I just heard a woman on the radio (frankly I don't know who she was but she must have been a political candidate or someone in a party committee or something such). She claimed that (1) we have never had such a protracted period with the unemployment rate over 8%; and (2) that the price of gasoline is 110% higher now than when Obama took office.
All this led to a pitch for Mitt Romney as better qualified to be President.
Let's look at these claims and examine whether they are to be blamed on Obama. First, the price of gas. It's been stated many times that one reason that gas prices have risen is that world demand for oil, led by increasing living standards in China and India, has been rising. Everybody has heard of the law of supply and demand: with greater demand, the price is going to rise.
Second, Obama has been guiding the US back to economic health after a worldwide near-meltdown of the economy and the banking system in 2008—before he took office. The economy is still not robust and thus employment has been improving only gradually. It probably would take New Deal–style programs to make a big difference in that—programs which the Republicans definitely would fight tooth-and-nail and almost certainly would successfully block.
I heard someone talking about the power of the President. The bottom line was that the president does not have as much power as people tend to think. Our government is divided into three branches—the so-called Separation of Powers, which has shown itself to be a wise provision of those who established our form of government. So the Executive Branch (the President and his cabinet departments) can't do everything on their own.
Where government departments and agencies can influence the economy, we have (again) Conservatives and Republicans crying out that the government has too much power and advocating for little or no regulation—the "free market" philosophy which, as they'd like us to forget, is what caused the economic mess in the first place.
So it looks like they (the Conservatives and Republicans) want to blame Obama for any and all problems the country is experiencing, but at the same time they want to negate or thwart any power he or his cabinet departments might actually have to affect those same problems.
Looks to me like they just want to blame.
Updated May 13, 2012
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Dangerous Dealings on Wall Street (and Whose Fault It Is)
Conservatives frequently blame President Obama for the economic situation of the last three years: high unemployment, slow economic growth, many people losing their homes to foreclosure, etc. They have conveniently short memories because they are forgetting that the problems began in 2008, before Obama was inaugurated and in fact a few months before he was elected.
If you are looking for someone to blame, perhaps former President Bill Clinton should be a candidate. He signed a law repealing the Glass-Steagall Act. Glass-Steagall was a Depression-era (1933) law enacted to address some of the abuses of the banking industry that had led to the stock market crash of 1929 which in turn was the trigger for the Great Depression. The Glass-Steagall Act prohibited both regular (or "retail") banking and investment banking from being performed by the same company. With the Act's repeal, now the large banks trade in securities and thus act in their own interest, often to the detriment of their own clients, not to mention the detriment of the national and even the world economy. Thus the banking industry now is much less regulated than it had been for six decades. This is a bad thing. It led to the financial crisis of 2008 – 2009, and the freewheeling of the banking industry continues--despite the enactment of some new legislation, which does too weak a job of regulating Wall Street and thus courts the danger of further troubles.
A four-episode program in the PBS' (the US's Public Broadcasting System) "Frontline" series entitled "Money, Power, and Wall Street" profiled three or four young people who went into Wall Street jobs upon graduating college. These people had degrees in mathematics and computer science, and began work in the highly sophisticated and automated trading of complex securities at the big Wall Street banks. Such jobs carried very attractive starting salaries of $150,000—perhaps three times what an average college graduate would earn—and could in a short time lead to incomes 10 and even 100 times that amount.
Yet these young people left their jobs because they had concerns that what they were doing in their jobs was harmful. These derivatives, swaps and other innovative financial instruments were being sold to individuals, cities, counties, and even convents of nuns in the US and even to national governments such as Greece. The risks of investing in these securities were usually very poorly understood by those who bought them. They went bad (to put it extremely simply), and this caused (just as a couple of examples) the bankruptcy of Jefferson County, Alabama, and the financial troubles of Greece.
There are at the very least 1000 examples of buyers of these very risky investments; no one actually knows how many people or entities bought them.
