Why not lead?

I have had to take some time away from doing this because I was overwhelmed by the Casey Anthony case and that I am not getting the response I had hoped I would from this blog or video posting on Youtube. I am lowering my expectations and I am writing just to get my voice out there.

I would like responses but I do not expect them.

Maybe I am wrong but shouldn't out leaders in Washington lead?  I know that there always has been political posturing in Washington, but it seems worse than ever.

Shouldn't they be more worried about fixing the nations financial problem instead of seeming to be concerned about making sure that the Democrats or Republicans win the battle?

Doesn't the news tonight that a committee is forming to find ways to fix the finances essentially mean that the August 2 deadline wasn't a real deadline?  Seems to me that all the really happened was they gave themselves three more months to politically battle about what should be done.

Also, I heard the other day that the 14th Amendment says that there can't be a balanced budget rule.  As I said before I am definitely not an economist but when I heard that about the 14th amendment my thoughts were "What?" and "why?"

Also, I have heard that the Democrats are totally against a balance budget rule. To which I ask, why shouldn't the government have  to be financially responsible and live within its means?

I don't get that. But then again, I'm sure that many of you know there is a lot I don't get.

Soccer, go away

I was looking through various sites looking for something to write about (why didn't I think of that before) when I found an article on FOXSPORTSOHIO.com entitled "Annoyed over sports? If  not you will be"  by Sam Amico.

I almost didn't read it because I figured it would be another article complaining about silly stuff like sports journalists tend to do.

But I read it anyways and was pleased to find that someone else agreed with a complaint of mine.

8. World Cup soccer. I don't care and you can't make me. So stop trying.  Thank you Mr Amico.  


For reasons that are beyond me ESPN and Foxsports has been really trying hard in the last two years or so to stuff soccer down our throats.  It seems like every decade the same thing happens. Why can't it be accepted  that  most Americans don't like soccer?


I know that there are people who like it but I believe they are in the minority.  It is THE most boring sport ever.  It it best when played by kids in the back yard.  Any "sport" where the final score is 1-0 a good deal of the time is not a real sport. A real sport is about a good offense and a good defense and a decent amount of scoring.


The only time I ever liked soccer was when I was covering girls soccer for my high school newspaper. After all these years I am not sure if I enjoyed it because the games were good or because there were  a couple of really good looking girls on the team.   Yes, Tara if you are reading this that does mean you and I hope you won't get to peeved at me for dishing your sport.


All I can figure is that some soccer federation is paying ESPN and Fox to have soccer on TV almost 24/7.  I understand that the rest of the world loves it; does that mean America has to love it too?  I for one, think not.

Trying to communicate

I have said it before and I will probably say it again. One of the reasons I have started blogging is to get me "out" there too people. I really would like to connect with people.

It hard to do that when you are getting very little response. Connecting requires a connector and a connectee. And I am having a hard time to find a connectee.

Fortunately, my Dad and my best friend have encouraged me to continue to do so.

In an on going effort to do so I have posted a video on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/user/ocalarob1

From what I can tell I average about 15 views every time I blog. Someone other than my family is reading me. Which is a good thing. Unfortunately, I am not getting many responses back.

I mean it when I say that even if; you disagree with what I write I really would like to hear different peoples take on things.

And part of the reason I posted a video is maybe someone will help me to find some online nighttime company.  If you watch the video you will get a little explanation for that.

Even if I still fail to get responses I am going to still blog and probably start a video blog to so that I can get my voice out there and hope to connect with people.

Thank you

Why is one view point more right??

For most situations in life I don't think there is one concrete right or wrong answer or belief. I don't think there is a normal anything regarding people.  I had a friend who used to say that the only normal in life is the setting for a washing machine. And he was right. Unfortunately, he passed away almost 20 years ago and I still miss him.

Since there are no "normal" lives that mean everybody has different viewpoint and opinions on everything. But in this day and age of internet blogs/Facebook/Twitter everyone seems to have forgotten about the Freedom Of Speech.

