Irene, Maureen, and the future.

As the above image indicates, I have spent the past week or so gradually growing addicted to Sherlock, the fine and wonderful BBC series which should really have more than six episodes. My favorite episode, of course, is S02E01 - Scandal in Belgravia - which features the delightful and delicious Irene Adler, but I promise I like the series for more than just that, such as the otter/hedgehog bromance between Sherlock and John. At any rate, I enjoyed each episode far too much and the last one pretty near killed me. A clear sign of an excellent series.

Apart from that, I'm glad to say my future living situation in England has resolved itself in all the best possible ways. I'll be living in an adorable little house with a friend I met at PagSoc years ago (PagSoc is where you meet everyone, for the record - a Soc clearly more awesome than all other Socs), which has now finally officially been signed for, and I also got an email from my future adviser about a week ago in which she said that I'd be getting a teaching assistantship after all. This is a huge relief, since my previous scholarship included my tuition, but no stipend. I am excited to start my PhD, really - it's everything I've ever wanted to research, and though I've never met my adviser in person, she sounds so nice and helpful in her emails.

I have been going through a bit of a weird phase, though. For some reason, I am unable to read or watch anything that's serious and that requires my attention. I keep watching The Golden Girls and reading Jeeves and Wooster, neither of which are bad things per se, but I would still like to be able to watch a movie now and then. I suspect this is a mental reaction to the ridiculous stress I've gone through the past six months or so, because it truly has been ridiculous and thinking back on it now, I have no idea how I got through it as relatively well as I did. Nonetheless, I really need to get past this mental block. I did manage to watch The Black Swan yesterday, with Maureen O'Hara and Tyrone Power, which was the first new-to-me future-length film I'd managed to get through in months. I'm currently trying to write a review for my website and I hope this will kick-start me in the right direction. I hate this kind of undefined mental strain.

Home.

After about 19 hours on airplanes and airports, I arrived at home last week Wednesday. Thanks to a judicious dose of Tylenol-PM, I actually wasn't all that tired when I landed in Brussels, which was refreshing - I never usually sleep on planes and those couple hours really made a difference.

The past week has been spent figuring out what to do with all this sudden spare time I have. This sounds like a non-issue, but it isn't to me. I'm literally so anxious that being busy ALL THE TIME is the only thing that keeps me grounded, and after the craziest semester of my university career, the sudden sense of nothingness is very hard for me to handle. I do have some things planned - I'm going to visit a couple of my best British friends in June, then in July I'll be going to New York with my parents and to Denmark to visit my Vikingpixie, and in August I'll be volunteer teaching for two weeks. But especially the next month won't be easy. I've been looking around a little for jobs, but there's really not that much being offered at this time of year in terms of student/holiday jobs, and though I'll send my CV to a few places this week, I don't have much hope. So I fill my days organizing my books, working on my Hebrew, perhaps learning some more Russian, running, watching Designing Women and watching movies. This, obviously, isn't a bad existence, but it's strange.

I have a bad habit of second-guessing myself and my choices whenever my life reaches a temporary standstill, and I'm trying to get rid of that. Yeah, I've sort of taken an odd detour the past few years, but it hasn't been pointless - I've lived in another country, been in a relationship that though it ended also held a lot of good, made loads of awesome friends, become active in the Jewish community, figured out what exactly I wanted to do with my PhD, and gotten a MA in History thanks to my awesome adviser. Now I'm off to do a PhD in a country that I like, in a town that I know, in a subject that I truly love. Of course there are unknown factors, but it could, all in all, be a lot worse. I need to remember that. And I also need to stop mentally planning years ahead, because you just can't do that. And I need to stop comparing myself to others and imagine everyone has their shit together and I don't, because it's inaccurate.

Anyway, today I reviewed eight chapters of Hebrew vocabulary and grammar and got started on the ninth - prepositions, which is hellish - and ran almost 2 miles. I'm trying to build up my running, but it's really hard around here because there's so many random hills and it's exhausting running more than twenty minutes. I'll get there, though. Today I totally ran up our street alongside my grandma on her bike. Ha.

Well, see you later!

Lots of goodbyes.

Today was the last day of the spring semester and also my last official day at the University of Kentucky. It has been a confusing few weeks for me, and it's only now, now my papers are handed in and I only have grading to do, that I can sort of reflect on it.

I am headed home for four months, then, in September, I will be returning to Canterbury, in England, to pursue a PhD in Film Studies. This makes me very happy, because it is precisely what I want to do with my life.  I realize now, in retrospect, that everything I've done and read and watched and enjoyed up to this point has led up to it. In 2003 or so, the first book I bought with my own money was Mark Vieira's Sin in Soft Focus, which I mainly bought because of the nice picture on the cover, and which I didn't read for years afterward - but of course it turned out that it dealt with the Hays Code, which my PhD proposal is on, and that Mr. Vieira is the same author who would in 2010 write two wonderful books on Irving Thalberg. My random purchase of that book - second-hand and for pretty cheap! - has really been one of those odd, prophetic moments.

I will miss UK, though. Today, I went to say goodbye to someone who's really helped make my two years there a wonderful time. When I first came to UK, the DGS of the History Department told me to go talk to this art history professor if I wanted to take a class there. I went, and she turned out to be one of the most wonderful humans I have EVER met. I took a class with her and audited another one and have just generally semi-stalked her ever since. She's been really supportive of me academically and personally and even at one point pretty much offered me her spare room/apartment to live in. It was sad saying goodbye to her because I feel like I've come full circle - it feels like only yesterday, I sat in front of her office waiting for her to talk to me about the art history offerings for the semester.

Additionally, I just attended my very last Shabbat service at the the temple I've been going to for about a year and a half. Since this is the place where I became serious about my interest in Judaism, the place where I started learning Hebrew, the place where I've celebrated Shabbat and holidays and had a BUNCH of good food over the course of the last few years, this was really sad. I didn't cry, but I came pretty close, especially because Rabbi Kline has been so nice to me, too. He's really made me feel like I can be a Jew and like I belong, and he's been really supportive of my decision to move back to Europe, too. I love meeting quality people, and I've met many of those in this state and in this town.

