Stand Your Ground here to stay

In most cases if you get tried for committing a crime and are found not guilty you are then free to go back to living the life you were living before being charged with a crime.  If your name is George Zimmerman, however, your troubles are far from over after a jury exonerates you. 

He was already tried and found guilty by the media and people of a certain political persuasion long before his trial took place, and nothing short of a guilty verdict would have kept them from continuing their pursuit of what they have decided is justice.  His detractors seem to have two main demands now that he’s been cleared of second degree murder: that he be charged by the federal government with violating Trayvon Martin’s civil rights and that the Stand Your Ground law in Florida be repealed.

I have heard nothing beyond pure conjecture to suggest that racism played a role in Martin’s death, so any federal civil rights charges would have to be based purely on political pandering.  So of course it’s entirely possible that it will happen, especially given the level of “integrity” that has been exhibited by our current scandal-plagued Attorney General Eric Holder.

As far as the Stand Your Ground law goes, I’m not the first to point out that many other states (including Georgia) have similar laws, but the protests and threatened boycotts (the state has already lost the opportunity to see Stevie Wonder play live for the foreseeable future) seem to be aimed solely at Florida.  That’s because people who are prone to big public displays of outrage are motivated by what they read in the news and not by logic or good, solid information.

I put the odds of Florida’s Stand Your Ground law being rolled back at less than 10%.  The fact is those laws are quite popular in conservative states like Florida and are strongly supported by Second Amendment proponents.

Frankly the whole “duty to retreat” idea that these laws replaced in states like Florida and Georgia is a little confusing to me anyway.  I’m trying to picture myself in a public place, wearing a sidearm and having some menacing individual approach me with the intent to do me harm.  Imagine that the law says I have to try and escape before I can shoot this threatening individual. 

Do I have to run until I hit a wall?  What if I trip and fall and they are able to overtake me before I can get my gun out?  I’m not very coordinated, so that’s a real concern.  If you’re armed and convinced that your life is in danger it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to try and beat the aggressor in a footrace.  You’re much more likely to show him your gun and let him decide if he wants to meet his maker or be on his way.

Just in case the law doesn’t get changed, I have some helpful advice for anyone who is concerned about someone shooting them and using Stand Your Ground to get out of being punished for it.  Note that the law only allows someone to shoot you if they fear that you present an imminent physical threat to them. 

So here’s my advice: don’t attack or threaten to attack people in public places.

Let’s say, for example, you’re walking down the street minding your own business when someone starts following you and proceeds to question you about your identity and destination.  I’d advise you to answer them with words, not your fists.  Do not - let me repeat this - do not respond by climbing on top of them and pounding their head into the ground.  That’s risky behavior and could end up getting you shot.

Always keep in mind that there are a lot of idiots in the world of all shapes, sizes, and colors, and some of them have guns.  I assume every obnoxious stranger I run into might be armed, so I try to avoid getting into fistfights (even when they are acting like fools) unless they start swinging first.  I believe that if Mr. Martin had lived by the same philosophy he’d still be alive today.

A coup by any other name

Like the other 650,000 Department of Defense workers who are affected by the sequestration-driven furloughs, I’ll be staying home from work today without pay.  Unless Congress decides to show us some mercy our pay will be reduced by 20% for the rest of the fiscal year.

And if we continue on the path we’re on now, things will be much worse for federal employees next year.  Even if they furloughed all of us for the maximum 22 days the law allows the DOD would still be way over its projected budget for next year. 

Instead of furloughs, next year there could be layoffs.  Massive layoffs.  I’ve seen estimates that say 100,000 active duty, civilian, and contract workers could lose their jobs because of the projected budget cuts.

As of now though there doesn’t seem to be much sign that anyone in Congress is motivated to do anything about the sequestration cuts despite the fact that military officials have made it clear that they have dangerously impeded their ability to carry out their mission and protect our nation.  Congress apparently has more important business to attend to right now.

For example, they are currently embroiled in a fight over whether or not we should carry out a scheduled $1.5 billion payout in aid to Egypt in light of the fact that the military has seized control of the government.  Apparently there is a law that would prevent us from giving them the aid if what has happened over there could be classified as a military coup of a legitimately elected government, so those who support giving them the money are finding creative ways to frame the situation so that it’s classified as, well, something else.

Yes my fellow Americans, that’s right – your government can’t be bothered to address its funding shortfall to keep its own military in good working order but quite a few of your congressional representatives are hard at work ensuring that we send $1.5 taxpayer dollars to a foreign government that is in complete disarray. 

Interestingly enough, about three-fourths of the Egyptian aid would go towards the purchase of military hardware.  I wonder who they buy those arms from.  Could it be American defense contractors who make generous donations towards certain congressional representatives?  Please forgive me if my cynicism is showing.

One of my favorite quotes in support of continuing American taxpayer support to the Egyptian military came from Speaker John Boehner, who praised the Egyptian military for doing “what they had to do in terms of replacing the elected president.”

Okay, Mr. Speaker, one question for you – what exactly does a democratically elected president have to do before that country’s military should replace him?  I just wonder what the guidelines are for something like that.  Is the speaker setting us up for something to happen down the road in our own country?

You think I’m kidding, and for the most part I am, but I think it’s worth noting that Republicans for some time have been making noise about President Obama’s tendency to engage in “extra-legal” activities in order to make end-runs around the contentious, do-nothing Congress he’s saddled with.

The military ousted that guy in Egypt largely because he was consolidating power for his radical Islamic group and bending the law as necessary to force the country along the path he and his cronies wanted it to be on.  So the military “did what they had to do.”  Could something like that ever happen here?

I don’t think so.  Apparently the military is sort of an independent force in Egypt that is obviously not under civilian control, but here the military is an integrated part of our gigantic government infrastructure.  We don’t see a dime in funding unless Congress gives its blessing, and lately we are seeing a lot less dimes.

Our military is not going to rescue us from our inept government.  We’ll have to do that ourselves by electing better people and demanding that they do a better job for us.

Compromise is not a dirty word

According to Gallup polls released this month, American’s approval of the US Congress has dropped to a historic low of 10%.  It’s hard to believe a nation would allow themselves to be ruled by a body that it disapproves of so strongly, but as yet there have been no street protests or riots as we have seen in other countries that have so dramatically lost faith in their governments.

Perhaps we put up with them because our dislike of Congress is only intense when we consider it in its impersonal, corporate form, and not as a group of men and women that we elect, and often continue to reelect.

Check the approval rating for an individual US Representative or Senator on their home ground and I guarantee you the number will almost always be well above 10%.  Congress is inept, we seem to think, but our guy is one of the good ones.  Maybe that’s because “our guy” knows what’s important to the people he represents, and is good at giving the appearance that those things are important to him too.

Would you like to represent Houston County in Washington?  Make sure you’re a Republican, are against abortion, and support gun rights and the military.  It’s also good idea to let everyone know how much you love Jesus.  If you were running for Congress in, say, the San Francisco area, you’d probably want to have a whole other set of principles if you want to have a chance of winning there.

So what we end up with is a big group of men and women who come in with very different ideas about what the government should be doing.  Yet somehow enough of them have to come together and agree on legislation if anything is ever going to get done.  If they can’t do that, well, we end up with a Congress that is unable to do very basic things a legislative body must do, like pass a budget that doesn’t bankrupt the country.

Which is, of course, exactly where we are today, and that explains why most of us have a very dim view of that particular branch of government.  It seems to be broken beyond repair.