"Treasure?" Trove

I discovered that the Terre Haute Tribune Star, who publishes my essays, has a bigger archive than I realized. I began this blog in 2008, but I can find archived essays before that, so i am going to post them with the original pubication dates.

Enjoy!

What do we make of reaction to pastor?

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star (19 September 2010)

Pastor Terry Jones has become world (in)famous for planning to burn copies of the Qu’ran on September 11 as a memorial to the victims of the al Qaeda terrorist attack on the US. A Google search on “Pastor Terry Jones” returns 1.6+ million results. I checked to the 50th page of results and it was still all the same Pastor Terry Jones. Pretty good for the pastor of a 50 person congregation from a central Florida town best known for a place called the “Swamp.”

Pastor Terry lives in Gainesville, Fl, home of the University of Florida. The famous “Swamp” is the home of college football powerhouse Florida Gators. The “Swamp” and “Gators” returns only 173,000 results. Pastor Terry also beats Florida Governor Charlie Crist (1.4+ million results).

As a sociologist I’m not that interested in the curious doings of Pastor Jones. I’m more interested in everyone else’s reaction to him. Apparently “we” and “they” are very interested in him.

“We” disagreed with his plan. Pastor Terry managed to draw political rivals together (President Obama and Minority Leader John Boehner even agreed on this hot topic); draw rival religions together (Catholics, Jews, Protestants and Muslims agreed that burning Qu’rans on the anniversary of 9/11 was a bad idea); and news rivals Fox News and the “liberal mainstream media” opined in harmony that this was a bad idea.

Even “they” (people in the Middle East) agreed with “we” that Pastor Terry’s plan was a bad one. Could it be that Pastor Terry has actually done something good, unifying such rivals? Maybe that was his goal: world peace through book burning.

Now that Pastor Terry is a celebrity, I predict that he will abandon his Gainesville flock for a cable talk show. People will tune in initially just to be appalled but give him some time and he will develop a following of enough viewers to keep advertisers (antacids might be good) buying ad time.

Americans love a spectacle and Pastor Terry’s “leadership” in a memorial book burning to honor the victims of 9/11 was surely that. Or was it a spectacle because the press made it one? Why does the extremism of an obscure pastor of a fringe church with 50 members warrant such attention? Without that attention and some help from the internet, just a ridiculous “plan” becomes a potential threat to American lives overseas.

Pastor Terry has been painted pretty much as a wing nut. I suspect he is more than he is being painted and used the American press and American reaction to get exactly what he wanted. If he wanted reaction, “we” and “they” gave it to him. Everyone played their part. What do “we” expect him to do now?

Of course, not everyone thought Pastor Terry burning Qu’rans was a bad idea. Conservative websites like Saberpoint, reprinted the content of Pastor Terry’s website which gave 10 reasons to burn the Qu’ran (which was taken off line by his ISP). Saberpoint referred to the Qu’ran as “the nasty little book.” What reaction were they hoping for had Pastor Terry put match to book? Did they hope their extremist Islamic counterparts would attack American troops in return? So, in turn, hallowed leaders like Pastor Terry can point to those extremists as examples of all Muslims, as the standard of Islam? Just as the Islamic extremists would use Pastor Terry as an example of all Americans?

Think about this. If a wing nut pastor can provoke such a response worldwide, imagine if a U.S. Senator introduced a Qu’ran ban bill, banning the Qu’ran from US soil. Yes, it would be unconstitutional, but we pass many laws that are unconstitutional. Regardless, that a Senator would do such a thing would be newsworthy (unlike international coverage of Pastor Terry’s antics).

Andy Warhol predicted in the late 1960s that “In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes.” 40+ years later his prediction seems to be coming true. Warhol was famous for painting pictures of commercial products like Campbell’s soup cans. Pastor Terry didn’t even do that. He didn’t actually do anything and failed to follow through on his plan.

What did he do to honor the victims of 9/11? For his unexecuted plan, Pastor Terry generates more Google results than “Mitch Daniels” (231,000 results), “Evan Bayh” (329,000 results) and about the same number as “Peyton Manning.”

