Debunking Bullshit Lies and Conspiracies – George H. W. Bush

01 Aug 2025 4 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , ,

For the next nine days, I am going to wade into some lies and/or conspiracies that were spread to discredit, dishonor and destroy some upstanding people.  If you are tired of hearing about stuff like this, then turn me off for the next week or two.  My intention is to publish one of these stories each day.  I am not sure why more information never came out or at least why I was not more aware of the lies concerning these people.  It seems the mainstream media did nothing to help dispel the vicious slander and lies that were spread about these men and women.

If instead, you feel like I do that the truth should out no matter how long ago these events happened, than repost, send, share or do whatever you can to help demolish some of these bullshit lies and conspiracies.  I am going to start with the oldest and work forward to end with the most recent.

In 1944, George H. W. Bush was a WW II pilot who caused the death of several of his crew members during a bombing mission. 

Yes, during World War II, George H. W. Bush — who would later become the 41st President of the United States — was involved in a bombing mission during which one of his crew members was killed. However, there’s no credible evidence that Bush caused the death or was at fault.

Background:

  • Date of Incident: September 2, 1944
  • Aircraft: TBM Avenger (a torpedo bomber)
  • Mission: Bombing a Japanese radio installation on Chichijima, a Japanese-held island in the Pacific.

What Happened:

Bush was the pilot of a three-man crew. During the bombing run:

  • His plane was hit by enemy anti-aircraft fire.
  • Despite flames in the engine, Bush completed his bombing run, then bailed out over the ocean.
  • His crew members did not survive. Their bodies were never recovered.

The two men aboard with him were:

  • Radioman Second Class John Delaney
  • Lieutenant Junior Grade William White

With his engine on fire, Bush flew several miles from the island, where he and two other crew members on the TBM Avenger bailed out of the aircraft.  However, one man’s chute did not open and he fell to his death.  The other crew member was never found.  Both Delaney and White were reported as killed in action.

Was Bush Responsible?

No. There is no evidence or suggestion from military investigations or historical accounts that George H. W. Bush did anything wrong. He followed procedure and attempted to save the mission and his crew. He was rescued by a U.S. Navy submarine (USS Finback) and later awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for his actions on that mission.

Controversy:

Some conspiracy theories emerged later, largely without substantiation, suggesting Bush abandoned his crew. These claims are not supported by military records, official investigations, or reputable historians. Most experts regard Bush’s actions as courageous under fire.

In summary:
George H. W. Bush’s two crew members died during a combat mission in WWII, but their deaths were the tragic result of enemy action — not due to any wrongdoing or failure by Bush, who was widely credited with bravery during the incident.

What Would Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams and Thomas Paine Say if They Were Alive Today?  Opinions Expressed by ChatGPT!

12 Jul 2025 12 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,


I often wake up at night pondering the imponderable.  A few nights ago, I woke up wondering what my favorite Founding Father would think about things today if he were alive.  I refer to Thomas Jefferson who despite much of his hypocrisy, I still admire very much for his intellectual foundations of democracy.  Thus, I got out of bed and decided to see what ChatGPT would think about this question.  While I was at it, I included queries for Samuel Adams and Thomas Paine whom I also admire very much.  I put the following query to ChatGPT.

In 500 words or less, what would Thomas Jefferson have to say about the present state of politics in America today?

If Thomas Jefferson were to assess the present state of American politics, he would likely express both deep concern and guarded hope. As a champion of liberty, limited government, and the diffusion of power, Jefferson might be alarmed by the hyper-partisanship, concentration of wealth and influence, and erosion of civic virtue that marks much of today’s political climate.

Jefferson valued the free press and an informed citizenry as bulwarks against tyranny, but he would likely be troubled by the rise of misinformation and the deep polarization stoked by media echo chambers. He warned that a republic could only survive if its people were educated and vigilant. Seeing voter apathy, low civic trust, and widespread political cynicism, he might fear that the American experiment was straying from its foundational ideals.

He would likely criticize the influence of large corporations and special interests on lawmakers, calling it a form of “elective despotism” — where private power manipulates public policy. Jefferson was wary of centralized banking and would probably see today’s economic inequality as a threat to republican balance and self-rule.

On the other hand, Jefferson would also recognize the enduring strength of constitutional institutions, the resilience of democratic dissent, and the diversity of political participation as hopeful signs. He believed in the capacity for peaceful revolution and renewal. The activism of young people, the vibrancy of civil society, and ongoing debates about rights and justice might stir his belief that the republic can still be revitalized.

Ultimately, Jefferson would urge Americans to remember that liberty requires effort — that every generation must “refresh the tree of liberty” not with violence, but with active engagement, moral courage, and public service. He would remind citizens that they are not subjects but sovereigns, and that the preservation of democracy depends not on leaders alone, but on the people themselves.


In 500 words or less, what would Thomas Paine have to say about the present state of politics in America today?

If Thomas Paine were alive to witness the present state of American politics, his response would likely be fiery, uncompromising, and full of both indignation and inspiration. As the passionate voice behind Common Sense and The Rights of Man, Paine championed radical democracy, social justice, and the power of ordinary people to overthrow corrupt systems. He would likely view today’s political climate as a betrayal of the revolutionary ideals he once fought for.

Paine would be outraged by the degree of economic inequality and political influence held by the wealthy elite. He warned in his time about the dangers of monarchy and aristocracy—today, he might argue that America faces a modern version: oligarchy. The dominance of corporate money in elections and policymaking would, in his eyes, amount to tyranny in a new form.

He would be sharply critical of political parties that prioritize power over principle and create divisions that distract from the common good. Paine believed that government should serve the people, not entrench the power of a few. He would condemn the partisan gridlock, deliberate misinformation, and what he might see as cowardice among leaders unwilling to stand up for justice and truth.

Yet, Paine would not despair. He believed deeply in the ability of people to rise, to demand reform, and to create a more just society. He would likely praise movements for racial justice, labor rights, climate action, and economic fairness as modern heirs to the revolutionary spirit. He would call on Americans to shake off apathy, to recognize their power, and to demand a government that works for all, not just the privileged few.

In Paine’s words: “We have it in our power to begin the world over again.” He would challenge today’s citizens to do exactly that.

In 500 words or less, what would Samuel Adams have to say about the present state of politics in America today?

Samuel Adams, the fiery patriot and master organizer behind the American Revolution, would likely view the present state of American politics with a mix of alarm and rallying fervor. As someone who believed that liberty must be constantly defended against corruption, tyranny, and apathy, Adams would be deeply concerned by the erosion of civic trust, the rise of special interest power, and the complacency of citizens in the face of growing dysfunction.

Adams saw government as a sacred trust, meant to reflect the will and virtue of the people. Today, he would likely condemn the influence of money in politics as a betrayal of republican principles, calling out lobbyists, corporate donors, and elected officials who prioritize personal or partisan gain over the common good. He would regard political leaders who manipulate public opinion with lies or fear as dangerous enemies of liberty.

He’d also take issue with the widespread civic disengagement and low voter turnout. Adams believed that public virtue—active, informed participation in the republic—was the cornerstone of freedom. He would likely warn Americans that rights not actively defended are rights easily lost, and that freedom requires both vigilance and sacrifice.

Yet, ever the agitator for liberty, Adams would not retreat into pessimism. He would find hope in grassroots activism, community organizing, and movements that hold the powerful accountable. He would see in these efforts the spirit of the Sons of Liberty reborn.

Adams might close his remarks with a challenge: “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.” That time, he would say, is now. And he would call on Americans to rise—peacefully but boldly—to restore the republic.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I was very impressed by the above observations.  They mirror what I thought each of these great men would have said.  However, as I lean towards pessimism and given the present state of America, I tend to be very pessimistic, I would have totally overlooked some of the positive attitudes that each of these men expressed as well as some of the optimism they spoke of.  I am very grateful to ChatGPT and Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and Samuel Adams for their ideas.  I only wish I could share these thoughts with all Americans today.

Is there any possibility, these ideas would make any difference to at least some of the followers of our erstwhile King and Dictator? 

To Be Bold or Not to Be Bold? – Part 1

07 Jul 2025 11 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

With the passage of trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” it would appear that the Democrats have been handed a major defeat.  A defeat that will go down in history as something that they have earned by their timidity and wimpy responses to the growing menace of fascism in America.  Had they been bolder over the years, they could have cut this menace off at the proverbial knees.  But while the Republican Party became the Party of Greed, the Democratic Party became the Party of Wimps.  What value would Boldness have had for the Democrats?  In Part 1 of my blog, I want to relate what ChatGPT says about the value of Boldness.  In Part 2, I am going to lay out some of my own strategies for what Boldness might entail as we must still confront the goals of trump to destroy democracy in America.  Make no mistake, trump and his supporters have no more affinity for Democracy than Brutus had for Caesar.

I started ChatGPT off with the question:  Is it true that “Fortune Favors the Bold” or that “Success is the Child of Audacity?”  These are two aphorisms that have been around for ages.

ChatGPT:

Great question — both “Fortune favors the bold” (from Latin Fortes fortuna adiuvat) and “Success is the child of audacity” reflect a deep truth about human psychology, society, and even evolution.

