Don't Look Down

I chuckled when I read the story of the couple who have given new meaning to the phrase "express yourself."

Quoting Mark Twain, who once said: "When angry, count to four, when very angry swear," the reports, in Fed up with jet noise, couple raise the roof:

ARMED with white roof sealant and three choice words, a Ridley Township couple has bypassed bureaucracy and taken their grievances straight to the top - of their roof - in letters 7 feet tall:

"F_ck U F.A.A."

* * * *

Since the FAA's new departure headings out of Philadelphia International Airport went into effect last month as part of a massive restructuring of the airspace over the congested corridor from New York through Philadelphia, Hall said the noise level at his home on Fairmount Avenue near Ladomus Circle has been unbearable.

"I'm p----- off," he said. "I have to sleep with earplugs at night in my own house."

Hall, who has owned his home for 10 years, and his live-in girlfriend, Michaelene Buddy, brainstormed ways to get their complaints heard.

They finally resorted to the one true expression of anger and frustration - profanity.

Two weeks ago, on the black flat-topped roof of their one-story ranch home, it took the pair about an hour and about a gallon of the roof sealant to paint the incendiary three-word sentence, along with "No Fly Zone" and a symbol for "no planes."

"I wanted to have little things that were shooting the plane down, but my girlfriend thought I would get arrested, so I settled for the picture that's up there," Hall said.

The airspace re-routing at the Philly Airport is (obviously) contentious. Although you can disagree about the issue itself, I just have to admire the manner in which Hall has reacted to the situation. Of course, not everyone sees the value in a passionate expression. As the article notes:

Hall's mother, Anne, who lives two houses down from her son, wasn't as concerned with the picture of the plane as she was with her son's use of one of the most controversial and universal words in the English language.

"It is freedom of speech; I guess you can say what you want to say," she said.

But Anne E. Howanski, Ridley Township manager, isn't so sure Hall has the right to invoke that particular word on his own house, even if it isn't visible from the street.

"I will have to check our ordinance on this," she said. "It appears to be an obscenity and we will be in touch."

While I tend to fall in the feisty category, Howanski needs to get a grip already. Perhaps she should read the case of the potty mouth toilet, Flush That, in which a magistrate in Scranton ruled that cursing (even at a toilet) is protected by the 1st Amendment.

I admit that I appreciate the self help methods used by the Halls of the world to vent their frustration. I've written about others who have used similiar means before, such as my post, A New Way to Say You Suck, about the man who had a problem with a Cherry Hill dealership and put a sign on his truck, or the Utah couple who painted a hand giving the finger to their neighbors who built a house that blocked their mountain view, Let Your Fingers do the Walking.

I've been tempted to do the same to the developer who bought the house behind us last summer. Not only did he tear down an old stone house to built two big homes on the lot, he also cut down over a dozen trees on the lot, many of which were 100 plus year old. He also cut the branches on the trees on my property that grew across the property line. The loss of foliage in my back yard can be seen in the pictures on the left (before) and right (after). One day this past summer, I came home to find this gaping hole in the back. As you can guess, I was (and still am) not happy. And I have been plotting my revenge ever since.

I live in Mount Airy section of Philly, and my home is not far from Fairmont Park. It is definitely a tree hugging community. Like me, the people that would want to move to our neighborhood would not appreciate this destruction of the forestry. When the homes are completed and put up for sale, I've had visions of erecting a huge, ugly fence along the property line and painting the back side of my fence with the words:

HOW MANY BEAUTIFUL OLD TREES WERE KILLED
TO BUILD THESE BIG, UGLY HOMES??
YOU REALLY WANT TO LIVE HERE???
WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

(Via The Daily Examiner, who also supplied picture)

Cartoon of the Day

Tom Toles, NYTimes

A Blog for Choice

Today is Blog for Choice Day 2008, and it is also the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. I can attest to the importance of the day because I was nearing the end of my teen years when the decision was handed down by the Supreme Court, permitting women the right to decide the future course of their lives. Truly, for many young women who found themselves pregnant, that is precisely what the decision entailed. In reality, it was more than a choice, it was a decision that could determine the course of a future life path.

Growing up Catholic in a small town, I experienced the 70's version of an "abstinence only" education. For my friends and me, that meant that our sex education consisted of never having the word sex uttered. See I've Got Rhythm. I can recall the whispered conversations with my girlfriends about what "the act" really consisted of, not having a clue. Thinking back on those days, its almost humorous to recall some of our speculations, which were certainly well outside the realm of human possibility -- but we didn't know better.

Unfortunately, nor did we know how one got pregnant, which is precisely what got so many "in trouble" (literally). Once that occurred, and it all too often did, the choice was a "shotgun" marriage or an extended trip to places like Philly, to spend time in exile before delivery and placing the child for adoption. Last year, I went back home to attend my high school reunion and saw the results of the divergence in our lives from that lack of choice.

As the saying goes, we have come a long way, baby, from those days. So far, that it is easy to ignore what Choice means or how important it is to protect that right. Moreover, as with many of the other rights that we thought we inalienable (such as, free speech, habeas corpus, warrantless searches) which have been trampled (if not eviscerated) by the current Administration, it is clear that the right to make such personal decisions free from governmental intrusion can all too easily be lost as well.

The importance of this issue resonates for me because:

I live in a state (Pennsylvania) that has earned an "F" for its laws on Reproductive Rights.

78 percent of Pennsylvania counties have no abortion provider. Although the Governor, Ed Rendell, is pro-Choice, both the state Senate and House are anti-Choice. See NARAL: Pennsylvania.

That is why it is especially important for me that a Democrat is elected. Luckily, the top Presidential candidates, Clinton, Edwards & Obama, are pro-Choice.

It is no secret to anyone that has ever read this blog that I believe George W. Bush is the Worst. President.Ever. He has failed miserably as President, as he has everything else that he has ever done in his life. That will be his legacy. Yet, as I observed to a friend the other day, the one area in which he has "succeeded" is to change the make-up of the federal judiciary. The effects of the conservatives appointed to the bench during his reign will reverberate for many years to come, long after we have seen the last of Bush. The right to choose is among those most precarious of legal issues. We need to be vigilant in protecting it.

For my post last year on Blog for Choice Day, see The Reason Why. For other voices expressing why they are pro-choice, see Blogs for Choice.

Cartoon of the Day

Ed Stein, Rocky Mountain News

Are You Ready?

With Obama and Clinton fighting for the lead in the Democratic contest, Mark Morford, the columnist from the San Francisco Gate, ponders the question whether the country is ready for the first black or woman president. In The woman vs. the black guy, "Who's more terrifying to red states, smart Hillary or savvy Barack? The nation trembles," Morford inquires:

It's the question everyone seems to want to address, the imponderable and frightening and slightly insane sociopolitical phenomenon that's happening right now to such a degree that even the left is falling all over itself trying to digest and parse and comprehend it all at once, and simply can't.

It is this: Just how the hell did it come to pass and which planets finally aligned and what sort of Kool-Aid has been gulped by the universe that the two white-hot Dem frontrunners, the two brightest lights on the political spectrum for the 2008 presidential election also just so happen to be members of the two most controversial/least represented groups in modern uber-white ultra-patriarchal American snake-oil politics — which is to say, a smart, savvy woman and a smart, savvy black male?

It's a stunning thing to watch. Right now, the various spurts of venom aimed at Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama from conservative pundits and politicos are, at best, scattershot and convulsive . . . .

