Since it's Christmas Day, this might be an occasion to think about some of the stories that surround Christmas and that are usually viewed as facts about Jesus' birth but which either are probably untrue or are almost certainly untrue.
First, Jesus was not born in the year 1 A.D. There was an error in the calendar at one point. Most scholars now think it probably was in 4 B.C.
Second, there is absolutely no reason to believe Jesus was born on December 25. There is no record of the date Jesus was born; and it is believed that the celebration of the birth of Jesus at some point was attracted to the time of the Roman celebration of Saturnalia or perhaps to one or more pagan feasts that centered around the winter solstice.
Third, scholars now think Jesus was probably not born in Bethlehem, as the gospel stories say, but in Nazareth.
Fourth, the story of the Magi or "wise men." I believe only one of the gospels mentions this (sorry, I haven't got a N.T. at my elbow with which to confirm this), where it simply says "three kings of the East." There is no mention of their names being Caspar, Melchior, and Balthazar—that is a so-called medieval accretion—nor that one of them was black.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Sunday, December 23, 2012
The Newtown, Connecticut, School Shooting--After We've Had a Week to Gain Perspective
It's now been over a week since the occurrence of the terrible, tragic shooting of first-grade pupils and teachers in Newtown, Connecticut; and the nation and the world has had, not a chance to recover but a chance to contemplate, discuss, and try to analyze this shocking event.
As was well shown in a special program on PBS (the American public TV broadcasting network), there are two components or ingredients to an event like this.
1. Mental illness on the part of the perpetrator.
2. The availability of guns.
The current state of our science is such that we can't confidently identify individuals who are going to do something like that. There are factors which might be considered risk factors, but the group possessing such risk factors is large, and it's only a statistical matter and would not clearly focus attention on specific individuals.
However, much thought needs to be given to the second factor, the availability of guns. The United States has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world, 88.8 guns per 100 population. And, as a Harvard study showed, more guns mean more homicides.
The gun lobby—mainly the National Rifle Association and a few other, smaller gun owners' or gun rights groups—wants to tell us that what we need is more guns. But that is contradicted by the experience of our own country, first; and by that of Australia.
The United States had a federal ban on so-called assault weapons for ten years, which expired in 2004. Mass shootings using assault weapons have increased since the ban expired. Also and at the same time—due to the influence, power, and legislative success of the gun lobby--gun laws have been loosened in many states.
Second, since Australia enacted tough gun-control laws, their experience of mass shootings such as we have been having has been nearly nonexistent.
A third factor needs to be added to the two I enumerated above:
3. The gun culture in the US.
There are countries with a high—though not as high as America's—rate of gun ownership. One such is Switzerland. But you simply do not hear of mass shootings in Switzerland.
Or take England. England has maybe 50 homicides a year. The US has roughly 12,000.* On a single summer weekend in Chicago, there might be 20 or more homicides committed with guns.
In the US, guns are glamorized and may be, for young urban gang members, a symbol of manhood. Guns are identified with heroically depicted characters in western movies.
Video games have also been blamed for our gun violence. At first blush it makes sense: many video games feature killing people (albeit not real people) by shooting them, and I understand that some video games even show assault weapons being used, weapons with visible brand names.
However, England gets the same video games. And they surely get American movies, including all those American westerns. Yet somehow those factors have not caused the English to be enamored with guns the way Americans are. We need to figure out what accounts for the difference. It would be too easy to simply say, "Well, the English--or the Swiss--are just more peaceable and civilized people." But as I write that, I'm almost tempted to say, Well, maybe that is simply the case. It just does not occur to them to go around shooting one another.
______________
*Update, January 8, 2013. Last night ABC TV news said the figure is 30,000 gun homicides a year. Today they said that there have been 57,000 gun homicides in two years; and that 85% of the world's deaths of children from guns occur in the US.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
As was well shown in a special program on PBS (the American public TV broadcasting network), there are two components or ingredients to an event like this.
1. Mental illness on the part of the perpetrator.
2. The availability of guns.
The current state of our science is such that we can't confidently identify individuals who are going to do something like that. There are factors which might be considered risk factors, but the group possessing such risk factors is large, and it's only a statistical matter and would not clearly focus attention on specific individuals.
However, much thought needs to be given to the second factor, the availability of guns. The United States has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world, 88.8 guns per 100 population. And, as a Harvard study showed, more guns mean more homicides.
The gun lobby—mainly the National Rifle Association and a few other, smaller gun owners' or gun rights groups—wants to tell us that what we need is more guns. But that is contradicted by the experience of our own country, first; and by that of Australia.
The United States had a federal ban on so-called assault weapons for ten years, which expired in 2004. Mass shootings using assault weapons have increased since the ban expired. Also and at the same time—due to the influence, power, and legislative success of the gun lobby--gun laws have been loosened in many states.
Second, since Australia enacted tough gun-control laws, their experience of mass shootings such as we have been having has been nearly nonexistent.
A third factor needs to be added to the two I enumerated above:
3. The gun culture in the US.
There are countries with a high—though not as high as America's—rate of gun ownership. One such is Switzerland. But you simply do not hear of mass shootings in Switzerland.
Or take England. England has maybe 50 homicides a year. The US has roughly 12,000.* On a single summer weekend in Chicago, there might be 20 or more homicides committed with guns.
In the US, guns are glamorized and may be, for young urban gang members, a symbol of manhood. Guns are identified with heroically depicted characters in western movies.
Video games have also been blamed for our gun violence. At first blush it makes sense: many video games feature killing people (albeit not real people) by shooting them, and I understand that some video games even show assault weapons being used, weapons with visible brand names.
However, England gets the same video games. And they surely get American movies, including all those American westerns. Yet somehow those factors have not caused the English to be enamored with guns the way Americans are. We need to figure out what accounts for the difference. It would be too easy to simply say, "Well, the English--or the Swiss--are just more peaceable and civilized people." But as I write that, I'm almost tempted to say, Well, maybe that is simply the case. It just does not occur to them to go around shooting one another.
______________
*Update, January 8, 2013. Last night ABC TV news said the figure is 30,000 gun homicides a year. Today they said that there have been 57,000 gun homicides in two years; and that 85% of the world's deaths of children from guns occur in the US.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Are More Guns the Answer?
Some people think that the answer to our problem with guns is more guns. Gun sales are booming after the tragic Newtown shootings, and some people say "Arm the teachers."
That makes no sense to me. One, it's just an arms race, as we had between nations during the Cold War; and, as some of the world's leaders had the sense to realize, that does not make anyone more secure. Quite the contrary.Some people think that the answer to our problem with guns is more guns. Gun sales are booming after the tragic Newtown shootings, and some people say "Arm the teachers."
That makes no sense to me. One, it's just an arms race, as we had between nations during the Cold War; and, as some of the world's leaders had the sense to realize, that does not make anyone more secure. Quite the contrary.
Second, if I, for example, owned a gun, and someone invaded my house, I'm sure I'd get shot before I successfully shot the intruder.
Third, the United States is not the world. Look at the rest of the developed world, where there is neither the rate of gun ownership nor anything like the rate of gun violence that the United States has. As far as I'm concerned, that says it all. People in other countries believe the United States is still the Wild West; and, as far as our attitude toward guns is concerned, they are right.
Here is a quote from the web site Bloomberg View ("Concrete Ways to Turn Back the Gun Lobby"), which says it perhaps better than I can:
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
That makes no sense to me. One, it's just an arms race, as we had between nations during the Cold War; and, as some of the world's leaders had the sense to realize, that does not make anyone more secure. Quite the contrary.Some people think that the answer to our problem with guns is more guns. Gun sales are booming after the tragic Newtown shootings, and some people say "Arm the teachers."
That makes no sense to me. One, it's just an arms race, as we had between nations during the Cold War; and, as some of the world's leaders had the sense to realize, that does not make anyone more secure. Quite the contrary.
Second, if I, for example, owned a gun, and someone invaded my house, I'm sure I'd get shot before I successfully shot the intruder.
Third, the United States is not the world. Look at the rest of the developed world, where there is neither the rate of gun ownership nor anything like the rate of gun violence that the United States has. As far as I'm concerned, that says it all. People in other countries believe the United States is still the Wild West; and, as far as our attitude toward guns is concerned, they are right.
Here is a quote from the web site Bloomberg View ("Concrete Ways to Turn Back the Gun Lobby"), which says it perhaps better than I can:
[T]he widely successful push to bring guns into schools, churches, bars, sporting events -- essentially every public venue in American life -- is part of a narrow political campaign that romanticizes and fetishizes firearms, all the better to sell them. In all of these instances, we are told the right to carry a gun is paramount to all others, including an employer’s right to maintain a safe workplace.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Workers' Rights, Workers' Power
It might be only a slight exaggeration to say that there have been a rash of anti-labor measures enacted by governments recently.
First there were the measures in Wisconsin that were initiated by Governor Scott Walker which stripped public employees of their collective bargaining rights.
A few days ago in Michigan that state's Republican governor signed two bills, notably so-called right-to-work legislation, normally understood as undermining organized labor because it specifies that workers in factories do not have to join a union nor pay union dues.
And now today the Mayor of Chicago has signed a new labor contract for the janitorial employees at Chicago O'Hare Airport. This new contract is with a labor vendor who employees non-union labor.
It's commonly known that by many measures the power of unionized labor in the United States has been declining. For one thing, the percentage of American workers who are labor union members has been steadily declining for decades.
These latest developments may not be totally surprising but I think they occasion some thought about labor in America.
First it must be said that the labor movement improved working conditions for workers in factories, which was often brutish and unsafe. Through the efforts of labor unions, the work week was reduced and government-enforced safety standards for the work place came into being.
It was far more through the work of unions than through the generosity or conscience of employers that the American worker attained a working-class standard of living that was the highest in the world. (I suspect that nowadays some European countries equal or possibly even surpass that living standard.) On the other hand, workers are paid much less in the so-called Third World countries; and just as according to the laws of thermodynamics heat will flow from higher to lower, so work flows from higher-cost to lower-cost countries, so that not only American but Japanese and European manufacturers are having their goods produced in China. So, if you were minded to focus on the American worker's role in this—which most likely would not be fair—you could or say that the American worker has priced himself out of the world marketplace of labor.
Thinking about the import of new laws mentioned above, my thought was that we are creating a new class of the immigrant-laborer. But after just a moment I realized that this is not at all a new development. For over a hundred years it's been immigrant labor which has worked at the least-skilled jobs. Once it was in factories but now it's more likely to be janitorial, farm work, or perhaps in restaurant kitchens.
So the nature of the low-paid, unskilled work whose ranks are peopled by immigrant laborers has changed. But still I want to reflect on labor.
First, a disclaimer of sorts. If you want to look at "blood," then I am to be suspected of not being a friend of labor. My immediate ancestors were the factory bosses who would move their production to another state to avoid having to have union workers.
And I have written about some of the things that I blamed on union work rules: for example, one can see many jobs in progress where it looks like one person is working and three, four, or five men are standing around doing little or nothing.
In Great Britain you could argue that unions have undermined the success of British industry. The joke is that 15 minutes after starting work, the British worker pauses for a tea break. English auto factories were plagued by labor unrest and poor quality of production. Just as one example, the famous German car company BMW bought the English company that built Rover and Land Rover. After some years they failed to turn it around and sold it for $1.
So maybe it's bad if unions have too much power. Maybe that happened in England. Maybe it happened in the Unites States. (One needs to remember the era around 1950 when John L. Lewis was head of the powerful United Mine Workers and his union, or railroad unions, could cripple the country.)
But I for one would not like to see all the power on the part of the employers, either, even if that would not mean a complete return to unsafe and exploitative conditions in factories and other work places.
Maybe what is needed is a fine balance of power between labor and management. But I fear that recent or current conservative and Republican states and local governments are not aiming for a balance but want to turn back the clock and eviscerate workers' rights as much as they can manage.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
First there were the measures in Wisconsin that were initiated by Governor Scott Walker which stripped public employees of their collective bargaining rights.
A few days ago in Michigan that state's Republican governor signed two bills, notably so-called right-to-work legislation, normally understood as undermining organized labor because it specifies that workers in factories do not have to join a union nor pay union dues.
And now today the Mayor of Chicago has signed a new labor contract for the janitorial employees at Chicago O'Hare Airport. This new contract is with a labor vendor who employees non-union labor.
It's commonly known that by many measures the power of unionized labor in the United States has been declining. For one thing, the percentage of American workers who are labor union members has been steadily declining for decades.
These latest developments may not be totally surprising but I think they occasion some thought about labor in America.
First it must be said that the labor movement improved working conditions for workers in factories, which was often brutish and unsafe. Through the efforts of labor unions, the work week was reduced and government-enforced safety standards for the work place came into being.
It was far more through the work of unions than through the generosity or conscience of employers that the American worker attained a working-class standard of living that was the highest in the world. (I suspect that nowadays some European countries equal or possibly even surpass that living standard.) On the other hand, workers are paid much less in the so-called Third World countries; and just as according to the laws of thermodynamics heat will flow from higher to lower, so work flows from higher-cost to lower-cost countries, so that not only American but Japanese and European manufacturers are having their goods produced in China. So, if you were minded to focus on the American worker's role in this—which most likely would not be fair—you could or say that the American worker has priced himself out of the world marketplace of labor.
Thinking about the import of new laws mentioned above, my thought was that we are creating a new class of the immigrant-laborer. But after just a moment I realized that this is not at all a new development. For over a hundred years it's been immigrant labor which has worked at the least-skilled jobs. Once it was in factories but now it's more likely to be janitorial, farm work, or perhaps in restaurant kitchens.
So the nature of the low-paid, unskilled work whose ranks are peopled by immigrant laborers has changed. But still I want to reflect on labor.
First, a disclaimer of sorts. If you want to look at "blood," then I am to be suspected of not being a friend of labor. My immediate ancestors were the factory bosses who would move their production to another state to avoid having to have union workers.
And I have written about some of the things that I blamed on union work rules: for example, one can see many jobs in progress where it looks like one person is working and three, four, or five men are standing around doing little or nothing.
In Great Britain you could argue that unions have undermined the success of British industry. The joke is that 15 minutes after starting work, the British worker pauses for a tea break. English auto factories were plagued by labor unrest and poor quality of production. Just as one example, the famous German car company BMW bought the English company that built Rover and Land Rover. After some years they failed to turn it around and sold it for $1.
So maybe it's bad if unions have too much power. Maybe that happened in England. Maybe it happened in the Unites States. (One needs to remember the era around 1950 when John L. Lewis was head of the powerful United Mine Workers and his union, or railroad unions, could cripple the country.)
But I for one would not like to see all the power on the part of the employers, either, even if that would not mean a complete return to unsafe and exploitative conditions in factories and other work places.
Maybe what is needed is a fine balance of power between labor and management. But I fear that recent or current conservative and Republican states and local governments are not aiming for a balance but want to turn back the clock and eviscerate workers' rights as much as they can manage.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Guns--Yet Again
It's happened yet again: another mass shooting in the United States. I'm getting tired of writing about these things.
What kind of sick, crazy society is it in which these things can occur? What kind of sick, crazy society permits it?
I wish I could say you never hear about these things occurring in other countries. It's almost true. Within the last couple of years there was a mass killing of 47 people by a man named Breivik in Norway—even peaceful Norway; and I believe there's been one in New Zealand.
But when something like that occurs in another country it is even more shocking and startling because it is rare almost to the point of being nonexistent. Nothing of the sort had ever happened in Norway before, and nothing of the sort has happened since.
Yet here in the US it seems we have this kind of thing occurring every few months.
It should be clear to nearly any one that the problem is the gun culture* in the US. There are too many guns among the population, they are too easy to get, and crazy people can get guns, even so-called assault weapons.
The US state in which I live, Illinois, has been the only US state out of 50 in which it was not legal to carry a concealed gun out of doors. And now that law has just been overturned by a court. This means that if I should piss off some stranger—and yes, I've done that—I might well get myself shot.
If that happens, please, somebody, say "He told us so."
____________
* Maybe I should define what I think "gun culture" means. It means a lot of people think guns are a good thing, want to own a gun, want to shoot a gun (at shooting ranges). The argument goes, I need a gun to protect my person and my property.
Well, if literally everybody owns a gun, then maybe you do need to own one, too. That, to me, conjures up an image of some kind of dystopian world that I don't think I'd want to live in.
On the other hand, if nobody owns a gun, you don't need one.
The US is quickly becoming a country where everyone owns a gun. And with this concealed-carry business, well, that's not a world I ever thought I'd have to live in.
Update, December 14, 2012. The above was written after, and prompted by, the mall shooting in Oregon. Therefore, it was written before still another shooting, that of some 26 school children and teachers in a Connecticut elementary school.
Regrettably, these killings almost surely will continue until there is a very loud public outcry, an outcry loud enough to drown out the pro-gun voices of the National Rifle Association, which is very powerful and has been hugely successful in opposing gun-control measures.
