The Geezer Corps –

Reasonable Accommodations To Military Service For The Aging

Jack C. Getz

November 11, 2014

The nonexistence of America’s war on terror bothers me. Not because I oppose killing our avowed enemies, for in fact, I don’t, but because it stirs up some long-active guilt inside me,  stemming back to my sins of military omission 50 years ago. Although my feelings are irrational, guilt climbs out of its foxhole when I meet soldiers or attend Veteran’s Day celebrations, especially when the music encourages each brand of service the opportunity stand whether fight song is played. Watching the pride on the faces of the vets who often find it difficult to stand either on time, or for too long,  and seeing the universal admiration of friends, families and strangers, creates a lump of regret/envy in my stomach, that usually travels unexpectedly to my throat, and out my eyes as tears.    

Moral opposition to the Viet Nam War was not part of my teenage DNA back then. My creative draft-dodging activities was about one thing and one thing only, my desire to stay alive and whole.  Back then I was actually in favor of the war, until it got too close. In 1965, I was one of probably thirteen college students in the United States who thought the “Viet Nam Policing Action” was a good idea. In fact, I suspect all thirteen of us in the United States believed that keeping Communists from spreading throughout the Far East was in America’s best interests, not to mention the millions facing the horrors of being gobbled up by Chairman Mao’s brand of social reform. 

Watching the Huntley-Brinkley reports of body counts each night, and even losing a couple of friends over there didn’t help. In fact, both of those awful realities steeled my resolve to become a domestic hero at home, protecting college girls and adding another solid C student to my university.   

When things were really hot over there, every you man in America was glued to their black-and-white televisions as the newly-instituted Selective Services lottery ping pong balls popped up, one after another, each bearing either huge relief or debilitating disappointment for millions. When my birthday-ball popped up at #147 I believed someone was already licking the stamp for President Johnson’s personal letter to me, “congratulating” me on my forthcoming tour of duty in the United States Army.  My worst fear then was hearing from dear, sweet, Esther Lockwood, Kansas City’s draft board secretary. 

Now that I am pushing 70, I see things with a little more perspective, mostly because I survived the draft,  avoiding the war completely, except for its residuals of lost friends for seemingly little reason.  

Funny, now that I can’t serve in the military, I wish I could redeem those years. You know, make up for the choices I made back then. Don’t think too badly of me, I became a public school teacher,  later becoming a member of the cloth, giving some pretty good service that way. But my military service vacuum still creates those lumps and tears every once-in-awhile, but no amount of other kinds of service to society diminish those feelings.

I must be a soldier to release myself from that feeling.  

But clearly I am far too old to do military make-ups and and every November 11 I regret that I am not part of that revered group of Americans who served in the military at some time.  I wish there was something I could do now to render front-line help, not just paying taxes and voting. This is not about celebrating myself, as cool as that is, but about contributing more than I have here-to-fore, like putting my life on the line to defend the things I value most about being and American and preserving them for my grandsons.   

In 2006 Congress made a leap of faith, recognizing the military value of older Americans and raised the maximum age for induction into the service from thirty four to forty two. (The lower threshold is still seventeen - with parental permission. 1)  Unfortunately, only the U.S. Army and Army Reserve jumped on that opportunity to add maturity to their ranks, while the party-pooping Air Force and Coast Guard decided twenty seven was a maximum age that could trust someone to play nicely with their jets and boats. 

I take the position that now is the time for America to eliminate all upper-age enlistment discrimination and see who shows up. To cling to arbitrary age standards places millions of valuable older citizens in the same category as children. In the eyes of the military, neither has anything to contribute to their mission.  Sure, a few geriatric soldiers may occasionally forget to turn off their tank’s turn signal, like they do in Florida, but isn’t slightly-flawed aged service better than someone driving a Hummer under fire who needed their Mom’s approval to enlist? 

To help make sense of all of this I spent a day with my neighbor, Colonel Jerry Johns ®, U.S. Army Rangers combat commander and Purple Heart recipient. “It’s different now, Jack. Technology has changed everything.” he said. In WW II and later masses of soldiers and sailors were needed to fight Hitler’s racists and later Stalin’s and Mao’s disguised disposable millions - all of whom transported about in huge planes, slow choppers and gigantic ships. Back then, they thought night-vision binoculars were really cutting-edge technology because they were.   

