The Catholic Church

Okay, if anyone reads or read the last post (note: this was started after the post about the church and pedophilia), that started a debate about the Church's beginnings among my cadre of friends.

I thought I would post my beliefs on it.

First, I should mention that I was raised a Roman Catholic.  I thought... I learned... that my religion was the one 'true' religion. Oh, some others were close enough, but 'we' did it correctly.  Others had religions that were started before Christ and had not learned, or came from splinter groups off The Church and they were wayward, to lack a better term.  Yet meanwhile, we were not regular churchgoers once I was past the 4th grade or so, and even before then it was more with mom than dad.  Like a lot of families, I guess. We went to church on the holidays and the occasional sunday until I was close to middle school age, and although I went to a Catholic high school, the attendance at church was down to the major holidays.

Yet I remained someone who thought himself a Catholic.

Did we, did I, believe in all the dogma taught by the Church?  No.  Certainly some in the family more than others - again, as it is in most families.   I knew their were the rules and laws demanded by God (Thou Shalt Not Kill, Thou Shalt Not Steal, etc.) and then there were the rules about lifestyle that were put in by the church (birth control, the death penalty, abortion, etc.).  I knew the points and reasonings behind them (ie, basically a consistent belief that man did not have the right to 'play God' by deciding when to get pregnant and when not to, when to take a life and when not to, what was a life and what was not, etc.).  But s a young and inexperienced man I was willing to accept more.  

Things happen in life that change you: marriage, children, death, divorce.  Each brings with it a new understanding of things, and also a questioning of things you previously accepted.  But little things also made me more aware of differences within the Church.  For instance, due to an hour's drive between my house and my (ex) wife's parent's home where she was living, she gradually ended up moving in with me prior to our getting engaged.  When the time came and I proposed, we went to the church to set a date.  The priest would not marry us when he found out we were living together.  He wanted her to list another address.  When I said I did not want to lie and list her parent's when she really wasn't staying there, he told me to find another church.  Not another Church,  just another parish.  Pretty hypocritical, huh?  

Later, I got divorced; I found out my wife did something I could not live with, and, despite 4 years of being 'separated' while living under the same roof (I moved to the couch and stayed there) I finally filed for divorce.  I had not wanted divorce both because I was a Catholic and because I didn't want my daughter to got through it.  Once I realized it had to be better than what she and I were going through, it was a done deal.  I mention it because there really was no way out.  Despite the Church saying 'There is no such thing as divorce," and "Let no man put asunder that which God has created", it takes two to make a marriage.  Once again, the Church and I were on separate sides.  And this time it would not 'go away' as i technically would always be 'married' to my ex.  After remarrying a few years later, I realized that would be unrecognized by the Church and that meant we were not really man and wife.  A few years after that we had a child.  I suppose to the Church he is a bastard, right?

Anyway, I say all this to show how it is not really how I left the Church, but how the Church did not accept or want me any longer. 

Then comes the scandals within the Church.  Disgusting.  [ see an earlier post on the Church and Pedophilia ].  And to realize the men who install themselves and their friends are judging me and you?  The same ones who either perpetrated crimes against the most innocent in society, or looked the other way knowing it was being done, or kept silent?  Or assisted in its continuing by not coming forward at the orders of church higher-ups?  Or those higher ups, the ones helping to make the laws, acting like pimps by relocating the guilty bastards rather than excommunicating them and calling the police?  They are setting rules that I should follow? Telling me that I am living in sin because I divorced and remarried?  I won't even complete my next thought on them...

Anyway, that started my discussing The Bible and beliefs in God with friends.  Some of other religions, some atheists, some very strong Catholics, some who have other beliefs.  I am still not sure where I stand, but I am sure that whatever I believe is based on who and what I am at this moment as it is with everyone else. No one knows.  Those that can prove there is no God cannot do so, only show areas of belief that can be questioned.  Those that know there is a God and He is the one from their Book (Bible, Koran, whatever) have no more proof than any other - some just have fervent beliefs.  One of them may be right, maybe all are in some way, maybe none are. 

Myself?  A few things I have pondered.... If there is only one God, then it can be neither male or female.  For those who believe in Adam and Eve (who begat Cain and Able), where did the next generation come from?  Hopefully God suddenly populated everywhere as I would hate to think our ancestors all can be traced back to an incestuous relationship, right?   I'm sorry if this offends anyone, truly.  It is not my intention.  But I can't avoid contemplating these things because the Bible simply says to have faith.  Once you realize some things contained n the Bible are put there by men with an agenda, you have to figure out which are and which are truly what you believe to be what God wanted.  

I still believe in Jesus as Son of God.  I still believe there is a Being who created all this and directed it in some way.  Some sort of energy force of 'good' for lack of a better term.  Positive energy. Do I believe it was created in 6 days? No.  Do I believe that many of the biblical stories are the same as Greek or Roman mythology, attempts by early men to understand or explain things they did not know?  Sure.  Its pretty apparent, isn't it?  But I do not think it all was blind luck or that it was happenstance.  I do think there is some type of thought and plan, and if so there is an interest in the collective 'us' from whatever it is that God is.   I think Jesus was an attempt by God to reach us in human form, a way we may better understand God.   The problem is, I think it is like an ant trying to fathom nuclear power.  We may try, and we may fool ourselves.  But we cannot do it.  Even for those truly faithful among us, how can we possibly accept our inabilities and shortcomings in what we have here on Earth, yet think we can possibly understand the motives of anything that could make a Universe?  

