Even when we already know the likely outcome of some events, we can still be amazed at how some of those events unfold - and how persons involved in those events can justify horrible outcomes as acceptable.
Take the case we looked at Tuesday, of the young man who was murdered in Florida. Trayvon Martin was killed by George Zimmerman, a man with a history of violent arrest, disturbing the police, and racism. With all these strikes against him, Mr. Zimmerman was still allowed to have a concealed weapons permit, in the state that originated the '"Stand Your Ground' law. In the first five years since that law was enacted, "justifiable homicides" tripled in Florida - often because people who were unstable and prone to paranoia are allowed to carry guns.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that even if Trayvon Martin hadn't been the victim of George Zimmerman's paranoia and racism, another unlucky young person might have been.
In that same spirit of insane stupidity, Congressional Republicans, led by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, announced their budget plan for 2013 on Tuesday. To say that this year's version of the Ryan Plan is insanely stupid would almost be an insult to how brilliantly bad it is.
The all-new Ryan Plan has some similarities to the original "Path To Prosperity" that Rep. Ryan released last year - for example, significantly raising the cost of health care for the elderly, through a voucher system. Although that idea went over like a lead balloon last year - even with Republicans - Ryan put nearly the same points in his plan this year.
Of course, that one bad idea isn't nearly enough for us to call the Ryan Plan "insanely stupid."
On top of a plan that would significantly increase medical costs - especially for the elderly - the new Ryan Plan would also raise taxes on the poor, and freeze the pay of Federal workers for five years, while giving a $3 trillion tax cut to the rich and big corporations. It would also cut most parts of the safety net, while massively boosting military spending - which means that the Republican Congress also would break the budget and deficit control agreement they made with Democrats in August of 2011.
That doesn't seem to really be a concern, however, for Rep. Ryan or the Republican talking heads who support him on this, as the new Ryan plan would also blow a massive hole in the deficit, with no real way to control spending at any time in the foreseeable future.
All this in an election year, when Congressional Republicans need political successes to run on, if they expect to be successful in this fall's elections.
Of course, that assumes Republican voters will turn out to vote for their candidates this fall. If Republican turnout this autumn is like that in the Illinois primary on Tuesday - where only 24 percent of Republicans turned out to vote, the worst turnout in 70 years - having a successful political platform to stand on will be the least of the GOP's problems.
Let's make it perfectly clear - this "budget" put forth by Rep. Ryan was never meant to be an actual budgetary document. Not only was this version of the Ryan Plan missing all kinds of specifics - including one of the most important details... an honest accounting of how to pay for the thing. This document was in no way a compromise - and it wasn't meant to be.
Real budgets have details, they figure out how to pay for everything - and they're configured in a way designed to win enough votes to become law. This "plan" was nothing more than a statement of dogma that now guarantees Republicans in both the House and Senate will have no significant budget successes to show their constituents this fall.
Politically, for Republicans, the new Ryan Plan is a cannon full of stupid, aimed right at the heads of the GOP.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure how this one is likely to end either.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Perspectives On Injustice
Many of you who follow the NCAA basketball tournament more closely than our small group does were probably pulling your hair out - or tearing up your brackets - after this past weekend's games. For those of you that have a bracket you pass around your workplace, chances are good you came back to work on Monday to the news that a colleague who doesn't even care about basketball is beating nearly everyone else.
At the time, this may seem like a cosmic injustice to you - but we know it's one that you'll live with, and even forget soon.
Sadly, though, the family of 17–year-old Trayvon Martin won't soon be forgetting what appears to be the unjust murder of their young son.
While we've been reading about the story in the local Florida news for a few weeks now, we chose to wait to focus on it until more of the facts had come out. Here's the quick version, according to multiple legitimate sources, in case you haven't heard it yet.
Trayvon Martin, a seventeen-year-old from Miami, was visiting his father's house in a gated community, in Sanford, Florida, in February of this year. Trayvon was watching the NBA All-Star game when he decided he would run down to the corner 7-Eleven, at halftime to get some candy and iced tea.
