Thursday, July 31, 2008

Will Elizabeth Hasselbeck Please Shut Up?

I switched on The View today after not watching it for a few days. One lead topic was a recent political ad that was done by the McCain campaign. The ad was saying about how Barack Obama was the “biggest celebrity in the world”, while flashing pictures of Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and then Obama. When the panel was asked for their opinions, I think Elizabeth Hasselbeck had a near meltdown while she defended the ad, saying that it was “somewhat successful because we’re talking about it, that’s what advertising is" and that Obama will double taxes, and that Obama did agree to be on Access Hollywood, etc. etc. After she continues to try to talk over anyone who tried to get a word in edgewise, and when I couldn’t clearly see the point she was trying to make, I began to tune her out.

Elizabeth is wrong when she says that the point of advertising is to get people to yalk about your ad. The real purpose is to sell your product. In the ad in question, it seems the McCain campaign is more concerned with smearing Barack Obama, rather than selling John McCain. If anything, it sold the public John McCain as a person who is jealous of Obama’s popularity and charisma. And, by spending time attacking Obama’s celebrity over the issues, it seems that McCain may think it’s easier to attempt to promote discomfort with Obama’s popularity, rather than make the public have concerns about Obama’s platform.

And seriously, why on earth would McCain’s team chose Paris Hilton and Britney Spears as the celebrities with which to compare Obama? I really do not understand the connection that I, as a voter, am supposed to make. Is that because these people have all appeared at one point in time on an entertainment show or entertainment publication?

OK, let’s get back to Elizabeth Hasselbeck. I imagine that for her, being a staunch Republican, it has to be difficult to sit on a panel with other people who seem to clearly lean Democratic. But, she comes across as a puppet for her party, parroting some perceived party line without showing an ounce of thnking for herself. It’s almost as if she goes out of her way to providing almost ludicrous arguments in support of Republican candidates. While others on the panel also often show their strong opinions in opposition to hers, many times they can at least verbalize their points in a much more rational manner. Elizabeth, on the other hand, is going back to being the same close-minded, brainwashed person that we saw when the other close-minded, left-leaning brainwashed person was host of the show – Rose O’Donnell. I do not mind hearing Elizabeth’s opinion, but I think she needs some training in order to get her opinions across calmly and rationally – or she needs to learn when to quit and keep her mouth shut. I sense it will be a long, tumultuous political season for the show.

I know this political season is going to be ugly. It was bound to be that way regardless of the candidates selected for each party. But, once Barack Obama was selected to represent the Democratic Party, the Republicans seem to be going right to the negative ads. It seems clear that they perceive Obama’s popularity with the American people - and the world - as a threat. And, as I mentioned in my blog the other day (here), even the negative political emails, originating from who-knows-where but being spread by grassroots methods like email and political forums, are becoming uglier and uglier.

The Republican Party needs a different approach if they want to impress the voting public. They should look at the campaign as if they were someone interviewing for a new job. No one wants to tell the person doing the hiring what’s wrong with the candidates with which they are competing. The person being interviewed should be talking about what makes him or her better for the job. If the Republican Party wants to have a chance – any chance – in this election, they need to begin to seriously argue the issues. It isn’t helping them to get too personal or too negative.

My own personal opinion is that this negative ad only strengthened the resolve of the Barack Obama supporters, and made John McCain look jealous and insecure. He may think he got his ad money’s worth from all the buzz about the ad, but I don’t think it helped him to his product – John McCain. And that sounds like a fizzle, not a buzz, to me.

Here's the ad, if you haven't seen it:

Check out my blog home page for the latest information,

Monday, July 28, 2008

China Olympics: Smoke and Mirrors, But Mostly Smoke

The 2008 Olympics will be taking place very soon in Beijing, China. In July of 2001, the city was selected to host the games, and they’ve had several years to prepare the venues and for lodging. But one thing it seems that they haven’t prepared for is the environment. Right now, China doesn’t look ready for its close up.

Despite its recent efforts to curb the choking smog by closing factories and restricting traffic, the smog levels remain high. Athletes are concerned, and rightfully so, that their performance, if not their health, will be affected.

It seems that while China put all its focus on preparing the infrastructure, it won’t be much help if people won’t be able to see any of it through the gray, smoky air. And even if China takes drastic measures and closes all the factories in or near Beijing, and forbids any vehicle traffic on its roads leading up to and during the Olympics in an effort to clear the air, the damage has already been done. Images of the smoky air have been circulating around the world via high profile media outlets. The perception that China cares little for the environment, and the population that lives in it, seems to have been reinforced and validated.

