The Refiner's Fire: Part 3 - The Blessings | Really Random Writings

I vaguely remember waking up in a cramped, dark area with the distinct feeling that I had just been run over by a Japanese commuter train. I had never before realized just how connected the abdominal muscles are to the rest of the body. But then again, said muscles had been recently lacerated in three places. I found myself literally unable to move anything from the neck down. Soon after my memory re-engaged, Elder Hicks informed me that the Japanese nurse needed me to turn onto my side. After failing twice to roll over on my side, I found it necessary to enlist Elder Hicks's help. I was, for all intents and purposes, temporarily paralyzed. It was a most disconcerting sensation. I didn't have to worry about it for long, as I didn't wake up till the next afternoon.

An elderly gentleman sat on a chair near the end of my hospital bed, sunlight filtering in through the windows at his back. He concentrated on his laptop until I began to stir. He broke out in a smile that radiated throughout the room, and I'll admit, I was pleased to realize someone was glad that I was alive. Because at this point, I still didn't know if I should be glad to be conscious. The feeling that my abdominal muscles wanted nothing more than to escape through my recently stitched up stomach gave me good reason to not move.

This gentleman, wearing a missionary tag labeling him as Elder Prisbrey, enthusiastically greeted me and introduced himself. I had seen him previously with my trainer, Elder Heywood, at the church my first night in Kumamoto, but had yet to introduce myself. I gave a feeble attempt at a smile and must have somehow reassured him that I wouldn't die on him. He whipped out a small digital camera and told me to make myself look alive, this picture was going to my parents. I was able to raise my arm by this point and like a good missionary in Japan, flashed a peace sign at the camera and tried to smile. It almost worked, too. He informed me that he had been in contact with my parents, and said they were concerned but not overly worried, for which I was glad. Sending out their first missionary and having him wind up in a foreign hospital was, I'm sure, not part of my parent's plan.

He started telling me about the Outreach Center project that he was heading in Kumamoto, providing a place for youth to congregate and participate in all sorts of wholesome activities. I can't recall much else of the conversation, I was just glad to have a cheerful face around. He put me on his laptop and insisted that I e-mail my parents personally. I had a few messages, one that my mom had sent me between me leaving the Salt Lake airport and my arriving in Kumamoto. She admitted that it was harder knowing I was now in Japan and that if something happened, "like your appendix bursting," she wouldn't be there to drive me to the doctor. I tried really hard not to laugh because of how tender my abdominal muscles were, but I couldn't help it. I think Elder Prisbrey was slightly concerned when the sick missionary under his care suddenly started wheezing in his hospital bed, but chuckled when I showed him the e-mail. To this day I still tease my mother about jinxing me.

Over the next few days, I received several visitors. Elder Chung, a jolly Hawaiian elder, was going to be my temporary companion while I recovered. The sister missionaries came to visit and gave me a small pink teddy bear with a name tag to be my hospital companion (yes, I still have it and no, I am not ashamed of it) and a fun-sized Twix bar. To this day, that Twix bar is still the best thing I have ever eaten. Pretty sure it was what kept me in Japan.

When visitors came to check on me, or when the nurses were bustling about, I was upbeat. I had wondered several times over the years how I would act in a situation like this, and I was determined to be a good patient. I did have about four times the attention that the other patients in the recovery ward had, and the nurses appeared to be having the time of their lives taking care of this little foreigner. When they said a word I didn't know, which was over ninety five percent of what I heard, I would slowly reach for my pocketbook dictionary, and look a word up. It was a rather laborious process. Pretty soon the nurses figured out to take my dictionary and look up the most important word in the sentence, and I could figure usually out what they were trying to say.

On about day three, a nice lady in a more administrative outfit came up and started slowly speaking to me. One word stuck out, and I once again reached for my dictionary. After finally finding the word for insurance, I realized they wanted to know how they were going to get paid for this. My mind was blank. She gave me a kind of "sorry, but I have to ask this" look. I thought for a minute, and finally said in halting Japanese "I...am...a...missionary........My...church...can...pay." I hadn't the foggiest as to how the hospital would get their money, but I was sure that somehow it would be worked out. I don't know how satisfactory my answer was, but I think she could see that I had strained my mental capacity to the max trying to come up with an answer and had mercy on me.