Lots of goodbyes, though, and I don't like those.

24.

So, in a few hours, I will be turning 24 - or well, actually I was born around noon, so I guess I have about half a day left. I suppose that means that I am no longer in my early twenties now, or that at the very least I'm getting perilously close to being in my mid-twenties. This is a scary thing to me, though I'm not sure why. I had no real issues turning 18 or 21, like some people do. All in all, I loved being 18, and being 21 was fun, too, even though, of course, in my country, it does not really come with any particular benefits. But it was a fun age and I liked turning it, and the same goes for 22 and 23.


I think twenty-four is a little strange because it's an age at which people get married and have children. They also have jobs and do adult things. Yes, rationally I know that doesn't make any sense. On the one hand, I know people who were already married or had children by the time they were my age, and at the same time I also know many people my age who are still in school, who are not having babies just yet, who are unmarried. And both are fine things and neither is particularly connected with any particular age. And I also know, rationally, that 24 is really not very old, which I realized as I was talking to a good friend of mine who is in her late sixties (and awesome). So I am, all in all, pretty sure my hair won't turn white overnight. Though as I pointed out to Cammie, it would make dying my hair significantly easier...

I just feel like the adult switch has yet to flip for me, and I am starting to wonder if it really does for anyone. Maybe when it comes down to it, none of us really feel like adults from one moment to the next - I think I'm just at that stage, call it a quarter-life-crisis or something else, where I am starting to realize that that magical moment isn't coming. Maybe all these people I've looked up to as Having Their Shit Together really haven't been all that different from me, after all. Maybe we all kind of wander from childhood into adolescence into college age into semi-adulthood blindly and without ever knowing what the right thing to do was before we do it.

To the world, I probably look fairly grown-up. I have finished a BA and an MA. I'm in grad school. I teach sixty undergraduates. I earn money for doing so. And even though it isn't a particularly great salary, I do at least pay the greater part of my rent and expenses. I have lived in two foreign countries, away from my family and childhood friends. And although I've done many things wrong, I hope I've done a couple of things right.

But the future is still as scary as it is exciting, and maybe that won't ever change.

A Crime-Solving Trio

So, I have a tendency to pick a couple characters from books or tv shows or movies and point out they would make an AWESOME CRIME-SOLVING DUO. I'm not sure why that is, except I read far too much Agatha Christie as an impressionable teenager, and I seem to have taken most of my life lessons from there. I still kind of want to be Miss Emily Trefusis. Anyone remember Emily Trefusis? I'm the only one? Anne Beddingfield, maybe? I wouldn't mind being her, either? No-one? The Sittaford Mystery and The Man in the Brown Suit, guys. And though these two people only appeared in one book each, I remember them fondly and they rank up there with my favourite fictional characters ever.

Anyway, this may be why I refer to people as making good crime-solving duos. Now, however, thanks to my friend Faith who has excellent taste in all things such as movie stars, clothes and food, I have realized I had a fine crime-solving trio on my hands all these years and never realized it!

BARBARA STANWYCK, for the actual solving of the crimes. And also to wield the guns. And smoke the cigarettes in a sufficiently BAMFy fashion. And because she could dress up like anyone and be virtually unrecognizable. And she was Phyllis Dietrichson, which should be adequate qualifications for any job in the world.

NORMA SHEARER, because she has the contacts and the inside scoops and all the power. Also because she could go to all the necessary fancy dinners in style. Does crime-solving involve going to fancy dinners? In 1930s-40s Hollywood, it totally does. Also, this is clearly in an alternate universe where Irving does not die. And just to be mean, because of her lazy eye, you never know where exactly she's looking...

INGRID BERGMAN, who is a worthy addition in a number of ways. Rationally speaking, she understands half a billion languages, looks fifteen and is scarily tall. In more awesome terms, she is there to eat ALL the things and ALL the ice cream sundaes. While solving crimes. Also, she was in an actual Agatha Christie movie, so that uh... counts for something, even if she just played the crazy Swedish nanny.

I feel this must become a silly and completely unnecessary fiction piece.

Running, or: how me and my 17-year old self no longer see eye to eye.

All through high school, I kicked and screamed whenever I had to do sports. And you know what - I still totally support that. Sports classes sucked. I can't throw or catch a ball to save my life. I suck at tennis and badminton because my eyes are too bad to be any good. I like watching gymnastics but my body wasn't exactly made for it. Ew. Bad memories. Horrible time. Ick.

I also loathed running, and I still kind of support that, too, considering it really hurt me - I was slimmer than I am now (I was really bizarrely skinny when I was 17-18) but I was completely out of shape and running for two minutes inevitably had me wheezing and aching.

Of course, last summer, my parents lured me into going running with them, a minute at a time first, then more and more, every few days. I didn't like that, either, until the moment came where I realized I could run about twenty minutes comfortably, and not feel awful. And it actually felt kind of amazing. And it was actually kind of fun. And now I can probably run about 3-4 km without feeling bad, and I'd love to build that up to about 10 km, possibly more.

And this is why me and my 17-year old self currently have issues.

The Daily Photoplay #15

March 1935, p. 19

Oh, Jeanette. What a costume!

The Daily Photoplay #14

January 1938, p. 73

Ah, Lux Soap, how I love your incredibly awkward attempts at publicity. Bette's so absorbed by her own daintiness that she looks a little psycho there, but I'm sure Lux will make it all better somehow. Baby Jane is back in town.

The Daily Photoplay #13

January 1935, p. 46

If you know anything about Norma Shearer, absolutely nothing about this page will surprise you. At all. But still, Norma, please stop demonstrating that you have an abnormally large head.

