Justice Denied - Kathy Stobaugh And The 2nd Circuit Court Of Appeals

(Several days ago the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the Stobaugh verdict, thus denying justice to Kathy and her family.  I had at first dashed off a fiery commentary, but now, with a little time intervening, I have a more calm and reasoned blog to offer...)

 

The Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth, Texas has seen fit to overturn the verdict in the Kathy Stobaugh murder trial, tossing out the suspect’s conviction for murdering his wife.  The short story is that the Court ruled there was insufficient evidence presented at trial for the jury to have reached a guilty verdict.  All the evidence presented was circumstantial according to the Court, and that was true enough, but the last time I checked, this trial was held before a jury of twelve people.  These twelve people all heard the requirements necessary for the state to prove its case, and they all heard the evidence that the state used to meet those requirements.  This jury then reached a unanimous verdict.  There was not a hung jury, and not two or three weeks of deliberation before finally reaching a verdict.  The jury heard the evidence and rendered its verdict, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

It should be a very sobering and somber moment when a court sets aside a jury’s verdict.  There are, of course, some occasions where a jury’s verdict should be set aside, such as when an accused was clearly guilty of a crime, the evidence proved it, but the jury found the person innocent.  But these sorts of verdicts are rare, and hark back to the pre-1964 era of “jury nullification.”  In the Stobaugh case, the prosecutors were fighting an uphill battle from the start because there was no physical evidence against the suspect, but the victim could not be located.  No body has been found to this date.  But there was plenty of evidence to indicate that Kathy Stobaugh was dead.   The biggest indication was that no one had seen her from the date of her disappearance to the conclusion of the trial.  Second, Kathy had not been in touch with her children, her family, her divorce lawyer, or even her estranged husband since her disappearance and right up to the end of the trial.  Third, Kathy never again accessed her bank accounts or used her credit or debit cards, right up to the end of the trial.  Fourth, Kathy never again returned to her job, or called her employer to resign or ask for a leave of absence.  Finally, all the inconsistencies between Stobaugh’s statements to police and the actual facts as proven by phone records demonstrated that the police were not getting the whole story from this man.  Taken singly, no one item is conclusive, but taken in totality, these circumstances certainly add up to one reasonable conclusion…that which was reached by the jury at the original trial.

The prosecution had an uphill battle to prove that Kathy was dead and that her death was by murder.  The suspect and his attorney went out of their way to thwart the investigation at every turn.  The prosecution had to examine different possibilities and eliminate each possibility, other than murder, beyond a reasonable doubt, and the jury believed that the prosecution had done so.   The jury believed that the only reasonable explanation was that Kathy was dead and that the suspect had killed her.  Was the prosecution able to prove “beyond a SHADOW OF A DOUBT” that the suspect had killed her and concealed her body?  This is not Perry Mason.  Texas law only requires that guilt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.  This proof was given in the Stobaugh trial. 

In the time since this verdict was handed down, the suspect’s attorneys set about to get an appeal paid for by you and me, the taxpayers, in that they petitioned the court to provide a free trial transcript, which would cost anyone else $10,000 or so.  The court rightly agreed with prosecutors that the suspect was NOT INDIGENT when he had over $500,000 dollars’ worth of assets at his disposal.  Indigent?  Right…  But there was a lot at stake with the Stobaugh verdict, and other parties were interested in seeing that an appeal was filed.  I do not know, nor will I speculate, whether third parties such as Project Innocence provided any financial support for an appeal.  I will just say that it was in the best interests of defense attorneys all over the United States that this verdict is appealed AND THROWN OUT.  Unfortunately the 2^nd Circuit Court of Appeals did just that. 

