comments

chris,

I think you were able to link very well how what we learned in the past unit directly connects to what we learned in this unit. you also were able to bring it together in a sortof overarching theme which i liked. what id like to see you improve on a bit is to see if you can carry this into something deeper, that maybe we havent discussed yet in class. something much easier said than done of coarse but i think you can do it, in this one for instance it seemed like you were about to get to something really big but it didnt go the distance.

hope this helped
john
-------------------------------------------------

John,
I think you talk about a few different things here that refer to some of the topics we covered in class and probably one of the biggest. I like how at the end of your post you start talking a bit about specifics in contrast to the beginning when you kind of show what you learned over the course of the unit. I think the best line you had in your post is when you say "Many of us think with the right medical care one will overcome their illness or they can just “fight it” when usually the ill person is blowing through tons of medical bills and isn’t giving herself a pleasurable experience." Because it is something that I agree with a lot and it is really well said. Something I think you could have done which many people including myself could have done was refer to a document or something we watched in class. All in all interesting.

Thoughts following illness & dying unit

Nightmarish industrial atrocities in our practices surrounding illness and dying  are how shielded many of us are about the reality of it. Many of us think with the right medical care one will overcome their illness or they can just “fight it” when usually the ill person is blowing through tons of medical bills and isn’t giving herself a pleasurable experience. A government funded home hospice would reduce medical costs across the board and make the experience of dying more comforting (I for one would rather die at home then in a hospital). I think when I loved one in my family is dying and I am in the position to make a responsible decision I would like them in their final stages to be at home rather than in a hospital bed where many other strangers have died. It seems that these industrial atrocities could be combated through popular opinion if people were educated on the matter. However the people holding the strings like Monsanto, Tyson, and Medical insurers don’t want these alternatives passed in congress because it would be a set-back for their industry and they would lose a lot of money and their prestige.

Epicurus and Still Life's at the MET

For my project I decided to explore Epicurus’s philosophy in the context of Western culture. I used the information gathered from class via our discussions and based off the reading by Irvin Yalom which summarized much of Epicurus’s philosophies. As a class guided by the text Staring at the Sun by Irvin Yalom , we discussed how Epicurus “view was that life pleasure and pain are so important to human existence that all our actions are governed by seeking pleasure and trying to avoid pain” (www.spring.org.uk). It would follow that in culture, all of the feel good work of art; still lifes for example, will never show pain in any way.

A Basket of Flowers by Jan Brueghel shows dead pedals around a basket of beautifully arranged flowers. When I viewed this at the Metropolitan Museum of Art it seemed out of place for the very reason that it showed these dead pedals on the table which the basket sits atop. This was because when one goes to the museum to view art, much of it is to see the sheer beauty of it; when someone expects a still life it is most commonly of a beautiful vase of flowers or bowl of fresh fruit. This is in accordance to how Western societies would like to view the world, with an absence of death and pain and to have esthetically pleasing images and “happier” images bloated and done over and over again to give this illusion that a flower is this beauty and only that, and fruit by nature are fresh and ripe; in short, to avoid death by highlighting the peak of beauty in a flower’s life. This view is not only distorted but keeps us ignorant, for the few things we can know with certainty about life is that it will come to an end, so rather if we should embrace that these articles of nature will die. Interestingly the couple of still lifes I saw that showed in a very subtle way the passing of life, (referring back to A Basket of Flowers) the pedals that lay dead around the basket were still as bright and vibrant as those painted within the basket. Giving the viewer a false sense of reality about death, similarly to how in a cheesy movie they have the favorite grandparent or hero die by simply saying a few last words and shutting her eyes—as though when someone passes it is peaceful and other than the actual death they looked completely healthy. When in reality the person will most likely look withered and skeletal like, will very possibly ramble about nonsense and most notably lose control of their sphincter releasing the bowels of the last meal they ate. When viewing this at the Met I was able to discuss these aspects that these paintings showed and more importantly didn’t show with a friend who came along with me who is equally enthused about art. The discussions that took place were interesting as I was able to view many of the works at the Met (and later the Whitney Museum) with an illness & dying lens and compare it to my friend who enjoyed the works for the esthetics and the disciplined skill that went into each work.

From the trip to the museums and the reflection that followed I was able to learn that Epicurus’s

Philosophies weren’t a criticism of Western outlook on life but rather an observation. Although we avoid pain and thus avoid death by burying it with thoughts of pleasure, avoiding it is better than dwelling on the inevitable truth which for so many is impossible to overcome. For even Epicurus “taught that the point of all one’s actions was to attain pleasure” (www.iep.utm.edu), in the case of someone constantly fearing death and always thinking about it, why not instead enjoy life’s pleasures even if the may be viewed as avoiding a truth; after all they will make you happier.

                It is important to analyze through the illness & dying lens and criticizing these reflections of society in culture just as it is to criticize McDonald’s advertising through a lens critical of American food ways for one general reason, if a culture is breeding, whether intentional or not, ignorance of something that effects one in their daily lives he should criticize it. It is important to be not only aware of what you may be doing but why you are doing it, from there and only there can you ask yourself: Should I be doing this? Ignorance should never be the reason someone did something they would have otherwise not done if they were aware of what they were doing.

Reading and noting basic materials (government and immorality)

DR. DEATH & WHAT IS TABOO

How we go about our daily lives and the decisions we make are a combination of morality and logic. Things that are weird are deemed so either because they are not moral or they are not logical, and vice versa; if someone does something illogical or immoral it is weird. When something has been recognized as weird and its normal counterpart has also been recognized the norm and those who follow it are given power and those which are weird pay the price. In most modern societies the government has the majority of the power, it would follow then that they often manage what is weird and what is normal in many cases. For example it is weird to be homicidal, thus people who commit homicide get arrested by the police, who are run by the government, to be taken to a judicial court, run by the government, and then they are put in a prison, run by the government. So when Jack Kevorkian was sent to prison for medically assisting people in suicide it was no surprise. He did something immoral, weird and finally illegal because it is not normal. He did this odd act in a government institution which was a medical practice, but the worst of it was that he was not actually a licensed doctor, “you were not licensed to practice medicine when you committed this offense and you hadn't been licensed for eight years” (Judge Jessica Cooper, New York Times).

