The Folly of Disdaining the Experts

President Trump’s cabinet of department secretaries and advisors lurches from tweeted firings to unprecedented numbers of new appointments.

Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, a good man humiliated for trying to do his job, is only one of many caught in the flood of incoming and outgoing.

The State Department he headed is one of the original three U.S. government departments begun under George Washington.

The purpose of more recently created departments may be a bit fuzzy, but the purpose of the State Department is clear and always has been. The State Department’s purpose is to handle U.S. relations with other countries.

The State Department’s Foreign Service Officers, otherwise known as diplomats, train to carry out their mission to the rest of the world, like members of the military for their assignments.

They learn foreign languages, study the history and culture of the countries where they will serve, and train for managing outposts of the U.S. in foreign countries. On average, they spend two-thirds of their careers in those countries.

Their duty is to use their skills and on-the-ground experience to serve the various presidents and their administrations. “Serve” is the operative word.

Yet presidents sometimes disdain their diplomatic servants. Roger Grant Harrison (“Will the State Department Rise Under Pompeo?” American Interest, April 4, 2018) suggests why this might be so.

Wrote Harrison: “The problem with career Foreign Service Officers is that they know too much. They know why your simple-minded plan to invade Iraq and install a democracy won’t work. They understand the tribal, ethnic, and familial loyalties that will frustrate your efforts to consolidate the opposition to the Assad regime in Syria, and why the endlessly trained Afghan military will never win the victory that American generals endlessly promise.”

Ah, well, they try. And will try again, under Mike Pompeo or whoever finally takes over from Rex Tillerson.

Refugees on Our Own Doorstep

An estimated 65 million plus people are refugees today, according to United Nations figures. The numbers are the greatest since the aftermath of World War II.

The United States is impacted by refugees knocking against its own southern borders, fleeing violence in Mexico and Central America. We have a particular responsibility toward these refugees since our past support of brutal regimes in Central American countries contributed to the violence.

Some U.S. embassies in Central American countries attempt programs to help youth in their own nations, such as job training centers. However, considering our past actions in those countries, our efforts are not nearly enough. If we wish to prevent an overwhelming number of refugees from sometimes dangerous journeys north, we must do more to give them hope in their home countries.

Talk of solving our problems with “a wall” is a copout, a “fix” which ignores our responsibility for much of the exodus north.

Who Writes Rules for the World Now?

Western nations began writing the world’s rules in 1492, when Columbus bumped into an island off the coast of North America in his search for a faster route to the riches of the East.

Spain and Portugal, France and England, the Netherlands and other nations conquered native populations all over the world. Even Denmark laid claim to several islands in the Carribean and imported African slaves to work sugar plantations there.

Some conquests were more brutal than others, but the aim always was the use of the conquered populations for the economic and often military benefit of the conquerors.

As European nations fought each other for power, these conflicts became the world wars of the 1900’s, touching far flung possessions. Finally, exhausted by war, the ruling countries began freeing their conquered populations.

The United States, not devastated by war like Europe, became the chief guardian of international order. During this time of relative peace and growing global connections, the United States benefitted from increasing world trade. As the most powerful nation, the United States oversaw the world’s rules.

However, it was inevitable that Asia, with its massive populations, would play a greater role in the world. China is the most populous nation on earth, with India a close second. The United States is third. China, especially after it had recovered from Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward, grew and thrived economically.

Economic power brings political clout, as the United States knows. How does the United States deal with this new giant on the scene, economically strong with different ideas of political governing?

Will a new trade war, brought about by tariff increases on certain products, threaten this world order, until now weighted in America’s favor?

Showing Up on Easter

Jesus is crucified, his body taken away.

The religious rulers are satisfied. They’ve won. They’ve handled this challenge to their authority by hinting to the Romans that they could have an insurrection on their hands if they didn’t take care of this peasant leader. Their plan worked well, with the Romans handling matters in their usual efficient way.

The Romans are satisfied, too, with the possible exception of their man, Pilate, who expressed misgivings. He went along, however, understanding that it was in his interest not to upset the ones on whom his job depends, so no problem.

The disciples, all men, have fled, taking refuge in some out-of-the-way bolt hole.

