Wednesday, August 8, 2018

WITH THESE CANDLESTICKS



There is a scene in both the book and every version of the movie, “Les Miserables” (by Victor Hugo and set in early 1800’s France) in which an escaped convict knocks on a priest’s door, and explains that he is hungry and needing a place to lay his head for the night. Father Myriel invites Jean (pronounced John) Val Jean into his humble abode, much to the consternation of the kindly priest’s housekeeper. As the unlikely trio sit down for supper, we notice the convict’s eyes widen as a set of ornate silverware is laid out before him, and a contrastingly small, but evil smile appears on his lips.

The supper over, Bishop Myriel and Jean Val Jean sit before the fire awhile, before eventually retiring for the evening. As the stars navigate their evening circuit across the sky, and the fireflies flit here and there throughout the nearby pastures, the criminal opens his eyes, and looks around his borrowed room. Jean silently dresses, and steals into the kitchen. Emptying his own knapsack of a few worthless odds and ends, he helps himself to the sterling silver plates and utensils.

It is a full moon, and as Jean Val Jean walks across the open threshold of Father Myriel’s room, the old priest opens his eyes and immediately understands the import of the scene that is playing itself out in his presence. But after an almost imperceptible shake of his head, and a knowing smile, the parson closes his eyes, and is soon overtaken by slumber.

The morning dawns bright and fair, and there is a shriek as the housekeeper opens the silver cabinet for the breakfast meal, and becomes all too aware of what has taken place in the night.

“Bishop, dear Bishop, that man you allowed into your home has robbed you of your silver! Quickly Sir. We must contact the magistrate.”

The kindly priest walks into the kitchen, and merely says,

“Well now, good woman. He must have needed the stuff more than we.”

and

“After all, the silver is not ours, but God’s.  It is best used for the poor. And was our dear brother not poor in both goods, and spirit? It is well. It is well.”

Pt. 2

Shortly afterwards there is a loud banging on the door, and the harried housekeeper hastens to open it. Before her stands a middle aged man adorned in the clothing of the city magistrate. He holds a dirty knapsack in his hands. Behind him stands, well, you guessed it, Jean Val Jean; iron shackles adorning his hands and feet. A slightly built police sergeant holds him by the arm.

“Excuse me, Bishop Myriel. A moment of your time, please. This wicked fellow here, well, we caught him with a sack full of silver, and when we asked him where he got it, he claimed, well, he claimed you gave it to him.”

The kindly priest smiled and responded,

“Well, yes, I gave him the silver. Please release him. You were only doing your duty, sir, but he did nothing wrong.”

The magistrate was incredulous. “You mean he was telling us the truth?” And he couldn’t quit shaking his head in disbelief.

There was nothing else to do but release the poor shackled soul. And the magistrate gave his assistant instructions to do so.

As the chains fells off Jean Val Jean’s hands and feet, the kindly bishop whispered to his housekeeper. She hurried off into the house, and quickly returned with something in her hands.

The priest accepted two similar items from her, and thrust them into the hands of the escaped convict.

“And my dear sir, you forgot these silver candlesticks. Didn’t I remind you to pack them before you left this morning?”

The magistrate was aghast, and could only shake his head, and say,

“Well, Bishop Myriel. We will take our leave now. Thank you very much for clearing this up for us, Sir.”

And then they were left alone. Without a word, the kindly bishop motioned Jean Val Jean to step into his humble home.

Pt. 3

As they entered the small living area, neither man sat down. The bishop starred unblinking into Jean Val Jean’s eyes for what seemed the longest time, and Jean could not help but returning his gaze.

The priest knew the convict’s story. The big brute had unraveled the tale for him the night before. His sister and her little son, and he were without work, and desperately hungry. And in a moment of desperation Jean Val Jean had gone looking for,… for bread. Oh, he’d found it, he’d found it behind a bakery display window. The hungry man had picked up a rock and smashed what lay between him and his prize. A single loaf of bread, and as a result of that momentary decision, he’d spent 19 years in prison.