The complex politics of global warming

TERRE HAUTE — Are elected officials just shills for the oil companies? Or are they waffling, poll-driven, self-interested, political opportunists? A bit of both? Anyone think maybe neither? The politics of global warming suggests neither.

On June 9, 2010, Dr. Jon Krosnick, a professor of communication and political psychology at Stanford University, released findings from a National Science Foundation funded survey of Americans on their beliefs and policy preferences surrounding climate change. The release of the findings was coupled with his New York Times op-ed. The op-ed is worth reading if for no other reason than Dr. Krosnick’s insights into how the press treats poll results and for a primer on how media-driven poll questions too often miss the mark of what is really important (www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/opinion/09krosnick.html?page
wanted=1&_r=2&ref=opinion).

Dr. Krosnick’s survey is of a high-quality and representative sample and his survey is more carefully crafted than most media sponsored polls. The survey shows significant majorities of Americans believe that the earth is gradually warming (74 percent), that human activities contribute to that warming (75 percent), and that large majorities favor government action to address the problem (76 percent). (The reason that a larger percentage believe human activities contribute to warming and favor government action than believe the earth is gradually warming is because those who indicated they did not believe the earth is gradually warming were asked to assume that it was for the other questions. “Assuming the earth is gradually warming …”)

Based on these findings, Dr. Krosnick concludes, “Even as we are told that Americans are about equally divided into red and blue, a huge majority shares a common vision of climate change. This creates a unique opportunity for elected representatives to satisfy a lot of voters.” Dr. Krosnick apparently thinks or hopes that the majority of politicians are waffling, poll-driven, self-interested political opportunists.

I am convinced by the evidence that the earth is warming. I also am convinced by the evidence that industrial processes, especially the generation of power by burning hydro-carbons, wood, and other carbon-rich sources, is contributing to that warming. And while I, too, think that the government must lead in responding to this problem, I am in the minority in what the general outline of those policies should be.

The Stanford survey showed a clear preference for supply-side (read passive, volunteer) policies in contrast to demand-side (read active, required) policies. Super majorities reject taxes on gasoline (71 percent) and electricity (78 percent) that would raise prices on consumers which in turn would affect their behavior. Eighty-four percent favor tax breaks for companies that produce electricity from renewable sources. Fifty percent or better support tax breaks for producers of cars that get better gas mileage, companies that produce electricity from alternative, renewable sources; and for homes and offices that use less energy. Twenty percent are true libertarians who favor no government action in these areas whatsoever.

Americans believe in convenience, technology (not so much science), and the market. A technology that is cheap, energy efficient, but most important, doesn’t cause “me” to change (or at least not in ways that appear to be inconvenient) is what people will adopt with or without any government action. Producer-side policies, however, don’t yield the results that the demand-side policies do. The market has produced a voracious appetite for energy. When consumers demand 40 MPG cars the producers will produce them. But, either gas has to return to over $4 a gallon or the government has to make 40 MPG the law or tax gas to achieve $4. I think our politicians know that, but those policies, despite their success, would be politically costly.

The elected officials who don’t jump to satisfy the tantalizing super majority of voters who support what seems like a straight-forward policy aren’t necessarily in the hip pocket of the big energy companies, nor are they necessarily poll-driven opportunists. If they followed these poll results, they could give voters what they want and big tax breaks to big business. Woo-hoo, everyone is happy. So, why don’t they do it? Maybe because those policies won’t work.

Maybe our elected officials have a more complex understanding of policy and its interplay with Americans’ behavior than what this or any high-quality survey suggests. Understanding people’s beliefs and values are probably more important than relying on poll results. Indeed, poll results have to be interpreted in light of a deeper understanding of the society in which the respondents live.

New wetlands offers nature more exposure, protection

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, Indendence Day, 2010

Is Gov. Daniels Indiana’s Teddy Roosevelt?

