You can't tell what the Supreme Court is going to decide just by listening to the questions the justices ask and then convincing yourself that your own breathless interpretation of their attitude must indicate how they will cast their vote.
You can't tell what the Supreme Court is going to decide just by listening to the questions the justices ask and then convincing yourself that your own breathless interpretation of their attitude must indicate how they will cast their vote.
You can't tell what the Supreme Court is going to decide just by listening to the questions the justices ask and then convincing yourself that your own breathless interpretation of their attitude must indicate how they will cast their vote.
You can't do that even if you're a commentator whose head regularly appears magically in other people's Tee-Vee boxes. I've heard almost nothing all day but excited or gloomy attempts to do precisely that with regard to the rigorous and skeptical way of the SCOTUS while questioning the gub'mint and its state opponents on the health-insurance mandate. They're the nation's highest judges; they're SUPPOSED to ask tough questions, question their own assumptions, and all that sort of thing. Nobody really knows how the vote will go until it actually goes.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Lawful self defense in Florida
When one receives a license to carry a concealed weapon in Florida, one must swear an oath affirming that they have read the gun laws and understand them. One is given a summary and again when the 7 year license is renewed. Amongst the statements made in the summary are:
Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:
A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman. But, as stated earlier, deadly force is justified if you are trying to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. The use of deadly force must be absolutely necessary to prevent the crime. Also, if the criminal runs away, you cannot use deadly force to stop him, because you would no longer be "preventing" a crime. If use of deadly force is not necessary, or you use deadly force after the crime has stopped, you could be convicted of manslaughter.
*Italics mine
You can read the whole thing here. and I suggest that you do.
So did Martin knock Zimmerman to the ground, bloodying his nose -- and if so is that justification for shooting him? Does the fact that Zimmerman initiated the conflict matter? Did shooting constitute the only hope Zimmerman had of survival? Does the Castle Doctrine apply here. My answer to all these questions is an emphatic no and I think we have to stop marching in the street and stifle the lemming-like group think and take this matter to court. You don't accomplish anything by trying someone by the laws of mob rule.
It may be difficult at this point to convict Zimmerman, but perhaps not so difficult to find that the Sanford Police violated the victim's civil rights by denying him the protection of the law, which after all, side with the party being pursued.
But no matter what happens, Liberals are going to be suspicious of what I see as a basic human right and an affirmation that the small and weak and young and disadvantaged should not be subject to the size and strength and aggression of the strong and numerous. Media businesses like CNN are going to continue to sneak in insinuations like:
even if Zimmerman wasn't standing his ground and any fear he had wasn't reasonable and the law requires that there be a real threat, not the feeling of angst. He was chasing someone, someone who had a right to be where he was and without any right to do so and those "justifiable homicides" include a large number of homeowners that otherwise would be dead and without benefit of public rallies and rhetoric damning the law that saved their lives.
A License to Carry a Concealed Weapon is not a License to use it.
Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:
- Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
- Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.
Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.
Verbal threats are not enough to justify the use of deadly force. There must be an overt act by the person which indicates that he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary.
The courts have created an exception to the duty to retreat called the “castle doctrine.” Under the castle doctrine, you need not retreat from your own home to avoid using deadly force against an assailant. The castle doctrine applies if you are attacked in your own home by an intruder. The castle doctrine also applies when you are in your place of business. If you are in danger of death or great bodily harm or you are trying to prevent a forcible felony, you do not have to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense.
Never display a handgun to gain "leverage" in an argument. Threatening someone verbally while possessing a handgun, even licensed, will land you in jail for three years. Even if the gun is broken or you don't have bullets, you will receive the mandatory three-year sentence if convicted. The law does not allow any possibility of getting out of jail early.
If you see someone who is being attacked, you can use deadly force to defend him/her if the circumstances would justify that person's use of deadly force in his/her own defense. In other words, you "stand in the shoes" of the person being attacked.A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman. But, as stated earlier, deadly force is justified if you are trying to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. The use of deadly force must be absolutely necessary to prevent the crime. Also, if the criminal runs away, you cannot use deadly force to stop him, because you would no longer be "preventing" a crime. If use of deadly force is not necessary, or you use deadly force after the crime has stopped, you could be convicted of manslaughter.
*Italics mine
You can read the whole thing here. and I suggest that you do.
_____________________
Trayvon Martin's parents and family attorney are expected to attend a forum on racial profiling, hate crimes and "stand your ground" deadly force laws, sponsored by Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee. I hope, but do not expect that committee to stress that despite the misrepresentation of the law, no law protects Zimmerman's actions and only the Sanford Police have done so.So did Martin knock Zimmerman to the ground, bloodying his nose -- and if so is that justification for shooting him? Does the fact that Zimmerman initiated the conflict matter? Did shooting constitute the only hope Zimmerman had of survival? Does the Castle Doctrine apply here. My answer to all these questions is an emphatic no and I think we have to stop marching in the street and stifle the lemming-like group think and take this matter to court. You don't accomplish anything by trying someone by the laws of mob rule.
It may be difficult at this point to convict Zimmerman, but perhaps not so difficult to find that the Sanford Police violated the victim's civil rights by denying him the protection of the law, which after all, side with the party being pursued.
