Black Lives Matter Global Network uses a non-profit fundraising technology company used by many democrats and leftist organizations, ActBlue(1). This organization has at least three branches(2): one for 501(c)3s – charities, one of 501(c)4s – civics, and one for a PAC. BLM uses the charities branch as a pass-through.
When a person donates via the ActBlue platform, their receipt(3) provides them with a tax ID number that is associated with a 501(c)3 charity called Thousand Currents(4), formerly legally known as IBEX.
Thousand Currents entered into a fiscal sponsorship agreement with Black Lives Matter back in 2016(5,6). This makes BLM basically a “project” of the legally recognized, pre-existing charity(7). The group running the Black Lives Matter website, the women who started the hashtag, do not have their own 501(c)3 or tax ID number. Some local chapters, and some scams, do.
Audits and 990 Filings are published on Thousand Currents’ website(8), and 990s are available through the IRS. They document that (at least for a year after the donation is made) the sponsoring organization is holding donations earmarked for BLM in a separate account, restricted from general fund use. These funds are by far the majority of their revenue. These tax documents also record paying the salary of the managing director of BLM.
As far as I can tell, there are no public breakdowns of how money donated to Black Lives Matter is allocated. Since suspicions(9,10) have been making internet rounds this week, BLM has announced a $6.5 million fund(11) to support local affiliates in grassroots organizing work. They also announced intentions to develop a curriculum in line with their worldview and activism goals. Accusations that funds donated through Black Lives Matter were funneled directly by ActBlue’s PAC to Democrat candidates seem to be unfounded. However, the fine print(12) on ActBlue does say that allocated funds from uncashed checks will be moved to ActBlue to support its “social welfare activities” (if you were donating to a 501(c)4) or ActBlue Charities (if you were donating to a 501(c)3). I have not been able to determine how such funds are used. 
(2) ActBlue, “What is the difference between ActBlue, ActBlue Civics, AB Charities, and ActBlue Technical Services?”, accessed June 12, 2020 https://support.actblue.com/donors/about-actblue/what-is-the-difference-between-actblue-actblue-civics-ab-charities-and-actblue-technical-services/?fbclid=IwAR3j5frLc-aQ7IctBXvG9-3XQgRmemMqmJCiCZ2K00bxd5Ob5qMrz-knv10 
(3) Taylor @_aambush on Twitter June 1, 2020, accessed June 12, 2020 https://mobile.twitter.com/_aambush/status/1267681478739099648?fbclid=IwAR0MT2PbxPxRHwM6P1TiZOUUs2AdsmAkRGf-rsGiS7ccUZoIYnUVoqNJaSQ (also many such examples when googling images including Tax ID 77-0071852)
(5) Thousand Currents Press Release: “IDEX and Black Lives Matter announce global partnership” September 6, 2016, accessed June 12, 2020 https://thousandcurrents.org/idex-and-black-lives-matter-announce-global-partnership/?fbclid=IwAR3j5frLc-aQ7IctBXvG9-3XQgRmemMqmJCiCZ2K00bxd5Ob5qMrz-knv10 
(7) National Council of Nonprofits: “Fiscal Sponsorship for Nonprofits”, accessed June 12, 2020 https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/tools-resources/fiscal-sponsorship-nonprofits
(8) Thousand Currents Financials, website and PDFs accessed June 12, 2020 https://thousandcurrents.org/financials/?fbclid=IwAR1UaJ-AxOquTrAa8ZBOwiO_127h14k0l7cqPq1jD4Jf8ukCKcwslh514PI 
(10) Candace Owens @RealCandaceO on Twitter, June 10, 2020 accessed June 12, 2020 https://twitter.com/RealCandaceO/status/1270874599635529732 
(11) Black Lives Matter: “Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation announces $6.5 million fund to support organizing work” June 11, 2020, accessed June 12, 20200 https://blacklivesmatter.com/black-lives-matter-global-network-foundation-announces-6-5-million-fund-to-support-organizing-work/?fbclid=IwAR0c7rENZ85iVg1d7I5hoH8lPEb1smi6FS7Vpz_aR0O47cmNP8ZCmCFK-wM 
(12) ActBlue: The Fine Print, “Re-designation of Contributions”, accessed June 12, 2020 https://secure.actblue.com/content/fineprint 
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn


Herd immunity.
The idea that after a certain number of people in a group are immune to a pathogen, it progressively becomes almost impossible for the pathogen to spread broadly.

