I fully realize that the question I am about to pose may easily become the poster child for the esoteric question of the month, but I shall proceed even in face of that threat.

Is "pro multis" the new "filioque?"

For several years now, the phrase "pro multis," which is found in the liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church, was translated into English and several other European languages as "for all." This translation dates to the 1960's with the introduction of the vernacular following the Second Vatican Council. During the past decade, there has been an increasingly assertive effort to translate this phrase as "for many." This later translation has become the sanctioned version as the Church hierarchy struggles to standardize the translation into European languages including English.

As this discussion is played out on the stage of the Roman Catholic Church and within the Catholic press, I am reminded of an earlier dispute over a phrase and a thousand years of irreconcilable differences. The First Council of Nicaea in 325AD established the form for the Profession of Faith, which became known as the Nicene Creed. It was later amended by the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. Late in the sixth century, the phrase "filioque" or "from the son" was added by Latin speaking churches. In 1054, it was formally incorporated into the Creed to be used within the Latin Rite or Roman Catholic Church. The dispute, which resulted from this unilateral revision by one branch of Christendom, resulted in the Schism of 1054. This is essentially a revision of text and not a revision of theology. This division between the Western and Orthodox churches persists to this day. Ingrained in almost 1,000 years of history, it appears that it will persist another 1,000 years.

I find it difficult to understand how a sound theological basis can be offered in defense of the correctness of the "for many" and the error of the "for all." The four gospels have difference versions of these words. Scholars are of the opinion that the Latin language does not differentiate between the phrase "for all" and "for many." One also needs to remember that Latin is the third or more translation of the original allegedly spoken by Christ. If the Christian message has any universality, then "for all" would certainly seem to be preferred.

I realize this is but one example of the dynamic equivalent vs. literal interpretation dispute within the Catholic Church which is approaching something akin to a Fifty Year War and which promises little more than mutually assured destruction or an arms' race which consumes precious resources much in demand elsewhere.

I recently finished reading Christopher Hitchens' last book, Mortality, which was written during the nineteen months between his diagnosis with esophageal cancer and his death.

I found several quotes well worth the effort of jotting down.

"...body turns from being a friend to being a foe:..." (p. 40)

"...I don't have a body, I am a body." (p. 41)

"...in this year of living dyingly..." (p. 54)

"...every passing day represents more and more relentlessly subtracted from less and less." (p. 71)

"Body turns from a reliable friend to more neutral treacherous foe..." (p. 91)

I read this book as a family member/caregiver of one, as Christopher is wont to say, "living dyingly" and engaged in "a long and brave struggle with mortality," rather than as more commonly stated "living with cancer" and "battling cancer." I prefer Christopher's choice of words.

When is a promise not a promise?

When it is a statement of intent cloaked as a promise.

The appearance of a promise don't always communicate that which it may appear to communicate.

Appearances can be deceiving or misconstrued.

Exercise caution.

Take care.

Promises made yesterday may be kept tomorrow or in the days after tomorrow.
An optimistic stance may best be coupled with a ready proactive component.

Some days the only take home is an honest effort.
And that effort isn't always mine.

A friend gave me a copy of Jon Meacham's book entitled Thomas Jefferson, The Art of Power. I am finding it a slow read as it is taking more and more self-encouragement to keep moving through it. I am some 350 pages into 514 pages of text. A friend pointed out that the book includes 215 pages of notes and bibliography--clear evidence that it is a scholarly piece. There are ever so frequent citations of letters and other works written by Jefferson and his contemporaries. I am beginning to think I could use a Dictionary and Grammar of Colonial English to more fully understand the text. It reminds me of reading Shakespeare, where the text would be annotated with definitions and translations into contemporary English.

I will return to T.J., but for now I am tackling Wendell Berry's The Art of the Common Place, which is a collection of his agrarian essays edited by Norman Wirbza.  The Big Question in much of the conservation literature is "Why wilderness?" Aldo Leopold, Sig Olson, and Edwin Dahlberg have all answered this question in their own way. Wendell Berry offers a perspective I have not seen any where else.

Here is an excerpt from Berry's essay entitled "A Native Hill."
"I come into a wild place. ... Sometimes I can no longer think in the house or in the garden or in the cleared fields. They bear too much resemblance to our failed human history—failed, because it has led to this human present that is such bitterness and a trial. And so I go to the woods. … I enter an order that does not exist outside, in human spaces. … I am less important than I thought, the human race is less important than I thought. I rejoice in that."

These words made me think of why it might be that I take comfort in sitting on the edge of really big water. There is water all the way to the horizon except where it is interrupted by heights of land on islands at varying distances. My field of vision excludes any and all visible evidence of human activity. My field of vision encompasses only "a wild place." In the hours of the early morning there are few if any sounds of human activity to my rear that encroach in and upon this scene and its impact on my senses. It is in this place that I realize that I am not all that important. The lake has done and will continue to do very well without me. Should the lake rise up on its own accord as it is wont to do, I have had and will continue to have clear evidence of my powerlessness. The lake is peaceful and caring, as well as violent and deadly. These descriptors in all their breadth and width and physical manifestations enjoy absolute moral impunity. Qualifiers, such as "good," "bad," and "no-never-mind," simply do not apply and can not be made to apply. It is in such a wild place that I learn who I am and have the occasion to rejoice modeling the example of Wendell Berry.

Victory may not be a possibility.

Honor is always possibility,

even in the face of abject failure.

And then, it is no longer abject failure. 

Dear Senator Ron Johnson,

Earlier today you asked a reporter, "What should he have said?" when the reporter asked about the appropriateness of President Trump's recent comments on the tragedy in Charlottesville, VA. I suspect that you posed the question as a rhetorical question, not wanting an answer, and as an attempt to cut off further discussion, that is, to give the appearance of a response to the question without answering the question.

I will answer your question, rhetorical or not. What the president should have said and what YOU NEED TO SAY, "There is absolutely no moral equivalency between those who advocate for the supremacy of one race, ethnic group, or religion over another and those who advocate for universal civil rights, equal standing before the law, and equal treatment by all agents and agencies within civil society. Any claim to the contrary must be challenged directly and forthrightly."

By the way, you have my permission to use my suggested statement without crediting me in any way.

J. Keye

Anger 

is not my Friend,

nor is

Bitterness.

I've been thinking about cancer a lot lately. I was recently reminded of the alternative conceptualization of the relationship between the human body and cancer. The following link served as one more and the latest reminder.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/21/opinions/cancer-is-not-a-war-jardin-opinion/index.html

Most often the model described is one of an invasion, an assault, a battle, or a series of battles, a war. There is much about that model which doesn't quite fit with everyone's experienced reality of cancer or even the technology employed to reduce or eliminate its growth within and spread throughout the body. Most cancers are not the result of a external cause usually associated with an illness or disease, such as a bacteria, virus, or some other micro-organism. It appears to me that the language of "disease" and "illness" does not apply in this context.

