RULE BY RADICALS

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio faces a crisis of his own making with the police department, as a result of his own radicalism. Whatever the merits of the Eric Garner case, he did not respond thoughtfully or responsibly but ideologically, going on about racism, injustice and the police, and making broad, general statements having little to do with the actual case. There was no doubt that his activist heart was with street protesters, but you can’t run a city that way. Instead of rising above the fray, as he today ironically said a leader is supposed to do, he pontificated about the failings of society and yet again brought in his son, this time as a potential victim of the police. Then, having burned all the bridges with the NYPD, when two officers were subsequently murdered  over the weekend, he could only grasp at the one straw still available to him- the families of the victims, as a rationale for standing down. 

Even worse, the radicals who dominate the City Council, in an unprecedented and reprehensible gesture not only encouraged, but participated in demonstrations against their own police department, in solidarity with the Mayor. The odious NY State Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman, apparently taking a break from corporate shakedowns, in a naked power grab, announced he would investigate NY City police incidents, which brought an immediate rebuke from the DAs of the majority of the boroughs of the city. It is relatively early in the terms of all of these clowns, and they are only getting started. Things will only get worse. 

The basic reason for this is that radicals cannot govern effectively. They view everything through an ideological lens, and can only reckon with things based on how they comport with that vision. They not only lack any ability to approach things pragmatically; they reject pragmatism altogether. They are not liberals, but hard-left radicals. As a result, more and more things are not going to work as they should. A clash with the NYPD was almost inevitable, given their attitude towards law enforcement. Never before in the history of this city have we seen such contempt for the police on the part of public officials. Given their mindset it is no surprise that even when they try to make nice they only make things worse. Thus, after instigating much of the damage himself, the Mayor now wants to talk about “healing” and “coming together” which is what leftists do after they have irreversibly poisoned the well.

I predicted things would go bad last year, here: http://www.georgesarant.com/2013/10/the-ny-city-commune-of-2014.html. There will eventually be a correction because New York is not a radical town; it isn’t even all that liberal. Until then, hopefully the damage won’t be too bad. In the mean time, after what these public officials have done, there is no way the police are going to be mollified until there is a change, at which point my guess is that the public will be more sympathetic to the NYPD than this batch of politicians. 

THERE IS NO PERFECT JUSTICE

I did not follow or express an opinion on the George Zimmerman case for the simple reason that I could not form an accurate judgment without access to the facts presented to the jury. I also felt that this was a local case subject to local jurisprudence and did not warrant the extensive media coverage that ensued. But since it unfortunately garnered so much attention and raised passions on both sides some analysis is in order, particularly insofar as it involves the objective of achieving justice.

There is a basic problem with the position being taken by those outraged by the verdict, particularly when shouting for justice. But this entails a preconceived notion of what constitutes “justice,” for which there could be only one possible outcome. The belief is that Zimmerman had to pay, one way or another, with his trial presumably resulting in justice fulfilled. By any standard that is what it did, but for believers in this cause only one possible outcome could be legitimate.

Now if Zimmerman had been found guilty, that apparently would have been “justice”  in their eyes, ratifying the fairness of the process.  That this did not happen hardly makes the process any less just. One cannot call something unjust under these circumstances because one’s expectations were not fulfilled.  If the jury outcome produces justice in one instance it must all do so in the other.

However, those now protesting do have good reason to be outraged, because of the miserable job done by the mainstream media. The coverage was so slanted against Zimmerman that it became, in the minds of many, a foregone conclusion that he would be found guilty. The media wanted a show trial and very nearly produced one. Going back to the beginning of this incident, by the laws of Florida the local authorities found no cause to arrest Zimmerman. This led to an outcry, still local, until the media picked up on it. An opportunistic prosecutor (there are few who aren’t) then stepped in and charged Zimmerman with murder, in what essentially became a political prosecution and it appeared as though he was a goner, having already been judged guilty until proven innocent. But the prosecution was also inept, and if there was a case to be made, they failed to make it, and the jury made its decision based upon the facts presented, with more honesty and integrity than the “system” itself.

But the race-baiters and left-wing ideologues could not let such an opportunity go unexploited and so they have sprung into action. People like professional agitator Al Sharpton, who has also been a frequent White House visitor as well as commentator on the awful NBC “news” network, are now fanning the flames. It has rekindled a sense of grievance about the system being generally unfair to the interests of black people, who are powerless when faced with it. However there is a problem with this narrative. If anyone was powerless in this case, it was Zimmerman, who had some seriously formidable institutions lined up against him. The people out for his scalp were obviously far more powerful, given that they were able to get the government to go after him, from the top down.

So since the trial did not produce the desired result, now other avenues must be pursued.  We have the racially obsessed Attorney General  Eric Holder looking to find some way to bring Zimmerman up on federal charges, such as “hate crime,” and further pontificating on race even though thorough investigations produced not a shred of evidence along those lines.  But curiously Holder is quiet about several retaliatory mob attacks that have already occurred against innocent white and “Hispanic” people that are, in fact, completely racially motivated; fat chance the “justice” department will investigate these incidents. Most legal experts doubt he has a case and thus it won’t be pursued. That remains to be seen, when the facts are subordinate to the politics. Again, the reality of who actually has power in the justice system and in terms of government influence is obviously far different from what is being claimed.  

I repeat I am not a Zimmerman supporter or sympathizer, and had no particular interest in the outcome. What I cannot abide is the reaction to this trial, the media circus, and the talking heads on all sides making arguments that diverge from the actual case. What I can predict, based on first hand experience, is that the US Attorneys will make every conceivable effort to build a case against Zimmerman, because the judgment as to whom to target and whom to prosecute is very often entirely political. It is a fantasy to believe that these people sit around and objectively evaluate cases. Political calculation, in terms of whom to go after, and which to not bother with, is a common practice, and often a self-serving one. This entire case reeks of it, and the end result is that neither Trayvon nor Zimmerman can possibly get “justice.” If a human agent can make decisions regarding the legal fate of someone in a way that would not be applied to someone else the system is flawed. For the system is imperfect, sometimes produces confounding results, and sometimes lets people slip through the cracks. On the whole, however, it does basically work to the extent that any human institution can. Much of the time it produces results that appear to be reasonably satisfactory to an outsider, and justice is served to some extent. However, as with any entity inhabited by human beings, there is fallibility and no possibility of ever achieving perfect justice. No society can ever be completely just, no matter how good it is. For, as I’ve written elsewhere, in this life, the best you can hope for is some justice.