Dear and Glorious Physician

Dear and Glorious Physician
By Taylor Caldwell


I picked this book up at random. It was sitting on a coffee table and I knew not how it got there. I have great appreciation for Taylor Caldwell, both her work and the exceptional life she lived. In classic Caldwell style she paints every scene so as to place the reader in it. Caldwell is surely 20th a century rival to the likes of Hugo. You can actually smell the pomegranate in the Roman gardens while reading her book. You get a real sense from this book that the wealthy of Rome had many of the luxuries of today’s modern man. The missing mechanical inventions of the 19th and 20th centuries were simply replaced with slaves and servants. Lucanus, the Physician and main character was the son of a Greek freedman. From that perspective the reader gains a purely neutral view on the strife between Jew and Greek or Roman gentile. Caldwell never speaks directly to it; however the reader, late in the book, begins to sense that in too many cases that the Jews though good people were their own worst enemy when it came to integrating with other cultures.

As the story the story goes: Lucanus the young boy of a freed Greek slave still serving the son of his one time master Diodoris was a prodigy philosopher, though after reading his scripture not a very good writer, aspiring to be a physician. His mentors early on were a Roman tribune, a Greek record keeper, and a Greek tutor. The first two were both frauds in their association with their social setting which was a fraud in itself. In spite of those mentors, Lucanus pursues the one unknown God of the Jewish religion.

Mid way through the book, as Lucanus prepares to leave the Alexandria school of medicine, a graduate Physician, his Jewish teacher bids him farewell and tells a story of a boy born under a star in the East. The teacher predicts that Lucanus shall seek this boy and its only then that this reader of the book has the epiphany; Lucanus - Luke. It allows the author to make Luke an objective critic. An interesting twist of events exposes the Jews as the first to discriminate against the black man, by Caldwell's reference to the legend of HAM. It is also the Jew who doesn't recognize Christ as a messiah but is the Jew who is the early physician/scientist. Karmaiclly it is the Jew who has witnessed a millennium of Diaspora and its discrimination. In a few places the book Caldwell implies that the fate of the 'Diaspora' Jew was of his own making.

While early on Caldwell uses Lucanus to examine a merciless and hateful God, later she introduces the evil man as an alternative. Within the evil man is greed and envy where it's envy playing the evil role over a wealthy man who found his wealth through generosity? Generosity is hinted as being the channel to wealth as a generous person is a good steward of money. This reader was receptive to this hint because of outside influence. It is at this point that the light begins to come into Lucanus’s life that perhaps it is not the vengeful God, but vengeful man at the root of his depression

Caldwell provides a narrative, through the voice of Lucanas’s brother Priscus, the Roman Captain who supervised Christ's crucifixion the telling of that event. The story rivals all I had previously read in any Catholic program that I was raised in. This mainly speaks poorly upon my study. Lucanus's reaction is a revelation to the tormenting he had bore through his life. It was his 'born again' moment where, albeit only implied by Caldwell, that Lucanus became a Christian. Interestingly enough in that moment Lucanus tells his brother of the resurrection purely out of internal conjecture. Lucanus in Caldwell’s book had no fact or word from anyone that Christ had risen.

The first theme of the book is the search to define God. While the ancient people had there gods, Lucanus was busy examining the One God to the extent his challenge to that idea brings forward the notion that the word God is a concept and not a being at all. And so in exploring the concept of god, the second theme being developed is; there is no one philosopher or philosophy that is complete. Caldwell writes through one of her characters Keptah, Lucanus/’s tutor; many philosophers are not wise at all things. Keptah went on; "If a man were to live solely by the theories of the philosophers he would not survive, nor would he retain his sanity. I take this to mean two things. First man is incomplete…until his death.

A third theme comes to full maturation as Lucanus, a seasoned physician, treats the father of three wealthy sons. His illness is derived from a psychosomatic condition. In his analysis Caldwell, through the voice of Lucanus drives home the treatment of a person is more than the function of his body. The point stressed is your health is largely determined by how you both live and view your life. At this point the reader would be reflecting back on the death of an early main character, Diodoris, and contemplating the meaning of death with honor. While it may have not registered with the reader at than moment, Lucanas makes real clear that a physician’s role recognizes that death is every part of life and he must help the dying find comfort in death.

A forth theme may be Lucanas's philosophy that everything can be explained by science. There are many occasions where his treatment of a patient apparently on the brink of certain death, saves his life. In every life saving event Lucanus would say the patient was miss diagnosed. A physician would intuitively be of this mind. Its logical, reason of the mind. However Lucanas's loss of an early love to a fatal illness perpetuates revulsion to anything of the heart as well as a deep rooted contempt for those who believe in the unknown God; though he struggles with both. Lucanus advocates to the unlearned that they must trust the wise. Where as the wise reader knows that no collection of man, let alone any one man, knows everything; as this is the justification for science... what a paradox!!! The purpose of this theme I suspect is to discount all the life saving miracles of Christ and in the balance to poke a stick in the eye of science.


I was compelled upon finishing the book to read Luke’s Gospel and Acts. Specifically to Caldwell’s gradual enlightenment on this subject Luke directly writes the following in ACTS 10:28:
Peter to Cornelius: “You yourself know it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile, but God has shown me that I should not call on anyone profane or unclean. So when I was sent for, I came without objection. Now may I ask why you sent for me?”

My translation: From the days of Christ to 2012 follows this train of semantics. While the Jews associated with creature and man by nomenclature, naming, categorizing and applying rules of law to them; Peter a new Christian delineated between, clean and unclean [in spirit]. He then approached a man of unknown character, looking for the opportunity to recognize his Holy Spirit [‘clean’ intention’, spirit of whole man, using my term - w’holy, one man] in him.

