The thaw in US and Cuban relations has awakened memories of the 50's. I can recall news reports of 1959 announcing the fall of Batista and Castro's victory. As a 13 year old, I am not sure which side I was rooting for. It probably was the insurgents. I don't think the American press presented Batista in a very positive light.

Curiously, my other memories of the 50's are the 1957 and 1958 World Series. The Milwaukee Braves won in 1957 and lost in 1958.

Both instances of winners and losers--albeit with very different stakes. Baseball starts over with a new season each year. Nation states are on a very different and unpredictable time schedule. After a 55 year off season, the US and Cuba are about to begin a new season.

I have recently finished reading Danielle Trussoni's Falling Through The Earth. I find myself comparing it to Farley Mowat's And No Bird Sang and to Tony Hillerman's Seldom Disappointed. Born in 1973, Ms Trussoni has essentially written a Vietnam war memoir. Her father served with the 25th Infantry Division arriving in Vietnam in Febuary 1968. The Tet Offensive had begun on January 30th of that year. At that point, it was clear to the US leadership, if not publicly acknowledged, that the war was no longer winnable, if it ever was, in any common understanding of the concept of victory.

How does one write their father's war memoir? The war is brought home and given to one's children. It is not something one sets out to do; it is the nature of war. It is not the childhood that one chooses; it is the nature of such families.

Maybe it is time to reread Stephen Crane's The Red Badge of Courage, even though it is a novel and not a memoir and the author only experienced combat later as a war correspondent.

Talking heads--self-styled or considered experts--making the rounds on cable news shows to comment on the Senate Torture Report make such statements as: "They were only doing what we asked them to do." "We had a presidential finding." "We had legal assurances that these activities were lawful." "I was only a lieutenant colonel."

Why is it that no one references the Geneva Convention and the Nuremberg Principles? Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention prohibits "cruel treatment and torture." Cruel treatment and torture are listed among the "grave breaches," that is, the most serious of violations of the norms for warfare. Principle III of the Nuremberg Principles states that no "Head of State" or "responsible Government official" can claim exemption from their responsibility under International Law. Principle IV states: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him." Principle VI does not use the term torture; it uses a more general term--"ill treatment of prisoners"--in its listing of war crimes. Parsing the term torture is not supported by the language of these norms. Neither is the use of a misleading construction, such as "enhanced interrogation technique."

Army basic training in 1970 included instruction on this subject. It was made very clear that each individual soldier is personally responsible for his actions and for determining the propriety of any proposed course of action. One could not claim the authorization of a superior officer or a governmental official, e.g. the president of the United States, in an attempt to avoid personal and individual legal responsibility. This applied not only to a lieutenant colonel, O-5, but also to the lowest private, E-1. It was also made clear that exercising this responsibility would very likely place the individual soldier in a precarious position. Compliance with an order to engage in an action, which one determines to be a violation of the Geneva Convention, exposes one to criminal sanctions. Refusal to comply with the direct order of a superior also exposes one to criminal sanctions. The implied, that is, not clearly stated, remedy to this dilemma is to insure that everyone participates in the activity, so that all have a shared self-interest in preventing disclosure. Group identity and group cohesion are the keys to personal survival and the avoidance of legal consequences. This proposed remedy may reduce the risks of legal consequences, but it may do nothing to protect one from the moral consequences.

Curiously, the qualifying phrase "provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him" wasn't included in the 1970 discussion. What would the circumstances have to be wherein "a moral choice" is "not possible"?

I am not really comfortable where I ended up as I concluded the posting of December 7th. Maybe I was giving Pope Francis a pass by distinguishing between the language of evangelization and the language of theology. Such a distinction is in conflict with my earlier statement in that post: "At some level all language and speech is metaphorical." Furthermore, such a distinction may not be possible or, if possible, it is only a matter of degree. I am reminded of something I read by Karen Armstrong as she defined Logos and Mythos. Logos is the realm of fact and the observable. Mythos is the arena of faith; it is not observable, but it is believable. She then states that any and all discussion of Mythos is possible only by analogy. From this perspective, both the language of evangelization and the language of theology are analogy, metaphor, simile, allegory, and parable.

A central element in the concept that underpins these five words is the use of a known to elucidate an unknown, the use of the concrete to expound upon an abstraction, and the suggestion of additional similarities between things with known or acknowledged similarities. The connections made or suggested in discussions using these tools of language are socially and culturally determined. They may also reflect highly individualistic perceptions of self, views of the environment, and perceptions of the unseen.

Where am I going with this? Where does this take me?

The question that arises for me is: "How does one identify or establish the terminal religious authority, that is, the last word in all things?" To postulate that one has the fullness of the Truth is to claim a status for one's own analogy, metaphor, simile, allegory, or parable and to deny any comparable status for all others. It is no different than an English speaker claiming superiority of language over a Japanese or Ojibwe speaker. One language may be more universal than another, but that does not mean it is better equipped to perform as a tool of communication.

To my knowledge, Pope Francis has not stated that the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of the Truth. Others certainly have; others in any numbers of religious traditions. Is it possible to interpret Pope Francis' ecumenical efforts as an acknowledgement of shared truth and an incomplete possession on the part of any and all? Is it possible to speak candidly of such things? Or is it simply too dangerous? Are we fearful that the other will perceive our position as weakness and capitalization? Can't Truth be better served?

Am I once more giving Pope Francis a pass? Or has he chosen a different path than many of his predecessors and contemporaries?

Just because I haven't been making entries in this blog does not mean that I haven't been thinking.

