Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, January 27, 2007
Income inequality is growing in the United States. So what. Does income inequality, per se, translate into anything the larger society should be concerned about?
Examining societies cross-culturally, there is a relationship between the degree of income inequality within the society and the stability of the society. Once inequality gets to a certain point, the society shows more instability. The distribution of income in the U.S. looks more like that found in developing countries than in other industrial democracies.
Income inequality in the United States has been increasing since the 1980s. Are we seeing increasing signs of political and social instability? What I see is more evidence of beliefs and political trends that will support increasing income inequality in our society.
A special report by the “Tax Foundation” on American attitudes on tax and wealth released in April 2006 asked a cross-section of 2,017 adults the following question: “Do you personally favor or oppose completely eliminating the estate tax — that is, the tax on property left by people who die?”
Sixty-eight percent of respondents favored elimination. The authors are surprised given that only about 1 percent of taxpayers are ever hit with this tax. Had that fact been provided in the question, the responses might have been different. Nevertheless, the report suggests that taxes on wealth (property and large sums of money) are viewed as more unfair than taxes on income or sales tax.
Could this signal a change in beliefs about income inequality as well as who should pay for the government services and infrastructure in our society? Sixty-three percent of respondents indicated that the 42.5 million taxpayers who file a return but pay no tax is unfair, that everyone should pay something. Whether the respondents thought those 42.5 million were rich or poor, we don’t know because, again, the survey didn’t provide facts for people.
Work of the kind that required one’s own sweat and labor once was a moral aspect of material success. Those who worked hard were viewed as deserving of whatever they got. But it is pretty clear now, with things like lotteries, stock markets, and the windfall of inheritance, that beliefs have pretty much changed. The Tax Foundation report, I thought, had an interesting insight. Taxes should only be on things that people directly influence like work or sales taxes on what you buy. Those things that are not the result of one’s direct behavior, like rising residential property values, the stock market, or an inheritance, shouldn’t be taxed as much or at all. In short, tax effort not windfall.
In my classes I find growing acceptance on the part of students of a sociological theory of inequality and “stratification” (structured inequality) that doesn’t carry the day when one balances the evidence for it against other theories of inequality and stratification. Nevertheless, this theory “sounds right” because it fits (and apparently is fitting better and better) with an ideology that is more accepting of (growing) income inequality.
In short, the “functional” theory of stratification holds that people who are more highly paid deserve it because they hold the most important positions in society. Talent is rare and in order to motivate the talented to take on the training and added responsibility the important positions require, it is necessary to reward them more than others.
But there is more. Those at the top are also morally superior to others because they recognize their importance to the society and act not out of self-interest but in the wider interests of the society. Those in the middle and below act out of self-interest. Of course, this says nothing about the holders of municipal bonds, large stock accounts, owners of institutional investing firms, or those who inherit vast fortunes like Sam Walton’s children.
If this is sounding good to you, yes, it is a great justification for the higher pay and perks of those at the top. “For the good of society, CEOs must be paid more.” If so, they should get together and fund a think tank of sociologists to study and refine this theory of inequality and stratification.
The problem is that the growing income inequality is also due in part to the growing amount of “income” that comes from investments. It is hard to argue that one’s investments are made with the greater good in mind and not one’s self-interest. These difficult arguments are why we need that think tank. I’d call it the Union of Radical Defenders of Political and Economic Stratification, or U-R-DoPES.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Religion is the only institutional counter to market values
Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, Oct 13, 2007
TERRE HAUTE — By many measures, the United States of America is the most religious of industrialized countries.
At the same time, our culture appears, in many ways, to be quite the opposite, or at least not in keeping with a religious people. Recent scholarship suggests that while fewer people may be connected with a church, spirituality is increasing.
A good reason, sociologically, to keep religion vibrant is to counter the market values inherent in a capitalist society. So much of what we complain about in our society, the crudity, the sexuality, many of the problems with the media, all have to do with selling.
The only institutional counter on those market values is religion. The basic thrust of all religions is selflessness and concern for others. The basic thrust of the market is to satisfy “me.” Here are 10 simple steps individuals can take to improve formal religion.
