Showing posts with label socialization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label socialization. Show all posts

If Brits Don't Want Our Health Care, How 'Bout Canadians?

Wednesday, June 15, 2011 0 comments


In a follow up to yesterday's post about Britian's terror over the idea that it might end up with a privatized, "American-style" health care system, today we're turning our gaze northward toward Canada. I mean, surely someone must covet our magnificent medical machine, and if not the Canucks, then who?

I've heard all the same horror stories you have about Canadian health care, but I decided to ignore what "they" say and do some actual investigating of my own when a friend of mine uprooted and moved his entire family, including three small children, back to Canada after many years in the U.S. primarily so that they could once again have full access to affordable medical care. My investigations turned up surprising - and for an American with medical issues, extremely frustrating - results. But The Incidental Economist says it all better than I could in a post summarizing Americans' misunderstanding of Canadian health care, complete with pretty charts and graphs. They point out the following:

Doctor emigration - Despite what you may have heard, doctors are not flocking to the U.S. from Canada - indeed, more doctors move TO Canada from the U.S. than the other way around.

 Patient emigration - Canadian citizens aren't flocking to the U.S. to utilize our magnificent health care. While they acknowledge that wealthy Canadians might prefer to undergo certain rare procedures in American hospitals, the fact remains that the vast majority of Canadians prefer to utilize their single-payer system for the vast majority of treatment options available to them (at little or no cost, mind you).

Doctor satisfaction - Canadian doctors tend to report higher levels of satisfaction with practicing medicine in their country than American doctors do in ours.

Infant mortality - Despite the massive amount of money we spend on our health care, the U.S. continues to have one of the highest infant mortality rates of any industrialized nation - higher than Canada's or Britian's. Incidentally, also higher than Hungary, Taiwan, Cuba, South Korea, and Andorra, wherever that is. 

Rationing (the biggie) - Let's have a word about the process of treatment rationing. One of the horror stories you've probably heard about the Canadian system is that it rations surgical procedures. I hated that idea too, until I learned first-hand that another word for "rationing" is "triage." Their single-payer system does not arbitrarily determine a number of procedures and only allow that many. What it does do is rank the availability of procedures based on their degree of medical necessity. In other words, it might take longer for a patient who needs a hip replacement to get that procedure than it does for, say, a cancer patient to get a tumor removed, because the latter procedure is more immediately life-threatening and therefore takes priority. I don't know about you, but God forbid I ever get cancer, I'd trade a quick hip replacement to get diagnosed, have the tumor removed, and be on the mend in the same week - as another Canadian friend of mine was. Meanwhile my own American family member, diagnosed with the same cancer at almost exactly the same time, waited almost two months for her first surgery, which didn't get it all, and another month for her second. Anecdotal evidence? Sure, but it's damn well enough to get me taking a second and third look at our system.

So to sum up, the Brits don't want our medical system. The Canadians don't want our medical system. Babies born in South Korea have a better chance of survival than ours do. Profit-based medicine is at the root of the vast majority of the billions of dollars we spend every year due to health care fraud, leaving us spending more per capita than virtually any other nation in the world, yet receiving less medical care or coverage. What exactly would it take for us to reconsider privatized medicine in the U.S.?
Read more »

Health Care Scare In Britian - Not Socailzed Medicine, But Privatized Medicine

Tuesday, June 14, 2011 1 comments

We in the U.S. have a rather uncharming tendency to think that our way is always the "right way," regardless of potential evidence to the contrary, and nowhere is this tendency clearer than in our discussions about national health care. Ask your average U.S. citizen about "socialized medicine" and you'll likely get a response that is almost pathologically hostile to the very concept of taxes paying for medical coverage. We reinforce our distrust of public health care initiatives by recounting horror stories of "someone we know" who was once forced to endure the barbaric overtures of a publicly subsidized medical system, somewhere far away. 

The reality of socialized, or publicly subsidized, medical systems are far less frightening to most of the world - probably because the U.S. is the only industrialized nation in the world that doesn't have one. Indeed, most other countries view our method of "health care for those who can afford it" as the barbaric type. Case in point is yesterday's L.A. Times foreign correspondence article, "British Fear American-Style Health Care":
Ask a Briton to describe "American-style" healthcare, and you'll hear a catalog of horrors that include grossly expensive and unnecessary medical procedures and a privatized system that favors the rich. For a people accustomed to free healthcare for all, regardless of income, the fact that millions of their cousins across the Atlantic have no insurance and can't afford decent treatment is a farce as well as a tragedy.

