#221 / Dwight

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Dwight Clark, who is pictured on the left, above, was not, at any point in his life, a football player, although there was a hugely successful football player who had that very same name. You can look up the "other" Dwight Clark on Wikipedia, if you'd like to verify this fact. 

The non-football player Dwight Clark - the one pictured at the top of this blog posting, and below - was an extraordinary person, and he had an outsized impact on my life. The statement that I have reproduced below was originally published online by Volunteers In Asia, a group Dwight formed during the time I was an undergraduate student at Stanford. This blog posting is a salute to Dwight. I will add some personal commentary at the end.

oooOOOooo

Dwight Delong Clark

January 21, 1934 — February 22, 2026

Dwight Clark, a long-time Stanford fixture who founded two cultural exchange organizations for young people in Asia and the US, was born in Great Bend, Kansas to Dwight Delong Clark, Sr. and Ruth Bales Clark. The family moved to Fort Collins, Colorado, where Dwight excelled as a student, youth leader, news radio host and writer. He graduated from high school as student body president, one of four winners nationally in a Voice of Democracy audio-essay contest, and winner of a competition for radio announcing in Los Angeles.

Dwight entered Stanford University in 1952 and earned his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in political science. He became Dean of Freshman Men at Stanford and soon thereafter, Assistant Dean of Men. He led a group of Stanford students to Hong Kong in 1963 for a summer-long volunteer experience, setting Dwight’s course for the next 60 years.

In 1963, Dwight formed Volunteers in Asia, connecting college students with volunteer opportunities throughout Asia. Later, VIA added a reciprocal program bringing Asian students to the US for travel and learning experiences. Dwight retired as President of VIA in 2003 and created a new organization, Learning Across Borders, for student exchanges within Asia. Both organizations persist today, as does Parami University, the first liberal arts university for Myanmar students, with which Dwight was deeply involved.

Dwight became interested in pacifism and nonviolence early on. He was an organizer of the first anti-nuclear testing demonstration at Stanford in 1957 and arranged for Stanford students to register voters in the south in the early 1960s. Dwight maintained his simple lifestyle and Quaker connections throughout his life.

Dwight’s curiosity about people, their interests and motivations, made him an ideal mentor. He was a master of connecting people based on shared interests. His wisdom was dispensed through questions, and gentle encouragement. This genuine interest in others made him a marvelous friend, warm and generous, funny, always with a bright smile on his face.

Dwight is predeceased by his two brothers, John and Mark. Survivors include his sisters-in-law Susanne and Sandra Clark, and numerous nieces and nephews. Celebrations of Dwight’s life are scheduled for September 26-27, 2026, in Palo Alto, California.

oooOOOooo

I am planning to attend one of the celebrations of life that will be held for Dwight in Palo Alto, my old hometown, in September. When I arrived at Stanford as a freshman, in the Fall of 1961, I was housed in Wilbur Hall, a large freshman dormitory (for men). Dwight was the Dean of Freshman Men, and lived in Wilbur Hall himself, and he took a personal interest in me (as he did, I think, in virtually all of those new Stanford students housed in Wilbur). I was in Arroyo House, and some of my best friends, as it turned out, were part of that first Volunteers in Asia group that was described above. 

During my first years at Stanford, as U.S. involvement in Vietnam and Southeast Asia grew, I determined that I would oppose any effort to make me serve in the armed forces. I was, to recite some words from the laws governing the Selective Service System, "opposed to participation in war, in any form." Actually, to qualify as a "conscientious objector," entitled to undertake "alternative service," if drafted, a young Selective Service registrant had to be opposed to participation in war, in any form, by reason of his religious training or belief."

As it happened, the All Saints Episcopal Church in Palo Alto, where I had been baptized and confirmed, was not really prepared, in 1961 and in the years immediately thereafter, to provide any support or encouragement for young men like me, who were coming to realize the horrors of war, and that they would simply have to refuse to participate in war, in any way. Looking for those who rejected the war in which our nation was becoming ever more deeply enmeshed, I sought out the Quakers - at the Palo Alto Friends Meeting - about whom I knew almost nothing. I did know about the Quakers' "peace testimony," which is why I decided to go to the Palo Alto Friends Meeting - and that is where I met Dwight Clark in another context. 

Dwight, whom I already admired from knowing him as the Dean of Freshmen Men, encouraged me to attend Quaker Meeting regularly, and he also urged me to take part in local demonstrations against the war. And so I did.

I did not enroll in the Volunteers In Asia summer programs headed by Dwight, but some of my closest friends did. They gave a good report of their VIA assignments, and since I knew Dwight, and since both he and some of my closest friends testified so strongly about what a great experience it was to participate in one of VIA's summer programs, I had a very positive feeling about VIA. 

