The American political scene has been dominated for decades by the two major parties--Democrats and Republicans. There is a long history of "third" or minor party involvement. During my lifetime, I've seen Benjamin Spock in 1972, Ross Perot in 1972, Ralph Nader in 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008, and Jill Stein 2012 and 2016. These campaigns were never given much heed, except in the role of potential spoiler. In the past week, we may have witnessed the beginning of a potential game-changer. The Green Party has filed a request for a recount of the presidential vote in Wisconsin and is reported that it will make similar requests in Michigan and Pennsylvania.

To date, a majority of the public, I presume, and I, most definitely, felt that a third party candidate had to win--at least a number of statewide elections--in order to have a substantive and identifiable impact on an election. The impact of these challenges may go far beyond that of a spoiler in an individual election year. The curtain may be drawn back, so to speak, on the general election process. The general public may well see it for what it is--a human invention with overlap, gaps, and other slippage in its implementation, if not design. There is historical evidence that the political elites in both major parties have made decisions to maintain the appearance of integrity in the system rather than to insure its validity in any individual election. There is Richard Nixon's loss to John Kennedy in 1960 and Al Gore's loss to George W. Bush in 2000. Even though these two examples aren't a mirror image of one another, in the end the apparent rightful loser capitulated publicly and with considerable magnanimity--"for the sake of the republic" or some similar wording.

Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign certainly challenged the political elites in both parties--the Republicans during the primary election and the Democrats during the presidential election. Those challenges were successful in his win of the nomination and may have contributed equally to his victory in the general election. Will the end result be the demise of the Republican Party as we have known it? Will the Democratic Party refashion itself based on its own autopsy of the 2016 presidential election? President-elect Trump effectively questioned the partisan politics we have come to know in recent decades. Now it appears to be Jill Stein's and the Green Party's turn to call into the question the very mechanism whereby we cast our votes for president and, by inference, all who serve in an elected office. Let us not forget that this recount comes on the heels of a federal court decision declaring the latest Wisconsin redistricting map unconstitutional, within the context of an ongoing challenge to Wisconsin's voter id legislation and a revised Wisconsin Elections Commission. On the national level, we have seen the impact of actual or alleged computer hacking and fake news stories. There are several moving parts within this scenario, several of which are clearly partisan.

What will we see once the curtain is drawn back on the internal workings of the voting process and mechanics? Does a legitimate validation process even exist? Or will there simply be an endless series of curtains to be drawn back one by one as slowly and undramatically as possible until the concerned parties and the public become exhausted with the process? If the political elites are in charge of the process, will they simply regroup a little further back of the new front lines to quickly and quietly build a new breastworks? I am suggesting that the partisan politics practiced by both Republicans and Democrats, which have become clearly evident during the past 18 months, have raised serious questions as to the integrity of those with whom we have entrusted with this process or those whom we have permitted to be in control of the process. The recounts will provide us with some evidence as to whether or not the system has the ability to validate itself and to self-correct, if necessary. Failure to do so, will only contribute to the distrust of the general population in the political process and further alienate and even enrage that population.

Maybe I am reading too much of Donald Puchala's work (Theory and History in International Relations) into the current American scene. His discussion of empires and the roles of political and commercial elites in both core and satellite states in their own seemingly inevitable demise is telling.

Earlier this month I was approached by a member of the local Explorer Troop who was participating in a popcorn fundraiser and who enticed me to participate as well. Answering the door in the late afternoon sun I opted for caramel corn, which was touted as top-of-the-line and which lightened my wallet by $20.00.

Earlier today the delivery was made. There was no armed guard to protect my purchase and insure safe delivery; there was no brown paper bag to disguise the purchase and safeguard against marauding bands of caramel corn snatchers; there was no squad car accompanying the delivery vehicle guarding against likely hijackers. What arrived was an 18 oz. bag of caramel corn and mixed nuts. (I am going with the labeling on the bag as I have yet to examine its contents.)

The nutrition data suggests that this bag contains 17 servings--not 18 single ounce servings, not 12 ounce and a half servings, not 6 three ounce servings, or even 10 $2.00 servings. How does not arrive at 17 servings in an 18 ounce bag? It doesn't even round off to a number that one might expect for calories per serving.

I guess this means that I will need to gather together 16 of my closest friends to join me in enjoying some caramel popcorn with mixed nuts. I suppose I will need to provide drinks plus a cheese and cracker tray so these friends don't leave hungrier than when they arrived and far less friendly.

