A Christmas Card

One cell, suspended.

One smallest beam of

purest light breaks in 

And through…

Two cells now, but joined

That light reverberating,

Finding strength in the shared

Boundaries, gaining rather than 

Diminishing in brilliance

Four cells, then eight

Momentum surging, energy

Creating life, life creating the space

To chase its prescribed destiny

To become more light

A mass of cells, pulsing

In the process of recreating

Itself over and over, that first beam

Illuminating a million microscopic stars

An infinity of light, and a new definition

Of what it means to shine. 

Form emerges, fully familiar 

yet never seen before or since. 

Surprisingly, unpredictably human 

Curled tight and warm inside the womb

Nodding along with the nearby heart

Beating for them both, preparing

For the coming separation

The light undeniable

Reaching to the cosmos

Announcing its manifestation 

In language older than time or space

The universe shifts, aligns itself

In reverence and obedience,

Projecting through one single star…

Time centers around the light

The darkening of what was before

Contrast for the emerging radiance.

The hearts inside unjoin and beat

Each on their own at last, but bonded

Beyond the span of flesh and blood, 

Beyond everything and always

The definition of eternity

The bursting of the boundaries

The cries of the transition, the joyous 

Weeping at the sight of what the light has made.

Love made flesh, suckled at the thankful breast

Light made life, immaculate and pure

The stars bow, and fix their positions

In preparation to guide the journey,

Blessed to participate.

Merry Christmas.

May the light shine forever on your house and on the homes of those you love.

May the stars point you always to your best destiny.

May the infant Christ’s smile be in your heart

Illuminating your life from the inside out.

Love, always

Fran and Gary

Bishop Thomas Tobin Tweet about Biden-Harris

Let me get this straight… in a tweet (ironically) Bishop Thomas Tobin of Rhode Island made a curious observation:

“Biden-Harris. First time in a while that the Democratic ticket hasn’t had a Catholic on it. Sad.”

There is so very much wrong in this simple, short tweet that it beggars the imagination. First of all, Biden is of course a lifelong practicing Catholic, one who has spoken eloquently about his faith in regards to the multiple tragedies that he has been forced to cope with. The nation sees him — appropriately — as a man of character and empathy, regardless of their agreement with his policies. Surely the Bishop is aware of this.

Surely he is. The intent here is, as it has been in past elections, to smear the Democratic candidate because of their stance on abortion. Biden is specifically pro-choice, with a caveat… he has stated repeatedly that while he doesn’t personally approve of it, he feels in a non-sectarian nation it is inappropriate for his personal beliefs to affect law, and the law of the land is specific in that matter.

The effect of this attack (and it is, quite specifically, an attack) is to suggest to Catholics that Joe Biden is not one of them, that he is essentially at odds with his chosen faith, and unwelcome there. The periodic outcome has been to threaten the denial of the Eucharist to Biden when he visits unfamiliar churches and to challenge his self-identification. This sort of situational purity test is astonishingly hypocritical and self-destructive, particularly coming at a time when the church is fighting for public support and relevancy.

Let’s leave aside the obvious inconsistencies involving the denigration of Biden and the elevation of Trump, a choice that is as impossible to reconcile as it is inconsistent with a church that is supposedly apolitical. The bizarre applications of some issues of morality and the studied ignoring of others being practiced by the Bishops is not only at odds with logic but completely at odds with the pronouncements of Pope Francis, whose criticisms of the present administration have been neither subtle nor hidden. Let’s just focus on two aspects, one minor and one critical.

The minor one would be a particular messenger. Bishop Thomas J. Tobin might be a familiar name, if even vaguely; his fifteen seconds of fame came during the extraordinary revelations of the Pittsburgh Grand Jury in 2018. That report detailed that literally hundreds of priests had molested thousands of children over decades, and hid almost all of it, providing cover for its perpetuation. Bishop Tobin was an official in the Pittsburgh Diocese at the time, and when asked about it acknowledged that he was well aware of the abuses, but that his specific job didn’t require him to report them to authorities.

“… my responsibilities as General Secretary of the diocese did not include clergy assignments or clergy misconduct, but rather other administrative duties… even as an auxiliary bishop, I was not primarily responsible for clergy issues.”

So, Bishop Tobin was acutely aware of the destruction of young lives by priests of his diocese, but was ok with it because, what, he wasn’t being paid to worry about that? This man of God who was fine with such evil around him since it wasn’t his job, is so vehemently against someone else who is conscientiously doing his own job? If memory serves, Jesus was fairly specific in his thoughts on such hypocrisy by religious leaders…

Let’s keep moving on. The major issue is the hypocrisy of the church in demanding that someone holding a different position than doctrine no longer consider themselves a Catholic. Picking that particular fight seems to be an odd choice, and one that if followed would significantly end the relevancy of the Roman Catholic church in America, if not the world.

Let’s begin the carnage.

OK, first and easiest, all of you Catholics who support a women’s right to choose, you’re not welcome at Friday’s Fish Fry. Please leave.

All of you Catholics who have used birth control, or who support its use, please step outside. Your donations are no longer welcome. The church’s position on this issue is quite specific.

All of you Catholics who support the death penalty, please get up and leave. I’d note that includes our President, but by all accounts, he’s not been seen at a pew in years. Trump just recently reinstated the death penalty for federal crimes and wasted no time in taking a couple of lives.

While we’re discussing awkward positions of the administration, Pope Francis has been quite specific and vocal about his repudiation of the actions of the President in denying sanctuary to refugees and his general behavior at the border… something about welcoming the stranger and all that. If memory again serves, I believe that Trump was fairly indignant about the Father’s suggestion that someone who built walls rather than bridges might not be faithful to Christ’s wishes. So, all of you Trump Republicans… please exit quietly.

LGBTQ, the recent moves in your direction were obviously a mistake. Swish on out of here, and please take your friends, those who believe in your rights, with you.

As we’re looking at this, it’s not what you personally believe, but what you allow others to believe that is enough for ex-communication. Biden doesn’t say that he approves of abortion — actually, the reverse — but that it’s not his place to impose his beliefs on the nation.

Apparently, that’s the proper role of the church, so let’s get going.

OK, let’s see what we have left. We’ve kicked out everyone who believes in the right to choose (or in allowing others that right); we’ve removed all of those who use or approve of contraception; we’ve evicted everyone who supports the President’s edicts on immigration, border policies, and capital punishment. People who love differently, and those who just love people who love differently, are history. I think we’ve about covered it… we should be pure now.

