EU Court Says No to Insulting "Prophet" Mohhamed

From Al Arabiya

A European Union Human Rights court has determined that insulting Mohammed is not protected free speech as it may "stir up prejudice and put at risk religious peace". 

The case stemmed from a seminar conducted by an Austrin defendant known as Mrs. S. where she "defamed" Mohammed by correctly claiming that he married his second wife, Aisha, when she was merely six years old and consummated their marriage when she turned nine. She claimed that this was evidence that the Prophet of Islam had pedophilic tendencies. Regardless of the truth of the statement, the court found that making the statement was prejudicial against individuals who may have their religious feeling hurt.

The judgement can be read here, it's short (for a judicial decision) and worth the read if you're so inclined.

I guess we'll see how long the truth can remain hidden, at least in Europe. 

Basically then, blasphemy laws have made their way back to the European continent, difference being though, it is now strictly Islam that cannot, under penalty of law, be insulted. Will this further empower radical muslims to report, or perhaps do worse, people who they deemed to have offended them? Most certainly, yes.

Freedom of speech, as it were, throughout Europe, now takes a backseat to whether or not someone feels offended if their religion is the subject of demeaning dialogue, whether true or not. Jesus Christ, that's screwed up.

A Celebration of Marx - NYU, Of Course

Not The Economics Department

NYU Tisch, School of the Arts is in the midst of a 2 week celebration to mark the 200th birthday of Karl Marx. 

Events include The P Project, where attendees can earn money by participating in performance art, details are otherwise sketchy. You could also attend a lecture on Racial Capitalism hosted by NYU professors who, presumably, will extol the "virtues" of Marxism vis-a-vis Capitalism. I suspect they'll gloss over some of the Marxist inspired atrocities that plagued the world during the 20th century. And don't forget to attend The Marxist Dance Party featuring DJ AndrewAndrew spinning Marxist dance tracks and reading from comunist propoganda. 

Fight the power, fellas

Participant Bios include: 

luciana achugar, a Brooklyn-based choreographer from Uruguay, has been making work in NYC and Uruguay independently and collaboratively since 1999.

Amin Husain’s interests focus on resistance and liberation, movement generated theory and practice. His research and teaching interests span debt and financialization, globalization and political economy, social movements and cultures of resistance, race, class and ethnicity in the media, and postcolonial theory. 

Julie Tolentino is a performance installation maker whose work draws from a variety of visual, archival, and movement strategies. Her work has been presented at many venues

Admission to the events is free but the organizers have requested that attendees pay what they think it's worth and they are provided with an itemization of what each performance cost so that one can better quantify how much is owed. 

There will of course be seminars on climate change, identity politics and the whole slew of left wing radicalism. Sounds. Like. Fun.

Finally, Some Attention

POLITICIANS TARGETED?

Political violence may finally be getting some much needed attention following "Bomb" intercepts intended for Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama and George Soros. While the details of these suspicious packages threats remain exceedingly murky, you can expect the national press to begin to devote time to this growing issue in the run-up to the mid-term elections.

It is odd how they are describing these packages, the U.S. Secret Service indicating that they are "potentially explosive devices", meaning what, exactly? I've never heard of a bomb described that way. The FBI released a statement via Twitter, saying merely:

We are aware of a suspicious package found in the vicinity of the Clinton residence in Chappaqua, NY, and our JTTF has engaged with our federal, state and local partners to investigate. As this is an on-going investigation, we will have no further comment at this time

— FBI New York (@NewYorkFBI) October 24, 2018

The only suspicious package that made it to its intended recipient was the package addressed to George Soros, a left-wing billionaire and activist. The BBC reports,

"An employee of the residence opened the package, revealing what appeared to be an explosive device," a Bedford Police Department official told the New York Times.

 They go on further stating,

Arriving at the scene, police discovered a device that was later confirmed by officials to have contained explosive powder and "had the components" of a bomb. It was then "proactively detonated", police said.

A package with components of a bomb along with explosive powder was detonated, no mention of secondary explosion following detonation so no valuable information was obtained. Could the explosive powder have been gunpowder? Potentially explosive devices may have been bullets? I know, and there doesn't appear to be many answers forthcoming. I guess we'll stay tuned and hopefully this will encourage our political leaders to lay off the violent rhetoric that has been fulminating recently.

*UPDATE*

Additional explosive devices have been intercepted at CNN,

This photo obtained by @ABC and confirmed by two law enforcement sources shows the device recovered from @CNN by the NYPD bomb squad. pic.twitter.com/HFzTMSoJXG

— Gio Benitez (@GioBenitez) October 24, 2018

Addressed to John Brennan, a relentless critic of the Trump administration. Definitely looks like an attempt at a pipe bomb and is now being described as similar to the devices sent to the Clinton residence and the Obama residence. This one was described as functional by the authorities.

Scooter Wars

Residents Do Not Appreciate

As The Los Angeles Times reports locals are getting quite frustrated with the rental scooter industry in many seaside California cities.

