Superbugs a growing threat to hospital patients
CTV.ca News Staff Updated: Wed. Sep. 13 2006 11:32 PM ET
Superbugs are a growing threat in Canadian hospitals, and better medication and infection controls are needed, a new study suggests.
The number of one powerful bacteria strain's resistance to antibiotics has jumped dramatically: From five-to-15 per cent to 20-to-50 per cent. That's a significant increase from previous estimates, according to the report by the Canadian National Intensive Care Unit.
Researchers examined 4,180 specimens from patients in 19 intensive care units across Canada. The resistance figures pertain to the most common virulent strain of bacteria, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), which is a major cause of hospital-acquired wound and skin infections. Scientists also found an increase in the resistance of vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) and E. coli, with levels at 6.8 per cent and 4.7 per cent, respectively.
"The stark reality in this country today is the MRSA and other drug-resistant bacteria are posing a serious threat to our ICUs," primary investigator Dr. George Zhanel, a professor at the University of Manitoba, said in a news release. "People infected with these superbugs are more likely to have longer hospital stays and require multiple drug treatments to fight them off.
And even then, it's often too little, too late.” About 8,500 Canadians die each year from complications arising from infections acquired in hospitals, according to the Community and Hospital Infection Control Association. Zhanel says stronger infection control measures are needed to limit the impact of the superbugs. Strict compliance from patients for less complicated infections is also vital, he said.
Another disturbing trend found by researchers is the increase of MRSA acquired in the community, not in the hospital setting. The strains were found among athletes, soldiers and intravenous drug users, the study showed. At least seven cases of the community-acquired strains, usually found in drug users and First Nations communities, are currently being treated across the country, the report said. "In Canada, sporadic cases (of the strains) have started to appear over the last decade," said Dr. Tony Mazzulli, a University of Toronto professor and medical microbiologist and infectious diseases specialist. "They tend to involve different strains and different antibiotic resistance profiles than hospital-acquired infections."
© Copyright 2006 CTV Inc.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Saturday, September 9, 2006
Above all, Gospels tell of God’s love
I really liked this article, and hope the Dispatch doesn't mind that I've saved it...
COMMENTARY
Above all, Gospels tell of God’s love
Friday, September 08, 2006
STEPHEN SMITH
I remember once asking a parishioner about his vision of God. "Who or what do you envision God to be?" I asked.
He replied by telling me that he thought of God as the one who keeps track of our rights and wrongs. We are punished for our wrongs by the consequences of our actions, and rewarded for our goodness. And God is always trying to steer us toward the good.
I agreed with his last statement but challenged the rest, saying: "You make God sound like a giant traffic cop in the sky. Where’s the good news in that? "
What happened to the Gospel, which is literally translated "Good News?" I always thought Christianity was meant to be defined by the Gospel. And what is that good news? That God loved the world so much he sent his only Son so that all who trust in him may have eternal life (John 3:16).
I do not remember the New Testament telling me that God sent his Son in order to be sure we always did right, or to keep track of all our deeds. In fact, much of Christian theology assumes that God sent his message of love through his Son because we humans were so often incapable of doing the right and the good.
In recent years, Christianity seems obsessed with right and wrong. As the religion injects itself into the public debate, it does so around hot-button issues like abortion and sexuality, and around party politics.
Increasingly, Christianity seems to be identified with being "right" on the issues or voting for the "right" party. As Christian leaders join the political discourse, they often sound just like politicians: attacking the other side (rather than loving our enemies as Jesus commanded) and giving the spin to a position (rather than speaking the truth in love).
Such public discourse divides people into groups of those who are right and those who are wrong. It also influences the way we envision God, turning the Deity into a bean counter. Where’s the Good News in that?
Early Christianity grew because of its strong message of love. In the dehumanizing world of the Roman Empire, the outcasts heard good news. Slaves heard that God loved them, even if they had no power or standing in society. In the church, slaves became brothers and sisters with those who were not slaves, and were called children of the God of the universe. A woman, living in a maledominated culture, where a husband or boyfriend could legally demand that she have an abortion, found herself treated as an equal to a man. The poor found dignity because they realized they were loved by God just as much as the rich. It was good news.
Christianity was not obsessed in those days with being "right." Rather, it was obsessed with sharing the love of God with all who needed it. And then, the church watched in awe and wonder as that love transformed lives. It was good news.
We live in a modern, dehumanizing world, where we allow ourselves to be defined more and more by our productivity, consumerism and accomplishments. I have found very few people who get up each morning fully aware of Christianity’s great proclamation that God loves them and each and every one us very much. And now the Christian Church fails to proclaim this, its own, most basic message, and instead joins in political bickering. Where’s the love? Whatever happened to the Gospel?
The Rev. Stephen Smith is rector of St. Patrick’s Episcopal Church, Dublin, and a member of We Believe Ohio, a group that unites diverse religious voices for social justice.
revd.up@ameritech.net
Copyright © 2006, The Columbus Dispatch
COMMENTARY
Above all, Gospels tell of God’s love
Friday, September 08, 2006
STEPHEN SMITH
I remember once asking a parishioner about his vision of God. "Who or what do you envision God to be?" I asked.
