Friends and enemies, I make a self-criticism.
I have been increasingly critical of President Obama's handling of the economy in the last couple of months. I have written that the president should spend more money. I re-published a graph showing that he had not done so. I directly raised the issue of Obama's competence in not doing so.
It was as if I was writing about a different America, an America that was a parliamentary democracy in which the chief executive doubles as the head of the dominant legislative party which selects him. In the real America, about which I intended to write, the chief executive is chosen in an election separate from the elections in which legislators are chosen. Americans call this the "separation of powers." I, an American, knew that. However, perhaps because I was born in Pennsylvania, or maybe I was born with a bone in my brain I forgot all about the separation of powers when I wrote.
I make this self-criticism for my birth.
The president proposes, Congress disposes. President Obama
has proposed legislation calling for spending for economic stimulus; Congress has refused to pass it. Last fall Obama sent a $450 billion jobs proposal to Congress. Senate Republicans filibustered it to death; House Republicans didn't even bring it to a vote. Last year also the Republicans in the House of Representatives threatened America's credit rating by refusing to lift the debt ceiling unless the executive, Obama, agree to spending limitations. Obama agreed.
That bar graph I re-published:
Those blue bars since 2010 should, in fairness, be red. The Republicans are responsible for those years; it is because of Republican efforts that spending wasn't greater.
I did not credit the Republicans for holding down spending. I did not credit anyone for I thought it was not credit-worthy. I wrote that the bars since 2010 should have been higher. I blamed it on Obama. I retract that blame. The responsibility, whether one thinks the spending levels since 2010 credit or blame-worthy, rests with those who have the "power of the purse strings" as it is called in America. That power rests exclusively with Congress and the Congress since 2010 has been Republican.
Americans will take a hard look at Mitt Romney in November, as I wrote yesterday. Now I don't know how hard I will look. Romney is proposing less spending, not more, on economic stimulus. More is what I think is necessary. Romney is proposing repeal of the Dodd-Frank Act; I think the financial deregulation that began under President Reagan significantly contributed to the 2008 crisis. I will be taking a hard look at congressional election results in November and I hope more Democrats win.
That was hard to write. I am embarrassed that I made such a stupid mistake, one which effected several posts.
I also make a self-criticism for writing about the Trayvon Martin case in the way that I did. I read that msnbc was criticized for seeming to not cover the case as extensively once evidence was released that seemed to favor George Zimmerman. That criticism struck home since the last piece of evidence I wrote about was the police station video which showed no apparent injury to Zimmerman. I wrote that, on all the evidence I was aware of, I supported the prosecutor's decision to charge Zimmerman with some degree of unlawful homicide.
Since then it has been publicly revealed, but I did not write about it, that Zimmerman did suffer a broken nose and lacerations to the back of his head and there was a picture released of blood coming from the head lacerations. He also had black eyes or a black eye, blackish, and there was a picture. That a fight had even occurred between Zimmerman and Trayvon* was called into question by the police station video. Now it has been established conclusively, and Zimmerman suffered significant injury. Finally, the range of fire has been determined to be "intermediate." A contact or near-contact wound would be most consistent with self-defense. A wound showing "close range characteristics," the gun barrel from an inch or so away to, from memory, about six inches, would be considered to be a shot of intermediate range.
This self-criticism applies to writing about the case in detail in the first place. I should have recorded it as a significant public occurrence in America and left it at that. Obviously, I know only what has been publicly revealed and there is much information not publicly revealed. But I did write about the details and now feel under compulsion of a non-existent "rule of completeness" to write more. I hope to learn from this.
As I've thought about this case since it happened, I have come back time and again to the legal relevance of the circumstances leading up to Zimmerman's contact with Trayvon. It was circumstances that made this case a
cause celebre: a non-black neighborhood watchman, a black 17 year old wearing a hoodie, "suspicions." Trayvon Martin was not up to no-good that night, he was not doing anything illegal, there was no reason, it turned out, for George Zimmerman to have been suspicious of Trayvon Martin. It was racial profiling.
George Zimmerman is allowed to have racial profiling thoughts. That's legal.
Zimmerman, armed, then acted on his legal thoughts by following Trayvon in his vehicle, against the advice of a police dispatcher. Was that legal? Zimmerman and Trayvon both were in places each had a right to be, neither was trespassing. Was Zimmerman "stalking" Trayvon?:
"Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows [or] harasses...another person commits the offense of stalking." Florida statutes, 784.048(2).
I don't think Zimmerman's conduct constitutes stalking, legally. However, let's assume that it does. Now Zimmerman, although in a place he had a right to be, was doing something he had no right to do. That gives Trayvon certain legal rights, like to call the police to have them stop the stalking by arresting Zimmerman.
It does not give Trayvon the right to throw the first punch, as Zimmerman claimed.
What if, as seems to me more likely, Zimmerman was not stalking Trayvon? What has struck me in my gut about the circumstances leading up to the shooting is how I would have felt if I were in Trayvon's shoes. I would have been enraged. Just as Trayvon apparently was if we believe Zimmerman's account. Other guys I've spoke to have said the same thing. Fight or flight? Trayvon's girlfriend is supposed to have urged him to run. I wouldn't have.
It still wouldn't give me the right to throw the first punch.
If it is believed that Trayvon sucker-punched Zimmerman in the back of the head, knocking him to the ground, then Zimmerman had the right to fight back, but only in self defense, i.e. to stop the aggression. If, in fighting back, Zimmerman felt in fear of death or great bodily harm, then he would have had the right to respond with deadly force if "necessary".
It seems to me that the prosecutor's decision to arrest George Zimmerman turns crucially on her decision that the shooting was not necessary. She has all of the evidence and made that decision. On the information made available to the public to this point I agree.
I have learned my lesson and I will not write again as more evidence becomes available.
*The diminutive is used because Trayvon Martin was a juvenile.
