I believe many people own and drive SUVs because they believe they are safer. I think that is especially likely to be the case when I see a woman driving a very large SUV. (If she's the sole occupant of the vehicle, as often is the case, I think she's not driving such a vehicle for its carrying capacity in persons or cargo.)
I believe that large SUVs in particular contribute to global warming because more fuel consumed = more greenhouse gases emitted out the tailpipe. But I'll focus here on safety.
A driver who believes that four-wheel drive is necessary—perhaps for driving in snow—should be aware that now many sedans are available with four-wheel drive. Second, I recently learned that four-wheel drive confers an advantage of better adhesion only when traveling in a straight line. It is no help in cornering.
Further, SUVs actually have a safety disadvantage because they are top-heavy and thus more likely to overturn. Twice within two or three days the TV news has shown a picture of an SUV lying on its roof after an accident (this may be coincidental—I don't want to imply otherwise—but they were Jeeps in both cases). Anyone who pays attention to TV news coverage of auto accidents has seen enough photos of SUVs which skidded off the road because of a winter storm or after an accident, and ended up lying in a ditch or lying on their roofs, to be disabused of the idea that they are safer than other types of vehicles.
Update, April 5, 2013. This morning there was an accident in Chicago where a school bus hit one or more other vehicles. One was a Jeep Wrangler, of which the driver was killed. Another Jeep vehicle was involved and I am not certain how the occupants of that vehicle fared.
Update, May 5, 2013. Again today--for the umpteenth time, it would seem--the news included a story of an accident in which an SUV suffered a tire blow-out and overturned. The driver was ejected and killed. Three passengers in the vehicle were injured but not killed.
Copyright © 2013 by Richard Stein
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
More on Guns
Chicago, as an example of a major American city, has a high rate of killings by means of guns—on the order of 500 or 600 a year—a number that is, or should be, shocking.
These killings occur mainly in certain areas of the city, areas that have a gang problem, and are associated with gangs warring for turf or for control of the drug trade.
Also, these numerous and almost daily gun killings are committed with hand guns. These guns are cheap and are easy to carry inconspicuously. Interestingly, guns are not sold legally in Chicago, and there are no gun stores within the city limits. However, as has been observed, borders are "permeable." Guns can be bought in suburban communities or across state lines (which, in the case of Chicago, are not far away).
However, the mass gun killings are quite another phenomenon. Recent killings such as in Newtown, Connecticut, or Aurora, Colorado, are composed of two elements: a mentally unstable person, and easy access to "assault" weapons. (I put the word assault in quotation marks because I don't know a lot about—and don't want to get involved in the controversy over—types of guns. There is the distinction between automatic and semi-automatic guns, and even hand guns can be "automatic," that is, able to fire shots in rapid succession.)
So of course, if there are the two elements involved in these horrendous occurrences—which have been getting more frequent, it must be pointed out—either element can be looked at, thought about, and perhaps somehow remedied.
The first element, unstable individuals, would require identifying individuals who might be or become dangerous. However, this is difficult. Countless adolescents would show personality traits that are part of whatever profile of the gunman or potential gunman that could be constructed. But of course nothing can be "done about" these individuals until they can be identified. ("Doing something about" them is also problematic. Should they be isolated from society? Have medications prescribed, which they might not take faithfully?)
But if the people who committed the mass killings had not had easy access to the very effective and deadly weapons that they used? The Newtown shooter, Adam Lanza, used a gun that his mother owned. The shooter at Virginia Tech was able to purchase his weapons over the Internet.
Certainly it is reasonable to think about making access to these guns more difficult. Maybe they should not be freely and easily purveyed at your nearest Walmart. Where they can be bought, and by whom, and how easily: all these things should be looked at.
Copyright © 2013 by Richard Stein
These killings occur mainly in certain areas of the city, areas that have a gang problem, and are associated with gangs warring for turf or for control of the drug trade.
Also, these numerous and almost daily gun killings are committed with hand guns. These guns are cheap and are easy to carry inconspicuously. Interestingly, guns are not sold legally in Chicago, and there are no gun stores within the city limits. However, as has been observed, borders are "permeable." Guns can be bought in suburban communities or across state lines (which, in the case of Chicago, are not far away).
