Limbaugh Rushes to Revile Robin Williams

ABC7 News

"He had everything; everything that you would think would make you happy. But it didn't. Now, what is the left's worldview in general? What is it? If you had to attach not a philosophy but an attitude to a leftist worldview, it's one of pessimism and darkness, sadness. They're never happy, are they? They're always angry about something. No matter what they get, they're always angry." Direct quote from Rush Limbaugh Tuesday radio show in reference to Robin William’s suicide.

Yes, we leftists do get angry. Angry with pivotal issues that generate from the denial of human and civil rights, genocide, starvation, sex slavery, disease, and poverty. Annoyed with trivial issues like racist, chauvinistic, homophobic, white supremacist radio talk show hosts who net multi-millions bashing blacks, women, gays, and environmentalists. Generally speaking, Rush Limbaugh broadcasts hate. His latest attack on the death of Robin Williams is so far below the belt that he should be called the Andrew Golota of radio talk show hosts. Only Limbaugh would use a personal tragedy to further his hatred of liberalism.

Depression is an insidious, debilitating illness. There is no room for jabs, jokes, or condescending remarks regarding this condition. 80% of those suffering from clinical depression are not receiving treatment. Research shows a strong link between suicide and depression, with 90% of the people who die by suicide having an existing mental illness.

My aunt suffered in silence with depression. She was close to, and loved, by her children and family, yet her suicide blind-sided us all. She never spoke of depression or her inability to cope with life, not everyone will “cry for help.” Depression is an all-consuming disorder that many are embarrassed to talk about or confront. It does not display physical symptoms like cancer or heart disease and is often a burden shouldered solely by the sufferer. Their mental distress is so painful that, if left untreated, suicide appears to be the only viable option for relief.

I know I should disregard Limbaugh’s remarks as those coming from a caustic bloated gasbag, but when he viciously maligns a person after death, equates suicide to a political viewpoint, and mocks a serious health concern to raise his ratings, it does anger this leftist. It is ignorant comments like his that fuel misconceptions surrounding mental illness. Fame and fortune do not prevent or cure depression and to suggest that a person who has it all has no right to be depressed is exactly the stigma that discourages some people from seeking help.

Depression and despair go hand-in-hand. Suicide statistics on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation are staggering – more than twice the national rate, with teen suicide 4 times higher than the national average for this age group. These teens have not had a chance to form political opinions or align themselves with conservatism or liberalism. They receive substandard medical care provided by overworked, underfunded, and minimally staffed medical facilities. The infant mortality rate is the highest on the continent, diabetes and tuberculosis are both 800% higher than the national average, and more than half the reservation’s residents suffer from alcoholism. With these diseases taking precedence, little is done to diagnose and treat depression.

But Rush Limbaugh is not concerned about diseases on the reservations. He wrote in his book, “I don't give a hoot if he (Columbus) gave some Indians a disease that they didn't have an immunity against."

This man has no filter, no sensitivity monitor, and sadly, no human decency. His comments on Williams death are malicious and cruel to all who battle depression and to the families who have lost a loved one to suicide.

As the character, Dr. Hunter "Patch" Adams, Williams said, "You treat a disease, you win, you lose. You treat a person, I guarantee you, you’ll win, no matter what the outcome. "

A War on American Soil

On this day, we remember the brave men and women who died while serving in active duty in the US Military. A well-deserved holiday, these war heroes should be held reverently in our minds and hearts for sacrificing their lives to protect our freedom. One-time civilians, they took an oath solemnly swearing to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic...” Once under the care of the Department of Defense, they were issued clothing and weapons, trained in combat, and eventually deployed, with no guarantee for a safe return. The inherent risk shared by all soldiers is that they can perish in a foreign country.

I do not want to take away from the remembrance of fallen soldiers, but another mass murder in California on Friday night has caused me to ruminate about killings unrelated to war. Today, I am also thinking of the innocent who have fallen in our own country, killed in streets and buildings in our cities and towns; never anticipating an attack from the enemy, not sworn to defend the Constitution against all enemies, in fact, completely unaware that they even had an enemy. I am thinking of American citizens – residing in a country that is at peace, going about their daily tasks while living under the protection of the Constitution of the United States – who became victims of mass killings committed in our own country.

