Carry Me, Carrie

 

I think perpetually stoned.

Duck Pins

From 2009. I always thought duckpin bowling was an old New England thing, found more frequently in Massachusetts. We had both candlepin and duckpin in my town, but only one of the latter, in a dingey basement downtown where our mothers wouldn't let us go. Because who knew what might happen to you there, they said, leaving us to use our imaginations what horror that might be. I always figured she meant some creep would rub our shoulders and ask us to look at some pictures in the back, but she may have just meant we'd catch some disease.

Guys liked candlepin because you could get higher scores, occasionally breaking 100 even as a kid; the longer pins would fly into the others and knock down a few extras. I heard of people breaking 100 in duckpin, or more likely, read of those scores on the bulletin boards and plaques at the alleys, but I don't think I ever saw anyone do it. They played about equal amounts of candlepin and duckpin in MA. I suppose it was a town-by-town thing, but duckpin was generally the older, downtown places. In Maine I once played a kind of duckpin that had thick bands around the fattest part, and those fell down a little easier. But even more than candlepin, you had to really whale that sucker down the alley at high speed. Those cute scenes with the tenpin balls, where a little kid rolls a ball slowly down the lane and lucks into a strike, the pins falling into each other one-by-one? That seldom happens in candlepin, and never in duckpin. A frustrating game.

I wondered, for no particular reason, whether duckpin bowling still existed. Isn't wikipedia great? How did we ever answer such questions before? It is still played in MD, and at a few spots in MA, including in Billerica. Which figures, if you know Billerica. Maryland claims to have had the game first, but apparently earlier Massachusetts references have been found back to 1893. And - that type of duckpin with the rubber bands is still played in Quebec. So I wasn't imagining that.



Yep. That was about how interesting it was in real life, too. The pinsetter and ball-return mechanisms were about as interesting as the game itself. If you were with your friends, it was a nice social game. If you went with day camp and got stuck with jerks by random assignment, it could be pretty deadly.

Surplus Safety

The Evolutionary Importance of Risky Play, Kambiz Kamrani 

I like the conclusions.  I want this to be true.  The argument seems plausible. And I like the idea of surplus safety.  But if you push hard on this there's a lot of  "Wait, are those two things the same?" about it.   Still...

In their paper published in Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health1, the researchers argue that this type of play fulfills an evolutionary need inherited from our ape and early human ancestors. The study suggests that modern playgrounds may prioritize “surplus safety” at the expense of children’s ability to push their physical and cognitive boundaries, a process that is fundamental to developing resilience and confidence.

The Disappearance of Moral Knowledge

The Disappearance of Moral Knowledge (full pdf here) by Dallas Willard was published posthumously in 2020. Willard had died in 2013 with it about 90% finished and considered it his most important work. It was completed by three of his many doctoral students at USC, where he taught philosophy for many years. He may have had too many irons in the fire.  He was a busy man, writing many books, monographs and chapters, both in philosophy and Christian living. 

A friend who is active in Renovare assures me that it is hard to get even those acolytes interested in studying the book, despite its reputation as Willard's favorite, even masterwork. Yet I can understand this, as it requires a great deal of knowledge about philosophy and philosophers, from the Greeks to Rawls and McIntyre to even get a foothold. Many of Willard's devotees come solely from the spiritual formation side, with less interest in Ethics than in practical programs for sustained growth. I am much that way myself. 

Willard traces moral thinking from the early 19th C to the early 21st, with continual reference back to the earlier foundations (it is clear he is partial to the ancients in many ways).  About a century ago, he claims, there was a great reversal, so that now there is not only no science of ethics now, but most serious thinkers today would deny that such a science is even possible. He thinks this is terribly wrong and sets out to make a detailed historical and philosophical case that moral knowledge is both possible and necessary.

It is not easy to imagine that all the older writers, from Socrates and Plato, and on through the centuries to G. E. Moore and his fellow twentieth-century “Intuitionists,” were so intellectually limited that they simply got it wrong about the possibility of systematic moral knowledge and something like a “science of ethics.” That would have been a huge intellectual blunder, to say the least. Not that it would have been strictly impossible; indeed, radical “revolutions,” which presupposed that such a massive blunder had actually occurred, were announced for philosophy and for ethical theory 4 in the first part of the twentieth century. But surely anyone who seriously thinks that the older thinkers and writers, through all those centuries, made such a huge mistake owes us some plausible account of exactly what the mistake was and of how they were led into it. None has been forthcoming.

