Statue

Maya Angelou agrees with me about the MLK Statue.

Maybe she is smarter than I thought. I resolve to read some of her poetry this very night. She at least speaks her mind, rather than what she thinks people should say.

Taking Orders

 

One of the things I learned from Albion's Seed, the stunning work of history that I keep recommending but my children keep ignoring is that both of the southern cultures, the coastal Cavalier/Wessex/hierarchical group and the later Scots-Irish/Appalachian/radical independence groups draw a deep distinction between those who give orders and those who take them, which has had cultural ramifications down to the present day.  It is considered shameful in the south to be in a position where other people tell you what to do - dishonorable even if you are making a fortune or otherwise succeeding in some way. I was surprised but not shocked when it showed up in Hillbilly Elegy, that Vance's grandmother was just so outraged even thinking about him in the Marines in basic training, being ordered around and having to obey. Appalachia is a military-sympathetic culture, as in Sen James Webb's Born Fighting, which makes the credible claim that we owe all our victories in war to the Scots-Irish. We would not have won the Revolutionary War without them, certainly.  They were recent immigrants who came out of the hills to fight the English for any reason whatsoever, and often fought under the bonny blue flag of Scotland.

 

There were a few military units that fought under that flag in the Civil War as well, mostly from North Georgia. But the military in Appalachia was not the same as everywhere else. It was much more a system of voluntary attachment to a credible leader, similar to what one sees in Beowulf, than enlistment in the army itself.  Whole units would show up at recruiting stations even in WWI, and very occasionally all leave together whether their contracts were up or not.

 

In the coastal regions that had more slaveholding the poor whites who got out from under indenture moved to the rural areas to turn invisible rather than move to the towns to work for someone else. To have someone else tell you what to do was to be no better than a slave. Because the weather was warm and moist and the soil had not been exhausted they could get away with this, subsistence farming for generations. Up in the mountains it was less of an issue to be "no better than a slave," but still an issue to have anyone other than a thane you (and/or your clan) had chosen yourself be in charge of you. (The word "tanistry," for that societal organisation is related to the word "thane.")

 

In New England this was subtly but significantly different. People were allowed to be in charge of you, but the idea was that everyone could band together and pick new ones at any time. Someone was going to be in charge and that was necessary for the good operation of the group. But that someone was accountable. In the upland south sometimes no one was in charge of anything except on a very temporary basis.  You will notice that they are still dirt poor. In the lowland south people were in charge in a less meritocratic, more hereditary and hierarchical way, just like on the old estates in England, carrying on to the First Families of Virginia.

 

I still detect this all the time in modern political discussions.  I think it is very much part of the lower vaccination rates in the South, because there is a residual disdain for being one of those people who gets told what to do by others. It creeps into some commenter reasoning here, as well as some of the writers and commenters at Chicago Boyz and other sites."No one has the right to tell me what to do about anything" is not even a libertarian value here. It's an anarchist rather than libertarian POV. Eventually, everyone is upstream of someone in some physical or metaphorical way. In colonial Virginia and the coastal south there was the Dismal Swamp, or uplands that were less-desirable, and much of Appalachia was hollers and other subsistence nooks that a person actually could survive without having much to do with others. Kin networks were more powerful than town or other settlement patterns. That's the English Borderer and Scots Lowland pattern pattern of clan accountability rather than neighbor accountability. It has an urban/rural aspect as well. In cities, you can't have no one in charge. Someone is in charge, and if they are incompetent you have to find some way to work around them or get rid of them.  In rural areas, you can have no one in charge and at least get by. We have it in NH in some rural areas, especially Above The Notch. I recall that towns like Unity were still like that even a decade ago, according to the mental health outreach workers.  there were people who lived on no road, sometimes not even on their own land. But anything along the main roads is an organised township.  Perhaps there is something about town versus county being primary organisation of government. 

 

Of course, as in Frederick Law Olmsted's The Cotton Kingdom, this frequently means that the whole place remains impoverished, with no one going to school or building any businesses. It's interesting that this is still a default position when something new comes up, like a new vaccine or rules about distancing.

Weight Gain - Third Test

If you are interested in a thorough review of the possible environmental effects contributing to the rise in obesity in the US beginning about 1980, I am enjoying the long series at Slime Mold, Time Mold. As far as I have read at present, he has found the seed oil, glyphosate, and related theories inadequate, but thinks something is up with trace elements of lithium. He covers a wide range of possibilities, such as possible paradoxical effects (there is a corresponding increase in eating disorders over the same period), which is what occurs in people starting a new medication. Antidepressants reduce suicidality in a great many people, but increase it in a few, for example. 

