The Root Cause?

So I am currently reading The Better Angels of our Nature by Steven Pinker. In a nutshell this is a book that wishes to explain that today's world, particularly the "western world" is far less violent than the world of antiquity (including the old "West") or even the recent past. While I will reserve commentary on the overall summary until I've finished reading the entire 1007 page tome, I will take the time to comment on one aspect that I've noticed from the first 200 pages.

Pinker generally asserts that as humanity moved from "nature" to settled civilizations with stable governments which featured a monopoly on violence, the levels of violence in those societies (measured in the book by the rates of homicide expressed as x per 100,000 persons) decreased. His data shows that Western Europe enjoys the lowest levels of violence (less that 1/100,000) and America, while relatively safe is at a "shocking" 10/100,000 or thereabouts.

When we look closer at the American data presented we are shown that in early American history violence by European-Americans and African-Americans (blacks) were about equal but as you moved through time the levels of violence among African-Americans increased (or failed to decrease) while that of European-Americans declined. Of note was that both Southern blacks and whites were and are both more violent than their northern counterparts but that is not the focus of this entry. So what is the focus? If Pinker's data is correct then the violence seen by the African in America cannot be explained by culture or lack thereof. Nor can it be explained by "inherent" predispositions on the part of the African. Clearly the "fact" that Europeans and Africans of America's early history exhibited the same level of violence means something else is at fault. We are forced to ask why Black violence in America is so high. Pinker, prior to disclosing the data explains that the success of the Leviathan lies in the ability of the state to not only foster an environment where people can conduct profitable business but where the state is trusted to mete out fair justice to all parties. The ability to provide justice (and protection) would be the means by which interpersonal violence is prevented in a society. Any somewhat bright person would see that in the case of the African in America the state totally failed on both grounds.

While we can agree that the American state became very efficient at creating a safe environment for it's white subjects, It is clear that it did not do so for it's African ones. While the state encouraged business creation and ownership among it's European citizenry as well as providing "justice" and "safety"; when it was not making it's black subjects into property, it was allowing African persons to be killed with impunity and stripping them of so called "god given rights of man".

If Pinker is correct that the reduction in violence among white citizens of the United States was a result of a more effective and "fair" state apparatus, then it can also be argued that the 500+ years of a state apparatus that acted to dispossess the African and clearly disfavor him in the courts is directly responsible for the levels of violence seen in African-American communities.

If we cannot make this argument then Pinker's entire thesis is worthless, no?

I, Robot Revisited

Back in 2004 I wrote a piece that was inspired by my viewing of the movie "I, Robot" (one of my top sci-fi movies in terms of futurism). I wrote then:

Specifically I was struck by the displacement of humans in many jobs. I, robot takes place in 2035, when yours truly will be in his 60's. at that time it appears that robots are rubbish collectors, babysitters, cooks, janitors even bartenders. My question was, what happened to the people who usually do these jobs? It is presumed that those persons are enjoying life, free from the mundane work of life and can go about their business. The problem with that assumption is that the movie clearly shows that there are classes of people. Smith's character rides in an Audi. The CEO of USR is clearly well off and Smith's character, Audi notwithstanding seems to live in a less than upscale apartment relative to the female lead. It is quite clear that some people made more than others and lived different lives. Therefore there still must be some means of making money. As we know, all throughout human history, where there is class there are those who are deprived. Clearly, everyone cannot be an accountant or a programmer and clearly even if they could, there would not be enough jobs to go around. So where are these people in this 2035 Chicago? Is there some huge welfare state going on?

Today I read in the NY Times about the push to automate factories in both the US, China and elsewhere:

Yet in the state-of-the-art plant, where the assembly line runs 24 hours a day, seven days a week, there are robots everywhere and few human workers. All of the heavy lifting and almost all of the precise work is done by robots that string together solar cells and seal them under glass. The human workers do things like trimming excess material, threading wires and screwing a handful of fasteners into a simple frame for each panel.

China already has a problem in which it graduates a huge number of college graduates but does not have the capacity to employ them. Many of these persons go to work in factories. As these factories are increasingly automated this critical pressure relief valve will no longer be available and unemployment will be rampant along with the social issues that follow.