How about the Devil?  Horns and a pitchfork?  Fire and brimstone?  No, I don't think I do.  I do believe that if there is 'good' there is bad though.  If there is positive energy then there is negative energy, too.  

What happens later?  Who knows. When my father passed there were things that happened that cannot be explained.  Not by coincidence, or by people wanting things to be true.  Personal, I won't go into them here.  Suffice it to say I hope each of you reading this becomes as sure as I that there is more beyond what we see and hear each day.  I'd like to think we pass on and stay as we are for personal reasons: I'd love to believe I'll see my dad again, or meet my grandfather.  But they were not perfect and then could not be in a place where only perfection is allowed, right?  I don't know what happens when we die, but I do know it doesn't completely stop.  What happens, I am not sure of though.

As there were teachings of the Bible that were obviously 'wrong' and accepted as such (ie, passages about slavery and women being unequal) then any argument about each and every word being directly from God was - to put it mildly - bull.  Unless someone believes every single word in the Bible - from the stories about Adam, Eve, a snake, and an apple ... to those about putting two of every single animal on the planet onto one ship..  plus all the passages about vengeance, retribution, slaves, and women being inferior and second class...  Unless someone believes every single word of it all (silly but consistent, in my view) then they are picking and choosing which to believe were God's words and which were words added by men with ulterior motives.  

No one has any more right to their beliefs than any other person to theirs.  And once that thought coalesced in my brain, it forced me to re-evaluate some stances on social issues.  Now I look at them as what would help society most, not what is based n someone's religious teachings.  Many times they are the same. Other times they are not.

Still nothing is etched in stone as I try to look at each issue individually, but I 'know' that science can explain how life is created, and how it happens, but not why.  No one who sees their child born should think it is luck and chance.  I know there is more than we can see, know there is something beyond.  And I know I won't understand it until I get there (and probably not even then).

 

  

Pedophilia and The Priesthood

A friend sent me a link to www.BishopAccountability.Org  a site chronicling the despicable crisis within the Catholic Church, a religion I was once a member of and a group (The Church - Capital C) I am ashamed of.  He was thinking there was something intrinsically wrong with the church, and definitely with The Church, that allowed it and even assisted in its happening.  I disagree.  

I am not one who defends them by saying "There are deviates in every career, every segment of society".  There are, but in lower numbers.

Do I think there are more in the church than any other group? Yes.  Why?  Not because they aren't married.  Many unmarried men or widows go long periods without sex and never think of abusing kids.  Being attracted sexually to children is a sickness and mental problem, not something they turn to because they are celibate (if it were that, they would just go to see a hooker).  And I don't believe its because they are all men. If there were women priests then there would just be more priests, not less pedophilia in the church....  I believe its because any area where you put people in contact with kids you have a high occurrence.  Any area where you put people in positions of trust that can be abused you have a high occurrence.  Any areas where you have little oversight of those in power you have a higher occurrence.  Any areas where you have people policing and trying there own you'll have occurrences.  But priests and the Church are 'all of the above'.  Pedophilia is everywhere (from the uncle to the neighbor to the sports coach) but there is no other area that fits the bill so well.  Boy Scout leaders have access and trust but usually have kids and are married.  Teachers, the same - access but a lot of the profession are women, married, etc.  Police, firemen, etc.?  Power and trust but less access.  Priests have access, trust, little supervision, little oversight, etc.  

It isn't the church.  Its just that the way it is set up, it becomes a place they can go and feel safe.  And having been protected by 'Cardinal' Law and others, they were right.

The Church should have been protecting its weak and its children, not itself.

Wine Travels ...

Having been a wine lover for approximately 20 years and done tours in California (Napa), Long Island and even small fruit wineries in Massachusetts, I thought I would actually begin to start taking notes and keeping a record, as well as recording some recommended (personally or through writings) places:

Napa Valley:

Cult Wine Central - Communal Tasting Room - On Highway 29 - Multiple wine makers and small producers.

A Dozen Vintners - Communal Tasting Room - On Highway 29 - Multiple wine makers and small producers.

Wines...

Some wines I have read about, tried and loved, or have been recommended to me:

California:

Foley Pinot Noir, 2004 - From Santa Rita Hills, CA - Aprox. $38 bottle - complex, dense, thick, masculine, tannic, juicy fruit (black cherry, pomegranate, grenadine), a little citrus and spice.  Rich meats.

Zaca Mesa - "Z Three" - Syrah, mourvedre, grenache grapes - From Santa Ynez Valley, CA- Aprox. $40 bottle - black, thick, powerful, chewable, lush, spicey. Grilled meats.

Argentina:

Malbec - From $16 - $30 - Richly textured, densely flavored, plum, leather, spice, berries. Beef.

Australia:

Vasse Felix - "Adams Road" Shiraz - From Margaret River, Australia - Aprox. $18 bottle - Satisfying burst of fruit. Blackberry, boysenberry, with violets and pepper.  Grilled meats with sweet sauces (BBQ, teriyaki, etc.)

Other 'styles':

Malmsey Madeira - The sweetest madeira, great with deserts and nuts - vanilla, brown sugar, tawny nutiness.  (Blandy's 10 Year Old)

Today Show Recommended Wines Under $15:

Castle Rock Pinot Noir

McManus (California) Petite Syrah

Just As Bill Did , So Does Ted...

