I wholeheartedly believe in the premise that someone is innocent until proven guilty. The principles of the American justice system run through my blood. However, if you want to watch me blow an artery or two hand me some sickening news like this USA Today article:

Judge throws out confession in Jessica Lunsford case
The confession of a man charged with kidnapping, raping and killing 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford isn’t admissible in court, but the discovery of her body can be used as evidence, a judge ruled Friday.
John Evander Couey, a 47-year-old convicted sex offender, gave the confession to detectives, but also told them that he wanted to consult a lawyer. He wasn’t given the opportunity to do so.
…
Such a police misconduct is not a mere technicality. A technicality is signing an order in the wrong color ink,” Circuit Judge Ric Howard said in issuing the ruling Friday. “This is a material and a profound violation of one of the most bedrock principles of criminal law.”
…
Defense attorney Dan Lewan had also asked the discovery of Jessica’s body be inadmissible in court because Couey told authorities where to find her….

The fact that a confession that led to the discovery of this nine year old’s body is not admissible as evidence is absolutely sickening! And the gall of the defense attorney to ask that even the discovery of Jessica’s body be excluded from admissibility is criminal.

I understand that in order to maintain our rights procedure must be followed. If I were a suspect I’d expect no less. My problem in all this lies in what our judicial system calls “proven”. Someone confesses, that’s a fact. How can you have any more solid proof than that? In this case the facts can, and were, easily verified. What proof do you need? He did it, he confessed. Why in the world should he be allowed to walk away because of improper procedures or the violation of his rights. I agree that the violation of his rights is an offense that needs to be dealt with, but tell me should it be a get out of jail free card?

Wouldn’t our judicial system be far more fair and impartial if, in the case of overwhelming evidence (confession or witnessed by many witnesses) we allowed the trial to proceed with all evidence in tact. Then after the trial put those that violated the rights of another on trial. Aren’t these really two separate criminal offenses? Shouldn’t they be tried as such?

Calm down Dave

Have you ever had one of those days when you had some free time to actually think? How about the opportunity to dive into a new project and you don’t know which of many you want to invest time in? I have the opportunity to dive into a few of them and what I learn in one will be applicable to the others. Problem is that they are all long term projects and I don’t want to start one, then not finish. Also each has apparently monumental learning curves and feasibility issues. So what should I do?

I’m trying to determine which one will get me the most bang for the buck. But that in itself is not the best criteria since the effort may prove to be too huge.

I guess it’s just one of those things.

USA Today today headline reads:

‘Not it!’ More schools ban games at recess

You know if we ban everything that’s harmful we’d have to ban water since it causes drowning and oxygen since it is a source of cancer.

Come on, when are we going to allow kids to be kids and not make their world so antiseptic that they are unable to function? I’m not advocating recklessness just some common sense. Let’s let the kids play dodge ball, baseball, etc. Let’s ban them from jumping off the school roof. Life is life and there’s always risk, get real.

USA Today headline:

Japan to fight global warming by pumping carbon dioxide underground

I give, what happens when one of the several earthquakes that Japan has each day “burps” good old mother earth? It seems to me that this solution may be nearsighted. Aren’t the “what if’s” catastrophic? What if this technology succeeds and Japan reduces it’s greenhouse emissions by a sixth by the year 2020 as forecast. Let’s say that this method is successful for the next 100 years after that, let’s even go so far as to say that it proves effective for 1000 years – which happens to the the expert analysis of how long the gas in liquefied form can be safely maintained underground.

What in the world happens in the year 3020 when the storage system no longer contains the carbon dioxide? How much gas can we save up in 1000 years? My guess would be that Earth would make Venus look like paradise?

There’s nothing like borrowing from tomorrow and let someone else figure out what to do. Those of you that know me know that I really don’t believe we’ll be here in 1000 years, but that’s another story. What if the unforeseen happens and 20 years of gases are released on 2040? Might that event be far worse than dissipating the gas over time?

Read this quote from Yahoo! News (June 22, 2006).

Supporters of making English the state’s official language and requiring that government functions be conducted in English said that proposal was needed to encourage the assimilation of immigrants. Opponents say the proposal wasn’t so much about protecting English as it is an attack on illegal immigrants. By JACQUES BILLEAUD, Associated Press Writer

Obviously the subject matter is one in which we’re going to see a lot more of in the next few years. The point of the article was to talk about a ballot measure that would be presented to Arizona voters in November.

What do the proponents of the measure say?
“… proposal was needed to encourage the assimilation of immigrants”

What do the opponents say?
“…proposal wasn’t so much about protecting English as it is an attack on illegal immigrants”

Who said anything about protecting English? What’s up with that? Thanks to my ongoing Critical Thinking class I now know that this is called a fallacy of rhetoric. At least now I know what to call something that has bothered me all my life. If you have an objection to something address the issue, respond – at least try to sound intelligent!

