People of the Lie by Dr. Scott Peck
I’m a reader. I love the evolution of a story or the explanation of new ideas, the flow of the phrases, and the choice of the words; the way a book feels in my hands and the sound of the pages gently swishing against one another as they’re turned. I love curling up with a book in a comfortable chair near a window through which the rays of the Sun come in to the room, gently landing on the pages as if the Sun, too, wants to read.
The library has been a good friend over the decades, although I’ll admit to having purchased books over the years to add to my own amateur collection of paperbacks, textbooks, and bestsellers. We readers are like that; we always like to have a book near at hand.
And, readers know that books are worth reading more than once. Between the covers may rest words of history, of romance, of scientific theory, or of a life similar to or completely different than our own. There are some books that are timeless, books that contain questions or answers or perspectives that seem relevant regardless of the era or the changes in pop culture.
People of the Lie is one of them. Though a bestseller in the eighties, the words, the theories, the questions and possible solutions are still as relevant today. With the troubles facing our country, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy, and a growing sense of dissatisfaction amongst the public, perhaps it is even more so.
The book attempts and succeeds in carefully holding up a mirror to our selves as individuals, as communities, and as a country. Delicately, though the sharing of stories and the explanation of theories, Dr. Peck helps us each to acknowledge the evil in each of us, how this evil typically manifests, and the responsibility that we hold in an interdependent world.
But, if creating an explanation, a definition, of human evil wasn’t enough of a task, Dr. Peck vividly examines how we are all interconnected, relating to one another in manners that, for better or worse, will have an effect on someone.
For those who have not yet read the book, it is a valuable resource, an aide in self-inspection and a path towards insight. Evil, as defined by Dr. Peck, is not what one might typically consider when they first hear the word: Satanic, Criminal, Insane. Rather, evil as defined by Dr. Peck is a much more common, though equally as destructive, series of behaviors that can govern someone’s relations with others.
Are you a parent? A child? A teacher? A student? A therapist? A patient? A human? This book applies to everyone and it has a great deal to offer the reader who is willing to do some deep psychological work. The true price may be, however, not the cost of the book but, rather, the willingness to look into that painful mirror that Dr. Peck so graciously holds up to our eyes.
Peck, Scott. People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil. New York. Simon and Schuster, 1983.
Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools by Jonathan Kozol
Although the words flow gracefully, Savage Inequalities is a difficult book to read. Written upon the pages is the truth, a substance that can sometimes be bitter to learn. However, it is truly a timeless book that should neither be discarded nor dismissed.
Jonathan Kozol placed a bright light on the inequalities between American schools when this book was published in the early nineties, and it is a light that reveals the disgrace that we, as citizens, have allowed to go on for far too long. Unfortunately, if one listened to President Obama’s speeches over the past year on the need for education reform, it was clear that some of these horrible conditions continue to exist.
So clearly, Kozol shows the talent, the brilliance we have wasted throughout time by not nurturing the minds of the youth who could have grown to be doctors or scientists or teachers. Without doubt, he describes how entire areas of families and children have been simply ignored, pushed aside, and forgotten as if they were unimportant; how attempts have been made to educate children in unsafe, unsanitary, and unsatisfactory conditions.
Although apathy appears present in some of the regions, it is an apathy born of having cries for help ignored for generations. Yet, apathy does not prevail; rather, there are still many crying out, fighting for the improvements to the schools, the equality guaranteed under the law, and an intent to try to educate all of the youth of tomorrow and encourage their potential.
Changes to the public school system, however, can only come when the public-at-large understands and knows of the crises in the public school system and the gross inequalities between the individual schools. By sharing with us his first-hand accounts of having visited some of these schools, of the research he uncovered on the issues, and of his conversations with school personnel, students, families, and leaders, Jonathan Kozol has pulled back the curtain to reveal to us these truly Savage Inequalities.
Kozol, Jonathan. Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools. New York. HarperPerennial, 1992.
Common Sense by Thomas Paine
Common Sense may have again found fame, in part, due to a copy of the book being a prop in the hit movie, National Treasure. But, this book contains timeless arguments, arguments that Paine originally authored anonymously, that are an important part of our national history.
Thomas Paine wrote an emotional publication that argued for our independence from Britain, and he punctuated the argument with stories, reminders of harsh British invasions and of the British military controlling the colonists on certain occasions.
As a written work, it is a legendary; as a photograph of our past, it is a timeless reminder of where our country once was, what many earlier people battled on the road to freedom, and all that has been won and lost along the way. Between the lines on the pages, there are quiet reminders of the souls that have been lost in wars past and wars still raging; there are the whispers of those who fought for and designed the historical documents that guarantee us our freedoms as well as the rights and responsibilities that come with that freedom; and there are gentle yet silent nudges to remind us that the freedoms that we have can be taken away if we ignore their value and, apathetically, allow them to slip from our grasp.
Although the book was primarily written about the need for America to be free of British rule, it could, with only a few slight changes, be an argument that would appropriately apply in any era to any situation in which the ruling power impeded progress, individual freedom, and national independence.
