It’s here a last: Soils in Construction, the Sixth Edition, now available from Waveland Press. Many of you (and especially those who are familiar with the companion site vulcanhammer.info) are aware that I’ve spent much of my career in geotechnical engineering and deep foundations dealing with contractors. As such I am both sympathetic with their […]
ICYMI, I’ve migrated the music that’s been on this site to YouTube. That took some time and effort but I think it’s worth it. The central reason for that is that it gives the artists (and their record companies) the opportunity to earn some revenue off of the music, even though most of them are either unable or unwilling to put the music back into distribution. As many of you know, this site specialises in the “Jesus Music” era of the 1960’s and 1970’s.
In the process of doing this, some of the albums were claimed by their copyright holders, usually the record companies or their agents, successors or assigns (how’s that for a little legalese!) And that’s fine; I didn’t go on YouTube to make money, and the channel (thanks to the recent change in YouTube rules) isn’t eligible for monetization because it doesn’t draw enough traffic. I’m glad to see that we’ve got a workable mechanism (not perfect but workable) to link the copyright holders with their music.
Most of the claims made during the process were for albums released by secular labels (which did happen in the Jesus Music era) where the album came from. There are a few for Christian labels, but they’re the exception, not the rule. But virtually all of the claims came for original artists.
This week I’ve seen a rash of claims for “covers,” i.e., songs not performed by the original artists. This is something new. It indicates to me that the algorithm for determining which songs are which has stepped up. With the new regulations coming from Europe, that’s going to be a survival mechanism. This tells me that YouTube has stepped up its game on this.
Fortunately in all cases they just claim revenue and let the album stay up. I suppose that, for music this old and frequently obscure, they’re glad to have any exposure for it, especially when someone else goes to the trouble of putting it out there. As of now this situation is IMHO a happy one for everyone, and I hope it stays that way.
Historical amnesia is a common American malady. One of those aspects of American life that is oft forgotten is that of the “acceptable religion,” the idea that certain religions are more socially acceptable (and thus more amenable to their adherents moving up) than others. In the past, this was mostly an intramural contest within Christianity (with the Lodge lurking in the background); certain forms of the faith were more “acceptable” than others, thus the Episcopal Church was the “church of Presidents.” (I think we just buried our last one.) That made Christianity, especially in the South, a socio-economically stratified business: people changed churches both to help move up and to announce that arrival when it happened. Those who had the bad taste to buck the trend had…bad taste, with the consequences that followed. The first groups to push back in a significant way against this were Jews and Roman Catholics, but it wasn’t an easy struggle for either group.
But in late March, Yale Law School adopted a novel tactic: one-upping the protesters. It announced three major policy changes that went further than many of the protesters’ demands, all under the guise of an expanded nondiscrimination policy.
The new policies require all employers to swear that, when hiring students or graduates who benefit from certain Yale funding, they will not consider an applicant’s “religion,” “religious creed,” “gender identity” or “gender expression,” among other factors. The effect of this, for instance, is if a Yale Law student or graduate wishes to work for an organization that does consider religion in hiring — say a Catholic organization or Jewish advocacy group — Yale will cut them off from three important programs.
Because the United States had the bad taste to make another decision–anoint a group of private schools as its ne plus ultra educational institutions–this will probably stick in some form, since students at private schools of any kind don’t enjoy the same broad First Amendment protections from university intrusion that their state school counterparts do. But it’s a serious shot across the bow, especially for climbing Evangelicals who want their children to move up without the inconvenience–and eternal consequence–of formally adopting an “acceptable” religion.
But such has never really been an option, has it?
Do not love the world or what the world can offer. When any one loves the world, there is no love for the Father in him; for all that the world can offer–the gratification of the earthly nature, the gratification of the eye, the pretentious life–belongs, not to the Father, but to the world. And the world, and all that it gratifies, is passing away, but he who does God’s will remains for ever. (1 John 2:15-17 TCNT)
A favourite pastime of the #straightouttairondale crowd is to trash just about every piece of Catholic music written after 1965 (except, of course, what they put out.) Boosting the “Jesus Music” era is a goal of this blog, but this gem has an appeal that gets past not only their idea but Roman Catholicism itself: it’s a good carol for just about anyone.