As he notes, we're clearly not beyond the racist and sexist attacks (Chris Matthews, are you listening?) -- from within the Democratic party itself, as well as from the Republicans, as was on display over the charges and counter-charges between the Obama and Clinton camps in the past few weeks. See Break Those Chains. Yet, except for the fringe eruptions, have we moved beyond these issues as a country?

This is a subject my husband and I have discussed on several occasions. Optimistic me, I look at the fact that both have surpassed the Southern, liberal white guy, John Edwards, as a sign of our progress. My husband scoffs at me, agreeing with Morford's view:

But I'm most amazed/amused at the one big question that keeps hovering over the media and infiltrating the political blogs — does all this excitement over Hillary and Barack mean the nation is finally ready for a female president? A black president? Have we, at long last, come so far that a guy like John Edwards, an excellent, likable, all-around candidate and a classic populist southern Democrat, actually finishes third?

The answer, I'm afraid, is no, we are not ready. Not by a long shot.

This is the big, astounding myth. See, "ready" would imply we've more or less eliminated the sexism and at least come to terms with the racism, and therefore neither is much of a factor in the slightest. It's a bit like asking if America is finally ready to rid itself of its toxic love of guns and strips malls and numb Christian groupthink. In other words, if you have to ask, we ain't.

However, we do seem to be at this weird flash point, a privileged moment in political history where the anti-Bush recoil has become so potent and the right-wing collapse is so profound and the women/youth vote (at least at the moment) seems so invigorated that it all might coalesce just right and catapult a woman or a black male into the presidency, despite the hardcore misogyny and racism built like a cancer into the framework of this nation. Hey, stranger things have happened.

Look at it this way: Much in the same way Bush whored Sept. 11 to drag the nation to its lowest emotional, fiscal and political point in 100 years, so could the new wave of enraged, inspired voters leverage the Bush nightmare itself to bounce us as far as possible in the other direction. Hell, it could be even weirder than that: Hillary or Obama wins the nomination, chooses the other as running mate. Talk about your perfect liberal storm.

Are we ready for it? Doesn't matter. Quit asking what amounts to a dispiriting, futile question, and let's go find out.

It would be ironic, to say the least, if the one good thing to come out of the failed Bush presidency would be that the Democratic nominee, whether Obama or Clinton, would prevail in the general election, despite the race or sex of the candidate. That the backlash against his disastrous reign would serve as the impetus needed to get us past this barrier.

Of course, once elected, the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party will certainly not go gently into that good night. The level of scrutiny and vicious attacks on every political move would most likely be unrelenting. Despite the fact that both are moderate and would certainly try to govern from the middle as a way to lessen the partisan divide that has prevailed these last 7 years, they may end up creating an even bigger fissure -- not because of their policies, but merely because they are what they are. The only difference is that the attacks directed towards Hillary Clinton would be hateful and sexist, but would not go beyond that. The concern with Barack Obama is that the racist extremists may go further, and feel compelled to launch a physical attack. He'd have to move into that bubble that the Bushies have created, not to maintain secrecy, but security.

Cartoon of the Day

Jeff Danziger, NYTimes

Bubble Wrap

The New York Times reports on the interesting turn of events arising out of a lawsuit brought by an individual who had been arrested after expressing anti-war sentiments to Dick Cheney during an event in Denver. As noted in Secret Service: Detailed Look at ’06 Turmoil:

The arrest of a man named Steven Howards in June 2006 after he approached Vice President Dick Cheney at a Colorado ski resort and denounced the war in Iraq might have seemed, at the time, no more than a blip on the vice president’s schedule.

But now the blip has become a blowup, with Secret Service agents — under oath in court depositions — accusing one another of unethical and perhaps even illegal conduct in the handling of Mr. Howards’s arrest and the official accounting of it.

The revelations arise from a lawsuit Mr. Howards filed against five Secret Service agents, accusing them of civil rights and free-speech violations.

Steve Benen of the Carpetbagger Report succinctly sums up the controversy in When the Secret Service breaks the law to protect The Bubble:

Over the course of two terms, the Bush White House’s efforts to maintain an impenetrable ideological “Bubble” have become the stuff of legend. It’s always amazed me the extent to which the Bush gang will shield itself from anyone, or anything, that even resembles dissent. We’re dealing with a group that believes it has a monopoly on truth, so it will frequently go to extraordinary lengths to obstruct those who disagree.

In the case of Steven Howards, the story is not just absurd, it’s possibly illegal.

The incident sounds pretty harmless. In June 2006, Howards, a 55-year-old environmental consultant, was taking his 8-year-old son to a piano lesson last June when he saw Dick Cheney. Howards approached the Vice President, got within two feet of him and calmly said, “I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible.” Howards then reportedly patted Cheney on the shoulder as he walked away.

Howards walked back through the area 10 minutes later when a Secret Service agent handcuffed him and said he would be charged with “assaulting” the VP. Howards eventually faced misdemeanor harassment charges that could have resulted in up to a year in jail, though the charges were later dismissed at the request of the local district attorney.

I wrote about this story at the time when it occurred in October of 2006. See Reprehensible You. At the time, Howards denied having touched Cheney during the encounter. He isn't clear on that point, saying that he may have lightly touched Cheney on the arm or shoulder, Denver lawyer seeks to depose Cheney in assault case. What does seem clear, however, is that Howards' chance encounter with Cheney was in no way an assault on the Vice President, unless expressing any non-Administration sanctioned views is deemed to be an assault.

While there is some dispute over exactly what happened, the secret service agents who were with Cheney say that there was contact, but not to the degree of constituting an assault. See Coverup alleged in lawsuit involving Cheney. The controversy has resulted over whether the original reports of the "assault" submitted by the Secret Service who witnessed the event were later changed to say that no assault occurred or whether the arresting agent tried to coerce the other agents to bolster the charges to justify the arrest. In other words, it appears that there was an attempt to "trump up" the charges to cover up the unwarranted arrest.

The controversy has also earned mentioned on Keith Olbermann's ongoing "Bushed" series, as noted in the above video. For more installments, see Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

Of course, the Administration is keeping out of it, and I have no doubt that the efforts of Howards' attorney to depose Cheney will go nowhere -- if necessary, they'll put some sort of "state secrets" or executive privilege argument to preclude his testimony. Now that there's been a spate of bad press related to this incident, I'm sure a settlement will be the next step. Unfortunately, this insulation only adds to the lack of accountability or responsibility for their actions. So, lesson learned? None.

Cartoon of the Day

Holbert, Boston Herald

Cartoon of the Day

Tony Auth, NYTimes

Break Those Chains

So, in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr (and my father's) Birthday today, I thought I would riff on the dumbest race related issue facing this country (and Lord knows, there are plenty of legitimate issues to keep us occupied for a long time).

In a Democratic contest for President that has fielded a woman, a black and a southern white man (running in third place) as viable candidates, we should be celebrating the progress we have made in honor of MLK's Day.

Instead, Bill Clinton went from being the first "black president" to being a bigot and Barack Obama went from being questioned whether he is "black enough" to being the oracle for race relations in politics? Oh, please -- enough already. Can the Democrats stop acting like abused spouses? As Shaun Mullen so aptly put it, in Dems Shoot Themselves In the Foot on Race: "Race may be the ultimate red herring as well as the most potentially destructive element of the Democratic presidential race."

I'm not a conspiracy theorist (at least most of the time), but I really wonder if somehow Karl Rove isn't behind this latest version of the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth of the 2008 campaign.

