Needs of Many

Needs of the Many

As of 10:00 AM (EDT) this 20^th day of April in the year of our Lord 2020, John Hopkins University has officially notched 40,683 human deaths attributed to the Novel Covid-19 virus since the first known death on February 29^th. Eleven out of every 100,000 Americans having died in 52 days – a number which certainly is in same league with scourges of my childhood.

I do not pretend to know the needs of the many.

I do not propose to know any answers, or if they exist.

I do know my own needs have not been particularly impaired by staying home. It is what I’ve been doing for some time. Uncomfortably, I seem to have become too comfortable with quarantine.

Based solely on observations of an old man in an easy chair who has absolutely no voice in the matter, this is what I observe concerning events happening beyond my personal stay-at-home need:

First, to quote Winston Churchill, “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.” Or, as Al Jolson more simply put it in 1927 movie The Jazz Singer, “you ain’t heard nothing yet”.

     It is going to get worse,

     it will never be the “same”,

     ‘get used to it’.

Second, we are where we are – and are going where we are going – primarily because of a dearth of national leadership. In every human crises there has arisen a leader who takes command with coherence and credibility whom others therefore follow, even if only for the moment. Such a leader gives clear direction; delegates line authority; and, in victory or defeat, accepts responsibility. If such a leader does not arise, only mayhem prevails.

     No such national leader has arisen,

     or at least none has been allowed to arise.

Third, I observe a generation which has never had to sacrifice all for the good of the many. Yes, we owe a great deal to the few who sacrifice themselves when thrown unprepared into the fight; and to the many of good heart who have done what they could. But tragedy, if it passes our way at all, touches only the few it touches.

     My parent’s generation understood what it meant to sacrifice the one for the needs of the many: Although basically a pacifist, my father left his family and joined unknowable millions in fighting World War II. My brother bought War Bonds and made ‘bandages’ to help the War effort. My mother took in boarders and lived on ration stamps. Because that long-gone generation sacrificed the few, the many became “great”.

     We born after WWII have no such universally shared calamity which called forth national sacrifice. For us personal sacrifice has most often been for the benefit of the few, and largely transitory. And, solely in this observation, we have become largely a people unprepared to sacrifice the needs of the few, of the one, for the needs of the many.

God Save the United States of America

Ice Cream Politics

Brazil Times Blog of July 13, 2010 (edited for relevance as of April 17, 2020)

Ice Cream Politics

“All politics is local” -- former Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill

Our favorite son-in-law and now official candidate for Congress Steven Skelton will be proud of us. Saturday night [July 10, 2010] we went to something billed as a “Stars and Stripes Ice Cream Social”. The announced purpose of which was to promote interest in the political process by conservative church folk such as we. We don’t go to meetings all that much, not being social gadflies as is our son-in-law; nor nearly as interested in the political process. The result being I’m not sure what I expected, but this probably wasn’t what I expected. The main reason I went was the free ice cream.

Two candidates for State Representative were in attendance. Personally I’ve always had a kind of awe of anyone who serves in state office: There’s not a lot of money, little glory, and you have to stay around for a very long time to gain any power.

There was the mandatory Q & A session. The questions were mostly what you’d expect from a conservative, church-going audience: Schools, taxes, right to life type things. The answers proffered indicated no great ideological chasm.

The question which seemed most germane to myself was how the current anti-incumbent atmosphere in the nation will affect local and state elections? This is an issue to which I have given a bit of conservative political process thought.

The quandary is that we really don’t want politicians, so there is always the urge to throw the bums out. On the other hand, there are certain things we want our representatives to accomplish, which require they learn to be political animals. The result being we elect some well-meaning, qualified person to a given office; then by the time they have actually figured out how to play the game, we’re looking around to replace them because they’re “politicians”.

What I propose is a new political movement which I’ve named [insert fanfare here] The Ice Cream Party

Our platform would be “Two-Twenty-Plus”.

