Two gentlemen meet in a bar in—let's say—Casablanca. Let’s call them "A" and "B".
A: Hey.
B: Hey.
A: So how's the dictating business?
B (Looking around nervously): Shhhhhh!
A: Oh, sorry. What's wrong?
B: We don't call it that anymore.
A: Oh, sorry. . . . So what do you call it now?
B: Country Executive. Not . . . "dictator."
A: Oh, sorry. Well, so how's the country executive business?
B: What, you didn't hear that I got ousted?
A: Oh, sorry. That's tough.
B: Yeah, I had to flee the country. That's what I'm doing here, in this flee-bag joint. And, you know, Country Executive is not a recession-proof business. Been out of work for almost a year.
A: Any prospects?
B: I've sent out nearly 200 resumes, to every place from Saskatchewan to Vietnam.
A: And?
B: Nothing! The market for that line of work has definitely shrunk. We're going to be as obsolete as buggy whips.
A: Well, things have been a little slow in—you know, my line of business, too.
B: Really? I would have thought there would always be a market for smu—oops, sorry, excuse me.
A: Yeah, well no, no one has any money these days. Not even—my usual customers.
B: Well, I'll promise you this: If I ever get back in power, I'll buy from you. Okay?
A: I'll drink to that. (Clinks glasses.) Cheers!
B: Here's to dic—I mean, to country executiving!
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Friday, December 9, 2011
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Why Hate Stephen Hawking?
A lot of the ideas the emanate from the political Right currently, such as denial of global warming, advocacy of Creationism (and creationism disguised with different names), opposition to evolution, etc., can be characterized as anti-science. They show a distrust of science and a lack of respect for science. A lack of understanding of how science works, what a scientific theory is, the nature of scientific evidence.
Recently there was an item on Huffington Post about Stephen Hawking, the British physicist, cosmologist, and former Cambridge University professor who has a neurological disease "related to" ALS (aka "Lou Gehrig's disease"), is confined to a wheel chair, and can "speak" only with the aid of an electronic device.
Now, Stephen Hawking is widely regarded as one of the leading thinkers of our time. I remember when I first became aware of him, in the 1970s. I was working with the astronomical community, and Hawking was then regarded as a very promising and rising young scholar. In the years since, he has received numerous awards and has written several books for a popular audience such as A Brief History of Time, which was a runaway best-seller.
Yet, to my very considerable surprise, the comments on the Huffington Post piece about him very largely blasted Hawking. I'm at a loss as to why he should have a negative image amongst the Joe Six-Packs. I can't understand what is political or controversial about his scientific ideas, which may not be very widely understood. It might have to do with comments he has made that appear to be anti-religion. (For example, he has said, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing.") And in this, the most religious of the Western, developed countries, that might not go down very well. I also suspect that this is part of the long-standing strain of animosity to science in America.
That might be viewed in part as a contemporary problem, lack of scientific literacy due in turn to failures of the American educational system. Or it can be viewed as a historical problem, only the latest manifestation of a strain of American thought that goes back a long ways.
Some of the "Founding Fathers" of this country, such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, might be considered amateur scientists. Everybody knows of Franklin's famous experiment with the kite, by which he demonstrated that lightning is electrical in nature. And Jefferson did considerable experimentation in agriculture—among his wide intellectual interests.
On the other hand, a lot of American ideas and ideals—maybe I should say mythology—developed along with the settling of the West, the movement of pioneers to the frontier; an ideology arose which glorified the individual, the ordinary man, the humble man, the man with little formal education. According to Wikipedia, "Culturally, the ideal American was a self-made man whose knowledge derived from life-experience, not an intellectual man, whose knowledge derived from books, formal education, and academic study."
Also, religious movements that arose in America emphasized religion and religious experience over reason, rationality, learning, science. And even if some of these trains of thought arose 100 or 150 years ago, I think we still have their legacy, just as we still have a "Wild West" ideology that glorifies guns, aggression, and people shooting one another.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Recently there was an item on Huffington Post about Stephen Hawking, the British physicist, cosmologist, and former Cambridge University professor who has a neurological disease "related to" ALS (aka "Lou Gehrig's disease"), is confined to a wheel chair, and can "speak" only with the aid of an electronic device.
