The Marina Bay Sands in Singapore is Open

About six months ago or so, I saw on Build It Bigger on the Science channel an episode on the construction of the Marina Bay Sands hotel in Singapore. I was amazed at the architecture and the engineering.

Now, I am impressed with the result as the hotel is now open. Check out the photos of the Infinity edge pool on the top of the hotel.

Funny Photo

Go Check out the Emotisun.

Say It Ain't So!

Liverpool set to announce Roy Hodgson as manager within 24 hours?Losing Roy Hodgson to become the England manager, but I can't stomach the notion of him going to Liverpool.

Say it ain't so Roy!

An end to fiscal stimulus?

One can hope. Could the concept of big bailout packages be coming to an end? Maybe, but will it. Sure, it is a situation where the public's willingness to accept deficits now to ease the blow is being tempered by the fear of being unable to pay the bill later or passing the bill on to later generations. But part of the problem is politics itself.

It's partly Obama's own fault. He hasn't convinced Americans that last year's giant stimulus actually created many jobs. Nonpartisan economists say the stimulus saved or created at least 1.2 million jobs and probably more, but many voters don't believe all that spending had any effect at all.

That's partly because so much of the stimulus was invisible, in the form of tax cuts and aid to states. But it's also because our wonky president, for all his policy-designing brilliance, tends to neglect the mundane blocking and tackling of politics. Sure, Obama has talked a blue streak about the importance of the stimulus — but when was the last time you saw him in a hard hat, talking with a construction worker who got a job thanks to the plan?

I was always skeptical of big bailouts, but it true that the Obama Administration has failed to politically sell the need. Add to that the favoritism that the bailouts have shown, particularly toward public sector labor unions, and the average American is no longer on board, even if they are in a state that is struggling.

Hate to Say I Told You So, But I Told You So

ObamaCare threatens your health plan:

Late last week saw the first leaks of the administration's draft regulations for imple menting the ObamaCare law -- and everything is playing out just as the critics warned.

The 3,000-odd pages of legislation left most of the really important (and controversial) policy decisions to the regulations that government agencies were told to issue once the bill passed. Now that those regs are starting to take shape, it's clear that the Obama team is using its new power to exert tight control over the payment and delivery of all formerly "private" health insurance.

The ObamaCare law references the Secretary of Health and Human Services almost 2,200 times and uses the phrase "the secretary shall" more than 725. Each reference requires HHS to set new rules on medical care, giving control to an existing federal office or one of 160 new agencies that the bill created.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius (who was once the Kansas state-insurance commissioner) has taken to these tasks with zeal. In some circles, she's now known as the nation's "insurance regulator in chief."

She's starting off by applying new regs to health plans offered by large employers -- even though these costly rules were supposedly only going to apply to plans sold in the state insurance "exchanges" that don't get created until 2014. This twist is spelled out in an 83-page draft of a new regulation that leaked late last week.

Bottom line: Sebelius means to dictate what your insurance plan must look like almost from day one, no matter how you get your coverage.

Next bottom line: first comes regulation then comes rationing. It is as inevitable as the sun rising in the east. Regulations cost money, when plans start costing more, the government will respond with price controls. Price controls won't lower the actual costs (just the price paid) and in the end the only way to stop the cost spiral is with rationing.

Told you so.



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/you_re_losing_your_plan_O2H1EFmYlHSoQmqp48uDHI#ixzz0qppiDTaS

World Cup

I have to admit, in the past I may not have been as excited for the World Cup since U.S. 1994 as I am now. I can't really pinpoint why, but something about this World Cup just has me really jazzed up. World Cup 2002 was hard, I was in law school and had a young baby (and the 12 time difference didn't help either). Germany 2006 was a bit more involved, but when the U.S. crashed out after stinking up the joint in the group stage, I was not as involved--although the final was spectacular!.

No, for some reason I am really ginned up about this World Cup. Part of it could be that it is taking place in South Africa, the first time in Africa. Part of it could be that I have been following the game much more closely than I have in the past. Maybe it is that now I am older and no longer rue the fact that I may have wasted my game as a young man (although objectively, I was never that good to make the World Cup Team). Maybe it is my children are now old enough to see and appreciate the game (although my oldest is not that into the game, but my 4 year old is almost as excited as me--but probably can't sit through a game right now).