On the other side, businesses without customers cannot long stay in business. People must have currency in order to purchase goods (and services). Clearly the top dollars are not being paid to those connecting fasteners and screwing in screws. As I suggested in 2004, unless there is a massive welfare state in which citizens are paid to "pursue happiness" rather than "employment" the automation of the workplace will lead to a lot of problems.

50 Shades of Nazism

From the NY Times

The winds of isolation and narrowness are blowing through Israel. Rude and arrogant power brokers, some of whom hold senior positions in government, exclude non-Jews from Israeli public spaces. Graffiti in the streets demonstrates their hidden dreams: a pure Israel with “no Arabs” and “no gentiles.” They do not notice what their exclusionary ideas are doing to Israel, to Judaism and to Jews in the diaspora. In the absence of a binding constitution, Israel has no real protection for its minorities or for their freedom of worship and expression.

We can see that the "leadership" of Israel has indeed learned much from Fuhrer. Did not the Nazis believe that Germany was an "Aryan" state where "lesser" humans (if considered that) were to be excluded and were eventually excluded?

Did not the Nazis decide that they could kill off those who were "not German"?

Did not the Nazis decide that going to war with it's neighbors was a proper means for protecting the fatherland and purging Europe of the "vermin"?

Of course there will be those reading this that will say "oh he goes too far". I say to let history speak.

The Purpose of Foreign Trade

foreign trade and economic development have been used to concentrate economic power in the hands of dominant nations. What is really going on is covered up with do-good verbiage and formal models. In reality, trade and development are ways to colonize countries that think they are independent.

I believe brother Nkrumah called this "Neo-colonialism".

from Counterpunch

Kinds of Slaves

‘Chains are for the slave who has just become a slave, who has… just been brought across the Atlantic,’ Boubacar said. ‘But the multigenerational slave, the slave descending from many generations, he is a slave even in his own head. ‘And he is totally submissive. He is ready to sacrifice himself, even for his master.

From the Daily Mail

"Misspoke?"

It was reported that Mitt Romney offended Palestinians when he made yet another "Anglo-Saxon values" type of speech in Israel. Stating:

As you come here and you see the GDP per capita, for instance, in Israel which is about $21,000, and compare that with the GDP per capita just across the areas managed by the Palestinian Authority, which is more like $10,000 per capita, you notice such a dramatically stark difference in economic vitality,"...

"And as I come here and I look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things," Romney said, citing an innovative business climate, the Jewish history of thriving in difficult circumstances and the "hand of providence."

Ahh the "hand of providence" otherwise known as The White Man's Burden. Not that I expect much different from a Republican, but that isn't really a story. Why? Because it is actually the opinion of those in power in Israel.

Meanwhile on Sunday, Israeli daily Maariv published an interview with Interior Minister Eli Yishai, in which he stated that most of the "Muslims that arrive here do not even believe that this country belongs to us, to the white man."

So if this is the actual opinion of those in Israel and it is on the record then what has Saeb Erekat Been reading that had him make the following statement:

"It seems to me this man lacks information, knowledge, vision and understanding of this region and its people," Erekat added. "He also lacks knowledge about the Israelis themselves. I have not heard any Israeli official speak about cultural superiority."

There are a couple of possibilities. Number one is that he simply does not know of the statement. If he doesn't I would find that pretty shocking. It's not every day that government ministers go on record with some White Man's burden commentary.

Surely those in charge of intelligence gathering in Palestine keep an eye out for such statements. The second possibility is that Saeb Erekat may consider himself "white". In which case he identifies the same way as the Israeli's as it pertains to the African migrants, the presence of whom was the subject of the linked quote. It would explain why he apparently missed the not too long ago statement made by an Israeli government minister.

Constitution-Fil-A

I've sat in amazement as I've watched people, particularly those on the left, talk about Chik Fil-A's founder's position on marriage and the subsequent threats that have been directed at potential franchisees of said business. And while there has been much outrage over the position of Chik-Fil-A's founder, there has been far less commentary devoted to the reactions of certain mayors in regards to the threats they have posed to US democracy.

This isn't the first time this year that so called 'pro gay rights" folks have completely dropped the Civil Rights ball in their quest for so called "equality". Earlier this year Manny Pacquiao expressed his religion based position on homosexuality by quoting a verse in the Bible that generally states that such persons should be stoned. Not that I personally agree with such a position but it's supposed to be "America" where two things are supposedly sacrosanct: speech and religion. The owners of The Grove in LA said that due to Pacquiao's comments he would be banned from the LA mall. While many people went on and on about Manny's statement, nobody, not a single person from the "gay rights" crowd or the so called "equal protection" crowd expressed alarm over a place of public accommodation blatantly violating the law and in particular the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You know, the one people like to beat over your head when there are threats of racial discrimination.

