"Snake-oil" peddlers of dubious credibility have been with us for a long time. Guaranteeing to cure anything from "colds to cancer," they once sold preparations containing opium or morphine dissolved in alcohol. State and federal legislation has since cleaned up the business so it is not quit as dangerous but quackery continued today. Hour-long infomercials try to sell us magnetic bracelets, unneeded, high-priced "miracle" diet supplements, and whatnot. A lot of this is no different than miracle "elixers" sold at 19th Century "medicine shows." But, some modern medical quackery is dangerous, especially the anti-vaccination movement.
The current "anti-vaxxer" movement is gaining momentum and is threatening pubic heath. What is ironic is this movement has a large number of followers among educated, middle-class Americans who certainly mean well. Even so, their conspiratorial, unscientific beliefs and trusting quacks, they are endangering not only their own kids but also others. The anti-vaccination movement relies on fear, misinformation and discredited research, such as one article in the Lancet linking vaccines to autism whose author admitted falsification
They also make a number of logical fallacies: Some point out how "Big Pharma" is evil. No doubt, these companies make obscene profits and there is also no doubt that they are a major reason for over-prescribing. But even if this is true, it does not follow that they do not make things that work and that are often needed. Other point out how Big Pharma is "in bed" with the FDA and CDC. This is probably also true but this does not mean that there are not good medicines that get approved. Others point out that sometimes vaccinated people still get sick. This is also true but when they do contract a disease, it is often milder.
Unfortunately, some have recently sought to make this a political issue. Those who vaccinate and those who don't come from all political persuasions and many opponents of vaccines are actually liberals. But, as soon as President Obama publicly supported vaccination, immediately, right-wing politicians like DOCTOR Rand Paul came out against vaccination. Other conservatives blame President Obama for the recent measles outbreak. According to these people, the measles arrived with refugee children from Central America allowed to stay for humanitarian reasons.
A subset of this movement encourages people to go to chiropractors to improve their immune systems even though there is absolutely no peer reviewed medical research that backs this up. There is certainly nothing wrong with chiropractic. As long as chiropractors stick to what they are good at — the muscular/skeletal system — they can be wonderful healers. When, however, they claim they can prevent disease better than vaccines, they cross the line and if their own association will not control them, who will?
Some doctors are refusing to keep children as patients if their parents will not vaccinate. One even reports such parents to his state's Child Protective Services. There are some kids who cannot take vaccines because of medical issues and these doctors do not want to endanger these kids. Other doctors have to be careful with anti-vaxxers because they want to give the child SOME care.
Some opponents of vaccination see it as a matter of "parental rights." But, like any right, parental rights have reasonable limits especially if the parents' decisions endanger the child or others. For example, if your religion teaches that you should not seek certain types of medical treatment, you can, as an adult, make that decision for yourself but not for a minor child. Parents have been prosecuted for denying children medical care. Perhaps "opting out" for your kids (unless there is a valid medical reason) goes too far.
Many of us "Boomers" are grateful our parents got us shots so we did not get the diseases that killed or disabled their generation and our grandparents' generation. Smallpox has been eradicated worldwide. Polio, measles, whooping cough, and other childhood diseases, once common, were nearly eliminated in this country before the current anti-vaccination movement. We are living longer and better because of vaccines and antibiotics.
(Scott Cracraft is a resident of Gilford. He is not a physician or microbiologist but has a opinion on most things.)
Last Updated on Monday, 09 February 2015 09:34
As of February 1, 2015 there were 781 single family residential homes on the market in the twelve Lakes Region communities covered in this report. The median asking price was $249,900 which means that some 390 homes were priced below that number making for a lot of affordable available homes. This inventory level represents about a nine month supply of inventory on the market.