Now, Stephen Hawking is widely regarded as one of the leading thinkers of our time. I remember when I first became aware of him, in the 1970s. I was working with the astronomical community, and Hawking was then regarded as a very promising and rising young scholar. In the years since, he has received numerous awards and has written several books for a popular audience such as A Brief History of Time, which was a runaway best-seller.
Yet, to my very considerable surprise, the comments on the Huffington Post piece about him very largely blasted Hawking. I'm at a loss as to why he should have a negative image amongst the Joe Six-Packs. I can't understand what is political or controversial about his scientific ideas, which may not be very widely understood. It might have to do with comments he has made that appear to be anti-religion. (For example, he has said, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing.") And in this, the most religious of the Western, developed countries, that might not go down very well. I also suspect that this is part of the long-standing strain of animosity to science in America.
That might be viewed in part as a contemporary problem, lack of scientific literacy due in turn to failures of the American educational system. Or it can be viewed as a historical problem, only the latest manifestation of a strain of American thought that goes back a long ways.
Some of the "Founding Fathers" of this country, such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, might be considered amateur scientists. Everybody knows of Franklin's famous experiment with the kite, by which he demonstrated that lightning is electrical in nature. And Jefferson did considerable experimentation in agriculture—among his wide intellectual interests.
On the other hand, a lot of American ideas and ideals—maybe I should say mythology—developed along with the settling of the West, the movement of pioneers to the frontier; an ideology arose which glorified the individual, the ordinary man, the humble man, the man with little formal education. According to Wikipedia, "Culturally, the ideal American was a self-made man whose knowledge derived from life-experience, not an intellectual man, whose knowledge derived from books, formal education, and academic study."
Also, religious movements that arose in America emphasized religion and religious experience over reason, rationality, learning, science. And even if some of these trains of thought arose 100 or 150 years ago, I think we still have their legacy, just as we still have a "Wild West" ideology that glorifies guns, aggression, and people shooting one another.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
I'm Sick and Tired of Homophobia
It seems that any time the Huffington Post (HuffPost) publishes any article online that relates, no matter how tangentially, to any gay issue (they do have a page called HuffPost Gay Voices, but sometimes gay-related things get posted elsewhere), for some reason all the homophobes come out of the woodwork, very happy to have a platform to express their anti-gay views.
So we hear (over, and over, and over again) that homosexuality is wrong, it's unnatural, it's perverted, it's against Nature and "God's law." So often religion is invoked. I've become firmly convinced that, as a gay man, religion is my enemy.
It makes me truly sad to have to think that homophobia is so widespread. One of these people touched on something very true when he or she said, "They just want to be accepted." I'd put a spin on that in a way that he or she probably did not intend and say, Yes, we gay people would very much like to be able to feel that we were not disliked (let alone hated), rejected, persecuted, discriminated against.
Let me tell you from personal experience that it is a tough row to hoe in life if you belong to any minority—and I belong to at least two or three.
I spend too much time reading and responding to many of those people. Here is what I wrote in reply to one:
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
So we hear (over, and over, and over again) that homosexuality is wrong, it's unnatural, it's perverted, it's against Nature and "God's law." So often religion is invoked. I've become firmly convinced that, as a gay man, religion is my enemy.
It makes me truly sad to have to think that homophobia is so widespread. One of these people touched on something very true when he or she said, "They just want to be accepted." I'd put a spin on that in a way that he or she probably did not intend and say, Yes, we gay people would very much like to be able to feel that we were not disliked (let alone hated), rejected, persecuted, discriminated against.
Let me tell you from personal experience that it is a tough row to hoe in life if you belong to any minority—and I belong to at least two or three.
I spend too much time reading and responding to many of those people. Here is what I wrote in reply to one:
There is an old American Indian proverb that says, "Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his moccasins." I only wish that you and others like you would have even a fraction of the humanity that is embodied in that saying.