A great carol for your Christmas service, but remember Catholics: if it doesn’t start at Midnight, it’s not Midnight Mass.
Kessel told MDA “There is no controlling Bill Clinton. He does whatever he wants and runs up incredible expenses with foundation funds, according to MDA’s account of the interview. “Bill Clinton mixes and matches his personal business with that of the foundation. Many people within the foundation have tried to caution him about this but he does not listen, and there really is no talking to him.”
MDA compiled Kessel’s statements, as well as over 6,000 pages of evidence from a whistleblower they had been working with separately, which they secretly filed with the FBI and IRS over a year ago. MDA has alleged that the Clinton Foundation engaged in illegal activities, and may owe millions in unpaid taxes and penalties.
From a personal standpoint, I am grieved at this: Andy Kessel and I were friends at the St. Andrew’s School in Boca Raton together, we reconnected years later. He told me he joined the Clinton Foundation after a successful career on Wall Street as a giveback. I really think that Andy was trying to do a good thing.
Unfortunately, in a culture like Bill Clinton came out of, doing a good thing is easier said than done, and I think that Andy was unprepared for that. My dearly departed mother, who was born and raised a few miles north of Bill Clinton’s hometown of Hot Springs, told me one time that the Arkansas way was “If you can’t win, cheat.” She knew this opaque culture she came out of well, and she wasn’t shy about using it against others when she felt the need to do so. (She wouldn’t vote for Bill Clinton either.)
It’s easy when looking at Clinton’s Ivy League education and his successful political career which led him to two terms as President (he outsmarted Newt Gingrich and many others, too) to forget that he’s a product of his Scots-Irish origins and upbringing. But that upbringing made him the masterful politician that he is. The Ivy League business–and to some extent Hillary herself–were necessary to build “street cred” with the Democrat elite. But the core never changes. (That’s something you need to remember about Elizabeth Warren, too.)
My prayers are with Andy and his family. He’s going to need them. I think he’s a good guy who is finding out that it’s easier to be Bill Clinton’s enemy than his friend.
In the run-up to Advent, the eminent Episcopal theologian Fleming Rutledge has posted an interesting piece entitled “Jesus’ Parable of the Money in Trust.” It’s an interesting and informative piece, informative not only in its Biblical exegesis but also (doubtless unintentionally) about the Episcopal Church itself, and the changes wrought from the days when multi-generational Episcopalians (as I started out to be) gathered to worship “Gawd” on Sundays.
First the key takeaway: Rutledge is entirely correct to call out laity and clergy alike on the confusion wrought by the word “talent”:
As you can see, the master does not give out what we call “talents,” as in “gifts and talents.” The master gives out money. It’s unfortunate that the English word “talent,” meaning natural ability, is the same as the word for the gold coin in the original parable. As soon as we start talking about “talents,” we’re going to lose sight of the point altogether. We need to get “talents” out of our minds. This parable is about money. There’s this little slogan that Episcopalians use during stewardship season; I’m sure you’ve heard it—“time, talents, and treasure.” I don’t know who invented that, but in my perspective of the wider church, it’s done more harm than good. Putting time, talents, and treasure together distracts our attention from the real issue, which is money. For one thing, we don’t use the word “treasure” when we talk about money. Having those three “t”s sounds clever and quaint, but it also sounds irrelevant. It makes it too easy for us to avoid the issue of money. The slogan is ineffective because it lets people off the hook. If we can divert attention to time and talents, which aren’t very threatening, we don’t have to think about what really makes us nervous, namely, giving up some of our money. Over the years, various new titles for the parable have been proposed to correct the misunderstanding about “talents.” The best one is “The Parable of the Money in Trust.” That we can understand.