The bishop finally spoke,

“Jean Val Jean. You have been tried and convicted for a crime of passion. A passion that is common to all of us. Your stomach ached for food, and your relatives suffered from the same temptation. You have suffered a great wrong perpetrated by a callous judge who stole a third of your life from you, and understandably your soul is dark with vengeance.”

It was at then that the kindly bishop grasped Jean’s two hands with his own. The hapless convict still clung to the silver candlesticks in those over-sized hands.

“Jean Val Jean. You are no longer the man who knocked on my door yesterday. A sinner and a stranger stepped across my threshold yesterday. Before me now stands my brother in Christ. You are changed, you are  purified. With these candlesticks I buy back your soul. And as often as you look at them, you must remember this day. You must spend the rest of your life doing good, as Christ our Lord also did good.”

Pt. 4

And the kindly priest’s words seemed at the same time a weight and a grace to the rough-hewn Val Jean. And the years of pain and bitterness escaped him in a torrent of tears. Suddenly, the convict dropped to his knees, and a wail escaped his lips that might have easily been heard outside the house.

Bishop Myriel stooped down, and took the repentant man by his burly arms, lifted him to his feet, and lovingly embraced him.

“Jean Val Jean, my brother. Go now. Go in peace.”

And Jean stepped out of that old cottage door; a changed man.

I have always been captivated by this story. I read it in high school English, and this scene from one particular version of the movie impacted me unlike almost nothing ever did. What I have shared with you tonight is my own rendition of the pages of the novel, and the film footage.
All for a loaf of bread

by William McDonald, PhD. Copyright pending

If you wish to copy or 'save' please include the credit line, above

Sunday, August 5, 2018

GUARDIAN ANGELS

For he will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways . (Psalm 91:11)

I was watching the “Turning Point” television program this afternoon, and in today’s sermon Rev. David Jeremiah of Shadow Mountain Church in California shared a story from his ordination interview.


It so happened that the good preacher’s parents were present in the room that day, and it was finally the young Jeremiah’s turn to sit in the ‘hot seat.’


During the interview, one of his ‘inquisitors’ posed a question; with a rather long preface.

“David, I have been looking over your ordination application, and your accompanying exposition of various biblical doctrines. However, I don’t see anything about your persuasion regarding guardian angels. Can you tell me whether you believe in the existence of guardian angels?”

And as he recounts the story, Rev. Jeremiah smiles, then laughs out loud, and then continues.

“Well, when that man asked me whether I believed in guardian angels, and before I could respond, my mother jumped up and said,”

‘I don’t if he does, but I sure do!’”


Dr. Jeremiah went on to say that you would have had to know his mother’s personality and how out of character this kind of outburst was for her. It remains one of his most poignant memories.

Speaking of angels, (not necessarily of the guardian kind) a couple of  years ago I had a one of a kind personal experience which I thought I would share with you.

Pt. 2

Some time ago, I found myself doing what I do almost every night, well, every morning if you call “dark city” morning. I jump on my slow, but trusty bike and head off on a 10 mile trek.

On this particular morning I happened to stop at an intersection, preparing to cross a 4 lane highway, and looked to my right. And strangely enough for 4am, I could just make out the form of a fella walking towards me on the sidewalk; perhaps 50 feet away.

Well, not being overly concerned about the man walking in my direction, I glanced one more time to my left, and prepared to “high tail it” across the highway. Mind you, no more than 2 seconds had elapsed since I had noticed the guy walking towards me on the sidewalk, and as I began peddling, I glanced back to my right. 

And where a moment before there was what appeared to be a six foot, 170 pound man, 

… only thin air greeted my gaze.

And since I peddle this same route every day it’s a familiar environment for me, 

… (and this is the “wild card,”) 

I’m aware of a 6-8 foot high wall that runs along that sidewalk, and which borders a gated community. There had been absolutely nowhere for “my friend” to go. He certainly didn’t vault the wall in record time, and since there are plenty of street lights along that stretch of highway, I would have seen him had he walked across the street.