We are so concerned about sustaining the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms that we are denying blameless citizens their overall constitutional right to justice and domestic tranquility.

In 1995, J. Neil Schulman published SELF CONTROL, Not Gun Control. His pro-NRA rhetoric is evident on every page and he writes, “Most journalists today write as if the NRA--usually lumped in with the Tobacco Institute--represents only the commercial interests of "merchants of death" who don't care how many lives are lost--particularly the lives of our young people--just so long as they get to keep selling their product.” He accuses the media of “editing TV footage to misrepresent the accuracy and firepower of “assault weapons"--to make them look more deadly than they actually are.” Check out this four-minute video and judge for yourself the accuracy and firepower of assault rifles.

 

Why shouldn’t everyone be allowed to own one of these fine weapons for hunting, target practicing, or as Wild Bill explains to us liberals with disabilities in “Who Needs an Assault Rifle?” – they are necessary to protect our families from gang invasions, or on camping excursions when we accidentally pitch our tent on a drug dealers territory, or even more terrifying, when we find ourselves in a natural disaster and a violent mob tries to steal our food and water. 

Schulman cites these statistics from a survey performed by Gary Kleck, Ph.D., professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University.  

An American gun owner uses a privately owned firearm 2.45 million times each year in an actual defense against a criminal.

Every 13 seconds, an American gun owner uses his or her firearm in defense against a criminal.

Women use handguns 416 times each day in defense against rapists.

In 1995, the population of the United States was 266 million; so these statistics relate to roughly 1 out of every 108 people in the US used a gun in self-defense. Using common sense, relying on extensive research on victims of violent crime and abuse, and judging from the hundreds of people that I know, I find these statistics hard to believe. What I do find palatable are statistics compiled by academic researchers, legislative aides, and law enforcement officials that state: ten times as many people are shot and killed in arguments with someone they know than the number of strangers who are shot by someone defending their home. Women are six times more likely to be shot by their husband, boyfriend, and ex-partner than by a male stranger. For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, it is used in 7 murders, 11 suicides or attempts, and 4 fatal accidents. And to rebut good ole’ paranoid Wild Bill – how many mass shootings have been stopped by an armed civilian in the past 30 years? Zero.

Between 1995 and 2013, there were 388 people killed in mass murders. However, the FBI definition of mass murder is “four or more people murdered in one event.” It does not take into account mass shootings where people are shot and wounded, but not killed. Likewise, mainstream news does not typically report on mass shootings, only mass murders. You can be mutilated, paralyzed, and suffer severe life-altering physical and mental injuries as the result of a mass shooting, but statistically, you do not count. The majority of mass shootings are covered only in local news. Only seven mass shootings out of the forty-eight that actually occurred between 1995 and 2013 received major national coverage. These seven mass murders included: 1999 Columbine School Massacre - 15 dead, 24 injured; 2007 Virginia Tech Massacre - 33 dead, 23 injured; 2009 Ft. Hood Massacre - 13 dead, 30 injured; 2011 Tucson Shooting - 6 dead, 13 injured; 2012 Aurora Theater Shooting – 12 dead, 58 injured; 2012 Newtown School Shooting – 28 dead, 2 injured; and 2013 Washington Navy Yard Shooting – 13 dead, 8 injured. The numbers from these well-known mass murders account for only a third of those who were killed and half of those who were injured in mass shootings.

Legislation to extend background checks for gun sales, ban assault weapons, and limit magazine capacities did not pass the Senate in April 2013, and gun-rights advocates seem to have the misguided notion that they are heroes for protecting the Second Amendment. The NRA loves to criticize the media for its hysterical coverage of mass killings and has blamed news coverage for encouraging copycat killings, but the truth is that mass killings are under-reported in the US.

We do what we can to save the lives of those in our armed forces in enemy territory, but unfortunately, war is hell and soldiers die. We need to fight harder for the war being carried on in our own streets on American soil. We can lobby for tighter gun control. The irony is that gun advocates swear they love their country and fellow compatriots, but their insistence on their right to bear arms is based on fear. They are afraid of their government, afraid of others with guns, and afraid to admit that gun control could possibly work. I do not advocate taking guns away from sane citizens, but I believe that stricter regulation is necessary to stop senseless killings. I believe that I have a right to walk down the street without fear of being slaughtered by a mentally ill person with an assault rifle. I think the legislation proposed in 2013 was a good start and we should continue on this path.

