This week, US Airways Flight 1549 went down. Early information is that the plane encountered a flock of Canada Geese and the engines were damaged. The plane landed in the chilly Hudson River, and yet everyone on board survived.
The news has had nothing but praise for the pilot, Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, who skillfully brought the plane down in a way that few others have ever done, keeping the fuselage intact and giving everyone time to safely exit the plane and be rescued by a ferry. I have also heard praise for the flight crew and even the plane designers, and I am sure all this is well deserved.

I also think this is just one small answer to the question so many people ask, when disaster strikes: "Why doesn't God intervene?"

We can be so quick to ask that question when the outcome of an accident, a disease, a war, is tragic. I say, let's be just as quick to exclaim, "God must have intervened!" when we see something like this.

I have to believe there were many, excruciatingly urgent--and very sincere--prayers offered, just before that jet went down. Surely, the Lord blessed many families as this event unfolded. I choose to believe that Captain Sullenberger had presence of mind to remember all his training, the calm he needed to execute his craft, the strength to lead in a moment of crisis, because the Lord Omnipotent's hand was upon him and that flight.

Think of the sorrow of so many individuals that has been avoided, the financial ruin of so many families that has been averted, the yet-to-be-born descendents that will still come to those blessed parents. I hope every person on the flight thought to end their day on bended knee, thanking God, from whom all blessings flow. Our nation should do the same.

James or Jack?

So Lindsay and her mother have requested that I engage in a conversation regarding who would win in a contest between James Bond and Jack Bauer. Glad to weigh in. I say James wins, and here's my logic.

1) James is a survivor. He's been around for 40 years and has been tested by the best. Johnny-come-lately Jack is great, don't get me wrong, but he's simply not tested. 7 years vs 40 years? And don't forget, Jack spent a looooong time in a Chinese prison. He's never gotten back to full form. Let's get real here.
2) James has better toys. Jack has almost none. The better the toys, the more likely you are to win. James has "Q", the brilliant inventor, Jack has neurotic Chloe who's incredible on computers but only at doing research, not at coming up with some original ordnance (she's not much help in providing hand-to-hand combat devices).
3) James has better cars, including an invisible one. Can Jack become invisible? No way.
4) James is a much better shot. He does more with a single-shot pistol and six bullets than Jack does with ten, fully-loaded AK-47’s.
5) James is clearly better at martial arts. Jack-o always needs a gun to bail him out.

6) James is backed up by MI-6. Jack is backed up by American intelligence, which hasn't always been the best in the last few years...

There's lots more, but this little starter list should be more than enough to persuade you to keep James on the pedestal. (Linz' blog can be accessed via my list of favorite blogs on the right>>>)

The Supreme Court Sides With Rich

Wow! I had no idea the Supreme Court justices were reading my blog! But here is clear evidence of such. Check out my post on "The Truth is not Admissable?" (December 19) and see if you don't agree that my persuasive commentary provided the tipping point the Court needed to get those scales of justice working again! Here's the story:

Court says evidence is valid despite police error

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer Mark Sherman, Associated Press Writer – Wed Jan 14, 3:15 pm ET

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court said Wednesday that evidence obtained after illegal searches or arrests based on simple police mistakes may be used to prosecute criminal defendants.

The justices split 5-4 along ideological lines to apply new limits to the court's so-called exclusionary rule, which generally requires evidence to be suppressed if it results from a violation of a suspect's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches or seizure.

The conservative majority acknowledged that the arrest of Bennie Dean Herring of Alabama — based on the mistaken belief that there was a warrant for his arrest — violated his constitutional rights, yet upheld his conviction on federal drug and gun charges.

Coffee County, Ala., sheriff's deputies found amphetamines in Herring's pockets and an unloaded gun in his truck when they conducted a search following his arrest. It turned out that the warrant from neighboring Dale County had been recalled five months earlier, but the county sheriff's computers had not been updated.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court, said the evidence may be used "when police mistakes are the result of negligence such as that described here, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements."

Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas sided with Roberts.

In a dissent for the other four justices, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the ruling "leaves Herring, and others like him, with no remedy for violations of their constitutional rights."

Ginsburg said accurate police record-keeping is of paramount importance, particularly with the widespread use of electronic databases. Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens also dissented.

Herring was arrested after a Coffee sheriff's employee asked her counterpart in Dale County whether Herring, called "no stranger to law enforcement" by Roberts, was wanted in Dale. An arrest warrant had been issued in Dale, but it had been recalled by July 2004.

The sheriff's electronic records, however, showed it was still a valid warrant.

Acting on that information, Coffee County deputies arrested and searched Herring.

The Dale employee meanwhile discovered the warrant was no longer valid and called Coffee County to say so. But it was too late for Herring.

