Tuesday, December 04, 2007

Who Is It Hurting

The debate over the words "Under God" is thriving. One of the most famous people leading this debate is a man named Michael Newdow. Newdow is an avid atheist and wants the words "Under God" removed from the Pledge and on all US Currency.

My question is, "Is it really that big of an issue? Is it really that big of deal?" Is there more important things in this world that he can be focusing? I mean really, when is the last time that we actually looked at those words on the bills anyway. Honestly? We all know that the words "In God We Trust" are on every dollar bill and coin made by the US Mint, but without looking, do you actually know where those words are located? I bet that Mr. Newdow can't name half of the text printed on the dollar bills printed in the US.

Mr. Newdow is a very smart man. He's not only a doctor, but a lawyer as well. If Mr. Newdow spent as much time and effort on current issues as he did on trying to remove a couple of words from the Pledge and US Currency, this world might be a better place for all of us. I mean, why not talk about or do things that will have a lasting impact?

This country was based on religion. Religion is everywhere you go in Washington DC. It's on every building such as the Washington Monument. It's all over the Capital Building. If you have ever been to Washington DC, then you know what I am talking about. I have no doubt that our Forefathers are rolling over in their graves right now just in complete disbelief in how this country has turned out to be.

We should all thank Newdow for giving us a reason to hope that one day, in the not-too-distant future, we will return to the America of September 10, 2001. To return to those days when we had nothing better to do than bicker over really critical issues like which politician is the most patriotic, or who has the biggest flag on the block. Thanks to Newdow's lawsuit charging the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional (due to that "under God" phrase), we've become reacquainted with that comforting place where flag-waving carries no sorrowful undertones, only simple pride or defiance.

Candy Or Not Candy

If you haven't heard about this, narcotics police in Philadelphia are having a tough time figuring out if people are trying to get high or just freshen their breath. Police claim Hershey's Ice Breakers Pacs look too much like the heat-sealed bags of illegal drugs such as heroin or crack. Philadelphia Police Chief Inspector William Blackburn said he has been a narcotics officer for most of his career and mistook the candy pouches for the real thing.

The Hershey Company, makers of the Ice Breakers Candy, defended the product, saying in part, it is clearly labeled with product identification. Sure, in part. Now I saw pictures of the drugs and the candy side by side and I couldn't tell a difference. So I am guessing that the "in part" labeling is that of the actual package that the breath strips come in.I'm just wondering why Hershey is being so defensive against their candy. If I were the CEO of Hershey, I would help out the Law of the Land by making the candy a little bit more convincing that it is candy. Is it really that big of deal to change the actual candy or make the actual strip say Hershey or Ice Breakers on it? What is the cost to help get drugs off the street?

Where The Law Fails

Have you heard the story about Megan Meier from St. Charles County in Missouri? Megan was a 13 year old girl that committed suicide last year after being dumped by "Josh," a boy created under the direction of Lori Drew. Drew is the mother of one of Megan's former friends. Apparently Drew thought that Megan was talking about her daughter so she, with the help of some other kids, made up an on-line profile on myspace. Drew wanted to know what Megan was saying about her daughter online.

So they create this made up character and named him "Josh". They started talking to Megan to find out what she would say about Drew's daughter. Soon after, "Josh" started talking down to Megan. Bulletins were being posted about her, saying things like, "Megan Meier is a slut. Megan Meier is fat." Eventually, the harassing got to be to much and Megan hung herself.

The kicker is that nothing can be done about it. Law enforcement officials have said the case does not fit into any law. St. Charles County Prosecutor Jack Banas said statements from the neighbor and two teens who participated in the fictitious account couldn't meet criminal standards for the state's statutes on harassment, stalking or endangering the welfare of a child.

"There's no dispute that Mrs. Drew was aware of the creation of this MySpace," Banas said. "It was done by a young person that was in the employ of her — an 18-year-old girl along with her younger daughter — and the sole purpose by all parties that were involved in this was has been to find out what Megan was saying about this 13-year-old daughter of Mrs. Drew."

Megan's mother, Tina Meier, said last month she didn't think anyone involved intended for her daughter to kill herself.

"But when adults are involved and continue to screw with a 13-year-old, with or without mental problems, it is absolutely vile," Tina Meier said in a statement.

So the Police are saying that there is no law, but Banas is saying that there is a law, but the case doesn't fit the current law's profile. So my question is does there really have to be a law to punish those that are harassing another person? Can't one just be made up on the spot? We all know that what they have done to Megan was wrong. There's no doubt about it. But to let these people go scott free is just wrong. Shouldn't they have some sort of punishment? Does there really have to be a law in place when we know that these people harassed this young girl over and over again on some made up person that never existed? Was it not just the intention of Mrs. Drew to find out if Megan was talking about her daughter, but also to degrade and defile this young girl? What was said about Megan by Mrs. Drew and her co-conspirators is wrong and we all know it. Just because there is no law in place shouldn't mean that they can get away with what they have done. Why are laws only created after a crime has been committed? We all know what they were doing was wrong. A law has now been put in place about cyber-bullying and harassment, but only after Megan's case has been under investigation. So Mrs. Drew has a free ticket out of this one.

To me this is completely bull. Mrs. Drew should be punished. Just because there was no specific law or the current law isn't vague enough, doesn't mean that she should be set free automatically.

