The other day I ran into someone I used to know a long time ago (he said something about it being 20 years). I'll call him N.
This guy is maybe the gentlest soul I know. And he doesn't "got" anything. N. doesn't own a computer, he told me, and I wasn't really surprised. Either he's poor or he's an apostle of the simple life. Maybe both.
How much in contrast with the avarice and acquisitiveness that's prevalent in our society. And those who've got the most (money, possessions, whatever)—how did they get where they are?
Look at British society. Who are their landed gentry? How did they get to be what they are, with their estates and very large houses? Often, by being more rapacious than their fellow man. Chances are, they were on the winning side of some battle and their winning side seized whatever they could: land, livestock, etc.
And in America? I think we're starting to see more clearly that there's a lot of greed in America. For the sake of their personal financial gains, some aggressive, hungry young bucks on "Wall Street" engaged in one or another type of chicanery—and imperiled the entire U.S.-–no, the world—financial order.
Large corporations often focus on their "bottom line" to the degree that they deceive the public, the consumer, maybe withholding information on the dangers of the drugs, toys, baby accessories that they make and sell.
I used to say that "business ethics" was an oxymoron. Well, I no longer would say that every nook and corner of the business world is immoral or amoral. Businesses have now and then been good guys. In particular, I've gained more respect for small business. The typical small business owner works very hard and takes risks—to make a success with selling his ice cream or soup or cupcakes.
And, some people have had a good idea. The right idea at the right time and place, or some useful invention. These people deserve the success that they achieve.
However, look at this: How many big business tycoons have started foundations? From earlier times, there's the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation. Now we have the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, etc. These foundations have enormous sums of money to give away. Also, many wealthy families and individuals give away money and in return get their names on auditoriums, libraries, and so forth--and get more gratitude heaped on them than just bronze plaques.
All the money that these companies and individuals and foundations have—where did it ultimately come from? From you and me, from our pockets. Now, a really revolutionary idea: How about these guys charge less for their products? Let them make less money, let you and me keep more of our money. Rather than Bill Gates having obscene billions of dollars to give away, maybe you and I could have kept some of that money, and then we could decide where it should go.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Driving More Safely and More Economically
Some more observations on how people drive, at least here in the big city and its environs.
There's no doubt that big-city drivers drive very aggressively. This may consist of various unsafe behaviors such as aggressively changing lanes and weaving in and out in an attempt to pass everybody out (this counts as road rage and could get you a ticket). Another such behavior is what is known as "late merging."
I think there are at least two things behind this aggressive behavior behind the wheel. One is a sort of competitiveness. I'm not sure if these guys and gals are trying to prove their driving skill or to show that they and their vehicles can get to some point down the road more quickly than the rest of us—which might be the same thing.
Another is just being in a hurry. I already wrote about how nowadays everybody seems to be in a rush--at least in the city; if one goes to some other areas, as I found for example in driving through Michigan's Upper Peninsula one time, there definitely is a slower pace to things. But in urban areas such as mine, everyone seems to live by the axiom that "time is money."
Besides being in the main unsafe, a lot of these behaviors also waste fuel. Saving gas, on the other hand, not only benefits your pocketbook, it benefits the environment. One way that I try to drive more economically: I try to look ahead and when I see a red light, even a block down the road, I slow down—unlike many drivers who seem to me to be foolishly racing to get to that red light. Remember that your brakes are basically turning your gasoline into heat energy that goes into the atmosphere; in other words, it's wasted energy.
Of course we have to brake sometimes. Maybe often. But intelligent driving can lessen how much fuel you are wasting at your brake rotors. I try to avoid braking from 30 or even 20 mph, so I try to coast to a stop whenever I can.
Do you brake very often? Maybe you're not aware of how much you brake, but someone driving behind you can see how often your brake lights come on—more often than mine do. If you brake an awful lot, chances are that you're following too closely. By keeping a greater distance between myself and the car ahead of me, I'm able to brake much less than some other cars I see on the road.
And another peril of following too closely: There wouldn't--logically there couldn't--be 30-car or even 100-car pileups if drivers gave themselves enough distance to stop in, rather than following too closely for conditions.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
There's no doubt that big-city drivers drive very aggressively. This may consist of various unsafe behaviors such as aggressively changing lanes and weaving in and out in an attempt to pass everybody out (this counts as road rage and could get you a ticket). Another such behavior is what is known as "late merging."
