Stand Your Ground Doesn't Figure Into It

As I have heard Trayvon's parents say time and time again, they are not only fighting for justice for their son, they are fighting for all of us, especially those parents who have to live through the misery of burying their child and the sadness that comes after.

Their inspiring leadership has already led to action. In 2012, for the first time in 8 years, not ONE state in our nation passed a new "Stand Your Ground" law. The power of the NRA and their gun-toting cronies in business were stopped in their tracks by the Justice For Trayvon Martin movement. That is an incredible accomplishment. That is the mission we must continue after this trial is over.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russell-simmons/just-in-case-george-zimme_b_3566397.html

I don't know the author, and I hope that the author's genuine emotional engagement in this case will continue to focus on the positive as described in this article. But I wonder - does the author understand what "stand your ground" legislation means? Does the author realize it isn't a part of the TM/GZ case at all?
Does the author realize that "stand your ground" laws just mean that you or I do not have to run before defending ourselves from risk of grave bodily injury?
Each of us is granted the right to defend ourselves from grave harm at our birth. That right is more primal than the law. A law that requires one to run as the first measure of self defense is a violation of your right and mine.
Any law of self defense that requires one to first flee should be seen as an abrogation of our rights.

Just Like OJ

"Ever since Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch organizer, shot and killed Trayvon Martin, an unarmed teenager, on a rainy night in February 2012, critics of Florida-style self-defense laws have used the case to illustrate how eliminating the duty to retreat when attacked in public excuses unjustified violence. They are having a hard time letting go, although by now it is abundantly clear that the right to stand your ground is not relevant to the question of Zimmerman's guilt. "
http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/26/george-zimmermans-excuse

"Reuters reports that "Florida's aggressive self-defense laws" set "a high bar for the prosecution." In reality, that bar is set by the requirement, hardly unique to Florida, that the government prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt."

What? You mean the state has to prove its case, just like in OJ Simpson's case? Such crazy talk ...

The journalism of this tragedy is an additional tragedy.

GZ and TM, Summary

In the face of inconvenient testimony like that, all the prosecution can do is repeat over and over again in a faux-outraged tone that Zimmerman "followed" Martin. But even if one granted the prosecution's unconvincingly sinister interpretation of that scenario, "following" a person is not a crime, much less evidence for second-degree murder. Moreover, why would a neighborhood watch representative call 911 before committing second-degree murder? That makes no sense.

Nor has the prosecution provided any evidence that Zimmerman was the "aggressor" in the confrontation. It is evidently hoping that a hate-crime theory will substitute for evidence. The prosecution's chief witness, Rachel Jeantel (who was on the phone with Martin before the altercation started), acknowledged to the defense that she didn't know who initiated it. Zimmerman says Martin jumped out of the bushes at him, said "What the f-k is your problem, homey?" and then started throwing punches. If anything, Jeantel's testimony to Martin's frame of mind before the fight - he told her a "creep-ass cracker" was following him - lends credence to Zimmerman's account. So, too, do the wounds on his body and the wounds on Martin's hand.

This week a detective in the case, Chris Serino, testified that he tried to fake Zimmerman out in the post-incident questioning by suggesting that the fight might have been videotaped. Zimmerman expressed relief at that prospect, according to the detective: "I believe his words were, 'Thank God. I was hoping somebody would have videotaped it.'" Does that sound like the response of somebody who has just committed second-degree murder?
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/07/03/a-nothing-case-against-zimmerm

This is a horrible case, horrible for everyone involved. It can be a mean, cruel world out there, sometimes, and as a friend used to say, "tomorrow is not promised."

The State has not proved GZ'a guilt - not even close.  If he's acquitted, will the President intervene as he did when the facts were not known and he implied race was an issue in TM's death?

The Percentages

If the EPA were to establish a uniform 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour standard, that would eliminate nearly all coal-fired plants in the United States, which generated about 37 percent of the country's electricity last year. In comparison, natural gas plants generated 30 percent, nuclear 19 percent, hydropower 7 percent, wind 3.5 percent, biomass 1.4 percent, petroleum 1 percent, geothermal 0.4 percent, and solar 0.1 percent.

