My Weakly Contribution

I once again sat paralyzed in front of the boob tube held hostage by the zany antics of the cast and characters of my new favorite sitcom, "Merry Mikey and His Little Friends". Michael, suffering from a severe back ailment, appears in court accompanied by a physician in scrubs. In a game of one upsmanship, a member of his very own defense team, not to be outdone, is wheeled out of the courtroom on a gurney and whisked away via ambulance. Original drama the likes of which ER would never attempt. The presiding ringmaster might well take under advisement the consideration of moving the three ring circus from the courthouse to the local hospital. Thats where the little clowns in the VW seem to spend most of their time. The benefits of the move would have a positive impact and definitely streamline the case.

A woman at a Wendy's Restaurant bit off a little more than she could chew. Seems the bowl of beef and beans was seasoned with a human finger. It gives a whole new meaning to the term "finger food". Officials initially pointed a finger at restaurant crewmembers, but a thorough investigation of all hands on deck at the time revealed a full compliment of digits. The finger has been printed and being compared with other prints from a tomato based data bank. Could this be a case of punitive measures undertaken by someone outraged when a coworker was caught red handed double dipping the corn chips into the chili dip at an office party?

Bobby Fischer just won his greatest chess match. In a highly controversial move, P-4 to K-3, he did a neat checkmate on the U.S. He moved to Iceland and has been granted citizenship there. Bobby committed a nefarious crime many years ago by engaging in a exhibition chess game in the former Yugoslavia, which at that time was under sanctions by the U.S. Although the two countries have an extradition treaty, it is highly unlikely that the chess capitol of the world will honor the treaty. I expect to see a large number of foreign terrorists and drug runners suddenly adding "chess master" to their resumes.

"American Idol" is not my favorite TV program. After once watching ten minutes of the show, I considered petitioning the FCC to label it as totally offensive and indecent. But the constant deluge of publicity brought on by the media makes it impossible for one to escape its reach and grip. Judge Simon could easily mount a coup in any Third World country and have himself elevated to the title of dictator for life. However, they were able to pull off a stunt that made the Election Commissioners of many states green with envy. Mistakenly, or so the producers of the show claimed, telephone numbers to elicit votes for the contenders suffered from dyslexia. When dialing a number to vote for one contestant, the vote actually registered for another. The network and the show had a brilliant idea. Broadcast an additional show to rectify the matter. Now TV shows make their money from advertisers. Advertisers buy airtime in advance for the specific day of the week, timeslot and of course popularity of the program. How then did the parties of the first and second part accomplish all of this in a twenty-four hour period? The network had to nix regularly scheduled programming. Cast and crew had to be lined up for the additional segment. I'm sure Simon had to stay up all night thinking of his witty discourse. Then again was an additional tape already in the can awaiting the moment the startling revelation was made?

"Oh Andy", sighed Barney.

Thoughts of What Once Was

About a week ago I received a beautiful present. Two daffodils. Such beauty, so bright and alive. I placed them in a vase, properly watered them and exposed them to light. Yet, a week later they wilt and die. But one should not be sad at the prospect of their flowery demise. My daffys brightened my mornings and gave me cause to smile after a rough day. Although I cared for them as best I could, they were not made to be forever. They were placed before me for that brief moment in life so that I could relish the beauty of nature.

As of this writing, the Terri Shiavo case is at an end. The years of litigation in the courts of Florida are over. The case has traveled through the federal system as if the speed of light stood still. Politicians toyed with the issue like a cat with a mouse. Religious dogma found its way into a secular state. The moral character of those involved were questioned. The whores of legal analysis stood fast in their spin on the controversy. Judges were barbaric and tyrannical akin to the killers of the family pet. The opinions of learned Doctors of Medicine differed.

What amazes me most of all the hoopla is the speed of the judicial system. Criminal and civil cases languish in their prospective dockets, yet this case rocketed to the highest court in less than a week. Does the blindfold of lady justice slip a bit when the case is high profile and of a burning issue? Should all cases not receive the same attention?

My daffodils are dying and its time for me to let go. Yet, I will remember their importance in my life.

