“There’s never a cop around when you need one,” goes the old saying. That’s why an armed George Zimmerman was patrolling his neighborhood in Sanford, Florida, on a rainy night last February. In a little more than a year, the gated community where Zimmerman lives experienced eight break-ins. When Zimmerman saw 17-year-old Trayvon Martin walking in his community, he thought the young stranger was planning break-in number 9.
Zimmerman dialed 911 and called for assistance. Sometime between the dispatcher’s assurances that the cops where on their way and when they eventually arrived, Martin lay dead on the ground – a bullet lodged in his chest.
Often discerning men find themselves dismayed by the reasoning presented by parties in an argument. That is not to say that there are only two sides to an argument, but in the manner of adversarial combat, war and legal cases, in the philosophical tradition of disputed questions, things seem to resolve themselves into two camps. From my own experience both sides are often wrong, or only partially right, or right for the wrong reasons, or wrong for the right reasons.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan characterized ObamaCare as the federal government’s way of saying, “We’re giving you [the states] a boat-load of money, there are no matching funds requirement, there are no extraneous conditions attached to it, it’s just a boat-load of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people’s health care. It doesn’t sound coercive to me,” insisted Kagan to Solicitor General Paul Clement, who spoke for the 26 states challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare on Wednesday.
“We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy,” said then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to her Democratic members before the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Tuesday, justices of the United States Supreme Court asked pointed questions to lift the “fog” and show us what ObamaCare is really all about.
In politics it’s easy for demagogues to dismiss reasonable objections. “Are you serious, are you serious?” asked a puzzled Pelosi of the single reporter who inquired if it was constitutional for Congress to confiscate one-sixth of the U.S. economy and force 350 million Americans to buy inadequate health insurance under penalty of law.
Americans can be forgiven for thinking President Obama was in South Korea attending a nuclear conference to deal with a belligerent and nuclearized North Korea. After all, the communist North moved its latest long-range missile to a launch pad to test sometime in April. Thanks to an open microphone, we now know that Obama isn’t all that interested in North Korea. Instead, disarming the United States to please his Russian counterparts remains his chief objective.
“On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved,” Obama told outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, “But it’s important for him to give me space.”
“This is my last election,” pleaded Obama, “After my election I have more flexibility.”