumping rope, other strenuous exercise (including sex?), petting or owning a cat, working overtime, getting stressed out, reaching upwards, lifting heavy things, etc.
My point is this: there's a lot of stuff out there that can kill a fetus, and many women miscarry for completely unexplainable reasons. Are we going to have to investigate every single miscarriage as a possible homicide? Are we going to police the movements and decisions of pregnant women? Will you be prosecuted if you fail to report witnessing a pregnant woman eat chocolate or walk past fresh paint? (After all, you may have witnessed an involuntary manslaughter or attempted assault!)
It's absurd.
Monday, 31 December 2007
new year - part I
Having been out of the country (again) for a few weeks, I'm trying to get myself back on the stick writing-wise. Though I have to say that there's not much in the way of happy news to be writing about - the U.S. economy on the verge of a recession, people losing their houses, the environment going to shit, the feuding amongst Democratic party candidates becoming mind-numbingly cacophonous, and now I hear that Obama's "universal" health care plan actually doesn't cover everyone.
This is a short post, and for that I apologize. Go watch some Keith Olbermann. Or drink some champagne. I'm sure things will look better tomorrow morning.
This is a short post, and for that I apologize. Go watch some Keith Olbermann. Or drink some champagne. I'm sure things will look better tomorrow morning.
Wednesday, 31 October 2007
Finally! A Rich Guy I can get behind
Don't read this post yet. Just watch the video (you might have to scroll down the page to get to it).
Warren Buffett is awesome. I cannot hate a rich person who is willing to give up some of their wealth when they see the horribly unfair monetary treatment they get. And I don't say this because I live on a measly $20k per year in an expensive city. I usually qualify for a tax refund anyway. But people like my parents, who *do* end up paying the government well more than what they need to keep to save for retirement and live somewhat well as it is - well, they deserve lower taxes. That's it.
And they know they ought to be keeping more of their money. But because they themselves choose to *believe* the conservative (read: 99% of the fuckall wealthy) rhetoric, they think that the only solution to their problem is to get rid of taxes altogether. We should not be surprised that the fuckall wealthy are riding on the 'get rid of taxes' wagon. We *should* be surprised that our parents, the media that informs them, and the government fail to communicate clearly the sheer surfeit of money that the wealthiest people in our country pull in for themselves, and the relative lack of money they must funnel back into the public domain.
I am not advocating communism here. We all pay money to the government so that we can have streets to drive on, people to help us in emergencies, people to make sure our air is clean and our products are safe, parks and sidewalks to walk on, schools for our kids with already-underpaid teachers - not to mention the (comparatively inexpensive) public services that are necessary to provide for the underprivileged. Don't even get me started on the relative lack of money given for welfare/food stamps/homeless shelters/"handouts" that the conservatives are always railing about. (But if you *are* interested to see where your taxes are going, look here). As I said, we all already pay money to the government, and that is not going to change. I just think that the wealthy should not get special treatment that helps them get wealthier at a faster rate than our parents. And I think #3 wealthiest dude in the country backs me up here.
Unfortunately, unless Mr. Buffett has the cajones to fork out the millions of dollars it would take to get lobbyists in Washington changing the tax code (as if I needed anything more to support my assertion that the wealthy are heavily invested in, well, their money), his words will stay only words.
Warren Buffett is awesome. I cannot hate a rich person who is willing to give up some of their wealth when they see the horribly unfair monetary treatment they get. And I don't say this because I live on a measly $20k per year in an expensive city. I usually qualify for a tax refund anyway. But people like my parents, who *do* end up paying the government well more than what they need to keep to save for retirement and live somewhat well as it is - well, they deserve lower taxes. That's it.
And they know they ought to be keeping more of their money. But because they themselves choose to *believe* the conservative (read: 99% of the fuckall wealthy) rhetoric, they think that the only solution to their problem is to get rid of taxes altogether. We should not be surprised that the fuckall wealthy are riding on the 'get rid of taxes' wagon. We *should* be surprised that our parents, the media that informs them, and the government fail to communicate clearly the sheer surfeit of money that the wealthiest people in our country pull in for themselves, and the relative lack of money they must funnel back into the public domain.