Although Common Sense can be found in hardback and paperback, it can be read on-line here:
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/index.htm
People who enjoy reading the horror genre may enjoy any of the selections mentioned at
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1084088/frightening_tales.html?cat=38
For an additional 15 selections of both fiction and non-fiction in multiple genres with brief descriptions of the books, try
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/984972/15_mustread_books_you_may_have_overlooked.html?cat=38
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Friday, July 24, 2009
An Alternative to Mashed Potatoes
Many people loved mashed potatoes, but are not in love with the amount of starch or carbohydrates in a serving. However, there is an alternative that is as tasty as mashed potatoes; in fact, it’s difficult to tell the difference between the two.
Mashed cauliflower. It’s simple. It’s tasty. And, it has the taste and consistency of mashed potatoes, but with some additional nutrients.
First, boil some fresh or frozen cauliflower in salted water until fork tender. Then, drain the water from the pan. Place the cauliflower in a food processor and blend until smooth. It only takes a moment. You may need to scrape down the sides of the processor to make certain all of the cauliflower has been processed into a smooth consistency.
That’s it. All that’s left is to flavor the mashed cauliflower to meet the individual taste preferences and enjoy. Add more salt, if you’d like. Or, add some butter, a bit of extra virgin olive oil, or a bit of extra virgin coconut oil. Add some cheese, some chives, some parsley, or some Cheyenne pepper. Simply add whatever flavors you would normally enjoy in your mashed potatoes.
Mashed cauliflower. It’s simple. It’s tasty. And, it has the taste and consistency of mashed potatoes, but with some additional nutrients.
First, boil some fresh or frozen cauliflower in salted water until fork tender. Then, drain the water from the pan. Place the cauliflower in a food processor and blend until smooth. It only takes a moment. You may need to scrape down the sides of the processor to make certain all of the cauliflower has been processed into a smooth consistency.
That’s it. All that’s left is to flavor the mashed cauliflower to meet the individual taste preferences and enjoy. Add more salt, if you’d like. Or, add some butter, a bit of extra virgin olive oil, or a bit of extra virgin coconut oil. Add some cheese, some chives, some parsley, or some Cheyenne pepper. Simply add whatever flavors you would normally enjoy in your mashed potatoes.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Comparing Prices for Medical Care
Yet another presidential press conference is over and America still has no information on exactly what the health care reform plan is, how much it will cost, or how the cost will be paid. We, as a nation, know nothing more about health care reform after the press conference than we did before it began.
Perhaps, however, President Obama was giving us a clue when he spoke about health care reform being necessary to control medical services and medical costs. Could he have meant that the government will, in part, control the services offered and the pricing—and therefore, the entire health care industry--of the medical professionals, the medical facilities, and the medical insurance companies?
It suggests a question: Isn’t there a much more economical manner by which to increase competition in the medical field and, therefore reduce medical expenses without the government purchasing and controlling the health care industry?
We diligently review the sale ads in the Sunday paper, comparing the price of paper towels, frozen vegetables, or the price per pound of ground beef. Before purchasing a home or a vehicle, we spend months comparing prices and locations and the options available.
Yet, we do not compare the cost-per-visit of one doctor to that of another. Why? Why do we not compare the cost of an x-ray or a CAT Scan, or a blood draw at a particular location verses nearby competitors. Perhaps it has been, in part, because the doctors send us to one particular location and we never question why. Perhaps it has been because the insurance companies dictate which medical facilities can be used by policyholders or patients of a particular doctor. Perhaps, it is simply because the pricing information has never been made public.
When was the last time you saw a piece of paper or an overhead neon sign stating the cost of any particular visit or medical test prior to being billed? We wouldn’t buy a meal at a restaurant without first knowing the price; we wouldn’t buy a new pair of jeans without knowing about how much we would spend at the register; we wouldn’t purchase gasoline not knowing the cost-per-gallon; so, why do we purchase medical care, visits and testing and hospital stays, without first learning of the cost and comparing that cost to that of the competitors during our non-emergencies?
Perhaps health care costs are so expensive not because of the insurance companies or the new technology, but because we, as medical consumers, have not been diligent in demanding to know the costs, and then comparison shopping when there is no emergency to make the decision for us.
Everyone would rather have good medical care as compared to simply the cheapest care available, but isn’t it feasible that if medical professionals and medical facilities were forced to publicize the costs of their services that this new knowledge for the consumer would, through competition, drive down medical costs? Facilities and medical professionals providing poor service will, in time, be weeded out and passed over like a fad diet plan that people realize does not work. So, there seems to be no risk in the patients being allowed to compare prices for health care and taking this information into consideration when choosing a personal physician or a location for surgery, etc.
After all, if there were two local physicians, equal in the quality of care they provide, why become the patient of one who charges $100 for an office visit as opposed to $50? If two hospitals provide equally comfortable and appropriate care to the patients, why stay at the one that charges $100 for an aspirin or $40 for a pillow when the other may offer more economical prices for the same care?