So the U.S. will open against England--and maybe that helps. The history between the sides, the political relationship, the fact that so many people in America follow the Premier League. I have spent some time thinking about going to a bar to watch the game--but I don't know if my nerves could handle it. I have to say that I am getting distracted at work (a dangerous time for that to be happening).

So, I want to express my passion for this game and never seem to know where to start. First, this is a game filled with history, with links to the past and projections into the future. Much has been made of the England-U.S. match, the first such meeting since 1950 when the U.S. pulled the now famous upset. But there is the interesting fact that Brazil could win their sixth World Cup--the first to do so and the only country to have been in every World Cup final tournament.

Then there is the rarity of a winter World Cup (as they don't happen in the Southern Hemisphere very often, the last being in Argentina in 1978). There is the history of South Africa being made.

But for me, soccer is the ultimate team and individual game. A stellar singualr performance by a goalkeeper can keep a team in the game (see Tim Howard against Argentina in a friendly last year). Then there is the striker or midfielder who throws a team on his back and carries them to the win (see Zinedine Zidane) or Pele. There can be subsets of the squad, the intricate dancing of the Spanish midfield that can simply make you just sit down in wonder. It is the creativity and artistry going forward. It is the discipline and shape of a defensive squad. The tactics and countertactics all going on at the same time. The fluidity and the power of the players. The passion and delight of the fans. The nationalism and internationalism of the tournament. It can be the passion and unexpectedness of a team like U.S. beating Spain last year in the Confederations Cup, the first time Spain had lost a game in 37 matches. Then there are the games of two halves--U.S. vs. Brazil in the Confederations Cup or more recently U.S. vs. Turkey in a friendly.

How about this for history--no European nation has ever won the World Cup held outside of Europe? How about in 18 World Cups, only seven nations have won the World Cup. How about Didier Drogba, the striker from Cote d'Ivorie who may have single-handedly stopped a civil war?

Why am I passionate about this game? It is the greatest game on Earth. It has heroes and villians. It has history and spontaneity.

The World Cup Finals--the single most watched sporting event on the Planet. Billions of people hanging on every word, every shot, save, kick and goal. The pride of nations tied up in the deeds of 23 men from 32 nations--all striving to do one thing--lift this trophy and be crowned Champions of the World in the World's game.



I can't wait.

China ousted from finals

In 1999, the U.S. Women's National Team played China is one of the best Women's World Cup Finals ever. With a game that ended in penalties (and Brandi Chastain's iconic celebration), it was clearly a game between teams that were equals. At the time, the top women's teams in the world were U.S., Norway, Germany, Brazil and China. Fast forward 11 years and the story is very different as China was ousted from the Women's World Cup over the weekend. Talk about a fall from grace--or is it a growth of other teams? The Aussies, North Koreans and Japan will represent Asia in the Women's World Cup next year.

USMNT Final World Cup Roster Announced

Here it is:
Goalkeepers: Tim Howard, Marcus Hahnemann, Brad Guzan. I think Hahnemann is the number 2 now. Guzan didn't do well last night.

Defenders: Oguchi Onyewu, Carlos Bocanegra, Jay DeMerit, Clarence Goodson, Jonathan Spector, Jonathan Bornstein, Steve Cherundolo. After last night, I am not surprised at Heath Pearce not making the cut. Dolo looked decent last night, but that center back position has me worried. Gooch was not fully fit last night and can two more games get him there? DeMerit's vision problem is worrisome. What put my mind a little at ease is that for about 72 minutes last night, Clarence Goodson looked good.

Midfielders: Landon Donovan, Clint Dempsey, Michael Bradley, Benny Feilhaber, Stuart Holden, Ricardo Clark, Jose Francisco Torres, DaMarcus Beasley, Maurice Edu. I probably would have taken Alejandro Bedoya over Beasely on performance of late, but Bradley taking Beasley is not a surprise.

Forwards: Jozy Altidore, Edson Buddle, Herculez Gomez, Robbie Findley. No Brian Ching is probably the biggest surprise of this list. Buddle and Gomez made good cases for themselves last night, but Findley has not shown me that he deserves to be there over someone like Ching. Ching is not only a good target forward (which has been the heart of Bob Bradley's system), but is industrious off the ball. Who to partner with Altidore? My guess is Gomez--not as speedy as Findley, but very good off the ball as well as on the ball.

Who will start versus Turkey on Saturday?

