Innocent Until Proven Guilty

This very common, very familiar phrase, that one is "innocent until proven guilty", is spoken of these days only in books, not in action. Although for large cases in which the consequence is high, it is given much more attention; it is barely even a forethought for the every day judicial incident.

Let us call upon the phrase "your actions speak so loud, I can't even hear what you are saying" to help prove the point: It is easy to get a traffic ticket, but very difficult to prove your innocence once its written.  If you want to fight a parking ticket, good luck. They issue them out freely, knowing its cheaper for you to pay them than to miss a day of work and fight it in court. I am currently struggling with a case in which I did not include certain information regarding a past incident with the State of California due to a misunderstanding of what category it fell into. The State now, in all of its wisdom, has declared that I purposely withheld information, and now I must defend my integrity. What I find interesting is that they claimed dishonesty as opposed to misunderstanding, as if they were there, and they presume to know my intention. I bring this up because I am clearly not being treated as someone who is innocent, or being given the benefit of any doubt. I am being treated as if I am most certainly guilty, and they could care less about what really happened.

This attitude with our government is not new. I have witnessed multiple courtroom sessions in which the judge has clearly stated that if you simply say that you're guilty or plead no contest the minimum fine will be  given. But, if you fight it and you lose, the absolute maximum fine possible will be given. This does not sound at all that innocence is presumed, nor does it seem that they would even care to hear your explanation.  It sounds more like they are very busy, and lets face it - you are most likely guilty, and they would rather you not waste their time. Our judicial system is now mirroring a fast-food drive-thru, being that they can process your case and issue your sentence just as quickly as you can order, pay for, and drive off with a double-cheeseburger and chocolate shake.

Although we can appreciate their frustration with having such a heavy work load, and of course hearing every excuse known to man for every illegal act; it shows a very real disconnect with our basic constitutional rights. It also exposes a huge hole in the efficiency of our legal process. How on Earth to fix it is unknown, save waiting for the Lord to take his place as ruler of this world promised in Ephesians 1:10.

Until that happens, we must face a brutal fact:

We no longer have a justice system; we simply have a legal system.

Free Speech?

There was a Supreme Court ruling in 2011 that still bothers me. It stated that the extremist Baptist church in the midwest had the right to picket a military funeral, because of the first amendment.

We are so far away from where the forefathers of this country intended us to be, it's sad really. We have out-smarted our own common sense. Let me site three issues which I believe demonstrate how far away we have drifted from where we began as a country, and a people.

First, the one at hand. Do we have total free speech? No. Try speaking your mind with "colorful metaphors" in the middle of a court room during a judge's ruling, and let me know if you don't end up detained for the evening. Can you speak up during a high school class without ending up in the principles office?  Of course not. Why is this? Because we would be a ridiculous, uneducated mob if we could. Order is important. My point is, how can you recognize the importance and/or sanctity of a classroom, or a court room, and not a funeral? That our "Supreme" Court does not immediately see the need to send this extremist group packing to the hills with this ridiculous need to publicly hate others is a frightening and ridiculous thing. (And make no mistake, they do hate others. Jesus would never take any actions like they do, and that should really be a sign to us, and them.)

Secondly, the second amendment, has been stretched far beyond it's original intention. We needed this because the English tried to keep us from being able to protect ourselves against them. Therefore, we have for ourselves the right to form militia - to band together, and arm ourselves for the need of protection. Now it's become this ridiculous attempt to arm ourselves with well beyond what is reasonable or necessary, for purposes of recreation. This law is now arming our criminals, arming our confused and deranged children who terrorize their own classmates, and is being used mainly as a crutch for gun companies to keep profits as high as possible. It is not my suggestion to remove the amendment, but rather, to ask the question as to whether some degree of restriction wouldn't be wise?

The last observation I will make is that the founding fathers had no intention of gaining wealth through public office. These were already wealthy men who felt it their civic duty to serve. That is obviously a far cry from today, where our public "servants" are paid very well with guaranteed salaries for life after serving a single term. Paid benefits for life, and automatic raises each year for inflation, are only a couple of the lasting benefits they experience. When I hear them discuss how they look at the founding fathers for guidance, I can't help but quietly suggest "try working for free." I think the time when our government was for the people is long since over. It is evident in many ways that our power as "the people" has greatly diminished, as it seems that we have a government that is there largely to please itself.

Just thinking out loud.

Is Peyton Manning ready to play?

Peyton had four surgeries last year, and as a result, he could not play. Jim Irsay is supposed to pay him $28 million in a few days to keep him unless they restructure his contract. In the news, there is so much buzz about what is going on around him that it has become unreliable, unbelievable, and frankly irresponsible journalism. Writer Bob Kravitz in Indianapolis won the "Supreme Jackass" award for his comment concerning Peyton's "noodle arm" a few weeks ago. I think it's about time to to write something that is just blunt common sense:

We'll just have to wait and see. There is nothing else to discuss. Period.

Manning is regarded as one of the best quarterbacks, let alone football players in general, to ever play the game. He's been playing for roughly 14 years professionally, and probably another 14 or so years before that. That's 28 years, approximately, of playing football. I think he's familiar with the game. Also, maybe I'm on my own here, but I also do believe he knows more about how he feels than we do.

Would it be smart to pay him $28 million without knowing for sure how he's going to do? Of course not. Would it be smart to cut him lose without knowing for sure how well he might be able to play next year? Of course not. Is it smart to put all of your eggs in one basket, especially if your not sure whether your basket can carry professional football-playing eggs? Luck might be great, he might not be. Again, let me make an outrageous comment:

We'll just have to wait and see. There is nothing else to discuss. Period.

Now, let's discuss some of the hype around the issue. Do I think Jim Irsay is a moron? Well, he is a billionaire in charge of a football team whose regular season record for roughly a decade was incredibly successful. So, I'm inclined to say absolutely not. Do I think he's made completely moronic decisions about how to broadcast this Peyton Manning situation? Yup. Has he acted kind of like a jackass by making Peyton seem like an expendable item, especially now that we see he's mainly responsible for that successful regular season success? Yup. Jim, how about a note-to-self: Pull your head out. Your reputation is heading south like a bowling ball dropped out of a commuter plane. The guy who has been taking your 2-14 team to the 11-5 average record is being treated like a distant excommunicated criminal in the media. The word here Jim, is "tact."

Bob Kravitz's comment was infuriating. After a couple of months of rehabilitation, he makes the comment that Peyton is nowhere near full-strength. Really Bob? Is that your genius contribution? Do you also go around calling pregnant women fat? What an amazing observation. The level of sophisticated and educated statements around here is just outstanding.

It looks like Peyton Manning will play next year. If he does, with his previous track record of consistent and outstanding performances, I imagine he will be fantastic. However, since, to my knowledge, nobody owns a working "Miss Cleo" crystal ball, and nobody can successfully predict the future,

We'll just have to wait and see. There is nothing else to discuss. Period.

For the next few months, all of you in the media, Señor Kravitz, Señor Irsay, please, for the love of all that is good and pure in football... just lock it up. Your speculative comments are driving us all crazy. Also, minor side note, you guys are all hanging your success on the efforts of other successful people who are actually doing something - how about a little more respect thrown their way?