Some courts have ruled that as a deterrent to police misconduct, the fruits of a similar search may be excluded from evidence.

But the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta said that suppressing evidence in Herring's case would be unlikely to deter sloppy record keeping.

The case is Herring v. U.S., 07-513.

I'm not a very politically savvy person. I vote, but I don't follow politics, I don't follow politician's careers, and I even have trouble remembering who my senators and congressmen are sometimes. I know, I know, this will be hard to believe, but I'm not even politically correct at times.
So, it's odd for me to be posting on a topic again related to a politician. It's just that this guy Blagojevich really bugs me. His arrogance is unbelievable, the way he appointed a senator to replace Obama, despite being arrested for trying to sell the seat and despite the Democratic Senate Majority Leader stating emphatically that anyone appointed by Blago would not be seated (that turned out to be a lie, by the way--Harry is now BFF with the new appointee).
However, the Governor from Illinois was impeached today. Hurray for the folks who voted to make that happen! There's still an upcoming trial, I know. My advice to those who will have to pass judgment is...well, just look to the right at my favorite sayings. I'm sure there's some sagacity in there somewhere that will help you do your job.

The Truth is not Admissable?

I don't get it. I have never gotten it.

It seems to me that the courts were established for two reasons: 1) to get to the truth of a matter, and 2) to adjudicate based on the established truth. Officers of the court, meaning the judge and attorneys representing both parties, should be aligned in the pursuit of truth. The law itself should be wrapped around this same concept, of getting to the truth and then metering out rewards and punishments based on the facts. The parties who come to court should both be looking for an outcome based on truth. Can we all agree on that?

If so, then why do we have laws regarding "inadmissable evidence"? How can the truth ever not be admissable, if one of the legal system's purposes is to establish the truth? And of course, the thing that I am pondering is Illinois Governor Rod Blogojevich's intent to fight being impeached. He was caught with his hand in the cookie jar, as evidenced by the wiretaps we all heard on national television and radio. Wasn't that your voice, sir? But his outrageous defense is that the wiretaps were not legally obtained, and therefore the evidence is not admissable. WHO CARES, MR. GOVERNOR? It's not like you didn't say what you said! We heard it!

So why would a legal system not allow the truth to be admissable? I understand the need to protect innocents, but that's not the case here. No one needed protection, the system wasn't out to get anyone and everyone, there was no witch hunt, no widespread fishnet for any little thing that might pop up. A guilty man was caught doing the very thing the wiretaps were put in place to capture.

We just want the truth to be considered by any intelligent person, jury, congressional body, or other competent jursidiction. Shame on any officer of the court who is not dedicated to the same ideal.

Mr. Governor, save yourself further embarassment and save the taxpayers some money. Give us all a Christmas present by resigning.

No, Moroni

Occasionally when I read the scriptures the personality of the writer really comes through, and when that happens I feel a greater understanding of the subject being discussed. I was studying the book of Ether this past week, and in chapter 12, Moroni, the great editor of The Book of Mormon, interjects his personal fears regarding how the things he is engraving onto metal plates will be received, by a future generation. He laments "Lord, the Gentiles will mock at these things, because of our weakness in writing.... (T)hou hast made us that we could write but little, because of the awkwardness of our hands. (W)hen we write we behold our weakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear lest the Gentiles shall mock at our words."

Moroni, you wrote to us as if we were present, having seen our generations in vision. And now, I write back to you as if you are present. Your fears may have been realized when some few read your words and mocked them, but those who did so were uneducated, uninformed, and uninspired. As I read your writings, I find them to be incredible. The more I study them, the more impressed I am at how accurate, how consistent with other scriptures, and how inspired and inspiring they are. You helped author the book characterized by a living prophet as "the most correct of any book on earth"! In my 35 years of studying it, I have never found a single mistake--not one inconsistency, and not a single conflict with anything I know to be true. I concluded long ago that anyone who would mock your writings in The Book of Mormon would also mock the Savior himself. You did your job, and you did it with inspiration, enduring all the hardships we can now only imagine, as your people battled themselves to extinction. Mock your writings? No, Moroni, we humbly thank you, I thank you, a true prophet of God, to whom we acknowledge a great debt, you who brought so much to this latter-day generation.

Sorry to Disappoint You

So I'm sure by now you all know that the Guv was caught trying to peddle his influence. I understand from this morning's news that he is choosing to not resign and is going about business as usual. In fact, it appears he might still appoint someone to the Senate. I just wanted to go on record that if he appoints me, I will reject the appointment. I know that is a HUGE disappoint to my fan(s) but hey, I'm a grandfather now and need to get that new role perfected before I take on truth, justice, and the American way (not to mention world peace and the economy).

However, I remain ever at the ready for consultation on an as-needed basis.