One can only wonder why the US always seems to be vilified about pollution from gas-powered vehicles and coal burning power plants, when China clearly looks more polluted than the US was in the 1950s and 1960s. The United States has come a long way, and Americans are eager to continue to do even more, especially if it means using fuels for their cars that don’t depend on foreign oil.

But all the beauty and marvel of the new structures that were built for the 2008 Olympic Games are just part of the smoke and mirrors – pun intended – to put a modern face on China. As an article that appeared in the Washington Post yesterday stated, it looks like there is” A Long Wait at the Gate to Greatness.” Besides the problem with pollution in China, they face challenges with an aging population. There are increasing numbers of companies that are manufacturing in China that are companies owned by countries outside of China, which mean the foreign companies - the US included – reap the profits, not the Chinese people. As far as the environment, according to the Washington Post article I linked above, China will pass the US this year and become the #1 emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. It’s hard to imagine that they haven’t done so already, at least on a city-by-city basis. And I haven’t even covered the issues with water pollution in China.

So while China braces for its close up, it looks like the first impression with the world has already been made. The country needs to become serious about its environment and the welfare of its people. It shouldn’t just worry about those things while they think the world has its eye trained on it. Because, in this day and age, the world’s eye never closes.

Check out my blog home page for the latest information, here.

Saturday, July 26, 2008

Annoying FALSE Political Chain Emails

Back in November, I wrote in this blog (here) about how annoying chain emails can be. They are often forwarded over and over, and you can get the same one several times from multiple people. Sometimes the message plays on your fears – for example, if you don’t forward the email something bad could happen to you. Sometimes the message is spreading false rumors.

It’s the latter that is becoming a problem during this highly charged political season. Today, I receive an email from two separate senders that stating the following:

Hot on the heels of his explanation for why he no longer wears a flag pin, presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama was forced to explain why he doesn’t follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.

According to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171, During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart.

“As I’ve said about the flag pin, I don’t want to be perceived as taking sides,” Obama said. “There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song ‘I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing.’ If that were our anthem, then I might salute it.”

It took me a matter of seconds to verify that this whole story is FALSE. I repeat: FALSE. It's a hoax. It stems from a piece of political satire published by John Semmens for the Arizona Conservative in October 2007. Yet, months later, people are still trotting out this piece of false garbage in an attempt to smear Obama.

Frankly, I now perceive the people who forwarded me this email as uneducated, lazy idiots who probably don’t even have enough brains to be responsible to vote. Yet, sadly, they do vote, and they probably make their choices based on this kind of false information. Aside from responding to them to set the record straight, I am not sure what else can be done to stop this behavior on a wider scale. But it does need to be stopped. It’s easy to drop acquaintances off your list of contacts when they send emails like this, but it’s almost impossible to cut off a family member if that’s who has sent the email. (It wasn’t a family member in this case.)

All I can do us strongly suggest – especially to those Republicans and/or bigots out there (they can be mutually exclusive) – that to avoid looking like complete idiots, do your homework and check out those chain emails before you send them on. Why? Because while one may be looking to make a political candidate look stupid, it’s the person sending the email that looks like the dummy.

Check out my blog home page for the latest information, here.

Friday, July 25, 2008

Put Down That BlackBerry!

No, I’m not talking about blackberries that you eat. Those are good for you. I am referring to the BlackBerry phone/PDA, which some have dubbed the “crackberry.” It got the nickname from the addictive nature of Blackberry. It seems once one has it in their hands, it’s hard to put down.

Don’t get me wrong, these are great tools for business and for personal use. Where I draw the line is where people are so attached to their BlackBerry that they type on it while driving, walking, during weddings and funerals, at restaurants, while shopping, etc. Today’s Wall Street Journal talks about the problem, which says

Texting-on-the-go is just the latest tech-created public nuisance, one that's spreading quickly across a world still grappling with cellphone-addled drivers and wireless-headset users who appear to be speaking too loudly to no one in particular. Like driving cellphone users, mobile texters typing furiously into their cellphones, BlackBerry devices or iPhones can be safety hazards.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, several high-profile accidents may have had a role in prompting states such as New Jersey and Washington to outlaw texting while driving. Among the accidents the group cited: a cyclist killed by a texting teen driver in 2005.

