Renegade Cat Attacks Neighbors: A Practical Solution

A cat from hell is making quite a reputation for himself, clawing and biting a half dozen people in recent days in Fairfield, Connecticut.

Here's the solution: shoot the cat.


DUH!!!

Congress Needs to Table Immigration Discussion Until January

Congress needs to table the immigration debate until January.

It's apparent that Congress is making decisions based on what they think will win them the most votes in November and not according to their own values and principles and what's good for the country.

A new session of Congress is the only way out of this immigration mess that is getting worse by the day.

Half the Republicans in Washington sound like liberal Democrats. And they accuse President Bush of being a lame duck President? The lame ducks are in Congress. And President Bush is acting like a liberal himself, even though he isn't running for re-election.

This is disgusting.

We Don't Need New Anti-Illegal Alien Laws; We Need the Government to Enforce Laws Already on the Books

There's been a lot of hooplah in Washington and in major U.S. cities the last couple of weeks over pending legislation that is meant to deal with the illegal alien population that is in the country.

The U.S. doesn't need new laws to deal with the matter; it needs to enforce existing laws. It's a waste of time for Congress to revisit this issue, unless they are amending current laws. They should get with the President, budget the Border Patrol and the INS, and get on with it.

As a talking point, people also shouldn't be objecting to putting up a barricade that covers the entire border with Mexico either; only illegals and troublemakers avoid the established LEGAL border crossing checkpoints. So why shouldn't it be a felony from this day forward to cross the border without going through one of the border crossings? There are plenty to choose from.

Every nation on earth has a right to decline entry of people into it's territory; illegal border crossers deny our nation the right to say "no" or to find out WHO or WHAT is coming in. It's kind of like having a total stranger walk straight into your house without knocking and without giving the homeowner the right to deny entry. A person's house is his/her castle. Our country is the same way and these strangers are coming in without knocking (at best) or breaking in (at worst). Both are crimes.

As far as the illegals who are already here, the laws should be followed. Employers need to fill out the proper paperwork which establish American citizenship. Those arrested for minor crimes need to be turned over to the INS for processing. There are dozens of requirements that are not universally followed and they should be.

There's a ton of things that have to happen. The way things are going right now, they won't and we'll have a bigger mess than we have now.

Afghan Man's Converting to Christianity is NOT an Act of Mental Illness: One Insult After Another Highlights Problems With a 12th Century Society

A Christian man facing the death penalty in Afghanistan for converting to Christianity from Islam will be evaluated for mental illness and will be "treated" instead of being executed by his government.

How long he remains in "treatment" or what it will consist of is unknown, but it is believed that Muslim clerics will have him killed on the streets if he simply walks out of jail. They have already threatened to incite their followers to do precisely that.

Western governments have been consulting with the Afghan government over this situation, but President Karzai and his people have done little, preferring to call call the man "crazy" or "insane" or "mentally ill." It's 12th Century thinking cloaked as 21st Century psychology. And since Afghanistan is under Islamic law, it won't change either.

In actuality, this Afghan Christian is probably saner than the clerics and religious authorities over there are.

His kids should be returned to him and he should be allowed to leave Afghanistan unharmed.

First It Was Lack of Body Armor, Now It's the Weight of It: Soldiers Stow Armor Because It Slows Them Down

Back to the drawing board.

After the outcry over the lack of protective body armor for front-line combat forces serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, military planners and suppliers began shipping body armor to the war zones in large quantities after ramping up production.

Unfortunately, some of the troops are refusing to wear it as it's heavy, cumbersome and not helpful when soliders have to run, crawl through small openings, or when they have to jump over or climb stuff. Further, commanding officers in the field have made wearing the armor optional.

The challenge now will be for manufacturers to come up with armor plating that is as-strong or stronger than the current body armor, but thinner, lighter and less bulky as well.

It's good that the military is finally taking steps to deal with this situation and that those troops who want it have it.