Personally, I would even favor repeal of the Second Amendment (the infamous "right to bear arms" amendment), although I'm pretty sure that is not going to happen any time soon.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
What kind of sick, crazy society is it in which these things can occur? What kind of sick, crazy society permits it?
I wish I could say you never hear about these things occurring in other countries. It's almost true. Within the last couple of years there was a mass killing of 47 people by a man named Breivik in Norway—even peaceful Norway; and I believe there's been one in New Zealand.
But when something like that occurs in another country it is even more shocking and startling because it is rare almost to the point of being nonexistent. Nothing of the sort had ever happened in Norway before, and nothing of the sort has happened since.
Yet here in the US it seems we have this kind of thing occurring every few months.
It should be clear to nearly any one that the problem is the gun culture* in the US. There are too many guns among the population, they are too easy to get, and crazy people can get guns, even so-called assault weapons.
The US state in which I live, Illinois, has been the only US state out of 50 in which it was not legal to carry a concealed gun out of doors. And now that law has just been overturned by a court. This means that if I should piss off some stranger—and yes, I've done that—I might well get myself shot.
If that happens, please, somebody, say "He told us so."
____________
* Maybe I should define what I think "gun culture" means. It means a lot of people think guns are a good thing, want to own a gun, want to shoot a gun (at shooting ranges). The argument goes, I need a gun to protect my person and my property.
Well, if literally everybody owns a gun, then maybe you do need to own one, too. That, to me, conjures up an image of some kind of dystopian world that I don't think I'd want to live in.
On the other hand, if nobody owns a gun, you don't need one.
The US is quickly becoming a country where everyone owns a gun. And with this concealed-carry business, well, that's not a world I ever thought I'd have to live in.
Update, December 14, 2012. The above was written after, and prompted by, the mall shooting in Oregon. Therefore, it was written before still another shooting, that of some 26 school children and teachers in a Connecticut elementary school.
Regrettably, these killings almost surely will continue until there is a very loud public outcry, an outcry loud enough to drown out the pro-gun voices of the National Rifle Association, which is very powerful and has been hugely successful in opposing gun-control measures.
Personally, I would even favor repeal of the Second Amendment (the infamous "right to bear arms" amendment), although I'm pretty sure that is not going to happen any time soon.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
The Value of People Skills
I think the most important ability a person can have is understanding people, or to be more precise, understanding human behavior.
The people who have this ability may become managers, politicians, car salesmen.
Maybe politicians and car salesmen are not people that you unequivocally admire. Still, having those abilities can make for success in life—not only in a career but also success in interpersonal relations.
I'm talking about an ability that consists of knowing, for example, what to say and what not to say. Knowing how people are going to react if you say or do such-and-such.
Some people, perhaps because of their childhoods, grow up with, as we put it, poor social skills. A book came out maybe 10 years ago which talked about "social intelligence." It's undoubtedly true that there are different types of intelligence. Many people who are very intelligent according to some measures are strong in many types of abilities but deficient in social intelligence.
There is Mensa, the "high IQ society," of which I was a member for 34 years.. While I have met many people in Mensa who seem to be ordinary people, there is no doubt that there are the geeks—that is, people with a lot of ability in computers, mathematics, and so forth--and stereotypically, Mensa members may be short on social skills. These types may be happiest working alone, doing work in which they can enjoy the luxury of not having to interact with other people constantly.
Sadly, though, that type of work situation might be rare. I was reading how the solitary inventor—an Edison, for example—has been replaced by the research lab which, of course, means an environment involving many people and thus a need for interaction among people.
In some research settings, I know that possibly quite a bit of eccentricity is tolerated. Because it's recognized that these people have rare abilities which must be prized, people in such organizations often enjoy a considerable degree of freedom, and in many matters they are left alone, permitted to dress as they want and often to keep the work hours that they want to.
Still, even those organizations have their managers, and university academic departments have their department chairs. Probably those who have better people skills are sought out for promotion to managerial positions.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
The people who have this ability may become managers, politicians, car salesmen.
Maybe politicians and car salesmen are not people that you unequivocally admire. Still, having those abilities can make for success in life—not only in a career but also success in interpersonal relations.
I'm talking about an ability that consists of knowing, for example, what to say and what not to say. Knowing how people are going to react if you say or do such-and-such.
Some people, perhaps because of their childhoods, grow up with, as we put it, poor social skills. A book came out maybe 10 years ago which talked about "social intelligence." It's undoubtedly true that there are different types of intelligence. Many people who are very intelligent according to some measures are strong in many types of abilities but deficient in social intelligence.
There is Mensa, the "high IQ society," of which I was a member for 34 years.. While I have met many people in Mensa who seem to be ordinary people, there is no doubt that there are the geeks—that is, people with a lot of ability in computers, mathematics, and so forth--and stereotypically, Mensa members may be short on social skills. These types may be happiest working alone, doing work in which they can enjoy the luxury of not having to interact with other people constantly.
Sadly, though, that type of work situation might be rare. I was reading how the solitary inventor—an Edison, for example—has been replaced by the research lab which, of course, means an environment involving many people and thus a need for interaction among people.
In some research settings, I know that possibly quite a bit of eccentricity is tolerated. Because it's recognized that these people have rare abilities which must be prized, people in such organizations often enjoy a considerable degree of freedom, and in many matters they are left alone, permitted to dress as they want and often to keep the work hours that they want to.
Still, even those organizations have their managers, and university academic departments have their department chairs. Probably those who have better people skills are sought out for promotion to managerial positions.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Monday, November 26, 2012
Pathetic Little Mankind
Man has achieved some incredible engineering projects. He has rerouted and dammed rivers, moved mountains, dug long canals, and split the atom, releasing previously undreamed of force. These things tend to make Homo sapiens believe he can master Nature and do just about anything.
But periodically Nature puts on a show that should humble us. There are plenty of natural forces that we cannot predict, let alone control. Storms, hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions. If you just look at still photographs and video of cars, boats, houses, even big ships lifted and moved by the tsunami in Japan a year ago or the more recent Hurricane Sandy, you see how man's creations are pitiful little toys in the hands of natural forces.
Many of man's achievements of the last century or so have caused not just complacency but hubris, the feeling that we can completely master Nature and reshape the earth and our world when and where we choose. And then Nature says, Pitiful little man, you need to remember who is boss, and see what power I can exert over you.
Copyright (c) 2012 by Richard Stein
Friday, November 23, 2012
J.J.J. (US Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr.)
I don't have much sympathy for Jesse Jackson, Jr., the Democratic US congressman from Illinois who, in recent news, resigned from Congress. He'd been on medical leave from his Congressional position for some months, plus he is under federal investigation for alleged misuse of campaign funds for personal purposes.
First, he was not serving in his Congressional job for some six months but would not level with the public. At first his people would only say that he was on "medical leave" and "fatigued." Then they told us he was depressed. At one point the news was that he was an inpatient at the Mayo Clinic. Finally they said he was suffering from bipolar disorder.
When they said he was depressed it was supposedly over his failure to get the Senate seat vacated by Obama. And his being in the shadow of Obama. Well, I don't want to say that being depressed indicates a lack of character but those statements made him sound like a cry-baby.
He should not have run for re-election last November. Now the public has to bear the expense of a special election.
Even aside from the allegations of wrong-doing, I think this man should be ashamed of himself. He has not served the people well nor has he been a credit to his name. (His father is the famous civil rights leader the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr.)
Update, August 15, 2013.
By now JJJ has been sentenced to three years in prison--a punishment some regard as a slap on the wrist. All the while, he is going to be collecting $8,700 a month for his "disability" (bipolar disorder), plus he gets a "partial pension" as a result of his Congressional seat. The two add up to very nearly $150,000 per year. Nice rewards for being a crook. Not even to mention the money he got improperly, and for which he is being punished. By comparison, I have been scrupulously honest all my life and never earned half that much per year. But, as the man says, who says life is fair?
First, he was not serving in his Congressional job for some six months but would not level with the public. At first his people would only say that he was on "medical leave" and "fatigued." Then they told us he was depressed. At one point the news was that he was an inpatient at the Mayo Clinic. Finally they said he was suffering from bipolar disorder.
When they said he was depressed it was supposedly over his failure to get the Senate seat vacated by Obama. And his being in the shadow of Obama. Well, I don't want to say that being depressed indicates a lack of character but those statements made him sound like a cry-baby.
He should not have run for re-election last November. Now the public has to bear the expense of a special election.
Even aside from the allegations of wrong-doing, I think this man should be ashamed of himself. He has not served the people well nor has he been a credit to his name. (His father is the famous civil rights leader the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr.)
Update, August 15, 2013.
By now JJJ has been sentenced to three years in prison--a punishment some regard as a slap on the wrist. All the while, he is going to be collecting $8,700 a month for his "disability" (bipolar disorder), plus he gets a "partial pension" as a result of his Congressional seat. The two add up to very nearly $150,000 per year. Nice rewards for being a crook. Not even to mention the money he got improperly, and for which he is being punished. By comparison, I have been scrupulously honest all my life and never earned half that much per year. But, as the man says, who says life is fair?
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Double Header (Two Subjects)
Two matters, first General Petreus. I haven't figured out what to call, or how to summarize, the second subject.
The United States is currently experiencing a scandal similar to those which have rocked one or two European countries over the last few decades.
General David Petraeus, who had been the commander of Allied forces in Iraq and more recently the director of the US CIA (Central Intelligence Agency), is involved in a scandal involving a mistress and possible conveyance of sensitive national information to others.
I think he should be called General Betray-Us. Okay, I'm just trying to be funny and have actually not formed a strong opinion in this matter--which is good, as the facts are still emerging.
Personally, I hate all things military, so I don't like generals. That includes General Motors, General Mills, and General Electric.
On another subject, yesterday I had a visit with my doctor—or to be more precise, one of my doctors, since when you get to my age you're likely to have numerous doctors, including various specialists. This one is an internist and my "primary care physician."
His practice has some new practices (no pun intended). They're very high-tech and have embraced various computer and database tools.
So, for example, the doctor writes up a summary of my visit on a laptop, and upon leaving I was presented with a copy of the write-up. This is what is so interesting: I read it and have to say, Yes, everything is true; but it all sounds so different, as he writes it, from what my experience was—mainly what I said I want or don't want.
There has to be a more general lesson here: experience can be quite different, depending on whose eyes it's filtered through. Remember that when you have a disagreement with your spouse or with a friend.
copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
The United States is currently experiencing a scandal similar to those which have rocked one or two European countries over the last few decades.
General David Petraeus, who had been the commander of Allied forces in Iraq and more recently the director of the US CIA (Central Intelligence Agency), is involved in a scandal involving a mistress and possible conveyance of sensitive national information to others.
I think he should be called General Betray-Us. Okay, I'm just trying to be funny and have actually not formed a strong opinion in this matter--which is good, as the facts are still emerging.
Personally, I hate all things military, so I don't like generals. That includes General Motors, General Mills, and General Electric.
On another subject, yesterday I had a visit with my doctor—or to be more precise, one of my doctors, since when you get to my age you're likely to have numerous doctors, including various specialists. This one is an internist and my "primary care physician."
His practice has some new practices (no pun intended). They're very high-tech and have embraced various computer and database tools.
So, for example, the doctor writes up a summary of my visit on a laptop, and upon leaving I was presented with a copy of the write-up. This is what is so interesting: I read it and have to say, Yes, everything is true; but it all sounds so different, as he writes it, from what my experience was—mainly what I said I want or don't want.
There has to be a more general lesson here: experience can be quite different, depending on whose eyes it's filtered through. Remember that when you have a disagreement with your spouse or with a friend.
copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Thursday, November 8, 2012
The November 6 Election. Part 2
Looking at a lot of the results of Tuesday's election, my faith in America and in the intelligence and good sense of my fellow Americans has been restored.
I had been convinced that America had taken a big swing to the Right, Also, I was concerned about the growing power of big money (corporations and extremely wealthy individuals) to influence elections through their ability, via PACs and SuperPACs, to buy political messages—especially TV advertising—to help the candidates that they favored. (Note that, under the law, these advocacy groups are supposedly allowed to advocate only for issues and not for specific candidates.) In the election their efforts often were not successful. As an example, Tammy Duckworth, an Asian-American and handicapped veteran running as a Democrat in a suburban Chicago district, was elected to Congress in spite of her opponent having 12 times as much money spent on his campaign.
Also in my area, where a number of Tea Party–affiliated or –supported candidates won election to Congress in the 2010 elections, this time most of them were defeated, in I think all but one of the suburban Chicago districts where they'd gotten elected last time. Even a rather moderate Republican—frankly to my surprise—lost the Congressional seat she had held for 30 years.
And of course not least, there's the fact that President Obama won, an outcome which I had been in doubt about. And the fact that three states approved same-sex marriage—the first time(s) that same-sex marriage had won in voter referendums—which, by the way, gives the lie to the assertions by same-sex marriage opponents that same-sex marriage never wins when it's a matter of the voters speaking but only when it's been forced upon the populace by courts or legislatures.
And recreational use of marijuana was approved in two out of three states where it was on the ballot.
I have faith that some of the the candidate elections if not the referendum results show that perhaps half of Americans understand that the Republican party is the party of the wealthy, and even of the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant heterosexual male. (We used to say "WASP," white Anglo-Saxon Protestant, but note that I have added a couple more adjectives to my version.) When you look at the statistics on who Hispanics (and to perhaps a lesser extent African Americans) vote for, it's mainly Democrats. Hispanics look at the Republican stance on immigration.
On the other hand, as to the referendum results I've mentioned: Issues like same-sex marriage and legalization of marijuana have been shown to be issues which younger voters are more likely to approve. So the makeup of the electorate in this election—that is, who turned out to vote—probably was a big factor in the results. Also, it must be admitted that part of these election upsets here in Illinois was due to the Constitutionally-mandated redistricting carried out as a result of the 2010 census, and the re-drawing of districts by Democrats in the Illinois legislature to favor themselves.
I had been convinced that America had taken a big swing to the Right, Also, I was concerned about the growing power of big money (corporations and extremely wealthy individuals) to influence elections through their ability, via PACs and SuperPACs, to buy political messages—especially TV advertising—to help the candidates that they favored. (Note that, under the law, these advocacy groups are supposedly allowed to advocate only for issues and not for specific candidates.) In the election their efforts often were not successful. As an example, Tammy Duckworth, an Asian-American and handicapped veteran running as a Democrat in a suburban Chicago district, was elected to Congress in spite of her opponent having 12 times as much money spent on his campaign.
Also in my area, where a number of Tea Party–affiliated or –supported candidates won election to Congress in the 2010 elections, this time most of them were defeated, in I think all but one of the suburban Chicago districts where they'd gotten elected last time. Even a rather moderate Republican—frankly to my surprise—lost the Congressional seat she had held for 30 years.
And of course not least, there's the fact that President Obama won, an outcome which I had been in doubt about. And the fact that three states approved same-sex marriage—the first time(s) that same-sex marriage had won in voter referendums—which, by the way, gives the lie to the assertions by same-sex marriage opponents that same-sex marriage never wins when it's a matter of the voters speaking but only when it's been forced upon the populace by courts or legislatures.
And recreational use of marijuana was approved in two out of three states where it was on the ballot.
I have faith that some of the the candidate elections if not the referendum results show that perhaps half of Americans understand that the Republican party is the party of the wealthy, and even of the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant heterosexual male. (We used to say "WASP," white Anglo-Saxon Protestant, but note that I have added a couple more adjectives to my version.) When you look at the statistics on who Hispanics (and to perhaps a lesser extent African Americans) vote for, it's mainly Democrats. Hispanics look at the Republican stance on immigration.
On the other hand, as to the referendum results I've mentioned: Issues like same-sex marriage and legalization of marijuana have been shown to be issues which younger voters are more likely to approve. So the makeup of the electorate in this election—that is, who turned out to vote—probably was a big factor in the results. Also, it must be admitted that part of these election upsets here in Illinois was due to the Constitutionally-mandated redistricting carried out as a result of the 2010 census, and the re-drawing of districts by Democrats in the Illinois legislature to favor themselves.
The November 6 Election. Part 1
On the night of Election Day—that is, Tueday, November 6--President Barack Obama said that he had prepared two speeches, one for use in the event of winning the election and the other a concession speech should he lose.
Mitt Romney, on the other hand, only wrote one speech—a victory speech.
Not only was that foolish, in hindsight. I feel it shows overconfidence and cockiness. Not to mention foolishness. Surely a mature and wise person has learned that "ya never know," and knows about the "fickle finger of fate."
When I was in high school I memorized a passage from "Sohrab and Rustum," a poem by Matthew Arnold:
Update, November 12, 2012
To try to be more charitable, maybe Romney's mind, in not seriously contemplating the possibility of losing the election, was pretty much like that of the young man going off to war, who is certain he will return. Or maybe even the smoker who is sure he or she will not develop lung cancer. It always happens to the other guy. That's called denial and it's pretty common human behavior.