Pretty empty in here… with a relatively few exceptions, all that remain are a bunch priests who sexually abuse children and those cowards who protect and support them. At least Bishop Tobin should be comfortable with his peers now.

If this is what the Catholic Church would like to be, the policies that they believe Christ desires and are in the interests of their flocks, have at it… but at least have the chutzpah to stand up and say it out loud. Turn down the donations of those who you feel are unworthy of calling themselves Catholic, and shut your doors to anyone that varies from your standards. Acknowledge that all politicians are excommunicated unless they disavow the constitution, and only govern by your wishes.

Once upon a time, Catholics were precluded from public office because it was feared that they would follow the Pope instead of the law. John F. Kennedy was compelled to state that despite his faith, his fealty was to the Constitution. It seems, as far as Bishop Tobin is concerned, JFK had it exactly backward.

This is a test.

The U.S. Bishops must condemn Bishop Tobin, and clarify their position regarding Joe Biden immediately before more damage is done to their own church, and to America’s relationship with it. There must be a simple statement made — one that should never have been necessary — that it is accepted that public officials will enforce the nation’s laws, and that faithful people will be encouraged to practice their faith without intermingling the two.

Oh, and consider putting some distance between the church and that hypocrite in Rhode Island. He seems particularly unsavory and impure.

Hello, and Welcome

There is much in this world that confuses me, that seems inherently wrong, amazingly right, or that is simply disconnected from what I understand the world to be. This section is devoted to those issues, individual commentaries on life’s moments, the world’s happenings, and current events that — for one reason or another — make me feel like I need to share my thoughts on them.

Enter at your own risk, but if you do, your comments are always welcome.

Warmest all

Gary

Grandson Thomas, Age 0

The Insufficiency of Reparations

The following is one of a series of excerpts from a book that I’ve recently written on the subject. If you have a further interest in my take on this topic, please contact me at gadornato@gmail.com for information. Thank you.

The concept of reparations is, of course, almost as old as slavery in America. From the beginning, the practice of human bondage has caused some who engaged in it to challenge themselves, their faith, and their actions loudly even as they purchased the next black family from a ship’s dark hold. They lamented their actions as they passed over their coins and loaded their purchased human beings into their carts. 

Famously, Thomas Jefferson wrote volumes on the subject. He professed slavery to be “a moral depravity” and anticipated the abject punishment of a displeased God. He called for the abolishment of slavery in multiple texts, both in the governance of Virginia and in the founding of the new Republic. He owned over 600 people, spawned a second family with his chattel Sally Hemmings, and still declined to call for their freedom upon his death, as was a common practice among others with similar internal conflicts.

There is no reconciling of the choices that were made, no excusing the Faustian bargain made in seeking financial prosperity through the enslavement of others. There is nothing except that it was amoral and for America, the original sin that gained the nascent country material advantages at the cost of its emerging soul. 

As with all unrepented sins, the cost to the sinner has been far greater than the satisfaction of their choice. Recent analysis suggests that those lost during the Civil War numbered over 750,000 as one in ten white men of military age died either in battle or from related causes. The over 150 years since that carnage have seen the emergence of a country vast in wealth, but constantly struggling with its own conflicted legacy, a nation perpetually besieged by the unresolved and unended oppression of its historical victims.  

For every generation since that time, there have been innumerable fatalities of the most horrific kind is the cause of racism, an uninterrupted line that only paused for a second to pass through the callously ended life of George Floyd under the knee of a police officer. Those transgressions have grown as a festering wound on the heart of America as they have been graphically exposed by technology, precluding plausible denial and forcing open a poison ledger.

It could be reasonably argued that the unfathomable deaths have been the least of the atrocities, and I would be one making that case with some conviction.

Beyond the taking of a life is the usurping the rights, the freedoms, the opportunities, and the dreams of an entire people. Over one-eighth of Americans are black, and the systemic disadvantages imposed on their lives have been unrelenting.  The cost to black Americans has been incalculable, and what the nation has primarily gained is a perpetual struggle from an indefensible position. Pervasive and systemic racism has deprived America of not only its moral bearings but of the unknown potential contributions of fully an eighth of its citizens. It remains as a fault line over which a divided country pulls apart rather than together. Whatever compensations have been assigned to the sin, the cost has beggared the benefit and continues to be paid today by both the sinner and the victimized.

Idea of Reparations

There is a convenience to the conventional idea of reparations, a simplicity that makes it almost palatable for so many on both sides of the black and white fault line. For the black American, it is a minimalist recognition by their oppressors of the worst of their victimization, some grudging acknowledgment of a history that has been almost too painful to contemplate for centuries. For the white American, it is a type of “indulgence”, a financial payment for the forgiveness of sins as was fashionable in the Christian church during Medieval times. It is a salve to a guilty conscious that frees white America from the costs of true repentance and reconciliation. 

Reparations, as is defined in most dictionaries, is the financial compensation of the descendants of slaves for their enslavement. It is simple, clean, tangible.

It is also alarmingly insufficient, a hollow charade that won’t bring either party what they believe that they are bargaining for. At the very best, it can be the first small step towards a useful outcome… at its worst, it is makeup over a cancerous mole.

If we are to consider the idea of reparations as a form of reconciliation, we must first redefine the definition to make it something useful and constructive. The objective of reparations must be to functionally reduce or eliminate the generational damage done by a perverse system of discrimination, and to provide a foundational balance for black Americans to fully participate in a shared nation’s present and future. The definition of the word must encompass all of that, or be rejected.

In searching for a definition that I could identify with, I began with the term reparation itself. As I expected, many of the first definitions found were specifically limited and unhelpful to my purposes. Wikipedia refers to reparations as the following:

“Reparations for slavery is a political justice concept that argues that reparations should be paid to the descendants of slaves.”     

My personal aversion to the concept of monetizing the atrocities of slavery is not based on some denial that it is deserved but rather arises from a pair of competing calculations: first, that any fiscal allocation that accurately represented the pain and suffering to dollars is incalculable (and ultimately inadequate) and second, that the idea that “only” the direct descendants of American slaves have faced that sort of pervasive imbalance and obstruction is indefensible and incomplete. 

If a serious resolution to the historic and current imbalance is to have meaning, it must recognize and respond to all of the histories of racially motivated and legislated circumstances of denial and deprivation. 