Science is suppose to very much separate itself from emotion it is to be a study of high professionalism which operates purely on logic. When a hospital operated by people with a scientific degree is doing something immoral it becomes very controversial, because the basis of how the hospital takes place and the procedures that are preformed are very sacred. We have selected individuals to perform these tasks and they use their knowledge to aid those in need, so when they assist someone in their own destruction it becomes very taboo.

OVERCHARCHING FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT

                Hospitals are in place to be a social institution which is available to aid any in need. When someone may think of hospitals and medicine the typical thought would be of a doctor attempting to save someone’s life at all costs, something one might see in shows like ER or House, in turns out the cost is of the patent not the doctor. “Medical bills are a leading factor in more than half of the country’s personal bankruptcies” (Landmark) “Most of those who filed for bankruptcy were middle-class, well-educated homeowners” (CNN), a scary thought. When one reflects on how this might have come to be, who might have made this decision they become stumped.  Surely no one would make medical care so outrageously priced for common people that they could lose everything just for a few individuals to make money. But it is, and it blindsided nearly an estimated one million people who had to declare bankruptcy due to medical expenses in 2009, many of whom had presumed they had medical coverage via insurance.

REFUSING MEDICAL COVERAGE & GOVERNMENT CARELESSNESS

                As previously stated, hospitals are in place to aid the needy; as this may be the goal it is hard to achieve it because health insurance will often not cover patients. “The intent is to maximize profits”( Lee Einer), stated by the insurance industry “hitman”, who worked for insurance industries to help deny coverage to people who are insured. Unlike Kervorkian, this was not illegal and people responsible for denying coverage were not put in jail. Based off what was stated in previous paragraphs and what we know about the role of government it sparks inquiry that these people aren’t locked up as what they are doing is immoral and weird and when things are immoral and weird they are typically illegal. It aswell sparks inquiry about the legitimacy of government, a structure in place to protect the people by way of following the norms and possessions of those people. People bought health insurance in case of a tragedy should befall them, and when an accident did come they were beside themselves unable to receive the investment they made for the very possibility that this kind of thing may happen. In our capitalist-statist structure people were not given what they paid for. Thus an illegitimate transaction took place where the consumer was not informed by the seller of the product they were receiving, and what happened? They paid, received nothing,  and finally had to pay again.

Comments

I did not write up homework 27 so my piers were unable to write anything about that piece which I did not do.
---------------------------------

Chris,

I enjoyed reading your piece as you were able to draw in my head the scene and the feelings well. Your writing is very strong when it comes to the “showing-not-telling”, a writing style which I think is fundamental yet isn’t there in many other peoples works, which can often make it boring to read. The part I really like was in the second paragraph “Somewhere, over the rainbow, way up high’ said the woman in the wheel chair that smiled from ear to ear but revealed no teeth”. Clear and a powerful image, something I aspire to have in my own works. You also had a lot of insights which were directly reflective of the experience you shared.

What you need to improve on however, is your grammar and spelling. There were times where I had to read your work twice to get the meaning you originally intended stuff like ” reframe” instead of refrain. A lot of the grammatical errors probably could have been removed in a read-over/edit. To improve this I would recommend two things; to one read more, the more times you see the right spellings and the grammar used correctly the easier job you’ll have of doing it yourself. The second and easier thing I’d recommend is to write your blogs on a word document first, the computer will point out the mishaps a lot better than that silly blogger spell check.

Overall I enjoyed the piece and believe that with tinkering it can be really great. Hope this helped.

John Tabor

I liked what you said here, it was clear and backed up with evidence which you referenced earlier, "I found it interesting that these people still were willing to pay the horrendous expenses of an intensive care unit, when really it would not increase their quality of life, or length, by any significant amount" this is very much a logical, utilitarian perspective. When dealing with a loved one so close to the end it’s not easy to have a logical clear mind when the alternative can bring on such emotion hardship, and often the even mention of “pulling the plug” or bringing up the idea of not having the life saving operation is taboo. And to keep this loved one on life support the false conception is that things will go back to how they were or that the family will do all they can and pay whatever costs as long as the person stays in their lives. I agree with you, Lucas, that one should keep this open almost unbiased mind (which is impossible) and that people should treat death as a fact of life and something inevitable rather than thinking it can be avoided and avoided when the reality is, as you said, would not increase their quality of life, and probably if anything, lower it for that person and those around that person.

I also enjoyed your last paragraph very much as you explained an insight you brought up before which put me off a bit because I was prepared for that dead horse to receive another beating. But rather you kept the idea fresh by giving new reasons which I also agreed with (which is always nice to read) but never realized, in fact it was so logical and insightful that I was disappointed in myself I hadn’t thought of it before.

The only quarrel I had with your homework is your concision. The last two paragraphs were great, the first two, more specifically the second, were not in fact, it could have been gone completely. The contents of what you talked about could have been understood completely without the blunt explanation. Overall your writing is great, easy to read and interesting, it flows very well and always has at least one new insight.

Hope this helped,

John Tabor

Response to Sicko

Precis:

The freest country ever yet healthcare holds us back from being great. Millions uninsured pray no accident should befall them. But for those who are insured it is still not easy. Insurance companies try everything to not cover their client, with pre-existing conditions, pre-approvals etc. because that is the goal of insurance companies, “the intent is to maximize profit” (Lee Einer). Edgar Kaiser came up with the idea for insurance companies to become a private business with the idea that if they lower medical coverage they will increase profit. In Canada and many European countries health insurance is paid for by the government, and heroes of that country are those who spearheaded the idea. Currently there, it is a human right like shelter or food.

Illness & Dying Book, Part 3

Précis:

My brother and I have always been distant. When I heard he contracted HIV/AIDS I flew down to Antigua to comfort him at his bedside, he looked awful. My mother’s love for her children was brought into light as my brother lay dying in the filthy hospital. In Antigua the medicine was a little scarce; one could only find something that was applicable to many diseases so when my brother wanted medicine for his virus he couldn’t find any. So I used my American citizenship to get my brother a prescription for medicine that would help slow the process and relieve some of the pain. It wasn’t too long before he was healthy enough to leave the hospital, and sadly indulge in some of his vices. His death however was sure to come, and when it did it wasn’t easy. The funeral was cheap and when I visited his body at the morgue all my feelings swelled up. I was upset at my mother and I was even upset at him, the position he put me in. after his death and his funeral I started to reflect on life or rather death and I still kept thinking of my brother. My first experience with death was not at all the same as my experience with my brother’s death. I still felt sad only more so, but why? Death is all around us and has always been happening why every time are we filled with such grief? His death brought such emotion yet I knew him so little, only later did I find out he was homosexual or that he did not love me the same as others in the family.

