AIDS Awareness Week: “Rent” Film Screening

This past week was Emory’s AIDS awareness week. On Wednesday night, I attended a screening of the film “Rent.” This film, directed by Christopher Columbus is based off of Jonathon Larson’s musical, “Rent,” which has been running on Broadway since 1996. For readers who are not familiar with the storyline, this film was selected to be screened during AIDS Awareness Week because four of the main characters (Angel, Collins, Roger, and Mimi) are HIV positive. The idea for the musical “Rent” was inspired by Puccini’s opera, “La Bohème.” In “La Bohème,” the characters are Parisian bohemians who are being affected by the tuberculosis epidemic. “Rent,” in contrast, is the story of struggling artists living in New York City who are confronted with AIDS.
One of the most powerful themes of the film was the seize-the-day attitude of many of the characters. Despite pitiful living conditions, the hardships of disease, as well as facing other social stigmas, the characters possess a great resilience to maintain a positive outlook on life. During one song the characters describe themselves as “people living with, not dying from disease.” This is one of my favorite lines in the movie because it reminds people of the importance to fight disease until the very last moment, and never surrender to despair. Often when addressing the subject of AIDS, academics and advocates alike resort to a grim and bleak outlook concerning the disease. The characters of “Rent” remind the audience that they have not died yet, and while still living there is still hope. The song, “No Day but Today” is probably the best example of how the characters strive to embrace life. Mimi, an exotic dancer with AIDS and a drug addiction sings, “There's only us, There's only this, Forget regret, Or life is your to miss, No other road, No other way, No day but today.” This line clearly demonstrates the perspective of living every day as if it was the last. I am particularly fond of this theme because it is relevant to a far greater demographic than just AIDS patients. Everyone could use an occasional reminder to cherish the importance of friendship and love, throw away the monotony of day-to-day life, and remain true to our ideals.
Another interesting aspect of the film is to see how the support network system for people with AIDS has evolved in the last two decades. The film shows a couple of scenes set in a life support group, one of the original support networks for people with AIDS. The characters assist one another in answering the questions “Will I lose my dignity? Will someone care? Will I wake tomorrow, from this nightmare?” The life support meeting is run on a very small scale; it takes place in a rundown public school building. Currently, the support networks for people who have been affected by AIDS are tremendous. Enormous support systems include The National AIDS Hotline (which exists in both Spanish and English), the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, and People with AIDS Coalition of New York. There are research initiatives such as the American Foundation for AIDS research, advocacy initiatives such as ACT UP, and even a World AIDS Day, December 1st annually. It is quite clear that the number of people affected by this disease has risen at an unprecedented pace, and despite certain enduring social stigmas, AIDS is not just a disease for bohemians anymore.

Hymen Reconstruction

In previous classes we have talked about genital mutilation and our discussions have ranged from clitoridectomies, “corrective” surgery on intersex children, and how society usually doesn’t consider circumcision in this category. There has now been another type of mutilation that has been brought to my attention after reading the book In the Land of God and Man by Silvana Paternostro for my Latin American history class. In her book Paternostro, explores the suppression of Latin American women by a patriarchal society and the Catholic Church. The repression limits women to rigid gender roles and also controls how women use their bodies. In Latin American culture, for a man to marry a woman she must be a virgin. However women who have moved from their countries to countries with less rigid gender controls such as United States have thus had more freedom to have premarital sex. However, if they want to marry a Latin American man, they now have the problem of not being a virgin. The solution that many Latin American women have chosen is hymen reconstruction, which Paternostro found out about when she found a plastic surgery clinic advertising the procedure in the newspaper. The point of the reconstruction is so that the woman will bleed like she did the first time she had intercourse and thus verifies her virginity. For more information on the procedure you can go to the following website of a plastic surgery clinic in Argentina called Plenitas http://www.plenitas.com/treatments/hymen-surgery.asp. I found the website’s description of the results from the surgery very interesting. The website states “hymen reconstruction will allow you to have your next sexual intercourse as if you were a virgin, without worrying about failing to fulfill the cultural and religious expectations of your family or social group.”

The irony of the situation is that even though these women who have hymen reconstruction have emigrated from Latin America and are now free from direct suppression, they are still under the yoke of their country’s traditions. Why, though, are men so concerned with a woman’s virginity? I found that my TA’s answer to be very interesting. The answer he gave was due to the belief in honor which is tied to the social status of the family in a patriarchal society. An honorable family is one in which the father is the actual father of the children in the family instead of the woman’s children from previous men. By “protecting” a woman’s virginity then the family maintains its honor.

When Paternostro saw the ad she contacted a human rights group to tell them about the procedure so that they could report it. However, she was told that it wasn’t as serious as a clitoridectomies since those were forced on women whereas women were consenting to hymen reconstruction like they do for breast implants. Paternostro also spoke with a human rights lawyer who told her that since it did not harm the woman’s health and the woman was doing it voluntarily it would not be considered as bad as a clitoridectomy either. If this is true, can we call this procedure genital mutilation? I disagree after reading an article from 2006 titled “Reconstructing Virginity in Guatemala” by Hannah Roberts who reports that many Guatemalan women who undergo the procedure do not understand all the risks involved and that the surgery is done in poor conditions causing infections and other discomforts. Also the procedure is not just limited to Latin American women either. Many women around the world get the surgery to deceive their husbands on their wedding nights in order to escape the disapproval of their society.

Science in the Media

I was reading this article that my physics professor has assigned and it totally reminded me of some of our discussions earlier in the semester. It was pretty much about how the public tends to have more faith in science portrayed in the media than any other subject, and it went on to give several examples and reasoning for why this is so. First of all, the general public has less knowledge about science then it does about sports and politics, so when football and political affairs are in the media the public is more critical of the reporter and the broadcasting if the facts aren’t straight. Because less is known about the scientific world and the verbiage is very complicated and unfamiliar, people tend to put more trust in this area of reporting. As in sports for example, they believe a network or editor would not put an unknowledgeable person in charge of reporting an issue they do not understand. The article discussed scientific inventions that were reported to the public as tremendous advances, when in fact they were not because they defied all the laws of physics. However, these people in charge of these projects advertised tremendous progress and they audiences were enthralled. They got caught up in the hype and excitement and bought into these inventions. In one particular example he mentioned, the inventors sited “achieved, world-known, published physicists” as experts, when actually they were unknown physicists experimenting in the same field with little achievement. But when the public hears that experts are verifying these inventions they tend to trust it, whether it be true or not because they do not have the knowledge of the subject or means to verify the information they receive. The author said this was the biggest issue due to the fact that it misrepresented science to the public. Science is generally held as a trustworthy institution, and when “frauds” enter into it and misrepresent the facts, it could change the public’s perception of science, in a negative way.

The article also went on to show how companies and reputable institutions buy into the hype. The author gave an example on how NASA, an very trusted and influential organization, invested in one of the scientists inventions concerning producing extremely large amounts of energy using very little to begin with. He explained that companies do this because they usually do not have to put much capital into it, and if it works the payoff is huge. However, he questions the organizations that invest because some of the projects they are investing in have zero payoff, and companies are still investing. He goes on to claim that this could be fraud, portraying something to the public that isn’t true, and through careless research is “tricking” the public. I thought this article was really interesting because at the beginning of the semester we discussed in class how science does hold some sort of power over the public. The public generally believes what is portrayed in the media as truth, and this article shows this is true, but that when represented by frauds can lead to a negative impact on the scientific world and its perception in the public.

ignorance is bliss?

Piali made an interesting point in class on Monday that has really got me thinking. It wasn’t something incredibly novel, but hearing it out loud in words rather than just knowing it made a huge difference to me. The point I’m referring to was made in reference to her “The Office” clip. She said that even though we may not personally believe in certain stereotypes, we are always aware of them. I’ve been trying to decide if I think this awareness that we all have of stereotypes is a good thing or a bad thing; I think it could easily be argued either way. On one hand, being aware of stereotypes seems like it is the first step to moving beyond them. If we can acknowledge the ‘givens’, then we can work to move past them, adjust our thoughts and actions so that the common stereotype is not something we believe or represent. On the other hand, it seems like our awareness of these stereotypes is the exact thing that is perpetuating them. Children, for example, are often unaware of stereotypes. Perhaps it is this lack of awareness that allows them to see one another as equals without noticing differences. The earlier part of Ashley’s clip demonstrates the naivety of young children to prescribed gender roles: the girl and boy interact with one another without being aware that they are different. It is only when they become aware of these differences that they assume their stereotypical roles and poke fun at one another.
So again, the question I’m posing is, If we want to move past stereotyping, is it better to acknowledge their existence or be blind to them? I don’t want to think that it’s too late for us to change the function and prevalence of stereotypes in our society, but personally, I can’t help but think that maybe these stereotypes already play too big a role in society for us to lose awareness of them. Maybe it’s too late for us, but not for generations to come. Is it possible to raise our children to be unaware or the biases and generalizations that are so common in our society? And if it is, would it even make a difference?