For reasons I can't fathom, most everybody freeks out when people make statements they don't agree with. The fact of the matter is that as long as we have free will and Freedom of Speech; people have the right to express unpopular views.

Why am I writing this? As much as I want to have the Big Brother feeds this year I have been unable to get them. But I have seen several postings where Jeff Schroeder has gotten into internet hot water by stating a viewpoint that is unpopular. And the PC crowd is in a rage because of it.

He basically stated that he did not like the fact that there was apparently a gay character in a Harry Potter novel that was a teacher to kids. Part of his statement included the fact that he thought young children should not be in books that they read.

There are many out there who have taken this to mean that Jeff thinks all gay males are pedophiles. I have not been able to see the exchange that he had with Kalia over this issue. Most of the writing that I have read about this particular exchange seems to indicate my interpretations of events.

My basic question is this: why are views against homosexuality not allowed? I have no problem with gay people; I don't understand their life choices but I support making your own choices in life.

But I also believe that many good people have been brought up with the strong, moral belief that being gay is wrong. And they have to right to what they honestly believe.

Why can't both sides be right and just in their beliefs? I have had gay friends who were good moral people. I have had friends who were deeply religious people who truly believe that being gay is a huge sin but seemed like good moral people. What makes being gay and supporting gay causes  more right or just than people who morally and ethically think it is wrong?

Personally, I find it a bit ironic that support for gay people and their causes seem to be stronger than ever but those people now don't want opposing views to be voiced.  I seem to remember a time when there was very little positive support for gay people and their causes and those who were against gay causes did not want supporters viewpoints to be heard.

Why is one viewpoint more right than the other?  I am interested in that answer.

The American Way???

Well, I was hoping to get some feedback on the questions and answes posting. And I was hoping that would stir some conversation that I could use to write about ...but I guess not.  No problem.

I wonder if any of the people who have no problem with the Anthony verdict also don't have a problem with the fact that she will be making money off this case.  What a country we are kill your kid become rich; ain't that great.  Wonderfull justice system, let's all hold hands and sing "Koombya" now.

We have gone from fighting the the British taxation and freedom for this country. And this nation divided over state's right and getting rid of slavery but came back together to become united again.  We protested against the oppression of African Americans. We protested against an unjust war.

We fought back against terrorists who killed Americans on 9/11. And then many turned on the President Bush who was trying to do the right thing basically because it took too long.

But when a mother gets away with killing her daughter--we yawn and shrug our shoulders.

I am not trying to say that the Anthony case was as big of a deal as the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Civil Rights movement in the 50's or the protests of the Vietnam War in the late 60's early 70's.

The point is that this country used to stand up to wrongs and make them right. Of course, that was before Political Correctness and the wide national divide between liberals and conservatives.

And maybe that is a big part of the problem now. Maybe we are a land too divided along political lines that we have lost our sense of right and wrong. Maybe we are concentrating on the things that divide and not concentrating enough on what is right and wrong.

I believe that we have Amendments to the Constitution because we as a Nation recognized wrongs that needed to be righted. And I believe the System of Justice has evolved over the years to also right some wrongs. Maybe we were more united as a nation back then and we could focus on right and wrong.

Maybe now we are so divided that our focus is not too sharp.  Letting the guilty get away with her crime and then paying her for committing the crime should not be the American Way

Questions and my answers

As I have stated before; part of the reason I started doing this blog was in the hopes of getting replies and starting conversations. And that is still what I would like. One of results of getting replies is to help give me reasons to write.

Before I get to that I would like to thank whoever Anonymous is. And I hope that even though they disagree with me that they will read my blog again and post a response when they feel one is necessary as I hope others will do also. 

 Today I have received a response from an Anonymous and it is a great reply to my recent post. I tried to copy the whole thing here but it really messed up my formatting.  There should be a link for the response underneath my last posting if you want to see the whole reply to my post.

I will specifically type the questions that Anonymous asked and answer them. 