Speaking of World War II record suggest that in the United States alone, over 16 million citizens served…a out of a population of about 130 million b — nearly one-eighth of the population. With 290 million Americans today c, the current combined size of the armed forces and National Guard is about 2 million d,e. The proportion of service people to the general population was 17 times larger during World War II.” 2  (According to eHow.com on October 12, 2014, the current estimates reduce the size of the military to about 1.43 million.)

The American people today wouldn’t stand for having 49 million soldiers at arms; besides, it would bankrupt our economy just to feed them. In The Future Of War, George and Meredith Friedman say that to feed a typical armored division today takes in excess of 3,000 tons of food per day.3  Based on my highly questionable homespun estimates of what it costs my wife and me to keep the pantry full, it could take about $15 million a day to feed a division of 10,000 - 20,000 soldiers. 4  Oddly, that that may explain why the U.S. military enlistment standards say there is no maximum weight limit to join the United States Military.5

Usually, if my army is bigger than yours is, I will usually win. But as Colonel Jerry says, things have changed. “It’s all about technology now. Six guys can do what a company used to do in Viet Nam because of modern weapons. Heck, they can launch a missile in Arizona that will hit a target in Iraq.” Strangely, even Jerry’s West Point education, 30 years of military leadership, Master’s and law degrees and a Purple Heart don’t keep him from being what the military considers senile. “I wouldn’t know where to begin any more. It’s all changed so much.” 

Lest you think I am suggesting that Jerry is senile, understand that in military jargon “senility” describes anything that has outlived its intended and most effective use. You see, they measure senility by a theoretical ratio between the cost of keeping things against their effective use.   

“The United States today has far and away the most successful military in the world. It has both global capabilities and the ability to bring overwhelming force to bear” and despite logistical, economic and geographical challenges they are “capable of multiplying the power of relatively small numbers of men … rendering these problems obsolete.” 6   

This may be what fuels today’s terrorists when they attack modern senile Goliath's in big buildings, embassies, civilian airplanes and anchored ships. Remember it was a David-sized rubber raft that crippled the mighty USS Cole on October 12, 2000. Virtually every day we hear reports from somewhere of suicide bombers detonating their backpack- sized bombs, killing and maiming thousands.  That’s why we are forced into cattle-like pens at airports and forced to put our dreadfully dangerous open bottles of mouthwash and hand lotion in the protective custody of a zippered plastic sandwich bag.

Great, you say?  That’s all interesting but so what?  

Here’s what. I am considerably shy of being completely senile, despite leaving the water running in the sink from time to time, or venturing out in public with my fly open, so I get those practical concerns about putting me in charge of the red button. So to compensate for age deficiencies I developed a few reasonable Accommodations or helpful Observations that will make military service for the fast-approaching senile feasible.

The Geriatric Accommodation Plan – GAP 

1) Technology  

Accommodation: Enlist people by skill, fitness and experience, not by BFR (Body Fat Ratios) or arbitrary age limits. Allow supply and demand to rule, accepting any individual with skills concomitant to military needs. Or, if you can maintain an active and attractive  Facebook or Twitter account, you qualify. 

             

 2) Mental

Accommodation: Enlisting geezers would make the tough job of military drill instructor much easier. Face it, their goal is to train the body and break the human spirit, making “minds right,”—ala’ Cool Hand Luke’s warden. The Supreme Court case Goldman v Weinberger, (Remember old Cap Weinberger?) reads like a Drill instructor’s manual: “The military must insist upon a respect for duty and a discipline without counterpart in civilian life. The essence of the military service ‘is the subordination of the desires and interests of the individual to the needs of the service.’” 7 

In other words, for the typical geezer married man, the work of indoctrinating and humiliating to achieve obedience and compliance to authority is already accomplished. So, it makes sense and saves save time to recruit old married men.  

3) Basic Training

Accommodation: I suggest the implementation of my Age Adjusted Response Program (AARP) as the cornerstone of this plan. Fir example if eighteen year olds are required to do fifty push-ups and run a mile with a fifty pound pack, the AARP sliding scale says a sixty year old would do fifteen push-ups and run 584 yards with fifteen pound pack. *

*AARP formula: Divide the required task number by the participant’s age. So 100 push-ups divided by eighteen yields a 5.5 “age to task ratio.” (ATTR) Therefore, 100 push-ups divided by age 60 yields an ATTR of 1.66, or about 30% of requirement. The AARP assures that everyone can finish training activities. After all, isn’t that, as Martha Stewart would say, a “good thing?”  

4) Physical Health 

Accommodation: Anticipate health issues by requiring that all graduating Geezers install mandatory pace makers, undergo preventative hernia surgery, have all dentures secured with Crazy Glue and receive complete hip and knee replacements immediately upon enlistment.

