I have psoriasis. This immune-mediated disease doesn’t kill or maim, but–to varying degrees (I’m at 5% of total skin surface)–spots one’s body with red scaly patches. No one knows for sure why this disease erupts, but it is known, for whatever reason, that the body’s immune system causes hyper-growth of skin cells–the spots–that are chronic and irritating. An additional treat for those who suffer this condition is a denudement of self-esteem. Most sufferers avoid swimsuits, or other clothing that doesn’t cover the delightful evidence that they are affected with the disease. Indeed, the sufferer is usually aware that if the telltale signs of the disease are seen by, oh, mothers of small children, those mothers might gather up their wards quickly for fear whatever malady that affects the sufferer is contagious.

Treatment for psoriasis usually consists of applying topical steroids to the spots, UV light treatments, or a pill that may control the symptoms but isn’t particularly friendly to one’s liver.

I have, over the past thirty years, used copious amounts of topical steroids and, off and on, undergone light treatments. Most recently, I completed a series of  UVB light treatments at Kaiser. The protocol is to stand in the UVB machine, much like a tanning bed, and through a series of visits the length of time within the machine is increased to a pre-determined maximum level. At the end of the protocol, the psoriasis patches are barely visible, but not gone. When the patches begin to appear again, it is time to restart the protocol.

Suffice it to say, the light treatments at Kaiser worked. The dermatology staff was great. And, the cost was, well, expensive: $30 copay for each visit.

Knowing that I will never be fully rid of psoriasis, I inquired about UVB devices for home use…something that I have been aware of for quite some time. With the cost of the in-office visits, I decided I could probably just zap myself at home rather than spend the time and money to go to Kaiser.

I inquired of my dermatologist which UVB devices Kaiser recommends, and I was given a stack of literature for the Daavlin Company. My dermatologist emphasized that Kaiser does not endorse the Daavlin products, and that there were other manufacturers out there that would work, as well. Given the relatively small skin surface, 5%, where my psoriasis persisted, I studied the Daavlin material, went to their web site and found the DermaPal device that I thought would be just perfect for my needs.

Through a series of text messages (the Daavlin site provided online “chat”) I inquired about the DermaPal, and how I could initiate a purchase. I also asked about the cost of the unit and was told it sold for $620.00. I knew my Kaiser policy required a 20% copay, and I could certainly handle that. So, I faxed off my insurance data, a prescription letter from my doctor, and the ball began to roll for the purchase.

I was soon told that unfortunately a contract between Kaiser and Daavlin had not yet been finalized, but that Apria Healthcare did have a contract with Kaiser, and I could purchase the DermaPal through Apria with the understanding I would still have the 20% copay. I asked the Daavlin representative what the markup by Apria would be, and she said she didn’t know. I was given the alternative of waiting a while until Daavlin and Kaiser finalized their contract. But, as I told the Daavlin representative, psoriasis does have a habit of blooming if not treated, and mine was already starting to reappear with a vengeance. So, I decided to go ahead with a purchase through Apria.

As an aside, the folks at Daavlin were wonderful, very helpful and genuinely concerned with my issues. Their product, the DermPal, is great and I would recommend this company to anyone who is trying to control their psoriasis at home.

It wasn’t a week after I and Apria formalized my purchase, that a nice man knocked on my door, my DermaPal in hand. I singed the paperwork he produced, thanked him, and took my box inside and opened it up. And there it was–my new DermaPal. I then looked at the paperwork I’d been given and Whoa! the cost had risen to $942.00, with tax. I quickly did the 20% calculation, and knew that was doable. I did, however, shake my head a bit with the realization that the cost of the device had increased by $322.00. “Middlemen,” I said, knowing that the third-party (Apria) involvement in the transaction had come at a significant cost. But, hey: That’s the American way! Right?

I used my DermaPal for several weeks and it worked fine, albeit not as efficiently as the great big machine at Kaiser, which is understanble. But, what the hell, I do it at home, there’s no travel time, there’s no $30 copay every time I got to Kaiser. So, I was–as they say–fat and happy, with just an occasional thought given to the fact that I had yet to receive Kaiser’s billing for my 20% copay.

I got the statement from Kaiser yesterday. Apria billed Kaiser: $3,479.00. Kaiser paid: $1,635.13. My copay: $327.03.

The percentage of difference between the original quoted price from Daavlin ($620), and what Apria billed Kaiser ($3,479) is 461%.

If my math is correct, the percentage of difference between the original quoted price of the unit ($620) from Daavlin, compared to what Apria’s invoice to me showed ($914) is 52%.

The percentage of difference between the original quoted price from Daavlin ($620), and what Kaiser paid to Apria ($1635) is 164%

The percentage of difference between what my copay would have been on the original quote ($124), compared to what it is now ($327) is 164%.

The most starkly disturbing thing about this is, I suppose, the impact this sleight-of-hand manipulation of our healthcare system has on you and me. The cost of healthcare in this country is abominable, and it’s things like what I’ve described above that grate as fingernails across a blackboard. What the hell is going on? Why does it persist? Healthcare insurers have got to know about this travesty. Don’t they? Or, is every entity involved in providing healthcare services in this country in on the deal–smiling slyly at one another with the knowledge that ultimately the consumer will pay, whatever the cost? And with what I’ve chronicled, the consumer–me–gets hit twice: premiums keep rising, and copays increase by, yes, 164% simply because a middleman stepped into the picture.

Something isn’t right about this, buckaroos. In fact, it stinks.

Background: In the summer of 2007, then Mayor Hickenlooper proposed a $550 million general obligation bond package that would appear on the November ballot that year. The bond package was divided into nine segments, 1A – 1I, all of which were eventually passed by voters, with 1H receiving the fewest votes of the nine. (For an owner of a $255,000 home, passage of the bonds raised your property taxes by $64 annually.) 1H was referred to as “New Construction of Cultural Facilities,” and, if passed, would  provide $70 million to finance NEW CONSTRUCTION of Cultural Facilities, including, but not limited to: Classrooms, labs, a teacher education center and other facilities for the Denver Museum of Nature and Science and, the Reconstruction and expansion of Boettcher Concert Hall.

For the record I was adamantly opposed to 1H, witness what I wrote at the time.

(To put this in a little perspective, you might want to view the shameless, happy-crappy, feel-good hype the Hickenlooper administration engaged in before the November ballot in 2007. It’s here. As you watch, you might want to have a stranger next to you with whom you can share hugs.)

We need to focus our attention on that portion of 1H that specifically encompassed new construction for Boettcher Concert Hall, at a cost of $40 million, which is where this ignoble bait and switch story begins and ends.

