Renouncing the Illegal Use of Force

Reading the essay in the latest edition of Foreign Affairs, titled Might Unmakes Right; The Catastrophic Collapse of Norms Against the Use of Force, by Oona Hathaway and Scott Shapiro. Oona, a professor of law at Yale Law School; Scott, a professor of law at Yale Law School and a professor of philosophy, cast a light on the reality we now face. We are seeing a “catastrophic collapse of norms against the use of force” which threatens the future of the world. The essay reminded me that there have been steps to outlaw war as an instrument of policy. Prior to World War I, it was commonly recognized, even international law, that war was a legitimate means to settle grievances. It was not “outlawed.” The horror of World War I led to the creation of the Kellogg-Briand Pact. Kellogg was the American Secretary of State, Briand the Prime Minister of France. The pact was formally called “The General Treaty for Annunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy.” It acquired 58 signatories, including the United States. It established the principle that aggressive war was illegal, the parties agreed to “condemn recourse of war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in the relations with one another.” They pledged to settle any disputes between them “by civic means.” This pact has been widely mocked as naïve and ineffective because it did not stop World War II. But in truth, as this essay points out, “It set in motion a process that gave rise to the modern international legal order. The authors of the pact, for all their ambition, failed to appreciate the scale of what they had done.” When Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931, it took U.S. Secretary of State Henry Stimson, a year to draft a response consistent with the pact’s principles. Stimson decided the United States would refuse to recognize Japan’s right to the land it had illegally seized, and the members of the League of Nations soon followed suit. What became known as the Stimson Doctrine became a turning point: Conquest, once lawful, could no longer be recognized. Even if Japan could force China to sign a treaty to give the Japanese the illegally seized land, it would not be recognized as lawful. “Gunboat diplomacy would no longer give rise to valid treaty obligations.” Although Germany and Japan were both parties to the Kellogg-Briand Pact, they flouted it by launching World War II, and they eventually faced its consequences, losing all the territory they conquered by force, and their leaders stood trial at war crime tribunals. The UN Charter extended what the Kellogg-Briand Pact had set in motion, “prohibiting the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political interventions of any state. During the next eight decades after the charter entered into force, the kind of interstate wars and territorial conquests that had shaped and reshaped national borders for centuries became rare. Great powers had not openly fought a war against one another since 1945, and no U.N.-member state has permanently ceased to exist as a result of conflict. Conflict, of course, has not disappeared, but it has become far less prevalent. The century that preceded World War II saw over 150 successful territorial conquests; and the decades afterward, there have been fewer than 10. A lot of factors have underpinned this result. Certainly, nuclear deterrence and globalization, but this commitment to rule out the use of power cannot be discounted. This is being unraveled by the Trump administration. Threats to take over Greenland and Panama for willy-nilly reasons. And, of course, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We have stood up to that invasion and so has the West, so far. We do not recognize it. However, Russia today is asking us to recognize it. Ukraine has not. We are going to have to recommit ourselves to a revamped, renewed international system of renouncing force as a means of achieving political ends; reinforce the integrity of every state, and to provide the enforcing mechanism which will have to depend on much more than just the United States to do it. This was the task faced by leaders coming out of World War I and World War II. This is the task leaders will face going forward tomorrow post the insidious impact of the Trump administration and its policies, which amount to “might makes right.”

What Albert Einstein Has to Teach Us--Or At Least Me--Today

Wisdom from Albert Einstein, drawn from his book of essays, Out of My Later Years I’m going to draw here on extracts from several of Einstein’s essays which contain nuggets of truth which are too good not to write down. In his essay, On Education, written in 1936 he writes modestly, “What source shall I, in the realm of pedagogy, drive courage to expound opinions with no foundations except personal experience and personal conviction.” But that doesn’t give him pause fortunately. “The school has always been the most important means of transferring the wealth of tradition from one generation to the next. This applies today in an even greater degree than in former times through modern development of economic life, the family is bearer of tradition and education has been weakened. The continuance and health of human society is therefore in a still higher degree dependent on the school than formerly.” If true as he asserts then in 1936, how much truer it is today. Einstein goes on to say that it is wrong to think of the school simply as “the instrument for transferring a certain maximum quantity of knowledge to the growing generation.” Rather, it must acknowledge that knowledge is dead and that the school “serves the living.” It should develop in the young individuals “those qualities and capabilities which are of value for the welfare of the commonwealth.” He goes on to make it clear that that doesn’t mean that individuality should be destroyed. On the contrary, he writes, “The aim must be the training of independently acting and thinking individuals who, however, see in the service of the community their highest life problem.” You don’t only view this by moralizing; Einstein writes; no, you do it by stimulating critical thinking. Today, we see all kinds of things happening that work against this. The State bill being advanced in Ohio that will limit the ability of teachers to teach. Texts in schools that are legitimate to stimulate broad thinking and critical thinking are being banned. “The development of general ability for independent thinking and judgment should always be placed foremost, not the acquisition of special knowledge", Einstein asserts. The realization of this is what made my four years at Yale University so meaningful to me and my contact with the professors at that university and my reading ever since so continually meaningful. ***** There is this painful message from Einstein in his essay, A Message to Intellectuals, written in 1946. He laments the tragedy that, “While mankind has produced many scholars so extremely successful in the field of science and technology, we have been for a long time so inefficient in finding adequate solutions to the many political conflicts and economic tensions which beset us. Man has not succeeded in developing political and economic forms of organization which would guarantee the peaceful coexistence of the nations of the world. He has not succeeded in building the kind of system which would eliminate the positivity of war and banish forever the murderous instruments of mass destruction.” Einstein celebrates that in “the smaller entities of community life, man has made some progress to breaking down the antisocial sovereignties. This is true, for examples, of life within cities and, to a certain degree, even a society with individual states. But in relation to separate states (nations), complete anarchy still prevails. I do not believe that we have made any genuine advance in this area during the last few thousand years.” Written about 80 years ago, Einstein’s verdict would remain the same. There have been a few examples of progress, the European Common Market being the chief one, in my view, but our overall progress has been abysmal. Can we ever overcome the acquisitive, selfish elements of our human nature, the competitive elements that will lead usform the structures and way of working together and mindset that will allow us to live in peace in the centuries to come? It has only been crisis that has brought nations together. We have a crisis today, but we don’t recognize it as such. Is it possible that somehow, against all contrary evidence, we will have the wise and courageous leadership to prevail? Einstein previewed these sentiments on an essay he wrote 13 years earlier, in 1933: Science and Civilization. In this he lamented: “The questions which concern us are: How can we save mankind and spiritual acquisitions of which we are the heirs? How can one save Europe from a new disaster?" He closed on the hopeful thought: “Only through perils and upheavals can nations be brought to further developments. May the present upheavals lead to a better world. Above and beyond this valuation of our time we have this further duty, to care for what is eternal and highest among our possessions, that which gives life its import and which we wish to hand on to our children fewer and richer than we received it from our forbearers.” We’ve had periods of peace since then, triggered importantly by the specter of destruction wreaked by World War II, but those periods have not lasted, they have not been sustained with a new mindset and government structures which would flow from it and which we and this world we live in need to not only thrive but survive.

