The Threat of Limiting Love: A Commentary

I could not disagree more with The Other Colbert Report's post "The Threat of Same Sex Marriage". My reaction and comment is as follows:

"I must politely and whole-heartedly disagree with you. From the very first sentence, this post is completely devoid of empirical evidence and relies solely on personal opinion and personal experience to make its point. How, precisely, has the “rise of same-sex marriages” caused the definition of “family” to morph and take on so many different forms? And why is the notion that a family can be something other than the stereotypical definition of “mother+father=2.5 children” so bad? Honestly, it is these narrow-minded, rigid beliefs that are limiting us and causing irreparable damage to our society. I posit that it is not same-sex marriages threatening the notion of family, but rather the unwillingness or inability to think in a progressive fashion and evaluate situations different than one’s own. 

  Should marriage always be limited to a man and woman simply because it “always has been”? Furthermore, if we are to exclude the evolution of marriage and reduce it to what it once was, are we to treat women as property and marry them to men to make political and economic deals rather than base it upon love? An evaluation of the full history of marriage blows apart the “always has been” theory because marriage has not always been what it is now. Also, one must consider marriage across different cultures. Arranged marriages between child brides are still very commonplace in certain parts of the world. In certain villages in India, female children are promised to male children in order to increase the wealth and prosperity of the families. To most Westerners, this practice is backwards and not “morally correct”, but to the members of those villages, this is just how life “has always been”. 

  How does assigning gender-roles help children? Are we to tell little girls they can’t race cars or fly an F14 because “it’s too dangerous” and “only boys can do that”? I was told that as a young girl and it infuriated me. Are we to tell little boys that they can’t sing and dance and show emotion because it “isn’t manly”? How is that going to help develop our children into fully formed people? Answer: it doesn’t. While I admit that men and women do have different psychological and physiological needs and modes of expression, enforcing gender-roles diminishes our abilities as both men and women to explore and fully understand what it means to be HUMAN. It is this gender-biased mode of thinking that prevented women from voting until the 1920s and in the 60s prevented women from being on juries because white male America felt it would “distract them from their domestic duties”. As history has taught us time and again, separate but equal is never equal.

  My father raised my sister and me largely alone and we did not have a female influence in the house for a large portion of our lives. Do I feel as though I missed out? Absolutely not. I feel I am a very strong person who is able to think critically and overcome any adversity thrown my way. I am married, have a job, and am going to school. I donate to charities and volunteer when I can. I create art. I live, I love, I laugh. My family life in my formative years was not a stereotypical family, but I am no less of a person because of that.

  If our children are being harmed by anything, it is the lack of compassion, acceptance, and progressive thinking. It is being shamed for having a heart’s desire outside of their assigned gender role. It is being stuck in frigid, loveless nuclear families that focus on “what has always been” and “what is morally right” instead of focusing on love. I posit that instead of limiting the love in this world, we expand it. No matter the situation, a child surrounded by love and acceptance will prevail and will truly understand the beauty of the human experience. Marriage should be based upon love, plain and simple. Out of everything in this universe, love is the most holy and sacred. So why not join those who love each other in holy matrimony, regardless of gender or sex? Limiting love based upon fear and prejudice is the highest of blasphemies, and I have never understood those who limit love with one breath and speak of holiness with the next."

“Give me your Tired, Your Poor…but not Your Sick”

                Access to healthcare services is something every human being is entitled to. The United States spends 15% of its GDP on healthcare; this is a higher percentage than any other nation in the world. This certainly means that we must be the longest lived and healthiest people on the planet, right? Alas, this does not seem to be the case. The life expectancy in America is 78.5, placing us 50^th in the world. Our infant mortality rates are absurdly high at 6 deaths per 1000 live births. Healthcare is a very complex issue, so of course there are many factors to consider when wondering what we’re doing wrong.

                The biggest problem with our healthcare system is that it is largely privatized and not 100% universal. Considering the amount that is spent on healthcare, it is obscene that our government has not adopted a universal healthcare system that would cover all citizens. Compared to countries like France, Canada and Japan, the United States’ healthcare system seems to function in a way that is actively antagonistic towards the people it is supposed to serve. Running any healthcare organization for-profit is counter-intuitive  If you have no ill people seeking services, you aren't making money. If healthcare is treated as a product designed to deliver profit, it only makes sense to bleed people (pun definitely intended) in order to gain said profit. Over 60% of bankruptcies are filed due to high medical bills. When faced with astronomical medical bills due to liver failure, my mother chose to commit suicide rather than file for bankruptcy again. As much as I do enjoy thinking I’m a special snowflake, I know that I cannot be the only person who has had this sort of situation in their life. This is egregious. No one should be backed into that corner. No one in this country, the greatest country in the world, should feel it is necessary to terminate their own life because they literally cannot afford to be alive.