OK! It has been cold enough and snowy enough. I like the cold weather, but not this cold and not this much snow. When you are selling homes in the winter it can be tough. Sometimes we deal with homes that aren't shoveled or plowed out. Sometimes houses have been winterized and have no heat on so it feels like it is twenty degrees colder inside than out. At least those showings are quick. Septic inspections are always fun this time of year, too! There's nothing like having to use a jack hammer to get through frozen ground to make sure the septic system is working.
Trying to keep a house cozy and warm when it has been this cold can be expensive even with the reduced oil prices. We New Englanders tend to be frugal (or some say cheap) and try to save money by heating with wood or pellet stoves. There are some other simple steps that you can take to help reduce your heating cost. Here are a few I found on the internet. Some you have heard of before and some you may have not.
From an article published by the BBC News, I found that you can stay warmer by using tin foil. No, you don't wrap yourself in tin foil, but you put it behind your hot water or steam radiators so that heat is reflected out into the room rather than out through the wall. Seems like a good idea, unless you don't have radiators. In those circumstances try wrapping yourself (shiny side in.)
Also, don't block radiators or heating vents with furniture. You want to heat the room not the velvet sofa. You can also put a shelf on the wall above the radiator so heat is directed out into the room rather that straight up to the ceiling. This is really effective when there is a radiator below a window. Instead of the warm air getting trapped between the curtain and window it is directed inward.
Speaking of curtains, the article also said to hang heavy curtains on your windows. The heavier, the better. Now that's really not a secret or something new. This harkens back to the days when animal hides were used on doors and windows. Some folks around here might have some deer hides from this past hunting season that might work well though using them may also get you divorced. But curtains really will cut down on drafts and losing heat out your windows. Window curtains with thermal linings are the best. It also helps to use that clear plastic film that you buy at the hardware store that you install using double sided tape and shrink to a tight fit with a hair dryer. One article said that you could use clear plastic shower curtains over windows to cut down on draft and let the light in. I would not recommend this choice if you are selling your home. That's way too much to try to explain to any prospective buyer.
I also learned a new term this week that I hadn't heard of before. Did you ever hear of a "Draught Excluder?" Sounds like a bouncer in an English pub. Well, I know you've seen them before. You probably tripped over them. Some also call them "Sausage Dogs." You know, they are the long cloth tubes filled with stuffing that you put at the bottom of a door to keep the draft out. Often, these are decorated with a head and tail to look like a dachshund. They do help.
Other recommendations to stay warm include common sense things such as closing off rooms you don't use, using ceiling fans to push the warm air down, dressing warmly, adding an extra layer of insulation in the attic, putting rugs on bare floors, and even burning candles, although I am not sure how much candlepower it takes to make a huge difference. My favorite tip, however, harkens back to the 60's rock group, Three Dog Night, whose name ostensibly is of Australian origin and refers to how many dogs you need to curl up with on the coldest night in order to stay warm. That would be three. Yup, wanna stay warm on a cold night? Cuddle with your pups. Works for me...
Pease feel free to visit www.lakesregionhome.com to learn more about the Lakes Region real estate market and comment on this article and others. This report was prepared using the NNEREN MLS system as of 2/1/15. Roy Sanborn is a realtor at Four Seasons Sotheby's International Realty and can be reached at 603-677-7012
Last Updated on Friday, 06 February 2015 07:52
Recently, President Obama proposed making the first two years of community college "free" for all students. Maintain a "C" average, make reasonable progress toward a college credential, and the federal government will pay 75 percent of your tuition with the states picking up the rest.
The president's proposal isn't the first. Tennessee, Illinois (Chicago), Michigan (Kalamazoo), and Georgia have already launched zero tuition initiatives, while others are planned in Minnesota, Mississippi, Oregon, and New Mexico.
All these programs share common challenges, including how to pay for them... e.g., with new taxes, cutting offsetting benefits, lottery income, and/or donations... and how much they will cost given the likelihood of higher enrollments.
Some think the concept of free tuition is un-American and smacks of socialism. Others are open to the idea of free tuition but feel that states are better laboratories for testing what works best.