In the final days of Spring Quarter, in 1964, as I was finishing up my third year at Stanford, I went to Quaker Meeting, and while I was "centering down," preparing for the period of worship to come, Dwight Clark came in and sat down right beside me. I was trying to enter into the deep silence that is the sign of Quaker worship, but Dwight wanted to talk to me about VIA. It turned out, he said, that the volunteer who had been scheduled to teach in Macau in the summer upcoming, was now not going to be able to do that, and VIA needed a replacement. Would I be willing to take his place, and teach English to Chinese students in Macau? The group would be leaving in about three weeks. 

I was, actually, quite irritated at this "pitch" from Dwight, which more or less broke the informal rule that Quakers followed, entering into silence, not "chat," as they waited for the official period of silent worship to begin. I remember my irritation, and I turned to Dwight and said, simply, "No." I would not sign on to the upcoming summer VIA program in Hong Kong and Macau. 

Quaker worship is based on the fact that out of silence, a spirit greater than oneself can become manifest, and some Quakers, during silent worship, are moved to speak. I was not moved to speak on that day - but... something spoke to me. During the Meeting, it became quite clear to me that I should say, "Yes" to this invitation that Dwight had communicated to me. The conviction that I must do that was strong. At the rise of the Meeting, I told Dwight, "Yes."

I don't really remember how I got prepared, in the three weeks I had before the group left, but whatever I needed to do, I did accomplish, and I left with the group from San Francisco. We landed in Hawaii, on the way to Japan, which was our first stop, since we were to take a brief tour through Japan and Taiwan before going on to our summer placements in Hong Kong (and in Macau, in my case). It was in Japan, during that summer with VIA, that I met Marilyn Dilworth, another VIA volunteer, with her assignment not in Macau, but in Hong Kong. We have now been married for fifty-seven years. It would be hard to overstate how important that conversation with Dwight has proven to be. While I haven't canvassed them, I believe that our two children, and our grandchildren, would agree!

When I think of Dwight, beyond the facts I have already recited, there is one moment that always comes to mind. Before we all reported to our duty locations, our group did get to visit some really significant places - arrangements all made by Dwight. One adventure was a hike outside of Taipei, into the natural areas that I hope still exist on Taiwan. After a bus ride out from the city, we swam in a beautiful river, and splashed under a waterfall. We had a wonderful day. Returning to our bus, which meant a pretty long walk on an unpaved road, we took our time. We felt no compulsion to hurry. Quite the opposite. However, we did have another meeting ahead of us - one arranged by Dwight - and we were late. We were in danger of being late, at least, so here is what Dwight told us, as he came from behind the group: "Feel Free To Jog!"

He did. And we did. And we made it to the bus, and to the next place where we were scheduled. On time, too, as I recall. Dwight always got the best from everyone. He certainly did with me - and I got the best, too. I am still "jogging," and Dwight Clark is still with me, as I do. My real thanks, my deep appreciation - and a salute to Dwight Clark!

By the way, as you think about your own life, and the tasks ahead (and even "old guys," like me, have at least a few tasks still ahead), Dwight's prompting and advice is good for you, too: 

Feel Free To Jog!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://viaprograms.org/newsletter/vialogue-spring-2026-issue/

#220 / Label Me Not

  

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

The picture, above, comes from an article in the July 4th edition of The New York Times. The person depicted in the photo is Francesca Hong, a state legislator in Wisconsin who identifies as a "Democratic Socialist." Hong is running to become Wisconsin's next Governor, and the hardcopy headline on the article reads as follows: "Candidate Tests Socialist Label In Wisconsin's Governor Race." One key issue in the Governor's race is proposed data center projects, which would transform the kind of scenery shown right behind Hong in the picture. She is an opponent.

Even non-subscribers to The Times should be able to read the entire article I have linked above. Here's a quote from the article, which appears right near the beginning of the article and which captured my attention: 

Jeff Hanneman was infuriated to learn about a proposal this spring to build a 220-acre data center on the site of a shuttered paper mill near his house in Wisconsin Rapids, Wis. 

Worried that the project would pollute the tranquil waters of the nearby Wisconsin River, Mr. Hanneman, 43, planted a “No Data Center” sign in his yard. And, although he’s a Republican who voted for President Trump, he decided to support a democratic socialist who has called for a pause in data center construction and is running for governor. 

“I really don’t think or care about the label,” said Mr. Hanneman, who planted a “Francesca Hong for Governor” yard sign next to the other one. “If she was voted into office, she could do a lot of good things for our state.”

I'll be interested to see the outcome of the Wisconsin Governor's race. In general, I think that our politics has become way too rooted in "Party," and Party labels, and that "Policy," and "Political Effectiveness" should play a much larger role in how we each decide to vote.

When we, as voters, decide that our choices are, essentially, "binary," that we need to declare ourselves, by our vote, to be either "Red" or "Blue," Republican or Democrat, I think we're losing the main idea. The main idea underlying our political system is that we, the people, should elect people whom we believe will best "represent" us. The policy positions of our politicians should be more important than the party label that might accompany them. An elected official's effectiveness in advancing the interests and desires of those who voted for them - those whom they "represent" - is actually the most important reason to vote one way or another in any political race. 

