This Is Good

I just heard this, and I think it’s a great story.

There is a story about a king in Africa who had a close friend that he grew up with. The friend had a habit of looking at every situation that ever occurred in his life (positive or negative) and remarking, "This is good!"
One day the king and his friend were out on a hunting expedition. The friend would load and prepare the guns for the king. The friend had apparently done something wrong in preparing one of the guns, for after taking the gun from his friend, the king fired it and his thumb was blown off. Examining the situation the friend remarked as usual, "This is good!" To which the king replied, "No, this is NOT good!" and proceeded to send his friend to jail.
About a year later, the king was hunting in an area that he should have known to stay clear of. Cannibals captured him and took them to their village. They tied his hands, stacked some wood, set up a stake and bound him to the stake.
As they came near to set fire to the wood, they noticed that the king was missing a thumb. Being superstitious, they never ate anyone that was less than whole. So untying the king, they sent him on his way.
As he returned home, he was reminded of the event that had taken his thumb and felt remorse for his treatment of his friend. He went immediately to the jail to speak with his friend. "You were right," he said, "it was good that my thumb was blown off." And he proceeded to tell the friend all that had just happened. "And so I am very sorry for sending you to jail for so long. It was bad for me to do this."
"No," his friend replied, "this is good!"
"What do you mean, ‘this is good!’ How could it be good that I sent my friend to jail for a year?"
"If I had not been in jail, I would have been with you."

Romans 8:28. Sometimes we don’t see the good, but it is there. We have been conditioned by the world to see things a certain way; we live in a microwave society. Many times if things don’t seem right, right now, then we assume that everything is wrong. It is sometimes hard for us to take the long view. Do you think Job understood why he was suffering? His words make it clear that he didn’t. What about the man born blind in John 9? Jesus said that this man (keep in mind that this is a grown man, not a preschooler, or a young boy) was born blind that the works of God might be made manifest in him. In this day and age, I think that a lot of people would have been upset if they found out that they had lived for many years without their sight just so that God could “show off.” Not this guy, though, he rejoiced to have been given sight. Maybe that’s why he was chosen for that purpose. Look at it from the other perspective: He was part of Jesus’ ministry, and was instrumental in making salvation available to the whole world. This is good.

I hate it when people overlook the obvious. Sometimes I wonder if what they are overlooking is only obvious to me. For example, many times I have heard people comment on the contention between Paul and Barnabas in Acts 15:38, and they say, "Now, we don't know what the contention was between Paul and Barnabas..." And I say, "You don't? Did you try reading the previous two verses?" It seems obvious to me that Barnabas felt very strongly that God wanted him to work with Mark, but he had grown so accustomed to working with Paul that it really didn't even occur to him that he was supposed to work with Mark instead of working with Paul. Meanwhile, Paul felt very strongly that he wasn't supposed to work with Mark, but he also was very accustomed to working with Barnabas, and it didn't occur to him, either, that Barnabas should work with Mark and Paul should find someone else to work with. But Barnabas insisted that they should work with Mark, and Paul insisted that they should not, and eventually they realized that they could no longer work together--which is what God wanted all along anyway. So Barnabas worked with Mark, and Paul worked with Silas.

Paul and Silas went on to be thrown in jail in Thessalonica, but then led a revival in the jail. That's an interesting story in and of itself. Paul and Silas, having been beaten badly, and having their feet locked in stocks in the inner prison, began praising God. The other prisoners heard them, and had to have thought that these guys are nuts--just completely whacked out of their gourds--but then, God sent an earthquake, and the stocks came loose, and the door to the cell opened. The jailer awoke, and seeing the door opened, assumed that Paul and Silas had escaped. Knowing what kind of punishment he would receive, and the disgrace to his family, the jailer thought it better to kill himself on the spot. He pulled out his sword, and Paul, knowing what was going through the jailer's mind, stopped him, and assured him that no one had escaped. The first thought in the jailers mind was probably that these guys are nuts... but he realized that Paul was the kind of man that didn't want to be even partially responsible for someone else's death. This Paul, he's real, he could have walked away and let me die, but he put my own life above his own (think about it: Paul didn't know what the morning held, he and Silas could very easily have been executed for their alleged crimes). What drives a man like that? How can I be more like that? The jailer took Paul and Silas to his own home, tended to their injuries, they shared with him the gospel message, and he was baptized, and his whole family (at what time? 2:00 AM? We know it was midnight when Paul and Silas started worshipping in their cell...) I wonder what the jailer's wife thought when he brought two prisoners home in the middle of the night (in the middle of his shift), and woke her up, and wanted her to listen to what they had to say... She probably thought her husband was nuts--completely whacked out of his gourd, but she knew that something had changed his life. Insanity is not contagious, but, sometimes, sanity is.