In emergencies, a patient wants knowledgeable professionals to do what needs to be done, regardless of the cost. But, most medical visits and treatments are not emergencies, providing us with time to make a decision based on our experiences with a particular medical facility or professional, our location in reference to a medical professional, our particular medical needs, and our finances—if we were only provided with the information.
And, it could all be done without a multi-trillion dollar health care reform bill that would unfairly tax the rich and remove basic American freedoms by controlling the individual health care choices of doctors and patients. What if the government decided that a particular medical test or a particular medical treatment was simply too expensive to allow even though the treating physician felt it necessary? Or, that you or your loved one was unworthy of receiving medical treatment?
Being able to compare the costs of medical services and make our own decisions regarding medical care instead of having the government make those decisions for us sounds like an alternative path that, when working with additional necessary health care reforms, might be a positive change.
Perhaps, however, President Obama was giving us a clue when he spoke about health care reform being necessary to control medical services and medical costs. Could he have meant that the government will, in part, control the services offered and the pricing—and therefore, the entire health care industry--of the medical professionals, the medical facilities, and the medical insurance companies?
It suggests a question: Isn’t there a much more economical manner by which to increase competition in the medical field and, therefore reduce medical expenses without the government purchasing and controlling the health care industry?
We diligently review the sale ads in the Sunday paper, comparing the price of paper towels, frozen vegetables, or the price per pound of ground beef. Before purchasing a home or a vehicle, we spend months comparing prices and locations and the options available.
Yet, we do not compare the cost-per-visit of one doctor to that of another. Why? Why do we not compare the cost of an x-ray or a CAT Scan, or a blood draw at a particular location verses nearby competitors. Perhaps it has been, in part, because the doctors send us to one particular location and we never question why. Perhaps it has been because the insurance companies dictate which medical facilities can be used by policyholders or patients of a particular doctor. Perhaps, it is simply because the pricing information has never been made public.
When was the last time you saw a piece of paper or an overhead neon sign stating the cost of any particular visit or medical test prior to being billed? We wouldn’t buy a meal at a restaurant without first knowing the price; we wouldn’t buy a new pair of jeans without knowing about how much we would spend at the register; we wouldn’t purchase gasoline not knowing the cost-per-gallon; so, why do we purchase medical care, visits and testing and hospital stays, without first learning of the cost and comparing that cost to that of the competitors during our non-emergencies?
Perhaps health care costs are so expensive not because of the insurance companies or the new technology, but because we, as medical consumers, have not been diligent in demanding to know the costs, and then comparison shopping when there is no emergency to make the decision for us.
Everyone would rather have good medical care as compared to simply the cheapest care available, but isn’t it feasible that if medical professionals and medical facilities were forced to publicize the costs of their services that this new knowledge for the consumer would, through competition, drive down medical costs? Facilities and medical professionals providing poor service will, in time, be weeded out and passed over like a fad diet plan that people realize does not work. So, there seems to be no risk in the patients being allowed to compare prices for health care and taking this information into consideration when choosing a personal physician or a location for surgery, etc.
After all, if there were two local physicians, equal in the quality of care they provide, why become the patient of one who charges $100 for an office visit as opposed to $50? If two hospitals provide equally comfortable and appropriate care to the patients, why stay at the one that charges $100 for an aspirin or $40 for a pillow when the other may offer more economical prices for the same care?
In emergencies, a patient wants knowledgeable professionals to do what needs to be done, regardless of the cost. But, most medical visits and treatments are not emergencies, providing us with time to make a decision based on our experiences with a particular medical facility or professional, our location in reference to a medical professional, our particular medical needs, and our finances—if we were only provided with the information.
And, it could all be done without a multi-trillion dollar health care reform bill that would unfairly tax the rich and remove basic American freedoms by controlling the individual health care choices of doctors and patients. What if the government decided that a particular medical test or a particular medical treatment was simply too expensive to allow even though the treating physician felt it necessary? Or, that you or your loved one was unworthy of receiving medical treatment?
Being able to compare the costs of medical services and make our own decisions regarding medical care instead of having the government make those decisions for us sounds like an alternative path that, when working with additional necessary health care reforms, might be a positive change.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
What Will Be The Personal Penalties of Health Care Reform
Any article or interview regarding health care reform, I tend to pay attention to these days. The potential legislation that may be rushed through the government in upcoming months is frightening and overwhelming, especially with so many questions remaining unanswered and so few specifics, if any, provided by anyone on either side of the debate.
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was interviewed on Meet the Press, the video of which can be found in sections at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/ns/meet_the_press_online_at_msnbc
Although host David Gregory didn’t seem to receive direct answers to his questions, many, such as myself, were certainly left without the direct answers we were hoping for and needing.
Sec. Sebelius spoke of the need to reduce costs, but seemed unwilling to either acknowledge or admit to the potential accuracy of reports that claim that health care reform suggestions may do the opposite. Vague and circular answers, which are the norm in any health care debate, were provided, and little more was known when the interview was over than before it had begun.
