A Religious Rebuttal

 "Welcome back, my friends, to the show that never ends.  We're so glad you could attend, come inside, come inside!" (1)

Warning: Today's topic is of a religious nature.  If you don't care to hear it, feel free to move along.

Now, a disclaimer of sorts.  

I am not a priest, pastor, or any sort of ordained minister, nor do I claim to be.  Also, I'm not trying to tell you what to believe.  I am simply offering my own beliefs, based on my own religious experiences.  

Still with me? Good....because here we go.  

Recently, I ran across this article, which had been re-posted (as "an interesting read") by a good friend of mine (2).  I feel that I should rebut some of the author's statements.  I preface my words with this; I am a Christian, and thus believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. 

I must wholeheartedly disagree with the writer's assertion that prayer "doesn't work".  To illustrate this belief, let me beg your indulgence, and tell you a story of sorts.  

For a moment, let's flash back to 2001.  In the weeks and months following my graduation from high school (Class of 2000), things hadn't been going well for me.  I found myself having strong feelings of loneliness, as well as bouts of "the blues".  That's when a day of unspeakable evil occurred; September 11, 2001.  I cannot adequately describe the tragedy and horror of that day; I can only say that it will forever "live in infamy" (3).  

Then, things got even worse.  

Soon after the 9/11 attacks, my father picked up an apparent case of tuberculosis.  The prognosis was not good; I distinctly remember the doctors saying that he might not make it.  For me, this was "the straw that broke the camel's back", as I fell into a deep and chronic depression.  I began to have suicidal thoughts; on at least one occasion, I actually tried to kill myself.  Darkness seemed to consume me; I would not wish a time like this on even my worst enemy.  

At that point, I remembered something my father had always said; "when all else fails, turn to God".  Having no other way to cope with my troubles, I decided to take his advice; I began to pray.  

For seven days straight, I said this prayer (which I now present in an abridged version):

"May the Sacred Heart of Jesus be adored, glorified, loved and preserved throughout the world, now and forever. Sacred Heart of Jesus, pray for (me). Saint Jude, worker of miracles, pray for (me). Saint Jude, helper of the hopeless, pray for (me)" (see Note 1) (4)

Suddenly, things began to turn around, as if a dark cloud had been lifted from me.  

The very day after I finished reciting the above prayer, my father's doctors called from the hospital.  Lo and behold, what the doctors thought was an infection had disappeared overnight.  I still recall the exact words of the head physician, which were "we don't know what happened; we can't explain it".  I can only regard this as being a small miracle.  

Not long thereafter, another miracle came to me.  For the sake of brevity, I will simply say that I met a wonderful girl; a woman who gave me what the French call a "raison d'etre" (see Note 2).  

Strange as it may seem, I believe the events that I have just described to be proof positive that God exists, and that prayer does indeed work.  To this, myself and the article writer clearly have differing opinions.  Keeping the earlier disclaimer in mind, here's my take on the matter.  

 Perhaps it is that the reason this man's petitions go (seemingly) unanswered is due to a lack of faith.  It is obvious to me that he has lost all degree of trust in the Lord.  Maybe I'm wrong, but to me, faith and belief go together.  It is not enough to say that you are a Christian; in order to be saved, you must believe and trust in God.  

Consider Matthew 21:22, which says, "and whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive, if you have faith".  The key phrase there is "if you have faith".  Indeed, "if you have faith", blessings will surely come your way.  However, if you lack faith, good things might be tough to come by.  

Now, let us consider Proverbs 3:5-6.  

"Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not rely on your own understanding.  Acknowledge Him in all your ways, and He will make your paths straight" (5)

To put this another way, it's kind of like the latest movie release, in that God is the film's director.  The actors (that is, us) may not understand the director's vision for the movie.  Nevertheless, for the film to have any chance to succeed, that vision must be trusted.  This is something that a true Christian knows and appreciates.  

In any event, I suggest that our intrepid writer may need some time to reflect.  Perhaps he should ask himself who he is, what he really believes, and if he likes the face he sees in the mirror.  The answers to those questions are not so much found in the mind; they are found in one's soul.  I pray that, through looking deep within himself, this man may once again find faith.  

Racism, Speech, And The Law

Recently, you may have heard that a student at Fairfield Warde High School has been arrested for making racially charged comments (1).  Let us discuss this matter forthwith (see Note 1) .  