                Another serious flaw in our current healthcare system is the lack of price regulation (“Why an MRI costs $1080 in America and $280 in France”, Ezra Klein). In America, the cost of an MRI averages $1080, but in Germany the average cost for the same procedure is $599 and in France the cost is lower still (“US versus European Healthcare costs: the Data”). We use the same technology, so why are we paying exorbitant prices for the same care? Simply put, our government doesn't seem to be in our corner when it comes to our health. In other countries, the government aggressively intervenes to keep prices low for their citizens. Meanwhile, in the United States we are gouged for services that are owed to us. In the “land of the free”, life certainly isn't free. Capitalism is the beast that is killing us. It allows the healthcare industry to charge outrageous fees for life itself. Pharmaceutical companies charge astronomical prices for their product and give doctors incentives for prescribing whichever drug is the “new hotness”.

 Physicians in this country make double, sometimes triple what doctors in other first world countries make, and they actively lobby against the needs of their patients. The AMA has not only lobbied for limiting the number of physicians (“Health Care in the United States”), but also lobbies to limit more cost effective alternative medicine such as midwifery. As someone who intends on going into the medical field, I find this appalling. The primary reason one should want to be a physician is to heal the sick, not to fill your pockets.

At the end of the day, every person is entitled to be healthy. Life is precious, it is not a product to be bought and sold. Personally, I’m surprised by the amount of people who insist that life is sacred, but in the same breath speak of the “evils of socialized healthcare”. Well, which is it? Either life is sacred and we must do everything in our power to preserve it, or socialized healthcare is evil and only those who can afford to live can have life.

Commentary on Student Blog

In response to MWhite’s “Is the GOP War on Women a Reality?”:

Well said! I completely agree with this post, and applaud you for wording it so well. I’m forever mystified by women supporting a party so actively antagonistic towards them. I was absolutely disgusted when I heard Akin insist that our bodies have the ability to “just shut that whole thing down” in a case of “legitimate” rape. Seriously? I guess only white males are privy to the secrets and mysteries of the female body. And you also need to divine what “legitimate rape” is according to a member of the GOP…because it seems that they feel most women are “asking to be raped” by doing anything that accentuates or celebrates their femininity or sexuality.

  Rush Limbaugh is a different bin of manure entirely. When I heard him proclaim that any woman who uses birth control is a slut, I was flabbergasted. Part of me thinks he said it solely for ratings because surely, *surely* no one can be enough of an idiot to not understand the full range of what birth control does. Certainly, it can be quite useful in preventing pregnancy. It can also be amazingly useful in managing conditions such as polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), irregular or painful menstruation, endometriosis, and certain hormonal imbalances. I guess all these women who wish to lower their risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer must be tremendous sluts…either that, or Mr. Limbaugh didn’t do his research. Guess which option I’m betting on. Do these people not even consider doing research?        
  The fact that the GOP claims the war on women is a falsehood is absolutely ridiculous to me. In Arizona, legislation was passed that effectively removes any rights a woman has over her reproductive system. Guess who sponsored that legislation? A Republican. Personally, I believe that abortion is an option that all women should have available to them. I don’t know if it is something I could do, but I’ve known women in situations where it was the only option. No woman should ever be forced to carry a child to term when it is medically known that the fetus is not viable and will not survive beyond birth. The decision to terminate a pregnancy is often one that haunts women who have had to make that choice. My mother was forced to undergo two abortions before I was born due to her age and it was an experience which tormented her to her dying day. Though some women do use termination as a birth control method, many women do not and they certainly don’t take it lightly.
  “How about admitting that you will never understand what it is to be a woman. That you will never know what it is like to become pregnant, whether by choice or as a result of rape or incest.” This is absolutely correct and males in any kind of policy-making position should heed these words. I don’t believe men should have any kind of say in what a female can and should do with her body. A man will never ever *ever* understand what it is to be pregnant. A man will never understand the physical toll a pregnancy can take on a body. A man will never understand the heartbreak of finding out your baby will not survive to term. A man will never understand what it’s like to carry a child as a consequence of unwanted sexual violence. Certainly, some men might be able to understand on a conceptual level, and some may be able to sympathize…but they will never be able to empathize with any of those positions. Honestly, I believe the time and energy of the GOP would be better spent doing some ACTUAL good for the citizens of our country instead of treating the sexuality of women like some nuclear arms threat. Seriously, boys…I promise we won’t turn into terrifying amazons and wreak havoc on your little card houses if you leave our ovaries unattended.

