Question: At what age does age discrimination become age discrimination?
This is a question that has been plaguing shopping malls across the nation as they try to recapture control of their shopping areas from hoodlums who have turned malls into gang hangouts.
One such mall is the Lansing Mall.
In recent years gangs had a major presence there; shopping could get dangerous in and around the mall. Juvenile crime was hurting shoppers and retailers alike.
A few years ago the Lansing Mall underwent a major remodeling/face-lift and the management cracked down on troublemakers by bringing in security companies and law enforcement. The atmosphere has greatly improved, the mall looks great and shoppers (old and new) have come to the mall in greater numbers year after year.
One of the things that the mall did was institute a rule banning loitering on mall property by teens and children.
Lansing State Journal (LSJ) columnist John Schneider, who has exposed several major Lansing-area scandals this year (and is an excellent writer), wrote in his Thursday column that four girls (ages 11-15) were walking around the mall to spend several hundred dollars worth of gift cards that they had gotten for Christmas.
They were approached by a security guard and asked to leave the mall for doing "more loitering than buying."
Schneider wrote in today's column in the LSJ that dozens of e-mails and phone calls had come in from readers who were fired up about the incident. Some have come down hard on the mall policy as age discrimination; others came down hard on the girls' parents for dropping them off in the first place; yet others came to the mall's defense.
It's my turn.
The Lansing Mall management should be complimented for getting control of the dangerous climate that existed there previously. Getting the drugs and weapons out of there (along with their owners) has indeed made it safer for shoppers.
Errors were definitely made: the parents screwed up, the security guard didn't handle this right due to his not distinguishing between four girls who were slowly making their way around the mall and gang hoodlums who were in there looking for trouble, and the management of the Lansing Mall should have realized that not all teens are troublemakers. One solution doesn't fit every problem.
It's very unfortunate that this had to happen.
Friday, December 30, 2005
Katrina Causes 2,000 Gulf Coast Sex Offenders to Vanish
Law enforcement officials in Katrina-hit areas of the Gulf Coast are asking for help in locating 2,000 registered sex offenders who are no longer where they are supposed to be.
It is believed that many fled as the monster hurricane approached the coastline and were sent to states that took in Katrina evacuees, including Michigan.
Most have failed to register their whereabouts as they are required to by law. Officials are worried that these people will be more willing to strike again since they are no longer under supervision of the state that they were from.
FEMA has sent out a warning message to all fifty state governors apprising them of the situation and encouraging them to do what they can to locate the missing 2,000 offenders.
Hopefully this situation will be corrected soon.
It is believed that many fled as the monster hurricane approached the coastline and were sent to states that took in Katrina evacuees, including Michigan.
Most have failed to register their whereabouts as they are required to by law. Officials are worried that these people will be more willing to strike again since they are no longer under supervision of the state that they were from.
FEMA has sent out a warning message to all fifty state governors apprising them of the situation and encouraging them to do what they can to locate the missing 2,000 offenders.
Hopefully this situation will be corrected soon.
Thursday, December 29, 2005
CIA Considering Disciplinary Action for 9/11 Failures: Cover-Up Continues
The CIA is considering disciplining agents and officials for the failure to detect and stop 9/11 from happening.
In the end, it doesn't matter what the CIA does. The full story of 9/11 is still untold and the CIA's attempt to place blame is designed to bury the story.
Why is the full story of the events leading up to 9/11 not yet known?
Because Able Danger hasn't been explained fully yet; those who were asked to testify before Congress were denied permission by the military to do so.
This refusal to allow members of Able Danger to testify leads one to several possible conclusions:
We shouldn't stand for this.
In the end, it doesn't matter what the CIA does. The full story of 9/11 is still untold and the CIA's attempt to place blame is designed to bury the story.
Why is the full story of the events leading up to 9/11 not yet known?
Because Able Danger hasn't been explained fully yet; those who were asked to testify before Congress were denied permission by the military to do so.
This refusal to allow members of Able Danger to testify leads one to several possible conclusions:
- The military did know about one of the cells that launched the 9/11 attacks but did nothing to stop it.
- Able Danger broke the law and learned of the 9/11 operation.
- Able Danger is an ongoing military operation.
- The military doesn't want its' sources to be compromised.
We shouldn't stand for this.
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Canada Blames U.S. for CANADIAN Failure to Stop Guns From Coming into Canada
Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin blamed the U.S. for exporting violence into Canada via lax gun control laws, following a shooting in Toronto which left a fifteen-year-old girl dead and six other people wounded the day after Christmas.
Forgive the question, but isn't Canada in charge of securing it's own borders?
They need to take responsibility for their own failures and quit blaming the U.S. for Canadian social ills. Canada should address it's problem by better policing and doing a better job of running their side of the border. If that means searching every vehicle that comes across from the U.S. side, then so be it.
This story is a politician's way of dodging the problem.
Forgive the question, but isn't Canada in charge of securing it's own borders?
They need to take responsibility for their own failures and quit blaming the U.S. for Canadian social ills. Canada should address it's problem by better policing and doing a better job of running their side of the border. If that means searching every vehicle that comes across from the U.S. side, then so be it.
This story is a politician's way of dodging the problem.
Patriot Act Reconsidered: Change of Opinion
After studying the USA Patriot Act for the last year and looking at the impact that it's had on the lives on everyday Americans, I have concluded that some of my earlier opinions about the Act were incorrect.
I now think that the Act should be renewed for another two years "as is" with a couple of amendments.
The reasons for this change in position are twofold:
Has anyone checked the calendar to see when was the last time al-Qaeda hit the continental U.S.? It was on 9/11, wasn't it?
