Sixty-nine and counting.


Today is my 69th birthday, and I will continue to keep an eye on the future. I am not sure what I am looking for or keeping an eye out for, but I will keep at least one eye open--just in case.


I also took a couple of steps this morning to be prepared for at least a few eventualities. A weekly accumulation of trash and recyclables was transported to the transfer station (The dump was closed years ago and replaced by dumpsters.) freeing up the usual allotted space for the ongoing accumulation of such and reducing any odorous evidence of the same. Then there were were two loads of laundry which produced among other things a clean pair of bib overalls--one of the two new pairs that I had received as a Christmas present. I trust that whoever it is that is responsible for such things does not decide that I am prepared only for more garbage and a dirty job or two.

Is punching a morally defensible option?

Yes, I am referring to a recent comment by Pope Francis and his description of a "normal response" to a curse which denigrates an other's mother. A punch may be a normal response, but that does not make it either an acceptable response or an action free of punitive consequences for the puncher on either moral or legal grounds. Once we open the door to a physical response to a perceived slight (intended or not), the offended party is in a position to calibrate their responding punch proportionate to the offense taken. For some, that is nothing short of the life of the other person. Do we want to return to duels at sunrise or gunfights at sundown?

I am not sure what Pope Francis meant in his off-the-cuff statement, but I do know how it is being interpreted in some quarters--something akin to a just war defense as his words are extrapolated to a national or sectarian religious insult. In the latter case, simply raising a serious theological question in a respectful manner can be construed as blasphemy.

Here is another take on the Pope's comment, which deserves thoughtful consideration.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/16/pope-francis-free-speech-charlie-hebdo

Pope Francis' comment strikes me as very much culturally driven. Let me try to explain. I grew up in an environment peopled by European immigrants and their descendants. The epitaph SOB was freely thrown about either directed at an individual or simply a free form curse. No one ever seemed to take it as an insult directed at one's mother. So if I don't speak Spanish and my cultural diversity is divisible only by one, I can be rightfully subjected to physical retribution for cursing in my mother tongue. When I was in the service, it was a very different story. Latino troops automatically interpreted this epitaph as an insult directed at their mothers, irrespective of the intent (in my judgment anyway) of the speaker. If the words were spoken by a peer, that peer was informed in no uncertain terms that offense had been taken.

I have a question for Pope Francis. I trust he will take his time in formulating an answer. What is an appropriate and proportionate response to a fatwa prohibiting snowmen?

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/Olive-Press/2015/0114/Seriously-a-fatwa-against-snowmen-Saudis-push-back-on-Twitter

"You can take off your sunglasses now."

There are incidents that take place, and there are thoughts that occur within my internal space, both of which may lend themselves to an entry in the blog. But as I ponder these items and consider ways that I might expound upon them, I decide against making them the subject of a blog entry.  I am just not ready for that degree of self disclosure.

I can't resist expounding upon and blogging an incident that occurred earlier this week and meets this criteria. (Those among my readers, who know the particulars of my situation, will understand why I could be gracious this time.)

I was wearing sunglasses on a recent drive home on a particularly bright and sunny afternoon with my wife in the passenger seat. As we got closer to home and the sun slipped behind some clouds, I was instructed, "You can take off your sunglasses now." I have become accustomed to receiving all types of driving instructions from my spouse. Everything from speed up or slow down, pass or don't pass, wash the windshield, use the turn signal, change lanes, and others that I am sure that I have forgotten, but that is okay, because I will be reminded as needed. This was the very first time that I was instructed to wear or not wear sunglasses. I didn't say anything, but I DID NOT TAKE MY SUNGLASSES OFF. I wasn't really being passive-aggressive. I actually thought it continued to bright enough to warrant sunglasses.

Several years ago after witnessing an instructional episode with my wife, a friend commented, "Your wife really is a kindergarten teacher." He explained that such natural born individuals have a compulsion to be in control, and in their role of teacher responsible for a dozen or more little ones, they simply have to be. It is critical to maintain control and order, rather than being put in the position of regaining control and restoring order once proverbial things have hit the proverbial fan. This compulsion doesn't always get turned off as the teacher leaves the classroom or playground and finds her or himself in a group of adults watching a Sunday afternoon football game.

This observation was later substantiated by an independent source. I related the incident and my friend's comment to another friend, who responded, "I know what you mean." His wife is a retired first grade teacher. He went on to describe how he is unable to casually shift his weight from one foot to another as he waits for someone or something in the presence of his wife. She immediately assumes that he needs to go to the restroom and does not hesitate to instruct him in very audible terms "You need to go to the restroom. Go."

These experiences have to make one wonder just what it is that women as mothers (and not just as teachers) observe about men in general, but never gets mentioned.  Something tells me this must be SOME list. Maybe this is the gist of woman-to-woman conversations. They don't just talk about kids and grandkids.

Guys, let's be careful out there.

The thaw in US and Cuban relations has awakened memories of the 50's. I can recall news reports of 1959 announcing the fall of Batista and Castro's victory. As a 13 year old, I am not sure which side I was rooting for. It probably was the insurgents. I don't think the American press presented Batista in a very positive light.

