I heard the poem recited, first time, a few days ago while watching the final episode of the "Chief Inspector Morse" series (BBC). Morse and Sargent Lewis were having a 'pint' as the sun was setting. Morse recited the poem. "The Remorseful Day" was the episode title.

The retirement-aged Inspector was not well, suffering in the end from a perforated ulcer, an enlarged liver, and heart disease. A little bit later in the story, Morse had a heart attack and died. It was the final episode of a wonderful series that had run for 8 years.

A 'good drug trip' is said to require the right setting and the right set. The same goes for poetry, I think. The scene in the television show was the right set and setting.

How Clear, How Lovely Bright
by A. E. Housman


How clear, how lovely bright,
How beautiful to sight
Those beams of morning play;
How heaven laughs out with glee
Where, like a bird set free,
Up from the eastern sea
Soars the delightful day.

To-day I shall be strong,
No more shall yield to wrong,
Shall squander life no more;
Days lost, I know not how,
I shall retrieve them now;
Now I shall keep the vow
I never kept before.

Ensanguining the skies
How heavily it dies
Into the west away;
Past touch and sight and sound
Not further to be found,
How hopeless under ground
Falls the remorseful day.

The EU should hire one of the crack hit squads from Israel who would make sure Donald Trump never set foot in the White House again. They could take care of a few others, while they were at it.

he's got 'em on the list;
and they'll none of 'em be missed!
--per KoKo in the Mikado.

Not in the least. The aim of the smoking ban was to prevent illness from passive smoking, there was only one way to do that (cut down on smoke). Hence the ban. — Isaac

Achieving behavior change for public health benefit is always a long row to hoe. "Eliminate Smoking" has been the public health goal for decades. States that are doing really well still have 15% of their population smoking (and percentages probably won't drop till hard-core smokers die). Second-hand smoke is clearly a huge risk for people who work in bars and restaurants where smoking is allowed. A shift exposes a bartender or waiter to high levels of smoke for 8 hours at day, at least (assuming he or she doesn't also smoke).

But in pursuit of smoking cessation, public health workers have to use whatever persuasive levers are available -- and passive smoke has become a pretty good lever. I suspect that very light exposure to passive smoke is probably a pretty small risk, even if people hate the smell. Especially, when you consider all the other indoor / outdoor polluting chemicals people are exposed to.

(If you live in a basement with high levels of radon (a radioactive element gas that accumulates to hazardous levels in areas like the upper midwest), both active and passive smoking would significantly increase one's risk of lung cancer. Radon atoms get attached to smoke particles which are more likely to get caught in the lung, along with its little radioactive load.

I took me a very long time to adjust to smoke free bars, even though I wasn't smoking when the ban went into effect. It just didn't seem right to have clear air in the bar.

Let me clarify a point: There is a great deal of difference in quantity and quality between a low level of inequality and an extremely high level of inequality. Perfect equality is unobtainable, but a low level of inequality can be obtained. A low level of inequality might be where the average high pay, average large asset holdings, is only 10 times the average low pay, average low asset holding. So, a 25,000 a year wage earner would be on the low end, 250,000 would be on the high end. A low level of inequality also means that most of the people would hold most of the assets. There would not be room for Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg.

have been saying about government protecting the rich, but at the same time we might see how this benefits everyone. — Athena

No need to add to the already celestial-sized choir singing the praises of protecting the assets and asses of the rich.

There are some very significant downsides to the preserved-wealth of the top 1%:

Their wealth is less productively invested now than say 50 and more years ago. The rich and the super-rich tend to put their money in paper instruments which churn 24 hours a day, and produce handsome rewards. (so says Piketty in Capital in the 21st Century). I have not read Das Kapital or Le Capital except in excerpts, so don't ask me about him. He's French, I can tell you that much.

Focusing on paper investments deprives material activity (like developing renewal energy) of much needed capital.

The concentration of wealth in 1% deprives 99% of the population (at least 90% are working class) both income for necessary current expenses and paying off debt; it prevents them from saving for their old age, and in general impoverishes their lives.

The United States exhibits wider disparities of wealth between rich and poor than any other major developed nation. World wide, same thing. "According to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report, the world’s richest 1 percent, those with more than $1 million, own 43.4 percent of the world’s wealth. Their data also shows that adults with less than $10,000 in wealth make up 53.6 percent of the world’s population but hold just 1.4 percent of global wealth." (wealth = assets minus debts)

My best economic understanding comes from a geologist who wrote "Mineral Resources and the Destiny of Nations". Mineral resources have a lot to do with history and the future. — Athena

Indeed they do. As the mining industry says, "If it wasn't made from plants, it was mined from the earth."