Here’s why these ideas seem to hold up in life:

  1. Bold Actions Break Stagnation

Most people are cautious by nature. Those who take bold steps — start businesses, lead movements, speak up, try something unconventional — stand out. And standing out is often a prerequisite for success in a crowded world.

Boldness disrupts inertia. It pushes things into motion that otherwise never would have moved.

  1. Risk Is Tied to Reward

Success usually carries risk: social, financial, emotional, or reputational. Those who are bold enough to accept those risks have access to greater potential rewards. Many never try, so those who do are ahead simply by taking the shot.

  1. Confidence Is Attractive and Contagious

Bold people inspire confidence — in investors, partners, followers, or even random bystanders. Audacity, when not reckless, signals that someone believes deeply in their cause, and others often want to follow or support that.

  1. Failure Is a Learning Loop

The bold fail more — but also learn more. They get feedback the timid never receive. Over time, this trial-and-error process builds resilience, insight, and eventually success.

“The timid die a thousand deaths, the bold only once.”

  1. History Favors the Story of the Bold

Think of who history remembers: explorers, revolutionaries, inventors, artists — often people who defied norms and dared big things. Their boldness makes a compelling narrative. Even when the odds were against them, their courage became legend.

  1. Boldness Taps Into Serendipity

Bold moves often place people in the path of opportunity. Taking initiative creates collisions with luck — new people, ideas, or events that can’t be predicted or planned.

In Short:

Boldness is the gateway to uncommon results.
Not because it’s always right — but because it’s often the only way to reach what’s rare and meaningful.

ChatGPT

Would you like examples from history, psychology, or even nature to see how this principle plays out?

YES

Great — let’s walk through examples from history, psychology, and nature that show how boldness and audacity lead to success, or at least open the door to it in ways caution rarely does:

🏛️ History: The Bold Are Remembered

  1. Alexander the Great
  • At age 20, he became king. Instead of consolidating power cautiously, he launched a bold campaign and conquered most of the known world.
  • His military strategies were risky — but successful — and his name still echoes 2,000 years later.
  1. Rosa Parks
  • Her refusal to give up a bus seat wasn’t the first act of civil disobedience — but it was bold, direct, and visible.
  • That audacity became the spark that lit the Montgomery Bus Boycott and the larger civil rights movement.
  1. Elon Musk
  • Whether one admires or criticizes him, Musk’s career is a case study in boldness: betting his PayPal fortune on rockets, electric cars, and AI.
  • Many experts predicted his failure. But his audacity forced entire industries to evolve.

🧠 Psychology: Why Boldness Works

  1. The “Approach Motivation” Advantage
  • Bold individuals are wired to approach opportunity rather than avoid risk. Psychologists call this “behavioral activation.”
  • This mindset triggers more action, more experimentation, and more eventual wins.
  1. The Halo Effect
  • People attribute competence and strength to those who act confidently and decisively — even if they’re not always right.
  • That perception can open doors that might otherwise remain closed.
  1. The Spotlight Effect
  • We often overestimate how much others notice our failures.
  • Bold people tend to care less about being judged, and this emotional freedom lets them act while others hesitate.

🌱 Nature: Evolution Favors the Daring

  1. Peacocks and Risky Traits
  • A peacock’s tail is wildly impractical. But it’s bold — and signals genetic strength to peahens.
  • Nature sometimes rewards the flashy and the fearless, even if it comes with risks.
  1. Predator-Prey Dynamics
  • In a pack of prey, the ones that break from the herd occasionally find a faster escape route.
  • While riskier, this behavior sometimes allows survival where conformity means death.
  1. Mutation and Evolution
  • Every major evolutionary breakthrough came from a “mistake” — a mutation that took a leap from the ordinary.
  • Boldness, in this sense, is biological experimentation — and essential to progress.

🧭 Summary

Realm Example Boldness Led To…
History Rosa Parks, Alexander, Musk Movements, empires, industries
Psychology Confidence bias, approach motivation Influence, momentum, resilience
Nature Peacocks, predators, mutations Survival, reproduction, evolution

As you can see from the above analysis, there is more than a little truth to the trope that “Fortune Favors the Bold.”  There is not much I can add to these thoughts except to wonder what it will take to instill the boldness in the actions that we will need as we move forward with trumps presumed tenure in office.  I say presumed because I believe he will do everything he can in the next three and ½ years to further gut the powers of Congress and the courts.  His ultimate goal will be to install himself as “President for Life.”  An American version of Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini.

Why Americans Hate the Government!

25 Feb 2025 12 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , ,

I sit here in my car driving the speed limit of 75 mph on the interstate and being passed by multitudes of cars doing at least 85 mph or maybe 90 mph.  It feels like I am standing still.  I watch as cars pass on the right, left and in-between in their hurry to get somewhere really important.  Speed limits and stop signs seem to be only ideologies obeyed at the discretion or whim of the drivers on the roads today.

Americans have always said that they want less government.  Today, it seems that they want NO government.  People clamor for their rights at every mention of some law or other injunction that they do not feel applies to them.  Hardly any American cannot find some law that they find unfair and unjust.

Edmund Burke said that the “Government that governs best is the government that governs least.”  Abraham Lincoln said that “If all men were just, there still would be some, though not so much, need of government.”  Many Anarchists would agree with these sentiments.  In the past, Americans have treated Anarchists as terrorists and revolutionaries.  Anarchists are despised by most Americans.  Yet, few Americans understand that many Anarchists share their same belief in “eliminating the government.” The January 6th attacks on the Congress of the USA could have been a picture-perfect representation of an Anarchist attack.  Unfortunately, for such simple depictions of Anarchists many are not violent revolutionaries.  One definition of an Anarchist given by the FBI is as follows:

“Anarchism is a belief that society should have no government, laws, police, or any other authority.  Having that belief is perfectly legal, and the majority of anarchists in the U.S. advocate change through non-violent, non-criminal means.” — FBI. Gov

The implications of this definition are profound.  Consider that “The majority of anarchists are non-violent” whereas the majority of those storming the US Capital on January 6th were engaged in violent criminal attacks.  How many of the people attacking the Capital would agree that they were engaged in the same type of criminal activities that they ascribe to Anarchists?  Nevertheless, both groups share a dislike for government.

A closer reading of Lincoln and Burke though does not show an advocacy for NO government, only less government.  What are the primary purposes of a government than and how can it reconcile achieving these purposes while at the same time not becoming a burden on the everyday lives of its citizens?   Here are the five most important functions of a government:

The five most important functions of a government typically include: (From ChatGPT)

  1. Maintaining Order and Security:

Enforcing laws, protecting citizens from crime, and ensuring national defense against external threats.

  1. Providing Public Services:

Offering essential services like education, healthcare, infrastructure (roads, bridges), and utilities that individuals or private businesses might not adequately provide.

  1. Protecting Individual Rights and Freedoms:

Upholding constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and equal protection under the law.

  1. Economic Management:

Regulating trade, managing taxes and public spending, and addressing unemployment and inflation to foster a stable economy.

  1. Formulating and Enforcing Laws:

Creating legislation that reflects societal values and ensures justice, while maintaining systems to fairly enforce these laws.  (End of ChatGPT) 

Few people would disagree with any of these functions.  But if God lies in the details (or the Devil some might say), than our disputes are more around “what exactly will be done and how will it be done.”

Any one of these five functions can illustrate the problem that people have with the government.  For instance, what Public Services will be provided?  We accepted education many years ago as a public service, but now some want to privatize education.  Other people want childcare as a public service while there are people who disagree with the idea.

But the question of what services and what laws to provide are not the only problem people have with the government.  A bigger problem lies in the “how” of government.  By how, I refer to the efficiency of government.  The government has long been lambasted for its lack of efficiency.  Several years ago, Senator William Proxmire of Wisconsin created his “Golden Fleece Award.”  Periodically a government agency would receive this award for an egregious offense of efficiency.  Some of these became famous even if they might have been a gross exaggeration.  One that comes readily to my mind was the “Golden Toilet” bowls case.  Allegedly, a government office ordered gold-plated toilet bowls.  Whether this is an urban myth or not, there are indeed countless stories of government bureaucracy creating inefficiency.

When I worked as a principal strategic planner for the Metropolitan Council in Minnesota, I saw so many examples of government waste and stupidity that I often came home complaining to my spouse that, “If only the citizens of this state could see the waste and inefficiency that I am trying to deal with, they would grab guns, knives and even pitch forks and march on city hall.”

That was over twenty-five years ago, and people have finally marched (if not on city hall) on the Capital of the USA.  Unfortunately, as is the case with much anger, it is often misplaced and misguided.  It is not only the Federal Government that is inefficient, but also most state governments, county governments and city governments that are inefficient as well.  When I was teaching the concepts of quality and process improvement to companies, I would use a conceptual framework based on two key economic concepts to explain how a company could improve its operations.

There are two key economic concepts that every organization must be concerned with.  The first key concept is Effectiveness.  Effectiveness can be defined as “Doing the right things.”  The second key concept is Efficiency.  Efficiency can be defined as “Doing things right.”  In order for any organization to maximize productivity it must be both efficient and effective.  It does not matter if you do the right things, but you don’t do them right.  Vice versa, if you do the wrong things but you do them right, that is nonproductive as well.  We can summarize these maxims simply by the following idea:  Your clients and customers expect that you will give them “What they want or need at a price that they can afford.”  Price reflects the efficiency of an operation, while giving customers what they want or need reflects the effectiveness of the operation.

