Already admitted by the Missouri law enforcement, is the fact that they were unable to bring forth enough evidence to constitute charges being brought to court, however since MySpace, based in Beverly Hills, CA, has a server there, the federal prosecutors involved in the case brought a federal statute into play.  This statute is most often relegated to prosecuting fraud cases occurring across state lines.

Fraud… murder… the two have next to nothing in common.  Yes, Ms. Drew acted abominably, and yes the fact that a, then 48 year old, woman felt it necessary to taunt a 13 year old young girl is outright insane, but attempting to prosecute under the pretense of fraud due to her creation of a false MySpace account, leaves much to be desired in coming to terms with the entire situation.

What then of the parents who name-call or verbally abuse their children, or those that project negativity to their children, resulting in their acts of suicide and attempted suicide?  Would the law apply here?  Making a child feel worthless is indeed wrong, but is it the proper statute in this case?

Megan, the only person that can actually give her true account, is deceased… never able to speak for herself again.  What would she say?  Where does it all end?  Sending Ms. Drew to prison for…?  Murder?  Cyberbullying?  Too many people are far to free with acts that infringe on the rights of others, but when/should the state or federal law step in to right those wrongs?

I’m sure Megan’s family might feel some vindication or closure, but following the laws that are now growing more and more indistinct in their boundaries leaves us wondering where do the crimes end and the laws begin?  Setting precedence, whether intended or not, is what this case will do and not necessarily in a healthy or helpful manner.

Making someone miserable through actions or words is wrong in any way, shape, or form, but to be sent to prison for the actions of another under a statute designed for an entirely different scenario is stretching things a bit.

So tell me… is it right or wrong?  Was the courts decision correct, or did they stretch the legal limits to produce a ‘solution’ to a horrifying problem.  You tell me.

The expense for the court procedure, alone, can run into the tens of thousands of dollars, leaving you to wonder exactly where all the money went (especially if you were represented by a less than mediocre attorney). Following the finale when the judge, playing the almighty God, determines who gets primary custody, full custody, or no custody at all, you finally feel a rare chance to relax.

In the mail it comes… an ordinary envelope containing a seemingly innocent piece of paper offering assistance in collecting the child support payments that were ordered by the court. Why not, you think, what’s the worst that can happen?

Prepare yourself for another ridiculous round of unnecessary litigation procedures. Not only is this agency a separately functioning arm of the city government, but they also must ‘re-establish’ parental rights, custody, and whether child support payments are in fact owed.

Yes, my friend, the entire litigation process you only just sighed in relief for being finalized, is going to begin all over again. Not to be forgotten are the payments you must make to the Child Support Enforcement Agency once they have commenced the litigation process. Translation: You are going to pay them to re-do the entire process.

Where’s the inter-agency communication? Do the courts actually hold any power over any situations? It makes a person wonder exactly what the world is coming to when some people are working three jobs to afford child support, and receiving only minimal visitation rights, and then there are those that make no payments, and the courts cannot ‘find’ them while they are granted full visitation rights.

Where’s the justice? Where’s the balance? Most importantly of all… where’s the common sense?

Far be it from me to throw the first stone, I’ve been guilty on many occasions of picking up one of the top featured magazines out of boredom, but does this mean I condone the wrong? Certainly not! Sex sells — that’s why the magazine editors are making the top bucks, but it doesn’t make it correct.

We need to stand and combat this outrage that threatens to educate our young (and not so young) children by such titles as:

These and many more are the pride and joy of such magazines as Redbook, Cosmopolitan, Glamour and shockingly, Sports Illustrated.

Why are we allowing this to be forced on us and our children? These stores are blatantly making a statement that they have no regard for children or for the various ages that pass through those aisles on a daily basis. Regardless of the fact that Ted Bundy stated that his exposure to pornography at an early age led to his rampant acts of rape and murder in his later years, this is an outright violation of our principles and beliefs as a society. Demanding a change of the display contents, or at least having the offending material covered with a binder allowing only the name of the magazine to be visible is our right, and quite possibly our chance at keeping our children out of trouble in the future.

http://www.afa.net/pornography/MagazineLayout.pdf provides excellent information on how you can help in the fight to combat pornographic content in your local grocery store and other retail establishments as well. Unless we want multiple “mini-Ted Bundy’s” populating the earth in the future… acting now would be the wisest decision.

With over 100 local stations allegedly reporting false newscasts by use of fake VNR’s, the Center for Media Democracy (CMD) and the Free Press have requested the FCC to discipline these stations to the full extent of their ability for their less than honorable actions, but to date only one station, a cable channel, has been reprimanded and fined.

Not only do young, impressionable people view these stations, but everyone else as well, leaving us all to wonder if the laws were truly made for the lawless, or if they were made simply for show.

If the television stations have to lie about the simple, unimportant news… what bigger issues are they misrepresenting? For the full story,  http://www.freepress.net/fakenews/

The process involved with the IRS actually cutting these checks has allegedly already begun, promising these new found “booster shots for the American economy” as stated by President Bush, to be sent out by the end of summer. What exactly is the rush? How can this amount of money, upwards of $150 billion, be gathered (from where?!) and processed so quickly.

Whether or not single taxpayers receive their promised $600 reimbursement for having a cap of $75,000 or married couples filing jointly receive their $1,200 if their cap is under $150,000 remains yet to be seen, and by the way Mr. President… how exactly will that be carried out concerning the same-sex couples that claimed media attention not too long ago…?