Well, Bill got actively involved with Hillary's campaign and seems to have derailed it, helping her finish well behind Obama in South Carolina.

So now Ted Kennedy, who normally stays neutral in the primaries, comes out in favor of Obama... There's obviously more to that story then we will ever hear.  Whether he dislikes Hillary or Bill, it is a public slap in the face to the Senator from NY that he will have to work with (whether in the White House or Senate).  

The questions are, a) while the endorsement helps Obama with the Far Left, did Obama really need any endorsement to get the most Liberal voters?  And b), for those of us who are considering him who are not on the Far Left, does an endorsement from Teddy K. help or hurt?

Is there no where to go for peace and quiet now?

Well, I hate to use this blog as a place to rant like a cranky old man.. BUT that is exactly what I'm going to do today...

What is it with the service industry?  With all the people supposedly out of work, are the ones I had to deal with today the best there are?  Are we, as a civilization, becoming that slow brained and dim witted?  Spending time with the public can make one seem so.

Cliche'?  Yes.  

True?  Absolutely.

Normally I do not harbor these thoughts.  An occasional realization that I have met one of the men or women that bring down our species average IQ usually stops right there.  I feel sorry for them, sorry for my having had to deal with them, sorry for their families, and sorrier for the public that has to deal with them daily.  But I try to keep it focused on the person who has proven themselves to be someone who should be hidden away from the public in a backroom.

Today though, it has been one after the other...

This morning I had to run out to get some errands done.  Some lumber for a project I am building, then swing by Ikea to get the basics for a livingroom piece that my wife would like...  nothing unusual.  Some good workers, some bad, a lot who are trying to do as little as possible for their pay, unfortunately.

And then I had to head back home.

I stopped at a fast food restaurant.  Drive thru.  That was my first mistake.  Look, I understand that there need to be jobs for immigrants.  For those who do not speak the language well yet.  I understand that there need to be jobs for people who are below average intelligence (hal of us are, right?).  But is a drive-thru the place for them?  A drive-thru clerk needs to do a few things: take orders from the customer and enter the orders.  Some also handle the money, put the orders together, etc.  Some do not. But if the main part of the job is communication with the public, shouldn't the ability to speak english be a qualification?  Isn't there any standard?  Hey, I might like to be a brain surgeon, but I need to be trained and meet some standard.  Shouldn't a job requiring asking me questions to help me require they should be able to speak to me?  Well, after an Abbott And Costello routine at the drive thru window and 2 wrong orders, I finally went inside to get it right.  'Fast Food'?  Ha!

Afterwards, I figured I'd stop for coffee.  At Starbucks.  Normally I can expect efficient and friendly service there.  Instead, I stood there trying to get my order in and listened to this exchange:

"... but you can't put them both on the same tray."

"Why not?"

"The manual says only two food items per tray..."

"Three!"

"...fine! Three! Thre food items per tray but they have to be similar."

"They are."

"No they aren't."

"Yes, they are."

"No, they aren't."

"Why not?"

"One is a lemon danish and one is a cheese danish."

"They are both danish!"

"But one is fruit and one is dairy!"

"Look, I can understand if one was a cookie and one was a danish.  But its so that you don't put bacon sandwiches on the tray with brownies or something."

"Nope."

"Nope?! What would you put on the tray?  What three things?  Fruit, a fruit cookie, and the lemon danish?  Would that satisfy you!?!"

At that point they took my order...  I was almost disappointed I was so riveted in the outcome.

The Four 'R's of Education

We, as a society, are like the parents who do their best to prevent their kids from any pain or inconvenience.  They call the coach if their kids don't get enough playing time, call other parents if their kid doesn't get along with a kid in school, blame the teachers if their kid gets a C rather than the student.  We raise kids who go from high school where mom and dad took care of everything to college or real life unable to handle tough bosses and professors.  Then we wonder why they fail and blame everyone else. A a society, we try to (and I agree the motives are good) legislate away not only pain, but tough times and inconvenience.  We try to pass laws to make life 'fair', and then wonder why - when not everyone succeeds - the public complains and blames the government and society.

I do not advocate leaving everyone behind that doesn't keep up, but I think we have to start teaching 'Responsibility' along with Reading, 'Riting, and 'Rithmatic  as the fourth R taught in schools.  We have to say,m collectively, we will not allow anyone in this society to perish or flounder as we have too many riches and success not to share - BUT WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING YOU HAPPY OR REQUIRED TO COMPENSATE YOU FOR BAD LUCK, YOUR FAMILY'S PAST, MISTAKES OF YOUR ANCESTORS, OR WHERE YOU WERE BORN.  Those born with wealth in their family should not have to apologize for it or feel guilty about it.  Charity is just that, CHARITY.  Helping one's fellow man.  It is a privilege to be able to do so but is not a requirement.  And social programs are, under any name, charity.  More people should do it, I believe, but that doesn't change the fact that it is all value based and I do not think we should be legislating my values to force everyone to live by them.

Poor? You get government housing (unglamorous, undecorated, and short term).  Can't feed yourself?  You get free meals or food stamps (healthy food, not dining out or name brands).  Sick?  Government clinics (with longer waits and the bottom of the class doctors, yes).  Don't like it? Sacrifice so you will have more by working harder or studying.  Don't want your kids to have to deal with it?  Teach them to work harder and study more so they won't be in the same position.

Leonard Cohen - "I'm Your Man"

"The rest of us would be very humbled by the stuff he throws away."  

