A survey finds that most Americans don't understand the new health care reform bill (which should be called the health insurance reform bill). That's not surprising, since the bill is supposed to be some 2,000 pages.
So many people opposed the bill, presumably while not understanding it. Hardly anyone knows how the bill will affect him or her (which seems to be people's main concern). So maybe they are just fearing the worst (again, as I stated or implied in earlier postings, I think people have been stirred up to believe that passage of the bill would mean the worst).
For many people, the new bill will be a good thing. How can you think that prohibiting health insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions is anything but good thing?--unless you are a health insurance company, and most of us are not.
It also removes the lifetime cap, which had meant that some people with serious illnesses that required long courses of treatment or long hospitalizations could exhaust their benefits, and then be on their own for paying all their medical costs. How can that be anything but a good thing?
And more people—young people who have not yet gotten their first job, people changing jobs—will have or keep their insurance. How can that be anything but a good thing?
I will tell you who has a right to not like the bill—besides the insurance companies. No, not even small businesses, because they will receive tax credits for offering health insurance to their employees. It's the wealthy, who will now pay a tax on their investments, and who will pay more Medicare tax.
And—I hope this does not surprise anyone—the Republican party is the party that looks out for the interests of the wealthy, and always tries to help them hold on to their money. That is why the Republicans have so strenuously opposed health care reform.
But the little guy needs to realize that this is a good thing for him (or her).
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Monday, March 22, 2010
Saturday, March 13, 2010
As if We Didn't Already Know
Florida and Texas are backward.
www.dailyfinance.com/story/media/filming-in-florida-so-wholesome-only-a-5-year-old-could-enjoy/19397043/
www.aolnews.com/nation/article/texas-removes-thomas-jefferson-from-teaching-standard/19397481
And yes, what Texas specifies it wants in textbooks, it gets; and it not only may influence textbooks for the rest of the country, it definitely does. Because Texas has state-wide adoptions (that is, a state body specifies what textbooks are acceptable for the entire state), and textbook publishers can't afford to make different versions for Texas and for the rest of the U.S.--what Texas will buy pretty much dictates what the books are going to be like--what they may or may not contain--for the whole country.
Trust me on this: I've worked in textbook publishing.
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
www.dailyfinance.com/story/media/filming-in-florida-so-wholesome-only-a-5-year-old-could-enjoy/19397043/
www.aolnews.com/nation/article/texas-removes-thomas-jefferson-from-teaching-standard/19397481
And yes, what Texas specifies it wants in textbooks, it gets; and it not only may influence textbooks for the rest of the country, it definitely does. Because Texas has state-wide adoptions (that is, a state body specifies what textbooks are acceptable for the entire state), and textbook publishers can't afford to make different versions for Texas and for the rest of the U.S.--what Texas will buy pretty much dictates what the books are going to be like--what they may or may not contain--for the whole country.
Trust me on this: I've worked in textbook publishing.
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Is Our Food Bad for Us?
Today, unless your head is in the sand, you hear that a lot of our dietary habits are bad for us. We eat too much salt, sugar, fat, red meat, processed meat—the list goes on, and it seems like it's added to every day.
When I was a kid you never heard of anyone worrying about what they ate. We ate lots of sugar and fat and salt. All the cake we wanted, and ice cream, and cookies. Ah, the good old days! My mother, who cooked with chicken fat (I hear you going, "Yuck!" but that was normal Jewish cooking, which would not use lard), was concerned that I did not eat enough fat, as a kid, and, to seduce me into taking in more butter, she added it to tomato soup!
You have to wonder what's changed, and, logically, you'd think the answer would be "nothing."
However, that might not be correct. That farm hand or cowboy of 100 years ago who ate steak and eggs and ham for breakfast didn't develop clogged arteries and coronary disease because his work was heavily physical. Today we are all couch potatoes who don't even get up off the couch to change the channel on our TV.
And, although you hear more about heart disease and cancer, and the incidence of diabetes is going through the roof, some rates of cancer have actually gone down. But I would not disregard or downplay all the advice to be concerned about what we are eating and drinking.