I think there are at least two things behind this aggressive behavior behind the wheel. One is a sort of competitiveness. I'm not sure if these guys and gals are trying to prove their driving skill or to show that they and their vehicles can get to some point down the road more quickly than the rest of us—which might be the same thing.
Another is just being in a hurry. I already wrote about how nowadays everybody seems to be in a rush--at least in the city; if one goes to some other areas, as I found for example in driving through Michigan's Upper Peninsula one time, there definitely is a slower pace to things. But in urban areas such as mine, everyone seems to live by the axiom that "time is money."
Besides being in the main unsafe, a lot of these behaviors also waste fuel. Saving gas, on the other hand, not only benefits your pocketbook, it benefits the environment. One way that I try to drive more economically: I try to look ahead and when I see a red light, even a block down the road, I slow down—unlike many drivers who seem to me to be foolishly racing to get to that red light. Remember that your brakes are basically turning your gasoline into heat energy that goes into the atmosphere; in other words, it's wasted energy.
Of course we have to brake sometimes. Maybe often. But intelligent driving can lessen how much fuel you are wasting at your brake rotors. I try to avoid braking from 30 or even 20 mph, so I try to coast to a stop whenever I can.
Do you brake very often? Maybe you're not aware of how much you brake, but someone driving behind you can see how often your brake lights come on—more often than mine do. If you brake an awful lot, chances are that you're following too closely. By keeping a greater distance between myself and the car ahead of me, I'm able to brake much less than some other cars I see on the road.
And another peril of following too closely: There wouldn't--logically there couldn't--be 30-car or even 100-car pileups if drivers gave themselves enough distance to stop in, rather than following too closely for conditions.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Monday, October 18, 2010
Second Thoughts on Polygamy
I want to take back what I said about polygamy in an earlier post. I just read a first-person piece by a woman who had been a "sister wife" in a polygamous Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon) family living in Mexico, and that has opened my eyes; I now see polygamy as an evil.
Polygamy is so anti-feminist. It is like those old ideas of the Sultan's harem. Women seem to be by nature monogamous (or, more properly, monandrous) and usually desire only one spouse. They are jealous when they share their husband with others. So, it's torment for at least some of these wives in polygamous families. They endure it because their religion commands it; and they are made to believe it is God's will and the way to heaven (just one more example of the countless ways in which accepting religious doctrines can cause human grief).
The wife writing in this piece says that their family (with at least six wives) had "over forty" children--who hardly knew their father, since he did not have time to spend with each of his "families." Also, there was not enough money to go around for these six families.
All in all, I think it's pretty heart-breaking to read this. Of course it's all terrific for the guy. That's why it's so one-sided and unfair. I think now I agree with having it be illegal.
Here is the link to this article; it quite vividly depicts the plight of such a wife. Disclaimer: I don't endorse everything that Susan Ray Schmidt says in her article.
www.lemondrop.com/2010/10/19/escape-from-polygamy-a-former-sister-wife-shares-why-she-left/?icid=main|main|dl5|sec4_lnk1|178483
Copyright (c) by Richard Stein
Polygamy is so anti-feminist. It is like those old ideas of the Sultan's harem. Women seem to be by nature monogamous (or, more properly, monandrous) and usually desire only one spouse. They are jealous when they share their husband with others. So, it's torment for at least some of these wives in polygamous families. They endure it because their religion commands it; and they are made to believe it is God's will and the way to heaven (just one more example of the countless ways in which accepting religious doctrines can cause human grief).
The wife writing in this piece says that their family (with at least six wives) had "over forty" children--who hardly knew their father, since he did not have time to spend with each of his "families." Also, there was not enough money to go around for these six families.
All in all, I think it's pretty heart-breaking to read this. Of course it's all terrific for the guy. That's why it's so one-sided and unfair. I think now I agree with having it be illegal.