Women vs Equality, How Important is the Wording?

I really found that today’s class discussion raised some really important questions and that the presentation on the Self-Defense Class answered many of the questions posed by the first presentation on the Emory Women’s Center. The first presentation raised a class discussion that posed two arguments or dilemmas. Why isn’t the Women’s Studies department called the Equality Studies department? Also, why isn’t the Women’s Center called the Equality Center? I am going to take my best shot at answering those two questions.

In order to do, the first reading that comes to mind, is The Invisible Knapsack, White Privilege. In our society, the white male has been given this privilege that he is unaware of in many instances and it is more or less a way of society. That is why I think it is crucial that we have a Women’s Studies department and a Women’s Center. I am all for equality, but to make a Equality Studies department, or a Male studies department, would just be like re-reading much of history in a way that we have been taught all of our lives. I feel that this class has really opened up my eyes to the once invisible privilege given to white males that is now very apparent to me. Also, another reason that Emory needs a Women’s Center is because women’s need a place. Yes, women have risen greatly in society over the decades, but there is still a male superiority that remains in our society. That Center will give women a safe haven, and a place that they have worked for. Men have had so many places available to them throughout history and I think it is time for women to have a place they can call their own.

The second presentation in class today, on the PE self-defense class really reinforced that fact that a Women’s Center is needed. I learned today that this class is taught from a view that males are superior, which is a view I have mentioned before. That fact that a handout describes serving food and beverages to resolve a disagreement is just comical to me. When learning a punch in class today we starting talking about when we as women do not feel safe or threatened. It was interesting to hear that other girls look under their cars at night before unlocking their doors, whereas none of the boys in the class claimed to perform such an act. That is one such example why a Center for Women is needed. There is still a difference between men and women in society today, and while people promote equality, people also need to realize that there is a physical inequality in many instances between males and females. The Center for Women can be a place for discussion about those topics and so much more.

Grocery Bags

Remember our discussion about how shoppers in Europe have to bring their own grocery bags? The concept is coming to the United States: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2007/11/26/lawrence.plastic.bag.ban.cnn

EDIT: Crap! I hate how blogger cuts URLs short.

Here's a new link to the same video: http://tinyurl.com/yuc6c8

Remedy for the Inuit

Anne Lucas chose an awfully bleak title for her discussion of the legal battles that the Inuit are undertaking. The fact that "there has been a growth of activity in the area of indigenous rights to cultural self-determination" has given me hope for the Inuit and other peoples. It shouldn't be taken for granted that they are taking action to secure the rights that they are entitled to, and I hope that they will keep seeking out ways to fight for themselves until there is a remedy. I stumbled upon the footage of Sheila Watt-Cloutier, who was mentioned at the end of "No Remedy for the Inuit" as a prominent activist, and chose it as my clip (sorry it was so long!) because it reminded me that people in a disadvantaged position are neither helpless nor hopeless. It's easy to forget that peoples like the Inuit already have a strong voice. We don't have to give them one, we just need to listen to it.

Cloutier spoke again at a hearing this past March: "Inuit activists hope a hearing on Arctic climate change by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights will lead to reduced emissions and will help to protect the culture of the northern native people. "In the Arctic, things are happening first and fastest and it's a way of life that's being jeopardized here," said Canadian Inuit activist Sheila Watt-Cloutier, who submitted a petition for a hearing on how climate change infringes on Inuit human rights to the commission in 2005 on behalf of Inuit in Canada and Alaska. The commission, which is an arm of the Organization of American States, rejected Cloutier's request to rule on the rights violations caused specifically by U.S. emissions, deciding instead to hold a general hearing on March 1 to investigate the broad relationship between climate change and human rights. Officials at the Washington-based commission said it will be the body's first such hearing."
(http://www.unep.org/indigenous/pdfs/
Climatechange-and-Inuit-rights.pdf)

It's too soon to tell what the outcome of this particular hearing has been but, whatever it may be, thankfully people like Cloutier will never give up easily.

California Wildfires vs. Hurricane Katrina

A few weeks ago the topic of the California wildfires was brought up in class. Some argued that because the fires hit predominantly white, upper-class neighborhoods in California, while Hurricane Katrina devastated largely black, lower-class areas, emergency evacuations were timely and efficient. On the other hand, some believed that the emergency responses to the wildfires were prompt because the government and FEMA workers had learned their lesson from Hurricane Katrina. I found a very interesting article that compared the evacuations of the two natural disasters. In addition to finding the responses no where near similar, statistics were presented suggesting the idea that "white privilege" and socioeconomic status played a large role in the success and efficiency of the California evacuations.

In the article "California Wildfires Nothing Like Hurricane Katrina," a reporter discussed the conditions of the Qualcomm Stadium, where California evacuees stayed, as compared to the Superdome, where Louisiana citizens sought safety two years ago. The two vicinities and situations didn't even begin to compare. First, while still a large number, only 10,000 Californians lived in the Qualcomm Stadium versus the tens of thousands of Louisiana residents who stayed in the Superdome. Second, Californians had a surplus of food while Louisiana evacuees went days without food or water. Third, the conditions in both stadiums did not match up. Louisiana residents were without air conditioning, proper ventilation, and electricity for days. In addition, "the stadium's bathrooms overflowed with human waste" and mold was abundant. On the other hand, Californians were greeted with an "almost festive-like atmosphere," at the Qualcomm stadium, which included yoga lessons, bands, cots and blankets, comedians, acupuncture, suntan lotion tables, free phone calls via Verizon, available agents from insurance companies, massage tables, and jugglers. Fourth, the issue of security. In Louisiana, "Authorities and relief workers were hard to come by and people...were left to fend for themselves." In the California Qualcomm Stadium, San Diego police were present 24-hours a day.

After reading this article, I was slightly confused and angered. While any evacuee deserves the best of care, was there a need for yoga lessons and acupuncture in the Qualcomm Stadium? It is important to relieve people's stress when under such traumatic conditions, but shouldn't officials be more concerned with using all resources to evacuate residents; provide shelter, food, and water for evacuees; and control the wildfires? While I do believe emergency plans concerning natural disasters were improved since Hurricane Katrina, I highly doubt that the government created a new section on providing entertainment for displaced people. However, it was very smart for insurance companies to be on hand for customers and for cell phone companies to offer free calls to those in need.

Don't get me wrong. It is very important for our government to learn from its wrong doings and better prepare itself for devastating situations. However, I can't help to believe that racial and socioeconomic issues were at the basis for these two evacuations. I feel that the statistics collected from both states explain it all. First, the median home price of the two areas, California at $475,000 vs. Louisiana at $87,300. Second, the percentage of people living in poverty, California: 11% vs. Louisiana: 27%. Third, the racial breakdown, California: 52% white vs. Louisiana: 67% black. Fourth, the number of homes damaged or destroyed, California: 1,200 vs. Louisiana: 95,000-143,000. Fifth, the number of people killed, California: 6 vs. Louisiana: over 700. Finally, the estimated cost to repair damaged homes, California: $1 billion vs. Louisiana: $8-10 billion.

It is both sad and interesting that upon the California wildfires the media has been so focused on comparing the two natural disasters. I think it says a lot about our government and the existence today of racial and socioeconomic disparages.

The article:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/10/26/2007-10-26_california_wildfires_nothing_like_hurric.html?ref=rss

GRID: The Original AIDS

Gay-Related Immune Deficiency, or GRID, was the original name for AIDS. Until two days ago, I did not know AIDS had a former name. I knew very little about why AIDS was believed to be a "gay-only" disease and therefore, decided to do a little research.