There was little doubt, in fact NO REASONABLE doubt, that Kathy was dead, based on the fact of her complete and total disappearance off the face of this earth, and the confirmation of this disappearance by total lack of electronic financial activity, no appearance back at her job, no request for her pension, no message of any kind for her family or children.  The suspect’s lies regarding his phone calls to Kathy AFTER her disappearance, the fact that Kathy’s vehicle and personal property were still on the Stobaugh farm, and the suspect’s subsequent total withdrawal of cooperation with law enforcement, while circumstantial, pointed to his involvement at a level much deeper than he was telling officers.

Was there reasonable doubt that the suspect, and ONLY the suspect, murdered Kathy?  After several years of gathering evidence, prosecutors brought the suspect to trial, and the jury indeed believed there was no reasonable doubt that the suspect had killed Kathy.  Since the case was based on circumstantial evidence, I personally believed (although I fervently hoped I was wrong!) that the trial would end at best in a hung jury; at worst an outright acquittal.  But in fact twelve different people heard the prosecutor’s case, and the defense arguments as well, and in the end convicted Charles Stobaugh of murder.

The 2^nd Circuit Court of Appeals, made up of former defense lawyers, perhaps was under some deal of pressure not to let this verdict stand.  Appeals attorneys that these judges regularly associate with both at court and in social circumstances were watching the outcome of this appeal very closely.  No doubt calls were made from high-powered attorneys as well as from various lawyers’ organizations, just to remind these judges of the great impact their ruling would have on similar cases in the future.  Basically, if there was no body, there was no murder.  That has been the general rule in the United States since colonial days.  But in current times, with electronic financial and employment trails, with fuel purchases and shopping sprees recorded with each swipe of a debit card, it was a simple matter to pinpoint the very date Kathy’s life stopped.  Still, there was no body.  That point was pounded home by the suspect’s attorney, who apparently is very persuasive.  This same attorney sold to one jury the very asinine idea that a Dallas area teenager was not responsible for killing four people with his automobile because his very affluent parents had been “too busy” to teach this “child” right from wrong.  (Now HERE is a verdict that should definitely be thrown out on appeal!!)

The Stobaugh verdict was thrown out by the 2^nd Court Appeals, which in effect meant that they, the appeals court, being much smarter than the local jury, reviewed a few pages of the hundreds of pages of transcript and concluded that the jury could not have reached the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt, that the suspect had killed Kathy Stobaugh.  So the verdict was thrown out, and a suspected murderer will be turned out of prison, possibly rewarded for the thorough way in which he disposed of Kathy’s body.  Will prosecutors retry this case?  That is a tough question.  Not because they would have trouble proving their case to a second jury, but because they would run the risk of the 2^nd Circuit Court of Appeals second-guessing that jury if another guilty verdict were rendered.  It all comes down to this.  If prosecutors proved beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is dead, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that a particular person committed the crime, but produced no body, it is a slam dunk for the defense to win their case by simply asking “where’s the body?”  The defense lawyers do not want to lose this great advantage, and the 2^nd Circuit Court of Appeals does not want to be the body that sets such precedence.  Justice for Kathy is secondary to “justice” for this suspect.

Earthquakes In North and West Texas (Shhhh....And In Oklahoma)

Many people in North Central Texas are up in arms about the concern that oil company fracturing operations are causing earthquakes in and around Azle, Texas.  At the same time, there has been an increased activity in earthquakes in the Cap Rock area of the Panhandle, and in West Texas near the cities of Snyder and Rotan...not to mention a list as long as your arm of earthquakes in southern Oklahoma.  The general consensus of the "alarmists" is that oil production methods used in these areas are the cause of these of earthquakes.  There is another concern, too; how safe can it be to pump thousands of gallons of contaminated water into disposal wells when these wells are in danger of being compromised by the earthquakes?

I, for one, also believe that "fracking" operations are behind some, if not all, of this new seismic activity.  By the way, I apologize to my brother-in-law for the use of the slang word "fracking" instead of HIS slang word "fracing," which I think looks too much like it should rhyme with "racing," but which HE believes should be pronounced 'fracking.'  But I continue to have an open mind.  After all, there has not been a lot of seismic activity of note in North Texas in some years...or centuries.  It could be that the time is ripe for seismic activity in North Texas.  But...there is the pesky observation that the clusters of earthquakes seemed to follow new and increased oil exploration and production in the area.  Not to mention the same scenario is occurring in that area of Oklahoma corresponding to the North Texas oilfields.