5) Medications

Accommodation: All “K Rations” issued to the Geezer Corps should include a two month supply of basics: Blood thinners, glycerin pills, Bayer, Gas-Ex, Beano, Garlica, Preparation H, Tums/Rolaids, Ben Gay, Ace Bandages, Imodium, hearing aide batteries, hard boiled egg cups with timers, matches, decaf coffee pods, low -cal sweetener, Ex-Lax, Cialis (only for emergencies) and spearmint Tic Tacs. The kids can carry all the heavy high- tech weaponry. Geezers will be much more productive in the long run if allowed to carry their fifteen pounds in meds.  

6) Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

Observation: For the record, on no less than seven times the Supreme Court has ruled against hampering the military with the frivolous nature of Title VII or the Federal Civil Rights Law of 1964. 8  Everyone, except old people, are welcome in the military. We clearly need a ground swell of “gray panthers” to pressure Congress to gradually eliminate military age discrimination and eliminate all age-related question from soldiers. Unfortunately, time is something we don’t have enough of to burn.    

7) Life and Death

Observation: Some say that old age and treachery trump strength and youth. While controversial, it is undeniable that the more skill, experience and maturity one brings to the table,  the less age should matter. In fact, one wily Army veteran once told me, “I guarantee if a world-class surgeon wanted to join up today they’d make them a general tomorrow!” Aren’t most geezers at least as emotionally stable as the lady astronaut who drove across country in a diaper to shoot her romantic rival?

I am now prepared to die in battle if it means I go out in a blaze of glory with a few modern dozen terrorist infidels in tow. If you doubt that Geezers are disposable than the kids check out our new health care system. Clearly, many would proudly volunteer to be part of America’s first elite battalion of fifteen pound backpack, diaper-clad Geezers, especially when so little training is required.  

What now?

A few days ago in the mall, I spotted a gent who proudly wore his USS Donner cap. Here was a real World War II hero with a second opinion about my Geezer Corps idea.  Ron Huch (pronounced Huck), is a spry 82 year old, as tough as his name sounds.  Ron who told me he loses 1,200 WW II buddies each day, listened warily but soon smiled and said, “Yah. I suppose it could work…depending on the individual.” to which he added, “As long as they do their duty, keep up and not endanger anyone. Sure. Why not?” What else is needed? And authentic WW II hero endorsed my idea. 

Admittedly, there’s a long road ahead for this “win-win” campaign to be accepted, especially by another WW II vet.  And sadly, by then, I‘ll probably be too old to contribute much anyway.  

But maybe, just maybe, the next generation of Geezers will benefit from my campaign, and I can live with that. But right now, I maybe ought to go check out the military history channel and remember the sacrifice the real heroes made that make it possible for me to sit and ruminate about how I wish I was one of them. 

Thanks for your service. 

 1-  About.com:US Military website. (About.com/od/jointhemilitary/a/enliststandards.html)

  2- Darrellplant.com. http://www.darrelplant.com/blog_item.php?ItemRef=71. 

1 Universal Almanac (1994), p.126,
² Universal Almanac (1994), p.282,
³ U.S. Bureau of the Census Web home page
⁴ U.S. Department of Defense Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, Active Duty Military Strength by Fiscal Year - FR 1950 through FY2002.
⁵ Army National Guard web site, Financial Statements 2003

3- The Future Of War George and Meredith Freidman. Page 32  

4 -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_division. 

5-About.com:US Military website. (About.com/od/jointhemilitary/a/enliststandards.html)

6 The Future Of War George and Meredith Freidman. Page 19 

7 About.com:US Military website. (About.com/od/jointhemilitary/a/enliststandards.html)  

8  Ibid.

Copyright 2014

Jack C. Getz

Tucker, Georgia

It's called Small Ball

Last night many of us witnessed one of the greatest games ever played in baseball history. I know it's the most exciting game I've seen in my sixty plus years of watching baseball. It had everything to keep us riveted for hours. Two great pitchers not used to losing. Power, speed and the x factor of a one game play-in to the post-season.  Each team had it's own compelling story this year,  making them both worthy objects of cheering.

For me, and some older folks, it was even more than all of that.  Both teams have a great place in Kansas City sports history.