The acronym GRID was originally proposed by public health scientists after they "noticed clusters of Kaposi's sarcoma and Pneumocystis pneumonia among gay males in California and New York City." Interestingly enough, these two diseases were not even connected with homosexuality until AIDS was discovered. For instance, Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) had rarely been seen in the US and if so, only in elderly men of Jewish or Italian ancestry. The number of KS cases increased in the US as the number of organ transplants increased. However, this fact was hidden from the public as homosexuals were still being blamed for the epidemic.

Because the disease was so new, the public absorbed and believed any information they heard about AIDS. Unfortunately, little was know about the disease in the late 70's and early 80's and false statements were frequently being made. For instance, Dr. Robert Gallo, the researcher "who is best know for identifying HIV as an infectious agent responsible for AIDS", told reporters that AIDS would never become an epidemic, the disease could not be transferred between men and women through heterosexual intercourse, and an individual needed to be infected with a large amount of the virus in order to become sick.

Due to false information, AIDS continued to be referred to as a homosexual-only disease. People argued that only homosexuals were promiscuous and used intravenous drugs. It was not until 1982 when the term AIDS was coined by Bruce Voeller and others who were concerned with the accuracy of the name. At this point, KS was beginning to be found in Haitian men and women, men with hemophilia, women with infected partners, babies born to infected mothers, "and among blood transfusion recipients with no obvious risk factors." Scientists were beginning to realize that AIDS was not in fact a "gay-only" disease. Unfortunately, even today, people still believe AIDS can only be transferred between two males.

The Gay Men's Health Crisis organization was established by six gay men, in January 1982, in order to combat the belief that AIDS was a "gay-only" disease. GMHC currently works to combat homophobia and reduce the spread of AIDS.

I found it very interesting how the media played such a large role in convincing the public that AIDS was a "homosexual-only" disease. I was wondering if people knew of other crises that the media has blamed on minority groups.

Rape is a hate crime

In yesterday’s newspaper, I read two different articles about hate crimes. One was an article stating that the number of hate crimes has increased from last year. As the number of agencies reporting varies every year, it is hard to determine the exact number of hate crimes and whether there is a true increase or decrease. (For example, Alabama agencies reported only 1 hate crime for 2006—unfortunately, that is probably not an accurate statistic.) The study defined hate crimes as those motivated by a bias against race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic or national origin or physical or mental disability

The second article was an editorial that covered several topics related to hate crimes, and part of it questioned the current notion of not including sexual violence as a type of hate crime. Upon reading that, I had to revisit the earlier report on hate crimes—and of course, it did not include sexual violence as a hate crime.

Redefining and treating rape as a hate crime will better address the underlying causes of rape. Too often, the blame is shifted back toward the victims—they should not have been out so late, they should not have dressed a certain way, they should have taken the proper safeguards if putting themselves in a vulnerable situation. But no one should have to fear being the victim of an act of violence just because she is female, just as violence should not be targeted against people of certain races, ethnicities, religions, abilities, or sexual orientations. Rape does not have to be an extra fear at night for women, in addition to all the other dangers that are the same for both genders.

Here is a link to the article about hate crimes. I can’t find an online version of the editorial at the moment, but if I do, I’ll post it:

Hate crimes rose 8% in 2006

Life Expectancy vs. Expenditures

This is a chart from my class on health care. I believe it directly shows that major flaw exists in the American health care system. You can see an enlarged, much clearer copy by clicking the picture.

Progress?

As our general class discussions near an end, I wonder, over history, how much progress we have actually made for marginalized groups. While I'm ecstatic that, as I've probably stated a hundred times now, we discuss marginalized groups more than we do just women, I must acknowledge that women in themselves are a marginalized group...perhaps not so much in our society as much as others, but they are still marginalized.

Today, I was talking to one of my friends from home, discussing classes. He asked me how many guys there were in my women's studies class, and I answered explaining that there are 3 guys in our class of 16. He then told me that the guy to girl ratio in most of his classes (which include linear algebra, data systems and algorithms, and other classes of the type), the ratio was the exact opposite; most of his classes had very few females and were made of mostly males. I wondered about the ratio differences; I knew that my friend was planning to major in either math or computer science, and I delved deep into our friend, Google, finding an article that explained that the number of women in Information Technology (IT) has actually decreased over time. If women are making their presence so much more widely known on all fronts, including medicine, politics, and the media. Why then, are women (according to this 2004 article) are women so scarce in the IT field?

The article explores the ideals of our education system, specifically related to math classes. For instance, "many teachers don't expect girls to excel in math, so they don't focus on them in class and they don't push them to do better." I wonder why this trend exists and have come to the conclusion that much of this is due to a generation clash between an older generation and a newer generation. Perhaps the math and technology teachers (most of whom, I'm willing to bet are male) are not used to seeing or having females enter or try to enter a male-dominated field. On the flip side of the equation, I look at guys taking home economics classes in high school or women's studies classes in college, both categories in which female participation dominates. However, my personal experiences on this topic vary from what I've heard; my class has been very open and accepting to guys learning about women; there is no sexual divide. I would say that this is because of the accepting nature of higher education, but I'm not too sure such is the case. One of the first guys at Emory that I told that I was taking a women's studies class laughed at me, expressed that most of the women in the department are lesbians, and are out to get guys and fail them. While his experiences in the Emory's women's studies department was nonexistent, his comment coincided closely with what many of my guy friends who have had other "friends" who have taken women studies classes have experienced. While I most definitely don't believe this (it's all hear-say...), I can't make a single conclusion about the women's studies department regarding its acceptance of students who don't identify as females. After all, this is my first class in the department. I do, however, wonder if girl are discouraged by their "friends" (I use the term loosely because I believe that friends are always supposed to encourage and never discourage...) from taking linear algebra and computer science classes just as much guys discourage their guy "friends"from taking women's studies classes.

Anyway, returning to the article, I see that there is progress for women in the IT department. Much of the progress is based off of networking with other females in the same professional paths, sharing experiences, and keeping each other strong, continuing on the path even when greatly outnumbered by their male counterparts. I agree with the article that progress is slow, yet still occurring. I'm reminded about how the world has generally become more accepting over time. If, for example, we look at clothes, I cannot imagine anyone wearing the clothes we wear today as being worn in the 17th century. However, I can imagine people wearing 17th century clothing today and still being met with acceptance. The point I'm trying to make is that I believe the world is becoming more accepting and that things that were not readily accepted in the past are much more readily accepted today. Perhaps this trend will continue and in 100 or maybe 200 years from now, society will consist of many more women in IT fields and other related jobs. Perhaps over time, society will be accepting to all and women's studies will turn into simply a subcategory of history with no relationship to the present. Turning the field into history is what I believe is the ultimate goal of women's studies.

say no to further centralization of the government!

Last week, we discussed the deterioration of our environment as a result of inefficient energy use and excessive water use (obviously there were more examples discussed in class, but I'm just naming a few.) As I explained in class, the idea of government intervention in these issues really scares me. While I certainly agree that these factors need to be considered at all times, I am extremely frightened at the idea of government intervention for fear that if we allow the government to control these parts of our lives, the line between democratic and fascist (yes, I know this is an extreme, but for arguments sake, I'm using it) governments becomes less clearly defined. If we extend our government's control in one area of our personal lives and choices, who is to say it will end there? This topic extends beyond energy use to a number of issues in the United States including abortion rights and mandatory vaccinations, again, just to name a couple. At a point where people are citing false religious beliefs just to exempt their children from vaccines, and the potential that Roe v. Wade l be overturned is more real than it has ever been before, are we willing to give the government even more power over our personal lives than they already have? At this point, I certainly don't think I need to voice my own opinions regarding these sensitive topics because they are not necessary for my argument, I simply want to express my unease with more government intervention in our personal lives than already exists. I am by no means advocating a completely decentralized, power only in the hands of the people government, my intention is simply to point out that though energy conservation and the preservation of the world we live in is certainly an extremely important cause, the issue of giving the government more power is a slippery slope, and I'm afraid once we relinquish more of our personal rights to people in power, it might be difficult to draw the line.

The convenience barrier

Our discussion of how hybrid cars are not more widely used in our society reminded me of how we do not implement many eco friendly things even though we have the technology to do so. One reason for this is because the switch would in some way inconvenience us as consumers. An example of this is the story shared in class of the man who would not give up his SUV for a more fuel efficient or hybrid car unless it offered the same convenience for transporting his kids. So while he enjoys the convenience of his vehicle now, does he consider what the consequence will be in the future for his children?