Mitt Romney, on the other hand, only wrote one speech—a victory speech.
Not only was that foolish, in hindsight. I feel it shows overconfidence and cockiness. Not to mention foolishness. Surely a mature and wise person has learned that "ya never know," and knows about the "fickle finger of fate."
When I was in high school I memorized a passage from "Sohrab and Rustum," a poem by Matthew Arnold:
. . . and though thou thinkest that thy knowest sure thy victory,And there's a bit more; it ends with, "Only the event can teach us, in its hour." Now I'd say this is not rocket science. Yet it's evidently an idea that Mr. Romney evidently has not been exposed to or has not ever contemplated.
Yet thou canst not surely know,
For we are all, like swimmers in the sea,
Poised on the top of a huge wave of fate
Which hangs uncertain to which side to fall.
Update, November 12, 2012
To try to be more charitable, maybe Romney's mind, in not seriously contemplating the possibility of losing the election, was pretty much like that of the young man going off to war, who is certain he will return. Or maybe even the smoker who is sure he or she will not develop lung cancer. It always happens to the other guy. That's called denial and it's pretty common human behavior.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Does Heaven Exist?
There was a news story about a neurologist—a doctor—who claims that he saw Heaven.
This doctor had a rare brain infection with E. coli and was in a coma for seven days. He was not expected to live.
However, he survived and awoke from his coma, and when he awoke he related an experience. He talks of having been guided by a woman with blond hair, and seeing a very bright light.
The bright light thing is common to near-death experiences and has been explained as being a result of the brain's actions in the near-death condition.
However, the blond woman turns out to have been his sister whom he had never met or even seen before his coma because they were both adopted at birth.
Also, he says that brain scans made while he was in the coma showed no brain activity. Therefore, his experience could not have been generated in his brain and been the result of any normal brain activity.
Creepy. Definitely very creepy.
As to the lack of brain activity, I think a possible explanation might be that the man's brain was indeed active but was generating brain waves of a type that is not picked up on the kind of brain scan that was administered.
I have a problem with the idea of Heaven (or of an afterlife, or of a soul) which I'd say is the result of simple logic.
If you accept the idea of human evolution and a belief in Heaven at the same time, then you must raise the question, At which point in the course of evolution did there appear a creature with a soul and who could be admitted to Heaven. In other words, did Homo erectus have a soul and the possibility of entry to Heaven? Did Australopithecus afarensis?*
There was no first human, only creatures very gradually, over hundreds of thousands of years, becoming human. So there was no baby born who was the first Homo sapiens. Evolution was continuous and very gradual, with no sudden leaps. Distinct species are recognizable to us in the fossil record, but only when we are comparing different fossil examples which are hundreds of thousands of years apart. The early evolutionists asserted, Natura non fecit saltam—Nature does not produce leaps, or jumps.
I can't believe that God said, arbitrarily, one day 700,000 (or even 50,000) years ago, "Okay, as of June 30th of this year, I declare that humanoid creatures will be born with souls and can be admitted to Heaven."
___________
*Australopithecus afarensis is the fossil species to which the famous "Lucy" fossil--a girl only about three feet tall--belongs. And Australopithecus is the hominid fossil genus that preceded the genus Homo.
© 2012 by Richard Stein
This doctor had a rare brain infection with E. coli and was in a coma for seven days. He was not expected to live.
However, he survived and awoke from his coma, and when he awoke he related an experience. He talks of having been guided by a woman with blond hair, and seeing a very bright light.
The bright light thing is common to near-death experiences and has been explained as being a result of the brain's actions in the near-death condition.
However, the blond woman turns out to have been his sister whom he had never met or even seen before his coma because they were both adopted at birth.
Also, he says that brain scans made while he was in the coma showed no brain activity. Therefore, his experience could not have been generated in his brain and been the result of any normal brain activity.
Creepy. Definitely very creepy.
As to the lack of brain activity, I think a possible explanation might be that the man's brain was indeed active but was generating brain waves of a type that is not picked up on the kind of brain scan that was administered.
I have a problem with the idea of Heaven (or of an afterlife, or of a soul) which I'd say is the result of simple logic.
If you accept the idea of human evolution and a belief in Heaven at the same time, then you must raise the question, At which point in the course of evolution did there appear a creature with a soul and who could be admitted to Heaven. In other words, did Homo erectus have a soul and the possibility of entry to Heaven? Did Australopithecus afarensis?*
There was no first human, only creatures very gradually, over hundreds of thousands of years, becoming human. So there was no baby born who was the first Homo sapiens. Evolution was continuous and very gradual, with no sudden leaps. Distinct species are recognizable to us in the fossil record, but only when we are comparing different fossil examples which are hundreds of thousands of years apart. The early evolutionists asserted, Natura non fecit saltam—Nature does not produce leaps, or jumps.
I can't believe that God said, arbitrarily, one day 700,000 (or even 50,000) years ago, "Okay, as of June 30th of this year, I declare that humanoid creatures will be born with souls and can be admitted to Heaven."
___________
*Australopithecus afarensis is the fossil species to which the famous "Lucy" fossil--a girl only about three feet tall--belongs. And Australopithecus is the hominid fossil genus that preceded the genus Homo.
© 2012 by Richard Stein
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Why More Americans Doubt Global Warming
Money--contributed money, that is--is not only driving American politics but also general American beliefs.
This is an age when corporations and very wealthy individuals can fund PACs (political action committees), Super PACs, and other types of entities that can indirectly support and fund candidates and even remain anonymous while doing so.
These funders generally support Republican candidates because the funders who are individuals have chiefly the objective of keeping taxes on themselves low. If they are corporations they may be concerned with corporate taxes but are perhaps more concerned with avoiding government regulation.
Thus both wealthy individuals and corporations mainly support Republican candidates--89% of corporate campaign spending goes to Republicans—because Republicans support these goals of theirs, and Republican-controlled houses of Congress will vote their way.
Pretty much as an aside, I want to get in the idea that political advertising—that is, campaign ads—make the implicit assertion that government regulations kill jobs. At the very least that is an exaggeration and overgeneralization and oversimplification. But then, whoever said that slogans—of any kind—contain qualifications or any nuances whatsoever?
But it's also alarming that these same monied political interests have been successfully influencing people's beliefs about what should be a matter of science—that is, the reality of global warming and the degree to which it is caused by human actions.
A report by the American Academy of Science said that 98 to 99% of scientists believe that global warming is real and is at least partly caused by human actions such as the burning of fossil fuels. The exact percentage of global warming which is the result of human action is difficult to determine, so there is room for disagreement about that, even among the scientists who accept both the reality of global warming and its causation by increased concentrations of so-called greenhouse gases, most notably carbon dioxide (CO2).
The anti–global warming forces muster scientists who support their position. Sometimes these scientists are of suspect objectivity because they receive funding from the people whose ideas they support. Or they are not experts in the field of climate. They have even taken data and manipulated it. (Example: You can take 10-year periods and show that global temperatures were actually slightly cooler at the end of the period than at the beginning. But if you look at a graph of the longer-term trend, the upward trend in global temperature is unmistakable.)
Their advertising slogans try to convince people that carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere is not harmful. Carbon dioxide is what plants breathe in. (True.) It is "plant food." Okay, you could say that, too; but that does not in any way refute the fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. (Another greenhouse gas is methane, which is added to our atmosphere in considerable quantities by our raising animals for food. To put it in everyday terms, methane is cow farts.) Greenhouse gases--just to remind you--trap solar radiation that hits the earth and turn it to heat.
The effect of the millions of dollars which have been spent on a public disinformation campaign is that they have convinced nearly half the American population that global warming is not real and is not a problem and is not anything we need to take action on.
Who is doing this, and why? Naturally we have to look for motivation, for self-interest. For one, the Koch brothers, who are or should be infamous to many Americans as they are huge donors to various right-wing causes. These two hugely wealthy brothers own very extensive oil and gas interests. Therefore, they want you and me to go on burning fossil fuels—it's money in their pockets—rather than "going green" and developing more wind and solar energy.
And corporate interests don't want to see any regulations on their factories' emissions of CO2. The House passed a plan known as "cap and trade" which would have the effect of a net reduction in CO2 emissions from industrial sources. But these interests, alarmed at their defeat in the House, have ensured that this bill will not pass in the Senate.
Update, November 1, 2012
Here is another example of money spent to influence public opinion--called public relations--that also has been successful yet detrimental to the general welfare. The sugar industry spent a lot of money to counteract a bad image that sugar had been getting--particularly its role in causing obesity and chronic diseases such as diabetes. Here is a quotation from an article in Mother Jones:
Of course free speech allows lobbying and public relations efforts; and hopefully they are not all evil. But, where they are, the only antidote is public education and public information, and these are usually not supported by the same kind of money.
So in both these cases--climate change and the harmfulness of sugar--the equation is, money to spend (or money spent) = persuasion (public relations) = change in public opinion. In this age of media, persuasion is a vast and very influential industry.
© 2012 by Richard Stein
This is an age when corporations and very wealthy individuals can fund PACs (political action committees), Super PACs, and other types of entities that can indirectly support and fund candidates and even remain anonymous while doing so.
These funders generally support Republican candidates because the funders who are individuals have chiefly the objective of keeping taxes on themselves low. If they are corporations they may be concerned with corporate taxes but are perhaps more concerned with avoiding government regulation.
Thus both wealthy individuals and corporations mainly support Republican candidates--89% of corporate campaign spending goes to Republicans—because Republicans support these goals of theirs, and Republican-controlled houses of Congress will vote their way.
Pretty much as an aside, I want to get in the idea that political advertising—that is, campaign ads—make the implicit assertion that government regulations kill jobs. At the very least that is an exaggeration and overgeneralization and oversimplification. But then, whoever said that slogans—of any kind—contain qualifications or any nuances whatsoever?
But it's also alarming that these same monied political interests have been successfully influencing people's beliefs about what should be a matter of science—that is, the reality of global warming and the degree to which it is caused by human actions.
A report by the American Academy of Science said that 98 to 99% of scientists believe that global warming is real and is at least partly caused by human actions such as the burning of fossil fuels. The exact percentage of global warming which is the result of human action is difficult to determine, so there is room for disagreement about that, even among the scientists who accept both the reality of global warming and its causation by increased concentrations of so-called greenhouse gases, most notably carbon dioxide (CO2).
The anti–global warming forces muster scientists who support their position. Sometimes these scientists are of suspect objectivity because they receive funding from the people whose ideas they support. Or they are not experts in the field of climate. They have even taken data and manipulated it. (Example: You can take 10-year periods and show that global temperatures were actually slightly cooler at the end of the period than at the beginning. But if you look at a graph of the longer-term trend, the upward trend in global temperature is unmistakable.)
Their advertising slogans try to convince people that carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere is not harmful. Carbon dioxide is what plants breathe in. (True.) It is "plant food." Okay, you could say that, too; but that does not in any way refute the fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. (Another greenhouse gas is methane, which is added to our atmosphere in considerable quantities by our raising animals for food. To put it in everyday terms, methane is cow farts.) Greenhouse gases--just to remind you--trap solar radiation that hits the earth and turn it to heat.
The effect of the millions of dollars which have been spent on a public disinformation campaign is that they have convinced nearly half the American population that global warming is not real and is not a problem and is not anything we need to take action on.
Who is doing this, and why? Naturally we have to look for motivation, for self-interest. For one, the Koch brothers, who are or should be infamous to many Americans as they are huge donors to various right-wing causes. These two hugely wealthy brothers own very extensive oil and gas interests. Therefore, they want you and me to go on burning fossil fuels—it's money in their pockets—rather than "going green" and developing more wind and solar energy.
And corporate interests don't want to see any regulations on their factories' emissions of CO2. The House passed a plan known as "cap and trade" which would have the effect of a net reduction in CO2 emissions from industrial sources. But these interests, alarmed at their defeat in the House, have ensured that this bill will not pass in the Senate.
Update, November 1, 2012
Here is another example of money spent to influence public opinion--called public relations--that also has been successful yet detrimental to the general welfare. The sugar industry spent a lot of money to counteract a bad image that sugar had been getting--particularly its role in causing obesity and chronic diseases such as diabetes. Here is a quotation from an article in Mother Jones:
The [sugar] industry's PR campaign corresponded roughly with a significant rise in Americans' consumption of 'caloric sweeteners,' including table sugar (sucrose) and high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). This increase was accompanied, in turn, by a surge in the chronic diseases increasingly linked to sugar. Since 1970, obesity rates in the United States have more than doubled, while the incidence of diabetes has more than tripled.Here is a link to the full article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/01/big-sugars-sweet-little-l_n_2056731.html
Of course free speech allows lobbying and public relations efforts; and hopefully they are not all evil. But, where they are, the only antidote is public education and public information, and these are usually not supported by the same kind of money.
So in both these cases--climate change and the harmfulness of sugar--the equation is, money to spend (or money spent) = persuasion (public relations) = change in public opinion. In this age of media, persuasion is a vast and very influential industry.
© 2012 by Richard Stein
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Some of the Things Done in the Name of Religion
In the sixteenth century, following the Spanish conquest of the Mexico, Bishop Landa, the bishop of Yucatan, tortured some 4,000 native Mayans in the process of trying to convert them to Christianity. Some 140 were tortured to death.
Nowadays we'd call that war crimes—so maybe there's been some progress for Mankind. But back then, it was just doing God's work, missionary work, trying to bring Christ to the heathens and save their souls.
I don't know how many people were tortured and killed by the Inquisition in the several centuries of its existence. There were the Muslims and Jews in Spain after 1492; and Protestants and suspected Protestants in Italy, for whom the Inquisition devised a new punishment, boiling in oil. And many more. We are just now learning some of these things as certain records of the Inquisition have only recently been opened up.
During the Crusades, the Crusaders, who had their Christian zeal stirred up by the preachments of the Pope, while on their way to the Holy Land to conquer it from Muslims, would kill any Jews that they happened to encounter along the way, in France or wherever.
These are just a few examples of many, many occurrences over 2000 years or more when, in the name of God, horrible things have been done. It should not surprise the religious that many of the non-religious—including me—view religion as more harmful than beneficial.
Nowadays we'd call that war crimes—so maybe there's been some progress for Mankind. But back then, it was just doing God's work, missionary work, trying to bring Christ to the heathens and save their souls.
I don't know how many people were tortured and killed by the Inquisition in the several centuries of its existence. There were the Muslims and Jews in Spain after 1492; and Protestants and suspected Protestants in Italy, for whom the Inquisition devised a new punishment, boiling in oil. And many more. We are just now learning some of these things as certain records of the Inquisition have only recently been opened up.
During the Crusades, the Crusaders, who had their Christian zeal stirred up by the preachments of the Pope, while on their way to the Holy Land to conquer it from Muslims, would kill any Jews that they happened to encounter along the way, in France or wherever.
These are just a few examples of many, many occurrences over 2000 years or more when, in the name of God, horrible things have been done. It should not surprise the religious that many of the non-religious—including me—view religion as more harmful than beneficial.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Four Obsolete (or not) Technologies
I have blogged before about a number of ways in which our life today is different from life a few decades ago—all changes resulting from new technology.
Here I want to look a bit more at four technologies which have almost—but maybe not quite—disappeared:
Typewriters
Vinyl records
Film cameras
Audio tape recorders/players
Typewriters. I have heard that there is some new interest in typewriters. Supposedly, young people who had not seen a typewriter before think it's cool, when they see one, that you get print appearing instantaneously, as soon as you press a key. No need to send your document to the printer and then wait for the printer to complete its job.
I think one or two of my doctors' offices have typewriters; but you don't see typewriters every day. They were superceded first by dedicated word processors and then by the personal computer (PC) running word-processing software—and of course the necessary connected printer.
I am not sure any typewriters are being manufactured today. I am sure you can find one for sale. But all of the businesses connected with typewriters—selling them, servicing them—are gone. (There might be a dealer in typewriters somewhere. Maybe even two or three in the US today, I'd guess.)
Vinyl records. The death of vinyl records was pronounced years ago, but they have not gone away. Disc jockeys use them, and many audiophiles and others believe that those old LPs, as we used to call them, offer better sound.
In fact, among high-end audio aficionados, there is a lot of record-playing equipment available—turntables, tone arms, cartridges (the part that holds the needle), plus devices that provide the required additional amplification. Plus, there still exists that whole culture of playing records, which I for one would largely be happy to forget: all manner of devices for cleaning records, devices for setting up and adjusting your turntable, tone arm, and cartridge, etc.
What is more astonishing than the fact that all of this still exists—and there are in fact many turntables on the market currently—is the fact that much of this record-playing gear is extremely expensive, and you've got people willing to buy this stuff for four- and even five-digit prices.