Mary, Edith, Sybil

Last Sunday, Downton Abbey's season two finished in the US as well and so we're all - sadly - facing at least a year without our favorite Upstairses and Downstairses. Even though Mad Men is returning next month, I for one will certainly miss them - as many reviews have pointed out throughout the second season, Downton is basically a soap series with pretty costumes, but it's a soap series I enjoy, even with all its amnesia cases, dead fiancees, sudden fits of paralysis and wartime telepathy. As I stated in an earlier post, it gets plenty of things wrong, but I also think it gets a lot of things just right.

The Crawley sisters are a good example of that. I think these three women, who are fundamentally different in many ways, illustrate three fundamentally different takes on the modernity that is pretty much thrust upon them during the second decade of the new century. I think the way the modern viewer views these three is influenced by those differences, although I personally have plenty of sympathy for each of them.

Mary, as the eldest, is the 19th century girl of the three; although she may occasionally struggle against the societal mores that regulate her life, she is essentially a supporter of the system she grew up in. To say that she wants to be her mother would be wrong, because her mother herself, as an American heiress, is a surprisingly "modern" presence within the British aristocracy. Mary wants to be her grandmother; she wants to be presented at court, she wants to be received in society, and though she values love and affection, she wants to marry someone who is not just her husband, but also preferably an aristocrat with an inheritance to look forward to. She's smart and she has a strong character, but escaping her world isn't an ambition of hers; when Mr Pamuk actually responds to her flirtations, she acts surprisingly like a frightened child. She doesn't want to be a scandal. She just wants to be who she was born to be. And that would be perfectly fine had she been born fifty years earlier, but this is the 1910s and who she was born to be might not be a person who will fit into this postwar world.

Although her and Edith have this prolonged sisterly rivalry going on, it is Sybil rather than Edith who is Mary's polar opposite. We love Mary because she's beautiful and Edwardian and dignified and a vision from an age gone by; we love Sybil because she is the classic "wayward girl with a heart of gold" character. She is the closest to a modern female as we're getting on this show, and as such, we recognize her as one of us and want her to do well. Sybil's transgression isn't a one-night-stand with a Turkish diplomat (because, had Pamuk lived, I firmly believe that's all his night with Mary would have ended up being), but a real, honest relationship with one of the servants - a relationship she takes her sweet time contemplating, because she knows what she's risking and she gradually begins to realize that what she's risking isn't anything she wanted in the first place, anyway. Sybil, with her unusually great sense of social justice, with her wild ideas of women's rights, is perhaps something of an anachronism, but also a pretty interesting depiction of the kind of woman World War One would produce. The War gave her the opportunity to be truly useful without any social repercussions, and afterward, she finds herself unwilling to go back to the mold she formerly fit into. Mary, of course, RUNS, does not walk, back to that mold as soon as she can.

Edith is an interesting character because she's such an in-betweener in more ways than one. The middle child and perhaps the least conventionally attractive of the three, she spent the entire first season in a crazy feud with Mary. I think that has led a lot of readers to view her as a part of that 19th century world alongside her older sister, with Sybil as the lone "modern" soul jumping headfirst into the new century, but I think that's a little overly simplistic, as the second season has shown. We'll never see Edith wearing crazy harem pants, and - in spite of her brief tryst with that farmer - we'll also, most likely, never catch her marrying someone as dramatically below her on the social ladder as Branson is to Sybil. But she also isn't Mary, the perfect heiress to whom the Great War is an unpleasant disruption of home life. Edith really comes into herself during the wartime years, and afterward, as the last officers leave, her and Sybil bond on-screen for the first time when it's obvious that neither of them wants to return to the status quo of 1914.

Maybe that's why I like Edith best. It is, I believe, pretty clear by this point which way Mary and Sybil's lives are headed, but I think Edith could still go either way, and that's definitely something to remember as we await season three.

The Daily Photoplay #12

April 1938, p. 17

Yeah, where is she going now, huh? I'd love this one for the drawing alone, but the little blurb is amazing. No feud was ever classier than the Garbo/Dietrich one. Which, rather hilariously, began with a lesbian affair in the early 1920s. Well of course it did.

The Daily Photoplay #11

January 1935, p. 12

This may be my favorite so far. This woman saw the Hays Production Code, thought for approximately two seconds, and then went batshit insane. SEXCOMMUNICATE EVERYBODY. Wouldn't you just love to know the story behind this letter? I know I would.

The Daily Photoplay #10

August 1930, p. 118

I love these vintage make-up ads. Myrna was such a glamour girl in the 1930s.

The Daily Photoplay #9

July 1930, p. 54

Hindsight is a beautiful thing. Yes, we waited, and yes, we hoped. And "this Barbara girl" became, of course - as The Big Valley would call her thirty years later - MISS BARBARA STANWYCK. Incidentally, Ladies of Leisure is a delightful film that has stood the test of time very well, and I consider Stanwyck one of classic Hollywood's most versatile actresses.

The Daily Photoplay #8

January 1929, p. 15

Now you know what's been missing from your life, readers. Corinne Griffith's nut sticks, that's what! I was a little disappointed there was no awkward picture of Corinne cooking beside this recipe... I do have a picture of Norma Shearer and an oven somewhere that I'll post one of these days. I don't believe Norma Shearer ever operated an oven a day in her life.

But have the coupon, anyway. The address still exists, except it's now apparently a Ralph Lauren. I sort of want to send it in and see what happens.

The Daily Photoplay #7

November 1925, p. 12

Poor Jack Gilbert. Watching "The Artist" really reminded me of him, and of the way he could have and should have been a great leading man in the talkies, as well. I miss him too, Helen D. Reynolds. Let's go on our "trek"!

"Novelty is always welcome, but talking pictures are just a passing fad..."