In West Texas, there have been several minor earthquakes in the past few months, especially in the area around Snyder, the northern boundary of the Big Country.  In the lower southern plains, near Levelland and Hereford, earthquakes have also occurred, again, concentrated in the areas where "fracking" operations are in progress.  There are those connected with the petroleum industry who insist that "fracking" is safe and harmless to the environment.  These assertions are backed by scientists in the oil companies' employ, who insist that fracturing operations are both safe and do not effect seismic activity.  On the other hand, "independent" scientists consulted by environmental organizations and by citizens' groups provide "hard data" proving that oil exploration operations are directly responsible for the new seismic activity, and that waste water from fracking operations could eventually drain into our drinking water.

Whether or not fracturing operations cause earthquakes, whether or not pumping contaminated water ten thousand feet into the ground causes increased seismic activity in a given area, there is a point that seems to have gotten lost.  Whatever the cause of the seismic activity, there is a great possibility that the "safe storage" of the contaminated water from fracking operations is not safe at all.  If the rock formations underground that are supposed to contain the waste water are compromised, it follows that the contaminated water will leak (or POUR!) into the surrounding geography and eventually make its way into the aquifers that supply much of our drinking water.  So far the earthquakes themselves have caused little property damage and no loss of life.  But, can we really say all the disposal wells in the effected areas are still intact? 

It is not popular to be a Texican in West Texas and be opposed to oil producing operations of any kind.  The petroleum industry has been the bread and butter of the Permian Basin for nearly a hundred years.  Oil booms are also booming in South Texas, in southern Oklahoma, and in states around the nation.  But more and more people, organizations, and communities are starting to question the safety of fracturing operations and the impact these operations have on the drinking water supply.  Unfortunately, at this point in time the desire to "make a buck" and the desire for high paying jobs creates a force that has proven time and again to be stronger than all the might the grassroots can muster.  If politicians receive enough contributions from the oil companies, you can bet fracturing operations will continue to be "safe" in Texas and Oklahoma.  If state regulatory commissions continue to be staffed with oilfield "alumni" we will see the proverbial "fox guarding the hen house" effect.  No matter how dangerous the data show fracturing operations to be, you can bet that oil companies will continue to get the green light from politicians and state bureaucracies while the people who live around the "booms" will find they are up to their ears in contaminated waste water, but have precious little drinking water to speak of.

I do not have all the answers.  I do not even have SOME of the answers, but I doubt that the oil company scientists do, either.  But while the debate goes on, who will protect the state's drinking water, especially where water is already in short supply anyway, such as here in the Permian Basin?  I realize that "environmentalists" produce studies which cannot always be relied on for sound information either.  But at present, we do not know if the fracturing operations are causing the earthquakes around the area, nor do we know if the disposal of contaminated wastewater can be done safely when the underground disposal wells are subject to be compromised by the seismic activity of late in the oil boom areas.  I hope, though, that more people will become interested in these questions, and demand answers before we "frack" ourselves right out of drinking water and right into earthquakes like we have never seen before in Texas.


 

A Tribute To Martin Luther King, Jr.

(NOTE:  I wrote this blog on February 19, 2013.  It is difficult for me to believe that a year has come and gone since I heard the little girl's view of Martin Luther King, Jr., but I could not think of a more poignant tribute to Mr. King than to repost this blog,)




This Sunday At Church, or A Four-Year-Old's Wisdom

In this past Sunday Morning's church service one of the men of the congregation told the story of a young girl who was only about four years old. Apparently just before Christmas the little girl's father explained to her the true meaning of that day, that God has sent his only son Jesus Christ to the earth. Jesus Christ was born to the Virgin Mary in a manger in Bethlehem nearly 2000 years ago. The father went on to explain to his little girl that God had sent Jesus to be our Savior because God loved us so much. This is why, the father explained, that we give each other gifts on Christmas day, as a way of showing our love for each other.