Has anyone noticed a change in their day-to-day activities and freedoms because of the Patriot Act?
Muslims might answer 'yes', but what about the 99% of the rest of America? Most would say 'no' unless they're doing something illegal.
Having said that, we should be concerned about the government following the rule of law, so there should be some additions to the Patriot Act that restrict the actions of the government. Namely, ALL wiretaps need to have the permission of a court, OR they need to report it to the court afterwards if it's an emergency (they have to prove to the court that it IS an emergency too). Presidential "authority" to order wiretaps without reporting it to the court should be banned.
The application of the Patriot Act in the cases of people pointing lasers into airline cockpits to blind the pilots was wrong; existing laws carried heavier penalties than the Patriot Act did. Misapplication of the Patriot Act is a problem and that should be addressed by Congress after the New Year.
Finally, they should rename the Act. "Patriot Act" sounds like something to honor patriotic Americans, not stop terrorists.
That's where it stands.
I now think that the Act should be renewed for another two years "as is" with a couple of amendments.
The reasons for this change in position are twofold:
Has anyone checked the calendar to see when was the last time al-Qaeda hit the continental U.S.? It was on 9/11, wasn't it?
Has anyone noticed a change in their day-to-day activities and freedoms because of the Patriot Act?
Muslims might answer 'yes', but what about the 99% of the rest of America? Most would say 'no' unless they're doing something illegal.
Having said that, we should be concerned about the government following the rule of law, so there should be some additions to the Patriot Act that restrict the actions of the government. Namely, ALL wiretaps need to have the permission of a court, OR they need to report it to the court afterwards if it's an emergency (they have to prove to the court that it IS an emergency too). Presidential "authority" to order wiretaps without reporting it to the court should be banned.
The application of the Patriot Act in the cases of people pointing lasers into airline cockpits to blind the pilots was wrong; existing laws carried heavier penalties than the Patriot Act did. Misapplication of the Patriot Act is a problem and that should be addressed by Congress after the New Year.
Finally, they should rename the Act. "Patriot Act" sounds like something to honor patriotic Americans, not stop terrorists.
That's where it stands.
Declaration of Intent: ThunderFerret's Realm in 2006
In 2006, this blog will:
- Fight attempts to ban God from everything.
- Continue to speak out against abortion as opportunities present themselves.
- Continue to speak out against the death penalty.
- Draw attention to injustice in all of its forms.
- Point out policy errors in government.
- Draw attention to the best in people.
- Draw attention to the worst in people.
- Continue to support and criticize our government.
- Criticize attempts to amend the Constitution.
- Criticize those who continue to tout the deeply-flawed Kyoto Accords as the ultimate solve-all to the world's environmental issues.
- Demand that the government follow the rule of law, no matter how inconvenient it is.
- Encourage lawmakers to revise the Patriot Act to protect against abuses and to rename the Act as something else--"Patriot Act" doesn't cut it.
- Encourage the renaming of the Homeland Security Department so it doesn't sound so...foreign.
- Encourage lawmakers to make September 11th as a national day of rememberence with an official label: Rememberance Day or something appropriate.
- Point out hypocrisy coming from government and from public figures and international figures.
- Point out human interest stories.
- Encourage people vote against Hillary in 2008.
- Encourage people to vote incumbants out of office from time to time.
- Point out stupidity in society.
- Promote thinking that will shake up the status quo as it is today. The far left and far right do not represent the entire electorate and they need to be reminded of that.
Sunday, December 25, 2005
Blurring of Battle Lines in Congress are a Sign of Things to Come in 2006
The last few weeks have seen some extraordinary alliances being formed and then broken between conservatives and liberals in both houses of Congress.
It really got started a while back when Republicans in the House of Representatives presented a resolution calling for an immediate termination of military operations in Iraq. Their intent was to force waffling Democrats to take a stand on the war. As the Republicans had anticipated, the measure failed by a very wide margin. It was a pure political move designed to get the Democrats on the record, but something unexpected began to happen.
Consider: in the last two weeks, there has been a tremendous amount of political bloodshed over the Patriot Act, the proposal to open parts of federal lands in Alaska to oil drilling, the defense appropriations bill, hurricane relief bills, a rehash of last year's disasterous transportation bill, and political dogfights over whether this person or that one is waving a white flag of surrender to insurgent terrorists in Iraq. In fact, Senator Murtha tried to alter the political definitions of "insurgent" and "terrorist." That ploy didn't work. In addition, Congress agreed to include a torture ban in the defense spending bill.
Both sides continued to attach amendments (or "riders") that were too weak to stand on their own to major bills; the oil drilling thing was attached to the defense bill. This lead to the defense department's biggest supporters in Congress promising to vote against their own bills.
It's all one huge mess and it will get much worse as election time nears.
It really got started a while back when Republicans in the House of Representatives presented a resolution calling for an immediate termination of military operations in Iraq. Their intent was to force waffling Democrats to take a stand on the war. As the Republicans had anticipated, the measure failed by a very wide margin. It was a pure political move designed to get the Democrats on the record, but something unexpected began to happen.
Consider: in the last two weeks, there has been a tremendous amount of political bloodshed over the Patriot Act, the proposal to open parts of federal lands in Alaska to oil drilling, the defense appropriations bill, hurricane relief bills, a rehash of last year's disasterous transportation bill, and political dogfights over whether this person or that one is waving a white flag of surrender to insurgent terrorists in Iraq. In fact, Senator Murtha tried to alter the political definitions of "insurgent" and "terrorist." That ploy didn't work. In addition, Congress agreed to include a torture ban in the defense spending bill.
