In Defense of Whitey Bulger

         It is unlikely that Vercingetorix in chains before the Capitol caused a greater stir among the populace of ancient Rome than did the return of Whitey Bulger in handcuffs among the populace of Boston.

            The Hiroshima of publicity unleashed by this story and the “legs” it continues to show (whenever Whitey burps it is front page news) contain a solution to the nettlesome problem of how to provide for the legal defense of a man who made millions running a sordid criminal enterprise but now claims to be indigent. Taxpayers understandably resent underwriting the defense of a man whose criminal activity they regard as particularly obnoxious, even for gangsters.

            What to do?

            Step one: Those involved should think sensibly and creatively, like American citizens, rather than blindly and legalistically, like American lawyers.

            Step two: Jettison the idea of court-appointed counsel. A defendant as intelligent as Whitey in a case this big with a story this notorious should be permitted to choose and required to pay for his own counsel.

            Step three: Don’t appoint a lawyer, but do appoint a business agent for Whitey, someone who specializes in the negotiation of book, movie, and television deals and whose fee is pegged to the amount of money he secures.  

            Step four: Invite every impresario in Hollywood, television, and publishing to submit bids for the exclusive rights to The Whitey Bulger Story, the non-fictionalized version of which will be far more riveting than anything chronicled by Martin Scorcese in “The Departed”. When the ensuing bidding war is over, I suspect that the final negotiated number will run well into the mid nine figures. 

            Step five: Establish the “Whitey Bulger Charitable Trust” for the benefit of all victims and their families savaged by the depredations of Bulger and Flemmi, similar to the trust set up for the victims of 9/11. Appoint three professional co-trustees to manage the trust corpus and a panel of three lawyers to adjudicate the claims. As public servants they should agree to work for a modest fee in the interests of the common good. The money from all movie, TV, book, and magazine rights will be paid directly into the trust, never passing through Whitey’s hands. That fact alone will be the first phase of punishment for a man accustomed to handling millions of dollars in cash. 

            Step six: Once the trust is funded, permit Whitey to select his own defense team, whose hourly rates he of all people is well-equipped to negotiate and which will be paid for by the trustees out of trust property

            This approach has advantages that are at once practical, symmetrical, and sublime.

            The use of private enterprise rather than public largesse should remove Whitey’s defense from the sometimes-constraining provisions of the Criminal Justice Act (if it does not, then Congress needs to amend the CJA, pronto). This solution also eliminates the skirmishing currently underway between prosecutors and court-appointed counsel on the subject of Bulger’s indigence. Moreover, Whitey, and not some federal judge, gets to select his own lawyers, thus depriving him of a claim on appeal that his allergic reaction to an ineffective, court-appointed “dream team” hampered him in the preparation and presentation of his defense. Further, already hard-pressed American taxpayers will be freed from the additional burden of seeing their money go toward the defense of a man whose activities they regard as particularly obnoxious. Further still, immediately monetizing the Whitey Bulger Story in this way not only sells it “at the high” but also insures that those who have been most victimized by the Whitey narrative - namely, the victims and their families rather than the lawyers or Whitey himself  - will emerge as its principal beneficiaries, a nice vindication of the iron rule of symmetry that what goes around finally comes around.

            Lastly, and most sublimely, this solution makes it possible (although not guaranteed) that on the day he looks his Maker in the eye, a remorseful Whitey Bulger will proffer as his final defense the atoning plea of Samuel Johnson: “… that I who have trifled till diligence is necessary, might yet hold myself superior to multitudes who have trifled till diligence is vain.” 

            If Whitey can pull that last one off, then he will have died as he had lived, for he will have stolen Paradise.

Il Pomperoso

Everyone seems to be jumping on the Whitey Bulger publicity bandwagon.

The latest example: yesterday's Boston Globe puff piece on U. S. District Court Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf (the judge presiding over the preliminary proceedings involving Whitey), a story that should not have been published until such time as it is appropriate to nominate Judge Wolf for sainthood:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/06/28/bulger_case_puts_focus_on_judges_record_temperament/
  

On reflection, it is difficult to say what is more disturbing : the non-stop pomposity of the judge himself, or the fawning obsequiousness of those few members of the bar who could be found to say something nice about this most self-regarding of jurists. (The attitude of smugness and contrived dignity evoked by the photo of the oil portrait of the judge that accompanied the story speaks volumes - as does Judge Wolf, whenever he is given the opportunity).

