That's it...?

So, the President finally decides to comment on the killing of Chris Lane:

"As the president has expressed on too many tragic occasions, there is an extra measure of evil in an act of violence that cuts a young life short. The president and first lady's thoughts and prayers are with Chris Lane's family and friends in these trying times."

That's it? Nothing about who could look like whose son, no big condemnation of a culture of depravity?  Just "a measure of evil"?  This is an enlightening moment.

Cowardly.

Folks...it's the law!

Frivolous and foolish prosecution...and that's what you get. Why should a wrongly accused defendant - one that the police had already decided had defended himself in accordance with the law and should have been spared indictment and prosecution - have to mortgage his life to pay to defend himself against politically motivated prosecution?

Let the state that allowed itself to be pressured into this misguided prosecution by political hacks pay for it.  Let the political machines that pushed for the government to bring an unnecessary case pay for it.

Where's the outrage? [Part II]

Where are the bleeding hearts who were so in evidence for the Martin case on this crime?  This is another example of someone who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and was assaulted and ultimately murdered by two inhuman thugs.  I wonder if, had Mr. Belton been armed and defended himself if this would be getting any more attention?  Sadly for him, he suffered the fate that many seemed to wish upon Zimmerman.

If such tragic crimes are "about race" - as we were admonished by Sharpton, Jackson, Maddow, Perry, ad nauseum - then why is this not in the news, why are people up in arms over the clear racial implications of this and a few other recent similar tragedies?  And if you really want something to ponder, imagine if the white equivalents of Al, Jessie and so on were to show up screaming bloody murder over this and calling for blood!  There is no question that they would be called racists.

Why was one tragedy (in which there were self-defense implications) worth so much attention while others are less important? Well, let's look at the major difference.  Hmmm - is it the race of the victim(s) or the race of the perpetrators?  Is it that highlighting crimes in which the victims are white and the killers black violates some desired narrative?  Isn't the issue crime? 

I am generally not a conspiracy theorist, but even the most rational among us must wonder why crimes with white perps and black victims are headlines and crimes with black perps and white victims are not.  What is the story we are being sold, what is the image being reinforced?  Why is someone, some group out there, so intent on manipulating the news and public opinion, so intent on creating a narrative of victimhood for blacks with whites as predators?  It is hard to see the true intention as one in which race is no longer an issue; it is more clear that the intent to to create a revenge scenario.  It is clear that peaceful coexistence is not the goal, it is vengeance.  It is clear that eliminating a power structure is not the goal, but simply turning it over.

On the 50th anniversary of the "Dream" speech, it seems the dream has changed a great deal.  Hand in hand has become hand to throat or gun to head.

UPDATE:  Of course, this afternoon on MSNBC, Joy Reid was whining that to equate, in any way, the Zimmerman/Martin tragedy with events like this one or the Oklahoma murder was creating "false equivalence".  I agree, they are sadly not equivalent at all except that, in all of these cases, young men chose to initiate violent physical assault.

George Zimmerman was physically assaulted and defended himself against the attacker.  His attacker chose this course and, sadly for him and his parents, paid a price for his decision.  These more recent cases were nothing more than cold-blooded gang-type race-related violence and murder.  At level of the fatal act, then, there is no equivalence at all; one (the one liberals choose to focus on) was an act of self-defense (Again - why do they choose this one, what is the agenda?), the others were wanton, craven murders.  And the death of those assaulted in these recent cases would seem consistent with MSNBC and their like-minded viewers' world view; those who were assaulted should allow themselves to be killed.  After all they preferred that Zimmerman die rather than defend himself and now, with these cases, they have their many pounds of flesh, but one can be sure no lesson learned.

To many, these cases highlight the need to protect themselves from irrational violence and the psychopaths who commit it.  It is why they will not give up their rights to those who expect them to die before defending themselves, to run, to hide, to cower.  These events are, quite sadly, the justification for the saying that "It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6".  People are not willing to die for your social experiment.

In the end, given no choice to be left alone and unmolested, it is better to be George Zimmerman than Dilbert Belton.