Both sides continued to attach amendments (or "riders") that were too weak to stand on their own to major bills; the oil drilling thing was attached to the defense bill. This lead to the defense department's biggest supporters in Congress promising to vote against their own bills.
It's all one huge mess and it will get much worse as election time nears.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
People Develop Immunity to Bird Flu Vaccine, Leaving Them Open to Bird Flu Infection
Oh, great.
The much-vaunted bird flu vaccine (Tamiflu) may be a dud, according to bird flu experts. They said this because two people in Vietnam were given the vaccine after being exposed to bird flu, developed a resistance to the drug, got real sick and died. Both had been given "early and aggressive treatment" which makes this very troubling.
Governments around the world are stockpiling Tamiflu like crazy, but it may have a major problem. The low dosage allows the human body to develop defenses against it, leaving it wide-open to invasion from the bird flu that it is supposed to be warding off with the help of the drug.
If this is true, and there is a planet-wide outbreak of bird flu, we (humanity) are SO screwed. Now is not the time to be going back to the drawing board on this. Let's hope and pray that the experts are wrong.
The much-vaunted bird flu vaccine (Tamiflu) may be a dud, according to bird flu experts. They said this because two people in Vietnam were given the vaccine after being exposed to bird flu, developed a resistance to the drug, got real sick and died. Both had been given "early and aggressive treatment" which makes this very troubling.
Governments around the world are stockpiling Tamiflu like crazy, but it may have a major problem. The low dosage allows the human body to develop defenses against it, leaving it wide-open to invasion from the bird flu that it is supposed to be warding off with the help of the drug.
If this is true, and there is a planet-wide outbreak of bird flu, we (humanity) are SO screwed. Now is not the time to be going back to the drawing board on this. Let's hope and pray that the experts are wrong.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Judge Rules Against Intelligent Design: Is Anyone REALLY Surprised?
A federal judge ruled against a Pennsylvania school district's "intelligent design" biology curriculum today, saying that it violated the Constitution.
Is anyone REALLY surprised that this was the ruling that the federal court came up with?
Intelligent design belongs in a cultures curriculum where it fits in, not in a biology class. Many churches have said this. National debate about the issue is ongoing and it isn't going away soon.
People on the right have to understand that trying to impose a religious belief on the secular world is something that is very dangerous to do and runs the risk of being overturned in court. The artificially created separation of church and state has decades of precident behind it, and, right or wrong, that precident is the one that most federal judges will follow to the letter, as demonstrated today with the 139-page opinion from the court.
So we shouldn't be too surprised when the courts rule like this. And don't expect this argument to go away anytime soon. Here's the story.
Is anyone REALLY surprised that this was the ruling that the federal court came up with?
Intelligent design belongs in a cultures curriculum where it fits in, not in a biology class. Many churches have said this. National debate about the issue is ongoing and it isn't going away soon.
People on the right have to understand that trying to impose a religious belief on the secular world is something that is very dangerous to do and runs the risk of being overturned in court. The artificially created separation of church and state has decades of precident behind it, and, right or wrong, that precident is the one that most federal judges will follow to the letter, as demonstrated today with the 139-page opinion from the court.
So we shouldn't be too surprised when the courts rule like this. And don't expect this argument to go away anytime soon. Here's the story.
Monday, December 19, 2005
Bush's Explanation of Wiretapping Program is Easier to Understand than People Think
President Bush's explanation of a covert wiretapping program makes perfect sense, but many don't seem to be listening to what he's saying.
Consider this: Bush said that the program monitors incoming international phone calls from known terrorists or sympathizers to people who are already under observation in this country.
So if someone on the FBI's most wanted list of terrorists (like Ayman al-Zawahiri) makes an incoming phone call to someone in the United States, and voice recognition software identifies the caller's voice as al-Qaeda's theological leader (who is suspected of organizing the massacre of 67 foreign tourists in Luxor, and the bombings of two U.S. embassies in 1998), then the NSA had better be listening to the conversation in the event that the message that al-Zawahiri is giving is an attack order on targets in the United States.
Who would al-Zawahiri be calling? Not Johnny Average American. He's calling criminals in this country who are preparing to murder thousands of people if they can.
WHO GIVES A HOOT about wiretapping in that instance? Get over it and let the government do it's job. Johnny Average American isn't being monitored unless an international killer is calling him from overseas to order him to blow up a building and everyone inside it.
That's what Bush was saying and Congress is ignoring.
You'll have to forgive me if I don't seem to be concerned about the civil rights of Americans who are aiding the enemy. Providing aid and comfort to the enemy is treason, and Americans who engage in treason with known terrorists don't deserve protection from wiretapping.
Consider this: Bush said that the program monitors incoming international phone calls from known terrorists or sympathizers to people who are already under observation in this country.
So if someone on the FBI's most wanted list of terrorists (like Ayman al-Zawahiri) makes an incoming phone call to someone in the United States, and voice recognition software identifies the caller's voice as al-Qaeda's theological leader (who is suspected of organizing the massacre of 67 foreign tourists in Luxor, and the bombings of two U.S. embassies in 1998), then the NSA had better be listening to the conversation in the event that the message that al-Zawahiri is giving is an attack order on targets in the United States.
Who would al-Zawahiri be calling? Not Johnny Average American. He's calling criminals in this country who are preparing to murder thousands of people if they can.
WHO GIVES A HOOT about wiretapping in that instance? Get over it and let the government do it's job. Johnny Average American isn't being monitored unless an international killer is calling him from overseas to order him to blow up a building and everyone inside it.
