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.
Friday, May 31, 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
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
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.
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.
Sunday, April 28, 2013
Why Do People Believe What They Believe?
I often read, and write comments on, the online news site Huffington Post. I am moved to write replies to people who express ideas counter to mine—such as "homosexuality is a sin (abomination, etc.)." This may result in a back-and-forth dialog in which they in turn try to refute what I said.
Of course I have to suspect that no one convinces anyone. Neither they nor I am there to have my mind changed. Nor, generally, do we behave with open minds. So much of what we read only reinforces opinions we already hold. Liberals read liberal magazines, conservatives read conservative magazines. That's called "preaching to the choir." So we hear (or read) what we already believe because that's what we want to hear.
But as a thoughtful person—forgive a little patting-of-self-on-back—I wonder why people believe what they believe.
Often people have received their ideas, to put it simply: from parents, teachers, preachers. Of course that only begs the question, by moving it up, or back, to someone else, and then we have to ask why they believe. . . ad infinitum.
As to receiving ideas from one's teachers: it is commonly believed that education makes one more liberal. I'd agree, but would hasten to add that it depends on the kind of education. The business school student who reads Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman is going to have different ideas than the English major who reads John Steinbeck and Kurt Vonnegut.
Many people receive the ideas, attitudes, values, beliefs, etc., that are prevalent in their environment: their family, culture, church, etc. A great majority of people are not likely ever to doubt or question their beliefs. If and when people do question what they (and their family, etc.) have believed, it's often the result of something occurring. Something has occurred to shake a person's faith in God. A mother learns that her child is gay and starts to question the condemnations of homosexuality that she has heard all her life. The son of slave owners comes to feel that blacks deserve better treatment than they are receiving under the system of slave ownership.
There are characteristics of the individual at work sometimes. Those few people who question the beliefs received from their parents may possess a certain character--perhaps something like autonomy, or skepticism; at any event, what we might call an independent cast of mind. And, some people are more thoughtful, more "sensitive." This we might call personality, character, whatever. And they'd do well to have some courage, too, because they are going to be "on the outs" with their families, and that can be a difficult row to hoe.
I think people with a certain psychological makeup or personality type are more likely to be conservative, and there probably is something more or less parallel in the making of a liberal. And probably there is simply a certain mystery to it all.
Sometimes it's a whole culture that undergoes a conversion to new ideas. I was just reading some interesting ideas about why Hitler was as powerful and influential as he was. I think that's an interesting question. It's often been pointed out that here was a cultured nation, arguably the leader of the world in many fields of scholarship and the arts, that allowed itself to be led into an insane war and also to commit some of the worst atrocities in human history.
But maybe that was not so much a case of changing of minds as just stirring up and exploiting existing attitudes. The article on Hitler's influence said that the German people were already predisposed to anti-Semitism. But it did not go too much into the nationalistic ideas that had prevailed in Germany for a long time, nor Germany's wounded national pride as the result of its defeat in World War I and the humiliation (as they saw it) of the Treaty of Versailles. It's clear that all these things were going on.
Religious conversion might be an interesting case. If you look at they way in which many European cultures became converted to Christianity, often the king or other ruler was persuaded to convert—and then (certainly not miraculously!) the rest of the country converted, too.
Other times religious evangelizing has targeted individual after individual. One only has to think of missionaries, such as Mormon missionaries, who go door to door. So when this is successful, it is a case of changing people's minds. Christianity sometimes won converts because it promised an afterlife. It might be interesting to figure out what carrot (or stick) the Mormons use to gain converts; I'm neither inclined nor qualified to do this here and now.
So, back to my original question. Sometimes we can see where people's ideas have come from. Then there are the issues of whether and in what circumstances minds do or don't get changed. Sometimes we can see what has gone on. But to put it all in a larger perspective, human behavior is complex and very seldom explained simply. We've got the science of the behavior of the individual—psychology—and sciences of the behavior of people en masse—sociology, political science, economics. I submit that none of these fields is so far advanced that we thoroughly, completely understand human behavior.
