Written as a Speech in April 2002

Hustler Magazine vs Jerry Falwell Powerpoint

The Constitution of the United States was ratified September 17, 1787. Four years later ten amendments were appended to it, known collectively as the Bill of Rights. The very first of those amendments reads,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

While this may seem to be a clear statement that the government of the United States is not allowed to interfere with its citizens’ religious practices or their self-expression, few assertions in American politics have raised as many questions for debate over the past 200 years as this single sentence, and few debates have been as charged with passion as those that sought to define its scope and meaning. Does my freedom to move my fist stop before, after, or exactly when it meets your nose? Does speech include radio and television broadcasts that could create a panic, or reveal a national secret? How about a song that tells its listeners to get a gun and kill, kill, kill? How about the printed word? How about pictures? Let’s not even start on the internet! These questions have continuously been asked throughout the history of the US. And the debate between the right one has to put forward an idea, verses the degree to which the law must protect the emotional well being of others has been raging from day one of the first amendment.

A vital, modern example of the debate between people who advocate freedom of conscience and those who believe in freedom within the limits of moral legislation resulted in the 1988 Supreme Court case of Hustler Magazine, Inc vs Jerry Falwell. In the one corner was: Larry Flynt, the founder, CEO and editor in Chief of Hustler Magazine was and still is a multimillionaire porn king and a coinsurer of poor taste, and in the other corner: leader of the Moral Majority, and at that time the second most-admired man in America after President Ronald Reagan, according to a Good Housekeeping poll – Jerry Falwell.

It all started in 1987 when Larry Flynt approved a piece for the inside front cover of Hustler Magazine. The piece was a parody of a well known Campari advertising series where celebrities would talk about their “first time”. The ads contained a sexual innuendo, leading up to the fact that they were actually talking about their first time drinking Campari. The Hustler version depicted Jerry Falwell actually talking about his first sexual encounter, which Hustler claimed was in an out house with his mother.

Falwell sued Hustler for liable and causing emotional distress, but while on the stand testifying in a Virginia court room, Falwell admitted to the fact that no one could have taken the parody seriously. Because of this admission, the jury decided that the liable suit had to be dropped, but the conservative Virginian court convicted Flynt of causing emotional distress, and fined him $150 000. Flynt actually counter sued Falwell for copy right infringement because his Church had copied the parody and sent it to fund raisers to gain support for his campaign. But the main issue was that Flynt appealed the ruling and lost again in the Federal Appeals court. The Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting the contention that the “actual malice” standard of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, must be met before respondent can recover for emotional distress. But after petitioning, the case was eventually accepted but the Supreme Court in 1987.

In the short run the Supreme Court decision was perhaps of minor importance to both Falwell and Flynt. Both men are as wealthy as crooks, and the award in question amounted to only $200,000. Both men are far too popular with their own constituencies for their reputations to be seriously damaged by the opinions of enemies such as each other. And neither man is a stranger to the courtroom. Flynt in particular has been such an zealous defender of First Amendment rights that he was actually in a psychiatric prison at the time of the first case for throwing oranges at a judge while wearing a diaper fashioned from an American flag.

But in the long run the final decision in Falwell v. Flynt was of tremendous importance – not only because it let the scurrilous, pugnacious Flynt publish a nasty satire of the strait-laced, white middle-class American daddy Falwell, but chiefly because these two mean-spirited men perfectly represent the extreme positions in American society regarding some of this nation’s most fundamental freedoms. Furthermore, when the Supreme Court made its decision in favor of Flynt’s right to publish his satire over Falwell’s right not to be lampooned, it did so unanimously; and the opinion exonerating Flynt was written by the court’s least likely personality, Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

Prior to Falwell v. Flynt Rehnquist had voted against the press every time he had heard such a case before the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, in finding for Flynt he wrote, “At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern…. The freedom to speak one’s mind,’” he continued, quoting from another Supreme Court decision called Bose v. Consumers Union, “is not only an aspect of individual liberty – and thus a good unto itself – but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole.’”

What this means is that anyone can say anything they want to about a public figure, as long as it is their opinion, and not stated as fact. That once you enter the public arena, you give up your right to claim for emotionally distressing statements made about you. Does that sound harsh or unfair? Well, imagine a world were Jay Leno gets sued ever night, where South Park, the Daily Show or any other satirical media can not afford to be produced because liable suits would run rampant. But most importantly, be aware that even though you may not like Larry Flynt, or what he does, he proved that if the law will protect the rights of the self proclaimed “King of Bad Taste”, “Mr. Scum-bucket” and the “Worlds Greatest Pig”, then it will protect your rights as well.

Written in March of 2002

In my paper, I would like to examine two sides of smoking in the realm of nutrition and drugs. For one, why is smoking so addictive and secondly, how does nicotine effect your body’s internal functioning, in regards to the enzymes, vitamins and hormones that are affected by all the smoke that you take in.

To start with, why does the RDA recommend that smokers get more Vitamin C and E than the rest of us? Well yes, because they help lower levels of free radicals. Free radicals are partials that have been oxidized, which means that they have lost a electron. When you breathe these free radicals in, they steal electrons from enzymes and cells, oxidizing them, which stop them from doing their job effectually. D-alpha tocopherol, or vitamin E, is a fat soluble vitamin found in nuts, seeds, vegetable and fish oils, whole grains, cereals, and apricots and ascorbic acid, commonly known as vitamin C,  is a water soluble vitamin present in citrus fruits and juices, green peppers, cabbage, spinach, broccoli, kiwi, and strawberries. These vitamins are antioxidants. They help to protect the body against the damaging effects of free radicals by binding onto them, by essentially giving up a hydrogen atom. In the process, the vitamin C is used up. Cigarette smoke, which contains a lot of free radicals, places heavy demands on the body’s antioxidant defense system, including its vitamin C supply. The turnover of vitamin C is much greater in smokers than in nonsmokers so because of this increased demand, smokers need a higher intake of vitamin C than nonsmokers, in order to maintain normal blood levels of this vitamin.