So what does apply? Maybe condition is the best word, as in, the conditional nature of some of the body's cells.

Most cancers are a result of the body's cells going rogue--an aberration in cell division/replication. The cause or correlation may be no more than physical aging out, the impact of a teratogen, or a genetic anomaly. Once in place, that characteristic rogueness is passed on in the process of cell division. The various forms of cancer treatment--cytotoxins, immuno-therapies, and radiation therapy--focus on cells with certain characteristics of cell division/replication and/or the very process of cell division/replication in attempt to arrest, in whole or in part, the continuation of that process.

So what does this all mean? Cancer has much in common with other conditions which may prove to be life threatening or even terminal--not unlike diabetes. Such conditions are more properly managed than treated with "cure" as an intended and stated goal. Cancer is not my enemy. It is part of me, of someone I love, of a friend or acquaintance, or a fellow earthly traveler. It may not be all that different from eye or hair color, the presence or absence of hair when one is my age, height, or the abundance of or the lack of prowess for the game of basketball.

I am not here to fashion the most effective ad campaign for the American Cancer Society or draft the most viable rationale for a cancer research grant. I am here trying to make my own sense of the past seven years and the times that lie ahead.

Note: My apologies, in advance, to the microbiologists out there.

The popularity of the bagel has clearly gone mainstream. It wasn't always so. Here is an account of my history with the bagel.

In the mid-70's, my first job out of graduate school was as medical social worker at Mt. Sinai Hospital in Milwaukee, WI. Those were the days before it transitioned to Mt. Sinai Medical Center only later to evolve through a series of restructurings and retitlings. One benefit of being a hospital employee is access to the employee cafeteria. This meant good hospital food at a reasonable price along with ready availability should some type of code be called during one's scheduled lunch. (I do not intend "good hospital food" to be read as an oxymoron.)

This was my introduction to bagels and bialys; it is the only place where I have experienced that distinction and where the two were served side by side. The two share a similar appearance and origin (Both are of Polish origin. Thanks, Wikipedia.), but are quite different, when one moves beyond appearance. The bagel is boiled before it is baked. The bialy is only baked. I always preferred the latter with butter and jam. It was several years before I eased into my current preference of cream cheese and jam. I am still very much a novice; I have not had a bagel or a bialy with "lox und schmear." I would certainly be willing to give it a go, that would entail a trip to a Jewish deli. And I'm okay with that as well. Road trip?

A brief on-line search reveals there is a third option, that is, the commercially prepared bagel. Commercial production does not involve the two-step process of boil and bake. What is sold commercially as a bagel is baked in an oven equipped with a steam injection system reducing the two-step process to a single step. In texture, consistency, taste, etc. I would place this commercial product somewhere between a traditional bagel and a bialy.  Why was bagel chosen for its nomenclature? Thus far, my search provides no answer.

For now I am at home with this young upset brought on by commercialization. Bagels Forever is part of any trip to Madison, WI. A still warm sesame seed bagel topped with a flavored cream cheese is my favorite. The frozen product from the same point of origin and available in the local market is a tease, at best. For now, I will allow myself to be teased.

On a recent Saturday morning as a friend and I were enjoying a breakfast of oatmeal with brown sugar and raisins in the company of a toasted English muffin, we were briefly joined by a friend of my breakfast companion and a bit of an acquaintance of mine. TG had to update his friend on his recent sailing adventure. The update focused on an episode within the larger adventure; we were privy only to the episode and not the larger adventure. It is not clear what that says about the larger adventure in which this episode was embedded.

Captain TG was shuttling a sailboat back to its home port. The sail took several days. On the first day out and after the boat had been docked for the night, the steward went ashore and proceeded to get very drunk. Details of the captain's evening and that of the remainder of the crew were not shared with us. We can only speculate as to their activities or the lack thereof. The steward returned to the boat and proceeded to spend the next day and a half in her berth. This left the crew without a proper mess for a time. Captain TG was eventually able to adequately motivate the steward so that, once she was sufficiently sober, she was able to set a proper mess. A proper mess was served for the balance of the voyage.

As sailors are want to do, shore leave, alcohol and tattoos often come together in some sort of package deal.This steward was special; reportedly she travels with her own tattoo gun. She is working on a pair of sleeves. Now, it is customary that when one is working on either a single sleeve or a pair, the tattoo recipient and the tattoo artist are not one and the same person. The steward was in the process of doing her own sleeves. This is not quite the same as making your clothes versus buying off the rack. Captain TG described how the artwork on the left arm was quite professionally done, whereas the artwork on the right arm was barely amateurish. It was clear that the steward, despite being a reasonably good cook, was not ambidextrous.

Captain TG, being his usual kinetic self, slipped away into and through the crowd of the other diners in the restaurant, before either of us could ask for clarification or further detail. Therefore, I was not able to ask the question that came to mind. I wanted to ask Captain TG if he got any sleep on this trip. I thought he may have been afraid to close both eyes as long as there was a hung-over and cussed out steward with a tattoo gun on board ship. My question will have to wait. Captain TG kept his shirt on during our brief encounter. It is really any one's guess what he might see the next time he is standing in front of a mirror with his shirt off.

What would be the proper subject matter for a hung-over and cussed out tattoo artist's work on a sleeping captain? A ship in a bottle? A portrait of six of the cutest little kittens ever? Twelve women's names with X's through eleven? Whatever it is, I certainly hoped she held the gun in her right hand.

sometimes

there is 

that thing inside

demanding

its own voice 

rock 'n' roll

be that voice 

heralded with

an opening

power chord

windmilled

Special Thanks,

Link Wray

and

Pete Townshend.

I am pleased that Anthony Scaramucci is no longer White House Communications Director. His termination was allegedly due, in part, to his obscene tirade of last week.

For several days, what commentators referred to as "barnyard talk" was minimized, excused, and discounted by various talking heads. I have been around a few barnyards in my day and haven't heard the likes of the Mooch's rampage. Some of the talking heads rationalized it as common New York City speech. I haven't been to NYC, so I can't vouch for them. This was akin to the "typical locker room banter" description applied to then candidate Donald Trump's recounting his interpersonal style and techniques.

It wasn't until I was in basic training compliments of the Selective Service System, a local draft board, and the US Army that I heard anything akin to Trump-Scaramucci emotive speech. Even then some of the vocabulary was foreign to me. Over the period of my enlistment, simple repetition proved to be helpful on that score.

How is it then that it took a general to blow away all the excuses, rationalization, and ethical bobbing and weaving? And say, "That won't do; you're out of here!"

