Women's Health

New surge in the birth control/abortion debates today (personally, I think both issues should be discussed separately, but they keep getting lumped together because they are part of women's reproductive issues).  The current debate is probably because of this bill in Missouri:

http://www.newsweek.com/womens-rights-birth-control-abortion-missouri-discrimination-628538

Don't think that we really need to worry about the discrimination that could happen?  Don't think it could really go that far?  Sure it can.  We are very judgmental creatures.  All of us.  This is one of the rare times where I will profess such a blanket statement because usually there are exceptions.  But in this case. . .no.  It's human nature to compare and contrast and feel superior or better than someone or something in a myriad of settings.  For example, right now I am scoffing at the lawmakers in the above article for what I see as stupidity.  I do try to understand every side of an argument so I can form an intelligent opinion (the above article wasn't even the first I read today on the subject).  Most of the articles I looked at focus on the same thing: what could happen if the bill is passed.

Yes, that is the key word here.  No obvious precedent has been set yet though there has been at least one case on the opposite side of a woman being denied employment because she belonged to a pro-life organization (2014's Hellwege v. Tampa Family Health Centers).  So, I think it's safe to say that the possibility exists of it happening that a woman could be denied employment, housing, etc, because she chose to get an abortion or uses birth control.

There was one thing that was utmost in my mind when reading through the Missouri headlines today: why is it anyone's business if a woman has had an abortion or uses birth control?  Besides, of course, the woman, her doctor, and her partner.  The obvious answer should be: no one.  But there might be sneaky ways to ask questions to find such things out in an interview.  Chit chat type of questions and statements.  Same as a company might do to find out if a woman is pregnant or plans to have children (more on that later).  Or if something got mentioned in social media, etc etc. Anyway, obviously that's a real concern or St. Louis wouldn't have passed "an ordinance that prevents employers and housing providers from punishing women for their reproductive health choices" (see article linked above).  Seems reasonable to cover that base so why change it?

I get that it's part of the current balancing act that is going on in politics between religious freedom and "other" freedoms, but I'm not going deep down into that rabbit hole right now.  It just saddens me that we have not progressed much on these issues.  Especially birth control.  There are so many reasons why women are prescribed it that have nothing to do with their sexual choices.  And even if it is because they want to be sexually active, well, hey, they are being proactive and trying to protect themselves.  How is that wrong?  Yeah, I know.  Welcome to the ever present female death spiral.  Even menopause doesn't necessarily help a woman pull herself up into clear skies because she may still need to be on some form in order to balance her system.  And there's another loop.  (sigh)

I mentioned pregnancy earlier.  For jobs, I think that the abortion/birth control issues should be treated like pregnancy is supposed to be:

https://www1.eeoc.gov//eeoc/publications/fs-preg.cfm?renderforprint=1

Abortion and birth control should be considered to be part of the "related medical conditions" that are mentioned in the above breakdown of the law.  I know, I mentioned a separation of the two things in my first sentence of this post, but I was talking about that in terms of moral debate.  Legally, they do fall under the purview of women's health so, in this case, it makes sense to lump them together with pregnancy laws.  That is quite possibly what St. Louis was trying to do.  Define some general terms with more specific ones.

It will be interesting to see if they can push the bill through.  Obviously, I'm hoping not.

Et tu?

I'm sure some of you expected a reaction to recent theatre news.  I do, after all, have degrees related to it.  First off, let me point out that I am meh on modernizations of the classics, but I have seen a few good ones.  I have also seen some bad "classical" interpretations.  In all cases, I can usually appreciate what a production is trying to do and I am always curious as to why X choices were made (that's the academic geek in me).  So, I try to take a production as it comes because there are sooooo many variations that can be created.

I understand the reaction to the newest NY interpretation of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar.  The production is anything but subtle from what I've read.  And we could argue a lot over it from multiple angles.  Do I think they shouldn't have done it?  No, experimentation is a big part of theatre.  Do I think that they shouldn't receive any backlash?  No.  After all, that too is a part of theatre.  How the company accepts that (i.e.responds) is completely their call.