Revised and expanded April 29, 2013
Appendix A, Added April 29, 2013
Okay, now I would like to propose a question for my readers (with some possible answer choices). I pose this as a question put to my readers because, while this blog has, very gratifyingly, been getting a significantly greater readership lately, my postings—which sometimes try to be controversial and provocative—have not been getting any comments.
So, here is my question which at the very least I hope may provide food for thought. Why are conservatives anti-gay? Please feel free to vote with your answer or any other comment.
A. Because, in the sense of "conservative," they want to keep things as they are, and discriminating against gays is the way it's always been.
B. Because they subscribe to a brand of religion which is basically anti-sex.
C. It's their personality type. For example, they are tight-asses or maybe just mean and nasty people.
D. All of the above.
E. Some other reason (please specify).
Copyright © 2013.
Of course I have to suspect that no one convinces anyone. Neither they nor I am there to have my mind changed. Nor, generally, do we behave with open minds. So much of what we read only reinforces opinions we already hold. Liberals read liberal magazines, conservatives read conservative magazines. That's called "preaching to the choir." So we hear (or read) what we already believe because that's what we want to hear.
But as a thoughtful person—forgive a little patting-of-self-on-back—I wonder why people believe what they believe.
Often people have received their ideas, to put it simply: from parents, teachers, preachers. Of course that only begs the question, by moving it up, or back, to someone else, and then we have to ask why they believe. . . ad infinitum.
As to receiving ideas from one's teachers: it is commonly believed that education makes one more liberal. I'd agree, but would hasten to add that it depends on the kind of education. The business school student who reads Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman is going to have different ideas than the English major who reads John Steinbeck and Kurt Vonnegut.
Many people receive the ideas, attitudes, values, beliefs, etc., that are prevalent in their environment: their family, culture, church, etc. A great majority of people are not likely ever to doubt or question their beliefs. If and when people do question what they (and their family, etc.) have believed, it's often the result of something occurring. Something has occurred to shake a person's faith in God. A mother learns that her child is gay and starts to question the condemnations of homosexuality that she has heard all her life. The son of slave owners comes to feel that blacks deserve better treatment than they are receiving under the system of slave ownership.
There are characteristics of the individual at work sometimes. Those few people who question the beliefs received from their parents may possess a certain character--perhaps something like autonomy, or skepticism; at any event, what we might call an independent cast of mind. And, some people are more thoughtful, more "sensitive." This we might call personality, character, whatever. And they'd do well to have some courage, too, because they are going to be "on the outs" with their families, and that can be a difficult row to hoe.
I think people with a certain psychological makeup or personality type are more likely to be conservative, and there probably is something more or less parallel in the making of a liberal. And probably there is simply a certain mystery to it all.
Sometimes it's a whole culture that undergoes a conversion to new ideas. I was just reading some interesting ideas about why Hitler was as powerful and influential as he was. I think that's an interesting question. It's often been pointed out that here was a cultured nation, arguably the leader of the world in many fields of scholarship and the arts, that allowed itself to be led into an insane war and also to commit some of the worst atrocities in human history.
But maybe that was not so much a case of changing of minds as just stirring up and exploiting existing attitudes. The article on Hitler's influence said that the German people were already predisposed to anti-Semitism. But it did not go too much into the nationalistic ideas that had prevailed in Germany for a long time, nor Germany's wounded national pride as the result of its defeat in World War I and the humiliation (as they saw it) of the Treaty of Versailles. It's clear that all these things were going on.
Religious conversion might be an interesting case. If you look at they way in which many European cultures became converted to Christianity, often the king or other ruler was persuaded to convert—and then (certainly not miraculously!) the rest of the country converted, too.
