The problem with Iraq is that they are supposedly preparing for nuclear and/or chemical bombs.  If we wait till this occurs, the devastation of 9-11 will seem like a warning shot over the bow of a boat.  Do we wait till they have workable bombs that could kill thousands upon thousands, and last for generations, as the nuclear bomb would?  Given the options I'm afraid war might be the only way to get around this possibility.  Sadam has continuously failed to allow inspectors in to all locations as they were supposed to be so that we know that nuclear and chemical weapons are not being developed.  When he has allowed access, it has been on his timeframe, allowing him to ensure that nothing is there to be found.  If he has nothing to hide, then why not allow the inspectors in and let them do their job.  Then none of the rest of this talk would be pertinent.  But he isn't allowing that, so we have to do something to enforce the words of the agreement he signed which origianally allowed for the inspector's visits.  How do we enforce something like that?  Words alone have not done it.  Fines have not worked.  Maybe it will take a show of force, which Sadam is counting on the rest of th world not to support therefore making the US be the heavies in this play.
    If President Bush believes that there is a risk of nuclear or chemical weapons being used against the US, or other countries, and that they are being developed in Iraq, then I do think that some steps need to be taken to neutralize that threat.  I don't want it to go to war anymore than anyone else, but I support the US government if that is what is decided is needed.

The Stella Awards reminded me of something I heard on the way to home yesterday and I thought I'd bring it in here and see what y'all think.  According to what I heard, the family of one of the victims from 9-11 (one of the passengers on one of the planes) is suing the airport for the crash and lack of security at the terminal, allowing this to occur.  They're asking for, hopefully I have it right, something like 50 million dollars.  Now I might be a little shaky on all the facts, but aren't almost all of the victims families getting money from what was raised worldwide?  I thought I had heard that every family was getting something like 1.5 million dollars (again I could be wrong, someone who knows or who follows it more closely, please clarify this for me).

Now don't get me wrong, I feel sorry for the families.  I mourn the loss of their fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, sons, daughters, etc.  But when do we move from understandable reimbursement for loss to just plain greed?

Not 1 week before 9-11, we lost 9 miners in a mining accident in my state.  They barely got mentioned in the paper, and the only reimbursement their families get is what their life insurance is.  Planes have had accidents before, with deaths and injuries, and the families involved didn't get millions just for being involved.  Accidents happen all across the US.  Should we start putting aside money to help reimburse families for every accident that occurs, no matter what the reason?  I don't begrudge the families the money that was raised because of reactions to their losses, but to turn around and try to get more?  

And what kind of regulations are there on who can sue for what?  If you build a treehouse in your backyard for your kids, and a neighborhood kid gets into your backyard, climbs up and then falls out of the treehouse, should the parents be able to sue you for having the treehouse?  Or what if you put a cable antenae on your house.  A couple of months, or years, later, a storm comes through and your antenae ends up damaging your neighbors roof.  Should your neighbor be able to sue you for the damage your antenae and an act of God caused?  It just seems in today's world no one takes responsibility for their actions (I drove too fast, spun out, but it was a steering problem so I sue the auto factory) yet expects to be paid for every accident that happens.  What's this saying about the world our kids will inherit?

Jumping down off my soap box... Sorry for the length (and rambling).

The thing is, according to what I've heard, she knew what she was doing because she locked the doors and put the key to the lock up where the 7yr old couldn't find it to get out.  Then after it was all done, she called her husband before she called 911.  I also heard that if she had started CPR on the kids, one or more of them might have come to and survived the ordeal.  Instead she laid them out on their bed, except for the oldest who she left in the water, and called her husband to tell him what she did, then called 911.  She knew what she was doing, knew it was wrong, and deserves any punishment she gets.
Her husband is not blame-free though, either.  I think he is as guilty as he would have been if he had put a loaded gun in her hands, knowing she was unstable, and leaving her with the kids.  I don't know if they can make a case against him, but I really hope they do.
Depression is a bad thing, and the way a mind works is never completely understood.  I understand that she might have been able to fool some of the folks around her, but I'm sure that no matter how good she was her husband noticed something still wasn't right with her.  You can't tell me that someone who has lived with her and watched her reaction after each birth didn't know that she wasn't well.  My husband can tell if I have a headache, even if I'm smiling and laughing, pretending nothing's wrong.  Someone that close to you knows you as well as, if not better than, you do yourself, so for anyone to say that he didn't know is BS.  He knew and acted in depraved indifference of that knowledge.  But that is just my opinion.

But if you look back through history, most of the stumbles in the economy come on  election years.  This is a fact.  Most companies hold off on making new changes or anything until they see who will be in the driver's seat - both Presidential and in control of the Congress, since the 2 interact with each other.  After election results, companies then resume what they were doing, and follow what ever plan was in place for either a Dem or Rep Pres and appropriate Congress.  Why?  Because of the differences in fiscal policies, which can affect companies either for the pos or the neg.  Investors also take a step back and watch what the election will bring.  This past year it was more noticeable because of the fiasco of the election and ballot counting, so the normally short slow down dragged out to a longer one, so the affects were more noticeable.  Add in the natural correction that has been over-due, and you get the economic situation that we're experiencing.