1H was touted far and wide as being a helluva great deal, not only because it would “cure” the lousy acoustics in Boettcher Concert Hall, but public bond funding would be matched by private/donated funding from the Colorado Symphony Association to the tune of $30 million or more. (The new construction at Boettcher was contingent upon those private/donated funds.) Good stuff, huh? Well, yeah, if it would have happened. What did happen is what city folks are now calling every chance they get, in capital letters, “THE GREAT RECESSION,” of 2008, and, yes, even the fat cats who might have given a second thought about donating a few bucks to the Boettcher cause didn’t, and apparently no one else did either. So, as a consequence, the grand plan for new construction at Boettcher necessarily wobbled, tilted and fell through the proverbial floor with a great big schplatt.

What to do?

Well, time goes by and the mayor and city council start wondering how they can leverage the forty-mil just sitting there, issue the bonds that were meant for new construction at Boettcher, and start sharpening their pencils and asking the kinds of questions most politicians are apt to ask: How can we spend that money? An answer to one question asked at a meeting of City Council’s Bond Implementation Committee on May 24, 2010, came from Jack Finlaw, then the Director of Theaters and Arenas, who, in discussing the sorry state of fundraising by the CSA, noted that Mayor Hickenlooper told him, “…that if the CSO [Colorado Symphony Orchestra] is not able to make use of the $40 million on Boettcher, we should not issue the bonds at all.”

As critical as I’ve been of the Hick over the years, I do appreciate his better angels for knowing what was the right and ethical thing to do under the circumstances: Don’t issue the Boettcher new construction bonds. Why? Because, and I quote from the ballot itself, the voters approved the following: “THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE COST OF NEW CONSTRUCTION OF CULTURAL SYSTEM FACILITIES INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO:…THE RECONSTRUCTION AND EXPANSION OF BOETTCHER CONCERT HALL, AND ALL NECESSARY, INCIDENTAL OR APPURTENANT PROPERTIES, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT AND COSTS...” And, as Hickenlooper concluded, if the specific intent of the ballot question to which the voters gave the nod became impossible to achieve, then that’s that, don’t issue the bonds.  

Okay. The ballot language is clear in its intent. But, let me use my own words to take this a step further. What that ballot language says, with focus on the language, “…all necessary, incidental or appurtenant properties, facilities, equipment and costs…,”  is that we’ll fix up Boettcher Concert Hall and, naturally in the course of doing this large project, if some contingency pops up, if some ancillary project directly related to completion of the larger project arises, then, sure bond funds can be used for that, too. Makes sense. Large construction and reconstruction projects like this will invariably, inevitably involve a wee detour here and there, but only to the extent of fulfilling the larger purpose–the specific charge of the voters to “fix” Boettcher Concert Hall. Seems pretty simple, huh?

Oh, you may have noticed the blue words, above: INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO.

Councilperson Jeanne Faatz honed in on those five words during the February 11th, Denver City Council meeting, calling them “weasel words,” as they have lately been singled out by the mayor, the rest of city council, and the city attorney’s office to mean something, firstly, not intended by the 1H ballot language, and, secondly, as the justification for the slickly executed bait and switch perpetrated on the people of Denver. (Faatz’s comments on this issue begin at about minute 37, in this video record of said council meeting.)

Those weasel words have been embraced by the city’s mamma’s and papa’s, including the mayor, the city council (with the notable exception of Councilperson Faatz), and the city attorney’s office to work the flimflam, the bait and switch on the people of Denver to the extent that the original intent of 1H has been gutted, prostituted for purposing the following:

Purpose 8 New Construction of Cultural System Facilities

o Boettcher Concert Hall – reduce funding from $40,000,000 to $13,881,000
o Add new project for DPAC Champa Street Bridge in the amount of $2,500,000
o Add new project for Denver Art Museum – Ponti Building in the amount of $3,000,000
o Add new project for Denver Botanic Gardens – Café, Restroom and Science Pyramid in the amount of $6,619,000
o Add new project for Denver Museum of Nature and Science and Denver Zoo – shared parking in the amount of $4,400,000
o Add new project for Levitt Pavillion Amphitheater at Ruby Hill in the amount of $2,000,000
o Add new project for McNichols Building Improvements in the amount of $4,800,000
o Add new project for Red Rocks Amphitheater in the amount of $2,800,000

The above re-purposing of bond funds–a nice euphemism for flimflam–was the product of a steering committee, formed in the fall of 2012 at the mayor’s behest, the purpose of which was eventually to let to an RFP (request for proposals) that enabled qualified Denver cultural facilities to, presumably, foam at mouth with the prospect of getting a piece of the now defunct Boettcher pie–$40 million. And the “re-purposing” of those funds, as above, was the final result; the “windfall” Ray Mark Rinaldi identified in his October 16, 2012, Denver Post story.

From the mayor to the steering committee, to each and every council member, save one, to the city staff involved in the process, to jackleg reporters; the lofty language used to enhance the particular subterfuge they were all involved in–the bait and switch–included the feel-good phrase, and iterations similar, that the re-purposing of 1H bond funds must be “Consistent with [the] context and purpose of the original ballot measure(s).”

Dare I ask what improvements to the McNichols building; the Denver Art Museum’s Ponti Building; the Botanic Gardens cafe, restroom and science pyramid; the Levitt Pavillion Amphitheater at Ruby Hill; the Red Rocks Amphitheater, and others, have to do with new construction at Boettcher that was the “context and purpose of the original ballot measure?” If you’re pausing here, just for a moment, then I believe I can suggest you may have concluded the same thing I have. These “new” projects have absolutely nothing to do with, again, the “context and purpose of the original ballot measure.” They’re all kind of cultural things, you might say. Yes, some of them are. But, so what? They’re not Bottecher. They’re not the projects the people of Denver approved in November, 2007. The people didn’t say, “Oh, by the way, if something happens that precludes the expenditure of our bond dollars on what we said you could be spend them on, just throw those dollars at something else. Hell, if it’s vaguely culturally related, go ahead, spend away. It’s only money, for Christ’s sake.”

I’m reminded of one of my all-time favorite cinematic moments from The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas, where the now-deceased Charles Durning plays the role of the Governor of Texas. Master of the flimflam, the Governor performs a charming little sidestep, while singing: (video here)

Ooh I love to dance a little sidestep, now they see me now they don’t-
I’ve come and gone and, ooh I love to sweep around the wide step,
cut a little swathe and lead the people on.

Lead the people on. Yup. Here’s what Mayor Hancock had to say with regard to re-purposing bond funds: “Denver is consistently recognized for our high-quality cultural facilities that help uphold the spirit of our smart city. As the voters intended in 2007, these funds will help maintain and improve these cherished facilities,” Hancock said in releasing the list. “We have focused the last remaining funds on advancing our facilities while staying true to the authorized intent of these critical investments.”

