Monday

Love Celebrates Godliness

Monday

Day  34

[Love] does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth.  – 
1 Corinthians 13:6


From the moment you close your Bible in the morning nearly everything else you’ll encounter throughout the day will be luring you away from its truths.  The opinions of your coworkers, the news coverage on television, your typical Websites, the various temptations of the day – all of these and more will be working overtime to shape your perceptions of what’s true and most desirable in life.

They’ll say that having a knockout wife who dresses to get other men’s attention is a good thing.  They say that bad language and immorality in the movies are fine for mature people.  They’ll say that church isn’t important in a person’s life.  They’ll say that we each must find God in our own way.

They’ll say a lot of things.  And they’ll say them so loudly and frequently that if we’re not careful, we can start believing that what they say is the way things should be.  We can begin valuing what everybody else values and thinking the way everybody else does.

But the meaning of “real life” changes dramatically when we understand that God’s Word is the ultimate expression of what real life is.  The teachings it contains are not just good guesses at what should matter.  They are principles that reflect the way things really are, the way God created life to be.  His ideals and instructions are the only pathways to real blessing, and when we see people following them in obedience to the Lord; it should cause us to rejoice.

What makes you the proudest of your husband?  Is it when he comes home with a trophy from the company golf tournament, or when he gathers the family before bedtime to pray together and read the Word?

What overjoys you the most in your wife?  Is it seeing her try a new painting technique in the children’s bedrooms, or seeing her forgive the neighbor whose dog dug up her plants?

You are one of the most influential people in your spouse’s life.  Have you been using your influence to lead them to honor God, or to dishonor Him?

Love rejoices most in the things that please God.  When your mate is growing in Christian character, persevering in faith, seeking purity, and embracing roles of giving and service – becoming spiritually responsible in your home – the Bible says we should be celebrating it.  The word “rejoices” in 1 Corinthians 13:6 carries the idea of being absolutely thrilled, excitedly cheering them on for what they’re allowing God to accomplish in their lives.

The apostle Paul, who helped establish and minister to many of the first-century churches, wrote in his letters how delighted he was to hear reports of the people’s faithfulness and growth in Jesus.  “We ought always to give thanks to God for you, brethren, as is only fitting, because your faith is greatly enlarged, and the love of each one of you toward one another grows ever greater; therefore, we ourselves speak proudly of you among the churches of God for your perseverance and faith in the midst of all your persecutions and afflictions which you endure” (2 Thessalonians 1:3-4).

The apostle John, who had walked closely with Jesus and became one of the main leaders in the early church, once wrote to his flock, “I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth” (3 John 4).

That should be what energizes us when we see it happening in our mate.  More than when they save money on the grocery bill.  More than when they achieve success at work.  Sometimes by accepting modern culture’s take on what to applaud in our spouse, we can even be guilty of encouraging them to sin – perhaps by feeding their vanity, or by letting boys be boys.

But “love does not rejoice in unrighteousness” – not in ourselves and not in our mate.  Rather, love “rejoices with the truth,” the way Paul did when he said to the Roman church, “The report of your obedience has reached to all; therefore I am rejoicing over you, but I want you to be wise in what is good and innocent in what is evil” (Romans 16:19).  He knew that the pursuit of godliness, purity, and faithfulness was the only way for them to find joy and ultimate fulfillment.  Being “wise” about holiness while being “innocent” about sin – remaining unjaded and uncompromising as we travel through life – is the way to win in God’s eyes.

And what more could we want for our wife or husband than for them to experience God’s best in life?

Be happy for any success your spouse enjoys.  But save your heartiest congratulations for those times when they are honoring God with their worship and obedience.

Today’s Dare


Find a specific, recent example when your spouse demonstrated Christian character in a noticeable way.  Verbally commend them for this at some point today.


I will walk within my house in the integrity of my heart.  (Psalm 101:2)

0 comments

The Philippine Bus and Miss Universe

August 29, 2010, Posted at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

This week two noteworthy events involving the Philippines made headlines: the botched rescue of Chinese tourists taken hostage by a disgruntled former policeman, and a botched response to a question by Miss Philippines in the finals for the Miss Universe contest. You might ask, what do these two things have in common? Separately, not much, but taken together, they represent both the peril and promise of the Philippines today.

For many years pundits have commented that the Philippines appears to be heading backwards economically and politically, while many parts of Asia barrel toward middle income status and have maturing democracies. Yes, other countries have disputed elections, other countries' leaders do questionable things, and other developing countries struggle to achieve sustainable economic growth. And, yes, there are recent examples of fresh political turmoil and economic hardship not only in Asia, but throughout the world.

The difference here is, many of the countries experiencing political instability and economic dislocation don't have the things the Philippines has: agricultural self-sufficiency, a high literacy rate, and a largely homogeneous population. One Asian country that possesses these qualities - Indonesia - has managed to transcend monumental political turmoil, turn its situation around, get on the path to democracy, stay there, and become a darling of the international investment community. The Philippines had this in the 1960s. Why can't it have it now?

When I lived in the Philippines from 2003 to 2007, I was asked, what is the difference between the Philippines and Indonesia? My answer was, "In Indonesia, they have hope." I came to the conclusion that in spite of all the things the Philippines has going for it, its people didn't demand enough of themselves, or of their government. Political apathy and a willingness to accept a low common denominator of performance have taken their toll on the psyche of the Philippine people.