But critics here warn that a similarly bleak future may await Britain if a government plan to put more power in the hands of doctors and introduce more competition into the NHS succeeds — privatization by stealth, they say.

So frightening is the Yankee example that any British politician who values his job has to explicitly disavow it as a possible outcome. Twice.

"We will not be selling off the NHS, we will not be moving towards an insurance scheme, we will not introduce an American-style private system," Prime Minister David Cameron emphatically told a group of healthcare workers in a nationally televised address last week.

In case they didn't hear it the first time, Cameron repeated the dreaded "A"-word in a list of five guarantees he offered the British people at the end of his speech.

"If you're worried that we're going to sell off the NHS or create some American-style private system, we will not do that," he said. "In this country we have the most wonderful, precious institution and also precious idea that whenever you're ill … you can walk into a hospital or a surgery and get treated for free, no questions asked, no cash asked. It is the idea at the heart of the NHS, and it will stay. I will never put that at risk."

Ironically, citizens of countries with some form of subsidized medicine or universal health insurance which guarantees basic medical care to everyone regardless of medical history or ability to pay are in many ways more informed about the problems of a privatized health care system than we who actually have one tend to be. So regardless of your individual stance on socialized medicine, in the internet age as our world gets ever smaller, it is important for us as global citizens to remember that the "right way" to do something is almost always a matter of perspective...and sometimes we could learn a thing or two from people with a different perspective.

UPDATE 6/15/11 - It seems the Canadians aren't interested in cloning our health care system either.
Read more »

Rumors Of The Food Revolution's Demise Are Greatly Exaggerated

Wednesday, May 18, 2011 0 comments
Jamie Oliver illustrates his point about the amount of sugar added to school lunches.

Some of you may have tuned in to watch the third episode of Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution only to be faced with a recap of Dancing With Some People. Perhaps your first instinct, like mine, was to think, "Oh $*#!, they finally got him. He's off the air. The Food Revolution is no more. The terrorists have won." No? Just me? Hmm.

Well, fortunately for us cynics, foodies, nutritionally challenged, reality show buffs, or concerned parents, Jamie Oliver is just not that easy to get rid of. Several factors collided to put a break in the contiguous run of the show, but like Arnold Schwarzenegger's bad press, it will be back. ABC executives did pull the show for May sweeps, ostensibly because people would rather watch the Karate Kid get voted off the island than tune in to see which stuffed shirt Oliver can calmly antagonize into near stroke-inducing levels of evasion next. The majority of the press you'll find about the show's "cancellation" seems to be motivated primarily by a counter-movement attempting to discredit the popularity of Oliver's campaign in Los Angeles. Now who could possibly be behind that?

In actuality, show's filming was interrupted not only for viewership reasons, but also by a bit of unanticipated success. In response to pressure following the first two episodes of the season, L.A. Unified School District Superintendent John Deasy publicly agreed to remove flavored milks from the school menus. The rumor mill has it that several episodes are being re-shot to include some of the campaign's recent successes. 

Meanwhile, the Food Revolution has not ceased its public outreach endeavors. During the filming hiatus, Oliver's team is operating a mobile cooking school out of a 70-foot semi (or big rig, or tractor-trailer-truck, depending what part of the country you're from). During all this, the Food Revolution petition to improve the quality and nutritional value of school lunches has gained upwards of 600,000 signatures, well on the way to reaching the goal of 1 million signatures by the end of this season.

Season 2 of Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution will return at the end of the month to ABC, which is re-airing the first two episodes back-to-back on May 27th, with new episodes slated to begin on Friday, June 3. You can also view episodes of season 2 on HULU or ABC.com.  If you missed season 1, we've compiled it here. Happy viewing and healthy eating!







Read more »

NFL - Leading America's Game Or Holding America Hostage?

Monday, May 16, 2011 0 comments

If you're like me, even a photo of the Lombardi trophy makes your heart beat a little bit faster. The looming specter of an NFL lockout has me wondering whether the Grinch might not be working overtime this year. Like every self-respecting football fan, some days all I want for Christmas is for my team to have another shot at a Superbowl title. It doesn't matter to us how realistic that shot may or may not actually be, because for us football isn't about realism. Football is about heart. Football is about drive. Football is about good old fashioned want-it more-than-the-other-guy. Football is about the American Dream, and an impending lockout threatens to shove the death of that dream right up our...noses. 

