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we're talking about: the health care industry, which has an interest in what health-care legislation might be passed—or repealed--is represented by such companies as AFLAC and Blue Cross/Blue Shield.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

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

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:

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 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.

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.

Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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