Call me Scrooge. Call me anti-Christian. Call me un-American. But I think this needs to be said.
Why have I never heard anyone commenting on the extra energy consumption that is represented by Christmas lights? Granted, tiny little lights, individually, don't use a lot of electricity. But this whole Christmas lights/decoration thing has gotten so out of hand, with people vying to outdo one another, that people are getting electric bills in the thousands of dollars.
This extra demand for electricity not only means more depletion of resources (coal, gas, oil) to generate the power, and the concomitant greenhouse gas emission, but also a seldom-mentioned consequence of our power consumption, the production of mountains of coal ash (from coal-burning power plants) that can be a toxic environmental hazard, according to the EPA.
And then there are Christmas trees. (I except artificial trees from these comments.) How many millions of Christmas trees are grown every year, to be used for a short time and then disposed of (hopefully turned into mulch, at the very least)? How much land is used for growing Christmas trees? Maybe that land could be used for growing food crops to feed a hungry world or even corn for ethanol production. Almost any use of that land would seem to me more sensible than use as Christmas tree farms when that's for such an ephemeral product.
Even if the land used were not good for anything else, it could be returned to wildlife habitat, which continually shrinks as humans spread themselves and their activities over the face of the planet.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Monday, December 27, 2010
Strict Interpretation - When It Suits 'Em
Republicans and religious conservatives may advocate a strict interpretation--of the Constitution in the one case, and of the Bible in the other.
But they seem to me to be hypocritical because they can be shown to favor strict construction only when it is in their interests; and otherwise, they just ignore whatever they prefer to ignore.
Former US President George W. Bush effected "substantial military actions" in Afghanistan and Iraq "that under any traditional reading of the Constitution [would have] required a declaration of war" (Robert Dallek, "Power and the Presidency," Smithsonian, January 2011); but, as is implied, these actions were done without a declaration of war. But I don't recall Bush's conservative supporters crying foul, complaining about his possibly unconstitutional actions--even though they are always saying that they favor strict interpretation of the Constitution.
And I think it's somewhat analogous when religious conservatives point to the Bible as justification for their condemnation of homosexuality and gay people. They need to remember that the Bible was used to justify slavery in the decades preceding the Civil War.
Also, they point to a passage in the Old Testament book of Leviticus that calls homosexuality an "abomination." Leaving aside the fact that abomination may not have meant, when the Old Testament was written, what they would have us believe it means, Leviticus also calls the eating of shellfish and pork an abomination. It also forbids wearing clothing made of mixed fibers, and prescribes particular sacrifices for many types of sins and crimes.
Not only do these people not make the sacrifices that Leviticus says we need to perform, I'd wager they also eat pork and shellfish, and don't give any thought to whether their clothing is a mixture of fibers.
So it looks like the Constitution, and the Bible, must be strictly adhered to only when to do so happens to harmonize with the aims of Conservatives.
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
But they seem to me to be hypocritical because they can be shown to favor strict construction only when it is in their interests; and otherwise, they just ignore whatever they prefer to ignore.
Former US President George W. Bush effected "substantial military actions" in Afghanistan and Iraq "that under any traditional reading of the Constitution [would have] required a declaration of war" (Robert Dallek, "Power and the Presidency," Smithsonian, January 2011); but, as is implied, these actions were done without a declaration of war. But I don't recall Bush's conservative supporters crying foul, complaining about his possibly unconstitutional actions--even though they are always saying that they favor strict interpretation of the Constitution.
And I think it's somewhat analogous when religious conservatives point to the Bible as justification for their condemnation of homosexuality and gay people. They need to remember that the Bible was used to justify slavery in the decades preceding the Civil War.
Also, they point to a passage in the Old Testament book of Leviticus that calls homosexuality an "abomination." Leaving aside the fact that abomination may not have meant, when the Old Testament was written, what they would have us believe it means, Leviticus also calls the eating of shellfish and pork an abomination. It also forbids wearing clothing made of mixed fibers, and prescribes particular sacrifices for many types of sins and crimes.
Not only do these people not make the sacrifices that Leviticus says we need to perform, I'd wager they also eat pork and shellfish, and don't give any thought to whether their clothing is a mixture of fibers.
So it looks like the Constitution, and the Bible, must be strictly adhered to only when to do so happens to harmonize with the aims of Conservatives.