As I say above, one thing which has changed is lifestyle. We are too sedentary. Also, food vendors (think fast-food chains) and food manufacturers are providing us with unhealthy food. And we are eating in those fast-food places more, and eating more processed food. How much of our food is made from scratch? I for one, can cook and do, at least sometimes; but if you look at my garbage (or what I recycle, to be more correct), it seems as though an awful lot of my food comes in boxes. Not good. Too much sodium, too much artificial ingredients. Have you heard of the dietary advice to never eat anything that has more than five ingredients? There's probably nothing that comes in a box that's got only five ingredients.
All of what I say above is well-established science; but I'm going to plunge ahead into some ideas that are more speculative. Our dietary intake these days has lots of toxins (poisons), in the form of pesticides and chemical additives in our food. It's been at least tentatively suggested by scientific studies that some of these substances, like bis-phenyl A (BPA), found in food cans, for example, are harmful.
The verdict is still out, largely, on what harm some of the man-made chemicals in our food are doing to us. It may be that they make our bodies less able to handle the more natural—and now thought to be "bad"—food ingredients like fat, sugar, and salt. Not to mention causing diseases like cancer, autoimmune diseases, and so on by themselves.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
When I was a kid you never heard of anyone worrying about what they ate. We ate lots of sugar and fat and salt. All the cake we wanted, and ice cream, and cookies. Ah, the good old days! My mother, who cooked with chicken fat (I hear you going, "Yuck!" but that was normal Jewish cooking, which would not use lard), was concerned that I did not eat enough fat, as a kid, and, to seduce me into taking in more butter, she added it to tomato soup!
You have to wonder what's changed, and, logically, you'd think the answer would be "nothing."
However, that might not be correct. That farm hand or cowboy of 100 years ago who ate steak and eggs and ham for breakfast didn't develop clogged arteries and coronary disease because his work was heavily physical. Today we are all couch potatoes who don't even get up off the couch to change the channel on our TV.
And, although you hear more about heart disease and cancer, and the incidence of diabetes is going through the roof, some rates of cancer have actually gone down. But I would not disregard or downplay all the advice to be concerned about what we are eating and drinking.
As I say above, one thing which has changed is lifestyle. We are too sedentary. Also, food vendors (think fast-food chains) and food manufacturers are providing us with unhealthy food. And we are eating in those fast-food places more, and eating more processed food. How much of our food is made from scratch? I for one, can cook and do, at least sometimes; but if you look at my garbage (or what I recycle, to be more correct), it seems as though an awful lot of my food comes in boxes. Not good. Too much sodium, too much artificial ingredients. Have you heard of the dietary advice to never eat anything that has more than five ingredients? There's probably nothing that comes in a box that's got only five ingredients.
All of what I say above is well-established science; but I'm going to plunge ahead into some ideas that are more speculative. Our dietary intake these days has lots of toxins (poisons), in the form of pesticides and chemical additives in our food. It's been at least tentatively suggested by scientific studies that some of these substances, like bis-phenyl A (BPA), found in food cans, for example, are harmful.
The verdict is still out, largely, on what harm some of the man-made chemicals in our food are doing to us. It may be that they make our bodies less able to handle the more natural—and now thought to be "bad"—food ingredients like fat, sugar, and salt. Not to mention causing diseases like cancer, autoimmune diseases, and so on by themselves.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Friday, March 5, 2010
There Are No Cheap Cars (Thanks to U.S. Government)
Fifty years ago it was fairly simple for a foreign car manufacturer to sell his cars in the U.S. Any car sold in the U.S. had to meet U.S. federal government standards, but they were fairly simple (I've tried, as best as I'm able, to list these in approximately the order in which the standards went into effect):
and maybe one or two more.
Then more requirements were added:
and then:
and fairly recently:
and, soon to come:
And I'm pretty sure there are a lot I have left out.
A lot of the required systems are electrical. Thus the following became necessary, even though not required by law:
Add to all this the fact that there are a great many amenities that American drivers expect and even demand:
The result is that there are no cheap cars. You take even a tiny and cheap (to begin with) car, and by the time it's been "Americanized" (actually, the term "federalized" is used), it has to sell for $20,000 in the U.S. A modern car has to have more "systems" than a house, so it's not surprising that a car costs a significant fraction of the cost of a house.