If we could choose which of the members of society to be exposed to the pathogen and so become immune, but not all members have equal risk of harm or death from the disease, how would we decide?

For an extremely simplified example, suppose there are 1000 people in our herd. As more of them recover, the disease is less and less likely to spread. But (also just for a simple example) it takes until 50% (500) before the virus is basically no longer a threat.

100 of the herd, Zs, if they catch the virus, are known to be more likely to suffer harm or to die (maybe 5% of the infected Zs will die). When they die, they reduce the numerator and the denominator for the future – future being the realm where herd immunity continues to be useful. But to keep this simple, I am ignoring this small fact in the math.

200, the Xs, say, have almost zero risk of harm or death, but they can still contribute to the percentage of the herd that needs to be immune in order to have herd immunity.

In between, we have the other 700, the Ys, who have a varying risk of death, but let’s say it averages to 1% of the infected.

Scenario 1: If we select people at random to bear the burden of exposure, sickness, and hopeful survival into an immune state, a high percentage of the vulnerable Zs will die. Herd immunity may take longer to accomplish. 500/1000 will have to get and survive the disease. Around 50 will be Zs. Two or three Zs will die. About 350 Ys will catch it. Three or four of them will die. Around 100 Xs will catch it. None of them will die.
Total death count would be five to seven.

Scenario 2: If we prevent most of the least vulnerable Xs from being exposed, but don’t prevent others (Ys and Zs) from being exposed, then an even higher portion of the most vulnerable will be exposed, sickened, and die from the disease. 500/800 will have to get and survive the disease. Around 62 or 63 Zs will catch it. About three will die. Around 438 Ys will catch it. Four or five will die. No Xs catch it. None die.
Total death count seven or eight.

Scenario 3: If we choose to reverse this, and carefully prevent the most vulnerable from being exposed, while allowing the risks to be more or less evenly distributed among the Xs and Ys, we will have built herd immunity with less total harm and death. 500/900 will have to get and survive the disease. For the sake of argument, we are perfect at protecting the 100 Zs. None get it. None die. 389 Ys catch it. About four die. About 111 Xs catch it. None die.
Total death count is four.

Which scenario do you support, and why?

Which is closest to what our leaders have chosen for us?

Please note. There is real data that could be substituted, for the percent of our population that is of a certain age, for example.

We could stratify the Ys into more age or vulnerability brackets.

The infection fatality rates assumed for the sake of simplification are not accurate, but they are somewhat close. They are least accurate for Ys, I believe.

We actually aren’t perfect at sheltering any group of people. For simplicity, I assumed that all Zs, in Scenario 3, were protected, and all Xs, in Scenario 2. The real world is less sharply divided. However, I believe this example is demonstrative because it is such a small number relative to our total population.

Finally, there is some interesting thought about the most social* people being the most likely, quickest, and most necessary group to get infected for the purposes of herd immunity, which could affect this example, both in the total percentage required for herd immunity, and also for the natural tendencies that are not the same as mathematically random selections of the infected.

*Social defined here as having near physical contact. It doesn’t have to be in a way that involves communication; proximity could work.

To God be all glory,

Lisa of Longbourn

I care about disparity in wealth: I want more disparity between starvation levels and the poorest poor. If the richest rich also increase their prosperity in so doing, I have no objection to letting them. 

Of course, I think it is also good to exhort rich and poor to work hard; to seek to add value to the world; to buy and sell goods and labor at just and honest prices; and to be generous to the unfortunate poor.

I am convinced that shutting down and discouraging such large parts of our economies increases the disparity between the richest rich and everyone else. The poorest poor are even more facing starvation, after decades of reducing starvation around the world. And much of the financially-stable middle class is being sunk into poverty. 

Sure, the richest rich are not making as much money, but they are still making it, and they are not in danger of losing the power and influence their money buys. To the contrary, the richest rich are posturing for greater influence in a panicked world controlled by central planners more than ever. 