Bottom line: $20.00 for Girl Scout cookies is beginning to look a lot better than a Black Friday doubly discounted price. Bring on the Samoas.

Here is an example of how our public discourse ought to transpire.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made a comment on Colin Kaepernick taking a knee during the national anthem. I was disappointed when I read her initial comments.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ruth-bader-ginsburg-colin-kaepernick_us_57fbb68de4b068ecb5e0613f

I was pleased to read the thoughtful response that Colin Kaepernick made in defense of his actions.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/10/11/colin-kaepernick-on-supreme-court-justices-criticism-disappointing/

Finally, Justice Ginsburg did a noble thing. I can only speculate that the tone and tenor of Colin Kaepernick's comments help prompt this rethink.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/10/14/ruth_bader_ginsburg_walks_back_criticism_of_colin_kaepernick.html

It is humanizing to know that a supreme court justice can fall afoul of the rule: "Make sure the brain is engaged, before opening mouth." It is reassuring to find evidence in our current public sphere that folks, even supreme court justices, are able to acknowledge that they spoke out of ignorance, with limited knowledge, or without forethought. Furthermore, the individual who was unduly criticized did not respond in kind, but took to heart the advice of the First Lady, that is, to "Go High."

Thank you, Ruth and Colin, for providing us with an excellent example.

Wisconsin is back in the national news when a federal judge recently issued an order with respect to the voter id legislation or photo id law. In lieu of issuing a decision that the law is unconstitutional, the courts, to date, have accepted repeated assurances from state authorities that they will promptly implement any number of fixes to which they have agreed under the risk of violation of a court order. The national news outlets have picked up on the latest failure of the state to implement the required remedies. It would appear that those in charge of implementing the required remedies and the remedies to which all parties agreed have decided that a delaying tactic is in their interests. As repeated noncompliance is brought to the attention of the courts and hearings scheduled, election day draws nearer and nearer. We are already in the period of early voting in some locales. Despite court rulings to the contrary, these delaying tactics will result in the very results sought by the framers of the voter id law. It will simply become too late for corrective action. A significant percentage of the voting public will be disenfranchised. It is estimated that 9% of Wisconsin voters do not have the required identification. Nine percentage translates to 300,000 voters. When one couples this tool for disenfranchisement with others: reduced voting hours/days, limited polling places, and gerrymandered electoral districts, the cumulative impact of these seemingly incremental measures may have a significant impact on the upcoming elections within the state. This impact was designed and implemented by those with the power to do so and with the intent of solidifying their position by reducing the ability of the voter to hold them accountable and subject them to review via the ballot box. The federal courts appear to be the only source of corrective action to eliminate this threat to representative democracy within the state of Wisconsin.

Some days it feels good to walk in the rain. In this regards, this summer has not been wanting. This morning was no exception. I left the house for my morning walk under overcast skies and little threat of rain, in my judgment at least. This meant that the rain jacket had been left hanging by the laundry tub where it was left to dry off following a recent rainy walk. I imagine I could revert back to those several months spent in San Antonio, Texas. The requirement those days was to go about one's day--irrespective of the appearance of the sky--with a poncho rolled up and secured to the back of the belt with a couple of blousing rubbers. (I will have to come up with an alternative to a blousing rubber, because only one has survived several moves over the past 45 years and counting.)

Those rainy mornings when I do leave the house with the rain jacket, it can often mean that it is discarded as an article of clothing sometime during the walk. Without the requisite blousing rubbers or alternatives, I am left to carry it civilian style in one free hand. (I am not inclined to wear it as a backwards apron with the sleeves knotted in front.)

With 6:00AM temperatures approaching 70 degrees, I am inclined to just leave the rain jacket at the house. It just feels good to walk in the rain--not threatening, threatening, or underway. Sooner or later my walk always ends up  at the house, so I can change into dry clothes. It would be much different, if I had to spend the next few hours soaked through while trying to accomplish something meaningful other that the remainder of my morning walk. This morning I was offered a ride by a neighbor returning home from his morning coffee and the loan of an umbrella by another neighbor, who was returning home by car from his morning walk with his dog. The latter offered the companionship of a wet dog as well. I declined all three.