A few weeks ago, I watched "The Artist" at the Kentucky Theater - it's an old movie theater in the center of town and it really turned out to be the perfect place to watch this particular movie. Long story short: it was wonderful and I want it to win ALL THE OSCARS (the way it already seems to have won ALL THE BAFTAS).

I enjoyed the performance of both lead actors, neither of which I had ever seen before. I thought Jean Dujardin looked eerily like he could've been an actual silent movie star - an impossibly handsome, hilarious French version of Jon Hamm. His antics with the dog were reminiscent of William Powell and "Asta" in "The Quiet Man", and I was impressed with his acting style overall. It really takes a particular type of actor to act in a silent movie, since it's a completely different way of moving and of expressing emotion, and he had it down pat. It'll be weird to see him in a talkie next, unless of course this movie sparks a trend, which it better.

Something about Bérénice Bejo initially bothered me, and I really don't know what it was. She's a good actress and her character was pretty interesting. Honestly, I think it was her face. I think she's a good-looking woman, but she doesn't really look like a silent movie star - she doesn't have the youthful, full face with the seemingly endless expanse of porcelain white skin that was so in vogue at the time. She's much too old to have been a silent movie star as well. We discussed this in my film class last week, and it's true; leading ladies in the silent era were extremely young, as in somewhere between 20 and 25 type young. It's only with the development of the talkies that one could still play a romantic lead and be in one's thirties - I need to write a post on that phenomenon sometime, because it fascinates me.

But that criticism is neither here nor there and really has no bearing on the movie, which was just beautiful. It was a tribute to the motion picture industry and in a way a homage to those silent stars who didn't experience an easy transition to talking pictures. I loved that it could easily have turned into a tragedy à la John Gilbert but ended on a hopeful note instead. George Valentin will be okay, and Hollywood will be the better for it.

And I love, of course, that this is a silent movie - something so many people reject without ever having experienced - and that it's drawing huge crowds all over the world. Maybe, just maybe, Mr Thalberg was right after all - and talking pictures really are "just a passing fad".

The Daily Photoplay #6

April 1930, p. 10

I love letters like this because they're so evocative of the times, and because they contain a lot of raw historical truth. Girls in the countryside may have found their lives boring, but the city ain't all that, either. Norma Shearer wears your clothes, stenographers!

The Daily Photoplay #5

May 1930, p. 88

Oh Joanie. Style icon forever - eyebrows, lipstick, nails. No, seriously - I'm not sure what this is even about.

The Daily Photoplay #4

January 1928, p. 63

I love these little poems. Why don't magazines do that sort of stuff anymore? And of course I like the thought of Mr and Mrs T. on an 'and how!' type honeymoon...

The Daily Photoplay #2

July 1929, p. 6

I'm sure we're all glad to hear that Garbo stopped living like an extremely rich homeless person a mere what, four years after she arrived?

The Daily Photoplay #3

July 1929, p. 10

Miss Mary Walsh voices the concerns of misrepresented youth everywhere. I find this an amusing letter because it's really a testament to intergenerational conflict throughout the decades - we're all a whole lot less interesting than our parents' generations thinks we are.

"She was a hot toddy, I'll agree... but she wasn't carrying our banner."

The Daily Photoplay

January 1930, p. 8

On the day The Artist won ALL THE AWARDS (or at least the BAFTAs), I feel this is only fitting. Some still like 'em silent, Hollywood. Remember that.

On Downton Abbey's aristocrats.

As the second season of Downton Abbey is being broadcast in the US and the hype shows no signs of slowing down, I've been reading and hearing a lot of comments on the authenticity of the class relations portrayed within the series. The main criticism appears to be that the series depicts the aristocrats, particularly the Crawleys, as essentially benevolent, wonderful people - basically as 'too nice'. Now I do think that Lord Grantham, for example - as I read in one particular review - is practically Paddington Bear, also known as the nicest guy ever born, but overall I do find the depiction of class relations in this show interesting and at least moderately well done.

The Crawleys are pleasant people, it is true. I wouldn't turn down a dinner invitation at Downton. However, they are always - apart from Sybil, who is the family's great equalizer - pleasant in a fashion true to their era and their class, and they almost never display an anachronistically democratic mindset. They're not politically correct in a 2010s kind of way, and at least some of them are outright snobs.

A good example of this, and of course the quintessential Downton aristocrat, is the Dowager Countess. Violet Crawley is not always a nice woman, but that nastiness is usually directed toward people she considers to be in her league or slightly below it - her daughter-in-law, for example, or Isobel, or Sir Richard. It is not directed toward the servants as a rule - but that's only the case because it doesn't have to be. Someone like Violet is perfectly capable of displaying kindness and care toward those far below her on the social ladder: she looks after William since she knows he is his father's only child and even listens to Daisy's problems on one occasion. Similarly, the Earl offers Bates a job when no-one else will, Cora is very fond of O'Brien, Mary tells Anna her worries and has a very close relationship with Mr Carson, and so on.

But at the same time, the idea of common soldiers recuperating alongside officers is appalling to Violet, as it is presumably to most of the family; they are capable of kindness toward the working class because they know themselves to be their social superiors, and they treat their servants kindly because these are 'their' people. Their kindness is based in a deeply rooted paternalism, which they translate into a right to get involved in the servants' lives. Yes, it comes across as 'niceness' - but it's rooted in a classism that's very typical of the time.

This also explains why the true enemy of this upper class is not the working class, but the middle class. I think that is accurately and very intelligently pointed out throughout the series - Violet and Mary (two characters I believe to be extremely alike) both trust and rely on their servants, but they frown on characters such as Isobel - who fancies herself a social reformer - or Sir Richard Carlyle - who, though he's a loathsome man in some ways, is also someone who's made his own way in the world in a way none of the Downton Crawleys have. They even frown on Cora on occasion, and even Mary will refer to her own mother as 'an American' to emphasize the way in which Cora's money has been VERY welcome to the family, but Cora herself only kinda-sorta fits in. These are the people who are a danger to the lifestyle of the aristocracy, not their servants who - if anything - are often as conservative, class-conscious and concerned about propriety as the upper class itself is.