Last month, Daniels announced a plan to purchase 43,000 acres of bottomland and wetlands forming a continuous corridor beginning about where Route 234 crosses Sugar Creek (Deer’s Mill) to the Wabash River (about five miles north of Montezuma) south to Fairbanks Landing in Sullivan County. This project would form the largest contiguous riparian habitat in Indiana and perhaps in the Eastern U.S.

I’ve paddled nearly all this corridor with the exception of the last three miles of Sugar Creek (below the West Union covered bridge) and the seven miles from Darwin’s Ferry, Ill., to Fairbanks Landing. Those who currently use this proposed corridor for recreational purposes surely are happy with the governor’s decision. And those who don’t, I hope they come to recognize how important it is to set areas like this aside to preserve their natural character.

The fragility of this corridor can easily be seen by tracing the path of the waterways using Google Earth. What looks like a vast wilderness from the water is more often just a very narrow band of trees growing on the bank of the waterway. Agricultural fields, abandoned mining operations, industry, and some settlements lie just beyond the narrow line of trees.

On the Wabash section of the new management area, two electrical generating plants use the Wabash’s water to cool their coal-fired turbines. Abandoned factories and a train trestle near Terre Haute add some interest to a leisurely paddle from Tecumseh.

I read that the Wabash and its tributaries are among Indiana’s most biologically diverse. When I introduce someone to paddling the Wabash or Sugar Creek, typically I am asked what kind of wildlife we will see. I never promise anything other than we will see something. Two weeks ago I paddled Sugar Creek from Deer’s Mill to Cox Ford Bridge, a 15-mile stretch. We saw at least one bald eagle, several red-tailed hawks, many turkey vultures, many kingfishers, spotted sandpipers, swallows, we heard yellow-billed cuckoos, saw a beaver, dragon flies, butterflies (one hitched a ride on my straw hat for a while), turtles, and two other people (until we hit Turkey Run State Park). I don’t think I have ever paddled Sugar Creek when I didn’t see at least one eagle.

Conserving this area should prevent further degradation of both water quality and the surrounding habitat, which is important for the life cycle of migratory waterfowl, among other things. Duck and geese hunters appreciate the importance of that. But game fowl are not the only migratory species that benefit. For instance, I live about 1.5 miles from the Wabash River. In the fall and spring I can hear the hundreds, perhaps a thousand, sandhill cranes that roost in the bottomlands on their migration. I’ve seen the roosting sandhills from my kayak. This new wildlife habitat means those areas are going to be protected.

Some have responded to this plan with sarcastic remarks about “swamps.” This is just proof of how culturally disconnected we have become from natural areas. What we lose in common sense about nature does not alter our biological (and some might argue spiritual) connection to it. The stretch of Sugar Creek from Deer’s Mill to The Narrows in Turkey Run State Park is startlingly beautiful, easily rivaling waterways I’ve seen in the Appalachian, Smokey, Ozarks, and other areas with a reputation for natural beauty. With tall sandstone walls and cliffs, it is hard to believe you are in Indiana. Indeed, there is more than corn in Indiana.

I’ve paddled these waters in every season, even during a snowfall. I think too few people utilize the Wabash River for its recreational possibilities. In some ways, I benefit, because I often paddle and never see anyone else. But I hope that with increased interest in this legacy to Indiana’s natural history, there will be some access development.

Having said that, I hope those charged with the management of this new habitat will adopt sustainable practices as some others states with beautiful and sensitive natural areas are beginning to do. One problem with fragile ecosystems — too many seeking a “back to nature experience” — can eventually ruin that which is so special.

I’ve heard that a paddle trail is to be part of the new Wabashiki Wildlife area. A great way to introduce people to the Wabash would be a loop trail so they could have a quiet, natural encounter with an eagle, a great blue heron, a river otter … who knows?

