I've often expressed the view that if Jesus came to modern day American, his message would be so incredibly inconvenient that the conservative right would promptly call for his death. This video (which I first caught at Daily Dish) develops that same idea. The video takes the form of a political attack ad on Jesus:
Jonathan Haidt is convinced he understands the thing that spurs on Tea Partiers: karma. He argued his position in an October 16, 2010 article appearing in the Wall Street Journal. Haidt based his conclusion on various surveys designed to tease out the differences and similarities among different types of voters. Those surveys show that American voters across the board love “liberty.” This is a problem for progressives because it doesn't distinguish them from Tea Partiers. We struggle to distinguish Tea Partiers in other ways, then, claiming that they are more racist, greedier or more gullible. Jonathan Haidt is not convinced.
[Karma is] the Sanskrit word for deed or action, and the law of karma says that for every action, there is an equal and morally commensurate reaction. Kindness, honesty and hard work will (eventually) bring good fortune; cruelty, deceit and laziness will (eventually) bring suffering. No divine intervention is required; it's just a law of the universe, like gravity.The idea of karma comports with a common human desire that moral bank accounts should be balanced. In the eyes of Tea Partiers, this desire to see a balancing of moral bank accounts is sharply frustrated by government policies that allow bad deeds (e.g., the failure to work hard) to go unpunished. The main problem is that social safety nets get in the way of karma. In the language of evolutionary psychology, Tea Partiers have highly sensitive cheater detectors. They believe that most welfare programs reduce incentives for working getting married, especially among the poor. Another example raised by Haidt is that birth control and abortion separate "irresponsible" sex from its natural consequences (babies). Another example concerns liberal approaches to criminal justice, which allow too many criminals to get away with crime. [caption id="attachment_15561" align="alignright" width="300" caption="Image by edayi at dreamstime.com (with permission)"]
[/caption]
Tea Partiers "want to live in a country in which hard work and personal responsibility payoff and laziness, cheating and irresponsibility bring people to ruin.” Haidt contrasts Tea Partiers to liberals, who don't like the idea of karma, because it allows "differences in talent and effort to result in unequal outcomes.”
Haidt also points out a fault line that underlies conservative politics. Tea Partiers starkly part ways with libertarian and pro-business conservatives, such as those run by Dick Armey, who support bailouts of big banks.
"Now jump ahead to today's ongoing financial and economic crisis. Those guilty of corruption and irresponsibility have escaped the consequences of their wrongdoing, rescued first by President Bush and then by President. Obama. Bailouts and bonuses sent unimaginable sums of the taxpayers money to the very people who brought calamity upon the rest of us where is punishment for the wicked?"
Further complicating things, Libertarians and pro-business types are more similar to liberals than to Tea Partiers on the three "binding foundations" (of Haidt's five foundations of morality): group loyalty, respect for authority and spiritual sanctity. And see here for more on Haidt's five moral foundations.
Haidt did not discuss social Darwinism in his article, but it seems to be the elephant in the room. It's one thing to say in the abstract (as Tea Partiers say) that we need to let the chips fall where they might, but what do you do about the tragedies? Nothing? Tea Partiers tend to be evasive about what they should do about homeless people and sick people who don’t have insurance. Tea Party rhetoric suggests (wrong-headedly in my opinion) that everything always comes out for the best in the end, without intervention of government. Everything will be as it should thanks to free market fundamentalism. That is what we are hearing from a mostly older bunch of folks who are happily benefitting from social security and Medicare while ranting about government programs.
I think that Jonathan Haidt has made a good point regarding Tea Party pursuit of karma, but I think that the full picture also requires the recognition of Tea Party hard-heartedness and hypocrisy.
This is exactly how it should be done, according to these commentators. And speaking of airplanes, here's how you send a paper airplane on a longgg flight.