Did Caldwell, by putting Luke's Gospel including Acts I & II in the context of his life put the whole story on trial? Is their divine coincidence in the undercurrent of the spirit of mankind? Is there an ethos that science has yet to discover? Could science and religion surrender their swords and come to an agreement that there is indeed a mystery not to life but in life. Luke’s was a life of long bitterness and then long searching for the One God. Apparently, according to Caldwell this search was a common place, though not necessarily of Romans, of Rome at that time. Luke's gospel is taken in a tone of mystic allegory, where Caldwell's reconstruction of Luke's life gives a rise to the story that was behind the author(s) that was behind the allegory. That rise takes the mysticism out and lends a sense of realism to the accounting of the life of Jesus Christ.

I am not sure to what degree Caldwell intended, she implies an unfavorable character in the Jews. To those early adopters of Christianity many of whom were Jews there is no admonishment of the Law. But rather a following of tradition and fervor of the rabble character of simple people that became the agent of the birth of the Way of which we know today as Christianity. Christianity came to man as the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy of which only the humble paid credence to. The Jews, who proclaimed only they to be chosen, were their own worst enemy. If only they lowered their adulation's to themselves, could they have avoided the following 1947 years of what became a Diaspora of tumultuous tragedy.

John the Baptist’s angry and vengeful announcement of the Messiah lit the fuse for Christ's crucifixion. Was that the way God intended the story to unfold? Or is this simply the nature of God...man? Is the nominal name we apply to nature, God? Praise be the nominalists, whether he/she be the High Priests of Judea, the Holy Imams of Mecca, or the Popes and Cardinals of the Vatican, that fall way short of their goal of simply stating reality, physical observation of our world including the psychology and sociology of man, is to be accepted purely as it is. This is the meaning of love. Between Luke a Gentile along with Paul a Jew, Christianity wins it's case in court, where the rabble continue the argument. In Caldwell's version she closes with a case for motherhood. Caldwell uses an allegorical story between Christ and a dark angel. The allegory tells of the virtue of mother earth...nature. Unfortunately it is the nature of man through his nominalistic character, with its dependence on the use of words, one required so far to communicate, a function of community, to argue. The argument is not of reality, but of their rendition of it.


Annotated Bibliography

Page 59: a long predicted Star is witnessed by Keptah he recognizes the message of love. He says to himself have been cleansed... I have been born. Blessed is the Name if the Lord.". A he knees dud have to see him for he knew he who had been born was with all men, in every place on earth, at this hour, and would never depart again.

Page 103: Diodoris, already characterize as one who despises the new Rome, remarks in a fit of rage “corrupt citizens breed corrupt rulers, and it is the mob who finally decides when virtue shall die....Rome's soldiery virtue died with Caesar Augustus.

My note: Caldwell spends enough time drawing a dichotomy between the virtues of a soldier and the decadence of the egalitarian society of the rulers that the read suspects either the weaving of a moral message or the drama in the plot.

Page 137: [Lucanus at the death of Rubria his child love vows to his mother Iris to defy God and not allow Him to snatch life from people.]. Lucanus murmured to Keptah, " surely it would be merciful to give him a potion and bring him death."

Keptah shook his head slowly, "Hippocrates has declared that is forbidden. Who knows at what instant the soul shall recognize God? Shall we kill the sufferer tonight when in the morning the recognition would come? Besides man cannot give life. Therefore it is not for him to give death. These are reserved only for Him, who is unknowable to our natures, and who moves in mysteries. "

My note: Caldwell wrestles as late as the 1950's with a physician’s decision of life or death. I appreciate she may be a clairvoyant in terms of regression. However examining the same decision in 2011, the physician’s role has become that of a scientist]. In this context has science and religion merged, or has the Scientist assumed the role of God? If he as assumed such, is he qualified? It begs the expression: 'only God knows.’ While medical science may have usurped God in giving life (cloning) and preventing death, has science overlooked the rest of the equation... A universe or at least an earth that can sustain a population explosion?


Page 149 [in the reconciling of the deaths of Aneneas, Lucanus' father, and Rubrea, Diodorus' daughter; Lucanus describes his regret for having treated his father in such a condescending way]. “I lost my father," Lucanus said ... " I am a son who came not to hate his father, but to be despise him lightly as a man if little learning and of many pretensions. I became arrogant and impatient, and condescending. I forgot all he suffered, all he had known.... I did not lose my father in those years, but my father lost a son. And now the son has lost his father, and I cannot reach him and ask his forgiveness for cruelty and impatience and pride of youth."

Diodorus' ... "Surely the gods do not reject contrition, and surely the shades in the regions of death are aware of repentance."

[Diodorus found peace in their dialogue. Lucanus, found in his youth only revenge. Revenge railed against a God who showed mo mercy for the one he loved. The dialogue and all of chapter 12 was about the dichotomy of selfishness and love for life].

My note: Does the scientist of 2011 have the moral compass to navigate the shoals of selfishness? Is it death itself that promulgates morality itself? Death being the prime variable to scarcity prompts moral thinking to choose between himself as though his body and spirit were inseparable and the living, all the living, mankind.

Page 153: comfortlessly, Lucanus would ask himself (If we are not immortal then why were we born? If I could only believe there is no God! But I believe in Him, and from Him I will have His victims, if not his answer! He haunts all men for the satisfaction of his hatred.

Page 186: says Diodorus; "Remember this, my children, that oppressive government is fiercer and more feared than a tiger.

My note: a common thread woven into the author’s moral message with Diodorous as the raw material.

Page 195: [in dialogue with a Jewish professor on a Indu professor of art, comparing Hindu to Judaism]. He has discussed with Joseph ben Gaiel [Lucanus poses the question on Hindu and Karma]. Then the Jew had said, "No. One only has to consider the illimitable harmony of nature, which is the reflection of God, it's precise laws which never deviate, its exactness. God is the Law and the Law is perfect and immutable."

My note: if the Jews has stopped there as opposed to writing the Torah and the Talmud’s their religion may not have run in to so much opposition...perhaps?