Are some people’s lives really so busy that they have to type while walking or driving? Or, are people simply becoming enslaved by the technology? It’s almost as if people think that because they have a new tool to use in communicating, they have to use it all the time to rationalize the expense, or to give themselves a feeling of importance. Personally, I think most people’s lives are not so complex and busy that they can’t take a minute to stop walking, or wait until they are done driving, to type their message, or make a cell phone call.

I think back to only a few years ago when cell phones weren’t as ubiquitous, and when a BlackBerry was still first thought of as a berry you eat. Life was just as busy then, but somehow people managed. Cell phones and the BlackBerry have made it much easier and faster to communicate, but that doesn’t mean that one HAS to do it at that very moment the impulse strikes.

So for those of you who walk or drive while texting on your BlackBerry or cell phones, STOP. I don’t want you to run into me, or my car. And while we’re on the subject of annoying technology, when you’re talking on your phone, especially using your Bluetooth headset, think about where you are an if everyone needs to hear what your saying.

Technology is a wonderful thing, but sometimes how people use it, isn’t!

Check out my blog home page for the latest information, here.

Saturday, July 19, 2008

The Hypocrisy of Carbon Offsets

In an effort to attach the word “green” to a company, project, cause, or a person, some people have taken to purchasing what is called a “carbon offset” to make up for the carbon emissions they may be generating. Some companies or agencies buy them to comply with regulations for their carbon dioxide CO2) emissions, while smaller groups or individuals may do so just to show they are taking steps to make amends, so to speak, for their own emissions. The money used to purchase these offsets is used to help develop and promote alternative, carbon neutral energy sources and to promote a green lifestyle. A downside with carbon offsets is that at times they can still be difficult to measure and validate, and they are intangible. For example, CO2 generated from, for example, a jet flight across the US could vary greatly based on the size of the jet, its total weight, weather conditions, length of flight (which can changed based on weather or airport landing/takeoff delays), etc.

I also question whether the money paid for carbon offsets really are completely used for the purpose that they are intended. It seems like a large black hole to me where money goes in, but who knows where, and how, it comes out.

But the problem that I see with carbon offsets is that it still allows the underlying behavior that is generating the carbon emissions to continue. To me, it’s almost like paying up front for forgiveness or absolution. Imagine paying a priest at the time you confess to whatever sin you’ve committed, the amount of the payment based on the severity of the sin. One wouldn’t really give too much thought to the sin if they could afford to pay it off. Think of large companies who pay the offset to make up for failing to meet emission standards; the price of the offset apparently isn’t enough of a penalty for them to change their behavior.

I get most annoyed with celebrities – actors, musicians, politicians, etc. – who have large events and then purchase carbon offsets to make up for it. The most glaring example of this was the Live Earth concert in 2007, which were concerts that were held in multiple locations worldwide to raise awareness of climate change. The event was touted as being carbon neutral, with organizers promising to buy carbon offsets to make up for impact of the flights associated with the concerts. What they didn’t account for was all the carbon dioxide generated for the hundreds of thousands who attended these events across the world. And, according to Wikipedia:

The event's total carbon footprint, including the artists' and spectators' travel and energy consumption, was probably at least 74,500 tonnes, according to John Buckley of - more than 3,000 times the average Briton's annual footprint. Performers flew at least 222,623.63 miles (about 358,278 kilometres) — the equivalent of nearly nine times round the planet — to take part in the event, and this figure does not include transport of technicians, dancers and support staff…Concert-goers at the event’s London leg had left thousands of plastic cups on the floor of Wembley Stadium, although organisers had urged audience members to use the recycling bins provided, the BBC reported.”

Most recently, there was an event in Orange County, California to benefit Oceana
(I have the article and link to the news story on my Law & Order blog, here), where Oceana raised over $1 million, but reported to have purchase $1,000 in offsets to account for the carbon generated by the party. The news report also said that some of the celebrities in attendance traveled to the event by helicopter. It seems silly for an organization that wants to protect and preserve the world’s oceans would use helicopters to transport attendees and allow them to pollute the air just so they can raise the $1 million for their own cause. I liken it to someone who wants to protect the land having a fundraiser on a cruise ship, where they cruise over, and damage, an endangered coral reef.