That is why Mary couldn't be an attorney's wife in Manchester. Sure, it was Lady Rosamund who voiced the idea first, but I think the doubts were always there. Of the three Crawley sisters, Mary is most resistant to social change, no matter how much she goes around with Sir Richard. It's clearly visible when the Great War strikes. Sybil, the youngest and by far the most progressive, decides to become a nurse, and when the War comes to Downton, Edith, too, finds a place for herself in the war effort. She learns to drive, which was pretty new for an aristocratic woman to do at the time, and when the recovering officers start arriving, she helps look after them, too, if not as a nurse. Mary, as the eldest and the truest to her class, is not without pity, but would make a pretty terrible nurse (even good, sweet Lavinia points out that Mary wouldn't have been able to look after Matthew as well as she would have, and she's right) and doesn't really care enough about the soldiers to devote heaps of her time to them. She has a good heart, but it's just not all that much on her radar; she takes part in the concert, but treats it as something of a nuisance initially.

This identification of Mary with the upper class sets her apart at least to some extent from her younger sisters who are naturally somewhat more interested in this new century and this new post-war world. This is very obvious in the case of Sybil, with her interest in politics and - of course - in the radical Irish chauffeur, but also in the case of Edith, which is a little surprising considering how Edith was the typical middle child all throughout the first series. After the War, when Sybil says she doesn't want to go back to the way things were before, Edith says she doesn't want to, either. That creates the potential for a totally different dynamic between the three sisters - different from the earlier one where Mary and Edith are rivals and Sybil is the indulged baby. In a sense, Sybil and Edith both have the potential to be a part of this new world; Mary, and this is perhaps the most accurate and the most representative of the aristocracy at this time, has more trouble with that idea. She's very much part of a class that won't exist anymore as such a few decades later.

Maybe I should write on Edith next. I love Edith. She's a fascinating character.

Universal healthcare.

I am interested in politics. I am particularly interested in American politics - partly perhaps out of masochism, and partly because I think it is everyone's duty to care about what goes on in this weird, huge country, because for better and for worse, it impacts the rest of the world and has for over a century. One particularly hot topic which, I think, baffles a great number of Europeans (and Canadians) is that of socialized healthcare. Like many others, I'm not sure what the deal is, since it's a system that has been in place for years in many countries and that is undoubtedly functioning. In spite of this, the apocalypse has yet to happen, so why is the Republican party acting like a universal healthcare system will be the world's downfall?

I recently had an exchange about this on Tumblr with someone on the complete opposite side of the political spectrum, and she reiterated with the following list of worries, complaints and issues that I would like to respond to. I will also post my response on Tumblr for her to see, but I like the Blogspot format better, so I wanted to share my viewpoint here as well

1. Any “universal” infrastructure is expensive. We’re talking trillions of dollars to ensure that every individual is provided health-insurance. Considering only about half of the population pays taxes, this unfairly shoulders the tax burden on the few who do pay taxes (the middle class). The poor are often exempt from paying taxes all together, though they would be the ones receiving the benefits from a universal system.

I think this comment suffers from something I just decided to call 'poor-phobia' - the idea that The Poor are somehow the others, not like us, who live in a different city, on a different street, on a different block. Universal healthcare is not a benefit extended by the huge middle-class majority to a small group of 'poor people' who are Too Lazy To Work and Probably On Drugs. From what I have seen in this country, and read about, I am fairly sure these uninsured poor people are not some sort of alien minority. These are very regular people, often from a middle-class background, who are in school, or whose job doesn't provide benefits, or who were laid off because of the recession. I don't like to talk about 'the poor' - because I think that poverty is much more pervasive than that phrase appears to indicate.

2. When the quantity demanded of a good exceeds the quantity supplied, there is a shortage. If every individual in the nation now wants to see a doctor, there is going to be a shortage of doctors. This manifests in to longer waiting times.

I have various issues with this statement. First of all, it seems to believe in sacrificing the needs of the many for the comfort of the few - we can't have universal healthcare, because then everyone would get to see a doctor, and then those people lucky enough to have money or good medical insurance would have to share their doctors with these people! If there's not enough doctors, that's an issue - but the solution can't be to withhold medical care from people who can't afford it.

Also, and I realize this is anecdotal evidence - I've always been able to see a doctor MUCH quicker in Belgium or in the UK than I have over here. And I have a number of US friends who have literally had wait months to see X or Y doctor. So if you're talking about waiting times... how much worse can it really get?

3. The shortage of doctors is exacerbated because there is a lack of an incentive to become a doctor. Doctors typically become doctors in order to make money (as any other rational individual pursues a field). However, if the government is now involved in the health-care industry and can decide how much a doctor must be paid for his services, you will find less people wanting to become doctors.

Well, first of all, not everyone becomes a doctor solely to make money. Like nursing and teaching, I believe one needs a certain calling to become a doctor - I think I'm smart enough to pursue medical studies, but I don't feel the least urge to poke around someone else's body. Some people however find that interesting and find they can help people by pursuing that interest. Monetary gain is not everyone's number one stimulus.

Furthermore, I'm not sure where this even comes from. Doctors are still extremely well-paid in Europe. There is still a certain prestige attached to the profession - only their wages are provided by the government or government-sponsored insurance instead of by individuals or for-profit insurance companies. I assure you, doctors are living more than comfortably, even under this evil socialist system - and last thing I heard, there are still plenty of people who wish to pursue medical studies.

4. The quality of care is reduced in order to fill the shortage of doctors. If everyone is demanding a doctor, and the government “needs” to fulfill the demand, it will inevitably be led to hire underqualified doctors.