A statement by a news commentator got me thinking. The statement went something like this: "Pope Francis has never met a metaphor he didn't like." That statement reminded me of a quote attributed of Max Muller: "Mythology or religion is a disease of language" by which he meant that "words constructed to express abstract ideas...were transformed into imagined personalities." (Wikipedia) The disease (as metaphor) is the failure to acknowledge the limits of a metaphor. A metaphor is not a literal truth or observable fact. It aids in the understanding of that which it is attributed to "like" or "as." The former is typically an observable fact or entity which is intended as an aide in our standing of the latter that is not observable--an abstract reality or belief. Strictly speaking, the presence of "like" or "as" makes it a simile, rather than a metaphor. Please bear with me.

A metaphor may fail on either of two fronts: (1) the expression is not acknowledged as metaphor, and (2) the metaphor is used to convey a truth or bolster a position beyond its scope. Examples of the first are statements such as: The church is the body of Christ. The church is our mother. The church is the bride of Christ. In common speech, metaphorical statements typically contain the word "as" or "like," which can alert the listener. Religious or theological statements most often skip the qualifier, and the metaphor is at risk of creating confusion as the listener interprets the statements literally. An example of extending a metaphor beyond its scope would be describing water polo like ice hockey and proceeding then to use that statement as a rationale to support the use of hockey sticks in water polo. In this example, the metaphor is being "over mined," that is, stretched beyond any reasonable limit resulting in error and confusion--the very things the metaphor was initially employed to counter or avoid. The reasonable limits of a metaphor may be moreorless readily evident when one is comparing observable phenomena, but they are often not clear when one entity is an abstraction, a conceptualization, or a belief.

The starting point in the discussion of the metaphysical and abstract must acknowledge the use of metaphor in the subsequent discussion, be willing to explore the limits and inadequacies of any and all metaphors, and be open to the metaphors of others arising out of valid linguistic and cultural differences. At some level all language and speech is metaphorical.

Returning to Pope Francis, I can sympathize with those who have criticized some of the Pope's statements as contributing to confusion. I think the terminology employed by the Pope speaks of a language of evangelization versus a language of theology. He clearly prefers the former to the latter. Yet both are valid vehicles of communication; each has their own road on which to travel. Co-mingling them or misconstruing or misusing one as the other will result in confused and diseased communication. Or in keeping with the vehicle/road metaphor, such misuse will result in head-on collisions and other fatal and very avoidable accidents.

Here it is the morning after an election day, and I am left with trying to understand the subtlety of the American voter or the disconnect in the political judgment of that same voter.

When given the opportunity to vote on policy, yesterday's election outcomes point to a liberal bent on the part of the voting public. This is evident in support for raising the wage, the expansion of medical assistance programs, the legalization of marijuana, and background checks for firearm purchases, and the lack of support for person-hood legislation. Yet when it came to voting for candidates, those typically described as conservative won overwhelmingly. What are the prospects that GOP dominated state and federal legislative bodies will pass legislation consistent with the referendum questions supported by the voting public? Why would one hire an individual to perform a task that the individual has no interest in or desire to see through to completion?

It has often been said that the American voter does not vote in his/her own interest. I am not so sure. There certainly are single issue voters, where one issue trumps all others. There may also be cults of personality, where an individual candidate is favored, irrespective of his/her position on any or all issues. What is it about Democratic candidates that render them unappealing to that modest percentage of total voters that could make for a very different election outcomes?

“Well religious beliefs aren’t reasonable. I mean, religious beliefs are categorical. You know, it’s God tells you. It’s not a matter of being reasonable. God be reasonable?"

The above is a recent quote of Supreme Court Justice A. Scalia, which haunts me as I read articles on the discussions and published summaries of the Vatican Synod of Bishops currently in session. Within the context of the Supreme Court and, by inference, the whole of the criminal justice system, many actors are convinced that a sincerely held belief is a sufficient basis for acting contrary to the law of the land with impunity. On the other hand, the good bishops make repeated claims to nature, natural law, the natural order, revelation, and reasonableness in order to provide support for a variety of moral and ethical stances. In addition, the tools of inductive and/or deductive reasoning are to get us or at least "all men of goodwill" to a singular position on such matters. (The sexist phrase has been chosen with intent.)

I would like to hear a comment from Cardinals Dolan or Burke on Justice Scalia's statement. Is there a way to bridge this divide? 

I also can't help but think, "Wouldn't Scalia make one crazy bishop?"

By Golly! I think I've got it. The secret of life as evidenced by a two-year old.

KEEP MOVING FORWARD,

PUT ONE FOOT IN FRONT OF THE OTHER,

AND KEEP YOUR HANDS TO YOURSELF

Thank you, Adam.
Grandpa

As I headed out on my morning walk a couple of days ago, I came across these tracks on the apron of a neighbor's garage. These appear to be the result of a walk through dew wet grass and a sandy flower bed. The evidence suggested that the nocturnal visitor had been able to raise the garage door just enough in order to slip under and gain access to garbage that was stored inside. I trust there was an enjoyable snack to be had in return for the bruin's effort and ingenuity. Good handwashing technique and regular practice are apparently not in this fella's repertoire.

I apologize for not including something in the frame that would indicate the size of the print. I am impressed with how human these prints appear. They seem so much like a toddler's foot print. Trust me! It would have been taken a pretty big toddler to make these prints. Or possibly a young Sasquatch. I should start making a few calls; maybe I could end up on tv with the Big Foot hunters.