Again, I am interested in who is seeing this, purposely buried as it is in 2011, but actually written in 2021.

Clarification

The Pew Research typology, arrived at by factor analysis rather than theoretical constructs of what a liberal or conservative are, identifies three types of Democrat.

I make statements about liberals frequently, without making that distinction, which possibly indicates that I am not making it mentally as much as I should, either. In addition to Solid Liberals, there are New Coalition Democrats or Hard-Pressed Democrats. When I am writing, I usually mean only the first of the three. That is the media and academy group that is most prominent, and it is the group I come out of.

I apologise to anyone unfairly caught in the generalisation.

Historians - Test

The post is dated 2011, but is actually from 8/28/21

Just a bit of fun at their expense.  I listen to history podcasts and read professional historians from time to time.  They put a fair bit of effort into reminding me that any historical document or report should be read in terms of "who gets to speak." Whoever is writing the account is likely to come from a very restricted circle of who has learned to write, and who is not censored or destroyed within their society. It is the expanded version of "the winners write the histories."

All quite true.  The inscriptions on stelae represent what the ruler wants the people or posterity to believe happened, not necessarily what did happen. Priests writing summaries of the year's events in their annals are likely to stress things that affected the church and take the church's side in quarrels. Women were able to express their views of things far less often. 

What I have never heard an historian mention is that they are the ones who get to speak now. I imagine someone has thought of this and it does make the rounds as a repeated caution among them.  Yet I have never seen any evidence in the content that they hold this thought before them as they contemplate. Academic historians are a selected group with consistent political and cultural beliefs, who draw their wages from similar sources, and have been vetted for their attitudes. I am recalling one who told me he could not take on the dissertation he would like because it would never be approved these days. Some politically correct hook (he did find one he was not unhappy with) must be a major focus. Environment, minority ethnicity, economic oppression, gender. 

It is the elephant in the room when discussing history.

Which reminds me:  We should be reluctant to draw parallels between events from the past and out own, because we will be self-serving.  This is especially true of professional historians, who will identify many significant objects in the room and their curious properties, most of which are unnoticed by the amateur, all the while ignoring their pet elephant. It is just a matter of playing chess against oneself. However complicated the game and however much we improve, we can guarantee the victory to one side or the other at will. And we do.

Suitable For Linking

Here we go again.

Those of you complaining about Rick Perry's pronunciation of nuclear hope, by drawing attention to it, to illustrate how dumb he is. Actually, you are only drawing attention to how dumb you are. If you had studied linguistics you would know that. Physicists with PhD's - even working at Oak Ridge, NASA, prestigious universities - might use the southern regional pronunciation if they are from the south. It makes you cringe because you are a regional snob, not because they are stupid, and thou, smart.

I know you were taught in fifth grade to go over to the dictionary to look up the correct pronunciation, and that was that. The first pronunciation was considered the best, because it was most common. But the preeminence of one accent in a language is now recognised for the accident that it is. If a native speaker uses it, it's acceptable. Merriam-Webster, for example:

Though disapproved of by many, pronunciations ending in \-kyə-lər\ have been found in widespread use among educated speakers including scientists, lawyers, professors, congressmen, United States cabinet members, and at least two United States presidents and one vice president. While most common in the United States, these pronunciations have also been heard from British and Canadian speakers.

But, but, you protest, look at the way it's spelled. The pronunciation should be...

Let me introduce you to the pronunciations envelope/onvelope, or often/offen. Let me introduce you, in fact, to the entire flippin' English language. Pronunciations and usages have cultural indicators attached to them, and I, as a snob, make sure that mine reflect my educated New England background, and taught them to my first two children. I understand where the feeling comes from. My teachers and family sniffed and looked down their noses too. But they were dead wrong, and when we learn better we should act on it.

Unless, of course, being a bigot was your original goal. Absent that, you mark yourself as someone who cares more about reading status than reading books.

Boosterism

There is usually a sort of dweeby charm to boosterism, when it is minor. Most people getting into their cars don't realise how much of what surrounds them has its origins in the inventions or improvements by the sons of Poland. Poles figured prominently in... Or similarly, geographic areas are fond of listing the famous citizens from within their boundaries, whether they were born, worked, or retired there. The theatrical designer Robert Edmund Jones, for example, came from Milton, NH - an amazing thing if you know Milton, NH. Even Wikipedia runs lists of such notable sons and daughters of the area discussed.