Gems:

            “They must go, but it is so hard, so hard for the people left behind; it’s so hard to see them go, as if it had never happened before, and so hard but you can survive this kind of loss, seeing someone go, seeing them leave you behind; you don’t want to go with them, you only don’t want them to go” (138) Jamaica analyzes the mentality of losing someone, the conflict between the ill and not ill and the conflict with one’s own self.

            “They did not know that I had suffered a great loss: someone I did not know I loved had died, someone I did not want to love had died, and that dying had a closed-door quality to it, a falling off the horizon quality” (156) Jamaica is approached by people who have read her work and she feels an almost resentment to these people because they are unaware to how she feels, that someone she wasn’t very close to had suddenly disappeared from the earth, and they were completely unaware.

            “People in the place that I am from are quite comfortable with the shame of sex, the inexplicable need for it, an enjoyment of it that seems beyond the ordinary the actual peculiarity; only then when you die from it, sex, does the shame become, well, shame” (184) interesting that the consequence of this action which is apparently very accepted in Antigua is shameful. Perhaps because it is known but very scary, a taboo subject that no one really likes to bring up, kind of like that your parents had to have sex for you to be brought into this world.

Gems:

            “They must go, but it is so hard, so hard for the people left behind; it’s so hard to see them go, as if it had never happened before, and so hard but you can survive this kind of loss, seeing someone go, seeing them leave you behind; you don’t want to go with them, you only don’t want them to go” (138) Jamaica analyzes the mentality of losing someone, the conflict between the ill and not ill and the conflict with one’s own self.

            “They did not know that I had suffered a great loss: someone I did not know I loved had died, someone I did not want to love had died, and that dying had a closed-door quality to it, a falling off the horizon quality” (156) Jamaica is approached by people who have read her work and she feels an almost resentment to these people because they are unaware to how she feels, that someone she wasn’t very close to had suddenly disappeared from the earth, and they were completely unaware.

            “People in the place that I am from are quite comfortable with the shame of sex, the inexplicable need for it, an enjoyment of it that seems beyond the ordinary the actual peculiarity; only then when you die from it, sex, does the shame become, well, shame” (184) interesting that the consequence of this action which is apparently very accepted in Antigua is shameful. Perhaps because it is known but very scary, a taboo subject that no one really likes to bring up, kind of like that your parents had to have sex for you to be brought into this world.

Illness & Dying Book, Part 2

Kincaid, Jamaica. My Brother. NY, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1997. Print.


 Precis: 
On my last visit seeing my brother he was in good health but at last he was in the hospital again, his inevitable death being stretched over a long time making him slowly looking more and more disfigured. When my brother finally died I was not surprised, I honestly did not feel anything. With my mother at the morgue see my brother I felt alone and dark, things no longer seemed pleasant. My mix of emotions turned on my brother, the pain he caused, the trouble he put me through, his death was unavoidable, if he only had died earlier things would have been easier. I remembered to the time of him being very ill showing me his penis, horribly disfigured from his AIDS and saying "Jamaica, look at this just look at this.", and I stood their motionless and disoriented at everything that surrounded the motion he used and reason for him showing me this.


Gems: 
"When I saw him for the last time still alive though he looked like someone who had been dead for a long time and whose body had been neglected, left to rot" (106). This is a good insight to the visual you see as someone is slipping into death, they never look like the person you knew for so long. They are stricken with their illness and you never imagine a loved one to be sick so when seeing them in this state it is hard to connect the same way you did so time ago.


"When he was still alive I used to try to imagine what it would be like when he was no longer alive, what the world would seem like the moment I knew he was no longer alive, I didn't know what to think, I didn't know what to feel." (87). This I think is the common reaction when someone close to you dies, when it happens suddenly it is so unimaginable and when it happens you are bewildered with emotion.


"Oh, I thought , oh it's Devon who died, not one of his relatives, not someone of his, this is not someone he has to grieve for. I was so glad about that" (99). Jamaica's reaction to another death and the relief of not having to go through what she had to with her brother.

Thoughts:
In the middle third of the book her brother finally dies. I think now is when I've really started to appreciate Jamaica's unique writing style. She jumps in and out of when her brother was alive, which isn't common but it isn't baffling. In fact it fits quite well, and I think it is one way Jamaica's unique writing style illustrates accurately and portrays what she is going through.

Luke Jensen said...

Hey John, this was a very interesting discourse on death, intimacy,and social norms that was compelling and clear. There were some grammatical and syntactical mistakes that, if fixed, would make your piece more fluid and precise. This piece sparked some questions for me about people's reactions to death through, celebration and mourning, and why they might differ. How should we react to the death of a relative if we never found anything worth celebrating in them, or were just indifferent to them,when the social norm is to celebrate or mourn? Does the social norm provoke people to behave in a certain way towards deceased relatives even when they do not love the deceased, or do not feel a connection with the deceased? When someone defies the norms of a society, like norms about death, does that individual's defiance create a feeling of strangeness towards themselves? Does it make society look at you strangely? I think that you ask a similar question when you ask: "what constitutes as an intimate relationship?" And I think that our social norms and cultural context defines our ideas on intimacy and therefore define our ideas on how to react to the passing of a relative. For example, when you talked about Beth's celebratory description of Erik as the "dad of the neighborhood" you suggested that the description was only celebratory because of its cultural and social context. And that perhaps in a different context, both the neighborhood and Beth, might not feel the want to celebrate Erik after his death if descriptions like the "dad of the neighborhood" weren't culturally celebrated.

December 8, 2010 7:29 PM

normalisweirdCHRIS said...