I did not finish it.  Not my jam and I finish few books these days.  I read almost a quarter, then skipped about, trying to catch up at the end and see if I could get the Best Part on the cheap. I doubt that I did.

We Are The World

 I just have to keep reposting this every few years

Let me count the ways. There is apparently a pop music critics debate about whether this song, which was a bigger deal at the time, or "Do They Know It's Christmas?" the earlier English attempt at charity schlock rock which has a stronger melody and has weathered well, was better. Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! I know the answer, teacher! Call on me! Call on me! My arm is soooo tired from holding it up waiting for you to call on me! The answer is "Don't call this a question of any importance whatsoever!"

I bring prejudices to this performance. We had long since gotten rid of the TV and I did not listen to popular music stations on the radio. I may have heard it before it showed up in Gethsemane Lutheran Church one Sunday in 1985, with charming 14 y/o girls signing it for the deaf along with a cassette tape as the special music that week. We had no deaf people, of course, nor were we embarking on a deaf ministry, much as that was needed at the time. At least it wasn't liturgical dance. 

Lots of the money raised went to teaching about birth control and food production, and much of that which went for food went to officials who promised to make sure the food got to the right people.  I think some did get through to actual hungry people. You could make good arguments that such education was more needed and would do more good in the long run but...that wasn't what they said they were doing. 10% was kept in America for domestic poor food programs. It had very little effect.

I also noted right up front a certain vacuity, which PJ O'Rourke summarised better than I could in his excellent book Give War A Chance.

We are the world [solipsism], we are the children [average age forty]. We are the ones to make a brighter day [unproven], so let’s start giving [logical inference supplied without argument]. There’s a choice we’re making, so let’s start giving [true as far as it goes]. We’re saving our own lives [absurd]. It’s true we’ll make a better day [see line 2 above], Just you and me [statistically unlikely]. That’s three palpable untruths, two dubious assertions, and nine uses of a first person pronoun, not a single reference to trouble and anybody in it and no facts. The verse contains, literally, neither rhyme nor reason. And these musical riots of philanthropy address themselves to the wrong problems. Death is the result of bad politics.

Thanks PJ.

Yet I know that what irritates me most powerfully is how it still strikes a chord in the rock-music liberals of my own generation.  I have one quite close to me who has made numerous references to it over the years, both what an important moment it was in the history of America waking up to its responsibilities in the world and noticing that we were not the only people on the planet, but also, what a pivotal, transitional time it was for rock music in general, of the older, established musicians handing the baton to a younger generation, who were going to carry the dream of the 60s forward and make it a better world.  They way those younger singers asserted themselves, even in the presence of these august elders...

No really.  He talks like this, as recently as last year. He's 67. And he is not the only one, if you check in on people who write about the history of rock music. They choke up about this. Bob Dylan wasn't going to even come, until he heard that Ray Charles was coming.  Ray Charles! He saw that the real Civil Rights crowd, not just the young ones, were getting involved! (seeing that this was the third multi-star charity concert Dylan had come to, I find this hard to credit.) It was the first time that so many big name celebrities had devoted themselves to a cause (Uhh, WWII?  USO?)

Okay, I thought America noticing what was wrong in the world and thinking we had important responsibilities about that was what had the CIA involved in overthrows and got us into Vietnam, which were considered bad things by this group. Every schoolchild in the 50s and 60s heard their parents say "Eat your dinner.  There are children starving in India/China/Africa." I think we did actually know.  Maybe it was mostly rich pop stars who had forgotten and needed documentaries on TV to remind them.

As for passing the baton, well there were some Jackson brothers younger than Michael...and Sheila E was 27...but I think people mostly mean the thoroughly-irritating Cindy Lauper, who was nearly 32 at the time, because she had that weird hair and seemed like a kid, and it was such a surprise when she asserted herself when it was her turn, as if she had talent. Like right in front of Paul Simon and Dionne Warwick and everything. Maybe Huey Lewis & the News, who were born around 1950 but had only recently become stars? That younger generation? Have we noticed that any particular baton was passed to them? Or Lauper? Or the Jacksons, excepting Michael? If so, they seem to have dropped it and left the track. 

But it was a twofer. You could pretend you were helping African hunger and show you were still keeping up with what's hip. It's both a candy and a breath mint, Darlene! 1985 is not looking so accidental...

