The Human Race & Other Sports

The Poor, the Pre-Schoolers and the Pope

With the Cross of Jesus, Marching on Before.

—Onward Christian Soldiers, A Hymn

They figured out how to do it compassionately and that comes as a great relief to the poor being served by Catholic Charities of Washington D.C.

In December 2009, the D.C. Council voted 11-2 in favor of a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. The District of Columbia requires that married same-sex couples receive the same employment benefits as are given heterosexual couples by their employers. Catholic Charities said that would force it to recognize same-sex marriage, a violation of church dogma. It said with the passage of the ordinance it would have to reconsider its role in the District. That threatened to severely impact the underprivileged since, according to Catholic on Line, Catholic Charities “serves 68,000 people . . . through a range of services, including shelter, nutrition, counseling, employment and job training services, legal and health care assistance, immigration assistance and more.” Catholic Charities has now responded and its response was not as draconian as it had suggested it might be. Although it gave up its foster care program because of the possibility children would end up in the homes of gay couples who were legally married, it has not abandoned all the other good things it does nor taken out its disapproval of the new ordinance on the poor and the destitute. Instead it has taken it out on new employees.

On March 1 all Catholic Charities employees received a message telling them that health care benefits that had theretofore been give all employees and their spouses would not be given for new hires after March 1. Although partners of new employees will not receive benefits, there’s a bright side to the picture. While gay and heterosexual couples employed by the Church are struggling to pay for health insurance for their partners, the Church will continue to help the poor.

Meanwhile, half a continent away, the Church was demonstrating that the East coast did not have a monopoly on sacrificing good works on dogma’s altar. Its messenger was Charley Chaput. Charley is the Archbishop of Denver and can be recognized by the pointy hat he wears and the crazy things he says. During the 2004 election year he said that anyone who voted for John Kerry had committed a sin that had to be confessed before the voter/supplicant would be permitted to receive communion. Charley has now come up with a new proscription that falls within the category of visiting the sins of the fathers/mothers on their children. It deals with families where there are two fathers or two mothers.

The Preschool run by the Sacred Heart of Jesus church in Boulder, Colorado, has notified staff that one of the students currently enrolled at the school will not be returning in the fall since the child’s parents are a same-sex lesbian couple. As Charley’s spokesperson explains: “Homosexual couples living together as a couple are expected to follow the Catholic Church’s beliefs.” The statement goes on to say: “No person shall be admitted as a student in any Catholic school unless that person and his/her parent(s) subscribe to the school’s philosophy and agree to abide by the educational policies and regulations of the school and Archdiocese.”

It seems obvious that at this point the school is going to have to send out a questionnaire to all parents since same-sex marriages are probably not the only proscriptions of the faith indulged in by parents of preschoolers. Votes for president in 2004 should be checked into. It makes little sense to say that a parent who voted for John Kerry cannot take communion but can send a child to Sacred Heart of Jesus preschool.

The questionnaire should inquire into the sexual practices of heterosexual parents. Some parents may view sex as having purposes beyond procreation and may even find those purposes amusing in a way that would greatly offend Charley. In furtherance of such practices it is possible they may take advantage of the marketplace’s offerings to insure that no children are conceived as a result of those activities. It is not enough for Charley to decree such conduct to be reprehensible in its own right and to promise its practitioners untoward consequences in the hereafter. There must also be immediate consequences. Burning at the stake is not an option but expulsion from preschool of the children of the sexually frivolous is. And, of course, the questionnaire should be sent not only to parents of preschoolers but to parents of all students. The results will probably enhance the quality of education afforded by Sacred Heart of Jesus school since it will almost certainly result in smaller class sizes, a clear benefit for the students permitted to remain enrolled following tabulation of the results of the questionnaire. Christopher Brauchli can be e-mailed at brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu. For political commentary see his web page at http://humanraceandothersports.com

Senators, Terrorists and Trials

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.
Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The first thought, of course, is that Senator Graham and his colleagues who have signed on to his bill are secretly terrorist sympathizers. That would explain the inexplicable. They have let it be known that they want terrorists tried in military commissions where the procedures are less clear than in civilian courts and where the history of convictions is far more favorable for the terrorists. To date there have been 3 terrorists tried in the military tribunals and of the three, two are now free men and one is a permanent resident in a federal prison. By contrast, as we learn from New York University’s Terrorism Trial Report Card: “In 2001/2002, 8% of defendants labeled as terrorists in the media were charged [in civilian courts] under terrorism statutes, and of those 38% were convicted of terrorism. In 2006/2007, those numbers increased to 47% charged and 84% convicted. The overall conviction rate for prosecutions involving terrorism charges now stands at 89%.” In her introduction to the Report Card, Karen Greenberg, executive director of the Center on Law and Security and editor in chief of the Report Card, observes about civilian courts that: “An increasing percentage of convictions involve the more serious charges, and a growing percentage of those accused of terrorism are convicted.”

