Repeal TARP !!

1. Repeal TARP I !!! **

2. Take back all the money we gave to the ungrateful banks !!!

3. Then pass a tough, tough, tough new TARP 2 that makes them shape up and eat crow !!!

Oh, and while we're at it, let's dig up Teddy Roosevelt and start Busting Trusts again !!!

Read Ken's program to save the American economy. Boot Camp for Wall Street!

Coming soon, only in Guerrilla History.

** The Troubled Asset R elief Program, better know as the $700 billion Wall Street Bailout.

That was quick.

Unanimous votes make me nervous.
Here are the details, if you haven' seen them already:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090129/D9613M9O0.html

Controversial Bestseller Shakes the Foundation of the Israeli State

This interesting article reviews some of the main points in When and How Was the Jewish People Invented?, a book by Tel Aviv University scholar Shlomo Zand (or Sand)

What if the Palestinian Arabs who have lived for decades under the heel of the modern Israeli state are in fact descended from the very same "children of Israel" described in the Old Testament?

And what if most modern Israelis aren't descended from the ancient Israelites at all, but are actually a mix of Europeans, North Africans and others who didn't "return" to the scrap of land we now call Israel and establish a new state following the attempt to exterminate them during World War II, but came in and forcefully displaced people whose ancestors had lived there for millennia?

What if the entire tale of the Jewish Diaspora -- the story recounted at Passover tables by Jews around the world every year detailing the ancient Jews' exile from Judea, the years spent wandering through the desert, their escape from the Pharaoh's clutches -- is all wrong?

As I am not a Middle East specialist, I can't comment on the veracity of the book, but as a historian I can say that tradition is "invented" and rarely true. History is never proven. History is a type of story, and even if we knew all the facts (which we never do), there are countless different ways to tell the story, and there are varying meanings to attach to said facts. How we see our past is always coloured by the present.

In the end, we can't base a present day land claim on an unproven (and unprovable) story from the far distant past. People can never be restored to their "rightful" home (when the displacement was thousands of years ago), because people are always involved in voluntary and involuntary migrations. Once people have made a new home and have borne children there, you can't kick them out. This goes for both Palestinians and Israelis. Like it or not, this area has to become a home for both groups in one way or another. I prefer a one-state secular democracy, but recognize the challenges of this solution. We have yet to get over this "clash of civilizations" myth.

Interestingly, there are people arguing in the comments about genetic similarity/difference of Jewish people (for instance, that Jews are all surprisingly alike, or they are more similar to non-Jewish Arabs or non-Jewish Europeans or non-Jewish Ethiopians or whatever). While an interesting intellectual exercise (it can be helpful for tracing migration patterns in the distant past), this seems to me not only silly but potentially dangerous to use in determining current political and territorial rights. I'm pretty sure we no longer believe in reserving specific pieces of land for those with particular genetic sequences.

WW2 Cooking Lessons

Via Treehugger:

Invisible cricket balls, thrifty grandmothers, and unbelievably spoiled and lazy young boys – there’s nothing like a bit of 1940s nostalgia to get you in the sustainability mood. “Two Cooks and a Cabbage” is a war time public information film from the UK’s Ministry of Food, and it's just one of the lessons we can learn from our grandparents.

Lessons learned: Shred the cabbage, add just a little water, cover it with a lid, and save the water for gravy. Or, just get yourself a young girl to cook it for you. Preferably Sally.

Hold your nose, but Blago deserves civil liberties too!

So much about this case stinks. Here is a sitting Governor, Rod Blagojevich of Illinois, accused by Chicago Federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald of terrible things: trying to sell Barack Obama’s vacant Senate seat, trying to blackmail the Chicago Tribune, trying to shake down a childrens’ hospital for money, and more. His scandal has stained an entire generation of talented Illinois public figures including Jesse Jackson Jr., Rahm Emanuel, and Obama himself, just for coming in contact with them.

But there's more. The rampant public vilification of Blago since the charges, the ridicule (even from supposedly objective newsmen like CNN’s Anderson Cooper), the snide dismissals of him as crazy, the assumption of guilt, this stinks too. Yes, under our system of law, until proven guilty, even Blago deserves to be presumed innocent. He has denied the charges. Maybe he’s lying. Maybe he’s not. I don't know, but neither do you.

The treatment of his case, to a great extent brought on himself, has been abominable.

Can Blago really be innocent? So far, all we actually know are the prosecutor's charges and the snippets of evidence he has decided to disclose. Patrick Fitzgerald may be a fine man and an exceptional lawyer, but prosecutors are not always right and not always fair. They sometimes get carried away with their crusades, even when acting in perfectly good faith. That’s why, in this country, before we deem anyone guilty of a crime and send them to jail, we first guarantee them due process of law, the right to state their case, to confront their accusers, to present their evidence and arguments, to speak in their own defense, to have a lawyer, to have their case decided by a jury.

