WITH APOLOGIES TO BEN HOGAN

Posted on by

Joe Wilkins, Copyright (c) 2014

When I dropped baseball and took up golf at the age of sixteen, it was with mixed feelings. I was a very good baseball player, and I really wanted to play both sports in high school, but that was not possible because high school participation in both these sports was in the springtime. As I plunged into golf with my high school buddy, it was not long before I was hooked–and golf was the winner! Also, at this time I had to change high schools due to unfortunate family circumstances, and the new high school’s baseball team was set, while the golf team was begging for players. It was an easy choice. The year was 1953.

Having an analytical type mind, I proceeded to learn as much about the game as possible. So I purchased Ben Hogan’s instruction book, Power Golf. Having been told by other golfers that I had a very good natural swing–getting into the 80’s within a few months–I became determined to improve and shoot in the 70’s. Hogan’s book promised that was possible if I would just follow his techniques. Well, it didn’t happen–in high school, at least.

After high school I joined the US Air Force for four years, playing no golf whatsoever from the age of eighteen until age twenty-six. By then my interest was rekindled and I took up the game with renewed vigor. I was quickly shooting in the eighties again, with an occasional foray into the high seventies, but consistently good scores were elusive. Sadly, I soon realized that absence had not made my golf swing better. In high school I had a long, flexible swing that produced considerable distance, with balls that started straight, but faded or sliced to the right. Draw shots were non-existent. This pattern of golf shots remained the same.

So I re-studied Hogan’s Power Golf  book, as well as his more recent Five Lessons, The Modern Fundamentals of Golf. However, despite extensive study, lessons, and practice, my game remained much the same. I did get my handicap down to four at one time, but becoming a par golfer eluded me, primarily because of those left-to-right ball flights, often into adjoining fairways. And this problem persists in my game today.

Even though advancing age is now limiting my game even further, I still desire to get better. This has recently prompted me to rethink my relationship with the golf swing as advocated by Hogan, and I think this will be of interest to those golfers who are analysts of the game.

My recent thoughts focus on the left wrist during the swing. Hogan, Bobby Jones, and countless others have advocated a “cupped” left wrist when the club is held in the address position, with the clubhead being square to the target line. This is almost universal positioning when viewing photos, TV images, and live-action pros at address. However, not much is said about this, so we must presume that it is as standard and correct as standing on two feet while getting ready to hit a ball. Further, they state that to get an idea of what the position of the hands should be at the top of the backswing, simply break the wrists straight up from the address position, then move the hands to the top of the backswing. When this is done the golfer will notice that there will be varying degrees of cup in the left wrist at the top. If the amount of cup at the top is the same as was at address, then the clubface will still be square to the plane of the swing and the direction line. And if the other parts of the swing are correct for the individual golfer, then straight shots should be the result.

But Hogan was plagued with an occasional duck hook that was  “the terror of the field mice,” as he described in an article in Life magazine in June, 1955, as he relented and told his “secret” to the world. This secret entailed taking his normal address position, fanning the club open at the beginning of the backswing, and cupping his left wrist slightly at the top. From this position he could go into his downswing and hit as hard as he wished and he would get a higher flight with a slight fade–with no loss of distance!

When looking at the drawings of Hogan in the address positions in his two books it is clear that he addressed the ball with a cupped left wrist, with the clubhead being square to the line of flight. Now, if he had maintained that degree of cup throughout his swing, the geometry of his efforts should have produced relatively straight shots, with hooks being quite rare. However, in his early days he did not maintain that cup; in fact when one views photos of him at the top, we see that his left wrist is flat, meaning that the clubface is now closed relative to its position at address. Not wonder he was always fighting a hook. Even after he made his “secret” changes we will note that his backswing plane was flat, with a relatively flat left wrist at the top. It is my belief that it was the rolling or pronating of the hands at takeaway, considerably opening the clubface, being the primary reason he was able to eliminate the hook.

Now what does all this mean to you and me? I contend that the cupped wrist at address is natural and more free from tension than other positions, and would benefit most golfers. Since most golfers are always fighting a slice, maintaining the cupped wrist throughout the swing and letting centrifugal force release the clubhead at impact, maintaining its relative squareness to the line of flight, will serve most golfers the best. I have tried removing the cup during my backswing by flattening my left wrist at the top, but this produces increased tension in my hands and arms, resulting in Army golf shots that go left-right, left-right! I am now trying to go back to my natural cupping, with increased relaxation in my entire upper body, with “spaghetti” arms and hands. I will try to incorporate this increased relaxation into a longer, looser swing, which will allow centrifugal force to exert its natural action. In effect, I am going back to the natural swing of my youth, correcting the major deficiency of that swing by staying as relaxed as possible in my hands and arms as the clubhead goes through impact.

In closing, all dedicated golfers know how difficult and mysterious this game can be. The combinations of things we can try to get better approaches infinity, so we will not live long enough to try them all. It took Ben Hogan almost twenty years to figure out what was best for his game, so I doubt if many of us will do any better.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend at Mystery Valley Golf Club in Georgia. His name was Red Dobbins, one of the best amateur golfers anywhere. During a period when I was going through all sorts of swing experiments and changes, and being very frustrated because they were not helping me, I asked Red if he ever experimented with his swing. He said, “Joe, if I couldn’t experiment and try things to get better, I’d give up the game!” I said to myself if it was good enough for Red it was good enough for me. I’ll keep on trying. Don’t you quit either!  Fore!

 

 

 

 

 

THE ‘I’ FACTOR

Posted on by

By

Joe Wilkins

Copyright  © 2014

There’s a basic truth about us human beings that, when understood, eases our ability to make sense of all the turmoil that’s occurring in politics and social discord in America today. I call it the “I” factor, which asserts that all human beings think about themselves first and others second. Religious people might call it original sin. The ancient Greeks called it hubris. We counselors and psychologists call it narcissism. The guy in the street might call it self-centeredness.

Political progressives might state that, “No, I do not think of myself first. I think of the common good first! I want there to be peace and harmony in the world so we can all live together without strife and turmoil.” A noble goal, but I offer the proposition that while kumbahyah-togetherness is important to them, it is secondary to the more primary need to serve themselves first! With their efforts to ignore or oppose opposite views—despite possible facts to the contrary–they are demonstrating that these strongly held attitudes about serving their fellow man are actually supported by a more fundamental need, which is to feel good about themselves by supporting such causes—ideals which may or may not be supported by objective reality. Some progressives’ lifestyles, careers, and self images may become based on their positions on such matters, making these issues of primary importance to them. This whole process reflects their primary state of mind, and demonstrates that they are defending themselves first and their actual causes secondly.

This pervasive process affects all humankind in varying degrees. For illustration, people who hold certain polarizing positions—such as global warming, political ideologies, religious orientations, and other views—often structure their entire lives in support of these positions. Over time, this support can evolve to mental, emotional, and behavioral changes, strong enough to incline them to alter everything about their lives to support their views even more intensely—often when the facts suggest they should moderate or change their behavior. The social psychologists have termed this process the “effort justification hypothesis,” which states that people who hold strong attitudes about certain beliefs and opinions, will do almost anything to defend these attitudes—even when reality proves them wrong. And, paradoxically, they will engage in continuous behavior to prove themselves “right,” even going to the extent of “recruiting” more converts to their views, supposedly supporting the notion that if everyone thinks like them then they must be right!

All this illustrates that there is something inclining all of us to serve ourselves first, nurturing that state of mind around which we orient our entire lives, followed by structuring our lives to conform to these attitudes. Moreover, other people come in second to this process. We might say that we all have a bit of narcissism in our souls.

