United States Archives - Page 3 of 6

I is for the idiosyncrasy of inches

Mary is every inch the schoolteacher.

While the metric system is very logical there’s something wonderfully daft about the United States customary systems of measurement:

1 inch = 254 millimeters, exactly
12 inches = 1 foot
36 inches = 3 feet = 1 yard
63,360 inches = 5,280 feet = 1,760 yards = 1 mile

Except for inches in a mile, I KNEW all of those by heart.

I love the etymology. “The English word inch comes from Latin uncia meaning “one-twelfth part” (in this case, one twelfth of a foot); the word ounce (one twelfth of a troy pound) has the same origin.”

Of course, I know it’s now 16 ounces = 1 pound = approximately 453.59237 grams.
And, confusingly, 16 fluid ounces = 2 cups = 1 pint = 0.5 quart = 0.125 gallon = approximately 0.473176 liter

“The vowel change from u to i is umlaut; the consonant change from c (pronounced as k) to ch is palatalisation.” But you knew that.

“In many other European languages, the word for ‘inch’ is the same as or derived from the word for ‘thumb’, as a man’s thumb is about an inch wide (and this was even sometimes used to define the inch); for example, Catalan: polzada inch, polze thumb; French: pouce inch/thumb; Italian: pollice inch/thumb; Spanish: pulgada inch, pulgar thumb; Portuguese: polegada inch, polegar thumb; Dutch: duim inch/thumb; Afrikaans: duim inch/thumb; Swedish: tum inch, tumme thumb, Danish and Norwegian: tomme / tommer inch/inches and tommel thumb; Czech: palec inch/thumb; Slovak: palec inch/thumb; Hungarian: hüvelyk inch/thumb.”

There are lots of sayings based on the US system. On one’s birthday, a child gets a “pinch for an inch,” to grow. A noted saying is “give someone an inch and they’ll take a mile”, which means that if you agree to part of what someone wants they will get, or take, ALL of what they want.

Then “every inch a” something means completely; in every way. “Mary is every inch the schoolteacher. Her father is every inch a gentleman.”

The great thing about the metric system is that you can always deduce the relationships – 1000 milliliters is a liter, 1000 grams is a kilogram, and the same is true for meters. But there’s something quaint about the measurement scale that was initially not only defined, but named, for people’s feet and fingers.

Aspirational America

“we spent the next century plus– up to and including now, today– addressing the problems created by the country’s economic dependence on chattel slavery in an incomplete and unsatisfactory manner.”

19th November 1863: Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States of America, making his famous 'Gettysburg Address' speech at the dedication of the Gettysburg National Cemetery during the American Civil War. Original Artwork: Painting by Fletcher C Ransom (Photo by Library Of Congress/Getty Images) — 19th November 1863: Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States of America, making his famous ‘Gettysburg Address’ speech at the dedication of the Gettysburg National Cemetery during the American Civil War. Original Artwork: Painting by Fletcher C Ransom (Photo by Library Of Congress/Getty Images)

There’s this post that Jaquandor linked to, by a person who had visited Gettysburg, PA in July 2015. That was the site, of course, of one of the bloodiest battles of the Civil War, a site that President Lincoln would visit in November 1863, and mistakenly proclaim: “The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here.”

This Outside The Law person wrote:

I believe the United States has as its chief value in the world its aspirational qualities, and I believe that those qualities are best expressed in the Constitution and its supporting documents, particularly the Federalist Papers. The Constitution, a living document, is, like all scripture, flawed.

The 3/5ths Rule, for starters was the seed for the horrors of the war I’ve spent the weekend thinking about, but we spent the next century plus– up to and including now, today– addressing the problems created by the country’s economic dependence on chattel slavery in an incomplete and unsatisfactory manner. It’s great that we have the 14th Amendment, but it would be a far better thing if we had more Supreme Court Justices that believed that the 14th Amendment means what it says.

It occurred to me that both the strength and weakness of the United States is that some of its people believe that ideals are achievement.

So this is an overly broad, open-ended question: How can America achieve its stated ideals? What does that look like?

U for USA’s obsession with the car (Five Photos, Five Stories #2)

I’m reading my email one insomniac night when I see this Quora question: Why is jaywalking a crime in the US but not in the UK? One lengthy response from a guy named Tom Chambers:

Because jaywalking is a crime invented by the car industry in the early 20th century. It wasn’t the legislative response to an inevitable problem, but essentially a publicity campaign to increase car use in the US.

