Transcript of the discussion among President Obama, Professor Gates, and Officer Crowley sometime next week:
Obama: I appreciate you both for taking the time to sit down with me.
Gates and Crowley: Your welcome, Mr. President.
Obama: I hope what we do here is something with which you both are familiar, an evaluation of just what happened last week. You both are professionals and are both teachers so please understand that we will find things to blame on each other. That's not the point. I hope we will be able to look at the mistakes as mistakes and figure out better ways to do things so we don't repeat those mistakes. Let's make this a teaching moment.
Gates: Where's the beer you promised?
Obama: Skip, it's right over here. (The President leads both men over to a cooler on the floor next to the desk where they each take a brand of their own choice.)
Obama: Officer, as I understand it, you were sent to Dr. Gates' house because someone called to say someone was breaking in. You arrived within ten minutes. Am I correct to say that you found the house quiet, door closed, and nothing unseemly happening?
Crowley: That's right. I went up to the door and knocked on it. An older gentlemen answered the door, holding mail in his hands.
Obama: Did he appear threatening to you in any way?
Crowley: At the moment, he did not. But I have been on burglary calls before and have encountered all kinds of people, all ages and sizes, and both genders so I had to remain alert.
Obama: Professor, what was your reaction to seeing a police officer at your door?
Gates: The first thing that came to mind was, "Oh Oh, what kind of trouble am I in?" I could not think of any reason for him to be at my door. Where I grew up, when a white police officer confronted a Black person, that was not a good situation to be in. Inside I felt on the defensive but I tried to keep my poise. I invited him in.
Obama: Officer, so far so good?
Crowley: I went by the book and stayed just inside close to the door. I asked him who he was.
Gates: I asked him why he had come. It was my house, after all.
Obama: Officer?
Crowley: He failed to answer my question so I asked it again.
Gates: He failed to answer my question and my fear of something being wrong increased.
Crowley: I realized he was getting tense so I asked more quietly a third time. Whatever he was thinking, he handed me a letter and pointed to the name on it. I was not satisfied because some burglars are cool enough to pretend to be the homeowner when we catch them like that. So I asked him if he had his I. D. on him. He showed me his Harvard I. D. and asked me for my name and badge number.
Gates: That's when he told me to step outside and then turned his back on me and went out onto the porch. "Step outside" was given as an order. I felt disrespected at that moment. He refused to identify himself and he expected me to do whatever he wanted me to do. That angered me. I am a respected professor. My picture was on the I. D. so he had to know I was telling him the truth about who I was.
Crowley: When I realized who he was, I acted on my training which is to get the subject outside as quickly as possible because the perpetrator may still be in the house, a potential danger to all of us.
Obama: Did you tell the professor that was the situation?
Crowley: I would have but he said something about my mother which angered me.
Obama: You know better, Skip. The white community only hears one phrase when the word "mother" is mentioned in anger.
Gates: I was standing there being ordered around and said something that any Black person in the country would have understood, "I won't go outside for anyone but your mama."
Crowley: That's not what I heard.
Obama: Officer, tell me what you know about mothers in African culture.
Crowley: Most African cultures are matriarchal so the mother and grandmother are the heads of the family. Dr. Gates, were you saying I did not have enough stature to make a demand on you, that my mother would have had to ask it for you to do it?
Gates: Either that or "Please come outside with me in case there is a crook inside the house who could hurt us."
Obama: Officer, did you say please or explain the situation?
Crowley: By then, the situation had deteriorated. I was afraid for both of us and he made me angry with his remark which I had never heard before and sounded like a terrible insult.
Gates: When he had not given me his name and badge numbered, I went to the door to ask him again and that's when I was grabbed and handcuffed, read my rights, and hustled off to jail.
Crowley: He was very aggravated and I was ready to also charge him with resisting arrest.
Obama: There were no cooler heads around to prevail?
Crowley: My partner was there as back up but his role under that circumstance was to put on the cuffs and make sure the subject was no longer a threat.
Obama: Did your partner then go in and check the house for a possible burglar?
Crowley: No, by then our focus was on the professor and his anger.
Obama: Skip, knowing what you know now, what do you think you should have done?
Gates: Kept my cool. The situation was exactly what every Black person fears day and night. I should have done whatever he said. That's what I was taught when I was little. Do nothing to add to the confrontation because they have the power.
Obama: But you didn't even come close to doing that. You are a man. You are a distinguished professor. You were in your own home. Is there anything else you could have done to retain those and still not escalate the situation?
Gates: I did not think of what he was up against. He's twice as big as me and half my age. I felt a real threat from him. But police officers face things we do not even realize. I wish I had kept my temper and stayed quietly where I was when he went out the door. I wish I had calmly asked him why he wanted me to go outside. I had no idea he was there on a burglary call. As I said, if he had been polite and explained what he was doing, I probably would have had no problem with him and we wouldn't have made the news.