Only a few women stay with Jesus, and they follow to see where his body is taken. They spend the next day, the day of rest, preparing for his burial. He must be taken care of, even if all they can do is carry out a proper burial. They’re only women, and no one pays them much attention.

So they come to the tomb on Sunday morning. They find it empty. They are the first to know and the first to tell. What no one else did, they did. They came. They showed up.

Borrowing from the Future

Politicians understand how Americans hate paying taxes. A good way to get votes is to promise lower taxes—even if the resulting deficit will burden next generations.

Even though we hate taxes, we love programs paid for by taxes: the military to keep foreign enemies at bay, social security for the elderly, weather forecasts warning us of hurricanes, protection for our borders, clean air and water, national parks, police to guard us, good schools, justice systems to mandate fair play, protection of Americans abroad—and so on and on.

Unfortunately, payment for these programs comes disproportionately from the incomes of wage earners. The recent tax cuts for some wage earning Americans are a pittance compared with tax cuts passed for wealthy Americans—those able to live on accumulated wealth, not dependent on wages from a job.

Taxation on wealth has not kept pace with taxation on wages.

This is not to heap shame on economically advantaged Americans. Many of them give liberally to good causes. They begin businesses resulting in jobs. They fund scholarships. They sponsor research.

But this giving is voluntary. Until taxation on wealth keeps pace with taxation on income, our government will be inadequately funded.

Americans who receive a tax cut this April are cautioned to remember that the gift is actually money borrowed from the future.

How Many of These Young Demonstrators Will Vote?

Teenagers in our local high school were allowed seventeen minutes on March 14 to demonstrate for safer schools. One minute was allowed for each person killed by a gunman in a Parkland, Florida, school in February. The high school faculty considered the demonstration a lesson in civics for the students.

By the next congressional elections in November, 2018, a few of these students will be old enough to vote. By the time major elections are held in November, 2020, a great many of them will be eligible.

Elections are influenced not only by those who vote, but also by those who don’t.

Typically, younger voters have not voted at the same rate as their elders. Will this change in future elections? How much would a rising participation rate by younger voters change our politics?

A Witch Hunt?

After he was fired by President Trump, former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe issued the following statement:

“The big picture is a tale of what can happen when law enforcement is politicized, public servants are attacked, and people who are supposed to cherish and protect our institutions become instruments for damaging those institutions and people.”

Supposedly, McCabe was fired because he provided an interview to a news agency unauthorized by the FBI.

In his rebuttal, McCabe says of the charge: “As Deputy Director, I was one of only a few people who had the authority to do that. It was not a secret, it took place over several days, and others, including the Director, were aware of the interaction with the reporter.”

McCabe is said to have written memos relating to his conversations with President Trump as did former FBI director James Comey. They, like Comey’s memos, may shed light on whether Trump attempted to halt the investigation into possible collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

Robert Mueller was appointed by the U.S. Justice Department to investigate the Russian meddling. Now Trump is calling this investigation a “WITCH HUNT.”

Trump makes this accusation, despite cases already brought against thirteen Russians, as well as several Americans within the Trump campaign and administration.

Robert Mueller, by the way, is not a Democrat. He is a Republican, a highly respected public servant appointed as FBI director by President George W. Bush. He served for thirteen years as director.

Schools and Tax Cuts

According to an article in The Economist (“Five into four,” February 3, 2018), cutting taxes at the state level in Oklahoma has been disastrous for its schools.

The tax cuts were based on the belief that cutting taxes will so invigorate the economy that the loss in revenue will be replaced, even exceeded, by economic growth.

Instead, according to the article, “. . . deep tax cuts have wrecked the state’s finances . . . lawmakers gave a sweetheart deal to its oilmen, costing $470m in a single year . . . ”

Teachers have fled the state for living wages in other states. Other services also have suffered, including the state highway patrol.

Tax cuts in neighboring Kansas wrecked state finances there as well, However, a Republican legislature in that state rebelled and reversed tax cuts. Tax raises require a larger majority in Oklahoma.

Despite these examples, cutting taxes on the more well off appears alive and well in the recent tax package passed by the U.S. congress. Unfortunately, the deficit from such cuts threatens programs enjoyed by the less well off. Anybody for cuts to Social Security?