Curiously, my other memories of the 50's are the 1957 and 1958 World Series. The Milwaukee Braves won in 1957 and lost in 1958.

Both instances of winners and losers--albeit with very different stakes. Baseball starts over with a new season each year. Nation states are on a very different and unpredictable time schedule. After a 55 year off season, the US and Cuba are about to begin a new season.

I have recently finished reading Danielle Trussoni's Falling Through The Earth. I find myself comparing it to Farley Mowat's And No Bird Sang and to Tony Hillerman's Seldom Disappointed. Born in 1973, Ms Trussoni has essentially written a Vietnam war memoir. Her father served with the 25th Infantry Division arriving in Vietnam in Febuary 1968. The Tet Offensive had begun on January 30th of that year. At that point, it was clear to the US leadership, if not publicly acknowledged, that the war was no longer winnable, if it ever was, in any common understanding of the concept of victory.

How does one write their father's war memoir? The war is brought home and given to one's children. It is not something one sets out to do; it is the nature of war. It is not the childhood that one chooses; it is the nature of such families.

Maybe it is time to reread Stephen Crane's The Red Badge of Courage, even though it is a novel and not a memoir and the author only experienced combat later as a war correspondent.

Talking heads--self-styled or considered experts--making the rounds on cable news shows to comment on the Senate Torture Report make such statements as: "They were only doing what we asked them to do." "We had a presidential finding." "We had legal assurances that these activities were lawful." "I was only a lieutenant colonel."

Why is it that no one references the Geneva Convention and the Nuremberg Principles? Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention prohibits "cruel treatment and torture." Cruel treatment and torture are listed among the "grave breaches," that is, the most serious of violations of the norms for warfare. Principle III of the Nuremberg Principles states that no "Head of State" or "responsible Government official" can claim exemption from their responsibility under International Law. Principle IV states: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him." Principle VI does not use the term torture; it uses a more general term--"ill treatment of prisoners"--in its listing of war crimes. Parsing the term torture is not supported by the language of these norms. Neither is the use of a misleading construction, such as "enhanced interrogation technique."

Army basic training in 1970 included instruction on this subject. It was made very clear that each individual soldier is personally responsible for his actions and for determining the propriety of any proposed course of action. One could not claim the authorization of a superior officer or a governmental official, e.g. the president of the United States, in an attempt to avoid personal and individual legal responsibility. This applied not only to a lieutenant colonel, O-5, but also to the lowest private, E-1. It was also made clear that exercising this responsibility would very likely place the individual soldier in a precarious position. Compliance with an order to engage in an action, which one determines to be a violation of the Geneva Convention, exposes one to criminal sanctions. Refusal to comply with the direct order of a superior also exposes one to criminal sanctions. The implied, that is, not clearly stated, remedy to this dilemma is to insure that everyone participates in the activity, so that all have a shared self-interest in preventing disclosure. Group identity and group cohesion are the keys to personal survival and the avoidance of legal consequences. This proposed remedy may reduce the risks of legal consequences, but it may do nothing to protect one from the moral consequences.

Curiously, the qualifying phrase "provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him" wasn't included in the 1970 discussion. What would the circumstances have to be wherein "a moral choice" is "not possible"?

I am not really comfortable where I ended up as I concluded the posting of December 7th. Maybe I was giving Pope Francis a pass by distinguishing between the language of evangelization and the language of theology. Such a distinction is in conflict with my earlier statement in that post: "At some level all language and speech is metaphorical." Furthermore, such a distinction may not be possible or, if possible, it is only a matter of degree. I am reminded of something I read by Karen Armstrong as she defined Logos and Mythos. Logos is the realm of fact and the observable. Mythos is the arena of faith; it is not observable, but it is believable. She then states that any and all discussion of Mythos is possible only by analogy. From this perspective, both the language of evangelization and the language of theology are analogy, metaphor, simile, allegory, and parable.

A central element in the concept that underpins these five words is the use of a known to elucidate an unknown, the use of the concrete to expound upon an abstraction, and the suggestion of additional similarities between things with known or acknowledged similarities. The connections made or suggested in discussions using these tools of language are socially and culturally determined. They may also reflect highly individualistic perceptions of self, views of the environment, and perceptions of the unseen.

Where am I going with this? Where does this take me?

The question that arises for me is: "How does one identify or establish the terminal religious authority, that is, the last word in all things?" To postulate that one has the fullness of the Truth is to claim a status for one's own analogy, metaphor, simile, allegory, or parable and to deny any comparable status for all others. It is no different than an English speaker claiming superiority of language over a Japanese or Ojibwe speaker. One language may be more universal than another, but that does not mean it is better equipped to perform as a tool of communication.

To my knowledge, Pope Francis has not stated that the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of the Truth. Others certainly have; others in any numbers of religious traditions. Is it possible to interpret Pope Francis' ecumenical efforts as an acknowledgement of shared truth and an incomplete possession on the part of any and all? Is it possible to speak candidly of such things? Or is it simply too dangerous? Are we fearful that the other will perceive our position as weakness and capitalization? Can't Truth be better served?

Am I once more giving Pope Francis a pass? Or has he chosen a different path than many of his predecessors and contemporaries?