The Kansas City A's called the old Metropolitan Stadium home, along with the upstart American Football League Chiefs, in the sixties. Charlie Finley owned the team and tried everything under the sun to get people to the park to see the A's play. Many called them the Yankees farm team since a good number of their best players ended up going to New York.  The old ballpark was amazing then. There was the first major league picnic area, a white mule named Charlie, a petting zoo, and a mechanical rabbit that came out of the ground behind the home plate umpire holding a basket of baseballs to replenish those lost during the game.

Finley was a marketing genius, probably driven by financial necessity and survival. I was present for a number of A's games, the most memorable two were Campy Campaneris Night, when the talented shortstop played all nine positions in one game. He rotated each inning to the next place and played ball, like we all used to do as kids.

The other night was, incredibly, a night when they gave the Negro League's super star, Satchel Paige, a one game contract to pitch for the A's in a real game. No one knew his age then, but reports were he was in his sixties. I thought the old codger might die, only to realize that I am now older than he was then. He did well and amazed everyone, causing us to wonder how great he was in his prime. I recall Findley did this to allow him to receive some benefit from being a major leaguer.  I will leave that memory fact to be checked by you, if you are interested!

But as pressing financial realities became more evident, Charlie Findley took his team to Oakland, where they continued to hold their place as the most innovative team in baseball, introducing white shoes, colorful uniforms, and a string of amazing teams that occupied the winner's circle for many years. Again, that's something worth researching if you don't remember it.

Meanwhile, back in Kansas City, we felt abused, betrayed and angry about losing our A's. It was humiliating and I do not exaggerate when I say the loss was palpable everywhere in town. We were a great city that felt like a bride left at the altar. Thankfully we had the Chiefs to keep us feeling like we mattered, at least a little. (They played in the first bi-league championship before it was called the Super Bowl in 1966. We lost to the Packer's, and  despite the score held our own most of the game. Research that too if you don't remember it.)

Then, a heroic man named Ewing Kauffman came along and restored our pride, purchasing a MLB franchise and naming them the Royals! Everything about that was refreshing and happy. The city went crazy for it's team, and especially adored it's first super star, George Brett. The Royals had done something right because a string a great players came to KC and set up a little dynasty of excellence: Freddy Patek, Willie Wilson, Bo Jackson, Dan Quisenberry, John Mayberry, Willie Wilson, Frank White, Lou Piniella, Clint Hurdle, Amos Otis, Cookie Rojas, Paul Splittorff, Dick Drago, Ted Abernathy, Moe Drabowsky, Steve Busby, Hal McRae...help, I can't stop!!!
Check out http://www.baseball-almanac.com for more.

SMALL BALL

Anyway, we learned to love the Royals because the played small ball. It differs from most of what we see today, which is driven by the huge contracts home run hitters get. So everyone swings for the fences so they can get mentioned on Sports Center and get a bigger contract next time. It's exciting when  it works, but it's no way to win. You win in the long run with good pitching, defense, timely hits, stolen bases and forced errors. The Royals last night reminded us of the glory days when Wilson, Otis, Patek and others would get on base, steal second, often then third and George Brett would double them in, followed by John Mayberry and others popped the occasional long ball to excite the fans.

We loved the game last night because it was the battle of David and Goliath all over again. The bombers and great pitchers of Oakland made it look like a four run lead was insurmountable. John Lester, the Oakland ace was something like 48 and 1 when he had a three run or larger lead. He had that lead last night but the pesky base-stealing singles-hitting Royals chipped away, and in the bottom of the twelfth, Salvador Perez, the guy who wildly swung and killed two winning efforts, spanked a hot liner past the third baseman into right, scoring the winning run. I admit, I gave up on them in the 6th inning but kept watching because they stirred something deep inside me, reminding me of the glory days.

Sure, the old A's fan in me smarted as I saw the looks on their faces after the game. What a horrible heart-break for them and their fans, but last night, at least, the old small ball philosophy of baseball made a comeback with the Royals. Maybe they can keep it going into the playoffs, maybe not, but I know I will be watching and pulling for them. It's the way baseball used to be played and I miss it.

Maybe my big-swing Cubs will watch how it's done?

Barbara Brown Taylor

...whenever you come up on something about God, the gospel, or the life of faith that everyone knows is true, step back from the reverential crowd whose gaze is fixed on it and look in the opposite direction—because nine times out of ten there is something just as true back there, though largely ignored because its benefits are less obvious and its truth harder to embrace.

Barbara Brown Taylor  (Link)

Is the Universe Friendly?

The following is the final part of a sermon by the above name, presented by Dr. John Sullivan of the Church of Canada, a friend and email mentor of mine. I will see if I can later add the entire message.
His words always make me think deep thoughts, which I like very much.

