A Popup on your computer can land you in jail for half a century

Julie Amero lived a quiet life as a substitute teacher in an a small Connecticut town. She was assigned to a class at Kelly Middle School in Norwich, Connecticut, and just before class started, another teacher allowed her to use the computer to email her husband. Julie left to go to the bathroom and returned to find two students viewing a website on hairstyles.

She shooed the students away, but later pornagraphic images started popping up on the computer screen... all by themselves.

Now, she's been convicted of exposing seventh grade students in her class to pornography, and she faces up to 40 years in prison.

Even though the prosecution failed to check the computer for spyware or popups, and was therefore unable to refute that portion of Julie Amero's testimony, the jury still found the small town teacher guilty.

Reasonable doubt, it seems, is too big of a concept for some small-town juries.

Criminal convictions require INTENT on the Defendant's part. Under the circumstances of this case, it seems there is no way a prosecutor could prove Amero guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. That didn't matter to the jury, though. According to juror Mark Steinmetz, he voted "guilty" because, he would not want his child in Amero's classroom and asserted Amero could have unplugged the computer or turned it off.

Amero contended she was under strict orders not to shut down the computer.

Steinmatz stated he thought Amero could have even thrown a coat over the monitor to shield the pornographic images.

Okay, point conceded, but let's assume a small-town substitute teacher flustered by the unexpected pornagraphic images might not have thought about that at the time.

Facing a sentence of up to forty years in prison for not thinking to put a coat over a monitor seems a little ridiculous to me.

Maybe Norwich, Connecticut ought to do something about its educational system beyond merely upgrading the computer firewalls... its jurors don't seem to know the meaning of the basic fundamental principal of our justice system -- reasonable doubt.

O'Reilly gets the Boot!

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (Collier County, Florida Branch) posted an announcement on its website stating Bill O’Reilly, host of The O’Reilly Factor, will not be a speaker at the dinner. John Walsh, host of America’s Most Wanted, will be the keynote speaker in his place.

Although the statement doesn't give a reason for the change in keynote speakers, it is safe to assume Bill O'Reilly's comments on The O'Reilly Factor suggesting that Shawn Hornbeck "liked" his time in captivity with Michael Devlin and chose to stay with the man (who has been charged with 69 counts of forcible sodomy) has something to do with the sudden change in speakers.

Bill O'Reilly came under heavy fire for his comments, as did the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children for planning to have O'Reilly as its keynote speaker.

Boo to Donatella Versace

Donatella Versace has criticized Hillary Clinton for wearing pantsuits, saying "She should treat femininity as an opportunity and not try to emulate masculinity in politics."

Leave it to a fashion designer to focus on the ultra important political issues of today.

Versace's statements are sexist, plain and simple. It's anti-feminine to wear pantsuits? Intelligent women have to wear skirts, show off their legs, and parade around in those ridiculous two inch heals (because I'm sure Versace isn't all that gung ho about flats or low-healed-pantsuit-style boots, either!)?

Why is it no one's focusing on Rudy's attire or what George W. Bush is wearing these days? I guess a suit is a suit is a suit... unless a woman happens to wear it.

Girls and Boys, Women and Men, some good advice follows: wear what's comfortable and practical first and foremost, and yes, if it looks good, too, that's a big plus. Women who are willing to walk around 10-12 hours a day in something that's uncomfortable or who feel they have to show off parts of their anatomy to "be feminine" are fools to modern day sexism.

And if you happen to be running for President of the United States of America, don't hooker it up.

Versace, you are so Twentieth Century. Catch up.

Hip Hip Hooray for Steve Jobs!

On February 6, Steve Jobs posted an open letter on Apple's Website pressuring record companies to drop anti-piracy technology. If the record companies do so, Apple has promised to open its iTunes store to other portable players besides the iPod. In his letter, Jobs blames the recording companies for the fact that iTunes songs can only be played on iPods, and that you can only sync from one computer to your iPod (unless you want to erase everything on your iPod) and for why you can't sync from your iPod to your computer (like you can with most other mp3 players). Jobs said the four biggest music labels insisted on the technology before licensing the songs for sale through iTunes. Apple would be willing to abandon Digital Rights Management systems, he said, if only the music labels would agree.