The president's national climate plan also sets "a goal to double renewable electricity generation once again by 2020." That would mean that wind power would produce 7 percent and solar power 0.2 percent of America's energy by then. For what it's worth, the Energy Information Administrtion estimates the levelized costs in 2018 for conventional coal would be $100 per megawatt-hour; conventional natural gas $67; nuclear $108; wind $87; and solar photovoltaic $144.

http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/28/obamas-climate-five-year-plan

Well, it's a good thing we have a plan, they work so well for the government.

That would mean double the capacity produced by wind/solar/biomass, or double the percent of production?  You could meet the later by keeping the economy tanked, or by spiking nuclear/coal, in which case the only possible growth would be "renewables."  Whether or not flat growth and spiked nuclear/coal would be good, as we grind into poverty, depends upon how desperately you believe that climate change is driven by human activity, and that the outcomes will be a net negative.

My prediction - easiest prediction ever - the government will follow its track record of doing everything wrong as regards energy policy.

Unintended Consequences Rule the Day

"It's a big problem," Bucshon said. "I think ultimately you'll see members of Congress like myself try to address things like the 30- hour definition of a work week."

He believes it will be a bipartisan effort. "People recognize this is an impending storm," Bucshon said.

Unless it's addressed, "We'll become a nation of part-time employees," the congressman said. There are many other issues associated with the Affordable Care Act that need to be addressed.

Even long after the bill was passed, we're still finding out "what is in it" (in the words of Nancy Pelosi). Congress doesn't have the time to write, debate and pass a bill for every unintended consequence that befalls Americans due to the original 2,700 page law. The mess that is ObamaCare cannot be undone by piecemeal legislation like what Congressman Bucshon has proposed. 
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/06/27/obamacare-and-unintended-consequences/

Always the unintended consequences get the teeth in the glutes of those subjected to the coercive force dreamed up by the political class.

Population Bomb, Part II

One of the biggest concerns for the leaders of the world is figuring out how to feed all of us as the global population swells. Everything from eating bugs to restructuring the global agricultural system has been pitched as a solution to our food woes. And now an updated forecast of the future size of humanity is going to make this enterprise even trickier.

According to earlier projections by the United Nations, we were looking at feeding just under 9 billion people. Then, two years ago, this estimate was revised up, to 10 billion by 2100. Now we’re looking at closer to 11 billion people by the end of the century.

What’s 2 billion people? It’s about 2.7 Europes. Or 6.4 Americas.

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/2013/06/the-world-is-heading-for-11-billion-people-this-century/?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=socialmedia&utm_campaign=20130628&utm_content=smartnewsworldpopulation2

Humanity's track record for predicting disasters - 0%, or wrong every time.  Not that one shouldn't be concerned with these issues, but calling them "our" issues is a complete distortion of the issue.  Folks just struggling to make their next meal don't have any concerns about issues like this.  Tyrants hustling every day to keep the people down have no concerns about this.  The presumption that "we" have common interests in these long term issues is absurd, many of us do not.  Even more troubling is the notion that "we" should be trying to think of global mechanism of force to make big changes happen.  These never work, but probably would make things worse.

"The Sky Is Falling!"

Back in the late 1960s, when I was a callow youth with no common sense to speak of and a huge, misshapen ego, the Big Scare energizing the United Nations, the foundation world, the leaders of civil society and the intellectual establishment of the day was the Population Bomb. It's hard for young people today to understand how terrified, urgent, self righteous and utterly convinced the Population Bomb movement was. The closest analogy today is the global green movement and its apocalyptic warnings about climate change. The Population Bomb worriers didn't have as many grassroots organizations in support of their agenda as the greens do today, but the establishment, the mainstream press, and the great and the good were even more worried about the Bomb then than they are about global warming today, and the forecasts we were getting were even more dire.
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/06/27/the-demographic-blues/

The insight in the Chicken Little story was profound.