I have complete outrage at President Obama for sending a letter of apology to Afghan president Karzai for the Quran burnings. It was a politically weak move. It was also unnecessary. There was absolutely no need to write the letter.
The letter did nothing to quell or satisfy the anger of the offended. The radical Islamist and their followers still attacked US targets and rioted. Worse yet, Karzai,nor any other official, has not apologized for the US deaths.
The best move, instead of apologizing, would have been to state that an investigation was underway. Then go through the motions of an investigation and let the issue die.
If it was up to me, and I'm sure this crossed someone's mind, I would have burned a few Bibles too and mixed in those ashes with the Quran ashes. Then I would have blamed it on an unknown officer and his anti-religious views.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Friday, February 24, 2012
Teachers Bedding Students
The headline of teachers bedding underage students is becoming more common. Both male and female students seem to think it's okay to take sexual advantage of underage teens.
Why would an adult want to take a child, yes sickos 17 is still a child, to bed?
Beyond that, the student-teacher bond is one of trust. Not only trust between the teacher and student but between the teacher and parents, schools and community. Outside of the home, teachers may be the first real encounter with non-related adults. When that trust is gone, where does that leave the still developing mind of an adolescent and teen?
Teen boys and girls are usually a ball of raging hormones. They are starting to develop physically and becoming curious about sexuality. Who are we kidding? They will at some point seek to satisfy curious feelings. Some teens more than others.
However, there is a reason age of consent laws exist. While the teens might be raging with hormones and new found sexuality, adults should know better than to take advantage. Yet, for reasons, that escape me there is always a teacher, coach, priest or someone willing to break those laws. A teen is still to young, even at 17, to deal with the experience, maturity and sleaziness of an adult. Age of consent laws exist to deal with those folks.
Why would an adult want to take a child, yes sickos 17 is still a child, to bed?
Beyond that, the student-teacher bond is one of trust. Not only trust between the teacher and student but between the teacher and parents, schools and community. Outside of the home, teachers may be the first real encounter with non-related adults. When that trust is gone, where does that leave the still developing mind of an adolescent and teen?
Teen boys and girls are usually a ball of raging hormones. They are starting to develop physically and becoming curious about sexuality. Who are we kidding? They will at some point seek to satisfy curious feelings. Some teens more than others.
However, there is a reason age of consent laws exist. While the teens might be raging with hormones and new found sexuality, adults should know better than to take advantage. Yet, for reasons, that escape me there is always a teacher, coach, priest or someone willing to break those laws. A teen is still to young, even at 17, to deal with the experience, maturity and sleaziness of an adult. Age of consent laws exist to deal with those folks.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Troops Return From Iraq
A war that never should have been fought solemnly comes to an end. After thousands of deaths and ill spent money, the United States finally turns the page and closes the chapter on the Iraqi war and occupation.
The war was a tremendous waste of manpower, money and resources. The whole premise for the war was a straw man. Alleged cloak and dagger along with false intelligence estimates lead American leaders to believe Saddam Hussein owned weapons of mass destruction. Only after the invasion did the truth come out.
There was no link between Iraq, al-Qaida or any other terrorists.
Instead of straining the military, spending money and resources chasing a bad lead, the effort should have been focused on completely dismantling terrorists and their networks.
While I disagreed with the Iraqi invasion, I fully supported military action in Afghanistan. The Taliban harbored Osama bin Laden who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. When they refused to turn bin Laden over, the U.S. was justified in toppling the government and seeking bin Laden out.
A two front war strained the military. Only one war was justified. All resources and manpower should have been focused on that one objective.
War is not a noble endeavor and thus should only be used in extreme cases. The 9/11 attacks justified war...a false lead in Iraq didn't.
For those that sacrificed, a grateful nation thanks you. Welcome home to a well deserved peace.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Gov. Perry's Day of Prayer
The ACLU and some other atheist group are trying to stop Governor Rick Perry from speaking at a call to prayer planned at Reliant Stadium.
I'm no fan of Perry and am more offended (sarcasm alert) that the religious group will defile my place of worship by holding their Day of Prayer at Reliant Stadium. Reliant is my sanctuary as well as Cathedral of the Texans. I don't want other religions using my temple.
