Heros?

Of recent news in Philadelphia is the story of a brutal child rape earlier this week, followed by the primary “person of interest” being captured by local residents.  The group of locals who caught said person of interest were rather violent in their apprehension, and this individual ended up hospitalized with some injuries as a result.  Words are being tossed around in the media like “citizen’s arrest,” “vigilantes,” and “street justice.”  I wish they wouldn’t use such terms as it clouds objectivity.

The mayor has issued a finely worded statement about how violence is not to be condoned and let the police determine what is the right course of action in dealing with the group of captors.  The police commissioner has  subsequently stated that they cannot condone violence and this group  probably acted more forcefully than a trained police officer would, but ultimately there were to be no charges filed.

On the radio this morning, there was some banter among the DJ’s who were virtually ecstatic that there would be no charges filed against the citizens, and that these guys are heroes given how heinous the crime (child rape) was.

I disagree.

First off, the man has rights.  As far as I know, no warrant was issued for the guy’s arrest.  I don’t even think they had labeled him a “suspect” yet.  In other words, regardless of whether or not he actually committed the crime, he is innocent until proven guilty.  Just because someone is wanted for questioning does not mean he is guilty, and he has the same rights of being secure in his person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seisures.  I’m not sure if there’s a legal difference, but I think there would be a theoretical difference if the guy were an escaped convict who had been eluding authorities for days.

Second, the concept of citizen’s arrest does not give the general public the authority to round up anyone who may have a warrant out for their arrest, or who may be suspected of a crime.  A citizen’s arrest may only be effected if the private citizen witnesses the arrestee in the commission of a felony.  (Not even a misdemeanor or summary offence.)  No citizen gets to hunt down people and haul them in just because the police are looking for them.  Even when alerts are issued, people are told to call 911 if they come across such a person to let law enforcement handle it.  Perhaps there are exceptions if one is appropriately deputized by a legitimate law enforcement officer, but that certainly didn’t seem to apply here.

Third, the use of force did not seem justifiable.  One might be able to excuse the over-exuberrence of the neighbors in catching and holding the guy even if they had no legal authority to do so, but there is no excuse for beating the daylights out of him.  If it were a one-on-one contest and both sustained injuries, one could argue self-defence, but we’re talking what seemed to be a mob here.

Yes, it was noble of them to try and aid the police in bringing this man in for questioning.  No, it was not proper for them to form their own mob in an attempt to subdue him and hold him.  I think the group acted strongly out of emotion.  This guy might have been the one that brutalized a little girl.  If so, he deserves to pay for his crimes.  But not before he is given the same rights to due process as the rest of us.  And not at the hands of a group of neighborhood folks.

They don’t deserve the title “hero.”  I don’t think they necessarily deserve to be locked up either.  But a stern warning to them, and to the population at large, that this is unacceptable behavior, even if with the best of intentions, does not seem inappropriate.  Maybe even charging them with assault, and then offering a suspended sentence after they strike a plea deal.  Otherwise, you’re sending a message that we’re going to look the other way when people take the law into their own hands.

And that could lead to some scary consequences.  I’m sure andy number of African Americans who grew up in Mississippi or some other southern state during the first half of the 20th century would be able to explain far better than me what the results could be.

 

Here Comes Everybody

I had the pleasure of attending an overnighter at the seminary on the eve of ordination day.  The event consisted of participating in some of Friday night’s activities, and then going to the ordination Mass on Saturday at the cathedral.  There were about a dozen of us participating; five of us were already accepted and planning to enter in August.  Several of the rest were in various stages of formal discernment and application as well.

The event consisted of dinner, which was a casual (i.e. civilian attire on everyone, including all the priests) indoor barbecue and “roast” of the deacons to be ordained priests.  After that our little group took a rosary walk around the grounds, and then we watched a video of an ordination Mass to become familiar with what’ll take place.  Around 9:00 we participated in a Holy Hour/Compline (which was formal), and then they had a clap-out ceremony for the ordinandi.  Then it was bedtime.  Saturday consisted of breakfast and then heading over to the cathedral for the Mass.  After Mass, we made our way back to the seminary for lunch and the day was done.