DEI Should Be A "No Brainer"

I want to explain why I think “DEI” is a no-brainer and I will do that by breaking it down and consider what it’s about, concretely. Why do I say a “no-brainer?” Consider this: What organization would disagree with the belief that in order to have the strongest possible orgaization today, one representative of the consumers it serves, it is important to attract, have and provide support for a diversity of employees? Diverse in race, gender, ethnicity, and also in thinking styles and in leadership styles. What organization would disagree with the fact that there is no value in having diversity if people don’t feel “included?” If they don’t feel able to express their genuine point of view-- that they can express themselves without walking on egg shells? If they don’t feel that they can risk themselves in the organization; if they don't feel it is “home" for them? What organizational leader would disagree that it’s important to give every group a fair chance to be included in the organization. Or would disagree it was important to recognize obvious gaps in the organization whether it be of race or gender or functional expertise or thinking style. Consider this: When we go out to add new board members (not only employees), we think about, “What do we need that we don’t have enough of now?” This is what equity is about. What’s clear to me is that when you break down what we’re talking about in diversity, equity and inclusion, almost nobody would disagree. It is only as this concept has been weaponized by the acronym “DEI” and when, in some cases, we have gone overboard in the application of DEI, both in the way it’s taught and organizational structure, that we get in trouble. My simple point is that going back 50 years, I have come to appreciate the importance of diversity in contributing to sustained business success and, over these years , I have become more and more aware of how important it is for people to feel included. And, yes, over time, how important it is to be crystal-clear on where we have gaps in the make-up of our organization and are not achieving equity in the way we should and hence are failing to achieve all the organizational strength and business results we are capable of. I am not alone in having this experience. Countless leaders in every type of organization have shared that they have had the same experience in building and sustaining success.

Sheer Madness

Sheer madness is the best way for me to summarize what I see happening here in the United States and around the world. It’s a combination of events that should not be happening, that need not be happening, but are happening, that work to threaten and imperil our nation’s future and that of the world. I’m just selecting headlines from the New York Times edition of June 4: “America is losing its pool for best scientists and science.” “China and Europe are on hiring sprees.” Applications from China and Europe for graduate students or post-doctorate positions in the United States have dropped sharply or dried up since President Trump took office. Universities in Europe are receiving an overwhelming response. ***** “Battle over supply chains is the new trade war.” We’re waking up to the obvious. Our supply chains are intimately linked. China is shutting off the shipment of rare minerals which are fundamental to many of our technology products. One Ford plant has already had to shut down. Blocked imports into China of airplane parts are imperiling its airplane industry which, while receiving massive investments by the Chinese government, still rely on imports from the U.S. for important parts. ***** “Israel again opens fire on Gazans near aid hub.” Israeli soldiers opened fire Tuesday morning near crowds of Palestinians walking toward a new food distribution site in southern Gaza. The Red Cross and Gaza Health Ministry said at least 27 people had been killed. It was the second such shooting in three days. ***** “Denouncing anti-Semitism, Trump also fans its flames” ***** “The tit for tat in Russia and Ukraine continues, at the cost of countless lives.” Ukraine uses drones to attack Russia’s bomber fleet. They aimed to “change Putin’s calculus.” Fat chance. Putin continues to advance on the ground. He clearly believes he has the upper hand. ***** “Trump targets a lifeline for Africa: remittances.” About a quarter of the gross national income in Gambia and Liberia come from remittances. Senegal, which the World Bank ranked the country most dependent on remittances, would also suffer. Remittances that Africans already pay income tax on the income. They also pay a 6.5% remittance tax. Now that tax will be raided by 50% to 10%. Analysts say the measure risks pushing millions deeper into hunger and driving up illegal migration and stalling growth for African economies struggling to manage decades of debt. ***** “Officials stonewall judges and deportation cases.” In case after case, the Trump administration has taken a similar approach to the numerous legal challenges that have emerged in recent weeks to President Trump’s address of deportation plans. Over and over, officials have either violated orders or used an array of obfuscations and delays to prevent federal judges from deciding whether violations took place. So far, no one in the White House or any federal agency has had to pay a price for this obstructionist behavior.

Seeing and Learning From One Another With Respect

I wrote this reflection in August, 2024 while recovering from a blocked small intestine in Christ Hospital. "I had an absolutely fascinating conversation with Ms. Vicky Hill, the woman who cleans the rooms at Christ Hospital. It was about 4 AM. It would have been so easy for me to just say “hi” and see her leave with her mop. That is what I did many times before. I didn’t this time. Our conversation lasted 45 minutes. I asked her if I was holding up her work. She told me not to worry. She worked fast, she said. Our conversation was filled with down-home wisdom and affirmation of so much I believe in. She has worked with Christ Hospital for 39 years, matching my tenure at Procter & Gamble. I asked her how she liked it. “I love it,” she said. Her reason for doing so was no surprise. She finds it home. She lives to make a positive difference in people’s lives every day, in every room, she told me. We talked about the importance of simply seeing each other. Recognizing one another’s presence. One has to be invited to do that. I invited her; she quickly invited me. We asked each other questions. I wanted to know about the impact of racism. Her attitude to life is wonderfully simple. “People can have their attitudes, their opinions; I’ve got mine and I’m going to do what I want to do.” She says all this with the happiest of faces and warmest of hearts. learned a great deal from Vicki. Just as I’ve learned so much from the nurses and PCAs while I’ve been in the hospital this time and in the many times before. I’m reinforced by them: their good will and warm mental state. I’m struck by how hard they work to get through school. I’ve met so many wonderful individuals: Ebony and Heather, and Tiffany and Julia. It’s an inspiring environment. They talked about the “smell of the place” in the same way I talk about the smell of the place in other organizations. It’s remarkable how similarly we see life and what makes life good and worthwhile. No one wants to be in the hospital; certainly not I. I’m dealing with some critical issues that aren’t going to go away when I leave here. How to maintain a balance between my intestine that works and a diet that is nutritious. How long am I going to have to irrigate my catheter? Will the pain in my groin subside and how do I control it? I think it was Wolfgang Berndt who said, “Getting old is not for sissies.” I have marveled how lucky I am to be doing it with my family surrounding me and the knowledge that Francie is as well as we could possibly hope, and friends and people praying for me. I am so fortunate. Yesterday, I heard a beautiful sermon from Rev. Wolfe. He titled it, “The Unexpected: The Support Jesus Could give us if we were Open to it and Prayed for it.” I can’t imagine anything more timelythan that right now for me.

An Insidious, Deplorable Action--Shooting Yourself in the Head and Heart

News bulletin. Marco Rubio, America’s secretary of state, said his country would “aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students”, some of whom the administration has accused of spying. He said America would also “enhance scrutiny” of future visa applicants from China. The announcement came a day after his terrible plan to pause student-visa applications. *********************************** Talk about "shooting yourself in the foot". This is "shooting yourself in the head and heart". Student exchanges are a foundation for people of different cultures and nationalities coming to understand each other. This action must be reversed.

An Early Blog About Now President Trump--Written Over 9 Years Ago--During His First Campaign--This Tragedy Must Be Reversed

"WE HAVE TO WALK AWAY FROM THIS ROAD SHOW" February 25, 2016 “We Have to Walk Away From This Road Show” These are among the words with which Pulitzer Prize-winning author Marilynne Robinson concludes her book, “Mother Country.” It was published in 1989. She was writing about a somewhat different challenge then. She described it as a “decline in national self-esteem.” But in a way, it wasn’t different. In a way, we are facing much the same challenge today. I describe it as a “decline in confidence in our institutions.” Because of this, we are witnessing a campaign by a candidate for the presidency of the United States by Donald Trump unlike any other we have witnessed in my lifetime. A campaign that relishes in sweeping, categorical defamation of other people, such as Muslims and immigrants. A campaign that takes delight in pushing the boundaries of outrageous pronouncements, whether that be in vilifying an entire group of people or accusing a former president of the United States of “lying.” We are perversely taken by Trump’s authenticity, his fearlessness and his complete and utter rejection of political correctness. Trump is feeding off a space filled with the potent mixture of boredom, frustration, hopelessness and anger and the all-too-present human attraction to witness, and indeed even revel, in the bizarre. His impact is fueled by a media frenzy producing unending coverage and the inability of even the most seasoned, tough-minded interviewer to overcome his steamrolling, self-guided verbosity. Without articulating any policy much beyond “building a big wall, which we’ll have Mexico pay for” and “making America great again” in ways weakly defined, he emphatically says, “Trust me. I’m great at making deals.” He has the insidious talent of demeaning, indeed trashing, “others,” while making those he is addressing feel special, valued, even “loved.” He gets away with this in no small measure because he is so obviously delivering what he says with gay abandon. He is really enjoying himself. All of what I’ve written here has been easy to write. But what is not easy and has never been easy in times of challenge of the kind we face today is to find and support the leader who can bring us together, who can offer a vision for the future and plans to support it that realistically offer an improved life for all and to find a role for our country in the world which advances as far as possible the peace we need while avoiding nuclear disaster and the threat of terrorism. Returning to Ms. Robinson, she closes her book with words I resonate to: “My greatest hope is that we will at last find the courage to make ourselves rational and morally autonomous adults, secure enough in the faith that life is good and to be preserved, and to recognize the greatest forms of evil and name them and confront them.” Paraphrasing her conclusion, we have to walk away from this road show which Donald Trump’s campaign represents. We need to “consult with our souls, and find the courage in ourselves, to see and perceive and hear and understand.”

