Call me Scrooge. Call me anti-Christian. Call me un-American. But I think this needs to be said.
Why have I never heard anyone commenting on the extra energy consumption that is represented by Christmas lights? Granted, tiny little lights, individually, don't use a lot of electricity. But this whole Christmas lights/decoration thing has gotten so out of hand, with people vying to outdo one another, that people are getting electric bills in the thousands of dollars.
This extra demand for electricity not only means more depletion of resources (coal, gas, oil) to generate the power, and the concomitant greenhouse gas emission, but also a seldom-mentioned consequence of our power consumption, the production of mountains of coal ash (from coal-burning power plants) that can be a toxic environmental hazard, according to the EPA.
And then there are Christmas trees. (I except artificial trees from these comments.) How many millions of Christmas trees are grown every year, to be used for a short time and then disposed of (hopefully turned into mulch, at the very least)? How much land is used for growing Christmas trees? Maybe that land could be used for growing food crops to feed a hungry world or even corn for ethanol production. Almost any use of that land would seem to me more sensible than use as Christmas tree farms when that's for such an ephemeral product.
Even if the land used were not good for anything else, it could be returned to wildlife habitat, which continually shrinks as humans spread themselves and their activities over the face of the planet.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Monday, December 27, 2010
Strict Interpretation - When It Suits 'Em
Republicans and religious conservatives may advocate a strict interpretation--of the Constitution in the one case, and of the Bible in the other.
But they seem to me to be hypocritical because they can be shown to favor strict construction only when it is in their interests; and otherwise, they just ignore whatever they prefer to ignore.
Former US President George W. Bush effected "substantial military actions" in Afghanistan and Iraq "that under any traditional reading of the Constitution [would have] required a declaration of war" (Robert Dallek, "Power and the Presidency," Smithsonian, January 2011); but, as is implied, these actions were done without a declaration of war. But I don't recall Bush's conservative supporters crying foul, complaining about his possibly unconstitutional actions--even though they are always saying that they favor strict interpretation of the Constitution.
And I think it's somewhat analogous when religious conservatives point to the Bible as justification for their condemnation of homosexuality and gay people. They need to remember that the Bible was used to justify slavery in the decades preceding the Civil War.
Also, they point to a passage in the Old Testament book of Leviticus that calls homosexuality an "abomination." Leaving aside the fact that abomination may not have meant, when the Old Testament was written, what they would have us believe it means, Leviticus also calls the eating of shellfish and pork an abomination. It also forbids wearing clothing made of mixed fibers, and prescribes particular sacrifices for many types of sins and crimes.
Not only do these people not make the sacrifices that Leviticus says we need to perform, I'd wager they also eat pork and shellfish, and don't give any thought to whether their clothing is a mixture of fibers.
So it looks like the Constitution, and the Bible, must be strictly adhered to only when to do so happens to harmonize with the aims of Conservatives.
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
But they seem to me to be hypocritical because they can be shown to favor strict construction only when it is in their interests; and otherwise, they just ignore whatever they prefer to ignore.
Former US President George W. Bush effected "substantial military actions" in Afghanistan and Iraq "that under any traditional reading of the Constitution [would have] required a declaration of war" (Robert Dallek, "Power and the Presidency," Smithsonian, January 2011); but, as is implied, these actions were done without a declaration of war. But I don't recall Bush's conservative supporters crying foul, complaining about his possibly unconstitutional actions--even though they are always saying that they favor strict interpretation of the Constitution.
And I think it's somewhat analogous when religious conservatives point to the Bible as justification for their condemnation of homosexuality and gay people. They need to remember that the Bible was used to justify slavery in the decades preceding the Civil War.
Also, they point to a passage in the Old Testament book of Leviticus that calls homosexuality an "abomination." Leaving aside the fact that abomination may not have meant, when the Old Testament was written, what they would have us believe it means, Leviticus also calls the eating of shellfish and pork an abomination. It also forbids wearing clothing made of mixed fibers, and prescribes particular sacrifices for many types of sins and crimes.
Not only do these people not make the sacrifices that Leviticus says we need to perform, I'd wager they also eat pork and shellfish, and don't give any thought to whether their clothing is a mixture of fibers.
So it looks like the Constitution, and the Bible, must be strictly adhered to only when to do so happens to harmonize with the aims of Conservatives.
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Cops on Steroids
Here are some quotes from an article on AOL News headlined "Cops' Use of Illegal Steroids a 'Big Problem'":
Victor Conte, founder of the now-defunct lab known as Bay Area Lab Co-Operative that supplied numerous athletes with steroids and other banned substances, said it wouldn't surprise him if as many as a quarter of police officers were using some kind of performance-enhancing drug.
Seem high? While there are no empirical studies on the prevalence of steroids in law enforcement, the recent revelations that 248 police officers and firefighters from 53 agencies were tied to a Jersey City, N.J., physician gives some credence to Conte's estimate. The months-long investigation by The Star-Ledger of Newark also found that taxpayers often footed the bill for the drugs since many were prescribed.
There's debate as to what dangers doped-up officers pose to the public. South Bend police Capt. Phil Trent, for one, would rather not take a chance.
. . . . . .
"First we have an officer who is a drug dealer," Trent said. "Second, you always hear about the bizarre size effects (of steroid use). If they are taking these drugs and it turns them into a raving lunatic, that's something we should be concerned about in law enforcement."
Conte said the psychological effects of steroids -- including mood swings and so-called "'roid rage" -- are often overblown and can depend on how much of the drug is used.
The article also listed cases where a police officer pleaded guilty to steroid use.
I have often criticized police officers who behave inappropriately: using excessive and even lethal force against a crime suspect, beating up civilians (e. g., when off duty). Now we may have an explanation for some of these incidents.
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
I have often criticized police officers who behave inappropriately: using excessive and even lethal force against a crime suspect, beating up civilians (e. g., when off duty). Now we may have an explanation for some of these incidents.
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Some Day-after-Christmas Thoughts
First, there is no authority whatsoever for Jesus' birthday being December 25. No one knows the exact day he was born.
Second, there is no authority in the Gospels for the "three wise men" being named Caspar, Melchior, and Balthazar. The Gospel of Matthew--the only one, I believe, that includes this story (check me on that if you care to)-- does not even say there were three of them; it just says "wise men from the East." This is one of many medieval "accretions," additions that somehow came to be made to stories which are to be found in the Gospels.
Third, do you think you know what Jesus looked like? Sure, you've seen his likeness in paintings, religious statues, even calendars. The fact is, there was no photography in his day, and we don't have any contemporary portraits of him, either. Our notions of Jesus stem mainly from medieval and Renaissance paintings. He seems to be depicted as having long blond hair, blue eyes, and a beard. But surely he was much more Semitic-looking than that.
Ditto for the Virgin Mary. The absence of reliable images of these personages ought by itself to give the lie to all those sightings of Jesus or Mary on tortillas or walls or water towers.
Last, we all know that in Roman times, Christians were thrown to the lions in the Coliseum, right? Well, according to an article in Smithsonian magazine, there is no good evidence for that, either.
So—a lot of what we believe just ain't so.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Second, there is no authority in the Gospels for the "three wise men" being named Caspar, Melchior, and Balthazar. The Gospel of Matthew--the only one, I believe, that includes this story (check me on that if you care to)-- does not even say there were three of them; it just says "wise men from the East." This is one of many medieval "accretions," additions that somehow came to be made to stories which are to be found in the Gospels.
Third, do you think you know what Jesus looked like? Sure, you've seen his likeness in paintings, religious statues, even calendars. The fact is, there was no photography in his day, and we don't have any contemporary portraits of him, either. Our notions of Jesus stem mainly from medieval and Renaissance paintings. He seems to be depicted as having long blond hair, blue eyes, and a beard. But surely he was much more Semitic-looking than that.
Ditto for the Virgin Mary. The absence of reliable images of these personages ought by itself to give the lie to all those sightings of Jesus or Mary on tortillas or walls or water towers.
Last, we all know that in Roman times, Christians were thrown to the lions in the Coliseum, right? Well, according to an article in Smithsonian magazine, there is no good evidence for that, either.
So—a lot of what we believe just ain't so.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Monday, December 20, 2010
Gas Prices Going up--Again
From my window I can see the price sign of a gas station, so I'm usually up on where gas prices seem to be headed. There was a recent dip that proved very temporary, and prices now are about 30 cents higher than they were during that dip. Said neighboring station currently shows $3.259.
I wonder how high the price of gas has to rise before people who own monster SUVs like Suburbans and Tahoes regret buying such a thirsty vehicle. And you know, if you follow this blog, that I have less than zero sympathy for those folks, because I regard them as destroying the planet. (Greenhouse gas emissions are directly proportional to gas consumption.)
Statistics show that, when gas prices rise, people are interested in smaller, more economical cars. When gas prices fall again, people go back to disregarding fuel economy when they're car-shopping, and in fact sales of large SUVs rise again. (This has been a problem for Detroit at several periods over, say, the last 50 years: They introduce small cars and then the price of gas falls and they can't sell those smaller cars.)
So we see that car buyers can be very short-sighted. The price of gas may fall but it will certainly rise again, kind of like the stock market. And, like the stock market, I'd wager that, long-term, the trend is upward.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
I wonder how high the price of gas has to rise before people who own monster SUVs like Suburbans and Tahoes regret buying such a thirsty vehicle. And you know, if you follow this blog, that I have less than zero sympathy for those folks, because I regard them as destroying the planet. (Greenhouse gas emissions are directly proportional to gas consumption.)
Statistics show that, when gas prices rise, people are interested in smaller, more economical cars. When gas prices fall again, people go back to disregarding fuel economy when they're car-shopping, and in fact sales of large SUVs rise again. (This has been a problem for Detroit at several periods over, say, the last 50 years: They introduce small cars and then the price of gas falls and they can't sell those smaller cars.)
So we see that car buyers can be very short-sighted. The price of gas may fall but it will certainly rise again, kind of like the stock market. And, like the stock market, I'd wager that, long-term, the trend is upward.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Let the Cannibals Eat the Missionaries
As someone who has been (sort of) anthropologically trained, I deplore all those cases in history where missionaries have interfered with a native culture, usually in the name of bringing them Christianity.
In the United States in the nineteenth century, Native American children were forcibly taken from their parents and sent to so-called Indian schools, typically run by missionaries. There they were forbidden to speak their native language and in fact were punished if they did so. This was part of a deliberate and systematic attempt to "assimilate" the Indians to mainstream (white) culture—in other words, to destroy their own culture.
As a result, Indian languages nearly died out. Today, in many tribes, only the very old—grandparents or even great-grandparents—can speak the ancestral language. Where a desire exists to preserve the native culture, schools are teaching the ancient language; but then the language has to be learned as a foreign language, and it has skipped a generation or two.
And possibly traditions such as songs, dances, tales, and other parts of the culture are being taught to the young Native Americans, too. Again, only an older generation is still in possession of this cultural material. Thus the educational efforts unfortunately are sort of a remedial effort, more to restore and revive than maintain the culture.
It wasn't only in the United States, nor only with the Native Americans that cultural destruction happened. Sad to say, Canada and Australia have just about as bad a record regarding their native peoples. Canada had outlawed some practices of its native tribes until the 1950s, I believe.
Intervention by missionaries started in 1797 in Tahiti, where missionaries outlawed tattooing, because the biblical book of Leviticus forbids decorating of the body. And in Samoa, just as an example, when missionaries arrived they found a blissful situation, where the the people felt no shame in sex or in the human body. But these missionaries were scandalized by bare-breasted women and got them to cover their bosoms. (Except for purposes of photography and painting: "Okay, now take your clothes off because we want to paint [or photograph] you bare-breasted." Hmm.)
As I said, with the viewpoint of an anthropologist, I deplore missionaries as interfering with and destroying native cultures. I think I might go so far as to say that headhunting should not be outlawed (it was still going on in the Solomon Islands, in New Guinea, in the Philippines, and elsewhere in the twentieth century). It's part of their war, and I'm not sure our wars are less brutal. How do we point an accusatory finger when we (meaning the U.S. and its allies) incinerated Vietnamese people with napalm and poisoned their ecosystem with Agent Orange, which is still causing horrible birth defects?
Or, in World War II, 75,000 people were killed—incinerated—in the fire-bombing of Dresden, Germany. And one-quarter of Tokyo was destroyed by fire-bombing, with the result of over a million people losing their homes.
However, I frankly see a difficult, morally ambiguous case where we are talking about native practices that involve killing. As I said I might condone headhunting, maybe even cannibalism (which has been practiced, at various times, almost everywhere in the world). I am more conflicted when it comes to human sacrifice such as was being practiced by Mesoamerican peoples such as the Aztecs and the Maya when the Spanish arrived in the sixteenth century.
On the one hand I might stick to the non-interference that I espoused above as an absolute. On the other hand, the rationale for human sacrifice is to be found in these peoples' religion. To us it is primitive superstition. Since I am not too sympathetic to any religious beliefs whatsoever—even in our "advanced," that is, Western, Christian, etc., world —I find it hard to say, "Well, even here we need to leave the native practices alone." I guess that these peoples, who believed that (for example) human sacrifice was needed to keep the sun rising every day, and/or to appease the rain god so that the crops would grow, learned, after they were forced to stop the practice, that the sun rose anyway and the crops grew anyway. It can be viewed as anti-anthropological interference or it can be viewed as science triumphing over superstition.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
In the United States in the nineteenth century, Native American children were forcibly taken from their parents and sent to so-called Indian schools, typically run by missionaries. There they were forbidden to speak their native language and in fact were punished if they did so. This was part of a deliberate and systematic attempt to "assimilate" the Indians to mainstream (white) culture—in other words, to destroy their own culture.
As a result, Indian languages nearly died out. Today, in many tribes, only the very old—grandparents or even great-grandparents—can speak the ancestral language. Where a desire exists to preserve the native culture, schools are teaching the ancient language; but then the language has to be learned as a foreign language, and it has skipped a generation or two.
And possibly traditions such as songs, dances, tales, and other parts of the culture are being taught to the young Native Americans, too. Again, only an older generation is still in possession of this cultural material. Thus the educational efforts unfortunately are sort of a remedial effort, more to restore and revive than maintain the culture.
It wasn't only in the United States, nor only with the Native Americans that cultural destruction happened. Sad to say, Canada and Australia have just about as bad a record regarding their native peoples. Canada had outlawed some practices of its native tribes until the 1950s, I believe.
Intervention by missionaries started in 1797 in Tahiti, where missionaries outlawed tattooing, because the biblical book of Leviticus forbids decorating of the body. And in Samoa, just as an example, when missionaries arrived they found a blissful situation, where the the people felt no shame in sex or in the human body. But these missionaries were scandalized by bare-breasted women and got them to cover their bosoms. (Except for purposes of photography and painting: "Okay, now take your clothes off because we want to paint [or photograph] you bare-breasted." Hmm.)
As I said, with the viewpoint of an anthropologist, I deplore missionaries as interfering with and destroying native cultures. I think I might go so far as to say that headhunting should not be outlawed (it was still going on in the Solomon Islands, in New Guinea, in the Philippines, and elsewhere in the twentieth century). It's part of their war, and I'm not sure our wars are less brutal. How do we point an accusatory finger when we (meaning the U.S. and its allies) incinerated Vietnamese people with napalm and poisoned their ecosystem with Agent Orange, which is still causing horrible birth defects?
Or, in World War II, 75,000 people were killed—incinerated—in the fire-bombing of Dresden, Germany. And one-quarter of Tokyo was destroyed by fire-bombing, with the result of over a million people losing their homes.
However, I frankly see a difficult, morally ambiguous case where we are talking about native practices that involve killing. As I said I might condone headhunting, maybe even cannibalism (which has been practiced, at various times, almost everywhere in the world). I am more conflicted when it comes to human sacrifice such as was being practiced by Mesoamerican peoples such as the Aztecs and the Maya when the Spanish arrived in the sixteenth century.
On the one hand I might stick to the non-interference that I espoused above as an absolute. On the other hand, the rationale for human sacrifice is to be found in these peoples' religion. To us it is primitive superstition. Since I am not too sympathetic to any religious beliefs whatsoever—even in our "advanced," that is, Western, Christian, etc., world —I find it hard to say, "Well, even here we need to leave the native practices alone." I guess that these peoples, who believed that (for example) human sacrifice was needed to keep the sun rising every day, and/or to appease the rain god so that the crops would grow, learned, after they were forced to stop the practice, that the sun rose anyway and the crops grew anyway. It can be viewed as anti-anthropological interference or it can be viewed as science triumphing over superstition.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Thursday, December 16, 2010
What's Changed in the World. Part 6 - Storing and Creating Words, Images, Sounds
The word typewriter came up not long ago. I happen to still have a typewriter, sitting on the closet shelf. Of course I have not used it for a very long time. And it's actually one of the last generation of typewriters, an electronic one that can store documents for subsequent editing or printing.