As one would expect, the ordination Mass was superb.  I’m not good at estimating crows size, but I’d say there were probably 100 concelebrating priests, plus most of the other bishops of the archdiocese.  Seminarians handled all the serving duties.  The music was appropriate.  There was a nice mix of Latin chant and more modern music.  Nothing hokey.  I believe they had instituted lector seminarians do the readings.  The cardinal preached a typical-for-him homily.  Those of you who’ve heard him preach will understand.  Excellent content, but delivered in such a monotone that an entire orchestra could probably tune their instruments while listening to him preach.  The actual Rite of Ordination was a beautiful site to behold.  The Liturgy of the Eucharist was reverent, and Communion was distributed primarily by the new priests and the bishops — awesome!  After the Mass, the new priests were getting photos taken and giving blessings.  In other words all that good liturgical stuff that makes me drool.

Someone once made a quote in reference to the Catholic Church: “here comes everybody.” 

That quote came to mind multiple times during the weekend when seeing the seminarians and the priests.  They’re all unique individuals.  They all have different upbringings, ages, hobbies, food preferences, styles of dress, hairstyles, tastes in music, shoe sizes, etc.   In other words, they’re human.  Just like the rest of us.  You can see it quite clearly when they’re all hanging around in their civvies enjoying burgers and hot dogs and chatting about all kinds of random things.

Yet, a few hours later, that same group was dressed to the nines in cassocks and surplices and chanting Night Prayer in front of the exposed Blessed Sacrament.  That individuality seems to fade in the sea of black and white, and you start to see what they all have in common: a deep love for Christ and His Church. 

And then, after that, back to the individuality as cassocks give way to shorts and collars are shed in favor of pajamas.

I think many Catholics today don’t realize that their priests are regular human beings, because most of us only see them when they’re “on the job.”  But “off the job,” they have lives too.  We see our clergy on Sundays at Mass, but there’s more to their lives than just Sunday Mass, and just because a man is a priest doesn’t mean he can’t enjoy some fun in his life.

Taking things a bit further, the same could apply to all the faithful.  Every one of the 1.1 billion or so Catholics in the world is a unique individual.  Yet, we come together to show our love of God in our public worship.  Together, that individuality fades, and Christ replaces it.

We come into church with our varied lives.  We unite.  And then we head out and go back, hopefully a little better than when we came in.  A poor man might sit next to a rich woman.  There is no black and white and Hispanic and Asian.  A heavily tattooed and pierced person receives the same Eucharist as the prim and proper southern belle.

Dare I say, it’s possible that in the Church, the wolf really has become a guest of the lamb, the leopard does lie down with the kid, the calf and the young lion are browsing together.  Cows and bears truly are neighbors, here in the Church.

Maybe not the most profound of thoughts.  But an interesting reflection to take away from what was already a splendid weekend.

 

Oink Cough Sneeze

The mass media has found its newest hobby horse.  Every newscast I saw yesterday led with the swine flu.  Not just that there’s a new strain of influenza out there that could be deadly, but that this could potentially swell to a plague of pandemic proportions.  And ever-intent on keeping us safe from the threat, we’re offered the common-sense suggestions of avoiding intimate contact with anyone with flu-like symptoms and frequent hand-washing.  Oh, and avoiding travel into Mexico, since as of this writing, there might have been around 150 deaths in Mexico from the swine flu, but so far only around 80 confirmed cases worldwide.

I wonder how many Mexicans die annually from the plain old flu.  Let’s face it, most of Mexico is in extreme poverty, and I’m sure access to quality medical care is lacking for most, as is access to things like clean water and soap.  So until some real lab tests are done on the deceased, let’s not claim that they all died of swine flu, okay?

That being said, I think this is just the latest attempt by the mass media to get us all in panic that we’re gonna die.  They seem to do this every year at some point with some disease that is threatening to rise to a global epidemic, and then after a few weeks we never hear from it again.

Anyone remember MRSA?  Last I heard that was spreading like wildfire.  Haven’t heard a peep out of it since.  Speaking of peeps, how about the bird flu from a while ago?  We were all going to die from that according to our news media.  Before that, I seem to recall SARS was going around and poised to do some major population control.

Except it didn’t.

Maybe it’s because people were on hightened alert and various governments stepped up containment and preventive efforts.  Maybe it’s because people avoided coming into contact with others who were showing some sort of symptoms of sickness (even if it was just a cold).  Maybe people were more vigilant about hand washing and proper sanitation.