Maybe this will do the same for you?

Jon Sullivan -  Is the Universe Friendly?

And I know, too, that most people do not live by their arguments,

but by their commitments.

In the end, the real reason I believe

that the universe is friendly and makes sense

is that I can't get away from Jesus.  

He speaks to me as a person.

I don't know him as well as I wish I did,

and the longer I live, the less I know about him,

because the more mysterious he becomes.

But what I know is this: 

if the universe were meaningless and hostile,

the crucifixion would have been the end of him.

The cross would have been the supreme example of the absurd; 

the man who gave himself for the good of humanity was done to death

by those/ for whom/ he gave himself.

But the crucifixion wasn't the end of him.

He's still around, still disturbing, still illuminating,

not in great institutions perhaps, but in individuals,

sending people out to do extraordinary things,

people whose minds have been lit by his greater mind

and whose spirit has been fortified

by his absolutely uncompromising spirit.

And the cross on which he died

has made all other suffering and evil capable of meaning,

capable, that is of being caught up into the tapestry of life

and woven into the pattern in such a way

as to make the pattern intelligible.  

Attacked by the "Killer D's"

In speaking of the many mysteries surrounding Easter theology, Ken Brown and Garrison Keillor team up to shed some important light.

"Doubt is not merely negative; it is purifying, both historically and personally. It reminds us of our finite perspectives, that the experience of God is always a little beyond us, broader than we can take in. It leaves us grasping, and that is a good thing. Garrison Keillor expresses this better than I can (HT: Shuck and Jive):

There is comfort for the doubter in the Passion story. You are not alone. Jesus’s cry from the cross was a cry of incredulity. The apostle [Peter] denied even knowing Jesus three times. The guy spent years with Jesus, saw the miracles up close, the raising of Lazarus, the demons cast out, the sick healed, the water-walking trick, all of the special effects, but when the cards were down, he said, 'Who? Me? No way.'

He repented. I would too, but not quite yet.

Skepticism is a stimulant, not to be repressed. It is an antidote to smugness and the great glow of satisfaction one gains from being right. You know the self-righteous — I’ve been one myself — the little extra topspin they put on the truth, their ostentatious modesty, the pleasure they take in being beautifully modulated and cool and correct when others are falling apart. Jesus was rougher on those people than He was on the adulterers and prostitutes.

So I will sit in the doubter’s chair for a while and see what is to be learned back there."

Ken Brown - C.Orthodoxy.blogspot.com

Jack speaking now:

It is always the dark, or "negative" things in life that cause us to stretch beyond our comfort zone to approach the truth. By the dark things, I mean all those marvelous "D" words like doubt, delay, disinformation (slander that sticks), distress, defamation (gossip that sticks), death (sleep that sticks) , deformity, depression, danger, dogma and all the others you can think of.

When attacked by any of the killer D's, our equilibrium is not only challenged, it is damaged, and that places us in peril.  I recall once while serving as a lifeguard at camp when I needed to go up on the roof to change the clock. Once there, a relative simple operation turned deadly when I disturbed a nest of hornets, who reacted as hornets do. What could be worse than being on a roof when the swarm came after me? Probably nothing. I was not only thwarted from my task, I was overwhelmed with danger, fear, certain injury, if not death. Fortunately, I can fly, so I simply took off into the stratosphere, avoiding injury and further complications.

Of course I can't fly, but I certainly tried that day hoping to create enough escape speed to go up, but since gravity ultimately wins every contest,  I hit the turf, limping frantically for the lake. If I did that today, I would certainly die, but then, my adrenaline took over and I survived with only a few stingers to remove.

Sometimes we feel like life attacks us at the worst possible moment, whether with a single killer "D" or a compounding swarm of them.  You know, when it rains it pours kind of troubles?  Illness causes a loss of employment which triggers a forfeited rent payment. At that point, the education loan comes due just as the the car starts making those funny "cachunk" sounds. Soon, every part of life sucks so we try to fly with our too-often-exalted faith wings, only to discover they don't work as advertised. I know of several people who live in such places, not because they are losers or sinners who bring it on themselves, but simply because life isn't always fair, and all the pseudo-theology in the world won't make it so.

At such times those super-faith friends try to carry themselves and  their suffering friends into the stratosphere with cliches that don't help, much less work. Their well-rehearsed answers and positive statements about Jesus taking care of everything may help for awhile, but they don't change things often enough to make them dependable, and people doubt. Or as my dad used to say about good intentions, "They don't pay the butcher".

