When I was a boy I was quite interested in chemistry. It may have started when my older sister gave me a very nice chemistry set.
But after a while I wasn't content with just the experiments described in the booklet that came with the chemistry set, nor with making a few simple things.
The father of my best friend in grade school owned a pharmaceutical supply business. I was allowed to go to their retail counter and buy anything I wanted: any chemicals, any apparatus. Maybe I had a special privilege because they knew me. I might even have been given a discount.
I bought lot of nice professional apparatus—beakers, flasks, stands for holding all that stuff. And I bought the ingredients for making gunpowder.
My gunpowder never worked, probably fortunately. I could have hurt myself. Also, I think that if it had worked, and if I had used all of the quantities of the ingredients I had obtained—which I never came close to doing—I could probably have blown up two or three houses.
Clearly that was a far more innocent time—when I could walk into that store and come out with the ingredients for gunpowder, in quantities of maybe a pound or two each—and not raise any eyebrows. Nowadays it would be, "Just stay there for a minute, please" while the guy goes in the back and phones the Department of Homeland Security. And then I'm taken in for questioning.
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Saturday, August 17, 2013
New Math?
There have been some funny things going on regarding numbers, mainly in advertising, but I saw a similar thing in a PBS documentary TV program.
Evidently it's not expected, anymore, that people can understand fractions. Thus you don't or must not say, for example, "This product will cost you one-fourth as much to use." Instead it's expressed as "four times cheaper." To me that does not make any sense and I can only surmise that it means "one-fourth as expensive."
Some actual examples I've seen: "10x softer" (dentures are 10 times softer than teeth). I'm not sure this makes any sense. What are you counting down from? There is no "softness" scale, but there is such a thing as a hardness scale. So, to make good sense, it should be "one-tenth as hard."
Or (this one from PBS), hydrogen is "13 times lighter." Possibly that makes sense but, again, I feel it's expressed backwards and should be "one-thirteenth as heavy."
This one takes the cake for being meaningless: A certain product being pitched on TV "reduces body fat by over 200%." Well, you can reduce something by a certain percentage, but only up to a little over 99%. You get to 100% and it's all gone. So how can anything be reduced by 200%?
This should fall under the headings of how ridiculous and deceptive advertising is, and how things are dumbed down for the average boob-in-the-street. Another instance of the dumbing down of (or to) Americans?
Copyright © 2013.
Evidently it's not expected, anymore, that people can understand fractions. Thus you don't or must not say, for example, "This product will cost you one-fourth as much to use." Instead it's expressed as "four times cheaper." To me that does not make any sense and I can only surmise that it means "one-fourth as expensive."
Some actual examples I've seen: "10x softer" (dentures are 10 times softer than teeth). I'm not sure this makes any sense. What are you counting down from? There is no "softness" scale, but there is such a thing as a hardness scale. So, to make good sense, it should be "one-tenth as hard."
Or (this one from PBS), hydrogen is "13 times lighter." Possibly that makes sense but, again, I feel it's expressed backwards and should be "one-thirteenth as heavy."
This one takes the cake for being meaningless: A certain product being pitched on TV "reduces body fat by over 200%." Well, you can reduce something by a certain percentage, but only up to a little over 99%. You get to 100% and it's all gone. So how can anything be reduced by 200%?
This should fall under the headings of how ridiculous and deceptive advertising is, and how things are dumbed down for the average boob-in-the-street. Another instance of the dumbing down of (or to) Americans?
Copyright © 2013.
Monday, August 5, 2013
Truth and Lies on the Internet
The Internet is a wonderful thing, as a source of information, there's no doubt. I personally rely on it for finding out a lot of things via Wikipedia and Google searches: how to do some homeowner-ly task, consumer reviews of products, health information, and much more. And this from someone who has a lifetime habit of turning to books and libraries to find things out.
Unfortunately, the Internet is a two-edged sword. It can also be used to spread incorrect "information."
About a week ago I was reading an article, "Ten Brands that Are Likely to Disappear in 2014," on the financial web site 24/7 Wall Street. This article said that Volvo cars are likely to disappear from the US market next year. I forwarded this information to two friends of mine who own Volvos.
One of those friends got somewhat alarmed and wondered if she should sell her car. The other one took a more critical view of the story and did some research on her own, finding a statement from Volvo's US arm that they have no intention of leaving the US market.