Okay. Enough said, I guess. Nothing to do about it now except for, yes, except

For God’s sake, let us sit upon the ground
And tell sad stories of the death of promises;
How some have been denuded; some plainly forgotten,
Some haunted by the politician’s avarice;
Some poison’d by mendacity: the trust of the people kill’d;
The people’s faith murder’d…

And, with thanks to The Bard, adieu. The next flimflam, I’m absolutely certain, is occurring at this very moment, as the mamma’s and the papa’s perpetrating it know full-well that our memories are short, and our interest in their  slimy machinations incidental.

“Democracy is a device that insures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.”

George Bernard Shaw

I’ve written a few horror shorts over the years. When I’m writing them I do enjoy it and am somewhat surprised by the dark turn my mind takes in the process. Later, after reading them again, I’m equally surprised that such came from me. Where did I get that stuff?

Here’s the Amazon link. And here’s a sample:

On a Wednesday, hump day, Henry ate seven peaches at his desk, left the seeds neatly spread, one after another, across his now juiced work surface, his tie and shirt, too, had received a squirt or two. At noon—High Noon, he thought, feeling the jut of his Viagra-induced hard-on against the cotton of his boxers stubbed up against his tan polyester pants—he turned his back to the entrance to his cubby, and opened his briefcase. He gently lifted the chrome-plated pistol from its lair, pulled his handkerchief from his back pocket, and polished the heavy weapon until it gleamed. He smiled.

I wrote these stories several years ago, after visiting the Yampa Valley in South Routt County, northwestern Colorado.  More specifically, I visited a friend’s family’s ranch in order to see exactly what went into the task of fixing fence, something that my friend knew a bit about. While there, we traveled the ranch in an SUV, and saw the particular images that I later placed within these two stories.

I’ve self-published these stories at Amazon, the link is here.

Let me give you a taste of both:

THE COW

The forever wind huffed from the north and west, goosing a response from lodgepole pine, fir, spruce and newly leafed aspens that surrounded the bone yard. Brought with it an odor of the land, of spring, the aromas of pine and horse and cow shit.

Jack turned his head and once again studied the old cow. He’d known this cow. Passed into manhood knowing this cow. She’d dropped some fine calves, fat and sassy. But there was something else about her, something since he was eighteen that had caught his eye, his interest. She was independent, usually kept herself and her calves apart from the herd. Went her own way, he thought. She’d never bawl when they took her calves from her for branding and tagging, castrating if needed. She’d just stand off by herself, listen to her calf scream for her proximity, watch the process as though such a thing was an inevitability she could do nothing about.

He never had to check her ear tag to know who she was. She was known.

Jack finished his smoke, snubbed the thing out on the sole of his boot and breathed deep of the land, sighed, and turned to the cow.

After untying the rope he’d secured around the cow’s head and forelegs, he threw the rope in the back of the pickup, turned, stepped to her body, sat to his haunches and took off his glove. He placed his hand on her white face, gently stroked her. “You were a good ol’ cow,” he said. He pulled his hat back down on his forehead, stood up and drove the Dodge back to the home place.

FIXING FENCE

“Fence ain’t gonna fix itself.” Gus pulled the pickup alongside the sagged fence, cut the ignition, and let the truck glide to a stop. He waited for a response from his grandson, Joe. When none came, he turned, saw Joe’s chin resting on his chest, deep breaths, even a little snore. Kid would sleep through a train wreck. He studied the boy for a moment. Joe’s black hair, eyes the color of almonds behind the now closed lids, the slightly brown skin, all of it coming from the boy’s mother, a Greek beauty, the daughter of a sheep rancher from Craig who’d captured his son’s heart. The first instance of a Klynkee not marrying into a German line, Gus now, as he’d done a thousand times, looked for some little hint of his son in the boy’s face. Maybe his nose, Gus thought. He shook his head. Maybe his heart. Gus stepped out of the truck, paused a moment and turned his eyes, hard and gray as iced-over river water, toward the sunrise, his squint defining his face as crinkled paper, deep set lines earned from sixty years of worry about the lives and deaths of cows since he was ten. He took off his hat, ran his fingers through his still full head of purely white hair. Put his hat back on, coughed, spit. Saw blood on the ground. Pulled his red hankie from his back pocket and wiped his mouth. He nodded his head, knew the prognosis.

“No sir, fences just don’t up and fix themselves!”

After he said the words again, Gus slammed the door. The sound jerked Joe halfway out of the few winks he was catching since climbing in and slumping down into the passenger side of the battered pickup. Coming awake now, the jolt of the door slamming sounded like a rifle shot, fired close. Too close. Joe slid up, kept his eyes closed and remembered the orthodontist.

I came across an article that appeared in the Glendale Cherry Creek Chronicle, entitled “Denver Parks and Recreation – A Department at a Dangerous Crossroad,” written by Charles C. Bonniwell, the publisher. The article details some history of the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) relating specifically to an earlier passion of DPR managers to assure the continuing well-being of the park system, and those later managers whose ineptness has severely compromised that well-being, that passion for beautiful parks and urban open spaces. It’s a good read that ends with the hopeful note that Lauri Dannemiller, the latest Manager of Parks and Recreation, will find her feet–and perhaps her better angels–and become herself passionate about maintaining and nurturing Denver’s precious open spaces.

As much as I would like to expect the best from Ms. Dannemiller, there remains the inescapable reality that she in an appointee of the mayor and, as mayoral appointees are want to do, (their jobs depend upon it), she will carry the mayor’s water regardless of  what logic and passion might otherwise urge her to do. And that, as they say, is politics.

Back to Mayor Hancock’s identification of the Hentzell Park Natural Area as “blighted.”

I won’t bore you with the meaning of that word, blighted, but will share where my thoughts took me upon first reading what the mayor had to say.

Generally knowing how bureaucracies work, especially when some subject matter arises that gains citizen interest, with that interest again generally going against the intent of the bureaucracy, I searched Denver’s Revised Municipal Code (DRMC) for that word, blighted. Here’s what I found:

Sec. 56-200. – Legislative intent.

(a)     Findings of fact. Due to its general terrain and geographical location, the city is particularly subject to damage from stormwaters which, from time to time, overflow from existing watercourses and drainage facilities, and imprudent use of these natural hazard areas called floodplains will pose a continuing and greater danger to life and property in the future unless proper regulations are adopted.