This is an opportunity to take body armor technology to the next level; the brass should again respond to the needs of those serving on the front lines.

Matt's Safe Schools Law is Long Overdue; This Bill Deserves Unanimous Support from Legislature and Governor

Michigan House Bill 5616 and Senate Bill 1156 are two of several anti-bullying laws that are being considered by the Michigan legislature.

It's about time that this issue was tackled head-on and dealt with.

One of the most frustrating things I've seen as a past substitute teacher is seeing kids bullied by others and being told that "boys will be boys" by administrators in certain school districts when I reported the incidents. In those schools the only way administrators would get involved was if there was an altercation.

Other schools did an admirable job when I reported bullying. The problems were dealt with swiftly and decisively; reports were taken, kids were interviewed, parents were called and disciplinary action taken.

All schools should handle bullies as well as the schools I spoke of in the previous paragraph did. "Boys will be boys" is a lame-brain excuse for someone to duck the responsibility that they have to intervene when a kid is being bullied.

Fourteen-year old Matt Epling was harassed and harassed until he was driven to desperation and then to suicide because too few tood up for him as upperclassmen at his mid-Michigan school smeared raw eggs and syrup on him and laughed. People watching laughed too and thought nothing of it until they heard that Matt had killed himself due to many incidents like this one. I can't imagine the hell that his family has gone through.

The impending Michigan legislation is named for Matt (Matt's Safe Schools Law).

No kid should ever be bullied. No kid should ever feel the need to take revenge on fellow students in the form of a Columbine-like attack or be driven to commit suicide because of a preventable thing like bullying.

This is a major problem that is finally being given the attention that it is due. This should have been done soon after the disaster at Columbine High School and not six years on. That's too long.

After the bills are consolidated, this law will require school districts to train staff and students and provide age-appropriate punishments for bullies. These policies will be up to each school district; most of the individual schools I've substituted at are up to the task, but there are a couple where a change in leadership will be needed before there is progress. The problem IS that bad.

Some in the Michigan legislature think the local schools can handle the problem all by themselves and don't need the state to get involved. They're dead wrong. Their ignorance is regrettable.

This requirement will save lives. How can they be opposed to that?

Criminal Lafave Complains About Being Ostracized for Molesting Her 14-Year Old Student

Debra Lefave, the former teacher who caused a huge scandal for her molestation of one of her students, went on Fox News and complained about people not being very nice to her after the inept district attorney in Ocala, Florida, dropped all charges on her because her victim didn't want to testify.

That's too friggin' bad. She should have thought about the consequences of her actions before she engaged in criminal behavior with a minor. She should be in jail for what she did, and I have no sympathy for what she's going through.

She ought to quit her crying about her situation and stay OFF the news if she doesn't want her face IN the news. She's NO victim.

Election-Year Politics Displayed By Congress During Ports Brewhaha Needs to Be Considered

There's some unsettled issues on the recently scuttled Dubai Worldports deal that need to be examined a little closer.

The United Arab Emerates is considered to be a friendly Arab nation. They were a voice of moderation in oil production and often responded positively to U.S. requests to not follow OPEC's decisions to cut production.

For their opening their port up to American warships, providing fuel and portside services, and being a good friend to the U.S. military, Congress effectively told them to "go to hell" because two of the ninteen 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE.

If we were to follow the same line of thinking that Congress did in deciding to kill the deal, then the following nations would be unacceptable as well because their citizens have participated in terrorist acts against us: Great Britain, Belgium, Germany, Canada, Spain, Sweden, France, Denmark, Australia, Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Turkey, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco, Kuwait, Syria, Tunisia, Libya, Bangladesh, Iraq, Afghanistan, Algeria, Kenya, Qatar, Yemen, Mauritania, Chechnya, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Egypt. Let's not forget the United States itself either.

Many of those other nations (including our allies in Europe) have more than two al-Qaeda or Taliban recruits as well. We do too.

