Irish
That the Irish cite the Potato Famine,
Cause for over-indulgence we must examine.
Is such outrageous claim valid reasoning,
Or mental salad with no intellectual seasoning?
Temptation is high for some Irish Soda Bread,
But I then remember I must stretch my head.
To see past my stomach to the floor,
I guess I better not eat anymore.
However, I must cross the line,
To be creative I must sip some wine.
While this poetry is the worst ever,
One glass and I believe it is instead quite clever.
Returning to my original conjecture,
Irish over-indulge and get a wive’s lecture.
We are the poor descendants of the potato mess,
Not acknowledged for our victimness no less.
So the Irish plod on through fields of peat,
Pained by their victimness in each Soda Bread they eat.
When it comes to justice the world is without,
So it’s fine to drink a fourth Guinness Stout.
James Wharton
Copyright
James Wharton
Copyright
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Scalawags
Scalawags
It is up to us, the Middle Class of America, or what few of us there are left, to carry the country through the depression. We are the ones who fear God and the I.R.S. (not necessarily in that order). We pay our taxes because it’s the right thing to do, and also, because we fear having any trouble with the I.R.S.
Obviously, not everyone in the country shares our burden of responsibility and our primal fear of “things such as the I.R.S. that go bump in the night.” Take as an example, three of Mr. Obama’s recent nominees to the high level posts of heading the Treasury Department, heading the Health and Human Services Department, and the Chief White House Performance Officer. These three picks to help lead the country, Timothy Geithner, Tom Daschle, and Nancy Killefer collectively owed approximately $180,000 in taxes.
There is much more at issue here than the money owed although, the average person’s attitude is “I pay my taxes and I expect our leaders to pay theirs.” The bigger issue and what is even more distressing, especially in view of the recent outrages of Wall Street financial types devoid of conscience and scruples gorging themselves on ill gotten bonuses, is these government types betraying the public trust even before they assume their posts by not paying taxes which they clearly owed. Excuses offered are not accepted by Main Street. The public distress has not yet shifted to questioning Mr. Obama as to whether this is a continuation of “business as usual in Washington.” Everyone is desperately hoping Mr. Obama’s creation of a higher ethical standard will succeed, and just as importantly, they are counting on the success of Mr. Obama himself.
Confidence is the key ingredient for the recovery of the country. Confidence must first be forcefully restored in government itself. Confidence in the financial system is next. However, unequivocally, the absolute foundation of confidence is honesty and integrity. To presume to hold key public positions while knowingly violating the law does not bespeak of honesty and integrity and is an insult to those who are to be governed and obey the law as part of the normal course of their own lives. At a minimum, would these chosen people not be embarrassed by their sins? Would they not find it difficult to look people eye to eye in conversations? Shouldn’t they themselves be setting the standard for honesty? More basically, haven’t they learned and aren’t they smart enough to know they will get caught and humiliated? “He is truly wise who gains wisdom from another’s mishap.” (Publilius Syrus Circa 42 B.C.) We do prefer wise leaders, don’t you know.
Obviously, many of these people are so arrogant and egotistic they assume they are above the law. They are a crack in the honesty-integrity foundation that must apotropaically be in place for confidence to be restored in the country itself. They are another sad commentary in a long list of recent sad commentaries of human frailties. We can do better than this. No one person is so critical to the country and the government that honesty and integrity can be compromised.
While presently, the main focus in government is spending to energize the economy, following is a suggestion to provide revenue for the government: The three people mentioned above accounted for nearly $200,000 in unpaid taxes in a very small sample size of high income individuals. An extrapolation of that sample and the dollar amount of taxes owed would yield the equation that if 3 people owed $200,000, 15 people would owe $1,000,000 in a similarly constituted larger sample. Furthermore, while we don’t actually know the total number of people considered for these three posts, certainly the sample size remains relatively very small. It must be concluded that, of the individuals in this sample of people considered for these posts, an extraordinarily high percentage of them owe back taxes. What is not in the equation is an examination of the tax obligation status of other possible nominees in the candidate sample. We don’t really know how many of these other potential nominees also had tax liability issues in addition to the three final nominees. Potentially, the percentage of possible nominees owing back taxes could be much higher.
Therefore, the I.R.S. should audit a much higher percentage of individuals making over $250,000 per year. That would yield millions of dollars in revenue in back taxes to the government.
Obviously, there are many other scalawags who undoubtedly would also appreciate the guiding hand of the I.R.S to help them clear their consciences and demonstrate their patriotism.
Jim Wharton
copyright
It is up to us, the Middle Class of America, or what few of us there are left, to carry the country through the depression. We are the ones who fear God and the I.R.S. (not necessarily in that order). We pay our taxes because it’s the right thing to do, and also, because we fear having any trouble with the I.R.S.
Obviously, not everyone in the country shares our burden of responsibility and our primal fear of “things such as the I.R.S. that go bump in the night.” Take as an example, three of Mr. Obama’s recent nominees to the high level posts of heading the Treasury Department, heading the Health and Human Services Department, and the Chief White House Performance Officer. These three picks to help lead the country, Timothy Geithner, Tom Daschle, and Nancy Killefer collectively owed approximately $180,000 in taxes.
There is much more at issue here than the money owed although, the average person’s attitude is “I pay my taxes and I expect our leaders to pay theirs.” The bigger issue and what is even more distressing, especially in view of the recent outrages of Wall Street financial types devoid of conscience and scruples gorging themselves on ill gotten bonuses, is these government types betraying the public trust even before they assume their posts by not paying taxes which they clearly owed. Excuses offered are not accepted by Main Street. The public distress has not yet shifted to questioning Mr. Obama as to whether this is a continuation of “business as usual in Washington.” Everyone is desperately hoping Mr. Obama’s creation of a higher ethical standard will succeed, and just as importantly, they are counting on the success of Mr. Obama himself.
Confidence is the key ingredient for the recovery of the country. Confidence must first be forcefully restored in government itself. Confidence in the financial system is next. However, unequivocally, the absolute foundation of confidence is honesty and integrity. To presume to hold key public positions while knowingly violating the law does not bespeak of honesty and integrity and is an insult to those who are to be governed and obey the law as part of the normal course of their own lives. At a minimum, would these chosen people not be embarrassed by their sins? Would they not find it difficult to look people eye to eye in conversations? Shouldn’t they themselves be setting the standard for honesty? More basically, haven’t they learned and aren’t they smart enough to know they will get caught and humiliated? “He is truly wise who gains wisdom from another’s mishap.” (Publilius Syrus Circa 42 B.C.) We do prefer wise leaders, don’t you know.
Obviously, many of these people are so arrogant and egotistic they assume they are above the law. They are a crack in the honesty-integrity foundation that must apotropaically be in place for confidence to be restored in the country itself. They are another sad commentary in a long list of recent sad commentaries of human frailties. We can do better than this. No one person is so critical to the country and the government that honesty and integrity can be compromised.
While presently, the main focus in government is spending to energize the economy, following is a suggestion to provide revenue for the government: The three people mentioned above accounted for nearly $200,000 in unpaid taxes in a very small sample size of high income individuals. An extrapolation of that sample and the dollar amount of taxes owed would yield the equation that if 3 people owed $200,000, 15 people would owe $1,000,000 in a similarly constituted larger sample. Furthermore, while we don’t actually know the total number of people considered for these three posts, certainly the sample size remains relatively very small. It must be concluded that, of the individuals in this sample of people considered for these posts, an extraordinarily high percentage of them owe back taxes. What is not in the equation is an examination of the tax obligation status of other possible nominees in the candidate sample. We don’t really know how many of these other potential nominees also had tax liability issues in addition to the three final nominees. Potentially, the percentage of possible nominees owing back taxes could be much higher.
Therefore, the I.R.S. should audit a much higher percentage of individuals making over $250,000 per year. That would yield millions of dollars in revenue in back taxes to the government.
Obviously, there are many other scalawags who undoubtedly would also appreciate the guiding hand of the I.R.S to help them clear their consciences and demonstrate their patriotism.
Jim Wharton
copyright
Sunday, February 1, 2009
The Skeleton in Evolution's Closet
The Skeleton in Evolution’s Closet
There is an old saying, “Well, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle.” Today however, thanks to the Darwinists, the saying is revised “Well, a monkey is my uncle.” In true Darwinian tradition, the many books devoted to evolution have catalytically sparked an evolution of another kind, at least for me. The product of this new evolution is a new literary medium I shall call a “review of a book review.” The rationale for this new medium is expediency. There are too many books to read, particularly on the subject of evolution. So, a reader must resort to book reviews, particularly if the book doesn’t appear that compelling anyway. This article, then, actually reviews the review of a book.