That got me thinking about the fact that you can easily locate contradictory information on the 'Net, and then I had to wonder about what percentage of Internet content might be reliable and what percentage not.
Shortly after that incident I received an email, one of those viral emails that has been forwarded many times before reaching me. The immediate source of this one was an old friend from high school with whom I re-established contact a few years ago. (I could tell a bit about this person that might be interesting but I don't want to get too far off my subject. Suffice it to say here that he is politically conservative whereas he knows, or should know, that I am not.)
This email listed some of the problems that the State of Illinois and the city of Chicago have. The problems are undeniable but, according to this email, these problems are attributable to Democrats because—as the email asserted numerous times—there are no Republicans in Illinois. This is patently false. It mentioned former Illinois Governor George Ryan as being in prison and implied that this is among the many examples of the things that are wrong with Illinois. This is wrong because Ryan was recently released from prison. More importantly, the email conveniently ignored the fact that Ryan is a Republican.
The City of Chicago has a tradition of voting Democratic; this long history might deserve comment, but again I don't want to go too far afield. However, the suburban counties that surround Chicago typically are Republican and elect Republicans on both the state and federal levels.
If anyone cares to look at the facts rather than making unfounded assertions, the makeup of the Illinois legislature (General Assembly) is thusly: Senate, 40 Democrats and 19 Republicans. House, 70 Democrats and 47 Republicans. Thus, the Democrats do have a majority in both houses of the Illinois state legislature; but I'd say that's a far cry from there being NO Republicans. The facts for the US Congressmen (Representatives) from Illinois are that there are 12 Democrats and 6 Republicans. In the US Senate, there is one Democratic Senator from Illinois and one Republican.
So—back to the email from my high-school classmate. The person who originated that email had very little regard for facts or truth. And I have found in the past that other emails—also forwarded to me by the same classmate—were also full of exaggerations, half-truths, and out-and-out falsehoods.* At the risk of making a rather sweeping generalization, I'm going to say that those on the Right very often play fast-and-loose with the truth. (I base that assertion partly on the fact that, on matters regarding homosexuality, they have been known to shamelessly promulgate lies.)
I think that those who forward these emails are just as guilty as those who first write them. Unfortunately, every person who receives such an email and believes it and forwards it is doing the world quite a disservice by adding to the general store of incorrect information out there.
However, on a brighter note, if the Internet is the problem, it can also provide the cure. I'd like to acquaint my readers with two 'Net sites that are dedicated to countering incorrect information that circulates on the 'Net—to setting the facts straight. They are FactCheck.org and Snopes.com.
___________
*I can recall three previous emails that this person forwarded to me. Two of them were anti-Obama and, when I did some checking, they were factually incorrect. The third was anti-Muslim.
I used to berate my students for what I felt was their mindless, mechanical, uncritical note-taking. I said, "My words go into your ear, through your neck and shoulder, down your arm and onto your paper, with no thought involved. I could say 'Black is white' and you would write down 'Black is white.'"
The point of this posting was that we tend not to be critical of what we hear and read. How many people would take the trouble to check on the content of an email they'd received, if they were planning to forward it or even if they were not?
Note added August 18, 2013. Also see my Friday, September 21, 2012 posting, "Lies from the Right, in Your Email Inbox."
Copyright © 2013.
Unfortunately, the Internet is a two-edged sword. It can also be used to spread incorrect "information."
About a week ago I was reading an article, "Ten Brands that Are Likely to Disappear in 2014," on the financial web site 24/7 Wall Street. This article said that Volvo cars are likely to disappear from the US market next year. I forwarded this information to two friends of mine who own Volvos.
One of those friends got somewhat alarmed and wondered if she should sell her car. The other one took a more critical view of the story and did some research on her own, finding a statement from Volvo's US arm that they have no intention of leaving the US market.
That got me thinking about the fact that you can easily locate contradictory information on the 'Net, and then I had to wonder about what percentage of Internet content might be reliable and what percentage not.
Shortly after that incident I received an email, one of those viral emails that has been forwarded many times before reaching me. The immediate source of this one was an old friend from high school with whom I re-established contact a few years ago. (I could tell a bit about this person that might be interesting but I don't want to get too far off my subject. Suffice it to say here that he is politically conservative whereas he knows, or should know, that I am not.)
