I am quite certain that Rudolph Giuliani does not love me. And I am more than okay with that. Matter of a fact, I prefer it this way. I don't have to try and explain his comments to my friends, who may not love me either, but appear to tolerate hanging out with me on occasion or are willing to accept my assistance with this or that task.

Yes, it does pay to know who your friends are. It eliminates the need to apologize for the behavior of that other guy--at least some of the time.

I am not so presumptuous to assume that any news editors read this blog. Nonetheless, I will propose that the term barbarian no longer be used in either noun or adjectival form in reference to those with whom we find ourselves in conflict. The term is currently being used to describe the actions of Muslim extremists and, at times, to label the extremists themselves. One could make a case for this current use of the term, since it has become more-or-less synonymous with cruel and savage. But the term is much more nuanced in its origins and historical usage. The following websites are very insightful, in my judgment, and give credence to my proposal.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/barbarian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarian

I propose that one uses a term like heinous to describe or label the behavior which we find to be so grossly offensive and so diametrically opposed to the commonly accepted notions of human decency. Depraved or wicked or depravity or wickedness could serve as synonyms as adjectives and nouns respectively. Granted these terms do not have the same inflammatory quality as the term barbarian. We don't need to be inflammatory; we need to clearly and forthrightly state our disapproval and disgust. Our own actions must be clear evidence that we abhor such behavior on the part of either foe or friend.

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.