And if you see a typewriter nowadays, you comment on it. It's quaint, a curiosity. I did remark when I saw a typewriter at my doctor's office. Yes, we still use it occasionally, they said. Nearly everyone who has something to write, these days, does it on a computer—though there are quite a few people who don't use a computer or at least don't own their own.
Besides typewriters now being antiques, I've got some movie film stored away somewhere, most of which I took on my first European trip, many years ago. Now there's no way to view those films. When I was a kid I actually owned a movie projector, but a silent one. It was a simple machine, probably not much more than a toy, and it cost probably in today's money say $300 or $400. A sound movie projector would have been a much more elaborate and expensive affair. You'd find sound 16mm projectors in schools.
Nowadays it's so easy to watch movies in your home. You don't need a projector, you don't need to set up a projection screen. In the early '80s, home video recorders came in. They initially were expensive, and they used tape. The tape cartridges were pretty bulky. With tape, if you wanted to advance or go back in the program (movie), you had to patiently rewind or fast-forward the tape. The DVD discs we use nowadays are more compact, and the disc format has the advantage of "random access": it's relatively easy to move to any spot on the disc.
Besides typewriters and movie projectors and even VHS tape machines being things of the past, I also own some reel-to-reel audio tapes! And it's been many years since I've had a machine that would play them. (Okay, I guess that my confessing to having the films and tapes still around means I'm a hoarder, and I need help!) Reel-to-reel audio tapes, which were bulky themselves and required bulky machines to record and play them, have been obsolete for quite a while. Then we had cassette tapes. Now we have CDs, which we can record or "burn" ourselves, and iPods and other MP3 players. I guess we don't even carry around physical media for these things: we just use electronic files of 1s and 0s that we can't even see. That's the ultimate in size reduction!
It's actually a problem for libraries and other archives that own documents on movie film, audio tape, and so forth. They have to invest time and money to convert these documents to more modern formats or risk having them be totally useless because there are no more machines around for viewing or playing them. Such is the price of progress.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
And if you see a typewriter nowadays, you comment on it. It's quaint, a curiosity. I did remark when I saw a typewriter at my doctor's office. Yes, we still use it occasionally, they said. Nearly everyone who has something to write, these days, does it on a computer—though there are quite a few people who don't use a computer or at least don't own their own.
Besides typewriters now being antiques, I've got some movie film stored away somewhere, most of which I took on my first European trip, many years ago. Now there's no way to view those films. When I was a kid I actually owned a movie projector, but a silent one. It was a simple machine, probably not much more than a toy, and it cost probably in today's money say $300 or $400. A sound movie projector would have been a much more elaborate and expensive affair. You'd find sound 16mm projectors in schools.
Nowadays it's so easy to watch movies in your home. You don't need a projector, you don't need to set up a projection screen. In the early '80s, home video recorders came in. They initially were expensive, and they used tape. The tape cartridges were pretty bulky. With tape, if you wanted to advance or go back in the program (movie), you had to patiently rewind or fast-forward the tape. The DVD discs we use nowadays are more compact, and the disc format has the advantage of "random access": it's relatively easy to move to any spot on the disc.
Besides typewriters and movie projectors and even VHS tape machines being things of the past, I also own some reel-to-reel audio tapes! And it's been many years since I've had a machine that would play them. (Okay, I guess that my confessing to having the films and tapes still around means I'm a hoarder, and I need help!) Reel-to-reel audio tapes, which were bulky themselves and required bulky machines to record and play them, have been obsolete for quite a while. Then we had cassette tapes. Now we have CDs, which we can record or "burn" ourselves, and iPods and other MP3 players. I guess we don't even carry around physical media for these things: we just use electronic files of 1s and 0s that we can't even see. That's the ultimate in size reduction!
It's actually a problem for libraries and other archives that own documents on movie film, audio tape, and so forth. They have to invest time and money to convert these documents to more modern formats or risk having them be totally useless because there are no more machines around for viewing or playing them. Such is the price of progress.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Should the Sins of the Fathers Be Visited on the Children?
News today has it that Bernie Madoff's son committed suicide. That raises the interesting, perennial question, Should the sins of the fathers be visited on the children?
I used to live in a Chicago suburb (after a moment's though I decided against naming it) that was famous (or infamous) for being home to two or three big Mafia figures. One of my neighbors talked about going to the local high school with the daughter of one of these guys. The neighbor said the Mafioso's daughter was pretty much shunned by her classmates. (You can read the latter's own story in her book Mafia Princess. Disclaimer: I haven't read it.) To me it's a very interesting discussion, whether it's fair or not to view such people as tainted by the lives or actions of their parents.
The great Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen wrote a play called Ghosts. This play revolves around a mother and her son—and the "ghost" of the dead husband and father. It turns out (spoiler alert!) that because the father had led a very dissolute and sexually promiscuous life, which his wife very assiduously covered up, the son at the end of the play is starting to show dementia due to the syphilis that he inherited from his father. So that is an instance where in a very literal and physical way, the sins of the father were visited upon the children (but it seems the wife and mother deserves a good deal of blame for completely whitewashing her husband's memory).
I think it's an interesting issue. I think the Old Testament says that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children, but that may seem very harsh to us nowadays.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
I used to live in a Chicago suburb (after a moment's though I decided against naming it) that was famous (or infamous) for being home to two or three big Mafia figures. One of my neighbors talked about going to the local high school with the daughter of one of these guys. The neighbor said the Mafioso's daughter was pretty much shunned by her classmates. (You can read the latter's own story in her book Mafia Princess. Disclaimer: I haven't read it.) To me it's a very interesting discussion, whether it's fair or not to view such people as tainted by the lives or actions of their parents.
The great Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen wrote a play called Ghosts. This play revolves around a mother and her son—and the "ghost" of the dead husband and father. It turns out (spoiler alert!) that because the father had led a very dissolute and sexually promiscuous life, which his wife very assiduously covered up, the son at the end of the play is starting to show dementia due to the syphilis that he inherited from his father. So that is an instance where in a very literal and physical way, the sins of the father were visited upon the children (but it seems the wife and mother deserves a good deal of blame for completely whitewashing her husband's memory).
I think it's an interesting issue. I think the Old Testament says that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children, but that may seem very harsh to us nowadays.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Our Complicated Electronic Gadgets
I finally popped for one of those gigantic LCD TVs, or "flat-screens" as evidently they've come to be called. Believe it or not, for quite a while I'd been mainly watching a 20" CRT (picture tube) TV, and in fact that was the biggest TV I'd ever owned.
I completely leapfrogged over the era when people were buying those huge devices called DLP TVs that would totally dominate a room. Sit in the corner and stare at you. Usually, I'm not the first one to go right out and buy some new technology or toy—but I'm not the last, either.
It seems like every new electronic device is so complicated. Luckily, this TV (and probably almost all of them) steps you through the initial setup—at least the channel scan—with prompts. And for audio and picture settings, there are the factory defaults or presets. I have a feeling that 98% of owners use those presets and never change them.
Which gets me to my main point. How many of us really know how to exploit the features and settings and options of our electronic toys—our cell phones, our computers, even our cars? I know for fact that, since computer ownership has become so mainstream, many people have a very shaky knowledge of, say, their operating system (e.g., Windows) and need some sort of computer help at one time or another. So operation has gotten too complex. Consumer Reports magazine recently rated some Ford and Lincoln models as "not recommended," because their command system--MyFord Touch and MyLincoln Touch, I believe--is too complicated. They said good old-fashioned knobs and switches would be better: easier to use and less distracting for the driver.
Then there's just the matter of hook-up. An awful lot of people need help just with hooking up their TVs, computers, etc. I know because I have helped others hook up their computers, stereos, and so forth, many times. And occasionally I myself have been confused, if only momentarily, by a complicated hookup.
I can manage my computer all right and seldom if ever have had to seek any help. And ditto for my cell phone. With my previous car, I had to spend a lot of time studying the owner's manual, since it was somewhat fancy and had a lot of features I wasn't accustomed to. ("The car will do such-and-such, except when this or that or an alternate Tuesdays.") I bet we often discover some of the features only accidentally (happened to me).
I tend to feel that all this stuff complicates our lives. Yes, it's definitely cool what some of these things can do. Our "toys" are fun, convenient, helpful. But I find myself yearning for the days when my clock radio (probably now over 30 years old) would have been considered complicated. I feel I'm almost capable of becoming a real Luddite (named for a man who was a leader in protests and even sabotage of the new machinery that came in with the Industrial Revolution).
Interestingly, later (since I originally posted this) there came news that Consumer Reports removed its recommendations on one Ford and one Lincoln vehicle because their touch-screen-driven command system (MyFord Touch and MyLincoln Touch) is unnecessarily complicated and too much of a distraction to the driver. They said good old-fashioned knobs and switches would be better. Kinda makes me think that we've been seeking complexity and sophistication for its own sake and not for practical reasons or for real utility.
Also, from where I stand I think there is an age thing going on. Some of my friends my age continue to be knowledgeable of, and comfortable with, all these technological innovations. But a lot of people my age (and younger) need help with, for example, learning to use their computers. The other day I heard an 84-year-old man say that he didn’t know what karaoke is. As the writer Judith Viorst once said, It's hard to be hip after 40.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
I completely leapfrogged over the era when people were buying those huge devices called DLP TVs that would totally dominate a room. Sit in the corner and stare at you. Usually, I'm not the first one to go right out and buy some new technology or toy—but I'm not the last, either.
It seems like every new electronic device is so complicated. Luckily, this TV (and probably almost all of them) steps you through the initial setup—at least the channel scan—with prompts. And for audio and picture settings, there are the factory defaults or presets. I have a feeling that 98% of owners use those presets and never change them.
Which gets me to my main point. How many of us really know how to exploit the features and settings and options of our electronic toys—our cell phones, our computers, even our cars? I know for fact that, since computer ownership has become so mainstream, many people have a very shaky knowledge of, say, their operating system (e.g., Windows) and need some sort of computer help at one time or another. So operation has gotten too complex. Consumer Reports magazine recently rated some Ford and Lincoln models as "not recommended," because their command system--MyFord Touch and MyLincoln Touch, I believe--is too complicated. They said good old-fashioned knobs and switches would be better: easier to use and less distracting for the driver.
Then there's just the matter of hook-up. An awful lot of people need help just with hooking up their TVs, computers, etc. I know because I have helped others hook up their computers, stereos, and so forth, many times. And occasionally I myself have been confused, if only momentarily, by a complicated hookup.
I can manage my computer all right and seldom if ever have had to seek any help. And ditto for my cell phone. With my previous car, I had to spend a lot of time studying the owner's manual, since it was somewhat fancy and had a lot of features I wasn't accustomed to. ("The car will do such-and-such, except when this or that or an alternate Tuesdays.") I bet we often discover some of the features only accidentally (happened to me).
I tend to feel that all this stuff complicates our lives. Yes, it's definitely cool what some of these things can do. Our "toys" are fun, convenient, helpful. But I find myself yearning for the days when my clock radio (probably now over 30 years old) would have been considered complicated. I feel I'm almost capable of becoming a real Luddite (named for a man who was a leader in protests and even sabotage of the new machinery that came in with the Industrial Revolution).
Interestingly, later (since I originally posted this) there came news that Consumer Reports removed its recommendations on one Ford and one Lincoln vehicle because their touch-screen-driven command system (MyFord Touch and MyLincoln Touch) is unnecessarily complicated and too much of a distraction to the driver. They said good old-fashioned knobs and switches would be better. Kinda makes me think that we've been seeking complexity and sophistication for its own sake and not for practical reasons or for real utility.
Also, from where I stand I think there is an age thing going on. Some of my friends my age continue to be knowledgeable of, and comfortable with, all these technological innovations. But a lot of people my age (and younger) need help with, for example, learning to use their computers. The other day I heard an 84-year-old man say that he didn’t know what karaoke is. As the writer Judith Viorst once said, It's hard to be hip after 40.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
My Newest Pet Peeve--Acronyms
I have a new pet peeve—acronyms.
A couple of months ago I wrote the author of an online article, castigating him for using acronyms in his article and never spelling them out. Good writing practice would be to give both the spelled-out form and the acronym for the first occurrence of the term; then subsequent occurrences can use just the acronym.
But unfortunately too many writers assume we are familiar with the acronym. Just today I saw PMP and didn't know what it meant. And, still today, I saw NWS, but was able to figure that one out, largely from the context—National Weather Service. And I've had the experience of having to figure out an acronym or at least hunt pretty hard for the full form a couple other times within the last few days.
Certain fields are notorious for talking in "alphabet soup." That's fine, as long as the readers as well as the writers are clued in and speak the same language. But, rather than assuming that your reader can follow you, a writer should do as I said above, give the spelled-out form the first time.
And I won't even go into the usage of the military, where acronyms like NORAD and collapsed forms of words like noncom (non-commissioned officer) are the norm. George Orwell, in his novel 1984 (written in 1949) called such usage "newspeak." He portrayed it as one of the tools of his fictional totalitarian society. I don't think the usage of bureaucrats and technocrats has gotten any better in this respect since Orwell's day.
Anyway, what I have recourse to (and recommend to my readers) is an immensely useful website, www.acronymfinder.com.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
A couple of months ago I wrote the author of an online article, castigating him for using acronyms in his article and never spelling them out. Good writing practice would be to give both the spelled-out form and the acronym for the first occurrence of the term; then subsequent occurrences can use just the acronym.
But unfortunately too many writers assume we are familiar with the acronym. Just today I saw PMP and didn't know what it meant. And, still today, I saw NWS, but was able to figure that one out, largely from the context—National Weather Service. And I've had the experience of having to figure out an acronym or at least hunt pretty hard for the full form a couple other times within the last few days.
Certain fields are notorious for talking in "alphabet soup." That's fine, as long as the readers as well as the writers are clued in and speak the same language. But, rather than assuming that your reader can follow you, a writer should do as I said above, give the spelled-out form the first time.
And I won't even go into the usage of the military, where acronyms like NORAD and collapsed forms of words like noncom (non-commissioned officer) are the norm. George Orwell, in his novel 1984 (written in 1949) called such usage "newspeak." He portrayed it as one of the tools of his fictional totalitarian society. I don't think the usage of bureaucrats and technocrats has gotten any better in this respect since Orwell's day.
Anyway, what I have recourse to (and recommend to my readers) is an immensely useful website, www.acronymfinder.com.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Monday, December 6, 2010
The Population Problem--Again
The following problems all have one thing in common:
All these things are ultimately caused by, and are being made worse by, TOO MANY PEOPLE. More people means more energy used, more pollution and more trash created as our waste, and more land used for housing, shopping centers, etc.
The human species has been too successful on this planet, at the expense of other species. We are crowding out other species because we are destroying habitat to create human homes and farms. We are making the planet uninhabitable because of our waste products.
The world's population was less than 2 billion in 1920. Forty years later, in 1960, it had grown by 50%, to 3 billion. After another forty years (2000) it had doubled to 6 billion.* So the rise is exponential. Can anyone see the danger here?
We can't blame the very populous countries like China and India. China has limited its families to having only one child and India has made progress in limiting its population growth.
We can't blame African or South American countries.
People in America feel that, if they can afford to do so, they should have all the children they want. And they feel we have plenty of space in America.
This is not so. Even American population growth has its consequences. Yesterday's U.S. farms are today's shopping malls and subdivisions. We are straining water resources in much of the West. For example, Los Angeles' water demand for years now has meant that that city essentially steals water from lakes and rivers far to the north, and these lakes and rivers are drying up because their water is piped to Los Angeles. Other desert cities like Las Vegas also have to have their water—a lot of it, in the case of Vegas—brought from far away.
Also, every American added to the world's population places a greater strain on the world's ecosystem than a human anywhere else, because nowhere else in the world—not even in Europe—do people consume as much energy—as much of everything—and create as much waste as an American does. America, with just 5 percent of the world's people, uses 25 percent of the world's resources.
A fundamental change is needed in how we view human fertility. We must stop congratulating parents when they have seven or six or five or even four children. From the standpoint of the welfare of the planet, such uncontrolled fertility is downright immoral, and we need to begin to view it that way and exercise "social control" (if not law, as in China) to discourage over-reproduction. I feel the government should stop incentivizing the bearing of children as it does with the current income tax deduction. At least the deduction should apply only to the first one or two children.