We do it with personal characteristics, nearly always overstating the case. Missouri is the Show Me state, and it's inhabitants are a skeptical, practical people... In America, we do this regularly with our lands of origin, particularly at ethnic festivals or in the introductions to personal histories of families, churches, towns. The hardy Scots who originally settled the area... "National Lampoon" did a sendup of this in the 70's with its White Studies issue. (Did you know that Benjamin Franklin was a white man?) Martin Mull did it a decade later as well.

Our women were always prettier, our tinkerers more clever, our craftsmen more sought-after among our people.

There is, as I noted, a certain innocence to this. We smile benignly even when it is about other states, other groups. But when it gets too bold we begin to grow annoyed, particularly if the speaker does not seem to have an awareness of the potential for insult to others, or worse, no insight into the social dangers that can result. Texans are notorious for plugging their state and lauding their own virtues, and while it is mostly good-natured humor the rest of us grow just a wee bit nervous where all this is going. Californians were the same a generation ago - many still are - a bit too certain they were better than the rest of us. Various cities verge beyond mere self-celebration to a sort of chauvinism that is off-putting: Boston, New York, San Francisco, Portland, and Washington DC most of all.

Insisting on the superiority of a composite region is a little suspect. Those who declare the superiority in wisdom or virtue of Midwesterners are unusual, but it does happen, particularly on the political stump when candidates are trying to position themselves as exemplars of the noble hard-working farmers of yore. New Englanders are a bit worse, and Southerners offend in this way quite often. The Charlie Daniels Band gets cheers when it proclaims the "The South's Gonna Do It Again." Do what? Secede? Grow Cotton? This is troubling.

We cut you more slack if you actually are on the downtrodden or disregarded side of things. I don't know that's wise of us, but as a culture, we do that, and it seems to work tolerably well, within limits. But it can get away from people.

We also get nervous when one's religious group is brought in. Methodists have always been deeply concerned with... or "Catholics approach the education of their young with more realism..." We don't want to contradict you on this, lady, but it's a little overstated, and even when it's mostly true we don't like to encourage any of us to think that way in America. The lines can be tricky.

It can go bad so quickly, and usually does.

I don't know how representative these links are. My uncle sends me these things, and I tend to use him as a proxy for intelligent but completely noninsightful liberals, rather completely indoctrinated by the news sources and facile stereotypes he became comfortable with years ago. He is likely to write things like

It does seem that the purpose of education, formal or informal should be to question and examine belief systems. And that is the foundation of liberalism. The cornerstone of the Age of Enlightenment.

He is quite convinced that it is the liberals that are the open-minded questioners, because that's what the word means to him. I don't know how typical he is. I read similar sentiments in comments sections, and nonliberals will sometimes link to such things when they are examples of particular unreason. Perhaps they aren't really so common. OTOH, respectable publications, seemingly educated and reasonable people have an audience when they publish this stuff. So it's not entirely a fringe phenomenon. Anyway, from Psychology Today. The other is on multiple sites, I picked one.

You can find this kind of boosterism among nonliberals as well, but it seems to come off the fringes and comments sections more. To repeat: I see plenty from the right that expresses this type of sentiment - more hardworking, more independent, what-have-you. But posters and essay-writers usually stop quite short of that. There are qualifiers, acknowledgements that not all the virtue is on one side. It may be insincere and a mere politeness, but what then do we say about those who will not even be polite? Who do not have the simple thoughts of "Gee, what's this sound like if I reverse it? If I put it in the mouth of a Jew or a Virginian? Is this fair? Is this insulting?"

So do these people want like, T-shirts and hats to show their Liberal Pride, or something? Or is that just not cool, so they just do bumperstickers instead?

Here's the kicker: this is the same group that is so appalled about any expression of American Exceptionalism, which they see as a mindless jingoism, dangerous to the world. Recall, for example, Obama's backpedaling that his belief in American Exceptionalism was equivalent to Greek or Polish exceptionalism. I don't think you could find many liberals who would say that about liberal exceptionalism, being essentially the same thing as conservative.

It's almost as if their real loyalty...

Nah. Couldn't be.

