Every so often, I find a book that absolutely moves me. Unfortunately, Jodi Picoult’s “My Sister’s Keeper” failed to do that. Still, I read the 430 or so pages in four days, so surely that means something.

Of course, this book was made into a major motion picture. Another book of this sort comes to mind: I have read/listened to most of the Nicholas Sparks books. While the puffy non-reality of said books is bothersome, it is fun to drive deserted roads and act out the scenes with more realistic dialogue. Anyway, I did finish “The Notebook” in one sitting, the only book that make that claim, but the movie was terribly disappointing.

I am no book critic, but Picoult’s book starts with a great premise: a young girl wants to take control of her body at the cost of denying her sick sister a chance at a healthy kidney.

As I am not a book critic, I will stay mostly away from critic-type thoughts. Briefly, though, I hated all the little quips. Just coming off Maugham’s “Of Human Bondage,” I like long, thoughtful paragraphs. So many contemporary authors put in little quips of this and that to draw out the characters or make something relevant. It seems like weak writing to me, and it’s made all the worse when a 13-year old is the one having these profound thoughts.

Most of the characters seem pretty cliché: the attractive, self-centered attorney; his overly attractive love interest; a brother who lashes out criminally to garner attention. The book changes viewpoints frequently, yet the writing styles do not change much from a 13-year girl to a high-level attorney.

Then there is the ending. Honestly, I did not see it coming. I will not be a spoiler, but I thought the last few pieces of story really brought down the entire book. There are about three things that all seem better fit for filling pages with twist ending than for the rest of the story.

Regardless, I do like the book for one reason: it makes us think about death. I cannot give too many details regarding the book without being a spoiler, so I will use generalities.

A few weeks ago, Newsweek’s cover story was about killing granny. It was a poor choice of words, but got your attention. The article was a response to the idea of death panels and health care rationing.

In college, I learned of the Nancy Cruzan case and subsequently read the book “Long Goodbye: The Deaths of Nancy Cruzan.” Already a believer in right-to-die, this book cemented my ideals. Years after she finally died, Terri Schiavo’s case was put into the spotlight in a similar set of circumstances. She died in 2005, after being declared brain-dead in 1990.

Picoult’s book reraises these issues though not in the same manner. A young girl has had many bouts of life-threatening illnesses by the age of 16, and a battle ensues to determine how far her family can go to attempt to save her life. All the while, I am thinking maybe death is the best answer.

I consider myself a thoughtful humanitarian, but it seems like this is a late-20^th century problem. Prior to that, a child plagued with these illnesses would have died early on. Obviously there are cons with that, but I think there are pros as well. For one, that child’s suffering would be limited. The child would not have to battle years of terrible illness just so the parents could avoid death. She could die in relative peace, and the family could move on as well.

This is precisely what the Newsweek article was about. We don’t want anyone to die, especially when we have the means to keep them alive. But think about that: with today’s technology, we could virtually keep someone “alive” infinitely. Schiavo had no brain waves for 15 years. Her body was kept “alive” by a breathing machine and nurses who probably could have helped someone else. This could have continued for decades longer. Who among us really wants to exist and cause so much difficulty for others? A paraplegic can still communicate and such. In other words, he can still offer a reward for his existence. A brain dead body offers nothing. To be kept alive by machine merely means those who make that decision do not have to deal with death.

All this life may be killing the world. This planet was not made to sustain so many billions of people and their wants, needs, and byproducts. That a fundamentally destructive gene mutation or illness can live long enough to reproduce goes against millions of years of evolution. It is not a pleasant thought, but the greater reality is this: people die. Perhaps it is not in our best interest to live beyond life expectancies, suffering through illness but remaining alive because of technology. Likewise, it is sad, but maybe some babies should not be strung along by science for years. Who benefits from this other than the families who cannot handle death?

This is not to say I am entirely pro-death. What about the 30-year old in a car accident. Sure, save him (assuming he’s not brain dead). At all costs if necessary. An accident is not the same as an illness. An accident victim can recuperate and get better. A terminally ill patient merely struggles.