1. In the prosecutions case, when did Caylee die?---  There was no specific date for Caylee's death. But isn't reasonable to conclude that she died within the time she was said to be last seen and the day her remains were  found?  I don't think that a specific date for Caylee's death was needed. Just the fact that Caylee's body was found in the swamp area near the Anthony's home was sufficient enough to show she was killed. Yes, it is possible that Caylee death was an accident or natural; but wouldn't the family have said something way before Casey was arrested? And if the death was natural or an accident why would the family leave the body where it was found?

2. In the prosecutions case, where did Caylee die?----  Unless, I missed something the prosecution  did not specifically say where Caylee was killed. I don't think the where was as important as the how Caylee was killed. However, I believe it is reasonable to conclude that Caylee died somewhere between the Anthony home and where Caylee was found.

3.  In the prosecutions case, how did Caylee die?---- The coroner, Dr Jan G(I have no clue how to spell the rest of her last name) said that there was no way to exactly conclude how Caylee died. Yes, it would have helped the state's case to specifically answer how she died.  But is is not reasonable to conclude that a child that age with no known health issues died from an accident or was killed?  I think that the state did a good job of proving that Casey looked up chloroform on the family's computer.  How many people do searches for chloroform and what positive reason could they have for doing that? I believe that it is reasonable to conclude that Casey had a specific reason for doing that search and a specific reason for doing so.

4. How can you jump from lying to the police to murder?----- Name me one plausible, legal reason she had to lie to the police. She had a specific reason for doing that and I believe it is reasonable to conclude that she knew what really happened to Caylee.

5. What you are repeating is the theory from  Mr Ashton in the prosecutions closing arguments. So lets convict someone on a theory.--- Yes, sometimes that is necessary. It was a circumstantial case I believe that most people knew that before the trial began. In this case there was no "smoking chloroform", if you will. I would guess that a good percentage of murder cases are circumstantial.  I know of cases which were successfully prosecuted without even a body. Unfortunately, this is where "circumstantial" and "reasonable doubt" collide. Unfortunately, when our founding fathers formed the constitution there was no way for them to foresee what this country would really become and I am sure that they would be absolutely shocked at the possibility of a mother murdering her child. So you are right that I should not be upset with the constitution. But by now, the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt is not really a viable standard. It is one of, if not THE main reasons defendants are overly protected by the justice system.

I believe the prosecution could have done a better job; especially during the closing argument. No matter how sleazy and without honor Jose Baez is; under the system we have he did a good job of throwing every theory he could out there in the hopes that one would stick and I believe one did work.  I disagree with many in that I don't get why an a defendant accused of a felony should not have to prove their innocence. A defendant should be required to prove their innocence and I don't understand why it is not that way.And honestly, I don't understand why a defendant accused of doing something wouldn't want to prove their innocence. 

I believe that Casey Anthony is guilty of murdering Caylee. I have not heard or read of anyone who truly believes she is innocent. I believe that when someone who is guilty of committing a  crime especially murder is acquitted, something is wrong with the system. And a guilty person getting away with murder is as wrong as wrong can get. 

But at this point in time, what baffles  and saddens me the most is that it seems that most people are willing to just shrug their shoulders and basically say "well, its the law of the land so what can you do?". Something is very wrong with the outcome of the Casey Anthony case and yet, most people just want to move on with their lives and forget that there is a murderer among us.  Caylee is dead and no one will be held accountable for it.

And at this moment in time, I am not proud to be an American. I am sad that no one seems to really want this wrong righted. And I am the only person who seems to believe that the justice system has let us down.

Constitution and rule of law greater than justice?

Usually, I enjoy watching Sean Hannity. He is actually my favorite of the news commentary anchors. I don't watch everyday but when I do I usually agree with what he says. Not today. I totally disagree today.

He and his guests were talking about how the Anthony jury came up with the correct verdict as far as the Constitution and Rules of law are written. They believed the prosecution did a poor job and  that the defense did a good job.  And they believe that being proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is a good standard.

I do not.  I believe that with this circumstantial case the prosecution did a good job of showing that Casey Anthony was the only person who could have committed the murder and that should have been good enough to at least convict her of manslaughter.