See, here's the thing. . .theatre is momentary.  What the production essentially is poofs when the curtain closes.  It's like a birth, a wedding, a funeral.  For example, you may have other children, but you will never give birth to that exact child again.  Even within a production run, there can be small variations that make a showing unique.  And, even if a future production is somehow able to recapture key moments from a "famous" run we saw, how we see the new one will be colored by the life experiences that have happened between the productions (which is likely to be years).  That is both the joy and sorrow of theatre.  The joy of being in the moment of experience, but the sorrow after of knowing you will never have that moment again.

One of the hardest things for theatres to do is to "freshen" up a well known play (or musical).  Especially Shakespeare and the Greeks.  Oh, people may be more than happy to see a classical interpretation, but what exactly does that mean?  After all, even in the play's infancy, it most likely saw it's own variations of theatrical interpretation.  So, people might as well look around at their current world and see how they can make it live in the moment.  Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.  Political, social, psychological interpretations. . .history is littered with them.

So, yes, there is a great deal of precedent for The Public Theater's production.  I figured someone would know.  Turns out that a Shakespearean scholar I've chatted with is an expert on the play's modern history.  He was interviewed by CNN about it so I waited until the article was published before writing this post.  The article does what I had hoped. . .summed up the why would the company do this and how it's been done before:

http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/12/media/julius-caesar-public-theater-shakespeare/index.html?platform=hootsuite

I am in no way saying that the visceral responses that have happened are wrong.  They are totally legit.  See Aristotle's Poetics if you doubt me.  But I did have skepticism about the repeated claim that, "The left would totally have freaked out if this had been Obama!"  "This would never have happened over the past eight years!"  I wondered, because something in my memory prickled that it had been done.  Or maybe I just assumed that because of even older productions.  And once I started searching, I found at least one production that did (I say "at least," because I have to wonder if there aren't smaller ones that normally wouldn't get any press outside of their local areas):

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/shakesblog/obamas-ides-of-march/

That's the review that other articles cite on the issue.  Here are some others that I found in the order they popped up and their interpretation of events:

http://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Delta-Sponsored-2012-Guthrie-Theater-Season-Which-Featured-Obama-Inspired-Julius-Caesar-20170612

http://www.startribune.com/trump-themed-julius-caesar-is-talk-of-theater-world-unlike-2012-obama-version-in-twin-cities/427990033/

https://psmag.com/education/shakespeare-101-for-trumpkins  (note: I could do without the name calling here, but it makes some interesting references -- i.e. had examples -- that I didn't know)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/uproar-over-trumped-up-julius-caesar-ignores-the-plays-actual-meaning_us_593e935fe4b0c5a35ca1334b

I find it interesting that the second and last ones both began with the words "Uproar Over."  Well, it is indeed that.  It does seem that the current production is way more bludgeoning than the 2012 one.  That's certainly not a choice I would make.  I prefer innuendo and sly winks.

In my search, I also found various general articles that linked Obama and (the real) Julius Caesar. This was one of the more interesting ones I found from a purely political analysis p.o.v.:

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/jamie-stiehm/2014/11/04/betrayal-and-bloodshed-of-julius-caesar-echoes-obamas-plight

And so on.  There were such articles about Bush too.  If I had continued delving, I bet I could find more on other presidents.

At any rate, without actually seeing the show, I can't give a theatrical critique about it.  But I can say that I'm not surprised it exists.  I do think the timing is off.  Then again, when would be a good time?  Well, certainly not two weeks after the Kathy Griffin debacle (which I have a different opinion of).  But they had no way of knowing that their production would coincide with that.  So, go see the production or not.  It really comes down to being your choice.  That's the beauty of art -- we don't have to view it, agree with it (or each other on it), or even like it.

Wow

I can't believe that it has been SEVEN years since I last posted on here. I could have sworn that there was at least one attempt since then. Why? Most likely because of Facebook and lack of writing thought time. Well, I should remedy that and I am going to do so today. I was just writing a post on FB and realized that I was writing something a lot longer than I usually do. And I thought, wait, I still have my Blogger account (I hope) and I've been wanting to use it again, so. . .here we are. I'm setting myself a goal of writing here again at least once a week. So, here's the new starter.

