Saturday, July 25, 2009

Timeless Must-reads

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



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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Friday, July 17, 2009

Basic Meatloaf

Meatloaf. It may sound boring at times, but the aroma of meatloaf waffling through the kitchen is a distinct reminder of home and meals that were had during the younger years. Fresh from the oven or served as a cold leftover, meatloaf has been a staple of American cuisine for generations. Family dinners, picnics, or restaurant buffets each have their own version of this hearty classic, and many cooks have their own favorite recipe.

I’ve been baking meatloaf in one form or another for decades. Whether it is a traditional meatloaf or made vegetarian style, it is one of the easiest, fastest dishes to throw together and get in the oven. More importantly, the flavors can be varied to fit a particular mood or taste at the time. Meatloaf really is a dish that can be personalized.

To make meatloaf, first preheat the oven to 350 degrees.

For a small meatloaf, mix together well in a bowl:

Approximately 16 ounces (approximately 4 servings) of a favorite ground meat (i.e., ground beef, ground turnkey, ground chicken, etc.) OR, for a vegetarian meatloaf, use the same amount of your favorite beans (i.e., pinto, red, navy, lentils are very good, too), cooked and drained, and, if you prefer, pureed;

Add one whole egg OR the equivalent of egg whites OR the equivalent of milled flax seed and water (typically, one tablespoon flax seed and three tablespoons water equals one egg);

Bread crumbs are optional, but if you’d like to add some bulk to the meatloaf, add a handful of regular bread crumbs, Italian bread crumbs, oatmeal, or crushed up crackers;

Now, just add your favorite spices and flavors in the amounts that you prefer. Favorite flavors include fresh minced garlic, fresh chopped onions, oregano, chopped parsley, salt, pepper, red pepper, parmesan cheese, you name it! Some cooks even add tomato sauce or ketchup.

Mix everything together well. The texture should only be a bit more loose than that of typical ground meat. However, if you feel the texture is too thick, simply add a bit more egg.

Once everything is thoroughly combined, place the mixture in a greased baking dish. Use a knife to gently cut through each serving at this raw stage and it will both aid in the baking process and will be easier to divide into individual portions after baking.

The mixture will need to bake until everything is thoroughly cooked, which can take anywhere from forty minutes to an hour, depending on the size of the meatloaf, the thickness of the meatloaf, and the individual oven. The meatloaf is done when a fork inserted into the middle of each portion does not reveal any red or uncooked meat. Vegetarian versions of meatloaf will cook faster than those containing meat, but make certain that the egg, if used, has been fully cooked before removing from the oven.

When the baking process is complete, it can be served or a topping can be added. Herbs can be diced and sprinkled over the top. Or, a cheese sauce can be dribbled over the meatloaf. Or, a tomato-based “gravy” can be made to go over the meatloaf by combining ketchup, barbeque sauce, or tomato sauce, with honey, molasses, or sweetener of some type, and a few favorite spices.

Whatever the combination of flavors and spices, meatloaf can always be a tasty and hearty addition to any meal.

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Have We Lost Sight of the American Dream?

I’m not rich, nor have I ever been. Not even close. Yet, I am not in favor of taxing the wealthy to pay for new legislation.

Have we lost sight of the American Dream? Have we forgotten what made this country great to begin with?

For generations, families have immigrated to America with nothing but a few coins in their pockets and dreams of freedom. Many worked hard, applying themselves tirelessly as they walked along a path toward their goals, knowing that in America someone can arrive with nothing, work diligently, and build a business, a life, or even a fortune—all because of freedom.

And, the pride they felt inspired them to teach their children to do the same.

If there were two neighbors, exactly the same in every way except that one chose to take a financial risk and start their own business, and say that that risk along with hard work increased the family income to anywhere over $250,000, why should the risk-taker be punished for their talent, their personal time and financial sacrifices, their work? Isn’t this the same as punishing someone for chasing and obtaining the American dream?

Yet, this is exactly what we, as a nation, will be doing if taxes are raised on the wealthy to pay for health care reform, the stimulus bill, any other legislation, or to pay down the deficit. It will, in fact, kill what is left of the American dream.

Over the years, many people have scratched and saved pennies, gone without necessities, worked multiple jobs, sacrificed time they could have spent with their families, and worked until their fingers bled on the road to the American dream. It was a time when perseverance and working toward the dream was respected, honored, and achieving the dream was praised and complimented. Now, however, we seem to be choosing to punish this unique group of individuals.

If pursuing the dream will result in punishment, then many will choose not to pursue it at all; or, they will choose to only follow the road part of the way so as not to risk venturing in to the territory of punishment, each an action that would result in fewer growing businesses and fewer jobs. And, for those earning far below these amounts considered wealthy, there will be no encouragement to work to improve their own situation. In essence, placing additional taxes on higher wage earners will only work to weaken the morale of a people, to keep down a population, and to disrupt—if not destroy—an economy.

We need the American dream. We need to foster an atmosphere of encouragement and inspiration that will aid people in following the American dream, in becoming the best that they can be--even if their best is better than our own.

We need the American dream. We need to allow people to use their talent, their ideas, and their fortitude as they build and create and, in the process, help to build and create a stronger nation, a stronger people, and better opportunities for everyone.

Were it not for the American dream, we wouldn’t have local newspapers or national magazines; we wouldn’t have historical works of fiction and non-fiction and we wouldn’t have timeless paintings; we wouldn’t have the local diner down on the town square or the shop where a local family makes handmade furniture; we wouldn’t have the stories of the person who had an idea, put their savings on the line, began selling an item out of their house, and now are national household names.

We need the American dream. It is the foundation of our country, our freedom, and it is the driving force that propels us toward improvement, toward being something better tomorrow than what we are today. It is the ingenuity that has created inventions that have saved lives, simplified tasks, or simply brought about a laugh. We need the American dream because it is America.

We need the American dream. And, what we really can not afford is to lose sight of it.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

A New Use for Eggplant

Eggplant. That oval shaped, pretty purple vegetable that is usually situated on the cooled store shelf between the lettuce and the ginger-root has dumbfounded me for years. I don’t remember ever even seeing an eggplant until I was in college, and I don’t recall eating any then. Yet, for over a decade now, I have been buying eggplants and attempting to figure out to prepare them in a manner that is both tasty and relatively healthy.