And, for every individual like the three or four who spoke to "Frontline"'s cameras to testify to the harmfulness of their former employers' securities dealings, there are no doubt 1000 or 10,000 or many more who continue to do this work. Greed often trumps people's consciences. And the problem is not, of course, just the front-line troops who sit all day at their computers but the heads of these banks.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
If you are looking for someone to blame, perhaps former President Bill Clinton should be a candidate. He signed a law repealing the Glass-Steagall Act. Glass-Steagall was a Depression-era (1933) law enacted to address some of the abuses of the banking industry that had led to the stock market crash of 1929 which in turn was the trigger for the Great Depression. The Glass-Steagall Act prohibited both regular (or "retail") banking and investment banking from being performed by the same company. With the Act's repeal, now the large banks trade in securities and thus act in their own interest, often to the detriment of their own clients, not to mention the detriment of the national and even the world economy. Thus the banking industry now is much less regulated than it had been for six decades. This is a bad thing. It led to the financial crisis of 2008 – 2009, and the freewheeling of the banking industry continues--despite the enactment of some new legislation, which does too weak a job of regulating Wall Street and thus courts the danger of further troubles.
A four-episode program in the PBS' (the US's Public Broadcasting System) "Frontline" series entitled "Money, Power, and Wall Street" profiled three or four young people who went into Wall Street jobs upon graduating college. These people had degrees in mathematics and computer science, and began work in the highly sophisticated and automated trading of complex securities at the big Wall Street banks. Such jobs carried very attractive starting salaries of $150,000—perhaps three times what an average college graduate would earn—and could in a short time lead to incomes 10 and even 100 times that amount.
Yet these young people left their jobs because they had concerns that what they were doing in their jobs was harmful. These derivatives, swaps and other innovative financial instruments were being sold to individuals, cities, counties, and even convents of nuns in the US and even to national governments such as Greece. The risks of investing in these securities were usually very poorly understood by those who bought them. They went bad (to put it extremely simply), and this caused (just as a couple of examples) the bankruptcy of Jefferson County, Alabama, and the financial troubles of Greece.
There are at the very least 1000 examples of buyers of these very risky investments; no one actually knows how many people or entities bought them.
And, for every individual like the three or four who spoke to "Frontline"'s cameras to testify to the harmfulness of their former employers' securities dealings, there are no doubt 1000 or 10,000 or many more who continue to do this work. Greed often trumps people's consciences. And the problem is not, of course, just the front-line troops who sit all day at their computers but the heads of these banks.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Food Follows Fashion
Several years ago, suddenly (or so it seemed), the corn (maize, to many non-Americans) we'd buy in stores and at the farmer's market as well was bi-colored corn. That is, where we previously had yellow corn (the most common) and white corn, now there were ears of corn with both white and yellow kernels intermingled on the same cob.
And just this spring (maybe it occurred earlier and I didn't notice), the navel oranges are "Cara Cara" oranges, with attractive reddish flesh. Somewhat like blood oranges but maybe closer in color to pink grapefruit.
In both of these cases I surmise that we're getting newly developed varieties that farmers are now choosing to grow and which customers like for their attractive appearance.
For once I am not crying "Foul!" against the food industry. There is nothing wrong with giving us, the consumers, food that is attractive—as long as the new, more attractive varieties are equal or better in nutrition than what we had been using; and I don't have any facts on that.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
In Praise of Greek Yogurt
I have decided I need to stay away from regular yogurt. It is high in sugars (milk sugar or lactose) and causes my blood sugar to spike and then crash, so that I experience the symptoms of low blood sugar.
Greek yogurt is better: it's both lower in sugar and higher in protein. Greek yogurt, which is strained to remove some of the liquid component (whey), is thicker, somewhat like sour cream. It's been becoming very popular and now is in all the stores, though it's more expensive.
And, with Greek yogurt or regular yogurt, I never buy any of the flavored varieties, which have fruit and/or sweeteners added. They're higher in calories but, more important to me, I simply don't like them. To me, sweetening does not goes with the taste of yogurt and I actually find the flavored varieties distasteful.