Here is the link to this article; it quite vividly depicts the plight of such a wife. Disclaimer: I don't endorse everything that Susan Ray Schmidt says in her article.
www.lemondrop.com/2010/10/19/escape-from-polygamy-a-former-sister-wife-shares-why-she-left/?icid=main|main|dl5|sec4_lnk1|178483
Copyright (c) by Richard Stein
Friday, October 15, 2010
Spoonerisms
Spoonerisms are a type of slip of the tongue where you switch sounds between two words. The error gets its name from a British man, a Canon Spooner, who would say things like "Pardon me, but you are occu-pewing my pie."
It's fun to spoonerize names. I recently read a book by Steven Pinker. If you spoonerize his name, it's Peeven Stinker (I should add that I actually admire Pinker, so this is not to disparage him at all). I used to know a male couple called Mark and Dennis. I called them Dark and Menace (not to their faces). We have a TV news anchor named Cathy Brock. Do you know what you get when you spoonerize her name? (Don't tell her I said that!)
It's fun to spoonerize other words when the spoonerism is a new word pair. For example, tile grout becomes trial gout. Pool cue becomes cool pew. Cold and flu season becomes fold and clue season. You know the vehicle called the Land Rover? If you spoonerize that name, you get a term for an avaricious South African: rand lover.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
It's fun to spoonerize names. I recently read a book by Steven Pinker. If you spoonerize his name, it's Peeven Stinker (I should add that I actually admire Pinker, so this is not to disparage him at all). I used to know a male couple called Mark and Dennis. I called them Dark and Menace (not to their faces). We have a TV news anchor named Cathy Brock. Do you know what you get when you spoonerize her name? (Don't tell her I said that!)
It's fun to spoonerize other words when the spoonerism is a new word pair. For example, tile grout becomes trial gout. Pool cue becomes cool pew. Cold and flu season becomes fold and clue season. You know the vehicle called the Land Rover? If you spoonerize that name, you get a term for an avaricious South African: rand lover.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
A Few Bons Mots
Some of these need the scene set.
One time I was having lunch with a colleague from work. When we got our food, she asked, "How is that miso soup?" I said, "It's really not that good. I'd call it mi-so-so."
At another job, I arrived at a departmental lunch. I'd made a stop on the way, at a sale of kitchen gadgets. So I mentioned that I'd just bought a tomato corer. JoAnne asked, "Is it a hard corer or a soft corer?" I replied, "Well, it starts out soft, but if you fondle it. . . ," whereupon I got a poke in the ribs.
Unfortunately, I don't always think that fast.
And, for those of you who know a wee bit of Yiddish: When Star Trek was in first run, I told my sister that when the show was shown in Israel, they called it Star Schlep.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
One time I was having lunch with a colleague from work. When we got our food, she asked, "How is that miso soup?" I said, "It's really not that good. I'd call it mi-so-so."
At another job, I arrived at a departmental lunch. I'd made a stop on the way, at a sale of kitchen gadgets. So I mentioned that I'd just bought a tomato corer. JoAnne asked, "Is it a hard corer or a soft corer?" I replied, "Well, it starts out soft, but if you fondle it. . . ," whereupon I got a poke in the ribs.
Unfortunately, I don't always think that fast.
And, for those of you who know a wee bit of Yiddish: When Star Trek was in first run, I told my sister that when the show was shown in Israel, they called it Star Schlep.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Monday, October 11, 2010
Parents, Beware! . . .Lest Your Actions Backfire
Sometimes parents' actions, with respect to their children, backfire. And sometimes, I think, the parents deserve it.
When I was a kid, I think I can say that religion was more or less forced down my throat. I was made to go to Hebrew school (two hours a day, after regular public school, four days a week), even though I was terrified of my Hebrew school teachers which caused me stomach aches that landed me in the hospital. But attending Hebrew school had to be done, so that I could have a Bar Mitzvah. (I didn't want to have a Bar Mitzvah, but, in my parents' eyes, how could a boy not have a Bar Mitzvah?) Also, where religion was concerned, I felt I saw hypocrisy in my parents, that they were saying, Do as we say, not as we do.
So I later rejected the ancestral faith pretty completely. I absolutely don't observe it at all--although, to be completely honest, my parents' actions don't get all of the blame for that. But I think my parents richly deserve that outcome.
In another example, when I was a kid I was into photography (I still am). I would use my mother as a photographic subject. So, maybe as a birthday present, my mother gave me a book called How to Photograph Women.