My guess is this:

-------Altodore-----Gomez----------

Donovan--Bradley--Edu----Dempsey

Bocanegra--DeMerit--Gooch---Spector

----------Howard-------------


The debate is raging on Twitter.

U.S. Women's National Team

While of course, the focus in American soccer is on the Men's National Team, there are a couple of developments on the Women's national team that should be brought to light. First, the U.S. beat another world women's power Germany 4-0, itself a good, even great, result.

But here are some numbers for you:

Abby Wambach scored twice, netting her 106th and 107th goals in her national team career. Wambach has scored more goals than she has caps (105--I think) and still has several years left in her national team career.

Kristine Lilly is unbelieveable. Lilly, aged 38, has appeared in a mind-boggling 345 international matches and is far and away the world's all-time cap winner. Lillly last appeared in a U.S. uniform a year and a half ago, in October of 2007, has taken time off to have a baby and still returned to form. Lilly also bagged a goal, her 130th for the U.S. in the win over Germany.

Stunning achievements.

Donovan ESPN Commercial

Landon gets yellow carded for kicking the copier. Subtly funny.

Voter Insurrection and Political Lessons

Voter Insurrection Turns Mainstream, Creating New Rules and it looks like most Incumbents haven't grasped the problem yet.

Many won't in time to save their jobs come November.

The Party of Debt

Not that anyone should be particularly surprised by the moniker, but the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats really should be called The Party of Debt.

Two seemingly unrelated news stories unfolded in Washington last week -- developments that could further stoke the flames of voter discontent across America. Taken together, these reports could also label the Democrats with an ugly and hard to erase moniker heading into the November elections: They are now the Party of Debt.

The first piece of news concerned Congressional Democrats' plan to forgo passing a budget blueprint this year – an unprecedented display of fiscal policy malpractice.

snip

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) provided a second piece of troubling money news last week, demonstrating the health care reform bill won’t reduce the federal deficit after all. According to the CBO, the health care law will cost $115 billion more than original projections. This new estimate means the overall price tag of the Democrats’ bill will top $1 trillion.

Now a budget resolution does not carry the weight of law, it is never signed into law by the President, but it does provide an important road map for Congress as they get ready to pass the 13 required appropriations bills that fund government operations.

If you have no map, you have no way for the American voters to hold Congress accountable for their spending decisions--which is precisely the point.

Even officials appointed by the Democrats in Congress to provide expert advice on these matters, such as CBO director Douglas W. Elmendorf, are sounding the alarm bells. In an April 23 presentation to the International Monetary Fund Fiscal Forum, Elmendorf issued a clear and stern warning: “Given current law and certain changes to that law that are broadly supported by the Administration and Congress, the budget deficit and debt are on a worrisome path – unsustainable in the long run and posing growing risks even during the next several years.”

Congressional Democrats’ response: Skip passing a budget blueprint this year and spend more than planned on the health care bill. It’s a legislative twist on the MasterCard commercial – running up more debt through self-indulgent spending? Priceless.

Campaign consultants, however, say this kind of process news rarely registers in the body politic. It’s too “inside baseball.” No one outside the beltway really cares whether Congress passes a budget resolution or about the contents of a CBO report. But this election cycle is different.

Indeed this cycle is different.

The massive, crushing debt load that has already been levied upon Americans, on top of the wasteful spending at the state and local levels in the past, which is likely to be addressed first by more taxes rather than less spending in many states, has added to the burden. The fact that Congress is more likely to raise taxes than cut spending in the absence of a budget is high on people's minds. Add to that, the fact that Americans can look overseas to Greece, Portugal, Spain and the rest of the European Union to see that massive government intervention and social spending has brought these countries to the brink of disaster and with them, the entire continent, does not give Americans great comfort in the Obama Administration's path. With states like California, New York, New Jersey and others facing crushing budget deficits--governmental finance is no longer an "inside baseball" game. Americans are worried and rightfully so.

If the Democrats spend like crazy to buy votes, I think many of them will find themselves without a job come November. At a time when the average American is trying like mad to divest themselves of debt, government adding on debt is not going to sit well.

Massachusetts Insurers "A Bunch of Whiny Liars"

Or Are they?.

