Illinois ex- Governor Blagojevich

Amended 19 February 2020.

As you will see I wrote this quite a time ago – 10yrs to be exact – but the dear ex-governor has now had his prison sentence commuted by President Trump. I’m staggered. But there we are – a good example of “draining the swamp”?

----///----

Okay!  “The governor of Illinois has been arrested on charges of conspiring to sell Barack Obama's recently vacated US Senate seat.

The news that Illinois Governor Blagojevich was taken into custody complicates the matter of filling the Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama.

Governor Rod Blagojevich and his chief of staff, John Harris, were also accused to trying to "induce purge of newspaper editorial writers," critical of him at the Tribune Company, the US attorney's office said in a statement.

"The breadth of corruption laid out in these charges is staggering," US attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said in a statement...” (From ‘The Australian’ web site 10 December 2008).

I know that politics is often considered a ‘dirty’ game and I am no great respecter of politicians, of any persuasion. Just because they hold the positions they do does not mean that I respect them – they have to earn my respect. They can say what they like, it is what they do that counts and which may, or may not, earn my respect.

In this case I am just amazed at the audacity of someone like the governor. Does he (or did he) believe that as governor he is (was) above the law? He is just a man of straw – not worthy of the office of governor. He is just a common felon and a con-man to boot. He fooled the electorate of Illinois into electing him. But what staggers me more than anything is the lack of moral understanding; the lack of the appreciation of values and  that any conception of ethics seems to be totally wanting from his psyche, from his understanding as to what it is to be a human being. Maybe he now has an appreciation of the law of cause and effect!

As governor he is obviously not short of money. He has one of only fifty such positions, so he is already in somewhat rarefied atmosphere in American politics – he is head honcho in the state - he has authority, he has power. Very obviously that was not enough.

He must believe that his sole reason for existence is to make money – and the more the better. Now I am the last person to say that having a desire to make money is wrong, because I like money as much as the next person, but not at any cost. Does this bloke actually LIKE himself? When he looks at himself in his bathroom mirror in the morning when he shaves, what does he see? Can he honestly say to himself, if positions were reversed, “ I would like to be governed by me?”

What also alarms me is the is the possible answer to the question, “Is this what unbridled capitalism breeds?” Laws, no matter how tightly enforced will never cover all human failings. There has to be self regulation (self discipline) there has to be trust; there has to be respect not only for yourself but for others. Laws are essential but unless they are applied and followed from the bottom up (and not just enforced from the top down) anarchy will prevail and the ‘rule of law’ will not be worth the paper it’s printed on. 

I am going to watch this one with great interest. I hope and trust that my respect for politicians generally is not reduced any further and that he gets what he deserves.

And this is something wrote a few days later - also in 2008:-

The latest on the Illinois Governor case is that the Illinois House of Representatives has voted to begin an impeachment inquiry into Governor Rod Blagojevich, who is accused of trying to sell the US Senate seat vacated by president-elect Barack Obama.

The inquiry, approved 113-0, will be placed in the hands of a special committee. 

If it determines that impeachment is warranted, the House would vote on whether to impeach, to be followed by a trial in the state senate.

If convicted at trial the governor could be forced from office.

It seems that no one wants to be seen to ‘like’ this bloke any more!!

The Catholic Church and its Moral Authority.

I ask the question – a valid question – where is God? Is God “up there”, here, everywhere? If, as I suspect, God is everywhere why is it then claimed that a priest is a required “intermediary” through which a believer can “talk” to God.

If God is everywhere is a priest really necessary?

This brings me to comment on the truly appalling, even horrifying revelations in the 2017 Report by the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

The Catholic Church, while certainly not the only one, has the worst record of any institution mentioned. The Catholic Church, through its Archbishops in Australia, has stated, in answer to recommendations in the Royal Commission Report, that any change to the requirement for priests to be celibate, and changes to the confessional will not be considered.

My questions then are:-

Why is “celibacy” so important to the Catholic hierarchy?

Also, why is the Confessional so “sacrosanct”?

And why is it that “Canon Law” cannot be challenged or altered?