An Unrestrained Order

The legal label may vary from state to state, but the document and the legal effect granted is known as a "Restraining Order. This order of the court is designed to protect one party, normally a spouse or domestic partner, from anticipated violence at the hands of another party, normally a spouse or domestic partner. A judicial order directing all agencies of the state, particularly law enforcement, to provide protection from violent acts.

In Missouri the procedure to become a holder of the magical piece of paper via the Adult Abuse Act is quite simple. The petitioner, the seeker of the court's protection, appears before the court clerk, fills in the blanks on a form, writes a short narrative describing the violent nature of the individual in question and pays the appropriate filing fee. A temporary order is granted with a court date down the line at which time, if the petitioner appears, a permanent order will be granted on the basis of the petition. In theory, it sounds all well and good. In reality the paper could serve a better purpose if one uses some imagination.

Not to degrade the good intentions associated with the restraining order, the prospect of abuse of the system is at hand. A vindictive spouse or domestic partner need only comply with the mechanics of the forms to accuse an innocent individual and cause the party of the second part to be placed on the street during the time leading up to the hearing that will determine the permanency of the order. That hearing is a slam dunk for the judge is surely to err on the side of the petitioner to avoid any bad publicity should the claim be true. But as I said, in some few cases the fiction outweighs the truth.

The major problem with the system is the enforcement of the order. Law enforcement rarely wants to be involved in these cases. Cops become cynical. Restraining orders are issued and issued to the same parties. The Petitioner and Respondent often live together during the period leading up to the hearing. Male cops empathize with the plight of the accused male. Its a civil matter outside police jurisdiction. Having heard the cry of "wolf" one too many times renders the sheep defenseless.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard a case today. The case involves the right of a woman to sue a police department in Colorado. Most governmental agencies are immune from civil lawsuits, except in certain circumstances, under the legal theory of Sovereign Immunity. She had one of these valuable pieces of paper. But one night her estranged husband had her three young daughters. The woman begged and pleaded with the police to help her. She brought out the paper. The cops resisted her pleas. They assigned no importance to an adequate investigation. That night, the husband shot and killed the girls and then ended his own life in a suicide by cop shootout at the police station. It's easy to Monday morning quarterback, but in this case the instant replay shows it all.

And so this precious piece of paper really amounts to worthless scrap. Although this is a matter for the various States to resolve, perhaps the Federal government could give us guidance. They see fit to do so in other issues.

Crime Time

The Three Stooges of Crime were again in the news this week. Robert Blake was acquitted of murdering his wife and is going "cowboying" which I guess is similar to the SuperBowl MVP going to Disney World. He might want to hold on to some of that cash since the wrongful death civil lawsuit is scheduled for trial July. Shouldn't have told everyone at the press conference that you were broke, Robert. Lawyers were in attendance.

Hi Ho. Hi Ho, its off to Quentin you go. Scott Peterson was handed the death penalty and so he will be out of sight but not out of mind. Seems that numerous women have already put in their bids to be the next Mrs.. P. Bad news for Scott. I don't think he relishes the thought of playing around while in the joint and his next spousal unit will definitely have a captive audience.

The Michael Jackson saga continues to pull on you. The latest story to take grip concerns a gay porn producer placing a lien on the property at Neverland. Seems Jackson owes the movie mogul for services rendered to the tune of $3 million. That should only be a handful of change to Jackson.

In a related crime story, a man in Montana has been indicted for conspiracy to kidnap the son of David Letterman. The man, a painter, had worked at the Letterman ranch and attempted to recruit a friend to help him kidnap Letterman's son and the son's nanny for a $5 million ransom. Law enforcement officials also charged the man with overcharging for painting work. They do that you know. In the event the guy is acquitted on the primary charge, he can gather time on the back up charge.

In an unrelated non crime story, a Texas lawmaker wants to bring cheerleaders in the state to task. It seems that he objects to the sexually suggestive manner in which they shake their bodies and it disrupts the games and poses a threat to the morals of the young. This guy must be shooting forD.C. Isn't Texas the home of the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders? Didn't Debbie do Dallas there? There has to be some type of distraction when the game isn't that close.

