Is it Really the Sugar Folks? | Really Random Writings

Once again, I wrote this piece for an English class scrutinizing an article called "It's the sugar, Folks," an article by a food critic and author pointing to sugar as the culprit behind America's weight gain. While I cannot disagree with his conclusions, I sure as heck can disagree with the way he uses data and structures his argument. And I am even more vehemently opposed to his proposed solution; government intervention.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that I am rather direct in my assessment of his article. This is possibly the first time that I have written some of my reservations about another person's idea with such intensity. However, should someone make a claim that sugar is "toxic," or that it is the job of the government to regulate it, they had darn well better be prepared to back up said claims. And, as I have previously admitted, I agree that sugar may well be at the base of our weight problem. It is how Mark Bittman structures his arguments and his proposed solutions to the problem that I fail to comprehend. And with that folks, grab a soda or stack of Oreos, pull up a chair, and enjoy. 

Sugar Solutions

Cody L MacCabe

English 201 Section 51

Ms. Thompson

April 10, 2013

Abstract

In his paper Sugar Solutions, Cody MacCabe scrutinizes food critic and author Mark Bittman’s “It’s the Sugar Folks,” who argues that government intervention is necessary to combat America’s obesity problem. Cody attempts to overlook Bittman’s arguments, choosing instead to focus more on the opposition’s proposed solution to the problem; government control. Cody concedes there is a problem, but questions the lack of clear arguments and goals of the opposition. He brings up issues that Bittman and others appear to have ignored, and speaks briefly of how proponents of government control structure their arguments. Ultimately, Cody concludes that the government has no business in regulating individual’s food choices, leaving parents and individuals to shoulder that responsibility.

Sugar Solutions

“That’ll kill you.”

            I turned my head to look into a somber pair of four year-old eyes, and raised one eyebrow. “Oh really?” Little red-headed Jeremy continued. “Yep, ‘cause it has white sugar in it.” The hand that held an Oreo half-way to my mouth stopped its forward momentum; not out of fear of death by cookie, but by simple incredulity that a four year-old was telling me that white sugar was lethal. So much for lunchtime. The temptation to take a bite out of the cookie and then keel on over was almost irresistible. I really liked Jeremy, the oldest kid of my new boss. But never before had I been warned that something I had been ingesting my whole life would end my human career. Apparently, little Jeremy isn’t the only person who feels that these crystalline grains of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen are in fact a danger to society. In his article “It’s the Sugar, Folks,” Times Magazine’s food columnist Mark Bittman goes so far as to call sugar “toxic,” suggesting that government intervention is necessary to regulate the American diet. May I be the first to say that an overly-indulgent intake of calories, sugars, and a generally nutrient-depleted diet is unhealthy, can lead to obesity, and be a general burden to a citizenry. While proponents of government intervention argue with wild accusations and pseudo-science, I have no qualms admitting that there is a serious weight-related health problem in America. Agreements notwithstanding, I vehemently express concern with the rhetoric that a nanny-state “solution” of government monitoring of caloric or sugar intake, controlled portion sizes, taxing sugary beverages, or any other such food control measures, will reduce obesity.

Background

            Data is showing that America has an exponentially increasing weight problem. Nationwide, 72.5 million adults are obese. That is over a quarter of the adult population (Mantel, p. 799). Americans on average are consuming 300 calories more each day than the previous generation, much of which comes from sugary beverages (Marrow, p. 4). A look at Americans over the last 50 years has shown a spike in average weight that correlates with the increasing amounts of sugars and calories in the American diet. Most people agree that this added weight is a problem; it is the proposed solutions that many find controversial.

            While debate raging throughout nutrition networks through the country about causes and effects of obesity is nothing new, there is a high-stakes political battle currently waging about the proper role of government and food. The most recent high-profile case takes place in New York City, where the ever-sedulous Nanny Mayor Bloomberg has passed a law restricting the sale of containers of soda over 16 oz. at food establishments (Clemmitt, p. 1015). Other proposals, or current laws, include the taxation of sugary beverages, controlling portion sizes, menu-labeling requirements, monitoring advertisements that are aimed at children, and passing requirements controlling what can be served in school’s cafeterias.  This raises the question of what role, if any, should the government play in combating obesity and the associated problems? There are many proponents of government intervention. Obesity is a serious and growing problem. Others say that the government isn’t allowed the right to dictate what and how people consume food. Most people will agree that there’s a problem. But, what is the right course of action?

Lines of Argument

            My first concern associated with proposed government intrusion into mealtimes (and snack time) is a lack of clear direction as to the purpose behind this bureaucratic brouhaha. I fail to find a clear consensus as to what is to be accomplished by printing off enough legislation to drown a librarian. Is the purpose behind this encroachment simply cutting calories or reducing sugar intake? Is the hope to slow weight gain? Maybe it is simply to inform people of what they are putting into their bodies. Is it to reduce obesity, or perhaps prevent it? Is it simply to get Americans to eat healthier? Then there’s the possibility of setting up another revenue stream encouraging Americans to avoid “empty” calories by taxing the sweet stuff. What methods are to be used, and what is the end goal? Assuming that the government does in fact have our best interests at heart, which we all know that it doesn’t, it would appear that the hope is through passing broad and extensive legislation, something that would fall under government control might possibly someday in the far distant future somehow be part of the solution to this problem. However, with not clear goals, direction, or limitations as to how far the government can reasonably regulate, I find myself extremely hesitant to support any such measures.

            And unfortunately, there is no evidence to suggest that a regulatory rampage by the government will in any way, shape, or form help achieve the end goal so un-clearly set in sand. By 2009, 13 cities, counties, or states required menu labeling, informing customers of things such as the number of calories in a meal. But when asked if the legislation would have a direct impact on obesity, Marion Nestle, a sociology professor at New York University, said “Probably not. It will help some people, but I doubt it will help very many” (Mantel, p. 804). Real-world studies that have been performed to find the effectiveness of such laws have, at best, produced mixed results. Brian Elbel, a professor of medicine and health policy at New York University, also said of menu labeling “We did not see any change in the number of calories purchased” (Mantel, p.805), which was the whole point behind the labeling requirement. This is just one example of the ineffectiveness of such legislation. If you inform people of the number of calories they are eating, they’ll still eat them. If you tax sugary drinks, those that want them will still buy them. Serving a strictly healthy diet in the school cafeteria has led to “trash cans…overflowing with fruit and vegetables the students don’t want” (Wood, p. 1).  While it is perhaps noble to try and help people reduce the amount of unhealthy foods they ingest, there are factors that are not considered by the government.