The particulars of the various published suggestions for reparations confirmed my sense of insufficiency. Various scholars, attempting to quantify the unquantifiable, have suggested numbers for distribution ranging from a few hundred dollars to as much as $80,000 or more. These are based on various permutations of some mathematical calculation of valuing slave labor, its economic impact, and the abandoned promises compounded over a few hundred years, divided across 40 million or so recipients. 

I consider these to be irrelevant. To my sensibilities, it feels more like a poor excuse of an apology than the satisfaction of centuries of malicious restraint. Even if an $80,000 grant were provided to every black family -- an amount that would likely represent between $750 billion and $1 trillion in federal provisions -- it would only represent a temporary relief, a one time salve spread over an unhealed and infected wound. A generation from now, would the impact of that single payment create a meaningful change in the opportunities and experiences of black Americans in a still white preferenced society?  I can mathematically calculate that diminishing impact, and it is neither determinative nor transformational. 

Definition of Reparation

Another definition of reparation might be more useful; Webster's offers this:

“the act of making amends, offering expiation, or giving satisfaction for a wrong or injury..”

The act of making amends, if interpreted carefully, opens a larger door. Satisfaction cannot be achieved, amends would be insufficient, so long as the offense continues forward and is unresolved. The stopping of one man from beating another is of little value if (a) the beaten man is not healed, and (b) the offender is allowed to continue the abuse. Appropriate resolution cannot exist in the absence of systemic reprogramming and the recalibration of disadvantage and constraint. In that possibly contorted sense, the term reparations begin to apply to meaningful discourse. 

The majority of definitions offered by various sources and reference books appear to focus more on the application than the concept, suggesting an outcome (payment of cash as a response to transgressions) more than an objective (Resolution? Apology? Repair? Recompense?). 

Without understanding the constructive purpose of reparations, the concept is hollow, without a mechanism for transforming, or even ultimately assessing its success or failure. It is only in understanding the objective that the manifestation takes on meaning. 

For my personal purposes and efforts, I settled on the following as an initial definition for guiding my research and framing my suggestions, reserving the right to later revision:

Reparations are the collaborative effort to effectively redress historical and present transgressions and to establish the foundation for a more equitable future.

The keywords are critical here. 

Collaborative, because no meaningful solution can reasonably be imposed, so the solutions must be the process of a shared agenda and mutually acceptable outcome. 

The effort, because perfection is something that is so entirely subjective is unattainable and a false objective.

Effective, because success should be evaluated by the measurable applications and results rather than the theoretical or academic. 

Redress, which, when defined as “the setting right of what is wrong”, speaks to a common acceptance of the past and the present state of “wrongness”.

Foundation, because reparations can and must serve as the base for a future where a repeat of the transgressions is not preordained or inevitable. 

Equitable, because the objectives are for the establishment of ongoing fairness and balance rather than simply punishment or profit.

Affirmative Action

There is another term that needs to be dealt with at this time. In the discussions of racial inequality, the phrase “affirmative action” is frequently denigrated and used as a polarizing political meme. It is often portrayed as a form of charity. It is periodically defended by a complicated insistence that it is not predatory towards white Americans, and a series of accompanying linguistic contortions.

This distinction is critical: the idea of reparation is not charitable. It is not something given by white America to black Americans as a sop. Reparations, as defined in this paper, are the steps necessary and appropriate to begin the process of repairing centuries of systemic deprivation and denial. As such, the projected outcome would be the elevation of the capacities and productivity of a major segment of our population, a discernible benefit to all Americans, and to the national economy as a whole.

To the degree that the programs discussed herein appear to preference black Americans over white Americans, whether, in terms of resources and opportunities, that appearance is intentional and factual. 

As noted frequently, the historical and present conditions of black life in America are indisputably disfavored; reconciliation of those circumstances requires addressing the various aspects of that imbalance. This in turn would require elevating the conditions of black Americans or denigrating the conditions of white Americans in order to level the playing field meaningfully. In my proposals, I have somewhat logically chosen to elevate. 

In doing so, it is my belief that the inevitable outcome would be the elevation of all Americans, and of America itself.

Maybe if there were a few Christian politicians, it would be different...

A simple reflection for a Sunday morning.

It has become popular over the past few years for some to state that we are a Christian nation, born as such and bound to Judeo-Christian values in our laws and our society. Admittedly, I have heard that expressed mostly by Christians... but still.

For those who profess to be Christians, that seems to make everything kind of easy. Christ was specific in identifying the two greatest laws: Love God completely, and treat your neighbour as you would yourself be treated.

Loving God is a pretty personal thing, but I would suspect that in loving Him, we would do our best to observe His wishes. Again, He was unambiguous about how He wanted us to honour Him: in Matthew 25:40, He tells us plainly that as we treat the least of His brethren, so we treat Him. If He needed to be clearer, then He was, pointing out that we should feed the hungry, shelter the homeless and tend to the sick.

Got it. Could not be simpler.

So, if there were any Christian politicians in a Christian nation, I would assume that those instructions would be their highest legislative priorities. Any Christian leaders would do what was necessary to eliminate hunger in a country that has the resources to easily do so. They would provide shelter for everyone, and be proud to do so. They would provide the best health care that we know how-to for each and every person in the country. They would make those objectives their life's mission, as the only real standards for Christian leaders in a Christian nation to follow.

They would not leave so many millions of our children to go hungry, sick and homeless. Christ was kind of big on kids.

Of course, that wouldn't be necessary for those who are not Christians. The imposition of the tenets of our faith on others is inappropriate in a nation where religious freedom is so enshrined. We would simply know who among our political leaders are Christians by their extraordinary and constant focus on mercy and charity, as was the focus and request of our Lord.

Based on our current statistics, we Christians are late in making our presence felt, and have an awful lot of catching up to do. About 37 million people in our country are hungry; some 550,000 lack a roof over their head, and over 30 million are without health insurance. The "least of our brethren" number over 10% of our neighbours, so we sorely need to get some Christians into a position to solve those tragic problems.

Of course, those figures come from before the Pandemic. Now… God only knows.

Fortunately, we live in a nation of incredible wealth. Collectively, we made $19 trillion in 2019, a record amount of money. That comes out to about $150,000 per household... and we've just heard our government tell us that spending a few trillion for preserving corporate balance sheets shouldn't be a problem and that deficits don't matter any more.

Clearly, money is no object. Hallelujah!

