While on the way home from breakfast with my daughter, Isis, at Denny’s, and a quick stop off to walk around a Toys ‘R Us, I started noticing police officers from all different towns and counties of Florida at every intersection up and down State Road 7/441 here in South Florida, Palm Beach and Broward counties.
Eventually, I found myself stuck at a light in what became a parking lot when the police effectively shutdown the roadway. After about 10 minutes of being stopped police vehicles started going North on the roadway escorting a funeral procession. This procession went on for about another 10 minutes before it ended. A few minutes later we were allowed to start moving again.
This seems like a very dangerous precedent, allowing police to effectively shutdown roadway for funeral processions, instead of just controlling traffic, far in advance of the beginning of the procession. Additionally, there was no notification to the public either in the form of advanced information that the roadway would be closed off, as what happens in the case of parades, or signage explaining what was going on and detours, if available, to take.
While waiting for the procession many of us got out of our cars. While conversing with some of the other drivers I received information that I have yet to verify making it sound like this officer died of his own negligence.
Personally, I am very dismayed by this incident and hope that it does not happen again. It seems like an extreme waste of resources and was done ineffectively. On top of the Public Relations departments of the towns, counties, police, and fire/rescue departments not advising the public in an appropriate manner, I’m also upset by the wear and tear and possible fuel usage, used on government vehicles related to the event, in addition to the wear and tear, potential fuel usage and infuriation created by the lose in personal time on a Sunday.
Recently a few people have been posting on Facebook, Twitter, etc about how we (citizens of the US) should be against allowing a Mosque at Ground Zero.
In all fairness here are the only two options that would make logical sense. And if you are really “Patriotic” these really are the only two options as any others would be against the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
1) No individual or group is allowed to build or construct any structure, temporary or permanent on the ground in question. Additionally, the term “god” or any derivative thereof will be banned from “public” view on the premises.
2) On the premises in question a building shall be established for the sole purpose of religious tolerance which will house areas for each and every religion currently, or eventually, in practice.
Personally, I’m with the first one as the second would cause too many additional issues.
This morning someone on my Facebook friends list reposted “SUPPORT HR 5092-MAKE CRUSH KITTEN/PUPPY VIDEOS ILLEGAL | Change.org.”
This in turn prompted me to look into the issue. I believe it is already against animal cruelty laws already on the books to actually perform the act, this is really in reference to wether or not it one is allowed to create imagery or video and wether they may profit from it or not.
I’ve learned is that originally the law that was passed was too broad and would have made it illegal, for example, to produce a hunting show or to video tape as a journalist and not as a participant. The latter being the reason why the Supreme Court struck down the law for being too broad in the case of The United States v. Stevens on April 20, 2010.
This in turn caused a quick response to amend the law to be more specific in it’s intent on April 21, 2010. I really don’t believe it is a matter of “if” the law will pass, I believe it’s a matter of “when” the law will pass.
The changes would not prevent anyone from creating or possessing any depiction of animals intentionally being hurt. But would prevent them from profiting or attempting to profit from them.
The exceptions are where the depiction has religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value.
Also, note this only accounts for visual depiction, and not for audio or written depictions.
With these changes, even once they are in effect, what will they really do?
As long as there are people doing the acts in question, then someone, somewhere, will most likely capture some form of visual depiction of it.
The only hope is that this will prevent people from doing it to profit or potentially profit from the acts.
18 USC Sec. 48
April 20, 2010:
SCOTUS strikes down prohibition on animal ‘crush’ videos
Decision: United States v. Stevens
April 21, 2010:
Proposed Amendment: Bill H.R.5092.IH