So says Bono of Leonard Cohen.  For those who are fans, or those of you unfamiliar with Cohen or see him as some old poet that wrote some songs you may remember, I highly recommend this film.   

A great portrait of a man who, after being a published poet in the late 50s, morphed into music as rock was born and spent the last 40 years as one of music's greatest geniuses and artists. A 'typical' music documentary, we see film clips, interviews with the artist and those who know him, all intercut with concert footage of a small intimate concert (in 2005) by little known artists (Nick Cage and Rufus Wainright being arguably the biggest names) doing Leonard Cohen's songs.

Inducted into the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame (last year, I believe), the accolades for him are still flowing from his peers and those that followed him.  Bono referred to him as the Yeates of this generation.  While I am a huge fan of his songs and of later work as his voice matured into a great baritone, I will admit to to not enjoying those same tunes sung when he was a younger man as I didn't like his voice.  Some of you may think of that voice and dismiss this recommendation but you would be doing yourself a dis-service.

A BIG Gamble For Rudy...

Even at Home, Backers Worry About Giuliani

Rudolph W. Giuliani campaigned on Wednesday in Pensacola, Fla. He has gambled his time and money on winning the Republican primary in Florida on Jan. 29, at the expense of earlier races.

By SAM ROBERTS

Published: January 17, 2008

For months, the Republican establishment in New York and New Jersey marched nearly in lock step behind Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former hometown mayor they were confident would become their party’s nominee for president. 

But as Mr. Giuliani has plummeted from first to fourth — or worse — in some national polls, as he finished near the bottom of the pack in the nation’s earliest primaries, and as his lead evaporated even in Florida, the state on which he has gambled the most time and money, those Republican leaders are verging toward a grim new consensus: If Mr. Giuliani loses in the Florida primary on Jan. 29, they say, he may even have trouble defeating the rivals who are encroaching on his own backyard. “It’s pretty certain that he has to win Florida,” said Guy V. Molinari, the former Staten Island borough president, who is co-chairman of Mr. Giuliani’s campaign in New York. Those supporters say they are confident that if Mr. Giuliani carries Florida or runs a very close second, he will remain the odds-on favorite to claim virtually all of the delegates from the New York, New Jersey and Connecticut primaries on Feb. 5, when Republicans in 22 states vote. But if Mr. Giuliani is relegated to a distant second or worse in Florida, even some of his supporters acknowledge that New York’s primary one week later would most likely be up for grabs, with Senator John McCain of Arizona and former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts being Mr. Giuliani’s strongest rivals. Like Mr. Giuliani, both are fielding full delegate slates in all 29 of the state’s Congressional districts.“If he carries Florida, he carries New York,” said Fred Siegel, a Cooper Union historian who has served as an adviser to the former mayor and written a largely admiring biography of him. But winning Florida would require “a miraculous comeback,” he said, adding: “I wouldn’t bet on it.”

With 101 delegates from New York, 52 from New Jersey and 30 from Connecticut, the region accounts for about 15 percent of the magic number needed for the Republican nomination. All three are winner-take-all contests. Mr. Giuliani’s precipitous decline in national and state polls in recent weeks has prompted many of his leading supporters in the metropolitan area to raise questions about his strategy of largely ignoring early races in Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan to focus on Florida. He received little news coverage during those primaries, then finished poorly in each.“I think that a lot of what’s happening in general is the early campaigning in Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan playing an active role, and the fact that Rudy chose not to compete,” said Guy F. Talarico, a Giuliani supporter who is the former chairman of theRepublican Party in Bergen County, N.J. “People are focusing on that and saying, ‘When are we going to get in the game?’ ”Still, once the campaign circles back to the metropolitan area, “I think he’s going to win New Jersey,” Mr. Talarico said. A senior Republican strategist, who is allied with Mr. Giuliani and is working with Republican legislative candidates in New York, said Mr. Giuliani’s decision to circumvent the early primaries was a “big gamble” that for the moment looked in danger of failing.“Who knows if it will work,” said the strategist, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he had not been authorized by the campaign to speak publicly. “But the danger is what you are seeing now. We’re obviously concerned.”

In Florida, a Quinnipiac University poll of likely Republican voters found last month that Mr. Giuliani was leading the pack with 28 percent, followed by former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas with 21 percent and Mr. Romney with 20 percent. But a follow-up survey last week found the race statistically tied among four candidates: Mr. Giuliani, Mr. McCain, Mr. Huckabee and Mr. Romney. Mr. Giuliani’s poll numbers have declined in Florida even though he has invested heavily there. The former mayor spent almost $600,000 on television advertising in Florida between Dec. 8 and Jan. 6, second only to Mr. Romney, who spent $676,851, according to Campaign Media Analysis Group, a political advertising research firm. Almost all of Mr. Giuliani’s spending came in the final 10 days of that period, when Mr. Romney stopped buying ads. The race has also narrowed in New Jersey, according to a poll released this week by Monmouth University/Gannett. The poll showed Mr. McCain leading by 29 percent to Mr. Giuliani’s 25 percent, a difference that is within the poll’s margin of sampling error.  In September, the same poll found Mr. Giuliani 32 percentage points ahead of his nearest rival, Mr. McCain. 

On Wednesday, Mr. McCain vowed to compete hard in New York. “I’m going there a lot for money,” he said. “I ought to go there for votes.”