I don't know about you, but I'm just not prepared to cope with that much reality right now. So far I've managed to deal with the recession, the crash of the housing market, the general lack of affordable health care, and a few natural catastrophes through a combination of great effort, a little luck, and an not insubstantial amount of total denial. But take away my any given Sunday and I just might lose some of whatever remains of my grip on reality. I love my town, and my town loves its team of highly padded musclebound testosterone junkies. They shield us from more than the other team. For a few hours a week, they shield us from the helplessness we feel when nuclear plants melt down, the stock market crashes, rivers flood whole states, and the earth tells us where we may no longer stand and remain above sea level. I want them on that wall. I need them on that wall.

But TomDispatch (via Mother Jones) would like me to take a step back and consider what I'm willing to forgo in order to see my men on that evergreen, hashmarked wall this year. What price am I willing to pay, both economically and socially, in order to ensure that my team gets an uninterrupted shot at the Lombardi trophy? And I must admit, because I do not wish to admit, that if I can manage to avoid looking too closely at the price I'm being asked to pay I'll probably pony up a lot more than is actually good for me, for my community, or for the game itself.

Sportswriter Robert Lipsyte pens a thought-provoking article on the nature and economics of professional football, and what we fans are willing to put up with in order to avoid even one season without it. Are we willing to give up the values that founded the American Dream in order to ensure uninterrupted viewing of its most popular athletic manifestation? Read Why The NFL Would Do Us A Favor By Calling Off The Upcoming Season and decide what it's worth to you.
Read more »

Feast or Famine - Part 2: Jamie Takes Hollywood

Thursday, April 14, 2011 0 comments
UPDATE (5/25/11): Season 2 of Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution will return to ABC at the end of May. CLICK HERE to see all related posts.


We may have our issues with some of ABC's programming decisions (*cough* Made In America *cough*) but if there's one thing they're getting right, it's Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution, which is currently airing in its second season.

If you missed the first season of the show, then you didn't see the frankly shocking results of Jamie's campaign to examine the quality of the food available to public school children in Huntington, VA - or the unbelievable amount of resistance he skillfully navigated while trying to educate the town's people on the nutritional value (or lack thereof) of highly processed, low quality ingredients.

Now in the second season Jamie has taken the campaign to Los Angeles, and if Huntington was resistant to his message, then Los Angeles is downright hostile. The first thing the L.A. Unified School District did was ban Oliver from every single one of its schools. The critical mistake in their reaction was failure to consider the fact that if Oliver is a good chef, he is a brilliant activist. He moved his family to L.A. for the run of the show, so I expect his next move will be to enroll his kids in L.A. Unified. They can refuse access to a food critic, but they can't keep out a parent. On the other hand, considering what Oliver has seen, he may just want to keep his kids away from L.A.'s public school system altogether. Lord knows I would.

Watch the drama unfold in Season 2 of Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution on ABC, Tuesday nights at 8/7 Central, or anytime on your computer via Hulu.



More links about the Food Revolution:

LAUSD launches new menu, denies Oliver's campaign had anything to do with its creation. 

TIME tv critic shares viewers concerns about the show's structure, and their desire to stay tuned in anyway.

Roughly 80% of L.A. Times readers polled feel that LAUSD made a massive miscalculation in working against Oliver, rather than with him. 

Learn more about the Jamie Oliver Foundation and what it's doing to keep you and your kids healthy.

More than you ever wanted to know about Ryan Seacrest (who produces Oliver's show, along with the entire Kardiashian franchise and several other "reality" shows).
Read more »

New Study Finds Wage Gap Non-Existant If You Eliminate Wage Gap From Said Study

Wednesday, April 13, 2011 0 comments



I tried to stick to posting a brief, objective comment on the screamingly obvious design flaw in this study, I really did. But there was a "problem" with my account which led to my comments being repeatedly deleted from the site, so now I just can't resist a full-fledged rebuttal.

Everyone, I would like to introduce you to Carrie Lukas, an intelligent, educated, and probably well-meaning writer who nevertheless knows next to squat about research design or gender-influenced economics...which does not stop her from spouting out drivel about them at every possible (not to mention extremely profitable) opportunity. In fact, scratch that whole well-meaning part and replace it with "highly motivated by personal gain and a total disregard for little things like "facts" and "evidence."

Ms. Lukas's most recent misinformed diatribe was posted in yesterday's Wall Street Journal as a review of a "study" which supposedly found that the wage gap between men and women no longer exists. Yippie! Now we're all on a level playing field and what a relief to not have to worry about equal pay for equal work anymo...wait, what?