The Quality of Life or Death

It is difficult to sit here and write about this. Deciding the morality of an issue requires an in depth inquiry into all of the minute details of the matter and ultimately being able to live with a decision. In some instances the decision to take a life must be made in a nano second. While one may relive the decision many times over, there is no doubt that the decision was correct. Some life and death decisions are not always that clear. Morality and semantics sometimes cloud our assessment of the situation and cause doubt.

Legal wranglings once again caused delay in the fate of Terri Shiavo. Terri has existed in a persistent vegetative state for fifteen years. She has been kept alive through the means of feeding tubes, an artificial means of life, during this time. Legal proceedings have resulted in twice her feeding tubes being removed only to have them reinserted. Naturally her parents and family members want to keep her alive. They don't want to lose her. Her husband contends that Terri's wishes were that she never be kept alive through artificial support. The discussion on the subject coming long before the incident leading to her situation. The parents claim that the husband has ulterior personal and financial motives for wanting the feeding tubes removed and the resulting certainty of death. The husband denies these claims and asserts that he is merely responding to the requests of his wife. The courts have held that the husband and not the parents have the right to decide when to pull the plug.

The medical issues of the case are much too complex for the average person. Does Terri feel any pain or emotion while in this vegetative state? The removal of the tubes will result in starvation, but will Terri suffer in any way considering her state of being? The arguments run left and right. Experts give conflicting views. We turn to our religious beliefs. We turn to the Constitution. Ultimately we turn to our gut feeling.

The latest attempt to intervene comes from the Congress of the United States of America. Gaining votes in the race to replace the FCC as the most intrusive agency of the federal government, the Government Reform Committee has issued subpoenas for the parties involved, including Ms. Shiavo, to appear before the committee so that it may investigate the issues surrounding the matter. Talk about a disrespect for the dignity of life and death, the Committee lumps the tragic events of this case with those of the baseball steroid fiasco. The honorable Representatives of the U.S. try to utilize the backdoor sleaziness of an ambulance chaser. What has obviously been an issue for the state of Florida to resolve, the feds feel that usurping the authority of the state is once again a necessity to save us from ourselves. This Committee has oversight of any issue that is legislated or could be legislated and if not reigned in will make 1984 look like a Three Stooges comedy.

I have stalled long enough. The Florida judge in the case has denied the requests of the government and ordered the removal of the feeding tubes. The deadline passed more than two hours ago and it has just been announced that the tubes have been removed. An appeal will be made to a federal judge before anyone reads this. Will the tubes again be reinserted making this the third time? Let us stop the madness and decide this case once and for all.

To prevent this from happening to you and your loved ones, contact your local Bar Association for Advanced Directives which will give you the ultimate say so in your medical decisions. They are easy to fill out and an attorney is not a required ornament.

Constitutional Concrete?

A recent online article reached out, grabbed me by the collar and screamed, "READ ME!!!". The topic suggested that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was working the room in an effort to become the No. 1 seed for the seat of Chief Justice when the aging and ailing William Rehnquist is finally deemed incapable to corral the boys and girls of the Court.

Scalia has never been a favorite of mine and the feeling is echoed by many. However, he is a brilliant jurist in his own right and some of his written decisions are masterpieces which will land him a spot in the Judicial Hall of Fame. The problem I have with Mr.. Justice Scalia is his view that the Constitution is nothing more than a legal document with the same meaning now as it did back when it was ratified in 1788. He denies its existence as a 'living Constitution", one where changes are necessary to reflect societal changes. Scalia feels, and I agree with him to a certain extent, that the legislature should provide for the needs of the People and the Court should look no further than the four corners of the document itself. The legislature and other elected officials should look to their constituents when they vote a yay or nay. But the Court better be ready to interpret the law since some of the people we put in office can't properly compose a grocery list.