It was not in any way the first virtue-signalling.  That has likely been around since about two days after the world's oldest profession got started. Nor was this novel with American liberals. Once they figured out that the 60s protests in Selma and the like were going to be filmed and on the news, and there was going to be police protection that didn't want a riot, you suddenly couldn't keep those earnest white people away. I suppose there was something to Live Aid being famous black people who got to virtue-signal right along with famous white ones - that hadn't happened much before, and it was a mark of cultural unity and progress. Conservatives had their own virtue-signalling of course, because it's very equal-opportunity, but this was going to be an MTV, modern-media event, which meant repeated airplay. Turkish Delight, really.

There was a Mother Earth News article in the 1970s that was a shortened version of Four Arguments For the Elimination of Television. One of its points was that politics was going to become increasingly performative, like the Munich Olympics, and less based on real events. Terrorists as well as politicians were going to play for the camera. Whoa, did that ever turn out to be true, and this video is front-and-center. The commodification of caring.

Let me suggest that the unrecognised but probably dominant reasons that made this necessary were that Vietnam was too long ago to get people excited, and Reagan was just starting his second term, despite everyone knowing that he was going to bring in fascism - any day now! But they didn't care. So the good people of the world had to show that they not only cared, but they Cared, and they CARED. We are the world, not you bastards. 

The Simpsons get the last, best word.

Politicized Scientists:

Credibility Cost of Political Expression on Twitter. Alabrese and colleagues, for the Center For Economic Studies in Munich.

Unsurprisingly, it's not great. 

 Eleonora Alabrese and colleagues examine scientists’ political expression on Twitter and public perceptions of their credibility. Analysing 98,000 scientists between 2016 and 2022, they find that most are politically neutral, but a sizeable minority have very liberal views. Those with both very liberal and very conservative views are perceived as less credible by the public.

Aporia Magazine includes a good graph. It also put me on to the next two articles.

 

Universal Basic Income (Again)

As seems to happen every time, there seem to be small positive effects offset by higher debt, resulting in no real improvement.

We provide new evidence on the causal effect of unearned income on consumption, balance sheets, and financial outcomes by exploiting an experiment that randomly assigned 1000 individuals to receive $1000 per month and 2000 individuals to receive $50 per month for three years. The transfer increased measured household expenditures by at least $300 per month. The spending impact is positive in most categories, and is largest for housing, food, and car expenses. The treatment increases housing unit and neighborhood mobility. We find noisily estimated modest positive effects on asset values, driven by financial assets, but these gains are offset by higher debt, resulting in a near-zero effect on net worth.

Alexander Bartik of University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign and five others in The Impact of Unconditional Cash Transfers on Consumption and Household Balance Sheets: Experimental Evidence from Two US States

Moral Foundations of Liberals and Conservatives

I have loved Jonathan Haidt's work, as you know, but felt he missed a trick with Moral Foundations Theory when he did not include some easy tests whether liberals also relied on loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation, as conservatives do.  I was willing to grant that conservatives might do it more, not just differently.

Well, now Blumenal and Lauderdale come along and say even that is going too far.  Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Very Similar Sets of Foundations When Comparing Moral Violations. From the Abstract:

Our results suggest that, despite prominent claims to the contrary, voters on the left and the right of politics share broadly similar moral intuitions.

Haidt is also under fire now for not backing down on his claim that social media has created a catastrophic change in our interactions, which "The Studies Show" covered this week. It is their view that the evidence for this is not strong, though it is anecdotally powerful.  I was reminded of GK Chesterton's observation that the things that "everyone knows" are quite likely to conceal untrue things, that many people deeply hope are true.

Tis The Gift To Be Simple

James had a post with that title about a week ago which set me thinking. That verse always sets me thinking, because so many of the explanations for it seem forced. Yet there it is, Jesus said it, and he clearly meant something by it. I am more comfortable with the enjoinder to be "wise as serpents, harmless as doves," which is a similar sentiment but more full.

I was pleased today to have it occur to me that there is a place where I do understand how being as a little child was the better way, and that is in the area of apologies.  It is adults who try to slip in evasions that other people seem to think they did something wrong with no personal acknowledgement of that, and they only did it in the first place because of the bad things you had done to them. It is often not even 10% of what an apology should be.

Children also try to be evasive, but they aren't very good at it, and you can usually get them to give the simple direct apology "I'm sorry I took your sandwich," or "I'm sorry I said bad things about you to Madison," followed by an appropriate corrective such as "I'll bring you a sandwich tomorrow," and a promise such as "I won't do it again." I don't see that much else is needed, even for complicated adult situations.  Start with a child's apology.

The purpose of apology and forgiveness is reconciliation.  If you can get that, it might not matter much how you got there.  If you can't get reconciliation it is always a bit tragic, even if you have done everything you reasonably could.