10 simple things you can do to improve religion
This is fourth in a series of five essays about simple things individuals can do to improve our social institutions. A social institution is a framework for solving societal problems. All societies must solve the same problems, but they do it differently. They must tie adult responsibility to children (marriage and family), socialize children into productive roles (education), solve the problem of order and leadership (politics), justify societal practices as “good” (religion), and produce and distribute needed goods and services (economy). My suggestions are not about changing our institutions as much as making the current ones, as currently defined, work a little better. Today’s focus is on religion.
1. Take part regularly in a faith — community. Faith communities today, influenced in many ways by our market values, now come in so many variants that virtually anyone, even an avowed atheist, can find a faith community to participate in. When you buy anything, you are reproducing the market; hence, to reproduce religion, you have to participate.
2. Support a faith community with your money. Contrary to the most cynical and the most devout, the money comes from people, not a supernatural being. Churches need cash to survive, to do the work that reflects those nonmarket values.
3. Support a faith community with your time and talents. Market logic follows that we don’t do anything unless we are paid/rewarded for it. So, volunteering your time and talent to a faith community is itself a counter to the market-driven values that corrode our civil society. As well, our time and talent also build the community of people who share and strengthen your struggle to live against the consumer culture.
4. Make religion about values and understand what values are: Values are standards by which we judge “things” as good or bad. We value freedom, so we don’t like to be told what to do. So, in the vein of values, find values in your faith community to embrace and do so. Whether it be honesty, charity, concern for the poor, whatever.
5. For believers, sharing faith is expected and easy, for those who are uncomfortable with that, then share your values with others and don’t be afraid to credit your faith community as a source for those values. In our individualistic society, we too often credit good deeds to just good individuals, failing to recognize the social fabric which makes that “good” possible. If someone asks us what kind of car we like, we don’t hesitate to tell them. Why not share your brand of value community with others, too?
6. Take children to a faith community. Young children share quite easily. In school they learn to justify inequality. Research shows the more schooling they have, the more inequality they are willing to accept, even to promote it. That says something about the experience of schooling in our society. Religion is about values and beliefs. Use the youth activities in your faith community to “inoculate” children from those values that promote inequality and divisiveness. Sex, drugs, and rock and roll destroy individual lives, but not necessarily society. Values that support ruthless attitudes like “produce or die,” dehumanize people and undermine any sense of a “caring” or compassionate society.
7. Participate in one of the ministries/missions/charities of your faith community. Some ministries/missions/charities are about evangelizing which many people are uncomfortable with. But others are about helping others, whether it be kids who don’t have great home lives with homework, Habitat for Humanity, shut-ins, the list is endless and usually reflects the needs of your local community, In any case give of your self in a charitable way that is sponsored or facilitated by your faith community. And yes, you can just go directly to Habitat for Humanity and volunteer, or many such “secular” groups who also give their time and talent to such worthy causes, but a faith community is the most comprehensive, the broadest umbrella of values that support “charity”. Volunteering for the after school program at your church will encourage others to volunteer, though perhaps not for the after school program, but perhaps for the soup kitchen.
8. Participate in the rituals in your faith community. Worship practices are rituals. So are carry-in suppers. Rituals are about meaning. By participating in the faith community rituals, you make meaning around the faith community values. And participating in the rituals strengthens the community which in turn strengthen the non-market values.
9. Be selfless and serve others. We have survived so far as a species because we have learned to organize ourselves. Our survival is based on our human interdependence. A radical individualistic ideology tears at that interdependence. This ideology finds its home in an unrestrained free market where “let the market decide” is the mantra. Religion, with its claim on moral virtue, is a key counter to preserving the very idea of a shared culture, mutual obligation, or even enforceable standards of right and wrong. Of course, too much of this swings back the other way, to totalitarianism, like the kind the Taliban represent. Balance is key and we swing hard toward individualism so we need brakes. Be an individual but carve out space to be selfless and serve others. Faith communities are wonderful for helping us do that.
10. Live your life with value integrity. What does that mean? I’ll admit, I tried to keep these steps simple, but this one definitely needs explanation. By integrity I mean an unreduced or unbroken completeness or totality. The desire for this can be seen when people speak of their “true self” or “true nature.” The fact is, however, that a “true self” is a fiction. We have many selves related to the many different roles we play in life. And our behavior, research tells us, is explained by the situations we find ourselves in more so than by some kind of moral righteousness. Good people do bad things if put in the situation that calls forth bad responses. However, since we have self identity, we can decide on certain aspects of our self that we want to be part of our “true self.” Those things are going to be related to the values we find represented and supported in our faith communities.