The book under discussion is “Why Evolution is True,” by Jerry A. Coyne. Unfortunately for Mr. Coyne, his book follows on the coat tails of many other books on the same subject. Consequently, (in Mr. Coyne’s beloved evolutionary pattern) such a frequency of books on the subject has forcefully interjected a strong element of suspicion of all evolutionary authors’ motives into the debate. The most conclusive observation on such evolution apologists now becomes “The lady doth protest too much methinks.” (Shakespeare from Hamlet). The world heard “evolution” the first time one hundred and fifty years ago when Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” started it all. “Why Evolution is True” continues and updates the argument. The Wall Street Journal review by Philip Kitcher underscores the author’s concern that surveys show most Americans “have grave doubts about the truth of Darwin’s theory.” He is, in fact, “perturbed enough by the survey results to want to remedy the situation.”
Kitcher cites “Mr. Coyne’s parade of evidence—his discussion of the fossil record, of vestigial traits, of the ways in which living things constantly make novel use of the bits and pieces they have inherited, of the distribution of plants and animals—(and conclusion) the components of Darwin’s thesis are sequentially supported.”
The key fallacy in Mr. Coyne’s and other apologists’ approach to evolution is their argument inferentially excludes the existence of God. This exclusion of God causes great annoyance and displeasure for most people living on the planet. The heart of Mr. Coyne’s argument is “Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species—perhaps a self-replicating molecule—that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago: it then branched out over time throwing off many and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection.” This removes God from the equation of life on the planet. Our uncle, the monkey, is really not a monkey at all. He has been replaced by a mere self-replicating molecule. That’s even more distressing.
The exclusion of God, as one of the consequential central theses of most evolutionists is defended by their hiding behind a subjective and biased utilization of their cherished scientific method. Like Mr. Coyne, their fallacy is they universally reject the possibility of God by refusing to take even the first step into a scientific investigation of the possibility of God. That is to say, they never objectively ask the question “is there a god?” This does not mean that no scientist ever asked the question however, the scientific method demands “hard objective evidence” (according to their definition of evidence) to support the conclusion. With this ingrained bias of most evolutionists, if not also most scientists, it is impossible to conduct a scientific investigation of the existence of God because all evidence suggesting a spiritual existence is classified as “not hard and objective.” The rejection by evolutionists and scientists of the entire class of evidence they exclude because it does not conform to “their definition of objective” violates their own scientific methodology. They refuse to consider all the evidence, precisely as did the jurors in the O.J. Simpson trial, with the end results paralleling each other in absolute absurdity. Flawed reasoning of this magnitude would challenge the ancient observation, “Man is a reasoning animal.” Seneca ( 8B.C. – A.D. 65).
The evidence chain Science chooses to ignore contains the observations and experiences of millions of individuals of the human species over time. Mankind, in every culture, has observed the presence of a higher power as long as mankind has existed. Scientists’ explanations of any spiritual experience, however, are always “a mind playing tricks on its owner.” The rejection by the scientific community of the massive body of evidence under the classification of “spiritual” is, in itself, an unforgivable chasm of ignorance. What science fails to understand about this spiritual class evidence is, like any other evidence, constructive and methodical examination is required to separate the valid from the invalid. Every rock at an archaeological excavation is not an artifact. The great majority of rocks are just rocks. Under the “Spiritual Classification,” only the most verifiable evidence must be included. The “rocks’ in this case are those who falsify or magnify a spiritual event to achieve their own agenda, thereby destroying their own credibility and compromising the body of evidence itself. The necessary objectivity for evidence classified as spiritual (as opposed to merely subjective) can only be achieved by integrity in reporting the facts.
Several years ago, my mother had been taken from the emergency room to the Intensive Care Unit. The prognosis was not good. Her ninety-six year old heart had stopped beating twice for ten to fifteen seconds or more. After her own doctor and the doctor in charge of the Intensive Care Section had conferred, they had concluded she could not survive. As they informed me of this prognosis in the hallway outside her room, they asked me what I wanted to do. I simply said, “She will survive. Bring her back.” I knew that she had recovered from life threatening events several times before and her recuperative powers were phenomenal. The doctors did not know this. Nevertheless, with the situation impossibly dire, and the team of physicians expecting and predicting she would not live, she miraculously survived. The doctor in charge of Intensive Care came to me and said her recovery was incredible. He was smiling and I think a bit surprised. I thanked him profusely for saving my mother’s life. What he said then, and the tone in which he said it, greatly surprised me.
He said, “I didn’t save your mother’s life.” Pointing upward, he said “Someone else is in charge here. I am only a tool. I do not make the decisions on who lives or dies. We do what we can and someone else decides.” I saw him again the next day and thanked him again. Again, he repeated. “I am just a tool here. Someone else decides who lives.” A member of the family heard two of the doctors discussing my mother’s case in the elevator shortly after her miraculous recovery. One doctor said to the other, “What just happened should not have happened.” They were just as perplexed about how she recovered as the other doctors in the Intensive Care Unit.
I also talked to the nurse in the Intensive Care Unit about how incredible it was that my mother recovered. She told me that they see “miraculous recoveries” often in the ICU. She also told me, someone else is controlling things here. We just do our jobs.
The spiritual aspect of my two conversations with the doctor who was the head of the ICU as well as my conversation the nurse would challenge even the most hardened skeptic on the existence of God. My mother’s recovery was a miracle in every sense of the word as I understand it. Skeptics would point out that she had incredible recuperative powers. Also, I am not an authority on miracles. But, consider this: During this time, I observed or experienced discussions with physicians, their demeanor and tone, the actual events occurring, the reactions of physicians to my mother’s recovery, her ongoing condition, and the comments made by the Director of the Intensive Care Unit and other care givers referencing spiritual intervention in their various patients. Not only my mother’s case, but also the many other cases these physicians and other care givers had experienced, provide more than adequate evidence to support a serious consideration of a spiritual existence.
The Spiritual Body of Evidence however must include an “objective assessment” of those events or experiences and classify them according to their credibility. Simply saying something is miraculous is not adequate. As an example, for the Catholic Church, the village of Lourdes in France is a significant religious shrine. In 1858, Bernadette Soubirous witnessed several apparitions of the Virgin Mary. Since that time, many millions of people have visited Lourdes (six million people per year come to Lourdes, 70,000 of them sick and disabled and seeking a cure). Thousands claim to have been miraculously cured since 1858. However, the Catholic Church has established a rigorous investigative process to validate whether a miracle actually occurred. A miracle is defined a miracle as “an extraordinary event, believed to be due to divine intervention, to which is attributed a spiritual significance.”
Before an event is classified as a miracle, four separate steps are required:
1. Examination of individual by a medical bureau (first level of assessment).
2. Medical criteria for a cure must be satisfied.
3. Examination of patient and history of case by the international committee.
4. Diocesan Canonical Commission is convened (theologians and doctors) to consider the case and whether the cure is a “sign of god.”
From a mathematical standpoint, of the many thousands claiming to have been miraculously cured since 1858, the Church recognizes only sixty seven as actual miracles. This is a very small percentage of those claiming a miraculous cure, a very minute percentage of the total number of people coming to Lourdes seeking a cure, and reflects the intense diligence the Church demands in the classification process. However, there are possibly other cases of miraculous cures which occurred but were not, however, classified as miracles because certain steps in the rigorous examination process were not satisfied. On the other hand, the counterpoint might be that some of the sixty seven cures classified as miracles may not actually have been miracles.
However, in the final analysis, the same level of scientific respect must be accorded the examination process and the learned individuals involved as is accorded other men and women of science and the results of their research. Given that presumption, it is not a great leap to conclude that spiritual involvement is evident in certain specific cases classified as miracles.
The Shroud of Turin is another example of the rigor applied by the Catholic Church to the verification of miracles. The Shroud of Turin apparently dates from the first century and is considered by many to be the burial shroud of Jesus Christ. The position of the Church is that it neither confirms nor denies the authenticity of the Shroud. While the Shroud has been examined many times by many experts who have offered conflicting opinions on its authenticity, no one has been able to figure out how the full length image of Christ’s body was imprinted on the cloth itself. Many people, including experts, believe the image, which is an exact photographic negative, was formed by a radiation like burst of energy. They conclude that this is proof of Christ’s Resurrection. While it would be an easy leap to ascribe a miraculous event to the creation of the cloth, the Church stops short of that conclusion. Based on the considerable evidence which I have seen as well as many expert (scientific and not) analyses of the cloth, I personally believe the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial Shroud of Jesus and is material proof of his Resurrection. However, I would leave open the possibility that a credible, contrary explanation for the creation of the cloth could be provided in the future.