Again, I know that some of the other beliefs or those of no faith might have other priorities, and I fully respect that. So, I'll just point to those who would choose to be called Christian. Surely, if they were serving we could identify them by their own bills, and by their own votes. It would be easy: if they are Christian, then they would be banging the drum every day for moving whatever small part of our wealth is needed to eliminate all of the needs of the poor, the hungry and the sick.

Simple.

Non-Christians might argue that the poor and homeless don't deserve our mercy and help, that they are lazy or at fault in some way. Non-Christians might tell us that there are dangers in giving too much to the poor because they will just abuse it. We know that they are non-Christians because our Jesus was so clear in admonishing us not to judge our fellow man, so we Christians would never go there. We Christians would do what we are called to do, and trust our God for the judgement part.

Christ never said feed the hungry who have earned their bread; He never said tend to the sick who can afford to pay for it; He didn't suggest that the homeless should be deprived of shelter if they didn't find work. I don't object to non-Christians holding different views, of course, but we followers of Christ are pretty locked in.

I'm guessing that Christians just haven't been interested in politics of late, based on the lack of recent support for policies that reflect the values of Christ. Since Christ was so clear in stating that our treatment of the poor, the hungry and the homeless was a direct extension of our treatment of Him, no Christian politicians would have allowed the millions of Christ's brothers and sisters to have fallen so far, for so long if they could have helped it, knowing how much it would pain our Christ.

The President has told us that our nation's wealth and success is the greatest ever, anywhere... certainly, Christian politicians would have demanded that some of that incredible prosperity was shared. The answer must be to find some way to get a few good Christians into government and let them express their faith through their legislation. That will change everything; Christians wouldn’t fail Christ so horribly.

One more thing: as Christians, we should probably politely point out to those in politics who aren't doing everything that they can to honour Christ's will that they are mistaken... neither they, nor the country that they profess to lead, have anything to do with Christianity, or with the following of Christ and His word.

It's really that simple.

A Call to Christians to Reject That Which We Were Taught to Reject

This is a first for me, a story told in the first person, and without the pretense of or effort towards journalistic remove. That does not mean that I don’t stand fully behind every statement and conclusion; I do. That does not mean that my efforts in being truthful and factual are any less; if anything, the personal nature of the statement requires that I be as fastidious as I can be.

I am equal parts furious, bewildered, and disappointed. In a time when those feelings are all too familiar to all too many, this is not about them, it is about me. To the degree that anyone feels the same or different, I’m open to the debate… but make no mistake, I’m here as an advocate and an accuser, to challenge the sources of my personal angst.

I want this fight.

Yesterday, I watched as peaceful protesters in my adopted home town were pushed around by riot geared law enforcement of all stripes. The authorities tear-gassed them, clubbed them with their shields, sent rubber bullets and flash grenades flying into the retreating crowd that had minutes before been a lawful and organized protest in and around Lafayette Park, driving them backward for blocks. Rows of mounted police rode in a carefully orchestrated effort to clear a broad path from the White House grounds to St. John’s church across the street.

Be very, very clear: the intent was a message. They knew that it was being broadcast live, and they assaulted the reporters as well. The use of aggressive force was not applied to rioters or looters. The assembled protesters were not in violation of the curfew; it was a half-hour before that would begin. There were no reported incidents of violence against the police, no threats. The President of the United States of America and his lackeys made a conscious choice to have Secret Service, National Guard and military police attack American citizens legally assembled for the purposes of two photo ops; one with a prop bible in front of an important church, and one where protesters (including clergy on church property) fled in horror from a “dominant” armed force. It was a confirmation of his philosophy, stated just moments before on the lawn of the “People’s House” that he lives in. It was all staged for the nation to see.

He made a choice, the choice that he warned us he would make. He could have waited thirty more minutes, and allowed the curfew to go into effect. He could have chosen to walk across the street — since he had no intention of actually entering God’s house — at any time that evening, and get the same picture taken. He deliberately chose 6:30, when families and young people, laypeople, and sympathetic clergy, were still gathered in the shadow of St. John’s Church before he unleashed America’s forces against America’s people.

It was an act of a petty tyrant, trying to show America that he could marshal armed resistance against it whenever it suited his mood. It was a chilling reprisal of every dictator’s oppressive thumb, made all the more appalling by the head of the nation’s law enforcement, AG William Barr, the Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, and Joint Chief Chair Mark Milley all marching in lockstep, and posing with the President for the picture.

Considering the circumstances and the prelude, it was a photograph that could have been taken in every failed state, every banana republic, every government run by the military after a coup. It was a picture that, before now, I could never imagine being taken in America. It was heart-breaking, and for me, it was the last of many last straws.

Explain yourselves now, my fellow Christians who have given their sacred honor to support this man. Explain yourselves now, my good brothers and sisters who were willing to barter their better moral compass for the promise of more jobs or more money or a vote on a bill… or whatever. Explain yourselves now, or join me in decrying this most un-Christian, most un-American man and his administration.

If you’re still unsure, then understand the location and its meaning that he chose to desecrate… listen to the clergy of St. John’s in their own words.

Once the protesters had been cleared, the President strode across the street to the church whose proud nickname is “The Church of the Presidents” for having hosted every U.S. President since James Madison. President Trump did not enter the church. He stood outside, brandishing a bible and surrounding himself with some of his cabinets, for a brief photo-op before briskly returning to the White House.

“He did not pray,” said a furious Right Rev. Mariann Budde, the Episcopal bishop of Washington. She accused the President of using “a church building and the Holy Bible for partisan political purposes.” The rector of St. John’s, Gini Gerbasi, shared the following report on her Facebook page:

“The police in their riot gear was literally walking onto the St. John’s, Lafayette Square patio with these metal shields, pushing people off the patio and driving them back. People were running at us as the police advanced toward us from the other side of the patio… We were literally DRIVEN OFF of the St. John’s, Lafayette Square patio with tear gas and concussion grenades and police in full riot gear. We were pushed back 20 feet, and then eventually - with SO MANY concussion grenades - back to K street. By the time I got back to my car, around 7, I was getting texts from people saying that Trump was outside of St. John’s, Lafayette Square. I literally COULD NOT believe it. WE WERE DRIVEN OFF OF THE PATIO AT ST. JOHN’S - a place of peace and respite and medical care throughout the day - SO THAT MAN COULD HAVE A PHOTO OPPORTUNITY IN FRONT OF THE CHURCH!!! PEOPLE WERE HURT SO THAT HE COULD POSE IN FRONT OF THE CHURCH WITH A BIBLE! HE WOULD HAVE HAD TO STEP OVER THE MEDICAL SUPPLIES WE LEFT BEHIND BECAUSE WE WERE BEING TEAR GASSED!!!!”