I am not advocating communism here. We all pay money to the government so that we can have streets to drive on, people to help us in emergencies, people to make sure our air is clean and our products are safe, parks and sidewalks to walk on, schools for our kids with already-underpaid teachers - not to mention the (comparatively inexpensive) public services that are necessary to provide for the underprivileged. Don't even get me started on the relative lack of money given for welfare/food stamps/homeless shelters/"handouts" that the conservatives are always railing about. (But if you *are* interested to see where your taxes are going, look here). As I said, we all already pay money to the government, and that is not going to change. I just think that the wealthy should not get special treatment that helps them get wealthier at a faster rate than our parents. And I think #3 wealthiest dude in the country backs me up here.
Unfortunately, unless Mr. Buffett has the cajones to fork out the millions of dollars it would take to get lobbyists in Washington changing the tax code (as if I needed anything more to support my assertion that the wealthy are heavily invested in, well, their money), his words will stay only words.
Thursday, 25 October 2007
The Fires
So, fire + evacuees + old terrorist confession = an excuse for Fox news to get your brain thinking more Bushily.
I read it on RawStory (which includes the original Fox News broadcast in all its racist fear-mongering glory), but this youtube video gives you the lighthearted version. Keith Olbermann makes it seem okay, or at least a little laughable, that Fox News took a 2003 terror warning and made it look like these fires all around L.A. were started by Al Quaeda.
Now you just sit, and think. Families are being evacuated, homes are being lost, firefighters are being injured, and all our lungs look like freshly-paved asphalt. And Rupert Murdoch and the conservative media machine want to use all this to make you spend your money on bombs and guns and private soldiers, send your family overseas to kill and get traumatised, and then vote Republican in 2008.
Are you angry yet? Yeah, me too.
I read it on RawStory (which includes the original Fox News broadcast in all its racist fear-mongering glory), but this youtube video gives you the lighthearted version. Keith Olbermann makes it seem okay, or at least a little laughable, that Fox News took a 2003 terror warning and made it look like these fires all around L.A. were started by Al Quaeda.
Now you just sit, and think. Families are being evacuated, homes are being lost, firefighters are being injured, and all our lungs look like freshly-paved asphalt. And Rupert Murdoch and the conservative media machine want to use all this to make you spend your money on bombs and guns and private soldiers, send your family overseas to kill and get traumatised, and then vote Republican in 2008.
Are you angry yet? Yeah, me too.
Wednesday, 24 October 2007
hundred dolla bills y'all
Just read from this article from RawStory that the Iraq/Afghanistan war effort, over the next decade (and possibly including what we've already spent - that part isn't clear) will cost more than $2 trillion, with over $700 billion in INTEREST - because we are spending borrowed money.
W.T.F.
No, seriously, let me write that all out:
$2,700,000,000,000.00 total
$705,000,000,000.00 in interest
RawStory estimates that this amounts to $8000 per person in this country. And I thought Republicans were meant to be fiscally conservative. Yeah, that's right Republicans, you just got told. Feel the shame.
W.T.F.
No, seriously, let me write that all out:
$2,700,000,000,000.00 total
$705,000,000,000.00 in interest
RawStory estimates that this amounts to $8000 per person in this country. And I thought Republicans were meant to be fiscally conservative. Yeah, that's right Republicans, you just got told. Feel the shame.
Saturday, 1 September 2007
A potential kick in the face for male politicians
Feminist strategies have taken many different forms over the years. In the 1960s, women fought for equal pay by saying that they were just as qualified/smart/ambitious as men, that they could perform the same roles. In the late 19th century, women convinced the American college system that they needed access to higher education. Their reasoning? - they needed to be smart so that they could provide a good at-home education for America's sons.
What does this have to do with the present day? Well, one of the reasons that Mrs. Clinton will probably not win a national election in 2008 is because much of our society still thinks (at least subconsciously) that women are fundamentally more emotional (read: less rational) than men. We get moody, we change our minds frequently, we cry, we break dishes, we are 'pussies'. Putting the rational/emotional debate aside, if it were the case that a candidate had less 'rational' ability, they probably would not be as desirable a political leader.