One common way to cook eggplant is to fry slices of the veggie after it’s been peeled. Even though I don’t enjoy fried food, I did try this method once. Needless to say, I didn’t like the results.

Perhaps the most common manner by which to prepare eggplant is in Eggplant Parmesan, but the eggplant always turned out either tough or wimpy.

I’ve tried roasting it, but the slices would either burn to a crisp or taste like nothing but salt. In other words, neither method proved successful.

Yet, I purchased another one, determined to try again.

I tried peeling it and then blending part of it up into Guacamole, which wasn’t too bad. With some additional salt, it would have made a good dip for “raw crackers” (made of various vegetables) or zucchini chips (both of which are made in the dehydrator). Come to think of it, I don’t even know if one is supposed to eat eggplant raw, but I did.

Then, I put about ¼ of the raw, peeled eggplant in a blender with ½ of a cucumber, about a cup of raspberries, some water, flax seed, pasteurized egg whites, and sugar substitute. Delicious. Maybe this is what I’ve been waiting for all of these years.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

A Great Tasting Milkshake--Without the Milk or Ice Cream

Sometimes, when a sweet tooth rears its ugly head, healthy treats can be found by using a little creativity and by taking a chance on new flavor combinations. Recently, when this occurred, I found a combination of foods that made for a delicious treat that had the consistency and flavor of a milkshake—but without the milk or ice cream.

What is needed:

A few cups of lettuce or cabbage (both work well)
Handful or two of fresh spinach
Unsweetened apple juice and water (half of each)
Milled flax seed
Egg whites (optional—I used pasteurized egg whites in a carton from the refrigerated section--- the egg whites of fresh eggs have the potential for salmonella or other bacteria)
1 avocado
Sweetener or sugar-substitute (to taste)
Coconut flavoring (to taste)
Frozen raspberries (to taste)

(I guessed at the amounts, so it really is a treat to be personalized to the taste buds.)

To begin, I added approximately four cups of lettuce or cabbage (I’ve tried it both ways) to a blender with the apple juice and water and pureed the mixture. If using cabbage, the ice crusher mechanism on the blender works as a great start. Next, I added the spinach—about two handfuls--and pureed again. Then, the avocado was added along with the flax seed, coconut flavoring, sweetener, and egg whites, and a bit more apple juice or water. After pureeing, I added the final ingredients and pureed one final time.

The final result was a product with the thick, creamy, consistency of a shake, a shade of light brown to light pink, and a cold, sweet, delicious flavor. The thickness of the final product will depend on how much apple juice or water is added, so add these products in increments to find the desired consistency but be certain to add enough so that the blender is able to do its job.

Always be certain to follow the directions and work within the limitations of your own blender. It may be easier to put the cabbage, lettuce, or spinach through a food processor prior to putting them in the blender. Other than that, experiment with foods and flavors to create surprising, delicious treats at home!

Monday, July 13, 2009

There Ought To Be A Law

Over the past few months, there have been several news reports claiming that legislation often goes unread prior to being voted on, that the legislation is sometimes altered secretly just prior to a vote, or that the legislation is altered after the legislation has passed both the House and Senate but before reaching the desk of the President. Whether or not these are actually true is anyone’s guess.

Our representatives, our elected officials, are paid to represent us to the best of their ability and to make very difficult decisions regarding what is in the best interest of their constituents and our country. They have no easy task. And, anyone willing to take on such a task is to be appreciated.

We, the public, have a responsibility also, an important right to share with our representatives our ideas, our opinions, and, at times, our personal stories. Many times, it is the public who initiates changes in legislation, such as greater pool safety or equal pay for women, through the sharing of these thoughts and experiences.

Before the government officials on every level, however, is the unenviable task of preparing and arguing for or against legislation written in great detail and in great length. The documents usually lay out the details of how the legislation will work if it becomes law, the money that will be spent on various components, the time frame in which the new law shall begin, and any penalties for potential violations. Throughout the process, the bill is reworked and rewritten and reconsidered, all in an attempt to improve and gain more support for the bill.

With all of the work, the debating, and the incredible amount of detail that is put into a bill, it seems unconscionable that anyone would be allowed to alter the bill just before or after a vote and particularly after passing the House and Senate but before reaching the President. Under this practice, how could any representative ever know what it is that they are actually voting on?

Legislation is of vital importance; it is part of the foundation of our country. It seems only common sense and safe practice that our representatives should read everything that they vote on prior to the vote and that any alterations to a bill should only be allowed to occur until a specific deadline. Perhaps these principles need to be in a piece of legislation because there really ought to be a law…

Saturday, July 11, 2009

What Could You Do With $18 Million?

ABC reported on July 6, 2009, in a report that can be read at

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/07/18m-being-spent-to-redesign-recoverygov-web-site.html

that the government is planning on spending nearly ten million in tax dollars through January and up to $18 Million in tax dollars over the next few years to improve the recovery.gov website, the site that is to offer transparency to America by showing us where and how our Stimulus tax dollars have been spent.

$18 Million is a huge amount of money, and money that could be spent in very worthwhile ways. So, what could you do with $18 Million?

Well….

$18 Million could pay a $40,000 salary for one year to 450 unemployed workers with families to support.

Donate the $18 Million to Feeding America (formally known as Second Harvest Food Bank) and it could supply 180 million pounds of food and groceries to hungry children and families in the U.S.

$18 Million could purchase approximately 6 million gallons of gasoline for workers looking for employment or trying to get to work.

$18 Million could pay $2000 to 9000 homes with payments in arrears or at risk of foreclosure.

It could purchase 600,000 pairs of shoes costing $30 or less for the homeless or displaced workers looking for employment in new fields or the children of the unemployed. Or, it could buy 180,000 complete outfits for displaced workers in need of appropriate clothing for a job interview.

Or, it could buy nearly 15 million bottles of water for the military or for disaster assistance agencies.

Or, it could purchase health insurance for approximately 36,000 people for one month.

Or, it could purchase 180,000 medical prescriptions or prescription eye glasses costing $100 or less for the children or the elderly.

