The Commentariat -- Sept. 10, 2013
NEW. Jonathan Weisman & Alan Cowell of the New York Times: "The White House and a bipartisan group of senators joined the international diplomatic momentum on Tuesday to avert an American military attack on Syria over its use of chemical munitions in that country's civil war, responding positively to a Russian proposal aimed at securing and destroying those weapons. The group of senators, including some of President Obama's biggest supporters and critics, were drafting an alternative Congressional resolution that would give the United Nations time to take control of the Syrian government's arsenal of the internationally banned weapons." ...
... NEW. William Englund, et al., of the Washington Post: "A last-ditch effort to avert a U.S. military strike by transferring control of Syrian chemical weapons ran into obstacles Tuesday, as Russia balked at a French plan to enforce an international agreement under a binding U.N. Security Council resolution with a military option if necessary. An unexpected Russian proposal to place Syria's chemical weapons under international monitoring and ultimately destroy them had appeared to be gaining traction earlier in the day, as Syria embraced it, China and Iran voiced support, and the United States said it would explore the idea seriously. But a telephone conversation between French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius and his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, revealed a deep divide over their visions of the Security Council's role -- and particularly over the prospect of military action to ensure that an agreement would be honored." ...
... NEW. Sergei Loiko of the Los Angeles Times: "Syria confirmed Tuesday that it has accepted a Russian plan to allow its chemical weapons to be placed under international control and eventually dismantled. The Syrian agreement is based on the understanding that the plan could prevent a U.S. military strike, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem said." ...
... Alan Cowell of the New York Times: "As the diplomatic pace quickened around Russia's plan for Syria to relinquish control of its chemical weapons, France said on Tuesday it would propose a United Nations Security Council resolution enshrining the idea while Moscow said it was working with the authorities in Damascus on a 'workable, precise and concrete plan' to carry the proposal forward." CW: I remain pleased that all of the world's superpowers are getting on board the Burns Plan bandwagon. ...
... In another New York Times "new analysis," Peter Baker writes, "In effect, Mr. Obama is now caught between trying to work out a deal with Mr. Putin, with whom he has been feuding lately, or trying to win over Republicans in the House who have made it their mission to block his agenda." ...
... CW: for what it's worth, I am more inclined to go with a version of contributor's Diane's analysis (see yesterday's Comments). You have to look at everybody's motives here. Obama credibly claims that the U.S. has been trying for a year to get Russia to encourage Assad to destroy his chemical arsenal. Either Russia wasn't going along or Assad was stonewalling (or a bit of both), but Putin has little motivation to approve of any other country's having chemical weapons, whether or not the country is currently a Russian ally. I have no doubt that Russia stepped up its pressure on Assad after the August attack. There is a reason Assad has been mum on this until Sunday; he, too, was looking for his best advantage. Whether he ordered the attack or, as seems quite possible, some of his military made the call, ultimately he has to take responsibility or he looks weak. There is also a reason that Obama suddenly decided to ask Congress for authorization. Domestically, it was prudent, but his main purpose was to stall to allow Russia time to further pressure Syria --which he was certainly aware was ongoing. There is also a reason that Obama & Putin met during the G-20 even though Obama had announced (a month or so ago) that he would not be meeting with Putin. At the G-20, they continued working out the details & discussing Russia's progress -- Obama or his spokesperson said as much following the meeting. ...
... I do think that the Kerry remark was serendipitous (I don't think the reporter, who spoke with an American accent [don't know who she is] was a plant.) After Kerry made the remark about Assad's destroying his weapons, he quickly said, "But that's not going to happen," or words to that effect; i.e., the negotiations between Russia & Syria were still in flux. There's also a reason that France is bringing the resolution to the Security Council; it's payback for their support (and & effort to solidify that support) for a U.S. military strike against Syria. And it's good for Holland, whose parliament is not supportive of a strike. If this whole thing works out, it's a win for everybody. Obama is not, as Baker thinks, caught between a rock & a hard place; it appears he may achieve his goal -- to relieve Assad of his chemical weapons capabilities without getting the U.S. into another trillion-dollar, ten-year war. He should tell the help to polish his Nobel medal. ...
... P.S. I should have mentioned another crucial player: Iran, whose new president, Hassan Rouhani, is no Ahm-a-dinnah-jacket, & who definitely does not want to be downwind of Assad's chemical fumes. It's likely he mentioned that to Assad. ...