Pardon the **** out of me!

Well...part 1 of this report is not shocking - that a wanton murderer who killed for fun, out of boredom, and has no remorse was also a wanna-be gangster who posted numerous threats and admissions of violent behavior on the net.  Let's be honest - this is another young man who thinks he can wreak havoc indiscriminately. But, son - you picked the right "woods" apparently so you got to walk away once too often.  It is a bizarre reality when one can either die at the hands of such young men or stand trial for defending themselves against them.  It's a game to them - but this ain't no game to some of us.  With no good answer, survival becomes the only option.

What is even more shocking is that the sheriff seems to think it means nothing; “I’m not discounting the stuff that’s on there, but they do that for shock and effect.”  Was it shocking - did it have an effect?  Moron.  So posting threats so as to sound tough should not be taken seriously, even when those who posted them now stand accused or murder.  "He was such a good boy" they always say.  Pardon me if that makes zero sense.  Kind of like saying "Oh, tweets like that are just child's play; he'd never hurt anyone".  Right.  Poor kids, boasting of violent behavior. Nothing to see here.  It was all bluster, until it wasn't!  Just kids having fun!

Then, it gets worse when we get the eternal wisdom of an Australian to add to the mix:

"I am deeply angry about this because of the callous attitude of the three teenagers (but) it's a sign of the proliferation of guns on the ground in the USA," Tim Fischer, former deputy prime minister of Australia, said this week. "This is the bitter harvest and legacy of the policies of the NRA..."

Right - you note the callous attitude, but the cause is not that soullessness, not a degradation of values, not rampant psychopathy and disrespect, not the moral vacuum among many of today's youth, not a failure of parenting, schools, leaders, role models, not a failure of those who read such tweets and discount them.  No, it is the NRA's fault that these kids chose to kill someone. 

With all due respect (which is not much), you Numbnuts-from-a-land-down-under; the kids were driving a car - they could as easily have run the victim over.  I guess if that had happened it would be the bitter harvest and legacy of policies of the AAA?

The tragic death of one of your countrymen at the hands of degenerates who deserve a fate worse then they visited upon him or will ever see does not buy you the credibility to be telling us how to live.  So, do us a favor and STFU.

UPDATED:  Interestingly enough, this article emerged on the heels of numbnuts pontificating about how gun-free and crime-free things are in the Land Down Under.  Right - we can see how your police feel about the idyllic land that Australia has become after your gun ban.  So civilized, so righteous, so wrong.

What price, security?

Of course Ray Kelly would say this.  It merely echoes what many others say about the NSA spying on us.

This clearly demarcates the divide between those who would give up liberty for security, those who would rather live cowed and on their knees if it means someone is watching over them and those who know life is risk, life is unsafe, and it is only our freedom that makes the risk worthwhile, that part of a full life is meeting it on your feet, face forward.

Is a life with no liberty precious enough to justify giving up our freedoms?  If New York City would let law-abiding citizens defend themselves then they could be secure AND free.

Victims of tragic events are not experts!

Why is it that people who experience tragic events are immediately granted credibility on whatever they choose to speak about?

Why do we care or should we listen to what Trayvon Martin's mother thinks about anything?  Yes, she tragically lost her son - we all know that story of a young man who made a mistake and assaulted a lawfully-armed citizen.  We know what she thinks about that.  She deserves our sympathy because no parent wants to lose a child, no matter the reason.

But suffering such tragedy does not make one an expert, does not lend credibility to their voice on issues of parenting, stand your ground, the right to keep and bear arms, or stop and frisk laws.  Living through such circumstances should not be a ticket to fame, fortune, or wider social commentary.

This is not about race; too many other victims of such tragedy of all races have been granted such a pass.  It is not about the law - I do not agree with stop and frisk laws, nor the militarization of our police forces.  It is simply that Sybrina Fulton or any other parent who suffers similar circumstances is not qualified to speak on such issues.  They are qualified to tell us how traumatic it is to lose a child.  But if emotion, if the loss of a child to senseless violence, were compelling evidence of failed policy, we would have never gone into Iraq, left Afghanistan long ago and American drones would not leave the ground.