Many people don't like the somewhat tart taste of plain yogurt but I don't mind it. This is probably because I was raised on cooking (Ashkenazic Jewish and Central/Eastern European) where sour cream is a common ingredient.
Update, June 29, 2012. Greek yogurt was just mentioned as one of 50 foods considered very healthful in an online article. Three of them were nuts and most of the rest were fruits and vegetables.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Greek yogurt is better: it's both lower in sugar and higher in protein. Greek yogurt, which is strained to remove some of the liquid component (whey), is thicker, somewhat like sour cream. It's been becoming very popular and now is in all the stores, though it's more expensive.
And, with Greek yogurt or regular yogurt, I never buy any of the flavored varieties, which have fruit and/or sweeteners added. They're higher in calories but, more important to me, I simply don't like them. To me, sweetening does not goes with the taste of yogurt and I actually find the flavored varieties distasteful.
Many people don't like the somewhat tart taste of plain yogurt but I don't mind it. This is probably because I was raised on cooking (Ashkenazic Jewish and Central/Eastern European) where sour cream is a common ingredient.
Update, June 29, 2012. Greek yogurt was just mentioned as one of 50 foods considered very healthful in an online article. Three of them were nuts and most of the rest were fruits and vegetables.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Monday, April 23, 2012
Famous Philanderers
John Edwards, one-time US presidential candidate, is presently on trial, accused of using campaign funds to help cover up the affair he was having--while his then-wife was suffering from cancer, which in the end was the cause of her death.
Edwards is by no means the first prominent figure in US politics to have proved an unfaithful husband. It's easy to name three US presidents and I am sure there were more.
Franklin D. Roosevelt had a mistress for many years, who I believe was his personal secretary. His wife Eleanor was aware of this (there are rumors that Mrs. Roosevelt had a very intimate female friend but I don't know how well established that is; and it would be another subject, anyway). When Roosevelt died, his mistress got to his side before wife Eleanor did. I'd say Mrs. Roosevelt had a lot to bear.
John F. Kennedy was long rumored to have had an affair with famous actress and sex symbol Marilyn Monroe, and there is a new revelation about another woman in his life.
Then there is Bill Clinton, who very nearly suffered total downfall because he engaged in sex acts with an intern named Monica Lewinsky.
When it's a president and these things come to light--and how often are they successfully kept secret from the public?--it makes for a big scandal. But I do not believe for a moment that it's only presidents and senators and such who can't keep it zipped up. They may have more allure for their paramours because of their position and power; but I tend to think there is a tomcat in every male. One time I heard a very amusing little poem:
Update, August 13, 2013.
Anyone who follows the news is aware of at least a couple more recent sex-related scandals involving political figures. Anthony Weiner has had more than his 15 minutes of notoriety, for sexting, emailing nude images of himself to women, and so forth. Of course I'd say that is a man who is not a normal human male but a sexual compulsive. And then there's the mayor of San Diego. So my listing, in this post, only scratches the surface. No one should be surprised. Political figures are like every other man but they so often seem to lack the good sense to realize that being in the public eye means they need to be more discreet.
Copyright (c) 2012 by Richard Stein
Edwards is by no means the first prominent figure in US politics to have proved an unfaithful husband. It's easy to name three US presidents and I am sure there were more.
Franklin D. Roosevelt had a mistress for many years, who I believe was his personal secretary. His wife Eleanor was aware of this (there are rumors that Mrs. Roosevelt had a very intimate female friend but I don't know how well established that is; and it would be another subject, anyway). When Roosevelt died, his mistress got to his side before wife Eleanor did. I'd say Mrs. Roosevelt had a lot to bear.
John F. Kennedy was long rumored to have had an affair with famous actress and sex symbol Marilyn Monroe, and there is a new revelation about another woman in his life.
Then there is Bill Clinton, who very nearly suffered total downfall because he engaged in sex acts with an intern named Monica Lewinsky.