Film cameras. The technology of photography that used various chemical processes to record an image was with us for 150 years, but photography has changed dramatically in the last 15 years.
One day when I was downtown I saw three young people—separate and presumably unconnected sightings, if you will—carrying film cameras. I think film cameras are favored by some photography courses. I recently heard someone say that the quality of image you get with film can't be equaled by digital cameras.
As with record-playing equipment, I know that some of the cameras I saw being carried that day cost around $1000. I myself still own a film camera, a late, modern model (just as I still own a very late-generation electronic typewriter, a not-so-recent turntable, and audio and video tape machines).
But, again, there is what I might call a whole culture around film cameras that is pretty much gone. People who were serious about photography and who wanted to do their own lab work owned tanks for developing the film, enlargers for making the print, and equipment for developing those paper prints—plus a myriad of small accessories. I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure it's hard to find that stuff nowadays. Heck, you can't even find a camera store anymore; people buy their digital cameras at Best Buy, if not online.
And, perhaps as an aside, another thing that's obsolete is the amateur movie camera, replaced by video. You can still buy film for a still camera—certainly it's less ubiquitous than it once was—but I bet it's very hard to find amateur movie film.
Audio tape recorders/players. (This one may more unequivocally be obsolete.) The use of magnetic tape to record sound goes back at least to the time of World War II. In the 1950s the tape cassette was developed, originally intended for dictation. A decade or so later, the cassette tape and the machines to record and play it had been developed into a high-fidelity medium.
My car, which is a 2004 model, has a cassette-player slot—as well as a CD changer. (I am sure that tape players have disappeared from newer cars; and I understand that car CD changers are also disappearing as car makers bring out cars that let you plug in your iPad.)
In the days when television was beginning to become common in American homes—the early 1950s—the TV broadcast industry had no means of recording a TV signal. When anyone wished to make TV programs that could be preserved, either the program had to be filmed before broadcast, or a process called kinescope was used, which actually involved filming the program's image as it displayed on a CRT (TV screen).
Home recorders for a TV signal became available in the early 1980s (of course commercial video recorders were available before that). Home video tapes, in VHS format, have become obsolete, replaced by discs. Discs offer the advantage of "random access," which means that you can go from one point on the disc to another in a second or two—rather than having to wind the tape forward or backward. Discs never have to be rewound, and they're more compact, as well—though they may be more liable to damage from scratches. Now there are several options for recording sound or video: on iPods for sound, and on DVRs for video. Or maybe more likely for both audio and video, on CDs (CD ROM R/W) or our computer hard drives.
It's a problem for archives and archival collections, like the Library of Congress, that they hold a lot of information on media which has become obsolete, so there can be the problem of finding machines on which to play the material.
© 2012 by Richard Stein
Here I want to look a bit more at four technologies which have almost—but maybe not quite—disappeared:
Typewriters
Vinyl records
Film cameras
Audio tape recorders/players
Typewriters. I have heard that there is some new interest in typewriters. Supposedly, young people who had not seen a typewriter before think it's cool, when they see one, that you get print appearing instantaneously, as soon as you press a key. No need to send your document to the printer and then wait for the printer to complete its job.
I think one or two of my doctors' offices have typewriters; but you don't see typewriters every day. They were superceded first by dedicated word processors and then by the personal computer (PC) running word-processing software—and of course the necessary connected printer.
I am not sure any typewriters are being manufactured today. I am sure you can find one for sale. But all of the businesses connected with typewriters—selling them, servicing them—are gone. (There might be a dealer in typewriters somewhere. Maybe even two or three in the US today, I'd guess.)
Vinyl records. The death of vinyl records was pronounced years ago, but they have not gone away. Disc jockeys use them, and many audiophiles and others believe that those old LPs, as we used to call them, offer better sound.
In fact, among high-end audio aficionados, there is a lot of record-playing equipment available—turntables, tone arms, cartridges (the part that holds the needle), plus devices that provide the required additional amplification. Plus, there still exists that whole culture of playing records, which I for one would largely be happy to forget: all manner of devices for cleaning records, devices for setting up and adjusting your turntable, tone arm, and cartridge, etc.
What is more astonishing than the fact that all of this still exists—and there are in fact many turntables on the market currently—is the fact that much of this record-playing gear is extremely expensive, and you've got people willing to buy this stuff for four- and even five-digit prices.
Film cameras. The technology of photography that used various chemical processes to record an image was with us for 150 years, but photography has changed dramatically in the last 15 years.
One day when I was downtown I saw three young people—separate and presumably unconnected sightings, if you will—carrying film cameras. I think film cameras are favored by some photography courses. I recently heard someone say that the quality of image you get with film can't be equaled by digital cameras.
As with record-playing equipment, I know that some of the cameras I saw being carried that day cost around $1000. I myself still own a film camera, a late, modern model (just as I still own a very late-generation electronic typewriter, a not-so-recent turntable, and audio and video tape machines).
But, again, there is what I might call a whole culture around film cameras that is pretty much gone. People who were serious about photography and who wanted to do their own lab work owned tanks for developing the film, enlargers for making the print, and equipment for developing those paper prints—plus a myriad of small accessories. I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure it's hard to find that stuff nowadays. Heck, you can't even find a camera store anymore; people buy their digital cameras at Best Buy, if not online.
And, perhaps as an aside, another thing that's obsolete is the amateur movie camera, replaced by video. You can still buy film for a still camera—certainly it's less ubiquitous than it once was—but I bet it's very hard to find amateur movie film.
Audio tape recorders/players. (This one may more unequivocally be obsolete.) The use of magnetic tape to record sound goes back at least to the time of World War II. In the 1950s the tape cassette was developed, originally intended for dictation. A decade or so later, the cassette tape and the machines to record and play it had been developed into a high-fidelity medium.
My car, which is a 2004 model, has a cassette-player slot—as well as a CD changer. (I am sure that tape players have disappeared from newer cars; and I understand that car CD changers are also disappearing as car makers bring out cars that let you plug in your iPad.)
In the days when television was beginning to become common in American homes—the early 1950s—the TV broadcast industry had no means of recording a TV signal. When anyone wished to make TV programs that could be preserved, either the program had to be filmed before broadcast, or a process called kinescope was used, which actually involved filming the program's image as it displayed on a CRT (TV screen).
Home recorders for a TV signal became available in the early 1980s (of course commercial video recorders were available before that). Home video tapes, in VHS format, have become obsolete, replaced by discs. Discs offer the advantage of "random access," which means that you can go from one point on the disc to another in a second or two—rather than having to wind the tape forward or backward. Discs never have to be rewound, and they're more compact, as well—though they may be more liable to damage from scratches. Now there are several options for recording sound or video: on iPods for sound, and on DVRs for video. Or maybe more likely for both audio and video, on CDs (CD ROM R/W) or our computer hard drives.
It's a problem for archives and archival collections, like the Library of Congress, that they hold a lot of information on media which has become obsolete, so there can be the problem of finding machines on which to play the material.
© 2012 by Richard Stein
Monday, October 1, 2012
More on the Spanish in the New World
As many people are aware, there were many atrocities, mass murders, and genocides in the twentieth century.
Toward the end of the century there were the genocides in Rwanda and Kosovo. During World War II, cruel treatment of prisoners of war by the Japanese resulted in the famous Bridge on the River Kwai episode, and the Bataan Death March--not even mentioning any of the terrible things, such as experiments with germ warfare, that the Japanese performed on the Chinese in the 1930s. Nor Allied bombings of World War II, which--aside from the casualties of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki--killed 250,000 in Tokyo alone.
Of course there was the Holocaust in which an estimated 6 million Jews, Slavs, clergy, gypsies, and homosexuals perished in the Nazi concentration camps, from being gassed, starved, or worked to death, or from disease.
And, as many an Armenian knows well, early in the twentieth century an undetermined number—but believed to be a 7-figure number—of Armenians perished due to actions of the Turks.
The last two examples are among the larger and more egregious examples of modern times. But there is one story not as well known.
It all started when the Spanish conquerors of the New World learned of silver deposits at Potosi, in Bolivia. This turned out to be a fabulously rich silver mine; but it was high in the Andes, at 13,000 feet. Spanish workers were unwilling or unable to work at that altitude. Similarly for African slaves. So the King of Spain, Philip II, issued an order permitting native peoples to be enslaved to work in the mines.
By 1800, enough silver had been mined to form a string of ingots stretching from Potosi to Spain. Also, unfortunately, 4 million people died in those mines by 1800, again enough corpses to form a chain stretching all the way back to Spain.
So that has to count as one of the largest mass murders of the last 500 years. Of course all over the New World, once the Spanish arrived, an uncertain number of Native Americans died—through being deliberately killed, through disease, and through being overworked as literally or virtually slave labor—starting, in fact, with Columbus himself.
With Columbus Day coming shortly, it might be time to contemplate some of these facts and consider that maybe Columbus' arrival in the New World is not unequivocally an event to be celebrated.
© 2012 by Richard Stein
Toward the end of the century there were the genocides in Rwanda and Kosovo. During World War II, cruel treatment of prisoners of war by the Japanese resulted in the famous Bridge on the River Kwai episode, and the Bataan Death March--not even mentioning any of the terrible things, such as experiments with germ warfare, that the Japanese performed on the Chinese in the 1930s. Nor Allied bombings of World War II, which--aside from the casualties of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki--killed 250,000 in Tokyo alone.
Of course there was the Holocaust in which an estimated 6 million Jews, Slavs, clergy, gypsies, and homosexuals perished in the Nazi concentration camps, from being gassed, starved, or worked to death, or from disease.
And, as many an Armenian knows well, early in the twentieth century an undetermined number—but believed to be a 7-figure number—of Armenians perished due to actions of the Turks.
The last two examples are among the larger and more egregious examples of modern times. But there is one story not as well known.
It all started when the Spanish conquerors of the New World learned of silver deposits at Potosi, in Bolivia. This turned out to be a fabulously rich silver mine; but it was high in the Andes, at 13,000 feet. Spanish workers were unwilling or unable to work at that altitude. Similarly for African slaves. So the King of Spain, Philip II, issued an order permitting native peoples to be enslaved to work in the mines.
By 1800, enough silver had been mined to form a string of ingots stretching from Potosi to Spain. Also, unfortunately, 4 million people died in those mines by 1800, again enough corpses to form a chain stretching all the way back to Spain.
So that has to count as one of the largest mass murders of the last 500 years. Of course all over the New World, once the Spanish arrived, an uncertain number of Native Americans died—through being deliberately killed, through disease, and through being overworked as literally or virtually slave labor—starting, in fact, with Columbus himself.
With Columbus Day coming shortly, it might be time to contemplate some of these facts and consider that maybe Columbus' arrival in the New World is not unequivocally an event to be celebrated.
© 2012 by Richard Stein
Friday, September 21, 2012
Lies from the Right, in Your Email Inbox
I have an acquaintance—actually a high-school classmate with whom I re-established contact a few years ago—who likes to forward to me (and others) emails which I have to characterize as right-wing propaganda. And I use the word propaganda advisedly, with its suggestion of exaggeration and lies.
One such email contained a chart that purported to show what Medicare premiums are going to be under the Affordable Care Act (which the Right likes to call "Obamacare"). The chart showed that, four or five years out, Medicare premiums would reach a truly astounding, astronomical figure.
I did a little investigation and found out that the chart was simply and completely a lie. The fact is that Medicare premiums are not planned or announced four or five years in advance, as the chart purported, but are announced for the coming year only a few months before the start of a year. Thus no one—not the makers of the chart nor anyone in Washington—knows anything like that far in advance what Medicare premiums are going to be. (By the way, this example should remind all of us to look for some credit, some source or attribution for any "data" like that.)
The latest forward I received from my acquaintance was captioned something like "What the media won't show you." And what the media have, supposedly, been refusing to show us is a photograph. The photograph shows a man's body—living or dead, I don't think one could tell—being carried on the shoulder of another man.
The supposed story behind this photo: Supposedly the body is that of US Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens. The copy or text of the email claims that the ambassador was "dragged through the streets, sodomized, and murdered," and that this all was somehow Obama's fault. Admittedly I did not carefully read all of it; but it kept speaking of "Hussein Obama," who allegedly is too sympathetic to Islam to—what? avenge? prevent?--outrages to the US that are being committed in Muslim countries.
According to CBS television news, the Libyan government sent troops in, after the US Embassy compound in Benghazi was attacked. These troops found the ambassador, dead or dying, in the US Consulate, where he had gone to help evacuate consulate staff. If he was in fact dead or dying, then it has to be untrue that he was dragged through the streets and then murdered (let alone sodomized).
Some quotes from a September 21, 2012 Huffington Post article, quoting AP:
So this, I would accept, is the true story. I am sure I don't have to emphasize how different this story is from that in the email I received.
And, note the name. Barack Obama's middle name is Hussein. During the 2008 election campaign, Obama's opponents on the Right liked to stress his middle name. It is, to be sure, an Islamic-sounding name. But what do they wish us to infer from that? There is a calumny that Obama is a Muslim that just won't go away.
To take these two emails together—plus many of the untrue things that some organizations have tried to say about gay people—upsets, enrages, and outrages me. The sheer immorality of these lies, of manufacturing tables of phony Medicare premiums; or taking a photo and claiming it shows Ambassador Stevens and then making up a backstory to that photo.
Update, May 27, 2013.
The television news reporting of the recent action by the Boy Scouts of America to allow gay boys and men to be Boy Scouts members and staffers included an inteview with a heavy man--presumably the father of a Boy Scout--who said on camera, "We're going to be required to teach homosexuality to boys as young as 6, up to 17."
I have to wonder who the "we" is supposed to be, and what he feels "teaching homosexuality" means. Maybe it means "tolerance," but he clearly meant something he viewed as pretty dire. The TV news article added that the Boy Scouts of America has denied this assertion; so my next thought is, Where did this man get that idea? I have to think this is yet one more example of Right and homophobic organizations and individuals spreading misinformation and dysinformation.
Update, June 4, 2013
People who receive emails that contain "information" that seems dubious should be aware of a website called factcheck.org.
Here is their summary, for the end of 2012, of emails which have been circulating on the Internet and that include false "information": factcheck.org 2012 "viral spiral"
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
One such email contained a chart that purported to show what Medicare premiums are going to be under the Affordable Care Act (which the Right likes to call "Obamacare"). The chart showed that, four or five years out, Medicare premiums would reach a truly astounding, astronomical figure.
I did a little investigation and found out that the chart was simply and completely a lie. The fact is that Medicare premiums are not planned or announced four or five years in advance, as the chart purported, but are announced for the coming year only a few months before the start of a year. Thus no one—not the makers of the chart nor anyone in Washington—knows anything like that far in advance what Medicare premiums are going to be. (By the way, this example should remind all of us to look for some credit, some source or attribution for any "data" like that.)
The latest forward I received from my acquaintance was captioned something like "What the media won't show you." And what the media have, supposedly, been refusing to show us is a photograph. The photograph shows a man's body—living or dead, I don't think one could tell—being carried on the shoulder of another man.
The supposed story behind this photo: Supposedly the body is that of US Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens. The copy or text of the email claims that the ambassador was "dragged through the streets, sodomized, and murdered," and that this all was somehow Obama's fault. Admittedly I did not carefully read all of it; but it kept speaking of "Hussein Obama," who allegedly is too sympathetic to Islam to—what? avenge? prevent?--outrages to the US that are being committed in Muslim countries.
According to CBS television news, the Libyan government sent troops in, after the US Embassy compound in Benghazi was attacked. These troops found the ambassador, dead or dying, in the US Consulate, where he had gone to help evacuate consulate staff. If he was in fact dead or dying, then it has to be untrue that he was dragged through the streets and then murdered (let alone sodomized).
Some quotes from a September 21, 2012 Huffington Post article, quoting AP:
A Libyan doctor who treated Stevens said he died of severe asphyxiation, apparently from smoke.
. . .
Stevens was practically dead when he arrived close to 1 a.m. on Wednesday, but "we tried to revive him for an hour and a half but with no success," Abu Zeid [the doctor at the hospital] said. The ambassador had bleeding in his stomach because of the asphyxiation but no other injuries, he said.
But the brazen assaults - the first on U.S. diplomatic facilities in either country - underscored the lawlessness that has taken hold in Libya and Egypt after revolutions ousted their autocratic secular regimes and upended the tightly controlled police state in both countries.
. . . .
Moreover, security in both countries has broken down.
. . .
In Libya, central government control is weak, arms are ubiquitous and militias are pervasive.
So this, I would accept, is the true story. I am sure I don't have to emphasize how different this story is from that in the email I received.
And, note the name. Barack Obama's middle name is Hussein. During the 2008 election campaign, Obama's opponents on the Right liked to stress his middle name. It is, to be sure, an Islamic-sounding name. But what do they wish us to infer from that? There is a calumny that Obama is a Muslim that just won't go away.