Hey John,
I like a lot of what you said and I think you got a good point across about what Beth was saying and you did a good job answering the questions that Andy presented. Also, when I know that you most likely had some of the feelings that Beth had and you mention that when you say, "Before my own father died I felt more distanced from him he wasn’t the same image of my father I had when I was younger". But even though this could just be something that may be to personal for you to want to talk about I feel like even though you compared your feelings to Beth you could go more into depth about the differences and the similarities of how you felt with how Beth felt. The question does ask you to compared both of these things and I think you do address this but for someone who has experienced this I thought maybe you could bring up something that you thought she might have felt that you felt. As for the beauty in the work and the insight, I feel that you also bring something up that is very smart about the norms changing, which is something that I didn't really think that much about when she said he was a "stay-at-home dad". Besides this, the one thing that I thought could have made your blog better was just going more into depth IF you feel comfortable with that about your experience because that would have brought out a lot more beauty in this assignment.

December 10, 2010 3:18 PM

Lucas L said...

John,

I found your piece at the end relating your contrasting thoughts about a family member insightful. Perhaps the difference in feeling was the relationship difference between Beth and Erik, and you and your father? You knew your father your whole life (I'm assuming, correct me if I'm wrong), whereas Beth met her husband later in life when she had already had many life experiences.
In addition, your second paragraph dealing with the divide in what you perceive as cultural norms and what others like Beth might see was also a interesting insight. I thought so because once again, the two perspectives are coming from different backgrounds. Beth saw Erik as a notable difference in his role as a stay at home dad, probably because she was seeing it from a view influenced by her situation as a working mother. You on the other hand are seeing it from the perspective of a young man. Since you don't have kids yet or have to work fulltime, maybe there's more to a familial relationship with the community than you, or I for that matter, could have experienced yet?

Emily said...

John,

You touch on a very distinct aspect of remembrance after someone close to you has died: idolization. To idolize someone after death seems to be common, as I did that with Dad, and I think is part of the healing process. It acts as a component necessary for acception (or really, the ability to cope with death). It would be interesting to explore this process further.

You mentioned Beth grew closer to Erik while he was sick, but more importantly, this happened because she cared for him during his illness. I doubt the relationship actually gets closer, but rather there is this protective, nurturing, almost self-sacrificial element that occurs while caring for someone. We saw this with our parents. However, there is a difference between caring for someone when their life is ending, and the recognition between the image of them before and now. You saw dad as a different person when he was sick, as did I, but I wonder what mom thought as she was his primary care-giver. You should ask her.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

chris,
I think you answered the question Andy posed thoughtfully, fully and in a very organized manner. I think this was pro aswell as a con. I think your post can be more interesting when you find an insight you are either knowledgable about or curious about and persue it to the best you can. I very much enjoyed the second to last paragraph and the last one I thought it was the most insightful and you could have definitly expanded on it. I think that you should try to think deeply on the topic itself rather than precisely following a rubric. The rubric helps when ur struggling no doubt, but if you want to improve your own insights and make it more interesting for myslef think deeply and try to find a passionate idea you have. when u love the idea the reader loves reading about it. hope my comment helps

Lucas,

Your thoughts were clear and concise. I admire you for your deep insights and the clarity in how you presented your ideas. Something I often have a problem with, I have deep insights but my poor writing skills will make it hard for me to convey my point. Throughout the entirety of your work I was able to grasp (I thought) exactly what you wanted to say and where you were going. When I first saw your work I was bummed out on having to read it, but while I was reading it I enjoyed following along with your ideas. In fact, I liked it so much that during reading I was trying to think about what I should write about for ways to improve because everything seemed so on point.

I did of course find it anyway though. I thought that to make your piece stronger you should organize it accordingly I felt in the final paragraph it had some great ideas but they weren’t relative enough to be in the same paragraph. The problem I think we both have is that we can spill all our ideas onto paper (or a screen) and with a couple read-overs we can make it work fine but in doing so we won’t have what we want in exactly the right place. So next time you might want to try look over your work and find the main idea of each paragraph and if what you’re saying supports it. Other than that it was fantastic and I can say I am not unhappy with reading over your home works to come.

HW 22 - Illness & Dying Book Part 1

                I am reading My Brother by Jamaica Kincaid published by The Noonday Press in 1997. Of the first 70 pages of the book the most thought provoking was definitely in the 20’s when Jamaica first visits her brother. I get the most insight into Jamaica's own mind and the norms associated with Antigua.

Précis:

My brother and I were very distant through the entirety of our lives, in more ways than one; I lived in another country and our age difference was greater than ten years which was to blame for us never really knowing each other. I felt utter sympathy when I sat to comfort him as he lay in the hospital bed. Though I never knew him well he told me he loved me and I returned the sign of affection in complete truth. The setting of the hospital was eerie and uncomfortable, no place to care for people so ill. He was dying of AIDS, a disease no one wanted to hear about in Antigua. It was taboo and people who had it seemed to be distanced from the rest. As I left the depressing hospital, I drive down the roads of Antigua constantly being reminded of him.

“In that dirty room, other people before him had died of that same disease” (23). Having this strict organization where one is in the same room as others who have died of the disease make the stay for the sick from the perspective of the doctor more impersonal. Being another patient the sick lose their individualism. A problem with hospital care that the only alternative that would address it would be home hospice.

“These medicines common in the treatment of AIDS-related illnesses are not kept in the hospital; people who are not infected with the virus that cause AIDS do get an extreme case of thrush, do not get a terrible kind of pneumonia, and so the medicines that would treat these afflictions are not on hand at the hospital.” (34). Rather than supporting the needs of all, the hospitals take a very utilitarian perspective, address only symptoms that are apparent many time in many different scenarios. A questionable stance when Antigua has a striking AIDS population.

“None of his friends came into the room to visit him. They would stand in the doorway of his room and say something to him. They never came in” (42). This stance of distancing one’s self from the ill seems to come up in many different cultures.  I think it is not that people are worried that they will catch the illness, rather they see someone they once loved looking almost disfigured from their illness. This physical distance is to protect the viewers own emotions because the reoccurring thought of your friend in such a state can be traumatic, which is why one would not become so close and personal with the ill one.