When traffic to and from my hospital bed died down, however, feelings of loneliness engulfed me. I was thousands of miles away from family and friends. I had been sick for the last two months, and was now taking an hour to get out of bed and walk 15 feet to use the bathroom. I had endured incredible amounts of pain, and no small amount of humiliation at the fact that a nurse had to help me preform the most basic of bodily functions. I was in a foreign country, and I had long since realized that I didn't speak a lick of Japanese. The food was quite different, I was surrounded by people I didn't know (even if they were nice), and to be honest, was quite scared of something that I couldn't really pinpoint.

When I was 12 years old, my father was diagnosed with cancer. At 12 years old, I thought my dad was going to die. I assumed that I had learned pretty well just how fragile life can be. However, even though this was not nearly as serious or intense as cancer, going under the knife myself was a whole 'nother ball of wax. I was scared. Five days in a Japanese hospital, even with all the hustle-and-bustle around me, gave me a lot of time to think about life.

In those times of difficulty in the hospital, I prayed, like my parents had taught me. And then I turned to the scriptures. I had been told for as long as I can remember that they provided answers and comfort to the challenges this life provides us with. One day in the hospital, I was reading the Book of Mormon, in the Book of Mosiah, Chapter 24. It describes a people in bondage, suffering as slaves with heavy burdens. They poured out their hearts to God, who told them (vs 13) to:

"...Lift up your heads and be of good comfort, for I know of the covenant which ye have made unto me; and I will covenant with my people and deliver them out of bondage."


And then I read the next verse, verse 14, which has forever changed my life.

"And I will also ease the burdens which are put upon your shoulders, that even you cannot feel them upon your backs, even while you are in bondage; and this will I do that ye may stand as witnesses for me hereafter, and that ye may know of a surety that I, the Lord God, do visit my people in their afflictions."


Time seemed to stand still as I tried to wrap my head around what I had just read.

And for a moment, I felt the truth of those words in my own life. While I was a missionary laying in a hospital bed, I'd been in Japan less than a week, hadn't changed my clothes in days and had bits of food all over me, hadn't showered in days (and smelled like it), was unshaven, and physically and emotionally a wreck, I sincerely felt that the Savior of the world took a moment to stand by that hospital bed in Kumamoto, Japan, and check to see if I was okay. 

I know He already knew of my condition. The important part was He was letting me know that He cared for me. That an obscure 21 year old missionary of no importance to the world was valued by his Creator. In my hour of greatest need, I found I was important enough to Him that He made a personal visit to let me know that He cared. More powerfully than I will ever be able to describe in words, I felt, not only the reality of Deity, but was privileged to feel just a small portion of the magnitude of the love that our Savior has for God's children.

While I was blessed with countless miracles, large and small throughout that experience, the greatest and most powerful took place in my heart as I began to understand the power that comes with knowing that the Savior of the world does deeply care for each individual, and atoned on our behalf so "that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities" (Alma 7:12).  


This world can appear to be a cruel and heartless place. Sickness, war, hunger, abuse, neglect, natural disasters and other catastrophes run rampant. Everything from the greatest of nations down to the smallest of families and individuals are affected by these calamities in one way or another. When we see cancer in a child, families ripped apart by divorce, nations torn by war, millions affected by starvation, or any other such scourges and atrocities, it is easy to see how one might shake their fist at the heavens and ask how God could allow this to happen. How could a caring God allow His children to suffer? Or, it might be simpler to say that there is no God because He would not allow such things to happen. 

This life was designed to be a small, but important part of eternity. The Lord knew that in order for His spirit children to progress, we needed to have the chance to obtain a body, and to learn and grow. We would need to be separated from Him in order to see if we would follow Him in faith or not. He gave every human that has come to this earth a most precious gift, the ability to choose how they would live their lives. He gave us this knowing that there would be those of His children that would abuse this gift of agency. Does He have the power to stop some of these things? I'm sure He does. But I think He has the wisdom and the foresight to allow them for this short time. It was so important to Him (and to our eternal progression) that we personally choose to use our agency to follow Him or not, that He steps back and lets people use their agency for better or worse. 