Too young to the bench and lacking in vital trial experience upon his arrival (the only case I associate with Wolf the lawyer was his lead role in the prosecution of Senator Vincent Piro, in which he and Dan Small were thoroughly outgunned by Bob Popeo, with the result that Vinnie got the street), Judge Wolf compensated for his inadequacies and insecurities as a trial lawyer by imposing upon practitioners who appeared before him a daunting regimen of unnecessary, time consuming, and costly pre-trial protocols.

As if that were not enough, he brought to the bench the personality of a damp toilet seat and a propensity, indeed an eagerness, to bludgeon those appearing before him who did not conform to his caprice.

The effect of all this was that it became too expensive, economically and psychologically, to try cases in his courtroom, and as a result a whole class of individual litigants of modest means were effectively denied their right to have their cases heard in federal court. (There are some who contend that this was all by design, so that he wouldn’t have to make rulings that might be tipped on appeal.)

While the article only hints at this, the real truth is that Judge Wolf's reputation for arrogance, bullying, and intergalactic pomposity is so well established that it has become a thing of legend among lawyers who have had the misfortune to practice before him.

What is far less established is his reputation for doing justice.

If the Globe reporter really desired to get at the truth rather than to concoct a formulaic Globe puff piece, he might have spoken to some members of the bar (such as Assistant U.S. Attorneys) whom Judge Wolf has gone out of his way needlessly to humiliate. Or else he might have investigated some of the cases whose records Judge Wolf has unaccountably sealed, or sealed without adequate explanation.

One test of a fair judge is that weak litigants with strong claims are accorded at least as much courtesy and opportunity to have their causes heard fairly as powerful litigants with weak claims. I am not certain that Judge Wolf passes this test.

I don’t as a general rule support the election of judges, but this is one jurist who could serve as the poster child for that initiative.

The Brother of Vercingetorix

I doubt that the capture and return of Vercingetorix in chains to the Capitol caused a greater stir among the populace of Rome than that caused among the populace of Boston by the capture and return of Whitey Bulger to the Hub.

What has interested me as much as all the riveting talk about Whitey's criminality is all the loose talk about the purported criminality of his brother, former Senate President William Bulger.

People on the Left and Right may have (in ascending order of importance) legitimate stylistic, programmatic, ideological, and metaphysical differences with the manner in which Bill Bulger acquitted himself in public life. 

But as someone who knows him and has followed for some time his public career, I am unaware of any activity traceable to Bill Bulger that could even remotely be described as criminal. 

Tough? Yes. Vindictive? Maybe. Corrupt? Never. 

If anybody out there has actual evidence of Bill Bulger's corruption or criminality, then let him adduce it or else forever spare us the unseemly innuendo.

My sense is that most of the defamatory chatter directed at the brother of Vercingetorix originates either from so-called "progressives" or self-styled Republicans, two categories of people whom I should have thought would fastidiously avoid the sin of imputing guilt by association. After all, was not associative guilt the essence of McCarthyism, an "ism" (unlike Communism or Marxism) that "progressives" are meant to hate? And is not guilt by association a technique routinely deployed by the democrat partisans at the Globe to marginalize Republican champions?

Look. Bill Bulger has been under an investigative microscope for his entire public life. Had any evidence of criminality or corruption been uncovered, I doubt that it would have escaped the exploitation of grandstanding prosecutors (of which there have been no shortage in my lifetime) or blindly ambitious reporters (again, no dearth). The fact is that Bill Bulger has never been charged with, much less convicted of, a crime, other than that of being conservative on social issues (anti-forced busing, pro-life, anti "gay marriage", etc.).

Given all this, is it really fair,  for such as Howie Carr and others, no matter how much they might disagree with Bill Bulger's politics or style, to describe him (as opposed to his brother Whitey) as being criminal or corrupt? 

Is it too much to ask that amidst all the hysteria surrounding Whitey, the sins of one brother not be visited upon the other? 

But, it is contended, Bill Bulger's corruption and criminality was proven when he did not do more to assist the FBI in the apprehension of his brother.

Not so fast.

Is it logical that those so critical of the strategy that made Whitey an FBI informant should now be critical of Bill for refusing to become one?   