But no matter what happens, Liberals are going to be suspicious of what I see as a basic human right and an affirmation that the small and weak and young and disadvantaged should not be subject to the size and strength and aggression of the strong and numerous. Media businesses like CNN are going to continue to sneak in insinuations like:
Florida's "stand your ground" deadly force law prohibited them from making an arrest.The law allows the use of deadly force anywhere a person feels a reasonable fear of death or serious injury, and has been cited in a rising number of justifiable homicide cases in Florida.
even if Zimmerman wasn't standing his ground and any fear he had wasn't reasonable and the law requires that there be a real threat, not the feeling of angst. He was chasing someone, someone who had a right to be where he was and without any right to do so and those "justifiable homicides" include a large number of homeowners that otherwise would be dead and without benefit of public rallies and rhetoric damning the law that saved their lives.
The Suspect Was Black and Looked Suspicious
Zimmerman never said what there was about Trayvon Martin that made him deem Trayvon to look suspicious. The operator told Zimmerman that there was no need for him to continue to follow Martin as law enforcement was being dispatched to check out the suspicious looking person.
We know that Trayvon was aware of Zimmerman following him because he told a female friend with whom e was chatting on the phone that there was a guy following him. At some point, Zimmerman and Martin interacted. Trayvon Martin, 6' 4" tall and 140 pounds, died from a gunshot wound inflicted by Zimmerman,who said that he killed Martin in self-defense. Zimmerman outweighed Trayvon by at least 80 pounds and Trayvon Martin was unarmed.
The investigating police officer said that Zimmerman had a bloody nose. Zimmerman was treated at the scene but said that he didn't need to go to a hospital. Zimmerman was allowed to go home. So far, there has been no arrest.
I don't know that Zimmerman is guilty of murder but neither do I know that he is not. Local law enforcement did not treat the site of Trayvon's death as a crime scene and didn't conduct the usual forensic tests that help determine if a crime has taken place. The Sanford police chief said that Zimmerman had the right to defend himself under Florida's Stand Your Ground law. The section upon which Zimmerman's claim of self-defense apparently relies is subsection (3):
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.As many Americans clamor for Zimmerman's arrest, an effort to paint Trayvon as a juvenile delinquent has arisen among Zimmerman's supporters. No matter what offenses are attributed to Trayvon Martin, none of them are relevant to the events that resulted in his death. This type of character assassination of the victim reminds me of the efforts often made to discredit rape victims by insisting that it was the victim's clothing or behavior that made her a target of the rapist. It doesn't matter what Trayvon wore or his school suspensions. It wouldn't matter if he was a gangsta selling pot. The issue is did Zimmerman have a reasonable fear for his life that justified his taking of Trayvon's life?
To answer that question, a jury needs to examine evidence of all of the events of that evening. Was Zimmerman justified in following Trayvon? Who initiated the confrontation? What about Trayvon's state of mind? He realized that he was being followed, he told his girlfriend that there was someone following him. Would it be reasonable for Trayvon to fear for his own safety? Did he not have a right to defend himself based on a reasonable fear that the stranger who approached him meant to do him bodily harm? Would there have been any type of altercation if Zimmerman had not continued to follow Trayvon after the 911 operator expressly advised him not to do so?
Are we to accept that Florida's Stand Your Ground law only applied to Zimmerman, that only he was allowed to act based on a reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily harm? Martin was approached by a stranger who was following him and that stranger had a gun. Isn't it reasonable that Martin would defend himself and try to take the gun? If this did indeed occur, then it was Martin who was threatened and who was fighting for his life. Martin didn't bring the gun to the fight. Seems plausible that Trayvon Martin was perfectly justified in attempting to disarm Zimmerman.
Zimmerman was not a law enforcement officer. Martin had no reason to follow any command that Zimmerman gave him. According to Zimmerman's own account, he must have drawn his gun at some point, otherwise how did Martin know that he had a gun and attempt to take it? It is a valid argument that Martin was the one with a reasonable fear that his life was in danger and any damage that he did to Zimmerman was in self-defense.
I cannot declare Zimmerman guilty or not guilty, that is a task for a jury. However, I do know that it is unacceptable that black men are viewed as suspicious and a threat simply for walking through a neighborhood wearing a hoodie. Black parents should not have to warn their children not to wear certain clothing and to be careful when walking on a public street not to frighten white people with their very presence. When I was a child, my mother taught us rules. We knew not to try and sit down at the lunch counter at Woolworths or Roses. We knew better than to look a white person directly in the eye and to always step aside if a white person wanted to use the sidewalk even if it meant stepping into the rain filled gutter next to the curb. Any black person over the age of 50 who grew up in the south is likely to have had similar experiences.
President Obama said that if he had a son he would look like Trayvon. Newt Gingrich, raised in the south, went stupid and declared that the President's observation was racist. Gingrich is a fool who intentionally pretends to have forgotten the past. If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon. What frightens and angers me is that to people like George Zimmerman, my son would also look suspicious and deserving of killing. I have no doubt that was the point of the president's observation.
Zimmerman was not a law enforcement officer. Martin had no reason to follow any command that Zimmerman gave him. According to Zimmerman's own account, he must have drawn his gun at some point, otherwise how did Martin know that he had a gun and attempt to take it? It is a valid argument that Martin was the one with a reasonable fear that his life was in danger and any damage that he did to Zimmerman was in self-defense.
I cannot declare Zimmerman guilty or not guilty, that is a task for a jury. However, I do know that it is unacceptable that black men are viewed as suspicious and a threat simply for walking through a neighborhood wearing a hoodie. Black parents should not have to warn their children not to wear certain clothing and to be careful when walking on a public street not to frighten white people with their very presence. When I was a child, my mother taught us rules. We knew not to try and sit down at the lunch counter at Woolworths or Roses. We knew better than to look a white person directly in the eye and to always step aside if a white person wanted to use the sidewalk even if it meant stepping into the rain filled gutter next to the curb. Any black person over the age of 50 who grew up in the south is likely to have had similar experiences.