He replied by telling me that he thought of God as the one who keeps track of our rights and wrongs. We are punished for our wrongs by the consequences of our actions, and rewarded for our goodness. And God is always trying to steer us toward the good.
I agreed with his last statement but challenged the rest, saying: "You make God sound like a giant traffic cop in the sky. Where’s the good news in that? "
What happened to the Gospel, which is literally translated "Good News?" I always thought Christianity was meant to be defined by the Gospel. And what is that good news? That God loved the world so much he sent his only Son so that all who trust in him may have eternal life (John 3:16).
I do not remember the New Testament telling me that God sent his Son in order to be sure we always did right, or to keep track of all our deeds. In fact, much of Christian theology assumes that God sent his message of love through his Son because we humans were so often incapable of doing the right and the good.
In recent years, Christianity seems obsessed with right and wrong. As the religion injects itself into the public debate, it does so around hot-button issues like abortion and sexuality, and around party politics.
Increasingly, Christianity seems to be identified with being "right" on the issues or voting for the "right" party. As Christian leaders join the political discourse, they often sound just like politicians: attacking the other side (rather than loving our enemies as Jesus commanded) and giving the spin to a position (rather than speaking the truth in love).
Such public discourse divides people into groups of those who are right and those who are wrong. It also influences the way we envision God, turning the Deity into a bean counter. Where’s the Good News in that?
Early Christianity grew because of its strong message of love. In the dehumanizing world of the Roman Empire, the outcasts heard good news. Slaves heard that God loved them, even if they had no power or standing in society. In the church, slaves became brothers and sisters with those who were not slaves, and were called children of the God of the universe. A woman, living in a maledominated culture, where a husband or boyfriend could legally demand that she have an abortion, found herself treated as an equal to a man. The poor found dignity because they realized they were loved by God just as much as the rich. It was good news.
Christianity was not obsessed in those days with being "right." Rather, it was obsessed with sharing the love of God with all who needed it. And then, the church watched in awe and wonder as that love transformed lives. It was good news.
We live in a modern, dehumanizing world, where we allow ourselves to be defined more and more by our productivity, consumerism and accomplishments. I have found very few people who get up each morning fully aware of Christianity’s great proclamation that God loves them and each and every one us very much. And now the Christian Church fails to proclaim this, its own, most basic message, and instead joins in political bickering. Where’s the love? Whatever happened to the Gospel?
The Rev. Stephen Smith is rector of St. Patrick’s Episcopal Church, Dublin, and a member of We Believe Ohio, a group that unites diverse religious voices for social justice.
revd.up@ameritech.net
Copyright © 2006, The Columbus Dispatch
Monday, September 4, 2006
New Orleans: Who is to Blame?
For purposes of this discussion, I'm going to divide the people of New Orleans into these groups:
Group A: You heard the warnings to get out, and got out. Good for you. You may have lost property, but you exercised good judgement and consequently are not part of the current problem. Thank you.
Group B: You heard the warning, and chose to stay either out of stubborness, or to protect your property, which was lost anyway. Your stubborness has needlessly added to the rescue effort. You're at the end of the help line as far as I'm concerned.
Group C: You wanted to get out, and had the means to get out, but felt you needed to stay to protect loved ones who were unable to get out. Your willingness to sacrifice yourself was noble. Some folks will say that you just added to the number of victims (one of the arguments for NOT jumping into save a drowning victim unless you are trained). I won't be that harsh, because I'm sure I couldn't leave an invalid parent behind if I couldn't get them out.
Group D: You wanted to get out, but didn't have the means. These are the people we failed.
So the specific question: Who should have been taking care of Group D?
US Army Corps of Engineers: I hope the Corps of Engineers gave an adequate appraisal of the risk of the levies failing. It seemed to me that the civilian authorities were most worried about a storm surge coming over the levies. That would have been bad, flooding a great deal of the city. But the presumption would be that once new water stopped coming into the city, the pumps could begin getting it back out immediately. By now (a week later), the water level would be much lower.A complete failure of the levies is clearly much worse. Not only does the water rise to the highest possible level, it's going to stay there until the levies are repaired and a great deal of water is pumped out. It just doesn't seem like anyone considered this possibility...
The Mayor of New Orleans: The Mayor has been making a lot of noise, emphasizing his words with profanity presumably to show the people how mad he is. However, it seems to me that no government official should have been more acutely aware of the potential risks and therefore have taken precautionary steps. It seems like it would have been entirely within his power to commandeer the Superdome before the storm and get it stocked with all the supplies needed to handle a worst-case-scenario, which is pretty much what happened. New Orleans has been threatened with this kind of catastrophic flooding for decades. Why didn't this mayor or any of his predecessors take the initiative to get a disaster plan put together? He could have been on the news a year ago saying: "I want to prepare for a total flood out that traps tens of thousands of people in the city. I can't do it alone -- the state government and FEMA needs to help." I would rather hear him bitch about not getting help in making a plan than point fingers after the disaster takes place.