Or, it could provide over 9 million meals for the homeless.

$18 Million could provide 1800 $10,000 college scholarships.

If the new fuel-efficient vehicles cost an average of $50,000, then $18 Million could put 360 of those cars on the road to replace gas-guzzlers.

If it would cost $72,000 or less to install solar panels on a home (the cost varies according to size and usage), then $18 Million could do this for 250 homes. Or, it could purchase and install 9 wind turbines.

If a new electric push-mower cost $800 or less (costs vary according to type and power and some go as low as $200), then the $18 Million could replace over 22,500 carbon-emitting gasoline push-mowers with electric models.

If a grade school or high school teacher earned $45,000 per year, the $18 Million could pay the salary of 400 teachers for one year. Or, it could pay the same salary to 400 nurses.

Or, it could be used to train 45,000 people to be a Certified Nursing Assistant.

It could purchase over 12,000 new computers for public schools. Or, it could purchase over 360,000 new textbooks for public schools. Or, it could purchase approximately 6 million school lunches or breakfasts for underprivileged children.

If you had the ability to spend these tax dollars however you wanted, what could you do with $18 Million?

Friday, July 10, 2009

More Information About the Smart Grid

Currently being considered by the Senate is the Climate Bill, a bill that passed the House of Representatives as HR 2454. Section 132 of this bill makes reference to the Smart Grid, a concept put forth in an earlier law, The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

HR 2454, Section 132 states:

[4] “(D) Enabling the development of a Smart Grid (as described in section 1301 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17381)) for State, local government, and other public buildings and facilities, including integration of renewable energy resources and distributed generation, demand response, demand side management, and systems analysis.”

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the bill that contained information regarding the Smart Grid, was signed into law in December of that same year. A summary of the law can be read at and all quotes are from:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h6/show

The law can also be read at:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ140.110.pdf

The Energy Independence and Security Act set in place new fuel efficiency standards for vehicle models beginning in 2011, encouraged the education of the public on electric vehicles, and supported the use of electric-powered or hybrid vehicles. It amended (Section 134) “…the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to provide loan guarantees for fuel-efficient automobile parts manufacturers” and also referenced loans for facilities and other necessities for the vehicle manufacturers. In short, the law looked forward and made preparations for the automakers and the public to slowly and comfortably move into a “greener” country that would be less dependent on foreign oil.

Of course, automobiles weren’t the only consideration in the law. It also contained directives for survey, research, and study into various areas that concerned energy conservation; it discussed proper labeling of biofuels; it made amendments to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Clean Air Act; and set in progress laws to make more energy efficient appliances (including lighting) and buildings.

The mention of the Smart Grid is here, in Title 13 of the Energy Independence and Security Act:

“Title XIII: Smart Grid -
(Sec. 1301) Declares it is the policy of the United States to support modernization of the nation's electricity transmission and distribution system to maintain a reliable and secure electricity infrastructure that can meet future demand growth and to achieve specified characteristics of a Smart Grid.”

Information regarding the Smart Grid continues through Section 1308. The additional sections read as follows:

"(Sec. 1302) Instructs the Secretary of Energy to:
(1) report periodically to Congress on smart grid deployments nationwide and any regulatory or government barriers to continued deployment; and
(2) establish a Smart Grid Advisory Committee.

(Sec. 1303) Directs the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability to establish a Smart Grid Task Force to insure awareness, coordination and integration of the diverse activities of the Office and elsewhere in the federal government related to smart-grid technologies and practices.

(Sec. 1304) Directs the Secretary of Energy to implement a program that includes:
(1) developing advanced techniques for measuring peak load reductions and energy-efficiency savings from smart metering, demand response, distributed generation, and electricity storage systems;
(2) investigating means for demand response, distributed generation, and storage to provide ancillary services; and
(3) conducting research to advance the use of wide-area measurement and control networks, including data mining, visualization, advanced computing, and secure and dependable communications in a highly-distributed environment.
Directs such Secretary to:
(1) establish a smart grid regional demonstration initiative composed of demonstration projects specifically focused on advanced technologies for use in power grid sensing, communications, analysis, and power flow control; and
(2) implement smart grid demonstration projects in up to five electricity control areas, including at least one rural area in which the majority of generation and transmission assets are controlled by a tax-exempt entity.

(Sec. 1305) Confers upon the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) primary responsibility to coordinate development of a framework that includes protocols and model standards for information management to achieve interoperability of smart grid devices and systems.

(Sec. 1306) Requires the Secretary to:
(1) establish a Smart Grid Investment Matching Grant Program to provide reimbursement of 20% of qualifying Smart Grid investments; and
(2) establish and publish in the Federal Register procedures by which applicants who have made qualifying Smart Grid investments can seek and obtain reimbursement of one-fifth of their documented expenditures.

(Sec. 1307) Amends PURPA to require:
(1) each state to consider requiring that, before undertaking investments in nonadvanced grid technologies, an electric utility of the state demonstrate that it has considered an investment in a qualified smart grid system based on specified factors; and
(2) all electricity purchasers to be provided direct access to information from their electricity provider.

(Sec. 1308) Instructs the Secretary to study and report to Congress on:
(1) laws and regulations affecting the siting of privately owned electric distribution wires on and across public rights-of-way; and
(2) a quantitative assessment and determination of the existing and potential impacts of the deployment of Smart Grid systems on improving the security of the nation's electricity infrastructure and operating capability.”

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ140.110.pdf, of course, goes into much greater detail, and adds a Section 1309. But, as I understand it, the law governs the study and research of Smart Grids, including any potential dangers; creates a Smart Grid Task Force and a Smart Grid Advisory Committee; and governs the implementation of demonstration projects. In other words, the government was going to research the issue, give it a try, and see what happened, all with the goal of conserving energy.

Research and study of the Smart Grid was to last for at least one year, and reports were then to go to Washington. Included in the studies would be information such as potential peak-time pricing (1304, a, 6), the potential for area-wide power outages (1304, a, 4), and how to create a smooth transition from the current power system to the Grid. Section 1306, d, 5, mentioned the need for the Grid to be able to detect and disarm cyber-security threats and terrorism. 1306, d, 8 made mention of the need for the Grid to “manage and modify electricity demand,” but it didn’t appear to clarify that limitations of use would be placed on consumers as is mentioned in HR2454.

