Friday, May 31, 2013

The Imperial President

Yesterday I was in the vicinity of Barack Obama's house in Chicago—where he lived before becoming President and where he and Michelle still stay when coming "home" to Chicago.

My route was going to take me within two blocks of Obama's house (which I had seen before he became President), so I asked the friend who was with me if he wanted to see Obama's house, and he said Yes.

Well, when Obama became President—and even before, when he was merely a candidate—the Chicago police blocked off the street near his house. The house faces a side street, but it's the second house or second lot up, so it is only a few hundred feet from a more major street, and you could see it from that major street as you drove by.

Well, you can't see it anymore, because it's screened from view by tall trees (I'd say they're arborvitae, maybe 8 or 10 feet tall (2.5 – 3 m)) that are planted thickly.

Earlier, when Obama was at home, there would be many Chicago police cars parked along this major street to provide security, but you could still get a glimpse of the house as you were traveling along the major street: you just had to look off to the side (left or right, depending of course on which direction you were traveling in), up the side street, and it was fairly plainly visible.

Of course the security, when Obama is in residence there, is understandable. After all, the United States has had several presidents assassinated.

But why is it necessary to screen his house from public view at all times?

When the President or Vice President (or even a lesser official like the Secretary of State) is coming to town, their motorcade from the airport gets exclusive use of the road. That is, all other traffic is barred from the road, and damn the inconvenience to the public.

A few months ago when Vice President Joe Biden was arriving in town and, again, all other traffic was barred from the highway—and this was during the rush hour—a radio DJ said, "Why can't Biden get stuck in rush hour traffic like everybody else?"

It looks as though we have gotten an Imperial President (and Vice President and maybe more, such as cabinet secretaries). This is not what the founders of our country and framers of our Constitution envisioned. The wanted the President to be a normal, everyday guy, accessible and approachable. In fact, up until some point (and I don't know exactly when), any ordinary US citizen could visit the White House and get to speak to the President.

Copyright © 2013.

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Is Less Government Better?

When Ronald Reagan was running for President of the United States, in 1980, he argued that government was too big—and even was evil. (Logically, one might have wondered why he wanted to be the head of something which he believed was bad. Presumably to cut it and gut it, and he did, cutting and rendering ineffective many government regulatory agencies.)

Someone said that "Reagan won that debate." Maybe he did insofar as many people today believe that less government is better. Economic conservatives and libertarians believe that the economy would be better, and everything would be rosy, "if we could get  government off our backs." Something—presumably the workings of the marketplace—would ensure that businesses did not screw their customers, the public, and their employees.

I have said much of this before but I want to remind us of some of the things government does for us.

Government builds and repairs roads. It puts up stop lights, stop signs, and road signs.

It provides us with police and fire protection.

It ensures the safety of our food and our medications. Someone said that public health is the big success of government. Government finds the causes and sources of food-borne illnesses. It ensures that there is vaccine to protect us against flu and epidemic diseases. These are only a few of thousands of possible examples.

But I really want to look at one story, auto safety, because I was recently reminded of this by an article I read.

Consumer advocate Ralph Nader published a book called Unsafe at Any Speed. As a result of the changes in US cars to make them safer that were the ultimate result of Nader's crusading efforts and his book, US deaths from auto crashes dropped by 32%.

You just have to contrast the situation in the US with that of Brazil. In Brazil, safety standards for cars are very lax or nonexistent. The Brazilian government is just getting around to requiring air bags and anti-lock brakes in cars made and sold in Brazil. Worse, there are no government crash standards for cars in Brazil. If and when cars are crash-tested, the testing is neither carried out nor validated by the government.

Therefore, cars made in Brazil (by Volkswagen, Fiat, GM, and Ford) are often made without many of the spot welds to the body structure that the very same models would have if built in Europe. As someone put it, where the welds should be, "there's just a gap." With Brazilian car manufacture virtually unregulated, cars in that country are not safe and the rate of serious injuries and deaths in car accidents is much higher than in the US.

The US auto industry did not improve auto safety out of concern for the public's safety, and they did not improve auto safety until they were forced to—by the government and ultimately because of the activism of Ralph Nader. That has not happened yet in Brazil and will not happen until the Brazilian government enforces crash-safety rules similar to those of the US.

The case of the respective US and Brazilian auto industries speaks for itself, but I feel compelled to add: So much for government keeping hands off, just letting business alone and trusting that they will do the right thing.

Update July 8, 2013
The recent collapse of a clothing factory in Bangladesh is another example of what can happen in an environment of lax or even totally lacking government regulation and oversight. I believe about 100 workers were killed. Bangladesh has poor, if any, oversight of building construction and nothing like our OSHA which exists to ensure the safety of workers.