Nationally, a New York Times/CBS News poll released on Sunday found that Mr. Giuliani, who led the Republican field with 29 percent nationally in October and was tied with Mr. Huckabee at about 22 percent last month, had plummeted to 10 percent, behind Mr. McCain and Mr. Huckabee. In New York, with its three million enrolled Republicans, polls indicate Mr. Giuliani’s edge was eroding even before the victories by Mr. Huckabee, Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney in Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan, respectively. In October, Mr. Giuliani led his nearest opponent by a commanding 33-point margin. By last month, he was still ahead, but his lead had shrunk to 22 percentage points. New public polls are expected to show the race has tightened even more, polling experts said.“I have a feeling that the sag in Florida and the sag in New Jersey will probably be matched by a sag in New York,” said Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac Poll, which plans to release a new New York poll next week.

It is unclear what impact Mr. Giuliani’s weak poll numbers and poor primary finishes have had on his fund-raising, as new quarterly campaign spending reports will not be filed until the end of the month. But his campaign reported last week that some workers had given up their paychecks for the month to help save dwindling funds. The campaign reported having $7 million in cash on hand at the time.

There are also concerns among Giuliani supporters that if he does not gain momentum before Feb. 5, he will have to spend precious funds just to win New York, where advertising is particularly expensive. Anthony V. Carbonetti, Mr. Giuliani’s senior political adviser, said on Wednesday: “Rudy has a long history of fighting for New York, and with his track record and the campaign team we’ve put together here, we’re going to win on Feb. 5.” Mr. Giuliani has some clear advantages in the region. In addition to having more organizational support from Republican elected officials, he is counting on the fact that in New York and Connecticut, Italian-Americans constitute about one-fifth of the voters in Republican primaries. But while his popularity soared after the World Trade Center attack, Mr. Giuliani is still reviled by some New Yorkers, including well-organized firefighters who blame him for communications failures on 9/11 and Republicans who have never forgiven him for endorsing a Democrat, Mario M. Cuomo, for governor against George E. Pataki in 1994. Mr. Pataki won. Mr. Pataki said through a spokesman, David M. Catalfamo, on Wednesday that he was “continuing to evaluate all the candidates and will make an endorsement sometime in the future.” But several people who worked in his administration, including his former counsel,Michael C. Finnegan, have made their allegiances clear: They are running as McCain delegates.

Reporting was contributed by David W. Chen, Marjorie Connelly, Michael Cooper, Alison Leigh Cowan, Raymond Hernandez, David Kocieniewski and Aron Pilhofer.

Every Town Should Have One... or Five.

Proposed wind farm draws few foes in Hull

Town-owned utility generates praise

By Peter J. Howe, Globe Staff  |  January 17, 2008

Sometime next year, Hull could become the first community in Massachusetts to get all its electricity from wind power.

After years of study, Hull officials are now seeking approval of state environmental regulators to install four wind turbines, each about 430 feet high, in ocean waters about a mile and a half east of Nantasket Beach.

Ian A. Bowles, the state secretary of energy and environmental affairs and a wind-power advocate, could approve the project as soon as Feb. 6 or order further environmental studies.

A popular 19th century summer resort that today has more than 11,000 year-round residents, Hull already gets about 12 percent of its electricity from two land-based wind turbines. One is on Pemberton Point near the high school. A second is at the site of a former town landfill near the Hingham line. The four offshore wind turbines would produce close to 15 megawatts of electricity, enough to cover the balance of the town's demand.

The offshore wind farm, in an area called Harding Ledge, is even closer to the town than any of the 140 similarly-sized turbines planned for the Cape Wind power project in Nantucket Sound. But while Cape Wind has generated fierce opposition, as well as support, the Hull project is facing comparatively little local opposition.

Town Manager Philip Lemnios said one key reason is that Hull's 6,100 electric customers get their power from the town-owned Hull Municipal Light Plant, which means that the windmills will be producing electricity they are paying for directly in their homes and businesses. Also, Hull residents have lived with the Pemberton Point turbine for eight years.

"It's our own electricity," Lemnios said. "We work to make sure that kids know when they see a streetlight on that it's being powered by the wind turbine."

The slowly-spinning turbine on Pemberton Point is perched in a dramatic, photogenic locale against the backdrop of Boston Harbor and its islands. It "is a beautiful piece of kinetic sculpture" that even draws tourists to town, Lemnios said.

Some local lobstermen fear that the construction of the four turbines could disrupt what is a fertile and lucrative lobstering grounds from March to December.

"I don't want people to think we're against wind power - we're not - but it's just a question of where and when you install them," said Bill Adler, executive director of the Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association.

Adler said lobstermen were anxious about natural-gas pipelines installed on the harbor floor but energy companies addressed their concerns and make "mitigation payments" to compensate them for lost lobstering time and harvests.

"We just want to get together and talk" with Hull officials about living with the project, Adler said. It would occupy about 12,000 square feet of ocean floor during construction, less than a third of an acre, and 907 square feet permanently for the foundations of the turbines. Lemnios said the question of Hull paying lobstermen to defuse opposition has not been raised or discussed.

Aside from the Hull project and Cape Wind, the only other offshore wind farm now proposed in Massachusetts is Boston construction mogul Jay Cashman's plan for 120 windmills off Dartmouth and Mattapoisett in Buzzards Bay.

In the North Shore town of Rowley, which has a town-owned electric utility, the town's Municipal Lighting Plant director. Linda Soucy, said, "We're in the very early stages of looking at" where the town might be able to install wind turbines.

