Homework #25: Response to Sicko

Précis

            The American health care system does more harm than good. Money is the main incentive of the health insurers, ultimately corrupting the American health care system. Insurers refuse to reimburse people because of preexisting conditions or failure to fit the standards for reimbursement. Those who do not have health insurance are constantly denied care because of their preexisting conditions or unhealthy bodies. The United States has a lot to learn from countries like Canada, Britain, France, and Cuba. Social health care provides free or significantly less expensive health services for its citizens. Treatments are free and no one is denied them. The only place on American soil that benefits from socialized health care is Guantanamo Bay, where inmates are kept.

Evidence

1. People who have health insurance still suffer and have to pay massive amounts of medical bills.

     

i.               Larry and Dona Smith both had well paid jobs and insurance, but once Larry began to suffer from heart attacks and Dona got cancer, they could no longer pay their medical bills, despite their insurance. This forced them to move in with their daughter, no longer able to afford their home.

- This demonstrates that despite having health insurance, these people were not able to afford their health care. The system did not help them, but instead led them to bankruptcy and extreme measures.

b.  The United States would do better to adopt a socialized medical system that provides free health care to help support a longer life expectancy.

           

                        i.             In France, Cuba, Britain, and Canada health care is free because of socialized medicine. People in these countries have a longer life expectancy and a lower child mortality rate.

- By showing the positive aspects of socialized medicine, Moore was able to attack the American health care system and demonstrate its ineffectiveness.

d. I investigated the claim made by Michael Moore that Cubans have a higher life expectancy rate. The article refutes this by saying that the expectancy rate is equal to that of the United States. Google Public Data states that the life expectancy of a Cuban in 2008 was 78.7 years old and in the United States 78.4 years. This is obviously not a significant difference, k therefore we can conclude that the life expectancy of both countries is generally the same. The way Moore presents his argument gives the impression that there is a much larger difference, while this one is marginal at best.

Response

            Moore attempted to discuss an interesting topic concerning health care and insurance. While his argument was at times a little shaky, he did pose some interesting ideas. A biased piece nonetheless, we were able to see one side of the debate in depth. There were stories of people with health insurance who still had to pay medical fees, leading them to bankruptcy. More tragic stories followed where people had to choose which ailment or body part was more important to fix. It is upsetting to see that our health care system exploits our needs for profit. While unnerving, it is hard to not consider all of the people that health insurance does help – where does this line exist? Medical care is obviously all about the profit, not necessarily about the welfare of the patient. It is not that they do not want to help, we are simply a capitalist country – it is in our nature. The movie made illnesses seem more like a pest, something that people in the United States would rather brush off and ignore. Our country apparently does not care quite as much as we believe, but of course this is only one side of the argument. After reading those sources provided refuting Moore’s arguments, I can only wonder who really argues the best point. It seems that the consensus is that our society needs to change health care, but not necessarily to create a socialized system like that of France. The United States would most likely not function well on such a system because it does not hold enough of the values of the people who would initiate the change. A shift such as that one would probably be devastating; instead we need to find micro solutions that can eventually lead to a macro change. 

Homework #24: Illness and Dying Book Part Three

Précis

            Paul Farmer is an anthropologist/doctor whose work revolves around infectious disease. Growing up in poverty in the United States, Farmer and his family struggled at times to make ends meet. Despite this, Farmer was educated at Harvard Medical School and devotes his time battling infectious disease in third world countries. During his time at Harvard Medical, Farmer flew back and forth to Haiti, treating patients and constructing Zanmi Lasante, his treatment center in Cange, Haiti, offering free services. He then created Partners in Health, an organization that strives to raise money and fund the battle against disease for those who cannot afford it. Jim Kim and Ophelia Dahl become his partners in heading the organization, Kim eventually opening up a branch in Peru. Because of his success in both Haiti and Peru, Farmer is then asked to extend his treatment to those contained in Russian prisons. Known for his compassion and empathy, Farmer continuously forms a strong impression on the medical community. Lowering the price of drugs, correcting flawed medical systems, and working with his patients on a personal basis, Farmer attempts to move the world’s medical structure forward.

Quotes

“It was as if in seeking out suffering in some of the world’s most desperate locales, he made himself immune to the self-consuming varieties of psychic pain,” (p. 189).

Farmer no longer suffered because it was inferior to the suffering that he found around him.

“One can guess a lot abut the economic condition of a country by inspecting the baggage people carry there from the United States, the shopping mall for the poor countries of the world,” (p. 191).

A country can be defined by what people feel they need and can afford.

“Countries with the steepest grades of inequality and the greatest poverty have the biggest AIDS problems...We need to erase social inequalities, and very few countries have done that,” (p. 199).

Social inequality leads to the spread of infectious disease.

“He was like a compass, with one leg swinging around the globe, and the other planted in Haiti,” (p. 260).

Farmer’s home was Haiti, while he addressed the issues around the world.

“He’s still going to make these hikes, he’d insist, because if you say that seven hours is too long to walk for two families of patients, you’re saying that their lives matter less than some others’, and the idea that some lives matter less is the root of all that’s wrong with the world,” (p. 294).

People need to recognize that no life is better than another in order to address the conflicts in the world.

Thoughts

            I feel that in this last third of the book, the stories became a bit repetitive. Farmer obviously made many advances in fundraising for medicine and conducting effective programs, but it was overemphasized. There was an entire section about how people did not believe that they could do what Farmer did, and he agreed. His reply however was that he wanted them to do the same thing, but it did not have to be in the same way that he did it – the one point that people do not seem to understand. Farmer’s way of approaching disease is interesting. No case is left untreated is an admirable way to go about things, one that people need to address. So many times it seems in our current medical structure people are turned down health insurance and care simply because they are already pre-diagnosed; Health insurers seem no reason to support someone already sick. Farmer does not try to defy the dominant methods instead he embraces them. The difference between him and the rest of the medical community is that money is no longer involved and every life has value, no matter the case. Maybe if we learned to see the world through the eyes of Farmer, we could begin to redefine the medical world. 

Homework #23: Illness and Dying Book Part 2

Précis

Through his organization Partners in Health, Paul Farmer has been able to address MDR Tuberculosis in third world countries.

Quotes

“Never underestimate the ability of a small group of committed individuals to change the world...indeed, they are the only ones who ever have,’ (p. 164).

Small groups are immensely powerful and have the ability to enforce change.

“We know that things change all the time. Culture changes all the time. Advertising people force changes in culture all the time. Why can’t we do that? People in international health sit back and say, ‘Will things change for the better?’” (p.175).

Everything changes, so why can’t the medical world too?

“’Resources are always limited.’ In international health, this saying had great force. It lay behind most cost-effectiveness analyses. It often meant, ‘be realistic.’ But it was usually uttered, Kim and Farmer felt, without any recognition of how, in a given place, resources had come to be limited, as if God had imposed poverty on places like Haiti,” (p. 175).

