Brief 1: The first story is about a convicted sex offender being paroled after first receiving what seems to be a minimal sentance for a crime where he “broke into the woman’s residence on Sept. 21, 2007. He dragged her upstairs by her hair and tried to rape her. When she resisted, he forced her to perform a sex act.” You can all feel comfortable with our court system as the creep plead guilty to burglary and involuntary deviate sexual intercourse receiving 11.5 months to 23 months for the burglary and probation for the sexual assault. It should be noted that the judge was a female who later paroled the sexual predator after serving only the minimum sentence.
The victim is understandably fearful of the man, but the same judge ordered him to wear an ankle bracelet to monitor his movements for six months and ordered him to stay away from the woman and the town where the crime occurred. I am sure that the victim will feel better knowing that a man who broke into her home and assaulted her will now simply decide to become a law abiding citizen and obey the judge. How many news stories have we read about these predators ignoring the law and the victims end up dead? I hope that the victim follows the law and buys herself a gun, learns how to use it, and protects herself because the legal system did not seem to do that.
Brief 2: The view that most of us have of the residents of Beverly Hills would probably center around the likes of Paris Hilton, the television show Beverly Hills 90210, and elitist shops where most of us could not afford to shop. It seemed that this was not all true as the Beverly Hills School District has been allowing 10 percent of the district’s student placements to be filled by neighboring, less fortunate students…as long as the federal government was subsidizing the program. The rich folks no longer feel like they want to pay for the program with their tax dollars and the poor folks are upset as their kids will have to attend Los Angeles public schools.
Two things strike me as funny [not laughable, but sad] in that the rich and Hollywood types who live in Beverly Hills who always seem to preach about social issues really do not want to spend their own money, and the parents of the affected children do not want their children to attend the schools run by the liberal politicians that they have elected over and over again. It is funny to watch liberals fight each other.
Brief 3: If you have ever paid attention to military matters, the United States values its warriors very much and have increasingly relied on technology to keep our men and women as safe as possible. We commonly use sophisticated weapons, stealth planes, or remotely controlled drones to attack our enemies. A growing combat industry will develop robots to help fight future battles. This news story about the robots extolled the virtues of “ethical” robots “that can use lethal force on the battlefield [and]adhere to international law and rules of engagement.” Some terms that made me uncomfortable were; “autonomous robots,” “robots designed to have guilt,” “ethical adaptor,” “specific guilt threshold,” and “reduce collateral damage.” And I thought the purpose of doing battle was to win? WWGPS (What Would General Patton Say).
Brief 4: This next brief falls into an area where my views may be a little non traditional. There seems to be a “Catch 22” whenever a women disappears and the husband/boyfriend/fiance is left behind. This story is a good example of the scenario in that the husband’s lack of cooperation now makes him a suspect in his wife’s disappearance. I will acknowledge that the immediate family are the most likely suspects, but suppose for a minute that he is innocent…you know like our legal system is supposed to presume.
You have this guy who lost his wife, as he talks to police he notices that they are focused solely on him as the suspect. What does he do? If he hires a lawyer, he looks guilty, if he doesn’t hire one, he may be the only suspect considered. It wouild be a tough position to find yourself. The media will certainly hype the story increase ratings/readership regardless of the whole story. Remember Richard Jewell? My wife thinks it was the husband.
Brief 5: The headline in this last brief read; “Pregnant soldiers in war zone won’t be punished.” This reminded me of then presidential candidate Obama discussing abortion when he obviously went off teleprompter and said, “I’ve got two daughters, 9 years old and 6 years old. I’m going to teach them first of all about values and morals but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.” This message set off a fire storm from many people who believe that children are a gift.
In the news story, the general is more concerned that when his soldiers get pregnant when deployed, they have to be removed from the theatre of operation. With limited replacements available, that leaves his unit short of personnel. The General made a rule to discourage this behavior and does not seem to have the opinion that babies are a punishment. The rule had been in place for a number of months and no soldier was actually punished, but there must have been a slow news day so the story popped.