And perhaps there’s some value to things like closing the border to people who have any kind of symptoms…of anything.  Depending on the country, you can’t so much as bring a banana across the border because it might have some disease on it.  Yet you can get on a plane while hacking your lungs out and bring whatever virus you’ve got, and unless we’re in pandemic mode, you’ll probably pass through Immigration and Customs without incident.  The scene from the Godfather Part II comes to mind where young Vito is quarrantined at Ellis Island.  Maybe it’s time to put up some more restrictions on who we let come in, even if only to visit.

Either way, I expect that in six months we’ll never again hear of swine flu.

 

Certainties in Life: Death and (Cigarette) Taxes

It’s Income Tax day, so it seems like a tax related blog post is appropriate.

It seems as though our government has increased the tax on cigarettes and other tobacco products.  According to the article, the increased tax revenue will go to help fund children’s health insurance programs nationwide, and it was a law enacted by President Obama (who, I seem to recall, pledged to cut taxes for the majority of Americans).   The federal tax on a pack of smokes will go from 39 cents to $1.01.  On top of that is any state taxes which may be levied, which range from 7 cents to $2.58 a pack.  It seems as though pretty soon most of the retail cost of a pack of cigarettes will be made up of taxes, rather than the actual cost of the product itself.

I have mixed feelings on this.  Why do we target cigarettes when we need to throw a little extra money into the coffers?  Why not alcohol, firearms, jewelry, or any of a number of other luxury items?  I guess smokers are easy targets.  They are, after all, held captive by a nasty addiction and by habit.

On the other hand, the health risks of cigarettes are well-documented as are the benefits of quitting smoking.  So, if higher taxes are what it takes to get people to stop smoking, then it may be worth it.  Make it super-expensive to light up, and people will think twice.  Or, to put it another way, if you want to destroy your life by smoking, it’s going to cost you.

But I think there are flaws in that argument. 

The fact is, lower income and less educated individuals are more likely to smoke.  These individuals are also most likely to be the ones who are unable to get extra help to quit (e.g. by getting nicotine patches or joining support groups). While some of these folks will see the tax hike as straw to break the camel’s back and force them to quit, others will simply go on paying.

We saw the same thing with gasoline prices. Pundits said the American people wouldn’t stand for it when gas prices hit $2 per gallon and would simply stop driving.  Then $2.50.  Then $3.00.  Etc.  Eventually we topped out well north of $4 a gallon, and I didn’t see any major boycotts of fuel.  Yes, people cut back some and maybe made wiser use of their car trips.  But despite the high prices, I sure had a lot of company as I was stuck repeatedly in traffic jams.

Likewise with smokers.  Those held captive to the addiction aren’t likely to quit.  They’ll simply cut back on other things.  Like possibly food.  Or clothing.  Or heat.  Or car insurance.  They’ll find ways to keep their smokes.  (I can’t tell you how many customers I dealt with when I worked in the supermarket who would be buying their food on public assistance money and then fork over half a paycheck for two cartons of cigarettes.)  Just like we all found ways to keep driving our cars even though gas prices were high. 

In other words, I don’t think that you can get the majority of smokers to quit by pricing them out of their addiction.  For that to work, make the tax on cigarettes $50 or $100 per pack.  Of course, that’lll never fly, since the tobacco industry has too much lobbying clout. 

I also think it borders on the absurd to levy a tax to fund a specific need(children’s health insurane) while at the same time hoping that the higher taxes will drive fewer people to use the product being taxed.  In short, you’re eliminating your tax base, so where are you going to get your money from?  Why not follow this logic, make marijuana, meth, cocaine, and other drugs legal, and just tax them heavily to fund anti-drug campaigns?   (Though this idea has some merit.  Perhaps we could convince some congresspeople to enact an abortion tax.  Say $10,000 per abortion.  Tax proceeds would be used for reproductive health education in public schools.)

Then again, the after-effects of smoking put tremendous strain on our health care system, so I can see forcing smokers to pay a higher share of those costs.  And using a tax on cigarettes to fund public healthcare initiatives is one way to do that.

