This morning I attended the monthly meeting of the municipal tree board, of which I am a member. I don't have any particular knowledge or expertise to qualify me as a member of that renown body except that the chairman, who holds the title of city forester, lives one block down. I often encounter Art as he walks his dog in the morning and as I am taking my dog-less walk. My sense is that he has decided that I am appropriate for membership on the tree board simply because his dog seems to tolerate me ever so easily. Another tree board member lives one block over, and we often make garbage and recyclable disposal a joint activity. Howard is also supportive of my membership on the board probably related to my tolerance for garbage. I have been known to fire up a chainsaw in my backyard on occasion and, more importantly, there are trees remaining in my back, as well as front yard. That may give me some street creed with the tree board folks. It speaks well of one to be known as a pruner and not a logger.

There are four members of the tree board from the city's third ward out of a total of seven members.  Clearly the third ward is over-represented. Either the city council ignored that imbalance or decided it was not pertinent when they approved my appointment to the board. I do have a letter from the city clerk informing me that the common council approved my mayoral appointment to the tree board. The letter makes no mention of the rights and privileges associated with the position, so I can only assume that a second letter is forthcoming.

One item on this morning's agenda was the selection of tree cultivars to be purchased for this spring's planting. I realized I was reaching when I suggested shrubbery of some kind to improve the appearance of a key corner and to stabilize a steep bank. The chairman took the suggestion in stride and noted that it was worth considering. Howard, on the other hand, stated in jest that he wanted nothing to do with a tree and shrubbery board; he only wants to be known as a member of the tree board. There was no further discussion of the topic, but I am quite confident that the chairman will order dwarf lilac or something similar for the area in question. Later in the day, I sent Howard an email admitting that I may well be stature sensitive and attributed his comment to his six foot plus frame. Furthermore, whether something is a tree or not has little to do with height. The dictionary describes tree as a woody perennial with a single stem and branches. Shrub is included in the definition more-or-less as a synonym.

I went on to chide Howard--friends can get away with such nonsense--that the Land of Little Sticks is a case in point. Drawing a comparison to the relative differences in our heights, I noted that small or dwarf trees have their rightful place in a northern clime. Pursuing this logic I went on to suggest that short folks may be more native to the local area than taller folks, which makes the latter an interloper--an invasive subspecies, if you will. I have yet to hear back from Howard, I suspect that he is crafting an ingenious repartee. Or he simply may have better things to do than humor me.

I do have a comeback in the ready. I will argue that the inclusion of understory species in our plantings is most appropriate.

Four Wisconsin stories have made the national news this past week. Number 1: (and in no particular order) Governor Walker's 2016 presidential primary campaign. Number 2: the passage of right to work legislation by the legislature and the governor's signature on the same. Number 3: the death of T. Robinson, a 19-year old Madison resident. And number 4: the Slenderman homicide case where the two accused 12-year olds are being charged as adults. (Wisconsin law states that anyone age 10 or older accused of a serious crime is to be charged as an adult. The court can be petitioned to return the case to juvenile court. Those petitions, as in this case, are often not successful.)

I have a sense that there is a common thread to these four stories, but I am at a loss to put it into words. Here is my attempt to do just that: when it comes to individual responsibility the state will hold its citizens to that standard to the nth degree even when the citizen in question is a pre-teen 12-year old or a troubled 19-year old young adult. Employees are to be free of supposedly onerous union dues and left without a workplace advocate. Are we not making a mockery of individual responsibility?

What might it mean when one grows up in a family where ring bologna and liverwurst were considered "treats"? What more might it mean when one marries a woman who also considers liverwurst a "treat" and who insists on referring to farm sausage as ring bologna? (I will concede that there may be no substantive difference between ring bologna and farm sausage except for a minor difference in appearance and a name designed as a marketing ploy.)

Extrapolate these observations how you will. To say the least, there is consistency on my part. It may also explain, in part, why this marriage has passed the 43 year mark and continues on towards number 44. I also know enough to bring home a treat now and again. Yesterday was one of those now and again days. A chunk of liverwurst was the impulse buy of the day. It resulted in a more effusive reaction than some of my previous gifts. Now what does that say?

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