This email listed some of the problems that the State of Illinois and the city of Chicago have. The problems are undeniable but, according to this email, these problems are attributable to Democrats because—as the email asserted numerous times—there are no Republicans in Illinois. This is patently false. It mentioned former Illinois Governor George Ryan as being in prison and implied that this is among the many examples of the things that are wrong with Illinois. This is wrong because Ryan was recently released from prison. More importantly, the email conveniently ignored the fact that Ryan is a Republican.
The City of Chicago has a tradition of voting Democratic; this long history might deserve comment, but again I don't want to go too far afield. However, the suburban counties that surround Chicago typically are Republican and elect Republicans on both the state and federal levels.
If anyone cares to look at the facts rather than making unfounded assertions, the makeup of the Illinois legislature (General Assembly) is thusly: Senate, 40 Democrats and 19 Republicans. House, 70 Democrats and 47 Republicans. Thus, the Democrats do have a majority in both houses of the Illinois state legislature; but I'd say that's a far cry from there being NO Republicans. The facts for the US Congressmen (Representatives) from Illinois are that there are 12 Democrats and 6 Republicans. In the US Senate, there is one Democratic Senator from Illinois and one Republican.
So—back to the email from my high-school classmate. The person who originated that email had very little regard for facts or truth. And I have found in the past that other emails—also forwarded to me by the same classmate—were also full of exaggerations, half-truths, and out-and-out falsehoods.* At the risk of making a rather sweeping generalization, I'm going to say that those on the Right very often play fast-and-loose with the truth. (I base that assertion partly on the fact that, on matters regarding homosexuality, they have been known to shamelessly promulgate lies.)
I think that those who forward these emails are just as guilty as those who first write them. Unfortunately, every person who receives such an email and believes it and forwards it is doing the world quite a disservice by adding to the general store of incorrect information out there.
However, on a brighter note, if the Internet is the problem, it can also provide the cure. I'd like to acquaint my readers with two 'Net sites that are dedicated to countering incorrect information that circulates on the 'Net—to setting the facts straight. They are FactCheck.org and Snopes.com.
___________
*I can recall three previous emails that this person forwarded to me. Two of them were anti-Obama and, when I did some checking, they were factually incorrect. The third was anti-Muslim.
I used to berate my students for what I felt was their mindless, mechanical, uncritical note-taking. I said, "My words go into your ear, through your neck and shoulder, down your arm and onto your paper, with no thought involved. I could say 'Black is white' and you would write down 'Black is white.'"
The point of this posting was that we tend not to be critical of what we hear and read. How many people would take the trouble to check on the content of an email they'd received, if they were planning to forward it or even if they were not?
Note added August 18, 2013. Also see my Friday, September 21, 2012 posting, "Lies from the Right, in Your Email Inbox."
Copyright © 2013.
Friday, July 26, 2013
The Spanish Train Derailment
The world news recently has been full of reports on the horrendous train wreck in Spain that, at latest count, killed 80 people. Preliminary information suggests that the cause was that the train driver was going too fast, entering a curve on the line at more than twice the speed limit for that stretch.
It has made me remember the accident with the ocean liner the Costa Concordia, about a year ago where again human error was at fault: the ship was deliberately sailing too close to an island and struck submerged rocks, causing a very long gash in the ship's hull—a bit like the famous 1912 incident in which the Titanic hit an iceberg.
Every day we put ourselves at the mercy of train drivers, ship's captains, airline pilots. Subway drivers, bus drivers, taxi drivers. And we trust these people to have proper care for our lives and to perform their jobs safely and responsibly.
I do not ride in a taxi for years at a time but the last time I did, I upbraided the driver for using his cell phone while he was driving. But unfortunately, in many cases—the train, the plane, even the bus—we probably are not aware of the conduct of the person who is at the controls. We routinely ride these conveyances without giving any thought to whether the person who is in charge is mindful of the lives in his or her hands.
If we stop to think about it, we'd like to believe that the person at the helm is sober, reasonable, sensible, responsible. And they are, in the majority of cases. But clearly, once in a while, they are not as we might wish. It's difficult to understand why the Spanish train driver or the captain of the Costa Concordia would improperly operate the machine he was controlling.