Although money was allocated to the projects under this law for the years 2008 to 2012, I didn’t find that there were rules regarding limited use of power by consumers determined by the amount of use prior to a certain date, fines if use exceeded the allotted amount, and I didn’t notice a deadline by which the Smart Grid would be fully implemented. (Of course, that doesn’t mean it’s not there.) The Smart Grid Advisory Committee and the Smart Grid Task Force were allotted funding for the years 2008-2020, sounding as though it would be a few years before the entire country was on the Grid.

The website for the Department of Energy lists the members of the Smart Grid Task Force at :

http://www.oe.energy.gov/smartgrid_taskforce.htm

The page also has a link to the Electricity Advisory Committee and (on the left side of the page) an icon link to a PDF containing a somewhat general overview of the Smart Grid.

So, what does it all mean? Where have been the demonstration project areas? According to an article in The Washington Post dated March 10 of this year and titled “Stimulus Dollars Energize Efforts To Smarten Up the Electric Power Grid,” there haven’t yet been any cities on the Grid, although Boulder, Colorado, may go on the Grid sometime this year. The article, written by Peter Slevin and Steven Mufson, can be read at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/09/AR2009030902712.html?sid=ST2009031000002

The article makes mention of the new Grid technology, the capabilities of the Grid, the ability for consumers to know when using electricity in a certain way will cost more or less, and the ability for the Grid to automatically turn off the power to consumer homes. There were several paragraphs that stood out, however, particularly on the second and third pages, and I encourage everyone interested in the Smart Grid to read the article, whether they are in favor of, against, or undecided about the Grid.

The Smart Grid may be the power source of the future, but is it the type of power source the public wants or needs and who will have access to the invasive information on power usage maintained and transferred in digital formats? How will homes and meters be kept safe from “hackers” or viruses or some type of new electricity criminal? Isn’t the best time for these questions to be thoroughly answered before the implementation of any Grid?

Whether you support The Climate Bill before the Senate and want the Smart Grid in your hometown, but especially if you don’t, contact your government representatives and let them know.

Thursday, July 9, 2009

A Look at HR 2454: The Climate Bill

The House has recently passed HR 2454, otherwise known as the climate bill. HR 2454 has now made its way to the Senate, and whether or not it passes there could determine how much our lives will change forever.

In short, the bill is very expensive, and creates an entirely new level of control that the federal government will have over our day-to-day lives.

To read for yourself the bill that was passed by the House and has been transferred to the Senate, you can access the bill through the House of Representatives website.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:3:./temp/~c111BF8pge::

If you’ve never read a piece of legislation, let me warn you. Some of it is very dry; some it requires the reading of other pieces of legislation that have been cited; and, well, some it reads like it’s written in a language I don’t speak.

I practice conservation; I believe in environmentalism; I want clean air, water, and soil; but I also believe in the fundamental concept of American freedom; and, although HR 2454 is based on the theory of trying to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and making our country more “green,” it does so in such a way as to limit our freedoms, our choices, and make basic everyday expenses much more expensive for all of us, regardless of income level. In other words, those making far less than $250,000 per year will paying a great deal of new taxes and new expenses.

HR 2454 is lengthy, as are most pieces of legislation. But, here are few pieces to consider.


Section 121:

“(A) UTILITY PLAN FOR INFRASTRUCTURE- Each electric utility shall develop a plan to support the use of plug-in electric drive vehicles, including heavy-duty hybrid electric vehicles. The plan may provide for deployment of electrical charging stations in public or private locations, including street parking, parking garages, parking lots, homes, gas stations, and highway rest stops….”
[D] “`(ii) include, to the extent feasible, the ability for each plug-in electric drive vehicle to be identified individually and to be associated with its owner's electric utility account, regardless of the location that the vehicle is plugged in, for purposes of appropriate billing for any electricity required to charge the vehicle's batteries as well as any crediting for electricity provided to the electric utility from the vehicle's batteries; and `(iii) review the determination made in response to section 1252 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 in light of this section, including whether time-of-use pricing should be employed to enable the use of plug-in electric drive vehicles to contribute to meeting peak-load and ancillary service power needs.'”


In other words, under this bill the electric companies and/or the government that service our homes with electricity will be required to implement public and private ways to power-up electric cars and to find ways to bill us for this new use of electricity. Will we have to pay more during seven a.m. or five o’clock drive-time? Will we all have a license or credit card-like device to insert into a public power source so they know whom to bill? Apparently, these are up to the individual organizations to decide.

Although very few Americans have hybrid or fully electric vehicles, power sources will be necessary if the electric car is the car of the future. But, keep in mind that on top of all of the other expenses we’ll be paying, the government and/or the electric companies will be passing the expense of these new implementations on to us, the consumers.

It would be interesting, no doubt, to pull in to a parking space and have an electric power source there, but are they really necessary? Gasoline companies don’t pay to install pumps at gas stations; the gas stations pay to have the pumps installed. And, if we have electric-power-stations in lieu of gas stations, why would we need additional power stations other than commercial power stations with the possible exception of our home? We don’t have a gasoline pump anywhere other than commercial stations. And, if there were public power sources, there would be no need for an electric version of the gas station, meaning that many, many people would be put out of business and out of an income. After all, how often would there be a need to stop off for power when one can simply plug the car in at home overnight or in a parking space? And, doesn’t this mean that electrical costs would be required to be exactly the same in every city and every state with a mainframe connecting all of the power sources? How else could we be identified as the consumer using a power source when we’re traveling out of state?

And, yet, aren’t we also getting ahead of ourselves? To reiterate, very few people need these power sources at this time. And, the car manufacturers are giving interviews claiming to be in the process of making new, improved, more gasoline-efficient vehicles to be released in the next few years—not electric or hybrid cars. If the electric car is the car of the future, then why should anyone ever buy another gasoline-powered vehicle? It would not be paid off before we’ll be taxed for driving a gasoline-powered vehicle instead of an electric one.