Of course we also need to have the Catholic Church stop discouraging birth control. An optimistic sign is that, in some areas of South America, women may defy both their husbands and the Catholic Church and travel great distances to get family planning advice.
___________
* Source: Wikipedia, s.v. world population.
Update, November 25, 2011
Predictions now call for another billion people (to 8 billion, from the 7 billion reached very recently) to be added by the year 2024. Of course this, like any prediction, is based on a certain scenario, certain assumptions. It is actually not a worst-case scenario and in fact assumes a decrease in the world-wide fertility rate.
Population increases not only because of the number of births but also because of increasing life expectancy.
As to the Catholic Church and contraception, here are some interesting statistics for the current use of contraception by religious group:
Evangelicals, 74%
Mainstream Protestants, 73%
Catholics, 68%
So, the notion seems to be correct that a majority of Catholic women in the US (and this would hold for other developed countries) ignore their church's teachings on birth control. However, note that the number is still lower than for other religious groups. And, if I had statistics for heavily Catholic countries such as those in Latin America, I'm confident that they would show that the rate of use of family planning methods is lower in those countries.
Only 2% of Catholic women use "natural family planning (periodic abstinence, temperature rhythm, and cervical mucous tests)," according to statistics reported by Population Connection. This finding is reasonable since those methods are not very effective.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
- Extinction of plant and animal species on land
- Depletion of the oceans' fish due to overfishing
- Air and water pollution
- Demand for energy that has consequences such as oil spills
- Global warming, which in turn is caused by
- Rainforest destruction
- Greenhouse gas emissions
All these things are ultimately caused by, and are being made worse by, TOO MANY PEOPLE. More people means more energy used, more pollution and more trash created as our waste, and more land used for housing, shopping centers, etc.
The human species has been too successful on this planet, at the expense of other species. We are crowding out other species because we are destroying habitat to create human homes and farms. We are making the planet uninhabitable because of our waste products.
The world's population was less than 2 billion in 1920. Forty years later, in 1960, it had grown by 50%, to 3 billion. After another forty years (2000) it had doubled to 6 billion.* So the rise is exponential. Can anyone see the danger here?
We can't blame the very populous countries like China and India. China has limited its families to having only one child and India has made progress in limiting its population growth.
We can't blame African or South American countries.
People in America feel that, if they can afford to do so, they should have all the children they want. And they feel we have plenty of space in America.
This is not so. Even American population growth has its consequences. Yesterday's U.S. farms are today's shopping malls and subdivisions. We are straining water resources in much of the West. For example, Los Angeles' water demand for years now has meant that that city essentially steals water from lakes and rivers far to the north, and these lakes and rivers are drying up because their water is piped to Los Angeles. Other desert cities like Las Vegas also have to have their water—a lot of it, in the case of Vegas—brought from far away.
Also, every American added to the world's population places a greater strain on the world's ecosystem than a human anywhere else, because nowhere else in the world—not even in Europe—do people consume as much energy—as much of everything—and create as much waste as an American does. America, with just 5 percent of the world's people, uses 25 percent of the world's resources.
A fundamental change is needed in how we view human fertility. We must stop congratulating parents when they have seven or six or five or even four children. From the standpoint of the welfare of the planet, such uncontrolled fertility is downright immoral, and we need to begin to view it that way and exercise "social control" (if not law, as in China) to discourage over-reproduction. I feel the government should stop incentivizing the bearing of children as it does with the current income tax deduction. At least the deduction should apply only to the first one or two children.
Of course we also need to have the Catholic Church stop discouraging birth control. An optimistic sign is that, in some areas of South America, women may defy both their husbands and the Catholic Church and travel great distances to get family planning advice.
___________
* Source: Wikipedia, s.v. world population.
Update, November 25, 2011
Predictions now call for another billion people (to 8 billion, from the 7 billion reached very recently) to be added by the year 2024. Of course this, like any prediction, is based on a certain scenario, certain assumptions. It is actually not a worst-case scenario and in fact assumes a decrease in the world-wide fertility rate.
Population increases not only because of the number of births but also because of increasing life expectancy.
As to the Catholic Church and contraception, here are some interesting statistics for the current use of contraception by religious group:
Evangelicals, 74%
Mainstream Protestants, 73%
Catholics, 68%
So, the notion seems to be correct that a majority of Catholic women in the US (and this would hold for other developed countries) ignore their church's teachings on birth control. However, note that the number is still lower than for other religious groups. And, if I had statistics for heavily Catholic countries such as those in Latin America, I'm confident that they would show that the rate of use of family planning methods is lower in those countries.
Only 2% of Catholic women use "natural family planning (periodic abstinence, temperature rhythm, and cervical mucous tests)," according to statistics reported by Population Connection. This finding is reasonable since those methods are not very effective.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Some Thoughts on Money
First, two I have quoted before:
And a couple of others:
Only those who already have enough money can scorn or despise money.
In a biopic about Katherine Hepburn, who came from a very well-to-do Connecticut family, there is a scene where Katherine brings Howard Hughes home to her family. In reply to a comment of Hughes', one of Katherine's family—I think it was her mother—says, "We never talk about money." Again, that's an attitude only the very comfortably well off can take—or can afford to take.
The late, great Anna Russell—a British performer who created satires and spoofs of musical works--wrote a little work to illustrate "writing your own Gilbert and Sullivan operetta." In this little satirical operetta of hers, she has a character sing,
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
I've been rich, and I've been poor. And believe me, rich is better. (Sophie Tucker)
Them what has, gets. (my late mother; and no, she didn't normally talk like that)
And a couple of others:
Only those who already have enough money can scorn or despise money.
In a biopic about Katherine Hepburn, who came from a very well-to-do Connecticut family, there is a scene where Katherine brings Howard Hughes home to her family. In reply to a comment of Hughes', one of Katherine's family—I think it was her mother—says, "We never talk about money." Again, that's an attitude only the very comfortably well off can take—or can afford to take.
The late, great Anna Russell—a British performer who created satires and spoofs of musical works--wrote a little work to illustrate "writing your own Gilbert and Sullivan operetta." In this little satirical operetta of hers, she has a character sing,
Oh, it's awfully, awfully funny,
To have lots and lots of money,
And be horrible to those who've none.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Friday, December 3, 2010
Hold Your Nose, Here's an Unpleasant Subject!
Here's a subject you don't see discussed every day—poop. That's poo, doo-doo, shit, crap, good old feces. (Yes, I'm really blogging about it!) No doubt it's discussed by doctors with their patients, but it's a subject we're not completely comfortable with.
Of course it's an essential and inevitable part of everyday life. (And if it's not literally every day, we say we're constipated. Sorry for the little joke, couldn't resist.) There was a book for children called Everybody Poops. (Along somewhat the same lines, there was also a children's book—and I love this one—called The Gas We Pass.) Yet I bet we are uncomfortable with it.
I wonder how many people wish they didn't have to poop. My late mother was, shall we say, very fastidious, and I bet she wished she didn't have to poop.
(And speaking of the fastidious--a year ago I spent some time with a very old (in both senses) boyfriend of mine and found out he's really quite obsessive about cleaning his "B-hole," as he called it, after going to the bathroom. I put him on to those wet wipes which work very well for that purpose. Now he'll think of me every time he wipes his ass. Sweet.)
Think about people who are hospitalized and have to use a bed pan, have to call for someone to bring the bed pan and then take it away. I bet the patient hates having to do that, both having to have the help and having to make someone else carry away his or her poop.
Worse, the ill or infirm person who (as we say, rather euphemistically) "soils himself."
We are uncomfortable with bodily products—secretions, discharges, and so forth: feces, urine, nasal discharge, vomit. But presumably not tears and not (for most people) blood. Maybe not earwax. One could probably think of some others.
An interesting theory was proposed by an anthropologist to explain this. He said that we are made uncomfortable by any ambiguity between the "me" and the "not-me." That's interesting, and perhaps plausible considering that an infant has to learn the boundaries between the "me" and the "not-me," and in the course of doing so will put his toe in his mouth.
But this theory might not hold up. As I mentioned, probably most people don't strongly dislike blood. Nor nail clippings, shorn hair, maybe not earwax and some others. If these are possible problems with that anthropologist's clever idea, then we still need an explanation as to why we are uncomfortable with poop, etc. Of course--and I have to add this before someone else points this out--with poop and vomit also, part of our aversion may be due to the smell.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Of course it's an essential and inevitable part of everyday life. (And if it's not literally every day, we say we're constipated. Sorry for the little joke, couldn't resist.) There was a book for children called Everybody Poops. (Along somewhat the same lines, there was also a children's book—and I love this one—called The Gas We Pass.) Yet I bet we are uncomfortable with it.
I wonder how many people wish they didn't have to poop. My late mother was, shall we say, very fastidious, and I bet she wished she didn't have to poop.
(And speaking of the fastidious--a year ago I spent some time with a very old (in both senses) boyfriend of mine and found out he's really quite obsessive about cleaning his "B-hole," as he called it, after going to the bathroom. I put him on to those wet wipes which work very well for that purpose. Now he'll think of me every time he wipes his ass. Sweet.)
Think about people who are hospitalized and have to use a bed pan, have to call for someone to bring the bed pan and then take it away. I bet the patient hates having to do that, both having to have the help and having to make someone else carry away his or her poop.
Worse, the ill or infirm person who (as we say, rather euphemistically) "soils himself."
We are uncomfortable with bodily products—secretions, discharges, and so forth: feces, urine, nasal discharge, vomit. But presumably not tears and not (for most people) blood. Maybe not earwax. One could probably think of some others.
An interesting theory was proposed by an anthropologist to explain this. He said that we are made uncomfortable by any ambiguity between the "me" and the "not-me." That's interesting, and perhaps plausible considering that an infant has to learn the boundaries between the "me" and the "not-me," and in the course of doing so will put his toe in his mouth.
But this theory might not hold up. As I mentioned, probably most people don't strongly dislike blood. Nor nail clippings, shorn hair, maybe not earwax and some others. If these are possible problems with that anthropologist's clever idea, then we still need an explanation as to why we are uncomfortable with poop, etc. Of course--and I have to add this before someone else points this out--with poop and vomit also, part of our aversion may be due to the smell.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Thursday, December 2, 2010
I Know I've Said This Before: The Republican Party Is for the Rich
We are just now seeing evidence of something I've been saying for a long time. The Republicans in Congress are opposing a tax-cut extension if it does not continue the tax breaks for the rich.
If anyone needed evidence that the Republican Party is all about the rich and privileged, they should take note of this and doubt no longer.
I just cannot comprehend the "common man" who supports the Republicans when (as I know I have said repeatedly) they are the party of the rich, the privileged, and big, powerful corporations (who unabashedly buy legislators' support).
We keep hearing how serious the nation's deficit, and the national debt, are. Raising taxes on those who can afford it the best should be a no-brainer. I can't understand how the Republicans think the American public in general will have enough sympathy for the rich to want to spare them a tax increase.
But wait a minute. There has been this phenomenon in America: Americans would never (just to conjure up an image as an example) stone the Rolls-Royces. It's because every American believes he might some day be rich. For the poorer folks, maybe it's a foolish faith that they're going to win the lottery, or that some other miracle is going to happen for them. But studies have shown, nearly everyone in America thinks he might be rich some day. On the other hand, with the grim economic conditions we've had recently, maybe many Americans have begun to wake up from that chapter of "the American dream."
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
If anyone needed evidence that the Republican Party is all about the rich and privileged, they should take note of this and doubt no longer.
I just cannot comprehend the "common man" who supports the Republicans when (as I know I have said repeatedly) they are the party of the rich, the privileged, and big, powerful corporations (who unabashedly buy legislators' support).
We keep hearing how serious the nation's deficit, and the national debt, are. Raising taxes on those who can afford it the best should be a no-brainer. I can't understand how the Republicans think the American public in general will have enough sympathy for the rich to want to spare them a tax increase.
But wait a minute. There has been this phenomenon in America: Americans would never (just to conjure up an image as an example) stone the Rolls-Royces. It's because every American believes he might some day be rich. For the poorer folks, maybe it's a foolish faith that they're going to win the lottery, or that some other miracle is going to happen for them. But studies have shown, nearly everyone in America thinks he might be rich some day. On the other hand, with the grim economic conditions we've had recently, maybe many Americans have begun to wake up from that chapter of "the American dream."
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Human Good and Evil
That heading sounds extremely presumptuous, I know. Not I nor anyone will have the last word on that subject. Greater minds than mine have tried.
The previous post talked about mankind or humanity collectively. One more thought on that: When individuals constitute a mob, the collective intelligence can go totally wild and berserk. That's implicit in the idea of a mob. The mob tramples, the mob lynches. Even in demonstrations, when a political position has to be reduced to a few words to make a slogan chanted or put on a banner or a placard, it is worse than oversimplified: it's an idea reduced almost to meaninglessness, all the thought and rationality taken out of it. Maybe that's a main reason I don't participate in demonstrations.
But now I want to talk about individuals. There are good people and bad people. I didn't used to believe that there was such a thing as evil or evil people. However, when we have people who lie, rob, cheat; when we have dictators and mass murderers who arrest and "disappear" and torture and murder sometimes tens and hundreds of thousands of people—Hitler, Pol Pot in Cambodia, Gen. Pinochet in Chile, with a little thought the sad list can become far too long—we might have to wonder whether there are evil people or if evil in the abstract exists.
Certainly it looks as though some people have no conscience. I think that criminologists call these people amoral or sociopaths or criminally insane. Others, such as the "financiers," for example, who manage to cheat others out of millions of dollars, maybe their greed gets the best of them, consumes them, lets them subordinate their conscience or rationalize their actions.
It's not clear to me that religion effectively restrains people from committing evil. Big mafiosi would go to church on Sundays and go on having people killed the other six days of the week. Not to mention that religion has often induced people to do harm, but that would be going off on another, very large topic.
I tend to think that good and bad—angel and devil, if you want to use the terms, but I'd only use them metaphorically—both exist within each of us. That is, I think even the best of us can behave horribly and certainly be unkind, even horribly cruel, to others.
In between the whole of the human species and individuals there are groups. Within any group (of a certain size) you've got the whole range of humanity, from good to bad. I have often written critically about the police, but I'm sure that, within any large enough group of police, you would find the whole range, from good to bad—with probably a majority in the middle who are neither outstandingly good nor definitely bad, either. So maybe there are lots of individuals in that great middle who now and then, when there are little incidents of bending the rules, will close their eyes or turn a deaf ear. But maybe the big stinkers started out that way.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
The previous post talked about mankind or humanity collectively. One more thought on that: When individuals constitute a mob, the collective intelligence can go totally wild and berserk. That's implicit in the idea of a mob. The mob tramples, the mob lynches. Even in demonstrations, when a political position has to be reduced to a few words to make a slogan chanted or put on a banner or a placard, it is worse than oversimplified: it's an idea reduced almost to meaninglessness, all the thought and rationality taken out of it. Maybe that's a main reason I don't participate in demonstrations.
But now I want to talk about individuals. There are good people and bad people. I didn't used to believe that there was such a thing as evil or evil people. However, when we have people who lie, rob, cheat; when we have dictators and mass murderers who arrest and "disappear" and torture and murder sometimes tens and hundreds of thousands of people—Hitler, Pol Pot in Cambodia, Gen. Pinochet in Chile, with a little thought the sad list can become far too long—we might have to wonder whether there are evil people or if evil in the abstract exists.
Certainly it looks as though some people have no conscience. I think that criminologists call these people amoral or sociopaths or criminally insane. Others, such as the "financiers," for example, who manage to cheat others out of millions of dollars, maybe their greed gets the best of them, consumes them, lets them subordinate their conscience or rationalize their actions.
It's not clear to me that religion effectively restrains people from committing evil. Big mafiosi would go to church on Sundays and go on having people killed the other six days of the week. Not to mention that religion has often induced people to do harm, but that would be going off on another, very large topic.
I tend to think that good and bad—angel and devil, if you want to use the terms, but I'd only use them metaphorically—both exist within each of us. That is, I think even the best of us can behave horribly and certainly be unkind, even horribly cruel, to others.