So, what say you? Am I wrong?

Saturday, December 01, 2007

The Million Dollar Bill

Ok first click on this link here.

Now anybody who is anybody knows that the US Mint doesn't make a million dollar bill. Especially those who work at a bank. Yet if you look at the link that I just gave you, you'll notice that there are pen marks on the bill from banks when they use their "counterfeit" pens to tell whether or not the bill is fake. You mean to tell me that the personnel at the bank didn't know automatically that the bill was fake? Was it really that hard to tell that you had to use the counterfeit pen on the bill three times? The first time wasn't convincing enough? If you work at a bank then you should know that there is no such thing!

So why did they even pen the bill in the first place. That's right, because someone actually tried to open a bank account with the bill. Yep, not exactly smart. Alexander D. Smith, 31, was charged with disorderly conduct and two counts of forgery after he walked into the bank and tried to open an account by depositing the fake $1 million bill. So did he really act disorderly when they didn't deposit his money? Did he really believe that he would get the money?

My problem is that he was charged with forgery. The definition of forgery is, "the production of a spurious work that is claimed to be genuine, such as a coin, a painting, or the like." Since he did not make it, more on that in a minute, can he be charged with forgery? Here's the real kicker, Police say that it was a fake $1 million dollar bill, but since there is no such thing as a real $1 million dollar bill, can he be charged with forgery?

A little history on the Million Dollar Bill.

The million dollar bill was started by Ron Comfort and The Great News Network, a network dedicated in teaching people about Jesus Christ. The Great News Network were asking people if they were going to Heaven or not, calling it the "million dollar question". They decided to make a million dollar bill and put a short statement around the bill that would remind people that the question of Salvation is a million dollar question.

But even the Secret Service apparently has problems with the Million dollar bill as well. Last month the Secret Service raided the offices of the Great News Network and seized 8300 of the bills. Apparently, the Secret Service felt they looked a little bit too much like real currency for comfort. Is it really that hard to tell the difference? Of coarse back in 1992, the studio of J.S.G. Boggs was raided by the Secret Service. J.S.G. Boggs creates counterfeit currency as art, though his bills are single-sided, so they're not likely to be mistaken for actual money. The Secret Service seized thousands of his works, and haven't returned them to this day.

According to the US Treasury’s own policy it is illegal to duplicate and make copies that are comparable to existing currency with the intent to commit fraud. Since there is no such thing as a Million Dollar bill in circulation, it is obviously not illegal to create, print and or distribute one. In other words, how do you counterfeit something that doesn’t exist? In fact, you can purchase all the million dollar bills you want from various novelty retailers throughout the US. If it is such a big deal, why not make the production of all bills not printed by the US Mint illegal.

I just don't see why this is such a big deal. Someone please help me to understand.

Yeah Right

You know, some people come up with the dumbest things to say.

Have you heard about this story? Wendell C. Sinn Jr. has been charged with second-degree murder, or first-degree manslaughter, in the Nov. 24 dragging death of Jerid Sturman-Camyn. According to Sinn and some other witnesses, Sturman-Camyn, a 20-year-old martial arts enthusiast, became violent and out of control at a northeastern Washington hunting camp. No reason has been given as to why they say that he was "out of control". So what does Sinn do? He tied a rope to the truck's trailer hitch and placed a noose around the neck of Sturman-Camyn when he was distracted. Then he tells his 17 year old son, Justin, to drive away. Whether or not Sinn Sr. was in the truck or not is not made clear. According to Sheriff's Deputy Tony Ingram, Justin Sinn apparently was not aware he was dragging Sturman-Camyn, a 20-year-old Eastern Washington University student, when he sped away.

Yeah right. Justin's story just sounds fishy. Your going to sit there and tell me that Justin never had any clue that he was dragging another human being? He never saw his dad noose this guy or tie the rope to the bumper and wonder what his dad was doing? Wouldn't he have liked to know what he was dragging and what he was dragging it for? He never saw a struggle between his dad and this other guy? You know, when you drag something in a truck by a rope or chain, you can pretty much know that you have something there. There is no doubt about that. And I wonder, did Justin just drive 13 miles for no reason? Did he just drive because his dad told him to? Did he ever wonder where he was driving to and for what reason?

What makes this case even more stupid is the lawyer that is representing them! No offence to lawyers out there, but some lawyers say some pretty stupid things. Sinn's lawyer, John P. Nollette, has said that evidence will show his client acted in self-defense and to protect the others at the campsite from Sturman-Camyn. I want to know how a kid can be so dangerous that it requires you to tie a noose around his neck, tie the rope to the back of a truck, and then drag him 13 miles to his death? How is this self defense? Is that really protecting others? I mean Sturman-Camyn is just one person. There were multiple people at the campsite. Your telling me that a whole bunch of people could not subdue him until police arrived? Obviously he was subdued long enough for Sinn Sr. to get a noose around his neck and then tie it to the back of his truck. Was Sturman-Camyn knocked out cold or what? I just can't believe that Nollette is willing to take on this case because it looks to me like a loose-loose case. But I guess if you can spill coffee on yourself and sue McDonald's and win because you were unaware that the coffee was "hot", then you can win just about anything no matter how ridiculous it sounds.