Crowley: I should have kept my poise and taken a moment to identify myself and my purpose for being there and telling him the potential danger we might be in. Once we got into the tiff, I forgot why we were there. As many times as I've taught this stuff, I never realized how easy it is to lose track of what our safety priorities were.
Obama: So you both will teach your respective classes a little differently from now on?
Gates: I'll teach it differently but I'm not sure I will be able to completely control my feelings and reactions if this happens again. Maybe we will need to practice in my classes. How about you, Crowley?
Crowley: Good idea. I am glad to discover just how deep our respective fears run and how they can disrupt a situation. We will have to practice so we do not let those feelings take control.
Gates: Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate your bringing us together and thank you for standing up for me the other night.
Crowley: Let me add my thanks, too, but didn't you make a mistake by taking sides the other night and then called my department "stupid?" What would you do differently?
Obama: Who, the President make a mistake? Well, maybe my first this year. (All laugh.) Look, I apologize for using that word. In fact, if I had not, would we even be here?
Gates: Are you saying that you set this all up just so we could open up the country to this sort of discussion?
Crowley: I know you are smart but I still think it was a mistake.
Obama: The real mistake was drawing attention to your case by offering my opinion. I really wanted to stay on health care the whole presser. Some in the public media really want me to fail on this health care issue. I knew that the moment I started to offer my opinion, this would be the subject of the next three news cycles.
Gates: But you chose to let it fly? You still could have pulled back, especially before using the derogatory term about the department.
Crowley: That was like "a shot heard round the world."
Obama: Did you stop to think that the health care issue has been with us sixty years since Harry Truman but the racial tensions here go back to the bringing of slaves in the eighteenth century?
Gates: All that went through your mind when you were making your statement?
Crowley: That is not what went through my mind!
Obama: Mistake, miscalculated or not, let's make the most of it, Gentlemen.
Crowley: I'll drink to that. (The three touch their long necks.)
Gates: Too bad we didn't record this.
Obama: That's what Jerry just did. Hey Eckert, thanks.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Sunday, June 7, 2009
JCD 1113
When George W. Bush was elected President, some of us had already read Molly Ivins’ book about him and had a feeling he was going to be a bad President. He got along with people in Texas but he also signed more death warrants for executions than any other governor in any state in the U. S. We also knew his governmental papers had been sealed in his father’s presidential library with no one being given access.
But the new President Bush would have to store his papers somewhere along with his library so SMU, according to reports, began planning on how that could come to their campus. He said he was a Methodist and his wife Laura was a graduate of SMU. And some of the Bush family friends who had financed much of the new President’s political career were on the SMU Board.
The Bush administration led us into a war of choice against Iraq in 2003 and did it so poorly that American troops had little or no armor to protect themselves from IEDs and sniper fire. The Bush administration turned a lot of the war over to mercenaries like Blackwater who had little or no military discipline and were not held accountable when they violated rules of engagement. The military was encouraged to use torture on prisoners in Abu Graib. Arguments over rights being lost in the Patriot Act and secret policies that were coming to light were not enough to prevent President Bush from being re-elected.
In 2005, a group representing the Bush library asked SMU to submit a proposal. In December of 2006, SMU was named as one of the finalists by the Bush Foundation.
Dr. Andrew Weaver circulated a petition which got 12,000 signatures nationally protesting the Bush Foundation/SMU linkage. Faculty on SMU joined in the protest and at a faculty senate meeting on March 7, 2007, nearly overturned the linkage. Their main object was to not allow an institute which would not be subject to University control.
A week later, a group called the Mission Council which was made up of some bishops and some laity from the South Central Jurisdiction of the United Methodist Church voted to allow a lease between SMU and the Bush Foundation. The jurisdiction owns SMU and needed to make the final decision. However, the Mission Council had been formed to provide for inter-meeting decision-making.
Protests continued against the institute and in general against the Bush Foundation as the Bush administration hid behind a unitary executive policy and refused to allow any viewing of their e-mails or meeting notess despite federal law requiring such access.
The Bush Foundation then asked the College of Bishops of the jurisdiction to rule on the authority of the Mission Council to permit lease signing. On January 9, 2008, after a telephone poll, the bishops supported the Mission Council’s authority.
At least one of those Bishops, Scott Jones, was on the SMU Board, the Mission Council, and the College of Bishops. There is no sign he recused himself but more likely that he asserted himself in getting the results that would forward the lease signing.
Six weeks later, SMU signed a 99 year lease with the Bush Foundation for $1,000, with the option of extending that lease out to 249 year. This time line and these figures come from THE DAILY CAMPUS, an independent SMU campus newspaper, for February 26, 2008.
General Conference received a petition from Dr. Weaver requesting that the South Central Jurisdiction drop the lease. General Conference, in May of 2008, referred the petition to the jurisdiction which was to meet in July.
After a spirited debate at the jurisdictional conference, the referred petition was defeated and the conference voted to accept the action of the Mission Council to allow the lease. A Perkins staff member then asked the presiding bishop a question of law in effect asking if the miniscule lease price provided backdoor funding that supported the ideology of the Bush instiutute, something that was contrary to the Discipline and SMU charter.