So while I think that carbon offsets are at least a start for people to account for their harm to the earth’s environment, there has to be a way that they can raise money for their causes without overly polluting the environment to do so. It’s nice that the celebrities give their time and presence to important causes, but protecting our environment takes more than just famous faces. It takes a change in behavior. Being green can’t be a “do as I say, not as I do” effort. Companies and organizations need to just start doing!

Check out my blog home page for the latest information, here.

Thursday, July 17, 2008


Well, there is no worse feeling that being rejected, for anything. But I am slightly annoyed at a rejection I received from a web site called iStockphoto, which is a collection of stock, royalty-free photos, videos, and images. Mind you, that doesn’t mean that the photos are free, you do have to pay a fee for using them, which varies based on the size of the photo.

I looked at some of the photographs there and knowing that I have quite a few that are as good as what they have, I thought I’d give it a try in signing up to be a member who sells their work. So I dutifully went through the sign up process, thinking it would be relatively simple. I couldn’t have been more wrong.

The first step, after they get personal information from you, including things like a copy of your driver’s license or passport, you are taken through a lengthy tutorial and then a test afterwards. I must have missed a few answers because they said I did not pass. But, they proceed to give you all the answers to all the questions, making it very easy to make sure you pass the next time. During this process, they also show you a massive list of what NOT to send them: pictures of flowers, clouds, pets, etc. etc., because they already have something like a gazillion of them. I looked up the word sunflower and saw more sunflower pictures that I could have imagined. I was starting to have doubts about this.

After you pass, you’re asked to submit three photos, and that it may take up to two weeks to respond to your application.

It’s never a good sign when you get a response – a rejection - back in a few hours, which I did. It makes me truly wonder if anyone really looked at these pictures, or, if there is just some automated program that scans each data file and evaluates the picture based on some raw image data? Anyway, after reading their rejection, and having them tell me to try again in three days and remember that I really should be sending them my “best work”, and “try to impress us,” I became mildly annoyed. Wouldn’t it be easier for them to blow me off by asking me for my photos first, rather than asking for all my personal information first? Are they afraid they will get flooded with "average" applications if people don’t have to submit a copy of a passport or driver’s license? It seems to me that there has to be a way for them to review a person’s work quickly, if they asked for ONE photo rather than three BEFORE the whole process starts. But, it isn’t until after they snag all the personal details from you do they put you through this lengthy process to screen you in – or shall I say, screen you out?

What I find amusing is that for one of my other blogs – you won’t see it listed here on my blog list – I’ve received a lot of attention for my photography and received many offers to buy them. It seems to me that it’s easier for me to cut out iStockphoto, who could be just a “middleman” at this point, and sell my photos direct. But, this rejection does give one time to think about whether iStockphoto is the best thing for any serious photographer these days. Think about it. If one, for example, can ask for something like a picture of a beach and get thousands of photos and images returned, is this site already so bloated with photos that many will get lost? Is it easier for a photographer to set up their own site and sell their photos direct? And, with many photos already made available for free, many times just by asking, why use a service where one has to pay?

But, I will try again with iStockphoto. It’s not because I like the abuse, but it can help me to understand more what’s expected in the harsh reality of commercial photography. It may not be something for which I am ready.

PS - my little "rejected" image took me less than a minute to make, and cost me nothing! Yeah, I know, it looks like it.

Check out my blog home page for the latest information, here.

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Crude Oil – It’s Not Just For Gasoline

We think of the price of crude oil these days, and only seem to think about how it affects gas prices. But the price of crude oil affects much more than gasoline for our cars. Apparently there are over 4,000 items that we use routinely that are made from crude oil.

There are more than 4,000 petrochemical products that are made from petroleum (crude oil). Here’s one listing (below) that I found on the Internet. It can really get one thinking about how ingrained crude oil is in our daily lives. We can, and should, do all we can to reduce our consumption of gasoline. But we have a long way to go before we can completely eliminate petrochemical products from our lives, that is, if it is even practical in some cases to do so.

Take a look at the list. It may surprise you.