Nothing offensive in the notion of ‘common good’

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star (13 June 2010)

TERRE HAUTE — Last month the Texas Board of Education rewrote the curriculum standards for K-12 Texas schools. They review these standards every 10 years. The review is not unusual, but the politicization of the standards themselves is just another nail in the coffin of public education in the United States. The politicization of public education is inevitable to some extent, but the extremists who threw out a reference to the “common good” because, according to the Wall Street Journal, “… Don McLeroy, who leads the most conservative bloc on the board, said that ‘responsibility for the common good’ does not belong in the standards because it is a ‘liberal notion’ that edges toward communist philosophy.”

I guess that makes James Madison also a founder of communist philosophy because writing in 1787, in the Federalist Paper No. 10, he writes:

“A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.”

Madison sounds like he was writing about today’s hyperpartisan environment. It describes the tenor of the politicization of the Texas Board of Education.

The Board also requires students to know about the influences of the Bible on America’s founding. But liberal leaning notions of responsibility for the common good (read communist influences) can be found in the teachings of the Apostle Paul. From I Corinthians 12:7 (NIV): “Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.” John Adams, one of the founders, wrote in “Thoughts on Government” (1776): “Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; …” Another communist leaning liberal I guess.

Adam Smith is one of the economists and philosophers approved by the Texas Board of Education. He is quoted as having said: “… individual ambition serves the common good.”

The Board also scratched “justice” from a definition of good citizenship. Conservative extremists might not find Catholic social justice to be anything but liberal notions that edge us toward communism. But Pope John Paul II (any good cold warrior understands his role in breaking the back of the Soviets) wrote in “Centesimus Annus” (1991) about the superiority of the free enterprise system compared to “real socialism.” Nevertheless, he wrote:

“Even prior to the logic of a fair exchange of goods and the forms of justice appropriate to it, there exists something which is due to man because he is man, by reason of his lofty dignity. Inseparable from that required ‘something’ is the possibility to survive and, at the same time, to make an active contribution to the common good of humanity.”

I recognize that extremist conservatives may not be persuaded by liberal leaning Catholic ideology, but how about John Calvin? Not only is Calvinism seeing a resurgence, but his writings are gaining favor among extremist conservatives. Calvin is often quoted: “We know all men were created to labor for the common good.”

Politics is inevitable over defining the common good and how to obtain it, but to politicize the term is partisanship at its worst. As so many extremist conservatives like to frame it, it is not the individual vs. the group, rather it is a balance between the two, something that the wisdom in the above quotes surely show.

Extreme conservatism has discovered libertarianism, but I’d like to see Ayn Rand or her followers defend her famous quote: “America’s abundance was not created by public sacrifices to ‘the common good’ but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortune” to the families who have lost a son or daughter in military service defending our country. “Either-or” is the language of extremists, right or left.

Although the phrase “common good” does not appear in the U.S. Constitution, an equivalent term does in the Preamble, as in “… promote the general welfare …” “Common good” appears in Section 27 of the Texas Constitution; the Indiana Constitution, too.

By the way, the phrase “common good” does not appear in the Communist Manifesto.

Technology advances continue to change our social lives

Previoiusly published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 5/9/10

Last week I noticed each of my colleagues staring into their computer screens. It struck me how much time we spend doing that. Not everyone is doing the same thing, some are answering e-mails (20 years ago it might be answering telephone messages), some are reading (used to be print journals, books, and newspapers), and some are grading (that too used to be on paper).

Four years ago my university supplied me with a laptop computer. It took me nearly three years to begin using it like one. Now, instead of a briefcase stuffed with books and papers, I carry my laptop home every night. Not only is the laptop changing what is in my briefcase, it is also changing our social life. What follows is not a curmudgeonly rant against change. Change is rarely all good or all bad.

Just as television moved Americans out of dining rooms to the “TV room,” computers, too, are changing social life. In just the last few months, I notice that at my home, with three laptop computers, we three typically sit together in the family room with laptops open tapping out a clickity-clack rhythm on the keyboard as we work away the evening. While the three of us share space, we are not really “together” as each of us is engaged in different worlds. With my laptop, my work day now commonly extends until bedtime. Before the laptop, I would descend to the basement, grade papers, and then rejoin the family upstairs. Now I finish the grading and go on to something else. In many ways, I might as well still be in the basement.

