I doubt it was as fun as mine… Debi and I went to Spamalot last night.  As an inveterate Monty Python fan, I felt very much at home.  I knew most of the “ripped off” lines and could basically guess what was going to happen next, but it in no way spoiled the fun.  If you get a chance and you enjoy Monty Python, I highly suggest you go.

(Okay, in all honesty all of Easter wasn’t that fun - our evicted neighbors were moving out, so we helped them move and spent most of our day doing that.  They also, quite graciously, gave us their shed, which we transported to our yard.  Moving it nearly killed us, but we now have a shed and are very grateful for their generosity.)

—————-
Now playing: The Beatles - Hey Jude
via FoxyTunes

When we moved into our house almost 9 months ago, it didn’t take me too long to meet the neighbors.  To the west live a tile layer (the husband) and a financial secretary at a construction company (the wife).  To the east live a granite countertop installer (the husband) and a school counselor (the wife).  Both have two kids, but the couple to the west are a bit older and their kids are grown (one is at the local community college the other is a senior in high school). The one’s to the east have two younger kids, one is 4, one is 10.

I wouldn’t say I’m the type of neighbor who goes out of his way to talk to his neighbors, but I have taken both of them cookies and other desserts and we’ve chatted quite a bit whenever I’m out in the yard mowing or raking leaves, etc.

As both of the husbands were living off the housing market, the sudden reversal hit them both very hard.  My tile laying neighbor saw his business drop by almost 70%.  Luckily, his wife, who also works in the construction industry, is fairly insulated from the downturn because she works for a solid company that makes a lot of its money from financing the homes (the division she works in).  So, they have her steady income and their hoping to ride this out until things pick back up.  Plus, they seem like the type of people who have a little bit saved up for a rainy day. Additionally, one of their daughters had leukemia several years back, but the wife’s very good health insurance minimized the cost for them and they pulled through it without any debt. Finally, they have lived in the same house for almost 30 years and will finally pay off the mortgage this coming November.  So, they’ve been hit by the housing industry collapse, but they are surviving.

My neighbors to the east haven’t been so lucky.  The husband lost his job installing granite countertops about 3 or 4 months after we moved in.  At its peak, he was making almost $2,000 per week installing countertops.  The wife’s job is pretty secure, but I doubt it brings in more than $35,000 a year, which is pretty tight if you are supporting a partner and two kids.  Additionally, they aren’t the type of couple that had money tucked away.  They pretty clearly live paycheck to paycheck and spend the excess on all sorts of things (they have an above ground pool outback that is neglected; they have a huge playset that is also neglected; they have a trampoline that I’ve never seen them use, etc.)  They, too, had a son with leukemia (before they moved in to their current house, or I’d be freaking out about where I live).  But their insurance wasn’t nearly as good at the time and they ended up with several thousand dollars debt (I think it was about $8,000 by the time it was over).  The child recovered and seems fine, but that’s tough to pay for.  Finally, these neighbors are both immigrants - she’s from Argentina and he’s from Cuba.  They are both bi-lingual, which is probably an asset here (all of the bank tellers I’ve met have been bi-lingual), but maybe not.

About a month after my neighbor to the east lost his job, their cars were repossessed.  She was driving a Jeep Grand Cherokee (about 3 or 4 years old) and he was driving a relatively nice truck.  They got a loaner van for a few days from a friend, then bought a couple older vehicles - a mini-van and an older truck.  The husband didn’t immediately go out to look for work and ended up hanging around the house for about a month before taking a temporary job (I’m not sure what exactly he was doing).  It seemed to be a filler and didn’t pay much.  He also mentioned in December that they were having marital difficulties and that she had kicked him out of the house a couple of times.  He finally landed a job with Verizon, installing fiber optic internet connections in homes.  The training took about a month.  He spent about two weeks in the field, installing the connections, before he was laid off.  I’m not sure if he wasn’t very good at it or if they just didn’t need as many installers, but that was the last straw for them.  Two days ago they came over to tell us they were moving… They were five months behind on rent (though they paid two of those with their tax returns) and the landlord finally decided he had to evict them.  She is using this to end the marriage.  She’s moving to an apartment near the older boy’s school.  He doesn’t know where he’s going yet.  He’s going to be homeless for about a week, then he figures he’ll find something.  As we talked to her, alone, she said she liked her husband but she felt obligated to do something to motivate him to get a job and keep it (I didn’t feel that the time was opportune to tell her that it probably isn’t entirely his fault).  The financial burden of him not having a job just wasn’t acceptable.

