Church or Jail

Bay Minette, Alabama is letting non-violent misdemeanor offenders decide between jail & fines or going to church for a year. That's right, you can avoid jail time and fines by agreeing to attend church for a year.

If offenders select church, they'll be allowed to pick the place of worship but must check in weekly with the pastor and police. ... If the one-year church attendance program is completed, the offender's case will be dismissed.

I had two main thoughts when I read this story. First, I found it pretty funny that this city judge is giving the impression that going to church every week is roughly equivalent to jail time. But after my initial amusement, came the reality that this is a ridiculous punishment that lets criminals off easy. I'm all for alternative sentencing for non-violent offenders. But how is attending church once a week for a few hours in any way equivalent to serving jail time and paying fines? I'm an atheist and I'd take that deal in a second. You can just sit in the back and take nap during the service, daydream, or whatever. It's not a punishment. Amazing as it may seem, many people actually like going to church. Depending on the church you pick, it might have good music, food and other benefits. You can steal things, get DUIs, and commit various other misdemeanors and get off with just going to church weekly?

Weak Argument Against the Death Penalty

One of the weaker arguments against the death penalty is that it is applied unfairly, therefore it should be abolished. This is the line taken in a New York Times editorial on the military version of the death penalty. Here's the crux of the argument.

Minority service members are more than twice as likely as whites — after accounting for the crimes’ circumstances and the victims’ race — to be sentenced to death, according to a forthcoming study co-written by David Baldus, an eminent death-penalty scholar, who died in June.

The analysis is so disturbing because the military has made sustained, often successful efforts to rid its ranks of discrimination. But even with this record, its failure to apply the death penalty fairly is more proof that capital punishment cannot be free of racism’s taint. It is capricious, barbaric and discriminatory, and should be abolished.

First of all, this type of study proves nothing. It is impossible to say with certainty that a white service member would not have gotten the death penalty in the cases where a minority received it, because a white person was not on trial. We are dealing with hypotheticals. Second, it is quite possible that there are factors more important than supposed racial bias that influenced the death sentences, and that they involve the individual circumstances of each case. And most importantly, even if minorities are more likely to get the death penalty because of racism, that doesn't mean we have to throw out the death penalty. Why not take measures to ensure that sentences are fair and not based on a defendant's race? In other words, why not fix the military death penalty rather than eliminate it?

If we have something that works or is beneficial but is tainted in its operation by racism, we don't just scrap it. We fix it. For example, if a corporation discriminates against minority workers we don't close it down. We bring lawsuits and legal judgments which force it to alter its practices. Now you can certainly argue that the death penalty doesn't work and isn't beneficial, but that's a different argument. Saying we should simply do away with the military death penalty because some statistics correlate with apparent racial bias is a weak argument, the kind made by those already biased against the penalty and looking for any plausible excuse to do away with it.

Dutch Idiocy on Piracy

Back in November, the Dutch navy caught five Somali pirates in the Gulf of Aden. The had hijacked a yacht, and kidnapped a South African couple. The victims are still missing. After they were found guilty of these actions, a Dutch court sentenced them today. So what does piracy and kidnapping get you in the Netherlands? How about "up to 7 years" in prison? Wow, that should serve as a great deterrent to piracy. No doubt Somalia pirates are quaking with fear over the possibility that they might be intercepted by the Dutch navy. They might face up to seven whole years in prison. Oh wait, that was only for two of them. The other three got even shorter sentences.

If you have to travel in the areas where Somalian pirates operate, you'll just have to take your chances, since no state is willing to take the actions necessary to suppress piracy. At least some nations, such as the U.S. and Spain, are willing to hand out harsh sentences to captured pirates.

In similar cases this year, a U.S. court in Virginia sentenced five Somalis to life in prison and a Spanish court in Madrid sentenced two convicted pirates to 439 years each.