By this logic, though, we can also say that diabetics put a strain on our health care system as well.  By reducing obesity, we can also cut back on our health care costs.  Why not put a tax on unhealthy foods and drinks?  For example, prepared items that have more than x calories, y grams of fat, and/or z grams of sugar per serving could have an excise tax of 1 cent per extra calorie or gram of nasty stuff.  That would get the fatsos like me to think twice before reaching for those doughnuts.

So, mulitple arguments can be made pro and con.  What’s the solution?  I’m glad I’m not in politics, so I don’t have to decide one way or another.

 

How often do you pray

Reader’s Digest published the results of a survey on the prayer habits of people around the world.

From Mumbai to Madrid, where you live likely influences how much you pray. Or so shows our latest global survey, which reveals significantly more devotion in parts East than West. At least 66 percent of people in Malaysia, the Philippines, and India say they pray every day. It’s the opposite in Europe: 65 percent of respondents in the Czech Republic never do, followed by those in the Netherlands, France, Spain, and the U.K. The trend stops across the Atlantic, where 55 percent of Americans pray daily.

The results are scary.  In the Czech Republic, only 35% of the people have some sort of prayer life (only 8% pray daily).  In France, 24% of the people pray daily, Germany came in at 28%, while Italy tops out at only 20%. 

Is there any doubt that Europe is in desperate need of a re-evangelization?

 

Trust

There’s a new Geico commercial out there where what I assume is supposed to be the president or other big mugwump at Geico is talking to the gecko about how the company is apparently trusted, and they need to promote that Geico is the company people trust.  Then, the president suggests they engage in one of those “trust building ” activities wherein the president will fall backward off his desk into the waiting arms of the gecko, fully trusting the little bugger will catch him.

This brings back a flurry of memories of “team building” exercises like that.  I’ve lost count of how many activities growing up featured such things where you were expected to just engage in some dangerous activity trusting that the rest of your team will be there to protect you.  The Boy Scouts were especially fond of this, and I remember it also being featured as part of my Confirmation retreat.  (How hurling ourself off the edge of a platform into the arms of a bunch of fellow 7th graders was supposed to prepare us to be sealed and strengthened by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is anyone’s guess.)

Now, I am a klutz.  I am perfectly capable of tripping and falling accidentally, so there’s really no reason for me to purposely throw myself off the edge of a platform to see if I get banged up.  Add to that my general fear of heights, and suffice it to say I avoided participating in any such activities as much as possible, even when it was considered “mandatory.”  Then came the nagging — what’s the matter, don’t you trust us?  Aren’t you a team player? You have to do this, we’ll have much more respect for you if you at least tried it.  Whatever.  To my credit, I DID participate in a trust walk on a retreat once — where people were partnered up and one was blindfolded and the other led him around the grounds avoiding obstacles and such.  But nothing involving heights.

Maybe I just take the words of the Gospel quite seriously.  When Satan took Jesus tp the parapet of the temple and suggested He hurl Himself down and see if God will send angels to protect Him lest he dash His foot against a stone, Jesus replied that it’s also written that you should not put God to the test.  I see enough of a parallel here; no testing God for me!

On further reflection, I don’t know how people think these activities actually build trust.  I was paired up with a compete stranger on the trust walk, and don’t think I even remember his name right now.  Sure, I “trusted” him when he was leading me around, but he also “trusted” me when it was my turn.  On my confirmation retreat, or on those scout events, I could have “trusted” that the other kids would catch me, just as each of them “trusted’” the rest of us would catch them as they took a turn.  And afterward, I still wouldn’t have loaned a dime to any of them with any expectation that I might get repaid.

These activities don’t build trust.  They really are only examples of the threat of mutually assured distruction.  If I’m a guide on a trust walk and he hits a low tree branch, I know when I’m the blind one I’m going to end up falling into a muddy ditch.  And if I’m the one catching the kid falling from the platform, if I don’t do my best to keep him from hitting his head, I know when it’s my turn, I’m eating dirt. 

Suppose instead of a blind trust walk, the retreatmasters instead decided that we would have to tell our partner some private, potentially embarrassing detail about our lives and trust him to keep it secret.  Would you?  Probably only if you could get some equallyembarrassing secret out of him so that if he blabs, you can blab too.  Otherwise, forget it!