Filipinos should not therefore be surprised that the Philippine police tried to negotiate with the hijacker of the Chinese tourist bus well after a reasonable period of time had passed, negotiations had failed, and the lives of the tourists were clearly in jeopardy. Police from a variety of other nations would have simply killed him at the first opportunity, regardless of the fact that he was a former colleague. This SWAT team knew how to get the results that were required, but they failed to do so. Why? Their priorities were misaligned. The safety of the hostages should have been paramount - not the fanciful notion that a man who is desperate enough to take hostages would somehow come to his senses at the height of the crisis.

The result of actions like this are unfortunately consistent with the expectations many people have of performance in other areas. Politically, the Philippines has descended into an ongoing competition between political dynasties: Marcos, Arroyo, and yes, Aquino. What I don't understand is, why do Filipinos continue to vote them in, election after election? Is it because of a lack of viable alternatives? No. Is it because of political apathy? Possibly. Or is it because they have no expectations that anything will change, regardless of who is in power? Definitely. What does this say about the country's future? Nothing good.

Which brings me to the Miss Universe contest. Miss Philippines, Maria Venus Raj, is by anyone's definition fantastically beautiful, poised, and graceful. Many believe she should have won the competition, and she deserves a lot of credit for being the first Filipina since 1999 to make it to the finals. But her flubbed response to the question of what mistake she had made in her life and what would she have done differently apparently cost her the crown. How could this 22-year-old woman, who so diligently prepared herself for that moment -- at great personal sacrifice her whole life - not have come up with a better response?

She was nervous, she said. Well, who among the finalists wasn't? Other Filipinos have said English wasn't her first language so she had difficulty coming up with the right words. Really? How come no other Philippine contestant in the Miss Universe pageant ever had an interpreter? In preparation for this event it never occurred to her or anyone around her that such a question might be asked? Had she come up with a better response, it is likely the crown would have been hers, and the Philippines would be basking in her glow. Instead, it's just another instance of a missed opportunity, and Filipinos are making excuses.

If the Philippines wants to get its act together and live up to its potential, it needs to demand more of itself. It can achieve this by stopping making excuses for its failures and ending its acceptance of the lowest common denominator. President Aquino promised to put an end to nepotism and corruption in government. The people should make sure he does this. When the police screw up a hostage rescue, the people responsible should be fired. And when a beauty queen blows an attempt to become the glory of the Philippine people, it should be recognized as such.

Daniel Wagner is Managing Director of Country Risk Solutions, a political risk consultancy based in Connecticut.

 

0 comments

Sunday

The Untold Story of JFK and His Gay Best Friend of 30 Years

Sunday
The recent death of Ted Kennedy prompted me to pick up some of the Kennedy books I have lying around the house and I have just re-read a book about JFK that shook my world a couple of years ago. It illuminates a story about a beloved president that was never told prior to this book being published. It’s been hidden from history, or at least overlooked by every biography ever written about JFK.


John F. Kennedy is one of the most studied and written-about presidents of the 20th century. Aside from the remaining mysteries surrounding his assassination, there is little that is unknown about the life of the thirty-fifth president of the United States. Or so we thought.

In Jack and Lem, published by Avalon, writer David Pitts sets about uncovering the story of Jack Kennedy and his closest and dearest friend in the world for 30 years, Lem Billings — a gay man.

Jack and Lem met while at prep school in the 1930s and from that point on were inseparable until the day Jack Kennedy was killed. Pitts worked for two years to persuade Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to grant him research access to documents that have been locked away for decades. Letters between the two friends, recorded phone calls, and even an 800+ page transcription of an oral history that Lem Billings gave after the death of the president. Pitts also combed through hundreds of photographs never seen by the public, many of which he was allowed to publish in the book, and interviewed anyone and everyone he could who knew Jack and Lem so he could tell, as accurately as possible, the story of a president and his gay best friend.

This well-told account paints a tender, moving portrait of what the author calls “an extraordinary friendship,” the details of which enchant and move the reader. Anecdotes about Lem having his own room in the White House, how Jackie Kennedy dealt with having a third person in her marriage and other bits of lost history aren’t taught in any school text books, but they are told in this book — for the first time.

I interviewed David Pitts about Jack and Lem when this book came out. It’s important to me that this story not be forgotten and now, as we say goodbye to to Ted Kennedy and Eunice Kennedy and regard the legacy of Camelot, this seems like a good time to share it again.

Kenneth Hill: How would you characterize the friendship between JFK and Lem Billings?

David Pitts: The way I would characterize it is that is was a very close, deep, friendship across sexual orientation lines.

KH: How did you first learn about it?

DP: I first learned about the friendship from reading JFK books. I am such a Kennedy fan that I read most of the new JFK books that came out over the years. Lem was mentioned in some, but there was always very little information about him — usually one or two pages — and I just became curious about, well, who exactly is this guy? And that’s how this book that I wrote came about.

KH: How did you find out who he was?

DP: The first thing I did was to look at all the books again to see what had been said about him, which, as I said, was very little. Then I then compiled a list of people to call, people to interview that I thought might know more. I also set about trying to track down documents in various institutions — most notably the John F. Kennedy Library and the Massachusetts Historical Society. And on the latter, I hit a big brick wall early on in the project, which is why it took so long. Most of the documents, including, very significantly, an 815-page oral history done by Lem were closed to writers and authors. Many of the quotes of Lem in the book are from that document. And it was closed at the Kennedy Library and required the permission of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to access it, and he didn’t give it to me for a long, long time.