Page 196: As all patients were either slaves or destitute, experimentation upon them was sometimes merciless and quite often the experiments had no relationship to the immediate disease at all. This Lucanus found intolerable and hateful, and again only the Jewish teacher understood [not the other three in the room; Indi, Egyptian, or Roman]. The others kindly laughed at Lucanus. “Is it not justifiable that one man die so that others, multitudes, may live?" they would ask him. To which he would reply, while the Jewish teacher listened in searching silence, "No. One man is as important as a mass, and perhaps even more so."

My note: With the Holocaust in mind; why did Caldwell write this? She implies that only the Jew understood the concept that one life was as valuable as many. She clearly in context of the pertinent chapter condemns directly the Hindu, and then non specifically draws in any other than Jews. This is before Christ, so Christians get a pardon so far.

At this point this reader is dedicated to reading Luke in the Bible to see where one mans life equates to One Man as this Christian of Unity Doctrine sees it.

And finally to this point, I have to ask; has modern medicines challenge to death lost its moral compass? There was once a role where physicians allowed man to die in dignity. Have we evolved to ongoing experiments in biology to the advancements of medical research and the material rewards that come to the physician that breaks through?

This queer attitude did not diminish the affection and respect of the physicians. But when Lucanus would lament over mortal illness and work until he sweated to relieve its pain and to save the patient, all but the Jew were puzzled. Truth, knowledge was the object of
medicine. Death was the fate of all men, and pain also. "Yes, men must die,” Lucanus would say bitterly. "But is it not our duty to be most greatly concerned with pain? Even the pain of a slave?

My note: We know Caldwell is well researched and clairvoyant. What is her source on this philosophical question?

My note: This passage also speaks to the mission of doctors that would form the view of the American Founding Fathers. The scope of medicine then recognized death and at the same time looked to preserve life. But first and foremost was the dignity of the life while living, knowing death is inevitable. What is today's scope of medicine? Is it to prolong the biological term for the sake of medicine, as could be the case in Mary Schiavo? Does today's medicine exceed or deviate from the scope of our Founding Fathers. This question is most pertinent with the onset of Obamacare. Tying this to the other theme Caldwell explores through Diodorus, can government be so big to be oppressive through egalitarian excesses? Example IRS employees get free mass transit passes for work, so as to sponsor the government mass transit system. Would government employees, ie Congress and their families continue to get special medical care over the masses? These are moral questions that challenge not only medicine but also society. At present medical advances are out in front of our moral consensus as a society. Should we wait? Or shall we proceed and throw out the compass, as well as the rudder and sail into uncharted waters and leave the fate of man kind to chance? With 300 pages to go, I am hoping Caldwell speaks to this in more broad terms than the specific chapter, which speaks directly to whole medicine rather than specialized medicine. Was Mary Schiavo kept alive by medicine so as to study her organs? After all the current television series House speaks exactly to this subject.

Page 249: said Diodorus: "Listen to me Keptah! A mans first duty is to God and his country. Nations are God's expression of spiritual realms. When those nations become abandoned and debased, given up to bloody pride and debauchery, to war and tyrant, then they have deaaced the kingdoms of the earth, and penalty is death. Rome will inevitably
die unless many like me shall speak, and where are the voices raised in her behalf? Who shall cry out to Romans, 'You have destroyed what God has built and you must return to freedom and purity and virtue at once, lest you die'?"

Page 276: Keptah to Cusa on Lucanus; He said Rome was already lost, but man is not lost, a sophistry I did not refrain from pointing out to him. Man is his own executioner; he hangs himself in his own cross; he is his own disease, his own fate, his own death. His civilizations are an expression of him.

Page 281: Keptah says to Lucanus: Civilization to you is man's pathetic attempt to bring order to nature, to regulate it in to some form of meaning, to guide it's pointlessness in to some semblance of significance To you nature in it's seeding, it's growth, it's death is
a sum without an equation, a circle encompassing nothingness, a tree that flowers and bears no fruit and dies in a from desert. Such thoughts are lethal; they are frightful with death.

My note: my first thought was Godell, Escher, Bach. Most importantly was Godell's incompleteness theorem. Nature is incomplete and therefore we live on as a species. Science's penchant to remake nature under the pressures of society to be first more comfortable and then to defy death is a slippery slope with a frozen pond o tf thin ice at its foot. Yet in this conversation both Lucanus and Keptah are only half right, yet rather than merging thought to complete a beautiful interpretation of life; they part company of different views, the drama in the dichotomy of science and religion.

Page 282: Again Keptah shook his head. “You are wrong. Nature is absolute order, rules by absolute and immutable laws laid down at the beginning of the universe by God. Civilizations, so long as they agree with nature and it's laws, such as creation, freedom of growth, the dignity of all that lives, and beauty of form, and reverence for the being of God and their own being, survive. Once they turn to rigidity and anonymousness under State , and regulation of large and small forms to one flowerless level, the degradation of the best to the fruitless masses of men, the rejection of freedom for all - then nature must
destroy them, through wars or pestilences or quick decay. You are in the midst, in these days, of the workings of the Law.

My Note: Rome fell and it gave way to Dark Ages, then Renaissance, then Enlightenment, now? Are we again in the midst of the working laws of nature, often referred to as God?

Page 296: of Tiberius Caesar’s mind: He was trying at the time to save Rome, to restore some of the qualities that made her great. But a depraved people would not accept their liberty and former discipline and their character. [The dialogue continues to dwell on the faults of Christ's time Rome and the meaning of life, which was lost on Romans]


My note: Caldwell published this in 1959. Disclosed in her preface, She actually wrote it in a period of American history that found supremacy over all other nations. How is it at this time that Caldwell could have the premonition to draw a parallel to the United States and Russia, and then discount it in her peace?

Page 310: If man dies valiantly in armor on some battlefield of principle or patriotism or in protection of what he held most dear, then he had not lived in vain. But those who won battles and baubles lived ingloriously and died as ingloriously, the object of later
satires or a warning to the ages. It was strange that empires never learned that lesson, thought Lucanus. It was stance that man never learned anything at all.

