6.20.2020 – Sympathetic thoughts

Sympathetic thoughts.
America cannot be deaf,
to calls such as that.

This was adapted from this paragraph, “While we are thinking of promoting the fortunes of our own people I am sure there is room in the sympathetic thought of America for fellow human beings who are suffering and dying of starvation in Russia. A severe drought in the Valley of the Volga has plunged 15,000,000 people into grievous famine. Our voluntary agencies are exerting themselves to the utmost to save the lives of children in this area, but it is now evident that unless relief is afforded the loss of life will extend into many millions. America cannot be deaf to such a call as that.”

That was said by President Warren G. Harding in the State of Union address on December 6, 1921.

Mr. Harding was referring to problems in Russia at least and not problems at home.

About problems at home, he said, “I am not unaware that we have suffering and privation at home. When it exceeds the capacity for the relief within the States concerned, it will have Federal consideration.”

Mr. Harding also said: “It has been perhaps the proudest claim of our American civilization that in dealing with human relationships it has constantly moved toward such justice in distributing the product of human energy that it has improved continuously the economic status of the mass of people. Ours has been a highly productive social organization. On the way up from the elemental stages of society we have eliminated slavery and serfdom and are now far on the way to the elimination of poverty.

Through the eradication of illiteracy and the diffusion of education mankind has reached a stage where we may fairly say that in the United States equality of opportunity has been attained, though all are not prepared to embrace it. There is, indeed, a too great divergence between the economic conditions of the most and the least favored classes in the com

The further we get from President Harding and the more time we spend in the present, President Harding doesn’t look so bad.

After all is said and done about Mr. Harding, maybe Alice Roosevelt Longworth, daughter of Theodore Roosevelt and Eleanor Roosevelt’s cousin summed him up best when she said, “Harding wasn’t a bad man. He was just a slob.”

I feel like I know what she meant.

6.14.2020 – God’s curiosity

God’s curiosity
about Himself resulted
in what we call us

Last night my wife and I watched the protests in Downtown Atlanta of another police shooting of a black man.

Protesters had managed to line up across a stretch of one of the busiest freeway in United States.

A Wendy’s Restaurant where the shooting took place went up in flames.

Rather than turning up the volume on the protest, my friend and reporter for 11Alive Doug Richards, who was on the scene, said that the fire more of less was freaking out the protesters and they ran for cover.

Talking with my wife as the next day, she asked me, why did God create these differences?

These differences in skin color and size and language.

“Was it to test us?”, she asked.

I was quick to say yes.

God wanted to see how we might handle these differences.

God wanted to see if we would react with fear or confidence.

My wife pointed out that the problems went back, all the way back.

Before the Tower of Babel.

What differences where there, on the surface, between Caine and Able.

Yet Caine hated Abel.

So God knew how we would handle the differences if skin color and language and how to serve food and sing songs.

Not well and God knew it.

So why?

In my reading today, my interest was sparked by the comment about another author, that he wanted to live long enough (this was an old comment) so that Thomas Mann could finish the last book of Joseph and His Brothers.

I don’t know anything about this book except that it has been selected as my summer time read.

I did find this one quote though that intrigued.

“Man, then was a result of God’s curiosity about Himself”, wrote Mr. Mann.

Maybe that is the reason for all the differences.

God creates man.

God creates forgiveness.

God creates salvation.

Maybe God was curious if these new creations had limits.

Maybe God saw the easiest way to test these new creations was to add to man easy avenues to differences.

Would man react with fear or confidence.

And would the new creations be sufficient for these reaction’s.

I am not dumb enough to say this is the answer.

I am willing to consider it.

And I am willing to put forward a possible response by God.

I am reminded of an anecdote told by the veteran actor of film and stage, Rex Harrison.

Mr. Harrison was on Johnny Carson or maybe an the old Dick Cavett show, but he told a story of how he was in London, rehearsing a play by George Bernard Shaw.

Sorry to say I cannot recall or Mr. Harrison did not name the play.

ANYWAY, Mr. Harrison and the other cast members were having problems with one scene.

The could not, they felt, get it right.

What was the Mr. Shaw after the cast wondered?

No one could agree on anything except that whatever they were trying to do just did not work on stage.

Then, wonder of wonder, George Bernard Shaw himself came by to watch the rehearsal.

Mr. Harrison and the cast called to him and brought him up on stage.

WHAT DID YOU MEAN and WHERE WERE YOU GOING in this scene, they asked.