Do you think 100 billion dollars in assets can be morally accumulated? I do not.

Are we social/ pack animals or not? — Benj96

We are social animals with a fairly wide range of sociability, but we all normally start in groups, and we always require groups, however much we tend toward the solitary.

What traits do you think a successful loner typically possesses? — Benj96

A loner has both a preference for and toleration of solitude--up to some point. Loners belong to the social animal group, so some social involvement is essential (not merely optional). No person is an island, but one has to have some degree of mental self-sufficiency.

Is it better to be alone or part of a group? — Benj96

Loners come out of groups -- family first, then village / school groups, work groups, etc.

There are 2 kinds: loners by choice and loners by exclusion. For either situation, the loner that is somewhat mentally self-sufficient will do better in the long run. Loners by exclusion may be sociable people, but because of very very bad luck (like solitary confinement in prison) may have to adapt, If they can't, then they are likely to be damaged. Loners by choice can also end up being isolated too long, and may develop behaviors that make them less socially acceptable.

I am a loner; I require blocks of solitude to operate well, but I also need periodic social activity. As an 'old loner' now, that doesn't have to be very complicated or extended. As a younger adult loner I needed more social activity, and was able to obtain it without any difficulty.

Street people, as an unhappy group, are composed of various sorts. Some are clearly mentally ill; some are loners by choice; some are not loners but are socially dysfunctional -- not mentally ill but unable to get along in 'normal society' (which can be several kinds of crazy, to be perfectly frank). Some street people are loners by exclusion (teenagers getting kicked out of home by their parents, for instance).

:100: :100: :100:

And the taxpayers are paying for it. — Athena

It's actually worse than taxpayers paying for military might, industry, and government. "Labor produces all wealth." Period. Working people -- wherever the factory is located--Guangdong or Indiana--produce the goods and services that are the basis of wealth accumulation everywhere. The wealth workers produce is harvested by capitalists and concentrated in their hands. The workers are left with no more than it takes to keep them functioning as a class.

As a consequence, workers range from absolutely poor to only relatively poor. Remember, the working class constitutes the vast majority of the population.).

Capitalists, the plutocracy, the ruling class, the kleptocracy--whatever you want to call them--possess an overwhelming share of national wealth -- not just here, but in the G20 in general, though the extreme of wealth is worse here than in most countries.

I am 100% behind pulling one's self up by their own boot straps and my different point of view on this, probably is my age. I could be closer to the generation that survived the Great Depression than you are. — Athena

I was born at the end of WWII. My parents, born in 1905 and 1906, had a rough time from 1929 to 1959, roughly. Too many children, not enough money, too much work -- but a good, reasonably happy family none-the-less. So... I too am pretty close to the Great Depression.

As for the bootstrap lift, as @James Riley pointed out, "We all know it defies the laws of physics to bootstrap." You can pull your boots on with the strap, and that's about it.

Look, most working people owe more than they own. Student loans, credit cards, and mortgages count against any assets they have access to, like their house--for which like as not a bank holds the title. Not only can they not lift themselves up, they are in a deep financial hole to start with. Sure, retired workers may be in better shape than younger workers, but they aren't "wealthy" by any stretch of the imagination.

Uncle Karl summed up the relationship between government and the plutocracy: "Government is a committee for organizing the affairs of the ruling class." Maintaining the capitalist machine which concentrates wealth is the priority of government (which includes the military).

You read history quite differently than I do. True enough, bureaucratization occurred in both Germany and the US (as well as numerous other countries). I don't think a large industrialized economy can exist without bureaucratization.

To put it crudely, is it better to be ruled by Genghis Khan or Emperor Nero than an Aristotelian ideal? — FreeEmotion

Martin Luther said it was better to be ruled by a smart pagan than a dumb Christian.

the depth of philosophical sophistication among politicians. — FreeEmotion

Who, pray tell, expects politicians to have philosophical sophistication (whatever that might be)?

Politicians serve the state and the interests of the state. That pretty much explains the decisions that get made.

Our democracy is now unbalanced and I think this follows the 1958 change in education. — Athena

You are obsessed with the National Defense Education Act and Eisenhower's speech on the Military-Industrial Complex. The changes that you lament (it sounds like an lament, anyway) started much earlier than 1958.

Land Grant schools began with the Morrill act of 1862. The act set aside land in states to be used to help fund higher education. The Big Ten state universities are examples of beneficiaries of the Morrill act--universities like Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa, and others.