I am not sure if I should be intimidated or flattered. The house two doors away went up for sale in recent days. The asking price is $498,500. When determining value of a house, the most often asked question is what are other properties in the immediate area going for. The house across the street in the other direction recently sold. It had an asking price of just under $80,000. Does that mean that my house, since it rests in some geographical midpoint between these two properties, is properly valued somewhere along the $418,000 continuum between 80K and 498K? I would like to see an agent arrive at some average and be able to provide reasonable supporting rationale. I propose an alternate pricing strategy: something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. Maybe in place of posting an asking price, when listing property, one could simply advertise "Best Offer."

Real estate pricing is not my only cause for confusion this Sunday morning. The sermon at this morning's service addressed the concept of evil. I was left with a very confused picture as to the description of evil, the contemporary examples of evil offered, our inability to determine what is evil in real time, and the personal moral responsibility of the so-called evil-doer. There was one take-a-way. I am not able to use the rationalization: "The devil made me do it." Although in the final judgment, Someone else may determine that the malevolent spirit, in fact, did just that.

So, in the final result, I am left either flattered or intimidated. I may flatter myself with some, albeit limited, assurance that I have at least one out. Or I can be intimidated by the awareness that I have only one out. What's your best offer?

When I left the house today at 5:10AM for my morning walk, there was ample evidence that someone had visited the neighbor's Bear Buffet (aka, dumpster). There was also evidence in my yard, no less, that the bruin had eaten his full or was full at some time during the event. I have pictures to support these comments.

This time the big fellow exercised some thoughtfulness and did not drag the individual bags into my yard before ripping them open to snack upon the contents.

Needless to say, I was more cautious than usual when I started out on my walk and passed the wooded lot on the corner. It wasn't that I was particularly concerned about early morning vehicle traffic either. 

Yesterday morning, when I walked by the service station and convenience store downtown (in what constitutes "downtown" in a city with a population of 530), the dumpster behind the service station was tipped and its contents laid out bear buffet style. Within the local bear community, the word must be out that the 4th Street hosts a Sunday night buffet special and 10th Street hosts a Monday night buffet special. My future morning walks may provide evidence of other local bear buffets Tuesdays through Saturdays. In previous years, the Headstart Program's dumpster was raided on more than one occasion, but that program is done for the summer--closed for the season, if you will. The dining technique used by bear always seems to be the same: tip the damn thing over, toss the contents around, and then have at it--outdoor dining at its best or a toddler in a highchair.

A couple of recent Supreme Court cases (Citizens United vs. FEC and ATM vs. Bullock) have hit the reset button on what is commonly understood by the term person. One also cannot forget presidential candidate Mitt Romney's statement: "Corporations are people too."

I will concede that corporations are persons, but they are not people.

I suggest that we make a distinction between corporal persons and corporate persons. The former refers to you and I; the latter refers to creatures of civil law. The term corporal dates to the 14th century and is defined as "of or belonging to the body." The term corporate dates to the 15th century and is defined as "united in one body."

A corporal entity is a living thing, a human person, a singular and indivisible biological entity, the product of the reproductive activity of the species. Corporal entities, that is, human persons, enjoy rights, privileges, and responsibilities consistent with their nature--"endowed. . .with certain inalienable rights" in the language of the Founding Fathers. These characteristics are recognized in civil society, but are not created by nor the product of civil society. Corporate entities are human creations and as such socially, politically, and legally defined, structured, and sanctioned. As human creations, they are the products of group consensus and civil sanction as to their origination, existence, dissolution, and propagation/division. Corporate entities, that is, corporations, properly enjoy the rights, privileges, and authority inscribed in civil law and only those. Rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and Constitution do not apply to corporate entities unless subsequent legislation explicitly so states.

An example might help or may further confuse my attempt at a distinction with a difference. A marriage is a corporate entity comprised of two corporal entities. The two persons remain intact and viable both within and apart from their identity, rights, privileges, and responsibilities as a married couple. The state views a married couple as a single entity with respect to the joint ownership of marital property, taxation, indebtedness, and self/spousal incrimination. In other spheres, the spouses are individually responsible or culpable, such as, child support, domestic violence, and spousal rape. I offer that free speech within the context of a marriage is a right wholly retained individually by the spouses. It is not abridged by the marital relationship nor is a third "quantity" of speech ascribed to the couple in addition to that which they enjoyed before becoming husband and wife.

Freedom of speech is not a right to be enjoyed by corporations simply because of their status as legal persons or personages. Federal and state legislation, which is responsible for creation of corporate entities in any and all detail, can withhold or limit corporate speech. Just as they have not been afforded voting rights nor the ability to hold elected office. Constitutionally protected freedom of speech is a singular right enjoyed by corporal entities which is not surrendered to nor diluted by the corporate entities in which the corporal entity participates, even when the political speech (read: campaign contributions) of the latter is limited by federal or state legislation.

In a recent interview, in which former President George W. Bush discussed his work with military veterans, he once again stated his opposition to the use of the term Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. He insists that the term be abbreviated to Post-Traumatic Stress. His reason: "It is not a disorder; it is an injury." Whatever his motivation, his apparent aim is to remove the condition and the discussion from the realm of mental health and thereby eliminate the negative connotation so often associated with mental illness. In my judgment, he is de-legitimizing all other mental illnesses in the hopes that his re-definition can foster expanded awareness, greater acceptance, and improved treatment of the one.

In my view, PTSD is not an injury, but the result of an injury. The element of disorder comes into play when the extent of the injury results in an impairment, which meets or exceeds established criteria. Furthermore, the distinction between physical illness and mental illness is very arbitrary. One only has to eavesdrop on a discussion between a neurologist and a psychiatrist to come to the conclusion that this distinction is counter-productive in terms of diagnosis and treatment, let alone public awareness and acceptance.

