Purity Myth?

As I was going through my Blog Feeds this morning, a post on the blog Brazen Beauties caught my eye regarding a book called The Purity Myth. I still haven't had the chance to read it, but this is just another post that intrigues me even more. I referenced her blog in an older post you can find here regarding the same book, but her recent post which can be found here is even more enlightening as she dissects the book which was written by another feminist blogger. Happy reading!

Sick of Sick Debates

Spawned by apparently misunderstood and misconstrued criticisms of the NHS, I thought I would set straight why the situation in the US is the way that it is, and aside from that, I still think that criticizing systems that are not functioning at their highest level of potential is not only warrented and called-for, but I believe it is the duty of people who truly want for the best care to be administered to its citizens to constantly scrutinize the system. What bothered me most about the two situations regarding a pregnant woman and a man with a faulty appendix operation was not that the situations happened, but that no one thought that it was important to figure out why or how these situations happened--with the hospital of the pregnant woman stating they were merely going to "investigate a complaint." I don't understand why a country of nearly 60 million people should be happy with service that has so many waiting lists and chronic internal problems. It's true that private care in the US--while only available to those who can afford insurance--is leaps and bounds above that of the NHS, and I think it is fair to say I would prefer to be treated at home rather than take advantage of the program that, yes, I have to pay for as an International Student just like any UK taxpayer does. I'm not saying it's right, but I'm saying it's true. My biggest issue here, again, is that people seem so content with the current system. Why are you settling for an NHS with so many issues when you could be pushing for a more effective, and patient driven system? Everyone should recieve the kind of care perfectly well insured Americans can get--or even better, the kind of care the public system in France provides, which brings me to my explanation on why the US system is still functioning privately with so many uninsured (again I am *not* saying that this system should continue, merely, that it is the best option for the moment).

THE CURRENT SITUATION

The issues outlined in the Obama-Biden Health Care Plan are real. Unfortunately the solutions are less than competant to deal with the situation, and place unnecessary burdens on private companies and individuals rather than working toward a cohesive government solution that is both efficient and effective for all Americans. While the current situation in America when it comes to health care is less than ideal, I find that I myself, and many other Americans from "both sides of the fence" as we say, cannot support a program like the one Obama and Biden are proposing because it does not successfully create such a program. I also think that it can be agreed upon by everyone that implementing a system through the Federal Government that is "half-baked" would be more detrimental to Americans both because of poor administration and coverage, and because of unnecessary costs (likely in the billions of dollars) to re-structure an implemented system *after* it is put in place rather than structuring a system properly before implementation. Currently, in America, we don't have a plan that will be functional enough to warrent implementation. That is just a fact. Some states such as Maryland and Tennessee among many others have experimented with various forms of universal health care, and even on a state level are working out the kinks in the system. I *agree* that health care is an important issue that needs to be solved sooner rather than later, and it should be a top-priority for citizens and government officials alike, but what so many people are continually forgetting are two *very* important pieces of information that apparently, those unfamiliar with the structure of the American government, overlook as though they are faulty issues. These things are 1. a population of 307 million people is severely more difficult to effectively manage than a program for less than a quarter of that--it is a *real* issue as any US representative or senator can tell you 2. we are a functioning Republic...that means that our laws take a long--long time to get passed, and these regulations (because they are not Constitutionally delegated to the Federal Government) must be worked on with and through 50 individual state governments as well. This system is fantastic for most policies, as it allows individual states to retain sovereignty and create communities that are vastly different from one another and pander to the needs of its individual citizens more effectively. It does however make situations such as this one more difficult. These two hurdels are two beurocratic hurdels that it would be *infinitely* more beneficial *not* to have to fight through 3 or 4 times over while experimenting with various National Universal programs. It's just the way of things.

PLANS FOR THE LONG TERM

Honestly, the best program out there right now is the one in France, which is ranked number 1 in the world for its care. I don't know why almost all the smaller countries of the world haven't already implemented this system, as it is positively brilliant. Unfortunately, there will have to be a number of alterations made in order for a system like this to be transplanted into the government system of the US (especially if we want to avoid the issues France is currently having in regards to the rising costs), but I can only hope that sooner rather than later it will indeed be possible. Other notable programs to look at are Sweden and Singapore--but I can't with a good conscience say that there are really any other universal programs that come close to these, and I think that *all* countries should aspire to this kind of coverage for all people. No, America doesn't have that yet, but the services it does provide are high-standard services, and the best part about that situation is that in the states, once we do have a universal program, we won't be plagued with the issues the NHS currently faces with regard to waiting lists, as we have 30% more technology and available services than we do patients who need them--we won't have an issue of shortages. All we need is a workable plan. Until then...