Up until the time the Land Grant colleges and universities got up and running, higher education was largely an elite affair. The private colleges were focused on the Liberal Arts and limited their enrollment. The big Land Grant universities had the liberal arts as well, but also institutes of technology, medical schools, business administration departments, agricultural colleges, home economics, and so on. They were far more democratic in their mission and admission policies.

The end of WWII brought a huge wave of enrollment by men returning from the war, at least partly funded by the VA program. The Baby Boom followed their father into college (starting in 1964). This brought about still more democratization of higher education, and yes, a dilution of old academic traditions and practices. The Berkeley Free Speech Moment (think Mario Savio: “The revolt began in the fall semester of 1964 as an extension of either vicarious or actual involvement in the struggle for civil rights.”) was a prominent flash point in the changing higher education culture.

I would agree that democracy in the United States is not in great shape, but I blame the founding fathers. A lot of them wanted democracy for the few, not the many, and to a large extent the is the way things have worked out.

The elite (based on wealth) ran things in the 17th and 18th centuries, continued through the 19th and 20th centuries, and appears to be immovable for the rest of the 21st century. So yes, democracy is unbalanced and has been in this country from the get go.

'm also reminded of Mussolini. Didn't he make the trains run on time? Didn't he coin the term "fascism". Isn't that a condition where there is no distinction between the corporation and the state? — James Riley

Mussolini did invent fascism (an old Roman symbol, the fasces (a bundle of wooden rods and an ax blade). It was a symbol of power and authority -- below is an image of it on a Roman mile stone. Corporation served the state.

I have read that, contrary to his reputation, Mussolini did not make the trains run on time. He did build some decent looking buildings and improve Rome's infrastructure. It was not very antisemitic. The Nazis didn't make the trains run on time, either. German trains had been running on-time since the get-go, under the tight management of the Reichbahn company. German fascism was an economic mess in many ways.

I find it hard to pin down exactly what fascism means today. One scholar said that fascism is better defined by it's methods than its ideology.

@I like sushi. A side note:

Prior to the Nazis, (1920s) the term "race" was still used the way "ethnic" is used now. The French and Finns might each of been referenced as a "race". At the same time, race applied to the major human groups -- Amerindians, Australians, Asians, Africans, and Europeans. The deeper you go into human origins, the more complicated it gets -- because people wandered around a lot; there was species mixing with Neanderthals and Denisovans. Populations were replaced from time to time, here and there, and/or they mixed genetically. Populations died out. All this didn't begin to settle out and stabilize until around 5,000 years ago, give or take a a couple millennia.

Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel is a good explanation of why 2 races (asians and caucasians) came to dominate world history. A lot of it had to do with geography and geology. Asians and caucasians were able to spread out along lines of latitude--east and west. (Climate tends to be similar.). Africans and amerindians were distributed along north/south lines of longitude, along which climate tends to change a lot. Second, Africa and the Western Hemisphere did not provide wild animals that were amenable to domestication. No horses, camels, water buffalo, or cows. Therefore, there were no draft animals to provide power and transportation. Third, Asians and Europeans became somewhat resistant to the diseases they encountered int heir domesticated animals (measles and smallpox, for example). Particularly when Europeans encountered Amerindians, pandemics severely reduced their populations. Smallpox (and other diseases) were worse for Native Americans than the Black Plague was for Europe or Asia.

The upshot is that Europeans and Asians were in a position to expand and dominate--not because they were superior, but because they were geographically lucky.

20th and 21st century racial theorists in the US (mostly) seized upon race, and ideas about racial supremacy -- white supremacy and white privilege -- as the explanation for "Why do Europeans have so much and Africans so little?" Layer on to that the history of global expansion (imperial, colonial) or slavery: and here we are.

People tend to be all alike, regardless of where they come from and (an important corollary) people are not nice. We have to work very hard to be nice. Whoever has the upper hand in any group encounter will tend to dominate the less fortunate, and domination is usually an ugly business.

The CRT and racial theorists tend to believe that if people get rid of bad ideas and replace them with good ideas, all will be well. Unfortunately, as I said, people with good ideas can still manage to be very not nice.

The contrast between patriotism (good) and nationalism (bad) is illustrative. I don't know how one could be a patriot and not be a nationalist as well. Nationalism has been given a quite negative slant in the last 40 or 50 years. I suppose that is because some of our worst enemies have been nationalists, so therefore we should not be.