KH: How long?

DP: I would say about two years. Two years into the project before Bobby, I guess, got tired of me pestering him.

KH: Why do you think there was resistance?

DP: I don’t know. I’ve been asked that quite a few times — usually I’m asked why he in fact GAVE me the documents — but I really don’t know. I can’t answer that. He didn’t agree to an interview, I wanted an interview, as well, but he did give me the documents which in a sense were more valuable. But when he decided to give me the materials, he gave me everything without restriction, including the ability to copy them as well as quote from them.

KH: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Lem were close when Bobby was a young man, right?

DP: Yes, that’s how Bobby ended up with control to most of the materials. Lem knew Bobby from when he was very young, of course, Lem being an intimate of the Kennedys, and when Lem died in 1981 his belongings passed into the possession of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Some of his things went into the possession of his neice, Sally Carpenter.

KH: Lem was a friend of the Kennedy family during the time that JFK was alive, and also after he was assassinated. Did you have any sense that this was a story that they didn’t necessarily want to have told?

DP: No, I can’t really say that. I mean, none of them agreed to an interview, although Eunice Kennedy Shriver who knew Lem very well came very close and then she became ill. So if I was to guess, and this is purely a guess, I think Bobby Kennedy and the other Kennedys knew this story was going to come out sooner or later. They probably checked me out — I’m sure they did — and were more willing to trust someone with a liberal political bent than some conservative writer who might try to use it in a sensational way. That would be my guess.

I did talk to a friend of Bobby Kennedy when I was trying to get these materials and when I was trying to talk to Bobby, by the name of Blake Fleetwood, who’s a blogger himself on the Huffington Post. He also knew Lem. He told me that the Kennedys have been burned so many times now in these conservative times by writers, they just are very very suspicious of writers, period. It’s not about this story in particular, it’s about any story. And so I think if you take him at his word, part of the reason must be just suspicion of journalists these days.


KH: You said that this was the story of a friendship that crossed sexual orientation lines, which I think is really an interesting element of it, but talk a little bit about the depth of this friendship. The fact that it started when they were very young and, from what I read in the book, they were basically inseparable for the rest of their lives except when circumstances had them in distant cities.

DP: Yes, indeed. I think there were a number of elements to it. First of all, there were a series of bonding events early on. One was the fact that they both hated that school [Choate] in which they met. And were engaged in all kinds of pranks which almost got them expelled twice. That was obviously a bonding phenomenon. Secondly, they roomed together for part of the time at the school.

Thirdly, and I think this is really important, John Kennedy was so sick most of his life, far earlier than when most people think, including when he was at Choate, and Lem was the person at boarding school — his mother and father did not come to the school when he was ill; Lem was there. Lem was the person who was always there for him and took care of him. And then fourthly, there was the two month trip to Europe that they took, just before WWII in 1937, just the two Americans at that pivotal time, I think that was obviously a very strong bonding event.

And then over and above these issues, I would say this — and this is kind of a complicated thought because we really don’t have language to express these kinds of relationships — and that is, I’m firmly convinced after working on this book that John Kennedy’s sexual interests were in women. We don’t need much evidence of that, the evidence is all over the place. But his strongest emotional attachments were to men — and principally, to Lem. We don’t have a word for that, right? Somebody who prefers the opposite gender for sexuality, and the same gender for deep, emotional attachments.

KH: We don’t really have a word for that. I guess “man’s man” used to sort of mean that, but JFK took it so much further in a way because he loved being around men, he knew some men were attracted to him and even seemed to enjoy it. He liked the stimulation of those relationships, there was nothing sexual about it, but there was something about that male-male dynamic that fed him.

DP: I think that’s exactly right. There was one reviewer who wrote, “What’s the big deal here? This guy’s writing that JFK was comfortable with gay men, so big deal, we all knew that.” But of course it’s not the fact that he had a friend named Lem Billings who was gay. This was the closest person in all the world to him outside of his family for 30 years. He wasn’t just “a gay friend” on the side.

KH: One of the very surprising facts that comes out in this book is that Lem had his own room at the White House?

DP: Yes, that’s one of the revelations in the book that’s really surprising. And actually some of the people who were working in the White House very close to JFK didn’t know it. For example, Ted Sorensen whom I interviewed for the book, perhaps the closest aide to JFK, saw Lem around the White House all the time, but he told me he didn’t know that he’d had his own room there and was staying there so much of the time. But yeah, that’s another indication of the depth of the attachment.

One thing I was intent on doing when I wrote this book, because I thought it would be open to various forms of attack, is that I never went beyond what the documents said. The book is a lot of quotes from documents, or that interviewees said. This friendship might have contained a lot of things that I wasn’t able to find out because I didn’t want to enter the area of speculation.

KH: It seems without a doubt that Lem was in love with JFK. But it’s never stated explicitly because you don’t have any record of his ever saying that.

DP: No, I think the closest … I mean, these were more sedate times, especially where homosexuality is concerned. Even in the various documents, Lem is never overt in his statements. But there was one statement from one of the documents, and I have it in front of me here, that I think is just expresses his feelings. Here’s the quote: “Jack made a big difference in my life. Because of him, I was never lonely. He may have been the reason I never got married.”

This is somewhat of a difficult thought as well, but I think gay people had a way back then of telegraphing to future generations what their feelings were that they could not express candidly at the time. And anybody who reads some of these words today would have no doubt what Lem’s feelings were, but in the context of that time it was not obviously understood.

