Tuesday, April 23, 2019

Ego Vs Money

As the NFL contract season warms up, it becomes clear again:  most athletes cannot actually do the arithmetic to figure out what they need to live on quite nicely and then decide from there what other things are important to them in life that they might trade off - being near family; business opportunities; weather and familiar culture...there are many others. Le'Veon Bell did not make money in one of the most valuable years of his career, because he wants the ego stroke of having a higher "score" over other players in his contract. 

It is described as "respect," or "a team showing that they care about signing me," or some other synonym for "ego." Even with agents, who can do the arithmetic and tell them what their actual best deal is, they insist on the contracts that look like they are for the most years, at he most dollars-per-year, for the highest potential total, So that their $18M looks like a bigger swinging dick than the guy who gets $16M.

Now the 49ers kicker is insulted that the team tried to pursue another, better kicker briefly, so he's not sure he wants to play there.  He has to think of his family, he says.  Except he was fine with leaving his wife and young children in Chicago when San Francisco was stroking him.


My son in Nome tells me it was -1 up there this week and they are waiting for the snow to go away. He keeps trying to talk his wife into moving to Anchorage, at least.

Church Coffee

I do better than this when it's my turn, but I tend to be minimalist for a specific reason.  If you start putting out good snacks, then it suddenly becomes a competition (especially among women of my generation), and people are intimidated from volunteering to do coffee this week.

I did fat grapes for the children until I realised we are not well-places to do choking hazards.  I did cheap donuts, Nillas, or sugar wafers but got tired of the sugar-grumblings from the young mothers who still believe the myth that it causes their kids to be hyper.  So now I do Goldfish, and cheese and crackers.

Swedes care about coffee, but we aren't as Swedish in the Covenant as we used to be.

Sunday, April 21, 2019

The Last Gift of Mary Magdalene

Reprinted most years.

When Mary of Magdala went to the tomb on Easter morning, hoping with the other women to give the body of Jesus a proper burial (Friday afternoon's preparations had been hurried and the bare minimum), her situation was different than all of Jesus's other followers. The men could go back to their previous jobs and families. At least I can go back to accounting/fishing/building again. They would be humiliated, of course, but that would pass. They grieved for their friend, but lots of people grieve. Some of the men had wished to go back to their previous lives, and wanted assurance from Jesus that what they had given up to follow him was worth it.

Jesus had at least attempted to provide for his mother at the end. "Mother, behold your son; son, behold your mother" he had said to John. As far as we can tell, the other women had come from some sort of families, and after suitable punishment by their patriarchs, would be accepted back. Mary the mother of Jesus would have the greatest grief, of course, but no worse than a thousand other mothers in Jerusalem who had lost sons.

Mary had nothing to go back to. There were always job openings for Beggar, of course, but the other beggars would have been schooled for a lifetime in eliciting pity by appearance and tones of voice. She might not be able to make even a subsistence living. She might give herself as a slave, if anyone would have her - the woman of the house in any rich family might have something to say about the master taking on one of the girls from the Pampered Palestinian Escort Service, no matter how temporarily reformed. Ms. Magdalene had seemingly stayed somewhere the last two nights. Perhaps she had stayed with one of the other women, or one of the disciples - if she could find one out of hiding. But it could have been that she had nowhere, nothing, starting in about two hours.

We might hope that the followers of Jesus would remember at least something of what he taught, and that someone would take a poor woman in and provide for her. But if not, her own family was unlikely to take her back. She had shamed them already and was dead to them. Whatever friends she had formerly had among her customers wouldn't want to be that close to her new holiness, unless they were utterly depraved and would enjoy even more trying to take advantage of her need. You thought you were something for awhile there, didn't you - better than the rest of us, huh? Now look at you.

And yet out of love and duty, which are not as incompatible as we make them appear in our era, she wants to give what last little she has in the pointless gesture of doing things up properly for someone who wasn't even a relative. Just because it was the right thing to do. Just to show gratitude one more time, even if only only she noticed.

It was a gift of generosity unmatched by any of Jesus's other followers, a pouring out of her own self, probably pointlessly, in imitation of his own pointless sacrifice. Just because it had to be done. We lose too quickly in the immediate discussion of the resurrection how great must have been Mary Magdalene's despair at finding the tomb empty. Even this last ability to give a little gift had been taken from her, and she must have thought as well "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

No wonder that Jesus's words to her are "Touch me not." What other impulse could she have had but to wrap her arms around his ankles, touch his face, burrow into his chest, weeping? How did even the Son of God move quickly enough to prevent her?

There are no tears that will not someday be dried, no lonely depths that will not somehow be filled. We hunger; food exists. We thirst; water exists. What else then could hope be for, but for completion?

Saturday, April 20, 2019

New England Voting by Town

The map comes to me via Barry McMillion, who deserves the credit. Bsking sent it along.

To those outside of New England, this might be interesting only to note that there are strongly red sections even in very blue states. Even I, who am a geography nut, have to strain at some of these sections to figure out which towns are intriguing exceptions in their areas. The yellows tend to be wealthy towns. It also pays to remember that "rural" in New England does not automatically suggest farming - it sometimes just means "almost empty." So I wouldn't work too hard to get your head around what is going on in the minds of those pale and dark purple towns in Maine.  They are 50-50 red/blue to begin with, so small movements in the electorate can flip them. They have few people, and include much rural poverty, folks depending on five side businesses and food stamps to get by. You can also see why we in NH consider the towns along the Connecticut River to be practically part of Vermont, and why I call them the West Coast of NH. No surfing or beaches though.