... Update. Ed Kilgore: "... the Russian government's proposal ... could be a game-changer, at least temporarily. It comes, moreover, in the wake of a report from the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz that Russia and Iran were already preparing a peace proposal that involved surrender of chemical weapons and perhaps even a path to free elections in Syria." CW: Haaretz is now subscriber-firewalled, so I'm relying on Kilgore's report. The Haaretz report supports my theory of how all this behind-the-scenes stuff has been unfolding. And Kilgore agrees with me & with the New York Times Editors (see next link) on this much: "... with the situation in the House and in public opinion deteriorating rapidly, this new development could represent a 180-degree change in a positive direction for the Obama administration, and a plausible way out of a military conflict no one but neocons seemed to relish." ...
... CW: The New York Times Editorial Board, whose members generally are smarter than the news staff, have what I think is a better take on the Russian proposal. After outlining how the inspections, etc., must be managed, the editors conclude, "The diplomatic proposal creates at least a pause in the action. It could mean that the United States would not have to go it alone in standing firm against the Syrian regime. And it could open up a broader channel to a political settlement between Mr. Assad and the rebels -- the only practical way to end this war. It could also be a boon for Mr. Obama, personally, because he could take credit for pushing Syria and Russia into making this move." ...
... CW: Zachary Goldfarb of the Washington Post is right about this much: "Speaking Monday in London, Secretary of State John F. Kerry said that a U.S. military strike on Syria would constitute an 'unbelievably small, limited kind of effort.' Later at the White House, President Obama insisted that any such action would be significant. 'The U.S. does not do pinpricks,' he told an NBC News interviewer.... The dueling statements underscored the administration's muddled message on Syria." The reason it's President Obama instead of President Kerry is that Kerry has a long history of veering off-message. ...
... OR, as Joshua Keating of Slate puts it: "Kerry: Turn Over Your Chemical Weapons or Face ... 'Unbelievably Small' Consequences." ...
... Digby has an excellent post, comparing the Kerry gaffe to a blooper that averted the Cuban missile crisis. Read it. ...
... AND Max Read of Gawker has a humorous take on all this war stuff: "So! Maybe an unplanned press-conference line can help us avoid the war that another unplanned press-conference line almost got us into. Not to mention the apocalypse!" (The links are original.) ...
... Meanwhile, Ted Cruz has an op-ed in the Washington Post explaining why a tough guy like him will vote against a resolution to strike Syria. I forgot to read it & forgot to link it (but you can get to it via the WashPo front page, if you're interested). ...
... AND Kevin Drum argues that President Obama, like most presidents, is a happy warrior. ...
... Michael Gordon & Steven Myers of the New York Times: "President Obama called a proposal by Russia on Monday to avert a United States military strike on Syria over chemical weapons use 'a potentially positive development' but said he would continue to press for military action to keep the pressure up":
... Jennifer Epstein of Politico: "Obama said the idea of having Russia intervene to try to get Syria to turn over control of its chemical weapons has been on the table for more than a year. 'This is not new,' he told Fox News. 'I've been discussing this with President Putin for some time now,' he said, including conversations at last year's G-20 summit in Los Cabos, Mexico, and more recently. 'I did have those conversations' last week at the G-2o in St. Petersburg, Russia, he told PBS." ...
... Mario Trujillo of the Hill: "President Obama acknowledged Monday [in an interview with NBC] that even his wife, Michelle, is skeptical of having the U.S. become embroiled in another overseas military conflict." ...
... Philip Rucker of the Washington Post: "Former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday endorsed President Obama's call for military strikes against Syria and said 'it would be an important step' if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad surrendered his stockpile of chemical weapons." ...
... Alexander Bolton of the Hill: "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Monday delayed a vote on using military force against Syria. Faced with stiffening opposition from Republicans and skepticism from many Democrats, Reid said he would not rush the vote to begin considering the controversial use-of-force resolution. He insisted he was not delaying action because of a lack of votes. 'I've spoken to the Republican leader. I've talked to virtually all my Democratic senators and we have enough votes to get cloture,' he said." ...
... AP: "President Barack Obama will meet with Republican senators on Capitol Hill Tuesday to appeal for support on a use-of-force resolution against Syria. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's office says the president will attend lunch with the GOP lawmakers. The president had already planned to be on Capitol Hill Tuesday to meet with the Senate Democratic caucus." ...
... AP: "The State Department sought to tamp down the potential impact of [Secretary John] Kerry's comments by calling them a 'rhetorical' response to a hypothetical question and not 'a proposal.' Kerry spoke by phone with [Russian Foreign Minister Sergey] Lavrov shortly after making his comments in London, and officials familiar with the call said Lavrov had told Kerry that he had seen the remarks and would be issuing a public statement." ...