This is much like two-year old children who “want what they want when they want it,” and go into tantrums when their parents do not comply with their wishes. In young children, this I-Factor often prompts self-centered outbursts of anger, because they have not yet learned to consider other people’s feelings and needs. Unfortunately, some children pass into adulthood never learning the need to consider others also.

Of course, most people, if properly parented, modify this I-Factor sufficiently to consider others’ positions— but they still value themselves first. If a tiger charges into a primitive village, threatening to kill and eat someone, the first instinct will be for everyone to react to save themselves. Closely following this will be for them to save their loved ones.

Soldiers in combat sometimes sacrifice themselves for their comrades or their country—but this is in service to some “code” they have been taught and believe in. If they did not follow the code, they would have to live with guilt and shame, which is something they are unwilling to endure. Paradoxically, they are still serving themselves first by avoiding shame, even though it could cost them their lives.

I have known people to commit suicide so others will not have to take care of them in their old age. A first impression might be that they do not want to inconvenience others by becoming dependent on them for care, but what they are usually doing is taking care of their need to be independent, and not rely on others. Thus, they are serving themselves first, and others second. I once had an elderly client who said if he got ill to the point he was dependent on others, he’d put a gun to his head. It was more important for him to maintain his “I-Factor” of being independent than to worry about how his suicide would affect his family and friends. Fortunately, he died of natural causes—with no one else having to care for him.

In this regard, conservative people have the same orientation as progressives. They have political and social positions they want to promote, and they too are serving their ideologies first and others second. Some religious leaders are in the same position when they promote their religious beliefs to their followers, suggesting they are taking care of themselves first, and others second.

Even in the animal world, we see this scenario playing out. A mother bear has to feed herself before nursing her cubs. If she does not they all die. This is pretty much true of all animals. The mother bear is like the dedicated soldier in combat: she instinctively preserves herself first against all threats, but will fight to the death to protect those cubs.

Ancient humankind had a similar orientation: survival meant serving the tribe, in hunting, gathering food, building shelter, etc, but all had to serve themselves first, to do what they had to do to stay alive, so they could serve the tribe.

Psychologists have explained this conflict between the “I-Factor” versus serving the rest of humankind, with the concept of independence vs. mutual inter–dependence: We have to maintain our own independence first, thus freeing us to then serve others. But we cannot serve others very well if we neglect our own needs. Since few can survive solely on their own, we are forced to think of ourselves first, keeping ourselves fit and healthy, so  we can then serve others to get certain mutual needs met, promoting the survival of us all.

However, many well-intentioned persons get confused when going about this process. Our recent Congressional leaders are prime examples. For instance our Congress-persons, in the recent health care fiasco, have evolved into two opposing factions, whereby the Democrats got what they wanted by out-maneuvering the Republicans. In essence, they went to “war” and defeated the Republican opposition. The Harry Reids and the Nancy Pelosis got what they wanted by using superior Congressional   force. In addition, they were serving themselves first by passing legislation that completed their fundamental psychological need to give the American people what they believed was needed, completing a deep-seated need- fulfillment within themselves. The little voice inside them was probably saying something like, “We have given the American people a great healthcare system, so what  wonderful  people we are!” This helps them complete benevolent self-images of themselves, which is necessary to maintain their basic egos, and the ego always demands to be served first.

Thus, we have the great conflict within ourselves to reconcile this primal need to serve ourselves first and others second. The narcissistic and pathological people never consider others first, but we will dismiss them for obvious reasons and look at the average citizen who faces this dilemma. What does one do?

One technique is to “surrender” our egos to a higher power. This is a process whereby we look for something outside ourselves to reconcile life’s problems. Some people surrender to God, Allah, the Happy Hunting Ground, Buddha, etc. This helps them  struggle with their own egos, and they can assign a portion of the responsibility to their God of choice:  “It’s what God wants me to do!” Others typically assign a portion of their egos to their ideal view of government, believing it can create a better world.

Some alcoholics and drug addicts, when they have demonstrated they cannot stay sober using their own willpower, are asked to surrender their egos to the God of their understanding. This suggests that only when they do this can they get sober—and most who choose this path, do get better. Like the child who has accepted that others are important also, they are then free to relate properly to the rest of the world. There is no greater I-Factor than that state of mind in an alcoholic or drug addict, whereby the primary motivation in their lives is to get that next drink or drug fix. But if they have truly gotten clean and sober, they will have rid themselves of their self-serving way of thinking, by surrendering it to a higher power, thus freeing themselves to devote their actions to others in the ways they are supposed to.

Summing up, we all have a primal need to take care of ourselves first and foremost. Without proper socialization at an early age, many are prone to neglect their relations with others. Clever I-Factor people will construct elaborate rationales and belief systems to cover up their narcissism and will convince themselves that they are truly in service of others, when deep down in their egos they are really doing these outward acts of benevolence to maintain their incomplete ego identities. Sometimes this works out to the good—sometimes not!

 

AMERICA BASHING

Posted on by

By

Joe Wilkins

Copyright © 2014

Recently, on the Fox network’s program “The Five,” one panelist started condemning America for conquering and subduing the Indians, continuing the mistreatment over the years. His response was in concert with the tendency of many people to take the position that America is an arrogant power—and always has been—trying to impose its will upon the rest of the world.

Trying to connect America’s recent military actions with past mistreatment of America’s Indians is a stretch, in my opinion. In his view, we are a cause for most of the problems in the world today, citing our belligerence for starting the wars in Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.  Though many may argue the appropriateness of our engaging in certain military actions, he neglected the fact that America rescued the world during World Wars I & II, without our help we would probably be speaking German and Japanese today. He seemed to be using our treatment of the Indians to justify his attitude that America needs to be “perfect” when engaging in foreign affairs and wars—actions which are impossible.

If all groups of people followed the Golden Rule, then his view of how nations should behave would be possible. Unfortunately, throughout history, almost all groups, tribes, and nations have conquered and subdued others for their own benefit. It appears to be the basic human way of behavior. A review of the history of slavery, for instance, shows that almost all nations have engaged in slavery in one form or another. Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Greece, Persia, China, European countries, Rome—the list goes on and on.

And some of the American Indians are not innocent either; they too, like all of humankind, suffer from this condition, whereby conditions in the collective human psyche, and numerous external conditions, impel one group to control and subdue others—usually for economic or survival reasons.

About the American Indian situation, the first American settlers—our ancestors—came from Europe seeking religious freedom, economic opportunity, and escape from various forms of oppression. They did not come with the idea of suppressing the Indians, being rather unaware of the New World in many respects, especially the extent of the American Indian population. Most of the original colonists tried to cooperate with the Indians simply to survive the harsh conditions, but were often treated in a hostile manner, causing them to reciprocate in a like manner.

The point of this column is to show that it is often inappropriate to connect or blame present day groups for the sins of their ancestors. It is doubtful if any reader of this column has ever thought ill of, or mistreated, an American Indian. Perhaps Hollywood’s western movies are guilty of misrepresenting Native Americans, but there have recently been many movies representing them in a more accurate light.

Even so, the Indians seem to suffer from the same human frailties as the rest of us. It seems to be a major human flaw to portray today’s misbehavior as being caused by events in the past. While the past does have its role, it is not the cause of today’s misbehavior, because we still possess free will, and we need to choose to exercise it more often.

Thus, I am advocating the use of past human misdeeds, not for blame, but as learning experiences to correct our behavior today.

LEARNING NEW GOLFING TECHNIQUES

Posted on by

 

Joe Wilkins

Copyright © 2014

When people want to change their golf swing, they typically rehearse it a few times in their minds, take a few “new” practice swings, and then try to swat the ball with their new techniques. After completion of the new swing they will perceive that they have done what they intended. However, video analysis of such motions usually shows they have just repeated the old, dysfunctional swing. Apparently, the subconscious mind stays rigidly attached to the old swing—as opposed to what the new thought patterns are trying to achieve.

