The most important thing she'd learned over the years was
that there was no way to be a perfect mother
and a million ways to be a good one.
Jill Churchill
The Zimmerman Verdict Aftermath
One of the ironic aspects of the Zimmerman saga is that George Zimmerman, half-Latino and a registered Democrat, in 2008 had identified with Obama as half-Kenyan and strongly lobbied other family members to also vote for him. Just imagine how he felt to hear the post-racism President publicly identify with Trayvon Martin--a President with the authority to unleash the hounds of hell (DOJ) on him, a man of limited means. He has had to wear protective vests, he's received countless death threats, and even after his acquittal, a prominent NFL player tweeted that it was not over, that within a year, "street justice" would catch up with Zimmerman. The verdict has not lessened the bloodlust of those whose view of the tragedy has been largely framed by a left-wing media, politicians and organizations with an interest in exacerbating racial tensions. There are links on Drudge and other conservative websites of renewed pressure on DOJ although there's no credible evidence Zimmerman was racist or racially-motivated (a suspect utterance turned out to be 'punk'). If anything, Martin's reference to Zimmerman as a "cracker" was racist. Is it unusual that a neighborhood watch captain followed a fairly new resident in the gated community he didn't know? AG Holder has been asked in the past about the case, and he suggested that the Feds have a high burden in filing a case; Obama's earlier statement personalizing Martin was seen by this blog and others as politicizing the justice system; the DOJ, if it's seen as maliciously prosecuting Zimmerman, would lose confidence of the American people. I do not know Zimmerman's financial situation (one source indicated that he has worked as an insurance adjuster), but as a young man in his twenties he has limited resources and probably buried under legal bills (although I'm sure that won't stop the inevitable civil suit, although there are immunity clauses under state law relevant to Zimmerman's self-defense ). Going from life as probably the most recognizable defendants in the country to a fresh start is easier said than done; no business or neighborhood would want to face possible reprisals.
The sad thing is that the tragic killing of Martin pales in significance to black-on-black violent crime. I noticed links on Drudge over the past few months pointing out murder counts over Chicago weekends/holidays.I do wish Obama would go beyond the tiresome calls for gun control of law-abiding citizens (never waste a crisis)
New JOTY Nominee: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
From BreitBart:
On Sunday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) asked for the Justice Department to prosecute George Zimmerman, who was acquitted Saturday night in the killing of Trayvon Martin. “I think the Justice Department is going to take a look at this,” Reid told NBC’s Meet the Press. “This isn’t over with and I think that’s good. That’s our system, it’s gotten better, not worse.”Apparently Sen Reid think layered frivolous, cascading persecution of politically incorrect defendants is a "good" thing. This reminds me of Stalin's head of secret police Beria: “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.” Not quite double jeopardy, but in execution, effectively the same. This tragedy doesn't fall under the scope of the federal civil rights laws, and Reid knows that; not only that, but DOJ has had more than a year to investigate this matter. Applying political pressure to prosecute is a corruption of the judicial system and a violation of Zimmerman's individual rights.
Let's add Al Sharpton to the long list of contenders. Here's this quote from FNC:
On NBC's "Meet the Press," The Rev. Al Sharpton condemned the “stand your ground” law under which Zimmerman won acquittal, adding of his plans, "I will convene an emergency call with preachers tonight to discuss next steps and I intend to head to Florida in the next few days."First, I see the hypocritical Rev. Al Sharpton (that old "love thy enemies" bit was covered the day he didn't go to seminary) is at it again. But his analysis of "Stand Your Ground" is totally and shockingly incompetent. Zimmerman's attorneys never pleaded "stand your ground"; I only casually followed the trial and I recall this point being debunked several times. This was not a case where say, Martin invaded the Zimmerman home and rather than flee, Zimmerman discharged his weapon; Zimmerman argued under self-defense. This is from the Florida state senator whom helped pass the legislation:
Properly understood, "stand your ground" is simply a small but important element of the broader concept of self-defense. Some self-defense cases may involve a question of whether a defendant could have fled or stood his ground, and in other cases it is not an issue.
In the Zimmerman case, it apparently would not have made a difference because he says he was pinned to the ground and could not flee.
As such, even under Florida's pre-"stand your ground" law, there was no duty to flee if there was no ability to flee. So, this is not a case questioning whether Zimmerman had the duty to flee or could have stood his ground against Martin.Late afternoon: DOJ announced that it will examine the applicability of federal civil rights laws to the Martin case. I was mildly surprised in the sense Obama seemed to sidestep the issue earlier in the day when he tried to invoke Martin in his renewed push for gun control. But this may have simply been a facade from unduly influencing DOJ; there's no way this would happen without Obama's knowledge and consent. In his initial statement on the Martin tragedy, he explicitly noted that the attorney general reports to him. However, as the Miami Herald notes, the Feds would encounter some of the same limited evidence problems the state trial faced and Zimmerman would also elect not to take the stand: the jurors felt Zimmerman acted in self-defense, not by Martin's race or other politically incorrect factor. In essence, elements of "hate crimes" were included in the second-degree murder charge; unless federal prosecutors felt state prosecutors botched their case and left out compelling evidence, it's a stretch, if not hubris to believe they could do better when the state couldn't even convict Zimmerman on a lesser charge, manslaughter.