So far, Blago has had none of these things. The media presumes him guilty. The US Senate presumes him guilty. The Illinois legislature presumes him guilty. He is an inconvenient, detested political pariah with poll rated in the single digits.

And worse, rather than a court of law, he faces the prospect of having his case heard first by a group of politicians in the Illinois State Senate. And one of the first decisions these politicians made was to limit his right to call witnesses in his defense. Bloggo asked for a slew of celebrities: Rahm Emanuel, Jesse Jackson, and others. Was this merely a publicity ploy? Maybe. Would it be embarrassing and uncomfortable for them to appear? Certainly. But that's not the point. If they have evidence that could clear his name, then Blago has the right to have it presented before being found guilty. The legislature could have found a way to accommodate Emanual, Jackson, et al, perhaps by hearing them first in executive session before deciding whether to call them publicly. But it chose not to.

I certainly understand Blago’s decision to boycott his Illinois impeachment trial and instead flee to New York City to plead his case out TV talk shows. If Blago is indeed guilty, then he has nothing to lose. The State legislators will convict him anyways. And of he is innocent, then he preserves his rights for the better tribunal, a court of law, where he can avail himself of full legal rights. His presence before the illinois Senate would only lend legitimacy to a forum he claims is a stacked against him.

Maybe Blagojevich should have stepped down from office while his case was being heard so the State could function smoothy. But if he actually is innocent (and, again, he may be lying), what a terrible precedent that would be.

Blago is no fool. His handling of his appointment of Roland Burrus to the US Senate proves he is crazy as a fox. The Illinois Senate may impeach him and kick him out of office in the next few weeks, but that won't end the story. If Blago goes kicking and screaming and protesting his innocence, then prepare yourselves for the huge book deal, the TV reality show, and the slew of revisionist literature that will surely clog the airwaves and bookstores pronouncing him a victim of prosecutorial abuse.

That’s what happens when you deny civil liberties, even to an apparent scoundrel like Blago.
Where is Clarence Darrow when we need him?

Back from Blogging Hiatus...

I know it has been a long time since I last blogged.... In that time, apparently the world didn't pause itself to wait for me.

In Canada the word "prorogue" suddenly entered everyone's vocabumalary. Obama is in the White House, a historic and relatively positive development (since even if his politics are pretty centrist, he looks damn progressive next to the Bush & Co). The oscillating denial and alarmism about the impending recession has settled into a degree of acceptance.

As for me, I finished my MA, took a trip to Havana and am now back and working on setting up a new organic farm. Maybe I'll start a PhD in September (if they'll have me).

If I have any readers left, I hope you'll come on by from time to time for some chitchat, discussion and political wrangling

Why rank Gerald Ford so high?

So, literally minutes after I posted my c-span presidental rankings last week (see Jan. 18, below), two friends shot back the question: Why Gerald Ford? How on earth did he deserve such a high rank?

"How did Gerald Ford break into the top 10?" wrote my legal colleague David Durkin. "You're not a 'great President' simply for not repeating the abuse of power that led to your immediate predecessor's eventual ouster."

"How did Gerry Ford crack the top ten?" echoed Jim Hershberg, author of the terrific biography of Harvard nuclear bomb-meister James B. Conant, who added "(Love it that you rated him higher than RR.)"

What's the story with Gerry Ford? Wasn't he just a dupe, a dope, a boob, a joke on Saturday Night Live, that creep who pardoned Richard Nixon? Wasn't he the bumbling guy portrayed by SNL's Chevy Chase? The mediocrity chosen as VP by a cynical Richard Nixon at the height of Watergate as a stop-gap against impeachment, that the country would consider Ford not up to the job?

Yes, it's true, most historians rate him lower than I do. The c-span 1999 poll rated him #23, and other recent polls rate him #27 or #28. Obviousy, I see it differenlty.

I have always admired Gerald Ford. Its no mystery to me why Gerald Ford's friends and neighbors in Michigan elected him to Congress thirteen times before Nixon tapped him in 1973 to replace bribe-taking VP Spiro Agnew, who had recently been forced to resign. Nixon knew the Democratic-majority Congress would confirm Ford, even on being nominated by a widely-hated scoudrel like himself. (The Senate cofirmation vote was 92-3; the House 387-35.) Everyone liked Gerry Ford, even if they hated Nixon.

