Skip navigation

Monthly Archives: September 2009

A Tennessee man named Christopher Savoie is under arrest in Japan right now. His crime is not an uncommon one in the U.S. Christopher Savoie, caught in a fierce custody battle with his estranged ex-wife, Noriko Savoie, grabbed his two kids from Noriko while she was walking them home from school on Monday.

Chrisopher Savoie and his children.

Christopher Savoie and his children.

This isn’t a straight forward case, though. Noriko and Christopher agreed to share joint custody of their children after their divorce. Noriko, a Japanese native, agreed to live in Tennessee to be closer to 6-year-old Rebecca and 8-year-old Issac, Noriko would, however, want to bring them to Japan with her on summer vacations.

Christopher Savoire has dual citizenship, and his considered a resident of Japan. Chris feared that Noriko would travel to Japan with the children and never return. Chris went so far as to file for a restraining order, preventing Noriko from leaving with the children, which was not granted.

When the children were to return from Japan and start school at the end of the summer, they never came home. Christopher, seeing what happened, filed for full custody of the children, and it was granted. A Tennessee court ruled in his favor, and a warrant was issued in Franklin County, Tennessee for the arrest of Noriko Savoie.

Christopher realized he may never see his children again, and traveled to Japan to reclaim his kids.

Christopher is currently waiting to see what the Japanese courts will do with him, while we all wonder how this could possibly be justice.

With any luck, Christopher will be released and returned to the U.S. without incident. However, according to CNN, regaining child custody once the children are on foreign soil is not an easy task, the U.S. State Department said in a comment about the story today.

His luck will be even worse because Japan is not one of the nations that is a party to the Hague Convention of 1996. Which sets the rules and guidelines for international child custody and abduction issues.

Will Christopher pay the ultimate price?

Better yet, will his felonious wife ever see a day in prison? Doubtful.

Hooray for Justice.


Fox News is at it again. No, they aren’t calling Obama a racist.

They aren’t glad-handing tea party-goers. They aren’t doing anything outloud. Fox took out this full page color ad in the Washington Post.

Let's here it for journalistic integrity!

Let's hear it for journalistic integrity!

Well, it’s a powerful ad. It catches attention, and it’s smartly made. Something seems wrong though….oh right, it’s all lies.

Watch the video, it’s Rick Sanchez of CNN more or less proving that at best, Fox is composed of liars, and at worst, that they are filled with people who lie openly, without regard to truth, fact or logic.

It would appear that Fox News has lost nearly all integrity and professional courtesy. Their limited scope is reflected by their increasingly limited audience. They appeal only to those that already agree with them, and it’s tough to assert that Fox News is able to convert anyone.

Rather than tell the truth through its criticism of both the president and the media, Fox would just as soon make things up.

Allow me to say exactly what I mean:

Fox News is not a respectable source of information or unbiased facts based upon ascertainable evidence. They have intentionally, routinely, and without remorse presented material they know to be untrue in the hope of swaying public opinion in whatever direction they see fit. Their agenda only serves to strengthen a small and dedicated base. They don’t respect anyone or anything that might present disagreement and they are far too cowardly to use reasonable evidence and argument to make any of their agendas seem valid.

Rudi D. Ballard really disslikes Indians.

Rudi D. Ballard really dislikes Indians.

Courtesy of the Post-Dispatch. An O’Fallon man proved to authorities and local residents of Indian descent that he had a special kind of dedication to his racism.

If you read to the bottom, you saw that Mr. Ballard was accused of threatening those of Indian descent on three separate occasions with a weapon. And O’Fallon law defines states that threatening with a weapon based on discrimination is a hate crime. If he is found guilty he could serve up to 7 years for all three counts.

This comes as a surprise to anyone who has not spent a lot of time in O’Fallon

Tobacco executives beware.

For those who don’t have time to watch the video, or read a whole bill. I decided to grab a few of the highlights for you. This comes courtesey of MSNBC.

Under the legislation:

  • Cigarette packages will have warning labels that cover 50 percent of the front and rear. The word “warning” must be included in capital letters.
  • Any remaining tobacco-related sponsorships of sports and entertainment events will be banned, as will giveaways of non-tobacco items with the purchase of a tobacco product. A federal ban will be imposed on all outdoor tobacco advertising within 1,000 feet of schools and playgrounds.
  • Point-of-sale advertising will be limited to adults-only facilities, and remaining vending machines will disappear except in places restricted to adults. Retailers who sell to minors will be subject to federal enforcement and penalties.
  • Smokers, particularly the younger crowd, will find they can no longer buy cigarettes sweetened by candy flavors or any herb or spices such as strawberry, grape, orange, clove, cinnamon or vanilla. Cigarettes advertised as “light” or “mild,” giving the impression that they aren’t as harmful to health, will no longer be found on store shelves.

Will anyone stand up and shout about bloated regulation now? Will anyone say, ‘They are my lungs, and my business, not the business of the Federal Government!” No. No one will make a peep. As a smoker, I can’t help but feel as though I’ve been treated a bit unfairly. I don’t smoke near children, or the elderly. I don’t smoke in the homes of my relatives, and I don’t expect special treatment. Here I am though, being told I can’t buy ‘light’ smokes anymore because they are misleading. I can’t buy strawberry because it’s luring young people into smoking early.

Where is my right to privacy and free choice?

Am I off base? Do I have the argument backwards?

Most importantly, should this be my column topic this week?