(b)     Statement of purpose. This article is enacted to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas, by provisions designed to:

(1)      Protect human life and health;

(2)      Minimize expenditure of public money for costly flood control projects;

(3)      Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public;

(4)      Minimize prolonged business interruptions;

(5)      Minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains, electric, telephone and sewer lines, streets and bridges located in areas of special flood hazard;

(6)      Help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the second use and development of areas of special flood hazard so as to minimize future flood blight areas;

It’s important to note this is the only occurrence of that word, blight, in the entire DRMC. And, just to emphasize my eventual point, let me just repeat what I believe is relevant here: (6) Help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the second use and development of areas of special flood hazard so as to minimize future flood blight areas; 

It is my understanding that the Hentzell Park Natural Area is in a flood plain, and am assuming it is in an area “…of special flood hazard…,” although I can find no handy definition of “special flood hazard” in the DRMC. If I am correct, then a little piece I read at Denver Direct intrigues. Entitled, “A Personal Observation about the Hentzell Park Deal,” a retired businessman, Bill Langton, provides:

 So why create this subterfuge? [The city giving the Natural Area to DPS and, in return, DPS giving the city a building] If you take the jaundiced view that the city wants this land for commecial development to increase the tax base, it starts to make sense.

The city could not take public land under the DPR rules because it is classified as natural area and prohibited from such acts. But if the administration reclassified it and the school district took over the land then when the school district determined that it was unfit for an elementary school they could sell it for commercial development.

Ah, indeed, Mister Langton. His conclusion:

So, ergo, the open space is gone, the DPS now can move forward to sell the site for commercial development.

It is hard to imagine building an elementary school next to Havana, one of the busiest state roads in Denver. Children would have to cross Havana to go to school and I assume a 15 mph speed limit would have to be posted during rush hour. This would create a major traffic and safety problems. Children would also use the trail to go to school and run off all of the existing wild life that makes the trail so special. In other words, it is my opinion that school would never be built.

As I said, I know how bureaucracies work. And, if I were the mayor, if some nitpicky, troublesome, otherwise irrelevant open space proponents questioned my yet to be implemented decision to do something, anything, then I would get on the phone with the city attorney and say, “Help me out here!” And, Voila! I’d get my answer: “Blight,” the CA would say. “Call it blighted. It’s in the Code. No judge would give those fools the time of day. It’s LAW!”

The retired businessman, Bill Langton, ends his piece with the observation that perhaps he’s wrong in ascribing some nefariousness to this scheme worked out by the mayor and DPS. I, too, offer my own observation that conspiracy theories usually capture the imagination of pesky nuts who have nothing better to do. Nevertheless, I’m intrigued by this turn of events.

We’re told that Lauri Dannemiller will have her decision to de-designate or to not de-designate that portion of Hentzell Park as a Natural Area by January 2nd or 3rd. Mirroring Charles Bonniwell’s hope that Lauri Dannemiller will do what’s right in this case, I cannot bring myself to imagine that “what’s right” will, once again, as it usually is, become what’s most expedient politically for Hizzoner, Michael Hancock.

The City’s Underbelly at Work for You! And Just in Time for Christmas!

Denver’s Mayor, Michael Hancock, not unlike most of Denver’s progressive mayors, values the worth of uplifting the downtrodden, occasionally  giving credence to even the mostly egregiously harebrained of bright ideas to achieve that goal with the kind of effusive magnanimity  that damns the better angels of logic for the embracement of good intentions seen through rose-colored glasses that don’t correct for myopia.

This building at 1330 Fox Street is where Hizzoner  and Rose A. Andom–identified as a Denver entrepreneur and McDonald’s franchise owner (who provided $1 Million to the effort)–want to serve victims of domestic violence with a “wraparound” philosophy, offering a number of important triage services to those folks at one place, 1330 Fox, with the intent of rebuilding their lives to happily ever afters. Good stuff, this. A valuable service.

Only problem is, though, that Mister Hancock wants to trade nine acres of the Hentzell Park Natural Area in southeast Denver for the 1330 Fox building. The Denver Public School System owns the structure, while the People of Denver own the Natural Area. So, if a trade of real estate were to occur, the Mayor and Ms. Andom would get the building, DPS would get the Natural Area where they would build a new school, and the people of Denver would get zilch. Nada. Well, that’s not completely true. The neighbors bordering the Natural Area who purchased their homes comforted by the fact that the Natural Area would buffer them somewhat from the dreariness of everyday suburban life, will get a school within shouting distance, parking lots, lots of traffic, lots of kids, school buses, and everything attendant to a public school. Such a deal, huh? Well, not really.

If the above scenario is not played out–and I hope it isn’t–please don’t conclude that the  domestically battered will be left in the cold. Please grant me that if Hizzoner is serious, and I do believe he is, about what will become a legacy project for him, the domestic violence center, then a reasonable means to that end will be found, i.e. the city should just buy the building. (If the city does not have the cash in hand, they’ve never thought twice about using the convenience of a lease/purchase vehicle to get the job done: witness the Wellington E. Webb Office Building.) What is currently proposed, however, is not reasonable. In fact, it’s ludicrous and, for  me at least, exposes the underbelly of city government where slick, quick deals sans the odoriferous output of cigars are still made with the premise that what the public doesn’t know won’t hurt them.

Now, here’s a picture of 21st and Delgany/Wewatta in Lodo. Notice the upscale properties on our left, Coors Field to our right across Wewatta.  Amtrak is just behind us. Prime real estate, huh? We’ll come back to this image and the accompanying story later.

It’s important to know a portion of Hentzell Park in southeast Denver was formally designated a Natural Area in 2007 by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) and affirmed by the Manager of Parks and Recreation at the time. This designation was followed by a very extensive management plan for the Natural Area that noted, in part:

The  Park’s rural setting can  provide the quiet fascination that characterizes restorative places essential to people’s everyday lives.  People living in an urban environment have been trying to achieve peace of mind by seeking refuge within a park since the 1800’s.   Frederick Law  Olmsted struggled with creating a park that accommodated a diversity of users, those seeking a pastoral setting and ones  seeking a more active setting.  Today, a struggle still exists, because the pastoral setting is becoming harder to come  by.   Many of the parks in Denver offer  areas for recreation, yet  very  few provide a place for a person to go and lose themselves amongst the plants and the wildlife. People exposed to natural settings on a regular basis seem to have better concentration abilities and are better able  to tackle attention -demanding tasks. (Kaplan 1996)   The  Natural Areas program is giving people and animals a place to go to co-exist with one  another in a neutral and restorative setting.

A “…restorative setting.” Dare I suggest there is an essential lesson in this conclusion? If I were King of the World, I do believe I would place those human beings who have been battered and bruised–physically, mentally, emotionally–by the hard knocks of an unkind world into an environment that does not value steel and stone edifices, where running water is brook fed, where the sky is the only ceiling, where walls are trees, bushes or sloped hills, where benign critters abound. In time, I do believe the effects of those human-imposed hard knocks will find no quarter in such an environment, for such things are not natural, are not compatible with God’s good intent. A “…restorative setting…” indeed.