So we are left, as in so many cases, with a mystery of human behavior. Of course the person who begins to dwell on all the perils of life will lock himself in his house and never venture out. We would not consider that normal behavior. So 99.99 percent of us must go through life with trust and optimism, or in blissful ignorance, however you want to view it.
And life requires that. I had a conversation with my sister recently. She is 78 years old, and I was talking about our respective "conditions." I mentioned that I perhaps have been fortunate, not having had any of the "big" illnesses or conditions such as cancer, heart attack, or stroke. So, I concluded, I expect to live to a pretty old age. But then we got into how you never know what peril might strike. I adduced the case, a few years ago, where a person was walking down the street in Chicago, as ignorant and oblivious as can be, when a giant icicle happened to fall from the top of a tall building—and the poor and innocent pedestrian was killed by it.
So what is the moral? We are daily at the mercy of perils that are often unseen. Maybe we are daily shielded by our guardian angel, if you want to believe that. But we go sailing forth more blindly than the captain of any ship.
Copyright © 2013
It has made me remember the accident with the ocean liner the Costa Concordia, about a year ago where again human error was at fault: the ship was deliberately sailing too close to an island and struck submerged rocks, causing a very long gash in the ship's hull—a bit like the famous 1912 incident in which the Titanic hit an iceberg.
Every day we put ourselves at the mercy of train drivers, ship's captains, airline pilots. Subway drivers, bus drivers, taxi drivers. And we trust these people to have proper care for our lives and to perform their jobs safely and responsibly.
I do not ride in a taxi for years at a time but the last time I did, I upbraided the driver for using his cell phone while he was driving. But unfortunately, in many cases—the train, the plane, even the bus—we probably are not aware of the conduct of the person who is at the controls. We routinely ride these conveyances without giving any thought to whether the person who is in charge is mindful of the lives in his or her hands.
If we stop to think about it, we'd like to believe that the person at the helm is sober, reasonable, sensible, responsible. And they are, in the majority of cases. But clearly, once in a while, they are not as we might wish. It's difficult to understand why the Spanish train driver or the captain of the Costa Concordia would improperly operate the machine he was controlling.
So we are left, as in so many cases, with a mystery of human behavior. Of course the person who begins to dwell on all the perils of life will lock himself in his house and never venture out. We would not consider that normal behavior. So 99.99 percent of us must go through life with trust and optimism, or in blissful ignorance, however you want to view it.
And life requires that. I had a conversation with my sister recently. She is 78 years old, and I was talking about our respective "conditions." I mentioned that I perhaps have been fortunate, not having had any of the "big" illnesses or conditions such as cancer, heart attack, or stroke. So, I concluded, I expect to live to a pretty old age. But then we got into how you never know what peril might strike. I adduced the case, a few years ago, where a person was walking down the street in Chicago, as ignorant and oblivious as can be, when a giant icicle happened to fall from the top of a tall building—and the poor and innocent pedestrian was killed by it.
So what is the moral? We are daily at the mercy of perils that are often unseen. Maybe we are daily shielded by our guardian angel, if you want to believe that. But we go sailing forth more blindly than the captain of any ship.
Copyright © 2013
Monday, July 22, 2013
Knowing What God Wants
Some years ago I introduced two of my friends to one another. I invited them both to my condo, probably mainly because they are both Catholic.
I was in the kitchen doing my host-ly thing but I could overhear the conversation from the living room. I came rushing out of the kitchen when I heard one of them say, "I always wear coat and tie to Mass because I think it shows respect for God." I said, "How do you know what God does or doesn't like? I think you're projecting your middle-class values onto God. Maybe he could not care less what you wear to church."
Then we have the pastor and members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas—largely all members of the family of Rev. Fred Phelps. These are the people who picket the funerals of military personnel with their signs that say "God Hates Fags."
And the Crusades marched (and slew tens of thousands, both Muslims when they got to the Middle East and Jews they encountered along the way) under the banner Dieu le veut, 'God wills it'.
My anger with my Catholic friend and with these other strongly stated positions is that I've always felt that it's arrogant to assert that you know what God wants or likes—or doesn't like.
We have preachers who continually exhort their flock by telling them that God wants them to do this or that—sometimes to vote for a certain candidate (never mind that that is not allowed as long as they want to keep their status as tax-exempt with the IRS).