Section 123

“(b) Financial Assistance- The Secretary of Energy may provide financial assistance to an automobile manufacturer under the program established pursuant to subsection (a) for the reconstruction or retooling of facilities for the manufacture of plug-in electric drive vehicles or batteries for such vehicles that are developed and produced in the United States.”

In other words, more of our tax dollars will be given to the automakers. In turn, I’m certain, we will be paying a higher price at the car lot as well not only because of the new technology but also because the government loans will need to be repaid with interest. Groceries and other items delivered by large trucks will also increase when the delivery companies, farmers, and the manufacturers of consumer products are hit with the expense of mandated new or updated vehicles.

An additional requirement of manufacturers:

Section 127

“(14) new cars sold in the United States that are equipped with an internal combustion engine should allow for fuel competition by being flexible fuel vehicles, and new diesel cars should be capable of operating on biodiesel…”

Section 132

[4] “(D) Enabling the development of a Smart Grid (as described in section 1301 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17381)) for State, local government, and other public buildings and facilities, including integration of renewable energy resources and distributed generation, demand response, demand side management, and systems analysis.”

If or when the Smart Grid is implemented, to my understanding, it will not only place limitations on the amount of electricity we can consume in the privacy of our homes on a regular basis, but the new technology will result in greater electric costs. Additionally, apparently no one will be exempt from being connected to the Smart Grid if they want electricity because Section 291 makes the provision that homeowners insurance cannot be denied to anyone [a] “(c)) based solely on the fact that the dwelling is not connected to or able to receive electricity service from any wholesale or retail electric power provider.”

Section 152

“`(6) NET METERING FOR FEDERAL AGENCIES- Each electric utility shall offer to arrange (either directly or through a third party) to make interconnection and net metering available to Federal Government agencies, offices, or facilities in accordance with the requirements of section 115(j). The standard under this paragraph shall apply only to electric utilities that sold over 4,000,000 megawatt hours of electricity in the preceding year to the ultimate consumers thereof. In the case of a standard under this paragraph, a period of 1 year after the date of the enactment of this section shall be substituted for the 2-year period referred to in other provisions of this section.'”

If a local electric company sells over four million megawatt hours, why does the federal government have any need to know? And, then, what do they intend to do with that information?

HR2454 also creates the Office of Consumer Advocacy (Section 319) which sounds like it would benefit the consumer until one reads on to learn that, although they will hear and investigate consumer complaints, it will consist of government-paid employees who will additionally “(E) collect data concerning rates or service of public utilities and natural gas companies under the jurisdiction of the Commission…” If a person has a complaint against their local utility, why would there be any need to include the federal government in the issue—unless, possibly, the utilities will no longer be privately or corporately owned but, rather, government entities.

Section 304 concerns building codes and, in effect, making those codes more energy efficient. Of course, public buildings, including public housing, will be upgraded to the new standards (Section 286 mentions providing credit to Fannie and Freddie for these tasks), and any new or retrofitted building that meets the new standards will carry a label saying as much.

Section 204 discusses this labeling program and adds that “(3) MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION- In adopting the model labeling program established under this section, a State shall seek to ensure that labeled information be made accessible to the public in a manner so that owners, lenders, tenants, occupants, or other relevant parties can utilize it. Such accessibility may be accomplished through… (iv) a sale that is recorded for title and tax purposes consistent with paragraph (8)…” Meaning that if you want to buy, sell, or build a home, it will have to meet the new energy-efficient standards and receive the label before being finalized.

Section 211 places restrictions on the lumens and wattage of indoor, outdoor, and portable light fixtures. Section 212 adds new standards for other appliances such as furnaces and snack machines while Section 213 hits upon faucets, washing machines, and toilets (water efficiency) with the intent to [A][iii]“(I) prescribe a minimum level of energy efficiency or a maximum quantity of energy use.” I guess this means that a home will be limited in how many dishes they can wash or how many loads of clothes can be washed. These, of course, would also be additional standards that would be required to be met if a family wanted to buy or sell.

Section 215 further discusses water conservation, including the government’s right to [b] “(6) regularly review and, when appropriate, update WaterSense criteria for categories of products, buildings and landscapes, and services, at least once every 4 years…” So, there is a possibility of our having to retrofit or purchase an appliance every four years to maintain the label stating the home meets the standards.

Sections 821, 222, and 841 address the greenhouse emissions from vehicles. I’ve actually wondered, considering the rebates discussed in Section 347, if non-electric or non-hybrid vehicles will be taxed in some way if HR 2454 passes. Or, perhaps, will gasoline-only powered engines be illegal to drive? Will they be able to pass emissions tests, a requirement for a vehicle to be driven on the road? If the result is additional taxes, it is one more expense. If the result is to make them illegal or unable to pass emissions testing, then many who own gasoline-only powered vehicles because they were unable to afford to purchase a more expensive hybrid or electric vehicle, will be unable to drive to work or anywhere else. Public transportation does not conveniently travel to all locations, particularly in rural areas, so many may be forced into purchasing a new vehicle that they cannot afford.

Even after reading HR2454 (and not liking what I read), I still have questions, questions that the government would still have to decide if HR 2454 became law. That makes me feel uneasy, at best.

Section 265, interestingly, allows the Secretary of Energy to fund colleges to conduct surveys and research into how the public conserves energy, how we feel about conserving energy, and how and why we conserve energy. This is one of many sections in HR 2454 where tax dollars are used to fund a project or to create a new government office or commission.

Section 299E, Green Banking Centres, states that any consumer applying for a mortgage or building loan or a loan to retrofit their home to the new standards put forth in HR 2454 must be given information regarding the regulations, standards, and sources of information of the necessary changes.

Section 722 is frightening. It begins: “(a) Prohibition- Except as provided in subsection (c), effective January 1, 2012, each covered entity is prohibited from emitting greenhouse gases and having attributable greenhouse gas emissions, in combination, in excess of its allowable emissions level. A covered entity's allowable emissions level for each calendar year is the number of emission allowances (or offset credits or other allowances as provided in subsection (d)) it holds as of 12:01 a.m. on April 1 (or a later date established by the Administrator under subsection (j)) of the following calendar year.” Section 723 then discusses the penalty as being fines determined from an equation that would baffle Einstein.