There is a church, Saint Edward on the Lake, in Lakeport, Michigan. In the late 1970’s, my family attended this church. The pastor, Father Hogan, was a very credible and very holy person. When I attended Sunday Mass with Father Hogan on the altar, there was something very special happening. Of the thousands of masses in the many, many Catholic churches I have attended, only the masses with Father Hogan affected me in this specific manner. As I watched Father Hogan on the altar, I could strongly sense a spiritual connection with God. When it was necessary to move to another city, I came to see Father Hogan at his residence. I wanted to tell him “goodbye” and thank him for the spirituality I felt when he said Mass. While we were talking, he described a particular spiritual event which he had experienced. He described it as follows: During one particular mass, as he held up the monstrance (a receptacle holding the host) and looked at the host, he saw the face of Jesus Christ looking back at him. Father Hogan, then a man in his sixties, said that of the thousands of masses he had conducted, this event had only occurred during this one time. While I believed he considered this particular event to be of the greatest importance, I don’t know if he would consider it a miracle. On the other hand, he would not care about how the event was classified. The important point is that it happened and it made a lifelong impression on Father Hogan. In the context of the spiritual connection I experienced during Father Hogan’s masses and his deep reflection as he recounted on seeing the face of Jesus, a conclusion of a spiritual presence is inescapable.
Returning to the original point of this article, the review of the book review, the conceptual failure of this book, as with other books on evolution, is the exclusion of the spiritual aspect of life on the planet. Mr. Coyne does mumble something about the contemplation of the wonders of the universe as having a spiritual flavor. However, because it echoes most scientists’ refusal to acknowledge a spiritual existence, the book is a catastrophic failure of logic and reason.
To support this conclusion, I would challenge Mr. Coyne and his fellow scientists and evolutionists with two questions which, while they are consistently ignored, should actually be the main consideration of their argument.
1. If life on earth began with a self-replicating molecule, where did the self-replicating molecule come from?
2. Then, while contemplating the wonders of the universe as Mr. Coyne suggests, one other small detail is “Where did the Universe come from?”
To date, no one has been able to answer either of these questions. Basically, humankind cannot comprehend nor explain either one of the smallest objects in the universe, the molecule, nor the largest object in the universe, that being the universe itself. It is okay to drag out that tired old explanation, the “Big-Bang Theory,” as we contemplate the wonders of the universe as Mr. Coyne suggests. However, in doing so, we must remember this simple analogy. As you sit contemplating the wonders of a July 4th fireworks display, it would seem the source of all those beautiful lights in the sky was also a “big-bang” which was heard just prior to their occurrence. But we know that the “big-bang” we heard was not the real source of the fireworks in the sky. Their real source was a firecracker.
Whether we are contemplating the beauty of lights in the sky from a fireworks display or the beauty of lights in the sky by looking through a telescope at the universe, the most relevant question is “Who lit the firecracker?” Evolution did not begin with a self-replicating molecule. Evolution began with the creation of the self-replicating molecule. As such, “Why Evolution is True” stops short of tracing the entire path of evolution in that it relies upon physical evidence only. The refusal to include evidence classified as “spiritual” is not only a shortfall of logic and reason, but the resultant apologia reeks of scientific arrogance and academic irresponsibility. In this newest book on evolution, nothing has changed. “Evolution” itself has failed to evolve.
James Wharton
Copyright
There is an old saying, “Well, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle.” Today however, thanks to the Darwinists, the saying is revised “Well, a monkey is my uncle.” In true Darwinian tradition, the many books devoted to evolution have catalytically sparked an evolution of another kind, at least for me. The product of this new evolution is a new literary medium I shall call a “review of a book review.” The rationale for this new medium is expediency. There are too many books to read, particularly on the subject of evolution. So, a reader must resort to book reviews, particularly if the book doesn’t appear that compelling anyway. This article, then, actually reviews the review of a book.
The book under discussion is “Why Evolution is True,” by Jerry A. Coyne. Unfortunately for Mr. Coyne, his book follows on the coat tails of many other books on the same subject. Consequently, (in Mr. Coyne’s beloved evolutionary pattern) such a frequency of books on the subject has forcefully interjected a strong element of suspicion of all evolutionary authors’ motives into the debate. The most conclusive observation on such evolution apologists now becomes “The lady doth protest too much methinks.” (Shakespeare from Hamlet). The world heard “evolution” the first time one hundred and fifty years ago when Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” started it all. “Why Evolution is True” continues and updates the argument. The Wall Street Journal review by Philip Kitcher underscores the author’s concern that surveys show most Americans “have grave doubts about the truth of Darwin’s theory.” He is, in fact, “perturbed enough by the survey results to want to remedy the situation.”
Kitcher cites “Mr. Coyne’s parade of evidence—his discussion of the fossil record, of vestigial traits, of the ways in which living things constantly make novel use of the bits and pieces they have inherited, of the distribution of plants and animals—(and conclusion) the components of Darwin’s thesis are sequentially supported.”
The key fallacy in Mr. Coyne’s and other apologists’ approach to evolution is their argument inferentially excludes the existence of God. This exclusion of God causes great annoyance and displeasure for most people living on the planet. The heart of Mr. Coyne’s argument is “Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species—perhaps a self-replicating molecule—that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago: it then branched out over time throwing off many and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection.” This removes God from the equation of life on the planet. Our uncle, the monkey, is really not a monkey at all. He has been replaced by a mere self-replicating molecule. That’s even more distressing.
The exclusion of God, as one of the consequential central theses of most evolutionists is defended by their hiding behind a subjective and biased utilization of their cherished scientific method. Like Mr. Coyne, their fallacy is they universally reject the possibility of God by refusing to take even the first step into a scientific investigation of the possibility of God. That is to say, they never objectively ask the question “is there a god?” This does not mean that no scientist ever asked the question however, the scientific method demands “hard objective evidence” (according to their definition of evidence) to support the conclusion. With this ingrained bias of most evolutionists, if not also most scientists, it is impossible to conduct a scientific investigation of the existence of God because all evidence suggesting a spiritual existence is classified as “not hard and objective.” The rejection by evolutionists and scientists of the entire class of evidence they exclude because it does not conform to “their definition of objective” violates their own scientific methodology. They refuse to consider all the evidence, precisely as did the jurors in the O.J. Simpson trial, with the end results paralleling each other in absolute absurdity. Flawed reasoning of this magnitude would challenge the ancient observation, “Man is a reasoning animal.” Seneca ( 8B.C. – A.D. 65).
The evidence chain Science chooses to ignore contains the observations and experiences of millions of individuals of the human species over time. Mankind, in every culture, has observed the presence of a higher power as long as mankind has existed. Scientists’ explanations of any spiritual experience, however, are always “a mind playing tricks on its owner.” The rejection by the scientific community of the massive body of evidence under the classification of “spiritual” is, in itself, an unforgivable chasm of ignorance. What science fails to understand about this spiritual class evidence is, like any other evidence, constructive and methodical examination is required to separate the valid from the invalid. Every rock at an archaeological excavation is not an artifact. The great majority of rocks are just rocks. Under the “Spiritual Classification,” only the most verifiable evidence must be included. The “rocks’ in this case are those who falsify or magnify a spiritual event to achieve their own agenda, thereby destroying their own credibility and compromising the body of evidence itself. The necessary objectivity for evidence classified as spiritual (as opposed to merely subjective) can only be achieved by integrity in reporting the facts.
Several years ago, my mother had been taken from the emergency room to the Intensive Care Unit. The prognosis was not good. Her ninety-six year old heart had stopped beating twice for ten to fifteen seconds or more. After her own doctor and the doctor in charge of the Intensive Care Section had conferred, they had concluded she could not survive. As they informed me of this prognosis in the hallway outside her room, they asked me what I wanted to do. I simply said, “She will survive. Bring her back.” I knew that she had recovered from life threatening events several times before and her recuperative powers were phenomenal. The doctors did not know this. Nevertheless, with the situation impossibly dire, and the team of physicians expecting and predicting she would not live, she miraculously survived. The doctor in charge of Intensive Care came to me and said her recovery was incredible. He was smiling and I think a bit surprised. I thanked him profusely for saving my mother’s life. What he said then, and the tone in which he said it, greatly surprised me.
He said, “I didn’t save your mother’s life.” Pointing upward, he said “Someone else is in charge here. I am only a tool. I do not make the decisions on who lives or dies. We do what we can and someone else decides.” I saw him again the next day and thanked him again. Again, he repeated. “I am just a tool here. Someone else decides who lives.” A member of the family heard two of the doctors discussing my mother’s case in the elevator shortly after her miraculous recovery. One doctor said to the other, “What just happened should not have happened.” They were just as perplexed about how she recovered as the other doctors in the Intensive Care Unit.
I also talked to the nurse in the Intensive Care Unit about how incredible it was that my mother recovered. She told me that they see “miraculous recoveries” often in the ICU. She also told me, someone else is controlling things here. We just do our jobs.
