Throwing Away and Wasting

Jesus warned that we might have to throw some things away, in fact, give up everything. True, this can translate to treasure in heaven, but in the meantime things seem to be lost.

Though one hopes that gifts to the poor aren't lost, not infrequently they're squandered, and any value will have to be supernatural. Ordinary wealth can and does vanish and benefit nobody--and may be wasted.

But in a few passages something else seems to show up. After feeding the multitudes, Jesus says to gather up the leftovers so nothing will be lost. After the Resurrection, He asks seven of the disciples to haul in a load of fish, even though he already has fish and bread waiting for them.

He seems not to want things He provides wasted. Which is encouraging.

The internet

I wonder what Dr Boli has been reading lately. FWIW, some of my scratch paper notes have become blog posts. And other things.

Special Days

The city calendar hanging beside me has almost every day flagged as some "Day": Bison Day, World Freedom Day, Fast Food Day, Craft Jerky Day, Cake Day, and World Hello Day. "Cookie Cutter Day" has another, unmentioned, name this year: the start of Advent.

At least they got Christmas Eve et al on there.

Subverting the Patriarchy

The Catholics and Southern Baptists (I'm a bit more familiar with the latter) are held as exemplars of patriarchy, which is understood to be a bad thing™(*).

Catholic devotions are famously Mary-centric, even more so than the Orthodox. (Rosary, anyone?) The Southern Baptist liturgical year celebrates the lives of Annie Armstrong (Easter) and Lottie Moon (Christmas) and their determination to serve God no matter what ossified patriarchs got in their way. I see an interesting contrast between alleged "know your place" teaching, and teaching "be like these women who overcame the people who wanted them to stay in their place."

---

Any form of organization is subject to corruption and misuse, but why patriarchy should be uniquely bad isn't clear. If Darwin's rule is any guide, approximately patriarchal societies seem to be very successful. (Is it still a patriarchy if men run some aspects of society and women rule others?)

---

Dan McBride wrote

But when the church needs workers, they do not wrack their brains.
They go enlist a lady that the WMU has trained.
It surely is a good thing that the women enter in,
'Cause we'd all be in trouble if we left it to the men!

After 55 years, a different view

Early in high school I read the collection of Saki (Hector Hugh Munro). All at once, of course. He had wit and excellent twists in many of his short stories, some of which turn up in school readers. He was known for it.

I acquired a volume for our own kids later, and it gathered a bit of dust until recently. I found it on the coffee table, read here and there in it again, and concluded that one should limit his reading to one or two stories, and not try too many at once. In bulk (more than four or five), they depress. I got the impression that the author, or at least his favorite characters, didn't like women or children very much.

But in small doses:

A Poet praised the Evening Star,
Another praised the Parrot’s hue:
A Merchant praised his merchandise,
And he, at least, praised what he knew.

Conspiracy theories

They're all the rage, and I suppose they always have been. I run into claims about drug company this, or Monsanto that, or "October surprise" scheming -- and some of the old "Jews run the world" themes seem to be getting new life, and an ugly amount of influence.

I don't hear much chatter about QAnon anymore. The only place I heard much about it was media reports; outside of those I only know of one person who is/was into it, and I never met him. It never seemed to have any institutional support, unlike Kendi's conspiracy theory, which has a great deal. and is unusual, in that he posits an unconscious conspiracy

What gives a conspiracy theory cachet? Some critical mass of celebrities endorsing it? Tribal endorsement? Popularity great enough that nobody wants to say anything against it?

Unknown story of forgiveness

Judas wasn't going to explain his doings to anybody before the betrayal, and wasn't in a mood to afterwards, so from whence did the synoptic gospels get the information about the "chief priests and officers" and the silver?

Acts 6:7 says that "a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith." If one of those chief priests was among the converted, what a story he must have had! Just like Paul, he was certain he was on the side of the angels, though using rather disreputable means, and then -- oh oh.

Maybe it was one of the officers. There probably weren't a lot of people in on the secret, though.