The Articles of the Constitution provide for three branches of government: Legislative, Executive and Judicial. Each has certain checks and balances on the other to prevent an unequal distribution of control. But the Framers knew from the inception of the Constitution, that it was far from perfect. So, the Framers did as Mr. Justice Scalia proposed so many years later. They whipped up some amendments to the original document and sent them out to be ratified by the States. The Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, came to be the law of the land and the Constitution began to live and breath. More amendments were added to reflect the changes in society. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery and the 14th provided citizenship rights and that citizens of the various states were entitled to Due Process in state proceedings. That's right. Until that time, a defendant in the state court was not entitled to the same protections as a defendant in the federal court system. The 18th Amendment proposed no booze and the 21st said booze was ok. The 19th gave women the right to vote. The Constitution lives; it breaths. It does not lie dormant. Granted, to an extent Scalia is correct in his premise that the citizens can change the laws in that all of these Amendments stem from a cooperative legislative/citizen endeavor. But sometimes a little common sense as to what the Constitution really stands for is necessary. Sometimes a little bit of guts helps.

The Court has at times looked beyond the four corners of the document. If you read and reread the Constitution, you will never locate the passage giving protection to marriage as a privacy right. Read Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). An opinion rendered by another heavy judicial hitter, Justice William Douglas. The point is that we live in an ever changing day and age. Technological advances dictate that the Court make decisions based on the current state of affairs and not the 18th Century. It is paramount that the Court will reign in an overzealous legislature.

I would not in my wildest dreams even consider debating Justice Scalia on the subject for I know he would bestow upon me the most severe gavel whipping in the history of American Jurisprudence. I just consider the Constitution to be more than a piece of paper.

http://members.aol.com/schwenkler/scalia/

http://slate.msn.com/id/2114219/

Peanuts, Crackerjacks and Steroids

The hottest topic right now in the sports world isn't the NCAA Tournament or the arrival of baseball's opening day. Steroids is the burning issue and the scheduled House Government Reform Committee's hearings this Thursday. The committee has invoked its jurisdictional powers to conduct investigative hearings into matters that they legislate or could possibly legislate. Baseball players have been issued subpoenas and must appear under threat of a contempt of Congress resolution.

Anabolic steroids help build body tissue and mass in order to enhance athletic performance. In low doses, the drug has medicinal purposes. But athletes take higher doses to achieve the desired effect. Use of the drug can result in serious side effects. Eventually the use of the drug trickles down to the high school level as junior athletes vie for the edge necessary to win a scholarship. Aside from all this, the drug is an illegal controlled substance.

The committee has cited two major reasons for the necessity of the hearings. First, the problem of the illegal use of steroids has been known to baseball for some time and that they have failed to resolve the matter. Secondly, we must protect the children who view the players as role models. The same basic argument was proposed and the subject of another Congressional investigation into the use of medicinal marijuana. Distribution of marijuana is illegal under federal law and states can not regulate its use overriding federal law. Also, we need to protect the kids from the conflicting information about drugs. Maybe drug companies were irritated?

Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va) and Rep Henry Waxman (D- Ca) recently appeared together on Meet the Press looking like a loving couple at the beginning of a reality TV show. Bi-partisan results they advanced. United on the issue. It wasn't so much that they were united on the steroid issue as much as they were on the delight and glee they would take on citing with contempt any millionaire ballplayer who declined to play in their home park.

As I said before, the Committee has the right to conduct these hearings and we must genuflect to them in that regard. The problem rests with the fact that a federal grand jury in California is currently involved with investigating a drug company and the distribution of steroids. As such, the hearings might in fact impede the progress of the grand jury. Anyone subpoenaed by the Committee and a witness before the grand jury would have to be granted immunity from prosecution so as not to violate their Constitutional rights. It has happened before. Remember Iran-Contra? Oliver North's conviction was overturned due to testimony before a committee. So why conduct the hearings? It would seem that the Justice Department is more proficient in prosecuting a case.

Seems that the glowing picture of Davis and Waxman on the news front hasn't always been all roses. In a July 27, 2004 letter from Waxman to Davis, Waxman accuses Davis and his predecessor, Dan Burton, of being a slight bit selective in their decisions on who to investigate. Davis and Burton were keen to investigate matters concerning Democrats, but shied away from Republican wrongdoing. How ironic that excuses for their lack of diligence rested on the fact that Justice Dept. investigations might be compromised and that a redundant investigation would be counterproductive to legislative resources.

http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/07/ale04021.html

So what is the priority of baseball and steroids when there are so many other fish to fry? What next? Corked bats?