The Governor of Louisiana: Like the Mayor, she could taken some initiative to prepare for a disaster of this magniture. She has lots more resources than the Mayor, including the Louisiana National Guard. The plan should have been drawn up years ago, and activated in stages as the probability of the storm hitting went up. She could have helped provide resources for the evacuation of the folks in Group D. She could have had Louisiana National Guard bases prepared to be temporary shelters for evacuees. She could have worked deals with governors of other states to lend resources (e.g. National Guard and police units) and evacuation sites.
The Federal Government: Gee, back in the Cold War days, these guys drew up a zillion plans for going to war with the Soviets, and ran enormously expensive war games to try out elements of those plans. Someone, the Corps of Engineers, FEMA, the Pentagon -- someone could have drawn up those plans and mobilized thousands of troops to be ready.
Hopefully we learned some lessons with this disaster. New Orleans is not the only city which can be impacted this way. What about the Big Earthquake on the west coast? Can't say we don't have warning. How about a tornado that finally rips through a big city, like Columbus OH where I live? What if the terrorists had loaded the airliners with nuclear waste before crashing into to the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?
When I was a kid, the entire country had made preparations for a nuclear war with the Soviets. The military had its bunkers in Cheyenne Mountain (and maybe deep under the Pentagon). The Congress was going to bail out to the Greenbriar (those guys are no fools). The President and Cabinet would go to Mount Weather. The rest of us were told to build fallout shelters in our basement and stock them. In the cities, every building had signs posted directing people to the public fallout shelters.
Seems like it is worth it to apply similar effort to preparing for city sized disasters. We know what is needed. Let's not get lazy again.
Mr Mayor: If you want to be a real leader, be a man and admit that you could have done more to prepare your city. Then volunteer to run a federal commission that oversees the development of a plan in cooperation with the state and local governments of our largest cities.
Mayors of other major cities: Use this as a lesson and TAKE RESPONSIBILTY FOR MAKING A PLAN.
FEMA: This is your job, and you blew it. Heads should roll.
Mr President: Put LtGen Honore in charge of FEMA. Make it a 4 star CINC command under the DoD. They're the only guys with the resources, leadership and organization to run something of this magnitude.
Citizens: When the man says "Get Out!" - LISTEN!!
Group A: You heard the warnings to get out, and got out. Good for you. You may have lost property, but you exercised good judgement and consequently are not part of the current problem. Thank you.
Group B: You heard the warning, and chose to stay either out of stubborness, or to protect your property, which was lost anyway. Your stubborness has needlessly added to the rescue effort. You're at the end of the help line as far as I'm concerned.
Group C: You wanted to get out, and had the means to get out, but felt you needed to stay to protect loved ones who were unable to get out. Your willingness to sacrifice yourself was noble. Some folks will say that you just added to the number of victims (one of the arguments for NOT jumping into save a drowning victim unless you are trained). I won't be that harsh, because I'm sure I couldn't leave an invalid parent behind if I couldn't get them out.
Group D: You wanted to get out, but didn't have the means. These are the people we failed.
So the specific question: Who should have been taking care of Group D?
US Army Corps of Engineers: I hope the Corps of Engineers gave an adequate appraisal of the risk of the levies failing. It seemed to me that the civilian authorities were most worried about a storm surge coming over the levies. That would have been bad, flooding a great deal of the city. But the presumption would be that once new water stopped coming into the city, the pumps could begin getting it back out immediately. By now (a week later), the water level would be much lower.A complete failure of the levies is clearly much worse. Not only does the water rise to the highest possible level, it's going to stay there until the levies are repaired and a great deal of water is pumped out. It just doesn't seem like anyone considered this possibility...
The Mayor of New Orleans: The Mayor has been making a lot of noise, emphasizing his words with profanity presumably to show the people how mad he is. However, it seems to me that no government official should have been more acutely aware of the potential risks and therefore have taken precautionary steps. It seems like it would have been entirely within his power to commandeer the Superdome before the storm and get it stocked with all the supplies needed to handle a worst-case-scenario, which is pretty much what happened. New Orleans has been threatened with this kind of catastrophic flooding for decades. Why didn't this mayor or any of his predecessors take the initiative to get a disaster plan put together? He could have been on the news a year ago saying: "I want to prepare for a total flood out that traps tens of thousands of people in the city. I can't do it alone -- the state government and FEMA needs to help." I would rather hear him bitch about not getting help in making a plan than point fingers after the disaster takes place.
The Governor of Louisiana: Like the Mayor, she could taken some initiative to prepare for a disaster of this magniture. She has lots more resources than the Mayor, including the Louisiana National Guard. The plan should have been drawn up years ago, and activated in stages as the probability of the storm hitting went up. She could have helped provide resources for the evacuation of the folks in Group D. She could have had Louisiana National Guard bases prepared to be temporary shelters for evacuees. She could have worked deals with governors of other states to lend resources (e.g. National Guard and police units) and evacuation sites.
The Federal Government: Gee, back in the Cold War days, these guys drew up a zillion plans for going to war with the Soviets, and ran enormously expensive war games to try out elements of those plans. Someone, the Corps of Engineers, FEMA, the Pentagon -- someone could have drawn up those plans and mobilized thousands of troops to be ready.