But apparently the Dutch are still blindly adhering to some archaic law written during a time when a 7 year prison term was much more like a death sentence.

Prosecution spokesman Wim de Bruin said the sentences were in line with Dutch law, which provides a maximum 9-year term for piracy and 12 years for a pirate captain. The 17th-century law against sea robbery has not been revised since modern pirates began plaguing the sea lanes off Africa’s eastern coast.

Maybe they should have addressed those sentencing rules before they decided to bring Somali pirates back and try them in the Netherlands.

Bachmann & Cain Are Right About the Minimum Wage

Various outlets on the left are making a big deal about Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain wanting to repeal the federal minimum wage. Greg Sargent of the Washington Post argues that it's such a radical position for a presidential candidate that only Ronald Reagan supported it, while later backing away from that position. It shows you how entrenched big government has become in the U.S. that even the suggestion that we roll back unwarranted and unnecessary federal interference with the free market is now a radical position.

Even if you support minimum wage laws you don't need the federal government involved. Since minimum wage laws are popular, most states already have their own laws. And if states don't wish to have a minimum wage, there's no reason for federal interference. Bachmann and Cain are right to support repealing the federal minimum wage.

European Union Court Addresses Hamster Problems

The European Union's highest court apparently has enough time on its hands to take up the critical issue of how France is treating wild hamsters.

The Court ... ruled Thursday that France had failed to protect the Great Hamster of Alsace, sometimes known as the European hamster, the last wild hamster species in Western Europe. If France does not adjust its agricultural and urbanization policies sufficiently to protect it, the court said, the government will be subject to fines of as much as $24.6 million.

Since hamsters, much like mice and other rodents, are pests that damage crops, French farmers used to kill them. Now, not only can't they kill them, but they have to grow food for them.

France “now must work to raise the population of hamsters up to 1,500,” which would be enough to preserve the species, he said, and the prefecture of Alsace “must stop some urbanization projects and restore” older agreements to grow certain cereals that hamsters eat.

You can't make this stuff up.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Should Get No Trial At All

It's been pretty funny watching the whining and sniveling of terrorist rights supporters upset that President Obama is going to use a military tribunal to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Most of those criticizing the decision do so with various false assertions based on false assumptions. Let's take the New York Times editorial today as an example.

How fitting it would have been to put the plot’s architect on trial a few blocks from the site of the World Trade Center, to force him to submit to the justice of a dozen chosen New Yorkers, to demonstrate to the world that we will not allow fear of terrorism to alter our rule of law.

It would demonstrate to the world that we are stupid enough to provide a huge forum for an orgy of anti-Americanism under the guise of the so-called "rule of law." I've found as a general rule, whenever anyone makes serious use of the phrase "rule of law," the odds are that it will be preceded or followed by utter nonsense.

But, apparently, there are many who continue to cower, who view terrorists as much more fearsome than homegrown American mass murderers and the American civilian jury system as too “soft” to impose needed justice.

This assertion, and just about the entire op-ed is a typical strawman. The primary reason people oppose civilian trials for foreign terrorists is that foreign terrorists are not entitled to the protections of U.S. civil law. In my opinion, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed does not require a trial of any kind. KSM is a leader of an enemy terrorist organization with which we are still at war. He was captured back in 2003. The last I checked it is now 2011. He hasn't had a trial, and he still doesn't need one. We can hold him forever if we so choose. Al Qaeda as an organization, and its members are completely outside the law [unless they happen to be U.S. citizens, in which case they should be treated as such]. They follow no rules, haven't signed any international agreements, and there are no clear guidelines for how to deal with captured members. Rather than tying our own hands, and providing our enemies with unearned and undeserved rights, we should retain as wide a latitude as possible in dealing with foreign terrorists.