(In)justice

Yesterday I promised to talk about Tommy Chong's jail sentence for misdemeanor possession. I think by now everyone who cares knows the story, but here it is anyway:

Belay that, I just did a little research to make sure I had my facts straight, and I wasn't even close. What I had heard was that TC had gotten busted for misdemeanor possession, along with several other people. All of then were first-offenders, but that he was the only one who got jail time. That's what I had heard. In actuality, he could have gotten busted for possession, but they didn't bother. They busted him for selling paraphernalia through an Internet/mail order business. Out of all the people that got busted--several different companies went down that day--he got the longest jail sentence. Some have said he got the only jail sentence, but, no, he just got the longest.
Now, what I was going to say, was that if several different people get busted for the same crime, but one of them has made a lot of money making fun of that exact crime--in fact, Cheech & Chong's records and movies make it pretty clear that they were familiar with drugs--then it's fairly obvious that the judge is looking at it from the standpoint that, "This may be the first time he's gotten caught, but clearly, he's done this lots of times before." And he'd be right. But he'd be wrong to impose a sentence based on that. Sentence should be based solely on the evidence presented in court.
Now that I have a better understanding of what really happened, though, well, to be honest, most of that still applies. On February 24th, 2004, the DOJ coordinated two separate sweeps of companies selling paraphernalia across state lines. One of those companies was 'Tommy Chong Glass.' TC wasn't the largest dealer of paraphernalia, he hadn't been in business the longest, but he was the most visible. He was also one of the most co-operative. But again, the visibility made him an easy target to make an example of.
I'm not a fan of marijuana use--I think it's a bad idea. I'm not going to get into that (What? Ramblings is missing an opportunity to go down a rabbit trail? Maybe some other time). Here's the thing, though: What constitutes paraphernalia? When I was in the Navy, a coworker of mine got busted because somebody noticed that he had a feather pinned to his hat with an alligator clip (he was in civilian clothes); a "roach clip." They tested the clip for marijuana residue and found none. As far as they could tell, this clip had never been used as a 'roach clip.' Maybe he washed it really good, but I doubt it. I nearly got busted one time because I picked up some trash in a parking lot (being the civic minded person that I am), and included in that trash was an empty pack of rolling papers. I could almost understand if I had actual rolling papers in my possession... Anyway, both of these items, alligator clips and rolling papers, have legitimate and legal uses that have nothing to do with drugs. The prosecutor in TC's case cited the verdict handed down by the US Supreme Court in the 1994 case of Iowa v. Poster-N-Things, which basically said, what would a reasonable person believe that this product was intended to be used for, given the packaging and the way it is marketed? There's a thought-provoking question. Now Tommy Chong Glass didn't just sell bongs, they also sold a home urinalysis kit--in case you had a job interview with urinalysis and you weren't sure if it had been long enough since your last toke--and a chemical that was supposed to remove traces of THC from urine, and a shampoo allegedly designed to remove marijuana smell from hair (won't pretty much any shampoo do that?). Some of these bongs had pictures of marijuana leaves on them (some had Tommy's picture on them). Okay, I would have to agree, that meets the criteria.
But let me ask you this: If I wanted to smoke tobacco in a pipe that had a picture of a marijuana leaf on it, is that a crime? Apparently it is. Let me rephrase: Should it be a crime? (BTW-small rabbit trail--I don't smoke (not even tobacco), and I don't own a pipe. Just thought I should let you know.) Let's look at this another way: What if I were one of those people that believed marijuana should be legal (I'm not), but I was a law-abiding citizen (in other words, not toking, just protesting the fact that I can't, legally), and I wanted various products with pictures of marijuana leaves on them. Do I have to paint the pictures myself, because it's illegal to sell paraphernalia?
Look, I don't think that marijuana should be legalized. I DON'T. But I don't think justice is served by putting people in jail for selling paraphernalia. Maybe if we had lots of prisons sitting half-empty just waiting for people to be convicted, but in some cases, judges are having to reduce sentences because of prison overcrowding.

Just a quick celebrity checklist (what I think):
Tommy Chong--I don't think he should have gone to jail.
Martha Stewart--I don't think she should have gone to jail.
Jim Bakker--Maybe, but it should have been a minimum security prison.
Paris Hilton--Oh, she definitely belongs in jail.

Look, I could see making TC pay a fine, and confiscating all his paraphernalia (I'm not sure I agree with even arresting him, but, at most, he should have gotten the aforementioned).
I'm not a fan of Martha Stewart, but throwing her in jail did not make me feel safer.
Jim Bakker did a lot of things wrong, but, let's face it, who did he hurt (some would say that he fleeced money from a lot of people--but if they hadn't given their money to him, they would have found someone else to give it to; another televangelist probably)? A lot of people felt better about themselves (and felt closer to God) just by watching PTL on TV. Basically he was running a pyramid scheme with his followers (every time he needed money, he would promote something on his show, and people would send money in, and then when they collected on whatever it was he had promoted, then he would have another promotion to cover the cost of the last promotion), but, unlike your run-of-the-mill con artist, Jim Bakker wasn't going anywhere. He just had to keep coming up with new schemes to finance his old ones. Is that a crime? Yes, I would have to say that it is; eventually the pyramid is going to collapse. But the sight of him being led off in an orange jumpsuit and shackles just seemed so unjust. I'm sure some people thought it was better than he deserved. I think that sort of treatment should be reserved for dangerous criminals--ones convicted of violent crimes.
Paris Hilton--got her license suspended for DUI, then got pulled over again, and convicted for driving on a suspended license. Should we fine her? How much would we have to fine her before she pays attention? Let's be honest about it, if you are I were convicted of the same thing, would we be sentenced to *only* 45 days (with a possible 22 days knocked off for good behavior)? And her excuse? She says her publicist told her that she could still drive to work. To work? I didn't know 'The Simple Life' was back in production. Maybe her next reality series will be... Never mind. I'm being hateful, now. But didn't she just make a big deal about how the dumb blonde act is just an act? I'm sorry, give me some time, I'll cool off, and I'll be more tolerant of her. At least they didn't shackle her.
Notice I didn't talk about the ones that didn't go to jail: O.J. Simpson, Michael Jackson, Robert Blake. You know what, though? I'm just not even going to get into that.