Things that go BOOOOOM!!!

Good morning everyone.

How would you like to be these folks?

A family that lives 3 miles from the US Army's Picatinny Arsenal had quite a surprise. A fragment from an artillery shell crashed through their house and landed right in the middle of their daughters bed.

I found this reported on Foxnews this morning as I did my morning look at the news.

Almost every morning I sit and wonder what I am going to blog about. Usually a news story grabs me. To say that this one grabbed me would be an understatement.

How in the hell does the Army play around with a piece of ordinance that can throw shrapnel over 3 miles? No...check that...how in the hell can the US Army play around with ordinance that can throw shrapnel over three miles when there is a chance that said fragments could hit the home of a private citizen?

I am all for the US military testing ordinance but someones head needs to roll over this little blunder. Fortunately, the girl wasn't home at the time or this tragedy would have been much worse. As it was, the family cat was struck by the fragment and was killed. That has to be traumatic enough. Especially since you know the Army is not going to completely stop testing at that facility.

Someone connected with the US Army needs to explain this one. They also need to explain, in detail, what steps are taken to ensure that this NEVER happens again.

Accidents happen. I understand that. But with the technology that exists today where we can put ordnance right on the door step of the intended target I think this goes beyond an accident and into negligence on the part of the Army and those responsible for the testing.

What do you think?

Olympics

Good Morning all.

I was never a big fan of watching the Olympics. Yes...I do watch a lot of the ice hockey during the winter games but really that is about it. I also don't really follow the games and the medal count. So I may not be the best one to blog about what has happened to the games.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) awarded the 2008 Summer Games to China. I actually remember some reservations at the time by members of the IOC about holding the games in China. I also seem to remember that there were some understandings made between the IOC and the government of China concerning human rights violations that were occurring in China.

Now what we have is a situation that is as sticky as all those that Captain James T. Kirk and Captain Jean-Luc Pickard went through when dealing with the Prime Directive (for those that are not Star Trek fans that was the non-intereference policy).

Well just as Kirk and Pickard found ways around the prime directive so to now must the IOC find ways around all its policies for the summer games that start August 8th.

Now I am not going to chose a side between those appalled with what goes on in China or the right the government of China has to run its own country. But it seems both sides here had better get some kind of agreement hammered out or this thing is going to be a powder keg.

The IOC knew what China was about when they awarded them the games. The government of China had to know that increased attention to things like the Tibet situation was going to happen. Yet it clearly seems that neither was clearly ready for the onslaught as the games got closer.

There are questions about media access to athletes, especially those from China. There are questions about what the athletes themselves can and cannot do in "protest" of the current affairs in Tibet. If you read news articles today all athletes are being warned not to "protest" in any arena or venue (that includes dorms). But no one has clearly defined what "protest" is. Which brings up an interesting dilemma for the IOC. Isn't limiting the athletes paramount to limiting free speech?

One must remember that an athlete who violates the rules can be expelled from the games...a.k.a sent home. They can also be stripped of any medals won and records set during the games. That can happen for just having the flag from Tibet hanging on the wall of their dorm room.

And in case you forget this whole thing started when two US athletes held up the black-power symbol during the medal ceremonies during the 1968 summer games.

You see just like major league sports the Olympics have become big business. Yes the government of China will have to pay out a lot of cash to build the Olympic venues. But there is also the huge cash rewards from all the travellers and media who come to the games.

We want to call the Olympics athletes amateurs. But just as in the outdated view of the NCAA with respect to athletes not being paid this whole thing has become a joke. The Olympics, in my view, should be about the best from this country taking on the best from that country. Its sports. We need to get all the BS out of it.

What do you think?

You can't fix stupid!!

I am back after my 6 day vacation from blogging. Many have heard about the weather that went through the south last Friday and I was present where it all started. Finally got internet service back Tuesday night and have been catching up. But it is good to be back on line.

You would think that Wal-mart, being a rather large corporation, would have been smarter than this. But sometimes you just can't fix stupid.

A production company was hired by Wal-mart to video their share holder meetings as well as other high level meetings. Well, after taping these events for over 30 years the production company was told to take a hike back in 2006.

Now the production company is offering access to the video archives of all these Wal-mart meetings. The company charges $250/hour for video search services. There is an extra charge for making DVD copies of video footage. People are lining up at the door to obtain video from these meetings.

Now who would want to pay that kind of money for some lame Board of Directors Meeting footage? How about every lawyer that is currently engaged in litigation against the retail giant!! And they are finding a wealth of information that will aide their clients in their claims against the company.