Irene Goodnight

It looks like Irene will be a tropical storms by the time it hist New England. The weather report says there is already rain and later tonight New England will even have enhanced moisture.

So flooding and power outages will be the big problem here, though it remains true that the trees in this particular extended forest that is New England have never been tested under the stress of winds this high, and lots of them will lose limbs or go down. Gusts to 85mph, but sustained winds 45-65, only a little more than has hit these trees. Some chance of it creeping back up to 55-75, gusts to 90, but not likely.

Enhanced moisture. That's what happens to language when you start trying to get too cute. There is nothing enhanced about this moisture. No one gave it extra molecules or painted it pretty colors. There's just more of it than usual.

It's Their Territory

Ben, this would have been a much better science project than squirrels.


We’re thinking the bird feeders got ripped down by a bear. We haven’t had a bear recently. It could be a raccoon, I suppose, which would be a relief.

It reminded me of my annoyance with the declaration by some, whenever there is danger to humans because of wild animals, that of course there is danger from coyotes/elk/bears/mountain lions. We are in their territory, and they are only doing what comes naturally. I can see some sense in the idea, but I think it bears thinking about.

Our town is celebrating our 250th anniversary this summer, and even our particular area has had human habitation (also sheep, cow, pig, chicken, and horse habitation) for more than 150. My house has been here 50 years. So if it’s their territory, these are bears with considerably enhanced abilities to do title searches – or keep genealogies, as they seldom live 20 years.

Come to think of it, I don’t know what inheritance rights among bears even are. How do we know that this isn’t some other bear’s territory that our bear is horning in on? Or do people mean that lands that bears used to live on before humans came – that would be 11,749 years this November – are theirs? That they belong to the bear community somehow?

I’m not just being cute here. If you try to pin down what people mean by a bear’s right to be in particular territory, you run into these questions. Are we saying that any environment which might conceivably support a bear, that she might wander into from an adjoining area, that has at some time in the past had a naturally-occurring bear in it, is therefore Bear Land, to be entered by humans at their peril?

As I said, there is some sense to this. If the naturally-occurring bear was kicked out a few weeks ago in order to put up the house you just built, then yes, I do grant that you are entering at your peril. But not, as we might think, because I believe the bear has the superior right to it, but because in my experience, it is hard to explain boundaries to bears, or indeed any mammals, including many humans. It would be rather a work in progress, I think.

That the animal is only doing what is natural to it is not a persuasive argument to me. Bears are naturally attracted to dumpsters, and alligators to small creatures near rivers, including toddlers. Doesn’t make it right. When you really press this idea, it turns out to be another one of those preferences that the whole region be made into a theme park dedicated to the speaker’s imagination of what things looked like in the year 1000 AD. Which ignores not only those successful exploiters of their environments, the Indians, but that change in nature is ongoing.

Popular Crime

Ben gave me Bill James Popular Crime, knowing I have been a fan of his baseball writing. Even though I have never had much interest in True Crime stories, I liked the book tolerably well. Perhaps most oddly, he provided the one nonstandard JFK shooting theory that has ever seemed plausible to me – perhaps plausible because it isn’t a conspiracy theory, but an accident theory (that one of the bullets was an accidental firing by a Secret Service agent in the car). Conspiracies don’t remain secret for long, but screwups happen all the time. I don’t say I have switched over to that theory, BTW, just that I find it plausible. And if true, that is perhaps sufficient explanation for why conspiracy theorists have anomalies to fasten upon.

Not that conspiracy theorists on any topic actually need real data to support their continuance in their belief, but it would make their job easier.

James writes in a nice folksy manner, notices things that others don’t, and has more logical ability than the average bear. In this instance, he also has a longstanding fascination with the topic that has allowed him to puzzle over the issues a long time. That latter may sound like an endorsement, but I am less sure of that these days. I have read too much recently of how people can persist in an initial belief no matter what contrary data comes along. We might hope that James’s theories are the result of considerable reflection; the possibility that they are merely elaborate rationalizations for the ideas he had as a kid.

There is some of both, here, actually. James is at his best writing about the actual crime/detective/prosecution/popular press stuff. He tells the story. How the cops screwed it up, how the criminal kept on the run, why the newspapers and public jumped to conclusions, why we still believe the wrong version today – James is great at this. He will convince you that most serial killings were not solved in earlier decades because cops refused to believe in them; it will stick in your mind that we usually only catch serial killers because a potential victim gets away; you will get a thorough overview of the crime stories of the past century. Some of them, such as the OJ trial, he admits he sidesteps because he has little to add, but even in those cases, he usually has nugget or two. Lizzie Borden, the Lindbergh baby, Ted Bundy – all present for the discussion.

