Reposted from 2016. All the disaster in WNC made me think of it, though that isn't quite the same situation.
*********
I forgot to mention how much I liked Lewis Dartnell's The Knowledge: How To Rebuild Our World From Scratch. It's an instruction manual of how to leap over centuries of dark ages in the event of some apocalyptic collapse of civilization. It bypasses the usual survivalist and sci-fi dystopias of riots in the street and starvation in the first few months, picking up in some more stable period of small societies of less than 10,000 trying to get on with building a civilisation.
For example, simply knowing germ theory, how to make a good anesthetic from nitrous oxide and ether, and allowing dissection of corpses for training, you can get up to the equivalent of 1900 in medicine very quickly. Dartnell adds in how to quickly get to x-rays and weak antibiotics and voila! We're pretty much at 1950 already.
Other things will be harder. Stored petroleum has a shelf life, and we've already accessed the easy oil out of the ground. We'll be able to scavenge metals from abandoned cities, but mining the easy stuff has already been done. We'll have to go to charcoal or ethanol-based fuels, so Dartnell gives directions how that works. There are chapters on how to make glass, four-field rotation farming (that helps us skip centuries of trial-and-error), paper and ink, wind and water energy, clothing, and chemistry. Lots of fun, though toward the end I skipped the second halves of some chapters, as the details weren't so interesting as the overall concepts. The details would be plenty interesting to people who actually needed them, I imagine.
It's pure sport for someone like me. I'm not likely to survive any apocalypse long, so it's all just the intriguing imagination game. Still, I'd like my descendants and younger friends to be among those who survive and prosper if worst comes to worst, so I'm showing it around and started circulating a copy in the family.
From 2009. Even more pertinent today. Copithorne in the comments.
*******
Lacy Dodd has a thoughtful article over at First Things about Notre Dame's intention to bestow an honorary degree on President Obama. Ms. Dodd has some right to be heard. She was unmarried and got pregnant while a senior at Notre Dame ten years ago. She gave birth to and kept the child. There were disappointments:
My boyfriend was a different story. He was also a Notre Dame senior. When I told him that he was to be a father, he tried to pressure me into having an abortion. Like so many women in similar circumstances, I found out the kind of man the father of my child was at precisely the moment I needed him most. “All that talk about abortion is just dining-room talk,” he said. “When it’s really you in the situation, it’s different. I will drive you to Chicago and pay for a good doctor.”
I tried telling him this was not an option. He said he was pro-choice. I responded by informing him that my choice was life. And I learned, as so many pregnant women have before and since, that life is the one choice that pro-choicers won’t support.
That accusation is a bit broad, of course. There are prochoice people who rejoice in a woman's decision to carry to term. Yet where I work, I am struck by the number of women who shake their heads disapprovingly at decisions to carry to term if there is any reason not to. If your boyfriend isn't going to be supportive, if you have a crummy job, if you have a really good job, if you are less than 20, if you are over 40, if you aren't in perfect health - any one of these is considered not only a sufficient, but a necessary reason to abort. There are often narrowed eyes and real spite if there is any indication that some religious person "got to them," and "guilted them into going through with it." This absent any evidence that the religious person in question did so - it is assumed.
Ms. Dodd concludes:
I’d like to ask this of Fr. John Jenkins, the Notre Dame president: Who draws support from your decision to honor President Obama—the young, pregnant Notre Dame woman sitting in that graduating class who wants desperately to keep her baby, or the Notre Dame man who believes that the Catholic teaching on the intrinsic evil of abortion is just dining-room talk?
Luis Tiant, Red Sox Hall of Famer, dies at 83. If you are an old baseball fan, you will be seeing lots of stories on him this week. My favorite was the thickness of his accent getting him past the censors on TV before they had time to react. "I hay boolcheet for stuff today, but use aw mye dick* to geh by." While sitting in the locker room naked except for a cigar. The part referred to was reportedly impressive.
The Last Word on Moral Philosophy, over at Grim's begins with Marcus Aurelius's quote "Waste no more time debating what is a good man. Be one."
In his situation, one at least has the comfort of knowing I am exactly where God wants me to be, and doing at least approximately what I should be doing. Whether I do it well or ill, with good grace or bad, is still unknown. But I at least have that.
"The last Republican in Austin" retired in 2020 and did not seek reelection. Remember his wonderful ad from 2016? A lot of people on this blog can relate to this guy.