After all, Rove coincidentally happened to opine on the subject in a Wall Street Journal piece, Why Hillary Won. In discussing why Hillary Clinton managed to win in New Hampshire, Rove unbelievably complimented Clinton's responses during the debate before the primary, as well as regarding her "emotional" appeal that was credited with helping her prevail in New Hampshire. This time, Rove's venom was directed at Obama and his responses to those situations:

His trash talking was an unattractive carryover from his days playing pickup basketball at Harvard, and capped a mediocre night.

* * * *

There's more -- and more powerful -- material available. Mr. Obama has failed to rise to leadership on a single major issue in the Senate. In the Illinois legislature, he had a habit of ducking major issues, voting "present" on bills important to many Democratic interest groups, like abortion-rights and gun-control advocates. He is often lazy, given to misstatements and exaggerations and, when he doesn't know the answer, too ready to try to bluff his way through.

For someone who talks about a new, positive style of politics and pledges to be true to his word, Mr. Obama too often practices the old style of politics, saying one thing and doing another. He won't escape criticism on all this easily. But the messenger and the message need to be better before the Clintons can get all this across. Hitting Mr. Obama on his elementary school essays won't cut it.

The fourth and biggest reason why Mrs. Clinton won two nights ago is that, while Mr. Obama can draw on the deep doubts of many Democrats about Mrs. Clinton, he can't close out the argument. Mr. Obama is an inspiring figure playing a historical role, but that's not enough to push aside the former First Lady and senator from New York. She's an historic figure, too. When it comes to making the case against Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama comes across as a vitamin-starved Adlai Stevenson. His rhetoric, while eloquent and moving at times, has been too often light as air. (Emphasis added).

Talk about racist. Inexplicably, those comments -- the "trash talking" sports references in referring to a black male, as well as the Imus type "lazy" appellation, were not given much notice in the media at all. And then, shortly after this hit job, the race war began. In fact, I recall reading one story about the racial accusations flying back and forth between Obama and Hillary that actually accused Clinton of making the "he's lazy" remark. Somehow, some way, Rove had something to do with it. It's his style. After all, who benefits if the Democrats battle it out this way?

~ ~ ~ ~

Have we not come to such an impasse in the modern world that we must love our enemies - or else? The chain reaction of evil - hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars - must be broken, or else we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.

-- Martin Luther King, Jr.

Cartoon of the Day

Bruce Plante, Tulsa World

Doctor, Lawyer, Indian Chief

As a health care attorney by day, I can relate to the recent NYTimes article on the decline in self-esteem for those who toll in the professions of law and medicine. In The Falling-Down Professions, the article discusses the diminishing prestige in those once lofty professions, stating:

Make no mistake, law and medicine — the most elite of the traditional professions — have always been demanding. But they were also unquestionably prestigious. Sure, bankers made big money and professors held impressive degrees.

But in the days when a successful career was built on a number of tacitly recognized pillars — outsize pay, long-term security, impressive schooling and authority over grave matters — doctors and lawyers were perched atop them all.

Now, those pillars have started to wobble.

“The older professions are great, they’re wonderful,” said Richard Florida, the author of “The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life” (Basic Books, 2003). “But they’ve lost their allure, their status. And it isn’t about money.”

OR at least, it is not all about money. The pay is still good (sometimes very good), and the in-laws aren’t exactly complaining. Still, something is missing, say many doctors, lawyers and career experts: the old sense of purpose, of respect, of living at the center of American society and embodying its definition of “success.”

See also, The Prestige Factor: Have Lawyers Lost Their Status?.

Certainly, the long hours and the boring, tedious work have long been the bane of our existence -- for both doctors and lawyers, but the Times points to a new phenomenon -- the loss of prestige in both professions, which until now has at least made the effort worthwhile for most.

I know countless colleagues who are miserable in their current job situations, yet feel an overwhelming helplessness to find a reasonable alternative career path. In fact, a recent Wall Street Journal article said that at many as 19% of lawyers suffer depression (vs. 6.7 of the general population), Even Lawyers Get the Blues. See also, now that's depressing. Those statistics do not surprise me at all. If anything, I'd say they were low. I think in part it's because many people who go into law (and medicine) are those who are highly intelligent, competitive and motivated and the jobs just can't measure up to the expectations. There's just too much drudgery inherent in these careers to sufficiently stimulate and satisfy the people who are attracted to these fields.

In essence, it's rare to be able to find the happy balance. Luckily for me, I'm one of the few who have. I certainly concur with the sentiment expressed at Legal Blog Watch, More on Unhappy Lawyers:

Solo champion Susan Cartier Liebel agrees that large firm practice no longer is desirable, and she blames the firms for their plight. Cartier Liebel also says that solo lawyers don't have the same angst as large firm lawyers, because solos decide about their 'work life, income and definition of success.'

It's been a (very) long time since I was a trial attorney and practiced in a big firm, and I understand that the hours and stress in big firms today are substantially worse than I experienced way back when. Of course, the current pay at the big firms is obscene as well, which necessarily contributes to the pressure to bill, bill, bill (and work, work, work). But I can't deny that I make a pretty good living where I am and I honestly enjoy my career. In fact, on occasion, I've been recruited by bigger firms, but I couldn't dream of doing that again -- ever. In other words, I don't regret my choice at all. I'm (mostly) my own boss and my clients (who are in various positions within the health care field), are hardworking professionals who are just trying to do the best that they could (and to make a decent living while they are at it).

However, I'm so far removed from the realm aspired to by many of the big firm lawyers that, to some extent, the loss of professional satisfaction experienced by these professionals doesn't apply to me. Yet, having been there (and done that), I understand the angst:

In a culture that prizes risk and outsize reward — where professional heroes are college dropouts with billion-dollar Web sites — some doctors and lawyers feel they have slipped a notch in social status, drifting toward the safe-and-staid realm of dentists and accountants. It’s not just because the professions have changed, but also because the standards of what makes a prestigious career have changed.

This decline, Mr. Florida argued, is rooted in a broader shift in definitions of success, essentially, a realignment of the pillars. Especially among young people, professional status is now inextricably linked to ideas of flexibility and creativity, concepts alien to seemingly everyone but art students even a generation ago.

* * * *

And then there is, yes, the money issue. Or rather, money envy. Associates at major New York firms often start at $150,000 to $180,000, said Bill Coleman, the chief compensation officer at Salary.com, a company that tracks income statistics. Partners at the country’s biggest 100 firms took home an average of $1.2 million in 2006, according to American Lawyer.

Hardly small sums, but for many senior investment bankers, bonuses and salaries this year will average $2.25 million to $2.75 million, according to Options Group, an executive search and consulting firm.

Doctors rarely approach such heights. While income varies widely, a typical physician might earn $150,00 to $300,000, according to Salary.com data. A surgeon might make $250,000 to $400,000; hot-shot surgeons can earn $750,000 a year, and superstars over a million dollars.

But absolute numbers are not the only issue, Mr. Coleman said.

The professions still largely award income in the traditional sense — a set, orderly progression, over the course of decades. Careers in more entrepreneurial industries like hedge funds and private equity firms follow the sky-is-the-limit model of the entertainment industry, the Web or professional sports.

Ah yes, there's the rub -- in the end, for many, it's all there is -- the $$$. Lawyers don't mind being the butt of lawyer jokes, so long as they are at the top of the financial heap. It when the tables are rearranged, and the money is too, that makes it harder to accept the loss in status. See Rich lawyer, poor lawyer.

What's the answer? Others, like me, have opined on their experiences. I think the advice of Legal Blog Watch is on point, which says:

Other law bloggers used the New York Times article to reflect upon their own personal choices. Victoria Pychon of the Negotiation Law Blog reflects on her career history, and urges readers to "take the long view" and follow their dreams. And Kevin O'Keefe at LexBlog also advises lawyers to

Find something you love doing. Do work you'll find personally and professionally rewarding. May hurt in the pocketbook in the short term, but it's worth it.

