The Damaged Caused By The Duke Lie

The charges have been dropped against the Duke lacrosse players because there was not sufficient evidence, plus the alleged victim kept changing her story.

Now, I'll admit that once the story first broke, I thought they were guilty. A normal knee jerk reaction when you hear about a bunch of rich, white guys partying at an expensive school who allegedly raped a black stripper. These ingredients gave this so much coverage at first. But I had enough experience as a newspaper man to step back and say "OK, let's cool down and let's look at the evidence before final judgment can be made."

And once the evidence came in, DA Michael Nifong should have closed the case. Both the state crime laboratory and a private one, DNA Security of Burlington, showed that none of the 46 of the 47 team members tested had sex or raped the alleged victim, Crystal Gail Mangum. Interestingly enough, Nifong went to DNA Security of Burlington after he saw the results of the state crime lab.

In fact, Mangum kept changing her story so much that the only person she could ID as her attacker with 100 percent accuracy in two photo line-ups was Brad Ross, who was with his girlfriend the whole time the alleged incident took place and was not even at the party. Cell phone records and a sworn affidavit from a taxi driver that he used confirm this.

And it’s important to note that she kept changing the number of her attackers, their identities and the type of sex/rape acts done to her.

But I am glad that justice has been done: Those boys are cleared of a crime they didn't commit, the alleged victim is known as a liar (and interestingly enough, is not the first time she accused someone of raping her but failed to help in that investigation) and that Nifong is shown to be the incompetent DA that he is.

And how Nifong, whose actions are questionable and might be disbarred, allowed this case to be dragged out for so long is anyone’s guest. But it is interesting that since January of this year, that North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper found these young men innocent after taking in the facts of the case in only three short months.

However, once someone is accused of such an atrocious crime, even if they are shown to be innocent, the damage is done. These people will be accused all their lives, even though there was adequate evidence from the very started that provided their innocence. There will be those small-minded or doubtful people who will still say they are guilty and nothing will change their minds, even if they hear Mangum’s own confession.

This is a painful lesson that destroyed many lives and ruined careers and hopefully, DAs and those looking to make a quick buck will think twice the next time an accusation is made. And it should be noted that Mangum damaged the credibility of real raped victims. How she is not punished is a crime in itself.

Iraqis Want U.S. Out

Many Iraqis held a peaceful march, protesting America’s stay in Iraq and chanting how they want the U.S. military out of the country.

What I found interesting is that Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr had his statements read during the rally, saying that since the war, many Iraqi people are dead and wounded. At least he had the good decency to tell his followers to stop killing Iraqis. Because those who have been kidnapped, tortured and killed were victims of insurgents. The same insurgents who claim to have the people’s best interest at heart, while threatening and ending their lives.

Al-Sadr is currently in hiding because of the new Iraq crackdown but it’s nice to know he can enjoy the freedom of speech he is trying to squash.

President Bush doesn’t want our military out of Iraq until the government, voted by the people of the country, can defend itself from the insurgents. A timetable would just give the insurgents time to gather their supplies until they can take over the country once the coalition has pulled out.

But let’s say the Iraqi government does want the U.S. out? Who would be blamed for the bloodbath that would happen? The Iraqi government and the people who are protesting, because they wanted military forces out of Iraq or the U.S. for doing what was requested of them?

It’s a no-win situation right now in Iraq. And with people marching and protesting America’s occupation, it is not helping matters any, even though American troops are putting their lives on the line when they fight or capture terrorists or insurgents bent on taking away the freedoms that the Iraqi people are now enjoying. After all, back when Saddam was leader, do you think he would allow thousands to protest him? No, he wouldn’t allow that and if insurgents take over Iraq, they won’t allow that freedom either.

If Iraq and its government truly want the U.S. out, then we should probably respect their wishes but in good conscious, can we allow that if it meant the end of the freedoms they voted for and their very lives?

War Bill Will Hurt Troops, Iraq

Today, House Democrats added a little something extra in a bill that is to fund both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars – to bring the troops home before September 2008.

Sure, it’s a bold move and sends a clear message to the President Bush, but certainly not a wise one. The Democrats are not giving the President’s new Iraq plan a chance to work and they are forcing Iraq to meet requirements placed on them and if they cannot meet them, the troops come home.

Yet this war bill has to handle an assault from Congress, where Democrats there do not want a timetable for the return of troops. And whatever victory House Democrats get, the bill still has a fight against the Commander-In-Chief, where it will surely die on the battlefield.