And He allows other trials to refine us as well. Those that choose to follow Him in faith are not free from the burdens of this life. He gave unto men weaknesses, that we would be humble. We are subject to and endless parade of strife in this life. But, we are also given the chance to have joy in this lifetime. And if we choose to follow Him for this short journey through mortality, He has promised us that He will not leave us alone. Though the struggles may be great, and this mortal experience may be unfair, He has promised us all the blessings eternity has to offer if we but follow Him. 

To this day, I am absolutely convinced that the Lord does care for us. And I am even more convinced that when we are suffering, when we feel alone, when our hearts is broken, and we are experiencing the deepest and darkest recesses of the human experience, the Lord draws near unto us. With His arms outstretched, He is constantly inviting us to come unto Him. No matter how many times we fall, no matter how often we have rejected Him in the past, no matter our importance to the world, He cares for each and every member of the human race that has lived, is living, or ever will live. 

This I know. 


Part 1 and part 2 of this series can be found by clicking on the links. 

The Refiner's Fire: Part 2 - The Appendix | Really Random Writings

In order to understand my position on this subject, a little background information about myself may be useful for the reader.

I am a Mormon.

Or, as I prefer to think, I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I firmly believe in a Heavenly Father who loves us unconditionally, and that Jesus Christ suffered for our sins so that we could repent, as well as learn and grow from our mistakes. I also believe that there is a purpose in our trials, and that they are necessary part of life in order for us to reach our full potential as we make our way through this mortal probation. I’d like to share the story of the trial that has perhaps shaped who I am today more than any other experience.

           
In March of 2008, at the tender age of nineteen, I was called to serve a full-time two-year mission as a representative of Jesus Christ and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I received my assignment to serve in the Fukuoka, Japan mission, and could not wait to start teaching the Japanese people the Restored Gospel of Christ. I entered the Missionary Training Center (MTC) on June 4^th, 2008. Though I was very nervous, I simultaneously tried to contain my excitement to start an adventure that I had been looking forward to for as long as I could remember. The first two weeks were a whirlwind of activity as I got to know my MTC companion, Elder Bodily (as a missionary, you are always with another missionary), oriented myself to the new surroundings, the 9 missionaries I took classes with, and the both the teachers and the classes themselves. I worked as hard as I knew how to, knowing that the more I learned in the MTC, the better prepared I would be when I arrived in Japan.

Elder Bodily (right) and I in the MTC

It was about two weeks into my MTC experience when I started having problems. It started on a Sunday morning at breakfast when I started throwing up. I skipped some of my church meetings to rest, and felt better by the afternoon. The next Tuesday, the same thing happened right after breakfast. Elder Bodily, insisted that I visit the doctor. Because I had never handled stress well as a teen, I assumed that I was just stressed and told the doctor just that. I received some pills to combat nausea and lower the acid levels in my stomach, and went back to class.

For the remaining two months in the MTC, I tried to hide my sickness from everyone, especially Elder Bodily, so that I could keep attending classes and not be a disruption. I felt like I was falling behind as it was, and didn’t need anything else to keep me missing the lessons. It became a more difficult task as time progressed. I kept throwing up, experienced constant bowel problems, and the pain in my stomach became so sharp so as to feel as if a knife had been unceremoniously plunged into my side.

At night, I would lay awake for hours before exhaustion finally overcame the pain, and I could drift into unconsciousness. Almost every morning, I would wake up well before Elder Bodily’s 6:30 alarm went off. I would stare at the ceiling and wonder how on earth I was going to function normally throughout the day, or even if I would make it through the day. At breakfast, I was reduced to eating a few cubes of melon or half a bagel. I felt every morning that if I ate, I would immediately throw up, but if I didn’t eat, the hunger would become unbearable. I started losing weight. My stomach usually allowed for a few more bites of lunch, and occasionally I was able to get all of dinner down. 