Trust is built and earned over time, not instantly there because someone says it ought to be.  I’m blessed with many close friends who I would trust implictly with just about anything – be the keys to my car or my bank PIN or a personal/emotional issue.  That trust developed over time, and as our friendships developed.  Not simply because I hurled my body at the group of them and they caught me.

 

Persnickety about Pricing

When I see a sign at the grocery store that indicates that something (say in the produce department where they hand-create the signs) costs .99¢, I am really tempted to put 100 of them in my cart, go up to the cashier, hand him/her a dollar, ask for a penny change, and walk out of the store.

If you’re going to indicate something is less than a buck, there are two ways to do it.  Either a dollar sign with a leading zero, a decimal point, and then the price as a decimal of a dollar — e.g. $0.99  OR indicating a whole number of cents — e.g 99¢.

But to say that something cost .99¢ means I can buy it for a fraction of a penny.   And before anyone argues about how there is no denomination of currency less than 1 cent and that it should be clearly obvious that they mean it’s 99 cents, I counter with the following: one gallon of gasoline will still cost you something and nine tenths of a cent.

Some day, I am going to gather up enough nerve to argue with the cashier about that, and get the store to honor their price accuracy policy.  Either start training your employees on some basic second-grade math, or get ready to start selling things for 100 times less than you intended to charge.

 

Police Officer Shootings

It is a sad reflection on the culture when thugs have absolutely no qualms about shooting a police officer.  It’s senseless violence, and just disgusting to think that there are people who care so little about life.  (Ignoring the obvious elephant in the room about the abortion issue.)

But what seems really interesting to me, is that all these officers who have been killed in the line of duty have been Catholic.  As far as I can tell, every one of the last half dozen or so have all had viewings and Masses of Christian Burial in the Cathedral, with the Cardinal Archbishop or one of his Auxilaries as principal celebrant.

Don’t we have any Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, or Atheist cops out there?

(Not that I want any more violence or that I think any other religion deserves to share in the tragedy.  It just strikes me as odd that they’ve all been Catholic.)

 

Baby Boom

So, a woman with six kids decides to go off and have IVF and ends up with 8 more.  This makes bigtime national news and causes an enormous media frenzy.  And as usual the mass media focuses on the completely wrong elements of the story.

The day the news broke, the two main highlights were (1) that this woman was going to try to breastfeed all 8 of them and (2) that the hospital refuses to release her name or anything about her.  (1) was uttered almost with a tone of derision that this woman is nuts for even thinking she could try such a feat.  Yeah, that’s probably going to be impossible.  And the news reporters seemed thrilled everytime they reported that one or more of the octet were being nourished from a bottle.   (2) makes it sound like because this is newsworthy, all laws protecting confidentiality and privacy are null and void.  Personally, I wouldn’t want news cameras sitting there watching every move, regardless of how noteworthy such an event is.

And now comes the nonsense about how she should have engaged in “selective reduction.”  And how messed up it is that she gave birth to them all.  And other nonsense about the cruelty of the whole situation.

How messed up are we to be so intrusive into the private life of this family?  I thought the legal premise of Roe v. Wade was some kind of right to privacy, which granted us the (ahem) “right” to abort?  So why not a right to privacy for choosing to keep the children?  Let the woman alone already!

If anything, we should ask why a doctor agreed to perform in vitro fertilization on someone who already successfully bore 6 other kids?  What was his/her motiviation for this?  Money?

 

Winter Weather

I’m beginning to think that the surest way to see how stupid someone can be is to see how they drive in winter weather.

Exhibit A: Saw a driver who must have only brushed his/her windshield.  The snow on their roof then fell onto the windshield once they get underway, and the only visibility they have is the swatch the wipers clear.  Snow from the hood rolls down and rests on their bumper, completely obscuring their headlights.  At least the headlights were on, but all they did was cast a faint glow.

Exhibit B:  car pulls out of Wawa right in front of me.  I hit the brakes; ABS kicks as I also drop the car into low gear to slow down.  Idiot realizes it wasnt’ the smartest move and slams the accelerator.  Except his sporty coupe isn’t designed for this kind of weather and simply fishtails left and right while the back tires spin with no forward motion at all.

Feel free to add your own examples of winter-weather stupidity in the comments.