That view seems especially nutty in circumstances where, as here, Whitey may have been the first criminal in history to be simultaneously in the FBI's witness protection program and also on its Ten Most Wanted List. 

Simply put, Bill Bulger had taken no oath as a law enforcement official. As such, while he could not legally harbor his brother, he was under no legal obligation to assist law enforcement in his brother's apprehension. He should suffer no prejudice for his refusal to do so.  

Only totalitarian regimes, and liberals, routinely countenance such intrusions into that delicate and personal area of family relations and loyalties. 

All Gay, All The Time

Why is it that every time that the topic of homosexuality is taken up by the Boston Globe or The New York Times (as it seems to be these days with tiresome frequency), I feel as though I am treading water in the shallow end of the intellectual swimming pool? 


And why is it that when the subject is addressed within the context of Catholic teaching (as it is in the latest string of articles in the Boston Globe concerning the "All Are Welcome" theme of St. Cecelia's Church in the Back Bay), I then really feel as though I am being left high and dry?


An example is yesterday's above-the-fold front page article entitled "Worship In The Face Of Rejection": "http://www.boston.com/yourtown/boston/southend/articles/2011/06/27/gay_catholics_find_community_despite_hurtful_words_from_rome/?plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:78daaf17-a931-46a3-aa88-99f3e09f5eb3

Look. The doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church are nourished and supported by a root system that is intellectually and metaphysically rich and compassionate. Far from imposing blind obedience, the Church invites, indeed encourages, all to explore the “Why” as well as the “What” of Catholic teaching. (If only more of those critical of the Church - particularly the Catholic ones - would accept the invitation to do so in good faith.)

Nevertheless, “at the end of the day” (as the Great Phrasemaker, Charlie Baker, might say), the Roman Catholic Church is not a debating society. Nor does it offer as doctrine that which is merely opinion, particularly the easy and popular opinion of men.

How much easier for everybody were it to do so! Then we Catholics could all do just as we pleased. Gays could marry in the Church. Women could be ordained. Priests could marry. Members of NAMBLA could marry too! Best of all, ignorant, bigoted posters wouldn’t call us names like “poopie face”. Hey, we married people might even be able to get away with adultery every now and then, so long as we were “tolerant”, loving, non-judgmental, and “not hurtful.” And, if nothing else worked, given our capacity for self-deception in our own cases, I am sure that all sorts of currently proscribed conduct – theft, lying, cheating, slander, even murder - could be justified by the rationale that the ends justify the means.

But the Church doesn’t offer believers the easy opinions of men. It offers the hard standards of revealed truth. And it is for everyone; even for those who don’t think it is.

The Seas Befouled: Too Much Government, Too Many "Good" People Not Saying "No"

         In the early 1960s, the Tribunes of the People on Beacon Hill set up the so-called Massachusetts Crime Commission, a seven (7) - member board appointed by the Governor whose duties included investigating corruption in state government and preparing an annual report to the legislature.

         In one of those reports, the Commission declaimed as follows: “... this realistic acceptance by normally honest individuals of the pattern in which, it is said, business with the state has to be done, have been major contributions to corruption."

         The recent news cycle has provided two stunning examples of how the willingness of otherwise “normally honest people" to “go along to get along" facilitates the "Hi, How wah ya" climate of corruption in this Commonwealth. 

         The first example emerged from the trial and conviction of Former House Speaker Sal DiMasi when it was disclosed that the Massachusetts Department of Education (talk about too much government!) entered into not one but two contracts with an Ontario-based entity, Cognos Inc., to purchase $17.5M worth of "performance management software."

         The Cognos deal didn’t pass the smell test to the point where even liberal democrats complained. Both Governor Patrick and his then Secretary of Administration and Finance (now Harvard Dean) Leslie ("she can hold her head high") Kirwan initially "pushed back" and questioned the need for it at a time when taxpayers everywhere were struggling and when public sector budgets were (or should have been) shrinking. But at the end of the day (to quote the Great Phrasemaker, Charlie Baker), the banana-backboned Patrick and Kirwan both signed off on the Cognos deal when they decided that acquiescence to pressure from the Speaker's office was the price of improved relations with DiMasi. 