Of course, I am not King of the World and those who believe such a “solution” to treat those suffering from domestic abuse is quite simplistic and unworkable, are the same well-intentioned albeit blindly parochial folks who devalue the restorative power of natural settings to a less sophisticated time–ala Native Americans of yore, perhaps–when the ology arts and sciences–soci, psyc–were yet to be idolized as cure-alls for what ails the human spirit. I do go on, huh?

Point is, the above conclusion of the Hentzell Natural Area master plan has today been relegated to an inconvenient, uncomfortable blip in the history of this unfortunate saga to the point that the key to achieving Hizzoner’s grand scheme is for the Manager of Parks and Recreation, Lauri Dannemiller, to de-designate the Natural Area status for these nine acres so that, yes, steel and stone, brick and mortar, can destroy this priceless natural resource.

Consider this: The lot size for the building at 1330 Fox is 28,100 sq. ft. The current actual value for that lot is $1,545,500, or $55.00 per sq. ft. At only $5 per sq. ft, the value of those nine acres of the Hentzell Park Natural Area is $1,960,200.00.  But, if we look a bit at actual lot values in the developed residential land near the Natural Area we see that, on average, those land values are about $12.00 per sq. ft. So too, should we consider that the Natural Area is in a pretty primo location, abutting Kennedy Golf Course and the Cherry Creek Dam? No, let’s discount those value-upping features and just split the $12.00 difference and say a good market estimate for the land value of the Natural Area is $6.00 a sq. ft. What is the Natural Area then worth?  Looks like $2,352,240.00. (My figures are suspect only to the extent that the City and County of Denver Assessors Office figures are suspect. Then again, I wasn’t a math major.) However,  if we do consider the primo location and plug-in that $12 land value, our Natural Area is now worth $4,704,480.00

You’re thinking all this begs the question why I even bother with the estimated dollar value of this land when I’ve already concluded the Natural Area is priceless. I can only answer with another question: If you didn’t buy the “…restorative setting…” argument, then can you wrap your brain around the dollars and cents argument?

Okay. Let’s address the seeming incongruous image of 21st and Delgany/Wewatta, above. Here’s another image that provides detail:

The City owns the property inside the squiggly lines. The other property, outlined in red, is privately owned. Wewatta is to your right, Delgany is to your left, 21st is below.

On November 26, 2012, a functionary within the City’s Division of Real Estate, notified the Inter-Neighborhood Cooperation (INC), that the city would be selling approximately 12,608 square feet of property (shown within the squiggly lines) to a private entity who owns the adjacent property. The selling price, according to the functionary, was to be $8,300.00, or $.66 per square foot. That’s sixty-six cents per square foot. I do not kid. A member of the INC inquired of the functionary–not his words, but mine–”What the fuck! Sixty-six cents! You’ve got to be kidding.” Apparently there was a response to the effect that the land is worth only $.66 a sq. ft., and once it’s sold and developed the resulting tax base will increase dramatically and, as a consequence, all will be right with the world, and God will remain in His heaven. (I’m not putting words in the functionary’s mouth. I don’t know exactly what he said. But, I am a writer, so I must embellish.) I am told that a later check with the functionary revealed that, since the original inquiry, the price had gone up to $1.00 a square foot, or $12,608.00. An even later inquiry of the functionary from a different party, confirmed some inclination on the city’s part that possibly a public auction would be held in lieu of the original slam-bam-thank you-ma’am decision to just hand over the parcel to the owner of the adjacent property for firstly $.66 cents per sq. ft., and the adjusted later figure of $1.00 per sq. ft.

From what I can tell from the Assessor’s files, the land within the squiggly lines was purchased by the city in 1993 from the Burlington Norther Railroad. It was included in a larger parcel of about 47,641 sq. ft. and sold at that time for $197,531, or $4.14 per sq. ft. which, if adjusted for inflation, would be $6.58 per sq. ft. today. Whether that sale was part of an urban renewal effort, or pursuant to an eminent domain acquisition is unsure. What is sure is that one need not be licensed in real estate to ask the obvious question, yes, once again, “What the fuck!”

Consider this: If you look back at the squiggly lines in the image above, you will see two squares of property adjacent to it that are privately owned. The owner or the agent of the owner is the party in contact with the functionary in the city’s Real Estate Division who wants to buy the property within the squiggly lines. (One cannot help but wonder if the potential buyer of the squiggly-lined property responded, “Oh, yeah, sure, I can handle sixty-six cents a sq. ft. just fine,” he said, a very large grin on his face, a gleeful tone to his voice.) And, boy-howdy, such a deal it would be considering what those two adjacent properties sold for. Both properties were sold to the current owner in 2000. The combined square footage of those two squares is 49,966 sq. ft, which sold for $1,416,968, or  $28.35 per sq. ft., or in 2012 dollars, $38.00 per sq. ft.

If I were cynical, and I probably am at times, I might suggest this deal is as odoriferous as that earlier noted proverbial smoke filled room. I mean, lordy, sixty-six cents. But hey, what the hell, what the people (citizens) don’t know won’t hurt them. Huh?

My background is in governmental purchasing. I retired from the City and County of Denver as the Director of Purchasing, a position wherein I and my crew of twenty were responsible for the purchase of about $150 million of goods and services annually. Additionally, the Purchasing Division was, by Charter, responsible for the storage, and eventual disposal through sale or destruction of the city’s surplus personal property, including abandoned and confiscated vehicles, police lost and found property, bicycles, helicopters, office equipment, etc. The method of disposing of the city’s surplus personal property mirrored that of the purchase of new items, i.e. through open auction or sealed bid; a completely transparent system that depended upon the public market to set the selling price. One of the options we had, however, was the opportunity to place a “minimum” on any property we felt required it, and a “no sale” would occur if that minimum was not met. Suffice it to say, in everything that we did–buying or selling–the first principle, the guiding principle that stood as an incontrovertible mandate, was that our efforts must always be conducted in the best interests of the city. It’s important to repeat that: The best interests of the city.

Just asking here, but wouldn’t the best interests of the city be adequately served here by firstly knowing the history of this property, including what the city originally paid for it, and also taking into consideration what the adjacent properties were purchased for, not to mention the primo location of this land right there with future second story views of Coors Field? But, who am I? I don’t even work the real estate desk at the city, and can’t possibly know the logic behind this deal. But, then, as I noted at the outset, the better angels of logic are often neglected strangers within the underbelly of the machinations of the City and County of Denver.