It is as if there are two parts to golf movements: 1) the original, much practiced, repetitious, enduring old swing, which has become a part of one’s current physical capabilities and comfort, as opposed to 2) the new swing that the mind is trying to get the muscles to perform. In addition, this new swing “thinking” seems to have power to deceive the participants, in that they will believe they have performed the new swing when careful observation shows they are still repeating the old one.

So, what is going on here?

It is apparent if a golfer wants to change a swing to one that is more proficient, one has to do more than just think about it, followed by just a few practice swings

The research on this—and observations of musicians, typists, trapeze artists, and golfers—among others–who have made constructive changes, shows that ten to twenty thousand correct repetitions are necessary to implement a new swing change, to the point that it becomes automatic, letting the natural flow of things happen. These many repetitions are essential before the new swing becomes imbedded in the subconscious, and no longer has to be thought about, with the actual number of  repetitions needed depending on the talent of the individual.  The goal is to free the conscious mind away from  swing mechanics while playing, allowing the golfers to focus on tempo, target, etc.

It is apparent that focusing on new swing changes while playing is distracting, and usually presents conflict between the old and the new, usually resulting in bad shots. New swing techniques have to be repeated until they are “grooved” so they can be performed during a round without thinking about them.

This author has been a victim of this “improvement ideology” for over 50 years. I always believed—and would actually feel– that I had performed a new swing when I thought about it, but objective analysis usually showed that I had repeated my old swing—but I was fooled into thinking I had performed the new one. During practice sessions, I could usually perform the new swing when it was possible to hit ball after ball in rapid succession, but the old swing was always trying to take its primary place. As I write this I am trying to use the touch system on my computer keyboard, where I don’t look at the keyboard, like all good typists are trained to do. But it is so slow, awkward, and mistake prone that I soon revert back to the typing system that I taught myself as a teenager—the two finger method, while looking at the keyboard. For me to learn the touch system would require me to engage in a formal course, with very rigid structure and many repetitions of correct practice; even then, I would not be as good as some high school typing student who had learned the proper way. Golf is like that too.

There are many learning, psychological principles that apply to this dilemma, but the two most important are proactive inhibition and retroactive inhibition. They demonstrate the difficulty of learning new golfing procedures.

Proactive inhibition shows that an old golf swing, with which we have played for years, gets in the way of learning a new swing. The original swing has established its place in our brain and muscles through years of use, and it very strongly resists allowing the new swing to establish itself without extensive constructive work and repetition. Consider the act of your individual walking style, which began its development when you were about one year old. How much work do you imagine it would take to develop a new manner of walking? Similarly, if a golfer is having difficulty in learning a new swing technique, it is because of the different habits that were learned it the past. However, if the new techniques to be learned are similar to the old ones, then the task of learning will be somewhat easier than if they were grossly different; the more different they are, the harder the task of learning the new ways.

Next, retroactive inhibition occurs when a golfer has taken a golf lesson to learn something new, but does not practice and rehearse the new technique soon thereafter, allowing too many other things to occur between the lesson and the following practice session, causing the new learning to fade away or be forgotten. Restated, the more competing events that occur between the lesson and the following practice, increases failure in ability to perform the new methods.

Now, this applies to all golfers in varying degrees. The more experienced the golfer is with various swing techniques, he will more easily implement the new swing changes. However, the task will still be difficult. For example, Lee Trevino originally had a hooking swing in his early years, which occasionally got him into trouble. Then, one day he was at Shady Oaks, watching Ben Hogan hitting those lovely fades,so he decided if it was good enough for Hogan he should develop a fade also. So Trevino spent the next year, hustling other golfers and working at his driving range, experimenting and developing that fading shot for which he became famous and successful. Trevino estimated that he had a golf club in his hands about 15 hours per day during this time of change, but at the end of the year, the change was fully implemented. The time of investment in these changes was over 5000 hours, and who knows how many repetitions.

 

So what does all this mean to you? It would seem that any golfer desiring to change should follow these procedures:

1) Team up with a professional golf teacher that you are comfortable with, and have him evaluate your swing and what needs to be done to accomplish your goals.

2) Take lessons on a regular basis and make any changes one at a time, followed by as much corrective practice as you can manage after each lesson. Do not introduce any other complicating items into your swing at this time.

3) If you play between lessons, keep any swing thoughts to your one new swing change. Continue this process of play and practice until your pro thinks you are ready to progress to the next needed change.

4) Though it will be difficult to do, and your handicap is likely to rise for a while, try to ignore your scores and your past golfing habits, focusing on your new goals and efforts.

5) If going to the driving range frequently is not practical, put up a hitting net in your back yard. Repeat your latest swing change several times without hitting a ball, then, before the feel goes away (usually within 7 to 10 seconds) go ahead and hit a ball using the swing change. Repeat until you begin to tire or lose concentration.

6) Repeat all of the above until the swing change is automatic, and then progress to the next change. The goal for each change is to make it automatic, whereby you no longer have to think about it.

7) Avoid other golfing instruction, such as Golf Channel tips, golfing magazines, golf videos, tips from friends, etc., that might prompt you to try other things. Any new material will conflict with your efforts and cause you to revert to the old dysfunctional ways. All instruction and evaluation should come from your pro and your own thinking processes. Discuss all factors with your pro as necessary.

8) As an added bonus, recent research has demonstrated that relaxing and imagining your new swing change during “quiet times” will help speed up the learning process. I have found that rehearsing the changes in my mind in bed before going to sleep (instead of counting sheep) is of great help.

Try all this. Good luck!

SEARCHING FOR GOD

Link

 

By

Joe Wilkins

Copyright © 2014

The concept of God is no longer entrenched as firmly in the minds of people as was in the past. Ancient people always had a god or gods they worshiped, were fearful of, looked to for answers on the human condition, and other aspects of their world that were a mystery to them. They looked to these spiritual guides to tell them why good people suffer, how humankind came into being, what lay in the future, what happens when they die, what was the purpose of their existence, etc.

To answer these questions certain people, such as priests, medicine men, shamans, preachers, prophets and others, developed “callings” to help get the answers. These were usually men, who were anointed or called into these professions, and were given high status by their peers and community for their unique abilities. In some cases they were elevated to be the objects of worship themselves. The qualities they all had in common was the belief that they possessed personal deity or had communication with higher powers, who would communicate with them about the realities of the spiritual world.

This essay will deal mainly with the Christian religion, since the author is a Christian and is not well versed in other religious belief systems. However, they all have some common ground, so the reasoning in this essay will apply to all in varying degrees. It should be noted, however, that this essay falls into the category of informed personal opinion, and is not intended to devalue any religious belief system. The possibilities inherent in this treatise are that it is completely or partially off base, or at least has some connection to reality. The subject matter is difficult, and may be difficult for some people to accept. The author apologizes to anyone who may be offended. Your opinion and reasoned critique of this writing is valued.

One of the problems that religions struggle with today—and have since the advent of Renaissance scholars such as Galileo, Copernicus, and others—is that some of the findings of science call into question some of the specifics of the various religions. If a person is well trained in the scientific method, and accepts it as a valid means of exploring and seeking the truth of this world and the afterlife, often there have occurred inevitable conflicts between scientific discoveries and certain aspects of religious belief systems. The paradox, of course, is that the scientific method was created to study the nature of our world and the universe, but it is grossly deficient at discovering the realities of the spiritual world.

