Throwback Thursday: Coupla Followups

About a week and a half ago I expressed a skepticism about the George Zimmerman verdict, which occasioned an angry series of responses from favorite nemesis WAMK. He pointed out that as someone who hadn't watched the whole trial, I... I don't know, shouldn't have an opinion about it? Have one but keep it to myself? Who knows? All I know is, judging by the language, he's very, very angry at me. 

I gotta say though, you know who else was skeptical about Zimmerman's innocence? At least half the jury. In our justice system the accused is innocent unless proven guilty, and the jury did the right thing because they felt there wasn't enough hard evidence to convict. But like me, Juror B29 doesn't think Zimmerman is innocent. Unlike me, she DID watch gavel-to-gavel coverage.

Regarding yesterday's recounting of Rep. Steve King's belief that most illegal immigrants are drug mules, I have an ally. To paraphrase Weird Al Yankovic, even John Boehner knows it's wrong.

Boehner already had issued a written statement earlier in the week condemning King's remarks, but at his weekly news conference, he ramped up his criticism even without being asked. The Ohio Republican took the unusual step of calling King out by name, dramatizing the concern among GOP leaders that incendiary comments from the right can tarnish the party's image even as lawmakers struggle to find a solution to the immigration debate.
"I want to be clear. There's no place in this debate for hateful or ignorant comments from elected officials," Boehner said.

I'd only take issue with Boehner's quoted remark: he clearly hasn't been paying enough attention to "this debate".  There doesn't seem to be room for much else!

A Counter-Counter Point

WAMK responds here. I still disagree with him about the idea that Martin was the only aggressor in the scenario as described in court, but I'm not going back there to say so. It's like walking into a biker bar and screaming HELL'S ANGELS SUCK!  The Hell's Angels, frankly, aren't open to reasoned debate on that topic.

Let's add this also... I'm supposed to accept the jury's verdict, apparently, and move on. After all, Zimmerman's story was consistant and Zimmerman had his day in court and was found not guilty. That's a reasonable position to take, as long as you say the same thing about O.J. Simpson's murder trial. Me, I'm still troubled by that one too.

A Rebuttal, From Someone Who KNOWS THE FACTS **Update**

I'm going to admit here that it is seriously gratifying to learn that WAMK reads this blog, at least once in a while. He cranked out a rebuttal to the piece I wrote Monday about the George Zimmerman  verdict. I won't go over there to respond to it because it would be a discourtesy to disagree with him on his own blog (and twitter feed) so instead I'll just admit here that he's right on many counts.

My source now is this Yahoo explainer,  which includes the transcript of Zimmerman's 911 call. It's true the police did not insist that Zimmerman stop following the kid; they merely said "you don't have to do that". Obviously Zimmerman could have avoided his alleged beating had he listened, and therefore the subsequent incarceration and trial.

It's the attitude expressed below by WAMK, though I've heard it from many others as well, that still troubles me:

Martin had several choices that night. Martin could have continued on his way home. Martin could have called police, and reported a "creepy ass cracker" following him. He could have hid in the shadows until Zimmerman went away. He could have yelled from the shadows "Stop following me, I've called the police". He could have banged on a door or two, yelling for help that he was scared. He could have told the girl he was on the phone with to call the cops for him while he hid. But he didn't. He made a choice to confront Zimmerman, a choice that ultimately cost him his life.

In other words Martin would be alive today if he had simply NOT CHOSEN TO STAND HIS GROUND. There's a double standard at work here. It's true that Trayvon Martin had a violent incident in his past - but so did Zimmerman. Martin had some racially charged statements in his internet history - so did Zimmerman. So why is Zimmerman a hero and Martin a troublemaker? Remember, there was no evidence that Martin was in the neighborhood to commit a crime. He didn't have tools. He wasn't even armed.

Since we only have Zimmerman's side of the story now, the testimony of a man who had a murder rap to beat, the trial really doesn't prove anything. And until someone can explain why people who were convinced of Zimmerman's innocence from day one got that idea, people like me will suspect that race is the motivating factor.