Now, this article about one of the side-effects of Viagra indicates that taking this drug might make you a more 'emotional' person. Viagra apparently increases the production of a "love hormone." [Cue satire] Now we all know that that feeling of love can mess with our decision-making skills. And we all know that some large percentage of those crusty white guys in Washington are popping the little blue pills. So how can we trust political leaders who take drugs that compromise their rational abilities and risk the safety of our nation? These men are turning themselves into women.
So I propose that we ban the use of Viagra by political leaders, police officers, men in the military, CEOs, market analysts, and anyone who clings to the myth of male rationality as a justification for not allowing women into their field. Let's keep male space pussy-free.
What does this have to do with the present day? Well, one of the reasons that Mrs. Clinton will probably not win a national election in 2008 is because much of our society still thinks (at least subconsciously) that women are fundamentally more emotional (read: less rational) than men. We get moody, we change our minds frequently, we cry, we break dishes, we are 'pussies'. Putting the rational/emotional debate aside, if it were the case that a candidate had less 'rational' ability, they probably would not be as desirable a political leader.
Now, this article about one of the side-effects of Viagra indicates that taking this drug might make you a more 'emotional' person. Viagra apparently increases the production of a "love hormone." [Cue satire] Now we all know that that feeling of love can mess with our decision-making skills. And we all know that some large percentage of those crusty white guys in Washington are popping the little blue pills. So how can we trust political leaders who take drugs that compromise their rational abilities and risk the safety of our nation? These men are turning themselves into women.
So I propose that we ban the use of Viagra by political leaders, police officers, men in the military, CEOs, market analysts, and anyone who clings to the myth of male rationality as a justification for not allowing women into their field. Let's keep male space pussy-free.
Saturday, 21 July 2007
looking toward '08
So I've been following the Democratic presidential candidates this year a little more closely than in the past few elections. The main contenders present an interesting conundrum of issues: while Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all seem to be forward-thinkers and have decent platforms, I worry that Americans simply will not, when push comes to shove, elect a woman or a Black person.
Which makes me want to put my eggs in Edwards' basket. But for some reason, the media is giving him less coverage, he's doing worse in the polls, even though his 'poverty' campaign is one of the best platforms I've seen since Dennis Kucinich. And maybe that's why he has not been as successful. Anyway, Scholars and Rogues has a really good analysis of why the American public might not be willing to hear about poverty and privilege and wealth gaps. And it gets back to my earlier post about Rocky Balboa and the American sense of toilocracy.
I suppose the brain-popping-realization of classist practice in this country is much easier to take when you're 18 than when you're 50, lower-middle-class, working your ass off to make ends meet, and can't figure out why you haven't experienced the American dream.
Which makes me want to put my eggs in Edwards' basket. But for some reason, the media is giving him less coverage, he's doing worse in the polls, even though his 'poverty' campaign is one of the best platforms I've seen since Dennis Kucinich. And maybe that's why he has not been as successful. Anyway, Scholars and Rogues has a really good analysis of why the American public might not be willing to hear about poverty and privilege and wealth gaps. And it gets back to my earlier post about Rocky Balboa and the American sense of toilocracy.
I suppose the brain-popping-realization of classist practice in this country is much easier to take when you're 18 than when you're 50, lower-middle-class, working your ass off to make ends meet, and can't figure out why you haven't experienced the American dream.
Wednesday, 18 July 2007
read this.
So in case y'all are not boingboing readers, you should really read this guy's tale of a trip on a conservative cruise ship. It is alternately hilarious and deeply disturbing.
I was in England when the Glasgow airport thing happened, and when the London car bombs almost went off. One of the frequent topics of conversation after these events was: how could doctors, who had sworn the Hippocratic oath, feel ethically able to kill innocent people? While none of my rationalizations seemed to satisfy the family I was staying with, I think, reading Hari's post, that it is easy to see how someone could see themselves as ethical and humane people and still justify the murder of innocents.