Page 312: Lucanus thought [of the Roman elite]. Cicero had lamented that though the forms of the Republic were still celebrated the Republic no longer existed. Among these men and women there was no love for their country, no celebration of freedom, no honor for the mighty dead who had founded their nation and their institution.

My note: I instantly thought of Lincoln. If he knew he'd be followed by the likes of FDR, LBJ, BHO, would he have ratified the fourteenth amendment? Or would he have recognized that as imperfect as man is; the Constitution as it stood would be preferable to the democracy of debauched society that prevails in 2011 American society. My evidence lay in the TV show Entertainment Tonight where the antics of the debauched Hollywood celebrities invade households of the easily
lead only to entrance the multitudes across this once great Republic for which we once stood.

Page 319: So this was what the emancipation of Roman woman had led to, this vulgar and unabashed wantonness, thus witless shrieking, this half-drunken quarreling, thus continuous chatter of business, gossip, and politics, this effrontery, this noisy insistence! He thought of Aurelia and his mother, Iris, skilled in household duties, gentleness, the care of children, the cherishing of husbands. They might have known little of Virgil or Homer, nor could they have discussed military campaigns or legal suits of prominence of legal suits of prominence in the public courts, as these women had done earlier, but they could bring peace and joy to a home, and honor, and their children and their husbands revered them, and divorce and adultery were unknown. Lucanus mused. Did a nation decline and decay when women won dominance and when no doors of law, business or
politics were closed to them, or did the dominance of women merely indicate the nation was decaying?

My note: I marvel that Caldwell wrote this passage in the 1940's. Well before the women’s movement of the 60's and 70's. She wrote it at America's zenith. We have fallen from there since, I feel. I do know in my wife that she display's along with her friend the traits of this passage. Traits of a marriage, a family, and hence a nation all not in decline but decay. How does Caldwell reach so vividly in the past and foretell the future with such clairvoyant perception?

Page 351: Lucanus looked at the tablet for a long while. Finally he shook his head. "I understand the Jewish religion. It was Noah who upbraided his sons for finding him in his drunken nakedness. He particularly laid the curse on his sin, Ham, of black countenance. It is true that the black man has been truly cursed, but not by any deity, but only by man. If there is a God, and I know there is a God, he has cursed any of His children. Nor to any man has He given the command and to curse other men, but only to do good to them.

My note: obviously one would draw suspect on Jewish doctrine to a degree. If we were to accept Caldwell's research. Do we find here a root to anti- Semitism?

Page 395: [the centurion Antonius and Lucanas’s thought ] Nevertheless, I believe all these lips of the centurion, Antonius, is doubtless true - fro his point of view. Perhaps that Jewish rabbi, the teacher, knows some secrets which seem supernatural to us, but which ate part of natural law we have yet to discovered. And again this seems most reasonable to me, the physicians who attend the servant of Antonius made an error. The servant was not mortally I'll; he would have recovered in any event.

My note: Oddly enough today we call the study of nature science and find science in opposition to religion and this story is making reference to Jesus Christ.

Page 405: [Sara to Lucanus after he realizes he has been running from love and asks for Sara's hand in marriage] You gave been made empty in order that you may be filled with joy an peace beyond al your imaginings, Lucanus. Love tells me so but love does not tell me how. No Lucanus I cannot marry you, for in marrying you I will keep you from your destiny. That which you must find is not in my arms. God calls men from outbid the cities, from their own firesides, from their wives and their children from all they love, and his voice cannot be ignored. He has called you.

My note: People criticize those who use the phrase "its Gods will". But in this example Sara is only pointing out what has been Lucanas’s will for the past 404 pages of the book. Sara is saying to Lucanus it is in your nature to answer to a higher calling than love of Sara

Page 407: [Lucanus Rubria younger brother Priscus] I know that it was inevitable that Rome become what she is. Republics decay into democracies, and democracies degenerate into dictatorships. That fact is immutable. When there is equality - and democracies shall always bring equality - the people become faceless, the lose their initiative, they lose their pride and independence, they lose their splendor. Republics are masculine... [The rest of the paragraph is worth capturing] ...[on page 428] Priscus, you ad a husband and a father, and most particularly a father, can cultivate the masculinity
of free and noble men in your children; a man must always begin with his family, and then reach forth for his neighbors. He may fail, but at least he has tried. It is not in his failing that man is judged, but by the lack of his efforts. At last man is judged singly, and never in mass.

Page 446: [Hilell a wealthy Jew who admonishes first Jews then others to Lucanus to]. "And then there is the rabble, the marketplace rabble which afflict all cities and all nations, demanding always, greedy, eager for sport, with lusty animal appetites, quarrelsome, milling restlessly, incapable of learning anything, contentious and
dependent. Have you not such trouble in Rome, and will Rome not die of them, and the taxation they impose on their betters for their idle support.

My note: I am sure, have done some background reading on Caldwell, there is no 2011 agenda here. She wrote this in the 1940's. Yet my oh my, the ominous parallels.

Page 447: [Hilell continuing] "So you have the priests, frightened for their people and their faith; you have self appointed guardians if the Law, the Pharisees, who detest the humble; you have the shrill rabble, always searching for a victim. And you have Rome, ever watchful for signs of a rebellion against her power. Considering all these, it is a marvel that He was denounced to Roman officials, and that was the end. Or in the beginning" added Hilell.

Page 475: Lucanus. Looked down at the sleeping man and murmured;

" Oh You who have brought me from the wasted spaces, and the darkness, and barrenness, out of Your love and Your eternal mercy! Oh you who are companionate beyond imagining, You who know the suffering of men, because You have suffers them! [How profound a statement. Caldwell is actually saying that God, Nature has suffered man]. Oh hallowed are You in my soul, and I implore that You will accept my life that I serve You! Always have I loved You even when I contended with You out
of my lack of understanding.