When MassCare passed, it was supposed to lower the average cost of health care by getting relatively cheap young people into the system, and ending the inefficiencies of caring for the uninsured. Unfortunately, it hasn't quite worked out that way. The bill for the uninsured only dropped by about 40%; the young, cheap people turned out to almost all need subsidies, and worse, some of them figured out how to game the system by buying insurance, getting a bunch of expensive procedures, and then dropping the insurance again. There was a brief improvement in insurance prices for the individual market, because Massachusetts, with its community rating and guaranteed issue, had had a pretty sizable problem with adverse selection. But after a few years, insurance costs were still marching briskly upward, rates were among the highest in the country, and the system was putting heavy pressure on a budget that was already strained to the limit by the recession.

The Massachusetts governor's answer to this problem was to simply deny the Massachusetts insurers the right to raise their prices. Then, when they refused to quote prices on the exchange at the old, controlled prices, the government essentially argued that they were a bunch of whiny liars who didn't need all that extra money, and commanded them to list their insurance at the old prices. As far as I know, they never did find an actuary to sign off on the mandated prices, but the insurers lost their hearing.

Well, now the whiny liars have upped the ante, claiming that they lost a bunch of money in the first three months of 2010, mostly thanks to the extra money they had to reserve against the losses they anticipate under the new rates. It will be interesting to see whether we get another War on Accounting, where Deval Patrick accuses the state's biggest insurers of the dastardly use of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in order to embarrass his awesome government program.

And indeed, it's not impossible that there's a strategic element to this; there's always discretion in how companies reserve for losses. There is also always the possibility of accounting error. But those possibilities are not unlimited, because financials have to be signed off on by auditors who are keenly alive to the possibility of ending up on the wrong side of a lawsuit if they wink at obviously misleading representations. And four different companies probably didn't all make the same accounting error.

Remember, where MassCare goes ObamaCare is sure to follow.

Small Businesses Getting Screwed by Health Care Law

Classical Values notes the story. the law of unintended consequences will probably force a great deal of "black market" purchasing in order to keep taxes and costs down.

But the provisions discussed that will force small businesses to send out more 1099's also lays the groundwork for a Value Added Tax since the government will be able to track purchases better.

Election 2010: Anti-Incumbent, Anti-Liberal, or Anti-Democrat?

Sean Trende has a great analysis. While I would love to see a more generalized anti-incumbent tenor in the election, we probably won't see that. What the election is like to turn out to be is more anti-Democrat than anything else.

That does not bode well for the country in general, because the GOP will think the election is an endorsement of their ideas and there are not enough small government Republicans on the Hill for my tastes. So instead of big government Democrats, we may end up with a Congress of big government Republicans. That is just as bad in many respects.

What I would love to see right now is a Congress populated with guys like Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey--a man who apparently could give a toss if he gets re-elected and is committed to slashing the budget. But we probably won't get that either.

Shoring Up the Voting Block

The White House is speeding up the implementation of some aspects of the health care plan in order to shore up voters before November. But there are some potential problems with that approach:

President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies are using the levers of government to speed up and promote what they consider the most popular aspects of the new health care law before a highly skeptical public passes judgment in November.

Top administration officials, who meet regularly with outside special interest groups to coordinate the public relations effort, have so far focused on expediting and amplifying four key areas of the new law: expanding coverage to young adults, covering sick people with pre-existing conditions or high medical costs, providing tax breaks to small businesses and helping a select group of seniors pay for prescription drugs.

In one case, the administration moved so quickly to provide coverage to young adults under their parents’ health plan that it cut short the conventional period for the public to weigh in on the new rule.

In another, it used taxpayer money to alert small businesses that they will get a break on this year’s taxes.

Both are perfectly legal but also politically beneficial.

Of course, what the White House thinks are political beneficial and what the voters think is beneficial are two different things.

While the Administration can shorten the time for submitting comments to pending regulations, they run a risk in doing so, a risk that some people will interpret their actions as not giving a toss about what America really thinks about a plan rammed down the throats of the American people on a strictly party line vote. Further muzzling opportunities to comment on regulations means that the White House seeks to further silence any dissent.

But here is what drives me to distraction about the young people plan. Young people are generally the easiest (and cheapest) to insure. They are usually much healthier in general and use far less medical care than older people thus costing less in the long run. If you are an insurer, you want young people in a risk pool to balance out the sicker, more costly patients.