It so happened a few days later as the father and his little girl were driving down one of the neighborhood streets they passed a church building. The little girl noticed that in front of this church building there was a sculpture of a man hanging on a cross.  The father explained to his daughter that Jesus was hung on the cross by the Roman soldiers because Jesus had traveled through Israel preaching the gospel. Jesus told the people that He was the only way to heaven and that He had come to the world to save all people from sin. Not only the Roman government, but the Jewish people wanted Jesus to stop preaching.  When He would not, He was crucified.  The father went on to explain to his daughter that Jesus became the sacrifice for all of us so that we could all be saved from our sins and that we could all go to heaven one day.

As they drove on, the little girl asked her father why she did not have to go to school that day. The girl's father explained to her that this was Martin Luther King Day, a national holiday celebrating the life and contributions of Martin Luther King, Jr. Her father told her how Martin Luther King Jr. had had gone across the United States preaching the gospel and declaring that all men should learn to love each other and to get along in the world together. The little girl ask what happened to Martin Luther King, Jr? The father then very gently explained to his daughter that Mr. King had been assassinated because of the things he said and believed.  The little girl thought to herself for a moment then said
"But Daddy, isn't that what they did to Jesus?"

I have to tell you that this story brought the church to silence and maybe brought tears to the eyes of some of the people there. I have to admit that I had never thought of Martin Luther King Jr. in those terms.  I was a child when he was crusading, and of course I heard the White adults of my generation for the most part saying that Mr. King should "keep in his place."  I was only seven years old that day in April 1968 when the news reports started flooding our television.  Martin Luther King Jr. had been assassinated. True, he was not hung upon the cross (literally) and true he was not the world's savior (literally), but MLK truly had a cross to bear, and in a sense, he was a kind of savior, as he was concerned for all people.

Decades later, I can look back on MLK and what he stood for in my own eyes, from my own point of view, separate from the attitudes of most of White America at that earlier time, and outside the shadows cast on this man by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI.  And I was glad to be in the church service that Sunday morning, to hear what Martin Luther King, Jr. stood for, in the eyes of that little girl.  I guess in the Sixties most people could not hear Martin Luther King Jr's real message because of their own attitudes, prejudices, and fears.  As I sat in that church building, it seemed like I could hear Mr. King in that clear, ringing voice saying:

From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:
Free at last! Free at last!
Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!

Mr. King bore a cross, and that cross was the message he made his mission to spread, that we were all children of God and that God loved all of us equally.  That being the truth, then it followed that all men and women should be treated equally, not just under "the law," but in God's sight as well.  Mr. King's message was one that many leaders as well as many of the common people did not want to hear at the time.  Some people hated Mr. King's message so much that they began to hate the man as well. Persecution followed, both by the government and by the people.  But Mr. King carried his message on, no matter the cost to himself.  And what many people of the time did not want to acknowledge was that Mr. King was doing the Lord's work as well, spreading the Gospel along with the call for equal rights and fairness for everyone.  Above all, Martin Luther King Jr. envisioned and longed for a time when all the people could live and love united.

Like Jesus, it is very likely that Martin Luther King, Jr. saw the inevitability of his own death, his blood shed for the message he brought. Just before Mr. King was murdered, he made another famous speech that included these words:

And then I got to Memphis. And some began to say the threats, or talk about the threats that were out. What would happen to me from some of our sick white brothers? ... Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't really matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop. I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live - a long life; longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the Promised Land. So I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.^[1]

MLK had a shining quality about him, and a grand vision of which he never lost sight.  He truly feared death no longer, because he had somehow seen that glorious place that waited for him over that mountaintop.  As amazing as was the man and the life he led, as well as the death he died, was the insight of this four-year-old girl. With the innocence of the young, she saw the blessing that Mr. King left all of us.  True, the gift of the Good Shepherd of course outshines anything on this side of heaven, but how blessed was that church congregation this past Sunday, to see the brightness of MLK's reflection in the face of this little child.