Hopefully we learned some lessons with this disaster. New Orleans is not the only city which can be impacted this way. What about the Big Earthquake on the west coast? Can't say we don't have warning. How about a tornado that finally rips through a big city, like Columbus OH where I live? What if the terrorists had loaded the airliners with nuclear waste before crashing into to the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?
When I was a kid, the entire country had made preparations for a nuclear war with the Soviets. The military had its bunkers in Cheyenne Mountain (and maybe deep under the Pentagon). The Congress was going to bail out to the Greenbriar (those guys are no fools). The President and Cabinet would go to Mount Weather. The rest of us were told to build fallout shelters in our basement and stock them. In the cities, every building had signs posted directing people to the public fallout shelters.
Seems like it is worth it to apply similar effort to preparing for city sized disasters. We know what is needed. Let's not get lazy again.
Mr Mayor: If you want to be a real leader, be a man and admit that you could have done more to prepare your city. Then volunteer to run a federal commission that oversees the development of a plan in cooperation with the state and local governments of our largest cities.
Mayors of other major cities: Use this as a lesson and TAKE RESPONSIBILTY FOR MAKING A PLAN.
FEMA: This is your job, and you blew it. Heads should roll.
Mr President: Put LtGen Honore in charge of FEMA. Make it a 4 star CINC command under the DoD. They're the only guys with the resources, leadership and organization to run something of this magnitude.
Citizens: When the man says "Get Out!" - LISTEN!!
Saturday, September 2, 2006
Funerals and Connections
My Dad, Ted Lambert, passed away on August 20, 2006. He was 83 years old, living independently in his own home (Mom died in 1991), and in full control of his intellect. While he had suffered many years with chronic health problems, and was in the hospital for treatment of an acute episode, his death came suddenly and unexpectedly. You are invited to visit our family website to learn more about Dad and our family.
Certainly there are tragedies in our lives, such as when death comes at a young age. But death is inevitable, and I find that while I mourn the ending of an earthly relationship, I am also able to find joy in the 'gathering of the clan' which happens around a funeral.
Our family has always been a little far-flung. Terry and I have lived in Columbus our entire adult lives, and have raised our kids here, a four hour's drive from our parents. My brother Jeff and Terry's sister Elaine also came to Columbus many years ago. Other siblings are in Charleston WV, Huntington WV, Ripley WV, and Virginia Beach VA. Our collective children are now beginning to spread out: Colorado, North Carolina, Indiana, and Iraq. We have first cousins in Florida, New Jersey, Kentucky, and California.
As our individual families grow, it seems that the horizontal connections in the family tree get a lot less attention than the vertical ones. Our primary focus is on our children, and in time, on their children. We also retain that strong bond to our parents, but the frequency of contact diminishes, especially if they aren't close by. And as we have now experienced, there comes an end to their time on earth, and you never feel you spend enough time with them.
The bond to siblings never diminishes, but again, the frequency of contact goes down as we deal with all the demands on our own time. The contacts beyond that -- with aunts, uncles, and cousins -- become quite rare. Some families are better than others at getting everyone together. Our family, driven by Mom and sister Pat, had some great family gatherings in the 1980s. But after about three of those, we just never got one together again. I really think it's about the logistics. A family gathering is a big deal, and it's simply hard to find a time when everyone can attend, and not be excluded simply because of scheduling conflicts.
When a close family member dies, that trumps everything. The time from death to funeral is a matter of days, and you simply have to drop other commitments and get yourself there.
Terry's Dad died completely unexpectedly, at age 63, when he still had a lot of life to live. His death was tragic because he might well have survived had they lived closer to a emergency medical center. It was a sad time.
Our mothers both died of cancer, with a lot of time to come to grips with the fact that we were experiencing the end of their days. Terry's mom had a beautiful traditional service, and it was an opportunity for me to meet a number of members of Terry's family that I didn't know. For my Mom, we held a gravesite service in the morning, then a memorial service and visitation that evening. People got up and told funny stories about times with Mom, which we all knew she would have loved. The gathering time afterward was wonderful, getting to see many of our family and friends.
A few months ago, Jay White, the younger brother of a very good friend Jim White, passed away suddenly. When Jim and I both worked at CompuServe in the 1970s, we became very close and took part in many activities together. I got to know Jim's family well, including Jay. When Jim married Karen and moved back to his hometown of Pittsburgh to raise their family, our contact became limited to the annual exchange of Christmas newsletters. When Karen called to say Jay had died, there was no question that I would head to Pittsburgh to honor Jay and support Jim. We had the chance to spend the whole following day together, and found that we still shared common interests and enjoyed spending time together. It was a funeral that created the priority to connect once again.
Dad's death was not expected, but then it was. He was in the poorest health of our four parents, but ended up outliving them all. His funeral created that excuse for the gather of the clan, beginning with a wonderful dinner by Rita Shaffer, the granddaughter-in-law who had been taking care of Dad's housekeeping and being his weekly companion (along with her daughter Sarah). For the visitation and funeral, we saw many friends and family, including the last two members of my parents' generation: Dad's sister Betty and Mom's brother Don. Aunt Betty was accompanied by cousin Jane, while Uncle Don came with cousin Donna and her husband Mike. We got to see old neighbors such as Jim and Marg Hively, Chester Flick, and Sada Douglas. Denver Rucker, one of Dad's dearest friends came with his wife. Mrs Whitman, and two of her daughter, Alice and Rebecca were there. While together for dinner at a local restaurant, we ran into Rose Marie, a high school classmate of ours and childhood friend of Terry's. And friend Jim White came down from Pittsburgh to spend the day with us as well.