President Obama said that if he had a son he would look like Trayvon. Newt Gingrich, raised in the south, went stupid and declared that the President's observation was racist. Gingrich is a fool who intentionally pretends to have forgotten the past. If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon. What frightens and angers me is that to people like George Zimmerman, my son would also look suspicious and deserving of killing. I have no doubt that was the point of the president's observation.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Dearly beloved
The world is full of mysteries, great and small. I hope to understand a few of them in what remains of my lifetime, but I'm not sure that there are some questions that shouldn't be left unanswered. Those have to do with human behavior and in particular the question of how and why people arrive at and maintain some of their opinions.
Take attorney Craig Sonner, long time friend of George Zimmerman and his family, who insists that not only is Zimmerman not a racist, but that when many listeners to the 911 recording discerned Zimmerman's voice calling the unfortunate Trayvon Martin a "fucking coon," what they really heard was a term of endearment. Yes indeed, said Sonner to ABC News, amongst the teenagers who reinvent our English language anew every day, "goon" is a term of endearment and that's just what Zimmerman was calling his victim as he prepared to shoot him to death. Most terms of endearment of course are preceded by the gratuitous, yet nearly ubiquitous "fucking" and followed by gunshots. Makes sense, right?
Perhaps it will play a part in Zimmerman's defense if Federal charges are filed and it no doubt will if the charges need proof that the shooting was "racially motivated" but as a pure example of deriving an argument by rectal extraction, and of the ability to state the preposterous with a straight face, this one is remarkable.
There is always the remote possibility that Zimmerman might have done the same to any person wandering the neighborhood. It's possible that he just hated kids, a group probably not intended to fall into a category protected by hate crime legislation, but the problem with hate crimes is that it isn't the crime on trial but rather the motivation and it's very hard to prove motivation. And yet, the kid is dead.
Is it possible, in our emotionally driven and politically directed society for Zimmerman to get a fair trail? I think the facts speak for themselves and I fear that minds are long since closed as usually is the case with witch hunts and lynch mobs and of course those with institutionalized agendas have already reached conclusions that make their causes the root cause of all evil.
It may evolve that there is no clear cut motivation that explains it all, no loophole in Florida gun laws, no ties to the KKK and little more than laziness on the part of the authorities. It may be quite the opposite, but people parading around in hooded sweatshirts or baggy pants or lace up shoes without laces or calling each other goons and calling for gun bans or simply indulging in public cultivation of anger is not going to help justice. The rusty gears of the system are turning and there's no rug big enough to sweep this or any other mixed metaphor under. It's time for the party to end and for dispassionate, blindfolded process justice to begin.
Take attorney Craig Sonner, long time friend of George Zimmerman and his family, who insists that not only is Zimmerman not a racist, but that when many listeners to the 911 recording discerned Zimmerman's voice calling the unfortunate Trayvon Martin a "fucking coon," what they really heard was a term of endearment. Yes indeed, said Sonner to ABC News, amongst the teenagers who reinvent our English language anew every day, "goon" is a term of endearment and that's just what Zimmerman was calling his victim as he prepared to shoot him to death. Most terms of endearment of course are preceded by the gratuitous, yet nearly ubiquitous "fucking" and followed by gunshots. Makes sense, right?
Perhaps it will play a part in Zimmerman's defense if Federal charges are filed and it no doubt will if the charges need proof that the shooting was "racially motivated" but as a pure example of deriving an argument by rectal extraction, and of the ability to state the preposterous with a straight face, this one is remarkable.
There is always the remote possibility that Zimmerman might have done the same to any person wandering the neighborhood. It's possible that he just hated kids, a group probably not intended to fall into a category protected by hate crime legislation, but the problem with hate crimes is that it isn't the crime on trial but rather the motivation and it's very hard to prove motivation. And yet, the kid is dead.
Is it possible, in our emotionally driven and politically directed society for Zimmerman to get a fair trail? I think the facts speak for themselves and I fear that minds are long since closed as usually is the case with witch hunts and lynch mobs and of course those with institutionalized agendas have already reached conclusions that make their causes the root cause of all evil.
It may evolve that there is no clear cut motivation that explains it all, no loophole in Florida gun laws, no ties to the KKK and little more than laziness on the part of the authorities. It may be quite the opposite, but people parading around in hooded sweatshirts or baggy pants or lace up shoes without laces or calling each other goons and calling for gun bans or simply indulging in public cultivation of anger is not going to help justice. The rusty gears of the system are turning and there's no rug big enough to sweep this or any other mixed metaphor under. It's time for the party to end and for dispassionate, blindfolded process justice to begin.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
If I had a son
"You know, if I had a son he would look like Treyvon,"said the president and I guess that's true to some extent. He'd have dark skin, of course, but I took it to mean that his son would be an ordinary looking, ordinary acting 17 year old and not a shooting gallery target.
Newt Gingrich took it differently because he saw the comment, which was clearly an attempt to show compassion and to suggest that he couldn't avoid putting himself in the place of the grieving father of Treyvon Martin, as an opportunity to launch another Fox-faux outrage. Hasn't the entire Republican reaction to the election of Barack Obama been a collection of phony, trumped up, fabricated and exasperatingly stupid outrages?
