Pat Robertson and the 700 Club

Bostonherald.com reports on the 2009 predictions by Pat Robertson (H/T Alan Colmes' Liberaland). He said socialism is coming to America, which will probably end up being a judgment call; he mentioned oil and gold going up to levels they've already reached in 2007. But this is the thing that caught my attention.

On Friday, Robertson said God told him Islam was losing its grip on Muslims repelled by the violence and bloodshed of a "religion of hate."

First of all, I ask myself about this "hearing the word of God" business. Doesn't his broadcasting these Divine Communications to the 700 Club and to the world, turn something that should be sacred into something very profane? In other words, a believing person who actually achieves communion with God in his heart through prayer and meditation would possess something of awesome value, something more fit for the written word perhaps but not to be blasted out over the air waves and the internet like this.

Secondly, there's the content of the message. It reminds me of the outrageous scandal of a couple years ago when he called for the assassination of Chavez. In this message he's calling Islam a "religion of hate." Aren't there rules against saying things like that? Common sense for one thing, would indicate that it's simply false. Furthermore, the underlying premise is also false, that Islam is so replete with "violence and bloodshed" that its adherents are being turned off. This is not the Islam that I know about.

I tend to agree with the commenters I've read in both Liberaland and the Boston Herald who ask, "Does anybody take this guy seriously?" Unfortunately I think I know the answer, so my question is, "why?"

What's your opinion?

First Marijuana Citation in Massachusetts

The Boston Globe reports on the first citation issued for possession of marijuana since the voters decided it should be decriminalized. This particular case involved other drugs, however.

A Holyoke man could be the first person in Massachusetts cited for possession of marijuana, an action that lost its criminal status Friday because voters approved a decriminalization referendum in November. However, 29-year-old Jose Burgos could still face prison time on charges of trafficking cocaine and possession of a Class A substance with intent to distribute.

I find it a bit funny that the first guy to "benefit" from the new law won't benefit at all. The actual practical application of the law is yet to be worked out. In theory it'll be much like a traffic citation.

Sergeant Richard Perry of the Bellingham Police Department said officers expect to issue tickets for possession, but have not worked out the logistics.

"I can tell you that they're working on how we would fine the person," Perry said. "So right now it would be pretty much the way most departments are handling it: We'd confiscate [the marijuana] and identify the person and send them on their way."

Under the marijuana decriminalization law, offenders who are caught with an ounce or less of marijuana get a ticket for a civil violation, but are not criminally charged. Juveniles have to pay the $100 fine and attend a drug abuse counseling course, or the fine will be increased to $1,000.

What do you think about that? Should we be concerned that it sends the wrong message to young people? What about other drugs? If they are in small enough quantities to indicate personal use, shouldn't they be handled this way too? What about out and out legalization? Wouldn't that allow for better control and taxation? We talked about that before.

What's your opinion?

Security in America

Preaching to the choir has published a thought-provoking post about the Muslim family that was removed from and Air Tran flight because other passengers overheard some of their conversation and reported it to the authorities.

In the past few months, I have heard many people say one thing we have to acknowledge about the Bush presidency is that it has kept us safe from terrorist attack. I disagree with that premise and I think this case highlights what the real legacy of the Bush administration will be on terrorism. The administration has succeeded in fostering a culture of fear that leads to neighbors eavesdropping on neighbors and to innocent American citizens being pulled off planes. This is not safety. Not if every Muslim American or American of middle-eastern descent has to monitor public conversations so as not to risk being misconstrued and reported to the FBI.

Does the Bush Administration deserve some credit for the fact that since 9/11 there have been no major terrorist attacks in the U.S.? Do you think we've gone too far with the invasion of privacy, in this case private conversation, but frequently it's digital and electronic surveillance? Can this kind of thing be justified by an honest effort on the part of federal law enforcement to keep us safe?

I tend to agree with Sarah that they've "succeeded in fostering a culture of fear." The fact that Bush and Co. were so quick to capitalize on the fear and shock which followed the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers made me question their true intentions. While claiming to have American security as their chief goal, they mounted an intricate campaign to increase fear in order to generate support for invading Iraq. And it worked. Sad and pathetic is what I call it, and dark days in American history.