For some leftists (internationalist socialists) patriotism is as grave a sin as nationalism. They at least agree that the two terms mean the same thing. Patriotism and nationalism have potential negative aspects, for sure. "My country, right or wrong!" is never good foreign policy.

Race hatred is clearly a bad thing. We have seen plenty of that (and not just in the US). I would describe "race hatred" and run of the mill "racism" as different points on a continuum. Race hatred leads to lynching. Ordinary racism leads to segregated suburban communities and schools. White suburbs are not in the same category as KKK terrorism.

Racism has resulted in social structures that permanently disadvantaged racial targets. Cutting blacks out of the real estate expansion of the post-war boom hardened economic disparities. Racial discrimination in employment, accommodations, education, and so on, further cemented inequality into place. Then there is the feedback loop. Well off people don't usually want to live with poor people which leads to further racial separation.

Did I get this from critical race theory? No, just from reading history.

I don't believe in white supremacy, white fragility, and the like. I believe that people are far more alike than they are different. One can count on groups of people pursuing their own advantage. If they happen to be in the majority, happen to have more money, happen to have more power -- then they are going to come way out on top, and those who don't have those assets probably won't.

Only SOME white people had all that. We have a wealthy ruling class and a smaller prosperous middle class. Together, they make up maybe 20% of the population. The rest of the population is working class, and generally they have not done all that well, historically or recently. The majority of the working class has been white. Whiteness didn't help their class status.

Racism blames the losers for not coming out on top. That's just stupid, of course. Poor people, white, black, hispanic, asian, or what have you are usually poor because their parents were not members of the ruling or prosperous middle class. The escalator of upward mobility doesn't start on the basement level.

"Yes but... There are millions and millions of white people who own homes that are worth a lot of money. They are getting rich while we, who couldn't get a mortgage, are getting poorer."

Not so fast. Most working class people do not own the homes they live in. They are in debt up to their ears for much of their lives. They don't have clear ownership of their house until they pay off the mortgage.

House, car, college loans, and credit cards are a sort of indenture. If you want to keep your house, car, and the stuff you bought on credit, you had better be a compliant employee. IF NOT... there are serious consequences. Then there is that degree you worked hard for, paid for on credit, and may not now be able to pay back. Again, there are unpleasant consequences for being a deadbeat.

The people who deserve the envy of the poor are prosperous middle class and ruling class people with enough money to actually pay for the large properties, cars, educations, travel, and so on that they enjoy.

I'm not sure there is a cure for racial hatred. Containing it may be all we can do.

The best bet to reduce racism is for working class people -- black and white together -- to recognize they are in the same sinking boat. It's mostly about money. Follow the money, as the saying goes. Economics explains why a few are on top and most of us are not.

Trying to change racial attitudes in a vacuum, or because they seem like bad manners, is just not worth the effort.

A lot of people are obsessed with race, gender, unequal distributions (of anything) and the like. Like any obsession, it's unhealthy.

I saw a black dog on the sidewalk, lying down but trying to move get up. It was disturbing. On closer examination it turned out to be a black plastic back being moved by a breeze. It was a strong resemblance until once examined, it was not.

The strong scent of some flowers, lily of the valley and lilac in particular, have a semblance (to my nose) of solvent. The semblance fades with dilution.

The scent of limburger cheese (a soft smelly variety) has a strong semblance (to my nose) of the pleasant (to my nose) fragrance of a dairy barn. Silage (which is quite smelly), ground grain (very pleasant) and the earthy smell of the cows. On reflection, the scent of the cheese still resembles the smell of a dairy barn.

Semblances add to the interesting features of experience.

it is true that women's movements came well before two-income families. The rhetoric of women's liberation was in place by "1958", your preferred watershed year (what with Sputnik, the National Defense Education Act and all). Still, the movement of women into the workforce wasn't a simple event.

There was, on the one hand, a booming, expanding post-war economy. On the other hand, the kind of jobs women went into in the 50s and 60s were not generally great jobs. In most cases, the personal rewards of being a 'new woman' in the business environment were pretty meagre. The state did not step in with child-care when American women started working. Women were expected to continue their role of housewife in addition to wage-earner. Not a good deal! Something more compelling than ideology was at work here.

The economic motivation wasn't simply survival, for many families. Upward mobility often required a second income.

Those born into the real middle class (business owners, professionals like doctors and lawyers, upper management, etc.) had more options from the start. The group of strivers we are talking about are mostly working class. The appurtenances of the aspirational middle-class life often required more than one income. A home in a good school district, a better car, the summer vacation road trip, lots of "stuff" all required more money.