... James Fearon, in the Monkey Cage: "Much better to make a reasonable demand of Assad -- such as verifiably destroy your chemical weapons, and/or sign the CWC -- and then strike if he doesn't comply than to just jump to a punitive spanking. If he says Ok and complies, then Obama will have achieved the goal of stopping further use of chemical weapons in Syria and also of upholding and furthering a global norm against their use. If Assad says No or says Yes and then goes ahead and carries out more gas attacks,. then it is much easier to make the case and probably get more domestic and international support for a punitive strike."
Susan Stellin of the New York Times: "Newly released documents reveal how the government uses border crossings to seize and examine travelers' electronic devices instead of obtaining a search warrant to gain access to the data.... The documents were turned over to David House, a fund-raiser for the legal defense of Chelsea Manning, formerly known as Pfc. Bradley Manning, as part of a legal settlement with the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. House had sued the agency after his laptop, camera, thumb drive and cellphone were seized when he returned from a trip to Mexico in November 2010. The data from the devices was then examined over seven months." Homeland Security singled out House even though he had not been accused of a crime.
Lisa Rein of the Washington Post: "With fiscal pressures continuing to force spending cuts, government agencies made fewer than 90,000 new hires last year, the smallest number in six years and a 37 percent drop since 2009, federal data show." CW: somebody tell Rand Paul, please, because a year ago he thought the federal payroll was ballooning out of control, & I doubt Paul Krugman convinced him otherwise.
More Stupid GOP Tricks. Russell Berman, et al., of the Hill: "House Republican leaders on Tuesday will propose to their members that the House use a complex procedural tactic to defund ObamaCare that would press the fight but likely avoid a government shutdown.... Republicans who caught wind of the plan on Monday told The Hill it was unacceptable, and GOP leadership is anticipating push-back when it presents the proposal to the rank and file on Tuesday morning...."
Steve Benen on "The Three Stooges on the Road to Cairo" (Now Available in Video!): "Three sitting members of Congress decided on their own to do some foreign policy freelancing, contradicting the foreign policy of the United States, and making a propaganda video for those responsible for a military coup, offering support for a deadly crackdown on dissenters. Since when is this considered acceptable?" ...
... Emily Lodish of GlobalPost, in Salon, lists 11 amazing things Bachmann has said about the Middle East & North Africa. CW: only 11?
Local News
David Halbfinger of the New York Times: "On Tuesday, voters will take the first big step toward choosing a successor to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, in a contest that has increasingly turned on key elements of his legacy on public safety and income inequality. But despite a widely publicized free-for-all among multiple candidates, fewer than one in four Democrats and Republicans are expected to cast a ballot in their party primaries." ...
... The New York Times' endorsements are here.
News Ledes
The New York Times is liveblogging New York City primary election results. Just now, at 9:00 pm ET, the Times reports that Bill DeBlasio has a "wide lead" in the race for Democratic candidate for mayor.
Reuters: "A federal appeals court rejected Google Inc's bid to dismiss a lawsuit accusing it of violating federal wiretap law when its accidentally collected emails and other personal data while building its popular Street View program. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to exempt Google from liability under the federal Wiretap Act for having inadvertently intercepted emails, user names, passwords and other data from private Wi-Fi networks to create Street View, which provides panoramic views of city streets."
New York Times: It's election day in New York City. ...
... Update: "From Wall Street to Grand Army Plaza in Brooklyn, voters arrived at polling stations to find that none of the lever machines were working. Even with small crowds, voters described delays as workers struggled with jammed and broken equipment. In many cases, voters resorted to an even older technology: pen and paper."
Share Article
Reader Comments (18)
I know, I know--this is not about serious world issues, but I am over the moon! RAFA RULES! As JJG said: 4 sets. This man is one of the finest athletes of all time.
About George Zimmerman: a bigoted, angry pig. And why did his estranged wifie not press charges? Could it be she is a crazoid too? Question for you, Marie. Do ya think those women on the jury in FL who found Georgie Porgie "not guilty" are having any second thoughts, or any thoughts at all???
I'll assume Zimmerman's ex-wife didn't press charges because she values the life of herself and her father and knows this psycopath has no value for anybody's skin other than his own. Wife beater AND gun-slingin' John Wayne? Sounds like a perfect combo for the wingers. I'm waiting for the shirts to come on sale...