We claim that resources are limited, but neglect to understand why.

“’It bothers me even to look at it...It can’t support eight million people, and there they are. There they are, kidnapped from West Africa,” (p. 188).

Haiti has more people than it can support, creating these dire situations.

“I was looking around in my mind for a consoling way to view the roadside sights and also, frankly, for something likely to impress Farmer...I said, ‘If you’ve done it unto the least of them, you’ve done it unto me,” (p. 185).

We all are interconnected: we suffer and enjoy together.

Thoughts

            This third of the book dealt a lot with tuberculosis and its impact on third world countries. At the beginning I thought the book would revolve mostly around Haiti and Farmer’s struggle there. Instead, by the second third, the scene switches to Peru where we shown the battle against drug resistant tuberculosis. Farmer really seems to have everyone’s best interest in mind. At the beginning I was not sure if he was going to be a character I would like, but it turns out he is actually working for the greater good. With the help of his different programs, he was able to lower the cost of many drugs, making them more available for those in third world countries, ultimately helping with disease control. He seems to be less about profit and more about innovation and getting to know the patient. Health has become a luxury in our world but it is clear that he sees it as a vital aspect of life and will do anything to ensure that everyone has it. The book is all about finding alternatives to the system. While he may use generally traditional methods, he also goes beyond the boundaries and explores overlooked areas. Unlike most doctors who work for the money, Farmer seems to really care about his patients and undermines the corrupt structure of the medical world. I am interested to see where his work brings him in the next third of the book. 

Homework # 22: Illness and Dying Book Part One

Précis

Paul Farmer grew up in a less than ideal childhood, ultimately influencing his great compassion for those less fortunate than even he.

Quotes

“Sorcery is, at bottom, the Haitians’ way of explaining suffering, but the allegations themselves can cause suffering,” (p. 27).

Haitians believe not only in traditional medicine but find substance in voodoo methods.

“Is there a more widespread notion than the one that rural people are laconic, and is there a rural place anywhere in the world whose people really are?” (p. 43).

           

People in rural settings enjoy socializing while the majority seems to believe they don’t.

“’Medicine is a social science, and politics is nothing but medicine on a large scale,” (p. 61).

Our society evolves around the science of medicine.

“Patients, it seemed, formed not just a calendar of past events but a large mnemonic structure, in which individuals faces and small quirks – he’d remember, for instance, that a certain patient had a particular kind of stuffed animal in his hospital room – were like an index to the symptoms, the pathophysiology, the remedies for thousands of ailments,” (p. 113).

Farmer approaches medicine in a very personal way, getting to know his patients well.

Thoughts

            So far the book has been quite inspiring in terms of medicine. Paul Farmer, the doctor discussed, addresses the health needs of individuals in Haiti who cannot afford to pay for their medical services. He seems to do it for the patients, not for himself. A lot of doctors tend to shut themselves off from their patients, keep everything impersonal. Instead, Farmer gets to know his patients and understands their needs. Living in Haiti means he has to deal with a different political climate and cultural beliefs. Farmer takes these into account when he tries to go about healing the personal, and I think this seems to really make an impact not only on their health but also on their lives. The only thing is, that I believe he is generally a traditional doctor. In this book the accustomed medical procedures are used but in this case they seem quite effective. Holistic methods might not appear as reliable to the Haitians, they might see it as a thing that contradict their ideas of voodoo. Up till this point Farmer has appeared as a saint, somebody who is really dedicated to the health of others. 

Homework #21b: Comments

For Ben: I liked that you made a lot of connections in your post, but maybe you could've elaborated a little more. For instance, did it seem to help your mother's friend feel more positive when you avoided the subject of death? Or maybe, why was it so spectacular to you that Beth had her 13 year old son help her? I can imagine why, but it would be interesting to hear about it too. Otherwise I thought your post was really interesting considering the fact that you seemed to be able to understand Beth's motives through your own personal experience.

For Devin: "Good relationships create harmony in the world, and I am certain that for Beth the atmosphere of harmony that she created with the people at the hospital made life more pleasant for everyone and took away some of the stress of a very stressful time. " I thought this was nicely written as you make it a general statement that is not only applicable in Beth's case. I think a lot of people tend to overlook the importance of relationships that they might not consider significant. 
The last paragraph I also found really interesting. I never knew that people had these types of hallucinations, but I think they're almost comforting, like you said as people have an "awareness of their own death." Also the idea of "some new part of the world not yet visited" as if death is simply a parallel universe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


From Devin:
I was really impressed with the connection you made from your own experience with your dad to Beth's treatment of all those who were helping her husband in the hospital. Without judging your father (we all have our impatient moments), the fact that you felt so badly for the waitress and could imagine I think that if he had suddenly started choking she might not have performed the Heimlich Maneuver with much gusto. Hospital workers are paid to help patients but they are obviously going to perform their jobs with more good will when they are treated with respect, and even more than respect with friendship. Your mother's story about the poor man who died alone was really interesting because of your point that maybe it is easier to die if you don't have anyone to live for. It's true that a dying person would naturally feel terrible about leaving people who are dependent on them. On the other hand I think for many people death is scary because whether you have people or not to share your life death is still scary because it is unknown. Obviously you’re an excellent writer and this is an excellent blog post. I would like to emphasize the magnitude of your last line “When does death stop being the enemy…and become the natural idea.” Death has been my greatest enemy for as long as I can remember, and I think it will take an awful lot for me to picture it as “the most natural idea,” but I hope I can. In fact, ideally I hope I can think of it as a great adventure when my time comes (but I wouldn’t put any money on it.)

From Ben:  I love the depth of thought that you put into this homework. For instance, when you said  "Without relationships, maybe you would treat death as an old friend, ready to finally take  you away. We seem to only fear death because of fear of what we’ll miss." That statement  really got me thinking, and was more insightful than anything I could have thought of.  I also really liked the way that you represented many of your ideas. You asked the reader  a lot of questions, a technique that for me, adds more meaning to what you're saying and  certainly captures my attention more than just ordinary statements. Great Job!

Homework #21: Expert Number One

• Beth wanted her husband to be treated as a person, not simply as a patient. Thus his room was strewn with pictures of his family and his own artwork, to show the life behind the dying man.
• Everyone was a human being in Beth’s mind; she asked about their personal lives, made sure they knew that they were just as significant to the healing of her husband, no matter the size of the task the person performed.
• Instead of receiving the assistance of hospice care, she took care of her husband herself. Why should people who barely know him manage some of the most intimate moments of his life?
• Her husband experience hallucinations and raised his arms, almost as if he were protecting himself from death itself.
• At the time of his passing there was an indescribable stillness.
• The only way death is bearable is when relationships are present in one’s life.
• Some wisdom comes from the process: one gains the sense of reality that we are not immortal.