Bill James is considerably less good when he attempts to draw larger life lessons from these stories – what caused the crime increase of the 60’s, what we should do about prisons, why certain murders fascinate. (As an informal statistics fan, he even develops a method of categorising crime popularity IDQX 9 = an Innocent victim crime with a Dreyfus angle, legit Mystery, sex-related, very big nationally – referring to the Mary Phagan case.) He notices from his reading that the mothers of serial killers tend strongly to have been arrested for prostitution. He speculates, but admits he speculates about this. He notices that national-obsession murder stories aren’t covered in the media for 30 years after the Lindbergh case, but in this case he is pretty insistent that this is because the newspapers realised they had gone over-the-top, were ashamed, and backed off. Well, Maybe. Yet he makes significantly important points in this offhand manner as well. He takes the NPR crowd to task for considering these stories unimportant. When else do we actually debate matters of just punishment, corrupt courts, rights of criminals and victims, and degree of public danger, except in the sensational stories? We talk in cliches - the actual stories are not always so neat. Those who disdain to discuss the sensational because it is too much a matter for the masses and the mob*, he claims, more easily remain stuck in the world of abstracts and generalities. Too delicate to contemplate popular crime, they remain unaffected by real questions.

Did I mention that he likes lists? I mean, really likes lists. His arguments for his conclusions often take that form. Not a problem for me, as I like ‘em too.

Of interest to me is the puzzle of why the initial police theories and the made-for-TV versions of homicides usually make the perpetrators richer, handsomer, and smarter than they actually are, and relatedly, why the public more quickly assumes that the rich, handsome, and smart are guilty – many concluded that JonBenet Ramsey’s parents were guilty even though there was virtually no evidence for that and considerable evidence for other possibilities. That she was in child beauty pageants seemed creepy to people, and so they concluded the parents must be creepy and therefore guilty. I have been wondering in other contexts how much envy and resentment of others drives our political and social behavior, and I file away this seeming insistence by the public that the myth is made clearer when the serial killer is Hannibal Lecter, rather than some in-and-out-of-prison drifter.

James would draw conclusions and try to prove them to you from that. Such as, we assume they are brilliant masterminds because we can’t catch them, but it’s really just because it’s hard to identify motiveless killers. He might succeed in proving them to you, and he might even be right. But he reaches a fair bit.

*That accusation would, uh, include me, BTW. Busted.

Identical Twins

There is currently a run on articles trying to generally invalidate the idea of identical twins. Steve Sailer, predictably, is all over the issue, and notices some of the undercurrent motives.

Over the last few decades, Galton's older half-cousin Charles Darwin has been promoted from secular sainthood to his current role as the Jesus of Atheists. But, the rise of Darwininsm in prestige has not been an unmitigated blessing to the world, so Galton has come to play the role of scapegoat, or devil. Since Darwin, the secular redeemer, is, by definition, above sin, all sins associated with Darwinism must be the fault of the designated devil, Galton.

Sailer, among others, are noting that these genetic differences between identical twins are not especially important in terms of the research we use twin-ness for. Related links at his site.

Combination Of Images

The spelling of the band's name apparently attracted spam comments, so I am avoiding it.

Last one, really. You can go watch more at Youtube if you like. But this is a simply amazing collision of images. Indoor stage - Horse - Trojan Horse - Bagpiper - Rock Planet - and the odd choreography and light accents. Stunning.

A Year And A Day

In English Common Law, you couldn't be tried for a homicide if the person died more than a year and a day after you injured him. A reasonable general rule at the time. The idea has continued on to the present, but in the last few decades, states have repealed or overturned that, because we can keep people alive in vegetative state much longer.

In Welsh mythology, Pwyll trades places with Arawn, Lord of the Underworld, for a year and a day. That may go back well before 1000 AD. (Yes, you Lloyd Alexander fans will be recognising many of the names in that.)

In Chaucer's "Wife of Bath's Tale" the knight is given a year and a day to complete a quest. 14th C.

The Dunmow Flitch was a side of bacon that any couple could claim if they could swear they had not argued for a year and a day. Over 7 centuries, about a half-dozen accomplished this. 1100 AD.