On a more serious note, I don't see where the ACLU and atheists have any standing in this case. Perry attending, or even speaking, is not a violation of church and state. Just because Perry hold office it doesn't preclude him from taking part in a public religious ceremony. Even if he endorses religion in front of thousands, it will be as an individual and not as the government.
Even if people want to argue that the a public financed facility used for a religious ceremony violates church and state separation, I don't see that valid either. How many public venues have hosted a Billy Graham crusade?
While I'm a strong advocate of separation of church and state, I don't see this as a violation of that doctrine. Perry's opponents would do better attacking his real weaknesses instead of going after something as Mickey Mouse as this.
Instead I'd love to hear what Governor Good Hair has to say and then use it against him if I can.
I'm no fan of Perry and am more offended (sarcasm alert) that the religious group will defile my place of worship by holding their Day of Prayer at Reliant Stadium. Reliant is my sanctuary as well as Cathedral of the Texans. I don't want other religions using my temple.
On a more serious note, I don't see where the ACLU and atheists have any standing in this case. Perry attending, or even speaking, is not a violation of church and state. Just because Perry hold office it doesn't preclude him from taking part in a public religious ceremony. Even if he endorses religion in front of thousands, it will be as an individual and not as the government.
Even if people want to argue that the a public financed facility used for a religious ceremony violates church and state separation, I don't see that valid either. How many public venues have hosted a Billy Graham crusade?
While I'm a strong advocate of separation of church and state, I don't see this as a violation of that doctrine. Perry's opponents would do better attacking his real weaknesses instead of going after something as Mickey Mouse as this.
Instead I'd love to hear what Governor Good Hair has to say and then use it against him if I can.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
The Casey Anthony Verdict
I'll be the first to admit I wasn't shocked the day the not guilty verdict was announced. That morning I was listening to lawyer on CNN or Fox News comment on the verdict before the announcement. I took it that he either watched the trial or was well versed in it. His words foreshadowed the verdict. He basically stated that he could see how jury could not convict Casey Anthony. He stated that the prosecution left many holes in the case.
The more I thought about it the more curious I got. The verdict came down from the jury and I wasn't surprised by the not guilty verdict.
There seems to be considerable misunderstanding of what a not guilty verdict means to the general public. To obtain a conviction, a prosecutor must prove guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." Beyond a reasonable doubt is a high standard to meet. Unfortunately there is no clear cut definition to the idea. Basically, if a juror has a doubt that most reasonable people would have, then he is to vote not guilty.
The general public also confuses not guilty with innocence. All not guilty means is that the prosecution failed to prove the case.
So where did the Casey Anthony go wrong? From what I read, the first issue is they didn't show how Caylee Anthony died. We know the unfortunate child died. We don't know the cause of death. The prosecution implied that duct tape was placed over Caylee's mouth and nose to suffocate her to death. No DNA, skin or hair samples were found on the duct tape.
Alternate juror Russell Huekler spoke first to the media. He basically said that prosecution didn't prove the case by not showing cause of death, motive and evidence to show murder or manslaughter. Asked if he thought she was innocent or the case not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, he stated the case was not proven.
The case was a circumstantial case. That in itself is not fatal. A circumstantial case has no direct evidence but instead has a set of circumstantial evidence and a chain of scenarios that tries to prove a case. To build a strong circumstantial case, the chain reaction of evidence needs to connect clear and strong. Any weakness in the circumstantial chain and the whole case could come down.
Huekler's interview gives good insight on what went on in the jury room. They could find no strong indication of how Caylee died. There was reasonable doubt about manner of death. No one knows for sure. Take the method of death out of the equation and the foundation of the circumstantial case starts to crumble. If there is reasonable doubt about the death, there is probably no way they could make the leap to murder.
It also looks like the prosecution tried to play on the emotions of the jurors. A dead little girl, a dysfunctional family and a party girl mom. He tried to tug on the heart strings. In the end, the ploy failed. It wasn't enough to overcome the lack of evidence.
Based on reports and statements by a juror and alternate juror, I feel the jury reached the right verdict. The jury did an outstanding job regardless of the verdict. They put emotions aside and looked at the evidence or lack of evidence to reach a verdict.