The following day was one for me and my sibs to get together and begin the tasks of getting Dad's stuff in order. I got to spend a fair amount of time with Sammie and Josh Lambert (Joe and Becky's kids, Ted Lee's grandchildren) and Kristen Casanave (Vikki's daughter, Pat's granddaughter), grand-nieces and nephews that I didn't know very well beforehand. New connections.
I hope that when the day comes, my funeral is a time when lots of people gather to reconnect and celebrate our interwined lives. I wish I could be there!
Certainly there are tragedies in our lives, such as when death comes at a young age. But death is inevitable, and I find that while I mourn the ending of an earthly relationship, I am also able to find joy in the 'gathering of the clan' which happens around a funeral.
Our family has always been a little far-flung. Terry and I have lived in Columbus our entire adult lives, and have raised our kids here, a four hour's drive from our parents. My brother Jeff and Terry's sister Elaine also came to Columbus many years ago. Other siblings are in Charleston WV, Huntington WV, Ripley WV, and Virginia Beach VA. Our collective children are now beginning to spread out: Colorado, North Carolina, Indiana, and Iraq. We have first cousins in Florida, New Jersey, Kentucky, and California.
As our individual families grow, it seems that the horizontal connections in the family tree get a lot less attention than the vertical ones. Our primary focus is on our children, and in time, on their children. We also retain that strong bond to our parents, but the frequency of contact diminishes, especially if they aren't close by. And as we have now experienced, there comes an end to their time on earth, and you never feel you spend enough time with them.
The bond to siblings never diminishes, but again, the frequency of contact goes down as we deal with all the demands on our own time. The contacts beyond that -- with aunts, uncles, and cousins -- become quite rare. Some families are better than others at getting everyone together. Our family, driven by Mom and sister Pat, had some great family gatherings in the 1980s. But after about three of those, we just never got one together again. I really think it's about the logistics. A family gathering is a big deal, and it's simply hard to find a time when everyone can attend, and not be excluded simply because of scheduling conflicts.
When a close family member dies, that trumps everything. The time from death to funeral is a matter of days, and you simply have to drop other commitments and get yourself there.
Terry's Dad died completely unexpectedly, at age 63, when he still had a lot of life to live. His death was tragic because he might well have survived had they lived closer to a emergency medical center. It was a sad time.
Our mothers both died of cancer, with a lot of time to come to grips with the fact that we were experiencing the end of their days. Terry's mom had a beautiful traditional service, and it was an opportunity for me to meet a number of members of Terry's family that I didn't know. For my Mom, we held a gravesite service in the morning, then a memorial service and visitation that evening. People got up and told funny stories about times with Mom, which we all knew she would have loved. The gathering time afterward was wonderful, getting to see many of our family and friends.
A few months ago, Jay White, the younger brother of a very good friend Jim White, passed away suddenly. When Jim and I both worked at CompuServe in the 1970s, we became very close and took part in many activities together. I got to know Jim's family well, including Jay. When Jim married Karen and moved back to his hometown of Pittsburgh to raise their family, our contact became limited to the annual exchange of Christmas newsletters. When Karen called to say Jay had died, there was no question that I would head to Pittsburgh to honor Jay and support Jim. We had the chance to spend the whole following day together, and found that we still shared common interests and enjoyed spending time together. It was a funeral that created the priority to connect once again.
Dad's death was not expected, but then it was. He was in the poorest health of our four parents, but ended up outliving them all. His funeral created that excuse for the gather of the clan, beginning with a wonderful dinner by Rita Shaffer, the granddaughter-in-law who had been taking care of Dad's housekeeping and being his weekly companion (along with her daughter Sarah). For the visitation and funeral, we saw many friends and family, including the last two members of my parents' generation: Dad's sister Betty and Mom's brother Don. Aunt Betty was accompanied by cousin Jane, while Uncle Don came with cousin Donna and her husband Mike. We got to see old neighbors such as Jim and Marg Hively, Chester Flick, and Sada Douglas. Denver Rucker, one of Dad's dearest friends came with his wife. Mrs Whitman, and two of her daughter, Alice and Rebecca were there. While together for dinner at a local restaurant, we ran into Rose Marie, a high school classmate of ours and childhood friend of Terry's. And friend Jim White came down from Pittsburgh to spend the day with us as well.
The following day was one for me and my sibs to get together and begin the tasks of getting Dad's stuff in order. I got to spend a fair amount of time with Sammie and Josh Lambert (Joe and Becky's kids, Ted Lee's grandchildren) and Kristen Casanave (Vikki's daughter, Pat's granddaughter), grand-nieces and nephews that I didn't know very well beforehand. New connections.
I hope that when the day comes, my funeral is a time when lots of people gather to reconnect and celebrate our interwined lives. I wish I could be there!