There are Internet sites set up for online marriages (I think legally they are called proxy marriages). I’m sure there are circumstances where the bride and groom cannot be physically in the same place and the capability to do this is a godsend. Weddings are being set up with live video streams for those unable to attend. I imagine a receiving line for those physically there and a digital one for those who are not.

I imagine kitschy animated hugs and handshakes, even a virtual dance with the “avatar” bride at the reception.

Facebook already has an “app” where people host a virtual Thanksgiving feast as a fundraiser. We have the capability to join far-flung families to the same digital table with a laptop and Skype connection. I imagine a soldier joining her family for Thanksgiving; mom’s video image at her seat at the table. She could digitally participate in the family’s traditional cranberry juice toast.

Virtual participation in Fourth of July celebrations would be fun. As many families put on their own fireworks shows, family members joining digitally could activate fireworks remotely. With “air cards” laptops could even be taken on boats, and Grandma, who is otherwise confined to a wheelchair, could even experience the point of view of waterskiing again.

We’ve had audio transmitting capability for a long time. It is the computer’s visual capabilities that make it so appealing. We are visual animals. It is why we like to look at pictures of birthday parties and vacations instead of just hearing about them (“a picture is worth a thousand words”).

Social life is founded upon more than two-dimensional visual and auditory interaction however, which is what computer mediated communication is. As we computer-mediate more and more social interaction, we do lose things. Twenty-five years after getting married I still recall the smell of my wife’s perfume (or maybe it was a dryer sheet). Catholic and Episcopal weddings include mass. The incense is part of the experience.

So is touch. A video congratulation is nice, but it is only filler compared to a hearty handshake or a hug. A kiss is not a visual experience. Yet, camera phones have reduced teenage flirting to “sexting.” Reducing desire or a tease to a two-dimensional digital image is a long way from a perfumed note or a cheek caressed.

Interaction is a sensory experience. The basis of social life is interaction among people even when interaction is highly ritualized, like at weddings and holidays. As the two-dimensional, mostly visual, computer-mediated interactions come to underlie more and more of our interaction, it will change the experience of the interaction and thus change our social lives. What would a digital caress feel like?

Just as industrialization changed the taste and nutritional value of fruit and vegetables, information technology is altering the quality of our social lives.

Worldwide, ‘white culture’ seems to have strong hold

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star (April 4, 2010)

TERRE HAUTE — I grew up in a tourist town. Like all tourist towns, the locals had a love-hate relationship with the tourists. My parents didn’t care for the tourists (even though they had once been tourists themselves, Midwesterners, they honeymooned on a Florida beach and ended up staying forever). I, however, found tourists to be fascinating. As a child, I recall meeting people with strange accents in our library. As I grew older and was able to get to the beach resorts, I’d try to meet visitors from faraway places.

When I am the tourist, I care less about that which draws tourists (theme park, beautiful beaches, mountain vistas, ancient temples) than the possibility of meeting interesting people. Unlike most people at a theme park who hate standing in long lines, I don’t mind. It gives me a chance to talk to others who I otherwise would never have a chance to meet. Of course, this is hard because most people are not like me, they are more interested in the upcoming four minutes of thrill ride, than in meeting new people.

After my weeklong academic conference in Bangkok in February, I extended my trip with three days of touring Ankgor Wat, the ancient temple complex outside Siem Reap, Cambodia. This is the largest temple complex in the world (so the local tourism ministry tells us). In three days of touring ancient temples, I took about 1,000 pictures of fascinating testaments to humanity’s ability to construct monuments to its deities and earthbound rulers.

While I appreciate the experience of the ruins, the head-scratching moments (“and they didn’t have cranes”) pales in comparison to the chance to meet interesting people. And in Siem Reap, most of the people didn’t speak English (at least not as their first language) and that means I’m in a target-rich environment to meet people with different experiences and different perspectives than me.