I am (as my faithful readers know) generally very liberal in my views; and I certainly don't want to start sounding conservative. Many, even most, of the above car features are very worthwhile, and they protect us and the environment. But I do have to say, I do wish that maybe some of these could be matters of the buyer's choice. I for one don't really like having to have the tire pressure monitoring system. Yes, it keeps us from driving on under-inflated tires, and that has safety implications. A great majority of drivers don't monitor their cars' tire pressure systematically. But I find any and all little amber warning lights on my dash to be a pain in the keister.
As to the bumper standard: Once upon a time, cars had these great, heavy, chrome-plated steel bumpers. They could contact another car and not be affected at all.
The new bumpers absorb shock and prevent damage to the rest of the car in low-speed collisions. However, the bumpers themselves, in minor encounters with another car, are too easily damaged. They are essentially plastic (with energy-absorbing blocks or a honeycomb structure behind them), and they dent, cave in, gouge, and scratch quite easily. Of course the "bumper covers" (as the body shop will call them) could be made of black rubber. Some cars have had that, and it's practical. But those big, black rubber bumpers are ugly and car buyers don't want them.
Still, makes me yearn for the old chromed steel bumpers.
- Sealed-beam headlights
- Safety glass
and maybe one or two more.
Then more requirements were added:
- Seat belts
- Exhaust emission standards
- Bumper crash resistance
and then:
- Air bags
- Engine computers with diagnostic readouts
and fairly recently:
- Tire pressure monitoring system
and, soon to come:
- Vehicle stability control
And I'm pretty sure there are a lot I have left out.
A lot of the required systems are electrical. Thus the following became necessary, even though not required by law:
- Larger battery
- Larger alternator
- Larger engine, to provide the power to drive the alternator, etc.
Add to all this the fact that there are a great many amenities that American drivers expect and even demand:
- Automatic transmission
- Air conditioning
- Innumerable power assists, electrical gadgets, "convenience features," etc.
The result is that there are no cheap cars. You take even a tiny and cheap (to begin with) car, and by the time it's been "Americanized" (actually, the term "federalized" is used), it has to sell for $20,000 in the U.S. A modern car has to have more "systems" than a house, so it's not surprising that a car costs a significant fraction of the cost of a house.
I am (as my faithful readers know) generally very liberal in my views; and I certainly don't want to start sounding conservative. Many, even most, of the above car features are very worthwhile, and they protect us and the environment. But I do have to say, I do wish that maybe some of these could be matters of the buyer's choice. I for one don't really like having to have the tire pressure monitoring system. Yes, it keeps us from driving on under-inflated tires, and that has safety implications. A great majority of drivers don't monitor their cars' tire pressure systematically. But I find any and all little amber warning lights on my dash to be a pain in the keister.
As to the bumper standard: Once upon a time, cars had these great, heavy, chrome-plated steel bumpers. They could contact another car and not be affected at all.
The new bumpers absorb shock and prevent damage to the rest of the car in low-speed collisions. However, the bumpers themselves, in minor encounters with another car, are too easily damaged. They are essentially plastic (with energy-absorbing blocks or a honeycomb structure behind them), and they dent, cave in, gouge, and scratch quite easily. Of course the "bumper covers" (as the body shop will call them) could be made of black rubber. Some cars have had that, and it's practical. But those big, black rubber bumpers are ugly and car buyers don't want them.
Still, makes me yearn for the old chromed steel bumpers.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Should You Buy an American Car?
It's commonly thought that if you buy an "American" car, you benefit American companies and American workers.
Well, it's not quite that simple.
Many cars made by American companies are assembled in Canada or Mexico. Furthermore, lots of the parts—including pretty major parts, like transmissions—might be made outside the U.S. The sticker might indicate this.
Every car sold in the U.S. has a sticker on the window, as required by law. One bit of information given by the sticker is "domestic content." This shows what percentage of parts and components are in fact made in the U.S.
I just saw a Ford Taurus on display at my local mall. The domestic content was listed as only 65%. On other Ford models I have seen on display, the transmission was Mexican-made.