Anyone with a decent classical education will spot this: the talent was a measure of the weight of gold in the Greco-Roman world, not a human attribute. Having just marched through several books of Livy, the number of talents paraded in triumph becomes mind-boggling after a while. Rutledge is right: in the narrative of the talents, we’re talking about money.
I think, however, that the biggest change that’s taken place is not in the correction of our understanding of what Our Lord was talking about when he referred to “talents” (and I would interpret the parable a little more broadly than she does, for reasons I will discuss.) What’s changed more than anything else is the way Americans in general and Episcopalians in particular look at money, and that, IMHO, is what has made it possible for Rutledge to set forth the thesis she has done.
Particularly as a product of a multi-generational Episcopal background (on my paternal grandmother’s side) Episcopalians saw themselves as the keepers of a nice, aesthetically pleasing, old-money religion free from the intrusions of tasteless nouveaux-riches making a statement and getting away with it. From a religious standpoint, Episcopalians were free from fulminations before the offering of money-grubbing rednecks across the tracks. Ironically, that was a major attraction for people like my mother, who was trying to escape (with mixed success) her dogmatic Baptistic past, not only about the money but about everything else. Ironically the Episcopal Church gave cover to the many upwardly mobile people after World War II who wanted the supremely respectable form of Christianity without having to fight the uphill battle of changing the churches they were raised in. The Episcopal Church’s greatest growth period was from the end of World War II to the mid-1960’s, a growth fuelled in part by that desire, and it’s been a bumpy ride downward ever since.
In any case, the hegemony of the “old money culture” has been swept away, not only by the social upheavals of the 1960’s but also by the Boomers’ stunning volte-face in the wake of that decade towards a “get rich” mentality. Today we have people who have accumulated enormous sums of money in a short period of time being lionised as the moral guides of our society, additionally able with their new-found wealth to spread money-favouring patronage. Their self-image as the moral guides of society is undeserved, but in these United States, we’re obsessed with the money because that’s what it’s become about.
In this way, the traditional Episcopal paradigm about money, Biblical or not, has been blown away for good. That demise is accentuated by the simple fact that, as the Episcopal Church has declined, Evangelical and Pentecostal churches have risen. Especially with the latter, generous stewardship is not only encouraged, it’s expected. It’s a revelation to many traditional Episcopalians, but churches which expect a great deal from their congregants fiscally also expect much–and generally get it–with other aspects of their congregants’ lives. The “time, talent and treasure” triple of traditional Episcopalianism is package deal: you get one, you get the rest.
This is one place where the Episcopal Church’s elevated demographics have worked against it: in general, the higher the income level and wealth, the smaller portion of it goes to any kind of charitable work, church or otherwise. (I’m excluding the business of foundations, which aren’t Biblical either and are a source of patronage.) And that goes for the rest of the contribution, too. For all it’s social justice striving of the last half century, the Episcopal Church has not quite figured out how to transform the preferential option for the poor into the preferential option of the poor. Had it done so, it would have also changed the commitment level of its congregants, too.
It’s interesting that Rutledge notes the following:
Affluent churches have a particular challenge in this regard. Building up large endowments is a hedge against an uncertain future. An endowment needs wise, shrewd management, that’s for sure. But it is human nature to be overly cautious in this regard. We don’t typically look for ways to give away money. Consequently, we’re likely to be uneasy about Jesus’ message. Instead of recognizing it as our charter of freedom, we feel it as a threat. So we cling to what we have and we don’t risk anything. The more comfortable we get in our churches, the more likely we are to hang on to our money, so that it just goes round and round in a tight little circle.
As the Episcopal Church’s membership has declined, its reliance on endowed money has increased, with the occasional looting of the endowments. Rutledge’s call for better money stewardship amongst the parishioners can be seen as a response to that reality. If the rest of the church world can get along without over-reliance on endowments, why can’t we? It’s a serious question, but until the Episcopal Church figures out how to attract new people with a new level of commitment, that question will go unanswered.
