« May 2006 | Main | July 2006 »
June 24, 2006
On loneliness and lousy newspaper citation
I come across this story on Americans' general loneliness from the Washington Post:
Americans are far more socially isolated today than they were two decades ago, and a sharply growing number of people say they have no one in whom they can confide, according to a comprehensive new evaluation of the decline of social ties in the United States...The comprehensive new study paints a sobering picture of an increasingly fragmented America, where intimate social ties -- once seen as an integral part of daily life and associated with a host of psychological and civic benefits -- are shrinking or nonexistent. In bad times, far more people appear to suffer alone.
"That image of people on roofs after Katrina resonates with me, because those people did not know someone with a car," said Lynn Smith-Lovin, a Duke University sociologist who helped conduct the study. "There really is less of a safety net of close friends and confidants."
My first response to this story is, well, I fight against the loneliness for a REASON. I see so much of this in my own life, and it's a CONSTANT fight to make sure I have people around me who can be that kind of support structure. I've known people for whom I can see that I was, or am, the entire support structure; it sucks, frankly.
My second response is: I wonder how exactly they pulled this off. And this gets to my major beef with science reporting. It's always written for somebody who wants to pop into the article, say "ooh, that's interesting", and move on with their lives. There's no tools given in the reporting for somebody to find their own further information.
I've been coming to the conclusion that, while learning raw facts and problem-solving skills is really important (and a rather fundamental part of what I teach), the even more important skillset for me to give a person in the academic environment is resourcing - starting from point X, going to the library or to the 'net and getting deeper information.
And it doesn't happen much anywhere in the academic world, because we're so obsessed as teachers with evaluating how many facts our students get and how many problems they can solve in X amount of time.
In this day and age, we have several really high-quality tools at our disposal for getting this kind of information. Let me bring one of those to bear here - I'll go to Google, the engine we all know, and note that the woman quoted above is named Smith-Lovin, and the research she's talking about is cited...
The results, being published today in the American Sociological Review, took researchers by surprise because they had not expected to see such a steep decline in close social ties.
...in the American Sociological Review. Hey, GOOGLE!
American Sociological Association | ASA Journals Home
American Sociological Society - Home ... by Miller McPherson, Lynn Smith-Lovin,
and Matthew E. Brashears (American Sociological Review, June 2006) ...
www.asanet.org/page.ww?section=Journals&name=ASA+Journals+Home - 135k - Cached - Similar pages
Hey, first hit, even. I coulda said "I'm Feeling Lucky". :)
And, of course, when I go to the ASA Journals homepage, I find a front-and-center link to the article itsownself.
And you can get even more stunning numbers in there. In 1985, the number of people who claimed that they had no confidant whatsoever was 10% - still awfully dang high for a civilized country. When the study was repeated in 2004, the number was 24.6%. Roughly one quarter of the people in the United States don't have a single person they talk about important matters with.
In 1985, 80.1% of all people had a confidant outside of their immediate families. In 2004, 57.2% did.
There's some really hard-core stats in the formal article, too - and part of the reason you don't throw out an article of this sort to the masses is, after a while, 23 pages on statistics on social isolation (and the regression of the social isolation data, and criticism on how such a large shift over 20 years' time could possibly be real) can get really overwhelming. But there needs to be better care taken to get the basic resources in front of people.
If nothing else, which sounds more authoritative? "Studies say that..." or "Matthew Brashears studies sociology at the University of Arizona, and Lynn Smith-Lovin studies sociology at Duke; together, they have found that..."?
(Maybe it's just that I've heard the phrase "Studies say that..." too many times in my life.)
Posted by Chuck at 09:36 AM | TrackBack
June 20, 2006
Academic emo-kid alert
HOW THE BLUE FREAKING BLAZES DOES MARK NOLL WIND UP IN MY NECK OF THE WOODS AND I HEAR NOTHING ABOUT IT?!?!?
You think I might just be a LITTLE upset about this? Anybody who has talked ANYTHING with me about Christianity and academia has heard me recommend Scandal Of The Evangelical Mind to them. The guy is quite possibly the DEFINITIVE historian of American evangelicalism. The ONLY reason I heard anything about this was because I was jabbering with a guy at First Pres about denominations and he mentions that his tiny little branch of the Presbyterian Church is having general-assembly there this week, and I do random web-hackery.
This is a BIG FREAKING DEAL. And I don't want to build men up too high, or make too much about the opportunity to see one guy. But - ARRRRRRRRRRGH!
Posted by Chuck at 07:39 PM | TrackBack
June 14, 2006
The final straw...
Let's be clear. I've had the spam filters turned up so high that a couple of friends e-mailed or IMed and said that they weren't even being permitted to leave unapproved comments, let alone have their comments appear on the site immediately. But the spam junk was still getting through - unapproved, but still getting through.