As for me, I've always believed that neither law (nor medicine for that matter) ever guaranteed wild financial success. Exposing and reinforcing this fact may be redundant, but it deters those people interested only in money from entering the legal profession at all. And perhaps that, more than anything will improve the morale of the profession and raise its stature.

It's Getting Warm Out There

Anyone who knows me would understand that global warming presents a real conundrum for me. Certainly, from an environmental perspective, I believe that climate change is real and that we need to take serious steps to mitigate its deleterious effects.

As was noted in Last Year Among Hottest On Record, Say Scientists:

Data collected from around the globe indicate that 2007 ranks as the second-warmest year on record, according to a new analysis from climatologists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

A second team of scientists, at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has come up with slightly different results using the same raw data -- suggesting that last year was the fifth-warmest on record -- but the groups reached the same conclusion on where Earth's climate has been headed for the past quarter-century. Taking into account the new data, they said, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001.

Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at Goddard, said researchers are not as focused on "any individual year but the long-term trends."

"We've got a sustained warming of the planet, which is unequivocal, and the best we can work out is that it's because we've been increasing the greenhouse gas emissions, primarily," Schmidt said in a telephone interview yesterday. "That means it's going to continue. The long-term trends are up, and they're up in the same way our models have been predicting for the last 20 years."

On the other hand, I am always cold, so the fact that it's getting warm out there isn't a bad thing on a personal level, as far as I'm concerned. However, this piece in the Washington Post gave me much pause. As the article notes:

According to the NASA analysis, the global average land-ocean temperature last year was 58.2 degrees Fahrenheit, slightly more than 1 degree above the average temperature between 1951 and 1980, which scientists use as a baseline. While a 1-degree rise may not seem like much, it represents a major shift in a world where average temperatures over broad regions rarely vary more than a couple hundredths of a degree.

The 2007 average was the same as for 1998, which was the hottest year on record until 2005 hit a global average of 58.3 degrees Fahrenheit.

* * * *

Pomerance said he is particularly alarmed by NASA's findings on temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere and the Arctic, which have warmed faster than other parts of the globe. Schmidt and his colleagues concluded that 2007 is the warmest year on record for the Northern Hemisphere, with a 1.9-degree-Fahrenheit rise over the 1951-80 average, a difference he called "quite significant."

So, although this is yet one more reason that I can't wait until the Republicans are out of office, so we can go back to believing in science and acting like intelligent human being again, I can emphasize with P.J. O'Rourke, who was interviewed on Real Time from New Hampshire and observed:

We’re – we’re grumpy, and it’s grumpy times, and America is grumpy. And we’re grumpier than most, because our weather is shit, you know. And, I mean, we’re – we’re in favor of global warming up here. You know, Al Gore just got no traction at all. You know, it’s like – and now he gets the Nobel Peace Prize! For what? You know, he forged a peace in the war with the penguins? What was that?

See Transcript from Realtime ~ Jan 11, 2008.

Cartoon of the Day

* Rob Rogers, Post-Gazette

Another Scratch & Dent

Globe Magazine reports, First Lady Laura's Bloody Fight With Boozing Bush:

GEORGE BUSH and wife Laura are headed for divorce - again - after she left claw marks on his face during a furious fight over his boozing, White House sources reveal. The president was left with a bloody three-inch gash along with a smaller cut. Our world exclusive reveals the shocking details of their explosive showdown - and what their future holds.

Here we go again. Every so often, there are these rumors about Bush boozing. See e.g., Cheers!.

I don't believe it for a minute. The scratch is no doubt due to another run-in with a pretzel. Remember, it's happened before. See Bush on fainting episode: 'Chew your food'.

(Via Eschaton)

The Collection

With all of the antics in the DeNaples case, there's probably enough material for a blog devoted just to that. For my recent posts on the continuing saga, see It's Father Sica, not Sicko and The Holy Gun. The latest news in the live and times of Louis DeNaples is the hiring of former Scranton U.S. Attorney Thomas Marino as in-house counsel for the DeNaples empire.

When Marino resigned his position as US Attorney in October of last year, I wondered what was on the horizon. As I mentioned then, What are the Odds on this?: Marino raised some eyebrows when it was disclosed that he was a reference for DeNaples when he applied for his slots license. No word on his future plans -- other than to spend more time with his family, of course. See also, The Electric Connection. Now we know.

The Allentown Morning Call reports, Ex-U.S. attorney takes job with DeNaples:

Thomas Marino, the former U.S. attorney for Scranton/Harrisburg who was listed as a reference on Louis DeNaples' gaming application at a time when Marino's office was investigating DeNaples as part of a federal probe, has landed a new job - with DeNaples.

Marino, who resigned as U.S. Attorney in October, is now in-house counsel for several DeNaples businesses, including his Keystone Landfill.

* * * *

Marino, a former Lycoming County district attorney, was appointed U.S. Attorney in 2002. The Morning Call reported in August that Marino withdrew from a federal investigation into organized crime in part because DeNaples, who is a focus of the probe, listed Marino as a reference on his gaming application.

Because of conflict of interest rules limiting his role in litigation related to his former office, Marino -- who at one point was on Alberto Gonzales' infamous US Attorney purge list -- won't be involved in the Grand Jury proceedings. As reported in the Patriot News, DeNaples hires ex-U.S. attorney:

Federal rules preclude the former U.S. attorney from getting involved in such court cases for at least a year or two, Marino said.

"I can't get involved in the grand jury, anything that may get into or spin off from that," Marino said. As far as the grand jury investigation into his boss and friend and why he took the job, he said: "After 18 years as a prosecutor, I'm not going to work for a guy who is breaking the law."

Fran Chardo, Dauphin County's first assistant district attorney, had no comment on Marino's job or whether it will have any bearing on the grand jury inquiry.

Tim Potts of Democracy Rising PA, a watchdog group, said he was concerned about Marino's career change because of the way it looks for a former top prosecutor to join a company involved in the state's fledgling gambling industry.

"How are people supposed to have confidence in public officials when they see this?" Potts said.

Marino was a reference in DeNaples' bid to get the slot-machine license. They have known each other since the 1990s, when Marino was a district attorney in Lycoming County.

Marino himself obviously sees nothing amiss his career change. As the Scranton paper reports, Ex-fed on DeNaples payroll:

The former Lycoming County district attorney told the Patriot-News he was not bothered by the investigation into his new boss.

“After 18 years as a prosecutor, I’m not going to work for a guy who is breaking the law.”

When he announced his resignation after five years as a U.S. attorney in September, Mr. Marino confirmed press reports he had agreed to act as a reference on Mr. DeNaples’ behalf in 2006 when Mr. DeNaples was seeking state gaming regulators’ approval for a casino license. He also acknowledged the Justice Department had ordered him in January 2007 to withdraw from an investigation into Mr. DeNaples, which was then assigned to federal prosecutors outside the state.

Mr. Marino did not reveal the substance of the investigation, but said it was not related to the case against reputed mob figure William D’Elia, who is in federal custody awaiting trial on money laundering and other charges. Mr. D’Elia, of Hughestown, appeared before the Dauphin County grand jury in July.

A criminal investigation here and there is no big deal and shouldn't impact future job prospects. And Marino is in good company joining the DeNaples legal team. DeNaples apparently keeps a collection of former US Attorneys on hand. The Pocono Record notes, Former U.S. prosecutor going to work for Mt. Airy casino owner DeNaples:

Marino is the latest of several former federal prosecutors to work for DeNaples. Peter Vaira, a former U.S. attorney in Philadelphia, and J. Alan Johnson, a former U.S. attorney in Pittsburgh, helped assure the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board in 2006 that DeNaples had no relationships with organized crime figures.