                I think my own behavior can be reflected by certain individuals in the book. That I would want to be close to the one who is ill, it can be traumatizing but there is an obligation I feel to comfort the loved one in their greatest time of need, even if you can’t give them what they need most. I also think that hospitals should adhere to all those who are sick, of course a lack of resources are a factor but with so many dying of this epidemic, having treatment for AIDS is a must-have. The room that her brother was treated in was sad, the cleanliness is unforgivable especially with someone who has such trouble breathing. It is easy to have such a stance as I do on hospital care but no perspective can address every need and solve every problem. The treatment of the ill will always be tricky as long as we are all mortal.

HW 21 - Expert #1

Beth's stance on illness and dying seemed to be very concrete. With views similar to my own she believed that a hospital is an institution, though it has good qualities of course, is still a place detached from the rest of the viewing population. It shields us of the reality of dying and has a lifeless tone of white beds and sheets and walls. She also believed that mourning and wearing black shouldn't be the common practice when someone is dead, sadness is inevitable but we should rather celebrate that these people were in our lives and be thankful they were there. Before Erik’s unfortunate end she felt very close to him and more intimate, something I couldn’t relate to personally which I will get back to later.

Before Beth began speaking about her husband Erik's death, she painted us the picture of him being a larger than life man, someone in touch with the community himself and his family, very contributive with his art and other skills and a loving man. A trend common when someone has passed; to give them this almost heroic status and never giving mention of his faults.She went on to say he was a househusband pushing his son around in a stroller and being the only dad in the park, something very uncommon twenty years ago. She elaborated that this connected him with the community, and he then became the "dad of the neighborhood" which everyone loved him for. This is in interesting prospect when analyzed, as a man not following the norm of a community the assumption would be that he would not be loved, contrary to what Beth said. Maybe then it is a statement about the community that it is open minded. Or rather when a more dominant figure (a man) chooses to step outside the norm of a society to those less dominant (mothers taking their kids to the park) can only accept it. Or even one step further that this step was unavoidable that these norms (unless practiced religiously and fundamental to the society) are always changing, that he was simply an example of this norm going through the change in which more stay-at-home dads will be apparent and be taking their kids to the park.

Going back to what Beth said earlier about the intimacy when Erik was very close to the end was something I felt oppositely when I had a similar experience. She felt that when she was caring for Erik they were more connected. Before my own father died I felt more distanced from him he wasn’t the same image of my father I had when I was younger; he was thinner, delusional at times and visiting him in the hospital was not the same as years prior to that when I would sit on his lap and he would explain to me things far beyond my ability to comprehend at the time. I was very in touch with him at his state at the time. That state however I don’t think of as who he really was. This distance was mental and emotional in ways it was not at all physical, if he needed something I was always there to help him. Not to want to go into semantics but my view of intimacy is that the two (or more) are connected in every way, if Beth thought it was only physical by tending to him when needed then I would agree with her as I was more aware to my father’s needs whenever he presented them and I was more connected to him in this sense because I might not act on a request he posed every time before his illness but during it was my priority just as it was his.

So what constitutes as an intimate relationship? Can you be close when there is so much distance mentally and emotionally?

HW 19 - Family Perspectives on Illness & Dying

                My mom has raised me since birth and has always been there to take care of me and be available in times of need or even for just a question on the meaning of a word. She is arguably the most influential person in my life, so to have insight on how I might have originated my ideas on illness and dying I asked her about the dominant practices and her own that surround illness and dying.

                To no surprise my mom responded to the questions I posed the same why most people would; she would take care of the person who is sick, she would give them what they would ask, speak quietly and clear. The experience itself of being with a sick person is of love yearning and sadness. She only surprised me when I asked her how she would speak to someone who is sick or dying and she responded “matter-of-fact” in a very matter-of-fact tone. This approach to informing loved ones on there well being isn’t taboo but it is uncommon. Not to be confused with the question of whether when you’re in physical distress how you want the news given, because a common response is “give it to me straight doc”. No, this is not what I mean, what I mean is that when people comfort loved ones when they are very ill they try not to talk about any bad thoughts, they want to tell them about all the fun times they’ve had together, what’s to come. All avoiding the fact of their undoubtable mortality. On the side of the visitor, this usually is not the dominant discourse. Interesting that this isn’t the topic most would confront when approaching a sick loved one. Yet in the opposite situation and when one is sick she will typically want to be aware of the time they have left and the condition of their health.

                All the social practices surrounding illness and dying were brought up in class by my peers and me. All of us agreeing on every single one (it seemed like) suggest that we and the one(s) who brought us up all perpetuate the same practices when faced with a loved one. Although it could just mean we are aware of them, but from my interpretation of my peers I do not think they previously questioned social practices before (I am no exception) so I think it is safe to say we all practice generally the same practices when a loved one is sick.

                My understanding of the overarching theme in Andy’s class is that there are many social practices and when we are in his class we will suddenly be enlightened to our ignorance and choose this new alternative or minimally question the dominant social practice—again this is my understanding. I’m fully aware that he does not believe an alternative to the dominant practice will automatically lead to a utopia.  As for as practices go, my mother and I follow the dominant practice. An individual follows the dominant practice because she believes that it is the logical decision. Thus no decision/practice is made by anyone unless she has a reason she believes is valid and justified. The decision anyone makes consciously is based off prior knowledge. So when Andy aims for us to analyze these practices the root of it would be our knowledge, so rather than pondering why I should do something or what causes me to do this, I believe my time will be better spent researching information related to that decision.

Health & Illness & Feasting

            Thanksgiving is the American holiday which combines family and feasting. From my knowledge the holiday originated from pilgrims and Indians celebrating the harvest with a feast all together. What followed after with their relationship I won't talk about now, but I think it's interesting this is where it started. The connection between the origins of this holiday and what the practices now are seem to be very distant except in one way, the feasting. What started off as "welcoming" neighbors and accepting different people in a feast seems to have changed to feasting only with those very close to you, if you took away the food it seems these are very polarizing practices. The only consistency in this holiday is the custom of overeating.
            So Thanksgiving then is the holiday of overeating, the main attraction and the main theme. Interesting that this was the consistent practice when the United States always has had a large immigrant population and makes up the backbone of our agricultural and industrial workforce. The immigrants themselves have changed, but their use and role in the United States has gone unchanged. It would then be more logical to keep the "welcome neighbor of different background" philosophy rather than overeating.
            So the logic escapes me that the practice of eating-more-than-you-should has stuck when the welcoming-neighbor practice has not. Especially when the need for such a philosophy seems to be rapidly growing and food related illnesses have also grown. Wouldn't such a well organized society such as the U.S. be in want of throwing out this overeating practice when it is causing a norm that is encouraging this life-threatening lifestyle and rather support a practice which encourages diversity? I think the first question should be; can a state organize under the wants of all the people and address it?