Moral Inversions

Kevin in the comments pointed me to and article in Commentary, which I read and thought worth passing along. Tucker Screwtape.

Winston Churchill was cast as the “chief villain” of the episode and a “psychopath,” while Hitler was portrayed as a reasonable statesman who sought peace and understanding with England. Carlson’s interlocutor attributed the death of countless multitudes in German camps to an unfortunate lack of preparation on the part of Germany, and an overpopulation of POWs. Carlson, in turn, enthusiastically agreed with his guest’s characterization of Churchill and said his intention was to ensure that the guest would come to be seen as “the most important historian in the United States.”

At book club we are discussing Freedom at Midnight and and disassembled Gandhi's reputation, which persists against all reason. We made an effort to find some good things to say about him and did find a few, but we were hard pressed.

Political Links from AVI 2009

A few of these are still pertinent, some still have similar arguments in play, others are early examples of things I discussed with more clarity later.

Remember the supposed 47M uninsured we kept hearing about? NH Sen. Judd Gregg had the simplest answer.

Performance Versus Promises, Obama Edition.  Such things apply to most politicians, but he was particularly bad.

Political Archetype. Obama as Kwisatz Haderach 

The importance of fashion to liberals

The Democrats had controlled the House of Representatives nearly my entire life. Pretty much the next 15 years as well. I include Senate and Presidency numbers as well, including what is meant by "controlled" depending on news source.

How NPR reported economic issues.  I don't know what they've done since, but I would bet that anecdotes are still king.

I don't think anyone still reads True Patriot anymore, but the underlying concepts are still present, and still torque me off. I re-review the book.  

Comment here, not there, on all of them.

All-Time Leadoff

I wrote about historical baseball statistics from time to time in the early years of this blog.  I barely mention it now.  I kept up with Mike Trout's numbers until a few years ago, but injuries are going to eat into his lifetime totals, as often happens.

I wrote this about Pete Rose in 2009, and as he kept inserting himself into discussions about Jeter and Ichiro - Rose wants to be the bride at every wedding - I kicked him again in later years. But I think this will do for all of them, and focuses on one of my favorite players as well.

*********

Sportswriters have to write something down, find a new angle that other people aren't writing about, so they sometimes back themselves into these corners just for controversy's sake. I get that. Still, you are responsible for what you write, ultimately, so you don't have a good excuse if you write something stupid. 

When Rickey Henderson was just elected to the Hall of Fame, lots of people referred to him as the greatest leadoff hitter ever. That could be true. But just for controversy, ESPN suggested that Pete Rose might be a better leadoff hitter. Please, no. Let's not even have that discussion. I admit I have always liked to kick Pete Rose because he's a jerk, but this is just not an intelligent conversation. And the easiest way to illustrate that to you is to compare Rose to a player that you would never in a hundred years consider the best leadoff hitter of all time, and see that Rose loses that comparison. Carl Yastrzemski would be a better leadoff hitter for your all-star team than Pete Rose. I am not joshing you here. 

 Their careers overlapped almost entirely, eliminating the need to make cross-era comparisons. Everyone gets excited by Rose's 4000+ hits and .300+ batting average, so they figure that of course you would bat him leadoff over Yaz. But you wouldn't. We now know that on-base percentage is a more valuable number than batting average, and Rose is behind Yaz, .379 - .375. Those walks add up over time, and Rose didn't walk much. Yaz did. 300 times more in his career. Sure it looks really cool, with Charlie Hustle running down to first base on a walk, with the announcers cooing about how he gets on base any way he can, but in strict point of fact, he didn't actually get on base more than Yaz. Once on base, both of them tried to steal some bases and shouldn't have bothered. We now know that stolen bases are only valuable is you make it 70% of the time, and neither approached that. Yaz stole 168 in 284 attempts, for a 59% average. Rose was worse, stealing 198 out of 347 for 57%. 

I am, you will notice, comparing them only as leadoff hitters. I am comparing Rose's strength to Yaz out of place in the lineup, and Rose still loses. It gets worse. If you made Carl Yastrzemski bat leadoff his whole career, if you told him that getting on base was more important to your team than power, do you think he might have done just a bit better still? Already leading Rose in the most important categories, wouldn't he start to pull away even more? At least 40 more AB per season, too. It adds up. Of course, with Yaz you get power, too. 100 fewer doubles, 80 fewer triples, and 260 more home runs. Pete Rose is not in the conversation for best leadoff hitter of all time.

Populus Vult Decipi, Decipiatur

"The people wish to be deceived, let them be deceived."