Such people only gain credibility in a childish world that thrives on and over-values emotion as some magic source of wisdom.

Perhaps...

...we could lend them a few drones?  That always seems an acceptable way to kill civilians!

Sad to say that this President cannot help but sound foolish and disingenuous these days when he condemns others' behavior around the world - given that he is, more often than not, condemning actions that are not so different from things he is doing.

No, he is not yet committing violence against his own civilian citizens (just spying on them), but he is droning civilians in other parts of the world.  He provides material support to regimes like this one around the world.  His hands are not clean. 

But this approach has become typical for him - complain about the system that he is part of as if he has nothing to do with it.

Where's the outrage?

So - where's the mural (if you do not know what I mean search for Trayvon and mural) and media on this story?  Where's Rachel or MHP to extol on the status of "race relations"?  Where are the Reverends Al or Jesse?  Doesn't this at least merit some self-reflection? 

When will Joe Biden chime in and tell us all that "If I had another son he might look like Raymond!".  Well, actually no, he probably wouldn't, since this young man looks pretty normal, while Joe is, well, pretty hideous. 



But that's not the point, is it?

After all, if it is about race and racial injustice and not about crime, then all of those vultures should be circling this case by now.  After all, the familiar phrase was that Martin was shot for walking while black - seems like Widstrand was beaten for walking while white.  Good thing he wasn't armed - he might be on trial by now.

Come on - those public faces that seem to want to see social justice when it suits them should be out there on this one, too.  It might buy them a little credibility.

But it's not and they won't.  It is about opportunism, about misdirection.  It makes all of it smack of manipulation.  Move along, nothing to see here. 

At least Mr. Widstrand is out of the coma at this point.

Thank you, Florida Sheriff's Association UPDATE

Friday, the Florida Sheriff's Association came out in support of Florida's Stand Your Ground Law.

“The right to self-defense is well-established in law. The Florida Sheriffs confirmed this position by voting unanimously, at the 2013 Florida Sheriffs Association Summer Conference, to support the Stand Your Ground law as it is currently written," said FSA President, Sheriff Grady Judd.

And, no, Huffington Post - we are not "stuck" with Stand Your Ground; while you and others might not like it, we are fortunate to have it and to have legislators and sheriffs who will defend it from those who would like to see us defenseless.  If you and others would stop making things up about it we would appreciate it.

UPDATED:  This decision while unanimous among those in attendance, was not a consensus view of the full FCS membership. 

As reported by the Huffington Post, Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel noted that if he had been in attendance, he would have voted against it.  He was quoted as saying "I support an individual's right to use armed self-defense when faced with the immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury, and without requiring any duty to retreat in one's own home. However, if there is a safe opportunity in other settings to retreat and de-escalate potentially deadly violence, it should be done. For this reason, I support legislative changes to more narrowly restrict the use of the Stand Your Ground defense."

Again it is a case of someone who should be knowledgeable in the law and the practicalities of real world self-defense expressing an erroneous interpretation.  "Into one's home"?  What has that got to do with duty to retreat?  Castle doctrine is well established.  But now, with a gun in my face on the street, you do not expect me to retreat to my home?  Gee, thanks!

I guess it makes sense that a sheriff, who would never have a duty to retreat from the threat of lethal violence and who is duty bound to approach danger, would think that making such decisions more difficult is a good idea.  I am sure he and his mean never need think that far ahead if someone pulls weapon on them.

Sheriff Israel: You are suggesting that a person, assaulted, battered, threatened with deadly force should be required to actually call a time-out and think through the potential for a safe retreat.  Perhaps you should require the same of your officers.

UPDATED SOME MORE:  Huffington further noted, in reference to the Volusia County Sheriff, that "The Sheriff supports the right of citizens to employ deadly force with no duty to retreat in order to defend themselves while in their homes or vehicles," a spokesman for Volusia County Sheriff Ben Johnson told the Daytona Beach News Journal. "However, when out in the open and facing a threat, the Sheriff believes citizens should attempt to retreat if possible before using lethal force."