Celibacy:

The Church, as I understand it, considers clerical celibacy to be not a doctrine, but a discipline. 

There has never been any doubt, however, that it is an ecclesiastical discipline, as Pope John Paul II said at a public audience on 17 July 1993, that celibacy "does not belong to the essence of priesthood.” He went on to speak, nevertheless, of its aptness for the requirements of sacred orders, asserting that the discipline "enters into the logic of (priestly) consecration."

Because the rule of celibacy is an ecclesiastical discipline and not a doctrine, it can, in principle be changed at any time by the Pope. Nonetheless, the current Pope, Pope Francis, and his predecessors have spoken clearly of their understanding that the traditional practice was not likely to change.

Throughout the early centuries of Christianity, let it be known, clergy continued to get married, though marriage was not required. It was not until the turn of the first millennium that the church started to canonically regulate clerical marriage, mainly in response to clerical abuses and corruption. It was of particular concern that at the death of a clergyman, his wife and children would inherit church property. The Council of Pavia (1018), for example, issued regulations on how to deal with children of clergy, declaring them serfs of the church, unable to be ordained and barring them from inheriting their father's “benefices” (income connected to a church office or parish).

So, it can be seen that celibacy has nothing to do with God (at least no more so that any other human activity) but a lot more to do with mercenary and ecclesiastical considerations – the wealth and authority of the Catholic Church.

Confessional:

Again, as I understand it, this requirement was originally imposed in the Middle Ages, at least in part, by church leaders who expected priests to interrogate penitents and learn if they might be heretics.

Confession and the authority to grant absolution also greatly enhanced the power of the priest. With sins absolved, the believer would gain heaven. Without absolution, death could bring the spiritual pain of purgatory or the eternal damnation of hell.

It would appear that from the very beginnings of the confessional, practices varied widely among both priests and laypeople. Some clergy emphasized compassion and forgiveness and faithfully kept secret what they heard. Others exploited their power and the information captured during the sacrament. The 11th-century monk Peter Damian (1007 – 1072) famously excoriated clerics for the sexual abuse of minors, which often began with the penitent-confessor relationship. In the later Middle Ages, apparently criminality among confessors was widespread and entrenched. Much of the criminality involved sexual assaults and priestly transgressions against the church's sexual mores (adopted as a rule or canon).

So, again, there is nothing “sacred” about the confessional – quite the reverse. At best a priest should be acting only as a counselor for a troubled parishioner.

Canon Law:

I offer the following (adapted from Wikipedia):- “The canon law of the Catholic Church is the system of laws and legal principles made and enforced by the hierarchical authorities of the Church to regulate its external organization and government and to order and direct the activities of Catholics toward the mission of the Church.

What began with rules ("canons") adopted by the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem (held about 50 AD) has developed into a highly complex legal system incorporating not just elements of the New Testament, but some of the Hebrew (Old Testament) Roman, Visigothic, Saxon and Celtic legal traditions.

It is the internal ecclesiastical law, or operational policy, governing the Catholic Church and other churches. Canon law wasn't just a body of rules and regulations governing members of the church, but rather an elaborate code of ethics shaping family life and marriage. Due to this, it was able to manipulate the fundamental operations of family life within the areas that it oversaw. The Catholic Church (and other churches), have manipulated the basis and validity of marriage, the ability to end a marriage as well as remarriage abilities, and the norms for sexual behaviour. The way that such church laws are legislated, interpreted and at times adjudicated varies widely. In all these traditions, a canon was originally a rule adopted by a church council; these canons formed the foundation of canon law.”

So you see, again, there is nothing really “God like” or sacred in these canons (laws) – at least no more so that in the Common Law of Australia. A canon law cannot, ever, take precedence over the Laws of Australia. Otherwise should we now allow “laws” that apply to Scientology, to Islam, the Hindu or any other faith to also take precedence?

The Catholic Church has no claim to any “moral authority” while it hides behind these so called inviolable “laws of the Church”. They are nothing of the sort.

So I ask again, where is God? Is God “up there”, here, or everywhere?  

A very personal view of Life

To write from the heart; to write what I really feel is sometimes difficult. It is so personal, so private that I hesitate to put “pen to paper” as the saying goes.