Wanton Destruction--The Decimation of Trust

My recent personal loss has kept my mind pretty well removed from what is happening in our country and in the world. The only way I can describe it is "wanton destruction". I will leave it to others and to history to asessthe economic damage that is being done by the tariffs, but I have to record the wanton harm and in some cases destruction of our most important institutions, including our universities, funding agencies for research and foreign aid. But my greatest concern in the wanton destruction that is being carried out by this diabolical president is the destruction of trust. Trust among our allies is decimated. Trust among workers is decimated. Trust within institutions, for example, university professors’ trust in the administration to have their back; that, too, is decimated. Alongside this decimation of trust is the establishment by Trump of a culture of “dog eat dog,” a zero-sum game. This is true of our relations with other countries. All of the cooperation that was necessary to create the economic abundance and peace of the last 75 years has been torn to ribbons. It will be a long time getting it back. To be sure, there was change, in some cases radical change, that needed to be made in our relations with other countries in terms of having a fair and balanced playing field, in our government structures, and in getting rid of needless regulation and waste. The same kind of issues that exist in a corporation like Procter & Gamble that require determined and brave correction. But they cannot and have not been undertaken in the past, referring again to Procter & Gamble, in a way that undermined trust among the employees, that created a zero-sum game, and that threw integrity in honoring past commitments out the window. There is going to be enormous pain here. I believe it will result in a recalibration of trade terms. Trump will claim victory. Victory it will not be. For whatever the outcome, the trust has been shattered. It will have to be re-earned by a strong leader pursuing actions that honor the primacy of our nation’s interests, but that recognizes that those interests can only be served by active collaboration with allies and all key countries on matters of existential interest that require global collaboration, including climate change and nuclear proliferation.

"Why Most Things Fail"

Why Most Things Fail: Evolution, Extinction and Economics, by Paul Ormerod I made a very cursory reading of Paul Ormerod’s book, Why Most Things Fail: Evolution, Extinction and Economics. Ormerod emphasizes the unpredictability of things as an explanation for the biological evolution and a high number of business failures. Procter & Gamble is identified as less than a dozen companies that have stayed in the top 100 since 1915. I have, of course, read many books about what sustains success: Built to Last perhaps being the primary one; another, Search for Excellence. Certainly, Procter & Gamble shares characteristics with all of those companies that have lasted the longest. Adaptability, focus on the consumer, discipline, innovation including, very importantly, for P&G technology. Focus on the key strategic advantages and imperatives: product superiority, superiority in recruiting and retention. Adaptability has certainly been critical in our business portfolio, seeking new businesses to grow, focusing relentlessly on improving our existing contract brands to provide better service to consumers, and disciplined balancing of profit and sales growth. These characteristics have been shared by many firms that, at one point or another, were strong and growing. But most have failed because they have not adapted (JC Penney, Sears, and Motorola) or had less strategic focus. Why have a few companies like P&G done better than others in this? For me, it comes down to one thing above all else: the quality of the people and the permanence of the values which they have pursued. Values of superiority, winning, of innovation, but values, too, that make a person want to dedicate their career to a company and values, too, which have honored the importance of balancing the preservation of core values with the need to adapt everything else to carry out the purpose. I believe an absolutely crucial part of Procter & Gamble’s success has been the quality of its top management, and I believe the success of generally having strong top management has been enormously facilitated by a promote-from-within culture. Why has that been important? A number of reasons: 1. The reality that people who advance in the company are likely to share even as they nurture renewal of the core values. 2. The opportunity to appraise people at various positions in their development in order to improve the likelihood of choosing the right person for the top jobs. 3. An unrelenting commitment to the importance of recruiting and development. 4. The impact on the culture of people who know one another, who have worked together over the years, who speak a common language but also, ideally, are “comfortable enough” with each other to speak their mind, to argue, and to stand up for what they believe in. To be sure, this has not happened perfectly. There are pressures to conform, to “go along.” But with the right choice of individuals, the right culture and the right appointments, we will, hopefully, continue to find people at every key position who are ready to innovate, to speak out, even as they know that achieving their business results requires the full involvement of their organization and that they carry no greater responsibility than helping ensure that the next generation of leaders is ready to carry on to sustain the company’s success. Ormerod’s book, deliberately, spends virtually no time in examining what have been the sources of success. While he gives lip service to the reality that social systems like corporations have an opportunity to adapt and think and make decisions that eclipse what is possible in biological evolution, he really over-generalizes the applicability of biological extinction to social institution extinction. Nevertheless, the point he makes rings true. Continued success is by no means inevitable. In fact, it is the exception, just as the continuation of any biological species is not guaranteed. In fact, its natural course would be to become extinct. Yes, some things have lasted much longer than others, and the thinking processes that humans have, hopefully, will enable us to continue on a lot longer. But there is no guarantee of this. At this very moment, we see reasons to doubt it: The breakdown of global alliances, the threat of our climate gone awry, and nuclear proliferation. These are all things being impacted by man and which have to be controlled by man and yet, we are not doing a good job at all of organizing to control them. This, in fact, is our biggest challenge. Along with it is the challenge posed by our difficulty to simply get along, to be united. Obviously, this must start with the family, but even here we have seen a breakdown of significant proportion. We can never forget that the family is the conveyor of values, the nurturing of values, and the creation of standards to which young people will understand and hopefully pursue. All these things are intentional, require conscious recognition of truths that have emerged but also recognize the need to adapt, to change, to innovate, and to improve. Not only to grow but to be sustained. I am glad I picked up Ormerod’s book. He has got me to thinking, even if not agreeing wholeheartedly with the thesis he advanced.

The Possibility of a Criminal Occupying the Presidency Foreseen Almost 250 Years Ago

Patrick Henry foresaw what we are experiencing with Trump. At the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788, he argued that the vast powers granted to the President rendered the nation vulnerable to a criminal occupying America’s highest office. Such a president, Henry predicted, would realize that his powers could be deployed to aid and abet his criminal ambitions. Henry took care to note that such a president could, in theory, be checked by a criminal investigation, but facing the prospect of criminal charges, the president would simply rely on his constitutionally granted powers to thwart the prosecutors and if the prosecutors did not back down, the president could simply collapse the system, demanding the full powers of a “monarch.” “If the president be guilty,” Henry told the Convention, then his criminal proclivities meant that he wouldn’t hesitate “to make one bold push for the American throne.” I’m afraid we’re seeing that in a real time today with Trump.