Jesus Christ and Santa Claus

Jesus Christ and Santa Claus sitting together on a beach in Odisha, India; the work of master sculptor, Sudarshan Pattnaik. I saw this today in the news, and thought it odd that these two figures were prominently displayed in a country where Hinduism is the dominant religion, and where one-third of the world’s poor - who have never opened a present from Santa - reside. I am of the opinion that the most important piece in this sand sculpture is the banner Santa is holding with the words – World Peace.

In order to realize global unity, we would have to practice unconditional acceptance of all religions around the world and learn to value spirituality above indoctrinated religions. Religion divides mankind while spirituality transcends cultural differences. Religion is dogma usually instilled in us from childhood amidst public display of rules and rituals, spirituality is a personal choice that develops and grows within oneself. In the words of Dalai Lama, “There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. My brain and my heart are my temples, my philosophy is kindness.”

I have Lakota friends who do not celebrate Christmas because they practice the red road. I respect their beliefs and values, and I have no problem with people who prefer to say Happy Holidays in lieu of Merry Christmas. Putting Christ back in Christmas is not important to me because it is a historical fact that Jesus was not born on December 25^th. In fact, no historian or theologian has ever been able to pinpoint his actual birthdate. Most believe he was born in the fall, and not in the month of December. On the other hand, it does not bother me that Christians have selected this day to celebrate his birth. I like the observance of Christmas; it embodies compassion and caring, giving and sharing, a festive time of year uniting people around the world, as witnessed by Pattnaik’s sand sculpture. I appreciate holiday traditions: colorful lights twinkling from houses and trees, the smell of baked goods and holiday meals wafting from the kitchen, the look of joy on the faces of children when they open gifts, and taking the time to relax with loved ones and watch sappy, old Christmas movies. What I don't like is succumbing to a commercialized Christmas that focuses on consumer spending.

On this Christmas Eve, I wish you all a safe and blessed holiday, wherever you may be, however you choose to celebrate. My only request is that you treat your fellow human beings with kindness, tolerance, and love throughout the year, and never give up on world peace.

Gridlocked Political Brains

The 15-day United States government gridlock began with the October 1^st rollout of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – better known as Obamacare - but it appears that this battle has been eclipsed by the rapidly approaching debt ceiling deadline. If the US defaults on Thursday, we will lose our financial credibility in the foreign markets, and the result will be global economic uncertainty.

A conflict between Republicans and Democrats is not new. During this administration alone, we have had a sequester, a fiscal cliff, and a near default in 2011. Personally, I am weary of the skirmishes and onslaught of disparaging remarks against our President. I cannot reconcile a Republican’s fear-based logic with my innate moral intuition. I have had a liberal mindset – although raised in a conservative Republican household – as long as I can remember. In 1968, at age fourteen, I walked three miles to hear Senator Robert F. Kennedy speak.

Are we pre-disposed to become a Democrat or Republican? Are our political differences really about brain biology?

Nigel Barber, Ph.D., Biopsychologist, author, and blogger at Psychology Today, wrote, “Why Liberal Hearts Bleed and Conservatives Don’t.” I found it very interesting and want to share an excerpt with you.  His article (below) gave credibility to my previously unfounded belief that human minds are indeed wired differently, and this includes our political views.

The Conservative Worldview

Conservatives see the world as a challenging place in which there is always someone else who is ready to steal your lunch. Confronted by a potentially hostile environment, the best course is to take precautions and to ensure your own well-being and that of your family.

The threatening world view illuminates the conservative take on specific political issues in fairly obvious ways.

·         Conservatives are pro-gun because they want to be able to defend themselves against criminal threats of any type. 

·         They are mostly religious because religious rituals foster feelings of safety in a dangerous world such that the most dangerous countries in the world are also the most religious.

·         They tend to be more hostile to immigrants, foreigners, and racial or ethnic minorities and to view them as more of a threat. 

·         They fear attacks by other nations and therefore support a strong military and a bellicose foreign policy on the theory that a good attack is the best defense. 

·         Apart from military defense, where government is an asset, conservatives fear government intrusions into their lives and particularly fear having their wealth eroded by taxation.