Re: Syria debacle. All of the talking heads I could bare were all claiming Kerry made a huge faux pas by "conceding" a window of non-intervention that the Russians and Syrians jumped upon. Even though the State dept. attempted to walk the comment back claiming it was 'rhetorical' I can't help but wonder: Did Kerry just gaffe mid war-mongering, it did we just see a majestic political pirouette, achieved with such grace that no one could believe their eyes (or ears)?
Kerry and Obama know they're boxed in and any decision Obama takes will lead to our home-grown Constitutional scholars grumbling incessantly about this rogue Presidency and the fall of Empire. Once upon a time Kerry said he remembered Vietnam and would avoid unnecessary war where alternatives existed.
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but the new direction this conversation is going in is extremely convenient for nearly all parties (except the poor Syrians of course), and potentially gives Obama and Putin a recourse from our degrading relationship. And hell, even China's on board! We might even see the UN security council actually agree on something for once.
Whether is was Kerry's Houdini diplomacy or Putin taking the ball into his own hands, I'm hoping through time and discourse, clearer heads will prevail.
To piggy back on safari's comments: There is something here that smells like a clever diplomatic move. If the proposal to have Russia involved in pressing Assad to remove his chemical weapons (which he has not come forth and admitted) then this has been in the works for some time.The so called "rhetorical" mention of Kerry's perhaps was beautifully orchestrated as was the plea for strikes on Syria. Could it be that this "dithering," "weak," and "lame" president put this all together (maybe he was connected to the Burn's Brigade Plan all along) and like the end of a fine performance of a Mahler concert can take his bow, wave his baton and surprise us all.
Marie, pick up a Fodor's guide to Norway. You may be off to Oslo next year. The Burns Plan has serious traction. Start writing your speech.
Alfred Nobel represents the perfect example of someone who, being seriously concerned about his legacy, made a course correction late in life and funded the prizes which today connect his memory more with beneficence to humanity instead of blowing up humans.
But anyway, when you're in Oslo, stop in at the Peace Prize gift shop and pick me up one of those joke medals, like one with Dubya's name on it.
Either that or a bust of Ibsen carved out of Jarlsberg. I'm easy.
I suspect many people have misread Obama throughout his life. Whether as a result of temperament, affect, race or a combination, he is a formidable man. His "strength" as a leader has been questioned beyond the race issue. Obama consistently answers questions about his strongest characteristic by saying it is perseverance. Don't think Kerry's mention of Syria giving up chemical weapons was a gaffe. What followed clearly was a gaffe - the "small" response part. In retrospect, it seems more like someone who was nervous that his role was to introduce the proposal and make it seem offhand or casual. Although its only an opinion, I think Obama fed Kerry his lines, unlike Clinton who didn't need spoon feeding. After all Kerry was thrust on him and there was really no operational upside to that for Obama.
I'm all for the Burns Plan; may it and its author prosper. And I'll gladly travel to Oslo to witness the ceremony. Looking forward to it, in fact.
On another subject, that of adding Goldman, Nike and Visa to the Dow, just noted in the NYTimes:
Let's see what we have here. Two companies that profit by moving around oodles of money that the 99% doesn't have and one that sells products (produced in Asia by people paid so little they cannot afford to buy what they make) that no one needs.
Not a good sign. But on the bright side, Oregon (a subsidiary of Nike) did beat the hell out of Virginia.
Here's something weird about the Zimmerman story (yeah, I know, weird + Zimmerman is sort of a given): according to CNN, Shellie Zimmerman's father David Dean owns the house where yesterday's altercation took place. Shellie & George used to live in the house; now only George lives there.
Why did Shellie move out & let George stay? When George allegedly punched Dean in the face, Dean was standing in his own house. Under the "castle theory," gosh, I guess he could have pulled out a gun & shot George. But instead he backed off & didn't file an assault-&-battery complaint, which -- if the story is true -- he most certainly could have done.
I suppose George may have a lease in his name only, which makes the house his "castle" for the term of the lease. But still. Very fishy all around.
Marie
@Kate Madison: I don't think the jury made a mistake in the Zimmerman case, given Florida law. As I read it, there was at least one Paula Deen on the jury, but as one of the jurors said, the law -- presumably she meant the stand-your-ground law -- tied the jury's hands. The only plausible verdict was "not guilty."
While I don't doubt that Zimmerman is a serial predator, & I don't doubt that he preyed on Martin, I think the defense raised sufficient reasonable doubt on that. "Not guilty" does not equal "innocent."