Of course there are those who say "I know what God likes and wants because I read it in my Bible, and the Bible is God's word." Well, even if you believe that the Bible was in some way authored or dictated by God, there are the questions—blithely ignored by fundamentalists—of whether our modern texts are correct in all particulars. First, there were many biblical books that did not get included in the modern Bible; the decisions as to what would or would not be included in the Canon were made by men who might just be fallible.
Then there are questions about the accuracy of the texts themselves. There are contradictions, evident omissions, and errors in the texts we have today. In any text that has been copied by hand through the ages, errors will creep in. Not to mention mistranslations of the Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew. There are many cases where modern scholarship has suggested a better translation, yet these corrections have not made it into most versions of the Bible.
So, if you take these things into account, knowing "what God wants," or having a good authority as to what God wants or likes—well, I think that if you look at the facts, no one should be so certain that he knows.
Copyright © 2013.
I was in the kitchen doing my host-ly thing but I could overhear the conversation from the living room. I came rushing out of the kitchen when I heard one of them say, "I always wear coat and tie to Mass because I think it shows respect for God." I said, "How do you know what God does or doesn't like? I think you're projecting your middle-class values onto God. Maybe he could not care less what you wear to church."
Then we have the pastor and members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas—largely all members of the family of Rev. Fred Phelps. These are the people who picket the funerals of military personnel with their signs that say "God Hates Fags."
And the Crusades marched (and slew tens of thousands, both Muslims when they got to the Middle East and Jews they encountered along the way) under the banner Dieu le veut, 'God wills it'.
My anger with my Catholic friend and with these other strongly stated positions is that I've always felt that it's arrogant to assert that you know what God wants or likes—or doesn't like.
We have preachers who continually exhort their flock by telling them that God wants them to do this or that—sometimes to vote for a certain candidate (never mind that that is not allowed as long as they want to keep their status as tax-exempt with the IRS).
Of course there are those who say "I know what God likes and wants because I read it in my Bible, and the Bible is God's word." Well, even if you believe that the Bible was in some way authored or dictated by God, there are the questions—blithely ignored by fundamentalists—of whether our modern texts are correct in all particulars. First, there were many biblical books that did not get included in the modern Bible; the decisions as to what would or would not be included in the Canon were made by men who might just be fallible.
Then there are questions about the accuracy of the texts themselves. There are contradictions, evident omissions, and errors in the texts we have today. In any text that has been copied by hand through the ages, errors will creep in. Not to mention mistranslations of the Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew. There are many cases where modern scholarship has suggested a better translation, yet these corrections have not made it into most versions of the Bible.
So, if you take these things into account, knowing "what God wants," or having a good authority as to what God wants or likes—well, I think that if you look at the facts, no one should be so certain that he knows.
Copyright © 2013.
Thursday, July 11, 2013
We Love to Kill Things
We love to kill things.
We put herbicides and pesticides on our lawns. Yeah, kill those weeds! Kill those nasty grubs! (There is a TV commercial for a weed-killer chemical that shows a man with his spray wand, photographed from a low angle—making the man look like a warrior or a superhero.) Never mind that we might be killing beneficial insects, worms, butterflies, and even birds.
Then there is "recreational hunting." The very term is shocking to me. One hundred years ago (and probably still today to a lesser degree) the "Great White Hunter" would go on safaris in Africa to shoot lions, tigers, elephants—with the result that today there are very few tigers left in the world and elephants are much reduced in population. And this is true of many other animals. (It must be admitted that habitat destruction, usually as a result of growing human populations, is also a big factor in the decline of a lot of species of wildlife.) Many animals were hunted to extinction. Bison, which had roamed the Plains in huge herds and numbered in the millions, were reduced to only a few individual animals. The passenger pigeon also numbered enormous flocks—and now they are totally extinct.
Scientists--both self-styled and apparently real scientists--were not immune to the lure of killing. They would kill birds to study them. They used a gun called a "fowling piece." That's how all the dead birds in museum collections came to be there.
There were some online comments about people who will deliberately run over turtles in the road. And this happens also with squirrels, opossums, and lots of other animals, of course. A lot of "roadkill" does not result from unavoidable accidents but, sadly, many a driver is apparently playing Great White Hunter while driving his car.