See; as is usual around these parts of late, the Civil Rights of certain people, usually those of an unpopular opinion or religion (often one and the same) are up for grabs when they apparently conflict with the morals (or lack thereof) of another more popular group. Let us be clear on the law: no place of public accommodation may prevent a member of the public access based on their race, religion, color, creed or sexual orientation. Period. What the Grove did was no different at all than the public threats and actions of Bull Conner. Yes, I said it and it's a fact. And that is bad company to be keeping. Unless Manny Pacquiao had made a threat to the public such as threatening to stone or otherwise harm anyone he saw in The Grove that he considered homosexual or was disturbing the peace, or any other immediate and present danger to the public at large or patrons of The Grove then The Grove has no legal basis to deny him access. Enter Chik-Fil-A. Anyone who has been paying attention (apparently that would be few of us) knows that Chik-Fil-A was founded by what we would call conservative Christians. The stores are not open on Sundays in order to observe the Protestant/Catholic Sabbath. In light of this to be surprised about the founder's position on marriage amounts to a whole lot of wishful thinking on the part of those so disposed. But in reality the position of the founder is of little relevance because the constitution, that pesky piece of paper, protects his right to his position as well as his right to open up any legal enterprise that meets all municipal codes and adheres to the rules laid out by the 1964 Civil Rights Act as it pertains to public accommodation

Apparently this little legal issue was forgotten by certain elected officials who oddly took some sort of oath to uphold the constitutions of both their state's and the country's. Shocking I know. Just like with The Grove, these persons completely lost sight of their obligations under the law and threatened local franchisees with denied permits to do business based on the religious based opinion of the franchise founder. Imagine that? Would you like to have your employment based upon your association with someone who you are connected to in some weak way who has an opinion that your potential employer doesn't agree with? Are we going there now?

What was conspicuously absent from the threats agains Chik Fil-A was any charge of discriminatory practices in it's corporate HQ or at any one of it's local franchises. Not one of the talking bobble heads could point to any case where a homosexual, black, Hindu, Muslim or disabled person was discriminated against in any of the franchise locations. Not. A. One. Think about that. A store being threatened with denial of service by local governments for not discriminating against its customers. That's some bullshit. You may think that this is preposterous but it isn't. By threatening local franchisees with an illegal and unconstitutional denial of permits and the like based on some third party's opinion is exactly what is being proposed. That these mayors have to be reminded of this rather than they (except Bloomberg) didn't brush such idiocy aside from the beginning shows exactly what these people are about.

The way I see it, the mayors who proposed such nonsense should be out on their asses come the next election based on this single issue (and I'm not given to single issue voting). Why? Because it is clear that they do not understand what their primary job is and it is clear where their priorities lie. A head of government who is willing to break the law to punish a business with the resources to fight is definitely willing to break the law to punish the "little person" who does not have such resources. That should concern the citizenship. As for Chik-Fil-A the options are clear. If you the potential customer does not agree with the opinion of the founder then by all means avoid spending your money in that place. If you don't like that the corporate entity has donated to a cause you disagree with, by all means, Do not shop their. It is really that simple. Nobody is forcing anyone to spend money with people or entities with whom they have a moral issue with. However a bright line is crossed when the government steps in to police the free speech and free exercise of religion and association of citizens. That should bother you far more than what the folks at Chik-fil-A are going on with.

Money Vs. conferences

Yesterday Negroes were esctatic that Obama made an executive order to "study" African-American education. I read the piece and noted that there were no, zero, zilch new monies directed at Black schools, school districts, teachers therein or anything of the sort.

Today the NY times reports that Obama signed a $70 million for the defense of the state of Israel.

No new money for African-americans. CITIZENS who are tax payers. But $70 million for Israel.

Who's the damn fool here?

So Mugabe Had it Right?