Other times religious evangelizing has targeted individual after individual. One only has to think of missionaries, such as Mormon missionaries, who go door to door. So when this is successful, it is a case of changing people's minds. Christianity sometimes won converts because it promised an afterlife. It might be interesting to figure out what carrot (or stick) the Mormons use to gain converts; I'm neither inclined nor qualified to do this here and now.
So, back to my original question. Sometimes we can see where people's ideas have come from. Then there are the issues of whether and in what circumstances minds do or don't get changed. Sometimes we can see what has gone on. But to put it all in a larger perspective, human behavior is complex and very seldom explained simply. We've got the science of the behavior of the individual—psychology—and sciences of the behavior of people en masse—sociology, political science, economics. I submit that none of these fields is so far advanced that we thoroughly, completely understand human behavior.
Revised and expanded April 29, 2013
Appendix A, Added April 29, 2013
Okay, now I would like to propose a question for my readers (with some possible answer choices). I pose this as a question put to my readers because, while this blog has, very gratifyingly, been getting a significantly greater readership lately, my postings—which sometimes try to be controversial and provocative—have not been getting any comments.
So, here is my question which at the very least I hope may provide food for thought. Why are conservatives anti-gay? Please feel free to vote with your answer or any other comment.
A. Because, in the sense of "conservative," they want to keep things as they are, and discriminating against gays is the way it's always been.
B. Because they subscribe to a brand of religion which is basically anti-sex.
C. It's their personality type. For example, they are tight-asses or maybe just mean and nasty people.
D. All of the above.
E. Some other reason (please specify).
Copyright © 2013.
White Man vs. Native, Pt. 2
In the original post ("White Man vs. Native, Pt. 1"), I omitted one legacy of conquest, colonialism, and white settlement. In many, perhaps most, places these have left a lasting legacy of racism, discrimination, and oppression.
In Australia, the aboriginal peoples are considered "black" and have faced discrimination much as have blacks in America.
In New Zealand, the native people (the Maori) were driven off their land, forbidden to speak their language, etc., with the effect of virtually destroying their culture. Sadly this is a very common pattern.
In Guatemala the indigenous Maya Indians have been disproportionately killed during civil war, even to the point of genocide.
In Peru and/or Equador the Indians have been held to the bottom of the social scale and have even been virtually enslaved. In the 16th century, King Phillip II of Spain ordered that the American natives not be enslaved, but that order was widely ignored, and that has left a legacy that has not been wiped out in 450 years.
In Mexico, where a majority of the population are mestizo—having mixed Indian and European blood—it's been the people of lighter complexion—that is, having pure or more pure European blood—who have been higher on the economic and social scale. I asked a professor who had lived in Mexico if there was racism or discrimination based on skin color in Mexico and he said "not since the Revolution [in 1920]," but I am very doubtful that it ended suddenly or finally as he claims. I think indigenous people in Mexico ("indios") are still very low on the social scale.
Updated June 21, 2013.
Copyright (c) 2013 by Richard Stein
In Australia, the aboriginal peoples are considered "black" and have faced discrimination much as have blacks in America.
In New Zealand, the native people (the Maori) were driven off their land, forbidden to speak their language, etc., with the effect of virtually destroying their culture. Sadly this is a very common pattern.
In Guatemala the indigenous Maya Indians have been disproportionately killed during civil war, even to the point of genocide.
In Peru and/or Equador the Indians have been held to the bottom of the social scale and have even been virtually enslaved. In the 16th century, King Phillip II of Spain ordered that the American natives not be enslaved, but that order was widely ignored, and that has left a legacy that has not been wiped out in 450 years.
In Mexico, where a majority of the population are mestizo—having mixed Indian and European blood—it's been the people of lighter complexion—that is, having pure or more pure European blood—who have been higher on the economic and social scale. I asked a professor who had lived in Mexico if there was racism or discrimination based on skin color in Mexico and he said "not since the Revolution [in 1920]," but I am very doubtful that it ended suddenly or finally as he claims. I think indigenous people in Mexico ("indios") are still very low on the social scale.