I was just sitting at the computer just now, watching soccer and trying to get odd school-work done. I've got the e-mail that I get blog updates on sitting in the background.
I get new mail suddenly pouring in at a ridiculous clip. Five messages. Now seven. Now nine.
In the space of 90 seconds, 11 e-mails in the box - each one an attempt to post spam comments here.
And, with a little thought, I realize that the bots that are posting these really aren't trying very hard.
So I come in here and shut off comments totally.
We'll either improve the spam filters here somehow or find some other means to get comment on this site.
Posted by Chuck at 09:08 AM | TrackBack
June 12, 2006
For all five of my fans...
...I would like for you to know that I have been published.
(And if you can't watch the USA-Czech Republic game, that minute-by-minute blog is probably the best place to follow the match as any.)
UPDATE: Czech Republic 3, United States nil, oh wow the Czechs made the Yanks look shabby and amateurish.
Posted by Chuck at 11:55 AM | TrackBack
Christian television, useful and otherwise
I read this story on Christians and media from Saturday's Washington Post with a small amount of interest:
Evangelical Christians are on the front lines in the battle over indecency on cable television, calling for a pick-and-choose pricing plan that would allow viewers to keep certain channels out of their homes.But on the opposite end of the battlefield is an opponent familiar to and even respected by evangelicals: Christian cable stations.
The fear among Christian broadcasters is that a proposal to allow consumers to reject MTV or Comedy Central would also allow them to drop the Trinity Broadcasting Network or Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network. Cutting off that access could hurt religious broadcasters.
"We do not believe that 'a la carte' is the cure for the disease," said Colby May, attorney for the Faith and Family Broadcasting Coalition, which represents Trinity and CBN, in addition to other stations. "In fact, it is a cure that may very well kill the patient."
Evangelical and family groups support the concept of "a la carte" cable legislation, which would allow cable users to subscribe only to the networks of their choice.
It goes on from there. I do like the idea of "a la carte", not from the sole perspective of decency but from the perspective of paying for what we actually watch. And I don't watch the standard fare. Yes, I pay attention to the ESPNs, but I also watch Fox Soccer Channel and GolTV. The cable news networks are useless, I get far more practical news from CNBC. I hate the Discovery Channel with a passion, but (especially if it will get my daughter hyped up for astronomy) having the Science Channel around is a nifty thing. I'd rather have the International Music Feed rather than the MTVs (because, God forbid, IMF actually plays MUSIC VIDEOS), but having VH1 Classic around is a necessity for my family (because, God forbid, VH1 Classic actually plays MUSIC VIDEOS). And one day, if I could get my grungy little hands on TVU, I would go out of my HEAD.
Of course, the only practical way for me to get my grungy little hands on TVU right now is to do the SkyAngel thing, which I will never do because - again! - it would be paying for a whole lot of television that I wouldn't watch.
Because - and let's be charitable, kids - Trinity Broadcasting Network is crap. And because I think Godwin's Law is progressively becoming more true for Pat Robertson than Adolf Hitler, I'm just not going to touch what I think of CBN. Not even the 700 Club.
Still, I am a Christian, and I am interested in seeing the Word put out for people to see and hear, in the mass media, so that our influence isn't completely lost. Can I convince myself to believe that the Christian broadcasters have something of a point?
That thought process lasted until I wound up on Atlanta's local NBC affiliate just in time for a Billy Graham Evangelistic Association time-buy.
Billy's getting up there in years, sadly, so it was Franklin handling the evangelistic duties. And I'm not the biggest Franklin Graham fan in the world; I simply think the guy is too conservative, and he makes me nervous every time he speaks. When he started talking about the medical stuff and the science stuff, he had no dang clue what he was saying. But the guy has his daddy in him, and he dropped the best teaching I heard all year long in that talk:
And the Bible says, by grace are you saved, by faith. It's not a work, lest any man should boast. You see, you cannot work for your salvation. See, if you could work for it, you'd brag about it. Next time you're out on the golf course - "let me tell you what I had to do to get my salvation. Let me tell you how much it cost me." It didn't cost you nothin' - it cost the Son of God everything. He gave his life. All you had to do was believe it!
And it's not just the preaching - the "celebration" (Franklin doesn't call them "crusades", he calls them "festivals" or celebrations" when he does 'em) was filmed in New Orleans. And the television program was peppered with these mini-documentaries that took all the news from New Orleans and turned it on its head. Yes, Katrina really did do that much damage. Yes, New Orleans is still a complete mess. But here's what's going on in New Orleans to rebuild - and yeah, we could take this whole program to plug Samaritan's Purse and their good works, but there's plenty of examples we can point to within New Orleans itself. (If you watch nothing else of that, watch the clip of Pastor James Nelson Brown, for all practical purposes, taking on the needs immediately after Katrina himself - and demonstrating what "faith-based charity" should look like.)