Meanwhile, the way our US government is addressing the lockdowns, rather than re-opening, is to borrow a whole bunch of money with which to pay paltry sums to poorer individuals, and money in the millions to the already influential lobbies representing the interests of the richest rich. 

Free people engaging in free economy is the most effective means of resisting corruption and improving the economic status of the poor.

To God be all glory, 

Lisa of Longbourn

If the Treasury Secretary started issuing orders for which US Navy ships should go where, is it the Christian thing to do for the captains to submit to that governing authority?
Of course not! Our government is not set up for the Treasury Secretary to have authority to command the military.

A Christian captain conscientiously obeying Romans 13’s directive to be subject to governing authorities is still doing so while disregarding the authority presumptions of our hypothetical Secretary.

Neither is the United States set up to give anyone in government the authority to command us not to assemble, or gather for worship, or to speak, or for the press to investigate and report.

To God be all glory,

Lisa of Longbourn

Before Christmas I read a quote about feasts by GK Chesterton, and since it intrigued me, I tracked down the source. This involved my embarrassingly asking the Facebook Group which had posted the quote, whence it came – only to be told that the citation was the very first thing in the post, preceding the quote. Much of Chesterton’s work is available free online, so I set about to find the entire article, from The Illustrated London News 1906. It may be scanned in somewhere, but not easily searched nor found.

In my searching, I did run across the existence of printed volumes of GK Chesterton’s articles, so my next effort was to find a copy at a library to which I had access. In this I was again nearly thwarted by the fact that all the volumes were contained in the same catalog entry, so that I was unsure how to request only one (without driving an hour or more each way to access the library in person). I decided to risk the request, imagining that even if the wrong volume was sent, it would likely be worthwhile to read anyway. The electronic catalog was better than my estimation, and I was today able to pick up the exact volume bearing the article I sought, along with several books about geysers, volcanoes, and pillar-cobbled causeways made from cooled lava flows. 

All of this is a hopefully amusing introduction to my much shorter actual reason for writing this blog post: As I read one entry from the middle of a collection of weekly essays written by the witty Chesterton, and began the next, I had the exact feeling I get when I flip to the middle of a Calvin & Hobbes collection, and realize that I am intruding on a story already in progress, and that I do not know how many editions backward I must retreat in order to enter at the episode’s gate. 

And the fact of this coincidental phenomenon led me to the discovery of a fact. Chesterton and Watterson were in the same business; their art delved into the same themes; their skills produce the same enduring delight mixed with education. I don’t know if GK Chesterton ever saw a sketch of a phalanx of garish snowmen, but if he had, I feel sure he would have approved. 

To God be all glory, 

Lisa of Longbourn

This Christmas, I selected Mary as the theme of my etymologies. Please note that this is not a Bible study, but an etymology study of the English words used in the story of Mary from the Gospel of Luke. With the exception of the name, Mary, none of these etymologies touch on the Greek words used in the original text. Because of the nature of this post, I discourage you using it to draw interpretations or applications from Mary’s character or circumstances.