I think there's a high risk of political repercussions in losing Zimmerman 2.0, so I suspect this is all a little Kabuki dance for their special-interest constituents
Michael Grunwald, "Beyond the Keystone Pipeline": Thumbs DOWN!
It's not that mediocre Times columnists have stopped publishing crap, but I hadn't received an issue in weeks (probably a USPS delivery problem). I wrote a couple of one-off posts on Grunwald, whom is embarrassingly partisan in his commentaries; he still has not improved since my last review. This is just a sample, not taken out of context: "[Obama's speeches]...don't matter much. They certainly don't get Congress to pass anything. They just ensure that Republicans who oppose whatever he is for will oppose whatever he has talked about." Talk about absurd stereotypes; it is true when Obama is speaking to advance profligate spending or his hyper-partisan "progressive" agenda. There is some common ground, e.g., public education choice, expanding trade pacts, cost of living adjustments and raising age eligibility for federal entitlements, etc., but keep in mind Obama the Presidential candidate opposed raising the national debt limit, talked about cutting the deficit in half, opposed the Patriot Act, and opposed an individual mandate for health insurance--all areas he could find common ground to some degree across the aisle. And it was no secret that the bipartisan group of senators working on immigration reform thought it would be counterproductive for Obama to get involved. Most of this divide has been due to Obama's hyper-partisan style and playing hardball with the GOP during the 111rh Congress; that only works if you are confident of retaining super-majorities in both chambers of Congress. As much as "progressives" like Grunwald are in a state of denial, the voters in 2008 did not embrace Obama's ideological agenda; they bought into the myth of the centrist Obama. They were not happy with Bush's second term and when the economy tanked weeks leading up to the election, they mostly wanted reassurance about the welfare net--unemployment, food stamps, etc., and the expectation of the economy bouncing back. They weren't voting for healthcare, financial reform, climate change legislation, etc. I know that the true believers do believe in the "progressive" agenda, but the mid-term results proved they overplayed their hand.
The whole column is a hodgepodge of convoluted thoughts that Obama's legacy won't be a $20T national debt, one of the slowest-growing, jobless recoveries in American history, etc., but climate change. Never mind the Senate never brought the barely-passed House bill up to a vote, despite super-majorities in the 111th Congress. Grunwald is simply out of touch with reality; consider this example nonsense: "[Obama] has probably done more to reduce emissions than anyone else in history." Fact: carbon emissions are far lower but it has ZERO to do with Obama--it has more to do with cheap natural gas made possible by environmentalist-opposed fracking, displacing coal plants. This has more to do with a competitive energy industry.
It's not worth my time and effort to debunk all of Grunwald's nonsense in detail. Let me cite an excerpt from one of Mark Perry's posts at Carpe Diem:
The economic and scientific reality, according to Obama’s Energy Department, is that abundant, low-cost fossil fuels will continue to dominate the US fuel mix for at least the next quarter century, and probably much, much longer into the future. Meanwhile, politics aside, the economic and scientific reality according to the Energy Department is that renewable sources of energy will continue to play a minor role in America’s energy mix. In 2040, the Energy Department’s projected 10.8% share for renewables will be almost inconsequentially different from the 9.3% share in 1948. In other words, the Energy Department’s not expecting a lot of progress for renewable energies as a fuel source for America, even after almost 100 years of efforts from politicians like Obama and billions of taxpayer dollars.A final point about the Keystone Pipeline: Grumwald seems to see Obama's attempt to use bureaucratic inertia as a way of keeping Canada from extracting oil from its tar sands. This sounds like just the type of thinking from someone with no background in economics or the energy industry. This is largely a function of global supply and demand of oil. It is more expensive to extract oil from tar sands. As global supply tightens, prices increase to the point it is profitable to extract such oil. First, there are alternative methods to transport oil, including rail shipments and tankers. Second, China and India are more than willing to purchase any Canadian oil we don't, and there are non-US refineries. Third, Canadian oil displaces oil shipments from more volatile regions, and we still import about half our oil. Any oil savings we achieve are more than offset by growing middle classes buying cars in developing economies.
Immigrants Reviving the American Dream
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups Redux
The Beatles, "Day Tripper"