·         They are pro-family because being surrounded by close relatives is the best defense against threats that surround them.

·         They oppose welfare for the poor because this encourages dependence so that the failures of a society are parasites on the successes thereby inverting the proper incentive structure.

·         They admire wealth because successful people are seen as having worked hard in pursuing a moral obligation to provide for themselves and their families in a difficult and uncertain world.

The Liberal Worldview

The liberal worldview is mostly the opposite. Liberals take a more optimistic view of the world as being somewhat more benign. Government is a vehicle through which the citizens of a democracy can solve problems and improve the well-being and happiness of most people.

·         Liberals feel that protection of citizens against crime is better left to police and that armed citizens are a threat to those around them.

·         They are less religious than conservatives because they perceive the world around them as less threatening. Moreover, they rely more on science, and education, as a means to solve problems.

·         Liberals are more welcoming to immigrants. They are less likely to view foreigners, and racial or ethnic minorities as a threat.

·         They favor negotiation and consensus-building over warfare in foreign policy and do not believe in excessive military buildups that drain social spending.

·         Liberals are happy to pay their taxes if they believe that the money is being used to improve the quality of life of others whether they are poor or rich. Instead of being a threat, the government reflects the will of the people.

·         Liberals are less interested in family ties as a protective bubble.

·         They support welfare programs for the poor because these may reduce child poverty, as well as reducing crime and social problems.

·         Liberals are suspicious of wealth feeling that much of it is inherited or obtained through sharp business practices or outright corruption. They also feel that concentrating resources in the hands of the one percent impoverishes everyone else thereby undermining social trust.

Nigel Barber, 2012

 Okay, Conservatives on Capitol Hill, show us that you are capable of stepping outside your restricted comfort zone, and do what is right. Your goal of “winning” is making the United States of America look foolish in the eyes of the world and jeopardizing your fellow Americans.

Wild Indians

The temperature climbed to an uncomfortable 96 degrees yesterday in Denver, but I was extremely fortunate to be sitting on higher ground in the Rockies beneath a starlit sky, listening to one of the hottest bands in the Native American Music Industry - Gary Small & the Coyote' Bros. Along with three hundred other guests, I was treated to live music complemented by mountain acoustics, a huge banquet of home-prepared foods, tubs of iced beer, and Jamaican punch. Next to the punch was a colorful can for donations that will be disbursed to an impoverished community in Jamaica. The host and hostess for the event have had an altruistic relationship with this Jamaican town for many years.

Five bands performed from early evening until midnight, but it was Gary Small & the Coyote' Bros who stole the show with their reggae/tribal/world beat sound. I’m not just saying that because Gary was kind enough to invite me to the festival; their original music speaks for itself. Hostiles & Renegades, Wild Indians, Crazy Moon, Choke Cherry Wine & Indian Fry Bread, and Crazy Woman Mountain give voice to present day life on the Rez, as well as imparting a spiritual manifestation of the past. Music is a powerful healing medium, and the evocative instrumental, Children of the Snow, is a beautiful tribute to the Cheyenne women and children who ran from the Cavalry on a cold winter day back in the 1800s.

 

HOSTILES & RENEGADES by Gary Small & the Coyoté Bros Published Jan 10, 2013

While Small does not like to be categorized as a Native American artist, preferring to be known simply as a musician, his heritage is undeniable. His music demonstrates his inherent understanding of his people and his love for the Cheyenne culture. The other band members contribute their electrifying harmonious energy to produce the distinctive sound of the Coyote’ Brothers. Put all this impressive talent together and you have unique music that has won many awards. Most recently, “Best World Music Recording” for their CD Hostiles & Renegades at the 2013 Native American Music Awards. Other NAMA awards include: 2002 “Songwriter of the Year” for the CD Wild Indians, 2007 “Best Rock Recording”, and in 2011, Best Male Artist.

Little Red Rocks, September 7, 2013. 

Gary Small & the Coyote Bros. performing "Wild Indians"

Gary Small-Vocals and Guitar, Jim Willey-drums, Jimmy Lange-Keyboards, Jobe Jennings-Bass

Teresa Lynne and the Dreamboats gave a solid blues performance, and her raspy voice, reminiscent of Janis Joplin, won my heart. Born in Shreveport, Louisiana, the Denver music scene is lucky that she fell in love with the Rocky Mountains. She is also one of the best harp players I have ever heard. Judging from the whistles and cheers from the audience, I think everyone agreed.