That's what Bush was saying and Congress is ignoring.
You'll have to forgive me if I don't seem to be concerned about the civil rights of Americans who are aiding the enemy. Providing aid and comfort to the enemy is treason, and Americans who engage in treason with known terrorists don't deserve protection from wiretapping.
Sunday, December 18, 2005
Senator Reid Misses Point: INCUMBENTS are the Problem, Not One Party or Another
Democratic Senator Reid and many in Congress are trying to distance themselves from recent financial scandals that have painted Congressmembers in a very bad way.
He was pointing to Republican senators Cunningham and DeLay, who have been accused of finance crimes. Senator Reid took it one step further, saying that the current Congress is the most corrupt version in U.S. history and that the Abramoff scandal is a Republican scandal. More on that a little later.
It should be noted that scandals that have also touched Democratic Congressmembers: current members Senator Baucus, Senator Dorgan, Senator Clinton, Senator Reid himself, and others have shown up on the scandal radar as well. In fact, many other INCUMBENT Dems and Reps have been tainted by accusations of graft and other wrongdoing.
So before Senator Reid lets his imagination and selective memory run away with him, he ought to come clean on his own involvement with Jack Abramoff, the recently indicted lobbyist. Until he does, the pot is calling the kettle black.
The REAL problem here are the incumbents staying in power too long. The longer a person stays in Washington, the more corrupt they become, and they think they can take full advantage of the opportunities that come before them. This says something for term limits in every state, doesn't it?
With the exception of Senator Clinton, few freshman Senators and Representatives have faced questions of financial wrongdoing, and even then, Senator Clinton has distance between her and Whitewater and has kept her nose out of trouble, with the exception of the very bad memory of Whitewater and Monica.
Ten years ago, Jim Wright was forced to resign as were a couple of other Democrats, and Republicans were making the same charge of corruption in Congress. We won't even talk about President Clinton.
Freshman Congresspeople should be put in charge of campaign finance reform; their hands aren't greedily grabbing handfuls of cash. That's another issue for another day.
The world turns, does it not?
He was pointing to Republican senators Cunningham and DeLay, who have been accused of finance crimes. Senator Reid took it one step further, saying that the current Congress is the most corrupt version in U.S. history and that the Abramoff scandal is a Republican scandal. More on that a little later.
It should be noted that scandals that have also touched Democratic Congressmembers: current members Senator Baucus, Senator Dorgan, Senator Clinton, Senator Reid himself, and others have shown up on the scandal radar as well. In fact, many other INCUMBENT Dems and Reps have been tainted by accusations of graft and other wrongdoing.
So before Senator Reid lets his imagination and selective memory run away with him, he ought to come clean on his own involvement with Jack Abramoff, the recently indicted lobbyist. Until he does, the pot is calling the kettle black.
The REAL problem here are the incumbents staying in power too long. The longer a person stays in Washington, the more corrupt they become, and they think they can take full advantage of the opportunities that come before them. This says something for term limits in every state, doesn't it?
With the exception of Senator Clinton, few freshman Senators and Representatives have faced questions of financial wrongdoing, and even then, Senator Clinton has distance between her and Whitewater and has kept her nose out of trouble, with the exception of the very bad memory of Whitewater and Monica.
Ten years ago, Jim Wright was forced to resign as were a couple of other Democrats, and Republicans were making the same charge of corruption in Congress. We won't even talk about President Clinton.
Freshman Congresspeople should be put in charge of campaign finance reform; their hands aren't greedily grabbing handfuls of cash. That's another issue for another day.
The world turns, does it not?
Friday, December 16, 2005
Michigan Board of Canvassers Disobeys Court to Put Initiative on November Ballot: Governor Must Act
For those who missed it, there has been a bit of drama happening in Lansing over an anti-affirmative action proposal that supporters want to have put on the November 2006 ballot in Michigan.
The initiative wants people to get government jobs based on their experience, and not because of the color of their skin.
Many elected Democrats are adamently opposed to the measure; many elected Republicans are strongly in favor of the people of Michigan voting on the measure.
There was some question as to whether the 500,000 signatures on a petition were collected honestly; some Democrats claimed that people signed the petition because they thought it was a pro-affirmative action petition and that the people who gathered the signatures misrepresented what the petition was for.
This argument was taken to court, and the courts decided that the initiative should be on the November ballot. It ordered the board of canvassars to certify the signatures of the petition; they refused. They were again ordered to do so following more court proceedings, and here's what happened:
A political group from Detroit arrived from Detroit with a busload of students to attend the meeting; their behavior was awful and they ended up disrupting the meeting. Police were called in to restore order; one person was arrested. The vote was finally taken, and it was two in favor, one against, and one abstained from voting.
They were ordered to uphold the constitution of the State of Michigan; they failed to do so. Now the two Democrats on the panel who voted no or abstained are facing possible contempt of court charges. Their side argued their case against the signatures and lost.
It didn't matter what their personal opinions were by that point; they were ordered to certify the signatures by a court in good standing in the State of Michigan, and that was what they were at this meeting to do.
Governor Granholm should insist that the board members who defied the court and failed to uphold the law resign immediately, or she should expel them from the board (as provided for in the Michigan constitution) and appoint their replacements.
Her appointees aren't DOING THEIR JOBS. And the group that disrupted the meeting should be ashamed of itself for pulling kids out of school to disrupt a government meeting.
Legislation should also be put into place to prevent future occurances of this disgrace; since this is not the first time this has happened, it should be dealt with to put this issue to rest permanently.