In WAMK's favor, I recollect that he was not convinced from day one. You know who was though? The Florida justice system, who didn't even consider the case worthy of a hearing until the bad publicity forced their hand.

Update ** Glad you WAMK guys found food for thought in all this!**

Zimmerman Verdict - Doesn't Make Sense To Me

This won't come as a surprise to regular readers of this blog (or wouldn't, if such people existed) but I'm mystifed how George Zimmerman is a free man today. Now understand, I don't have cable so I was spared the gavel-to-gavel coverage on CNN (by the way, I read that at one point, during the Egyptian coup CNN not only refused to cut away from the trial, but they actually had an inset box on the screen featuring some other aspect of the trial) so I can't speak to all the evidence the jury was exposed to.  But check me on the narrative that I understand the defense put forward:

Zimmerman, during his neighborhood watch night shift, notices a suspicious-looking character in the streets. He reports the guy to the police, who ask him to remain where he is and not pursue. Zimmerman pursues anyway, eventually stopping the car after a block or two and confronting the boy, who assaults him and bangs his head on the sidewalk until Zimmerman is forced to shoot the kid  in self-defense.

My question is, how is what Trayvon Martin did in this scenario NOT self defense? He was walking in a neighborhood he had a right to be in, and a creepy guy in a car is following him for blocks, then gets out and pulls a gun on him. What would you do? You'd try to at least knock him unconcious so you could take his gun off of him. I don't know what other choice a guy in his position was supposed to have.

Even given benefit of the doubt, Zimmerman should have been charged with manslaughter.

Happy Birthday, Mr. President

This can't end well for me or the other side, but I'm callin' hypocrisy.

In a March 22, 2007 Time Magazine piece co-bylined with Massimo Calabresi, then-Washington Bureau Chief Jay Carney attacked the Bush administration for “its deliberate and aggressive efforts to expand and protect Executive power.” 

In the piece, Carney and Calabresi charged that “[President George W.] Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have spent six years expanding presidential powers at the expense of Congress and the judiciary, from authorizing domestic wiretapping to limiting habeas corpus and changing bills through signing statements.” 

Carney also complained about the resistance from Bush administration officials to testify on those matters, which at the time included then-White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove. 

Thanks for that, Daily Caller! What was your opinion about big intrusive government at the time? Fir or agin'?

I can't vouch for the DC folks, but I did get this fundraising letter back in 2007 that might be illustrative. Among other things, it addressed the PATRIOT Act: If Democrats try to gut the USA Patriot Act and other important laws that promote the safety and security of all Americans, should Republicans in Congress fight back? The PATRIOT Act, you see, is the thing that authorizes all this expansion of executive power. Nearly everybody in Congress voted for it, to their discredit. I worried about it then and I worry about it now. But for the moment it's the ill-defined law of the land, which is why any attempt to impeach Obama over it are doomed to failure.

And sure I'd rather Obama ran the country without dipping into that cesspool of executive privilege, but so far no President has been able to resist it's oh-so-convenient charms. If Congress is going to spend all it's time trying to repeal laws it voted for, why not start with that one?

Why The Supreme Court Must Strike Down DOMA

1. Corporations, per the Citizens United decision, are people.
2. Corporations are ungendered; therefore, all of them are the same sex.
3. Same sex unions are expressly forbidden in the Defense Of Marriage act.
4. Any corporate merger could, therefore, be challenged and defeated.

You could say that SCOTUS could simply leave it up to the states to decide, but that would mean states decide WHICH CORPORATION gets to do business in them. Vonage could challenge ATT and wind up with all of Oregon. Sure it's a specious argument, but that's cold comfort if you're spending 3 years and millions of dollars of legal fees fighting it.

How DARE THEY CUT GOVERNMENT SERVICES!

Arizona officials — from the statehouse to Capitol Hill — were outraged on Tuesday at the Obama administration’s release of hundreds of illegal immigrants held in local jails to save money as huge budget cuts loom. 