The inflation / falling relative wage crunch didn't begin until the 1970s. There were roughly 25 years after the end of WWII where these generational social changes took place.

By the way, the military industrial complex was created in WWII, a good 18 years before 1958. It just got bigger after the war, and is still with us, unfortunately.

Famines are usually caused by politics. Failed or non-existent governments, incompetent or corrupt politicians, liars, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels running loose. It's surprising that there are not more famines than there are.

There have been in the past, and there will be more future famines caused by climate change's bad weather, locust plagues, crop diseases, and drought, even where government has been effective.

One famine presents pretty much the same dilemma as any other. Which side in the Tigray war should we feed--those starved by Ethiopian forces or the rebel Tigray forces? Take your pick. Flip a coin?

Who knows who is next? Ally? Foe?

The world must either prepare to feed many more famine stricken people, or decide to write off millions of people as beyond help. Feeding won't bring about quality government or honest politicians, or rid a nation of greedy parasites. It may not help people living in a failed state in the long run, unless we keep feeding them in the long run.

In the real world, sad to say, people do get written off. The population write off comes in the forms of aid pledges not being paid; of relatively well off nations making small pledges (or no pledges); of arms-exporting states continuing to feed weapons into collapsing, destitute state; etc., etc., etc. No Prime Minister or President is going to hold a press conference and announce that the 20,000,000 people in Pretzelstan should just drop dead and get it over with. But, if Pretzelstan isn't important to the the rest of the world (busy dealing with its own serious problems), then they will starve.

black on black crime was used to deflect from conversations on institutional racism — thewonder

Talking about X doesn't automatically mean you are deflecting Y, rendering Y invisible, denying Y, and so on. X and Y are separate topics. Black on black crime is local, it bleeds and leads, and is very concrete. Institutional racism, sexism, or some other 'ism' is general, usually blood-free, and is abstract. it usually is a political construct (whether it is real or not).

Topic deflection certainly occurs. If I am talking to you about how "banking has historically discriminated against blacks", and you respond by saying, "Yeah, but blacks kill each other at much higher rates than whites kill each other"--that is deflection. if you hold a conference on the history of banking discrimination in black communities, that is not deflecting the question of black on black violence. You are simply talking about something else.

Back in the 70s, if a heterosexual feminist gave a speech about the problems of women in the workplace, one could count on a lesbian activist standing up and accusing the speaker of "rendering lesbians invisible". Lesbians faced workplace problems that were different than, and the same as, those faced by heterosexual women. Then a minority woman would accuse the white woman of rendering minority women invisible. The lesbians and minorities could agree that heterosexual white men were oppressing them, as long as they didn't have to acknowledge each others' suffering. Sometimes race would trump sex, and white women would be grouped with white men as a common enemy.

No matter your political stance, sex, sexual orientation, age, race, ethnicity, class (working, middle, ruling), or your personal history -- someone will always accuse a speaker of devaluing, rendering invisible, ignoring, deflecting, denigrating, and so on. (We could get into how the aristocracy of suffering works, but that's another can of worms.)

Sure, ruling with an iron fist sounds amusing — Ennui Elucidator

Not to me.

I'd very much like to see the revenue statistics for fines levied on criminal activity from traffic transgressions — TheMadFool

Hennepin County (where I live--population 1.3 million) collects $60,000,000 in (mostly) traffic related fines. 17% of the total is a result of moving violations. Please come to Minneapolis and flout our traffic laws. Pay up when you get to court. We weary taxpayers need your help.

20% of the fine revenue is remitted to the state; Hennepin county keeps 80%. A small amount ($3 from a $145 fine) goes to the county law libraries. The percentages vary by county. In most counties in Minnesota it's a 2/3 - 1/3 split.

Federal courts issue billions of dollars in fines for fraud; that is not the same as actually collecting the money from the evil doers.

In 1990 the population of New Orleans was 497,000. In 1910 it was 343,000; today it is 384,000. In addition, the racial and economic mix has changed considerably. These changes can be laid at the doorstep of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Katrina wasn't and won't be the last disaster to hit NOLA. When the poor are displaced, they usually do not have the resources to return and rebuild. Some did, but many didn't. So, if the level of violence is less now, this can't be credited to law enforcement.

I’m curious why this is of such concern to you. — Ennui Elucidator

Well, the rate of "cleared cases" is an important number for public safety. If few murder/manslaughter cases are cleared, it means that individuals who are ready, willing, and able to kill are still in the community. A certain percentage of murders are one-off. Another percentage are repeaters. The percentage of repeat killers is not huge, and it doesn't have to be for great harm.