The initiative wants people to get government jobs based on their experience, and not because of the color of their skin.
Many elected Democrats are adamently opposed to the measure; many elected Republicans are strongly in favor of the people of Michigan voting on the measure.
There was some question as to whether the 500,000 signatures on a petition were collected honestly; some Democrats claimed that people signed the petition because they thought it was a pro-affirmative action petition and that the people who gathered the signatures misrepresented what the petition was for.
This argument was taken to court, and the courts decided that the initiative should be on the November ballot. It ordered the board of canvassars to certify the signatures of the petition; they refused. They were again ordered to do so following more court proceedings, and here's what happened:
A political group from Detroit arrived from Detroit with a busload of students to attend the meeting; their behavior was awful and they ended up disrupting the meeting. Police were called in to restore order; one person was arrested. The vote was finally taken, and it was two in favor, one against, and one abstained from voting.
They were ordered to uphold the constitution of the State of Michigan; they failed to do so. Now the two Democrats on the panel who voted no or abstained are facing possible contempt of court charges. Their side argued their case against the signatures and lost.
It didn't matter what their personal opinions were by that point; they were ordered to certify the signatures by a court in good standing in the State of Michigan, and that was what they were at this meeting to do.
Governor Granholm should insist that the board members who defied the court and failed to uphold the law resign immediately, or she should expel them from the board (as provided for in the Michigan constitution) and appoint their replacements.
Her appointees aren't DOING THEIR JOBS. And the group that disrupted the meeting should be ashamed of itself for pulling kids out of school to disrupt a government meeting.
Legislation should also be put into place to prevent future occurances of this disgrace; since this is not the first time this has happened, it should be dealt with to put this issue to rest permanently.
Thursday, December 15, 2005
First Thoughts on Iranian Nuclear Problem: Let the EU Take the Lead
Iran's terrorist president has taken to the airwaves, suggesting that Israel be relocated to Europe and that the Holocaust never happened.
His remarks have unleashed a wave of fury in Western capitols that will ultimately result in a military conflict between Israel and Iran (at the very least), or a coalition of countries that are determined to stop Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions.
Analysis: Israel is ready to turn Tehran into glass right now. Iran is goading Israel into a military confrontation that will allow Iran to strike freely and openly at Israel. They also appear to be betting that Europe's pacifist movement will keep the EU from getting into a military confrontation with Tehran. AND they're betting that the U.S. military is too overstretched to take action.
Some off-the-wall thoughts: the U.S. should support Israel against Iran, regardless of what the EU decides. If this means reinforcing Israel's military by providing military hardware and ammo, so be it. But for all the noise the EU is making about Iran, their track record on supporting U.S. terror initiatives has been lukewarm at best. Why should we treat their terror initiatives any differently than they treated ours?
If the EU attacks Iran, they should do so without U.S. or British or Iraq-coalition support. Let the EU take the lead and THEN try to convince the U.S. of the worthiness of THEIR cause. That would be poetic justice.
In reality, that's not how it will unfold.
Israel will probably not wait for the rest of the world to catch on that Iran's president is about nine cans short of a six-pack. The EU will probably sit it out, the result of their unwillingness to use their militaries; and who knows what the U.S. will do? It will probably deal with Iran after shoving the Europeans out of the way and telling Israel to stay out of it unless it is attacked by Iranian missiles or aircraft.
In any case, Iran's clerics ought to be telling their hostage-taking bigmouth lunatic president to shut up and comply with UN and IAEA demands before it's too late. The Iranian people will suffer the most from cracked-open Iranian nuclear reactors and blown up nuclear fuel rods scattering radioactivity to the four winds.
While the Iranian president's comments about the Holocaust were absurd and motivated by pure hatred of Israel, it can be dealt with AFTER the nuclear problem is taken care of.
And the U.S. and EU should do what they must to keep Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. But if it becomes necessary to use military force OR force a UN Security Council resolution, the ENTIRE EU should be leading the effort, not the U.S. It's their turn.
His remarks have unleashed a wave of fury in Western capitols that will ultimately result in a military conflict between Israel and Iran (at the very least), or a coalition of countries that are determined to stop Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions.
Analysis: Israel is ready to turn Tehran into glass right now. Iran is goading Israel into a military confrontation that will allow Iran to strike freely and openly at Israel. They also appear to be betting that Europe's pacifist movement will keep the EU from getting into a military confrontation with Tehran. AND they're betting that the U.S. military is too overstretched to take action.
Some off-the-wall thoughts: the U.S. should support Israel against Iran, regardless of what the EU decides. If this means reinforcing Israel's military by providing military hardware and ammo, so be it. But for all the noise the EU is making about Iran, their track record on supporting U.S. terror initiatives has been lukewarm at best. Why should we treat their terror initiatives any differently than they treated ours?
If the EU attacks Iran, they should do so without U.S. or British or Iraq-coalition support. Let the EU take the lead and THEN try to convince the U.S. of the worthiness of THEIR cause. That would be poetic justice.
In reality, that's not how it will unfold.
Israel will probably not wait for the rest of the world to catch on that Iran's president is about nine cans short of a six-pack. The EU will probably sit it out, the result of their unwillingness to use their militaries; and who knows what the U.S. will do? It will probably deal with Iran after shoving the Europeans out of the way and telling Israel to stay out of it unless it is attacked by Iranian missiles or aircraft.
In any case, Iran's clerics ought to be telling their hostage-taking bigmouth lunatic president to shut up and comply with UN and IAEA demands before it's too late. The Iranian people will suffer the most from cracked-open Iranian nuclear reactors and blown up nuclear fuel rods scattering radioactivity to the four winds.