And the biggest danger of emphasising the money aspect of this parable is that some will take it as reducing Christianity to giving in the offering plate. I don’t think that’s Rutledge’s intent. That reduction is the biggest fault of prosperity teaching: it reduces our relationship with God to a money transaction, and that’s patently false. As noted earlier, the Christian’s commitment to God is a total one. Although this parable is about money it’s also about more.
I think that Rutledge has given us a valuable contribution to the understanding of this parable. But I also think that this understanding does not need to be taken out of context in the current climate in the US about it being “all about the money.” It isn’t. It includes that, but it’s much more, and the sooner we all recognise that fact, the better.
Donald Trump’s decision to challenge birthright citizenship is earning applause from one corner: “Accidental Americans,” who would rather be unburdened of their citizenship as cheaply as possible.
As POLITICO reported in July, “Accidental Americans” — dual nationals who have U.S. citizenship but only loose ties to the country — are campaigning to be freed from increasingly onerous obligations linked to their American nationality. The group has since received the backing of French President Emmanuel Macron.
There’s always more than one side to every story. American citizenship is, to some, like flypaper: something they are just stuck with. Getting rid of it is an ordeal; no one in Washington, especially in the IRS, likes the old “love it or leave it” concept.
The idea that people in places such as Europe and Canada would have something nice to say about Donald Trump is interesting indeed.
In the middle of a brief recap of the 2005 season of Donald Trump’s Apprentice, this sudden revelation:
The degree-holders were no richer than the degree-free. In fact, the average net worth of the street-smart team was three times that of the book-smart one. Were the college kids more intelligent? No again. Time after time, a dandruff-club nerd puzzled over something that a cool smart-aleck ended up accomplishing with one hand tied behind his back.
But then one challenge threw the difference into relief. The contestants were charged with renovating motel rooms. The book-smart people chose to host a pool party for prospective guests. The party was fun. The street-smart players started to flail.
Finally, one street-smart player observed that the book-smart crowd had an unfair schmoozing advantage. They had been to college, he said. So naturally they knew how to do … cocktail parties.
Why take on student debt and study special relativity, ladies and gentlemen? What’s college for? You heard it here first: cocktail parties.
Although the conclusion is meant to be in jest, there is something to this. American culture is obsessed with socialisation, and drinking buddies are a strong bond. Four years or more in the same watering holes will cement that bond. But that, in turn, is one reason why American elites are so sybaritic in their focus: it’s the way up around here. And that’s also why, when people like Jews and Asians come along with a real work ethic, they’re beaten down by the “well-rounded” (maybe well-rounder is more accurate) person. It’s an aspect of this culture I find profoundly distasteful, and one that will be its undoing in the long run.
On a personal note: my grandfather could drink with the best of them. But perhaps not the right people; had he chosen the people he drank with more carefully, perhaps he could have displaced Cliff Henderson as the leader of American sport aviation in the 1930’s.
New Yorkers woke up Thursday morning to find colorful new street art popping up on trash cans along the Lower East Side.
Their message is clear – Trump and his supporters are “trash.” The controversial posters feature images of “Trump supporter” stereotypes with the words, “Keep NYC Trash Free.”…
Another features a white woman wearing a “Make America Great Again Hat” while holding the Bible.
Most of the Christians in the New York area I know aren’t white. That’s a legacy in part of leaving that whitest (and soi-disant social justice) church, the Episcopal Church. Most of these aren’t Trump supporters either. If they had featured Christianity with a non-white person holding the bible sans Trump hat, it would have been more accurate to the reality on the ground, but the reaction would have been entirely different.
There’s an underlying assumption on the left that, if we could just get rid of white Evangelicals, Christianity and Trump will go away, and we can get laid, high or drunk without guilt or interference. That’s simply not true. God’s plan will go forth without white American Evangelicals or even the United States, if it comes to that. In some ways, it would probably help. Our country is headed towards a day of reckoning; we spend too much time and energy on things that won’t stop that reckoning.