We have discussed here before how IQ (which Steve Hsu wisely calls a colloquial term) is a good group tendency measure, but no better than a moderate predictor of individual success. If you compare a hundred people with IQ 100 and a hundred people with IQ 110, the latter group will have less crime, more years of education, higher incomes, more stable relationships and better overall health. But in both groups of 100 there will be a lot of variation. The book for this is Hive Mind: How Your Nation's IQ Matters So Much More Than Your Own, by Garett Jones. He embraces the seeming contradiction rather than avoiding it. He stresses the greater patience and cooperativeness of those with higher IQ, even though those are more modest, have a greater cultural impact than the usual cognitive measures we associated with g-factor intelligence. Even though his ideas for raising national IQ do not look that promising to me, I'm likingthe book for other reasons.
Into this mix comes some interesting support. Over the last few decades we have revamped our thinking about Neanderthals, that they were more intelligent than we had credited, created art and used tools more variously, and contributed some to our ancestry. I said here last year that perhaps we supplanted them because we were just meaner.
Neanderthals had larger brains, so were unlikely to be less intelligent. Their tool-making is more individualistic, suggesting that each tool-maker was more creative. What would cause that? Necessity. If you lived in larger groups, which in turns had contact with other larger groups, sharing genetic material (usually by exchanging daughters), then everyone didn't have to reinvent the wheel* themselves. The group knowledge is a repository of memory. Neanderthals were more likely to have autism-associated genes than our African ancestors. They lived in smaller, more densely related bands.
(Diagram from Razib Khan's substack)
In fact, Neanderthals are often not much related to other bands a hundred miles away, even over centuries.
So they may have each been smarter, more creative, but were less social, and less likely to have lots of shared memory, shared culture. Homo sapiens were smarter as a whole, and thus exploited environments more fully.
And if it came to a fight, one side had a lot more people than the other.
I have been a loud voice favoring the view that genetic changes have created the cultural ones. I am apparently wrong about that. David Reich's group has shown that genetic changes seem to lag behind the cultural ones. Not so very long, but noticeably. Once a practice has begun, such as relying more on milk products, genes for lactase persistence begin to be selected for. When you think of the math alone, this makes sense, and we will use lactose as our example. Waiting around for a single chance mutation, and then hoping that this one individual with that advantage reproduces is a bit chancy. But if the cultural habit of using milk products for food, even if poorly digested and causing intestinal problems, becomes widespread in an area, then any number of small advantages will be called out. A mutation has a better chance. I had never thought of it that way. The genes for lactase persistence actually show up a few thousand years later than the dairy use. But once they existed, they rapidly made their holders healthier and longer-lived.
When I first wrote this in 2009 it was less known, but now is recognised as a standard TV trope. I included a video this time, which I should have last time.
In the comments is the phrase "...kids, like jackals, sense weakness..." An excellent observation.
********
The stereotype is that 1950's television showed stereotypical two-parent, two-child families where nothing went wrong, and this was unhealthy for the attitudes of children growing up watching this. Leave It To Beaver and Ozzie and Harriet are cited as examples.
But more frequently, television killed off a parent somewhere and started the story later, with the bereft or even orphaned child adjusting to a new family situation. Rather creepily, Mommies got eliminated much more often than Daddies, though both parents getting the hook before the series started was also common.
Uncles taking care of nieces was big: Bachelor Father, Sky King, Family Affair. Dads left with the kids also seemed to be a big draw: My Three Sons, The Rifleman, Andy Griffith, Bonanza.
Circus Boy, My Little Margie, Danny Thomas, Gidget, Hank - there's dead parents everywhere. Or live parents nowhere might be a better way to put it. It's easy to see the sympathy draw, and perhaps the losing of a mother rates higher on the instant sympathy scale. Men taking care of kids also offered more opportunity for comedy. Still, it's weird how many moms they picked off here - maybe TV producers didn't like their wives or mothers or something. I can't think of any early single moms except for December Bride. Tough women left with the ranch out West came up though. It seems to be the reverse of the Dad-as-nurturer show - Barbara Stanwyck in The Big Valley winning against all odds.
Super-intact families were used more for comic effect in unusual situations: The Munsters, The Addams Family, The Flintstones, The Jetsons. Still are: The Simpsons, Family Guy.The Real McCoys and The Beverly Hillbillies both had multigenerational weirdness going, with missing relatives seemingly no problem. Maybe that was an Appalachian stereotype thing.