However, the mass gun killings are quite another phenomenon. Recent killings such as in Newtown, Connecticut, or Aurora, Colorado, are composed of two elements: a mentally unstable person, and easy access to "assault" weapons. (I put the word assault in quotation marks because I don't know a lot about—and don't want to get involved in the controversy over—types of guns. There is the distinction between automatic and semi-automatic guns, and even hand guns can be "automatic," that is, able to fire shots in rapid succession.)
So of course, if there are the two elements involved in these horrendous occurrences—which have been getting more frequent, it must be pointed out—either element can be looked at, thought about, and perhaps somehow remedied.
The first element, unstable individuals, would require identifying individuals who might be or become dangerous. However, this is difficult. Countless adolescents would show personality traits that are part of whatever profile of the gunman or potential gunman that could be constructed. But of course nothing can be "done about" these individuals until they can be identified. ("Doing something about" them is also problematic. Should they be isolated from society? Have medications prescribed, which they might not take faithfully?)
But if the people who committed the mass killings had not had easy access to the very effective and deadly weapons that they used? The Newtown shooter, Adam Lanza, used a gun that his mother owned. The shooter at Virginia Tech was able to purchase his weapons over the Internet.
Certainly it is reasonable to think about making access to these guns more difficult. Maybe they should not be freely and easily purveyed at your nearest Walmart. Where they can be bought, and by whom, and how easily: all these things should be looked at.
Copyright © 2013 by Richard Stein
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Women's Rights
Our public TV broadcasting system, PBS, has been showing a program titled Makers, about women's progress in the past 50 years.
The following countries have had women prime ministers:
Also, the Philippines and Iceland have had female presidents. South Korea recently installed a female president.
These lists are not exhaustive; they represent only what I can easily recall, so there very likely are more.
The United States, on the other hand, has never had a female president or vice president. There have been three female Secretaries of State in the last 20-some years; and women have held other Cabinet positions.
The United States Supreme Court briefly had three women sitting on it (out of nine members), but that was exceptional.
The United States Senate currently has one-fifth female members. The percentages of women in the Senate and on the Supreme Court, taken with the lack of female presidents or even vice presidents, show that the United States, which views itself as an advanced country, may yet have a ways to go regarding equality for women.
And in much of the world the situation is dismal. The news recently has focused on a girl in Afghanistan named Malala, who was shot in the head by the Taliban because she wanted education for herself and others of her gender. In Saudi Arabia women presently are fighting for the right to drive a car.
And in many countries women are still regarded as chattel. The idea that the man is the boss in a married couple still widely prevails and means that a woman might not be able to decide for herself when or if to bear children. Even in the West, some marriage ceremonies still include the woman vowing to obey her husband. If a married man forces himself on his wife sexually, that often—maybe usually--is not criminal.
Update. I have added to the list of women prime ministers several times, as I have learned of more such.
Copyright © 2013 by Richard Stein
The following countries have had women prime ministers:
- Sri Lanka
- India
- Pakistan
- Israel
- Germany
- United Kingdom
- Australia
- Ireland
- Bangladesh
- Thailand
Also, the Philippines and Iceland have had female presidents. South Korea recently installed a female president.
These lists are not exhaustive; they represent only what I can easily recall, so there very likely are more.
The United States, on the other hand, has never had a female president or vice president. There have been three female Secretaries of State in the last 20-some years; and women have held other Cabinet positions.
The United States Supreme Court briefly had three women sitting on it (out of nine members), but that was exceptional.
The United States Senate currently has one-fifth female members. The percentages of women in the Senate and on the Supreme Court, taken with the lack of female presidents or even vice presidents, show that the United States, which views itself as an advanced country, may yet have a ways to go regarding equality for women.
And in much of the world the situation is dismal. The news recently has focused on a girl in Afghanistan named Malala, who was shot in the head by the Taliban because she wanted education for herself and others of her gender. In Saudi Arabia women presently are fighting for the right to drive a car.
And in many countries women are still regarded as chattel. The idea that the man is the boss in a married couple still widely prevails and means that a woman might not be able to decide for herself when or if to bear children. Even in the West, some marriage ceremonies still include the woman vowing to obey her husband. If a married man forces himself on his wife sexually, that often—maybe usually--is not criminal.
