This letter in today's "Dear Abby" column raises the question: Is this the ex-wife of Mr. Free Man of yesterday's column? Could very well be.

DEAR ABBY:

 

My mom insists on including my ex-husband and

his wife at our family gatherings. I have told her repeatedly that it
makes me very uncomfortable, but she even included them in
the gift exchange last Christmas. What should I do? Not go?
My sister has already laid a guilt trip on me. Must I go and
have Christmas with my ex like we’re one big happy family? (If
we had been happy, we would not have gotten divorced.)

What are your thoughts on this?

-- LIVING IN DYSFUNCTION JUNCTION

 

I'll bet the dude in question even violates Rule #2 of gift exchanging: Each exchange participate is to buy only one gift and that for the person, whose name one selects. There always seems to those folks, who agree to participate in the exchange and who violate this rule. This behavior leaves those, who are not the beneficiaries of secondary gifting, questioning why they did not make the secondary gifting list. Those, who are the beneficiaries, will question the motivation of the giver based on their current relationship and history with the giver.

 

The only thing worse that violating Rule #2 is violating Rule #3, which reads: One shall not negotiate, either openly or secretly, with other participants to exchange names already selected--secondary selection. Fall-out similar to those associated with violations of Rule #2 will follow. Remember, such negotiations involve at least two participants, and one is dealing with family, so the secrecy rules do not apply despite sworn pledges.

 

By the way, we are dealing with family. There either are no rules or all rules are subject to change with or without negotiation or even a "heads up."

Okay, so I will admit to it that I read "Dear Abby." When I was a kid, Mom always seemed to read "Ann Landers." My sense is that Mom's motivation was to find guidance whereby one could maintain their bearings in navigating a world where much was not what it appeared to be and another much was out of synch with how it was suppose to be. I frequently check out "Dear Abby," because it is the one that appears in the local paper and not out of any greater affection for one A over the other A. (I know there is a history between Abby and Ann; for the purposes of this post, I will consider them one and the same.) I am not seeking guidance in the social graces or the proper etiquette for navigating the dark and deep waters of social interaction. My motivation is to find my own "News of the Weird" in a primary source. Numbed by the contemporary genre of reality tv, which is real in only that it is staged for the camera, I am convinced that many authors of the letters addressed Dear Abby or Dear Ann are the work of creative writer wannabes. Can one claim to be a published author if a letter one has penned becomes an entry in a Dear Abby or Dear Ann column? Wouldn't it be a treat to be able to look through the discharge pile--those requests for advice considered too weird to make the cut for inclusion in a column?

Then there is one letter in today's column, which raises the question: how did this one make the cut? What was set aside to make room for this one? Were there so few passable requests for advice that those in the discharge pile warranted a second look? This one--both the letter and the response--deserves a reader review.

DEAR ABBY: After 31 years of
marriage, my wife and I have split
up. We love each other, but after the
kids moved out we realized we have
little in common.
What is an appropriate Christmas
gift for an ex-wife? We are on friendly
terms and will probably spend the
holidays together with our children.
I don’t want to give a gift that will
offend or encourage her.
-- FREE MAN IN
PENNSYLVANIA

DEAR FREE MAN: How about a
gift card from her favorite store, or
a lovely scarf or colorful shawl, or
if she has a hobby, something to do
with it? None of them would send
the wrong message.

So, FREE MAN, just how free are you that you are concerned about offending or encouraging your ex-wife? What more is there to lose, if you offend the lady, or is there to gain, if you encourage her? What if your gift simply bores her or provides her with a reminder of the reasons the two of you broke up after 31 years of marriage? Do you ever think that your thoughts of encouragement are wishful thinking on your part?  Do you ever think that what you describe as "friendly terms" is your ex's efforts to make the best of a bad situation for the sake of the kids?

Hey, MISTER, it sounds like you have skipped out on the responsibilities of marriage and family while hanging onto the emotional nurturing. Is it not time to man up and live the free life and not just assume the title?

DEAR ABBY, how is it that a gift card, scarf, shawl, or hobby supplies would, unquestionably, not send the "wrong message?" What about such gifts as: a flannel nightgown, new locksets for the front and back doors, for which MR. FREEMAN does not keep a key for himself, security locks for all first floor windows, or a gift certificate for an on-line dating service? The MAN needs to avoid  hand lettered IOU's for lawn care, gutter cleaning, and replacement of the garage door opener, while keeping the access code.