In my experience, both as a business teacher and a management consultant, business organizations focus more on efficiency than effectiveness.  There are countless examples of products and services that are neither needed nor wanted by people, but advertising can always be effective in convincing consumers otherwise.  I am thinking of cigarettes and carbon-based products as two such examples.

On the other hand, the government typically focuses more on effectiveness (that is giving people needed services) and much less on efficiency.  The government tries to reduce the waste and garbage that comes from industry as a direct offshoot of their so-called efficiency. The most noted example is the environmental degradation caused by many business products.  Today we face a world where climate change is destroying our lives and our environment.  If the trends noted today keep growing, we will eventually inhabit a planet where human life can no longer exist.  Much of this climate change could have been prevented.  However, companies and politicians in the pocket of big oil have spent billions of dollars in efforts to deny that climate change is taking place due to carbon-based fuels.

The secret of sustainability (a dirty word to some people) on a global scale is to have businesses and governments that are both effective and efficient.  Unfortunately for most governments, they get the worst of the publicity.  There is much less criticism of the ineffectiveness of big business to provide products that are compatible with a clean environment than there are criticisms of the government for inefficiently trying to regulate this business waste.  It is easy to see why that is the case.  As my friend Dick always said, “Follow the money.”

The government spends very little money trying to convince you that the climate is changing, or that too much production of carbon fuels is destroying our environment.  Big business has dozens of lobbyists padding the campaign budgets of politicians to convince them to ignore the effects of global warming and to deny that it exists.

Big business also spends billions of dollars trying to convince you that they can provide government services more efficiently than the government.  The last few years have seen ongoing attempts to privatize education, prisons, waste treatment plants and many other public services where big business think they can make a profit.  In addition, big business has been at the forefront of efforts to deregulate organizations such as banks, public utilities and airlines in order for them to manage these organizations without restrictions.  Having no restrictions, gives them free rein to make as much profit as they like. Yes, you may get these services cheaper and thus more efficiently than the government would provide them, but you will pay a hidden cost.  There are no free lunches in the world.  The Great Recession of 2007 followed the issuing of loans and mortgages that had too little collateral and too high interest rates leading to a catastrophic failure of banks and homeowners.

IF you want further corroboration regarding my above analysis of the 2007 recession, you can read the following from ChatGPT:

“The 2006 recession was actually part of a broader economic crisis that led into the Great Recession (which officially spanned from late 2007 to 2009), but the roots of the downturn started around 2006.

The major cause was the housing market crash. Here’s a quick breakdown of what happened:

Subprime Mortgage Lending: Banks and lenders gave out risky loans (subprime mortgages) to people with poor credit histories. These loans often had adjustable interest rates that started low but later spiked, making it hard for borrowers to keep up with payments.

Housing Bubble Burst: Housing prices had been soaring due to speculation and easy credit, but by 2006, home prices peaked and started to fall. As prices dropped, homeowners who couldn’t sell their homes or refinance their loans began defaulting.

Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS): Banks bundled these risky mortgages into financial products called MBS and sold them to investors. When homeowners started defaulting, the value of these securities collapsed, causing massive losses for banks and financial institutions.

Foreclosures and Bank Failures: Foreclosures skyrocketed, and big financial players like Lehman Brothers collapsed or needed bailouts, which deepened the economic panic.

The domino effect triggered a credit crunch — banks stopped lending, businesses cut jobs, and consumer spending shrank, all of which pushed the economy into a full-blown recession by late 2007.”

Consumers and the American public paid a big price for the greed and stupidity of the banking industry.  A greed which was supported by Government deregulation which in turn was pushed by greedy politicians ignoring the need for regulation.  Behind all the politicians are legions of lobbyists for the banking industry.

Major insights I want to leave you with:

  1. People want a free lunch when it does not exist.
  2.  Politicians (first and MOST) represent those from whom they get the most gold. He who has the gold makes the rules.
  3.  Businesses and citizens will never regulate themselves without some help from a government to set norms that everyone must abide by.  Witness, the amount of gun violence, air pollution, water pollution, road rage and senseless speeding that exists today.  There are too many people and too many organizations which will not police themselves.
  4.  Efficiency and Effectiveness are the fundamental building blocks for any sustainable economic system that is going to deliver ongoing value to society.
  5.  We need a government that is fair, nonpartisan, educated and responsible to the citizens and not the lobbyists. We do not have that now. 

 Some Solutions I Would Like to Suggest:

  1.  Make lobbying illegal.  Lobbying is bribery.  Ban all lobbyists from congress.
  2.  Overturn Citizens United Ruling:  Corporations are not people and should not be allowed a vote.  Just as we separated Church and State, we must have a constitutional amendment to separate Corporations and State.
  3.  Term limits for all politicians. I recommend one six-year term for all elected positions.  Furthermore, once an elected politician leaves an office, they cannot hold another government position in any office for ten years. 
  4. Have Vouchers for Campaign Contributions: Every year, each eligible voting citizen of the USA would get a monetary voucher for 500 dollars to fund as many campaigns as they want to contribute to.  The voucher money could only be used to fund political campaigns.   The maximum that any citizen could contribute to political campaigns in a year would be 1000 dollars.   No PAC money, no corporate funds, no other funds except funds from individual registered voters would be allowed.
  5. Supreme Court Justices: Supreme Court Justices should serve a maximum of 15 years.  New justices should be selected by the following practice:  A bipartisan committee of judges nominates a total of 6 candidates.  The final candidate is selected at random from the pool of six.

These changes would be only a first step in bringing true democracy back to America.  There are many changes needed to make the Government bureaucracies throughout America more efficient and effective.  The ideas I have given above are only a start.  We need to bring efficiency and effectiveness to our Education, Health Care, Justice, Military, Social Services, Immigration and Diplomatic systems.  In several other blogs, I have suggested ideas on how to go about dealing with some of these systems.  However, nothing is more important than getting the corruption out of Government fostered by our present system of electing candidates to office.

What is a lobbyist?

Lobbyists are professionals hired by a special interest group to represent their interests to Congress.

The term “lobbyist” harkens back to the days when people hung around in lobbies waiting to get a word in with legislators heading to vote.

All kinds of groups hire lobbyists — from corporations and private companies to nonprofits and unions — to try to persuade the government to pass legislation that’s favorable to them.

“Determine That It Will be Done, and Then We Shall Find a Way” — Lessons on Leadership from Abraham Lincoln

10 Feb 2025 Leave a comment

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , ,

America has lost the “Art of Leadership.”  We no longer develop men and women with integrity or selflessness.  Instead of Statesmen, we have political hacks only concerned with getting reelected.  Politicians with no backbones or the courage to stand up against injustice.  We have a Congress of sycophants willing to do whatever they are told to do regardless of how unethical or immoral it may be.  We have thousands of lawyers who do not uphold justice but find arguments to support an amorality that meets the letter of the law but ignores the significance of decency, goodness, honesty, conscience and fairness.

In this blog and the ones to follow,  I will write about insights regarding leadership from one of the greatest American leaders and Presidents of all time.  I found a compilation of these in an old collectors edition of “Civil War Times” published in Winter, 2013. There are 41 in total.  I have already covered the first two in previous blogs.  I would like for you to hear the words of Abraham Lincoln and what he had to say about leadership.  I will include some of my own experiences from my years of working with senior management in over 32 organizations.  Some of the men and women I worked with were incredible leaders.  Most of them wanted to be better leaders and that is where I brought the teachings and thoughts of W. E. Deming to my consulting practice.  Dr. Deming achieved extraordinary results in business by tapping the knowledge, skills and abilities of ordinary people.  Senator Hubert Humprey famously said that “Democracy is a system that achieves extraordinary results with ordinary people.”

Insight # 3 – Determine That the Thing Can and Shall be Done, and Then We Will Find a Way to Do It — Speech to Congress, June 10, 1848

Abe Lincoln was an interesting blend of idealist and pragmatist.  There are many pundits today who talk endlessly about what should be done and how it should be done.  Such idealism is not only admirable but also necessary.  However, idealism in never enough.  I do not trust others who tell me “what to do” but never lift a hand to help me do it.  The Right-Wing in America has for many years belittled Academics as “Pointy Headed Intellectuals” with no common sense.  Democrats, Liberals and Intellectuals have too often seen what needed to be done but lacked the courage or fortitude to get it done.

I found a wonderful political button twenty-five years ago which unfortunately I have lost.  On one side it read “Democrats, the Party of Wimps.”  On the other side, it read “Republicans, the Party of Greed.”  In the years since, I have noticed how appropriate these labels were.  When the Democrats had majorities in many states, they bickered and dithered while the Republicans gerrymandered districts as fast as they could.  This gerrymandering is one of the key reasons that Republicans have come to dominate politically across the USA.