The bishop responded that the question was moot and hypothetical. But the Discipline requires that ruling and the question be reviewed by the Judicial Council at their October, 2008, meeting. The ruling came too late and so the matter was held over until April of 2009.
The Council ruled that the matter had indeed been before the conference and that the bishop should have answered the question. They went into the Discipline, the Jurisdiction’s own rules of procedure, and the SMU charter to determine if everything was all right with the vote by the conference. They ruled that the conference vote validated the lease and that the Mission Council had acted properly. They did not have the lease information, however, so they were unable to make a judgment on the major issue of the question of law. But since the vote had been made by the conference, they supported the legitimacy of the lease.
One thing some of us wondered about was what the Dean of Perkins would do. He was both on the Judicial Council and was SMU’s PR man for the Bush Foundation project.
As has been the practice with this Judicial Council, he removed himself from the discussion and also did not vote on the case. Another member who had once been on the SMU Board made note of that relationship but said he did not recuse himself because he was not on that Board when the Bush people contacted SMU or during any of the time of the negotiations.
I find two more possible problems in the case which I wish the Council had handled as well.
One may sound more like a “Monday morning quarterback” fuss. The College of Bishops should have reported their ruling to the Judicial Council for review.
Taking the principle of law from Judicial Council Decision 331 that matters that are similar should be construed together, any request for a ruling of law should follow Disciplinary authority (may a secular group seek a judicial ruling outside of the normal appeals and conference processes?) and if so, should that ruling be reviewed as any question of law must be by the Judicial Council?
The Judicial Council should be very sensitive to those who take over their job.
The other flaw I perceive is that the Judicial Council missed a whole body of law in their careful study of the documents related to process and authority: their own precedents in church law made among previous decisions.
As far back as 1946, the Judicial Council ruled that no body can abandon its own powers and grant them to a subsidiary group. JCD 38 says, "No authority is given in the Constitution of the Church for it to delegate its powers in such a manner as to deprive itself of that basic or ultimate power." I was startled at how many decisions since have maintained that precedent.
If that precedent had been acknowledged, the Mission Council’s decision could not have been taken as final and the lease should not have been signed until after Jurisdictional Conference,
Conclusion
The Bush administration’s unwillingness to be transparent may be not only propagated by the institute but may actually interfere with any scholarly and public access to the archives. That and so much about the Bush administration has brought shame to our nation and so much damage to the world (failure to act on global warming, use of torture, using war instead of diplomacy, etc.) that I fear how that will spill over onto SMU.
I see a die cast in which the Judicial Council inadvertently did not prevent and others of us failed to stop.
But the new President Bush would have to store his papers somewhere along with his library so SMU, according to reports, began planning on how that could come to their campus. He said he was a Methodist and his wife Laura was a graduate of SMU. And some of the Bush family friends who had financed much of the new President’s political career were on the SMU Board.
The Bush administration led us into a war of choice against Iraq in 2003 and did it so poorly that American troops had little or no armor to protect themselves from IEDs and sniper fire. The Bush administration turned a lot of the war over to mercenaries like Blackwater who had little or no military discipline and were not held accountable when they violated rules of engagement. The military was encouraged to use torture on prisoners in Abu Graib. Arguments over rights being lost in the Patriot Act and secret policies that were coming to light were not enough to prevent President Bush from being re-elected.
In 2005, a group representing the Bush library asked SMU to submit a proposal. In December of 2006, SMU was named as one of the finalists by the Bush Foundation.
Dr. Andrew Weaver circulated a petition which got 12,000 signatures nationally protesting the Bush Foundation/SMU linkage. Faculty on SMU joined in the protest and at a faculty senate meeting on March 7, 2007, nearly overturned the linkage. Their main object was to not allow an institute which would not be subject to University control.
A week later, a group called the Mission Council which was made up of some bishops and some laity from the South Central Jurisdiction of the United Methodist Church voted to allow a lease between SMU and the Bush Foundation. The jurisdiction owns SMU and needed to make the final decision. However, the Mission Council had been formed to provide for inter-meeting decision-making.
Protests continued against the institute and in general against the Bush Foundation as the Bush administration hid behind a unitary executive policy and refused to allow any viewing of their e-mails or meeting notess despite federal law requiring such access.
The Bush Foundation then asked the College of Bishops of the jurisdiction to rule on the authority of the Mission Council to permit lease signing. On January 9, 2008, after a telephone poll, the bishops supported the Mission Council’s authority.
At least one of those Bishops, Scott Jones, was on the SMU Board, the Mission Council, and the College of Bishops. There is no sign he recused himself but more likely that he asserted himself in getting the results that would forward the lease signing.
Six weeks later, SMU signed a 99 year lease with the Bush Foundation for $1,000, with the option of extending that lease out to 249 year. This time line and these figures come from THE DAILY CAMPUS, an independent SMU campus newspaper, for February 26, 2008.