I get the idea that the way things are set up makes it harder to convict an innocent person. I understand and can appreciate the reasoning behind that.  It makes sense.

But that does not make it right that that same system helped a guilty woman go free.In my personal opinion, if the legal system as it is set up allows even one person who actually murdered a child go free; then something is wrong, wrong, wrong, with that system.

I wish I knew the answer to fixing the problem but I don't. Quite frankly I just am not that smart.

I also wish I could understand why this one bothers me as much as it does.  I have followed other cases in which  a woman murdered her child but I don't remember becoming emotionally invested in the case. Could it be that in the other cases (Susan Smith comes to mind) the women were convicted of something but not in this case?

 I have tried to not follow this case because I realized that I was real emotional about this one. But it was almost impossible to not follow this one.

I was certain she would be convicted; not necessarily of murder in the first, but I thought manslaughter was a sure thing. Which leads me to this question: how can she be guilty of lying to the police but not being guilty of having something to do with Caylee's death?   Would logic tell you that she lied about something having to do with Caylee'w death?

And maybe if another logical suspect was presented I could have understood. But there is no way George Anthony did it. Accidental drowning?  Really? If that were true wouldn't somebody have mentioned that way before going to trial?

But this outcome is wrong on every level I can think of and I have tried to come up with some way to justify it so I can deal with being emotional over the verdict. But the truth is that I am very emotional about this and I feel I have somehow been changed by this case.

But there is absolutely no reason why I should be as bothered by this as I am. I don't think I convey through this forum how bothered I am. And logic tells me that I should be bothered and maybe even a little miffed by this; but I have found for me that my emotions don't necessarily deal in logic.

So I am trying to figure this out so I can deal with it.  I don't like hearing about a child being hurt in any way. I truly believe that pedophiles should have their privates removed and live the rest of their lives in prison. I believe child abductors also should be put away for the remainder of their lives.

I believe that a parent killing their child is the worst crime that can be committed. A mother murdering her own child is almost unimaginable thing ever to me.

I'm not sure how much of things I was told early on is true but I believe I was told that it was suggested to my Mom that I be put into an institution because I would never be able to do anything for myself. I have heard that other mother's of disabled children have done just that.  When I have heard of that I feel like I could have been a, for lack of a better word, "disposable" child or an unwanted child, just thrown away. Luckily, I have a Mother who never believed that.

But I believe that Casey did just that. And I believe she did that for the worst reason possible. Casey did it because Caylee was inconvenient for her. I believe Casey just did not want to grow up and got rid of Caylee so that she did not have that responsibility.

And in cases like these,there will no doubt be another one, the Constitution and Rule of law should not be greater than justice for a child who could not defend herself.

Where's the justice

A friend of mine used the word travesty; that may be the best word for it.

I have often wondered if "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" was a good way to judge guilt or innocence. To me there are too many circumstantial cases out there for that to be an appropriate way to judge a case.

In this case the standard should have been who else could have done it. I strongly doubt George Anthony did it; his reactions were too emotional for him to have killed his granddaughter. Cindy? What would the motive be? Lee? Same question.

The only person who had the motive and capacity to kill her daughter was Casey Anthony.It would take a lot to prove to me that she didn't.  So a murderer got away with it. And it is sickening.  I also wonder how Jose Baez will sleep tonight. Or will he?  Maybe he will sleep peacefully because he is a man without conscious.

Trust me on this; I know that family members can do terrible things to each other.  I know that sometimes the people you trust don't deserve it. I know that people do unimaginable things to young kids because they can.  I know what it is like to be on the receiving end of that sickness.

I know that my parents would never have hurt me in a million years and I know that my Mom will always have my back even up against other family members. Because she has done so.

No mother should ever hurt their  child. Especially Moms.  The state of Florida didn't just lose today. The whole nation lost today. There should and needs to be another standard of proof for child molesters and child killers. There HAS to be a different standard.

Children are the most important and precious thing there is in this world. They are our future.

And children are to innocent to have evil done unto them. I am truly heartbroken that there never will be justice here on earth for Caylee.  Unfortunately, sometimes evil does win.