“I’m appalled to learn the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has begun to release hundreds of illegal aliens from custody, the first of potentially thousands to soon be freed under the guise of federal budget cuts,” said Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who has long battled the White House on immigration matters. “This is pure political posturing and the height of absurdity, given that the releases are being granted before the federal sequestration cuts have even gone into effect.”

In Pinal County, about 70 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border, Sheriff Paul Babeu told Newsmax that the release of hundreds of detainees over the weekend was “outrageous and unacceptable because there’s a direct and immediate impact to public safety of families in my county.”

To recap: Sequestration. A terrible, terrible idea. It was entirely Obama's idea. And now that it's going to happen, it will destroy the country. But it's only a pittance. We need to cut much more than this. And at least Obama has given us a spending cut without a tax hike, because the #obamaquester is entirely his idea.

No, the DEMOCRATS Are Waging War On Cops

Mitt Romney said this late last week: “[Obama] says we need more firemen, more policemen, more teachers,” said Romney. “Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.” He didn't mean to imply that we don't need more firemen, policemen or teachers though. Although everybody knows they are unionized, and therefore union thugs.

But if you're trend-watching, note that it is a Republican who has finally made a move to put these union cop thugs in their place: Mitch Daniels.

Governor Mitch Daniels, a Republican, has authorized changes to a 2006 legislation that legalizes the use of deadly force on a public servant — including an officer of the law — in cases of “unlawful intrusion.” Proponents of both the Second and Fourth Amendments — those that allow for the ownership of firearms and the security against unlawful searches, respectively — are celebrating the update by saying it ensures that residents are protected from authorities that abuse the powers of the badge. 

Although critics have been quick to condemn the law for opening the door for assaults on police officers, supporters say that it is necessary to implement the ideals brought by America’s forefathers. Especially, argue some, since the Indiana Supreme Court almost eliminated the Fourth Amendment entirely last year. During the 2011 case of Barnes v. State of Indiana, the court ruled that a man who assaulted an officer dispatched to his house had broken the law before there was “no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.” In turn, the National Rifle Association lobbied for an amendment to the Castle Doctrine to ensure that residents were protected from officers that abuse the law to grant themselves entry into private space.

Thank God we're safe now, and a guy cooking meth in his place can shoot first and ask questions later! Finally, cops will take the trouble to hamstring themselves with warrants before they make a move! Just like Republicans have always wanted.

Stand Your Ground Law Open To Nuance

Try to guess what the mitigating factors were here!

***Update*** I'm grateful to the anonymous person who posted the text of the law (and then curiously, deleted it) to demonstrate that, in fact, stand your ground doesn't apply to domestic disputes because assailants who have a right to be on the property (i.e. abusive spouses) are exempted. Poor John Wayne Bobbitt wouldn't have been allowed to defend himself under Stand Your Ground.

Your Boss Was Asking About That Date Last Night

You probably sometimes feel like you're in Stalinist Russia, if you aren't required to give details about your sex life to your boss at work. Don't you? Well, maybe if you lived in Arizona.

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 6-2 Monday to endorse a controversial bill that would allow Arizona employers the right to deny health insurance coverage for contraceptives based on religious objections.

Arizona House Bill 2625, authored by Majority Whip Debbie Lesko, R-Glendale, would permit employers to ask their employees for proof of medical prescription if they seek contraceptives for non-reproductive purposes, such as hormone control or acne treatment.

“I believe we live in America. We don’t live in the Soviet Union,” Lesko said. “So, government should not be telling the organizations or mom and pop employers to do something against their moral beliefs.”

As long as you could prove you're not taking the birth control pills for sex, there wouldn't be any problem.

Look ultimately, this is a freedom issue. Your bosses has a right to not cover medical expenses if they don't like them, and they have a right to your medical records. It's in the constitution! If you don't like it, go get a job somewhere else. Hah, just kiddin'! Good luck with that. Stop sleeping around, slut.

Nanny Statism

Michele Obama's heavy socialist hand has reached all the way from Washington to Florida!