My thanks and appreciation to General Kelly.

Last week proved to be a difficult week. As it drew to a close, a late breakfast or lunch out seemed to be in order. (I don't have very many resources held in reserve these days.) My wife turned down each and every invitation. Sunday morning it was different, I got an acceptance on church attendance and a late breakfast out.

Now that the week and the weekend are behind me, and I have had time to reflect, I have come to the conclusion that acceptance of my invitations might be dependent upon my ability to wrestle a double date with Jesus.

So, you ask "Who was Jesus' date?" I really don't know so I can't really say, but I can assure you, she was an absolute angel.

I would like to coin a new word: roadlessness. It appears most commonly as an adjective, simply as roadless, in its use within conservation circles, such as in "roadless wilderness areas." The first roadless wilderness area was established in 1924 by the U.S. Forest Service in southwest New Mexico. As a U.S. Forest Service employee, Aldo Leopold was instrumental in the development of the concept and its initial implementation. My purpose in coining this new word is to be able to speak of roadlessness as an essential component of wilderness and not simply as a descriptive characteristic or quality of a wilderness tract within which all motorized travel is not permitted. The core element of roadlessness is the complete absence of motorized vehicles of any number, size, and configuration. Pristine wilderness areas are not without roads in their own right, such as game trails, the migratory routes of prehistoric and native peoples, and the very lay of the land itself.

A Google search for roadlessness results in a few hits, most of which are for various on-line dictionaries. The term appears to have been used in a few U.S. Forest Service publications. My claim to coinage may have been premature. If that be so, I make a claim to encourage its common usage and expanded meaning. One Google hit was Tom Turner's 2009 book, Roadless Rules, where Roadlessness is the title of one chapter, and curiously, the word appears no where else in the entire chapter.

The local library provided me with a copy of the collected works of a Canadian outdoor writer, Andy Russell. The book is titled Wild Country, The Best of Andy Russell. I was struck by an observation made by the editor in the introduction which cited a pivotal event in the life of Russell, that is, the establishment of roads within Canada's public lands and the Province of Alberta, in particular. Road building on public lands in the 1950's was an occasion for Andy Russell to rethink his lifestyle and enterprises and to significantly alter both. After I read this brief reference to the very opposite of roadlessness, I found myself thinking of works and authors where I have previously encountered discussions of the intrusiveness of roads in public lands. As I pulled a few volumes off my book shelf and reviewed the notes of other reads, I was struck by the timeframe during which this concept entered the outdoor and conservation literature. It was early in the 20th century. I suspect that it coincides with the rise of automobile ownership within the general population.

I offer the following list of authors by way of history and background and as my inspiration to coin a new word and/or encourage its common usage.
     Edwin Dahlberg, 1882 - 1971
     Aldo Leopold, 1887 - 1948
     Sigurd Olson, 1899 - 1982
     Eric Morse, 1904 - 1986
     Andy Russell, 1915 - 2005
     Mark Spragg, 1952
     Philip Connors, 1972 (?)
Looking at these birth years, I am struck with how quickly the automobile was seen as posing a critical impact on wilderness. The majority of these folks were contemporaries of one another, although I doubt that they all were personal acquaintances of one another. (My brief list is in no way intended to be complete, by any means or measure.)

I will grant you there may well have been and continue to be considerable nostalgia for the old ways among this group of folks, but there was also a keen insight into where things were headed and how important it was to let some places just be--places where man travels afoot, on horseback, or by paddle and portage.  Roadlessness is essential to the preservation of the ecosystem--the natural community of flora and fauna within their particular geography. These are places that move in geological epochs and evolutionary eras, where we get to experience our own vulnerability and ever so short season on this earth. Where else do we learn that we have more in common with annual grasses and flowering plants than with perennials and even less with that which sustains itself and all else?

There remain those times that, even at 71 years of age, I find myself in situations pondering the question "Just what rule applies here?"

The situation is in reference to counter seating, as in restaurant lunch counter, and applicable to all meals and ever so brief repasts taken in this setting. My observation is that folks always leave at least one stool in between themselves and patrons already in situ. Rule One can be stated as "One or more vacant stools shall remain between individual patrons." An exception is when two or more folks are a party of sorts and then side by side seating is permissible.

Rule Two comes into play when there are insufficient empty stools and Rule One cannot be applied. Before taking an adjourning stool, the expectation is that new arrival asks "Is this place taken?" One does not ask "May I join you?" The latter question may assume or presume a level of engagement beyond a common activity in a shared space and more of a shared activity in a common space. Such engagement may follow simple co-presence, but it is impolite to couch one's request in the terms of a pick-up line, albeit veiled, thinly or otherwise. Rule Two can be stated as "Ask prior permission before occupying an adjourning stool." A Sub-rule to Rule Two is that the new arrival is to select an empty stool next to an individual of the same gender. If that is not possible and the only available stools are next to individuals of an alternate gender, then select a stool next to the individual who appears to be in a party of sorts thus allowing for their safety in numbers.

There is also a Rule Three, commonly called The Good Morning Rule, which applies when taking a stool next to an individual with whom one has some familiarity. The new arrival simply establishes occupancy accompanied by the usual sound effects to make one's presence known, a proverbial knock on the door. The appropriate time of day greeting follows. A quick mutual assessment of the tone indicates to the co-seaters what will follow--quiet or conversation. One individual may throw out a teaser line referencing the weather--current or forecast. The response or lack of a response from the other sets the mood and/or tone--quiet or conversational.

Even with the best of intentions with the goal of living the self-examined life to the fullest, these situations are wrought with potential and actualized errors. Not everyone knows these rules, nor is everyone conscientious in applying them. Finally, there are folks whose primary objective is not a bit of nutritional sustenance, but the maximization of the opportunity to mingle--social sustenance. When faced with a rule violation in such a situation, a call to 911 is inappropriate. At these times, it is best to reach back, find the necessary reserves to push through the next 30 or 45 minutes and focus on your cold toast.

From a very small sample size, I have reason to believe that these same or very similar rules apply to bar stools. From my limited experience, I have found that there is a greater propensity for conversation over quiet between occupants of bar stools. I have heard talk that couched or thinly veiled pick-up lines are more acceptable in the bar context or, at least, a lot more common. Humor is frequently employed as a test or teaser line. The topic of Bar Rules, as an ancillary set of Stool Rules and their additional Sub-rules, warrant further study and, hopefully, clarification.

The house kitty corner across the street is for sale and has been for a number of months. Either I am curious or simply have too much time on my hands, I have been taking note of folks who stop by to take a look. Some are escorted by one of the local real estate agents; others appear to be "just looking" as they walk the yard. A third group is even more subtle; these folks slowly drive by and turn onto the side street (The house sits on a corner lot.) to get the view from another perspective and determine if the property has a possible "better side." The boldest of these drivers-by may even turn into the alley for a third point of view.