            While there is enough data surrounding calories, sugars, and obesity to suffocate any scientist, there are other factors involved in this whole health hullabaloo that are unaccounted for. Americans are less physically active than ever before, many spending workdays behind a desk, and 40% rarely exercise (Bettelheim, p. 27). Our working environment promotes vehicular use as opposed to walking; there is a lack of access to nutritious foods, or individual portions; advertising promoting fast-foods; genetic factors; the use of certain medications;  metabolic or hormonal causes; smoking; sleeping too little or too much. (Robbins, p. 1) The problem could be, and likely is more comprehensive than a ban on sodas larger than 16 oz. can cover. Yes, we may be able to attribute one-fifth of the recent decades weight gain to sugary drinks (Marrow, p. 4); but how do we account for the rest? I spent much of my childhood doing chores, playing outside, and staying active. But rarely does government ask how much more time children spend playing video games than they did thirty years ago. In the name of educating our children, recess time is diminishing. And never do you hear proposals limiting how much time adults are allowed to spend watching television. “Many individuals tend to spend more of their leisure time engaged in sedentary activities at the expense of physical activities” (Amarasinghe and D'Souza, p.4). There is a correlation between food and obesity, not causation. My fear is that in our eagerness to find a crux to our obese problem, government will get tied up in a few top branches while forgetting the behavioral roots of the problem; that the argument for government intervention is based on incomplete, and perhaps biased, information.

            While there has been much factual data gathered about Americans and food, many of the claims and the way the data is being used by zealots for the cause is baloney. As someone hoping to be a scientist, looking at how the data is gathered and used is something that the author of this article scrutinized while researching the topic. First, the use of the word “toxic” (Clemmitt, p 1018) is….an attempt to get a knee-jerk reaction from people, possibly with the hopes that it will drive people towards a government-based solution? Sugar, scientifically speaking, is biologically necessary to sustain life. If you ingest radically high amounts of sugar, certainly the possibility of negative side effects exists. However, without sugar, you really will die. In moderation, there is no harm. The same goes for calories, fats, carbohydrates, and even water. Biologically necessary to sustain life, but too much of it can adversely affect your health. Unless those labeling sugar as toxic are prepared to do the same with water, it would be wise for the sake of their own credibility and the evidence to rescind such malarkey.

            Another possibly damaging factor to the credibility of the proponents of government intervention is the suggestions they make based off of limited information. Found in some articles are statements such as “One study also found that…,” “According to one study…” (Mantel, p. 802/p. 805), and “In one study” (Clemmitt, p.1027). For some reason, with something that is 100 times more scientifically complicated than heart disease (Clemmitt, p. 1016), it is apparently kosher to start pointing to one study as an excuse to choke Americans out of the calories that are supposedly a menace to their health. In any serious science, making any claim, even suggesting that one study makes something gospel truth is deplorable. Doing so would be labeling oneself as nothing less than a scientific heretic. While no longer punishable by burning at stake, being laughed out of the scientific community may be the more humiliating path. Historically, scientists strive to prove a hypothesis false. If after rigorous testing said hypothesis is failed to be proven false, then you can start talking about it becoming a theory. It is perhaps best stated by Rebecca L. Goldberg, who is credited with saying “nutritional science is, at best, a discipline still in its infancy, far from being able to understand the complex relationships between our bodies and our food” (Goldberg, p. 788). But in the end, does it matter what laws are passed, or the amount of scientific confirmation massed? If people want the calories, scientific evidence and specious government legislation are not going to stop them.

            The issue that undermines the entire argument for government intervention is the misguided notion of curtailing current behaviors in an attempt to change American’s attitudes towards food and obesity. Ultimately, what and how you eat depends entirely on the individual and their attitude towards food. The problem associated with government intervention, aside from being a grotesque fusion of Big Brother and Ophelia Syndrome, is that it removes the responsibility for the attitude towards unhealthy lifestyles from the individual. Nothing really changes. As explained by the writer Barbara Mantel, “There is a good reason why public-health officials blame the changing environment for much of the recent obesity epidemic: Blaming the individual hasn't worked so well” (Mantel, p. 814). But it is with individuals that the problem lies. The government does not (literally) feed us, we feed ourselves. If the individual is not willing to change, no amount of legislation will lead them to conform. Attitude cannot be legislated, just as behavior does not drive attitude.  Our beloved government errs in attempting to put the cart in front of the donkey.

            Rather than rely on burdensome legislation that may or may not effectively treat the root of the problem, this is one situation in which the individual must take responsibility for their own habits, as no amount of bureaucracy will change a person. One source says that “Americans spend nearly half of their food budget on foods prepared outside of the home and consume about one-third of daily calories from outside sources, much of it from fast food” (Young and Marion, p. 239). But no one is making them eat out. That choice is theirs and theirs alone. As explained by Robbin S. Johnson, a research fellow at the University of Minnesota's School of Public Affairs, “there is nothing …per se that contributes to the growth in understanding that would lead most directly to the kind of behavior change needed to arrest and reverse obesity” (Robbins, p. 4). Yes, some measures passed may enhance the health of the population without actually contributing to obesity reduction (Fletcher, p. 3). But individuals still have a choice, and until they of their own free will and choice choose to change their behaviors, the government will be constantly trimming the branches of a growing problem. 

Opposing Viewpoints

We have a health crisis on our hands, there’s no question about that. Over 25% of American adults are obese (Mantel, p. 799), and if you include those simply overweight, that percentage jumps another 30% (Bettelheim, p. 25). While I disagree with the opposition on a few points, I have no qualms about agreeing with them 100% that there is a problem. They are absolutely right. Many Americans, for any number of reasons, are not in currently in control of their weight. I will concede that point without an argument. What I fail to understand, however, is how that justifies taking control of what Americans put into their own mouths. The Constitutional Republic which this country claims to be allowed government the power to protect Americans, that the people might live in freedom. Never was the government allowed the license to remedy every problem that would ever face the American people. If we’ve got a problem, we have the right to fix it in our own way, and in our own time.

And at our own cost. Proponents of government intervention are correct in labeling this as a financial problem as well. In 2012 in the state of New York alone, obesity-related medical bills reached an astronomical $11.8 billion – $4.3 billion through Medicaid, and the other $7.5 through Medicare and private insurance (Clemmitt, p.1015). I agree this is a financial problem as well. One might argue that “When your problems only affect you, then that’s ok. But the current health epidemic has become such a widespread problem that it is starting to affect the general welfare. The government is already has its pocketbook involved, and in order to start reducing costs to the taxpayers, the government must take action. When people can keep themselves under control, that’s great. But when the actions of the public at large are in conflict with the financial welfare of the general populace, it must needs be that the government intervene for the security of all involved.” I admit, they make a convincing argument. And yes, it’s costing us. But does that justify government to intervene? I see no reason why it should. When people realize what it costs them, financially or physically, they will take the necessary actions themselves to rectify the problem. Until then, it’s the government’s job to get out of the way and let people make their own, sometimes less-than-intelligent, decisions.