Update. I have added to the list of women prime ministers several times, as I have learned of more such.
Copyright © 2013 by Richard Stein
Friday, February 1, 2013
Thoughts on Education in America. Pt. 2. Elementary School
Should students be allowed to exit from college and scarcely know how to read and write? It's pretty clear that people much younger than me and my peers can't spell, and that has to be because they were not taught. Remedial (it's now euphemistically called "developmental") reading is being taught in colleges, at least two-year colleges. I know because I myself have taught it.
We're not only talking questions of the role of post-secondary education. One time, as part of my job (educational publishing), I visited an elementary school in a somewhat affluent suburban community. In one room I saw a student lying on the floor while a classmate was tracing his outline. In another room there was almost an appearance of anarchy: multiple small groups of students were working at their own pace (and maybe at their own projects) while the teacher visited them in rotation. When I was in elementary school, we sat still and listened to the teacher.
I had already had a good idea that teaching had changed. Because I worked in educational publishing—one of my first jobs—I knew that, in the hands of the "educationists" (those with Ed.D. or Doctor of Education degrees), the philosophy was that you can't teach anything if you can't make it into a game. Teaching has to be sugar-coated as fun. To not do so is to "turn the kids off." No idea whatsoever that some things have to be learned by rote memorization.
So kids today don't learn to spell. They can't do mental math and a cashier in a store would be helpless without his or her register to calculate the customer's change for her.
At least this was where education in America was several decades ago. I frankly don't know if it's much different now but I am pretty sure that kids are still not learning how to spell.
Copyright © 2013 by Richard Stein
We're not only talking questions of the role of post-secondary education. One time, as part of my job (educational publishing), I visited an elementary school in a somewhat affluent suburban community. In one room I saw a student lying on the floor while a classmate was tracing his outline. In another room there was almost an appearance of anarchy: multiple small groups of students were working at their own pace (and maybe at their own projects) while the teacher visited them in rotation. When I was in elementary school, we sat still and listened to the teacher.
I had already had a good idea that teaching had changed. Because I worked in educational publishing—one of my first jobs—I knew that, in the hands of the "educationists" (those with Ed.D. or Doctor of Education degrees), the philosophy was that you can't teach anything if you can't make it into a game. Teaching has to be sugar-coated as fun. To not do so is to "turn the kids off." No idea whatsoever that some things have to be learned by rote memorization.
So kids today don't learn to spell. They can't do mental math and a cashier in a store would be helpless without his or her register to calculate the customer's change for her.
At least this was where education in America was several decades ago. I frankly don't know if it's much different now but I am pretty sure that kids are still not learning how to spell.
Copyright © 2013 by Richard Stein
Thoughts on Education in America. Pt. 1. College
Well, maybe I need to refute myself. This is apropos of my January 5, 2013 posting, "What Is College For?"
I read or heard recently that employers are complaining that college-educated young people don't have the skills they are working for.
So possibly my rosy vision of the liberal education is out-of-date, the product of an earlier era—maybe in fact about 100 years ago—when a college education was the province of the rich and the college grad did not have to have a lot of concern about finding a job after graduation. Or if he was going to work, his career might be medicine or the law—two fields for which your undergraduate education would not matter much and could be almost anything.
In those days of a hundred years ago, every educated person learned Latin and Greek—two things not much studied nowadays; and, unless you read old books that might include quotations in Latin an Greek which you were assumed to be able to understand, we pretty much get along without them.
So okay, maybe I have to concede that a college education has to, to some extent and in some degree, be geared to the exigencies of finding employment after graduation.
Even if I have to admit all this, I have to wonder, where to draw the line between "relevance" to something "useful" and clearly imparting job skills, and what I might call well-roundedness? I still have to lament what is not being learned these days. Young people nowadays don't learn, and don't care about, history—which means we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.
They don't want to learn about literature or art. So they have little idea of the enormous, millennia-long march of civilization. I'm probably near to admitting that that might not be "useful," but I can't help believing that it is valuable.