         We now know that Team Patrick's initial instincts were right: $13.5M of the Cognos contract was eventually rescinded, thus confirming that the deal was not at all critical or necessary for the education of "the children". 

         But the test of good government, like the test of statesmanship, is evaluation before the event.

         The score: Crooks 1; "Normally honest people”: 0

         The second example came in the recent disclosures by the Commonwealth's Inspector General that one John B. Barranco, a career education bureaucrat and "executive director" of something called the "Merrimack Education Center" (whatever that is), had for more than a decade fleeced something called the “Merrimack Special Education Collaborative” (whatever that is) out of approximately $10M. The "Education Center" had apparently routinely presented bills to the "Collaborative" (that the "Collaborative" had unquestioningly and routinely paid) for such items as lavish trips, parties, meals at expensive restaurants, overnights at pricey hotels, flowers, princely salaries for Barranco and his girlfriend (natch), partridges in pear trees, and just about every other hot and cold running perquisite known to man (and some women). The ten (10)-member Board of Directors of the "Collaborative" (each one an education bureaucrat) that should have been making the tackle on these expenditures, was instead a lusty beneficiary of the largesse (which might explain its willingness to OK the items), in yet another example of a Board being bought off with corporate gravy by the managers they are supposed to be overseeing.

         O Tempora! O Mores!

         Now it is easy to sit back and criticize the venalities of such as Sal DiMasi and John Barranco. But why didn’t the “normally honest people” who rubbed up against them put a stop to their activity when they had the chance?

         One answer: because of that solidly bourgeois compulsion to seek popularity and the esteem of others and, above all else, not to be seen as difficult, prickly, or disagreeable. 

          And this is not always a bad thing. Companionability, the desire to please, and good manners are, after all, the lubricants of polite society.

         But in these days especially the art of government and the common good is too serious a business to be left to the sweet and ineffectual ministrations of glad-handing "yes" men. The financial crisis that looms over this Commonwealth requires roto rooters and SOBs, men and women who are good butchers and who have the viscera to say “No”. In short, public servants rather than self servants, who, in the words of the former head of Balliol College, "never apologize, never explain, get it done, and let them (the special interests) howl." 

In Re: Richard W. McDonough

Today's Boston Globe reports on the case of convicted felon Richard W. McDonough (of the Dorchester McDonoughs?). It appears that McDonough, while working in the DPS (Dreaded Private Sector) as a million-dollar-a-year lobbyist (natch) fixing deals like the Cognos software contract for convicted former Speaker DiMasi, was also on the public payroll holding down a no-show job as "director of pubic affairs and government relations" (lots of hard skills needed there) at something called the Merrimack Education Collaborative (just the name sounds sketchy).  


Records show that while an employee of the "Education Collaborative", McDonough had no desk, no phone, no secretary, and no work product. What he did have was Cadillac health care, a big salary, a big pension ($30k+ per year) and, from the photo of him, big hair and a big gut. 


Need I write more?


The number of parasites like McDonough feeding off the system of corrupt one-party rule that, along with electing members of the Kennedy Family, has been a principal feature of Massachusetts politics since the 1950s, must run into the tens of thousands. 


The situation has now gotten so bad that even the Globe is complaining.   


A thorough house cleaning from top to bottom is long overdue on Beacon Hill, but what should be the hallmark of this reform? 


Answer: a reform that is radical, not merely incremental; a reform that seeks not merely the reduction in size of wasteful and unnecessary state agencies but also their complete elimination. No half measures. "Out by the roots."  The encrustations of government should be treated as weeds in a garden.    

Were I governor, I'd do it this way: (1) start by building a fence around Boston Common with one locked gate; (2) order everyone working in state government to report inside the fence on Monday morning; (3) begin the administration of government and, if, as, and when I needed assistance (say, a secretary, a cabinet member, or ha, ha, a "Governor's Councillor") I would pick a person from inside the fence; (4) everyone still inside the fence at 5:00 P. M. on Friday would receive a thank you and a pink slip, but no pension. It's public service, don't you know?

Let's face it, people, at least fifty per cent of state government is largely a welfare system for the middle class, filled with make-work and/or no-show jobs manned by political hacks or those connected or related to them.