"Blood on His Hands"

"Blood On His Hands" The bullying and mafia styled actions continue, now at the cost of countless lives. Trump witholds intelligene support for Ukraine, this on top of witholding already approved military equipment It is cruel and life-taking. An unforgiveable and unforgettable stain on our country created by our Presdident. Trump's Mafia-Styled Operation March 6, 2025 Trump has brought a mafia-styled operation to the Presidency, not for the first time. There is no clearer way I can describe it. Five years ago, he was on the brink of being impeached. He told President Zelensky there would be no more aid for Ukraine until Zelensky agreed to dig deep into computer files to find evidence to impugn Hunter Biden. It is a tragedy that Republican Senators who knew better, didn’t stand up then to impeach him, thereby thwarting the possibility of his returning to office. Today, the beat goes on. Trump is holding Zelensky and Ukraine hostage again. In order to receive more military aid, they are going to have to confer a substantial amount of the country’s mineral rights to the United States without, so far, a guarantee joined by the US, of preserving Ukraine's independence. This mafia-style operation is nothing new for Trump. It is how he ran his businesses. Totally transactional. Bluffing. Following the mantra--"if I hold the stronger hand I win". No matter what happens to you. The mafia style leadership characterizes Trump's relationships with other nations. Trump is using tariffs as a bludgeon to force countries into agreements. He offers to extend the enforcement of the tariff or pull it back, depending on what the leader agrees to tomorrow or next week. As David Sanger of the NYT aptly describes it, he "is turning tariffs on and off like tap water". He is acting almost "on whim". Wang Li, China's foreign minister characterizes Trump's tariff actions as "the law of the jungle". This is sheer power politics. It is a commitment to “the mighty will rule over the weak.” As Thucydidis wrote centuries ago,"the strong do what they can and the week suffer what they must". These tariff actions are leading to some short term "concessions" but this bullying and whip lash approach will not end well for us. The abandonment of a rules-based and trust-based relationship with other nations, including our closest historic allies has been and will remain essential to living in the world we want to live in. Our network of allies has been a great strenth of our nation. Trump is decimating it, day by day, hour by hour. There is no sign to date that Trump’s appointments to his cabinet or to his Republican colleagues are going to stand up against this mafia-type operation. I think the only thing that will lead them to is what I fear what may well happen to our nation: economic decline and continued chaos unsettling and endangering the lives of millions and millions of people. This is happening right now. The mafia styled operation also characterizes the domestic actions of the Trump Administration. Trump and Musk are dismantling institutions which have served this country for decades. Not perfectly; every institution needs improvement, some significantly in their efficiency and quality. But we need to build them--not destroy them-- we need to make them stronger to serve the public better. What we are witnessing now is chaotic and often cruel destruction without strategic calculation of how to make them better. We are in a troubled time. Not for the first time, we are in search of a leader who can bring this country back to its highest values, practically and cogently. We faced this need many times before. We faced it with Abraham Lincoln. With Teddy Roosevelt, with Franklin D. Roosevelt, with Harry Truman and others. They brought this country back on course whether that be with our domestic institutions, race relationships or our relationships with other countries. In the meantime, we need to push back at what is happening here that is wrong. I am encouraged by what the courts are doing. But I believe we need a mass movement of the kind we witnessed with the suffragettes and Civil Rights leaders which will need to be led by a leader who has yet to clearly emerge but I am sure is there. Reply, Reply All or Forward

Trump's Mafia-Styled Operation

Trump has brought a mafia-styled operation to the Presidency, not for the first time. There is no clearer way I can describe it. Five years ago, he was on the brink of being impeached. He told President Zelensky there would be no more aid for Ukraine until Zelensky agreed to dig deep into computer files to find evidence to impugn Hunter Biden. It is a tragedy that Republican Senators who knew better, didn’t stand up then to impeach him, thereby thwarting the possibility of this man returning to office. Today, the beat goes on. Trump is holding Zelensky and Ukraine hostage again. In order to receive more military aid, they are going to have to confer a substantial amount of the country’s mineral rights to the United States without, so far, a guarantee joined by the US, of preserving Ukraine's independence. This mafia-style operation is nothing new for Trump. It is how he ran his businesses. Totally transactional. Bluffing. Following the mantra--"if I hold the stronger hand I win". No matter what happens to you. The mafia style leadership characterizes Trump's relationships with other nations. Trump is using tariffs as a bludgeon to force countries into agreements. He offers to extend the enforcement of the tariff or pull it back, depending on what the leader agrees to tomorrow or next week. As David Sanger of the NYT aptly describes it, he "is turning tariffs on and off like tap water". He is acting almost "on whim". Wang Li, China's foreign minister charactertizes Trump's tariff actions as "the law of the jungle". This is sheer power politics. It is a commitment to “the mighty will rule over the weak.” As Thucydidis wrote centuries ago,"the strong do what they can and the week suffer what they must". These tariff actions are leading to some short term "concessions" but this bullying and whip lash approach will not end well for us. The abandonment of a rules-based and trust-based relationship with other nations, including our closest historic allies has been and will remain essential to living in the world we want to live in. Our network of allies has been a great strenth of our nation. Trump is decimating it, day by day, hour by hour. There is no sign to date that Trump’s appointments to his cabinet or to his Republican colleagues are going to stand up against this mafia-type operation. I think the only thing that will lead them to is what I fear what may well happen to our nation: economic decline and continued chaos unsettling and endangering the lives of millions and millions of people. This is happening right now. The mafia styled operation also characterizes the domestic actions of the Trump Administration. Trump and Musk are dismantling institutions which have served this country for decades. Not perfectly; every institution needs improvement, some significantly in their efficiency and quality. But we need to build them--not destroy them-- we need to make them stronger to serve the public better. What we are witnessing now is chaotic and often crueldestruction, without strategic calculation of how to make them better. We are in a troubled time. We are in search of a leader who can bring this country back to its highest values, practically and cogently. We faced this need many times before. We faced it with Abraham Lincoln. With Teddy Roosevelt, with Franklin D. Roosevelt, with Harry Truman and others. They brought this country back on course whether that be with race relationships or in our relationships with other countries. In the meantime, we need to push back at what is happening here that is wrong. I am encouraged by what the courts are doing. But I believe we need a mass movement like we witnessed with the suffragetes and Civil Rights leaders that is going to have to be led by a leader who has yet to emerge but I am sure is there. Reply, Reply All or Forward

