10 things to know today

Your daily look at late-breaking news, upcoming events and the stories that will be talked about Tuesday:
AP Wire
Jul 16, 2013



"We don't necessarily have to like it, but we have to respect it," said Venitta Robinson, a black resident of Sanford, Fla.


"You'd have to prove that George Zimmerman was seeking out to commit the crime against Trayvon Martin, specifically because he was African-American," one legal expert says.


Al-Qaida fighters clash with more moderate rebel groups, who accuse the extremists of trying to seize control of the rebellion.


Changes pushed by Democrats would make the Senate similar to the House, where the majority rules and the minority party enjoys little leverage.


Speculation about what Ahmadinejad will do next is rampant. Some are betting that the outgoing president will become a media boss.


People who delay retirement have less risk of developing Alzheimer's or other types of dementia, a study finds.


Wal-Mart is battling efforts by Washington, D.C., to force big-box stores to pay workers at least $12.50 an hour.


A 6-year-old boy who sank 11 feet into a Lake Michigan sand dune regains consciousness after his rescue some three hours later.


A new bakery brings Twinkies back to stores: The spongy cakes now weigh less, with a shelf life of more than 6 weeks.


Mike Trout, Manny Machado and Bryce Harper are among a wave of skilled, youthful players changing the makeup of Major League Baseball.




1. The lesson to be learned: Trayvon should have been carrying a gun to protect himself from an assault by another man carrying a gun, especially when living in an ALEC-regulated Stand Your Ground state.

4. The dysfunctional Republican Senators, who have enjoyed five years of unprecedented filibuster manipulation in order to block presidential appointments, have stolen too many crayons, and are now being called out for it. An article I read used the following words in describing their reactions: "pleaded", "voice quivered", "tense", "peevish", "plaintive", "implored". Oh, the Drama. Why can't our elected officials - Senators here, not grade school children - show respect for citizens who are counting on them to govern wisely and fairly, in a timely manner and with a sense of duty and obligation to the oath of office, not to mention respect for each other?

9. How wonderful Twinkies are back - although smaller portioned (a good thing), they still pack about the same amount of calories, saturated fat, and grams of sugar than the old ones, as well as better preservatives. Bet they cost more, too (and the new company employs far fewer workers - machinery takeover)! Actually, the Hostess Saga is a fascinating one - a true textbook case study for Business majors in how to take over a company and run it into the ground. Yes, Vlad - the unions played a smidgeon of a part in it's demise, but the the other 95% is a tale of too much debt, greed, mismanagement, inaccurate forecasting, marketing fiascoes, and failed ideas. What a trainwreck.

8. The best news of the day!

Tri-cities realist

I always chuckle when the "nuclear" Senate option is threatened whether it be by the Dems or the Repubs. " Why can't our elected officials - Senators here, not grade school children - show respect for citizens who are counting on them to govern wisely and fairly, in a timely manner and with a sense of duty and obligation to the oath of office, not to mention respect for each other? " I agree completely... If the Senators take their oath seriously, and believe that a nominee is a threat to the Constitution, are they not obligated to oppose confirmation?

"unprecedented filibuster manipulation" this term does not solely describe the Repubs, the Dems have done their fair share in the past, or do you not recall that? Does the term "Bork'd" ring a bell?

I also agree with you on #8.... Hug


I do remember Robert Bork very well. Do you remember the many filibustered nominees in the last five years? No? There have so, so many. Of course, Senators must do due diligence, and then prepare to state yea or nay in a timely manner, not drag their feet to the detriment of the country purely for political reasons.

Republican (this time) senators have been derelict in their duties for ideological reasons for too long and for too many confirmations, and their stated goal has been to 1.) make Obama a one-term president (failed miserably) and 2.) cripple Obama right out the gate in his second term, even though he was democratically elected by a wide margin.

Glad you are back....missed you.

Tri-cities realist

Awwww, my heart runneth over, but seriously thanks for the kind words. I could have said the same thing to describe the Dems with Bush, so hopefully we can agree that both sides do it, it just irks us when "our guy (or gal)" is on the losing end. I'm not condoning it, but it is politics so both sides will continue to do it. And frankly, I'll admit that the Dems usually play the game better, or at least are more succesful in blaming the wascally wepublicans for anything bad that happens. It amazes me how few Repubs are willing to defend a conservative position.