The election year politics involved in this controversy makes me wonder exactly how many members of Congress know what the difference between a "terminal" and a "port" is (see my earlier post in this very subject). Clearly many of them didn't know the difference, didn't bother to look them up, or didn't care.

There's a world of difference between the two words; and Congress kept referring to the "ports" being under the control of the UAE company, when it was actually the "terminals" that were clearly mentioned in the deal.

When Republicans and Democrats jump onto the same bandwagon (based on a distortion) in an election year, it does nothing for their credibility, which is already stretched beyond belief.

During the upcoming debates between the various candidates, they and their opponents should be asked (in a surprise question) to define a "port" and a "terminal" and the incumbent should be asked first. Some will definitely have egg in their faces when they stand there with a blank expression on their faces.

I would laugh my head off.

Afghan Man Faces Death for Converting to Christianity: Despite Advances, Afghanistan is Still a 12th Century Nation

A man living in Kabul is on trial for converting from Islam to Christianity and faces the death penalty if he is convicted.

Because Afghanistan is under Islamic law, it is considered to be a capital crime to reject Islam. The presiding judge called the man's "crime" an "attack on Islam," but he's gravely mistaken.

It is not an attack on Islam; it is an attack on Christianity. Here's why:

If they execute this man, it is not a matter of Muslims killing a Muslim; it is a matter of Muslims killing a Christian. It's against a man who did nothing but find a faith that sustained him more than the religion that he was born into.

Afghanistan's deputy Human Rights Commissioner is no help either, saying if the man was acquitted, it would be a victory for the Taliban. What a bunch of hooey!

The Taliban's version of Islam would support the execution of this Afghan Christian simply because he was a Christian; where does the Commissioner get off saying that the Taliban would gain a victory out of this? I don't see which version of Islam is any better if the defendant, Abdul Rahman, is executed for accepting Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior.

It's apparent that radical Islamics are once again running Afghanistan. They're no better than the Taliban if this travesty goes any further.

Having a Pre-Emptive Strike Option Available is a Good National Security Policy: Problem Arises When Deciding if Pre-Emption is Necessary

The President's decision to keep a pre-emptive strike option as part of America's foreign and national security policies has raised the hackles of the left and of the anti-war movement, but only a total fool would take it off the table as some have demanded.

The policy itself isn't the issue; it's deciding under what conditions the policy of pre-emptive strikes or war would be justified.

Situation 1: If North Korea launched a conventional missile attack on Japan and North Korean generals were heard arguing on the radio whether or not to launch their nuclear missiles against Tokyo and at U.S. military bases in Japan and South Korea, would the policy be justified?

Situation 2: If China used nuclear weapons on Taiwanese military bases as it invaded the island, and attacked U.S. Navy ships on the high seas, would the policy be justified if U.S. spy satellites spotted the Chinese fueling and preparing their ICBMs for launch?

Situation 3: If Iran was be seven years away from developing a nuclear bomb, would the policy be justified today?

Situation 4: If another 9/11-style attack occurred, and 300,000 Americans die in the attack, should we attack Syria and Iran and North Korea because they might try to take advantage of the situation?

Going to war over possible threats vs. actual threats are at the heart of the matter. Where is the line drawn?

Situation #1 & 2 would have been provocation enough to turn parts of both North Korea and China into parking lots immediately. The Iranian nuclear program is still a ways off, so immediate military action without significant Iranian provocation would not be justified.

We enter an area which contains lots of gray areas with the "act of terrorism" situation outlined above. In that case, the Axis would have to make threatening moves first; the policy of pre-emption would not be justified unless they threatened U.S. interests following a massive terrorist attack and/or there was solid proof that they were involved in the terrorist action. If they were shown to be involved, it would be an act of war, which puts it into a different category completely. Article 51 of the U.N. Charter would apply there.

This policy must be used in the future with overwhelming evidence to back it up that establishes that the U.S. is in actual mortal peril and facing imminent attack.