Even going through the motions of a military trial for KSM is a gigantic waste of time. There's no question about his identity, his leadership role in Al Qaeda, and his involvement in 9/11. Even former administration spokesman Robert Gibbs talked about KSM's conviction and execution as a foregone conclusion. The U.S. isn't going to release him under any circumstances, regardless of what happens at a trial, civilian or military. He is essentially under a suspended death sentence already -- as he should be. Ideally he should already be dead. After we extracted all useful information, he should have faced summary execution. But since we didn't do that, and he's now been sitting in prison for eight years, it might be more appropriate to just let him rot.

As I've argued many times on this blog, the blind legalism of terrorist rights supporters, and their attempt to debase the rights of U.S. citizens by awarding them to foreign enemies, is far more dangerous to the U.S. than any treatment we might meet out to someone like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Rather than extending this post further, I'll just link to my two part post "No Rights for Hostile Aliens."

Extension of Patriot Act Provisions

The House voted tonight to temporarily extend three expiring provisions of the Patriot Act. In my opinion, the GOP is a bit too eager to sign on with anything supposedly justified by national security. Here's a description of what they voted for, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal.

The provisions in question give law enforcement access to troves of personal information, including business and library records, if a judge approves. They also permit roving wiretaps on terrorism suspects who change numbers, and allow surveillance of foreign terrorism suspects who appear unaffiliated with known groups such as al Qaeda.

I have no problem at all with the last provision. Foreign suspects are not and should not be entitled to the same rights of Americans. In their case we should err on the side of protecting the U.S. That aspect of the Patriot Act should be permanent. But the first two provisions are problematic to say the least.

The first power appears to give the government almost unlimited power to go on a fishing expedition to hook anyone suspected of terrorism, with the sole check of a judge's approval. The second is also way too vague for my liking. How hard is it to define someone as a terrorism suspect and therefore get approval for a roving wiretap? Representative James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin)wants to make all three provisions permanent, and argues that,

We can't let our guard down," ..."These are needed measures to keep our nation safe."

Hopefully the Senate will take a hard look at the specifics of the first two provisions and try to determine if Sensenbrenner's assertion holds water.

I know the GOP is extremely pro-national security -- and that's a good thing -- but that doesn't mean it should support every single big government national security power without question. The Patriot Act, as I understand it, was meant as a series of temporary measures in the fight against Al Qaeda after 9/11. Giving the government permanent extensive surveillance powers over American citizens in the name of national security should raise many questions and not be done in haste.

Knee-Jerk Feel-Good Legislation

According to the Huffington Post, Representative Peter King (R - NY), will sponsor new legislation involving guns. The proposed law would

make it illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a government official ... It is already illegal in the U.S. to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of a school. King's legislation to make it illegal to knowingly carry a gun within 1,000 feet of the president, vice president, members of Congress or judges of the Federal Judiciary, would offer government officials the same protection.

It's disappointing that such a typical knee-jerk reaction comes from a member of the GOP. No doubt Peter King and others who support such a law are well-aware that it does nothing to prevent the type of incident that occurred in Arizona. Lunatics who stalk and gun down their targets, along with various bystanders, are not exactly noted for obeying laws of any kind. I'm sure if this law had been in place the Arizona killer would have stopped and thought, hey, wait a minute. I can't go shoot Congresswoman Giffords. I'm not allowed to bring a gun within a thousand feet of her. Oh well, I guess I'll have to leave her alone.

This is yet another standard example of a politician responding to the idea that we have to do something, anything, no matter how pointless it might be. If he gets a new law passed he can pretend to have addressed the problem, claim credit for being tough on crime against government officials, and add another talking point to his campaign advertising.

Restricting Free Speech to Protect Free Speech?

There was an interesting editorial in yesterday's LA Times by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Daniel Huff called, "It's time to fight back against death threats by Islamic extremists." The authors call for new legislation similar to that passed to deter intimidation tactics used by anti-abortion protesters.