There is a fair overlap between this site and Grim's Hall already, but for those of you who don't visit there, he is currently overloaded as a first responder in the mountains of the west Carolinas. He can occasionally get internet and get a message out, and Starlink is reportedly solving that problem soon. He favors on-the-ground solutions, as do many of us here, and has suggestions how you might help if you've a mind to.
My mother discouraged us from watching this show, as it might be too scary. Such were the times.
But we watched Boomtown all three hours every Saturday. If you were sick and stayed home from church on Sunday, you learned that Rex Trailer was on three hours then, too - and played hymns on his guitar.
My brother and I tried the rope tricks. That is, I made him stand across the room with one of Mummy's cigarettes in his mouth and I would flip a hunk of rope and knock it out. I can't imagine I never missed, but I don't recall any accidents.
I don't know all of the words to "Hoofbeats" or "Boomtown," I'm afraid, though I could get part of them down.
In the context of discussing the very poor evidence in favor of the toxoplasma idea - that contact with cats increases human risk of diseases such as Alzheimer's, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder - Tom Chivers of The Studies Shows said categorically "I'm not going to pay any attention to any study involving only ten rats." This seems sound. The cat ladies are safe after all.
There is a wonderful site on X justsaysinmice, that appends the proper qualifier IN MICE to news reports of study after study. Great fun.
"Exercise in pregnancy protects children from obesity, study finds." IN MICE
"A new study shows that high-fat diets are linked to anxiety and depression" IN MICE
There was also one people were oohing and ahhing over on FB locally, of a librarian patiently explaining that books found there way into age-inappropriate sections because the publishers are trying to expand their markets, people. What do you expect? She was irritated. To that I say "That's why we hire librarians."
Of course there are books on the margin, which could perhaps benefit the occasional eight-grader but is generally inappropriate for middle school and belongs in the high school, or the high school section of the public library. Having those discussions is appropriate. But there are people on both sides of this who are crusaders, who want to make sure there is nothing in the high school that discusses LGBT students in any way, versus those who want to make sure that the poor fourth-grader trans boy has books that make him feel supported and affirmed. (And how dare your forbid it, because this book won an award! Those books always win awards.)
As a practical matter, most problems can be solved by factoring in age-appropriateness. Political/social questions need to be treated as a different animal, because the personalities are often more important than the content.
I was walking in the neighborhood. Sullivan is sitting on his porch.
"So, do you like Corvettes?"
"Not particularly."
He motions me over to show me the 2024 that his friend just bought and describes its features to me. He goes on to talk about Shelby, '61 Impalas, GTOs, an '87 Harley, and various muscle cars that old guys here in the park own.
Guys and gear. Guns, boats, camping, knives, fishing...GEAR.
Still thinking much about Till We Have Faces in preparation for the conference on the 11th.
When the main character chooses to veil herself because of her ugliness, and the god who weds her beautiful sister hides his appearance as well, you can expect that all mention of faces should be noted, even when the faces are not theirs. But when faces are hidden, voices take on greater importance. Orual finds that her voice is attractive. A suppliant prince even flirts with her in the dim light. The God of the Mountain, the Shadowbrute, is revealed to have a voice of great beauty and majesty. The shouts of crowds or the murmurs of them in the distance express a great deal.
I noticed it from two poignant, connected passages, and was able to double back and see the subtle reference to voices, or natural sounds that seemed like voices, throughout the book. I hope to notice more on further readings.
I never heard weeping like that before, not from a child, nor a man wounded on the palm, nor a tortured man, nor a girl dragged off to slavery from a taken city. If you heard the woman you most hate in the world weep so, you would go to comfort her. You would fight your way through fire and spear to reach her. (Orual, speaking of Psyche) Pt 1 Ch. XV
But the situation reverses, or seems to, in the end.
The woman held out her hands to Psyche, and I saw that her left arm dripped with blood. Then came her voice, and what a voice it was! So deep, yet so woman-like, so full of passion, it would have moved you even if it spoke happy or careless things. But now (who could resist it?) it would have broken a heart of iron.
'Oh Psyche,' it wailed. 'Oh, my own child,my only love. Come back. Come back. Back to the old world where we were happy together. Come back to Maia.'
Psyche bit her lip till the blood came and wept bitterly. (Orual, in Pt. 2 Ch IV)
If you notice similarities in this story of Orual to elements of Beauty and the Beast, it is because both are based on the Cupid and Psyche myth. Orual would be one of the jealous sisters.
