Sadly, still with a good head of steam...
George Zimmerman has been released on $150,000 bail, prompting more ethical misconduct from the media and the lynch mob on the Left:
- Cable news was reporting that Martin’s parents are “devastated” at the news of Zimmerman’s release. They should not be devastated that an innocent man (in the eyes of the law) is not being forced to stay in prison for more than a year to await trial, and the fact that they are suggests that vengeance, not “justice”, is their true objective. Meanwhile, for CNN et al. to be reporting this as if releasing a defendant on bail is some kind of gift to Zimmerman or affront to Martin’s family is irresponsible and provocative. The news organizations have an obligation to explain that bail is based on the likelihood that the defendant is not a danger to others and not a flight risk. Zimmerman is neither: he turned himself into police as soon as he was charged, and has ties to the community. In America, we do not keep people in jail before they have been convicted unless it is absolutely unavoidable. Citizens interested in ‘justice” should not be devastated when any fellow citizen is afforded freedom up to and until his guilt of a crime has been proven. It is a right they may need themselves some day.
- The release prompted a flood of “Kill Zimmerman” tweets on Twitter. None from Spike Lee…yet.
- This e-mail, along with similar reports on blogs, has been circulating:
“In the wake of the killing of Trayvon Martin … The company Koch which manufactures paper products is paying for Zimmerman’s legal fees because they feel he had legal right to bear arms and shoot Trayvon. We are asking that people everywhere band together with us and pass this information on and not purchase any of the following items because your money will be paying for Zimmerman’s lawyer fees!!! Please do not purchase any of the following items : Angel soft toilet paper, Brawny paper towels, Dixie plates, bowls, napkins or cups, Mardi Gras napkins and towels, Quilted Northern toilet paper, Soft and gentile toilet paper, Sparkle napkins, Vanity fair napkins, Zero napkins, PASS IT ON”
The Koch-Zimmerman link was trumpeted in enough places (MSNBC featured it, naturally) that the Snopes “Urban Legends” website was moved to investigate it. Verdict: nada. A complete fabrication, one which plays to the power of cognitive dissonance: linking the boogeymen of the Left makes them all seem more sinister. Truth and fairness, of course, is not a consideration. (Similarly unfair but considerably more clever is this recent mash-up from the Right: “If I had a dog, it would look like the one Obama ate…”)
- Finally, just as many have suggested that the final act of this awful drama will be race riots should Zimmerman be acquitted, and some are using that specter to attempt to pressure the justice system into convicting the accused as protection against the threatened violence, CNN announced today that it will be presenting a special retrospective on the Rodney King incident.
What a coincidence.
Yes, I know: it’s the 20th anniversary of the Rodney Riots. But this isn’t news; doing retrospectives on two decade old race riots is a choice, and when new race riots are being threatened to influence the justice system, its a suspicious choice, and an irresponsible one. At this point, virtually all of the steam pushing this train wreck along is coming from the media and Left, which poses the conundrum: where are the responsible black, Democrat, or progressive leaders who are unequivocally urging fairness and reason, and attempting to disband the lynch mob before it becomes another kind of mob?
In particular, where is President Obama, who supposedly relishes teachable moments, and could beneficially use this one to teach the public about how justice operates in this country? His impetuous and ill-informed remarks highlighting Martin’s race helped fan the flames in this case, and his theme was rapidly converted into a crusade by members of the Congressional Black Caucus and, of course, the likes of NBC’s fired (and still anonymous) editor, who managed to convert Zimmerman’s 911 call into proof of profiling by “accidentally” extracting the middle of it.
As I noted in the previous post, the correct way to defuse potential race riots is for those who laid the groundwork for them to undo their own irresponsible handiwork, and not to ask George Zimmerman to surrender his rights.
Ethics Alarms 
Unfortunately, “responsible black, Democrat, or progressive leaders” has become an oxymoron.
Question #2: Why???
As Karla demonstrates, they do it because it works.
After reading blameblakeart’s more thoughtful response, they probably feel it’s a well deserved tit-for-tat response to past injustices they perceive coming from the other side. Just endless escalation. I always wonder if the more extreme pundits on both sides are supremely cynical or delusional.
“Responsible [any adjective] leaders” has actually become the oxymoron, which is why “In Nothing We Trust”:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/features/restoration-calls/in-nothing-we-trust-20120419.
It’s efforts like yours, Jack, that give me hope.