On the 4^th of July, one of my MTC buddies received a package from his mom containing giant cinnamon rolls for all 10 of us in the class. I remember that day clearly, as I felt like writhing in pain during morning classes due to abdominal torment, and that delicious cinnamon roll sat in my desk for two days before I felt I could force it down. On another occasion, I dragged Elder Bodily back to our room before breakfast so I could grab my medications, knowing I would not be able to keep breakfast down that day without them. I took the pills with a mouth-full of water, and two minutes later was vomiting in the bushes on the way to the dining hall.

For two straight months, I lived in that condition. I was physically exhausted by the end of the MTC, but spiritually enriched. I felt I had progressed as far as the confines of the MTC could take me. Now, only arriving in Japan would keep me learning the language and advancing as a missionary. I tried to keep that attitude as I threw up in the gutter at the Salt Lake airport before boarding. Luckily, on the flight to Los Angeles and from there to Tokyo, my stomach decided to take a break from irritating me.

At the international airport in Narita, however, and on the flight to Fukuoka, the pain returned with a vengeance. When I first met my Mission President, the caretaker of all the missionaries in the Fukuoka mission, I was sicker than a dead dog. The good first impression that I had hoped to give him didn’t even matter in lieu of trying to not pass out.  I was once again sick at the mission home, and took care to ensure that no one knew. After a couple of days at the mission home, my fellow missionaries and I were assigned to our first areas. I was assigned to the city of Kumamoto along with Elder Bodily, although we were sent to different areas of the city.

My trainer, Elder Heywood

I arrived to be greeted by my trainer (first companion), Elder Heywood, who enthusiastically informed me that we had a full schedule for that day. I think I was too scared to notice the pain, which had subsided a little. We met several people at the church building that afternoon, and made it home just in time for curfew. The following day was full of errands as we attempted to get me set up for my time in Kumamoto. After the errands of the day, we once again taught lessons to people that had recently joined the church. Once again, while we were teaching, the pain once again reared its ugly head and the little Japanese I knew remained unused as my entire abdomen cried for relief. By the time we got home at the end of the evening, I had reached my breaking point; I could take this no longer. I could not live this way for two more days, let alone two more years. The pain threatened to engulf me with a wave of unconsciousness. 

 It was at this point I asked Elder Heywood for a Priesthood blessing. As in Biblical times, our Heavenly Father has once again given the power to man to act in his name, and use His power for the benefit of His children. Elder Heywood laid his hands on my head, and in the name of Jesus Christ, gave me a blessing to help my physical condition. It was the most calming feeling that began to course through me, and all I remember after the blessing was that I went straight to my futon, curled up, and for the first time in months, fell straight asleep. In retrospect, I now firmly believe that the blessing that Elder Heywood gave me kept me here on this earth. The man saved my life by worthily using his Priesthood on my behalf, and I will be eternally indebted to him.

The next morning, Elder Heywood and another senior missionary went to Fukuoka for a leadership training meeting, leaving me with a missionary that had been out for just six weeks. I woke up just as they headed out the door. All the shooting pains that plagued my stomach the night before had disappeared. The agony that had become a normal was almost gone. And the strangest sensation accompanied my lower right side. All that remained was a spot on my lower right side about the size of a quarter that, interestingly enough, felt cold. It was at that moment I finally realized that I was having an abnormal physical experience that would probably require medical attention. 

After much hesitation, I timidly alerted my companion-for-the-day that something was wrong. He made a phone call to the mission president, and an hour or so later, an 18 year old Japanese kid with sunglasses and a most impressive fohawk showed up with a car. I was still thinking that we were going to go to a doctor, so I was nothing short of flabbergasted to find myself a short while later parked in the Emergency Entrance of a Red Cross hospital. I still thought that severe stress had caused this, not something that presented an immediate threat to my life. I tried not to panic upon finding myself in the ER. I was even more surprised when Elder Bodily and his trainer, Elder Hicks, arrived a few minutes later. I had never before been so glad to see a familiar face. After navigating a maze of Japanese paperwork, I found myself with nothing to do for over an hour before a doctor became available. That much time left to contemplate the "how on earth did I get myself in this mess" question left little to the imagination.