Also, whenever you hear a bird sing in Lewis's fiction, pay attention. The plot is about to move in a different direction.
This does not fit Till We Have Faces in the least, but has been running through my head the whole time while listening to a podcast about it. Fortunately, not during the reading itself.
Though actually, it might fit for Psyche. Yes, that Psyche - the one in the Cupid myth. The Lewis book is told from the POV of one of the jealous sisters.
Am I just being picky here, or is "rewriting" too strong a term? The evidence undermines confidence in the Kurgan Hypothesis in the usual method of "Not so fast. Don't overclaim here."
Horseback riding can indeed leave subtle marks on the human body. The
study, conducted by archaeologists, utilized evidence from medical
studies of modern equestrians and examined human remains spanning
thousands of years. Their findings suggest that activities like
horseback riding can influence skeletal structures, particularly in the
hip joint, where the ball and socket may become elongated over time.
However, the researchers caution that this type of skeletal change is
not exclusive to riding; other activities, such as prolonged sitting or
riding in carts, can also produce similar alterations.
But it doesn't provide support for any rival hypothesis that I can see. Well, it could be horseback riding. It might even be exclusively horseback riding. But it could be other things as well, like sitting or riding in carts. That doesn't seem to be "rewriting" our understanding. I know science progresses by small increments, each important, but this one doesn't move the needle much, to my view.
There are figures in the world who are so much like characters in fairy tales that one doubts they are real. Monsieur Chouchani, teacher of both the French-Jewish philosopher Emanuel Levinas and author Elie Wiesel (among dozens of others, less well-known) is such a one. He was the archetype of the wandering wizard, the mad sage: Teiresias straight out of the pages of the Odyssey, Gandalf, or Merlin, or Obi-Wan. An Eastern European Jew born in the late 19th C, he was possessed of a prodigious memory, teaching Talmud, higher mathematics, classical literature, philosophy of language and meaning.
Friends and students knew him only as "Mr. Chouchani" (pronounced "Shoushani"). He would sometimes call himself "Prof. Chouchani," but that was apparently only one of the names he used. He spent his life traveling in East Europe, France, the United States, British Mandatory Palestine, North Africa and South America. A solitary, eternal wanderer, he always wore pauper's clothes and sought food and lodging among friends. He zealously concealed his past, yet wherever he went, he left behind many admirers who were astounded by the scope of his knowledge - in both Jewish and general fields - and his skill at integrating various realms to produce stunning innovations. Yair Sheleg, 2003
His real name and nationality remain uncertain. (But see below.) The reasons for his wandering unknown.
His privacy was obsessive, he had some sort of contamination fear, he was angry and dismissive - a "cruel teacher" Levinas called him, though he voluntary engaged Chouchani as his master. More about this fascinating character here and here. These include recent evidence of his real name and provenance
(language alert) Over 40 years ago someone told Bill Cosby that "cocaine is wonderful because it intensifies your personality," to which he replied "But what if you're an asshole?"
There is much sentimental nonsense spouted about finding our True Selves® by people who seem convinced - based on no evidence visible to those around them - their own TS is going to be lovely. I have deep suspicions mine, frankly, is not. I am rereading Till We Have Faces in preparation for the conference on October 11-12, and much discussion in the newer commentaries on the book reflect the modern idea of how wrong it is that Orual puts on a false self. Yet near the end (minor spoiler alert) she discovers that it is her true self that is the real problem, and the false selves only attempts to deal with that, dishonest in varying degrees. There is a CS Lewis quote which is popular on the internet. Out of context, it is indeed quite inspiring.
“Child, to say the very thing you really mean, the whole of it, nothing more or less or other than what you really mean; that's the whole art and joy of words.”
Yet one wonders if those quoting it have actually read the book. It is from one of her wise, but ultimately false teachers, The Fox, who represents Greek Wisdom. Orual describes it as a glib saying.
When the time comes to you at which you will be forced to utter the speech which has lain at the center of your soul for years, which you have, all that time, idiot-like, been saying over and over, you'll not talk about the joy of words.
How much is an oodle, do you think? It has to be much less than 33% of the maximum total. When someone has oodles of something, you don't think of that as being two parts out three, even though that technically works. Is it 1% of the total, then? That would make it a superfluous term. So it is more than, or less than, 1%?
