As you probably heard, there was another one of those shootings today, this one at Johns Hopkins University hospital, and this one also with hostage-taking.
Add this to the growing list that includes The Discovery Channel, Ft. Hood, Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois University. (And a church; and the TV news mentioned four similar incidents at hospitals.) The list is getting so long that it's hard to recall them all.
People in other countries are saying, "Those crazy Americans and their guns." Yes, we are crazy, and guns are too prevalent in America. Shootings like these seldom occur in other countries.
Extreme gunowners' rights advocates want every American to have a gun in his house, so that he will be "protected" in the event of a home invasion. And they want everybody to openly carry a hand gun.
The logic, "Well, the bad guys have guns, so I need one, too, to protect myself," simply means an arms race.
When homeowners have guns in their homes, a variety of accidents can happen. Just a couple days ago, here in Chicago, a boy shot his brother with a rifle; and supposedly the gun had been properly locked up in a cabinet. There have of course been other, similar accidents. All those guns ready to be aimed and fired at intruders and burglars: they're going to be mistakenly fired at spouses, parents, children.
And these shootings like the one today show that our easily-obtained guns are too often finding their way into the hands of those with mental problems. Anyone with some irrational grudge or rage, anyone with delusions, can get a gun and go and shoot whoever it is he perceives as causing his problems.
Again to look at Americans with an outsider's view: We have a Wild West mentality. It is macho to have a gun.
In fact I literally blame Hollywood Western movies for this: They glamorized the gunslinger, gun-toter, gunfighter. John Wayne and other heroes of Westerns became the American ideal of masculinity. Someone said that John Wayne redefined the masculine in America.
So, no wonder every gang member and every other punk in America wants a gun. When guns are easy to obtain and easy to own, it's more likely they're going to be used. We here in Chicago are having a problem that has been escalating to extreme, shocking proportions: Hundreds of people a year are killed in drive-by shootings and other gang-related violence. Often it's young, innocent children who get caught in the crossfire. The residents of certain areas are literally killing one another. Imagine what it's like to live in one of those areas and to live with your life in danger every day. Supposedly only soldiers in wartime have to live like that.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Animals 4, Humans 0
We just had yet another in a chain of incidents in which an animal has attacked its trainer. In this latest, a lion attacked a trainer and bit him on the leg.
Recall not that long ago an orca (wrongly called a "killer whale") pulled his trainer into the pool where she drowned. And the news today, reviewing such incidents, reminds us that there was a bear that attacked its trainer, and there was the time that Roy Horn (of Siegfried and Roy) was attacked by the tiger that was part of his act.
In these cases I'm almost rooting for the animals. Not that I want to see humans hurt; I definitely don't. But these are wild animals, basically doing what is part of their nature.
Animals shouldn't have trainers (except for domesticated animals). Why? Because they should not be in captivity. They do not exist for the amusement of humans. These marine-animal shows particularly upset me. They are usually money-making enterprises and they simply exploit their animals for profit. They would have us believe that their animals are well cared for and happy. Well, it is not hard to dispute the second of those claims. Dolphins in captivity sometimes commit suicide—which they can do by not coming up for air, in effect holding their breath until they die.
Also, when dolphins are captured (usually off the coast of Japan), very large number of them are simply slaughtered in the process. The water runs red with their blood. These are intelligent animals and deserve to be treated like the high life forms that they are.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Recall not that long ago an orca (wrongly called a "killer whale") pulled his trainer into the pool where she drowned. And the news today, reviewing such incidents, reminds us that there was a bear that attacked its trainer, and there was the time that Roy Horn (of Siegfried and Roy) was attacked by the tiger that was part of his act.
In these cases I'm almost rooting for the animals. Not that I want to see humans hurt; I definitely don't. But these are wild animals, basically doing what is part of their nature.