Monday, August 28, 2006
The ACLU goes too far
I am really annoyed by the ACLU on this one -- this is stepping over the line:
This ceremony was held on Sunday, when the school was not in session.
No student or member of the faculty was required to attend
No religious object was left at the building
While the ACLU states that its mission is to monitor the separation of church and state, it seems to me that what it really wants is to prohibit religion entirely...
... or at least it wants to prohibit Christianity. I very much doubt that we would have seen a protest from the ACLU if there had been dancing and chants by a Native American tribe instead. How about if an African-American Muslim community had held a similar ceremony?
Our Bill of Rights does not prohibit religion -- it prohibits the government from mandating religion.
Don't let the ACLU prevail in this one!!
CHURCH SUPPORT AT MIDDLE SCHOOL
Blessing of school draws protest
Ceremony violated separation of church and state, ACLU says
Monday, August 28, 2006
Matt Zapotosky
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Pat Miller, right, and Carol Fry, center, of Karl Road Christian Church, lead about 180 people from four different North Side churches in a verse of Kumbaya outside Woodward Park Middle School. The group gathered yesterday to read a prayer and bless the school before the start of the school year.
About 180 members of four local churches surrounded a public middle school yesterday to bless the building and those who use it, despite objections from the American Civil Liberties Union about the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state.
Led by a minister from Epworth United Methodist Church, members of Epworth, Karl Road Christian Church, Karl Road Baptist Church and Ascension Lutheran Church joined hands and circled halfway around Woodward Park Middle School at 5151 Karl Rd. In unison, they asked the "great divine one, creator of us all" to bless each "student … teacher, staff and administrator" entering the building.
"Rain or shine, ACLU or not, nobody can stop those who have spirit-filled hearts," said Patricia Miller, who led the ceremony.
The nearby churches have an ongoing relationship with Woodward Park, providing supplies and other support. Miller said the ceremony at first was planned for inside the building and had the approval of the school’s principal, Jill Spanheimer.
Last week, Spanheimer said she didn’t remember that conversation and that the ceremony would have to be outside. Yesterday, she watched the ceremony from her yard, which borders the school grounds. She would not comment afterward.
The ACLU of Ohio sent a letter to Spanheimer and Superintendent Gene Harris last week, saying that permitting the event would violate the constitutional requirement that public schools remain neutral on religious matters. District officials responded with a letter stating the event was constitutional according to a U.S. Supreme Court case from New York state. In Good News Club v. Milford Central School, the court ruled that any group is permitted to rent and use public-school facilities.
"Anyone can walk onto the school grounds during the weekend," said Columbus Public Schools spokesman Greg Viebranz.
Gary Daniels, litigation coordinator for the ACLU of Ohio, said this event differed from the renting of school buildings, even those rented for a religious use.
"There’s not that appearance of endorsement by the school," he said. "There are worse scenarios that can be presented as far as being problematic from a church-state perspective, but this by no means is something that in my mind would pass constitutional muster."
Several participants said yesterday they did not think the ceremony, which lasted less than a half-hour, violated the separation of church and state, and some said they didn’t think church and state should be separated anyway.
Residents near the school who were interviewed by The Dispatch said they were not upset. In fact, they thought the event was a positive way to kick off the school year and benefited the neighborhood.
mzapotosky@dispatch.com
Copyright © 2006, The Columbus Dispatch
Saturday, August 19, 2006
In Favor of Nuclear Power
With gasoline at $3.00/gallon and climbing, we’ve got to think seriously about building some new nuclear-powered electricity generating stations.
I suspect that there are millions of us Americans who would drive electric vehicles to work if the economics make sense. The vehicle needs to have the necessary features, of course. It needs to be comfortable for at least two people, have a little room for cargo, be able to operate at freeway speeds, can be recharged in six hours or less, have air conditioning and a decent sound system, and be available at a price point that makes sense.
A good deal of the freight in our country could be hauled between cities on the railroads, using trains powered by electric locomotives.
All the public transportation in our cities could be electric trolleys and buses.
If the electricity for all those applications comes from nuclear power plants, then we will make a huge dent in our demand for oil. The objective is not to lower the price of oil by reducing our demand, it’s to substantially eliminate the need for oil in our economy all together. Instead of being dependent on good relations with the oil-rich countries of the Middle East, we can tell them to keep their oil and find someone else to terrorize.
It is possible to have a safe nuclear powered infrastructure. The French have been doing it for years. One of the keys is their standardized reactor/generator design which can be replicated over and over. You get continuous improvement in both safety and efficiency only when you can apply your learning across the whole installed base of technology. In fact, I would be in favor of licensing France’s reactor design so that we get a head start with a known model.
What about the waste? We have to stop letting a few folks dictate the strategic energy policy of the whole country. We seem to have built a safe storage facility in Yucca Mountain, and we have safe mechanisms for transport. If we put the power plants in the right places, we don’t have to run the shipping casks through populated areas to get to the storage facility. What about the potential for bad guys high jacking a shipment? Why don’t we deploy troops to guard the power plants and the shipment trains instead of protecting our oil interests in the Middle East?