Christian Reunion

I had never read this essay nor known about it until today.  I like it.

On The Off Chance

On the off chance any of you are interested in this conference or its sponsoring group, I pass along what I just received a few minutes ago. I met Joe Ricke at the Montreat Conference I went to a couple of years ago.

Inkling Folk Fellowship

15 September 2024

International Congress on Medieval Studies

Friends, Every year at the International Congress on Medieval Studies, we sponsor two sessions on C. S. Lewis and the Middle Ages. This roughly means we look for papers about Lewis's thought and work that show the influence of and respond to medieval sources, ideas, etc. But there is some "wiggle room," as one might expect, about how this is interpreted. Here are proposals due for this year. One is on "chivalry" and the other is on "grief." They have been posted and shared elsewhere, but, because the deadline is Sept 15 (or 3 a.m. Sept 16, EST), I am sending them out through various channels today. Thanks, Joe Ricke   Call for proposals C. S. Lewis and the Middle Ages Sessions @ 60th International Congress on Medieval Studies (Western Michigan University) May 8-10, 2025   Session One: "Lewis and Chivalry" We are looking for 3-4 scholarly papers that consider this aspect of Lewis's work especially in the context of his medieval scholarship and/or his creative medievalism.   Rationale:   In August 1940, just weeks after the beginning of the Battle of Britain, C. S. Lewis published an essay in Time and Tide about the medieval concept of "chivalry." "What," he asked, "is the relevance of this ideal to the modern world?" We propose a session which both analyzes the concept (as Lewis understood it) and its relevance to his life and work, as well as to our understanding and interpretations of his fiction, poetry, literary criticism, biography, and cultural criticism. We seek papers which interpret, apply, and/or criticize Lewisian "chivalry." We expect, as usual, an excellent discussion within the panel and with the larger audience.   Session Two: "The Problem of Grief." We are looking for 3-4 scholarly papers that consider this aspect of Lewis's work in the context of his medieval scholarship or creative medievalism. Rationale:   Recognized and "lionized" for his visions of hope and happy-endings, C. S. Lewis, the medievalist, maintained a tender sensitivity to and robust appreciation for the reality and problem of human grieving. In essays, both personal (like A Grief Observed) or more philosophical (like The Problem of Pain), in literary criticism, science fiction, and in children's fantasy, Lewis does not shy away either from death and suffering itself or from the multi-layered human response we call grief. This session seeks papers linking Lewis's treatment of grief with his medievalist roots, demonstrating not just his own relevance but that of his medieval sources.   Deadline for Submission of Proposals/Abstracts: Sunday, September 15, 2024   To submit, you will need to use and learn to navigate the Congress portal (look for "Sponsored and Special Sessions of Papers," find the title "C. S. Lewis and the Middle Ages (1): Chivalry" or "C. S. Lewis and the Middle Ages (1): Grief," and begin your submission. https://icms.confex.com/icms/2025/cfp.cgi   If you've attended the ICMS, you know why you should do it in 2025. If you haven't, come and find out why (Lewis, Tolkien, Dante, Aquinas, Francis, performances, Marie de France, Beowulf, Cistercian Studies, Julian of Norwich, Shakespeare, Chaucer, dramatic readings, medieval music, etc.).  Final afternoon highlight is the Pseudo-Society, a paper session of three outlandish parodies of medieval scholarly presentations/bad powerpoints. If you can't find something to interest you in every time slot, I will buy you a coffee in the Student Union.   For questions, information, or help with the process), contact jsricke@outlook.com   Note: The sessions are live not virtual.

Inkling Folk Fellowship, 412 West Klein St, Seguin, TX

Self-Control Again

I wrote about the Fable of Self Control about three weeks ago. Fun comments.  I came across a site that looks at the research on this a lot, the Nature-Nurture-Nietzsche Newsletter.  This article says that self-control is about 60% heritable. I didn't yet read the other articles on the page, but they look interesting.

Cracking the Autism Code?

It was an intriguing link over at Maggie's so I went to Scientists Make History by Cracking the Autism Code over at earth.com.  I am not much wiser after reading it. It still looks intriguing.  As copy-number variations are the most common type of mutations, tracking those down to find possible autism correlates makes sense.

It all has the feel of overclaiming, however, and the other articles in the sidebar over at that site look even more like overclaiming from limited data. However, I'm keeping this information in the back of my head rather than discarding it.  Might be something to it.

Factoring In Pleasure

 There is no safe amount of alcohol. BBC News.