Once again, inevitably? I feel like many of these arguments are regurgitated blindly from right-wing propaganda sources, because I honestly believe that there is no marked difference between doctors in Europe and doctors in the United States. I've seen my share of doctors and specialists, and I assure you they are not some gang of plucked-off-the-street drug addicts who had to sign two forms and they're a doctor now. A lot of this just strikes me as pointless fear-mongering.

5. When the demand for a good (health-care) increases, the price of the good also goes up. If everyone now demands health-care, its price will increase exponentially. You hear the term death panels thrown around a lot, but if there are thousands of people on the list who need a kidney, there needs to be a way to decide who actually gets it. This creates corruption.

If you genuinely believe death panels are a real thing, then I truly have no words. Trust me. They're not. Once again, I see you using the 'universal healthcare means more people would be able to get medical attention and that's bad!' argument, which just doesn't fly. Nobody is on a list for a kidney without a good reason. Are you really saying that 'poor' people don't deserve to be on such a list? If the healthcare system cannot handle more patients, then the solution is to reform the system - not to deny care to patients based on income.

6. Any universal system will face corruption. People who are able to afford better health-care are going to demand it. If there is such a shortage of doctors, and long waiting times since everyone in the entire country is going to see the doctor, an extra exchange must be included to make sure you are seen first (if at all) and provided the necessary care. This often leads to a black market in health-care, as people are now willing to dish out a lot of money to make sure they’re given priority.

A black market in healthcare? Does this stuff come from a James Bond novel? Once again - THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS REALLY GOING ON in countries with socialized healthcare. And also once again - the way to deal with long waiting times if there aren't enough doctors (which for the reasons I explained above, there are... doctors still make plenty of money) is to offer incentives and make sure there are sufficient doctors to deal with everyone... not to cut people off from the healthcare they need. Healthcare is a basic human right. Most countries have figured this out.

7. There is an incentive to abuse the universal health-care system since it is “free”. In America, we see that people who are provided government health-care often abuse the system by going to doctors and emergency rooms for routine colds, headaches, or things that can be easily treated at home. Elderly people on Medicare often go to doctors multiple times a week, even if they do not have any pressing health concerns. Even if there is nothing wrong, people will see that they can get something for “free” and take advantage of it.

I am skeptical about the fact that people would suddenly go see the doctor practically for entertainment purposes if it were free (medications aren't free even in a socialized healthcare system, by the way - though they're cheaper than they are in the US). However, even if this were to be the case, I had rather 10 people go see the doctor for a cold than that one person wouldn't be able to see the doctor if they have cancer. Fix the system, regulate the system, but don't give up on what is essentially a good idea because of a list of hypotheticals.

8. Due to the abuse of the system, there will be a decrease in quality and an increase in waste. This is pretty simple: if doctors are being tied up treating people for ailments that are not significant, there will be longer waiting times, less resources to be allocated towards you, and more money being funneled in to the system.

You keep repeating yourself. Once again - I do not actually think this decrease in quality is borne out by reality in countries where socialized healthcare is a fact. You seem to imagine these countries as though they're all North Korea. I have a serious and incurable visual impairment as well as a blood disorder, and I have received quality healthcare for both - for free, or at least much more cheaply than would have been the case in the US.

9. There is a lack of incentive to actually care about patients; in fact, there is an incentive to treat patients poorly. If you have hundreds of patients every single day, and they are all required by law to only see you, you do not care about the well-being of the patient. Once one leaves or dies, another one will fill their place. You’re getting paid no matter what.

They're all required by law to only see you? In some countries, people are in fact assigned to a certain physician - but in many countries, that's not the case. For example, where I am from, you can basically go see any doctor you want.

As for not caring about the well-being of the patient - where are you getting this information? I suspect it's simply made up. I don't even know how you'd go about measuring that.

10. The government will view you as a number rather than a patient. The relationship between many doctors and patients are unique, in that there is compassion in bedside manners. However, if a doctor sees hundreds of patients every day, there is no ability for a doctor to genuinely care about his patients.

Once again: fear-mongering. Not fact-based. You have implied before that the left isn't using rational arguments, but exploiting people's fears isn't rational either.

11. Any way you slice it, you are putting bureaucrats in charge of a personal decisions that should be made between you and your doctor.

I am not sure how. I can assure you that my doctor does not call the government before prescribing me sinus medication. I always feel as though people talking about the spectre that is 'universal healthcare' believe it instantly turns a country into a communist superpower in which people are but cogs in the great, red wheel turning and turning to the greater glory of the Great Leader. This is not the case. Our countries are not so very different, and Europeans are no less free than Americans. There are no cameras in every room.

Also, I think it would benefit many people who wave these arguments around to actually conduct a poll in a number of European countries and investigate how people really feel. I think you will find that although a number of people will complain about the healthcare system and point out issues, almost none would be willing to trade it in for the American system. Because universal healthcare, for all this talk of 'death panels', works.

I am not saying it would be easy to create such a system for a nation of 300 million people, and I am not saying that there wouldn't be certain abuses to be contended with - but those are no reasons not to at least give this idea a chance.

Healthcare is a basic human right.

Universal healthcare.

I am interested in politics. I am particularly interested in American politics - partly perhaps out of masochism, and partly because I think it is everyone's duty to care about what goes on in this weird, huge country, because for better and for worse, it impacts the rest of the world and has for over a century. One particularly hot topic which, I think, baffles a great number of Europeans (and Canadians) is that of socialized healthcare. Like many others, I'm not sure what the deal is, since it's a system that has been in place for years in many countries and that is undoubtedly functioning. In spite of this, the apocalypse has yet to happen, so why is the Republican party acting like a universal healthcare system will be the world's downfall?

