"WHAT CAN BE, UNBURDENED BY WHAT HAS BEEN": SAY WHAT?

Current Vice President and presidential contender Kamela Harris has become well known, either famously or infamously depending upon your perspective, for word salads.  In preparation for writing this essay I checked with the Psy Central website for an in-depth look at word salads.

A word salad, according to Psy Central, is “…the odd mix of words and phrases that people with this condition use to express themselves.” Note that the definition contains the term condition. This denotes that word salads are used by persons who appear to have thought disorders in their temporal lobes of their brains. Temporal lobes process our emotions, language, and auditory information.

Psy Central further explains that word although word salads may become more pronounced when a person with the thought disorder is under stress or has too much stimuli, word salads can also be associated with hallucinations and delusions.  I am not a medical doctor, but I gather from the information that I read that Ms. Harris does not suffer from severe thought disorder but may have  more of a thought impediment much like I possess which interferes with my speech since childhood and has me become a much better writer than speaker.

That being said, I now turn to one of Ms. Harris’s most popular word salads, “What can be, unburdened by what has been.” What is one to make of this statement? There are several possible perspectives. First. Harris has a serious disorder in her thinking and as a result, she herself does not know what she is saying. I personally doubt this is the answer based upon the analysis provided by the Psy Central website.

Second, again based on the website, she could be talking in code which is associated withsalads. She could be making deeper associations in the words of the phrase.  This has several possibilities in interpretation. One possible interpretation is autographical.  Harris’s father was a native of Jamaica and her mother was of Indian descent from South Asia. They divorced while she was a child, and she spent much of her early years living I in Canada before returning to the United States for college and law school. So. It may be reasonable to assume that Harris is referring to herself in that her past is not a burden to her future success. Indeed, she has succeeded far beyond the personal and familial expectations of her youth.

The second possible interpretation of the phrase being a coded statement is that she is a Marxist, and a similar phrase appears in writings by Marx and perhaps even in The Communist Manifesto. I have heard serious conservative commentators make compelling arguments for this view. After all, her faither was indeed a Marxist professor at Cal Berkeley.  Whie the phrase does possess a Marxist twang, I doubt that this is the answer unlocking her thinking.

I think that the clue to her code is the fact that Harris is a progressive socialist and as much, she desires to rid our constitutional republic of many of the features that enables our federal government to be a republic so that the installation of democratic socialism will be unburdened by the historic “limitations” of republicanism.

A case in point was the French Revolution of the late eighteenth century. Not only were the revolutionaries desired to be unburdened by the possible return of monarchy that they executed the royal family, but they also instituted a new calendar and even a new religion to hasten on a new order which embraced “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.” The unintended consequences of this movement were a reign of terror on the French citizenry and the eventual rise of a military dictatorship under Napoleon.

I am not even suggesting that Kamela Harris has a nefarious mindset akin to the French revolutionaries. Nevertheless, the attacks by Harris and those of her ilk to limit the First and Second Amendments, completely ignore the Tenth Amendment, eliminate the Electoral College and the Senate filibuster, and attack the Supreme Court as a co-equal branch of our federal system, if successful, would enable the triumph of progressivism and the installation of democratic socialism “unburdened by what has been.”

Both Edmund Burke and Alexis de Tocqueville would be aghast by Harris’s word salad statement. Burke understood our historic institutions as guardrails against rapid and often violent change as he detailed in his long “letter” entitled Reflections on the Revolution in France. About four decades later in his Democracy in America, de Tocqueville noted the genius of Americans to form voluntary associations to solve common problems and take advantage of common opportunities, and consequently not look primarily to government. Let’s remember the warning from Ronald Reagan that the most terrifying words of the English language are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

And thus, we can also be terrified of “What can be, unburdened by what has been” not merely as a random thought disorder, moving beyond restraints of childhood, or even possessing an optimistic view of the future,  but as coded statement of intent with dire results for our nation as a constitutional republic.

 

EFFECTIVE LEADERS USE THE K.I.S.S. PRINCIPLE: KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID!

 

1+1 = {[(9x3) / 3] /3} -1

 

1.    Effective leaders use clear and concise language to explain reality.

2.     Effective leaders use compelling stories connecting with people to explain reality.

3.     Effective leaders never assume their followers are simpletons.

4.     Effective leaders take complex situations and break them down into easier to handle palpable actions.

LESSONS FROM THE ROYAL NAVY

 About a decade ago I was browsing in the history shelves of my local bookstore and found a paperback copy of To Rule the Waves by Arthur Hermann. His book is a history of the British Royal Navy from its beginnings to the modern era and how it shaped the modern world. It is richly detailed providing more than enough information even for a serious reader like me. Yet the book contained several nuggets of wisdom for the disinterested reader of naval affairs, so much so that as an elementary school principal I shared that wisdom with my teachers and will also do so now.

The first nugget is that an organization has been founded in a morally muddled morass but may become a truly moral agent for good. Francis Drake, Martin Frobisher, John Hawkins, and their ilk are not only considered Britain’s earliest naval heroes, but they were also state-sponsored pirates. The Royal Navy rose from a government sanctioned sea terrorist operation to defend their homeland from the Spanish Amanda to assisting in crippling the global slave trade to again defending their homeland, with the assistance of the Royal Air Force, from Nazi aggression. Organizations can indeed do good notwithstanding the purposes of their founding or past derelictions.

The second nugget is that as character is vital for people, reputation matters for organizations. In 1940 as Greece was collapsing to advancing German forces the Royal Navy began rescuing British soldiers and their allies from the island of Crete. As the German air force was pounding the British ships and in the midst of the attack ships’ captains requested permission from Admiral Andrew Cunningham to break off the evacuation. Cunningham replied, “It takes the Navy three years to build a ship, it would take three hundred years to build a new reputation. The evacuation will continue.” So, it did at the cost of eleven ships sunk and eight others heavily damaged, but the Royal Navy count be counted on complete their missions despite adversity.

The third nugget is thinking “inside the box.” As organizational resources become scarce and growing wish lists are unfulfilled, effective leaders must look inside their organizations to secure resources to get the job done. First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Henry Leach on March 31, 1982, found himself uninvited to the meeting called by Prime Minister Thatcher to plan a response to the Argentine attack on the Falkland Islands. But Leach persisted and got himself into the room. Finally, Thatcher asked him, “First Sea Lord- what precisely do you want?” To which Leach responded, ‘Prime Minister, I would like your authority to form a task force which would, if you so required, be ready to sail for the South Atlantic at a moment’s notice.” “You have it,’ Thatcher said.