                “Everyone was a human being in her mind; she asked about their personal lives, made sure they knew that they were just as significant to the healing of her husband, no matter the size of the task the person performed.” When hearing this, I remember thinking back to one day up in the Finger Lakes with my parents, we had gone out to dinner. We walked into the completely empty restaurant and my father chose a table for us. The waitress kindly came up to us and expressed that this was not the appropriate place to sit – this room was only used between certain hours. She noted that she would be happy to bring us outdoors where we could eat on the terrace. My father, aggravated, yelled at the waitress, describing the inconvenience of the situation. I stood there embarrassed, urging my father to stop. In no way was one of us ill, or dying, but there I stood with a father, treating another human being as if she had no worth. I thought of myself in the hospital, him becoming impatient with the nurse, and I therefore would not receive the same respect in the hospital. It was a scene I wished to never see played out in real life. I realized myself that these people do not need to help us, under no obligation do they have to take our blood, x-ray our bodies, or prop up our pillows, but they do. They help us so much but in return we dehumanize them. Why do we see them as so insignificant? Is it the way they walk, or dress? Or simply that they probably did not go through as much training to attain that position as the head doctor? Weird that we act superior to them, when they probably have the most important tasks of all. They save lives – a doctor may analyze our situation, but these people provide the evidence to help maintain our very existence.

                         Maintaining relationships not only with the x-ray technician, but also loved ones was a prominent aspect of Beth and Erik’s struggle. Beth states, “The only way death is bearable is when relationships are present in one’s life.” Loved ones are there to keep you strong, to keep you going. Sometimes a little motivation is all we need to overcome something – to succeed. But I wonder what it is like to die without anyone. At the dinner table a couple weeks ago my mother told a story about when she was a social worker and had to hold a funeral for a man who no longer had anyone else to do it for him. The state paid for it and it was an open event for people to go to: few did. It was poorly funded and truly sad to watch. But we do not know, maybe it was easier for the man to accept death. With nothing to hold onto, what is there to keep you from embracing peace? In the process of his death, he had no one there to hold his hand or stroke his hair and tell him everything was going to be okay. So many would see this as treacherous, unfathomably terrible that a person would have to go through something so intense, alone. But this process shed all the lies; nothing was hidden from sight – his life was in his own hands. He was able to let go without fretting for the welfare of his children, or if his wife could manage keeping the house. With no loose ends to tie, he could fall into a deep sleep. I am not saying that I would personally want to go this way; I doubt most people would, but perhaps that Beth’s statement is not entirely true. Relationships while thrilling and at the same time comforting, can begin to hide the truth, make a person hate death for taking them away from the things they love. Without relationships, maybe you would treat death as an old friend, ready to finally take you away. We seem to only fear death because of fear of what we’ll miss.

            Beth’s entire story was really captivating – honestly I almost started crying. If I can cry just because of someone else’s story, someone who told it so strongly, I cannot imagine how I would be going through it myself. It was interesting to see the way Beth decided to portray the process of her husband’s death. At the beginning she sucked her bottom lip, her eyes a little glossy it seemed. But as Andy finished his preface, and she began, it seemed that the woman who had be sitting there before was gone. Beth told the story so confidently, even going so far as to scold her husband for being foolish, while I believe most people would not dare think of the dead in such a fashion. I simply wonder, how? How was it so easy to talk about such a hard topic? I understand that we were the last class, and that years have passed, but the images that came forward must have been heart breaking. Death is a scary thing for most people, but it seemed to have lost its advantage over Beth. She even said herself, “One gains the sense of reality that we are not immortal.” Shrugging her shoulders she threw out there the commonest of statements, “We’re all going to die”, but unlike most, knew what she was talking about. People let those words slide from their mouth, not really understanding what is they are saying, shrugging their shoulders as to say, “so what?” But Beth did not do that, instead she showed acceptance. When though will we all be able to accept this? Or will that time never come? When does death stop being the enemy, the one who stole the person you loved most, and become the most natural idea?

            

Homework #19: Family Perspectives on Illness & Dying

I started off my interview with the question “what is your first reaction when you are sick? Both my parents seemed intent on going to lie down and separating themselves from others in order to get better. It seems that isolation is in the root of our minds; we believe that when we are sick, we need to be alone, just as our society believes that any one who is sick should be sent to the hospital – separated. Eventually we began talking about knowing someone who is or was fatally ill. They both spoke of personal experiences, especially describing the feelings involved in interacting with the person. It seemed that they were all about being honest with the person, that there was no point in acting like they were any different, because it only made the person feel worse. Funny, considering the fact that when my parents are sick they said they try to be alone, isolate themselves, but when someone they love is sick, they do not want them to feel isolated at all.

            My father also mentioned that it seemed unfair that the person had to go through a fatal illness, that sometimes it is not their fault; it is simply in their blood. He also stated that death does not always have to be sad thing; sometimes someone puts up a strong battle and it is admirable. They lived for as long and as well as they could until they were taken over by disease. Society on the other hand tends to focus on the negatives, the fact that not only a life is ceasing to exist, but also classifies the topic as a complete taboo. My grandfather for example has or had prostate cancer; he avoids the subject at all costs, even to the point where we can only assume his treatment has been successful. I myself have never really had any experience with someone who is fatally ill; I cannot exactly say what I would do. I hope though, that I would be able to be honest with the person and make them feel as comfortable as possible.

            As my father said, sometimes battles can be quite admirable, a reason to respect the death of a person. When I asked my mother if she would consider a holistic method, she said yes, definitely. This is partly due to the fact that my mother knows people who have had the type of admirable story that my father was referencing, gained through holistic methods. My aunt, before I was born, was extremely sick with skin cancer. Her doctor said to her that the medicine she could give her would do 20% of the work – of the healing, but that it was up to my aunt to do the rest. The doctor had her going to therapy in order to help her maintain a positive attitude and avoid depression. In addition, my aunt took vitamins everyday and through these tactics ended up defeating the cancer. While she did have prescribed medication, a lot of her healing ended up being through mental counseling. My father on the other hand mentioned my mother’s chiropractor and said, “I just think he’s a wacky guy.” While he did note that he would try a holistic method, he does not seem to weigh in on this idea as heavily as my mother. I feel confident saying that my father takes the more traditional route in relying on the typical white-coated doctor. But then again when I asked him which doctor he trusts the most out of the one’s he has had so far, none came to mind.

            I myself was at my mother’s chiropractor over the summer because I had not been feeling all that great. He pushed into my stomach, had me raise my arm and hold it while he tried to push it down. My arm was easily defeated by his strength, which apparently clued him in to exactly what was wrong with me. I had a physical with my regular doctor the next day as I had just returned from Germany and I asked her opinion of my problem. She laughed when I mentioned that I had been to a chiropractor the day before. The funny thing is, they both ended up giving me the same advice, coming from two completely different perspectives. I ended up taking the supplements that the chiropractor had prescribed and was already feeling better within a day. In terms of medicine I do feel like I identify a bit more with my mother as I do put a little more faith in holistic methods than maybe my father would.