“In 2011, Republicans leveraged their new state-level dominance and recent advances in districting technology to enact a very aggressive and sophisticated redistricting plan, which allowed them to win a majority in the 2012 House midterms, despite losing the popular vote for the House and losing the presidential election. This was a qualitative escalation in the gerrymandering wars, widely documented, and widely excoriated—especially by Democrats.” — Where We Have Been: The History of Gerrymandering in America

When Obama selected Garland for a Supreme Court position, he sat back and did little or nothing while McConnell blocked any efforts to advance Garland’s nomination.  Contrast this with Lincoln’s effort to remove potential spies during the start of the Civil War.

“Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War to suppress potential Confederate sympathizers and secure the nation’s capital, particularly in Maryland, where there were significant threats to Union troop movements and a risk of disruption to supply lines to Washington D.C., justifying his actions as necessary to protect the country during a time of rebellion; he argued that the extreme circumstances of war allowed him to temporarily suspend this right to maintain public safety.” —- Google AI

The insight here by Lincoln can be phased as “Where there is a will there is a way.”  As another example, the Democrats faced during Biden’s term a Supreme Court with a 6-3 majority against them.  Biden, if he had been bold, could have changed this situation.  Biden could have found grounds to indict both of the two Supreme Court justices who were accused of taking bribes during his administration.  If Biden had removed these justices and prosecuted them (with some courage) he could have appointed two justices “temporarily” to replace them.  This would have given Democrats a 5-4 edge.  During this “temporary” period, any challenges to Biden’s actions would have been supported by a Supreme Court in his pocket.

If you think I am being cynical, denigrating or somehow abandoning the purpose of the Supreme Court, you are very naïve.  The Supreme Court has never been and never will be neutral until a new means of appointing justices can be imposed.  I refer to you the numerous pro-slavery and Jim Crow laws which many Supreme Courts have upheld which clearly were cruel, unethical and immoral decisions.

“The three most important Supreme Court Justices before the Civil War—Chief Justices John Marshall and Roger B. Taney and Associate Justice Joseph Story—upheld the institution of slavery in ruling after ruling.” — Supreme Injustice: Slavery in the Nation’s Highest Court, by Paul Finkelman – Jan 8, 2018

“Jim Crow laws, enforcing racial segregation, were upheld for approximately 60 years from after the Reconstruction era until the mid-20th century with landmark civil rights legislation. The Supreme Court’s decision in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 was pivotal in maintaining these laws until their abolition in the 1960s. —Brainly.Com

America has long been a nation that has scorned people who were labeled as intellectuals, geeks and daydreamers.  Some of this scorn is deserved.  Ideals without action are like dreams without plans, they can go nowhere.  The Yin/Yang of life is thinking and action not one or the other.  Today, more than at any time in the history of this country, intellectuals, scientists, thinkers and day dreamers are under fire by an administration that puts thoughtless actions ahead of dreams and ideals.  For example, I refer you to Trump’s Palestinian solution.  We will kick all the Palestinians out of the Mideast and build seaside resorts in Gaza.  If this is not an example of “thoughtless” action, than I do not know anything about life and justice.

Abraham Lincoln knew how to dream but he also knew when and how to act.  Some called him a dictator.  In reality he stood up to the bullies of his time.  Lincoln took actions to support his dream of a slave-free America.  He carefully timed the actions to achieve his dreams with an ability to muster the resources and means to accomplish them.  Lincoln had ideals but he was also a pragmatist.  Lincoln realized that until and unless the South was defeated, we would not be able to abolish slavery.  Once victory was in his grasp, Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation to free slaves throughout the nation.

President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, announcing, “that all persons held as slaves” within the rebellious areas “are, and henceforward shall be free.  The following goals were furthered by the timing and wording of the Emancipation Proclamation:  (From Search Labs | AI Overview)

  • Lincoln believed that freeing slaves was a military necessity to save the Union.
  • The proclamation declared that all enslaved people in rebellious states were free.
  • It allowed Black men to serve in the military.
  • Lincoln intended the proclamation to inspire enslaved people to support the Union.
  • Lincoln wanted to prevent other countries from giving the Confederacy military aid.

When I worked with companies, one of my goals was to create a culture of continuous improvement modeled somewhat on Dr. W. E. Deming’s 14 Points for Management.  The concept of a Continuous Improvement Culture (See My Book The TQM Transformation) was linked to Demings 14 Points.  Several if not most of these points were viewed as a radical departure from what managers were taught in business schools and MBA programs.

I once had a manager who told me that if he made the changes I was endorsing, it would be suicidal for his career.  I replied, “Most radical changes require a leadership willing to sacrifice everything for their ideals including their lives.”  He laughed as he jokingly said, “I am not willing to fall on my sword for this company.”  In truth though, history supports to a large degree that radical change often requires the ultimate sacrifice.  Many men and women have given their lives to support the ideals that they believed in.  A far cry from the sycophants that we see in Congress today who will not even give up their seats in support of the Democracy that they claim to believe in.

How do we fight an “Uncivil War”?  Insight # 4 from Old Abe has more valuable thoughts to help us in this struggle.  I will share these in my next blog.    

 

The Lost Art of Leadership: Lessons on Leadership from Abraham Lincoln

03 Feb 2025 5 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

America has lost the “Art of Leadership.”  We no longer develop men and women with integrity and courage.  Instead of Statesmen, we have political hacks only concerned with getting reelected.  Instead of people with a backbone and the guts to stand up against injustice, we have a Congress of sycophants willing to do whatever they are told to do regardless of how unethical or immoral it may be.  We have thousands of lawyers who do not uphold justice but find arguments to support an amorality that meets the letter of the law but ignores the significance of decency, goodness, honesty, conscience and fairness.

In my next blogs, I want to write about 41 insights regarding leadership from one of the greatest American leaders and Presidents of all time.  I found a compilation of these insights in an old collectors edition of “Civil War Times” published in Winter, 2013.  I would like for you to hear the words of Abraham Lincoln and what he had to say about leadership.  I will include some of my own experiences from my years of working with senior management in over 32 organizations.  Some of the men and women I worked with were incredible leaders.  Most of them wanted to be better leaders and that is where I brought the teachings and thoughts of W. E. Deming to my consulting practice.  Dr. Deming achieved extraordinary results in business by tapping the knowledge, skills and abilities of ordinary people.  Senator Hubert Humphrey famously said that “Democracy is a system that achieves extraordinary results with ordinary people.”

I should issue one caveat before I begin this series.  There are some who disparage “Honest Abe” as not really caring about slavery.  They argue, Lincoln only fought the war to save the Union and not to free the slaves.  My readings and knowledge of Lincoln shows that nothing, I repeat NOTHING could be further from the truth.  Lincoln was appalled at slavery from the time he was a young child until he issued the Emancipation Proclamation.  The idea that Abe did not care about slavery is a lie fostered by a bitter Confederacy that wanted to hide their heinous practice behind the cloak of states rights.

Lincoln said,  “I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.”  –August 22, 1862, Letter to Horace Greeley

Lincoln also said, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union and is not either to save or destroy slavery.  If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.” —August 22, 1862, Letter to Horace Greeley

Two very different goals.  Two very different thoughts.  What are we to make of Lincoln’s motivations?  The Confederacy pushed the latter because it justified their defense of States rights to choose slavery as a viable economic system.  Several of the constitutions of the new Confederate states proclaimed their rights to practice slavery.

In its statement for seceding from the Union, the state of Georgia wrote the following:

“The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin.  It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party.  While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose.”

Alexander H. Stephens, the Confederate vice president said the following:

“Our new government is founded upon . . . its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery – subordination to the superior race – is his natural and normal condition.”

Lincoln was always against slavery.  Long before he became president he argued about the evil and immorality of slavery.  He modified this position to include saving the Union at the beginning of the war as a political expedient to gain support for the war.  As it became clear that the North would win and thereby have the power to free the slaves and abolish slavery, that became his main objective.  There can be no doubt that he did both.  There can be no doubt that in doing so, he signed his death certificate.  Like Martin Luther King, Malcolm X and many other civil rights martyrs, the cause of equal rights for all has always been a precarious position to assume.

Lincoln said that “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”  Martin Luther King in his famous “I have a Dream” speech said that this promise was an uncashed check.  It is now “Eight Score” years from the date of the Emancipation Proclamation and we are once again engaged in a battle between racism and equality, between prejudice and tolerance and between fascism and democracy.  We have begun a new “Uncivil War” which has divided the hearts, minds and loyalties of Americans from the East Coast to the West Coast every bit as deeply as did our first Civil War.

Today we face a battle between those who believe that America should be a White Supremacist Christian nation ruled by rich oligarchs and those who believe in the concepts of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion.  One half of America wants to create a country that believes in the concepts of White exceptionalism, America First and Evangelical Christianity above all over religions.  This half praises individual rights above individual responsibilities.  The rights of the individual are more important than the rights of society.

The other half of America wants to create a country where racism, sexism, exclusivity and prejudice does not exist.  This half believes that responsibilities are just as important as rights.  That the rights of others in society must be protected from those who would trample on them.  This group believes in democracy over oligarchy.  These Americans believe that we all have the right to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” as long as we take responsibility to insure that everyone in our nation shares these rights.

The war between these two sides of America has now entered a new phase.  The first phase started many years ago.  The second phase has started on January 21, 2025.  I want to help us to remember the ideas and insights of Abraham Lincoln as we move into this second phase.