General Conference received a petition from Dr. Weaver requesting that the South Central Jurisdiction drop the lease. General Conference, in May of 2008, referred the petition to the jurisdiction which was to meet in July.
After a spirited debate at the jurisdictional conference, the referred petition was defeated and the conference voted to accept the action of the Mission Council to allow the lease. A Perkins staff member then asked the presiding bishop a question of law in effect asking if the miniscule lease price provided backdoor funding that supported the ideology of the Bush instiutute, something that was contrary to the Discipline and SMU charter.
The bishop responded that the question was moot and hypothetical. But the Discipline requires that ruling and the question be reviewed by the Judicial Council at their October, 2008, meeting. The ruling came too late and so the matter was held over until April of 2009.
The Council ruled that the matter had indeed been before the conference and that the bishop should have answered the question. They went into the Discipline, the Jurisdiction’s own rules of procedure, and the SMU charter to determine if everything was all right with the vote by the conference. They ruled that the conference vote validated the lease and that the Mission Council had acted properly. They did not have the lease information, however, so they were unable to make a judgment on the major issue of the question of law. But since the vote had been made by the conference, they supported the legitimacy of the lease.
One thing some of us wondered about was what the Dean of Perkins would do. He was both on the Judicial Council and was SMU’s PR man for the Bush Foundation project.
As has been the practice with this Judicial Council, he removed himself from the discussion and also did not vote on the case. Another member who had once been on the SMU Board made note of that relationship but said he did not recuse himself because he was not on that Board when the Bush people contacted SMU or during any of the time of the negotiations.
I find two more possible problems in the case which I wish the Council had handled as well.
One may sound more like a “Monday morning quarterback” fuss. The College of Bishops should have reported their ruling to the Judicial Council for review.
Taking the principle of law from Judicial Council Decision 331 that matters that are similar should be construed together, any request for a ruling of law should follow Disciplinary authority (may a secular group seek a judicial ruling outside of the normal appeals and conference processes?) and if so, should that ruling be reviewed as any question of law must be by the Judicial Council?
The Judicial Council should be very sensitive to those who take over their job.
The other flaw I perceive is that the Judicial Council missed a whole body of law in their careful study of the documents related to process and authority: their own precedents in church law made among previous decisions.
As far back as 1946, the Judicial Council ruled that no body can abandon its own powers and grant them to a subsidiary group. JCD 38 says, "No authority is given in the Constitution of the Church for it to delegate its powers in such a manner as to deprive itself of that basic or ultimate power." I was startled at how many decisions since have maintained that precedent.
If that precedent had been acknowledged, the Mission Council’s decision could not have been taken as final and the lease should not have been signed until after Jurisdictional Conference,
Conclusion
The Bush administration’s unwillingness to be transparent may be not only propagated by the institute but may actually interfere with any scholarly and public access to the archives. That and so much about the Bush administration has brought shame to our nation and so much damage to the world (failure to act on global warming, use of torture, using war instead of diplomacy, etc.) that I fear how that will spill over onto SMU.
I see a die cast in which the Judicial Council inadvertently did not prevent and others of us failed to stop.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Regionalization of the UMC
The largest number of amendments to the constitution of the United Methodist Church relate to a worldview change: instead of continuing to be a dominating colonial-style denomination we will aim for being more equal in standing next to each United Methodist body in each region of the world. Having supported the democratic concern that we not be paternalistic but develop indigenous leadership in a process of missions, I think it is time to take the next step and stand as a partner in operations rather than continue as the head of the business.
What appears to be a reasonable step, amendments changing terminology in anticipation of enabling legislation in 2012, has been seriously criticized by a most unlikely group.
For years now, a caucus in our denomination has been pressing for division into two denominations. Each General Conference occurs with everyone asking, “Is this the year they are going to split the church?” I first heard such talk in 1984. It was so serious in 2004 that some key leaders of that caucus were speaking openly about a split.
I have never taken their threats too seriously. Our demographics have diminished. How that has come to be could be argued, of course. The real reason the caucus won’t split the denomination is because they would then have only half the resources of the whole denomination. They might not be left with very much.
Their threats have proved to be quite fruitful, however. They have gotten the majority to compromise in the name of peace and unity. Compromises have been legislative (some Disciplinary changes have led to passages that, unlike the wise one on abortion in the Social Principles, have just split the church down the middle) and some have been administrative (addition of an extra missionary society).
This past couple years, denominational leaders have successfully introduced the idea of regionalizing the church. It passed at General Conference.
Material from the caucus interested in “splitting” now is actively seeking to defeat the region idea which “splits” the church and its resources geographically. This sudden shift comes from a new situation in the denomination. Over the past decade, a highly successful evangelization of the Ivory Coast has formed a conference so large it would completely change the numbers at General Conference. And they would tend to vote with the caucus! When Cote d’Ivoire is fully seated, the caucus may well have the votes to take over the denomination.
