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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