The spiritual aspect of my two conversations with the doctor who was the head of the ICU as well as my conversation the nurse would challenge even the most hardened skeptic on the existence of God. My mother’s recovery was a miracle in every sense of the word as I understand it. Skeptics would point out that she had incredible recuperative powers. Also, I am not an authority on miracles. But, consider this: During this time, I observed or experienced discussions with physicians, their demeanor and tone, the actual events occurring, the reactions of physicians to my mother’s recovery, her ongoing condition, and the comments made by the Director of the Intensive Care Unit and other care givers referencing spiritual intervention in their various patients. Not only my mother’s case, but also the many other cases these physicians and other care givers had experienced, provide more than adequate evidence to support a serious consideration of a spiritual existence.
The Spiritual Body of Evidence however must include an “objective assessment” of those events or experiences and classify them according to their credibility. Simply saying something is miraculous is not adequate. As an example, for the Catholic Church, the village of Lourdes in France is a significant religious shrine. In 1858, Bernadette Soubirous witnessed several apparitions of the Virgin Mary. Since that time, many millions of people have visited Lourdes (six million people per year come to Lourdes, 70,000 of them sick and disabled and seeking a cure). Thousands claim to have been miraculously cured since 1858. However, the Catholic Church has established a rigorous investigative process to validate whether a miracle actually occurred. A miracle is defined a miracle as “an extraordinary event, believed to be due to divine intervention, to which is attributed a spiritual significance.”
Before an event is classified as a miracle, four separate steps are required:
1. Examination of individual by a medical bureau (first level of assessment).
2. Medical criteria for a cure must be satisfied.
3. Examination of patient and history of case by the international committee.
4. Diocesan Canonical Commission is convened (theologians and doctors) to consider the case and whether the cure is a “sign of god.”
From a mathematical standpoint, of the many thousands claiming to have been miraculously cured since 1858, the Church recognizes only sixty seven as actual miracles. This is a very small percentage of those claiming a miraculous cure, a very minute percentage of the total number of people coming to Lourdes seeking a cure, and reflects the intense diligence the Church demands in the classification process. However, there are possibly other cases of miraculous cures which occurred but were not, however, classified as miracles because certain steps in the rigorous examination process were not satisfied. On the other hand, the counterpoint might be that some of the sixty seven cures classified as miracles may not actually have been miracles.
However, in the final analysis, the same level of scientific respect must be accorded the examination process and the learned individuals involved as is accorded other men and women of science and the results of their research. Given that presumption, it is not a great leap to conclude that spiritual involvement is evident in certain specific cases classified as miracles.
The Shroud of Turin is another example of the rigor applied by the Catholic Church to the verification of miracles. The Shroud of Turin apparently dates from the first century and is considered by many to be the burial shroud of Jesus Christ. The position of the Church is that it neither confirms nor denies the authenticity of the Shroud. While the Shroud has been examined many times by many experts who have offered conflicting opinions on its authenticity, no one has been able to figure out how the full length image of Christ’s body was imprinted on the cloth itself. Many people, including experts, believe the image, which is an exact photographic negative, was formed by a radiation like burst of energy. They conclude that this is proof of Christ’s Resurrection. While it would be an easy leap to ascribe a miraculous event to the creation of the cloth, the Church stops short of that conclusion. Based on the considerable evidence which I have seen as well as many expert (scientific and not) analyses of the cloth, I personally believe the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial Shroud of Jesus and is material proof of his Resurrection. However, I would leave open the possibility that a credible, contrary explanation for the creation of the cloth could be provided in the future.
There is a church, Saint Edward on the Lake, in Lakeport, Michigan. In the late 1970’s, my family attended this church. The pastor, Father Hogan, was a very credible and very holy person. When I attended Sunday Mass with Father Hogan on the altar, there was something very special happening. Of the thousands of masses in the many, many Catholic churches I have attended, only the masses with Father Hogan affected me in this specific manner. As I watched Father Hogan on the altar, I could strongly sense a spiritual connection with God. When it was necessary to move to another city, I came to see Father Hogan at his residence. I wanted to tell him “goodbye” and thank him for the spirituality I felt when he said Mass. While we were talking, he described a particular spiritual event which he had experienced. He described it as follows: During one particular mass, as he held up the monstrance (a receptacle holding the host) and looked at the host, he saw the face of Jesus Christ looking back at him. Father Hogan, then a man in his sixties, said that of the thousands of masses he had conducted, this event had only occurred during this one time. While I believed he considered this particular event to be of the greatest importance, I don’t know if he would consider it a miracle. On the other hand, he would not care about how the event was classified. The important point is that it happened and it made a lifelong impression on Father Hogan. In the context of the spiritual connection I experienced during Father Hogan’s masses and his deep reflection as he recounted on seeing the face of Jesus, a conclusion of a spiritual presence is inescapable.
Returning to the original point of this article, the review of the book review, the conceptual failure of this book, as with other books on evolution, is the exclusion of the spiritual aspect of life on the planet. Mr. Coyne does mumble something about the contemplation of the wonders of the universe as having a spiritual flavor. However, because it echoes most scientists’ refusal to acknowledge a spiritual existence, the book is a catastrophic failure of logic and reason.
To support this conclusion, I would challenge Mr. Coyne and his fellow scientists and evolutionists with two questions which, while they are consistently ignored, should actually be the main consideration of their argument.
1. If life on earth began with a self-replicating molecule, where did the self-replicating molecule come from?
2. Then, while contemplating the wonders of the universe as Mr. Coyne suggests, one other small detail is “Where did the Universe come from?”
To date, no one has been able to answer either of these questions. Basically, humankind cannot comprehend nor explain either one of the smallest objects in the universe, the molecule, nor the largest object in the universe, that being the universe itself. It is okay to drag out that tired old explanation, the “Big-Bang Theory,” as we contemplate the wonders of the universe as Mr. Coyne suggests. However, in doing so, we must remember this simple analogy. As you sit contemplating the wonders of a July 4th fireworks display, it would seem the source of all those beautiful lights in the sky was also a “big-bang” which was heard just prior to their occurrence. But we know that the “big-bang” we heard was not the real source of the fireworks in the sky. Their real source was a firecracker.
Whether we are contemplating the beauty of lights in the sky from a fireworks display or the beauty of lights in the sky by looking through a telescope at the universe, the most relevant question is “Who lit the firecracker?” Evolution did not begin with a self-replicating molecule. Evolution began with the creation of the self-replicating molecule. As such, “Why Evolution is True” stops short of tracing the entire path of evolution in that it relies upon physical evidence only. The refusal to include evidence classified as “spiritual” is not only a shortfall of logic and reason, but the resultant apologia reeks of scientific arrogance and academic irresponsibility. In this newest book on evolution, nothing has changed. “Evolution” itself has failed to evolve.
James Wharton
Copyright
Monday, January 26, 2009
Letter to Editor, New York Times
The following letter was sent to the Editor of the New York Times regarding an interview with Arthur Levitt, former head of the Security and Exchange Commission.
Editor, Magazine
The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Deborah Solomon’s interview with Arthur Levitt neatly delineated the rationale for the rage and sense of betrayal felt by the millions of Americans who watched helplessly as their 401k’s and homes lost 40% of their value. This double whammy of fortune reversal was unapologetically delivered by the likes of Mr. Levitt and cronies cozily ensconced in their ill-gotten, nepotistic lairs courteously provided by Wall Street’s pin striped foxes supposedly guarding Main Street’s hen houses. Mr. Levitt’s rampant arrogance (“don’t feel right about spending large sums of money in this environment” regarding his Far East vacation) and ignorance (“capture theory” whereby regulators become co-opted by the industries they regulate”) provide damning evidence for the indisputable verdict of “GUILTY.” Main Street judges as completely unacceptable Mr. Levitt’s pathetic excuse that Bernie Madoff’s “reputation was as a trader, not a money manager.” Main Street will never understand nor forgive the obscene compensation insanely provided to and unethically accepted by financial leaders whose folly and incompetence plunged their firms into billion dollar losses. The failure, better stated as refusal, of Mr. Levitt, his S.E.C. and other regulatory agencies to discharge their responsibilities at even the most basic level destroyed the country’s confidence in its financial institutions causing systemic damage irreparable for years to come.
James Wharton
Editor, Magazine
The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Deborah Solomon’s interview with Arthur Levitt neatly delineated the rationale for the rage and sense of betrayal felt by the millions of Americans who watched helplessly as their 401k’s and homes lost 40% of their value. This double whammy of fortune reversal was unapologetically delivered by the likes of Mr. Levitt and cronies cozily ensconced in their ill-gotten, nepotistic lairs courteously provided by Wall Street’s pin striped foxes supposedly guarding Main Street’s hen houses. Mr. Levitt’s rampant arrogance (“don’t feel right about spending large sums of money in this environment” regarding his Far East vacation) and ignorance (“capture theory” whereby regulators become co-opted by the industries they regulate”) provide damning evidence for the indisputable verdict of “GUILTY.” Main Street judges as completely unacceptable Mr. Levitt’s pathetic excuse that Bernie Madoff’s “reputation was as a trader, not a money manager.” Main Street will never understand nor forgive the obscene compensation insanely provided to and unethically accepted by financial leaders whose folly and incompetence plunged their firms into billion dollar losses. The failure, better stated as refusal, of Mr. Levitt, his S.E.C. and other regulatory agencies to discharge their responsibilities at even the most basic level destroyed the country’s confidence in its financial institutions causing systemic damage irreparable for years to come.