This latter group has a valid concern. First, Obama's proposal may never be approved by Congress. Second, the diversity and complexity of our higher education system makes it difficult to see how zero tuition will help or hurt a state, especially one as unique as New Hampshire.
Some Higher Education Facts and How They Relate to New Hampshire
Tuition isn't the total amount students and/or their parents pay for college. So "free" tuition does not mean a free college education. In New Hampshire, community college students pay about $6,500 for tuition and fees and an equal amount for books, transportation, food, and other expenditures. That's two to three times more than students pay in nearly all other states.
All colleges are subsidized by direct appropriations, tax benefits, student access to state and federal scholarships, and/or subsidized loans. That includes non-profits, as well as "for profit" institutions. The issue is not whether to subsidize, but how much. In New Hampshire, the subsidy for state colleges and universities is very small compared to other states, whether measured by the amount we spend per $1,000 of personal income, or per capita state appropriations, where we rank dead last among the 50 states.
Enrollment numbers are misleading because only half of all college students actually graduate and the time they take to graduate is longer. A key issue is whether zero tuition will increase the number and rate of completions. In New Hampshire, there is plenty of room for improvement. The six year graduation rates are 20 percent for community colleges and 40 percent for our 4-year universities, among the worst in the nation.
Numerous studies show that more education produces higher taxes and lower unemployment. A congressional study a few years ago estimated that each year approximately 170,000 highly qualified high school seniors were not going to college, many for financial reasons. Unfortunately the report never calculated the lost tax revenues. It's staggering. We are not talking billions, but trillions of lost taxes over the working lives of these individuals. In a nutshell, that's why more education beyond a high school diploma is fiscally beneficial for both the individual and the state.
Unfortunately New Hampshire is extremely unfriendly when it comes to paying for higher education. Our residents pay more for a college education than nearly all other states. An unintended consequence is our state leads the nation in average student debt, $32,795 in 2013 according to the Project on Student Debt.
What zero tuition means for New Hampshire
There aren't many win/win deals in life, but "zero tuition" can be one of them.
First, students and their parents will be better off economically, especially as the savings reduce student debt. The average savings nation-wide are $3,800 under the Obama proposal. But New Hampshire is well above the average, so individual savings will be closer to $6,500, with the federal government picking up $4,875 of the tab for each student.
However these savings will only be realized by students if they stay on a two-year time table for an Associate Degree and a four-year time table for a Bachelor's Degree. Total costs and student debt escalate once extra years are added. Any zero tuition plan must impose deadlines regarding degree completion.
Second, our state will be better off from a strictly fiscal perspective as we create a more skilled and educated population, one that has higher levels of employment and pays more taxes. New Hampshire's ability to compete will improve as we make our state more attractive to young knowledge workers. Lowering the price of a community college education to zero is a first step. Only Vermont charges a higher tuition. The other 48 states have a huge price advantage. In California, tuition and fees average $1,000. In Texas, a student at Austin's Community College currently pays about $2,000 versus $6,500 for a New Hampshire student. Closer to home, in Massachusetts, the tuition (and general fee) is about $2,000 per year. In Maine, annual tuition is about $1,700.
Zero tuition for New Hampshire's community colleges will help keep young people in our state. We need to retain and import budding entrepreneurs, not export them. The same goes for other knowledge workers. Right now our students are leaving the state in record numbers to attend schools elsewhere.
Tailoring the Obama Option and Other Proposals to New Hampshire's Needs
New Hampshire can do nothing and lose students or become a "college friendly state." That choice won't disappear if the Republican Congress kills the Obama proposal. Other states will implement zero-based plans, paying for them with lottery or other revenues. They know the value of being college friendly.
New Hampshire can become "college friendly" by establishing a zero tuition program for its community college students and by reducing tuition and fees at our 4-year public universities, which frankly are over-priced compared to other state systems.