Many of the darker blues and reds have more population, and illustrate the continuity of voting for the Democrat even if they hated Hillary (as many in Vermont do after her treatment of Bernie) or voting for the Republican even if they hated Trump.  Donald captured an interesting group that other candidates might not have, but most of his votes still came from people whose families have voted Republican since Harding.

As for those who switched, I am intrigued by that dark purple stretch that covers Eastern Connecticut (fancy prep schools there), Western Rhode Island, and Central Massachusetts. It is not broken up by blues that much or yellows at all, but by red, even creeping over the border into NH.  I don't have a good sense for who those people are, but they look like a consistent demographic a candidate might cultivate. (For those who like such things, there is a similar cluster at the borders of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin that was usually blue but not deeply so.  If a candidate could figure out what they have in common and win them over, s/he could make deep inroads in four states. Trump sort of did that, and it was key to 2016.  Holding rallies in that 100-mile radius wouldn't hurt him going forward, and I have to think some Democratic strategist (they have some very good ones) has figured this out for later, though it's pretty useless in the primaries.)

Interesting patterns you might notice are welcome.

Susan In Narnia

I have not read the Chronicles of Narnia aloud for almost thirty years, but have the current good fortune to be reading The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe to my granddaughters, and double fortune to be reading the sacrifice, death and resurrection chapters during Holy Week. I notice different things when I read aloud, especially in the descriptions. LWW is about Edmund's betrayal, but once one has read the entire series, Susan's eventual betrayal of Narnia is in the background upon rereading. I choked up today reading to the girls the section where Susan and Lucy walk at night with Aslan to the Stone Table, touching his mane, stroking and comforting him. Susan's affection for him is so powerful in that scene. How could you? I thought. How could you turn away from what you once knew?

Well, how could any of us, but we do it all the time.

If anyone wants to go down the rabbit hole of JK Rowling huffily accusing Lewis of sexism in his description of Susan no longer being a friend of Narnia, I wrote a defense Sexism in Narnia in 2007.  I still agree with what I wrote then, though I might write it up differently. Bsking commented knowledgeably at the time - more important, she agreed with me - and my son Ben, who used to read this site and is deeply knowledgeable about children's literature, commented as well. He commented at enough length that it became a post at his own site, Books for Boys, Books for Girls, and the comments there inspired me to write a further post on Female Characters in Heroic Fantasy.

Friday, April 19, 2019

Notre Dame. Update: Revised. New Title "Fr. Jean-Marc Fournier"

I didn't have much opinion on the cathedral a week ago. Places of worship that have become mostly art and history retain some religious value, as we can contemplate those who built them, the "countless legions of the faithful, crossing every generation, hand-to-shoulder, in an unbroken line." From those vantage points, and supported by the art and architecture if they are done right and we are prepared, we can see God more clearly as well. However obscured a place becomes by culture and the ambiguities of history, that is not a small thing.

Yet it's not everything, and had I ever visited Paris I would likely have visited Notre Dame more out of obligation, or to see the art work, than for spiritual desire. Other, obscurer houses of worship may have been more important in the cause of Christ over the centuries. I can understand it meaning more to Roman Catholics.  I can well understand its importance to those who have a desire to preserve Western, especially French culture, even if they are now largely secular individuals.

If we are preserving something, that doesn't mean we are changing it. adapting it, or reinterpreting it. Change, adaptation, and reinterpretation will happen on their own, and we needn't hasten that.  Unless, of course, our desire is not to preserve something, but merely hollow out its insides and put it on as a mask. Dave Burge said that better:
1.  Identify a respected institution
2. kill it
3. gut it
4. wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect.

Because of the ridiculous things that have been said about how to rebuild the cathedral, or more precisely, the ridiculous things about how not to rebuild it, I find myself drawn to having an opinion after all.  Roman Catholics should have more say than others - odd, that this is not obvious.  The French (and I do not mean self-appointed spokespeople) should also have their views count for more than others. Again, obvious, except apparently not. One could argue that those two groups, and especially their intersection, should have controlling authority and everyone else should bug out. After that other Christians, other Europeans might be allowed to speak if not vote at this town meeting.  The rest of the crew - the artists, other religions, historians, architects and the like are free to speak up.  File amicus briefs (to switch metaphors) if they like.

Yet this looks like everyone is going to want to get their Spelling Reform in. The design should reflect a stronger environmental concern. This has previously been such a male-dominated place, we should stress the involvement of women. Well, yes.  Catholic women and French women, I think.  The point deserves some explanation.  If I, a Protestant, were asked or allowed to offer some opinion on what they should do, I would restrict myself to whatever general Christian insight I might have. That would certainly be influenced by my Protestantism - can't help that, even with effort - but I would not dream of trying to intentionally make it more Protestant. That would be cheating, intrusive, deceitful. French women and Catholic women might indeed see things a little differently than men, and that may come out in their opinions and contributions.  That's not only okay, it is good. That is the sort of change and adaptation that is inevitable and allowable. But an American female architect, speaking on behalf of women in general, should have no audience. Speak as an American, and the tiny voice that gives you, or an architect, and the tiny voice that gives you, and then also as a woman in general - but understand that this is also a tiny voice. Just because there are a lot of women in the world doesn't mean that those who appoint themselves spokeswomen should be listened to.

My method gives the current Pope far more say than I would like in this, but I don't see anything else for it. The priest who ran into the fire to save relics - maybe they should just give him the final say on everything. Let him choose the architects, the advisors, the committees. Yes, that's my revised opinion: Fr Jean-Marc Fournier is in charge of it all.