Mary – As the name of a Jewish woman in Israel, is predictably from Hebrew, Miriam, literally “rebellious”, from the root mârâh, which means “to be bitter, to rebel, to be disobedient, to resist, provoke, change”.
blessed – This word has been a part of English since the 12th century, meaning “supremely happy” or “consecrated and holy”. From bless, Old English bletsian, “to consecrate by sprinkling blood”. It shares the same root as blood. The definition having to do with happiness is newer, and was probably influenced by the unrelated bliss.
blood – A word from the Proto-Germanic *blodham, also meaning “blood”. Perhaps came from a Proto-Indo-European root for “that which bursts out”, *bhlo-to-, also the proposed root of bloom and blow.
bliss – Since Old English days, this word has has meant “bliss, merriment, happiness, grace, favor”, from Proto-Germanic *blithiz, “gentle, kind”. It was probably influenced to have a more spiritual or heavenly idea of happiness because of its similarity to bless.
favor – First an Old French term: “a favor; approval, praise; applause; partiality”, favor comes from Latin favorem, “good will, inclination, partiality, support”, coined by Cicero from favere “to show kindness to”, from Proto-Indo-European *ghow-e- “to honor, revere, worship”. Etymologists believe the Old Norse word ga, “to heed”, comes from the same Proto-Indo-European root.
maidservant – This compound word shows up in English in the 1520’s.
maid – “Unmarried, young”, maid often referring to a virgin woman. It was, in its early decades, used as a sort of shorthand for the Virgin Mary. The term was also early on applied to young unmarried men, but not anymore. Shortened from maiden, which is in Old English mægden, with essentially the same meaning. The -en is a diminutive – that is, it comes from a word meaning “woman”, and the suffix tells us it is a little woman, or a younger woman. But this word for woman, mægeð, also had a connotation of inexperience, or of one yet “growing in power”. From a Proto-Indo-European root *maghu, which referred to young people of either sex, and became the root of words in other languages for “unmarried”, “slave”, or in Old English, “son, male descendant, child”. I think the Old Irish, maug, meaning “slave” is one of the most interesting cognates, given the late evolution in English of maiden into maid, meaning “domestic servant, housekeeper”.
servant – From the root serve, servant appeared in 12th century English as “to render habitual obedience to”. From Old French servir “to do duty toward, show devotion to; set table, serve at table; offer, provide with”. In many cases, the Latin root of this French word was used of slaves, not only people rendering voluntary service. There is debate about the origin of this Latin word, servire. Is it from Etruscan names? From a sense of “binding”, as in Latin sero? Or is it from a Proto-Italic word meaning “to heed and observe, to shepherd”?
woman – One of the most ordinary words in our modern English language, the etymology of this Late Old English word, then spelled wimman, is interesting and contested. Most etymologists think that the earlier form was wifman, an obviously compound word attested in literature. Man, at that period, meant “a human”. Wif meant “woman”, revealing that the Late Old English (and our word, too), is a silly compound literally meaning “woman-man”. Other etymologists speculate that rather than wifman, woman derived from womb-man. Other languages have such terms, but none of the sources I read were able to cite examples of this progression in English. Some etymologists believe wif comes from the same root as weave, and refers to a woman’s role in medieval English homes as a weaver of clothes. Others suggest a root meaning “to tremble”. Digging further back, other etymologists suggest wif comes from Proto-Germanic *wiban, also meaning “woman”. (It took a while for wif to specifically refer to a married woman.) We deduce from the fact that speakers made the word wifman that wif alone at that time didn’t do enough standing alone to communicate “woman”. But we’re not sure why. Nor do etymologists have consensus whence the Proto-Germanic word comes.
womb – The Old English ancestor of this word referred to “the womb, belly, or even the heart”?! From Proto-Germanic *wambo, the source mostly of other Germanic languages’ “womb” words, but also in Old English the root of a word for “child”, umbor. Most likely comes from a root meaning “bulge” or “swelling”.
magnify – Our English word hasn’t changed much from Latin’s magnificare, “esteem greatly, extol, make much of”. Ultimately, it comes from a combination of two Proto-Indo-European roots, *meg- “great” and *dhe- “to set, put”. The predecessor to magnificare in Latin meant “someone who does great deeds”. Unlike many other words having to do with praise, magnifying almost cannot invent virtue; it must be earned – just like a magnifying glass cannot make a small thing to exist, but only draw attention to it.
An Etymological Dictionary of the English Language by Walter William Skeat
With reference to a few other old etymological dictionaries.
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn

You wake up in the passenger seat of a car. The driver has abducted you. You’re in pain, and disoriented. After a moment, you realize you are bleeding badly. By the grace of God you overcome the driver within a few blocks of the hospital and take control of the car. If you don’t get to the emergency room soon, you could die. The problem is, you’re in traffic; pedestrians are crossing at the crosswalk ahead. If you don’t run them over, you know that your time is short, and you might not even survive to make it to the hospital. You are in this horrible situation through no fault of your own. Is there any way you could justify choosing to run over the innocent people in the crosswalk?