I try to get some idea of the particular folks looking the place over and who must might be a potential purchaser and eventual new neighbor. There are out-of-state and in-state license plates among the visitors. The vehicles, for the most part, are quite modest. If there has been a Corvette or a Hummer among those stopping by, I have missed them. The visitors/interested parties/prospective buyers range in age from young adults to well matured adults. There also has been apparent off-spring of these folks some of which are of the teenage variety.

After who, the question becomes why. Is the occupant-to-be intending to make this their primary residence or will it become a part-time residence or second home? The second home option raises an additional question: will the house be part of the local short-term rental market? Will it appear in the Airbnb system?

My speculation has me favoring year-a-around owner occupancy with the addition of children and pets. I won't speculate about the probability of a backyard chicken coop, but I won't rule it out either. My quick read of the city ordinance on the subject of animals would allow for the keeping of fowl as long as they are not at large. There is a reference to "barking dogs and crying cats," but no mention of noisy roosters or fowl without noting gender.

More questions come to mind:
What will be the new owner's personal philosophy with respect to the proper maintenance height of grass and the insistence mono-culture over vari-culture lawns?

What are the personally acceptable outside dates for the display of outside Christmas/Holiday lights and decorations? Will their tastes tend towards the minimalist or the extravagant? Will they be even more discrete and limit themselves to interior decorations? Will they be non-celebrants of this or other holidays? (There is, in fact, a city ordinance which stipulates that "holiday lighting" is exempt from provisions of the ordinance between November 30th and January 30th. That destroys my argument that fireworks are holiday lighting. Or are they permitted during that 62 day window?)

Are they dog or cat people? Inside or outside? Big dogs or not so big? (I don't size cats.)

When the realtor and any prospective buyers are around, I try to maintain a low profile staying inside and away from the windows. I don't want to negatively influence the decisions of these folks. They will have to make their call based on externals, that is, the appearance of my place, as to whether or not they would like to buy a home in my neighborhood. They can fantasize about who might live in that red house kitty corner across the street from the one they are considering. If they should find out they are wrong at some future date, they have only their fantasy to blame. My rationale will be that I have enough difficulty living up to my own self image, let alone trying to fulfill some one's fantasy.

By the way, my lawn mowing philosophy is medium height with regular mowing.

I have a bit of a follow-up to offer to my post of July 20th, where I brought up the notion of the inappropriateness of humor within the context of commentary on our current political scene.

I have noticed a change of tone in Garrison Keillor's recent columns. They appear on occasion in the New York Times and more regularly in the Reader, the free paper out of Duluth, MN. (The Reader offers itself as "The Best Paper Money Can't Buy.") Traditionally, Garrison has employed humor in his critique of and comment on imagined as well as real events--be they based in Lake Wobegon or Washington, DC. Recent columns appear to have set aside the humor. The Reader's by-line may be telling; Garrison is described as a "columnist, radio host, and author." Wikipedia continues to describe Garrison as an "American author, storyteller, humorist, voice actor, and radio personality."
(Emphasis added.)

Rather than the use of humor for diversion or a satirical critique, Garrison quietly offers an alternate focus by way of counterbalance to the chaos in the enterprise of politics and governance. He celebrates communities marked by civility, compassion, and diversity as he writes of the summer solstice in Norway or summertime travel in New York City subways. We are challenged to reach for our better selves enriching our lives and the lives of those around us by celebrating the diversity of thought, political identity, ethnicity, race, geography, and socio-economics present in our national and international communities. We are asked to take note of the goodness that surrounds us, the capacity for resilience and repentance--the former always a good thing--the latter when appropriate. We avoid mocking the sickness present in certain spheres. We get on with healing--doing right by folks.

The summer of 2017 marks a return to a former practice and a re-found disregard for marauding black bears. After a few years of absence, the hummingbird and thistle feeders are back up. There were a few nights early on when I took the thistle feeder in at dark and put it back out in the morning. I no longer bother. I haven't seen any bear activity in the immediate neighborhood. The next-door neighbor has a dumpster, which would seem to be a prime target in the immediate area. It had been raided by the bruins in summers past. For the summer of 2017, it appears that it is no longer or not yet on the bears' list of preferred dining spots.

An article in today's local newspaper (Ashland Daily Press) reports that 40% of the diet of bears "harvested" in northern Wisconsin was comprised of bait. Hunters can bait bears for 180 days from mid-April through the bear hunting season in late October. The Department of Natural Resources estimates that some 4 million gallons of bait are consumed annually. It could be that hunters are providing bears with the good stuff so dumpster diving for sour food scraps mixed in with the regular household trash, to include cat litter and dog poop, no longer has the charm that it may at one time held.

But I digress. I intended to talk about birds and bird feeders or is it more appropriate to call them bird bait stations? It all comes down to the harvesting euphemism.

In any case and perchance due to a bit of good luck or the lack of bad luck on my part, the feeders have been left for the birds. Hummingbirds and gold finches make for quality touches to the yard. Each, in their own way, is not unlike a flowering plant in the landscape. Unlike flowers, the presence of these two is not limited to a brief period of bloom like most perennial flowers. Each also brings its personal style. The hummingbirds define kinesis. The particular characteristics of their flight remind one of fighter pilots. They may not have the white silk scarf of the movie version of a World War II ace, but the adult males have an iridescent magenta ascot when the lighting is just right. Magenta may not the most accurate color descriptor, but once I read this description of the color in Wikipedia, it just seemed to be so right, hands down.  "Magenta is an extra-spectral color, meaning that it is not found in the visible spectrum of light. Rather, it is physiologically and psychologically perceived as the mixture of red and violet/blue light, with the absence of green." (Wikipedia) Much about hummingbirds is unexpected, that is, outside of the usual spectrum of possibilities that we commonly observe in nature, so why should we not describe their coloring as an "extra-spectral"?

The male goldfinches are decked out in full bling mode--gold leaf tuxedos with black accents. They look stunning in any light--the full sun of mid-day to the half lights of dawn and dusk. The females in their spring gold (Yes, spring gold was a Pontiac Firebird color in 1969.) attire make for handsome couples on the two perch thistle feeder.

There is a single chick-a-dee that hangs around the yard and frequents the thistle feeder. There is a working man quality to his black, gray, and white outfit. It may not stand out all that much on the summer stage flush with greens. I easily recall the contrast such an outfit brings to a winter scene in its stark monochrome. Chick-a-dees and nuthatches are to winter what hummingbirds and goldfinches are to summer. I am more than willing to accommodate an occasional one or more of these winter regulars to stop by during the tourist season. If it insures the return of several when the pretty birds of summer are long gone, I am all the more willing to welcome them to the table of summer treats. I am simply paying forward to the winter of 2017-2018.