" Is the president suggesting that if it had been a white who had been shot that would be ok because it didn't look like him?"said Newt to Sean Hannity on Fox News. Certainly Fox is the Cape Canaveral; the launch pad of most such desperate grasping at rhetorical straws -- the place where the unscrupulously ambitious launch calumny after slander after blatant lie, not because this president is beyond criticism, but because they, the Republican insiders, are themselves accessories before, during and after the fact of the collapse of our economy, the corruption and outrageous economic policies and the unjustified war that precipitated it and only wild claims can distract the public from remembering. Only wild, unsubstantiated and preferably ridiculous statements can rally the bigotry against honesty and decency.
So is the president suggesting that it was only a tragedy because a black kid was killed? Only a Republican could twist words and facts to make it seem so and only a man of the "I will never apologise for America" persuasion could reflect on the Republican support for segregation, opposition to civil rights for minorities, females and non-Christians and not see the killing as part of a continuum; part of a mentality they've been promoting for at least a century.
The gambit is an old and tired and disreputable one, as much so as is Gingrich himself and the others Fox News gives the megaphone to. "Is George Washington suggesting that he should be king?" In fact he suggested the opposite, but the question suggests that there is indeed a question. Is Newt Gingrich a dishonest, morally unscrupulous, hypocritical liar blinded by an unholy ambition and hunger for power? Does a newt shit in the swamp?
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Justified?
A lot of people are very angry about the shooting of Treyvon Martin last month in the old North Florida town of Sanford. I'm one of them.
Florida, as you may know has been a model of old South attitudes toward black people, but was the incident racially motivated as is being loudly asserted or is there racism involved in interpreting what happened?
As you might suspect from his name, Martin was black. He was only 17 years old and when he was accosted one night, dressed as many 17 year old males are, in a hoodie and sneakers and baggy pants; the kind of costume that produces unease and possibly is designed to produce unease, after dark, when worn by someone strolling through your neighborhood.
Young Martin was shot by a "neighborhood watch" volunteer - one of those people who lurk about neighborhoods at night looking for people who don't 'belong' there, but although such groups are often encouraged by local police and like any citizen who qualifies, is allowed to bear arms for the sole purpose of protecting themselves, these volunteers are not and are not allowed to be policemen. Indeed the concealed weapons license course stresses that fact repeatedly.
If you've ever lived in a community that has rules, you've probably chuckled about "Condo Commandos" who delight in the feeling of power they get from reporting you for having your garage door open for more than 5 minutes or failing to take in your garbage can by the required time. I would imagine that such folks would delight even more in taking on the role of protector while walking a beat at night. Does that describe George Zimmerman? Not having all the facts and being unlikely ever to have all of them, I can only speculate.
Mr. Zimmerman, 28 years of age, is being accused by the family of Treyvon Martin of a hate crime and a racially motivated killing. Of course I can't know what was on Zimmerman's mind, but I do read that he is of Hispanic origin and comes from a racially diverse family. There may be many reasons having nothing to do with race for Zimmerman to have accosted the young man and shot him. And of course it's inevitable that Florida gun laws will be blamed for this sad event by those who haven't read them and I despair when thinking about any lesson we should be learning here.
The laws governing concealed weapons here in Florida are rather clear about the right to defend your life when a person has reasonable fear of a lethal attack and it's rather clear about one's right to defend against someone trying to forceably remove you from a place you have a right to be, such as your house or your car. I'm no lawyer, yet I can speculate that a public sidewalk is one of those places one has a right to be. The law is equally clear about your right to use a weapon being severely undermined in a situation where the attack was provoked or 'escalated' by you. In other words, should I draw a weapon and shoot someone I picked an avoidable fight with, or made it worse by remaining when I should have walked away, I won't get away so easily with a self-defense plea as Zimmerman inexplicably seems to have done. The law is also clear about using a weapon to gain advantage in a dispute or as a threat. Simply showing it or even mentioning that you have one is a serious offense in many cases. "Get off my block kid, I've got a gun" is one of those cases.
The rights of a neighborhood watch volunteer extend as far as observing and using a telephone to call the police. They do not include provoking a fight, attempting to chase someone out of a neighborhood, shoving, pushing or physically engaging anyone. From the testimony of Martin's girlfriend who had been talking with him on the phone when Zimmerman 'went after' him and allegedly pushed him to the ground, that may be just what happened and if so, Zimmerman had long since transgressed and his right to use lethal force against an unarmed person had long since departed, at least in my non-lawyer opinion -- yet Zimmerman has not been charged.
Somehow, in the city of Sanford, this possibly unjustifiable use of force seems to have been ignored. I suspect that if there's racism lurking in this case, we'll find it in uniform or carrying a briefcase. Attempts to get around the apparent lapse by law enforcement people by framing the incident as a civil rights violation or a hate crime are not likely to be successful and any chance for justice drowned in the storm of predictable and formulaic accusations.
Florida, as you may know has been a model of old South attitudes toward black people, but was the incident racially motivated as is being loudly asserted or is there racism involved in interpreting what happened?
As you might suspect from his name, Martin was black. He was only 17 years old and when he was accosted one night, dressed as many 17 year old males are, in a hoodie and sneakers and baggy pants; the kind of costume that produces unease and possibly is designed to produce unease, after dark, when worn by someone strolling through your neighborhood.
Young Martin was shot by a "neighborhood watch" volunteer - one of those people who lurk about neighborhoods at night looking for people who don't 'belong' there, but although such groups are often encouraged by local police and like any citizen who qualifies, is allowed to bear arms for the sole purpose of protecting themselves, these volunteers are not and are not allowed to be policemen. Indeed the concealed weapons license course stresses that fact repeatedly.