After she gave me the book, my mother discovered that the book had pictures of naked women (I was an adolescent at the time, I believe). Well, one day when I was not around, Mother seized the book—and cut out all the pages with the nude photos.
I think that that's screamingly funny when you consider that I grew up to be gay. I mean, what were the photos supposed to have done to me, make me feel lust for women? Of course I can't say that not having those pictures made me gay; but in hindsight, maybe my mother might have wished that she could have fostered lust for naked women in me.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
When I was a kid, I think I can say that religion was more or less forced down my throat. I was made to go to Hebrew school (two hours a day, after regular public school, four days a week), even though I was terrified of my Hebrew school teachers which caused me stomach aches that landed me in the hospital. But attending Hebrew school had to be done, so that I could have a Bar Mitzvah. (I didn't want to have a Bar Mitzvah, but, in my parents' eyes, how could a boy not have a Bar Mitzvah?) Also, where religion was concerned, I felt I saw hypocrisy in my parents, that they were saying, Do as we say, not as we do.
So I later rejected the ancestral faith pretty completely. I absolutely don't observe it at all--although, to be completely honest, my parents' actions don't get all of the blame for that. But I think my parents richly deserve that outcome.
In another example, when I was a kid I was into photography (I still am). I would use my mother as a photographic subject. So, maybe as a birthday present, my mother gave me a book called How to Photograph Women.
After she gave me the book, my mother discovered that the book had pictures of naked women (I was an adolescent at the time, I believe). Well, one day when I was not around, Mother seized the book—and cut out all the pages with the nude photos.
I think that that's screamingly funny when you consider that I grew up to be gay. I mean, what were the photos supposed to have done to me, make me feel lust for women? Of course I can't say that not having those pictures made me gay; but in hindsight, maybe my mother might have wished that she could have fostered lust for naked women in me.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
The Funny Foods We Eat
We never think about this, but some of our everyday foods are definitely rather oddball, from the botanical perspective.
Take corn. Our corn, or maize, as it's called in much of the world, is very much a man-created plant. Nothing very similar to our familiar corn exists in the wild. In fact, the field of corn genetics is a whole specialty within botany. What is clear is that indigenous American peoples—think Aztecs and Mayans and their predecessors—developed corn from a plant that had a much smaller ear. There is a wild plant called teosinte that has been considered a likely candidate for the ancestor of corn. Among the many ways in which native New World civilizations have usually not gotten the credit they're due is that we overlook the great achievement in plant breeding that resulted in the modern corn plant that we take for granted.
Another perhaps odd food is the banana. Is there any other fruit that is similar to a banana? Did you know that a banana plant or tree only produces one crop of bananas in its lifetime? Then it's cut down and a new tree planted. You'd think that, with the time and trouble involved, that bananas would be scarce and expensive, whereas bananas are a rather cheap, plentiful, and very healthful food source. (They are high in potassium, which we need plenty of, because it can counterbalance the excessive sodium that's common in our modern diets.)
Also, you know those stringy things that you see on a banana when you peel it? I think I read recently that they are analogous to the substance in the inner bark of a tree that carries nourishment for the tree.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Take corn. Our corn, or maize, as it's called in much of the world, is very much a man-created plant. Nothing very similar to our familiar corn exists in the wild. In fact, the field of corn genetics is a whole specialty within botany. What is clear is that indigenous American peoples—think Aztecs and Mayans and their predecessors—developed corn from a plant that had a much smaller ear. There is a wild plant called teosinte that has been considered a likely candidate for the ancestor of corn. Among the many ways in which native New World civilizations have usually not gotten the credit they're due is that we overlook the great achievement in plant breeding that resulted in the modern corn plant that we take for granted.
Another perhaps odd food is the banana. Is there any other fruit that is similar to a banana? Did you know that a banana plant or tree only produces one crop of bananas in its lifetime? Then it's cut down and a new tree planted. You'd think that, with the time and trouble involved, that bananas would be scarce and expensive, whereas bananas are a rather cheap, plentiful, and very healthful food source. (They are high in potassium, which we need plenty of, because it can counterbalance the excessive sodium that's common in our modern diets.)
Also, you know those stringy things that you see on a banana when you peel it? I think I read recently that they are analogous to the substance in the inner bark of a tree that carries nourishment for the tree.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