For instance I don’t know where I came from – I mean did I exist, somewhere, before I was born? Will I exist, somewhere, when I die? Is there a great “collective unconscious” – some inexhaustible well of “Life”, or energy, that is drawn upon with a birth and replenished with a death?

Is this what God is?

Trying to understand all this (and please don’t correct me!) I have concluded that God is not “my” God. God is not personal, has no gender and I do not think that God cares one way or another what we do or why we do what we do. We reap what we sow – that is the Law; the only Law. This Law is immutable. This Law is Universal – literally. It is the Law of God. And like any “basic” law it is very simple. This is our “lesson” to learn in life. This great “collective unconscious” grows as we grow in understanding. This is why we were born.

This brings me, by a rather circuitous route, to grief. Grief (in my experience) is the searing, tearing, hopeless dawning knowledge that what was will no longer be. It is almost – and this may seem very unfair – that the greater the love, the greater the grief. But this is the way the “Law” is expressed – what I sow I reap. And love is a necessary, a vital part of Life. All life forms need love (nurture) and express it according to their kind and is why there is “Life” (or so I believe).

Together we were strong, Magucha and I – each supported and nurtured the other and the bond was a loving bond.

This, however, is only about my feelings, my love. What about, in my case, what about my wife Magucha? What about her love for me and her children and grandchildren? At the moment of death did she grieve that she would no longer have me at her side or see her children, her "babies" again?

All I can remember is that she turned her head – slightly away from me – and then 'ceased to live'. But what did that mean? Was she turning towards something; turning towards something she saw or sensed? Or was it as I suspect, that she turned away so that I would not see her deep (if unconscious) relief that she was now released from the bonds of life and (possibly) a recognition that her love would now return to that from whence it first drew life – and therefore help replenish it. Replenish it with her knowledge, her wisdom, her emotional strength, her insight and her love that had been gained through the harsh furnace of pain and illness that she had endured and overcome.

I rebel against and cannot contemplate the concept that at the moment of death a person is “purified” and will lead an “unblemished” life in paradise. That does not fit with the Law! When we die we take with us our whole baggage train of deeds – good, bad and indifferent. It cannot be any other way – the Law states that we reap what we sow.

All this of course begs the question of whether there is “life after death” or whether “the old soul takes the road again” and is reborn. I don't know!

It comforts me, however, to believe that Magucha’s indomitable spirit has made us all stronger because it has rejoined, has replenished, the great “collective unconscious” from whence all life is derived.

Farewell my love! Fare thee well. ’Till we meet again. Saudades.

I’ve edited this post by changing the poem:-

Emily Dickinson wrote this (with her unique punctuation) –

The Heart asks Pleasure – first

And then – Excuse from Pain –

And then – those little Anodynes

That deaden suffering –

And then – to go to sleep –

And then – if it should be

The will of its Inquisitor

The privilege to die -  

Sharia Law in Australia

I know very little about the finer points of sharia law. I am certain about one thing however and that is, like oil and water, Religion and the Law don’t mix. Sharia Law is not codified, in fact, as I understand it Muslim clergy are the ones who interpret Sharia Law from their understanding of the Koran.

The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils wants a parallel system of Law in Australia whereby Muslims can marry, divorce and conduct business under Sharia Law. Why? Is Sharia Law better? Does it provide a “better” form of justice? Don’t they like “our” system of law? I mean we don’t stone women to death for adultery, do we? We don’t condone gang rape girls for the social “crime” of being seen with a non-Christian, do we? I would remind Muslims that “our” law is based on Christian principles (Love thy neighbour as thyself) and dates back to Roman times, which predates Sharia Law by some 600 years.

To submit to such requests is to, eventually, have a country – Australia –governed by Sharia Law, like Iran. God (or Allah) forbid!!!

Let me ask a question of the Muslims. If the situation was reversed and a whole boatload of Christians ended up in a Muslim country and demanded that they be allowed to marry, divorce and carry business under “Western” non-Sharia based law, would they be allowed to?

Stupid question!!

Please talk to me!