Anyone who has traveled with me knows that I quiz taxi drivers, waiters, first mates on snorkel boats, and just about anyone who I can, about their “story.” How did “you” come to be here now? We hired a guide in Siem Reap and I asked him how he learned English, how he came to be a tour guide, what his future plans were. He graciously answered my questions. I met many people at the conference, several with whom I am having e-mail conversations. They know about my gentle prodding curiosity into their lives. It is an occupational hazard, sociologists are unapologetic about their burning curiosity into the “ways” of people.

I met a “farang” (Western foreigner) couple at one of the temples we were “exploring.” He stood out. Over 6 feet tall, with gleaming white hair, he was speaking Khmer to the children selling postcards and drinks to we hot and flagging temple tourists. He made the children laugh and he was having a good time doing it. His wife, too, spoke a little Khmer. He spoke to our guide and switched to French. I said something and he looked at me, switched to English and said “American?”

His English was tinged with a German accent. I asked him how he came to know Khmer. He told me he knew many languages, that he was conversant in 11 different languages. I guessed right, he was in the foreign service. He told me that he had a facility with language, that he found it easy to pick up new languages. He was retired now, living in France. Both he and his wife were very pleasant. As we talked, I thought, perhaps we could meet them later in Siem Reap for a drink.

And then “it” happened. This remarkably gifted person, who, despite his modesty at learning language, clearly put the effort out to learn 11 different languages and understood the importance of language and of making the effort to respect and engage people of other cultures by learning their language and culture, looked right at our guide, and said to us: “You know, white people and white culture will soon be gone. Your people, the Asians are taking over the world. There will be no more white skin, there will be no more white culture.”

I’m surprised he didn’t Sieg Heil at the end of that. He said this with a most genuine and warm smile on his face. I think he then repeated it in Khmer, just in case the children and our guide didn’t understand.

Born 10 to 15 years earlier, he might have been a Hitler Youth Camp Counselor, but given his aristocratic bearing more likely a high ranking SS officer.

I don’t know if he registered our shock. I wondered something a bit different about him. I told him that I was of German heritage and told him my last name. I know what it means in German and his reaction was what I expected. He mumbled something to the effect that “language changes over time,” broke off our conversation and walked off, with a gracious goodbye.

Three minutes before I thought here is a terrific example of the future in a globalized society. People will have to become culturally competent across many language and cultural boundaries. I was even thinking, could I learn Thai beyond the ability to order food in a restaurant or tell a taxi driver where to take me? Could I learn enough to ask one of my new Thai colleagues their story and understand it in Thai?

This German world citizen is wrong. Neither “white culture” or white people are going to disappear. “It” and “we” might, however, share some shelf space. The economic and military superiority of “white culture” is a recent historical event. The impact of freer trade is evident in the countries we visited. Indeed, the hunger for “white culture” as Herr Rassistische (translate in Google Translator if you wish) would call it, is evident everywhere we went in Thailand and Cambodia. Right down to the desire for Frau Rassistische’s alabaster white skin.

I suspect that the Amer-Asian children and grandchildren left behind by American soldiers fighting in Vietnam have now found new status as the preferred image for Thai and other Asian societies. The cosmetics industry is clearly geared that way. Last week the Thai government appointed someone to examine the claims made by various cosmetics products to lighten skin as fraud and into possible negative health effects of these treatments. Entertainment is heavily influenced by American and European trends.

I went to a Thai nightclub called the German Brewery. It was a Haufbrauhaus Thai style. This wasn’t a place for Germans weary of Tom Yum soup. This was a nightclub catering to Thai tourists, best as I could tell. While the music was not German, the entertainment was definitely more American with Thais adding their lemongrass and chiles. We even sang and danced to “YMCA.”

“White culture” disappearing? To me it looks like, through the airwaves, global travel and the Internet, that far from disappearing, “white culture” (and even the crude notion of white skin) is far from disappearing, it is proliferating. And along with it is that concept of white superiority. Too bad we can’t get beyond such crude rankings.