As well as all the benefits of now having to drastically increase the vitamins you need, smoking also seems to be a key factor in sudden death from cardiovascular disease. It seems to raise blood pressure levels and heart rate, and may lower HDL-cholesterol levels (the good cholesterol). Smoking may also increase the tendency of blood to clot. The nicotine in cigarettes makes your body release adrenaline. Adrenaline causes your blood vessels to constrict and your heart to beat faster, which raises your blood pressure. This can lead to heart attacks and strokes.

Tobacco also makes alterations in release of hormones, such as GnRH (gonadotropin releasing hormone) and estrogen. Gonadotropins are protein hormones produced by the pituitary grand and are Follicle Stimulating Hormone (FSH). In the women, FSH promotes the maturation of ovarian follicles and the eggs that they contain. The cells, which line each follicle, produce estrogen, which in turn promotes the growth of the uterine lining so as to create a good environment for embryo implantation. Estrogen also stimulates the cervical glands to produce a clear mucus, through which sperm must pass, on its way to the awaiting egg at the end of the fallopian tube. When the chemicals in cigarette smoke start playing with these hormones, pregnancies can end in miscarriages, or have disastrous effects later on in the baby’s life. Smoking while pregnant is a really bad idea.

But women smokers can and do get pregnant. If a woman continues to smoke during her pregnancy, or regularly breathes second-hand smoke, the risks for the unborn baby’s health, development, and growth are all increased. Smokers are more likely to have a miscarriage, spontaneous abortion during the second trimester, preterm labor and delivery or stillbirth. Women who stop smoking during the first trimester have little or no greater risk of having a low birth weight infant. As infants, children of smokers are at higher risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Long term effects on their health may include poor growth, slightly lower intellectual performance and behavioral difficulties. They are more prone to ear infections, asthma, bronchitis and other respiratory problems. Quitting an expensive habit would clear up all the health risks associated with cigarettes, but not everyone can.

Smokers, who refuse to quit, but want to minimize their risk of illness, should consume a minimum of 10 servings of fruits and vegetables daily and reduce the amount of stressor foods: refined carbohydrates; alcohol; caffeine; saturated fat; and processed foods – the good stuff. They should also take nutritional supplements: vitamin E (400 to 800 IU per day); vitamin C (5-15 mg per pound of body weight daily); and beta carotene (no more than 10,000 IU per day). Other antioxidants worth considering include: grape skin; seed or pine bark extract; lipoic acid; coenzyme Q10; green tea extract; and inositol six phosphate.

Yet will all this information, smoker continue to smoke! Smokers who are serious about reducing their risk of disease should also engage in regular exercise daily. Of course, quitting smoking would help much more than any food or supplement.

Most people gain a few pounds (usually less than 10) after they stop smoking. It’s important to know that any weight gain is a minor health risk compared to the risks of continuing to smoke. Smokers try to replace smoking with overeating. People can find other ways to keep your hands busy instead of picking up food. But to be on the safe side, smokers thinking of quitting should start snacking more on low fat foods to raise their metabolism and start exercising. Exercise helps burn calories and has the added benefit of keeping you busy so you can’t smoke. But why do they constantly put themselves at danger to cancers and other health risks? The answer, they are addicted.

I do not understand the mechanisms of addiction very well. I have been exposed to the “runner’s high” during competitive swimming, and while enjoying it, it didn’t move me on any level. Nicotine seems to have no affect on me, and alcohol is something that I enjoy at many occasions, but have never felt the need for a drink. My friends (many of whom smoke, exercise excessively or spend an unhealthy amount of time on Internet chat lines) attribute this to the fact that I don’t have an addictive personality. Is there such a thing? Well, it has become increasingly common knowledge that the sons of alcoholics are more likely to have a drinking problem, in fact I have a friend who abstains totally due to his father’s daily whiskey intake, but is do the sons of runners want to run more? Are the sons of smokers more likely to need nicotine to get through the day?

Having at least 50% of my friends being smokers has led me to the conclusion that they must see something in it that I have missed. When I ask people why they smoke, the number one answer I get is “because it relaxes me” New research is coming out every day telling us that smoking is not the wisest of choices. In fact, the number one response I get may be part of a vicious cycle – a new study shows that nicotine use does not alleviate stress but actually increases it to a new higher, more consistent level. So what are smokers getting that the rest of us are not? Could the there be a genetic predisposition to smoking as there is in alcoholism?

Two new studies are saying yes, but certain aspects of the findings leave me skeptical. Twin studies have recently suggested that a predisposition to smoking and the ability to quit are influenced by genetic factors. The research is based on a theory that there is an association between allele 9 of a dopamine transporter gene polymorphism (SLC6A3-9) and cigarette smoking.

A significant association between SLC6A3-9 and smoking status has apparently been confirmed, but is said to have more of an effect on quitting rather than starting. The research found that the SLC6A3-9 polymorphism is also associated with low scores for novelty seeking, which was the most significant personality correlate of smoking cessation. The researchers hypothesized that people carrying the SLC6A3-9 polymorphism have altered dopamine transmission, which reduces their need for novelty and reward by external stimuli, including cigarettes.

Does this mean that the reason that I don’t smoke is due to a dopamine fault that makes me less likely to seek novelties and rewards from outside sources? I highly doubt it. I am sure that most of my friends would agree that I am constantly seeking out new things and due to my expressive social style, looking for attention and rewards. I believe that another study also recently conducted has a much better theory: For years, nicotine has been shown to stimulate dopamine release. They believe that genetic variations in the dopamine receptors gene and the dopamine transporter gene (SLC6A3) may “influence concentrations of and responses to synaptic dopamine”, in other words, they believe that nicotine may just influence people with SLC6A3-9 more than others.

However, as with all neurotransmitter research, we cannot come to any definite answers because we just don’t know enough about the functioning of the brain to make them. All literature that I seem to read on this subject seems to taper off to some weak “but more research is required” ending. It is quite possible that we will see the end of big tobacco in the world before we understand the physical workings of the human brain that are involved in addiction, and with the amount of money that tobacco companies have, I expect that it will be a very long time.

References:

Advanced Human Nutrition
Wildman, R. and Medeiros, D.

CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida 2000.

A Genetic Association for Cigarette Smoking Behavior
Sue Z. Sabol, Mark L. Nelson, Lorraine Gunzerath, Cindy L. Brody, Stella Hu, and Leo A. Sirota
Laboratory of Biochemistry, National Cancer Institute

Evidence Suggesting the Role of Specific Genetic Factors in Cigarette Smoking
Caryn Lerman
Lombardi Cancer Center
Georgetown University Medical Center

Does Cigarette Smoking Cause Stress?
Andy C. Parrott
University of East London

Evidence suggesting the role of specific genetic factors incigarette smoking.
Lerman, C., Caporaso, N. E., Audrain, J., Main, D., Bowman, E. D., Lockshin, B., Boyd, N. R. & Shields, P. G. (1999). Health Psychology, 18, 14-20.

Pregnacy and Smoking
Dr. Phillip Owen

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/health_advice/facts/pregnantsmoking.htm

Written as a Speech around March 2002

Introduction

Everyone in this room could come down to Ybor with me tonight, and for a little bit more than the cost a movie ticket, experience a drug that would allow us to feel free and euphoric while still giving us the energy to dance until the early hours of the morning. Well… except for those of you who are possibly on an anti-depressant, have epilepsy or simply took a few Tylenol before hitting the clubs – for you it would probably kill. The drug I am talking about is ecstasy. With almost 7% of all 12^th Graders having used it before, ecstasy is one of the “new” designer drugs that have actually been out since the 70’s but have recently become fashionable, especially throughout the club scene. Of all available narcotics, I have the biggest problem with ecstasy because although the prevailing attitude towards it is that of a “safe” drug, it is in actuality one of the most dangerous. Today I will explain how the drug works, as well as why it is so dangerous and finally what is being done to keep curb the dangers associated with ecstasy. Rudyard Kipling once said that “words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind” So it is very important that my words here today will allow you to make informed decisions and perhaps even help others.

How ecstasy works

MDMA, commonly know as ecstasy, is one of the most widely used drugs by people my age. To understand why it is such a powerful and dangerous drug allow me to explain how it works: The brain is made of billions of cells called neurons. To greatly simplify the intricate workings of the most complicated computer in the world, our neurons pass messages to each other in the form of chemicals and electric pulses. These chemicals, called neurotransmitters, regulate our mood, emotions, sleep, even our appetite. Most drugs work here, between the neurons which are sending and receiving the neurotransmitters. Now ecstasy works on the neurons that release the transmitter called serotonin. Serotonin is the neurotransmitter found in chocolate and warm milk, it controls mood functions ranging from happiness to sleep, and that’s why women with PMS often self medicate with large dosages of chocolate. What MDMA does is cause neurons to flood the brain with serotonin, producing the “ecstatic” high. But how can ecstasy then be one of the largest drug killers in America today?

How it harms

Often taken at all night dance parties known as “raves”, ecstasy is said to enhance the experience, make you feel closer to everyone around you, and lets you feel the music. According to Dr Philip Jenkins, author of Synthetic panics, this is in fact true. MDMA was originally designed by psychotherapists in the 70’s to let patients feel closer to their therapists. However playing with the delicate balance of chemicals in the brain can severely damage the neuron receptors, the buckets of the brain that catch serotonin. The end result: your body’s inability to accept serotonin into the brain.

Demo

It was only in the early 1990’s that people began to realize the long term effects of ecstasy on emotional well being. You see, once you have lost the ability to capture serotonin, you have lost that which makes you happy. Not a trade off that I would be willing to take. On top of that, the terrible depression that is suffered later in life cannot be treated with drugs like Prozac, because anti-depressants work with serotonin, and if the actual nerves are destroyed, there is nothing to work with! However, depression is not what kills most of the young people who take ecstasy. They die of heat exhaustion. If your brain is under the impression that you are in an elevated level of happiness, it tends to ignore the fact that you have been dancing, in a crowed arena, without drinking anything all night. In the end, your body gives out and you don’t get to experience the wonderful chronic depression later in life.

Measures to stop/curve/help

So what is being done to save the lives of those in the demographic at the greatest risk: us? To start with, ecstasy has been illegal 1985 according to cnn.com. But like most drugs, being illegal doesn’t stop or slow their production, consumption or abuse. In fact, DEA statistics show an increase in the use of the drug. Does this mean there is no solution? Like so many other dangers in life, the greatest problem with MDMA is ignorance. Ecstasy is often considered a safe drug by those who use it; some even believe that it is herbal. Kids don’t even know what it is they are taking and so fake ecstasy is a huge killer. The organizations that seem to be making the most headway are groups like “Rave Safe” which have taken pro-active but controversial stance on “E”. What they do is set up booths outside of big raves and will test your ecstasy for free to make sure that there is nothing else in it. They also hand out pamphlets on the effects of ecstasy but do not take the parental “Don’t do it because I said so” attitude that very often pushes away the young people who take the drug. Other non-profit societies hand out water at all night parties hoping to curve the dehydration deaths associated with ecstasy and statistics show that they have been successful.

Close

I have now shown you how ecstasy works, how it harms its users, and some of the measures that are being taken to put a stop to at least the deaths that are indirectly caused by its abuse. I hope that some of this information will help you make an informed decision one day about MDMA or to at least help someone else realize how much pain this “safe” drug can cause. Your brain is the most important part of your body, no matter what a fashion magazine will tell you, so look after it. 400 years ago Sir Francis Bacon said “Seek first the good things of the mind, and the rest will either be supplied or its loss will not be felt”, and he is still right today.

Written for a speech around February 2002

In March of 1998, First National Bank, my bank in South Africa, received a phone call. It was to their IT department. The phone call went something like this: “First National Bank IT, how may I help you?” “Hi there, may I please speak to your Head of Department?” “Sure, hang on a second.” “Bob speaking how I may help you.” Hi Bob, this is Michael. I would like a job.” “I am sorry Sir, but this is IT, you need to speak to human resources.” “No Bob I need to speak to you.” “Sir, we are the IT department, only Human Resources can hire people.” “Well Bob, I have just hacked your system.” Pause. “Michael is it?  I am afraid that is impossible, we have the some of the most secure servers in the world.” “Bob… check your email, I’ll call back in five minutes.” So five minutes after Bob found the entire list of usernames, passwords, credit card numbers and pin codes of First National Banks customers in his email box, my friend Michael, or Wiz as he prefers to be called, became the new head of security at First National Bank. He is 25 and drives a nice new Jaguar.