And it's good to be back, although I have been checking up on you and the boys, just took a hiatus from posting, well frankly just got a bit lazy. Smooch.


1.) careful...you are suggesting that murder (not self defense) is ok there Lanivan. Furthermore, the only right verdict was the out come based on the evidence (it should have never made it to court but since Obama chimed in, making it a racial issue and forcing it to go to court). One other point i would like to make is that your homeboy Obama had zero buisness taking sides or even speaking of the case before a jury has. I hold Obama responsible for making this erupt into a race war. It had nothing to do with race people. Get over it. Trayvon got what he had coming, it is just a shame that he brought an innocent man down with him.


I suppose you are right - the Stand Your Ground law does make murder, or at least manslaughter, ok. What is your definition of self defense? When a person is walking across a field on his way home, unarmed, minding his own business, in a gated community, and is accosted by a man, who is armed, who has been told to stay in his car until the police arrive but disregards the order, approaches in an adversarial and threatening way, what is the unarmed person supposed to do? Drop to his knees and beg for forgiveness for the crime of being out after dark buying candy? Should he fight back - furiously if necessary? Is it self defense for the perpetrator to then shoot the unarmed man he instigated a confrontation with, not in the leg or arm to derail him, but right smack in the heart? Yup, sounds like murder to me, but what do I know?

Oh yeah, let's blame Obama, for the love of God. This truth might hurt, but he is not anybody's "homeboy". He's the leader of the Free World, and President Obama, having been democratically elected twice with wide majority support.


You don’t have the facts straight and you to are spreading false information which adds to the fury and rage this country is experiencing. Justify it how you want, but in the end you are wrong and at least a jury agrees with me on this one. It does not matter who approached who, the fact is, the hooded hoodlum assaulted Zimmerman to the point where he thought that his life was in danger. What was Zimmerman suppose to do? …let this thug beat him to death? The trial showed that Zimmerman shot the thug from below, meaning that the thug was on top. The thug did not have bruises, bumps or lacerations just a single bullet hole so Zimmerman did not assault him. The thug didn’t know the victim was packing heat or he would not have escalated the situation. CPL holders and cops alike shoot to kill, not to wound. I don’t blame Obama, I am saying that he escalated the situation, much like the thug did and that the President has no place in speaking of a case like this before a jury has made a decision. He was wrong to do that, and I feel that it was his actions that has fueled the race wars and riots that we are currently seeing as a result of the verdict.


I have followed this case fairly closely, and I believe I have the facts straight. I would like you to answer a serious question. I often walk my neighborhood after dark as part of my exercise routine. I wear a hoodie when it's chilly, and am unarmed. What should I do if a strange man approaches me in a hostile manner, shows a gun, and demands to know why I am outside my home, at night, in my neighborhood, wearing a hoodie? Should I try to reason with him, tell a few jokes, explain how I'm a good citizen/neighbor, or should I assume the worst and kick him, or otherwise defend myself from what could possibly be my demise?

I'm not sure what race wars or riots you are referring to. All I'm aware of are peaceful demonstrations and attempts to not turn this into a race thing. Even though that's exactly what it is.


Before I answer your question; I need to ask one for myself. Are you on drugs? …I couldn’t resist. In all seriousness, Zimmerman did not show a gun, that would be illegal; and don’t tell me that I don’t know that for a fact because if Zimmerman showed a gun initially Trayvon would not have start assaulting him. So Yes, you answer his questions and if it escalates you call the police and leave the situation, you don’t start pounding on the guy. If trayvon had walked away, he would be alive or Zimmerman would be in prison. He didn’t, he escalated it and it got him killed. Maybe Zimmerman profiled (does not make him racist) him a little due to the hoodie, that’s a normal assumption and police do it every day in New York. Also, if you think that all protest have been peaceful you better recheck on that.


No drugs - just an occasional nip on the blackberry wine. Please - next time, resist, ok?

The problem with this scenario is that no one knows just how it went down - we only have Zimmerman's word. Did he show his gun, illegally? He disobeyed police dispatcher orders to remain in his car, so is it a stretch to think he might have shown his gun, macho-style? The unarmed man is dead, and can not speak for himself. And your advice, while seeming like common sense on the face of it, is based on your assumption that the intent of the hypothetical man approaching me is not hostile or threatening. Walking away or calling 911 would not help me at that moment if he was intent on harming me right then and there. There really is no way of knowing in the moment what he might do. I'm grateful this is all hypothetical, as I'm giving myself the creeps just thinking about it.....