The NY Times on the results of the "land grabs" by Mugabe:

Before Zimbabwe’s government began the violent and chaotic seizure of white-owned farms in 2000, fewer than 2,000 farmers were growing tobacco, the country’s most lucrative crop, and most were white. Today, 60,000 farmers grow tobacco here, the vast majority of them black and many of them working small plots that were allotted to them in the land upheavals. Most had no tobacco farming experience yet managed to produce a hefty crop, rebounding from a low of 105 million pounds in 2008 to more than 330 million pounds this year.

The success of these small-scale farmers has led some experts to reassess the legacy of Zimbabwe’s forced land redistribution, even as they condemn its violence and destruction.

But amid that pain, tens of thousands of people got small farm plots under land reform, and in recent years many of these new farmers overcame early struggles to fare pretty well. With little choice but to work the land, the small-scale farmers have made a go of it, producing yields that do not match those of the white farmers whose land they were given, but are far from the disaster many anticipated, some analysts and scholars say.

So essentially, had the British lived up to their obligations to "compensate" white farmers so that the land resettlement could have gone peacefully there would have been a better outcome. However; because the British did not live up to their obligations and instead sought to demonize Mugabe, Mugabe lived up to his promises to *his* people and now after the forecasts of doom and gloom and all manner of "western" interference, the people are actually benefiting from the decision of one Robert Mugabe.

And mind you this is just Tobacco.

San Diego Reader Magazine Headline: “No One Likes Black Girls”

From the San Diego Reader

Do note that the picture they used is of a black child with clear European or other non-African ancestry. The purpose is not to nit pick at what "black" child is presented but you would think that if one is going to write a piece in which one discusses how people do not like black girls, one would put a black girl on the cover. Particularly one with "motherland" black hair that "naps up" into little beads when allowed to grow naturally.

For those who don't know of what I speak of, see below:

You will note the texture of the hair. I know some o' y'all haven't seen such a thing up close and personal.

[update] apparently the actual piece: http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2012/jul/11/cover-afro-puffs/ Is about something ENTIRELY different. Fell for the click bait. [/update]

Independence? What Independence?

From the NY Times this morning.

On Wednesday, a Kenyan oil official told Reuters that the country was canceling an agreement to import up to 80,000 barrels of oil a day from Iran after Britain warned Kenya that it could run afoul of the sanctions.

Exactly how does a former exploitative colonizer (is there any other type) have the gall to tell it's former victim whom they can do business with and what "sanctions" they are going to impose if they do? That's pure bullshit.

Here I thought Kenya was an independent nation. An independent Kenya would have been able to tell Britain what cliff to jump off of and do business with whomever it pleased.

Israel: Jihadist Example?

But many former jihadis here say they have put their faith in elections, starting with a vote for a Libyan national assembly expected next month. “We want our politics to be like Israel,” said Mosab Benkamaial, 25, referring to the Jewish state’s melding of religious identity and electoral democracy.

Who would have thought Israel as a model for an Islamic state.

More CIA

This is either the leakiest US administration ever, or the powers of imperialism have simply decided that operating under silence and denying everything is no longer necessary. In any case it is pretty clear that the more we see events unfold in the Middle East, the more Iranian president Ahmadinejad with his claims of US intervention in it's internal affairs is made to be, well, true. The latest: Admission that the CIA is aiding the rebels in Syria.

A small number of C.I.A. officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian government, according to American officials and Arab intelligence officers.

Now I'd like to remind the reader of many Democrats who in the run-up to the 2008 election loved to talk about how we didn't want "McSame" in office. I suppose because it was better to have a Democrat in office than yet another Republican. I'll point out to the reader that it was just this week that McCain was blasting the Obama administration for not taking action in Syria, such as arming the rebels. Shall I assume then that "McSame" is OK with Democrats now?

Anyway. What pray tell are our tax dollars being spent on?

The weapons, including automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, ammunition and some antitank weapons, are being funneled mostly across the Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries including Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood and paid for by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the officials said.

Wait wait wait. So the CIA is sending RPG's and the like to the Muslim Brotherhood? Does ANY of this sounds remotely familiar? Paid for by Turkey? *laughing out loud* Sure. If you say so.

Oh The Irony

Back in the 30's a certain person named Hitler decided that the Jews were a "problem". He felt that they were not in keeping with what he considered the true "German character". He felt that the Jews were not really German, not really white and perhaps not so human. What did Hitler do? He rounded them up, put them in camps and eventually decided that it would just be better to kill them off.