Obviously, this is a tough topic. I’ve had family and friends with serious illnesses (cancer, leukemia, etc). One person had leukemia as a child and fully recovered. A friend from college had cancer and battled for a couple years before dying recently. In both these cases, I cannot argue against treatment. The leukemia was beat. A rational adult made the decision to fight his cancer, and he was able to live a great life while doing so. But what if the leukemia came back, in a rare form (I am no doctor, but in Picoult’s book, this is the case, and the medical problems are never ending…use that example)? The child in this book never did lead a normal life. And what if my friend had been reduced to endless pain and immobility from the beginning? What if he’d wanted to give up? What if it were a child who did not have control over his own care in that same situation?

I’ve long believed there should be a certain dignity in death. If a person wants to fight it, so be it. But that same right should exist to those who don’t want to fight. The problem arises when the young or old are the sick ones, and decisions are being made for them. Like society, it seems Picoult, despite hundreds of pages of medical jargon and emotional scenes, wasn’t quite ready to face the realities of this heavy topic.

Often, reactions tell me more than the event that inspired the reaction. The event in question this time is Newsweek’s cover story about the three-year degree. Lamar Alexander wrote the story for last week’s edition, and readers have responded.

Alexander relates college to automobile manufacturers: not adapting to the present could mean failure in the future. For example, since the American Revolution, universities have closed for the summer so students may return home to work in the fields. That is no longer the case for most students, yet colleges go vacant for months at a time, racking up utility and maintenance costs with no students around to use or pay for such.

As a three-year graduate myself, I was glad to see someone supporting the cause. In the following pages, however, presidents of several universities seemed to fudge on the idea of the three-year degree. Reader mail supports these officials. The thinking from both seems to be that students need four years or more to do two things: learn and find themselves.

This arouses what I’ve long felt as myth in the American education system: that schools are all about learning. In their world, maybe most learning is done in schools. Students attend class with the sole intention of learning and take education seriously. Maybe they picture students lying out in the sun next to some rustic creek, pondering the ways of the world and the future.

I’ve observed the opposite. First, there is the myth that the students who do the best in class are the most intelligent. I just had this conversation today, debating with a coworker whether National Honor Society is a true marker of intelligence. While it is not a marker of stupidity, I argue it is more an indicator of ambition than true intelligence.

Obviously, I was never in NHS, just missing the boat. Had I qualified, I probably would not have joined. Robes and candles just seemed kind of…creepy. That said, I thought certain classmates in NHS were smarter than myself, and I knew some to be not-so-smart. That they had high GPAs and wanted to join an organization, however, probably meant they were more ambitious than me.

Take the classroom: in high school, I asked a fair amount of questions, but nothing to the degree of the ambitious kids. I knew it impossible to memorize every trivial fact I would never need to recall again. Blessed with a good memory, I was able to take notes, not ask questions, not study, and get good grades. Had I been ambitious, I have no doubt I could have scored higher on tests. My theory: the kids who asked the questions about the minutia back then were quite ambitious and at least intelligent. Those are the two ingredients to get places in life. For myself and others without the ambition, we struggle to amount to anything, but we’re solid, and arguably more intelligent, people.

In college, the tables turned for me. High school was mandatory and I never really paid the bill. College was expensive, and society told me I needed a degree to succeed. All things considered, it was not enough for me to sit idly by and listen to someone’s theory, or to take notes without question. When something did not make sense or seemed incorrect, I challenged the professor. Most teachers seemed to enjoy the discourse, and I think most would agree I made good points. The student response: a big sigh to let me know my questions were keeping them from more important things, namely sleep, alcohol or girlfriends.

I also took control of my courses. In high school, I refused to take college-level classes because I disagreed with the material or the concept. I was a non-fiction reader at the time. Why read fiction and analyze it to death? Why make a diorama or similarly childish product about a book I could not like? Beyond that, why is society pushing me to be a college student when I’m still in high school? Even then, I thought it cheapened the idea of the college degree.

In college, I became my own advisor. I picked all of my classes. At one point when I signed up for 29 hours in one semester, my advisor did step in. He said if I began to falter, he would pull me from some of the classes. I never faltered, and I graduated with honors in three years.