Why? There are times in our history when something simple and basic like being a normal, level-headed, tolerant, self-effacing, non-paranoid human being counts for plenty. By 1974, after almost ten years of LBJ and Nixon, Vietnam and Watergate, the Credibility Gap, the flood of arrogance, lies, and deceit from Washington, the simple disarming honesty of Gerald Ford suddenly in the White House was a profound statement, a remarkable breath of fresh air.

Gerald Ford was nobody's fool. He could take a ribbing from Chevy Chase and laugh at himself, but that was no sign of weakness. Ford was a Yale-trained lawyer, a World War II Navy combat veteran, and a college football standout at Michigan.

Ford had a deliberate goal as President of re-unifying the country after Vietnam and Watergate. Yes, he pardoned Nixon, but he also offered amnesty to Vietnam draft resisters. He twice avoided re-engaging the country in Southeast Asian wars, both in 1975, first when Cambodian forces seized the US merchant ship Mayaguez, then again when North Vietnam launched its final assault on Saigon.

Today we appreciate the danger of deficits and wasteful Federal spending; Gerald Ford issued 66 presidential vetoes, mostly of Appropriations Bills, and made all but twelve stick. Today we lament a Republican Party cow-towing to the Ideological Right; Gerald Ford stood squarely with moderates, nominating as his own VP not Ronald Reagan, but rather Reagan's nemesis, New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller. Today we cringe at how Presidents and candidates too-often treat their families as stage props; Ford gave us his wife Betty, a dancer, free thinker, and outspoken feminist, not shy talking about her human foibles.

All in all, a pretty good legacy. "I'm not a Lincoln, I'm just a Ford," Ford himself quipped at one point. There are times when a Ford is exactly the right thing. That's why I rated him #10.

Why James Garfield over LBJ and the Adamses?

James A. Garfield accepting surrender of US Grant at the 1880 Republican convention after 36 ballots.  

Since I posted my Presidential rankings for the C-SPAN 2009 Historians Survey a few days ago, I've received pointed questions from friends about some of my choices. (See January 18 post below.)

For instance, how could I put Gerald Ford so high on the list, in the top ten, for God's sake? And what was I thinking in ranking James Garfield, who served only four months before being shot in the back, above LBJ and both the Adamses? And, in putting George W. Bush at the near-bottom (#41 out of 43), wasn't I just following a liberal fad that will disappear in a few years, much as Harry Truman has gained popularity over time.

Over the next few days, I will tackle each of these. Yes, Gerald Ford deserves his high spot. Yes, James Garfield outranks LBJ, John Adams, and John Quincy. And no, George W. Bush's bottom status is no passing liberal fancy. Bush is no Harry Truman. He will be considered as much a bottom-feeder a century from now as today.

I'll start with James Garfield, only because this was the first challenge to come up. Stick with me.

The basics are simple: James Garfield, a Civil War veteran and career Congressman, was elected President in 1880, inaugurated in March 1881, shot by Charles Guiteau four months later, and died about two months after that. He was mourned by hundreds of thousands, respected for confronting political bosses, and credited with the modern Civil Service system adopted after his death.

During his term, he prevailed over Sen. Roscoe Conkling, dictator of the NY Republican machine, in a high-profile brawl over abusive patronage. His Secretary of State, James G. Blaine, started the country on a strong foreign policy that culminated in TR's "big stick" approach twenty years later.  Here (above) is my favorite cartoon of Garfield, by PUCK artist Joseph Keppler, showing Garfield accepting the surrender of Ulysses Grant at the 1880 Republican Convention after Grant's 3rd term movement collapsed on the 36th ballot:



It was my friend David Stewart, author of the terrific book THE SUMMER OF 1787: The Men who Invented the US Constitution, who blew the whistle on me. "Whoa, big fella!," he wrote, knowing of my own book about the Garfield assassintion, (DARK HORSE). " James Garfield ahead of Lyndon Johnson and both Adamses? We're dishing out some home-cooking here. Remind us again, what did Garfield do as president?"

Good question. So let's deal with it squarely.

Ranking presidents means making choices. James Garfield's presidency had only a small impact because it was so short. Even giving him maximum credit, he stand mid-pack, slightly above center, which is where I ranked him, at #18.

Now let's look at the competition.

Lyndon Baines Johnson? We can start and end the conversation with one word: Vietnam. I don't recall James Garfield ever going out and getting the country stuck in a full-scale land war half-way around the world, commiting half-a-million troops to the effort, most unwilling draftees, all based on bad intelligence and bad advice, then misleading the country as tens of thousands died, then allowing the war to spin out of control and destroy his domestic agenda, causing the country then to react by electing an even worse leader in Richard M. Nixon.

