super_blaze sent me this one & it's too good not to share (although, to be honest, it has little to do with medical school!). apparently an artist in sao paulo decided to make a statement against the city's extreme pollution by "erasing" the dirt and grime in city tunnels to create his art. the full story can be found here. but the video which follows sums it up best. enjoy!
This post makes me want to go out shirtless, just to see what would happen. Would I get arrested in this country (i.e. the U.S.) if I went out without a shirt? How come women in Europe and other parts of the world don't have to cover their breasts in public, but we do? Why is a breast, in any form, perceived as obscene? Does "the public" not realize that the difference between a man's breasts and a woman's amounts to some adipose (i.e. fat) tissue and developed ducts and glands? Or that breast milk is technically classified as a kind of mucus secretion?
It's just a breast people! Yes, i said it: breast. Maybe I should shout it: B-R-E-A-S-T.
And now for the point: to all those who have issues with seeing breasts, whether on a billboard, a magazine cover, a nursing mom, or on the street, or wherever, I say: GET OVER IT!
Seriously!
But I'm guessing that the people who have a problem with it are probably not reading my blog. *sigh* So what are we to do? How do we educate/liberate people? How do we get the advertisements and messages portraying women as mere sex objects to stop? Why do we buy products that are advertised like this? How come the conservative rhetoric seems to overpower the liberal voice these days?
my mom forwarded an email to me about the recent appointment of Susan Orr, PhD, to head the Federal Family Planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services. the message was rather tantalizingly incendiary, and while my personal beliefs meshed with their assertions, i was curious to know whether the piece was slanted. so, thanks to Google, i did a little research.
the liberal slant on this appointment is that it's yet another huge step backwards for women's reproductive rights because Dr. Orr proposed elimination of contraception coverage for federal workers' insurance plans. the conservative slant is that it's a positive movement toward affording a greater amount of choice to individuals, particularly in the form of what components of health insurance coverage they choose to elect.
but what does this office of Federal Family Planning do, exactly? i wondered. so i looked them up. after a bit of digging, i discovered that title x is the main "to do" of this governmental unit. given this, theoretically, their mission is the following:
Program Priorities
1. Assuring ongoing high quality family planning and related preventive health services that will improve the overall health of individuals;
2. Assuring access to a broad range of acceptable and effective family planning methods and related preventive health services that include natural family planning methods, infertility services, and services for adolescents; highly effective contraceptive methods; breast and cervical cancer screening and prevention that corresponds with nationally recognized standards of care; STD and HIV prevention education, counseling, and testing; extramarital abstinence education and counseling; and other preventive health services. The broad range of services does not include abortion as a method of family planning;
3. Encouraging participation of families, parents, and/or other adults acting in the role of parents in the decision of minors to seek family planning services, including activities that promote positive family relationships;
4. Improving the health of individuals and communities by partnering with community-based organizations (CBOs), faith-based organizations (FBOs), and other public health providers that work with vulnerable or at-risk populations;
5. Promoting individual and community health by emphasizing family planning andrelated preventive health services for hard-to-reach populations, such as uninsured or under-insured individuals, males, persons with limited English proficiency, adolescents, and other vulnerable or at-risk populations.
None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be made available to any entity under title X of the Public Health Service Act unless the applicant for the award certifies to the Secretary that it encourages family participation in the decision of minors to seek family planning services and that it provides counseling to minors on how to resist attempts to coerce minors into engaging in sexual activitiesUm, is it just me, or does that sound like any applicable program has to teach abstinence and take away the rights of minors in order to be funded? *sigh*
i interrupt my study time this morning to share a positively frightening story brought to us directly from the NYT. i think i mentioned previously that i haven't been following politics lately--i can't really remember the last time i watched the news or read a newspaper--but when i read this article and clicked on the links to the "videos," i was drop-jaw speechless. has politics come to this? have we deteriorated to rap debates between "obama girl" and "guliani girl"? is this the only way the media thinks it can capture the attention of the american people? and, my goodness, after all the chatter about conservativism over the past several years, should i consider it a good thing that this stuff hasn't been pulled off the net? when i wished for a more liberal discourse and debate in this country, i was thinking west wing, not mtv music video. i guess next time i wish for something, i should be more specific!
