Couple jailed for Christmas lights

Flores and her husband, Tony, last year violated a code requiring Christmas decorations to be removed 19 days after the holiday. They were still on the home in April .... Angelica said the lights stayed up because Tony had been injured at work and she was afraid to climb up a ladder and remove them .... She was stunned last week when three police officers handcuffed them.

Nuff said.

People I just don't understand: El Al passenger flies with gun to New York

I mean, it makes perfect sense to me that a passenger would fly with a gun. I think it would make the airlines safer if everyone would fly armed. Of course, that argument has been hashed back and forth on many web sites, so I won't go into it here.

What amazes me is this part of the story: "When he arrived at the hotel he started to sweat when he found his personal handgun in his luggage," the spokesman said. "He went right away to the consulate."

OK, so this guy got from Israel to the US with a gun. Once in the US -- albeit in a hoplophobic part of the US -- he realized he had the gun. So he contacts the Israeli government for help? Why? While in the US, he's not subject to Israeli law. He hadn't been charged with any crime in the US for which he'd need help in finding a lawyer. He was safely away from the mindless airport security goons who would have confiscated his gun if they'd known he had it. Why involve the government in this?

Of course, he might have wanted advice as to how to get the gun back home. Even then, however, an American would likely think that he would be better off contacting the airline, and asking about how best to pack the gun for a return journey home. As an American, it's hard for me to seriously consider asking the government for help when I don't absolutely have to.

On the other hand, the Israeli government hasn't immolated a nonviolent church group of citizens on suspicion of having guns. I suppose that's the difference.

Police officials said Monday that they expect demonstrations at this week's World Economic Forum will be mostly peaceful, but they plan to strictly enforce a century-old law barring groups of demonstrators from wearing masks.

Check out the above link, then ask yourself how the ban on masks is compatible with this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As long as people wearing masks are peaceable, then what difference does it make what they are wearing? I am not arguing for the right to commit crimes while masked, but it seems to me that the banning of masks allows for the intimidation of protesters above and beyond the law. For the same reason that I believe in not allowing your precinct captain to see your ballot card, I believe that you should be allowed to protest anonymously if you feel you need to. The government already has too much power to destroy it's citizens on a whim; hiding thier identity is one of the few protections protesters have from a little extralegal punishment for thier beliefs.