This is LBJ's legacy. Yes, he had a sterling record on Civil Rights and passed a boatload of Great Society legislation. But his own Democratic Party was ready to kick him overboard when he declined to run for re-election in 1968. Without his Civil Rights record, Vietnam easily would have sunk LBJ to the bottom half of the list. As is, I gave him much credit for his domestic agenda, with an overall rank of #19.  I think he owes me a "thank you."

Then there are the Adamses. Let's start with John Adams, the second president, serving from 1797 to 1801, the first to be voted out of office. Yes, he came across wonderfully in that terrific HBO miniseries where he was play by the fine actor Paul Giamatti, based on the biography by David McCullough. And yes, John Adams was a sterling patriot and fine man during most of his life.

But his presidency was a sorry mess. Its emblem was the Alien and Seditions Acts. I do not recall James Garfield ever pushing Congress to pass a law allowing him to throw dozens of newspaper editors in jail for the simple act of publicly opposing his foreign policy, as well as locking up large numbers of immigrants on trumped up claims of disloyalty -- as did John Adams. The abuse was flagrant.

Adams showed his bad temperament again after losing re-election in 1800 by refusing to act civilly toward Thomas Jefferson, the person who beat him, at Jefferson's 1801 Inauguration. I rated Adams the best I could given a bad record. He ranked #31 on my list, just above Rutherford Hayes and William Howard Taft. Once again, I am ready to accept a "thank you" note from the Adams family.

Finally, there is John Quincy, whom I rate well above his father at #25, though still mediocre. Another fine man; another disappointing president. From the moment he entered office, his political opponents branded his Administration the product of a "corrupt bargain," and for four years the albatross stuck, fair or not.

That's the explanation. I am very comfortable with where I placed James Garfield, notwithstanding LBJ and the Adamses. Tomorrow, I'll talk about Gerald Ford.

Thanks for listening. --KenA

Advice for Caroline Kennedy

Personally, I'm glad NY Governor David Paterson decided to choose a lesser-known New York politico for the Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton, passing over two leading celebrity pols: Caroline Kennedy and State AG Andrew Cuomo. It's good to give new talent a chance. Whether upstate Cong. Kirsten Gillibrand will be able to handle to bright lights and unblinking eyes of the NY media, time will now tell.

Still, I sympathize for Caroline Kennedy. By every appearance, she seems a very decent private person who does a lot of good for important causes. But she allowed herself to be pressured into launching a dismal campaign w/o basic preparation, marked by poor staff work, and no clear message, hoping that her name, her place in the public heart as cute cuddly child of JFK, plus strong-arming by high-powered family backers like uncle Ted Kennedy, would make up for lack of qualifications. It created an image (fair or not) of an undeserving, spoiled celebrity demanding a prize she never earned.

Even fans of Kennedys (and I count myself one) cringed at the spectacle. She was simply the wrong Kennedy cousin for the job, since so many others have built strong records of public service over the years. Not surprisingly, it all failed.

So, on the day after it all collapsed, my advice for Caroline Kennedy is this:

First, accept failure as failure. Don't gripe at the press or the governor. Don't complain about mud-slinging. That's all part of the game. The problem was on your side. Your basic campaign failed. If you ever expect to try again, you must now go back, thoroughly dissect what went wrong, and learn from it. Consider the whole thing as a tuition payment for a first-rate education in real-life politics.

Second, have a good laugh. Self-deprecating humor is the most healthy kind, both for your own psyche as well as public consumption. Your campaign's collossal loss can soon make a very funny story for you to tell. And if you lead the laugh, it takes out the sting.

Third, close the door and scream at your advisors. They did a terrible job. Before sending you out before the press, why on earth did they not train you, prep you, make you practice in front of a camera, pepper you with tough questions, send you to campaign boot camp? It was their job to show you your weaknesses so your could fix them. (Like all those on-camera "you knows.") Instead, they fed you to the lions and stood aside. It was their fault. Don't let them off the hook.

Finally, go back to enjoying life. Your have a good one. That age-old wisdom is true: The best revenge is living well.

I wish best of luck to Caroline and Kirsten both. All the best. --KenA

January 22, 2009 - Method in the Madness?

I’ve been in Bradenton Beach, Florida this week, attending The Homiletical Feast – a preaching conference I attend each year. Not that Florida has offered any balmy weather: it’s been as low as 32 degrees here this week. The exegetical papers we’ve considered in the group have been high-quality, as usual, and the discussion and mutual support has been more valuable than words can say.