Assuming there is a spiritual world, the scientific method has failed to verify it. There have been anecdotal experiences of individuals who claimed to have had experiences and knowledge of the afterlife, but none has held up to rigorous scientific scrutiny. From a scientific perspective, religious beliefs may seem to be much like believing in flying saucers or visitors from alien worlds, and we just have not been able come up with evidence that withstands rigorous investigation. The transition from our real world to the spiritual one seems to have an impenetrable wall, through which science is woefully deficient at penetrating.

One explanation for this deficiency is that the scientific method was developed by the finite minds of men, which, while brilliant and with vast potential, finite minds cannot comprehend an infinite universe. Our minds can only understand those parts of infinity that are “visible.” For example, suppose the universe is infinite, with no end, and goes on forever and ever. Can we really understand that? I contend that we cannot, because we are limited by the cause-and-effect phenomenon, a limitation imposed on our limited minds, dictating that when viewing the Milky Way and the rest of the Universe on a clear night, we cannot really understand the immensity,  how it all began, and perhaps someday will end.

One current scientific theory as to our beginning is the “Big Bang” theory, which hypothesizes that several billion years ago all matter or energy in the Universe was confined in one small spot, which “exploded” and evolved into what we know today. This stretches our common sense brains—but we are finite–so there is obviously more here than we can understand. Even acceptance of the Big Bang leaves us with the question of what went on before that event. Some cosmologists have used higher mathematics to devise theories or explanations about all this, and have come up with the ideas that there may even be eleven universes—or perhaps an infinite number of them! How can our finite minds even begin to comprehend such matters, always remembering that any system devised by our finite minds– in this case higher mathematics–will have its finite limitations, incapable of understanding an infinite universe—if indeed it is infinite.  Finiteness can never understand infinity; it can only present the concept, but is doomed to never “get inside” and fully understand it.

If we consider the possibility that the universe is not infinite, but does have limits, then our endeavor is simpler, and we may possibly come to an understanding of it someday. For then our finite minds will be able to use the scientific method—or any other method we devise—to come closer to the reality in which we find ourselves in the cosmos. Even with this scenario, however, we still face a monumental problem: finiteness itself can be complicated beyond comprehension, as evidenced by the complexity of our DNA structure or the neural pathways of the human brain. It has been estimated that our brains have about one hundred billion neurons, which have a number of interconnections that exceeds the number of atoms in the known Universe! Now, this may be an over-calculation, but all will agree the number is huge. Even so, the brain is still finite and has its limits.

I am a great admirer of science, without which we would all still be living in caves or the savannahs, trying to stay alive by eating whatever wild creatures or plants we could scrounge up. Thus, it is my contention that until future humans develop infinite brains, we are doomed to understand our universe just one small part at a time, but we will never be able to comprehend the entire picture. If one could do that, would not he or she be God?

Nevertheless, the evolving principles of modern cosmology require one to have a very high IQ to understand these theories, which dooms most of us to some vague notion of what is going on, and Heaven help us in explaining them to others. Recently, one very brilliant scientist stated that he had read Stephen Hawkings’ book on the nature of the Universe twice, and he still did not understand it!

Therefore, we are in need of some understanding that will be beneficial to us all. That is the purpose of this essay; but we must remember, it is being written by a person with a finite mind.

Let us examine a few religions that have been unproven scientifically, but are held strongly within our belief-faith systems and see where that takes us.

Christians, first of all, have the belief that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin mother, and after execution was raised from the dead, and ascended into heaven. Now, science says all this is impossible. There has never been a scientifically, verifiable instance where a dead person came back to life, much less ascended into Heaven and reappeared on Earth. And there has never been any proof of a virgin birth. But this does not mean these events could not have happened; it’s just that science cannot confirm or disprove them. Moreover, if there is no omnipotent, universal, infinite God, these events are most likely impossible! However, just because something has never happened before or since does not mean it could not have happened that one time. The Big Bang was supposedly a onetime event, and was much more miraculous than the events recorded in the New Testament. However, if there is an infinite God, then all this is possible, because an infinite creator of either an infinite or finite universe, has infinite power and can use that power to do anything He desires. Put yourself in such a God’s shoes. You have created your Universe, with the planet Earth among others, and you decide to make a virgin pregnant, and she births a son who can relate to the rest of your creation in ways finite humans can understand.  It is easier for the average person to understand Jesus—because he is flesh and blood—than to comprehend an omnipotent Creator. However, people cannot scientifically understand virgin birth and bodily resurrection, so they are forced to accept them on faith, or reject them.

So, Mary has God’s baby, Jesus, and he preaches and spreads his wishes to his finite-thinking followers. Then Jesus angers and confuses many, so they crucify him. Then God brings him back to life, which with His infinite power is possible, because if you can create a Universe from nothing there is no problem in bringing a dead body back to life. Moreover, just because God has never done it again, does not mean it did not happen. Jesus is then witnessed by many people for a short time, according to  historical records—which is not scientific proof, but is eyewitness testimony, and is better than no evidence. All this is the basis of the Christian religion, and if it is true—as many of us believe– then that’s all there is to say about it. But we must remember that there are many thoughtful, intelligent people people who do not believe Jesus was the son of God; they acknowledge that he did exist, but was more or less  like the rest of humankind, and was a great teacher and prophet.

Muslims have their Mohammed, who had a different relationship with God than did Jesus. Moses and Joseph Smith were different also. The record of their relationship and experiences with God are each unique and slightly different, but we cannot scientifically say their experiences did not happen—they just can’t be proven scientifically. There is only faith.

Thus, we find ourselves somewhat at a dead-end scientifically. Faith leaves many people hanging between belief, partially believing, not believing, wondering, hoping, or any other mental state that gives them comfort–or induces anxiety–about this whole business. In short, we are doomed to never know for sure—leaving us only with faith to cling to if we choose to believe in God.

However, there is a part of humankind’s achievement that can comfort us with some assurance when appplied to what science has found about the Universe thus far. And that achievement is mathematics. Strictly speaking, mathematics is not a science, but is a special language we have devised, and it is used to investigate certain aspects of reality in which scientists are seeking knowledge. Specifically, I am talking about the laws of probability. In mathematics, probability is defined as the likelihood of the occurrence of any particular form of an event (the existence of God in this case), estimated as the ratio of the number of ways in which that form might occur, to the number of ways in which the event might occur in any form. Rephrasing, this means that, of the various ways things could have formed in our solar system to give us humankind, compared to the other ways things could have happened, is the probability that we exist as we are. If the probability is very high it suggests that we are not likely the product of chance, but might just be the result of some divine, intervention plan of God—or other First Cause.

Let us look at some of the events that science has determined to have happened and how they add up, demonstrating that we are likely more than the result of chance occurrences.

We will use the simple formula for probability familiar to students of advanced algebra. This formula is expressed as follows: Probability = probability 1, x probability 2, x probability 3, etc. For example, the probability that I can toss a coin and come up with heads 5 times in a row is P=p1xp2xp3xp4xp5 where each toss has one chance in two of being heads. Our formula would then be P=1/2×1/2×1/2×1/2×1/2, with P =1/32, or one chance in thirty-two that I could get five heads in a row. .

Given this understanding, let us look at the probability factors of events that have occurred on earth, which have resulted in life as we know it on our planet. We will then speculate as to whether God caused all this to happen

1) The Earth’s geological composition. Originally, the Earth was a hot ball of rocks and metal, resulting from an amalgamation of cosmic particles that coalesced to form our planet. There was no water originally. Odds of this happening: Let us be conservative, and say 1 chance in 10.