My note: Profound to say God has suffered man. A world without that reality made apparent was a world where Lucanus witnessed the suffering of one mans actions upon another only to discover that the omni presence of God included suffering. A simple expression of 'it is what it is' absent a trait of the nominalist’s interpretation. How often have you heard the expression, 'it's beyond words'. When it's real, a revelation, it's beyond words. Or better said words are not necessary.

Page 482: Lucanus put his hand to his forehead and rubbed it dazedly. "I do not understand ", he muttered. Then he flung the coverlets from his brother's body and felt over his stomach and liver, and his glands. The ominous tumors have disappeared. The flesh was thin and emaciated, but also firm, and the pulse was strong.

Lucanus straightened. "It is not possible!" he cried. He looked at Nicias and Joshua imploringly. "We made an error."

"No," they said, and smiled at him.

"Through you God wrought his miracle, as a witness to us." said Joshua. [this was Lucanas’s revelation, his baptism in to Christianity]

My note: Up to this moment of all other 'miracle cures' that Lucanus witnessed, he was certain he made an error in his diagnosis. This time he implores two other physicians who confirm it was no mistake. The message I get is not so much the miracle, as that men of medicine at time accepted the concept of miracles for things of biology that they could not explain. Science and religion were not as adverse as 2011's current of pagans have us conceding to.

Page 508: [Lucanus] thought of Rubria and Sara, the dead he loved with such tenderness, and he said to himself that in reality there was no age, no weariness, no pain, no despair, no parting, no death. The world and the planets, the countless suns, rang with immortal youth, and the constellations and galaxies rejoiced in it. An exhilaration filled him. All he had ever loved was with him forever.

My note: I genuinely related to this passage. As death separates Lucanus from his first love, life's stories separate me from mine. I have always known in the physical world that physical aspect of love is long past and never to present itself in the future. I take extreme solace however knowing in spirit the immortal youth and the love that goes with it lives on... nothing more nothing less, just what is and it's acceptance...love. This is my reality. It is what makes the memories cherishable.

Page 535: [as Lucanus come upon the Sea of Galilee]. The foliage of the olives had the aspect of fettered silver; the green palms did not sway in the pure and windless air; the pomegranates bore their red fruit on their branches Luke jewels. Sheep slept about the olive trees, their wool pale gold. There was no cry of bird here in this aureate effulgence. The peace beyond understanding, the light that never lay on land or sea, was here caught as in glowing crystal, eternal and unchanging.

Page 546: [in the story of Zachary, father of John the Baptist]. Visions were no rare things to these simple and pious people; legends of the appearances of angels and portents ran through all their conversation.

My note: to the skeptic anti Christian, here lay a notion to your argument. While Luke was a physician of legend, wise of the world; his gospel was a recording of events among these simple people.

I wonder if it's like that there.

Page 562: [top] John [The Baptist] was a man of furious temporment.
Jesus knew he was his kinsman. John...

Cool Metaphors

Retreated like the moon behind a cloud
Pure as a cows milk
Soft as a doves call
Murmurous as a softly struck harp
On feet that moved no heavier than a breath

An interesting contrast; greed & envy
Interesting trivia: the fish symbol is a Greek anagram for Christo.

Contract with the Earth

Contract with the Earth
By Newt Gingrich

This was a refreshing and insightful book from a political figure with a bipartisan message for us all to appreciate. I got on to this book when listening to an interview of Gingrich on NPR. I am curious if it were not for the timing in fall of 2007, with rise to a high visibility political season, would the interview had taken place. In that interview Gingrich was asked if he is running for President. He said he was not, for the same reason Al Gore is not running. He feels he can accomplish more for the world with regard to the environment as a citizen than he could as President, being encumbered with politics.

What is Gingrich’s message? First is unity in the cause. Not just across national party lines but across international lines as well. Second is recognition that we do not have all the facts, in terms of the full balance of the ecosystems of our planet earth. Third is the facts should not be proprietary but rather universally shared. Fourth, is government at all levels and business need to come together with effective participation and policy, in a cooperative posture. Fifth is education of our youth and remedial education of our elders on the individual contributions through consumerism, philanthropy, voting, and life style changes that can lead to a cleaner environment. All this says a collective conscience with one unified goal is essential. The key yet silent word through out the book is balance.

I was somewhat intrigued at a couple byproducts brought about with a collective conscience on the environment. First was recognition that democratic societies, where the free will of the people is prevalent, are more apt to participate as each individual can identify with their earth experience. Second is that our national security hangs in the balance of our recognition of the fossil fuel problem. Would focus on the environment reduce our focus on a major cause of our threat to our national security provided largely by volatile, non-democratic countries; or would it increase it? In my mind it depends on how you apply your focus. Reduce demand in fossil fuel by improving our technology and then sharing it refocuses everyone on being a good neighbor.

I find is interesting that while the still standing in Feb. 08 and probable presidential candidates they all have agreeable environmental platforms, I find Obama’s record and platform a bit more impressive. His voting record is superior to the other two and his platform calls for stronger international leadership where I have not heard the others reach beyond our boundaries. Interesting, it seems a popular cry today from our “Bush bashing talking heads” is that we should dampen our critique of other nations on their values and policy as though we are an arrogant nation. This would be to ignore specifically speaking to their environmental record as the reason for not endorsing the Kyoto Protocol. Meanwhile Gingrich is extolling the export of our technology commercially, and a call for international policy. There is a reason for my intrigue where leadership requires a genuine personal appreciation of a cause that translates to courage to advocate policy and practice towards that cause.

I did a search on the Internet and most easily found Obama willing to step up to the plate with right message. As a traditional Republican, I make the first move in reaching across lines with a call for good voting conscience as opposed to the “you go girl” mentality in choosing your candidate. We need to be for something, not against something. Its time we look for more than someone who is a divisive “I am not George W. Bush” as we hear from Clinton, but someone who actually has substance with leadership qualities as in Obama or McCain. On the environment we need unity and we need leadership, and if we saw a Presidential run off between McCain and Obama, for once either side would be voting for someone, whereby on the environment issues Obama stands tallest.