Two real estate deals, taking on the oily countenance of the most egregious wheeling and dealing extant–really nothing new here–behind the closed doors of city functionaries, including Hizzoner, Michael Hancock. Oh, since we’re talking about “closed doors,” with respect to the Hentzell Natural Area a very clear effort was made to keep that transaction close to the city’s vest. Joseph W. Halpern, in a editorial for the Glendale Cherry Creek Chronicle notes: “…it is no wonder that DPR is attempting to rush through the de-designation as quickly and quietly as possible. Despite the citywide implications of parkland divestiture, DPR chose to provide email notice only to “Hentzell Park Neighbors” and posted a signboard in the Natural Area. No notice was sent to Denver ’s more than 200 Registered Neighborhood Organizations or even to persons like me who have made a standing request to receive emails regarding DPR public meetings and hearings.”

From an interview with Bill Moyers, the naturalist (actually he’s the epitome of the Renaissance Man) Barry Lopez noted:

“… we have created a world in which we marginalize that which we don’t think serves us as well as it could. We’ve turned nature into a thing.

“And we’ve created something in which we have excluded from our moral universe everything but us. And in fact, a lot of people have been excluded from this central White Western European dominant culture.

“And what I would like to I guess encourage people to understand is that for the sake of our own convenience, we created an “other,” and that other was nature. And we said, if it doesn’t serve us, kill it, move it, destroy it, crush it. Make it serve us. And if it doesn’t, it’s no good.

“Nature is the full expression of life.

“I know in my tissues that I have had other teachers- one of them is the living earth itself.”

“Nature is the full expression of life.” And, to add my own conclusion, to destroy a rare, precious slip of nature within an urban setting where, yes, some of the last vestiges of “…the living earth itself…” exist as quiet witness that life does not have to be hard knocks and melancholy, that life can teach the simple, soothing truths of the wind, the sky, the earth, the critters, all of which fulfill as triage to the sick, the suffering; yes, to destroy such a thing is to destroy life itself.

But then would Hizzoner even consider such a thing–life as I’ve described it–if one of his legacy projects is at stake? Who knows? Who knows?

Bill Airy is the principle behind Poo Free Parks. Bill Airy is an entrepreneur extraordinaire who first—almost as a fait accompli—presented the Poo Free Parks scenario to the City and County of Denver several years ago. The scenario? Here it is: Allow Bill to erect his green poles throughout Denver’s parks. The poles will have little boxes on them that contain eco-friendly bags for poop pick up. The poles will also have, at their apex, marquees that will feature ads from commercial entities who will pay Bill to place their particular little spiel on the marquees. Oh, and don’t forget, Bill will use a hybrid vehicle to service the little poles–replacing depleted bags, changing advertising, etc. All of this at no cost to the city. But, there was a snag. Not from the geniuses who ran Denver’s Parks and Recreation Department at the time, who bought Bill’s proposal hook, line and sinker. No, the snag came from neighborhood activists (decidedly more than a “couple”) who believed profoundly in the notion that Denver’s parks are not for sale, and the commercialization of those parks that would necessarily arise from Bill’s bright idea, was repugnant to the notion that Denver’s parks are of, by, and for the people of Denver, and not for the commercial sponsors ol’ Bill would recruit to pay him for his, um, services.

From a blog post of April, 2009, entitled, “The Selling of Denver’s Parks – The Promise of NO POOP,” the following paraphrased points are still relevant: “Mister Airy’s selling point that Denver’s Parks could become poop-free if his services were to be utilized, is about as logically sound, realistically achievable as the proverbial “peace in our time”. My point here is that Mister Airy’s suggestion that Denver’s parks will become poop-free is nonsense. Responsible dog owners do and will continue to pick-up after their pets, whether they use biodegradable sacks or newspaper wrappings. Irresponsible pet owners will continue NOT to pick up after their pets regardless of whether biodegradable bags are made available or not. Fact of life. Human nature.

“There is a fundamental question that I think we all need to consider: Do we want to sell Denver’s parks to the entrepreneurial machinations of those who wish to make a buck off the utilization of OUR PARKS for their own self-gain? That’s an easy one for me to answer. NO! (You do notice the exclamation point!)”

In fact, as unsightly as dog poop is in our parks, methinks the presence of for-profit advertising in our parks is just as unsightly, just as disturbing; it is something you can’t just wipe off your shoe (or out of your vision) in a quick minute once you return home from your stroll.

Also included in that post of April, 2009, is this: “By a vote of 18 to nothing, with five abstentions, Inter-Neighborhood Cooperation (INC) delegates are seeking a moratorium on a plan to put up advertising signs on animal waste bag dispensers in several city parks. INC is a city-wide association of many of Denver’s largest and most active registered neighborhood organizations.

“…A northwest Denver delegate, Bill Johnson, says the ‘integrity of our parks system’ is the real price. ‘The overriding issue is, and has been, private advertising in public parks,’ comments Johnson. ‘Are we going to be crossing the Rubicon (by allowing the signs)?’

“Several members of the INC Parks Committee and other critics contend the plan to allow advertising signs conflicts with Parks Department guidelines. Opponents also say the bag dispenser project could be contrary to the City Charter’s language which grants decision-making authority to Parks administration.”

Due to citizen outrage, Poo Free Parks never did establish a presence in Denver’s parks. Not that city functionaries at the time weren’t, as I’ve said, enamored of Airy and his scheme. They were. But those troublesome neighborhood activists–the People, by any other name–were not so gullible, and Denver’s parks were, therefore, spared the ignoble intrusion of commercial advertising atop poop bag poles within their boundaries. But, Airy got his, oh, pound of flesh maybe, from the city; a very expensive pound costing taxpayers $30,000.00. That story is here.

Now, back to Bill Airy. “Poo Free Parks” is the trade name for at least two entities registered with the Colorado Secretary of State. The “True Names” of those two entities are: OmnisPotential, and Environmental Media Group. The description of business to be transacted under the LLC filings are, with OmnisPotential, “…Advertising and Marketing Services;” and with Environmental Media Group, “Outdoor Advertising Services.”  Nope, nothing about environmental endeavors which–if that had been part of the description of business to be transacted–to my thinking, would indicate some altruistic intent, some notion that money is not the only object here. But, nope. Just advertising and marketing. That’s not to say Mister Airy’s efforts are devoid of altruism. Then again—I just checked the definition of “altruism”—maybe it does.

I suppose it’s also important to note that after a review of the Secretary of State’s on-line, open record documentation, Poo Free Parks LLC, has or had some connection with a company called, Dean Arrow and Associates LLC. Yup, you guessed it. Dean Arrow and Associates is a web integration service that concentrates on building one’s business, marketing, accounting. Nah, nothing about environmental endeavors.

Mister Airy has even expanded to California. (Actually, it appears from the website that Poo Free Parks has sidled up to a number of municipalities around the country.) Nothing wrong with that. Indeed, there’s nothing legally wrong with being an entrepreneur who can couch pursuits of the almighty dollar in happy-crappy terms and marketing expertise designed to capture dog-loving, park-loving human hearts and minds to the extent such emotions will provide a nice return on investment. Nope, nothing legally wrong with that at all.