interested in sharing my shock? (for full effect, make sure to click the links to the two prior articles & videos contained therein.) here's the link:
Net Watch: Obama Girls New Crush - The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog
click away. but don't say i didn't warn you....
it's a fact: 99.9% of medical students depend upon federal funding from the U.S. government in order to pay for medical school and its associated costs (i.e. FOOD), while in school. the funding is not guaranteed--there are many, many hoops to jump through (read: 10,000 or so forms to fill out and sign) before a student can get such funding. if we do get student loans, we're considered "lucky." our interest rate on our student loans from the government is currently capped at 8%, as opposed to the uncapped rates, some upwards of 22%, on private loans. nevertheless, it goes without saying that if the government lends an average of $200,000.00 at 8% interest to almost every medical student (~4,000 nationwide?) in the country during his or her tenure in medical school, they end up earning quite a lot of money off of us. add to this the amount the government discounts our services once we do go into practice and one starts to wonder: is the government screwing over its healthcare providers? i'll leave you to chew on the answer to that one....
(aside: too bad michael moore left the education part out of "sicko"...it's another way that the U.S. is lagging behind the rest of the world with respect to health care.)
in the meantime, i'm here to report that the hoops have just become more numerous. why? because some idiot, somewhere in Washington D.C., decided that all institutions receiving federal funding must celebrate--are you ready for this?--CONSTITUTION DAY. [have any of you even heard of constitution day? did you know that it's tomorrow? sorry, no, you don't get the day off from work. not even if you're the postman.] as such, schools that funnel federal funding to their students--including medical schools--must hold activities to celebrate constitution day. i kid you not. we're talking lectures, people. videos. presentations by politicians. and attendance, as i've been informed, is MANDATORY.
apparently, this is simply one of the latest actions taken by the department of education, which is now diving wholeheartedly into its misdirected "no child left behind" and "american competitiveness initiative" programs. what i want to know is: how do they think they're helping medical students by forcing them to take time out of their studies to attend lectures on the constitution? (is it not bad enough that we only have, oh, a week to cover the anatomy of the abdomen? how about cutting that down to an hour? it's not like we need to know about the abdomen or anything....) do they not realize that the majority of medical students likely have better knowledge of the constitution than most politicians serving in government? (i'd dare them to test our knowledge versus W's, but it'd take them too long to decide on a color scheme for the scantron to actually give us the test before he's out of office....) do they actually think that we want to celebrate constitution day when we realize that (among other things) it does nothing to ensure healthcare for all citizens?
we'd be better off having lectures on how to understand medicare or medicaid or governmental policies on healthcare. but that would mean that the government would have to produce clear directives on such matters and be honest about them. not to mention, they'd have to acknowledge that many of the government's policies on healthcare go against one of the primary tenets of the constitution: to promote the general welfare of its citizens.
yes, let's celebrate the constitution--but, shh, don't let anyone point out what that really means.
Have we reverted to the Victorian Age? Based upon the following email I received from NOW, one would think so.
Breaking News: Cleavage on Displaymy reaction to all of this?
"There was cleavage on display Wednesday afternoon on C-SPAN2. It belonged to Sen. Hillary Clinton... There wasn't an unseemly amount of cleavage showing, but there it was. Undeniable," the Washington Post reported.
NEWSFLASH: Hillary Clinton has breasts.
And apparently that "news" merits coverage in the Washington Post.
In a Style section cover story on Friday, fashion "reporter" Robin Givhan notes that Hillary Clinton has taken a brazen step for a woman politician by wearing a low neckline. "Showing cleavage," says Givhan, "is a request to be engaged in a particular way. It doesn't necessarily mean that a woman is asking to be objectified, but it does suggest a certain confidence and physical ease."
Shock! Horror! A prominent woman showing confidence and physical ease!