After a cordial greeting from the doctor, I was introduced for the first time to a hospital bed on wheels. Elder Hicks informed me that an ultrasound was in order. The doctor didn't say a word as he stared for fifteen minutes into the gray/white screen that provided a view into my internal organs. After what seemed like an eternity, he rolled up the camera cord and started babbling to Elder Hicks. Elder Hicks listened intently, and turned to me to pass along the message. 

"They're going to need to take you in the back. The doctor is not quite sure whats going on, but they need to take another look."

At that moment, I realized that less than four days after arriving in Japan to begin my mission, I was going to be hospitalized. For the first time I could remember. In a foreign country. With minimal command of the language. And the only person I had known for more than two days was a nineteen year-old who knew as much Japanese as I did. Up to that point in my life, I cannot remember a time when I had felt so alone.

I asked if I could use the restroom, and shuffled over through the door. I stood in front of the mirror, and for the next five minutes just stared at my reflection. My thoughts flew in a thousand different directions at once, causing no shortage of wild speculation that accomplished absolutely nothing other than cause me to try fight the panic building inside of me. Eventually, I splashed some water on my face and shuffled back out to greet whatever the fates had in store for me. 

Elder Hicks and I in the hospital

I climbed back on the wheely-bed and was carted off to some back room. The pain had started to return and reached a point that tears started leaking out of the corners of my eyes. Elder Hicks said that he would see if they could get me some sort of painkiller to ease the agony in my side. After what seemed like days, I was given an IV with some sort of drug to help with the pain. I don't remember a whole lot after that, I was higher than a kite for the rest of the day.

I remember a few flashes from the remainder of that day. I remember another ultrasound, had some blood drawn, was given x-rays and woke up in the middle of a CAT scan. Later in the day, I was pulled off the bed to sit while a doctor explained what they thought was going on. I remember looking at a little drawing, and hearing that they were 99% sure that there were calcified stones in my *appendix. I had never heard of such a thing, and wondered briefly if the drugs I knew I was on simply messed with either my hearing or my thinking. I had never heard of appendix stones before, what on earth were these doctors thinking!?

The last thing I remember before going under the knife was once again emptying my stomach. They were wheeling me in towards surgery, Elder Hicks dutifully at my side, and I knew it was coming. I notified Elder Hicks, who hurriedly alerted the nurses. Despite the large amounts of drugs I had coursing through my system, the pain from my stomach as I once more threw up was unbelievable. It was hands-down the most intense pain I have ever suffered from. The only way I know how to describe it is equating it to a volcano erupting in my stomach. Mount St. Helens may be an appropriate comparison. It is something that I sincerely hope that I never have to experience again. 

As soon as I settled back down, they continued prepping me for surgery. As doctors and nurses bustled around, I once more got Elder Hicks's attention. I did not know how this little dilemma was going to end, but I knew that busted appendixes were nothing if not potentially fatal. If this was going to be my last few moments, I wanted Elder Hicks to tell my parents something. The MTC gave me ample opportunity to recognize all the my parents had done for me. I asked him to tell my parents that I loved them. And, that I knew that the Gospel, which my parents had taught me from the time I was young, as well as my reason for coming to Japan, was true.

He assured me that he would pass that message along. He then said that they were going to start the surgery here soon, and that he would be right by me when I woke up. I looked up as a masked Japanese doctor stepped into view with a large amount of milky-white liquid in a syringe. Elder Hicks said that my arm might feel very warm as they put me out. He was correct. The warmth started spreading, and that was the last sensation I remember as my consciousness slipped into a blackened abyss. 



 
*The appendix is thought to contain bacteria that is useful for digestion. When sickness flushes out those bacteria (via vomiting or diarrhea), the necessary bacterias are preserved. However, when the appendix becomes inflamed, or in my case, calcified stones wore two small holes in the appendix, it can cause severe stomach pains, lead to inflammation of the abdomen, and if not treated, to shock and death.


Part 1 and part 3 of the series can be found by clicking on the links.  