First Thoughts on the Illness & Dying Unit

I think I have the same experiences with illness and dying that most people are confronted by, they have little experience with it until someone close in their family dies. Everyone who I know (including myself) that is confronted with someone who has an illness or is dead or soon to be dead the reaction is usually that of grief. This is only natural after all, we loss the mental and emotional connection we get through talking to that person, which is often the strongest way we connect with someone and aside from necrophiliacs we lose the physical connection. No one doubts the fact that loosing a loved one is emotionally painful but coming to terms with our own mortality and knowing that everything around us is temporary can give us insight and comfort in these times. To enjoy our times and take advantage of these times can give things more beauty as we know that maybe what we witnessed will always be there to be seen but ourselves will not be there to always see it. In my own family when people die we try to not approach the situation of it's awful s/he is gone, of coarse grieving will happen no matter what we try to view the death as rather a celebration of their life that we were lucky that they could have been there in our lives. This is the perspective I try to take since it avoids the most tear jerking, and I think its always best to have the most positive outlook and always see the glass half full even when it's usually empty.

HW 12 - Final Food Project 2 - Outline

Thesis: Nightmarish industrial atrocities are built into our society and we encourage them in our daily lives, to combat them we must step out of our norms and critic ideas and values our society has hardwired us to think.

Major claim: Fast food is a rapidly growing industry; organic farming which is the supposed alternative will also be far off the mark from combating these atrocities by the industry because organic farming can repeat these same faults of these fast food monsters.

Supporting claim 1: Fast food corporations commit atrocities and are still growing

Evidence: e coli outbreaks from fast food restaurants (jack in the box)

http://www.about-ecoli.com/ecoli_outbreaks/news/jack-in-the-box-ends-e-coli-suits1/

Evidence: correlation between growth of fast food in the past three decades and the booming of obesity, diabetes and heart disease in the U.S.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/05/health/main591325.shtml

Evidence: livestock conditions of animals used for fast food

http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/animalwelfare/

Evidence: transportation of food (carbon footprint)

http://www.metroactive.com/metro/08.15.07/50-ways-to-go-green-0733.html

Supporting claim 2: organic farming is the better alternative but organic farming is still counterintuitive to its own philosophy.

Evidence: grass fed beef: less e coli

http://www.organicgrassfedbeefinfo.com/

Evidence: less pesticides, hormones, and fertilizers (carbon footprint reduction)a

http://helpguide.org/life/organic_foods_pesticides_gmo.htm

Evidence: livestock conditions of organic fish

http://www.vitalitymagazine.com/eco-friendly_fish_choices

Evidence: transportation of food from California to elsewhere (carbon footprint)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070606113311.htm

Activism in Food (ffp1)

In response to finishing the book Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser and nearing the end of the food unit in class I volunteered for the last two weekends at added-value an urban farm in Redhook, Brooklyn. Tying close with my political beliefs and what was learned in class I believe that participating in growing food locally is important.

It is important for two main reasons; local agriculture means less harm for the environment because of less transportation which burns fossil fuel. As well local agriculture makes it easier for someone such as myself to learn about farming, it is important to learn about this because I want my food to come from farms and not from factories which much of peoples food comes from. Which ties into the second main reason, locality is important because you should be not only aware of the things you use every day but also participate in making them so you can honestly acquire them. For example I enjoy volunteering on the farm because I know that the work I put in is equal to the output and that by farming I have access to more foods.

How this immediate activism in organic farming came to be was out of the education of where our foods come from. I already knew before hand a bit on the conditions of the animals: the cramped quarters, the filthy environment and the fact they are grain fed when they should not be. And honestly I didn’t really care too much I figured “if it’s how America get’s fed, then so be it”, what turned me onto more organic farming was that the alternative also abused their workers which I believed was the worst part of it. This was what I directly learned from class. So when I heard of this farm (through a classmate in fact!) I thought it was very important that I work to get this food rather than supporting these corporations that treat their workers horribly.

This unit in class has opened my eyes to how our food is made, and because light has been shined on this very dark truth I encouraged myself to set out and do something that might not attack this evil but at least not support it. A motivation of mine was my political philosophy of mutualism; of collaborating with others to help everyone who involved themselves, and since I have participated in farming on an organic farm I was actually rewarded with some of the food I helped reap.

Food, inc Response

The main theme of the movie was where the food was coming from. That if we found out where it was coming from we'd be less likely to eat it, the movie tried to shed light on a very dark area. America's image of where food come from is very distorted, always a red barn, roaming cows, fresh grass and beautiful skies. In actuality which the movie aims at is that the cows are in very packed areas ankle deep in manure, corn fed, no grass at all that’s were probably 80% of our beef comes from. Chickens have it no different, packed conditions without any access to light standing in their own feces, if they're standing. Many chickens are modified to grow extremely large breasts and grow very quickly, three times as fast as they would normally grow causing them to be so week under the weight they usually fall down. The working conditions that many fast food restraints and large food companies have for their employees are very poor, for the meatpackers they get low wages virtually no health benefits and are injured excessively, about 1/3 of the workforce in meatpacking factories get injured a year. Chicken farmers are grossly in debt and fast food employees are paid very little and both the fast food and the meatpackers are consistently getting deskilled.

Corn is also in our diet much more than the average American knows the chemist in the movie stated that 90% of food on the shelf either has corn or soy ingredients, and allot of times they have both. The cheap food comes from corn feeding the cows instead of grass-feeding, as well as the low wages of workers and the large amount of government subsidies. This makes it hard for Mexico to compete with us in growing grain. The rancher on the more wholesome farm in Virginia believed that if we view these pigs, cows etc. as merely resources for us to take from and not living organisms we will treat others the same, we can see this in how these companies treat their workers.