Conclusion

Do we have a problem on our hands? Yes. I will be the last person to deny that claim, and I don’t think many people will intentionally turn a blind eye to the pervasive poundage problem in American society. But does that give government the right to regulate itself into my personal meals? Abso-stinkin-loutely not! Where is the personal responsibility? We live in a society that is trying to facilitate our not taking responsibility for our own actions, striving to remove unpleasant consequences of our own stupidity on our behalf. How nice of them. And how short-sighted. While it is much easier to let the government force us through legislation to attempt to lose the pounds than it is to develop self-control, when are we as Americans going to step up to the plate, and accept the consequences of our own actions? This will be an uphill battle. There isn’t an easy way around it. But that is what this issue comes down to; that’s what it is going to take to fix this problem. Short of the government installing video cameras in the forehead of every American to see and regulate what they put in their mouth, self-control is, as near as I can see, the only option.

References

Mantel, B. (2010/2013). Preventing obesity. CQ Researcher, 20, 797-820. Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/

Clemmitt, M. (2012/2013). Sugar controversies. CQ Researcher, 22, 1013-1036. Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/

Goldberg, R. L. (2012/2013). Administering Real Food: How the Eat-Food Movement Should--and Should Not--Approach Government Regulation. Ecology Law Quarterly, 39(3), 773-829.

Wood, Benjamin. (2012/2013). Students, parents, educators displeased with new school lunch standards. Deseret News, Sept. 27 2012

Marrow, Mary Winston. (2011/2013). Public Health Law Center, TAXING SUGAR DRINKS: A Tool for Obesity Prevention, Cost Savings and Health Improvement (2011).

Bettelheim, A. (1999/2013). Obesity and health. CQ Researcher, 9, 25-48. Retrieved from     http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/

Robbins, Johnson S. (2011/2013). Caloric Sweetened Beverage Taxes: The Good Food/Bad Food Trap. Choices Magazine

Fletcher, Jason (2011/2013). Soda taxes and substitution effects: will obesity be affected? Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farming and Resource Issues 3rd Quarter 26 (3).

Young, Lisa R. and Nestle Marion. (2007/2013). Portion Sizes and Obesity: Responses of Fast-Food Companies, Journal of Public Health Policy, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 238-248

Amarasinghe, Anura and D'Souza, Gerard. (2012/2013). Individual, Social, Economic, and      Environmental Model: A Paradigm Shift for Obesity Prevention, ISRN Public Health, vol. 2012, Article ID 571803, pp. 1-10

The Electoral Debate | Really Random Writings

I have always had a very soft spot in my heart for America. My dad grew up in the military, and instilled his love of WWII history in me at a young age. I have thought often of the sacrifices of so many for the ideals this country was founded upon. As such, my second semester at college, I was in a basic writing class and had to write a persuasive essay and present it to the class. Having read the constitution other than just to pass high school history, I knew that America was created as a republic, not a true democracy. More importantly, I learned the subtle yet important differences between the two. As it is our electoral college that keeps us from being a true democracy, I felt that I could write a decent essay with the intent of persuading people of the importance of the electoral college. This was a persuasive essay assignment I was given during my second semester of college. I hope that even though six years have now passed, this paper may still be useful to that end. Small changes have been made (mostly grammatical), but the body of this paper remains the same.

The Electoral Debate

       
          After her election to the New York Senate in 2000, Senator-elect Hillary Clinton went on a victory tour throughout the Empire State, calling for the elimination of the Electoral College. The proposed abolishment of the Electoral College, sadly, is nothing new. Over 700 attempts have been made in roughly 200 years to change or get rid of the Electoral College. Assailants generally want the Electoral College replaced with a direct popular vote. However, the Founding Fathers purposely set up this method of electing the president in order to avoid the "tyranny of the majority" that comes with a pure democracy, allowing the will of the people to reflect the new American government. The Electoral College provides one of the crucial Checks and Balances written into the Constitution with two main ideas in mind. The Electoral College is one of the most important safeguards built into the Constitution, as it as the responsibility of giving smaller states a more equal weight in the election of the president; it also removes the election of the President out of the direct hands of voters, while still reflecting the will of the public.

          In order to understand the debates on either side, one must first understand the ideas behind the Electoral College. In an interview with Eric Walz, doctor of Political Science at BYU-Idaho, he explained that in an election, people vote for electors who in turn vote for the President. Each state in the United States receives a certain number of electors. Currently, an election consists of 538 electoral votes. Each senator receives a vote, as does each member of the House of Representatives. The District of Columbia is allotted three votes. Each state has at least three electors; two representing the two senators, and one for every House member.


           When a citizen casts a vote for the President, in reality, they are voting for an elector pledged to one of the candidates running for President. Each political party chooses their own electors. Therefore, in Idaho, with two senators and two members of the House, we get four electoral votes. Each party in Idaho--Democrat, Republican, Independent, and any other party--chooses four electors. The party that receives the majority of the votes in that state gives all of their votes to a particular presidential candidate. While the Electoral College never meets together countrywide, they do meet in their respective states on a certain day. The votes are later opened and counted, and the candidate with the majority of the electoral votes becomes the next president. In the unlikely (but possible) event that no candidate receives the majority of the electoral votes, the decision rests with the House of Representatives; each Representative casts his or her vote for the candidate they think should become the next president. The candidate with the most votes from the House becomes the next President.


          Almost without fail, opponents of the Electoral College begin their arguments by calling the Electoral College undemocratic. Surprisingly, they are mostly right. But, they fail to realize one crucial thing: America is not a democracy. AMERICA IS A REPUBLIC! From the beginning of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the Founding Fathers deliberately avoided forming a democratic government. In fact, they strongly opposed a democracy. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, tells us why the Founding Fathers did not want a democracy.

          "In a pure democracy, a common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole [the public]... Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention... and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." (qtd. Ross)


          Other Founding Fathers came to similar conclusions through studying other governments of the world. Alexander Hamilton stated, "The ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny, their figure, deformity." (qtd. Ross) Ancient Greek and Rome provided excellent examples of what the Founding Fathers tried to avoid--a democracy. John Adams went one step further, saying, "Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." (qtd. Ross)


          We must understand the difference between a republic and a democracy in order to understand the arguments for both sides. Walz describes the difference between a republic and a democracy by saying "in a democracy, the People make the laws. In a republic, the People elect people to make the laws." This means the government plans for average citizens to choose the wisest or "best" citizen to represent them, and then the wisest citizens will choose the President. The idea is to sift the passions of the people out of the voting process.