Some people just don't like wildlife. I have a friend like that. He destroyed a bird's nest on my property before I could stop him, and not long ago when we saw a garter snake, he moved toward it with some hostile intent before I did, this time, stop him.
So there is this attitude that hates or fears Nature and the Wild. In the Nineteenth Century and through the middle of the Twentieth and still today there has been this idea of Man triumphing over Nature, of "taming" it. So we build dams, dig canals, bulldoze mountains--do a lot to rearrange the landscape.
Fortunately there is a growing recognition that the welfare of Man—Homo sapiens—is very closely tied up with that of the rest of the natural creation. Thus we have the environmental and conservation movements.
Some individuals show even a Hindu-like respect for life. When my boyfriend is here, if there's an insect in the house, he tries to capture it (and succeeds!) and then releases it outside.
This philosophy can be taken to what many people would consider extremes. I once knew a guy who would not kill cockroaches in his apartment. The result was that the wall in his kitchen was pretty literally wallpapered with cockroaches. On the one hand I admire his reverence for life, but many people would say that there are sanitation considerations involved here. I have no problem with capturing bugs to release them outside, as my friend does; although, I'll admit, when he's not here I'll swat that fly or squash that bug.
Update July 15, 2013.
Given the time of year that it is, I inevitably have had some flies in my house. I got out the ol' fly swatter and dispatched a couple of them. Then I was watching one and started to feel sorry for it and see its intelligence. They'll crawl along a window, thinking--reasonably enough--that the daylight or what looks like the outdoors that they can see on the other side of the glass is the key to finding their way outside. Well, I tried A.'s method of catching them and, after one or two tries, I did catch it and released it outside. It felt good to have preserved its life. I hope Someone is alloting me some good karma for that.
Update July 18, 2013
I am somewhat surprised at myself for my failure to mention Homo sapiens' propensity for killing members of his own species. Not only is modern man arguably quite warlike, but modern archeological research has been producing evidence that Man has always been warlike. The very word war evidently is not abhorrent to the great majority of Americans; if it were, our government would not so blithely deliver to us a War on Poverty, War on Drugs, etc. Of course these "wars" (at least in principle) do not kill anyone, but I simply ask you to think about the choice of words.
Copyright © 2013
We put herbicides and pesticides on our lawns. Yeah, kill those weeds! Kill those nasty grubs! (There is a TV commercial for a weed-killer chemical that shows a man with his spray wand, photographed from a low angle—making the man look like a warrior or a superhero.) Never mind that we might be killing beneficial insects, worms, butterflies, and even birds.
Then there is "recreational hunting." The very term is shocking to me. One hundred years ago (and probably still today to a lesser degree) the "Great White Hunter" would go on safaris in Africa to shoot lions, tigers, elephants—with the result that today there are very few tigers left in the world and elephants are much reduced in population. And this is true of many other animals. (It must be admitted that habitat destruction, usually as a result of growing human populations, is also a big factor in the decline of a lot of species of wildlife.) Many animals were hunted to extinction. Bison, which had roamed the Plains in huge herds and numbered in the millions, were reduced to only a few individual animals. The passenger pigeon also numbered enormous flocks—and now they are totally extinct.
Scientists--both self-styled and apparently real scientists--were not immune to the lure of killing. They would kill birds to study them. They used a gun called a "fowling piece." That's how all the dead birds in museum collections came to be there.
There were some online comments about people who will deliberately run over turtles in the road. And this happens also with squirrels, opossums, and lots of other animals, of course. A lot of "roadkill" does not result from unavoidable accidents but, sadly, many a driver is apparently playing Great White Hunter while driving his car.
Some people just don't like wildlife. I have a friend like that. He destroyed a bird's nest on my property before I could stop him, and not long ago when we saw a garter snake, he moved toward it with some hostile intent before I did, this time, stop him.
So there is this attitude that hates or fears Nature and the Wild. In the Nineteenth Century and through the middle of the Twentieth and still today there has been this idea of Man triumphing over Nature, of "taming" it. So we build dams, dig canals, bulldoze mountains--do a lot to rearrange the landscape.
Fortunately there is a growing recognition that the welfare of Man—Homo sapiens—is very closely tied up with that of the rest of the natural creation. Thus we have the environmental and conservation movements.