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Cops on Steroids
Here are some quotes from an article on AOL News headlined "Cops' Use of Illegal Steroids a 'Big Problem'":
Victor Conte, founder of the now-defunct lab known as Bay Area Lab Co-Operative that supplied numerous athletes with steroids and other banned substances, said it wouldn't surprise him if as many as a quarter of police officers were using some kind of performance-enhancing drug.
Seem high? While there are no empirical studies on the prevalence of steroids in law enforcement, the recent revelations that 248 police officers and firefighters from 53 agencies were tied to a Jersey City, N.J., physician gives some credence to Conte's estimate. The months-long investigation by The Star-Ledger of Newark also found that taxpayers often footed the bill for the drugs since many were prescribed.
There's debate as to what dangers doped-up officers pose to the public. South Bend police Capt. Phil Trent, for one, would rather not take a chance.
. . . . . .
"First we have an officer who is a drug dealer," Trent said. "Second, you always hear about the bizarre size effects (of steroid use). If they are taking these drugs and it turns them into a raving lunatic, that's something we should be concerned about in law enforcement."
Conte said the psychological effects of steroids -- including mood swings and so-called "'roid rage" -- are often overblown and can depend on how much of the drug is used.
The article also listed cases where a police officer pleaded guilty to steroid use.
I have often criticized police officers who behave inappropriately: using excessive and even lethal force against a crime suspect, beating up civilians (e. g., when off duty). Now we may have an explanation for some of these incidents.
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
I have often criticized police officers who behave inappropriately: using excessive and even lethal force against a crime suspect, beating up civilians (e. g., when off duty). Now we may have an explanation for some of these incidents.
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Some Day-after-Christmas Thoughts
First, there is no authority whatsoever for Jesus' birthday being December 25. No one knows the exact day he was born.
Second, there is no authority in the Gospels for the "three wise men" being named Caspar, Melchior, and Balthazar. The Gospel of Matthew--the only one, I believe, that includes this story (check me on that if you care to)-- does not even say there were three of them; it just says "wise men from the East." This is one of many medieval "accretions," additions that somehow came to be made to stories which are to be found in the Gospels.
Third, do you think you know what Jesus looked like? Sure, you've seen his likeness in paintings, religious statues, even calendars. The fact is, there was no photography in his day, and we don't have any contemporary portraits of him, either. Our notions of Jesus stem mainly from medieval and Renaissance paintings. He seems to be depicted as having long blond hair, blue eyes, and a beard. But surely he was much more Semitic-looking than that.
Ditto for the Virgin Mary. The absence of reliable images of these personages ought by itself to give the lie to all those sightings of Jesus or Mary on tortillas or walls or water towers.
Last, we all know that in Roman times, Christians were thrown to the lions in the Coliseum, right? Well, according to an article in Smithsonian magazine, there is no good evidence for that, either.
So—a lot of what we believe just ain't so.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Second, there is no authority in the Gospels for the "three wise men" being named Caspar, Melchior, and Balthazar. The Gospel of Matthew--the only one, I believe, that includes this story (check me on that if you care to)-- does not even say there were three of them; it just says "wise men from the East." This is one of many medieval "accretions," additions that somehow came to be made to stories which are to be found in the Gospels.
Third, do you think you know what Jesus looked like? Sure, you've seen his likeness in paintings, religious statues, even calendars. The fact is, there was no photography in his day, and we don't have any contemporary portraits of him, either. Our notions of Jesus stem mainly from medieval and Renaissance paintings. He seems to be depicted as having long blond hair, blue eyes, and a beard. But surely he was much more Semitic-looking than that.
Ditto for the Virgin Mary. The absence of reliable images of these personages ought by itself to give the lie to all those sightings of Jesus or Mary on tortillas or walls or water towers.
Last, we all know that in Roman times, Christians were thrown to the lions in the Coliseum, right? Well, according to an article in Smithsonian magazine, there is no good evidence for that, either.
So—a lot of what we believe just ain't so.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Monday, December 20, 2010
Gas Prices Going up--Again
From my window I can see the price sign of a gas station, so I'm usually up on where gas prices seem to be headed. There was a recent dip that proved very temporary, and prices now are about 30 cents higher than they were during that dip. Said neighboring station currently shows $3.259.