End of lesson (or maybe "diatribe" is a better word)! You've heard it before, I know, but I continue to be rankled by the partisan polarization that seems to sweep everything else away, as we contemplate the future of our system of democratic self-government. 

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/03/us/politics/democratic-socialism-wisconsin-francesca-hong.html

#219 / Intelligence?

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

intelligence
noun
in·​tel·​li·​gence in-ˈte-lə-jən(t)s 

a:

The ability to learn or understand things or to deal with new or difficult situations : REASON
studies of human and animal intelligence
a person of average intelligence
b:
Mental acuteness : CLEVERNESS
was impressed by the candidate's intelligence 

… his flights of taste and his experimentation are based on intelligence, knowledge, and training, not on slapdash hits and misses …— Fred Ferretti 

Their vividly colored feathers and intelligence are a draw to those seeking a less conventional pet than a dog or cat.— Hannah Fry

Above, you can read the first couple of entries in the online version of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of the word "intelligence."

I looked up the word just to check my own understanding, after reading an article in the Friday, July 3, 2026, edition of The Wall Street Journal. That article, by Richard Dooling, an American novelist and screenwriter, was titled, "AI And The English Language," and the article focused on what George Orwell had to say about "Politics And The English Language." 

I am told that even non-subscribers to The Wall Street Journal should be able to read the entirety of Dooling's article, by using the link I have provided, but the excerpt below gives the gist, and is what caught my attention: 

George Orwell closed his 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language” with six rules for writers, the first of which commands: “Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.” It is the rule against clichés—don’t beat dead horses, cry over spilled milk or freeze like a deer in the headlights.... 

Orwell wasn’t merely arguing against tired language; he was calling on his fellow English speakers to be clear and sincere. To “let the meaning choose the word, and not the other way about.” Find the image that conveys your meaning and resist the borrowed phrase, because “every such phrase anaesthetizes a portion of one’s brain.” 

Train AI models on 10,000 war memoirs if you like, but they still won’t be able to take to the editorial page the day after Hiroshima. They can’t address a crowd after a tragedy or bear witness to the joys of raising a child. To do that takes humans able to express themselves without reaching for the nearest cliché (emphasis added).

The same day, writing in The New York Times, one of my favorite people, Zeynep Tufekci, pretty much said the same thing. Her opinion column in The Times (click this link for her column) was titled as follows in the hardcopy version: "Are You A Human? Congratulations. You're Irreplaceable." Online, the title was a bit different: "The Unstoppable Force Of A.I. Hype Is Meeting One Immovable Fact."

Tufekci agrees with Dooling (and George Orwell), ending up her column with the following assertion: "Generative A.I. as it currently exists cannot easily replace human beings, because it cannot manifest human intelligence."

My own assertion? There isn't any such thing as "artificial" intelligence. Intelligence is something that human beings (and other living beings) may (or may not) possess and/or display, but what is now being called "artificial" intelligence isn't "intelligence" at all. The entire idea that our own creations will "replace" us, or will "exceed" us, somehow, is a symptom of our loss of faith in our own abilities (at the very time when what we are calling "artificial intelligence" is providing such a powerful evidence of our own "intelligence," our own ability to "learn and understand," and a manifestation of our "cleverness." 

WE (human beings) can "do anything." Anything we can think of, when we work hard to translate our thoughts and visions into reality, can be accomplished. I like to say that "possibility" is "my category." 

It's actually OUR category - our category as human beings!

World peace? An end to homelessness? Our ability to reverse (even now, late in the game) the spiraling out of control, runaway global warming that is threatening all life on Earth? 

All our best hopes and ideas (and all our most dreaded fears and discouragements), will depend on what we DO! Our ability to envision and then create? That's the kind of "cleverness" that isn't going to pop out of a computer. 

But you can't create, you can't change the world, unless you think and believe you can. Let's not disempower ourselves, ok? 

Think we all might get behind that proposition? Maybe not everyone. What about YOU?

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merriam-Webster

#218 / An Act Of Protest?

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Luigi Mangione is scheduled to go to trial in September. Mangione is the person hiding behind the envelope, in the picture above. He is accused of murdering Brian Thompson, the former CEO of UnitedHealthcare, in December, 2024.

In an article that appeared in The New York Times on July 1, 2026, we are told that there has been a "groundswell of support" for Mangione, from those who don't necessarily contend that Mangione didn't kill Thompson, but who are ready to excuse what Mangione did on the grounds that Thompson's killing was "an act of protest." 

I never had much of a practice in criminal law, though I did handle a few criminal cases, back in the very early 1970's. Nonetheless, I do remember enough of my law school training to be able to say, with some authority, that killing someone, as a "protest," is not accepted as a "defense" to a charge of murder. "Jury nullification" is a real thing, of course, and those interested in it might want to consult a 1996 article written by James Duane, "Jury Nullification: The Top Secret Constitutional Right."

I applaud the availability of "jury nullification," and I think that those not familiar with this "Top Secret Constitutional Right" might want to read Duane's article. In the end, though, I think it is very important that we not start acting as though "killing bad people," or "killing people who do bad things," is any justification for murder. 