I recently had an exchange about this on Tumblr with someone on the complete opposite side of the political spectrum, and she reiterated with the following list of worries, complaints and issues that I would like to respond to. I will also post my response on Tumblr for her to see, but I like the Blogspot format better, so I wanted to share my viewpoint here as well

1. Any “universal” infrastructure is expensive. We’re talking trillions of dollars to ensure that every individual is provided health-insurance. Considering only about half of the population pays taxes, this unfairly shoulders the tax burden on the few who do pay taxes (the middle class). The poor are often exempt from paying taxes all together, though they would be the ones receiving the benefits from a universal system.

I think this comment suffers from something I just decided to call 'poor-phobia' - the idea that The Poor are somehow the others, not like us, who live in a different city, on a different street, on a different block. Universal healthcare is not a benefit extended by the huge middle-class majority to a small group of 'poor people' who are Too Lazy To Work and Probably On Drugs. From what I have seen in this country, and read about, I am fairly sure these uninsured poor people are not some sort of alien minority. These are very regular people, often from a middle-class background, who are in school, or whose job doesn't provide benefits, or who were laid off because of the recession. I don't like to talk about 'the poor' - because I think that poverty is much more pervasive than that phrase appears to indicate.

2. When the quantity demanded of a good exceeds the quantity supplied, there is a shortage. If every individual in the nation now wants to see a doctor, there is going to be a shortage of doctors. This manifests in to longer waiting times.

I have various issues with this statement. First of all, it seems to believe in sacrificing the needs of the many for the comfort of the few - we can't have universal healthcare, because then everyone would get to see a doctor, and then those people lucky enough to have money or good medical insurance would have to share their doctors with these people! If there's not enough doctors, that's an issue - but the solution can't be to withhold medical care from people who can't afford it.

Also, and I realize this is anecdotal evidence - I've always been able to see a doctor MUCH quicker in Belgium or in the UK than I have over here. And I have a number of US friends who have literally had wait months to see X or Y doctor. So if you're talking about waiting times... how much worse can it really get?

3. The shortage of doctors is exacerbated because there is a lack of an incentive to become a doctor. Doctors typically become doctors in order to make money (as any other rational individual pursues a field). However, if the government is now involved in the health-care industry and can decide how much a doctor must be paid for his services, you will find less people wanting to become doctors.

Well, first of all, not everyone becomes a doctor solely to make money. Like nursing and teaching, I believe one needs a certain calling to become a doctor - I think I'm smart enough to pursue medical studies, but I don't feel the least urge to poke around someone else's body. Some people however find that interesting and find they can help people by pursuing that interest. Monetary gain is not everyone's number one stimulus.

Furthermore, I'm not sure where this even comes from. Doctors are still extremely well-paid in Europe. There is still a certain prestige attached to the profession - only their wages are provided by the government or government-sponsored insurance instead of by individuals or for-profit insurance companies. I assure you, doctors are living more than comfortably, even under this evil socialist system - and last thing I heard, there are still plenty of people who wish to pursue medical studies.

4. The quality of care is reduced in order to fill the shortage of doctors. If everyone is demanding a doctor, and the government “needs” to fulfill the demand, it will inevitably be led to hire underqualified doctors.

Once again, inevitably? I feel like many of these arguments are regurgitated blindly from right-wing propaganda sources, because I honestly believe that there is no marked difference between doctors in Europe and doctors in the United States. I've seen my share of doctors and specialists, and I assure you they are not some gang of plucked-off-the-street drug addicts who had to sign two forms and they're a doctor now. A lot of this just strikes me as pointless fear-mongering.

5. When the demand for a good (health-care) increases, the price of the good also goes up. If everyone now demands health-care, its price will increase exponentially. You hear the term death panels thrown around a lot, but if there are thousands of people on the list who need a kidney, there needs to be a way to decide who actually gets it. This creates corruption.

If you genuinely believe death panels are a real thing, then I truly have no words. Trust me. They're not. Once again, I see you using the 'universal healthcare means more people would be able to get medical attention and that's bad!' argument, which just doesn't fly. Nobody is on a list for a kidney without a good reason. Are you really saying that 'poor' people don't deserve to be on such a list? If the healthcare system cannot handle more patients, then the solution is to reform the system - not to deny care to patients based on income.

6. Any universal system will face corruption. People who are able to afford better health-care are going to demand it. If there is such a shortage of doctors, and long waiting times since everyone in the entire country is going to see the doctor, an extra exchange must be included to make sure you are seen first (if at all) and provided the necessary care. This often leads to a black market in health-care, as people are now willing to dish out a lot of money to make sure they’re given priority.

A black market in healthcare? Does this stuff come from a James Bond novel? Once again - THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS REALLY GOING ON in countries with socialized healthcare. And also once again - the way to deal with long waiting times if there aren't enough doctors (which for the reasons I explained above, there are... doctors still make plenty of money) is to offer incentives and make sure there are sufficient doctors to deal with everyone... not to cut people off from the healthcare they need. Healthcare is a basic human right. Most countries have figured this out.

7. There is an incentive to abuse the universal health-care system since it is “free”. In America, we see that people who are provided government health-care often abuse the system by going to doctors and emergency rooms for routine colds, headaches, or things that can be easily treated at home. Elderly people on Medicare often go to doctors multiple times a week, even if they do not have any pressing health concerns. Even if there is nothing wrong, people will see that they can get something for “free” and take advantage of it.

I am skeptical about the fact that people would suddenly go see the doctor practically for entertainment purposes if it were free (medications aren't free even in a socialized healthcare system, by the way - though they're cheaper than they are in the US). However, even if this were to be the case, I had rather 10 people go see the doctor for a cold than that one person wouldn't be able to see the doctor if they have cancer. Fix the system, regulate the system, but don't give up on what is essentially a good idea because of a list of hypotheticals.

8. Due to the abuse of the system, there will be a decrease in quality and an increase in waste. This is pretty simple: if doctors are being tied up treating people for ailments that are not significant, there will be longer waiting times, less resources to be allocated towards you, and more money being funneled in to the system.