            While my father does not hold quite as much respect for the holistic methods, both he and my mother try to avoid medication at all costs. My mother feels like medication is over prescribed these days, that people are taking medicine for things that could probably heal on their own. In agreement, my father also added that people seemed dependent on the drugs, using them as an excuse to live an unhealthy lifestyle.  I believe a lot of this attitude comes from observations of their parents. Alice, my mother’s mother is suffering from old age – she is forgetting things, does not always feel in best shape. The doctors prescribed her over 10 different medicines, which my mother felt was a little much. She took it upon herself to research the drugs, to at least know what her mother was becoming so dependent on. It turns out, half of the medications were simply duplicates of the others. My mother, infuriated, spoke to the doctors with her findings as evidence and ended up convincing them to take my grandmother off a majority of the drugs. You would imagine that my grandmother would be grateful for it, which I am sure in some way she was, but above all, she trusted the doctors to do what was right for her. The medical world holds a lot of significance to my grandmother; she assumes that what they say is always correct, simply the only way it is to be done. Therefore she finds comfort in the drugs, which probably frightened her when she learned that some would be taken away from her. Her ex-husband, or my grandfather also must take lots of medication as he had open-heart surgery at the age of forty. While my grandmother embraces the drugs thrust upon her, my grandfather has enough pride to counter the doctors as much as possible. But when it comes down to it, he needs to take the medication to survive.

            The final question that I asked was “if you had one year to live, what would you do”. While the answers generated in class were interesting, we are all unwed and without children. The possibilities seem endless to us because we have nothing to tie us down. I myself said travel, which just happened to be the first words out of my mother’s mouth. “A year off of life” as she calls it; she would take my family and I to Europe and explore – just goof off for a year. Her answer came quick and easy, as if it were the simplest question in the world. When I asked my father, I was bombarded with back up questions. “How much money do I have? Am I fatally ill? Or am I just going to get shot at the end of the year?” He took the question a lot more seriously than most do. In the reality of it all, we must come to terms with the actual possibility of us being able to do the things we want – unfortunately there are factors that determine what we can and cannot do. Ultimately he decided that he would tie up all of his affairs, leaving my family and me as much money as possible. He said he wanted my sister and me to be happy that he had finally passed on, and to not remember him physically, but instead have an everlasting impression of him in our minds. Or in other words, he wanted to be remembered for the deeds he performed, the people he helped, and the lessons he taught, rather than how he looked. We would be free to forget his face, but not his ideals. All he could possibly think about was making sure that after he had moved on, we would continue to have great lives, so that if our kids were to ask us this question, we would have a better answer than he did. 

Homework #18: Health & Illness & Feasting

While our society is generally fixed around nurturing the mind, Thanksgiving has become about pleasuring the body – giving it satisfaction through food. It seems odd that we would choose such a route to honor the Pilgrims who migrated to the United States and wiped out the indigenous people. But maybe because we focus so much on our bodily pleasures through feasting, for one day we are able to ignore our minds and the cruelty that actually lies in the event that we celebrate. Many people look at Thanksgiving as a day when our stomachs have no limit, we instead eat as much as we possibly can, knowing that we will probably not consume turkey in this form for another year.

My family takes part in the Thanksgiving tradition, especially the consummation of tons of unhealthy foods. Thanksgiving is celebrated on my dad’s side of the family: he has five brothers and sisters, four of which have two kids, his one sister with only a daughter; all together we have 26 people. This side of the family is generally healthy; regardless of the fact that they grew up on a lot of processed foods having a large family, and especially considering the fact that my grandmother is a terrible cook. But through growing up with such an interesting diet, they seem to have survived with quite fit, durable bodies. The consummation of our Thanksgiving foods does not seem to bother them. We of course have the turkey and mashed potatoes, also accompanied by one or two salads (which never seem to be finished by the end of the day) and sweet mashed potatoes with cooked marshmallows on top. The meal is far from healthy, and the healthiest part – the salads – seem to be eaten the least. I am not sure how the rest of them eat outside of holidays, but I can say that they focus on pleasure. Health in the foods is lacking, but that has never seemed the point of Thanksgiving.

Besides taking pleasure in food, the men of course found pleasure in watching football, all passed out on the couches rooting for teams they did not even care about normally. This eventually turned into a ping-pong tournament downstairs between a couple of the uncles and boy cousins. Thanksgiving used to take place at my grandparents’ house; they too have a ping-pong table. I guess I could say that it is indeed a tradition to play ping-pong on Thanksgiving, while I doubt it would be mentioned if anyone in the family were to be asked about the traditions of Thanksgiving. The people in my family take pleasure in competition, and this is a perfect outlet for them when we all come together. People, or at least my family, come together to take pleasure in a meal created by all of them, but also to see those whom they love.

This Thanksgiving we also celebrated my grandparents’ 60^th wedding anniversary. It was initially during the summer, but it was impossible to get everyone together to celebrate it. This was actually the first time we have had the entire family together in probably three years. Nobody was sure how to celebrate their marriage; each aunt and uncle ended up saying ten things for which they thanked my grandparents. Each shared small anecdotes, reminiscing on their times as children. My grandmother and grandfather sat there on the verge of tears, simultaneously roaring with laughter. They were thanked for their humor, their support, for their appreciation of other people’s good cooking. My grandfather stood up at the end and thanked everyone; he said he hoped they both could hold on a little longer. As he sat down I wondered to myself if he was scared of dying. Or if, because he could make a joke of it, he accepted it. Both my grandparents have had their share of battles in the health department, it seemed that they always healed, always held on for us. It was weird to think that one day they would be defeated.

Saying goodbye to 26 people at once is a hard thing, each person receives a hug and always has something extra to say, whether it be about college or the shoes I am wearing. I went to hug my cousin Mickey goodbye and he said, “I’ll see you at Christmas, unless someone dies before then.” I gave him a weird look and told him to not say that, it was terrible. He assured me that it was just a joke, that nobody would die. In the car home my parents were discussing the Christmas party that we throw every year for this side of the family. It was hard to find a date because so many people had other commitments. It came down to deciding whom we would rather not have there, because it would be impossible for everyone to come. I take thanks in the fact that we can still decide who is not going to come, not that someone cannot come because they are no longer there, that no matter the date, their chair will still be empty. 

Homework #17: First Thoughts on the Illness & Dying Unit

            As a kid I thought I was invincible, that no disease or sickness could penetrate my immune system. I guess I do still think along these lines; anything as serious as cancer or diabetes seems outside my realm of sickness. In a world like ours it is hard to be realistic about illness, especially when you are not directly impacted by it. No one in my immediate family has ever had such a fatal illness, one that has mental effects on the entire family. Maybe because of that, fatal illness does not appear as a physical thing to me, but as a mere idea floating around in the distant future, if ever. Being sick in general, like having a cold, is an entirely common thing in our society. We see it as no threat to ourselves and because of that fail to notice when it becomes any the more serious. We convince ourselves that it is nothing, that we will get better. While I take part in this notion entirely, I am also the complete hypochondriac. I contradict myself in the way that I think about illness. On one hand I believe I am “invincible”, but at the same time I work up a sweat over anything as small as a headache. A couple years ago I had a terrible headache for a few days, it was a bug that had been going around. I had never had a headache quite like it, so it scared me. I lay in bed one night convincing myself I had a brain tumor until the point when I could no longer take it, and ran downstairs to my parents for consolation. While I have a feeling of being invincible, it seems that any idea that comes close to breaking down this wall of ignorance, brings fear. I fear becoming ill, dying.