Janet Yellen's characterization of income inequality in this country as a "very serious problem" is well worth noting. Even moreso is one of the reasons she cites in support of this worrisome concern: "the decline of unions." Ms. Yellen made these statements earlier this week in her Senate confirmation hearing as President Obana's nominee to become the next Chair of the Federal Reserve. I laud Ms. Yellen's bravery in her use of the bully pulpit of the Senatorial hearings and in expending the necessary personal and professional capitol such statements require in advance of even a committee vote on her nomination. Further statements referencing the "cross purposes" of Federal Reserve actions and Congressional actions in response to our present economic crisis can easily be interpreted as a clear criticism of Congressional actions.

The recent decline in union membership and strength is not so much the result of inherent weaknesses within the union movement, but the result of a direct assault by legislative bodies on the state level and the movement within governmental and private industry to use subcontracted personnel rather than direct hires. Lots of folks bemoan income inequality, but few, especially those with access to the top ranks of power, clearly identify self-incriminating causal factors and therefore the corrective measures that make both good economic sense and comply with a commonly accepted sense of social justice.

I trust that the ship of state (read: and civil society) has the ability to self correct. The tragedy is the pain, suffering, and loss of life that results from the errors in judgment and the narrowly focused application of political conviction committed by those in authority. May history hold them accountable so that much the same mistakes are not repeated and that the common good is characterized by genuine universality.

A recent vote in the US Senate and actions by the US Catholic Bishops prompt me to pursue further a line of thought expressed in my posting of September 5th.

The US Senate recently passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which addresses discrimination against LGBT persons in the workplace. President Obama has indicated that he would sign the legislation, if and when it arrives on his desk. Word from the Republican leadership in the US House of Representatives is that this legislation will not be scheduled for a vote, so it is unlikely to proceed any further.

The US Council of Catholic Bishops has published two documents in recent weeks as the Senate was considering this legislation. These included: (1)a letter addressed to US senators, and (2)a backgrounder. Both are available on the USCCB website. In my estimation, the backgrounder is the more telling document. An attempt is made to distinguish between "inclination" (This is a curious choice of words over the more commonly used "orientation.") and conduct. There is reference to unjust and justifiable discrimination (The document uses the phrase: "discrimination that is legitimate."). The underlying assumption appears to be that Error has no Rights as evidenced by the statement: "...sexual conduct outside of [heterosexual] marriage...has no claim to any special protection by the state." I would postulate that as far as the authors of the backgrounder are concerned, "special" is a superfluous word. Their intent is to void any and all protections within the context of civil society. The statement also makes it clear that the term "sexual conduct" is all inclusive without reference to the gender, orientation, age, relationship, or other circumstance (with the exception of heterosexual marriage) of the participants in such conduct.

My September post suggested that a distinction without a difference was being proposed in Cardinal Dolan's statement about judging behaviors and not persons. It is my observation that the distinction being made in the recent documents between inclination or orientation and conduct is similarly built upon a foundation of sand that does not hold up in the day-to-day lives of individuals and in the common areas of social and civil interaction. The intellectualization of a distinction between unjust discrimination and legitimate discrimination is simply unworkable in this context and provides a dangerous guide for civil law. The position of the Catholic bishops is only workable if we accept the premise and the practicality of lifelong celibacy for each and every individual, who describes him or herself as LGBT. Such a position is simply inhumane and unnatural, i.e. in conflict with or in violation of human nature. In support of my critique, I offer the observation that "only 2% of Catholic priests achieve absolute celibacy" (G. Walker, 2004, as cited in Sexual and Intimacy Health of Roman Catholic Priests, P. McDevitt, 2012). It is crucial to remind ourselves that this is within the context of a group of men choosing a career which includes an explicit and very public commitment to live a celibate life. Is it not inhumane and unnatural to make this same demand of every person who discovers his/her sexual orientation to be something other than strictly defined heterosexuality? Contemporary science provides ample support for my position as well--the hard science of biology and the soft sciences of psychology, sociology, and anthropology, so maybe I should apologize for resorting to a high school debate tactic. But I won't.

The question may be restated as: Who gets to decide what is in error? In a diverse, secular society, the boundaries between the personal, the civil, and the sectarian/religious are in constant flux and subject to ongoing struggles and negotiations between the various parties and within the various parties themselves. The interface between civil law and personal/sectarian moral codes is one such boundary. A cursory examination of courtship practices in mainstream American society over the past two centuries or the variation in such practices across today's world provides ample evidence of substantive change and ongoing modification of what is proper, customary, acceptable, legal, and right. As a citizen in contemporary civil society, I may not have to celebrate diversity, but I must be clearly respectful and supportive of such diversity and be willing to accept and work with the personal intellectual and emotional discomfort that so often accompanies the naturally occurring differences in the human community. My personal discomfort may well be on the level of the personal or group moral tenets to which I subscribe.

Can there be a Catholic environmental movement?