I am getting very, very tired of you homophobes posting your ranting (and very, very tired) old, bigoted ideas any time there is anything posted on HuffPost that has anything to do with anything gay.
And, as to "abominations" named in the Bible, are you aware that Leviticus also says that you should not eat shellfish, you should not wear garments that have two fibers mixed, and that a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night should be put to death?
Are we maybe just being a tad selective in what we do and don't point to in the Bible? It's not the Bible, it's just your bigotry.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Is Religion Schizophrenic? Part 2.
An interesting PBS TV was called Not in God's Name. It was about precisely an issue that I have blogged about: intolerance and conflict among religions.
The program focused on India. India has seven religions: Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Christianity, and Judaism. They all preach tolerance, brotherhood, peace—all the good things that certainly nearly everyone wishes would prevail in the world.
However, there seems to be a gap between these preachings and some of the actions that occur—and that is evidently an interest of Not in God's Name (an organization with a web site) and of mine.
Evidently—and this is a big part of the paradox—and as the program finds, the sacred scriptures of the main religions in India—the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita (Hinduism), the Old Testament, and the words of Jesus in the New Testament--can also be found to speak of conflict and war.
Either we have a paradox or things are changing. India has a 7,000-year-long tradition of multiple religions co-existing and usually tolerating one another pretty well. However, when India was partitioned into Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan in 1947, 1 million people migrated—Muslims leaving India for Pakistan and Hindus leaving Pakistan for India. And—sometimes literally along the way—some 2 million people were killed.
India and Pakistan have been hostile to one another and more recently have been developing missiles and atomic weapons (undoubtedly aimed at one another). Indian missiles are given the names of Hindu gods. The Pakistanis call their weapon "The Islamic Bomb." I can't help being reminded of the Old Testament which depicts, of course, its own age, which was a world of neighboring yet warring tribes, each with their own god. The victorious tribe was thought to be the one with the stronger god, so a war between tribes was a war that would determine who had the stronger—or the correct—god.
The program, and the organization that produced it, are as fascinated (or repulsed) as I am by this contradiction or paradox, and mostly spends its hour exploring it. I am not sure any definitive or satisfying answer was found; but some worthwhile ideas were that politics and territorial aggression can overtake the ideas of peace and brotherhood. One example: for years India and Pakistan have been warring continually if not continuously over the disputed border province of Kashmir.
One person who speaks on camera says that tolerance is not enough. More than that is needed. People may feel, "Okay, I will tolerate your ideas but basically you are wrong because my religion is superior, and/or we have the correct path to god." What is needed, the program says, is for people to recognize that every religion is a valid path to the divine and deserves not just a grudging tolerance but respect as equally worthy.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
The program focused on India. India has seven religions: Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Christianity, and Judaism. They all preach tolerance, brotherhood, peace—all the good things that certainly nearly everyone wishes would prevail in the world.
However, there seems to be a gap between these preachings and some of the actions that occur—and that is evidently an interest of Not in God's Name (an organization with a web site) and of mine.
Evidently—and this is a big part of the paradox—and as the program finds, the sacred scriptures of the main religions in India—the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita (Hinduism), the Old Testament, and the words of Jesus in the New Testament--can also be found to speak of conflict and war.
Either we have a paradox or things are changing. India has a 7,000-year-long tradition of multiple religions co-existing and usually tolerating one another pretty well. However, when India was partitioned into Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan in 1947, 1 million people migrated—Muslims leaving India for Pakistan and Hindus leaving Pakistan for India. And—sometimes literally along the way—some 2 million people were killed.
India and Pakistan have been hostile to one another and more recently have been developing missiles and atomic weapons (undoubtedly aimed at one another). Indian missiles are given the names of Hindu gods. The Pakistanis call their weapon "The Islamic Bomb." I can't help being reminded of the Old Testament which depicts, of course, its own age, which was a world of neighboring yet warring tribes, each with their own god. The victorious tribe was thought to be the one with the stronger god, so a war between tribes was a war that would determine who had the stronger—or the correct—god.
