Fatal plane crash destroys house, shakes up Illinois neighborhood

The people of Belleville, Illinois are still a little shook up after an airplane crashed into a neighborhood home killing the two people in the plane and destroying the house it crashed into. A neighbor close to the house that was hit said, "I think everybody is still in shock." Accoording to the Federal Aviation Administration, the single-engine plane crashed at around 6:30p.m. on Sunday. Apparently no one on the ground was hurt. The site of the crash is adjacent to an airstrip, but the pilot was headed for the St. Louis Downtown Airport, which is about six miles away. The residents near by are use to hearing planes in the neightborhood because many people park their private planes in the plane garages. The sound they heard Sunday night was a little different than the usually plane overhead. They heard a screech then a big boom. Luckily the people who own the house that was crashed into were out to eat so they were not injured.

First of all, this is tragic and my sympathy goes out to the families affected by this crash. Second of all, I wish the article would have explained how the crash happened. They should have got some kind of information on how it went down. Hopefully they come out with another article with more details. Anyways, it seems to me that there has been tons of plane crashes lately. I don't know if its just me but i think there's been a more than normal amount of airplane incidents. From the Hudson crash to the time when the pilot bringing a plane to Minneapolis flew over the cities some 100 extra miles. It's kind of scary when you think about it, getting on a plane used to be nothing but ever since 9/11 and recent accidents, I'm a little more cautious and nervous when talking about getting on an airplane. There's a chance that something will go wrong and it's quite a risk.

www.cnn.com/2010/US/02/22/illinois.plane.crash

Issue #1 War Dollars

The Consitution makes the president the commander and chief of the U.S. armed forces. But the Constitution also allows Congress to approve federal spending. In the past, Congress has used the "power of the purse" for war efforts. Vietnam War was unpopular so Congress put a cap on troops and when Ronald Reagan wanted to help fund fighting in Nicaragua, Congress denied him. Because of the war in Iraq policymakers and others debate whether Congress should influence or restrict the military policy in Iraq. Many people who advocate that Congress used it power to change Iraq policy argue that the American people have clearly expressed frustration with the war. Critics argue that if the president doesn't change his policy than Congress has authority to do what the people want. Overall, American's say that the war is doing more harm than good. It is taking lives and wasting billions of dollars. Some advise Congress to deny any funding for war or tie any military funding to certain conditions. The president has sole power to deteremine how America goes about their wars. Executive branch supporters say Congress isn't as well equipped as the president's administration is when it comes to military policies that will create a victory. Critics also say that the president should veto any legislation constricting Iraq war policies because it may doom the war efforts and cause more terrorism.


In my opinion, we need to have a strong military and it's good that we are using our money for that. On the other hand I don't think we should be putting all this money into the war. We should stop funding the war but continue to fund our military so we are prepared for any threats. In this case a strong offense is the best defense. Congress should put some sort of limits on the funding and make some policies especially since it's what the people want. The majority of American's don't want to be at war so we should slowly pull out. Changes need to be done and if the president isn't willing to do it then Congress needs to step in and take control. Ed Hornick did an article for CNN that talks about American's being sick of the war and its effects.

Issue #2:
Spending what we can afford

Issue #3
Social Insecurity

Olympic snowboarder's 'street' style offends Japanese

Kazuhiro Kokubo is the talk of Japan. Not for his snowboarding ability but for the way he looks. The 21 year old Olympian caused a ruckus for the cabinetlevel government lawmakers to the citizens of Japan when he came to Vancouver for the winter games. He was wearing the appropriate attire but he added his own twist to it. Kukubo's outfit consisted of an untucked shirt, pants below his hips, and a loosened tie with an unbottoned shirt. He had a double nose piercing, dark sunglasses and dreadlocks. Tatsuo Kawabata, Japan's Minister of Education said that it was completely unacceptable the way Kokubo was dressed and that it should never happen again. Kokubo apologized for the uproar he caused in a news conference. Other sources say that Kukubo went to Vancouver to snowboard and that he is only embracing a lifestyle. Another source says that it was a national uniform for the Olympics and he should have worn it right. Kukubo failed to medal.

I understand why this is a controversal subject. The attire for the Olympics was supposed to be formal and Kukubo made it very informal. The snowboarder came to Canada to snowboard and some would say that it doesn't really matter how he wears his clothes but he is representing Japan in a bad way. I think when your in a national event and your required to wear the official attire, you should do what your country expects of you and not try to draw attention to yourself. It would be all right for him to wear what he wanted in private but not when he's seen in a national event. There are times when you have to look the part and do what other people in your country are doing especially since it was required. I don't mind that he had peircings or dreadlocks but the clothes is a uniform. If everyone put their own twist on their outfit then it would no longer be a uniform to bring the country together.

www.cnn.com/2010/SPORT/02/18/japan.kukobu.olympics

Man has court date on charges of raping girl, 13, holding her captive

A man from Buffalo, New York is going to court Thursday to face charges that he raped a 13 year old runaway girl and that also held her prisoner in his home for six months. The man, Michael Abdallah, 26, has pleaded not guilty on all his charges which include, second degree rape, unlawful imprisonment and custodial interference. Thursday's hearing will determine if the case will go to a grand jury. Abdallah kept the girl behind door with dead bolt locks and was alleged to have sex with her more than 100 times. Information about how the girl escaped and where she is now isn't being released. Acording to one of Abdallah's neighbors the girl told him that she was older than 13 and she denied having sex with Abdallah. She also said that she didn't want to go to her mother. Police told newspaper that Abdullah was a drug dealer and "lured" the girl in. She was trapped physically and psychologically in his home.

To start with, i think this is one of the worst things you can do to person without killing them. Taking someone against their own will and holding them captive. Not only did he keep her imprisoned but he sexually abused her. Its a terrible crime and sin, and Abdullah should be locked up for a very long time, maybe even for life. It said in the article that Abdullah was trying to help the runaway girl but if he wanted to help her he would have taken her back to her home, even if she didn't want to. He obviouly wouldn't have kept this girl behind a dead-bolted door. Abdullah is charged with custodial intereference which means that he was trying to take the place of the girls parents. I would really like to see the girl and see what she has to say about this whole situation. I highly doubt she would have rather stayed at Abdullah's house rather than being home with her mother.

www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/10/new.york.rape.case

'Sweatlodge' guru charged in deaths

James Ray was arrested on Wednesday after the grand jury charged him with three counts of manslaughter. He is guilty of killing three participants at the Arizona sweatlodge last year. The Yavapai County Sheriff said that Ray was arrested at his attorney's office, Wednesday afternoon. He will be housed at the Camp Verde Detention Center and his bond has been set at $5 million. Ray has been charged for the deaths of James Shore, Kirby brown and Liz Neuman. Ray's attorney says that the charges were unjust he also said "this was a terrible accident--but it was an accident, not a criminal act." Ray's attorney tried to convince people that there was no way this accident could have been foreseen.

From this article, I don't know how they can blame James Ray for the deaths of these people. If the people weren't feeling well, they should have taken themselves out of the sweatlodge. I'm not exactly sure what happened in the sweatlodge becuase it doesn't explain in the article but it sounds like it was an ordinary set up with hot rocks and water to create steam. I haven't been in one before but i have been in a sauna and you certainly shouldn't be in one for two hours or even close to that amount of time. I think that was their biggest mistake, they stayed in the sweatlodge for too long. I'm wondering why it is Ray's fault. Apparently Ray is known for teaching people how to create wealth from all aspects of their life, he doesn't seem like the kind of person that would kill people but i guess you never know.

www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/03/arizona.sweat.lodge.charges