Specifically, they rebutted a 2001 federal law enforcement affidavit filed in a separate case that drew links between DeNaples and William D’Elia, who reputedly headed a northeastern Pennsylvania crime family.

A former assistant U.S. attorney in Scranton, Sal Cognetti, acted as a character reference for DeNaples’ application to the gaming board for a slot-machine casino license. Marino did as well, while he was still in office.

DeNaples later won the license and opened the casino in October.

See also, In DeNaples' corner, a prescient piece about DeNaples' penchant for hiring former US Attorneys in the Morning Call shortly before it was revealed that Marino had been hired by DeNaples the month before.

Speaking for former U.S. Attorneys in the service of DeNaples, one of them, Sal Cognetti, is representing Father Sica. When he first arrested for perjury, it was said that the Priest threatened one of the arresting troopers. Now, Cognetti claims that they threatened Sica and prevented him from contacting counsel, Lawyer claims police threatened Rev. Sica. That seems a bit hard to believe, considering that earlier news reports observed that Sica freely spoke on his cell phone, including a call to DeNaples, during the ride from Scranton to Harrisburg, where he was charged.

A final note on the Sica situation. The stark contrast in the view of the good father is best seen in comparing the column by Christoper Kelly of the Scranton Times, This sideshow is no comedy, which in essence provides the opinion of Scrantonians to the charges -- much ado about nothing, to that of the recent Inquirer editorial, Casino Probe, which takes a more somber view of the charges. Yet, even the Inquirer concedes that Sica has an appealing personality, in an accompanying article, Questions surround 'people's priest'.

DeNaples must have a thing for priests and lawyers. I guess it's an understandable combination. Just trying to keep himself out of jail and hell.

(Note: Updated with cartoon from John Cole, The Times Tribune)

Cartoon of the Day

* Tom Toles, NYTimes

Blame Bush

I've had discussions with friends as to why John Edwards hasn't done better as a presidential candidate. Especially with his populist rhetoric, it is surprising that he isn't resonating with the electorate more, because his views are in line with the mood of the country.

I think this quote from Chris Rock at a Madison Square Garden performance explains it. It's all George Bush's fault:

'He's made it hard for a white man to run for president. People are saying, 'After Bush, I'm not sure we can take another chance on a white guy.'

Going, Going, Gone

I know it's not going to happen, but the fact that there's only a year left to Bush's reign of terror isn't sufficient reason to forgo impeachment in the appropriate circumstance. And there is no clearer case than here -- the crimes and misdemeanors committed by Bush and Cheney are legion.

The latest proponent to recommend impeachment is George McGovern. In a Washington Post piece, Why I Believe Bush Must Go, he states:

As we enter the eighth year of the Bush-Cheney administration, I have belatedly and painfully concluded that the only honorable course for me is to urge the impeachment of the president and the vice president.

* * * *

Of course, there seems to be little bipartisan support for impeachment. The political scene is marked by narrow and sometimes superficial partisanship, especially among Republicans, and a lack of courage and statesmanship on the part of too many Democratic politicians. So the chances of a bipartisan impeachment and conviction are not promising.

But what are the facts?

Bush and Cheney are clearly guilty of numerous impeachable offenses. They have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They have transgressed national and international law. They have lied to the American people time after time. Their conduct and their barbaric policies have reduced our beloved country to a historic low in the eyes of people around the world. These are truly "high crimes and misdemeanors," to use the constitutional standard.

From the beginning, the Bush-Cheney team's assumption of power was the product of questionable elections that probably should have been officially challenged -- perhaps even by a congressional investigation.

In a more fundamental sense, American democracy has been derailed throughout the Bush-Cheney regime. The dominant commitment of the administration has been a murderous, illegal, nonsensical war against Iraq. That irresponsible venture has killed almost 4,000 Americans, left many times that number mentally or physically crippled, claimed the lives of an estimated 600,000 Iraqis (according to a careful October 2006 study from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health) and laid waste their country. The financial cost to the United States is now $250 million a day and is expected to exceed a total of $1 trillion, most of which we have borrowed from the Chinese and others as our national debt has now climbed above $9 trillion -- by far the highest in our national history.

* * * *

I have not been heavily involved in singing the praises of the Nixon administration. But the case for impeaching Bush and Cheney is far stronger than was the case against Nixon and Vice President Spiro T. Agnew after the 1972 election. The nation would be much more secure and productive under a Nixon presidency than with Bush. Indeed, has any administration in our national history been so damaging as the Bush-Cheney era?

How could a once-admired, great nation fall into such a quagmire of killing, immorality and lawlessness?

* * * *

In addition to the shocking breakdown of presidential legal and moral responsibility, there is the scandalous neglect and mishandling of the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe. The veteran CNN commentator Jack Cafferty condenses it to a sentence: "I have never ever seen anything as badly bungled and poorly handled as this situation in New Orleans." Any impeachment proceeding must include a careful and critical look at the collapse of presidential leadership in response to perhaps the worst natural disaster in U.S. history.

Impeachment is unlikely, of course. But we must still urge Congress to act. Impeachment, quite simply, is the procedure written into the Constitution to deal with presidents who violate the Constitution and the laws of the land. It is also a way to signal to the American people and the world that some of us feel strongly enough about the present drift of our country to support the impeachment of the false prophets who have led us astray. This, I believe, is the rightful course for an American patriot.

See also, Down With Tyranny, BUSH AND CHENEY SHOULD BE IMPEACHED.

A few weeks ago, the Philadelphia Inquirer carried another impeachment plea, from Judiciary Committee members U.S. Reps. Robert Wexler (D., Fla.), Luis Gutierrez (D., Ill.) and Tammy Baldwin (D., Wis.), Impeach Cheney now.

I acknowledge that it would be disruptive to go through an impeachment, but I also feel that we have lost our respect for the rule of law by allowing these crimes to go unchallenged. The slippery slope analogy is important to consider as well. As I always tell clients, once an exception is made, you run the risk that it sets precedent and it may become the rule rather than the exception.

Bush and Cheney have trashed our constitution. If they are able to get away with it, isn't it easier the next time? We are slip, sliding away.

With this Ring

Someone got a ring!!

Congrats!

Cartoon of the Day

* Walt Handelsman, Newsday

It's Father Sica, not Sicko

Every once in a while, there are those stories that you just can't let go (or, at least I can't).

When the tale combines elements of guns, the mob & money, intertwined with the dalliances of a "pious priest" -- from Scranton no less, what's not to like?

Based upon the number of articles in various papers in the region, I'm definitely not alone. As a follow up to the first part of the story of the gun-toting good father, The Holy Gun, there are several interesting revelations about Sica and the Grand Jury case looking into the dealings of Louis DeNaples.

First off, there are the pieces on the financial difficulties experienced by Father Sica, such as the one noted in the Allentown Morning Call, DeNaples' priest had deep debt. As a man of the cloth, Father didn't make much in salary to support his lifestyle, so he managed to accumulate a bit of debt, in excess of $200,000, which led to his eventually filing for bankruptcy in 1997. Most of the money (almost $150,000) was owed to a bank owned by his good friend, Louis DeNaples. Within a few weeks of filing, the case was dismissed and it's unclear what happened to the outstanding debt -- although I can certainly venture a guess who might have "taken care of it." See also, Rev lauded probed casino owner.