"Protest" is great! Both my wife and I have spend time in jail (on different occasions) because we "protested," and I do think it's important actively to preserve - and to utilize - the tradition of protest in our democratic society. But the kind of "civil disobedience" I endorse does not include my endorsement of the idea that it's ok to kill people who are doing things that you think are wrong - and that, many times, really are wrong. 

Non-violent, civil disobedience is the kind of protest I endorse. In fact, I'd like to see a lot more of that. Killing people? No! Just don't do it (even if you think "jury nullification" might end up helping you out, if you end up being charged with murder).

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/30/nyregion/luigi-mangione-trial-secrecy.html

#217 / Graphing Reality: Who Is Up & Who Is Down

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

The image at the top of this blog posting is from The Wall Street Journal (on May 29, 2026). Lest the picture cause any confusion, that newspaper is most definitely not recommending a "Billionaire Tax Now." The Journal identifies the picture as a scene from the California Billionaire Tax Act’s campaign kickoff in Los Angeles in February. Come November, we Californians will get to vote on that billionaire tax idea!

A graph published in the same article from which I acquired the photo was titled, "The Record Divide Between Corporate Profits and Worker Pay." Click the link to read the article. Below, you can see two graphs that were included in the article, and that pretty much sum up its message. The two graphs show that employee compensation, as a percentage of the nation's gross domestic income, is going down. Corporate profits, as a percentage of gross domestic income, are going up. 

In other words, as our economy bounds along (or limps), corporations and their stockholders are getting an increasing share of the income produced by the business. Workers are getting less. 

Well, isn't that just the way of the world? Well, it is, but as I continually suggest in my daily blog postings, it is possible to change the world - and I am recommending that we do just that with respect to the facts to which those two graphs are alerting us. 

One approach is the proposed "Billionaire's Tax," which is why, I feel sure, The Wall Street Journal provided that picture of the rally in Los Angeles. There is, however, another approach that might also be considered (they're not mutually exclusive). What if we decided, by way of a federal law, that corporations would have to pay their workers not only cash money (subject to collective bargaining), but with an actual share of the business? Suppose, when corporate profits increased, not all of those profits would go to those who own the business. Suppose part of those profits had to be paid out to the workers who made the profits possible?

The net result, were this a requirement maintained over time, is that workers - not just the "capitalists," the "owners" who "capitalized" the business - would end up owning a share of the business. 

I, personally, think that this would likely be positive not only for the workers, but for the business itself. A "virtuous circle" might well be established. We know about how "vicious circles" work, but there are the "virtuous" variety, too. 

I admit that this system of compensation, if made a requirement, would tend to turn "workers" into "capitalists," but even though I am not a big booster of the capitalists (and particularly the "billionaire" variety), this "pay the workers with ownership" approach might well be worth a try!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit: https://www.wsj.com/finance/stocks/the-record-divide-between-corporate-profits-and-worker-pay-ea4c75bc

#216 / An "Impotent Envy Cult"?

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

I am providing you, in this blog posting, with a link to an article in The Guardian. That article, by Arwa Mahdawi, is titled as follows: "Doubt That Elon Musk ‘Earned’ His Trillion? Rightwing Media Says You’re In An ‘Impotent Envy Cult.’" 

Clicking that link to the title of Mahdawi's article should take you to the article itself. If you read my blog regularly, you may remember another article, about Jeff Bezos, which examined the same question, but with the focus on Bezos, not Musk. The question being explored, in both articles, is more or less this one: Did these billionaire/trillionaire guys actually "earn" the prodigious wealth that has come into their hands? If you don't think they did, the claim is that you are part of that "Impotent Envy Cult" that certain media types (the "rightwing" media, says Mahdawi) claim to have identified. Those who celebrate the wealth being accumulated by Bezos and Musk - and the other billionaire types, I'm pretty sure - think those who have now acquired such wealth have truly "earned" it.

In my earlier blog posting, focused on Bezos, I conceded that there is a good argument that Bezos did, in fact, actually "earn" the wealth that has flowed his way. A similar argument might be made with reference to Mr. Musk. 

However, those two individuals weren't the only ones responsible for their economic success. WE deserve a lot of the credit, too. With respect to Bezos, and his invention of Amazon (an invention that should also be credited to his former wife, as I always like to remind people), the billions that Bezos acquired have come from our own participation in the marketplace that he thought up and brought into existence. The same thing is true of Musk, though he, candidly, really hasn't had quite the same kind of direct impact on people's daily lives that Bezos has had - at least that's my own evaluation. 

In both cases, though, the economic success of these business founders has depended on the rest of us. Some people paid a lot of money for one of those Tesla automobiles that Musk has helped create, and the U.S. taxpayers have paid a lot of money for those space shots that have made Space-X successful. The "Starlink" system, bringing cellphone service to the world (a Musk idea made into reality) is the closest thing to what Bezos did, and it, too, has brought benefits to all of us and to the public. 

