The separation of individual blood components is done with a specialized centrifuge (see apheresis). The earliest manual forms of plateletpheresis are done by the separation of platelets from multiple bags of whole blood collected from donors or blood sellers. Since each blood bag (usually 250 ml or 500 ml) contains a relatively small number of platelets, it can take as many as a dozen blood bags (usually from 5 to 10 bags, depending on the size of the blood bags and each donor's platelet count) to accumulate a single unit of platelets (enough for one patient). This greatly increases the risks of the transfusion. Each unit of platelets separated from donated whole blood is called a "platelet concentrate".

Modern automatic plateletpheresis allows the blood donor to give a portion of his platelets, while keeping his or her red blood cells and at least a portion of blood plasma. Therefore, no more than three units of platelets are generally harvested in any one sitting from a donor. Most donors will donate a "single" or "double" unit, however the occurence of "triples" has been increasing as more suitable donors are recruited.

Because platelets have a life-span of just 5 days, more platelet donors are always needed. Some centers are experimenting with 7 day platelets, but this requires additional testing and the lack of any preservative solutions means that the product is far more effective when fresh.

Even though red blood cells can also be collected in the process, most blood donation organizations do not do so because it takes much longer for the human body to replenish their loss. If the donor donates both red blood cells and platelets, it takes months, rather than days or weeks, before they are allowed to donate again (the guidelines regarding blood donation intervals are country-specific).

In most cases, blood plasma is returned to the donor as well. However, in locations that have plasma processing facilities, a part of the donor's plasma can also be collected in a separate blood bag (see plasmapheresis).

Washington, D.C. - A $145 billion dollar stimulus package called for by President Bush is more for show than solving current economic woes, says the Libertarian Party. "The President's economic stimulus plan fails to address the real mechanisms for economic growth," says Libertarian Party Executive Director Shane Cory.

"The proposed package is nothing but a multi-billion dollar dog and pony show," says Cory. "It's a cash advance on taxes not yet paid, which passes the debt to future taxpayers. It's not good for the economy, and it won't help."

The proposed economic stimulus package provides tax rebates with the hope that the money is injected into the economy by consumer spending. Bush has called the package a "short-term" solution to economic troubles. The price tag of the stimulus package is expected to range between $140 to $145 billion dollars.

"The government operates much too slowly for these so called 'short-term' solutions to have any impact," says Andrew Davis, national media coordinator for the Libertarian Party. "By the time the government acts, their reason for acting has come and gone. Instead, the government should be focusing on long-term stimuli like reduction in personal income taxes or capital gains taxes, which truly encourage business investment and growth."

The Libertarian Party suggests that cutting taxes that discourage business investment is the best solution to an economic slowdown. However, the Libertarian Party says that cuts in spending must match tax cuts, or else the government will continue to take on debt. Under the Bush administration, this has yet to happen.

"What we don't want to see is the government scrambling for solutions that make the problems worse," Cory concludes. "We should be focused on real solutions and not just window dressing."

Words matter. That's why defenders of Big Government choose the words they do.

Words make a difference in what we think and how we think about it. They affect our attitudes toward the subject.

Take the word "public." It has several different meanings. It can mean "open to all." Or a group of people -- as in "the public."

But "public" is also used as a synonym for "government." And this meaning and use of the word "public" is designed to make us feel better toward government and its actions.

Private sector businesses are funded by private investments. They are not funded by taxes or run by government. If private sector businesses go belly-up, the investors lose their money. And workers lose their jobs. If they make a profit, their investors make money -- and workers keep their jobs.

Public sector institutions and activities are different. They are owned and operated by government. Given government privileges and protections against private competitors. They are funded by taxes.

Walmart stores, 7/11 stores, and other retail businesses are open to the public. Anyone can come in and buy stuff. But they're privately owned and operated. They're not owned or operated by government. Not funded by taxes.

Public schools are different. They are open to the public. But they are tax-funded and government-run. Regulated and managed by government. Books, curriculum, teachers, and rules are all decided by governmental bodies.

"Public" does not correctly describe government institutions and activities. Does not accurately portray the government-run, government-franchised, or tax-funded nature of these institutions and activities. Does not fairly present institutions not funded and supported by voluntary choice and free exchange. The exact word, the correct word is "government."

Let's call a rose a rose. And a thorn a thorn.

Call it "the government sector," NOT "the public sector." Correctly define the alternatives: government sector or private sector.

Call them "government employees," NOT "public service employees."

Call it "government service," NOT "public service."

Call it "a government-held business," NOT a "publicly-held business."

Some well-worn, common phrases are harder to shift from "public" to "government."

It's very hard to change "public schools" to "government schools." I've tried and tested a number of different ways to shift from "public" to "government" and I've found one way that works pretty well. The most effective phrasing is "government-run public schools." The second best is "government-run, tax-funded public schools."

It's also hard to change "public utilities" to "government utilities." Try "government-run public utilities."

But don't just change the word from "public" to "government." Tell your listeners why. Tell them the difference between private sector businesses that are open to the public and government sector institutions that are open to the public.

Contrast "privately-held" and "government-held." Contrast "privately-funded" and "government-funded, i.e., tax-funded."

Ask if your distinctions make sense to those you talk with. Then ask them why.

Over time, many of the people you talk with will adopt your terminology. They will substitute "government" for "public" in their conversations. They will explain why. And they will open their listeners' minds to an accurate understanding of Big Government.

Big Government has earned its reputation of waste, wreck, and ruin. Help them reap what they've sowed.

That's one way to help the public grasp the true costs and consequences of the government sector.