Conspiracists abound, even in communist Cuba

Well, we finally know what happened on 9/11/2001. After all, Castro just told us. Apparently, it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon, but a missile or some other projectile. Citing "evidence" and "media statements", Castro has decided he knows more than those of us who live, work and grew up in this country. Now, just to be clear, Castro is and always has been very shrewd and clever and is by no means stupid, but he is also a charismatic leader who is a master of maintaining control. Statements such as this serve only that purpose and none other. He doesn't really think it was a missile, he knows, just like everybody else, that it was in fact American flight 77. Now, back to the conspiracy theorists out there. Go ahead and weave your theories all you want, but remember, the theory has to make sense. I love a good conspiracy tale and have read most of them. Occasionally they do make sense and make me wonder. However, I was in DC on 9/11 and I saw the destruction at the Pentagon first hand. Now, everyone knows there were four planes hijacked that day. Two out of Boston, 1 from New York and 1 from Dulles outside DC. At least everyone knows that four planes disappeared. We know from television that the towers were hit by planes and from flight recorders, etc. that it was in fact a plane that crashed near Shanksville, PA. Also, there was plane wreckage found at the Pentagon as well as a black box. In addition, there were thousands of commuters on the highway the goes past the Pentagon at that time of day. If it wasn't a plane, one of them would have said something. I've driven that stretch of highway, at that time of day, we are talking THOUSANDS of people. It was a plane. In addition, Castro cited the hole in the Pentagon being round, like a missile. OK, one, I saw the hole, and round is not what I'd call it, but, just for arguments sake, let's say it was round. Guess what, just like a missile, so is the fuselage of a PLANE!!!! Sorry, doesn't hold up. Now, there are some serious questions being asked about the flight data recorder for flight 77. We know we are missing 4 planes that day and that 4 planes hit something. The questions regarding flight 77s recorder are significant to some, but are really minor in the overall question. Did flight 77 hit the Pentagon? The answer is, unless you believe that Aliens abducted the flight and replaced it with another plane at the very last moment, or if you believe the US govt. somehow got wind of the attacks and allowed them to happen, but managed to save flight 77 somehow and replace it with another plane, then you have to believe it did. If you do believe one or more of these implausible theories, perhaps the plane and passengers are being kept at Area 51 along with little green men. Anyway, there is a legitimate question based on the flight data recorder as to whether or not the plane was on the trajectory claimed in the official account. Also, the recorder ends one second before impact. OK, got that, but who really cares. So they have a typo in the official report and it should read 45 seconds instead of 46. Get over that one people. Now, did the plane take out a few light poles, was it traveling at 100 feet, 300 feet, at the stated trajectory, etc.? Those are good and valid questions. Ones worth asking. Do they really change the fact that a plane hit the Pentagon? Also, since no other plane went missing, and since the people on that flight disappeared off the face of the Earth, that plane logically therefore had to be flight 77. An irratic flight path is not enough to prove it wasn't. The hijackers were not great pilots, and they hadn't been trained on commercial jets. They'd also never learned how to land. This suggests that an irratic flight path would have been expected. Eyewitnesses to the event (remember those thousands of people) stated that the plane actually hit the ground with a bounce just before impacting the building proper, yet that was largely ignored in the official account as well. Perhaps the conspiracy here is nothing more than shoddy work by officials, but the FACT remains that a plane did in fact hit the Pentagon and since all other planes are accounted for, it had to have been flight 77. Well, unless you really do believe in an alien or Area 51 scenario, in which case, get a life.

Minors can't vote but their opinion can be heard

I was just reading in USA Today that minors (children) can give to political candidates as long as it is their money and their decision to do so. Although ages aren't kept by candidates, there have now been 2 million dollars worth of donations from "students". Now this catch all category conveniently covers up just how much of this money is coming from persons who can't vote, but I suspect that it is the majority of this money. While I'm not passing judgment on the candidates per se, especially since McCain tried to ban contributions from minors in the 2002 legislation that was struck down by the Supreme Court, I must say that this is an issue that definitely needs to be addressed. Now. You might say that a child, which is what anyone who can't vote is, can give their own money to whomever they please. I agree, and I, as a parent, would encourage my child to be a charitable giver. You can instill value in your children by encouraging this activity and helping your children give and make good decisions on who to give to. In any case, this child would much rather spend their money on Xbox games and movies, so it is usually something encouraged by the parents to instill good values. So then, how come so many children are contributing to political campaigns? Especially since political contributions are not charity. This is really an easy one. Irregardless of the law, which requires it to be a child's money and that same child's decision (do you really see a kid choosing this on a regular basis?), it is the parents who achieve this. The reason for this is that, in a family of four, the two parents can give 2300 dollars each to any particular candidate under the individual contribution laws for a total of 4600. So, they give their amount and their kids give 2300 dollars each too. This now totals 9200 dollars. Let's be real, the parents wanted to spend more than they are allowed on their favorite candidate, so they used the same method from above, which is a positive effort to instill charity, and got their kids to give too. Maybe it's my own prejudice here, but I say that instilling political giving isn't necessarily positive, but is crossing the line and becoming manipulative. Don't get me wrong, I think it is a parents responsibility to raise good citizens which includes raising people to be able to make good political and social choices based on sound beliefs and principles and by voting for who you think the best people are rather than what anyone tells you. Most importantly from all that is to vote. But instilling good citizenship habits and beliefs into your child and coercing them out of 2300 dollars are two entirely different things. If I wanted to instill such values, I'd have them join clubs at school, hold mock elections, even investigate the candidates and explain to me who they think is best and why, I don't have them take 2300 dollars of money they can use for college and give it away. I suppose reasonable people can agree to disagree on this issue. For those of you out there who, like me, think this is a big deal, here is a list from USA Today of who has taken the most contributions from "students".

Hillary Clinton - $556,640
Barack Obama - $503,821
Mitt Romney - $282,827
Rudy Giuliani - $214,600
John McCain - $105,750
John Edwards - $79,056