Michael was, and still is, a professional hacker. Today’s computer-dependant world is completely reliant on these cyber geeks. But are they dangerous and what threats do they pose? Today I will explain the three main points of concern that you are likely to encounter living in the 21^st century: the possible national security risks, the risks that your company or future company might face and what risks you take simply surfing the internet at home. So unless you plan to live under a rock for the rest of your life, you had better listen up!

To start with, let’s think big. What is the most amount of damage that a person could cause with a computer and a phone line? Is stealing someone’s credit card really the worst that could happen? Could a good hacker possibly shut down TV, water, gas or power stations or crash planes? Since September 11^th, Washington has had to rethink their stance on terrorism, of any kind, and cyber terrorism ranks high on the list of concerns. So are we prepared? Well just one week ago, an internet security team conducted an investigation into the integrity of the White House computer systems. By simply driving around the exterior of the property, with a regular wireless network card, like this one (example) and a laptop computer, they were able to browse some of the networks inside the White House. And that was what they could do by merely logging on. They didn’t even start hacking at the system! The resulting scare is speeding up the updating of systems defenses in the White House and in other government facilities. This one example can give you an idea of how great a problem this really is.  The CIA knows of at least three countries currently training Cyber Soldiers, the US, Russia and China. This new breed of soldier will be capable of launching devastating attacks on enemy infrastructures with out ever leaving their desks.

You might not want to worry about the personal consequences of foreign powers throwing their computing might at your online shopping habits, but that does not mean that you are safe.

Businesses are at a huge risk. If my friend TimeWiz had wanted to do so, he could have had one hell of a shopping spree. In a recent beep poll, it was found that 78% of webmasters do not use the built-in security options that come with many software packages today and another poll taken by beep found that more than 73% of new software has SERIOUS security flaws when released. So if you own a business or intend to do so one day, PLEASE, for the sake of us all, hire experienced IT personal, or out-source the job to an expert security company… it will save you money in the long run. It is also important to demand secure, safe software, rather than buying junk. Software vendors will continue to peddle poor, unsafe software as long as they have a market for it; your dollar is your vote.

But what about you, the home user?

America has the highest rate of internet users and (more importantly) internet shoppers of any country in the world. As a result, credit card fraud is the number one internet crime in America. The reasons? Well firstly people just don’t know enough about the internet, and secondly, Americans seem to be overly trusting with their card details. So to help all those would-be internet shoppers to shop a little safer, I have compiled a short list of do’s and don’ts. The number one suggestion I have for people is not to use a debit card online. Debit cards do not have the same kind insurance from banks as credit cards do, so if you do get ripped off it will be much harder to prove it and get your money back. Number two: use reputable sites – Web sites that you have heard of before, like Amazon.com, eBay, and Yahoo-shopping. If you are not sure about the authenticity of a web site, you can look at its certificate. A certificate appears in the bottom right-hand corner of your screen in the form of a small yellow padlock. The padlock will usually appear in areas where you enter account details or passwords. When it appears, it means that everything you type is being encrypted before being sent to the website, so that no one can intercept your details. Now this doesn’t guarantee anything, because anyone can make a certificate, it’s who the certificate is from that matters. If you double click on the yellow padlock, and discover that it has been issued by a company other than Thwate or VeriSign, then DON’T BUY FROM THERE!! Those are the only two security companies in the world who can guarantee your purchase is safe.

So in summary, there are gaping holes in US computer defenses, although action is being taken to close some of the more dangerous ones, and people are aware of the need to rectify problems. Businesses are facing dangers that in today’s wired world, but there are a number of  fairly simple home remedies for the common internet security risks. Terrified yet? Well you don’t have to be. Going for walk down the street is only dangerous if you have no idea what the metal box is, with four wheels hurtling towards you. The internet is no different. Knowing what is out there is the number one step to protecting yourself. And who knows, one day, if you know enough, you could be driving a nice new Jaguar.

Written around December 2001

Introduction

The Vietnam War is the longest military conflict that the United States has participated in. It cost the US $150 billion and 58,000 American lives and estimates on North Vietnamese losses range up to a million[1]. The Republic of Vietnam lies entirely within the Tropics. Saigon is halfway around the world from Washington, D.C. and there is a 12-hour difference in time between the two cities. The nearest off-shore U.S. hospital is almost 1,000 miles away at Clark Air Force Base in the Philippines, The nearest logistical support base is about 1,800 miles away in Okinawa. The nearest complete hospital center is in Japan, some 2,700 miles distant. Patients being evacuated to the United States must travel, some 7,800 miles to reach Travis Air Force Base in California, or almost 9,000 miles to reach Andrews Air Force Base, near Washington, D.C[2]. When considering the nature of the Vietnam War, it is surprising that there were not many more fatalities on the American side. With staggering casualty rates, but high survival rates, one can begin to understand the success of the medical operations in during the war. During the 18 years of conflict the medical units of the army, navy and air force continued to provide exceptional care under extremely difficult circumstances.

History

For most of military history, a wounded soldier would find himself lying on the field where he had fallen with no hope of aid. However, by the late 18^th century, the first medical help for the injured was organized. Napoleon’s army was the first to have a unit of “litter-bearers”, consisting mainly of inept and expendable soldiers, whose task it was to remove the wounded from the battle field[3]. By 1862, due to the enormous number of casualties at the battle of Manassas, Dr Jonathan Letterman, Head of Medical Services of the Army of the Potomac, decided to redesign the Arm Medical Corps. His plans included the basic three tiered structure that is still used today[4].