Now, please don't get me wrong; I regard the specific remark that was made (a word beginning with N, and rhyming with "bigger") as vile, and inherently racist.  It approaches the line between free speech and "hate speech".  Nevertheless, that line was not crossed.  

You see, just because someone utters an insult (or even a remark that is racist in nature), that doesn't necessarily mean that the speaker has engaged in criminal activity.  For this to be the case, the words said must either constitute a "true threat" (to the safety of others), or cause/encourage physical harm to be done to another (2).  

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems that in this instance, neither of the two associated tests can be met.  Thus, the speech in question is not "hate speech", but free speech.  

Having discussed the issue surrounding what words were said, let's move on to a secondary issue at play.  

As the US Constitution's Supremacy Clause points out, in cases of conflicts between laws, the Constitution is the superior document (see Note 2) (3).  Consider Title 53 Chapter 939 Section 53-37 of the Connecticut General Statutes.  It specifies that:

"Any person who, by his advertisement, ridicules or holds up to contempt any person or class of persons, on account of the creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race of such person or class of persons, shall be guilty of a class D misdemeanor" (4).  

And what does the Connecticut Constitution say about speech? Specifically, it says this:

"Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty" (5).  

Being that the General Statutes are subordinate to the state constitution, Section 53-37 is effectively unconstitutional, thus null and void.  The Fairfield Police Department doesn't seem to realize or understand this.  

In any event, since the remarks made were not of a criminal nature, this case is a big "oh well".  

As it would have been to refrain from speaking, it was the prerogative of the student in question to make the comments that he allegedly did.  In this, he did nothing that (constitutionally speaking) is criminally wrong.  Therefore, the case should be dismissed, and the student released from police custody.  

Finally, allow me to offer a bit of advice to town law enforcement.  Don't waste the time and money of Fairfielders by going on "fishing expeditions".  Instead, be a little more concerned with actual crimes, such as robberies and auto break-ins.  Perhaps then, the town of Fairfield would be a safer place in which to live and work.  

Questioning the Answers

Hold on to your hats folks, it's time for me to call somebody out.  In this case, that "somebody" happens to be the Fairfield (Connecticut) Police Department.  

Opening up my e-mail this morning, I was shocked and disappointed to learn of a racial incident at Fairfield Warde High School (1).  I'll allow you to read the news story yourself; here's the link.  

Seeking to know more about this case, I have taken it upon myself to ask law enforcement about the content of the message.  Specifically, what was it that was allegedly said? Was the post hate speech, or simply an expression meant to insult someone? 

Here's a screenshot of my correspondence with the police department, presented in link form.  As you can see, police gave me a standard press release regarding the incident, and refused to provide further details (2).  

Saying that I'm disappointed in the department's response would be a bit of an understatement.  If you weren't aware, I'm a long-time resident of the town of Fairfield.  I went to school at Fairfield High School (the immediate predecessor of Warde and Fairfield Ludlowe high schools), and graduated as part of its Class of 2000.  

Moreover, as a concerned citizen, I believe I deserve transparency in town matters.  After all, I have the right to be informed about news happening in my own hometown.  

Having explained my interest in this case, let me directly address the Fairfield Police Department.  

It's obvious that I'm being stonewalled; honestly, I don't understand why that is.  Perhaps I'm incorrect, but there seems to be more to this story than meets the eye.  In any event, it's my right as a citizen to have access to relevant information; this will help me to craft an informed opinion (which I have the right to have) (see Note 1).  

Now, a final thought.  A long time ago, one of my high school teachers told me to not "just answer the questions, question the answers".  That's all I'm doing here.  To "question the answers", I need to know what those answers are....don't you think?

Thoughts on Another Cheating Scandal

If you've been keeping track of sports recently, then you've probably heard about the latest cheating scandal.  

On Saturday, ESPN reports, Kentucky Derby winner Medina Spirit tested positive for "an excessive amount" of steroids.  The failed test has put the result of the Derby in question, and the apparent winner in danger of being disqualified (1).  Right now, the "finger of suspicion" is squarely pointed at Medina Spirit's trainer, Bob Baffert; it's safe to say he's in a bit of hot water.  

You see, in terms of drug tests, this isn't the Hall of Famer's first walk around the block.  In the past year, five of his horses have failed standard tests, including one that was disqualified in September's Kentucky Oaks race.  Therefore, the credibility of racing's most successful trainer has come into question.  