Thursday, April 18, 2019

Remember The Future

The theme for Maundy Thursday service tonight was that Jesus was not creating a moment of nostalgia for the disciples to look back on when he told them to remember him in the supper. He connected the event to previous times, to his present, and to the future. Remember The Future was the repeated phrase. I wrote something a bit similar last week, inspired by the message at Vespers at a church near Madison Square Garden when we were in New York.

I have tended to treat Lent like Advent, a time of preparation for a big day. I often get frustrated Holy Week, realising that I have squandered this preparation time and am "not ready" for Easter. Yet it is not a time of preparation, it is its own season. At most, it is a preparation for all of Holy Week, beginning with Palm Sunday. When they first occurred, those events were separate instances, but now they are tied together. Jesus still had the wounds after the Resurrection; we cannot help but connectt Good Friday to the Resurrection now.  Indeed, we could not even call it Good Friday without that knowledge. Hoshia Na they cried on Palm Sunday: "Save us, we ask" from the last of the Passover Psalms, 118:25. On Maundy Thursday Jesus declared that this salvation was related to his body and blood.  All four events are now tied together, no longer sequential, but joined.

Cling Wrap

I noticed that the cling wrap was nearly out, so I efficiently bought more. Two weeks later, the old one still wasn't out. As there is not enough space in the drawer and we didn't want the new one on the counter anymore, my wife suggested we throw the old one away.  Just to see how near to the end we were, I unspooled the rest of it.  Yard after yard, and the amount on the cardboard cylinder kept looking exactly the same.  It looked the same all the way to the end - thirty feet of wasted cling wrap. Even at the last few inches, it didn't look any different.  Apparently visual cues are insuffficient.

Wednesday, April 17, 2019


Barrister over at Maggies posted this excellent article from Tablet. It grabs one by the shirt collars and upends some easy assumptions we make. 
It is too simple to say that Tocqueville presented equality and freedom as principles sometimes in tension with one another. His point was different. Equality was not merely a moral principle. Nor was it merely a material fact. More fundamentally, equality was a passion that gave rise to a certain dynamic in politics. Freedom, on the other hand, he portrayed as a set of skills and habits that required practice, an art that could be learned but also forgotten. The danger of democratic life, Tocqueville thought, was that the passion for equality would lead us to stop practicing the art of freedom.
Toqueville believed that the art of freedom was learned by Americans in their smaller associations of New England towns, juries, and voluntary organisations. It is a romantic and repeatedly popular idea (and not only in America), that salvation comes from outside the city. It is one theme of the Old Testament, and of Islam. But is it so? Is it not the cities where cooperation is exponentially more necessary, and the balances of freedom and equality more under stress and thus strengthened?

Different arts, different stresses, different meaning of freedom and equality, perhaps.

Tolkien Exhibit

I took notes at the exhibit at the Morgan Tolkien: Maker ofMiddle-Earth  and expected to comment immediately, while it was fresh in my mind last month.  I am glad I held off.  Much of the exhibit is about his own maps and artwork. The editions of Tolkien I have read, right from the beginning, have had the maps, which I loved, and artwork by others, which I have been lukewarm about.  When I was exposed years later to Tolkien’s own illustrations I didn’t like them any better, which surprised me. Smaug seemed more cartoonish than frightening, the original Hobbit dust-jacket put me off with its blobby trees and impossibly-steep mountains. Those are fine to designate mountains or forests on a map, but only by convention. I have looked at his other illustrations over the years and simply shrugged. Not much of an artist.  Not sure what ridiculous school of art he was trained in to be so stylized. I’m glad his words are so powerful that I don’t have to rely on the drawings.

The exhibit portrayed them in a way I had not thought through: they are not illustrations of real scenes, but of myths, or even the hazier, the emotiveprimary process  images that myths are founded on. I step backward into one of my own set of rules, which I had been ignoring for this topic all these years: Goethe’s ThreeQuestions. What is the artist trying to do?  How well did he do it?  Was it worth doing?  The first two must be answered before the third is attempted.

Tolkien of course knew these are stylized, not “convincing” in any realistic sense. He didn’t intend us to have that naturalistic experience of “feeling we could almost touch” the dragon’s claw, or some near-photographic reality of a mountain landscape.  He wanted install the deep memory of myths in our minds, of roads going up into distant mountains, or dark, impenetrable woods as caught out of the corner of our eye. These grow up in a culture over generations of songs, folktales, rituals and phrases and become the mind’s landscape, not the photographic landscape.  This would be a good spot to click through to the exhibition website above and click on the video.  The drawing “Eeriness” long predates any writing of The Hobbit yet could well be from Middle-Earth.  The trees have some impossible angularities and convergences. The foreground figure could be a wizard, and the distant figure in the road, a mere stick, might portend either danger or rescue. Or nothing at all, simply another tree in the forest.

I recall how distressed I was when I learned that a maker of horror movies was going to be doing Lord of the Rings. It offended against the literary Oxonian feeling of gowns and dons. Still, I thought later, this is the Tolkien who wrote Beowulf:The Monsters and The Critics.*” The fantasy, gothic, horror, and science fiction genres were not distinct when he was writing.  JRRT had a great deal to do with making them more distinct.  I have never liked the horror genre.  But LOTR has a lot of elements of a horror novel, as does Beowulf. The monsters are central. Peter Jackson turned out to be the correct choice. The Beowulf poet uses a literary device to create a greater sense of ancientness.  Grendel is old, and has long troubled mankind. Thus when a second monster is introduced and it is his parent, we have an immediate sense of greater age and remoteness. Further description traces her all the way back to Cain, to the foundations of humankind. The was something similar visually in the beginning of the first Star Wars movie, when we see the hugeness of the ship chasing the small fighters.  There are long seconds running under its great length, impressing us with how outsized is this ship compared to its opponents – yet the camera draws back to show that the unimaginably long ship is in fact quite modest in size compared to another ship. We are jolted into seeing the immenseness of the latter.  Tolkien does something similar with the ancientness of his monsters. In Moria the dwarves seek knowledge of the death of a reestablished colony from decades before – already dusty, old; they read in a damaged record the colony was destroyed when it awakened an enemy that had troubled them in early, brighter days, deep in their history; when the Balrog fights deep in the earth with Gandalf we he was already impossibly old before that time, long predating the coming of the dwarves to Moria. The technique is used with Shelob, with the Ringwraiths, and with Sauron himself. We look back through many glass walls to see their beginnings.