I wonder how high the price of gas has to rise before people who own monster SUVs like Suburbans and Tahoes regret buying such a thirsty vehicle. And you know, if you follow this blog, that I have less than zero sympathy for those folks, because I regard them as destroying the planet. (Greenhouse gas emissions are directly proportional to gas consumption.)
Statistics show that, when gas prices rise, people are interested in smaller, more economical cars. When gas prices fall again, people go back to disregarding fuel economy when they're car-shopping, and in fact sales of large SUVs rise again. (This has been a problem for Detroit at several periods over, say, the last 50 years: They introduce small cars and then the price of gas falls and they can't sell those smaller cars.)
So we see that car buyers can be very short-sighted. The price of gas may fall but it will certainly rise again, kind of like the stock market. And, like the stock market, I'd wager that, long-term, the trend is upward.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
I wonder how high the price of gas has to rise before people who own monster SUVs like Suburbans and Tahoes regret buying such a thirsty vehicle. And you know, if you follow this blog, that I have less than zero sympathy for those folks, because I regard them as destroying the planet. (Greenhouse gas emissions are directly proportional to gas consumption.)
Statistics show that, when gas prices rise, people are interested in smaller, more economical cars. When gas prices fall again, people go back to disregarding fuel economy when they're car-shopping, and in fact sales of large SUVs rise again. (This has been a problem for Detroit at several periods over, say, the last 50 years: They introduce small cars and then the price of gas falls and they can't sell those smaller cars.)
So we see that car buyers can be very short-sighted. The price of gas may fall but it will certainly rise again, kind of like the stock market. And, like the stock market, I'd wager that, long-term, the trend is upward.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Let the Cannibals Eat the Missionaries
As someone who has been (sort of) anthropologically trained, I deplore all those cases in history where missionaries have interfered with a native culture, usually in the name of bringing them Christianity.
In the United States in the nineteenth century, Native American children were forcibly taken from their parents and sent to so-called Indian schools, typically run by missionaries. There they were forbidden to speak their native language and in fact were punished if they did so. This was part of a deliberate and systematic attempt to "assimilate" the Indians to mainstream (white) culture—in other words, to destroy their own culture.
As a result, Indian languages nearly died out. Today, in many tribes, only the very old—grandparents or even great-grandparents—can speak the ancestral language. Where a desire exists to preserve the native culture, schools are teaching the ancient language; but then the language has to be learned as a foreign language, and it has skipped a generation or two.
And possibly traditions such as songs, dances, tales, and other parts of the culture are being taught to the young Native Americans, too. Again, only an older generation is still in possession of this cultural material. Thus the educational efforts unfortunately are sort of a remedial effort, more to restore and revive than maintain the culture.
It wasn't only in the United States, nor only with the Native Americans that cultural destruction happened. Sad to say, Canada and Australia have just about as bad a record regarding their native peoples. Canada had outlawed some practices of its native tribes until the 1950s, I believe.
Intervention by missionaries started in 1797 in Tahiti, where missionaries outlawed tattooing, because the biblical book of Leviticus forbids decorating of the body. And in Samoa, just as an example, when missionaries arrived they found a blissful situation, where the the people felt no shame in sex or in the human body. But these missionaries were scandalized by bare-breasted women and got them to cover their bosoms. (Except for purposes of photography and painting: "Okay, now take your clothes off because we want to paint [or photograph] you bare-breasted." Hmm.)
As I said, with the viewpoint of an anthropologist, I deplore missionaries as interfering with and destroying native cultures. I think I might go so far as to say that headhunting should not be outlawed (it was still going on in the Solomon Islands, in New Guinea, in the Philippines, and elsewhere in the twentieth century). It's part of their war, and I'm not sure our wars are less brutal. How do we point an accusatory finger when we (meaning the U.S. and its allies) incinerated Vietnamese people with napalm and poisoned their ecosystem with Agent Orange, which is still causing horrible birth defects?
Or, in World War II, 75,000 people were killed—incinerated—in the fire-bombing of Dresden, Germany. And one-quarter of Tokyo was destroyed by fire-bombing, with the result of over a million people losing their homes.