Again, though, profits have flowed to Bezos and Musk because we, members of the public, have paid our own money to utilize the services that Bezos and Musk have made available. When superlative profits occur, in a situation like that, we should concede that those who "created" the things that we now pay for should be richly compensated. But... we, the public, should also share in the economic benefits, because it's true, as I frequently declaim, "we're all in this together," and compensation should flow through to the members of what I'd call the "Public Appreciation Cult" that has helped create the riches now claimed solely by Bezos and Musk. Those are riches that should benefit us all. 

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.theguardian.com/global/commentisfree/2026/jun/30/elon-musk-trillion-rightwing-media

#215 / The Majesty Of The Magnificent Moguls

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

The image above is associated with an article that ran in The New York Times on June 29, 2026. Online, the article ran under this headline: "Investors In Public Companies Are Losing Their Voting Rights." That headline doesn't reveal how or why this loss of voting rights has occurred and is occurring. 

The hardcopy version of the article has a different headline, and that one does make clear just why investors in public companies are being stripped of the voting rights that have, traditionally, gone along with ownership of shares in a public company. Here's the hardcopy headline: "Tech Moguls Are Limiting Voter Clout Of Investors."

The online headline doesn't assign any responsibility. That hardcopy headline does! Pictured front and center in the picture, above, is Bret Johnsen, the chief financial officer of SpaceX, with the photo taken on the day of the company's "Independent Public Offering," or IPO. Wikipedia identifies Johnsen as "an American billionaire business executive," making him one of the "Moguls" spotlighted by The Times' hardcopy headline. 

I think that The Times' article is worth reading. Use the link in the first paragraph of this blog posting to access it. I am told that even non-subscribers should be able to read the whole thing. 

In short, what The Times' article is telling us is that it used to be taken for granted that if you invested your money in a company, you became the "owner" of a "share" of the company in which you invested. That's the reality to which the name, "share of stock," refers. 

This idea is no longer automatically true. When you invest in a company, you don't, automatically, become one of the "owners" of the company, according to the "share" of the company that is reflected in your financial commitment to it. Here's how it's going now, according to that article in The Times: 

One share, one vote. 

It’s a longstanding principle of investing in a publicly traded company that means that the number of shares an investor owns is equal to the number of votes he or she can cast on critical issues like mergers and acquisitions, board appointments and executive pay. 

SpaceX’s entry in the stock market is the latest challenge to this principle, swelling the ranks of large and influential public companies that give shareholders little say in how they are run. 

The arrangement means that even after Mr. Musk’s company sold more than $85 billion in shares in its record-setting initial public offering, he still maintains control. It echoes similar moves by other founder-led technology behemoths like Alphabet, which went public in 2004, when the company was known as Google, and Meta, which went public in 2012 when it was called Facebook. Mr. Musk owns about 40 percent of SpaceX shares but controls over 80 percent of the votes. Mark Zuckerberg, who founded Meta, owns about 13 percent of Meta shares but controls about 60 percent of votes. And Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the founders of Google, together own about 10 percent of Alphabet but control more than 50 percent of votes (emphasis added).

 In case you haven't noticed, the "Moguls" want our country to be run on the same principle. "One person, one vote." Do you remember that slogan from our battle to include both women and racial "minorities" in the system of democratic decision-making that we would like to believe operates to provide us with what most people call "democracy"?

Watch out, folks! "Democracy" means "voting." "Self-government" is something that is related, but is actually quite different. Unless we start asserting ourselves politically (and we can, with respect to stock ownership issues, and with respect to issues relating to the power of the voters in general) we are headed into an autocracy of the majestic and magnificent, big-money "moguls" who seem to think that they know better than the rest of us what we all ought to be doing. 

If you read my blog with any regularity - and I do encourage that - you have heard this message before!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/25/business/spacex-shares-ipo.html

#214 / Faith And Practice (Which Comes First?)

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

From time to time, I revisit some of my past blog postings - perhaps just to remind myself of what I used to think. It turns out, when I do engage in this kind of research into my personal past, that I usually discover that I am continuing to think just what I used to think. I am betting that this is not that unusual! 

I started making daily blog postings on January 1, 2010, and I recently found that one of my earliest blog postings, published on March 17, 2010, was titled "Quakerism 101." Here is a brief excerpt from that blog posting, from more than sixteen years ago: 

Members of the Religious Society of Friends don't pledge themselves to any specific and commonly held liturgy, doctrine, or creed in connection with their membership. They do, however, record what might be thought of as their religious "findings" in books of "Faith and Practice." These publications are the "discipline" that guides Quakers in their worship, and in their participation in the larger society. "Faith and Practice" books are usually published by various Yearly Meetings. Yearly Meetings are generally larger, regional associations of Monthly Meetings, which are the local unit of worship and membership. 

[PLEASE NOTE: Despite their name - "Monthly Meetings" - these regular "meetings for worship" are actually held weekly. If you're from somewhere around Santa Cruz, California, you can click here for information on the Santa Cruz Monthly Meeting, and note that,"You're Invited!"]