2) The Earth’s size, composition, and gravitational pull is just right to hold on to our atmosphere, something Mars and other moons and planets do not have because they are too small—if they ever had much atmosphere at all. Odds: 1/10

3) Earth’s acquisition of water is the result of icy asteroids, comets, or moons hitting the earth, and at the right time, helping to cool down the crust, providing the planet with a basic necessity for the formation of life. Odds: 1/100

4) The Earth is just the right distance from the Sun to support life as we know it. Mercury and Venus are too close, with Mercury having no atmosphere or rotation, with Venus having an atmosphere, but the surface temperature being about 800 degrees. Mars is too far. Odds: 1/1000

5) The earth has a magnetic field, due to an iron core, which protects us from fatal cosmic radiation from the sun. Odds: 1/5

6) The earth rotating as it does, giving us the seasons. Odds: 1/5

7) There is evidence that the moon was formed after a collision between another astral body and the Earth during the solar system’s formative days. Our moon’s size and distance from Earth is precisely what we require and is critical to our existence. This confluence of events regulates the tides at the optimum rate, prevents wobbling as the Earth spins. If the Earth wobbled there would be radical rising  and falling  of temperatures and tides. Odds: 1/1000

8) The asteroid that hit the earth 65 million years ago at the end of the Cretaceous period and caused the demise of the dinosaurs, allowed life as we now know it to form. A little known fact about this episode was that most of the dominant plants and animals were reduced or wiped out, leaving animals and flowering plants we have today to evolve. Odds: 1/1000

9) For reasons too complicated to illustrate here, the size, structure and position of the planet Jupiter caused our solar system to form in its present manner. Without Jupiter, humankind would not exist. Odds: 1/1000

There are numerous other things that have occurred which have contributed to life as we know it on Earth. But with just the above 9 factors, the estimated odds of all these events occurring is huge, represented by the formula of: P = 1/10 x 1/10 x 1/100 x 1/1000 x 1/5 x 1/5 x 1/1000 x 1/1000 x 1/1000. This gives the probability that the Earth as we know it had only one chance in 250 quadrillion of becoming what it is. And, realistically, the figure has to be much higher than that, if we plug into the equation many of the other events that occurred in Earth’s formation and development.

What does this mean? Either we are strictly the result of a series of monumental, cosmic accidents, the probability of which is unimaginable, or we are the result of some planned creative effort over billions of years, resulting in a planet that gave birth to and supports our form of life.

There is some speculation that there are lower forms of life on other bodies in our solar system, many of which have water, and future space probes will investigate this. There is also the supposition that life may have originated on other worlds, and was transported to Earth in the early days by comets and/or meteors. If this proves out, what are the odds of this happening also?

In approaching the hypothesis that God created the Universe, we are faced with the limits of science, which can only investigate objective reality– that which is measureable. Science has to assume that there is an objectively real Universe if it is to be investigated. Moreover, what science has discovered about the Universe thus far has been objective—though there are still many unknowns, but they promise to be discovered and analyzed in the future.

Thus, science can only determine the real, substantial, objective Universe around us. It cannot determine the existence of God, or anything of a spiritual nature. That reality is only known through faith, but it cannot be proven.

So how do we get to the next level, given that science cannot prove there to be a God?

Consider that philosophical rule called Occam ’s razor, which states that any theory that introduces the least new assumptions is preferred by science. Otherwise, we could introduce any number of theories as to how the Universe was formed—which is what all the cosmologists are doing today. However, if the Universe is infinite, and is unguided by a Creator, all things are possible—and in fact will occur! There is the old story that if the Universe is infinite, and you seat down an infinite number of monkeys at typewriters, and if they typed away forever, then they would ultimately produce every piece of literature that mankind has produced—and would produce forever.   Since the human mind is finite that avenue of discovery is doomed to an ambigious journey, which is what is happening with the theories of multiple or alternate Universes, black hole speculation, quantum theories, etc.

Science, and the scientific method, are thus stopgap measures that our finite minds use to determine the reality around us. This means that we are doomed to uncertainty, and we will remain is this fog of unknowing if the Universe is infinite. However, if the Universe is finite there is hope that someday we can figure it out. Nevertheless, don’t hold your breath.

Thus, our Occam principle says that we should go with the theory that has the fewest assumptions about Creation, which is that God created it. This theory has the advantage of being the simplest, most understandable and encompassing, and gives us answers that science cannot. The only other alternative is to believe in nothing, that the Universe came into being on its own.

However, this does not conform to what science has thus far proven. For example, there is evidence for the Big Bang from telescopic observation and cosmic investigation, but there is no explanation how this explosion from nothing created all the matter we can see with our telescopes. Agnostics and atheists cannot give us an answer to the question: How did a secular Universe come into being from nothing?

The God-cause gives us the only answer at this time. Our finite minds can conceive of a spiritual being—separate from our material Universe, with infinite power—who could create something out of nothing, but this cannot be proven—only taken as an act of faith. Then we are faced with the same problem the agnostics and atheists have: how did God come into being? This is the question that causes the gulf between non-believers and believers. The agnostics and atheists say it all started with the Big Bang, but cannot explain what there was before, while religious folks cannot tell what was before God—if anything. Religious folks can only say, “God always was, and always will be! Thus, we come to an impasse between the two groups.

Thus, we seem to be at an epistemological dilemma, whereby our quest for knowledge comes to a dead-end.

It is at this point that we have to use some finite, scientific, common sense. Looking at the God-concept, we can ask someone to come up with a better idea, recognizing that most of the great minds in history have done so, and have convinced themselves there is a God, because it answers most of the unknowable questions. However, we find that no one has given us a good alternative. Many people go through life believing there is no God and accept that at the end of their lives there is nothingness. That is discomforting, because most people, when they get to their final days, psychologically need to believe in something beyond them. The old adage that there are no atheists in foxholes is almost 100% true.

Therefore, we can use the probability suppositions we have discussed to circumvent the limitations of science, and with great confidence propose that the formation of our universe had a God creating it. Otherwise we have a one chance in 250 quadrillion that He did not. This would then mean that we are the result of a great cosmic lottery, that out of all the possibilities of things that could have happened to produce the planet earth as it now exists, our existence is just one big accident. Now an accident like ours could have happened in an infinite or exceedingly complex universe, beating those odds of one in 250 quadrillion, but it does not appear likely.

So where does all this leave us? An informed opinion by this author proposes that there has to be a God. It’s clear that we cannot scientifically prove there is a God, but humankind definitely does need a God. We have demonstrated throughout history that our existence alone is not enough. Some thinkers have continually believed that we could create heaven on Earth if we would only pull the pieces together. Revolutionary forms of government have been the methods we have tried the most: the United Nations; US Constitution; Articles of Confederation; the British unwritten constitution; Russian, Chinese, Cuban, North Korean, and Vietnamese communism; etc; but they have proven themselves severely lacking in many areas. They certainly have not created a non-violent, peaceful world. Actually, these systems made things better in the short term in many cases, with the American system arguably the best of the lot, but they all have been plagued with a lot of dysfunction and evil, as anyone looking around the world today can testify. The world has not been free of war and strife during humankind’s entire existence.

Thus, we have proven that we are unable to create Heaven on Earth. Moreover, those today who believe that it is possible to do so forget, or are ignorant of our history. All attempts, either social or political, have failed because of humankind’s many sins of commission and omission. We seem to be able to calm things down for brief periods, but later we always degenerate into dysfunction.

Therefore, it is my contention that we cannot count on the world to improve beyond what has already been demonstrated. For all who believe and try to practice the Golden Rule, to love our neighbors as ourselves, they are countered by significant opposition that does not believe this, and the two factions are continually at war with one another.