For his part, Mr. Baffert claims that nobody associated with him has ever given a horse betamethasone (the drug that was found to be in Medina Spirit).  Nevertheless, I question if he's being honest.  Baffert offers no explanation as to how his horse could've been contaminated, nor does he express any intent to have a scheduled second test "expedited" (see Note 1).  

Let's be real for a moment.  What we have here is a major cheating scandal, one that could impact the sport of horse racing for years to come.  Knowing this, if Baffert is innocent of the charges, why wouldn't he want to clear his name (not to mention that of the horse) as soon as possible? (2) 

Something's amiss here; thus far, the actions of Mr. Baffert haven't made a lot of sense.  

Having discussed the subject at issue, allow me to state my opinion on the matter.    

It seems to me that at the moment, Bob Baffert is talking out of both sides of his mouth.  I can't say with any certainty whether the trainer cheated; I can only say that if he did, he's in the same boat as the Houston Astros of MLB.  That is, Baffert and Medina Spirit should be (and will be, according to Churchill Downs officials) stripped of their apparent victory, and that win awarded to what is now the runner-up.  

Cheaters should not ever win, whether in horse racing, baseball, or any other endeavor.  That's not simply a personal opinion, it's a fact.  

"We now return you to regular programming, already in progress"

A Head-Scratcher!

Usually, civil lawsuits are not filed for dilatory reasons.  Rather, they address damages allegedly done to the plaintiff, or violations of the plaintiff's rights.  Nevertheless (legal arguments notwithstanding), I don't see the purpose behind a particular case being argued in Antrim County, Michigan.  

The matter at issue is rather complex; it deals with possible election fraud in the county.  In this, a William Bailey alleges that county and state officials failed to follow laws concerning security of votes, thus calling official election results into question (1).  

Here's a quick summary of the events surrounding the vote.  

• November 3, 2020: Presidential election is held.

• November 4: Initial reports from the county show a victory for Joe Biden.  This is later revealed to be an error (caused by a mistake in machine tabulations).  

• November 5: An official report of the Antrim County Supervisor of Elections corrects the error, and show a victory for Donald Trump.  

• November 21: An additional report confirms the result reported on November 5 (subsequently, this result is certified).  

Bear with me here for a moment, as I'm not quite sure how to say what's on my mind.  

The nature of current lawsuits is that many Americans believe that, through fraud, many more votes were given to Biden than he actually won.  Regarding this, concerned citizens are attempting to have official results declared to be invalid, and Trump declared the lawful president.  

In any event, if the plaintiff in this case wishes to effect the above purpose, then bringing legal action against Antrim County is illogical at best.  After all, the county's citizens voted for Trump, as the results indicate and certify (2).  

Now, perhaps I misunderstand the issue, but I'm baffled at this one.  In my opinion, this lawsuit is a frivolous misuse of time and money.  The court would be wise to dismiss the matter.  

An Update Concerning CIAC

I've previously written here about Soule v. Connecticut Association of Schools, a legal case concerning the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference ("Competition, The Law, and CIAC", January 4). 

To briefly describe the case, CIAC's current policy is that high school student-athletes are allowed to compete based on their "gender identity".  That is, someone that was born male can compete in "girls sports" simply by claiming to be a female.  The associated lawsuit seeks to compel CIAC to prohibit this identity-based participation (1, 2).  

This past weekend, US District Court Judge Robert Chatigny dismissed the above case, saying that due to graduation of the female students involved, there is "no dispute to resolve" (3).   

Never mind that what CIAC is doing violates the federal law known as "Title IX".  Never mind that the judge in this case was completely biased towards the defense (as his order declaring that defense witnesses must be referred to as "transgender females" makes clear) (4).  And never mind that the ruling clearly harmed the plaintiffs, and will continue to harm female student-athletes in this state for at least the near future.  

Basically, the Court has decided that CIAC is free to violate the law, and to do as it pleases.  This effectively means that there is no longer any purpose for female high school athletics in Connecticut.  Allow me to explain this.  

It is a scientific fact that, due to physiological differences between the genders, a female has almost no shot to beat a male in athletic competition (2).  Thus, by allowing identity-based participation, CIAC is denying girls to have a fair chance for their own success (athletically speaking).  After all, what good is it to participate in sports, only to constantly lose? And what purpose does that serve, if any? Some may not realize this, but "you play to win the game", not simply "to play it" (5).  

