Our disintegrating cultural traditions

The moral centre travels. I was taken by a series of interesting comments by Roger on this post on culture bound is culture blind. I find the world looking ever darker because many of the cultural traditions which have held us together until now are disintegrating. This was the first of his comments.

There are two basic philosophical arguments against the cultural relativism you appear to be espousing:

1. It practically denies the existence of truth and the possibility of knowing what is true, yet it presents itself as a truth. Therefore it is an internally incoherent and self-defeating proposition.

2. Despite cultural differences, there is enough empirical evidence for universal moral truths being known across cultures and the religions that inform them to posit a basic common moral ground between different cultures. That is why Christians, for example, find echoes of their moral law in other religions.

One could go on, but, in short, if the oppression of women is morally wrong in Australia it is morally wrong in Iran. What we need to define, though, is what constitutes oppression? It may not necessarily be what hard-line Western feminists conceive as oppression, for example (e.g. a marriage freely entered into).

Conservatism doesn’t ask me to figure out for myself the long-term truths of the answers my society has provided for me before I was born and will live on after me when I am gone. I do not even begin to believe that there is or even could be “empirical evidence for universal moral truths being known across cultures”. I don’t even think there are such moral truths that now exist in our own society between generations. You ask yourself if the same answers to lots of these issues would be given by a representative sample of Australian citizens born in 1920, 1930, 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980 and 1990. Now try the same years with migrants. There will be some mash that will be the overall result, but I wouldn’t count on it being coherent nor will it reach any kind of consensus. Sure oppression of women is wrong everywhere, just what counts as “oppression” is also different everywhere. Try arranged marriages for a start and see how much consensus we can find across the world. Let me continue with his additional arguments – which I might add I largely agree with – to see whether there are any cultural factors involved in what he says:

Historically capitalism didn’t arise in a cultural vacuum. There were certain cultural pre-conditions for it to come into being and flourish; to name just a few: property rights, rule of law, freedom of association and free markets, what Hayek referred to as “spontaneous order”, though in truth there was nothing spontaneous about it. These pre-conditions first began to develop in a medieval Europe whose culture was Christian.

How did Christianity inform their development? Deep theological truths which formed the basis of the culture, such as that man is created in the image of God and thus bears certain inalienable rights, that the creation was ontologically distinct from its Creator and was thus a proper subject for study and later manipulation in the service of man’s needs, that time is linear and not cyclical and thus progress is possible and that man’s destiny is not constricted by the fatalism of the gods or the stars but he has a certain measure of free will at least in earthly matters. Eastern cultures certainly achieved some remarkable advances in science and technology, but lacking the order these pre-conditions created they could never give rise to the remarkable boon to humankind that is the capitalist movement of the last 700 years.

For the life of me I cannot see how the cultural bindings of our civilisation have not been crucial. Not everyone will have that same cultural inheritance that we have had as well as other inheritances that might make a difference in why we have achieved our economic success (which is obviously not the only form of success a culture can have). And then there is this:

I should have added that it is a very interesting question as to whether the modern adoption of elements of capitalism by Eastern cultures will lead to profound cultural changes in those cultures. I think we are indeed seeing evidence of such changes in some places. For example, the ability of the newly prosperous Chinese middle class to travel to Western countries as tourists or be educated here must inevitably have some negative impact upon the pact the Chinese Communist Party has made with its people to supply increasingly abundant material goods in exchange for the supine acceptance of their politically oppressive regime.

Another question, this time for the West, is whether once capitalism is completely severed from its ethical roots in Christianity it can continue to be a positive social force or instead becomes an agent of social disorder leading to the moral collapse of society. Democracy and capitalism are historically and culturally yoked together, but democracy can only thrive when the people are virtuous. In short, the very prosperity which capitalism has gifted us with may prove to be our downfall – the welfare culture is an example of this as is the related instability of the family unit.