Once again, one has to wonder why a policeman's life is more important than a civilian's - I doubt Sheriff Johnson will be asking his deputies to do likewise and retreat.  I can only say again - what type of mental calculation is the law-abiding citizen being asked to make here - Is this a threat?  Is this a lethal threat? Can I turn and run without suffering lethal assault? All of this in the split second when a threat, a weapon, are shoved in your face?  Again I ask - do you want your deputies to do this is they approach a vehicle and the driver shoves a gun out the window at them? [We have all seen enough dash cam and other footage to know that if does not go down that way].

Flagler County Sheriff Jim Manfre agreed that the law should revert back to the more-limited castle doctrine suggesting that "When legislation confuses people, that begs for repeal," Manfre told the News Journal.  Sheriff Manfre:  Do you not think a law that establishes a duty to retreat if it can be done safely is also a bit confusing?  Doesn't it seem that one only knows the definitive answer to that after the fact?  And wasn't it just that detail that lead to so many conviction for failure to retreat?

In the end, for most of these sheriffs in disagreement, this seems an "okay for me and not for thee" approach.  And because of that, they seem to have little appreciation for what they are asking the armed civilian to do and why a law that lifted that unrealistic requirement was passed.

Pandering BS

This is total pandering BS - if you cannot come up with good ideas that people will support, then why not see if you can blame their disagreement on race.  This is just plain sad, playing off of all the recent race-baiting themes.

Sorry, Harry - you're a tool to try to pull this!  One can disagree with a person or president without it being about his race; just like a person can be shot in self-defense without it being about his race.

Misapplication of SYG?

I simply do not think that the Stand Your Ground law is being applied accurately in this case.

Florida law notes, it seems to me, that the presumptions for self-defense do not apply if:

"The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity".

This is a 17 year-old illegally in possession of a firearm - is that not an unlawful activity?

From the Obama becomes Bush files

This hubris and hard-headedness is enough to make one truly believe that it does not matter any longer who is president.  This is the world that 9-11 wrought.

This petulant childish behavior is enough to make one wonder how anyone (including me) ever thought Obama would be an improvement over the childish oppositional defiance of Bush. 

So - let's see:  The Obama administration, via the NSA leak, gets caught spying and outed by one of their contracted.  Of course, having committed to changing the tone in Washington, DC, to bring a new era of openness to government, Obama's response was immediately to acknowledge this over-reach and let the citizenry know what was going on.  Yea, right.  Instead, in their best Bush/Cheney imitation, he and his administration ask Putin for the head of Edward Snowden on a plate - and if you won't give it to us, we will stomp our feet and refuse to talk to you.  For one moment, imagine the tables were turned - as they have been before - and think about what would happen.  Honestly, when will Americans realize that the rest of the world no longer cares much what we think?

Wait - maybe it was not Snowden, but Russia's new law banning "gay propaganda"? See, what I do not understand here is why a nation that has been taken over by the notion cultural relativism - we cannot even question each others norms - the view that all cultures have value and must be understood on their own terms - now so vehemently wants to tell other cultures how to live. 

What the world see of us?  They watch our technological superiority lead to nothing more than mechanized remote-controlled death to mostly innocent civilians, creating more animosity and hate toward us as a nation.  They watch our government act like cold war Stalinists, wanting to bury any one who exposes their totalitarian-like surveillance of the population.  They see our society, wallowing in its own depravity, trying to tell them how to set their house in order.

No secret - I was an Obama voter (not supporter) - I have explained that before.  But his increasingly childish and petulant behavior, his continuing blatant political and partisan grandstanding and use of race-based maneuvering at the expense of presidential leadership, and his continuing adoption of Bush policies of confrontation abroad have taken away the luster and replaced it with bluster.  I have begun to cringe at the sound of his voice, much like I did with W.

Don't know this guy...

...but I like him (from Huffingtion Post).



"I don't support changing one damn comma of the 'Stand Your Ground' law," Gaetz told the Tampa Bay Times Friday. "It would be reactionary and dangerous to make Floridians less safe to pacify uninformed protesters."

