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

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

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

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

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

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

Based on first hand experience, I have come to the conclusion that Thanksgiving dinner leftovers are great as long as the pumpkin pie holds out. Is there any better excuse to have pie for lunch than to accompany a lunch of leftovers? The same holds for supper or dinner. Dessert makes the entire meal all that more tasty. The anticipation of the end place makes the entire process of getting there more pleasant. Does one have to save room for dessert to make that happen? This matter deserves further study and more pie.

Belated Thanksgiving thoughts and wishes to everyone out there with or without leftovers.

I am trying to follow the Synod of Catholic Bishops taking place this month in Rome. I think "chaotic" is the most appropriate appellation describing the newspaper accounts of the various and varied goings on.

In the minds of those in attendance, who have given vent to their frustration, there is a sense that the survival of Roman Catholicism as it has been known over two millenniums is at risk. Why is it that any suggestion of change or development in our understanding of gender or marriage is perceived as a threat to the very existence of the Church and the human race? A rather cursory view of history provides ample evidence that both have not only survived, but even thrived, following previous periods marked by similar cataclysmic threats. I am inclined to interpret these contemporary reports of impending doom as one too many cries of wolf by a frightened little boy or a little boy's desperate plea for attention. Gender and marriage are phenomena shared between theology, sociology, and political organization. The great diversity of the human experience over the last 200,000 years and within contemporary societies provide ample evidence of the creative potential in gender role and pair bonding strategies. This creativity can extend to a community's ability to craft the theosophical underpinnings in support of their choice. If the Synod would be discussing transubstantiation, the divinity of Christ, or the afterlife of the individual, then I would agree that Roman Catholicism, as we know it, may be at risk to a terminal overhaul.

There are also mysterious bits in the reports coming out of the Synod or in the comments of those in attendance. Today an Australian archbishop speaks of finding a third way in between things staying the same and things changing.  I sense there is something in that comment that defies the logic of language; things either change or they don't change. Is there a third alternative where things both stay the same and change? Or where things neither stay the same nor change? Language as symbol may be simply incapable of expressing the fullness of reality. The inherent contradiction exists in human language and not in reality. Those Synod participants, who decry changes in language as suggestive of the lack of any and all objective truth, may well be onto something. Truth may well exist in some objective fashion; it is just that human language--any attempt to expound on that truth through the use of the symbols of speech--is not absolute. It is not the be all and end all of any or all communication that one might have with another or with his/her internal self.

It appears to be time to post a blog entry on the topic of my latest reads simply because I find myself thinking a lot about the one recently finished and the one in process.

I found Close to the Bone by Jean Shinoda Bolen, MD at the local resale shop. The subtitle is Life Threatening Illness as a Soul Journey. (I drop by this shop every week or two in order to peruse the used book selection for interesting titles.) Dr. Bolen cited a work by Bernie Siegel, MD in her book. As fortune would have it, I found that title (Love, Medicine, and Miracles) a few weeks later at the local library's used (read: "need to get rid of") book sale. The subtitle of Dr. Siegel's work is: Lessons Learned about Self-Healing from a Surgeon's Experience with Exceptional Patients.

I am not sure why I felt moved to lay out 99 cents plus tax for Dr. Bolen's book. I am inclined--No, I am driven--to avoid such New Age lingo as soul journeys, inner journeys, spirit guides, and dreamscapes. Maybe I just wanted to give a pass to one who describes herself as a psychiatrist and a Jungian analyst. I knew that I was in new territory when I read: "At the level of Soul we are all one and the same one" (Dr. Bolen) and when a miracle is described as "a self-induced cure." (Dr. Siegel) Maybe it wasn't new territory; it certainly was someplace that I hadn't visited for some time and then under circumstances quite different than those in which I currently find myself. By the way, Dr. Siegel's book cost 50 cents with tax included.

I did not come away from Dr. Bolen's book as a confirmed believer in Jungian psychology. I was very impressed how she addressed in a true and unabashed ecumenical style Christian beliefs, Greek and Roman mythologies, and the remnants of the pre-patriachical myths among others. She shed light on a question and its answer that I have not previously seen addressed, that is, the origin of the concept of the Christian Trinity or Triune God. The roots of monotheism can be found in North Africa before finding its way into the Middle East. A triune godhead is unquestionably out of sync with Jewish and Muslim thought. According to Dr. Bolen, the concept of a triune deity can be traced to the pre-patriachical myths of Mediterranean Europe. This forerunner was a female figure (mother, maiden/daughter, grandmother/wise one) before being transitioned to a male figure in Greek mythology. I accept Dr. Bolen's premise that a life threatening illness puts one on a soul journey. One doesn't get to choose whether or not to take such a journey; one's choice is how that travel will proceed and where it will lead.

Dr. Siegel follows in the tradition of Viktor Frankl assuring readers that we may not be able to control that which happens to us, but that we can control our response to that which happens thereby directly and significantly influencing the impact upon ourselves of that which happens. Furthermore, he proceeds to tell us how that can be accomplished.

A final word of caution: don't confuse Dr. Siegel's book with Louise Erdrich's book simply titled: Love Medicine. The latter is also a good read--a tale of inter-generational journeying.

It is curious how a reading on one topic prompts one to think of another topic. A recent article on the Religious Dispatches website did just that. 

http://religiondispatches.org/nightly-news-turns-to-bishops-about-contraception-more-often-than-docs/

I found myself thinking about the upcoming, much touted, and equally maligned papal encyclical on the environment and, more specifically climate change. Can we or will we get it right this time? Will the best of contemporary science form the underpinnings of and serve as guidance for the discussion of environmental concerns and the proper responses by humankind? As we have seen in the six decades of discussion of reproductive health, social, political, cultural, philosophical, and theological perspectives have most often held sway over good science--the knowledge of how things are and how they work. The above article is evidence of how little emphasis is placed on a clear and thorough understanding of the nature of things before we go about crafting social convention, stake out political and moral positions, and fit new knowledge within the context of existing knowledge. There is little reason for confidence that any future discussion of reproductive health in the public square will be any different than the typical discussion seen to date.

Maybe we can get it done better this time. The public will need to challenge the press and those who propose to address the topic as experts. The challenge is to demand to see the evidence of the science that underpins their respective positions. If the science presented is not supported by an adequate evidence base, then it--the science--and the accompanying social, political, cultural, philosophical, or theological position are to be set aside in favor of those founded on the best science at our disposal. In recent years, there are those within the scientific community who are increasingly willing to confound those employing questionable science to support equally questionable positions. Anyone proposing to speak in the public square can and should expect a similar challenge.

Another month has passed and another Tree Board meeting has been logged. There are pictures to prove it.

http://artsbayfieldalmanac.blogspot.com/2015/05/when-to-remove-support-stakes-from.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ArtsBayfieldAlmanac+%28Art%27s+Bayfield+Almanac%29

The tree puller never left the truck until Art was back home. The steel posts had not been driven that deep and there was enough moisture in the soil so post extraction by the pre-puller method worked just as well. It may also have proved to be a lot safer for me. The puller is designed so that it folds over onto itself, I suspect, to make it neat and tidy to store and transport. At the same time, there are lots of places to pinch one's fingers.

The pulled posts did not end up in my yard where they might be expecting a reincarnation as urban poultry fencing. They were returned to the landscaper, who had planted the trees and staked them at that time.

Reading Art's blog--not just looking at the pictures--will eliminate any excuse one has for improperly staking trees and failing to remove them in a timely manner. With a little information, anyone can pass as an arborist and possibly some day grow up to be a member of the local tree board.