But, Sec. Sebelius hit upon an area where questions and concerns have been high when she briefly mentioned personal responsibility, lifestyle, and the rationing of medical care. Rationing is currently occurring, according to Sebelius, which I interpreted as meaning that rationing would also occur under any new reforms. Yet, without specifics, what type of rationing and who would be subject to rationing has yet to be determined.
If someone is overweight or if they have a certain medical diagnosis, will they be expected to lose weight before being covered; will they be denied coverage because of the condition; or, will they be penalized in some way such as with fines or higher out-of-pocket costs?
Will the government ration health care for people who eat a diet that the government does not consider healthy? What about someone who smokes? Drinks a glass of wine at night? Eats dessert on the weekend? Doesn’t exercise regularly? And, if so, how will they know?
What if a person merely chooses to reside in a section of the country deemed less healthy than other areas? Will this increase the possibility of rationing if they become ill?
If a person has a condition that is considered terminal, will they be viewed as being too much of a cost burden and ignored, forgotten, or forced to go without treatment, without medication?
If anyone is rationed, but particularly if it is an elderly person or anyone with a terminal illness, will the government encourage and pay for assisted suicide?
What about abortions? Will abortions be paid for under health care reform and, if so, will they be subject to rationing based on the particular situation or data regarding the individual?
What about age? Will age be a determining factor in what type of care or what group receives rationing?
What exactly will be rationed? Medications? Doctor visits? Hospital stays? Medical tests?
And, perhaps even more importantly than all of these and similar questions, who will decide who is unimportant enough to have any form of their health care rationed, withheld?
Rationing is a frightening concept, and it hardly seems a humane way to cut expenses.
So, we must ask: What, exactly, is the government trying to accomplish? Is it simply to make certain every American has health care coverage? Is it to cut medical costs for everyone? Or, is it to achieve a healthier America?
I have neither heard nor thought of any practice that could insure every American or possibly cut medical costs for everyone without the government becoming a business that controls the medical choices of medical professionals and patients. It seems quite contradictory that the government that is meant to represent and serve the people could also be a business with a bottom-line of making a profit off of those same people in such a manner that it may ration a segment of that population in the name of finances.
But, if the primary goal is to achieve a healthier America, then the government has two paths to take. Along one path is great control of the individual choices of American citizens, penalizing people for making lifestyle choices that disagree with those of the government, thereby controlling each individual’s diet, exercise regime, and personal health habits.
But, along the other path there seems to be great potential progress. By making whole foods more available, more affordable, then healthier—safer—choices could be made on the individual level without government control of those choices. By limiting the amount of pesticides or chemicals on or in food, immune systems might be strengthened. By enforcing truth in advertising and labeling laws, more accurate information would be available to aid consumers in their choices. Individuals could make healthier options if accurate information regarding health, food, and health care was available to consumers without being skewed by lobbyists or salesmen or pitchmen. If the actual goal is to create a healthier America without reducing the freedom of Americans, then there are many such avenues the government could pursue.
Which brings me back to square one. What is the ultimate goal of the government when they discuss heath care reform? And, what are the personal penalties that Americans will be expected to pay?
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was interviewed on Meet the Press, the video of which can be found in sections at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/ns/meet_the_press_online_at_msnbc
Although host David Gregory didn’t seem to receive direct answers to his questions, many, such as myself, were certainly left without the direct answers we were hoping for and needing.
Sec. Sebelius spoke of the need to reduce costs, but seemed unwilling to either acknowledge or admit to the potential accuracy of reports that claim that health care reform suggestions may do the opposite. Vague and circular answers, which are the norm in any health care debate, were provided, and little more was known when the interview was over than before it had begun.
But, Sec. Sebelius hit upon an area where questions and concerns have been high when she briefly mentioned personal responsibility, lifestyle, and the rationing of medical care. Rationing is currently occurring, according to Sebelius, which I interpreted as meaning that rationing would also occur under any new reforms. Yet, without specifics, what type of rationing and who would be subject to rationing has yet to be determined.
If someone is overweight or if they have a certain medical diagnosis, will they be expected to lose weight before being covered; will they be denied coverage because of the condition; or, will they be penalized in some way such as with fines or higher out-of-pocket costs?
Will the government ration health care for people who eat a diet that the government does not consider healthy? What about someone who smokes? Drinks a glass of wine at night? Eats dessert on the weekend? Doesn’t exercise regularly? And, if so, how will they know?
What if a person merely chooses to reside in a section of the country deemed less healthy than other areas? Will this increase the possibility of rationing if they become ill?
If a person has a condition that is considered terminal, will they be viewed as being too much of a cost burden and ignored, forgotten, or forced to go without treatment, without medication?
If anyone is rationed, but particularly if it is an elderly person or anyone with a terminal illness, will the government encourage and pay for assisted suicide?
What about abortions? Will abortions be paid for under health care reform and, if so, will they be subject to rationing based on the particular situation or data regarding the individual?