Cardinal Peter Turkson, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, was recently quoted as saying "In Catholic thought, 'nature' is neither sacred nor divine, neither to be feared or to be revered and left untouched. Rather, it is a gift offered by the Creator to the human community to be entrusted to the intelligence and moral responsibility of men and women. . . .It is hazardous - and ultimately absurd, indeed sinful - to employ biotechnology without the guidance of deeply responsible ethics. . . .Research must be done with ethics and a clear long-term vision that respects human dignity and strives for the common good." (Catholic News Service, October 23, 2013)

Christian thought speaks of mankind being made in the image of the Creator. Is it not reasonable to view all of nature as being made in the image of the Creator? I will postulate that we have more in common with the natural world than that which we do not hold in common. Wes Jackson writes: "The human race was born out of nature and it is out of nature that the human race and all life is sustained every second of every minute of every hour." (Altars of Unhewn Stone, Wes Jackson, 1987) Our ethics and our long-term vision must then respect the dignity of all of nature and strive for the common good of the entire community of nature. Humankind alone is not sufficient measure to guide one's actions. It is appropriate to revere nature and to leave, at least some areas, untouched motivated by either reverence or fear--as evidence of the natural beauty and the pristine quality of the gift or fearful of the negative consequences of our actions or our potential for misuse.

There can be a Catholic environmental movement, but it will need an updated Catholic thought.

I have just returned from today's church service where the celebrant injected a request a cappella into the Prayers of the Faithful asking that "our nation be protected from our enemies." This particular celebrant has added this request on more than one occasion, so I will not excuse the wording by attributing it to composing on-the-fly. I would like to suggest an alternative format for future Prayers of the Faithful. Let us beseech the Lord of All "that we as a nation be reconciled with those whom we identify as enemy and who identify us as enemy."

Here are two links to articles that I found on-line this morning. The first was read before heading out the door to church; the second was read afterwards over a third or fourth cup of coffee warmed up in the microwave. Needles to say that these reads moved me more than today's church service--moved in a way that is appropriate on a Sunday morning.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/aug/24/secondworldwar.broadcasting

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/world/europe/behind-flurry-of-killing-potency-of-hate.html?hp&_r=0

The articles speak to the complexity of human nature and the ways in which we organize and think about ourselves. Is it too much to ask that our religious ministers challenge the best that can be found in our nature and not concede to an uneasy peace of mutually assured destruction, which is a false security and a non-peace? Praying for protection from one's enemies is nothing more than asking for success in an arms race or victory on today's battlefield. We are fools to ask for so little; it is a crime against our humanity and the humanity of all to settle for so little.

Unintended Consequences, But Not Unforeseen

There is a move afoot to develop an open-pit iron ore mine in northern Wisconsin and Michigan's upper peninsula within an ancient mountain range--the Penokee Mountains.

The discussion of the proposed mine has focused exclusively on the potential environmental impacts, State mining laws, and the economic impact on local communities. I would like to raise two questions: (1)how will a mine in the Penokees impact on what remains of the iron ore/taconite industry on Minnesota's Iron Range? And (2)how will Australia's expanding iron ore production impact a Penokee mine?

The opening of Minnesota's Iron Range contributed significantly to the decline and loss of Michigan's and Wisconsin's iron ore industry 100 years ago. The older deep shaft mines could not compete with the new open-pit mines. Will not a Penokee mine with the latest technology from the ground up prove to be just too competitive for what remains of iron ore production on Minnesota's Range? One consequence may be increased pressure to increase non-ferrous metal production on the Range as the successor to iron ore production, which will increase the risk of environmental degradation from the technologies used to mine sulfide ore bodies.

Australia is in the midst of significantly increasing its exports of iron ore, with a number of mines currently coming on-line and scheduled for full production within the next two years. This is in the context of a glutted global iron ore market. Australia would appear to be in a position to more than compete with the U.S. mining industry in supplying the Asian markets. Coupling a competitive disadvantage with an oversupply does not bode well for a new mine in the Penokee Mountains, much less an existing mine on Minnesota's Iron Range. (For background, try this link: http://www.prairiebizmag.com/event/article/id/15745/)

Who will lose if the proposed Penokee mine is less economically viable than estimated? Will it not be the local communities and the State of Wisconsin at large? Once in production, taxes, fees, and other payments to local units of government are all predicated on a profitable operation. The less profitable the venture, the less income that will accrue to those impacted by the mine and those bearing the financial responsibility to ameliorate those impacts. The projected windfall will dry up just as the tornado leaves destruction in its wake. The mine operators' cut shows up on the expense side of the ledger; stockholders and units of government will share in the profits (after expenses), if and when there are any. Expenses are paid first and are carried forward year after year minimizing or eliminating profits.

What assurances are there that the proposed mine can be successful both in its own right and without destroying our neighbors and our neighbors' communities, which lie to the west?