Refelctions on Religion from Twenty-Two Years Ago--I Feel the Same Way Today

I have found the past year to be a very difficult one in terms of reconciling the faith I had in a super-ordinate power of goodness and ultimate creator of what exists, and the reaffirmation of the terrible damage and injustice that can grow from the fanatical, even if misguided, pursuit of religious orthodoxy. The torturous and horrific acts committed by some in the name of Allah are only the most recent manifestation of where religious belief can carry. To say that religion is not the root cause of violence (and sadly I think that judgment in some cases cannot be supported) does not change the fact that religion has too often served as the justification and been used to broaden the reach of the pursuit of evil. We see throughout history innumerable cases where religion, like it or not, has led to such inhuman ends. The crusades led by the Christians. The battles between Orthodox Serbs and Muslim Bosnians. The battle between Jewish and Palestinian fanatics. The Hindus versus the Muslims and many more. What is one to make of this? Surely there is no denying the benefits that organized religion has brought to people in numbers far too great to count. I am among them. If I had not been brought up a Catholic, if I had not participated in the Episcopal Church, particularly in the opportunity it gave me for self-reflection and contact with members of the clergy who inspired me with their thoughts, I surely would not be the person I am today. However, I find it unsatisfying and intellectually dishonest to simply leave the matter accepting that, yes, organized religion does a lot of good, but it does a lot of harm, too. What is so ironical is that, if you take the thoughts of Jesus, pure and simple, you could hardly go wrong. You could almost sum up every book written about good living in the Sermon on the Mount with the Beatitudes. I am coming to a belief that the problem with organized religion is that it becomes fossilized and bureaucratized. Fossilized in the sense that it is slow or unwilling to change its views on what practices and behaviors are truly in accord with the root values of the great world religions. Those root values can be found in the Ten Commandments, the Beatitudes, in the admonition to “love thy neighbor as thyself.” If religion stopped there, and thought about what it meant to carry out these virtues faithfully in today’s world, we would not end up, I submit, with the exclusive “you are with us or you are against us” “only the faithful are worthy” attitude that have too often led to prejudice, violence and even war. The mistake of organized religions is to come to the belief that they have a unique interpretation of truth that extends beyond what is really the foundation of truth – being all one can be and honoring others as oneself. They become structured and bureaucratized and then work for their own self-perpetuation, knowing it or not, even if this is not in the furtherance of the few ultimate truths that really matter. Of course, religious institutions are not the only organizations that fall into this trap. All organizations do. The problem which religions face to a particular degree is that they don’t have built within them the adequate balance of power to adapt to the need to change rapidly. One need only think how long it has taken (and is still taking) for divorce to be accepted in certain religions. One thinks of all the artifice that has been used to get around this requirement, engaging in intellectual dishonesty in the extreme. What’s more, almost all religious organizations are self-appointed in their succession. Governments, too, can be slow to change, but their perpetuation (at least in a democracy) is determined by the electorate. It is not surprising that those societies which have not allowed the electorate to govern the succession have not, by and large, been successful over time. And even those, such as China today, which have continued to be ruled with a strong autocratic hand, have increasingly brought into the workings of society the individual choice in the economic and social spheres needed for the structure and operation of society to continue to evolve. What has led organized religion to change, it seems to me, often after an enormous length of time, is what has led other organizations to change, and that is survival. It is only as “the faithful” drop away from an organized church that the need for change will be truly embraced. And yet that need can come slowly for the power of organized religion is strong because the truth of its basic tenets remain, even as too often its rituals and practices become arcane, out of touch with modern society and honored more in the breach than in the practice. Moreover, for most of us, it is a fact that a church is far more conducive to reflection on the basic truths that make any religion of value than one’s living room. There have been a few members of the clergy whom I have met during my lifetime who have been able to articulate the simple truths of living a good life clearly and cogently. They have changed my life. I think all I can conclude from this difficult and in many ways unsettling line of thought is that the imperative is to try to adhere to these basic truths as well as one possibly can while seeking out individual(s) who can help bring them to light for me/us in a more meaningful way than we can do on our own. I have found such individuals in Bob Gerhard and Paula Jackson, among others. I need to hear from them more often. These thoughts led me to record these excerpts and reflections from the book Doubts and Loves by Richard Holloway: I would like to suggest that we should switch the emphasis in Christianity from belief to practice, from believing things about Jesus to the imitation of Jesus. There would be three challenging elements here: Resolution to love rather than condemn sinners. Seek to understand others rather than rush to judgment. Active pity for the disadvantaged of the earth, then work to change their lot. A mistrust of power and violence, both personal and institutional, and an act of opposition to them. I would like to suggest that worldlessness or identification with the powerless is the key to the mystery of Jesus. The paradox is that we have only heard of Jesus through an institution that has not experienced worldlessness for a very long time. The expendable Man of Nazareth is now represented by an institution that follows the logic of all worldly institutions the logic of expedience; the drive to survive; yet we would not even know about this paradox if it were not for the Church. The Sermon on the Mount is not exactly translatable into complete political practice, but it can act as a stimulus to aspiration; it can create the sort of discontent that leads to action. A transformed version of the Jesus tradition, adapted for our day, would lay less emphasis on believing things about Jesus and more emphasis on imitating Jesus. It would be a practice system rather than a belief system. What is left of Christianity should be the practice of the kind of love that subverts the selfishness of power, whether it is the subtle power of spiritual or the brutal power of political institutions. All concentrations of power justify their ascendancy with theory, as well as with more blatant methods. I would like to suggest that it is more important to open ourselves to the words that gave rise to the claim of divinity rather than to profess allegiance to the claim itself, but show little or no personal response to the words that precipitated it. The exciting thing about our history, the thing that helps to balance all the evil we have committed, is our passion for discovery, for beginning again. Christ’s teaching on forgiveness has already opened for us the possibility of a new politics that can even move us beyond great tragedy and start again. Young people are the way the world keeps on beginning again. For those who want to live the world, it must begin with attention. Intensity. Repentance. Forgiving others is a true win/win. For ourselves and for others. For those doing the forgiving and those forgiven.

The Challenge And Urgency of Standing Up to do What is Right

This challenge was illustrated in 1940 by the reluctance of people to face up to the horror of Hitler. Here is a petition signed by Potter Stewart, a future Supreme Court Justice, and Congressman Gerald Ford, a future President of the United States. “We demand the Congress refrain from war, even if England is on the verge of defeat.” Or, at the same time, this from William Coffin, as the Treasurer of Harvard talking to its President Conant: “Hitler is going to win. Let’s be friends with him.” This reminded Arthur Schlesinger of the challenge faced by the old Whig Party, the party of business in antebellum America. It did not confront the challenge of slavery. Yet slavery was as urgent a question in the 1850s as Nazism was in the 1940s. Everyone had to come to a decision on this. Just as everyone today must come to a decision on who holds the responsibility for Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. Niebuhr presents the challenge of doing "what is right" by illuminating the mixed nature of man: “The plight of the self is that it cannot do the good it intends because man’s pretensions to reason and virtue,” he argued, “are eradicably tainted by self-interest and love. Original sin lies in man’s illusion that he can overcome his inherent finiteness and weakness". Over-weening self-pride permeates all human endeavor and brings evil into history, Niehbuhr argues. A second theme of Niebuhr is the relationship between history and eternity. The modern fallacy, he thought, was the idea that redemption is possible within the history. Man must understand the incompleteness of all historic good as well as the corruption of all historic achievement. Wisdom, he wrote, “is dependent upon a humble recognition of the limits of our knowledge and our power.” “Nothing worth doing is completed in our lifetime. Therefore, we must be saved by hope. Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore, we are saved by love. No virtuous act is quite as virtuous from the standpoint of our friend or foe as from our standpoint. Therefore, we must be saved by the final form of love, which is forgiveness.” We are also saved, I have found, by the final form of love which is understanding and respecting another person’s reality as he or she sees it. I do not share Niebuhr’s thought that there is "corruption of all historic achievement.” I don’t buy this, not for a moment. There are historic achievements which do not become corrupt if carried out in the way that was embodied by that “historic achievement.” I think of a brilliant piece of art: a sculpture by Michelangelo or a timeless book by Tolstoy. I think of the development of the relationship of mutual understanding, true mutual understanding. That is not destined to become corrupt. There are things that are so right they stand the test of time. Above all, in my experience, works of art and personal relationships which are truly timeless.