In three days, a fleet task force sailed- two aircraft carriers and an amphibious assault ship, all soon to be slated for scrap; merchant and cruise ships converted to troop transports; and four deep-sea fishing trawlers converted to minesweepers as well as 16 destroyers and frigates. This motley group sailed eight thousand miles and won a victory to take back the Falklands. Leaders, like Leach did need to look first inward for needed people and resources instead of issuing unrealistic wish lists.

Finally, all organizations, including the Royal Navy, have cycles of growth and decline. Britain’s “first service” grew from isolated ships exploring and pirating the globe to massive battle fleets to ad hoc task forces. Mission must always be primary to organization and resource allocation. Wise leaders know and understand the “times” and make their plans accordingly

FROM SINGAPORE TO THE FALKLANDS: ONE SAILOR'S JOURNEY

 Actually, our story begins in the North Atlantic, just over the horizon from the Virginia coastline. On July 20-21, 1921, there was an amazing demonstration pitting the Army against the Navy. This demonstration was not about football, but whether battleships could be sunk by aerial bombing.

The Army team was commanded by General Billy Mitchell of the Army Air Service and his 1^st Provisional Air Brigade and the Navy’s contribution was two captured German battleships from World War l. Mitchell’s bombers did indeed sink the two battleships over the two-day demonstration of air power, yet the Navy was satisfied that the event was not held under combat conditions, so their big ships were still safe from air attack.

For over 20 years the Navy assumed so until December 7, 1941. The Japanese air assault against the United States Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor either destroyed our battleships or put them out of action for a long time. Naval leaders perhaps thought since the big ships were in harbor at anchor the air threat could be neutralized with sea maneuver. If they thought so, their thoughts crashed three days later on December 10.

Singapore was the British equivalent of Pearl Harbor. Earlier in the year the Royal Navy has assembled Force Z to fight an expected battle(s) against Japan’s Imperial Navy. Force Z was formidable with the battleship HMS Prince of Wales, which had assisted with the sinking of the German battleship Bismarck; the battlecruiser HMS Repulse; and several smaller escort vessels. Force Z was ordered into the Gulf of Thailand to prevent Japanese amphibious landings in Malaysia. And on December 10, Japanese naval bombers destroyed both the Prince of Wales and the Repulse in a matter of several hours. The death knell of the battleship as the capital ship of the fleet had been rung.

[The new queen of the fleet was the aircraft carrier. And they too were aerially vulnerable as witnessed by the sinking of 4 Japanese carriers during the Battle of Midway in early June 1942 by avenging American naval dive bombers. But now we are sidetracked.]

Captain John Leach was commanding HMS Prince of Wales. Before departing Singapore on his fatal voyage, he lunched with his son Henry, an eighteen-year-old midshipman. Father and son never saw each other again. John Leach ended up with a broken neck face down in the Pacific. Henry made the Navy his career and by 1982, he was an admiral and First Sea Lord, the professional head of the Royal Navy. At least, what was left of the Royal Navy after budget cuts and widespread decommissioning of ships.

So, in April 1982 when Argentina invaded and captured the British overseas possession of the Falkland Islands, the Royal Navy had become so impotent that Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her defense advisors did not envision “The First Service” of British power to be a solution to their problem. Finally, Admiral Leach was invited into the war room and after several hours Thatcher looked at Leach and asked, “First Sea Lord, what do you want?”  “Prime Minister,” Leach responded, “if you so order, I will have a task force setting sail in 72 hours to recapture those islands.” Thatcher so ordered and Leach kept his promise.  (Dialogue is my own paraphrase.)

Leach, in fact, cobbled together three task forces, the first which indeed sailed in 72 hours. Altogether, the Royal fleet consisted of 44 warships (including 2 aircraft carriers being readied for decommissioning and 3 nuclear submarines), 12 auxiliary vessels, and 45 other ships (including a civilian container ship and two ocean liners refitted as troop ships). The ships sailed 8,000 miles from Britain to the Falklands and delivered the troops and their supplies to retake the islands.

So, what are we to make of Admiral Leach’s leadership? I propose several take-aways:

1.     Leach was an “inside-the-box” thinker. He made do with what he had and nothing more.

2.     Leach was optimistic. He believed in the Navy and its sailors to do their jobs.

3.     Leach was persistent. Not invited to the war room, he found a way to get in.

4.     Leach was ready. He came to the war room with a solution, not a list of complaints.

First Sea Lord Admiral Henry Leach indeed made a journey from Singapore to the Falklands. His father would be proud!

MARK FELTON AND THE RAG-TAG CIRCUS

Mark Felton is a British military historian who specializes primarily in the European Theater of Operations of World War ll. He also dives into the war in the Pacific as well as World War I, the Cold War, and the Korean War. His short clips (usually 6-9 minutes) on YouTube are superbly produced with excellent narration and film. Even an amateur historian and former history teacher like me have learned from Mark Felton, including information about the Rag-Tag Circus.

Let me start from the beginning. The 83^rd Infantry Division of the US Army was organized during World War I and then deactivated. With the start of World War ll the 83^rd was reactivated and trained for combat. The division landed in France several weeks following D Day which occurred on June 6, 1944. The 83^rd relieved the 101^st Airborne Division behind the Utah beachhead and then fought the Germans on the Cherbourg Peninsula to capture the city of Cherbourg and its port facilities so vital to the Allied supply efforts.

Then the division turned south to provide cover for General George Patton’s Third US Army on its right flank as Patton moved east and northeast through France. Released from that duty the 83^rd marched northward into Belgium where it fought in the Battle of the Bulge during the winter of 1944- 45. After the Allied victory there, the division was soon in Germany fighting eastward.