The idea of only caring about convenience in the present instead of focusing on long term solutions for our waste management reminded me of a situation in the article “Poverty Fuels Medical Crisis”. Laura Ungar explained how people who cannot afford healthcare will wait until the last possible moment to seek medical attention. Though they think they will save money be delaying treatment or hope that the condition will remedy itself, in actuality they only create a larger expense because the advance stages of the health problem are more costly to treat. I feel that this is exactly how we treat our problems with pollution and garbage. Though we have invested in some green programs like recycling facilities, they are limited. For example it seems that you can always find a recycling bin for plastics 1 and 2 but not for 6 and 7 plastics. We need to consider an alternative to recycling by investing in new technology such as creating plastics that are biodegradable. Though biodegradable plastics are more expensive, which is inconvenient to consumers at the time of purchase, they could potentially have an overall lower price in the long run. An overall lower price means that we would conserve petroleum and save space in landfills, thus reducing the number built, which can cost millions of dollars.

In the end, an ounce of prevention is always worth a pound of cure. Going back to the article “No Remedy for the Inuit” it may be convenient for the US to neglect fixing the source of the dioxin pollution problem now but in the future dioxins could effect larger populations and thus require a more costly solution. As consumers and citizens we really do need to be more active in the protection of our environment by demanding changes even though it may mean sacrificing convenience.

When the voiceless speak

In class last week we discussed environmental justice and the idea of “toxic racism.” One article “No Remedy for the Inuit: Accountability for the Heteronormative Landscape” by Anne Lucas shed a different light on the situation. It got me thinking about, not only the injustices that exist, but the ways in which we can stop them if at all possible. Lucas’ article explores the situation of pollution affecting the Inuit waters and the poisoning of their food sources. She goes on to look at the legal mechanisms to remedy environmental injustice infecting the Inuit. Lucas draws the conclusion that there are times when law “otherizes” those who are not centered in a white male prototype. Once marginalized, the Inuit and other groups essentially have no voice and no means for action. This depressing situation made me want to explore other circumstances of toxic racism.

After a bit of searching, I came across the story of the town Winona in Eastern Texas. The small African American community was basically turned into a toxic waste dump in the 1990s and the people suffered extensively. I found a youtube article that talks about what the community did in response.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEWoZaHq89o

The video mentions a book Fruit of the Orchard which discusses the situation and quotes different activates and has many photographs from the town. It explains the great lengths that the townspeople went to by contacting the press, forming riots, and publicizing photographs of those affected by the toxins. In the end, the people were trying to force the government to do their job and “protect American children on American soil” (fruit of the orchard). One woman is quoted at the end of the video saying “what happened in our backyard could happen in yours” (fruitoftheorchard). What we learned in class is that, although this statement is not necessarily true and that racial injustices exist, this is the mentality that we need in order to motivate ourselves to make a difference.

Newspaper

On Friday afternoon I picked up a New York Times and started reading through it. On the front page there were two articles that touched on a lot of the issues that we've been discussing in class recently. The first article was about the clean-up and rebuilding that's going on after Hurricane Katrina. The article focused on how the funds that the states have received are being divided up and used. It centered around Mississippi and the portion of the money that's going to low-income/impoverished people and communities. The federal government created a law saying that fifty-percent of the money for rebuilding was required to be spent on low-income areas. While all the money has not been spent yet, Mississippi has only spent a small portion of it on these areas. They are also the only state that has petitioned, and won, an appeal to get rid of that rule. There is a lot of criticism from the communities on the state about how and where they've spent their money; claiming that the majority of it has gone to help businesses and people in the more affluent areas. The leaders of Mississippi deny that there is anything of the sort going on and say that they are focused on helping all of their citizens and making sure that people get the help that they need. Yet some of the programs specifically made to help those low-income families, come with regulations and stipulations that make it harder to get money to rebuild and repair homes. To be eligible families had to have had regular homeowner's insurance so that, according to the governor, "we're not bailing out irresponsible people." I could not believe it when I read this quote. People not having homeowner's insurance doesn't necessarily mean that they were irresponsible. It's absurd to think that someone who was living pay check to pay check and having to worry about how they will get food would be able to afford any kind of insurance. This struck me as an article that fit perfectly with all the aspects we have been discussing about race and even hurricane Katrina in particular. Its hard to believe that there are still so many problems that stem directly from Katrina as immediate as people not having homes.
The second article on the front page was entitled, "Court rejects fuel standards for some trucks." It discussed how a number of cities and states had appealed the recent laws proposed by President Bush and his administration that regulate light truck emissions saying that they were not strict enough. There have been efforts to create stricter rules about the emissions policies to take into account the greenhouse gases and the issues with the environment. I get so frustrated when I read about the government not taking advantage of an opportunity to do something positive. Why wouldn't the government what to create stricter laws when it comes to emissions and pollution of the environment. What's the harm in protecting the environment? Maybe this is a simplified view but environmental issues are a big deal. These are decisions that we're not going to just have to deal with in the next four years, ten years or even fifty years before they go away; these are issues that are going to effect us for the rest of our lives, for the rest of the lives of our children and grandchildren, this is something that's never going to go away. Unless something is done, and soon, the world is going to run out of resources far before the sun runs out. There is not an endless supply of resources in the world, it's possible to run out of water; and more than simply a possibility this will become a reality if we continue to consume and dispose of resources as we are currently.
The issues that we discuss in class are relevant and important. They can be found on the news, in popular culture, on the platforms of presidential candidates, on the front page of the New York Times. By participating in class, we're doing on of the most important things, we're getting informed. While simply being informed won't lead to any change, it's the first step and something that everyone is responsible for doing, and capable of doing.

Death by Taser

I watched a really tragic news report today on CNN about a Polish man who was killed with a Taser in the Vancouver International Airport. Robert Dziekanski had flown to Canada to see his mother, but when he arrived he ended up waiting 10 hours in the baggage claim area for her. His mother was told that she couldn’t go in to pick him up and she couldn’t send a message to him either. She eventually went home when she was told that Robert hadn’t arrived. This was Robert’s first time flying and he couldn’t speak any English, so you can imagine how distressed he was. The police were called to deal with him and after he did not cooperate with them, mainly due to frustration and confusion, Robert was shot twice with a Taser gun and died on the second shock.

This incident is another example of the language barriers that we discussed in The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down. After flying for the first time, Robert was extremely stressed out and frightened. Though the police say that viewers of the video only see the situation through one side of the lens, I think Robert’s actions such as picking up the stool was not an act of aggressiveness but a way of defending himself. When he smashes the computer, the action is more of an outlet for his frustration than a threat to seriously harm anyone. Without any knowledge of English, he is unable to communicate what he wants and neither can he understand what the police want him to do. When I saw Robert I also saw Nao Kao. His situation instantly reminded me of how Nao Kao responded when he misinterpreted the doctors’ diagnosis of Lia’s death as them going to kill her. Nao Kao also retaliated with aggressive actions such as pushing the nurse, yet the doctors understood his behavior stemmed from his frustration of his daughter’s condition.

This is a really unfortunate event that could have been avoided if the police had listened to whoever wisely suggested that they needed a translator. Besides the lack of communication, our previous reading “Toxic Bodies” has made me wonder whether the treatment David received from the police is due to belief David was an impurity to Canada. Since he was a foreigner and I believe the article said he was an immigrant, would his minority status lead Canadians to perceive him as a pollutant to their nation and thus this perhaps legitimizes the way the police handled the situation?

Here is the link to watch the video:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/11/15/taser.death/index.html?iref=mpstoryview#cnnSTCVideo

Anger in Action

We've been discussing the lack of anger in present day activism a lot recently, and even how the nature of ACT UP's demonstrations has changed over the years. I attended Cartooning for Peace's "The Art of Controversy: Where to Draw the Line?" yesterday, and I couldn't stop thinking about our class as a panel of some of the world's most prominent political cartoonists discussed their work. That was probably the most savvy, irreverent, and dissatisfied group of people I have ever been in the presence of, and I could feel their anger. Michel Kichka of Israel mentioned the saying, "If you're not angry, then you're not paying attention.” There were so many profound comments made over the course of their discussion about censorship, tolerance, criticism, empathy, provocation, and on and on and on, which I found very relevant to what we’ve been talking about as far as effective activism is concerned. It is necessary to be politically incorrect and offensive in order to challenge social constructs, but not so much that you turn people away from the point that you’re trying to make. These artists make their living offending people, and they are more than happy to do it. Because cartoons are visual, simple, and humorous, they instantly get a memorable message across and they can often times cross language and even cultural barriers.