In other locations, HR 2454 discusses tree-planting programs, reduction in deforestation, energy efficient communication devices, reducing international industrial pollutants, and funding for job training in green energy-conservative fields.

Although some proponents of HR 2454 have argued that this legislation will create jobs, this theory is difficult to understand. To begin, any jobs created during the transitional phase of implementing new technology would be merely temporary; these workers would again be unemployed after implementation. Secondly, there is an entire section of HR 2454 designed to regulate the federal compensation of workers who lose their jobs due to this legislation. This list includes not only workers in the energy-fields, but also workers in fields that merely use energy—a statement which applies to every business who turns on a light switch. Section 425, 426, and 427 discuss these dislocated workers, potential relocation payments (3 times the worker’s weekly salary (426, 3, B), potential training programs that may be made available to them, and the payments for lost wages that may be available to them. If this bill were designed to create jobs, then why was so much attention focused on the many that will lose their jobs, their incomes, because of this bill?

Section 452 creates a National Climate Service (NCS), but doesn’t the EPA already do these tasks delegated to the NCS?

The bill also places new regulations on farming, thereby continuing to increase the resulting cost of groceries.

Whew! I’m all for going green, but I can’t afford HR 2454. More importantly, I have great concerns regarding its impact regarding the level of governmental control it would create, its impact on our freedom of choice, our freedom of living our day-to-day lives.

Study HR 2454, which is now before the Senate, and determine how you feel about it. If you like it or if you don’t, contact your government representatives and let them know.

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Need a Good Doctor? Get House

One evening, while channel surfing, I came across a rerun of the hit series, House, a show about a brilliant doctor with incredible powers of deduction and knowledge of science but little-to-no bedside manner. Shortly after the episode was over and my channel surfing resumed, one of the twenty-four hour news channels was discussing possible health care reforms.

It seems as though in nearly every episode of House, the patients as well as Dr. House’s co-workers are frustrated with the good doctor—that is until the end of the show when he has discovered and solved the mysterious cause of the illness and saved the life of the patient. As I watched the news, I began to wonder if there really is or are any Dr. House (s) out there.

The world could use a few more good doctors like House, bedside manner or not. So many physicians enter the medical field with pure intentions, only to later fall prey to the wheels of the system and the limitations imposed by policies, procedures, and insurance companies. Patient care suffers, patient and physician frustration rises, and, no doubt, malpractice suits rise. Whether it’s a medical office, a hospital room, or an emergency unit, the doctors see the patient, diagnose, and quickly move on to the next patient in routine manner as they learn to ignore their valuable instincts and intuitive knowledge, as they slowly choose to lose their powers of observation and the thrill of the medical investigation.

Yet, the doctors who are still fighting the system and the disillusionment with the health care field, who are not giving in to employment burn-out, and who continue to serve the best interest of the patient; the doctors who spend time on the telephone arguing with insurance companies on behalf of their patient and are unafraid to argue with hospital administrators are the very doctors the public is most at risk of losing to other professional fields; and they are the doctors we need the most.

We need to help save the real doctors who are like House, the doctors who still have desire to serve the public, to assist with the healing process of their patients. We need to keep these doctors in the medical profession, to relearn from them how to practice medicine, and to make their creeds and practices the renewed policies of the medical community. It is from these good doctors who practice medicine because of the love of people and the love of the field, as opposed to practicing out of apathy or because of the love of the income, that health care reform needs to begin. Although the general public can and should offer any suggestions for or disagreements with potential reform, we need to listen to the doctors that we respect and learn from them how medicine should be practiced.

If I had the choice between a disgruntled physician with the knowledge and willingness to investigate a medical complaint and to maintain that investigation until the solution was found, a physician who would argue with the authorities who attempted to prohibit the medical answers from being found, or, a physician who would allow me to suffer or die because an insurance company wouldn’t approve a medical test or because burn-out and frustration with the system had reached the point that the physician simply did not care to try to determine the proper diagnosis, I’d choose the disgruntled doctor every time.

Receiving legitimate medical treatment and continuing to live always wins any argument when competing against the lack of a bedside manner.

Yes, we need more doctors like House.

So, to the true practitioners of medicine out there, bedside manner or not, thank you…and, we’re listening.



House stars Hugh Laurie and can be seen on the Fox Network and the USA Network. Check the local listings for times and dates.

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Have Insurance Companies Pulled The Scam of the Century?

Sigh. I don’t like insurance—unless, that is, I need it. In my opinion, many people fall into this category. Monthly premiums are expensive, particularly for health insurance, and you don’t always get your money’s worth.

Talk to neighbors or listen to the news, and you’ll hear the stories of people who spend thousands in premiums each year, but don’t go to the doctor more than once or fill a prescription. Meaning, the money spent on premiums was essentially lost, wasted. The doctor visit could have been paid for out-of-pocket and the money spent on premiums saved in an interest-earning account or invested.

More often heard, however, are the stories of people with chronic illnesses or fatal diseases who pay their monthly premiums diligently, but then the insurance companies refuse to pay a claim or, at least, do not pay it without the patient involving many expensive long distance phone calls and attorneys. The experience of battling an insurance company is enough to make people ill by itself.

Yet, we cannot forget the group that has no health insurance because their policy application has been rejected due to pre-existing conditions, because the policyholders have had their policy terminated by the insurance company because of a pre-existing condition or other reasons, and the people who simply cannot afford the monthly premiums.

The entire situation makes me feel as though insurance is the greatest scam every pulled on the human race, and we fell for it.

It’s difficult to find a physician or a hospital that will accept a patient without insurance. And, it is often the insurance companies that determine if an expensive medical test will be conducted, if a medical procedure will be afforded the patient, the length of a hospital stay, or what prescriptions are allowed at the pharmacy under a particular plan.

It’s as if the insurance companies are in control of the health care field, as if insurance companies are toll collectors in complete control of the pathway to health care; and no one can access the road to medical care without first paying the toll.

Yet, the rub is this: If you have insurance, if there comes a time when you need it, and if the company agree to pay the claim, the policy can be more valuable than gold.