What about age? Will age be a determining factor in what type of care or what group receives rationing?
What exactly will be rationed? Medications? Doctor visits? Hospital stays? Medical tests?
And, perhaps even more importantly than all of these and similar questions, who will decide who is unimportant enough to have any form of their health care rationed, withheld?
Rationing is a frightening concept, and it hardly seems a humane way to cut expenses.
So, we must ask: What, exactly, is the government trying to accomplish? Is it simply to make certain every American has health care coverage? Is it to cut medical costs for everyone? Or, is it to achieve a healthier America?
I have neither heard nor thought of any practice that could insure every American or possibly cut medical costs for everyone without the government becoming a business that controls the medical choices of medical professionals and patients. It seems quite contradictory that the government that is meant to represent and serve the people could also be a business with a bottom-line of making a profit off of those same people in such a manner that it may ration a segment of that population in the name of finances.
But, if the primary goal is to achieve a healthier America, then the government has two paths to take. Along one path is great control of the individual choices of American citizens, penalizing people for making lifestyle choices that disagree with those of the government, thereby controlling each individual’s diet, exercise regime, and personal health habits.
But, along the other path there seems to be great potential progress. By making whole foods more available, more affordable, then healthier—safer—choices could be made on the individual level without government control of those choices. By limiting the amount of pesticides or chemicals on or in food, immune systems might be strengthened. By enforcing truth in advertising and labeling laws, more accurate information would be available to aid consumers in their choices. Individuals could make healthier options if accurate information regarding health, food, and health care was available to consumers without being skewed by lobbyists or salesmen or pitchmen. If the actual goal is to create a healthier America without reducing the freedom of Americans, then there are many such avenues the government could pursue.
Which brings me back to square one. What is the ultimate goal of the government when they discuss heath care reform? And, what are the personal penalties that Americans will be expected to pay?
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
"And, I mean it!"
What? “And, I mean it?” I’ve been considering that comment for days, now.
As I watched the presidential speech regarding health care reform orated by President Obama on July 17th, I couldn’t help but be surprised at the comment: “And, I mean it!” It seemed out-of-character and as though the usually intelligent, eloquent speaker could think of no other effective way to establish his point.
President Obama stressed in his speech that health care reform will be completed this year. My initial reaction: Why? If health care reform is so important to so many people, why rush such an important piece of legislation that will completely alter how health care operates in this country. Wouldn’t the American people prefer health care reform that better suited the needs and wants of the people and the medical professionals, even if it required another year or two to tweak the details and make certain we could pay for it, as opposed to quick legislation that will cause us more financial and health care problems than we have now? What is the sudden rush?
Another point President Obama made was that health care reform would not increase the deficit as some have been recently reporting. Yet, “And, I mean it,” did absolutely nothing to answer the questions of the country or increase confidence, particularly when coming from the administration who “misread” the economy, thereby trying to explain why unemployment has risen higher than predicted.
Although President Obama seemed fairly certain where two-thirds of the cost of health care reform will come from, he failed to thoroughly explain who or how the final third would be paid; more importantly, he did not explain how cutting Medicare and Medicaid would not increase the health care problems and costs facing the growing population of the elderly. Furthermore, if a portion of the program will be funded by eliminating wasteful government spending, then why hasn’t the wasteful spending been eliminated already, health reform or not? And, of course, the issue of increasing taxes on a very small percentage of wealthy Americans to pay for a number of reforms for the majority of Americans still weighs heavily on the conscience of many.
Perhaps instead of worrying about achieving health care reform at a rapid pace, President Obama and his administration need to spend more quality time working on unemployment rates, on the economy, although the economy and health care costs are related. It’s no wonder that the comments regarding jobs created or saved due to the Stimulus have ceased coming from the administration; people realize that it has no meaning when millions have lost their income since the Stimulus, not to mention that the administration has not even attempted to specifically cite which jobs have been “saved.” (A field is not a specific job.)
Now, there are rumors abounding of the possibility of a second Stimulus even though only a tiny fragment of the original Stimulus has been spent. Perhaps this is because the Stimulus truly wasn’t a “stimulus” but, rather, a long-term spending plan that had little, if anything, to do with the current state of the economy. A second stimulus would likely be no different.
In addition to health care, many institutions in America are in need of reform, but that does not mean that they must all be reformed at the same time or that America can throw money we neither have nor will have at projects we can’t afford. America has always been a nation of proud, hard-working people who prefer to earn the income for the house, groceries and various other expenses. And, what people want at this time more than any reform is good, full-time jobs.
And, I mean it.
As I watched the presidential speech regarding health care reform orated by President Obama on July 17th, I couldn’t help but be surprised at the comment: “And, I mean it!” It seemed out-of-character and as though the usually intelligent, eloquent speaker could think of no other effective way to establish his point.