On the way back, Martin crossed paths with George Zimmerman, a "neighborhood watch leader," who had a history of violence and abusing the cops, as well as questionable behavior. Zimmerman focused on Martin, followed the young man, even calling 9-1-1, saying Martin looked "like he's up to no good." Witnesses said Martin seemed to be trying to run away from Zimmerman, even as the Sanford police dispatch told Zimmerman to stop following the young man.
Zimmerman didn't stop following Martin. In fact, Zimmerman appears to have hunted the seventeen year old down, shooting and then killing him.
While the incident is an injustice by itself, what has happened after - or rather, what has NOT happened after the killing - is the real injustice.
Zimmerman used a law that originated in Florida, and has since spread to sixteen other states, known as a "Stand Your Ground" law - though to civil justice proponents, the law has become known as a "shoot first" law. In short, the law extends the traditional "castle law" provisions that most states have regarding their home to an individual, and the area around that person. If you believe that your life and safety is in danger, you can use deadly force to defend yourself, even if no one else has attacked you first.
So even though law enforcement knew that Zimmerman had shot and killed the young Mr. Martin, since Zimmerman claimed he felt his life was in danger, the police didn't arrest Zimmerman. The Sanford police also didn't drug test the shooter, or test him for virtually any other reason either. Even though Zimmerman had a history of repetitive, abusive, and even violent confrontations with the police, the local officials did nothing.
Did we mention that Zimmerman is white, while Martin was black?
In today's America, where a sizable contingent of one of our two major political parties seems intent on returning us to the social mores prevalent in the 1950s, including racism and virtually nonexistent access to birth control, this story ultimately isn't a surprising one. The story of Trayvon Martin is one that few honest Americans would be have been surprised to see coming from the Deep South, in the 1950s.
This isn't the 1950s, though - or the Wild, Wild West.
The idea that someone saying their life is in danger gives them the power to kill anyone they choose, without repercussion, is - on its face face - an unjust law, not befitting a modern society like ours.
Since the local Florida police appear incapable of doing this case any justice, the Justice Department is now looking into the case. Zimmerman may yet prove not to be completely guilty - but that won't change the injustice of the "Stand Your Ground" law.
It won't bring back Trayvon Martin either.
At the time, this may seem like a cosmic injustice to you - but we know it's one that you'll live with, and even forget soon.
Sadly, though, the family of 17–year-old Trayvon Martin won't soon be forgetting what appears to be the unjust murder of their young son.
While we've been reading about the story in the local Florida news for a few weeks now, we chose to wait to focus on it until more of the facts had come out. Here's the quick version, according to multiple legitimate sources, in case you haven't heard it yet.
Trayvon Martin, a seventeen-year-old from Miami, was visiting his father's house in a gated community, in Sanford, Florida, in February of this year. Trayvon was watching the NBA All-Star game when he decided he would run down to the corner 7-Eleven, at halftime to get some candy and iced tea.
On the way back, Martin crossed paths with George Zimmerman, a "neighborhood watch leader," who had a history of violence and abusing the cops, as well as questionable behavior. Zimmerman focused on Martin, followed the young man, even calling 9-1-1, saying Martin looked "like he's up to no good." Witnesses said Martin seemed to be trying to run away from Zimmerman, even as the Sanford police dispatch told Zimmerman to stop following the young man.
Zimmerman didn't stop following Martin. In fact, Zimmerman appears to have hunted the seventeen year old down, shooting and then killing him.
While the incident is an injustice by itself, what has happened after - or rather, what has NOT happened after the killing - is the real injustice.
Zimmerman used a law that originated in Florida, and has since spread to sixteen other states, known as a "Stand Your Ground" law - though to civil justice proponents, the law has become known as a "shoot first" law. In short, the law extends the traditional "castle law" provisions that most states have regarding their home to an individual, and the area around that person. If you believe that your life and safety is in danger, you can use deadly force to defend yourself, even if no one else has attacked you first.