Petrochemical Products Made from Petroleum (Crude Oil)
Here's a list of the most popular and frequently used products:

Artificial Limbs
Bags (garbage bags, shopping bags)
Clothing (polyester, nylon)
Computers, calculators
Credit Cards
Dishwashing Liquids
Disposable Diapers
Eye Glasses, Sunglasses
Fishing Rods
Flooring (linoleum, tiles, carpets)
Garden Hose
Hand Lotion, Cream, Petroleum Jelly
Helmets (bicycle, hockey, etc.)
Heart Valves
Helmets (bicycle, hockey, etc.)
Insect Repellent
Life Jackets
Milk Jugs
Paint Brushes
Panty Hose
Patio Furniture
Rope (nylon)
Safety Glass
Shower Curtains, Shower Doors
Soft Contact Lenses
Soft Drink Bottles, Plastic Bottles
Tape (clear, masking, etc.)
Tapes - (cassettes, vcr tapes)
Tennis rackets
Toys, Dolls, Model Cars
Tires (synthetic rubber)
Toothbrushes, Toothpaste Tubes
Trash Bags
TV Cabinets
Unbreakable Dishes
Waterproof Jackets, Boots, Pants

So while some may say people in the United States are addicted to oil, one can clearly see that it’s hard not to be, when it’s used in so many day-to-day products. I’m all for alternative choices, if they are made available to us!

Check out my blog home page for the latest information, here.

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

Celebrity “News” – Isn’t

In January, I wrote (here) about the media’s infatuation with celebrities. In their attempt to balance out the harsh reality of national and world events, sometimes, the media goes too far in reporting about entertainment celebrities.

The news shows and morning shows like The Today Show have been filled with the sordid details of the latest celebrity trials and tribulations. Lately it’s Christie Brinkley’s child custody case and the breakup of A-Rod’s marriage and a possible affair with Madonna that have been the focus.

But do people really care about these things? The fact is, if this kind of “news” coverage went away, most people would probably never miss it. Why? Because it isn’t really news, it’s more like gossip. We all know that people love to gossip, but gossip has no place on a serious news show.

I know that the morning shows have a lot of time to fill. In fact, these shows probably aren’t news shows but are more for entertainment. Still, even in their specific news segments in these shows, the celebrity news creeps in and takes up a disproportionately large amount of time over “harder” news stories.

I wish would just creep right back out. Celebrity news should be left to shows like Entertainment Tonight, Access Hollywood, or TMZ. People who want to watch the drivel about movie and television stars can watch those shows, and leave those of us with actual brains to watch news that really matters. With a US presidential election looming, a war in Iraq going on, gas and food prices going through the roof, etc., we need more information about how the average, everyday person can navigate in this complicated and expensive world. It is true that knowledge is power, but the type of knowledge a person collects makes a difference in how much power they have over their own lives. And frankly, knowledge about the lives and antics of celebrities doesn’t give one much of anything at all.

Check out my blog home page for the latest information,

Saturday, July 5, 2008

National Speed Limit: Been There, Done That

Virginia Senator John Warner is proposing the United States revert to a national speed limit to help save gas. Been there, done that.

In 1974, the US put in place a National Maximum Speed Law , as a part of the 1974 Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act. It capped all speed limits at 55 mph (90 km/h). The purpose of this law was to help conserve gas as a result of the 1973 oil crisis. The law was repealed in 1995, which allowed the states to set their own speed limits.

The Department of Energy still says that cars become less fuel efficient at speeds over 60 miles an hour, and that driving at 70 miles an hour can cost drivers about 60 cents a gallon more.

My recollection of the 55 mph speed limit was only of frustration. My perception that it didn’t save me any more gasoline, and it only took me longer to get places. Wouldn’t the additional time on the road offset some of the saving by going a few miles an hour slower?

Senator John Warner and Congress may be completely missing the problem. It’s not about gas. It’s the fact that since the oil crisis in the early 1970s, the United States has done very little to find alternative fuels and vehicles that the masses can afford. I contend that we are not addicted to oil as President Bush and other politicians have said. On the contrary. People would be more than happy to embrace any alternative that they could afford. It’s hard enough for some people to even afford a gas-burning car, much less a hybrid or other alternative energy car that can cost $8-10,000 more.

Senator Warner and the rest of Congress should be working harder to pass laws mandating better fuel efficiency for cars, and finding ways to promote alternative energies. And while I am all for space exploration, wouldn’t it have made more sense for President Bush NOT to have proposed a manned Mars landing, and instead diverted those tax dollars to the research and development of new fuels and vehicles not dependent on oil?