KH: There’s really very little discussion of Lem’s sexuality. He almost seems asexual in the book. I think there’s one incident where there’s some sort of rendezvous that was talked about, but there is an interesting passage where Jack and Lem do discuss something related to Lem’s sexuality. About a letter to Lem from Jack, this is what appears in the book:

“Jack makes a curious reference to Lem having been called a fairy, and Lem’s lack of resentment over the matter. ‘After you call someone a fairy,’ wrote Jack, ‘and discuss it for two solid hours, and argue about whether you did or did not go down on Worthington Johnson, you don’t write a letter saying that you think that fellow is a great guy, even if it’s true, which it was.’”

DP: Right. That is one example there. And you know, there might have been other examples in those letters, but we have to keep in mind that these letters went into Lem’s possession after JFK’s death, and I’m sure if there were any more candid letters — and he probably let that one slip through the cracks — that he probably would have destroyed them because he never was open about his sexuality all his life except with a few close friends.

KH: There is a real sadness about that, but I guess it’s just a sign of the times and also the fact that he wanted to protect Jack’s reputation and thought that was one of the things he had to do.

DP: Yes, that’s pretty much what the people who knew him told me, that that was more important to him than anything else. And although he lived about 10 years after Stonewall, it was still the early days after gay liberation.

KH: You wrote that there was a tension and also an appreciation that existed between Jackie Kennedy and Lem. At one point Jackie is quoted as saying, “Lem Billings has been a house guest every weekend I’ve been married.” What was that relationship about? It seems like there was acceptance and also resentment.

DP: Right, I think it was both. All the people I interviewed about the relationship between Jackie and Lem — which I think is an interesting relationship in and of itself — agreed really on the nature of that relationship. There was no disagreement among any of the people who knew them both. And that is, she liked him. She had more in common with him than she did with JFK in many ways. She was interested in the arts like he was, she had the same kind of sensibility. She also appreciated the role he played in her marriage during all the rough spots in the early days, essentially.

And the evidence that she liked him, the proof of it really, is that after the assassination when she could easily have cut him loose, she didn’t. When the British invited her to England for the memorial for JFK at Runnymede, she asked Lem to go with her. She frequently visited him in Manhattan when she lived there in the 60s, and she also went to his funeral. So the evidence that she essentially liked him is there.

On the other hand, there is also evidence that she was frustrated at times that he was always there, he was there too often, and the quote you just gave from the White House usher, J.B. West, is evidence of that as well. So it’s a mixed relationship. Probably when you think about it, it’s a marriage of three people, so that attitude is understandable.

KH: It was the ‘Me, You and DuPree’ of Camelot! Also interesting is that in instances where Jackie was unavailable to go to a dinner or on a foreign trip, Jack took Lem along — almost like his partner.

DP: I worked with a good friend of mine on this, Mona Esquetini who is much better at research than I am, and sometimes we would come across things and we’d think, wow, this is amazing. For example, when JFK went to the Eisenhower inauguration in 1953. I read in the documentation that JFK took Jackie, his wife, and that’s understandable, but he also took Lem. So he’s taking two people to the Eisenhower inauguration.

Another example that blew our minds is when Lem was writing in his oral history about the fact that he went to Glen Ora, [JFK's] summer retreat in Virginia, almost every weekend when they were in town, and he’s writing things like, “Jack went to bed at 10:00 o’clock, and Jackie shortly thereafter, and I could hear the television going…” I mean, wow, this guy is like part of the marriage.

KH: It seemed that from the way history was presented in the book that on these trips, these dinners, etc, that he just took Lem along without any explanation. Like, he didn’t feel any need to say who this person was exactly, it was just, this person is with me.

DP: Right. One of the things I learned, actually I didn’t have to learn it since I’m old enough to remember those times, is how much was left unspoken. When I talked to Ben Bradlee for example at the Washington Post, who knew both men, and the first thing he said to me when I went in to interview him, before I asked him anything, was “I suppose you know was gay. It was kind of a secret within Camelot.” So I jumped right in on that and said did you ever talk to JFK about it, and how dangerous this was for him politically, and he said, “Oh no, everybody knew but that’s not the kind of thing you talked about in those days.” It just went unspoken.

KH: I sensed, too, that Lem was sad about having been sort of forgotten by history. One passage that struck me addresses this:

In all the books about Jack Kennedy, Lem said in an interview a few years before he died, “I’m referred to as a roommate from Choate, and then dropped. I don’t particularly want to be in books, but I resent being treated as a childhood friend who could then be dropped. You never see me in the last pages, and yet I was at his house every single weekend he was president. Jack was the closest person to me in the world for 30 years.”

DP: Yes, I think you’re correct in saying that. It’s true what he’s saying there in his oral history. When you look at the various JFK books, he is usually in the earlier chapters, the friend from Choate who was involved with JFK in all these pranks, and then he’s kind of dropped, like he disappeared. The reality is of course far different as we’ve just been discussing.

I also feel he played an important role in Jack’s presidency that has been totally ignored which I’m rarely asked about either, and that is the political role that he played, even though he wasn’t profoundly interested in politics. He did learn about the Cuban Missile Crisis and other events long before other people, and listened to JFK vent — there are examples of this in the book. And so the role he played in soothing the temperament and giving advice when asked with the guy whose finger is on the button at the height of the Cold War, that’s also very important stuff that has been ignored.