If Christian ethics matter to our economic success, there is a fantastic amount of cultural inheritance we should recognise. But the world moves on. We are not our parents’ generation, nor that of our grandparents’ nor any other generation going back. A hundred years from now the ethic that will prevail where we happen to be right now is unknown to any of us. But this I can say with certainty, it will be profoundly different from what is found here today in the world in which we live.

How many economists can dance on the head of a pin?

This is a letter by Hugh Goodacre to the editor at the Financial Times on 16 April which came with the heading, Bringing economics back into liberal academic life. As you read the letter, you need to appreciate that the deeper reality is that the effort to marginalise alternative ways of looking at the economy goes beyond just putting such heterodox ideas into the history of economic thought. The further aim is to fully remove the history of economic thought as even being a component of the study of economics. I wrote a book on this very subject – Defending the History of Economic Thought – but these movements have a grinding relentlessness that will not be turned back unless there is the will to do so. I can see that for an academic, it may not much matter what is taught as long as doing whatever it is can get your paper published. That the university economics we actually apply to the real world have little value in curing any of the problems that exist, seems of only minor importance. I will also note that the one economist that was left out of the list is the one I think is the most important, being John Stuart Mill. I am also curious why Keynes is on the list since “Keynesian theory” is the very core of what we do teach. Pretty well every economist I know thinks they are teaching Keynesian models of one sort or another. Here is the letter that has been posted on the history of economics website with, so far, not a single comment from any one of the more than one thousand subscribers from around the world.

Sir, The moribund orthodoxy that currently exercises such an inflexible grip on university economics departments will, as Wolfgang Münchau comments, inevitably face a challenge, and this “will come from outside the discipline and will be brutal” (“Macroeconomists need new tools to challenge consensus”, April 13). The orthodoxy has brought this dismal prospect on itself through the brutality with which it has purged those departments of any other school of thought than its own.

Indeed, in its extreme version, the orthodoxy’s doctrine holds quite simply that there are “no schools of thought in economics”, a totalitarian assertion all too true in most economics departments today, so ruthless has been the purge of alternatives. As a result, the different approaches to economic issues of Adam Smith, Bentham, Ricardo, Marshall, Keynes, Friedman and so on are all relegated to the fringe subject of the “history of economic thought”. This is indeed a 1984 situation, in which the very idea that debate could exist on how to approach economic issues is regarded as a mere historical memory, and consequently of purely antiquarian interest.

However, economics students are increasingly demanding a pluralistic curriculum, as discussed by Martin Wolf in “Aim for enlightenment, technicalities can wait” (April 11). Similarly, the “fossilised habits of thought” entrenched in much of the economics professions are facing increasing criticism from within the academic world (see, for example, “The world no longer listens to the deaf prophets of the west”, Mark Mazower, April 14). Let us hope that all this pressure from students, from the worlds of journalism and of interdisciplinary debate, will combine to bring university economics departments back into the world of liberal academic life from which they have for so long isolated themselves.

Ian Plimer – The environmental impact of Creation

By Ian Plimer, Australia’s greatest climate scientist, originally published at Catallaxy.

In the beginning God floated the idea of creating Heaven and Earth. He was immediately served with an injunction by Greenpeace to prevent any creative activity whatsoever as He had not undertaken an environmental impact study and had no permit to work.

At the court hearing, God was cross-examined and asked why He wanted to undertake this massive project, especially as it appeared that it was extremely unlikely that any social benefit would derive from His venture. The Wilderness Society reminded God that His Bible stated that “the earth was void and empty and darkness was upon the face of the deep” hence the area where He wanted to creatively meddle could be classified as a pristine wilderness. God successfully argued that, unless Earth could be seen, then it could not be classified a wilderness area. Upon further questioning, God revealed that by Him saying “Let there be light” the wilderness area could be seen for assessment of its environmental value.