The program, and the organization that produced it, are as fascinated (or repulsed) as I am by this contradiction or paradox, and mostly spends its hour exploring it. I am not sure any definitive or satisfying answer was found; but some worthwhile ideas were that politics and territorial aggression can overtake the ideas of peace and brotherhood. One example: for years India and Pakistan have been warring continually if not continuously over the disputed border province of Kashmir.
One person who speaks on camera says that tolerance is not enough. More than that is needed. People may feel, "Okay, I will tolerate your ideas but basically you are wrong because my religion is superior, and/or we have the correct path to god." What is needed, the program says, is for people to recognize that every religion is a valid path to the divine and deserves not just a grudging tolerance but respect as equally worthy.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Movie Hunks of the Fifties: The Stuff of a Young Gay Boy's Fantasies
When I was young and a gay boy (as I might not have recognized at the time!), I saw many of the movies of the time. I know I used to go to Saturday afternoon matinees at the neighborhood movie theater, which cost 30 cents. I could go on about the presentation of movies at that time, because it differed in a number of ways from these days; but that's not my main subject here.
I really wanted to talk about my boyish crushes on some of the handsome movie hunks of the time, particularly the singing ones in the musical shows. I think I was as much impressed by rich, manly voices as I was by handsomeness or good physical builds.
Also, I was even smitten by one or more male comic-book characters. One such that I can remember the name of was called "Big Ben Bolt"; but in this piece I will concentrate on a few movie stars.
The first male star from the 1950s (when I would have been from 8 years old to my early teens) was Gordon MacRae. MacRae is best known for his singing and acting role in the movie version of the musical Oklahoma! which he made in 1955, when he was 34; and Carousel, another musical, the next year. I don't know what age he was when the photo above was taken.
Another is Howard Keel who appeared in the musical Annie Get Your Gun, made in 1950. Internet Movie Database (IMDB) says about him,
Besides Annie Get Your Gun, Keel was also in Show Boat (1951), Kiss Me Kate (1953), and Seven Brides for Seven Brothers (1954). I think I saw at least the last two in their own day. (Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, I think--to digress a little bit--shows just how manly, and certainly energetic, men dancing can be.)
Another one was John Raitt, who co-starred with Doris Day in Pajama Game, 1957. (Incidentally, the great majority of the promo photos for this film feature Doris Day, probably because cheesecake was thought to sell much better than beefcake--showing that, in those days, producers and promoters of movies had little suspicion that gay men might comprise an important part of their audience and their fandom. But again that would be another subject.)
_________
Footnote: The block quotation and much of the factual data here are from Internet Movie Database.
Copyright (c) 2011 by Richard Stein
I really wanted to talk about my boyish crushes on some of the handsome movie hunks of the time, particularly the singing ones in the musical shows. I think I was as much impressed by rich, manly voices as I was by handsomeness or good physical builds.
Also, I was even smitten by one or more male comic-book characters. One such that I can remember the name of was called "Big Ben Bolt"; but in this piece I will concentrate on a few movie stars.
The first male star from the 1950s (when I would have been from 8 years old to my early teens) was Gordon MacRae. MacRae is best known for his singing and acting role in the movie version of the musical Oklahoma! which he made in 1955, when he was 34; and Carousel, another musical, the next year. I don't know what age he was when the photo above was taken.
Another is Howard Keel who appeared in the musical Annie Get Your Gun, made in 1950. Internet Movie Database (IMDB) says about him,
He was the Errol Flynn and Clark Gable of "golden age" movie musicals back in the 1950s. With a barrel-chested swagger and cocky, confident air, not to mention his lusty handsomeness and obvious athleticism, 6'4" brawny baritone Howard Keel had MGM's loveliest songbirds swooning helplessly for over a decade in what were some of the finest musical films ever produced. . . .This one, at least, is a tall man. I don't know if it mattered to me at the time (I doubt it since I think I only realized I like tall men much later), but Gordon MacRae was only 5'8".
Besides Annie Get Your Gun, Keel was also in Show Boat (1951), Kiss Me Kate (1953), and Seven Brides for Seven Brothers (1954). I think I saw at least the last two in their own day. (Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, I think--to digress a little bit--shows just how manly, and certainly energetic, men dancing can be.)