We will all be better served, if those, who have access to a bully pulpit, would consider the bigger picture. In this instance, that means supporting an awareness of mental illness and treatment with a legitimacy shared with all other illnesses and medical conditions resulting from biological agents, genetic factors, injuries of any kind, environmental teratogens, and/or aging. All of these conditions impact on the biological function, cognition, psychic capacity, and physical performance of the individual sufferer.

Let us all refuse to accept health care under the terms of a zero-sum game.

I am sure that we all have those days when we come away from a brief encounter only to ask ourselves: "Does what just happened say more about me than about him or is it the other way around or does it say anything meaningful at all?"

A few days ago, I was enjoying a cup a coffee and reading my latest read (Baghdad without a Map by Tony Horwitz) in the downtown coffee shop. I was in search of an hour of personal time. My wife had a guest so I left the house after putting up a pot of tea and setting out the last of the oatmeal raisin cookies.

Another patron, whom I have known for some 20 years and with whom I share the same professional credentials in addition to some common activities over the years, stopped to say hello and to exchange a few pleasantries. It soon became clear that he had me confused with someone else. I helped him straighten out persons, places, and things. As we sorted through the mis-facts and facts, it became clear that he did not remember the name of the person with whom he had me confused. This is also someone with whom we both had worked during the past two decades. We left our conversation at that; the dude was "waiting for a phone call." I would wager a cappuccino that he hadn't remembered my name either.

Let me just say that I took the dude's number off my speed dial list.

P.S. The dude's number along with his real name was never on my speed dial list.

I guess it is possible to be a subversive grandparent, that is, to undo, at least in part, some of your adult children's best efforts at acting like fit parents.

A friend recently related an example of his own having to do with peanut butter sandwiches. Number two son and his two sons were visiting. Unbeknownst to grandpa, son in his dad role had packed the standard peanut butter sandwich lunch entree for his children. Thinking that the young ones were lunch-less, grandpa offered to make peanut butter and jelly sandwiches all around. The grandkids quickly took up grandpa's offer and could not be swayed when their dad insisted that the lunch he had so dutifully brought from home would do. The grandkids held their ground that peanut butter and jelly sandwiches made by grandpa were far superior to anything coming out of their home kitchen. This matter required further exploration and verification. Were the grandkids just trying to butter up grandpa in order to set him up so that he would be in no position to reject a petition at some future date or were they speaking truth to power--rightfully acknowledging a superior PB&J sandwich?

As grandpa went about the culinary task of assembling the sandwiches, the differences quickly became clear. The grandkids were given the opportunity to observe the creative process first hand and the crucial components of a superior PB&J sandwich were promptly noted. First off, there was a new ingredient--butter--applied to the bread prior to the application of peanut butter. Secondly, there was the choice of peanut butter. The co-op brand of peanut butter was not to be seen in grandpa's kitchen. This is the kind that is all peanuts and nothing but peanuts. In grandpa's kitchen, Skippy remains the unchallenged lord of the nut butters. True to the tasteful memories of his own childhood, grandpa refuses to transition away from the taste acquired during his own childhood--nut butter augmented by some ingenious particular process and some secret and other not so secret ingredients. Apparently, the bread and jam components were not contributing elements in the superior rating of said sandwiches.

I hope to discover at some future date, if there has continued to be two versions of the PB&J sandwich for these youngsters--the home kitchen version and grandpa's kitchen version--or if one version becomes the standard for both kitchens. I am putting my "ants on a log" on grandpa's version.

A few years back, when I was dispatched to do the grocery shopping in advance of a grandson's visit I augmented the cheerios on the grandma prepared list with a small box of Trix. A little color is a celebratory thing. At grandpa's house a cheerios snack was thereby able to take on added pizazz. What happened to the last of that box of Trix? They were commingled with cheerios in a small zip lock bag for snacking in the car during the trip home. That becomes another level of subversiveness, when grandpa proposes to exercise influence beyond the confines of grandma and grandpa's house.

There are any number of issues which could be the topic of a post. I haven't been able to organize the chatter that has been tumbling in my internal revolving drum. The bits and pieces include:

A Thousand Splendid Suns
The Unknown Known
Flash Boys
Ukraine
Syria
Ebola
MA370
Afghan elections
NCAA Men's and Women's Tournaments
Minimum wage legislation
McCutcheon vs. FEC
Baseball's opening games
Drone warfare
Senate Intelligence Committee Report on CIA Interrogations
NSA Surveillance
Vermont's single payer health care program

Yesterday afternoon I decided to make a batch of oatmeal raisins cookies rather than sort through this clutter and put together a post. Here's how that turned out. I misconfigured the recipe and made an error in reconfiguring sticks of shortening (roughly half butter and half margarine) into cups. Rather than 1/4 cup plus 6 tablespoons, I started with 1/2 cup plus 6 tablespoons. That is the difference between 1 and 2 sticks plus the tablespoons. Come to think of it, I am not sure why the recipe is so particular. Wouldn't 1/2 cup work as well as 1/4 cup plus 6 tablespoons? That is only the difference of 2 tablespoons. We aren't making a piano (as a former boss would say) or mixing rocket fuel. The end result is a batch of soft cookies which browned up real nicely. They also balanced out well with the way-to-healthy wholewheat muffins that I made on Saturday morning.

Let's see. Chop suey is on the menu for supper. I best clear my mind so that I don't end up serving pork vegetable soup.

Will the Vatileaks case be reopened?

Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, the former president of the Board of Superintendency of the Institute of Religious Works (IOR) or the Vatican Bank, was recently exonerated by the Italian Courts. Tedeschi had been appointed to the position of president of the Board of Superintendency in 2009 by Pope Benedict. At the time, a column in the Our Sunday Visitor reporting on the papal appointment stated that "Gotti Tedeschi's mandate was crystal clear: to ensure the bank operated according to the highest ethical principles, and could not be used for illicit purposes, including money laundering." In May 2012, Tedeschi was terminated, ousted, or forced to resign (depending upon which account one reads) following a no confidence vote by the four fellow members of the Board; this move subsequently received the sanction of the Commission of Cardinals. Tedeschi was accused of substantial malfeasance as well as illegal acts. The Italian authorities have now charged the banks' former director general (Paoli Capriani) and his deputy (Massino Tulli) will money laundering and other criminal acts. These two gentlemen allegedly opposed actions taken and proposed by Tedeschi to upgrade the bank's operations so that it would comply with international banking standards. They may have engineered Tedeschi's ouster and most certainly supported it. Capriani and Tulli resigned in July 2013 at the time that Pope Francis appointed a Commission of Inquiry to examine the bank's operations and to make recommendations with respect to its future. Coincidence?

In 2012, Vatican Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone also served as the head of the Commission of Cardinals which oversees the Board of Superintendency and all other bank governance and operations. Bertone was also alleged to be behind Tedeschi's ouster. At the time, Tedeschi was also accused of being the mole behind the Vatileaks scandal; the papal butler was convicted in a Vatican court and subsequently pardoned by the pope.

Some have postulated that it was the bank's ongoing and still unfolding financial scandals coupled with the sacking of his appointed reformer which proved to be the "last straw" leading to Pope Benedict's decision to resign the papacy. Two weeks before Pope Benedict resigned in February 2013, he appointed Ernst von Freyberg as president of the Board of Superintendency to succeed Tedeschi. Freyberg served both as president of the Board of Superintendency and director general from July 2013 through November 2013, when Rolando Marranci was appointed director general.

As of May 2012, the Board of Superintendency was comprised of : President Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, Vice President Ronaldo Hermann Schmitz, Secretary Carl Anderson, Manuel Soto Serrano, and Antonio Maria Marocco. Today the composition of this Board remains the same except that Ernst von Freyberg is now president having replaced Tedeschi. In November 2013, Pietro Parolin was appointed Vatican Secretary of State by Pope Francis following Bertone's resignation. The Secretary of State continues to serve as a member of the bank's Commission of Cardinals. With exception of the four holdover members of the Board of Superintendency (Schmitz, Anderson, Serrano, and Marocco), there appears to have been a complete personnel change within the upper levels of bank governance. These four individuals were the ones who effected the ouster of Tedeschi. Carl Anderson, presumably acting in his capacity as secretary, issued a scathing statement outlining the charges against Tedeschi and the basis for the Board's lack of confidence in both his leadership style and management skills. Now that Tedeschi has been exonerated and has stated his intent to pursue further legal action to not only clear his name but to uncover the unethical and illegal acts of those, who wrongly dismissed him, or those, who acted through those individuals, what is to become of those four holdovers members of the Board of Superintendency? At a minimum, these four individuals appear to have surrendered all personal credibility and integrity by their actions of May 2012.

Will the Vatileaks investigation be reopened now that the alleged "higher up" has been exonerated? Will another "butler" (read: low level functionary) be found to take the fall? Remember this go-a-round is being played out in the Italian civil courts. A papal pardon is not in play. The actors are international financiers and bankers. This is a very different case of characters and environment than the papal household, where employment security and pensions may hold sway. Will former members of the Commission of Cardinals be "outed" relative to this matter in upcoming months? Who will meet an untimely and mysterious death this time? Who will retire to some sunny Arizona? Will there be one or more convictions in a court of law over which a papal pardon is ineffectual?

Earlier today, I finished reading The Cave by Jose Saramago (1922-2010), a Portuguese writer, who spent the last 15 years of his life in a self-imposed exile in the Spanish Canary Islands. The conservative Portuguese government and the Catholic Church took offense at his writings. Despite the government's censorship of his works and opposition to earlier literary awards, Mr. Saramago won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1998.

Two themes dominate this novel. One is a criticism of globalization with the obsolescence of the local means of production and commerce; the second is the personal obsolescence that comes with age within the context of a changing economic environment. What is the message for the individual in such an environment ? "It's ridiculous to throw away the present just because you're afraid there might not be a future." As one ages one must not forget that "...folly and illogicality may be a duty to the young, but the old have a perfectly respectable right to them too..."

A dog plays a supporting and an essential role in this novel. "Dogs are like that, they sometimes decide to do their owner's thinking for them."

After reading this novel, I don't think folks will ever look at shopping malls in the same way as they did previously.

Yesterday's post moreorless got away from me. I had some thoughts about how I would develop my comments on the event in question, but I went in a very different direction as the words came. Apparently, I reached back inadvertently to another thought that has been frequenting the passages within my mind of late. That is: It seems that one can spend his/her entire lifetime working on getting this living thing right, almost right, or, at least, a little bit better than yesterday, last week, last month, or last year.

In recent days, President Obama awarded 24 Congressional Medals of Honor to individuals who served during World War II, the Korean Conflict, and the Vietnam War. All but three were awarded posthumously. In his comments, the President spoke of "setting the record straight." One must ask what other records need to be set straight? In much the same way as it is for individuals, who find themselves devoting significant time and effort setting straight previous decisions, statements, and actions, societies need to attend to much the same business. Some memories deserve celebration in the present; others are in need of mending or amending. What took place in the White House earlier this week needs to take place in our neighborhoods and families.