He uses the same technique to create myth.  His hope was to create an English mythos similar to the Finnish Kalevala. He does this by having characters tell much of the story retrospectively.  We do not follow the attack of the Ents on Orthanc in real time.  Merry and Pippin describe it for us after. So also with Gandalf’s encounter with Saruman, and his fight with the Balrog. The device is used right off in The Hobbit, as the dwarves kick off the story by telling a story of ancient wrongs and ancient treasure. The past is everywhere in Middle-Earth, and there is always someone to tell you a story about it.

This is economical in the time needed to tell the whole tale. Summaries of battles, entire wars, or even long ages of history can be done in a few paragraphs.  Imagine how much longer LOTR would be if all the events were told in linear fashion! Yet I don’t think efficiency was the primary aim.  Tolkien created an entire history, and used a single great adventure in it to give us the whole.  It is a story of people telling stories, and even more distantly, repeating legends that have already changed over time, singing songs of events barely remembered, reading books that have long been forgotten, in languages and scripts that few read and none use anymore. Gandalf pores over a text that even its owners have neglected in Minas Tirith – and unearths Isildur telling a story. He created layers of history and culture stretching back into myth, and such things are impressionistic, shadowy, and indistinct, whether they are grim and eerie, bright and comfortable, or strange combinations of color and emotion. The tiny stick figure in “Eerieness:” Is this the long-sought prince, or a final enemy to be fought?  Have we seen this before, been here before?

Thus Tolkien’s other art, such as the bright homeliness of the Shire, or Bilbo’s emergence from shadow into open sun on the barrels at Laketown, is truer than a photograph. I am sure I have never been there, and yet, it is like something I remember.  Tolkien is drawing memories of trees in Faerie, not trees; memories of landscapes, not landscapes. His characters tell stories, or sometimes only rumors - not histories.

Additional notes: Tolkien based his stories on the maps and the languages, and the exhibit has a good deal of his writing on both.  While the map changed as Tolkien entered the world and learned the stories in it, he covering over small sections with new graph paper as he corrected the landscape, what is remarkable is how little it changed.  The first maps are clearly of the same Middle-Earth, and one could even believe his changes are improvements based on his visits to the terrain, not adaptations to fit the story.  It was also fascinating to see his side-by-side calendars of the events taking place in different locations after the Fellowship was sundered, to keep track of all parties as he wrote. There is a column for Sam and Frodo, a second for Merry and Pippin, a third for Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli, with occasional subdivisions when those become divided or Gandalf’s movements need to be accounted for. According to the book Bandersnatch, there were discrepancies of weather and phases of the moon in some of the last events when he was writing quickly, which caused him no end of frustration during rewrites for publication, as he could not bear to have them be out-of-sync or papered-over.  This paralleling of the adventures breaks through in the text occasionally as characters wonder what is happening to the others, or Tolkien inserts a quick sentence to knit us back to events far away.

I was pleased to learn that JRRT regarded Bombadil as outside the story, not quite fitting, but necessary not only for plot but because he is an actual resident of the place.  I had always regarded Tom as not quite part of the story, something of an insertion. I was not distressed when he was not part of the movie. Yet to learn that Tom is part of many other stories, though this one only incidentally, makes entire sense to me. When after long years of avoiding the movie I finally saw it, I mentioned to my son my comfort with the missing Bombadil.  When I had read the books aloud those several times to the boys I worked very hard to compensate for Bombadil’s distance from the sense of the story by making him come alive.  This drew a flash of anger from my eldest, that perhaps I shouldn’t have worked so hard at it, then, as he missed Tom very much.

Tuesday, April 16, 2019

The Fringe Versus the Mainstream

This would be an evil and irresponsible tweet coming from a single trolling individual.  However, I understand that such things happen, and have also read individual Republicans and Libertarians writing such unfair things.  It has always been so, and I remember it from my youth.  I don't know it it's worse now, but it was present then.

But the tweet is from the NH Democratic Party. A major political party is allowing its signature to be used on this. Perhaps I am simply not recalling when NH Republicans as a whole, or some prominent Republican spokesperson made a similar claim about Maggie Hassan, Jeanne Shaheen, or John Lynch. I again note that the Democratic mainstream - and now even in NH, which has been blessedly above this most of my life - is using the same language and tactics as the right-wing fringe. Give me counterexamples if I am wrong.

Mental health care is very expensive. In hospital, round-the-clock 1:1 suicide watches are not uncommon, and are labor intensive. (Run the arithmetic for how many of even your lowest-paid employees it takes to accomplish this for a half-dozen people every day. Small state, this.  Ramp up if you live in a state with more people.) Out of hospital, outreach to people so that they remain out of hospital is expensive, even at a few hours a day per person. Psychiatrists don't come cheap, round-the-clock nursing doesn't come cheap. Private hospitals go $2800/day, ours is $1357, with sicker and more violent patients. Republicans don't admit this because they want to pretend it's all cheap. Democrats don't admit this because they don't know if it costs a lot but don't want to know - they just want to list what they think we should do and send the bill to the citizens.  In my case, please note, I am not merely some crank making accusations at how Democrats just want to fund everything.  I am talking about real people who I work with who refuse to even look at the simple arithmetic*, because they are sure there are lots of rich and corrupt people out there who just won't pay their fair share, and it would only be a little more for each of us. So the budget is pinched and the expensive hospital is full with a waiting list, but somehow that's not really what's happening. Republicans not caring if people die, die, die is what's really happening.