Over the past year I have experienced a rather difficult season; something relating to rejection, and which kicked me in the figurative rear end. And as I reflect on it now, I think it was after this angelic visitation that the dark emotions with which I had contended began to lift.

I believe in angels, seen and unseen, and I’m thankful for their ministry to God’s people.

Post-Script

Strangely enough, a couple of weeks after my foregoing experience a fatal automobile accident, in which two women died, occurred at this particular intersection. 


Beyond my previous interpretation of why this angel may have appeared in my presence, I have wondered if perhaps he was one of God’s Death Angels, and if he had been involved in a ‘dry run’ that evening.


by William McDonald, PhD. Copyright pending

Saturday, August 4, 2018

O LOVE THAT WILT NOT LET ME GO - A Hymn Story

George Matheson suffered poor eyesight from birth, and at age 15 learned that he was going blind.  Not one to be easily discouraged, he enrolled in the University of Glasgow and graduated at age 19.  He then began theological studies, and it was while pursuing those that he began totally blind.

Matheson’s three sisters rose to the occasion and tutored him through his studies—even going so far as to learn Hebrew, Greek, and Latin to be able to help their brother.  With their help he was able to complete his studies.

After graduation, he answered a call to serve as pastor of a church in Innellan, Argylshire, Scotland.  He had a successful ministry there, and was later called to serve as pastor of the much larger (2000 member) St. Bernard’s Church in Edinburgh.

On the day that one of his sisters was married, Matheson wrote this hymn.  He recorded this account of that experience in his journal:

“My hymn was composed in the manse of Inellan on the evening of June 6, 1882.  I was at that time alone.  It was the day of my sister’s marriage, and the rest of my family were staying overnight in Glasgow.  Something had happened to me which was known only to myself, and which caused me the most severe mental suffering.  The hymn was the fruit of that suffering.  It was the quickest bit of work I ever did in my life.  I had the impression of having it dictated to me by some inward voice than of working it out myself.  I am quite sure that the whole work was completed in five minutes, and equally sure that it never received at my hands any retouching or correction.  I have no natural gift of rhythm.  All the other verses I have written are manufactured articles; this came like a dayspring from on high.  I have never been able to gain once more the same fervor in verse.”

Matheson obviously didn’t intend to tell us what caused his “most severe mental suffering,” but people who know his background strongly suspect that it had to do with a heartbreaking experience several years earlier.  His fiancee had broken her engagement to him, telling him that she couldn’t see herself going through life married to a blind man.  Matheson never married, and it seems likely that his sister’s wedding brought to memory the woman that he had loved and the wedding that he had never enjoyed.

At any rate, Matheson’s “severe mental suffering” inspired him to write this hymn, “O Love that Wilt Not Let Me Go.”  The hymn celebrates the constancy of God’s love—”love that wilt not let me go”—”light that follow’st all my way”—”joy that seekest me through pain.”  It concludes by celebrating “Life that shall endless be.”

Albert Peace, organist and editor of a journal called The Scottish Hymnal, wrote the tune, “St. Margaret,” that is associated with the hymn.  His experience was amazingly like that of Matheson, in that the music came to him quickly and he was able to write the tune in only five minutes.

When I read the various accounts of Matheson’s writing this hymn, one sentence struck me as especially important.  It was this—Matheson said, “The hymn was the fruit of that suffering.”  There is an important lesson in that.  All of us suffer some sort of heartbreak or disappointment or disability at some point in our lives.  What makes all the difference is our response —whether we let the hardship stop us or inspire us to greater effort.

Matheson suffered two severe blows that could have stopped him—the loss of his eyesight and the loss of his beloved.  In both cases, he made the best of a bad situation—and we are all the richer for it.  As this hymn reveals, it was his faith in God that kept him going through the adversities that he suffered.  He believed that God’s love would not let him go—and that God’s light would follow him all his way—and that God’s joy would seek him through his pain—and that faith made all the difference.