If this policy is kept in future Administrations, the U.S. President will have a very unenviable task in deciding these issues, should they arise. May he/she choose wisely.

What's Worse? A Government that Withholds Information to Protect Security, or a News Media That Manipulates News For It's Own Secretive Purposes?

This is the stark choice that Americans seem to be facing these days.

We have an Administrative that is very secretive about just about everything, which leads many to complain that there should be more transparency in government.

We have a news media that distorts major news stories so that they fit the media's unknown agenda, and has the ability to repeat incorrect information over and over until it is believed to be general knowledge.

Which is more dangerous to the truth?

ABC News recently covered a story about a treasure trove of documents that were released by our government that were seized from Saddam Hussein's government, which show strong evidence of Saddam's intelligence network working together with bin-Laden and other hot topics. Nine documents were released; after the news network wrote up the gist of the documents, they added an editor's note to each one, discounting the documents. The reason: questionable sources.

It's pretty bad when several major news networks no longer follow their own rules on getting at least three sources to corroborate their OWN stories, but are quick to discount official U.S. and Iraqi government sources on evidence that disagrees with the media's viewpoints on controversial topics, such as WMDs in Iraq.

The government can release accurate information to a huge audience ONLY with the cooperation of the major news media. The ABC news story only confirms that the media doesn't feel beholden to the U.S. public to report the news as it is and let people decide themselves. They would rather write the news for their own political purposes.

And they accuse Fox News and the alternative media of manipulating the news? WHAT A JOKE!!

U.N. Security Council Must Share Burden of Responsibility for Iraq War: Their Resolutions Lead to War As Much as Faulty U.S. Intel Did

Some on the United Nations Security Council are pretty smug these days, telling the media and the U.S. "see, we told you so" as it relates to Iraq.

If memory serves, it was not the U.S. government who ordered Iraq to allow U.N. inspectors in to inspect Iraq's nuclear programs in the form of seventeen resolutions, it was the U.N. Security Council and the Secretary General who did.

It was those resolutions that declared that Iraq would suffer the consequences if it didn't allow the inspections to occur. "Unfettered access" were the popular buzzwords being thrown around the Security Council.

Further, members of the U.N. said during the lead-up to war that under the U.N. charter, only the U.N. could authorize war between two member nations; otherwise any war would be considered illegal. This lead President Bush to declare that he wouldn't wait for a permission slip from the U.N. to defend America.

So, before the Security Council gets too carried away again and starts passing resolutions on Iran's nuclear program, the Council needs to recognize that their resolutions on Iraq did great harm and helped to lead to the current state of affairs between the U.N., the U.S. and it's coalition partners, and Iraq. With Iran on the Security Council's agenda, they need to be reminded that their resolutions helped pave the way for war, and that they should proceed with great care.

Those members of the Security Council who are smug about what's happening in Iraq should also be ashamed of themselves. If they vote for such language in a resolution, then they should be prepared to contribute troops to the mess that follows.

"Brokeback Mountain" Author Slams Oscar Award Loss; Angry Rant in British Newspaper: So What?

The author of "Brokeback Mountain" slammed the Academy Awards for choosing "Crash" over the movie version of her book, saying that voters were "out of touch not only with the shifting larger culture and the yeasty ferment that is America these days but also out of touch with their own segregated city."

Which city? Which culture is she referring to? The one she doesn't even live in? Ms. Wyoming herself?

Her rant was published in the British Guardian newspaper. She went after Hollywood, the Academy Awards, Lionsgate Films (the company that released "Crash", which she labeled "Trash"), and everyone who thought that "Crash" was a superior movie. She also insulted the audience inside of Kodak Theater, LA itself, and everyone she could think of.

Here's what her 1,000+ word rant was trying to say: WAAAAAAAAH!!

She forgot to mention that the Academy Awards wasn't voting on her short story. They voted on the MOVIE, which she had nothing to do with. Here's how the author (Annie Proulx) responded to an Associated Press telephone interview on the movie:

AP: How did you feel about seeing it on the big screen?