Prior to jaywalking becoming a popular term and crime, pedestrians were assumed to have the right to the road. If there was an accident, popular opinion and the media would be on the side of the pedestrian and assume the fault of the driver.

The motor industry recognised that this was an impediment to driving and set out to make the street a place for cars not people. They lobbied for various laws to prevent people from crossing other than at a designated point, but people were so against this that it failed to be effectively enforced.

What worked much better was public ridicule.

The American love affair with cars was no accident, confirmed Scientific American. “Schools helped train new generations of children to avoid the streets when the American Automobile Association (AAA) became the top supplier of safety curriculum for U.S. schools in the 1920s,” As a result, there is a deep-seated bias in transportation decision making that can be traced “all the way back to the dawn of the automotive era.”

But the deal wasn’t sealed until 1961, and one can blame, or credit, Groucho Marx:

It was on Sunday night [October 22] when NBC aired a program called “Merrily We Roll Along”—promoted as “the story of America’s love affair with the automobile.” During the show, host Groucho Marx introduced the “love affair” metaphor to millions of viewers, casting cars as “the new girl in town.” To make this love work, Marx explained, Americans were willing to overcome intrusive regulations, endure awful traffic jams, and if necessary, redesign entire cities.

“We don’t always know how to get along with her, but you certainly can’t get along without her,” said Marx. “And if that isn’t marriage, I don’t know what is.”

[The show] was less a story about America’s existing love affair with the car than the invention of that very idea. The show’s sponsor, DuPont, had an obvious interest: it owned 23 percent of General Motors at the time. [It was] a “masterstroke of public relations” manufactured by the car industry to counter the likes of… critics who, at the dawn of the interstate highway era, questioned the wisdom of dedicating every inch of urban street space to personal vehicles.

This perhaps explains why people choose cars, even when mass transit would serve them better. But the American love affair with the motor car may be running on empty, with “baby boomers… giving up the suburbs for communities with more travel choices, [and] younger adults… delaying getting a driver’s license and, when they do, they are not buying cars or using them as much. Instead, they are embracing new forms of ‘collaborative consumption’ – sharing vehicles through car-share and bike-share programmes.”

Personally, I think this is a terrific trend. Now if I can only walk across the street, or ride my bike without possibly getting killed…
***
Note: I have been nominated by my buddy Lisa over at Peripheral Perceptions to participate in the Five Photos, Five Stories meme, which simply says I should post a photo each day for five consecutive days and attach a story to the photo. It can be fiction or non-fiction, a poem or a short paragraph and each day nominate another blogger for the challenge.

The problem is that almost all my posts are stories and have pictures. So I’m cheating and writing only one new post. And I’m nominating YOU!

ABC Wednesday – Round 16

Ununited States

These first person shooter games might have some effect on the cognitive understanding of life for some people,

Jaquandor asks:

How do we solve the police brutality problem? To what extent is it a part of a larger problem with our society, indicating a deep and abiding devotion to punitive violence? I see police brutality as another facet of the problem that leads to our awful prisons and our enormous prison population.

First, I need to note the killing of two New York City police officers on December 20. It was correctly described as an assassination, and I mourn their deaths.

At the same time, I believe the remarks of Rudy Guiliani, blaming their deaths on President Obama as amazingly irresponsible, as well as untrue. The problem of excessive force by the police exists in a small, but a significant number of cases. And it’s not “anti-police” when New York City mayor Bill de Blasio, who is white but married to a black woman, instructs his children, and especially his son with the great ‘fro, in specific ways to cautiously and politely deal with the police.

Others, including former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, who had some legal problems of his own a while back, suggested that the shootings were ultimately encouraged by de Blasio and the Rev. Al Sharpton, and that “they have blood on their hands.” He told Newsmax: “The people who encouraged these protests — you had peaceful protesters who were screaming ‘kill the cops’ — the so-called peaceful protesters. Who was encouraging these protesters? De Blasio, Sharpton, and other elected officials and community leaders. They encouraged this mentality. They encouraged this behavior.”

Anyone who has ever been to a protest – I have attended more than a few in my time – knows that there are occasionally outliers at these events, people whose positions don’t jibe with the organizers’ intents. So would it be better that such Constitutionally-protected demonstrations be quashed?