This created pandemonium in the court house. How could God create light without burning something that would pollute the Universe? Had He considered the smoke, thermal and optical pollution that His creation of light would produce? What would be mined to produce all this energy? Would the mining be underground or open pit? Was this mining safe and did it exploit indigenous people? Would mining make a profit? What was God to do with the tailings and the waste? Was mining to be conducted by workers’ communes or faceless corporations? Was God aware of the dangers of greenhouse gases and nuclear energy?

In order to seek compromise, God argued that He would create a pollution-free, thermonuclear powerhouse a long way from the planet. However, at the mention of the word nuclear, the masses at the court hearing broke into histrionics. God faced aggressive questioning from the assembled environmental movements. Would His giant thermonuclear power generator really work? Could the safety of thermonuclear fusion be guaranteed? What about Chernobyl? In order to allow His creative proposal to proceed, God suggested that instead of thermonulear energy, He would create solar energy. A warm inner glow entered the hearts of those in the courthouse, the assembled detractors agreed that solar power would be far better environmentally than thermonuclear power and some of the more sensitive souls were so touched by God’s environmental concern that they actually wanted to shake His hand. The unions insisted that if God creates solar power, then He must create wind so that their union superannuation funds can skin the public alive with their subsidised inefficient wind farms. God reluctantly agreed in order to proceed with His creative process.

The remaining hard core continued to question God on his alternative energy proposal. Some wanted an Earth Month until it was realised that there would be no food. A compromise was made and Earth Hour was proposed. This was a time dedicated to wealthy consumers to feel morally superior with no sacrifice or knowledge and a time when they could hypocritically emit more carbon dioxide. The Earth Hour advocates argued that darkness was symbolic but God didn’t say that the symbolism was a political, moral and intellectual darkness.

Wouldn’t precious energy be wasted if light was emitted from the Sun all the time? God had a brilliant idea and, in order to conserve energy, God suggested that He divide light and darkness and He would call the light Day and the darkness Night. The assembled environmental masses seemed to think that this was an inspired energy-saving proposal and grudgingly acquiesced to this creative step.

However, the next creative step aired had God in a spot of bother. When God was asked how the Earth would be covered, He answered “Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters; and let it divide the waters from the waters”. Greenpeace, the Australian Conservation Foundation, Friends of the Earth, the Greens and miscellaneous other environmental movements voiced strong objections. If God created a firmament, would not the mining industry pillage the firmament for minerals? God tried logic and argued that a firmament was necessary in order to produce the 210 tonnes per capita per annum of water, food and minerals that would be consumed by each Western person at the end of the second millennium AD. The gag was applied, the court adjourned and God was refused permission to continue argument on the firmament. After the adjournment, God was given permission to make a short statement. He stated that homelands and sacred sites could not be annexed unless there was a firmament. After much discussion in court about the necessary provision of homelands for the tangible expression of guilt and the growth of the guilt industry, God was given permission to create a firmament and questioning shifted to His creation of waters.

Neither Greenpeace nor Save the Aquatic Fauna wanted God to create the oceans because this would tempt the petroleum industry into offshore drilling. Furthermore, if there were oceans, then there could be marine pollution, fishing and people enjoying themselves with water sports. To make matters even worse, international waters could not be regulated and controlled by the Greens. It suddenly dawned on God that logic was His worst defence and He started to invent arguments that would seem plausible to ideologues. Rather than discuss the necessity of oceans for climate, resources and survival, God insisted that His creative venture must have oceans. Without oceans, God argued, there would be no habitat for dolphins, dugongs and whales. The court room erupted into cheers, people struggled to pat God on the back, environmental leaders announced that the god of nature would now be called Gaia, God signed numerous autographs and a warm ambience settled over the tear-stained masses. However, because so few at the hearing had trust in God, He was instructed to apply for the numerous necessary permits from the appropriate local government, shipping, agricultural and water and international commissions before undertaking this creative step.