It was during the victory march through Germany that things got “dicey” for the 83^rd. The division was composed of light infantry which meant few vehicles were at its disposal. Then all of its few trucks were reassigned to other units. With supply lines stretching for about 200 miles and with no vehicles of his own, the division commander faced a dilemma. His solution was to order all captured German vehicles to be repainted with US Army stars and then be reused for the 83^rd. American and British fighter pilots had to be careful not to bomb and strafe the odd-looking division convoys composed of German trucks, motorcycles, and even armored vehicles. Although the 83^rd was officially nicknamed the “Thunderbolt” Division it quickly took on the quirky nickname of the Rag-Tag Circus.

The division was so successful in its efforts that General William Simpson planned to use did in as part of a secret mission to beat the Soviet Red Army to enter Berlin. But that operation was denied. In May 1945 Germany surrendered to the Allies with the 83^rd Infantry Division only 45 miles from Berlin.

So, what can one from the Rag-Tag Circus? First, leaders matter. When faced with problems and dilemmas, leaders seek solutions and opportunities for success. Second, humor can be a “force multiplier” for a unit on a mission. Quirkiness when used rightly can elevate team morale. Third, it has been said that amateurs discuss strategies while professionals discuss logistics. Keeping soldiers adequately supplied with the “beans and bullets” they need for their jobs is an absolute necessity worthy of a leader’s best efforts.

  

TEACHERS FIGHTING A "THREE BLOCK WAR"

 Several decades ago, the Marine Corps leadership designed a strategic concept called the Three Block War. The thrust of this concept is that Marines in future conflicts will undoubtedly be involved in fighting, peacekeeping, and humanitarian aid simultaneously with a confined area of three contiguous city blocks. This concept was certainly prescient of future military actions in places such as Bosnia, Iraq, and Afghanistan as a Marine or a Soldier is more than simply a warrior even though that is his/her traditional role.

 

As a retired educator having served as a classroom teacher, instructional specialist, and administrator I immediately sensed a connection between the Marines and teachers in what they are required to do to be successful. I want to emphasize at the beginning that warfare and education are related only in a general sense in that they are human activities and teaching is not combat in how we traditionally view combat. Nevertheless, to accomplish our tasks, we humans tend to use similar concepts and patterns across organizational and operational boundaries. The Three Block War is one such instance.

 

A teacher’s “area of operations” is usually a single classroom not three contiguous city blocks. However, an effective teacher uses the educational equivalents of fighting, peacekeeping, and humanitarian aid. In fact, if a teacher does not do all three that teacher cannot be effective even if he/she is highly skilled in one or two of the equivalents. So, how exactly does the Marine concept translate to the classroom?

 

First, a teacher’s fight is instruction. That is how we ordinarily view a teacher. Some folks would state that a teacher teaches- period. For the most part that is true. An effective teacher teaches students some subject matter and as a result, students become proficient in that subject matter by learning from the instructional strategies designed by the teacher. A teacher’s lesson plan is his/her operational plan for success. The state educational authorities reinforce the instructional emphasis by evaluating schools (and sometimes teachers) by annual testing results.

 

 Yet, an effective teacher must be highly skilled beyond implementing instructional best practices. This is the peacekeeping part of the teacher’s task- classroom management. Consider for a moment the actual diversity many, if not most, teachers face each day in their classrooms. Diversity of race and income levels, diversity of readiness for new learning, and diversity of parental support are very real challenges. Diversity in general is desirable and needed for our culture in general and schools in particular to be healthy and creative. But extreme diversity can tear at the fabric of classroom effectiveness including teaching and learning. Like peacekeeping is essential for modern Marines to keep order in chaotic environments, the wise use of classroom management skills are essential for modern teachers to keep order and safety in often chaotic or potentially chaotic classrooms.

 

Finally, an effective teacher is caring, which is the equivalent of an effective Marine offering humanitarian aid to the local population. A teacher sees the needs of his/her students that impede the learning process and acts to reduce those needs to negligible obstacles. Sometimes students have physical needs and often they have emotional needs. Sometimes a new pair of glasses will work wonders and in other situations, some words of unexpected encouragement. Networking with fellow teachers, counselors, nurses, and administrators is vital. And a wise teacher makes the distinction between what a student truly needs and what a student routinely desires or expects.

 

Our teachers who effectively instruct, manage their classrooms, and care for their students do an amazing job. Their “war” is not with students and parents (they are allies and potential allies) but with illiteracy and ignorance.  While their methods differ from those of our Marines and Soldiers. their “fight” is similar- to allow their fellow Americans the learning and liberty needed to take advantage of opportunities offered.

 

 

 

 

ARE YOU A SCHOOLER OR LEARNER (OR BOTH)?

When I was a middle school teacher, I was a “jack-of-all-trades" as I taught social studies, English, and computers. Even though my preferred subject was social studies, I had fun with the other subjects. In one of my English classes, one student was having a children's book published about her grandparents during the Great Depression of the 1930s. As a sixth grader, she was the youngest author published by National Geographic. Years later when I contacted her parents, I discovered that Kate was living in New York City working in book publishing.

It was in my computer classes that I had to be my most inventive. The students were provided with old computers, even by 1990s standards. Yet I was able to send them their daily instructions through the system and receive their completed assignments back through the system ready to be printed. Instead of teaching them computer mechanics, I provided them with news and magazine journals for the students to analyze and draw conclusions. I remember very vividly one assignment regarding Thomas Jefferson. After some readings about him, the students had to “temporarily: decide whether Jefferson was a racist and provide their reasonings. One white student wrote that he was based upon today's standards while one Black student submitted that he was not based upon the culture of his day.

Internet access at the school was nonexistent for the students. So, a tech-savvy math teacher and I jerry-rigged a computer featuring my own personal AOL account. I assigned students in teams of three access to the machine to complete assignments. That worked well except when my son at home was on the internet or when the students accidently came across a porn site. And one day one student sent me a note saying that my internet assignments “sucked.” In response, I gave him the responsibility of revising the assignments. He did and his revisions were highly successful, far better than my original set.

I assembled a team of techy students, and we published a school zine on the internet called “Cyber Tiger” (the tiger was our school’s mascot). Our first issue detailed the results of a student survey on what ten books every student should read before graduating high school. The winners- the Bible and various plays of Shakespeare! (Okay, a play is not a book but to a middle schooler it might as well be a book.)

One weekend at a local bookstore I found and purchased a book on the philosophy of computer learning. I do not recall the book's title or author, but I do remember one of its theses. All of us are either primarily Schoolers or Learners.