So, the people who buy an "American" car may actually be getting a car with less American-made content than a "foreign" car. This is because many of the "foreign" makes are assembled in U.S. plants. These foreign models assembled in the U.S. often have pretty high domestic content, maybe 90%. There is no need for the makers to bear the expense of importing batteries, tires, headlights, electronic modules, and many other components, so they buy them in the U.S. You might be surprised at how much of your "foreign" car is actually domestically manufactured.
You might say, Well, if you buy an American make, you're giving profits to U.S. companies and American stockholders. Well, that may be true but, again, there's more to it than that. When a particular car model has higher domestic content, that's more American workers in the parts plants that produced that domestic content, and more profits for those parts-manufacturing companies as well as wages to their workers.
And if Ford is owned by American stockholders—well, who says that Toyota, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, or Volkswagen do not have stockholders who are Americans? I can tell you that they do. By means of mutual funds, it's become much easier for millions of Americans to be invested in overseas companies.
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Well, it's not quite that simple.
Many cars made by American companies are assembled in Canada or Mexico. Furthermore, lots of the parts—including pretty major parts, like transmissions—might be made outside the U.S. The sticker might indicate this.
Every car sold in the U.S. has a sticker on the window, as required by law. One bit of information given by the sticker is "domestic content." This shows what percentage of parts and components are in fact made in the U.S.
I just saw a Ford Taurus on display at my local mall. The domestic content was listed as only 65%. On other Ford models I have seen on display, the transmission was Mexican-made.
So, the people who buy an "American" car may actually be getting a car with less American-made content than a "foreign" car. This is because many of the "foreign" makes are assembled in U.S. plants. These foreign models assembled in the U.S. often have pretty high domestic content, maybe 90%. There is no need for the makers to bear the expense of importing batteries, tires, headlights, electronic modules, and many other components, so they buy them in the U.S. You might be surprised at how much of your "foreign" car is actually domestically manufactured.
You might say, Well, if you buy an American make, you're giving profits to U.S. companies and American stockholders. Well, that may be true but, again, there's more to it than that. When a particular car model has higher domestic content, that's more American workers in the parts plants that produced that domestic content, and more profits for those parts-manufacturing companies as well as wages to their workers.
And if Ford is owned by American stockholders—well, who says that Toyota, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, or Volkswagen do not have stockholders who are Americans? I can tell you that they do. By means of mutual funds, it's become much easier for millions of Americans to be invested in overseas companies.
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Monday, March 1, 2010
Hell-Louise's Helpful Household Hints
This posting represents a major departure for Mourning Dove Hill, an excursion into a very different subject area.
1. Ever notice that, when you put spaghetti sauce from a jar onto a plate of spaghetti, you get a pool of watery liquid, almost water, on the bottom? And you blame the sauce for being watery or not thick enough. (It's probably the same story with homemade sauce; and you wonder why your sauce just is never thick enough!)
Well, here's what to do about it (rather than unjustly blame that sauce): When your spaghetti is cooked, of course you pour it from the pot into a strainer or colander to drain it. If you use one of those sort of crescent-shaped pot strainers, what I say still holds.
Well, that doesn't drain your pasta well enough. From the strainer or colander, put that pasta on a plate or platter or in a bowl—and then put it in the microwave. Heat it in the microwave for maybe 20 or 30 seconds. You'll drive off all the extra moisture and, voila! – no more watery residue at the bottom.
2. Got a banana that you want to eat but it's not quite ripe enough yet? The microwave to the rescue—again! Just microwave it for 10 seconds before peeling.
3. Twist-off jar lids hard to open? There are so many jar openers out there to help you; but I've found absolutely the best and simplest, too. It's called JarKey. It's a very simple device that pries up the edge of the lid just enough to break the vacuum (the button in the middle of the lid will audibly pop up). Then, miraculously! it's easy to open the lid with your hand. You can find the JarKey on the Internet, and it's inexpensive. (I have no connection with the maker of this device and I don't gain anything if you buy it.)
Note added later: There is evidently a pretty much identical product called JarPop sold for $4 at
The Container Store.