These 16 or so ministers are among my most valued colleagues. Over the years, they’ve become friends as well. We only meet once a year, but the four days we spend together are a time of talking, sharing and supporting one another, as we reflect on this demanding occupation.

Earlier today, one of my colleagues shared a poem by Larry Smith called “What You Realize When Cancer Comes.” He found it on Garrison Keillor’s The Writer’s Almanac program on American Public Radio. Here’s an excerpt:

“You will not live forever – No
you will not, for a ceiling of clouds
hovers in the sky.

You are not as brave
as you once thought.
Sounds of death
echo in your chest.

You feel the bite of pain,
the taste of it running
through you.

Following the telling to friends
comes a silence of
felt goodbyes. You come to know
the welling of tears.

Your children are stronger
than you thought and
closer to your skin.

The beauty of animals
birds on telephone lines,
dogs who look into your eyes,
all bring you peace.”

The poem ends with these words:

“You are in a river
flowing in and through you.
Take a breath. Reach out your arms.
You can survive.

A river is flowing
flowing in and through you.
Take a breath. Reach out your arms.”

The poem causes me to reflect on many of the things I’ve lived through, these past three years or so. One of the things I’ve struggled with, off and on, is the question: “Why?” What purpose is there in all this?

Smith’s poem captures the transformational aspect of cancer. When those of us who undertake this journey – however unwillingly – complete it, we are not the same people as when we began. Every step we take along the road changes us.

Thinking theologically, I’m led to ask once again what long-term purpose God may have in mind for my ministry. In allowing me to get this disease, curing me from its aggressive variety, then miring me in the interminable limbo of indolent lymphoma’s “watch and wait,” what’s God’s point? If it’s true, as we Presbyterians are inclined to think, that God calls men and women to ministry, then what call could there possibly be in cancer?

The Larry Smith poem suggests some possible reasons. “You will not live forever.” I have a visceral awareness of this truth, now, that has hitherto been a mere abstraction. “You are not as brave as you once thought.” No, indeed I’m not. I’m learning to live with uncertainty, and still rise to the challenges of daily living. “You can survive.” Yes, I can. I’m doing it. One day at a time.

I’ve had some difficulty sensing God’s will in the midst of follicular lymphoma. Aggressive cancer I can understand: it’s a challenge to be met, or die trying. Cured cancer I can likewise understand: it’s a triumph to be celebrated. But, this neither-here-nor-there, neither healthy-nor-unhealthy limbo, stretching on into the interminable future: what’s God up to?

Maybe the purpose is to nurture my empathy, my ability to connect with others. I’m not the only person whose life is fraught with ambiguity, is lived out in the gray country of uncertainty. Maybe I’m meant to be a fellow-traveler and accompany others. Maybe I’ve been enrolled in a school of perseverance, so I may help others persevere.

(01.19.09) Recommends:

Ericailcane.

We learned about Ericailcane this weekend while we were walking down LaBrea. If you've been around LaBrea and Melrose lately perhaps you've seen this giant [some type of animal(1)] eating a car:

Further research revealed that this mural went up as part of Ericailcane's new show Man Is The Bastard at the nearby Carmichael Gallery. The gallery has a nice, er, gallery of photos from the show up on the website, if you can't see it in person.

But lovers of whimsical ink on paper work should give Ericailane a try.




(1) We use the term 'animal' with some trepidation since it appears to be wearing a very civilized pair of shoes.

WDI Alumni Wins World Title

It was a great day for Romania and for Dan Cristea. They won the English Second Language world debating title at the 2009 World Universities Debating Championships held in Cork, Ireland at the beginning of January.

Dan attended WDI as a high school student from Romania. "It is really where I got my start with debating, and I will never forget it," he recalled in Cork while talking to WDI director Snider.

Dan now debates for Babes-Bolyai University . He and his partner, Nicoleta Lupea , are also European champions in the same category.

Congratulations to Dan, and glad you got your start here at WDI.

Rating the Presidents

I recently had the chance to particitate in C-SPAN's new poll of historians to rate the Presidents, the "2009 Historians Survey of Presidential Leadership." The overall group's results will be released around Presidents Day 2009.

Here's the list I submitted, with my cumulative raw score for each. (Ratings were based on ten elements: economic management, crisis leadership, vision, international relations, so on.) It's certainly full of my own prejudice and bias, with many arguable points. George W. Bush appears only as 41st out of 43. I ranked two as worse: Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan. I gave the top spot to George Washington, narrowly edging out Abe Lincoln (downgraded for treatment of wartime dissent and choosing a lousy successor) and FDR (some of whose New Deal programs didn't work very well).