To take these two emails together—plus many of the untrue things that some organizations have tried to say about gay people—upsets, enrages, and outrages me. The sheer immorality of these lies, of manufacturing tables of phony Medicare premiums; or taking a photo and claiming it shows Ambassador Stevens and then making up a backstory to that photo.
Update, May 27, 2013.
The television news reporting of the recent action by the Boy Scouts of America to allow gay boys and men to be Boy Scouts members and staffers included an inteview with a heavy man--presumably the father of a Boy Scout--who said on camera, "We're going to be required to teach homosexuality to boys as young as 6, up to 17."
I have to wonder who the "we" is supposed to be, and what he feels "teaching homosexuality" means. Maybe it means "tolerance," but he clearly meant something he viewed as pretty dire. The TV news article added that the Boy Scouts of America has denied this assertion; so my next thought is, Where did this man get that idea? I have to think this is yet one more example of Right and homophobic organizations and individuals spreading misinformation and dysinformation.
Update, June 4, 2013
People who receive emails that contain "information" that seems dubious should be aware of a website called factcheck.org.
Here is their summary, for the end of 2012, of emails which have been circulating on the Internet and that include false "information": factcheck.org 2012 "viral spiral"
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Sins and Crimes of Political and Religious Leaders
Tim Pawlenty, known to many as the former governor of Minnesota, has recently resigned as campaign manager for Mitt Romney, to join a financial-industry lobbying and advisory group.
So we see that he is allied with the people who gave us subprime mortgages, robo-signing of foreclosure orders, and the causes of the financial crisis and near-meltdown of 2007- 2008.
People don't usually enter that kind of an organization if they have not already had some ties to them. Thus, it's likely that Pawlenty has been allied with this group. Given how prone people are, these days, to besmirch any political candidate, it would be in this prevalent spirit if I said that Romney perhaps is guilty by association, even if perhaps somewhat remotely.
And, also in today's top news, at least in this region: The pastor of a Northwest Indiana mega-church was indicted for a sex crime, namely transporting a 17-year-old woman (and thus a minor) across state lines for sexual purposes. I think that violates both the so-called Mann Act, which covers transporting across state lines, and statutes involving minors.
And, to anyone who can remember even a short while back, he is not the first religious leader to be involved in a scandal. With just the sex scandals alone, I certainly have not been trying to keep count but if I had been I'm sure I would have lost count long ago.
I wish to imply that it is typical for our politicians to be tied to groups and organizations whose aims are counter to the public good; and that religious leaders are liars, shams, and hypocrites.
Well, all right, not all, of either group. I certainly must admit "not all." But too many. Way too many.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
So we see that he is allied with the people who gave us subprime mortgages, robo-signing of foreclosure orders, and the causes of the financial crisis and near-meltdown of 2007- 2008.
People don't usually enter that kind of an organization if they have not already had some ties to them. Thus, it's likely that Pawlenty has been allied with this group. Given how prone people are, these days, to besmirch any political candidate, it would be in this prevalent spirit if I said that Romney perhaps is guilty by association, even if perhaps somewhat remotely.
And, also in today's top news, at least in this region: The pastor of a Northwest Indiana mega-church was indicted for a sex crime, namely transporting a 17-year-old woman (and thus a minor) across state lines for sexual purposes. I think that violates both the so-called Mann Act, which covers transporting across state lines, and statutes involving minors.
And, to anyone who can remember even a short while back, he is not the first religious leader to be involved in a scandal. With just the sex scandals alone, I certainly have not been trying to keep count but if I had been I'm sure I would have lost count long ago.
I wish to imply that it is typical for our politicians to be tied to groups and organizations whose aims are counter to the public good; and that religious leaders are liars, shams, and hypocrites.
Well, all right, not all, of either group. I certainly must admit "not all." But too many. Way too many.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
The Great Economics Debate-- and Am I Converting?
There are (to put things in polarized terms) two schools of thought on some economic issues that have more or less been continuously battling for many years; the argument seem to have come to the foreground recently. One is the advocacy of complete laissez-faire—that is, the government should totally keep hands off business and then the economy will flourish, and all will be prosperous and otherwise rosy. This approach is exemplified by the late Milton Friedman, who for many years was one of the lights of the University of Chicago economics department, and who won a Nobel Prize in economics.
The other school maintains that government needs to have some controls on the commercial and financial sectors.
For me to say this is giving the devil his due; but there seems to be some evidence that Friedman's ideas work. For example, Friedman and some colleagues went into Chile and applied their ideas there to a badly faltering economy, and turned it around.
But what about the fact that businesses, left to their own, might sell us food and drugs with harmful or even poisonous adulterants, contaminants, and so forth (as happened with dog food and, I believe, baby formula from China)? What about what happened just a few years ago when greed, folly, and mistakes on the part of Wall Street investment bankers plunged the US and even world economies into crisis?
I think the answer is a middle course on the part of government. To have some regulations in place, on manufacturers of food and drugs; on the financial sector; and some other business areas does not necessarily mean stifling, hamstringing, or even seriously hampering business as those on the Right—corporations and their lobbyists—have been trying to tell the American people.
Update, September 19, 2012
A commentor (see comment below) says that it's Libertarians who feel there should be no regulations. I'll accept that. But, be they libertarians or Republicans, the people who feel that we don't need any oversight at all--that people will do right if you just leave them alone, and we don't need government interference--have a very rosy view of human nature. I can't understand why they haven't woken up, in the light of all the recent scandals that have shown human greed and the ability to cheat and lie. Liberals like me feel that the government should protect the weak from the strong, and that that idea is embodied in the Bill of Rights.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
The other school maintains that government needs to have some controls on the commercial and financial sectors.
For me to say this is giving the devil his due; but there seems to be some evidence that Friedman's ideas work. For example, Friedman and some colleagues went into Chile and applied their ideas there to a badly faltering economy, and turned it around.
But what about the fact that businesses, left to their own, might sell us food and drugs with harmful or even poisonous adulterants, contaminants, and so forth (as happened with dog food and, I believe, baby formula from China)? What about what happened just a few years ago when greed, folly, and mistakes on the part of Wall Street investment bankers plunged the US and even world economies into crisis?
I think the answer is a middle course on the part of government. To have some regulations in place, on manufacturers of food and drugs; on the financial sector; and some other business areas does not necessarily mean stifling, hamstringing, or even seriously hampering business as those on the Right—corporations and their lobbyists—have been trying to tell the American people.
Update, September 19, 2012
A commentor (see comment below) says that it's Libertarians who feel there should be no regulations. I'll accept that. But, be they libertarians or Republicans, the people who feel that we don't need any oversight at all--that people will do right if you just leave them alone, and we don't need government interference--have a very rosy view of human nature. I can't understand why they haven't woken up, in the light of all the recent scandals that have shown human greed and the ability to cheat and lie. Liberals like me feel that the government should protect the weak from the strong, and that that idea is embodied in the Bill of Rights.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Ronald Reagan: More on His Legacy
Maybe one of the biggest and most lasting parts of Reagan's legacy is that he made many Americans believe that government is evil—though this idea may in fact be deeply rooted in the American consciousness; one only has to look at the Declaration of Independence.
He persuaded us to make him head of that which he despised, namely the government. Evidently it didn't occur to anyone—least of all Reagan himself—that there was an irony there.
He tried to gut, undermine, and render powerless regulatory agencies such as the EPA and the FDA by cutting funding and causing staff cuts. Some of these agencies are still not restored to the funding or staffing that they need: thus Reagan's legacy lives on.
(These regulatory agencies protect consumers. Republicans--Reagan and more recent ones--argue that anything that impedes business is bad for all of us. So the argument comes down to this: Who do you trust to be on your side--"you" meaning the average Joe--corporations or the government? People mistrust the government but, to my mind, we've had plenty of cases of greedy, even evil and corrupt corporations. And, think of this: We don't elect corporations, so how do you expect them to be accountable, if they are free of all restrictions?)
It may well be due to Reagan that many people today feel that the government takes away their money—which they have earned and are thus entitled to keep—to give to people who don't want to work. (There is more than a hint of racism in this idea; I remember well Reagan's campaign speeches, which to me at least clearly included an appeal to racism. But you only have to look at photos or video clips--such as have appeared over and over—of job fairs that have been accessible to minorities, to see that there have been enormous, incredible, numbers of people willing to expend great amounts of time standing in long lines in hopes of getting a job.)
Further, to this type of thinking, this "redistribution of wealth"—that is, taxing their incomes--is outright socialism. Never mind that we have had an income tax for 150 years now, and the government's power to levy such a tax was confirmed by the Sixteenth Amendment 100 years ago.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
He persuaded us to make him head of that which he despised, namely the government. Evidently it didn't occur to anyone—least of all Reagan himself—that there was an irony there.
He tried to gut, undermine, and render powerless regulatory agencies such as the EPA and the FDA by cutting funding and causing staff cuts. Some of these agencies are still not restored to the funding or staffing that they need: thus Reagan's legacy lives on.
(These regulatory agencies protect consumers. Republicans--Reagan and more recent ones--argue that anything that impedes business is bad for all of us. So the argument comes down to this: Who do you trust to be on your side--"you" meaning the average Joe--corporations or the government? People mistrust the government but, to my mind, we've had plenty of cases of greedy, even evil and corrupt corporations. And, think of this: We don't elect corporations, so how do you expect them to be accountable, if they are free of all restrictions?)
It may well be due to Reagan that many people today feel that the government takes away their money—which they have earned and are thus entitled to keep—to give to people who don't want to work. (There is more than a hint of racism in this idea; I remember well Reagan's campaign speeches, which to me at least clearly included an appeal to racism. But you only have to look at photos or video clips--such as have appeared over and over—of job fairs that have been accessible to minorities, to see that there have been enormous, incredible, numbers of people willing to expend great amounts of time standing in long lines in hopes of getting a job.)
Further, to this type of thinking, this "redistribution of wealth"—that is, taxing their incomes--is outright socialism. Never mind that we have had an income tax for 150 years now, and the government's power to levy such a tax was confirmed by the Sixteenth Amendment 100 years ago.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
James Hormel, Philanthropist and Gay Ambassador
I have been reading a book by James C. Hormel entitled Fit to Serve.
Hormel is the scion of the Hormel meatpacking family, which got Americans—and much of the Western world—to eat meat that comes in rectangular blue cans—"Spam" in its original sense. Converting pigs to canned meat, particularly during World War II, was hugely profitable for Hormel's father, then the president of the company.
Hormel went on to lead a model life—married, with five children, a position as Dean of Students at the University of Chicago Law School, and a home (at one point, at least) in Chicago's tony North Shore suburbs. He was later to became US Ambassador to Luxembourg.
Before then, Hormel came out as gay and divorced his wife.
Hormel had numerous relationships with men, and, with his means, was able to live where he wanted, so at various periods he had homes in New York, Hawaii, and San Francisco.
While living in San Francisco, he became involved in many charitable and philanthropic organizations, mainly ones which formed in response to the AIDS epidemic, which at that time was decimating the gay male community in San Francisco.
Hormel was asked to serve on the boards of many of the organizations he'd become involved with.
I tend to feel that it is undemocratic that it's always the people with money who get to be on these boards. On the other hand, it's easy to understand why. Boards are as much about fundraising as anything else. And people who have money usually not only will contribute themselves, but they know other people who have money—so, they are well positioned to tap others like themselves for money.
Hormel does not say, in the book, how much money he personally has, but he does mention figures for how much he contributed. And it is a lot.
So--not to minimize the man's abilities or his generosity--he's been a force for good. Still, to get back to the point I wanted to make, he himself says he didn't do anything to earn that money. Purely by accident of birth, he has had a life of wealth and privilege. Which in turn made his philanthropy possible. And that in turn got him a degree of renown and a position as ambassador (even if to a very small country!).
So I guess what I am saying is what nearly everyone comes to realize at some point: that Nature does not deal everyone an equally good hand. But we need more people like Hormel who try to use their assets (in all senses) to do some good in the world they see around them.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Hormel is the scion of the Hormel meatpacking family, which got Americans—and much of the Western world—to eat meat that comes in rectangular blue cans—"Spam" in its original sense. Converting pigs to canned meat, particularly during World War II, was hugely profitable for Hormel's father, then the president of the company.
Hormel went on to lead a model life—married, with five children, a position as Dean of Students at the University of Chicago Law School, and a home (at one point, at least) in Chicago's tony North Shore suburbs. He was later to became US Ambassador to Luxembourg.
Before then, Hormel came out as gay and divorced his wife.
Hormel had numerous relationships with men, and, with his means, was able to live where he wanted, so at various periods he had homes in New York, Hawaii, and San Francisco.
While living in San Francisco, he became involved in many charitable and philanthropic organizations, mainly ones which formed in response to the AIDS epidemic, which at that time was decimating the gay male community in San Francisco.
Hormel was asked to serve on the boards of many of the organizations he'd become involved with.
I tend to feel that it is undemocratic that it's always the people with money who get to be on these boards. On the other hand, it's easy to understand why. Boards are as much about fundraising as anything else. And people who have money usually not only will contribute themselves, but they know other people who have money—so, they are well positioned to tap others like themselves for money.
Hormel does not say, in the book, how much money he personally has, but he does mention figures for how much he contributed. And it is a lot.
So--not to minimize the man's abilities or his generosity--he's been a force for good. Still, to get back to the point I wanted to make, he himself says he didn't do anything to earn that money. Purely by accident of birth, he has had a life of wealth and privilege. Which in turn made his philanthropy possible. And that in turn got him a degree of renown and a position as ambassador (even if to a very small country!).
So I guess what I am saying is what nearly everyone comes to realize at some point: that Nature does not deal everyone an equally good hand. But we need more people like Hormel who try to use their assets (in all senses) to do some good in the world they see around them.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Sunday, September 2, 2012
The Party's Over
I heard a man named Mike Lofgren being interviewed on Bill Moyers' PBS TV program, Moyers & Company.
Lofgren held a position in government. He had been a Republican but has switched parties to become a Democrat.
He has recently published a book entitled The Party Is Over: How the Republicans Went Crazy, The Democrats Became Useless, and the Middle Class Got Shafted. As you might guess from the book's title, both the Republican and the Democratic parties come in for criticism from him.
He talks about how very wealthy individuals (as well as corporations) have been contributing very heavily to the Republican party. I have written about this. Both individuals and corporations are currently able to contribute unlimited amounts and remain anonymous at the same time. When PACs and foundations and other groups have complex and interlocking structures, it is frequently difficult to trace the ultimate source of much of this money.
I can add—this is not a number from Mr. Lofgren—that 89% of corporate contributions go to the Republican Party and only 11% to the Democratic Party.
Wealthy individuals hope to "buy" lower taxes on themselves. Corporations and Wall Street hope to influence government regulations such that regulations will fail to be enacted, or will be weak or otherwise favorable to these business entities.
As I have theorized in previous blog postings, Republicans and other right-wing interests have managed to gain support from many people who are not among the "one percent" by taking conservative stances on social issues; for example, they know they can win the support of the Religious Right, evangelicals, and other social conservatives by having right (in both senses) stances on issues such as same-sex marriage. Lofgren called these issues or the appeal to these voters "rube bait." But this is how a definite non-majority—the very wealthy--has been gaining wider support.
Lofgren explains how people, when they define issues as being a matter of good or evil (for example, according to or against their religious notions), will see any compromise as giving in to evil. This is why our government has been deadlocked on many of the vital issues before Congress. This can have effects such as when, in the stalemate over debt-limit-extension legislation a year ago, the delay necessitated a lot of shuffling of the books which in turn cost our country $1.3 billion.
Lofgren says that much of what has been going on on our political scene has been the result of one over-riding goal on the part of Mitch McConnell (the Senate Minority Leader): to make Obama a one-term president; but that most likely has been apparent to many people.
Mr. Lofgren also blames Democrats who, he says, have also become "corporatized." Bill Clinton greatly contributed to the economic crisis of 2008 by repealing the Glass-Steagall Act, which had been enacted during the Depression to separate investment banking from consumer banking; and deregulating derivatives. Obama, by giving in to the interests of the pharmaceutical industry, has made the Health Care Reform Act ("Obamacare") considerably more expensive than it needed to be.
Copyright © 2012
Lofgren held a position in government. He had been a Republican but has switched parties to become a Democrat.
He has recently published a book entitled The Party Is Over: How the Republicans Went Crazy, The Democrats Became Useless, and the Middle Class Got Shafted. As you might guess from the book's title, both the Republican and the Democratic parties come in for criticism from him.
He talks about how very wealthy individuals (as well as corporations) have been contributing very heavily to the Republican party. I have written about this. Both individuals and corporations are currently able to contribute unlimited amounts and remain anonymous at the same time. When PACs and foundations and other groups have complex and interlocking structures, it is frequently difficult to trace the ultimate source of much of this money.
