I don't know about England or France, but in Spain it was definitely considered un-Christian to bathe on a regular basis.

From about 711 to 1492, the three major "Abrahamic" religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) coexisted in the Iberian peninsula, sometimes convivially and sometimes with various degrees of mutual hostility. In that situation, Christian Spaniards focused on a couple of cultural habits of Jews and Muslims to determine who was who -- notably diet (Christians ate pork, lard, and other pig products; Jews and Muslims didn't) and bathing (Muslims and Jews had ritually prescribed baths, however infrequently; Christians were never ritually required to take a bath, unless you count baptism).

After Christians completed the conquest of the peninsula in 1492, they forced all Jewish Spaniards to convert to Christianity or go into exile; the last remaining Muslims were given the same choice in the early 1600s. The Spanish Inquisition was instituted to make sure the "New Christians" (the converts and their descendants) were sincere Christians. The files of the Holy Office of the Inquisition are full of denunciations of "Judaizing" (i.e. being a "hidden" Jew), or, in some parts of Spain, of being a hidden Muslim. The most commonly cited evidence in these cases is that so-and-so is said to eat bread made with oil (instead of lard), or that he/she takes a bath every Friday night.

Whether Jews or Muslims actually took baths on a regular basis is beside the point; the fact is that Christians associated bathing with heresy, and they avoided it at all costs.

When they later reached Mexico, they were appalled to see that the indigenous peoples of Mexico (the "Aztecs") were very concerned with cleanliness, and regularly purified themselves in sweat lodges (temaxcalli). The Spaniards, through the church, worked hard to put an end to that almost everywhere in Mexico.

Mobility can be a great thing -- for ordinary people or for those with the means to hire them. The Economist bloggers are clearly interested in the hiring end of things; they want companies and bosses to be able to attract lots of workers for minimal wages. Another social policy that could dramatically increase worker's mobility and also benefit them (not necessarily the bosses) directly is universal health care. How many of are tied to a job for fear of losing the crucial benefit of health insurance? Taking away my house would make me poorer, not more mobile. But guarantee my health care, and I'll be glad to experiment at creating a new business on my own, and I'll figure out the housing later.

Plot is MacGuffin, sigh.

To date, 4 strips, 20 panels. Kansas pictured in 11 panels. Only drawn 5 times. Photocopied 6 times.

Analysis. 1-1 = 1-3. 1-5 = 2-4 = 3-1 = 3-3 = 3-4. 2-2 = 2-3. Only 1-8 and 2-1 stand alone. Two views from the back. Significant?

A pattern emerges, or doesn't, but Shlomo is in my heart. My farther was the wurst.

Following the links from Jonathan Schwartz's post leads to a wikipedia article on the very useful concept of "learned helplessness" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness). The term refers to a depressive condition that results when a person or animal learns (e.g. through random electric shocks in one of those cruel 1970s-era animal tests) that she/he/it has no control over its circumstances. The key finding of the tests:

In all cases, the strongest predictor of a depressive response was lack of control over the negative stimulus.

It seems to me that this is exactly what the administration and most of the national political establishment (including a good number of Democrats) are trying, consciously or not, to do the American public: convince us, through their non-response to our protests, polls, and votes, that we have no control over the negative results of the Bush years (Iraq, Katrina, the economy, the environment), and thereby induce a collective political depression that keeps us from caring who wins elections. I've heard so many times over the past couple of years that "it doesn't matter who we elect".... That's just what "they" want us to think....

'There's glory for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't--till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master--that's all.'

--Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There (1871)

No xeroxes? Three new images of KOF? I may have to rethink my entire KOFsmovision.

"Legacy of Ashes" and "a dangerous journey in the cold rain" (by jet) are nice touches. "Agrarian Now" is almost funny. Will readers ever cut you any slack?

Tune in next week.