A reflection on the rhetoric before and after

"a curious disease which they have all caught--an inability to disbelieve advertisements"

C.S. Lewis, The Pilgrim's Regress

Garden fork

I learned about this item rather late in life: shovels and spades and snow shovels I learned about quickly, but this one escaped my notice. It turns out to be very useful when you need to break up the soil, especially when your better half plants bulbs--a shovel's wide slice dissects more of them than the few spikes of the garden fork.

A shovel also tends to bring dirt up more as clods, and so requires a little more work to break it up so you can stir in the fertilizer or whatever. A fork is also handy when you're trying to trace grass/mint/bindweed roots traveling sideways--you can figure out which way they're going and pull more of the root out.

However

A word to the wise: the garden forks we have (garage sale specials) don't have tops as flat as a shovel's (or even the example above) for planting your foot on to ram it into hard or rooty soil. Look for flat tops when you get one.

If you try to push the more rounded models with your foot, you'll force your muscles and tendons to work harder to try to hold your foot straight and not turn sideways. You may not notice your mistake until the next day, but you'll notice. It's been a week, and whatever the tendon is attached to the tibia medial malleolus is still sore to the touch.

New World metallurgy

I'd heard it proposed that the presence of so much native copper in Michigan, and trading so widespread, meant that there was no great pressure to learn smelting. Tin ores are quite scarce, so bronze wasn't going to be made locally north of Mexico. Meteoric iron could be found, of course, and seems to have been used here and there.

South, though: Jonathan Hall's post is quite extensive, and if he's correct it looks like Peru had an impressive metallurgical culture, which spread north into Mesoamerica; but apparently the trade in metal goods didn't go further north into the modern USA. The absence of tin would explain why nobody bothered to try to smelt bronze, and the easy availability of native copper removes the need to smelt copper, but why wouldn't there be some trade? Did the North have nothing the Mesoamericans wanted, or were the desert stretches that great a trade barrier? There's always the coastlines and raft-boats -- unless there really was nothing they wanted.

Banality

Douglas Murray has at Hannah Arendt and her Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, citing research that shows she was (at best) duped. He also argues that her cute slogan has contributed to our widespread inability to call evil evil.

I wonder if she read The Screwtape Letters' 1961 preface, "I live in the Managerial Age, in a world of “Admin.” The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid “dens of crime” that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice."

Those quiet men sometimes harbor the wildest evils in their hearts and in their minutes.

Time

I'm helping beta-read a novel, and one aspect of it headed me down a rabbit hole about time, to a 31-year-old paper presented to the NCTE about "Indian time." "Indian time" is mythic, based on appropriateness of action ("I eat when I'm hungry, I drink when I'm dry, and if whiskey don't kill me I'll live til I die."), while "linear time" contributes to dislocation and illness. As is typical, the author cites special relativity without showing the remotest understanding of it.

The problems attributed to "linear time" and "technology" are curable with "mythic time" and simplicity, of course. Patton seems to be unacquainted with Christian traditions about materialism. And Mander's comparison tables, cited in the Appendix, are not just invidious but inaccurate. Some tribes did in fact work to produce surplus for trade, and trade networks could be extensive.

You can tell that the paper is old; it doesn't try to attribute wickedness to whites, just to "technology." It probably would run into a lot of flack today.

At any rate, I didn't find what I was hunting: anything like the (surprisingly late!) idea of returning to the past. Stories of one-way time travel to the future are very old.

Of course, after making a bit of fun of the paper, I need to give an example of what she means. When I lived in Liberia, people referred to Liberian Standard Time, which in practice meant "whenever:" Maybe half an hour after the hour specificed, maybe the next day. Things happened, and meetings ran long, and part of business was maintaining relationships. And land line telephones weren't that common. When I returned, cell phones were ubiquitous, and often interrupted things. It seemed that the rule that "a meeting lasts as long as it lasts" was now something of an exception. Was maintaining relations still such a large part of business? I wasn't there long enough to find out.

Internment

We're all told about the US interning Japanese. I hadn't heard that the Canadians did too, and that some of the Japanese-Canadians couldn't return home until 1949.