Thank you, but what’s going to give ME hope? Withdrawn…I’m just feeling glum today.
I agree with all your observations in this post, Jack. This whole thing is being blown out of control – by the Media. Because the story drives up ratings… meanwhile, justice suffers. Plus, we don’t need to get the hourly update about how the Martins “feel”. I am sure they are suffereing enough without daily news conferences – I am exagerating for effect of couse.
All that being said, I have a question for you, which requires some setup from me.. What this case has exposed is this “stand you ground” law and how it works – but that’s not the real issue I see.
I used to think historians would look back at this time and call it “the age of warfare” – but I think a more appropriate title for it would be “the age of deception” – because it seems like everything has a public facade, but then the stereotypical “hidden agendas” – this is the case for just about everything in our society.
Case in point, and not to pick on the republicans but it’s just much more obvious – all the republicans who were elected in 2010 as governors ran on a Jobs Jobs Jobs agenda – then as soon as they got into office they “stuck their necks out” ( Scott Walker’s own words from his meetings with the Illinois chamber of commerce ) and went after unions – which was never mentioned in the vast majority of their campaigns.
Contributing to this ubiquitousness is the stealth passing of this stand your ground law, and others like it – and there are many.Would you not agree? Act like A in public while endorsing B in private or passing legislation written by lobbyists in the dead of night. It’s like Karmetic Vampire law to me – a vampire can’t just attack you and start sucking your blood – you have to invite them into your home before they have the green light to start their parasitical feast.
I bring this up this analogy because of Matt Taibbi’s great HTML Help for Rolling Stone on the Goldman Sachs “Vampire Squid” reference – a parasite has to trick its host – and that’s happening in every aspect of our society. I really do believe that this hits as close to the core problems of your society, driven by the fear of the loss of power of the ruling elite.
So my question is this – since I am a tree-hugging, we’re all a part of this planet collective mindset, how SHOULD I and those like me, call attention to these injustices without behaving like a stereotypical “whiny liberal”?
What is the proper way for the so-called “left” to point out all thiese injustices, when there is so much deception in the hidden agendas of the oligarchical, koch brother // citizens united // alec written unjust laws and legislaton?
And do you agree with all this “hidden agenda” procedural behavior?
I agree with all your observations in this post, Jack. This whole thing is being blown out of control – by the Media. Because the story drives up ratings… meanwhile, justice suffers. Plus, we don’t need to get the hourly update about how the Martins “feel”. I am sure they are suffering enough without daily news conferences – I am exaggerating for effect of course.
All that being said, I have a question for you, which requires some setup from me.. What this case has exposed is this “stand you ground” law and how it works – but that’s not the real issue I see.
I used to think historians would look back at this time and call it “the age of warfare” – but I think a more appropriate title for it would be “the age of deception” – because it seems like everything has a public facade, but then the stereotypical “hidden agendas” – this is the case for just about everything in our society.
Case in point, and not to pick on the republicans but it’s just much more obvious – all the republicans who were elected in 2010 as governors ran on a Jobs Jobs Jobs agenda – then as soon as they got into office they “stuck their necks out” ( Scott Walker’s own words from his meetings with the Illinois chamber of commerce ) and went after unions – which was never mentioned in the vast majority of their campaigns.
Contributing to this ubiquitousness is the stealth passing of this stand your ground law, and others like it – and there are many.
Would you not agree?
Act like A in public while endorsing B in private or passing legislation written by lobbyists in the dead of night. It’s like Karmic Vampire law to me – a vampire can’t just attack you and start sucking your blood – you have to invite them into your home before they have the green light to start their parasitical feast.
I bring this up this analogy because of Matt Taibbi’s great article ( Link: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-07-16/wall_street/30081898_1_goldman-sachs-matt-taibbi-conspiracy-theory ) for Rolling Stone on the Goldman Sachs “Vampire Squid” reference – a parasite has to trick its host – and that’s happening in every aspect of our society. I really do believe that this hits as close to the core problems of your society, driven by the fear of the loss of power of the ruling elite.
So my question (finally ) is this – since I am a tree-hugging, we’re all a part of this planet collective mindset, how SHOULD I and those like me, call attention to these injustices without behaving like a stereotypical “whiny liberal”?
What is the proper way for the so-called “left” to point out all thiese injustices, when there is so much deception in the hidden agendas of the oligarchical, koch brother // citizens united // alec written unjust laws and legislaton?