It is instructive, however, to look at another enterprise that is the brainchild of Mister Airy. BoostMyScore.Net is best described by the verbiage on the site: a service that “…adds your name [persons with lousy or no credit] as an Authorized User (AU) on one of our high limit, low balance credit cards with a long and perfect payment history. An AU is someone that has the ability to use the account, but not make any changes to it or the responsibility to repay balances owed. The original intent of the AU position was to give cardholders the ability to add their children, spouses, or employees to their accounts so they could have access to the available credit line. A coincidental benefit occurs during this process whereby the account history for that credit card appears on the AU’s credit report and it looks like it has been there since the account was first opened, which gives them a FICO® credit score BOOST. While the AU does not receive the physical card or account number during this process, they will receive the amazing benefit of having that particular credit card’s entire credit payment history, limit, and balance ‘copied and pasted’ on to their credit report. This extreme increase in the limit to balance ratio on your report gives you the biggest possible BOOST to your credit in less than 60 days, guaranteed!” Mister Airy calls this service, “…credit renting.” Additionally, Mister Airy provides those with excellent credit the opportunity to become one of BoostMyCredit’s cardholders, or, in other words, the benefactor of their good credit standing to less fortunate lousy credit risks.

Okay. So, if I understand this correctly, if you’ve got lousy or no credit for any number of reasons, and you want to buy a car, or a house, or an airplane, or any damned thing you probably can’t afford, ol’ Bill will fix you up—for a fee—with someone who has bam-zoom-shoot-the-moon credit, and VOILA! in sixty days (or whatever) you’ve got the same credit rating, or at least a much better credit rating than you previously had when left to your own devices. Wow, I say. No toiling for years to establish good credit. No nose-to-the-grindstone work ethic needed. Hell, no need for any of that savings or frugality stuff. Just sign up with ol’ Bill and just watch the magic happen. Is this legal? Bill says it is. Is this ethical? Well, Bill answers that question also in the affirmative. Of course it’s ethical. (You can find Airy’s arguments as to the legality and ethicality of this service on the above linked site.) Additionally, according to the website, BoostMyCredit also offers credit counseling and credit repair.

Ahem…

In my post of April, 2009, I noted: “I’m reminded of the quote from George Washington Plunkett of New York’s Tammany Hall fame who, when asked about his success within the organization, noted: ‘I seen my opportunities and I took ‘em.’”

The title of this post provides a quote from Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2, where Polonius, as an aside, reflects on his conversation with Prince Hamlet whom he believes to be quite mad, but nevertheless quite conniving: “Though this be madness, yet there is method in’t.” Or, as the quote has evolved: “There is method to this madness.”

Poo Free Parks along with BoostMyCredit are the creations of a man who has seen his opportunities, and has taken advantage of those opportunities with an entrepreneurial spirit that, I’m sure, harkens back to John Jacob Astor, John D. Rockefeller, Jay Gould, Mitt Romney. And, again, there’s nothing wrong with that. Nope. Nothing at all.

Now, if we’re talking goose poop… Well, that’s another matter altogether.

Now, here we have this Prince of the Church who shepherded about 18,000 Catholic souls in a city of about 105,000 people–94% of them Anglo–in a place that most of us recall from the movie, “Fargo,” where few sentences are finished unless there is a “Yah” placed at the beginning or end. Great movie. Not so sure about the place itself. But, that’s beside the point, I guess. Juxtapose this to Denver, with a population of 600,000, 52% Anglo, and 160,000 Catholic. It’s probably important to also note that Fargo has about 2300 Hispanics–the bedrock of the Catholic Church–while Denver has about 190,000 folks of Hispanic heritage. Lastly, in the “Never Married” category the numbers are: Fargo-38%, and Denver-36%. If my math is correct for “Never Married,” there are 40,000 singles in Fargo, and 216,000 in Denver. My stats, by the way, come from: Fargo and Denver.

There is a point to all this.

As an aside, seems Aquila’s claim to fame–something that apparently caught the eye of Pope Benedict–was that he rearranged the rites of the Church for little Fargo kids by putting Confirmation before First Communion. The reasoning, I suppose, was how on earth can a Catholic child receive the sacrament of communion, without first being confirmed in the Faith? Whether or not the rest of the Catholic world will rearrange those two rites of passage through the Faith, is unsure. What is sure is that Aquila sure caught the attention of the Holy Father. There had to have been something else, though, that caught the Pope’s eye, ‘cause this wee little accomplishment really doesn’t seem like the crown jewel of his resume. But, then, who am I to argue with the Pope?

Okay. Let’s take a look at part of an interview with Aquila that appeared in the above-linked article from The National Register.

You’ve come to Denver at a very busy time — during an election year, religious-liberties battles, immigration rulings. How will that affect your “re-acquaintance” with the archdiocese as their new shepherd?

“When I see the violation of religious liberty, I will speak to it, and especially the violation of the freedom of conscience. It’s not a question of politics, and it’s certainly not a fight we asked for, but one that has been imposed on us by the present administration. So it’s something that certainly all the bishops of the U.S. will be addressing in various ways during the next 6-12 months.

“We have to remember, too, that it’s not just a problem here in the United States, but throughout the world, that there’s an international element to it.”

If there are Catholic public figures in your archdiocese who come out in support of these policies that go against the magisterium, will you tell them they’re out of line?

“One wants to make it clear to Catholics what the teaching of the Church is; and if they are not in line with that teaching, I would first of all want to speak with them personally. But also, if they’re speaking in a public manner and dissenting publicly from the teachings of the Church, that will need to be addressed, because all it does is weaken the faith and cause confusion among the laity when no action is taken.

“You want to help people and to advance the truth, help them to receive the truth, and help them to realize there is truth that can be received, especially when it comes to the dignity of human life and the dignity of the human person. It’s essential for us as Christians to always put the dignity of the human person first and the basic rights afforded to the human person.”

I believe it was Pope Paul II who came up with the “human person” stuff, that seems to permeate Catholic lexicon these days. It’s important to know what that phrase means. (For me, the phrase begs a likening to the angles-on-the-head-of-a-pin discussion that medieval Catholic scholars, including Aquinas, may have engaged in.) But, here we go: (From  Professor William E. May, Catholic University of America.)

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms, “the human person, made in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual” (no. 362). The human body is human and living precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul (ibid, no. 364). So closely united are body and soul in the human person that one must consider the soul to be the “form” of the “body.” [1] It is only because it is animated by a spiritual soul that the body in question is a living, human body.

