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

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

May the spheres be with you!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then again, it doesn't hurt to ask.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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