This was my first time experiencing Little Red Rocks and it was a little slice of paradise. I met up with some old friends from Sheridan, Wyoming and also made some new friends. It was a night that makes you think, “It doesn’t get any better than this.”


 

Fire Water

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013, votes were cast by tribal members to determine the legalization of alcohol sales on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. The election results were very close - 1,843 in favor of legalization and 1,683 in opposition.

www.old-picture.com/indians/Indian-Invocation

Historically, liquor was never part of the Plains Indian culture. Some of the southwestern tribes – Aztec, Mayan, Pima, Papago, Apache, and Zuni – fermented corn and cactus and drank the fermented liquid in ceremonies and rituals. The consumption was strictly regulated by the spiritual leaders, and social rules were established governing the intake of alcohol. There is no record in Lakota history of any fermentation of vegetation, grains, or fruit to produce alcoholic beverages. The Lakota believed tobacco to be a sacred connection to the spirit world, and smoked it during ceremonies, offering it to the four corners of the earth, or four winds. A Pipe Carrier was an honorable position within the tribe, one that was passed down through generations.



In the early-to-mid-1800s, British fur traders introduced whiskey, rum, and brandy (known as "fire water" because the high alcohol content could be lit on fire) to the Sioux, making them the last of the American Indian tribes to come into contact with alcohol. This late introduction was partially due to the fact that the Lakota and Dakota Sioux did not like to associate with white people, and also because the American expansion into the western plains happened late in history. However, as the Sioux became increasingly dependent upon the trading business, alcohol consumption became more prevalent in their culture and began to inflict cultural, spiritual, and social damage.

The Lakota who survived the wars, massacres, Small Pox epidemics, and bitter cold winters on the Northern Plains were herded onto reservations throughout South Dakota. After years of fighting, they now watched as their nomadic lifestyle, religion, language, and culture disappeared. Thrown into the confusing world of European colonialism, the warrior spirit was broken, forced into submission, and Lakota men, who had never before touched liquor, discovered a way to numb their pain. And new sicknesses appeared: despair, depression, and alcoholism.

With approximately one hundred fifty years of involvement with alcohol, I believe the Lakota are more susceptible to its intoxicating effects. Scientific studies have been conducted to substantiate this claim – livers have been dissected and compared –  and the results have shown that there is no conclusive evidence to prove that an Indian metabolizes alcohol any differently than a non-Indian. If this is so, why do 63% of most American Indian tribes believe that Indians have a physiological or biological weakness to alcohol that non-Indians do not have? (American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research). Could it be because they have witnessed it or experienced it first-hand? Sometimes familiarity is a better measurement for fact than a scientific study.

In 1645, the Connecticut Colony prohibited the sale of liquor to Indians because of the violent behavior that ensued after alcohol was consumed by the Indians. In 1832, the United States Congress passed a Federal law prohibiting the sale of liquor to “any and all American Indians.” This law was actually requested, and supported, by Indian leaders. In 1953, each tribe within the United States was given the right to regulate alcohol on their reservation. By 1974, only 31.4% of all US reservations had passed a law making the sale of alcohol legal within their borders. Tribes were never coerced into prohibition - they made the choice to keep poison away from their people.

Passed out in border town of White Clay, NE

When the sale of alcohol becomes a reality on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, new issues will emerge. Obviously, new laws and regulations governing sales and consumption will need to be introduced and implemented. Taxes will be enacted and regulated. Profit from sales will need to be accounted for and disbursed to designated tribal committees, charities, and organizations.  But what about the obscure subject of defining and promoting safe drinking practices? Drinking and driving? There are no taxicabs on the Reservation. People will drink, and they will drive, and some will die. One argument given in favor of legalization was “they are driving to buy alcohol in other counties anyway and now they won’t have to drive as far.” Unsound rationale.

The inevitable increase in abuse, neglect, and suicide is a complex issue that deserves its own forum and I won’t expound upon that in this post, however, I would like to say that reports about the success of legalization of alcohol on the Rosebud Reservation are misleading. Ask the tribes First Responders, and those who work in the judicial system and at the hospital in Rosebud and they will tell you about the heartbreaking alcohol-related violence that occurs regularly.