I have not used this blog to comment on the national or state political scene since last fall. This action or lack of action has been the result of an explicit decision to avoid the topic. I haven't changed my mind with this post, but I will comment on not commenting on that very topic.

So many of the events of the past eight months defy traditional political analysis. Journalists have been forced to alter their practice in order to maintain some semblance of relevancy and legitimacy. Comedians and humorists are having more than enough material for their extended daily monologues and weekly columns. It is as if we are faced with a choice of crying or laughing and we choose the latter. I have asked myself the question: "Are there times when laughter as an alternative to crying is an indefensible choice?" In such cases, the laughter may well come at too great of an expense. It belittles the seriousness of the underlying situation and makes light of the potentially disastrous consequences of the behavior of those responsible for governance. I have answered this question for myself by avoiding most late night and cable comedy shows altogether. Abstinence also seems to be a good policy when it comes to limiting one's exposure to cable news. The repetitiveness within the 24 hour news cycle makes for more hype than information.

As I collected my thoughts and made a few notes as I began this post, the language of the theater clearly dominated as I considered my choice of descriptive words with which I could speak of the contemporary political scene. In addition to scene, there was actor, stage, drama, tragedy, comedy, fantasy, science fiction, minstrel show, make-up, costume, and suspension of disbelief. It is as if the script has been torn up and the director fired. Are we watching several one-man shows all taking place on a single stage at the same time? 

There are those things

Only a lover can do

Wants to do

Will do

When I read that La Civilta Cattolica recently published an article titled Evangelical Fundamentalism and Catholic Integralism in the USA: A Surprising Ecumenism, I had to look it up. I even printed out a copy which is now marked up by a yellow highlighter and a red pen. A read and a number of rereads have me thinking and noting connections between this piece and other recent reads.

An aside for background on this publication is warranted. The title translates as Catholic Civilization. It has been published continuously since 1850. All articles are subject to revision by and the approval of the Vatican's Secretariat of State prior to publication. The purpose of the publication is to "promote a catholic culture, thought, and civilization in the modern world. . .in fidelity to
the magisterium of the church." (Wikipedia) In other words, it is considered an official organ of the central authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

The article is a critical analysis of the political scene in the United States with particular emphasis on the collaboration of Christian-Evangelical fundamentalists and Catholic integralists in pursuit of their socio-political goal of "a problematic fusion between religion and state, faith and politics, religious values and economy." It points out the danger in using this particular orientation to address a full range of issues from ecological crises, to ecumenism, to religious liberty in a secular state, and to armed conflict. There is a directly stated challenge to the "non-allegorical understanding" of biblical texts with the added caution that  ". . .a unidirectional reading of the biblical texts can anesthetize consciences or actively support the most atrocious and dramatic portrayal of a world. . ."

Those quotes from the article remind me of the response Noam Chomsky gave to an interviewer's question whether there were religious motivations that framed Chomsky's social justice work. The response reads: "No religious motivation, and for sound reasons. One can contrive a religious motivation for virtually any choice of action, from commitment to the highest ideals to support for the most horrendous atrocities. In the sacred texts, we find uplifting calls for peace, justice and mercy, along with the most genocidal passages in the literary canon. Conscience is our guide, whatever trappings we might choose to clothe it in." (New York Times, July 5, 2017)

Reinhold Niebuhr in his work The Irony of American History published in 1952 notes that there is a "mixture of good and evil in all human virtue" and "even the best human actions involve some guilt." When Niebuhr speaks of American exceptionalism, it is in the context of the "sin of American exceptionalism." Human communities and, most certainly, nation states claim innocence "according to their own official myth and collective memory."

I think what these three voices are saying is that any and all human endeavors fall short of perfection, if for no other reason than the simple fact they are human endeavors. Everyone and everything is a work in progress and will remain so as long as there are human actors. Niebuhr describes original sin as "the inevitable confusion between the relative (the individual in context) and the universal." Making use of the language of Christian morality, sin may be a simple and well-founded acknowledgment of the limited capacity of the human species and the individual person for perfection. Such a state is simply not attainable in either our personal lives or our corporate endeavors. Is it from this perspective that Pope Francis speaks of universal "sinner-hood" and poses the question "Who am I to judge?" The central message of the La Civilta Cattolica article is that no socio-political structure, nation state, or human organization can lay claim to absolute superiority, perfection, and the ultimate incarnation of the ideal. The human endeavor that wraps itself in the cloak of the absolute good and all others in varying degrees culminating in absolute evil is only masking its false and preposterous claim to that which is humanly impossible and that which is inhumane.

Does a moral equivalency argument have any place in Christian moral thought? Can one even raise this question with any degree of legitimacy in a discussion of New Testament Christian morality? Does it provide another angle of insight into Pope Francis' question "Who am I to judge?" Quantitatively there are manners of degree when it comes to human activity. Can such methodology be applied in Christian moral thinking?  Or is there no qualitative difference that can be used to justify certain actions or ranking of actions? If this is a legitimate question and a perspective that the individual Christian is to make use of in evaluating the relative merits or moral uprightness of his/her own and the behavior of others, are we left with anything other than saints and sinners indistinguishable from one another living in anarchy or in a vision and version of heaven?

I don't have a clear answer. The message in all this may well be there are no clear answers. This is one more aspect of the human condition that is simply incapable of perfection. Wisdom, or simply old age, may be that time that has been described in various ways, one of which I will try to paraphrase: When I was young I knew lots of things with lots of certainty, now that I am older I know a lot more things with a lot less certainty.

THE QUESTIONS OF THE DAY.

As we see additional states legalizing the recreational use of marijuana, the following question comes to mind.

When will Cannabis futures be traded on the Chicago Merchantile Exchange as an agricultural commodity along with corn, soy beans, pork bellies, canners, and cutters?

What will be the unit of measure--pound, hundred weight, or bushel?

I will not be in the market to purchase and trade Cannabis futures and options. I suspect a bullish high will precede a bearish low with all paper profits going up in smoke, as it were.

With the assistance of a forester, I have learned of the presence of several members of an invasive species in my yard. They are invasive simply by their presence well outside of their normal range. Having found their way into the local environment they certainly seem to have flourished. I will leave them right where they are; they are a whole bigger than I am by 10-fold or more. ( I could gather up a tape measure, protractor, pen, and paper and calculate a more accurate measure of their height, rather than guesstimate how many of me's would it take to stand that tall.) In addition to the disproportionate comparison of height, they are also a whole lot better looking than I.

