Rick Perry vs. Barack Obama

[PassedOut]

I think it is wrong to blame the police for following the law passed by the Florida legislature. I've read it, and it seems to me that the police there are not only forbidden from arresting Zimmerman, but even from detaining him. I doubt very much that the police wanted to release Zimmerman -- many of them have kids too. That law is horrendous.

[kenberg]

I guess that one of the things that we will learn is just what that law allows. I heard part of a discussion today on Diane Rehm. The idea is that the previous law required a person to retreat as far as possible before using force. More or less giving the potential assailant a free first shot. Not so great either. But surely there is some common sense place in between. In this case the guy Zimmerman has some sort of Marshall Dillon fantasy, arms himself, goes out and harasses people and then when the predictable tussle ensues says he was scared and so he was entitled to shoot. I've known people, probably we all have, who take this approach to life. Gotta keep the neighborhood safe from all the baddies. They are a good deal more scary than anyone they claim to protect us from.

[dwar0123]

So essentially the 'stand your ground law' has legalized homicide so long as you can successfully pick a fight first.

 

What an absurd reading of the law. Zimmerman chased after and confronted Trayvon in a location that they each had equal right too yet he claims self defense? Trayvon has a much better claim to feeling threatened as per the 'stand your ground law' as he was unarmed, weighed nearly half as much and was being chased for no apparent(nor good) reason by an unknown stranger at night.

 

I suppose that was off topic, oh well here goes on topic!

 

I don't understand how twisted someone's thoughts must be to insist that Obama's expression of personal connection with such a tragic event is politically divisive. It wasn't politically divisive until the people lamenting Obama's comment made it so. The insane part is with a recent poll showing 75% of Americans wanting Zimmerman arrested, Newt and Santorum chose the wrong side.

 

They cut the pie took the smallest piece and then yelled at the other side for cutting the pie.

[Winstonm]

Between Pat Robertson saying on his televison show that it would serve the Denver Broncos right for trading Tim Tebow if Peyton Manning got hurt to this latest idiocy from the supposedly moral conservatives it is becoming apparent to me that this show of morality is simply a disguise to hide bigotry.

 

Quite frankly, it is making me sick. Hopefully, I am not alone. I know Sam Harris is not shy when it comes to castigating belief systems. Maybe this political event will finally start a backlash against moral bigots.

[luke warm]

Zimmerman chased after and confronted Trayvon in a location that they each had equal right too yet he claims self defense?

so that's what happened... i'm glad someone knows, all this uncertainty gets tiresome

[kenberg]

 

 

I don't understand how twisted someone's thoughts must be to insist that Obama's expression of personal connection with such a tragic event is politically divisive. It wasn't politically divisive until the people lamenting Obama's comment made it so. The insane part is with a recent poll showing 75% of Americans wanting Zimmerman arrested, Newt and Santorum chose the wrong side.

 

They cut the pie took the smallest piece and then yelled at the other side for cutting the pie.

 

One of my concerns about Santorum and friends is that they consider those who disagree with them to not only be wrong but immoral, and they might well include twisted and insane in their assessment. I find this approach no more appealing when it comes from the left. I realize you are not a campaign manager but name calling is not the way to win people to your point of view.

 

Of course "If I had a son he would look like Trayvon," did not mean that it would be ok if the kid that got killed was white. Nor did Obama mean that all black people look alike, another way the statement could be misread. But it seems to me that if he felt the need to comment, he could have done better. Regret about all of the lives lost to violence would have been good.

 

Race often plays a role, and probably here. But I expect that once Zimmerman decided to arm himself and patrol the neighborhood for people he thought were suspicious, and apparently he found a great many people to be suspicious, it was only a matter of time before something like this happened. Race ups the ante, no doubt, but this was a tragedy waiting to happen.

 

 

The Stand law sounds nuts. Apparently at the time of passage many police organizations explained to the legislature that the law was nuts. How this law will play out here, we shall see. I hope that this 75% who want Zimmerman arrested will also support legislators voting to repeal the law when the NRA goes on the attack. Want to place a bet?

[billw55]

Eh what a mess in Florida.

 

I don't know what this "stand your ground" law says, I have not read it. But it must be very bad indeed if the result is that all one need do is speak the words "self defense" and like magic, cannot be arrested for a shooting death. Zimmerman certainly did not "stand his ground" - all accounts agree he pursued Martin. If anyone has the right to claim self defense here, I would think it would be Martin. It is so sad, but I really do think that if Martin had won this fight, he surely would have been arrested and charged. I really do believe that Zimmerman would not have chased a white teen through the neighborhood.

 

All that said, I do want to keep the right to defend myself against violence with a gun. But definitely not to chase an unarmed man who has committed no crime!

[y66]

President Obama on Trayvon Martin Case:

 

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2012/03/23/us/100000001447810/president-obama-on-trayvon-martin-case.html

[kenberg]

All that said, I do want to keep the right to defend myself against violence with a gun. But definitely not to chase an unarmed man who has committed no crime!