James Wharton
Thursday, January 22, 2009
E-mail to President Obama
Social Security:
Suggestion 1: Put some working people on the Social Security reform committee for “real world input.” On C-Span several days ago, a professor from Harvard and some Congressman were discussing the best Stock Market based 401k retirement option. Their opinions were way off base from a true understanding of the “real world” of working people.
Suggestion 2: Ideas for Reform:
The realization that the entire retirement system in the United States was broken came into the clear focus of national attention with the financial meltdown. Social Security must be transformed into the “main retirement vehicle” that provides adequate income for people in their retirement years. This demands at least three strategies be implemented during working years to accommodate a longer life span during non-working years:
1. Postpone pay-outs to subscribers until they reach age 70.
2. Raise the collection rate during the working years.
3. Remove the income cap for Social Security pay-in.
Social Security should be structured to provide a minimum base retirement income. Also, optional additional retirement income could be set up by indexing an individual’s additional amounts paid in to the amount that person receives. (An optional conservative, indexed stock fund could also be set up.) This provides flexibility for each person to increase their retirement income by paying more in or utilizing an investment option.
An individual 401k should only enhance the standard of living, not be structured as the “main retirement vehicle.” Most clearly, Stock Market based 401k’s are broken too! They are unreliable, unstable, unsafe, ill conceived and illogical. Why? In retirement years, a dependable fixed income is needed. The Stock Market is highly volatile thus highly variable and cannot provide a dependable fixed income. The Stock Market is not a safe haven due to the increasingly volatile and uncertain world in which we live.
Additionally, most people don’t have the time, knowledge, or self-discipline to manage and consistently contribute to a 401k.
Under the present system, an “investment advisor” manages a 401k for the individual. Problems are: 1. The advisor may not actually know anymore than the 401k owner. 2. The advisor is getting paid a commission on his recommendations or what he sells to the 401k owner and objectivity is lost. 3. How much risk does a person want?
Quoting Bernard Baruch:
“If you are ready and able to give up everything else, to study the whole history and background of the market and all the principal companies whose stocks are on the board as carefully as a medical student studies anatomy, to glue your nose at the tape at the opening of every day of the year and never take it off till night, if you can do all that and in addition you have the cool nerves of a great gambler, the sixth sense of a kind of clairvoyant, and the courage of a lion, then you’ve got a chance.”
(From my Blog- www.deadfriendsandme.blogspot.com
Suggestion 1: Put some working people on the Social Security reform committee for “real world input.” On C-Span several days ago, a professor from Harvard and some Congressman were discussing the best Stock Market based 401k retirement option. Their opinions were way off base from a true understanding of the “real world” of working people.
Suggestion 2: Ideas for Reform:
The realization that the entire retirement system in the United States was broken came into the clear focus of national attention with the financial meltdown. Social Security must be transformed into the “main retirement vehicle” that provides adequate income for people in their retirement years. This demands at least three strategies be implemented during working years to accommodate a longer life span during non-working years:
1. Postpone pay-outs to subscribers until they reach age 70.
2. Raise the collection rate during the working years.
3. Remove the income cap for Social Security pay-in.
Social Security should be structured to provide a minimum base retirement income. Also, optional additional retirement income could be set up by indexing an individual’s additional amounts paid in to the amount that person receives. (An optional conservative, indexed stock fund could also be set up.) This provides flexibility for each person to increase their retirement income by paying more in or utilizing an investment option.
An individual 401k should only enhance the standard of living, not be structured as the “main retirement vehicle.” Most clearly, Stock Market based 401k’s are broken too! They are unreliable, unstable, unsafe, ill conceived and illogical. Why? In retirement years, a dependable fixed income is needed. The Stock Market is highly volatile thus highly variable and cannot provide a dependable fixed income. The Stock Market is not a safe haven due to the increasingly volatile and uncertain world in which we live.
Additionally, most people don’t have the time, knowledge, or self-discipline to manage and consistently contribute to a 401k.
Under the present system, an “investment advisor” manages a 401k for the individual. Problems are: 1. The advisor may not actually know anymore than the 401k owner. 2. The advisor is getting paid a commission on his recommendations or what he sells to the 401k owner and objectivity is lost. 3. How much risk does a person want?
Quoting Bernard Baruch:
“If you are ready and able to give up everything else, to study the whole history and background of the market and all the principal companies whose stocks are on the board as carefully as a medical student studies anatomy, to glue your nose at the tape at the opening of every day of the year and never take it off till night, if you can do all that and in addition you have the cool nerves of a great gambler, the sixth sense of a kind of clairvoyant, and the courage of a lion, then you’ve got a chance.”
(From my Blog- www.deadfriendsandme.blogspot.com
God
There was suddenly water, blue, silver, and white, flowing swiftly and lavishly in what a moment before had been a rocky dry gulch I had been walking beside for hours. It did not begin with a slow trickle and build to a strong, flowing river. It did not rise from an underground spring and quickly fill the wide arroyo through which it now poured. And it did not charge through from upstream with the crash and roar of a flash flood. Rather, it was suddenly just there, a river forty feet wide, with rapids, and a voice speaking in tones of stout gurgles and muffled roars. Sunlight glistened off the curved waves dispatched by a thousand collisions of rock and water churning the rapids to a frothy white.
There were now deep and brilliant greens I had not seen before, the kind of abundant greens seen in the desert only when there is generous water. Trees, grasses, weeds, and plants, were growing profusely on either side of the new river. Trees gave shade and welcome respite from the midday sun. I looked back from where I had come, following a rocky desert trail which clung to the side of a large, eternally dry stream bed, the remains of an ancient river. Greenery and shining water now subverted my clear memory of miles of rocks, dust and the dry arroyo. With no warning, a river had taken my senses hostage, defying me to consider my physical state. Was it too much sun, too little water, a wrong turn on the trail? I sat down under one of the large, green trees, its branches holding the sun at bay. While the temperature had steadily risen to the one hundred degree plateau, I argued against myself that it could not be the sun. I had rested often in the shade of large rocks. I had drunk plenty of water, downed one or two energy bars, and even mixed a couple of batches of my old friend “gookenaid” (electrolyte replacement). The desert was also my friend. I knew all tricks, all the warning signs, and was always cautious. Mistakes in the desert carried a hard price. I had hiked this same trail many times before, each time following the familiar dry gulch the entire thirteen mile route to the campground near the highway. There were no turn-offs or side trails. I couldn’t be lost. No, this water had just appeared where there was none before, bringing trees, plants and even birds.
Yes, the problem was definitely too much sun, I thought, countering my own strong argument to the contrary. I needed to cool my body, get my temperature down, and stay out of the sun until I recovered. I poured water from one of the two canteens I carried onto a bandana and leaned back to place it across my forehead. I made a point of not using river water because I was still not sure there really was a river and, if there was, it might be polluted for one reason or another. Besides, I had plenty of water, because I always carried two canteens, each holding one gallon. One canteen was empty and the other was just below half full. With only a mile or so left, my water intake was on track.
The thirteen mile hike normally took four hours or so at a reasonable pace. The trail was difficult in many spots and the sun forced frequent stops in the shade. This day was particularly hot requiring more water than usual. But, I had been especially careful along the way to allow for the heat. No, it couldn’t be the sun, I thought, contradicting myself once again.
I had been sitting, leaning against the rock for several minutes. I had refreshed the wet bandana on my forehead with canteen water several times by then. The water wasn’t much cooler because the canteen, even with a cloth cover surrounding it, had become heated by the sun. But it seemed to help a little. I had started to once again moisten the bandana when I first noticed him. There was a man, sitting under a tree by the side of the water. He was staring directly at me. I don’t know why I didn’t see him before. He was in very plain sight. However, on this particular day, with not noticing the river with all its accompanying foliage until it literally erupted into my awareness, I was not surprised that I also missed seeing the man.
The man’s constant gaze was now making me somewhat uncomfortable. I was in the middle of what I thought was a case of a mild heat stroke, and a man was watching me intently, no expression on his face. Unnerving, that’s what it was. I began to stare back at this man, more in an effort to study him than to make actual eye contact and engage him in conversation. He seemed to be nearly a mirror image of myself, dressed in walking shorts, a loose long sleeved shirt, and hiking shoes (while boots with their ankle support would have been more appropriate for this type of trail, I chose the lighter, more comfortable hiking shoes to avoid the blisters that sometimes came with wearing the boots.). Why is this man watching me and who is he?