Notes on a Fractured American

Quotes from Where I Belong:

“If you want to live in foreign parts, you should be a missionary. That’s what we wanted for you. God gave you this miraculous way with languages—that none of us ever had or even thought about. That’s why we let you take that scholarship and leave us to go to college.”

And the son answers his father:

“I never felt called to be a missionary.” The words escaped, propelled by frustration that found its outlet. “That was your dream, not mine.”

A young man raised in the north Georgia mountains accepts a career as a U.S. diplomat—about as far away from his upbringing as his father could imagine. A career, his father believes, that would surely involve becoming “a fancy pants who talks all uppish and probably drinks a lot—well, things like that don’t belong to people like us.”

The young protagonist, Mark Pacer, becomes a kind of hybrid. He’s left much of his upbringing behind to follow a totally different career and lifestyle, one hardly understood by relatives and friends from his childhood.

Yet he’s shadowed by that upbringing. His accent, of course, follows him, always setting him apart as soon as he speaks.

But more than that, he retains much from his childhood. He has shorn away many of the prejudices that warped some in his early community, but he finds many of his father’s teachings reflected in the oddest places where he travels in his career.

They shine back at him from a “foreign” friend who strengthens him to keep promises. Or they press him to help the vulnerable people he meets. Or they lead him to turn down career-enhancing moves because of less selfish motives.

Throughout his career, beginning in the 1970’s, Mark mirrors the disjointed society his country becomes. He struggles to toss out the garbage of an outmoded, even evil past while cherishing its treasures.

Some of the foundation built in his childhood is bedrock, other is sand. His life is an effort to discover which to stand on and which to let wash away.

Separation Without Withdrawal?

Rod Dreher, author of the much-discussed book The Benedict Option, commented on his book in Plough Quarterly (Summer, 2017). His book takes its name from Saint Benedict, a Christian monk in Italy during the Middle Ages. Benedict set up a religious order to, in Dreher’s words, “best serve the Lord in community during a terrible crisis.”

In commenting on his book, Dreher said, “Put all thoughts of total withdrawal out of your mind. That is not what the Benedict Option calls for.” It does, however, call for “a strategic separation from the everyday world.”

Following Dreher’s article, Ross Douthat, a columnist for The New York Times, continued a series of commentary on the book. Douthat seems less certain that the future is quite as bad as Dreher depicts.

“But,” Douthat writes, “I also don’t think it necessarily matters . . . because I think where we are right now is clearly a place where many of the things he calls for . . . are necessary and useful and important, no matter what happens in ten or twenty or thirty years.”

Douthat added, “Building resilient communities may not be the answer; . . . but it is an incredibly important answer to the challenges of our time.”

Not all communities are good. Nevertheless, even destructive communities like street gangs and the Islamic State illustrate the craving we all feel for identity and purpose.

The loss of community—the loss of belonging—fosters lack of purpose. Without purpose, we flounder.

Discouraged About Our Politics? Try Baby Step Involvement

Recently, Washington State legislators passed and sent to the governor a bill exempting many of their records from public view, despite the state’s Public Records Act.

Public protest over the bill began after newspapers pointed out how they used the Public Records Act to investigate political corruption,.

The legislature had passed the exemption bill without the usual public debate and scrutiny. A large number of representatives and senators approved the bill, supposedly rendering it veto proof.

The governor, though expressing himself against the measure, was considering letting it pass without any action, since, it seemed, the legislature would simply vote to override his veto.

Thousands of emails poured into offices of the legislators. Thousands of citizens phoned. Some even sent letters. Reaction overwhelmingly condemned the bill.

The governor vetoed the bill, and the legislators agreed not to pass it over his signature. They will, they said, work on another bill that follows more accepted procedures and allows for compromise.

In a time when our national government appears polarized and paralyzed, citizens can exert a great deal of influence at the state and local levels. Perhaps responsible state governments will prod our national politicians out of their dysfunction.

A long time ago, I heard someone suggest that involvement, even in small ways, works to overcome the despair of powerlessness.

I was one of those who emailed my state legislators. It was a small act, but, strangely, it did give me a bit of optimism about our democracy.

Refugees: Deja Vu

Francine Klagsbrun’s book, Lioness; Golda Meir and the Nation of Israel, suggests an eerie similarity with current refugee crises. Today, the millions of people forced from their homes by war and famine mirror those of Golda Meir’s lifetime.