Oh, did I mention that this study was conducted using only single, childless, urban workers under the age of 30? That's right, when you remove little factors like families and age and where you live from the workforce study, it turns out that that whole wage gap thing magically disappears. Never mind that the national census including, you know, everyone, found that women still make an average of $.77 for every dollar a man makes (unless of course those women are Black, in which case they make $.68, or Latina, in which case they make $.58). And never mind that the wage gap is a reflection of subtle but consistent penalties placed upon the wage-earning potential of women who take maternity leave and still balance the majority of the child rearing and homemaking responsibilities at home with available opportunities for career advancement at work. And while we're at it, never mind that the effects of these penalties increase over time, so removing workers over age 30 from the study would automatically skew the results anyway. The point is, Ms. Lukas's eyes landed on a study that said exactly what she wanted to hear, so it must be right...right?

The reality is that this study actually points more evidence toward the fact that on a level playing field, women are entirely capable of performing just as well as men - and their salaries have begun to reflect that. But institutionalized gender bias distorts that playing field as soon as relationships and children enter the mix, and it is women with families - and their salaries - that suffer the most as a result. In fact, the wage gap between mothers and non-mothers is larger than the gap between women and men. To my mind, this is evidence that men are indeed beginning to take on more of the child rearing and homemaking chores...and perhaps their own salaries are beginning to show the strain.

And therein lies the great problem with gender bias; not that it oppresses one gender or another, but that it necessarily denigrates both genders at the same time. You simply cannot shove half of the population of an entire society into a one-size-fits-all boxed stereotype without automatically shoving the other half into the polar opposite box...and neither gender belongs there. Societal change is a process of two steps forward and one step back, and though we've come a long way there is still an awful lot of room for improvement.

Personally, I'll believe we've achieved true gender equality in this country when I see women taking the football field and men shaking the pom pons.
Read more »

6 Companies Run Your Whole Life, "Made In America" Blames You For Buying In

Thursday, March 31, 2011 0 comments


Meet the Usry family. They are the subjects of a new investigative series on ABC News, and they were set up to fail. 

The series is called "Made In America" and it questions the integrity of the spending habits of individual consumers. It purports to answer the question, "Is it possible for an All-American family to live with only all-American products?"

Good question.

But the folks over at CommonDreams.org are asking a better question - "Will ABC News' "Made In America" Series Avoid Their Boss, Disney?" 


Why is that a better question? We're glad you asked. You see, it all goes back to the discussion of independent media in the U. S. (see our post asking "Who IS Running The Show?"). There are 6 major media corporations which basically own every media outlet in the U. S. - the television networks, the publishing houses, the newspapers, the magazines, the radio stations ... pretty much every source of information (never mind gadgetry) that is easily accessible to you and me. One of those 6 corporations is Disney, which also happens to own ABC. So is this new show (a) taking an objective, in-depth look at American consumer spending habits or (b) distracting us from examining the spending habits of major corporations like Disney by encouraging us instead to point fingers at individual consumers?


Look at it this way:


Would you like to keep more of your consumer dollars in the U. S. economy? Heck yeah. So would we. You and I live here. We're trying to run businesses or earn paychecks or educate kids or write blogs or whatever it is we're doing, and we're trying to do it here, where we live and work and pay taxes and spend our money. We'd like to see some of that money return to us and our communities in the form of local customers, services, goods, programs, etc. 


Would major corporations like Disney like to keep more of its outgoing cash flow in the U. S. economy? Heck yea...oh, wait, it's cheaper to manufacture goods overseas? Heck no. Quick - look over there!


Disney is a business, a for-profit corporation, and there is one guiding concept to making a profit - spend as little as you can to make as much money as you can. So if Disney and other corporations can make a bigger profit by using foreign manufacturing and labor, you can bet your bottom dollar they will - regardless of how it affects the individual American consumer.


So it's all well and good for ABC to ask individual families to see what happens when they try to stick to only U. S. manufactured goods. Then if (and when) a family falls off the American-made wagon, we can all be so busy blaming them for the death of the American dream that we won't bother to look in Disney's direction.


But it's the major corporations - like Disney - who actually decide where those goods are manufactured. If we really want to try to keep more of our money local, they are the ones we'll have to convince.
Read more »

Feast or Famine - Part 1: Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution

Tuesday, March 29, 2011 0 comments
UPDATE (5/25/11): Season 2 of Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution will return to ABC at the end of May. CLICK HERE to see all related posts.