The Judiciary in Distress

At the federal level, the law and court procedures are pretty much set in stone although every so often the interpretation of these points needs to be fine tuned. At the state level, laws and procedures vary from slightly to drastic from state to state. On the left coast, the tardy defendant donning his best PJ's is threatened with jail, but the circus atmosphere prevails and he is only severely admonished for for his behavior. How many times does an admonishment have to be severe before it becomes a most severe admonishment? Adding fuel to the fire, even the comedians have to bring in their legal beagles to overcome gag orders that prevent them from spinning jokes. Farther away across the country a judge, a court stenographer and a deputy are gunned down by the defendant in a brutal rape trial. The assailant overpowered a guard, taking her gun and calmly went back to the courtroom with the calculation of ending the life of another human being. Some pragmatic dissenters will bemoan the fact that a mere female should not have been assigned the duty of guarding this individual. This is not an issue of male v. female physical ability, it's an issue of why a greater number of guards, male or female notwithstanding, were not assigned to escort this guy to court. Were there any red flags to warn the authorities of the suspects propensity to violence? Maybe the fact that he was found with homemade sharp and pointy implements of destruction in his possession the day before? Three fatalities, one critical wounding, the pistol whipping of a random victim during the escape and the bad actor remains at large as of this time. It is very likely, based upon his track record, that others will be harmed or worse. This all comes on the heels of the brutal and senseless murder of the husband and mother of a federal judge in Chicago The victims just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time since the judge was the actual target of a disgruntled "casualty" of the system. Members of the front line law enforcement community know what they face when they walk out the front door in the morning. We should be grateful for the physical and emotional sacrifices that they make each day. Members of the judiciary and prosecutors however should not be one of the expendable pawns in the game of cops and robbers. Granted some are overzealous and a good swift kick in the rear should be awarded for their endeavors. But for the most part, the defendants of the world know they were wrong and part of the game is paying the dues. Even the Mafia didn't go after these folks with a vegence. Budgetary constraints will be cited for the breakdown in security. The court system is low profile and so the money to protect judges is not forthcoming. Instead, both the state and federal legislators cut the budgets in some areas to provide for friends in others. They pay more attention to the FCC's desire to protect us from five seconds of so called indecency than they do trying to protect us from explaining to our kids why the events in Atlanta took place. They change the bankruptcy laws to protect big business at the expense of the poor guy who lost his job and has enormous family medical expenses. They cut funding for programs to assist child care and education and like the anti Robin Hood give it to the developers in tax incentives funding or maybe even to build a new baseball stadium. One incident such as this is one too many.

The Facelift

Harry Stonecipher has been ousted from his position of CEO and President of the Boeing Co. He was found to have violated the Boeing code of business conduct for being involved in a relationship with a female Company executive. While the Company can not attest to a conflict of interest resulting from the relationship, Harry, a staunch advocate of the code of conduct, exercised poor judgment in his decision and this reflects on his ability to lead. However, a spokesperson for Boeing readily admits that a consensual affair in and of itself is not a violation of the code. However, other problems came to light in the investigation, initiated by an anonymous tipster, which resulted in the forced removal. The female, presumably obliged to conduct herself accordingly to the same code, remains with the Company. No sexual harassment allegations are suggested.

Boeing has been the issue of scandal for the past two years. An ex- CFO and an ex military procurement officer have been sentenced to jail for a scheme designed to favor Boeing on defense contracts. A multi billion dollar contract with the Air force went down the tubes. Scandal upon scandal involving the giant military contractor, not all on Stonecipher's watch, has come to light. So, is the ouster of Harry truly attributable to the finding that he can not separate the operation of a business and leading a personal life? While policies prohibiting fraternization are often the norm in many companies, enforcement is the exception and not the rule and officers of the companies face no severe discipline. Boeing would rather not comment on the so called juicy tidbits unearthed in the investigation citing the need to keep Harry's life private. So why the public disclosure of the story? Could they not have asked for a resignation alluding to the customary health or devotion to family matters? What was the necessity of the public outing? Passing on a moral judgment concerning infidelity, is this a reason to force exile? Seems like it might be a most excellent way for the aerospace giant to save face.