"cleared cases" are solved cases.

In 1960, the murder rate was 5.1. Today it is 5.0. There was a peak in 1980 of around 10. — Ennui Elucidator

Like 5 per 100,000? Maybe nationally, but not by state, and not by city.

Here: The murder rate varies from 1 or 2 per 100,000 on up.

So, the legal system inclusive of the guardians of the law (the police) are not there to actually prevent crimes but only to ensure that the perps are caught after the crime. Geez! What a mind job! — TheMadFool

Most crimes are prevented by people feeling the need to be law-abiding. That's true for every community. Most people are law-abiding. If someone isn't law abiding, they will choose a time and place to commit a crime where the police will not be present -- OBVIOUSLY. Police reduce crime by arresting repeat offenders, and by maintaining a certain level of intimidation (make that necessary intimidation).

To paraphrase Mao, law enforcement is not a tea party.

However, ask why the situation is like it is for blacks?, — TheMadFool

Slavery may be an ultimate--but distant--cause of blacks circumstances. The efforts of (mostly southerners) to suppress the black population, especially through the 'Jim Crow' laws of the 1890s, and the terrorism of the KKK in the1920s and 1930s is an early proximal cause. The Great Migration northward in the 20th century led to intense racial discrimination in northern industrial cities -- another proximal cause.

A third proximal cause is the mid-century flight of capitalists from unionized to un-unionized states. Off-shoring of industry in the latter third of the 20th century (to Japan, China...) is a third proximal cause. Steady attacks on the organized labor movement broke many unions, and helped wages fall during decades of inflation--a fourth proximal cause.

These and other several other proximal causes (re-segregation of schools, for instance) have resulted in significant economic disability for black communities.

However, de-unionizing, falling wages, inflation, and industrial flight have hurt the entire working class (75% of the population at least). Conditions ARE worse for blacks than for most whites because of their longer period of economic suppression. It's hard to argue, though, that unskilled white workers are better off. "Nobody knows you when you are down and out", regardless of your skin color.

We can natter away about racism until hell freezes over and it won't change much.

This is painful, BC. — Ennui Elucidator

What is painful is that black communities are over-policed and under-policed at the same time.

A lot of police effort is directed at relatively minor stuff. Collecting people for warrants for unpaid fines, for instance. Or heavily policing traffic offenses--both of which are revenue producers (not for the police, necessarily, but for the municipality). The upshot of these sorts of police activities are disruption when fines turn into jail terms.

The police activity that is missing in many communities is detective-led investigations leading to the arrest of people committing murder and manslaughter.

The "chattering classes" and their social media followers have been absolutely obsessed with race, gender, identity, et al. A lot of the talk, regardless of the source, is a deflection from the material facts of life.

FOR EXAMPLE, the police have been identified as public enemy #1 by people not in immediate need of police service. One of the reasons the rate of black-on-black murders is so disproportionately high is, among other things, a relative lack of police services in black communities. Blacks are not randomly murdering each other. (Well, bullets flying during gun flights may well cause random deaths.). A lot of the black-on-black murders occur in the conduct of criminal activity. If the criminal activities are not investigated and prosecuted, then the disproportionate rate deaths will continue. The rate of black-on-black murder case clearance is unacceptably low. (It's much better for white-on-white murder cases.). In other words, too many black-on-black murders remain unsolved, unprotected.

Lack of effective policing is one problem. A second very big problem is the well-documented economic isolation of the black population. It is, in very practical terms, more difficult for young black people to launch themselves into good employment. People trapped in economic isolation (like unskilled white men in the rust belt) also resort to socially destructive behavior at a disproportionate rate. If crime is the most open avenue, that's the route some people will take

Poverty begets more poverty, because children raised in chronic poverty accumulate less cultural capital from day one.

People perform much better (regardless of race) when avenues to economic opportunity are open. In the United States (among other places) social mobility is quite high among the beneficiaries of previous social mobility -- specifically, the relatively small prosperous middle class. I hate to break the bad news to you, but most Americans are not middle class. Social mobility lags among the working class, who have experienced less previous upward mobility.

What's my point? Follow the money. It accounts for what happens to people much more reliably than critical race theory, intersectionality, queer theory, et al.

My 1940 Family Law book holding family responsible for family, no longer applies. Have we made this social change with much thought? — Athena

Economics, I think.