This is all déjà vu all over again, I think. We need our elected officials to start thinking big picture about the future of energy consumption in the United States. As I mentioned in a previous blog entry, we also need to start looking at relaxing some drilling restrictions in our own country to help ease the pain that Americans are feeling at the pump. Both are not short-term solutions, but if Congress doesn’t take any action on these issues now, we’ll be sitting here 10,20,30 years later bemoaning the same problems.

So I say Congress should not waste its time on a National Speed Limit, and should spend its time looking for alternative energies and US sources of oil. We have to become independent of foreign oil as quickly as possible, and we can’t, and shouldn’t, tolerate a Congress that moves at a snail's pace.

Check out my blog home page for the latest information, here.

Wednesday, July 2, 2008

Cleveland’s University Hospital: Like Rats in a Maze

Earlier this week, my husband and I visited Cleveland Ohio’s University Hospital in University Circle. My husband had to visit a specialist regarding a minor medical problem. While I love the University Circle area (I wrote about it before on my Cleveland blog, here), I also knew that it’s easy to get lost in the area. And with the Euclid Corridor project (US Route 20) still in progress in that area, I also knew that we were in for a bit of a traffic mess just getting there. I also knew that, after having to accompany a family member to Rainbow Babies and Children’s Hospital two years ago, navigating the complex is like being a rat in a maze.

It lived up to all my expectations.

The Euclid Corridor project had Euclid Avenue torn up, leaving minimal lanes. But we got through it OK, parked the car in one of the hospital’s parking garages, and made our way to the University Hospital complex.

That’s when things too a turn for the worse.

If you’re familiar with the book Dante’s Inferno, you’ll understand what I mean when I say that finding our way to the specialist’s office was like descending into each layer of the Nine Circles of Hell. Each corridor took us down another corridor, and another, and so on, with only minimal signage to help us understand where we were going. With each turn, we felt as if we were getting pulled further and further into a hopeless, hellish maze that we could never escape. There was a large reception desk at the end of the first corridor as you enter the complex from the parking garage, but it wasn’t staffed. Instead, in its place, was a stuffed animal – a near life size penguin. Of course, the penguin wasn’t much help when we asked for directions.

We were somewhat more hopeful when we finally found our way to the central atrium, which had street signs making the way. But, when we followed the signs to get to the building where we needed to be, we were faced with even more corridors. Finally finding our way to the main lobby of the Lakeside building, we found our doctor’s room number and headed to the elevators. The problem was, we found, that we couldn’t get to our doctor using those particular elevators, we had to use another set which were hidden down another long corridor. I am glad we planned a lot of extra time for the trip because it took us nearly a half hour to get from our car to our doctor.

My disappointment with the University Hospital system at University Circle isn’t about the quality of care. Far from it. Along with University Hospital, Cleveland has the Cleveland Clinic and Cleveland Metro, and the area is well known around the world for excellent health care. My problem with University is that for someone who is very ill and visiting the area for the first time, the confusing layout and lack of help finding one’s way can only add to the stress the sick person may already be experiencing. My husband and I are both in our early 50s and in excellent health, and we found the whole process very taxing. I could tell that my husband was getting very frustrated at the whole thing and his blood pressure was probably raised quite a bit. I was getting a little panicky because I felt like I couldn’t find my way out. Since we’re both healthy these stresses weren’t cause for concern, but for someone who is suffering from a major illness, this experience certainly would not make them much better.

Not once did we see a sign that said, “You are here” or anything to help us get our bearings. It was difficult, if not impossible, to find a live person who could give us some help. We were lucky that there were two employees who saw we were lost and attempted to help. Unfortunately, they both gave us incomplete directions.

My suggestion to University Hospitals – or any large hospital for that matter – is to make sure that patients and visitors have many options to get help to find their way. “You are here” signs, and receptions desks that are staffed are a must. Prior to my husband’s appointment, he received directions from the specialist’s office that told him how to get the hospital; it should have included how to get to his OFFICE once we arrived. In this day and age of internet access, it would be even more helpful for a hospital complex to have on-line access to directions within the complex so visitors can get a feel for where they are going before they get there. Anything to help someone who is ill, or visitors to those people, find their way to their destination without stress should reduce the stress of the illness itself.

One things is for sure, if you plan a trip to this complex and don’t have detailed information in advance, make sure you bring a loaf of bread with you. You’ll need it to leave a trail of breadcrumbs.

Check out my blog home page for the latest information, here.