To God be all glory,

Lisa of Longbourn

Bramble Bake

I can hardly believe I’m writing this, because I am generally very conservative (literally) about words.  I try not to change them.  In my opinion, this aids in communication, and communication is much more important to me than words – even though words are beautiful and exciting treasure-maps… I digress. 

About a year ago, I discovered Baked French Toast.  That stuff is good, and it is so much easier than frying bread a few slices at a time.  It isn’t French Toast.  It probably shouldn’t even say “French Toast” in the name, since it isn’t fried in butter, and that’s an important distinction. 

Then in the spring I was researching recipes for my friends’ annual potluck St. Patrick’s Day party, and I ran across a recipe for bread pudding that sounded a whole lot like Baked French Toast.  So I did some research.  Yep.  Same thing.  Also, if you don’t use cream and you make it more savory, it’s the same thing as “dressing” (or, if you put it inside a bird you’re roasting, “stuffing”) at Thanskgiving and Christmas.  It is even basically  identical to Monkey Bread. 

If you get really broad, maybe even what we call “casseroles” could be in the same category.  A starch is chopped up, mixed with other sweet or savory fillings, soaked in a sauce, and baked. 

One of my friends long ago persuaded me that “casserole” is a yucky word.  This was at the same time that I was first considering eating them.  The best alternative term we could come up with was “hot dish”, that some small sections of our country use for the same thing.  But it sounds so pedantic. 

Enter “bramble bake”.  Today.  I saw a recipe on Pinterest for a “Blueberry Bramble Bake”, which, it turned out, was a bread pudding with blueberries and cream cheese.  But the name, as the Dread Pirate Roberts and Anne of Green Gables would agree, is the important thing, and “bramble bake” rang in my ears.  I hoped that it simply already was the elusive term I’d been waiting for.  Maybe it was, except that none of the rest of the world realized. 

Back in history – and history about words matters to me – it seems that it meant something baked out of the fruit of a thorny shrub, like blackberries are.  “Bramble” is a word for such a plant, and it conjures images of tangled branches, blends of depth and shadow, sprinkled with a surprise of sweetness or other sharp point here and there.  And after people grew tired of only using the phrase for actual bramble pastries, it came to be applied to things baked with other berries. 

Here’s where we enter the scene.  Because “bramble” is a lovely metaphor for the collection of flavors and textures jumbled together and baked, I am inviting you to join me in using “bramble bake” to describe all of the things in this blog: baked French toasts, bread puddings, dressings and stuffings, casseroles and hot dishes. 

What are your favorite bramble bakes? 

To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn

When people say “before I was a parent, I expected _____ about raising kids, but now…” What it kind of sounds like to me is “don’t bother spending these waiting years preparing to be a good parent; you’ll only get it wrong.” Thing is, I sincerely disagree.

I know preparation isn’t the same as living it. But the solution to the barren thinking they would never let their kids throw fits in grocery stores is to share your experience, not put them down for trying to plan well and aim for good things. I think it is a huge problem that many people enter parenthood with so little experience, training (discipleship), or intentionality. They have no idea what are reasonable expectations.

On the other hand, believe it or not, many childless people have lots of experience interacting with non-ideal children. Some have seen lots of different homes and had more time and less personal investment (defensiveness) to synthesize what they’ve learned. It isn’t everything. It is NO justification for them being arrogant or judgmental. But God seemed to put parents together with non-parents, in community, so maybe we could learn from each other and encourage one another instead of silencing our companions.

How Jesus Sounds

I have never realized it before, and perhaps that’s a ridiculous fact, since I’ve read the gospels over and over, heard Sunday school stories and sermons and Christian songs for decades.  But just tonight I realized how easy it is to relate to so many different people Jesus spoke to while on earth.


Here’s how I described them on Facebook earlier, and I relate to every single type, at least a little:

[I’m] remembering what Jesus sounds like, to mothers and rich young rulers and zealous disciples and grieving women, to those sitting at His feet and those longing to be healed, to the inquirers who aren’t sure there’s hope for them, to askers of silly questions, to doubters and fearers and sinners and strivers. To little children and we who aspire to be like them. To goad-kickers and prison-wait-ers.


To God be all glory,

Lisa of Longbourn