When it's a president and these things come to light--and how often are they successfully kept secret from the public?--it makes for a big scandal. But I do not believe for a moment that it's only presidents and senators and such who can't keep it zipped up. They may have more allure for their paramours because of their position and power; but I tend to think there is a tomcat in every male. One time I heard a very amusing little poem:
Higgamus hoggamus,Of course many married men never "stray." Of course there are women who have extra-marital affairs. But, when I look at lesbian couples I have to feel that women have a greater tendency to want to "settle down" and lead a life in which they are completely satisfied with one partner. Men, on the other hand, seem to get tired of one sexual partner, not to mention all those men with (suppressed or not) ambitions to be a Casanova and have sexual variety in their lives or maybe achieve "conquests."
Woman's monogamous.
Hoggamus higgamus,
Man is polygamous.
Update, August 13, 2013.
Anyone who follows the news is aware of at least a couple more recent sex-related scandals involving political figures. Anthony Weiner has had more than his 15 minutes of notoriety, for sexting, emailing nude images of himself to women, and so forth. Of course I'd say that is a man who is not a normal human male but a sexual compulsive. And then there's the mayor of San Diego. So my listing, in this post, only scratches the surface. No one should be surprised. Political figures are like every other man but they so often seem to lack the good sense to realize that being in the public eye means they need to be more discreet.
Copyright (c) 2012 by Richard Stein
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Mrs. Romney
There has been some controversy and dialogue since a Democrat criticized Ann Romney, wife of likely Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, as having "never worked a day in her life." This outraged Mrs. Romney and doubtless a number of other women whose "careers" have been as wife and mother.
Mrs. Romney replied that as mother of five sons, her life has been one of hard work. I have two comments on that: First, Mrs. Romney and her husband are very wealthy, reporting a recent year's income as 25 million dollars. People of means such as that can employ people to do the housework and to help with raising the children, so I doubt that Mrs. Romney personally had to it all herself. Quite possibly the most she had to do was to tuck her kids in at night.
I don't want to minimize the role of wife-and-mother, but I do have to say that probably a majority of mothers in present-day America have fewer than five children (at least I hope so!). There are no doubt those who do have a hard life raising their children—but it is not as in the time of our grandmothers (or great-grandmothers), who had to churn butter, bake bread, make the family's clothes and manually wash them—etc., etc. The modern woman has things much easier: We have had "labor-saving appliances" since the middle of the 20th century, and it's the rare American household which hasn't got at least some of them.
So I doubt that very many "stay-at-home moms" have things that hard. In the case of those who have few and/or quite young children, I see them at the mall, having lunch with their woman friends, with possibly one or two very young children along in a stroller. And they come to the mall in an expensive car which Hubby is at that very moment working hard to pay for.
Going somewhat into another issue: The life of the stay-at-home mom may satisfy and gratify some women but it is not satisfying for all. A woman of my acquaintance, who is very intelligent, confided to me that she found it stultifying to have only the conversation of the other mothers sitting around the sandbox.
Update, April 28, 2012
I've been told that Charlie Rose (host of a talk show on PBS, the public television network) has researched the issue and found out that Mitt and Ann Romney, in the period in question, did indeed have several domestic employees such as a nanny. Thus my surmise or speculation evidently was correct.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Mrs. Romney replied that as mother of five sons, her life has been one of hard work. I have two comments on that: First, Mrs. Romney and her husband are very wealthy, reporting a recent year's income as 25 million dollars. People of means such as that can employ people to do the housework and to help with raising the children, so I doubt that Mrs. Romney personally had to it all herself. Quite possibly the most she had to do was to tuck her kids in at night.
I don't want to minimize the role of wife-and-mother, but I do have to say that probably a majority of mothers in present-day America have fewer than five children (at least I hope so!). There are no doubt those who do have a hard life raising their children—but it is not as in the time of our grandmothers (or great-grandmothers), who had to churn butter, bake bread, make the family's clothes and manually wash them—etc., etc. The modern woman has things much easier: We have had "labor-saving appliances" since the middle of the 20th century, and it's the rare American household which hasn't got at least some of them.