KH: As you say, he wasn’t very interested in politics, but your word that he “soothed” Jack’s temperament seemed to be a running theme through the book. That, because of their deep friendship and the humor and history that they shared, Lem almost seemed like a salve, he was able to relax JFK in a way nobody else could.

DP: A friend of mine who read the book said, after reading that part of it, that Lem was the wife in the sense of playing that traditional role of the wife at that time of listening, soothing and all of the rest — because Jackie needed soothing herself. JFK’s time with her was mostly spent in reassuring her, so it was really Lem that he leaned on. Certainly in what he wanted to say politically. Now of course he could talk with political aides, but with Lem he knew he could say anything he wanted to say, and it would not be leaked, not end up in the press, and it was an important safety valve for him.

KH: Back on the issue of having been forgotten, one of the things that really struck me when I read this was that following the assassination of JFK, Lem reminded me so much of the gay lover of someone who has died where the relationship with the deceased is never publicly acknowledged. Certainly the Kennedys knew that Lem was part of the family and that he was suffering, but did you get a sense in your research that Lem himself felt cheated out of the public not knowing that he, JFK’s best friend, the First Friend, also became, in a sense, a widow that day?

DP: I’m not really sure. It’s an interesting point, and I never really asked that question and it didn’t come out in the questions. My guess would be, however, that in the context of those times, he had known from the beginning that the true extent of his affection for JFK, the true extent of this friendship, could never be public knowledge. And I think he has long adjusted to that.

Now, it may be that toward the end of his life when he was drinking more that he became a little bit more uncomfortable with the secrecy. A key interviewee in the book is Larry Quirk, the Photoplay editor who knew him for 40 years, and he said at one point Lem was thinking of writing a book in the mid-70s. Certainly that indicated he was thinking about putting the story out there, but then he retreated from it.

KH: Two things really, really touched me about this story. The first — I’ll let you tell the story of what JFK is buried with.

DP: Oh, yes. The whale scrimshaw. When I first discovered that I didn’t even know what it was, actually. Part of a whale’s tooth, I guess. And this was something that JFK had just collected over the years. And one particular collection item among the whale scrimshaw was on his desk in the Oval Office. That was a gift from Lem, and that was buried with JFK.

KH: I think that’s so profound.

DP: Yeah.

KH: The other is what Jamie Wyeth talks about in discussing the painting he painted of JFK after his assassination. In the book you write:

“Jamie Wyeth … recalls immersing himself in everything he could get his hands on about JFK before beginning to paint. But it was Lem, he says, who ‘gave me an uncommon insight,’ stemming from the fact that he had been so close to the president. ‘Lem helped me see a JFK that no amount of books, films, tapes and recordings could reveal,’ he noted. Lem spent not hours but days with him, talking about the JFK the public never knew, Wyeth added. ‘If someday you see my completed portrait of John F. Kennedy, look a little closer, for under the surface of the paint is a portrait of Lem Billings.’”

DP: Yes, those were great words from Jamie Wyeth, weren’t they. Yeah, some of the writers and artists who contacted Lem after the assassination learned … for example, JFK married Jackie in 1953 at the age of 36. By that time, he had known Lem for 20 years. So it had been Jack and Lem for 20 years at the time he had got married. Even she knew that Lem knew a lot about Jack that preceded her marriage by 20 years. That’s one reason why she wanted him to talk to the kids a lot, about the younger Jack that she never knew. She was 12 years younger than JFK as well.

KH: Well, it’s a fascinating story. I think this is a wonderful gift that you’ve given to the world, and certainly to gay readers who are constantly uncovering things that have been hidden from history that tell us so much about ourselves. Is there anything else you want to mention about the book?

DP: I guess the only thing I would mention that has been kind of surprising to me is that there have been so many books that have been written about JFK — thousands, according to the Library of Congress — and many of them are repeating the same stories about Marilyn Monroe or the Cuban Missile Crisis, but this is a new story about JFK, unknown for most Americans, and yet mainstream media has almost totally ignored it. There hasn’t been one review of this book in any mainstream newspaper, including the Washington Post, and Ben Bradlee, the most famous editor of the Post, is a key source for this book. That’s a mystery to me. I think this is a story that would interest most Americans, as well as gay Americans, and the mainstream audience doesn’t know about it. That’s been frustrating.

KH: Why do you think they’ve ignored the book?

DP: I don’t know. I’m really, really mystified because having been in the news business myself, most of what reporters are interested in above all else is news, something that’s new. If I came across a new story about a much-remembered president, I would grab it. But so far, aside from a couple of stories, one was in the New Haven Register which is near the school where they went, that’s about it.

KH: That’s interesting — and mysterious.

DP: It is. I know somebody who knows a producer at CNN and I sent over a copy of the book to them, but so far I don’t know that they’ve done anything. This is a bit of a feeling like Lem must have had that I’m having now … Well, maybe they’ll discover this book in about 10 years, but right now …

KH: That kind of blows me away. Since I read the book, I can’t stop sharing the story. Everyone with whom I’ve spoken is quite amazed by it. I hope a lot of people get to read it.

DP: I hope so, too.

Jack and Lem can be found at your
neighborhood GLBT bookstore, or any online retailer.