In between the whole of the human species and individuals there are groups. Within any group (of a certain size) you've got the whole range of humanity, from good to bad. I have often written critically about the police, but I'm sure that, within any large enough group of police, you would find the whole range, from good to bad—with probably a majority in the middle who are neither outstandingly good nor definitely bad, either. So maybe there are lots of individuals in that great middle who now and then, when there are little incidents of bending the rules, will close their eyes or turn a deaf ear. But maybe the big stinkers started out that way.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Thursday, November 18, 2010
My Verdict on Mankind--After 68 Years
Regular readers of my blog, if they happen to be very thoughtful people (or if they have the leisure and curiosity to do so), may have thought about what view of humanity is implicit in much of what I write.
If so, it's probably pretty clear to those people that I have a somewhat cynical view of human intelligence and rationality. For example, in the recent political season I was complaining about how easily people allow themselves to be manipulated by slogans--which always oversimplify issues—and other superficial, simplified, or downright wrong ideas. I feel that critical thinking is in short supply.
But we've somehow survived some major crossroads situations. When I was a young child in school, the Soviet Union had recently developed atomic bombs, and—remember, this was the Cold War, and a time of hysterical fear of Communism at home and abroad—the U.S. truly believed that the Soviets might attack the U.S. with nuclear-armed missiles. So our grade-school classes had bomb drills. In my school, we all moved into the corridors—away from windows, I guess. Evidently in some other schools it was "get under your desks and tuck your head down."
Well, at least for 60 years, mankind has managed to avoid mutual nuclear annihilation. To put it mildly, that's reassuring, and helps improve one's view of human rationality.
Now, however, we face a new set of challenges, like global warming. It remains to be seen whether nations can collectively move to preserve our planet from disaster this time. So maybe the jury is out on some questions.
Has there been progress? I think that nowadays we have higher standards, in some respects, for how we treat one another. On the other hand, remember that World War I was supposed to be "the war to end all wars." Then, after we had another world war, the United Nations was established to end armed conflict between nations. But we've failed, in almost a century since the First World War, to end war. We haven't had another conflict on a global scale in the 65 years since WW II, but the count of wars that have occurred worldwide in the last 50 years is astonishing. One problem there is that one thing has not changed: I feel that military, Pentagon types are overgrown boys who like their toys (they call them "weapons") and always want more and more destructive toys. But that is starting to go off on another subject.
I think that, in more general human affairs—how nations govern themselves, what wars are waged and what wars averted, what persecutions and genocides occur—humanity will manage to muddle through as it has for thousands of years. That is, we as a species will survive, but in the course of things there will be a lot of misery and killing caused to humans by humans.
So that is where my thinking has arrived, after a few decades of my life--not that I'm really quite old enough to be talking like a bona fide elder. I'm confident my perspective on things does not seem way out of step, or irrational. For another man's very thoughtful and thought-provoking view, read An Essay on Man (1773 - 1774) by Alexander Pope.
Update, September 9, 2011
I have to admit I get saddened and maybe discouraged by the innumerable and unceasing examples of human greed, selfishness, stupidity--and Man's capacity to lie. Think what a different world it would be if human beings could not lie, and you knew you could believe everything anyone said! Of course that's not going to happen.
But just now, if you look at the political situation in the US, it looks as though we've got plenty of obstacles in the way even of our being able to govern ourselves intelligently and effectively. And, as to global warming, I expect the planet to become a less and less habitable place as the consequences of global warming march on unchecked.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
If so, it's probably pretty clear to those people that I have a somewhat cynical view of human intelligence and rationality. For example, in the recent political season I was complaining about how easily people allow themselves to be manipulated by slogans--which always oversimplify issues—and other superficial, simplified, or downright wrong ideas. I feel that critical thinking is in short supply.
But we've somehow survived some major crossroads situations. When I was a young child in school, the Soviet Union had recently developed atomic bombs, and—remember, this was the Cold War, and a time of hysterical fear of Communism at home and abroad—the U.S. truly believed that the Soviets might attack the U.S. with nuclear-armed missiles. So our grade-school classes had bomb drills. In my school, we all moved into the corridors—away from windows, I guess. Evidently in some other schools it was "get under your desks and tuck your head down."
Well, at least for 60 years, mankind has managed to avoid mutual nuclear annihilation. To put it mildly, that's reassuring, and helps improve one's view of human rationality.
Now, however, we face a new set of challenges, like global warming. It remains to be seen whether nations can collectively move to preserve our planet from disaster this time. So maybe the jury is out on some questions.
Has there been progress? I think that nowadays we have higher standards, in some respects, for how we treat one another. On the other hand, remember that World War I was supposed to be "the war to end all wars." Then, after we had another world war, the United Nations was established to end armed conflict between nations. But we've failed, in almost a century since the First World War, to end war. We haven't had another conflict on a global scale in the 65 years since WW II, but the count of wars that have occurred worldwide in the last 50 years is astonishing. One problem there is that one thing has not changed: I feel that military, Pentagon types are overgrown boys who like their toys (they call them "weapons") and always want more and more destructive toys. But that is starting to go off on another subject.
I think that, in more general human affairs—how nations govern themselves, what wars are waged and what wars averted, what persecutions and genocides occur—humanity will manage to muddle through as it has for thousands of years. That is, we as a species will survive, but in the course of things there will be a lot of misery and killing caused to humans by humans.
So that is where my thinking has arrived, after a few decades of my life--not that I'm really quite old enough to be talking like a bona fide elder. I'm confident my perspective on things does not seem way out of step, or irrational. For another man's very thoughtful and thought-provoking view, read An Essay on Man (1773 - 1774) by Alexander Pope.
Update, September 9, 2011
I have to admit I get saddened and maybe discouraged by the innumerable and unceasing examples of human greed, selfishness, stupidity--and Man's capacity to lie. Think what a different world it would be if human beings could not lie, and you knew you could believe everything anyone said! Of course that's not going to happen.
But just now, if you look at the political situation in the US, it looks as though we've got plenty of obstacles in the way even of our being able to govern ourselves intelligently and effectively. And, as to global warming, I expect the planet to become a less and less habitable place as the consequences of global warming march on unchecked.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Soup for People into Healthy Eating
I eat a lot of soup; can't keep myself supplied with it. But since I became concerned about the BPA that is in cans, including soup cans, I've been buying only soup in boxes (and occasionally those little one-serving cups where you add water and microwave them). Also, I won't buy any soup that's high in sodium--which excludes probably about 90% of soup, both in cans and boxes.
One brand that seems to have appeared recently is called FIG Food Company. I just had their lentil soup, which I thought was pretty good. I also had their Tuscan White Bean soup, but that one I found rather pretty bland.
These come in little boxes (two servings) for about $3. A similar one is Dr. McDougal's. Some of their soups are pretty good, and some are bland. You've got to sample them and see which ones you like.
Since low-sodium soups can be a bit bland or even cardboard-y, I often add some of my own herbs or spices, and that makes a very worthwhile improvement. For example, cumin for the lentil soup, basil for anything tomato-y, curry powder sometimes, pepper in almost anything. Maybe a little Tobasco.
One brand that seems to have appeared recently is called FIG Food Company. I just had their lentil soup, which I thought was pretty good. I also had their Tuscan White Bean soup, but that one I found rather pretty bland.
These come in little boxes (two servings) for about $3. A similar one is Dr. McDougal's. Some of their soups are pretty good, and some are bland. You've got to sample them and see which ones you like.
Since low-sodium soups can be a bit bland or even cardboard-y, I often add some of my own herbs or spices, and that makes a very worthwhile improvement. For example, cumin for the lentil soup, basil for anything tomato-y, curry powder sometimes, pepper in almost anything. Maybe a little Tobasco.
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Is It True, or Just a Joke?
Unless you've been living in a cave or on top of the Himalayas, you know that "erectile dysfunction" has become a household word. This is because of the development--and incessant promotion--of drugs to treat this condition.
No word on what effect that has had on the birth rate.
Anyway, I ordered one of those drugs, Cialis, over the Internet. What I got was a huge poster of a naked woman. It said "This is Alice." The idea was, you see Alice, you get an erection.
That was just a joke, folks.
On another subject: I'm turning into some kind of monster, hybrid bird. I've got crow's feet and turkey neck.
That one may be funny, but it's not a joke.
My car isn't a V-8 or V-6. It's a VD. That's "very decrepit."
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
No word on what effect that has had on the birth rate.
Anyway, I ordered one of those drugs, Cialis, over the Internet. What I got was a huge poster of a naked woman. It said "This is Alice." The idea was, you see Alice, you get an erection.
That was just a joke, folks.
On another subject: I'm turning into some kind of monster, hybrid bird. I've got crow's feet and turkey neck.
That one may be funny, but it's not a joke.
My car isn't a V-8 or V-6. It's a VD. That's "very decrepit."
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
What Happened to Ancient Civilizations?
I'm quite interested in ancient history and archeology; and I continually come across names of peoples, kingdoms, empires, civilizations that are "lost"—that is, they disappeared, and many of the names of these cultures are not even widely known today.
What happened to these peoples? Well, in one case it's pretty well known what happened. Take the Celtic people known as Britons, who inhabited England before England was invaded by the Angles and Saxons (German peoples) around 450 A.D.
These Britons were driven west, into what is now Wales and Cornwall; and also many of them fled across the English Channel to Brittany (now you know how Brittany got its name).
Also, undoubtedly, many stayed where they were and lost their cultural (and linguistic) identity by being absorbed through intermarriage or acculturation. This might be somewhat similar to what happened to native peoples in the U.S. and some other countries, except that the process had a longer time to operate so it could have been accomplished more thoroughly.
Sadly, a very common scenario is conquest where many people are killed. In the case of many kingdoms and empires of the past, it's clear that the capital city fell in war. Surviving remains show evidence of siege and burning. For example, Alexander the Great (4th century BC) wanted to avenge the Persians' conquest of Greece. So when he, in his eastward march of conquest, came to the Persian capital of Persepolis, he was quite merciless in his destruction. Pretty much any conquest involved destruction: sacking, looting, burning. Many great cities were pretty much reduced to piles of rubble.
So what became of the people? Again, many doubtless were killed: by the sword, or they perished in the widespread conflagration of their city. As one example: Genghis Khan was renowned for his ruthlessness, and when he conquered a kingdom in what is now Afghanistan, he slaughtered nearly every last inhabitant.
Consider those who might have survived: What would you do if your house was burnt along with all your possessions? You'd pick up your family and try to escape and flee to some place that you considered safe, or that you knew about (and had an idea in what direction it lay) or where you might have had friends or relatives.
Of course the people who fled war and found refuge somewhere else would have been immigrants in their new home and would have eventually been absorbed, learning the new language and customs and so losing their original cultural identity.
The last scenario for the fall of an empire or kingdom might be called internal collapse. Two examples are the Hittites and the Maya. In these instances, the people did not necessarily or literally simply disappear off the face of the Earth.
The Hittites had a great kingdom in Anatolia (roughly modern Turkey) up to around 1100 B.C. Why their empire fell has only recently come to be understood, and it looks like it's pretty much a matter of internal strife, more or less civil war. In this case we know that the Hittite Empire was succeeded by smaller "Neo-Hittite" kingdoms. In other words, the people were still there, and they tried to pull things together after the great tragedy of the fall of their empire and get an organized society going again.
The Maya, who had a complex civilization in Mexico and Central America, are another case to look at. They (like a great many peoples) built "city-states." Some of these were rivals so again there was war and conquest. But even before the Spanish arrived to do their conquest thing, some of the great Maya city states apparently simply collapsed, their great ceremonial cities abandoned. Exactly what happened is not completely clear (one idea is that the people just sort of kicked out their kings). But the people, the race and language, are very much still alive.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
What happened to these peoples? Well, in one case it's pretty well known what happened. Take the Celtic people known as Britons, who inhabited England before England was invaded by the Angles and Saxons (German peoples) around 450 A.D.
These Britons were driven west, into what is now Wales and Cornwall; and also many of them fled across the English Channel to Brittany (now you know how Brittany got its name).
Also, undoubtedly, many stayed where they were and lost their cultural (and linguistic) identity by being absorbed through intermarriage or acculturation. This might be somewhat similar to what happened to native peoples in the U.S. and some other countries, except that the process had a longer time to operate so it could have been accomplished more thoroughly.
Sadly, a very common scenario is conquest where many people are killed. In the case of many kingdoms and empires of the past, it's clear that the capital city fell in war. Surviving remains show evidence of siege and burning. For example, Alexander the Great (4th century BC) wanted to avenge the Persians' conquest of Greece. So when he, in his eastward march of conquest, came to the Persian capital of Persepolis, he was quite merciless in his destruction. Pretty much any conquest involved destruction: sacking, looting, burning. Many great cities were pretty much reduced to piles of rubble.
So what became of the people? Again, many doubtless were killed: by the sword, or they perished in the widespread conflagration of their city. As one example: Genghis Khan was renowned for his ruthlessness, and when he conquered a kingdom in what is now Afghanistan, he slaughtered nearly every last inhabitant.
Consider those who might have survived: What would you do if your house was burnt along with all your possessions? You'd pick up your family and try to escape and flee to some place that you considered safe, or that you knew about (and had an idea in what direction it lay) or where you might have had friends or relatives.
Of course the people who fled war and found refuge somewhere else would have been immigrants in their new home and would have eventually been absorbed, learning the new language and customs and so losing their original cultural identity.
The last scenario for the fall of an empire or kingdom might be called internal collapse. Two examples are the Hittites and the Maya. In these instances, the people did not necessarily or literally simply disappear off the face of the Earth.
The Hittites had a great kingdom in Anatolia (roughly modern Turkey) up to around 1100 B.C. Why their empire fell has only recently come to be understood, and it looks like it's pretty much a matter of internal strife, more or less civil war. In this case we know that the Hittite Empire was succeeded by smaller "Neo-Hittite" kingdoms. In other words, the people were still there, and they tried to pull things together after the great tragedy of the fall of their empire and get an organized society going again.
The Maya, who had a complex civilization in Mexico and Central America, are another case to look at. They (like a great many peoples) built "city-states." Some of these were rivals so again there was war and conquest. But even before the Spanish arrived to do their conquest thing, some of the great Maya city states apparently simply collapsed, their great ceremonial cities abandoned. Exactly what happened is not completely clear (one idea is that the people just sort of kicked out their kings). But the people, the race and language, are very much still alive.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Monday, November 8, 2010
Food Insecurity in America
We learn from recent news that "food insecurity" is a growing problem in America—defined as not always having enough money for food. This means more children are not receiving adequate nutrition, and this might affect their performance in school. Another factor that may be associated with food insecurity is that fact that the height of Americans has ceased to increase and in fact has decreased. Americans used to be the tallest nation but now the Dutch are on average taller—by two inches (5 cm).
The U.S. is ranked third in the world in incidence of obesity (meaning we are the third fattest country, and numbers 1 and 2 are very small island nations). Perhaps paradoxically, obesity in many Americans results from a poor diet which in turn is a result of lack of financial means. Lower-income families have more frequent recourse to fast food, which provides cheap nutrition and lots of calories, but carries with it lots of fat and sodium.
Also, lower income people can't afford healthier foods like fresh fruit and vegetables and whole grains. Also, I increasingly read that people in poorer areas often do not have access to stores that provide wide food choices. Stores with wide nutritional offerings are simply absent from many areas such as minority neighborhoods.
So, while we are among the fattest on the planet, we are far from the best-nourished. A national shame.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
The U.S. is ranked third in the world in incidence of obesity (meaning we are the third fattest country, and numbers 1 and 2 are very small island nations). Perhaps paradoxically, obesity in many Americans results from a poor diet which in turn is a result of lack of financial means. Lower-income families have more frequent recourse to fast food, which provides cheap nutrition and lots of calories, but carries with it lots of fat and sodium.
Also, lower income people can't afford healthier foods like fresh fruit and vegetables and whole grains. Also, I increasingly read that people in poorer areas often do not have access to stores that provide wide food choices. Stores with wide nutritional offerings are simply absent from many areas such as minority neighborhoods.
So, while we are among the fattest on the planet, we are far from the best-nourished. A national shame.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Friday, November 5, 2010
Can Money Buy Happiness?
Ethel Merman (famous vaudeville star early in the 20th century) famously said, "I've been rich, and I've been poor; and believe me, rich is better."
My way of putting it would be, Rich gets more points in the game of life than Poor. Many privileges are bestowed on those with money. Big contributors to theatre troupes get assigned better seats at performances, and it's the big benefactors who get invited to serve on the boards of non-profit organizations. I support a local academic/scholarly/cultural institution; but the people who pay more, for a different class of membership, are invited to special events that I do not get invited to. People who contribute more to their local PBS station get all kinds of free gifts. Etc., ad nauseam.
My mother used to put it thusly: Him what has, gets. And it's so true.