Updated June 21, 2013.
Copyright (c) 2013 by Richard Stein
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Things Don't Last Anymore
Nearly anybody who's been around this world for a while will tell you that things don't last like they used to.
As one example, I used to buy bedroom slippers made by one particular US brand. They were expensive, but they'd last forever. I don't buy their slippers any longer because they're not the same as they used to be. They're made in China now and they definitely don't last very long at all.
And I can name a prominent mail-order vendor of clothing and outdoor stuff. I have bought two pairs of slippers from them, and they didn't last, either. (This company has a satisfaction guarantee, but if you send the product back to them, the refund you get will be $7 less than what you paid for the item. I'd rather go on using the rather worn—and nearly worn out--item.)
I have those two pairs of slippers and yet a third, and they're all falling apart. The problem is mainly that stitching between sole and upper seems to be quite inferior. And—guess what? They’re all made in China.
I want to hasten to point out that I don't want to besmirch China and all its manufactures. I believe that China makes some high-quality products. I suspect this is what is going on: Besides the savings in labor costs that come from "off-shoring" manufacturing by American companies, I think they are probably knowingly and deliberately short-changing the customer on quality of material or quality of workmanship—to save still more money.
(To some extent stores like Walmart and customers who buy the very cheapest thing they can find are to blame. On the other hand, there is greed on the part of American companies and retailers. When an $80 Tommy Hilfiger or Ralph Lauren Polo shirt is made in a third-world country, it costs very little to make it. The seller makes a very good profit even when that shirt is on sale for a radically reduced price.)
This might properly be another subject since it is a different matter from clothing, but it still comes under my subject of "Things don't last." That's major appliances like refrigerators, dishwashers, and microwaves.
Take refrigerators. Refrigerators used to last 20, 30 years or more. Nearly every family had a second refrigerator, because they bought a new one but the old one still ran so they kept it to put in the cellar or garage. In my last home I had a refrigerator what was a 1977 model and it was still running fine when I left that place in 2001. So it was 24 years old.
Then I bought a refrigerator for my new home and it lasted 10 years. I was speaking to a friend who had to replace his refrigerator after only 6 years. I should not generalize from just two instances, but a repairman has told me that major appliances don't last these days, that they're not made like they used to be.
I surmise that the quality of the mechanical components has been cheapened. That plus, perhaps, the fact that refrigerators (etc.), like our cars, are starting to be more complex, with electronic components and even computers inside. Plus, people may not expect to keep refrigerators as long these days; they want modern kitchens and that means appliances with up-to-date appearance.
And you can't blame China for that one. We have some refrigerator makes and models made in other countries but the majority are US-made.
A counter trend is cars. It used to be that a car might last 6 or 7 years. They would start to rust after 3 or 4 years (at least in northern areas of the US where salt is applied to the roads in the winter). Nowadays cars will last much longer. The latest statistic I heard is that the average age of a car on US roads is now 11 years. (People are keeping cars longer both because they last longer and because they have gotten much more expensive: a car today, in the US, costs 10 to 15 times what a car cost in the late 1950s).
Update April 26, 2013. I just looked at the model/serial number plates in my GE (a "good old" American brand) microwave and GE refrigerator. The microwave was made in Korea and the fridge was made in Mexico. Shame on me for assuming that just because it's an American brand it was actually built in the US. The same, by the way, applies to cars, and I'm sure many people have bought cars with American names and believed they were getting something American-built when the car either was assembled somewhere else or it was made using major components--for example, an engine or transmission--from Canada or Mexico. Ironically, some cars with Japanese names are assembled in the US and might even have a greater precentage of "domestic content" than a car with an American name. The percentage of domestic content is listed on the window sticker which the car wears when it is in the dealer's showroom.
Update July 24, 2013. There was further confirmation that refrigerators don't last anymore from a man who works for a "major retailer," for whom he analyzes things like appliances' expected lifetimes, in order to help determine his employer's policy for the extended warranties it sells.