TERRE HAUTE — By many measures, the United States of America is the most religious of industrialized countries.
At the same time, our culture appears, in many ways, to be quite the opposite, or at least not in keeping with a religious people. Recent scholarship suggests that while fewer people may be connected with a church, spirituality is increasing.
A good reason, sociologically, to keep religion vibrant is to counter the market values inherent in a capitalist society. So much of what we complain about in our society, the crudity, the sexuality, many of the problems with the media, all have to do with selling.
The only institutional counter on those market values is religion. The basic thrust of all religions is selflessness and concern for others. The basic thrust of the market is to satisfy “me.” Here are 10 simple steps individuals can take to improve formal religion.
10 simple things you can do to improve religion
This is fourth in a series of five essays about simple things individuals can do to improve our social institutions. A social institution is a framework for solving societal problems. All societies must solve the same problems, but they do it differently. They must tie adult responsibility to children (marriage and family), socialize children into productive roles (education), solve the problem of order and leadership (politics), justify societal practices as “good” (religion), and produce and distribute needed goods and services (economy). My suggestions are not about changing our institutions as much as making the current ones, as currently defined, work a little better. Today’s focus is on religion.
1. Take part regularly in a faith — community. Faith communities today, influenced in many ways by our market values, now come in so many variants that virtually anyone, even an avowed atheist, can find a faith community to participate in. When you buy anything, you are reproducing the market; hence, to reproduce religion, you have to participate.
2. Support a faith community with your money. Contrary to the most cynical and the most devout, the money comes from people, not a supernatural being. Churches need cash to survive, to do the work that reflects those nonmarket values.
3. Support a faith community with your time and talents. Market logic follows that we don’t do anything unless we are paid/rewarded for it. So, volunteering your time and talent to a faith community is itself a counter to the market-driven values that corrode our civil society. As well, our time and talent also build the community of people who share and strengthen your struggle to live against the consumer culture.
4. Make religion about values and understand what values are: Values are standards by which we judge “things” as good or bad. We value freedom, so we don’t like to be told what to do. So, in the vein of values, find values in your faith community to embrace and do so. Whether it be honesty, charity, concern for the poor, whatever.
5. For believers, sharing faith is expected and easy, for those who are uncomfortable with that, then share your values with others and don’t be afraid to credit your faith community as a source for those values. In our individualistic society, we too often credit good deeds to just good individuals, failing to recognize the social fabric which makes that “good” possible. If someone asks us what kind of car we like, we don’t hesitate to tell them. Why not share your brand of value community with others, too?
6. Take children to a faith community. Young children share quite easily. In school they learn to justify inequality. Research shows the more schooling they have, the more inequality they are willing to accept, even to promote it. That says something about the experience of schooling in our society. Religion is about values and beliefs. Use the youth activities in your faith community to “inoculate” children from those values that promote inequality and divisiveness. Sex, drugs, and rock and roll destroy individual lives, but not necessarily society. Values that support ruthless attitudes like “produce or die,” dehumanize people and undermine any sense of a “caring” or compassionate society.
7. Participate in one of the ministries/missions/charities of your faith community. Some ministries/missions/charities are about evangelizing which many people are uncomfortable with. But others are about helping others, whether it be kids who don’t have great home lives with homework, Habitat for Humanity, shut-ins, the list is endless and usually reflects the needs of your local community, In any case give of your self in a charitable way that is sponsored or facilitated by your faith community. And yes, you can just go directly to Habitat for Humanity and volunteer, or many such “secular” groups who also give their time and talent to such worthy causes, but a faith community is the most comprehensive, the broadest umbrella of values that support “charity”. Volunteering for the after school program at your church will encourage others to volunteer, though perhaps not for the after school program, but perhaps for the soup kitchen.
8. Participate in the rituals in your faith community. Worship practices are rituals. So are carry-in suppers. Rituals are about meaning. By participating in the faith community rituals, you make meaning around the faith community values. And participating in the rituals strengthens the community which in turn strengthen the non-market values.