The Inquirer brings more bad news for Sica (and DeNaples) in Testimony contradicted priest, suggesting Bufalino successor William D'Elia may be cooperating with authorities:

The Dauphin County grand jury that indicted a Catholic priest in its investigation of Poconos casino mogul Louis DeNaples relied upon testimony from mob boss William "Big Billy" D'Elia, according to a criminal charge filed in the case.

* * * *

Unknown is what, if any, information D'Elia has provided to the grand jury about DeNaples, who is being investigated for allegedly misleading state gambling regulators about his possible connections to organized crime figures.

However, it doesn't bode well for Sica:

D'Elia was Bufalino's driver and later assumed the top spot in the small, but at one time influential, mob family.

Sica denied to the grand jury that he had a personal relationship with Bufalino, but letters he had written in the mobster's behalf, and photos at social events, appeared to indicate otherwise, prosecutors allege.

The presentment against Sica included this paragraph referring to D'Elia:

"The grand jury received credible evidence plainly demonstrating that Sica's testimony regarding the level of his relationship with Bufalino was intentionally false. William J. D'Elia was a close associate of Russell Bufalino. D'Elia was aware of a relationship between Sica and Bufalino. This relationship was far beyond the one described by Sica in his grand-jury testimony."

Even worse is what it may mean for DeNaples himself, who is the real target of the Grand Jury investigation. Just when his new Mount Airy casino is starting to roll in the money, some bad news may on the horizon, as the Pocono Record reports, Bad week for DeNaples, good week for Mt. Airy:

News of the casino's strong performance comes while DeNaples is under increasing pressure from a grand jury investigation into whether he lied about having organized crime ties during the slots licensing process.

* * * *

Recently released court documents show Dauphin County District Attorney Ed Marsico in relentless pursuit of DeNaples, stating his grand jury investigation revealed substantial evidence that DeNaples lied in his testimony to the gaming commission. Marsico had also criticized the gaming commission's background investigations into slots applicants, and even expressed 'outrage' that DeNaples received a slots license from the state.

Hopefully, the good father is using his time wisely -- praying for both their souls (and necks too, while he's at it). Sounds like they may need it.

Of course, that may not be the portrait that you'd have if you only read the Scranton papers. Once again, the Scranton Times acts as apologist for DeNaples in providing the "all the news that's fit to print" on the story.

In fact, the story told by the Times piece, Latest twist raises stakes for DeNaples, makes it sound like a case for the Italian-American Anti-defamation league, noting:

With lifelong friend and confidant the Rev. Joseph F. Sica facing a felony charge of perjury, the stakes have never been higher for junk man turned billionaire Louis DeNaples.

A Dauphin County grand jury is examining whether Mr. DeNaples, owner of Mount Airy Casino Resort, lied to the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board when he denied having ties to organized crime. Rumors of such ties have dogged the Dunmore businessman for decades.

In pursuing the case against Mr. DeNaples, the Dauphin County district attorney alleges the Catholic priest lied about his own relationship with the late mob boss Russell Bufalino.

In providing the background, the piece observes:

It is difficult to pinpoint when Mr. DeNaples’ name first became associated with organized crime.

He has never been charged with organized crime activity, but Italian-American businessmen, regardless of whom they associate with, traditionally have found the mafioso stereotype hard to shake. (Emphasis added)

That's right. It's that old "mafia label" that's affixed to all of us of Italian descent.

Of course, the article, with several significant omissions, neglects to tie DeNaples to Bufalino and other organized crime figures, such as D'Elia, in explaining how this poor (but unbelievably successful) businessman ended up being the generous billionaire that he is today. For example, it mentions that DeNaples pled no contest to fraud charges (after a mistrial) in the clean up from the 1972 Agnes Flood, but glosses over the jury tampering by James Osticco, a member of the Bufalino family. No connection between Osticco (and Bufalino) and DeNaples? Osticco decided to bribe the husband of a juror -- why? No one knows, but it sure couldn't have anything to do with DeNaples, right? And of course, suggesting that a businessman in the garbage and landfill industry might be mob related is just pure speculation, even if those businesses were notorious for being infiltrated by the mafia.

But what's ultimately important is this about DeNaples:

He is widely believed to be the richest man in the region. In a 2006 interview with The Times-Tribune, Mr. DeNaples said his assets total more than $1 billion.

With Mr. DeNaples’ success came widespread philanthropy, once very quiet and behind-the-scenes but now more public. In recent years, more edifices began to bear the DeNaples name at the campuses of two of his favorite beneficiaries, Scranton Preparatory School and the University of Scranton, both Jesuit institutions.

While shunning the limelight, Mr. DeNaples assumed prominent posts in the community as chairman and largest shareholder of First National Community Bank in Dunmore and chairman of the board of trustees at the University of Scranton. He also has held seats on the boards of directors of Allied Services, Community Medical Center Healthcare System and Blue Cross of Northeastern Pennsylvania.

So, who's going to complain about this man?

Likewise Father Sica. He's similarly sympathetic, according to the Times. In Charged priest known for skills as speaker, writer, it is noted that he's an all around fun guy:

Before hitting the front pages with his arrest on perjury charges in a grand jury probe, the Rev. Joseph F. Sica made a name for himself as a Catholic self-help author and motivational speaker who sometimes softened up a crowd with a dose of bada-bing ethnic humor.

Like the one about his father, who made a million bucks one year after arriving in America with only three words of English: stick ’em up.

Or the one about the doctor, the lawyer and the Italian bragging about their successful children. The Italian’s son made a fortune fixing things. Like basketball and football games.

* * * *

Combining the approaches of two celebrities he’s cited as personal friends — Italian-American comedian Pat Cooper and the late author and lecturer Leo Buscaglia — the Scranton priest built a career as a writer and speaker beyond his duties as a priest and hospital chaplain.

What's not to like?

(Cartoon via John Cole, The Times-Tribune)

Hope Over Fear

For various reasons, I haven't been in the office much these past few weeks. As the resident political junkie, one of the LLWL* gang wanted to know my take on the Iowa caucuses.

Perhaps my view is somewhat tainted by sour grapes, since I know that I won't have a say in the selection of the Democratic nominee for President, living in the late primary state of Pennsylvania, but my overall reaction is -- it's just Iowa. A small state in the middle of the country, that is not particularly representative of the rest of the country. It should be but one voice among many, not the decisive word on the issue that the media makes it out to be.

As I've been watching the process on the sidelines, I'm again reminded of how influential the role of the media is in the process. The media creates such hype over the "importance" of Iowa that we get pulled in to the spin despite ourselves. For some reason, that was so much more obvious to me this time around.

It's also interesting that the media normally exalts objectivity in reporting -- to the extreme. If a politician says the moon is made of cabbage, the press won't just contradict that, even when the world knows it's made of cheese. Instead, it finds another politician or expert to say the moon is made of cheese and reports both, as though there are two sides to the story.

Yet in the electoral process, many in the media feel free to pick favorites among the candidates and spin their reportage based upon those views. Maybe it's because reporters are assigned to campaigns and get too close to the people they cover, so their personal feelings about the candidates seep through. Whatever the reason, it happens all too often.

It is pretty obvious that the press hates Hillary Clinton and John Edwards and loves John McCain. The others -- they wax and wain. You can see it when someone like Tim Russert says that even if Hillary wins Iowa, unless she trounches the rest, she loses. Yet McCain, even if he's far behind, he's still a force to be reckoned with. I also noticed that even though Edwards came in 2nd in Iowa, most post-caucus reporting never even mentioned his name in relation to New Hampshire. A story I recently read mentioned that Hillary brought coffee to the press corp traveling with her, but was met with stony faced silence. Who does this reflect on? They should be embarrassed. They don't have to like her to report on her fairly, but I don't think it happens. This not only influences their writing, it ends up helping to shape the opinion of the public, as they analyze the race.