If I have any regrets, it would be not accepting the companionship of Maggie, the Yellow Lab. I was faced with a conundrum. Rosie, the Black Lab, had met me at the corner of 9th and Manypenny as I headed out on my walk. I rejected her offer to join me. She was still in the immediate area when I returned and was met with the offer of Maggie's companionship. Rosie would have known, if I hooked up with a relatively new canine neighbor, and had once more rejected her offer.

I hadn't planned to transition into a discussion of wet dogs when I started this post. Maybe it isn't a transition at all. Dogs do appear to be downright comfortable in the rain. Maybe there is one more thing that I and dogs have in common and with Labs in particular. 

There has been an interesting development on the subject of gender theory or gender identity since my post of August 4th. An article appeared in Crux reporting on Pope Francis' recent meeting with Polish bishops during World Youth Day.  The article claims scientific support for Pope Francis' position on gender theory or gender identity and cites recent published statements by the American College of Pediatricians in evidence.

Here is a link to the article: https://cruxnow.com/commentary/2016/08/09/pediatricians-back-pope-francis-gender-theory/

At first flush this appears to be good science and good reporting. Upon a closer look, a very different assessment can be made. The American College of Pediatricians (ACP) is estimated to have between 60 and 200 members and according to one of its founding members adheres to "traditional Judeo-Christian values" (Wikipedia). The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) with a membership of 64,000 members (Wikipedia) has published several position papers on human sexuality and sexual development with significant differences with the ACP. Several of the AAP positions are nuanced with an eye towards the developmental nature of human knowledge and therefore do not include definitive, closed-to-further-discussion claims of authority. The AAP makes such statements as: gender identity is "likely both biological and social," "All children need the opportunity to explore different gender roles..." For the science to guide me in my work, I will go with the more inclusive body, whose findings are consistent with in the much larger medical and science communities.

It is estimated that 1 in 2,000 children are born with genitals that are not clearly male or female, i.e. identifiable as male or female (AAP's website). Let's extrapolate the numbers. With approximately 4,000,000 live births each year in the U.S., that means there are approximately 2,000 children born each year who may be described as intersex. With a life expectancy of almost 80 years, there are some 160,000 intersex persons within the U.S. population at any one time. Despite claims to the contrary, the binary chromosomal classification of XX and XY does not encompass the full universe of human persons. The continua of hormonal levels and other identifiable sexual characteristics within the male population and the female population and the overlap of these continua need to be addressed in theory and practice as well. Sexual orientation provides additional material to be accounted for in theory and practice. What is the final accounting of the percentage of the U.S. population which does not fit into the strict binary definition proposed by the ACP? I don't know. But it certainly is significant, in my judgment, both in terms of the sheer numbers of folks, as well as in the individual right to a fullness of life.

It seem as if there are those among us who wish to return to a previous time and place, where those individuals, who did not fit into a binary heterosexual view of human persons, were considered freaks of nature whether or not a more euphemistic term was employed. The effort to resist such a retreat or even to refuse to settle for the status quo is a fight worth waging.

In closing, I have a word of advice for Thomas D. Williams, the author of the Crux article: do your homework. The American College of Pediatricians has been identified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Mr. Williams may not agree with this designation; it is of such significance, it merits comment when he presents the ACP as a source and resource. The failure to take five minutes to check one's sources might mean that someday an excommunicated Holocaust denying bishop could be welcomed back into the Church. Wait a minute! We have already been there.

For sometime now I have been trying to compose a posting on the subject of gender theory. It is time to try and to keep it brief.

There are those who hold to a strict binary view of human sexuality, that is, heterosexual males and heterosexual females. My personal and professional experience is that the binary view fails to take into account much of genuine human experience both on the individual level and within the context of a social cultural community. One may not agree with the behavioral choices made by another person, society or culture, but one cannot always dispute the sincerity of the other and the functionality of those choices often over millennia.

The charge of ideological colonization is made against those who offer a gender theory different from the strict binary view. Is it not also ideological colonization when one insists that his/her conceptualization of human nature and sexuality is contextually free, cultural universal, and permanently valid and that a single set of such concepts is the pinnacle of human perfection and intelligence? That insistence is then followed by employing or attempting to employ any number of authorities and mechanisms to insure that one interpretation of what it is to be human delegitimizes all others.

In my most recent post I spoke of anticipating Michael Perry's tribute to Gene Logsdon within the week. That estimate of the wait morphed into some two months, but the tribute has now appeared. 