9. Be selfless and serve others. We have survived so far as a species because we have learned to organize ourselves. Our survival is based on our human interdependence. A radical individualistic ideology tears at that interdependence. This ideology finds its home in an unrestrained free market where “let the market decide” is the mantra. Religion, with its claim on moral virtue, is a key counter to preserving the very idea of a shared culture, mutual obligation, or even enforceable standards of right and wrong. Of course, too much of this swings back the other way, to totalitarianism, like the kind the Taliban represent. Balance is key and we swing hard toward individualism so we need brakes. Be an individual but carve out space to be selfless and serve others. Faith communities are wonderful for helping us do that.
10. Live your life with value integrity. What does that mean? I’ll admit, I tried to keep these steps simple, but this one definitely needs explanation. By integrity I mean an unreduced or unbroken completeness or totality. The desire for this can be seen when people speak of their “true self” or “true nature.” The fact is, however, that a “true self” is a fiction. We have many selves related to the many different roles we play in life. And our behavior, research tells us, is explained by the situations we find ourselves in more so than by some kind of moral righteousness. Good people do bad things if put in the situation that calls forth bad responses. However, since we have self identity, we can decide on certain aspects of our self that we want to be part of our “true self.” Those things are going to be related to the values we find represented and supported in our faith communities.
What would we do without the railroads?
Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, Feb 5, 2006
I am still a relative newcomer to Terre Haute (we moved here in 1987). I was then and remain impressed with how the good people of Terre Haute persevere with the trains. My first and continuing response to the many trains criss-crossing our fair city has been “overpass,” “viaduct” or “Couldn’t there be a better place for these tracks?” So, I read with satisfaction that Mayor Burke is going to look into moving the tracks outside the city limits.
Then the sociologist kicked in. Wait, wait, wait a minute. The trains in Terre Haute are an important (albeit an irritating, inconvenient nuisance) part of our culture. There could be some negative, unforeseen repercussions as a result of changing such a distinctive part of life in Terre Haute and the culture that we have developed to deal with them.
I’m concerned about widespread unemployment. Before I was a college professor, I worked jobs with supervisors and time clocks. Nothing could get one in trouble faster than being late to work. In Terre Haute, however, we have the perfect excuse for being late: “Railroaded.” It is the only excuse that goes unquestioned. Without the trains, I fear, many people will be fired for being late for reasons not quite as sacred as “railroaded.”
Similarly, how many children waiting for their parents to pick them up from school, practice, dance and music lessons will think their parents forgot about them after waiting 10 minutes to an hour after “railroaded” has faded from our daily discourse? Come on, how many times have we used that excuse when we are late to pick up the kids? No more. We’ll have to come up with something different that provides us an excuse that doesn’t suggest we “forgot” about our kids.
Without the opportunities for conversation that being railroaded gives us, when will we find the opportunity to discuss those heavy subjects with our teenagers? Those impromptu father-daughter discussions forced upon us by the switching train at the Ft. Harrison crossing no doubt have given us some real bonding experiences.
How many young lovers, stuck at a crossing, were forced to actually talk to one another discovering how much (or little) in common they really have? Where will those important opportunities for serious discussion happen without the “fated” railroading?
I read that my employer, ISU, is a partner in this endeavor. ISU, indeed any workplace where trying to figure out how not to do something takes up more energy than figuring out how to do something, may find that moving the “tracks out back” may transform their organizations. Like Columbus crossing the ocean blue, moving the tracks might become the rallying point for tackling other heretofore-impossible obstacles. A “can-do” spirit at ISU and other Terre Haute institutions would be a (hopefully welcome) change.
I fear, too, that without our trains to derail us from time to time, we will all become terribly “anal,” you know, obsessed by time and the clock. The trains introduce a wonderful “unknown” into any trip across town. Will we make the movie in time? Let’s take Fruitridge to Davis and hope no trains block our way. Instead, we will all time our trips from home to the mall down to the second, with only an ill-timed traffic light to throw our obsession for time and punctuality off. Do we really want to become like that? I like leaving places 40 minutes earlier than I should “in case there is a train.”