God is a Bullet, Have Mercy on us Everyone

                I adore firearms. I take great delight in the craftsmanship and artistry in a well-made pistol or rifle. There is nothing more perfect than understanding a weapon so completely that one strikes their target true every time. That being said, I believe this country’s gun control laws are way too lax. Gun ownership is not a “right”, it is a responsibility.

                When I hold a firearm, it is always in my mind that I am taking my life and the lives of those around me in my hands. Any mistake could be lethal. Proper training and exposure are essential in ensuring that people have the proper respect for firearms. Many Americans who have grown up around guns and have been properly exposed to them feel this way as well. That being said, the vast majority of people who own a gun will end up injuring or killing themselves due to improper training and handling.

                A gun is not a toy. The media and entertainment industries, however, glamorize firearms to the point where the gravity of hurting or killing another human being is completely removed. When you shoot someone in a video game, there are no consequences. You don’t go to jail, you don’t have to watch the light fade from someone’s eyes, and you don’t have to witness the toll it takes on that person’s loved ones.

                According to federal law, as long as you are a United States citizen, over 21, and can pass a criminal background check, you can acquire a handgun. Federal law does not require safety training or psychological examinations. This is egregious. Safety training should be required for anyone wishing to own a firearm, as improper use can result in injury or death. Since the only purpose of a firearm is to hurt or kill another living thing, it makes absolute sense that a psychological examination should be required in order to obtain one. At the very least, mandatory safety training would increase knowledge and would make it more apparent to people that owning firearms is a serious responsibility.

                Guns are unnecessary for ordinary citizens to have. Many other countries do not allow their citizens to have firearms and their murder rates are far below those of the United States. Approximately 30,000 people are injured each year due to firearms. The firearm-related homicide rates in America blow away the firearm homicide rates of every other high-income country. How can we honestly claim to be the “greatest country in the world” when we can’t even get a handle on firearm injury and mortality rates?

                As much as the federal government seems to adore pushing responsibility to the states, I believe it is their duty to regulate all dangerous items and substances. This includes firearms. The individuals in Congress need to get their heads on straight and re-evaluate their priorities so they better align with what will be beneficial to this country and its citizens. Many Americans feel that guns are “a way of life”, but this couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, they are a means to a rather messy end.

On Gun Control (or Lack Thereof)

I was quite pleased to see the NY Times’ editorial piece “The Issue That Goes Ignored” (author unavailable, NY Times, 10/18/12). The author brought to light something which has been gnawing at me for several months now: what do our leaders intend to do about the gun problem in this country? Thus far, they've been dodging the bullet (pun somewhat intended) and giving us wishy-washy, noncommittal answers.

The author points out the fact that when asked about what they intended to do to get the ban on assault weapons reinstated, neither candidate gave a meaningful answer. President Obama delicately pussyfooted his way around the question, while Mr. Romney seems to oppose any sort of renewal on the ban.

The author offered some rather chilling statistics as evidence for the support of stricter gun-control measures: “80 percent of firearm deaths occurred in the United States, where citizens suffer homicide rates 6.9 times higher than in the other nations”. Upon doing some research, I found that for every 100 Americans, there are 88 guns. (Interactive: US, Yemen lead the World in Guns). To me, it is appalling that we, as a first world country, seem to be unable or unwilling to keep our tempers in check. Many of the regular police forces of other nations do not carry firearms; there isn't a need as the citizens do not have access to firearms.

Personally, I think it is quite sad that our president refuses to take a stand on this issue one way or another. Certainly, taking an unpopular stance regarding a controversial issue might not be the best way to win votes, but it should be about more than that. It should be about doing what is best for the people living in this country. Sometimes people don’t like what is best for them and go the whole way kicking and screaming. However bitter the medicine might be, it is sometimes necessary to save the patient.

 I completely agree with the author. Guns (especially automatic weapons) are an unnecessary part of our country. What are we hunting that is so terrible as to warrant the need for an automatic weapon? I understand that the zombie apocalypse is surely well upon us. However, if that is the case, machetes and other bladed weapons are going to be our best option. 

I'll Take your "Two Touchdowns" and Raise you "Backchecking"

Charles Krauthammer is a respected political columnist who has been involved in the political scene since 1980. Not only is he a brilliant columnist (some would say THE columnist), but he also holds a Doctorate of Medicine and was board certified in psychiatry in 1984. Perhaps it is his extensive experience not only in the political arena, but also in the psychiatric one which makes his recent article, Romney by Two Touchdowns (Krauthammer, Washington Post, 10/4/12), so mystifying to me.