3% = 1 Oodle. Let's take a look at that. If you have oodles of poodles, that would mean some goodly percentage of the number of poodles a person might be reasonably expected to have. A breeder might have what, fifteen? If someone has thirty-seven poodles we begin to suspect that they aren't really paying the amount of attention to each one that they should, right? Breeders my do a somewhat creditable or competent job, but there must be a maximum number of oodles of poodles a human can manage.
I don't think we have a credible case in the other direction. I don't think that 0.2 items = 1 Oodle.
What say ye? What is the rule for this measure? It it like a thum, or a rod, or a parsec, or a kilopond?
"Turned in upon oneself," attributed to Augustine, though the concept goes back to Paul in the NT. It is spiritually tied deeply to the ideas on original sin, and fallen humanity.
CS Lewis mentions in a few places, especially in The Great Divorce, that to be able to focus on any thing outside of ourselves is a step away from complete damnation, and even unworthy objects are far better targets for our affection than our own selves.
Mike over at Chicago Boyz writes about Loud Exhaust and Public Space. I had not known about aftermarket additions which can create backfires on your muscle cars that sound like a 12-guage. He talks about research into personality characteristics which did not find correlations with narcissism as expected, but with sociopathy and psychopathy.
… that the fabric of the world is torn by the small acts
of cruelty and unconcern that make everyone else retreat from public
space.
This can have an unfortunate resemblance to conquest, if those making a nuisance of themselves recognize
one another as like beings, bound up in a common fate, and notice also
that the space vacated by those sufficiently annoyed or intimidated is
now theirs, collectively.
I may get into the quality and meaning of the study later, as there are immediate questions about definition and representativeness, but for now, it's just a topic of conversation about a well-known phenomenon.
The loud muscle cars are not unknown here, but in NH that's mostly classic cars, and you want to keep those out of the salt and keep the mileage down. We mostly see those at road rallies or other events. With each added decade they handle them more delicately. And those guys don't tend to go that loud anyway, because the drive for authenticity take them out of the aftermarket add-ons.
It's hard to separate my personal preferences from what I think should be law. That is only a moderately good guide.
Up here its some motorcycles and some pickup trucks, where the aggressive use of noise is clearly part of the charm to the owners. You know the ones I mean: the guy tailgating you when you are doing 80 in a 65 zone in the far left lane, while you are passing three cars in the next lane doing 70, and as you switch lane he really jumps it, so that if you accidentally hesitated your switch he might clip you, and revs loudly to show his displeasure. I am pretty tolerant of big pickups in general. People need them - and I can construe "need" quite broadly, as it "tows something quite large every couple of years, but that's it." I don't inquire as to the guy's need for power and size. But it is clear that sometimes the noise is not the fun, but the aggressiveness and direct challenge are the fun.
Motorcycles are a bit of an irony. The real scofflaw "networks" are largely into the drug trade, and tend to avoid drawing attention to themselves. For real transport they use pickups, and I suspect not loud ones. But one of my simple pleasures is eating outside in nice weather at a restaurant or friends house and having conversation. During bike week, you might have to interrupt your conversation at regular intervals for over a minute at a time all afternoon. I find that an unfair imposition on my rights. I can put up with a lot, but some guys are looking for the line where others get offended, because that's the fun part.
It's like the guy in the bar who loudly says "I ain't lookin for a fight...but if some guy wants to mess with me..." Dude, you're looking for a fight.
Because of this I reflected on what sensory offenses get tolerated and which don't. The breakdown is pretty clear. Offensive taste - just don't eat it yourself Jack, leave us alone. Offensive texture - don't touch it. Offensive smell - well it's harder to get away from that. People might put up with the application of chicken manure for one week every year, but they consider even that to be on sufferance. When the paper mills supported the who city of Berlin, NH, a consistently poor town, people put up with it. But Westford MA, and expensive suburb, no longer has the two abattoirs in the town center it did in my father's day.
Offensive sights are tricky. We have argued lot about such things in my lifetime, and the lines have moved. It used to be that people didn't want some things, like pornography, to be in the community at all, because children might possible see them. In the politics of sex and violence in particular, we get much more upset about what is required versus what is merely available.
Sound spreads far. Loudon Raceway can be heard for miles. Amplified graduation parties likewise.
Of course, sometimes it is a matter of perspective.
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.
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 (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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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 of people seem to have first developed a theory they liked and then convinced themselves it must be true, because it sounds right.
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.
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.