"Letting Putin Off the Hook"

I have anticipated Trump would drive a settlement in the Russia-Ukraine war. But I did not imagine he would do so by letting Putin off the hook, doing so by giving a pass to Putin for his illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine and today blaming the Ukrainians and their leaders for the war and negotiating terms without Ukraine at the table. Yet that is what is happening as I write this. It would not be a big leap for President Ji of China to see this and conclude the mainland's claim to Taiwan is rooted in history and hence justified to be carried out by force. Here is an essay I wrote about 3 years ago, 2 months after Putin's illegal full-scale invasion of Ukraine. I talked about the importance of "human agency". We are seeing that play out in a way I never expected--with the President of the United States turning the responsibility for the war on its head, placing the blame squarely on Ukraine and absolving Putin of any responsibility. Who would have believed that!! In this essay I posited the need for a different Russian leader to emerge to achieve a lasting peace. I still think that is true. But I never anticipated that an American President would be the change agent to drive the peace process by denying Russia's culpability even while Putin remains in office. Trump has conceded Putin's key demands even before reaching the negotiation table.: no admission to NATO; Russia keeps the land it illegally conquered. We have utterly betrayed the Ukrainian nation, its people who have sacrificed to much and its leadership. We have betrayed the Russian people who have fought valiantly at the risk and sometimes cost of their lives against Putin's autocratic and immoral rule. This outcome, while substantively and realistically is about what I have expected for the last couple of years, BUT NEVER in the context of absolving Putin of the responsibility for acting illegally. This is unforgivable and constitutes a huge risk for the future. Now, the key is to establish critical support for Ukraine which even without NATO assures it--and makes it clear to Russia--that Ukraine's independence is guaranteed by the US and our allies, whom Trump and his administration have recently thrown under the bus. It remains to be seen if that will occur. It MUST. I include below a posting I made threee months after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The themes and convictions I present still are relevant today. "I Never Felt I Would Live to See The Day, Yet There Remains Room for Hope" May 16, 2022 Like so many who have studied Russian and Ukrainian history, who have come to have many Russian and Ukrainian friends and admire Russian and Ukrainian culture, I never thought I would live to see the day when the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, would launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. I thought Vladimir Putin was more prudent than that. I thought that he would see the risk as too high and the likely damage to his own country too great. That, of course, is not the way it has turned out. That brutal reality—and the resulting deaths, displacement of millions of lives and the economic devastation which has resulted from it—they are a source of unspeakable pain and regret. I never felt I would live to see this day. And yet…I am also reminded that I never thought I would live to see the day when the Soviet Union would peaceably dissolve as a collective body of nations committed to Communism and to the prosecution of a Cold War with the West. I never thought I’d live to see the day when I, then President of Procter & Gamble, along with thousands of others, played a role in creating a business and organization in Russia, not that long after I had chased Russian submarines around the North Atlantic as part of the U.S. Navy. No matter what the future brings, I will always be incredibly proud of what our P&G Russian men and women achieved. What do I hope to demonstrate with this sequence of events which I never thought I would have lived to experience? What perspective, if any, might it offer for the future? Several things, I believe. It forcefully underscores that history is not inevitable. That it does not proceed in a straight line. That it encounters unexpected dramatic changes. It cautions us to not give up hope. Situations that have looked borderline hopeless in the past have turned around, gotten better, more often than not in ways we did not anticipate. Above all, for me, it highlights the importance of individual agency. I do not believe that the peaceful demise of the Soviet Union, accomplished in the face of the great threat of it being violent, could possibly have happened if it were not for the person of Mikhail Gorbachev. To be sure, there were underlying factors, importantly economic and the openness of communication that allowed Russians to see what was happening to the West. These were foundational realities that helped prompt dramatic change in Russia. But the evolution of this change in the peaceful way in which it occurred was by no means certain. There were other Russian leaders, who I encountered first-hand, who would have fought the dissolution of the Soviet Union tooth and nail, with great loss of life. In much the same way, one can explain Vladimir Putin’s disastrous decision to invade Ukraine and trace it back to certain historical decisions, particularly the expansion of NATO and the failure to grasp the slim opportunity that existed at the turn of the century to bring Russia into a Pan-European security network. As I wrote in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea, there is “enough blame to go around.” However, make no mistake. The decision on how to respond to the perceived (or actual as Russia saw it) risk that Russia’s security posed by NATO was singularly dependent on the decision by Vladimir Putin, as he called on his army to invade Ukraine. The decision to do this without even obtaining an even halfway accurate idea of how the Ukrainian people would react to this invasion also rests squarely on Vladimir Putin. So there we have two of the most unforgettable events in my entire 80+-year life that I never thought I would see the day to experience. This view of history leads me to the hope that there will again be a shift of power and belief system in Russia which this time will offer the opportunity for Russia to take its place within a broad European security network. For decades, I firmly believed this is where Russia belongs. Yes, bringing its own unique cultural history and belief systems but still part of Europe and the West. Having had the benefit of being close to Russia and Russian people for over 30 years and having studied its history and culture, I firmly believe that its natural place in this global spectrum we inhabit is part of a broader Europe. There are already major differences between countries in Europe: between Germany and Italy, France and the U.K., Poland and Spain. Russia, too, will have its own unique characteristics. But while it didn’t participate fully in The Enlightenment, all you need to do is read Russian literature and experience its music and its art and know its people to see the place it occupies in Western culture. The fact that this will not happen in my lifetime, with my now being over 80, is disappointing but it is not personally deflating. I know history is long. No set of experiences shows how it can change more than what we have experienced in Russia over my adult lifetime. I am conscious that achieving this end will not happen on automatic pilot. It will require many things which I cannot pretend to know, but three I can: 1. People in Russia, as many are right now, standing up bravely, at risk of their lives, to argue for and commit to advance as best they can, a liberal way of life. People who do not give up hope in a better future. 2. That the people of the world at large and of the West in particular not "blackballl" the Russian people generally as evil and as "enemies" but rather recognize that this tragic decision to invade Ukraine was very much the decision of its leadership. And recognize further that in the long run--and the short run too for that matter--that working with Russia, without expecting we will see everything alike, is in the interest of the United States, Russia and the entire world. 3.. Ultimately, the emergence of a Russian leader who can gain the confidence of the Russian people and play the positive role that Gorbachev did over 30 years ago, and Lech Walesa did in Poland, and Nelson Mandela did in South Africa, and Abraham Lincoln did in the United States and that this leader will be matched with leaders from the West who are prepared to work together to achieve common existential goals.

"Playing the Cards You Have...For the Future...For People

“Playing the Cards You Have…For the Future…For People” Sheila Jackson Lee was a Congresswoman who served in Houston for 30 years, from 1995 until her death in July 2024. I came to know her over the years through our joint association with Yale. I admired her enormously. How could I not? Sheila Jackson Lee’s life was celebrated with a glorious memorial service held at the National Cathedral in Washington, DC. Numerous luminaries spoke, including former President Bill Clinton. President Clinton delivered a memorable eulogy to Ms. Lee. It included a number of stirring stories, but there were two which I will never forget. Clinton recalled that when he was in the White House in the mid-1990s, he had what was called a “just say yes” list. On this list were only a handful of people who were so persistent and persuasive in their points of view, he came to believe “he might just as well say yes now” because you knew you would eventually. On this list, Clinton recounted, were long-term political leaders that you would expect, including Nancy Pelosi and Senator Ted Kennedy. Also on the list, surprisingly, I’m sure to many, was this Freshman Congresswoman, Sheila Jackson Lee. She earned the reputation even before she was a Congresswoman and, quickly when she became one, that she would persist in advocating what she thought was right, again and again. The second memory Clinton shared of Ms. Lee is one, which even more I will remember forever. He said quite simply: No matter what the situation, right up to the time of her passing, “Sheila Jackson Lee played the cards she had. She played them for the future,” Clinton remarked with passion and, I would add, “she played them for people.” I can’t overemphasize the importance I attach to this call to “play the cards you have, play for them for the future and, yes, play them for people.” Doing that at every stage of our life, including when we are most challenged, perhaps especially when we are challenged, is vital. Think of this metaphor. You are playing poker. You get seven cards. Two or three of them are great. Two mediocre. And two are, plain and simple, terrible. But this is your hand. There is no point in lamenting or grousing about it. You have to play it as best as you humanly can and, yes, play it for the future and play it for people. I can relate to this mantra “play the cards you have” to every phase of my life. There were times during my career at Procter & Gamble when I was faced with circumstances that I can only describe as having some “pretty bad cards.” But I knew I needed to make the most of them myself and with others. When I had cancer in 2005, and I was given a 50/50 chance to survive for five years, there wasn’t a shadow of a doubt in my mind: I was going to play the cards I had, and I was going to play them for the future, and I did. I know that attitude helped me survive. I think of my wife, Francie, now battling cancer. She’s been doing it for four years. Stage IV metastatic breast cancer. She is certainly playing the cards she has, heroically, with the most positive spirit imaginable. Earlier, during my long association with the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center, I can remember the day when an advisor came into the room to tell us they had badly overestimated attendance and the need for us to raise money had almost tripled. This was an ugly hand. But I and all of us knew that the Freedom Center was vital; that we needed to make it survive; that we needed to play the cards we had. “Playing the cards you have” calls for imagination, calls for persistence, and calls for partners who can help win the hand. It is not a passive, “let’s see how it develops” frame of mind. It is an assertive vision “we are going to make the most of this situation” frame of mind. I think of the heroes that I admire most. Winston Churchill in 1941-1942. As he became Prime Minister, he was inheriting a really bad hand. Germans were marching through North Africa. Japan was capturing almost all of Southeast Asia. There was incessant bombing in London. But he took the hand he had, and he made the most of it. He rallied the British people. He strategically saw he needed to bring the United States into the war and that became his top priority. That was the “future” he was intended to achieve, and he was playing his hand, yes, for the “people.” The citizens of the United Kingdom, whom he rallied. Yes, “play the hand you have. Play it for the future. Play it for people.” The story Bill Clinton told about Sheila Jackson Lee will forever motivate me. Perhaps the story will also motivate you.