Givhan goes on with her psychobabble: "It means that a woman is content being perceived as a sexual person in addition to being seen as someone who is intelligent, authoritative, witty and whatever else might define her personality. It also means that she feels that all those other characteristics are so apparent and undeniable, that they will not be overshadowed."
This article about the frontrunning candidate for U.S. president caused quite a stir in the NOW office this morning, eliciting reactions ranging from "You've got to be kidding!" to "What century is this?" The piece is definitely outrageous, but it's also hilarious. Absurdly hilarious. And it's an indictment of our society's lingering archaic notions of femininity, assumptions about breasts and sexuality, and fears about powerful women.What do you think? Share with us your take on this story -- whether analysis or satire. We'll post the best ones on the web site. Send your submissions to cleavage@now.org.
Read more on media treatment of politicians including Hillary Clinton. Sign our petition to major media outlets. Send this story to your friends.
just when it seemed that the situation couldn't get any worse...he used the pardon card. super_blaze pointed me to this video--hard to believe it actually appeared on live television, but i guess we haven't lost our 1st amendment rights (yet)--and i think it says, succinctly and eloquently, what so many americans wish they could say to w right about now.
this isn't my particular rant, but i couldn't have chosen a better way of expressing these sentiments against the war in iraq myself. (warning: video contains explicit anti-war remarks, complete with some choice 4 letter words.)
the supreme court released its decision re: partial birth abortion today. i wish i could provide a direct link to the court document, but it's a rather large pdf file, and i have nowhere on the web to store it myself. so if you're interested in the nitty gritty of what i'm about to say, you may want to go read that document first. now has a link to it in their news section, as do several other news pages and organizations.
if you've been reading my blog, you know by now that i consider myself a feminist. i tend to agree with liberal politics, primarily because i'm an academic at heart and i'm always questioning everything. (my favorite question growing up: why?) i believe that conventions are made to be questioned and analyzed, not reflexively followed. i also am an exceptionally sensitive person, one who holds life dearly enough that she's been known to run into traffic to save a turtle about to meet its demise by attempting to cross the street. i cried when someone killed the wasps outside my house recently, even though i was afraid of them (i don't like pain and therefore avoid critters that sting/bite/want to eat me). basically, i'm a big mush--my heart is always on my sleeve and, no matter how hard i try, i cannot conceal this fact.
that having been said, i struggle with the issue of abortion. i feel that life is sacred. i've always been fascinated by childbirth and i know i'll likely end up focusing my career on women's health. *and* i have a strong respect for women's bodies and their choices about what happens to their bodies. so although i don't think i could ever have an abortion myself (<--i'm a little biased because i have fertility problems and it would be pretty darn hard for me to get pregnant without medical intervention), i think every woman has a right to choose. i also acknowledge the fact that, given my interest in women's health care, i may be trained and/or asked to perform this procedure. this fact scares me, but i acknowledge the reality, nonetheless. i cannot imagine the suffering that an unwanted child must endure throughout his or her life. i also don't think any woman should be forced into poverty or put her life in jeopardy for a fetus. it's my opinion, plain and simple.
when i first heard about partial birth abortion, i was incredibly disgusted. the description of the procedure seemed absolutely horrific to me and i couldn't understand why anyone would ever want to have that kind of an abortion. then i read the supreme court ruling.
if i'm understanding it correctly, a partial birth abortion involves delivering the fetus to a certain point and then killing it. in contrast, other types of late-term abortion involve dis-membering the fetus in utero and then delivering it. knowing what i know about science (remember, i just studied embryology and neuroanatomy, among other things), if i had to choose between someone whacking me on the head to kill me versus tearing me to shreds, i'd choose to be whacked. it's not even in the realm of being contestable--one act causes immediate death, the other is pure torture. but what did the courts just do? they just prevented physicians from performing the "humane" form of abortion while permitting them to torture fetuses via the alternate method. they say they're trying to preserve the sanctity of life--how on earth does this decision uphold that sanctity? seriously! can anyone follow the logic here? or did they simply make the decision so ambiguous as to prevent providers from performing any late-term abortions? hmm....