I am speaking of a group of three Grand Fir (Abies grandis). They are known by several common names, including Western White Fir. There are two varieties and their home range is the Pacific Northwest. The home range of one, Coastal Grand Fir, (var. grandis) is the Oregon/Washington coast and the western slope of the Rockies.  The home range of the other, Interior Grand Fir, (var. idahoensis) is the eastern slopes of the Rockies and the Cascades. They are reported to be hardy to zone 6. According to the United States Department of Agriculture mapping, these particular trees are currently residing in zone 5 or 5a, so they may be pushing that limit. They grow in elevations from sea level to 5,100 feet. My yard is a little more than 600 feet above sea level. One characteristic I have made note of over the years is that they don't drop cones like most pines. The 3-4" cones form only within the top 10 or so feet of the tree. The cones fall apart or disintegrate in place, if you will, approximately 6 months after pollination. One does not find intact cones, that have dried and released their seeds, on the ground. According to the forester the needles have a characteristic lemon or citrus odor when crushed or broken. (I am able to concur with this observation.) The species is a valuable source of lumber and is one of several species marketed as hem fir.

Off to the side of this small grove of Grand Fir and the several off-spring which they have produced are several White Spruce (Picea glauca). This is a species of the climax boreal forest and thrive in zones 3 through 7. A northwestern most slice of Wisconsin apparently makes the grade as boreal forest country. Therefore these folks are more native. All in all, the locals and the interlopers are getting along just fine. The Grand Fir, if true to their nature and adequately supported by the immediate environment, will continue to increasingly tower over their Spruce neighbors in the years ahead.

I can only speculate how the Grand Fir arrived in northern Wisconsin. The story is told that a previous owner of several lots in this city block was an employee of a county or state forestry department. Before these lots were developed and partially cleared for home sites, the owner planted extra seedlings that he had brought home from work. (I do not know the circumstances under which he found himself in possession of "extras.") I estimate that this all took place prior to the outbreak of World War II during the days of the WPA.

I find myself wondering if there are stands of Grand Fir elsewhere in the county. Did they thrive well and long enough to be harvested for paper making or some other wood product in the years since? Are any still standing today?

This is one of those posts that as it begins I have absolutely no idea where and how it will end. It may be very brief, and it may simply end.

Today would have been my father's 105th birthday. I don't know what it is about the number 5 and numbers ending it 5. I recall noting what would have been his 95th birthday and what was the 5th anniversary of his death, both of which occurred in 2007. These days were not marked by a passing thought of their significance in this respect, but by a certain persistent attention to, if not preoccupation with, the events of 1912 and 2002.

A Google search on the meaning of the number 5 reveals some interesting comments. Five is the number of the human being: four limbs and head and also five senses. It is also the number symbolizing marriage as it combines the female number 2 and the male number 3. I am afraid all this seems rather arbitrary, and doesn't strike me as helpful in answering my question: what is it about the number 5?

Now that I've pointed out this apparent significance to myself, I can only imagine that I will continue to dwell on the cycling of 5's going forward. I may be hooked by what occurred without any explanation during the past 10 years or the mystery of why it continues to occupy my thoughts or a combination thereof. It will not be be anniversary itself that has me thinking. It will be thinking about the anniversary that has me thinking.

Next month will mark what would have been my mother's 95th birthday. December will mark the 15th anniversary of my father's death. Two grandchildren will celebrate their 5th birthdays later this summer--one in late August and one in early September. That is a lot of 5's to think about during the remaining half of 2017. It may be best to think about the full range of 5's rather than to dwell on any one or just those with similar characteristics and emotional impacts.

This is that time of the year

should one come to a fork in the road, 

one may easily come to the conclusion 

that someone is making hay 

in the old way.

They say young men dream dreams and old men dream the dreams of youth. That might well be what reminiscence is all about. In the process of aging, not unlike both good and bad wine, dreams become memories subject to both aggrandizement and minimization. How dangerous is either? It may depend upon the presence or absence of an intermediate step and a well-founded appraisal of that intermediate step. The intermediate step in question is some degree of the earlier actualization of those dreams. Reminiscence (1)retells our close calls with greatness, disaster, and the in-between degrees of the same, (2)recalls who we once thought we were and who we would become, and (3)simultaneously provides entertainment for others and a reassurance for ourselves that we may continue to have access to a future with memories not yet made and reminiscences not yet given voice.

I suspect there is a degree and varying degrees of danger in reminiscence. Sometimes it feels like driving in reverse with only the view through a clouded rear window to guide one. At other times it feels like driving forward while looking back with only the backside of the rear-view mirror for guidance. The latter only works well when the vehicle is sitting in one's driveway with the motor running, the transmission in park, and the parking brake engaged. Tapping the gas pedal creates the sounds and shimmy of the perception of actual movement. This is about as safe as it gets. At least until someone takes the keys away.

Wresting with demons
-real or imagined-

is just a little bit easier 

with an angel as one's 'corner man,'

even if only an imaginary one 

-as it seems she might be.

I wrapped up another read this week. The book has been returned to the local library and my notes were filed, as in "dropped in the bin." They were on top of the stack as one would expect so I was able to easily retrieve them to help write this post.

The title is The Stranger in the Woods by Michael Finkel. It is the story of Christopher Knight who spent some 27 years sequestered in the woods of Maine in a primitive camp which he kept stocked by raiding cabins and a youth camp in the area. It is estimated that he committed in excess of 1,000 break-ins over the years, and there were only two face-to-face encounters with other persons during these years. The treatment of the story is very much in the style of Jon Krakauer and his Into the Wild, but Krakauer is much more thorough in his works, in my judgment. Finkel covers multiple facets of the story and makes use of a variety of outside resources in his attempt to get beyond the facts. The facts are relatively easily knowable. Considerable time and effort coupled with persistence and an inquisitive nature means that job gets done. The hard part is trying to ascertain the individual's motivation behind the behaviors, which can be described as peculiar at a minimum. Finkel had direct and sustained communication with his subject after his arrest. Krakauer did not. But even with that difference, Finkel was no more able to get at the internal machinations of his main character than Krakauer. The books ends with more unanswered questions than questions answered.

How is that? I suggest that this is the very nature of this "business" of human activity--physical and intellectual. One's internal workings, the motivations behind choices made and not made, and the intended consequences of one's thoughts and actions are unknowable to the very actor and thinker him or herself. To know something, we need to be able to put it into words and to be able to express it via the vehicle of language. Our thoughts are essentially internalized speech. The language, which we use to communicate within ourselves and among ourselves, is a common language. The vocabulary and grammar have been constructed over centuries. Throughout this same period of time, these have been evolving and continue to evolve. This evolution at time can render meaningless in a contemporary setting something that seemed so crystal clear at some previous day and context. What if the very place, which gives rise to the causal factors underlying one's individual view of and expression of this same place, the environment in which one finds him or herself, and the human activity which results, is so unique to the individual that the available common language is unable to communicate meaning and understanding? Language as the vehicle of social exchange and of thought and contemplation falls short of the task at hand. One is left dumbfounded, or makes believe that one knows that of which they speak, or knowingly creates figures of speech, such as metaphors, to do the best job possible in communicating whatever it is to oneself as well as to others.