We give two thumbs up to Jobs. It's about time the consumers stopped getting the short end of this stick. Households have multiple computers, people use home and work computers, and let's not even discuss what happens when you go on vacation and want to download some more tunes from your laptop. Tough luck. The iPod's aggravating limitations on syncing music angered me so much, I refused for the longest time to cave and buy an iPod. I guess I owe Steve Jobs and Apple an apology. I often wondered why a company would make such a great product with such aggravating limitations. I half-wondered whether the recording industry had something to do with it, and now those suspicions have been confirmed. I applaud Steve Jobs for finally stepping up and using the iTunes and iPod consumer power to pressure the recording industry into doing what it should have done from the beginning.

Shall we talk furthermore about the copy protection on various CDs, which sometimes makes it impossible for you to burn CD's onto your computer to sync with your iPod? No, I don't think there's any need to go there.

It sucks. We all know it sucks, and frankly, it's the reason I don't buy CD's anymore. It's also the reason WHY a lot of people still exchange pirated music. Pirated music is free of such ridiculous limitations. Furthermore, consumers just plain "angry" at the recording industries often rationalize their pirating as "getting back at" the evil recording industry.

So, it's time we stopped hurting consumers and burdening technology that could be great simply to presever the already overinflated profits of the record companies.

What's with the mutual admiration society between Fox News and Scott Sherman?

Scott Sherman is the attorney for the Akers and Shawn Hornbeck. We've noticed he's given multiple exclusive interviews to Fox News. On February 5th, he spoke with Fox News' GRETA VAN SUSTEREN about the forcible sodomy charges against Michael Devlin. On February 1st, he spoke to her about photos of Shawn released by Fox news. In the February 1st interview, part of their conversation went as follows:

VAN SUSTEREN: ... if you think that we're coming close to the line — because the last thing any of us here in the media — and I don't just mean here at FOX News, but none of us wants to sort of step over the line and interfere with the prosecution. But I assume you'll give us a heads up if we're near that point.

SHERMAN: Greta, we always feel that we defer to your professionalism. You guys do a great job at FOX, and your show in particular. And we really appreciate the forum to come on and talk about the family and talk about Shawn.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, I hope you come back. And again, give us a heads up if you think we're going too far. You can get our phone number. It's pretty easy to find us. Thank you, Scott. We'll see you soon.

SHERMAN: Greta. I appreciate it. Thank you. Any time.

This oozing adoration exchange seems odd, especially coming from the attorney of the boy who Fox's BILL O'REILLY criticized as staying willingly with Devlin and "enjoying" his life with Devlin.

Then, in an interview with Van Sustern on February 5th, O'Reilly says, "The only way they could possibly introduce any reasonable doubt into this case, would be to say 'the boys went along willingly.'"

Yeah, FOX does a GREAT job, all right. First Bill O'Reily blames Shawn for staying with Devlin, then the network decides to release photos of the boy holding a gun and wearing a bandana while in Devlin's clutches. I'm wondering if the interview with Sherman where it's emphasized how much he loves Fox is Fox's attempt at damage control, which begs a question. How did they get Sherman to bestow such accolades upon them after the O'Reilly incident, and why is Sherman giving them exclusive interviews (unless he's implicitly suggesting that Fox's Bill O'Reilly was RIGHT)?

In other words, how much did Fox pay?

One final curiosity -- During the February 5th interview, Sherman tells Van Sustern, "A lot of these charges, the speculation was out there — when were they going to come? How many? What were the nature of the charges going to be? And until the prosecutors get everything in order, you really don’t know. And then today we found out that something was brewing. We found out, like everyone else did, at the press conference by Mr. McCulloch..."

Yet St. Louis prosecutor Bob McCulloh, at the press conference, stated, "We have discussed this with the families and they understand. They knew the charges were coming. We let them know this was about to happen."

Sherman's assertion that the family first found out about the charges at McCulloh's press conference seems somewhat unbelievable considering the prosecution conducted extensive interviews with both boys (upon which the probable cause statement for the new charges was based) and McCulloh himself stated he had previously talked to the families and let them know the charges were coming.

Devil Devlin charges, and did police actually have probable cause a day earlier?