Am I using my degree? Absolutely not. I have a BS in justice studies with a minor in psychology. Presently, I’m employed as a sports writer. I have worked in my field of study, but it only proved one thing: college was essentially unnecessary. Two years on the job and 14 weeks at a mandatory academy would have been more than sufficient.

I am not alone here. One argument for the four-year or longer degree is that high school students cannot know what they want to do in three years. Maybe they can’t, but when will they know? Many of my friends have made careers outside their fields of study. Like me, many of those friends were gung-ho about what they wanted to do. Unfortunately, college cannot teach real-life. The graduate often learns that a desired career is not all it was supposed to be. Maybe no one is hiring, and a short-term gig becomes long-term.

To argue the four-year degree is necessary for students to learn what they want to do is just nonsense. Interests are born in childhood and sustained with experience. The student who goes to college wanting to be an artist, but learning to be a school teacher because he knows of a job is hardly a story of desire. In this case, the university may actually impede, or even kill off completely, the dreams of a young student.

Then there is the degree itself. I once had a job driving a truck and carrying books. My employer told me I might not have landed the job without my degree. Really, I needed college for that? More likely, my college degree was an indication that I played the game. For at least a while, I dressed probably like an adult, interacted with other people, and showed some degree of intelligence. On top of that, my employer must know that I ended up thousands of dollars in debt. Can an employee with bills to pay really raise a stink a work?

This raises the question of the bachelor’s degree in 2010. 20 years ago, one needed a high school diploma to get a job. A degree was a plus. The degree is now something anyone can obtain with a little money. Therefore, we are now led to believe a degree is okay, but we need a post-graduate degree to get the good job. Why? Maybe it’s online courses. Maybe it’s open admission.

The online class seems farcical to me. Really, I can sit at home, never talk face to face with anyone, never even get dressed, and graduate with honors? How, exactly, does that prepare me for the world? Some of the online professors are not even university professors. I took a few online classes and had community college professors with whom I had little contact. That’s hardly how I expected to earn a degree.

As for open admissions, this could mean a few things. To me, it just means a college will take on anyone as long as it stands to profit. So you attended half your classes in high school and show no real motivation to learn? Oh, you have a government loan. Welcome to college!

As with most traditionalists, it seems that some still hold the romanticized view of college: a place where kids go to grow up and become responsible workers. Undoubtedly, some students do. Many others merely party for four years. Do or don’t, it’s hard to deny: young adults are inheriting bigger and bigger debts for degrees they probably don’t need and/or will never use. If society wanted to emphasize education, trade schools would be much bigger than they are today. Instead, society has emphasized the game. For those of us who are too smart or too apathetic to play the game, we get a really expensive piece of paper that tells us how smart we are. I’m glad I got mine in three years and saved thousands of dollars doing so.

As a watcher of news, and one who frequently regurgitates such, it is convenient when I sometimes stumble across a few items that tie some thoughts together. Monday’s “Larry King Live,” and an article by Daniel Lyons in last week’s Newsweek did just that.

King’s show featured a discussion about the safety of eating meat. At the beginning, several families affected by meat-related illnesses such as e. Coli were highlighted.

The back half of the show featured several panelists in a debate-like structure. On one hand, Dr. Colin Campbell, a Cornell professor, argued that humans need to revert to a plant-based diet. Campbell quotes several studies that show adverse health effects due to heavy meat consumption. University of Connecticut professor Dr. Nancy Rodriguez, an expert in nutrition, countered that a meat diet can be healthy.

At this point, both experts seem to be about on equal ground. Campbell brings a scientific background, and scientific studies to support his side. Rodriguez brings common sense about a topic she has studied extensively. From there, it goes downhill.

King next brings on Anthony Bourdain, chef, author, and host of Travel Channel’s “No Reservations.” Jonathan Safran Foer, author of “Eating Animals,” also joins the panel.

Bourdain is one of my favorite television personalities. In general, he seems to appeal to my logical way of thinking, and has experience the world over. Foer, through research for his book, also seemed knowledgeable.