          Concerned about the people being uninformed and/or being swayed by their passions, the Founding Fathers addressed the problem in the beginning. Federalist Paper #49, written by James Madison, says, "Reason, alone, of the public...ought to control and regulate the government." The Founding Fathers also felt concern about the virtue of each citizen. They knew from examples such as ancient Greece and Rome that a democracy will follow the pattern told by Lord Woodhouselee, a Scottish-born lawyer, a.k.a. Alexander Fraser Tytler:
           A democracy is always temporary in nature... A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse...which is always followed by a dictatorship. (qtd, in Action America)


         Walz tells us that before the development of the Constitution, the thirteen colonies worked as 13 independent countries bound loosely together by the Articles of Confederation. The Articles, too weak to allow an effective government to perform the needed functions, did not work out for long. People proved not as virtuous as the Founding Fathers had originally thought. When setting up the Constitution, the country's leaders learned from their previous mistakes and removed the direct election of the president from the hands of the people. They wanted to save the people from their own less-than-virtuous behavior.


          Opponents of the Electoral College frequently attack the Founding Fathers. Occasionally, our country's first leaders are portrayed as unwise and imperfect, or old-fashioned, or portray them as incompetent fools who whipped up the Electoral College with little debate or discussion so that they could move on to other issues at the Constitutional Convention. Not one single shred of evidence backs up that opinion. Anyone who takes the time to read through the debates of the Constitutional Convention will see that much thought and deliberation went into this issue. Debates and discussions on the nature of the presidency and the method of elections went on for six weeks after James Wilson of Pennsylvania proposed something similar to the Electoral College on June 2nd of 1787. The Founding Fathers put all their energies into the creation of what we now know as the Electoral College, which they considered one of the greatest achievements of the entire convention and of the Constitution.


          When attacking the Founding Fathers and their work on the Constitution, some say that the Electoral College was designed to send the decision of choosing the President in the hands of the government rather than the people. If no presidential contender gets a majority of electoral votes (270 is the minimum needed today), then the election of the President resides with the House of Representatives. The Electoral College is seen as a way to routinely send the decision of the presidency to the House. This has happened twice, once in 1801, and again in 1825. It seems extremely unlikely that the Electoral College was originally designed to allow the House of Representatives to choose the President because of the very few times that this has occurred. The Founding Fathers set up the default plan of allowing the House to vote for the President only in the event that no candidate receives the majority.


          Opponents of the Electoral College generally use the argument that a minority president could be elected, using the 2000 Presidential election as an example. Their argument: Al Gore won 500,000 more popular votes, yet George W. Bush won the Electoral vote. They say that this proves that a candidate who does not get the most popular votes can become the president. Bush got less popular votes; therefore, he should have lost. The wrong man became President because of the Electoral College.


          Gary Glenn, Presidential Teaching Professor at NIU, tells us that while this sounds like a solid argument, some room for debate exists. The word "more" means different things to different people. If one follows the aforementioned objection, one must assume that "more" means more votes counted as a national total. However, the Electoral College doesn't work that way. Opponents of the Electoral College, along with the popular media, teach us to count the votes on a national level. Add up all the votes, and whoever has "more" should win, right?


          Glenn presents the presidential race not as one huge race with all the votes nationally going to one person or the other. Rather, it is 51 different races run by the 50 states plus the District of Columbia. The Electoral College never meets as one body but as 51 separate entities. The person who wins the most races wins, and that is exactly what happened in the 2000 election. Al Gore had 500,000 votes "more" than Bush only if you look at the numbers as one national election rather than a federal election among the states. Only if you look at the numbers "democratically." In addition, people who voted for Bush covered a larger area of electoral votes throughout the country, while people who voted for Gore covered less area geographically. Otherwise, Bush wouldn't have had a chance to win.


          For example, we could look at the issue on a smaller scale. Imagine that the city of Philadelphia had 800,000 people who voted for Gore, represented by three electors for the city. For the rest of Pennsylvania, 700,000 people voted for the electors who represented Bush. If there were four electors for the rest of the state, Bush would win even though he "lost" the popular voted. If by some chance a president gets fewer popular votes, then the only possible way he could win would be for the amount of popular votes to be extremely close, and for the distribution of voters to cover a larger area. It simply depends on how one chooses to view it.


          The counter argument for this suggests that if the President can be elected without a majority of the electoral votes, then the smaller states have more power, and the larger states are less represented. The principle of "one person, one vote" is being violated. They often use the example of Idaho vs. Florida. A few hundred thousand votes in Idaho are supposed to count a whole lot more per electoral vote than the millions of votes coming from Florida. However, Glenn tells us that if one looks at it from that point of view, then one assumes that we should not count the popular votes as if the states existed. Instead, we should count them as if they did not exist. We might as well abolish the states of the Union for every election. Again, if we do not assume that the votes are counted on a national level, then we already have the "one person, one vote" in each state.

          So in actuality, the small states have a very small advantage over the large states, keeping a delicate balance between the states. In fact, if we take a look at what would happen if the country moved to a national popular vote, an even more unbalanced situation would arise. The small states would be all but forgotten. "The raw numbers of the large states would swallow the smaller states" (Glenn, 5). Walz tells us that the population of the large states would make the small states such a minority that their voice would not be heard. In fact, a large city such as Philadelphia could potentially outvote the states of Utah, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Wyoming put together. So, either the small states are given a small boost to allow them equality with larger states, or large states have almost complete dominion over smaller states.


          Complaints against the Electoral College are nothing new and become more creative as time goes on. People who want to abolish electoral votes in favor of a direct popular vote use rhetoric to make some very persuasive arguments. But the Electoral College remains one of the most important of the Checks an Balances in the Constitution. It keeps us from a democratic form of government. It removes the passions of the people from the electoral process, yet still reflects the will of the people. It balances out the power of the large states and the small states. The Founding Fathers, some of the most brilliant minds in history, spent many months carefully crafting the government we have today. Should we throw their sacrifice away so cheaply? If we abolish the Electoral College, we are gutting the delicate system of Checks and Balances that remain so vital in today's America.


          Why would people in positions of power promote this amendment? They may not realize why the Electoral College came about in the first place or understand how it works. Or, as Walz tells us, they may know exactly how it works, saying "In my opinion, a person promoting the abolishment of the Electoral College sees benefits to be had by either themselves or their party." The people can vote themselves benefits directly out of the public treasury. But the public will only do so if people in positions of power alerts the people that the masses have this power. In other words, the candidate who offers the most will be the one elected 100% of the time. Once voters realize that they can vote someone into power who benefit themselves, they will do it. Our own unvirtuous and unbridled greed will destroy us. It happened in Ancient Rome; it is one of the major reasons that the Roman Empire fell. The fiscal policy of the country became so loose because the people were voting themselves so many benefits that the country imploded financially. The result: a dictatorship.