As a first step, our leaders need to determine the likely number of students who will enroll, the staff needed to teach and retain them, the funding source, and the amount of funding the program will need given likely higher enrollments, student eligibility, acceptable grades, completion times, and other issues.
Zero tuition is not a "free ride". Zero tuition means our state would return to a place where students are paying 25-to-30 percent of their out-of-pocket costs for a college education. Together let's fashion a program that makes New Hampshire a college friendly state, one that will enrich us in many ways while giving a helping hand to college students who want nothing more than a chance at the American Dream.
Last Updated on Wednesday, 04 February 2015 11:23
The second-most jarring scene in "American Sniper" takes place not in the urban maze of wartime Iraq but in the domestic tranquility of Chris Kyle's home in Texas. Disoriented after his fourth tour in the cauldron of Iraq, the heralded Navy SEAL is shown stalking his wife from room to room with a pistol. For a moment, we worry that he has flipped out and is going to shoot her. Turns out this was his playful way of initiating sex.
Foreplay, with a handgun.
The genius of "American Sniper" is its portrayal of a culture obsessed with guns. One expects heavy weaponry in war, but here there are guns all over the placid homefront, too. Guns are not just owned but waved. Guns as personal statements.
It was with complete innocence that I saw "American Sniper" at its release. This was before a politicized war of expletives broke out, pitting the jingoism of self-styled patriots against the ignorance of anti-war celebrities.
Few of the keyboard combatants on either side of this conflict have ever gotten anywhere near real combat. That the war in Iraq was fought by a tiny percentage of military-age Americans is actually one of the movie's themes. That's why Kyle and others had to serve four grinding tours in Iraq.
The Iraq War was sold to the American people on the lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction — and on the truth that no one who didn't want to fight it would have to. Take your family to Disney World, President George W. Bush urged right after the Sept. 11 attacks. We're in a war on terrorism, but no one need be inconvenienced.
Set aside inconsistencies in Kyle's telling of his story in his autobiography. This is about a movie portrayal. Director Clint Eastwood digs to the core in showing guns as not just tools for hunting or for protection but also objects of worship and key to a man's identity.
There's the scene where Kyle tries to help a traumatized and gravely maimed veteran regain his emotional bearing. The place of healing is a shooting range, where Kyle coaches him on using a high-powered rifle. The "patient" starts hitting the target and tells Kyle that it's the first time he's felt like a man since returning from battle — as though someone who lost parts of three limbs in war would have something to prove.
And the reality is that a 12-year-old girl could have shot the weapon. Eastwood made a more complex movie than the typists throwing insults at one another could imagine.
My views on gun control have evolved. I used to think that the proliferation of weapons fueled the monstrous number of domestic shootings. Intellectual honesty forces me to note that murder rates in New York City and other places have plunged even as guns remain as available as ever. I still believe in a ban on killing machines — let the experts define them — and keeping all guns away from crazy people.
The bigger challenge is cultural. Buying a weapon of war does not turn one into a warrior. But the gun culture promotes that fantasy, leading twisted minds to open fire on crowds of strangers. You end up with a skinny young man in military costume and orange hair who kills a dozen people at a Batman movie in Aurora, Colorado.
Kyle was gunned down while administering shooting-range therapy to a troubled former Marine. Eddie Routh had been in and out of psychiatric hospitals. His friends and family had been trying to get the firearms out of his house. But Kyle believed in the curative powers of a gun. How tragic the outcome.
(A member of the Providence Journal editorial board, Froma Harrop writes a nationally syndicated column from that city. She has written for such diverse publications as The New York Times, Harper's Bazaar and Institutional Investor.)
Last Updated on Tuesday, 03 February 2015 10:26
Paraphrasing Sir Isaac Newton, for every action, there's a reaction. On a more day-to-day basis, we can observe that there is a consequence to every decision we make. In most cases, those consequences are favorable, in others, the consequence has a negative impact. For example . . .