There may be older uses. You will notice that the formula prevents people from being too approximate, thinking they have got "about a year" to serve, or be punished, or married. It makes the longish period of time nonetheless definite.

Luv'

I know this looks like I must have run across it while scrounging though old ABBA videos - or perhaps after entering "Dutch 70's Soft Porn" on my search engine, but I actually found it while researching whether "a year and a day" had medieval meanings other than homicide common law. (My guess is that it does, but I can't prove it yet. I can only verify them back to the 18th C.) That led to twelvemonth, which led to "All Around My Hat," which led to Steeleye Span's version of that song, which this band covered. Really, I'm innocent.



There are a dozen videos of the group on Youtube, and I'm not convinced that one on the right ever learned to quite keep the beat.

This will substitute for an ABBA update. There is no reference to this Dutch girl group imitating them, but it sure looks it to me. Or maybe Northern European girls dressed like this in the 70's and 80's more than I knew. I wasn't there, after all.

'E Couldn' 'Elp It. 'E 'Ad To

I couldn't resist. Sorry.

Do The Work

I was expecting something different from Steven Pressfield's Do The Work. I had thought it was going to make more reference to recent research on resistance in getting things done, more discussion about how friends and family can be primary sources of resistance to your completing project and changing your life.

It ain't. It is much more of a cheerleading book, getting you through the natural resistance which attends all projects.

I usually avoid such things as merely irritating, but this one is actually pretty good. And for those of you with Kindle, it's free. I think that works for him because it might help sell his earlier book, The War of Art. Clever title, that. The eye-catching style was more of a distraction than a help to me. And yes, there are some irritating cliches - all those encouraging books have them. But this may be the you-can-do-it book for people who hate that sort of thing, which would be a boon to society.

Clearly, he is writing from experience of what things get in the way of one finishing projects, especially creative work. That would have value even if he were thoroughly irritating in tone, at least providing a map through the Slough of Despond.

It's cheap, even when you don't download it free.

Defies All Comment

Sponge-Headed Scienceman has two singing videos from 1978 about energy consumption. I defy anyone to listen to both all the way through.

I double dare ya.

Sculpture

This is a horrible sculpture. People who hated him might have been kinder, out of mere politeness.

The Final Commandment

Exodus 20:17 You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Chances are you haven't heard many sermons preached on this*, nor had it show up in structured Bible studies, or Christian video series. It may show up in devotionals, but I seldom read those, so I can't say. Actually, perhaps there has been a run on it on radio, CCM, retreats, and I just haven't heard. My knowledge of evangelical culture spiked briefly at Veggietales, and then fizzled out. But I'm betting it's still an underused commandment these days. We are more likely, in fact, to self-righteously engage in it, Christians openly resenting the wealth of others. We don't even disguise this especially well. It leaks out all over social and political discussions denouncing materialism or making environmentalism a central portion of our practical faith.

I originally thought to say how much human beings everywhere resent seeing others get wealth, but I think that is going too fast. When someone who we perceive as being part of our peer group gets more of anything of value - money, attention, prestige, mates - our feelings about ourselves take a dip. The happiness research is pretty solid on this, that much of our experience of wealth or poverty is relative. We feel bad if we think we aren't measuring up. By stereotype, this is more true of men than of women, but I don't know if that is true. We have a wealth of patched-up defenses against these bad feelings. We increase our estimate of luck or unfairness to the success of others or (perhaps imaginary) failures of ourselves; we resolve to be less attached to worldly status and material things; we strive harder; we undermine the successful. As with our attempts to banish pride, lust, or sloth, these attempts to eliminate envy have only mixed success.

Also by stereotype, conservatives imagine they can get ahead under the current system and want everyone to do well, excepting that they do better - almost, but not really, a generous sentiment; liberals want to bring down the wealth of others while keeping their own the same, with the same result. (I have actually heard people say this quite explicitly, wanting Groups X and Y to not make so much, so that in the more equitable wealth distribution "society" will be more appreciative of higher values - not coincidentally, the things that they just happen to be good at. It would be a Better World, doncha know. Usually, it's not so explicit, but just leaks out all over the place. I'm thinking of Bill McKibben here, because he's in the news again.)