            I have never really been close to anyone who has died, except for maybe my dog when I was three. We had left him outside on a leash tied up while we were down the beach. He broke loose and ran into the highway, where a car ran him over. He was found later and buried, but I did not go to see him. I did not really realize what was going on, what had happened, while my sister sat there crying. But maybe it is not the same, having a person ill and dying, as opposed to a pet that was perfectly healthy and did not have to suffer. I cannot imagine being in a hospital, dreading the news of my own illness, or perhaps that of a close relative. In Germany my host grandmother from my first host family had cancer and we went to visit her. The hospital was completely sterile and white, it made me uncomfortable. I remember seeing her, she did not look sick to me at all. Her hair was oddly highlighted with pink colors, something that puzzled me. When I hugged her she had a pungent smell to her, as if she had not bathed in weeks. I barely spoke the language, so my verbal interaction was minimal. All I could do was try not to stare or look at her funny. I felt awkward about the situation, I had only known the family a week but I was already experiencing their ill grandmother. It seemed too personal a situation to invite a stranger into.

            In the American culture illness is seen as such a private matter, one almost to be embarrassed about. We isolate people when they become sick, they become “lesser”. As harsh as it may seem, and as hard as we try to avoid it, it is rooted in the very notion of our speech and body language.  It seems a hassle to take care of them, while their actual caretakers show no compassion. People would rather not be surrounded by the sick, just as I felt uncomfortable watching another family’s misery. When in a hospital I feel timid and wince when I see someone suffering. As much as we would each like to say that we treat everyone equally, there is a large amount of pity going around for those suffering. Elderly people are also treated as incapable of doing things. There are so many instances where they are completely ignored or made fun of; they are seen as week. But is this really justified? Each and every one of us will die eventually, and most of us will follow their path. Why is it then that we treat them so horribly? Is it denial? Are we convincing ourselves that we will never reach that level of defeat? Who knows? People are ill and dying all around us, but we still treat it as this abnormality, a reason to look down at another person. I do not think we intend to show that we are better than them, because in a lot of ways I am sure we are not. This separation is created to define the “normal” and the “abnormal”. But as this course demonstrates, the normal is weird.

            Once this separation exists though, between the sick and the healthy, can the sick ever truly rejoin the side of the healthy? We may break a bone, sprain an ankle, get a deep cut, but the injury eventually heals, it does not prevent us from carrying out the simple task of living our lives. But the aftermath of the injury is still there: the person might run a little less hard, be less passionate, for fear of re-injury. Is this person the same as they were before? Should they still be deemed again healthy, normal, when in fact they no longer perform as well as they did before? But then does this not make us all abnormal, since we have all experienced a cold, or gotten a scrap? If this is so, then there seems to be no logical reason to have a divide at all; there is no reason to isolate the sick. When we isolate them, we put up this wall, a boundary, something that prevents us from accepting the truth. This boundary forms the awkwardness that one feels, when presented with a sick person. It causes this subconscious opposition towards what we deem not normal. But indeed none of us are normal, by our own definition. We should be able to talk about someone’s sickness with them and not have it be rude and “something that one simply doesn’t do”. Illness is normal, and people must accept it, then maybe we can finally rest in peace.

           

            

Homework #11: Final Food Project 1

For the final food project part one, I decided to be a vegetarian from Wednesday night through Sunday – almost a full school week. I had tried being a vegetarian before, even a vegan, but the food that I cooked had never really appealed to me. On Wednesday night I was reading over the assignment and decided to give it another try. This time it would only be experimental, so I guess knowing that I soon was going to be allowed to eat meat again made it less intense. I was much more open to trying new things.

            Luckily Wednesday night my mother had already prepared a completely vegetarian meal of hummus, pita, spinach pie, and salad. But Thursday is when the struggle actually began. I had a yogurt for breakfast, but then went to internship where they order out everyday. They decided to have Subway sandwiches that afternoon, which I unfortunately could not take part in. I had to awkwardly state that I had become a vegetarian for school for a couple days, and that I would instead be going to Whole Foods around the corner. I arrived at Whole Foods confident that I could easily find something to eat. Instead I realized that over at the salads bars all I wanted was the chicken dosed in some delicious looking sauce. Sadly I had to pull myself away and after examining the odd looking rice, I settled for a mixture of different pasta salads. It tasted great when I ate it, but I could not help feeling like it was not the best choice, that if I was really going to keep this up I should not only be eating carbohydrates. I finished that night off with a tomato, mozzarella, pesto sandwich, which was delicious. The vegetarian thing did not seem all that bad.

            With Friday, it had already become sort of a routine. I had my yogurt again for breakfast, and then for lunch had avocado and cucumber sushi with a bag of salt and vinegar chips. That night I did not end up eating much, but instead munching on a little pita and hummus throughout the night. Saturday morning instead of my yogurt, I had an everything bagel with cream cheese. That afternoon after my soccer game my mother made me a vegetarian burrito with sour cream, guacamole, beans, corn, rice and salsa. Being a vegetarian still allowed me to eat a lot of the same foods just without meat. For dinner I had tofu that was lightly toasted with breadcrumbs and Sunday morning I started off again with a bagel. Overall, I honestly do not feel that different. But I guess that’s because I have probably gone four days without eating meat before, just without realizing it. I feel like if I continue this further, I might actually begin to feel healthier. But then if I were to do that, it would probably be best for me to set up guidelines for myself, so that I continue to have a balanced diet, not one solely based on one thing. Through this process, I began to understand the other side of things. I almost began to feel better about myself as a person, knowing that my diet no longer consisted of industrialized meat.

            Michael Pollan discusses vegetarianism in The Omnivore’s Dilemma. He makes a good point that even though the vegetarian is eating vegetables and corn, animals like squirrels are being killed around the crops as to decrease damages to them. Vegetarians are then technically supporting the killing of animals. Maybe this leads us to create a different basis for vegetarianism. Instead of focusing purely on the death of animals, we can choose to not eat meat as to not harm our bodies with the chemicals and disease that rest in the meat. This base seems to make a lot more sense, because no matter how you eat, animals’ lives are still at risk.  But are we fooling ourselves. Who is to say too, that the vegetables vegetarians eat are not covered in pesticides? That would obviously mean that they would then only eat organic vegetables. But as we have learned from Pollan, organic does not always mean healthy. Our society is so set on industrial farming and mass production that the organic farms also feel the need to become industrialized. This has led so far to lower standards and bending the rules. One farm that Pollan describes has a lawn outside of the chicken house that the chickens never actually use. It is solely there for the purpose of demonstrating that the animals still have access to outdoor areas. If the organic farmers strive to find loopholes in the organic farming industry with animals, who is to say it is not the same for the plants that vegetarians eat? It is ethically hard to be a vegetarian, when the system is so corrupt. Our food system has become such an industrial atrocity, that it makes it hard to eat healthy anymore, even with eliminating meat from our diets.