A Schooler is a person who is successful in school, absorbs all the instruction given, and then after receiving her degree, stops learning about the discipline and craft in which she had invested so much. I read an article many years that one study showed that most pastors stop reading about ministry practice and theological currents within five years after seminary graduation. For most Schoolers, school is a ticket to be punched so they can get on with their lives.

A Learner, in contrast, may or may not be successful in formal educational settings yet find ways to learn often in unorthodox ways. Relating back to that “computer” book I purchased, computers, according to another one of its theses, were going to become machines for learning soon, primarily for the Learners among us. Within a few years long-distance learning became a tool for adult Learners and now virtual learning has become a stable for high school students and younger.

I am both a Schooler and a Learner. School has been an important piece of my life, both professionally and as a youngster, and I have the degrees on my wall to showcase my love for schooling. And then I am also into informal learning from writing blog posts like this one to designing my own learning projects to becoming the first ever visiting fellow at a local theological seminary to completing online noncredit liberal arts courses from a small Michigan college.

My wife likes to joke that whether I am in a classroom or on a computer I search for ways to become the ‘teacher’s pet. With a smile I acknowledge her observation because I take my learning seriously. Now, I ask you seriously once again, Thus, in conclusion, are you a Schooler or a Learner (or both)?

 

 

 

 

SENATE FILIBUSTER- THREAT TO DEMCRACY?

 

The United States Senate has an unusual rule- the filibuster. Originally from the Dutch meaning ‘pirate’ or ‘plunderer”, the word has been modified by several linguistic transitions to now mean a legislative strategy to delay or kill a bill. This strategy has been utilized in the past by prolonged speaking. Film buffs will easily recall the movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) in which the fictional Senator Smith portrayed by the actor Jimmy Stewart collapses on the Senate floor after speaking through the night in an effort to halt a corrupt bill.

The Senate rule is also a matter of counting votes. If 60 senators (out of 100 total) do not support pending legislation it is considered a filibuster because it takes 60 votes to end debate. So, if any one of our two major political parties has 60 or more senators and all these senators stay united the political majority can pass any legislation it so desires. Also, if the majority party does not have 60 senators, deals can with senators from the minority party to reach the “magic: number of 60.

That is one reason why many on the political scene are charging that the filibuster is a threat to democracy in that it thwarts the will of the people, never mind the premise of Jimmy Stewart’s Senator Smith fighting corruption. I also fell into this camp until I studied the matter further. I now believe for several that the filibuster is no threat to democracy.

First, the United States is not a democracy and was not designed to be. (Shall I dare to repeat?) Our Founders in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were concerned about democracy. From the Greek meaning “rule of the people”, democracy had a popular connotation of mob rule. The Founders knew our new nation needed order to protect our rights and liberties and any idea approaching mob rule just could not become reality. So, to be correct, our political order is a constitutional republic based upon representative government and federalism.

The second reason is related to the first and it deals with the nature of the Senate. Our legislative branch, the Congress, has two houses which the Founders designed to be different. The House of Representatives (henceforth the House) is based on the population of each state and its members are elected every two years. The House is the closest organ of our federal government to democracy.

The Senate, on the other hand, has two senators from each state, regardless of population, Senators have six-year terms with one third of the member elected every two years. Originally senators were selected by their respective state legislatures; this was changed by constitutional amendment to popular elections early in the twentieth century. Contrary to the House, the Senate is a constitutional barrier against the temporal passions of the people and is designed to “cool” legislation.

Third, the constitution gives each house of Congress the right to make it own rules of procedure and conduct. The Senate approved the filibuster rule in 1806 and although limited in its use initially, the filibuster is now used regularly by political opponents on all sorts of issues, major or minor

The filibuster rule was last changed in 2013 when the majority Democrats changed the filibuster rule by a simple majority vote to end filibusters on presidential appointments, including cabinet secretaries and judges. When the Republicans assumed control, they used the new rule to their great advantage with three Supreme Court justices confirmed by bare majorities. The tow Democratic senators opposing the end of the filibuster (Machin and Sinema) know full well that if and when the Republicans win back a majority they will use it to their advantage like they did with the Supreme Court with the last rules change. The essence of the filibuster is protection of the minority among its membership.

Therefore, I do not believe the Senate filibuster is a threat to democracy because the United States is a constitutional republic, the Senate is designed to slow the legislative process, and because the Senate has the constitutional guarantee of establishing its own rules.

GRADUATION LETTER

 

[Our grandson graduated from high school 2023 and married his high school sweetheart that summer. The following is my letter to him sharing with him my hints for a successful life.]

May 25, 2023

 Dear Nick,

 Please permit me to add one more piece of “Grampy advice” to you as you prepare to marry your sweetheart and also enter college. Also, forgive me for my use of some “salty” language in this letter. In my life I have found some use of “salty” words communicates one’s ideas more effectively than more commonly accepted words.

I have three ideas to share with you-

First, no one gives a damn about your potential, but they do care about your best performance. Too many folks hide for various reasons behind their potential and simply do not perform at the high standards expected of them gleaned from the perceptions of their potential. Remember that delayed potential is not performance- potential must be activated to become performance.

Second, no one gives a damn about your feelings, but they do care about the ideas you contribute. Often, we feel underappreciated, undervalued, underpaid, and overworked with demanding bosses. Work through those negative feelings and begin to contribute substantive ideas so your organization in which you labor will be successful.

Finally, ultimately no one gives a damn about your hedgehog, but they do care about your fox. The hedgehog and the fox are metaphors about personal skills and competencies. First scarcely mentioned by the Greek poet Archilochus and later in Leo Tolstoy’s great novel War and Peace, the metaphors were popularly interpreted by Isaiah Berlin in the appropriately titled The Hedgehog and the Fox. Essentially, a “hedgehog” person knows one big thing as that person is highly skilled and competent in only one field of discipline and a “fox” person knows many things as he/she is not only an expert in their field but also possesses knowledge of other fields of endeavor. (You will find that I have a fundamental disagreement with Berlin, but I will leave it to you to discover where I disagree with this esteemed philosopher through your reading.)

The point I am making is that “hedgehogs” are primarily technical folks who rarely see past their own work. There are many hedgehogs in our world, and many make valuable contributions but only within their fields. They are valuable in their fields, but their value is limited outside their work because they simply have not developed the mental models of thinking and acting within other fields, and then contributing value to these other fields. This is the world of “foxes.”