But to understand the mindset of House Democrats, and even some Republicans, and especially presidential hopefuls like Hillary Clinton, here is a quote from a former presidential candidate.

“If you want peace, stop funding this war,” said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio.

This is irresponsible on some many levels. If you stop funding the war, that means the troops will not have the necessary equipment to protect and defend themselves and Iraq. So many complain about the war dead yet they make negligent statements about cutting life-saving supplies to our soldiers.

Sure, everyone wants to bring the troops home but in order to do that, Iraq has to be able to defend itself from the insurgents and they simply cannot do that on their own. And besides tying up the hands of our field commanders, it will give the insurgents and the terrorists the victory they want.

If you publicly announce a timetable for Iraq, these monsters who are currently killing their own people will stop what they are doing, build up their supplies and weapons and have a big firework display the day after are troops have left Iraq. And let’s not forget that oil will go to them and Iran. And once that happens, we’ll eventually have to go back into Iraq and that will not be a cakewalk.

And why can’t the majority of the Democrats and the minority of the Republicans see that? Especially presidential candidates like Hillary Clinton, who hope to protect our country? Well, everyone has their own agenda and no one really seems to care about our troops or our mission in Iraq.

House Democrat Rep. Chris Van Hollen was quoted as saying: “Today, we are demanding accountability.” But when tomorrow comes and Iraq falls to the insurgents, it will be too late to demand accountability from today’s short-sighted politicians.

It’s Not Easy Being A Blogger

One of the toughest things about having a blog is keeping up with it. There are so many important breaking news stories that I want to comment on but I just do not have the time to do so. Mainly, I work and that has to come first. After all, I do have a family to support. Also, some topics are so detailed and have a long history, that I need time to do a bit of research on them, so I know what I’m talking about.

And when I do have the time to write, the most important news story is a good week to two weeks old and no one wants to hear commentary about a topic that’s been talked about to death.

With this in mind, I sincerely hope that readers will understand why The Times Observer is not updated as often as I would like it to be but to please be patient.

France Releases UFO Case Files

Here’s something that should get a lot of respected press but won’t. Anytime a UFO is reported, the local media makes it into a we’re-not-going-to-take-this-seriously-but-have-fun-with-it story. Well, yesterday France made that a little tough to do, as it unveiled a Web site that contains more than 1,600 alleged UFO sightings going back 50 years.

Sure, not all UFO sightings are otherworldly but there is a good percentage that is and should not be ignored. Sadly, they often are. It can truly baffle an open-minded person that some exceptional sightings are ignored, except in France.

“But many others (UFOs) involving multiple sightings -- in at least one case involving thousands of people across France -- and evidence such as burn marks and radar trackings showing flight patterns or accelerations that defy the laws of physics are taken very seriously,” reports Marlowe Hood of the AFP. And these types of sightings are reported around the world, not just in France.

That right there should make even the strongest nonbeliever to take notice but sadly it doesn’t. And while many skeptics and non-caring journalists label all UFO witnesses as Farmer Jones who took one too many swings of moonshine, there are a good number of witnesses who are doctors, military/Air Force personnel, pilots and the lists of creditable observers goes on and on. It’s hard to label these people as crackpots.

What’s also a first is that this Web site allows anyone to view all of France’s UFO reports, unlike in America, “where information can be requested on a case-by-case basis under the Freedom of Information Act,” reports the article.

It’s time that the world’s governments release any information they have collected about UFOs and make it easily available to anyone and it’s high time that the media take a more serious look at a phenomena that confounds professionals in diverse fields.

The Web site can be found at: www.cnes-geipan.fr. However, at the time of this posting, the Web site cannot be accessed.

Impeaching Bush For WMD Misleading?

More than 30 Vermont towns the other day voted to have President Bush impeached because, besides other things, he allegedly misled the country and the world about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, according to a Reuter’s article, published Wednesday, March 7, 2007.

Apparently, this is nothing new. Vermont holds an annual, colonial-era meeting to talk about all types of issues. And it’s also nothing new that a few towns in Vermont had similar resolutions of impeaching the president last year. And let’s face it, nothing is going to happen.

One of the biggest things that many Bush critics love to throw around is that he lied to Americans about Saddam’s WMDs. But if one has really paid attention to the lead up to the war, the real question that should be asked is this: If Bush lied about a dictator’s weapons; does that mean that all of Congress, including other global governments and organizations lied as well?