Marie
Thoughts after reading Digby: Kennedy's actions to launch the Bay of Pigs (a plan by the Eisenhower regime), his pursuit of clandestine activities against Cuba and Castro, a buildup of American nuclear arsenals well beyond the size of the Soviets and the placement of Jupiters in Turkey all led Krushchev to respond with a clandestine shipment of missiles to Cuba, a gambit which turned out to be a glaring political miscalculation. Krushchev had not understood how weak Kennedy felt in the face of a deeply conservative Cold War political culture. All this would lead to Kruschev's own political humiliation in the eyes of his politburo chums. He was unseated by a cabal within the Kremlin that was determined to achieve among other purposes, nuclear weapons parity with the U.S. In effect, Kennedy's "victory" in the missile crisis closed the door on Krushchev's experiments with internal reform of the Soviet system and prolonged the Cold War. I think, looking back, this was a heavy price to pay for an ephemeral victory. In other words, domestic politics drove Kennedy's foreign policy. That Obama has been willing to press the case for strikes when the majority in Congress, the majority of the American people (and I imagine himself) and his wife are against this decision tells me domestic policies are not driving this man's game plan. Stay tuned.
Man, you don't have to wait very long for daily evidence of right-wing ignorance and horror of allowing the public access to learning.
Yesterday I mentioned that the aggressiveness of teabagging types when it comes to squelching anything that could raise the general populace out of the squalor of stupidity much favored by the right, creates a ripple effect into the world of millions of other Americans who might not feel such antipathy towards education, learning, and the world of facts.
So today I see that Alternet has an article outlining the efforts of teabaggers in Kentucky to kill funding to libraries. We're not talking about millions and millions of dollars here. They are up in arms over the fact that $1.00, that's one tiny little semolian per taxpayer per year, has been earmarked to support public libraries. This is a book too far for the ignoramuses. Why, people might go in and pick up a book on Thomas Jefferson (not published by Regnery) and discover that what conservatives and teabaggers have been peddling is 100% bushwa.
Teabaggers declare war on libraries
Heaven forbid that the public should be able to read a book without the permission of drooling idiots.
I'm inclined to agree with Diane on the Obama/Kerry thing.
As I mentioned before, I'm not entirely sure that the whole thing has been set up from the start, but I do think that the president has been able to make some adjustments to his game that are on the verge of achieving the best possible outcome from a very bad situation.
A recalcitrant congress very likely won't agree to any action (even though quite a few of them did exactly that with a white Republican president who wanted to stage an enormous invasion of a country which had never bothered us, and did it on the basis of lies and cooked intelligence), demanded that they authorize his war, which, in one way, is a way out. But now we hear that the Obama administration has been talking with Russia about just such a move (chemical weapons disarmament of Syria) for a year. This sounds like a long game. Something most members of the MSM, no congressional Republicans, and no one at Fox are able to accommodate or even follow when the dots are connected for them.
This is good for us, good for Putin, and good for Assad. Not so good, as has been pointed out, for the Syrian people, however, who will still be mired in a civil war. But perhaps an agreement here can lead to other talks down the road that might somewhat mitigate the horrors in Syria.
And speaking of a long game, I'm not sure the Kerry "gaffe" was any such thing. It sounds planned. It doesn't sound off the cuff because it's too definitive a declaration to make in such a cavalier manner, despite Kerry's history of straying off message. If was a mistake, it appears to have been quite a fortuitous one.
Nonetheless, it appears that Obama has been playing a long game that may have been goosed significantly by his "red line" comment. But like Kennedy's statement that he would indeed consider military measures if Soviet weapons were found in Cuba, once his hand was forced, he played the rest of the game pretty well.
We'll see. Then we can wait and see how quickly the wingers run out to hand the credit to Republicans for their neo-con policies of the last 15 years and to downplay anything the president achieves as lucky bumbling.
Damn! Now we have Julia Ioffe of the New Republic saying Obama got played by Putin and Assad. Another wrinkle in this fucking fabric:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114655/obama-syria-policy-octopus-fighting-itself
Just a some quick thoughts about George (The White Avenger) Zimmerman.
This guy is a powder keg with a lit fuse. He will kill someone else.
And soon.
Kate could offer a more acute diagnosis but this guy is a time bomb.