“We can summarize the understanding of human anthropology in Catholic theology in the following propositions: 1. The human person is a living human body, and, conversely, a living human body is a human person. 2. The male body person is meant to be a gift to the female body person in the communion of persons we call marriage. 3. Human sexuality is itself integral to the human person; it is a good “of the person,” and is meant to be expressed genitally only within marriage in the marital act, one “open” to the goods of communicating life and love.

“In this understanding of the human personno distinction is made between a human being and a human person. All human beings are persons. Being a human being, therefore, has crucial moral significance inasmuch as a person surpasses in value the entire material universe and is never to be considered as a mere means or object of use but is rather the kind of entity to whom the only adequate response is love. [9] Being a human being, being a person, makes a tremendous difference.”

Okay. Got it? Yes, of course, this human person thing appears to have several applications. Simply put—or as simply as my simple-mind can fathom—Professor May is telling us that a human person has a body and soul. And, there are two kinds of body persons—one male, and one female, and the male body person gifts to the female genital satisfaction only within the bounds of marriage, for the sole purpose of creating little human persons. Also, human persons can never, ever be seen as objects, or  “…mere means or object[s]…” when it comes to genital satisfaction. Catholic-sanctioned genital reciprocation must have as its intent love, with the sole purpose of that “love” being the making of babies. Finally, a human person “…surpasses in value the entire material universe.” The good professor said “material universe” here, and I suspect if pressed he would agree that the words “universe of species” would work just fine, too. No, Virginia, I guess all dogs don’t go to heaven.

Now, let me try to make some sense of all this.

Firstly, of course, Archbishop Aquila—his name in Italian means “eagle,” (not so in Spanish, as the Spanish word for “eagle” is “a’guila”), something that he is quick to point out—believes in all the mumbo-jumbo with regard to human persons. (Obfuscation by any other name…) That’s fine. But, see, the problem arises when this human person stuff is mixed into that great, roiling, morass of a stew that is the human condition, and which includes, Ahem, unmarried persons who happen to be heterosexual and homosexual. (But what of that? Emily Dickenson might say. Or Virginia Woolf’s, “Let a man get up and say, ‘Behold, this is the truth,’ and instantly I perceive a sandy cat filching a piece of fish in the background. Look, you have forgotten the cat, I say.” Sorry. Literary digressions are my bane.) Is there no place in the Aquila’s universe for heterosexual and homosexual persons who make love—Yes, Love!—without the intent to procreate? Quite difficult to accomplish that intent if you’re homosexual. Quite another thing altogether if you’re heterosexual, and don’t choose to. But what of that? You have forgotten the cat!

Rather than playing musical chairs with Catholic childhood rites in Fargo, one might think Aquila would have been better served—certainly the Church would have been better served—to have tackled the surly machinations of a portion of those 18,000 unmarried Catholic persons who, methinks, don’t fit nicely into the human person category described by Professor May. And, if Aquila didn’t think it that important to take on human person nonconformity in Fargo, then I suppose we can assume he won’t attempt to tackle it with the nonconforming portion of the 160,000 Catholic Denverites who are unmarried. Right? But, he is the Shepherd, right? It’s quite easy to corral the little Catholic children to go through chute A, before they go through chute B. Not so easy to corral the adults who, most likely, don’t have a clue about this “human person” stuff, and will continue to enhance their days with a little sexual pleasure sans procreation, thank you very much!

This is assuming, of course, that Archbishop Aquila’s goal is to insist that Catholics be Catholic by hook or by crook. Yes? How is he going to do that? Shouldn’t that be his first responsibility? He does, after all, have God on his side. Sorry. Let me restate: He does, after all, have the Catholic God on his side.

I noted Anglo and Hispanic stats only for the purpose of suggesting that Aquila’s success in his endeavors may find a welcome embrace by his Hispanic flock. Not trying to generalize a whole ethnic group here. Simply stating the obvious.

The question that is begged from all this human person stuff is whether or not Aquila and, indeed, the Catholic Church ascribes human personhood to all humanity, or whether to just those who toe the line as described by Professor May? If not, what are those of us who don’t conform to be called? Persons without the prefix human? Humans without the suffix persons? Good question, huh? Oh, and since one becomes a human person—body and soul—at the moment of conception, what happens to the human or the person when they later deviate from what they were blessed with when sperm met egg?

If I may, I’m heading back to quotes Aquila gave the National Catholic Register.

Aquila—“It’s not a question of politics…”—promises that “…all the bishops in the U.S. will be addressing in various ways during the next 6-12 months…” what he sees as “…violation[s] of religious liberty [and] freedom of conscience,” perpetrated by “…the present administration.”

Forgive me if I believe the promise made in the Constitution that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and, conversely, that religion shall make no infringement on the establishment of government, or prohibit the free exercise thereof. Further, I do believe that the tax-exempt status religious institutions enjoy in this country, requires adherence to the one simple little “rule” I’ve provided above. If you’re a church leader, and you engage in activities that are so obviously, blatantly political that you have to preface your remarks with, “It’s not a question of politics…,” then, by golly, you’re not a church leader any more, you’re a politician,  and you look at your congregation as voters, and your House has become a political enclave. If I were the King of the Wold I’d tax your ass RETROACTIVELY. Come on, Aquila…liar, liar pants on fire.

Aquila speaks to public figures who do not follow the Catholic line when opining on matters essentially political. He says, “…if they’re speaking in a public manner and dissenting publicly from the teachings of the Church, that will need to be addressed, because all it does is weaken the faith and cause confusion among the laity when no action is taken.” (Giggles.) Okay, so if you’re a Catholic in good standing you ipso facto are confused by political rhetoric that doesn’t conform to Catholic doctrine, and consequently your faith is just flushed down the toilet by listening to that dribble. Oh, come on! What bloody nonsense is this? Aquila, the Eagle, actually believes his flock’s devotion to Catholic doctrine, their faith is so shaky, so fragile, that just listening to a politician’s words will crack the foundation, the rock upon which Peter himself stood? (Giggles, again. Sorry.)

As I saw the intellectual dishonesty of Aquila’s predecessor, Chaput (Cha-poo), I find the same quality in Aquila. Indeed—although I haven’t really gone into it—I’m sure the matter of same-sex civil unions or marriage would receive the same cold reception from Aquila as they did from Chaput. The mere discounting of the universal meaning of love between two adults by these two Princes of the Church is a presumptive conclusion that casts even the thought of same-sex unions or marriages out the window of that stone and steel monolith at Colfax and Logan. And, now that I think about it, that name—Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception—incorporates within it a definition—immaculate—that quite defines Professor May’s human-person-love-genital-manbody-womanbody thing. But, then, lore does that—something quite akin to even considering there might be angels on the head of a pin.

Enough.

Just sayin’…