Copyright (c) 2013 by Richard Stein
I read or heard recently that employers are complaining that college-educated young people don't have the skills they are working for.
So possibly my rosy vision of the liberal education is out-of-date, the product of an earlier era—maybe in fact about 100 years ago—when a college education was the province of the rich and the college grad did not have to have a lot of concern about finding a job after graduation. Or if he was going to work, his career might be medicine or the law—two fields for which your undergraduate education would not matter much and could be almost anything.
In those days of a hundred years ago, every educated person learned Latin and Greek—two things not much studied nowadays; and, unless you read old books that might include quotations in Latin an Greek which you were assumed to be able to understand, we pretty much get along without them.
So okay, maybe I have to concede that a college education has to, to some extent and in some degree, be geared to the exigencies of finding employment after graduation.
Even if I have to admit all this, I have to wonder, where to draw the line between "relevance" to something "useful" and clearly imparting job skills, and what I might call well-roundedness? I still have to lament what is not being learned these days. Young people nowadays don't learn, and don't care about, history—which means we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.
They don't want to learn about literature or art. So they have little idea of the enormous, millennia-long march of civilization. I'm probably near to admitting that that might not be "useful," but I can't help believing that it is valuable.
Copyright (c) 2013 by Richard Stein
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Used (and New) Car Buying 102
If you are buying a used car, you should first read my June 4, 2012 posting, Used-Car Buying 101. The information here applies to buying either a new or used car—specifically the negotiation part--and has been said elsewhere.
First, do not allow a car salesman to begin the dialog by asking, "How much are you prepared to pay per month?" If you answer that, you will not get a good deal, and you very likely will end up paying more than the figure you named.
Second, have an idea of what your credit score is. Then go to a credit union and see what interest rate you'd be able to get from them. Go into the car dealer armed with that offer of a finance rate and see whether the dealer is able to beat it. He has his sources of financing, and a car buyer with an excellent credit score is in a good position to bargain for the finance rate.
But that is the last step. First you and the dealer (or salesman) must agree on the price. Remember that they do this all the time, and in fact for a living, and they have a bag of tricks up their sleeve. Be armed with figures for what you should be paying for the car, and be prepared to spend several hours with back-and-forth offers and counter-offers. The salesman will keep disappearing after you name a figure, telling you he has to get approval from his sales manager. This may be more tactic than fact. But stick to your guns as to what you think you should pay, and be prepared to walk out if they're not willing to bargain. Anyone who lives in an urban area with multiple dealers for that make can threaten to go elsewhere. Also—did you know you can even do some of your car shopping by phone? You can call around and ask for quotes—though some dealers will refuse to name any numbers over the phone.
You can also solicit price offers on a car via the Internet. I think the site in question is carbuyer.com.
Copyright © 2013 by Richard Stein
First, do not allow a car salesman to begin the dialog by asking, "How much are you prepared to pay per month?" If you answer that, you will not get a good deal, and you very likely will end up paying more than the figure you named.
Second, have an idea of what your credit score is. Then go to a credit union and see what interest rate you'd be able to get from them. Go into the car dealer armed with that offer of a finance rate and see whether the dealer is able to beat it. He has his sources of financing, and a car buyer with an excellent credit score is in a good position to bargain for the finance rate.
But that is the last step. First you and the dealer (or salesman) must agree on the price. Remember that they do this all the time, and in fact for a living, and they have a bag of tricks up their sleeve. Be armed with figures for what you should be paying for the car, and be prepared to spend several hours with back-and-forth offers and counter-offers. The salesman will keep disappearing after you name a figure, telling you he has to get approval from his sales manager. This may be more tactic than fact. But stick to your guns as to what you think you should pay, and be prepared to walk out if they're not willing to bargain. Anyone who lives in an urban area with multiple dealers for that make can threaten to go elsewhere. Also—did you know you can even do some of your car shopping by phone? You can call around and ask for quotes—though some dealers will refuse to name any numbers over the phone.
You can also solicit price offers on a car via the Internet. I think the site in question is carbuyer.com.
Copyright © 2013 by Richard Stein
Saturday, January 5, 2013
What Is College For?