One might assume that the title of what amounts to an "instruction manual" for Quakers - "Faith and Practice" - reveals how things go, and how they are supposed to go, in the religious lives of those who call themselves "Quakers." One might well think that "Faith" comes first, and then "Practice" follows. I'm not so sure that's wrong, either!

However, I have recently had what the Quakers would probably call a new, and different, "leading." I have found that "Practice," when it comes first, actually may be an origin and bulwark of "Faith" - or, at least, "Practice" may be one real and effective route to "Faith." 

Quaker "Practice," which involves being still, and waiting for a "leading" from the Spirit, does prove an avenue to "Faith." I can absolutely testify to the truth of this, from my own personal experience. Daily "Prayer" is, obviously another kind of religious "Practice," and that, too, may lead to "Faith." 

Not long ago, and I can't remember where - but somewhere on the Internet, I am almost certain - I read that it is expected that Christians should pray the Lord's Prayer on a daily basis. If you look to Wikipedia, for guidance on "Christian Prayer," here's what you'll find: 

The most prominent prayer among Christians is the Lord's Prayer, which, according to the gospel accounts (e.g. Matthew 6:9-13) is how Jesus taught his disciples to pray. The injunction for Christians to pray the Lord's Prayer thrice daily was given in Didache 8, 2 f., which, in turn, was influenced by the Jewish practice of praying thrice daily found in the Old Testament, specifically in Psalm 55:17, which suggests "evening and morning and at noon," and Daniel 6:10, in which the prophet Daniel prays thrice a day. The early Christians thus came to recite the Lord's Prayer thrice a day at 9 am, 12 pm, and 3 pm, [and] many Lutheran and Anglican churches ring their church bells from bell-towers three times a day: in the morning, at noon and in the evening, summoning the Christian faithful to recite the Lord’s Prayer.

Now, I was not praying daily (and certainly not three times a day). That's a "Practice" I had not incorporated into my daily life. Having been given the idea that such a "Practice" is what I ought to be doing, and incorporating that practice into my daily life, I have started doing that. 

The result - if you'll credit me, here, and this is a report based on my personal experience - has been a noticeable and growing "Faith" that I (and we) will sustain and survive all of the immense trials, tribulations, and troubles that confront us, and all the dangers and distress that we are dealing with right now. Please note that I most certainly am thinking about our politics. "Practice" has preceded "Faith" in my recent experience. 

So, I am just passing along this observation, in case anyone who reads this blog posting might want to see if the same is true for them. Just a genuine statement of my personal experience - for anyone who would like to "give it a try." 

If you don't already know The Lord's Prayer, here it is: 

Our Father, who art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy Name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done in earth,
As it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
As we forgive those that trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom,
The power, and the glory,
For ever and ever.
Amen.

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.christianitytoday.com/2008/08/george-fox/

#213 / The Queen Of August

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

My wife, Marilyn, and I have had a long (and very wonderful) life together. Maybe you can pick us out of the picture I have featured. It was taken in China, shortly after we met.

Marilyn's birthday is August 1st. At family gatherings in honor of the day, she has sometimes been celebrated as the "Queen of August." I wouldn't be surprised if I were told that the picture above was taken on August 1st, but my memory is not that good! It could have been!

I try to get birthday greetings out to my friends and acquaintances on their birthdays. Here's a salute to that Queen of August, with love and gratitude!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

Shirley Pang (Callahan LeMelle)

#212 / Socialism Versus Capitalism

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

A Facebook Friend published the image above, just shortly before our recent July 4th holiday, which marked the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution. 

I majored in history in college, and if I am remembering things right, when we created our democratic republic - by and after the American Revolution - we did not identify our newly-created government as either "socialist" or "capitalist." 

I want to suggest today, even though our memorable 250th anniversary has passed, that Americans should double down on the governmental system that we initiated after that revolution. One name for it is "democratic self-government." Some call it "democracy." I do prefer the "self-government" designation, since I think that's the main point. 

Just as I deplore our ever more partisan and polarized politics - so often reduced, now, to Red v. Blue, or Republican v. Democrat - I deplore the idea that self-government needs to take a back seat to some economic system. Bi-polar disorder comes in various flavors. What system do you believe in?

Let's stop thinking that we need to pick some economic system as the key to government. 

Let's believe in ourselves!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.facebook.com/democraticsocialismnow

#211 / When Do We Fire Our Nuclear Weapons?

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. writes for The Wall Street Journal. That's his picture, above. In a column published in late June, Jenkins provided a little information on when the United States government plans to fire off its nuclear weapons (emphasis added):

It may be hard to get your mind around, but the U.S. government is ... panicked now over potential loss of control of its information domain...  In 2018... it conspicuously added strategic cyberattacks to the short list of provocations that might prompt a U.S. nuclear response. Then came an early 2025 paper by former Google chief executive Eric Schmidt and colleagues. It warned that China might pre-emptively strike U.S. data centers if it feared it was losing the race to artificial superintelligence.

May I make a comment? The proper time to use nuclear weapons is... (wait for it): NEVER.