I was most struck by two of the artists, Ali Dilem from Algeria and Piyale Madra from Turkey. I never understood just how much U.S. newspapers censor the cartoons that we get to see until I saw some of Dilem's cartoons. I was shocked by how graphic the images were and how raw and apparent his anger was (in person he was the brightest and most fun-loving guy). His humor wasn’t shrouded in cynicism like what we’re used to in the U.S., but downright dark. I don't know anything about the political climate in Algeria, but I have a feeling Dilem is not very popular with his government. It is not for lack of trying that U.S. cartoonists can’t get more blatant political criticisms published, Liza Donnelly of the The New Yorker and Mike Luckovich of the AJC even showed some of their rejected works. The pair of them commented that sure, they have free speech... but their publications catch so much flack from readers about cartoons criticizing the U.S. government that they can’t just write whatever they want, or the papers won’t sell. Piyale Madra made my favorite statement of the evening. In answer to the question of where she draws the line, she said that she always wants to cross the lines because she does not like them. She went on to explain that she never trusts the external limits placed upon her, only her internal lines because she knows in her heart that she isn’t aiming to hurt anyone.

http://www.cartooningforpeace.org/

Pure dependence on toxic

The idea that the hegemonic, pure, heternormative nation can only exist in the presence of a toxic other stands out to me as the most illuminating point that Beth Berila makes in "Toxic Bodies? ACT UP's Disruption of the Heteronormative Landscape of the Nation." The integral role that "abnormal" plays in defining "normal" and demarcating the elusive boundary is, as Berila notes, rarely recognized. Reading this article made me question how definitions of purity and hegemony would be different if the nation did, in fact, purge itself of socially constructed toxicity. I assume the likely scenario would be a snowball effect in which the definition of normal would become more and more exclusive as new categories of abnormality would become created. Ultimately, this toxic purging would only constrict the societal construct of normal.

In this passage, Berila emphasizes the extent to which binary social constructs are defined relative to each other. In this vein, toxic is defined as what is not pure; stained is defined as what is not unstained. After reading this, I speculated as to whether or not an absolute definition of pure and unpure would be better than defining them as they relate to each other.

From the article itself, ACT UP did not come across as being a militant/angry organization, but rather a clever group of activists. After the presentation and class discussion my impressions of the organization changed drastically. This is not to say that I have a negative impression of ACT UP now (anger is not intrinsically bad and is completely acceptable and even admirable in specific circumstances), but I do feel that some of the actions they took (specifically against the Roman Catholic church) were on the extreme side.

The lack of treatment...

Discussing Beth Berila’s Toxic Bodies article today made me think about the problems with healthcare in the United States that we were discussing in class on Friday. In a nation where so many people enjoy a high standard of living, so many others cannot receive proper medical attention and treatment. Berila’s article discusses the stigma attached to AIDS, which is an issue into itself, but she also touches on the stigmatized groups that may have AIDS, such as the poor, and their inability to receive proper treatment. I recently watched a video in my PE 101 class called “Road to Hope” about a tour of HIV-positive young people who traveled around the country raising awareness about the lack of proper treatment for people with AIDS and AIDS prevention. One particular individual who spoke on the documentary, an activist who did not have AIDS, brought some disturbing fights to light during her speech concerning AIDS in the United States and throughout the world.

Healy Thompson, an advocate with the Student Global AIDS Campaign, stated that that only one million out of the forty million people infected with AIDS in the world were able to have treatment for the disease. In the United States, over 1.2 million people are currently living with AIDS, meaning that if all of the one million who receive treatment lived in the United States (and many do not) then approximately 200,000 people living in the United States would be living with AIDS without treatment.

After wondering why the poor in Kentucky (and throughout the United States) and hundreds of thousands of AIDS-infected individuals in the United States cannot receive proper treatment, I understand that we need a solution to our healthcare crisis. Ms. Bailey prompted us to propose a solution in our blog posts this week, and after some research, I think that nearly any comprehensive public or privatized healthcare plan would be beneficial. I do know one thing...something needs to be done!

Gym Class for babies and Katrina/Wildfire Comparisons

Four-month-old babies attending gym classes
Parents are taking babies as young as four months to special gyms amid growing fears about childhood obesity.

Full Story:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/dietfitness.html?in_article_id=493363&in_page_id=1798

13 November 2007
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/

Race a burning issue
Evacuees not Refugees

"Toxic Bodies" and the Invisible Knapsack

Beth Berila's "Toxic Bodies" piece describing demonstrations by ACT UP provides a detailed look at how our society and culture has become so image-oriented. Although the intent of the article was to illustrate how society marksThis materialistic mentality can be seen in ACT UP's exploit of Wall Street. Dressed in the same manner as "normal" individuals that work in Wall Street, the ACT UP members were not even looked at with suspicion because they looked like any other normal individual working in the building. Yet, their true identity was so easily hidden because of society's propensity to use image as a way to judge others. Since they looked the part, it was assumed that they were the part.

Although ACT UP's intent was to protest against the high cost of an AIDs drug, they truly highlighted how difficult it was to visually differentiate "queers" from "normal" people. This also touches on an idea discussed in past readings: the invisible knapsack in which individuals are privileged because of their skin color. In ACT UP's case, individuals skinned in conservative suits in the image of a stock broker. As explained by the reading, if they had been "women, people of color, and/or poor people" then they would not have been able to perform the demonstration in the way that ACT UP did. This truly highlight the privilege that a white male or any that is considered to be "normal has, since even in the world of activism, they were able to perform an act that those deemed as abnormal probably would not have been able to do.

It can be considered that the heavily reliance on stereotypes and image are used to judge individuals since it is the easiest way to do so. All that is needed to classify someone is to give them a quick glance, and suddenly all kinds of assumptions are made regarding an individual's ability/career/income. As long as there is this reliance on image, then race, gender, sexuality, disease issues and a form of the "invisible knapsack" will continue to exist. Although ACT UP's actions was designed to bring attention to an issue regarding AIDs, it truly highlighted an issue just as worrying: society's overuse of image to judge individuals. As demonstrated by the exploit, even today when we know that it is impossible to tell an individual's true character based on how they look, why are we continuing to try and do so?

AIDS victims and "untouchables"

While reading the article by Beth Berila a lot of things came to mind, one being about India’s “untouchables.” The “untouchables” came to mind especially when I read the line about AIDS victims seen as “invisible intruders” and that this phobia surrounding AIDS patients “reflects fears that ‘contamination’ will ‘seep into’ the heterogeneous and contained nation.” In India, this is what the “untouchables” are thought of as. They are people to not be associated with; they are a parasite on society. If you are not an untouchable you are to avoid them at all costs. Part of the reason for this is that the caste system in India has been a long standing tradition. ACT UP made it seem AIDS patients are viewed in a similar light in society, and I agree. Part of the reason that this ostracization exists is because of the social stigma placed on these groups of people. It has been ingrained in our society. In India, the idea of the “untouchables” has been around for forever. With AIDS victims, in the beginning, people knew very little about its means of transmission, and who fell victim to the disease. It became a disease of the careless, of the gay community, of the poor. This goes back to the idea about the uneducated not being able to make good decisions that we have talked about in class a lot. People were not informed about the disease and these perceptions were passed on and became the information that people received. It took a long time for people to realize that this is a global epidemic can and does affect everyone, and some people still do not understand this. I thought really interesting the law passed under the Clinton administration in 1993, allowing AIDS to be a factor in immigration and citizenship applications. I think this shows the ignorance of those times. By allowing these people into the country we were not spreading the disease.

I found the idea of being able to “pass” in society and marking bodies really interesting too. The exercises that some activists did by dressing up and walking into certain communities/groups and the people not recognizing them showed this “passing” ability. That was something I found different between the “untouchables” of India and the AIDS victims, their ability to “pass” in society. The “untouchables” are easily recognized by their appearance and they have no means of changing this because of their position in society. They do not hold real jobs, and are at the bottom of the chain socially and economically. AIDS victims appear “normal” in society and I think that is what scares most of the people with this phobia, that they may not be able to escape the contaminants. Even those that do not have this fear, show that they want to be able to recognize those that are different. With the term “gay-dar” people are openly picking out those that deviate from the norm. People I think use this term openly and freely, mainly as a joke, but it is a form of ostracization and identifying “outsiders.”