It's time for free-speech advocates to take a page from the abortion rights movement's playbook.  ... they lobbied for a federal law making it a crime to threaten people exercising reproductive rights and permitting victims to sue for damages. ... A federal law would do two things. First, it would deter violent tactics, by focusing national attention on the problem and invoking the formidable enforcement apparatus of the federal government. Second, its civil damages provision would empower victims of intimidation to act as private attorneys general to defend their rights.

Although I strongly sympathize with the intent, I'm highly skeptical of remedies that involve protecting free speech by passing more laws. The way to defend free speech against Islamic extremism is to defy intimidation by collectively refusing to pander to delicate Islamic sensibilities. Terroristic threats should be taken seriously, the perpetrators tracked down and prosecuted. But passing a new law that allows implied threats to be subject to preset legal damages -- as the authors advocate -- is a bad idea that will likely lead to unintended consequences. It would almost certainly result in a stifling of certain forms of political speech, based on court interpretations of what exactly constitutes some sort of threat. Protecting free speech by giving courts a new weapon to restrict it is a really bad idea.

Why I Won't Be Sitting on Jury Anytime Soon

Whenever I'm up for jury duty I make it clear that I believe in jury nullification, and that I'm going to vote in accord with how I see things, regardless of the law. Unfortunately many laws are misapplied, interpreted stupidly, or flat-out idiotic in the first place. There's no way I will ever be a part of enforcing such laws. Here's a prime example.

George Grier said he had to use his rifle on Sunday night to stop what he thought was going to be an invasion of his Uniondale home by a gang he thought might have been the vicious “MS-13.” ... “I went around and went into the house, ran upstairs and told my wife to call the police. I get the gun and I go outside and I come into the doorway and now, by this time, they are in the driveway, back here near the house. I tell them, you know, ‘Can you please leave? ... the five men dared him to use the gun; and that their shouts brought another larger group of gang members in front of his house.

“He starts threatening my family, my life. ‘Oh you’re dead. I’m gonna kill your family and your babies. You’re dead.’ So when he says that, 20 others guys come rushing around the corner. And so I fired four warning shots into the grass,”

Grier shot no one, but was still arrested. No only was he arrested, but he was charged with "A D felony reckless endangerment — requires a depraved indifference to human life, creating a risk that someone’s going to die." In the face of an overwhelming threat, which included threats to the lives of his family, all he did was fire some harmless shots specifically to alert police.  

Grier said he knew Nassau County Police employ the hi-tech “ShotSpotter” technology in his area and that the shooting would bring police in minutes. Cops told Guzman he was very cooperative.

Faced by a hostile crowd of 20+ gang members making threats that he took seriously, this man showed incredible restraint. In my opinion he'd have been justified in putting a bullet through the head of the leader, and into anyone else that continued to advance. But he didn't do that. All he did was act to get police to the scene as fast as possible. Charging him with a crime is insane, no matter what the law says. Hopefully a jury will ignore the law and find him not guilty.

Proposition 8 Struck Down

Many opponents of gay marriage are already yelling "judicial activism," and claiming that the judge made up a new right to gay marriage. But if you look at the reasoning used to strike down California's law, that's not what he did.

Walker, in his decision, writes that "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gays and lesbians for denial of a marriage license."

This is the key element in the decision. There is no rational basis for discriminating against gays/lesbians who want to marry. The judge amplifies that argument with findings of fact, some of which are listed in the linked article.

Although I am in favor of gay marriage, I also oppose judges creating new constitutional rights by fiat. But that's not what this judge did. Instead, he did exactly what judges are supposed to do. He reviewed a law, and found it to be unconstitutional discrimination. And in my opinion, he is correct. The prohibition of gay marriage is based on long-standing dislike of homosexuality and prejudice against gays -- often founded on religious teachings. If the state is going to be involved in marriages, there's no rational basis for prohibiting two people of the same sex to enter into what is a legal, contractual relationship. In my view, laws specifically banning gay marriage are clearly discriminatory and unequal treatment under the law.