I can add—this is not a number from Mr. Lofgren—that 89% of corporate contributions go to the Republican Party and only 11% to the Democratic Party.
Wealthy individuals hope to "buy" lower taxes on themselves. Corporations and Wall Street hope to influence government regulations such that regulations will fail to be enacted, or will be weak or otherwise favorable to these business entities.
As I have theorized in previous blog postings, Republicans and other right-wing interests have managed to gain support from many people who are not among the "one percent" by taking conservative stances on social issues; for example, they know they can win the support of the Religious Right, evangelicals, and other social conservatives by having right (in both senses) stances on issues such as same-sex marriage. Lofgren called these issues or the appeal to these voters "rube bait." But this is how a definite non-majority—the very wealthy--has been gaining wider support.
Lofgren explains how people, when they define issues as being a matter of good or evil (for example, according to or against their religious notions), will see any compromise as giving in to evil. This is why our government has been deadlocked on many of the vital issues before Congress. This can have effects such as when, in the stalemate over debt-limit-extension legislation a year ago, the delay necessitated a lot of shuffling of the books which in turn cost our country $1.3 billion.
Lofgren says that much of what has been going on on our political scene has been the result of one over-riding goal on the part of Mitch McConnell (the Senate Minority Leader): to make Obama a one-term president; but that most likely has been apparent to many people.
Mr. Lofgren also blames Democrats who, he says, have also become "corporatized." Bill Clinton greatly contributed to the economic crisis of 2008 by repealing the Glass-Steagall Act, which had been enacted during the Depression to separate investment banking from consumer banking; and deregulating derivatives. Obama, by giving in to the interests of the pharmaceutical industry, has made the Health Care Reform Act ("Obamacare") considerably more expensive than it needed to be.
Copyright © 2012
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
More Thoughts on the Republican Convention
Once upon a time, party national presidential nominating conventions were interesting, because they genuinely nominated the candidate. The delegates could spread their votes among several competing candidates, often requiring several ballots until one candidate got the required number of votes. Now these votes are merely a formality and a rubber stamp: who the candidate is going to be is known in advance, so there is no longer a real, meaningful ballot.
So to the people, if the whole thing is kind of ho-hum, that's understandable.
However, some interesting things are going on. Ann Romney, wife of Republican nominee Mitt Romney, is to make a speech. Interestingly, they say she was "involved in crafting her speech." [emphasis added] Of course that implies that hers was not the sole role. I wonder who—what media, political, or PR professionals--had the rest of the role in writing her speech.
Also, Mrs. Romney will read her speech from a TelePrompter. So I for one do not expect real and genuine feeling from Mrs. Romney when she tells us what a wonderful man her husband is.
For more on Mrs. Romney, see my March 21, 2012 blog posting, "Mrs. Romney."
This convention is seeing the ultra-wealthy and corporate lobbyists, who pull the strings, fly into Tampa on their private jets. And they are sponsoring—that is, paying for—events for the delegates which include lavish entertainment. Maybe these wealthy donors and lobbyists cannot hide who or what they are; but the news media have been excluded from these events sponsored for the delegates. What are the wealthy sponsors and organizers trying to conceal?
One lobbyist, who was interviewed on camera, said that these donors and lobbyists are going to expect a payback. Just as one example of who we're talking about: the health care industry, which has an interest in what health-care legislation might be passed—or repealed--is represented by such companies as AFLAC and Blue Cross/Blue Shield. The TV news commentator mentioned our country's almost total lack of limitations on political contributions, which of course is the key to the things I'm talking about. The delegates are usually state and national elected politicians, so their votes in their respective legislatures can be bought by these lobbyists.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
So to the people, if the whole thing is kind of ho-hum, that's understandable.
However, some interesting things are going on. Ann Romney, wife of Republican nominee Mitt Romney, is to make a speech. Interestingly, they say she was "involved in crafting her speech." [emphasis added] Of course that implies that hers was not the sole role. I wonder who—what media, political, or PR professionals--had the rest of the role in writing her speech.
Also, Mrs. Romney will read her speech from a TelePrompter. So I for one do not expect real and genuine feeling from Mrs. Romney when she tells us what a wonderful man her husband is.
For more on Mrs. Romney, see my March 21, 2012 blog posting, "Mrs. Romney."
This convention is seeing the ultra-wealthy and corporate lobbyists, who pull the strings, fly into Tampa on their private jets. And they are sponsoring—that is, paying for—events for the delegates which include lavish entertainment. Maybe these wealthy donors and lobbyists cannot hide who or what they are; but the news media have been excluded from these events sponsored for the delegates. What are the wealthy sponsors and organizers trying to conceal?
One lobbyist, who was interviewed on camera, said that these donors and lobbyists are going to expect a payback. Just as one example of who we're talking about: the health care industry, which has an interest in what health-care legislation might be passed—or repealed--is represented by such companies as AFLAC and Blue Cross/Blue Shield. The TV news commentator mentioned our country's almost total lack of limitations on political contributions, which of course is the key to the things I'm talking about. The delegates are usually state and national elected politicians, so their votes in their respective legislatures can be bought by these lobbyists.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Republicans and Their Convention
I was hoping that Hurricane Isaac would completely blow away the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida.
I know that's nasty of me. But consider that the likes of Pat Robertson have tried to blame hurricanes and natural disasters on gays. Supposedly they're God punishing the US for tolerating (?) gays.
So maybe if the supposed wrath of God struck Republicans and conservatives, they'd have to view it in a different way. At least, I'd presume, if they really thought it was God's actions, they'd have to wonder about the particular target God chose.
I want to say one good thing about Reince Priebus (the chairman of the Republican National Committee): He has a cool name. Otherwise, of course, I'd be diametrically opposed to everything he believes and says.
Yesterday the news contained the results of a poll that said that 63% of Americans believe that the Republican party is the party of the wealthy. That's pretty reassuring: the American people either are starting to catch on, or they're a little more savvy than I'd been giving them credit for.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
I know that's nasty of me. But consider that the likes of Pat Robertson have tried to blame hurricanes and natural disasters on gays. Supposedly they're God punishing the US for tolerating (?) gays.
So maybe if the supposed wrath of God struck Republicans and conservatives, they'd have to view it in a different way. At least, I'd presume, if they really thought it was God's actions, they'd have to wonder about the particular target God chose.
I want to say one good thing about Reince Priebus (the chairman of the Republican National Committee): He has a cool name. Otherwise, of course, I'd be diametrically opposed to everything he believes and says.
Yesterday the news contained the results of a poll that said that 63% of Americans believe that the Republican party is the party of the wealthy. That's pretty reassuring: the American people either are starting to catch on, or they're a little more savvy than I'd been giving them credit for.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Friday, August 24, 2012
Is the Economic News Bad, and Is It Obama's Fault?
The following was written some six months ago by a large mutual-fund management company, T. Rowe Price:
This was written specifically with reference to stock market and investment concerns; but it strikes me that it's not only investors who seem to focus on the negative, on the bad news (and not just financial/economic/investment news).
It's often been said that the media tend to showcase the bad news; to my mind that may or may not be true. But certainly politicians like to seize on the negative aspects of the current domestic financial and economic picture. After all, they want to unseat an incumbent president and to do so, they will do everything they can to argue that things are not good, that they have not been good for three years (never mind that some of the current problems could more accurately be said to have originated under the previous administration), and that Obama is to blame.
The Price article continues, "So far this year, good news appears to be winning." And then they quote stock market indexes, which are measures of aggregate stock-market prices. The article goes on,
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
For the better part of the past two years. equity [translation: stock] investors have tended to downplay good news—such as the impressive recovery in corporate earnings—and fret over bad news, such as Europe's debt crisis, stubbornly high U.S. employment, and a host of other perceived risks.
This was written specifically with reference to stock market and investment concerns; but it strikes me that it's not only investors who seem to focus on the negative, on the bad news (and not just financial/economic/investment news).
It's often been said that the media tend to showcase the bad news; to my mind that may or may not be true. But certainly politicians like to seize on the negative aspects of the current domestic financial and economic picture. After all, they want to unseat an incumbent president and to do so, they will do everything they can to argue that things are not good, that they have not been good for three years (never mind that some of the current problems could more accurately be said to have originated under the previous administration), and that Obama is to blame.
The Price article continues, "So far this year, good news appears to be winning." And then they quote stock market indexes, which are measures of aggregate stock-market prices. The article goes on,
The slowdown has been exacerbated by several things which include "an economic soft patch in the U.S. tied to a fiscal stalemate in Washington. . . ." So the very politicians who are criticizing Obama and blaming him for economic bad news are themselves contributing to that which they're blaming Obama for. And--maybe most importantly--things are not as bad as some politicians would have us believe.
The market rally has been powered by stronger monthly U.S. employment reports, better economic news from China, and the significant liquidity boost to European banks from the European Central Bank's refinancing operation.
Yet, even as economic risks appear to be receding. . . the outlook for corporate earnings' growth is becoming less favorable. . . .[G]lobal earnings growth should slow to a still healthy mid-single-digit growth rate this year. . . .[T]he earnings slowdown is a natural result of the economic cycle. . . .We've now reached the point of the cycle where you would expect to see slower earnings growth.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Sunday, August 19, 2012
The Harm of Superstitions
As I've written before, one of the characteristics of Homo sapiens is his ability to believe things that are not true.
Often this characteristic has unfortunate consequences. Sometimes foolishness/ignorance/stupidity can kill the holder of those incorrect thoughts. (If you know of the "Darwin awards," those could be some funny, yet also sad, examples of what I'm talking about.)
It's often other people, and even other species, who suffer from the consequences of these beliefs. It's belief in the inferiority of undesirability of one group of humans, held by another group, that leads to genocide.
Let's look at a couple of beliefs that can probably be considered superstitions, and their consequences for both human and non-human creatures.
In Tanzania, it is widely believed that the bones of human albinos have magical properties. This has resulted in the killing of albinos for their bones, etc. Here is a quote from another blog,
http://sdotx.blogspot.com/2009/05/albino-bones.html:
Also, rhino horns are thought to have aphrodisiac properties when ingested by people. Result: much illegal poaching of rhinos, to where they are endangered.
Similarly, in China tiger penises have long been believed to be aphrodisiac, which has meant a lot of killing of tigers.
As a generality I don't believe in interfering with or destroying indigenous cultures, which of course includes all the beliefs of a people. It can be arrogance and ethnocentrism to think our Western, scientific ways are better. But I probably would agree with suppressing some indigenous practices like human sacrifice. Most of us would say that's not even a gray area. The killing of albinos is also not a gray area.
And I have to say, I think I'd agree with efforts to convince people that tiger penises and rhino bones have no efficacy as aphrodisiacs, even when a culture's practitioners of traditional medicine tell them otherwise.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Often this characteristic has unfortunate consequences. Sometimes foolishness/ignorance/stupidity can kill the holder of those incorrect thoughts. (If you know of the "Darwin awards," those could be some funny, yet also sad, examples of what I'm talking about.)
It's often other people, and even other species, who suffer from the consequences of these beliefs. It's belief in the inferiority of undesirability of one group of humans, held by another group, that leads to genocide.
Let's look at a couple of beliefs that can probably be considered superstitions, and their consequences for both human and non-human creatures.
In Tanzania, it is widely believed that the bones of human albinos have magical properties. This has resulted in the killing of albinos for their bones, etc. Here is a quote from another blog,
http://sdotx.blogspot.com/2009/05/albino-bones.html:
Discrimination against albinos is a serious problem throughout sub-Saharan Africa, but recently in Tanzania it has taken a wicked twist: At least 19 albinos, including children, have been killed and mutilated in the past year, victims of what Tanzanian officials say is a growing criminal trade in albino body parts.
Many people in Tanzania — and across Africa, for that matter — believe albinos have magical powers. They stand out, often the lone white face in a black crowd, a result of a genetic condition that impairs normal skin pigmentation and strikes about one in 3,000 people here. Tanzanian officials say witch doctors are now marketing albino skin, bones and hair as ingredients in potions that are promised to make people rich.
Also, rhino horns are thought to have aphrodisiac properties when ingested by people. Result: much illegal poaching of rhinos, to where they are endangered.
Similarly, in China tiger penises have long been believed to be aphrodisiac, which has meant a lot of killing of tigers.
As a generality I don't believe in interfering with or destroying indigenous cultures, which of course includes all the beliefs of a people. It can be arrogance and ethnocentrism to think our Western, scientific ways are better. But I probably would agree with suppressing some indigenous practices like human sacrifice. Most of us would say that's not even a gray area. The killing of albinos is also not a gray area.
And I have to say, I think I'd agree with efforts to convince people that tiger penises and rhino bones have no efficacy as aphrodisiacs, even when a culture's practitioners of traditional medicine tell them otherwise.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Sunday, August 12, 2012
American Manufacturing: The Picture Is Really Not So Bleak
Republicans and others who wish to impugn President Barack Obama and blame him for everything claim that he is responsible for loss of American jobs, especially manufacturing jobs. We see pictures of shuttered factories and impoverished areas in "Rust Belt" cities, and hear much about the rate of unemployment.
The peak year for employment in American manufacturing was 1979. Jobs declined continually since then—up until 2009, when they actually began to increase--and this turnaround point was, of course, during Obama's presidency.
Not that Obama gets all the credit for any increase, any more than he deserves the blame for 30 years of decline.
But let's look at some facts. The current number manufacturing jobs is quite a bit below its all-time peak; but, on the other hand, the value of American manufacturing has increased.
It's not simply a story of outsourcing of American jobs to China, Mexico, and other countries where labor is cheaper (although I have tended to feel that the American worker has priced himself out of the world labor market). Greater efficiency—automation, use of industrial robots, and so forth—has meant that the production of American factories can be achieved with fewer workers. So, if you want to, blame the robots for declining unemployment in American manufacturing.
But this means that American ingenuity has permitted goods to be produced with less labor—and thus lower labor cost, which of course is important in world competitiveness.
So, the situation of American manufacturing is much more salubrious than some people would have us believe.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
The peak year for employment in American manufacturing was 1979. Jobs declined continually since then—up until 2009, when they actually began to increase--and this turnaround point was, of course, during Obama's presidency.
Not that Obama gets all the credit for any increase, any more than he deserves the blame for 30 years of decline.
But let's look at some facts. The current number manufacturing jobs is quite a bit below its all-time peak; but, on the other hand, the value of American manufacturing has increased.
It's not simply a story of outsourcing of American jobs to China, Mexico, and other countries where labor is cheaper (although I have tended to feel that the American worker has priced himself out of the world labor market). Greater efficiency—automation, use of industrial robots, and so forth—has meant that the production of American factories can be achieved with fewer workers. So, if you want to, blame the robots for declining unemployment in American manufacturing.
But this means that American ingenuity has permitted goods to be produced with less labor—and thus lower labor cost, which of course is important in world competitiveness.
So, the situation of American manufacturing is much more salubrious than some people would have us believe.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Too Many Children!
Last night ABC (TV) News NightLine profiled the Bates family, presumably on the occasion of this family--all 21 of them!!--visiting New York City (evidently at someone else's expense).
This family has gotten publicity before, for their 19 children--and the mother says she hopes she doesn't have to stop there! She is 45 and has had a couple of miscarriages. You'd think her baby-making machinery would be pretty worn out by now.
I think it's wrong for people to have large families, even quite a few fewer than 19 (see my August 5, 2012 posting, "Even the US Must Control Birth Rates"); so it truly upsets me when someone has that many children and thinks it's a good thing.
Mr. Bates says, "We're going to have as many children as the good Lord gives us." I have news for you, Mr. Bates: It's not "the good Lord" who gives you the children, it's you boinking your wife.
Well, these people--who live in "the hills of East Tennessee"--are, as the TV segment described them, "ultra-conservative Baptists." It wouldn't do any good for me to argue with them or tell them what I think. From my point of view they're a different species. And if they knew I was gay, they'd run the other way, sure that I was the Devil incarnate.
Maybe ironically, for people who evidently are pretty fond of procreation, they're puritanical regarding sex. They swim dressed in jeans. One of the older boys, upon seeing people sunbathing in Central Park, said "They forgot most of their clothes."
The mother home-schools her kids, too. (To keep them, I'm sure, from being exposed to ideas that they don't agree with.) I haven't got facts on this, but I'd bet a lot of home-schooled children have some difficulty getting into college.
If I had a time machine and could send this family somewhere in an instant, with the push of a button, I'd send them where they belong--back in Old Testament times.
Copyright (c) 2012 by Richard Stein
This family has gotten publicity before, for their 19 children--and the mother says she hopes she doesn't have to stop there! She is 45 and has had a couple of miscarriages. You'd think her baby-making machinery would be pretty worn out by now.
I think it's wrong for people to have large families, even quite a few fewer than 19 (see my August 5, 2012 posting, "Even the US Must Control Birth Rates"); so it truly upsets me when someone has that many children and thinks it's a good thing.
