From: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35824624/ns/entertainment-celebrities/

"Man who posted a video on YouTube of himself calling for Elton John's death has been arrested for making terroristic threats.

Atlanta Police Sgt. Curtis Davenport says Neal Horsley was arrested for making terroristic threats early Wednesday in Carrollton, Georgia, about 50 miles west of Atlanta. Davenport would not say whom Horsley is accused of threatening."

Now that is yet another example of how law enforcement goes the extra mile (actually the extra 10,000 miles, far beyond own prerogatives) to arrest someone based on making threats,  that the nature of which was described by the Sgt. Davenport as "terroristic", and yet Sgt. Davenport did not have a comment (and likely no clue either) what word "terroristic" meant (someone else must have passed it to thim), which completely excuses his lack of having an explanation for the public. Likely having been confused about the term "terroristic" and torn between own understanding of the term, taking action based on credible threat, and blindly following orders.

Ignorance applies to law enforcement professionals in the same degree as it applies to ordinary citizens - there is no excuse, and saying "I don't know" or refusing to comment on own actions is the best example how someone is unresponsible.

Sgt. Davenport apparently was not upset about Elton John suggesting that Jesus may have been gay (a very far-fetching, fragile, and highly speculative opinion by a mediocre-level of such religious scholar as the one with artistic pseudonym of Elton John, expressed without regard to religious feelings of millions of other people), and blind to the fact that resulting video was made based on someone else's personal religious sensitivity. In short, Sgt. Davenport may have made an arrest of a citizen whose religious feelings were deeply hurt by religiously-incorrect and insensitive comments by a celebrity.

Would it be the first case of arresting someone because a celebrity did not like someone else's personal opinion? There is a long way between reportedly making threats, and making practical efforts on  following on those threats. Sgt. Davenport is no example, both in his actions, and in his lack of explanation for the public. As a public servant, he is mandated to follow certain legally-established standards of the job, and not the letter of the standards, but the spirit behind them.

When a celebrity pulls the ropes of local law enforcement, those standards can easily be disregarded.

Losing a job because of refusing to follow a superior's orders contradicting own values and own conscience of duties as a public servant, is not a shame. Not losing a personal integrity is never a shame.

Making terrorism threats against a single person is, according to definitions of the term (no definite single definition, but all most authoritative carry the same message), an absurd statement. Making death threats against a person is the more appropriate term. If law differentiates between a "celebrity" and a "human", it will have to provide a clear distinction between those two. Also, it may need to include a definition of "washed-up celebrity", and differences in legal rights of such an individual, compared to average citizens.

Involving "terrorism threats" phrase in those accusations is clearly a sign of ignorance. A law enforcement officer needs ACTIONABLE EVIDENCE. For this, each law enforcement officer needs to own a dictionary. One that also includes the term "terroristic".

I would welcome to see Sgt. Davenport resign from his professional duties, as a sign of having individual integrity. Otherwiser he is not fit for duty as a public servant, and he is a liability to law enforcement (as is anyone who, as a result of Elton John's likely informal putting pressure on local law enforcement, ordered Sgt. Davenport to make the arrest, and which can be traced and proven). And please do that before your department gets sued and fined for egregious over-stepping the law, and before it becomes a public matter that the law enforcement may have been illegally influenced by Elton John.
This is nothing to tell your children to make them proud of their father.

On a personal note, I would like Elton John to publicly apologize for possible insulting of religious feelings of millions of people by purposely making - with very little forethought - inidentiary religious statements. Because he is gay (which I accept fully), he is not allowed to make any public comments, religiously incorrect, that an average citizen would be barred from. He cannot expect to damage other people's religious feelings and receive no negative responses, onlye because he is a washed-up celebrity delusional about his social status.

Myself I am religion-agnostic, but I do understand how followers of other religions react to insults.

Elton John is old enough to remember the name of Salman Rushdie. Perhaps he is too old to remember the name.

From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35140870/ns/health/.

I can see how another guy responds: Linus Torvals pledges 10 billion copies of Linux for the poor.

Now you see the difference between writing commercial software and open source software. Free software does not provide kidneys or heart transplants. You're sick? Install Apache and MySQL.

make no mistake.

Avatar has been heavily marketed for over 2 years. in an interview, James Cameron admitted that he was first focused on creating a virtual world, then on the second plan was the screenplay and characters. it shows. the next step was brainwashing tens of millions of people into thinking this was going to be a masterpiece of cinematography. given enough money, it can be done. as much as i love good cinema, Avatar is not a movie i want to watch 2nd time, EVER. it's an example of the worst piece of pop culture, shoved down our throats and exposing us to social ostracism if we didn't go and watch it. the movie has no value.

reminds me of the character of Jake. the same actor played in another overhyped flop, Terminator 4. in both roles he failed to create ability to relate to him or like him. someone like Michael Biehn from Terminator 1/2 (extended version) would have done the job, be he is no Michael Biehn.

of all his very sweated and forced jokes, i heard the cinema's audience laugh *a little* on 2 times, and the rest was ignored. compare that to Lethal Weapon 4, where almost every line is top quality laughter-inducing statement, that as Leo said, "you guys keep me in stitches".

James Cameron is apparently very very unfamiliar with that kind of moviemaking. being a "king of the world" inevitably increases the number of your nearest people as "yes" men.

if James Cameron is next Stanley Kubrick, i am the next Stephen Hawking.