Bourdain opens by saying humans are obviously designed to be hunters, and that includes eating meat, but we are not designed to consume bacteria. He also says, “I think the standard practices of outfits like Cargill and some of the larger meat processors and grinders in this country are unconscionable and border on the criminal.”

Foer agreed for the most part, adding, “What Anthony didn’t say, and I wish he had, is that 99 percent — upwards of 99 percent of the animals that are raised for meat in this country come from factory farms.”

At this time, the panel seems to heading in the right direction. Bourdain and Foer have offered no real expertise, but what they say rings true. Then it goes back to Campbell, who again says humans need a plant-based diet, and a plant-based food industry could replace the present animal-based industry.

This is where things go a little haywire. Campbell is obviously a smart man. Perhaps his research indicates meat is bad. So what? Science has long said cigarettes and alcohol are bad, yet humans continue to use these products. This is precisely why Bourdain answers, “People eat meat because it’s delicious. Let’s not forget the pleasure aspect of this argument. People eat meat because they like it. It tastes good. It smells good when it’s cooking. I think to — people are going to disagree along those lines alone, regardless of the health aspects.”

King then asks Rodriguez if it is true that many e. Coli outbreaks have started with vegetables. She answers that this is true.

Foer then says, “Nancy, surely you know the CDC has said all of those, the primary source was animal agriculture. It may be true that the vehicle was spinach. But if we’re wondering where e. Coli — we know where e. Coli comes from, right? It comes from poop. It’s not coming from the spinach. It’s coming from run off from factory farms.”

Rodriguez answers that her area of expertise is nutrition, and she cannot comment on Foer’s charge.

This is where my expertise comes in. Keep in mind I have none, but I can throw together an argument. Campbell and Rodriguez, though they hate to admit it, are on the same line of thinking. Meat is probably not the healthiest, but in small quantities, probably is beneficial to humans.

Bourdain’s common sense approach is right on. Humans are not designed to maximize health. We take risks daily. On matters of diet, health is rarely the top consideration. Of course people will continue to eat meat, probably in large quantity.

Not one panelist raised this issue to the degree it should have been emphasized: it is not necessarily the meat that is unhealthy, but the way in which it is produced for consumption. Crowded farms, antibiotics, pesticides, hormones, etc, etc. Not one panelist fully put together the idea that, yes, people may be designed to eat meat, but the American corporation has corrupted even this with its need to produce something that generates profit. The most practical solution is not to cut meat consumption, but to improve the way it is processed.

To cap things off, King brings back Patrick Boyle, president and CEO of the American Meat Institute. Boyle does his normal public relations work: Cargill is part of the AMI, and the industry has spent tens of millions of dollars to keep food safe. Boyle also adds, “And hamburger is compromised of trim from more expensive pieces of meat like tenderloins and roasts. It’s perfectly safe, perfectly wholesome.”

Yes, Mr. Boyle, this is obviously why one has to heat hamburger to a certain temperature. Whereas steaks can be enjoyed pink, hamburger must be fully cooked due to risk of contamination. Only in a PR world could we believe, and have aired on a major news network, that hamburger is perfectly safe.

And that’s how Lyons’ “Newsweek” article ties everything together. Lyons writes about director of the White House Office of Science, John Holdren, an MIT undergrad and Ph.D from Stanford. Holdren has won several awards for his scientific studies in areas of energy use.

“But now he must sell his ideas to people who couldn’t pass high-school algebra–and who believe they know more than he does,” Lyons writes.

On King’s show, one credible scientist didn’t have the sense to incorporate human desire into his equation. One credible nutritionist could not admit that e. Coli outbreaks tied to plants originated with animals. Only when a celebrity chef and author joined was there any semblance of balanced reason.

Unfortunately, they were all trumped by a public relations wizard who just happened to have the last word. Is Boyle an expert in his field? Maybe. But he’s also out for profit.

All arguments are not created equal. It took a few experts losing to a chef and author to prove that Monday night.

Click here read the full transcript of the episode of Larry King Live.