The Tribunes of the People in the Massachusetts Legislature could set a good civic example for the rest of state government by making de jure what is de facto (and thus bringing Massachusetts into line with many other states): make the legislature a part-time job (these clowns already only work part time anyway), with a proportionate diminution in salary, staff, perks, pensions, and benefits.


I have written extensively concerning the merits of a part-time legislature; those interested in reading more may wish to start with my Op-Ed Piece in the Lowell Sun that ran last year (the Boston Globe declined to run it):   


http://www.allbusiness.com/government/government-bodies-offices-legislative/14897893-1.html

"Pro-Life" "Mitt" Won't Sign "It"

The apples don't fall far from the tree.

According to a story in today's Boston Globe, "Mitt" Romney, the purported "front runner" in the race for the Republican Presidential nomination, has refused to sign an anti-abortion pledge that five other GOP contenders support, even as he maintains that he is "firmly pro-life".  

To anyone old enough to remember the very well-funded but ineffectual Presidential Campaign run by "Mitt's" father George back in 1968 (or, I might add, Mitt's own equally well-funded but equally ineffectual campaign for Senate against the late Senator Kennedy), this latest episode of "Mitt's" fecklessness merely confirms that the DNA of the Romney Family is set permanently within the "sex and money" wing of the Republican Party.

I do not know the formula for greatness and success in national politics; but I do know the formula for mediocrity and failure: have no enduring principles. Because "Mitt" is a waffler and doesn't permanently stand for anything, he will fall for everything. And while this fatal flaw didn't catch up to him as Governor of Massachusetts, it will consign him to failure in the great electoral struggle that is played out on the larger canvass of American Presidential politics.

In the present and approaching crises, it is no answer for his supporters to say that "Mitt" is "good at business" or that he is preferable to the current Community-Organizer-In-Chief (now The Great-Golfer-In-Chief). Most Republican Presidential hopefuls meet the former test; all satisfy the latter.

No. GQ good looks, nice hair, money, intergalactic ambition, the opinion of the comfortable and the respectable, even business acumen and an MBA from Harvard Business School matter far less than high ideals, the willingness to endure hardship, solidarity with one's suffering countrymen, and the guts to adhere to noble principles even though the water is cold and deep.

The tergiversating, silver-spooned "Mitt" lacks these to the same degree that his Grosse Point Farms, Fortune 500 father George lacked them. As a result, he faces the same fate.

Conservatives seeking real change have much better choices than pretty boy "Mitt" at this stage of the campaign.

The Jay Report on the Clergy Sex Scandal

History will record as one of the paradoxes of modern journalism the fact that the Boston Globe, which continues to do so much to advance the homosexual agenda and challenge Catholic teaching, was among the first to uncover the recent clergy sex scandal, and, in so doing, render the Church a great service.

The apparent dichotomy cannot be resolved by the facile contention that the scandal involved child abuse rather than homosexuality.

The Jay College of Criminal Justice Report (http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/) documented conclusively that, at least with respect to the American clergy, (i) nearly 80% of clerical abuse cases involved not the violation of children but rather the violation of pubescent and post-pubescent adolescents, (ii) that the problem is overwhelmingly a male-on-male problem - 81% of all victims were male, and (iii) that by far the largest category of victims (over 40%) were males between the ages of 11 and 14.

Put another way, by far the most numerous, as well as the most serious, cases of abuse involved homosexual men wearing Roman collars preying upon post pubescent males. This is the dirty little secret that certain powerful lobbies, aided and abetted by their allies in the media, don’t want you to know about.

I am not for gay bashing, nor is anyone with whom I consort. But I am equally opposed to truth bashing.

Catholic Church and Homosexuality

The Boston Globe reports today that St. Cecelia's Catholic Church in Boston has rescheduled to July 10 an "All Are Welcome" Mass celebrating "Gay Pride Month", following objections to an earlier-scheduled Mass from "conservative" Catholics:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/06/20/mass_to_mark_gay_pride_month_is_rescheduled/

Why is it that anytime the topic of homosexuality and the Catholic Church is taken up by the Globe, I always feel as though I am swimming in the shallow end of the intellectual pool?

Is it because the all-gay, all-the-time, vertically integrated (from reporters to editors) homo-promo bias of this newspaper requires a bete noire and allows no opportunity for nuanced truth, the signature of Catholic teaching?