As a result millions of Jews died. The "western" powers decided to give a piece of land, inhabited by Palestinians (among others) to the Jews as some sort of recompense for ignoring their plight for a while and the state of Israel was born.

You would think that the descendants of folks who had gone through such horrors would know better than to do certain things but their behavior never ceases to amaze those familiar with their history. The latest? African immigrants being rounded up, put in detention centers and eventually deported because they are not white and not Jewish.

At a recent protest fanned by right-wing politicians, one lawmaker described the Africans, known here as “infiltrators,” as “a cancer in our body.” Later, Africans’ stores and apartments were attacked...

The interior minister, Eli Yishai, has vowed to clear the country of all illegal immigrants within three years....

Mr. Netanyahu told his cabinet that Israel was “building holding facilities to house tens of thousands of infiltrators until they can be sent out of the country.”

Oh the irony.

Israeli White Supremacy

Every now and then, white supremacists who inhabit "official" positions. Those who are granted a level of acceptability and title, forget that they aren't supposed to say what is clear to anyone who is paying attention. But they, in their hubris, in their sheer unshakable belief in their own rightness, their own supremacy, do. Latest example: Israel (friend of Apartheid era South Africa):

Meanwhile on Sunday, Israeli daily Maariv published an interview with Interior Minister Eli Yishai, in which he stated that most of the "Muslims that arrive here do not even believe that this country belongs to us, to the white man."

Now given that "Muslim" is not a racial categorization and therefore not the equivalent to the concept of "white man", we understand that what is actually being said here is that Israel is a "white man's country" and all the non-whites (AKAL Niggers of various hues and faiths) can be there only as white folks, most of whom emigrated from other countries, deem appropriate.< p/> Mind you, as I've written earlier I don't have a blanket objection to the "white man's country" theme. I believe Europe to be the "white man's country". If they don't want non-whites among them, I think it's fair. What I find objectionable is when white men colonize other people's land and start talking that "white man's country" nonsense.

Israel is but one example of this phenomenon. The current president of Iran highlighted this contradiction quite well but because of how the US/"Western" media works, his words have been mistranslated (on purpose as far as I'm concerned).

This is something that folks should think about when none other than "non white" Obama goes in front of AIPAC pledging undying support for Israel. But then again why would this president stick up for Africans. It's not like he is one or related to one.

Wait.....

Never mind.

Africans don't vote or put together $40,000 ticket fundraisers.

Back to the story though.

Every now and then it happens. Take note.

Double Standard

It seems this week the NY Times is really putting out information on how much the Obama administration is like the Bush administration. Today's piece is on cyber warfare against Iran

From his first months in office, President Obama secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer systems that run Iran’s main nuclear enrichment facilities, significantly expanding America’s first sustained use of cyberweapons, according to participants in the program. Mr. Obama decided to accelerate the attacks — begun in the Bush administration and code-named Olympic Games — even after an element of the program accidentally became public in the summer of 2010 because of a programming error that allowed it to escape Iran’s Natanz plant and sent it around the world on the Internet. Computer security experts who began studying the worm, which had been developed by the United States and Israel, gave it a name: Stuxnet.

A good commenter pointed out the obvious problem:

B2BNV FLAG An article in the NY Times one year ago: "Pentagon to Consider Cyberattacks Acts of War" By David Sanger and Elisabeth Bumiller Published: May 31, 2011 WASHINGTON — "The Pentagon, trying to create a formal strategy to deter cyberattacks on the United States, plans to issue a new strategy soon declaring that a computer attack from a foreign nation can be considered an act of war that may result in a military response."

Yup. So if Iran were to Cyber Attack the US, it is an act of war worthy of a military response but if the US does so to Iran and they retaliate militarily, Iran is the bad guy. I'm sure such logic works well for Americans, even the so called "pro black" ones who up until 2008 had a problem with such things. Don't expect a peep from most of them now. They'll be too busy talking junk about Booker, West and Smiley.

What Obama and Ray Kelly Have In Common

I was very disturbed by the "kill list" article I posted about yesterday. While that quote I posted served to show one of the main points I have made about the current administration, further reading showed some other disturbing policies.

It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent. Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good. “Al Qaeda is an insular, paranoid organization — innocent neighbors don’t hitchhike rides in the back of trucks headed for the border with guns and bombs,” said one official, who requested anonymity to speak about what is still a classified program.