Free free to disagree or haggle with any of it. All the best. --KenA

1. George Washington 90
2. Abraham Lincoln 88
3. F.D. Roosevelt 87
4. T. Roosevelt 76
5. Thomas Jefferson 70

6. Andrew Jackson 66
7. Dwight Eisenhower 63
8. James Monroe 62
9. Harry Truman 62
10. Gerald Ford 61

11. Ronald Reagan 61
12. George H.W. Bush 60
13. Bill Clinton 60
14. James Polk 60
15. Wm. McKinley 59

16. Woordow Wilson 59
17. J.F. Kennedy 58
18. James Garfield 57
19. Lyndon B. Johnson 56
20. Calvin Coolidge 56

21. James Madison 55
22/23. Grover Cleveland 53
24. Chester A. Arthur 53
25. John Quincy Adams 53

26. Benjamin Harrison 53
27. Ulysses Grant 52
28. Jimmy Carter 50
29. Zachary Taylor 51
30. Wm. Henry Harrison 51

31. John Adams 50
32. Rutherford Hayes 49
33. John Tyler 48
34. Wm.Howard Taft 48
35. Herbert Hoover 46

36. Martin Van Buren 45
37. Richard M. Nixon 44
38. Millard Fillmore 43
39. Warren G. Harding 42
40. Franklin Pierce 42

41. George W. Bush 40
42. James Buchanan 40
43. Andrew Johnson 36

January 16, 2009 - Leadership: It's Personal

The recent news about entrepreneur Steve Jobs’ sudden medical leave from Apple Computer brings back memories for me. When you’re in a very public sort of job – like CEO of a company, or pastor of a congregation – there isn’t much of a right to privacy. You’re doing more, professionally, than just filling a box on an organization chart. Personality and profession are all wrapped up together. When you get sick, people feel they need to know.

Steve Jobs has pancreatic cancer. So far, he’s been one of the truly fortunate ones. Not only is he still around, more than 4 years later, but – except for several relatively brief absences – he’s thrived, remaining at the helm of the innovative company he founded. Now, Mr. Jobs has announced he’s taking another, longer leave to see to medical concerns – at least until June.

Apple stock has plummeted. It must be a terribly difficult spot to be in, knowing the stock analysts are watching him like hawks (or vultures?), ready to issue “sell” orders at the least sign of physical weakness. For a man like Steve Jobs, even getting the flu could have a notable effect on his company’s value. The fact that he’s actually stepping down for a time indicates that something is, indeed, seriously amiss.

At least one commentator has issued a call to privacy on his behalf. I agree with that. News reports speculating about the future of the company and the value of its stock are inevitable, I suppose, but it would be nice if the media could find some way to discharge their duty to the public without heating up Mr. Jobs’ life with their spotlights. He needs to find a place of peace and privacy where he can concentrate on healing.

I’m grateful that my congregation gave me such a place, during the acute phase of my illness. I used this blog to let them know how things were going, but that was my choice to do so. This online journal has also been a kind of therapy for me, providing a way to reflect personally and theologically on what’s been happening to me, and what God is doing in my life.

Sometimes I wonder, though, whether certain developments in the life of the church may be attributable to my cancer. As we struggle with issues of membership growth and finances, as nearly all mainline Protestant churches are doing these days, I ask myself whether some of this church’s particular challenges are attributable to my health outlook. Has this become “the church whose pastor has cancer,” in some people’s minds? How does my health situation affect long-range planning? Did the intense focus on my health back when I was receiving chemotherapy – as God’s people ministered to their minister – help or hinder the church’s overall mission in the long run?

These are mostly unanswerable questions. As with families, churches sometimes find they can’t choose or plan for certain eventualities. They have to face whatever comes.

Still, the questions remain in my mind. Leadership is personal – and nowhere is this more true than in ministry.

January 15, 2009 - Retirement Planning

Yesterday, Claire and I returned from Princeton Theological Seminary, where we attended a two-and-a-half-day Pre-Retirement Seminar sponsored by the Presbyterian Church’s Board of Pensions. Not that we have plans to retire anytime soon. That, God-willing-and-the-cancer-don’t-flare-up, is 15 years off at least. We went because the Board of Pensions encourages ministers over 50 to attend one of these conferences, and to bring their spouses with them. The idea is to get a head start on long-term financial planning.

The Presbyterian Church has a mighty good pension plan. It’s fully funded, and conservatively run – something we plan members surely appreciate in uncertain times like these. The sticky wicket, for those of us pastors who live in manses, is where we’ll live in retirement. The Board’s encouraging us to start thinking about the answer to that question now.

Claire and I found it a positive experience. The leadership – especially the financial-planning speaker – was excellent. Just what we budget-challenged liberal-arts graduates needed, even if it did feel odd to be thinking about retirement in our prime working years.