I am including notes in my review once again for those who do not make the time to read books. Shame on you who defer your information funnel solely to talking heads with agendas. It is my hope that the snippets will inspire you to read the book and get beyond the headlines or the five-minute take on TV or radio. If you are an Internet surfer, the back of the book provides a list of sites to surf. The more you know the issues and more specifically THE FACTS in depth the better you will appreciate what you as an individual can play as your part in this symphony we call Earth.

End Notes

p. 40 We don’t have a perfect understanding of Earth’s systems and processes; it may be unachievable in the face of such complexity. However, we continue to develop imperfect but useful mathematical models, and we have been able to isolate physical variables in the laboratory. We should celebrate our capacity to learn quickly about such things; and we need to continue funding the search for this vital information. We need to commit to the International Environmental Year project similar to the International Geophysical Year in the late 1950’s

p. 74 Conservation International has identified thirty-four hotspots in its most recent analysis. The degree of lost habitat can be expressed by comparing the 15.7 percent of original habitat with the remaining 2.3 percent of Earths surface now occupied by 34 hotspots, a precipitous loss of 86 percent. Amount them they contain 150,000 plant species as endemics, 50 percent of the worlds total…Hotspots are profoundly rich locales for the world’s wildlife, and the amount of biodiversity in hotspot is extremely high, so these remarkable hotspots represents an urgent priority for conservation. By protecting wildlife, especially undiscovered species, we also protect our opportunity to discover valuable new organic material.

p. 94 Non governmental organizations are driving those conservations because of the NGO’s inherent flexibility and speed…and their willingness to cooperate rather than criticize.

p. 119 Fred Kavli who is funding basic research for fairly open-ended projects in nanotechnology, neuroscience, and astronomy. He has launched fourteen research centers based at Yale, Stanford, Harvard, MIT, and Cal Tech.

P 122 One model for the new philanthropy is the Clinton Global Initiative that aims to accelerate active philanthropy, especially when it is confronted with global emergencies….

P132 with regard to the decrease in air pollution in Loa Angeles, This is a significant decline, and new technology can take most of the credit for this change. For example, it is estimated that it would take twenty of today’s new cars to generate equivalent air pollution by just one mid 1960’2 car. This goal was accomplished through recognition and regulation. Gingrich adds (paraphrased)Los Angeles is seeking greater federal policies on emissions of locomotives, cargo ships, and airplanes that come in to the Los Angeles basin from outside jurisdictions

P 140 Our national security and our nation’s economy depends on supply and demand shifts that are orderly, predictable, and carefully managed. Chaos is the enemy of national security.

By reducing expectations, it is easier to enable fossil fuel to retain its grip on the American consumer, an it becomes more difficult for competitive industry to gain a foothold, even if the industry is spawned by Big Oil…..our nation will need tax incentives to continue research on alternative fuels…a continued heavy handed policy will only limit the progress in research.

P156 With regard to leadership in environmentalism….In his best selling book, Good to Great, Jim Collins observed that effective leaders channel their self interest into the larger goal of building a great company. Their ambition is mostly for the good of the institution rather than themselves…Clearly , a sustainable environmental culture will require staying power. Today’s leaders must be tenacious advocates for the natural world, driven by results and guided by evidence. Where will we find such leaders? According to Collins…look for a well run company.

P157 A recent study published in the Journal of Peace Research demonstrated that democracies exhibit stronger international environmental commitments the non democratic nations.

P 159 In the book Green to Gold the authors identified many ways leading edge companies go beyond mere compliance to adapt environmental perspectives into all aspects of their company operations. These companies mindful of the increasing transparency provided by Internet access to the business world offer proactive pathways to an environmental business culture. Examples are provided

P 167 Because adventure capitalists tend to fund ideas that are nearly ready for the marketplace, the type of arduous research that produces real breakthroughs can only be funded by astute governments. America needs to be that kind of government, but our commitments have wavered in recent years so government incentives for energy research will be issues in future political campaigns.

P168 Mobilizing other countries to join us will not be as easy as it may appear. Many nations that signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol are lagging behind on their commitments. Canada’s commissioner Johanne Gelinas, said in 2006 that her country has “done too little and acted too slowly” in addressing climate change.

P177 On wild-life preserves, Crane-Medows ( a government preserve) does not live in a vacuum. It owes much of its success to Omaha-born entrepreneur Peter Kiewit, a generous philanthropist who died in 1979, but who left much of his fortune to his foundation….(paraphrased) contributing to the improvement of preserves.

P 188 A return to the subdued style and scholarly depth of the storied Lincoln-Douglas nineteenth-century political debates is a reform badly needed in our time. Media corporations should be working to achieve an unbiased, in-depth presentation of the original ideas, platforms, and philosophies of all political candidates so the American people can select their leaders based on trusted, reliable information sources.

P 189 We recognize that global climate change is supported by a wealth of scientific data derived from a diversity of measurement techniques….However we still cannot be certain about the variance introduced by distinctly human activities. Should human behavior be a cause, to any extent, it wouldn’t be surprising, given the role human beings have played in other environmental event…however, the debate about the origins and sources of climate change should not be left to scientists alone

P190 In three recent reports from the National Academy of Sciences, climate scientists decry the lack od adequate systems for collecting, sharing, and modeling climate data. We must heed these calls and provide the scientific community with the resources to improve future climate projections. A key first step is the development of a sophisticated data-gathering system with appropriate investment in gathering and analyzing data….The data should be available to everyone. Scientific debate and descent should be encouraged in pursuit of a thorough and comprehensive understanding of the complexities of our environmental systems

A Nation Like No Other

A Nation Like No Other
By Newt Gingrich

Grounded in the ideals that formed this country, Gingrich has religious orientation but is not a religious zealot. His basic premise is; to give man a footing of moral consciousness, founded through any religion [or facsimile thereof] that distinguishes between good and evil, and allow the individual the power of society that begins with inalienable rights bestowed upon all men under one God. Gingrich is an ardent proponent to the study of history and this book is a reminder of these core American values, just in case any one of us has lost sight of them.