Animals shouldn't have trainers (except for domesticated animals). Why? Because they should not be in captivity. They do not exist for the amusement of humans. These marine-animal shows particularly upset me. They are usually money-making enterprises and they simply exploit their animals for profit. They would have us believe that their animals are well cared for and happy. Well, it is not hard to dispute the second of those claims. Dolphins in captivity sometimes commit suicide—which they can do by not coming up for air, in effect holding their breath until they die.
Also, when dolphins are captured (usually off the coast of Japan), very large number of them are simply slaughtered in the process. The water runs red with their blood. These are intelligent animals and deserve to be treated like the high life forms that they are.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Blame Obama?
The news today shows that President Obama and the Democrats have very low approval ratings. Also, people do not think Obama has improved the economy, and they also (by 90%, according to the polls) feel the economy is in bad shape.
It's a year and a half since Obama took office. When he took office, the U.S. and in fact the world economy was on the verge of total and disastrous collapse, as many economists and other scholars have said. Obama acted very quickly to enact measures (mainly the now infamous "bail-outs") that staved off that collapse that would have ruined us, as individuals and as a country.
It's true that not everything is rosey. There are mixed indicators of the state of the economy. Many economists say the economy is improving; it's growing, albeit slowly and not quickly enough to appease Obama's critics.
Obama is not to blame for the economic problems of our country. A year and a half should not be too difficult a period to remember back. Many problems were caused by (1) the banking industry, which had made loans ("subprime loans") to many, many people who could not afford them; and (2) by Wall Street, with innovative and overly complicated new investment vehicles (generally those called "derivatives"). (3) Lack of government regulation and oversight permitted (1) and (2) to occur. This deregulation of the financial sector was not Obama's doing nor even George W. Bush's, but went back through several presidential administrations.
No one should expect any miraculous turnaround in the time that Obama has been president. When the U.S. was in the grips of the Great Depression, President Roosevelt instituted many programs to stimulate the economy, but full recovery from the Depression did not occur until there was the stimulus to industry provided by arming for World War II.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
It's a year and a half since Obama took office. When he took office, the U.S. and in fact the world economy was on the verge of total and disastrous collapse, as many economists and other scholars have said. Obama acted very quickly to enact measures (mainly the now infamous "bail-outs") that staved off that collapse that would have ruined us, as individuals and as a country.
It's true that not everything is rosey. There are mixed indicators of the state of the economy. Many economists say the economy is improving; it's growing, albeit slowly and not quickly enough to appease Obama's critics.
Obama is not to blame for the economic problems of our country. A year and a half should not be too difficult a period to remember back. Many problems were caused by (1) the banking industry, which had made loans ("subprime loans") to many, many people who could not afford them; and (2) by Wall Street, with innovative and overly complicated new investment vehicles (generally those called "derivatives"). (3) Lack of government regulation and oversight permitted (1) and (2) to occur. This deregulation of the financial sector was not Obama's doing nor even George W. Bush's, but went back through several presidential administrations.
No one should expect any miraculous turnaround in the time that Obama has been president. When the U.S. was in the grips of the Great Depression, President Roosevelt instituted many programs to stimulate the economy, but full recovery from the Depression did not occur until there was the stimulus to industry provided by arming for World War II.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Religious War, Episode Number-- Well, Some Thousand
As practically everyone must be aware, the pastor of a small, fringe church in Gainesville, Florida, Terry Jones, has inflamed (I use the word advisedly) world-wide controversy with his plan to burn 200 copies of the Quran on September 11, which is, of course, the anniversary of the famous "9/11" attacks. The 9/11 attacks are viewed (and I would not say wrongly) as attacks by Islam against not only the U.S. but the Christian West or Christianity.
This is the latest battle in an Islam-West (or Islam-Christianity) conflict that goes back not simply nine years to September 11, 2001, but 800 or 900 years, to the Crusades.
To refresh your memory of the history you learned: the Holy Land, so-called, was in the hands of Muslims, who had been conquering more and more of the Byzantine Empire of which it was part; and the Pope preached the Crusade—in fact there were four Crusades—to inspire (or incite) Christian knights to "recapture" the Holy Land for Christianity.