Coveting is about thoughts, and is something of a transition, a come-deeper version of the other commandments. When Jesus makes his supposedly alarming statements about thoughts of murder or adultery being the spiritual equivalent of the act, He wasn't bringing out anything new. Jews had long earlier figured out that the Commandments forbade more than what is seen at first glance - that kissing your neighbor's wife was not quite in the spirit of things, and heavy petting was right out, even if there was no adultery. They knew that defrauding and cheating were a kind of stealing, and had picked up that worshiping other gods didn't necessarily involve altars and dead animals. Jesus pushes this to the extreme, partly because it's ultimately true, but partly to create a contrast with Pharisaical well, technically, we're still keeping the law because of how we define "work"...

But it wasn't all that new. People were horrified at taking things that far, but they got the idea right away. They weren't stupid. I think the expansive, even vague 10th C was part of what led them on to the deeper understanding.

Coveting seems universal, and worms its way into our thoughts without our even noticing. It destabilises cultures and makes us less happy, and subjectively less prosperous. Buddhism, and to a lesser extent Hinduism, attempt to address this via the strategy of wanting less, and ultimately wanting nothing. Some Christians use this approach as well, and there is certainly a good deal of scripture to support the idea. Yet somehow that wanting-for-nothing, that satisfied-with-little solution rings hollow if it is combined with a resentment for others who don't do that - and I think that is often what leaks out, though the speaker denies it. I think it is always the danger, that the person who makes 5 Giddles a week believes he is righteously limiting himself by not seeking one of those fields where people make 50 Giddles a week. That was I, years ago, and I am not entirely clear of it. Given Luther's description of humanity as a drunkard on a horse, falling off one side and then the other, or CS Lewis's description of leaning so far away from one side of the boat that we fall out the other, coveting may be an uncommon sermon precisely because it is the one we don't want to hear.

*You probably haven't heard much on 9C either: v.16 You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor. Sometimes you can get a thoughtful discussion going reminding us that this includes a lot of things that we aren't fully sure are true, such as gossip, people's motives, using adversarial law arguments (entirely appropriate in their real context) in persuasive or political discussion, and most fun conversation at all, really. Another day

Farewell To Alms

Gregory Clark thinks the help we give other nations does worse than no good at all. He thinks it actively harms them. This is troubling as an American, certainly. It is much more troubling as a Christian.

Christians are used to their generosities doing no good at all. We rather expect that will be the case many times. It is ours to give, and then the matter is out of our control. We even accept, more reluctantly, that our gift may go to wrong purposes, that in the free will of the recipient are many of the evils common to mankind, and our nickel may go to the devil.

When we know that the gift will harm, however, does the picture change?

Let me make a distinction that will become important in the discussion. There may be a conflict here between what we are to do as Christians, and what we are to do as Americans. Both the right and the left, though in different ways, have their Americanism interpenetrate their Christianity, and their faith invade their picture of what it means to be American. Actually, the left and right do this the same way, just on different topics.

As I was reading Clark's A Farewell To Alms, I kept thinking, and sometimes saying to my wife, this is very troubling. I noted previously my willingness to believe writers too easily; a third of the way through I noticed him getting something wrong about Christian history, then drawing an unwarranted conclusion from linguistic information. I became more suspicious, and decided he had Jared Diamond envy, drawing widely but not always accurately from other fields to support his point.

Still, this only weakened his argument and made me cautious. It did not eliminate it, and by the time I had finished the book I thought he had made a strong case that the poorer nations of the world have had their poverty increased, not so much by our trade with them, but by our efforts to lift them and help them. It is not colonialism per se that has reduced their standard of living, but their cultural decisions - possibly quite justified in their previous contexts - in response to income from trade. Put briefly, more money turned into more people, rather than a higher income for a stable population. That is what humankind (not to mention plants and animals) has always done: used increased resources to increase the population and fill the environment. Traditionally, that is the best way to keep out competitors.

So now their babies don't die so much - a good thing; and they live longer because of medical things we can help them with - another good thing; and they can grow more food per acre, and transport their goods, and trade more freely - all good things. Which ends up with too many people and gradual downturn in income per person - very bad things.

Conservatives will dislike Clark because he doesn't think that free markets and good government will solve things for poor nations; liberals will dislike him because he thinks that the west is prosperous because of our culture and even our genes. He makes a pretty good case for both, though. His first chapter is a summary of the book, and I recommend it. In fact, I give the summary four stars, but the book only three.

What all this means for Christians, going on medical and agricultural missions to far places, I hope to discuss at length. I don't have an answer I am fully comfortable with. I think I am going to have to relook at Christian charity in general in order to get any farther.