Having visited Venice Beach a few weeks back I couldn't help but notice how omnipresent these two wheeled scoots have become. From having to dodge getting run over by them on the sidewalk to having to avoid running them over in the street, I can sympathize with the locals and their disdain for these unregulated vehicles. I can also see that they're quite useful and practical for tourists and sightseers to employ.

Notwithstanding their practicality, they do have a tendency to annoy. They are also not without liability. The scooters can travel at upwards of 15 mph and with very few people donning helmets or other safety gear prior to setting off, injuries are mounting.

No worries though, new industry is springing up to address rental scooter related injury, hooray, more lawsuits.

This tendency to annoy the populace is beginning to elicit destructive behavior against the scooters with scores of the offending Birds being vandalized openly and without repercussion. There is even an Instagram account, BirdGraveYard which tracks the destruction on social media. According to a moderator their site receives literally hundreds of submissions a day of Bird related vandalism and destruction. They only publish a select few, however.

Bird has already settled one lawsuit against them from the City of Santa Monica relating to vendor permits and business licenses. Given the ubiquitous nature of these scooters I suspect that we will begin to see more regulation and control being exerted by city forces in trying to make the situation workable for the frustrated communities and the riders alike.

This intrusion will likely make the scooters less convenient and more expensive which may, in turn, reduce their numbers to a level that everyone can deal with. And that's how City Hall will "solve" the problem, make them less convenient yet more expensive.

Second City; Twenty-Fifth City

This article from The Chicago Tribune relates how Chicagoans have become much more fearful (justifiably so, it seems) of gun violence in their city.

In addition to this week's rash of shootings, 74 people were shot last weekend. Given the press that Chicago gets with respect to this issue, you'd be forgiven for thinking that they lead the nation in violent homicide, far from it. As this article points out, on a per capita basis Chicago has the 25th highest murder rate in the US, behind such cities as: St. Louis, MO (1st), Baltimore, MD (2nd), Salinas, CA (9th), Savannah, GA (12th) and Philadelphia, PA (24th).

While gun violence in the US has been steadily declining from its peak in 1993, we can see that it is a battle that is far from over, in fact, it seems to be intensifying in particular areas. Also, even though overall trends remain down over the past 30 years, the nation saw an uptick in gun violence beginning in 2015 which continues incrementally to the present.

What stands out about Chicago is that, on a weekend with 74 shootings, there wasn't a single arrest made. There were some leads but no arrests as of yet. What can account for the utter failure of the police in patrolling their city? Some of it may have to do with an attitude among the residents that they won't "snitch" on the shooters, maybe because of fear of retaliation or, in some cases I imagine, a sense of loyalty to gangs and fear of police.

It's worth reviewing this article from ChicagoMag from December, 2011 which details the oftentimes symbiotic relationship between Chicago politicians and gang members, reformed or otherwise. In it, the article found that:

"Most alarming, both law enforcement and gang sources say, is that some politicians ignore the gangs’ criminal activities. Some go so far as to protect gangs from the police, tipping them off to impending raids or to surveillance activities—in effect, creating safe havens in their political districts. And often they chafe at backing tough measures to stem gang activities, advocating instead for superficial solutions that may garner good press but have little impact."

It doesn't seem like much has changed in the Windy City since 2011, with violence continuing practically unabated and increasingly violent street gangs multiplying with no cohesive unified force to oppose them I would imagine that, without some significant political change, the violence and damage to the city will continue to increase.

Medicare for All - $32.6 Trillion

The AP Reports


According to analysis by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Bernie Sanders' plan for Medicare For All would cost $32.6 Trillion dollars over the first 10 years.

Now that more and more mainstream democrats are supporting Bernie Sanders' single payer healthcare proposals including; Tammy Baldwin (Wis), Kamala Harris (CA), Cory Booker (NJ) and Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), to name a few, it may be past time to ask them how they expect to pay for such a monumental government project.

Hopefully they won't take MSNBC commentator's Chris Hayes Suggestion that we simply pass the bill and figure out how to pay for it later.

I think a good answer for "How will you pay for your agenda?" is "We're a very rich country. We'll figure it out."

— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) July 27, 2018

That is the type of reckless legislation that has turned the once relatively wealthy nations, such as Venezuela into the proverbial dumpster fire that we see today. Given that the US is over $21 Trillion in debt already it would be practically criminal to pass legislation encumbering ourselves with dozens more trillions dollars in debt with no feasible way to pay for it. 

Kind of a Big Deal, at Least for Now

Unexpected Ruling From the Ninth Circuit

A three judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal ruled on Tuesday July, 24 that the Second Amendment provides for the right to open carry firearms if a jurisdiction completely restricts the citizen's right to conceal carry. (Decision in the Link)

While this decision will certainly be reconsidered with an en banc panel of 11 judges, it is still informative with respect to constitutional review. Assuming the en banc panel reverses, we can fully expect this to head to the Supreme Court in the coming term.

Now, on to the decision

As the Court determined -

We must decide whether the Second Amendment 
encompasses the right of a responsible law-abiding 
citizen to carry a firearm openly for self-defense outside of the home.