So even though law enforcement knew that Zimmerman had shot and killed the young Mr. Martin, since Zimmerman claimed he felt his life was in danger, the police didn't arrest Zimmerman. The Sanford police also didn't drug test the shooter, or test him for virtually any other reason either. Even though Zimmerman had a history of repetitive, abusive, and even violent confrontations with the police, the local officials did nothing.
Did we mention that Zimmerman is white, while Martin was black?
In today's America, where a sizable contingent of one of our two major political parties seems intent on returning us to the social mores prevalent in the 1950s, including racism and virtually nonexistent access to birth control, this story ultimately isn't a surprising one. The story of Trayvon Martin is one that few honest Americans would be have been surprised to see coming from the Deep South, in the 1950s.
This isn't the 1950s, though - or the Wild, Wild West.
The idea that someone saying their life is in danger gives them the power to kill anyone they choose, without repercussion, is - on its face face - an unjust law, not befitting a modern society like ours.
Since the local Florida police appear incapable of doing this case any justice, the Justice Department is now looking into the case. Zimmerman may yet prove not to be completely guilty - but that won't change the injustice of the "Stand Your Ground" law.
It won't bring back Trayvon Martin either.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Who's Really Afraid Of The Coming Storm?
While the weather the past week has been unusually and ridiculously warm, the week ahead appears to be filled with storms and rain for much of the United States. In a similar way, the political storm that's been brewing in the GOP for most of the last quarter century appears to be breaking open and raining political cats and dogs all over the 2012 hopes of the GOP.
The fact is, we've been telling you for most of the last four years that there would come a day when the moderate Republicans would have to fight the insane, extremist faction of the GOP for control of their party. So it would be easy for us to simply laugh and point at the Republican Party, say "We told you so," and walk away.
That's not who we are, though. So we're going to help you see today which major political party has really put aside some of its more extreme tendencies for the good of the people - and which side is still putting party before country.
In Nebraska, for example, it's been interesting watching how each major political party has operated with respect to the soon-to-be open U.S. Senate Seat currently held by Sen. Ben Nelson.
For the Democratic side, even though former NU Regent Chuck Hassebrook originally was running for the Democratic nomination, after some careful consideration, he decided to drop out and support former U.S. Senator Bob Kerrey. Instead of raining massive amounts of money on a pointless primary campaign against Kerrey, Hassebrook did the sensible, logical, and respectable thing, and did what was best for both himself and Nebraskans. After all, Hassebrook himself acknowledged that Kerrey holds most of the same core beliefs, to "make the tough choices for hard-working families, the poor and those who are struggling to hold their grip on the middle class or trying to claw their way into the middle class."
That's exactly the opposite of what Nebraska Republicans are doing.
Even the fairly conservative Omaha World-Herald openly admits - there aren't many significant differences between the three major candidates on the Republican side. Yet the three GOP candidates - who, like the Democrats, agree on most of their core beliefs - have all been trying to either openly or quietly undercut their primary competition in very questionable ways.
The three Republicans match up with each other in many ways. Current Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning is young, has made many mistakes, and is politically unseasoned. However, Bruning has a significant history in Nebraska politics, and has even made a national name for himself a few times - though not always in a good way. Nebraska State Treasurer Don Stenberg has plenty of political experience, even running a close race with Ben Nelson in 2000. But Stenberg has run for U.S. Senate three times, and has lost all three races. State Senator Deb Fischer has plenty of state experience, and solid connections with many in Nebraska's third congressional district. Bruning has a dominant lead in both direct and indirect campaign finance support, however - much of that money coming from sources outside Nebraska.
For Republicans like Mark Fahelson, Nebraska state GOP Chair, this political season is the perfect storm for Republicans. Fahelson is the one currently holding the lightning rod for the Nebraska Republican Party, in the middle of this political storm. If the state fails to elect a Republican for virtually any position - but especially a high-profile position like U.S. Senate - the extremist Republicans will want someone to pay for losing a seat they believe belongs to them. Fahelson will be the one they'll likely zap.