Another one was John Raitt, who co-starred with Doris Day in Pajama Game, 1957. (Incidentally, the great majority of the promo photos for this film feature Doris Day, probably because cheesecake was thought to sell much better than beefcake--showing that, in those days, producers and promoters of movies had little suspicion that gay men might comprise an important part of their audience and their fandom. But again that would be another subject.)
_________
Footnote: The block quotation and much of the factual data here are from Internet Movie Database.
Copyright (c) 2011 by Richard Stein
Friday, December 2, 2011
Should You "Buy American"?
The television network ABC has been carrying on a year-long "Made in America" campaign, to point out to its viewers what products are made in America, with the idea that, if consumers are aware of what brand names are of American manufacture, they will (hopefully) prefer to buy those products.
In Seattle, a local organization tried to get a buy-American advertising campaign onto the sides of public buses; but the Seattle transit authority declined the ads, saying that they were espousing a politically and economically controversial position.
There was considerable outcry over this, and the transit authority reversed its position. In this instance I think I agree with the "buy American" organization and not the transit authority: I don't see anything particularly controversial about the advertising or its aims.
Nowadays, practically everything one buys in the US seems to be made in China; and to some degree—probably a considerable degree—that represents manufacturing jobs lost to American workers. And we currently have a rate of unemployment in the US that is unacceptably high.
Entire industries in the US have been pretty much destroyed—for example clothing manufacturing (as of quite a while ago) and more recently, shoe manufacturing.
Who is to blame? I want to look at several parties and maybe assign some blame to each.
First, China does not play fair. They keep the exchange rate for their currency relative to the dollar very low. Thus Chinese-made merchandise can be sold ridiculously cheaply—even after the wholesalers and retailers involved add on shipping and import duties to the items' cost. (It might surprise you that the shipping and duty really don't come to that much.) So American producers simply can't compete.
Second, look at merchandisers like Walmart. It's in the nature of capitalism that a retailer which can sell something more cheaply than its competitors has a competitive advantage. Chances are, the customer does not look to see where the item was made (which of course is what the campaigns are all about) but simply goes with the low price. And the cheaper item these days, is usually Chinese made.
So now, third, the consumer: A lot of consumers not only like to save money, they need to save money. This is the situation of some families, particularly lower income families with several children: if they can get their purchases more cheaply, that may mean that they can buy shoes or winter jackets for all of their children, instead of for only one or two. Even if they don't pay attention to where those items are made, and maybe don't care, I think they deserve some sympathy.
I think yet another party should get some of the blame. I'm pretty sure that a $60 or more Tommy Hilfiger or Polo Ralph Lauren shirt, which is made in a third-world country, does not have to be made in that third-world country to be profitable for Hilfiger or Polo--or for the retailer. When the item is on sale and its price is reduced to half, I promise you the store is still making a profit.
Now one exception to all this is cars. I had a neighbor who, when I was extolling the reliability of the Honda I owned at the time, said, "I think that if you're American, you should buy an American car." Well, nowadays, in this age of the global economy, it's not so simple. Did you realize that the price stickers on cars in the showroom are required to show the percentage of "domestic [parts] content"? I saw a Ford Taurus where the domestic content was only 65%. It's not too uncommon for an "American" car to have its major parts, like transmissions, made in Canada or Mexico or an Asian country.
And look at the cars with Japanese brands which are assembled in US plants. Assembly in the US means US workers have employment when you buy that vehicle. And the domestic content might actually be higher than that Ford Taurus: a lot of parts like windshields, headlights, batteries, tires, and power-window controllers probably come from domestic suppliers, and major components may be made at the assembly plant.
The same ABC network did a little study in which they tried to determine which car purchases would produce the most jobs for American workers; and they found that buying a Toyota Camry would actually produce more jobs than a certain car with an "American" nameplate.
So, if you want to "buy American" when you are car shopping, don't pay the main attention to the name: you can look at where the vehicle was assembled—that's on the sticker, too—or, more importantly, look at that "domestic content" number.
Update, July 4, 2012.