In terms of steady wind, "we're not in as good a position as they are in Hull," Soucy said, and it may be impossible to get regulatory approval to run electric cables through the Plum Island wildlife refuge.

The only town coming close to Hull's potential use of wind-powered electricity is Princeton, in Central Massachusetts. Its town-owned electric utility is currently replacing eight small 1980s wind turbines on Mount Wachusett with two big units that within a year will produce about 40 percent of Princeton's power.

Peter J. Howe can be reached at howe@globe.com. 

Steroids in Baseball.... Do we really want to stop it?

I have made comments within the article and at bottom:

JURISPRUDENCE: THE LAW, LAWYERS, AND THE COURT.

Foul BallHOW THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT MISPLAYED THE STEROIDS INVESTIGATION.

By Frank Bowman [from Slate Magazine On-Line]
Posted Monday, Jan. 14, 2008, at 1:54 PM ET

Tomorrow, former Sen. George Mitchell will testify before a House committee about his investigation into performance-enhancing drugs in baseball. When they're done listening, members of Congress should ask some hard questions about the relationship between Mitchell's report and the Justice Department criminal investigation that gave him most of his information.

Make no mistake. As a former prosecutor, I am delighted that the DoJ unleashed the bloodhounds of the criminal justice system on drug cheats in baseball. Taken without a prescription, anabolic steroids and human growth hormone are every bit as illegal as cocaine, heroin, or marijuana. Simple equity suggests that the federal government should be just as ready to pursue jillionaire bat-wielding juicers and their suppliers as penniless crackheads and their dealers. More importantly, allowing obviously chemically enhanced cheaters to stand rich, idolized, and unchallenged at the pinnacle of professional athletics increases the likelihood that the legions of young people who long to be sports heroes will emulate their idols and wreck their bodies in the process.

E - On one hand, we prosecute the steroid dealers in local gyms.  We strip Olympic athletes of their titles and medals. Yet with the pros we look the other way, or possibly [Heaven forbid!] we put put an asterisk next to their name.

That said, the Justice Department has mishandled the baseball steroid investigation in two important ways. First, the DoJ is prosecuting, or at least focusing on, the wrong people. The primary targets should be players, not suppliers. At the same time, the U.S. Department of Justice had no business feeding Mitchell, and through him the public, damaging information about players it lacks the evidence or the will to prosecute.

E - If they have solid evidence, why aren't they prosecuting?  Would you or I get the same treatment? 

---

Consider first who is being prosecuted. So far, the government has charged or made plea deals for testimony with those who supplied drugs to players, leaving the players themselves untouched unless, as with Barry Bonds, the player committed apparent perjury. Defenders of this approach, including Mitchell, justify it by claiming it is analogous to customary federal practice in cases involving recreational drugs of going after suppliers, not users. But the analogy is flawed.

Federal prosecutors customarily prosecute dealers rather than users primarily because dealers are considered more culpable. Dealers are the rich, bad-guy beneficiaries of others' weaknesses, while users are destitute victims or inconsequential saps. Dealers affect many people. Users affect only themselves.

E - Excellent point, I believe.

The hierarchy of the performance-enhancing drug market for professional athletes is exactly the reverse. The balance of power, money, and culpability lies with the players in their relationships with guys like Roger Clemens' trainer Brian McNamee or former Mets clubhouse attendant Kirk Radomski. McNamee's and Radomski's continued employment in and around the major leagues depended on the favor of players, particularly stars. The nobody suppliers made a few thousand in pin money for supplying the juice. But the real financial gainers were the players: Drugs allowed them to cheat their way into the majors or to enhance and prolong careers worth millions of dollars. If relative culpability is to determine who is prosecuted and who is allowed to go free, it's the players who should be indicted.

The other reason federal prosecutors ordinarily go after dealers, not users, is to have a greater effect on drug markets. But if one really wanted to stop the use of steroids in baseball, which is likely to be more effective—cooperation deals with a few locker room enablers, or the spectacle of big leaguers in prison stripes rather than pinstripes?

It's been suggested that the DoJ didn't prosecute players because the evidence against them was weak. But if the Mitchell report is accurate, the government has solid possession cases against a number of players based on precisely the sort of evidence—dealer testimony supported by shipment and payment records—upon which garden-variety drug cases are made every day. And given the nature of the distribution networks involved here, a plausible case could be made for felony conspiracy charges against some players.

E - Here is a weak point in this article, however.  Can we convict a player if the only testimony that is to be used to convict him is from a drug supplier?

Even more troubling than the absence of player indictments is the degree to which prosecutors skirted the boundaries of traditionally permissible conduct in their treatment of the players they did not charge, and of their own cooperating witnesses. Police and prosecutors have unique powers to investigate and prosecute the small sliver of particularly undesirable behavior the law defines as "crime." Use of the government's criminal powers for other purposes—like "cleaning up" baseball—is always pregnant with the potential for misuse. A mere allegation of criminal wrongdoing coming from government sources can wreck a life or a career. ...

E - ... and maybe that is where the government feels it is getting its punishment.  "We can't convict them, but we can ruin their reputation..." And if anyone doesn't think the government does that, they need to grow up.

... If formal charges are filed, the defendant will at least have his day in court to admit or attempt to disprove the government's case. But if the allegation comes in a report issued by the private sector, but engineered by the government, the reputational damage is done, and the defendant has no forum in which to contest it.