WHAT ABOUT THE UNINSURED RIGHT NOW?

While we as a country try to figure out how to make our gigantic health care plan possible, there really is no other option but to keep working with the private systems we have, which are themselves governed by a market economy. The good news is that 85% of the population is taken care of at a high standard. Unfortunately, this also means that about 15% of the population is left uninsured or underinsured. I think that in the mean time we should be implementing better programs than the ones currently in place through HMO, Medicare, Medicaid, and private hospital subsidy through excess revenue via insurance companies. Yes these uninsured persons need more help than they are currently getting, and creating state and federal programs for these subsidies should be taken care of near to immediately, but again, this is no long term solution and a long-term solution has yet to be found, but it is the best one for the current situation.

Viva la France

7th Grade Poem

So, going through my belongings *yet again* as I clean my room and whatnot--hey, at least each time I do it it gets more organized right? Anyway, I ran across this huge stack of stuff I had written throughout school, and on the very top was this poem I wrote in 8th grade for Mrs. Morgando's English class...now, don't judge me on the poetry--I don't even think it really qualifies! but give me a break, I mean I was in 8th grade! I also love how I started out rhyming and then just completely disregarded all rules. Hah. Anyway, I found it really amusing how some of my future goals still haven't changed since I was 13/14 years old.

IN THE NEXT 20 YEARS

Exotic travels, dark handsome men
Wandering rivers and finding my zen
Home for the holidays, presents galore
Going to Harvard had so much in store
My life was to simply go to college someday
Have children, a husband, and a dog who will play
I went through with my future
Went to college and more
I got engaged to a wonderful man at 24
But one day it changed
I graduated from Harvard with very high marks
But a perfect life just wasn't essential
A life of freedom was reserved for me
Later in life I'll find someone to love
But I'll find him in time
Not yet, it's too soon!
I'll have stories to tell my children one day
A career and a family too
I'll grow up to be a happy old lady
Content with her past and satisfied with her future
My life may never turn out this way
Everything is a dream until it's done
In 20 years I may not have lived the happy go lucky life I have dreamed
I may go straight to the secure house and home
But someday, just maybe
I might get to know

Tori Amos Interview & In Studio

Coraline

Rating: 3/5

Artistic Direction: 5/5

Plotline: 2/5

General Effect: Wasn't impressed by the 3D version.

I was excited to see this movie because I love the whole Tim Burtonesque Claymation stuff with a twist of horror in an otherwise regular fairy tale. I would like to read the graphic novel to see if the plot was any more intricate than the one in this movie, because it seemed pretty basic and bland to me. The scenery was beautiful, and I loved the display of the fairy-like garden and the disappearance of the edge of the world. I was disappointed with the 3D version however firstly because I had to wear red/blue 3D glasses rather than the pale grey kind I have used in other films, and it really just ruins the color and the beauty of the film, which in my opinion is one of the most important parts. I don't really have much else to say about it, I'm certainly not going to buy it but I didn't mind renting it for a night...I didn't feel as though I had wasted my money. Recommendations however, I dunno, if you want to look at some really great art--go for it, but that's pretty much the only thing its got going.

Review: Time Traveler's Wife

5/5 Stars

I usually avoid National Best Sellers and Oprah Book Club listed books like the plague, but after having this book recommended to me by a few people whose judgments I trust on these things...I made an exception. I am very glad I did. I did a quick skim of some of the negative reviews for this book and I only have a few things to say.

1. First of all, I have read incredible fiction novels (that are not even labeled romance) with much more frequent, detailed, and prevalent sexual scenes and references than this book. I cannot even believe that Niffenegger's writing surprised you in the slightest, I am more surprised at your balking to be quite honest.

2. Food Porn: what is your problem with a few little descriptions here and there of a nicely prepared meal? I mean, her point was that Henry was a fantastic cook, part of *showing* this is through description of the meals he prepared. Why all the fuss? It isn't as though you're reading Under the Tuscan Sun and she's given a cook book instead of a novel. Aside from that, anyone who appreciates food understands how decadent it can make you feel at times, and her goals in this book are to express all the passions of their lives together, and a part of that is through the art of food just as much as it is through the art of love-making and actual artistry of Clare's inspirations. I actually think that it enriched the novel.

3. Stop hating on the fact that these people have money. Come on, upper middle class people exist, rich people exist, both of these groups of people are allowed to have as much romance as the rest of us....and p.s. Henry came from a pretty poor background...I mean his mom died when he was young even if she was a bit famous, the family did still pay rent in a duplex.