Michael Devlin, the man arrested for abducting two Missouri boys, has been charged with 69 counts of forcible sodomy. Seventeen of those counts related to the January abduction of a 13 year-old boy. The rest related to the 2002 abduction of a then eleven year-old boy. The 13 year old held for about four and a half days in Devlin's apartment was allegedly sodomized about four times a day. Interestingly, one day before the two boys were rescued, authorities knocked on the door and spoke with both Devlin and the older kidnapping victim, Shawn. They did not have probable cause to enter the apartment at that time as they did not recognize Shawn as one of Missouri's missing children (nor did Shawn accurately identify himself, which is not surprising considering the abuse he endured and the fact that Devlin was present at the time).

Unfortunately, the officers had to leave. The younger kidnapping victim remained in the apartment for roughly one more day and was subjected to about four additional sexual assaults during that period. I can only imagine what that child's parents must be feeling -- knowing their son was only a few feet away from officers a day before his rescue and that those officers had to turn around and leave, allowing their son to be molested FOUR MORE TIMES, must drive them mad.

As sad as this case is, it could have been much worse. The boys were lucky that Devlin did not decide to dispose of the evidence after receiving a knock on his door from police. That delay of one day cost the younger boy additional sexual assaults and could have easily resulted in their deaths.

I'm not blaming law enforcement, but I believe some measures have to be taken to protect children in these circumstances. Eavesdropping techniques could be employed to verify the presence of another child. On the extreme side, a superficial visual inspection of rooms would have saved the two boys that day. The law didn't allow it, they authorities have said, but perhaps it does. There is a well-known exception to the requirement that a search must be supported by a warrant. That exception is known as "exigent circumstances" and one way it arises is if an officer needs to enter a home to prevent harm to a third person (though such an entry still must be supported by probable cause).

I'm not saying officers should be able to enter an apartment on a hunch, but when a truck matching a description of one seen at the site of an abduction is found registered to a man in an apartment, who answers the door with a boy matching the description of another missing boy from years ago, with the same first name, perhaps that might actually give rise to probable cause, Constitutionally speaking, for a minimally-invasive and quick visual inspection of the ONE additional room (the bedroom) in that tiny apartment.

We're talking one minute. "Excuse me, Mr. Devlin, we believe we have probable cause to go look in your bedroom. We're searching for a 13 year old boy, so we won't touch very much, and we won't need to look in your underwear drawer." It would take them less than a minute to walk in, open the bedroom door, and look inside.

Another possibility: Arrive on scene with a trained search dog. Dogs are quite adept at identifying and tracking scents. Ben's scent would have been heavy inside the apartment and even outside leading up to the apartment (though days old). Search dogs have been able to detect blood cleaned up weeks ago and track scents that are just as stale. I realize a department might not have such resources, but there are generally a pool of volunteer Search and Rescue folks available to respond on a moment's notice to a call.

Walking up to a door and knocking on it with such a dog at your side is not against the law, and having that dog alert to the presence of a specific odor would give rise to probable cause.

Doing the right thing sends military officer to trial

First Lt. Ehren Watada is an extraordinary man. He joined the military of his own accord, but when given orders to deploy to Iraq, he refused. While I do question the wisdom of anyone who voluntarily joins the military without being willing to go wherever the military sends them (after all, soldiers are pretty much just property of the U.S. Goverment), I have to applaud this man for following his conscience.

Watada is convinced that Iraq is an illegal war and that the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to justify the invasion. This ideological conviction of his arose after he received his deployment orders and spent time doing what his batallion commander taught him -- know all there is to know about a mission.

Watada took that instruction to heart and, after receiving his orders, spent countless hours researching Iraq. He read books. He talked to combat veterans. He poured through media reports.

Watada decided he could not fight in Iraq. He submitted his resignation, but the Army denied it. He considered filing for conscientious objector status, but he decided he could not ethically do so because he doesn't oppose bearing arms. Now, he faces the prospect of four years in a military prison.

Men like Watada are rare. He followed his conscience by refusing deployment to Iraq. He refused to lie and claim conscientious objector status. He took his stand, knowing that he would face a court-martial and prison.

I am aware of the difficulties the military faces and how such insubordination can seriously compromise war efforts and, ultimately cost lives. However, our laws and our history mandate that even soldiers refuse to obey orders when doing so would violate law or constitute a crime against humanity. Many German Soldiers were prosecuted for just following orders during the Holocaust.

If, in fact, the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to justify an invasion into Iraq, then the real criminal in this situation, is George W. Bush and those in his administration who supported such misrepresentation. At the very least, the Bush Administration followed "faulty" intelligence in making a decision to invade Iraq (the whole "Weapons of Mass Destruction" fiasco is old news).