The report card observes that “Federal prosecution has demonstrably become a powerful tool in many hundreds of cases, not only for incapacitating terrorists but also for intelligence gathering. Much of the government’s knowledge of terrorist groups has come from testimony and evidence produced in grand jury investigations. . . and in the resulting trials.”

Such statistics would cause less ambitious men to conclude that civilian trials were a good way of dealing with terrorists. Senators Graham and especially Senator McCain are not less ambitious men. Indeed, one of them hoped to be president and having failed at that, with his colleagues wants to take control of the Justice Department by using the power of the purse. Dictating in what forum and geographical location trials of are to be conducted is a creative way of removing from the attorney general the power to make decisions that are universally acknowledged to be his and his alone.

Of course the fact is, Mr. Graham and his colleagues are not on the terrorists’ side. Mr. Graham explains his bill by starting out, as many people do when attacking something, by proclaiming their “great respect” for whatever it is they are attacking. In introducing his bill to take control of the criminal justice system he says: “I have great respect for our civilian legal system. However, I believe that the 9/11 co-conspirators should be tried under the law of armed conflict in a military tribunal setting.” He explained his rationale in his weekly remarks provided by the Republican National Committee. He begins by saying that the decision to prosecute the mastermind of 9/11 in civilian court makes no sense to him and “most Americans” notwithstanding its 89% conviction rate. He does not explain who “most” comprise.

Flying in the face of conventional wisdom and airborne by his own elocution, he states that “Civilian trials create confusion”, an astonishing assertion give their 89% success rate. He proves his point by pointing out that the Christmas Day bomber was read his rights within one hour of questioning and as a result, asked to see a lawyer. (In that respect the Christmas day bomber was somewhat less well treated than Richard Reid, the shoe bomber who was arrested during George Bush’s tenure. Mr. Reid was read his Miranda rights within 5 minutes after his arrest and three more times within the next 48 hours.) The Reid case moved through the civilian justice system and Mr. Reid is now serving a sentence of life in prison handed down by a civilian judge.

Attorney General Eric Holder and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have reacted with alarm to the idea that Congress can begin controlling prosecutorial decisions by withholding funds for particular activities it finds not to its liking. They have written House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader John Boehner stating that the “exercise of prosecutorial discretion has always been and should remain an Executive branch function . . . . [W]e have been unable to identify any precedent in the history of our nation in which Congress has intervened in such a manner to prohibit the prosecution of particular persons or crimes.”

Those charged as terrorists will probably welcome the prospect of a prolonged dispute between Congress and the executive branch as to where and by whom they will be tried. If health care reform is an indication of how such disputes play out, there is a good chance that before the issue is resolved, a court will have freed the defendants because they have been deprived of the right to a speedy trial. Then a new round of finger pointing can begin. That, rather than legislating, is what this Congress does best.

Pat, the Pope and the Devil

Abash’d the Devil stood,
And felt how awful goodness is. . . .
— Milton, Paradise Lost

Commentators should not be dismissive of Pat Robertson when he says bad things that happen to others are because of their alliances with the Devil. There are few men of the cloth, with the exception of some Irish priests, who are more qualified to identify what acts are inspired by the Devil and his surrogates than Pat Robertson.

The Devil’s activities were brought to mind by two events, one involving the Pope and one involving Pat. Pat’s event was his explanation (non-geological) of the cause of the earthquake in Haiti. Pope Benedict’s event was his summoning of 24 Irish Bishops to the Vatican to discuss the sexual abuse scandal that has engulfed the Church in Ireland.

Pope Benedict’s invitation to Irish Bishops was extended because of a 700-page document called the Murphy Report, the report of an independent commission appointed to examine the Church’s involvement with the Devil in more than 300 cases of child abuse that took place in the Archdiocese of Dublin between 1975 and 2004. When the report was first released, the Catholic News Service said the Pope was going to write a special pastoral letter to the Catholics in Ireland that Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin said was “quite a significant document” and would mark the beginning of a process aimed at “a very significant reorganization of the Church in Ireland.” The Pope has now decided that the behavior of the Devil’s disciples deserved more than a letter and their supervisors, the 24 serving Bishops, were summoned to Rome in mid-February. The outcome of their meeting with the Pope has not been reported.

Meanwhile Pat Robertson, who has had business dealings with one of the Devil’s earthly surrogates, explained in non-geological terms how Haiti’s earthquake came about. He said: “They [Haitians] were under the heel of the French. . . . And they got together and swore a pact to the Devil. They said ‘We will serve you if you will get us free from the prince.’ True story. And so the Devil said, ‘OK it’s a deal.’ And they kicked the French out. . . . But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after another.” Pat Robertson is uniquely qualified to comment on the activities of the Devil since he, like the Haitians, has consorted with him. The Devil’s surrogate with whom he worked was Charles Taylor.