Structure

As with everything in the military, the medical units were highly structured. Every platoon was accompanied by a medic, or if they were lucky, two. Medics were the first line of medical care available to an injured or sick solider[5]. The major difference between Vietnam and another war however, was the use of helicopters.  Choppers were used not only as gunships and transports, but also as ambulances[6]. After being evacuated from the battle field, a patient would find himself at a field hospital or “MASH” station. The final destinations for those beyond the care of field hospitals were the main army hospitals stationed in Japan.

Medics

Medics were used to their full potential for the first time in Vietnam. By definition, medics were soldiers (grunts) with medical training. All units received basic training together for eight weeks, regardless of their future MOS (Military Operating Specialty)[7]. From there, a combat medic would move on their medical training, often at Fort Sam Huston, Texas, for another eight weeks of training. There, they trained constantly in how to draw blood, start IV’s, use splints, treat shock, head wounds, gunshot wounds, burns, seizures, VD, dislocations, perform tracheotomies, C.P.R and hospital duties along with numerous other techniques[8].  As with most of the Vietnam conscripts, combat medics were normally boys of just 18 or 19 years old[9]. Under the massive amounts of stress of fighting in a jungle guerilla war, many of the medics “freaked out”[10]. They would start cutting down on their own food and water so they could carry more medical supplies; start stealing plasma bottles and writing parents and friends for medial catalogues so they could order their own endotracheal tubes or simply refusing to leave when their tour was over. A tour of Vietnam was 12 months for everyone – except medics, theirs was only seven[11].

So the medics in Vietnam fought side by side with their fellow soldiers. A medic would not only carry blood, splints and a surgery kit, but also an M-16 and grenades. Medics also often doubled as radio operators, making them especially valuable to a platoon. In fact, it was a practice of the North Vietnamese fighters to shoot for the leg or stomach, because they knew that the medics were so dedicated that they would come to aid the fallen grunt, and walk into a trap. Medics no longer wore red cross arm bands or helmets. But the front line of medical aid supplied by the combat medics was invaluable. 98% of wounded who were evacuated from the battle grounds survived.

Dust offs

As more soldiers arrived, the Army Medical Service began its own buildup, which included an increase in the number of medical evacuation units. During the next three years the Surgeon General of the Army sent two air ambulance companies and six more helicopter ambulance companies to Vietnam. In March 1966 the 44th Medical Brigade, which had been activated in January, assumed control of most Army medical units in Vietnam[12]. The platoon owed its existence to the creation of the first airmobile division in the U.S. Army, the 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile)[13]. In August 1962 the U.S. Army Tactical Mobility Requirements Board, chaired by Lt. Gen. Hamilton H. Howze, had recommended the creation of a new airmobile division, which would be served by an air ambulance platoon.[14]

With the advent of the Airmobile Division came new advantages. Patients could be moved with relative speed from a battle situation to a field hospital. Often, the medic who had treated the solider on the ground would accompany him on the way to the MASH (Mobile Army Surgical Hospital) to stabilize him[15]. Once on board, the chance for survival soared, and only increased as the evac approached the hospital.

Dressing stations, Mobile stations and MASH units

The MASH units, made famous by the TV show about the Korean War, were the first stops for injured soldiers. They were staffed by doctors, dentists, nurses and medics. This is where most of the women serving in the war worked. The field hospitals did the best they could under extremely difficult circumstances. Surgery ranged from procedures such as amputations to minor brain surgery, normally performed by doctors who had little or no experience in the kind of operations required to treat some of the wounded. The doctors however earned the reputation that inspired the MASH series. This was mainly because they did not approve or believe in the war effort, and even though they worked up to14 hours in a day to save as many lives as they could, they had very little time for the military way of doing things. Insolent and disrespectful to fellow officers, the doctors of the field hospital unit would often wear their uniforms mismatched, salute with the wrong hand and ignore military rank[16]. There irreverence for the system was in most ways a protest against being in Vietnam against their wishes, but their humor and mockery of the military was more a way of coping with their situation. Even though most of the doctors serving in Vietnam felt strongly against the reasons that the United States was fighting the war, many extended their tours because as much as they didn’t like it, they realized that they were more helpful in saving lives there than anywhere else[17].

One frequently overlooked segment of the medical personal, serving in Vietnam, is that of women. Women’s enlisting in the Army was a relatively new concept in the 1950s, and although they were noncombatants, they helped a great number of people by serving in the medical field as nurses, doctors and administrators. The women (and men) of the ANC (Army Nurse Corps) provided high quality nursing to U.S. troops in Vietnam beginning in mid-1962. Thirteen nurses were included on the staff of the 5th Field Hospital which arrived at Nha Trang in March 1962. Thereafter the number of nurses sent to Vietnam increased gradually as the troop buildup continued. The number reached its peak strength of 900 in January 1969, after which it fell rapidly to about 650 by July 1970 as the withdrawal of U.S. troops gained momentum. These numbers are often sketchy because of poor record keeping in regards to women in the military, and partly due to the fact that women are so often over-looked in war situations.

The role of female nurses and doctors was extremely important in both the MASH units and the Japanese Hospitals. One of the more important, and mire difficult tasks that nurses had to do was that of sorting out the incoming sick and injured. During large offensives such as Tet (Vietnamese New Year), nurses lined up patients in order of who the doctors were most likely to be able to save in the shortest amount of time. The reality of war is that a doctor’s time is better used to save three patients who demand 2 hours in the theater than to be taken up with one case that could take six hours.

Japanese Hospitals

Once the field hospitals had done all they could do, patients were turned over to the Army hospitals in Japan. In 1966, there was only one 90-bed Army dispensary in Japan, but by 1975 there were four the largest of these being Zama[18]. When the escalation began in the war, the Army had the choice of either building up the current facilities in the Philippines, starting from scratch in Okinawa or building more hospitals in Japan. The Philippines seemed however to be unstable at the time, and Okinawa was too expensive so the Army chose Japan even though it was four hours further away. Zama was staffed with internists, anesthesiologists, ophthalmologists, plastic surgeons, gynecologists, oral surgeons, ENT specialists, thoracic surgeons, vascular surgeons, pediatricians and even an allergist[19]. The hospitals often averaged six to eight thousand patients a month, and during the Tet offensive it was closer to eleven. There were days and weeks when the evacs didn’t stop coming in and when they couldn’t fly, the army brought patients in by ambulance from the Air Force bases.