          The Electoral College makes this country a republic rather than a democracy. Deliberately put into place to protect this country from tyrants and the weaknesses of the people themselves, this important safeguard keeps the balance of government working during elections. Some of the most brilliant and virtuous men that have elver lived worked for months to create the Constitution. The amendment to abolish the Electoral College would take our country a huge step toward the eventual destruction of the America the Founding Fathers envisioned.

WORKS CITED

"Alexander Fraser Tytler: An Observation on Democracy." Action America 18 Sep. 2008.
          <http://www.actionamerica.org>

Glenn, Gary. "The Electoral College and the development of American Democracy."
          Perspectives on Political Sciences 32.1 (2003). ProQuest. Brigham Young University Idaho
          Library, Rexburg, ID. 13 Mar. 2008. <http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=592373591&
          sid=12&Fmt=3&clientId=9330&RQT=309&VName+PQD>.

Gregg II, Gary L., ed. Securing Democracy: Why We Have an Electoral College. Wilmington,
          DE: ISI Books, 2001.

Meyer, Karl E. World Policy Journal 17.4 (2000/2001). ProQuest. Brigham Young University
          Idaho Library, Rexburg, ID. 18 Mar. 2008. <http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=
          67263160&sid=9&Fmt=3&clientId=9330&RQT=309&VName+PQD>.

Ross, Tara. "The Electoral College: Enlightened Democracy." The Heritage Foundation 1 Nov.
          2004. 5 Mar. 2008. <http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/lm15.cfm>.

Walz, Eric. Personal Interview. 14 Mar. 2008. 

On the Individual | Really Random Writings

           So, I found a piece that I wrote back when I was a senior in high school. I had recently read Kurt Vonnegut Jr.'s "Harrison Bergeron," and this idea of individuality and equality fascinated me for quite a while. It was also not too long after the infamous "No Child Left Behind" law was being implemented. So this is a mesh of ideas that wandered around my head at the time. Some of the ideas I had back then have changed over time, but while I made a few grammatical and word-choice changes, I've kept the ideas in their original format. So, I apologize, no pictures, but...I still hope you enjoy the read.

           The Declaration of Independence of the United States declares that, “All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” which provides each person in our country with equality before the law. It is truly an amazing statement, and as far as the Founding Fathers intended that statement to go, the statement rings true. However, human beings come into the world with their own talents and disadvantages. In this regard, people are not the same, and unfortunately—or perhaps not--unequal.

         With issues like the NCLB, gay rights, racial discrimination, the feminist movement, and other such controversial issues looming around us, it seems plainly apparent that equality has yet to be achieved. In fact, equality under the law is one issue, but equality in all aspects of life eludes us. We weren’t meant to be the same with regards to talents, looks, opportunities, and so on. Everyone enters life at a different level and achieves at a different level. By trying to make everyone the same, we risk losing the rich fabric of diversity of life -- our uniqueness. While everyone should be viewed the same with regards to human kindness, as in, “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” in other aspects it remains impossible, and quite rightly so, to make everyone the same. Individuality is the key to living in a great world.

         The No Child Left Behind law exemplifies the kids’ version of Harrison Bergeron. We have tried to insist that every child needs the same educational experience; it even sounds nice on paper. When you take a closer look, however, it just doesn’t work. You can’t make someone learn things beyond their mental capacity, for one thing. A child who gets no parental help won’t learn at the same rate as a child who gets 2 hours of help at home each night. The reality remains that, rather than helping the slower children catch up, we require so little of the smarter ones that they aren’t learning at all. On paper, it may look like we are improving, when actually we make almost everyone achieve at the 50% level. This piece of legislation undermines the real goal, which is to supply each child with the best education possible for them.

         Let’s look at what present American education provides in the long run. At the end of WWII, Japanese Admiral Sadatoshi Tomioka squarely placed the blame for losing the war on the Japanese education system. He observed, “We taught figures and facts at the expense of individual thinking.” The Japanese soldier had been indoctrinated with intolerance for those who failed to conform. The end result were soldiers who could only follow orders; they couldn’t for the life of them personally decide on the proper course of action.

         Should America do the exact same thing, forcing facts into kid’s heads at astounding rates, while individual thinking and creativity, the two things that make America great, grow less important? When will we realize that taking and passing a test does not equal real life? For one, how many professional test takers do you know? The Japanese, for all of their many admirable qualities, aren’t in the invention business. They are to be commended for their abilities to produce, and occasionally make improvements on products. However, invention and production are not interchangeable. But that is ok. Just as people are different, our countries, and the functions that they perform, are diverse. Our countries together are able to accomplish and learn so much more because of our differences.

         The reason some think everyone needs to be perfectly equal depends on regretful fact that those who press for equality in everything twist reality in the hopes of appearing magnanimous and successful at implementing their policies. Sometimes their motivation lies in political power, sometimes they see it as a way to make money. Yes, everyone should be equal before the law, and the idea of equality in all aspects of life intrigues the human mind, but life would sink into boring sameness were it really to happen. Those who insist on equality in every regard tend to be noisemakers, and the majority of us mistakenly think that everyone else is in agreement. And so we remain silent. With education, instead of trying to make it look on paper like all of our students are passing, we need to push all of our students to achieve their own, personal best. We want America to have great inventors and thinkers, not to become a country bogged down with people who can compute but can’t think.

         Equality seems to be the ruling factor in those futuristic people who see no danger in cloning humans. The creation of life in a bottle should not be relegated to humans. What right do we have to make people be exactly what we want? Many parents say they want the perfect kid. Since almost every parent would like to have a “perfect” kid, pretty soon all kids would be the same. If we started cloning people and the technology got into the hands of someone evil, who knows what kind of fiasco we would have on our hands? If cloning became commonplace, the whole idea of humanity would, of necessity, change.

         Sometimes people themselves try to become like someone else. Teens especially find someone they admire for one reason or another, often for the wrong reasons, and think that if they dress like that person, or eat what they eat, or do what they do that they will be just like that person. There’s nothing wrong with having a role model; in fact, having one is great if you pick the right person. For example if you like skateboarding and want to be good, pick up a few tips from Tony Hawks. But don’t use him as a model for citizenship or health. Drugs won’t help you be a better skateboarder.