Something in me always feels that that is not fair. But then, the more mature attitude is that life is not fair.
I do, as my readers may know, tend to have sympathy for the less-advantaged, rather than the privileged. Those who are old enough may remember Pete Seeger, a folk singer. Pete was a great champion of the common man and sang union songs, anti-war songs, and so forth. He was one of my heroes (he suffered for his views because he was blacklisted during the McCarthy Era).
Present-day America is characterized by pursuit of money and possessions (of course one of the main uses of money is to acquire stuff). There are sayings like The best things in life are free. Money can't buy happiness.
A recent study that I read about tried to test whether those with more money are indeed happier. Very interesting. They said that having more money, up to a certain level ($75,000), does make one happier. I guess that "freedom from want" makes for greater happiness, and I'd certainly say that makes sense. But, according to the study, increase in wealth beyond that level does not make for greater happiness.
Then why do people do illegal and semi-legal things to gain money? Is it for the sake of privileges like the ones I mentioned above?
Update, February 25, 2012
Some further thoughts, maybe not quite on the subject of money and happiness, but still on the topic of the privileges that money gets one.
I remembered another old saying, "Money talks." It's very true. Those with wealth usually also have various kinds of power or influence, too.
It may be a matter of how you are treated in various spheres of life. I am not usually on the wealthy/influential end of things, but here's one example where I am (or was):
A lot of organizations like colleges, universities, and other non-profits that depend on contributions employ someone with the title of "Development" chair or officer or vice-president (etc.). "Development," in a world where things were more honestly labeled, would be called "kissing the asses of rich people." It's the job of these people to bring in contributions, so they interact with potential donors. On any (very rare) occasion when I might be in the position of a donor, potential or actual, I find that I can talk to these "development" people and they will jump to try to make or keep me happy--apologizing for anything I might have to gripe about, trying to fix this or that, doing what they can to appease or please or satisfy me.
Money talks.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
My way of putting it would be, Rich gets more points in the game of life than Poor. Many privileges are bestowed on those with money. Big contributors to theatre troupes get assigned better seats at performances, and it's the big benefactors who get invited to serve on the boards of non-profit organizations. I support a local academic/scholarly/cultural institution; but the people who pay more, for a different class of membership, are invited to special events that I do not get invited to. People who contribute more to their local PBS station get all kinds of free gifts. Etc., ad nauseam.
My mother used to put it thusly: Him what has, gets. And it's so true.
Something in me always feels that that is not fair. But then, the more mature attitude is that life is not fair.
I do, as my readers may know, tend to have sympathy for the less-advantaged, rather than the privileged. Those who are old enough may remember Pete Seeger, a folk singer. Pete was a great champion of the common man and sang union songs, anti-war songs, and so forth. He was one of my heroes (he suffered for his views because he was blacklisted during the McCarthy Era).
Present-day America is characterized by pursuit of money and possessions (of course one of the main uses of money is to acquire stuff). There are sayings like The best things in life are free. Money can't buy happiness.
A recent study that I read about tried to test whether those with more money are indeed happier. Very interesting. They said that having more money, up to a certain level ($75,000), does make one happier. I guess that "freedom from want" makes for greater happiness, and I'd certainly say that makes sense. But, according to the study, increase in wealth beyond that level does not make for greater happiness.
Then why do people do illegal and semi-legal things to gain money? Is it for the sake of privileges like the ones I mentioned above?
Update, February 25, 2012
Some further thoughts, maybe not quite on the subject of money and happiness, but still on the topic of the privileges that money gets one.
I remembered another old saying, "Money talks." It's very true. Those with wealth usually also have various kinds of power or influence, too.
It may be a matter of how you are treated in various spheres of life. I am not usually on the wealthy/influential end of things, but here's one example where I am (or was):
A lot of organizations like colleges, universities, and other non-profits that depend on contributions employ someone with the title of "Development" chair or officer or vice-president (etc.). "Development," in a world where things were more honestly labeled, would be called "kissing the asses of rich people." It's the job of these people to bring in contributions, so they interact with potential donors. On any (very rare) occasion when I might be in the position of a donor, potential or actual, I find that I can talk to these "development" people and they will jump to try to make or keep me happy--apologizing for anything I might have to gripe about, trying to fix this or that, doing what they can to appease or please or satisfy me.
Money talks.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
What Defines a Human Being?
For a long time, people have tried to define mankind, the human species, to distinguish it (him? us?) from "the animals."
We were told that Man was the tool-using animal, and then Jane Goodall, the woman who did the famous work with chimpanzees in Africa, discovered that chimps use tools—for example, they will take a twig, strip off the leaves, and poke it into a hole in a log and then withdraw it, covered with termites—and eat the termites.
We were told that Man has language. Well, chimps may not create language, but there have been a number of interesting experiments where chimps were taught to use human sign language.
Bees have a form of communication: When a bee has been out scouting for nectar and returns to the hive, it does a dance which indicates the direction and the distance to the source of nectar.
It's clear that crows are very intelligent and are able to communicate with one another. Dolphins have a system of clicks that may be a language. And we all have heard, or heard about, the songs of the humpback whale. Whales and dolphins are both aquatic mammals and have large brains as we do. Well, recent analysis of humpback whales' songs shows that they seem to have some of the properties of language.
It's also thought that humans have a mind/consciousness/self-awareness. Well, the chimp in the example above, with the twig, solved a problem--presumably because it has a mind. Also crows and squirrels can solve problems. Chimps seem to have self-awareness and even some dogs recognize themselves in a mirror--thus showing some concept of "self."
I want to ask: Why the need to find some defining characteristic of Homo sapiens so that we can state something that sets us apart from the animals (or, more properly, other animals)? We don't have any trouble recognizing our species and we don't ordinarily mistake a human for any other creature (nor do they mistake one of themselves for one of us, I'm pretty sure).
I think it's a religious motivation. Supposedly Man has a soul and animals do not. But think of the problem that presents: if you accept evolution, does an earlier species of Homo (e.g., Homo erectus) have a soul? What about still earlier hominid species like Australopithecus? Is it going to be possible to draw the line and decree that this species has (had) a soul and that one did not?
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
We were told that Man was the tool-using animal, and then Jane Goodall, the woman who did the famous work with chimpanzees in Africa, discovered that chimps use tools—for example, they will take a twig, strip off the leaves, and poke it into a hole in a log and then withdraw it, covered with termites—and eat the termites.
We were told that Man has language. Well, chimps may not create language, but there have been a number of interesting experiments where chimps were taught to use human sign language.
Bees have a form of communication: When a bee has been out scouting for nectar and returns to the hive, it does a dance which indicates the direction and the distance to the source of nectar.
It's clear that crows are very intelligent and are able to communicate with one another. Dolphins have a system of clicks that may be a language. And we all have heard, or heard about, the songs of the humpback whale. Whales and dolphins are both aquatic mammals and have large brains as we do. Well, recent analysis of humpback whales' songs shows that they seem to have some of the properties of language.
It's also thought that humans have a mind/consciousness/self-awareness. Well, the chimp in the example above, with the twig, solved a problem--presumably because it has a mind. Also crows and squirrels can solve problems. Chimps seem to have self-awareness and even some dogs recognize themselves in a mirror--thus showing some concept of "self."
I want to ask: Why the need to find some defining characteristic of Homo sapiens so that we can state something that sets us apart from the animals (or, more properly, other animals)? We don't have any trouble recognizing our species and we don't ordinarily mistake a human for any other creature (nor do they mistake one of themselves for one of us, I'm pretty sure).
I think it's a religious motivation. Supposedly Man has a soul and animals do not. But think of the problem that presents: if you accept evolution, does an earlier species of Homo (e.g., Homo erectus) have a soul? What about still earlier hominid species like Australopithecus? Is it going to be possible to draw the line and decree that this species has (had) a soul and that one did not?
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Monday, November 1, 2010
It's the Economy, Stupid
I hope this reaches the eyes of some of my readers in the next few hours, before they vote tomorrow (November 2) in the big U.S. midterm elections—because the economy is always a big issue in elections, and the incumbent party, the Democrats, have been getting the blame for the recession—which, by the way, the country's economy is pulling out of (and, according to economists' official measure for determining when the country is or is not in a recession, has already ended).
In the last few days or week I have been hearing a lot of economists' opinions and economic statistics that show that the U.S. economy is growing. It's growing, even if slowly.
The latest, just today, was that an index of manufacturing activity shows an increase.
Also, those who opposed the bailout of banking institutions and auto manufacturers last fall should note that AIG, the big insurer which received a bailout, is repaying $37 billion to the government. And the automakers have been repaying their bailout loans, too. The U.S. government is the largest shareholder in General Motors and stands to make a profit on the GM stock it holds.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
In the last few days or week I have been hearing a lot of economists' opinions and economic statistics that show that the U.S. economy is growing. It's growing, even if slowly.
The latest, just today, was that an index of manufacturing activity shows an increase.
Also, those who opposed the bailout of banking institutions and auto manufacturers last fall should note that AIG, the big insurer which received a bailout, is repaying $37 billion to the government. And the automakers have been repaying their bailout loans, too. The U.S. government is the largest shareholder in General Motors and stands to make a profit on the GM stock it holds.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
When Everybody Has a Gun
A driver in Atlanta shot a 17-year-old boy because the boy egged his Mercedes.
http://www.aolnews.com/crime/article/police-prankster-tivarus-king-shot-dead-after-egging-mercedes/19698342
And the boy later died. It will be interesting to see if the Mercedes owner is prosecuted for homicide.
If it were Texas, I think he'd get off on the grounds that he was "defending his property." I don't know if Georgia is much better; we'll have to wait and see.
To my mind, it's yet another example of how, when guns are widely owned, they can and will be used in anger--with tragic consequences.
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
http://www.aolnews.com/crime/article/police-prankster-tivarus-king-shot-dead-after-egging-mercedes/19698342
And the boy later died. It will be interesting to see if the Mercedes owner is prosecuted for homicide.
If it were Texas, I think he'd get off on the grounds that he was "defending his property." I don't know if Georgia is much better; we'll have to wait and see.
To my mind, it's yet another example of how, when guns are widely owned, they can and will be used in anger--with tragic consequences.
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Greed and Political Influence of Corporations Makes U.S. Rate as More Corrupt
A recent online article,
http://www.aolnews.com/money/article/perceived-us-corruption-grows-amid-financial-scandals/19690043
notes that, in a ranking of countries of the world according to corruption (at least as defined in this study) shows the U.S. as having slipped to No. 22 (with No. 1 being the least corrupt). The U.S. is remarkably free of bribery in public office compared to other countries; but
Another factor, as noted in the article, is the increasingly unrestrained and covert role of private money in the political system -- especially since the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in January, which former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor criticized as a threat to judicial independence and checks on campaign spending.
Update, May 27, 2011
Here I mention the Citizens United decision. I gave an incorrect impression, that that decision permits corporate contributions directly to candidates. It did not; rather it permits corporations to fund, for example, advertising on issues rather than candidates. (Thus we see TV "public service announcements" that advocate for or against a certain position or proposed law, and their sponsorship by corporations or industry trade groups is disguised by a statement such as "Paid for by Citizens for Such-and-Such.") However, in today's news, a judge has ruled that corporate contributions to candidates are legal.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
http://www.aolnews.com/money/article/perceived-us-corruption-grows-amid-financial-scandals/19690043
notes that, in a ranking of countries of the world according to corruption (at least as defined in this study) shows the U.S. as having slipped to No. 22 (with No. 1 being the least corrupt). The U.S. is remarkably free of bribery in public office compared to other countries; but
the past year of headline-making investigations into Wall Street practices and associated government lapses has brought to light a narrative of unbridled greed that has undermined confidence in public institutions and stoked perceptions of corruption here.
Another factor, as noted in the article, is the increasingly unrestrained and covert role of private money in the political system -- especially since the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in January, which former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor criticized as a threat to judicial independence and checks on campaign spending.
Update, May 27, 2011
Here I mention the Citizens United decision. I gave an incorrect impression, that that decision permits corporate contributions directly to candidates. It did not; rather it permits corporations to fund, for example, advertising on issues rather than candidates. (Thus we see TV "public service announcements" that advocate for or against a certain position or proposed law, and their sponsorship by corporations or industry trade groups is disguised by a statement such as "Paid for by Citizens for Such-and-Such.") However, in today's news, a judge has ruled that corporate contributions to candidates are legal.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
The Myth of "Big Government"
Two days ago, I think it was, a guy named Fox appeared on the PBS program "Nightly Business Report." This guy is the editor of the Harvard Business Review and so, presumably, a candidate for an MBA degree at Harvard--and MBA types are typically quite conservative.
He said that the idea of "big government," which the Tea Party types have been complaining about so vocally, is a myth. For one thing, he said, if you disregard the increase in spending for entitlements (e.g., Social Security, Medicare) and stimulus money, government spending has actually decreased.
But (as should not surprise any thoughtful person), many people like the Tea Partiers hold their opinions with a forcefulness which is in inverse proportion to their knowledge. In other words, the less they know, the more vocal they are.
And, like all zealous believers, their minds are made up and they don't wish to be confused with the facts.
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
He said that the idea of "big government," which the Tea Party types have been complaining about so vocally, is a myth. For one thing, he said, if you disregard the increase in spending for entitlements (e.g., Social Security, Medicare) and stimulus money, government spending has actually decreased.
But (as should not surprise any thoughtful person), many people like the Tea Partiers hold their opinions with a forcefulness which is in inverse proportion to their knowledge. In other words, the less they know, the more vocal they are.
And, like all zealous believers, their minds are made up and they don't wish to be confused with the facts.
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Why Should Americans Pay Any Taxes?
In the United States, it would be difficult for anyone to be unaware that it is election season. We are all being barraged by election/campaign messages—on our televisions, on our telephones, in our mailboxes.
Here in Illinois, our Democratic governor is up for re-election (this is the man who became governor when the infamous Rod Blagojevich was impeached, so this man was never elected governor on his own); and the man who was our state Treasurer is running for the Senate, to fill the seat once occupied by Barack Obama.
The State of Illinois is financially in crisis, with a huge budget deficit. Both the governor and the state Treasurer have said that, to rectify the deficit, our state income tax should be increased from 3% to 4%.
Probably no one likes to pay more taxes and, not surprisingly, Republicans are using pro–tax-increase statements by the Governor and the Treasurer as ammunition against them. Both the Republican party and the Tea Party keep railing against "big government" and politicians who want to increase taxes.
Now, let's remember that Bill Clinton left office with a surplus in the national budget. His successor, George W. Bush, cut taxes—and thus turned Clinton's budget surplus into a big deficit.
The conservatives who don't like tax increases also complain that the national debt is a "burden passed on to our children and grandchildren." They don't like the deficit but they don't like tax increases. Can you say "inconsistency"?
Also: the very same conservatives who don't like tax increases very generally support wars. The United States is fighting a war—no, two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan. These wars are expensive beyond most people's imagination. How do we pay for these wars, or any war? If the government does not have enough revenue coming in, it prints money or it borrows-- for example, by issuing Treasury bonds. (The relationship between government borrowing and "printing money" is a complex matter which I won't go into here.) This adds to the national debt.
So I'd like to ask the anti-tax folks if they'd favor immediately ending those wars. I think I know what they'd say. No, cut federal spending somewhere else.
Several government missions, like protecting us from unsafe food and unsafe drugs, are already underfunded. We've seen outbreaks of food-borne illnesses. The E. coli outbreaks caused by ground beef can be laid at the door of the Bush administration, which managed to not implement a Congressional mandate to increase inspection of meat-processing plants.
To some of the extreme anti-government people, I'd like to ask, Do you want the government to no longer help ensure the safety of our food, water, air, medicine?
Would you like the government to not have fire trucks to come to your aid when your house is on fire? To stop building roads? (By the way, we already have a near-crisis of deteriorating infrastructure: roads, bridges, sewer lines, and so forth.) To not install traffic lights?
Sure, let's just rely on the food industry to police itself. We all know that we can absolutely trust large business to act in the public interest.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Here in Illinois, our Democratic governor is up for re-election (this is the man who became governor when the infamous Rod Blagojevich was impeached, so this man was never elected governor on his own); and the man who was our state Treasurer is running for the Senate, to fill the seat once occupied by Barack Obama.
The State of Illinois is financially in crisis, with a huge budget deficit. Both the governor and the state Treasurer have said that, to rectify the deficit, our state income tax should be increased from 3% to 4%.