Florida state Rep. Ronda Storms has attracted media attention for proposing state legislation that would, among other things, expand the list of foods people can’t purchase with food stamps.

Storms (R) has submitted a bill that would prohibit participants in the federally funded, state-administered Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) from using food stamps to buy “foods containing trans fats; sweetened beverages, including sodas; sweets, such as Jello, candy, ice cream, pudding, popsicles, muffins, sweet rolls, cakes, cupcakes, pies, cobblers, pastries and doughnuts; and salty snack foods, such as corn-based salty snacks, pretzels, party mix, popcorn and potato chips” and other foods of the unhealthful variety. If passed, the law would also bar food-stamp use in restaurants. The proposed SNAP purchase restrictions are part of a bill targeting what Storms deems inappropriate uses of federal assistance funds.

Seriously, I kind of like this idea if only because it would probably encourage the marketing of foods which are "bill-safe", cheap, nutritious and not loaded up with fat and sugar (fat). I can't see a downside to this - if you're enraged by the poor using government money to buy Twinkies, you gotta look at this as at least an improvement, and if you're equally enraged by the most affordable food being pure swill, then again, woo hoo! Won't pass, of course, because of the Con Agra lobbyists.Still, interesting.

Follow The Oil

Federalism rears its magnificent head today in the form of a veto -- President Obama is said to be ready to announce he will veto the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, because he is forced to decide now in order for the payroll tax entension to go through. The pipe is being rerouted and as of today, no one can say where the pipe will be.

So there are two things now that the Republicans are willing to throw under the bus for the sake of their oil company buddies. The first was a payroll tax extension - normally they wouldn't even consider blocking a tax cut but they used the occasion to force Obama to agree to this oil pipeline, and once he did the bill went through. Now they are also up in arms because the President isn't FORCING STATES TO ALLOW CONTRUCTION of a pipelene across them.

If only there was a way to get oil from Canada across the states without using a pipeline! This will destroy our economy.

Quote Of The Day, Pulling A Boehner Edition

"Why not do the right thing for the American people, even though it’s not exactly what we want."

-John Boehner

Betcha Didn't Know C-Span Doesn't Control the Feed

The Speaker of the House does!

Merry Christmas, Mr. Obama ***Updated***

"Has this place become so dysfunctional that even when people agree to things we can't do it?"

-President Obama, concerning this.

I'm not sure if Fox News is covering this, but what it amounts to is the Congressional Republicans have decided to dig in their heels and not extend a payroll tax cut. I know, weird right? Just as unemployment drops again they seem to think the best thing for the country is to raise taxes on the middle class. Maybe they are upset because there hasn't also been an even bigger tax cut for the rich. Maybe they somehow think that the country will blame Obama for the failure, even though he's all over the news saying please extend this and John Boehner is all over the news saying, no, no, forget it.

It's not just me pointing out this looks bad for Republicans. The Wall Street Journal, for example.

The GOP leaders have somehow managed the remarkable feat of being blamed for opposing a one-year extension of a tax holiday that they are surely going to pass. This is no easy double play. Republicans have also achieved the small miracle of letting Mr. Obama position himself as an election-year tax cutter...

Anyone outside of the liberal mainstream media think the same way? Karl Rove. Of course to be fair, Rove did more than anyone to ensure that a Democrat won the 2008 election. Don't trust him!

***Update*** The House finally voted on the bill a few hours after I wrote this, apparently on the assurances by President Obama that he wouldn't veto it with the provision to approve the Keystone Oil Pipeline included. What this means to me (yes this is spin) is that Republicans are willing to raise taxes and even throw their own poll numbers into the toilet as long as they can serve Conoco. Conoco is a harsh mistress!

Political Wire Buries the Lead

Newt Gingrich, a man so beloved of Republicans that they once censured him, is in a little trouble now for promising a cabinet post to someone before he has been elected, an apparent violation of election law. Big deal! The real sizzler here is the detail - he's promising to appoint John Bolton Secretary of State.