Still another option might be to find/create a vehicle of communication that is so individualized and that sits outside of some commonly accepted standard, that it becomes labelled as insane. Some special persons may be able to bridge this divide between the knowable and the unknowable, which may be more accurately described as the speakable and the unspeakable. This may well be the creative genius of the great thinkers and artists, who are able keep one foot in both spheres. These individuals are able to incorporate enough of the sane with the insane, that the rest of us marvel at their genius and creativity and reward them handsomely. Even then the unknowingness communicated frightens some and excites others. Our individual response to the art of the other reflects our individual life experiences, our personalities, and our prior choices rather than any objective criteria. At this level, there are no objective criteria; we are at the level of individual mystery which is accessible only by direct experience and which is not able to be put into words as we might think about it (discuss it with oneself) or speak about it (discuss it with others).

This author's futile effort is insightful, not only as we attempt to understand others, but as we attempt to understand ourselves.

It is good to come upon a book or article every so often that either confirms or challenges one's thinking. These experiences remind one of the value of a broad-based liberal education and lifelong learning. This is such an article:

http://religiondispatches.org/what-a-forgotten-19th-century-suffragist-can-teach-us-about-womens-rights-vs-the-religious-right/

One often hears the complaint that is phrased something like this: "The only problem with this country is that it is no longer a Christian nation." The assumption is made that the Founding Fathers were devout Christians and the documents they drafted embody Christian thought, morals, and theories of social organization.

The Founding Fathers (Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Thomas Paine, as a representative selection) were either committed Deists or very sympathetic to that philosophy. During the Age of Enlightenment or Modern Rationalism (17th and 18th centuries), Deists did not identify themselves as Christians nor were they so identified by the various Christian sects of the day. Deism was seen as the antithesis of Christian theology and thought. These are the folks who then drafted the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and much of the federal legislation of this era. Their roles in their respective colonies and later states found them drafting parallel documents and legislation on that level as well.

The above article points out the challenges faced by those during the Third Great Awakening (1850 to 1900), who were genuinely troubled by the absence of Christian underpinnings to the great American experiment in governance. They proposed a revision of the original documents to include specific Christian references. As they read the original documents, they clearly understood them to be irreligious to a fault. It is important that 21st century Americans understand this so that in our search for the intent and design of the Founding Fathers, we do not mistake the 1870's for the 1770's as we struggle to identify the original intent/originality of these documents and not read into them meaning that was never intended.

One might argue that the absence of a Christian component was an honest oversight by the authors of these documents. Such an argument is only valid if one ignores the conflict between Deism and the various Christian hierarchies in both the Old and New Worlds at this time. It also ignores the anti-Catholicism and the Christian denominational factionalism apparent within and among the original colonies during the 18th century. The Christian component is not there, and it is not there by design. The intent of the Founding Fathers was to found a state based on reason guided by that which they considered to be the soundest philosophy of their day. They may have been elitists or starry-eyed dreamers, but they were who they were. Whether we like it or not, we are their heirs; the inheritance is what it is. Our first charge is to do our due diligence and to understand that inheritance in terms which are aligned as closely as possible with the original intent of the authors. If we do so, I am confident we will find that the wisdom and foresight present therein are able to provide us with valuable guidance as we navigate the contemporary challenges of racial and ethnic diversity, multiculturalism, and religious sectarianism.

Its an unclear mystery to me why the term and the concept of "political correctness" evokes such a strident reaction in so many contexts and is seemingly viewed as the embodiment of any and all attacks on the freedom of speech, the freedom of expression, and unbridled individualism.

Words do matter, despite the parental injunction that "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words won't hurt me." This well-meaning bit of advice was never intended as a license to utilize any term, from the most vulgar to the most sublime, in any and all contexts. It was offered as a cognitive strategy whereby one could look to one's better self before reacting to being verbally bullied, harassed, teased, or put-down.

"Political correctness" has become a phrase like "death taxes." The latter was chosen to refer to estate taxes in a pejorative manner and to make a statement about one's position on the topic in such a way that it establishes a defensive barrier between the speaker and the listener. We are no longer talking about one of the traditional tools organized societies employ in order to carry out its mandate to maintain order and promote the common good. We are talking about "robbing the dead" and making the lives of the aggrieved even more painful than it already is, simply out of spite as it were.

"Political correctness" can easily and advisably be restated as civility, courtesy, and respect. These qualities describing citizen interaction are essential to the proper functioning of society. Courteous and respectful behavior on my part warrants that I address you by the name, pronoun, title, race or ethnicity of your choice. I may not understand your choice; I may not make the same choice as you.  I respect your individuality in the matter within ever evolving formal and informal social norms. There will be those times when I inadvertently make use of the wrong or less desirable term or simply reflect my failure to properly update my vocabulary. These are times for apologies and education--my own. We either reside in diverse communities or our homogeneous communities regularly and intimately interact within a very diverse patchwork of diverse communities. Taking some liberty with the parental injunction about "inside and outside voices," at a minimum we ought to measure our choice and use of terms for appropriateness to the immediate context in which we are speaking. Far better advice would be to make use of the politically correct term in internal and external speech and in any and all social settings.

Refusing to exercise civility, courtesy, and respect can be construed as an attempt to tilt the playing field to one's advantage and the disadvantage of a fellow traveler in this time and place in which we find ourselves and to evoke a previous time and place when our better corporate self was not always adequately in play. As citizens we are charged with the responsibility to make sure that our corporate self continues to be a work in progress and that our individual efforts fall primarily on the positive side of that equation.

I find it highly unusual for a Sunday morning service and Monday Morning Joe to have something in common. I don't recall it ever happening before. But then again these are not usual and customary times.