And—just to set the record straight, because I believe I heard someone getting it backwards—the Muslims then considered—and probably still consider—any and all non-Muslims to be "infidels."
So we've had 900 years of conflict, of hatred, of intolerance. In modern times we've also had Christians and Muslims battling each other in Lebanon and in the former Yugoslavia. These were all at least in part religious wars.
And if you want to look more broadly still, it's not only Christians and Muslims who have been at each others' throats. There have been wars between Catholics and Protestants--in Northern Ireland in modern times and elsewhere in earlier times.
And I am sure that the conflicts stemming from religion are as old as the invention of religion itself in human history.
I almost tend to think that there is something inherent in religion that is to blame. Every religion claims to be the "true" one, and fosters in its followers a certain smugness in the fact that they are the followers of the true faith.
And since we are right, we are justified in smiting all those who follow another religion, because theirs are false gods. In Old Testament times and in Classical Antiquity, a war between two peoples was a conflict between their respective gods, and the outcome indicated whose god was stronger or was the "true" god.
Yes, I blame religion for the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people, over the centuries, and for much human suffering. Religion has done some good, I'd admit; but its inherent tendency to demarcate humanity into "we" and "they," which I've commented on before, has to devolve itself into conflict, and often conflict of the most brutal and protracted kind.
Here is a link to a good article:
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/analysis-pastor-terry-jones-plan-to-burn-quran-latest-in-long-line-of-religious-fire-starters/19623998
If there is a God, I have a suggestion for Him: On September 11, let there be a very hard rain, a deluge, in Gainesville, Florida, and drown out Pastor Jones' bonfire of hate.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
This is the latest battle in an Islam-West (or Islam-Christianity) conflict that goes back not simply nine years to September 11, 2001, but 800 or 900 years, to the Crusades.
To refresh your memory of the history you learned: the Holy Land, so-called, was in the hands of Muslims, who had been conquering more and more of the Byzantine Empire of which it was part; and the Pope preached the Crusade—in fact there were four Crusades—to inspire (or incite) Christian knights to "recapture" the Holy Land for Christianity.
And—just to set the record straight, because I believe I heard someone getting it backwards—the Muslims then considered—and probably still consider—any and all non-Muslims to be "infidels."
So we've had 900 years of conflict, of hatred, of intolerance. In modern times we've also had Christians and Muslims battling each other in Lebanon and in the former Yugoslavia. These were all at least in part religious wars.
And if you want to look more broadly still, it's not only Christians and Muslims who have been at each others' throats. There have been wars between Catholics and Protestants--in Northern Ireland in modern times and elsewhere in earlier times.
And I am sure that the conflicts stemming from religion are as old as the invention of religion itself in human history.
I almost tend to think that there is something inherent in religion that is to blame. Every religion claims to be the "true" one, and fosters in its followers a certain smugness in the fact that they are the followers of the true faith.
And since we are right, we are justified in smiting all those who follow another religion, because theirs are false gods. In Old Testament times and in Classical Antiquity, a war between two peoples was a conflict between their respective gods, and the outcome indicated whose god was stronger or was the "true" god.
Yes, I blame religion for the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people, over the centuries, and for much human suffering. Religion has done some good, I'd admit; but its inherent tendency to demarcate humanity into "we" and "they," which I've commented on before, has to devolve itself into conflict, and often conflict of the most brutal and protracted kind.
Here is a link to a good article:
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/analysis-pastor-terry-jones-plan-to-burn-quran-latest-in-long-line-of-religious-fire-starters/19623998
If there is a God, I have a suggestion for Him: On September 11, let there be a very hard rain, a deluge, in Gainesville, Florida, and drown out Pastor Jones' bonfire of hate.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
A Few Spaniards Destroyed Two Mighty Empires
This is not going to discuss how small bands of Spaniards were able to defeat much larger Aztec and Inca armies and conquer these great New World civilizations. This has been discussed often. (One interesting modern idea is given in Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel.) Rather, I am going to look at some of the motives of the Conquistadors.
