Time magazine writes a sorta’ positive piece on libertarianism. The part about libertarians hating progress is about is wrong as it could possibly be, though.
The ACLU once again gives liberty-loving people a reason not to join. I’ll say it again–the ACLU does great work on drug policy and the war on terror. But it’s inexplicable to me how a group that reads every other right as broadly as possible (and rightly so) has decided to read the Second Amendment has narrowly as it can.
The Washington Post kicks off a series today in which they’re dropping 20,000 words and a ton of resources on . . . wait for it . . . the Chandra Levy case.
The pirate encyclopedia.
Another drug raid shootout, this time in Toledo. All over “1.5 grams of crack cocaine, three Vicodin pills, and 12 grams of marijuana.”
Kidnapping Jesus.
This entry was posted
on Sunday, July 13th, 2008 at 9:39 am by Radley Balko
and is filed under General Drug War, Police Militarization.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
TheAgitator.com
I once asked my Catholic wife if she would mind bringing the wafer home next time she receives communion so I can nail it up to a little cross. She didn’t think it was funny.
I let my ACLU membership expire several years ago. It’s safe to say they have spent any contributions I made several times over on all the junk mail they have sent me since then.
The ACLU’s position on the 2nd Amendment is legitimately unfortunate, but I will continue to donate to them without any significant reservations. The basis for my financial support is the great work that they actually do. If I were to refrain from offering financial support to any organization that I did not agree with on every particular, I wouldn’t be supporting anybody. As long as the ACLU “stands aside” and doesn’t litigate (or offer amicus briefs) on the 2nd Amendment, I will remain a supporter.
“When I received the Eucharist, my intention was to bring it back to my seat to show him,” Cook said. “I took about three steps from the woman distributing the Eucharist and someone grabbed the inside of my elbow and blocked the path in front of me. At that point I put it in my mouth so they’d leave me alone and I went back to my seat and I removed it from my mouth.”
A church leader was watching, confronted Cook and tried to recover the sacred bread. Cook said she crossed the line and that’s why he brought it home with him.
“She came up behind me, grabbed my wrist with her right hand, with her left hand grabbed my fingers and was trying to pry them open to get the Eucharist out of my hand,” Cook said, adding she wouldn’t immediately take her hands off him despite several requests.
Diocese of Orlando spokeswoman Carol Brinati said she was not aware of anyone touching Cook. She released a statement Thursday: “… a Catholic Campus Ministry student representative filed a complaint with the Student Union regarding the behavior of the two young men. A Student Government Representative called Catholic Campus Ministry to apologize for this disruption.”
Cook filed an official abuse complaint with UCF’s student conduct court regarding the alleged physical force. Following that complaint, Brinati said church members filed their own official complaints of disruptive conduct. Punishment for either offense could result in suspension or expulsion.
“The church feels that I’m the problem here,” Cook said. “The problem is actually that this is a publicly-funded religious institution. Through student government here, we fund them through an activity and service, so they’re receiving student money.”
Cook is upset more than $40,000 in student fees have been allocated to support religious organizations on campus for the 2008-2009 school year, according to student government records. He denied he is holding the Eucharist hostage to protest that support.
Regardless of the reason, the Diocese says its main concern is to get the Eucharist back so it can be taken care of properly and with respect. Cook has been keeping the Eucharist stored in a plastic bag since last Sunday.
“It is hurtful,” said Father Migeul Gonzalez with the Diocese. “Imagine if they kidnapped somebody and you make a plea for that individual to please return that loved one to the family.”
Gonzalez said the Diocese is willing to meet with Cook and help him understand the importance of the Eucharist in hopes of him returning it. The Diocese is dispatching a nun to UCF’s campus to oversee the next mass, protect the Eucharist and in hopes Cook will return it.
Cook said he’d consider returning the Eucharist if he gets an apology and a meeting with the Bishop’s office to discuss the Diocese’s policy on physical force.
Gonzalez said intentionally abusing the Eucharist is classified as a mortal sin in the Catholic church, the most severe possible. If it’s not returned, the community of faith will have to ask for forgiveness.
“We have to make acts of reparation,” Gonzalez said. “The whole community is going to turn to prayer. We’ll ask the Lord for pardon, forgiveness, peace, not only for the whole community affected by it, but also for [Cook], we offer prayers for him as well.”