He is absolutely right.

Ah. Reverend Al!

Ran into this picture today in a Huffington story about a defamation settlement all these years after the Tawana Brawley debacle.  There's Reverend Al (no, its not Barry White) - a much younger and more portly Reverend Al - standing behind her.  All these years alter and the huckster is still there, doing his usual shtick; a little (mis)information, a lot of emotion, and grabbing headlines.

Some folks have no shame.

This is what happens when people do not know what they are talking about...

Ah - if enough misinformed people ("dream defenders") whine they finally get attention.  As with most misinformation on the topic, the telling line says that Stand Your Ground (SYG) "...allows the use of guns in self-defense."  That is not what SYG does - the allowance for the use of deadly force - including a knife, a firearm, a club, and so on - for self-defense (in defense of one's own life) is part of self-defense law and has been for centuries.  The only thing that SYG did was remove the legal requirement to retreat if at all possible without putting one's self in lethal jeopardy.

So - this is simply a squeaky ignorant wheel getting greased.  If the only way you can create indignation is to misrepresent the law, then you have no rational argument.  It is a sign of the decline of Western Civilization that people no longer balk at talking about things they know nothing about and could learn about if they just chose to read. Just yell louder - it will enhance your credibility.

Even more disappointing are some of the comments:

1.  Karen notes:  "Zimmerman didn't use "Stand your Ground" in his defense, because then he would have had to answer the awkward question of why Martin didn't have the same right to stand his ground. So even if they repeal it, it'll still be perfectly OK to pick a fight with an unarmed black kid and shoot him dead in Sanford, FL."

Let me start by trying to make this simple; Martin could not have done so because he was not in lethal jeopardy (one of three required conditions for the use of deadly force - that must first be met before SYG has meaning).

Now, Karen...I know state laws are pretty boring shit - but it IS important if one is going to talk about such issues that they at least give it a try.  So check out FL Statutes so you can know what you are talking about.  SYG is one small provision in the context of justifiable self-defense.  I'd really like to take the time to spell it all out to you, show you why you are wrong, but you would not believe me anyway, since you KNOW the truth. 

Suffice to say that, if you read that chapter of FL Statutes you would see that one must reasonably believe that their life is in danger to use lethal force in self-defense.  If Martin thought that then he must have been high.  There is no evidence - even at autopsy - to suggest that Martin was assaulted prior to assaulting Zimmerman; his fatal injury was secondary to his assault and battery of Zimmerman.  I know - evidence sucks, but it is what it is.  Martin had nothing to stand his ground about (and he could have kept on walking).

You see, this is where you sound clueless.  The law does not say that if someone follows you or uses harsh language at you or questions you for being who you are, the color you are, or where you are, then you can assault them.  That would not be standing your ground - it would be assault and battery (as it was in this case).  The evidence, from both defense and prosecution, shows that this is what Martin did.  He had no lethal threat to retreat from (or stand his ground against).

2.  Next, JohnnyJ decides to flaunt his ignorance:  "It empowers people to attack when they feel threatened. With an insanely armed sub-population who tend to be somewhat scared already (why else buy a gun, except the small minority that actually hunt). It is a product of ALEX and the NRA and needs to go"

Again, please feel free to use the link above to read the law - it would be better than reading the Brady literature as this was their tag line when SYG passed - as it has been every where it passes.  Yet there has been no evidence of shoot outs int eh streets and, BTW, murder rates are down.

If you read the law you will find that there is nowhere in the law about "feeling threatened". The standard is reasonableness - as in "would a reasonable person believe their life was in danger".  But, again, this has nothing to do with SYG - it is merely the standard self-defense law that is in effect in all 50 states and other countries - it has been common law for centuries.  Again SYG added one small phrase in the self-defense law that says "...does not have a duty to retreat".

So, as usual, people feel strongly about things they know nothing about.  In fact, they prefer to exist on strong feelings and no information.