The alternative is to keep competing with the Chinese for oil until we both suck the world dry and end up going to war over what’s left.
Yes, keep working on all the other alternative fuel sources: wind, hydro, fusion, solar, etc. And let’s get serious about conservation. Tell my neighbors, commercial and residential, to turn off all the damn lights that create light pollution and waste energy. Let’s figure out how to store energy on a massive scale so don’t have to match generator capacity to the peak demand. The guys who designed the Niagara Power Project figured out a neat way to do this.
In the mix, there is still a need for an electrical power source which functions when there is no wind, or it’s cloudy, yet doesn’t rely on oil as an energy source. Nuclear power fits that bill.
Opponents of nuclear power – cut back your electrical energy consumption by 80% and your fossil fuel consumption by 100% for a month or two. That’s what life would be like when the oil runs out. Then let’s talk about the best way to make lots more power.
I suspect that there are millions of us Americans who would drive electric vehicles to work if the economics make sense. The vehicle needs to have the necessary features, of course. It needs to be comfortable for at least two people, have a little room for cargo, be able to operate at freeway speeds, can be recharged in six hours or less, have air conditioning and a decent sound system, and be available at a price point that makes sense.
A good deal of the freight in our country could be hauled between cities on the railroads, using trains powered by electric locomotives.
All the public transportation in our cities could be electric trolleys and buses.
If the electricity for all those applications comes from nuclear power plants, then we will make a huge dent in our demand for oil. The objective is not to lower the price of oil by reducing our demand, it’s to substantially eliminate the need for oil in our economy all together. Instead of being dependent on good relations with the oil-rich countries of the Middle East, we can tell them to keep their oil and find someone else to terrorize.
It is possible to have a safe nuclear powered infrastructure. The French have been doing it for years. One of the keys is their standardized reactor/generator design which can be replicated over and over. You get continuous improvement in both safety and efficiency only when you can apply your learning across the whole installed base of technology. In fact, I would be in favor of licensing France’s reactor design so that we get a head start with a known model.
What about the waste? We have to stop letting a few folks dictate the strategic energy policy of the whole country. We seem to have built a safe storage facility in Yucca Mountain, and we have safe mechanisms for transport. If we put the power plants in the right places, we don’t have to run the shipping casks through populated areas to get to the storage facility. What about the potential for bad guys high jacking a shipment? Why don’t we deploy troops to guard the power plants and the shipment trains instead of protecting our oil interests in the Middle East?
The alternative is to keep competing with the Chinese for oil until we both suck the world dry and end up going to war over what’s left.
Yes, keep working on all the other alternative fuel sources: wind, hydro, fusion, solar, etc. And let’s get serious about conservation. Tell my neighbors, commercial and residential, to turn off all the damn lights that create light pollution and waste energy. Let’s figure out how to store energy on a massive scale so don’t have to match generator capacity to the peak demand. The guys who designed the Niagara Power Project figured out a neat way to do this.
In the mix, there is still a need for an electrical power source which functions when there is no wind, or it’s cloudy, yet doesn’t rely on oil as an energy source. Nuclear power fits that bill.
Opponents of nuclear power – cut back your electrical energy consumption by 80% and your fossil fuel consumption by 100% for a month or two. That’s what life would be like when the oil runs out. Then let’s talk about the best way to make lots more power.
Friday, August 4, 2006
The Price of Gas, Part II -- Gouging & Inflation
Gouging – most people don’t understand what this term means, or at least when it is a bad thing. Folks see Exxon/Mobil posting $10B earnings in a quarter and say we’re being gouged at the pump for gas. Meanwhile they pay a higher price/gal for bottled water without blinking an eye. If the oil companies are operating substantially without government subsidy, then I think they should be able to keep raising the price until they feel they’ve maximized profits. Of course, they do get government subsidy in the form of tax incentives, so that makes things a little messier. But we won’t wean ourselves off petroleum until we are individually driven to change our behavior and seek alternatives. Classic economic theory would argue that the best thing for our country would be for the oil companies to raise the price, generate huge profits, and pay out a substantial fraction of those profits as dividends. That releases capital to be invested into other enterprises, some of which are likely to seek what comes after oil (which might not be limited to energy – it might be about further upgrades to the telecom system so that telecommuting is even more practical).
To me, gouging happens only in the face of a disaster, when an absolutely essential commodity is in the hands of a few, and those few raise the price to exorbitant levels, taking advantage of the situation. This happens rarely, and almost never in this country. What would you say if a cabbie in Manhattan on 9/11 said he would give you a ride, but for 10x the meter? If you a pregnant woman who needed to get to a hospital, I’d call that gouging. If you were a snotty upper East sider, I might say it’s just capitalism.
Inflation is another concept most people don’t understand. Properly defined, inflation occurs when the government adds currency to the economy faster than the growth in GNP. Having gas prices go up is not inflation. A key component of capitalism is the process where a producer raises prices to the point that consumers seek alternative answers to their needs and desires. If increasing gas prices causes me to lack the disposable income to buy other stuff I would like to have, then I am motivated to solve the problem of higher gas prices. I might buy more efficient car, or use more mass transit, or move close enough to my job and food source that I don’t need a car anymore (which is why poor people across the globe flock to cities).