Head’s up on this practice for all you politically motivated… when I look at the pro’s and con’s – either on the TV, printed material mailed to my home, telephone survey’s and MOST IMPORTANTLY on the sample ballot – I always blatantly disregard arguments for or against a measure that either:

• Attack the person(s)/organization/idea rather than address the issue
  (note: this has even caused me to change what I thought would be my vote just so I don’t side with a loser)
• Issue what is presumed to be a response that appears that they didn’t even read what they are responding to. I just stop reading. What this says to me is that you have no rebuttal, so you’re changing the subject. You lose, hands down.

We all hate the mudslinging, we’d all like to get more productive things done in government. Join me in putting an end to those that have no business being in the political arena in the first place.

An addition on my previous posting on Dihyrdogen Monoxide.

In March 2004 the California municipality of Aliso Viejo (a suburb in Orange County) came within a cat’s whisker of falling for this hoax after a paralegal there convinced city officials of the danger posed by this chemical. The leg-pull got so far as a vote’s having been scheduled for the City Council on a proposed law that would have banned the use of foam containers at city-sponsored events because (among other things) they were made with DHMO, a substance that could “threaten human health and safety.

Gullible?

Recently in my travels from school to home I heard this piece of sage advice on the Dr. Laura show. It has really stuck with me how absolutely appropriate this advice is to anyone in the midst of desperate situations. The tendency is to unknowingly amplify the magnitude of how bad our situation is by looking at how it is affecting us. We start to focus on how we’ve been wronged or why fate did not smile upon us or any of numerous crimes and hurts against us. The “woe is me” syndrome. We’ve all been there at one time or another. Did you ever notice that the more we look at how miserable we are the more miserable we are. It’s when we begin to focus outside of ourselves, possibly on others, that we realize that it’s not that bad.

Just a thought.

Last night in class we went through an exercise in identifying facts, examining the ethics and proposing a solution. We read an article about Dihydrogen Monoxide and examined its harm to society. The article was filled with facts. There were none to the traditional ad hominem attacks you would expect of an article advocating the complete ban of a substance. Of the 13 students present in the class last night I was the only one that did not feel comfortable proposing a solution and advocating anything from a partial to total ban on the substance.

As I sat there pondering why I felt so neutral about something so obviously wrong the realization popped into my head that I did not have enough facts. This seemed crazy because I had just read a full page paper full of more than 25 facts. Very incriminating, but yet somehow unconvincing. What I really needed to know were opposing facts. I had no way to make a judgment until I could understand the facts on the other side of the fence. Facts are facts. They can lead us in whatever direction they want. They are neutral but can be used to paint a picture that is anything but neutral. Why was I the only one in class that had this viewpoint?

Take a look at the link above and let me know your thoughts. What should we do about this obvious threat? Do we have other substances that should also fall into this class?

The Hanso Foundation (of Lost TV fame) has done it again. Visit the web site at Retrievers of Truth to see how the yellow lab has super sensory powers.

Our best friends are indeed trying to tell us something.

It’s not just that they’re trying to talk to us, they’re also listening… intently.

The things that aren’t said can be more important than those that are. Dr. Vincent “Wally” Bolé, to the members of Hanso Foundation

The producers of Lost want to keep up busy throughout the summer and into fall when the season 3 premiers. Vincent, the yellow lab on Lost has something to do with the storyline. Now the question is “Is this a red herring or is it something integral to the plot?”. My general feeling is that Vincent is related to the “experiment” but is not the central reason for the experiment. But then we know that we have a physic tie-in with Walt and Vincent was Walt’s dog. Hmmm… at what point did Walt inherit Vincent? I don’t recall except that I think Vincent was Walt’s adopted fathers dog and was given to Walt to make dumping his kid easier on him. As I recall, Walt said, “That’s my dad’s dog” and Michael said he’d get the dog for Walt.

So how does this tie in? Still, what about the bright light at the end of season 2? Well, I guess it was more than a bright light. More like a silent explosion. I have to think about this a little more.

Relationships require honesty. The deeper the relationship the greater the level of honesty. I would venture to say that intimacy in a relationship is directly related to the level of honesty expressed. The problem with honesty is that it exposes up to vulnerability. It opens the door so someone can attack us, can weaken us and injure us. Our self-preservation makes it difficult to be honest.

Husbands and wives, men to men, women to women, parents and children, coworkers, acquaintances all these relationships require a level of honesty. What will others think of us? Will they use my weaknesses against me? These are some of the valid questions that cause us to misrepresent ourselves, or sometimes downright lie.

Sometimes there is an obvious penalty for telling the truth and at other times we need to boost our own estimation of ourself. Whatever the reason dishonesty hampers the relationship. I’m not saying that all relationship deserve the same level of honesty. For example spilling your deepest secrets in the line at the grocery store is rather uncomfortable for all parties. But if a relationship is to achieve depth it must come through progressively more honesty.

What about the other side of honesty? What about being available and receptive in a non-judgmental way for someone to be honest with us, as well as reciprocating the honesty? These cannot be underestimated either. As in all relationships, there are two sides. We have to both communicate honestly and receive the honest communication is a way that does not discourage honesty.

Consider the many relationships in your circles and in what way honesty on your part is keeping the relationship from achieving a greater depth.