One historical example of a fox is Samuel F.B. Morse. He conceived of an electric telegraph in 1832 unaware that it had already been invented. Nevertheless, Morse worked on developing an effective telegraph machine and also created the Morse Code, a set of signals used in representing language in telegraph messages. After convincing Congress to finance a telegraph line from Washington to Baltimore, Morse demonstrated the practical value of the telegraph on May 24, 1844 by sending a message from the US Capitol to a railroad station in Baltimore. Most people know this side of Morse but do not know that he was an accomplished painter before becoming an inventor.

I offer myself as another example. I have been an  educator, minister, historian, theologian, and military veteran having worked in agriculture, as a short order cook, as a roofer, as a retail salesman, as a soldier, as a church janitor, served on church staffs in Maryland, Virginia, and Missouri, as a book seller, in market research, had written published articles in professional journals on church ministries, consulted with secular and religious organizations, trained teams and staffs, and was a classroom teacher, instructional coach, department chair, school reform specialist, teacher mentor, basketball and soccer coach, school administrator, elementary school principal, and doctoral dissertation reader. I was also a published poet as well served on state, city, and community boards and committees.

So, then, how does someone like yourself become a “fox”? You begin by developing a competent skill-set in a field, Then you develop and feed your curiosity about people and processes in other fields- read widely and ask questions. When you have opportunities, meet with and get to know persons from other fields, enter into their worlds of thought and action. Find points of common interest and collaborate to solve problems of mutual concern. You will find yourself a truly educated person who can effectively read, write, and think across disciplines, making mental connections among aspects of divergent fields, and in time you will become a “go-to” person for leadership responsibilities.

Notice that I had stated that ultimately no one gives a damn about your hedgehog with “ultimately” being highlighted. That is because many folks will employ or elect hedgehogs in that hedgehogs are highly focused and talented individuals. They will indeed make contributions to their organizations to the limits of their talents, their glass ceilings. To crash their glass ceilings hedgehogs need to expand their intellectual horizons and morph into more like foxes.

Foxes also face their own set of challenges. The phrase a jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one compliments foxes. Yet there are two dangers for foxes here. The first is not to be skilled in any discipline. The second is to attempt to become a “well-rounded” professional. So called well-rounded persons do not exist. Everyone, including the best and brightest among us, has limits. So, as you developed your multiple competencies, find your overall strength and wrap your competencies around that strengths. I, for example, discovered that being an educator was my overall strength so I infused that strength into my major jobs.

 

To assist you in your journey of becoming a fox, I have provided you with a recommended extra-curricular reading list. Most of the books on this list you will not read in your college classes. So it will your responsibility to obtain copies of these books for your personal library to read and consult with them throughout your professional career(s). You will need to find other books to stimulate your “fox” thinking and actions to add also to your personal library for reading and consultation.

Acceptance of and adherence to the above three ideas will enable you to be successful in life and work. I will be praying for you to the end of my life.

 

Love, Grampy

A NOTE TO MY READERS

 Great news- my new new book Javelin Joe's Reflections: Confessions of a Sojourner and Pilgrim on this Planet was published on August28 and may be purchased on Amazon Books. A sequel, Javelin Joe's Leftovers, is planned for release early in 2025. 

LIFE IS NOT FAIR

 

In 1962 international tensions were rising between the United States and global communism, particularly with aa growing insurgency in Vietnam and pressure on Berlin Germany. As a result of the need for increased manpower to bolster our military resources, the Department of Defense began to federalize some state national guard units into active mobilization. This action wreaked havoc on national guard soldiers and airmen who heretofore were civilians with only a monthly weekend duty commitment. Their complaints along with the concerns of their families and civilian employers reached the national press. When President John Kennedy was asked about the complaints and concerns at one of his press conferences, he replied, “Life is not fair.”

At first glance some would think Kennedy was flippant in his response to the federalized national guardsmen and their families. Some could even think that Kennedy had had good fortune in his life; after all, despite his wealth, good looks, and political successes, he had also felt life’s unfairness- bad back, nearly being killed or captured by the enemy during World War ll, loss of a child, and finally murdered by an assassin. Kennedy indeed personally knew that life is not fair amidst the dark side of Camelot.  

Children instinctively learn protest “That’s not fair!” when they feel someone has taken advantage of them. A wise child will eventually learn there is a difference between equal opportunity and equal outcomes due to circumstances beyond his/her control. A wiser child will immediately focus on the circumstances within his/her control to achieve some life goals. When I was a middle school teacher a student once protested to me that a school directive was not fair. So, I asked him, “Who told you that life is fair?” “My mama,” was his quick reply. I responded with a statement I do recommend, “Your mama lied to you.”

Sometimes life puts one into overwhelming situations seemingly out of control. Carleton Ogburn, Jr. was a communications officer with the famed Merrill’s Marauders fighting in the jungles of Burma (now Myanmar) during World War ll. In his memoir of his combat experiences, The Marauders, Ogburn reflected upon an aspect of life’s unfairness-

“It is this. Being unready and ill-equipped is what you have to expect in life. It is the universal predicament. It is your lot as a human being to lack what it takes. Circumstances are seldom right. You never have the capacities, the strength, the wisdom, the virtue you ought to have. You must always make do with less than you need in a situation vastly different from what you have chosen as appropriate for your special endowments.”  (p. 7)

 

Another aspect of life’s unfairness lies in the situations of those born with the proverbial “silver spoon in their mouths.” My wife and I just finished binge watching a British crime series entitled “McDonald and Dobbs” in which a fictional Detective Chief Inspector (DCI) McDonald and Detective Sergeant (DS) Dobbs are a team. DS Dobbs is what the Brits would say is a clever man in that he can find patterns from random numbers and bits of info to help solves crimes.

In one episode of the series, a man murders two others so he could purchase a map to embarrass a former professor of his who did not pass in a course at the university. What DS Dobbs found discerning about the case is that the murderer was born into wealth and possessed the manners and speech of an expensive prep school education. Also, one of his victims was an old school chum of Dobbs.