According to the written accounts they have left us—mostly written by priests in their band—the Spanish Conquistadors who conquered the New World's great civilizations (notably the Aztec and Inca but also the Maya) found, in the Aztec capital city of Tenochtitlan, a city bigger and more grand than anything they knew in Europe.
Yet they had no scruples about conquering and destroying these civilizations, destroying their monuments (often using the stone from Aztec temples to build their Christian cathedrals), and slaughtering or enslaving the people.
If, on the one hand, they (perhaps grudgingly) admitted respect for the material cultures they were conquering, how were they able to rationalize the attitudes shown by their destroying these cultures, burning their books, and so forth?
I think the main answer lies in the fact that they were able to regard these peoples as pagans and "heathens." Anyone who was not Christian of course would be so regarded. The Conquest was all about God, glory, and gold: converting the peoples encountered (that was why priests were brought along); the personal glory of the soldier/adventurer and of the King; and the gold that would be sent back to Spain as booty.
As to the role of conversion as a motive, or of the non-Christianness of the native peoples: Because of Spain's rivalry with Portugal for trade and control of new territories, the Papacy endorsed Spain's control of the lands Columbus had discovered with the understanding that Spain would spread Christianity into the new lands.
As I have seen the encounter of the Spanish with the native ruler (I think this was Atahualpa, the Inca ruler) depicted: when he was told that the book he was presented with—a Bible—was the word of the Spaniards' god, he said he did not hear it speaking to him at all. (Of course he had no notion of writing.) Thus he threw it to the ground in disgust, and that was a pretext for an attack by the Spaniards. (I admit that one probably should not take a TV depiction as accurate history.)
Historians may argue which of the three motives was most important. And, as a footnote, I am not a historian. Maybe historians know more about all this than I do (and, of course, the medium of the blog permits anyone to post comments on what I write). Still, I feel that history is at least as much about interpretation as about "facts." Certainly plenty of scholarly argumentation and conflict goes on. Even if there are unambiguous, established "facts," it's not always clear what factors were most important in bringing down an empire, for example, or causing a war, or in fact any of the big events of history.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
According to the written accounts they have left us—mostly written by priests in their band—the Spanish Conquistadors who conquered the New World's great civilizations (notably the Aztec and Inca but also the Maya) found, in the Aztec capital city of Tenochtitlan, a city bigger and more grand than anything they knew in Europe.
Yet they had no scruples about conquering and destroying these civilizations, destroying their monuments (often using the stone from Aztec temples to build their Christian cathedrals), and slaughtering or enslaving the people.
If, on the one hand, they (perhaps grudgingly) admitted respect for the material cultures they were conquering, how were they able to rationalize the attitudes shown by their destroying these cultures, burning their books, and so forth?
I think the main answer lies in the fact that they were able to regard these peoples as pagans and "heathens." Anyone who was not Christian of course would be so regarded. The Conquest was all about God, glory, and gold: converting the peoples encountered (that was why priests were brought along); the personal glory of the soldier/adventurer and of the King; and the gold that would be sent back to Spain as booty.
As to the role of conversion as a motive, or of the non-Christianness of the native peoples: Because of Spain's rivalry with Portugal for trade and control of new territories, the Papacy endorsed Spain's control of the lands Columbus had discovered with the understanding that Spain would spread Christianity into the new lands.
As I have seen the encounter of the Spanish with the native ruler (I think this was Atahualpa, the Inca ruler) depicted: when he was told that the book he was presented with—a Bible—was the word of the Spaniards' god, he said he did not hear it speaking to him at all. (Of course he had no notion of writing.) Thus he threw it to the ground in disgust, and that was a pretext for an attack by the Spaniards. (I admit that one probably should not take a TV depiction as accurate history.)