2 Nobody could serve in any one political office more than two terms. It usually takes the first term to learn the rules of engagement, by the second they become a dreaded “politician”. After two terms, having gotten their political footing, they have developed something of a “fiefdom” mentality.

20 Nobody can serve in elected office for more than 20 years. There has got to be a point in everyone’s life when they have done their bit for God, Country, and the American way. At some point there must be something just as worthy that intelligent, well-qualified folks can do with one’s life beneficial to their fellow man.

PLUS No political meeting could be held without free ice cream.

Pesdential Leadeship

PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP

“Warfare creates neither leadership nor cowards, it simply reveals them”

(source unknown)

My obsession with history, as with most things, began with my father. My interest in ‘leadership’ dates back to my most basic of Air Force basic training. In pursuit of these interests I have observed and studied both successes and failures of leadership on many levels of authority and in varieties of situations. These are some observations regarding Presidential leadership in other times of national and worldwide cataclysm.

Following the disastrous 1961 failure known as the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, President John Kennedy quoted: “Victory has a thousand fathers, but failure is an orphan”. He had inherited the invasion plan from the prior administration, and it was presented to him as a fait accompli by “experts”. As President of the United States of America Kennedy accepted responsibility for failure. This is what Presidential leadership looks like.

In October 1962 President Kennedy faced the greatest crisis in human history, the Cuban Missile crisis, which threatened 30-million first-wave deaths. Among other acts of leadership he personally spoke to the Captain of the ship at sea whose guns would fire the first salvos of World War III. The President of the United States personally ordered the Captain he was not to fire except on the direct voice command of the President. If western civilization was to end then and there, the President would accept responsibility. This is what Presidential leadership looks like.

In this observation, if President Kennedy had not had the courage and integrity to accept responsibility for the Bay of Pigs, the nation might not have united behind him in our hour of greatest crises.

Crisis Leadership

CRISES LEADERSHIP UNDER FIRE

It was October 22 1962 at Lackland Air Force Base during my first two weeks of Basic Training; two weeks of total isolation from the outside world. The meal ended and our Technical Instructor (T.I.) assembled us behind the chow hall.

In an unusually soft voice the T.I. informed us the President of the United States had ordered Defense Condition 4. The Russian Soviet Union had been arming Cuba with nuclear missiles aimed at America. Friends he knew and lived with were now aboard aircraft awaiting parachuting into battle; we could well be at war within hours – nuclear war.

He did not say it then, and succeeding generations may be unenlightened at to the events; but October 1962 would prove to be the greatest crises in human history.

Americans get an image in their mind of what the President should be. For my generation this was probably Kennedy. Sometime after that day at Lackland I began collecting observations of what JFK did in the days of great crises. These are some of those observations:

• Accepted the intelligence of known preliminary facts, and immediately put men in harms way by ordering further investigation and planning.
• Made himself aware of every detail of the threats and projected scenarios.
• Told by military leaders 30-million casualties in first salvo would be “acceptable”, he took personal command.
• Knowing he could not know everything, he delegated authority to others and never “upstaged” them.
• When the New York Times got hold of the story before Kennedy was ready to risk panic, the Times publisher took the word of the President and withheld their biggest “scoop” in history.
• Not waiting until the enemy was firmly entrenched, and with personal or political consequences unknown, he acted.
• He avoided panic by not saying everything he knew, but did not succumb to lying.
• Spoke eloquently, factually, and calmly to America; leaving everyone aware who was in command.
• As President JFK accepted personal responsibility for events and people he could not control, and for mistakes of others of whom he had no knowledge.
• Personally ordered that firing of the gun which would be first salvo of World War III to be done solely at his own voice command.
• Refused to leave the field of battle, the White House, until the outcome was known.

John F Kennedy, we children of the 60’s later learned, was a very flawed man. However, during the perilous days of October 1962 he demonstrated to our generation what real crises leadership looks like.