Likewise, take the case of the Italian journalist, Giuliana Sgrena, kidnapped and held hostage by Iraqi insurgents only to be wounded by American forces after the Italians negotiated her release. Accounts surrounding the incident differ. The American military insist that the car conveying Sgrena disregarded warnings as the car approached a road block and the Americans were forced to use deadly force resulting in her being wounded and the fatal wounding of an Italian security agent. Sgrena contends that there were no warnings and that the Americans were purposely firing with the intention of killing her because of the negotiated release. After all she was told by her captors that the Americans would attempt to kill her. Sounds like the Stockholm Syndrome at its very worse. Whatever her motives, Americans once again become the fall guy. Obviously the GI's manning the roadblock were not faced with the mundane day in day out decisions faced by CEO's of big business. Now the Monday morning quarterbacks takeover possibly looking to save face.

TGIF Summary

Welcome back, oh Queen of the blue light special. Martha's home and I for one am glad the ordeal at Camp Cupcake is over. No cappuccino for all that time and then come home to find your machine is on the fritz? How bad can it get? Sporting an elegant piece of ankle jewelry, Martha will spend the next five months under house arrest. She looks well and I wish her well. Actually, Martha should have never been hung out to dry in the first place. Another example of prosecutorial overreaction based upon gender. In any event, during her stay in the big house (or the suburban bungalow, whatever) the stock price of Martha's company rose. On the day of her release, it dropped. Does this indicate that the company was better off while she was in the slammer? Who said crime doesn't pay?

The Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty constituted Cruel and Unusual Punishment in violation of the 8th Amendment when directed at juveniles. I applaud the decision of the Court and hope that they will find a case to hear that will eventually abolish all death penalties. Maybe some death row inmate will bring a case for reversal on the grounds of age discrimination. A dissenting justice in the case, Antonin Scalia who coincidentally is being touted for the Chief Justice role once Rehnquist finally sees the light and gives up his seat, gave us his most enlightened legal reasoning for being in the minority. Much like a state requiring a drivers license or setting hours for liquor sales, the death penalty for juveniles is a state's right issue. Excuse me Mr. Justice? How about when a state wishes to permit same sex marriage? An amendment to the Constitution is contemplated so that we can save ourselves from the immorality of it all. I will agree for the record that it appears it some cases that the death penalty is appropriate. Some people are worthy of being dragged into the alley, shot and thrown in the nearest dumpster. Then again some of you haven't been cops and seen the harm capable of an over zealous team of cops and prosecutors.

Now take the case of a part time police chief in Fowler, Ohio. He had his own diversion program for juveniles committing traffic violations. Paddling. Not quite the teacher with a hickory switch or the unruly nun armed with a ruler, but a paddle to avoid receiving a ticket. He now faces a 52 count indictment for various felony and misdemeanor charges along with the (sigh) customary lawsuit. You can't paddle them: you can't execute them. How will they ever be disciplined?

In related teenage news, a teacher in Brick, N.J. (the city and state say it all) was caught on video from a camera phone throwing a tantrum and pulling the chair out from underneath a student for refusal to stand for the National Anthem. At least he didn't use a paddle.The teen who filmed the incident was suspended for 10 days for something to the effect of "violating the teacher's Constitutional rights". However, police looking at the video on the phone discovered more videos depicting the teens involved in the destruction of Christmas displays. The teens were charged. Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. Hopefully, the teacher was placed in timeout or given an extra study hall.

In case you are wondering, Robert Blake's fate is now in the hands of the jury. There has been more testimony of Michael Jackson not keeping his hands to himself. Hollywood celeb couple, Denise Richards and Charlie Sheen, are no longer holding hands since the very pregnant Richards has filed for divorce.That's more hand chicanery than any magician can keep up with.

Har$$hbi$hop Burke (ching-ching) has supposedly left town to avoid the upcoming demonstration (read candlelight vigil, March 6th at 11 AM) at the Cathedral on Lindell. Question: what is the purpose of a daytime candlelight vigil?