So of course the only possible explanation is that those evil Other People must be getting paid off, bribed.  Everything would be good in the garden if it weren't for those hoarders.

Ranting. Sorry.  The irony is that we work in a building that was built as state-of-the-art thirty years ago when Chris Sununu's father was governor and pushed for it - and when he got to DC in the Bush administration, pushed for "Decade of the Brain" research funding. He was in many ways an entitled and arrogant bastard, but no taint of corruption has stuck, and he was always willing to allocate money well-spent.

*Not that social workers would get it even if they did look.  "I'd pay another $20 a week for this to be a country that took care of its poor and disabled the way it should." (Exact quote in a group of eight young social workers at lunch.  General nodding.) Yes, but would you pay another $200/wk? $400, if you make just a little bit more and are one of the better-paid in the building?  Or $600 week, if you are one of the best paid in the building? Pony up.  Pay it forward now, thanks. Then we can talk.

Sunday, April 14, 2019


I have lots of these on my YouTube feed, which has figured out I like track comebacks.  I have no idea who these women (girls?) are, but the announcers are entertaining. I think "from the depths of hell" is a bit of an overstatement, however.


I have grave suspicions whenever someone declares that change is going to cause some discomfort.  I think they usually mean it will cause some discomfort for you. They have already made the changes they are going to, and now it is your turn.

At least, that's what I sometimes meant when I used to say such things.  I don't say that anymore, having been on the receiving end of it too often.  Others decide there will be changes.  There's not necessarily anything wrong with that.  They may be in positions of authority which allows or even requires it.  But the reluctance of others to sign on quickly and happily is seen as a fault, not as a possible indicator that the change is not the right one.  It's their change, of course it's the right one!

Saturday, April 13, 2019

Game of Thrones

I have never watched, have no interest.  My impression from afar, that it lacks a moral core, seems borne out by David French's largely positive anticipation of season eight. Yet I had forgotten my own insight from years ago - not the first time that has happened on many subjects. Fantasy writers eventually tell us what they really think is evil.  I recall in Piers Anthony's first Xanth novel the playful treatment of demons, and his tweaking of conventional sexual morality.  Yet as the series progressed more serious questions started to intrude, almost unbidden.  Grundy the Golem wondered if he had a soul; the front edge of a real hell and real oblivion became central in Night Mare. When intelligent thinkers are honest, surprising this happen.

I gave up on the series as repetitive one or two books later, but I understand from others that he drew back from seriousness.  Small wonder he moved on to soft pornography next.

Or consider Oscar Wilde - yes, The Picture of Dorian Grey and other Gothic novels qualify as fantasy before fantasy was entirely a genre of its own. He made his career as a flaunter of morality and satirizer of it, but in the end penned some of the most insightful moral pieces of the 20th C and powerfully made his piece with God.  Long before his repentance, one can see his deep understanding.

So I am not surprised that "Game of Thrones" could not find an ultimate conflict internally and had to reach outside itself to remind not only its audience but its characters what real evil is like.

Thursday, April 11, 2019


I remember the 1972 version by Hot Butter.  I don't know if I'd ever heard the original and I certainly never saw this Top of the Pops video.  Something interesting is that the speed is much faster than rock and roll songs, so even good 1969 dancers are having trouble finding moves they can get in and out of quickly enough. A few of them are figuring stuff out by the end. Disco went at about 120 beats per minute, and this is right about there. Rock was as slow as 60 beats per minute in its earlier years.

When popular songs went much faster than that, up over 100 beats per minute, they tended to get remakes that slowed them down considerably, as in "You Keep Me Hangin' On," and "Layla."  If you are looking for an older song to create an interesting cover, check out ones that have that very quick tempo and see what happens when you slow it by half.


In case you missed it when it was on the sidebar, there is this short essay from James, Incarnation.

I have bookcase and shoe stories as well, which is perhaps why it caught me so sharply.

Wednesday, April 10, 2019

Ancient Climate Change

The huge problems of climate change in prehistory are frequently invoked when discussing the peoples living in those times and how hard it was to adapt quickly.  At the beginning of the Younger Dryas around 12,700 years ago, the temperature dropped 6 degrees in about 30 years in Europe.  It may have dropped two degrees in a single year. People could not move south fast enough to survive.

Yet so far I can't help but notice that the catastrophes seem to have occurred because of rapid cooling or rapid drying.  Increased warmth and increased moisture do not seem to be a problem (with at least one exception on the moisture, because of flooding).

Don't quote me.  Someone may know better than I on this.

The Cathedrals

When the youth pastor preached a couple of weeks ago he mentioned singing songs by The Cathedrals in the car with his family on the way to his grandmother's funeral.  They were part of her life, and his, in North Carolina.  I had not heard of them, and went looking. I don't know what their signature song is, but I liked this one.

I thought Texan99 might like this second one.

21st C Christian

So you have a new idea, a way of interpreting the faith that has been uncommon, or even unknown in our history.  I don't have a problem with that.  I think that's possible.  While I think we should regard the people who knew Jesus personally as the strongest witness to what he actually meant, I can accept the idea that they were also culturally-bound, and truths might gradually emerge.