 

I know I have told this story before, but I am old so I get to repeat myself. One of my childhood memories:

 

My parents rented out the (very space limited) top floor of our house to a woman and her two kids who had left her abusive husband. One night the husband came to the side door demanding to get in to see his wife. He had been drinking, the night was warm, only the screen door was closed (and locked), my father was not at home. My mother had my father's 12 gauge pointed at the door explaining that he would not be coming in to see his wife. He left, which I have always believed extended his life by quite a bit.

 

There is a world of difference between this and what Zimmerman did. It may be difficult to get the law right, but we must try.

[billw55]

There is a world of difference between this and what Zimmerman did. It may be difficult to get the law right, but we must try.

Agree. One criteria is that we should be confident of who the aggressor is. Which is most certainly not the case in the Zimmerman-Martin situation.

[PassedOut]

Posters here keep up with current events, so this story is not news to most. But the Post has laid out the background pretty clearly about the issue before the supreme court today:

 

Health-care provision at center of Supreme Court debate was a Republican idea

 

The tale begins in the late 1980s, when conservative economists such as Mark Pauly, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of business, were searching for ways to counter liberal calls for government-sponsored universal health coverage.

 

“We wanted to find an alternative that was more consistent with market-oriented economic ideas and would involve less government intervention,” Pauly said.

 

His solution: a system of tax credits to ensure that all Americans could purchase at least bare-bones “catastrophic” coverage.

 

Pauly then proposed a mandate requiring everyone to obtain this minimum coverage, thus guarding against free-riders: people who refuse to buy insurance and then, in a crisis, receive care whose costs are absorbed by hospitals, the government and other consumers.

Now we have 26 states and all of the republican candidates asking the court to find a new "constitutional right to be a free rider" on the backs of responsible folks. And it seems possible that an activist court will actually enact such a right, although I'm guardedly optimistic that they won't. However powerful the free-lunch movement has gotten in the US, I find it hard to believe that a majority of the supreme court will swallow that politically popular kool-aid.

[dwar0123]

One of my concerns about Santorum and friends is that they consider those who disagree with them to not only be wrong but immoral, and they might well include twisted and insane in their assessment. I find this approach no more appealing when it comes from the left. I realize you are not a campaign manager but name calling is not the way to win people to your point of view.

This is actually very interesting to me. In my own head, I didn't think I resorted to empty name calling, I don't think I actually called anyone a name. But I have read enough of these forums to know that you are generally a fair and impartial moderate and would really like to know how I crossed the line with you.

 

I don't think Obama's original comment was politically divisive and I have yet hear anyone articulate an actually explanation of how it is. Calling someone out for being politically divisive, is in and of itself politically divisive and doing that when the original person wasn't being politically divisive requires a fairly twisted thought process, hence my comment.

 

As we all know, politicians will do seedy things to get ahead, both sides, no doubt. What I found funny is that in this case, Newt and Santorum choose a position that appeals to such a minority of people that it can't be politically advantageous. Hence the action seems insane to me, as it defeats their own motives as I understand them.

 

I know your not above cutting people down, you referred to both sides as being a rerun of dumb and dumber, I am curious how I crossed the line.

 

The Stand law sounds nuts. Apparently at the time of passage many police organizations explained to the legislature that the law was nuts. How this law will play out here, we shall see. I hope that this 75% who want Zimmerman arrested will also support legislators voting to repeal the law when the NRA goes on the attack. Want to place a bet?

 

Well, many people don't even think the incident really has anything to do with the law. Of those that believe the law actually excuses Zimmerman(legally), I think the vast majority will want the law repealed. Of those that think the law doesn't apply and Zimmerman is just a murderer with the police coming up with some absurd legal defense, I think you are right and that many won't want the law repealed. How this actually all plays out is something worth watching.

[luke warm]

Agree. One criteria is that we should be confident of who the aggressor is. Which is most certainly not the case in the Zimmerman-Martin situation.

i'm glad someone knows the facts here... all that uncertainty was becoming tiresome... of course, it appears there was an eyewitness - but he was probably paid off

[kenberg]

 

I know your not above cutting people down, you referred to both sides as being a rerun of dumb and dumber, I am curious how I crossed the line.

 

 

 

I suppose that I may need to eat a little crow. Thanks to Y66 for posting a link to the full Obama remarks. Many of the things that I thought Obama should have said, he said. He began by saying that he did not want to say anything that would cause problems for a full investigation, and went on to describe the necessity for examining all aspects of this. The laws, the context, and of course examining as near as possible what actually happened. I fully agree with all of that, and in the full context of the statement, where he talked about all parents, I think it is not right to pounce on a portion of it that, in isolation, might not sound so good (to me, anyway).

 

Part of my thinking was that it would be dumb for a president, and a lawyer at that, to appear to have formed a judgment in an ongoing investigation about who was to blame. His full statement in fact stays clear of that.