For those complaining that the will of the majority is being ignored, that's why the U.S. was set up as a democratically-representative constitutional republic, with a balance of power between three branches, rather than a pure representative democracy. Sometimes minorities, even small minorities such as homosexuals, need protection against having their rights trampled by the will of the majority.

On the other side, I have long thought that gay marriage rights should come through legislation rather than the court system. Despite the valid reasoning of this judge, many will not accept it, particularly since it goes against such an entrenched tradition, as well as many religious beliefs. I would prefer that homosexuals take a longer view, attempt to change minds, and build a majority consensus in favor of gay marriage rights. I understand why they don't want to wait, but at the same time I think the judicial path stirs up animosity toward gays. It will be interesting to see what happens when this case hits the Supreme Court.

Why People Don't Like Islam -- Reason #1347892878347

Malaysia is an example of what passes for a an area with a moderate Islamic population. It's slight majority Muslim, but has separate rules for Muslims and non-Muslims. Non-Muslims are not bound by Islamic law -- at least they aren't supposed to be. And it's not a rogue state, or a nasty dictatorship. No one is particularly worried about radical Islamic terrorism coming from Malaysia.  Yet even in that country you can see the oppressive nature of Islamic religion, when it insinuates itself into government functions, as it is prone to do. 

A Hindu child was forcibly converted to Islam in an orphanage at age 7, and given an Islamic name. That's bad enough. What's worse is that this child is now a woman of 28 and still suffering from that action.

She lives with her husband, S. Sockalingam, whom she married in a traditional Hindu ceremony, but they are unable to register their union because, officially, they belong to different religions.

Malaysian Muslims are not permitted to marry someone of another faith, unless the spouse converts to Islam. She is also unable to name her husband as the father of their two children on their birth certificates.

A court blocked her attempts to change her name and get legal recognition for her marriage. Religious oppression backed by government power -- that's all too often the way of Islam. 

A word that is thrown around quite a bit, especially on the useful idiot left, is "Islamophobia." Islamophobia is a made-up term that smears people who object to Islam as bigots with an irrational dislike of the Islamic religion and its adherents. But dislike of Islam is perfectly rational. It is based on both the teachings of the religion itself, the actions of Muslims, and observation of states where Islam is the dominant religion. The oppressive nature of Islam in even countries such as Malaysia is yet another of the endless examples of why it is quite rational to dislike Islam.  

British Terrorist Rights Supporters Even More Insane Than the US Variety

Today's headline in The Guardian: "Two Pakistani students pose 'serious threat' but can stay in UK." What?!

Britain's counter-terrorism strategy was thrown into turmoil today when a judge ruled that two Pakistani students posed a serious threat to national security but could not be deported because of the risk that they would be tortured or killed in their own country.

According to the court, one of the men is actually an "an al-Qaida operative." Yet they can't be deported because something bad might happen to them. Enemies who want to kill British civilians have to be protected. This is what happens when you listen to the blind legalism of morons who like to bleat about the so-called "rule of law."

Rational people might think that foreign students residing in a host country are there as a privilege on the sufferance of the host nation. If those students turn out to be terror supporters, let alone actual members of Al Qaeda, they should be expelled, and have to take their chance with whatever happens in the country they are returned to. Rational laws are designed and used to protect society, not enemies who wish to destroy it. But terrorist rights supporters are much more concerned with protecting foreign enemies than the society they live in. They have a blind, almost religious veneration for "the law," as if it was a mystical force detached from reality.  

Arizona's Immigration Law

I haven't posted anything about it until now because illegal immigration is not a hot-button issue of mine. I favor greatly-expanded legal immigration from Mexico and other Latin American countries, and support an amnesty program that would allow current illegal residents to obtain citizenship. In general, I think the vast majority of illegal immigrants benefit the U.S. and our economy. But having said all that, I don't have a major problem with the Arizona law -- if I understand it correctly.