There were 20 or so participants, all told. Ages ranged from people in their early 50s, like us, to one man who’s just a few months from the proverbial gold watch.

My active cancer diagnosis sets me apart from my fellow participants. Will I make it to age 66 and 4 months – the threshold when Americans in my birth year can collect full Social Security benefits? Or, will disability be staring me down sometime before then, as a stem-cell transplant or some other treatment looms? If disability is in my future, will I recover fully after treatment and return to full-time ministry? So many unanswerable questions...

The more time I put between myself and the aggressive large B-cell lymphoma I once had, the more retirement planning makes sense. Indolent NHL is kinder, that way. When Dr. Lerner assures me I could still be doing the watch-and-wait thing years from now, I take him at his word - which is why I can even go to a conference like this in the first place.

Questions like these are, of course, imponderable. The only thing to do is to plan for the best-case scenario, and hope I’m prepared for anything worse that may come my way.

The conference program also included a presentation on maintaining personal health. I’ll be the first to admit I’ve got a long way to go in that area. I’m vigilant about anything cancer-related, of course, but anyone who knows me knows the diet-and-exercise thing is a tough sell. The spirit is willing on that one, but the flesh is weak.

So, Claire and I left Princeton with a lot to think about. One of the benefits of this particular meeting was that it encouraged us in ministry – that most other-directed of occupations – to try thinking about ourselves, and taking care of ourselves, for a change.

Point well taken, Board of Pensions. I’ll try to do better.

WINDY IN LAMBAK EARLY 2009....

January 10, 2009 - Walking the Beam

This past Wednesday, I had a routine appointment with Dr. Lerner. It went as so many appointments have gone before: a port flush and blood draw, then a consultation in one of the examining rooms. The good doctor looked through my chart, listened to my heartbeat and breathing and felt for enlarged lymph nodes in the usual places: on my neck, under my arms and in my groin.

There was nothing to write home about, as they say. No change. More watch and wait.

Dr. Lerner ordered another PET/CT Scan (my last one was in September). I’ll see him again in three months. Should the scan turn up anything unusual, he’ll call and ask me to come in sooner.

“How soon do you think it will be before the cancer’s big enough to treat?” I ask him, as he’s getting ready to leave.

“Impossible to say,” he replies. “This next scan could reveal something. Or, it could be years.” He gives me a little smile, before moving on to the next patient.

I’ve been looking through another of Dr. Wendy Harpham’s books, After Cancer: A Guide To Your New Life (Norton, 1994). I’m not sure if the “after cancer” label applies to me, but I’m surely “after treatment,” so I figure I may find something useful in those pages.

As it happens, I do. Wendy uses the metaphor of a gymnast walking the balance beam:

“Consider an analogy: Most of you could walk the length of a six-inch-wide beam placed on the floor. With the ground just inches away, you would focus on the beam and maintain your balance easily. If this same beam were raised five feet above the ground, most of you would weave and waver, flapping your arms as you tried to maintain your balance before falling off to the side. The beam would be exactly the same, yet the distraction of the ground five feet below would cause you to lose touch with the beam and lose your balance. Gymnasts learn to focus on the beam, not the ground. With practice, they rarely fall. When they do fall, they get right back on the beam. You, as a cancer survivor, must learn to focus on your present life, not on the uncertainties and unknowns of your future. It is a skill that can be learned and must be practiced.” (p. 214)

So, that’s what I’m doing, with all these doctor’s visits that reveal nothing worthy of note. I’m learning a skill.

Is my balance beam close to the ground, or high in the air? Impossible to say. Keep your eye on the beam, Carl. Keep your eye on the beam.

January 4, 2009 - The Last Chapter

The other day I was catching up on my reading, scrolling through the entries on some cancer blogs. On the blog of Mike Dellosso, a published novelist, I came across a short story he wrote, called “The Last Chapter.” (After clicking on the above link, scroll down to the very bottom of Mike's page for the link to his story.) He wrote it, he says, right after his own cancer diagnosis, as a sort of coping exercise.

I find it interesting to read, from the perspective of a cancer survivor. The story’s about a newly-diagnosed man, a construction worker, who learns from his doctor that his cancer is advanced and untreatable. He resolves to end his own life, then some experiences he has lead him to question that decision.

Here’s something Mike writes in another blog entry, dated December 30:

“I learned this: God is good all the time. ‘But how is getting cancer good?’ I have no idea. But I know this. God’s standard of goodness is not the same as ours. His understanding of goodness is on a different plane than ours. He sees things our eyes could never see. Knows things our minds could never even dream of fathoming. His idea of suffering is not the same as ours. He is God and I am not. And in that I have to place my trust.