Mr. Bates says, "We're going to have as many children as the good Lord gives us." I have news for you, Mr. Bates: It's not "the good Lord" who gives you the children, it's you boinking your wife.
Well, these people--who live in "the hills of East Tennessee"--are, as the TV segment described them, "ultra-conservative Baptists." It wouldn't do any good for me to argue with them or tell them what I think. From my point of view they're a different species. And if they knew I was gay, they'd run the other way, sure that I was the Devil incarnate.
Maybe ironically, for people who evidently are pretty fond of procreation, they're puritanical regarding sex. They swim dressed in jeans. One of the older boys, upon seeing people sunbathing in Central Park, said "They forgot most of their clothes."
The mother home-schools her kids, too. (To keep them, I'm sure, from being exposed to ideas that they don't agree with.) I haven't got facts on this, but I'd bet a lot of home-schooled children have some difficulty getting into college.
If I had a time machine and could send this family somewhere in an instant, with the push of a button, I'd send them where they belong--back in Old Testament times.
Copyright (c) 2012 by Richard Stein
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Why You May Not Need an SUV
Many people are switching to more economical vehicles, giving up their SUV for a car, or perhaps a large car for a smaller car.
Besides high gasoline prices prompting some buyers to think about the fuel economy of the vehicle they're going to buy, two things are going on here.
First, people who feel they need a four-wheel drive vehicle--probably for driving in snow and ice more than through mud or other off-the-road conditions, since studies have shown that few SUV buyers actually ever take their vehicles off-road--realize that they have options other than an SUV, such as four-wheel drive car models from Mercedes-Benz, Audi, Volvo, BMW, VW, Porsche, Acura, Infiniti, Lexus, Mitsubishi, Mazda, Toyota, Honda, Ford, Cadillac, Lincoln, and Subaru (these are not all expensive makes/models!).
Second, small cars have become more appealing. At one time small cars were cheap and were perceived as cheap. Now, small cars can be had with nice appointments like comfortable seats and attractive styling in and out, and as great a choice of options as more expensive makes and models. And, after many unfortunate attempts by the American car manufacturers to produce small cars—"unfortunate" for a variety of reasons, including not taking small cars seriously or the mistaken idea that they could take a larger car and just shrink it--small cars from American manufacturers have gotten much better, and are now decent or even quite good in many of the real "car" qualities like ride, performance, and handling (steering, braking, cornering).
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Besides high gasoline prices prompting some buyers to think about the fuel economy of the vehicle they're going to buy, two things are going on here.
First, people who feel they need a four-wheel drive vehicle--probably for driving in snow and ice more than through mud or other off-the-road conditions, since studies have shown that few SUV buyers actually ever take their vehicles off-road--realize that they have options other than an SUV, such as four-wheel drive car models from Mercedes-Benz, Audi, Volvo, BMW, VW, Porsche, Acura, Infiniti, Lexus, Mitsubishi, Mazda, Toyota, Honda, Ford, Cadillac, Lincoln, and Subaru (these are not all expensive makes/models!).
Second, small cars have become more appealing. At one time small cars were cheap and were perceived as cheap. Now, small cars can be had with nice appointments like comfortable seats and attractive styling in and out, and as great a choice of options as more expensive makes and models. And, after many unfortunate attempts by the American car manufacturers to produce small cars—"unfortunate" for a variety of reasons, including not taking small cars seriously or the mistaken idea that they could take a larger car and just shrink it--small cars from American manufacturers have gotten much better, and are now decent or even quite good in many of the real "car" qualities like ride, performance, and handling (steering, braking, cornering).
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Monday, August 6, 2012
African-Americans and Gay People: Have They Got a Lot in Common?
Recently I posted a comment on Huffington Post in which I said that African-American people should be more sympathetic or empathetic with gay people than they are since they are both minorities who have been discriminated against.
There was a reply to my comment in which the writer denied that the two groups should be compared. I have thought of a few reasons why maybe that person is right.
1. It was never illegal to be African-American.
2. It is not illegal for two African-Americans to marry one another nor for African-American couples to adopt children.
3. African-Americans are not told, from the pulpit, that they are sinners, simply because of who they are, or that they are going to hell because they are African-American.
4. No one has claimed that natural disasters such as floods and tornadoes are the result of God punishing America for tolerating African-Americans.
5. African-Americans may have their own bars and so forth, but those bars don't get raided by the police.
Yes, all those things have applied to gay people. And where discrimination in hiring and housing on the basis of race is illegal everywhere, gay people don't have that protection under federal law, so they may be legally discriminated against in some areas.
On the other hand, African-Americans do get called names (as gay people get called faggot) and sometimes are beaten up or even killed for who they are.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
There was a reply to my comment in which the writer denied that the two groups should be compared. I have thought of a few reasons why maybe that person is right.
1. It was never illegal to be African-American.
2. It is not illegal for two African-Americans to marry one another nor for African-American couples to adopt children.
3. African-Americans are not told, from the pulpit, that they are sinners, simply because of who they are, or that they are going to hell because they are African-American.
4. No one has claimed that natural disasters such as floods and tornadoes are the result of God punishing America for tolerating African-Americans.
5. African-Americans may have their own bars and so forth, but those bars don't get raided by the police.
Yes, all those things have applied to gay people. And where discrimination in hiring and housing on the basis of race is illegal everywhere, gay people don't have that protection under federal law, so they may be legally discriminated against in some areas.
On the other hand, African-Americans do get called names (as gay people get called faggot) and sometimes are beaten up or even killed for who they are.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Sunday, August 5, 2012
Even the US Must Control Birth Rates
A fair number of people may be aware that the world is becoming overpopulated; but probably a majority of Americans believe that overpopulation is not a problem in our country. After all, the US, particularly in the West, has vast tracts of empty land.
But it is not true. Many of the consequences of population growth affect America, and additional people added to the US population affect world population problems. And even in the Southwest of the US, where there's been "desert" that seems available for development, a shortage of water is going to be a problem. (Los Angeles, basically a desert climate, has been raping the water supply from even hundreds of miles away, for decades now.)
But to discuss all this more methodically:
First, more people means less farmland to feed the world's people. Farmland has been being sold off for "development" for decades now. Some of the best farm land in the world continues to be turned into housing subdivisions and shopping malls. This means problems with runoff and disappearing habitat for wildlife. (Some people surely don't care about this latter but I feel we share this planet with many other species, both plant and animal. It's not only a matter of sentiment to feel that they deserve to survive but we all need a healthy planet that maintains its biodiversity.)
Second, more people means more demand for energy (and one American consumes more energy than a citizen of any other country). This means more mining for coal, more drilling for oil and building pipelines, more fracking to produce natural gas—all of which tends to be harmful to the environment.
Third, more people means more garbage. Plain and simple. The Pacific Ocean has a huge floating island of waste, mainly plastics, contributed largely by America and imperiling ocean wildlife.
Fourth, more people means more demand for the ocean's resources, such as fish. Many species of fish are already overfished and are headed for extinction.
Fifth, as mentioned, more people means more demand for water. In some areas this is already becoming a serious problem. Yet we have our lawns and our golf courses which consume vast quantities of water.
All of the planet's resources are finite: land, water, fish, fossil fuels. Every American added to the world's population puts a greater strain on the world's resources than a new citizen added in any other country.
We need to stop showing approval for large families. We need to stop encouraging large families as we are currently doing by eliminating tax deductions for children beyond the first or second child. We need to stop congratulating parents for having children, especially if it's a fourth or fifth. People need to start voluntarily limiting the number of their children to three.
There are many factors which militate against family planning and population-size control, especially in third-world countries. There is the attitude of husbands who believe that if their wives visit a family-planning clinic it diminishes their prerogatives. The US government, under the influence of political conservatives, has ended much support for family planning in other countries. There is, of course, the opposition of the Catholic Church which is a big factor in some countries such as in Latin America.
This is another sphere where I fear foolishness and incorrect, outdated ideas and attitudes are threatening to prevail and may doom the fate of the human species.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
But it is not true. Many of the consequences of population growth affect America, and additional people added to the US population affect world population problems. And even in the Southwest of the US, where there's been "desert" that seems available for development, a shortage of water is going to be a problem. (Los Angeles, basically a desert climate, has been raping the water supply from even hundreds of miles away, for decades now.)
But to discuss all this more methodically:
First, more people means less farmland to feed the world's people. Farmland has been being sold off for "development" for decades now. Some of the best farm land in the world continues to be turned into housing subdivisions and shopping malls. This means problems with runoff and disappearing habitat for wildlife. (Some people surely don't care about this latter but I feel we share this planet with many other species, both plant and animal. It's not only a matter of sentiment to feel that they deserve to survive but we all need a healthy planet that maintains its biodiversity.)
Second, more people means more demand for energy (and one American consumes more energy than a citizen of any other country). This means more mining for coal, more drilling for oil and building pipelines, more fracking to produce natural gas—all of which tends to be harmful to the environment.
Third, more people means more garbage. Plain and simple. The Pacific Ocean has a huge floating island of waste, mainly plastics, contributed largely by America and imperiling ocean wildlife.
Fourth, more people means more demand for the ocean's resources, such as fish. Many species of fish are already overfished and are headed for extinction.
Fifth, as mentioned, more people means more demand for water. In some areas this is already becoming a serious problem. Yet we have our lawns and our golf courses which consume vast quantities of water.
All of the planet's resources are finite: land, water, fish, fossil fuels. Every American added to the world's population puts a greater strain on the world's resources than a new citizen added in any other country.
We need to stop showing approval for large families. We need to stop encouraging large families as we are currently doing by eliminating tax deductions for children beyond the first or second child. We need to stop congratulating parents for having children, especially if it's a fourth or fifth. People need to start voluntarily limiting the number of their children to three.
There are many factors which militate against family planning and population-size control, especially in third-world countries. There is the attitude of husbands who believe that if their wives visit a family-planning clinic it diminishes their prerogatives. The US government, under the influence of political conservatives, has ended much support for family planning in other countries. There is, of course, the opposition of the Catholic Church which is a big factor in some countries such as in Latin America.
This is another sphere where I fear foolishness and incorrect, outdated ideas and attitudes are threatening to prevail and may doom the fate of the human species.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Sunday, July 29, 2012
The "Buy American" Campaign and the Age of Global Trade
I was recently having a little dialog, via email, with a friend about Americans' buying products made in other countries. The ultimate inspiration behind this was a series on ABC TV news called "Made in America," which aims to make us Americans aware of how much imported merchandise we are buying and, presumably, stimulate us to look for domestically produced alternatives; that is, "buy American" and help the American economy.
There are a lot of reasons why so much of what Americans are buying and consuming is not domestically produced. Much of it comes from China these days, so we talk about the value of China's currency, which the government of China keeps artificially low, and low wages in China—both of which result in China being able to produce and sell its goods very cheaply.
But there is one reason that's possibly overlooked. At least I do not hear it mentioned. But I have occasion to see evidence of it.
If you look at freight trains, freight yards, or those yards where shipping containers are transferred from trains to trucks, you see just how wide-spread containerized shipping is these days. And the names on many of the containers show they're involved in the China trade.
Here is a quote from a Wikipedia article on "containerization":
So a revolution in shipping has caused much more globalization and internationalization. No doubt it's not only Americans who are buying a lot of imported stuff of all kinds. In Europe, there is now more international trade: trade moves more freely within the "Eurozone" because of the removal of tariffs and other trade barriers, plus improved highways, tunnels, and bridges.
But to get back to the "Made in America" campaign: Actually, the whole idea that consumers need to go out of their way to support domestic manufacturing because American manufacturing has declined or is threatened is false. In fact, American manufacturing is thriving.* The value of American manufactures currently is greater than it ever has been, and is greater than that of any other country.
______________
*This information and the statements in the following sentence are based on assertions in an installment of the PBS television series "America Revealed."
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
There are a lot of reasons why so much of what Americans are buying and consuming is not domestically produced. Much of it comes from China these days, so we talk about the value of China's currency, which the government of China keeps artificially low, and low wages in China—both of which result in China being able to produce and sell its goods very cheaply.
But there is one reason that's possibly overlooked. At least I do not hear it mentioned. But I have occasion to see evidence of it.
If you look at freight trains, freight yards, or those yards where shipping containers are transferred from trains to trucks, you see just how wide-spread containerized shipping is these days. And the names on many of the containers show they're involved in the China trade.
Here is a quote from a Wikipedia article on "containerization":
The system, developed after World War II, led to greatly reduced transport costs, and supported a vast increase in international trade.Therefore, items made in China (or in many other countries) can be shipped cheaply. Thus, starting with the items' original low cost and adding (as businesses must do) the cost of shipping and any tariffs, the items can still be sold cheaply because per-item shipping costs are low. Without this cheap means of shipping, it might not be profitable to sell much of the imported merchandise that we buy.
So a revolution in shipping has caused much more globalization and internationalization. No doubt it's not only Americans who are buying a lot of imported stuff of all kinds. In Europe, there is now more international trade: trade moves more freely within the "Eurozone" because of the removal of tariffs and other trade barriers, plus improved highways, tunnels, and bridges.
But to get back to the "Made in America" campaign: Actually, the whole idea that consumers need to go out of their way to support domestic manufacturing because American manufacturing has declined or is threatened is false. In fact, American manufacturing is thriving.* The value of American manufactures currently is greater than it ever has been, and is greater than that of any other country.
______________
*This information and the statements in the following sentence are based on assertions in an installment of the PBS television series "America Revealed."
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Saturday, July 28, 2012
How You Can Help Reduce Insurance Premiums
A lot of the United States has been experiencing successive bouts of violent thunderstorms. These storms have included so-called microbursts and derechos; but, bottom-line, they've been severe storms, with high winds and often hail.
The hail no doubt has damaged a lot of cars. The high winds have uprooted trees, which in turn have often damaged cars as well as houses by falling on them.
This damage to cars and houses must have resulted in a large number of claims to insurance companies—which in turn will raise insurance premiums for all of us.
Many of these cars were located in suburban and small-town locations. They belong to people who live in houses, not apartments. Therefore, the car owners have garages. I'll bet the insurance companies wish that the cars had been safely parked in their owners' garages.
Of course the original purpose of garages was to house cars (and carriages, before people started owning cars). But cars today often do not spend most of their time in garages. Why?
I can only judge from what I observe in my own area. (I live in an area technically suburban, but I like to describe it as edge-of-city.) Nearly everyone here has a two-car garage. Yet, their vehicles sit in front of their garages or on the street. Again—why?
There are several answers. One is that families actually own too many vehicles to keep all of them in their garage. There might be a sedan, an SUV, maybe a pickup used for business.
And nowadays the garage has myriad uses aside from parking your car. A garage may be holding a boat or a lot of family "junk." A garage might be used to hold merchandise used in a business (I believe some of my neighbors do this). Garages even may be used as exercise rooms, or for entertaining. (A neighbor of mine apparently used their garage, not long ago, for a wedding reception—presumably theirs!)
So, folks, protect your car and other vehicles from hail and storm damage. Make room for your car. Get the garage cleared out and park your car where it belongs.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
The hail no doubt has damaged a lot of cars. The high winds have uprooted trees, which in turn have often damaged cars as well as houses by falling on them.
This damage to cars and houses must have resulted in a large number of claims to insurance companies—which in turn will raise insurance premiums for all of us.
Many of these cars were located in suburban and small-town locations. They belong to people who live in houses, not apartments. Therefore, the car owners have garages. I'll bet the insurance companies wish that the cars had been safely parked in their owners' garages.
Of course the original purpose of garages was to house cars (and carriages, before people started owning cars). But cars today often do not spend most of their time in garages. Why?
I can only judge from what I observe in my own area. (I live in an area technically suburban, but I like to describe it as edge-of-city.) Nearly everyone here has a two-car garage. Yet, their vehicles sit in front of their garages or on the street. Again—why?
There are several answers. One is that families actually own too many vehicles to keep all of them in their garage. There might be a sedan, an SUV, maybe a pickup used for business.
And nowadays the garage has myriad uses aside from parking your car. A garage may be holding a boat or a lot of family "junk." A garage might be used to hold merchandise used in a business (I believe some of my neighbors do this). Garages even may be used as exercise rooms, or for entertaining. (A neighbor of mine apparently used their garage, not long ago, for a wedding reception—presumably theirs!)
So, folks, protect your car and other vehicles from hail and storm damage. Make room for your car. Get the garage cleared out and park your car where it belongs.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
The Caliber of Right-Wing Thought--on Gay Matters, on Guns
Unfortunately I often spend--quite possibly I should say waste--time reading articles on HuffPost (Huffington Post) on AOL; and further, reading and replying to the comments that other readers/users post.
I get saddened and frustrated by all the comments by homophobes, every time there's an article even remotely having to do with anything gay. They make the same tired, old comments--homosexuality is unnatural, it's a sin--and they point to their Bibles as telling them so. Never mind that they choose to pay attention to only some parts of the Bible and ignore others.