         Harrison Bergeron is my hero. This story of him portrays the idea brilliantly, showing what would happen if everyone could truly be equal. An absolute nightmare. It is our individuality that keeps us strong. Readers feel uncomfortable with the ending of the story, but I would suggest it was written this way to make a good point. The author wants us to think for ourselves. To be who we are. Everyone needs to use his or her abilities as much as possible, and we all have the right to be an individual. No one should mess with that. No one.

         This story raises plenty of good questions. First of all, could this happen? Are the things our government and other vocal groups doing slowly “encouraging” us to conform? Is there a way to stop it from happening? What would life be like in this type of setting? Would it be worth living? Serious issues require us to at least be aware of the freedoms we have. Unfortunately, many kids my age wouldn’t be interested in thinking about the issues this story raises. They would get kind of a glazed look, wonder aloud what I was talking about, and go back to their video games. I imagine that even some adults would either not understand or not care.

         Losing our individuality could easily happen should we take our freedoms for granted. America rose from the original thinkers of Europe who couldn’t find a place for their ideas in the societies they belonged to. Our individual thinking and individuality keeps our country strong. The power of individuality, which made our nation great, is worth fighting for.

Amusing Ourselves to Death Analysis | Really Random Writings

          Had a fantastic English teacher this last semester, someone who really pushed me to become a better writer. I've never really struggled in an English class until now, which I guess goes to show that it's never good to get too comfortable with a subject, as there will always be areas for improvement. Anyway, fantastic teacher, and she had several articles written by various authors on a number of subjects. I was particularly impressed with one of the pieces by a certain Neil Postman, entitled "Amusing Ourselves to Death," a critical description of average American's abuse of the television, and the consequences of such actions. I though it was phenomenal both in how it was though out and how it was articulated. I wrote an analysis of the paper, exploring the pathos, ethos, and logos he used in conveying his points. Enjoy.

Neil Postman

Analysis of Postman’s “Amusing Ourselves to Death”

Cody L MacCabe

English 201 Section 51

Ms. Thompson

Feb 06, 2013

Abstract

In his paper “Analysis of Postman’s ‘Amusing Ourselves to Death,’” Cody MacCabe shows the strengths of Neil Postman’s speech at the 1984 Frankfurt Germany Book Fair. Cody introduces the theme of Postman’s talk and summarizes the author’s arguments, as well as offering examples of the author’s use of statistics and logic to effectively make his comparison. Also included in the analysis is a look at the credibility of both Postman himself and Huxley’s book. After specifically scrutinizing Postman’s comparison of today’s world to the societal situation portrayed in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, combined with the sobering feeling that is left with Postman’s target audience, Cody is lead to believe that Postman makes a phenomenal case for backing up his claims.

Analysis of Postman’s “Amusing Ourselves to Death”

30 years ago in America, the average American child spent well over half of a year in front of the television before ever entering school. That amount had more than tripled by the end of high school. Neil Postman, founder of the New York University graduate program in media ecology and Chairman of the Department of Culture and Communication, uses these facts, as well as others, to make a chilling comparison of America’s love affair with television to the situation described in the #5 best English-language novel of the 20^th century, Brave New World. The basis of this book is a fictional setting in which people become slaves to their appetite for entertainment and pleasure. In making this comparison, Postman effectively communicates his claims as the logic of his argument, his own credibility and the credibility of his point of reference, as well as the emotions involved as the implications of his claims resound within the minds of a reasonable audience.

Summary

Neil Postman, Chairman of the Department of Culture and Communication, asserts in his speech “Amusing Ourselves to Death” that America is increasingly fulfilling Huxley’s 1931 prophesy that people will become slaves to their own desire to be entertained. First and foremost, he helps the reader understand the reason Huxley wrote Brave New World. Postman argues that rather than living in an Orwellian government-controlled society, Huxley feared there would be no need for government control, as the people could be perfectly controlled through their own appetite for pleasure. And what, Postman asks, is the source of today’s pleasurable predicament? The Television. He states startling statistics from the previous year’s Nielsen Report on Television to expose what he sees as America’s granting of television sovereignty over all of our institutions. Postman contends that the problem with the television isn’t that TV presents entertaining subject matter, but that it presents all subject matter as entertainment. He further explains that today’s TV news shows aren’t as interested in public information as they are with visual interest. Politicians clamor at the chance to appear on non-political shows. Even religion can be entertaining when God Himself takes a backseat to the image of the preacher. Postman concludes with a sobering statement that America is the world’s first culture that is in jeopardy of amusing itself to death, and a question as to an antidote in a matter where our philosophers have yet to give us guidance.

Logos

Neil Postman writes an effective narrative of the effects of television in America because he compares our current situation to Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, where entertainment and pleasure, rather than compulsion, was used to rule over people. His choice of reference is key in speaking to this particular audience, as said book is #5 on the list of the 100 best English-language novels of the 20^th century. To someone who understands the effects of Huxley’s hallucinogen soma, it is in no ways illogical to see television as a modern-day soma. This allows him to make logical connections with his audience that may have otherwise proved ineffective. More importantly, the proper audience will know of the potentially disastrous long-term effects it could have on a society. The use of Brave New World is the keystone that holds up the rest of Postman’s argument to scrutiny. However, there is a single danger to Postman in using Brave New World as reference.

The danger he faces in using Brave New World as a reference is in convincing his audience that he knows Huxley’s underlying message in the book. How does he know that Huxley’s fear was not that truth would be concealed, but that it would be “drowned in a sea of irrelevance?” He claims that Huxley’s fear was not of banned books, but that no one would want to read. (Postman 1984/2013, p. 449) The audience has to logically reason that the American television trend is comparable to Huxley’s Brave New World’s pleasure pandemic. But how does he know what Huxley’s intentions were in writing the book? To anyone looking to disbelieve his reasoning, this would be the Achilles heel of Postman’s argument. However, to his target audience, a single line of explanation erases any doubt that Postman does in fact understand Huxley’s intentions. “As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, freedom lovers who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny have ‘failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.’” To the assembly to which he is speaking, making the connection that TV is a distraction, and comparable to the Brave New World situation is in no way, shape, or form illogical. An understanding that we as humans seek to be entertained or distracted from the pressures of life is quite logical, and those who disagree would still need to seriously consider his claims before rejecting his reasoning.