And do you agree with all this “hidden agenda” procedural behavior?
Can I offer a few suggestions, blameblakeart? And I might add that this suggestion applies equally to those on the right.
1) Seek multiple sources of information on topics which concern you. Many of the more incendiary news items are rather monolithically presented – the Trayvon Martin case being a perfect example. Look for a variety of reports on the same topic, and consider them all with an open mind. The Web makes this possible.
2) Always go to actual sources. Blogs – and their super-sized first cousins (sites like Huffington Post) aren’t places to get news. They’re places to get COMMENTARY on news. While the opinions expressed can often be well worth consideration, they reflect the writer’s views on a given topic, and tend not to present a factual representation of what occurred. They may include facts, but such facts tend to be cherry-picked to support the views of the writer. All too often, other facts less supportive of that POV are ignored. Which brings us to:
3) Watch out for confirmation bias — in the source, and in yourself. One of the downsides of our current media environment, including the Web, is that it makes it easy for us to select our news and views from sources that tend to confirm what we already believe. Seeing our views echoed back in a way that pleases us is reassuring, but doesn’t always produce clear understanding of events. The Trayvon Martin case is a splendid example of this.
4) Always ask yourself who might be driving a story, and why. The Trayvon Martin case is an excellent example of this. As a communications consultant for more than 20 years, I can say without doubt that this story has all the hallmarks of a carefully orchestrated campaign. It was a local story only until LONG after the actual event. So how did it break? Obviously, Trayvon’s grief-stricken parents were the original nucleus – but that ultimately morphed into a dogpile of activists (seeking exposure), lawyers and flacks (seeking fees) and media (seeking ratings).
I know of too many cases to detail here, but suffice to say that much of what stirs public outrage typically sources back to a small number of people who have skin in a particular game. You’d be surprised who some of the players are. Suffice to say that we get played on a regular basis by those seeking financial or political advantage, aided and abetted by media outlets that are either complicit, gullible or too lazy (I’ll be charitable and add “or overstretched”) to dig in and really find the truth.
It happens on both sides of the current left/right debate. So the answer is this: be skeptical. Be very skeptical. Read tons, keep an open mind, and always remember that the news media is called the “first draft of history” for a very good reason.
It is ultimately an attack on Americans who defend themselves from criminals. Remember that the Harold Fish case was one of many cases that precipitated “Stand Your Ground” laws.
Who is doing the attacking here? The offensiveness of the Martin shooting is that the evidence points to him not being a criminal, yet he was stalked and killed. The police didn’t even do a basic investigation of the shooting, based on their interpretation of the SYG law. If the police had at least investigated it, people wouldn’t have gotten so upset.
Just because SYG is a bad law, doesn’t mean one is attacking the basic right of self-defense. Your comment is making a false dichotomy, when there are more options than “have the cops take a shooter’s word it was self-defense, and not do any investigation,” or “don’t allow anyone to defend himself,” and is an example of the kind of inflammatory rhetoric that poisons the discussion, and what too often passes for “news” these days.
The trope that the police did not investigate is complete speculation at this point. Again, that will come out at trial. There is no evidence that Martin was “stalked.” That implies intent to do harm. From everything we know, Zimmerman followed Martin out of suspicion that HE was planning to do harm. Don’t color the facts here, please.
Jack, If I start following you because I think you’re going to do harm, even though you haven’t actually done anything, then I would most definitely be stalking you.
But you know that today, the literal meaning of stalking is not what people hear when the word is used, nor is it the meaning people intend when they use it to describe Zimmerman. Wikipedia gets it right: “Stalking is a term commonly used to refer to unwanted and obsessive attention by an individual or group to another person. Stalking behaviors are related to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person and/or monitoring them. The word stalking is used, with some differing meanings, in psychology and psychiatry and also in some legal jurisdictions as a term for a criminal offense.”
Stalking suggests a predator. A cat doesn’t stalk a bird to protect a worm somewhere. Using the term presupposes a criminal or sinister motive, and it is both inaccurate and misleading in this context.
I’m in agreement with you on all of that.
Stalking is not a neutral term, but your description of the best case scenario for Zimmerman is still stalking.
Jack, that’s not true. From all reports, one thing for sure is that he was on the call with 9-1-1 and was told not to follow the “suspect” on at least two occassions. To me, that’s stalking for no reason…or because Treyvon was WWB…walking while black.