John Bolton! A man so beloved of Republicans that they failed to confirm him as our Ambassador to the UN! This is the guy that Gingrich would send around the world to persuade countries to cooperate with us. After that, he may try to convince Nancy Pelosi to run the RNC. I wonder if he can get George W. Bush out of retirement to handle INS?

Honestly, I think Newt is trying to torpedo his candidacy. Between this promise and the child labor talk, he pretty obviously is laying the groundwork for a Rick Perry/Michele Bachmann/Herman Cain style popularity arc.

Oh, Is THAT Happening Too?

You may recall that a "super-committee" of congress was charged with finding a way to balance the budget, probably as a way to not tie up ALL of Congress so they could go on with the important business of not accomplishing other things. Well, the SC has announced that they are done with their job of not accomplishing their task.

Who is to blame?

The surest sign of who the American people will blame is this: look at the front page of the Fox News website right now. Click to read full size.

What is most noticeable is the complete absence of stories about the super-committee. Maybe they covered it yesterday, but the rest of the lamestream media seems to think that it's somehow more important than our friends in the rust belt, or Jimmy Fallon's mean joke on Michele Bachmann. Which she no doubt wouldn't have gotten anyway.

And meanwhile, also from FoxNews this afternoon:

I don't think they're gonna be able to pin this one on him.

Finally, Repbulicans Introduce a Jobs Bill

The Republican sponsor of a resolution reaffirming that "In God We Trust" is the national motto of the U.S. said his legislation is needed because President Obama and other public officials often forget that designation.

"Unfortunately, there are a number of public officials who forget what the national motto is, whether intentionally or unintentionally," Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) said in late Tuesday afternoon debate in the House. "There are those who become confused as to whether or not it can still be placed on our buildings, whether it can be placed in our school classrooms.

"Almost a year ago, the president in making a speech across the world said that our national motto was 'E pluribus unum,' " Forbes added. "When the Visitor Center was opened ... they did not have the national motto in there. In fact, they inscribed in the stones that our national motto was 'E pluribus unum.' "

Sorry, My mistake. I assumed by now they were going to introduce a jobs bill.

If Elected, I Refuse To Serve

McConnell demonstrates the qualities that have made him a leader:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has proposed creating an escape hatch for Congressional Republicans, who have put themselves in a box by threatening not to raise the national debt limit if Democrats don't agree to trillions of dollars in cuts to popular social programs.

The plan would require Congress to pass a bill allowing Obama to raise the debt limit on his own, contingent on a series of steps: Obama would have to notify Congress of his intent tor raise the debt limit -- a high-sign to Congress that would be subject to an official censure known as a "resolution of disapproval," and which Obama could veto. If he vetoed the resolution, and if Congress sustained the veto, then Obama would also have to outline a series of hypothetical spending cuts he'd make, equal to the amount of new debt authority he'd give himself. Only then would the Treasury be allowed to issue new debt.

McConnell proposes rolling out this process in three tranches, to force Obama to request more borrowing authority, and to force debt limit votes in Congress, repeatedly through election season.

Here's how McConnell explained it at his weekly Capitol press conference:

"The way it would work is the legislation would authorize him to get to the amount he says he needs based upon the advice of his Secretary of the Treasury in three tranches: The first tranche, $700 billion, the second tranche $900 billion, the third tranche $900 billion.

Once the request is made it would be appropriate in either or both houses for a resolution of disapproval to be taken up on an expedited procedure. If that expedited procedure in both the House and the Senate -- if the resolution of disapproval achieved a majority -- it would go down to him where he could either sign it or veto it. My assumption is he would veto it. And that veto would be sustained by one-third-plus-one in either of the houses."

Please Mr Socialist, take care of our economy for us! And while you're at it, please rewrite Obamacare! And give more money to the automakers! WE NEED TO BLAME YOU FOR IT!

Win!

It's so easy to reduce the size of government: just dig your heels in until it shuts down completely!

A couple of months from now, Minnesota Republicans will be reaping the benefits of goodwill from a grateful state. Who wanted state services anyway? Muslims and socialists, that's who!