While humankind wants a peaceful world, we have thus far been unable to achieve it. But mankind needs peace to counter the violence and dysfunction. If we cannot get it in this world, then perhaps we will in the afterlife, which offers hope from our Earthly despair. In one sense, it does not matter if there is a God or not—we need one! So, many believe in a God who offers hope, on which we can live a better life for ourselves and our neighbors. If there is no God then we have to invent one, because the God within each of us will never let us down as do the systems of this world.

In conclusion, there are those who believe that science is the enemy of religion, a thesis with which I disagree. The further I have explored both science and religion, I have concluded they are not in opposition with one another, seeming to compliment each other more and more with the passage of new discoveries and insights. The God of my understanding is good, because if he is evil then what’s the point… A good God would not allow humankind to develop the system of science, allowing us to deceive ourselves with deceptive thinking. Thus, science is a tool of God’s, which with each new discovery, draws us closer to all of His magnificent creation. The fundamental religions of the world are fearful of this progress, because it means they may have to alter some of their beliefs, which is, admittedly, very difficult to do. Fear of such change can hold us back, but the mysterious truth of God will draw us closer and closer to Him, if we will only keep our minds open.

 

 

IDIOMS FOR EXPRESSIVE GOLFERS

Posted on by

by Joe Wilkins

Copyright © 2014

Golfers have many ways of expressing themselves about their shotmaking during a round of golf. They typically make remarks about their playing companion’s efforts as well as themselves, usually in good, friendly spirits. These expressions encourage the joy and frustration of the game—which is why we play!

Enjoy and use the following during your times on the course.

1) “ A Bobby Darin,” or a “Splish Splash.” Either of these expressions is for any shot that goes into the water, suggested by Bobby’s hit song of the ‘60’s.

2) “A Gregory Peck,” or “On the Beach.” For any ball hit into a sand trap, suggested by the nuclear holocaust movie of the 60’s, starring Peck and Ava Gardner. Lady golfers are free to call such shots an “Ava” if they so desire.

3) “Callaway Went Thataway.” This expression is suitable for all golfers using Callaway golf balls when they hit their ball in the woods, out of bounds, or any other undesirable place. This expression comes from the title of the movie of 1951, staring Fred McMurray and Howard Keel.

4) “A Clint Eastwood,” or a “Rawhide.” This is generally suitable for any putt that rolls too far past the hole. It is usually accompanied by the golfer either humming or singing softly to the theme of the 60’s TV show “Rawhide,” starring Clint Eastwood: “Rolling, rolling, rolling. Watch that golf ball rolling. Stop your maddening rolling—Rawhide! As golfers we are tightening, when the greens are like lightning. Will the greenskeeper soon be by our side? Don’t try to understand them, especially when they sand them. And always keep your putter by your side. Line ‘em up, putt ‘em out, give a shout—Rawhide!” If you can’t remember this whole ditty, then the first three words are sufficient.

5) “ A Roland Young,” or a “Topper.” This is for any grossly topped shot that pounds into the earth. Named after the title character in the movie “Topper,” 1937.

6) “An Arbuckle.” For any shot hit fat. Named after the fat character actor, Fatty Arbuckle, in early Hollywood.

7) “ An Arnold Palmer.” For any shot resulting in a huge, wet divot. Palmer was famous for divots that had to replaced using a shovel and wheelbarrow. (Just kidding!) Ladies will seldom use this term, because such divots are usually produced by marginally talented, macho, male golfers who insist on playing from the championship tees, but with less than Arnold Palmer results!

8) “ A Captain Hook.” For any severely hooked shot. Especially useful at seaside courses when the ball is hooked into the ocean.

9) “ A Hurricane.” Especially appropriate when the golfer swings extra hard and misses the ball entirely, creating a breeze on the tee. A loud whoosh is accepted if a breeze is not felt.

10) “You hit the big ball first!” Referring to your opponent hitting the planet Earth before hitting the ball. This can be used instead of “An Arbuckle,” if you do not wish to offend your companion because of his or her girth.

11) “I’m glad that ball was painted!” This is used when the ball is barely skimmed when struck, resulting in a shot that is only slightly better than a vigorously topped one.

12) “Not enough bacon in that sandwich!” or “Not enough meat on that bone!” or “Needed one more spoon of oatmeal!” These phrases are appropriate for putts that are agonizingly just short of going in the hole.

13) “Need to switch to decaf!” For a putt that is yipped, jerkily stroked, or blasted past the hole.

14) “A Shirley Temple.” For a putt that is too delicately stroked and is very short of the hole. Especially appropriate for women golfers.

15)” A bacon strip.” A description for a well struck ball from the turf, with minimal or no divot. Jack Nicklaus was famous for these.

16) “ A Jeff Chandler or a Rod Steiger.” Named after two actors who were notorious for overacting. They can be used to describe the behavior of golfers who overly emote after hitting a bad shot.

17) “ Diversity Man (or Woman).” Used to describe the golfer who is continually changing his swing, seeking the holy grail of golf, namely par. After a while, the continuous changing often becomes an obsession. Since there are millions of golf swing variables that can be used, these golfers need our prayers for a task that will never be completed.

18) “Regurgitation Man (or Woman).” This accurately describes those golfers who recount every shot of their just completed round to all who will listen. Their diatribes usually occur on the 19th hole. These folks have excellent memories for things that do not matter, but will probably forget your name or to pay the bar tab.

19) “ Fruit of the Doom.” A sliced or banana ball, the bane of most golfers.

20) “That ball ran over the cellophane bridge!” For a ball that rolls over the cup, when the golfer can see no reason why it shouldn’t have gone in.

21) “Going squirrel hunting?” To be asked of your partner when he hits one into the trees.

22) “A Martin.” For a putt that’s very short of the hole. Named after the Saturday Night Live actor, Martin Short, whose last name accurately describes his height.

23) “A Humperdinck.” For a description of the golfer who freezes and does not release his hands properly at impact, resulting in a shot that goes way right (or left for southpaws). Named in honor of Ingelbert’s popular song, “Release Me,” the first line of which is “Please release me, let me go…”

In conclusion, you golfers out there have heard many other expressions appropriate to this game we all love. Creative use of them—and in good spirits—makes this game even more enjoyable.

 

 

A REDICULOUS PUN, by Joe Wilkins, Copyright (c), 2014

Posted on by

(This pun will not likely be understood by anyone who does not remember popular music of the 1940’s. Enjoy it if you can.)

On a small farm in Florida, there lived two very old people: a husband and wife, named Leroy and Mabel Kittle. What was amazing about them was that they were 115 and 112 years old respectively. In addition, they were both in perfect health, and did all the physical labor on their farm by themselves. It seemed they had found the “Fountain of Youth.”

It wasn’t long before a reporter from Fox News heard about them, and he decided to travel down to their farm for an interview, in hopes of discovering their secret for longevity. When the reporter arrived at the farm he saw the elderly couple in their garden, hoeing and weeding during the hottest part of the summer day. He also noticed three female horses and six female deer, together in a corral nearby. Next to them, in an adjacent pen, were several young sheep. That was an odd combination of animals, he thought.

He approached the Kittles and introduced himself, saying he had heard about their age and good health, and wondered if they would share their secret with his TV audience.

Needless to say, the Kittles were pleased that he was taking an interest in them, and they were excited about the prospect of being on national TV.

After a pleasant conversation, the reported asked, “Mr. and Mrs. Kittle, I know our audience would love to learn just what it is that you do to prolong your lives and to remain in such excellent health. Will your share your secret with us?”

Mr. Kittle smiled and said, ” Why, of course we will young man. What we have discovered will be of benefit to all mankind.”

“Well, please tell me the secret,” the reporter implored.