The Last Shoeshine Man of Sarajevo

When was the last time you saw a Shoeshine Man?  Here in Midland there are one or two.  In my old home town, there was a shoeshine man years ago, although I do not think there is one now.   Maybe my friends in Central Texas can help me with information on that.  But, all over Texas, the United States, and the world, it appears, the shoeshine man's occupation is on the wane.  And so it is in Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina.

A gentleman in Sarajevo took up the shoeshine trade many decades ago.  Hussein Hasani, known to the citizens of Sarajevo as "Uncle Misho, learned his trade as teen from his father, who had learned the trade from his father before him.  Mr. Hasani said he was honored to learn his father's trade, and was proud to make an honest living with his hands.  He took over his father's shoeshine stand when he was twenty-years old.

Hasani was born in Urosevec, Kosovo, which was a province in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.  His family moved to Sarajevo in 1946, after surviving the horrors of World War II.  Hasani married Dzemila Jameel, whom he met while working at his father's stand.  The couple had no children of their own, but were blessed with a child by most unusual means.  One morning while Hussein and Dzemila were walking to work together, Dzemila heard a newborn infant crying in an alley.  The couple searched frantically for the little baby and found her...in a trash bin.  The little girl was only hours old.  Hussein summoned the police.  The child was taken to a doctor and the authorities searched for the unknown parents, but did not find them.  A few days later the police asked Hussein and Dzemila if they wanted the child.  Hussein told the officer, "That question is superfluous!"  The infant grew into a healthy child, and eventually was married.  She gave her adoptive parents several grandchildren.  Dzemila proceeded her husband in death by several years.

Hussein Hasani had to compete with many other shoeshine men in the early years of his business, but as time went on, the ranks of shoeshine men were thinned by both age and failing health, and by the war that raged in Bosnia-Herzegovina in the early 1990's.  Hussein said that he did not miss work even in the face of the dangers of civil war.  He recalls snipers shooting at him.  He also saw many people killed and injured by the fighting that stretched from 1992 to 1995.  After the civil war ended, Hasani continued to work even though he was in his seventies.  By now he was known and loved by the people of Sarajevo, and was considered "a symbol of the city."

Hasani followed the methods of shoe shining that his father had taught, from brushing the shoes first to get all the dust off, to buffing and polishing the shoes to a glossy shine.  The methods of shoe shining that Hasani's father taught him were methods that had their beginnings centuries earlier in the Ottoman empire.  Hasani was honored to follow his father's trade, and to apprentice under him. He believed the trade, as he learned it, was good enough for him.  Hasani never felt the need to modify his methods in any way.

In 2009, Hussein Hasani was awarded a medal of merit by the Sarajevo city fathers, and was given an apartment and pension.   Hussein did not retire, however.  He continued to do his work at his shoeshine stand for another five years.  On January 6, 2014 Mr. Hasani died in the early hours of the morning in his apartment.  The citizens of Sarajevo felt Hasani's loss so strongly that they petitioned the city government to set a monument for Hussein Hasani at the site of his shoeshine stand.  In less than twenty-four hours after Hasani's death, over 5000 people had signed the petition.

Hussein Hasani was known as a kind man who shared treats with the children, and also shared some of his food with stray dogs.  He called the strays his "faithful comrades of the street."  The citizens of Sarajevo not only lost a good friend and long-time member of the community, but also the last practicing shoeshine man in the city.  His fame had spread throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the news of his death was noted in the newspapers of several nations around the world, including the United States.

My condolences to the Hasani family and to the people of Sarajevo and Bosnia-Herzegovina, at the loss of Uncle Misho, Sarajevo's Last Shoeshine Man .  