While the Iranian president's comments about the Holocaust were absurd and motivated by pure hatred of Israel, it can be dealt with AFTER the nuclear problem is taken care of.
And the U.S. and EU should do what they must to keep Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. But if it becomes necessary to use military force OR force a UN Security Council resolution, the ENTIRE EU should be leading the effort, not the U.S. It's their turn.
Monday, December 12, 2005
Put a Moratorium on Death Sentences Until Problems With the System are Fixed
It's hard to believe that so many people support the death penalty when it's been shown to have flaws that have led directly to the deaths of innocent people at the hands of states that were sworn to protect them.
States often fall short on the mark; critical mistakes are made, people go to jail or are sentenced to death and it takes private organizations to do DNA testing to show that a person did not commit a crime (which EVERY death-penalty state should be doing ON IT'S OWN, no matter how much it costs.)
A jury convicts a person of a crime based on how the case is presented by both sides, testimony by eyewitnesses, evidence collected at the crime scene, testimony from the accused, and the maneuvers carried out by the attorneys in court.
But what happens when the evidence is circumstantial, the eyewitnesses identify the wrong person, evidence is supressed from the jury, or the defense attorney shows up to trial hung over or unprepared? Or attorneys put their clients on the stand and the other side is able to make the accused look REALLY bad to the jury through no fault of their own? The jury convicts the person based on the performances of the players and who does a better job of explaining how the evidence shows one thing or another.
THEN the state refuses to review the case and death row inmates are allowed to languish on death row for years, even though they are there because their attorney was outperformed in court and failed to sway jurors who have to judge what is presented to them and nothing else. Evidence is destroyed after a while, and then there is no opportunity to do DNA testing. Virginia's governor recently commuted the death sentence of a prisoner precisely because this happened.
A death penalty system that makes mistakes and refuses to go back to test itself is immoral. We should do everything we should to punish the guilty and set the innocent free. If this means putting a moratorium on all executions indefinitely until the problems are fixed, then it should be done. And states have no business adding to death row until these problems are fixed either.
One last thing--the case against Tookie Williams, plus his violent assaults on prison guards and other prisoners over the years showed that he belonged in prison. He's no innocent man, but I don't think anything positive will come from his scheduled execution in a few short hours.
States often fall short on the mark; critical mistakes are made, people go to jail or are sentenced to death and it takes private organizations to do DNA testing to show that a person did not commit a crime (which EVERY death-penalty state should be doing ON IT'S OWN, no matter how much it costs.)
A jury convicts a person of a crime based on how the case is presented by both sides, testimony by eyewitnesses, evidence collected at the crime scene, testimony from the accused, and the maneuvers carried out by the attorneys in court.
But what happens when the evidence is circumstantial, the eyewitnesses identify the wrong person, evidence is supressed from the jury, or the defense attorney shows up to trial hung over or unprepared? Or attorneys put their clients on the stand and the other side is able to make the accused look REALLY bad to the jury through no fault of their own? The jury convicts the person based on the performances of the players and who does a better job of explaining how the evidence shows one thing or another.
THEN the state refuses to review the case and death row inmates are allowed to languish on death row for years, even though they are there because their attorney was outperformed in court and failed to sway jurors who have to judge what is presented to them and nothing else. Evidence is destroyed after a while, and then there is no opportunity to do DNA testing. Virginia's governor recently commuted the death sentence of a prisoner precisely because this happened.
A death penalty system that makes mistakes and refuses to go back to test itself is immoral. We should do everything we should to punish the guilty and set the innocent free. If this means putting a moratorium on all executions indefinitely until the problems are fixed, then it should be done. And states have no business adding to death row until these problems are fixed either.
One last thing--the case against Tookie Williams, plus his violent assaults on prison guards and other prisoners over the years showed that he belonged in prison. He's no innocent man, but I don't think anything positive will come from his scheduled execution in a few short hours.
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Air Marshall Acted Correctly in Shooting of Passenger
Much noise has been made about sky marshalls shooting an airline passenger who said he had a bomb and reached toward his backpack, which led marshalls to open fire.
Much of the criticism is unfounded.
The federal agents involved in this incident appear to have followed their training to the letter when they attempted to resolve the problem.
In the end, it didn't matter if there was a bomb or not. The man created a disturbance on an aircraft filled with people, ignored lawful orders and instrutions, pushed his way off the aircraft and made a grab toward his backpack after disobeying instructions which would have saved his life. That backpack could have contained any number of weapons, including small bombs.
The only way to stop a suicide bomber from blowing himself up is, unfortunately, to kill him with a head shot. And law enforcement rules of engagement are clear. But the man just didn't listen and forced authorities to react to his aggression.
A TASER may not have worked and could have detonated an explosive device.
It's unfortunate that this passenger lost his life, but his wife should never have allowed him to come to the airport while he was off his medications. She should have told airline officials that he was off his meds IN ADVANCE. But she didn't. She'll probably sue for wrongful death, though she could have stopped this situation from happening as it did.
Some questions: was the backpack searched before he carried it on board? Did the sky marshalls talk to the person who (presumably) searched the pack? And can something like this be prevented in the future?
If one lesson is to be drawn from this unfortunate event, it's that airliners are no place for a person off their self-control medications to be.
Much of the criticism is unfounded.
The federal agents involved in this incident appear to have followed their training to the letter when they attempted to resolve the problem.
In the end, it didn't matter if there was a bomb or not. The man created a disturbance on an aircraft filled with people, ignored lawful orders and instrutions, pushed his way off the aircraft and made a grab toward his backpack after disobeying instructions which would have saved his life. That backpack could have contained any number of weapons, including small bombs.