In honor of and to fittingly celebrate PI Day (PI as in 3.14), I made a pie. The fixin's included a graham cracker crust made by Kleeber elves, bananas, banana cream pudding (the regular, not the instant kind), whipped topping (the creamy version), and a sprinkle of homemade raspberry granola to top off the whipped topping. Is it redundant to top topping? Or is it simply a foodie's exclamation point?

Someone has described PI Day as the ultimate Nerd Holiday. So here is my question for the math geeks. Will March 14, 2015 be PI's golden holiday (as in 3.1415)?

May the spheres be with you!

One hundred forty plus and still counting. Glenn Ford's release from a Louisiana prison on March 11th was the 140plus exoneration of a death row inmate in the United States since the 1970's. These are wrongful convictions where the individual was sentenced to death. It does not include the exoneration of those individuals, who were sentenced to any number of years up to life. This number does not give us any reliable indication as to the number of those persons, who have already been executed or remain on death row or continue to serve prison terms for crimes that they did not commit.

The press modestly notes these exonerations and frequently couches each case as an individual isolated miscarriage of justice. There is seldom, if ever, a suggestion that such cases might well be indicative of a flawed system. There is no serious discussion of systemic remedies to correct the miscarriages that are yet to be uncovered and to eliminate miscarriages that will continue to occur. A monetary settlement as directed by state law or awarded as the result of a separate court action is presented as the final resolution of the individual case. At times, actors in the criminal justice system will expound an argument of legal innocence versus factual innocence, that is, just because one can not legally prove, that you did do it, does not mean that you did not, in fact, do it. Is this to raise suspicion of the individual, who is exonerated, or to justify their own or their predecessor's prosecutorial behavior?

Why should we be concerned about such things? The facts of individual cases point out just how capricious the system can be. If it can happen to one of us, it may happen to anyone of us. Let us not forget. The system acts in our name: "The people rest their case..."

Some days one crosses a threshold for the first time: the step may not be planned; the opportunity simply presents itself; it may be the only door open at the time. The choices are to turn around and go back or to pass through that particular door even if for the first time. Is it the right thing to do? One doesn't know; that gets figured out once inside.

Fridays mornings at 7:00AM, I and Rick, a friend, get together for breakfast at a local restaurant. It is not every Friday; there are times one of us is out of town (in Rick's case, out of the country), has a conflicting commitment, or (during this winter) is snowed in. Needless to say, there usually is little competition for a table at the restaurant at this time of the day, day of the week, and season of the year.With rare exception, a particular table is available in a far corner of the dining room. This table has become "our table"--a distinction remembered by wait staff and acknowledged in good humor by local folks.

Typically, there are a half a dozen local folks, who also frequent the diner early on a Friday morning. (I suspect many of the same folks are there everyday and not just on Fridays.) These folks--males of the species--customarily arrive singly and, only rarely, in pairs. They occupy two or three tables off to one corner of the restaurant--a corner opposite to "our table." I guess you could call this area the "locals' table." Folks come and go at irregular intervals. The waitress buses the individual place setting as each is freed up either before or after the next person joins the group already at the table. Tips left on the table are often pushed into a pile at the center of the table and left to accumulate as the turnover in breakfasters continue for a two or three hour period each morning. The waitress picks them up apparently when she gets around to it. (I hope it is not when she determines it is of an amount worth bothering with.) As I approach thirty years residence in this community, I had not chosen to seat myself at the locals' table--until this morning, that is.

The restaurant was busy. When I arrived at 6:50AM, there wasn't a free table in the place. I suspect the popularity of the ice caves within the Apostles Islands National Lakeshore explains the busyness of the place at this particular time, on this particular day, during this particular season. A substantial number of visitors were getting fueled up before heading out on their iced lake shore adventures; a few local folks seated around two of the three local tables were doing much the same with very different adventures planned for their days. Rather impulsively--yet with considerable style I can assure you, I asked Bob if I could join him at one of the tables used by the morning regulars.  He was the only occupant at the moment at a table with seating for five. There was substantial evidence of prior occupancy: soiled napkins, crumbs and a smear of jam on the vinyl table cloth, used coffee cup, and budding pile of tip change. Since this encounter involved a one-on-one interaction, I felt confident that I could invite myself with minimal the risk of a rejection of my audacious self-invitation. A short time later, Harold and Gary joined Bob and me. Rick arrived 10 or 15 minutes thereafter. After Bob left, Bill slipped into the vacant chair. During some 90 minutes what ensued was a genuine local experience. We talked about kids, the effect of topography on ambient temperatures, the tolerance of freezing temperatures by perennial fruit crops, fishing, colony collapse disorder, unpredictable changes in ice conditions on Lake Superior, winter camping, snowshoeing, and timber cruising. All of these topics in one way or another, directly or indirectly, referenced the unspoken but clearly evident fact that the six of us, who sat around that table this Friday morning, were in the seventh or eighth decade of our lives.

All in all, it was a lot like making it to the grown-ups' table at the family holiday dinner. In that context, I suspect one has to be invited to move up to the "big table." A self-invitation does quite do it. One might be able to self-engineer such a move. One could volunteer to set the "big table" and in so doing set a place for himself in the hope that the grown-ups will just assume that someone has extended an invitation to the new guy at the table. My experience has been that the mother-in-charge will have counted and recounted the place settings at both the grown-ups' and the kids' tables along with visualizing the individual face that goes with each setting. It is therefore unlikely that one will be able to get away with this subversive act.

Then again, it doesn't hurt to ask.

