Happy Anniversary: Sixty-two years is a long time to live and a very long time to have the privilege of being married to the same person. Last Sunday, July 28, 2024, Jeny and I celebrated our 62nd wedding anniversary. Many of you remembered us with Best Wishes and Happy Anniversaries. Thank you. We were touched by the many, many responses. We had a happy anniversary.
On that day I was more reflective than usual about the extensive privileges. We have had great children, successful grandchildren, wonderful family, extended family and friends in many states and foreign countries, traveling together to 49 states, over 20 foreign countries, nice homes and transportation, vacation homes in the mountains and at the beach. Our needs met on a daily basis, our wants fulfilled beyond what we deserve and more.
Through all of those blessings, Jeny put up with me, was an excellent mother and grandmother, a friend to many, an excellent hostess in our home and her cottage in Gulf Shores and much more. She is special.
Later in my day of reflection, I was amazed at the coincidence when Jeny showed me a Facebook post that she reposted:
“If you see a married couple still in love through the years, you may think how lucky they are. But in marital relations, there is no such thing as luck.
They made many compromises; they overlooked each other’s faults. They forgave many mistakes and endured many problems. They spent years learning to understand one another.
Love has never been a matter of luck. It’s mutual giving, compromise, shared dreams, care, respect, mercy and patience.”
Excellent and true. I would add — our faith was and still is the cornerstone for the hard work needed for our 62 years.
(My editor said to be sure and tell you she likes me too. We have been blessed in our partnership.)
Immigration: This week I was struck by the complexities of two major issues. Both issues tend to be approached by knee-jerk opposing positions. Some on both sides offer simple solutions, while we need leaders to consider the subtleties and complexities of the issues.
The first is immigration. I was at a luncheon where the issue was raised. Most people offered their views for turning everyone away and closing the border. No one proposed alligators or shooting people. The proposals were reasonable. Everything seemed straight forward.
Then on Sunday our preacher went to meddling. Our church had had a very successful yard sale and raised thousands of dollars for the local homeless shelter for women. We were celebrating that success.
The text for the sermon was Mathew 25 verses 31 to 46. It is the parable of the sheep and the goats.
The words that struck me were the words to the goats:
41 “… Depart from me… 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.”
When I heard that I was deeply moved. My struggle with immigration got much more complex. I recognize we have serious border issues, but as a person of faith I must look at the issues though Mathew 25 and that is a real challenge for me.
Some of the complexities of immigration are covered in an interesting analysis of the Texas busing program: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/20/us/abbott-texas-migrant-buses.html?campaign_id=190&emc=edit_ufn_20240729&instance_id=130069&nl=from-the-times®i_id=76273435&segment_id=173475&te=1&user_id=e1c5c1a294c01d2e4b864d5b54593dad
DEI: With the cry that Kamala Harris is a DEI choice by Biden, the second situation arose. As usual the loudest voices on both sides were the ones with simple, extreme conclusions that pointed fingers at the other side: If you are against DEI, you are a racist. If you are for it, you are putting incompetent people in jobs simply to meet a quota, no subtleties, no advantages and disadvantages, no complexities.
I have talked with several people who have had DEI experiences. Some were negative attempts to have white people feel guilty about the past. I strongly object to that treatment. Others were positive experiences. The most interesting positive experience I encountered was a DEI effort to support veterans. The company arranged support activities where soldiers met without ranks and gave support to each other.
My plea is to be careful discussing DEI. If you had a bad experience or know someone who did, it was a bad interpretation of the effort and was wrong. However not all aspects of diversity, equity and inclusion are bad.
I do not throw out all of the right-wing concerns about diversity, just because some far right-wing people are white supremacists who do not want diversity. I try to recognize the concerns. Simlarly, I do not think the entire DEI approach should simply be discarded because of some extreme interpretations.
When I consider the three segments, I certainly support diversity. I do not think a quota should be enforced with incompetent people, but I strongly believe other competent voices and experiences should always be welcome at the table. To only have one face represented is not healthy. It does not matter if that face is only white or Black or Hispanic or Asian or Native American, or male or female.
Any organization with good leadership should welcome other voices and other experiences. I have repeatedly warned young coaches not to surround themselves with assistants who know less than they do. They need the best infomation possible to make the best decisions.
The concepts of inclusion and equity are not as straightforward to me, particularly equity. Equal opportunity is important to me but equity has a different tone. Most interpret it as needing to take previous experience of injustice into account in a decision. That is probably a good idea, but enacting it is not easy.
I found a “reasonable” analysis of the good, the bad, and the ugly, (believe it or not) in Wikipedia
Diversity, equity, and inclusion – Wikipedia
This and That
Tongue in cheek but interesting question. I have presented the usefulness of the use of symbols in our thinking. If X is a book that contains sexually implicit material, some people think it should be banned from libraries. In Sunday school I happened across The Song of Solomon. The Old Testament Book is explicit sexually. Should we ban the Bible?
Climate conditions. Last year was the hottest year on record.
Peaceful transition of power? He apologized for making this statement in public but as a psychologist I am concerned he was even thinking this–
Speaker At A Trump-Vance Rally Calls For ‘Civil War’ If Trump Does Not Win In November (msn.com)
Good News
First Responders
Helicopter Hero: Rescuer Flies Into Wildfire To Save A Family Of Dogs Left Behind (sunnyskyz.com)
Peace
Jerry
0 Comments