Copyright 2008, Richard Niell Donovan
*********************************

"O Love That Wilt Not Let Me Go"

(George Matheson)

  1. O Love that will not let me go,
    I rest my weary soul in thee;
    I give thee back the life I owe,
    That in thine ocean depths its flow
    May richer, fuller be.
  2. O Light that foll’west all my way,
    I yield my flick’ring torch to thee;
    My heart restores its borrowed ray,
    That in thy sunshine’s blaze its day
    May brighter, fairer be.
  3. O Joy that seekest me through pain,
    I cannot close my heart to thee;
    I trace the rainbow through the rain,
    And feel the promise is not vain,
    That morn shall tearless be.
  4. O Cross that liftest up my head,
    I dare not ask to fly from thee;
    I lay in dust life’s glory dead,
    And from the ground there blossoms red
    Life that shall endless be.


GIVING & RECEIVING


IF FROM TWO KINDS OF PLEASURE I WOULD CHOOSE

THE ONE BY WHICH I’D WIN, THE OTHER LOSE

THE HAPPINESS I FIND ON THIS OLD EARTH,

THRU DEEDS OF KINDNESS AND OF VIRTUOUS WORTH,

OR PASSING, GIVING JOY TO THOSE I KNOW,

AND TO THE HELPLESS, QUIET ALMS BESTOW,

I KNOW I’D RELISH NOT TEMPORARY GAIN

OR THE MULTITUDE’S APPLAUSE, BUT LIVING AIM

MY WORK BY ACTING IN THOSE PARTS

THAT WOULD ENGRAVE MY NAME IN HUMAN HEARTS

OF VARIOUS FORMS OF INDIGNATION YOU AND I

WILL FIND IN EVERY SOUL THAT PASSES BY,

THERE’S ONE, A LOWLY JEW OF GALILEE

USED, WHEN HE TOOK A WHIP TO FREE

THE TEMPLE FROM THE MONEY CHANGERS THERE.

THAT I LIKE BEST, FOR IT LAYS NAKED, BARE,

THE FRUITLESSNESS OF SELFISH, SORDID AIM,

AND DISAPPOINTMENT FOUND IN WORLDLY GAIN,

AND MAGNIFIES A THOUSAND FOLD

THE RIGHTEOUS WAY TO WORK FOR YOUNG AND OLD.

EACH HOUR, EACH DAY, EACH YEAR WE WIN OR LOSE

HAPPINESS AND PEACE OF MIND THE WAY WE CHOOSE;

EACH FLOWER AND BIRD, ALL CREATURES ON THIS EARTH

THAT HAVE IN THEM THE PRECIOUS JEWEL OF WORTH,

TELL US THAT, FINALLY, OUR REWARD

IS WORTH SO MUCH WE CAN’T AFFORD

WHEN YOUNG, NOT TO TRAIN THE WILL,

SO THAT THRU LIFE WE’LL CHOOSE THE RIGHT THING STILL

AND HAPPINESS THROUGHOUT THE PASSING HOURS

WILL BE WITH THEE AND THINE AND ALL THAT’S OURS

by Wallace Holmes

GIVING WHAT IS UNWANTED


Each one of us here today will,
at one time in our lives...
look upon a loved one who is in need
and ask the same question.
"We are willing to help, Lord...
but what, if anything, is needed?"
It is true we can seldom help
those closest to us.
Either we don't know what part
of ourselves to give...
or more often than not,
the part we have to give...
is not wanted.
And so it is those we live with
and should know who elude us...
but we can still love them.
We can love completely...
without complete understanding.