Before World II, as the Nazis began rounding up their Jewish populations, too few nations were willing to take in Jewish escapees from Nazism.

Today, many balk at accepting refugees from the horrors of wars in the Middle East. Some Americans resent, not only Middle Easterners, but refugees from their own hemisphere.

After World War II, refugees flooded Europe, becoming the DP’s, the displaced persons, a haunting reminder of today’s displaced men, women, and children.

Many Jewish survivors, their homelands ripped apart by the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust, moved to the Middle East and became part of the modern state of Israel.

A mass exodus is never orderly or pretty or completely containable. Understandably, existing cultures do not appreciate strange ideas and customs knocking at their gates in large numbers.

Arab culture in Palestine changed beyond recognition. Today, in some African nations, war and famine (the two often go together) have sent desperate people to overwhelm the local populations of small towns.

No one solution is going to solve migration problems. A manageable number of newcomers can contribute to the revitalization of an older nation. New, energized citizens provide energy and entrepreneurs for the society, benefitting it at least as much as the refugees are helped.

However, great numbers, as in Middle Eastern nations like Lebanon and Jordan and in several African countries like Chad and Uganda, have swamped the local populations.

We have not, so far, supported peacemaking as we have supported war. That choice is tragic. Peacemaking aims to keep populations safely in their own countries. If we do not channel more effort and resources into this ancient art, we will be overwhelmed by unstoppable calamities.

For Their Darkest Hour and Ours

The movie Darkest Hour, starring Gary Oldman as Winston Churchill, captivated me. For a couple of hours, I was aware of little except what was acted on the screen. I was there in Britain’s darkest hour when Hitler, having rolled over most of Europe, was miraculously stayed.

Our present time calls us to revisit past times when the forces of good, heavily besieged, nevertheless triumphed over evil. We gather around our virtual campfires, telling our stories and renewing our strength.

Dunkirk is another movie visiting this same time period. At the end of the movie, two soldiers have just escaped to England. They have been rescued by the armada of small private vessels that brought thousands of the British army from France to safety. One of the soldiers reads an account of the speech Churchill delivers at the end of Darkest Hour.

By contrast, another movie, The Post, dramatizes later history in the United States, that of the Watergate scandal. We sense that this movie was made with our current era in mind.

Men in high places were guilty of abusing their power. The fact that Katharine Graham stars as a woman newspaper publisher in a vocation dominated by men adds to its timeliness.

I have not yet seen The Post and cannot offer a critique. I am certain, though, that as long as we are able to recite tales of past victory over dark forces, we retain the possibility of overcoming our own darkest hour.

Not Welfare Housing but Worker-Owned Homes?

In this computerized age, labor has become more of an inanimate cost, like computers or office supplies. A business can determine its “core competency”—the main purpose for which it exists—and hire only those full time employees useful for developing that strength.

All other needs, like janitorial services, are contracted out. Unlike the full-time employees, contracted laborers are less likely to have health insurance or vacation time or even regular hours. This new efficiency has resulted in wealth creation for a few but wage loss for many others.

If this model continues, the two-tiered “have and have not” divisions promises to grow.

We could opt for a fairer system in several ways.

One, of course, is raising the minimum wage. Some say raising the minimum wage causes employers to hire fewer workers. Regardless, raising wages isn’t the only option. We could begin by asking what the wages are supposed to pay for.

Housing is a major expense for lower wage workers. A huge chunk of their salaries is spent on housing. We could consider a tax on wealth for a specific function: subsidized housing for the workers who contribute to that wealth.

In the past, public housing was built for “the poor.” The perception that it was for those who didn’t work, true or not, tarnished the image of subsidized housing.

A different kind of housing near job centers could be built or bought for workers to buy back at rates they could afford. Not rent—the workers have salaries, but house prices need to fit their wages.

The idea is to give workers decent housing and allow them to build up investment through ownership like workers did after World War II. The housing would be subsidized, but some of the costs would be recouped as workers bought the housing.

Some special regulations would need to be written into the deeds. Owners might be limited to modest increases in the amount for which they could sell their homes. Thus, this housing would continue to available at prices the working poor could afford.

If our job structure is changing toward high salaries for a few and inadequate salaries for many, we need to insure that even lower wage workers can meet basic needs. They then would have a stake in the system that so rewards the wealthy.