If you've ever lived in a community that has rules, you've probably chuckled about "Condo Commandos" who delight in the feeling of power they get from reporting you for having your garage door open for more than 5 minutes or failing to take in your garbage can by the required time. I would imagine that such folks would delight even more in taking on the role of protector while walking a beat at night. Does that describe George Zimmerman? Not having all the facts and being unlikely ever to have all of them, I can only speculate.
Mr. Zimmerman, 28 years of age, is being accused by the family of Treyvon Martin of a hate crime and a racially motivated killing. Of course I can't know what was on Zimmerman's mind, but I do read that he is of Hispanic origin and comes from a racially diverse family. There may be many reasons having nothing to do with race for Zimmerman to have accosted the young man and shot him. And of course it's inevitable that Florida gun laws will be blamed for this sad event by those who haven't read them and I despair when thinking about any lesson we should be learning here.
The laws governing concealed weapons here in Florida are rather clear about the right to defend your life when a person has reasonable fear of a lethal attack and it's rather clear about one's right to defend against someone trying to forceably remove you from a place you have a right to be, such as your house or your car. I'm no lawyer, yet I can speculate that a public sidewalk is one of those places one has a right to be. The law is equally clear about your right to use a weapon being severely undermined in a situation where the attack was provoked or 'escalated' by you. In other words, should I draw a weapon and shoot someone I picked an avoidable fight with, or made it worse by remaining when I should have walked away, I won't get away so easily with a self-defense plea as Zimmerman inexplicably seems to have done. The law is also clear about using a weapon to gain advantage in a dispute or as a threat. Simply showing it or even mentioning that you have one is a serious offense in many cases. "Get off my block kid, I've got a gun" is one of those cases.
The rights of a neighborhood watch volunteer extend as far as observing and using a telephone to call the police. They do not include provoking a fight, attempting to chase someone out of a neighborhood, shoving, pushing or physically engaging anyone. From the testimony of Martin's girlfriend who had been talking with him on the phone when Zimmerman 'went after' him and allegedly pushed him to the ground, that may be just what happened and if so, Zimmerman had long since transgressed and his right to use lethal force against an unarmed person had long since departed, at least in my non-lawyer opinion -- yet Zimmerman has not been charged.
Somehow, in the city of Sanford, this possibly unjustifiable use of force seems to have been ignored. I suspect that if there's racism lurking in this case, we'll find it in uniform or carrying a briefcase. Attempts to get around the apparent lapse by law enforcement people by framing the incident as a civil rights violation or a hate crime are not likely to be successful and any chance for justice drowned in the storm of predictable and formulaic accusations.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
I'll be happy to read your palm, too.
I make no claims to psychic powers (or, to be honest, to the existence of psychic powers), but I'm willing to make some predictions. The GOP candidates are going to keep kicking each other in the crotch up until the convention. Ron Paul might or might not stay in, but the three front runners? They're all in it for the long haul.
Mitt Romney will be the eventual candidate, but first he has to overcome two handicaps: the fact that the Religious Right Wing distrusts Mormons, and more importantly, that he comes across as a privileged huckster, a rich kid trying to sell used cars. He's used to being surrounded by two types of people: shameless sycophants willing to laugh at anything he says, and other billionaires. He has no idea how to connect with ordinary people, because he only sees them at a distance: he's Dan Ackroyd in the beginning of Trading Places.
Santorum swept the South, but doesn't realize that he has less than no chance of attracting a majority of Americans. He's turned off about 80-90% of women by indicating that he doesn't care if they're going to die in childbirth, they're taking that kid to term. And then, just because he opens his mouth and random stuff falls out, he decided to lose another 16 percent of the electorate by telling Puerto Ricans that they needed to speak English.
OK, Frothy, is it a good idea to make fun of somebody's cultural heritage? Here's a hint - I live in New Mexico - want to guess what state you just lost entirely? Here's another - do you speak Latin? Think about it.
And Gingrich? He's got no more chance of getting elected than a radioactive skunk, but he's staying in, because he feels like he deserves to be electedking president.
I've got to admit it: I may have gotten frustrated in 2008 watching Hillary Clinton snipe at Obama. But I've got to say, it's much more entertaining watching the GOP do it to each other from the other side of the fence.
That's why the GOP is panicking and trying to prevent people from voting. Tea parties across the country are pushing for measures like "voter ID laws" despite the fact that there is exactly zero voter fraud. Is it a good idea to require Americans to show ID in order to vote?
The Justice Department already had to stop Texas from taking the vote away from more than 300,000 Texans, because they'd be likely to be voting for Obama.
And there is one very specific reason they want to do this. One conservative lawmaker even admitted it - they couldn't let out-of-state college kids vote where they were going to school, because they'd be "voting as a liberal. That’s what kids do — they don’t have life experience, and they just vote their feelings."
Legal American citizens have already been prevented from voting, and it’s only going to get worse. Because the GOP knows that the only way that there isn't going to be a black man in the White House in 2013 is if they steal the election.
Mitt Romney will be the eventual candidate, but first he has to overcome two handicaps: the fact that the Religious Right Wing distrusts Mormons, and more importantly, that he comes across as a privileged huckster, a rich kid trying to sell used cars. He's used to being surrounded by two types of people: shameless sycophants willing to laugh at anything he says, and other billionaires. He has no idea how to connect with ordinary people, because he only sees them at a distance: he's Dan Ackroyd in the beginning of Trading Places.