(from the movie, "A River Runs Through It")

Friday, August 3, 2018

THE GIRL WHO STRUCK OUT BABE RUTH & LOU GEHRIG

For a lifelong baseball nerd, this was like learning that a hamster once played shortstop or that Druids invented our national pastime. The Sultan of Swat and the Iron Horse couldn’t hit a girl? Why had I never heard of her?
This led me, a month later, to the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum in Cooperstown, New York, where I learned that Jackie Mitchell’s story was even stranger than I’d supposed, with subplots involving donkeys, long beards and a lingering mystery about what transpired when she took the mound in 1931.
The Hall of Fame remains a pretty macho place, filled with plaques and exhibits honoring thousands of men who have played the game. But after touring the Babe Ruth Room and paying homage to Lou Gehrig’s locker and Stan Musial’s bat, I found a small exhibit on women in baseball, titled “Diamond Dreams.” As with so much of baseball history, determining “firsts” and separating fact from lore can be tricky. All-women teams competed against each other as early as the 1860s, and in later decades traveling squads such as the Blondes and Brunettes drew paid spectators. But most of these early players were actresses, recruited and often exploited by male owners. “It was a show, a burlesque of the game,” says Debra Shattuck, a leading expert on women in baseball.
Around the turn of the century, however, women athletes of real ability began competing with men and sometimes playing on the same teams in bygone semipro leagues. The first to appear in baseball’s minor leagues was Lizzie Arlington, who wore bloomers while pitching for the Reading (Pennsylvania) Coal Heavers against the Allentown Peanuts in 1898.
So Jackie Mitchell wasn’t the first woman to play organized baseball, but her appearance on the mound in 1931 became a Depression-era sensation. As a girl in Memphis, she’d allegedly been tutored in baseball by a neighbor and minor-league pitcher, Charles Arthur “Dazzy” Vance, who would go on to lead the National League in strikeouts for seven straight seasons. Mitchell’s family moved to Chattanooga, where she became a multisport athlete and joined a baseball school affiliated with the city’s Class AA minor-league team, the Lookouts, and attracted attention with her sinking curveball.
The Lookouts’ new president, Joe Engel, was a showman and promoter whose many stunts included trading a player for a turkey, which was cooked and served to sportswriters. In 1931, he booked the Yankees for two exhibition games against the Lookouts as the major leaguers traveled north from spring training. A week before their arrival, he announced the signing of Mitchell to what’s believed to be one of the first professional baseball contracts given to a woman.
The prospect of a 17-year-old girl facing the mighty Yankees generated considerable media coverage, most of it condescending. One paper wrote, “The curves won’t be all on the ball” when “pretty” Jackie Mitchell takes the mound. Another reported that she “has a swell change of pace and swings a mean lipstick.” The tall, slim teenager, clad in a baggy Lookouts uniform, also posed for cameras as she warmed up by taking out a mirror and powdering her nose.
The first game against the Yankees, before a crowd of 4,000 fans and journalists, began with the Lookouts’ starting pitcher surrendering hits to the first two batters. The Lookouts’ manager then pulled his starter and sent Mitchell to the mound to face the heart of a fearsome lineup that had become known in the 1920s as “Murderers’ Row.”
First up was Ruth, who tipped his hat at the girl on the mound “and assumed an easy batting stance,” a reporter wrote. Mitchell went into her motion, winding her left arm “as if she were turning a coffee grinder.” Then, with a side-armed delivery, she threw her trademark sinker (a pitch known then as “the drop”). Ruth let it pass for a ball. At Mitchell’s second offering, Ruth “swung and missed the ball by a foot.” He missed the next one, too, and asked the umpire to inspect the ball. Then, with the count 1-2, Ruth watched as Mitchell’s pitch caught the outside corner for a called strike three. Flinging his bat down in disgust, he retreated to the dugout.
Next to the plate was Gehrig, who would bat .341 in 1931 and tie Ruth for the league lead in homers. He swung at and missed three straight pitches. But Mitchell walked the next batter, Tony Lazzeri, and the Lookouts’ manager pulled her from the game, which the Yankees went on to win, 14-4.