As the years passed, each one accompanied by a diminished percentage of support for the war and the administration, we're left with this legacy: "neighbors eavesdropping on neighbors and innocent American citizens being pulled off planes."

What's your opinion? Is America safer today?

The New Second Amendment

The Huffington Post published an article about the results of the Supreme Court's decision last June.

In June, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, D.C. v. Heller. For over 70 years, the federal courts had read that amendment to protect only a state's right to organize militias, like the National Guard. In a long-awaited victory for the gun rights movement, the Court reversed course and held that the Second Amendment protected an individual's right to own guns for personal self-defense.

So far, the victory hasn't turned out exactly as the gun rights folks had hoped.

Is that right? How could this not be a major victory for the gun folks?

The article goes on to explain that since June, lower courts have upheld existing gun laws no fewer than 60 times. Felons still cannot own guns legally, nor can the mentally incompetent or the wife-beaters.

The courts have ruled on the constitutionality of laws prohibiting particular types of weapons, including sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, and specific weapons attachments. Defendants have challenged laws barring guns in school zones and post offices, and laws outlawing "straw" purchases, the carrying of concealed weapons, possession of an unregistered firearm, and particular types of ammunition. The courts have upheld every one of these laws.

According to Adam Winkler, author of the HuffPo piece, the reason none of these restrictions have been lifted is because Judge Scalia included the following statement in his decision.

"nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms."

So aside from allowing citizens of the District of Columbia to own guns for personal protection, like in many other places, has this ruling changed anything? Do law abiding gun owners want the restrictions relaxed that have always prevented felons from owning guns? Was it hoped that this ruling would trickle down to the lower courts and effect changes in the laws prohibiting guns in schools and government buildings?

What's your opinion?

"The Stones, Let's Stick With 'em"

2 Israelis Shot in Denmark

CNN reports on the arrest of a Lebanese Palestinian man in connection with the shooting of two Israeli men. The incident took place on the Danish Island of Fyn as the two Israelis were working in a shopping mall. The shooter was a Danish citizen.

Our frequent commenter Bob S., has posed some questions.

Police say the suspect has denied attempting to kill the Israelis but acknowledged carrying a gun Wednesday at the mall in the central Danish city of Odense.

Jacobsen says the two Israelis had been selling hair-care products when they were attacked. He says they were hospitalized in stable condition; one man was shot in the arm and one man in the leg.

Now, is this a "gun crime" or a hate crime?

Is the availability of the firearms the predominant factor in this situation or is it the religious factor that is predominant?

Denmark has a high rate of firearm ownership, but low crime rates....doesn't that contradict your 'easy availability of firearms theory?

If my blog ever gets popular, I'm gonna ask Bob to be a guest blogger. Those are exactly the questions I would have asked, perhaps from a different angle, but essentially the same.

What do you think? Hate crime or gun crime? What about his marksmanship? I'm laughing about that, but I'll bet those Israeli boys are thanking their lucky stars of David.

I guess Bob's final question there is going to force me into admitting something which I've never really denied, but which must be said now. It also relates to the Caracas story. Gun availability is not the only factor. I believe it can be a determining one, like in the case of Teah Wimberly, and perhaps in hundreds of Caracas shootings, but in all honesty I must admit there are other factors such as racial hatred and cultural mores.

What's your opinion?

Random Drug Testing

On the Fifth Column site there's a fascinating post about the random drug testing which is planned in West Virginia for the Kanawha school system's teachers. The thrust of the post is that this kind of initiative is a violation of peoples' rights under the 4th Amendment.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” It’s right there in the damn Constitution, which these inbred mouthbreathers might realize if they’d bother to keep reading after the Second Amendment.

I couldn't resist including that remark about the kind of people who "don't bother to keep reading after the Second Amendment." I seriously doubt that applies to anyone who comments on this blog, but we can talk about it.

The more alarming thing mentioned in the Fifth Column post is that a significant percentage of the population want this. He cites the comments received in favor of the policy in the local press.

What's your opinion? Are the kind of folks who passionately believe in the 2nd Amendment also the kind who would comply with this kind of creeping totalitarianism? Does this issue divide the gun enthusiasts into different groups? I would think the same guy who opposes gun control laws which infringe upon his rights would bristle at the prospect of random drug testing. But, maybe not. What do you think?