Insight # 1

Fight the Good Fight:  The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just.  — Springfield, Illinois, 12/20/1839

Lincoln was thirty years old when he said these words.  They reflect the words of Frederic Douglas who said, “ If there is no struggle, there is no progress.  Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground.” 

The words of Patrick Henry also come to my mind,

“If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight!  I repeat it, sir, we must fight!

I keep these words and thoughts in my mind as our “Uncivil War” commences the next four years to preserve and protect what we call our democracy.  I have no doubt that many people have struggled throughout American history to save things that they believed in.  There has been times when African Americans, Latinos, Women, Indigenous People, Asian Americans and LGBTQ people have all been persecuted and where life must have seemed totally unjust and not worth living.  Many of us woke up on November 6th with similar feelings.  I cringed when I saw people walking around town waving Trump flags and others proclaiming that they voted for Trump.  I consoled myself with “hoping they would get what they deserved.”  Then I realized that “hope” was not enough.  We must fight for what we believe in.

How do we fight an “Uncivil War”?  Insight # 2 from Old Abe has some valuable thoughts to help us in this struggle.  I will share these in my next blog.

 

Can We Be Justified for Intolerance Towards Intolerance?

02 Oct 2024 Leave a comment

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Many years ago, the famous philosopher Kark Popper created what has been called the “Paradox of Tolerance.”

Karl Popper wrote that, “if we want a tolerant society, we must be intolerant of intolerance”.  This is known as the “Paradox of Tolerance”, which is the idea that a society must be intolerant of intolerance in order to maintain tolerance.  As with any paradox, this is very confusing.

“Popper explained that unlimited tolerance can lead to the destruction of tolerance.  He said that a tolerant society should be prepared to defend itself against intolerant views, and that the right to suppress intolerant views should be claimed if necessary.  However, he also said that suppressing intolerant views through force is unwise unless they are unwilling to engage in rational argument.”  —- From Search Labs | AI Overview

Recently, I came across a rather long academic article which I think supports a justification for Popper’s viewpoint.  Albeit I think this article provides a more nuanced explanation for being intolerant of intolerance.  I have decided to post this article since I think the times demand that we understand this perspective.  I believe it is a focal point worth fighting for.  You may disagree but the analogy of how Hitler took power is I think quite relevant and worth thinking about.  Here in its unabridged form is the entire article.  I would love to hear what you think, so please leave a comment or two.

What are the Limits of Toleration? By Tamar Lagurashvili

University of Tartu, Institute of Government and Politics, Graduate Student

Introduction

Tolerance is considered to be one of the cornerstones of modern liberal democracies, thus having acquired different implications across the countries, which ultimately leads to the ambiguity of the concept itself. In order to avoid further misunderstanding, we should clearly define what is meant in tolerance and why it is crucial not to mix this term with the words having similar connotations. Yossi Nehushtan (2007:5)  offers an obvious distinction between the value-based liberal tolerance and rather neutral tolerance, which finds more similarities with indifference rather with toleration itself. Concerning its linguistic origin, author refers to the Latin word tolerabilis, which means to lift an object, clearly implying to the burden to be carried by one, who tolerates certain unacceptable behavior, act or opinion. Within this context, we should refer to Michael Sandel (1996),  who differentiates liberal non-judgmental toleration from judgmental toleration. While looking closely at these concepts, we can see that in the case of former, person (tolerant) tolerates certain opinion, act or behavior without judgmental evaluation simply because he does not care or he respects others’ privacy and thus, refrains from any kinds of interference. Albeit that, refraining from interfering in other people’s private life is an integral part of modern liberalism, definition provided above does not correspond with the tenets of tolerance.

As Heywood (2015:251)  rightly mentions, tolerance should be distinguished from permissiveness, indifference and indulgence, since being tolerant inherently implies to the fact that a tolerant person faces moral difficulties to put up with certain behavior or act, but does so for the sake of different reasons. Being tolerant means that a person has to impose certain restrictions on him/herself in order to avoid to openly interfere in others’ life when there is something to be disliked, disparaged or disapproved. Toleration with its basic definition can be considered as truly moral value, supporting a peaceful coexistence of the different individuals, but whether there are certain cases, where intolerance is morally/pragmatically justified is major concern of this paper.

Why do we tolerate?

Rainer Frost (2008:79-82) while touching Pierre Bayle’s Reflexive theory of Toleration, talks about three different reasons or factors, which trigger toleration among majority and minority groups. First he mentions permission conception, according to which the majority gives minority a right to live according to their customs, but toleration is possible when the “difference” of minority is contained to certain limits and does not cross the borders of private life. As an early and most vivid example of permission conception Frost names the Nantes Edict of 1598, which granted the Calvinist Protestants of France substantial rights in private as well as in public spheres.

Second way of toleration is coexistence concept, which resembles to pragmatic tolerance to be discussed bit later. In this case, avoiding conflict and paving way towards peaceful coexistence is what matters, but unlike the previous situation, here we face not the relation between the ruling majority and minority, but rather two groups wielding equal powers, thus requiring making some concessions for the sake of preventing clash of interests. If we attempt to apply this concept to real life, we can think of Somalia, who has been torn apart by three different clans ruling in three regions of Somalia, therefore hindering country’s normal development. Bearing in mind that Somalia is characterized by distinctive homogeneity (Guardian Africa: 2015),  one can assume that it is not different beliefs and traditions, which impede toleration among the clans, but the economic benefits they can reap from the permanent state of conflict.

Third conception is based on the principle of respect, thus implying to the fact that toleration requires acknowledging the fact that everyone is equal and deserves equal political and legal rights.

As one can see Frost’s approach towards toleration is rather a combination of pragmatic and moral values, since it fosters cooperation between majority and minority and upholds egalitarian values. Kristie McClure (1990:361-391)  puts forward John Rawls’s understanding of toleration within his notion of “ justice as fairness”, according to which toleration carries distinctively pragmatic connotation, namely the one of social conditions, which not only helped to put an end to the religious wars in Europe, but to transform religious toleration into certain form of social practice. John Locke’s work Letter Concerning Toleration is deemed to be a milestone in understanding the tenets of toleration. Locke comes from the assumption that we are all created by God and thus, our “Highest Obligation” should rest on the understanding of others’ differences for the sake of our moral obligation and love (Frost 2008). Later on Locke argues about the possible relation between the tolerant and one to be tolerated, excluding the possibility to give superiority to any church, since it will lead to persecution and monopolization of power.

One can consider that by proposing to give each and every church equal power as searching for  the only true religion is futile and will exacerbate conflict between different religious groups, Locke somehow offers the coexistence concept elaborated earlier. Even though toleration is a God-given virtue, Locke still talks about its possible limits, which in his case is restricted to two kinds of groups: “A church that assumes the power of being able to excommunicate a king or that claims political and religious authority over its members…” and the atheists, as: ”They are not at all to be tolerated who deny the Being of a God” (Frost: 91-92).

Nehushtan, like Frost points out three different reasons of why people generally tolerate: tolerance as right, pragmatic tolerance and tolerance out of mercy. First he touches upon tolerance from the standpoint of rights and argues that no matter how repulsive person’s behavior or opinion can be, harm inflicted to that person cannot be justified on the grounds of personal autonomy developed by Joseph Raz . Author stresses particular importance on the pragmatic side of toleration and develops the ideas very similar to Frost with an additional insight of reciprocity and proportionality, which will be discussed later on. His third point argues that people with physical and/or mental disabilities might be exposed to more toleration than usual, regardless their repulsive behavior.

Can toleration be limited?

Tolerance with its underlying principles and applicability clearly upholds democratic values and strengthens personal autonomy, which constitutes one of the cornerstones of the liberal democracies. Albeit that tolerance is widely considered as “moral virtue”, would we go further and suggest that tolerance can be applied to each and every circumstance regardless the fact who should be tolerated? This question is examined in the works of many political scientists, including Andrew Heywood, who even though stresses importance of the political pluralism, openly talks about those political parties, which are clearly distinguished with hate speech and bigotry, thus threatening the democratic values, should not be tolerated and permitted to the political spectrum, since as author suggests: ”toleration is not granted automatically, it has to be earned” (Heywood: 256).

I would suggest that reciprocity, as a crucial feature of toleration substantively defines the nature of its applicability, which means that in certain exceptions, where we have to deal with a massive surge of intolerance, clearly undermining the democratic values and endangering the sovereignty of state, toleration should be limited. Heywood calls an example of Nazi Germany, where after the failure of Munich Putsch, Hitler and his collaborators were still allowed to pursuit their political activities legally, which ultimately led to the disastrous consequences. It seems that reciprocity plays an integral part in understanding the limitations of tolerance, so clearly expressed in the work of Nehushtan, who also talks about proportionality, which mainly focuses on the costs and benefits of limiting toleration. We could start by recalling Rawls, who suggests that:” it seems that an intolerant sect has no title to complain when it is denied an equal liberty”( Rawls 1999:190).  While analyzing Rawls’s words, we can assume that those intolerant groups, which openly threaten state sovereignty and democratic values in general, should not be treated in a tolerant manner, but how can intolerance be expressed when it comes to politics? Should we ban such intolerant political parties and prevent them from entering parliament?