At issue is a Hawaiian statute, 134-9 codified in the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS). This statute provided an exception to Hawaii's other gun related statutes that defined where one must maintain their firearms, allowing for them to be effectively maintained only at their  “place of business, residence, or sojourn.” H.R.S. §§ 134-23, 134-24, 134-25.

The statute was effectively used to provide for police officers and other individuals who use guns in the course of their civic duties to open carry in the course of their duties and denied other citizens the right to open carry for self defense. The statutes ostensibly allowed for regular citizens to conceal carry only where there is an urgent need, as determined by the Police Chief. Since the statute was in effect the Police Chief had never determined that a citizen qualified for a concealed carry permit. In short, regular citizens were absolutely precluded from either open carry or concealed carry within the subject jurisdiction.

The question, as the Court framed it, was whether the Second Amendment allowed for citizens to open carry firearms for the purpose of self defense.

Short answer: Yes, the Second Amendment allows for a citizen to open carry a firearm for self defense.

Somewhat longer answer: In coming to their determination, the Court obviously looked at the text of the Second Amendment which you can review at the top of the post. Key to their decision was the idea that the Second protects the right to "keep" and to "bear" arms. Constitutional rights to keep arms was decided previously, primarily under McDonald and Heller and will not be further discussed here.

The constitutional protection to bear arms is the key to this decision. What did the Founder's mean when they wrote that you had a fundamental right to bear arms? Heller provided guidance indicating that to bear means to wear or carry upon the person. In specifying separate right to both "keep" (presumably within their homes) and "bear" arms (outside of the home) the Court concluded that the Second Amendment allows for people to carry firearms for the purpose of self defense outside the home.

That being the case, since the Hawaiian statute specifically forbade citizen's the right to open carry without a permit, and since these permits were never issued, the State effectively took away the citizen's Second Amendment right to bear arms. The court also noted that permits for concealed carry were practically never provided to the citizenry, so any manner of bearing of arms has been precluded by the State. They determined that that preclusion violated the Second Amendment.

At this point the case will be remanded to the District Court to make a determination taking into account the Circuit Court's ruling. As stated, this will likely be appealed to an en banc panel to make a further determination and, most likely, will head to the Supreme Court to make a final determination.

So, citizen's of the Ninth Circuit, you can't quite start walking around with your AR-15's just yet.

Another Racism Hoax

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/customer-who-left-we-dont-tip-terrorist-message-banned-from-texas-restaurant/

A Texas Steakhouse has apologized to a customer that it initially claimed had written a racist note on their dinner receipt.

According to the server's allegations, after providing his table with a bill for their meal they provided no tip (at least on the receipt) and added the insult, "We don't tip terrorist", apparently due to the server's Arabic sounding name and appearance.

The restaurant wasted no time in coming to their server's defense stating, "We stand by and support our employee. Racism of any form is unacceptable." They also claimed to have banned the customer from eating at their restaurant, the Odessa based Saltgrass Steak House, for life. 

The server, Kahlil Cavil, shared a photo of the receipt on his Faceboook page, garnering national attention and widespread anger.  

Unfortunately it doesn't seem as if The Saltgrass conducted any initial review or investigation into their server's claims before banning the alleged racist customer and siding wholeheartedly with their employee. An employee who, it turns out, faked the whole incident. 

Terry Turney, COO of Saltgrass Steak House has since terminated Mr. Cavil, apologized to the customer and invited them back for a free meal. He further stated, "The customer has been contacted and invited back to our restaurant to dine on us. Racism of any form is intolerable, and we will always act swiftly should it occur in any of our establishments."

According to Mr. Turney's additional statements, false allegations of racism are equally as bad as racism itself. Assuming that's the case, didn't his public shaming of his customer as well as banning them from his establishment constitute false allegations of racism? His server was punished by losing his job, how should the steak house be punished, if at all? 

At least the steak house didn't disclose the identity of their customer, but hopefully this whole incident will teach them to be more careful in dealing with outrageous claims of racism in the future. Prior to making a public statement and banning a customer for life, the management needed to carefully examine the claims and question everyone involved because all too often claims of racism such as this turn out to be completely fabricated. 

Trends in Death

More Americans are Dying at Home Versus in a Hospital

A study recently published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that, since the year 2000, more and more Americans are dying at home instead of in a hospital setting. The study found that, as of 2015, 20% of Medicare insured patients who died did so at an acute-care hospital which is down markedly from year 2000 when greater than 30% of Medicare insured patients died at a hospital.

When picturing your final days, most people prefer to picture themselves surrounded by family, in a comforting, familiar and welcoming environment, all things that are not typically associated with hospital rooms or IC Units.

Hospice services, either at-site or at-home hospice care has been increasing significantly over the years with greater than 50% of terminal patients receiving some hospice care in 2015. This follows a trend in hospital services that prioritize palliative care and patient wishes to a greater extent than ever before.

Having witnessed each of my own parent's passing, one in a hospital, the other at home, I have to conclude that dying at home is preferable as long as any attendant pain and discomfort can be handled adequately at home.

This trend, should it continue, will likely provide for much more peaceful and less expensive deaths that are less trying on the survivors and allow additional dignity and comfort for the patient.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-where-americans-die-20180627-story.html