I think the main difference in seeing the movie than reading book is that like any comparison when a book (or many) is made into a movie you can get more in depth information from the book. The movie however did offer a visual of what was happening, it's a much difference seeing cows covered in and half a foot deep in feces than it being read. The book also didn't get the very interesting view point of that one farmer in Virginia which I thought had a very interesting perspective on the massive food corporations.

Watching the movie did not help me much, especially after reading the very insightful book. The movie put a visual of what was happening, so instead of the just the facts I have a mental picture of how some of my food is made. This in many ways can be sometimes

FFN Epilogue: Have it Your Way

Précis: Dale Lasater raises cattle (by typical American standards) in a very unconventional way. Growing up with an anti-beef trust activist like his father his cattle are free range grass fed and are not ankle deep in their own manure. Red Top and In-N-Out are fast food restaurants that took the road less traveled and use better quality ingredients and have better conditions for their workers. Corporations don't have all the power, they are always subject to law like everyone else so change can happen in many ways. One being that legislation can be changed and the things that these companies we know are doing so awfully are changed. Another, more approachable way is our vote, through ever meal we can choose to not eat fast food and by doing so these corporations can change like they have in the past for the want of profits.
Gems: "Throughout the Cold War, America's decentralization system of agriculture, relying upon millions of independent producers, was depicted as the most productive system in the world, as proof of capitalism's inherent superiority" (266)"
"I do not believe,' Teller argued, 'that the great object in life is to make everything cheap" (266)
Thoughts and Questions: This last chapter was probably the most useful and the most uplifting. For one they say that it's not impossible to change the food-ways of our country. And Schlosser tells us how, at first I thought the only way was to make legislation which I thought "well how do I fit into that?", but then he says that we can do this by simply not buying fast food. Obvious idea, but none the less smart, if these corporations are as money-grubbing as they put themselves out to be than if people didn't eat there they would surely listen. This is heartwarming for me because I don't eat fast food and haven't had McDonald's in over six years. What made the epilogue such a great part of the book is that before he was smashing these companies with all their faults and now he tells us how change can happen.

Fast Food Nation Global Realization (ch10)

Précis: After communism collapsed in East Germany, McDonald's was the first building to go up in Plauen, Germany. An example of how fast McDonald's and many other fast food chains have grown on a global scale. This American way of life has now spread thanks to these chains, a life style which is very unhealthy mostly attributed to cars and fast food. With McDonald's rapid globalization and realization of harm to communities and cultures many have protested and even demolished McDonald's buildings. Many people who spoke out against McDonald's publicly either apologized after threatened to be taken to court or they accepted the consequences and usually lost the case. Not for Dave Morris and Helen Steel who had an ongoing trial for over two and a half years after they printed leaflets in London slamming the McDonald's corporation. Even through this, McDonald's globalization has made American culture a part of many countries.

Gems: "Today 44 million American adults are obese. An additional 6 million are 'super-obese'; they weigh about a hundred pounds more than they should. No other nation in history has gotten so fat so fast" (240)

"If we eat McDonald's hamburgers and potatoes for a thousand years,' Fujita once promised his countrymen, 'we will become taller, our skin will become white, and our hair will be blonde" (231)

Thoughts and Questions: With a globalization of American corporations there will be an  American invasion onto domestic cultures of the given area. Mixing of cultures can often be a good thing, I like to think that NYC is such an amazing place currently because of that, but this generic building producing unhealthy food, promoting poor working conditions and deskilling the workforce is far from a good thing. So when learning about Jose Bove’s actions it warmed my heart a bit, not so much the demolishing as much as the public activism afterwords, because when it comes down to it, the change comes through the education.

Fast Food Nation What's in the Meat (ch9)

Précis: In Pueblo Colorado an outbreak of E. coli erupted causing much illness. By the time it was figured out that the source was hamburger beef 25 million pounds had already been sold. Centralization of food production (more specifically meat) has been the fault of widespread food borne illnesses. After World War 2 hamburgers became a popular dish, more often eaten by children for their ease of chewing, when an outbreak would occur they would be the one to pay the consequences. The E. coli comes from tainted meat, and the tainted meat comes from cattle living in their own shit literally. E. Coli can be found in 1 in every 100 cattle and even more common during the summer, and when McDonald's can use meat from up to hundreds of them in a single burger the odds don't look too good. Awareness came to public eye when the book Jungle was published by Upton Sinclair, legislation was passed after inspections and safety precautions were put in place. But now with so few inspections these safety regulations are severely lacking. After the severe outbreak of E. coli caused by the restaurant chain Jack in the Box, David M. Theno a food scientist pushed Jack in the Box for better safety regulations and eventually it spread to outside the chain. Even so, when there have been E. coli outbreaks companies would usually have to be pressured by the USDA to recall the beef and would usually recall much less than appropriate especially when the companies could get away with it. When Clinton was pressured for reform in the meatpacking industry a watered down version of his bill came into act where they would use chemicals to destroy most bacteria meaningless E. Coli. With fast food corporations pushing for safer food, much of the unsafe food arrives in school cafeterias. Even so, ridding food of bacteria falls a lot on the people who prepare it, and in many scenarios fast food teenage employees do grotesque things to the food served.

Gems: " The meatpacking industry is also working hard on get rid of the word 'irradiation' much preferring the phrase 'cold pasteurization'" (218)

"3 million pounds of chicken manure were fed to cattle in 1994" (202)

"He became ill on  a Tuesday night, the night before his mothers birthday, and was dead by sunday afternoon" (200)

"Eve suffered terrible pain, had three heart attacks, and had died in her mother's arms" (199)

Thoughts and Questions: I question our democratic system when a corporation can have so much influence over legislation. If these corporations are influencing senators and house members to vote or not vote for something that is against the interest of the people, how then are they at all represented? Especially in the E. coli scenario where it is literally killing people.