So far on this blog we've dealt with heavy topics like the death of independent media, institutionalized racism in the criminal justice system, and Charlie Sheen. Today I want to take a look at a topic that is slightly more accessible to most of us ... food. Yummy, delicious, slurp it down, gobble it up, eat your heart out food.


Of course, when we say "eat your heart out," we in the U. S. sometimes approach the term just a bit too literally. We are blessed to live in a nation of plenty, but our society seems to approach food with an almost literal "feast or famine" mindset. 1 out of every 8 Americans now rely upon some form of assistance (food bank or "soup kitchen") in order to have enough food to eat. If you're doing the math, that's over 37 million people - 14 million of whom are children.  Yet at the same time, our nation has the highest rate of obesity in the entire world. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 75 million adults (roughly 30%) and an average of 19% of male children and 16% of female children in the U. S. are morbidly obese.


Indeed, the CDC now considers obesity to be a major epidemic and one of the top ten costliest medical conditions we face as a nation:
Over the past decade, obesity has become recognized as a national health threat and a major public health challenge. In 2007--2008, based on measured weights and heights (1), approximately 72.5 million adults in the United States were obese (CDC, unpublished data, 2010). Obese adults are at increased risk for many serious health conditions, including coronary heart disease, hypertension, stroke, type 2 diabetes, certain types of cancer, and premature death (2,3). Adult obesity also is associated with reduced quality of life, social stigmatization, and discrimination (2,3). From 1987 to 2001, diseases associated with obesity accounted for 27% of the increases in U.S. medical costs (4). For 2006, medical costs associated with obesity were estimated at as much as $147 billion (2008 dollars); among all payers, obese persons had estimated medical costs that were $1,429 higher than persons of normal weight (5). 
Eat your heart out indeed.

So what could be behind this feast or famine, all or nothing approach to food we seem to have adopted as a nation? Probably the same kind of large-scale, insidious manipulation that lies behind any subconscious, institutionalized way of thinking; someone, somewhere, is getting something major out of it. In this case, that something is probably boatloads of cash. I'm talking about people you and I will never meet who are making the kind of money you and I will never see. And they're making it off of us. The question is who? Who would actively (if subtly and insidiously) promote this institutionalized, victual feast or famine mindset? Could it be the multi-billion dollar fast food industry? The multi-billion dollar processed food industry? Hmmm... More on that in a future post.


First, we're going to take a look at just how deeply ingrained our food notions really are (and how early in life we are programmed to start making those choices), and internationally renowned chef Jamie Oliver is going to help us. Oliver is a British chef whose approach to using fresh, unprocessed ingredients literally revolutionized the English school cafeteria system. Following his success in England, Oliver decided to take on the American school lunch industry in his reality show Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution, for which he won both an Emmy and a TED prize. Season 1 is posted below, and believe me it's worth every click.


How much resistance would you expect a world renowned chef to meet when he comes into a town in the heart of the U.S. with the message, "Hey, what if we feed our kids less processed chemicals and fat, and more fresh, healthy food?"


See for yourself.



Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution - Episode 1
Part 1
 
Part 2
  
Part 3
Part 4

Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution Episode 2
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution Episode 3
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
 Part 4

Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution Episode 4
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution Episode 5
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution Episode 6

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Read more »

Chris Brown Calls Shenanigans, Might Actually Have A Point

Wednesday, March 23, 2011 0 comments


Here at INSTITUTIONALIZED we believe that our society tends to filter information through layers of systematic, below-the-radar, even unintentional prejudice, including institutionalized racism. Nor do we hold ourselves apart from such behavior; on the contrary. Our point here is that these prejudices are so ingrained in our socialized world view that most of us don't even recognize them as prejudice.

Case in point: The post that launched INSTITUTIONALIZED - our discussion of the whole Charlie Sheen meltdown. Do we think the guy's crazy with a capital Z? You bet your Adonis DNA we do. But we questioned the degree to which immediate medical intervention was really necessary. We were speaking from the perspective of his audience, but we nevertheless failed to point out that Sheen has a fairly nasty history with domestic violence, including but not limited to "accidentally" shooting his then fiancee actress Kelly Preston in the arm (after which she subsequently ended their engagement. Yup, sounds like an accident to me).

While we were focusing on making the point that Sheen is not a threat to his audience, who but self-admitted abuser Chris Brown should point out our own unintentional hypocrisy? At the same time our society continues to condemn him at every opportunity for battering Rhianna (and rightfully so), Sheen has reportedly begun touring with a one-man-show netting him $7 million a month. He is currently adding more dates, since tickets for the original tour sold out in 18 minutes. 18 minutes you guys.