Once more - in the context of this case:

- Stand your ground was not relevant; not because there was some reason to think that Martin might have also been "standing his ground".  He could not have claimed it because all the evidence shows that no reasonable fear of imminent lethal harm existed in him - he even talked about initiating aggression.  SYG was not used because Zimmerman had no ability to retreat.  Even without SYG on the books, had this happened pre-2005, Zimmerman was justified to act in his own defense. SYG was not necessary - pre-SYG one did not have to retreat if they could not do so.

- SYG is one small phrase in a long-existing self-defense law. It says only that one "...has no duty to retreat...".  That does not mean you can go around guns blazing at any one who pisses you off.  It means that, if you are physically attacked by an aggressor, you need not first decide "Gee, I wonder if I can run without getting killed" while someone is beating on you, holding a knife on you or pointing a gun at you.  You know, no need to call a time out in the assault and ponder one's available avenues of escape.

- It remains clear that, given this situation, most of the people who are protesting self-defense law would have preferred that Zimmerman die of murder that night.  The sad and tragic facts are clear - either Zimmerman was going to die that night or Martin was.  Martin made the decision that lead to that inevitability when he decided to pummel Zimmerman - to initiate a physically aggression encounter - a decision that can never be justified in the face of non-physical confrontation (Sticks and stones and...).  Once that happened, one of these men was going to die.  That defines the situation in which lethal self-defense is justified - either the asailant or the target will die.

Clearly - if the law that allows using a firearm to defend one's self from a beating that was likely to be fatal is a target to be repealed, then it is clear that those wishing to repeal it wish that Zimmerman had died that night.

That only adds to the tragedy of this case.

Be honest

So, now folks are up in arms over Jeopardy (and, of course, Alex Trebek) not giving a student credit for his Final Jeopardy response because it was misspelled.

A misspelled response is NOT really correct - even if it is misspelled by a student from Newtown Connecticut.

The BS meter goes off again...

Oh Oprah - I didn't think I could find you even more off-base than I already do; no, it's not a gender thing or a race thing, it a "foolishness thing" - I simply do not buy the new-age crap she spouts and I blame her for Dr. Phil.

But then she comes along to tell us about the true meaning of the Trayvon Martin incident, invoking the murder of Emmett Till sixty years ago.

Look - there's a problem here - an obvious problem. I will not recount all of it, because anyone who really wants to know the details of the Zimmerman/Martin tragedy can find them either here in previous posts or elsewhere. I know it is not comfortable or acceptable to Oprah and many others, but the details of the event are largely agreed upon by experts and have been judged by a court of law. I know that, if one is willing to stop at the level of the race of the decedent and perpetrators, they may be able to manufacture similarities (although Zimmerman is Hispanic, he is a white Hispanic). And, sadly, there are those who prefer to stop at that level of analysis since it suits their agenda.

I will not recount a history that anyone who wants to (and if you are reading or accepting Oprah's opinion, then you should want to) can find. But Till was abducted and murdered in Mississippi for apparently flirting with a white woman. His killers were acquitted.

Till did not assault his killers; Martin initiated and was committing assault and battery at the time he was shot by Zimmerman in self-defense. No flirting with white women, no abduction, none of the mutilation committed in the Till case. The Martin case is a case that could happen, does happen, many times in our nation. One person initiates aggression by physically assaulting another who reasonably believes his life is in danger and successfully defends himself. Given how often it happens, it is not surprise that it will sometimes involves an aggressor and a defender who are of different races; sometimes in one combination sometimes in another. This time it was a black youth committing assault and a "white" defender. To equate that with the Emett Till case is an act of sheer race-baiting in the service and a given agenda.

Let's be honest; Oprah and others know where they want all of this to go, they have a goal. Now they are working hard to find anything they can use, no matter how unrelated, as a means of getting there. If this includes grasping at straws, then so be it. It is not the first time Oprah has said something foolish.

 

I don't love Cheney, but...

God, I hate this!  It is one of those rare times when I have to admit that I half-agree with Boring Joe:  Nope, I will never be able to say I love Dick Cheney, but I have come to believe that Barack Obama was not and is not ready to lead this country; he is an activist who belongs on the streets of Chicago.  Of course my reasons for thinking this are diametrically opposed to Boring Joe's, although we reach a similar conclusion.