            He does combat other potential criticism of his article quite well, backing up potentially arguable statements with logic and statistics. For example, he states that “America is engaged in the world’s most ambitious experiment to accommodate itself to the technological distractions made possible by the electric plug,” a rather bold statement in many situations (p. 449). He supports that claim with statistics from the 1983 Nielsen Report on Television, a credible source that many people will trust, and the statistics presented will likely provoke the desired reaction. He makes another statement which, depending on the audience, could fall perilously close to a slippery slope, claiming that the danger behind television is that “television is transforming all serious public business into junk” (p. 449). First, his claim that there is danger involved in television at all may be unbelievable. And secondly, he must convince his audience that all serious public business on television is in fact, junk. However, by citing everything from the “talking hair-dos” that report our news, the “Las Vegas stage show” formerly known as religion, and the appearances of politicians on non-political shows that can be presented so entertainingly on television (p. 450-51), only the harshest of critics can deny his claims. The audience to which he is speaking already clearly understands the effect of the society’s wonder weakness in Brave New World. Postman cannot make it any more plain that television not only can, but actually is doing the exact same thing to our society. He’s proven his logic to be sound, and his conclusions to be fair. His case is very strong, assuming the audience is not glued to the television.

Ethos

Not only does Postman have strong evidence for his argument, but he carries with him a sense of strong credibility. He is a well-educated man, having had studied at the State University of New York and Columbia University. He connects well with his intended audience, clearly showing throughout his paper that he is knowledgeable on the subject of television in America, and he uses as a comparison to his argument a fictional story that has been declared to be one of the 100 Best English-language Novels of the 20^th Century; Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Throughout his paper, though Postman makes statements that could turn the wrong audience off, his credibility with the audience allows him to make potentially dicey statements. He references “America’s consuming love affair with television,” something that would make some simply snort in disgust (p. 449). However, when he cites statistics from 1983 Nielsen Report on Television, he not only connects well with the right audience, but perhaps built a bridge to most reasonable critics or doubters. It is hard to argue against the fact that the only activity of the age that youth spent more time engaged in than watching television, was sleeping (p. 449). Though that fact alone is troubling, the problem is compounded by his further claims.

            It is not a light accusation to say that television is transforming all serious public business into junk. News stories rarely take more than 45 seconds of our time, and the “talking hair-dos” chat informally with each other. Religion has been made as theatrical as any Broadway performance, because television can make it fun. Philadelphia schools have experimented with rock music as a method of delivering information to students. Politicians are eager to make appearances on non-political television shows. Drama in court and even in the operating room is being broadcast live, to entertainment worshipers everywhere (p. 450-51). To the wrong audience, he would be on shaky ground without some of these serious examples to back up his claims. The evidence that he lays out gives him great credibility with his audience. He states that the purpose behind television is entertainment, to which his target audience, indeed most people, would agree. Americans love to be entertained. And that is exactly why he references Brave New World, a futuristic society in which the people are controlled not through force, but through pleasure.

He gains incredible credibility by associating his argument with a renowned hypothetical situation that many people understand and respect. His logical arguments and powerful use of reference to Brave New World gives Postman an airtight case, as far as ethos is concerned. This was a very shrewd move on Postman’s part. It is evident that he knows the material that he is talking about. He makes logic connections that most reasonable people would accept. And, he uses a well-known and respected example to explain what he sees as a problem. While doubters and critics may not agree with the conclusions Postman has drawn, they would be hard pressed to undermine his ethos. While much of his argument relies on facts and the credibility with which he can back his claims, the height of his argument comes because of the sobriety that his message conveys.

Pathos

The gravity of the topic is something that most people can appreciate. He sets forth in his paper a tone that to his intended audience, and those familiar with the book, brings a sense of sobriety, perhaps even a touch of fear. Postman’s argument and the demeanor he uses instills the reader with a realization of the abuse of pleasure, or rather, the television, in today’s world. The average American household has its TV on 7 hours a day, and the average child watches over 5,000 hours of television before they ever get to school (p. 449). We of our own free will and choice are allowing this to happen. Even a cynic would likely spend some time seriously pondering the implications of this claim, and it is this sense of uncertainty of how far we are on our way to our own brave new world that makes this piece have such a powerful pull on the emotions of the reader.

            The reader will likely reflect on our societal situation as Postman capably explains that our serious business here in America is being turned into junk because of the television. Politics and religion are becoming increasingly promoted by way of television, meant to entertain. Traditionally serious ministers of religion are “often driven to adopting a show business style.” It is not odd to see powerful political figures showing up all over the television grid (p. 451). How are people to feel when the realization that nothing is still serious when viewed through the small window of the television? Can they be anything less than concerned? While they might not agree with the conclusion drawn by Postman, they would be hard pressed to deny that television has made its way into almost every nook and cranny in the lives of people around the globe.

            Depending on the audience, Postman may either have a fantastic argument or no case at all. Postman makes a great use of his reference to Brave New World to instill his audience with a sense of reflection at the state that we as a society are in, and where this course will lead us. While he does cite extensively what he sees as cultural consequences of television, he will have to assume that the audience draws the same conclusions, or makes the same links in the chain of reason that he does, and more importantly, that his audience will assume he knows Huxley’s intentions behind Brave New World. Again, cynics may not agree with his conclusions, but for his intended audience, the grim note that Postman ends on only accentuates his logic, and aids his credibility, leaving the audience with a deafening silence that only the sound of television can fill.

Conclusion

            Postman made a brilliant choice in choosing Brave New World as his comparison to the entertainment epidemic he saw in 1984 when he wrote “Amusing Ourselves to Death.” His already established ethos was further elevated as Brave New World is likely to be well-recognized by the audience to which he was speaking. The implication of the Brave New World situation occurring right under our noses provokes a thoughtful reader to consider the situation in which we find ourselves in. Many sobering emotions will be pondered by someone open to such ideas. And finally, Postman powerfully uses logos, through facts of our society and statistics cited to support his claim that America is in danger of its own infinite appetite for entertainment. While to an audience of doubters, his claims may not hold water, but Postman effectively used a blend of Pathos, Ethos, and Logos to convince his target audience that American media is indeed turning us towards a brave new future.

References

Postman, N.  (1984/2013). Amusing ourselves to death. In R. Seamons (Ed.) The way of  wisdom (pp. 448-453). Rexburg, ID: BYU–Idaho. Retrieved from http://ilearn.byui.edu

Stones | Really Random Writings

        When I was nineteen years old, I volunteered for two years as a missionary for my church. Fukuoka, Japan was a place I had never heard of before, but was excited to be assigned to. Frankly, there was nothing on earth that could have prepared me for what I was getting into, as I think most of the young men and women in my situation would agree with. However, I had a little something more to deal with than simply learning a new language, preparing to live in a different country for almost two years, and reaching the high standards expected of missionaries; I was terribly sick for about two of the two and a half months I spent in the center responsible for training us missionaries. Two days after I got to my first assignment in Japan, I wound up in the hospital getting my appendix, and three calcified stones that had formed inside my appendix, removed. I only remember bits and pieces of what happened throughout that day. After I woke up from the surgery, I was able to piece some of the day's events back together. And here's what I remember from surgery in a foreign country. As much of a difficult experience as it was, that first experience in the hospital ended up being one of my favorite mission experiences.