As an antidote to Globe reportage, I commend to all the thoughtful, well-articulated, 7:41 AM post of aidan01 (nice work, aidan01, as usual).

I would only add my wish that all combatants in this theater of the cultural wars (especially those honest partisans on the Left who blindly assail the RCC) take the time to familiarize themselves with the metaphysically rich and compassionate teachings of the Church on the subject of homosexuality, so wisely and clearly presented in the Catechism of the Catholic Church referred to in aidan01’s post.

You will not find in them affirmation of the homosexual lifestyle, anymore than you will find justification for any other disordered lifestyle. You will find something greater and more sublime. You will find:

That the Catholic Church is not a mausoleum for saints, but rather a hospital for sinners, and that we are all wounded;

That Catholic moral analysis always recognizes that truth and charity are each important virtues, and that the one should never act as an impediment to the other;

That Catholic moral analysis differentiates between the act and the person, shining the light of truth on the former, while never judging the latter;

That Catholic moral analysis proceeds from the fact that if the only person on earth had been homosexual, Christ would have shed the last drop of His blood for that person; from which it follows

That while the Church canonizes saints, it never anathematizes sinners, believing that Christ in His great mercy will always play the last card on every person.

Hate that if you must. But at least be clear on what you are hating.

New Bill To Permit Fireworks In Mass

State Representative Robert Bastien of Gardner (formerly the furniture capital of America, now a ghost town) has introduced a bill that would repeal the current law (one of only four in the country) that bans serf-citizens of Massachusetts from purchasing (and setting off) fireworks on the Fourth of July. For the uninitiated, that's the day many Americans traditionally resort to fireworks to celebrate the hard-won freedoms attained by our ancestors against the British using real guns and cannon that went "boom-boom".

The Bill of Representative Bastien (R., Ghost Town) is opposed by State Fire Marshall Coan (natch), plus the usual collection of safety-obsessed, scaredy-cat, lifestyle-nag leftists whose dweeb kids wear bicycle helmets and kneepads when they play dolls, and safety harnesses and cups when they go to the bathroom.

The bill to decriminalize fireworks is a step in the right direction, it's principal flaw being that it would also require the serf-citizen who wishes to display his patriotism with fireworks to cough up a yet another goddam "permitting fee" to the local city or town. (That's not progress.)

Look. Isn't the whole point that we are all sick and tired of incompetent, expensive, nanny-state government here in Massachusetts, the land where everything that is not illegal is compulsory?

The opposition to the Bill of Bastien by Poor Fire Marshall Coan (one step removed from the back of a ladder truck himself) is merely the nonsense of the public sector drone who seeks control over others in the name of "safety".

As for the rest, I challenge any citizen to take a stroll through the State House on a normal "working" day on Beacon Hill and then conclude that the "job" of state legislator shouldn't be made part-time, with a proportionate diminution in salary, perks, pensions, and benefits.

The DiMasi Conviction

The conviction Sal DiMasi, the ex-Democrat (natch) Speaker of the Massachusetts House, raises questions that transcend the guilt or innocence of one man.

One principal question that every Massachusetts citizen/taxpayer should be asking is this: Why was it necessary for the Commonwealth to enter into two contracts with Cognos to supply $17.5M worth of "performance management software" for the Mass Department of Education at a time when taxpayers everywhere are struggling and when public sector budgets are (or should be) shrinking?

This type of superfluous, irresponsible, expenditure is endemic to government. Apart from its utter wastefulness, it furnishes the nutrient broth that nourishes and sustains the culture of corruption flourishing in the putrid Petri dish that is Beacon Hill politics.

Consider: If the damn Cognos software were so vitally important, why was $13.5M of the contract rescinded? If the damn Cognos software were so critical to the mission of education of children, why did even the banana-backboned, now-Harvard Dean Leslie ("she can hold her head high") Kirwan "push back" and only reluctantly authorize it after serious arm twisting from DiMasi's Office? Harvard Dean's will always hold their heads high, but Kirwan shouldn't. She caved.

I guarantee every citizen of Massachusetts that the Cognos software had absolutely nothing to do with teaching our kids, but everything to do with the counter-productive impulses of "data mining" and control, which are the province of state education bureaucrats.

In the final analysis, the messages emerging from the DiMasi affair are not about one man's financial desperation and venality but about government excess and the need to reduce drastically the reach and scope of the public sector.