Now on the surface of it one would have to wonder how this production company can get away with selling this kind of information. After all, Board meetings and the like are usually considered private and not for public consumption. Well the answer is both simple and ridiculous.

When Wal-mart hired the production company there were no contracts signed. They were asked to come in and tape the meetings and events. There was never a contract or agreement of confidentiality.

When Wal-mart pulled the plug in 2006 the company found itself losing about 95% of its business. Rather than going under they decided to make the video archive available for public consumption.

There is footage of male managers at an executive meeting parading around in drag and I am sure that there are more nuggets just waiting for someone to review the right video cassette.

Now I am not a lawyer and I didn't play one on TV. I also did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. But I do question whether this little venture is legal. But we can leave that up to the courts to decide. Wal-mart for has offered to pay $500,000 for the entire collection. A number that the production company says is way to low for a collection that is worth millions.

Yes...I can see it now...coming to a theater near you and soon to DVD...Wal-mart:The Movie!!

Have you heard this?

Air America talk show radio host Randi Rhodes has been suspended for has been described as an "appalling rant" at an appearance sponsored by an Air America affiliate in San Francisco. Appalling rant!!!!! Go listen to the 5 minute and 38 second clip that someone in the audience taped. Here is the link. Just be advised there is very strong language. I wonder if we can get this babe as a guest on the Dog House?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfdhWi5MILo

First off, on one hand this is funny. Air America is supposed to be the liberal answer to Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter and Sean Hannity. That being conservative talk radio. But if you listen to the clip Ms. Rhodes is not taking aim at the conservatives. Nooo!!! She is taking aim at the liberal candidate, or at least Hillary Clinton. And it she calls Hillary a "whore", where does that leave ole Bill? I love it when either side starts to eat their own. It does make for great comedy.

But there is another side to this story that I think needs to be addressed. Geraldine Ferraro Ms. Rhodes should not be suspended...she should be fired. Don Imus got fired...she should get fired. Everyone should be treated the same.

Well Ms. Ferraro, how in the hell are they the same? Don Imus made his statements on the open air waves. Randi Rhodes made her comments at a public speaking engagement. Mr. Imus' comments went to millions listening via his syndicated radio show. Ms Rhodes comments were made in a private venue and would have remained that way had it not been for someone with a cell phone.

Were the comments she made beneath contempt? Yes I think they were. I don't like Hillary but I would not call her a whore. Now Bill is a different story...lol.

But this was done not as a part of her radio show but at a private appearance. If Air America wants to suspend or fire her, that is there right. But what she did was nothing like what Don Imus did.

That is just my opinion. What is yours?

Judges

I thought I had posted this blog yesterday but it didn't show up when I looked this morning. So this is a day late I guess. But if you read my blog regularly you will get the idea.



My blog yesterday concerned Jessica's Law. I have received a few comments on that topic from yesterday and I felt it was time for a sequel.

One comment from my good friend Casey in Alabama centered on what to do about the judges that are releasing these child predators. That is a loaded question...well its a loaded political question.

Some states and municipalities actually vote for some judges during elections. Other states and municipalities have there judges appointed by the government. In the case Federal Court judges these are appointed by the president and confirmed by congress.

But how does one go about removing a sitting judge from the bench? That there is a tricky question and many scholars argue the point. Just do a google search on "removing judges" and you will see some of the arguments in black and white.

Whether it be through impeachment or recall there are ways within the US constitution and most state constitutions for removing a judge from the bench. Once a decision is made to impeach or recall a judge that is when the task moves from the world or law into the world of politics.

Like it or not judges have political affiliation. In the case of the federal courts, there is no way a judge will ever be appointed by the president unless he is a member of the political party or has like political views to those of the president that appoints them. If a federal judge is to be impeached and removed from office it will take people on both sides of the political isle to "git-r-done". Beyond that impeachment is a messy business. Just remember a few years back when President Clinton was impeached.

There is also the fact that congress has been willing to step into the world of the judicial branch. While there have been several federal and state impeachment trials (remember that impeachment is an indictment and then a trial occurs) there have been few and far between. I think this, again, is mainly due to the political nature of the process. But the process is there.

The other problem I have with judges is that they are never required to answer for their actions on the bench. In fact, even questioning a judge outside of the court room could lead to a contempt charge and time in jail.