4. This book is a love story...it isn't about Clare and what she thinks about the world or Henry and what he thinks about the world--it's about the two of them, their struggles, their wishing to hold on to one another. I actually sat there and thought to myself, thank God there is finally a novel where someone writes about a married couple who once they are in their middle ages with a kid don't totally submerge their entire being in being taken over by family life. They still have their romance, they still seem like the people they were before--in their essence. Some people seem to be writing this off as a lack of character development, I see it as a creation of a story of two people who truly belonged together so much that when they changed they changed in such unison it was difficult to tell how much time really had changed them.

5. I loved her prose...I know men who could practically *be* Henry based on the way that he acts, thinks, and speaks in this novel. I thought that the characters she created were so genuine--it was refreshing to read a book where I couldn't immediately lampoon the exact character 'type' each person was. Plus, Clare and Henry are complicated, and life is complicated...and it made it real. I don't want to read a sugar-coated book of fluff--I want to read a book where s*** happens and they have to deal because, that's how it works in real life. Granted, time travel isn't exactly real life, but the struggles they had and the emotions they had were. So many times in this book I sat back and reminisced because a scene reminded me of one from my own life. It was beautiful and touching and sad and poignant. I think it is deserving of its accolades thus far.

6. Anyone who can write a novel and keep all that time travel straight has a good head on her shoulders :)

7. Really, if you can't handle a book that talks about the facts of life...including miscarriage, art, death, sex, love, drugs, pain, longing. What are you doing picking up a book anyway? That's friggen life!

I am Ready for the Onslaught

Here are a few links that caught my eye today--I find it interesting the themes popping up this afternoon on my feeds...but I am not afraid to admit that I'm liking it.

First off...teenage feminist blog The f-Bomb (check it out) posted an article about Lily Allen and her lyrics (read it here) that I'm totally digging. I think that both Lily Allen and Kate Nash and a lot of other ladies like them really are saying something in their lyrics, not directly, but indirectly in the conversational storylines of their songs, where women are acting in very strong and independent ways (some might call these same actions 'bitchy'). Really, these ladies are just saying it like it is...they're being real and I think their candid nature really sets the stage for viewing the real sexual and romantic situation society has created.

Second...in a similar vein, society (as it has been doing for centuries upon centuries--trust me, I studied the prostitutes and perfect wives of the Renaissance) is continuing its favorite trend which is pigeon-holing women as either angels or demons, virgins or harlots--there is no middle ground. The double standard stands, as ever, that when a boy finally has sex he has become a man and when a woman has had sex, or dare we even say it, with more than one person, she is essentially a slut. The concept of the modern-day packaging of this eon-old mentality is laid out in this blog article (here) and I am tres excited to read that book...it is pretty much at the top of my list right now. Now, as a religious person, I understand the various arguments that go along with the concept of basically idolizing virginity, but (again I am ready for the onslaught) might I point out that idolizing virginity is still idolatry, and just as much of a sin as anything else? I mean, why else would we go to such great lengths to create this new snazzy iPhone app? Now, don't get me wrong...I am totally all for people deciding not to have sex before marriage. I am also for people having the ability to choose whatver they want without being ostracized one way or the other. I do not agree with the mob of people "who have decided to wait" to basically demonize those who haven't, nor do I agree with the mob of people "who have decided to exercise sexual freedoms" pressuring those who don't want to do the same. How about, rather than idolizing virginity--we discuss it as an option that is equal to safe-sex? (apologies to the religious cohort, I haven't put my post-feminist egalitarian views on sex and sexuality in religion on my blog yet so we can have that discussion later...) I mean really...why must it be one or the other? Why do we have to decide one is good and one is bad? Or one is right and one is wrong? Just sayin...

Third...much like the unnecessarily dichotomous situation above, I found this article to be an interesting read. Now, while I'm no proponant for divorce by any means, I think this brings up another big issue I've been having with society lately. Namely: what's up with the preoccupation with marriage? I think that it is perfectly natural for some people never to want to get married, or who would be perfectly happy with maybe 4 or 5 long-term partners until they die. I think it is also personally reasonable for people to want to be married to one person for the rest of their lives. I think the first situation is probably easiest when children aren't involved but I'm not about to say that it can't also be totally fine when children *are* involved. Make all the arguments you want about broken homes, (and I can't speak from experience on this one) but I can think of countless other things that happen in a child's life that can likely have just as much of a dramatic impact on them...I mean, take for instance, being forced to live in a home where one's parents fight all the time and don't really love each other? Who says that's any better than living with divorced parents who are happy? Sure, it's nice to have more than one parent raising a child in a house, but how about those children who lose their parents alltogether? Or one parent? Or loses a sibling to disease or accident? There are so many things that change and effect our lives, do you think we're putting too much pressure on people to get married--and early?

[Edit: this link is also pertinent re: my last question]