I’m not writing this because I’m a busy-body, nosy neighbor.  I’m writing this because this is my social stratification class playing out in front of my eyes.  I make no bones about the fact that I live in a working class neighborhood (though there are some middle-class types too, like the dual-income professionals across the street - both Asian).  There are a number of things that stand out about the lower social classes in this scenario.  First, incomes are more volatile - when the economy gets hit, so do lower class incomes.  Second, financial management isn’t a strong point.  This isn’t because lower income individuals don’t want to save money; it’s mostly because they’ve never learned how.  Third, couples in lower social classes are more likely to divorce.  This is probably due to a combination of things, but one big one is the stress that results from financial problems, like losing one’s job.  Fourth, healthcare costs hit lower-income couples substantially harder than higher-income couples - usually because the insurance pays less.  And, fifth, immigrants often come to the USA believing this is the land of the “rags to riches” story.  Well, we do like telling that story, but it’s more of a legend than anything else.  The actual chance of someone growing up in the lowest tenth of income earners moving to the highest tenth of income earners is about 1%.  Sure, it happens, but it happens so rarely that it’s more of a myth than even a dream.

There was an article the other day in the NYTimes talking about how the housing crisis was affecting the presidents of the banks that are now paying for it.  It mentioned that many of them were not getting bonuses now.  Some had even lost their jobs, but it’s not like they had to pay back the millions of dollars they made in the run up to the bust.  Many had stock in their companies, and it was losing value (they’re now only worth $500 million instead of a billion).  And some of them were losing the additional stock options they had.  How many of them lost their homes and their marriages as a result?  If they lost a home, they could probably afford to lose it (as they have extras).

I had one of my students the other day say in class that sociology is depressing.  He’s right, to a degree.  Sociology, itself, isn’t depressing - sociology is just the perspective that helps us understand what is happening in society.  What’s depressing is what sociology discovers: inequality and stratification.  I guess what we need to do better as sociologists is inspire our students to do something about the inequality and give them hope.  Then, maybe, sociology won’t seem so depressing…

—————-
Now playing: Alanis Morissette - Spineless
via FoxyTunes

Hurry, before you do anything else, write down the number you see below:

click here to learn more


Okay, now go check out this article from the St. Petersburg Times on the War in Iraq and the costs - both financially and in human lives. When you’re done reading that article, come back to this page, check out the cost clock again, and write down the number. Now do me a favor and post both numbers in the comments. I just thought this would be a good way to see the cost of war…

—————-
Now playing: Collapsis - Stumble
via FoxyTunes

I’ve found since I started teaching Sociology that being up-to-date on local news can be useful (though it is less useful at my new school where many of the students are from other cities).  This leads me to read the local paper, which is often relatively quotidian - thefts, car accidents, political debates, etc.  Occasionally, however, I hear about stuff in the national media happening in my local area.  There are two big stories (from the last couple of days) that have made national news.  First up, the Cuban under 21 men’s soccer team came to Tampa to play for an Olympic qualifier and 7 of the players and an assistant coach defected.  This isn’t all that uncommon and there isn’t anything particularly special about Tampa in this case, but it is big news and a commentary on Cuba.  The second story didn’t make national headlines in the major papers, but it was picked up by a tech website that has a particular beef with Scientology: Slashdot noted the recent denial by a local judge of an injunction against protests at Scientology’s headquarters in Clearwater (which makes up part of the big three cities here: Tampa, St. Pete, and Clearwater).  Again, this probably isn’t a “Clearwater/St. Pete/Tampa” news item so much as a Scientology news item, but I am always interested in things happening locally.  (Also, there are supposed to be big protests this weekend at the headquarters… If I had time I’d go watch.)