Rebutting Burke

Checking my email the other day, I noticed a message from an Anonymous source commenting on one of my blog articles. Wow, a comment. I tore into the inbox like a kid into his neatly wrapped present on Christmas Morning. The mail contained a letter written by the St. Stanislaus Kostka Advisory Committee (hereinafter, SAC) The letter gives the alternative argument in the continuing property dispute between St. Stan's Parish and the Archbishop of St. Louis Raymond Burke. My best friend, who coincidentally is not my dog, said I should just delete the comment and treat it as spam. My blog is there to provide the public with both sides of the issue and let the public decide based on the truth. And so I feel compelled to give rebuttal. Not just as a comment to a comment, but a full fledged rambling. Grab your favorite beverage, smoke em if you got em and have a seat and read.

In the first instance SAC, you complain about the secular media placing the spotlight on the Board of Directors at St. Stan's (hereinafter BOD) and ignoring those with opposing views, like you. The same can be said about the St. Louis Review, the Archdiocese Newspaper, not allowing statements by the BOD to be printed. Face it Sac, the secular media covers stories where they can interview living and breathing human beings.The BOD members have an identity. They have names. They are flesh and blood. They don't hide behind a cloak of secrecy. The shroud of anonymity brings no credibility. Anonymity conjures up notions of people in the Federal Witness Protection Program. Get a spokesperson who can articulate the issues and you just might get exposure.

The main issues as I see it are Property and Pastoral. The property issue is a closer call, but I think that the BOD provides a more persuasive argument for their stance. Although I have studied Canon Law, I readily exclaim I'm not an expert in the field. But as the BOD has said, there are sections of the Canon that address the issue and it appears that the property in question is the property of the parish. The Archbishop wants to place the property and assets in a irrevocable trust and claims that he won't be privy to the purse strings. Well, if that is truly the case, why not just leave well enough alone as it has been for all these years. (More about this in the pastoral issue).

SAC claims that an audit of the accounts held at St. Stan's is necessary to assure that no hanky-panky is in the works. BOD agrees with them and also provides evidence that the funds under their management were the subject of a professional audit and all was found to be in order. SAC argues that the BOD usurped the authority and demonstrated disrespect to the former pastor by taking away the control of parish funds from the reverend. From what I have read, the pastor demonstrated disrespect for his flock by expending the monies like a kid in a candy store. Of course that's just what I have read and I imagine that the actual evidence will be presented in an almost certain to go to trial situation.

Property issues of this type are not really new to St. Louis. Archbishop, now Cardinal, Rigali attempted to foil the sale of St. Louis University Hospital to a private for profit group, Tenet. Rigali claimed that the hospital was the property of the archdiocese since it was situated in same. Fr. Lawrence Biondi, head of SLU, countered that the board of directors was comprised of lay people and as such was out side the authority of the bishop. The deal finally went through, but only after a compromise was reached and a black bag was dropped off at the Vatican.
The more important issue is that of Pastoral Care. The Shepherd leading his flock. Want to get into Canon Law? Pastoral care is the principle of the Canon. Through it all other laws of the church follow. It means compassion, love, giving and caring. It doesn't start with the Pope and end there. It works its way up and down the ladder of authority.
There is no doubt that Burke's behavior and attitudes shocked many St. Louis Catholics upon his arrival. He is to church law as to what we would call a strict constructionist in dealing with constitutional law. He immediately gave his views on political candidates and church teachings. Support the teachings or be denied the sacraments. He even went as far as considering imposing the same penalty on those who would vote for these candidates, but did the little side step when he found he may have gone just a bit too far. He views gays and same sex marriage with disdain. Stem cell research is out of line. Pro-choice, not to mention abortion, is a ticket out of the church. While these issues are actually not in line with the official church teachings, many Catholics support them without a feeling of shame or being sinful.