Copyright © 2013 by Richard Stein
As one example, I used to buy bedroom slippers made by one particular US brand. They were expensive, but they'd last forever. I don't buy their slippers any longer because they're not the same as they used to be. They're made in China now and they definitely don't last very long at all.
And I can name a prominent mail-order vendor of clothing and outdoor stuff. I have bought two pairs of slippers from them, and they didn't last, either. (This company has a satisfaction guarantee, but if you send the product back to them, the refund you get will be $7 less than what you paid for the item. I'd rather go on using the rather worn—and nearly worn out--item.)
I have those two pairs of slippers and yet a third, and they're all falling apart. The problem is mainly that stitching between sole and upper seems to be quite inferior. And—guess what? They’re all made in China.
I want to hasten to point out that I don't want to besmirch China and all its manufactures. I believe that China makes some high-quality products. I suspect this is what is going on: Besides the savings in labor costs that come from "off-shoring" manufacturing by American companies, I think they are probably knowingly and deliberately short-changing the customer on quality of material or quality of workmanship—to save still more money.
(To some extent stores like Walmart and customers who buy the very cheapest thing they can find are to blame. On the other hand, there is greed on the part of American companies and retailers. When an $80 Tommy Hilfiger or Ralph Lauren Polo shirt is made in a third-world country, it costs very little to make it. The seller makes a very good profit even when that shirt is on sale for a radically reduced price.)
This might properly be another subject since it is a different matter from clothing, but it still comes under my subject of "Things don't last." That's major appliances like refrigerators, dishwashers, and microwaves.
Take refrigerators. Refrigerators used to last 20, 30 years or more. Nearly every family had a second refrigerator, because they bought a new one but the old one still ran so they kept it to put in the cellar or garage. In my last home I had a refrigerator what was a 1977 model and it was still running fine when I left that place in 2001. So it was 24 years old.
Then I bought a refrigerator for my new home and it lasted 10 years. I was speaking to a friend who had to replace his refrigerator after only 6 years. I should not generalize from just two instances, but a repairman has told me that major appliances don't last these days, that they're not made like they used to be.
I surmise that the quality of the mechanical components has been cheapened. That plus, perhaps, the fact that refrigerators (etc.), like our cars, are starting to be more complex, with electronic components and even computers inside. Plus, people may not expect to keep refrigerators as long these days; they want modern kitchens and that means appliances with up-to-date appearance.
And you can't blame China for that one. We have some refrigerator makes and models made in other countries but the majority are US-made.
A counter trend is cars. It used to be that a car might last 6 or 7 years. They would start to rust after 3 or 4 years (at least in northern areas of the US where salt is applied to the roads in the winter). Nowadays cars will last much longer. The latest statistic I heard is that the average age of a car on US roads is now 11 years. (People are keeping cars longer both because they last longer and because they have gotten much more expensive: a car today, in the US, costs 10 to 15 times what a car cost in the late 1950s).
Update April 26, 2013. I just looked at the model/serial number plates in my GE (a "good old" American brand) microwave and GE refrigerator. The microwave was made in Korea and the fridge was made in Mexico. Shame on me for assuming that just because it's an American brand it was actually built in the US. The same, by the way, applies to cars, and I'm sure many people have bought cars with American names and believed they were getting something American-built when the car either was assembled somewhere else or it was made using major components--for example, an engine or transmission--from Canada or Mexico. Ironically, some cars with Japanese names are assembled in the US and might even have a greater precentage of "domestic content" than a car with an American name. The percentage of domestic content is listed on the window sticker which the car wears when it is in the dealer's showroom.
Update July 24, 2013. There was further confirmation that refrigerators don't last anymore from a man who works for a "major retailer," for whom he analyzes things like appliances' expected lifetimes, in order to help determine his employer's policy for the extended warranties it sells.
Copyright © 2013 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