Border states such as Arizona do have serious problems caused by illegal immigration. The federal government has failed to control the border, and the states have to act on their own. Although I am inherently suspicious of any increase in police powers, it appears that the Arizona law merely allows/requires police to enforce existing immigration law, although certain specific provisions might not stand up under court scrutiny. I see nothing to warrant the hysterical, borderline crazy overreaction by the usual suspects. Byron York, writing in the Washington Examiner, does a good job debunking some of the apparently misinformed criticism.

Air Force Sergeant Thrown Out for Being Gay

Staff Sergeant Jene Newsome was forced out of the military today after nine years of service, apparently because some police officers, upset over her lack of cooperation in a case involving her wife, notified the Air Force that she was gay.

Last November, police went to staff sergeant Jene' Newsome's Rapid City home to serve an out of state warrant on her wife, Cheryl Hutson. In the process, they noticed an Iowa marriage certificate lying on a table, showing the two women were married.

Despite the fact the marriage had nothing to do with the arrest, officer Jeremy Stauffacher and detective Tom Garinger sent that information to the Air Force, causing the service to discharge Newsome for violating the don't ask-don't tell policy on gay military people.

Regardless of what you think about the impact of permitting open homosexuality in the military, in my opinion there is absolutely no reasonable justification for this action. It is simply wrong. Newsome didn't flout the ban. She served for nine years, and in all that time her sexual orientation was apparently not an issue. But because of this situation, the Air Force throws her out, ends her career and completely disrupts her entire life. That's quite a punishment for doing nothing wrong.

Excessive Gun Sentences

When we aren't busy filling our jails with non-violent drug offenders, we are sending other people to jail for the "crime" of possessing otherwise legal weapons at the wrong place and time. Plaxico Burress was a prime example. He got two years in jail for having a gun accident in public -- an accident in which he himself was the only injured person. But because the incident occurred in New York, instead of a state friendlier to the right to bear arms, he's sitting in jail right now.

The latest high profile case of a celebrity heading to jail over possessing a gun in New York is that of rapper Lil' Wayne. (More on the case here).  He's facing an expected year in jail. A year in jail for what? He apparently had a handgun on his tour bus that was discovered by police while they were searching for -- what else -- drugs. He didn't do anything with the gun. It wasn't stolen, used in a crime, pointed at police, or used in any other way that should justify throwing someone in jail. He simply owned a gun, and didn't have a license to have it in New York. How is that worth a year in jail? Such a procedural offense should be penalized by a moderate fine. 

I'm sure some people look at Plaxico Burress, an arrogant, obnoxious athlete who was stupid enough to shoot himself in the leg, or Lil' Wayne, with all the baggage that comes with the rap scene, and think: it serves them right. Maybe jail will teach them a lesson and knock them down a notch. But the problem is that states like New York, with their ridiculously excessive penalties for gun violations, can turn their wrath against ordinary gun owners. If rich celebrities like rappers and NFL players get thrown in jail for a year or two, what happens to an average person from out of state who drives through New York with his legally purchased weapons, gets stopped, and is found to be in possession of weapons unlicensed and therefore illegal in New York? 

Bribes Should Be Allowed

...When doing business abroad. The FBI just completed a big sting operation against U.S. weapons dealers.

22 top-level executives, including a senior sales executive at Smith & Wesson, were arrested in what Justice Department officials called the first undercover sting ever aimed at violations of the federal ban on corporate bribes paid to get foreign business.

The ban is called the "Foreign Corrupt Practices Act," and was passed in 1977.

[it] prohibits American citizens and companies — and, since 1998, foreign citizens and companies acting in the United States — from bribing foreign government officials to get or keep business.