I have friends in the Southern Baptist Church and Missouri Synod and remember the splits that were brought to both denominations when their “caucuses” took over, what that did to congregations and especially to the seminaries.
So, from my perspective, the real issue is control of the denomination. As I perceive Scripture and the Holy Spirit, we are to seek to mutually respect one another, to work together in Christ’s name, and to share the task of passing on the Good News of salvation and sanctification (fancy word for going on to perfection in love as Jesus called us to be perfect as our Heavenly Father is perfect).
While my experience with members of the caucus individually is of caring people and good pastors and mission-minded folks in nearly every respect, they tend to draw circles that exclude rather than include. They do not see that as a problem, certain that they are right and the rest of us just have an awful lot of changing to do before we get it right.
I have no trouble working with caucus folks. But on the political level, I’m not ready to submit to their leadership and to turn the clock back on our relationship with our sister churches in the other parts of the world.
This is the unspoken argument over the regionalization issue.
For missional, theological, and political reasons, I encourage you to vote yes on all the amendments on regionalizing the church.
What appears to be a reasonable step, amendments changing terminology in anticipation of enabling legislation in 2012, has been seriously criticized by a most unlikely group.
For years now, a caucus in our denomination has been pressing for division into two denominations. Each General Conference occurs with everyone asking, “Is this the year they are going to split the church?” I first heard such talk in 1984. It was so serious in 2004 that some key leaders of that caucus were speaking openly about a split.
I have never taken their threats too seriously. Our demographics have diminished. How that has come to be could be argued, of course. The real reason the caucus won’t split the denomination is because they would then have only half the resources of the whole denomination. They might not be left with very much.
Their threats have proved to be quite fruitful, however. They have gotten the majority to compromise in the name of peace and unity. Compromises have been legislative (some Disciplinary changes have led to passages that, unlike the wise one on abortion in the Social Principles, have just split the church down the middle) and some have been administrative (addition of an extra missionary society).
This past couple years, denominational leaders have successfully introduced the idea of regionalizing the church. It passed at General Conference.
Material from the caucus interested in “splitting” now is actively seeking to defeat the region idea which “splits” the church and its resources geographically. This sudden shift comes from a new situation in the denomination. Over the past decade, a highly successful evangelization of the Ivory Coast has formed a conference so large it would completely change the numbers at General Conference. And they would tend to vote with the caucus! When Cote d’Ivoire is fully seated, the caucus may well have the votes to take over the denomination.
I have friends in the Southern Baptist Church and Missouri Synod and remember the splits that were brought to both denominations when their “caucuses” took over, what that did to congregations and especially to the seminaries.
So, from my perspective, the real issue is control of the denomination. As I perceive Scripture and the Holy Spirit, we are to seek to mutually respect one another, to work together in Christ’s name, and to share the task of passing on the Good News of salvation and sanctification (fancy word for going on to perfection in love as Jesus called us to be perfect as our Heavenly Father is perfect).
While my experience with members of the caucus individually is of caring people and good pastors and mission-minded folks in nearly every respect, they tend to draw circles that exclude rather than include. They do not see that as a problem, certain that they are right and the rest of us just have an awful lot of changing to do before we get it right.
I have no trouble working with caucus folks. But on the political level, I’m not ready to submit to their leadership and to turn the clock back on our relationship with our sister churches in the other parts of the world.
This is the unspoken argument over the regionalization issue.
For missional, theological, and political reasons, I encourage you to vote yes on all the amendments on regionalizing the church.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Other Art Davis Posts
It is my privilege to know Art Davis, the "Ogden Nash of Port Charlotte."
Art has given his permission over the last couple years for me to publish some of his poems. Most of the ones I've posted do not demonstrate his gift of turning words into hilarious twists. I hope he succeeds in gathering his body of work into something that can be published and shared far more widely than my little blog.
But Art's gifts also extend to twists of phrases which leave me breathless because of what words he connects to describe what he sees and feels. He does it in all his poems, the humorous ones and the serious ones.
Here is a list of the dates I posted his poems so that you can go back and enjoy/be moved by his work:
May 24, 2007
August 27, 2007
November 4, 2007
July 13, 2008
April 28, 2009
Art has given his permission over the last couple years for me to publish some of his poems. Most of the ones I've posted do not demonstrate his gift of turning words into hilarious twists. I hope he succeeds in gathering his body of work into something that can be published and shared far more widely than my little blog.
But Art's gifts also extend to twists of phrases which leave me breathless because of what words he connects to describe what he sees and feels. He does it in all his poems, the humorous ones and the serious ones.
Here is a list of the dates I posted his poems so that you can go back and enjoy/be moved by his work:
May 24, 2007
August 27, 2007
November 4, 2007
July 13, 2008
April 28, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
More from Art Davis
This poem by Arthur H. Davis is submitted here by his permission. At the end of his poem, he hand-wrote, "Too Long?" Our writers' group unanimously said it was just right.