“Girl Pitcher Fans Ruth and Gehrig,” read the headline in the next day’s sports page of the New York Times, beside a photograph of Mitchell in uniform. In an editorial, the paper added: “The prospect grows gloomier for misogynists.” Ruth, however, was quoted as saying that women “will never make good” in baseball because “they are too delicate. It would kill them to play ball every day.”
Baseball commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis evidently agreed. It was widely reported (though no proof exists) that he voided Mitchell’s contract on the grounds that baseball was too strenuous for women. The president of the organization overseeing the minor leagues later termed the appearance of “a female mound artist” a lamentable “Burlesquing” of the national pastime, akin to greased pig contests, hot dog-eating competitions and other ballpark promotions.
Mitchell’s unusual baseball career, however, wasn’t over. In an era before televised games, when blacks as well as women were unofficially barred from major-league baseball, an ersatz troupe of traveling teams barnstormed the nation, mostly playing in towns that lacked professional squads. Barnstorming mixed sports with vaudeville and circus. “There were teams of fat men, teams of one-legged men, blind teams, all-brother teams,” says Tim Wiles, director of research at the Hall of Fame library. Some teams didn’t just play standard baseball; they also performed sleight-of-hand tricks, like the Harlem Globetrotters, and rode animals onto the field.
One such team was called House of David, named for a religious colony in Michigan that sought to gather the lost tribes of Israel in advance of the millennium. The colony’s tenets included celibacy, vegetarianism and a devotion to physical fitness, which led to the creation of a talented and profitable ball team. In accordance with House of David beliefs, players had shoulder-length hair and biblical beards. The eccentric team was so popular that it spawned spinoffs, including an all-black Colored House of David.
Over time, the colony’s teams also recruited players from outside their community, and in 1933 a House of David squad signed Jackie Mitchell, who was then 19 and had been playing with various amateur teams since her outing against the Yankees. Chaperoned by her mother, she traveled with the team and in one game pitched against the major-league St. Louis Cardinals. According to a news report, the “nomadic House of David ball team, beards, girl pitcher and all, came, saw, and conquered the Cardinals, 8 to 6.”
Little else is known of Mitchell’s time with House of David, though according to some sources she became weary of the team’s “circus-type” antics: for instance, some players donning fake beards or playing ball while riding donkeys. In 1937 she retired from baseball and went to work for her father’s optical business in Tennessee.
But other women continued to play on barnstorming teams, including Negro League squads, and after 1943 in the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League (featured in the movie A League of Their Own). Then in 1952, another woman followed Mitchell into baseball’s minor leagues. Eleanor Engle, a softball player and stenographer in Pennsylvania, joined the Harrisburg Senators and was pictured in uniform in the team’s dugout. But she never took the field, and the president of the minor leagues stated that no contract with a woman would be approved because it was “not in the best interest of baseball that such travesties be tolerated.” This prompted a media flurry and a tongue-in-cheek protest from Marilyn Monroe. “The lady should be permitted to play,” said the actress, who would soon marry Joe DiMaggio. “I can’t think of a better way to meet outfielders.”
Only in recent decades have women gained a degree of acceptance playing alongside men. In the 1970s, a lawsuit won girls entry into Little League. In the 1980s, women broke into men’s college ball and in the 1990s, Ila Borders joined the St. Paul Saints of the independent Northern League. But no female player has yet reached the majors, or come close to matching Mitchell’s feat of striking out two of the game’s greatest hitters. Which raises a question that has lingered since the day she took the mound in 1931. Did her pitching really fool Ruth and Gehrig, or did the two men whiff on purpose?