I was also thinking about the screening that occurs at airports across the nation. The screening has a lot to do with this idea of keeping outsiders out and insiders in. Since the tragedy of September 11^th there has been a significant increase in security and screening. We are very careful about who we are letting into this country. We do not want to take a chance of having another terrorist attack and therefore, have begun to become very suspicious, but at what cost? We are now openly picking people out of the crowd that do not fit the norm and forcing them to undergo in depth security screenings. Not all, but many of the people that are stopped are people of color, have accents, are foreign. Not all of these people are terrorists though. In our attempt to make this nation more safe have we reverted back to times of racial prejudice?

Just putting this picture out there...

...the text isn't as clear as it is on my computer...

The first picture says, "A young man walks through chest deep flood water after looting a grocery store in New Orleans on Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2005. Flood waters continue to rise in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina did extensive damage when it"

Second picture says, "Two residents wade through chest-deep water after finding bread and soda from a local grocery store after Hurrican Katrina came through the area in New Orleans, Louisiana."

The first picture has a black person in it while the second person has two white people in it.

Please also note that the first picture came from the Associated Press (AP) while the second picture came from the Agence France-Presse (AFP). I'm not sure if there are any implications involved behind their sources, but I think it's relevant information.

Accountability

A big theme throughout the articles of the last reading is accountability. Environmental injustice was occurring and nothing was happening about it. Minority groups were being setup for exposure to harmful chemicals and had no say. It was not until people took a stance and decided that they were no longer going to sit back and be oppressed for anything to occur towards a change. The city and state were knowingly putting disadvantaged groups in jeopardy, and what I found alarming was that even when activist groups protested and petitioned it took much longer for action to be taken in communities with largely minority populations compared to White communities. The city and state was happy to disregard the situation. It was only when groups like WE ACT came to the fore front and sued or protested, did the government finally step in and take action. The government and companies responsible for contamination were not taking responsibility for their actions, they rather people be exposed to contaminants than pay to fix the problem. They were not holding themselves accountable, and then only did so when forced.

I am sure you have all heard the story of Erin Brockovich, or seen the movie. But the case she fought so hard to investigate and bring to justice directly relates to the articles of the reading. She saw the people of small town Hinkley, California were very sick and not getting better. She began to investigate the situation and found that Pacific Gas & Electric had been leaking the toxic Chromium 6 into the ground water for decades. She fought long and hard to bring attention to the situation and prosecute PG&E for the harm they had caused the 600 families of this community. Hinkley was a small town whose people were on the lower end of the income gradient. Brockovich persuaded her law firm to take action against the company and PG&E finally settled for $333 million, however, not admitting guilt. Through her work she forced the company to take responsibility for their action. It is funny to note however that the company did not admit guilt.

People try so hard to cover up the harm they cause others, but by settling the case they are showing that they are responsible for the sickness within this community. If people and companies were to hold themselves accountable, many of these problems, controversies, and lawsuits could be avoided. Also, the health of the communities would be better and the racial disparities would not be so great.

Dejas vu

When reading “Dismantling Toxic Racism” by Robert Bullard, I was struck by his statement “There is a clear racial divide in the way government responds to emergencies” (24). The reason that this statement stood out to me so much is that, if it is indeed true, we have a serious problem as a nation. Emergency situations affect the health and quality of life of citizens and to respond to any situation like this in a “lethargic” way is unacceptable. To take this problem even further and say that the action taken by the government is dependent on race, is simply awful. That being said, this idea by Bullard is more than familiar.
On a random google search to find a direct quote, I found what I was looking for.
“The internets have had their way with Kanye West's new single "Gold Digger." An ass-kicking protest remix is now online at FWMJ -- it features Kanye's infamous "George Bush doesn't care are about black people" quote, and skewers the Bush administration's response to Hurricane Katrina.”

Five days in this motherfucking attic
I can't use the cellphone I keep getting static
Dying 'cause they lying instead of telling us the truth (...)
Screwed 'cause they say they're coming back for us, too
but that was three days ago and I don't see no rescue(...)

Swam to the store, tryin' to look for food
Corner store's kinda flooded so I broke my way through
Got what I could but before I got through
News say the police shot a black man trying to loot
(Boing Boing)

The Bullard article probably reminded many of us about the ongoing controversy of the government’s response to Hurricane Katrina. A theory parallel to Bullard’s, was made by Kanye West and widely available to the public. The question then, is why this did not cause more of a stir than it did? When the lives of the victims of Hurricane Katrina were at stake and now, their quality of life, is still at stake, where is all the media? Bullard points out the health risks that black communities face even without environmental emergencies, but in a case where the government is aware of what is going on and is slow to act or provide the truth, it is nothing short of ridiculous. With a pattern like this set by the government, there is no way to even consider ending racial inequality.

What Can Cause Change?

Our society is far from perfect. There is a seemingly infinite list of things that need to be changed. These imperfections extend into our personal lives, and often it is up to the individual to create the change they wish to see in themselves. In our class discussion of obesity, some people argued that obesity should not be seen as a disability. Perhaps obesity should not be seen as a disability because disabilities are created by society. In the article titled “Editor’s Introduction,” LeBesco and Braziel argue that corpulence has been historically, politically, culturally, and economically constructed.
I will admit, that to an extent, the negative image of obesity is greater than it may deserve. However, this article blatantly ignored that obesity is accompanied by many medical risks. I researched obesity on the website for the Center for Disease Control and found that overweight and obese individuals are at an increased risk for hypertension, osteoarthritis, dyslipedemia, type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke, gallbladder disease, sleep apnea and respiratory problems, and certain cancers. Based on this research, it appears that obesity can indeed be seen as a disabling quality. Furthermore, steps should be taken by individuals to avoid obesity. The social stigma of corpulence is a powerful, motivating factor that can cause individuals to change their lives.
Jean-Paul Sartre, a French philosopher, argued that action, meaning social change, can only be caused by anxiety. He wrote, “Anxiety, far from being an obstacle for action, is the very prerequisite for action.” In Sartre’s school of though, every individual is responsible for his or her own existence, despite the conditions in which they live. Our responsibility for our actions is a torment and greatness for human beings. Taking responsibility for our actions leads to an individual’s liberation. Hope, the opposite of anxiety, is the worst hindrance for action. Sartre was influenced by the end of WWII. He observed that the war only ended due to the intense fear of population for greater death. If an individual were to wait and “hope” for the end of the war, it would never come.
The social stigma of obesity will create an anxiety in obese people for two reasons, the fear of the medical risks associated with obesity, and the fear of not being accepted into a society that prefers thinness. If not for the social stigma against obesity, there would be no anxiety within the obese population, and they would remain obese and in serious medical risk. While I do not think social stigma is the most ethical mechanism to create change within the population, I do believe it is an effective mechanism. It is in human nature to change our position if we are frightened, and social stigma effectively frightens people to change.


From the CDC website on obesity:
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/index.htm

alternative cause of disability

During our class discussion today, a topic that quickly caught my attention was the causes for obesity. Although behavior, genetics, and environmental causes all play a factor in causing obesity, there is a significant cause that was not addressed. The rapid change in the human lifestyle is arguably one of the primary causes for obesity. For most of human history, the ability of the body to store fats and salts was a competitive advantage for individuals. The rarity of the occurrences in which people were able to consume fats and salts made them a crucial portion of a human diet. Therefore, individuals who were able to ingest and store fats and solids were able to live longer and produce more generations of offspring. Due to this fact, individuals who had an affinity for “unhealthy” foods had greater fitness over individuals who did not crave salts and fats.

I find this point interesting because it suggests that the recent lifestyle changes of human beings, and the rapidity of these changes, has had a significant effect on what is considered a “disability.” While, in different historical contexts, as was mentioned in the reading by LeBesco and Braziel, being able to maintain fat was considered a positive characteristic. Are there any other characteristics that might be considered a disability now that were once considered an asset to the fitness of an individual? Alternatively, maybe vice versa, are there qualities that are currently desirable that at one point were considered disabling? Furthermore, are there features that are currently disabling that one day may be considered a competitive advantage?