A few days ago I was again watching the PBS TV program called "Moyers & Company," which is an interview program. That episode's guest was a man called Junot Diaz, who is an author and teaches Creative Writing at MIT. Aside from much of interest in the man's background or personal story, my attention was caught by a (perhaps somewhat incidental) observation he made about a change he has observed in college students over the course of the 20 years he has been teaching.
He said that students today all seem like MBA students; that they are working for a piece of paper like one that would gain them admission to a medieval guild.
In other words (and as he himself said), parents who send their kids to school today are not doing it to build character or maturity or wisdom, or for the sake of any such changes between their temples that might be looked for. Rather, they are there just to be able to get a better job. I, let it be said immediately, am a firm believer in "liberal education." (Does one even hear that term anymore?) That is, I am of the school (no pun) that believes that what education is about is things like learning how to think logically and critically, gaining an appreciation of thousands of years of human cultural advances, and so forth. That is, gaining what once were called "humane values."
If I had the opportunity to talk to Mr. Diaz myself, I would have had to chime in with the fact (or opinion) that it's not just a phenomenon of the last 20 years. When I first taught in a collegiate institution, I found the same thing—and that was 45 years ago!
So I would agree that there definitely has been a change in our society's view of college and in its expectations of college. But I have some ideas as to the cause.
First: In the 1960s and into the 70s, in the era of the "counter-culture," student protests against the Vietnam War, and so forth, students were (among other things) fighting for "relevance" in their education. That evidently meant no more "dead poets"; no more history. We want to learn about today's world, we have no interest in (or respect for) the past—including both history and writers of past ages.
Then again, there has been a big change in who goes to college. It's not just the children of well-to-do families, who might be sent to college to acquire a bit of culture before going into the family business or becoming doctors or lawyers. More students—including very many of the young people I was teaching—were the first in their families to go to college. The parents of these young people were sending their kids to college so that they would earn more money. A BA equals dollars: it's that simple.
You put the two factors together, and what you've got is, students from working-class or lower-middle-class families go to some school beyond high school and they want to become system engineers (whatever that is) or network managers—to get a good job in IT or some such field where no one cares about your pedigree. So—don't teach me history. Don't teach me literature. Just the courses directly relevant to my future career. Anything else is a waste of time.
Copyright © 2013 by Richard Stein
He said that students today all seem like MBA students; that they are working for a piece of paper like one that would gain them admission to a medieval guild.
In other words (and as he himself said), parents who send their kids to school today are not doing it to build character or maturity or wisdom, or for the sake of any such changes between their temples that might be looked for. Rather, they are there just to be able to get a better job. I, let it be said immediately, am a firm believer in "liberal education." (Does one even hear that term anymore?) That is, I am of the school (no pun) that believes that what education is about is things like learning how to think logically and critically, gaining an appreciation of thousands of years of human cultural advances, and so forth. That is, gaining what once were called "humane values."
If I had the opportunity to talk to Mr. Diaz myself, I would have had to chime in with the fact (or opinion) that it's not just a phenomenon of the last 20 years. When I first taught in a collegiate institution, I found the same thing—and that was 45 years ago!
So I would agree that there definitely has been a change in our society's view of college and in its expectations of college. But I have some ideas as to the cause.
First: In the 1960s and into the 70s, in the era of the "counter-culture," student protests against the Vietnam War, and so forth, students were (among other things) fighting for "relevance" in their education. That evidently meant no more "dead poets"; no more history. We want to learn about today's world, we have no interest in (or respect for) the past—including both history and writers of past ages.
Then again, there has been a big change in who goes to college. It's not just the children of well-to-do families, who might be sent to college to acquire a bit of culture before going into the family business or becoming doctors or lawyers. More students—including very many of the young people I was teaching—were the first in their families to go to college. The parents of these young people were sending their kids to college so that they would earn more money. A BA equals dollars: it's that simple.
You put the two factors together, and what you've got is, students from working-class or lower-middle-class families go to some school beyond high school and they want to become system engineers (whatever that is) or network managers—to get a good job in IT or some such field where no one cares about your pedigree. So—don't teach me history. Don't teach me literature. Just the courses directly relevant to my future career. Anything else is a waste of time.
Copyright © 2013 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