You disagree with 2000 years of other Christians, who presumably also had access to the Holy Spirit. I can see the possibility of that as well. I'm not writing that off as impossible. What I do find hard to accept is your absolute assurance that you are right and 20 centuries of other Christians are wrong. That, in and of itself, disqualifies you from further participation in the discussion.

February 2020 Madness

Next year, New Hampshire will have its over-important primary, right after Iowa's over-important caucus, followed by whatever it is that South Carolina does.  As a side-note, I will acknowledge that of course this is crazy, but the combination is relatively representative of the country, and these are small, inexpensive places for candidates to give it a try,  So just suck it up, America.

There are so many candidates on the Democratic side this time around that there has to be some way of getting control. As we have just gone through the NCAA basketball championships, we are all familiar with that tournament style. I propose that we have a Democratic debate bracket. We really should have done it in 2016 with the Republicans and their Gold Rush Boarding House of candidates but we didn't.  We already have more than 16 candidates.  I don't think we'll get to a full bracket of 32, but we might. We can give the top candidates a bye for one round. As with the NCAA, we can hold more than one debate per night, with an eye to prime time.  Pit the #1 Candidate in the polls versus the #16 in a one-on-one debate, followed a week later by the "winner*" going up against the winner of the #8 vs #9 debate.

I thought of this as just funny at first, but looking at it, I like it even more.  An obscure candidate gets a much better shot at presenting her case than otherwise, going head-to-head with Bernie or Kamala or whomever.  Yes, that obscure candidate will probably not prevail, but she will get a much better venue. I think those one-on ones would draw, much better than the current fraudulently moderated items. The Democratic powers could say to the little ones "Hey, you had your chance, don't blame us." The favorites could try to play it safe but that could explode on them. I would absolutely sign on to watching this, while I wouldn't watch five minute of the Democratic debates otherwise. Whoever wins will have to go head-to-head against  single Republican anyway.  You might as well learn who's up for that.

Who a candidate drew as a matchup in each round would have some luck and unfairness attached to it, just as happens in your high school state field hockey tournament.  Too bad. Deal with it. Of course Hillary Clinton wouldn't have wanted to debate the #8 candidate last time around - too much risk.  But Democrats would have seen what they needed to to help her in the finals against Donald.  They didn't, and she didn't. I suspect under that system Bernie would have done even better; Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina would have done better. I don't know about Trump.  Would this have been death for him, or exactly his best venue?  I don't know.

Here are the current numbers. The current debates would be Gillibrand-Buttigieg.  Awesome.  Booker-Gabbard. Oh man, I would absolutely tune in for that. Castro-Booker.  Pretty good. Bloomberg versus Beto O'Rourke. Yes, yes, yes!  Of course, I think anyone one-on-one versus Beto exposes him as a cipher. i don't know who Warren and Biden draw in the first round.  It would still be more fun.  Head-to-head.  That's what we want.

* the argument over who won the previous week's debate would also be fun.  If a low ranking candidate shot up from 1% to 8%, isn't that a win? Or do we just stick with next week's poll numbers? Run the tournament twice, once in September and another in Dec-Jan.

Tuesday, April 09, 2019

Hobbits in Kentucky

Reading my stats, it showed up again.  The post on Hobbit names in a narrow section of Kentucky seems to attract a small but steady googling year after year.  I get amused every time by re-reading that one of my sons knew one of these people, a Butterbaugh, pronounced BOOderbaw, thank you very much.

I do have notes from the Tolkien exhibit in New York, but haven't put them into a post yet.  I will.  There was nothing stunning that demanded immediate report.  There  were some things Tolkien fans would find interesting. There was a great deal of focus on Tolkien's own artwork and seeing it closely. I changed my mind about some things I hadn't previously liked.


Onomastics, how we name our children, has been a source of fascination to me since college, when I read a brilliant essay illustrating that weird and misspelled named are less frequent in pedobaptist cultures.  The thought was that having to run the baby's name past a minister or priest created a social pressure toward tradition and respectability. Black preachers could spell "Isaiah" correctly, but they didn't get the chance to put their oar in early, as the white Methodist or Presbyterian preacher across the street did. In the very next essay in my college text, I learned that Puritans would use names over, which very few other cultures did.  If Ephraim died in the year he was born, the next son was often named Ephraim.  Most cultures considered that bad luck, but Puritans thought more in terms of the whole family having a continuity extending forward.

My wife is Tracy.  The priest refused to baptise her with that name because there is no Saint Tracy. Her mother was a stubborn woman and was likewise immovable, but the priest went forward in command of the ceremony.  So if you meet my wife in heaven, her namecard might say Therese instead. At least one of my five sons will be unable to recognise their mother in heaven because of this.  Which will be uproarious. Relatedly, using "salmons" as a plural will also be an identifier of our group.  Drop over and say hello when you hear that.

Looking up an old post to create a link for a site that linked to me, I decided that my posts on onomastics over the years were so interesting that I would not single any out.  The whole batch is fun. Should I do a book of my best 300 posts, two per page? The idea is intriguing, and the title Assistant Village Idiot would certainly jump off the page at Amazon.  Yet my strength is not in 300 stunning posts, but in 1000 mid-range interesting and informative, maybe more. We all have to know who we are.

Note: In a post on my respect for the name "Oscar" years ago, Sam L was on board and had a clever response.  We have some continuity here.