Dobbs shared with DCI McDonald, his supervisor, that his friend used to complain bitterly about his lot in life being unfair. His old chum’s bitterness would anger Dobbs who felt his friend had everything he needed to be successful in life. Dobbs had calculated that 17 billion people had lived on our planet and only 300 million people were born to truly take advantage of what life had given them; that number included the murderer. Dobbs’ murdered friend, and Dobbs himself. Dobbs concluded that those to advantage have the responsibility to continue to develop their “silver spoons” to provide for themselves and to assist those in less fortunate situations. Unfortunately, if they do not achieve their goals, they tend to become victims and blame others like the murderer who blamed the professor and Dobbs murdered chum who blamed life in general.

Another group of people who tend to be victimized by unfairness in life from the marginalized folks who have historically suffered discrimination but no longer face legalized prejudices. While society has changed, mindsets linger in the past for those who chose to do so. They do not merely desire opportunities for success, but demand guaranteed outcomes and if they do not get what they want, they blame others for their racism, sexism, etc. These people suffer from decision bias- they make bad decisions based on how they perceive the world, not how the world truly operates.

And their bad decisions usually focus on immediate gratification, not on delayed gratification. For example, culture commentators generally agree that three actions must be accomplished in order for men and women to lay a foundation for success-

1.    Graduate high school

2.    Marry

3.    Have children

Denis Waitley in his Empires of the Mind asserts that if a person wants to know who is responsible for holding him/her back from success, one needs to look in the mirror! I concur. So, whether one is a “silver spooner”, a member of a historic marginalized group, or just someone put in an unfortunate situation, life is indeed an equal opportunity disrupter. Life is unfair- get used to it!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GONE FISHIN'

 

[This essay was originally published on The Baptist New Global website.]

 

Recently I came across an excellent article in Baptist News Global about cooperation (or lack thereof), among Southern Baptists in how we present Jesus Christ as the only hope for the spiritually lost and dying residents of our planet.

Derek Crawford, its author, is a friend and prayer partner who reached out to me after publication of my own BNG article “The Southern Baptists Left Me.” Toward the conclusion of his article, Derek writes: “We learn from those who came before us. I humbly ask former Southern Baptists to share your stories with readers of Baptist News Global. Consider a few questions: What was your upbringing in the SBC? What are your fondest memories of Southern Baptist life? When did you know it was time for you to move on? What wisdom do you have for those in the SBC attempting to navigate the waters of emerging fundamentalism?”

This article is my humble attempt to respond to those questions. My caveat to the reader is that my SBC experiences are unique and are not meant to be a universal solution in how to respond to fundamentalism within the SBC.

First, I did not grow up in a Christian home. Alcoholism and divorce were rife in my family. Partly as a result of that, I moved 18 times during my childhood and youth. Despite the efforts of my youth director in the local Methodist church, I left town for the University of Oklahoma an agnostic. At the university I became “soul lonely,” as I did not have a vision for my life. That is, until two students from the Baptist Student Union came to the dorms and began to share Jesus. Several weeks later, on March 14, 1969, I became a Christian.

I began attending First Baptist Church of Norman, Okla., and then I started attending First Southern Baptist Church of Del City, Okla., a growing megachurch in the Oklahoma City suburbs. There I was baptized by John Bisagno, a famed evangelist and pastor of the 1960s and ’70s; met a spunky coed with a winsome smile who became my girlfriend and future wife; and had Jimmy Draper, future president of the Baptist Sunday School Board (now Lifeway) officiate at our wedding.

Enlisting in the Army after college, I was stationed at Fort Riley, Kan. Living in nearby Junction City, we joined First Southern Baptist Church there. Our daughter was dedicated to our Lord in that congregation.

Transferred to Germany, we had the base chapel in which to worship. Then we found a Baptist church in the neighboring city of Aschaffenburg in which to invest our lives. Pastor Charles Truitt and his wife, Virginia, welcomed us and we became fast friends. Aschaffenburg Baptist Church was a member of the European Baptist Convention, which ministered to American military families and civilians, and numerous nationalities of people. At Aschaffenburg I served as Sunday school director, a deacon and interim pastor. I received the call to ministry there and was ordained to the ministry.

Returning to the U.S., I enrolled in Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City, Mo. After two years, I received the Master of Religious Education degree. I enjoyed the learning opportunities offered by Midwestern as well as the friendships I had as a student. We also joined a neighboring church.

With degree in hand, I went off to serve four churches on staff primarily as a minister of education in Maryland, Virginia and Missouri. Our daughter and son were baptized in two of these congregations. Along the way, I also studied for and received the Doctor of Ministry degree from Midwestern in 1993. That same year, I resigned from my church position to pursue other possibilities. I did interim and part-time preaching and teaching, consulting and writing as well as entering public education. I retired as an elementary school principal in 2015. My wife and I are now members of a large SBC church in the suburbs of Kansas City, Kan.

“My fondest memories of these SBC experiences are the friendships that have endured through the decades.”

My fondest memories of these SBC experiences are the friendships that have endured through the decades and the family memories of the good times. One example is First Southern Baptist Church of Junction City. After Sunday evening services, my wife and I would cook grilled cheese sandwiches and break out the Cheetos to eat while we watched Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr. When our daughter was dedicated at the church, another couple also had their daughter dedicated. Not only was that couple friends with us in Junction City but also during our seminary days while the husband was a student at nearby William Jewell College and during our first Maryland stay while the husband played in the U.S. Army band at nearby Fort Meade. And then last year the wife visited my daughter in California when she was being treated for brain cancer, which more recently ended her earthy existence.

In our daughter’s nearly two-year battle with cancer, we were blessed with the eclectic group of Christians who rallied around us with prayers, encouragement and other support. I had old friends like high school classmates, new friends like Derek, Oklahoma farmers, suburbanites, believers from Myanmar, a theologian from Wheaton College, and the two Sunday school classes my wife and I are members of.