In my opinion this law is an unnecessary attack on U.S. industry. The reality is that bribes are necessary in many nations in order to grease the wheels of commerce. The ban damages the ability of U.S. companies to compete, and criminalizes what is normal business practice in many areas of the world. And, as usual with this sort of international do-gooderism, it gains us nothing. There's just no reason for it. If businessmen are violating foreign laws, they can be arrested and prosecuted under those laws. This sting operation by the FBI is a massive waste of resources to address a non-problem. 

Court Upholds U.S. Law

You might think that would be a normal function of a U.S. federal court. But there are those who think that international law -- or what they interpret as "law," should take precedence, apparently including the UPI writer, who seems upset at the ruling. The case involved a Yemeni prisoner at Guantanamo, Ghaleb Nassar al-Bihani. In his petition for release, al-Bihani

challenged "the statutory legitimacy of his detention by advancing a number of arguments based on the international laws of war," the appeals court majority opinion said. Al-Bihani argued "'support,' or even 'substantial support' of al-Qaida or the Taliban as an independent basis for detention violates international law

Leaving aside the fact that a hostile alien captured in wartime shouldn't even be filing legal actions, there are obviously no universally accepted "laws of war." The court rightly rejected such nonsense.

putting aside that we find al-Bihani's reading of international law to be unpersuasive, we have no occasion here to quibble over the intricate application of vague treaty provisions and amorphous customary principles," the opinion added. "The sources we look to for resolution of al-Bihani's case are the sources courts always look to: The text of relevant statutes and controlling domestic case law. Under those sources, al-Bihani is lawfully detained.

It's nice to see a high level U.S. court reaffirm that the legality of U.S. actions are defined by U.S. laws. It's unfortunate that even needs to be stated, and that one of the three judge panel dissented from the opinion.

Gay Marriage Defeated in New Jersey

The New Jersey State Senate voted against a bill legalizing gay marriage. The vote was 20-14 with 3 abstentions. New Jersey has been suffering under Democratic government for quite awhile. As a gay marriage supporter, I was hoping that outgoing governor John Corzine, who has been terrible for the state, might be able to leave on a positive note by signing a gay marriage bill into law. Unfortunately he won't get the chance.

The failure to get a gay marriage bill passed in a liberal state such as New Jersey, demonstrates again that complete equality for gays has still not won majority public support. Attitudes are changing, but the change is incremental. I'm not sure how long it will take until a majority shifts in favor of gay marriage. I have no doubt that gays wanting to marry here in New Jersey will feel -- and rightly so -- that they shouldn't have to wait for equal rights. Some will probably attempt to utilize the court system to get gay marriage legalized by judicial fiat, against the wishes of the majority. While I sympathize, I think that's a bad strategy which can lead to an anti-gay backlash. Unfortunately, I think gay people in most states are just going to have to wait, and work to change attitudes.

Britain Attempts to Reign In Rogue Courts

The British Foreign office has proposed that the UK Attorney General be given the power to approve arrest warrants for suspected war criminals. This comes in the wake of an embarrassing incident, where a British court actually issued an arrest warrant for former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livini for supposed "war crimes," causing her to cancel a visit to the UK. The government of Gordon Brown was forced to apologize for the idiocy of this court.

Things are pretty bad in the UK, but even the British government has to be appalled at the shameful behavior of one of its courts, trying to arrest a former minister of a civilized country on behalf of terrorist supporters. Naturally those terrorist supporters aren't happy that the government is interfering with their jihad against Israel.

News of the prime minister's intervention provoked a furious response from lawyers and pro-Palestinian groups.

"I feel honest revulsion at the idea of a case where a judge has granted an arrest warrant and a politician gets on the phone and apologises," said Daniel Machover, a solicitor. "They have got to stay out of individual cases and legal decisions."

Unlike here in the U.S., where we have terrorist rights supporters, over in the UK they have actual terrorist supporters, working diligently on behalf of Hamas. Hopefully the government will be able to put some regulations in place to squelch the activities of courts that issue ludicrous warrants for political reasons, particularly when they act in support of terrorist objectives.