For a number of economically motivated reasons, women began to move into the work force in the 1960s (well before then, like during WWII, then back out). As women began working outside the home more, the need for childcare services increased. Eventually, women were far more IN the workforce than not, and the availability of childcare became a national issue.

Over time, families found they needed more than one income to support their desired lifestyle. (Essentially they needed 2 incomes to pay for what most working class people wanted.). They could have done without stuff they wanted, been poorer, and women could have remained home and in charge of child care. That's the sort of home I grew up in. Most people wanted the stuff.

Further... wages have lagged behind inflation for decades, reinforcing the need for two (or more) incomes to maintain a certain lifestyle. Then, there are women who have decided to have children without partners who have set themselves up for a much higher likelihood of poverty.

So, the changes in child care needs are a side effect of a decision to run the economy for the benefit of the rich and to screw everybody else.

There's also the glorification of sin, which indices some Christians into doing horrible acts. — Wheatley

Come again?

I see religion as cover for a lot of human nastiness — Wheatley

Religion may well be a cover, but before and underneath the cover, the nastiness was there all along. People (all of us) are universally capable of really extensive nastiness.

Who needs ethics when you can just follow the bible? — Wheatley

Without ethics and morals, the Bible is no help.

There's still animosity between the Christian west and Islam — Wheatley

And between Islam and Hinduism, Islam and Buddhism, others. Christianity and Islam are alike in being received religions with a strong missionary component. Their nature pretty much guarantees conflict. Most religions are not received (were not founded by an individual).

indoctrinating kids with the bible promotes irrational thinking (I'm thinking about conservative Christians) such as gullible anti intellectualism. — Wheatley

Yes.

The Church, Religion, Faith, Miracles, all that, claim to have been given a free pass, but it's certainly not accepted everywhere. There are plenty of people, including not a few believers, whose scathing criticisms of their own religion are scorching.

Jews, Christians, and Moslems are all monotheists but they are not monolithic. They come in all sorts of variations, better and/or worse. You seem to think of religion as an irresistible steam roller. True, there are some folk who would like to run the steam roller over their enemies. They tend to be fundamentalists (in whatever faith tradition they are in). Think conservative Baptists or the Taliban.

The majority are not ideological steam rollers.

If you do not agree with my generous assessment, you will be burnt at the stake.

I bet there are christians now plotting to keep Christianity as the dominant belief. — Wheatley

Absolutely. And many others are also plotting to promote their various views. Good on some, a plague on others.

bronze age myths — Wheatley

Bronze and Iron Age myths. Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam arose during the Roman era, even if they were built on older mythologies. This is an old issue, but mythologies serve many functions, some o them quite useful. We 21st centurions also have mythologies. Some of our myths are invisible to us because we think they are true.

No matter what people believe, or do not believe, people tend to conform, and promote conformity to whatever is the dominant scheme of belief.

How do you know that "soul is subsumed under identity and individuality?" I don't know that. — Wheatley

There was a Gallop poll 6 years ago that proves it. Just joking.

Baker or some bitter crank are commenting on language use, and the observation is based on the experience of observing how people talk. There are more scientific approaches one can use--Word Frequency studies is one. Here is the Google Ngram for "soul" - the ngram is a count of words appearing in print.



Peak "soul was in the 1800s, probably as a result of the first and second Great Awakenings (Christian renewal and outreach). Then it dropped to a modern low in the latter part of the 20th century; now it is considerably more common. But the Ngram doesn't tell us what people mean/meant when they used the word "soul". For that, one has to read and talk.

Back to the twenty first century, we are seeing more people break away from religion, and from my point of view, there is less religious talk. And instead of talking about souls, many of us are talking about our lives (at school or at work, for example). — Wheatley

The break-away from religion (here I mean denomination, parish, formal worship) has been going on for the last 70 years. The 1960s were watershed years for Christian religious organizations in the US (and elsewhere, earlier). "Spiritual" -- whatever the hell that means -- seems to be the term du jour for millions of people.

My guess is that, 200 years ago, 400, 800 ... people were mostly talking about various aspects of their lives. Take a look at Samuel Pepys diary (17th century). As a man on the make, man about town, busy busy busy, he included religious activity, but most of the time it was secular talk. The peasants were not discussing theology much -- just a guess. The crops, the children, the neighbors, their landlord, the thatching which needed to be replaced, aches, pains, etc.

Interesting fact, it isn't the soul that is resurrected (should there be such a thing) but the physical body. As it says in the Creed: "I believe in the resurrection of the body".