President Obama stressed in his speech that health care reform will be completed this year. My initial reaction: Why? If health care reform is so important to so many people, why rush such an important piece of legislation that will completely alter how health care operates in this country. Wouldn’t the American people prefer health care reform that better suited the needs and wants of the people and the medical professionals, even if it required another year or two to tweak the details and make certain we could pay for it, as opposed to quick legislation that will cause us more financial and health care problems than we have now? What is the sudden rush?
Another point President Obama made was that health care reform would not increase the deficit as some have been recently reporting. Yet, “And, I mean it,” did absolutely nothing to answer the questions of the country or increase confidence, particularly when coming from the administration who “misread” the economy, thereby trying to explain why unemployment has risen higher than predicted.
Although President Obama seemed fairly certain where two-thirds of the cost of health care reform will come from, he failed to thoroughly explain who or how the final third would be paid; more importantly, he did not explain how cutting Medicare and Medicaid would not increase the health care problems and costs facing the growing population of the elderly. Furthermore, if a portion of the program will be funded by eliminating wasteful government spending, then why hasn’t the wasteful spending been eliminated already, health reform or not? And, of course, the issue of increasing taxes on a very small percentage of wealthy Americans to pay for a number of reforms for the majority of Americans still weighs heavily on the conscience of many.
Perhaps instead of worrying about achieving health care reform at a rapid pace, President Obama and his administration need to spend more quality time working on unemployment rates, on the economy, although the economy and health care costs are related. It’s no wonder that the comments regarding jobs created or saved due to the Stimulus have ceased coming from the administration; people realize that it has no meaning when millions have lost their income since the Stimulus, not to mention that the administration has not even attempted to specifically cite which jobs have been “saved.” (A field is not a specific job.)
Now, there are rumors abounding of the possibility of a second Stimulus even though only a tiny fragment of the original Stimulus has been spent. Perhaps this is because the Stimulus truly wasn’t a “stimulus” but, rather, a long-term spending plan that had little, if anything, to do with the current state of the economy. A second stimulus would likely be no different.
In addition to health care, many institutions in America are in need of reform, but that does not mean that they must all be reformed at the same time or that America can throw money we neither have nor will have at projects we can’t afford. America has always been a nation of proud, hard-working people who prefer to earn the income for the house, groceries and various other expenses. And, what people want at this time more than any reform is good, full-time jobs.
And, I mean it.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Walter Cronkite: Goodbye to a Voice of Reason
Each evening, as my father would sit in his easy chair and my mother in her usual spot at the end of the couch, both of them drinking their cups of hot, black coffee, even in the hottest of summer months, the local news would inform viewers of the weather, the local sporting events, and a few stories from the national news. Then, immediately thereafter, Walter Cronkite would grace the screen with thirty minutes of national and international news. It was one hour of each day that seemed exactly the same, scheduled, so to speak, as my parents would watch the news and periodically comment to one another about what had been reported.
I was only a child when Walter Cronkite was in his last decade in the anchor chair of the CBS evening news, yet I remember his face and, particularly, his voice with crystal clearness as if it were only yesterday. I remember, “Be quiet,” being said by my parents if something was said or done that interrupted them listening to a report. And, I remember a sense of stability in hearing that same voice at the same time coming through the television and entering a house that, for an hour each night, would undergo its own brief hour of stability and sameness.
Though only a child who did not truly understand the depth of importance of what was being reported, and, I must admit, too young not to be somewhat bored by any news program, I was drawn to the evening news. Walter Cronkite presented the news in a manner that seemed trustworthy, accurate, complete, and without the insertion of personal opinion through words or tones or facial expressions that is so common today amongst broadcasters. Yet, somehow, he also seemed quite human, as if he were really no different from anyone else with pride and awe at space exploration or grief and fear from having lost a President.
There was great upset in the house and across the nation when Walter Cronkite was no longer in that anchor chair each night, and, although unnecessary, great upset at Dan Rather simply because he was going to be sitting in that sacred chair. Dan Rather, when allowed the opportunity, would, in time, prove himself to be an intelligent, competent, and capable anchor, and it is shameful that he had to experience what seemed to be such a difficult transition, a time of proving himself above and beyond his ability. Looking back, however, I do not recall a single news report of Walter Cronkite ever having said anything negative about leaving the anchor chair or about Dan Rather. That’s professionalism; that’s class. And, in time, my parents came to view the evening news with Dan Rather as regularly as they had watched Walter Cronkite.
Walter Cronkite seemed to be a voice of reason, a reporter, a news anchor, who simply reported the news without trying to persuade any viewer which side to take on any particular issue or which candidate to vote for or what to believe. He simply reported the information, the facts, and left it to the viewer to decide how to feel about it.
We need more reporters, more anchors like Walter Cronkite who earned and deserved our trust. He set an incredible example; now, if others would only follow. During the time of Walter Cronkite, there were only three networks, but if he were anchoring a show today somewhere on one of the hundreds of channels we have now, I would most certainly tune in to his show as would, I suspect, millions of others.
Mr. Cronkite, thank you for bringing the news of the world into millions of individual homes each evening.