Al Capone - Don

The Man Who Would Be Don

About age ten my big brother and I traveled with our father to some long-gone neighborhood theater showing a movie my father wanted us to see, Little Caesar.  The movie was made in 1931; our viewing would have been about 1953.  Gangster movies were a big deal from the 1920’s until at least the 1950’s.  The inspiration for these films and their popularity came honestly.  All through the 20’s & 30’s newspapers were filled with the real life “exploits” of bad guys like Alphonse Gabriel Capone ("Big Al" -- on whom the movie may or may not be based).

Big Al Capone was by far the best known character of the 1920's Prohibition era.  Big Al controlled what is best described as his “fiefdom” of South Chicago.  He controlled it with a combination of avarice, women, and singing his own praises.  Unlike others in the 'business' Al made himself a flamboyant public figure known throughout Chicago.  He was a popular media celebrity; bigger than life, and was considered “one of us” by “working-stiffs” who saw his defiance of “the man” as the reason he was successful.

As with any lord of any fiefdom, he demanded fidelity and received love from admirers which he was incapable of returning with loyalty.  Truly he was lord and master of all he surveyed, as long as he contained his endeavors to what could be run out of Chicago’s Lexington Hotel.

As with Little Caesar, Big Al Capone was not as big a deal as he thought himself to be.  When all was said and done he was a "Capo", a mob captain who ran a gang if thugs who adored and answered to him.  His fiefdom was limited by mob agreement to south of Michigan Street.  Al was always quietly underwritten by, paid tribute to, and owed his soul to the mob.  Outside Chicago’s south-side was foreign territory, entered at great risk.  Al’s downfall began when his lust for riches and renown overcame his limitations.

Big Al never made it to “Don” status.  Don being rank used in the Mafia for a made-member of the crime Family with major social status and influence in the organization (think Don Corleone of "Godfather" movie).  In fact, it is highly doubtful Al would even have been considered for elevation to mob “Commission” which was (for all we know still is) the highest level of the America Mafia.  The Commission included only the Don heading each of the crime Families.

Big Al would not have been particularly successful on the Commission, anyhow.  Such an accountable position as Don requires high intelligence, attention to detail, lots of reading, and strong sense of history.  Big Al, to be sure, was “street smart” and understood his business, but he would have been easily manipulated by other Dons if he had been suddenly and unexpectedly added to the Commission.

As it often is with Capos and Dons, Big Al was not brought down by his life of public and documented crimes.  Rather, he was toppled from his pedestal by tax cheating, creative bookkeeping, spending and 'borrowing' more than his declared income justified.  Thus be it ever for the man who would be Don.

LEGAL STUFF DISCLAIMER: Any Resemblance to or Inference of any Living Capo who Would be Don is Surely Incidental -- more or less.

An Atheist in WH?

Is This the First True Atheist to Occupy White House?

February 7 2020

The Evangelical may prefer to dismiss the following.  It may be too challenging to typical American doctrine; touching too close to the demand of I Peter 3.15.

Pro-maga folk, with whom I have only passing acquaintance, could have mixed emotions.  They seem to yearn for a leader who breaks them free of the uncomfortable restraints of traditional decorum for the sake of some ill-defined ego-centered philosophy; and might be comfortable with an atheist yielding unlimited power.

To both of these groups, read on -- it really is just a question.



In 1952 both political Parties wanted as candidate for POTUS the most popular war hero in America, General Dwight Eisenhower.  His problem was that he had never been “baptized” into any Protestant denomination.  He joined his wife’s Presbyterian church.  Right or wrong, prior to 2016 no one could hope to be elected to any office in the land if they did not at least exhibit “belief” in God.  Then we somehow got trump.

Yesterday a perfunctory appearance was made by the chief executive at the National Prayer Breakfast, where he was clearly out of his element.  Possibly betraying ignorance of it being Biblical teaching for two millennia, he began by disagreeing with the previous speaker about loving our enemies. 

What followed was, at best, lacking in what was traditionally regarded as civil discourse.  If, as was noted, this was behavior “unbecoming” a gentleman, it might also be described as unbecoming a drunken gentleman.  But, it would be unfamiliar to refer to trump as a gentleman; and, if drunk at all it would have been intoxication from the unimaginable political power invested the previous day by the majority Party of the United States Senate.