On an interesting side note, how many of you, my faithful readers, have ever heard of the Dvorak keyboard?  I’d heard about it quite a few times and had only ever heard that it was far more efficient and ergonomic than the traditional QWERTY keyboard.  In my never-ending attempt to make typing easier on my hands (since I spend a large portion of my days in front of computers), I started practicing on a Dvorak keyboard (you can change your settings on your computer to get it working), only to get frustrated, think things through a bit, and begin to wonder how much of a difference Dvorak could really make.  Turns out, not much, if at all.   The Dvorak keyboard is often used to illustrate the idea that vested interests can overcome practicality and pragmatism when it comes to the adoption of inventions (in fact, Jared Diamond mentions Dvorak in this sense in Guns, Germs, and Steel).  Having heard only that side of the argument dozens of times, I started repeating it (sorry to anyone who heard that from me; I was wrong and am now admitting it).  But the frustration of trying to adopt the Dvorak keyboard eventually led me to search out criticisms and I ended up finding the one linked above in an economics journal (I know, it’s an economics journal…).  Turns out, most of the “research” indicating Dvorak is (1) faster and (2) more ergonomic was done by… Guess who?  August Dvorak, the person who developed it, patented it, and profited from it.  Impartial studies indicate minor speed benefits (maybe 2% to 5%) and no difference in ergonomics.  Additionally, the time required to retrain an accomplished typist (I type about 110 wpm on QWERTY) won’t ever be recouped in faster typing times - you’re better off spending more time training yourself on the QWERTY as you can actually get faster with additional training.  So, if you’ve ever considered switching to Dvorak after already becoming proficient with QWERTY, don’t bother.  If, however, you really think the 2%-5% speed advantage is worth it, I guess you could train your kids using Dvorak (though they’ll have a hell of time moving from keyboard to keyboard and changing settings on computers).  One final note, I did buy a couple ergonomic keyboards (where the keys are split) and have noticed a substantial improvement in the pain I experience as a result of typing - the angles make a lot of sense and I highly recommend ergonomic keyboards.

—————-
Now playing: Dave Matthews Band - Some Devil
via FoxyTunes

Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America’s Nonbelievers

Author:

Bruce E. Hunsberger, Bob Altemeyer

Publisher:

Prometheus Books

Date of Publication:

2006

ISBN:

978-1591024132

Rating:

9

Summary:

Scholars of religion in the U.S. know the percentage of Americans who have no religious affiliation is growing (7% in 1990; 16% in 2008), but we also know relatively little about those with no religious affiliation (though this is changing). This book is an attempt to address this lacunae by looking at one small portion of the unaffiliated – atheists. To get a better picture of American atheists, the authors sent questionnaires to members of several atheist groups (in the San Francisco area and in Idaho) and compared the results of those questionnaires to data they have on religious fundamentalists and average parents in Canada (who are so-so religious). While they recognize that members of atheist groups in the U.S. are not representative of atheists in the U.S. generally (they are substantially older for one), it is possible to generalize from this data about activist atheists in the U.S.

So, what do active atheists in the U.S. look like? Since the book is short, so is my summary:

• Most of the active atheists were raised religious and left because of the beliefs of the religion – they didn’t find them compelling. More than anything, reading the Bible led them to start questioning, which ultimately led them to leave religion and become atheists.

  • This is surprising because many religious people believe that the only people who leave religious activity leave because they have sinned or want to sin (e.g., lots of sex and booze). That’s simply not true.

• Men are more likely to be atheists than women.

• Active atheists have more education (almost 17 years) than the average person in the U.S. (between 12 and 13 years).

• Most active atheists were married (57 percent).

• Most active atheists are Democrats (about 60%); only 3% were Republicans (the rest were something else.

• Active atheists don’t believe in the traditional Judeo-Christian God (the fundamentalists in the comparison group the authors use definitely do). You’d think this is a “well, of course” question, but not all members of non-religious groups are actually atheists.

• The authors also looked at some specific characteristics, in particular dogmatism, zealousness, and authoritarianism. Just so we’re clear, dogmatism is an unwillingness to change one’s position, regardless of evidence. Zealousness is one’s determination to spread one’s ideas. And authoritarianism is one’s allegiance to authority.

  • Active atheists are more dogmatic than the average Canadian, but substantially less dogmatic than religious fundamentalists. (I like how the authors summarize this finding, “All of which implies that if the traditional God does exist, an awful lot of atheists are going to miss out on the fact no matter what happens.” p. 66)

  • Active atheists are moderately zealous, more so than the average Canadian. But they “all hold a farthing candle to the sun compared to the intense zeal of the fundamentalists” (p. 71). Religious fundamentalists try to convert everyone, everywhere, regardless of their current beliefs. Active atheists, on the other hand, might make a suggestion or two encouraging critical thinking or non-belief, but they don’t push atheism.

  • Active atheists are extremely anti-authoritarian. They don’t believe religion or atheism should be taught in schools. Religious fundamentalists, on the other hand, want their beliefs taught to everyone, even when they are religious minorities (though they insist that no other beliefs be taught). Again, the authors say this quite succinctly, “Our high fundamentalists, on the other hand, would certainly think it unfair and wrong to have atheism imposed on their children in such schools, but they would approve the forced teaching of their own views to everybody else’s children. That hardly seems in keeping with the Golden Rule.” p. 74.