Some doctors would try to send as many of the soldiers as they could home, keeping them up to the end of their tour, or pronouncing them unfit for combat. Others did exactly the opposite, sending as many men back to the front lines because they felt that they needed to keep the force strong enough to win the war. Neither of the kinds of doctors actually believed in the war, they just wanted to get America out of Vietnam.

Conclusion

Vietnam changed much of the way that wars are fought today. New techniques and unit are expected to accompany war, but Vietnam changed much more than the use of helicopters and combat medics. The war was the first to be widely televised, and the first American war to be so widely protested by the public. The Secretary of Defense once remarked that “The picture of the world’s greatest power killing or injuring 1000 noncombatants a week, while truing to pound back a tiny backward nation into submission on an issue whose merits are hotly disputed is not a pretty one.” [20] The medical personal of the war made the greatest contribution to saving lives in an armed conflict ever, with much of the heroism of the Vietnam War revolving not around taking lives, but rather saving them.

[2] Medical Support Of The U.S. Army In Vietnam 1965-1970

[3] Napoleon

[4] Dr Letterman

[5] Dust off

[6] Dust off

[7] Combat Medic Training During the Vietnam War

[8] Combat Medic Training During the Vietnam War

[9] Body Shop

[10] 365 Days, 54

[11] 365 Days, 54.

[12] Dust off

[13] Medical Support Of The U.S. Army In Vietnam 1965-1970

[14] Dust off

[15] Dust off

[16] Dr. E

[17] 365 Days, 12

[18] Medical Support Of The U.S. Army In Vietnam 1965-1970

[19] 365 Days, X.

[20] America, 1184.

Written around March 2001

Edgar Alan Poe’s “The Cask of Amontillado” is a confession by a man called Montresor to a murder that he committed fifty years previously, in an un-named European city. In the confession, Montresor explains how he killed his “friend” (192), Fortunato, over a “thousand injuries” (191) and a final unspecified insult.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines dramatic irony as ”the effect achieved by leading an audience to understand an incongruity between a situation and the accompanying speeches, while the characters in the play remain unaware of the incongruity.” Poe employs this kind of irony to emphasize his character’s carefully thought-out plan to maximize the pain of his friend’s demise. He uses ironic layers of perception to lead the reader though Fortunato’s final realization of how a double layer of possible interpretation of meaning underlies the events that take place over the period leading up to his death.

The title, “The Cask of Amontillado” demonstrates the theme of irony throughout the short story. Forunato’s desire to share some of the dry Spanish sherry with his friend leads to his ultimate demise, and the “cask” literally becomes his casket. Montresor’s wine cellars are his family’s catacombs, though which he leads Fortunato to his death saying: “herein is the Amontillado”(195). Fortunato drinks a toast “to the buried that repose” (193) around them, not yet realizing the irony in his words, in that he will soon be joining them.

Another example of Poe’s dark use of irony is the exchange between Fortunato and Montresor about the secret fraternity of the Freemasons. Fortunato believes that it is “impossible” (194) for Montresor to be a mason, to which he responds by “producing from beneath the folds of [his] roquelaire a trowel” (194), the symbol of the masons. This is actually the tool that he will use to wall up a stone niche – with Fortunato inside.

As Montresor is sealing up the niche with his “friend” chained inside, Poe briefly shows how the revenge is made even sweeter through the use of irony. At that moment, when Fortunato realizes that his fate is sealed, he begins to remember all the chances he had for escape. Many times Montresor presented him a way out, with offers of not wanting to “impose on [Fortunato’s] good nature” (192), of “we will go back; your health is precious” (193) and “Come. We will go back ere it is too late” (195).

Finally, what must hurt the most is Fortunato realizing as the last brick is put in place that he was led to the cask(et) by his own obsession for alcohol, similar in severity to Montresor’s own obsession for upholding his family motto: “No one insults me with impunity” (193). Fortunato must once again be able to see, in retrospect, that Montresor carefully used his weakness against him as he trudged through the cold, damp catacombs, ignoring his cough, in search of the sherry and saying “Cold is merely nothing. Amontillado!”(192).

Poe’s dark sense of dramatic irony turns Fortunato into the audience who finally becomes aware of the incongruity between Montresor’s actions and motives, delivering the worst possible blow.

Poe, Edgar Allen. “The Cask of Amontillado” Literature: Reading Reacting, Writing. Eds. Laurie G. Kirszner and Stephen G. Mandell. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace, 1994. 191-196.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996.

Written around March 2001

Existentialism is “a philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of the individual experience in a hostile or indifferent universe, regards human existence as unexplainable, and stresses freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of one’s acts.” It was a philosophy that was followed by great writers like Ezra Pound, Gertrude Stein and T.S Eliot, and which is seen extensively in the work of Ernest Hemingway. Hemingway’s beliefs concerning existentialism are the driving force behind his short story, ”A Clean Well Lighted Place”. The story centers on issues such as depression, loneliness, aging and despair, but all are set around the theme of existentialism.

Readers are immediately introduced to the underlying concepts of existentialism in the very first discussion in the story. This occurs between two waiters, one old and one young, who discuss their last customer, an old drunk, who is still at the café. The old drunk had tried to hang himself a week before, but when the young waiter asks, “Who cut him down?” the older replies, “His niece” but only for “the sake of his soul” (234). The older waiter says this with bitter sarcasm, understanding that the old man’s niece was wasting her time, as he (the waiter) does not believe in souls. Critics have often suggested that the older waiter represents Hemingway, who himself ended his own life.

Hemingway’s attitude towards life is typified in the old waiter’s thoughts as he wonders the streets looking for a clean well-lighted place.  He begins the Lord’s Prayer with “Our nada who art in nada, nada be thy name” (236) and continues though the prayer replacing most of the nouns and abstract nouns with “nada”. The overall effect emphasizes the atheist standpoint of existentialism and the corresponding belief that life has no meaning to it outside of the actions which humans choose.