“I am DEEPLY OFFENDED on behalf of every protestor, every Christian, the people of St. John’s, Lafayette square, every decent person there, and the BLM medics who stayed with just a single box of supplies and a backpack, even when I got too scared and had to leave. I am ok,” Gerbasi concluded. “But I am now a force to be reckoned with.” 

St. John’s is a special place for Christianity throughout American history. Pew # 54 is reserved for the sitting President, a space for reflection and communion that has awaited their use for over 200 years. Pew # 11 is marked with a plaque in honor of President Abraham Lincoln, who walked the same walk almost every night during the civil war without an entourage, without props, not to preen but to pray, to find comfort and wisdom in his faith.

This is the man who has been elevated by us Christians. This is the President who sits in his office because of their votes, because of their unqualified support. This is the man who draws his legitimacy, what passes for a moral mandate, from only that one source. This man who held a bible aloft for the cameras, but “did not pray”.

This is the man who states with pride and ego “Only I can solve these problems, only I am the answer”. Have you ever heard him speak about his God as a guide, as even a part of his decision making? Have you ever heard him quote scripture or reference Christ? If you sat beside him today and chatted, would you expect him to show a true understanding of Christ’s message, of what Christ’s sacrifice meant?

Certainly, there is nothing about his actions that warrant the respect of a moral person. A man that openly celebrates all things gold, and who defines riches as “winning,” and as justification for leadership. A man who has a deep and uninterrupted history of personal failings, dishonesty, and misogyny. A man whose policies are spectacularly oriented against true charity here or abroad. A man who enthusiastically repels the stranger, the immigrant, and the oppressed from his “home”.

A man who consistently and deliberately sows the seeds of division and hatred for the purpose of personal power.

Matthew 12:25: ““And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.”

And so it is coming to pass. America is teetering. Every challenge that our nation faces has been amplified and expanded by the singular control that he’s demanded, and been given, to operate out of nothing greater than himself. The roiling of America right now is becoming as much a reflection of his responses as it is the insidious presence of racism in our society and institutions.

Christians have placed this flawed man, this faux Christian, in power over America. He has gathered his minions to do his bidding, people who every day prove their love of power and wealth over fealty to God, or to the people of this great and special nation, mirroring his own identity. We are reaping the whirlwind — a confluence of crises that have never occurred before, all made worse by his myopic sense of personal supremacy over any form of humility or faith.

Have you had enough yet? Are you finally ready to acknowledge the miscalculation, the sin of having placed a political and ideological agenda over the true measure of the man? Are you ready to stop making excuses in order to prop up a false leader? Is it finally time?

I will do what I can do. I will write what I know to be true, and attest to the eternal values of the Christ that I follow. I am a very imperfect messenger, and I accept that readily, but I can no longer hold my tongue or my pen.

Can you?

Who the Heck Have We Become?

A family where one spouse is a citizen, the children are citizens, and the other spouse is not is ineligible to participate in the stimulus package because that one member of the family does not have a social security number?

The CARE act and its related legislation are pouring money into every corner of the country in an attempt to moderate the pain of this economic crisis. About $200 billion of it is being sent out to every person that the government can find as a direct subsidy, particularly to every taxpayer below a certain income level… that is, to every taxpayer except those filing a joint return where one member of the family lacks a social security number.

Let me repeat… the family pays their taxes; it is through their tax filing that they are disqualified. They are legally present, and three of the four members of the family are citizens. They are excluded from the support of our government in a time of crisis. How is that logical? Do they pay fewer taxes because of their status? No, they do not. Do they provide the same economic benefits to our country as any other family? Yes, they do. But somehow, about one million of these couples are intentionally being treated differently.

It is ridiculous, petty, and inexplicable that we can take their taxes, acknowledge the citizenship of three of the members, but still discriminate against them in this fashion. It can’t be an economic decision — we’re talking about a rounding error, about a tenth of one percent of the money just in that particular pot. For gosh sake, we’re not even paying the actual citizens in the family, but rather punishing them for having what, married a non-citizen? Is that the crime for which we say to them — sorry, we don’t care about your issues, you’re less worthy than those who married Americans?

Shame on the government for this disgrace. Shame on the legislators who had to intentionally place this undeserved penalty into law. Shame on the media for not raising their voices against the inequity of this nationalistic garbage. We must fix this mistake immediately, and raise our sights on being a better nation, a more equitable America.

Right is right.

The Inherent Limitations of Statistics

In many areas of our culture and lives, statistics have assumed outsized importance. As someone who has studied, used and marketed statistics across a number of industries, this development seems a pendulum swing too far to one side; the encouragement from media and partisans to see statistics as conclusive and as fact.

As I’ve discussed previously, facts are often misleading or irrelevant. The same rule applies to statistics (a subset of the fact universe), where context is perhaps more important than for other statements. One example exists in the recent news stories pertaining to the economic devastation from the pandemic. The reports today of an astonishing 22 million Americans have filed for unemployment over the past three weeks is a tragic reflection of the times, and is widely noted as a multiple of prior “worst” periods of our history… but is the picture painted an accurate one, particularly as regards those comparisons?

The Current Economic Downturn

In recognition of the unique nature of the current economic downturn, Congress has broadly expanded the qualifications for who qualifies for unemployment. Included in the present figures are the self-employed, shorter-term employees, “gig” employees and contractors, and other categories not usually included. Reflecting the forced closure of so many related industries — particularly hospitality and transportation — the consensus is that these categories comprise the vast majority of new filings. Actual numbers are not readily available, leading to even less utility for the provided statistics; we are given an irrelevant comparison, the proverbial apples, and oranges, and have little basis for understanding. In addition, there is a significant question as to the accuracy of the numbers given that the majority of states have been unable to keep up with the submissions; it is possible that those numbers, as large as they are, remain a serious underestimation.

This is not to question the powerful trauma being inflicted on our economy or our nation; these are real people in dire circumstances, and the legislation appropriately recognizes and addresses that… but in our evaluation of the scope of our response, we are given a picture that is at best incomplete, and at worst misleading. The impact on our economy, the challenges of support and repair, demand difficult choices in the allocation of unprecedented assets; understanding the components clearly and in context is critical.