I will admit - it should not surprise anyone who has seen what I have written over the years - I voted for Obama.  I will note, in my own defense (since I have unfortunately come to feel I need to defend the decision) that I could not bring myself to even consider voting for a ticket that had Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney on it.  I tend to "vote against" (again no surprise given my previous blogs).  To my mind, such is the great limitation of our system; we get shitty choices and have to pick from them or not participate.

Obama had potential, he had some appeal (independent of completely incompetent competitors) - the great contrast between someone who appeared both intelligent and thoughtful and the 8 years of his predecessor made him appear a viable alternative.  Sadly, in discussing the candidates in 2008 with some people, many expressed concerns that Obama was not ready to lead.  I confess I largely dismissed these based on the fact that Bush had also seemed out of his depth for a full 8 years (as well as not very smart).  At least Obama, it seemed, would be someone who, if over their head, would be smart enough to deal with it.  Sadly, 5 years later, this has proven untrue.

I suppose it should have been somewhat obvious where this might go eventually the night of his election, when African-Americans cheering his victory were shown in the streets celebrating it as meaning that the power differential in the nation had flipped in one night; now they would visit oppression upon others for a change.  I realize this reflects years of a different differential, but the fact that many seemed to think that the answer to that was to flip it, that revenge was at hand, should have been a bad sign. The fact that racism, in whatever form or direction, was not an evil to be shunned, but was to be embraced as long as the target was someone else, was disheartening to one who wanted to see the change that was promised.  Equality is equality, not a compensatory unbalancing.

Flash forward to a president now in a second term with no need to think in terms of obtaining another and I see someone who seems the great chameleon, whose prior words hold little weight.  The great racial chasm in this country has opened even wider - it is seemingly much worse than was apparent heretofore  and divides us more than ever.  I consider it open for debate how much this has to do with one side or the other of this divide.  Flash forward to a president whose first "allegiance" in times of social discord is to his "blackness" (which would be no more acceptable than one who first allied himself based on his "whiteness") than to his role as a president of all people. 

Whether apparent in the events that lead to the famous "beer summit" or in his comments following the Zimmerman/Martin tragedy, this president sadly seems unable to avoid representing his race as president in those times where his activist side takes over, seems incapable of avoiding reverting to community organizing as opposed to leadership.  As Bush seemed to create a presidency where the campaign never ended, so does Obama, confusing rhetoric with leadership.  A national leader should not be taking sides in such issues, but facilitating discussion, attempting to unify the citizenry.

"Change" is a very ambiguous term; I think I misunderstood what he meant.

Holy shit - Speeding!

Damn - we always knew that George Zimmerman was a criminal, at heart.  Why else would he have have been caught speeding in Texas with a gun in his glove compartment?  Clearly he is on a national rampage to break laws.

All right - let's see if we can keep at least some of the panties from getting wadded around he ah!

First; Texas and Florida have reciprocity.  For those out there who have no idea what that might mean (who are also likely the same who think Zimmerman should get prison time for speeding), it means that if you have a valid Concealed Weapon or Firearm License in Florida, you can legally carry as a visitor to Texas - subject to the details of Texas law (which relates to below).  So, the fact that a pistol was concealed in the glove compartment of the vehicle is perfectly legal.

Second; Zimmerman informed the officer who stopped him that he had a pistol in the glove compartment.  Well, I know this will be disappointing to some - but Texas law requires that one inform a law enforcement officer who approaches them that they are carrying a weapon (of note, Florida law does not require this).  Damn - there he goes following the law again - even one in another state. 

Third, let's be honest here; he is carrying for a good reason; if one cannot be stopped for speeding (I am sure none of us ever go over the speed limit or have ever been stopped) without it making the national news and causing major heart palpitations, then it is probably a damned good idea to be armed against all those out there who have made threats against you.  Both the media and many others will be hounding this person for a long time.

So why does this deserve all this attention? Speeding, by a free man, an individual, acquitted of a crime.  Preposterous.