Mr. Kittle looked at his smiling wife, and then said, “See those mares over there in the corral with the does. The youngest one is forty-five years old! And those lambs in the pen are all over thirty-five years old. Every one of those animals is twice as old as the average. Quite a feat, don’t you think?”

“Yes, yes!” the now excited reporter exulted. “But how have you done it?”

Mr. Kittle winked knowingly at his wife, and then answered, pointing to a field of grain next to the farm. “See that field of oats over there. It’s a special variety we discovered on a trip to India years ago. Well, we brought it back, planted it, and started feeding it to the horses and deer. Later we noticed the mares and does started living much longer than normal. And see all that ivy growing up the trunks of all our trees here. That’s a variety of ivy we discovered in Tibet. We brought it back and planted it because it’s so pretty. Well, the sheep started eating it, and danged if they didn’t start living longer too. Well, me and Mrs. kittle can put two and two together, so we started eating the oats everyday for breakfast, and had the ivy in our salads each day at suppertime. And it worked for us as well as the animals.”

The reported was flabbergasted. “You mean to tell me that eating those oats and that ivy is the reason you and your wife are living so long and are in such good health. that’s hard to believe!”

Mr. Kittle cocked his head, looked at the reporter knowingly, and sang, “Mares eat oats and does eat oats, and little lambs eat ivy. The Kittles eat ivy too, shouldn’t you!”

(Ouch!)

An Epitaph in Cooperstown – from “Walking in His Shadow” by J.P. Howard

Link

Reply

AN EPITAPH IN COOPERSTOWN

In the spring of 1968 I was chosen to attend one of the most prestigious and difficult training schools that AT&T had to offer. It was conducted in Cooperstown, New York at the grand hotel by the name, “The Otesaga Hotel” and it would take three-months to complete.

The subject matter being taught was the beginning of a new era of “digital” transmission in telecommunications. Computers, at that time, were huge in size and required massive air-condition systems just to keep the computer cool. Small personal computers (PC) were in the early developmental stages. The total data capacity that could be stored in those early commercial computers was hundreds of time smaller than the small home PC’s used in 2014.

The language of the computers and its memory technology was at that time, compared to today’s technology was like the horse and buggy vs. the modern automobiles today. This was the development of a brand new world of telecommunication being born, for both voice and data. I was a student of this new technology. To say I was not somewhat concerned I would be able to understand the course material and pass the required tests would be to tell a lie. Dropping below a grade of 70 in two of the eight subjects in any single week was a firm, no-questions-asked, dismissal from this school. Your bags would be packed, a cab standing by to take you to the airport to transport you back to your hometown. Those students would be called out of class, brought to the lobby of the Hotel where their bags and belongings were waiting, and board the cab for the airport. No time to say goodbyes or even to go back to your room. After seeing several students make an exit this way put a fear in the hearts of the remaining students, mine included. To go home like that was a sure end of climbing up the corporate ladder. Kiss you career good-by!

Classes began at 8:00am and lasted until 5:00pm, Monday through Friday. Saturday classes were only for half a day. All meals were served in the official dinning room of this beautiful hotel. No time for breaks and walking around the town. You were there to study only and study was intense as all of the hundreds of students, from all over the United States and some from other countries, buckled down after evening dinner to study.

Living in this beautiful five-star hotel, which was occupied by only the students of AT&T, the instructors and the hotel staff, was necessary because all classes were conducted in the hotel. AT&T made a special financial deal with the Hotel to use the entire hotel, and its staff, the coldest months of the year when normal tourist found a warmer place to vacation.
.
Sundays, being the only day to rest from this three months study program, gave students time for their personal life. Many slept, others found other activities, but few went to church as I did. It was refreshing to just get away from this grind and see something other than the inside of this hotel and other students.

I found this very old, but quaint little Episcopal church on River Street, and attended Sunday services there. I must say I was sadly disappointed that I was greeted with an attitude of indifference. They didn’t know me, so they didn’t speak to me! I attended anyway!

The church cemetery surrounding this church was quite old and I found pleasure in just walking through the church cemetery and reading the inscriptions and epitaphs. Some were very interesting by the very date of that person’s death and that many family members died on the same date, giving reason to believe some dreadful epidemic took place that could have wiped out an entire family. On the side of the hills surrounding the town of Cooperstown I did discover one site that an entire family was massacred by the Indians, as per their grave stone dates and the epitaph inscription placed there by some friend.

One Sunday, while continuing my reading of epitaphs in this church cemetery, I stumbled across a table-top flat burial site. The top slab was about thirty of so inches from the ground. Being flat it suffered the damage brought on by the inclement weather conditions. The epitaph was engraved in this tablet-top stone, but badly worn over the hundred plus years of time and weather conditions. For some strange reason I was intrigued with this grave. Not many in this cemetery were “Tablet-top” style and thus the deterioration was worse being flat that the others that were standing vertical. The words were a challenge for me to read. When the Sun light comes from an angle, casting shadows, it enabled me to read the epitaph. When I did, my heart jumped and my compassion ran deep for a man from Barbados named R. H. Farmer. I hurt for the suffering he must have endured as he wrote these words:

Sept. 25, 1831

FRANCES F. M. FARMER
AGED 28 YEARS OLD
WIFE OF R. H. FARMER
OF BARBADOS

“Stranger hadst thou ever a wife, snatched from thee by death in the bloom of youth beauty and virtue? If thou never hadst thou mightest imagine but cannot feel the anguish of a disconsolate husband who has placed over her remains this tablet as the last but too feeble testimony of his tenderest affections and to mark the spot where lies the best of wives, the most affectionate of mothers and the sincerest of friends”.

As I wrote down these words, just the way they were written and spelled, I choked-up, and quietly gave thanks for these beautiful heart rendering words of a man who love his wife so dearly as to pour out his heartfelt feelings for ‘strangers’ to digest a husband’s true love for his wife. At that time, in 1968, I thanked God that I still had my wife. Even now, forty-six years later, I still give God my greatest thanks for my wife I love as deeply as R. H. Farmer loved his wife, Frances.

I have wondered how many times this grieving husband and his children gathered around this very gravesite, where I am standing, to bring flowers, say a prayer, shed a tear and recalled the blessed times they all had together before she was called home to be with the Lord.

Strangers, as we are, who read the writings and feel the emotions of others, we do not know for sure that Frances was a Christian, a true believer, but the love shown in this tribune by her husband and being buried in a church cemetery; gives reason to believe her faith was in the Lord.

We do not live to ourselves, and we do not die to ourselves. If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord; so then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s.
Romans 14:7-8

BIG BROTHER – from “Walking In His Shadow” by J.P. Howard

Link

Reply

BIG BROTHER

James Harold Howard was born in 1921. He was almost twelve years old when my twin brother and I were born. It was when Harold turned eighteen, and I was only six years old, that I began to idolize Harold. He looked so big and strong in his military uniform. As I was just beginning to learn how to write, Harold could print words so beautifully. I just worshiped his abilities. That desire stuck with me for all of my life, as I too have printed rather than write cursive style.

Prior to 1939 Harold was a member of the “Hoozars” who met near Daffin Park in Savannah. At age 18 he joined the old Army Air Force in 1939 and was stationed at a number of bases such as “Avon Field” and “Maxwell Field”. When World War II broke out he and his entire crew was sent to Europe, where he served as a top turret gunner on a B-17 bomber. The entire crew, who departed from Hunter Air Force Base in Savannah, came to Harold’s family home for a farewell home cooked meal, prepared by my mother, prior to shipping out to Europe. As his plane departed the next day it flew over his parent’s home and waved its wings in a farewell gesture. After many missions his plane was shot down over Germany where he was wounded and held as a prisoner of war in Switzerland. On his second attempt he escaped, after almost six months in the POW camp. Using a very bad winter storm for cover, he found his way into Italy (with the help of the French underground) where he spent the rest of the war in a Hospital recovering from his wounds and frostbite of his feet. While he was held POW the dreaded telegram arrived at his parent’s home that he was “missing in action”. All attempts by his family to find out if he was still alive, or any facts of his whereabouts and condition, were a nightmare for the family. The Red Cross and the U. S. Government were of no help at all in finding him. The Salvation Army said they would try.