E - "Tried in the Court of Public Opinion"

For precisely this reason, by law, federal grand jury proceedings are secret to protect the reputations of those who are investigated but never prosecuted. Historically, Department of Justice policy has been even more sensitive to these interests. In public filings and proceedings, the DoJ's Principles of Federal Prosecution require prosecutors to "remain sensitive to the privacy and reputation interests of uncharged third-parties," which "means that, in the absence of some significant justification, it is not appropriate to identify … or cause a defendant to identify, a third-party wrongdoer unless that party has been officially charged with the misconduct at issue." (The italics are mine.)

Technically, the deals requiring McNamee and Radomski to cooperate with Mitchell probably don't violate grand jury secrecy laws, because those laws bind prosecutors, agents, and grand jurors, but not witnesses like McNamee and Radomski. And technically, those deals might not have violated DoJ policy on uncharged third parties, inasmuch as Clemens and other players weren't actually named in official filings or in a federal courtroom. But using plea bargaining leverage to require witnesses to divulge to Mitchell the names of people the Justice Department never intended to prosecute surely violated the purposes of both grand jury secrecy law and DoJ policy.

E - But did they "never intend" to?  Hopefully they thought they would if they could gather enough proof.  But as we saw with OJ, the wealthy can present a long, large, and costly case for the government and the government had better cross its T's and dot its I's before presenting it.

With the authority granted prosecutors to make life-altering accusations goes the obligation to prove them. Here, the U.S. Attorney's Office made no individual assessment of the strength of the allegations by Radomski and McNamee against dozens of players. It never winnowed the provable cases from the mere rumors or unprovable assertions. Instead, prosecutors forced flipped witnesses to reveal everything they knew or had heard to Mitchell and walked away from the responsibility to prove any of it.

In addition, forcing cooperators like McNamee and Radomski to talk to a private party set them up for defamation suits. It's fine for a prosecutor to require a cooperator to divulge everything he knows, provable or not, in the privacy of the debriefing room, because, in general, only the provable parts will become public, and then only in official proceedings. But McNamee and Radomski were given a Hobson's choice—refuse to tell Mitchell everything they knew and go to jail, or tell him everything, including the very possibly true but unprovable bits, and, once Mitchell went public, get crushed by rich guys' lawyers. Not an outcome likely to encourage others to come forward.

E - In my opinion, since they were compelled to testify by a DoJ investigation, they should be immune from lawsuits base on what they said.

Cleaning up baseball is a laudable objective. But so far the DoJ has failed to explain why normal rules and policies governing criminal investigations should be ignored to achieve it. Congress should insist on an explanation.

__

E - So are steroids drugs or not?  If the famous ballplayers in question were wrestlers, or bodybuilders, would they be granted the same immunity from full prosecution?  How about gambling?  Is that worse than steroids?  I wouldn't think so, yet I think we all knew of ballplayers were illegally gambling and cheating to affect the outcomes of games, there would be investigations, fines, players thrown out of baseball and ineligible for the Hall Of Fame, and probably prison terms, etc.  I am not a fan of Pete Rose but I am a fan of Pete Rose's performance on the field.  That being said, I do not think he should ever go into the Hall of Fame.  And I do think his being excluded will stop other stars from ruining their legacy by gambling on their sport.   Pete barred for possibly changing the outcome(s) of games, correct?  Meanwhile, Bonds and allegedly Clemens, and others, have done the same thing.  They cheated and changed the outcomes of games.  More than prison time, if you want to deter athletes from using steroids and cheating then their records should be removed from the books and they should be barred from the Hall of Fame.

CD Sales Are Down

Again on NPR this morning I heard a story about how CD sales are down and how that will affect artists, etc. I don't discount (pun intended) the fact they are down, but the reasons why are up for some debate.

Currently, the blame is placed on file sharing and downloading music. Supposedly, because so many people download files from one another there is no reason to buy the CD. I think that's bull, quite frankly.

When I was younger, we bought LPs. Remember those? Vinyl discs that had grooves etched in them which transmitted the vibration picked up by a needle riding in that groove, to be processed by your turntable and amp into sound.

The problem is, they scratched. Then the needle would give you that annoying 'click' or worse (the dreaded 'POP!') as it went over the scratch. If it were a really bad scratch, the needle wouldn't be able to leave the groove and the song would get stuck in one place, skipping. Even if you took care of the record, handling it by the edges, balancing your needle so it didn't dig in too deeply [I remember one friend taping 4 or 5 pennies to the top of the tonearm putting a lot of weight on the needle so it wouldn't skip when it hit all the scratches, lol], keeping it in the paper dustjacket inside the album cover... Even then they scratched. And if you really liked the LP and played it a lot, they wore out. There are albums I had to by 2, maybe 3 times.

Just not doing that would decrease sales per artist, per capita.

Then we had CDs. While possible to scratch them, it took a fair amount of abuse to do so... but it did happen. They also were lent out (I could never say no) and occasionally not returned [If you are reading this and have some, send the hostages home! ... and if I have yours, call/e-mail and let me know!]. Anyway, the record companies took a hit with the repeat sales to the same customer. It happened, but not as frequently.

Then came used CD stores...

Sure, I bought used records. Not many though, as there was usually a reason they were sold. They were scratched! Used CDs though? I have 1500 CDs and half of them were probably purchased used. The record companies have few figures on that, but I'm sure it took a BIG bite out of their sales. There was a time when I could get CDs for $12. or so, and maybe $9. if I had a coupon or hit a sale. I would get $100. or so for my birthday and hit the stores, coming home with 11 CDs. Once people started to record their CDs digitally they did so and then sold the original CD to make money to buy more. I realized that same $100 could get me $15, maybe $20 CDs. Again, the record companies took a hit in sales numbers.