An example: let’s suppose that the actual figures broke down as follows: of the 22 million, 21 million reflected those workers usually excluded from the unemployment rolls. Would the response differ? Should the proper payments be made in lump sums, or for different durations than those for conventional recipients? Should the response include work programs that reflect the youth and more general training of that group? And what would it say if that constituency represented only 7 million of the 22 million? That would demand a far greater response to the corporations above them, and reflect a true depression-style challenge. The difference between those underlying numbers is enormous, and yet not provided in the various media reporting.

Similar issues related to multiple facets of the pandemic: the recorded infected totals reflect not actual numbers with the virus, but a percentage of those who have been tested, a potentially substantial variable. The number of fatalities related to the definition of a COVID-related death: many who die of potentially the virus are not tested, and therefore excluded, while others who are included may have died from a variety of issues. Virtually every person who dies can be said to have died of heart failure since the ultimate determinate is that their heart stopped beating… it is the reason for that tragic event that is important. As a result, almost all of the broadcast statistics regarding the pandemic are questionable and incomplete.

In my experience, statistics — well defined and in context — can be incredibly useful in framing the questions and challenges that need to be addressed. In and of themselves, however, statistics tend to be far less useful in providing actionable answers and solutions. For statistics to have real meaning, we need to understand their origin, their construction, and their relevancy to the issue at hand, three critical components that we are rarely offered… even then, we should use them to open important discussions, not to close them.

Critical Thinking And The Utility Of Facts

As I’ve discussed in the Thoughts on the Business section (Thoughts on the Fallacy of Facts) there is a limit to the value of a factual statement based on the underlying context. In the news this week has been a clear example, where competing statements of fact amply illustrate the point.

The pandemic has been marked by numerous challenges in understanding and relevancy. One of the questions that the U.S. has grappled with is our struggles with testing; we were arguably too slow to get in gear with testing, ineffective with the initial tools, and ultimately too limited in our applications. That said, there are two points made again recently: the administration has repeatedly proclaimed (assumed to be accurate) that we have tested more people than any other nation… while the counter fact was pointed out by the scientific and medical communities (also assumed accurate) that we’ve tested a far less portion of our population than almost any other major country. This has allowed one side to argue that we’ve been the leading testing nation in the world, while the other argues that we’re among the worst… with both providing simple facts to support their assertions.

Contradictory Conclusions

The answer to understanding these seemingly contradictory conclusions is to evaluate the relevancy of the underlying, unstated question: have we done a good job with testing, has it been effective for our purposes and needs? Sadly, the value statement for that question seems to be obvious; we have not. A “good job” would entail providing actionable information for a coordinated response… it would yield projections for the allocation of resources and the confirmation or dispute of behavioral responses… it would provide solid guidance for economic and legislative policy. According to virtually every part of the medical and scientific community, we have failed badly — and continue to fail today — in all of these regards. The utility of a context that fits the moment demonstrates that the measure of per capita testing (along with timeliness, and ignored subtext) is a far more important perspective than the overall number of tests provided.

This leads to an important follow-up question: why the disparity, why the lack of agreement on a meaningful context? Again, the answer is obvious and unfortunate: we need only look to what each side has to gain or lose in the adoption of their particular perspective to understand the motivation. The administration is not only fighting a pandemic; it is overtly fighting for its continuing existence, in light of an upcoming election season. The designation of our testing program as failure leads directly back to the choices and actions of this administration, and adoption of a negative value there portends a serious headwind against their successful continuation. They have a significant and potentially existential concern about the adoption of the counter-argument and must push back against that factuality as aggressively as possible. In that pursuit, they have found an ally — a fact that they can process, and that cannot be disputed. The counter side — the medical and scientific community — has no critically vested interest in subverting the actuality. It is neither responsible for the actions and policies, nor is its existence threatened by them regardless of their findings. Their most obvious self-interest is in their demonstrated proficiency and accuracy; those are the points on which they are judged, both historically and professionally. To the degree that their primary objective is in the success of response, their motivation most closely aligns with that of the population they are communicating with.

What is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking is essential in understanding the omnipresent flow of information that reaches our eyes and ears. Competing “fact statements”, not falsehoods, are the frequent tools of misinformation and propaganda; falsehoods are most easily discovered and discarded, while facts require more wrangling. John Adams once said that “facts are stubborn things, and whatever our wishes… they cannot alter the state of facts…” suggesting that facts are permanent. That assertion is correct in so far as it goes, but the constructive meaning of facts, their efficacy in determining our actions and beliefs, their usefulness to our discourse, are anything but dispositive.

Our success as a people, both individually and collectively, requires that we consider the information before us more critically and more objectively today than ever in history. At no time in our past have we been inundated with as much information, from as many disparate and alternatively motivated sources, as we are today; at no time have we had as many choices available to us to make, with the impact on our lives of those choices as critical to our outcomes. Therefore, we must interpret that incoming information based on the context that is useful for the particular discussion, and to our best purpose… an interpretation that requires an assessment not only of the facts but of their relevancy and of the understandable motivations of their purveyors.

The 9/11 Attacks: A Story of Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas

On September 12, 2001, a Dallas leadership group that I was involved with hosted a candlelight vigil at Dealey Plaza, the iconic location in the Kennedy assassination.  The city of Dallas closed off the historic plaza for our use and provided their support.  I was asked to write three speeches for the event, the third of which I had the privilege to present personally.  

World Trade Center

The World Trade Center had great personal significance, and many family and friends were involved that day… 15 years later, it’s interesting for me to see and revisit the raw emotions and perspective of the moment.  I remember so much of those emotions… at that time, we still were unsure who had been lost from our family and friends, and so many feelings were in play.  But I also remember hope, and at the end of my speaking, I tried to give it a voice.  The speech was a purging of so many thoughts, and on review, it wasn’t particularly well constructed, but it was… honest.

This is that speech, unedited.

We are a nation awakened.

Before the debris of the first crumbling tower reached the pavement below, our immediate destiny was clear.  We will go to war.  This is a nation that believes in capital punishment, and this is a crime for which no other sentence would ring true.  The murderers themselves have escaped to the hell of their own choosing, but their accomplices remain at large, and they will be held accountable.

But then what?