Descended From Nobility

I have been doing the Ancestry.com thing, and pushed a couple of lines back before 1500 before I decided that this was way too much work for very little return. Records in Europe - England, Sweden, Holland, and Ireland, at least - are not as good as American Puritan (and presumably, FFV) records. Not close. One is clicking merrily along from John Jr to John Sr and suddenly recognises that wait a minute, this woman is giving birth at fifty-seven years old. Or twelve. I know that longevity runs in families, but two generations in a row living to be more than 100 seems...unlikely.  Especially as one seems to have moved from Somerset at 84 to Suffolk for no apparent reason.  As I have discussed before, naming was very conservative in England for 650 years, with a huge percentage of girls being named Mary, Elizabeth, Anne, Margaret, Alice; boys John, William, Robert, Charles, Henry, Richard.  Because of this, there are lots of people with the same name.  I had a weird situation of a John Neat in my ancestry around 1800, who had a parallel with a John Neat in England only about 20 years earlier, both having married a woman named Mary, and so showing up as hints for possible ancestors.  And don't even get me started on John Andersson, son of Anders Jonsson in Sweden.

Parenthetical:  When one is not really caring about the right answer, only trying to get one's work recorded for posterity, good or bad, one goes quickly to losing one's temper and muttering "Well someone was his mother, and who the hell cares if it's Josefina or Margeta?  They're dead!  They don't care!  We'll laugh about this in heaven if we all get there!" No, no, that was his first wife, which was also my sister's name, which is why you got confused.  Let me introduce you to them, they're both lovely.

This is clearly bothering me too much. I got distracted in my introduction and haven't gotten back to the title topic since.

We all find nobility, though perhaps not royalty, for good reasons.  They were better fed, had more descendants, and everyone kept better records about them.  People with a little money had twice as many surviving children, and those with lots of money about five times as many.  Yet because of primogeniture - which my oldest son keeps complaining is a conservative custom we should have retained - the title only went to one, or if deaths intervened, perhaps a second.  Yet those other sons of Earls got to be at least Knights, and some title or other would descend for a few years.  And those would remember. We're descended from Barons, doncha know. And if six people die before ye, ye'll be a baron yourself.  So it's probably not a lie if your aunt insists you have Duchesses in your background.  Of course you do.  You have a thousand ancestors from the late 1600s, and a million from the 14th C. But they didn't keep track of the serfs and scullery-maids so well.

Next, cool ancestors exert a gravitational pull.  People want to get there, and so lower their standards to make the claim.  I hit one set of hints about a Puritan Elizabeth about 1630 and saw the repeated assertion that she was the daughter of King James I /VI and Anne of Denmark.  The evidence seemed to be no more than that she was named Elizabeth, and they had a daughter named Elizabeth. Dude, I think we would have heard.  If James I/VI had had a daughter who sympathised with the puritans enough to come to America when it was a dirty, death-filled primitive colony it would have been all over our history books.  There would be not only statues, but towns named after her.  Maybe a whole colony.

I feel the tug myself.  I hit a Churchill in the ancestry and thought Oh! Winston! My wife reminded me that he was American on his mother's side, so any relationship would be...more remote. Yes. True.

I may do an entire post on the patent impossibilities that people put forward as reasonable on ancestry websites. If "researchers" only remembered Jamestown 1607 and Plimoth 1620 a lot of idiocy could be avoided. And that no Englishmen lived in North Dakota in 1726.  Plus, enough biology to know what ages women could usually bear children. Or that they wouldn't normally have one six months after another. I admit, naming towns in New England and Virginia after familiar places in East Anglia or Wessex does confuse the issue.  But you take on that responsibility when you type.

I hit something similar as my Massachusetts North Shore  ancestors converged on 1700, or ahem, 1692.  Everyone wanted to tie in to the Salem Witch Trials somehow. Or also, the Mayflower. Everyone want one of those.  I've got lots, mostly the least-respectable Stephen Hopkins and his many descendants. The next ship, the Anne?  Not so much. I probably have just as many from there, but people didn't work as hard to find those.

Memento Mori

Memento Mori

I went for a walk in "my" woods today, where I had not been in over sixteen months because of the ticks. (I may have gone once in 2018.) I knew that the usual groomer of trails had been sick and noticed the quick deterioration of two of ten little bridges over trickles. There were no footprints, tire prints, snowshoe prints, not in mud or snow. There were fallen branches, ones that any previous passer-by would have easily lifted and tossed aside. So no one has been here. On the other side of the Forest Service land there is reportedly timbering going on.  I expected to come to the edge of it, but only barely heard chain saws at the farthest southern point before turning west. I have liked being one of the few - it is quite different to realise you have been the only for many months.

Nor any animals, though they may show soon.  No deer, no fox, no rabbit, no moose, no grouse. No bear or coyote, which live here but I do not see.  Few birds.

I stopped in to see the previous groomer and repairer, a pleasant man I had conversed with a few times when our paths crossed.  His wife answered the door and invited me in.  Within three sentences she had referred to him in the past tense.  So I should have done better at that, going and seeing him sooner. Steven Waldorf.

The Pace of Change

"The pace of technological change has speeded up over the millennia. Our ancestors spent many thousands of years as hunter-gatherers, during which time the pace of change was glacially slow. It shifted up a gear with the transition to farming and again with industrialization.  A key factor seems to be the number of people within a communicating group.

A larger community gives greater scope for invention. The greater the number within a group, the more likely it is that among them will be an inventive type who thinks up something new. Inventors area tiny percentage of any society. Possibly natural selection favored minds that learned from successful members of their group, rather than always trying something new (a risky strategy). Among the small hunting bands before farming, it might be generations before an exceptionally creative individual cropped up in any given band. Also, the larger the communicating group, the greater the exchange of ideas, and the less chance of innovations being lost.