I have nothing to back this up but would love to se a study, or studies, on a few things... How many CDs are sold used? If you add those totals to the record companies 'losses', what would they have? How many people do CDs travel to to be taped or recorded? When I was younger, my friends and I had similar collections; we all owned the same LPs. Now, CDs are passed around 3 or 4 times. How much does that make a dent in the record companies' profit?

Then comes the dreaded download. Have I downloaded songs before? Sure. But if I like the artist, I buy the CD. I don't want 3 or 4 songs I can find on-line through some download service... I want the entire CD. But at the new price of $17. per CD, I'm going to make sure I like it and its worth buying. I'll take a chance on a used one, if I can find it (the record companies don't se that sale) but if not I will download a few tracks or borrow a CD to be sure its worth the 'investment'. That same $100. no longer gets me 10 to 20 CDs. It gets me 5. And the record companies don't want to talk about that, do they?

Don't blame the people downloading... If they aren't buying the CD it is because they only want hits - they were the 45 Single buyers of years past. If you love music and an artist, you want the whole album / CD. But we are more selective now, not wanting to buy a CD to find out (as we did with some nay $4. albums, too) that we only like 2 or 3 cuts for $17. heck, if anything I buy more because of downloading as I have found many, many more artists that I like. And if I could get CDs for $9. again, I would not be as interested in used ones and would have many more than I do now. It seems the record companies would rather sell 1 CD at $17. and make $10. than sell 2 CDs at $9. each to make $10. or $11. I can';t say I blame them, but if they want to sell fewer at a higher price, don't complain. They don't really think they can double the price and sell just as many, do they?

We had to put up with that with the gas prices, but can find alternatives in entertainment.

I'm jusy not sure what to say about this one...

file:///var/folders/VZ/VZe0kuN8HBOtb-QECfQLXE+++TI/-Tmp-/com.apple.mail.drag-T0x1412490.tmp.J9RSGl/TexasDitchSurfing2.wmv

Texas roadside ' ditch surfing' with kneeboards and golf carts....

It was good while it lasted...

Well, this might completely derail the Obama campaign...  Think Hillary paid Kerry to do this?

-EE

John Kerry To Endorse Obama

The 2004 Democratic presidential nominee is expected to announce his endorsement of Obama during a rally today at the College of Charleston in South Carolina.

Liberal or Conservative?

Speaking to friends about the Presidential Race, I was asked to describe my political views... "Are you liberal or conservative?" "Are you right or left?", "Are you red or blue?"... I would say I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative.  

"How can that be? Shouldn't it be one or another?" I don't think so as I believe they go hand-in-hand.  

I am socially liberal as I want the government to stay out of people's lives whenever possible. 

I believe in God and while no longer a Catholic, I am Christian. Yet I don't think I have the right to force others to live by the doctrines of the church. Theirs or anyone's. Should religion be totally removed from gov.? No. Should it be forced? No. Should laws be based on a religions dogma? No.  

I am fiscally conservative as I believe, again, the government should stay out of people's pockets whenever possible.  

We need taxes in some form, be they income, property, sales, or flat. The government needs to protect us from criminals (police), from fire (fire departments), from other militaries (armed services). I do not think I need to be protected from myself or need health laws.  

It needs to build roads and make sure no one does not have options. It does not need to reallocate large portions of our incomes to make us all 'equal' and the same. We don't work the same, aren't born to parent's who worked the same, don't sacrifice or delay gratification the same... We are guaranteed the PURSUIT of happiness, not happiness. And taking away the desire to run faster and harder in that 'pursuit' does no one any good. Where we end up in life and how are kids fare should be a testament to how our families have sacrificed, how hard we have worked and studied, how we have spent our lives.  

Working harder and smarter not only should help the individual and their family but would benefit the country. That is why Capitalism, while flawed, is still the best system in the world in comparison to any other.

Heroes...

In setting up this blog, my wife thought I should jump in with both feet... Get a Facebook account (or, more accurately, begin to use the one I set up already), a Flicker account to post pics for friends and family, etc.  That got me going back to my iLike music service and reviewing the info there, which got me heading back to an old MySpace page I set up to find new bands...  They all have the same opening profile questions, right?  Favorite movies, favorite books, Interests, etc. but in one of those (MySpace, I think) there was a question I hadn't seen in the others:  "Who are your heroes?"

This was, and is, my answer...  " Heroes? My wife... My kids... My mom and dad... My friends. Those who came from little and succeeded. Those who started with gifts but overcame obstacles. Those who strived and fell... but got up. Those who made it, not despite hard work but because of it. Those who could take the easy way out, coast, do well... and don't do it that way. Those that have earned what they have, or earned the right to keep it. "

I can understand why some people place some famous people on their lists because hopefully they are people who are as I described above.  But why does anyone list a pop star or movie star as a hero?

Opening Post ...

Okay, finally got around to blogging...  Been doing a fair bit of writing on e-mail, exchanging ideas and thoughts with friends, and keeping family and friends up to date with e-mails, etc.   Hopefully... HOPEFULLY... this isn't just one more thing to do, one more task...  HOPEFULLY it becomes a way to simplify communication and interaction.

We'll see...