Burke worked the same wonders in LaCrosse, WI where he closed parishes and schools and made good on threats to politicians running afoul of church law. However, he found the money to build and operate a shrine that I have trouble finding having any connection whatsoever to the area. Then again when you are da boss, you are da bomb. Burke's legacy follows him as he continues to close parishes and schools here in St. Louis.
SAC claims that the media has distorted the issues and failed to provide impartial and unbiased coverage. Seems to me that all of the coverage has been to the favor of the bishop. A recent "day in the life" account of Burke gives him the appearance of a kindly cleric presupposed only to the wants and needs of his people. So what's your beef? But is he so kindly as depicted? He took away the priests and the rituals of the church from St. Stan's. He reached into his back pocket and pulled out the age old punishment of interdict, a sort of mini-excommunication, imposing same on the BOD. I imagine SAC is exclaiming that it served them right. But Burke's behavior reminds me of all that I found wrong with the church when I and other boomers were young. I remember being taught that the God of those days was still a vengeful vindictive God. There were no rewards for compliance, but many punishments for non compliance. But the image of God changed to that of a loving compassionate and caring father who bestowed upon his children an unconditional love. A God who forgives and understands.

SAC also contends that the issue has been decided by the Vatican in favor of the Archdiocese. From what I remember, only the Pope is infallible in issues of faith and morals by virtue of position as successor to Peter. Does a property issue fall into either category? Even if one waives argument on that issue, was the Pope actually consulted on the matter? While all in the Vatican dismiss any concern on the Pope's health and state that he is in charge and making the decisions, did he actually receive the case or did one of his assistants? I love the man and wish no less than the best for him, but he is frail and I'm sure not capable of running the church full time. If he didn't and the matter is one concerning faith and morals, then there is the possibility of fallibility. Or was the decision made where it was stated that this concerns the American bishop, let him handle it?

Finally, SAC claims that the actions of the BOD are shameful disobedience to the bishop. Give me a break. If the BOD is being disobedient, think of the countless number of cafeteria Catholics who pick and choose what is a sin and what is not. They rationalize that God made commandments and the church laws are only man made, so they are not that important. Believe me, I'm not a Bible thumper, but I know the workings of the Catholic church.

As I ready to post this blog, breaking news hits that the Vatican may be named a co-defendant in a class action lawsuit involving sexual abuse.

SAC, THE TRUTH IS... if you are going to post a comment on my blog, at least have some facts which can be substantiated and not just bald assertions. We have bigger fish to fry and greater multitudes to feed.

The Quality of Premiums is Strained.

OK. I'm back. Recent developments caused by a brief bout of self-doubt and one too many bubbles in a beer can necessitated the clearing of a confused mind. But trust is of the utmost importance in our daily lives. We rely on trust. As consumers, we look to the businesses we patronize to be trustworthy. We want them to think of us as more than a mere account number. A personal relationship rather than a public clone. Let's talk insurance companies.

A couple of friends of a friend have found out the hard way that you are not always in good hands when it comes to insurance. Both friends had fires damage their homes. The insurance company provided compensation according to their respective plans and coverage. That's where the good deeds became done and now both friends will not be renewed for insurance once their homes are again habitable. Seems that once you suffer a catastrophic event, you will be subject to the same event in the future at least according to the insurance industry.Think for a moment. Unless you are living in hurricane or tornado alley, the chances of such an event repeating are very slim. Then again homeowners in Missouri have found that a hailstorm, an "Act of God", resulted in the nonrenewal of homeowners insurance. Insurance is much like a reverse lotto; you pay hoping not to ever be in the situation where you have to collect, but if you do, you lose.

Did you know that insurance companies check your credit history? They do and not for the purpose of ascertaining your risk of nonpayment of premiums. They can check you out without your permission to determine by their standards whether or not you are a risk to file a claim. Lower credit scores or even no credit scores equate to a good chance that you will become a claimant.

Even minor claims can result in a raise of rates. A few years ago, I filed a claim for towing my disabled vehicle to the shop for repairs. The claim was for less than $50. Total raise in rates for the two years after the fact: $120 per year. That only amounts to $10 per month and so you don't think much about it. But if you get pissed and seek out another insurer, will you really win? You are caught in a form of Catch-22. While the new insurance company can not ask if you have ever been faced with nonrenewal or cancellation for that is illegal, claim data is posted by a clearing house for all the insurance world to see. It is known throughout the industry that you have been a claimant. And the same holds true with medical data if you are looking for health or life insurance.

If you want more information on your rights, lack thereof, or the insurance companies that lead the league in complaints, go to: http://www.insurance.state.mo.us/