Proulx: It was really quite a shock because I had had nothing to do with the film. So for 18 months, I had no idea what was happening. I had no idea if it was going to be good or frightful or scary, if it was going to be terribly lost or sentimentalized or what. When I saw it in September, I was astonished. The thing that happened while I was writing the story eight years ago is that from thinking so much about the characters and putting so much time into them, they became embedded in my consciousness. They became as real to me as real, walk-around, breathe-oxygen people. It took a long time to get these characters out of my head so I could get on with work. Then when I saw the film, they came rushing back. It was extraordinary—just wham—they were with me again.

So she ought to quit her crying. It was her story, but definitely not her movie.

I didn't see either film, but I'm enjoying watching Hollywood and the media squirm over the repercussions of the Academy DARING to vote for "Crash."

Security Council Deadlocks on Iran: So What Else is New?

Are we really surprised that the U.N. Security Council deadlocked on what to do about Iran?

Of course not.

Russia and China are trying to get Iran off the agenda and back into the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) fold. The U.S., Great Britain and France are trying to get the council to take action.

It is my opinion that council action is not going to happen because Russia and China both want a nuclear-armed Iran to confront the U.S. and keep it occupied while they go after their own military goals.

Russia wants a weaker U.S. so it backs off of future Russian aggression against the Ukraine, Georgia and Chechnya, and China wants to go after Taiwan with a full-scale invasion.

Both probably wouldn't mind seeing the U.S. mixing it up with North Korea either; it would work to their advantage as well, in spite of what both are saying about North Korea's nuclear program.

So the U.S. should conclude it's business in Iraq soon and not get into shooting wars with Iran or with anyone else until our military is replenished and retooled.

Threats of U.S. military force are heeded only if the nation being threatened believes that the U.S. has the strength to back up it's threats with overwhelming force. And the general view is that we do not have enough front-line forces in reserve to deal with other international emergencies should they arise.

We have to define what victory is in Iraq and move toward it; when the stated goal is achieved, we withdraw from Iraq.

Politicians have to learn that military strength is a valuable commodity and not a personal plaything to be discarded when it's mission is either accomplished or cancelled.

Milosevic Dies in the Hague: Embarassing Performance for the International Tribune

Ex-Yugoslavian dictator Slobodan Milosevic was found dead in his prison cell at the Hague this morning.

The inept ICC was no match for the former ruler of Yugoslavia as he turned his war crimes trial into a farce, and now they've lost their best chance to establish a bonafide record against an established war criminal and murderer.

They wasted years on this trial and have nothing to show for it but egg in their faces. 200,000 lie dead because of this man and he slipped through their fingers because they were not in charge of their own courtroom. Why? They successfully produced verdicts against fifty-six others accused of lesser war crimes during the Balkans wars.

They need to do some serious revisions to their court procedures to prevent something like this from happening again.

Even the trials at Neuremburg of Nazi war criminals didn't last as long as Milosevic's did, and there was no end in sight at the time of his death.

A historic opportunity has been lost.

No Doubt About It: Roe v. Wade Must Go, But What Happens Then?

South Dakota fired a massive broadside at the foundation of abortion rights (namely, the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision) in the form of a ban on most abortions. Mississippi and Tennessee appeared poised to follow suit. Good for them.

It should be noted that should South Dakota achieve victory and Roe is overturned by the Supreme Court, abortion will not end.

Rather, it would go back to the state level and each state would decide what it's laws on abortion would be, which is the way it should be. The federal government should stay out of this. If a state wishes to ban abortion, that's it's business.

Now, some are questioning whether the Religious Right would maintain it's strength and cohesion should their primary goal be achieved: the overturn of Roe v. Wade, or if it's strength as a national force would disappear as it focused on individual state campaigns to ban abortion.

They shouldn't be.