Should we hold a peaceful campaign, during which we will expose true information about the intolerant party’s real intentions and the scope of possible harm in case of proliferation the intolerant ideas? Deciding upon the methods of expressing intolerance is rather individual and as Nehushten suggests, is rooted in the principle of proportionality. According to the author, while working on the scope of intolerance, one should take into account the nature of intolerance and the response towards it, since if an act of intolerance takes place in parliament for example, an intolerant response should be formulated within the realm of politics and not in the private life. On the other hand, amount and nature of intolerant response should not exceed the original intolerance and what is of core importance- intolerant response should inflict minimal harm to the democratic values and human rights, because otherwise we will face counter-productivity. Fintan O’Toole (1997:346)  raises another interesting question concerning the limits of tolerance based on assumption that excessive freedom of certain group might threaten collective good, thus requiring to impose certain restrictions on that group’s excessive liberty. Therefore, certain amount of intolerance towards the groups, who wield the power in order to prevent them from abusing/manipulating this power, is justified.

Nevertheless, author calls an example of Bernard Shaw’s criticism of the Christian Golden Rule (according to which we should treat others as we would like to be treated), providing the heterogeneous nature of the society, where what one person considers benign for him/herself, might be perceived as totally evil by other. Author suggests that even though there might be a society with relatively homogeneous religious beliefs, the applicability and interpretation of the customs and beliefs might considerably vary (O’Toole: 347). Therefore, we should not expect that toleration will be upheld as universal value across different societies, but what author explicitly refers to is the nature of harm inflicted by the intolerant groups, which morally and pragmatically justifies adequate intolerant response.

Conclusion

Tolerance, as one of the tenets of modern liberal thought,  cannot be applied universally to every situation, without taking into account the nature of an opinion, behavior or act to be tolerated and the amount and nature of harm done to the society followed by intolerance.  We can assume that intolerance is justified on the grounds of reciprocity i.e. as Heywood stated, tolerance should not be granted automatically and it requires certain effort to be excerpted by the groups demanding tolerance and proportionality, which implies that there should be balance between the original intolerance and its corresponding intolerant response. Even though tolerance constitutes a major tenet of modern liberal democratic states, where each and every individual is endowed with personal autonomy and a right of individual liberty, preventing certain individuals from infringing others’ private life, there are some exceptional cases, where intolerance can be justified. Even though individual liberty is an integral part of the democratic societies, my essay primarily focused on the limits of tolerance at the political level, where we might face much more disastrous results in case of allowing unlimited tolerance towards the intolerant groups. Having tolerant attitude is vital in pluralist societies, but when national sovereignty and democratic values are endangered due to the nature and amount of intolerance exposed to the wide public, appropriate intolerant response should be nurtured taking into account the costs and benefits of such response.

Bibliography

Frost, Rainer. “Pierre Bayle’s Reflexive Theory of Toleration.” In Toleration and Its Limits, edited by Melissa S. Williams and Jeremy Waldron. New York University Press, 2008.

Heywood, Andrew. Political Theory: An Introduction. Palgrave, 2015.

McClure, Kirstie M. Difference, Diversity and the Limits of Toleration. Sage Publication, 1990.

Nehushtan, Yossi. “The Limits of Tolerance: A Substantive-Liberal Perspective.” 2007.

O’Toole, Fintan. “The Limits of Tolerance.” By Fintal O’Toole and Lucy Beckett. Irish Province of the Society of Jesus, 1997.

My Final Will and Testament – Influences – Reflection #9  — Part 3 Music    

05 Jun 2024 Leave a comment

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , ,

Since this blog is about music, there is no better way to read it than by listening to an Andre Rieu concert.  The first number is “Conquest of Paradise” by Vangelis.  The second number is the “Soldiers Chorus” from Gounod’s Faust.  Click on the link above.  I think the background will enhance your reading pleasure.

Imagine that this is the last day of your life on earth.  In the time that you have left, you want to leave a “Testament” for your family and friends. 

  1. These are the Influences (people, literature, and Music) that have shaped me.

Music

“Music soothes the savage beast” — William Congreve    

“Music is a moral law.  It gives soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination, and charm and gaiety to life and to everything.”  — Plato

“Next to the Word of God, music deserves the highest praise.  The gift of language combined with the gift of song was given to man that he should proclaim the Word of God through Music.” — Martin Luther

“Music was my refuge.  I could crawl into the space between the notes and curl my back to loneliness.” — Maya Angelou

I love music.  I love all music and all genres of music.  Yes, there are songs, composers, and performers that I do not like within every genre.  However, I have never found a genre of music from any culture in history or anywhere in the world that did not have something to feed my desires.  Music is food for the soul and a variety of music provides an abundance of nutrition.  The more variety I find in music, the more variety I can bring to my musical dining experience.

I love listening to Opera, Classical Music, Blues, Pop, Rock, Gospel, Country, Fado, Enka, Irish, African, Indian, Chinese and Rap.  Depending on what I am hungry for I might listen to Calypso or Reggae, or I might listen to Celtic and Madrigals.  I might be in the mood for country and cowboy songs, or I might feel like listening to “Golden Oldies.”  My musical tastes are as varied as my food tastes.

I grew up with an Italian father who loved Opera.  My mother was a southerner who gave me a love of Hank Williams, Patsy Cline, Homer and Jethro and Elvis Presley.  My fathers tastes were more for Caruso, Callas, Pavarotti, and Domingo.  My favorite Operas are Carmen, Madam Butterfly, The Pearl Fishers, Il Trovatore, Rigoletto, and Manon Lescaut.

I love Broadway musicals like Cats, 1776, Phantom of the Opera, Man of La Mancha, Fiddler on the Roof, Camelot, Chorus Line, and Les Misérables.  I love movie musicals like Paint Your Wagon, Grease, Tommy, Hair, Oklahoma, and the Wizard of Oz.  Of course, sometimes a musical goes from Broadway to Hollywood but there are often differences which make both genres interesting and tasty.

Some of my favorite composers include Tchaikovsky, Andrew Lloyd Webber, Lerner and Lowe , Rogers and Hammerstein, Beethoven, Verdi, Puccini, Mozart, and Bizet.  Some of my favorite singers include Harry Belafonte, Dolly Parton, Shakira, Nina Simone, Marvin Gaye, Bob Dylan, Pete Seegar, Paul Robeson, Little Richard, Arlo Guthrie, the Beetles, Elvis Presley, and Ronnie Milsap.  I have listened to and love most of the great operatic tenors and sopranos from Caruso to Fatma Said.  The list of these great singers would take up two pages at least.

I want to conclude these reflections on the Music that has made a difference in my life with a simple explanation of why so much of the music from the above sources has made a difference and what differences they have made.

When I was young, I did not listen to much music.  My parents were never very musical and if it was not on the radio, we never had any music around the house.  Sometime, around my middle school years (5th and 6th grades, I discovered rock and roll.  This would have been during the birth or at least White birth of Rock and Roll (1954 was when the genre got its name).  Black people had been listening to similar music long before Elvis Presley came on the Ed Sullivan show in 1956.  Later, when I went to high school, I took a course in Classical music which I found boring.  I hated the class.  I mostly enjoyed listening to Rock and Roll.  Country was not really an option on the East Coast in the fifties.  I cannot say to have had any deep or serious appreciation of music.

I think the big change in my musical tastes occurred after my first wife and I split.  I realized that I had been so focused on work that I had little time for anything else.  I wanted to start trying new things out and doing some things that I had never done before.  Being alone, I rediscovered my joy for libraries and just sitting around reading a good book.  The library in Eau Claire had the typical reading rooms as well as a few music rooms.  You could select some albums from the library collection and listen to them in the room with a headset.  I decided to explore several of the genres that I had avoided when younger.  I selected a large amount of classical music, folk music, and world music to explore.

You know how when you first taste something, you may not like it.  However, the more you eat it the more it grows on you.  That was how music went with me.  The more I tasted of Beethoven, Bach, Brahms, and other types of music from different parts of the globe, the more I began to love music.  My music menu soon extended to well beyond Rock and Roll to many of the genres that I have already mentioned.  My diet for music became insatiable.  Karen and I try to go to at least one musical performance a month.

This Saturday Karen and I are going to the 2024 Race Amity Day: Unity Through Music program at the Baha’i Faith Community Center in Scottsdale.  We are not members of the Baha’i faith and are going with some friends who invited us.  Karen plays piano and several other instruments very well.  She often does some solo performances as well as group performances.  Over the years I have declined Karen’s encouragement to become a player.  I prefer to be a listener.  Too much dedication and focus required to become a good player is not in my age-appropriate activity group.  I am happy to go to interesting performances and enjoy someone else who plays or sings or composes better than I ever could.

So, what do I get from the great deal of variety in my musical diet?  What are the nutritional benefits from this smorgasbord of music?  This is difficult to describe.  It seems that music mellows and tempers my moods.  Sometimes music is like a stimulant and it lifts my spirit and energizes me.  Spanish bullfight music does that for me.  Sometimes music is like a sedative, and it helps to calm and relax my mood.  “Love Me Tender” by Elvis has a very mellowing impact on my moods.  Sometimes music motivates me to do more and try harder.  The “Toreador Song” from Carmen has that effect on me.  Sometimes music reminds me that the world is much larger than the one I live in.  Pete Seegar’s “Where Have All the Flowers Gone” reminds me of this fact.