Santorum swept the South, but doesn't realize that he has less than no chance of attracting a majority of Americans. He's turned off about 80-90% of women by indicating that he doesn't care if they're going to die in childbirth, they're taking that kid to term. And then, just because he opens his mouth and random stuff falls out, he decided to lose another 16 percent of the electorate by telling Puerto Ricans that they needed to speak English.
OK, Frothy, is it a good idea to make fun of somebody's cultural heritage? Here's a hint - I live in New Mexico - want to guess what state you just lost entirely? Here's another - do you speak Latin? Think about it.
And Gingrich? He's got no more chance of getting elected than a radioactive skunk, but he's staying in, because he feels like he deserves to be elected
I've got to admit it: I may have gotten frustrated in 2008 watching Hillary Clinton snipe at Obama. But I've got to say, it's much more entertaining watching the GOP do it to each other from the other side of the fence.
That's why the GOP is panicking and trying to prevent people from voting. Tea parties across the country are pushing for measures like "voter ID laws" despite the fact that there is exactly zero voter fraud. Is it a good idea to require Americans to show ID in order to vote?
More than 74,000 people who skipped voting in past elections might have been excluded from data used to estimate how many voters lack state-issued identification... Earlier this week, the Election Commission said nearly 217,000 registered voters in the state lack a state driver’s license or photo ID. That already was nearly 40,000 more than the election agency had previously estimated.Studies show that these measures mostly affect young, minority and low-income voters, as well as voters with handicaps: in other words, strongly Democratic groups and people who think Obamacare is a good idea. Funny how that works, isn’t it?
The Justice Department already had to stop Texas from taking the vote away from more than 300,000 Texans, because they'd be likely to be voting for Obama.
And there is one very specific reason they want to do this. One conservative lawmaker even admitted it - they couldn't let out-of-state college kids vote where they were going to school, because they'd be "voting as a liberal. That’s what kids do — they don’t have life experience, and they just vote their feelings."
Legal American citizens have already been prevented from voting, and it’s only going to get worse. Because the GOP knows that the only way that there isn't going to be a black man in the White House in 2013 is if they steal the election.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
The Republican War on Women and Arizona's Abuse of Human Rights, Interference with the Practice of Medicine, and Affront to Common Decency
This message from The Progress Report arrived in my email box earlier today. It offers a clear warning to women (and to the men who love and support the women in their lives) about the stakes this year:
It means church leaders have NO RIGHT to impose church doctrine on citizens, on the followers of other denominations, on citizens of no religious affiliation, or to enlist the aid of government to enforce church doctrine even on their own parishioners. Please note: 97% of Catholic women use contraceptives - thus going against the teachings of their Church. In exercising their freedom to chose whatever healthcare options they deem best for themselves, women deserve legal protection from ecclesiastical overreach and abuse:
Simply stated, this argument represents a direct assault on the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution. Yet, the GOP, in pandering for votes, is all too ready and willing to sellout your rights to the Inquisition. Worst of all, the GOP wants to empower your employer with the right to pry into your medical records, your private affairs, and your bedroom in the name of religious freedom - and dictate what medical treatment can be prescribed by your doctor. Furthermore, the GOP wants to empower THE STATE to pry into your uterus with ultrasound probes - sanctioned by laws that are tantamount to sexual abuse.
Now let us consider the above quote within the context of this story, Moroccan Girl Forced to Marry Her Rapist Commits Suicide:
Here is Bill Posey's voting record on issues of vital concern to women:
For years, Republicans have been hellbent on turning back the clock of civilization; turning back hard-won labor laws; turning back the struggles of Suffragettes; turning back civil rights and voting rights; turning an impoverished middle class into an underclass; and turning America yet again into a "half-savage country."
The headlines are grim. Darkness is descending on America … falling on hills, plains, and deserts; falling on farms, villages and cities; falling on the living and dishonoring the dead.
The language of the bill stipulates that a woman would have to show her medical records to her employer in order to even be considered for contraceptive coverage. If a woman were using the pill for one of its intended purposes, an employer could choose to stop insuring her, citing “moral objections,” and the woman would have to pay out of pocket for her contraceptive expenses. If an employer finds that the woman has a medical reason to be taking contraceptives (this means the employer would learn of the woman’s ovarian cysts, early menopause, or any number of other medical issues), he can choose to insure her. But if the findings aren’t to his liking, the woman can be dropped.
IT’S HAPPENING EVERYWHERE: In Mississippi, the legislature is looking at legislation that would effectively close the only abortion clinic in the entire state. Kansas is supporting an anti-abortion measure that would cause the Kansas University Medical Center to lose its accreditation. Wisconsin has banned private health insurers from offering abortion coverage. In Idaho, a similar bill would force women to go to crisis pregnancy centers if they wanted an abortion. And Idaho also - along with nine other states - has passed a bill that requires women to have an ultrasound before an abortion.Contrary to GOP claims, the controversy surrounding health insurance coverage for contraceptives has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on religious freedom. Let us be perfectly clear what the U.S. Constitution states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion …”
It means church leaders have NO RIGHT to impose church doctrine on citizens, on the followers of other denominations, on citizens of no religious affiliation, or to enlist the aid of government to enforce church doctrine even on their own parishioners. Please note: 97% of Catholic women use contraceptives - thus going against the teachings of their Church. In exercising their freedom to chose whatever healthcare options they deem best for themselves, women deserve legal protection from ecclesiastical overreach and abuse:
The religious freedom argument is a foil used by radical clerics
and social conservatives to bully government into acting as
Enforcer and Inquisitor on their behalf.