While it's very likely that the anti-abortion crowd will focus on banning abortions in as many states as possible, the Religious Right as a national movement isn't going anywhere.

The last time I checked, stem cell research, displaying the Ten Commandments and Nativity scenes on public property, preserving "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegience and "In God We Trust" on our currency, intelligent design, prayer in schools and creationism vs. evolution are a very long way away from being decided. Plus there's a war on.

Just because abortion would disappear from the national stage should Roe be overturned, that is no reason to believe that the Religious Right would go away, as some commentators have said they think would happen.

There will be lengthy court battles in many states which will end up in state Supreme Courts. Then there will be appeals in federal courts. Two questions: will the Supreme Court accept another abortion case based on those lawsuits, and what role will activist judges play in legislating from the bench? The courts will be tied up for years deciding all of these issues.

Roe's days are numbered, God be Praised, but the fight will really intensify when it does finally fall. The end of Roe will be the beginning of a messy new fight. Red and blue state maps will not apply as some states will quickly go one direction on legislating abortion, others will go the opposite direction, while others will duke it out in their state legislatures, in the offices of the various governors, in the courts, and out in the streets.

It'll be a huge mess.

Neo-Nazis Unwanted in Lansing: Take Your Signs and Stick 'Em Where the Sun Don't Shine

The neo-Nazis are in town, setting up signs which are publicizing their rally that will take place on the steps of the state capitol.

The collective IQ of the area is rapidly diminishing with the arrival of the skinheads.

They should crawl back under the rock that they came from and take their hate with them.

We don't need the domestic disturbances that will accompany their hate rally; Lansing and other surrounding communities have enough to deal with without the skinheads and anti-skinhead protestors trying to tear one another apart.

Breach vs. Overrun: Terminology Errors Didn't Help Clarify Situation in New Orleans

There has been (and continues to be) a great deal of confusion over who knew what and when as New Orleans was flooding.

Here's the latest picture:

The government says it was worried about the ocean overrunning the levee system surrounding New Orleans. They did not anticipate a breach, or outright break, in the walls.

According to dictionary.com, here are a couple of definitions:





breach: An opening, a tear, or a rupture. A gap or rift, especially in or as if in a solid structure such as a dike or fortification.









overrun: To overflow.







The results would be radically different: with an overrun, water would have come over the walls then stopped after the storm surge receded, while with the breach, the water would keep coming in until a levee was fixed or, in New Orleans' case, if Lake Pontchartrain emptied to a point just below the level of the breach. They fixed the levees before the lake emptied, but the damage had already been done.

So when President Bush said "No one could have anticipated that the levees would breach," he was being honest. They were worried about an overrun of the levees.

It doesn't excuse what happened, but it does clarify some points.

"Crash" Beats Out "Brokeback Mountain" At the Academy Awards: Why Were the "Experts" Shocked?

Many people were surprised that "Crash" beat out "Brokeback Mountain" for Best Motion Picture at the Academy Awards on Sunday.

I wasn't.

Racism issues resonate with a more of the general population than gay issues do, and the Acadamy voters are a reflection of the general population.

That's simply the way it is.

Uniform Chain of Command Recommendation from 9/11 Report and Katrina Report NOT Implemented by Feds Yet

The 9/11 Commission report and the Hurricane Katrina Federal Response report both have one recommendation in common that should have been dealt with LONG before now: a unified chain of command for all agencies responding to a disaster.

It was originally recommended by the 9/11 report. Confusion reigned during and after the terror attacks happened; emergency response teams were on different radio frequencies, rescues efforts were duplicated while others who actually needed help didn't get it until it was too late, no one knew who was in charge, and the situation worsened after the World Trade Center towers collapsed into the streets below.

After the commission issued it's report, it was assumed that the government was addressing this issue and had fixed the problem.

Ninteen months later, Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, leaving an area the size of Great Britain in ruins. And the same problems surfaced during and after the storm roared ashore.