An intelligent young self-professed “progressive” asks:  Is this the first true atheist to occupy the White House? 

This is, unfortunately, a perfectly reasonable and logical question to be asked by someone reared in the current generation; a generation which old men must navigate.  Our young progressive puts forth several anecdotal observations any “non-believer” might see as justification for their question:

·        He is demonstrably unfamiliar with church services, hymns, or their traditions and liturgies; and doesn’t seem to know the Bible – once referring to “two” Corinthians

·        He is first to have no church service in White House [Although there is a high-profile TV evangelist as self-proclaimed “spiritual advisor” who, in this old man observation, may not be best representation of Christian belief to put in forefront]

·        Nothing in his publicly known life reflects any Christian ethic, yet he consistently publicly panders to Christians as “his” people

·        People who have known and worked with and for him have variously described him as: “profane” “bully” “habitual liar” “deceitful” “shameless” ‘amoral” “braggart”

·        When asked specifically if he prayed for forgiveness, he said he thought he would if he ever did anything wrong

To this list must be added yesterday’s bewilderment that a wife would love her husband so much she even cried because he was near death.  An observation he’d made other times.

Having spent a lifetime in the Church it should be said many of these observations can be seen in faithful, church-going parishioners.  So, would the reader please come forward who has evidence otherwise, but is this the first true atheist to occupy White House?  To which must be added the vital question for future generations:  Should it still matter?

Known Wolves Like Trump all my life

I’ve Known Wolves Like This All My Life

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing,

but inwardly they are ravening wolves.  (Matthew 7.15, KJV)

The last time I saw Harry Bussman was in the 1970’s.  I thanked him for the many fond memories my sister and I had as kids riding the Mississippi on his yacht every summer.  I also thanked him for sending so many roses to our father’s funeral they covered the entire wall behind his coffin.

Mr. Bussman owned the largest trucking company in Missouri and the only Electric Fuse manufacturer.  Was never said what else he was into; really don’t want to know.  He told me (and he’d never lie to son of Phil Lewis) that he made $50,000 a day, every day, after taxes, whether or not he got out of bed (I might add, legally).  I have no idea how much money that would be in 2020.

During the 1950’s I met many “men of means” like Mr. Bussman with whom my father interacted.  He also dealt with the Teamster Union when Jimmie Hoffa really could shut down America; and lunched sometimes with men in oddly loose fitting suits identified to me only as ‘business associates’.  Every Christmas we kids were inundated with small gifts from these associates.  Every two years we got a new-to-us automobile courtesy of Mr. Bussman – the last of which I picked-out new off a showroom floor.

In the course of all this the owner of another trucking business told me confidentially some things he wanted me to know about my father.  To paraphrase words heard over 60 years ago:  “Anything given to Phil Lewis was not to buy him or influence business, because nothing could.   Your father is the only honest man in the trucking business in St. Louis.  He is the only man trusted by the freight owners, the drivers, the Union, and the mob.  If Phil Lewis tells you something, it’s true.”

Over time and various circumstances among the many things my father told me were truths about the Mr. Bussmans and the Union leaders and the ‘associates’ of the world.  It’s been a long time, but this is how I assimilated his warnings:

These men will dine you, and wile you, and pull you under the spell of their charisma.  Such people possess an innate ability to find both what they can get out of you -- and where lay your weaknesses to get it.  Never trust them completely; always get it in writing.  They will talk of loyalty, but demand fidelity.  You will hear the truth only where it serves them.  Assume any morality exhibited is based on self-preservation.  When they discern there is nothing more to gain from you, you will be discarded.

Over my now 76 years I have met and observed a lot of wolves my father warned me about, and have come to know what to expect when I see one.  That is why nothing surprised me when one of those wolves came down an escalator and immediately began to beguile and then discard all he touched.  I’ve known wolves like this all my life.