Simply stated, this argument represents a direct assault on the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution. Yet, the GOP, in pandering for votes, is all too ready and willing to sellout your rights to the Inquisition. Worst of all, the GOP wants to empower your employer with the right to pry into your medical records, your private affairs, and your bedroom in the name of religious freedom - and dictate what medical treatment can be prescribed by your doctor. Furthermore, the GOP wants to empower THE STATE to pry into your uterus with ultrasound probes - sanctioned by laws that are tantamount to sexual abuse.
Now let us consider the above quote within the context of this story, Moroccan Girl Forced to Marry Her Rapist Commits Suicide:
Amina, a 16-year-old girl from Larache in northern Morocco, who was forced to marry her rapist, chose to put an end to her life by swallowing rat poison last Saturday. According to al-Masa'a [ar], Amina was raped by a man ten years older than her when she was barely 15. And to preserve what is called “family honour”, Amina's marriage to her rapist, was arranged. A judge approved the marriage.
According to the same newspaper, Amina took the rat poison while she was in her husband's (rapist's) house. When he noticed that her health was deteriorating, he rushed her to her family's home. On the way he did not stop beating her, said Amina to her family, a few hours before her death.Meanwhile, the American Taliban - radical social conservatives aided and abetted by the Republican Party including former GOP candidate Michele Bachmann, and candidates Gingrich and Santorum - are determined to outlaw all forms of abortion with no exceptions for incest or rape. Only the moist heartless, despotic authoritarians - who stick their noses into everyone's business - find any merit in further victimizing victims by heaping more shame and pain upon them. In short, the GOP has morphed itself into a party of voyeurs, sadists, and born-again rapists.
Here is Bill Posey's voting record on issues of vital concern to women:
Voted AGAINST the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (HR-11)
Voted AGAINST extending the Children’s Health Insurance Program (HR-2)
Voted AGAINST food safety regulations (HR-2749)
Voted AGAINST expansion of anti-hate crimes bill (HR-1913)
Voted AGAINST the Infant Mortality Pilot Program (HR-3470)
Voted AGAINST Planned Parenthood (H-amdt-95)
Voted AGAINST stopgap disaster relief (HR-2608)
Voted YES to authorize the pre-abortion ultrasound requirement (HR-2400)
For years, Republicans have been hellbent on turning back the clock of civilization; turning back hard-won labor laws; turning back the struggles of Suffragettes; turning back civil rights and voting rights; turning an impoverished middle class into an underclass; and turning America yet again into a "half-savage country."
The headlines are grim. Darkness is descending on America … falling on hills, plains, and deserts; falling on farms, villages and cities; falling on the living and dishonoring the dead.
Obama's gas
I confess, I'm a loud-mouth critic of people who insist on driving heavy and dangerous trucks to the office or to do daily errands, but a guy who nevertheless owns a vehicle that gets, with a good tailwind, about one mile per gallon.
It's a boat, of course and these days I think carefully about where I'm going with it before I leave the dock. I probably don't use too much more than 500 gallons a year, which is still a whole lot less than I used to use as a commuter driving a small car. If gasoline rose to 5 or 6 or 7 dollars a gallon at the fuel docks, I probably wouldn't change the number of hours I put on the boat, but if I were driving to work, as many of you do, that 7500 pound, 8-12 mpg "SUV" or super heavy duty monster truck might just get traded for something less absurd.
So I have to make another confession: I secretly wish fuel prices would soar long enough to make urban hipsters go back to taking the bus or driving Fiat 500's, and suburbanites trade in their grotesque fashion statements for cars.
Of course the noises bubbling up from the bottom of the national cesspool have been blaming Barack Obama and "liberals" for those scary numbers that appear on gas station signs, as if it were the president or some government office that dictated prices on the free world market rather than the laws of supply and demand and the mechanisms of capitalism. I'm tempted to say that the self-appointed guardians of the free market either haven't the most elementary idea of how those markets work or perhaps are simply too dishonest to risk not blaming Obama for rising world demand. No sir, there's no pea under that particular walnut shell and if even a small proportion of Republicans had the mental wherewithal to deal with the notion that economic recovery means increased demand for resources, they might figure out that those screaming the loudest have a vested interest in a collapsing economy. As the infamous Rush once said: "I hope he fails."
So yes, some Republicans, some voices from the corporate owned media are also wishing for a big increase because the public is stupid enough, or so they hope, to believe that the "socialist" Obama is behind it all. You'll remember John McCain making that moronic accusation when gas prices soared under George Bush. No, he didn't blame Bush or the huge demand for fuel his wars gave us, he blamed Obama, because that's what Republicans do, they blame the other guy for their own actions; they blame the opposition for the workings of the natural forces of the same free markets they pretend to worship.
No, the old song is about the holy market and how all the ugly features of unrestrained capitalism like disregard for public safety and the powerlessness of an oppressed work force would wither away if we only let them drill for oil in your town's reservoir or chain your kids to a punch press the same way those Commies do, but the reality is that they have a very selective interest in capitalism and the high priests of 'enlightened self interest' are trying as hard as they can to take the enlightenment out of it.
So yes, rising energy costs sap the strength of the recovery and so that's just what a certain party wants so that they can go on pretending there is no recovery or that it would be a much better recovery if only they had someone like that Mad Monk Santorum in the White House. So maybe "jobs, jobs, jobs" is now last month's mantra because we're creating more jobs every week that were created under that 8 year Republican debacle. So it's time to turn on a dime and let's put on that Jumpin' Jack Flash disc 'cause now it's all gas, gas, gas.