Those questions, and others I had not thought of, were soon to be addressed with the most unsettling of answers. A warm, sincere greeting of “Hello, Jim,” now came from this man. “Hello,” I hesitatingly volunteered back in his direction. “You’re wondering how I know your name,” he followed up, reading in my mind the next question which was to come, but was never necessary. “I know all about you Jim. You’re meeting your two friends Harry and John, and someone whom you’ve never met named Gerald, at the campground just up the river.” Things were beginning to get spooky now. He must be a serial killer and had just done away with the three of them but forced one of them to tell him where I was. Now he was going to dispatch me in some even more horrible way as he had more time to think about an even more creative way to do me in.
He laughed, again, reading my mind it seemed. “No harm will come to you, Jim. I am your friend, your very good friend.” He knew my thoughts and fears precisely. I didn’t even need to speak as he would answer my thoughts before I could put them into words. Finally, I was speaking to him. “Well, you know me but, I don’t know your name. Who are you?” “I am God,” came the reply. “Great,” I thought, Harry and John must have planned this little trick. “Well, God, you wouldn’t also go by the name of Gerald would you?” I asked, figuring this was actually the fourth member of our camping party. “No, Jim, I am not Gerald. I am God.”
I decided to play along knowing Gerald the God impersonator would relay the entire conversation to everyone over the campfire tonight, exaggerating my surprise and my reactions. Besides, it had been a very strange day so far and didn’t appear to hold the promise of getting any less so as time passed. “Well, God,” I then asked, “how did that river get here? I never noticed it before today and I have been here many times.”
“I just put it here today,” God responded, “so you and I would have a beautiful place where we could talk.” My “sun stroke” condition was obviously not improving much as I was not only still seeing the river and the trees, but was now also having a conversation with “God.” Mindful of my weakened state, I was becoming a bit irritated with Gerald the God impersonator. It was not so funny anymore, not that it had started with any particular hilarity. On the other hand, Gerald the God impersonator had anticipated all my questions, and, obviously, he too was very aware of the river, trees and birds. This could be much worse than I thought. This person is not Gerald, our new camping friend. This person is part of my sun stroked, heat induced, hallucinatory predicament. He is part of the mirage that I am living because I must have missed some cue along the trail telling me to slow down and spend more time in the shade. Severe sun stroke, that’s what it is. I’m going to be here for quite a while recovering from this sorry state.
“No,” Gerald, or God, or whatever his name was, assertively addressed me. “No, I am not Gerald. I am God, and that is a river, and those are trees. What you are seeing is very real! You have no sun stroke and you are wide awake and completely alert.” God was now the one getting irritated, at me! If he really was God, that would not be a good thing. “You’re right about that,” God replied to that statement I had not spoken. “You believe in me, don’t you, Jim?” In fact, I did believe in God and, if this was really him, he knew that. “I know that, Jim, God replied, in response, once again, to a statement I had not spoken.
Pushing my luck (not a good thing to do with God), I challenged, “Well, you don’t look like God.” “Oh, I don’t? he sternly retorted. “Well, how does God look, then?” I then proceeded to tell God that he was supposed to look like a strong, but older man, with flowing white robes, long white hair and a long white beard. He was not supposed to look like a fellow hiker. “So, you’ve seen God before I take it?” “Well, not exactly, but I’ve seen pictures of him,” I authoritatively stated. That validation of knowing how God looked did not go over any better than anything else I had said to that point. I decided my best course of action was to not say anything else, but instead, try to understand what God wanted with me. I still didn’t think I was really talking to God. I thought I was still suffering from too much sun or else Gerald, our camping buddy I had never met, was carrying a bad joke to an unreasonable extreme.
God was now losing patience with my inability to understand what was happening. “You don’t have any idea what is going on, do you Jim?” “No, God, I don’t.” “Jim, I am talking with you today because you truly believe that I exist. It is important that others also know that.” Now, I was slowly beginning to suspect that “something” just might be happening here. Could I really be talking to God? I decided to “test him” and ask if he wanted me to go and spread the word, but again, he answered my question before I could speak. “No Jim, you don’t need to spread the word. Everyone knows the possibility of my existence. It is up to each person to make a choice.” I decided that this really must be God, mustn’t it? “But, what religion is the right religion, God?” I further “tested” him. His reply shocked me completely. “In the big picture, all religions are right in believing in me, but some are wrong in the details. I will leave that to you to figure out. Besides, I don’t want to talk about religion because it depresses me.” With that answer, I now realized this had to be God. “You finally get it, Jim,” he said.
“Religion depresses you, God?” I almost asked him. Again, he answered before I could find the words, “Yes, religion depresses me because of all the differences of opinion people have about which religion is the “right” religion. What makes me happy are the river, the trees, a place for reflection and communication with God, that being me. That is what is important, not religion itself. Jim, one of your canteens is empty and the other is nearly empty. Go to the river and fill your canteens to the top. It is time for you to go.”
I walked over to the river which I now realized was real and filled both canteens to the top as God had commanded. I put my face down by the water and drank until I had no thirst. It was the best tasting water I had ever experienced. I looked over at God. He looked right into my eyes and said, “When you leave this place you will begin to have doubts you were here talking with me. Do not doubt our conversation. Do you understand?” I assured God I clearly understood and promised I would never doubt our conversation had happened. “Honesty and truth, Jim,” its all about honesty and truth. Those are the words that must be spread. Do you understand?” “I understand, God, and thank you.” “Good bye, Jim.” “Good bye, God.”
He was gone in a moment. Where he had been sitting, only the rock remained. I heaved my backpack up and slung the canteen straps around my neck. I didn’t want to leave that beautiful spot but, with my resting and speaking to God, time had seemed to move much faster than usual. I started the final phase of my hike. As I walked, the rushing river and lush greenery continued, staying with me that entire last mile to the campground.
When I walked into the campground, I easily spotted Harry’s family van. It was one ugly car, I thought, all gray and plain, just awful to look at. Then I saw Harry, John and the Gerald guy, who definitely did not look like God after all. Harry asked, “What took you so long?” “I got a little too much sun and had to rest awhile,” I told him. Harry came over and shook my hand. “Didn’t drink enough water, I bet” Harry offered. “Two canteens should be plenty but, there’s no where to fill up along the way. When you run out, then you’re out” said Harry, confiding the very obvious.
Harry was now helping me unload my gear and started lifting the canteens, throwing the straps off of my neck. “No wonder you got too much sun, Harry shrieked. You never drank any water at all. You must be crazy! By God, these canteens are completely full.” “No,” I replied, I drank plenty of water and filled the canteens in the river.” “There is no river,” Harry shot back at me in utter disbelief.” “Yes there is,” I objected. “Where,” Harry demanded. “Right over there,” I said, pointing to the flowing water. “You’re nuts,” Harry replied. I turned and looked toward the river and there was nothing, just the parched, rocky arroyo, the ancient dry stream bed that had always been there.
Harry never understood how I walked the torturous thirteen mile trail in one hundred degree heat and arrived with two full canteens. He was right about one thing however. There was no place along the way to fill a canteen. He almost figured out another thing. In fact, he even said the answer not realizing he hit the nail right on the head. “By God, these canteens are completely full.”
Even these many years later I still have never doubted that God talked to me on the side of the wide, rushing river. Do you?
Copyright,
James Wharton, Jan 20, 2009
Saturday, January 17, 2009
I Knew An Honest Man
I Knew An Honest Man
Someplace, somewhere, there are still men and women of honor. There are people who don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t cheat, don’t hate, and put politics aside in favor of doing the right and honorable thing. There are people who don’t betray the confidence others have placed in them. There are people whose word and handshake are stronger than a one hundred page contract written by a thousand lawyers. Their actions and thoughts are governed by “the right thing to do,” and not by what is most profitable and best for them. There are people who really do concern themselves with the welfare of others and live by the golden rule “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” There are people who are “trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient cheerful, thrifty brave, clean and reverent.” There are people who did not abandon the values with which they were raised. There are, then, people who understand the meaning of civility, and the need for people to live according to shared and well understood values. They are people who believe and live with the moral precept “What is left when honor is lost?” (Publilius Syrus, circa 42 B.C.)
Someplace, somewhere, there are men and women who set the standard and live the standard of honesty and accept the responsibility of doing the right thing because it is the right thing. Honesty, truth, morality and ethics are not given a second thought by these people because these values are inherent in their very nature and the code by which they live. They are honest to the point of accepting they are not perfect, that they also make mistakes because they are human. But they are also honest in accepting responsibility for their missteps and holding themselves accountable for their failures. They punish themselves in agonizing over their failures but work hard to not fail again.