The Lookouts’ president, Joe Engel, clearly signed Mitchell to attract publicity and sell tickets, both of which he achieved. And some news reports on the game hinted at a less than sincere effort by Ruth and Gehrig. Of Ruth’s at bat, the New York Times wrote that he “performed his role very ably” by striking out before the delighted Chattanooga crowd, while Gehrig “took three hefty swings as his contribution to the occasion.” Also, the game was originally scheduled for April 1 and delayed a day because of rain, leading to speculation that Engel had plotted Mitchell’s outing as an April Fools’ Day prank.
If Ruth and Gehrig were in on an orchestrated stunt, they never said so. Other Yankees later gave mixed verdicts. Pitcher Lefty Gomez said the Yankees manager, Joe McCarthy, was so competitive that “he wouldn’t have instructed the Yankees to strike out.” Third baseman Ben Chapman, who was due to bat when Mitchell was pulled from the mound, said he “had no intention of striking out. I planned to hit the ball.” But he suspected Ruth and Gehrig agreed between themselves to strike out. “It was a good promotion, a good show,” he said. “It really packed the house.”
Mitchell, for her part, held to her belief that she’d genuinely whiffed the two Yankees. She said the only instruction the Yankees received was to try to avoid lining the ball straight back at the mound, for fear of hurting her. “Why, hell, they were trying, damn right,” she said of Ruth and Gehrig not long before her death in 1987. “Hell, better hitters than them couldn’t hit me. Why should they’ve been any different?”
She also saved a newsreel of her outing, which shows her hitting the strike zone on three consecutive pitches to Ruth. On two of them, Ruth flails wildly at the ball, and his fury at the called third strike looks theatrical. But the images are too blurry to tell how much speed and sink Mitchell had on her pitches, and whether they were good enough to miss the bats of both Ruth and Gehrig.
Debra Shattuck, the historian of women in baseball, is skeptical. While Mitchell may have been a good pitcher, she says, “I really doubt she could hold her own at that level.” But Tim Wiles, the Hall of Fame research director, thinks it’s possible the strikeouts were genuine. “Much of batting has to do with timing and familiarity with a pitcher, and everything about Jackie Mitchell was unfamiliar to Ruth and Gehrig,” he says. Also, Mitchell was a lefty side-armer facing lefty batters, a matchup that favors the pitcher. And Ruth striking out wasn’t a rarity; he did so 1,330 times in his career, leading the league in that category five times.
Wiles also wonders if sportswriters and players who suggested that the strikeouts were staged did so to protect male egos. “Even hitters as great as Ruth and Gehrig would be reluctant to admit they’d really been struck out by a 17-year-old girl,” he says.
John Thorn, the official historian for Major League Baseball, vigorously disagrees. He believes Ruth and Gehrig were in cahoots with the Lookouts’ president and went along with the stunt, which did no harm to their reputations. “The whole thing was a jape, a jest, a Barnumesque prank,” he says. “Jackie Mitchell striking out Ruth and Gehrig is a good story for children’s books, but it belongs in the pantheon with the Easter Bunny and Abner Doubleday ‘inventing’ baseball.”
He adds, however, that a great deal has changed since Mitchell’s day and that there are fewer obstacles to women succeeding and being accepted in professional baseball today. No rule prohibits them doing so, and in 2010, Eri Yoshida, a knuckleballer who has played professional ball in Japan, trained with the Red Sox at their minor-league camp. A year later, Justine Siegal became the first woman to throw batting practice for a major-league team.
In Thorn’s view, it is players like Yoshida, throwing knucklers or other off-speed pitches, who represent the likeliest path to the majors for women. Asked if this breakthrough might occur in his lifetime, the 66-year-old historian pauses before replying: “If I live to 100, yes. I believe it could be possible.”
My son, for one, thinks it will happen much sooner than that. Shortly before our visit to Cooperstown, his Little League team was defeated in a playoff game by a team whose girl pitcher struck out batter after batter and stroked several hits, too. No one on the field or sidelines seemed to consider her gender noteworthy.
“Don’t be sexist, Dad,” my son chided when I asked if he was surprised by the girl’s play. “I wish she was on our team.”