Princess The Clairvoyant Camel Dies

Princess The Clairvoyant Camel, the "Prognosticator Extraordinaire," was euthanized two days ago after its caretakers decided it was inhumane to let the animal suffer further with its severe arthritis.  Princess was a long-time resident of the Popcorn Petting Zoo in Lacey Township, New Jersey.  In the past few weeks, however, the camel was in such pain that it could not stand, which led to the difficult decision to euthanize the animal.

Princess gained sudden notoriety in 2007.  In that year, a certain radio station in New Jersey randomly selected Princess to pick the winners of several pro-football games as part of a publicity stunt.  The process was simple.  Cardboard signs bearing the names of each team in a particular match up were placed on a table, with gram crackers in front of each team's card.  Princess "picked" the winner by eating the gram cracker in front of the "winning team."  But, what started out as a humorous stunt backfired, in a way.  You see, it turns out that Princess The Clairvoyant Camel had an uncanny knack for picking the winners well over fifty percent of the time.  In fact, during the 2009 season, her best season, Princess picked 17 games correctly out of the 22 game season.

Princess was not just liked because she had a knack for picking the winners but also because, as camels go, she had a great personality.  Princess once belonged to a local widow who just happened to be a millionaire.  The elderly owner dearly loved Princess and kept her as a pet, not as an exhibit.  When the lady was beset with poor health, she was no longer able to care for Princess the way she once did.  Her friends persuaded her to donate Princess to the Popcorn Petting Zoo, where the camel lived from 2006 until she was euthanized this week.  The people of Lacey Township came to love Princess as a friend, and as a "prognosticator extraordinaire," the clairvoyant camel that could pick the pro winners.  I am sure the people of the township are feeling this loss as if they had lost a great friend, and I offer my condolences to them.

The clairvoyant camel's fans, both in Lacey Township, and around the nation, are not at a total loss with the death of Princess.  A few days before she was euthanized, Princess picked this year's super bowl play-off winner.  She believed the New York Giants would win their play off game.  Alas, she was wrong on that one.  She died before picking this year's Super Bowl winner.
 

My Friends, Today I Have Said What Was On My Heart, And I Ask Both For Your Readership AND Your Understanding

Yes, my Friends, I hope you will read today's blog for the message it contains, and not for any other, whether you "see it" in the blog or whether you "feel it" from my words.  I just ask that you read it with a calm and open mind, not with any preformed "attitudes" or any "pre-judgments" (= prejudice) about me. So, here goes:

I read a few days ago (January 10th - CBS News online) that Tel Aviv, Israel had become the latest in a series of cities around the world, including such places as Amsterdam, Sydney, Berlin, and San Francisco, that have added memorials to their Holocaust Memorials.  The additions are strictly to honor Nazi victims who were homosexual or had were "transgendered."  Like I said, please don't start yelling and screaming that I am "anti-gay."  If the commissions of these various national memorials wanted to do this, that is certainly their business.  Now, please listen because this is the point of this blog:  Victims of the Holocaust were ALL VICTIMS.  The Nazi killing machine was EVIL beyond description and all the people they killed were JUST AS IMPORTANT as the "special class" of victims memorialized of late.  It was a terrible and unspeakable crime against humanity to kill ANYONE in the Nazi death camps, just as it was terrible in the genocides of many other regimes, not as well heralded as were the victims of the Nazis.

I have noticed with all victims of genocide, whether killed by the Nazis, Chairman Mao, Stalin, the Japanese during World War II, the Bolshevik Revolution, Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge, or ANY OTHER genocide you can name, all those killed were JUST AS DEAD as were the homosexual victims of the Nazis.  All the victims were just as loved and just as missed by their families as were the homosexual victims.  The families were just as devastated no matter what LABEL was applied to their loved ones.  And this is the point of my blog today.  I am just a little angered that someone somewhere decided that homosexual victims of the Holocaust needed to be just a little more honored and remembered than those that were killed because they were Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, immigrants, physically challenged, mentally challenged, or just because they had dared to stand up against the Third Reich.  They were ALL VICTIMS.  The idea that murdering one "class" of victims is somehow "worse" than murdering just some "regular" guy or girl is appalling to me, as it has been for years, since the term "hate crime" was invented to elevate the assault or murder of some class of victims above that of other victims.  Hate is hate, and murder is murder, no matter who does it to whom, and why.