Incitatus

We vote for a president; we get a team.

BBC's famous "Yes Minister" comedy assumed that the existing bureaucracy defines most of policy (and tries to perpetuate and enlarge itself). I haven't seen much evidence that this is wrong.

There's no way any human being can know all the people in a single government agency, much less the whole government. To pick people to direct an agency you have to trust someone else's vetting of them – and trust the standards by which they were measured. The reports that cross your desk are distillations of distillations: how do you know if there was a pattern to what was omitted?

We hope that the president we vote for will pick a trustworthy team to farm out the other personnel selections to and give them the general policy directions for their various underlings to implement, and then listen to what we hope is their good advice. We hope we can trust the policy statements and party brand. We hope we're not buying a pig in a poke. That's a lot of hope.

Trump seemed to have some sensible advisors, but so many of his team rotated in and out that I figure continuity had to have suffered – and then bureaucratic momentum wins. "Personnel is policy:" and the bureaucracy has most of the personnel already – and offers a pool from which one may select directors.

Perhaps instead we vote for Incitatus, with religious faith in the party brand and trusting that the team that selected Incitatus is benign. That team, invisible to any ballot, will pick the cabinet, set the policies, and try to decide on the proper reactions to the crises that will arise. The president will sign bills like a living autopen, read from teleprompters, and smile or glower on cue.

It might seem as though either way the bureaucracy dominates, but it isn't entirely just a difference in degree. In the case of a compos mentis president, decisions in the various crises would be made by the same person; there's no guarantee that the same person each time would give Incitatus the lines to say. And a forceful president might have some impact in despite of the bureaucracy.

Post-liberalism

First Things has an essay by Nathan Pinkoski "Twentieth-century civilization has collapsed. It rested on an essential tenet of liberalism: the state-society, public-private distinction."

In 2006, then prime minister Blair said that the “traditional civil liberty arguments are not so much wrong, as just made for another age.” Soon after, his home secretary John Reid elaborated. The previous age—the postwar age—began in response to concerns about the threat the “fascist state” posed to individuals, Reid said. Today, the threat comes from “fascist individuals,” not fascist states.

This, after Pinkoski's description of the subsuming of private enterprises under government control in a way that is fascist in all but name, is telling.

Leaves

This time of year can be beautiful, with leaves changing yellow and orange and brown and red--highlighted by evergreens here and there. On the tree, with the sunlight shining through them, most dead leaves look at least great, and sometimes amazing. But dead oak leaves look so emphatically skeletal and withered and dead--they're ugly. I suppose they fit in with the ubiquitous Halloween themes, but I'm glad there aren't any oak trees in my window's view.

Mushroom song

The Internet is a wondrous thing sometimes. A fragment of a ditty about mushrooms stuck in my mind and surfaced today: I'd read it in a book about campers back in '66 or so. Searching about, there seem to be several variants, and one version claimed James Thurber as the author (?I didn't find evidence). I went to camp but once in my youth, and that camp was more about singing hymns than folk songs--not that I cared much for either--so I've no historical bias. Which, if any, of these 4 did you learn?

(The third seems slightly corrupted, but maybe the music was different.) archive.org is back.

The mushroom is a vegetable
To select it few are able
You won't know them when you meet them
You won't know them 'til you eat them
If in heaven you awaken
You will know you were mistaken
And the ones that you have eaten
Weren't the ones you should have et.

Mushrooms are a vegetable
which you eat when you are able
you will know one when you see one
you will know one when you eat one
if in Heaven you awaken
then you’ll know you were mistaken
Must have been a toadstool, tough luck!!!

Mushrooms are a veg-e-table
That you eat when you are able,
You will know when you eat them,
You will know them when you eat them.
If in heaven you awaken
And you find you were mistaken,
That the mushrooms you had eaten
Weren’t the ones you should have et.
Must have been toadstools -- tough luck!

“Mushrooms is a veg-e-table; 
to detect them few are able. 
If in Heaven you awaken 
then you’ll know you were mistaken, 
And the ones that you have eaten 
weren’t the ones you should have eat!”