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/columnists/michael-perry/michael-perry-remembering-the-contrary-farmer/article_50824b0a-195f-56a7-890c-e528d2c0a8c0.html

I may have grown tired of the wait and may have even lost faith in my judgment that such a tribute would appear. Patience, my man. I have not been disappointed. Michael's account of his relationship with Gene over the years has me asking if I missed opportunity along the way. Gene did respond to the one and only comment I posted to one of his blog entries a few years back--my fleeting touch with greatness.

It is late morning and the in-house chores are complete. It appears that the rains forecast for today will arrive before the lawn will be freed from last night's dew. This guesstimate rules out the task of mowing the lawn at least for today. With some free time on my hands and more out of a need for remembrance, I have decided to attempt a blog entry--the first in some time. But I don't have to tell you that.

Yesterday, I learned that Gene Logsdon passed away on May 31st. Gene has written a weekly blog under the title of "The Contrary Farmer" for several years with a new entry appearing on Wednesday of each week. I have followed this blog for a few years. It has been an entertaining, informative, and thought provoking read. I figured any author, who can convince a mainstream publisher to publish a book titled Holy Shit, is worth reading on that basis alone.

Gene's last blog entry was posted on May 25th and was on the topic of gardening in the nude and rhubarb. One or both of these subjects has to rank up there in the top ten of tombstone epitaphs. I am sure neither will appear on Mr. Logsdon's tombstone, but they can be marked as the man's last words in the e-edition.

Yesterday in Gene's memory, I cooked up a small batch of rhubarb sauce, transplanted Marigolds and a single parsley plant in the flower bed, and made up a few pots of Impatiens to add a bit of color to the deck. Let me assure you that I kept my clothes on while completing these tasks. Remembrance or not, the urge to disrobe was not a part of this ritual event. Just in case, there is a gardener or two out there, who reads this entry, the flower bed has full sun and the deck has full shade. This should explain my choice of cultivars.

I have a neighbor, who writes a weekly column for the local paper. His column appears on Thursday having been submitted to the editor early in the week. This week's topic was rhubarb. There was no mention of nudity or clothing, so I will assume that all the actors cited by Howard were fully clothed and not harmed in anyway in the making of this week's column.

I am looking forward to Michael Perry's column in next week's edition of the Wisconsin State Journal. I suspect that he will also have something to say on Gene Logsdon passing. His comments will be far better crafted than mine. I am sure he will fold a bit of wry or not so wry humor into a more serious note.

The following is a quote from an article in the April 9th edition of the National Catholic Reporter. The article is titled: "Why is the Catholic church moving away from just war theory?" Its author is Terrence Rynne.

"...The just war theory, on the other hand, ignores the New Testament. It is an ethical discipline that came to us from the "pagan" Cicero by way of St. Augustine. It approaches the problem of war and violence using natural law thinking and does not measure up to the call to positive peacemaking that we find in the New Testament."

This is a radical re-conceptualization of human conflict, and it will be even more radical if it moves forward. It is radical in the root meaning of the word in that it strikes at the very foundation from which the theory arises. If the former foundation is removed and replaced with a substantially and substantively different foundation, we will end up in a very different place by a very different route.

Re-evaluation and refinement of the just war theory with the possibility of outright replacement may be but one moral principle requiring such a review and examination.  So much of the Church's thinking on Natural Law and the use of a Natural Law argument in support of moral thinking and decision making rests on pre-Christian philosophers and medieval science. It is well past the time to use New Testament teachings as the basis for Christian morality. Is it not also time to move forward and incorporate the knowledge and science acquired by the human community over the past millennium into those contemporary principles guiding individual and corporate acts of and by the members of this same community?

Maybe it is time for the U.S. political scene to give birth to a third or even a fourth political party.

I will propose a different, maybe even skewed, take on the 2016 races for the parties' presidential nominations. Both parties have traditionally pursued the "bigger tent" road to victory. Each has tried to attract an increasingly larger proportion of the voting public. In the attempt to accomplish this objective, each party's message has become more and more dilute on one hand and more and more strident on the other. The very real doublespeak that results may have worked in another time and place. Currently there are too many video cameras, cell phones, social media, search-able databases and other technologies available so that it is impossible to maintain the secrecy of narrowly focused utterances. (Think of M. Romney's 47% comment.) As these technologies have disclosed duplicity on the part of the current political leadership, they have also provided a vehicle whereby those disillusioned and disenfranchised are able to communicate and collaborate.