Probably no one likes to pay more taxes and, not surprisingly, Republicans are using pro–tax-increase statements by the Governor and the Treasurer as ammunition against them. Both the Republican party and the Tea Party keep railing against "big government" and politicians who want to increase taxes.
Now, let's remember that Bill Clinton left office with a surplus in the national budget. His successor, George W. Bush, cut taxes—and thus turned Clinton's budget surplus into a big deficit.
The conservatives who don't like tax increases also complain that the national debt is a "burden passed on to our children and grandchildren." They don't like the deficit but they don't like tax increases. Can you say "inconsistency"?
Also: the very same conservatives who don't like tax increases very generally support wars. The United States is fighting a war—no, two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan. These wars are expensive beyond most people's imagination. How do we pay for these wars, or any war? If the government does not have enough revenue coming in, it prints money or it borrows-- for example, by issuing Treasury bonds. (The relationship between government borrowing and "printing money" is a complex matter which I won't go into here.) This adds to the national debt.
So I'd like to ask the anti-tax folks if they'd favor immediately ending those wars. I think I know what they'd say. No, cut federal spending somewhere else.
Several government missions, like protecting us from unsafe food and unsafe drugs, are already underfunded. We've seen outbreaks of food-borne illnesses. The E. coli outbreaks caused by ground beef can be laid at the door of the Bush administration, which managed to not implement a Congressional mandate to increase inspection of meat-processing plants.
To some of the extreme anti-government people, I'd like to ask, Do you want the government to no longer help ensure the safety of our food, water, air, medicine?
Would you like the government to not have fire trucks to come to your aid when your house is on fire? To stop building roads? (By the way, we already have a near-crisis of deteriorating infrastructure: roads, bridges, sewer lines, and so forth.) To not install traffic lights?
Sure, let's just rely on the food industry to police itself. We all know that we can absolutely trust large business to act in the public interest.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Monday, October 25, 2010
U.S. Government Fostering Increase in Economic Inequality
In a recent blog posting I mentioned the increasing economic inequality among Americans. As an article in the online Daily Finance (see http://srph.it/bfM9fH) says,
This article also says that in fact the inequality is increasing:
A recent article in Smithsonian magazine says,
The Daily Finance article blames policies of the Federal Reserve system, specifically its keeping interest rates close to zero—which helps banks, who can borrow at an interest rate of almost nothing and then re-lend that money at 5%--thus making huge amounts of money. And this is at the expense of retirees and others who depend on interest from savings accounts and so forth for part of their income.
I credit the government and its economic policies with saving the U.S. and much of the world from total or near-total financial collapse in 2008; so I am not quick to criticize present government policies. But I have to admit that the Daily Finance article makes sense and is both sad and troubling. Furthering economic inequality is the last thing one expects from a Democratic administration.
_____________
*"Ready Set Grow," Smithsonian, July-August 2010, p. 67.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
The top 20% of Americans own 93% of all financial wealth. . . .
This article also says that in fact the inequality is increasing:
From 2002 to 2006, the top 1% of Americans received two-thirds of the gain in national income.
A recent article in Smithsonian magazine says,
In recent decades certain high-end occupation incomes grew rapidly, while wages for lower-income and middle-class workers stagnated.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[T]he rate of upward mobility has stagnated overall, as wages have largely failed to keep up with the cost of living. It is no easier for poor and working-class people to move up the socio-economic ladder today than it was in the 1970s; in some ways, it's more difficult.*
The Daily Finance article blames policies of the Federal Reserve system, specifically its keeping interest rates close to zero—which helps banks, who can borrow at an interest rate of almost nothing and then re-lend that money at 5%--thus making huge amounts of money. And this is at the expense of retirees and others who depend on interest from savings accounts and so forth for part of their income.
I credit the government and its economic policies with saving the U.S. and much of the world from total or near-total financial collapse in 2008; so I am not quick to criticize present government policies. But I have to admit that the Daily Finance article makes sense and is both sad and troubling. Furthering economic inequality is the last thing one expects from a Democratic administration.
_____________
*"Ready Set Grow," Smithsonian, July-August 2010, p. 67.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Sunday, October 24, 2010
What Do "Left Wing" and "Right Wing" Mean?
In some countries such as those in Latin America, "Left Wing" has meant favoring the rights, the voice, and the wages of workers and peasants, and maybe redistribution of land. "Right Wing," on the other hand, has meant favoring or preserving the power of those who've got money and influence—the wealthy, the traditional landowners.
These Latin American countries are agrarian countries with a very pronounced wealthy, landowning class, and a very definite, very poor class at the bottom (usually the indigenous peoples, who have faced egregious racial discrimination since Colonial times). And, in many counties elsewhere in the world, movements on the Left have struggled to further the rights and power of the poor, the masses—in opposition to entrenched monetary and political interests.
But obviously the United States is a different sort of animal altogether.
Well, maybe not. In the 1930s, Socialism was not a dirty word in the U.S., and you had a genuine socialist and even communist movement in the U.S. This was closely allied with the labor movement, which was still fighting for decent wages and working conditions for workers in mines and factories (and, by the way, often being resisted with clubs and occasionally bullets by the factory owners and their allies, the police).
And of course we have had our racial discrimination (and maybe gender discrimination), which has had the effect of causing one group to make less money than others.
And the United States has actually been moving in the direction of greater social inequality. Wealth is becoming more concentrated in the hands of the few at the top of the pecking order. This trend has been going on for a while, favored by tax policies which let the rich keep more of their money than they were able to when the scale of rates of our progressive income tax was steeper. (In other words, the "Bush tax cuts" that favored the rich, and no one has been able to argue that that was not the case.)
Here is a link to an article with some statistics on how wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few in the U.S.:
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/disturbing-statistics-on-the-decline-of-americas-middle-class/19676292/?icid=main%7Cmain%7Cdl1%7Csec4_lnk2%7C178480&icid=sphere_copyright
In the U.S., for a long time the principal political party on the Right has been the Republican Party. They are devoted to keeping taxes on corporations and on wealthy individuals low. Despite their attempts to include a wider following, such as by appealing in religious conservatives, and their attempts to have people believe otherwise, they are still the party of a rich minority.
Yet, in terms of who identifies as Republican or who votes Republican, it's not that simple. Many people support the Republican Party who are not in that wealthy upper few percent. Not wanting to oversimplify—I grant it's not that simple—I think that many times these people fail to perceive where their interests lie.
In previous blog postings I've gone into how I think the moneyed interests manage to evoke the sympathy and support of a wider base. They fund the Republican Party and now the Tea Party. And, with their money, they support candidates, lobby Congress, and do a lot of what is essentially propaganda, though nowadays we call it "public service messages" on TV.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
These Latin American countries are agrarian countries with a very pronounced wealthy, landowning class, and a very definite, very poor class at the bottom (usually the indigenous peoples, who have faced egregious racial discrimination since Colonial times). And, in many counties elsewhere in the world, movements on the Left have struggled to further the rights and power of the poor, the masses—in opposition to entrenched monetary and political interests.
But obviously the United States is a different sort of animal altogether.
Well, maybe not. In the 1930s, Socialism was not a dirty word in the U.S., and you had a genuine socialist and even communist movement in the U.S. This was closely allied with the labor movement, which was still fighting for decent wages and working conditions for workers in mines and factories (and, by the way, often being resisted with clubs and occasionally bullets by the factory owners and their allies, the police).
And of course we have had our racial discrimination (and maybe gender discrimination), which has had the effect of causing one group to make less money than others.
And the United States has actually been moving in the direction of greater social inequality. Wealth is becoming more concentrated in the hands of the few at the top of the pecking order. This trend has been going on for a while, favored by tax policies which let the rich keep more of their money than they were able to when the scale of rates of our progressive income tax was steeper. (In other words, the "Bush tax cuts" that favored the rich, and no one has been able to argue that that was not the case.)
Here is a link to an article with some statistics on how wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few in the U.S.:
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/disturbing-statistics-on-the-decline-of-americas-middle-class/19676292/?icid=main%7Cmain%7Cdl1%7Csec4_lnk2%7C178480&icid=sphere_copyright
In the U.S., for a long time the principal political party on the Right has been the Republican Party. They are devoted to keeping taxes on corporations and on wealthy individuals low. Despite their attempts to include a wider following, such as by appealing in religious conservatives, and their attempts to have people believe otherwise, they are still the party of a rich minority.
Yet, in terms of who identifies as Republican or who votes Republican, it's not that simple. Many people support the Republican Party who are not in that wealthy upper few percent. Not wanting to oversimplify—I grant it's not that simple—I think that many times these people fail to perceive where their interests lie.
In previous blog postings I've gone into how I think the moneyed interests manage to evoke the sympathy and support of a wider base. They fund the Republican Party and now the Tea Party. And, with their money, they support candidates, lobby Congress, and do a lot of what is essentially propaganda, though nowadays we call it "public service messages" on TV.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
How Corporations Are Controlling America
The trend continues for America to be controlled more and more by big business—who want everything to go according to what is in their interests—meaning their profits.
For a long time this was accomplished by lobbyists. Many industries have their trade associations who maintain offices in Washington because their chief activity is to marshal lobbyists who try to persuade Congressmen and Senators to vote their way. They do this with persuasion, which is completely legal; but also with favors to Congressmen like gifts, trips, and entertainment, which is not legal. Or with promising campaign contributions, which has become legal since the recent Supreme Court decision known as Citizens United.
Here is an article on how industry influence has prevailed over the interests of the public in the case of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/10/13/reform-of-toxic-chemicals-law-collapses-as-industry-flexes-its-m/
Here is a bit of the history of efforts to rein in industry influence on federal governmental regulation and law-making. Some progress to reduce the influence of corporate contributions to politicians was made by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, often referred to as the McCain–Feingold Act.
McCain-Feingold was upheld by the courts in a 2003 case known as McConnell v. Federal Elections Commission.
A later ruling (2007), known as Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., created a very big exemption—but the consequences of this supposedly are still up in the air.
Most recently (2010), Citizens United partly overturned McConnell. Now corporate contributions can once again have a great influence on our elections. The party or candidate who has the most money can buy the most TV commercials. That means more persuasion, which is likely to be effective with voters. And those corporate contributions go much more heavily to Republican candidates. (Maybe now some is going to Tea Party candidates, too; I don't have information on that.) Thus corporate money is achieving a more "business-friendly" America and will continue the process of turning our country toward the Right that got such a big boost when the likes of Scalia, Roberts, and Alito gained seats on the Supreme Court.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
For a long time this was accomplished by lobbyists. Many industries have their trade associations who maintain offices in Washington because their chief activity is to marshal lobbyists who try to persuade Congressmen and Senators to vote their way. They do this with persuasion, which is completely legal; but also with favors to Congressmen like gifts, trips, and entertainment, which is not legal. Or with promising campaign contributions, which has become legal since the recent Supreme Court decision known as Citizens United.
Here is an article on how industry influence has prevailed over the interests of the public in the case of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/10/13/reform-of-toxic-chemicals-law-collapses-as-industry-flexes-its-m/
Here is a bit of the history of efforts to rein in industry influence on federal governmental regulation and law-making. Some progress to reduce the influence of corporate contributions to politicians was made by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, often referred to as the McCain–Feingold Act.
McCain-Feingold was upheld by the courts in a 2003 case known as McConnell v. Federal Elections Commission.
A later ruling (2007), known as Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., created a very big exemption—but the consequences of this supposedly are still up in the air.
Most recently (2010), Citizens United partly overturned McConnell. Now corporate contributions can once again have a great influence on our elections. The party or candidate who has the most money can buy the most TV commercials. That means more persuasion, which is likely to be effective with voters. And those corporate contributions go much more heavily to Republican candidates. (Maybe now some is going to Tea Party candidates, too; I don't have information on that.) Thus corporate money is achieving a more "business-friendly" America and will continue the process of turning our country toward the Right that got such a big boost when the likes of Scalia, Roberts, and Alito gained seats on the Supreme Court.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Money, Greed, Materialism, Capitalism
The other day I ran into someone I used to know a long time ago (he said something about it being 20 years). I'll call him N.
This guy is maybe the gentlest soul I know. And he doesn't "got" anything. N. doesn't own a computer, he told me, and I wasn't really surprised. Either he's poor or he's an apostle of the simple life. Maybe both.
How much in contrast with the avarice and acquisitiveness that's prevalent in our society. And those who've got the most (money, possessions, whatever)—how did they get where they are?
Look at British society. Who are their landed gentry? How did they get to be what they are, with their estates and very large houses? Often, by being more rapacious than their fellow man. Chances are, they were on the winning side of some battle and their winning side seized whatever they could: land, livestock, etc.
And in America? I think we're starting to see more clearly that there's a lot of greed in America. For the sake of their personal financial gains, some aggressive, hungry young bucks on "Wall Street" engaged in one or another type of chicanery—and imperiled the entire U.S.-–no, the world—financial order.
Large corporations often focus on their "bottom line" to the degree that they deceive the public, the consumer, maybe withholding information on the dangers of the drugs, toys, baby accessories that they make and sell.
I used to say that "business ethics" was an oxymoron. Well, I no longer would say that every nook and corner of the business world is immoral or amoral. Businesses have now and then been good guys. In particular, I've gained more respect for small business. The typical small business owner works very hard and takes risks—to make a success with selling his ice cream or soup or cupcakes.
And, some people have had a good idea. The right idea at the right time and place, or some useful invention. These people deserve the success that they achieve.
However, look at this: How many big business tycoons have started foundations? From earlier times, there's the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation. Now we have the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, etc. These foundations have enormous sums of money to give away. Also, many wealthy families and individuals give away money and in return get their names on auditoriums, libraries, and so forth--and get more gratitude heaped on them than just bronze plaques.
All the money that these companies and individuals and foundations have—where did it ultimately come from? From you and me, from our pockets. Now, a really revolutionary idea: How about these guys charge less for their products? Let them make less money, let you and me keep more of our money. Rather than Bill Gates having obscene billions of dollars to give away, maybe you and I could have kept some of that money, and then we could decide where it should go.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
This guy is maybe the gentlest soul I know. And he doesn't "got" anything. N. doesn't own a computer, he told me, and I wasn't really surprised. Either he's poor or he's an apostle of the simple life. Maybe both.
How much in contrast with the avarice and acquisitiveness that's prevalent in our society. And those who've got the most (money, possessions, whatever)—how did they get where they are?
Look at British society. Who are their landed gentry? How did they get to be what they are, with their estates and very large houses? Often, by being more rapacious than their fellow man. Chances are, they were on the winning side of some battle and their winning side seized whatever they could: land, livestock, etc.
And in America? I think we're starting to see more clearly that there's a lot of greed in America. For the sake of their personal financial gains, some aggressive, hungry young bucks on "Wall Street" engaged in one or another type of chicanery—and imperiled the entire U.S.-–no, the world—financial order.
Large corporations often focus on their "bottom line" to the degree that they deceive the public, the consumer, maybe withholding information on the dangers of the drugs, toys, baby accessories that they make and sell.
I used to say that "business ethics" was an oxymoron. Well, I no longer would say that every nook and corner of the business world is immoral or amoral. Businesses have now and then been good guys. In particular, I've gained more respect for small business. The typical small business owner works very hard and takes risks—to make a success with selling his ice cream or soup or cupcakes.
And, some people have had a good idea. The right idea at the right time and place, or some useful invention. These people deserve the success that they achieve.
However, look at this: How many big business tycoons have started foundations? From earlier times, there's the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation. Now we have the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, etc. These foundations have enormous sums of money to give away. Also, many wealthy families and individuals give away money and in return get their names on auditoriums, libraries, and so forth--and get more gratitude heaped on them than just bronze plaques.
All the money that these companies and individuals and foundations have—where did it ultimately come from? From you and me, from our pockets. Now, a really revolutionary idea: How about these guys charge less for their products? Let them make less money, let you and me keep more of our money. Rather than Bill Gates having obscene billions of dollars to give away, maybe you and I could have kept some of that money, and then we could decide where it should go.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Driving More Safely and More Economically
Some more observations on how people drive, at least here in the big city and its environs.
There's no doubt that big-city drivers drive very aggressively. This may consist of various unsafe behaviors such as aggressively changing lanes and weaving in and out in an attempt to pass everybody out (this counts as road rage and could get you a ticket). Another such behavior is what is known as "late merging."
I think there are at least two things behind this aggressive behavior behind the wheel. One is a sort of competitiveness. I'm not sure if these guys and gals are trying to prove their driving skill or to show that they and their vehicles can get to some point down the road more quickly than the rest of us—which might be the same thing.