4. Yet another use for the microwave: I cook an ear of corn in the microwave. The recipe calls for peeling back the husks, removing the silk, and then recovering the ear with the husks. But you don't need to do that. (I do take my kitchen shears and cut off the husks and silk at the top of the ear.) Also sometimes it's recommended that you soak the ear of corn in water first. When the husks are wet, then the ear will steam—so the theory goes. Well, you can do that, or you can hold the ear under running water in the sink for a little while; but I think both of these are unnecessary. If the narrow end of the ear is not covered well by the husks, wrap a little plastic wrap around it. Then microwave for 3 minutes 20 seconds (for one ear). Trust me, this works beautifully.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
1. Ever notice that, when you put spaghetti sauce from a jar onto a plate of spaghetti, you get a pool of watery liquid, almost water, on the bottom? And you blame the sauce for being watery or not thick enough. (It's probably the same story with homemade sauce; and you wonder why your sauce just is never thick enough!)
Well, here's what to do about it (rather than unjustly blame that sauce): When your spaghetti is cooked, of course you pour it from the pot into a strainer or colander to drain it. If you use one of those sort of crescent-shaped pot strainers, what I say still holds.
Well, that doesn't drain your pasta well enough. From the strainer or colander, put that pasta on a plate or platter or in a bowl—and then put it in the microwave. Heat it in the microwave for maybe 20 or 30 seconds. You'll drive off all the extra moisture and, voila! – no more watery residue at the bottom.
2. Got a banana that you want to eat but it's not quite ripe enough yet? The microwave to the rescue—again! Just microwave it for 10 seconds before peeling.
3. Twist-off jar lids hard to open? There are so many jar openers out there to help you; but I've found absolutely the best and simplest, too. It's called JarKey. It's a very simple device that pries up the edge of the lid just enough to break the vacuum (the button in the middle of the lid will audibly pop up). Then, miraculously! it's easy to open the lid with your hand. You can find the JarKey on the Internet, and it's inexpensive. (I have no connection with the maker of this device and I don't gain anything if you buy it.)
Note added later: There is evidently a pretty much identical product called JarPop sold for $4 at
The Container Store.
4. Yet another use for the microwave: I cook an ear of corn in the microwave. The recipe calls for peeling back the husks, removing the silk, and then recovering the ear with the husks. But you don't need to do that. (I do take my kitchen shears and cut off the husks and silk at the top of the ear.) Also sometimes it's recommended that you soak the ear of corn in water first. When the husks are wet, then the ear will steam—so the theory goes. Well, you can do that, or you can hold the ear under running water in the sink for a little while; but I think both of these are unnecessary. If the narrow end of the ear is not covered well by the husks, wrap a little plastic wrap around it. Then microwave for 3 minutes 20 seconds (for one ear). Trust me, this works beautifully.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Some Thoughts on Drunk Driving
Most everybody agrees with the idea that drunk driving is a bad thing. We've all seen statistics that show that drunk drivers kill and injure large numbers of people. So we have organizations like MADD--Mothers Against Drunk Driving--and so forth.
But I'd like to throw out this thought: Has anybody noticed that bars have parking lots? Maybe some urban bars do not, but in less congested areas, they all do.
And what scenario does that envision? Someone comes out of the bar—after drinking, I dare say. And gets into his car. And drives.
Hey, what kind of logic is this? Am I the only one who can see that Bars + Parking Lots = People Drinking and Driving?
Maybe an effective approach to curbing drunk driving would be to pass laws forbidding bars from having parking lots. Of course I can hear the bar owners howl over that one. Maybe consortiums of bar owners could provide some type of shuttle to the nearest bus stop.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
But I'd like to throw out this thought: Has anybody noticed that bars have parking lots? Maybe some urban bars do not, but in less congested areas, they all do.
And what scenario does that envision? Someone comes out of the bar—after drinking, I dare say. And gets into his car. And drives.
Hey, what kind of logic is this? Am I the only one who can see that Bars + Parking Lots = People Drinking and Driving?
Maybe an effective approach to curbing drunk driving would be to pass laws forbidding bars from having parking lots. Of course I can hear the bar owners howl over that one. Maybe consortiums of bar owners could provide some type of shuttle to the nearest bus stop.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