Years ago, when I still wore a Peace Officer's shield and enforced the law equally from victim to victim, a movement started in our nation's capitol to designate a special class of crimes as "hate crimes."  I believe, but could be mistaken, that this movement originated when several synagogues around the country were targeted by vandals.  From there, the momentum continued to the point that crimes ranging from minor vandalism such as graffiti, to felonies such as capital murder, were all "enhanced" if some element of "hate" were suspected to be involved in the motives of these crimes.  Police officers first, then prosecutors at trial, were expected to differentiate the offenders' motives, and determine whether the criminals "HATED" their victims, or they "merely" assaulted or killed their victims "in the furtherance" of the crime.  Something about the idea that one person's victimization was "worse" than an other's for the same crime (but different motive) did not sit right with me then, nor does it to this day.

Now, in this 21st century, we have special classes of people that someone has determined need more protection than "regular" people do.  In the process, that same "someone(s)" has or have determined that certain classes of people need to be "re-honored" as if they were not remembered with the millions of other victims of the Holocaust.  Again, I am not expressing "anti-gay" or anti-anyone else feelings.  I am saying that the victims of the Holocaust, and I mean ALL OF THE VICTIMS, have now been honored and remembered for well over fifty years, as well they should have been.  Indeed, we should never forget.  But I am angered that some of us feel the need to divide and label Hitler's victims then somehow make it seem that one class or another of the victims needs to be RE-REMEMBERED as if they were not already counted part of that terrible thing perpetrated by the most evil regime ever seen on this planet.

Yes, Hitler's demons targeted "gays," but they also targeted many other people, many other "labels."  I believe it was inappropriate to then decide sixty years later that some subset of the Holocaust victims somehow was not honored enough.  What is next, monuments for all those victims who were mentally challenged?  What about the Slavs who were murdered simply because they were Slavic? Do we need a new memorial for them as well?  What about Catholic nuns, what about Jewish school teachers?  No, what we need to do is simple.  We just need to remember that each person in the world is just as important, just as loved, as the next person.  When someone is wrongly victimized we are all harmed, and not because of whatever label can be applied to the victim, but because the victim was A PERSON - a person who was loved by someone, who was cared about by someone.

Thank you, my friends, for indulging me in this rant.  It came from my heart, and no one has to agree with me.  In fact, if someone does not agree, I would love to hear why.  Discussions can lead to better understanding, and an open mind is a mind full of possibilities.
 

Cast Your Bread On The Water, A Good Measure Will Be Returned To You

Ecclesiastes Chapter 11:1-2 are two of my favorite Bible verses.  In these verses, "the Preacher" (King Solomon, David's son) tells us first, to cast our bread upon the water, "for thou shalt find it after many days."  In verse 2, Solomon tells us to give "portions" to seven, and also to eight, because "thou knowest not what evil shall be on the earth."

Another favorite passage of mine is Luke 6:38, in which the Good Shepherd tells us:

Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.

These two passages were written several hundred years apart, one by the son of King David (a man after God's own heart), the other by the Good Shepherd, who is Jesus, or Emanuel (God with us).  So not only are these some of my favorite passages, but they relate to each other and complement each other even though authored by two different persons who were separated by several generations.  Both scriptures teach us the same message.  Both scriptures call on the believer to have a little faith, as well.