Someplace, somewhere, there are men and women who realize that the cure for the catastrophic financial meltdown and Depression the country is experiencing is a strict prescription of honesty, integrity and truth. On an even greater stage, these same men and women know this same prescription of simple honesty is also the cure for most of the ills of the world. While this may appear to be simplistic and preachy, in fact, the necessity of pure honesty in the conduct of all men and women is quite profound. This is because an equally simple requirement of our own human nature is confidence. People must be confident in their country and its leaders, the country’s social and economic systems, and their neighbor. Confidence means that people can believe in a person or institution that consistently lives and operates according to specific rules of conduct and standards of truth. In short, people need to know what to expect. They need to know they can rely on being dealt with fairly and treated with sincere respect by their leaders who are constantly mindful of the trust placed in them. To betray that trust would be to dishonor and debase themselves. “”A good reputation is more valuable than money.” (Publilius Syrus, circa 42 B.C.)
There is a legend that Abraham Lincoln once walked twenty miles to return a penny to a woman who had overpaid him when he was serving as postmaster. Maybe honesty is so important to me because I always remember and greatly value that story of Lincoln, first told to me by my mother. Maybe honesty is so important to me because I always admired, even loved, Lincoln because of his character. As a twelve year old Boy Scout, I walked the twenty-one mile “Lincoln Trail,” from Lincoln’s home in New Salem to Springfield, the same trail Lincoln had walked. My great grandfather worked in the construction of the court house in Carlinville, Illinois where Lincoln sometimes practiced law. Many times I have walked toward the Carlinville town square where, just past the court house, the old hotel where Lincoln stayed is still standing, yet another reminder of Lincoln. And, not coincidentally, my mother was born on February 12, Abraham Lincoln’s birthday. I wish I could have known Abraham Lincoln in person. I wish I could have known him in person not because he was a great man but, because he was an honest man. His honesty was the foundation of his greatness.
But I did know an honest man once, a man much like Abraham Lincoln. This man, too, was from Illinois. This man, too, was a great man. This man, too, was a politician and went to Washington. And, this man too, represented Abraham Lincoln’s old district. Peter F. Mack, Jr. was a seven term congressman from Carlinville, Illinois. He was born on November 1, 1916, one of eight children of Peter F. Mack Sr. and Catherine Kelly Mack. As is unfortunately true with many honest and great men, they don’t tell you that they are honest and great. Hopefully, most of us are smart enough to figure it out for ourselves. But, unfortunately, some of us are not. Of course, the fact that they don’t tell us is part of their greatness and their honesty. While they are here with us, we tend to take them for granted. It is only when they are gone do we realize what a bright beacon of honor and hope they were. And as we miss them, we try to remember all they taught us and pray, just maybe, we can be like them, if only just a little.
Peter Mack was also a commander in the U. S. Navy, a veteran aviator who solo-piloted a single engine airplane, the “Friendship Flame,” on a round the world flight called the “Abraham Lincoln Good Will World Tour.” I saw his plane take off from Springfield, Illinois on a cold, grey day October 7, 1951 in weather he described as “abominable with only a 700 foot ceiling.” I saw him land at Springfield when he returned 111 days later. He flew along the same route Amelia Earhart had flown in 1937, a short fourteen years earlier. His goal was to convince people around the world that the United States was interested in peace and friendship with everyone.
Peter Mack, like Lincoln, inspired people around him with his confidence, honesty and goodness. He lived a life which others would reference, as people have long with Lincoln, as the example of what we all should be. People might know they may not be able to themselves reach that high level of honor, integrity and honesty, but Peter Mack inspired all who knew him to try. You did not want to disappoint him by doing the wrong thing. It was not that he would get mad, rather he would just look you in the eye and you knew he was disappointed. You wished that he would get mad and yell but, he never did. He never had to say anything. Just his look of disappointment and knowing he expected more from you was all that was needed. And, it was punishment enough because you knew you had let him down and he deserved much better.
On one occasion, when I was fifteen years old, I got into a small disagreement with another boy my age. While it didn’t amount to much, relevant adults in the vicinity didn’t appreciate our, shall we say, “athleticism?” It was a day later and I was walking through the tunnel from the U. S. Capitol to the House Office Building where the congressmen’s offices are located. I saw him (Peter Mack) walking in my direction. I hoped he didn’t see me but, of course, he did. Then I hoped he hadn’t heard about the fight. But, of course, he did. He stopped me and said he heard I had a little incident and asked what happened. (I felt really badly about it. I was sure he never had a fight in his life. I let him down.) I then told him what took place. The other boy and I had a difference of opinion, on what, I do not now even recall. The other boy then took two swings at me with his fists. I grabbed him by the back of his neck, threw him down and jumped on top of him and it was over.” “Did he get you?” he asked. “No, I ducked and he missed,” I replied. “Good,” he said. He smiled, and turned and walked away. He knew I felt bad about letting him down but, he didn’t press it. He knew he didn’t have too. He had a quiet assurance about him that clearly conveyed the sense that a person knows what is right. Therefore, everyone can and should do what is right.
Another time, I stood with him on the front porch of the funeral home in Carlinville. His father had died a few days before on Halloween. He was running for Congress that year and the campaign was nearing an end. His opponent for Congress and a long parade of cars with his opponent’s supporters were driving by the funeral home. Some of these supporters apparently had been tearing “Peter Mack for Congress” signs down and replacing them with their candidate’s signs. They had also been pasting their bumper stickers over “Peter Mack” bumper stickers already on cars. Being young, I was very upset about this. I asked him if I could go do the same to his opponent’s signs and bumper stickers. He quietly looked at me and said, “No, Jimmie, we don’t operate like that.” He smiled, and I knew once again he had taught me another lesson in honor.
Peter Mack enlisted in the Navy in 1942 and spent four years in the naval air force. He spent most of his time as a pilot instructor. He wanted to serve in combat overseas but the Navy’s need for trained pilots was too great, and, because he was an instructor, they wouldn’t let him go. He cried when he was told he couldn’t serve in combat overseas. He was also a true patriot. While a congressman, each year, and at his own expense, he brought 100 high school students to Washington to see how government operated.
Peter Mack was a man so honest and so good that anyone who knew him had to wonder if the world really needs such words as steal, lie, cheat, hate, and “politics” in the negative context in which it is too often used today. Unfortunately, as our country is painfully aware and suffering greatly, those very words are used more frequently now than ever before in the history of the United States. Men of honor such as Peter Mack know the root basis of all evil is the absence of honesty and truth. Can we not learn from such men? Socrates (470-399 B.C.) emphasized the absolute human need for truth and the consequences of deceit. “False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil.”
One of Peter Mack’s thoughts about his 223 hours flying alone on his “Abraham Lincoln Good Will World Tour” concerned peace in the world. He said, “I looked down upon mile after mile of serene mountain, forest and plain. From where I sat, I could see no international boundaries and no squabbles among nations. During those lonely hours, I thought more and more of peace and of the folly of man fighting man, and wherever I went I found people echoing my sentiments.” The very price of world peace is that people must be able to have confidence in the honesty and truthfulness of their countries and leaders. That confidence can only come when people have complete assurance of honesty among their leaders, government and business. Countries, businesses, leaders, and all of us must live in honor and with honesty if nations are to live in harmony and our own country is to recover from crises and even survive over time.
Aeschylus (525-456 B.C.) described Peter Mack 2500 years before he was born: “It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.” Sadly, as the song goes, “and the good, they die young.” So it was with Peter Mack. I visited with him shortly before his death. As sick as he was, he maintained his bravery and honor. He insisted on kidding me as was his custom. He kept his sense of humor even in the darkest of days.
When he was in Luxembourg on his globe circling flight, he met the Jubilee singers, formerly of Fisk University. They composed a new verse to an old spiritual in his honor and sang it to him as he taxied for take-off. He said “It was one of the most inspiring experiences I have ever had.” The verse went:
“The man who loves to serve the Lord,
‘Way in the middle of the air,
Will surely get his just reward
“Way in the middle of the air,
As he carries far God’s great command,
Peace and good will to all mankind,
‘Way in the middle of the air.”
Uncle Pete died July 4, 1986. Peter Mack was an honest man!
In Peter Mack’s Honor,
Jim Mack Wharton
Someplace, somewhere, there are still men and women of honor. There are people who don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t cheat, don’t hate, and put politics aside in favor of doing the right and honorable thing. There are people who don’t betray the confidence others have placed in them. There are people whose word and handshake are stronger than a one hundred page contract written by a thousand lawyers. Their actions and thoughts are governed by “the right thing to do,” and not by what is most profitable and best for them. There are people who really do concern themselves with the welfare of others and live by the golden rule “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” There are people who are “trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient cheerful, thrifty brave, clean and reverent.” There are people who did not abandon the values with which they were raised. There are, then, people who understand the meaning of civility, and the need for people to live according to shared and well understood values. They are people who believe and live with the moral precept “What is left when honor is lost?” (Publilius Syrus, circa 42 B.C.)