When God tried to explain that the barren firmament should be environmentally enhanced with vegetation, there was vigorous objection on the basis that the flora might be exploited commercially for profit. God was now aware that it was pointless to argue that flora would be the key to survival on earth, that flora uses carbon dioxide as plant food and that flora emits oxygen and so He stated that He would only create species native to planet Earth. He strengthened his argument by suggesting that if the firmament was covered by abundant vegetation, all could be vegetarian. The vegans tried to cheer but just didn’t have the energy. God’s popularity was increasing and the environmental leaders now privately felt that God was good, however they were committed to objecting in public to every creative step God wanted to make. It was eventually agreed, subject to Noxious Weed Board and Forestry Commission permission, that if God vegetated the planet with only native species then He would be issued with a permit to say “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed and the fruit tree yielding fruit”

In order to win over various New Age movements, astrologers, UFO watchers, tarot card readers and the Lunar Cycle Birth Movement, God announced to the court that He wanted to state “And let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth”. The various New Age movements were asked to voice their objections however, because their answers required the construction of sentences and the use of words of more than two syllables, they could only look bleary-eyed at God, monotonously chanted “God is Cool” and fondled His long flowing robes.

Some disquiet was expressed in court about God’s plan to have only native flora without soft, cuddly environmentally sensitive fauna. A passionate discussion ensued with some suggesting that if there were animals on the firmament then they would be hunted, killed and eaten whereas others wanted soft cuddly objects to allow them to have publicity about the plight of these animals. The question of methane emissions from animals was raised. It was unanimously agreed, that in the absence of evidence, that methane emissions were bad, however a compromise was struck. If God could create sheep and cattle that had the choice of emitting methane, then wild animals could democratically decide whether they chose to emit methane or not. The gathered masses felt good. On the condition that God adhered to the various statutes of the Native Flora and Fauna Protection Act, various National Parks Acts, the Fisheries Acts and observed the RSPCA regulations, God was given permission to say “Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and the fowl that may fly above the earth”.

The proposal to create man met insurmountable ethical and political difficulties. The vivisectionists were concerned about the morals of rib transplant on a sleeping patient without the required documentation, the Womens’ Electoral Lobby and the Lesbian Gender Equality Sisterhood would not agree that man was to be created before woman, animal liberationists were incensed that man was to have dominance over animals, the gay lobby did not want woman created from man, the right-to-lifers and human rights commissioners argued that rib tissue had inalienable rights and ASIO insisted that those created must first have security clearances. God was secretly pleased because, during these evidence-free emotional arguments, God had written some basic economics into His book because God now was sure that activists, communists and others on the Left don’t read books and can only chant ideology. He created commodities (gold; Gen. 2:12) and the market (women; Gen. 2:23). No one noticed. If his green opponents actually read books, there would have been uproar at God creating a capitalist system.

God now had the measure of his opponents and announced to the court that He would only create indigenous people. Opposition evaporated, there were excited suggestions about having a special year dedicated to indigenous people and, after no thought, it was decided that if these matters were aired at a subsequent public hearing, then God may be given permission afterwards to say “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth”.

Despite the onerous conditions laid down by the court, God was willing to adhere to all these conditions. God only had to abide by 96,213 approvals and regulations to be administered by Green politicians. However, at the end of the hearing, He was asked when He hoped to commence His creative project. Great consternation arose when God stated that He wanted to complete the project in six days. The unions would not agree, too many people would have to work too fast to an exacting deadline. This was unprecedented compared with all previous attempts at productive creativity that had been prevented by prolonged industrial action. God was advised that the EIS and necessary permits have an application period of 90 days followed by a public viewing period of 60 days in each capital city. Upon receipt of all of the information, the granting bodies required a minimum of 180 days to review the applications prior to the public hearing. If there were no appeals arising from the public hearing, the process would take at least 36 months from the time of application before God was permitted to commence His creative venture. If there were appeals, it could take up to 10 years before God could be given permission for His creation.