This experience leads me to lessons I have learned from my SBC experiences that are shareable:

1. Christianity is larger than the SBC. And Christianity cuts through denominations, families, cultures and politics. One Christian friend of mine is the Democratic Party chair of his county; another is an ex-SBCer who is active in another denomination and still another labels himself a progressive. We focus on what unites us, not what divides us.
2. Too often the SBC majors on the minors like female pastors. Where’s the passion to end male pastors sexually abusing and harassing girls and women, and to focus on reaching what the late Reynolds Price describes as the “outcasts, the whores and cheats, the traitors and killers, the baffled and stunned, the social outlaw, the maimed and hideous and contagious?” Or the homeless and the migrants?
3. While I no longer consider myself a Southern Baptist because of the female pastor issue, I do belong as previously mentioned to an SBC church. It has inspiring music, insightful preaching, solid Bible teaching, warm fellowship and evangelistic efforts and missions throughout the Kansas City area, around the U.S., to Canada, in Latin America, Africa and Asia. This self-described Baptist with anabaptist leanings will not leave an SBC church over a few differences of belief.

Bottom line: I am ready to join Derek fishing. How about you?

 

 

ADAPTIVEE OR TECHNICAL: DECISION POINTS FOR LEADERS

 

Steve Wilson is the new vice president for external relations of The Perry Mason Group, a company which sells legal products and advises law firms and court systems throughout the United States. He begins on February 1 and desires to make strong initial positive impressions with his executive team colleagues, his CEO, and his board of directors. Being a careful planner, Steve immediately schedules a meeting of his departmental leadership team- Della Street, Paul Drake, and Hamilton Burger- to plan for the company’s flagship event, the annual Legal Services Seminar which usually occurs in mid-September.

“I’m glad you called this meeting, Steve!’ opened Della. (Wilson encouraged informality within his department.) “Last year’s legal services seminar was very frustrating for me and my unit. Our big problem was the printed resource order. Our materials did not arrive until the day before our seminar began because of some confusion with our print vendor. Can you do something about that?”

“Della, that was indeed a problem,” responded Paul before Steve could speak to the issue. “But we have a bigger problem with the seminar than our print order. Steve, we need to schedule the seminar at the right time. For the past ten years we have held it in mid-September. That is simply too close to Labor Day as many of our clients are just settling back into their routines after the summer holidays. Many of the respondents on our surveys have requested a different time frame for the seminar. I know it is going to take lots of extra work, but I proposed we have our legal services seminar in mid-May this year no later than a week before the Memorial Day weekend.”

While Steve was pondering the huge headaches that would be caused by such an abrupt schedule change Hamilton charged in. “Having our legal services seminar at the right time of year with a timely materials order is all well and good. But we have a deeper issue here. For the past five years straight, we have declining participation in the seminar. Law firms, law schools, and associated businesses are getting their information elsewhere. Even Jason Bull, the trial consultant and one of our former keynote speakers, now does his own seminar which is extremely popular on the East Coast. We need to thoroughly review why we have our seminar, perhaps we need to change our format or even consider whether to even have it at all. I know you are new here, Steve, but how do you feel about that?”

Wow! Steve Wilson thought he was merely having a meeting to get the seminar planning off to a good start. However, he came face-to-face with a persistent dilemma for organizational leaders- how to distinguish technical work from adaptive work and making decisions appropriate for each. According to Ronald Heifetz, technical and adaptive work are respectively “…different modes of action required to deal with routine problems in contrast with those that demand innovation and learning.” (Leadership Without Easy Answers)

This fictional meeting between Steve and his departmental planning team illustrates in a concrete manner how technical, adaptive, and technical/adaptive situations arise in the normal course of organizational life. For Steve, as a prototypical leader, his responses to the questions asked by Della, Paul, and Hamilton are indeed a test of his leadership. We will examine each in turn.

Della’s concern clearly involves technical work. There is a problem that is relatively easy to resolve. The printed materials for the seminar must be ordered, received, sorted, and distributed in a timely manner. Steve is confident and relieved that a solution is readily available. He directs Della to set up deadlines and to appoint someone to be responsible for overseeing the process.

The calendar problem raised by Paul is also relatively clear but requires some learning in order to reach a solution. This is a combination technical/adaptive work that needs a joint decision from Steve and his leadership team after consultation with the CEO and the other departments of the Perry Mason Group. Steve will convene a meeting with the vice presidents of the other departments to discuss the reasons for the previous September dates and the benefits and challenges of moving the seminar to another time of the year.

However, Hamilton’s question to Steve concerning both the format and perhaps even the existence of the Legal Services Seminar is not a clear problem with a clear solution. This is pure adaptive work that must include the thoughts and feelings of many in the Perry Mason Group- all the departments, the CEO, the board of directors, and the group’s clients.

Steve decides on the following actions to address Hamilton’s concern:

1.    Continue with this year’s seminar in mid-September as usual

2.    Prepare himself and his leadership team for an intensive evaluation process

3.    Include this concern along with his department’s evaluation in the agenda of the group’s five-year strategic planning process that begins November 1

4.    Prepare and distribute a detailed memo to the CEO, the other vice presidents, and the board of directors with verbal follow-up sessions

The initial planning meeting for the Legal Services Seminar finally concludes. The agenda has been full and key decisions have been made with appropriate actions to implement those decisions. Della, Paul, and Hamilton are appreciative of Steve and the leadership he has demonstrated to this issue. As for Steve, he is thankful he knows how to distinguish between technical and adaptive work as he begins his new job with the Perry Mason Group,

 

THE NBA AND WHITE FOLK

 This past week Carron Philips, a writer for Deadspin, lamented that White fans who watched Black players competing in the NBA playoffs was “white supremacy” on their part. Phillips further commented that a day after a White racist kills 10 Black persons in that horrific attack in Buffalo, white supremacy is further exposed when White spectators are entertained by those Black athletes. The Blacks had to play, according to the writer at the left-wing sports site, while the Whites’ participation was optional.

Personally, I do not care for the NBA and its politicization of professional basketball. Never watch the games and do not care who wins or loses. It does not make much sense to me that you can make a kid a millionaire after one year of college (or no college at all) and that act alone make that person an expert on national issues and international relations.

NBA players and coaches are quick to point out the obvious flaws in America (and there are many) but are silent on the flaws in China, their rapidly growing market. Almost seems like the NBA is a wholly owned subordinary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). And before claims I am spreading disinformation about the CCP, ask the NBA owners about their combined ten-billion-dollar investments in China as reported by ESPN.

But I digress. Sports or not, people have jobs. And teammates depend upon one another so that everyone does their job on the court to win. And professionals respond to pain differently, including Black athletes. Perhaps, for various reasons, they wanted to play. Did Phillips bother to ask them or were they expected to follow the party line and refuse to compete?