It is high time that we, the American people, start holding judges accountable for their actions on the bench. There is only one way to do this and that is through our elected officials in either state or federal government. I think one of the reasons you see so many laws being passed with mandatory sentencing guidelines is that judges refuse to properly sentence those that are convicted of a crime. The job of "adequate" sentencing then falls to the legislature where it does not belong.
For those states and municipalities that have elected judges the process is much easier. Don't re-elect the judge. But then again the way in which we re-elect politicians to office, that may not work either.

What to do?

My blog yesterday concerned Jessica's Law. I have received a few comments on that topic from yesterday and I felt it was time for a sequel.

One comment from my good friend Casey in Alabama centered on what to do about the judges that are releasing these child predators. That is a loaded question...well its a loaded political question.

Some states and municipalities actually vote for some judges during elections. Other states and municipalities have there judges appointed by the government. In the case Federal Court judges these are appointed by the president and confirmed by congress.

But how does one go about removing a sitting judge from the bench? That there is a tricky question and many scholars argue the point. Just do a google search on "removing judges" and you will see some of the arguments in black and white.

Whether it be through impeachment or recall there are ways within the US constitution and most state constitutions for removing a judge from the bench. Once a decision is made to impeach or recall a judge that is when the task moves from the world or law into the world of politics.

Like it or not judges have political affiliation. In the case of the federal courts, there is no way a judge will ever be appointed by the president unless he is a member of the political party or has like political views to those of the president that appoints them. If a federal judge is to be impeached and removed from office it will take people on both sides of the political isle to "git-r-done". Beyond that impeachment is a messy business. Just remember a few years back when President Clinton was impeached.

There is also the fact that congress has been willing to step into the world of the judicial branch. While there have been several federal and state impeachment trials (remember that impeachment is an indictment and then a trial occurs) there have been few and far between. I think this, again, is mainly due to the political nature of the process. But the process is there.

The other problem I have with judges is that they are never required to answer for their actions on the bench. In fact, even questioning a judge outside of the court room could lead to a contempt charge and time in jail.

It is high time that we, the American people, start holding judges accountable for their actions on the bench. There is only one way to do this and that is through our elected officials in either state or federal government. I think one of the reasons you see so many laws being passed with mandatory sentencing guidelines is that judges refuse to properly sentence those that are convicted of a crime. The job of "adequate" sentencing then falls to the legislature where it does not belong.

For those states and municipalities that have elected judges the process is much easier. Don't re-elect the judge. But then again the way in which we re-elect politicians to office, that may not work either.

Jessica's Law

If you are not familiar with Jessica's Law it was a law past in Florida in 2005 after Jessica Lunsford. She was a young girl who was brutally raped and murdered. Jessica's law has been introduced in many states and on a federal level. In short, the law requires mandatory prison sentences for child predators.

In total, 42 states have pasted some form of Jessica's Law requiring harsh punishments for those who sexually prey on children. Most forms of Jessica's Law call for these mandatory sentences when the child is 12 years of age or younger.

I know this law is controversial. There are law enforcement people and lawyers that don't like the law because it takes any kind of plea bargaining off the table. These people want the flexibility to place alternate forms of punishment or lighter sentences via plea bargins. Plea bargins, they say, are a method to reduce the number of cases that the already overloaded court system must hear.

Now whether you are for or against legislation such as Jessica's law, there is an interesting parallel that I would like to explore.

Gun control has been a hot topic in this country for many years. Many laws are already on the books and there is always an out cry for more. The recent rash of school shootings are the main reason for wanting tougher and stricter gun laws. Yet it is not the gun that does the killing. It is the person who pulls the trigger.

So many people want mandatory sentences and tougher laws, on something that by itself, commits no crime. But want to be flexible when it comes to prosecuting and punishing those that take advantage of young children. I do believe that the right to keep and bear arms is a right allowed under the constitution of the United States. That point can be argued and is being argued. In fact oral arguments were just heard by the US Supreme Court about a Washington, D.C law. The results of that case are scheduled to be released in June. However, what argument can be made about child predators? We are not talking about someones constitutional right to rape or molest a child because that right does not exist.

In Massachusetts there is one judge who has let 6 sex offenders back on the street. The result, 3 of them are back awaiting trial for sex related crimes. One of them allegedly raped a 6 year old boy in a public library. The judge was told by several experts that this individual was a threat young children and the judge released him anyway and the rape of a 6 year old was the result.

Why are we spending so much time and effort trying to regulate something that by itself kills or hurts no one, yet we let people who have hurt children off with lighter sentences?

I will let you answer that question individually. For ultimately each of us are going to have to answer that question and then let our lawmakers and judges know exactly how we feel.