Some individuals show even a Hindu-like respect for life. When my boyfriend is here, if there's an insect in the house, he tries to capture it (and succeeds!) and then releases it outside.
This philosophy can be taken to what many people would consider extremes. I once knew a guy who would not kill cockroaches in his apartment. The result was that the wall in his kitchen was pretty literally wallpapered with cockroaches. On the one hand I admire his reverence for life, but many people would say that there are sanitation considerations involved here. I have no problem with capturing bugs to release them outside, as my friend does; although, I'll admit, when he's not here I'll swat that fly or squash that bug.
Update July 15, 2013.
Given the time of year that it is, I inevitably have had some flies in my house. I got out the ol' fly swatter and dispatched a couple of them. Then I was watching one and started to feel sorry for it and see its intelligence. They'll crawl along a window, thinking--reasonably enough--that the daylight or what looks like the outdoors that they can see on the other side of the glass is the key to finding their way outside. Well, I tried A.'s method of catching them and, after one or two tries, I did catch it and released it outside. It felt good to have preserved its life. I hope Someone is alloting me some good karma for that.
Update July 18, 2013
I am somewhat surprised at myself for my failure to mention Homo sapiens' propensity for killing members of his own species. Not only is modern man arguably quite warlike, but modern archeological research has been producing evidence that Man has always been warlike. The very word war evidently is not abhorrent to the great majority of Americans; if it were, our government would not so blithely deliver to us a War on Poverty, War on Drugs, etc. Of course these "wars" (at least in principle) do not kill anyone, but I simply ask you to think about the choice of words.
Copyright © 2013
Saturday, July 6, 2013
Suburbanites and SUVs
This is perhaps two essentially separate subjects, but the connection is "the suburbs."
I saw a statistic, several years ago, that showed that half of all Americans live in suburban communities. Many of these children grow up unfamiliar with the downtowns of their cities: frequently, maybe not atypically, they get to see the city only on rare school field trips. I think that's unfortunate because the city, especially the city's downtown, tends to be where the cultural resources--museums, orchestras, etc.--are. You're likely to have more exposure to these things if it doesn't take an expedition to get to them.
They grow up with the perception that the city is dangerous and crime-ridden. Because of their limited, suburban childhoods and this (hopefully erroneous) stereotype, when they grow up they replicate the pattern and often would not even consider living "downtown" but only in suburbs. So the suburban adults may go downtown for their jobs, but hurry to get home via their commuter trains once the work day is over. Outside of working hours they are never to be found downtown. On the weekends, here in Chicago, the people that you see downtown are probably tourists.
If the culture is downtown, the suburbs may tend to have an insular mentality. I live in a suburb (I'm tempted to say "unfortunately") and at one point was attending a weekly group that views and then discusses a film each week. I have tried to circulate among this group the calendars of some theaters and other film venues that are downtown or on the North side; but like good suburbanites, they pretty much will not seriously consider traveling out of their area, or perhaps it's out of their comfort zone.
The suburban kids' families probably own an SUV. So as children they rode around in an SUV (or, if not, then probably a minivan). They might even have taken their driving lessons in a small SUV. So, in a manner analogous to the address of their residence in their early and formative years, their idea of what is normal and what they should emulate when it comes to their own vehicle purchases once they're adults is such that they may not consider anything other than an SUV.
I think that's unfortunate, and I hate to see an SUV culture perpetuated from generation to generation. Readers of this blog may know that I hate SUVs and can give numerous reasons for that, but one that I feel strongest about has to do with ecological concerns. Americans with their large SUVs are harming the environment. It's not simply a matter of depleting the store of fossil fuels. More fuel consumed means more greenhouse gases out the tailpipe, so that large SUVs make a larger contribution to global warming.
We are beginning to hear from safety experts that driving while talking on a cell phone is dangerous, yet one sees that an awful lot. It makes me nervous when, in my rear-view mirror, I can see the driver behind me talking on a phone. It makes me fear getting rear-ended if driving is not the primary focus of that person's attention.
Many large SUVs weigh three tons (6000 lb, 2700 kg). I don't think that many people driving them consider that they have a deadly weapon in their hands—or hand! Hand, singular, because they have one hand on the wheel while their other hand is holding a phone. When you're taught to drive you're taught to use two hands on the wheel, and that's because it takes two hands to properly control a car or truck.