Happy Birthday Sam!

No. I am not a Democrat Member of Congress. I am just a proud (although occasionally sketchy) grandpa who wishes to present his compliments to Sam on Birthday No. 1!!

First Things First: Congratulations Bruins!!

Well done, Bruins!

Let us begin with the macro, and proceed to the micro.

To attain preeminence in his sport, no professional athlete pays a greater price in blood, sweat, and tears than does a member of the winning Stanley Cup team.

None is required to exhibit such a combination of mental and physical toughness, upper and lower body athleticism, pain tolerance, and team play through such a prolonged regular and post-season schedule.

One can find professional baseball, basketball, and soccer players who have the heart of warriors. But these are not "helmeted sports", and the requirement of sustained, violent, physical contact is simply not integral to them. Professional lacrosse is a helmeted sport, but in its infancy. Professional football players are warriors, but the regular NFL season is only sixteen (16) games long, the playoffs around four (4) games, players have a week to recover between games, and the actual time spent running a play on the field is always a small fraction - around eleven (11) minutes - of the sixty (60)-minute game.

By contrast, the Stanley Cup Champion must endure an eighty-two (82)-game regular season schedule of sixty (60)-minute games in which the play is continuous and the shifts are generally intense. There then follows the even more amped-up playoffs, where, to prevail as the Bruins did, a team must triumph in four (4) consecutive best of seven (7) series over opponents who are themselves leaving it all on the ice.

Simply put, the NHL season and playoffs are like the Bataan Death March on ice, and by the end of it everyone is playing hurt, giving new meaning to Vince Lombardi's admonition: "You play with the little hurts."

There are great people in all sports, but in my experience professional hockey players are the lowest paid, least spoiled, most humble, toughest, and by far the most approachable of all professional athletes. They also spend the most time (if not the most dollars - the easiest thing is to write a check) in charitable work. Why? One reason may be that the ethos of the NHL is still rural Canada: simple, honest, tough, hard-working, and true.

Shouldn't this great assembly of real warriors have someone other than Commissioner Gary Bettman to preside over them?

Now to the micro:

History was certainly made.

And the history of this fabulous championship series between Boston and Vancouver will record that the blind-side hit to the head by Rome on Horton early in period #1 of Game 3 in Boston was the turning point. (And to you defenders of the indefensible: don't give me that nonsense about Horton having his head down (he didn't; even if he had, that is no defense to a blind-side head shot - read Rule 48).

This incident galvanized the Bruins. It gave them an important emotional focal point. Equally important, it deflated and took the edge off many of the good guys on the Vancouver team (they are not all cheap shot artists like Lapierre, Torres, Burrows, and Hansen) who could not have felt good about what Rome did. Also, the subsequent, eminently justified suspension of Rome hurt a team whose ranks of defensemen were already thin.

Lastly, history will also record that at a time when (i) arguably the #1 player in the game (Crosby) was sidelined (since January 5th) with a concussive head injury, (ii) more and more elite players are seeing their careers ended or foreshortened by these types of injuries, and (iii) the long and short-term damage from concussions is understood even by the NFL, the lightly-equipped gentlemen who run the NHL (Bettman, Murphy, et al.) still don't get it.

Example: in meting out the four (4)-game suspension to Rome for his indefensible hit to the head on Horton, the NHL nabobs (the same people who days earlier had claimed that there was no conclusive evidence that Burrows had bitten Bergeron!) based their decision solely on two factors: the lateness of the hit and the severity of Horton’s injury. They spoke about not leaving your feet vs. leaving your feet, about elbows vs. shoulders, about north-south vs. east-west hits (and northeast vs. southwest, and southeast vs. northwest checks), but they totally ignored the real problem: it's the head, stupid!

Simply put, the NHL needs the same policy regarding hits to the head as it has regarding hits from behind: zero tolerance. Be not afraid, NHL. The eradication of head-hunting will enhance, not diminish, the raw beauty of this great game. And the remedy is not complicated. The mechanism for enforcement already exists in Rule 48, that outlaws blind-side hits to the head. It need only be amended over the summer to outlaw ALL hits to the head.

And while the NHL is in the amendment mode, it should reshuffle its bumbling front office over the summer too, beginning with the feckless Gary Bettman.