Oh, and I saw SiCKO yesterday. Excellent movie. Depressing movie. Another instance of unethical treatment of people for monetary gain. Makes me more convinced that I do not want to spend my life in this country, for fear of falling through the supposed net of social welfare. My favorite moments of the film were where the doctors of other countries were interviewed, when they could say that they were happy to be able to treat people without worrying about how much their services would cost, or whether the person was insured. I would be intrigued to know why the AMA doesn't support universal health care. Surely the doctors could do better jobs if they weren't worried about the financial damage they were doing to their patients.
I was in England when the Glasgow airport thing happened, and when the London car bombs almost went off. One of the frequent topics of conversation after these events was: how could doctors, who had sworn the Hippocratic oath, feel ethically able to kill innocent people? While none of my rationalizations seemed to satisfy the family I was staying with, I think, reading Hari's post, that it is easy to see how someone could see themselves as ethical and humane people and still justify the murder of innocents.
Oh, and I saw SiCKO yesterday. Excellent movie. Depressing movie. Another instance of unethical treatment of people for monetary gain. Makes me more convinced that I do not want to spend my life in this country, for fear of falling through the supposed net of social welfare. My favorite moments of the film were where the doctors of other countries were interviewed, when they could say that they were happy to be able to treat people without worrying about how much their services would cost, or whether the person was insured. I would be intrigued to know why the AMA doesn't support universal health care. Surely the doctors could do better jobs if they weren't worried about the financial damage they were doing to their patients.
Friday, 6 July 2007
Since I'm holding forth on movie heroes (Rocky B.)
I also saw (before I left for England) the lastest Rocky Balboa movie. I got to thinking about the type of hero/person Rocky is meant to represent, and it made me think of an episode of "So You Think You Can Dance."
I think this episode was from season two. Anyway, the story is: this kid (bad dancer) is auditioning for the second year in a row to be on the show. His mother is in tow at the audition. He does his piece and gets reamed by one of the judges (stern British guy), who tells him point blank that he will never be a dancer. At this point, the mother gets up and yells at the judge that her son can be anything he wants to be - if he works hard enough, he will be a good dancer. She seems to believe this to be true - passionately, hysterically. Her son, perhaps, believes it as well.
Now, this example is laughable, but it brings up an interesting philosophy of American culture. Do we really think that we can do anything we want to do? My parents certainly told me that when I was young, even though we were not wealthy or well-connected. The idea seemed to be that through work and committment one could acheive anything.
Now, I don't believe in a truly Aristotelian argument - that people are born with certain talents and should pursue careers that fit them (he also famously said that certain people are born to be slaves). I do think that humans have the ability to learn things and change the way their minds and bodies work. I also believe, however, that some things require a lifetime of shaping, a lifetime of particular opportunities and particular practice (supposedly, we acquire the ability to be tone hearing -as opposed to tone deaf- within the first year of our life). The 'good' dancers on that show, for example, had lessons and teachers and recitals and diets and expensive lycra bodysuits. They probably had these things for most of their lives, and the access to these things is what has conditioned them to have an aptitude for dancing. As the show proved, one cannot (barring extreme talent for a thing) simply self-teach for a year or two and become good.
Yet somehow this guy and his mother firmly believed in the philosophy of hard work and gain. This brings me back to Rocky, another person who, I think, embodies this philosophy. Rocky is not a smart guy. He is a bit naive about a lot of things. I think of the scene where he begs the council to let him have a boxing license - the council is acting on behalf of his bodily health, but he insists that his body is his own to govern, even if he destroys it in pursuit of his goals. He firmly believes that, with enough training, he can turn himself into the fighting machine he used to be. Though Rocky barely survives the fight, the movie ultimately, unfortunately, perpetuates this philosophy, that hard work will get you whatever you want, that hard work can transform you into someone else.