Art is a gentle soul who is as proper as one can be and still be warm and human. He also wrote at the bottom, "This is from my Dark Side twin." We knew it was from the Art who stays up late, alert to his wife's "every sigh, every move . . . ."
His imaginative mind plays in those dark hours of the night in place of "unfettered sleep." And my 43 year old son would love where the 92 year old Art takes his creativity. Both love a variety of music, including this one!
Flatulence --- Excuse me!
Flatulence? Yes, the passing of gas,
is one of the gifts of growing older.
Everyone faces some
degree of embarrassment
in their daily rounds,
but, the passing seems to increase
as those "Golden Years" approach.
It has been suggested
that the elderly are a
prime cause of Earth's warming,
so they immediately write to AARP
to contact their friends in Washington
that we the elderly might be
exonerated.
Most of the Congressional people
are quite elderly, so must
be careful no legislation is voted
upon, regarding the elderly
on this matter.
If and when they do sit
in those chairs of power,
they probably face similar dilemma.
I often wonder if it affects their vote?
One of the problems, if you care,
if you were brought up in a relatively
civilized environment,
is the suppressing of these
tuba-like emissions.
Now "tuba-like" isn't everyone's gift.
There are those among us who emulate
the oboe or the flugelhorn,
a bit higher pitched.
The clarinet?---I don't think so.
The thrum of cello, a possibility.
Drums, particularly the timpani
could typify pressure, but,
I do perhaps, venture too deeply
into instruments of the classic realm.
Flats and flatulence have nothing in common.
Living among a predominantly aging
group, I've often thought of going to my
buddies to see if a quintet of us could
try some ensemble work.
We'd be known as the
Fanny-Fare Five.
Such an idea was voted down sans
debate and I should have been
aware the idea would be doomed.
Of necessity, all rehearsals would have
to be held outside!
A foul idea if ever one.
At the height of my exuberance
for such an experiment,
I had already selected
Hold that Tiger
for our first endeavor,
and as my detractors ambled away,
buns swaying to the cadence
of the amble,
my selection was vindicated.
To retrain or cover this predicament,
most find it, more times than not,
difficult to do.
Pressure makes it almost impossible
to avoid the embarrassment
because fate ordained
someone always be nearby.
In the process, if you are
in the proximity of the player,
you might detect
an apoplectic behavior,
or the flatulentee furtively looking
about to determine if someone
is tuning in to this gaseous concert,
the while searching spastically
for a secluded space.
If I may insert a word of warning
to the reader,
Summer is at hand.
Should you be grilling,
or working around an open fire
and a bit of flatulence seems imminent,
don't turn your back to the fire!
To do so, you run a very high risk
of getting hot, very cross buns.
In closing, I modestly confess
my contributions to this common bane.
At my age, I am well aware
the social consequences,
but, when in territory wholly devoid
of my friends, or fellow citizens,
the happening is in a more carefree
mode of gratitude
and I march uninhibited
to French horn virtuosity.
(Copyright: Arthur H. Davis, 1/17/09, 2/9/09, 2/27/09, 3/3/09)
Art is a gentle soul who is as proper as one can be and still be warm and human. He also wrote at the bottom, "This is from my Dark Side twin." We knew it was from the Art who stays up late, alert to his wife's "every sigh, every move . . . ."
His imaginative mind plays in those dark hours of the night in place of "unfettered sleep." And my 43 year old son would love where the 92 year old Art takes his creativity. Both love a variety of music, including this one!
Flatulence --- Excuse me!
Flatulence? Yes, the passing of gas,
is one of the gifts of growing older.
Everyone faces some
degree of embarrassment
in their daily rounds,
but, the passing seems to increase
as those "Golden Years" approach.
It has been suggested
that the elderly are a
prime cause of Earth's warming,
so they immediately write to AARP
to contact their friends in Washington
that we the elderly might be
exonerated.
Most of the Congressional people
are quite elderly, so must
be careful no legislation is voted
upon, regarding the elderly
on this matter.
If and when they do sit
in those chairs of power,
they probably face similar dilemma.
I often wonder if it affects their vote?
One of the problems, if you care,
if you were brought up in a relatively
civilized environment,
is the suppressing of these
tuba-like emissions.
Now "tuba-like" isn't everyone's gift.
There are those among us who emulate
the oboe or the flugelhorn,
a bit higher pitched.
The clarinet?---I don't think so.
The thrum of cello, a possibility.
Drums, particularly the timpani
could typify pressure, but,
I do perhaps, venture too deeply
into instruments of the classic realm.
Flats and flatulence have nothing in common.
Living among a predominantly aging
group, I've often thought of going to my
buddies to see if a quintet of us could
try some ensemble work.
We'd be known as the
Fanny-Fare Five.
Such an idea was voted down sans
debate and I should have been
aware the idea would be doomed.
Of necessity, all rehearsals would have
to be held outside!
A foul idea if ever one.