Children's Shelter in Pine Ridge. Most are here because
of alcohol-related abuse and neglect

The upcoming months will be a time of trials and tribulations for the entire Lakota community. It will be a time to set aside political and personal opinions regarding the legalization of alcohol sales and instead, formulate a plan to educate their people on how to drink responsibly; a concept that is foreign to them at this point.

Tribute to Floyd "Red Crow" Westerman

Last weekend, rain streamed down my windows, and deciding to make good use of my time inside, I purged my filing cabinet—a tedious task I undertake several times per decade. Pulling each file, I look at each piece of paper to decide if it is a toss or a keep, and treasured memories are usually rediscovered.

Among the accumulated newspaper and magazine clippings, I found an article written in 2006 by Frank John King III, editor and publisher of Native Voice. His editorial, "Violence Systemic among Native People", was about the shooting of two girls by five Indian teens in the North Rapid area of Rapid City, South Dakota. King had been following the story, hoping for the capture of the perpetrators, and was disheartened to learn the girls were shot by Indian youths. He wrote, "In my opinion, if you commit an extreme act of violence against any tribal member you should be banished from the tribe. The sickness needs to be removed in order to heal the community."

Attached to his article were notes I had jotted down during a conversation with Floyd Red Crow Westerman in January 2007. I had called Floyd to say hi because I always enjoyed talking to him, but also to specifically talk about the concept of reinstating banishment. We talked for more than an hour about the growing problems encountered by the youth in Indian Country; this being a topic he was passionate about.

Floyd made a significant impact on the world. He was best known to the general public for his many movie and television roles: "Renegades," "Dances with Wolves," "The Doors," "Hidalgo," "Lakota Woman: Siege at Wounded Knee," "Grey Owl," “Walker, Texas Ranger,” and “X-Files,” to name a few.  Others knew him as an activist who supported the Rainforest Foundation Project and as a spokesperson for the Human Rights for Indigenous People of the World. As a musician, he toured worldwide with Sting to raise awareness of the destruction of the Amazon rainforest. On other occasions, he shared the stage with Willie Nelson, Kris Kristofferson, Jackson Browne, and Joni Mitchell.

Floyd and Tracy at the First Americans in the Arts,
Beverly Hills CA 2006

To the Dakota, Lakota, and Nakota he was a distinguished elder who possessed a wealth of knowledge regarding the history of his people. His recognition, and understanding, of treaty rights made him an invaluable leader in the American Indian Movement.

“Banishment,” Floyd said, “was the strongest punishment imposed on a tribal member. It was very effective because the shame of being ostracized from their tribe was intolerable, and in the old days, they had nowhere else to go. They wouldn’t be accepted into any other tribe. I don’t think it would work today because it is the environment that has failed them. The pop culture and loose morality that they are exposed to everyday has become more important to them than their traditional values. It is shameful the way some of our young women dress now, in clothing that exposes their body parts. This is not our way. Our women are a sacred part of all life, and the music that the young people listen to now destroys this belief. Song lyrics and videos portray women as sex objects, and name-calling is prevalent.”

I asked Floyd, “How can the Indian culture be kept alive for the young people who want to blend in with their non-Indian peers?”

He said, “They are typical children. They want to be popular. They want to be cool. The reality is that Native Americans working in motion pictures must create their own opportunities, and think about the impact on future generations. They need to reshape their cinematic image. We shouldn’t bend to mainstream films and how Hollywood wants to present us. We need to look at what our young people are watching and listening to and integrate our cultural beliefs into this. Our traditions must be kept alive, and film gives us this opportunity.”

His words, spoken over six years ago, still ring true today, and I wonder, who will be the next great spokesperson for Indian youth? Who will produce a film that proudly portrays the traditional values of the American Indian?

This post is a tribute to Floyd Red Crow Westerman who passed away in December 2007. It does not commemorate any particular date, milestone, or occasion relating to his noteworthy life, it was triggered only by a day spent cleaning out files and a conversation I felt compelled to share. I had many discussions with Floyd in the brief years that I knew him, and the take away was always a profound awareness of his wisdom and the world that we live in.