Brown addressed his aggravation with society's apparent willingness to embrace Sheen's violence while condemning his own after an interview on Good Morning America. Rather than getting an interview designed to promote his album (the only reason most performers agree to participate in such interviews at all) the interviewer focused in large part on Brown's past domestic violence charges. 


After the interview Brown reportedly threw a nice little hissy fit and then tweeted the following:
"I'm so over people bringing this past shit up!!! Yet we praise Charlie sheen and other celebs for their bullshit!"
(He apparently caught enough flak for that comment that he later deleted it.)

Now don't get me wrong, if anyone has the right to be annoyed with the constant media attention over the beating it's Rhianna, and she seems to be handling it just fine, so Brown can stick a sock in it as far as that goes. But he's not wrong about the interplay of racism and criminal justice issues. 

According to criminal law professionals at the University of Dayton:
Wouldn't it be so simple to explain the disparity by believing that African Americans are just inherently worse, meaner, more violent people than Whites? That way everything would be someone else's fault, we wouldn't have to pay attention to what's going on in the system, or examine our own beliefs, or ask how and why a nation supposedly founded on personal freedoms is systematically punishing its own citizens for being born the wrong color?

Yes it would be easier, simpler, safer ... and the epitome of institutionalized racism. 

Mr. Brown, you have a point. Now put your shirt back on.
Read more »

Humble As Charlie Sheen

Monday, March 7, 2011 0 comments


I was at a small party yesterday when one of those awkward silences fell, and, because I am a red-blooded American, I said the only thing I could think of that was certain to reinvigorate the room.

"So, how 'bout that Charlie Sheen?" It worked.

If you have somehow missed the unbelievably entertaining rants actor Charlie Sheen has treated us all to in the past week, what can I say. Catch up.


Now, I would be lying like a dog if I said I hadn't joined in the fontrum, the schadenfreude, the joy at the wrongness of it all. Charlie is having a meltdown, and he's doing it on national, nay - global, television.


And yet, could there be a method to his delightfully public madness? I submit, for your consideration, the following evidence:
Did he plan all of this? It seems unlikely, but no more unlikely than anything Sheen has said or done lately. 


But more to the point, what is it about Sheen's outrageous behavior that has captured the interest of, well, practically everyone? Anyone who has spent time with a person diagnosed with bipolar personality disorder (a.k.a. manic depression) will recognize Sheen's grandiose diatribes as par for the course during a manic phase. Delusions, paranoia, a general break from reality and insistence that he is the only one who knows what's really going on are far from unusual.


But what is so intriguing, so inviting, so entertaining is the unique situation Sheen is in due to his celebrity status, which has only increased during his wild episodes. Sheen has the resources and the outlet to literally say anything he thinks, to do anything he wants. And who among us can honestly say we have never wished we could do the same?


It is notoriously difficult to get a person in the middle of a manic episode to take medication, and for good reason. Mania feels good. It is exhilarating. It draws attention, as Sheen could clearly attest. Perhaps most importantly, mania is often characterized by a rise in both creativity and fearless self-expression. Indeed, many scholars have theorized a link between bipolar disorder and the expression of creative genius. Sheen may be in good company here. Without the creativity and bravado of people who suffered from bipolar disorder, we would arguably be deprived of masters like Edgar Allen Poe, Earnest Hemingway, and Vincent Van Gogh. 


That's not necessarily to say that Sheen is a genius. He seems to be rather on the other end of the spectrum for now. But he is far from alone in reacting to the bipolar diagnosis with disdain and mistrust, saying "And then what? What's the cure? Medicine? Make me like them?" Many people taking mood-stabilizing medications express similar frustration. Medication may calm them, but it also dampens their creativity, their expressiveness, their sense of uniqueness. In order to be accepted, society demands that they tone down erratic behavior, increase their concern about how they are perceived by others, and generally pull it together enough to go with the flow. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to ask ourselves, are we medicating them to improve their quality of life, or our own? Do we want them to act more "normal" because it is in their best interest, or because they are making us uncomfortable?


And when it comes right down to it, who are we to insist that Sheen, or anyone else, change to meet our expectations of who and what they should be? Of course we must intervene when people represent a threat to themselves or others. But Sheen is no threat to us. You and I are just an audience. When it comes down to it, we don't really know what's going on behind the curtain. What we do know is that he is outrageous, provocative, controversial, and highly entertaining. And really, what more can we ask of a pop culture icon?

UPDATE: Why Chris Brown's panties are all in a wad over Sheengate
Read more »