If you go to the water and cast in it your bread, or the grain seeds that you would have planted to harvest and then make your bread, what usually happens?  When I read Ecclesiastes 11:1 for some reason I have always pictured a man standing beside the seashore.  But I suppose any water will do, such as a river, a creek, or even just a small "fishing hole" on someone's farm.  Whether you cast your bread into the sea or into the lowliest stock tank, what happens?  The bread will float for just a minute, but soon is soaked with water and disappears beneath the surface.  If there are fish in the stock tank, however, the bread will not have time to sink.  Hungry little creatures will eat it all before the crust is even waterlogged.  Same thing on the sea.  Lots of hungry fish and birds will eat the bread or the seed before it has even soaked up any water.  But even if no fish or birds consume the bread, and it slowly sinks into the depths, the person who cast the bread onto the water has taken a risk.  He could have kept the bread and ate it rather than sending it to who knows where to be used by who knows whom.

But what does King Solomon, the wisest man ever to live on earth, tell us about the bread? He says we will see it again after many days!  If you think about bread that has been reduced to a mushy paste by the water and then eaten by fish, common sense tells you that you have seen the last of that bread.  Will it really return to you after "many days?"  This is where your faith comes in.  King Solomon said the bread would return but it might be a long time before this happens.  It could be literally many days, or it could be many years later, which is still "many days."  But the point is to be generous with what you have, and in "many days" you will be blessed yourself.  A person of faith would be willing to share his food or other blessings with "seven, even eight."  And we are asked to share a portion.  I do not force anyone to accept my own understanding of this passage, but I believe that the idea of sharing a "portion" is being generous, not giving only a small amount with a grudging spirit. 

I have to admit that many times I have "shared" my wealth by dropping a few coins into the Salvation Army collection pot or giving a dollar to a "transient."  The "Preacher" tells us to cast our bread upon the water, but in the second verse he tells us to give "a portion."  I take that to mean that he wants us to give an amount that would be helpful to us if we were on the "receiving end."  Again, this is MY understanding, and I do not force this meaning on anyone.  In any case, it becomes a matter of faith to believe that even if we give away "seven, even eight" portions, we ourselves will not only still have enough, but we will receive even greater blessings as well.  But, how can I be sure of this?

In Luke 6:38, the Good Shepherd tells us "Give, and it shall be given to you..." This tells us once again that we should give to help others, and we should know by faith that good things will be given to us.  It is the same thing King Solomon said, that "thou shalt find it after many days."  But the Good Shepherd makes it clear that by giving generously we shall receive "a good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom."  There were cheaters in those days, just as now, so occasionally when people of that era went "shopping" and bought flour, seeds, or other bulky fare, the sellers were not always careful to see that the customer got a "good measure." 

When someone bought flour, the less-than-scrupulous seller would simply fill the customer's vessel then send the customer on his way.  But the customer soon found that the contents of the vessel had settled.  Instead of a full measure, a "good measure" of flour, the customer received only a half to two thirds of what he had paid for.  More honorable merchants made sure that the "measures" were "pressed down and shaken together."  This kind of measurement gave the customer a full order.  Some merchants found that it was "good business" to let the measure run over a little.  Yes, they lost a little profit, but insured that the buyer would return many times to get that "good measure."

The Good Shepherd taught us to give by giving his life for us.  What greater gift, what bigger measure could there have been?  By His example, the Good Shepherd taught us to give generously.  But to make it plain, He tells us in Luke 6:38 "For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again."  We should give out of our generosity and our love, our faith, not because we expect a reward.  But, we are reminded too that with the "same measure" we give "it shall be measured to you again."  So give generously, in faith and love, not in judgment and with fear that you will not have enough later.  When you give in faith, that is to "cast your bread upon the water," you have no guarantee 1) when you will be rewarded for your giving; 2) what the results of your giving will be; and 3) if the person (or organization) to whom you are giving is really "worthy" of your gift. But those are really not our concern in giving.  King Solomon and The Good Shepherd tell us to give generously, and we will be blessed "after many days" and in "good measure."  That is what we need to know.

God bless you.