• The authors also look at ethnocentrism and prejudice. It turns out active atheists are generally not very prejudiced – they have substantially less hostility toward homosexuals and racial/ethnic minorities. But they have higher ratings toward fellow atheists and they basically despise all religious fundamentalists (i.e., Christian, Jewish, or Muslim fundamentalists).

• Finally, active atheists don’t tell everyone they are an atheist, in large part because atheism is still stigmatized. Most of the active atheists in their sample felt like they had been avoided, excluded, or harassed for not believing in god.

Keep in mind the picture painted above of is of active atheists who are members of atheist groups. As I noted at the beginning, and the authors periodically remind the reader, active atheists are not representative of atheists generally. That said, they probably aren’t that far removed from non-active atheists.

The final chapter is actually quite interesting – it’s a collection of reflections by individuals who participated in the study on the findings of the authors. Most of the comments are effusive with praise, but a few take the authors to task for some of their methodology and questions (and some of the criticism are valid). It’s an intriguing way to wrap up the book, but generally the commentary is worth reading.

Review:

So, what do I think of the book? Frankly, I loved it. It’s short, to the point, and actually very humorously written. The authors seem to have thrown out academic propriety in writing this and really said what they were thinking. Take this quote for example, “Since we have nothing to lose (one of us is now deceased and the other is so near the end he has forgotten proper grammar)…” (p. 109). As a result, the book is full of subtle jokes and pithy statements. Here’s my favorite example from the book, and it’s definitely not something you would ever find in a book written by a scholar at the beginning of his/her career:

“Aren’t you colossally impressed at how well the authors of this book have predicted the results of this study? We were sure the American atheists would score low on dogmatism, but they came in rather high. Given their high marks in dogmatism, we figured they would be rather zealous, but we were proved wrong. Then we believed these atheists would score low in religious ethnocentrism, and instead the data blew us away. You might well wonder why you are reading this book, given what dunderheads its authors have turned out to be. But we are beholding here the great advantage of scientific investigation: it tells you when you are wrong. And Mother Nature has been particularly forthcoming in this regard in the last three chapters. So read on. We may not have a clue about what the heck’s going on, but we shall find out.” (p. 89)

The authors’ honesty also comes out at the beginning when they reveal where they stand religiously, “A solid majority of North Americans believe in God, according to the polls. A few folks, like the authors of this book, say they honestly do not know and are called agnostics” (p. 11). But this also leads to my only criticism of the book, the authors slightly mischaracterize what it means to be an atheist, “In conclusion, the atheist samples appear to be deep-down, hard-core, all the way to their socks, “I mean it when I say it” atheists. They deny the existence of any sort of divine being” (p. 37). I’m a little surprised by this statement given the authors’ keen understanding of so many other aspects of atheism. But I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that being an atheist simply means you lack belief in a deity, not that you deny the existence of any sort of divine being. Admittedly some of the respondents in this book said they denied the existence of deity, but most atheists (and we are all atheists toward one god or another) don’t deny the existence of a deity, they simply lack belief. It’s a subtle distinction, but an important one philosophically.

The book also includes a few other important and noteworthy insights. The authors point out early on that Canada actually used to be more religious than the U.S., but is now substantially less so (p. 14). And, in line with an earlier book by the same authors (Amazing Converts), they attribute the lack of religiosity and religious belief of the atheists to socialization, “Highly intelligent children, the sort likely to attend university later, are rewarded over and over again for getting “the right answer” as they grow up. And they may come to value getting the right answer so much that they will pay a significant price rather than settle for something that does not make sense to them” (p. 56). In other words, atheists leave religions seeking truth and understanding; being right is more important to them than feeling comfortable.

Overall, this is a great little study of activist atheists. Still missing is a comprehensive study of average atheists in the U.S. (and if you’re planning such a study, do let me know as I’d love to be involved). It’s a quick, easy, enjoyable read for anyone who wants to pick it up. I highly recommend it. And, as a bonus, here’s a final quote from one of the commentators that gave me a good laugh toward the end of the book, “I am reminded of an atheist friend of mine who told me once that she spends about 50% of her time trying to get other atheists to understand that not all Christians are “hateful fundamentalists” and the other 50% of her time dealing with “hateful fundamentalists” (p. 133)… So true!