I also learned this: God will never . . . ever . . . abandon me.”

Like the protagonist in Mike’s story, the news of a cancer diagnosis can shake our lives to their foundations. Most of us – like Mike, and like the man in his story – enter into this crisis and come out the other side, eventually, feeling stronger for the experience.

It’s one of the wonders of this experience called cancer.

“We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.” – Romans 8:28

(01.02.09) Recommends:

New Year's Resolutions (Written on, and From the Prosepective of, My Blackberry Curve).

1. Lose the smudges. I want to come standard with a protective cover that prevents unsightly smudges and tiny micro-fractures in the screen. I'm becoming the Tammy Faye Baker of mobile devices. Ugh.

2. Flash people more often. I want to come with a web-browser that supports mutliple tabs and Flash (and a media player that can be easily minimized).

3. Become a sharp shooter. In a world under the reign of Web 2.0, convenience is increasingly valued over quality. But If I marginally increase the quality of my camera, I'll be Panglossian.

4. Learn to speak in tongues. When users are riding on the metro and publish blog posts to, e.g., Mobile Blogger, html tags should be recognized. (In reality, this is probably more of a Gmail issue. But, alas, the unexamined life is not worth living.)

5. Get fatter. My keys should be a little bigger, so even novices can confidently type with the meaty part of their thumbs rather than tentatively peck with the nail portion of their thumbs. (The BB Bold -- that tramp -- has the perfect sized keys, but I have the perfect amount of "clickiness")

6. Get braces. The F and J key -- or some appropriate combination -- should come with little notches, like on a standard keyboard, so even novices will be able to type while looking at the screen rather than looking at the keyboard.

7. Get timed. Changes in time zones and day light saving should occur automatically. Does this really not already happen?? Don't think it does. There's both a BB and "network" source for time and date, but nobody wants to take they time to figure out the difference.

8. Be nicer to friends. Texting a number not already in the address book takes too long. You have to scroll all the way up to the Use One Time (or whatever) option. As a result people never use me to text and everybody thinks I hate them. Sad face. (Of course, if my friends were really friends, they'd have BBM and this resolution would be mooted. Hint, hint ppl. Srsly.)

9. Get Logged. My call log feature is laughable. I know I'm a mobile computing device first and a phone second, but really, c'mon.

That's my 949 suckas!

Haziyah's & Waie's Birthday

January 2, 2009 - Hope Begins in the Dark

It’s a new year. Most of us are very glad to leave 2008 behind, with all the economic turmoil of recent months. May we have much better news in 2009!

There’s some encouraging news already on the cancer research front. A researcher at Cornell University named Michael King has developed something he calls a “lint brush” for the blood – “a tiny, implantable device that captures and kills cancer cells in the bloodstream before they spread through the body.”

This tiny, tubelike device contains a special protein called “selectin” on its inside surface. As blood cells flow through the tube, free-floating cancer cells bond to the selectin and are held there, so they can do no harm. Early test results indicate that about 30% of cancer molecules stick to the selectin on each pass. Since our blood circulates through the body constantly, this means that just one of these devices can eventually filter the body’s entire blood supply. Each repeated pass results in more cancer cells being corralled on the surface of the tube. Then, a second protein is released, causing the cancer cells to die.

I wonder if this device could work in the vessels of the lymphatic system, just as they do in the bloodstream?

Another article tells how scientists are scanning the ocean floor to discover new compounds that can be developed into anti-cancer drugs. The University of California at Santa Cruz has a set-up whereby sea-floor sediment is piped into special, chemical-scanning robots, that analyze them for compounds that could be useful to the pharmaceutical industry.

From the article:

“In its first year of operation, the lab has already had two interesting hits. One, the as-yet-unnamed product of a rod-shaped marine bacterium, is 98 percent efficient at killing the parasite that causes African sleeping sickness, a fatal disease common in sub-Saharan Africa. The other, dubbed ‘tamoxilog,’ is biologically similar to tamoxifen, a drug commonly used to treat breast cancer, though preliminary tests suggest tamoxilog is twice as powerful.”



Maybe the next big lymphoma drug is at the bottom of the sea, waiting to be discovered. Stranger things have happened.

Christian essayist Anne Lamott has written: “Hope begins in the dark, the stubborn hope that if you just show up and try to do the right thing, the dawn will come. You wait and watch and work: you don’t give up.”

I doubt if Anne was thinking about the inky darkness of the ocean floor when she wrote that. Her words are oddly appropriate, though: for this is surely a story of hope that begins in the dark.