However, I frankly see a difficult, morally ambiguous case where we are talking about native practices that involve killing. As I said I might condone headhunting, maybe even cannibalism (which has been practiced, at various times, almost everywhere in the world). I am more conflicted when it comes to human sacrifice such as was being practiced by Mesoamerican peoples such as the Aztecs and the Maya when the Spanish arrived in the sixteenth century.
On the one hand I might stick to the non-interference that I espoused above as an absolute. On the other hand, the rationale for human sacrifice is to be found in these peoples' religion. To us it is primitive superstition. Since I am not too sympathetic to any religious beliefs whatsoever—even in our "advanced," that is, Western, Christian, etc., world —I find it hard to say, "Well, even here we need to leave the native practices alone." I guess that these peoples, who believed that (for example) human sacrifice was needed to keep the sun rising every day, and/or to appease the rain god so that the crops would grow, learned, after they were forced to stop the practice, that the sun rose anyway and the crops grew anyway. It can be viewed as anti-anthropological interference or it can be viewed as science triumphing over superstition.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
In the United States in the nineteenth century, Native American children were forcibly taken from their parents and sent to so-called Indian schools, typically run by missionaries. There they were forbidden to speak their native language and in fact were punished if they did so. This was part of a deliberate and systematic attempt to "assimilate" the Indians to mainstream (white) culture—in other words, to destroy their own culture.
As a result, Indian languages nearly died out. Today, in many tribes, only the very old—grandparents or even great-grandparents—can speak the ancestral language. Where a desire exists to preserve the native culture, schools are teaching the ancient language; but then the language has to be learned as a foreign language, and it has skipped a generation or two.
And possibly traditions such as songs, dances, tales, and other parts of the culture are being taught to the young Native Americans, too. Again, only an older generation is still in possession of this cultural material. Thus the educational efforts unfortunately are sort of a remedial effort, more to restore and revive than maintain the culture.
It wasn't only in the United States, nor only with the Native Americans that cultural destruction happened. Sad to say, Canada and Australia have just about as bad a record regarding their native peoples. Canada had outlawed some practices of its native tribes until the 1950s, I believe.
Intervention by missionaries started in 1797 in Tahiti, where missionaries outlawed tattooing, because the biblical book of Leviticus forbids decorating of the body. And in Samoa, just as an example, when missionaries arrived they found a blissful situation, where the the people felt no shame in sex or in the human body. But these missionaries were scandalized by bare-breasted women and got them to cover their bosoms. (Except for purposes of photography and painting: "Okay, now take your clothes off because we want to paint [or photograph] you bare-breasted." Hmm.)
As I said, with the viewpoint of an anthropologist, I deplore missionaries as interfering with and destroying native cultures. I think I might go so far as to say that headhunting should not be outlawed (it was still going on in the Solomon Islands, in New Guinea, in the Philippines, and elsewhere in the twentieth century). It's part of their war, and I'm not sure our wars are less brutal. How do we point an accusatory finger when we (meaning the U.S. and its allies) incinerated Vietnamese people with napalm and poisoned their ecosystem with Agent Orange, which is still causing horrible birth defects?
Or, in World War II, 75,000 people were killed—incinerated—in the fire-bombing of Dresden, Germany. And one-quarter of Tokyo was destroyed by fire-bombing, with the result of over a million people losing their homes.
However, I frankly see a difficult, morally ambiguous case where we are talking about native practices that involve killing. As I said I might condone headhunting, maybe even cannibalism (which has been practiced, at various times, almost everywhere in the world). I am more conflicted when it comes to human sacrifice such as was being practiced by Mesoamerican peoples such as the Aztecs and the Maya when the Spanish arrived in the sixteenth century.
On the one hand I might stick to the non-interference that I espoused above as an absolute. On the other hand, the rationale for human sacrifice is to be found in these peoples' religion. To us it is primitive superstition. Since I am not too sympathetic to any religious beliefs whatsoever—even in our "advanced," that is, Western, Christian, etc., world —I find it hard to say, "Well, even here we need to leave the native practices alone." I guess that these peoples, who believed that (for example) human sacrifice was needed to keep the sun rising every day, and/or to appease the rain god so that the crops would grow, learned, after they were forced to stop the practice, that the sun rose anyway and the crops grew anyway. It can be viewed as anti-anthropological interference or it can be viewed as science triumphing over superstition.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Thursday, December 16, 2010
What's Changed in the World. Part 6 - Storing and Creating Words, Images, Sounds
The word typewriter came up not long ago. I happen to still have a typewriter, sitting on the closet shelf. Of course I have not used it for a very long time. And it's actually one of the last generation of typewriters, an electronic one that can store documents for subsequent editing or printing.