What about our proficient driving skills honed by the 40 trains a day? I’m convinced that Terre Hauteans are the most skilled Y-turners east of the Pacific. I’ve seen people execute perfect (and not so perfect) Y-turns to get around a switching train. They are such a testimony to fine motor maneuvering. What will happen to those skills if there are no trains to impede our forward motion?
Of course there is one fact that needs to be worked into my growing hysteria. This isn’t going to happen over night. It is not like we will get the plan together and move forward quickly and get those tracks moved. It may have taken Lafayette 30 years to move their tracks, but this is still Terre Haute with its tracks. It took us better than 30 years to get something going at Seventh and Wabash. So, don’t get too concerned about losing the trains — yet.
I am still a relative newcomer to Terre Haute (we moved here in 1987). I was then and remain impressed with how the good people of Terre Haute persevere with the trains. My first and continuing response to the many trains criss-crossing our fair city has been “overpass,” “viaduct” or “Couldn’t there be a better place for these tracks?” So, I read with satisfaction that Mayor Burke is going to look into moving the tracks outside the city limits.
Then the sociologist kicked in. Wait, wait, wait a minute. The trains in Terre Haute are an important (albeit an irritating, inconvenient nuisance) part of our culture. There could be some negative, unforeseen repercussions as a result of changing such a distinctive part of life in Terre Haute and the culture that we have developed to deal with them.
I’m concerned about widespread unemployment. Before I was a college professor, I worked jobs with supervisors and time clocks. Nothing could get one in trouble faster than being late to work. In Terre Haute, however, we have the perfect excuse for being late: “Railroaded.” It is the only excuse that goes unquestioned. Without the trains, I fear, many people will be fired for being late for reasons not quite as sacred as “railroaded.”
Similarly, how many children waiting for their parents to pick them up from school, practice, dance and music lessons will think their parents forgot about them after waiting 10 minutes to an hour after “railroaded” has faded from our daily discourse? Come on, how many times have we used that excuse when we are late to pick up the kids? No more. We’ll have to come up with something different that provides us an excuse that doesn’t suggest we “forgot” about our kids.
Without the opportunities for conversation that being railroaded gives us, when will we find the opportunity to discuss those heavy subjects with our teenagers? Those impromptu father-daughter discussions forced upon us by the switching train at the Ft. Harrison crossing no doubt have given us some real bonding experiences.
How many young lovers, stuck at a crossing, were forced to actually talk to one another discovering how much (or little) in common they really have? Where will those important opportunities for serious discussion happen without the “fated” railroading?
I read that my employer, ISU, is a partner in this endeavor. ISU, indeed any workplace where trying to figure out how not to do something takes up more energy than figuring out how to do something, may find that moving the “tracks out back” may transform their organizations. Like Columbus crossing the ocean blue, moving the tracks might become the rallying point for tackling other heretofore-impossible obstacles. A “can-do” spirit at ISU and other Terre Haute institutions would be a (hopefully welcome) change.
I fear, too, that without our trains to derail us from time to time, we will all become terribly “anal,” you know, obsessed by time and the clock. The trains introduce a wonderful “unknown” into any trip across town. Will we make the movie in time? Let’s take Fruitridge to Davis and hope no trains block our way. Instead, we will all time our trips from home to the mall down to the second, with only an ill-timed traffic light to throw our obsession for time and punctuality off. Do we really want to become like that? I like leaving places 40 minutes earlier than I should “in case there is a train.”
What about our proficient driving skills honed by the 40 trains a day? I’m convinced that Terre Hauteans are the most skilled Y-turners east of the Pacific. I’ve seen people execute perfect (and not so perfect) Y-turns to get around a switching train. They are such a testimony to fine motor maneuvering. What will happen to those skills if there are no trains to impede our forward motion?
Of course there is one fact that needs to be worked into my growing hysteria. This isn’t going to happen over night. It is not like we will get the plan together and move forward quickly and get those tracks moved. It may have taken Lafayette 30 years to move their tracks, but this is still Terre Haute with its tracks. It took us better than 30 years to get something going at Seventh and Wabash. So, don’t get too concerned about losing the trains — yet.
"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!
Enjoy!
Sunday, September 19, 2010
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.”
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.”
Sunday, August 29, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