Fortunately, this case by no means appears to be over.  Lawyers for the plaintiffs intend to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (3).  If the lawsuit fails there, it could perhaps go to the US Supreme Court.  

In any event, I am outraged by the Court's decision.  Girls deserve a chance to succeed on their own merits.  This shouldn't be taken away by CIAC's endorsement of what, in a word, is cheating.  

"That's not an insult, that is just a fact of life" (6)

Gino Hernandez: Marked For Death?

I was recently watching an episode of the "Vice On TV" show "Dark Side of the Ring," and I started to wonder about mysterious events in the history of pro wrestling. There are unanswered questions and unresolved conflicts. My curiosity requires a closer look at one of these controversies.

During the 1980s, Gino Hernandez was a rising star for the Dallas based "World Class Championship Wrestling" promotion. As part of the "Dynamic Duo" tag team, he and partner Chris Adams developed an intense rivalry with the Von Erichs (Kevin and Kerry). With his in-ring popularity growing, Hernandez was beginning to make other promotions take notice of him (1).

Outside of the ring, Hernandez was known to be a chronic drug user. According to the documentary, he would frequently visit various nightclubs in the Dallas area, where the wrestler would hang out with a "heavy and dangerous crowd". Eventually, Hernandez began to fear for his life, (perhaps mistakenly) believing that he was being stalked and followed.

"Gino was attached to some heavy people. He was running in some pretty big circles...that maybe he didn't belong in" - Wrestling personality Jake "The Snake" Roberts

After unsuccessfully attempting to contact Hernandez, World Class officials became concerned for the well-being of their star. Hernandez had not been answering his telephone, and on February 4 1986, local police were dispatched to check on him. They found the wrestler dead; his decomposing body had lay in his bedroom for "three to five days" (1, 2).

Shortly after the discovery of the body of the deceased, a man named Jon Royal (who was friends with Hernandez) paid a visit to Hernandez' mother, one Patrice Aguirre. Discussing the grappler's death, Royal (a reputed drug trafficker) said that he would pay for and arrange Hernandez' funeral. This made the family uneasy; many of Hernandez' relatives had never heard of Royal, nor been aware of his association with the wrestler.

Now, let's delve into the circumstances surrounding Hernandez' death.

At the time of his passing, investigating police found a loaded gun near Hernandez' body, but no other evidence of foul play. Subsequently, an autopsy revealed that the wrestler had a large amount of drugs present in his system. Based on this evidence, a coroner concluded that Hernandez died due to an overdose of cocaine.

The official conclusion notwithstanding, there are numerous questions about this case that are still unanswered. For instance, what was Hernandez' connection to Jon Royal, a man who later would serve a thirty-year prison sentence (3)? Did Hernandez owe Royal money, as some have claimed that he did?

Also, being that it was a habit of Hernandez to lock his apartment door, why was the dead bolt on such door found to be unlocked? And why did the official autopsy report contain "troubling inconsistencies", including the condition of Hernandez' body at time of discovery?

With the preface that I am not a lawyer or crime investigator, allow me to explain what I think happened.

• Hernandez, through his involvement in drugs, owed a large sum of money to Jon Royal. The wrestler ran into troubles regarding paying this debt.

• Wanting to receive the debt owed him, Royal became impatient and angry.

• On the night of Hernandez' death, he was visited by Royal. An argument ensued, during which Royal shot Hernandez, leaving him to die.

• Some days later, police found the decomposing body of Gino Hernandez, in such a condition that the coroner made mistakes on the autopsy report.

Of course, I could be mistaken in my theory. Interviewed by show producers, Mr. Royal claims that Hernandez "never owed (me) any money" (1). It is entirely possible that the ex-convict could be telling the truth. There is also a chance that the coroner had connections to the people involved in this affair, and so deliberately falsified information in an attempted cover for such.

Finally, we come to the question of Hernandez' state of mind.

Could it be true that the wrestler was, so to speak, "marked for death"? Or was this simply the paranoid delusion of a man who, fueled by drugs, partied too hard and lived too fast? We may never learn the answer to this mystery.

One thing about the story of "Gorgeous Gino" is certain; thirty-five years later, it serves as a cautionary tale of drugs, fame, and excess. Perhaps it is something that we all can learn from.