I suggest that the United States of America start working to make sure that no off-the-wall president, or even an "on-the-wall" president - and even when encouraged to do so by a Wall Street Journal columnist, or anyone else - is ever able to push that button. 

I retrieved the picture above from an article in SciTech Daily headlined this way: "How To Shelter From a Nuclear Explosion." Ha! Now there's a "joke headline."

Let me say it again: There is no "acceptable use" of nuclear weapons. EVER. Let's start working to make sure that neither our country, or any other country, is possessed of an ability actually to do so. 

Eliminating the threat of nuclear war will not be easy. I know that the genie is out of the bottle - and, yes, I'm looking at you, Israel, and Russia, and China, and North Korea, and Pakistan, and Great Britain, etc. And, most of all, I am looking at THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Never! Whatever the excuse! So let's get to work on making that impossible, however great the temptation, starting with the United States of America.

Home Sweet Home!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credits:

(1) - https://www.wsj.com/opinion/government-isnt-doing-better-on-ai-than-on-ufos-789197a3

(2) - https://scitechdaily.com/how-to-shelter-from-a-nuclear-explosion/

#210 / Belle Burden And Some Good Advice

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

So, what do you think about Belle Burden's divorce? Holly Peterson, writing in The Wall Street Journal, has some definite opinions. If you'd like to get her view, click the following link to read Peterson's article, which is titled, "What The Obsession With Belle Burden’s ‘Strangers’ Says About America." 

If you are like me, you might first like to know who Belle Burden is. I didn't know anything at all about Belle Burden (in fact, I had never even heard of her) until I started writing out this blog posting and went to the Internet for information. 

Apparently, Belle Burden is some kind of high society "somebody." Her mother, Amanda Burden, has an extensive Wikipedia profile (big money and political connections are extensively mentioned). Belle Burden doesn't have her own Wikipedia entry (at least at the time I am typing out this blog posting). However, I invite anyone interested to do a Google search on "Belle Burden, Strangers." Holly Peterson is not the only one who has some opinions about Belle Burden's divorce, and about Burden's description of that divorce in Strangers. After glancing through five pages plus of Google results, I think that "obsession" does seem to be a good word to describe the public's engagement with Belle Burden's book. 

Here's a link to information about the book. The cover of the book contains the following endorsement by Joyce Carol Oates: "Riveting... Examines the very nature of intimacy." 

I haven't read Strangers, but I did enjoy learning about the controversies it has engendered, and I particularly liked the following observation, found in the Peterson commentary in The Wall Street Journal (emphasis added):

Whenever the topic of “Strangers” comes up, and it does constantly in my professional and social groups, I can’t help but bring up my one crucial question: “What do we think the husband’s side is?” 

Suggesting we imagine the husband’s experience during the marriage and subsequent breakup feels like I’ve broken a blood oath with women warriors. The reaction is swift, defensive and many times delivered with the vitriol of an adolescent facing the cosmic injustice of screen-time limits. 

“He’s despicable!” 

“He tried to take her houses!” 

“He never wanted to see the kids again!” 

People glare at me as if I’d shot their dog. 

I’m not defending anyone’s behavior. I’m proposing a discussion. Why do so many readers I speak to believe they can be a fair judge presiding over every moment of this couple’s dreams and disappointments? 

A refusal to sit in the gray area hasn’t just infected how we digest the latest literary sensation; this mode of communicating (or not communicating) has taken over our entire political and social discourse.

"Sitting in the gray area" is something we all need to learn how to do. I am thinking, particularly, about political polarization (not divorce controversies) as I say this. Click that link and you will see that my concerns about this are not new.

In order to address the problems that we confront (and we do confront them "together"), we need to get beyond polarized descriptions, and polarized understandings, about how the world works, and is working, and what we need to do about it. 

That's true within marriages (and when marriages are dissolved). It's also true - really true - when we think about self-government, and how we can accomplish that, given that while we are "in this together," we do have different experiences and different views. 

That "in between" area is, perhaps, properly described as "gray." It's certainly not "black or white," and it's not "Red" or "Blue," either!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.wsj.com/arts-culture/books/belle-burden-strangers-divorce-070c03c6

#209 / We Might Well Ask Ourselves, "Why?"

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Why should a middle-class nurse pay a larger share of her paycheck [to Social Security] than a wealthy corporate lawyer?

The question I have posed above comes from Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Moreno, writing in The New York Times, in a column whose online title reads as follows: "Bernie Moreno and Elizabeth Warren: Our Plan to Save Social Security."

That's Bernie Moreno, in the picture at the top. I am telling you this just in case you didn't immediately recognize him (and I'm betting that anyone reading this blog posting probably didn't). I know a lot about Elizabeth Warren, and would recognize her anywhere, but I certainly wouldn't know Bernie Moreno if he knocked on my door - something that is highly unlikely, since Moreno is the senior U.S. Senator from Ohio, and I am virtually certain that he does not regularly visit or vacation in Santa Cruz!