I don't have any sympathy for them, and as for using Cuba, I can see a significant reason.  Since they are being held under military laws and are to be tried by the military, approved by our government,  then they should be held at a military facility.  For safety and security, where would you put them?  In the US where feelings could fire up and our own military be called upon to protect them by firing on US citizens?  I don't think so!  And what other country would agree to letting us put terrorists-and the possible threat that comes from housing these prisoners-inside their borders?  So Cuba, being a US base, easily protected, one of the most secure posts farthest away from their home, seems to be the best option to them.

As for holding them without trial:  it's not the first time that America has done this.  Does it make it right?  I really can't say.  In this case I feel that it is right.  Unless I've missed something: we are not stopping them from continuing to follow their religion with the exception of stopping them from killing or being killed, they are being fed as well if not better than they were at home, and are being given shelter that is equal or better than they had in the mountains.  We're treating them well while they are waiting on the military tribunal to meet.  That's definitely a better reason than the US had when we locked up all those of Asian ancestry after Pearl Harbor; taking all the students and families that were in the US, were US citizens, and had done nothing wrong and putting them in concentration camps within our borders.  The US has a history of taking people that are viewed as a threat to national security and locking them up until it is proven they aren't a threat.  And it is an item covered in the Constitution.  Is it right?  Hind-sight is 20/20.  We'll know down the road whether the government's decision to hold these guys in Cuba without trial was the right thing to do or if there was a better way to handle it--all from the benefit of future knowledge.  For now, I support their decision as the best one they could make with the information that I am aware that they have.  I'll just continue to pray that the government be guided in its path and to pray for our military men and women who are protecting these very freedoms we're discussing here.

KSmile, what you suggested is what I normally do anytime it gets slow here.  So that is all done.  
I ended up going into my supervisor's office and getting rid of some of her stuff, garbage stuff that has just stacked up on a table waiting for her to find time to file it in the round filing cabinet.  I also did some search and learning on the web.  And I did some studying of program books such as Excel and brushed up on some of that information.  Overall I'll be glad when Monday gets here and things return to normalcy.  I appreciate your suggestions though.

This question seems appropriate this week.  I'm the only one left in my office till after the New Year.  After today's fit of filing and organizing I'm expecting the office work to be done.  What do I do for the rest of the week?  What do you do when your office is dead and you've caught up on all "when I get time" jobs?  Has this ever happened to you?  If so, what did you do?  Any and all suggestions appreciated.

I mastered a new software program. I have moved closer towards attaining my dream of reaching management by providing outstanding support to my office.  They are returning the favor by standing behind me in my strive towards management; offering me more opportunities to excel and be noticed by the President.

Well, mom and I are close, are best friends and all that.  While I was younger (I'm talking 12 and under) we weren't so close.  Then I was Daddy's girl, and my little sister was Mommy's girl, so we split it up nicely.  Then when I was about 10, mom decided I needed to spend less time with Dad and that sis needed to spend more time with him.  That infuriarated me!  After about 2 years of holding this against her, I decided she had a point (they always explained why they did things, even if we might not fully understand it at that time) and "forgave" her.  That's when we became best friends.  We talked about everything and anything and still do.  Both of my parents are friends as well as parents, since I never quit being Daddy's girl.  When I turned 21, my parents took me out to celebrate - and boy did we celebrate!  I have never had that much fun again!  Why did/do we have such a close relationship?  Mom and dad let me make decisions (limited though they might have been at the various ages) and I learned to live with consequences of my actions.  We talked about everything, with them willing to listen and not pass judgement on me just because I said something they might not agree with.  Mom was always prefacing things she'd say, like "As your friend I can understand you wanting to impress him by doing that (normally something stupid)....." and then follow it with "As your mother I say you should not/cannot, etc."  This was never more evident than when the issue of sex came up.  As our friend she understood the pressures we could be placed under, and when I came to her pregnant and unwed, she understood and was willing to accept the situation.  But she had the right (she'd reserved it in previous conversations we had had on the topic just in case the situation arose) to react like a mother first.  As a mother she ranted, said things that all mothers might think, no matter how much they love their daughter, and basically got the reaction over with.  Then as my mother and friend, we sat down and discussed my options, what I wanted to do, etc.  I guess she proved then that when the chips are down, she's on my side no matter what, because when my decision went against her thoughts/decision, she supported me in my decision.  Open, honest communication is at the heart of our relationship and she allowed that line to be opened at an early age when she said what she meant and meant what she said  and never stopped.

May God bless mothers everywhere!