I recently upgraded to an HD camcorder and I've started producing video on Final Cut Express using an iMac. Although it is an excellent program, I found myself struggling with FCE, because it is quite different than than Adobe's Premier Video, which I had been using. How do you learn to use FCE proficiently and quickly? I spent a lot of time reading the FCE online manual, but I was looking for more hands-on help. I even considered hiring a tutor for a couple of hours, but then I ran across a comprehensive training series produced by Israel Hyman (www.izzyvideo.com). I was immediately and extremely impressed with Izzy's teaching abilities. He displays a working knowledge of the process of shooting, processing and producing high grade videos on Final Cut Express.You would be hard pressed to find anyone who can explain the detailed process more clearly. His FCE course costs $49 (Izzy's introductory FCE course is free). Alternatively, you can surf YouTube, where you'll find lots of people who are trying to be helpful, many of them pre-teens. But you won't find many excellent teachers who really display a working knowledge. Izzy also offers a comprehensive membership regarding video shooting in general. He offers this information in the form of blogs posts and videos. I'm impressed with all of many written materials and videos that I've viewed. Warning: Izzy strives for excellent video, which sometimes requires pricey equipment or a lot of extra work, though many of his tips involve no expense (above and beyond having a video camera and a rudimentary editing program). Izzy makes much of his training available to the general public without charge. For instance, here's a highly useful set of suggestions (text and video) for getting good video in low light. Is this a plug? Absolutely. But I can assure you that I have never met Izzy (though it seems like I know him, based on viewing 30 of his short videos) and I'm not receiving a cent for this plug. I'm posting this information for others who are struggling with the beginning or intermediate stages of FCE, or those who want their videos to look like they were shot and edited by professionals. For any of you who are looking for some tips for shooting holiday video (regardless of whether you use FCE) consider this introduction to holiday video by Izzy. [Note: Adobe's Premier Video repeatedly choked and froze on my extremely fast PC, even though it has 8 GB RAM; I got tired to screwing with Premier for HD video (Premier did handle my DV camcorder footage OK, but choked on HD) and a couple other PC version contenders. I decided to invest in an iMac for my multimedia project (including music production on Logic Express --another excellent Apple program). The iMac runs and edits HD video effortlessly, which makes me wish I hadn't spent so much time trying to cut HD video on a PC. Anecdote: Adobe's website offers troubleshooting for Premier that has lists of dozens of things you might need to check if the program is not working-I tried many of these before giving up on Premier].
Conservative politicians insist that the United States is the Middle East of coal, and that we have no energy worries if we could only just get over our global warming worries. They often claim that the United States has enough coal to supply us for 250 years. They also insist, without any basis, that there is a way to burn coal cleanly, economically, and efficiently. There are many reasons to doubt these claims of conservatives, but let's assume that they are correct about all of them. Those who want to base our energy policy on coal have another huge problem. The November 18, 2010 issue of Nature available online only to subscribers) warns that recent forecasts suggest that coal reserves are running out much faster than most people believe. Therefore, "energy policies relying on cheap coal have no future." Authors Richard Heinberg and David Fridley indicate that "world energy policy is gripped by a fallacy--the idea that coal is destined to stay cheap for decades to come." They give two reasons for their urgent warning:
First, a spate of recent studies suggest that available, useful coal may be less abundant than has been assumed-indeed that the peak of world coal production may be only years away. One pessimistic study published in 2010 concluded that global energy derived from coal could peak as early as 2011. Second, global demand is growing rapidly, largely driven by China.… Since 2000 it has been surging at 3.8% per year… Economic shocks from rising coal prices will be felt by every sector of society.Yet, most energy policies assume a "bottomless coal pit." The authors point out that in terms of energy output, "US coal production peaked in the late 1990s (volume continued to increase, but the coal was of lower energy content)." They point out that two key mining regions in the United States "show rapid depletion of high-quality reserves." They urge the federal government to complete a new national coal survey. It is their conclusion that it is unlikely that world coal supplies can continue to meet projected demand beyond 2020.