Here is an article on this subject from AOL Autos:
http://autos.aol.com/gallery/the-most-american-cars/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl7|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D175630
Update, June 8, 2013
An interesting little sidebar in the July, 2013 issue of Car and Driver:
Second, as I have often said, the people who are trying to "buy American" and go buy Fords, Chevrolets, and Buicks are misguided.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
In Seattle, a local organization tried to get a buy-American advertising campaign onto the sides of public buses; but the Seattle transit authority declined the ads, saying that they were espousing a politically and economically controversial position.
There was considerable outcry over this, and the transit authority reversed its position. In this instance I think I agree with the "buy American" organization and not the transit authority: I don't see anything particularly controversial about the advertising or its aims.
Nowadays, practically everything one buys in the US seems to be made in China; and to some degree—probably a considerable degree—that represents manufacturing jobs lost to American workers. And we currently have a rate of unemployment in the US that is unacceptably high.
Entire industries in the US have been pretty much destroyed—for example clothing manufacturing (as of quite a while ago) and more recently, shoe manufacturing.
Who is to blame? I want to look at several parties and maybe assign some blame to each.
First, China does not play fair. They keep the exchange rate for their currency relative to the dollar very low. Thus Chinese-made merchandise can be sold ridiculously cheaply—even after the wholesalers and retailers involved add on shipping and import duties to the items' cost. (It might surprise you that the shipping and duty really don't come to that much.) So American producers simply can't compete.
Second, look at merchandisers like Walmart. It's in the nature of capitalism that a retailer which can sell something more cheaply than its competitors has a competitive advantage. Chances are, the customer does not look to see where the item was made (which of course is what the campaigns are all about) but simply goes with the low price. And the cheaper item these days, is usually Chinese made.
So now, third, the consumer: A lot of consumers not only like to save money, they need to save money. This is the situation of some families, particularly lower income families with several children: if they can get their purchases more cheaply, that may mean that they can buy shoes or winter jackets for all of their children, instead of for only one or two. Even if they don't pay attention to where those items are made, and maybe don't care, I think they deserve some sympathy.
I think yet another party should get some of the blame. I'm pretty sure that a $60 or more Tommy Hilfiger or Polo Ralph Lauren shirt, which is made in a third-world country, does not have to be made in that third-world country to be profitable for Hilfiger or Polo--or for the retailer. When the item is on sale and its price is reduced to half, I promise you the store is still making a profit.
Now one exception to all this is cars. I had a neighbor who, when I was extolling the reliability of the Honda I owned at the time, said, "I think that if you're American, you should buy an American car." Well, nowadays, in this age of the global economy, it's not so simple. Did you realize that the price stickers on cars in the showroom are required to show the percentage of "domestic [parts] content"? I saw a Ford Taurus where the domestic content was only 65%. It's not too uncommon for an "American" car to have its major parts, like transmissions, made in Canada or Mexico or an Asian country.
And look at the cars with Japanese brands which are assembled in US plants. Assembly in the US means US workers have employment when you buy that vehicle. And the domestic content might actually be higher than that Ford Taurus: a lot of parts like windshields, headlights, batteries, tires, and power-window controllers probably come from domestic suppliers, and major components may be made at the assembly plant.
The same ABC network did a little study in which they tried to determine which car purchases would produce the most jobs for American workers; and they found that buying a Toyota Camry would actually produce more jobs than a certain car with an "American" nameplate.
So, if you want to "buy American" when you are car shopping, don't pay the main attention to the name: you can look at where the vehicle was assembled—that's on the sticker, too—or, more importantly, look at that "domestic content" number.
Update, July 4, 2012.