As for the post-Iowa scene, I have to say that Barack Obama & John Edwards both gave inspiring speeches that, for a moment, remind us of what we can aspire to. Sure, we can be cynical and say they're just words, but on occasion words can and do inspire change. I think the fact that both did well is indicative of a desire for change among many in the electorate. Will Bunch of Attytood noted this as well, as well as the historic importance "it is to see an African-American marching toward the White House in a nation where those of us as "young" as 48-going-on-49 still have dim memories of segregation." If you missed Obama's speech, you can watch it there and John Edwards' speech is at Crooks and Liars.

Finally, the shifting fortunes of the various players is best summed up by Steve Benen at Crooks & Liars, Cutting through the spin:

Barack Obama — What Obama fans are saying: Iowa is the spark that will propel Obama to the Democratic nomination. What Obama critics are saying: Iowa’s just one state.

Who’s right? It certainly looks like the fans are, doesn’t it? There’s a lot of campaigning yet to be done, but an amazing eight-point victory — exceeding all expectations — with broad support from every constituency not only makes Obama the frontrunner, it will likely give him a big boost in New Hampshire and South Carolina. And if he wins all three, the race is over. On the flip side, Obama, not Clinton, will now quickly become the center of attacks from all sides. We’ll see if he can handle the heat, though my hunch is he can.

John Edwards — What Edwards fans are saying: We beat Clinton and are alive to fight another day. What Edwards critics are saying: He needed to win Iowa to stay competitive.

Who’s right? A little bit of both, actually. Edwards’ strong second-place showing certainly won’t force him from the race, but it’s going to be difficult to boost fundraising and poll numbers in light of Obama’s big win.

Hillary Clinton — What Clinton fans are saying: It’s only the first round of a multi-round fight. What Clinton critics are saying: Say goodbye to “inevitability.”

Who’s right? Again, both. Clinton isn’t going anywhere; she has the resources to keep the fight going over the long haul, and has solid support in Feb. 5 states. But now, she’s the underdog, and has no obvious avenues to retaking the lead.

Go there to read the rest.

~ ~ ~

* LLWL = Lady Lawyers Who Lunch (a/k/a, my officemates)

UPDATE (1/5/08): After I posted this essay, I read Shaun Mullen's piece, Iowa Post-Mortem: Caucuses & Carcasses, in which he expresses similar sentiments on Iowa and beyond, much better than I. His views on the top 3 Dems:

(1.) Obama: An historic triumph for an African-American whose message resonated with men and women, young and old, rich and middle class -- and perhaps most importantly, independents.

(2.) Edwards: His populist appeal wasn't nearly enough despite non-stop campaigning and he actually didn't do as well as in 2004. Unfortunately, the man with the $400 haircut probably won't last into the spring.

(3.) Clinton: Events are spinning out of control -- and may even be out of her control -- after a disastrous finish that shattered her aura of inevitability.

And then there's Jon Swift's don't miss view of the political landscape, Iowa Caucus Results Explained. I especially like his take on McCain:

The big winner was John McCain. McCain came in a very strong fourth with a whopping 13% of the vote, which makes him the man to beat in New Hampshire. In fact, he might have won the entire election last night. By giving up his quixotic crusades for immigrants, campaign finance reform and the Geneva Conventions, making up with the Christian Right and taking money from the people he once criticized for "swift-boating" John Kerry, McCain has proven that he is a serious candidate for President, maybe the only serious candidate.

Cartoon of the Day

Tom Toles, NYTimes

The Holy Gun

No sooner did the Pennsylvania Supreme Court give the OK in mid-December for the Grand Jury to continue its investigation of possible ties to organized crime by Poconos casino owner Louis DeNaples, see DeNaples probe can continue, than the Grand Jury issued its first indictment -- of a Catholic Priest who is closely associated with DeNaples.

According to the Pocono Record, DeNaples' priest charged with perjury for grand jury testimony:

A Roman Catholic priest was arrested on perjury charges Wednesday, accused of lying about his relationship with a mobster in testimony to a grand jury investigating a casino owner's possible ties to organized crime.

The Rev. Joseph F. Sica, 52, was arrested outside his home in Scranton on Wednesday morning and taken to Harrisburg, where he was released on $20,000 unsecured bail after a brief court hearing.

Sica is a friend of Louis DeNaples, who owns the Mount Airy Casino Resort in Swiftwater. He has accompanied DeNaples during public appearances, most recently at the grand opening of Mount Airy in October.

The priest's arrest is the first to result from the grand jury probe, which is focused on whether DeNaples misled the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board when he said he had no connections to organized crime.

The Philadelphia Inquirer describes the perjury charges against Father Sica, Priest charged in slots probe:

The perjury charge stems from Sica's testimony to the grand jury Aug. 29. He told the panel, according to court papers, that he had not had a personal relationship with Bufalino outside a chance meeting more than two decades earlier.

The grand jury, however, was presented with photographs and letters that appeared to contradict that.

A photo taken decades ago at a party celebrating Sica's ordination as a priest shows him with Bufalino and Bufalino's wife, according to the grand jury.

A note with the keepsake picture reads: "Dear Russ & Carrie - Words cannot express my thankfulness to both of you! You have done a lot for me and you mean a lot to me. Rest assured of my continued love and prayers. Love Joe."

The grand jury report also said Sica had written a letter in 1982 to Ginny Thornburgh, wife of then-Gov. Richard Thornburgh, seeking her help in getting Bufalino out of jail.

In the letter, Sica called Bufalino his friend and said the federal government had set up Bufalino for a crime he did not commit, and that Bufalino had been wrongly labeled a Mafia figure in the media.

Another photo shows Sica arm in arm with Bufalino at a table with William D'Elia, another reputed mob leader from Northeastern Pennsylvania. No date was provided.

See also, DeNaples' priest arrested, in which the Allentown Morning Call notes that Sica thanked the DeNaples Family in an acknowledgment in a 2003 book he wrote, ''Embracing Change: 10 Ways to Grow Emotionally and Spiritually.''

So, the issue is whether Father "knew" Bufalino. I guess it's another one of those tricky word situations -- it depends on the meaning of what "know" is. Who knows, perhaps he was using the word "know" in the biblical sense, so he could honestly say he didn't know him.

The Inky story also mentions the amazing fact that "Sica owns a handgun, registered legally within the last year." As Francis Chardo, first assistant Dauphin County district attorney put it:

A priest with a gun, Chardo told the court, "struck me as odd."

Maybe when he prays, the refrain is: In the name of the Father, the Son & the Holy Gun???

As for Russell Bufalino -- he may have died 14 years ago, but he still is a major figure in Scranton's claim to fame. He is reputed to be one of the major mafia figures in the country during his time. As I mentioned in The Electric City: "Scranton was home to a major mafia Don, Russell Bufalino, who was linked to the FBI plot to assassinate Fidel Castro, and the disappearance of former Teamster President Jimmy Hoffa." His legendary status was the subject of reminiscence and discussion over the holidays with family members. I also mentioned Bufalino in previous posts on the DeNaples matter, What are the Odds on this? and The Electric Connection. As I said then:

I must admit that I know several of the locals mentioned in the various stories, but I've been away from Scranton for much too long to know the real scoop about DeNaples. Russell Bufalino was the head of the Bufalino family when I lived there and I remember being shocked to read a story in Time Magazine in the early '70s, listing him as one of the top Mafia heads in the country -- living in little old Scranton (or even smaller Old Forge).