Gingrich sets the tone of the book building the scene in Manhattan as the American revolutionaries prepared for battle against the King of England. He depicts a battalion aid reading the Declaration of Independence to the troops that creates an air of exceptional reception to its ideals. He describes exceptionalism as the fabric that wrapped this new nation child at birth. Exceptionalism meaning American is an exception to all other nations. This does not imply a ‘Molly Brown’ better than persona but rather just unique. The reader is thinking aaah a good history book. Gingrich sets you back from that just a little bit when he mildly draws contrast as early as page three by introducing Obama as an example of how far we have drifted from that character that once wrapped us and sheltered us. Gingrich defines exceptionalism as that which 'leads inevitably to a smaller, more effective, accountable, and limited government.' he suggests that the American revolutionaries did not fight to have a future standing president 'fight in Libya for the liberties of man in that foreign country, as a nation of exceptionalism obligated to lead the world’, and then turn on our citizens with oppressive policy; forcing free men to purchase health care as his first on a list of policy that contradicts liberty of the individual in America. By page thirteen the book's theme is well stated. I like books like this. The reader is compelled to see it's depth, whether he agrees or not. Says Gingrich; ‘Our exceptionalism is being eroded by those who acquiesce to policy that undermines it.’

The first part of the book draws on a historic review of five principles that constitute American liberty. As the casual reader relives the story of a few of our founding fathers he would likely be saying to himself ' these virtues that brought us American liberty are
being eroded and are now under attack by an over reaching president, Obama and his party of democrats. Gingrich closes part one by stating the obvious and then prescribes a way back. He intrigues the reader to read parts II and III to explore how the five habits listed below of liberty evolved, how they helped to make America exceptional, how they are dangerously undermined, and how we can revitalize and restore American Exceptionalism. He first takes a moment to quote a few notable people to stress the importance of American Exceptionalism.

Ben Franklin: The expression of that principle [liberty to all], in our Declaration of Independence, was most happy and fortunate. Without this ... We [still] could have declared independence of Great Britain; but without it, we could not, I think, have secured our free government, and consequent prosperity.

Abe Lincoln: No oppressed people will fight, and endure, as our fathers did, without the promise of something better, than a mere change of masters.

There is no doubt that our Founding Fathers were deists. They arrived in this new America from Christian Europe. They brought their religion with them and purposely held on to its virtues that provided a moral compass and a basis for a new constitution, and the foundation of American law. In our Constitution Gingrich speaks to the higher authority that American man heeds to with no intermediary, be it a religious authority or a government authority. "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness." [not a life span to 150] This assertion makes some key assumptions about the relationship between man and God.

1. It assumes that God created man.
2. It assumes that God is Sovereign over the universe.
3. It assumes that man must obey an order of justice that God has instituted.

I note first that Gingrich assumes that God is a metaphor for nature. It seems evident however, throughout history that it is the nature of man to violate nature beginning with his violation of another man borne in his belief in scarcity. (Hobbs). Hence man must transcend his nature, I am not sure Gingrich, has given much thought to that. Second I find little coincidence that Gingrich quotes a Founding Father on liberty and then Abe Lincoln who ushered in liberty to all men…in America.

In quoting Franklin “My dear lady we have given you a republic - if you can keep it." Gingrich writes; ‘In a single sentence, Dr [Ben] Franklin summed up the extraordinary drama that would play out for all American history between two vital forces that sustain American Exceptionalism: freedom and responsibility.’

Gingrich writes there are five habits of liberty that come under the heading of Personal Responsibility – Virtue found in Religion, Morality

A. Faith and family
B. Work
C. Civil society
D. Rule of law
E. Safety and peace

Emphasis on these habits are vital to cultivating an engaged, informed citizenry which is needed to sustain a free republic... These habits set America apart from its European counterparts, where monarchs were intent on cultivating passive, obedient subjects unlikely to challenge their rulers claim to power.

I ask myself; where does one observe the erosion of these five habits? In a conversation with a friend of mine, a staunch Democrat and loud evangelist of atheism (a real irony), he said of conserving energy; Look at my toys. I have an Escalade, four other cars, two jet skis. All consume gas. We need to pass some laws or otherwise I wouldn't change my habits." I then think of Al Gore a democrat nominee for president of these United States, who writes a book on global warming and advocates the need for stringent federal regulation while at the same time has one of the largest carbon footprint of any US Senator in history. My friend voted for Gore. Neither acquiesces to personal responsibility. Both advocate though, laws for others to follow, of which only then will they conform ... Or will they?

It is no coincidence that Gingrich lists faith and family on top. He writes; ‘an America that openly rejects faith and the faithful will undermine the surest supports of human dignity in American life. That anti-religious America would soon cultivate a utilitarian culture, described in the above paragraph that elevates the powerful and crushes the weak. But an America that continues to welcome faith and the faithful as integral to American public life will transmit to the poorest and most forgotten segments if society the hope that they too have the right to the American Dream.

I am sure Gingrich is not espousing the fanatical right, but rather the faith found in our founding fathers, like Thomas Jefferson who picked out the parts of the Bible that work for him. Note that I used work in the present tense as his work transcended his body and far out lived its expiration. There is no coincidence that Jefferson’s Bible is limited to Christ’s message. Our Founding Father’s held out an expectation that emphasis on man’s moral compass would enable management of a civil society.