They found that out of 100,000 non-drinkers, 914 would develop an alcohol-related health problem such as cancer* or suffer an injury.

But an extra four people would be affected if they drank one alcoholic drink a day.

AFFECTED! Quelle Horreur! Four of 'em.

It gets worse.  There is no safe level of skiing, not even at Aspen or Davos Klosters. No safe level of lacrosse or sailing. No safe level of biking, even on a rail trail. No safe level of driving, not even a Prius.

People have cooking accidents, gardening accidents, sewing accidents, going to church or even staying home from church accidents. Aquariums. Growing a beard. Smothered in hats and cloaks. Will the madness never end?  No, it won't. From "The Studies Show" (transcript),** about factoring in pleasure:

When I said a term in your equation, I'm completely serious. If you don't have a term in your equation for this is has value of some kind then even the tiniest little negligible risk outweighs all the benefits because you haven't put a term in for the benefits right,  benefits are zero so even a risk of minus zero point zero zero zero zero zero zero zero one or something outweighs them so therefore there is no safe level of drinking and we should not do it.

And

 Saying we should reduce the (alcohol) guidelines is complete and utter bollocks.

See also, guns.  Guns for hunting, self-defense, targets, collecting.  I am something of an extremist in this case, because I think you should be able to have them even if you just like things that go boom, or look nice on the wall. I suppose it's a bit of a stretch to call self-defense a pleasure, exactly, but not being able to defend yourself would certainly qualify as un-pleasant, one would think. I'm one who doesn't think you need a big reason to do something you like. A small reason will do. 

In legal wrangles, it is often important to note right at the outset which side the burden of proof is on.  The burden of proof should be on those who want to limit a right, not those who want to exercise it.

* ? That seems a bit of stretch itself, even if there is something to it. Stick with livers, car accidents, fights, and falling over, I think.

**Also, they mentioned me this week just before the 24-minute mark. Thanks, guys.

Ceraunophile

"Ceraun" comes to us from the Greek word Keraunos, which means “thunderbolt.” A ceraunophile, then, is a lover of thunder and lightning, or someone who loves thunderstorms.

Child 200

Originally from 2009 

Tone matters greatly. I have long been familiar with Steeleye Span’s “Black Jack Davy,” the story of a wealthy 18th C woman who leaves her husband and runs away with a poor gypsy. Listen a bit, even if you aren’t a fan of Steeleye.

I knew that there were related versions – Gypsy Davy, Gipsie Laddie, Raggle-Taggle Gypsies, and that these tended to be folkier. I guessed it must be in Child’s Ballads, and likely had some obscurer versions.

Had I but thought it through. There are dozens of versions, Scots, Borderer, Scots-Irish, Irish. In some, it is a daughter that runs off from a lord; in others, the gypsy does turn out to be wealthy after all. Of course it crossed the water and came to Appalachia, taking on American versions and names: Harrison Brady, and When Carnal came to Arkansas. There weren’t any gypsies in America then, or darned few, so the reference had to be changed to some more general traveling romantic figure.

And I never connected it to this well-known song at all, because the tone is so different. Only when I specifically listened for it could I tell that the tunes are similar, the rhythm very similar.
Back in my folkie days, BTW, the running joke about anyone claiming to be big was “well, he had a few beers and sang with Tommy Makem” because everyone had had a few beers and sung with Tommy Makem. When my younger brother got married, I stopped using the joke, as his wife was the best friend of Tommy Makem’s daughter.

The migration to the New World by the Scots-Irish and Borderers in the mid-18th C gives us an opportunity to observe what happens to folk songs left on their own, as there is no possible contact between the tunes and lyrics over 200 years. John Jacob Niles, the folksong collector they named the UK American Music Center after, compared the variants between the Appalachian songs and the Child Ballads in his Ballad Book in the early 60’s.


This theme of the wealthy woman running off with a poor man must have struck something deep in the psyche, as it not only shows up in these 80 versions of Child 200, but in The Royal Forester, Lady Diamond, and heck, even “Uptown Girl” has it. Princesses kissing frogs has some similarity. Orpheus and Eurydice. So – did it actually happen that often (the running off that is, not the frog-kissing), or is it a song that reflects the male fantasy/fear of this happening? It may represent milder and more common experiences of slumming or marrying down, made extreme for artistic reasons, or for warning. The versions Frozen Charlotte and The Gypsy’s Warning would certainly suggest this is in play. Poor men pine after high-born women; rich men fear their wives or daughters will run off with some irresponsible charmer. Actually, it’s not entirely a masculine objection. Mothers also fear their daughters will run off with a handsome ne’er-do-well. Which versions did the women prefer? I imagine that is mixed, depending on whether it is oneself who might be running off versus a female relative considering it. Maddy Prior's comment at the beginning of the Black Jack Davy video sums this up nicely.