And the official report from the White House recommended a unified chain of command.

Question: what the hell have the people in charge been doing for the last ninteen months? And what are they doing right now to fix the problem?

They need to quit screwing around, cut any red tape that it's in the way, fire some people and put people in who will carry out the reforms. And then all departments need to follow the plan.

Enough, already!

Gone Too Soon: Christopher Reeve's Widow Dies of Lung Cancer

Dana Reeve, the widow of the late Christopher Reeve, died Monday of lung cancer at the age of 44.

She won worldwide respect for her strength in caring for her actor-activist husband after his spinal cord injury eleven years ago. He died in 2004 and she had carried on his crusade to find a cure for spinal cord injuries.

She leaves behind a teenaged son and two stepchildren.

May she rest in peace.

What Are We Not Being Told About Dubai Port Deal?

It's fair to say that everyone's gotten a large amount of political BS from Congress and the White House with regards to the Dubai Ports World acquisition of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company in the last few days.

The political toilet surrounding this deal overflowed into the Oval Office and into the media as Democrats and Republicans attacked the White House position of supporting the purchase and transfer between two private firms.

Now, the question is this: what is REALLY going on?

Are we talking about TERMINALS, which is defined as "a facility where cargo containers are loaded or unloaded from ships to land vehicles, for further transport" or a PORT which is defined as "a natural or artificial harbor and its terminal facilities for the transfer of goods and passengers to or from waterborne means of transport?"

My understanding is that this deal is for the loading and unloading of cargo onto or off of ships at the terminals of six American seaports. The ports themselves remain under U.S. government/law enforcement control, while the terminals are administered by the Dubai company, which is controlled by the UAE government. The port security is handled by American security, while the security IN and AROUND the terminal itself are handled by Dubai Ports World.

The government must do a MUCH better job in explaining who would be in charge of what.

In addition, if only 5% of incoming containers are inspected by port authorities before they are handed off to the terminals for transport to their final destinations, then whose responsibility is it to get it up to 100%? The SAME government that is bellyaching about this terminal deal.

The government needs to quit screwing with itself and fix the problem NOW. They can start by passing legislation which prohibits foreign companies from controlling terminals that ship cargo across state lines. They can do that, you know. Then they should appropriate money in the budget to bring the inspection process up to scratch and keep it that way.

National security is not a political hot potato and it's quite disappointing to see the politicians wasting time arguing about this. They are behind schedule on meeting their obligations as it is. And if they don't do their jobs, let's FIRE 'EM ALL in November!

School Wrong to Suspend Students for Viewing Web Site on Their Own Time

Here's another strange one.

A school out in California suspended twenty middle school students for viewing a web site that contained "graphic threats" from one student at the school to another.

The student making the threat is under threat of expulsion for doing it. The incident happened on the popular MySpace.com site that many students use to post stuff on. The police are also trying to use anti-hate laws against the student as it contained several slurs. These investigations are entirely appropriate.

Here's the problem: the other students did not view the web site at school, nor during school hours. They viewed it from their own homes on their own time with their own family or personal computer.

Does the school have a right to do what it has done to the students? There was no criminal wrongdoing on the part of those students who simply viewed the post and then moved on to other sites on their own time, on their own computers outside of school.

It seems to me that the school already has their suspect in hand; the others shouldn't be punished, unless they made similar kinds of threats on the web too. Student safety is a valid school concern, but the information being presented suggests that there was no further threat to student safety once the original transgressor was caught.

This will probably end up in court.

Sticker on Bike Causes Terror Alarm: DUH

Four Ohio University buildings were evacuated when a bicycle was mistaken for a bomb.

The problem began when the bike was parked on the campus; it happened to have a sticker on it that said "this bike is a pipe bomb." People panicked, the buildings were emptied and the bomb squad was called in from 65 miles away before the administration at Ohio State realized it was the name of a band from Florida.

Come on, people.

THE SKY IS FALLING!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!