Here is an article on this subject from AOL Autos:
http://autos.aol.com/gallery/the-most-american-cars/?icid=maing-grid
7|main5|dl7|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D175630Update, June 8, 2013
An interesting little sidebar in the July, 2013 issue of Car and Driver:
Globalization means that even domestic automakers are importers, bringing Buicks from South Korea, Fords from Turkey, and all manner of Chrysler models from both north and south of the border. In fact, only one volume brand is solely American-made: Jeep. All Jeep vehicles are assembled in either Detroit; Toledo, Ohio; or Belvidere, Illinois.Two comments on this: First, it is to be hoped that this news about Jeep does not impel lots of people to go buy Jeeps because recent news has it that Jeep has a serious design defect which makes the gas tank likely to explode in rear-end collisions, and the NHTSB has been pressuring Chrysler to recall Jeeps to fix the problem
Second, as I have often said, the people who are trying to "buy American" and go buy Fords, Chevrolets, and Buicks are misguided.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Thursday, December 1, 2011
American Engineering (May Still Be) Number One
Regular readers of this blog know that I have pointed out the many respects in which America is not, or is no longer, Number 1 in the world.
The world's tallest building does not have a nice American-sounding name like Sears Tower or Empire State Building. It's the Burj Khalifa, and if that does not sound very American, it's because it's not. The building is in the Middle East.
It's been a while since the tallest building was in America, although three of the 10 tallest are in the US and, in fact, are all here in Chicago.
However, the Burj Khalifa was designed by the American architectural firm of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill. Consider that the design of very tall buildings is as much, or more, a matter of engineering than architecture; and America quite possibly still has the best engineers in the world.
Even during the period when American cars seemed to be sadly suffering in the quality area, I had no doubt that General Motors (or, to those partisan to other US car manufacturers, insert that name here if you like) employed some of the best engineers in the world. On the other hand, it must be admitted that many of the engineering features found very widely in modern cars were not American inventions or developments: things like the Macpherson suspension (now pretty much universal and invented by a Scotsman), fuel injection, disc brakes, and overhead camshaft engines.
I think one reason why these were mostly developed in Europe is one simple word: racing. Most of those engineering features in the list above were developed by car makers who had a racing program, and they first appeared in race cars. By contrast, with the exception of Ford, which has raced on and off, American car makers have not built cars for racing in modern times.
There is no doubt (at least in this mind) that many countries such as China and India have given the world many great scientists and musicians, not to mention the European countries which led the world for so long. Japan has been a leader in electronics. On the other hand, there has been concern that America's educational system has its failings, especially when it comes to science and mathematics. But I think that America still knows how to produce good engineers, or else why would an achievement like the world's tallest building ultimately come out of America?
Some people, I'm sure, have come to feel that I like to engage in America-bashing. I like to think I'm very fair-minded and dole out both praise and criticism where it is due.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
The world's tallest building does not have a nice American-sounding name like Sears Tower or Empire State Building. It's the Burj Khalifa, and if that does not sound very American, it's because it's not. The building is in the Middle East.
It's been a while since the tallest building was in America, although three of the 10 tallest are in the US and, in fact, are all here in Chicago.
However, the Burj Khalifa was designed by the American architectural firm of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill. Consider that the design of very tall buildings is as much, or more, a matter of engineering than architecture; and America quite possibly still has the best engineers in the world.
Even during the period when American cars seemed to be sadly suffering in the quality area, I had no doubt that General Motors (or, to those partisan to other US car manufacturers, insert that name here if you like) employed some of the best engineers in the world. On the other hand, it must be admitted that many of the engineering features found very widely in modern cars were not American inventions or developments: things like the Macpherson suspension (now pretty much universal and invented by a Scotsman), fuel injection, disc brakes, and overhead camshaft engines.
I think one reason why these were mostly developed in Europe is one simple word: racing. Most of those engineering features in the list above were developed by car makers who had a racing program, and they first appeared in race cars. By contrast, with the exception of Ford, which has raced on and off, American car makers have not built cars for racing in modern times.
There is no doubt (at least in this mind) that many countries such as China and India have given the world many great scientists and musicians, not to mention the European countries which led the world for so long. Japan has been a leader in electronics. On the other hand, there has been concern that America's educational system has its failings, especially when it comes to science and mathematics. But I think that America still knows how to produce good engineers, or else why would an achievement like the world's tallest building ultimately come out of America?
Some people, I'm sure, have come to feel that I like to engage in America-bashing. I like to think I'm very fair-minded and dole out both praise and criticism where it is due.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