           Gray fog filled the room, so thick I could only see dim shapes moving around me. I was lying down; bound. I couldn't move. I wanted to panic, to release myself from my restraints, but I didn't have the energy to accomplish such a task. As oxygen screamed to my brain, the fog began to lift, and humanoid forms emerged. I heard voices and struggled to tune in. The words seemed so foreign. As I strained to understand, I heard a familiar voice, though I couldn't identify the speaker. I turned towards the voice, and as if triggered by my movement, the dim shapes I had sensed earlier drew around me. What they intended for me, I could only speculate. Terror blossomed in the deepest corners of my being, and forced its way out of my throuate in the form of a scream.
            “Cody….Cody….CODY!” I recognized the word. My own name. A large hand was placed on my chest, restraining me from thrashing about in panic.  The fear inside of me slowly died, and I tried to respond, finding that I could move, though slowly, as if struggling through water. I began to wonder how I had gotten into whatever situation I was in. “Wahh...” My throat was parched, but I found that was the least of my worries. I felt a dull pain throughout my stomach, and wondered where the train that had run over a foreign missionary was… WAIT! I was a missionary! I knew that. I was sure of it!  Before I could muse over this new development, I heard the voice again.

            “Cody, you’re ok. It’s over.” It? That explanation did me a lot of good. “You’ve had a rough time of it kid, just relax now.”  I blinked, and the fog lifted to reveal a masked face with glasses jammed over the bridge of a rather large nose. “Cody, its Elder Hicks.” The voice sounded slightly muffled due to the white surgical mask over his mouth. I looked at the guy hanging over me, and tried to remember where I’d seen him or how I knew him, for I was sure that I did.

            Me lying down…surgical masks…gowns…I had never been accused of being very good at math, but even I could see what this was adding up to. Never before had I been hospitalized, and wasn’t quite sure that I liked the situation. I couldn’t even remember why I was there. As I searched for anything that would explain my predicament, I looked again to “Elder Hicks.”

            Now I remembered. My memory took me back. How far, I didn’t have a clue. Everything was blurred and fragmented as if my memory had somehow been smeared by outside forces. 

          Pain. Pain beyond anything I had ever experienced. My abdominal muscles convulsed, bile rose in my throat, and an explosion of pain erupted as though an abdominal volcano had erupted. Exhaustion overcame me as I fell back onto the gurney...

          The scene changed. I was sitting in a chair, slouched with arms folded on a table, trying to listen to…two voices? “…which would explain why you were sick for two months. They need to…” I understood Elder Hicks voice, yet the next sounded foreign. Maybe that’s why I didn’t understand what was being said.

            “Haiyaku mouchyou wo setsujyo suru hitsuyo ga arimasu yo.” 

            “Ok, Cody, it looks like they’re going to need to remove it, and fast. They’re going to operate, probably within 2 hours…” Remove what? Operate?? I was in a foreign country!

            Another memory flashed into being. All I could see was the tunnel of white coming towards me. I went into it feet first. Another flash. I was lying on my back, and being wheeled into a room with black and white pictures hung all around, with lights behind to reveal skeletal structures. X-rays. A technician stood above me and operated the complex machinery. A heavy weight was placed on me for reasons that I couldn’t understand as he prepared to beam high energy light through my body to expose my bones. Why was I here?

           Another memory. “Ok Cody, the ultrasound is done. They’re going to take you into a room in the back and put you in a bed.” Again the scene shifted. “They’ll hook you up to an I.V. and take some blood samples. They’ll let me stay here to translate, so you’re gonna be fine.” Fine? The pain in my stomach was consistent, I was sure, with a stab wound. It tormented me for the last two months, and seared my abdomen as I heard this news. They had found something, and now I was going to a back room to be hooked up to machines that would regulate my body’s every function. The pain in my stomach again spiked as I realized the implications. Why didn’t the pain stop? I was just stressed, that’s all. I had had stomach pain before, and I had never gone to the hospital for it. In fact, I had never been to the hospital before for anything.

            The pain continued to build until I wanted to bawl from the agony. “Cody, are you alright?” There was the voice again. I found myself in the back room hooked up to an I.V. which I was unceremoniously stuck with after they drew blood. The pain in my lower abdomen caused tears to roll down off my face and onto the bed. “Cody, I’m going to talk to the doctor, see if we can get you some drugs for the pain.” An Asian face peered over me and blabbered something unrecognizable to me. “Cody, this is the Stake President. He signed the paperwork to get you into the hospital, so the hospital is now allowed to give you some drugs for the pain and to run further tests. We’re also trying to get a hold of your parents, let them know what happened. You might be here for longer than we thought, so we’ll need their approval and to keep them updated on your condition.”

            My flashback ended with one final scene. I was in a waiting room, dressed in a white shirt and tie. A friend of mine had tagged along, bringing with him someone to introduce. I had bigger worries on my mind, such as why had we driven up to the emergency room, but I tried to be polite as I was introduced to Elder Hicks. “I know what you’re going through, I’ve had mine out too. It’s not bad, and you get some cool scars. Why, when I went to the hospital…” I tuned out as I realized that I was probably going to be hospitalized in a foreign country 3 days after getting there. Not the best start to the two-year adventure that I had been looking forward to for my far too short 19-year existence.

            I yanked my mind back to reality after hearing the now familiar voice of Elder Hicks, who had been with me since the beginning of this mess. “…and they think that you’re lucky and aren’t infected. Its called peritonitis, real nasty infection, and they don’t know how you missed it. I told them that you had been in pain for two months. The calcified stones wore holes in your appendix, and so basically the stuff in your appendix dripped into your body for two months. They’re scratching their heads over this one. Forget the infection, you’re lucky to still be here.”

            You never realize how precious something is until you come close to losing it.

            Almost a week later, with bail posted I was out of the hospital, never to return. Or so I thought. “You’ll love being here in this section of the city! The missionaries are great, and our outreach center for the youth is fantastic!” I couldn’t help but smile at the enthusiasm of the elderly gentleman driving. I also couldn’t stop staring out at the new world like a kid in the window of a candy store. “And we’ll be putting you right work. We wanted to keep you with us for a couple of weeks, but the President, he…” The rambling continued even after we pulled up to an apartment with peeling paint and what must have been an entire squadron of bikes.

             “Oh, I’ll be alright thanks.” I tried not to take offense to the elderly, yet animated missionary offering to assist me up the stairs. If I could survive almost a week in a foreign hospital full of Japanese nurses, by golly I could get up three flights of stairs under my own power.

Ten minutes later as we entered the apartment I wondered if I should have taken him up on his generous offer.