I argue with these people, by way of my comments on what they say and then their attempts at refuting me--etc., etc.
It's futile. As I said in a previous posting here, their logic is typically faulty, and you can't get them to understand that because they have little or no notion of logic, or of what is or is not faulty reasoning.
Then, in light of the recent shootings in Aurora, Colorado, I wrote that the United States has a problem with the wide and easy availability of guns and ammunition. To me the situation is quite clear--but not so to the gun-rights boys.
I provoked the argument they have used so many times in the past: cars can kill people, too, so would you ban cars?
I tried to point out that this is a faulty analogy. There is this important and fundamental difference between cars and guns: Cars do not have the primary purpose of killing people, but guns do.
So that is what I replied to the person who tried to make the comparison with cars. But he denies that his analogy is faulty.
As is so often the case with Right-wing types, they use faulty arguments and false "facts"; and their minds are so closed (not that closed minds are the sole property of those on the Right) that they cannot or will not acknowledge when their arguments are shown to be flawed.
You can get some really absurd and nonsensical comments out of them. One, recently, was writing about the 28th Amendment to the US Constitution. There is no 28th Amendment. The moral here is not about the general level of intelligence (low!) but how people can think and believe really wacky things.
Copyright (c) 2012 by Richard Stein
I get saddened and frustrated by all the comments by homophobes, every time there's an article even remotely having to do with anything gay. They make the same tired, old comments--homosexuality is unnatural, it's a sin--and they point to their Bibles as telling them so. Never mind that they choose to pay attention to only some parts of the Bible and ignore others.
I argue with these people, by way of my comments on what they say and then their attempts at refuting me--etc., etc.
It's futile. As I said in a previous posting here, their logic is typically faulty, and you can't get them to understand that because they have little or no notion of logic, or of what is or is not faulty reasoning.
Then, in light of the recent shootings in Aurora, Colorado, I wrote that the United States has a problem with the wide and easy availability of guns and ammunition. To me the situation is quite clear--but not so to the gun-rights boys.
I provoked the argument they have used so many times in the past: cars can kill people, too, so would you ban cars?
I tried to point out that this is a faulty analogy. There is this important and fundamental difference between cars and guns: Cars do not have the primary purpose of killing people, but guns do.
So that is what I replied to the person who tried to make the comparison with cars. But he denies that his analogy is faulty.
As is so often the case with Right-wing types, they use faulty arguments and false "facts"; and their minds are so closed (not that closed minds are the sole property of those on the Right) that they cannot or will not acknowledge when their arguments are shown to be flawed.
You can get some really absurd and nonsensical comments out of them. One, recently, was writing about the 28th Amendment to the US Constitution. There is no 28th Amendment. The moral here is not about the general level of intelligence (low!) but how people can think and believe really wacky things.
Copyright (c) 2012 by Richard Stein
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
The Penn State Scandal: The Perspective of an Alumnus
People in the US who follow the news have certainly heard about the ongoing scandal involving Pennsylvania State University (called "Penn State" for short). For those who for whatever reason have not, briefly it involves allegations of child abuse by Jerry Sandusky, a former assistant football coach, and allegations of a cover-up of those actions by university officials including the well-loved (and very successful) Head Football Coach, Joe Paterno (who has died since this scandal first broke). It's a bit like the priest child sexual abuse scandals in the Catholic Church where, similarly, it's alleged that bishops knew about the actions of priests and ignored the problem or merely transferred the priests. The similarity lies both in the abuse and in the charges of inaction or improper action on the part of higher-ups.
I happen to be an alumnus of Penn State. Even though I may feel a limited connection with Penn State—for one thing, I have degrees from two other schools so my alma mater loyalties are sort of divided up—still, I have to feel affected by this whole mess. Who would want the name of their alma mater to be synonymous with scandal, shame, and disgrace?
I think that, if I were still in the job market, I might even consider lying on my resume about what college I had attended. Meanwhile I find myself sort of wishing that the whole thing would blow over but it will not; the news involving Penn State just goes on and on, with the latest being sanctions--monetary and otherwise--against the school and its football program by the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association). I am sure that many football fans as well as those sympathetic to Penn State consider the sanctions excessive or undeserved.
One result of all this I might not mind: At Penn State, as at many American colleges, there is too much emphasis on football, and having winning sports teams sometimes seems like a higher priority than education of the students. Maybe in the new environment, as forced on Penn State by the NCAA, emphases and priorities will return to what they ought to be and football will revert to being a secondary purpose of the school.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
I happen to be an alumnus of Penn State. Even though I may feel a limited connection with Penn State—for one thing, I have degrees from two other schools so my alma mater loyalties are sort of divided up—still, I have to feel affected by this whole mess. Who would want the name of their alma mater to be synonymous with scandal, shame, and disgrace?
I think that, if I were still in the job market, I might even consider lying on my resume about what college I had attended. Meanwhile I find myself sort of wishing that the whole thing would blow over but it will not; the news involving Penn State just goes on and on, with the latest being sanctions--monetary and otherwise--against the school and its football program by the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association). I am sure that many football fans as well as those sympathetic to Penn State consider the sanctions excessive or undeserved.
One result of all this I might not mind: At Penn State, as at many American colleges, there is too much emphasis on football, and having winning sports teams sometimes seems like a higher priority than education of the students. Maybe in the new environment, as forced on Penn State by the NCAA, emphases and priorities will return to what they ought to be and football will revert to being a secondary purpose of the school.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Monday, July 23, 2012
And Still Another Gun Massacre
America is currently reeling from yet another massacre by gun.
Readers of my blog know where I stand on gun control. There has been jurisprudence that has affirmed government's right or power to place some limits on so-called "Second Amendment rights" (gun ownership). But, with the current conservative Supreme Court, and enormous lobbying power by the NRA (National Rifle Association), enacting any meaningful gun control--even over assault weapons, which are certainly not needed or used by hunters--is extremely unlikely.
At this moment I don't intend to take on the arguments of the pro-gun segment of the population. I have done so numerous times, in various places. I just want to point out one effect of this most recent event on the collective consciousness of Americans, which is that now people can no longer feel safe even going to the movies.
There are more and more places where we can no longer feel safe. When I was in school, some 55 years ago, there was no such thing as school shootings. Lockdown was not a word in our vocabularies, back then. We may legitimately wonder what has happened, what is going on with our society.
Is this the kind of America that we want?
It should be clear enough what the problem is: guns, and even assault weapons, are too readily available and can get into the hands of mentally unstable people who will use them to create havoc. The American people must cry out, and cry out loudly.
Copyright (c) 2012 by Richard Stein
Readers of my blog know where I stand on gun control. There has been jurisprudence that has affirmed government's right or power to place some limits on so-called "Second Amendment rights" (gun ownership). But, with the current conservative Supreme Court, and enormous lobbying power by the NRA (National Rifle Association), enacting any meaningful gun control--even over assault weapons, which are certainly not needed or used by hunters--is extremely unlikely.
At this moment I don't intend to take on the arguments of the pro-gun segment of the population. I have done so numerous times, in various places. I just want to point out one effect of this most recent event on the collective consciousness of Americans, which is that now people can no longer feel safe even going to the movies.
There are more and more places where we can no longer feel safe. When I was in school, some 55 years ago, there was no such thing as school shootings. Lockdown was not a word in our vocabularies, back then. We may legitimately wonder what has happened, what is going on with our society.
Is this the kind of America that we want?
It should be clear enough what the problem is: guns, and even assault weapons, are too readily available and can get into the hands of mentally unstable people who will use them to create havoc. The American people must cry out, and cry out loudly.
Copyright (c) 2012 by Richard Stein
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Liberals and Conservatives (Again)
For those conservatives who complain about liberals: If you appreciate having clean air to breathe and clean water to drink, thank the liberals. If you appreciate having food and medicine that are safe, thank liberals. It's conservatives who want to gut the government's (the FDA's and EPA's) ability to ensure the safety of our food, medicines, water, and air. But public health is one of the major government success stories.
Ronald Reagan convinced much of the country that the government is the problem. But, if you think it through: Who do you want to provide you with police and fire protection? To build and repair highways? To put up traffic signals, or control air traffic? Are you going to get together with your neighbors to create organizations to provide these things? Then you've created a government!
Conservatives have also persuaded people that the government takes too much from them in the form of taxes, usually with the further thought that their taxes go to support no-good people who don't want to work--actually an appeal to racial prejudice and racial stereotypes.
But really, those who say these things are the wealthy whose motivation is to avoid paying tax themselves. If you are not also one of the 1%, they don't care what you pay. If you look at the facts (which seem to get overlooked in these arguments): the top income tax bracket under Eisenhower it was 91%. Under Nixon it was 70%. Under Ronald Reagan it was 50%. So it's been steadily going down for decades. It's currently 35%. (And since the top tax rate on capital gains is only 15%, the rich get a real break, and that is why billionaire Warren Buffet has told us that his secretary pays more tax than he does!)
Yet the super-rich are still not satisfied. Some conservatives go so far as to claim that if they've earned their money, they have the right to keep it. But court decisions have repeatedly upheld the government's right to tax its citizens, and anyone who rejects that is not just a conservative but an anarchist.
Copyright (c) 2012 by Richard Stein
Ronald Reagan convinced much of the country that the government is the problem. But, if you think it through: Who do you want to provide you with police and fire protection? To build and repair highways? To put up traffic signals, or control air traffic? Are you going to get together with your neighbors to create organizations to provide these things? Then you've created a government!
Conservatives have also persuaded people that the government takes too much from them in the form of taxes, usually with the further thought that their taxes go to support no-good people who don't want to work--actually an appeal to racial prejudice and racial stereotypes.
But really, those who say these things are the wealthy whose motivation is to avoid paying tax themselves. If you are not also one of the 1%, they don't care what you pay. If you look at the facts (which seem to get overlooked in these arguments): the top income tax bracket under Eisenhower it was 91%. Under Nixon it was 70%. Under Ronald Reagan it was 50%. So it's been steadily going down for decades. It's currently 35%. (And since the top tax rate on capital gains is only 15%, the rich get a real break, and that is why billionaire Warren Buffet has told us that his secretary pays more tax than he does!)
Yet the super-rich are still not satisfied. Some conservatives go so far as to claim that if they've earned their money, they have the right to keep it. But court decisions have repeatedly upheld the government's right to tax its citizens, and anyone who rejects that is not just a conservative but an anarchist.
Copyright (c) 2012 by Richard Stein
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
A Few (Silly) Thoughts
I saw a witch. Yes, a real honest-to-goodness witch and not one of those wannabe witches who call themselves wiccans.
Well, I said to her, "Aroint thee, witch," which, as anyone who knows their Shakespeare knows, is what you say to a witch.
Well, she said, "I don't know how to aroint. I flunked Arointing 101 in witch college."
So I asked her, "You went to witch college? Where was that?"
And, naturally, she said "Witchita."
********
A Little Dialog
A: I let my tomatoes sit and ripen after I buy them.
B: Makes sense. How long do you let them ripen?
A: About a week. I fatten up my bagels before I use them, too.
B: You do? How do you fatten up bagels?
A: Well, naturally you have to feed them.
B: What do you feed bagels to fatten them up?
A: Just cold air. You see, I let them sit in the refrigerator and then the cold air fattens them up.
B: They feed on cold air?
A: Yes. Well, you have to let the cold air get to them, but it just needs to get down into the hole in the middle.
B: So they feed through the hole in the center?
A: Yeah, you know, they're like an octopus or a starfish or something that has its mouth in the center.
B: Who knew?
Copyright (c) 2012 by Richard Stein
Well, I said to her, "Aroint thee, witch," which, as anyone who knows their Shakespeare knows, is what you say to a witch.
Well, she said, "I don't know how to aroint. I flunked Arointing 101 in witch college."
So I asked her, "You went to witch college? Where was that?"
And, naturally, she said "Witchita."
********
A Little Dialog
A: I let my tomatoes sit and ripen after I buy them.
B: Makes sense. How long do you let them ripen?
A: About a week. I fatten up my bagels before I use them, too.
B: You do? How do you fatten up bagels?
A: Well, naturally you have to feed them.
B: What do you feed bagels to fatten them up?
A: Just cold air. You see, I let them sit in the refrigerator and then the cold air fattens them up.
B: They feed on cold air?
A: Yes. Well, you have to let the cold air get to them, but it just needs to get down into the hole in the middle.
B: So they feed through the hole in the center?
A: Yeah, you know, they're like an octopus or a starfish or something that has its mouth in the center.
B: Who knew?
Copyright (c) 2012 by Richard Stein
Monday, July 9, 2012
The US and the Metric System
. . .or, more correctly, the SI or Système international d'unités, the International System of Weights and Measures.
Officially, the US has been on the "metric system" for many years. However, this country has made only limited progress in converting to the international units.
We have in fact become used to describing the displacement of our car engines in liters rather than cubic inches, and I believe all the measurements on our car engines are metric, but I am not sure that metric screw threads are used.
But we put into those cars motor oil that comes in quarts and gasoline that is measured in gallons. (Note: The US gallon is not the same at the British Imperial gallon, nor are other units with the same names—the quart and so on—precisely equivalent between US and British Imperial systems.)
We buy wine and whiskey in 750 ml bottles, and soda in liter or 2-liter bottles; but soda also comes in six-packs of 12-ounce cans, and beer is sold in 12-ounce cans.
In cooking, all our recipes are given in teaspoons and tablespoons and cups. But it's probably in the building trades where there has been the greatest resistance to change. In spite of the fact that it's ridiculously hard to calculate the area of the floor of a room (for example, when supplying flooring) when you have to start with feet and inches and end up with square feet or square yards, American architects and carpenters still use feet and inches, and so do plumbers. And these guys are extremely unwilling to change. Not to mention that there's the more general resistance from various sorts of conservatives, who have even been known to assert that the metric system is a "communist conspiracy."
And America is the only country in the world to use the Fahrenheit temperature scale. When I was first in Europe, in 1970, and was talking to people, the weather or climate where I come from came up in conversation. When I was asked, "How cold is it?" I had to reply that I would need to do a bit of difficult mental math to answer that, because we used a different temperature scale and I'd need to convert to the units that they were acquainted with. That was met with incredulity.
So we measure our personal height in feet and inches; weigh our ever-swelling persons in pounds; and post highway speed limits in miles per hour. The last of these facts, incidentally, implies just one minor way--the units of the speedometer and the odometer--in which cars for sale in the US must be modified; another is climate controls, which for the US must read degrees Fahrenheit instead of Celsius.
There's mainly been change where international trade is involved. Since a car engine might be used in cars made and sold in multiple countries, it was important that car engines be built using an international standard of measurement. But it matters much less how our carpenters measure the wood they cut as they build our houses.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Officially, the US has been on the "metric system" for many years. However, this country has made only limited progress in converting to the international units.
We have in fact become used to describing the displacement of our car engines in liters rather than cubic inches, and I believe all the measurements on our car engines are metric, but I am not sure that metric screw threads are used.
But we put into those cars motor oil that comes in quarts and gasoline that is measured in gallons. (Note: The US gallon is not the same at the British Imperial gallon, nor are other units with the same names—the quart and so on—precisely equivalent between US and British Imperial systems.)
We buy wine and whiskey in 750 ml bottles, and soda in liter or 2-liter bottles; but soda also comes in six-packs of 12-ounce cans, and beer is sold in 12-ounce cans.
In cooking, all our recipes are given in teaspoons and tablespoons and cups. But it's probably in the building trades where there has been the greatest resistance to change. In spite of the fact that it's ridiculously hard to calculate the area of the floor of a room (for example, when supplying flooring) when you have to start with feet and inches and end up with square feet or square yards, American architects and carpenters still use feet and inches, and so do plumbers. And these guys are extremely unwilling to change. Not to mention that there's the more general resistance from various sorts of conservatives, who have even been known to assert that the metric system is a "communist conspiracy."
And America is the only country in the world to use the Fahrenheit temperature scale. When I was first in Europe, in 1970, and was talking to people, the weather or climate where I come from came up in conversation. When I was asked, "How cold is it?" I had to reply that I would need to do a bit of difficult mental math to answer that, because we used a different temperature scale and I'd need to convert to the units that they were acquainted with. That was met with incredulity.
So we measure our personal height in feet and inches; weigh our ever-swelling persons in pounds; and post highway speed limits in miles per hour. The last of these facts, incidentally, implies just one minor way--the units of the speedometer and the odometer--in which cars for sale in the US must be modified; another is climate controls, which for the US must read degrees Fahrenheit instead of Celsius.
There's mainly been change where international trade is involved. Since a car engine might be used in cars made and sold in multiple countries, it was important that car engines be built using an international standard of measurement. But it matters much less how our carpenters measure the wood they cut as they build our houses.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