When I read that I thought of the NYPD Stop and frisk policy. This Find and Kill policy is essentially the NYPD tactic on a global scale. In NY, if you are black, live in a high crime area, you are assumed by the authorities to be a criminal. On the global scale if you are 'Muslim", male and live in an area where Al-Qaeda (or the Taliban, they are not the same) runs things or has a base, then you are assumed to be a terrorist. Innnocent? Too bad, so sad.< p/> When we consider the video of an Al-Qaeda stronghold in Yemen That it is clear that not everybody "of military age" is a member of Al-Q. If Al-Q has taken over a city what options does any male have? Does that mean that simply being under rule of Al-Qaeda make you a terrorist?

What if we applied such logic to 9-11. What if Bin Laden had said, Well since the WTC housed a segment of govt. authority (Port Authority) anyone in the vicinity or under their control who are "of military age" are valid targets? No? Yes?

It would seem that US policy is essentially: You are all the enemy.

How Far We Have Fallen

Last night I was very disturbed to watch NYC Mayor Bloomberg and Schools Chancellor Walcott make an announcement in regards to teachers who have been accused of sexual assault or inappropriate behavior. From the NY Times:

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said on Tuesday that the city should have the final say on whether teachers accused of sexual misconduct should be fired, even if hearings determined that they should keep their jobs.

So the city, meaning the Mayor or the Chancellor should be able to overrule the "due process" procedure which would have found a particular teacher should keep their job (likely due to the lack of evidence to substantiate the claim of misconduct).

This is like saying that a judge should simply overrule a jury decision simply because the judge thinks the defendant ought to go to jail anyway.

How is it that a mayor of a city on the United States presumes that due process has no place in a country where citizens are guaranteed due process rights?

Mr. Bloomberg, arguing that the union wants to protect its members more than it does students, proposed a new state law that would give the city’s schools chancellor, or any school superintendent in New York State, the ability to override an arbitrator’s decision and fire or penalize a teacher in a sex-misconduct case.

Read that again. Bloomberg actually went on record that he is opposed to the concept of due process. Furthermore, rather than the teacher's union being praised for standing up for the due process rights of it's membership, they are being painted by Bloomberg and the media as "protect members more than students". That is absolute bunk. Supposedly in the United States, a person who is accused of a crime must be proven guilty. Sexual misconduct with a student (minor) is a crime. Why are persons who are supposed to uphold the state and federal constitutions seeking to publicly eviscerate them? Why aren't they being called to task for it?

“There is simply no reason that teachers accused of sexual misconduct should have greater job security than other city employees,” said Mr. Bloomberg, who was joined by several state superintendents’ groups at a news conference at Gracie Mansion. “The fact that they currently do is wrong; it is dangerous; it is indefensible.”

Really? No reason? It is "wrong" for the accused to be proven guilty? It is wrong for the accused to have a vigorous defense? This is wrong? I get it. We wish to protect children. I agree with that. If the city wishes to remove a teacher from the classroom when a report is made, I can understand that. Better to be safe than sorry. However; there must be due process that is binding on all parties. If such conduct is proven then the teacher ought to be fired and appropriate criminal actions taken. If there is so much concern about teacher student behavior, put cameras in all the classrooms and other places where teachers and students are. But to have a situation where someone who is accused faces just about all the penalties of being found guilty of a crime, without due process and despite due process is a total disregard for the letter and spirit of the law of the land. Such changes to the law would make it very easy for students who do not like a teacher (for any number of reasons, bad grades come immediately to mind) to report him or her for 'sexual misconduct".

I Didn't Say It

A story in the NY Times entitled "Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will" Contained the following:

A few sharp-eyed observers inside and outside the government understood what the public did not. Without showing his hand, Mr. Obama had preserved three major policies — rendition, military commissions and indefinite detention — that have been targets of human rights groups since the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Now a lot of people get upset when I point out some of the issues I have with the current administration. I have been consistent in my position that if it was wrong under the Bush administration it is still wrong under the Obama administration. That if it is unconstitutional then it is unconstitutional. Period. I'm not going to change positions on principle because I happen to think the current president is a cool fellow, a fellow "person of color" with a brilliant wife.

Let us be clear, If you were gnashing your teeth at Bush and upon reading the above have already formulated excuses, then you are a hypocrite. I'm not even going to mince words with you. YOU are a hypocrite.