This is the first time I’ve ever personally known someone in the national news. And of course, I’m gone on vacation during the week that this all went down.
if you want some more info, check out PZ Meyers blog about it.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
it’s really sets the story straight, and, i might add, has about 3,000 comments to read and laugh with and Bill Donahue rasin’ …er… hell.
There are close to a 1000 comments on that ACLU blog post and I didn’t see a single one supportive of the ACLU’s collective interpretation.
I think its hurtful the Catholics take the body of Christ and make poo out of it. For shame.
Its a goddamned cracker. Or godblessed, depending on your imagination. Still, a cracker. Maybe holey, not holy.
The ACLU’s position on the 2nd really is frustrating. Their challenge to the recent Fisa legislation is an example of how right they are on a lot of things. I think their “collective right” stance speaks to the fact that a large percentage of their donations come from the hard left, so they don’t want to piss off any of those people and bite the hand that feeds.
The thing is, in this country, no one forces you to be a Catholic. And crapping over their beliefs is so easy. What are they going to do? Forgive you? Ooooh! Scary!
That guy should get a freaking life. All he’s doing is showing he’s a bigot. He’s also making a great google search for his future employers. Now there’s divine justice for you…
no one forces you to believe catholic. rather, it is better to live under the laws and policies they design. i would rather be a catholic and live in a fully free society than a non-catholic and live in a theocracy.
The state CLUs are largely autonomous, and some have taken a very different stance. The Texas CLU supported passage of unlicensed carry in cars, and the Utah CLU has issued a statement agreeing with the Heller decision.
Cook is a fucktard, and Time is not fit to wipe one’s ass with. I will never understand how stupid a person has to be to think something is better just because it is old OR new.
In addition to what KBCraig noted, the Nevada branch of the ACLU also has stated that they agree with the Supreme Court that the second amendment protects an individual right.
Well, when you use the conservative Bob Barr to represent libertarianism, there are bound to be some misconceptions.
ALL rights are individual rights. Right? Right?
Well said. Go ahead and take the rest of the day off. You earned it.
Inexplicable? The (national) ACLU is is as beholden to its donors as the politicians.
There are close to a 1000 comments on that ACLU blog post and I didn’t see a single one supportive of the ACLU’s collective interpretation.
IIRC, out of the first 700 or so posts I looked at shortly after Heller, there were about five that were supportive. I haven’t looked at the other ~300 posted since then.
The basis for my financial support is the great work that they actually do.
I would strongly suggest that you look at the ALCU with a somewhat more discerning eye. The ACLU often makes the argument that they must protect bad people because–even if the rights of good people were respected today–allowing the state to violate the rights of bad people would result in it expanding to attack the rights of good people as well.
That would be a good argument if the only people whose rights were being violated were bad. It is at best, however, a clear mis-allocation of resources to only protect the rights of bad people while ignoring clear violations of the rights of good ones. As it happens, there have been many cases where police have demonstrated a preference to go after mostly-good people rather than bad ones. This tendency should alarm anyone who’s actually interested in civil liberties, but the tactics of the ACLU actually encourage such behavior.
Supercat:
Could you be a little more specific? I’m not sure what your argument is, and my hunch is that you are mischaracterizing the ACLU’s position. I don’t think the ACLU deliberately seeks to defend “bad people,” nor are their results in most cases limited to affecting the immediate parties. If the ACLU manages to win a case that sets a new, more protective standard for say, Searches and Seizures, the beneficiaries are not just “bad people,” but rather everybody subject to government search and seizure. Everybody benefits, not just “bad people,” whatever you mean by that.
I finally get to find out what “yarrrr” means!
Most people whose rights are violated have, at some point, broken the law. Sorry, but it’s kinda like Jesus did… in order to protect all our rights they have to help the prostitutes and the murderers.
I think what Supercat’s saying may refer to the ACLU’s defense of the First Amendment, in that speech which everyone agrees with rarely needs to be defended; it’s only objectionable speech which is likely to need their protection.
God damn it Radley, I was expecting to see an actual encyclopedia full of famous acts of piracy and famous pirates n shit…
Putting all that aside, I don’t want to dwell on constitutional analysis, because our view has never been that civil liberties are necessarily coextensive with constitutional rights. Conversely, I guess the fact that something is mentioned in the Constitution doesn’t necessarily mean that it is a fundamental civil liberty.
Well, I guess that explains why they don’t call it the American Bill of Rights Union. The right to defend yourself is not a civil liberty unless you’re defending yourself from the government. Of course, a lot of people think the Second Amendment exists for that very purpose.