That, BTW, was what the Tea Party folks said when a couple people killed two Las Vegas police officers in June 2014, that those cop killers, who had rallied with Cliven Bundy, along with people who POINTED GUNS at law enforcement officials, did not represent the movement.

Jon Stewart got it right when he said one can grieve the loss AND worry about the police overreach; they are NOT mutually exclusive.

To the question: I should note that not all of the excessive violence is directed toward young black males. For instance, the TX SWAT team beats, deafens nude man in his own home, lies about arrest; judge declines to punish cops or DA. There seems to be a need by some police to quash all possibly illicit behavior. If Eric Garner WERE selling individual cigarettes in Staten Island, it certainly wasn’t a felony.

I’m not sure of the cause of ALL the violence. I once posited on someone’s website the theory that these first-person shooter games might have some effect on the cognitive understanding of life for some people, but was told by gaming experts that there’s “no relationship.” Maybe, maybe not. I’ve wondered about this at least since Vietnam when one could drop the precision bombs without having any discernible understanding. And now war can really tidy, with people in the middle of the US dropping bombs on people half a world away; looks very much like a video game to me.

I AM convinced that the tremendous rise in the prison population, mostly for non-violent drug use, which I wrote about extensively, is a major contributor. Prison is, I’ve been told, a great school for becoming a better criminal.

Surely the militarism of the police, with all that post-9/11 money doled about by the federal government has led to a war zone mentality. But even in Afghanistan and Iraq, the military had a plan of engaging with the communities, whereas in the urban centers of the US, some of the residents feel like the police are an occupying force.

Maybe all the things that keep us disconnected from our surroundings – surburbia, synthetic food, our personal electronic devices, the bile that comes from commenting anonymously on social media – matter. SOMETHING is fueling a general rage – road rage, online rage.

Bottom line, though: the anger in the community is not just that there are excessive uses of force. The problem is that there appears to be lack of accountability for the actions. I’ve heard the body cameras for police will be a solution. But there WAS footage of Eric Garner dying. Police video would have not likely change the “no indictment” outcome. Did you see that the Ferguson prosecutor allowed witnesses that were “clearly not telling the truth” to the grand jury?

It may be that guns make police less safe, their jobs more difficult and communities less trusting. Or maybe it’s just the human condition.

This is a long way of saying, “Makes me wanna holler, throw up both my hands.”

Uthaclena wonders:

Okay, here’s one of my ponders: can the United States survive as a united entity? SHOULD it be a united entity, or would it be better off broken up so that the racist, theocratic barbarians can abuse themselves and leave the rest of us alone?

There are lots of precedents in the 20th century suggesting that this is a terrible idea. The creation of the state of Israel did not lead to peace in the Middle East. I learned from watching the Sanjay Gupta episode of the PBS series Finding Your Roots when the subcontinent was divided in 1947, there was massive dislocation, with millions moving to Hindu India or Muslim Pakistan, needing to abandon their historic homelands; moreover over a million people were killed in clashes. The eastward shift of Poland after World War II was also a hardship for about a third of the country.

How would this work anyway? The redneck in rural Pennsylvania or downtown Cincinnati moves to Alabama or Utah? That flaming liberal in Austin, Texas goes to New York City? Where do you put purplish states such as Iowa and Colorado?
How would the infrastructure be organized? Will I need a passport to visit the Grand Canyon? How do you split the federal government and its various jurisdictions?

More basically, the whole bloody Civil War was fought, in part, to keep the Union intact; the splinter would make that sacrifice in vain. Moreover, Lincoln’s rationale for not allowing the breakup of the Union is that there was no mechanism in the Constitution to do so; ipso facto, it ought not to be done.

In any case, I don’t think people are that binary. Sure there are your “racist, theocratic barbarians”, but most of the rest of us are in the spectrum. And subtle racism shows up in the mainstream media, which many people buy into. I noticed this piece on 60 Minutes how Tom Coburn (R-OK) got along with Barack Obama (D-IL) when they were both freshman Senators in 2005, and even enacted legislation together where they could find common ground.

Just not feeling this divided nation thing.

Then Dan Van Riper jumps in:

Well, I’ll ask a more pointed version of Uthaclena’s question. With all this subtle propaganda from above calling for the USA to break up, do you think that the United States will survive intact as a nation by the end of this decade? (I suspect not, and I hope I’m very wrong.)