This philosophy is a flaw in American thinking. It is connected to the myth of self-reliance (that you can boot-strap your own way from poverty to wealth, invisibility to fame, fat to skinny, ugly to beautiful, etc.), and it may be why some Americans are so unhappy and overworked. How many movies do we see in which the above transformation is successful? How often do we blame ourselves for laziness or lack of committment when in actuality we are working ourselves to death in search of the unattainable?
I am also not advocating that we stop working, or become lackadaisical with ourselves. I still believe in our ability to change and grow. But I do think that a movie like Rocky Balboa and its promotion of this American 'just work harder' philosophy obfuscates the reality of disparate wealth and access in our country. It is a fact that people who are born into wealth have more opportunities than people who are born into poverty. It follows as well that the wealthy, because of their access from birth to these opportunities, will seem more 'talented' at their chosen profession/hobby, on average, than their less well-off peers. We do not all start off on an equal playing field. And the equal playing field is what we should all be working towards, lest our younger generations face our same feeling of dismay, exhaustion, and confusion that can only be felt after an unsuccessful fight between one's forehead and a brick wall.
I think this episode was from season two. Anyway, the story is: this kid (bad dancer) is auditioning for the second year in a row to be on the show. His mother is in tow at the audition. He does his piece and gets reamed by one of the judges (stern British guy), who tells him point blank that he will never be a dancer. At this point, the mother gets up and yells at the judge that her son can be anything he wants to be - if he works hard enough, he will be a good dancer. She seems to believe this to be true - passionately, hysterically. Her son, perhaps, believes it as well.
Now, this example is laughable, but it brings up an interesting philosophy of American culture. Do we really think that we can do anything we want to do? My parents certainly told me that when I was young, even though we were not wealthy or well-connected. The idea seemed to be that through work and committment one could acheive anything.
Now, I don't believe in a truly Aristotelian argument - that people are born with certain talents and should pursue careers that fit them (he also famously said that certain people are born to be slaves). I do think that humans have the ability to learn things and change the way their minds and bodies work. I also believe, however, that some things require a lifetime of shaping, a lifetime of particular opportunities and particular practice (supposedly, we acquire the ability to be tone hearing -as opposed to tone deaf- within the first year of our life). The 'good' dancers on that show, for example, had lessons and teachers and recitals and diets and expensive lycra bodysuits. They probably had these things for most of their lives, and the access to these things is what has conditioned them to have an aptitude for dancing. As the show proved, one cannot (barring extreme talent for a thing) simply self-teach for a year or two and become good.
Yet somehow this guy and his mother firmly believed in the philosophy of hard work and gain. This brings me back to Rocky, another person who, I think, embodies this philosophy. Rocky is not a smart guy. He is a bit naive about a lot of things. I think of the scene where he begs the council to let him have a boxing license - the council is acting on behalf of his bodily health, but he insists that his body is his own to govern, even if he destroys it in pursuit of his goals. He firmly believes that, with enough training, he can turn himself into the fighting machine he used to be. Though Rocky barely survives the fight, the movie ultimately, unfortunately, perpetuates this philosophy, that hard work will get you whatever you want, that hard work can transform you into someone else.
This philosophy is a flaw in American thinking. It is connected to the myth of self-reliance (that you can boot-strap your own way from poverty to wealth, invisibility to fame, fat to skinny, ugly to beautiful, etc.), and it may be why some Americans are so unhappy and overworked. How many movies do we see in which the above transformation is successful? How often do we blame ourselves for laziness or lack of committment when in actuality we are working ourselves to death in search of the unattainable?
I am also not advocating that we stop working, or become lackadaisical with ourselves. I still believe in our ability to change and grow. But I do think that a movie like Rocky Balboa and its promotion of this American 'just work harder' philosophy obfuscates the reality of disparate wealth and access in our country. It is a fact that people who are born into wealth have more opportunities than people who are born into poverty. It follows as well that the wealthy, because of their access from birth to these opportunities, will seem more 'talented' at their chosen profession/hobby, on average, than their less well-off peers. We do not all start off on an equal playing field. And the equal playing field is what we should all be working towards, lest our younger generations face our same feeling of dismay, exhaustion, and confusion that can only be felt after an unsuccessful fight between one's forehead and a brick wall.