            In his article, Krauthammer asserted that it was Romney who won the debate. In fact, he does a very good job in stating his claims and making them seem well thought out and appetizing to all audiences (of course his credibility and experience also plays a crucial part in his words having more weight). Though the article has an incredibly anti-Obama view (as do most of his other editorial articles), he posits his opinions in such a way to make himself appear an authority rather than an enemy or someone just spewing vitriol.

            Though the article is a very entertaining read, it doesn’t really lay out exactly how Romney defeated Obama in the debate. Certainly, Krauthammer offers a myriad of very subjective reasons; that Romney offered “a remarkable display of confidence, knowledge and nerve” and that Obama was “detached, meandering, unsure”. Krauthammer insists that Romney give concrete evidence as to where he stood, but doesn’t really outline it for those of us who have watched the debate over and still can’t make heads or tails of the Republican candidate.

            Personally, I feel that Krauthammer was completely off-base with this article. It absolutely baffles me as to how someone with an MD in psychiatry could read Romney as anything but aggressive, duplicitous, and potentially psychotic. Romney’s performance reminded me of the character Patrick Bateman from American Psycho. I did see a confidence in Romney, but it was coupled with a positively murderous look. While watching a debate for the second time, I noticed that when Romney was spouting off buzzwords and pseudo-scripted nonsense, he did look quite affable and charismatic. However, any time he was questioned or asked to explain something, his eyes turned dark and beady and he took on a very predatory mien. As for knowledge, I didn’t really perceive either candidate to be particularly knowledgeable, but I certainly don’t feel Romney had an edge on President Obama in that category. Rather, I felt the opposite was true. And nerve? Well, Krauthammer, you’ve got that right. Romney sure did have a lot of nerve, but is that what we want in our president? A murderous, self-centered psychopath who can’t for the life of him clarify and quantify his statements? I don’t want that kind of president. Romney was consistently rude and overly aggressive, and I feel that Obama was backed into a corner by the republican candidate’s behavior. If Obama were to have escalated the debate to Romney’s level of hostility, we would have likely seen a verbal bloodbath on national television.

            Certainly, it doesn’t surprise me when the major conservative-run news networks tout Romney as being a “master debater” and having “handily won”; these predominantly male-run networks would, of course, see someone as being rude, aggressive and hostile as doing a good job, so long as it was a hostility aligned with their viewpoints. I posit that if Obama were to have acted as Romney did, these same networks who have been claiming him small and unsure would be vilifying him for his behavior. That being said, I am quite surprised that someone with a background in psychiatry--a doctoral degree, in fact--would applaud Romney’s “step off my ####” style of debating. In a debate one should be confident and able to state and defend your viewpoint with concise, CORRECT facts. Neither candidate, in my opinion, was able to do so…but Romney certainly had no edge in my mind by being rude and tossing around buzz words. Critics said that Obama looking down and looking away made him appear unsure. However, it is commonly known that looking away from a speaker more often than not indicates disbelief or boredom. For someone who was chief resident at Massachusetts General Hospital to not focus on these obviously known body cues is quite strange to me.

            Perhaps social media and politics in general have taken their toll on the public at large. No longer do people analyze the whole picture piece by piece. Instead, they focus on what they want to see and enter into echo chambers where people aligned of the same viewpoints can affirm to one another that they are Right and of the Correct view. Information being so readily accessible is both a boon and a curse in that respect, you can get what you need at lightning speed, but that speed has made people lazy and eliminated the need in their minds for cross-referencing and analysis done by the self. Personally, I’m not certain either candidate won the debate. I don’t think a debate so wildly unformatted and unorganized can be said to have a winner.

            

In an article posted by the NewYork Times, it was noted that Mitt Romney is currently pushing for Hispanic votes.  It seems that Romney believes that he can use the current plight of many unemployed and lower income Hispanics to convince them that the Republican party is the one to back, seeing as the current administration has “failed to improve their circumstances”. To me, his words are hollow and his promises lack teeth. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that a wealthy white male who has time and again supported harsher immigration policies would really and truly be sensitive to the needs of the Hispanic community. If he really cared, wouldn’t he have long ago reached out to them? Granted, I do feel that the Republican party has a lot to offer Hispanics as far as base ideology goes- there is a very strong sense of community and family and a thought that you must work hard to do well. However, the Republican party of today seems to be more concerned with image and what will get the highest ratings. They will say anything to try and convince people they’re “on your side”. It seems, however, that the Hispanic community at large is too savvy to be swayed by Romney’s false promises, as only 22% are currently supporting him. In an age of video recordings and information at your fingertips, is it really a wise idea to say whatever you feel will make people support you? Perhaps not if what you are saying is contradictory to things you’ve previously stated.