So I doubt that very many "stay-at-home moms" have things that hard. In the case of those who have few and/or quite young children, I see them at the mall, having lunch with their woman friends, with possibly one or two very young children along in a stroller. And they come to the mall in an expensive car which Hubby is at that very moment working hard to pay for.
Going somewhat into another issue: The life of the stay-at-home mom may satisfy and gratify some women but it is not satisfying for all. A woman of my acquaintance, who is very intelligent, confided to me that she found it stultifying to have only the conversation of the other mothers sitting around the sandbox.
Update, April 28, 2012
I've been told that Charlie Rose (host of a talk show on PBS, the public television network) has researched the issue and found out that Mitt and Ann Romney, in the period in question, did indeed have several domestic employees such as a nanny. Thus my surmise or speculation evidently was correct.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Friday, April 20, 2012
I Am Back (Blogging, That Is)
After a lapse of a month I have decided to resume blogging.
Even though it's been unrewarding, at times—when I look at the statistics on my readership—still, I guess I am egotistical enough to believe that I have something to say and something that's worth sharing with anyone who cares to read.
At the age of 70, I have acquired some views of life and of humanity. Mainly one tinged with sadness. I think anyone who is intelligent, educated, liberal—and maybe I need to add "disaffected," which I am but which might not be a necessary consequence of any of the other traits mentioned—has to feel much as I do.
Here is one concise statement, my summing up (hey, how is that for arrogance, summing it all up in just a few words!?!) of what's wrong with humanity and what might be, ultimately, the one trait that might just do Mankind in: Man is capable of believing that which is not true (and of course that probably, or even obviously, has the corollary of denying that which is true).
There is a discipline that you never hear about these days. It was big in, say, the 1930s, and it's called General Semantics. I was introduced to it at the age of 17.
A guy by the name of Count Alfred Korzybski is credited with founding General Semantics. A man named S. I. Hayakawa, generally labeled a linguist (he was also at one time a US Senator and also, infamously, the President of the University of California, Berkeley who called in troops to combat student protesters in the era of student protests of the Viet Nam War and more, in the 1960s), also was a writer on the subject as was a man named Stuart Chase, basically a journalist.
To try to sum up General Semantics: The word is not the thing and the map is not the territory. We tend to feel that if you can put a name to something, that somehow means that the thing exists. This enables us to throw around words that don't have a referent—that is, they don't name anything that exists in the real world. It's this belief in the non-existent that is my subject here.
Now, today and in the West, most people would not believe in dragons, unicorns, mermaids, trolls, leprechauns—etc., etc. The list could go on and on.
Then there are some marginal categories where today some people, maybe a minority, do believe: UFOs, ghosts. Maybe Satan, maybe angels (we're getting a little less marginal here, I'd guess).
And the paranormal. And miracles. And maybe God. (As you can see, I've been going from minority beliefs to beliefs which are more and more common but which some few are skeptical of.)
I think many ideas, about Nature, about human society, etc., are widely held but are incorrect. Many ideas have some natural-selection value such that believing them may get their believers killed. An extreme but obvious case would be a person who thinks he can jump off the roof and not be killed—maybe because he thinks he can fly; we label that insanity. Maybe the sad story of Jonestown in Guyana, where religious leader Jim Jones persuaded nearly all his followers to commit suicide by drinking poisoned Kool-Aid. Some less extreme cases would be where someone attempts something very dangerous and gets himself killed. (Think the annual "Darwin Awards.")
Probably more incorrect ideas harm another human than harm the holder of the belief himself. As an example, in Salem, Massachusetts, in 1693, it was believed that some members of the community were witches, and those "witches" had to be executed. At other times and places, witches, "heretics," homosexuals, etc., were burned at the stake, boiled in oil, or otherwise gotten rid of.
One egregious example would be the Inquisition, which probably executed thousands (forgive me for not turning up statistics here). Or take any case of genocide--the Holocaust, Rwanda, Kosovo, or any other--which killed people because they belonged to a hated group whose members were basically deemed undesirable and not deserving to live.
Is not all of this because some people hold incorrect ideas?