Couldn't that have been what was going on in Trayvon's mind? I will check out the protests - haven't had the tv on, too busy posting with you.


i hear and understand your points.
Similarly, Zimmerman did not know what Trayvon’s intent was. Knowing now that he was a drug user, he could have been on drugs at the time (hence the skittles) and acted irrationally which it seems to me that he did (the autopsy could have shown if he was on drugs at the time). Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch and definitely did not plan on killing anyone only confronting a suspicious individual. Either way you stack it, there is reasonable doubt as you admitted. Therefore, there was really only one possible outcome of the case.


The autopsy showed he had minute traces of THC (marijuana) in his bloodstream the night of the murder, I mean self-defense. I guess every 16-year-old kid with traces of marijuana in their bloodstream should be labeled a druggie. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch, but that's bogus, too. He has had several brushes with the law, arrested and charged with assaulting an officer on two occasions, as well as domestic violence, not to mention all the people who spoke of him as having a belligerent, racist attitude. This dude is one aggressive neighborhood watch. He "definitely" did not plan on killing, only confronting? Perhaps, but he was "definitely" stalking in a confrontational, aggressive manner in order to have an unarmed 16-year-old kid with no criminal record (just some school suspensions - bad, but not to the bone) start landing blows. My grandfather always bragged about the time he floored some guy who approached him angrily with a "swift left upper-cut". This was in 1920 or something, and not in Florida, thank goodness.


i don't buy your statement that "He has had several brushes with the law, arrested and charged with assaulting an officer on two occasions."

if this was true, he would not have a CPL. Furthermore, tryavon had just as much of a racist attitude...it is coming to light that he beat up zimmerman because he thought he was gay or at least that is what the fat black women that can't read cursive stated.


Google it. I'm not making it up. Pardon me - I bet you only get your info from Fox News - my bad.

What does it matter what kind of attitude Trayvon had? He was not the armed stalker who approached a person for no reason other than he looked "suspicious".

So let's add fat people to the list of things we are prejudiced against! But we're all into punctuation


Just read this thread. ....wow! How did you feel about an unarmed white female a few years back?


This is what happens when you are not here to supervise, Wing.

What unarmed white female? More details, please.


You know, the one with a famous football player in Cali. We had to live with that verdict remember. Don't recall our President at the time injecting himself into it and making a race issue of it.


A few years back? I'm thinking 2-3, you're thinking 15. That Obama really gets around, did you hear he's related to Trayvon? For all we know, he might have been instrumental in giving Zimmerman his marching orders to stalk and kill that night. Sound ridiculous? Of course - and so does blaming Obama for making the whole affair a race issue. Just another cop-out when there's no other way to make sense out of nullified jury.


he should have kept his trap shut, if he had the reaction around the country may have been different. Did I miscontrue that?


i don't get my info from google, and will continue not to. For the record, I don’t care for fox news at all, I prefer wzzm13. Trayvon’s attitude has everything to do with it, its what got him killed. He beat up an innocent guy trying to keep the neighborhood safe. I have nothing to add to your last immature comment.


Not to beat a dead horse, but if you believe attitude was a viable reason for an unarmed, 16-year-old guy who was walking home after dark, after buying candy, minding his own business, to eventually get shot in the heart by an armed man who aggressively profiled and stalked him, then I have nothing to add to this conversation.

Except to say, if you can't take the heat, don't be labeling people in a derogatory sense. It does come off negatively. Sorry if I offended you, but I took offensive to your remark (not that I'm "fat", mind you).

Also, you made my day with your Fox News admission - I'm so used to this, I had you pegged all wrong - just my prejudice showing! There is a lot of good stuff to Google....even WZZM13.

Tri-cities realist

"Arrested and charged with assaulting an officer on two occasions, as well as domestic violence..." Was Zimmerman found guilty on those charges? Or are accusations enough to label someone a criminal? I smell something in your post and it's not the truth. If he were found guilty of anything similar to what you suggest, he would not have a CPL, and the authorities would not be discussing whether he should be able to keep his CPL (which he should be able to since he was found not guilty of murder). Racist attitude by Zimmerman? Ironic for a guy who dated a black girl.