Mr. Shaw took a copy of the script and sat down to read.

He read through a few pages.

He turned the script back and read through a few pages.

He turned the script back again and read through a few pages.

Mr. Shaw looked up at the cast, cleared his throat and said, “This really is bad isn’t it?”

I like to think God knew what he was doing from square one.

I like to think that for God, there are no surprises.

I would not, anyway, be surprised if God was curious, as if in a lab experiment, about his latest creation.

I would not be surprised if God decided to give to curiosity and create man.

I for one, have no problem, letting God be God and do what he wants.

And I would not be surprised if God admitted that the results, how we handled or behaved or lived with, his new creation, seems to be turning out really bad, isn’t it?

6.4.2020 – 8 minutes, long time

8 minutes, long time
sit and think for 8 minutes
long time, 8 minutes

How long is 8 minutes?

JFK and the 6 seconds in Dallas

US Army bombers and 30 seconds over Tokyo

The minute waltz by Frederic Chopin lasts one minute.

The Kentucky Derby is known as ‘The Most Exciting Two Minutes in Sports’

Eggs cook in three minutes.

The Miracle at Midway took 5 minutes.

The average drive across the Mackinac Bridge takes 6 minutes.

The song Hey Jude last 7 minutes.

When you think about it.

8 minutes is a long time.

What goes through your mind in 8 minutes?

If you were holding someone down, what would you be thinking of for 8 minutes.

If you couldn’t breathe, what would you be thinking of for 8 minutes.

8 minutes is a long time.

How long should 8 minutes that change the world last?

8 minutes is a long time.

8 minutes can be a life time.

6.3.2020 – emotional lives

emotional lives
wonderfully intricate
as music of Bach

Jim Harrison writes in his book, Sundog;

People can be truly amazing.

I got this little theory, an utterly unimportant theory, that most people never know more vaguely where they are, either in time or in the scheme of things.

People can’t read contracts or time schedules or identify countries on blank maps.

Why should they?

I don’t know.

There’s a wonderful fraudulence to literacy.

Yet these same people have emotional lives as intricate as that Bach piece.

Arlo Gutherie once said something along the lines of, “We got to remember who we are so when other people stop for a moment and wonder if its possible to get along in this world, we can be doing that for them. In a world that sucks, you don’t have to do very much at all to make a difference in this world. You can do more with just a smile, hold somebody, say hello to somebody.

Sometimes you make a difference just by showing up.

So many of my friends and relatives are turning up these days in unexpected places.

In parks.

In downtowns.

In streets.

It cities.

In towns.

Amazing people doing amazing this things.

5.31.2020 – silence, loudest sound

silence, loudest sound
When look to Presidents for
meaning and comfort

I tried to think of moments in history where people looked to their leaders for words of meaning and comfort.

It is easy to come up with Winston Churchill’s, “Let them do their worst. We shall do out best” and “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.”

It is also easy to forget Herbert Hoover’s , ““Any lack of confidence in the economic future or the basic strength of business in the United States is foolish,” said in January, 1930.

But silence.

I think of the death of Diana, at one time, the Princess of Wales.

I think of how the people of the Great Britain demanded that the Queen, “SHOW US YOU CARE.”

I very much fell that way today.

Where is the President?

Where is the person I was taught whose number one job was to ‘educate the people.’

This is the only job the entire country votes for.

I don’t want to mess around with the popular vote right now.

I have heard it all.

His opponent won by more votes.

But few Republicans voted in California in 2016.

That is neither here no there for this point.

This feller had the job.

Part of the job is to show their empathy and steadfastness in caring for the lives of average Americans.

As David Gergan said in a CNN Opinion piece, “But we should pause for one more moment to recognize how sad and sharp a departure his silence is from past traditions of the presidency moments of crisis.”

His silence.

Let that word fall on the crowd like a wet blanket.

Silence.

Sometimes silence is the loudest noise of all.

PS – For the ease of everyone I reproduce the David Gergan op ed, “In a sad week for America, Trump has fled from his duty”

This past week has brought tragedy upon tragedy to our nation: the death toll from Covid-19 passed a grim milestone of 100,000 deaths; the brutal killing of George Floyd ignited mass protests in Minneapolis and beyond, and seven people were shot in protests demanding justice in Louisville. But our President was mostly busy with other things: getting into a public fight with Twitter, condemning China over Hong Kong and terminating our relationship with the World Health Organization — an entity that once looked to the United States as the world’s leading institution in fighting pandemics.