            Although Pollan has proved that being a vegetarian in this food system does not always result in eating as purely as one wants, vegetarianism is still important. It is a form of protest against the industrial meat system; the refusal to fill our bodies with harmful chemicals, and also the refusal to eat animals that have suffered. As a meat eater myself I do not find it hard to stand the idea of eating an animal, but I do agree with the idea that they should not suffer, which rotational grazing at Polyface Farms has provided. But the more vegetarians we have, it is possible that slowly the system will change; nothing is impossible. When we were hunters and gatherers, we had a much more refined system with integrity. With vegetarianism, we are pushing for that integrity again, but this time without meat. It is not to say that eating meat is a bad thing, I myself eat meat, but the ethics behind the meat in our country are completely skewed. It has come to the point where we no longer know what we are eating and who prepares the food we eat. Being a vegetarian is a step closer to understanding our food and having a direct connection with the earth through the food we eat. The sun energy is being directly transferred from plant to body, instead of through our meat system that takes all value away.

Homework #12: Final Food Project 2 - Outline

Introduction

Thesis: The dominant social practices in the current American society - which are to be believed a part of life’s normal routine - are in reality nightmarish industrial atrocities.

Body Paragraphs

Argument One

Major Claim: Our routine industrial food system, as normal as it seems, is damaging to both human and animal health through its opposition to the rules of evolution.

Supporting Claim One: Confined Animal Feeding Operations are unhealthy for the animals that live in them.

Evidence One: Animal byproducts in feed cause mad-cow disease. ¹

Evidence Two: Cows who eat grain can develop liver abscesses and sudden death syndrome. ¹

Evidence Three: Feeding corn to the animals goes against their nature, causing the over diagnosis of antibiotics.⁴

Evidence Four: The chemicals from the plants cause severe sickness in the animals.³

Evidence Five: The animals suffer mentally because they can’t react on their instincts.⁶

Supporting Claim Two:  Humans suffer through the chemicals in the animals, from the environment that CAFOs create, and through the subsidizing of corn.

Evidence One: Corn fed to animals is dosed in pesticides, which are transferred to the human. ¹

Evidence Two: Corn-fed beef is far less nutritional to the human.¹

Evidence Three:  The operations create air pollution, damaging our health.²

Evidence Four: Chemical runoff pollutes the water surrounding the CAFOs.⁵

Evidence Five: Subsidizing corn makes it cheaper, but makes unhealthier foods more available to low income families; giving them no choice.^8,9

Evidence Six: Obesity rates are higher than ever before.⁷

Works Cited

¹ http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/feed/

² http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/ra05/mlc3_05.html

³ http://www.public-health.uiowa.edu/ehsrc/cafostudy/cafo_6-2.pdf

⁴ “One of the most troubling things about factory farms is how cavalierly they flout these evolutionary rules, forcing animals to overcome deeply ingrained aversions. We make them trade their instincts for antibiotics,” (p. 76, The Omnivore’s Dilemma).

⁵ http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=7

⁶ “The proper measure of their suffering, in other words, is not their prior experiences but the unremitting daily frustration of their instincts,” (p. 310, The Omnivore’s Dilemma).

⁷ http://st4tic.wordpress.com/2008/04/25/corn-subsidies-how-congress-is-shortchanging-our-health-and-sweetening-things-for-the-food-industry/

⁸ “But as productive and protean as the corn plant is, finally it is a set of human choices that have made these molecules quite as cheap they have become...” (p. 108, The Omnivore’s Dilemma).
9 "When food is abundant and cheap, people will eat more of it and get fat,” (p. 102, The Omnivore’s Dilemma).

Homework #10: Food Inc. Response

            Our food system is generated out of industry and organic farming. The Industrial food industry is completely corn and chemical based. These chemicals that are fed to the cows and put on the corn eventually infect our bodies in the form of viruses such as E. Coli. Corn has become subsidized, making it possible to use it cheaply to extend many different products. This in turn supports an unhealthy diet, especially for impoverished people. The industrialized food production system makes it so that they only food they can actually afford is the unhealthy food. On the other hand we also have the organic food industry. There are farms such as Polyface farm that supply meat from grass fed animals. Joel Salatin sees his farm as natural: the animals do all of the work. This type of farming uses no chemicals and the slaughtering of at least the chickens is done directly on the farm performed by him and his workers. This type of farming introduces a healthy alternative to industrial farming. Through our industrial farming we have developed an “I to It” relationship to the world and its inhabitants. In other words, a pig for example, is only a mere object to us with no life quality. We need to start seeing everything as “I to You”.

            A movie is a visual adaptation of a book, but the two do not always demonstrate the significance of information equally. In The Omnivore’s Dilemma everything is thoroughly explained through narrative and facts. The reader is able to form their own visuals in their mind, leading them to their own degree of insightfulness. During the film, the visuals are already provided, which I guess you could say is hard fact. We are then able to interpret everything from seeing, but no longer have an in depth explanation by those whose creation we are watching. The viewer has full freedom to understand what they are seeing in a unique way. Food Inc. offers the ideas of two different authors and this physical view of what was being examined. But secretly, they do influence our interpretations through the music that plays in the background. Anything that they consider bad has a very dark and sinister beat, while the more natural farming presented is accompanied by happy, upbeat music. The book does not alter our thoughts in this way; it only provides what it thinks through words, which we analyze through the process of reading.

            The movie was a lot like the book, and the book in turn filled in many of the gaps in the movie, so I do not have too many questions left. I can say though that I agree with the ideas presented. Our food system is really out of control and is no longer humane. The government is promoting bad health habits in impoverished areas, and then says it is their own fault. Instead of placing the blame on the poor, we need to stop subsidizing junk food, which is causing all of these problems. This food system is at fault for so many of the things wrong with our country. These diseases that are breaking out just because of infected meat are ridiculous. Why do people seem to care so little about food? It is such a personal and accounted for object in our lives.  Not only that, we seem to have learned to ignore the value of life. The animals that we are killing live in such unhealthy states and are slaughtered without playing their actual role in nature. We could say that we do not value our own lives either, because we feed ourselves these infected foods and encourage people to buy unhealthy foods because of their low price. The entire system is corrupt, from the processing of the food, to those who should be evaluating the processing. We have the wrong people in charge; the people, who themselves worked in industrial farming and started this ongoing fad. The entire system needs to change, but it probably never will. 