You keep repeating yourself. Once again - I do not actually think this decrease in quality is borne out by reality in countries where socialized healthcare is a fact. You seem to imagine these countries as though they're all North Korea. I have a serious and incurable visual impairment as well as a blood disorder, and I have received quality healthcare for both - for free, or at least much more cheaply than would have been the case in the US.

9. There is a lack of incentive to actually care about patients; in fact, there is an incentive to treat patients poorly. If you have hundreds of patients every single day, and they are all required by law to only see you, you do not care about the well-being of the patient. Once one leaves or dies, another one will fill their place. You’re getting paid no matter what.

They're all required by law to only see you? In some countries, people are in fact assigned to a certain physician - but in many countries, that's not the case. For example, where I am from, you can basically go see any doctor you want.

As for not caring about the well-being of the patient - where are you getting this information? I suspect it's simply made up. I don't even know how you'd go about measuring that.

10. The government will view you as a number rather than a patient. The relationship between many doctors and patients are unique, in that there is compassion in bedside manners. However, if a doctor sees hundreds of patients every day, there is no ability for a doctor to genuinely care about his patients.

Once again: fear-mongering. Not fact-based. You have implied before that the left isn't using rational arguments, but exploiting people's fears isn't rational either.

11. Any way you slice it, you are putting bureaucrats in charge of a personal decisions that should be made between you and your doctor.

I am not sure how. I can assure you that my doctor does not call the government before prescribing me sinus medication. I always feel as though people talking about the spectre that is 'universal healthcare' believe it instantly turns a country into a communist superpower in which people are but cogs in the great, red wheel turning and turning to the greater glory of the Great Leader. This is not the case. Our countries are not so very different, and Europeans are no less free than Americans. There are no cameras in every room.

Also, I think it would benefit many people who wave these arguments around to actually conduct a poll in a number of European countries and investigate how people really feel. I think you will find that although a number of people will complain about the healthcare system and point out issues, almost none would be willing to trade it in for the American system. Because universal healthcare, for all this talk of 'death panels', works.

I am not saying it would be easy to create such a system for a nation of 300 million people, and I am not saying that there wouldn't be certain abuses to be contended with - but those are no reasons not to at least give this idea a chance.

Healthcare is a basic human right.

A few Parisian pictures.

I will probably upload the pictures on Facebook later, but I wanted to post a couple here, with comments. I took these on the surprisingly good RetroCam app on my Android phone - I much, MUCH prefer Hipstamatic, but I don't have an iPhone and getting my iPad out is such a hassle for quick pictures. Still, this camera did not actually disappoint. I like the polaroid effect, and it does great things with contrast.

The house where Sarah Bernhardt was born - we came across this place completely by accident, since we had lunch shortly after our arrival in a place just across the street and then spotted the plaque. Still, pretty cool. I like Bernhardt.

One of the buildings of the Sorbonne. I really like this shot. I like places where everything is old and beautiful, except the subway, which smells.

Because I'm easily amused, I come bearing Happeh Hasidic Child versus Angreh Hasidic Child. I didn't actually buy either book, but they looked hilarious. The second one obviously says 'KVETCH', by the way, and deals with Yiddish.

Les Deux Magots - an overpriced café where Sartre and de Beauvoir supposedly hung out back in the day. Also possibly Racine, but not at the same time, and that may be made up.

The inside of Saint-Germain-des-Prés. I really love Gothic architecture, even if I dislike the heavy, incensey scent that always seems to hang around in those old churches.

I also love stained glass windows. Same church.

And a closer look at the star near the front. I really, really like this picture a lot. This camera app does a good job for contrast shots like this one.

Notre Dame. We didn't go inside... yet again... because the line is always crazy long. I need to investigate if there is a way to pre-order a ticket online, because I really want to see the inside. At least I've been inside the Sainte-Chapelle before, I guess - the line for that one was crazy as well.

Another view. I love the architecture of this church. It has a fairly interesting floor plan.

The gargoyles, seen from below. This picture turned out a lot trippier than it was intended, but I like it. They really are a fine example of the nutty side of Gothic. I love them.

Inside picture of the restaurant we had dinner at. The food was nice, but the menu was littered with weird French shit. I can say that, I'm Belgian. I don't want obscure meat on the bone, I don't want soup made out of shellfish, and I don't want to suck marrow out of a bone. I realize those don't sound that weird. I'm going to be quiet now. Good food was had.

I actually forget what this was. My mother and I have a tendency to just... walk through random gates. One day someone's gonna shoot us as trespassers, or something. But hey, it looks pretty.

Then, we went to Jewville, kind of - but only kind of - getting lost on the way. This was an old synagogue in the Rue Pavée. I like Judaism for many reasons, but one superficial one is the fact that a star is just a much nicer and less horrifying religious symbol than a cross. I mean, who are you gonna kill using a Star of David? An insect? (Six legs! You could conceivably crucify an insect on a Star of David! I'm going to be quiet now.)

We had lunch at an interesting Israeli falafel place. For some reason, I turned into a photography noob, and this is the only picture that turned out decent - the little Israeli flags on the wall just beside us. The food itself was good, but way too much. Which tends to happen at falafel places.

Of course, there were also heaps of bookstores - one was called the Temple Bookstore, or something like that, and it was beautiful. Of course, I made random purchases, some of which can be seen here. I bought Le Petit Prince in Hebrew/Yiddish - if you turn it over, it has the Yiddish text. This is good, because I can read Yiddish if I read it out loud. Mostly. The postcards are illustrations from Medieval Hebrew manuscripts. Score!

The red Christmas trees on the sixth floor of the Centre Pompidou. I oddly liked them.

And the view. This was the Sacré-Coeur on Montmartre. I really like how well you can see the hill.

And the Eiffel Tower. We didn't go there - I've been to the top three times before, and it's usually crazy crowded - but I figured I had to at least see it to make the Paris trip complete. :)

Okay, this turned into a much longer post than was intended, but oh well.