Nobody does Shakespeare like Sir Kenneth. Nobody.
Nobody does Shakespeare like Sir Kenneth. Nobody.
The whole fan damily were driving on the east side yesterday. At one particular intersection, there was a small strip center that contained a Karma Records shop (mostly a head shop nowadays) a Cirilla’s sex boutique, a tattoo parlor, and a tax refund place. The Young Master pointed it out as a locus of poor life decisions. We must be doing something right. I like to think of it as the intersection of Broken Dreams and Bad Decisions.
I caught a bit of the Today Show this morning as I passed by the babblebox. I saw Lester Holt and David Gregory discussing how the Resident was going to compel the AG to file civil rights charges against George Zimmerman. I thought about how far we have come, when a black man and white man can discuss on TV how to legally lynch a Hispanic man. Progress!
I try not to call names, but at some point, it becomes impossible to do otherwise. His Highness, King Barack, First of that Name, opined today on the Zimmerman case. Once again, he managed to make it about him, rather than whether there was an execution or miscarriage of justice in Florida. Opinions can differ about the case, but the facts were established by the testimony at trial. To ignore that, and to posit a completely different scenario in order to score political points, is simply disingenuous.
For those not following along, Obama made two particularly idiotic statements during his remarks. First, he stated, “If Trayvon Martin was of age and he was armed, could he have ‘stood his ground’ on that sidewalk?” Obama said. This is idiotic for two reasons. First, the ‘stand your ground’ law was not part of the Zimmerman case, was not argued by the parties, and was not relied upon by the defense. It makes as much sense to bring that up as it would to say the government should re-evaluate the infield fly rule. It is simply inapplicable. Further, his statement demonstrates either gross ignorance or intentional falsification. By implying that Martin was entitled to ‘stand his ground’ under the facts produced at trial requires that he believe that Zimmerman assaulted Martin and was on top of Martin, battering him. In fact, the testimony was that the first instance of violence was from Martin, who punched Zimmerman hard enough to break his nose, and was then on top Zimmerman, pounding his head into the sidewalk. The forensic evidence support this scenario, as the injuries to Zimmerman were consistent with the punch and the battering, and the only physical wounds to Martin, besides the gunshot wound, was damage to his knuckles consistent with a punch. Additionally, the forensic expert testified that the would track and other forensic details were consistent with Martin being on top of Zimmerman. Finally, the only independent witness to the event, Scott, testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, beating him. Ignorance of the facts is no excuse, especially in an explosive social situation.
Second, Obama said, ”If a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.” In fact, the media recently reported, although with not nearly the saturation of the Martin coverage, that same scenario played in just the way he posited. The result was exactly the same. Roderick Scott, a black man, was accused of shooting a white teenager in roughly similar circumstances. Scott was acquitted. No riots, no calls for bogus ‘civil rights’ inquiries, no saturation coverage. There is no possibility that the White House did not know about the Scott case, as it has been a mild sensation on the Internet the last couple of days. See http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/m-what_if_trayvon_had_been_white_and_the_shooter_black.html#.UemN_mrogxM.twitter
Obama is therefore either ignorant or disingenuous. Either one is frightening.
From Mark Steyn:
Give it a week or so, and, in a grand harmonic convergence of Democrat talking points, Big Bird will be dating Sandra Fluke.
From the New York CBS affiliate: “NYPD Probing Hare Crime After Bacon Found at Staten Island Ramadan Site.”
What’s the underlying crime? Is it illegal in New York to be a dick?
It’s a law most people have never heard of, yet controls their life more than any other. The law is unbending, unwavering, and merciless. Why do people put up with it? It’s human nature. This horrific law, that runs our lives, is the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Every act, every decision, every choice we make has consequences. Some of them are planned, some are beneficial, and some are unintended. The unintended consequences generally result from the reaction of a third party reacting to a decision we make. Say, for example, people like bacon. People buy more bacon. Bacon becomes a fixture in popular culture. Bacon starts showing up in unusual places, like Burger King milkshakes. A Burger King milkshake is an unintended consequence of the popularity of bacon.
Other consequences are not so benign as bacon-flavored milkshakes. Economists are familiar with the Tragedy of the Commons, which I consider a sub-species of the Law of Unintended Consequences. But of all the people who should be the most familiar with the Law, the ones who seem to be the most intentionally obtuse are bureaucrats. For some reason, most bureaucrats seem to think that the Balm of Good Intentions will dispel the Law of Unintended Consequences. Time and again, the real world rears up and confounds the best intentions of the nattering classes.
Today’s prime example comes from UN and their carbon-trading scheme. Briefly, the UN awards carbon-credits for destruction of GHGs that can be purchased by companies to offset their own emissions. In theory, emissions go down due to destruction of GHGs.
In practice, not so much. The New York Times reports that firms in Asia have ramped UP production of GHGs for the purposes of selling the credits they get for destroying them. And, in a move that should surprise no-one, they chose the most destructive GHG, in order to maximize the credits. (CO2 = 1 credit, HFC-22 = 11,700 credits).
So far, no surprises. Every economics student know that people react to incentives. When you incentivise an activity, you get more of the activity. The Times describes the issue, and then quotes one of the NGO bureaucrats who helped create the scheme:
“I was a climate negotiator, and no one had this in mind,” said David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “It turns out you get nearly 100 times more from credits than it costs to do it. It turned the economics of the business on its head.”
The breathtaking ignorance of the drafters of this boggles the mind. Who would have thought that if you make it more lucrative to create something for the purpose of destroying it, people would start doing that? Now there’s a scramble to correct the problem, which will, of course, lead to more unintended consequences, and the cycle continues.