To obtain a better understanding, and the details of what Harold went through, I requested information from an expert archivist from the 8th Air Force Museum in Pooler, Ga. They reported the following: “He departed out of Savannah and went with the 15th AAF to Armandola, Italy. He was a tech sergeant, top turret gunner and a member of the 2nd BG, 429th BS. His pilot’s name was James E Heintz. His plane went down 3 August 1944 with 1 engine on fire that could not be feathered. Plane was B-17 #42-31655. He was identified by his “notify” list of Mrs. Virginia Lee Howard of 532 E 35th St, Savannah, GA! The records indicate he did not have to bail out and his injury consisted of bruised and strained shoulder muscles. He was in a POW camp, at Adelbodes, tried to escape, then put in Waueilermoos (one of the worst prisons in Switzerland) and on second attempt escaped from Switzerland in Jan. 1945. Returned to Cacerta, Italy. After a short stay he was shipped back to the U.S. Last notice of him in these papers was that he had been discharged and was working for a civilian airline co. as a mechanic somewhere in the South. He completed 18 missions”.

We give thanks to the Salvation Army who found him and reported his condition and whereabouts to the family. He was discharged as a Staff Sergeant on July 10, 1945 and received the “Purple Heart” as well as other awards for his war efforts. For years after the war Harold suffered greatly from the fact he was the only survivor of the crew of the B-17. His crew was like “Brothers” to him and he survived and they did not. This post war depression led him to heavy drinking for a while until he got his life back together with the help of an understanding and loving wife and the grace of God.

Harold worked for Southern Bell in Savannah after the war from 1945 until about 1948 when he was transferred to Brunswick, Ga. He worked as a supervisor over installation and repair of data equipment as well as PBX and Key. He loved to hunt and fish and would go fishing with any invitation. A very memorable fishing trip was to Valossa Bar (Valossa County, Florida) with close friends and Paul and Perry, his brothers. Pictures of this trip provide fond memories for me. He talked very little about the war but did tell anyone who would listen about the “hole-in-one” he had on the golf course. Golf was a sport suggested by his doctor to provide him exercise to help his heart condition.

General Douglas MacArthur once said: “O, Lord….build me a son whose goal will be high, a son who will master himself before he seeks to master other men; one who will reach into the future, yet never forget the past”.

Harold looked forward to the future, but struggled to forget the past. His goal was to grow even closer to his father and to experience his children grow into productive adults. Harold tried to forget the past, especially his painful experiences in World War II, but the next few years he would suffer the greatest losses of his life. He would live to see the death of three family members. Our father died in 1968, who he had grown close to in the last few years,  followed closely by the deaths of his only two children, who died in separate automobile accidents. Only six months after our father died, Jimmy, age 19, Harold’s son, was killed in an automobile accident. In 1970, only 22 months after his only son died, Janice, his only daughter, also died from injuries from another automobile accident. As I sat next to him in the funeral services for his son, Jimmy, I witnessed a soft sob as tears ran down his face. My heart ached for him. I had never seen him cry before! He has lost his only son, a son that had gone somewhat astray, but had recently got his act back together and his family was happier than ever. But now Jimmy was gone! He had now lost his only father and his only son. Janice’s death followed before he could come to grips with the other two deaths. Memories of his war experiences started coming back to haunt him. In his grief he was not the same after these three deaths, his future dreams and goals were shattered and he acted defeated, but never outwardly complained or looked for sympathy. He soon started experiencing chest pains and died in his sleep on October 28, 1972 from angina pectoris. He is buried in Glenn Rose Cemetery, Glenn County, Brunswick, Georgia, next to his two children. He was only 51 years old.

Harold was loved by all who knew him. He was, like our father, a kind and giving man. He worked hard and provided well for his family. His premature gray hair made him most handsome and his ready smile and his friendly nature endeared him to all who met him. He is greatly missed.

The loss of a brother is difficult to explain to those who have never had a brother they  looked up to, and is some small way worshiped. Harold was one of those. My grief would repeat again when my twin brother, Perry,  passed on to eternity long before he should have. It is difficult to explain this type of grief! God has given me the strength and love to endure!

“Cast thy burden upon the Lord, and He shall sustain thee; He shall never suffer the righteous to be moved.” Psalm 55:22

Little Living Angel (Walking in His Shadow)

Link

Reply

Little Living Angle is taken from the book, “Walking In His Shadow” by J.P. Howard

LITTLE LIVING ANGEL

Lauren Elizabeth Bain was my first granddaughter. She was born on April 8, 1981. Lauren was a beautiful child, inside and out, with the spirit of an Angel. She was older that her years as she showed unusual compassion to other children her own age or younger by hugging them if they cried or if they were scared. Her willingness to share her toys, or even give her toys to another child if that is what they wanted, and then find another one for her self to play with. She was a joy of a child to be around and to babysit when called upon.

It was on one of the baby-sitting opportunities that Lauren still had a low grade fever when we arrived. Her fever seemed to be hovering around 101 degrees, not too much to worry about we thought, and she felt only slightly warm to the touch. A baby aspirin, we thought, would clear this up in no time. But the fever persisted until Dianne and Peter came home. It would be several days later, after having her tested by the Doctors at Emory’s Elgleston Hospital for children that we would learn the terrible news. She had a childhood Cancer known as Neuroblastoma, stage 4. This was the worst news a parent could possibly receive. We as a family were devastated. Lauren was only four years old.

Dr. Jim Bain, Lauren’s other grandfather, knew all too well what this disease could do to the body, and being a stage 4 made it very urgent she start receiving medical treatment immediately. For the next seven years Lauren would receive the very best treatment that medical science had to offer. She even was treated with medicine that would not be ‘on the market’ until years later. This was due to Dr. Bain’s connections (he taught at Emory Medical School where he was vice president) and his extensive knowledge of medicines. Over this seven years Lauren would receive two ‘Bone Marrow’ transplants, an operation, chemo treatments, and many, many x-ray scans of her small body.

The family was lifted and encouraged on several occasions when she went into remission. Her hair would begin to grow back and her strength would return. She even played on a girl’s soft ball team – much to her delight. Then the dreaded news would be announced that her cancer was once again overtaking her little body. Back on chemo, another Bone Marrow operation, and more x-rays. Once again she would start loosing her hair as well as her physical strength.

Through all this Lauren never gave up hope. She never complained, why me? She faced the pain with an attitude of ‘let’s get it done’. Her love of people was greater that her feeling sorry for herself and her pain. When the treatments were not making things better, Lauren, with a smile, would apologize and say, “I’ll try to do better the next time”! She felt bad for disappointing everyone; she thought if only I could try harder. That was the kind of love she had for her family.
That was the strength God gave her. She was stronger than any of the family members; she taught us how to endure. She taught us how to love. She made our troubles seem so small.

After seven long years her weakened little body could not take any more. As she lay in her bed at her home, with the family at her side, she closed her eyes and went home to be with the Lord. It was May 24, 1992. She was only eleven years old.

Our little angel, Lauren, is now with her father in heaven. I write this with the confidence and assurance that God has opened the door to heaven to welcome her home into his kingdom.

“Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them.” But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
Matthew 19: 13-14