Much like the national Democratic and Republican presidential races, while the Democrats may not always agree with each other on every topic, it's quite obvious most Democrats are willing to put the needs of the American people before their own personal political goals - which continues to give them more confidence. On the Republican side, however, every candidate is out for themselves in the hopes of controlling a party being torn apart in this political storm.
Meanwhile, candidates like Bob Kerrey and Barack Obama just keep steadily working towards the nomination of their political party, ducking the rain of the falling GOP candidates.
There's a lesson in this for the GOP, on virtually every level this year. We have extreme doubts, however, that the egos of their candidates will allow them to weather this storm very easily.
The fact is, we've been telling you for most of the last four years that there would come a day when the moderate Republicans would have to fight the insane, extremist faction of the GOP for control of their party. So it would be easy for us to simply laugh and point at the Republican Party, say "We told you so," and walk away.
That's not who we are, though. So we're going to help you see today which major political party has really put aside some of its more extreme tendencies for the good of the people - and which side is still putting party before country.
In Nebraska, for example, it's been interesting watching how each major political party has operated with respect to the soon-to-be open U.S. Senate Seat currently held by Sen. Ben Nelson.
For the Democratic side, even though former NU Regent Chuck Hassebrook originally was running for the Democratic nomination, after some careful consideration, he decided to drop out and support former U.S. Senator Bob Kerrey. Instead of raining massive amounts of money on a pointless primary campaign against Kerrey, Hassebrook did the sensible, logical, and respectable thing, and did what was best for both himself and Nebraskans. After all, Hassebrook himself acknowledged that Kerrey holds most of the same core beliefs, to "make the tough choices for hard-working families, the poor and those who are struggling to hold their grip on the middle class or trying to claw their way into the middle class."
That's exactly the opposite of what Nebraska Republicans are doing.
Even the fairly conservative Omaha World-Herald openly admits - there aren't many significant differences between the three major candidates on the Republican side. Yet the three GOP candidates - who, like the Democrats, agree on most of their core beliefs - have all been trying to either openly or quietly undercut their primary competition in very questionable ways.
The three Republicans match up with each other in many ways. Current Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning is young, has made many mistakes, and is politically unseasoned. However, Bruning has a significant history in Nebraska politics, and has even made a national name for himself a few times - though not always in a good way. Nebraska State Treasurer Don Stenberg has plenty of political experience, even running a close race with Ben Nelson in 2000. But Stenberg has run for U.S. Senate three times, and has lost all three races. State Senator Deb Fischer has plenty of state experience, and solid connections with many in Nebraska's third congressional district. Bruning has a dominant lead in both direct and indirect campaign finance support, however - much of that money coming from sources outside Nebraska.
For Republicans like Mark Fahelson, Nebraska state GOP Chair, this political season is the perfect storm for Republicans. Fahelson is the one currently holding the lightning rod for the Nebraska Republican Party, in the middle of this political storm. If the state fails to elect a Republican for virtually any position - but especially a high-profile position like U.S. Senate - the extremist Republicans will want someone to pay for losing a seat they believe belongs to them. Fahelson will be the one they'll likely zap.
Much like the national Democratic and Republican presidential races, while the Democrats may not always agree with each other on every topic, it's quite obvious most Democrats are willing to put the needs of the American people before their own personal political goals - which continues to give them more confidence. On the Republican side, however, every candidate is out for themselves in the hopes of controlling a party being torn apart in this political storm.
Meanwhile, candidates like Bob Kerrey and Barack Obama just keep steadily working towards the nomination of their political party, ducking the rain of the falling GOP candidates.
There's a lesson in this for the GOP, on virtually every level this year. We have extreme doubts, however, that the egos of their candidates will allow them to weather this storm very easily.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)