God became positively catatonic. To His horror, God suddenly realised that He had only focussed on creation of the Heavens and Earth and had forgotten to create the rarest commodity on Earth – common sense. The irrational unproductive constraints of the regulatory processes were such that it was just not possible for God to create Earth in the proposed six-day period. God fulminated in disgust “To Hell with My Project!” and Earth, as we know it, was then created.

An Eloi Manifesto

green policy uk

This is from Tim Blair and I cannot tell if this is a parody or something taken directly from a Green election pamphlet somewhere. Reads straight out of the 1930s so I opt for parody but who can be sure?

Going to the original Tim links to, the comments thread is hilarious. I guess I prefer the Greens to ISIS, but with the Greens in charge, ISIS will not be far behind.

I’VE NOW GONE AND LOOKED: It really is there, page 77, just like it says. There are no words for such people, but the Morlocks will come and get them sooner than they think.

And I have to say, this elois and morlocks thing has a kind of modern day significance I will have to dwell on further.

Walking into our world from theirs

I went hunting for my other favourite from the 1920s – Susie is five foot two-ish and has eyes of blue as it happens. But what struck me about this is that they were just as modern as we are, except that they were modern ninety years ago and we are modern ninety years later. How bizarre we will seem ninety years from now is unimaginable, just as we would be to them. What is the reverse of nostalgia, the emotional response of those who lived in the past if they could see us today without having to have lived through the intervening years? There are people still alive who were alive when this was recorded but they have been shaped by the world as it evolved into where we are. But suppose these people should just walk from their world into ours. Certainly amazement, but also with equal certainty, deep and unabiding disgust. The reverse of Woody Allan’s Midnight in Paris but with little likelihood there would be the charm and pleasure in coming forward to a civilisation as morally alien from theirs as ours is.

Academic publishing and policy

Someone wrote of nice review of my Defending the History of Economic Thought. So I wrote him back:

I am sorry that it has taken me so much time to write to you about your review of my book. But it was so excellent and added so much to what I had written myself, that I didn’t wish to just dash something off but preferred till I had time to sit down and write a more complete response. And till now, time has been in short supply. Yesterday, I read the review through for the third time and found it even more remarkable than when I read it the first time.

I naturally am very happy to find a positive review, which is rare enough at any time. But what completely stopped me was not only that we were absolutely on the same side on these issues, but that you had added much more to what I had originally written. I did indeed learn a great deal from reading what you wrote.

The most important part was your explanation of why there has been such a comprehensive turn from HET. As soon as I read what you wrote about the nature of the academic world today, and how the aim is publication of worthless articles in even more worthless journals, I could see exactly what you meant. It, of course, surrounds me here as well, since the pressure is put on all of us to publish. The result then is that the focus is not on whether we are furthering some policy debate, but whether we have made a point sufficiently different from someone else that will convince two referees and an editor that the points made are worth going into print. Whether any of it has relevance as a means to understand how an economy works, or whether there are any valid policy implications, is typically so far from anyone’s mind that it may not matter at all. I have had a policy background for most of my career and it has struck me far too often when I go through the journals that pass my way that there seems few if any useful conclusions to draw from most of the articles published. Having read your review, I can now see more clearly what is going on, and also can see more clearly what an obstacle keeping HET within economics must be to those who think of HET as an opportunity to write about some vacuous issue distantly related to some economist of the past.

The role of positivism is one that I had not considered before and will take some time to look into. You put “organised ignorance” in quotation marks so I wasn’t sure whether you were just distancing yourself from the sentiment, or whether it is a well-known quote that I had not come across before. But whichever it was, I was more than comfortable with the point. I now think of economic theory as an actual menace to good economic policy. I don’t know how much you know of my other work, but mostly I find myself lamenting the disastrous sets of policies that flow from our macroeconomic theories, and what I think of as even worse, the almost complete absence of any serious re-thinking about how to conceptualise the world, or how to fashion policies that will actually cause an economy to grow and employ.