I think your observation is correct, more or less. The term "spirit" and "spiritual" are sufficiently vague that they could just as well be replaced by identity, individuality, or personhood. Still, a residual belief in an afterlife is pretty common, and "something" is thought by many to continue on indefinitely. At least that's how I read the 21st century.

But I'm not sure if we should really believe it. When we believe so strongly in the better circumstance of the 'less fortunate' we turn it into expectation and eventual reality. — kudos

I'm not sure whether you said what you meant to say. Clarify, please.

Though some may disagree, as far as I'm concerned there is clear Judeo-Christian ideological baggage in this idea of being endowed by a Creator with unalienable rights and liberties. — kudos

Thomas Jefferson was not a theist; at best he was a deist. And of course there is Judeo-Christian baggage attached to the idea of "creator". Western civilization (and American culture) are loaded with Judeo-Christian baggage--much of it well-worth preserving. (You capitalized 'Creator'; are you carrying Judeo-Christian baggage?)

Jefferson could have referenced 'nature' as the source of our equality; or some philosopher, or something else--executive fiat, maybe. Rhetorically, 'creator' is still the best choice, given past and current contexts.

Just because Jefferson used a term associated with religion is no reason to quibble. The man who talked about god-endowed equality also was a slave owner who, in the end, did not free his slaves. But contradictions don't invalidate the ideas of the man. Nobody is free of hypocrisy or contradictions.

The FACTS OF LIFE:

Individuals may be considered "equal" as a political stance, but in practical terms, they are not. Each person lands somewhere on continua of mental, emotional, physical, and social features (like wealth, or location). Different features lead to varying results. Some people will have much better experiences in life than others. Different political and social systems allow for more, or less, flexibility in individuals' pursuit of goals.

Progressive, liberal thinking disapproves of larger differences in outcomes, especially when associated with ethnicity, gender, or race. Thinking that is less progressive or liberal tends to be more tolerant of differing outcomes.

One may want an egalitarian society where there is equality of opportunity and outcomes for everyone, but how the hell do we socially engineer this desired good? I used to think that such an achievement was possible in American society, but I've abandoned that idea.

For one thing, the roots of inequality (across the board) are quite deep and have enduring consequences. To quote Jesus out of context, "I tell you, that to every one who has will more be given; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. — Luke 19:26".

Industrial, capitalist societies are highly productive machines, and one of their products is inequality -- by design. The economic system is designed to concentrate wealth, and when wealth is piled up in one place, poverty (absolute or relative) will be piled up in other places.

Hence, enduring inequality.

Work sucks! That's why they have to pay people to do it.

Most men lead lives of quiet desperation. Henry David Thoreau

Why is that?

Most men are wage slaves. Karl Marx

We are entirely dependent on working for a wage to gain the ability to live. The terms of labor are often highly unsatisfactory.

So... not only are we born without consent, but we are born into a world where we will be forced to work if we want to live.

Workers of the world unite! We have nothing to lose but our chains and a world to gain.

I heard this in a radio discussion this morning. A neurologist or psychologist said that the primary purpose of the brain is running the body--everything from heart rate and temperature regulation to vomiting bad food to not falling off a bike. It does manage our philosophical discussions, but that's a bonus. The main thing is keeping us alive. We don't measure that extremely important function in IQ tests (we measure it by longevity).

resources in the brain that turn mental tasks to automatisms — Vince

Like habits and "muscle learning'. I haven't thought about how to keep my bike upright for a long time; I just do. Muscles, of course, don't learn but the brain controlling the muscles does. When I type I don't have to look at the screen to know I hit the wrong key. I feel it in my fingers. You probably experience something similar when you perform music -- you can feel the wrong note, even if you can hear it too.

Your experience with music, birdsong, and pitch is typical of so much of the brain -- HOW the brain does this stuff is hidden from view. We don't know exactly how the brain does most of the stuff it does. If one knows a piece of music very well (from listening or performing), one can often recognize it within the first 2 or 3 measures or even 1 or 2 seconds of sound. HOW the brain tracks down a song based on a sliver sized sample is just not subject to observation.

There are blind people who can--to a limited extent--echo-navigate. Some have gotten quite good at this. Animal studies have shown that--laying dignity aside--people can put their face to the dirt and sniff out a trail on the ground -- not nearly as well as a dog, but we can follow an odor trail (not a rabbit, but maybe drops of chocolate or vanilla).

Such abilities as identifying where a wine originated, what varieties of this season's tea harvest adds up to the standard Lipton's Tea flavor, or something as homely as knowing when the bread dough has been kneaded long enough just don't show up on IQ tests, or the General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB) for that matter.