All of these questions support the idea that disability should be seen as a flexible continuum, if recognized at all. More radically, many of our readings argue that disability is a completely arbitrary social construct that should be terminated. I do not believe that disability is a completely social construct; there are characteristics that render an individual unable to perform a task with the same efficiency as a person without that characteristic. For example, a person with chronic fatigue syndrome will need to rest more frequently during the workday than an individual who does not have this syndrome. However, it is the way that society stigmatizes having a characteristic, such as chronic fatigue syndrome, that is disabling for individuals with the syndrome.

Ending Inequality...

At the end of class on Friday, Professor Bailey asked us to think about ways to minimize inequality. As I stated in class, I think that inequality will remain an elegant, unattainable theory always beyond the reach of reality based on our current economic structure. There are steps that humanity can take to lessen the great disparities that currently exist and are growing. Firstly, the education of every child could be emphasized. I admit, universal education is also idealistic, but steps towards universal education would begin the process of lessening inequality. Secondly, the empowerment of women would greatly lessen inequality. Women, which make up more than 50% of the population, are currently a marginalized population. By working to give power to women, we would be aiding half of our population to move in the direction of greater equality.

A third effort that could be made towards lessening inequality is to support self-sufficient economic endeavors. Supporting sustainable farming, a recently popular enterprise, is one example of a self-sufficient endeavor. Buying locally grown fruits and vegetables, apart from being far fresher and tastier, demonstrates an example of supporting a small-scale local business over a large corporation. Over the course of history, it has been shown that greater economic inequality goes hand-in-hand with the existence of large corporations.

The mechanisms I have listed above however, alone will not be able to end inequality. On of the driving forces of our economy is the scarcity of a product. This deficiency makes a product more desirable simply by the rules of supply and demand. In capitalism, the value of a product is completely arbitrary, but increases as the desirability of the product increases. If instead of basing our economy on scarcity, we began to produce an abundance of a product, enough so that the entire population would have access to the product; the inequality that results from the scarcity of the product would be eliminated. After reading the article, “Poverty fuels medical crisis: Access to care is difficult for rural, urban residents,” by Laura Ungar, it is clear that access to health care is a product that is valued highly because much of the population of rural Kentucky, does not have access to health care.

Another manner in which capitalism has fueled inequality can be seen through the type of good that has grown in production since the mass industrialization of the human race. For most of human history, agricultural products were the primary goods being produced by humans. However, since the industrial revolution, industries for luxury products have exploded. The existence of these luxury products has created two classes: the “have” and the “have not.” Inequality has resulted because there are objects that signify wealth and they are not owned universally within humankind.

Inequality

Inequality seemed to be a reoccurring theme during our class discussion on Friday. In class, I argued that inequality is the driving force behind our economic system, capitalism. While most of the population is not fond of inequality, we sacrifice equality in order to live in a capitalist society because there are many positive attributes to capitalism. One of the most significant benefits to capitalism is, in theory, the ability for an individual to create their own destiny. Now, I am not going to address whether or not in practice this actually happens, because there is a strong argument that despite capitalist theory, social mobility does not exist. However, for the time being, I am going to ignore that argument and just state that in theory capitalism strives to promote the ability for an individual to control their fate.

A writer who I strongly recommend for anyone interested in reading on the strength of humankind in constructing his own destiny is Ayn Rand. Rand developed a school of philosophy known as objectivism. In this theory, the driving purpose of an individual’s life is the pursuit of his or her own happiness. Moreover, the only social system that will allow for the full respect of individual rights is pure laissez-faire capitalism. Rand once stated on the subject of objectivism, “My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

With that said, it is still clear that without inequalities, capitalism would not be able to function. It is inequality within individuals that provides incentive for an individual to work harder to produce a product more efficiently or of better quality. It is inequality between products that affects which product has greater selling power. Inequality is inherent in a capitalist economy. While researching inequality for this blog post I came across a fairly disturbing reply to a blog-like post. This individual argued that “Inequality is a condition of life and a mind’s interpretation of its current position in it.” Sure, that sounds about right on a purely philosophical level. However, its also completely absurd when applied to the current state of socio-economics of our globe. To prove that inequality does exist, that it is not a figment of our mind, I found some startling statistics about inequality.

1) Half of the world—nearly three billion people—live on less than two dollars a day.
2) The Gross Domestic Product of the poorest 48 nations (ie. A quarter of the world’s countries) is less than the wealth of the world’s three richest people combined.
3) 20% of the population in developed nations consumes 86% of the world’s goods.

If given the opportunity to address the individual who believes that inequality is a condition of a mind’s interpretation, I would ask if they would trade their position in society with someone who lives on less than two dollars a day.


Statistics found at: http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Poverty.asp
Blog on inequality found at: http://www.philhord.com/phord/barney-frank-capitalism-is-based-on-inequity/

The Expectations of Medicine

The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down and the class discussions made me wonder about the expectations that individuals have from doctors and the margin for error in their work. As a society, I feel that we tend to hold the viewpoint that it is necessary that doctors make no mistakes. This is clearly evident in our legal system as healthcare systems are often punished for any errors they make. In addition, there is a clear double standard present with doctors. Our society views them as experts in their field, and as a result, it is expected that doctors know how to solve every ailment and that they are successful when they attempt to do so. Since medicine is a service and drugs are products that are paid for, there is also the expectation that if there is any type of monetary investment into these services, then these drugs and health treatments should always help and work as the doctors say they will. It is not too unlike purchasing a product from a store. If you buy a TV and it doesn't work, you would want to return it to get your money back. The combinations of expectations and the evolution of medical services as a service creates a difficult situation for doctors even within their own society. Also, the fact that individuals are often times putting their lives into the hands of these doctors, they expect their doctors to perform flawlessly.

The situation is compounded when individuals from other cultures are brought into the equation. For example, Lia's parents expectations, of western medicine is, like with everyone else, shaped by their past experiences with the doctors. This represents their standpoint on how they view western medicine. Lia's parents have had limited experiences with western doctors, and as a result their perception and expectations would be different than those that have had different more positive experiences with doctors. But, like society as a whole, they still feel that doctors would be able to help, and that is why they come to the hospital to seek treatment.

Although they do not pay for their medical services, they initially expect the doctors to be able to cure Lia because of all the time they are investing in the doctors. They, like everyone else, expect western doctors to be able to cure Lia's ailments due to the high standard that they measure doctors against. Lia's persistent seizures and her subsequent vegetative state causes Lia's parents to lose faith in western medicine since by the end of the whole saga, Lia's condition has worsened. They are disappointed in western medicine for its failure to fulfill their expectations. I feel that incidents like Lia's may have even occurred with individuals that are not immigrants and have fully assimilated into American culture. Doctors, by nature are human. The human element means that ailments are sometimes misdiagnosed and bad judgements may be used in making life-altering decisions. Treatments and drugs are never 100% effective and always have potential side-effects. How a patient reacts to a treatment is unique in every case. Going into a given situation while holding doctors to such a high standard creates a most optimistic outlook on the situation, setting the patient up for disappointment. Although cultural differences may have played a role in the misunderstandings which caused Lia to end up in a vegetative state, the failure of doctors to fulfill our expectations and help Lia is what makes the situation even more tragic.

In many of my posts, I compare Western values and medicine to Indian culture, values, and medicine. This time, I found an amazing article that holds many stark similarities between The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down and the article itself. I advise you to read the article(s), linked at the bottom, before reading my post.

Lakshmi was born with an undeveloped fetus attached to her actual body, making her look like she had eight limbs. Basic knowledge about Hinduism would allow someone to see the significance behind her deformity: a multitude of major Hindu deities are often portrayed with multiple arms. In this article, Lakshmi's defect makes her popular, sacred, and special among the culturally aware people; similarly, Lia's defect, while a disability, makes her popular, sacred, and special among the Hmong (seizures are a sign of a future Shaman in the Hmong culture).

What makes both of these girls special is their deformity; however, neither can actually live with her deformity. Lia's parents must have at least some degree of faith in Western medicine (as well as the acceptance that there must be some good in the medicine) that makes them want to continue to bring Lia to the hospital. If they honestly believed that hospitals were only useful when someone was about to die, they probably would have stopped bringing Lia to the hospital after just a few seizures, seeing the pattern that she doesn't seem to die from them. Similarly, Lakshmi's parents realize that her deformity must be treated. They realize that as special and goddess-like her characteristics make her, her parasitic twin had to be removed.