President Donald Trump also took time, of course, to send out a stream of new, controversial tweets. He called protesters in Minneapolis “thugs” and repeated a racist line from a Miami police chief years ago, “When the looting starts, the shooting starts.” He even retweeted a video in which a supporter says, “The only good Democrat is a dead Democrat.” But other than a brief tweet in the midst of another storm, Trump remained silent on the most sensitive issue of his presidency: the pandemic that is killing so many older Americans and people of color living near the edge.

Understandably, with the rash of other news, the press is moving on. But we should pause for one more moment to recognize how sad and sharp a departure his silence is from past traditions of the presidency moments of crisis. After George Washington was sworn as commander in chief of the Continental Army, Ethan Allen’s younger brother, Levi, wrote to Washington in 1776 that he had become “Our political Father and head of a Great People.” Shortly thereafter, Washington was frequently referred to as “Father of Our Country.” As he steered us through war, the constitutional
convention, and two terms as President, the phrase caught on. He wasn’t much of a speaker — he thought his deeds spoke for him — but he was a leader of such strong character and rock-solid integrity that he became the gold standard of the presidency.


Lincoln began his presidency during great uncertainty about his leadership. He won the election of 1860 with the smallest plurality ever (39%), and his military experience was virtually nil. But over time, he kindled a special relationship with Union soldiers, many of whom called him “Father
Abraham.” Historians say his homespun ways, common manner and kindly empathy converted them. In his re-election, soldiers were his greatest supporters.


Franklin Roosevelt was known to be self-involved in his early years, but his struggles with polio transformed him into a caring, compassionate leader. Working families and many people of color thought they had a friend in the White House. So attached did his followers become that when he gave a fireside chat on a summer evening, you could walk down the streets of Baltimore and hear every word as families sat in their living room by a radio.


Historians generally agree that Washington, Lincoln and FDR were our greatest presidents. All three are remembered for their empathy and steadfastness in caring for the lives of average Americans. They continue to set the standard.


In contemporary times, it is harder for any president to sustain deep ties with a majority of Americans. We are too sharply divided as a people, and the internet often brings out the worst in us. Even so, several of our recent presidents have found moments when they can unify us and make us feel that at the end of the day, we are indeed one people. In many cases, these moments have come to define their presidencies: Ask any American adult and they can generally remember one, two or even three occasions in which recent presidents connected with us emotionally, stirring our hearts.
I remember with absolute clarity the Challenger disaster in 1986. One saw the plumes of the rising space craft against a bright blue sky — and then that horrific explosion as it instantly disappeared.

Ronald Reagan was one of the few presidents in our history who expressed our emotions so well in
a moment of shock and mourning. For hour upon hour, the networks had replayed the explosion, and it seemed so meaningless. But then Reagan used his speech to replace that picture in our minds with a different one: the astronauts waving goodbye. They became our heroes, especially as Reagan (drawing upon speechwriter Peggy Noonan) closed with lines from a World War II poem: “We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for their journey
and waved goodbye and ‘slipped the surly bonds of earth’ to ‘touch the face of God.'”

One thinks, too, of Bill Clinton traveling to Oklahoma City after the bombing there of a federal building in 1995. Clinton, like Reagan, was at his best when he captured tangled emotions and gave meaning to deaths of some of our finest citizens. He not only consoled families in private but moved the nation when he mourned them publicly. As I recall, that’s when presidents were first called “Mourners in Chief” — a phrase that has been applied repeatedly to presidents since. (Not coincidentally, Clinton’s speech of mourning in Oklahoma City is widely credited with resurrecting his presidency, then in the doldrums.)

One remembers, too, George W. Bush standing on the top of a crushed police car in the rubble of the World Trade Center bombing. When a first responder said he couldn’t hear the President, Bush responded through his bullhorn: “I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.”

One also remembers Barack Obama flying again and again to speak at gravesites where young children or church parishioners were being buried, victims gunned down in a gun-obsessed nation. Thinking about the mass shooting at Emanuel African Methodist Church in Charleston, one’s mind returns to the image of the President of the United States leading a memorial service, singing “Amazing Grace.”


Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama — two Republicans, two Democrats — served as our “Mourners in Chief.” All four bound us together for a few moments, and we remembered who we are and who we can be. Why has our current “Mourner in Chief” gone AWOL? God knows. But his flight from responsibility is yet another sadness among this week’s tragic losses.