Let’s look at the people who could actually pull off this coup. I mean other than the 99% if they could get their act together.

1) The armed forces. I suppose they COULD be mobilized if they were conned into thinking that it was for the greater patriotic good. But it’s not like the Egyptian army, an entity unto itself, that could make or break the government.

2) The police. Too decentralized. Not like the corrupt Mexican police. Although it COULD happen in a few places, despite efforts by the brass. And I’m really unsettled by the recent US Supreme Court ruling that police officers are permitted to violate American citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights if the violation results from a “reasonable” mistake about the law on the part of the police.

3) Some right-wing coalition. It is true that there are more hate groups under Barack Obama than ever, that there are 41 states that have an active chapter of the Ku Klux Klan, and that there are anti-government types such as alleged cop-killer Eric Frein out there. Can they work some loose affiliation with the Clive Bundy supporters and disrupt things? Maybe.

My feeling, though, is that at least some of these groups will dissipate somewhat when Obama leaves office because the myth of the terrible black Kenyan sticking it to the white man won’t be sustainable anymore.

America redux, and not knowing everything

I shake my head sadly, looking to the ground mournfully, showing pity to these poor deluded fools.

Mr. Frog, in the comments:

Interesting that your daughter goes back to the things that scare her. I do that, too. Have you ever seen Jim Henson’s The Dark Crystal? I was so afraid of that movie–despite it being one of my favorites–until literally a few months ago. I should write about that…

No, I haven’t. I’m not sure why, exactly, but when it came out, it just didn’t appeal to me, so I never even wanted to see it. It seemed, from a trailer, maybe, to be too…dark? By now, it had all but left my consciousness. I wouldn’t NOT see it, but it isn’t on the list of films I must watch, though you’ve made it more interesting to me. Wouldn’t watch it with the Daughter, though, until I had seen it first.
And yes, you should write about it.

Another example for me is E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. I HAVE written about that: at age 5, it scared me so bad I was basically traumatized. But I became fascinated by stuff like UFOs, which led me to reading books about ACTUAL science. Then when it was re-released when I was 9, I loved it, and now it’s my favorite movie. It makes me cry badly, but in a cathartic way.

Odd thing about that film. Saw E.T. at the time and loved Drew Barrymore screaming, loved the classic Spielberg broken family, anti-authority motifs, even the Reese’s Pieces product placement. I just didn’t like the ending, the bikes in the sky thing, and I haven’t ever seen it since then, so I could not specifically tell you why. I was willing to believe the alien, but not that. It played at the local second-run theater, the Madison, in early April, but I just didn’t have time to see it. And I would rather have seen it like that then on video.

(Sidebar: there was some story on CBS Sunday Morning recently about the decline in the movie box office. Some twenty-something they interviewed was so smug. “I can watch movies at home. I can pause it when ever I want to…” And if you can pause it, for me, it isn’t watching a movie; it’s watching a video – I use the term generically.)

If I can ask a follow-up to Jaquandor’s question about America: do you worry that it’s too late to change course? I don’t want to get too doomsday about it, I’ve just been reading too many things lately that seem to be adding up to a depressing future. Of course, I have mental disorders and that seems to be the way I process things a lot of time (“catastrophizing” is what my therapist calls it).

Is it catastrophizing when the levee has broken? On one very big hand, the news is grim. We live in an oligarchy. It’s not just that economic disparity is unfair; it doesn’t make much economic sense. One hundred people poor/middle-class people will buy 100 gallons of milk, while two rich guys will buy two, or maybe three. The tax structure is totally screwed up. The SCOTUS is corrupt. The environmental stuff is scary.

If I opt to be positive, it’s not a function of being a Pollyanna. I just don’t see the point, for me, to think the worst. I mean, maybe things will suck, but hey, what if they don’t? (Yes, this is the reverse corollary to my pessimism rule that when things are looking TOO good, better check for the rusty lining.)

But what if the 99% get really ticked off enough to dump the oligarchs? One of the narratives about the Occupy movement was that it was a failure; I think not. Polling shows that people at least RECOGNIZE economic inequity is taking place. Younger people appear, in the main, to be less racist, less homophobic. Demographics alone will help get rid of the old guard eventually. Wish I could give you something more bright and shiny, but that’s all I got.