He's a hater, but also a coward. Someone who probably sleeps with a gun under his pillow. He never goes anywhere without a weapon, probably two or three. And he's a self-pitying bully, a guy who sees himself in the situation of the classic right-wing victim, put upon by women, minorities, the media, liberals and gun control types. Just read some of the tweets from his brother to see how well he inhabits the role of the long suffering martyr.
He sees himself as a cowboy hero, a tough guy cop, a protector of the peace. But in reality, he's a little guy, an out of shape wimp, and a quisling weasel without his gun. He can never be the kind of Law and Order macho man he has always pictured himself. Without some serious counseling and intervention, he remains mired in his never to be realized fantasy world, fueled by hate and rage, bereft of hope.
He very likely blames Trayvon Martin--and by extension, all African-Americans, for the whole mess. He's probably unemployable in any decent job. I mean, would you hire this scumbag? Even if he was the best candidate, would you want the kind of scrutiny this guy brings along for the ride?
He still has outstanding bills to pay, despite his mountain of right-wing blood money, his wife is divorcing him, and every time he stubs his toe (as he likely sees an assault on his wife and her father), he makes breaking news in every low power TV station and six page rag in the country.
It's possible that someone else would breathe a huge sigh of relief at having escaped the chair and move on with their life, taking full advantage of a huge second chance.
But not this guy.
Tick, tick, tick.
About Zimmerman; Right On Akhilleus. George is 29 years old, does anybody know what he has ever done for a living? Big guns are compensation tools for small dicks.
Re Syria; Putin has a lot at stake in keeping el-Assad in power in Syria. Primarily Russia's monopoly on supplying natural gas to much of Northern Europe. The Quatar pipeline from the Arab oilfields, that Assad refused to allow across Syria, would have been a major threat to Russia's income. The second benefit to the US is it puts some restraint on the Wahabe Muslims of Saudi Arabia. A very interesting turn of events.
Must be a frustration to the neocons like Chaney, Wolfowitz and the president who went to his knees to kiss the hand of Saud in Crawford Texas.
About Zimmerman. My guess is that he will be killed, and fairly soon. Perhaps by his brother, who seems to have the unenviable job of being his keeper.
@James Singer-
I have thought for awhile that George Porgie would commit other crimes, but if he gets himself killed, I think it will be a "Victim Precipitated Homicide," and he will be shot by the police--possibly pretending to go for a gun he is not carrying. Then the whole world will know he was "innocent" all along!
@Akhilleus. I blame the Florida legislature, America's Second Worst Governor, the NRA & ALEC for the death of Trayvon Martin as much as I blame Zimmerman. The legislators & Scott don't seem to understand the purpose of legislation, which is to protect the public. Laws are written precisely to guide & control people like George Zimmerman, who cannot on their own figure out the right thing to do (or don't give a flying fuck).
In pursuit of the goal of protecting the public, laws privilege the less powerful over the powerful, even when that power is transitory. Ergo, "the pedestrian always has the right-of-way." You may be lawfully driving your car down the road & a pedestrian may unlawfully step off the curb in the middle of the street, say, but you do not have the right to run him down because you were obeying the law & he was not. You, by means of your auto, are temporarily more powerful than the pedestrian, & you have to cede to him. It would not be in the best interests of society, much less of the careless pedestrian, if you could drive around picking off jaywalkers.
Stand-your-ground laws stand that basic principle of governance on its head. They give the more powerful -- the guy with the gun -- an edge over the person without one. They are contra the purpose of governance, not to mention common sense.
Zimmerman's wife said the other day that the "not guilty" verdict gave George "a sense of invincibility" (or words to that effect). But he had that sense before, & what gave him that sense was the Florida law (which Scott & the legislature have recently declined to revisit) that reads, "You can go nearly anyplace you want, gun in hand, & shoot whoever you want, as long as you claim you did so because that whoever skeert you, & you was sore afeared." (Possibly an inaccurate quote.) This, & other lax gun laws, go against the primary purpose of governance. It is certainly not in the best interest of society to have vigilantes going around shooting "suspicious" or "scary"-looking people. Look what havoc just one zealous fraidycat has sowed, & will continue to sow -- according to one report I read, he claimed that his wife & her father were the aggressors & he was just "defending himself."
Marie
@ James Singer; Like a lot of folks responding to this site you; to my way of thinking, have great insight. I agree, Mr. Zimmerman is "drivin' that train" and that notion just crossed my mind. He's like a moth to flame or in his case, fame.
Me? I skate on a murder charge, you would never hear of me again.
Reminds me of the type that start fires and then call the fire department for public acknowledgment. "Trouble ahead, trouble behind..."