Historians may argue which of the three motives was most important. And, as a footnote, I am not a historian. Maybe historians know more about all this than I do (and, of course, the medium of the blog permits anyone to post comments on what I write). Still, I feel that history is at least as much about interpretation as about "facts." Certainly plenty of scholarly argumentation and conflict goes on. Even if there are unambiguous, established "facts," it's not always clear what factors were most important in bringing down an empire, for example, or causing a war, or in fact any of the big events of history.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
What's Changed in the World. Part 4 - How People Spend Their Time; and the Sexual Revolution
People used to spend their time listening to the radio. My family, when I was a kid and we had not yet gotten a TV (we were in fact the third family on our block to get a TV, and my aunt and grandparents already had them) used to sit around the radio in the evening, in a darkened room—just as though it was a TV. Maybe we were rehearsing for TV.
Nowadays boys of a certain age skateboard and play video games. Plus, of course, the time that girls as well as boys—and adults—spend on computers, with social networking sites, chat rooms, and so forth.
So there have been changes in how people spend their time. Whether these things mean far-reaching changes to society—well, that will be the subject of articles, books, and dissertations for a long time.
Another big change to society has been the so-called "sexual revolution." I was an adolescent just before some of the consequences of the invention of the birth control pill really began to be felt. So "in my day," young men and women did not have sex as much as young people do now. A horny young man who was going out on a date, and who thought that he might be able to have intercourse with his date, wanted to be prepared by having a "rubber" in his wallet. But they were not easy to come by. Unlike today, they were not on display out in the open in stores. They could only be gotten from a drugstore, and they were kept behind the counter—so you had to ask for them. If it was even legal for minors to buy condoms (and I frankly don't remember), young potential condom buyers would have been reluctant to try to buy them. A far change from today, when they might be handed out in high schools!
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Nowadays boys of a certain age skateboard and play video games. Plus, of course, the time that girls as well as boys—and adults—spend on computers, with social networking sites, chat rooms, and so forth.
So there have been changes in how people spend their time. Whether these things mean far-reaching changes to society—well, that will be the subject of articles, books, and dissertations for a long time.
Another big change to society has been the so-called "sexual revolution." I was an adolescent just before some of the consequences of the invention of the birth control pill really began to be felt. So "in my day," young men and women did not have sex as much as young people do now. A horny young man who was going out on a date, and who thought that he might be able to have intercourse with his date, wanted to be prepared by having a "rubber" in his wallet. But they were not easy to come by. Unlike today, they were not on display out in the open in stores. They could only be gotten from a drugstore, and they were kept behind the counter—so you had to ask for them. If it was even legal for minors to buy condoms (and I frankly don't remember), young potential condom buyers would have been reluctant to try to buy them. A far change from today, when they might be handed out in high schools!
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Monday, August 23, 2010
My Thoughts on the "Ground Zero Mosque"
I won't belabor the fact that the proposed building is not simply a mosque (although it does contain worship space), nor that within the same radius of Ground Zero there are lots of possibly not very savory businesses.
Muslim believers and worshippers have every right to build their building. There are a number of constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms involved, not the least being the freedom of religion. It is simply wrong for anyone to try to prevent their doing what they propose.
That said, I have to say that, for them to wish to do what they are doing—certainly with full knowledge of Americans' feelings about the area and what happened there—is insensitive at best and provocative at worst.
So I am saying, they should not want to do this, but if they press ahead anyway, we have no right to stop them.
Here is a link to a very good article on the subject, with which I agree:
http://www.aolnews.com/opinion/article/opinion-whos-being-insensitive-about-the-ground-zero-mosque/19606975
copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Muslim believers and worshippers have every right to build their building. There are a number of constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms involved, not the least being the freedom of religion. It is simply wrong for anyone to try to prevent their doing what they propose.
That said, I have to say that, for them to wish to do what they are doing—certainly with full knowledge of Americans' feelings about the area and what happened there—is insensitive at best and provocative at worst.
So I am saying, they should not want to do this, but if they press ahead anyway, we have no right to stop them.
Here is a link to a very good article on the subject, with which I agree:
http://www.aolnews.com/opinion/article/opinion-whos-being-insensitive-about-the-ground-zero-mosque/19606975
copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