The more I thought about it the more curious I got. The verdict came down from the jury and I wasn't surprised by the not guilty verdict.
There seems to be considerable misunderstanding of what a not guilty verdict means to the general public. To obtain a conviction, a prosecutor must prove guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." Beyond a reasonable doubt is a high standard to meet. Unfortunately there is no clear cut definition to the idea. Basically, if a juror has a doubt that most reasonable people would have, then he is to vote not guilty.
The general public also confuses not guilty with innocence. All not guilty means is that the prosecution failed to prove the case.
So where did the Casey Anthony go wrong? From what I read, the first issue is they didn't show how Caylee Anthony died. We know the unfortunate child died. We don't know the cause of death. The prosecution implied that duct tape was placed over Caylee's mouth and nose to suffocate her to death. No DNA, skin or hair samples were found on the duct tape.
Alternate juror Russell Huekler spoke first to the media. He basically said that prosecution didn't prove the case by not showing cause of death, motive and evidence to show murder or manslaughter. Asked if he thought she was innocent or the case not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, he stated the case was not proven.
The case was a circumstantial case. That in itself is not fatal. A circumstantial case has no direct evidence but instead has a set of circumstantial evidence and a chain of scenarios that tries to prove a case. To build a strong circumstantial case, the chain reaction of evidence needs to connect clear and strong. Any weakness in the circumstantial chain and the whole case could come down.
Huekler's interview gives good insight on what went on in the jury room. They could find no strong indication of how Caylee died. There was reasonable doubt about manner of death. No one knows for sure. Take the method of death out of the equation and the foundation of the circumstantial case starts to crumble. If there is reasonable doubt about the death, there is probably no way they could make the leap to murder.
It also looks like the prosecution tried to play on the emotions of the jurors. A dead little girl, a dysfunctional family and a party girl mom. He tried to tug on the heart strings. In the end, the ploy failed. It wasn't enough to overcome the lack of evidence.
Based on reports and statements by a juror and alternate juror, I feel the jury reached the right verdict. The jury did an outstanding job regardless of the verdict. They put emotions aside and looked at the evidence or lack of evidence to reach a verdict.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Pakistan Parliament Denounces U.S. bin Laden Strike
The parliament of Pakistan condemned the U.S. strike against Osama bin Laden.
Pakistani politicians are grandstanding against the U.S. due to unrest in their own backyards. The people of Pakistan are upset with U.S. drone strikes and bin Laden raid. Of course the solution for the Pakistani government is to improve security for its people, root out terrorist organizations and encourage economic growth.
Failure to root out terrorists and economic troubles stir the ire of the people. Instead of fixing the problems, the government is doing what all governments that have a tenuous hold on power do. They try and distract from the real issues by inflating an on going problem or create an enemy. In this case, it is the U.S. violating Pakistani sovereignty.
Since 9/11, it is the stated goal of the United States to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. It could have been done with Pakistan's help if Pakistan proved to be a reliable ally in the fight against terrorism. Pakistan instead allows terrorist organizations to operate in the borderlands. There are areas of Pakistan that the government has no control over. In these lands, the terrorists and outlaws run the show.
After the Taliban was driven from power in Afghanistan, they took refuge in Pakistan. Some are even under the protection of elements of the Pakistani Intelligence Services.
The U.S. drone attacks will stop and raids into Pakistan will stop when the Pakistani government gathers the political will to root out the organizations that not only threaten the U.S. but Pakistan itself.
Pakistani politicians are grandstanding against the U.S. due to unrest in their own backyards. The people of Pakistan are upset with U.S. drone strikes and bin Laden raid. Of course the solution for the Pakistani government is to improve security for its people, root out terrorist organizations and encourage economic growth.
Failure to root out terrorists and economic troubles stir the ire of the people. Instead of fixing the problems, the government is doing what all governments that have a tenuous hold on power do. They try and distract from the real issues by inflating an on going problem or create an enemy. In this case, it is the U.S. violating Pakistani sovereignty.