The only way to stop a suicide bomber from blowing himself up is, unfortunately, to kill him with a head shot. And law enforcement rules of engagement are clear. But the man just didn't listen and forced authorities to react to his aggression.
A TASER may not have worked and could have detonated an explosive device.
It's unfortunate that this passenger lost his life, but his wife should never have allowed him to come to the airport while he was off his medications. She should have told airline officials that he was off his meds IN ADVANCE. But she didn't. She'll probably sue for wrongful death, though she could have stopped this situation from happening as it did.
Some questions: was the backpack searched before he carried it on board? Did the sky marshalls talk to the person who (presumably) searched the pack? And can something like this be prevented in the future?
If one lesson is to be drawn from this unfortunate event, it's that airliners are no place for a person off their self-control medications to be.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Word Games The Democrats Are Playing: Insurgent vs. Terrorist
This is a clever one.
Liberal Democrats are now criticizing President Bush for calling the enemy terrorists and suggested that if the U.S. were to pull out of Iraq immediately that the insurgents would stop fighting, leaving the "true" terrorists significantly weakened.
If only that were so.
Terrorists are defined by what they do, not by a term put on them by deceptive liberals who are employing Bill Clinton's strategy of splitting hairs on terminology.
Someone who walks into a neighborhood pub in Baghdad and blows himself or herself up is not defending their country against Westerners. That's terrorism. They're killing people who live there, regardless of whether any Americans are there or not. And regardless of what they say afterwards, the innocent are just as dead. Words won't bring them back.
So don't fall for this "insurgent vs. terrorist" thing that Congressional Democrats are going on about. It's oversimplification to a radical degree by a group of Senators who have already surrendered and want everyone else to follow suit. They can go jump off a cliff by themselves, thank you very much.
Liberal Democrats are now criticizing President Bush for calling the enemy terrorists and suggested that if the U.S. were to pull out of Iraq immediately that the insurgents would stop fighting, leaving the "true" terrorists significantly weakened.
If only that were so.
Terrorists are defined by what they do, not by a term put on them by deceptive liberals who are employing Bill Clinton's strategy of splitting hairs on terminology.
Someone who walks into a neighborhood pub in Baghdad and blows himself or herself up is not defending their country against Westerners. That's terrorism. They're killing people who live there, regardless of whether any Americans are there or not. And regardless of what they say afterwards, the innocent are just as dead. Words won't bring them back.
So don't fall for this "insurgent vs. terrorist" thing that Congressional Democrats are going on about. It's oversimplification to a radical degree by a group of Senators who have already surrendered and want everyone else to follow suit. They can go jump off a cliff by themselves, thank you very much.
Venezuela Follows Through on Promise to Sell Cut-Price Oil to American Poor
Venezuela has carried out a promise to deliver cut-cost heating oil to parts of New York. The first shipment of the heating oil was delivered to charity housing projects yesterday; thousands will benefit from the gesture.
American oil companies and politicians should be embarassed beyond belief.
Whoever is on President Chavez's staff and thought of this move is a diabolical genius. Venezuela denies it is trying to embarass the U.S. oil industry or the American government, but that's precisely what has happened.
What happens next?
American oil companies and politicians should be embarassed beyond belief.
Whoever is on President Chavez's staff and thought of this move is a diabolical genius. Venezuela denies it is trying to embarass the U.S. oil industry or the American government, but that's precisely what has happened.
What happens next?
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Creation of ".xxx" Domain Name Delayed--Long Awaited Internet Cleanup Postponed
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) delayed a vote needed to establish a virtual red-light district and requiring sex sites to move over to a ".xxx" domain name.
Some are worried that to do so would legitimize porn sites and increase web flow traffic to those sites.
They are ignoring the fact that the Internet could use a much-needed cleanup and make it easier for parents and others to get their Internet filtering systems to work as they were intended and block out the filth that their kids accidentally find.
Right now, filters are about 45-50% effective at stopping access to pornographic web sites.
Fears that creating a .xxx domain name will legitimize porn are unfounded. Porn is already online; why not put them all under one domain type and then allow parents and schools to block access to ALL of them and not just SOME of them?
Here's why: a kid doing a Google web search on tossed salad for a homework recipe assignment will find the sex-related terminology at the very top of the list in an unassuming web site name with the domain .com at the end of it. Some filters will catch it, some definitely will not.
I will not post the link to that site here. Go find it yourself. If you can't, you'd better believe that little Johnny can. And will. So before naked people start showing up on the screen doing various things in front of little Johnny or little Susie, we ought to change that .com to a .xxx
And web traffic to .xxx sites will not increase. It will stay the same in the long-run, though there will be an increase in traffic at first as people scramble to find their favorite porn sites that they already frequent.
.com web sites should not be allowed to redirect to .xxx web sites or provide links either.
So ICANN should get it's butt into gear and governments should either support this vote or butt out. Here's the current status of this vote and how various governments are interfering.
The sooner this happens, the sooner concerned parents will be able to control what their kids see while they're surfing. This should be something that the family focus groups also support.
Some are worried that to do so would legitimize porn sites and increase web flow traffic to those sites.
They are ignoring the fact that the Internet could use a much-needed cleanup and make it easier for parents and others to get their Internet filtering systems to work as they were intended and block out the filth that their kids accidentally find.
Right now, filters are about 45-50% effective at stopping access to pornographic web sites.
Fears that creating a .xxx domain name will legitimize porn are unfounded. Porn is already online; why not put them all under one domain type and then allow parents and schools to block access to ALL of them and not just SOME of them?