Land, Sea, Air, Space, and Now Cyber

In the American Revolution, George Washington and John Paul Jones fought on land and sea. In World War I, air became a new sphere of warfare. During the Cold War, space joined the others. Within the span of a U.S. election, cyber warfare has thrust itself into national consciousness.

Alarmed by Russian meddling in U.S. elections, Congress and the Justice Department have launched investigations. Recent indictments have been handed down against Russian citizens accused of using social media to foment dissension between Americans of different political beliefs.

Recently, evidence points to foreign attempts to spark controversy over gun rights immediately after the tragic school shootings in Parkland, Florida.

We have entered another theater of war. Playing requires intelligence resources, not big bombs and missiles. Other nations unable to match our military might have intelligence capabilities and a population of educated players.

Misinformation (including fake news), cyber leaks, and danger to utility and other systems are new theaters of war.

Compare the new methods to irregular warfare as practiced by Francis Marion, the “swamp fox,” during the American Revolution, or Che Grevera in Cuba, overcoming stronger conventional armies.

Our defense? A refusal to use social media as a source of news is a good start. Take advantage of the country’s well established newspapers from different shades of the political spectrum.

Domestic Terrorism

On February 5, I quoted from a blog by Jim Wallis, editor-in-chief of Sojourners (written November 17, 2017, after a church shooting in Texas). Today, I’d like to quote further from that blog. Wallis begins by defining terrorism.

“Terrorism: the purposeful violence against civilians, non-combatants, with the intent to create and foster social fear. One gun violence massacre after another has certainly created the fear that our families and children are not safe in their schools, our theatres, our concerts, and even in our churches.”

But we can react in different ways to this fear, Wallis points out. Our fear can be stoked toward buying even more guns. In that case, more guns are available for disturbed young men like the shooter in Parkland, Florida, as well as for use in domestic disturbances or in suicides.

Or we can follow other examples. “Australia came to this conclusion after 35 people were killed in a mass shooting. Conservative Prime Minister John Howard and his party banned semiautomatic and automatic guns and implemented a buyback program, slashing the country’s arsenal by 20 percent and dramatically reducing gun deaths.”

Wallis also discusses ill-conceived interpretations of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“The Second Amendment to the Constitution provides Americans with the right to own guns, ostensibly to protect ourselves from a potentially tyrannous government. But it is absolutely ridiculous to extend that to any weapon that is available, any military weapon a government has. Should every American have the right to own a bazooka, a tank, a rocket launcher, a weaponized drone — how about a nuke?”

Finally, he quoted Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy, affected greatly by the Newtown massacre of children in his state: “My heart sunk to the pit of my stomach, once again, when I heard of today’s shooting in Texas. My heart dropped further when I thought about the growing macabre club of families in Las Vegas and Orlando and Charleston and Newtown, who have to relive their own day of horror every time another mass killing occurs.”

Now add families and friends of those killed at a high school in Parkland, Florida.

“You Lie” vs Not Clapping

Joe Wilson, a U.S. congressman from South Carolina, showed his disagreement with a speech by President Obama in 2009 by yelling “you lie” in the middle of it. He was not tried for treason. So far as I know, although some disliked his interruption (for which he later apologized), no one even suggested treason.

According to the United States Constitution (Article 3, Section 3), “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

How does a refusal to clap for President Trump’s State of the Union speech fit with the Constitution’s definition of treason?

Trump apparently didn’t come right out and say non clappers were treasonous, but he implied it. He used his “somebody” shield, as he often does. “Somebody” suggested treason, Trump said. He answered his alter somebody: “Why not?”

Some nations appear to have a low bar for treason. I’m not sure about North Korean law, but it probably doesn’t matter, since the leader, Kim Jong-un, appears to be the law. One certainly might expect death, with or without a trial, if they openly withheld clapping during one of his speeches.

President Trump appears to admire Kim, saying, “I can tell you this, a lot of people don’t like when I say it, but he was a young man of 26 or 27 when he took over from his father, when his father died. He is dealing with obviously very tough people, in particular the generals and others. And at a very young age he was able to assume power. A lot of people I am sure tried to take that power away. Whether it was his uncle or anybody else and he was able to do it, so obviously he is a pretty smart cookie.”