In the thoughts at the top of this blog,  Ken Brown and Garrison Keillor speak the truth about the life of faith experienced by honest believers.  A life of faith is anything but a walk in the garden with the Lord swatting away the all the killer "D.s". Simply put, life is the killer "D's" getting to us when we are not prepared for them. If we would all honestly acknowledge that simple fact before applying the universal language of faith to every issue, many dissatisfied and distant former believers would still be in the fold.

In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul says that faith and hope are the lesser of the big three virtues. Why? Because faith and hope are only needed here where the killer "D's" can get to us, not in the next world where they can't. The only need for faith or hope is in the presence of doubt and darkness, and my two friends above have reminded me that it is ONLY in such places where they either prove themselves or don't.

Anselm: A logical approach to God's existance

Anselm's Subtle Proof of God's Existence
Dan Graves, MSL

Anselm's Subtle Proof of God's Existence

When St. Anselm died on this day, April 21, 1109, the church was poorer by a great mind and England by a zealous reformer. Anselm won a name for reform because he attempted to end abuses such as the slave trade. He urged the holding of regular synods and, while he was archbishop, enforced clerical celibacy within his see. Because of his powerful intellect, some scholars consider him one of the creators of scholasticism. But his most notable gift to history was what has become known as the ontological proof for the existence of God.

Can the existence of God be proven? Anselm thought so. Modern philosophers and theologians disagree. However, it is Anselm's argument, the ontological proof, which remains the most troublesome for them to disprove.

Anselm's argument went something like this: When we discuss the existence of God, we define him as a perfect being, greater than anything else which can be conceived. If God does not exist, then the name "God" refers to an imaginary being. This makes the definition of "God" contradictory, for to be real, to be living, to have power is greater than to be imaginary. It is clear I cannot even discuss the word "God" as defined if he does not exist, because I have to conceive of him as really existing in order for him to be greater than anything else, for a God who does not exist is not greater than anything else.

In short, no philosopher can legitimately argue that God does not exist if he defines God as a perfect being greater than any which can be imagined; for to be perfect, God must have real existence. Those who acknowledge He exists do not have a problem with self-contradiction when they affirm his existence. Since we can indeed raise the question of God's existence and argue the point, then God must exist. Bertrand Russell, one of the greatest logicians and mathematicians of the Twentieth Century, no friend of Christianity, grappled with Anselm's proof and at one time is said to have thought the proof worked.

As Archbishop of Canterbury, the zealous Anselm struggled with King William for church rights. He was exiled. Similar conflict would shortly afterward lead to the murder of Becket. As a theologian, the pious Anselm is remembered for his book, Why Did God Become Man? In it he argued that each of us has run up such a debt of sin that there is no way we can repay God. Christ, as infinite God, has merit enough and to spare to pay our debts. As a scholar, the learned Anselm argued that we must believe in order to understand. We could restate his insight in modern terms like this: truth only begins to come clear when one is committed to it. You cannot see around a bend in a trail unless you walk toward it.

Anselm died surrounded by friends who placed his body in ashes on the floor. He was probably canonized in 1494, although there is debate whether this occurred at all. His beatific status aside, Anselm will long be remembered as the author of the ontological proof.

Bibliography:
"Anselm, St". Dictionary of National Biography. Edited by Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee. London: Oxford University Press, 1921 - 1996.
"Anselm, St." The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Edited by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Copleston, Frederick. A History of Philosophy. Westminster, Maryland: Newman Press, 1953-
Dark, Sidney. Seven Archbishops. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1944.
Dictionary of the History of Ideas. Scribner's, 1974.
Eadmer. The Life of St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury. Edited with introd., notes, and translation by R.W. Southern. New York: T. Nelson, 1962.
Hook, Walter Farquhar, 1798-1875. Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury. London: R. Bentley, 1865 - 1884.
McKilliam, Annie E. A Chronicle of the Archbishops of Canterbury. London: J. Clarke, 1913.
Rigg, J. M. St. Anselm of Canterbury, a chapter in the history of religion. London: Methuen & co., 1896.
Rule, Martin. The Life and Times of St. Anselm: Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of the Britains. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, 1883.
Runes, Dagobert D. A Treasury of Philosophy. New York: Philosophical Library, 1945.
Russell, Bertrand. Wisdom of the West. New York: Fawcett, 1964.
Various encyclopedia and internet articles and references in histories of philosophy.
Last updated April, 2007.