I know these people who advocate the adoption of rules, imposed by a supposed 'neutral' government that conform people to society. Gingrich writes ‘It is a utilitarian method that ignores man’s moral footing. In their mind the rules they envision are done so only by those with some innate ability to see right from wrong. Those assumed abilities in this context are what we know as morals. The Church, in theory but not always in practice, makes no assumption that morals are born in the human psyche. The church does not take morals for granted; rather it uses the message of Christ, as did Jefferson, as a moral compass. Contrarily these people claim the utilitarian higher ground, write the laws and then create institutions to correct those who have lost there cardinal headings. In my opinion if the ‘church’ or like kind were allowed to flourish those people of utilitarian methods would find their goal obtainable at a much lower cost to the government than what they have put in place of the Church.’ I can’t help but notice in writing this paragraph that the Caliph of the Ottoman Empire, commonly referred to by the 19th century as the Sick Old Man adopted a similar posture. It prompts a question in 2011’s world drama: where did Christ’s message get it right and Mohammad’s message gets it wrong? I know Christ’s message to be about transcendence through love {unconditional love meaning acceptance of things as they are] to one God, nature.

Alex de Tocqueville observed, “In the United States that associations are established to promote the public safety, commerce, industry, morality, and religion"...The Founders' insistence on limited government and created the space for the flourishing of civic life. In turn, to this day civic groups check and balance government power by fulfilling roles that government is tempted to assume, and by cultivating habits of personal responsibility that make individuals more capable of challenging government encroachments in their affairs. Tocqueville presciently predicted that government would eventually usurp many of the duties that private associations performed so effectively. Look at the American Red Cross as well as many other institutions that are the avant-garde of disaster relief. I ask does FEMA encroach on this society. Or should a limited version of FEMA merely complement all the non-profits that constitute the virtues of American man. Gingrich writes of a society that assumed the role of FEMA and note that post Katrina FEMA is now eroding away at the moral fabric conducive to society of Americans, I’ll also note as a case study that Bill Clinton, a self proclaimed public servant, has done more in the NPO sector in terms of humanitarian aid after his presidency than he ever hoped to do as president of the United States. And finally I remember hearing Gingrich say in 2005 that he would not pursue the office of President of the United States because government is too constraining to get anything done. So what is he really doing in 2011 as a presidential candidate? He is either running for President or laying the blanks for the Republican Party. Given his effort to date it is the latter.

Turning to our struggle with Islamic Terrorists, one would think Gingrich has drifted away from the theme of his book, and has garnered a listening ear with this book in his quest for his presidency of the United States. What follows are excerpts to catch the general gist of his message. He writes: ‘The courage to be free is sustained by the moral capacity to distinguish between good and evil. If evil cannot be called by name [Obama doctrine], we will not be able to deter - or even recognize - threats to our nation. Likewise, if we cannot proclaim the righteousness of our traditional values, then we won't be able to mobilize the fighting spirit necessary to defend America. Throughout most of American history, our American leaders have not been hobbled by the kind of moral ambiguity that characterizes our present administration. [Obama]. Looking at the poor results of [President] Carter's foreign policy, we see that the president failed to understand the natural consequences of scaling back American power- it creates a vacuum that is typically filled by the most aggressive actors.’

My reaction to the previous paragraph goes as follows. You can read in history as early as the Peloponnesian Wars, that a society fears another society that is more powerful, not just in terms of military strength buying terms of economic prowess. The inferior will lash out at the superior as Iran does to the United States as an act of hybris, a term that has evolved to hubris. They impose an affront to your superior to show you are not the lesser society. With this as the nature of mankind as documented by philosophers and historians a U.S. President is derelict in his duties when adopting doctrine such as Carter or Obama. Kowtowing to those who aim to harm us is an imposition on our American spirit of liberty, let alone sending an invitation for attack. Kowtowing to our adversaries makes us slaves to an ideal that is foreign to our sovereignty as a nation. We lose that exceptionalism, exception to the rest of the world. We become like Europe whose history is fraught with strife and international conflict and intrigue. With this reaction I find Gringrich’s inclusion of the subject to be fitting with the theme of his book. Otherwise he is taking advantage of a captive audience.

After a foray into our economic situation of which I am in no adequate position to judge whether he has a good solution or not, Gingrich suggests what you the average citizen can do to incrementally contribute to that which makes America and exceptional nation. Below is a simple list.

Ten Steps to Restoring American Exceptionalism

1. Americans should learn about the issues and analyze how they relate to the principles and history of American Exceptionalism.

2. Once you feel comfortable in your knowledge start speaking out in favor of American Exceptionalism.

3. Question government and argue for the right policies.

4. Educate your [any child, defined as an enlightened(able) of any age person] Talk to them about our founding principles.

5. Insist on schools bringing the principles of our founders back to the classroom.

6. Defeat and replace bad judges. Replace activist judges who feel their elite status prevails over the will of the people or the principles of our founders and their Constitution

7. Reestablish work ethic; do so mostly with your children. Teach them to work hard toward their dream. This is still the one country called the land of opportunity.

8. Celebrate American holidays. Don't just take the day off to buy some furniture, remember the reason for the holiday and talk about it with others.

9. Volunteer. Alex de Tocqueville observed this in early America. Our society is [was] more capable than our government. Regain our societal footing.

10. Run for office. Be a prime mover in reducing it imposition on the principles of our founders and restore the values that go along with liberty.


Oddly enough the list is ten. Why does the individual need to pay attention to these ‘steps’? In short, the central failing of big-government welfare state is that it's designers and current champions [Obama] do not think of people as individuals with inherent dignity who are capable of both self- government and compassion for their fellow man; they think of citizens as groups of people to be organized, placated, and for some radicals on the Left, to molded into "New Americans." That radical goal is too ominously close to 1932’s New Germans. Each American’s adherence to any or all of the above steps is an incremental ‘fire fence’ to the same fate of 1932 Germany, and today’s European social problems. We started out an exception to that rule…it is that exception that allows us liberties still not achieved anywhere else. I have traveled to many different countries. There has yet to be a time where when I clear US customs on my return trip I breathe a deep sigh and say ahhh, no place like home.