And Billy himself turned up in the show too, so I'm not complaining about that one bit.
Overall, it was the best piece of Christian television I've seen since LightMusic went off the air. Maybe it's not something that will be everybody's cup of tea, but more stuff like this would surely get enough viewers to stay afloat.
And it's not like Billy's just been doing this for the past few years. Even before the "infomercial" was part of our vocabulary, Billy Graham has bought time on television stations to run evangelistic specials, and they weren't the type of thing you were embarassed to watch. Even Lewis Grizzard would write about watching Billy Graham on TV in the 60's. I remember Billy Graham specials throughout my childhood in the 80's. Here they are, still going on today.
And it caused me to think, when it was all done: If the likes of TBN and CBN actually had to compete for viewers, instead of having their place on the cable and satellite preserved artificially, they'd croak tomorrow. Not because of what they're saying, but because of the absolutely horrible quality of their communication. The idea that the likes of the Trinity Broadcasting Network is the only hope of getting quality evangelism on television is a rich one indeed.
Posted by Chuck at 04:45 AM | TrackBack
June 10, 2006
Chuck Pearson in soccer-content shock!
Back at my old web-place of residence (I would link a specific blogpost, but alas, Blog MatchNight has gone the way of the dodo) I used to offer links to the splendid soccer writing of Dan Loney all the time. He's one of the few writers who makes me laugh out loud at least once every time I read him. Of course, the things I laugh at, nobody else does. Oh well.
Anyway, I spin this tale just to let you know that Dan Loney of American Soccer News is the only pundit on the planet to predict that the United States gets farther than the second round of the World Cup.
And even if you don't get this, I think it's bleedin' hilarious:
United States over Brazil. Yeah, you heard me. Revenge for 1994. Brazil is ready to fade. Eddie Lewis is a better right back than Roberto Carlos. We've heard of defense. Rickety old Brazilian defenders are no match for Brian McBride. Somewhere in Miami, Romario looks at Kasey Keller leading his legions of German fans and says, "I told you so." Belo Horizonte is forgotten. Nike permits this because they forget to order the United States to lose.
(I especially like the bit about Brian McBride. However, I would.)
Loney has the Yanks also getting through the quarterfinal stage, "solidifying America's position as the most hated nation on the planet. In fact, I hope we win on a bad call. That would be just awe-inspiring." He projects a semifinal exit to Argentina. "What are you, crazy? We're not as good as Argentina. Get real."
And if you believe any of those predictions, I have an MLS franchise to sell you.
Posted by Chuck at 10:41 AM | TrackBack
June 08, 2006
Still testing
One of these days, I'll write something of substance and not just go on and on about the comment and trackback spam. It would be easier if I didn't have to spend so much time deleting spam comments and trackbacks.
But before I give up and totally disallow comments or make lots of people register to comment (and I don't think there's a good way to run registration on a small blog like this), I've tried a couple of tweaks in the Moveable Type filtering system. If you look at this at all, try leaving a comment. It can even be an anonymous comment - do leave your valid e-mail address, but for the "URL" put in this site's URL (http://blog.chuck-pearson.org/) so nobody tries to e-mail you.
The only person who will see the e-mail addresses is me, and perhaps the guy who helps me out with this.
Thanks!
Posted by Chuck at 02:32 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
June 04, 2006
Experiment and comfort
When it becomes part of your daily routine to delete the 50+ posts' worth of comment spam on a blog you're updating once every other week or so, there's a problem that needs to be solved.
There's a throwaway post, though, that seems to have been a magnet for the comment-spam - a link to an old Zits comic about Jeremy having too many blogs and the internet having too much space. (Which it does.) I have relegated that post to the aether. I'm wondering that that will do to our friendly neighborhood bots.
Everything I said about trackback spam before applies to comment spam now.
Oh, and I must also say, while doing this, seeing that no less a visionary than Mark Cuban is annoyed by this dark side of the 'net is more than a little bit of comfort. And I'm with him. I'd really like to know how all of this works. Many of the links in comment/trackback spam point to exactly those type of "splogs" that are engines for this "click fraud". There has been murmurings about all thos going on, but no good investigative reporting - and I'd like to know where this money is filtering from, and too.
(Whether or not I threw in that last comment to gain some cheap trackback off of Blog Maverick is left as an exercise to the reader, and an exercise that drips with irony if you think about it too hard.)
UPDATE: 33 hours, 71 spam comments. That SO did not work.
The next step might be to turn off comments totally. I might just do that.