Regardless of one's view on the validity of the U.S.'s invasion of Iraq, one thing is clear. Watada is a man of conscience who faces prison for doing nothing more than following his conscience. I believe military prisons are wasted on housing such people.

----
Final Note: The author would like to make it clear that this blog should in no way be construed as providing an opinion about whether or not the U.S. should withdraw from Iraq. Whether or not the U.S. did the right thing by originally invading Iraq, the situation there is now, quite frankly, a mess, and I'm not entirely sure pulling out of a country after destroying most of its infrastructure is the right thing to do. Frankly, without much more detailed information, I feel I can't form a well-supported opinion on whether the U.S. should pull out of Iraq.

UPDATE 2/7
A judge declared a mistrial today in this court-martial, saying the soldier did not fully understand a document he signed admitting to elements of the charges.

Exxon's Junk Science

Exxon Mobile takes issue with the recent UN science report that humans are causing global warming. In fact, the oil company takes such offense at the notion that human activity could be contributing to global warming, that its think tank sent letters to various scientists offering them $10,000 if they could debunk the UN report.

This stance is seemingly at odds with some recent statements from Exxon that seemingly admit human activity has contributed to global warming. "There is increasing evidence that the earth's climate has warmed," says Exxon on global warming, in a statement issued in response to the UN study. "CO2 emissions have increased...and emissions from fossil fuels and land use changes are one source of these emissions.

Yes, CO2 emissions have increased as have emissions from fossil fuels, etc. In other words, human beings are changing the earth's climate, and instead of spending $10,000 to help stop this potentially catastrophic change, Exxon is spending that money on trying to bribe scientists into debunking the UN report.

While there is nothing wrong with funding research, objective research does not have a pre-determined outcome in mind.

Don Wuebbles, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Illinois criticizes Exxon. "To me this is really amazing, you never get offered that kind of money. Even if groups ask you to write things, they don't try to give you the answer before hand."

Boo, Exxon. You should be ashamed of yourself.

When Headline News is Anything But!

Anyone who is watching or reading the news this week has heard that a UN report states humans are responsible for global warming and it'll take a long time to fix the damage, if we get started now.

My response to that is... uh... duh? Since when is this news? Okay, certain ultra conservatives have insisted that pollution and all that bad stuff really has little affect on the environment. One ultra conservative congressman, when asked about the threatened Salmon, insinuated it wouldn't really be bad if Salmon went extinct. Sometimes extinction is good because, after all, who misses the dinosaurs?

Wow, such higher level thinking astounds me.

Another headline news story that is anything but... Shawn Hornbeck helping to hide Ben Ownby for four days.

Really? What did people think was happening during those days, immediately after Ben's abduction, when Michael Devlin was working at Imo's? Something or someone was keeping Ben Ownby inside that apartment and away from the telephone. It doesn't take a genius to put that together, nor does it take a genius to infer that that may be one reason the two boys were so quickly separated and Ben Ownby and Shawn Hornbeck have never been seen together since walking from the police car into the station. I imagine, if I were Ben Ownby, I would probably need some time away from someone who helped my abductor.

That being said, I don't really care for the speculation about why Shawn didn't try to get away during his four-plus years or why he assisted Devlin. Again, it's not rocket science. The kid was taken when he was 11 years old. I've seen all sorts of adults casting blame and pointing to other children under stressful circumstances, such as those who suffered through the Holocaust, as evidence to support their hypothesis that an 11 year old child abducted at gunpoint and abused would try to escape (and suggesting that Shawn Hornbeck either enjoyed his abduction and just didn't care that his disappearance tormented his family).

Come on, people, it's a new low when we start blaming an 11 year old kidnapping victim for his abduction and captivity when the case hasn't even gone to trial yet and the facts haven't come out. This type of speculation serves no purpose. If it's true, what good does it do anyone at this stage? On the other hand, if it's not true (and I believe it's OBVIOUSLY not true), then it sure as hell does a lot of harm.

I believe Shawn Hornbeck did come to accept his captivity, and he became conditioned to obeying Michael Devlin and living the lie. I cannot, however, blame an 11 year old child for becoming so conditioned. I blame Michael Devlin completely and absolutely.