We may well doom our planet by means of war; pollution; global warming; other destruction of land, resources, etc.
We have evolved our ability to manipulate our planet by building great buildings and dams. We have waged wars which have destroyed, devastated, and laid waste large areas. We have built nuclear power plants which then have had accidents (Chernobyl, Fukushima) and made sizeable areas uninhabitable.
So we have become smart, smart enough to erect these edifices. But are we smart enough?
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Even though it's been unrewarding, at times—when I look at the statistics on my readership—still, I guess I am egotistical enough to believe that I have something to say and something that's worth sharing with anyone who cares to read.
At the age of 70, I have acquired some views of life and of humanity. Mainly one tinged with sadness. I think anyone who is intelligent, educated, liberal—and maybe I need to add "disaffected," which I am but which might not be a necessary consequence of any of the other traits mentioned—has to feel much as I do.
Here is one concise statement, my summing up (hey, how is that for arrogance, summing it all up in just a few words!?!) of what's wrong with humanity and what might be, ultimately, the one trait that might just do Mankind in: Man is capable of believing that which is not true (and of course that probably, or even obviously, has the corollary of denying that which is true).
There is a discipline that you never hear about these days. It was big in, say, the 1930s, and it's called General Semantics. I was introduced to it at the age of 17.
A guy by the name of Count Alfred Korzybski is credited with founding General Semantics. A man named S. I. Hayakawa, generally labeled a linguist (he was also at one time a US Senator and also, infamously, the President of the University of California, Berkeley who called in troops to combat student protesters in the era of student protests of the Viet Nam War and more, in the 1960s), also was a writer on the subject as was a man named Stuart Chase, basically a journalist.
To try to sum up General Semantics: The word is not the thing and the map is not the territory. We tend to feel that if you can put a name to something, that somehow means that the thing exists. This enables us to throw around words that don't have a referent—that is, they don't name anything that exists in the real world. It's this belief in the non-existent that is my subject here.
Now, today and in the West, most people would not believe in dragons, unicorns, mermaids, trolls, leprechauns—etc., etc. The list could go on and on.
Then there are some marginal categories where today some people, maybe a minority, do believe: UFOs, ghosts. Maybe Satan, maybe angels (we're getting a little less marginal here, I'd guess).
And the paranormal. And miracles. And maybe God. (As you can see, I've been going from minority beliefs to beliefs which are more and more common but which some few are skeptical of.)
I think many ideas, about Nature, about human society, etc., are widely held but are incorrect. Many ideas have some natural-selection value such that believing them may get their believers killed. An extreme but obvious case would be a person who thinks he can jump off the roof and not be killed—maybe because he thinks he can fly; we label that insanity. Maybe the sad story of Jonestown in Guyana, where religious leader Jim Jones persuaded nearly all his followers to commit suicide by drinking poisoned Kool-Aid. Some less extreme cases would be where someone attempts something very dangerous and gets himself killed. (Think the annual "Darwin Awards.")
Probably more incorrect ideas harm another human than harm the holder of the belief himself. As an example, in Salem, Massachusetts, in 1693, it was believed that some members of the community were witches, and those "witches" had to be executed. At other times and places, witches, "heretics," homosexuals, etc., were burned at the stake, boiled in oil, or otherwise gotten rid of.
One egregious example would be the Inquisition, which probably executed thousands (forgive me for not turning up statistics here). Or take any case of genocide--the Holocaust, Rwanda, Kosovo, or any other--which killed people because they belonged to a hated group whose members were basically deemed undesirable and not deserving to live.
Is not all of this because some people hold incorrect ideas?
We may well doom our planet by means of war; pollution; global warming; other destruction of land, resources, etc.
We have evolved our ability to manipulate our planet by building great buildings and dams. We have waged wars which have destroyed, devastated, and laid waste large areas. We have built nuclear power plants which then have had accidents (Chernobyl, Fukushima) and made sizeable areas uninhabitable.
So we have become smart, smart enough to erect these edifices. But are we smart enough?
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