And this from CNN... "Ware, a black homeless man, was beaten by a Sanford police lieutenant's son. Zimmerman was critical of police handling of the case and reportedly worked on Ware's behalf." Yep he sure sounds racist to me.

And while the following belongs as a reply to another post here, I'm feeling too lazy at the moment.

According to Slate’s William Saletan, " The 911 dispatcher who spoke to Zimmerman on the fatal night didn’t tell him to stay in his car. Zimmerman said he was following a suspicious person, and the dispatcher told him, "We don't need you to do that." Chief prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda conceded in his closing argument that these words were ambiguous. " So Zimmerman was NOT ordered to refrain from following Martin.


If you are calling me a liar, I guess I'm not so glad you are back. Of course, it's the truth. It's a matter of public record, for Pete's sake. Re-read my post. Did I, at any time, say Zimmerman spent time in jail for his charges? No - again, it's all clearly explained. I'd provide a link, but as a welcome back gift, I'll let you dig a little deeper. Various technicalities got Zimmerman off the hook. They all show an aggressive personality and that he was no stranger to breaking laws.

His racism was not necessarily directed at black people, but in his case, South American people. And by the way, his girlfriend did apply for a restraining order against him for domestic abuse, and in retaliation, he applied for one against her - and both received them. Not exactly alter boy material. But to reiterate, I'm not suggesting these are reasons why he is a murderer, but to highlight his aggressive nature.

"We don't need you to do that". Very clear to me, unless you were hell-bent on stalking a young black guy in a hoodie.


It maybe public info, and it may be true he was arrested (I don’t care to check), but I guarantee he was not convicted. So you are damning him for a crime he was never convicted of, now that’s prejudice justice. Glad you weren’t on the jury, you probably would have slept through the hearing and still convicted him. You’re doing what a prosecutor does, twisting the truth to make it work for your opinion even when it’s not truthful. Technicalities did not get Zimmerman off the hook, the truth did.
“His racism was not necessarily directed at black people, but in his case, South American people.” …common lanivan really? You are really stretching it…how is racism and the restraining order linked??? I am sure he was really racist with his girlfriend


Yawn - sorry, just got up from napping. So you won't find information for yourself, you continue to misconstrue my comments, you just go along the path of least resistance.

Perhaps a name change is in order - truthdenied.


i didn't miscontrue any of your comments...im just providing feedback to your arrogant comments and trying to take your misinformation and tell you how it is in reality. You are the one making up circumstances and what if statements.

Go back to sleep...you are probably more productive to society doing that.


Appears you are more interested in making provocative, meaningless, and contradictory comments than actually debating an issue. That's ok - maybe it's the heat, maybe that's how you roll.

Another name change suggestion since you apparently didn't like the other one: truthinventor.


misconstrue it however you want Lanivan, the only meaningless points made were by your judge mental self. If this kid weren't black you liberals wouldn't look twice.

Tri-cities realist

No, you did not say that he spent time in jail. I was pointing out the fact that he was never convicted of anything. So how can you say "he was no stranger to breaking laws" if he was never convicted? Apparently I misinterpreted your comments as suggesting Zim was a criminal, not just an aggressor. Please accept my apology. And I agree neither of them were alter boy material.

"We don't need you to do that" Do you consider this an order? If so, you disagree with the prosecutor who agreed that it was ambiguous.

And I did not call you a liar... See I can play that game too. My how short lived the welcome back love fest was... I'm still glad to be back.

Tri-cities realist

"What should I do if a strange man approaches me in a hostile manner, shows a gun, and demands to know why I am outside my home, at night, in my neighborhood, wearing a hoodie? Should I try to reason with him, tell a few jokes, explain how I'm a good citizen/neighbor, or should I assume the worst and kick him, or otherwise defend myself from what could possibly be my demise?" Ok. I'll bite. No, you shouldn't assume (you know what they say) the worst and kick him, you would be the aggressor if he were merely "hostile" and did not assault you first. He would then be justified in defending himself and you could end up like Trayvon. The better answer is for you to arm yourself, obtain a concealed carry permit, and take a class to learn both how and when to use your handgun to defend yourself.



Post a Comment

Log in to your account to post comments here and on other stories, galleries and polls. Share your thoughts and reply to comments posted by others. Don't have an account on GrandHavenTribune.com? Create a new account today to get started.