Charles Taylor was the former president of Liberia. On February 19, 2010, he concluded 7 months of testifying in defense of himself in a trial in the Hague before the Special Court for Sierra Leone in which he faces 11 charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. During his tenure as president of Liberia it is alleged he backed the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), a rebel group in neighboring Sierre Leona that was attempting to overthrow the government. The RUF was especially famous for using child soldiers in its fights and training them to cut off the arms and legs of its enemies thus creating an enormous population of amputees unable to support themselves. When Mr. Taylor ran for president in 1997 one of his campaign slogans was “I killed your ma, I killed your pa, you will vote for me.” Notwithstanding the catchiness of that slogan and its suggestions of the absence of benevolence, Mr. Taylor spent 7 months before the court proclaiming his innocence.

The kinds of activities that Mr. Taylor is on trial for having allegedly supported, odious though they were, did not dissuade Pat Robertson from doing business with him. According to a report in the Virginia Pilot 1994 Mr. Taylor gave Pat the right to mine for diamonds in Liberia. Pat reportedly used aircraft owned by his Operation Blessing not only to carry the victims of Rwandan violence to safety as he told people on his radio program but to haul mining equipment to the mines he owned. In 1999 President Taylor gave Pat a concession to run a gold mining operation in southeastern Liberia. Grateful for the concession, Pat gave Mr. Taylor a 10% interest in the operation. Mindful of how pacts with the Devil can go south, he approached Bush officials in 2002 (before Mr. Taylor was forced to flee the country) and urged them to take steps to help Mr. Taylor stay in power, his tenure being threatened by those opposed to his violent ways and Pat’s lucrative contracts being threatened by Mr. Taylor’s downfall. His plea fell on deaf ears and in 2003 Mr. Taylor and his cohorts fled from Liberia. Pat was distressed and accused then President George Bush of “undermining a Christian, Baptist president to bring in Muslim rebels to take over the country.”

The Devil has the upper hand in all this. It’s a certainty that he’ll still find surrogates in the priesthood to do his bidding and Pat Robertson is busy at it every day in countless ways. The Lord should be so lucky.

Republicans-Good Government's Friends

Self-interest speaks all sorts of tongues, and plays all sorts of roles, even that of disinterestedness.
— François, Duc de la Rochefoucauld, Reflections (1678)

It’s crazy to call it dysfunctional and Washington is certainly not the seat of a failed state even though you might think so if you listen to some commentators. It’s just that people change their minds. It is tempting to say they do it just to annoy the president. That is cynical. In the case of John McCain, for example, his change of mind is not malicious. He is simply eager to take what he believes at the moment is the best approach to a given issue and is, therefore, not influenced by whatever position he may have formerly taken, inconsistent though his newest position may be.

On October 19, 2006, in a session hosted by Chris Matthews at Iowa State University. McCain was asked by a student about his position on the “don’t ask don’t tell policy” of the military. In response he said: “the day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, Senator, we ought to change the policy, then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to.” When the issue was discussed by military leaders in a Congressional hearing held February 2, 2010, Mr. McCain had changed his mind. Defense Secretary, Robert M. Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman, Admiral Mike Mullen, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee following the president’s announcement that he would seek the repeal of the 15-year old policy. Admiral Mullen told the senators that repealing the policy was “the right thing to do”. Secretary Gates said he was in full support of the president’s decision. The testimony of the two men angered John McCain who had changed his mind since 2006. He practically rose up out of his chair towards the conclusion of the hearing and with ill-concealed rage said the testimony of these officials “disappointed” him. He went on to say: “At this moment of immense hardship for our armed services, we should not be seeking to overturn the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy”, oblivious to the fact that one of the consequences of the policy has been the discharge of more than 800 military personnel possessing critical skills, including 60 Arab speakers. Forgetfulness of his earlier stance on ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ was not his only entry into the dark room of lost memory. PAYGO was another.

Under PAYGO rules, new spending programs or tax cuts must be paid for in a way that does not add to the deficit. In years gone by PAYGO had bi-partisan support. In September 2002, when Republicans controlled the Senate, it was passed by voice vote. Then Majority Leader, Trent Lott (R.MISS), said the policy was fiscally sound. Sen. Pete Domenici (R. -NM) said: “Of all the issues you will vote on, the most significant opportunity to save taxpayers money over the next year is this little resolution.” Those men were not alone in their approval of the policy. In 2004 when the Resolution to extend PAYGO was again before the Senate, Senators Olympia Snowe (R-Me.) Susan Collins (R-ME.) and John McCain all voted in favor of the policy even though the Republican Party opposed it. In a hearing before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in 2006, Senator Susan Collins of Maine said she believed that PAYGO rules were a “much-needed restraint for members of Congress as we wrestle with fiscal decisions.” After President Obama’s address to Congress on February 24, 2009, Senator Snowe said=: “I commend the President’s call for fiscal discipline to help return our nation to a sound financial footing. I believe now is the time for both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to commit to pay-as-you-go rules for both revenues and spending . . ..” In the State of the Union address on January 27, 2010, President Obama urged approval of PAYGO reminding Congress that “pay-as-you-go” “was a big reason why we had record surpluses in the 1990s.”