I just finished reading two works by David Rhodes: Driftless and its sequel Jewelweed. I am glad that I stuck with Mr. Rhodes and took up the sequel after reading Driftless. Driftless left me feeling very discouraged and pessimistic about the contemporary state of rural America and its prospects for the future. Jewelweed ended on a much more positive and optimistic note. Rural communities can continue to thrive if folks make a conscious effort to nurture them and folks consider themselves to be social beings and act accordingly. The building and maintenance of local community may require an occasional violation of civil law and the setting aside of social convention; neither occurs without risk and potentially serious negative consequences. The moral requirement underlying such behavioral choices is the pursuit of a common good and not personal gain. We are social beings; we have social responsibilities. In the end, our behavioral choices are our own for which we are individually culpable. Being broken is no excuse to not participate in community; we are all broken in some way--being damaged goods is simply evidence of survival no more no less. There are always second and third chances to get it right or at least a little better this go-a-round.

The family farm (in 1950 terms) so threatened in Driftless does not survive in Jewelweed, not even the Amish version. The overreach of corporate America so powerful in Driftless is little more than a dark and ominous storm cloud in Jewelweed--a storm that can be outrun, endured, or that simply dissipates in the face of strength of character. Local integral communities--as in such catchphrases as "Think globally, Act locally," "All politics is local," and "Buy Local"--are able to thrive even when and if compromise and accommodation with the more powerful is the order of any given day. The challenge is to pick these venues--these battles--carefully and to maintain sufficient personal integrity and a broad based liberty so that one can step back from previously made or now considered compromise and accommodation.

Local communities do not act nor do they survive in isolation. They have the capacity to inspire and nurture one another. At times the lace that holds that boot on the foot is the over-the-road trucker, who has a passion for local produce and product and shares his finds with his local community. This boot has the ability to kick some corporate ass as local folks go about living their lives with self-confidence, independence, interdependence, and a sense of their own intrinsic value.

If anyone out there happens to run into Mr. Rhodes, would you please ask him what happened to Graham and Cora Shotwell and their two children, Seth and Grace? I missed them in the sequel.

In recent months I have had the opportunity to interact with state level public administrators (Bureaucrats, if you will--I hesitate to use the term due to its pejorative connotation.), legislative aides to my state senator and state representative, and staff of a statewide professional association. It has been an interesting experience. Sometimes I think I am back in college working on a group assignment drafting a statement of public policy. In those days, the work group consisted of equally youthful types with limited life experience and a brevity of both knowledge and expertise relative to the manner at hand. That is why we were in school; we were trying to address the latter so that we could proceed to accumulating the former. Forty years later, it feels a lot like doing more of the same thing under different circumstances. The objective is not to favorably impress a teacher, but to effect public policy where the implementation of said policy and professional practice impact upon the real life situation of our fellow citizens. I am okay with this feeling; it is just a feeling evoked by an earlier experience and a feeling where the real life consequences are not readily evident on an emotional level. That will come with implementation and feedback from those directly affected by the policy under consideration. Hopefully, that will be the future of these efforts.

There has been another dimension to this experience which is much more unsettling and for which I can not identify or rationalize a more satisfying outcome. This dimension arises out of the mutual disdain that I perceive to be present between state legislative folks (elected officials and their staff) and public administrators (civil servants). The terms "politician" and "bureaucrat" are used in a pejorative sense by these folks; the motivation of the "other" is viewed completely in self-serving terms. One is protecting the vote (that is, favor with their constituency); the other is protecting their job. This conceptualization of the "other" seems to eliminate any willingness or ability to perceive of the "other" in any alternative, and certainly any more favorably, terms. This absolutist thinking rules out any consideration of a range of possible strategies that might move a state level policy forward. The sole strategy seen as worthwhile and thereby employed by legislative folks is to garner numbers in favor of their position with little consideration of the value of those allies, where the primary requirement is the capacity is for loud speech. On the other hand, the strategy employed by public administrators is to parse language in such a way that its intent is to mislead the other party and to obfuscate the issue at hand, by rendering the matter either a moving target or a series of targets.

This was never more clear than when I asked during the course of a conference telephone call discussing strategy, "Can't we just appeal to folks to do the right thing?" The response was a resounding "No!" (Folks were apparently polite enough to not point out my naivete.) There was an acknowledgement that the position I and my allies advocated was consistent with (1)the intent of the Legislature, (2)the spirit, if not the, literal wording of State law, and (3)Federal policy. Yet such a claim to legitimacy was seen as tactically worthless. These two parties have apparently become so adept at their usual and customary battle strategies that these respective tactics have become the nuclear option for the respective camps. The nuclear option may have become the only strategy that each camp is willing to even consider, much less employ, in working with the other in they go about the people's work. These very limited arsenals concretize existing stereotypes, perpetuate errors in thinking, and inhibit creative problem solving. Maybe it is time for all of us to go back to school to learn the knowledge and expertise over which one is expected to have acquired a reasonable facility in order to be promoted from kindergarten to first grade.

This experience has given me a perspective from which to view Governor Christie's Bridgegate and Governor Walker's Campaign John Doe investigations. C and W's alleged illicit behaviors may not be substantively different from business as usual within these contexts. ("That is just how things are done around here.") The only differences are matters of degree, the size of the fiscal impact, or the numbers of the public impacted.

As the issue, which has currently engaged my passion, proceeds forward, I will refuse to collaborate with any party that resorts to a nuclear option in pursuit of its desired goal. A statement made by Grahm Shotwell (a character in the novel Driftless by David Rhodes) comes to mind: "...it was better to be wronged and do nothing about it than to do something wrong and regret it. A person could live with one but not the other." I am responsible only for my own sense of right and wrong, the comfort I take in the former, and the regret I bear with the latter.

Recent and numerous articles in the secular and religious press on the appearance of officials of the Roman Catholic Church before the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Children have rekindled the ruminative nature of a topic that occasionally haunts my quiet moments.