What Have I Learned From Caregivers Who Have supported Me and My Wife, Francie

What I have learned from the (mainly) women who have been caring for Francie and me over the past four years. ncoi As I think about what I have learned over the past four years by far the greatest amount has come from what I have learned from caregivers-- nurses and nurses’ aides in hospitals and the round-the-clock caregivers who have supported my wife, Francie, and me at home. What have I learned? I’ve learned the challenges that people are facing in making ends meet. I have experienced the determination and persistence of these women in pursuing their own education and supporting the education of their children to achieve ends that they never were able to meet. I’ve learned about the wisdom that these women have. Wisdom that goes well beyond what one would attribute to having a college education, which virtually all of these women do not have. I have learned how much we can learn from one another by knowing each other’s stories. I once not too long ago spent 40 minutes in the wee hours of the morning talking to a woman who was cleaning my hospital room. On another occasion, I spent time with a nurse's aide who had a quiet moment and shared stories with me about her life and her family, her challenges, her aspirations and what she is doing to meet them. These have been inspiring stories. I never would have met these remarkable women (and some men) if I had not been challenged medically or if Francie hadn’t been challenged. There is a lesson in this that is not new to me. We need to know the stories of people who are different than us. We don’t do that nearly enough today. The sense of community we had when I was growing up has been severely diminished. Fewer people are in the Scouts. Fewer people join the military service, which brings people who are different together. Fewer people are in social clubs. One would hope that religion would bring people together. And it does in terms of what is preached: treat your neighbor as yourself. But too often, at least in my experience, the church services I go to don’t provide a good opportunity for interaction, to get to know one another. One has to be intentional in doing this, but I have always found it informing and inspiring. Often, as in the case with many of our caregivers, in amazing ways. It is notably and correctly observed that the Democratic Party has lost touch with and support from the “working class.” And it has. And Trump and the MAGA movement have established that relationship with people who historically have formed the foundation of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has failed to show they understand the challenges and, yes, the grievance felt by the so-called working class; grievance not even so much economically, as grievance of being looked down on. Some of my own goals have been affected by this thinking. I have long been committed to the importance of everyone having a four-year college education. In recent years, it has become clear to me that desirable as it is, going to college should not be the signal of merit or achievement. Rather, the goal has to be helping people do what they need to achieve the life they want that will provide economic security and a sense of personal worth. That could be a two-year college, a trade school or an internship with a business. One of the sons of some of our best friends, Chris and Angela Schunk, is Crosley. He is completing four years at Miami and doing well. But that’s not his main interest. He is an entrepreneur. He is starting a landscape business. ************************************* All of this leads me to the pursuit of the governorship of Ohio by Amy Acton. My son, David, is helping her. It’s clear that Amy faces the major challenge of creating a message and establishing a voice that reflects her intention and ability to understand and support everyone, including those people who have felt disenfranchised, people living in rural areas, people who don’t have a college education. It starts with recognizing their worth and then identifying and implementing actions that promise to support the realization of their ambitions and personal goals. This is a noble undertaking. I believe Amy Acton has the temperament and the inner beliefs in her soul to do this. But it will need to be very intentional.

"Why Religion?" An Inspiring Book Which Led to Deep Personal Reflection

I drew many meaningful insights from a book recommended to me one of my closest friends many ago titled "Why Religion? A Personal Story" by Elaine Pagels. How to go on? Pagels writes after a searing personal tragedy. She recalls Viktor Frankl's writing that when our lives or the world in which we find ourselves living turn out different from what we expect or would ever want, we have to do “what life expects of us”; "We need to stop asking about the meaning of life, and instead think of ourselves as those who are being questioned by life—daily and hourly…Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems, and to fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual.” Pagels writes: "I was startled to realize that somehow I still wanted to believe that we live in a morally ordered universe, in which someone, or something—God or nature?—would keep track of what’s fair. Was this a relic of Western cultural tradition that moralizes history, like those old Bible stories I’d heard, that suggest that doing good ensures well-being and doing wrong brings disaster?" So, I ask myself, personally, do we live in a "morally ordered universe.” I believe the answer is "yes.” To be sure, I recognize that my response is an expression of faith. At almost the same time I was reading "Why Religion" I came upon a compelling statement bearing on the role of belief and faith in William James' "Essays in Pragmatism". James writes. "Belief, as measured by action, not only does but must outstrip scientific evidence. In such questions as God, immortality, absolute morality and free will, (one) can always doubt his creed but his intimate persuasion is that the odds in its favor are strong enough to warrant him acting all along on the assumption of its truth". We may in the end find we are wrong, I reflect, but I have found it better to act on the belief it is true than a belief it is not. This is how I have long felt about my faith in a Supreme Power, in there being an ultimate good.” William James uses a common sense example to illustrate his point. A rock climber finds himself in a life-threatening predicament: he has to make a leap to another distant ledge to have a chance of surviving. It is a longer leap than he has ever before attempted. He has no evidence he can do it. He is faced with a choice. On the one hand, he can be so consumed by doubt, debating and delaying his decision whether to jump, to the point he loses the strength to do it successfully when he does try. Alternatively, he can decide to act on the belief, with the "faith" that he can do it. Needless to say, he is far more likely to survive pursing the latter choice. Just so it was faith that led me to push to open up Eastern Europe aggressively with P&G in the early 1990s. So it was with faith that we set out raise 100+ million dollars to build the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center. So it is with faith that I pray to God for the wisdom to know the right thing to do and the courage and determination to do it. I do so uncertain if God actually hears my prayer, but I know that reaching out to God helps me act in line with my best instincts. As James writes: "There are cases where faith creates its own verification.” I have discovered that again and again. Pagels goes on to shine a bright light on our commonality as people. She recognizes our common passage on the journey of life. Here is what she writes: In the Gospel of Thomas, the “good news” is not only about Jesus; it’s also about every one of us. For while we ordinarily identify ourselves by specifying how we differ, in terms of gender, race, ethnicity, background, family name, the call to recognize that we are “children of God” requires us to acknowledge how we are the same—members, so to speak, of the same family. These sayings suggest what later becomes a primary theme of Jewish mystical tradition: that the “image of God,” divine light given in creation, is hidden deep within each one of us, linking our fragile, limited selves to their divine source. Although we’re often unaware of that spiritual potential, the Thomas sayings urge us to keep on seeking until we find it: “Within a person of light, there is light. If illuminated, it lights up the whole world; if not, everything is dark.” Emerging from a time of unbearable grief, (Pagels had just lost her husband after earlier losing her son), "such sayings helped dispel isolation and turn me from despair, suggesting that every one of us is woven into the mysterious fabric of the universe, and into connection with each other, with all being, and with God." Believing this is a matter of faith. Many would argue we are all independent individuals with particular characteristics of race and ethnicity developed over a long period of evolution—and not interconnected as "children of God" nor members of the same family in a true familial sense. I, of course, cannot offer irrefutable evidence that we are all are indeed members of the same family. But I believe it. And I am sure that belief, or faith if you'd prefer it, has led me to act differently than I otherwise would. It leads me to try my best to put myself in the other person's shoes, to try to listen to others carefully, knowing I have a lot to learn and that it is the greatest demonstration of respect I can convey to another person. And it leads me to truly believe and act on the truth, "Everyone Counts.” Once again quoting William James: "There are cases where faith creates its own verification.” The Gospel of Thomas, then, is all about relationships—how, when we come to know ourselves, simultaneously we come to know God. Implicit in this relationship is the paradox of gnosis—not intellectual knowledge, but knowledge of the heart. What first we must come to know is that we cannot fully know God since that Source far transcends our understanding. But what we can know is that we’re intimately connected with that divine Source, since “in him we live and move and have our being.”