For example, he was the "godfather" of the guy that my best friend in high school dated. I didn't know Bufalino (in any sense) other than by reputation. However, my friend & I used to joke about that affiliation and I always warned her to go easy on the break-up, when it happened. She was a Greek goddess & a heart breaker, so it was only a matter of time.

Both the Inquirer and Morning Call also had side pieces on Bufalino. The Morning Call, in Bufalino known as powerful mob leader, notes:

He was known by associates as the ''quiet Don,'' a simple, reserved man who lived in a modest home near Scranton.

But a 1960s U.S. Senate committee described Russell Bufalino, boss of the northeastern Pennsylvania crime family that bore his name, as ''one of the most ruthless and powerful leaders of the Mafia in the United States.''

''He had a lot more clout than would have been reflected on the surface,'' said Nick Akerman, a former U.S. attorney in New York who successfully prosecuted Bufalino in 1982 on a charge he conspired to kill a mob witness.

* * * *

His ascent to the top of the Mafia leadership began after a 1957 meeting in Apalachin, N.Y., where more than 100 mobsters from throughout the country convened for a summit that was raided by the FBI and local police.

''[Bufalino] was there and claimed he was selling soda and didn't know what was going on,'' Akerman said.

According to a 1975 Time magazine story, Bufalino was recruited by the CIA in 1961 to help spy on Cuba in preparation for the failed Bay of Pigs invasion.

* * * *

In his 2004 book, ''I Heard You Paint Houses,'' author Charles Brandt wrote it was Bufalino who gave the order to kill Teamsters boss Jimmy Hoffa in 1975.

Brandt, a former prosecutor and chief deputy attorney general in Delaware, wrote the book based on interviews with Frank Sheeran, a longtime Teamsters official from Philadelphia and Hoffa aide who claimed to have carried out Bufalino's order by shooting Hoffa.

Law enforcement officials long suspected Sheeran of taking part in Hoffa's disappearance.

''There's no question Sheeran thought Bufalino was the most powerful Mafia leader in the country,'' Brandt said. ''The [Mafia] wouldn't do anything of any importance without Bufalino's permission, so once approval was given to kill Hoffa, it was given to Bufalino to do because they knew it would be done appropriately and intelligently and he would not bring publicity on himself.''

Bufalino was also a powerful player within the Teamsters union, Brandt said, especially the Central States pension fund, which was known as the ''mob's bank.'' The Central States fund was used to finance construction of Las Vegas casinos and other projects.

''Bufalino owned a curtain store near Scranton, and you could go in there and buy curtains,'' Brandt said, ''or get a loan to build a casino in Las Vegas.''

Likewise, in Priest's case tied to notorious figure, the Inquirer notes:

Bufalino once was regarded as Pennsylvania's most powerful mobster. His criminal activities stretched back to the 1940s, when he began working for mob-run coal and garment companies.

During the 1970s, two books made sensational allegations that Bufalino ordered the killing of Jimmy Hoffa, who disappeared in 1975. Hoffa's remains have not been found, and no one has been charged.

In another book, which came out in 2004, Frank Sheeran, a former Wilmington Teamsters boss and Hoffa associate, contended he had been involved with Bufalino in a hit on Hoffa. Sheeran's lawyer wrote the book after the teamster's death.

* * * *

The Federal Bureau of Narcotics at the time called him "one of the most ruthless and powerful leaders of the Mafia in the United States."

In November 1957, Bufalino was said to have organized one of the biggest gatherings of mob bosses in the United States. The notoriety surrounding the raided meeting at Barbara's home in Apalachin, N.Y., made Bufalino a national crime figure.

Those in attendance included James Osticco. Osticco was later convicted of trying to fix the conspiracy trial of DeNaples, who was accused of submitting bogus bills to the federal government for providing heavy equipment for the cleanup of Hurricane Agnes in 1972. DeNaples later pleaded no contest and was convicted of one count. Sica, the priest, is described as a friend of DeNaples' and an adviser to him.

Of course, the various articles have observed that the Scranton Diocese has tried to distance itself from the whole mess. Yet, DeNaples and Sica weren't the only close pair. As I mentioned in one of my previous posts, DeNaples is very involved in the Church, including the University of Scranton and Scranton Prep, two local Jesuit schools.

All in all, this is much better than the run of the mill priest abusing altar boy story that we're used to hearing from the Catholic Church. And the Church and Mob mix certainly has it all over the problems with the separation of Church and State that we see so much of these days with our political leaders.

A final note: as usual, the case, which got big play in various papers across the state, was barely mentioned in the Scranton Times. See Scranton priest indicted for perjury.

(Via A Big Fat Slob, Smoke, Meet Fire: State Charges DeNaples Priest with Perjury, where I first read the latest on this).

Cartoon of the Day

Speed Bump by Dave Coverly

Happy New Year

Rather than the regular individual resolutions that don't last much beyond the first or second week of the new year, perhaps our New Year's Resolution should be to work towards fulfillment of the goals described in this NYTimes Editorial, Looking at America:

There are too many moments these days when we cannot recognize our country. . . [O]ne of them [occurred] as we read the account in The Times of how men in some of the most trusted posts in the nation plotted to cover up the torture of prisoners by Central Intelligence Agency interrogators by destroying videotapes of their sickening behavior. It was impossible to see the founding principles of the greatest democracy in the contempt these men and their bosses showed for the Constitution, the rule of law and human decency.

It was not the first time in recent years we’ve felt this horror, this sorrowful sense of estrangement, not nearly. This sort of lawless behavior has become standard practice since Sept. 11, 2001.

The country and much of the world was rightly and profoundly frightened by the single-minded hatred and ingenuity displayed by this new enemy. But there is no excuse for how President Bush and his advisers panicked — how they forgot that it is their responsibility to protect American lives and American ideals, that there really is no safety for Americans or their country when those ideals are sacrificed.

Out of panic and ideology, President Bush squandered America’s position of moral and political leadership, swept aside international institutions and treaties, sullied America’s global image, and trampled on the constitutional pillars that have supported our democracy through the most terrifying and challenging times. These policies have fed the world’s anger and alienation and have not made any of us safer.

In the years since 9/11, we have seen American soldiers abuse, sexually humiliate, torment and murder prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq. A few have been punished, but their leaders have never been called to account. We have seen mercenaries gun down Iraqi civilians with no fear of prosecution. We have seen the president, sworn to defend the Constitution, turn his powers on his own citizens, authorizing the intelligence agencies to spy on Americans, wiretapping phones and intercepting international e-mail messages without a warrant.

We have read accounts of how the government’s top lawyers huddled in secret after the attacks in New York and Washington and plotted ways to circumvent the Geneva Conventions — and both American and international law — to hold anyone the president chose indefinitely without charges or judicial review.

Those same lawyers then twisted other laws beyond recognition to allow Mr. Bush to turn intelligence agents into torturers, to force doctors to abdicate their professional oaths and responsibilities to prepare prisoners for abuse, and then to monitor the torment to make sure it didn’t go just a bit too far and actually kill them.

* * * *

There is much more — so much that the next president will have a full agenda simply discovering all the wrongs that have been done and then righting them.

We can only hope that this time, unlike 2004, American voters will have the wisdom to grant the awesome powers of the presidency to someone who has the integrity, principle and decency to use them honorably. Then when we look in the mirror as a nation, we will see, once again, the reflection of the United States of America.

That would certainly make it a Happy New Year.