But really, the changing nature of academic economics as a means to publish something is so bizarre that if this is really the way it is, we have become the Mediaeval Schoolmen we still laugh at. There is almost nothing we cannot gather data on and run a regression through the numbers. Whether human knowledge is thereby advanced is another story. I have to say that what you have described is a singularly depressing set of circumstances, but I cannot truly see in what way you are obviously wrong. I must merely hope that in amongst all of these publications that flow into the world each year, there is still good economics going on, and that somehow the best will rise to the top and be noticed.

Destroy, only destroy

News below the fold apparently because it might put some people in a bad light. Personally, I think these people should be put in a bad light, but that’s just me.

THE VIDEO HAS BEEN TAKEN DOWN: Perhaps the real sign of our times is that after only two days, the destruction by the Islamic State of the ancient city of Nimrud has been removed. The city is still in ruins, but you can no longer watch the destruction. So there are modern and western equivalents of this same destruction of the past. Orwellian is the word, and will be so long as we are able to read Orwell and understand him. 1984 is unfortunately becoming a manual and is no longer a warning.

Anyway, perhaps this one will remain available.

Mass hysteria and the American left

The article I am quoting from is about “mass hysteria” which, the author argues, “has been a feature of American life since at least the time of the infamous witch trials in Salem.” He doesn’t think it’s quite the right word for what he has in mind, but you be the judge. But it’s not quite America, I think, but the American left, the kinds of people who reliably vote Democrat, who are typically the crazies he describes. This story is one of the most grotesque tales I know about social insanity. I remember it well since my wife was working in childcare at the time. It is a story worth remembering whenever you hear about Democrats, or the American left in general, running off on some incomprehensible tangent that could happen in no other country on earth.

Anxiety about wayward adolescents is eternal. But widespread anxiety about toddlers was, at the time, a relatively new phenomenon, the tykes of Generation X having been the first generation of Americans to have been entrusted to professional daycare services in such large numbers.

Music had Ozzy Osbourne and Judas Priest, and daycares had the Little Rascals case and a few others like it. The criminal cases brought against those accused of carrying out theatrical episodes of ritualized sexual abuse within the walls of American daycares look absolutely unbelievable in retrospect [!!!!!].

The phenomenon of “recovered memories” that drove many of these cases is pseudoscientific poppycock, and the details of the abuse suffered by the children in these cases is obviously [!!!] the result of adult anxiety filtered through the juvenile mind: Little girls insisted, for example, that they had been sexually violated with butchers’ knives, while others told of being buried alive, being flushed down toilets, etc.

There was no physical evidence that any of this happened, of course — and even in the happy era before toilet capacity became a federal obsession, flushing an entire child down the commode was a physical impossibility — but that did not seem to matter very much. The nation was convinced — not in its mind, but in its always-unreliable heart — that there were monsters afoot, that somebody, somewhere, was doing terrible things to our teenagers and children. . . .

My Hillsdale students [to whom he was relating this story] were by turns horrified and amused by the lurid and not coincidentally cinematic tales of improbably theatrical abuse in the Little Rascals case — children claimed, among other things, to have been thrown into tanks of sharks and to have been spirited away via hot-air balloon, but there were (and this detail seems to matter more than a little) no sharks or balloons to be found. My students laughed at how odd and unlikely it all sounded, because they are too young to know what the outcome of that case was.

Everybody was convicted.

Robert Kelly Jr., the principal defendant in the Little Rascals case, was convicted on 99 out of 100 charges of abusing children, and received twelve consecutive life sentences. There were 143 witnesses at his trial, including a number of little children, whom the jury found quite convincing.

Dawn Wilson, who rejected a plea bargain, was sentenced to life in prison. Betsy Kelly, after being imprisoned for two years awaiting trial, entered a no-contest plea and accepted an additional seven-year sentence.