Someplace, somewhere, there are men and women who set the standard and live the standard of honesty and accept the responsibility of doing the right thing because it is the right thing. Honesty, truth, morality and ethics are not given a second thought by these people because these values are inherent in their very nature and the code by which they live. They are honest to the point of accepting they are not perfect, that they also make mistakes because they are human. But they are also honest in accepting responsibility for their missteps and holding themselves accountable for their failures. They punish themselves in agonizing over their failures but work hard to not fail again.
Someplace, somewhere, there are men and women who realize that the cure for the catastrophic financial meltdown and Depression the country is experiencing is a strict prescription of honesty, integrity and truth. On an even greater stage, these same men and women know this same prescription of simple honesty is also the cure for most of the ills of the world. While this may appear to be simplistic and preachy, in fact, the necessity of pure honesty in the conduct of all men and women is quite profound. This is because an equally simple requirement of our own human nature is confidence. People must be confident in their country and its leaders, the country’s social and economic systems, and their neighbor. Confidence means that people can believe in a person or institution that consistently lives and operates according to specific rules of conduct and standards of truth. In short, people need to know what to expect. They need to know they can rely on being dealt with fairly and treated with sincere respect by their leaders who are constantly mindful of the trust placed in them. To betray that trust would be to dishonor and debase themselves. “”A good reputation is more valuable than money.” (Publilius Syrus, circa 42 B.C.)
There is a legend that Abraham Lincoln once walked twenty miles to return a penny to a woman who had overpaid him when he was serving as postmaster. Maybe honesty is so important to me because I always remember and greatly value that story of Lincoln, first told to me by my mother. Maybe honesty is so important to me because I always admired, even loved, Lincoln because of his character. As a twelve year old Boy Scout, I walked the twenty-one mile “Lincoln Trail,” from Lincoln’s home in New Salem to Springfield, the same trail Lincoln had walked. My great grandfather worked in the construction of the court house in Carlinville, Illinois where Lincoln sometimes practiced law. Many times I have walked toward the Carlinville town square where, just past the court house, the old hotel where Lincoln stayed is still standing, yet another reminder of Lincoln. And, not coincidentally, my mother was born on February 12, Abraham Lincoln’s birthday. I wish I could have known Abraham Lincoln in person. I wish I could have known him in person not because he was a great man but, because he was an honest man. His honesty was the foundation of his greatness.
But I did know an honest man once, a man much like Abraham Lincoln. This man, too, was from Illinois. This man, too, was a great man. This man, too, was a politician and went to Washington. And, this man too, represented Abraham Lincoln’s old district. Peter F. Mack, Jr. was a seven term congressman from Carlinville, Illinois. He was born on November 1, 1916, one of eight children of Peter F. Mack Sr. and Catherine Kelly Mack. As is unfortunately true with many honest and great men, they don’t tell you that they are honest and great. Hopefully, most of us are smart enough to figure it out for ourselves. But, unfortunately, some of us are not. Of course, the fact that they don’t tell us is part of their greatness and their honesty. While they are here with us, we tend to take them for granted. It is only when they are gone do we realize what a bright beacon of honor and hope they were. And as we miss them, we try to remember all they taught us and pray, just maybe, we can be like them, if only just a little.
Peter Mack was also a commander in the U. S. Navy, a veteran aviator who solo-piloted a single engine airplane, the “Friendship Flame,” on a round the world flight called the “Abraham Lincoln Good Will World Tour.” I saw his plane take off from Springfield, Illinois on a cold, grey day October 7, 1951 in weather he described as “abominable with only a 700 foot ceiling.” I saw him land at Springfield when he returned 111 days later. He flew along the same route Amelia Earhart had flown in 1937, a short fourteen years earlier. His goal was to convince people around the world that the United States was interested in peace and friendship with everyone.
Peter Mack, like Lincoln, inspired people around him with his confidence, honesty and goodness. He lived a life which others would reference, as people have long with Lincoln, as the example of what we all should be. People might know they may not be able to themselves reach that high level of honor, integrity and honesty, but Peter Mack inspired all who knew him to try. You did not want to disappoint him by doing the wrong thing. It was not that he would get mad, rather he would just look you in the eye and you knew he was disappointed. You wished that he would get mad and yell but, he never did. He never had to say anything. Just his look of disappointment and knowing he expected more from you was all that was needed. And, it was punishment enough because you knew you had let him down and he deserved much better.
On one occasion, when I was fifteen years old, I got into a small disagreement with another boy my age. While it didn’t amount to much, relevant adults in the vicinity didn’t appreciate our, shall we say, “athleticism?” It was a day later and I was walking through the tunnel from the U. S. Capitol to the House Office Building where the congressmen’s offices are located. I saw him (Peter Mack) walking in my direction. I hoped he didn’t see me but, of course, he did. Then I hoped he hadn’t heard about the fight. But, of course, he did. He stopped me and said he heard I had a little incident and asked what happened. (I felt really badly about it. I was sure he never had a fight in his life. I let him down.) I then told him what took place. The other boy and I had a difference of opinion, on what, I do not now even recall. The other boy then took two swings at me with his fists. I grabbed him by the back of his neck, threw him down and jumped on top of him and it was over.” “Did he get you?” he asked. “No, I ducked and he missed,” I replied. “Good,” he said. He smiled, and turned and walked away. He knew I felt bad about letting him down but, he didn’t press it. He knew he didn’t have too. He had a quiet assurance about him that clearly conveyed the sense that a person knows what is right. Therefore, everyone can and should do what is right.
Another time, I stood with him on the front porch of the funeral home in Carlinville. His father had died a few days before on Halloween. He was running for Congress that year and the campaign was nearing an end. His opponent for Congress and a long parade of cars with his opponent’s supporters were driving by the funeral home. Some of these supporters apparently had been tearing “Peter Mack for Congress” signs down and replacing them with their candidate’s signs. They had also been pasting their bumper stickers over “Peter Mack” bumper stickers already on cars. Being young, I was very upset about this. I asked him if I could go do the same to his opponent’s signs and bumper stickers. He quietly looked at me and said, “No, Jimmie, we don’t operate like that.” He smiled, and I knew once again he had taught me another lesson in honor.
Peter Mack enlisted in the Navy in 1942 and spent four years in the naval air force. He spent most of his time as a pilot instructor. He wanted to serve in combat overseas but the Navy’s need for trained pilots was too great, and, because he was an instructor, they wouldn’t let him go. He cried when he was told he couldn’t serve in combat overseas. He was also a true patriot. While a congressman, each year, and at his own expense, he brought 100 high school students to Washington to see how government operated.
Peter Mack was a man so honest and so good that anyone who knew him had to wonder if the world really needs such words as steal, lie, cheat, hate, and “politics” in the negative context in which it is too often used today. Unfortunately, as our country is painfully aware and suffering greatly, those very words are used more frequently now than ever before in the history of the United States. Men of honor such as Peter Mack know the root basis of all evil is the absence of honesty and truth. Can we not learn from such men? Socrates (470-399 B.C.) emphasized the absolute human need for truth and the consequences of deceit. “False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil.”
One of Peter Mack’s thoughts about his 223 hours flying alone on his “Abraham Lincoln Good Will World Tour” concerned peace in the world. He said, “I looked down upon mile after mile of serene mountain, forest and plain. From where I sat, I could see no international boundaries and no squabbles among nations. During those lonely hours, I thought more and more of peace and of the folly of man fighting man, and wherever I went I found people echoing my sentiments.” The very price of world peace is that people must be able to have confidence in the honesty and truthfulness of their countries and leaders. That confidence can only come when people have complete assurance of honesty among their leaders, government and business. Countries, businesses, leaders, and all of us must live in honor and with honesty if nations are to live in harmony and our own country is to recover from crises and even survive over time.
Aeschylus (525-456 B.C.) described Peter Mack 2500 years before he was born: “It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.” Sadly, as the song goes, “and the good, they die young.” So it was with Peter Mack. I visited with him shortly before his death. As sick as he was, he maintained his bravery and honor. He insisted on kidding me as was his custom. He kept his sense of humor even in the darkest of days.
When he was in Luxembourg on his globe circling flight, he met the Jubilee singers, formerly of Fisk University. They composed a new verse to an old spiritual in his honor and sang it to him as he taxied for take-off. He said “It was one of the most inspiring experiences I have ever had.” The verse went:
“The man who loves to serve the Lord,
‘Way in the middle of the air,
Will surely get his just reward
“Way in the middle of the air,
As he carries far God’s great command,
Peace and good will to all mankind,
‘Way in the middle of the air.”
Uncle Pete died July 4, 1986. Peter Mack was an honest man!
In Peter Mack’s Honor,
Jim Mack Wharton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