           

            

Homework #7d: The Omnivore's Dilemma

Chapter Seventeen – The Ethics of Eating Animals

Précis

            People believe that we should treat animals as equals because we both have “not suffering” in our best interests. The slaughter of animals can only be justified when they live a happy life before the slaughtering.

Gems

“It may be that our moral enlightenment has advanced to the ponnit where the practice of eating animals – like our former practices of keeping slaves or treating women as inferior beings – can now be seen for the barbarity it is, a relic of an ignorant past that very soon will fill us with shame,” (p. 305).

“Half the dogs in America will receive Christmas presents this year, yet few of us ever pause to consider the life of the pig – an animal easily as intelligent as a dog – that becomes the Christmas ham,” (p. 307).

“If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit non-humans for the same purpose?” (p. 307).

“But where their interests are the same, the principle of equality demands they receive the same consideration. And the one all-important interest humans share with pigs, as with all sentient creatures, is an interest in avoiding pain,” (p. 308).

“The proper measure of their suffering, in other words, is not their prior experiences but the unremitting daily frustration of their instincts,” (p. 310).

Thoughts

            This idea makes sense: why should animals not be our equals? Obviously this does not mean inclusiveness in our political society, but that we should respect their social structure. Animals themselves have evolved to have their own set of rules and necessities that we need to respect. It is completely unfair of us to take away their habitats only for our benefit. I am not saying that vegetarianism is necessarily the way to go, but we need to give the animals their natural habitats in our industrialized farming. The cruelty really begins when nature becomes industry and the animals no longer are living beings but mere objects, which we consume.

            Is there really any such thing as a vegetarian or vegan? There was a part of the chapter that talked about how the vegetables that vegans eat need protection. This protection involves killing any predators in the area. They therefore may not be eating the meat, but are still supporting the slaughter of animals. It seems that in our society there is no way of getting around the death of animals. But at least we can begin to justify it by treating them as humanely as possible. 

Chapter Eighteen – Hunting: The Meat

Précis

            Hunting is a natural process that humans have developed through evolution. Genetically, we have a sense of pride in killing an animal, but from a distance we notice its immorality.

Gems

“But this is not a passive or aesthetic attention; it is a hungry attention, reaching out into its surroundings like fingers, like nerves,” (p. 334).

“Predator and prey alike move according to their own maps of this ground, their own forms of attention, and their own systems of instinct, systems that evolved expressly to hasten or avert precisely this encounter...” (p. 336).

“A brain chemical that sharpens the senses, narrows your mental focus, allows you to forget everything extraneous to the task at hand (including physical discomfort and the passage of time), and makes you hungry would see to be the perfect pharmacological tool for man the hunter,” (p. 342).

“Only the hunter, imitating the perpetual alertness of the wild animal, for whom everything is danger, sees everything and sees each thing functioning as facility or difficulty, as risk or protection,” (p. 343).

“And although Ortega says one does not hunt in order to kill, he also says that one must kill in order to have hunted,” (p. 349).

Thoughts

            I can perfectly understand Pollan’s mixed feelings about the death of the pig. Hunting used to dominate the human food chain hundreds of years ago; therefore it is only natural that we have developed a quality of pride. It is our society that creates the immoral views that now cause this ambiguity. I am not saying it is right to kill animals; it is only in our nature. At the end of the chapter he discusses how the sun feeds the tree, which provides the acorn, which the pig eats, and the humans in turn in the pigs. But then, the humans decompose back into the earth and nurture the soil, ultimately completing the cycle. Everything has served its purpose, then can we really call it inhumane to kill an animal?

            He seems to be quite scared of actually shooting the pig. I would be too; to take another’s life seems intense. I believe his fear came from his desire to not kill the pig. He felt uncomfortable in the situation he was in and deep down did not really want to follow through with it. But once he shot the pig, this whoosh of adrenaline came in. Are these chemicals in our brain really adapted from the hunting days? It seems that the views of our society counteract these chemicals and deem hunting an “unworthy act”. But maybe that is again just going against the evolutionary path. 

Chapter Nineteen – Gathering: The Fungi

Précis

            Gathering is another activity that the human has adapted super senses for. It can, though, represent a greater dilemma for the omnivore because of the risks of false identification.

Gem

“The gardener is a confirmed dualist, dividing his world into crisp categories: cultivated land and wilderness, domestic and wild species, mine and theirs, home and away,” (p. 365).

“Wild mushrooms in general throw that dilemma into particularly sharp relief, since they confront us simultaneously with some of the world’s greatest rewards and gravest risks,” (p. 371).

“For the individual human, his community and culture successfully mediate the omnivore’s dilemma, telling him what other people have safely eaten in the past as well as how they ate it,” (p. 372).

“We don’t really know. All of which makes mushrooms seem autochthonous, arising seemingly from nowhere seemingly without cause,” (p. 374)>

“If the soil is the earth’s stomach, fungi supply its digestive enzymes – literally,” (p. 375/6).

Thoughts

            I do not really like mushrooms that much, and cannot identify with his feelings of the hunt. I have never been gathering myself, but I guess it is something that I might attempt, to experience it. As fulfilling as he describes it, gathering does not seem very efficient. Our society could definitely not be based on a hunting/gathering food system anymore, but it does seem like a very natural process.

            I never realized that mushrooms were so complicated. I find it interesting that they might have this “lunar energy”. Could this new type of energy actually be more beneficial? Is there any other organism that possibly takes in lunar energy? Mushrooms always seemed so simple; I thought they were just fungi that grew in forests. Apparently though there is so much that scientists have yet to find out about them. I wonder, if there will ever be a way in which we can study mushrooms to a greater extent. Maybe a machine will be invented and we will be able to extract their roots without damaging them. Mushrooms pose a difficult task not only in the omnivore’s dilemma, but also to scientists who want to further their research. 

Chapter Twenty – The Perfect Meal

Précis

            Creating all of the food for a meal first hand – through hunting and gathering – gives people a direct connection to the earth and their environment. The meal becomes a thanks and dedication to the nature that provided it.

Gems

“Reserving the historical trajectory of human eating, for this meal the forest would be feeding us again,” (p. 399).

“This one had done that, restoring my appetite for this meat after the disgust I’d felt cleaning the animal. I was reminded of what Paul Rozin had written about a traditional cuisine’s power to obviate the omnivore’s dilemma by clothing the exotic in familiar flavors,” (p. 401).

“Another thing cooking is, or can be, is a way to honor the things we’re eating, the animals and plants and fungi that have been sacrificed to gratify our needs and desires, as well as the places and the people that produced them,” (p. 404).

“...to preserve their life and form living things necessarily destroy life and form,” (405).

“I realized that in this particular case words of grace were unnecessary. Why? Because that’s what the meal itself had become, for me certainly, but I suspect for some of the others, too: a wordless way of saying grace,” (p. 407).