We have the mirror phenomenon of the poor woman and the better-off man in more modern music: Rag Doll, My Fair Lady, and the theme shows up in the story of Cinderella. But Cinderella is always hardworking and poor, not some charming fancy for boys to follow. Ah well, they have the Queen of the Faeries stories for that, I suppose. The story in reverse seems much less common in the Child Ballads, though we know that the action of lords and earls marrying dance-hall girls or milkmaids is recorded rather frequently in history.

Beowulf Goes To Tim Horton's

Originally from June 2009.

HWÆT, we cupdena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga þrym gedruncnung,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon!
oft Scyld Scefing spittena latte,
monegum mæxwellhus meodosetla ofteah,
donutas duncin, syððanærest wearð
folgers funden; he þæs frofre gecaffeina,
nescafe under nestle weorðmyndum þah,
oð þæt him æghwylc ymbstarbucra
æt hillsbrothers hyran scolde,
gevalia gyldan; þæt wæs god kaffe!

Post 10,001: The Winner Takes It All

Well, almost did it. Granite Dad suggested that Post 10,000 be an ABBA song.  He thought that was obvious. I don't think I have ever posted this one.

Bjorn and Agnetha both deny that the song is about their divorce.  I'm not sure anyone believes them.

Post 10,000: Ephemerality and Permanence

Long, long ago, in a decade far away - before the 90s - we thought of the internet as changeable, impermanent.  If you got something published on the internet, so what? Newspapers and magazines were the thing, and books even more.  You get a book published, man, now you've made it.  It might be that it was quickly remaindered, or put in the stacks of the library (we did not acknowledge that libraries weeded books then, that was a secret known only to librarians). But it was solid. Someone somewhere would keep copies, and there was always a chance that a hundred years later someone would pick it up, and remember you. Books were in a small way indestructible. My parents would regard a book as being "really" published. But gradually we came to say "the internet is forever," meaning that what you said could be brought back to haunt you and there was no getting away from it. Moving to another town might not help.

When I go back to the posts from earlier years to consider whether I want to repost them, or even just see what I said about a subject, many of the old links no longer go anywhere, not even to a website that still exists. A lot of the pictures are gone, some replaceable, some not. Some I can't even remember what they were myself. The internet is not forever either.  Nor are books. Newspapers and magazines are nostalgic curiosities now. 

The writings preserved from thousands of years ago are mostly records of trade, or of gifts between kings, or of conquests. Statements to or about gods, curses or good-luck symbols, laws and proclamations. Only later do we get anything like annals or stories. Admittedly, there is internal evidence that those stories and histories stretch back earlier, before writing. Yet we likely remember only one person in a million, one story in a million, one battle in a million. Ozymandias, Ramesses II, just barely got remembered, though he reigned for decades and we still have his mummy. Well-Behaved Women Seldom Make History? Lady, no one makes history. Vanity, Vanity, all is Vanity, saith the prophet. I grant that it is even worse for women.

So what is permanent, then? I learned decades ago from CS Lewis something that shocked me at the time (though I immediately saw the truth that had been invisible to me for years, once he had said it) in "The Weight of Glory," that nations, and denominations, and families, and legacies, and DNA, and schools, and even ideas, so beloved of those of us who blog and hope our ideas might one day ascend to some permanency, are not only eventually outlasted, but will eventually be revealed as ephemeral, as mere wisps that we barely recall.  It is we who are permanent, and that is not only comforting but frightening, like being in water up past your neck, so that you have to stand on tiptoe to survive.

Or go under the waves and be baptised.

 "You come of the Lord Adam and the Lady Eve," said Aslan. "And that is both honour enough to erect the head of the poorest beggar, and shame enough to bow the shoulders of the greatest emperor on earth. Be content." Aslan, in Prince Caspian

But back to "The Weight of Glory," perhaps the greatest essay of the 20th C.

For you must not think that I am putting forward any heathen fancy of being absorbed into Nature. Nature is mortal; we shall outlive her. When all the suns and nebulae havepassed away, each one of you will still be alive. Nature is only the image, the symbol; but it is the symbol Scripture invites me to use. We are summoned to pass in through Nature, beyond her, into that splendour which she fitfully reflects. And in there, in beyond Nature, we shall eat of the tree of life...