In case you're totally clueless, our Social Security System is heading for real problems, the key problem being that the monies being placed into the Social Security Trust fund are not going to be adequate to fund future Social Security payments, starting in 2030, or thereabouts. 

If you click the link I have provided above, and read the Moreno-Warren article (it's a "gift" article and should be available even to non-subscribers), you can find out more. The key point I am attempting to highlight is that if those people who have annual incomes above $184,500 were to pay the same percentage into Social Security that people pay who have the same annual income that I do (and that you do, too, probably) the Social Security System's solvency would be extended for another generation. 

As Warren and Moreno correctly note: 

This is a no-brainer: The wealthiest Americans, who have benefited the most from America’s opportunities, should contribute the same percentage of their income as a factory worker in Chillicothe, Ohio, or a teacher in Worcester, Mass.

Or, I might say, a teacher or a restaurant employee in my own hometown of Santa Cruz, California.

So, we might well ask ourselves, "Why?" Why don't they? 

Well, the rich get let off the hook because our political system is reacting to the power of money. It's supposed to react to the power of the people. 

Who do you think could do something about that?

Right! YOU could!

And me, too, of course!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/bernie-moreno-ohio-senate-win-election-sherrod-brown-rcna173881

 

#208 / Speaking About The Unspeakable

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

You can call this blog posting a "book review," if you'd like. It isn't, though, a full-on book review, but is more properly seen as my quick and very personal commentary on JFK And The Unspeakable, a 2008 book by James W. Douglass, which I have just finished reading. A picture from the cover of the book is presented above. 

Wikipedia has a write-up on the book, and Douglass has written a follow-on book, too, Martyrs To The Unspeakable: The Assassinations Of JFK, Malcolm, Martin, And RFK, which was published in 2025. I have also read that second book. In fact, I read the second book first. I am recommending them both!

John C. McAdams, formerly an associate professor of political science at Marquette University, taught courses on American politics and public policy - and he taught a course on the John F. Kennedy assassination. His views are quoted in the Wikipedia write-up on Douglass's book that I have linked above. They are not very flattering. McAdams is quoted as follows: 

As bad as Douglass's account of Kennedy's foreign policy is, his depiction of a plot to murder JFK is worse—unspeakably bad, in fact. To paraphrase Thomas Merton, Douglass's muse and inspiration, the bunk and nonsense Douglass recycles goes beyond the capacity of words to describe. He is utterly uncritical of any theory, any witness, and any factoid, as long as it implies conspiracy."

I do not agree with McAdams. I found both of Douglass's books quite believable and quite compelling. The second book, so recently published, essentially argues that the "security state" that Douglass credits with the assassination of JFK has continued in existence ever since, and is ultimately in charge of what we think of as our democratically-elected national government. 

If Douglass's analyses of the assassinations of John Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert Kennedy are correct, there is no certainty, whatsoever, that our nation is, in fact, being governed by a system of democratic, citizen self-government. 

As the Wikipedia write-up tells us, the titles to both of Douglass's books contain an allusion to Thomas Merton's 1966 book, Raids On The Unspeakable, which, according to Douglass, refers to "a kind of systemic evil that defies speech" (emphasis added). 

Is our nation, in fact, in the inexorable grip of such an evil? Many who contemplate what is happening in our nation, today, and what is happening around the world, are, in fact, succumbing to a despair that can be traced back to some sense that current events, and our future, are in the grip of some terrible and nameless horror - some unspeakable evil - that truly is, somehow, beyond definition. 

I choose not to succumb to any such despair, but I do want to say that evil is "real," just as the assassinations of JFK, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jr., and RFK were all too "real," and which assassinations were grounded in evil realities which we have not confronted, and are perhaps afraid to confront, even in our most private thinking. 

The idea that some ominous, and unspeakable, and evil force is driving us towards annihilation, towards the extinction of life on Earth (the exact terror that Douglass tells us that President Kennedy faced, and then acted to confront) can, in fact immobilize us. The antidote will be found as we find each other, and as we join hands in our determination to respond to the all-too-dire realities that are here and now, and that will face us in the future, and to remember that the world which we most immediately inhabit is, and will be, in the future, a world that we create, ourselves, by what we do - together!

At the top of each one of my blog postings, I present our situation, as I see it:

We live, simultaneously, in two different worlds. Ultimately, we live in the World of Nature, a world that we did not create and the world upon which all life depends. Most immediately, we inhabit a "human world" that we create ourselves. Because our human world is the result of our own choices and actions, we can say, quite properly, that we live, most immediately, in a “political world.”

We should honor and respect the World of Nature, the World That God Created, and we should never forget that its limits are real limits which bind us, and both demand and deserve our respect. Still..... it is just as important fully to understand how powerful our freedom is, because in the Human World, the world that we create, there is nothing that is impossible. 

Some might say this is an odd, or even an uncalled-for reaction, but I found JFK And The Unspeakable to be a story that can help empower us - and that can fill us with courage - and not a story that must inevitably send us into a spiral of despair.

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/2834255-jfk-and-the-unspeakable