The Refiner’s Fire: Part 1 | Really Random Writings

I recently worked as a U.S. Forest Service intern in Juneau, Alaska with the Lands and Minerals groups. Part of my duties with the Minerals group involved visiting the Kensington Gold Mine and the Hecla Greens Creek Silver Mine operating on public lands. A joint Forest Service and Alaska Department of Natural Resources inspection team traveled monthly to the mines to ensure that they remained in compliance with the permits issued to mine on Forest System lands. Because I was a young geology student hoping to someday work in the mining industry, the mines consented to show me most of their operations.

         I was amazed at the laborious process of extracting and refining the ore down to a precious metal. Ore bodies in and around Juneau are well known for having large amounts of ore. The concentration of gold (or other minerals) is generally so low as to be invisible to the naked eye. At the former historic AJ mine in downtown Juneau, early miners would remove and process on average 22 tons of ore to retrieve a single ounce of gold.

         At both the Kensington and Greens Creek mines, similar processes were used to extract gold, silver, and other metals from the raw ore taken from the lode. Once geologists determine the location of mineral-rich ores, teams blast and drill unrefined rock deep underground, then truck it up to the surface. It was dumped by the mill and fed into a crusher that breaks solid rock down into small pieces that are transported via conveyer belt into the mill.

         Inside the mill, the ore enters a large rotating cylindrical machine that spins quite rapidly. Aside from the rock in the cylinder, there are large iron balls inside as well. The rock is ground down into a very fine-grained sand, perhaps more comparable to dust. From there the ore dust enters large, bubbling vats of chemicals. For some reason, the chemical, when in the form of a bubble, has the unique ability to bond with small metalliferous particles. Air is pumped into the vats of chemicals, and the tiny specs of gold, silver, and other metals are actually floated to the surface on the bubbles, where it can then be gathered. This flotation process consolidates the metals into a concentrated dust. The chemical dust mixture enters a machine similar to an accordion, where most of the moisture is pressed out, and a concentrated dust remains.

         That is the final product coming out of the mines. This dust gets shipped all over the world to go through the smelting process elsewhere. The smelting process involves using heat and chemical reducing agents to decompose the ore, eliminating gases and slag, until just the metal is left behind. Finally, after a process involving blasting, crushing, grinding, chemical extraction and heat, the unrefined ore becomes something of incredible value.

         Is life so different?

         We come into this life unrefined, with years of struggle ahead of us just to get to the point where we can walk and talk. As we grow older, we mature in our capabilities, and with those abilities come the responsibilities to shoulder the burdens that life places on our shoulders. As we struggle in the trenches of life, this mortal probation becomes a testing ground, and a refining process.

         We get bruised and battered by the experiences that life hurls at us. I suspect we have all been affected by heartbreak, death, sickness and struggle. Most know the feelings of despair and agony when life’s curve-balls deal us a blow. Like the unrefined ore, we go through a process that breaks us down. However, a professional metallurgist knows that only through this process can the full value of the ore be reached.

         Our trials, should we allow them, can weed out selfishness and hate. They can purge our soul of bitterness and anger. We can become humble and compassionate when we go through the experiences that allow us to empathize with those struggling around us. We can then realize that our inner strength comes from the ability to overcome, and that we are stronger than previously thought. We can do hard things. The proper perspective of life can be understood as we learn to submit our will to a Higher Power. Only through weeding out the unnecessary rock and tailings can gold and silver reach its true value. Only through the removal of undesirable traits can we reach our full potential.

         It is up to us to determine our final value. Ultimately the choice is ours to accept or reject the lessons taught by our trials. It is not the accumulation of our trials that determines what we become; how we allow the lessons to mold, shape, and refine us will be the decisive factor in establishing our full potential. Life’s trials bring out the best in many, or compound the negative in those that refuse to humble themselves. When we decide to rebel against anything that makes us uncomfortable, or, as the phrase goes, to “kick against the pricks,” we are essentially refusing to take advantage of the opportunity to overcome the negative qualities that we possess, refusing to take a hand in our own refining. On the other hand, should we decided to accept the heat of the refiners fire, we are transformed into something else entirely, something of eternal value.

Part 2 and part 3 of this series can be found by clicking on the links. 

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.