Another is just being in a hurry. I already wrote about how nowadays everybody seems to be in a rush--at least in the city; if one goes to some other areas, as I found for example in driving through Michigan's Upper Peninsula one time, there definitely is a slower pace to things. But in urban areas such as mine, everyone seems to live by the axiom that "time is money."
Besides being in the main unsafe, a lot of these behaviors also waste fuel. Saving gas, on the other hand, not only benefits your pocketbook, it benefits the environment. One way that I try to drive more economically: I try to look ahead and when I see a red light, even a block down the road, I slow down—unlike many drivers who seem to me to be foolishly racing to get to that red light. Remember that your brakes are basically turning your gasoline into heat energy that goes into the atmosphere; in other words, it's wasted energy.
Of course we have to brake sometimes. Maybe often. But intelligent driving can lessen how much fuel you are wasting at your brake rotors. I try to avoid braking from 30 or even 20 mph, so I try to coast to a stop whenever I can.
Do you brake very often? Maybe you're not aware of how much you brake, but someone driving behind you can see how often your brake lights come on—more often than mine do. If you brake an awful lot, chances are that you're following too closely. By keeping a greater distance between myself and the car ahead of me, I'm able to brake much less than some other cars I see on the road.
And another peril of following too closely: There wouldn't--logically there couldn't--be 30-car or even 100-car pileups if drivers gave themselves enough distance to stop in, rather than following too closely for conditions.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
There's no doubt that big-city drivers drive very aggressively. This may consist of various unsafe behaviors such as aggressively changing lanes and weaving in and out in an attempt to pass everybody out (this counts as road rage and could get you a ticket). Another such behavior is what is known as "late merging."
I think there are at least two things behind this aggressive behavior behind the wheel. One is a sort of competitiveness. I'm not sure if these guys and gals are trying to prove their driving skill or to show that they and their vehicles can get to some point down the road more quickly than the rest of us—which might be the same thing.
Another is just being in a hurry. I already wrote about how nowadays everybody seems to be in a rush--at least in the city; if one goes to some other areas, as I found for example in driving through Michigan's Upper Peninsula one time, there definitely is a slower pace to things. But in urban areas such as mine, everyone seems to live by the axiom that "time is money."
Besides being in the main unsafe, a lot of these behaviors also waste fuel. Saving gas, on the other hand, not only benefits your pocketbook, it benefits the environment. One way that I try to drive more economically: I try to look ahead and when I see a red light, even a block down the road, I slow down—unlike many drivers who seem to me to be foolishly racing to get to that red light. Remember that your brakes are basically turning your gasoline into heat energy that goes into the atmosphere; in other words, it's wasted energy.
Of course we have to brake sometimes. Maybe often. But intelligent driving can lessen how much fuel you are wasting at your brake rotors. I try to avoid braking from 30 or even 20 mph, so I try to coast to a stop whenever I can.
Do you brake very often? Maybe you're not aware of how much you brake, but someone driving behind you can see how often your brake lights come on—more often than mine do. If you brake an awful lot, chances are that you're following too closely. By keeping a greater distance between myself and the car ahead of me, I'm able to brake much less than some other cars I see on the road.
And another peril of following too closely: There wouldn't--logically there couldn't--be 30-car or even 100-car pileups if drivers gave themselves enough distance to stop in, rather than following too closely for conditions.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Monday, October 18, 2010
Second Thoughts on Polygamy
I want to take back what I said about polygamy in an earlier post. I just read a first-person piece by a woman who had been a "sister wife" in a polygamous Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon) family living in Mexico, and that has opened my eyes; I now see polygamy as an evil.
Polygamy is so anti-feminist. It is like those old ideas of the Sultan's harem. Women seem to be by nature monogamous (or, more properly, monandrous) and usually desire only one spouse. They are jealous when they share their husband with others. So, it's torment for at least some of these wives in polygamous families. They endure it because their religion commands it; and they are made to believe it is God's will and the way to heaven (just one more example of the countless ways in which accepting religious doctrines can cause human grief).
The wife writing in this piece says that their family (with at least six wives) had "over forty" children--who hardly knew their father, since he did not have time to spend with each of his "families." Also, there was not enough money to go around for these six families.
All in all, I think it's pretty heart-breaking to read this. Of course it's all terrific for the guy. That's why it's so one-sided and unfair. I think now I agree with having it be illegal.
Here is the link to this article; it quite vividly depicts the plight of such a wife. Disclaimer: I don't endorse everything that Susan Ray Schmidt says in her article.
www.lemondrop.com/2010/10/19/escape-from-polygamy-a-former-sister-wife-shares-why-she-left/?icid=main|main|dl5|sec4_lnk1|178483
Copyright (c) by Richard Stein
Polygamy is so anti-feminist. It is like those old ideas of the Sultan's harem. Women seem to be by nature monogamous (or, more properly, monandrous) and usually desire only one spouse. They are jealous when they share their husband with others. So, it's torment for at least some of these wives in polygamous families. They endure it because their religion commands it; and they are made to believe it is God's will and the way to heaven (just one more example of the countless ways in which accepting religious doctrines can cause human grief).
The wife writing in this piece says that their family (with at least six wives) had "over forty" children--who hardly knew their father, since he did not have time to spend with each of his "families." Also, there was not enough money to go around for these six families.
All in all, I think it's pretty heart-breaking to read this. Of course it's all terrific for the guy. That's why it's so one-sided and unfair. I think now I agree with having it be illegal.
Here is the link to this article; it quite vividly depicts the plight of such a wife. Disclaimer: I don't endorse everything that Susan Ray Schmidt says in her article.
www.lemondrop.com/2010/10/19/escape-from-polygamy-a-former-sister-wife-shares-why-she-left/?icid=main|main|dl5|sec4_lnk1|178483
Copyright (c) by Richard Stein
Friday, October 15, 2010
Spoonerisms
Spoonerisms are a type of slip of the tongue where you switch sounds between two words. The error gets its name from a British man, a Canon Spooner, who would say things like "Pardon me, but you are occu-pewing my pie."
It's fun to spoonerize names. I recently read a book by Steven Pinker. If you spoonerize his name, it's Peeven Stinker (I should add that I actually admire Pinker, so this is not to disparage him at all). I used to know a male couple called Mark and Dennis. I called them Dark and Menace (not to their faces). We have a TV news anchor named Cathy Brock. Do you know what you get when you spoonerize her name? (Don't tell her I said that!)
It's fun to spoonerize other words when the spoonerism is a new word pair. For example, tile grout becomes trial gout. Pool cue becomes cool pew. Cold and flu season becomes fold and clue season. You know the vehicle called the Land Rover? If you spoonerize that name, you get a term for an avaricious South African: rand lover.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
It's fun to spoonerize names. I recently read a book by Steven Pinker. If you spoonerize his name, it's Peeven Stinker (I should add that I actually admire Pinker, so this is not to disparage him at all). I used to know a male couple called Mark and Dennis. I called them Dark and Menace (not to their faces). We have a TV news anchor named Cathy Brock. Do you know what you get when you spoonerize her name? (Don't tell her I said that!)
It's fun to spoonerize other words when the spoonerism is a new word pair. For example, tile grout becomes trial gout. Pool cue becomes cool pew. Cold and flu season becomes fold and clue season. You know the vehicle called the Land Rover? If you spoonerize that name, you get a term for an avaricious South African: rand lover.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
A Few Bons Mots
Some of these need the scene set.
One time I was having lunch with a colleague from work. When we got our food, she asked, "How is that miso soup?" I said, "It's really not that good. I'd call it mi-so-so."
At another job, I arrived at a departmental lunch. I'd made a stop on the way, at a sale of kitchen gadgets. So I mentioned that I'd just bought a tomato corer. JoAnne asked, "Is it a hard corer or a soft corer?" I replied, "Well, it starts out soft, but if you fondle it. . . ," whereupon I got a poke in the ribs.
Unfortunately, I don't always think that fast.
And, for those of you who know a wee bit of Yiddish: When Star Trek was in first run, I told my sister that when the show was shown in Israel, they called it Star Schlep.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
One time I was having lunch with a colleague from work. When we got our food, she asked, "How is that miso soup?" I said, "It's really not that good. I'd call it mi-so-so."
At another job, I arrived at a departmental lunch. I'd made a stop on the way, at a sale of kitchen gadgets. So I mentioned that I'd just bought a tomato corer. JoAnne asked, "Is it a hard corer or a soft corer?" I replied, "Well, it starts out soft, but if you fondle it. . . ," whereupon I got a poke in the ribs.
Unfortunately, I don't always think that fast.
And, for those of you who know a wee bit of Yiddish: When Star Trek was in first run, I told my sister that when the show was shown in Israel, they called it Star Schlep.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Monday, October 11, 2010
Parents, Beware! . . .Lest Your Actions Backfire
Sometimes parents' actions, with respect to their children, backfire. And sometimes, I think, the parents deserve it.
When I was a kid, I think I can say that religion was more or less forced down my throat. I was made to go to Hebrew school (two hours a day, after regular public school, four days a week), even though I was terrified of my Hebrew school teachers which caused me stomach aches that landed me in the hospital. But attending Hebrew school had to be done, so that I could have a Bar Mitzvah. (I didn't want to have a Bar Mitzvah, but, in my parents' eyes, how could a boy not have a Bar Mitzvah?) Also, where religion was concerned, I felt I saw hypocrisy in my parents, that they were saying, Do as we say, not as we do.
So I later rejected the ancestral faith pretty completely. I absolutely don't observe it at all--although, to be completely honest, my parents' actions don't get all of the blame for that. But I think my parents richly deserve that outcome.
In another example, when I was a kid I was into photography (I still am). I would use my mother as a photographic subject. So, maybe as a birthday present, my mother gave me a book called How to Photograph Women.
After she gave me the book, my mother discovered that the book had pictures of naked women (I was an adolescent at the time, I believe). Well, one day when I was not around, Mother seized the book—and cut out all the pages with the nude photos.
I think that that's screamingly funny when you consider that I grew up to be gay. I mean, what were the photos supposed to have done to me, make me feel lust for women? Of course I can't say that not having those pictures made me gay; but in hindsight, maybe my mother might have wished that she could have fostered lust for naked women in me.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
When I was a kid, I think I can say that religion was more or less forced down my throat. I was made to go to Hebrew school (two hours a day, after regular public school, four days a week), even though I was terrified of my Hebrew school teachers which caused me stomach aches that landed me in the hospital. But attending Hebrew school had to be done, so that I could have a Bar Mitzvah. (I didn't want to have a Bar Mitzvah, but, in my parents' eyes, how could a boy not have a Bar Mitzvah?) Also, where religion was concerned, I felt I saw hypocrisy in my parents, that they were saying, Do as we say, not as we do.
So I later rejected the ancestral faith pretty completely. I absolutely don't observe it at all--although, to be completely honest, my parents' actions don't get all of the blame for that. But I think my parents richly deserve that outcome.
In another example, when I was a kid I was into photography (I still am). I would use my mother as a photographic subject. So, maybe as a birthday present, my mother gave me a book called How to Photograph Women.
After she gave me the book, my mother discovered that the book had pictures of naked women (I was an adolescent at the time, I believe). Well, one day when I was not around, Mother seized the book—and cut out all the pages with the nude photos.
I think that that's screamingly funny when you consider that I grew up to be gay. I mean, what were the photos supposed to have done to me, make me feel lust for women? Of course I can't say that not having those pictures made me gay; but in hindsight, maybe my mother might have wished that she could have fostered lust for naked women in me.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
The Funny Foods We Eat
We never think about this, but some of our everyday foods are definitely rather oddball, from the botanical perspective.
Take corn. Our corn, or maize, as it's called in much of the world, is very much a man-created plant. Nothing very similar to our familiar corn exists in the wild. In fact, the field of corn genetics is a whole specialty within botany. What is clear is that indigenous American peoples—think Aztecs and Mayans and their predecessors—developed corn from a plant that had a much smaller ear. There is a wild plant called teosinte that has been considered a likely candidate for the ancestor of corn. Among the many ways in which native New World civilizations have usually not gotten the credit they're due is that we overlook the great achievement in plant breeding that resulted in the modern corn plant that we take for granted.
Another perhaps odd food is the banana. Is there any other fruit that is similar to a banana? Did you know that a banana plant or tree only produces one crop of bananas in its lifetime? Then it's cut down and a new tree planted. You'd think that, with the time and trouble involved, that bananas would be scarce and expensive, whereas bananas are a rather cheap, plentiful, and very healthful food source. (They are high in potassium, which we need plenty of, because it can counterbalance the excessive sodium that's common in our modern diets.)
Also, you know those stringy things that you see on a banana when you peel it? I think I read recently that they are analogous to the substance in the inner bark of a tree that carries nourishment for the tree.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Take corn. Our corn, or maize, as it's called in much of the world, is very much a man-created plant. Nothing very similar to our familiar corn exists in the wild. In fact, the field of corn genetics is a whole specialty within botany. What is clear is that indigenous American peoples—think Aztecs and Mayans and their predecessors—developed corn from a plant that had a much smaller ear. There is a wild plant called teosinte that has been considered a likely candidate for the ancestor of corn. Among the many ways in which native New World civilizations have usually not gotten the credit they're due is that we overlook the great achievement in plant breeding that resulted in the modern corn plant that we take for granted.
Another perhaps odd food is the banana. Is there any other fruit that is similar to a banana? Did you know that a banana plant or tree only produces one crop of bananas in its lifetime? Then it's cut down and a new tree planted. You'd think that, with the time and trouble involved, that bananas would be scarce and expensive, whereas bananas are a rather cheap, plentiful, and very healthful food source. (They are high in potassium, which we need plenty of, because it can counterbalance the excessive sodium that's common in our modern diets.)
Also, you know those stringy things that you see on a banana when you peel it? I think I read recently that they are analogous to the substance in the inner bark of a tree that carries nourishment for the tree.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Reagan (and Bush) on Energy and Consumer Protection
News has it that President Obama is installing solar energy-producing panels on the roof of the White House.
This item, and earlier ones, reminded us that President Jimmy Carter had also installed solar panels on the White House roof—and then Ronald Reagan removed them. Why would he do this, when it must have cost taxpayers money to remove them? My guess is, simply to thumb his nose at environmentalists.
Also, as is not very well known, on the day of his inauguration, Reagan froze all funding of alternative energy research by the Department of Energy. I can tell you that a lot of alternative energy research that is being called for today or has recently been started up, was going on in 1981 when Reagan halted it. On the smaller scale, Reagan's move cost many jobs (including, ultimately, mine—so yes, I have a personal axe to grind here) but it also set back the efforts to find new energy sources by 30 years.
Many of the bad things that Reagan did (okay, bad at least from my perspective, or any liberal perspective) were not publicized at the time. Reagan was very popular—remember, he was called "the Teflon President," and the Press was afraid to criticize him because of that popularity.
For example, he gutted federal regulatory agencies such as the EPA and FDA that were intended by Congress to safeguard our food, water, air, and so forth. He appointed as heads of these agencies industry-sympathetic people or even industry insiders who had no intention of allowing these agencies to function effectively.
Similarly, Congress passed laws to beef up (no pun) government inspections of food-processing plants. Had these measures taken effect, they might have prevented some of the recent outbreaks of food-borne illnesses such as Salmonella and E. coli from eggs, peanut butter, and so forth (there have been many in the last few years). But the stiffer inspection schedules were never implemented, because of eight years of foot-dragging by the Bush administration.
Update, August 26, 2011
I recently learned that Rodger Mudd, of CBS TV news, did at the time report on Reagan removing the solar panels from the White House. It was a very brief news item and didn't mention any possible explanation.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
This item, and earlier ones, reminded us that President Jimmy Carter had also installed solar panels on the White House roof—and then Ronald Reagan removed them. Why would he do this, when it must have cost taxpayers money to remove them? My guess is, simply to thumb his nose at environmentalists.
Also, as is not very well known, on the day of his inauguration, Reagan froze all funding of alternative energy research by the Department of Energy. I can tell you that a lot of alternative energy research that is being called for today or has recently been started up, was going on in 1981 when Reagan halted it. On the smaller scale, Reagan's move cost many jobs (including, ultimately, mine—so yes, I have a personal axe to grind here) but it also set back the efforts to find new energy sources by 30 years.
Many of the bad things that Reagan did (okay, bad at least from my perspective, or any liberal perspective) were not publicized at the time. Reagan was very popular—remember, he was called "the Teflon President," and the Press was afraid to criticize him because of that popularity.