Here's why: a kid doing a Google web search on tossed salad for a homework recipe assignment will find the sex-related terminology at the very top of the list in an unassuming web site name with the domain .com at the end of it. Some filters will catch it, some definitely will not.
I will not post the link to that site here. Go find it yourself. If you can't, you'd better believe that little Johnny can. And will. So before naked people start showing up on the screen doing various things in front of little Johnny or little Susie, we ought to change that .com to a .xxx
And web traffic to .xxx sites will not increase. It will stay the same in the long-run, though there will be an increase in traffic at first as people scramble to find their favorite porn sites that they already frequent.
.com web sites should not be allowed to redirect to .xxx web sites or provide links either.
So ICANN should get it's butt into gear and governments should either support this vote or butt out. Here's the current status of this vote and how various governments are interfering.
The sooner this happens, the sooner concerned parents will be able to control what their kids see while they're surfing. This should be something that the family focus groups also support.
Monday, December 05, 2005
French Face Transplant Operation Raises Huge Ethical Questions
This one's a doozy.
The recent face transplant conducted on a French woman has opened up a huge ethical debate on whether doctors should have removed the face of a brain-dead woman and transplanted it on another person.
The recipient of the face was somehow mauled by a dog and was mutilated quite badly back in May. French doctors had to get permission from the French legal system to do the operation and then waited for a suitable donor. When the brain-dead woman surfaced, they removed half of her face and did the transplant.
It doesn't seem right that someone's body is mutilated to repair the mutilated body of another. Especially when the donor didn't give consent for something like that, and the fact that she lies half alive in a hospital bed with half of her face missing. For something like this, I don't think that the donor's family has the right to allow the medical mutilation of their family member. If it was to donate an internal body part to save a family member, that's one thing, but to make major external changes without consent is just wrong.
This involves not only the French medical and legal communities, but world medical and legal communities as each nation will have to decide if they will allow stuff like this in their territory. What a mess!
Here's another part of the controversy.
The recent face transplant conducted on a French woman has opened up a huge ethical debate on whether doctors should have removed the face of a brain-dead woman and transplanted it on another person.
The recipient of the face was somehow mauled by a dog and was mutilated quite badly back in May. French doctors had to get permission from the French legal system to do the operation and then waited for a suitable donor. When the brain-dead woman surfaced, they removed half of her face and did the transplant.
It doesn't seem right that someone's body is mutilated to repair the mutilated body of another. Especially when the donor didn't give consent for something like that, and the fact that she lies half alive in a hospital bed with half of her face missing. For something like this, I don't think that the donor's family has the right to allow the medical mutilation of their family member. If it was to donate an internal body part to save a family member, that's one thing, but to make major external changes without consent is just wrong.
This involves not only the French medical and legal communities, but world medical and legal communities as each nation will have to decide if they will allow stuff like this in their territory. What a mess!
Here's another part of the controversy.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Bush's National Strategy for Victory in Iraq: An Excellent Read
President Bush and the National Security Council released a document called the "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" to counter claims from the opposition that the President has failed to communicate his war aims in the Iraq War.
Not surprisingly, the anti-war movement instantly attacked the document as being a PR ploy rather than a strategy.
In fact, they attacked it so quickly that one wonders if they even bothered to read the entire document, or if they had a Cliff's Notes version. It's more likely that the anti-war crowd already had their minds made up and it didn't matter what the document said...even if the document HAD set a date for a complete U.S. military pull-out.
In any case, the document itself is worthy of a look.
The first section of the Executive Summary is titled "Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages." It's this section that is the MOST important part of the document. It outlines short, medium and long-term benchmarks for victory. In a nutshell:
The anti-war movement should be cheering by this point.
Victory for the U.S. in Iraq means leaving when Iraq begins to kick some tail on it's own and NOT when all terrorist acts end, as some in the anti-war movement are claiming. When U.S. and coalition forces leave, there will undoubtably be insurgents and terrorists and jihaddis shooting at them on their way out. Hopefully not, but that's the reality.
Only the Iraqis can bring peace back to their country, and this plan recognizes that.
Download the document from the White House web site and read the ENTIRE thing (Bush haters). It's very revealing. More to follow.
Not surprisingly, the anti-war movement instantly attacked the document as being a PR ploy rather than a strategy.
In fact, they attacked it so quickly that one wonders if they even bothered to read the entire document, or if they had a Cliff's Notes version. It's more likely that the anti-war crowd already had their minds made up and it didn't matter what the document said...even if the document HAD set a date for a complete U.S. military pull-out.
In any case, the document itself is worthy of a look.
The first section of the Executive Summary is titled "Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages." It's this section that is the MOST important part of the document. It outlines short, medium and long-term benchmarks for victory. In a nutshell:
- Short term--Iraq makes progress toward fighting the terrorists on their own and moves toward democracy.
- Medium term--Iraq takes the lead in fighting the terrorists and has a stable government.
- Long term--Iraq is at peace with itself and it's neighbors and is a partner in the war on terror.
The anti-war movement should be cheering by this point.
Victory for the U.S. in Iraq means leaving when Iraq begins to kick some tail on it's own and NOT when all terrorist acts end, as some in the anti-war movement are claiming. When U.S. and coalition forces leave, there will undoubtably be insurgents and terrorists and jihaddis shooting at them on their way out. Hopefully not, but that's the reality.
Only the Iraqis can bring peace back to their country, and this plan recognizes that.
Download the document from the White House web site and read the ENTIRE thing (Bush haters). It's very revealing. More to follow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)