You know what I would do, if I could? I see so many drivers making a left turn, steering with one hand while the other hand is otherwise occupied. I'd take away their power steering. If it were appropriately difficult to turn a big vehicle like that—that is, if the effort of steering had some relationship to the vehicle's size—then they'd need two hands to drive. And then, guess what? No more holding that phone.
Update, July 11, 2013
I don't want to be perceived as anti-suburbs. (There are numerous reasons why people might want to live in a suburb, many of which are certainly valid: less expensive housing, avoiding noise and congestion, better schools. I personally moved where I am to be closer to a job I was starting at the time; and I remain here probably for the lower cost of housing. I also appreciate being able to deal with smaller, less bureaucratic and perhaps more responsive government agencies.) I meant to simply lament the fact that suburbanites all too often are cut off from the advantages of the cities that they live near.
Copyright © 2013
I saw a statistic, several years ago, that showed that half of all Americans live in suburban communities. Many of these children grow up unfamiliar with the downtowns of their cities: frequently, maybe not atypically, they get to see the city only on rare school field trips. I think that's unfortunate because the city, especially the city's downtown, tends to be where the cultural resources--museums, orchestras, etc.--are. You're likely to have more exposure to these things if it doesn't take an expedition to get to them.
They grow up with the perception that the city is dangerous and crime-ridden. Because of their limited, suburban childhoods and this (hopefully erroneous) stereotype, when they grow up they replicate the pattern and often would not even consider living "downtown" but only in suburbs. So the suburban adults may go downtown for their jobs, but hurry to get home via their commuter trains once the work day is over. Outside of working hours they are never to be found downtown. On the weekends, here in Chicago, the people that you see downtown are probably tourists.
If the culture is downtown, the suburbs may tend to have an insular mentality. I live in a suburb (I'm tempted to say "unfortunately") and at one point was attending a weekly group that views and then discusses a film each week. I have tried to circulate among this group the calendars of some theaters and other film venues that are downtown or on the North side; but like good suburbanites, they pretty much will not seriously consider traveling out of their area, or perhaps it's out of their comfort zone.
The suburban kids' families probably own an SUV. So as children they rode around in an SUV (or, if not, then probably a minivan). They might even have taken their driving lessons in a small SUV. So, in a manner analogous to the address of their residence in their early and formative years, their idea of what is normal and what they should emulate when it comes to their own vehicle purchases once they're adults is such that they may not consider anything other than an SUV.
I think that's unfortunate, and I hate to see an SUV culture perpetuated from generation to generation. Readers of this blog may know that I hate SUVs and can give numerous reasons for that, but one that I feel strongest about has to do with ecological concerns. Americans with their large SUVs are harming the environment. It's not simply a matter of depleting the store of fossil fuels. More fuel consumed means more greenhouse gases out the tailpipe, so that large SUVs make a larger contribution to global warming.
We are beginning to hear from safety experts that driving while talking on a cell phone is dangerous, yet one sees that an awful lot. It makes me nervous when, in my rear-view mirror, I can see the driver behind me talking on a phone. It makes me fear getting rear-ended if driving is not the primary focus of that person's attention.
Many large SUVs weigh three tons (6000 lb, 2700 kg). I don't think that many people driving them consider that they have a deadly weapon in their hands—or hand! Hand, singular, because they have one hand on the wheel while their other hand is holding a phone. When you're taught to drive you're taught to use two hands on the wheel, and that's because it takes two hands to properly control a car or truck.
You know what I would do, if I could? I see so many drivers making a left turn, steering with one hand while the other hand is otherwise occupied. I'd take away their power steering. If it were appropriately difficult to turn a big vehicle like that—that is, if the effort of steering had some relationship to the vehicle's size—then they'd need two hands to drive. And then, guess what? No more holding that phone.
Update, July 11, 2013
I don't want to be perceived as anti-suburbs. (There are numerous reasons why people might want to live in a suburb, many of which are certainly valid: less expensive housing, avoiding noise and congestion, better schools. I personally moved where I am to be closer to a job I was starting at the time; and I remain here probably for the lower cost of housing. I also appreciate being able to deal with smaller, less bureaucratic and perhaps more responsive government agencies.) I meant to simply lament the fact that suburbanites all too often are cut off from the advantages of the cities that they live near.
Copyright © 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
