Tuesday, June 1, 2010
"ONE NATION UNDER GOD", MORE THOUGHTS
"Anonymous" cited the separation of Church and State as one of our basic fundamentals of our Democracy. It's a catchy phrase, but what exactly was meant by the "separation" and what do we choose to scrutinize and what do we choose to overlook.
If there is such a thing as separation of Church and State, what is it and where does it begin?
Let's look at the supposed "separation" starting on a local level. Millions of dollars are given out to religious organizations in Hartford for so-called community initiatives. Some are legitimate programs producing results, many are not.
And if a program funded by the City is held in a church building, how is that any different than a graduation program being forbidden from being held in a church? Are secular symbols removed for after-school or daycare programs held in or around a church building?
And when a program is publicly funded and run by a religious organization, where do we draw the line? Is it ok for a church or minister that receives funds from the City to then endorse Mayoral candidates or politicians from the pulpit? No one can deny that happens in Hartford.
Is it OK for a minister receiving funds from the City to stand behind a recently arrested Mayor and support him with a "prayer vigil"? Or is that just part of "doing business" in Hartford?
That line of separation between Church and State seems to be non-existent when it comes to Hartford. Where is the ACLU on this?
And then we go to the state level. The Roman Catholic Church probably has one of the strongest lobbying efforts at the Capitol, influencing the approval or denial of many legislative efforts. It's the way the system works, but how do you pick and choose what is acceptable and what is not.
And so much for that separation when both Congress and our State Legislature begin every session, every single day with a prayer.
And one of the most interesting "separation's" to me that seems to really cloud that "separation" theory is the Obama Administration's Office of Faith Based Initiatives.
While some see religion being brought into society as a bad thing, is religion not what has held our communities together during good times, but especially during bad times. No one is "forced" to accept or abandon religion, the same as no one is forced into a life of crime or drugs. It is a conscious decision one makes and the same as a decision to use drugs, if it is not your thing, "just say no".
I think I've said enough about this a long time ago, but it just seems bizarre to me that a couple of parents would go to the extremes to alienate their children from religion, rather than explain that diversity is what makes this country great.
You are free to make decisions for yourself. Believe in God, don't believe in God. Choose to drink alcohol, choose not to drink alcohol. The list can go on and on, but will looking at a cross as you walk into an auditorium to receive your diploma really scar you for life?
And is a little more civility and tolerance really a bad thing for us to strive for today?
ARE WE REALLY "ONE NATION UNDER GOD"?
I don't consider myself an overly "religious" person, but for some reason the Federal Judge's decision in the Enfield graduation case is bothering me. To me, your religious beliefs aren't something you wear on your sleeve, but they hopefully come across in the way you live your life and treat others.
I guess the core of the matter revolved around the decision by the Enfield Board of Education to hold graduation ceremonies at the First Cathedral in Bloomfield. After the decision was made, three students and two of their parents objected and the ACLU apparently took up the charge and filed a federal suit.
Long story short, the hearing in Federal Court was fast tracked and yesterday Federal Judge Janet Hall issued her decision. In essence, graduation at the First Cathedral was off, Judge Hall claims it violates the First amendment of the US Constitution.
I guess the first thing that troubles me is that three "Jane" or "John" Doe's can file a lawsuit changing the course for a much larger group of people. This wasn't a majority decision, not even close. This was a decision by three students out of several hundred students and two of their parents
All five plaintiffs in the lawsuit requested "anonymity". So much for taking a stand for something you believe in. And what about that old standard to be able to face your accuser? How can you face an "anonymous" accuser?
Further more, the Judge toured the First Cathedral and as "neutral" as the Cathedral's leaders tried to make the building, there were still "secular" symbols that couldn't be hidden, such as the large cross atop the building.
If secular symbols are the issue, I think the parents and the three students must have much greater problems surviving in our society today. What do they use for currency if they object to secular symbols and statements? Do they refuse their paychecks and object to cashing them because of the phrase on every bill "IN GOD WE TRUST"?
Do they leave a ball park when "God Bless America" is sung? I totally agree that religion should not be forced on anyone, it should be a choice. But then again, for a couple of hundred years religious freedom has been a cornerstone of this country. Walking into a church is not going to make anyone a "bible thumping Christian" (no offense to bible thumping Christians intended) anymore than walking into a bar is going to convert someone into an alcoholic.
As adults, something these three students will eventually be forced to become, we face choices and decisions everyday. Some call for difficult decisions that are not always pleasant, but are one person's rights more important than the majority's rights?
And I'm not sure where the Judge's decision is coming from also. If it is based in the theory that "secular symbols" that can't be removed will somehow force religious beliefs upon the three students and their parents, this could end with an ironic twist.
If by some chance this should end up at the US Supreme Court, the students and their parents will be confronted with numerous "secular symbols".