Another Edition of Huh, The Things You Learn

Last year, M opted in for supplemental eye insurance since I wear contacts/glasses. I don't mess around when it comes to my eyes, so I go to the doctor faithfully for that every year. Anyway, this happened after last year's appointment so I only just today got to use the insurance. Yesterday, I had to track down who it was, etc, because I couldn't find the paperwork (thanks again, Matt). It should have been with the other insurance stuff. I think it got shuffled somewhere because it came in separately. I mention this because I wanted to refresh my brain on the particulars of the policy. Also, the account/card only has M's name on it and I wanted to make sure that I was listed. Can never be too careful with insurance. All was fine after I contacted a rep (though getting to a real person through their automated system was a pain in the ass). Good to go and my doc is in network. so yay.

Now, I go to Lenscrafters. I have forever because I've had good luck with the doctors there. My first one (as a teen) had been a private physician and I disliked him a lot. But my second one was amazing (still my favorite one) and he was attached to a Lenscrafters up home for years before finally going solo. I stayed with him until I stopped going to PA a couple of times a year. Have had steady and decent care ever since at the one I go to here.

M bought me my last pair of glasses like 7/8 years ago as a present. I don't wear them much because they tend to make my head wonky for extended periods of time. But they are a solid pair of Ray-bans in great condition. Obviously, my prescription has changed since then and I figured I needed a new pair. I bought some online last year, but they make me dizzy. Dunno why, but I didn't spend a ton of money on them, so I went back to the old pair. Since we have the insurance, I figured I would buy again from Lenscrafters since I can get help if I have problems.

I go in for my appointment this morning and the first learning bit happens. They didn't even need my card. My insurance automatically updated itself in the system. Um, ok. I was thinking it must be something EyeMed does with the in-service providers. Ok. No problem, but if I'd known, I could have saved myself yesterday's hassles. So, while I'm waiting, I do my usual perusal of the frames, only this time with the knowledge that I need to seriously look. I always lean towards Ray-bans for my glasses because I've always liked their styles. And I've worn their sunglasses for years because they last (I'll go through cheap ones at a rate that equals the cost of an RB pair for the same amount of time). For over 20 years, I've only ever had one crappy pair of RB sunglasses. But, I do like looking at all the lines in case something new pops up. The first section was the Sferoflex brand and I found a pair I liked. Wasn't much for the other (non Ray-Ban ) brands though Brooks Brothers had some that were ok. Ray-Ban had several that were possible. I even found a pair that was similar to the Sferoflex ones, which were cheaper. But I didn't ever recall hearing about that brand before, so I decided to kill time with some research on them. I didn't want to spend a ton of money, insurance or not, but I did want good quality. shrug

And here is where today's title truly comes from. Turns out that one Italian company, Luxottica, owns them both. Not only that, they apparently own a bunch of other brands and retailers, including Lenscrafters. They also make frames for a lot of the other brand names (like Brooks Brothers and Burberry) too. That explains the really close similarities in the frames (beyond the normal, there's only so many ways you can make them spiel). 

The real kicker though? They own EyeMed too! No WONDER all my stuff was already in the system. And no wonder my "discounts" at Lenscrafters are so good through the insurance. It's all the same to them. They lose no money on people like me because they pretty much own everything. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that ALL of the styles in the stores are their made by them. I ended up choosing an Armani Exchange pair http://www.lenscrafters.com/lc-us/armani-exchange/8053672696219 (via selfies, M did the tiebreaker between them and a pair of RBs I liked a lot http://www.lenscrafters.com/lc-us/armani-exchange/8053672696219). 

With all of the "discounts," I ended up paying just a little more than I would have for the frames by themselves (or about what the nonprescription sunglasses tend to cost). I out discounts in quotes because, well, M is paying for the insurance. Granted, even with that, it's still less than it would be if we paid outright (especially for the exam -- that's the lowest co-pay I've ever had). So, the whole thing amuses me that it all goes back to the same place. Hey, at least that streamlines the process and I'll know who to complain to if something happens.