Farming could support larger communities, and industrialization created huge cities. Both can produce a surplus beyond immediate subsistence needs. They can support the occasional inventive soul through the trial-and-error process of innovation. Just as importantly, the economic basis of a society dictates the communication range of any individual within it. Innovation can increase that range.  Agriculture generated writing.  Industry generated communication devices such as the telephone.  Inventors these days can not only build upon a vast knowledge base established by generations before them, but also test their ideas among like-minded people around the globe. Are we seeing another step-change in the pace of innovation as a result of the Internet? It could be.  Will today's inventors find answers to the problems we have created ..." Jean Manco Ancestral Journeys. 

It doesn't even seem up for question to me.  We have already seen one step change because of the internet, which is why the term "digital native" is even a thing.  My question is whether there is a second one already brewing.I may be defining them differently.  She skips from writing to telephone.  I would insert the printing press in there, and the subsequent explosion of literacy.

Christ and the Church

The Church is called the Body of Christ. The head and the body do not separate.  It is worth noting that Christ did not abandon his Church even when it betrayed him.  Nor should we, even if it betrays us.

When Jesus appeared to the disciples after the Resurrection, he still had the wounds.  He is no longer dying on the cross, but the wounds remain with him - it looks like forever, though "forever" is a word that may turn out to not have a clear meaning. I suppose it works in reverse now as well, that we are to perceive the resurrection even on Good Friday.

Monday, April 08, 2019

Russians. Bagels. Liberty.

Just to see how fast you can switch gears.

It is always nice to have one's rank prejudices completely confirmed.  When walking about in New York I heard many foreign languages. German, Spanish, and French were easy to recognise, though I suppose a Portuguese speaker might have snuck by who I identified as Spanish.  Chines versus Japanese I could tell, not from language but from behavior. But there were Slavic speakers everywhere and I cannot tell them apart.  I can sometime eliminate - Those aren't Bosnians, anyway.  I don' think they are quite so southern as Bulgarians. Yet I did gradually settle upon one group as richer, louder, more shopping bags, more arrogant. I decided those were Russians.  I ran this by a Belorussian doctor friend of mine this morning.  He laughed and said I was probably right, but were they wearing - he could not find the word at first...leo-pards...animals..."Furs?" I asked.  Yes, rich Russians wear furs!  As a matter of fact, they were!  He assured me they were in all probability Russians. Vindicated.

I liked the method of preparation of my marginally best bagel and cream cheese - oven toasted with the cheese already in, versus toaster and added later.  In looking up the time and temperature for toasting a bagel in the oven*, I ecountered many pages of bagel-snob sites. It gets tiring, really. CS Lewis wrote decades ago about a person who claimed to like music but upon discussion revealed they only liked a single type of music, and only that performed by specific artists.  We might extend that to a person who says they love books, but turn out to only like mysteries, British, before 1960. Ot to enjoy wine, yet if you get them talking, only the Cabernet Sauvignons and a few related reds, only French, and particular years. He says he loves women yet criticises the appearance of 95% of them. I think it's the same for bagel-lovers. There is just so much wrong with all those other bagels outsied New York, both in foundation and in presentation.  I'd like to see how much of that stood up to independent taste test. Remembering my uncle's amusement that Denny's won the clam chowder taste test two years running in San Francisco, and the yearly revelation that wine critics cannot remotely agree on cheap versus Dom in blind tests - and sometimes cannot tell white from red - I am suspicious how much of this is real.

As a comparison, New Englanders can absolutely tell real maple syrup from "pancake syrup," or whatever they call it.  If someone tells you they can discern New Hampshire from Vermont from Quebec they are lying, but we can all tell the real from the cheap commercial.

When Americans get involved in foreign wars and they aren't going well, we shake our heads and say that the people of these countries have to pay the cost of liberty themselves, and if they won't then maybe there's not much we can do to help them. After all we paid that price, which is how we got this country of our own and everything. It occurred to me while listening to a Patrick Wyman podcast that we actually paid a comparatively small price.  England was far away, and preventing us from pulling away would take a lot of resources.  Also, the French were helping us, for reasons of their own. We got lucky in that last Cornwallis campaign, as more than one American general - including the friggin'-awesome Fighting Quaker Nathanael Green figured out that "losing" battles in the traditional sense while stretching out your enemy's supply lines and inflicting continual casualties would win the war.  Plus , we had the Scots-Irish, who were sick of war and wanted nothing more than to be left alone untile they learned "Wait, you're fighting the English? Let me grab my second gun and kiss the wife goodbye." And they had barely gotten here.

We paid our huge cost later, in the Civil War, between the two competing American values of "We can do what we want, dammit" versus "All men are free." But that's another story.  I suppose one could consider that a continuation of the American Revolution Question, as WWII is an extension of WWI, but that seems a matter for historians. Still, we did not pay the existential cost we are asking Kurds Or Pashtuns or Venezuelans to pay now to get their freedom.  I don't like to say it, but we had it sort of easy.  It is true that the British had the best army and best navy in the world at the time, and had they decided to invest those resources into keeping us we would have paid a higher cost.  Because that was a possibility we should credit our forefathers with the courage of willingness to pay, though they ended up not having to.

I think the myth of our own cost might inform too much of our foreign policy since 1900.  We have thought that true believers in freedom would pay any cost, because we did.  Except we didn't.We timed our revolution well, likely by a collective intuition that the best interests of the British - who were not a different people from us but our nearest equivalents - could convince them to be persuaded by steadfastness, good trade, and a few solid traditional victories mixed in with the guerrilla warfare, would be satisfied by cutting their losses and making nearly as much money from us in partnership as in colonial domination.

*350, 10 minutes, moistened, thin slab instead of whipped spread