Things are somewhat neutralized if my employer feels some obligation to raise my pay enough to offset the increase in gas price. But this still isn’t inflation. Presumably the employer must divert some resources away from other things to raise my pay. The employer might try to raise the price of their product to pass the cost on down the food chain. That still isn’t inflation, because the buyers of those products have the opportunity to pay the higher price or find another supplier. The rise in oil prices definitely has a ripple effect through the economy, but it’s exactly what needs to happen. Everyone feels a little piece of motivation to solve the macro problem.
Inflation happens when the government comes to the conclusion that the economy is slowing down, and that a way to stimulate it is to make money cheaper. They do this by massively increasing the amount of debt instruments they offer at the primary auction, in which the primary bond traders bid on the instruments by offering how much interest they are willing to pay. When government bonds are plentiful, they bid lower rates, which causes that influx of money to get passed on to the economy at a lower rate. When debt is cheaper for employers, they might be able to restructure their debt at a lower rate and free up some cash flow to pay higher salaries and higher prices for their other purchases. At the end of the day, nothing has changed as far as relative price (e.g. everything except money costs 1% more), and there is no motivation to change behavior.
But these money supply infusions are an addictive drug. The underlying dynamics aren’t changed, and the free market forces which would flow from the behavior changes driven by individual purchasing choices get squelched and perverted. As the new money is absorbed into the economy, it can seem like things are okay, but they're really not. Lenders begin to take note that long term debt is getting risky because the buying power of a dollar is being diluted, and so they increase lending rates. That wave works its way through the economy as higher borrowing costs for everything from houses to credit card debt to school loans.
The Fed is doing exactly the right thing by keeping the money supply under control (they don't control interest rates, they control the money supply -- notice that they talk about interest rate 'targets' they hope to achieve by controlling the amount of Treasury debt that place on the market -- see above). The last thing in the world we want is for them to dump a bunch of money into the economy to lower interest rates in the short term, because it starts a dangerous cycle and ultimately causes interest rates to go up.
So the let the gas companies charge all they can get away with. It's good for all of us.
To me, gouging happens only in the face of a disaster, when an absolutely essential commodity is in the hands of a few, and those few raise the price to exorbitant levels, taking advantage of the situation. This happens rarely, and almost never in this country. What would you say if a cabbie in Manhattan on 9/11 said he would give you a ride, but for 10x the meter? If you a pregnant woman who needed to get to a hospital, I’d call that gouging. If you were a snotty upper East sider, I might say it’s just capitalism.
Inflation is another concept most people don’t understand. Properly defined, inflation occurs when the government adds currency to the economy faster than the growth in GNP. Having gas prices go up is not inflation. A key component of capitalism is the process where a producer raises prices to the point that consumers seek alternative answers to their needs and desires. If increasing gas prices causes me to lack the disposable income to buy other stuff I would like to have, then I am motivated to solve the problem of higher gas prices. I might buy more efficient car, or use more mass transit, or move close enough to my job and food source that I don’t need a car anymore (which is why poor people across the globe flock to cities).
Things are somewhat neutralized if my employer feels some obligation to raise my pay enough to offset the increase in gas price. But this still isn’t inflation. Presumably the employer must divert some resources away from other things to raise my pay. The employer might try to raise the price of their product to pass the cost on down the food chain. That still isn’t inflation, because the buyers of those products have the opportunity to pay the higher price or find another supplier. The rise in oil prices definitely has a ripple effect through the economy, but it’s exactly what needs to happen. Everyone feels a little piece of motivation to solve the macro problem.
Inflation happens when the government comes to the conclusion that the economy is slowing down, and that a way to stimulate it is to make money cheaper. They do this by massively increasing the amount of debt instruments they offer at the primary auction, in which the primary bond traders bid on the instruments by offering how much interest they are willing to pay. When government bonds are plentiful, they bid lower rates, which causes that influx of money to get passed on to the economy at a lower rate. When debt is cheaper for employers, they might be able to restructure their debt at a lower rate and free up some cash flow to pay higher salaries and higher prices for their other purchases. At the end of the day, nothing has changed as far as relative price (e.g. everything except money costs 1% more), and there is no motivation to change behavior.
But these money supply infusions are an addictive drug. The underlying dynamics aren’t changed, and the free market forces which would flow from the behavior changes driven by individual purchasing choices get squelched and perverted. As the new money is absorbed into the economy, it can seem like things are okay, but they're really not. Lenders begin to take note that long term debt is getting risky because the buying power of a dollar is being diluted, and so they increase lending rates. That wave works its way through the economy as higher borrowing costs for everything from houses to credit card debt to school loans.
The Fed is doing exactly the right thing by keeping the money supply under control (they don't control interest rates, they control the money supply -- notice that they talk about interest rate 'targets' they hope to achieve by controlling the amount of Treasury debt that place on the market -- see above). The last thing in the world we want is for them to dump a bunch of money into the economy to lower interest rates in the short term, because it starts a dangerous cycle and ultimately causes interest rates to go up.
So the let the gas companies charge all they can get away with. It's good for all of us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)