If you'd like to reason that there are things that presidents have to do, I will accept that on a limited basis. The qualifier is that if that is the case, don't serve me with the "change" mantra. Just admit that politricks and politricks and you're willing to play the game. Just be straight up with yours.

Zimmerman, Alexander and Stand Your Ground.

A lot of fire has been directed at Florida's Stand Your Ground law that was brought to international attention due to the shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman. A lot of this fire comes from "Liberals" who take the position that Stand Your Ground laws are "dangerous" and likely inherently racist. The problem with most of the commentary (and petitions) about Stand Your Ground is that most of it completely mis-represents what the Stand Your Ground provision is actually intended for.

In brief the Stand Your Ground law was passed in Florida in response to a situation that a homeowner found himself in after a hurricane. Under then current Florida law it was only legal for a person to use deadly force against a person if that person was in their home or vehicle. This was a part of the classic English Common law Castle Doctrine. That is, you are free to defend your home and property from harm.

The hurricane had damaged the home and so the owner parked a RV of some sort on his property and was using that for shelter. While he was in that RV a person seeking to loot the owner's property entered the RV and menaced the occupant. The occupant leveled and fired upon the intruder, killing him.

That action put him in a legal quandary. He was not in his home, nor his car, and it was questionable as to whether the RV would be viewed the same way as a home. In response to this the Florida law was enacted allowing a person to defend him or herself from an attack anywhere they had a legal right to be.

Unlike say, NYC where the law is that one is obligated to try to avoid conflict and may only use force if there are no other options available to you, the Stand Your Ground law did not place such a burden on the victim.

Since the law has been enacted it has been reported that more people have been claiming "Self defense" under Stand Your Ground for shootings that we assume would not have been covered. I say assume because since there were no trials, we cannot know for certain how many were bonifide cases of self defense and how many were cases of "dead men tell no tales". This brings us to Zimmerman and Alexander.

George Zimmerman, who is facing trial, has claimed that his actions were covered under Fl. Stand Your Ground statute because he was attacked by Trayvon. Indeed the police initially let him go based on that claim.

In stark contrast we have Marissa Alexander who has been sentenced to 20 years for simply firing a gun at a man who was attacking her, but who has killed no one.

Gray began calling her names, saying "If I can't have you, nobody going to have you," and blocking her from exiting the bathroom.

Alexander pushed past Gray and went into the garage where she got her gun from her car's glove compartment. Gray told prosecutors in the deposition that Alexander came back into the house holding the weapon and told him to leave. He refused, and what happened next is somewhat unclear. In his deposition, Gray said "she shot in the air one time," prompting him and the children to run out the front door. But when Gray called 911 the day of the incident, he said "she aimed the gun at us and she shot."

From the Huffington Post:

A judge threw out Alexander's "stand your ground" self-defense claim, noting that she could have run out of the house to escape her husband but instead got the gun and went back inside.

The contrasts here are clear. In the case of Zimmerman the fact that he exited his vehicle to confront/follow Martin was not seen as an immediate disqualification of the Stand Your Ground defense as it was with Alexander. Clearly if Marissa Alexander was supposed to leave the scene, then Zimmerman too ought to have left the scene. If the court is consistent, the mere fact that Zimmerman left his vehicle will be enough to have him convicted of a crime (though I'm not sure if that would be murder 2).

Secondly, Rico Grey had a restraining order against him. Therefore it was clear to the courts that he was a threat. After all they *approved of the restraining order*. Alexander was in a place she had a right to be retrieving her property with the expectation that she would not confront Grey.

If we look at the origins of Florida's Stand Your Ground statute you'll see that Alexander's position most closely resembles it's original intent. She was in a place she had a right to be in. A man whom was a known threat to her, who should not have been within a certain distance of her appeared, in violation of his restraint order. That made a threat to Alexander that could be taken as a threat to her life. And most importantly, Alexander did not shoot the supposed victim. Rather her "warning shot" had the effect of securing the premises without loss of life, unlike Zimmerman.

If Alexander can be jailed for 20 years for shooting a gun in the vicinity of someone who was threatening her in a place she had a right to be in, One would expect a convicted Zimmmerman to face far more time than that.

In the end though I don't have a problem with "stand your ground" laws. I think citizens ought to maintain their right to defend themselves, their property and others against assault. What needs to happen though is that it should be crystal clear as to what constitutes self defense.