As the "bigger tent" efforts become effective, it makes for stranger and stranger bedfellows, who may share a common language of politics but a very different political reality. This difference often only becomes available when a particular party assumes leadership on the national or state scene and then proceeds to legislate in response to the interests of a narrow subset of the public which voted it into power. This may be particularly true for the Republican party, but my position is that the Democratic party has performed in like fashion.

It certainly is attractive to work within the two party system and attempt to take over one or the other party. There is all this political infrastructure in place; there is a history or hagiography for which to feel some allegiance and affection. Furthermore, we all want to believe that there is at least a modicum of sincerity in the utterances of each party's leadership as they pursued to date the goal of a "bigger tent." It is time to at least consider to stop doing the same thing that we have been doing for 50 years and to expect a different outcome this time. The U.S. society is too diverse to be divided into a two-piece pie. More pieces to the pie will mean that more folks can eat pie, that is, have their interests more clearly and vigorously represented. A substantive third or fourth party movement will immediately dilute the power of the Republican and Democratic parties. Politics will become the art of the possible and a negotiated resolution of divergent interests. This effort will not be successful without considerable time, effort, and sacrifice. There will be forces that will directly and indirectly work to thwart any movement towards a third or fourth party. Current actors will restate old promises ("It will be different this time.") and, when that doesn't work, will throw up barriers to any upstart political organization.

It is time to think such thoughts and to give voice to such ideas.

So Michael Hayden, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, has decided to take a reading on his moral compass as he speculates about the choices that could be made in the event that there is a President Trump. In a recent news interview, he spoke of the lack of legal cover in the statement "I was just following orders." All actors up and down the chain of command must distinguish between lawful and unlawful orders and bear individual legal responsibility for any and all actions. In the event, that a President Trump governs like he campaigns, Mr. Hayden spoke with certainty that staff of any of a number of federal agencies will be faced with the necessity of choosing to follow lawful orders and refusing to follow unlawful orders.

My question is: Where was Mr. Hayden and his voice to this sentiment during the past 15 years when there was a discussion of and a use of extraordinary renditions, enhanced interrogation techniques, and unlawful/enemy/unlawful enemy combatants? There were multiple claims of presidential findings and Department of Justice opinions in support of actions taken. In retrospect much of that support was indicative of 1984 newspeak, or should I say politic-speak or moralistic doublespeak. Possibly, it is only in retrospect that folks like Mr. Hayden have come to their senses. I certainly hope there are more than just Mr. Hayden. Maybe it is recent news accounts of the extradition of South American military officers who are now being held accountable for actions taken 40 years ago or the trials of concentration camp staff some 70 years after the fact. There is a substantial body of law where there is no statute of limitations.

No one has the luxury of determining the rectitude of an action the "morning after." That determination must be made going in, up front, or in the heat of the moment. There may be extenuating circumstances, but an exculpatory claim can not be legitimately made in any event.

This past week I have found it necessary to keep the dictionary close at hand. Rather than occupying its regular position on the book shelf, it has taken up residence on my desk. In the past, Michael Perry's weekly column in the Wisconsin State Journal frequently contained a vocabulary gem which required a dictionary aside as I read his column. One of his more recent gems--zerk--I was able to handle without recourse to the dictionary. That is just as well since zerk is not in my Webster's New World Dictionary (the third college edition).

Such was not the case with three other unfamiliar terms I encountered this week. These include: treacly, galluses, and skrill. The latter two result in a spell check alert; that is indicative of something. The first two are in my dictionary; the third is not. An on-line dictionary of American slang came to my rescue. I suspect that I will not make use of any of these three words within the foreseeable future or any time between today and my dying day. I am quite certain that I will not encounter any of them in spoken or written communication during much this same time period. I have access to handy alternatives--saccharine, suspenders or braces, and frog-skins--which won't send my fellow readers and conversationalists in search of the closest dictionary. Having access to that on-line dictionary of slang may continue to be helpful.

I will probably not have a use for zerk either, since the bearings in the mechanical devices I encounter these days are sealed and permanently lubricated. But. I would recognize one, if I saw one. And. I don't own a grease gun (neither the real kind, nor the slang kind), so I couldn't do anything about a zerk, if I saw one.