Insurance companies are businesses. Their ultimate goal is to make a profit. And, now, our government is advocating that every uninsured American be mandated to purchase a health care plan. If health care reform contains this mandate, then either people will be forced to pay for private insurance or they will be forced to pay for government-sponsored insurance. In either case, the same issues regarding control of the health care system by the insurance providers remain—and, there would be additional problems and controls if our government became an insurance company that were in control of our health care.

It leads one to the question: Are the insurance companies responsible for health care being so expensive?

I began to wonder how insurance companies came to be, how America evolved from an era when citizens were primarily treated at home and hospitals didn’t exist. In searching the internet for answers, I came across the following thorough, informative, and interesting article regarding the history of insurance and health care as well as previous attempts at government insurance:

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/thomasson.insurance.health.us

In short, it explains that the insurance companies aren’t exactly the cause of rising health care costs; rather, it is the new technology and medical breakthroughs that are behind the increasing expenses.

Yet, insurance policies are expensive and seldom fair, working as the gatekeepers deciding who may be insured and who will not, dictating policy costs for each customer in such a way as to make certain that the company profits at the end of the year. As mentioned earlier, insurance companies are a business; we can’t fault them for doing what all businesses do—work to make a profit.

But, isn’t there a better way for Americans to have access to medical care on a more affordable and more even-playing field and without government control of health care? I admit that I don’t have the answer. As it is, insurance, in theory, is a pool in to which everyone pays and is allegedly allowed to draw assistance from for medical costs when necessary. Perhaps sometime in the future there will be an insurance pool that only requires premiums to be paid when the insurance is needed for a specific reason. But, then, that would quickly bankrupt the companies and put them out of business, leaving us all without the common pool of insurance assistance.

For all of the expense of monthly premiums, insurance certainly has its perks, sometimes preventing expensive doctor or hospital bills that would otherwise lead one to bankruptcy, helping to pay for expensive medications that would otherwise be unaffordable, or simply helping someone to be seen by a doctor.

So, is insurance a necessity or a scam? Only you can decide.

Monday, July 6, 2009

President Palin???

When Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin burst onto the scene at the Republican National Convention (RNC) in 2008, she immediately gained attention for being a straight-talking conservative who was a refreshing alternative to the Washington crowd. As days, weeks, and months passed, however, she also gained great criticisms for her political and personal beliefs.

The media, Sarah Palin’s fellow politicians, celebrities, and sometimes the general public, seemed to have no moral value or ethics when it came to commenting on Palin. If anything, many seemed to search for something about which to criticize her. Yet, few of the smears were for her political views, beliefs, or practices; rather, most of the smears were personal attacks on her gender, on her family, and, worst of all, on her children.

Negative comments about Palin’s ability and her level of intelligence have filled the internet, newspapers, and television news shows since the RNC. But, worst of all, Sarah Palin and her family have been submitted to cruel and useless degrading comments that have absolutely nothing to do with Palin’s political agenda.

There has been no other politician who has been submitted to such verbal personal attacks, but the media act as though it is perfectly acceptable in the case of Sarah Palin. For other female political candidates, their ability has not been questioned because of their gender and their focus has not been doubted because they have a family. For most other candidates, any minor children have been off-limits so that the children have not been scrutinized or criticized or degraded. Not so for Palin or her family.

Which can only leave one to wonder if Governor Palin was considered such a right-wing, strong political threat that the media felt that tearing her down personally instead of politically would be the only way to reduce or eliminate that threat. So, the media must have believed—and still believe—that Palin is able to rise to the federal level of government.

And, now, Governor Palin has announced that she will vacate the office of Governor of Alaska over a year prior to the natural end of her term. Speculation has already begun that Palin is preparing for a future presidential run in 2012. However, in her resignation speech, Governor Palin claimed that she was stepping down at the end of July so as to avoid the “lame duck” phase of her term and so that the success of Alaska can continue under the watchful eye of Lt. Governor Parnell.

Perhaps the straight-shooting Palin that the undecided public loved at the RNC is telling the truth. Or, perhaps she is planning to use this time to prepare for the next presidential race. Perhaps, this is an attempt to help insure the election of Lt. Parnell at the next election for Governor of Alaska by giving Parnell some governing experience to promote in his campaign. Perhaps Palin is stepping down simply due to the on-going media attacks against her children. Only time will tell.

I disagreed with many of Sarah Palin’s political beliefs, but I respected her for presenting herself straightforwardly, for not being or acting as though she wanted to be part of the typical Washington crowd, for being an example of a woman able to balance career and family, and for seeming to be an honest, strong woman who refused to apologize for what she believed, particularly in the face of the media negativity.

It’s doubtful that Palin will completely leave politics forever, whether she makes a bid in 2012 or not. And, if she were to run, I don’t know whether I would vote for her or not. But, as with any candidate, I’d be willing to listen to what she had to say and make a decision based on her political plans for the country and not personal issues concerning her family.

Then again, for all of the disagreements I have with her political views, someone in the White House who is not part of the Washington scene, someone who speaks straightforwardly to the people, someone who is strong enough to handle and answer the negative questions and negative comments, and someone who is willing to do what is in the best interest of the country sounds like a refreshing change.

Saturday, July 4, 2009

Happy 4th of July!!!

On this date, over two hundred years ago, the Declaration of Independence officially became part of American culture and world history. The document, designed for America to announce its separation and independence from Britain, declared our rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” a quote from the Declaration that has become common knowledge amongst all Americans as being one of the primary foundations of this great country.

Since the signing of the Declaration, however, Independence Day, otherwise known as the Fourth of July, has become an annual celebration of all things American. With community gatherings, food, parades, and spectacular fireworks, we celebrate our independence, our country, our freedom, and we pay homage to the men and women who have helped create and protect America since its conception. It is truly an American holiday.

Warm rays of the sun appear a bit brighter on the Fourth as they shower down upon families and friends joyfully gathered together, feasting on hotdogs and hamburgers and cold lemonade; or as they sit in lawn chairs at the side of Main Street, cheering for their fellow citizens who parade by in uniforms or antique clothing. As the day continues, impromptu baseball teams compete as they encourage each other and laugh at their own errors. And, as the sun begins to set, a wonderful sense of quiet peace begins to blanket communities across the nation.