The Catholic liturgy as part of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council added a list of intercessions called The Prayers of the Faithful at the transition from the Liturgy of the Word to the Eucharistic Liturgy. They usually include pretty staid and standard prayerful requests. Occasionally, a social justice topic will be included. The priest who presided over yesterday's service, typically ad libs one or more intercessions after the lector completes the prepared ones. This particular priests often asks the Good Lord to intercede "to secure our southern and northern borders." When I think of Church sanctioned social justice issues, this particular statement (I hesitate to call it prayerful.) is hardly consistent with the Church's stance on international immigrants and refugees. It has been included enough times, that I am no longer startled by it. Yesterday, I was startled anew. Father asked the congregation to pray that our country be protected from the "shadow government." I admit that I was not paying full attention to his words until I heard the term "shadow government." I then sat up and took notice even though I was standing at the time. Routinely, I have difficulty hearing and understanding this priest despite the presence of a sound system and seemingly adequate volume. I checked with a friend and fellow parishioner after mass to make sure that I heard it correctly. He assured me that I did. He had nothing more to add by way of clarification or explanation.

This morning I was startled again as I caught a bit of Morning Joe before stepping out into the light rain for my morning walk. One of the guests asked Michael Hayden, the former director of the National Security Agency, if President Trump's tweets about wiretapping speak to the suggested presence of a "deep government" within the U.S. political and governmental landscape. Michael Hayden did not deny or discount such a supposition. He chose to respond by stating that the term "deep government" is more appropriately applied to such countries as Turkey. That was more or less the entirety of his response. What does that mean? What does that suggest? Do we now have a respected former government official giving credence by way of a wink and a nod to some conspiracy theory? Does this constitute adequate grounds to move this very notion beyond theory to something with greater veracity?

It appears that the subject of these posts is often related to a book I am reading or have recently finished reading. This entry will be no exception, except that it references two recent reads: Theory and History in International Relations by Donald Puchala and On Being Human, Why Mind Matters by Jerome Kagan. Both authors are writing late in their professional careers and possibly upon retirement from those careers. They are age 78 and 88 respectively. What strikes me in these two works is the common thread that questions much of the "science" which underpins their respective chosen professions--international relations and clinical psychology. The "science" in these disciplines is not the empirical science characteristic of chemistry, physics, and fields of that ilk. The social sciences co-opted the language of the so-called hard sciences some fifty years ago in an attempt to acquire a more equal footing and legitimacy with the traditional sciences. By way of examples, social studies became social science; governmental studies became political science.

These two authors bridge that period of before and after. Puchala certainly questions the value of this change in appellation as a fool's errand. In the search for parity, his chosen profession set for itself an unattainable goal. Rather than develop its own and more fitting tools to express and evaluate the validity of knowledge in the field of international relations, it borrowed the tools of hypothesis, theory, law, experimentation, and replication from the more traditional sciences. The social sciences simply do not lend themselves to such empirical dissection. Causality with respect to the human subject, either as an individual or a group, can not be distilled to the point where a single causality can be isolated from all other causal and coincidental factors. Puchala repeatedly asked the core questions of epistemology: how do we know what we know and what is it that we know? When he distills the possible array of responses to those questions, he is left with a choice of basic assumptions upon which the varied responses are based and depend for their individual claims to validity. Kagan does not ask the epistemological questions, but he sums up his review of the state of knowledge in the field of psychology with the comment (I will paraphrase): I know a lot more than I did 40 years ago, and I know a lot more with less certainty than I did 40 years ago.

Is this what old men do? We re-evaluate our life's work and in so doing find ourselves questioning the very authenticity of the very discipline to which we committed ourselves and our efforts.  I won't propose to speculate with respect to women. If I read Kagan correctly, I suspect he might say that women are less likely to commit themselves to such certainty of knowledge up front. Kagan does posit gender differences and credits those differences to biology although his differentiation is not binary. So here I sit, stand, or otherwise position myself in the 8th decade of my life and find that when I read authors like Puchala and Kagan there is a resonance between their writings and my look-back on my life and chosen profession. It is good to have company. And I also realize that one doesn't have to be alone to be lost.

Both of these authors would support the statement that absolute truth has not yet been discovered by humanity and most likely never will be. It would require a degree of perfection that is not viable in humanity.  Knowledge--our access to The Truth--is a developmental process. It may well be another fool's errand to commit oneself to the search for absolute truth that can be characterized as contextually free, culturally universal, and permanently valid. It is not a fool's errand to examine one's "knowledge" (working philosophy, ethical guides, and worldview) in a never ending pursuit of a more reasoned, internally consistent, and corporate knowledge base which guides our individual human activity. When one has substantial experience to look back upon from the perspective of 8 or 9 decades, one has a mountain of real world data with which to not only assess one's past, but to plot one's future--a future which faithfully integrates that past. In the end, I am responsible only for and to my self (spacing intentional).

Another game-day Sunday is upon us, and,once again, no Packer Green and Gold was seen in church this morning. Although Fr. Kevin was wearing green, since we are in that cycle of Sundays this time of the year.

When I went for a clean pair of socks to wear to church this morning. I almost took the Packer socks that were a Christmas present. I didn't; I stuck with the basic black.

I remain at a loss as I try to determine what happened to the Packer backers or why they are, at a minimum, incognito. I could make the rounds of the local bars later today. If I recognize any fellow church-goers, I could inquire as to the reasons behind their change in game-day behavior. If I go too early, they may not be adequately loosened to speak freely; if I go too late, they may be somewhat impaired so that I will not be able to understand their responses. The longer that I would stick to this project, the more unintelligible my notes would become. If I bump into Fr. Kevin, all bets will be off.

We will know in the next several hours, but I am thinking the Green Bay Packers will have a difficult time winning today's game in the first round of the play-offs. How did I arrive at that conclusion?

Here goes!

During the regular season on any Sunday game day, there would be considerable Packer Green and Gold present during our local church service. There would be general team wear--shirts, hoodies, winter jackets, pajama pants--along with individual jerseys with the numbers 12, 87, and 52 dominating. I suspect the belief is quite widespread that praying in costume enhances the prospects of a favorable response to one's prayer. This is a variation of the rule applicable to any number of situations: "One needs to look the part to play the part." Yet, today not a swatch of the familiar Green and Gold. Folks might have made the judgment call that the team can make it through these first rounds on their own so they are saving their petitions for divine intervention for the Big Game. Fans like players need to pace themselves. It can be a long four quarters; it can be a long play-off post-season. Hold something in reserve. And hope that one does not live to regret it.

What might I be in for some Sunday not so distant--February 5, 2017 to be exact? Our congregation--small in numbers and big in enthusiasm--will look like a fan-cam shot of the stands at Lambeau Field on game day. Green and Gold in such numbers and with such flare that Bourbon Street during Mardi Gras will stand up and take notice. There may even be a tailgate breakfast crowd in the church parking lot. The pastor could move through the parking lot warming up the crowd. Folks could be so keyed up for the opening number (aka, entrance hymn), that Father might ask folks to tone it down. Prayer done that way all but guarantees a favorable response.

If the team doesn't make it through these early rounds of the play-off, my questions will go unanswered--not unlike my prayers.

Take a knee! Take two knees!