i really don't understand how the same government that has allowed us to invade other countries where we are killing innocent children and that allows our children to access guns so that they can kill each other can take a stand against killing a fetus that cannot survive outside of its mother. i also don't understand how our government can refuse to allow sex education to be taught in schools. if they don't want women to have abortions, then why aren't they teaching pregnancy prevention? if they're professing abstinence as a "cure" to prevent pregnancy, then why is the government (in some states) requiring young girls to be vaccinated against sti's? if they truly believed in their abstinence programs, there would be no need for the vaccinations. oh, wait--that's right--boys can have all the sex they want and spread around the sti's while girls have to remain abstinent until marriage wherein they get exposed to sti's because the guys were sleeping around--that's why we're mandating the vaccines, right?
i swear, if it weren't for the right to free speech, i think i'd be on the next plane out of this country. until the government takes away my right to rant, though, they'll just have to deal with me screaming from my blogspot.
i want somebody to give me one good reason as to why we should still be allowed to own guns in america.
seriously. why the heck should a college student be able to go out and buy two guns that give him the means to kill 33 people?!?!? i know, i know, some will argue that being able to own a gun is a fundamental american right--but just because however many hundreds of years ago (before we wiped out nearly the whole environment) we supposedly needed guns to "protect ourselves" from animals, does that mean that it's still a good idea for harboring weapons to remain a fundamental right? we're certainly not at risk from being eaten by bears anymore. it has also been proven that ownership of guns results in more intentional and accidental deaths than in protection from robbers or "bad guys," etc. so don't even try to tell me that people need guns for protection--i personally think that's absolute bullsh!t.
when i was in middle school, my friend's mom was shot in my front yard. in life before cell phones, she happened to have a c.b. radio underneath the passenger seat in her car. when the robber appeared at her car window, she reached for the radio, and the person trying to rob her thought she was reaching for a gun and shot her. my family and i ended up underneath the couch in the living room until the cops arrived. my friend's mom survived--luckily, she'd placed her arm up in a defensive position and the bullet lodged in her arm--but i don't think any of us felt safe again for a long time following. would owning or possessing a gun have helped us in this situation? not a chance.
about fifteen years after this incident, i worked in the burn unit at a large trauma center. the physician for whom i worked, an amazing burn and trauma surgeon, allowed me to shadow him one day when most people were on vacation (sometime between christmas and new year's day). i'd never gotten to observe surgery first-hand before that day, and what i saw, i'll never forget. sometime around 3pm on a bright, sunny afternoon, the trauma team was paged to the trauma bay for an incoming gsw (gun shot wound) victim. because of hipaa laws, i cannot go into the details here about why the guy had been shot in the middle of the day or by whom, in particular, he was shot. but what i observed that day in the o.r. only underscored my already strong anti-gun position. this guy had been shot by a member of a law enforcement agency in an effort to (supposedly) protect the public. what i learned during the surgery, however, was that he'd not been shot by just any kind of bullet. the bullet with which he was shot was of the sort that is created to cause the most damage to whatever it hits. and, believe me, it did more damage than you can imagine.
i guess i can understand why law enforcement members carry guns, even though in most other countries, they do not carry weapons. but in my opinion, there is something absolutely sick about the fact that we allow people (law enforcement or otherwise) to run around with guns that are made to be not only lethal, but totally destructive. i don't know enough about guns to know whether the student at vt was using unusually destructive guns or bullets, but the descriptions of the violence certainly make it sound as if the weapons he used were not "ordinary." why do we allow such weapons to be sold? if we really think that we still need to have the right to bear arms, why not make them single-bullet guns that have ordinary bullets? why do we allow the sale of such destructive weapons? do we really think the average citizen needs a multi-bullet containing super-gun to protect him- or herself?
here we are, invading other countries on the premise that they harbor weapons of mass destruction. has anyone bothered to look in our backyard?!?!? i wish somebody would invade us and save us from our own self-destruction....