At the height of my exuberance
for such an experiment,
I had already selected
Hold that Tiger
for our first endeavor,
and as my detractors ambled away,
buns swaying to the cadence
of the amble,
my selection was vindicated.
To retrain or cover this predicament,
most find it, more times than not,
difficult to do.
Pressure makes it almost impossible
to avoid the embarrassment
because fate ordained
someone always be nearby.
In the process, if you are
in the proximity of the player,
you might detect
an apoplectic behavior,
or the flatulentee furtively looking
about to determine if someone
is tuning in to this gaseous concert,
the while searching spastically
for a secluded space.
If I may insert a word of warning
to the reader,
Summer is at hand.
Should you be grilling,
or working around an open fire
and a bit of flatulence seems imminent,
don't turn your back to the fire!
To do so, you run a very high risk
of getting hot, very cross buns.
In closing, I modestly confess
my contributions to this common bane.
At my age, I am well aware
the social consequences,
but, when in territory wholly devoid
of my friends, or fellow citizens,
the happening is in a more carefree
mode of gratitude
and I march uninhibited
to French horn virtuosity.
(Copyright: Arthur H. Davis, 1/17/09, 2/9/09, 2/27/09, 3/3/09)
Art Davis poetry
Arthur H. Davis and his dear wife Margaret are spending time with his family up north for the summer. Our writers' group met with Art before they left. We were moved especially by his poem on life with someone requiring succor:
Caregiver's Lament - - -
Days drudge down to uneasy calm.
Night arrives draped in fear
of what might happen--
based upon what has happened..
How I long for unfettered sleep....
The sun sets again on the undone.
The moon rises,
red from the warming,
Dimly lights my place,
this spit of sand.
The one I've loved so long
sleeps fitfully,
A body racked by age and Rxs,
Systems confused and dosed
by Science's fiction.
The night is kidnapped once again
by Dawn -- relentless the routine.
The loved one wakes - -
the one upon whom I shower care,
The one who reacts in temper to the
"Please Dear do's and don't's,"
My admonitions, attempted guidance,
Questioning, "Who prescribed that?"
Of what reward is this?
The battle of therapy continues unabated,
Therapy the enemy,
Pills the dwarfs of repair,
The caregiver, ever the necessary evil,
The bane of days -- Vigilante 24/7.
Visitors visit. Prayers vented.
Love brings sustenance.
Mail brings love.
The Children come,
bless them each.
They bring gifts, do things,
make decisions.
They cook, they clean, they depart.
The Caregiver remains, to wonder,
fear, mop, launder, cook -- HA!
React to every sigh,
every move, as the past is recalled....
Sleep still eludes each glue-footed
moment--every one. Searching
Heavenward I pray -- mutely ask
God, Have you heard my prayers?
So far, no thunderous response, no
burning bush, no prick of brain.
But dawns another day of survival, in
reasonable comfort. Another day to
care, to love, to hope.
He must have heard
(Copyright: Arthur H. Davis, 5/30/08, revised 3/25/09 -- used by permission)
Caregiver's Lament - - -
Days drudge down to uneasy calm.
Night arrives draped in fear
of what might happen--
based upon what has happened..
How I long for unfettered sleep....
The sun sets again on the undone.
The moon rises,
red from the warming,
Dimly lights my place,
this spit of sand.
The one I've loved so long
sleeps fitfully,
A body racked by age and Rxs,
Systems confused and dosed
by Science's fiction.
The night is kidnapped once again
by Dawn -- relentless the routine.
The loved one wakes - -
the one upon whom I shower care,
The one who reacts in temper to the
"Please Dear do's and don't's,"
My admonitions, attempted guidance,
Questioning, "Who prescribed that?"
Of what reward is this?
The battle of therapy continues unabated,
Therapy the enemy,
Pills the dwarfs of repair,
The caregiver, ever the necessary evil,
The bane of days -- Vigilante 24/7.
Visitors visit. Prayers vented.
Love brings sustenance.
Mail brings love.
The Children come,
bless them each.
They bring gifts, do things,
make decisions.
They cook, they clean, they depart.
The Caregiver remains, to wonder,
fear, mop, launder, cook -- HA!
React to every sigh,
every move, as the past is recalled....
Sleep still eludes each glue-footed
moment--every one. Searching
Heavenward I pray -- mutely ask
God, Have you heard my prayers?
So far, no thunderous response, no
burning bush, no prick of brain.
But dawns another day of survival, in
reasonable comfort. Another day to
care, to love, to hope.
He must have heard
(Copyright: Arthur H. Davis, 5/30/08, revised 3/25/09 -- used by permission)
Sunday, April 19, 2009
No Accountability?
For eight years we watched George W. Bush and his administration take us into unnecessary war, screw up our economy, violate our rights, and all the other things reasonable people like us resented and tried to change.
When the stories of torture came out, we could not stand it. We could not get a new President and Democratic Congress soon enough.
Now we have the Democratic President and all but two Democrats of the sixty necessary to control the Senate, and the President is resisting any holding of the Bush administration accountable for their terrible acts.