Perhaps the most impactful use of music in terms of influence is the music that teaches.  For example, Paul Robeson sang a song called the “Peat Bog Soldiers.”  It was written, composed, and first performed in a Nazi concentration camp (by political prisoners) in 1933.  By referencing the title, I found out that it was a famous protest song against Nazi Germany sung by the men and women in these concentration camps.  It is a well-known protest song in Europe.  The song from Madame Butterfly “Un bel dì, vedremo” always brings tears to my eyes.  This song taught me what happens when commitment and honesty are ignored.

Well that concludes as much as I can say about my musical influences.  I hope you have enjoyed your sojourn through my musical buffet.  May your musical diet be bountiful and nutritious and may you live your life with the sounds of music that you enjoy.

PS:  Some of the songs I liked are hyperlinked to YouTube music so you can listen to them. 

Next Reflection:

10.  These are the Scripture texts that have touched and helped me.

The Days of Remembrance

23 Apr 2024 7 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , ,

“The Days of Remembrance”, according to https://nationaltoday.com/days-of-remembrance, is observed every year in April and May and is a week-long commemoration of the Holocaust.  In 2024, it is observed from May 5-12, with “Remembrance” Day being May 6.”

”The Days of Remembrance” was established as the country’s annual commemoration of the Holocaust by the United States Congress.  The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum is responsible for leading the country in commemorating “Days of Remembrance” and also for encouraging these commemorations.  The Holocaust was the state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million Jews by the Nazi rulers, allies, and collaborators.”  — National Days of Remembrance

Several years ago, while in Munich, Karen and I went to visit the first of the concentration camps setup by the Nazis.  The camp was just outside of a small town called Dachau.  Neither of us will ever forget that day.  The camp is now a museum devoted to remembering and explaining the unexplainable.  The pictures, the exhibits, the ovens, the hatred depicted in this former death camp are beyond words.  In a strange distortion of reality, Karen and I could not remember any color for that day.  It was all black and white and gray.  The grass, the trees, the other people we saw all appeared in shades of black.  It was like being in the Stephen Spielberg film “Schindler’s List”.   How could any culture, any nation, any so-called civilized people systematically murder over six million people because of their religion?  Numerous writers have tried to explain the Holocaust, but none have ever managed to.  It is an impossible effort.  It is impossible because it is not possible for any normal human being to imagine the hatred and prejudice that stands behind Anti-Semitism and other forms of racism. 

On the way to the camp, we were told by the bus driver (in rather a surprise announcement)  “don’t blame us for the Holocaust, only a third of the people in the Village of Dachau voted for Hitler.”  I thought “bullshit”.  Later after reading Goldhagen’s “Hitlers Willing Executioners” I realized my judgement of bullshit was far too kind.  When people do nothing in the face of crime and immorality, they are just as guilty as the people more actively involved.  A large number of German people either did nothing to prevent or actively facilitated the atrocities perpetrated against the Jewish citizens in Germany. 

Sadly, this persecution of Jews has gone on not only in Germany for centuries but also in parts of Europe, the Mideast, and the USA.  However, it was not until 1860 that an Austrian Jewish scholar, Moritz Steinschneider, introduced the term “Anti-Semite” to denote specific prejudice against Jews.  Today, the USA is embroiled in a bitter controversy.  Another divide among the American people has occurred.  We have those who support Israel in its war against Hamas and those who support the Palestinian people.  The confrontations are taking place in the streets of several major cities as well as on college campuses across the nation.  Many Jewish people in America feel like they are being attacked whether or not they stand with Israel in what some are calling a war of Genocide.  Pro-Palestinian Americans are also being attacked as they protest the Gazan war. 

The Anti-Defamation League recently published a study showing a rise in Anti-Semitism ideology and incidents in the USA over the past year or so.  U.S. Antisemitic Incidents soared 140% percent in 2023.

“ADL tracked 8,873 antisemitic incidents across the United States in 2023, the highest level recorded since ADL started tracking this data in 1979.” —  U.S. Antisemitic Incidents Soared 140% percent in 2023

While a large proportion of Americans are against Israel’s war with Hamas near fifty percent support the right of Israel to exist. 

“Support for an independent Jewish state remains high. Indeed, 47.6% of Americans support the notion of a two-state solution to the conflict and an additional 8.5% of Americans support Israeli annexation of the West Bank and Gaza.” — Antisemitic Attitudes in America 2024  

It is sad that we cannot both protest and also respect the position of those we protest against.  Whether or not one is Pro-Israel or Pro-Palestine, both have a right to be heard in a democratic society that professes the First Amendment for Free Speech.  Yet, we also see a systematic effort to silence those protestors who are taking sides with the Palestinians.  

In 1816 Commander Stephen Decatur said, “Our country!  In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong” — Naval commander Stephen Decatur.  Others have criticized this perspective as reflective of an unthinking extreme patriotism, or “jingoism”  Fifty-five years later, in 1871, a US Senator Carl Schurz gave a very appropriate reinterpretation of this perspective in a speech that included the statement, “My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.”  Both the USA and Israel may have some reckoning to be done but it will only happen if parties in both countries can sit down peacefully with their opposition and discuss their differences.  

I wrote the following blog in a series of stories written several years ago.  I was inspired by Edgar Lee Master’s “Spoon River Anthology.”  I called each of my stories “Autobiographies from the Dead.”  Each of my eight or so protagonists tells the story of their death.  In this story, Ephraim is a Jewish boy who dies in the Holocaust in a Nazi Concentration Camp.  The story will not be easy to read but it is my effort to share some of the real horrors of the Nazi holocaust with those of us who were not there.  We cannot whitewash, we cannot trivialize, and we should never forget the evil and hatred that Anti-Semitism has evoked and still evokes in the world today. 

Ephraim the Jew

jewish shadowMy name is Ephraim. I was born to a Jewish mother and a Jewish father in Germany.  My parents and great grandparents were all born in Germany.  We were not rich but we made a living over the years in various trades.  My family was all hard workers and I was taught the value of hard work and an education at an early age.  We were proud to be Germans.  My father had served with distinction in WW I and my great grandfather had served in the earlier Franco Prussian war.  We had many musicians and writers in our family and were proud that we could contribute to the rich German cultural heritage of our homeland.

HumiliationOne day, some young men started throwing stones at my father and me as we came home from work.  We arrived home with bruises and cuts but no broken bones.  My mother said that things were getting worse for Jews in Germany and that she had heard of many such incidents from other friends.  My father said she was being an old woman and should not worry so much.  This was just the result of a bunch of hoodlums and the government would soon arrest such bullies so that the streets would be safe again.

Weeks and months went by.  More assaults!  More bullying!  Everywhere we turned it seemed that people hated us.  The government passed Pro-German Laws to protect “Pure” Germans.  Somehow this seemed to mean that we Jews were now the enemies.  We were no longer Germans.  Our businesses were taken away from us.  Our jobs were taken away from us.  Then they took our freedom away from us.

trainsThey took us in trains to these large detention centers.  Smoke and flames were visible from numerous chimneys when we arrived.  Some people whispered that these were Jews who had been cremated.  It was too horrible to conceive.  It could not be true.  We were whipped, kicked and herded off the rail cars.  An angry looking German soldier in a black uniform with skulls and lightning bolts directed each person either to the right or to the left when we fled the cars.  Women and young children went one direction.  Men and young boys went the other direction.  My mother and sister went to the right.  They waved and said good bye.  “We will see you soon.”  “We must go to the showers first.”  We never saw them again.

The-last-Jew-in-Vinnitsa-1941My dad and I were assigned to work details.  Food was meager and work was hard.  We labored with very little rations from before sunrise to well after sunset.  My father died a year later.  He was nothing but skin and bones.  He said: “I am sorry.”  Another year later and I could not get up and go to work.  The guards came for me one day and said, “You are garbage and you are no longer useful.”  Two other Jews were forced to pick me up.  They carried me to a large pit.  I noticed many other bodies in the pit.  They threw me in the pit with the other bodies.  A holocaust-bodies-mass-graveguard shot me three times.  “Like shooting fish in a barrel he said.”  I was shot once in the head and twice in the chest.  He laughed as I twitched and as the blood oozed out of my veins.  I was surprised that it did not hurt as much as I thought it would.  I could feel my soul leaving my body.

Finally, I was looking down at my distorted figure and it was no longer twitching.  Even the blood had stopped oozing out.  The guard who shot me had lit a cigarette and was enjoying a quick smoke before returning to another work detail.  I watched for a while as other men and boys were carried to the pit and murdered.  I could no longer bear to look.  I decided to go find God and talk to him.  I was confused and angry but I thought that perhaps a talk with God might straighten things out.  My spirit left this hell on earth.

I am dead looking for godmany years now and I am still searching for God.  I want to know what we did to deserve such a fate.  We worked hard.  We paid our taxes.  We treated our fellow Germans with respect.  We worshipped on the Sabbath.  We upheld all of the commandments.  We were good people.  We were good Germans.  Why did they hate us so?  What did we do to cause this suffering?  Was this some kind of a test?