The title, “A Clean Well Lighted Place” is an example of what does give meaning to these men’s lives. The young waiter, representing inexperience, says that the old drunk could just “buy a bottle and drink it at home” (235), but the older waiters responds with “No, it’s not the same” (235) understanding that these clean, bright cafés are the only reason that he is able to get though the night, without collapsing into utter despair. But there is one thing that Hemingway believes that these men who share his philosophy have no matter what: dignity. When the old drunk leaves, the waiters see “a very old man walking unsteadily, but with dignity” (235), this is the same dignity that the old waiter has in his search for a “clean well-lighted café” (236) which had the cleanliness that the “bars and bodegas” lacked (236).

“A Clean Well Lighted Place” ends with the older waiter giving up on finding a refuge for the night in one of the immaculate cafés where “you do not want music” (236) nor do you want to “stand before a bar” (236) that he searches for. He goes home to bed. He suffers, however, from what he believes is “probably only insomnia” (236). What Hemingway is saying is that existentialism is sometimes like insomnia, and understanding it creates a situation of not being able to live in the hours of the day – even though these have meaning for most people.

The waiter closes with the thought that his is not an isolated case of insomnia as “many must have it” (236). In this Hemingway displays a certain pity for others like himself for whom, sometimes, the emptiness can be too much to bear.

Bibliography

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996.

Hemingway, Ernest. “A Clean Well Lighted Place” Literature: Reading Reacting, Writing. Eds. Laurie G. Kirszner and Stephen G. Mandell. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace, 1994. 233-236.

Terribly written in February  of 2001

Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s short story, “The Yellow Wall-Paper”, portrays the life of a young woman who is suffering from a “temporary nervous depression” (Gilman 153) with “a slight hysterical tendency” (Gilman 153). Trapped in a “colonial mansion” (Gilman 152) by her physician husband, who believes that the house will be therapeutic, her mental state begins to deteriorate to the point of hallucinations and chronic paranoid delusions. Her grip on reality seems to be made worse though the story by her husband and his parental-like treatment of her. If we use modern psychological diagnostic techniques to asses the young lady’s situation, we can get a much better idea of what is ailing her than a “temporary nervous depression”. Appling these techniques gives a picture of someone suffering from a personality disorder, “a continuing pattern of perceiving and relating to the world that is maladaptive across a variety of contexts and results in a notable impairment or distress” (Kendall and Hammen 407).

One such pattern is the schizotypal disorder. It can be seen as “similar to, but not severe enough to be considered schizophrenia” (Kendall and Hammen 407). A fairly common symptom is perceptual errors in giving incorrect properties to a sensation, such as saying “I find it (the smell) in the dining-room, sulking in the parlor, hiding in the hall, lying in wait for me on the stairs” (Gilman 161) or “The only thing I can think of that it is like is the color of the paper! A yellow smell”(Gilman 161). Later, her state of mind begins to crumble with full-blown visual hallucinations like: “The front pattern does move – and no wonder! The woman behind shakes it!” (Gilman 162) and “As soon as it was moonlight, and that poor thing began to crawl and shake the pattern, I got up and ran to help her” (Gilman 163).

Another aspect of Generalized Personality Disorder the Gilman’s subject exhibits is the Obsessive-Compulsive pattern, which is “marked by a preoccupation with perfectionism, orderliness and control over the self and others – to the point of inefficiency” (Kendall and Hammen 412). One of her compulsions is to write: “I don’t want to. I don’t feel able…But I must say what I feel and think that in some way – it is such a relief.” She also clearly displays the almost ritualistic patterns of tracing a wood grain or carpet thread that OCD patients suffer, in her case it she is compelled to trace the lines in the wallpaper pattern: “I start, we’ll say, at the bottom, down in the corner over there where it has not been touched, and I determine for the thousandth time that I will follow that pointless pattern to some sort of a conclusion” (Gilman 157).

Finally, thrown into the young lady’s mix of mental distress is clear evidence of a paranoid personality disorder. People with paranoid symptoms are “pervasively suspicious of others and distrust their motives” (Kendall and Hammen 407). Gilman’s character begins to display these signs saying that her husband “pretended to be very loving and kind. As if I couldn’t see though him!” (Gilman 163). She obviously does not trust her sister-in-laws motives saying, “Jennie wanted to sleep with me – the sly thing!” (Gilman 163). She doesn’t even believe that her diary is safe from being read when she writes, “I have found out another funny thing, but I shan’t tell it this time! It does not do to trust people top much” (Gilman 162).

Patients suffering from these disorders lead painful lives that often lead to complete breakdowns or suicides. The medical and psychological treatments for these kinds of disorders have recently come leaps and bounds, even in the last ten years, and so medical knowledge of the late 1800’s probably could not offer suitable relief of the misery that patients suffered.  After my extensive analysis of the main character’s situation and mental health, I would most likely prescribe extensive writing and as much time away from her husband as possible.

Bibliography

Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. “The Yellow Wall-Paper” Literature: Reading Reacting, Writing. Eds. Laurie G. Kirszner and Stephen G. Mandell. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace, 1994. 152-165.

Hammen, Constance and Philip C. Kendall. Abnormal Psychology: Understanding Human Problems. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1998.  406-229.

Written in February of 2001, some sort of book review I believe…

Growing up in South Africa lends an interesting insight in reading literary works concerning my former homeland, such as Nadine Gordimer’s “Once Upon a Time”. In a what first appears to be a seemingly arbitrary introduction, Gordimer tells the story of her waking one night to fears of an intruder, only to realize that the noises she hears are from the creaking as her house, being built on top of the Johannesburg gold mines, begins to buckle under the stress. What is less apparent is that she is trying to show that South Africa is a country that is founded on the principles of exploiting black people for cheap labor to mine the richest gold and diamond fields in the world.

When Gordimer writes that the “passages of gold mines have hollowed the rock” (75), she is saying that the “house’s foundations” (75), the system of apartheid, is responsible for the fear that white people live in, waiting “already a victim” (75) of the next knifing by a “casual labourer…dismissed without pay” (75), or some other such “tsotsis” (77). She then proceeds to tell herself  “a bed-time story” (76) about a family living in a very South African city.