 

 

To the case itself,well, there will be lawyers. But my take: Zimmerman just sounds so much like various people that I have had the misfortune to know from time to time. Way back in grade school there was this kid who missed no opportunity to cause me grief. Stick his foot out to trip me, that sort of thing. Finally I slugged him, so then he ran home and told his mother. A person should not be allowed to aggravate a guy until the guy confronts him, and then shoot the guy because the confrontation scares him. It's not right. I don't know exactly what happened, but this sounds like it is about it, and I don't know what the law says, but it's not right to do this. But, as the pres says, we should look fully into exactly what happened.

 

 

I gather Zimmerman has been a real pain for the 911 operators. Maybe we will find out he just follows black people around, maybe we will find out that he is an equal opportunity jerk.

 

 

Anyway, this doesn't really answer why I got upset. Something about twisted set me off I think.

[Winstonm]

Posters here keep up with current events, so this story is not news to most. But the Post has laid out the background pretty clearly about the issue before the supreme court today:

 

Health-care provision at center of Supreme Court debate was a Republican idea

 

 

Now we have 26 states and all of the republican candidates asking the court to find a new "constitutional right to be a free rider" on the backs of responsible folks. And it seems possible that an activist court will actually enact such a right, although I'm guardedly optimistic that they won't. However powerful the free-lunch movement has gotten in the US, I find it hard to believe that a majority of the supreme court will swallow that politically popular kool-aid.

 

 

I wonder if Adam Smith concerned himself with shopping around for the best deal for a doctor?

[Winstonm]

I have to say the arguments against health care law are getting weird.

[mike777]

to be fair people who die without burial insurance are free riders also.

 

 

 

I guess at some point we need to take away some peoples freedom to stop these free riders.

 

You either want to limit the central gov. powers or you dont.

 

I note they never seem to explain just where the limits are.....just that social justice is more important.

 

 

This all gets back to the central debate, do you think the central govt should have limited powers and do you think the central govt will do a better job at asset allocation than the marketplace.

[Winstonm]

to be fair people who die without burial insurance are free riders also.

 

 

 

I guess at some point we need to take away some peoples freedom to stop these free riders.

 

You either want to limit the central gov. powers or you dont.

 

I note they never seem to explain just where the limits are.....just that social justice is more important.

 

 

This all gets back to the central debate, do you think the central govt should have limited powers and do you think the central govt will do a better job at asset allocation than the marketplace.

 

I thought this argument was resolved first around 1776, and then re-argued and re-resolved around 1865.

[mike777]

I thought this argument was resolved first around 1776, and then re-argued and re-resolved around 1865.

 

 

Yes you make clear in all of your posts that you think the issues were settled hundreds of years ago.

[PassedOut]

to be fair people who die without burial insurance are free riders also.

How so?

[mike777]

How so?

 

 

think about it....

 

 

think about other free riders in other markets.

[Cthulhu D]

think about it....

 

 

think about other free riders in other markets.

 

Not sure we need a one size fits all solution. Sometimes the market is better, sometimes the government is better, sometimes you need a both. Even Adam Smith acknowledge this, it's hardly a revolutionary position. The best rule of thumb imho for considering whether you need government intervention or not is negative externalities generated by an individuals actions or failure to act.

 

This is assuming you buy into the idea that everyone should have a full franchise in society.

[billw55]

The "free rider" issue might be handled if we had the resolve to say "tough luck" to those who voluntarily go without insurance.

 

By comparison, there was a case a few months ago in the news, from rural Kentucky I believe. The county had implemented a voluntary fire protection tax for homes in their district. Those who chose not to pay, were not eligible for protection. Sure enough, eventually one such person's home caught fire. The firefighters showed up, protected adjacent properties from spreading and .. let the home burn to the ground. I think there were actually two events like this IIRC.

 

Is this sort of practice good for society? I bet it motivated a lot of other non-payers to sign up ("Holy crap, they were serious??"). On the other hand it seems a little callous. Is this something we want to attempt for healthcare?

[Winstonm]

Yes you make clear in all of your posts that you think the issues were settled hundreds of years ago.

 

Yes, and reviving those arguments won't affect the outcome.

[Cthulhu D]

The "free rider" issue might be handled if we had the resolve to say "tough luck" to those who voluntarily go without insurance.

 

This is functionally impossible. Hypothetical: You've been stabbed in a mugging gone wrong. Your wallet has been stolen and with it your source of ID. You are brought to hospital delirious from blood loss and are unable to identify yourself in a way that can be validated. Do you want:

 

A) The doctor to treat you right now

B) The doctor to let you bleed for a bit while he tries to work out if you have insurance or not. This might take a while, and you may die.

 

As long as the answer is A (and from my perspective it better bloody well be A thank you very much), suggesting that treatment should be refused to those without insurance is a joke. It's not workable. Note that the fact that you refuse non emergency treatment to the uninsured is actually the cost driver here, because if the guy's a diabetic or whatever you wait until he goes into diabetic shock (when it's super expensive to treat him) rather than deliver preventative care.