Die Hard 4.0
Good movie. Excellent movie. Incredibly energizing. Timothy Olyphant: you are the hottest thing on two legs.
But the point? Do we learn anything from this movie? A few issues I have:
1. John McClane as a problematic hero (ties into 2. and 3.)
2. What good is American money in a post-apocalyptic economy?
3. The "firesale" would surely affect other countries: it is not just an American problem
I guess I was tainted in my opinion of the film because I saw it in England, amongst English people. I was thus hyper-aware of the American-ness of the whole thing.
First, John McClane. A good cop - respects the law (when appropriate), has respect for most human life, trained to notice stuff and drive well and take punches (or bullets) and think on his feet. But why, throughout the entire movie, the repeated threats of physical violence out of his mouth? It seems to be his iconic thing - he *will* get to the bad guys, he *will* punch out or threaten anything in his way, and then he *will* beat the crap out of the bad guys for doing what they did. And he will do it all ironically, resignedly, resentful of the fact that he 'has to be that guy.' What does this say about our ideas about justice? That we resent being the bully, but somebody has to be 'that guy'; we might as well 'grow some balls' and accept that physical violence is a fact of the world.
Maybe I read too much into the script, but it seems like a defense of American foreign policy. We resent being the most powerful nation in the world, and we resent having to boss everyone else around to keep the world a safe place, but if we didn't do it, the whole world would go to pot. We are saving lives through our violence and intimidation.
I find it troubling. #3 also spells out why I think the movie is, if anything, too solipsistic in its range. All the news reports, all the damage and damage control - it all came from and affected only Americans and American soil. Since when are our economy and satellites and utilities only dependent on what happens in our country? And since when would the rest of the world ignore us if such a 'terrorist hack' were to occur? Whether we like it or not, our country is deeply integrated with the rest of the world - we depend on other countries for the livelihood of our economy, and what happens in America has repercussions worldwide. The movie, in all its American aggrandizement, cannot imagine itself out of that symbiosis.
But yeah, go see the movie. And be prepared to cream yourself whenever Olyphant is on the screen.
But the point? Do we learn anything from this movie? A few issues I have:
1. John McClane as a problematic hero (ties into 2. and 3.)
2. What good is American money in a post-apocalyptic economy?
3. The "firesale" would surely affect other countries: it is not just an American problem
I guess I was tainted in my opinion of the film because I saw it in England, amongst English people. I was thus hyper-aware of the American-ness of the whole thing.
First, John McClane. A good cop - respects the law (when appropriate), has respect for most human life, trained to notice stuff and drive well and take punches (or bullets) and think on his feet. But why, throughout the entire movie, the repeated threats of physical violence out of his mouth? It seems to be his iconic thing - he *will* get to the bad guys, he *will* punch out or threaten anything in his way, and then he *will* beat the crap out of the bad guys for doing what they did. And he will do it all ironically, resignedly, resentful of the fact that he 'has to be that guy.' What does this say about our ideas about justice? That we resent being the bully, but somebody has to be 'that guy'; we might as well 'grow some balls' and accept that physical violence is a fact of the world.
Maybe I read too much into the script, but it seems like a defense of American foreign policy. We resent being the most powerful nation in the world, and we resent having to boss everyone else around to keep the world a safe place, but if we didn't do it, the whole world would go to pot. We are saving lives through our violence and intimidation.
I find it troubling. #3 also spells out why I think the movie is, if anything, too solipsistic in its range. All the news reports, all the damage and damage control - it all came from and affected only Americans and American soil. Since when are our economy and satellites and utilities only dependent on what happens in our country? And since when would the rest of the world ignore us if such a 'terrorist hack' were to occur? Whether we like it or not, our country is deeply integrated with the rest of the world - we depend on other countries for the livelihood of our economy, and what happens in America has repercussions worldwide. The movie, in all its American aggrandizement, cannot imagine itself out of that symbiosis.
But yeah, go see the movie. And be prepared to cream yourself whenever Olyphant is on the screen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