It may be possible for each to think too much of his own potential glory hereafter; it is hardly possible for him to think too often or too deeply about that of his neighbour. The load, or weight, or burden of my neighbour’s glory should be laid daily on my back, a load so heavy that only humility can carry it, and the backs of the proud will be broken. It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics.
 

There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilization—these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit—immortal horrors or everlasting splendours. This does not mean that we are to be perpetually solemn. We must play. But our merriment must be of that kind (and it is, in fact, the merriest kind) which exists between people who have, from the outset, taken each other seriously—no flippancy, no superiority, no presumption. And our charity must be a real and costly love, with deep feeling for the sins in spite of which we love the sinner—no mere tolerance or indulgence which parodies love as flippancy parodies merriment. Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbour is the holiest object presented to your senses

Incentives

The shoe store opening was delayed, so I went and did something else.  I suspected that they had a staffing problem, but when I came back there were helpful people everywhere wanting to go into the back and bring me pairs of (Brooks) sneakers. When I asked I was told it was indeed a staffing problem, but the offer they made for people to come in was so good that they had two more than were needed.

It's Simple

Pro Tip:  Whenever you see a political FB or TikTok or YouTube that begins "It's simple, " read no further.

You're Welcome

Protest Songs

I recall Jimmy Webb complaining that Glen Campbell had made "Galveston" too upbeat, when it was a song about being in Vietnam wondering if the boy/man would ever come back.  I thought that was wrong, that the pathos was well-placed, creeping into the song gradually.

But I never saw this one coming. "Last Train to Clarksville" was quietly, almost invisibly a protest song. The man is going off, likely drafted, to Vietnam. He seems mostly unwilling. I recall vaguely thinking at the time "Dude, if you love her so much, why do you not know if you're ever coming home?  Just come back from whatever.  Stop whining about it." But going to Vietnam...it's the only way the lyric makes sense. 

Because this has a just-so quality, I looked it up to see if this was an overread.  No, the composers intended it.  The only just-so portion is when people claim it's about Fort Campbell in Tennessee, which is near Clarksville.  That was merely an accident.

******

Notice: I will be on hold for posts until I decide what Post 10,000 is, then write it. It's coming up soon.

Of course, I could pretend any of them is Ten Thousand.  Who would know?

Happiness Among Liberals and Conservatives

 How To Understand the Well-Being Gap Between Liberals and Conservatives, by Musa al-Gharbi  in American Affairs.

Academic research consistently finds the same pattern. Conservatives do not just report higher levels of happiness, they also report higher levels of meaning in their lives. The effects of conservatism seem to be enhanced when conservatives are surrounded by others like themselves. However, in an analysis looking at ninety countries from 1981 through 2014, the social psychologists Olga Stavrova and Maike Luhmann found “the positive association between conservative ideology and happiness only rarely reversed. Liberals were happier than conservatives in only 5 out of 92 countries and never in the United States.”

Al-Gharbi notes what the prevailing hypotheses are why this is true, and which are more likely to be correct given the data.  Please know in advance that this is an area where a variety people seem to have first developed a theory they liked and then convinced themselves it must be true, because it sounds right.

Look In The Stupid Places

I repeat this advice from a few years ago.

When you cannot find something, it is of course best to do the smart things first, remembering where you have been, where it usually is, where it sometimes is, whether you did anything unusual today that might have moved it to an odd place.  But when you have exhausted those, and checked them twice (just because that is what we do), do not go to the medium smart places next.  The object you are looking for is never there. It is far better to go to the stupid places to look: under the car, in the refrigerator, next to the dog's dish. Even though things are very seldom there either, something about this strategy frees you up to suddenly remember where it is, rather than spinning your wheels.

Also, it's fun, which calms one down a bit.

We have heard that when you find something that you have stored something "in an intelligent place" but then can't find it - tools, books, and kitchen items are common here - when you actually find it, start storing it in the first place you looked.  We have just started this, and so far, so good.

Ecclesiastes 7:4

 The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning,
    but the heart of fools is in the house of gaiety.

Hmm. Not sure this should be a blanket statement. The books of Wisdom Literature have lots of verses that likely should not be blanket statements. But I have felt exactly like this at times since junior high, watching fools enjoy themselves doing stupid stuff. So it's good the scriptures captured this at least a few times.

Of course, I've watched people marinate in self-pity as well.

Update: It occurred to me this morning is that the wise need not fear mourning, and do not need to seek false gaiety. God is still God.  This accords with the Beatitude that they who mourn shall be comforted.  It is not that we seek mourning, but do not fear it or avoid it.