The story she tells herself features a mother, a father and a little boy who all love each other very much in typical fairy-tale fashion. However, the tale is not so typical, with the mother and father living in a very paranoid world where every one around them, especially the “wise old witch” (76) mother-in-law (every fairy-tale needs a witch), recommends tighter security around their property and loved ones. What begins to become clear is that as the family improves their defenses and becomes more and more secure, they are also slowly but surely imprisoning themselves, to the point where not even the cat would risk “breaching security” (79).

Gordimer explains the reasons why the society she came from has such an unquenchable desire for security. Examples like the “riots (that) were suppressed” (76) and the “many burglaries in the suburbs” (76) show how it is not just one family’s paranoia, but an entire nation living in fear – continuously upgrading their home security systems to the point where “alarms were often answered – it seemed – by other alarms” (77) like “electronic harpies” (77) screaming at each other on an otherwise peaceful Sunday afternoon. However, these descriptions are not as frightening as the consequences that these elaborate security systems have on the loving family living inside of the well-protected walls.

The point to Gordimer’s tale is made painfully clear when “the little boy” has to be “hacked out of the security coil with saws, wire-cutters, (and) choppers” (79) after getting stuck in the barbed-wire at the top of their perimeter wall. The little boy’s blood clearly expresses Gordimer’s belief that South Africa’s faulty foundations are to blame for the tragedy experienced in her “bed-time story” and everywhere else in her country. Sadly, for me, her pessimistic vision of South Africa’s future is no revelation: after all, I left Johannesburg to live happily ever after in America.

Gordimer, Nadine. “Once Upon a Time.” Literature: Reading Reacting Writing. Eds. Laurie G. Kirszner and Stephen R. Mandell. Fort Worth: Harcourt College Publishers, 1994. 75-79.

Written around January 2001 for a discourse essay

On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the case of Roe v. Wade, announcing that the United States Constitution protects a woman’s right to decide whether or not to terminate a pregnancy (Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court transcript 14). Seven justices voted in favor legalized abortion under limited circumstances and two dissented.  This landmark ruling consolidated the rights won by women in the ‘60s and early 70s, and delivered instant benefits for women’s health and quality of life. It also delivered far-reaching social benefits to American society. The current threat to the ruling should be a matter of concern to all clear-thinking people.

Roe’s immediate effect was to make existing abortion laws invalid in every state except New York. The new laws regulated how much power the government would have over a woman’s right to abort during each trimester of her pregnancy. This central issue has, however, since been blurred by the pro-life activists focus on whether or not a fetus is a person during that first trimester. It is time to concentrate the discussion back to the needs of women and on what a fetus does, rather than what a fetus is.

An Oxford University Press book: “Breaking the Abortion Deadlock: From Choice to Consent” by Eileen McDonagh, a professor of political science at Northeastern University, puts a new spotlight on the age old abortion debate. She argues that even in a medically normal pregnancy, the fetus massively intrudes on a woman’s body and expropriates her liberty. If the woman does not consent to this transformation and use of her body, the fetus’s imposition constitutes injuries sufficient to justify the use of deadly force to stop it (McDonagh 24).

To illustrate her point, McDonagh gives the example of a medical procedure where a father’s bone marrow is injected into a fetus to correct a genetic immune deficiency disorder (McDonagh 63). This procedure brings a father’s involvement in pregnancy into an entire new dimension, where bodily contributions from men, and not just women, are given to fetuses in utero. Andrea Jamison, author of 101 Things You Can Do to Make the World a Better Place for Women believes that, keeping this in mind will help the public realize how important it is for a person to consent to give their body to a fetus during pregnancy (Jamison 12). Jamison, in a small poll of pro-lifers, shows how few such people would agree that a father’s body should be taken without consent to help a fetus in utero (Jamison 13). The example of giving a father’s bone marrow to a fetus illustrates that the issue of consent must apply to both men and women, and that a fetus has to rely on that consent to live.

What the fetus does to the mother while in utero is not the only concern that McDonagh and Jamison share. Both authors point out that the tremendous stress imposed upon a child who is seen as “unwanted” while growing up could result in disastrous consequences (McDonagh 42 and Jamison 26).  Their fears of delinquency in unwanted children have been realized in a recent study conducted by a University of Chicago economist, Steven Levitt, and a Stanford University law professor, John Donohue III. The study concluded that crime was directly proportional to the rate of abortion in the United States (Donohue and Levitt 2). Donohue and Levitt found that fewer offenses are being committed by people twenty-four and younger – those born after abortion was legalized. The increased amount of abortions in the last 30 years, they add, have reduced the number of “unwanted” children born to teenage, unmarried and poor women, the children considered most likely to commit crimes as adults (Donohue and Levitt 4).

America is now moving into a new anti-choice presidential term, one where possibly two new Supreme Court Justices will be appointed. Everyone behind the pro-choice cause needs to take some sort of action, whether it be writing to his or her congressmen or making donations to the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL). The alternative is reverting to an anti-choice society where four percent of women seeking illegal abortions die as apposed to today’s point one percent. This would be a huge mistake.

Bibliography

Donohue and Levitt. “Abortion and the Effects on Crime”. Stanford University News. p.o. 1-4. <http://daily.stanford.org/Daily98-99/8-19-1999/news/NEWabortion19.html> (January 16 2001).

Hopkins population center web site. p.o. 1. <http://popctr.jhsph.edu/> (January 16 2001).

Jamison, Andrea. 101 Things You Can Do to Make the World a Better Place for Women. Simon & Schuster UK Ltd. 1999

McDonagh, Eileen. Breaking the Abortion Deadlock: From Choice to Consent. Oxford University Press. 1996.

National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) web site. p.o. 1-2. <http://www.naral.com> (January 16 2001).

Peerman, Stacy. “The Unforeseen Effect of Abortion.”  Time Magazine 23 August 1999 VOL. 154 No.8 Society Section.

Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court transcript. 22 January 1973: p.o. 1-12. <http://hometown.aol.com/abtrbng/410us113.htm> (January 15 2001).