I think God is hiding from me.  He is nowhere to be found.  I have wandered now for years and still I find no God.  I know he exists.  I believe in God but I think he is avoiding me.  I think he may be ashamed for letting this happen.  I swear my soul will never rest until I find God and ask him this question:  “Why?”  But what if he doesn’t know the answer?

Time for Questions:

What is an Anti-Semite? Why do people still hate Jews? What did any Jews ever do to deserve such a fate?  Are you an Anti-Semite?  What can you do to help fight Anti-Semitism?  Do you try? Why not?

Life is just beginning.

“I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”  ― Elie Wiesel

 

Please join us in community with local survivors and their families as we memorialize the tragedy and loss of the Holocaust and pay tribute to those who survived and the generations that have followed them. This special observance will take place at 2:00 p.m. on Sunday, May 5th, 2024, at The Tucson J in the Ballroom.

Each year, it is imperative that we set aside this day to remember the more than six million Jews murdered during the Nazi Holocaust and continue to raise our collective voice to reaffirm the promise of ‘Never Again.’ This year’s theme, “Generations After: A Community Promise,”  reflects our Southern Arizona community’s solemn vow to our local living survivors and those who came before: in the face of our past trials and our present challenges, we will remember, and we will respond.

This annual community commemoration is a collaboration of Jewish Family & Children’s Services, The Tucson J, and Tucson Jewish Museum & Holocaust Center with funding provided by Jewish Philanthropies of Southern Arizona.

This event is free and all are welcome.

What Will History Remember Me For?

05 Mar 2024 6 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , ,

download

God came to me in a vision last night and said “John, what do you want to be remembered for?”  I started thinking of all the good things that I have done.  I then started thinking of the 1000 or more blogs that I have written.  I thought of the four books that I have published.  I thought of the people that I have helped.  I thought of the speeches and presentations that I have given.  I thought of the classes and courses that I have taught.  I thought of the companies that I helped when I was consulting.  I had visions of all the great places that Karen and I have visited.  Soon I came up with a list of things that I really would like to be remembered for.  I had at least one hundred things on my list.

“God I called out; I have my list.”  God replied back.  “John, I am sorry, but you only get one thing.”  “Only one thing I questioned?”  “Yes, said God, only one thing.”

“Okay God, but is that fair?  I feel like I have done many useful and productive things in the world.”

God replied, “Well, Einstein only gets to be remembered for E=MC2 and Theodore Sturgeon only gets to be remembered for “Fahrenheit 451” despite the over five hundred books he had written.  Beethoven is mostly remembered for his 9th Symphony and JFK is remembered best for his comment that ‘Ich Bein Ein Berliner.’  That is the way it works John.  I do make some exceptions, but I do not think it is warranted in your case.”

“God”, I said. “I don’t understand the logic of all this.  Many of your people have done so much good work in their lives, myself included and you mean all we will get to be remembered for is one tiny little thing”

“John, most people will not even get to be remembered for one thing.  You should consider yourself special that I am granting you ONE thing to be remembered for.  People have short memories and if I allowed everyone to list all the things that they wanted to be remembered for, no one would remember anyone.  By keeping the list to one item, you will be remembered and that is why you should choose wisely.”

“OK, God, I will get back to you.  This is going to take me more time than I thought.”

After God and I ended our conversation, I thought more about what he had said.  How do I pick out the ONE thing that I would really like to be remembered for?  Should I take a poll among my blog readers?  Should I ask all my friends?  Should I ask my wife Karen what she thinks?  How to decide?  Maybe Chat GPT would have the answer?  I will ask it.

Chat GPT “How can I pick what I want to be remembered for?”

Chat GPT Replied:

Deciding what you want to be remembered for is a deeply personal decision that often reflects your values, passions, and the impact you hope to have on the world.  Here are some steps to help you identify what you want to be remembered for:

  1. Reflect on Your Values: Consider what values are most important to you. Is it kindness, creativity, justice, or something else? Your values can guide you in choosing what you want to be remembered for.
  2. Identify Your Passions: Think about what activities or causes bring you the most joy and fulfillment. Your passions can be a good indicator of what you want to focus on in your legacy.
  3. Consider Your Impact: Reflect on the kind of impact you want to have on others and the world around you. Do you want to be remembered for making a difference in people’s lives, advancing knowledge, or improving your community?
  4. Set Goals: Once you have a clearer sense of what you want to be remembered for, set specific goals that align with your values, passions, and desired impact. This could involve taking concrete actions or pursuing certain achievements.
  5. Live Your Values: Actively incorporate your values into your daily life and interactions. This can help ensure that your actions align with what you want to be remembered for.
  6. Reflect Regularly: Take time to reflect on your progress and reassess your goals and priorities. As you grow and change, your aspirations for your legacy may evolve as well.
  7. Share Your Legacy: Consider how you can share your values, passions, and accomplishments with others. This could involve writing a memoir, creating art, or simply sharing your story with friends and family.

Remember, your legacy is not just about what you achieve but also how you live your life and the impact you have on others. It’s a process that evolves over time, so allow yourself the flexibility to adapt and grow as you work towards shaping the legacy you want to leave behind.

I must say I am always impressed by the ideas that AI will give in less time than I can blink my eyes or roll over and go back to sleep.  Nevertheless, I do not think that in this case it will be helpful.  My problem is to narrow down and prioritize what I think the ONE thing is that I want to be remembered for.  Now if Chat GPT could do that for me, it would be very helpful.  If only God would allow me TWO things, my life would be so much simpler.

I decided to think more about the problem and get some input from others.  I asked my spouse Karen, “What do you think is the one thing that I should be remembered for?”  She replied, “I think it would be your compassion and kindness for people you don’t even know.  Of course, you are not that kind and compassionate for people you do know.”  “Sorry, I asked.”  I next asked my good friend Socorro.  She told me, “Without a doubt it is your kindness and compassion for all the people of the world.  Except of course, those people you don’t like which includes Trump supporters, Republicans, lawyers, used car salespeople, insurance agents and…”  “That’s enough Socorro, I think you have given me something to think about.”  Next up were two of my best male friends.  I asked both of them the same question.  I got pretty much the same answer.  I tend to be kind and compassionate to people I like but not so much to people I dislike.  What was it Jesus said about it being easy to like people who like you but not so easy to like assholes?

All these replies left be in the middle of nowhere.  God was awaiting the one true thing that I wanted to be remembered for.  I was more lost than when I started this journey.  I decided to talk to God some more.

“God, do I really have to be remembered for anything?”  “Look John, it was really more of a suggestion.  The majority of the human race will never be remembered for anything except maybe stupidity.  You are welcome to join the club of the ‘Not-Remembered’ for one darn thing if that is what you want.”  “Let me think about it more God okay?  Is there any rush?”  “Looking ahead, said God, I think you are probably safe for the next year or so.  After that I would not push your luck.  That scuba diving trip you took was not the brightest idea in the world, but I had your back on that one.”

After weeks of more pondering, more struggling, more interviews with strangers, relatives and former students and clients, I finally hit upon an idea.  I would toss a bunch of letters into a basket and draw out one at a time.  I would then see what they spelled.  I would rely on the great Karma of the universe to tell me what I should be remembered for.

The first letter I drew out was an S.  Not a bad start I thought.  Maybe I would be remembered for being Smart.  I next drew out an A and then another S.  SAS, SSA, ASS?  I did not like the looks of that last word.  Someone once told me if you start off your day with meeting an asshole, you might be having bad luck.  But if everyone you meet is an asshole, maybe you are really the asshole.  My days seem to tend to the latter.  Was the Universe trying to tell me something?  Maybe if I drew out a U next it was trying to reflect my belief that you should never Assume anything.  I would not mind being remembered for that thought.

I selected again and it was an E.  I knew it.  I was going to be remembered for never assuming anything.  I have so often criticized Karen for making unfounded assumptions.  I would go down in history as the “man who did not make assumptions.”  I picked another letter but this time, Karma was all wrong.  I drew an L.  That threw me out of the Assume position.  What I now had was Ass_ _ l e.  The letters were not rolling my way.  Maybe I should give this stupid idea up.  Or maybe start over again.  But that would be cheating.  I decided to draw again.  I next drew an H.  I now could spell Assh_le.  Was Karma going to spell out Asshole?

I have never been very good at scrabble.  Maybe I was missing something.  My ex-wife and sister were both scrabble experts.  Maybe I should give the letters I have to them before I pick again and see what else they could spell besides Asshole.  If any of my readers are following along so far, what else do you think the letters I have drawn so far could spell?  An online six letter word generator gives me the following possibilities: hassle, lashes, shales, sheals.  I don’t really know what these mean except for the word “hassle.”  I suppose many people think I have hassled them at one time or another.  I will draw one last time.

I stir the pot of letters up.  I close my eyes.  I reach in and pick out a letter.  Without looking, I drop it and pick out another one.  I pull the letter out.  I look at it.  I am astounded.  You would never believe the letter that I pulled or what it spelled.  I will accept my Karma.

I turned over and drifted back to a deeper sleep.  Life can be one great dream or one bad nightmare.  Some nights you don’t know which one it will be.  I hope I can remember what the letters spelled out when I wake up tomorrow.

Previous Older Entries Next Newer Entries