Photos: 
All photos courtesy of the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library
and Museum, Columbia Point, Boston, Massachusetts

SOURCE:  
http://www.woolfandwilde.com

0 comments

Love Completes Each Other



Day 33 


If two lie down together they keep warm, but how can one be warm alone?  -- Ecclesiastes 4:11

God creates marriage by taking a man and a woman and uniting them as one.  And although love must be willing to act alone if necessary, it is always better when it is not just a solo performance.  Love can function on its own if there is no other way, but there is a “more excellent way” (1 Corinthians 12:31).  And love dares not to stop loving before it gets there.

This “completing” aspect of love was revealed to mankind from the beginning.  God originated the human race with male and a female – two similar but complementary designs meant to function in harmony.

Are bodies are made for each other.  Our natures and temperaments provide balance, enabling us to more effectively complete the tasks at hand.  Our oneness can produce children, and our teamwork can best raise them to health and maturity.  When one is weak, the other is strong.  When one needs building up, the other is equipped to enhance and encourage.  We multiply one another’s joys and divide one another’s sorrows.

The scriptures say, “Two are better than one because they have a good return for their labor.  For if either of them falls, the other one will lift up his companion.   But woe to the one who falls, the one will lift up his companion.  But woe to the one who falls when there is not another to lift him up”(Ecclesiastes 4:9, 10).  It’s like your two hands, which don’t just coexist together but multiply the effectiveness of the other.  In order to do what they do, neither is quite complete without the other.

Although our difference can frequently be the source of the misunderstanding and conflict, they have been created by God and can be ongoing blessings if we respect them.

One of you may be better at cooking, for instance, while the other is more thorough in cleaning the dishes.  One may be more gentle and able to keep peace among family members, while the other handles discipline more directly and effectively.  One may have a good business head but needs the other to help him remember to be generous.

When we learn to accept these distinctions in our mate, we can bypass criticism and go straight to helping and appreciating one another.

But some can’t seem to get past their partners differences.  And they suffer many wasted opportunities as a result.  They don’t take advantage of the uniqueness that makes each of them more effective when including the other.

One such example from the Bible is Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor who presided over the trial of Jesus.  Unaware of who Christ was and against his better judgment, he allowed the crowd to influence him into crucifying Jesus.

But the one person who was more sensitive to what was really happening was Pilate’s wife, who came to him at the height of the uproar and warned him he was making a mistake.  “While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent him a message, saying, ‘Have nothing to do with what righteous Man; for last night I suffered greatly in a dream because of Him” (Matthew 27:19).

She was apparently a woman of keen discernment who grasped the magnitude of these events before her husband did.  Certainly, God’s sovereignty was at work, and nothing would have kept His Son from marching obediently to the cross for us.  But Pilate’s dismissal of his wife’s intuition reveals an unfortunate side to man’s nature that is often downplayed.  God made wives to complete their husbands, and He gives them insight that in many cases is kept from their men.  If this discernment is ignored, it is often to the detriment of the man making the decision.

The effectiveness of your marriage is dependent upon both of you working together.  Do you have big decisions to make about your finances or retirement planning?  Are you having a real problem with a coworker who’s getting harder and harder to deal with, and you are grappling with the appropriate action to take?  Are you absolutely convinced that your educational choices for the children are right, no matter what your spouse thinks?

Don’t try doing all the analysis yourself.  Don’t disqualify his or her right to voice an opinion on matters that affect both of you.  Love realizes that God has put you together on purpose.  And though you may wind up disagreeing with your spouse’s perspectives, you should still give their views respect and strong consideration.  This honors God’s design for your relationship and guards the oneness He intends.

Joined together, you are greater than your independent parts. You need each other.  You complete each other.

Today’s Dare





Recognize that your spouse is integral to your future success.  Let them know today that you desire to include them in your upcoming decisions, and that you need their perspective and counsel.  If you have ignored their input in the past, admit your oversight and ask them to forgive you.

0 comments

Friday

JULY 2010 NURSING BOARD EXAM RESULTS

Friday
CLICK THE LINK BELOW


OR



0 comments

Mexico City mayor sues cardinal

MEXICO CITY, Aug. 26 (UPI) -- Mexico City Mayor Marcelo Ebrard has sued the archbishop of Guadalajara for accusing him of bribing the country's Supreme Court to approve gay adoption.

Ebrard's lawsuit claims "moral damage" from Cardinal Juan Sandoval's allegations, the Guadalajara Reporter said. 

"It's very serious that a high-ranking member of a church tarnishes the Supreme Court," said Ebrard. "What this gentleman has said, he's going to have to prove."

Sandoval, the second-ranking Catholic prelate in the country, reacted quickly when the Supreme Court voted 9-2 that married homosexual couples have the same adoption rights as heterosexual ones. He charged Ebrard, a potential presidential candidate, and international gay-rights groups with giving justices "gifts".


Codise, a gay organization in Guadalajara, has also filed a complaint that Sandoval has incited hatred against minorities for using an offensive term for homosexuals while talking to the news media.

Gay and lesbian organizations plan a demonstration at noon Sunday outside the Guadalajara cathedral. At 5 p.m., they plan to form a human chain between the cathedral and the state government building to dramatize the separation of church and state. (www.upi.com)

0 comments

A Brother's Hands

(I do not know if this is true but sounds great)

Back in the fifteenth century, in a tiny village near Nuremberg, lived a family with eighteen children. Eighteen! In order merely to keep food on the table for this mob, the father and head of the household, a goldsmith by profession, worked almost eighteen hours a day at his trade and any other paying chore he could find in the neighborhood. Despite their seemingly hopeless condition, two of Albrecht Durer the Elder's children had a dream. They both wanted to pursue their talent for art, but they knew full well that their father would never be financially able to send either of them to Nuremberg to study at the Academy.