Can the destruction of the instruments of evil truly cause the death of their source?  Or will the removal of these lurking dealers in misery simply create a vacuum, to be filled by vermin equal — or even greater —  in their willingness to trade their lives for the innocent lives of others?

There are clues to be found, hints of a possibility that we might not yet see.  In the joining of hands across oceans, past mountains and through ideological walls comes a vision of a united world, a congress of humanity that may have finally tired of the insane pain of random violence.  And if that weariness had become enough of a force, then this might be the blessed hour that we begin to cure one more illness; the sickness of heart that promotes the devaluation of human life.

Our attention is singular, our focus pure.  We stand connected by the media, and it is that media that I look to for the cleansing catharsis of our national soul.

The papers have shown the corpses, ripped apart, burned beyond recognition, twisted in the ash-grey rubble.  The magazines have lowered their cameras into the bowels of the blast site and brought that demonic picture into our homes in perfect clarity.  The hardest reporters have thrust a thousand microphones into a thousand widow’s grief and kept their lenses steady as the frightened children clung to their parents’ side.  And by every means, the words have flowed — rich and full of the colours of our agony, dark and desperate paintings of inconceivable loss.

We have seen the worst.

I want the horror, the unyielding misery of this unspeakable act to resonate across this country like a wave, washing out to sea forever our imagined ability to separate ourselves from our brothers and sisters around the world.  I want to stand with my fellow man, shivering in the darkness of their hatred, and finally recognize that the only warmth remaining is to huddle close together, and look eastward to the coming light.

Now is a time, a chance, a reason.

Now is the door cracked open, while the world is connected by this filament of the awakened vulnerability?  Now is the staggering multi-coloured giant that we are finally seen as human by a hundred nations that could never before find kinship in our countenance.

We have been cut.  We have bled, and in bleeding, that wound exposed not only the myth of our inhuman dimension but the awesome nobility of our common origin.  For in our pain, our brothers and sisters around the world have clearly seen that we are no more than them; in our heroic refusal to falter, they have also seen a reflection of the best that they have in themselves.

If we truly understand what has happened, this abrupt awakening that we now grapple with so fiercely, then the task before us is clear.  We must build a planet with no dark corners, no snug hiding places for the terror mongers to flee to.  They must be forced out into the open, friendless and exposed, and we must have no hesitation in removing them from our newly consolidated world.  To build that brightest planet, we must share ourselves freely, admitting to ourselves and our partners that while we are great indeed, we are no longer willing to live apart.

This shall be the test of the third millennium.  To trust that we can fulfil our destiny of leadership while standing side by side, rather than simply dominating by the strength of arm and wallet.  To embrace humility, and to acknowledge our common mortality even as we celebrate our indisputable strength.  We are the first nation in the history of our species to have the real possibility of uniting this planet without conquering it, and ultimately we should be judged by the steadfastness of our progress toward that glorious end.

There is no good in the death of thousands, no blessing in the theft of so many precious lives by such unworthy parasites.  But there is within this great nation, and within us as a great people, the extraordinary ability to turn our pain into passion, and our suffering into triumph.  Let us honour our lost brethren, and forge a magnificent monument to their sacrifice.  Let us demonstrate to the evil that slithers among us that in wounding us, they themselves have created their doom — a planet united against their very existence and a world that they cannot corrupt.  Awakened now, it is just barely within our grasp… awakened now, we must reach out, and own that future for ourselves, our children and our posterity.

 Look into the Eyes

In the vigil, people gathered across the plaza, on the streets below, across the way near the Book Depository… I don’t know how many attended that night, but the television report estimated broadly between five and ten thousand.  We were all struck by the solemnity and the feeling of people huddling together.  

The first speech of the night was given by J. Smith, and was titled “Look into the Eyes”.  It was a reflection of a conversation that I had with him prior to writing and represented a desire that we shared to bring the audience into the conversation directly and to have them recognize the power at that moment.  Hopefully, it manifested a combination of our voices, sharing some of his phraseology and mine.  

This speech is also unedited, presented exactly as it was given 15 years ago… 

Welcome.  We stand together here today to acknowledge the greatness of our Nation, and to send a critically important message to the world.

That we are rising.

We are off our knees now, stretching tall and proud to our full height, and we are awesome.  And standing, we will once again tower over our attackers, and remind them of the terrible mistake that they have made.

This is the way of the American people: in the adrenaline of the moment, we are immense.  We rise to the challenge before us.  We envision great things.  We are vibrant, powerful, critically important and committed.  We are shining, and the universe stands and applauds.

But this is also the way of our American people.  The adrenaline will wane, and life resume.  We will notice that the laundry is undone in the hamper.  We will once again feel the weight of gravity and remember the missed workouts.  The mail will bring bills, and we will fret about them.  We will bicker over nothing, really, and we will fell a sense of annoyance.  We will be earthbound, and the universe will nod back off to sleep.

It can be different.  It must be different this time.

In the roaring urgency of this moment, mountains appear as bumps in the fields.  Tomorrow, or the day after, or the day after that, when the mountains grow back and the fields are muddy, will we carry the same passion for our species, the same compassion for each other?

Look around you.  Today.

Look right now into the eyes and hearts of the people standing next to you on this important field.  Look at their common greatness, and understand in your heart — today and forever — that these people are your partners in this amazing country.  That regardless of where they came from, what they look like, what they believe about God or how they worship Him, they stand beside you as Americans, as brothers and sisters in the triumphant family of your land.

Drink in the intoxicating perfume of a great people, standing free and united, unafraid to demonstrate their love and their passionate commitment to their ideals.  Ordinary people being extraordinary, a festival of the best in man brought out by the beast in some men.  Drink it all in, and etch those precious feelings deep into your soul.

Then, someday, when the skies aren’t blazing with glory and the radio stations are back to shock and shock, when the horns are going off from the impatient cars around you, and the random cruelties of selfishness seem overwhelming… when that day comes, stand up.

Remember this moment.

And commit yourself to find a way, one precious way, to inspire a bit of that memory into reality.  Commit yourself to recreate enough of that adrenaline to find again, even if for just a moment, that incredible strength and beauty that is all around you today.

And when you find that strength, when you make that greatness in this tragedy a permanent power in your heart.. then we will all truly be the victors in this time, and in our world.

Thank you, and God Bless America.