Jacquandor observes:

Hmmm. Greg makes an interesting point that I hadn’t considered: Europe literally had to rebuild itself virtually from scratch twice in thirty years, while it can be said that America is just finishing building itself the first time. So I wonder if the disconnect is between those of us who think it’s time to start rebuilding what isn’t so great now on the one side, and the “Bah, it’s just fine” thought process on the other.

Yes, getting your infrastructure destroyed (see also: Japan) means you have to update it.

Certainly, the United States felt that it was rather impervious to real harm, having not one, but TWO, oceans protecting it from most other countries. There was a great tradition of isolationism in the country for the majority of its history. Although there were always chicken hawks, even to this day, that seem to think that invading – Syria! Ukraine! – is the way to go.

Maybe it’s also geography that changes the calculus. French people pick up stuff from Germany and Spain and Belgium. But the expectation is that anyone coming ALL THE WAY TO AMERICA should become American, even though it takes a few generations for the Irish, then the Italians, et al., to become white, in the eyes of those who were as already in the country.

The answer to the recent Quora question also applies here: Why is the desire to travel internationally so low for Americans? Expense and limited vacation time, for two. Plus the vastness of the US may make folks less inclined. “Why go to Paris to see the Eiffel Tower, when I can go to Las Vegas to see a replica for far less?”

Maybe this Quora question too: Why do Americans seem to be shallow and superficial while Europeans seem deep and pensive in general? Assuming the premise to be true, it may have to do with Europe’s longer, and more difficult history.

Tom the Mayor asked:

Have you ever heard Frank Sinatra’s version of “Being Green”?

I OWN Sinatra’s version of the song on some album, probably a compilation. Still prefer the frog’s version.

New York Erratic wants to know:

Can I still ask Roger anything?

Yes. Yes, you can. And you may.

Here’s one that’s somewhat important: you’re very smart. How do you cope when people treat you like an idiot and/or get an attitude when you don’t know literally everything?

We’ll assume, for the purpose of this question, that I AM very smart. Yet I don’t know that people always knew that. Here’s a bit I’m sure I mentioned before but bears repeating in this context: Before I was on JEOPARDY!, I was at a party and I was noting how alpacas are better-tempered than llamas, something I had researched as a librarian. My factual statement was dismissed as “male answer syndrome,” which frankly irritated me. I DID know that fact!

Then, in 1998, I appear on a game show. I win ONCE. Suddenly, people believe I’m smarter than I actually am. Here’s the thing; I prefer it to being perceived as less smart. Oh, there are people, mostly techies, who are astonished by what I DON’T know, but I decide they’re being schmucks.

Every once in a while, I’ll get this from people online, but most of them really ARE schmucks. I’ve been very open about my deficiencies. When they THINK you know everything, – which is impossible – it is THEY who appear unreasonable when confronted by my, or anyone’s, limitations.

I mean, what don’t I know? There are three categories: stuff I wish I knew but am resigned not to know (technology, languages); stuff I don’t care to know (Which Kardashian is married to whom, et al.); and stuff that I need to know for a particular purpose. That third group is what I try to utilize all day long. Stuff that people interested or trained in a particular field have learned. If I get a question about the physical nature of the earth, I’m contacting YOU, because you know way more than I do. What I know as a librarian is where I can find the information (usually), not know it off the top of my head, though there are obviously a few things I’ve picked up over the years.

I don’t know much about cars. Can’t make coffee, but then don’t DRINK coffee. I am extraordinarily bad at collating; it’s not that I think it’s beneath me, or something, it’s that I don’t do it well. But for most topics, I can hold my own as well as any layperson.

Part of the answer is that I spent enough time proving that I AM smart not to give it short shrift. That perception that perhaps I was not might have been because I worked at a comic book store, or because I eschewed wearing suits and ties, or some other reason. Having fooled people into believing I’m smart, I’m not all that willing to give it up.

Here’s the difference between you and me, NYE. You’re a lot younger than I. So the real answer is I really don’t give a damn about their attitude anymore. As suggested, if they think I should know EVERYTHING, and a bit of that DOES come with the J! territory – and they’re nasty about it, which HAS happened – then I shake my head sadly, looking to the ground mournfully, showing pity to these poor deluded fools. (You may recognize this as the Mr. T philosophy, rendered more politely.)