For example, he gutted federal regulatory agencies such as the EPA and FDA that were intended by Congress to safeguard our food, water, air, and so forth. He appointed as heads of these agencies industry-sympathetic people or even industry insiders who had no intention of allowing these agencies to function effectively.
Similarly, Congress passed laws to beef up (no pun) government inspections of food-processing plants. Had these measures taken effect, they might have prevented some of the recent outbreaks of food-borne illnesses such as Salmonella and E. coli from eggs, peanut butter, and so forth (there have been many in the last few years). But the stiffer inspection schedules were never implemented, because of eight years of foot-dragging by the Bush administration.
Update, August 26, 2011
I recently learned that Rodger Mudd, of CBS TV news, did at the time report on Reagan removing the solar panels from the White House. It was a very brief news item and didn't mention any possible explanation.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
How to Live to Age 107
Today we interview George Crumbum, who, at 107, claims to be the oldest man in the developed world.
Old Leftist Curmudgeon: Mr. Crumbum, to what do you attribute your long life?
George Crumbum: Eating pepper.
OLC: Eating pepper?
GC: Yeah. I swallow two tablespoons of ground pepper every day. Sometimes I just chew on whole peppercorns. They're crunchy, and it's a bit of variety.
OLC: And you just swallow the pepper? Isn't that a bit difficult?
GC: Nah. I wash it down with beer.
OLC: Beer?
GC: Yeah, but not just any beer. It's gotta be lite beer. None of that yuppie microbrew crap, or dark beer, or anything like that.
OLC: So you like lite beer.
GC: Yeah. If your beer don't taste like piss, it don't do you no good. Trust me. My age is proof of that.
OLC: Any other tips for readers who'd like to live as long as you, Mr. Crumbum?
GC: Yeah, get plenty of sex. And cuss out your children or your neighbors or anyone else who's handy. Ya gotta do some cussin' every day.
OLC: Well, I'm sure that letting it out is good advice. But do you really have a lot of sex at your age, Mr. Crumbum?
GC: Well, I think I do. I admit, it's been getting hard to tell what I been dreamin' from what's actually happened.
OLC: Mr. Crumbum, thank you for a most interesting interview. And may you live for another 107 years.
GC: [Evil chuckle]
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Old Leftist Curmudgeon: Mr. Crumbum, to what do you attribute your long life?
George Crumbum: Eating pepper.
OLC: Eating pepper?
GC: Yeah. I swallow two tablespoons of ground pepper every day. Sometimes I just chew on whole peppercorns. They're crunchy, and it's a bit of variety.
OLC: And you just swallow the pepper? Isn't that a bit difficult?
GC: Nah. I wash it down with beer.
OLC: Beer?
GC: Yeah, but not just any beer. It's gotta be lite beer. None of that yuppie microbrew crap, or dark beer, or anything like that.
OLC: So you like lite beer.
GC: Yeah. If your beer don't taste like piss, it don't do you no good. Trust me. My age is proof of that.
OLC: Any other tips for readers who'd like to live as long as you, Mr. Crumbum?
GC: Yeah, get plenty of sex. And cuss out your children or your neighbors or anyone else who's handy. Ya gotta do some cussin' every day.
OLC: Well, I'm sure that letting it out is good advice. But do you really have a lot of sex at your age, Mr. Crumbum?
GC: Well, I think I do. I admit, it's been getting hard to tell what I been dreamin' from what's actually happened.
OLC: Mr. Crumbum, thank you for a most interesting interview. And may you live for another 107 years.
GC: [Evil chuckle]
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Reaganomics and Republicanomics
Remember Ronald Reagan and his "Reaganomics"? Reagan espoused the "trickle-down" theory, supposedly scribbled on a napkin by the young (and previously relatively obscure) economist Arthur Laffer, with his "Laffer curve."
The idea was that tax cuts and other economic policies that would help large businesses and rich individuals get richer would ultimately benefit everybody, because the benefits to them would "trickle down" the ladder to lower income levels. The rising waters would float everybody's boat--or so the theory went.
What happened is that under Reagan, the U.S. national deficit rose to unprecedented levels--a fact that those on the Right who are lambasting Obama for a rising deficit are conveniently ignoring.
Now, since the numbers are in, we can see similarly that the Bush economic policies, such as the famous "Bush tax cuts" that are now up for renewal, and that had the most benefit for the rich, hurt the total U.S. national income.
Here is an article by former U.S. Treasury Secretary Robert Reich on that subject:
www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-super-rich-get-richer_b_737792.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=092410&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry
If you want to go into the economics of it more deeply (and you have patience), here is an article replete with tables (in .pdf format).
www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/CHAS-89LPZ9?OpenDocument
Here is an article that shows the lasting, systemic harm to America's economic structure that was done by Reagonomics:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-white/rethinking-reaganomics-wh_b_749839.html
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
The idea was that tax cuts and other economic policies that would help large businesses and rich individuals get richer would ultimately benefit everybody, because the benefits to them would "trickle down" the ladder to lower income levels. The rising waters would float everybody's boat--or so the theory went.
What happened is that under Reagan, the U.S. national deficit rose to unprecedented levels--a fact that those on the Right who are lambasting Obama for a rising deficit are conveniently ignoring.
Now, since the numbers are in, we can see similarly that the Bush economic policies, such as the famous "Bush tax cuts" that are now up for renewal, and that had the most benefit for the rich, hurt the total U.S. national income.
Here is an article by former U.S. Treasury Secretary Robert Reich on that subject:
www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-super-rich-get-richer_b_737792.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=092410&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry
If you want to go into the economics of it more deeply (and you have patience), here is an article replete with tables (in .pdf format).
www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/CHAS-89LPZ9?OpenDocument
Here is an article that shows the lasting, systemic harm to America's economic structure that was done by Reagonomics:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-white/rethinking-reaganomics-wh_b_749839.html
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Mormons and Marriage
With a big news story about federal raids on the compound of a fundamentalist Mormon sect a while ago, and a more recent TV program about a polygamist family, the practice of polygamy associated with some Mormons has been in the news.
As you may know, mainstream Mormonism at one time not only tolerated polygamy but actively encouraged and preached it. For example, Joseph Smith, with difficulty, persuaded Brighman Young to have multiple wives.
Then, at one point--to end federal pressure on Mormons and further the incorporation of Utah into the Union--Mormon leaders suddenly and miraculously had a new "revelation" that told them that they should renounce polygamy.
I'd like to tell you what I think. Aside from questions of what it does to the birth rate, I am fine with polygamy. I think people, Mormon or otherwise, should be permitted to do what they want, and it's no skin off my nose.
But there's a huge irony here. Mormons would like others to keep their hands off marriage--yet they won't do the same in return. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the Mormons) was a very big financial supporter of Proposition 8 in California, which was a ballot initiative to end same-sex marriage.
To any Mormons out there: Hey, let's make a deal. I'll advocate letting you guys do whatever you want, marriage-wise--you can have multiple wives, multiple husbands, I couldn't care less. And in return, how about you keeping hands off same-sex marriage?
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
As you may know, mainstream Mormonism at one time not only tolerated polygamy but actively encouraged and preached it. For example, Joseph Smith, with difficulty, persuaded Brighman Young to have multiple wives.
Then, at one point--to end federal pressure on Mormons and further the incorporation of Utah into the Union--Mormon leaders suddenly and miraculously had a new "revelation" that told them that they should renounce polygamy.
I'd like to tell you what I think. Aside from questions of what it does to the birth rate, I am fine with polygamy. I think people, Mormon or otherwise, should be permitted to do what they want, and it's no skin off my nose.
But there's a huge irony here. Mormons would like others to keep their hands off marriage--yet they won't do the same in return. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the Mormons) was a very big financial supporter of Proposition 8 in California, which was a ballot initiative to end same-sex marriage.
To any Mormons out there: Hey, let's make a deal. I'll advocate letting you guys do whatever you want, marriage-wise--you can have multiple wives, multiple husbands, I couldn't care less. And in return, how about you keeping hands off same-sex marriage?
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Friday, September 24, 2010
Yet Another Homophobe Outed As Gay
If you follow the news, you've heard or read about Bishop Long, of a huge (25,000 member) African-American church in Georgia. This is a man who is a very vocal homophobe, and now he is accused of having had sex with (at latest count) four men from his congregation when they were adolescents.
This is just the latest of a long list. Remember these: Foley, Craig, Haggard? I think there have been several more that I can't recall at the moment.
I have to wonder, when will people stop listening to these people with credence and simply question whether the volume of their rhetoric is in proportion to their desire to cloak their own homosexuality?
Here is an article that is excellent and, in my opinion, gives a very good slant on the issue of homosexuality and the Bible.
http://www.aolnews.com/opinion/article/opinion-bishop-long-and-whats-long-overduer-for-christians/19645378
Update, August 26, 2011
Yet another instance to add to the list along with Sen. Craig, etc.--just the latest among many: An Indiana state senator, Phil Hinkle, arranged, via Craigslist, a liaison in a hotel room with a very young guy (either 20 or 18). He claims, "I am not gay."
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
This is just the latest of a long list. Remember these: Foley, Craig, Haggard? I think there have been several more that I can't recall at the moment.
I have to wonder, when will people stop listening to these people with credence and simply question whether the volume of their rhetoric is in proportion to their desire to cloak their own homosexuality?
Here is an article that is excellent and, in my opinion, gives a very good slant on the issue of homosexuality and the Bible.
http://www.aolnews.com/opinion/article/opinion-bishop-long-and-whats-long-overduer-for-christians/19645378
Update, August 26, 2011
Yet another instance to add to the list along with Sen. Craig, etc.--just the latest among many: An Indiana state senator, Phil Hinkle, arranged, via Craigslist, a liaison in a hotel room with a very young guy (either 20 or 18). He claims, "I am not gay."
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Does Education Make Us Liberal?
It's widely known that better-educated people tend to be more liberal—or "progressive," as we might prefer to say since certain segments have done their best to make liberal a dirty word.
And studies have shown this, studies that have broken down voting patterns in the electorate by groups according to years of education.
(Big and important parenthesis: Of course not all college graduates, or even advanced-degree holders, are automatically liberal. It seems to me that people with certain degrees are less likely to be liberal. For example, people with MBAs are, not surprisingly, quite pro-business and often conservative according to other parameters as well. Maybe engineers are not the most liberal sorts, either.)
But the liberally-educated are liberal. (Is it a coincidence that the word liberal has these two uses?) For a long time I've contemplated why this should be so. I think important components of that education which produces liberals are literature, anthropology, psychology, and logic.
Literature and the other arts, I think, are the cornerstone of all this. I think that people who have been made acquainted with literature have undergone several processes: They have had their minds opened to a wider variety of experience and thus perhaps been made to have a more relativistic and less absolutistic viewpoint. (Studying anthropology should do this, too.) They have been exposed to writers' wisdom as to much of life and human experience, such that the reader can be sitting and reading in the most isolated and even (dare I say?) backward time or place and even so, through reading, travel the world and gain experience and wisdom and knowledge of other places and times.
Many writers, filmmakers, and artists of every sort are forward thinkers. Thus the audience whom these artists reach becomes exposed to less conventional viewpoints and perhaps encouraged to question a lot of received ideas and "truths." Remember, if it hadn't been for the value of education and the disseminating of the ideas of the forward thinkers, the radicals, many of us would probably still believe that the Earth is flat.
Psychology, too, teaches us valuable things. The people who have taken even Psych 101 and have learned about human perception would never pay much heed to the idea of seeing Jesus' or the Virgin Mary's face on a tortilla.
Studying logic might make us more immune to being swayed by, say, political advertising that slams an individual, rather than keeping to the issues. (In logic this is known as the argumentum ad hominen, attack on the person.) Nor as easily swayed by a lot of people who use whatever platform they've got to stir people up by means of rhetoric which, when examined, proves not logically sound. There are a lot of demagogues and such who simply use propaganda that will work on the less wary and will be seen through by those who know more about argumentation. Propaganda was used so well by Göbbels in Nazi Germany but propaganda was not new then and it has not disappeared since.
It might be another subject, how powerful interests manage to recruit masses of people to the views they want them to have, and I have touched on this in other postings.
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
And studies have shown this, studies that have broken down voting patterns in the electorate by groups according to years of education.
(Big and important parenthesis: Of course not all college graduates, or even advanced-degree holders, are automatically liberal. It seems to me that people with certain degrees are less likely to be liberal. For example, people with MBAs are, not surprisingly, quite pro-business and often conservative according to other parameters as well. Maybe engineers are not the most liberal sorts, either.)
But the liberally-educated are liberal. (Is it a coincidence that the word liberal has these two uses?) For a long time I've contemplated why this should be so. I think important components of that education which produces liberals are literature, anthropology, psychology, and logic.
Literature and the other arts, I think, are the cornerstone of all this. I think that people who have been made acquainted with literature have undergone several processes: They have had their minds opened to a wider variety of experience and thus perhaps been made to have a more relativistic and less absolutistic viewpoint. (Studying anthropology should do this, too.) They have been exposed to writers' wisdom as to much of life and human experience, such that the reader can be sitting and reading in the most isolated and even (dare I say?) backward time or place and even so, through reading, travel the world and gain experience and wisdom and knowledge of other places and times.
Many writers, filmmakers, and artists of every sort are forward thinkers. Thus the audience whom these artists reach becomes exposed to less conventional viewpoints and perhaps encouraged to question a lot of received ideas and "truths." Remember, if it hadn't been for the value of education and the disseminating of the ideas of the forward thinkers, the radicals, many of us would probably still believe that the Earth is flat.
Psychology, too, teaches us valuable things. The people who have taken even Psych 101 and have learned about human perception would never pay much heed to the idea of seeing Jesus' or the Virgin Mary's face on a tortilla.
Studying logic might make us more immune to being swayed by, say, political advertising that slams an individual, rather than keeping to the issues. (In logic this is known as the argumentum ad hominen, attack on the person.) Nor as easily swayed by a lot of people who use whatever platform they've got to stir people up by means of rhetoric which, when examined, proves not logically sound. There are a lot of demagogues and such who simply use propaganda that will work on the less wary and will be seen through by those who know more about argumentation. Propaganda was used so well by Göbbels in Nazi Germany but propaganda was not new then and it has not disappeared since.
It might be another subject, how powerful interests manage to recruit masses of people to the views they want them to have, and I have touched on this in other postings.
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Friday, September 17, 2010
What's Changed in the World. Part 5 - Computing
If computers have brought great changes in our lives, computing itself has changed. Fifty years ago, computers were owned only by the government, the military, universities, and large businesses. Computers were very large and required dedicated rooms that in turn had dedicated air-conditioning, because the heat that the computers generated was bad for the computers themselves and had to be removed. A modern computer—a laptop or desktop computer--that almost everyone in America can have, is many, many times more powerful than one of those old computers that filled a room.
I dealt with computers back before the day when it occurred to someone to hook up a TV screen to the computer. The computer's output (and sometimes input, as well) was to a TeleTypewriter, a big machine that—well, never mind, suffice it to say that this was a device that had been around for the purpose of receiving and printing out telegrams.
You'd write your program out, with a pen or pencil, on "IBM coding sheets." Then you'd have to sit down at a machine called a keypunch. You'd type in your program at this machine's keyboard. Every line of your program would result in the production of a punched card (called Hollerith cards or IBM cards).
A program of any complexity could be hundreds of punched cards. People writing and running programs would carry their stack of cards in a shoebox. (Don't even imagine what would happen if you dropped the box or spilled the cards!)
Then the stack of cards was fed into a "card reader." That finally got the program into the computer, and then the computer needed to be commanded to run it. For students such as I was, you had to wait your turn for your program to be run, and you'd get the printout of the program's output in a day or two!
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
I dealt with computers back before the day when it occurred to someone to hook up a TV screen to the computer. The computer's output (and sometimes input, as well) was to a TeleTypewriter, a big machine that—well, never mind, suffice it to say that this was a device that had been around for the purpose of receiving and printing out telegrams.
You'd write your program out, with a pen or pencil, on "IBM coding sheets." Then you'd have to sit down at a machine called a keypunch. You'd type in your program at this machine's keyboard. Every line of your program would result in the production of a punched card (called Hollerith cards or IBM cards).
A program of any complexity could be hundreds of punched cards. People writing and running programs would carry their stack of cards in a shoebox. (Don't even imagine what would happen if you dropped the box or spilled the cards!)
Then the stack of cards was fed into a "card reader." That finally got the program into the computer, and then the computer needed to be commanded to run it. For students such as I was, you had to wait your turn for your program to be run, and you'd get the printout of the program's output in a day or two!
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