The False Choice of Balance

This past weekend brought me another joy — a gathering of friends.  This time, the excuse was baseball.  My dear friend Bill S. was there, a rare treat.  We sat for a while and discussed his life — a beautiful young girl, a wife that he’s blissfully infatuated with who carries their second child, a career that has turned skyward and runs.  We chatted about my own experiences in a similar time, now twenty-five years ago.  He talked about balance, and about the difficulty of making room and time for everything — his wife, his family, his daily life and his desire to excel professionally.  I disagreed with the premise, that there was a choice involved at all…

Consider this point:  we’re trained to think of the equation Wife / Family / Business / Success as a circus balancing act as if we are jugglers keeping those four balls suspended in the air at all times.  What if that’s a false choice, and really the key is to line them all up so that they support each other, all contributing to all?  There lies the sweet spot…

When we’re just beginning to get older, we often see love as a finite commodity.  We portion it out among those that we care for and harbour the idea that love for ourselves must compete with that allotment.  Later, we realize that the love that we share, that we give, is the very mechanism for creating more love — and therefore, the greatest boon to self-love is to love others most greatly. 

Hollow and Unsustainable Motivation

So it is in the broader life sense.  As we deeply share our lives with those we love, they, in turn, give strength and meaning to our daily work, expanding our perspective and creating relevancy.  Success and failure become less about our individual selves — a hollow and unsustainable motivation — and instead, incorporates the teaching of our children, the validation of our shared goals, the provision of security and the expansion of a collective world view… all fully worthy results, all sustainable motivations through hard times and loss.  Armed with this sense of primal purpose, we finally have the fortitude to succeed greatly; it is the logic and the reasoning behind the sacrifices that are necessary to excel.

We hear much about the balancing of our lives, our expectations and our aspirations.  True excellence comes from the reverse, the striving not for a moderated result but for a wholly unique one.  Bringing excellence into our life requires that we give everything, always, forcibly denying the very notion that our love, our commitment and our passion are finite commodities… focused on the construction of synergies, and empowered by the simplicity of juggling just one great ball.

Core Belief

November 5, 2017

The  capacity  for  comprehension  is  a  divine  gift.

The  social  obligation  of  comprehension  is  augmentation  and  conveyance.

The  highest  calling  of  comprehension  is  creation.

To  comprehend  without  either  sharing  or  constructively  using  that  understanding  is  to  dishonor  both  the  gift  and  the  giver.

Reflections on a difficult time...

February 20, 2010

The week – and the week before it – has exposed new challenges, physical and in a related way, psychological.  That passage brought me to an unexpected place; a faceoff with an old axiom.  Actually, there are two of them, standing as parallel corollaries:  If you have your health, you have everything, and without your health, you have nothing.

What crap… and how dangerous a notion they represent.

Tomorrow is Saturday.  I will wake up, full of the presence of my Fran, and there is no pain in this universe as great as that joy.  I will make my way to La Madeleine, where my good and brilliant friends Mike and Charles will be waiting to solve the world, as they always do, and I would rather crawl there on broken bones than stride upright into a palace without them.  Later, I will chat with my miracles, the progeny that has so far surpassed any embarrassingly small dream of mine for them, and wonder at the world that they constantly bring back to me.  I would rather have just one ear to hear, or just one eye to see their lives evolve than to have perfect senses without them.

Later I will go to the place where I’ve chosen to work.  I will be surrounded by young men and women who will listen to my ramblings, and even let me teach them now and then.  I will not keep up with them, but I would rather sit among them than run without them.  They will include evolving and important friends like Kyle, a partner now until he can fly alone;  new friends like Mallory, who is colour and light; steady friends like Jason, who cares and shows so deeply, and so many others… strong and fascinating and urgent, they will go where I cannot go right now, but they will take me with them just a little.  Throughout, other voices of my older friends will call, from Billy, from Norm P and Norm H and others, bringing me love and the healing heat of a sun-drenched outfield, and I’ll bask with them a while.

And always, I will come home to Fran, who is my home, who is my life.

I wander through a life that I could never earn, blessed beyond reason.  That the mechanics of this body that I’ve been given are compromised is a petty thing, and the pain a cheap barter.  A dear friend once offered to gather a prayer vigil for my health, fearing that without intervention I would be lost.  I thought about it, and declined… out of my own fear, that changing the reality of my existence would somehow diminish the awesome gifts given to me.

It is important to note a distinction here.  I will do all that is within my power to live and to live forever.  I will fail at that, but it will not be for a lack of trying.  I will take the shots, the pills, the pain, the operations and the limitations and I will fight them back, but it will not be for the blessing of good health.  It will be for the sheer avarice of a man who has entirely everything that he could possibly ask for, and much that he never would have dared to… and will not give it up.  It will be for the greed of a man who needs to give to my precious Brian and Pamela the last drop of what he has learned, and loved, and failed at and won.  And most of all, forever, it will be to breathe in the presence of my Fran, to keep watch over her as I can, and to protect her from the loneliness that my selfish leaving would inflict.

I stand today as proof positive, and the myth debunked.  I have not my health, at least in a conventional sense.  What I do have is everything.

Thoughts, fears, wishes and dreams...

This section will be about what is on my mind, in my heart, and making my stomach rumble… no agenda, no theme, no purpose other than to express me without too much filtering. The times that we live in demand that anyone with something to contribute does, and I’m hopeful that I can meet that challenge.

If you’re looking for labels through which to interpret my writings, be aware that I don’t understand or believe in them. At various times, I’ve been referred to as an economist, an analyst, an entrepreneur, a teacher, a trader, a counselor, and a coach. I’ve been called a conservative, a liberal, an iconoclast, a capitalist, a socialist, a pragmatist, and a dreamer. I have voted Democrat and Republican at different times, based on who the candidate is. I aspire to be a logician, but the challenge is a very heavy lift. I try my best to be a good friend, with mixed results but constant fidelity.

My priorities are to love my family and friends, contribute to my society, support my nation, understand and impact the economy and root for my teams, in that approximate order. I dearly love the Jesus that I understand and sincerely attempt to live within His values. I do my best to love whomever the universe puts in front of me until I feel forced to not love them, at which time I often fail. I am too confused by organized religion to be a proper adherent, but I’m not against it, and I deeply admire and respect many sincere believers.

Maybe there are other names, other titles that I should work toward earning, but until they become important, I’ll go with the ones that mean the most to me: husband, father/grandfather, son, brother, friend, teacher, and student. I’ll leave the rest for others to call me.

Let’s open the pipe wide and see what comes out.