What do you do – or what can you do, at work, when your superior cuts you out of the loop of information and limits the control you have over your life? I guess that you would have an argument and then walk out and find another job. But what happens when a country's leader does the equivalent of the same thing?

With all the modern means of communication, why is it that people don’t talk to each other? Governments communicating with their citizens; firms communicating with the workforce, down to an individual level, to let them know what is going on and how they are tracking and the importance of their contribution is vital for harmonious relationships and an individual’s general well being. Yet this is a significant failing with most governments and in many organisations.

To me this is a classic example of any organisations indifference, down-right bad “people management” and very poor communications. It is also an example of the (unfortunately common) attitude that the only thing governments care about is power (and money) and that the only thing firms care about is money – their citizens or staff, their morale, work-life balance, welfare and well-being come a long way second.

I believe that poor communications is at the core of what is happening in the Muslim world at present – the current “popular” uprisings against oppressive regimes. People are getting tired of continually being told what they can and cannot do by an elite class or group who consider themselves better than others and above the law (rule by edict). Part of the problem is that Muslim law and religious practices are so intertwined that the State, religion and the law courts are one and the same.
This leads to massive conflicts of interest. Similar problems were recognised in England over 1000 years ago when the King (John) was forced to step back from actually ruling the country and to agree to the separation of powers – that the State, the Law courts and elected Parliament (the Government) should be independent from each other.

Muslim (Sharia)law does not operate in this way. But I really think that something similar will have to occur in countries where Koranic Law prevails. Currently the Mullahs are both the lawyers and the enforcers of the law – in effect they are the law makers, judges and ‘executioners’ of the law. They are not, however, trained in law – they are trained in the Islamic religion. This is not necessarily the same thing. The Koran, as I understand it, suggests a code of conduct, which if followed should lead to peace and harmony between all peoples. The same applies to Christianity and Judaism – we are all ‘children’ of Abraham after all. The trouble is no one follows the code of conduct – everyone has their own interpretation – just look at the problems between Shia and Sunni Muslims - both followers of the same faith.

I suggest that until there is a separation of powers in the Muslim world these uprising will continue for some time yet. People need some personal control over their lives – an elected parliament gives this element of control. If this separation of powers actually happens then there will be a long overdue renaissance in the Muslim world.

My freedom stops where yours begins

I wonder if you have ever thought about the true importance of the rather glib saying, “Your freedom stops where mine begins?” It is so simple yet it is actually quite profound and has equally profound implications.

It is at the same time rather vague and yet very definite. To me, this statement has relationships at the core of its meaning. By relationships I am never just referring to intimate relationships but to the broader meaning – our relationship with the world around us; how we deal with our fellow beings.

We all understand this statement and its implications and in our own way we follow it. While I am no lawyer, it seems that this statement is the basis of all laws; it is at the core of our understanding of ‘justice’ – what applies to me must of necessity also apply to you. It is at the core of our understanding of the term ‘criminal’ – someone who by their actions has, by deception or other means, wrongfully deprived me of something which belonged to me, which is rightfully mine or for which I had had a duty of care to protect (this, of course also includes the ‘worst’ crime of all, murder - depriving another of their life). It is at the core of the word ‘cruelty’ – wilfully causing pain and suffering to another being.

I cannot think of anything else because ‘justice’, ‘criminal’ and ‘cruelty’ covers just about everything. The Laws we enact are supposed to help the practitioners of the Law to draw the line at the point where my ‘freedom’ (to do what I like) stops and your ‘freedom’ (to do what you like) begins. This is not always an easy task, hence the plethora of laws, rules regulations and other constraints placed on our ‘freedom’ to live our lives as we see fit.

To understand the statement it may help to recall what Confucius had to say about justice and laws some twenty-seven centuries ago:

“If you govern the people by laws, and keep them in order by penalties, they will avoid the penalties, yet lose their sense of shame. But if you govern them by your moral excellence, and keep them in order by your dutiful conduct, they will retain their sense of shame, and also live up to this standard.”

So should this standard of ‘moral excellence’ come from the top down – from those who govern us, or from the bottom up – we tell those who govern us what to do? Or should we all do the ‘right’ thing?

Interesting.