Why in the world would he back down from a campaign promise? How can he allow one of the cruelest insensitive Presidents ever to get away with it?
He says it would be taken as retribution and partisan.
But the law is on our side! Ask nearly any constitutional lawyer and each will say the former President and his people violated the law. A Spanish judge, the UN legal minds, several European courts, all point out the illegality of the torture we did and how the Bush policies violated international law to which the U. S. was a signer.
And the Obama administration is refusing to even have a special prosecutor to investigate.
What is the problem here!?
Let me suggest some things that might be involved.
Forgive me for going anthropological on you but Americans think in binary fashion. Things are right or wrong, black or white, win or lose, true or false. Not you, of course, or me. We think in plaids, shades of gray, multiple factors.
Do you have any idea how hard it was for our teachers to get us to think independently and break from bifurcated thinking?
And do you have any idea how many kids never caught on to that? Guess how they voted?
How many of them are there as compared to how many of us there are?
Which leads me to a second thought: How patient are we? How respectful of their lack of information are we? How successful have we been in giving them enough information to catch up with us? Whose fault is it that they do not respect us and our opinions?
Do we really understand the world of folks that think that they are in danger of socialism from that man that wasn't even born in the United States?
You know some of those folks, the ones you do not want to engage in conversation because they will be off and running on politics no matter what you offer for conversation.
And you know they have two things that keep them living in that world: Rush Limbaugh and not much interest in news, even the kind that we see on the major networks which never talk about depleted uranium (used to harden bunker busters) that contaminates much of urban Iraq.
And you know they are passionate about their opinions.
They already do not want President Obama to be President. It is not enough to say they lost. Their world has been taken from them and they are grieving for what they thought President Reagen brought them, "morning in America."
Is this the time to tell them their leaders were criminals? Is this the time the new President pushes in any way questioning the character of the former President?
The atmosphere of the country not only has the know-nothing toxicity that has grown since schools were underfunded in the early 1980s, it faces the grief of major change overtaking close to half of the nation.
Okay, when can war crimes be brought up within our judicial system? When the grief-stricken finally hear from one of their own, someone they trust. Probably someone they elected to the Presidency. Otherwise, they would never believe that a challenge was not partisan.
And is it irrelevant to ask, "How many AK-47s have been sold in the last few months?"
You be President and face that set of dynamics.
What would you do?
When the stories of torture came out, we could not stand it. We could not get a new President and Democratic Congress soon enough.
Now we have the Democratic President and all but two Democrats of the sixty necessary to control the Senate, and the President is resisting any holding of the Bush administration accountable for their terrible acts.
Why in the world would he back down from a campaign promise? How can he allow one of the cruelest insensitive Presidents ever to get away with it?
He says it would be taken as retribution and partisan.
But the law is on our side! Ask nearly any constitutional lawyer and each will say the former President and his people violated the law. A Spanish judge, the UN legal minds, several European courts, all point out the illegality of the torture we did and how the Bush policies violated international law to which the U. S. was a signer.
And the Obama administration is refusing to even have a special prosecutor to investigate.
What is the problem here!?
Let me suggest some things that might be involved.
Forgive me for going anthropological on you but Americans think in binary fashion. Things are right or wrong, black or white, win or lose, true or false. Not you, of course, or me. We think in plaids, shades of gray, multiple factors.
Do you have any idea how hard it was for our teachers to get us to think independently and break from bifurcated thinking?
And do you have any idea how many kids never caught on to that? Guess how they voted?
How many of them are there as compared to how many of us there are?
Which leads me to a second thought: How patient are we? How respectful of their lack of information are we? How successful have we been in giving them enough information to catch up with us? Whose fault is it that they do not respect us and our opinions?
Do we really understand the world of folks that think that they are in danger of socialism from that man that wasn't even born in the United States?
You know some of those folks, the ones you do not want to engage in conversation because they will be off and running on politics no matter what you offer for conversation.
And you know they have two things that keep them living in that world: Rush Limbaugh and not much interest in news, even the kind that we see on the major networks which never talk about depleted uranium (used to harden bunker busters) that contaminates much of urban Iraq.
And you know they are passionate about their opinions.
They already do not want President Obama to be President. It is not enough to say they lost. Their world has been taken from them and they are grieving for what they thought President Reagen brought them, "morning in America."
Is this the time to tell them their leaders were criminals? Is this the time the new President pushes in any way questioning the character of the former President?
The atmosphere of the country not only has the know-nothing toxicity that has grown since schools were underfunded in the early 1980s, it faces the grief of major change overtaking close to half of the nation.
Okay, when can war crimes be brought up within our judicial system? When the grief-stricken finally hear from one of their own, someone they trust. Probably someone they elected to the Presidency. Otherwise, they would never believe that a challenge was not partisan.
And is it irrelevant to ask, "How many AK-47s have been sold in the last few months?"
You be President and face that set of dynamics.
What would you do?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)