Those who desire to make life better for those at the lower end of the income ladder, desire to raise the "minimum" wage to around $15.00 per hour. We are told that everyone should be able to make enough money to support their family without the need to have more than one job or to require some government assistance. Sounds good! But, let's look at the impact or the consequences of such a decision.
— Minimum wage jobs are "starter jobs" that generally go to young people who are just entering the workforce. The jobs often don't require any previously learned skills and the employer can give the individual on-the-job training to fulfill the basic job requirements. In many cases, the employer may hire more of the unskilled than they would people who already have the basic job skills needed to do the job. In a sense, the employer is paying a wage sufficient enough to have the newly hired begin to "learn to earn". So, consequence number one is that the higher minimum wage will, in all probability, diminish the number of entry level jobs that become available. Businesses will expect the new hire to bring established skills and abilities to the position.
— Elevating the current minimum wage jobs to the "living wage" level, will have the impact of dis-incentivizing people. Why study to get into college or to learn a useful trade skill if, right after you drop out of high school, you can begin to earn a "living wage"? The unintended consequence will be an increase in the low income earner base.
— Another consequence is that the consumers will be the ones paying the increased wages, the Social Security and Medicare premiums, the cost of the employee's health care premiums, and so on. The consumer will absorb those costs by paying more for the products or services they consume.
— If the starter wage is raised, one can expect all the labor rates above that position will expect and demand their wages also be increased . . . all requiring the employer and the employee to incur higher costs for all those Social Security, Medicare, and health insurance premiums. The unintended consequence will be that there will be a "tipping point", at which companies will consider moving their operations to a more business friendly country simply because you/we, the consumers, refuse to pay the higher costs that will be placed on all the goods and services we want and need.
Another item that may sound great is the president's call for everyone to be eligible for "free" tuition in community colleges. The consequences of such are enormous. For example . . .
— Why would anyone enroll in a four year college and pay full tuition, when they can enter a community college and not have to pay any tuition? Consider the negative consequences to state and to independent four year colleges when about half of their student population is no longer there. Or, the impact on the community college system that is expected to absorb that shift.
— History shows that approximately 20 percent of students entering a four year college need some form of remedial help. Upwards of 60percent of students entering community colleges require remedial courses. It would appear that providing free tuition at community colleges would essentially be extending the high school years from four to six. Wouldn't it be better to "fix" the problems at the elementary and high school levels?
Another issue is the President previously calling for children to enter a pre-K class at the age of four. He now wants to provide free child care to families so that both mothers and fathers can work.
— Consider the fact that his proposals would basically put someone other than a parent in control of the children from shortly after they are born, until they are in their early twenties.
— Russia employed such a system and in it, the government determined what job training the child would receive from the time they were in elementary grades. The parents had no say in the decision.
— As a partial by-product of government management of individual family decisions, Russian family birth rates dropped to levels that have caused that country's population to basically be cut in half each generation. Russia has a population crisis that is forcing it to try and reconstitute the Soviet Union just to get more population so it can defend its vast country.
— Will our citizens be amenable to the "government" becoming the "parent" of their children?
The President also wants to extend the full "earned income tax credit" to couples who don't have any children, approximately 13.5 million more people. This change is expected to cost over sixty billion dollars.
— Even of more concern than the increased financial aid, is the consequence of us dis-incentivizing the population; taking away the desire to learn the skills needed to earn a better living.
— Where is the motivation when there is no responsibility to provide for one's own needs?
— The more the government assumes the role of nanny, freedom is lost as the government becomes the one that determines the extent of your needs.
History has shown that government cannot effectively direct and manage a business enterprise. In fact, it has shown that it cannot effectively manage and control the bloated bureaucracy that now exists. All these so called "good things" only serve to put us on the new road to serfdom. We will no longer be a government of, by, and for the people. Maybe Huxley's "Brave New World" is the blueprint to our future.
(Bob Meade is a Laconia resident.)
Last Updated on Wednesday, 31 December 1969 07:00