After many long discussions at night in their crowded bed, the two boys finally worked out a pact. They would toss a coin. The loser would go down into the nearby mines and, with his earnings, support his brother while he attended the academy. Then, when that brother who won the toss completed his studies, in four years, he would support the other brother at the academy, either with sales of his artwork or, if necessary, also by laboring in the mines. They tossed a coin on a Sunday morning after church. Albrecht Durer won the toss and went off to Nuremberg.

Albert went down into the dangerous mines and, for the next four years, financed his brother, whose work at the academy was almost an immediate sensation. Albrecht's etchings, his woodcuts, and his oils were far better than those of most of his professors, and by the time he graduated, he was beginning to earn considerable fees for his commissioned works.

When the young artist returned to his village, the Durer family held a festive dinner on their lawn to celebrate Albrecht's triumphant homecoming. After a long and memorable meal, punctuated with music and laughter, Albrecht rose from his honored position at the head of the table to drink a toast to his beloved brother for the years of sacrifice that had enabled Albrecht to fulfill his ambition. His closing words were, "And now, Albert, blessed brother of mine, now it is your turn. Now you can go to Nuremberg to pursue your dream, and I will support you."

All heads turned in eager expectation to the far end of the table where Albert sat, tears streaming down his pale face, shaking his lowered head from side to side while he sobbed and repeated over and over, "No ... no ... no ... no."

Finally, Albert rose and wiped the tears from his cheeks. He glanced down the long table at the faces he loved, and then, holding his hands close to his right cheek, he said softly, "No, brother. I cannot go to Nuremberg. It is too late for me. Look ... look what four years in the mines have done to my hands! The bones in every finger have been smashed at least once, and lately I have been suffering from arthritis so badly in my right hand that I cannot even hold a glass to return your toast, much less make delicate lines on parchment or canvas with a pen or a brush. No, brother ... for me it is too late."

More than 450 years have passed. By now, Albrecht Durer's hundreds of masterful portraits, pen and silver-point sketches, watercolors, charcoals, woodcuts, and copper engravings hang in every great museum in the world, but the odds are great that you, like most people, are familiar with only one of Albrecht Durer's works. More than merely being familiar with it, you very well may have a reproduction hanging in your home or office.

One day, long ago, to pay homage to Albert for all that he had sacrificed, Albrecht Durer painstakingly drew his brother's abused hands with palms together and thin fingers stretched skyward. He called his powerful drawing simply "Hands," but the entire world almost immediately opened their hearts to his great masterpiece and renamed his tribute of love "The Praying Hands."

0 comments

15 THINGS GOD WOULDN'T ASK FROM YOU

by: Bill Greer, Chicken Soup for the Veteran's Soul

 
God won’t ask what kind of car you drove, but will ask how many people you drove who didn’t have transportation.

God won’t ask the square footage of your house, but will ask how many people you welcomed into your home.

God won’t ask about the fancy clothes you had in your closet, but will ask how many of those clothes helped the needy.

God won’t ask about your social status, but will ask what kind of class you displayed.

God won’t ask how many material possessions you had, but will ask if they dictated your life.

God won’t ask what your highest salary was, but will ask if you compromised your character to obtain that salary.

God won’t ask how much overtime you worked, but will ask if you worked overtime for your family and loved ones.

God won’t ask how many promotions you received, but will ask how you promoted others.

God won’t ask what your job title was, but will ask if you reformed your job to the best of your ability.

God won’t ask what you did to help yourself, but will ask what you did to help others.

God won’t ask how many friends you had, but will ask how many people to whom you were a true friend.

God won’t ask what you did to protect your rights, but will ask what you did to protect the rights of others.

God won’t ask in what neighborhood you lived, but will ask how you treated your neighbors.

God won’t ask about the color of your skin, but will ask about the content of your character.

God won’t ask how many times your deeds matched your words, but will ask how many times they didn’t. 


0 comments

Thursday

Hong Kong leader Tsang’s phone calls stopped with President Aquino’s aides

Thursday
TAKEN FROM raissarobles..com

Calendar August 26, 2010 | Posted by raissa robles
Raissa Robles and Fanny W. Y. Fung
Updated on Aug 26, 2010
A South China Morning Post exclusive

[NOTE: I am posting this with the permission of my editor. Just to clarify, I did talk to foreign affairs spokesman Ed Malaya to get the department perspective but he declined to comment. ]


It was the case of the telephone calls that didn’t get through.

An anxious Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen was never put through to Philippine President Benigno Aquino on Monday. Despite at least two phone calls, Aquino’s aides did not tell their head of state that Hong Kong’s leader needed to speak to him.

This is how it all started:

It is 4pm – the hostage crisis has lasted for more than five hours. Tsang, watching the drama unfold on television, is desperate to contact the new Philippines leader.

Some time after 4pm, Tsang’s staff dial the main line to Malacanang Palace. They try again about four hours later. Both times they speak to an Aquino aide, but the president does not get the messages. Later that night, with eight Hongkongers dead, Tsang is close to tears at a press conference. He demands an explanation. “I hope the Philippine government can give me a full account of what happened.”