Fast Food Nation The Most Dangerous Job (ch8)

Précis: In this chapter Schlosser visits a meat packing factory "somewhere in the High Plains" of Colorado. In it, meat from the recently slaughtered cattle dances around on hooks from the ceiling and conveyor belts where employees attack the carcasses with knives to make the meat easily eatable to the consumer. This profession is currently the most dangerous job in the United States with an outstanding injury rate of over three times that of a typical American factory. Workers stun the strong animals so they can hang the bodies from the ceiling so that another worker can slit its neck; blood saturates the workplace and their clothes. With roughly five thousand cattle entering a day the assembly line can often be very rushed increasing the chances of an injury usually involving a knife as it is the primary tool used by workers. Currently workers are more than encouraged to not report these injuries, payment in the form of bonuses is the strong incentive among middle management to enforce that the workers keep their "complaints" at a minimum. The workforce is largely comprised of minorities who can often not speak English and get much more pay than they would than from where they emigrated from. Sexual harassment has been a problem as well as feelings of discomfort and in a few scenarios the factories have been fined and sued. Probably the most dangerous work is by the late night crews hired for sanitation, these workers are consistently put in hazardous situations such as climbing into a 30 foot high blood tank to clean it, on multiple occasions men have fell unconscious to the overpowering fumes, when this happened workers would often try to rescue their fallen pier and the entire party would die. Schlosser tells the story of many who work for the High Plains meatpacking factory, one in particular is especially heart-sinking, that of Kenny.

Kenny was an Iowa born six foot five hard worker who joined the company at age twenty-four who started doing heavy lifting. Throughout his sixteen years working there he fell victim to many injuries, the first of which he was struck by a falling 90 pound box and crushed onto a conveyer belt needing back surgery. Following this he was called into use harmful materials to clean the workplace which others refused to do because of the obvious safety hazard. Kenny was not issued appropriate safety materials and was in the hospital because his lungs were burned from the chemicals and his body as covered in blisters. Kenny also broke his leg due to a hole in the wall, and after that he had a heart attack that the company doctor denied. While recuperating he was fired from the company.

Gems: "Supervisors have been known to sell 'crank' to their workers or to supply it free in return for certain favor...For obvious reasons, a modern slaughterhouse is not a safe place to be high" (174).

"They're trying to deter you, period, from going to the doctor" (175).

"The fine was $480 for each man's death" (178).

"If the records showed an injury rate at the factory lower than the national average for all manufacturers, the OSHA inspector had to turn around and leave at once...These injury logs were kept and maintained by company officials" (179).

Thoughts and Questions: The atrocities in this chapter were appalling, my thoughts and questions could go on and on about the information that I just read as I think anyone with a soul could. What baffled me however is, how can a company not fix these safety hazards? Even if they're heart is a block of ice, as I'm sure it is, aren't the fines at least a reason to have some safety precautions? Then I realized that these fines are probably not at all the cost it would be if they imposed better working conditions. And since money is what drives the decisions in these (and many other) factories why can't we increase the fines until the decision is either pay or be in serious financial trouble?

Freakonomics Response

In the movie Freakonomics, based on the book by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner they address problems in things that have not been previously analysed. These things were analysed by using certain correlations to prove the given hypothesized causation. They addressed before this the difference between causation and correlation. Correlation is what we are given usually shown in data, causation would be why this data occurred. Now this can be tricky because correlation doesn't always mean causation, in the example the authors used polio. Because it peaked in the summer at the same time for obvious reasons as icecream sales, many scientists of the time theorized that because of this correlation that icecream caused polio. This was their example of how correlation can often mislead what the given causation is. Many of the examples the authors used they didn't specifically say what they thought the given causality was. For the "naming children" part of the movie they had data that opposed the expert on the subject leading the conclusion up to the viewer. The data they had like the identical applications for the job opposed what the sociology professor who studied the significance in names. When they analysed this topic they seemed to show multiple causations and why they might be wrong. The topic they seemed most firm in their belief of what causation connected to correlation was, was how the decision of Roe v. Wade affected the decline of crime in the late 1990's. They thought this correlation WAS causality because they had multiple pieces of evidence supporting the hypothesis and reasons for why the causality occured, it wasn't just what caused what, they were able to answer why has this caused this.
Alot of the correlations they used were innovative because for something like cheating on tests or rigged sumo wrestling there is seemingly no numbers you can look at to show a correlation. What the two authors did was they brainstormed when this cheating would occur, and then from finding those specific incentives they were able to find that suspected correlation that matched with their causation.

Freakonomics does serve as a good example to our attempt to explore the "hidden-in-plain-sight" weirdness of dominant social practices for multiple reasons. Like the chapter on names and their effects on the childs later part of life they teach us (subtly) you can choose to accept that there isn't enough evidence supporting a conclusion and essentially argue both sides. That there are certain places to look for your given correlation that will support your given causation if you look in the right places. And that you should view the world beyond what is given and appears to be the truth because the fallacy in it hasn't been brought to light.

7b FFN: On the Range

Précis: For Field research Schlosser travels to Colorado Springs, where he met a prominent local rancher, Hank. Though a classic symbol of the American West, Hank was very much against these meatpacking companies which are largely attributed to the poor economic standing so many farmers are in today. This is also caused by such problems as rising land prices, stagnant beef prices, oversupplies of cattle, increased shipments of live cattle from Canada and Mexico, development pressures, inheritance taxes and health scares about beef. A hundred years ago Ranchers were in a similar predicament, faced with these Beef Trust monopolies. Then of coarse good Old T.R. was there to swing his big stick and bust those trusts! The "trustbusters" progressive movement was sought to take power away from these monopolies because they felt to much economic power was a threat to our democracy. Thanks to this, Ranchers were able to sell in a competetive marketplace, a very good thing for them. Unfortunalty for the ranchers however, when Regan (known as the devil by Huey Freeman) took office he turned a blind eye to these antitrust laws and these meat packing corporations (amoung others) grew. With these monopolies on the beef and poultry industry companies were able to lower prices of beef and poultry and create certain countracts that put the ranchers grossly in debt. For some it ends there like Hank, who took his own life like many other ranchers because of the enormous pressure they were under and the debt they gathered.
Gems: "[Chicken McNuggets] turned a bulk agricultural commodity into a manufactored, value-added product. And it encourages a system of production that has turned many chicken farmers into little more than serfs." (139)
"The typical grower had been raising chicken for fifteen years, owned pountry houses, remained in debt, and earned perhaps $12,000 a year." (141)
Thoughts and Questions: Nine times out of ten, the worker will have a certain distaste for their boss. Ranchers definitly have cause for their anger, they are oppressed to the point of near serf status as Schlosser pointed out. Why then, have I never heard of these terrible conditions before reading this book (sort of)? I never here of this on the news or in the paper.