President Obama probably thought he could count on the support of those who had supported PAYGO in the past. He was mistaken. Not only had John McCain entered the dark room of lost memory but he was joined there by Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. For them it was a no-brainer. Barack Obama suggested it. It must be a bad idea. They were joined by all of their Republican colleagues. The rule passed without one Republican vote. The best reason for opposing the rule was articulated by Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia. Mr. Cantor opposed it because it would not affect spending that had already taken place. Presumably he and his Republican colleagues have some legislation in mind that will recoup money that has already been spent. As soon as they figure out how that can be done they should share it with the country. That would be their first positive contribution to government in a long time.

Cremation Solicitation

The Northern Lights have seen queer sights
But the queerest they ever did see,
Was that night on the marge of Lake Lebarge
I cremated Sam McGee.
—Robert William Service, The Cremation of Sam McGee

It was only fortuitous but clearly felicitous-the story in the Wall Street Journal about the increasing popularity of cremation and my printed invitation to get one for free. The Wall Street Journal story written by Jeffrey Zaslow appeared on February 3 and my invitation arrived the same day. The WSJ described the increasing popularity of cremation as a way of addressing the question of what to do with one’s family and friends following their demise.

According to the WSJ, in 1980 about 4% of families were choosing cremation and today that number has increased to 39%. The Cremation Association of North America projects that within 15 years the number of folks seeking cremation (post mortem, of course) will increase to 60%. Using the Cremation Association’s statistics we are informed that each of us when cremated weighs approximately 5 pounds (good news for those who spent their entire lives worrying about being overweight) and the combined total of all those being cremated in a year is approximately 338 tons. Mr. Zaslow spends much of his tale describing the places favored by those responsible for disposing of the ashes following the cremation and those looking for ideas are referred to his story in the WSJ. It was a truly remarkable coincidence that on the very day Mr. Zaslow’s story appeared in the newspaper my invitation for a free cremation appeared in my mail box.

The return address on the envelope indicated that the sender was the Neptune Society located in Arvada, Colorado and next to its name was a seal with the words “Memorialized Cremation” and 4 towers resembling smoke stacks from two of which wisps of smoke seem to be emerging. (The seal is quite small and even assisted by a magnifying glass I cannot be sure they are in fact smokestacks.) On the face of the envelope, beneath my name, was printed “Free Pre-paid cremation! DETAILS INSIDE.”

Although an offer of anything for free is tantalizing, I was slightly apprehensive since I was sure the contents would disclose, as do so many seemingly irresistible offers, that there was a time limit associated with the offer and that in order to take advantage of it I would have to agree to be cremated by a date certain selected by the Neptune Society, probably in a month in which cremations are typically low. It was, therefore, with some relief that upon opening the envelope I learned that although the contents breached the envelope’s promise of a free cremation, there was no time limit for taking advantage of the offer. It would be valid even if I chose to live another 40 or 50 years. The breach of promise, as it were, was that I had not won a free cremation as promised by the envelope but had only been given a chance to participate in a drawing where, if successful, I would be entitled to be cremated for free no matter how long after the drawing I decided to postpone the happy event.

The enclosed letter explained that the Neptune Society has the distinction of being “America’s Cremation Specialists” and informs that Neptune’s motto is “Simple, Economical and Dignified.” The letter sets forth a number of reasons why cremation (after death) makes sense including the fact that by paying for the cremation now you “lock in today’s price” no matter when you decide to die. Somewhat mysteriously, the letter concludes with a footnote apologizing “if this letter has reached you at a time of serious illness or death in your family.” That seems odd since that is exactly the time when such a letter would be most relevant and, depending on the time of the next drawing, welcomed by its recipient.

Enclosed with the letter was the ticket to participate in the drawing. It was in the form of a card, the completion and return of which entitles me to be entered in the free cremation lottery. On one side of the card is a tranquil picture of a misty forest with shades of green faintly visible through the mist. On the back of the card is a quotation from Eleanor Roosevelt that has no particular relevance to cremation. It says: “Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, and today is a gift; that’s why they call it the present.” The quotation would be more meaningful if it meant that each recipient of the card got the present of a free cremation instead of the opportunity to participate in a drawing.

I have not returned the card. I am waiting to see if those selling cryogenic preservation with the tantalizing prospect of possible future resurrection will be having a drawing in which I can participate. Then I can decide whether to go for the hot or the cold. I’ll not enter both.