(from a current article)

Thursday, August 2, 2018

FEEDING THE RAVENS AT BLARNEY CASTLE

In the past couple of months, my wife and I returned from the most memorable vacation of our lives; a guided tour of Ireland, Northern Ireland, and Scotland.

Like most Americans (and peoples of any civilized country) I have often seen photos and videos of tourists who frequent Blarney Castle in Ireland. Of course, THE thing to do there is to kiss the Blarney Stone.

Once our tour bus rolled to a stop in the gift shop parking lot, my wife made me aware that she would rather “shop ‘til she dropped” than climb the 132 steps to the top of the castle. As a result, our daughter and grandson accompanied me to the castle; a distance of perhaps 500 yards. 

Having passed a smaller gift shop, a couple of food trailers, and having walked across a little bridge, Kristy and Noah decided to check out a nearby flower garden. And I was left to make the solitary climb to the roof of the castle.

The first thing which struck me was the winding stone staircase, and specifically the width of each step. It was if the steps were made for a midget. Although I wear a 9 ½ shoe, average in our day and time, the back of my foot hung 2-3 inches off the ledge of each step. 

And it occurred to me that when this ancient castle was built, the common man was all of 5’3” in height; (and possessed much smaller feet than our own). As a result, I was forced to climb the staircase in a sideways manner. And interestingly enough, the vast majority of the castle was an empty shell; the floors having long since been gutted by time or warfare. 

It was tedious work climbing the stone steps, as they wound upwards at an approximate 45 degree angle. Dozens ahead of me. Dozens behind me. Ultimately, I reached the top, and the proverbial “end of the rainbow.”

Pt. 2

Glancing across the roof of the castle, about thirty feet away, I noticed a prostrate man, lying on his back, his head partially obscured, and being held securely around the waist by a castle employee; the ‘holder.’ Of course, the middle-aged fellow was kissing the Blarney Stone. Eight or ten others, men, women and children were lined up behind him; prepared to do exactly the same.

There was only one official way out. I would have to remain in line until it was my turn to kiss the stone; (as if everyone who climbed those 132 steps intended to follow through with that particular deed).

Tradition informs us that whomever kisses the Blarney Stone will be blessed with the Gift of Gab (or eloquence). Rumor tells us that after the attraction has closed for the day, castle employees have been known to ‘bless’ the stone with yellow liquid; (something, in my mind, to be avoided at all costs).

As I stood there pondering my options, I noticed a thigh high chain directly in front of me, a sign which announced, ‘No Admittance,” and a parallel walkway beyond it which led to the ‘down’ staircase.
Rather than wait in line twenty minutes to depart the premises, I managed to step over the chain, and make my way to the first of 132 steps which led to the bottom of the castle.

Pt. 3


Having successfully navigated the steps to the bottom of Blarney Castle, I retraced the pathway from whence I had come, and arrived at the food trailers. 

Stepping up to one of the mobile kitchens, I ordered a turkey sandwich, walked over to a nearby low wall, sat down, and partook of my solitary picnic.

As I dined on that cold turkey sandwich a raven, and then two dropped down on the pavement; with the expectation that they would be rewarded with, (for lack of a better characterization) a ‘tourist treat.’ 

Of course, I pulled off a couple of dime-sized pieces of bread, and tossed them to those beautiful black, almost iridescent birds. As they cobbled up the bread crumbs, several more of the same species appeared.

On a whim, I tossed a few more bread crumbs in the air, and without so much as a morsel falling to the ground, the ravens caught the bits of dough in mid-flight.

As I completed my (less than) culinary delight, stood up, and walked to a trashcan, I had accumulated three or four species of birds; which had lighted on the 50 square foot area of pavement which surrounded me.

No doubt, some of these birds built their nests in the dark recesses of Blarney Castle, and some may have ‘buzz-bombed’ hapless tourists, and dropped their aromatic welcome, as they kissed the stone for which the castle was made famous. Still others among them had become addicted to the bready offing of tourists, and resorted to this place on a daily basis.

As I write these words, I am reminded of a particular New Testament scripture.

Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? (Matthew 6:26)

It is gratifying to realize that God used me in this land of my forebears, if only on a momentary basis, to cooperate with Him in the fulfillment of the foregoing scripture. 

As I reflect upon it now, it is compelling to consider that I may have fed the descendants of ravens that day; whom my ancestors fed before me.

by William McDonald, PhD. Copyright pending