An account of that breakdown in communication between Hong Kong and Manila emerged yesterday, with Malacanang admitting it had passed on the responsibility of handling the phone calls to the Department of Foreign Affairs, according to protocol. Hong Kong, after all, does not handle foreign affairs, Beijing does. The department’s envoys did not follow up that night.

Tsang eventually got to speak to Aquino the following day, after the latter had met the Chinese ambassador.

Ricky Carandang, who heads the Presidential Communications Group, said Aquino was not aware of the first call because he was in a meeting and because the call came in through the palace’s main phone line with no prior notice. Carandang said the caller was an aide of Tsang, and an aide of Aquino answered the phone. He said Aquino’s aide knew who Tsang was, but was unsure it was really from his office.

The palace contacted the Foreign Affairs Department to set up a phone call through Foreign Secretary Alberto Romulo, in what would be diplomatic protocol. Presidential spokesman Ed Lacierda said he phoned Romulo’s spokesman Ed Malaya to convey the request to arrange a conversation between Tsang and Aquino. No word came back, so Lacierda tried to phone Malaya again three times but could not reach him. The department declined to tell the Post why no one returned Tsang’s calls that night.

After his telephone conversation with the president on Tuesday, Tsang said in a video posted on the internet: “The first thing he told me was that he was sorry for not having called me back [on Monday] because he was then busy commanding the operation.”

But citing unnamed sources, Filipino journalist Ellen Tordesillas had a different take on the debacle. She said Aquino had “told his staff [that day] that he won’t be taking any calls unless it’s extremely important. When Tsang called, the one who took the call didn’t know who Donald Tsang was. Following the instruction, the staff member did not pass on the call to Aquino.”

0 comments

Love Completes Each Other


Day 33

If two lie down together they keep warm, but how can one be warm alone?  -- Ecclesiastes 4:11


God creates marriage by taking a man and a woman and uniting them as one.  And although love must be willing to act alone if necessary, it is always better when it is not just a solo performance.  Love can function on its own if there is no other way, but there is a “more excellent way” (1 Corinthians 12:31).  And love dares not to stop loving before it gets there.



This “completing” aspect of love was revealed to mankind from the beginning.  God originated the human race with male and a female – two similar but complementary designs meant to function in harmony.


Are bodies are made for each other.  Our natures and temperaments provide balance, enabling us to more effectively complete the tasks at hand.  Our oneness can produce children, and our teamwork can best raise them to health and maturity.  When one is weak, the other is strong.  When one needs building up, the other is equipped to enhance and encourage.  We multiply one another’s joys and divide one another’s sorrows.


The scriptures say, “Two are better than one because they have a good return for their labor.  For if either of them falls, the other one will lift up his companion.   But woe to the one who falls, the one will lift up his companion.  But woe to the one who falls when there is not another to lift him up”(Ecclesiastes 4:9, 10).  It’s like your two hands, which don’t just coexist together but multiply the effectiveness of the other.  In order to do what they do, neither is quite complete without the other.


Although our difference can frequently be the source of the misunderstanding and conflict, they have been created by God and can be ongoing blessings if we respect them.

One of you may be better at cooking, for instance, while the other is more thorough in cleaning the dishes.  One may be more gentle and able to keep peace among family members, while the other handles discipline more directly and effectively.  One may have a good business head but needs the other to help him remember to be generous.


When we learn to accept these distinctions in our mate, we can bypass criticism and go straight to helping and appreciating one another.


But some can’t seem to get past their partners differences.  And they suffer many wasted opportunities as a result.  They don’t take advantage of the uniqueness that makes each of them more effective when including the other.


One such example from the Bible is Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor who presided over the trial of Jesus.  Unaware of who Christ was and against his better judgment, he allowed the crowd to influence him into crucifying Jesus.


But the one person who was more sensitive to what was really happening was Pilate’s wife, who came to him at the height of the uproar and warned him he was making a mistake.  “While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent him a message, saying, ‘Have nothing to do with what righteous Man; for last night I suffered greatly in a dream because of Him” (Matthew 27:19).


She was apparently a woman of keen discernment who grasped the magnitude of these events before her husband did.  Certainly, God’s sovereignty was at work, and nothing would have kept His Son from marching obediently to the cross for us.  But Pilate’s dismissal of his wife’s intuition reveals an unfortunate side to man’s nature that is often downplayed.  God made wives to complete their husbands, and He gives them insight that in many cases is kept from their men.  If this discernment is ignored, it is often to the detriment of the man making the decision.


The effectiveness of your marriage is dependent upon both of you working together.  Do you have big decisions to make about your finances or retirement planning?  Are you having a real problem with a coworker who’s getting harder and harder to deal with, and you are grappling with the appropriate action to take?  Are you absolutely convinced that your educational choices for the children are right, no matter what your spouse thinks?


Don’t try doing all the analysis yourself.  Don’t disqualify his or her right to voice an opinion on matters that affect both of you.  Love realizes that God has put you together on purpose.  And though you may wind up disagreeing with your spouse’s perspectives, you should still give their views respect and strong consideration.  This honors God’s design for your relationship and guards the oneness He intends.


Joined together, you are greater than your independent parts. You need each other.  You complete each other.


Today’s Dare

Recognize that your spouse is integral to your future success.  Let them know today that you desire to include them in your upcoming decisions, and that you need their perspective and counsel.  If you have ignored their input in the past, admit your oversight and ask them to forgive you.

0 comments