And if you see a typewriter nowadays, you comment on it. It's quaint, a curiosity. I did remark when I saw a typewriter at my doctor's office. Yes, we still use it occasionally, they said. Nearly everyone who has something to write, these days, does it on a computer—though there are quite a few people who don't use a computer or at least don't own their own.
Besides typewriters now being antiques, I've got some movie film stored away somewhere, most of which I took on my first European trip, many years ago. Now there's no way to view those films. When I was a kid I actually owned a movie projector, but a silent one. It was a simple machine, probably not much more than a toy, and it cost probably in today's money say $300 or $400. A sound movie projector would have been a much more elaborate and expensive affair. You'd find sound 16mm projectors in schools.
Nowadays it's so easy to watch movies in your home. You don't need a projector, you don't need to set up a projection screen. In the early '80s, home video recorders came in. They initially were expensive, and they used tape. The tape cartridges were pretty bulky. With tape, if you wanted to advance or go back in the program (movie), you had to patiently rewind or fast-forward the tape. The DVD discs we use nowadays are more compact, and the disc format has the advantage of "random access": it's relatively easy to move to any spot on the disc.
Besides typewriters and movie projectors and even VHS tape machines being things of the past, I also own some reel-to-reel audio tapes! And it's been many years since I've had a machine that would play them. (Okay, I guess that my confessing to having the films and tapes still around means I'm a hoarder, and I need help!) Reel-to-reel audio tapes, which were bulky themselves and required bulky machines to record and play them, have been obsolete for quite a while. Then we had cassette tapes. Now we have CDs, which we can record or "burn" ourselves, and iPods and other MP3 players. I guess we don't even carry around physical media for these things: we just use electronic files of 1s and 0s that we can't even see. That's the ultimate in size reduction!
It's actually a problem for libraries and other archives that own documents on movie film, audio tape, and so forth. They have to invest time and money to convert these documents to more modern formats or risk having them be totally useless because there are no more machines around for viewing or playing them. Such is the price of progress.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
And if you see a typewriter nowadays, you comment on it. It's quaint, a curiosity. I did remark when I saw a typewriter at my doctor's office. Yes, we still use it occasionally, they said. Nearly everyone who has something to write, these days, does it on a computer—though there are quite a few people who don't use a computer or at least don't own their own.
Besides typewriters now being antiques, I've got some movie film stored away somewhere, most of which I took on my first European trip, many years ago. Now there's no way to view those films. When I was a kid I actually owned a movie projector, but a silent one. It was a simple machine, probably not much more than a toy, and it cost probably in today's money say $300 or $400. A sound movie projector would have been a much more elaborate and expensive affair. You'd find sound 16mm projectors in schools.
Nowadays it's so easy to watch movies in your home. You don't need a projector, you don't need to set up a projection screen. In the early '80s, home video recorders came in. They initially were expensive, and they used tape. The tape cartridges were pretty bulky. With tape, if you wanted to advance or go back in the program (movie), you had to patiently rewind or fast-forward the tape. The DVD discs we use nowadays are more compact, and the disc format has the advantage of "random access": it's relatively easy to move to any spot on the disc.
Besides typewriters and movie projectors and even VHS tape machines being things of the past, I also own some reel-to-reel audio tapes! And it's been many years since I've had a machine that would play them. (Okay, I guess that my confessing to having the films and tapes still around means I'm a hoarder, and I need help!) Reel-to-reel audio tapes, which were bulky themselves and required bulky machines to record and play them, have been obsolete for quite a while. Then we had cassette tapes. Now we have CDs, which we can record or "burn" ourselves, and iPods and other MP3 players. I guess we don't even carry around physical media for these things: we just use electronic files of 1s and 0s that we can't even see. That's the ultimate in size reduction!
It's actually a problem for libraries and other archives that own documents on movie film, audio tape, and so forth. They have to invest time and money to convert these documents to more modern formats or risk having them be totally useless because there are no more machines around for viewing or playing them. Such is the price of progress.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