Still, the White House could find these efforts aren't really all that beneficial to their electoral hopes in November.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37379.html#ixzz0oI0nHElR

Was Britain Prescient about Not Adopting the Euro?

The potential collapse of the Euro certainly seems to make Britain look smart in hindsight for refusing to adopt the Euro as their monetary unit.

Thomas Sowell Getting to the Heart of the Matters Again

Thomas Sowell does it again, gutting the ideas behind some of Obama more innocuous sounding statements (which are really socialism in disguise):

One of the many shallow statements that sound good-- if you don't stop and think about it-- is that "at some point, you have made enough money."

The key word in this statement, made by President Barack Obama recently, is "you." There is nothing wrong with my deciding how much money is enough for me or your deciding how much money is enough for you, but when politicians think that they should be deciding how much money is enough for other people, that is starting down a very slippery slope.

Politicians with the power to determine each citizen's income are no longer public servants. They are public masters.

Are we really so eaten up with envy, or so mesmerized by rhetoric, that we are willing to sacrifice our own freedom by giving politicians the power to decide how much money anybody can make or keep? Of course, that will start only with "the rich," but surely history tells us that it will not end there.

snip

Once you buy the argument that some segment of the citizenry should lose their rights, just because they are envied or resented, you are putting your own rights in jeopardy-- quite aside from undermining any moral basis for respecting anybody's rights. You are opening the floodgates to arbitrary power. And once you open the floodgates, you can't tell the water where to go.

The moral bankruptcy of the notion that third parties can decide when somebody else has "enough" money is matched by its economic illiteracy. The rest of the country is not poorer by the amount of Bill Gates' fortune today and was not poorer by the amount of John D. Rockefeller's fortune a century ago.

Of course, what the President and Congressional Democrats care about is not justice or fairness or individual rights, but collective "social justice" even if it means gutting the nation, the economy and actual freedom.

Social justices and wealth redistribution makes a nation poorer and less capable (and softer for that matter). If you want to see the end result of a wealth redistribution model--look no further than Greece.

Remember the Obama Health Care Promise that You Will Be Able to Keep Your Healthcare Plan

Well, not so much according to Scott Gottlieb in the Wall Street Journal:

The health-reform law caps how much insurers can spend on expenses and take for profits. Starting next year, health plans will have a regulated "floor" on their medical-loss ratios, which is the amount of revenue they spend on medical claims. Insurers can only spend 20% of their premiums on running their plans if they offer policies directly to consumers or to small employers. The spending cap is 15% for policies sold to large employers.

This regulation is going to have its biggest impact on insurance sold directly to consumers—what's referred to as the "individual market." These policies cost more to market. They also have higher medical costs, owing partly to selection by less healthy consumers.

Finally, individual policies have high start-up costs. If insurers cannot spend more of their revenue getting plans on track, fewer new policies will be offered.

If the insurers are capped in how much they can spend in administrative costs, they will likely not be renewing policies without substantial increases in premiums.

So while the insurer may not be able to cancel your policy outright, they will have no choice but to increase your premium so that you drop the policy because it is too expensive.

So another Obama promise bites the dust--not that I am surprised.

I have So Many Questions On This Story

CNN is reporting a story about the police shooting a seven-year old girl while executing a search warrant. With respect to CNN, I have to put the entire story in here rather than quoting from it:

Police in Detroit, Michigan, on Sunday expressed "profound sorrow" at the fatal shooting of a 7-year-old girl in a police raid.

Aiyana Jones was shot and killed by police executing a search warrant as part of a homicide investigation, Assistant Chief Ralph Godbee said in a statement.

"This is any parent's worst nightmare," Godbee said. "It also is any police officer's worst nightmare. And today, it is all too real."

The warrant was executed about 12:40 a.m. ET Sunday at a home on the city's east side, Godbee said. Authorities believed the suspect in the Friday shooting death of 17-year-old high school student Jarean Blake was hiding out at the home. Blake was gunned down in front of a store as his girlfriend watched, Godbee said.

Preliminary information indicates that members of the Detroit Police Special Response Team approached the house and announced themselves as police, Godbee said, citing the officers and at least one independent witness.

"As is common in these types of situations, the officers deployed a distractionary device commonly known as a flash bang," he said in the statement. "The purpose of the device is to temporarily disorient occupants of the house to make it easier for officers to safely gain control of anyone inside and secure the premise."