I find the culture of both of these families to be quite similar. Neither of the families is wealthy; both must use donated care. Both families see the child with the deformity as extremely special and hold the child near and dear. However, what is more interesting to me is the variance between these two similar scenarios. In Lakshmi's scenario, her parents believe in surgery while the Hmongs don't. The degree of trust each group puts into medicine is what interests me. Could Lia have had a similar, positive outcome had her parents trusted (or the culture put a greater trust) in Western medicine? According to CNN, the level of trust and care that Lakshmi's parents put into actually going through with the surgery was in contrast to what many of the villagers believed should have been done. ("Many villagers, however, remain opposed to surgery and are planning to erect a temple to Lakshmi, who they still revere as sacred.") Had Lia's parents gone against the culture and administered total and complete treatment for Lia (rather than just drugs that seemed to work), would the outcomes be any different? I'm interested in seeing how Lakshmi's family is viewed in the village after returning from the surgery; will the parents be out-casted for removing the extra limbs of the "Goddess"? Does the fact that the surgeons for Lakshmi were Indian (and most probably Hindu) have any effect on the families decision to go through with the surgery? Had Lia's parents had a Hmong doctor available, would they have had a different level of trust in medicine?




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=DUEOPR5GO0AO5QFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/11/05/wlimbs105.xml

EDIT: The link above doesn't work; go here instead: http://tinyurl.com/26ka7s

Lakshmi's surgery took place earlier this week and was a success.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=491757&in_page_id=1770
http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/11/07/india.girl/index.html?iref=newssearch

AIDS aid in Zambia

Reading "Poverty fuels medical crisis" immediately took me back to a research paper I wrote on the distribution of antiretroviral drugs in Zambia. I've looked everywhere for my paper but,of course, I can't find it. I don't remember all of the specific stats, but there is a good overview of the AIDS epidemic in Zambia at this website if you want to check it out: http://www.avert.org/aids-zambia.htm. Basically, one in every six adults is living with HIV/AIDS and AIDS orphans are a growing concern. Zambia is one of the poorest countries in Africa and receives millions and millions of dollars worth of HIV/AIDS aid from the global community, including the U.S.

Ungar's mention of the rural poor in Kentucky made me think of the rural poor in Zambia for two reasons. One, they share the common problem of transportation to health care facilities. And secondly, there is currently nowhere near the level of medical infrastructure in Zambia that there is in the U.S. I was surprised to find out that the lack of infrastructure is now a bigger obstacle for Zambia than the cost of health care facilities and medications, thanks to all that aid. Free ARV drugs have been available to all Zambians living with HIV/AIDS for a few years now. It's wonderful that the U.S. sends so much aid around the world, albeit with less cultural sensitivity than I would prefer. We love to pay attention to people in need in other countries, but what about our own? There is no excuse for people within the U.S. to not have access to basic health care when we have, and have had, a successful medical infrastructure in place. I have to agree with Sara Rosenthal - "it's simply not right".

And about that cultural sensitivity... It's not just crucial for foreign healthcare workers actually living in Africa to reach some kind of compromise with the African community for aid to really help, but also for the U.S. government to take into consideration where that millions of dollars worth of aid is going. Without the necessary communication, understanding, and ultimately an infrastructure that works for Zambians, a lot of that money goes right down the tube. There may be better clinics and more medications available, but all too often people can't get to the clinics and doctors can't get through to their patients. Just because it's available doesn't mean it's accessible. And when 2/3 of Zambians live on less than a dollar a day and many of them are malnourished, those meds are going to do more harm than good.

President Mbeki of South Africa has received a great deal of criticism for insisting that poverty causes HIV/AIDS. His controversial position has hindered the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS in South Africa, but it is debatable whether poverty as an underlying factor in the HIV/AIDS epidemic should be brought to the forefront of the fight against HIV/AIDS. Although poverty doesn't literally cause illness and disease, they are undeniably closely related.

I already posted one blog post this week, but reading Laura Unger's "Poverty Fuels Medical Crisis" made me so upset that I had to post again! Unger's descriptions of the poor or nonexistent healthcare that people receive in the Appalachian region of Kentucky ring true to me because I live in the Appalachian region of Georgia. While the depth of the problems in Kentucky is not as bad in Georgia, the horrible conditions that people that live below the poverty line exist in are universally awful. This article shows the prevalent and tragic problem of poor or nonexistent healthcare and I think Unger does a wonderful job of personalizing a problems that we often hear about on the news through numbers and statistics.

One particular problem that Unger noted was the inadequate healthcare available for the elderly, who often live with advanced diseases and lack basic medicine to control their medical problems. Perhaps the most shocking thing for me is to try to rationalize why someone would be suffering from a disease such as diabetes that is often highly treatable and for some types even avoidable. Unger does a wonderful job of showing how not only are most of the people in the article suffering from conditions that are treatable or manageable, but that they are also suffering from diseases that were treatable in the first place. Poverty causes or exacerbates all of these problems and this is the issue that Unger presents most strongly and that I agree causes so many of the problems in our society today.

Breathitt County, KY

As I was reading this article I was immediately struck at the mention of Breathitt County. I've participated in the Appalachia Service Project (ASP) for the past couple years. This program takes groups from all of the United States and places them in various counties in the Appalachia region. Each group spends one week living at a center with other volunteer groups and working on the home of a family or individual in the county. Two summers ago I traveled with a group of teenagers and leaders to Breathitt County, Kentucky. When Ungar mentioned this county I tried to think about my experience in the county and what similarities I could draw between what she writes about and what I experienced first hand. Each time I go on ASP I'm immediately reminded of why I love the program and how much one person can actually do. This isn't an organization made up entirely of people who dedicate they're lives to working to fix the poverty issues in these Appalachian regions. While ASP does employ full-time employees, the volunteers are just that, volunteers. They're people who all over the country and have families, careers and full-time obligations. The beauty of ASP is that it gives everyone the opportunity to help, all you need is to be able to donate a week of your time.
My experience in Breathitt county is one that I will never forget. My work crew and I, which was made up of two adults and four other teenagers spent the week working on the home of an amazing family, which consisted of a mom, dad, daughter and two sons. They lived in a rural community to which we had to take many winding dirt roads, and couldn't even see their nearest neighbor. The ASP staff members, who spend the whole summer at a specific sight and coordinate all the programs of the different houses for the summer worked with us to identify the most immediate needs of the home. Our project for the week was their bathroom. The floor was unleveled and rotted through. The ceiling constantly leaked. The tub was sinking into the rotted floor boards, and they had no running water. By the end of our five days, our seven person work crew had been able to rip out the entire floor (including the supports), lay a whole new floor, fix the bathtub, build a vanity/sink unit, and give them their first flush toilet in over five years. Seeing these changes in such a short amount of time, and getting to know the family, connect with them and see how much having the things that we consider necessities means to them was priceless. Yet at the same time it was hard to know that there were still so many more problems that needed to be fixed, and while I wouldn't be able to help, hopefully the groups in the following weeks would be able to. One of these issues which most directly relates to the health issues is that they had no kind of sewer system, no septic tank, the waste just went underground. This creates a toxic and deadly environment of 'black water' under their house. This is a similar issue to those that we've mentioned in third world and developing nations; how it would be more helpful to provide sanitary living environment and clean water over any vaccine.
It's hard to imagine people living in the United States without running water, living in an area devastated by poverty, and I think that until you see it first hand, it's almost impossible to imagine. Living in a very urban area all of my life, it was difficult for me to imagine the stark differences between the urban poor and the rural poor. A lot of people think of poverty as poverty, and don't even notice a difference. I think the article does a good job of being aware of the fact that there is indeed a difference. While many of the problems are the same and poverty in a country with as much money and resources as we have needs to be dealt with, they had to be handled in a different way because the issues that effect those in the city are different from those that people in rural communities.
There's not an easy fix to the problem, it runs much deeper than people simply being unemployed. Before you can truly fix the poverty, you have to fix the economy. If there are no jobs, no businesses, no stable economy, there's no way for people to make money. I think another very important point that follows from this is the need for community based businesses. Putting more McDonald's in Breathitt county isn't going to fix their economy problems. There needs to be money being made in the community, that stays in the community. All the issues mentioned in the article, including healthcare, are things that aren't going to be fixed over night, or even in the near future, but something has to be done and a change needs to be made, immediately.