As they walk up the front steps of the US Supreme Court, if they look up at the stately facade, they will see Moses holding the ten commandments in his lap. Not good for non-believers as they feel the pressure of organized religion staring back at them.
Then , if they make it as far as the entrance to the actual Supreme Court courtroom, they hopefully wont be offended as they pull open the doors to the courtroom, they have the symbols of the 10 commandments engraved into the doors
And then after they take their seats, God forbid (sorry bad choice of words mentioning God). I'll try again.... and then after they take their seats, Heaven forbid,sorry, another religious term. I guess you just can't get away from religious symbols and terms in this country.
After they take their seats, if they look up above the bench where the Supreme Court justices are seated, they will once again see a religious symbol of Moses carved in his full religious glory.
If a little religion is acceptable for the US Supreme Court, will it really hurt a couple of students from Enfield?
And finally, in the words of our 4th President of the United States and a founding father of our country and our Constitution James Madison;"We have staked the whole of all our political Institutions upon the capacity of mankind for Self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to The Ten Commandments of God."
Monday, May 31, 2010
GOING, GOING, ALMOST GONE
I guess it is now official, the Perez Administration's attempts at historic "preservation" are a failure.
In what was supposed to be the stately new entrance to Hartford's Public Safety Complex now lies a pile of bricks and debris. Due to what many have called an act of incompetence, the attempts to preserve the 1800"s era school building have resulted in the collapse and eventual demolition of the buildings shell.
You can read my previous posting "The Perez Legacy of Incompetence Continues" by clicking here.
The picture above serves as a testament to the acts of the Perez Administration
Only two parts of the wall from the southwest corner of the building now remain.
There are no estimates available at this time as to what additional costs are now added to the project for demolition and re-design of the building, a project that was never fully funded to begin with.
Friday, May 28, 2010
SOMETHING GOOD ABOUT HARTFORD BROUGHT TO YOU BY SOMETHING GOOD ABOUT HARTFORD

Hartford 2000, which is the parent organization of Hartford's Neighborhood Revitalization Zones, or NRZ's, provides a great service which they call "e-lerts". The e-lerts provide great information about Council meetings, community meetings, Library sponsored events and a multitude of worthwhile information.
Today I received one listing the locations and times of Farmer's Markets across the city. The information is below. I left Linda Bayer's contact information at the bottom in case you would like to sign up for Hartford 2000's e-lerts.
H2K Elert – A service of Hartford 2000, the coalition of
Broad Street between Capitol and Russ
Open now!
Thursdays, 11 AM to 2 PM
Corner of
Opens June 8, 2010
Tuesdays and Fridays, 4 to 7 PM
Old State House Farmers Market
Opens June 21, 2010
Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, 10 AM to 2 PM
First Presbyterian Church Farmers Market
Opens July 5, 2010
Mondays, 10 AM to 1 PM
Northend Farmers Market
Opens July 7, 2010
Wednesdays, 10 AM to 1 PM
Staff Consultant
Hartford 2000, Inc.
c/o CREC
111 Charter Oak Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106
Phone: 860-547-1663 Ext.21
Fax: 860-547-1831
www.Hartford2000.org
Thursday, May 27, 2010
PEREZ TRIAL: BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR MAYOR

The Perez corruption trial finished off another week today. Tomorrow is a furlough day and the court is closed and Judge Dewey gave jurors Tuesday off so trial resumes on Wednesday at 9:30am.
Today's main witness was developer Joseph Citino who was stonewalled in his attempts to demolish and then develop the property that was part of the area surrounding the "Butt Ugly" building. Citino claims to have been in a meeting regarding his plans in which Mayor Perez was present.
I had anticipated a character out of the "Soprano's" to take the witness stand, but instead a professional gentleman was sworn in. Joseph Citino had to repeatedly be asked to speak up as the jury and the defense table could not hear his soft spoken voice.
It was during that meeting apparently when Perez insisted on a $100,000 "payment" to Abe Giles if Citino was going to be able to purchase of land abutting the "Butt Ugly" building, a property that Citino claims was key to the success of his plan.
Citino testified that during that meeting Perez told him if he wanted to move forward that he would have to "take care of Abe". When Citino asked Mayor Perez what the next step was Perez replied "First we have to take care of Abe Giles, or there is no next step".
It seemed that one of the main issues regarding Citino's testimony was his criminal past. With the jury out of the room both sides argued over how much of Citino's criminal history could be disclosed to the jurors. The whole issue seemed to become a minor issue when Prosecutor Gailor began his questioning and quickly went into Citino's past.
Citino seemed to be one of the better witnesses so far as to how he connected with the jury. Citino made it a point to speak directly to the jury making eye contact with them rather than the lawyers. He did have a tendency to answer more than the question that he was asked, but my impression is that the jurors were listening.