Update August 18, 2013
I learned something interesting not long ago. Maybe Ronald Reagan does not get all the credit (or blame, depending on your politics) for the "government is evil" idea. It seems that in the 1960s, when Governor George Wallace of Alabama was trying to preserve segregation and keep black students from entering schools in his state, he faced the prospect of federal intervention and began to rail about the goverment in Washington being too powerful and evil-ly trying to dictate to the sovereign state of Alabama and tell them what to do and make them change their long-cherished ways. That should make people look at motivations of those who complain about "interference" from the federal government.

Copyright © 2013

Monday, May 13, 2013

The Dumbing of America--One More Example

Today I went to the post office to request an estimate of the cost of shipping a parcel. I did not bring the parcel with me but I did have the dimensions and the destination city (but not ZIP code). (Before you tell me I was stupid to not take the box in with me, I'm not telling you the whole story.)

The gentleman behind the counter said he can't give me a figure. He has to put the box on his scale, which of course gives the weight, and enter the ZIP code. He said he had no way to get a ZIP code from just the name of the city (post offices used to have ZIP code directories out on the counter for all to use; but now you're expected to use the USPS web site).

I said that the system requires no brain. (He took it personally, so I apologized.)

What I meant was not that this gentleman did not have a brain, but rather that, the way his equipment works, a brain is not required. Not his nor someone else's.

It all started with cash registers (or, to be more up-to-date I guess I have to say "point-of-sale terminals") that calculate the customer's change. I can calculate my change in my head—and faster than the machine--but if the person working the register had to do it using mental arithmetic, they'd probably have a problem. And it seems as though machines more and more are making it unnecessary to do any calculating, thinking, or any mental work whatsoever.

The brain can be compared to a muscle: if it is not used, it grows weaker. So if our jobs don't require us to do a little mental exercise-—calculating change in our heads or finding out something else for the customer—if we leave that to the machines, we grow dumber.

This is just one more of countless examples of the Dumbing of America.

Copyright © 2013

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Predicting the Future (or Not)

Just last December, many people expected the world to end because the Mayan calendar's "long count" ended on December 21, 2012, and the inference was made that the Maya therefore did not see any time beyond that date. The further inference was made that that implied that the world would end on that date.

There have been many other predictions of the end of the world. There was one fairly recently that got a lot of publicity (I don't remember the name of the minister who made the prediction; forgive me for not taking the trouble to find it out but it's not that relevant here).

And predictions of the end of the world have been going on for a long time. The year 1000, the end of the "millennium," was expected by many to bring the Second Coming of Christ and thus the end of the world.

Needless to say, in spite of all these predictions of doom, we are all still here.

And there have continually been economic predictions of disaster: the bond market is going to crash, the stock market is going to crash. At one point, a couple years ago, I saw a very amusing sign in downtown Chicago: "Economists have successfully predicted 13 out of the last 7 recessions."

Only a very small percentage of these economic predictions or forecasts have turned out to be true. (As implied, there've been a few—very few—notable exceptions.)

Let’s look at scientific predictions. A lot of those have been colossally wrong. I saw an interesting list of those, once. The only one I remember: the great scientist Lord Kelvin predicted, "The atom will never be split."

Natural phenomena such as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and tornadoes can be predicted poorly, if at all. (I think the state of the science has advanced but only to the point that earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and tornadoes can only be predicted once certain precursors have been observed. Unfortunately the current state of the art is that weather professionals can give no more than 20 minutes advance notice of a tornado.)

Let's look at weather prediction--usually called "forecasting." That definitely has improved a great deal but still has its limitations. You could say it depends on extrapolation, by which I mean, you see a storm and you just calculate where it would go if it continued on the same track. That's the method also used with hurricanes and there it's somewhat less of an accurate prediction because hurricanes can change their course.

So many predictions herald some sort of doom (getting back to end-of-the-world scenarios) and I find it amazing that so many people take them seriously. Which is not to say that some disaster could not occur that would bring very widespread devastation to Earth with loss of life. The meteor that recently struck Eastern Russia had not been foreseen and that fact is alarming. It could have been bigger than it was, it could have fallen more vertically, etc. Any one of these conditions could have resulted in more destruction and even great loss of life.

Many attempts to predict the future are fantasy, wishful thinking. Who has not dreamt of making a fortune by knowing what will happen with the stock market or knowing which horse is going to win the race against long odds?

So, aside from the limited predictions which science can offer us, there is no knowing the future. When it's election time, I pay no attention to any predictions: I tell myself that we will know in the event, and I can wait until then.

Update, August 14 2013
Here is an article on wrong predictions: http://www.mandatory.com/2013/08/05/10-of-the-worst-predictions-in-history/1


Copyright © 2013.