After night has fallen, and as streaks of red, white, and blue, green and gold and yellow light up the night sky, America seems to be at her best, a community coming together as one to celebrate everything we have in common and to be grateful for the freedom that allows us to be different from each other.

We need Independence Day. We need it to remind us annually of the larger community to which we belong: America. We need the Fourth of July to remind us of our “unalienable rights,” of our precious freedoms, of both the price and the responsibility of that freedom, of our common ground, and of the right to and power of each of our individual voices. Our founding fathers wrote historical documents to declare that America would not be a tyranny; it would not be a country of people with daily lives controlled by the government; rather, it would be a country of freedom, of independence, a country of people with the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and a country governed “of the people, by the people, for the people.”

Though our country is experiencing some difficult times, we have much for which to be grateful and much to celebrate. Independence Day. Yes, it is truly an American holiday.


____________________________
1 “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” and “unalienable rights” are quotes from The Declaration of Independence, officially adopted in 1776.


2 “Of the people, by the people, for the people” is a quote from the Gettysburg Address, a speech given by Abraham Lincoln in Gettysburg, PA, November, 1863.



Both the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address are available for reading in numerous formats and locations. However, both documents can be read on-line at:

http://www.ushistory.org



Happy 4th of July!!!

Friday, July 3, 2009

When Leaders Fail

It seems to be in the news everyday; another politician breaks a promise, another religious leader embezzles money from his parishioners, another leader commits adultery.

It is in these mortal beings that we place our trust, our hope that they will battle to improve our communities, to improve our lives, and change our world for the better. The trust that we hold is often unquestioning, unwavering, and strong—until we are faced with the proof that our trust has been betrayed.

We trust that our leaders will work hard, make good decisions, and serve the public with steadfast ideals; we trust that they will serve and live honestly, with dignity and integrity, and perform their duties ethically; we also trust that they will lead lives without blemish, without error.

And, it is here that we err.

The people who serve as our leaders, our government representatives, and our church examples are human. Without fail, each one will err many times in some form or fashion throughout their life, as will we. For that is what humans do as we live, as we grow, learning from our successes and our inevitable failures.

Mankind will always find mistakes in other people if we look—and we do. And, sometimes, we highlight those mistakes as if we, ourselves, are beyond error, flawless. But, once a mistake is made and the trust broken, can the trust be restored? Should it be?

Obviously, there are some mistakes that outweigh being called a mistake, crimes so heinous that there is no question that the leader should be removed from the position of authority and punished by law. But, in regards to human mistakes, bad decisions, and errors in judgment, is it possible to maintain or restore the trust we once held?

The public seems to believe that politicians, in particular, are mythical beings incapable of faltering, of failing, of being human. The news, especially during or prior to elections, is often filled with photographs, videos, and reports of voting in a manner opposite a campaign promise, of adultery or illegitimate children, or sound-bites removed from their context. These news clips are designed to destroy public trust in a candidate, and they perform their task well. And, the basis for these smears is this: If we cannot trust a candidate to live his personal life in a decent manner, then we must not be able to trust them in an official office of leadership.

But is this necessarily a reasonable argument? If a politician has an affair or a church elder has a beer, does this truly remove their ability to function well in their given career, to learn from their errors, to grow past their errors, and to use their mistakes to help guide us.

When choosing our church and community leaders and government representatives, we tend to search for human perfection. But, we’ll never find anyone perfect, and it is unfair and unwise to put such complete, total, and unquestioning trust in another human being. Our leaders are human, and we should perceive them as such and search for leaders who have the willingness and the ability to learn from the mistakes that they have and will make along their life journey.

Perhaps, then, the answer to the trust question is that each case must be decided upon by each individual of the general public on a case-by-case basis. But, in this day and age of recessions, unemployment, and war, if they’re doing a good job, let them be.

Thursday, July 2, 2009

Tasty Ways to Sneak More Greens into the Diet

Greens--lettuce, spinach, cabbage, turnip and mustard greens, and the like—tend to get a bad rap because of their color and sharp or nearly non-existent flavor. But, within those leaves are vital nutrients, vitamins and fiber. Single individuals and family cooks alike are always searching for new and delicious ways to add more greens to the diet in an attempt to increase the consumption of those nutrients in the daily dietary intake.

Most greens can be enjoyed raw, although some, particularly the mustard and turnip greens, are often sautéed with spices such as onions and garlic. But, for those who do not enjoy either of these methods of eating greens, there are other, more sneaky options.

For a raw option, add a couple of handfuls of greens to your favorite smoothie. Or, chop up some greens and add them to a favorite salad for a new flavor combination. Cabbage and lettuce make clean, refreshing tasting additions to smoothies. And, spinach is often overlooked as a salad ingredient.

If making vegetable soup, add some chopped greens into the broth mixture near the end of the cooking time. If chopped finely enough, it looks no different than parsley floating in the broth.

Finely chopped spinach or turnip greens make an interesting combination when added to a favorite spicy chili recipe.

If making boiled or mashed potatoes, add some greens that have been put through the food processor until they are finally chopped. Be certain, though, to add the greens at the very last moment so that they are not cooked very much and do not lose their valuable nutrients. If adding turnip or mustard greens, however, let them cook for a moment or two if you wish to remove some of the bitterness.

If household members love macaroni and cheese, add finely chopped greens to the final mixture of pasta and cheese. Other than the appearance, the ingredients barely alter the taste or texture of the finished product. Spinach is a great addition that can rev up this old-fashioned treat.

Rice and beans are wonderful when chopped greens such as spinach, turnip greens, or mustard greens are included in the mixture.

Spinach has always been a favorite addition to scrambled eggs or omelets. But, greens can be added to other meat or non-meat dishes as well, such as hamburgers and meatloaf. For meat-eaters, simply add the chopped greens of choice to the meat and spice mixture prior to baking or grilling; for vegetarians, simply add the chopped greens to the mixture of meat-substitute or beans and lentils prior to baking. Greens can also be added to meatballs, sausage, or the vegetarian version of these dishes.

With a little creativity and forethought, greens can become a staple in the meals from any kitchen. Just remember to make certain that the greens are cleaned properly and thoroughly before using so that dirt, sand, or anything otherwise unsavory is removed prior to consumption.