Citino's past arrests were from the late 80's and early 90's and involved drug, weapon and counterfeiting charges, for which he served prison time. He testified that he had made mistakes, but since then he told the jurors he had worked steadily to avoid ever going back to prison. Although in and of itself his past seemed damaging, Gailor did a masterful job of diverting attention away from the past and focusing the jurors attention on the hundreds of properties Citino claims to have developed since he started his company.
I think Hubie Santos realized that any hope he had of making Citino out to be a gun toting thug and drug dealer was lost when the jury heard about Citino's million dollar plus construction deals. He only touched briefly on Citino's past during his cross examination and moved past it quickly to focus on the Courant's treatment of Citino.
From day one of jury selection, the courtroom has buzzed over the constant mention of Courant reporter Jeff Cohen. Many people were wondering why Hubie Santos has insisted on mentioning Cohen and why would he be a potential witness?
Apparently, according to Santos, Citino had been called repeatedly by Cohen for a comment on a story regarding the alleged payoff to Giles. Citino remained steadfast and repeatedly told Cohen "no comment". Citino testified that Cohen had probably called him 100 times looking for a comment.
During the time Cohen was working on the story, Citino sent an e-mail to Perez outlining his understanding of where the deal stood. In that e-mail Citino referenced the "$100,000" payment to Giles. Citino testified that on the day the e-mail was sent at 10:54am, Perez began calling him almost immediately and he claimed (verified by phone records) that Perez called him 18 to 20 times trying to reach him.
They had a short conversation, most of which Citino "didn't recall". Several days later Perez called him upset because he had put the $100,000 payoff to Giles in writing. According to Citino, Perez was not happy because the e-mail and the payoff could be "trouble" if it got into the "wrong hands".
Then in the "be careful what you ask for" column, Perez reacted to a Courant story by Cohen. After the issue with "taking care of Abe" was published in the Courant, Perez turned around and sent a letter to States Attorney Kevin Kane requesting a full investigation into the payoff and any corrupt activity. Eddie must have thought that the attention would be focused on the convicted felon Citino and the spotlight would never be on him.
Well, as Inspector Sullivan testified, that plan didn't work for Perez and almost immediately after they first interviewed Eddie, he became a suspect.
One of the more peculiar pieces of information was brought out during Santos's cross examination when he tried to paint a picture of Cohen "threatening" Citino to get Citino to comment for his story. Citino seemed to not consider Cohen's actions a "threat", but Santos kept asking about Cohen "threatening" him. Apparently Cohen asked for comment and Citino kept saying "no comment" and Cohen related to him that he probably wouldn't be portrayed in a positive light if he chose not to comment. Cohen apparently advised Citino that his criminal past would be brought out in the article.
For some reason Santos also pressed Citino regarding a phone call from Cohen after the article was published. Santos claimed that Cohen called Citino from New Orleans where Cohen was visiting his parents after Hurricane Katrina. I wanted to stand up and object, "Relevance your honor?". But the Judge seemed upset enough already after spectator Jan Appelloff's cell phone went off followed by Hubie Santos's phone going off for the second time of the day. "Sorry your honor, its my son" was Hubie's response, Appelloff quickly exited the courtroom to silence hers.
A quick admonishment by Judge Dewey for everyone to turn their phones off. An early recess for the long weekend was called and testimony resumes next Wednesday.
And for those in attendance wondering about my being summoned to the "backroom" during the afternoon recess, I will remain silent on that one until the time is right.
Monday, May 24, 2010
SHAME, SHAME, SHAME

In a disturbing story on WFSB tonight, Hartford Bureau Chief Len Besthoff presented a story about what should be one of the most hallowed pieces of land in Hartford.
In a city run by a City Council that is quick to address issues in Arizona, it seems as though they are falling flat when it comes to addressing issues right here in Hartford.
As I said before, Hartford's "Soldiers Field", which was established as the final resting place for many of Hartford's veterans and their spouses, should be revered and maintained as one of the most hallowed parcels of land on the City's inventory.
According to Besthoff's story and the accompanying video proof, the graves are almost totally ignored when it comes to maintenance. Soldier's headstones toppled, graves overgrown and obscured by tall grass and weeds, remains of flower arrangements from funeral's left on graves for months, all deplorable conditions.
You can view the WFSB story by clicking here..
And I think it would be safe to say that there very well may be members on the City Council and on the Council's Parks Committee who don't believe in war. None the less, many of these graves are the final resting place of brave men and women who have died during actual combat and paid the ultimate price for us as a society, as well as those who served in active duty and were fortunate enough to make it back home to Hartford.
We owe them and their families, at the very least, proper maintenance of their final resting places.
In my opinion, that should be a priority for the Council before any other nonsense resolutions against Arizona are passed. As I said before, it is time to get our own house in order before we try to run the entire country, and this is a perfect example.