Apparently, folks like Phillips are working overtime expending much time, energy, creativity, and imagination to expose white racism and supremacy. It is a giant conspiracy theory looming everywhere in our society, so they say. Now, a White person cannot watch a Black person excel in sports without being charged with racism. As I stated before, I do not watch the NBA. This time of year I prefer lacrosse. But wait, isn’t that a game mostly for rich white kids? Racism! And also cultural appropriation since lacrosse was invented by Native Americans!

This nonsense almost makes one want to echo our current President (bless his heart!), “Come on, Man!”

 

WHY ARMY POSTS WITH NAMES OF CONFEDERATE GENERALS SHOULD BE RENAMED (WITH CAUTION)

 

As a former sergeant in the US Army I endorse the renaming of Army posts like Forts Benning, Bragg, and Hood among others being renamed. I also believe that the renaming should occur only for one reason. That reason is that the Confederate generals whose names identify these military installations committed treason against the United States by using armed force to secede from the Federal Union. Any other reason would create chaos and is unacceptable.

I know some would argue the slavery issue. The dilemma we face here is that merely being pro-slavery or being indifferent to slavery was not a crime at the time of their treason. Many in the northern states accepted slavery and if they did not, were not abolitionists. Yet they did not seek to destroy the Union as created in the Constitution. Before the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment slavery was constitutional. What was unconstitutional was succession and Confederate generals like Bragg, Benning, and Hood sought to do just that treasonous act. They should not remain in our collective memories with their identification with our Army.

But what if we indeed use being pro-slavery at the time being a reason for renaming our forts, cities, streets, etc. Do we stop there? Consider-

·         What about fighting Native Americans? Then we would rename Fort Leavenworth. And tear down the Buffalo Soldier memorial there- after all those regiments of African American soldiers earned their reputation and name from fighting Indians on the Great Plains before joining Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders at San Juan Hill in an arguably colonial war against Spain.

·         What would we rename these posts? Outstanding generals like Colin Powell and George Marshall come to mind- both these men I highly respect. But wait. Didn’t Powell fight in the Vietnam War and Marshall lead our segregated Army during World War II? Take them off our list.

·         How about our cities? Columbus, Ohio is obvious. Then Carson City, Nevada named after Kit Carson (ask the Navaho Nation about him). Then Austin, Texas named after that pro-slavery colonizer Stephen F. Austin. Or even New York City- reminds us of our English colonizers! Review all names of cities with Spanish names- San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles, Santa Fe- too many memories of European imperialism there.

·         States? Start with anything new in it- New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, and New Mexico- smacks of imperialism once again. How about states with Native American originated names? Let’s rename Oklahoma, Kansas, South Dakota, and North Dakota- simply too much cultural appropriation.

·         Don’t get me started about sports teams. Three strikes for the Cleveland Indians and no touchdowns for the Washington Redskins. And since the poet Edgar Allen Poe is now under attack, we can rename the Baltimore Ravens (you remember Poe’s poem The Raven?) How about the San Francisco 49ers named after those gold-lusty miners who were not environmentally conscious?

·         Then we rename anything that offends us about women’s issues. LBGTQ+ rights, etc. Named about someone who did advocate for women’s suffrage in1840- rename. Named after someone who was homophobic in 1900- rename. Named after someone who did support abortion in 1960- rename.

I could go on indefinitely with satire. But I think you get the point. When one begins the tenuous journey of historical revisionism, even for a just cause, one must be prepared with a strong and clear criterion for change and one must be mindful that future generations may discard your own personal legacy after you have departed from this life. Effective leaders know when to proceed and when to stop.

 

YOU CAN GO HOME AGAIN

 

[The following is a response to an article in Wall Street Journal.]

 

I was instantly hooked to the story of Caity Cronkhite’s odyssey from small-town Indiana to college to the San Francisco Bay area and her return visit to her hometown in Indiana (“One Striver’s Small-Town Regrets,” December 16-17). My own story is both similar and different.

After being born in a small county seat town in Oklahoma I spent much of the next 13 years in Colorado and California cities and suburbs. My mother, brother, and I returned to Oklahoma following a family crisis. The next five years was generally a safe haven but I increasingly felt the urge to leave our small town for the “bright lights” and after high school graduation (senior class of 32 students) I did indeed leave for the University of Oklahoma. I privately vowed never to return except to visit family. I was not angry but I did feel I deserved more than my small town could offer.

Marriage, college graduation, children, and careers quickly followed. We lived in Germany for three years and the Washington DC area for eight. We did return for family visits and breaking my vow, my wife and I began attending some school reunions. My perspective and feelings also began to evolve. My own odyssey was complete when I was selected Alumni of the Year in 2012. At that time I was fully able to express my love and appreciation for the nurture those folks provided me when I needed it the most.

Family, school, and church in small town Oklahoma collaborated to instill positive character and values in me. They were not perfect by any means, but they were persistent in expecting that I put forth my best efforts. I am glad I was able to go home again, and I am glad Ms. Cronkhite was also able to do so.

DEMOCRACY AT RISK?

 

[I sent the following letter in response to an article that appeared in the alumni magazine of Boston University.]

I have concerns about some of the assertions made by several BU faculty in "Is Our Democracy at Risk?" (Summer 2024).

First, the United States is a constitutional republic, a restrained form of democracy with checks and balances among three co-equal branches of government, a two-house national legislature, and an electoral system of selecting the president. To simply say the US is a democracy is to raise assumptions our Founders never intended.

Second, no evidence is presented with the assertion of voter suppression. Indeed, required photo ID is easily acquired and is not a barrier to the franchise. While there is no evidence of widespread. voter fraud, as long as humans and not angels voting, there will be fraud and voter IDs help in maintaining trust that our votes truly count.

Third, and finally, extreme left progressivism. along with extreme right populism, moves us to,  ward authoritarianism. The Wilson Administration during World War I in making it a criminal offense to oppose our entry into the war and the police forces firing paint balls at perceived Covid 19 lockdown violators in Governor Walz's Minnesota are but two examples.

I trust that future articles of this sort published in the Bostonia will be more balanced and nuanced, reflecting the complexities of our federal system.

Joe D. Marlow, D.Min.

Wheelock '78

Olathe, KS