You will be missed, but you will not be forgotten. The example that you set in news broadcasting will live on in textbooks and on video and in the memories of a few generations who remember sitting down each evening, perhaps with a cup of coffee, eager to learn of the news of the day.
May you rest in peace.
I was only a child when Walter Cronkite was in his last decade in the anchor chair of the CBS evening news, yet I remember his face and, particularly, his voice with crystal clearness as if it were only yesterday. I remember, “Be quiet,” being said by my parents if something was said or done that interrupted them listening to a report. And, I remember a sense of stability in hearing that same voice at the same time coming through the television and entering a house that, for an hour each night, would undergo its own brief hour of stability and sameness.
Though only a child who did not truly understand the depth of importance of what was being reported, and, I must admit, too young not to be somewhat bored by any news program, I was drawn to the evening news. Walter Cronkite presented the news in a manner that seemed trustworthy, accurate, complete, and without the insertion of personal opinion through words or tones or facial expressions that is so common today amongst broadcasters. Yet, somehow, he also seemed quite human, as if he were really no different from anyone else with pride and awe at space exploration or grief and fear from having lost a President.
There was great upset in the house and across the nation when Walter Cronkite was no longer in that anchor chair each night, and, although unnecessary, great upset at Dan Rather simply because he was going to be sitting in that sacred chair. Dan Rather, when allowed the opportunity, would, in time, prove himself to be an intelligent, competent, and capable anchor, and it is shameful that he had to experience what seemed to be such a difficult transition, a time of proving himself above and beyond his ability. Looking back, however, I do not recall a single news report of Walter Cronkite ever having said anything negative about leaving the anchor chair or about Dan Rather. That’s professionalism; that’s class. And, in time, my parents came to view the evening news with Dan Rather as regularly as they had watched Walter Cronkite.
Walter Cronkite seemed to be a voice of reason, a reporter, a news anchor, who simply reported the news without trying to persuade any viewer which side to take on any particular issue or which candidate to vote for or what to believe. He simply reported the information, the facts, and left it to the viewer to decide how to feel about it.
We need more reporters, more anchors like Walter Cronkite who earned and deserved our trust. He set an incredible example; now, if others would only follow. During the time of Walter Cronkite, there were only three networks, but if he were anchoring a show today somewhere on one of the hundreds of channels we have now, I would most certainly tune in to his show as would, I suspect, millions of others.
Mr. Cronkite, thank you for bringing the news of the world into millions of individual homes each evening.
You will be missed, but you will not be forgotten. The example that you set in news broadcasting will live on in textbooks and on video and in the memories of a few generations who remember sitting down each evening, perhaps with a cup of coffee, eager to learn of the news of the day.
May you rest in peace.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Electric Cars: More Expensive Than They Seem
It’s fascinating, this concept of an automobile that needs no gasoline, that requires only to be plugged in at the end of each day. It sounds low-maintenance and inexpensive; it sounds environmentally friendly and “green”; it sounds so simplistic that anyone could take care of such a vehicle.
One of the primary reasons people dislike electric vehicles, however, is that a fully charged battery typically will not allow an owner to drive more than a few miles, forty or fifty seeming the average. This isn’t exactly convenient for someone commuting to work from a rural area or seeking the adventure of a lifetime by driving cross-country. Yet other reasons have included the lack of charging-up stations and the expensive up-front cost at a dealership.
But, is there another expense that has gone unnoticed and undisclosed by those promoting electric vehicles?
Electric vehicles are powered by batteries that are charged by plugging them in to electrical outlets. One can only assume that something as large as a vehicle would require quite a large-sized battery and a healthy dose of electricity to charge it.
Electric lawnmowers are quite small, and yet the batteries typically last one to two seasons before the battery must be replaced with a new one (and even a new battery usually requires twelve to twenty-four hours to fully charge, a charge that lasts approximately one hour). Cell phone batteries are very distant relatives of the electric car, and, yet, after about two years, newly charged cell phone batteries lose their ability to maintain a charge for a two-minute phone call. Are we in for the same problem with electric cars? Would we have an expensive vehicle in the garage that would require a new battery every couple of years to hold a charge and fully power the vehicle? Is this a “green” gimmick, a way to force the consumer into future mandatory purchases of new batteries and electrical supplies?
The battery for an electric lawnmower can range from fifty dollars to two hundred dollars, depending on the size and power of the lawnmower and the manufacturer. Cell phones are upgraded by the companies so quickly that the purchase of a battery style manufactured two years ago is usually more expensive than purchasing a new phone with a brand new style battery. Since both of these items are much less powerful than that of an automobile, one has no reasonable manner by which to estimate how much a new electric car battery would be, how quickly the manufacturers would produce a new battery style, how often the battery would need to be replaced, or if a specialized certified mechanic in electric vehicles would be required to remove or install such a battery. Considering, however, that they would be the brain of the entire vehicle, one can only imagine that they would be expensive.