A Personal Examination and Expression of Faith

I drew many meaningful insights from a book recommended to me one of my closest friends many ago titled Why Religion? A Personal Story by Elaine Pagels. How to go on? Pagels writes after a searing personal tragedy. She recalls Viktor Frankl's writing that when our lives or the world in which we find ourselves living turn out different from what we expect or would ever want, we have to do “what life expects of us”; "We need to stop asking about the meaning of life, and instead think of ourselves as those who are being questioned by life—daily and hourly…Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems, and to fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual.” Pagels writes: "I was startled to realize that somehow I still wanted to believe that we live in a morally ordered universe, in which someone, or something—God or nature?—would keep track of what’s fair. Was this a relic of Western cultural tradition that moralizes history, like those old Bible stories I’d heard, that suggest that doing good ensures well-being and doing wrong brings disaster?" So, I ask myself, personally, do we live in a "morally ordered universe.” I believe the answer is "yes.” To be sure, I recognize that my response is an expression of faith. At almost the same time I was reading Why Religion? I came upon a compelling statement bearing on the role of belief and faith in William James' Essays in Pragmatism. James writes. "Belief, as measured by action, not only does but must outstrip scientific evidence. In such questions as God, immortality, absolute morality and free will, (one) can always doubt his creed but his intimate persuasion is that the odds in its favor are strong enough to warrant him acting all along on the assumption of its truth". We may in the end find we are wrong, I reflect, but I have found it better to act on the belief it is true than a belief it is not. This is how I have long felt about my faith in a Supreme Power, in there being an ultimate good.” William James uses a common sense example to illustrate his point. A rock climber finds himself in a life-threatening predicament: he has to make a leap to another distant ledge to have a chance of surviving. It is a longer leap than he has ever before attempted. He has no evidence he can do it. He is faced with a choice. On the one hand, he can be so consumed by doubt, debating and delaying his decision whether to jump, to the point he loses the strength to do it successfully when he does try. Alternatively, he can decide to act on the belief, with the "faith" that he can do it. Needless to say, he is far more likely to survive pursing the latter choice. Just so it was faith that led me to push to open up Eastern Europe aggressively with P&G in the early 1990s. So it was with faith that we set out raise 100+ million dollars to build the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center. So it is with faith that I pray to God for the wisdom to know the right thing to do and the courage and determination to do it. I do so uncertain if God actually hears my prayer, but I know that reaching out to God helps me act in line with my best instincts. As James writes: "There are cases where faith creates its own verification.” I have discovered that again and again. Pagels goes on to shine a bright light on our commonality as people. She recognizes our common passage on the journey of life. Here is what she writes: In the Gospel of Thomas, the “good news” is not only about Jesus; it’s also about every one of us. For while we ordinarily identify ourselves by specifying how we differ, in terms of gender, race, ethnicity, background, family name, the call to recognize that we are “children of God” requires us to acknowledge how we are the same—members, so to speak, of the same family. These sayings suggest what later becomes a primary theme of Jewish mystical tradition: that the “image of God,” divine light given in creation, is hidden deep within each one of us, linking our fragile, limited selves to their divine source. Although we’re often unaware of that spiritual potential, the Thomas sayings urge us to keep on seeking until we find it: “Within a person of light, there is light. If illuminated, it lights up the whole world; if not, everything is dark.” Emerging from a time of unbearable grief, (Pagels had just lost her husband after earlier losing her son), "such sayings helped dispel isolation and turn me from despair, suggesting that every one of us is woven into the mysterious fabric of the universe, and into connection with each other, with all being, and with God." Believing this is a matter of faith. Many would argue we are all independent individuals with particular characteristics of race and ethnicity developed over a long period of evolution—and not interconnected as "children of God" nor members of the same family in a true familial sense. I, of course, cannot offer irrefutable evidence that we are all are indeed members of the same family. But I believe it. And I am sure that belief, or faith if you'd prefer it, has led me to act differently than I otherwise would. It leads me to try my best to put myself in the other person's shoes, to try to listen to others carefully, knowing I have a lot to learn and that it is the greatest demonstration of respect I can convey to another person. And it leads me to truly believe and act on the truth, "Everyone Counts.” Once again quoting William James: "There are cases where faith creates its own verification.” The Gospel of Thomas, then, is all about relationships—how, when we come to know ourselves, simultaneously we come to know God. Implicit in this relationship is the paradox of gnosis—not intellectual knowledge, but knowledge of the heart. What first we must come to know is that we cannot fully know God since that Source far transcends our understanding. But what we can know is that we’re intimately connected with that divine Source, since “in him we live and move and have our being.”

"A Race to the Bottom". Trump Is Tearing Up the Fabric of Trust Among Our Allies and Friends

An Editorial in "The Guardian" (see link below) calls for Europe to acquire a"dose of patriotism" to combat the threat of populist powers. I agree 100%. The ability to achieve what the author is calling for, of course, was severely weakened by Britain’s leaving the EU. In fact, Britain must be part of creating the vision, leadership, and governance of a united Europe, committed to common economic and diplomatic norms. The question that cries out from his article is, who is the leader that can muster the confidence, vision, and energy to make what the editorial argues for happen This is even more important in the world of "power makes right" which Trump has elevated and endorsed through his actions, including on tariffs He is using tariffs as a sledgehammer to brutally require other nations, in this case, particularly Canada and Mexico, a few weeks ago, Columbia, to make concessions to him. He promises to turn next to Europe. He is decimating the trust among allies. It may bring him a short term, political win, but it is terrible policy for the long-term. It will give license to other countries with power to use that power to sledgehammer other countries into doing what they want. I think of China. If it has some raw material that the United States needs, and no one else can provide, it can sledgehammer the US. A small country could do this too, if it has an exclusive access for essential raw material. Trump’s talking about taking over the Panama Canal, acquiring Greenland, even making Canada a 51st state based on national security gives license to China to say it needs Taiwan for national security reasons. Putin can use it to justify the attack on Ukraine in order to avoid it becoming part of NATO. A rules based world is imperfect and it’s messy but history shows that in the long run, it is much better than one that simply relies on "power makes right". This is the attitude that leadsto war. Also, you don’t negotiate by bullying your best friends. They will turn against you in ways that will be hard to measure in the short term, but they will show up long-term. Our network of allies has long been a unique strategic advantage. The Trump administration is tearing it to ribbons as I write this. And iit not only the decimation of trust on the foreign policy front. Trust is being further eroded in our national institutions by Trump's appointment of unqualified people to lead them. ein https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/04/threatened-by-populist-superpowers-europe-too-needs-a-dose-of-patriotism?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other