Thoughts

            The meal he made sounded actually really delicious. He made so much but it cost so little. I guess you cannot really say that eating healthy is expensive; it really depends on your environment. He had the chance to go hunting, gather mushrooms, and pick cherries, but not every environment provides such a natural landscape. Maybe a solution could be to make natural environments more accessible to people, so that they too can experience such a meal.

            No matter how we eat, something must die in order to provide life for another organism. A vegetarian is still taking a life of a plant, just as the carnivore that of the animal’s. It is only nature that organisms give up their life for that of another. We have just brought it to the extremities, creating these taboos around food. Once we learn to accept that to survive, other organisms must in some way give something up, we may be able to eat in peace. But before that happens, we must also learn that this process is an offering from the other organism, and that we should not exploit it as we do in slaughterhouses and industrial farming. Humans need to learn to coexist with nature and evolution. 

Homework #9: Freakonomics Response

            Our world seems quite simple from the outside; you are successful because you work hard, and you fail because you are lazy. The protagonists in Freakonomics go about trying to find the hidden truths in this simplicity. They look at what drives people to act the way they do, get the jobs they have, and do as well as they do in school. In the discussion of their experimentation and statistics, they talk the about the effects of correlation and causation, if the two actually relate.

            In order to understand the correlation and causation that is discussed in the film, we must first identify the sources of evidence that they protagonists rely on. In the first segment, names are discussed. Two experts contemplate if a name can really determine someone’s future. The one scholar says that no it is actually based on where you grow up. He does not use any specific evidence, but only his observations. He finds that African Americans tend to not be as successful because of the lack of education in their parents and the instability in their households with single parents. You could say that this is an “innovative” way of providing evidence, but the man really only gives us his word for it. On the other hand, the other man says yes, your name does affect your future. He sent out the same amount of resumes for both a man named Tyrone, and a man named Jake. In his experiment, Jake ended up getting many more calls back, probably because of discrimination on Tyrone’s name. Tyrone would have needed five more weeks in order to get a job. This then proves that indeed your name affects your future. If you have a more unique name, people tend to associate it with a lower income family. This experiment presented a very interesting way of considering the effects of the name, since it was a real world experiment and people responded the way they did subconsciously.

            Another experiment conducted was the one with incentives. When people have incentives, maybe they do indeed work harder to succeed. They went into a school and gave each kid who got grades C or above by the end of each month 50 dollars. The two protagonists of the documentary were an African American kid and a Caucasian kid. The Caucasian kid never ended up stepping up his grades; at first he seemed intrigued but let them slip away. Unlike the Caucasian boy, the African American boy’s interest was sparked. He believed that with that money, he could achieve happiness. Therefore he tried harder, did his work, and received 50 dollars by the end of the month. In addition to the findings that yes, sometimes incentives can help, they focused a lot on the parents’ involvement. With the support and encouragement of the parents, the kids also seemed to strive a little more. This experimental was quite innovative; who would have thought children could produce such results. It may have not given a direct result, as one kid did succeed and the other did not, but it showed how the person’s environment affected them too.

            Statistics were also highly touched upon as evidence in Freakonomics. In the segment about sumo wrestling, they looked at the art of corruption. They took the statistics of the sumo wrestlers and examined who won and who did not in each match. In order to come to the top ranks of sumo wrestling, you need to win eight games. They found that in games when it was someone who had gone 7:3 against someone 8:2, the 8:2 person would let the 7:3 person win, because the first person was already insured the spot in the higher ranks of the championship. This is a radical idea because the art of sumo wrestling is looked upon as completely pure. Instead of using trust as evidence of purity in the sport, the Freakonomics experts looked at statistics and concluded their results. In addition, they also interviewed a couple of the wrestlers, but they did not want to appear in the movie for fear of being banned.

            Crime has gone down in past years and the Freakonomics experts conclude that it is because of the legalization of abortion. Again statistics were used in this analysis. They found that in the 1980s, crime rates were at an all high. But then, once abortion was legalized, they began to drop rapidly; first in those states where abortion was initially legalized. They figured that all of the unwanted children would then not be born, and the children were not longer brought into society. Unwanted children tend to be those raised the least effectively, causing them to act out and cause crimes. But without this, crime began to decrease according to the statistical findings of the experts. Nobody would have found this relationship, it is a completely original idea found through statistics.

            After looking at their evidence tactics, we can now discuss their interpretations of correlation and causation. In the beginning of the movie, they give an example from the 1900s when polio was at an all time high. Scientists noticed that in the summer was when people tended to catch polio most. They then saw that in the summer ice cream was also sold and consumed at the highest rates. Therefore they believed that ice cream was the cause of polio. Obviously as later found out, it was not, proving that correlation does not mean causation. After making this point, they do indeed in the first experiment show that correlation is causation. The name experiment, which was already mentioned before with the resumes, proves the relationship between someone’s name and their success. The more “white” name got many more job offers than the typical “black” name. Therefore the experts contradict themselves: first they show an example where correlation and causation do not relate, but then in their next example apparently they do. The name someone has causes them to succeed or not. Then they do the test with the incentives. They admit that the parents probably have a lot to do with a child’s success in school, not only what they will receive (incentives). The African American boy’s mom was tough on her child, but the Caucasian boy’s mom talked the talk, but we did not actually see her crack down on her son. Therefore they again change their minds and say well, incentives may cause someone to do better, but it is not the only factor. Instead of focusing on either correlation is causation or it is not, they show that sometimes it is, sometimes it is not. This does not seem like a very strong conclusion.

            Freakonomics posed some interesting ideas, but it was not quite as effective in exposing the “hidden in plain sight” truths. The truths that they discussed were not necessarily in plain sight, they were things that you had to dig a lot deeper for. And these truths are also their own opinions, yes they do have numerical evidence, but who is to say there is not another cause too? They believe that they have found the one right answer, but for things like success, is it really possible for there to only be one answer? The world’s simplicity is actually quite complex for each individual. Their past, their family their surroundings, everything is different for each person. It is impossible that one rule applies to all of them. The movie does indeed suggest new innovative ideas, such as the impact of abortion laws on crimes rates, but these hidden truths are not necessarily universal. Theirs ideas though are not worthless, they ask interesting questions, but they experimenters themselves are too limited.

            The movie does indeed relate to our food unit. Again the argument that your name does not determine your future made by the first scholar can be applied here. He believes that it is not your name, but your family and background that cause your success. With a broken household it is much harder to succeed according to him. He also associates a broken household with less income. In our food unit we have seen that those with a lower income tend to eat an unhealthier diet. Without the right nutrition, people become weak, overweight: simply unhealthy. This then too can affect somebody’s success. Nobody wants to hire an unfit person for hard labor; they are too unreliable. It would make much more sense for the employer to hire someone fit and able. Therefore your health can also affect your success; people want a healthy worker. When health is directly related to the consumption of food, we see that families eat differently based on their income, just as the man suggests the person’s name differs because of their background. Therefore income can affect food, which affects health, which can in turn also affect success.