The closest answers to this question that I’ve found has been at this article written by Christopher Lampton on HowStuffWorks:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/vehicles/electric-car-battery4.htm
For anyone wanting more knowledge about electric vehicles, Lampton has written an informative article, and suggests that a battery will likely last approximately 100,000 miles and cost nearly $10,000 to replace, although they were speaking of an expensive sports car.
Montana Green Power, which can be located at
http://www.montanagreenpower.com/faq/hev.php#Q10
offers another viewpoint in regard to hybrid vehicles, saying that the batteries can last up through 200,000 miles, and adding that some batteries are covered by a warranty and that the batteries are seldom replaced. Still, in a hybrid vehicle the gasoline engine is sometimes used and, more importantly, the FAQ begs a question: If a battery is expensive to replace or is simply not replaced, then are we going to be driving disposable cars? Won’t this fill the landfills and junk yards very quickly and be very expensive in many different ways?
Richard Thomas wrote an article on eHow that can be found at
http://www.ehow.com/about_4674805_batteries-have-replaced-hybrid-cars.html
and suggests a battery replacement on a hybrid will average $3000 to $6000, but should one battery should last if you own your vehicle for only a few years. But, then, would you be able to trade-in or sell an electric car with a near-dead battery without taking a loss or purchasing a new battery? This question is especially important if new style batteries won’t work in older—say two or three years—models.
At this point, it’s impossible to know how well electric cars will operate, how long the parts, including the battery, will last, what the average cost of regular maintenance will be, or how much replacement parts will cost. However, the question regarding the battery, in particular, prohibits in many the desire for an electric vehicle.
One of the primary reasons people dislike electric vehicles, however, is that a fully charged battery typically will not allow an owner to drive more than a few miles, forty or fifty seeming the average. This isn’t exactly convenient for someone commuting to work from a rural area or seeking the adventure of a lifetime by driving cross-country. Yet other reasons have included the lack of charging-up stations and the expensive up-front cost at a dealership.
But, is there another expense that has gone unnoticed and undisclosed by those promoting electric vehicles?
Electric vehicles are powered by batteries that are charged by plugging them in to electrical outlets. One can only assume that something as large as a vehicle would require quite a large-sized battery and a healthy dose of electricity to charge it.
Electric lawnmowers are quite small, and yet the batteries typically last one to two seasons before the battery must be replaced with a new one (and even a new battery usually requires twelve to twenty-four hours to fully charge, a charge that lasts approximately one hour). Cell phone batteries are very distant relatives of the electric car, and, yet, after about two years, newly charged cell phone batteries lose their ability to maintain a charge for a two-minute phone call. Are we in for the same problem with electric cars? Would we have an expensive vehicle in the garage that would require a new battery every couple of years to hold a charge and fully power the vehicle? Is this a “green” gimmick, a way to force the consumer into future mandatory purchases of new batteries and electrical supplies?
The battery for an electric lawnmower can range from fifty dollars to two hundred dollars, depending on the size and power of the lawnmower and the manufacturer. Cell phones are upgraded by the companies so quickly that the purchase of a battery style manufactured two years ago is usually more expensive than purchasing a new phone with a brand new style battery. Since both of these items are much less powerful than that of an automobile, one has no reasonable manner by which to estimate how much a new electric car battery would be, how quickly the manufacturers would produce a new battery style, how often the battery would need to be replaced, or if a specialized certified mechanic in electric vehicles would be required to remove or install such a battery. Considering, however, that they would be the brain of the entire vehicle, one can only imagine that they would be expensive.
The closest answers to this question that I’ve found has been at this article written by Christopher Lampton on HowStuffWorks:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/vehicles/electric-car-battery4.htm
For anyone wanting more knowledge about electric vehicles, Lampton has written an informative article, and suggests that a battery will likely last approximately 100,000 miles and cost nearly $10,000 to replace, although they were speaking of an expensive sports car.
Montana Green Power, which can be located at
http://www.montanagreenpower.com/faq/hev.php#Q10
offers another viewpoint in regard to hybrid vehicles, saying that the batteries can last up through 200,000 miles, and adding that some batteries are covered by a warranty and that the batteries are seldom replaced. Still, in a hybrid vehicle the gasoline engine is sometimes used and, more importantly, the FAQ begs a question: If a battery is expensive to replace or is simply not replaced, then are we going to be driving disposable cars? Won’t this fill the landfills and junk yards very quickly and be very expensive in many different ways?
Richard Thomas wrote an article on eHow that can be found at
http://www.ehow.com/about_4674805_batteries-have-replaced-hybrid-cars.html
and suggests a battery replacement on a hybrid will average $3000 to $6000, but should one battery should last if you own your vehicle for only a few years. But, then, would you be able to trade-in or sell an electric car with a near-dead battery without taking a loss or purchasing a new battery? This question is especially important if new style batteries won’t work in older—say two or three years—models.
At this point, it’s impossible to know how well electric cars will operate, how long the parts, including the battery, will last, what the average cost of regular maintenance will be, or how much replacement parts will cost. However, the question regarding the battery, in particular, prohibits in many the desire for an electric vehicle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