Eventually, the courts threw all that out, but not before a half dozen people had spent years in prison, some of them without ever having had a day in court. Such was the moral panic inspired by the case that bonds were set as high as $1.5 million, which used to be real money. So all but one defendant remained incarcerated until the criminal-justice system — hampered though it was by the dishonorable actions of prosecutors in the case — finally got around to exonerating the accused. [My bolding]

I cannot believe how he plays this down as a form of social madness. This was by no means the only instance and these people spent years in jail and have never been compensated even though they have been released. He almost makes it seem that the story is one that Americans can be proud of:

Even when American justice miscarries, as it did in the daycare cases, the appeals process generally provides an opportunity for evidence to be properly examined, for all accounts to be heard and evaluated, and for the rights of the accused to be considered.

I suppose if you are prone to believe anything, no matter how farfetched, you can end up believing in socialism or vote for Obama. He specifically describes this approach to politics as a Democrat strategy.

There are the usual grotesque opportunists who attempt to profit from these things: Tipper Gore began her activism in earnest just after the 1984 presidential election in which Ronald Reagan won a 49-state landslide; the Gores calculated, not incorrectly, that a Democrat who could maintain the loyalty of traditional left-wing constituencies while not bleeding to death among more conservative middle-class whites would have a pretty good chance against what looked, at the time, like a pretty solid Republican coalition.

But this is merely a cautionary tale. What practical lessons you can draw are hard to know.

The Egyptian election of 1446 BCE

I wish to take you to the Egyptian election of 1446 BCE.

Pharaoh was running for office as Lord, Master and Tyrant of all before him. He was, as well, the human incarnation of the sun god, Ra. The leader of the opposition was Moses “Moishe” Rabbeinu Nethaniah.

Pharaoh was running on a platform of “No Change Other than for the Worse, and If You Think it’s Bad Now, You Just Wait”. Moses was running his campaign under the slogan, “Let my people go!”

Pharaoh, naturally, had the media completely on his side, as were virtually all of the scribes and the academic members of the priestly class. He was heading for a landslide win.

And while the hand of G-d was eventually to prove decisive, there was, until after the tenth plague, quite some division within the Israelite community. This has been, until now, a little-known fact that my recent research has finally been able to bring to light.

There were some who of course said they wished to leave Egypt and return to the ancestral home, which they had left so long ago. They were sick of being slaves. They wished to have their own community and live in freedom. They no longer wished to be a persecuted minority. They were fed up with making bricks without straw.

They especially didn’t like to have to hide their infant children in the bullrushes to keep them from being murdered. Many felt unsafe going to the local butcher shop. There were some parts of the city they could not enter wearing a kippah.

But there was another side, and surprisingly there were many among the Israelites who supported Pharaoh.

Look, they said, we have it pretty good.

We’ve been here for 400 years. It is Moses who is rocking the boat. He is the one causing most of the trouble in our lives.

I mean really, do you want us to give up everything we have so that we can spend forty years wandering around in a desert. How would we even cross the Red Sea?

I’m sticking with Pharaoh.

We have jobs. We have places to live and food to eat. Because of the Nile, there are no famines like there were in the time of Jacob. We share many of the values of Pharaoh, like when he distributed grain to everyone during the seven thin years.

It’s not perfect. Sure it could be better. But what does Israel really mean to us?

And so began a tradition, that has continued from that day to this.

Psychopathic checklist

psychopath checklist

The chart is from an article, Obama’s Mental Health: A Checklist where it says:

This man who lies pathologically and feels no empathy (again, too many examples to list but his reactions to the murders of Christopher Stevens and James Foley are indicative), has disdain for America and has set out to do the nation harm as surely as a psychopathic murderer sets out to kill an innocent human being. And he does it all without breaking a sweat or feeling an iota of responsibility or guilt.

Psychopathology may come with the job. Sometimes, though, they are on your side, and sometimes they are not.