What many do not know, and a good many Bush critics do not want to acknowledge, is that it just wasn’t our own government who made these claims against Saddam. We had intelligence information from European and Middle Eastern countries, as well as the United Nations, and it came down to the same thing: Saddam had WMDs.

Our Congress saw this information, and just like Bush, they came to the same conclusions as the president: Saddam had these weapons as well. In fact, many Web sites love to feature quotes from politicians who at the time said that Saddam is a threat. Now, many of them are singing a different tune.

But the fact remains that many different governments had the same information. So, did they lie as well? Not likely. Let’s take a brief trip down memory lane. In 1998, President Bill Clinton ordered Operation Desert Fox because Saddam was not following the resolutions placed by him by the U.N. In fact, he was making things difficult for the weapons inspectors by not complying with them. The operation was to destroy known plants, factories and holding areas of these weapons.

When the operation was over, the U. N. asked Saddam if they could go in and see if the operation was a success. Saddam said no and they walked away with their tails between their legs. Never mind the fact that they had resolutions that allowed them to go in and check things out. And never mind the fact that no one blasts the U.N. for not enforcing its own resolutions against a man who had a huge history of lying about his weapons.

So, after 9/11, it was only natural to find out once and for all if Saddam had these weapons. Plus, there was so much intelligence information from different, global sources saying that Saddam never got rid of these weapons, that that was enough to warrant a search. And once the weapons inspectors were back in Iraq, Saddam gave them the same runaround as last time. But that’s where I have to part ways with the President’s plan.

There was nothing wrong with sending the U.N. in there and finding out what Saddam actually had. I always felt they should have had at least a year of searching before military action was even considered, much less acted on.

But let’s look at what has been found in Iraq. Granted, the huge stock piles of WMDs were not there. There were rumors before the war that there were huge shipments to Syria and according to Saddam Hussein's No. 2 Air Force officer, Georges Sada, that actually happened. Again, something to consider.

What was discovered was that Saddam lied about having terrorists training camps and a huge black market for terrorists.

So, if the good people really want to impeach Bush for misleading the world about those weapons, they better impeach the world governments as well.

Global Warming Report: Run For Your Lives

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a new little report saying that we humans are likely causing global warming and sea levels will go up in the next century, followed by major droughts. Yes, global warming is real and its here, according to the scientists and government officials who wrote the report. Just don't tell the residents of New York’s Oswego County, who are receiving nearly 100 inches of snow.

With all the doom and gloom that the report says will happen to mankind in the next hundred years because man is warming up the planet, what you won’t hear from mainstream media are other scientists who say man has nothing to do with the Earth's growing temperatures. Sadly, these scientists are not receiving the objectivity of the media and were probably not invited to the little meeting where the IPCC report made its big announcement.

There are scientists and researchers who say that there are other causes for the Earth to warm up, such as more solar output, underwater volcanic activities or just the natural cycle of the planet. Here is a good example that didn’t get a lot of play:

“Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity,” says Habibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research laboratory at the Russian St. Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory, in a Jan. 15, 2007 article by RIA Novosti.

And while the ice sheets are melting thanks to SUVs, allegedly, what was not highly reported back in July, 2006 was that the British Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A had a study that contradicts many global-warming beliefs by stating that Antarctic ice sheets are actually growing and gaining mass.

Why isn’t the mainstream media reporting these findings? How come they are not made as big a deal as when a glacier falls into the sea? Yes, we can scream media bias and maybe there is some truth to that. Another is that too many researchers are getting funding from big oil companies and this does hurt other scientists and researchers who aren’t getting support from Big Oil. Even if studies are funded by Exxon and have some very interesting results, even I wouldn’t use them. And really, you just can’t ask a good journalist to damage his or her credibility like that, even if the studies might be true.

Another problem is that most of these studies and news articles are posted by conservative Web sites, which not only hurts the image of the article but it just preaches to the choir. And just because articles that shatter the beliefs of major man-made global warming supporters are posted by conservatives does not mean that they are not true. Sadly, though, many don’t or won’t see it like that.

Many conservatives call global warming “junk science” for a lot of reasons. Maybe they are still burned up over the global cooling that scientists in the 1970s predicted would hit Earth in the 1990s, which would cause another ice age. Well, the 1990s came and went and Florida was not iced over. And while this new report predicts increasing sea levels and droughts in a mere hundred years from now, let’s try to keep in mind that even the weather man can’t get the 10-day forecast right.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.