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

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

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

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

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

I find myself arriving at a place where the only reality is what we as individuals with our singular vision or as members of a group with a shared vision come to accept as real. On the other hand, I know that if I slam my finger in the car door, it will hurt like hell, or like heaven, or like purgatory. Purgatory is probably the most apt descriptor, since I also know that the pain is temporary and that the injury will also heal. At least that is what my personal historical experience of such events have shown me.

Here are links to two recent reads:

http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2013/12/possessive-individualism-can-really/

http://blog.kennypearce.net/archives/theology/bible/the_gospels/a_thought_for_christmas.html

Where does this leave us, when we are at my place? I guess it simply means that we--individually and collectively--have the choice to be nice to one another and the capacity to follow through on that choice. The capacities of individuals and groups--both large and small--vary greatly, but that doesn't let anyone off the hook--even part way--should they choose the path that circumnavigates this place.

The past few days I have been haunted by these and other recent reads and the desire to post a Christmas Holiday note. I don't know if I succeeded, but this is my effort.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
J. Keye

In the final quarter--a rough estimate--of my working career, I occasionally experienced some degree of regret over not having a fixed benefit retirement program in my future. The absence of such a vehicle for the ride into the great beyond was the result of working for employers, who did not have such an item in their fringe benefit package, and having a work career that coincided with significant changes in retirement plans. Now that I am enjoying the benefits of a personal retirement strategy coupled with Social Security, I can breathe a sigh of relief in what appears to be a greater sense of security in individual retirement plans than in fixed benefit plans found in private industry and governmental employment. It is not that what was less secure that has  now become more secure; it is what was more secure has become even less secure than that which was previously less secure.

A federal court decision in the case of Detroit, Michigan, underscores my point. The judge decided that federal bankruptcy laws override pension program rules, negotiated contractual terms, and state constitutional and legislative language which was intended to protect the integrity of these programs. I am sure this decision will be appealed, so the final chapter has not been written. In the meantime, folks relying on such retirement programs must find themselves experiencing a certain level of anxiety. There are enough units of government facing bankruptcy and reorganization that retirees of the City of Detroit will not be alone for long.

When AIG was facing bankruptcy, the Federal government decided they needed to step in and save this nongovernmental corporation and that the annual bonuses had to be paid to those managers, whose decisions were responsible for the impending failure of the firm, because bonuses were part of their employment contracts. The commentator that made that observation also asked: How are retirement contracts different? Are retirement contacts not employment contracts? The question that I ask is: How do we decide what is good for GM and AIG is not good for Detroit? Some will say that we can't afford to bail out Detroit. How is it that we are able to afford the estimated 32.9 billion dollars that it will cost to bail out AIG?

As the bankruptcy of the City of Detroit plays out over the next several years, I can assume the stance of a curious bystander. Any dog that I might have in the fight as Detroit and additional governmental units pursue similar resolutions to their financial problems will be a small dog reflecting my personal, diversified portfolio. I just need to make sure that I am not relying on a Bernie Madoff act-a-like to manage my nest egg.

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.