Upon entering the home, the officer encountered a 46-year-old female inside the front room, Godbee said. "Exactly what happened next is a matter still under investigation, but it appears the officer and the woman had some level of physical contact.

"At about this time, the officer's weapon discharged one round which, tragically, struck 7-year-old Aiyana Stanley Jones in the neck/head area."

The girl was immediately transported to a hospital, where she was pronounced dead. Godbee said he and other officers went to the hospital while others stayed at the home to execute the warrant.

Aiyana's father, Charles Jones, told CNN affiliate WDIV, "She was sleeping and they came in the door shooting and throwing flash grenades ... burned my baby up and shot her, killed her."

Jones claimed the officers had the wrong house, but Godbee said in the statement the 34-year-old suspect in Blake's death was found and arrested at the home. In addition, a vehicle and a moped matching the descriptions of those involved in Blake's shooting were also found, he said.

The suspect's name was not released.

Godbee said he wished to "express to the family of Aiyana Jones the profound sorrow that we feel within the Detroit Police Department and throughout this community. We know that no words can do anything to take away the pain you are feeling at this time."

Police obtained the "high-risk search warrant" based on intelligence, and it was approved by the prosecutor and a magistrate, Godbee said. "Because of the ruthless and violent nature of the suspect in this case, it was determined that it would be in the best interest of public safety to execute the search warrant as soon as possible and detain the suspect ... while we sought a murder warrant," he said.

The police statement said Chief Warren Evans is out of town and could not be present "to personally address this tragedy," but "his thoughts and prayers are with the family and loved ones of Aiyana Jones."

The officer's weapon was secured, and an investigation is under way, Godbee said, emphasizing the information gained so far is preliminary.

"This is a tragedy of unspeakable magnitude to Aiyana's parents, family and all those who loved her," Godbee said. "... It is a tragedy we also feel very deeply throughout the ranks of the Detroit Police Department.

"We cannot undo what occurred this morning," he said. "All we can do is pledge an open and full investigation and to support Aiyana's family in whatever way they may be willing to accept from us at this time. I understand that they may not be open to such a gesture at this time, but we do stand ready to do anything we can to support them."

So much here, I don't know how to respond.

Let me start with a few inferences. Notice that the report does not say how big the Special Response Team (read SRT or SWAT) entering the home was. It would be no less than four and possibly as many as ten entering the house. No word on whether the SRT had any information on where in the house the suspect was located. There is no mention of the probably cause or whether SRT had any information as to the other occupants of the house--like a child.

Now some other observations need to be made. This statement

Upon entering the home, the officer encountered a 46-year-old female inside the front room, Godbee said. "Exactly what happened next is a matter still under investigation, but it appears the officer and the woman had some level of physical contact.

"At about this time, the officer's weapon discharged one round which, tragically, struck 7-year-old Aiyana Stanley Jones in the neck/head area."

This is meant to sound like the weapon just "went off." I'm sorry, the quality of weapons carried by SRT teams and even by regular street cops don't just "discharge" by themselves. We are talking about tactical assault weapons, like the H&K MP5, with incredible reliability (not that I know that is the weapon of choice for Detroit SWAT, but there are others of similar quality out there). There is negligence here. Assuming there was a physical confrontation with a woman in the front room, why was the officer or officers involved unable to contain the situation. Here is my theory: the officer involved in the altercation with the woman was engaged with her with one hand while his other hand was still on his weapon's trigger. That means, during the altercation, he did not have full control of either the woman or his weapon. In the struggle, somewhere, his finger flexed and fired his weapon--with disastrous consequences.

Also, why is a flash bang grenade necessary in a house at 12:40 AM? Simply biologically and socially, most people are either asleep or so slow to respond at that hour that a flash bang seems excessive. If you really want to naturally slow down response time, execute the warrant at about 4:00 am, the slowest time for most people's brains and bodies.

Finally, there appears to be a total lack of training here. A seven year old girl looks nothing like a 34-year old man and there was clearly no target recognition going on here. Even in a "high risk" environment, a police force must take careful pains to not pull the trigger on the first thing that moves. They didn't shoot the woman right?

Yeah, the father and mother of this girl have a righteous case.

How many more of these incidents will need to occur before we start to think long and hard about changing our policing methods? Couldn't a patient surveillance have been better? Why not take the time to find out who else was in the house? Lots of questions that won't be answered for a long time.