The issue that has troubled me for sometime is the co-mingling of a sovereign territory (Vatican City State) and the Roman Catholic Church (a religion). These two entities do not necessarily share common goals, objectives, and means; they can be mutually supportive, even if by confusion or subterfuge--intended or unintended. Each entity has its own rights and duties within the international community of nations and among the religions of the world. In an earlier day, these two dimensions were co-mingled as European adventurers explored the New World and lay claim to these "newfound" lands for their sponsoring monarchs and in the name of a universal deity known only to themselves. Today this comingling is seen in the Roman Catholic Church's response to the sexual abuse of children by members of its clergy.

Wikipedia has been very helpful as I fleshed out these thoughts on this topic and attempted to organized them in such a way that they reflected "the facts." (I will not cite this source other than to credit the website in general; any errors in my use of this background material are mine alone.)

The pope is the "absolute elected monarch" of the Vatican City State and the infallible leader of the Roman Catholic Church. The governance--spiritual and pastoral--of the latter is properly referred to as the Holy See. The Vatican City State does not have its own diplomatic service; the Holy See conducts diplomatic relations for both bodies. The Holy See has permanent observer status in the United Nations General Assembly. Why does the Holy See have this status? Why doesn't the Vatican City State have this status, even if the former conducts diplomatic relations on behalf of the latter? Are there any other religious bodies that enjoy such status or would be so eligible?

How does this comingling create problems? The Holy See's representatives before the UN Committee claimed that whomever they represented only had responsibility for children residing within Vatican City State. Therefore, it could not be held responsible--directly or indirectly--for the sexual abuse of children occurring in any other country. Yet the Holy See clearly oversees the credentialing of clergy and sets and enforces standards of behavior. A cursory read of the secular press provides amply evidence that the arm of the Holy See charged with this task ignores or overrides the recommendations of local bishops in disciplining local clergy who have abused children. As a sovereign territory, which maintains diplomatic relationships (embassies) with numerous countries around the globe, the Vatican City State (Or is it the Holy See?) claims diplomatic immunity not only for members of its diplomatic corps but also bishops, archbishops, and cardinals (for example: Bernard Law, the former archbishop of Boston). The claim for those not members of the diplomatic corps may be more properly a claim of dual citizenship and thereby an enjoyment of protection from the judicial system of a foreign power. How is it that church officials, not just members of the diplomatic corps, have Vatican City State passports? Who qualifies for such dual citizenship with the Vatican City State--lay persons, missioners (lay or ordained), leaders of religious orders and societies, priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals?

In my judgment, these issues need to be clarified. In terms of its relationship to the United Nations as a permanent observer member and signatory to the Convention on the Rights of Children, is the Holy See representing the Vatican City State or the Roman Catholic Church or both? As noted above, the Holy See, responsible for the spiritual and pastoral governance of the Church, performs diplomatic relations for both itself and the Vatican City State. If it is acting in the name only of the Vatican City State, then the very narrow sphere of responsibility its representatives claim may well be technically accurate. If that is the claim, how can these same individuals in the very same context take exception to selected terms of the Convention which was accepted by the Vatican City State and possibly by the Holy See? This appears to be comparable to the question that forms the core of those court cases wherein corporations claim lay claim to an exercise of its religious freedom to avoid compliance with certain elements of the Affordable Care Act.

The responsibility to sort out these issues rests with Church officials (either the Holy See or Vatican City State or both), United Nations leadership, and the governments with which the Holy See and/or the Vatican City State have diplomatic relations. I seriously doubt this will occur, with the possible exception of the United Nations. These other parties have much to lose, if such a distinction is made and implemented. Nation states get to claim the sanction (or is it sanctification?) of a religious authority and the deity which it represents; this sanction may not be deserved. The Church is able to maintain itself as a geo-political entity legitimizing the trappings of a monarchical Medieval Europe and the associated historical claim to a kingdom of this world.  The "maintenance costs" of the Church's position may well be: (1)an incalculable loss of credibility among the world religions, (2)an incentive for other religious denominations to ally themselves with those currently in power in their host countries at the expense of their otherworldly visions, and (3)a restraint on the national and international moral voices with which religions claim to speak.

I have been dealing with considerable snow and cold temperatures in my neck of the woods. This is simply a statement of the activities in my environment which I perceive as fact or as a personal observation; it is not meant to be an introduction to a post on the subject of weather.

When one lives on a peninsula, the phrase a "neck of the woods" would seem to be a particularly apt choice. Looking at a map, it is quite possible that "headland" would be a more correct description of this place even though common parlance refers to it as a peninsula.

Language is a curious thing. It approximates a miracle at times--at least it seems so to me--that we understand one another (or is it each other?) at all.

One thing I enjoy about reading Michael Perry is his use of unusual or little used vocabulary--words that are much more descriptive and accurate in describing what he is about than the more common and thereby overused ones. I suspect this overuse has resulted in such words becoming almost generic in nature--trying to be all things makes for a poor job at any one thing. I wonder if Michael comes across such words in his readings or if he uses a thesaurus to locate a gem around which to craft a sentence. Then again anyone who reads Alexander Pope's "Essay on Man" in a treestand during the Wisconsin gun deer season probably has no use for a thesaurus.

It has been sometime since I made an entry in this blog; I have been struggling to come up with an idea or a topic, so I fell back on an old standby, the weather at least to break the ice--a appropriate phrase for this time of the year.  My heart really wasn't in a note on the weather, so I was easily distracted by the turn of a phrase in my opening sentence. In the end, I ended up somewhat far afield. Fields have headlands too, by the way.