I too believe that she should be punished, yet given credit for her good behavior of the past 30 years.  If she had been in jail all this time she would have been released long before now due to good behavior.  But since she hasn't paid any price (other than probably some worries and stress over at least the first few years worrying about getting caught) then she needs to pay something, even if it's only a couple of years and then freedom once more.  I can also see that from the stateof overcrowding in our prisons, this would be looked on as a more logical step than inprisoning her for another 20+ years.
The way I see it is if you kill people, you need to do some hard time even if you're not caught for 20+ years.  According to the information provided in here, this was stopped prior to the act.  Therefore, even if she had been arrested immediately she wouldn't have had to do as much time as a murderer would have and thus can be given less time now.  I say weigh the price she would have paid then (as far as years to serve) against her clean record now, and give an appropriate balance between the two.  This goes for anyone.  If you were a war criminal and are caught 60 years later, with a clean record (ie, not killed anyone else) then what would the sentence have been, weighed against those 60years of good behavior, and find a sentence that suits.  There are a lot of factors in any case, at any point, whether they are caught immediately, 5 months later, or 5+ years later, and that all needs to be brought into the equation.  Not an easy job at all.

How's this for antiquated ideas?  I'd like all politicians to go away and only be seen or heard when it's actually politics they're discussing.  Hard topics, not who slept with whom, where so-and-so is eating, or what they're eating, or any other slander, gossip, or trivial information on the politicians.  Are politicians crooked? Yes.  Have they always been?  Basically yes.  Is advertising it all on the news, all the time, making any improvements?  No.  Is it showing our kids the correct way to get ahead in the world?  Definitely not.  So let's quit giving them fame for stupid stuff and focus on the actually political topics.

I know I'm late to the conversation but I feel it necessary to voice my opinion on the discussed topic.  My view on this controversial topic is that unless you've been with someone who went through the process, or been that person, it's hard to see where we're coming from.  Yes, I've been there.  I, who love kids and have high morale values, etc, have had an abortion.  And the amount of "pro-life" stuff I had to see, among educational tools, was staggering.  This was only 8 years ago, but I saw every video they could find, had to see a video on what it looks like, what it is, and then after seeing all of that had to decide if that was what I wanted to do.  (My reasons are mine and personal and won't be posted here).  From the day I thought of getting an abortion to the day I did it was over a week.  Some say this period of waiting isn't the same everywhere but most that I've talked to (in the Mid-west) have all agreed that there is already a time-delay built into the process.  So passing a law requiring it is redundant.  But this was a decision that I was glad that I was able to make, on my own but with the support of loved ones.  It is also a decision that I live with every day of my life, every time I see someone with a baby; when I realize that my child would have been 8 this year.  Did I make the right or best decision?  I believe so but who can tell where the other path might have led me if I followed it.  All I do know is that I'm glad I was able to make the decision for myself and that the government didn't get to decide for me.



And that's my opinion, which is only one of many out there...one voice in millions on various sides of this argument.  Thank you for your time.

I would like to see the courts allow a group of parents who have been unable to have kids spend 15 minutes with her.  8 months in jail for abusing kids in this manner?  Give her 15 minutes with those adults who want to be parents and can't.  See if they don't change her tune from abusing them to worshiping them for the blessings they are.  

The fact that she didn't even go to lunch with them just makes it worse added to her having done it multiple times.

New rule:  Abuse your kids, lose your kids.  Do not pass go, do not collect your kids!

I'm going to bring up a topic that is going to rub a lot of people the wrong way.  But I think it needs to be brought up.

Why does it take such a grusome attack on American soil to get our attention, as Americans and as a world?  Yes, this is a tragedy, but what a travesty that we don't honor all those who have died due to terriosts the same honor we have lately.  What a shame that we so soon forget those other Americans who died without a single person standing and singing the National anthem.  What about those soldiers who were asleep in their dorm when the building was bombed?  What about the Navy ship that was attacked, and those who lost their life there?  Where was the flag waving, the crying, the singing, the support when these occurred?  It's a little too little, too late to make our Armed Forced feel that we are supporting them now.  Where were these folks waving flags and declaring freedom when the Armed Forces were living on Food Stamps because the salary they received for protecting us wasn't enough to even provide the basics for them and their families?  And how soon are we all going to forget them when they go off to do what we're calling for - protection and ensuring our security?  How long will it take before we move from supporting their efforts to condemning them once again?  Are we only supportive of America and what it stands for when tragedy occurs on our shores? Or will we now include those times when she is protecting herself, democracy, and freedom on other shores as well?  My plea is for each of us to remember not only those heros who have died during this tragic event, but all those unsung heros who have died here and everywhere due to terrorism, and to continue waving our flags proudly for ever more.  

This is very sad.  But we need to look at this with an open mind.  Kidnapping all their women and forcing education on them isn't any better than forcing them NOT to be educated.  Now don't stone me; I don't agree with how they are treated either -- it's not how I would want to be treated, but then it's not my place to tell them how they should want to be treated either.  I think - nay I wish, hope, and pray - that they will earn the chance to decide for themselves.  To decide that they want to be educated or that they want to keep covered.  That they want to drive, with all the inherent risks there are for driving over there, or they decide to continue being driven anywhere they want to go.  I don't want to change their cultural history so much as I want the individuals there to have the option, the choice, to change it if THEY want to, without fear of retribution.  There's many a woman in this forum who has voiced her desire and wish to be able to be a stay-at-home woman...why force these women to leave their homes to work just because we don't see it as fair?  Freedom is what I wish for everyone on this planet, the freedom to choose their religion, their home, their culture, and to do so without fear or prejudice.  Freedom is what I wish for... and what I willingly fight for.