It's a boat, of course and these days I think carefully about where I'm going with it before I leave the dock. I probably don't use too much more than 500 gallons a year, which is still a whole lot less than I used to use as a commuter driving a small car. If gasoline rose to 5 or 6 or 7 dollars a gallon at the fuel docks, I probably wouldn't change the number of hours I put on the boat, but if I were driving to work, as many of you do, that 7500 pound, 8-12 mpg "SUV" or super heavy duty monster truck might just get traded for something less absurd.
So I have to make another confession: I secretly wish fuel prices would soar long enough to make urban hipsters go back to taking the bus or driving Fiat 500's, and suburbanites trade in their grotesque fashion statements for cars.
Of course the noises bubbling up from the bottom of the national cesspool have been blaming Barack Obama and "liberals" for those scary numbers that appear on gas station signs, as if it were the president or some government office that dictated prices on the free world market rather than the laws of supply and demand and the mechanisms of capitalism. I'm tempted to say that the self-appointed guardians of the free market either haven't the most elementary idea of how those markets work or perhaps are simply too dishonest to risk not blaming Obama for rising world demand. No sir, there's no pea under that particular walnut shell and if even a small proportion of Republicans had the mental wherewithal to deal with the notion that economic recovery means increased demand for resources, they might figure out that those screaming the loudest have a vested interest in a collapsing economy. As the infamous Rush once said: "I hope he fails."
So yes, some Republicans, some voices from the corporate owned media are also wishing for a big increase because the public is stupid enough, or so they hope, to believe that the "socialist" Obama is behind it all. You'll remember John McCain making that moronic accusation when gas prices soared under George Bush. No, he didn't blame Bush or the huge demand for fuel his wars gave us, he blamed Obama, because that's what Republicans do, they blame the other guy for their own actions; they blame the opposition for the workings of the natural forces of the same free markets they pretend to worship.
No, the old song is about the holy market and how all the ugly features of unrestrained capitalism like disregard for public safety and the powerlessness of an oppressed work force would wither away if we only let them drill for oil in your town's reservoir or chain your kids to a punch press the same way those Commies do, but the reality is that they have a very selective interest in capitalism and the high priests of 'enlightened self interest' are trying as hard as they can to take the enlightenment out of it.
So yes, rising energy costs sap the strength of the recovery and so that's just what a certain party wants so that they can go on pretending there is no recovery or that it would be a much better recovery if only they had someone like that Mad Monk Santorum in the White House. So maybe "jobs, jobs, jobs" is now last month's mantra because we're creating more jobs every week that were created under that 8 year Republican debacle. So it's time to turn on a dime and let's put on that Jumpin' Jack Flash disc 'cause now it's all gas, gas, gas.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Act Now! No Time to Lose!
Henry Kissinger -- the name could be a metonym for dishonest defense of imperialism and reckless disregard for the consequences of military action, and so it's no surprise to hear him tell us to ignore the consensus of all 16 US intelligence agencies that there is no evidence Iran is building or is about to build nuclear weapons.
Yes, of course they could all be wrong and there is always the argument from cliche that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but even in a nation of emotionally disturbed amnesiacs like the US, some might want to remember our useless attack and occupation of Iraq for which we continue to suffer and will continue to suffer for a very long time. In case you don't remember, that country had no nuclear, chemical or biological weapons or the materials or technology needed to produce huge, heavy nuclear prototypes much less the probably fictional "suitcase" bombs we were told could be smuggled into the US at any moment. Act now!
On CNN's GPS with Fareed Zakaria yesterday, Kissinger told us he was "uneasy" with the intelligence and that we should ignore it as we ignored the lies about Iraq and make the presumption that a bomb was forthcoming.
Kissinger and warmongering toadies like Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu tell us we have no time to lose; that the time to attack is now as Former Secretary of State Rice once told us. Shoot first and pretend there is no question to ask, lest the "smoking gun" of evidence turn out to be a mushroom cloud. Frankly I think we have everything to lose, including our future and any basis upon which to base the proposition and pose of being a force for good in this world.
Yes, of course they could all be wrong and there is always the argument from cliche that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but even in a nation of emotionally disturbed amnesiacs like the US, some might want to remember our useless attack and occupation of Iraq for which we continue to suffer and will continue to suffer for a very long time. In case you don't remember, that country had no nuclear, chemical or biological weapons or the materials or technology needed to produce huge, heavy nuclear prototypes much less the probably fictional "suitcase" bombs we were told could be smuggled into the US at any moment. Act now!
On CNN's GPS with Fareed Zakaria yesterday, Kissinger told us he was "uneasy" with the intelligence and that we should ignore it as we ignored the lies about Iraq and make the presumption that a bomb was forthcoming.
“I am very uneasy with the so-called intelligence report that say we don’t know whether they are actually working on nuclear weapons. I think we should start from the premise that they are undergoing all this in order to achieve a military capability. I don’t think that is a disputable point.”I think it is disputable in the extreme, considering that we're listening to a war criminal involved in and culpable for massacres, invasions and genocides in Indochina, East Timor, Chile, Cyprus and Bangladesh talking about fomenting yet another dubious and probably disastrous war.
Kissinger and warmongering toadies like Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu tell us we have no time to lose; that the time to attack is now as Former Secretary of State Rice once told us. Shoot first and pretend there is no question to ask, lest the "smoking gun" of evidence turn out to be a mushroom cloud. Frankly I think we have everything to lose, including our future and any basis upon which to base the proposition and pose of being a force for good in this world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)