Since 9/11, it is the stated goal of the United States to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. It could have been done with Pakistan's help if Pakistan proved to be a reliable ally in the fight against terrorism. Pakistan instead allows terrorist organizations to operate in the borderlands. There are areas of Pakistan that the government has no control over. In these lands, the terrorists and outlaws run the show.
After the Taliban was driven from power in Afghanistan, they took refuge in Pakistan. Some are even under the protection of elements of the Pakistani Intelligence Services.
The U.S. drone attacks will stop and raids into Pakistan will stop when the Pakistani government gathers the political will to root out the organizations that not only threaten the U.S. but Pakistan itself.
Friday, May 6, 2011
The End of Bloody bin Laden
As all know by now, terrorist and 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden now sleeps deep beneath the waves.
In a raid ordered by President Barack Obama, a Navy SEALs team attacked a compound where intelligence indicate bin Laden lived. In the aftermath, the SEALs killed bin Laden with a shot to the chest and to the head. U.S. forces gathered computers and storage media along with bin Laden's body. They spent 40 minutes on the ground.
Using visual recognition clues, know body marks and DNA samples to identify bin Laden. A wife allegedly identified the dead man as bin Laden.
Bin Laden's body was washed in accordance with Islamic tradition and quickly buried at sea. The sea burial took care of two problems. First no country agreed to take the body. Under Islamic law, a body must be buried in 24 hours. Second, the sea burial robs others of a chance to raise a shrine or a rallying point for terrorists. He slipped into the ocean and thus brought the end to man most wanted by America.
The end also brought a sense of justice to victims, their families and the United States in general. It also serves as a warning to terrorists that the U.S. keeps its promises. bin Laden was targeted shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan. That was almost ten years ago. It took a long time but it also showed the United States doesn't give up. Those were ten long years but the patience paid off.
Osama bin Laden openly called for warfare on civilian targets as well as using force to bring down corrupt regimes in the Muslim world. He declared jihad against the United States. He backed up his words with four deadly attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. The attacks provoked the U.S. to look for and bring him to justice. When the Taliban rulers in Afghanistan refused to had him over, the U.S. launched an invasion. Thus began the hunt for bin Laden.
Like the cowards all terrorists are, bin Laden went into hiding while sending his jihadis into battle blowing themselves up and killing civilians and occasionally a military target.
Never did the USA back down. President Obama said it best at the Thursday memorial ceremony at Ground Zero,“When we say we will never forget, we mean what we say."
So long and good riddance to the coward Osama bin Laden.
In a raid ordered by President Barack Obama, a Navy SEALs team attacked a compound where intelligence indicate bin Laden lived. In the aftermath, the SEALs killed bin Laden with a shot to the chest and to the head. U.S. forces gathered computers and storage media along with bin Laden's body. They spent 40 minutes on the ground.
Using visual recognition clues, know body marks and DNA samples to identify bin Laden. A wife allegedly identified the dead man as bin Laden.
Bin Laden's body was washed in accordance with Islamic tradition and quickly buried at sea. The sea burial took care of two problems. First no country agreed to take the body. Under Islamic law, a body must be buried in 24 hours. Second, the sea burial robs others of a chance to raise a shrine or a rallying point for terrorists. He slipped into the ocean and thus brought the end to man most wanted by America.
The end also brought a sense of justice to victims, their families and the United States in general. It also serves as a warning to terrorists that the U.S. keeps its promises. bin Laden was targeted shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan. That was almost ten years ago. It took a long time but it also showed the United States doesn't give up. Those were ten long years but the patience paid off.
Osama bin Laden openly called for warfare on civilian targets as well as using force to bring down corrupt regimes in the Muslim world. He declared jihad against the United States. He backed up his words with four deadly attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. The attacks provoked the U.S. to look for and bring him to justice. When the Taliban rulers in Afghanistan refused to had him over, the U.S. launched an invasion. Thus began the hunt for bin Laden.
Like the cowards all terrorists are, bin Laden went into hiding while sending his jihadis into battle blowing themselves up and killing civilians and occasionally a military target.
Never did the USA back down. President Obama said it best at the Thursday memorial ceremony at Ground Zero,“When we say we will never forget, we mean what we say."
So long and good riddance to the coward Osama bin Laden.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