North Korea—are we there yet?

Blessed Silence

Nathaniel Peters names as a sin the “small desire to know more when we have no good reason for knowing it.” (“Saving Silence; Unlearning the Sin of Curiosity,” Plough Quarterly, Summer, 2017)

We don’t have to let the internet waylay us with juicy tidbits when we are merely checking the weather.

Peters quotes Rod Dreher in using the term “technological asceticism” to define the process of weaning ourselves from our devices.

Technological discipline (a term I prefer) requires more than lip service to our need for inward journeys and for building up our communities. Finding more time for these pursuits requires a positive act of limiting our time with technical gizmos.

We can hold as sacrosanct the ritual of meals and times with family and friends. We can limit our digital devices to certain times of the day.

Technology retreats can include weekends of silence and meditation. Another version is a time of dedicated face-to-face sharing with friends.

Weigh the value of following the latest scandal compared to needs for personal growth and community.

A Full Life: Reflections at Ninety by Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter was an anomaly. An unwavering born-again Christian from the Bible Belt, he forged a presidency along liberal paths.

His administration produced a national healthcare plan, which he described in his book. “Our plan protected all Americans from catastrophic illness costs; extended comprehensive health coverage to all low-income citizens; gave total coverage to all mothers and babies for prenatal, delivery, postnatal, and infant care; promoted competition and cost containment and provided a clear framework for phasing in a universal, comprehensive national health plan.”

Senator Ted Kennedy opposed it, wanting another plan of his own approved. As Carter says, thirty years would pass before another plan was approved with “just partial implementation.”

If Carter had been from any part of the country except the deep South, would his presidency have been more successful? He writes: “Some of the most influential analysts never anticipated my election, and others could not accept having a governor from the Deep South in office.”

Particularly amazing (and tragic) is comparison of the political campaigning of that era with the present one.

Carter and his Republican opponent in the presidential campaign, Gerald Ford (whom Carter highly praises), chose not to raise campaign funds from corporate or private donors. Both used funds collected from the income tax form allowing $1 dollar to be donated to campaigns (now $3). According to Carter (writing in 2016), this fund has not been used since 2004.

It’s hard to imagine the differences from the political campaigns of today, which have become contests mostly between wealthy American donors.

As president, Carter was a serious reader as was his family. He commented,“All of us are avid readers, and it was during the weekends that I had a chance to catch up on back reading .”

Carter also exercised every afternoon by running from five to seven miles.

He mentions the efforts he put in to prepare for summit meetings, studying briefing books on political and economic matters and about the leaders he would be meeting.

Easy to note the contrasts between Carter and the current occupant of the Oval Office.

Why Solutions Begin Locally, Not at the Top

“The Firs” is the name of a close community of trailer home families in a Seattle neighborhood. They rent the land for the trailer homes that they own. Their modest homes answer a need for working class housing in a city of soaring rents and home prices.

However, this land offers more material value as a site for a hotel and apartment complex. The owner of the land wishes to profit from such a proposed new development and so has told the residents of the trailer park to leave.

He says, “They want to stay there forever . . . why should I solve the problem? I already gave them a lot of notice.” He offered to give $2,000 to each owner after they leave. (“A Mobile-Home Community Fights Development,” The Seattle Times, January 28, 2018, Erika Schultz and Christine Willmsen)

It’s doubtful if residents of The Firs can find communities as affordable as their present one. Some of the trailers are too old to be moved without destroying them. Plus, their close knit neighborliness would be lost.

Yet costs of homelessness are not usually factored in when affordable neighborhoods are swapped for condos for the more well off. Nor are the emotional costs of those who barely hold on in a constant fight to balance housing with food and medical care.

Capitalism is a wonderful servant but a terrible master. It is the soul of efficiency: the best use of resources—farms, mines, land—for making money for owners. This best use for owners, however, may conflict with the best use of less powerful citizens.

Yet, for both capitalism and democracy to survive, ordinary citizens must reap their benefits, not just owners and the wealthy. Capitalism must be made to serve, not treated as a god.

“Power is directed at the top. . . . Actual work can start only at the bottom, at home and underfoot, where the causes and the effects actually reside.” (Wendell Berry, The Art of Loading Brush)