It is true: why don’t you read the transcript, instead of relying on “reporsts”? http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html
There are no “two places,” and the operator says “We don’t need you to do that,” not “Don’t do that.” And whatever it is to you, that’s not stalking. It’s called following someone you’re suspicious of to see that he doesn’t do anything wrong. Your last sentence is just idiotic, after all we now know, and what we know we don’t know.
Say hi to Spike, Jesse and Al for me.
“following someone you’re suspicious of to see that he doesn’t do anything wrong” IS stalking. Other than that, I second your criticism.
Arrgh. But tgt, that is NOT what people think of when they hear “stalking” and “stalker”. They think “stalking prey.” They think Rebecca Shaefer. That’s what the word connotes, and that’s what the people who use it in connection with Zimmerman are trying to connote. That’s wrong, and thus the word is wrongly used.
Zimmerman did follow Martin looking to get him. I don’t see why stalking prey is a horrible comparison. Zimmerman’s behavior was a creepy kind of violation. I’d consider it a civil rights issue if a police officer had done the same thing. How can we refer to it without the root word “stalk” that does not whitewash what Zimmerman was doing?
You use a neutral term, like “follow,” because we don’t know what GZ was “doing.” If he was trying to “get” Martin, why did he call for the police to “get him”? Using a prey analogy implies that he set out to harm Martin. That’s false; pure speculation based on nothing at all. He was suspicious; that’s all we know.
The neutral term doesn’t accurately describe what we know occurred. If someone follows me and calls the police to report me for, well, nothing, I’d call that stalking. You wouldn’t?
Not in this situation, because it’s inflammatory and misleading. We know that Martin was doing nothing, but Zimmerman didn’t. Stalking vs. flowing depends on the evident intent of the follower. “Stalking with a gun” is also misleading in this case, literally true, but not necessarily accurate. Zimmerman was following Martin, but we don’t know that the fact that he had a gun was any more part of his intentions than the fact that he had a wallet. Once it is shown that Zimmerman was actively stalking Trayvon, as opposed to following to see if he was up to no good, then I think the prosecution’s case is half-way home.
And again, we’re back to the same spot. Your best case scenario(Zimmerman following Martin to see if Martin was up to no good) is enough to validate the stalking language. No, Zimmerman didn’t know Martin wasn’t up to no good, but that’s not a standard that anyone should be trumpeting.
I don’t know that [Jack’s kid] isn’t up to no good, so I’m going to follow him and call the police. That’s not acting like a threat to him at all. Nope, not stalking.
uh-uh-uh! Zimmerman believed he had reasonable suspicion that Martin WAS up to no good. (My son is always up to no good.)
It doesn’t matter if Zimmerman thought his actions were reasonable. I could think it’s reasonable to kill my next door neighbor. It’d still be correct to call me a killer.
But killing someone is per se UNreasonable.Being suspicious of a stranger in the rain, in a gated community that has had a rash of burglaries is not. Following for safety and to prevent harm isn’t predatory. His intentions are crucial to the characterization.
Killing is not per se unreasonable. There can be reasonable reasons to kill, that doesn’t make it any less killing. There can be reasonable reasons to stalk someone, that doesn’t make it any less stalking.
“There are no “two places,” and the operator says “We don’t need you to do that,” not “Don’t do that.”
But Jack,isn’t that just semantics?
I don’t think so; I really don’t. “Don’t do that” means he was instructed not to follow him. “We don’t need you to do that” is equivocal. I can tell my wife that I’m doing the dishes, and if she says “I don’t need you to do that,”, I may reply, “That’s OK, no problem”…or just do them. “I don’t need you to do that” means “that isn’t necessary”; “Don’t do that” means it’s forbidden. “I don’t need you to do that” could be a vague, imprecise way of saying “Don’t,” but it is certainly ambiguous.
I understand what you’re saying in that context (washing dishes) but if a 9/11 op said that to me in the context of following and engaging in a potentially dangerous situation I would take it as “don’t do that.”
UNIDENTIFIED DISPATCHER: Are you following him?
ZIMMERMAN: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED DISPATCHER: OK. We don’t need you to do that.
ZIMMERMAN: OK.
UNIDENTIFIED DISPATCHER: All right, sir, what is your name?
And that’s why it’s an ambiguous phrase.
Told to stop doing X vs told it wasn’t necessary to do X. That’s a huge difference. “Stop cleaning up!” vs “We don’t need you to clean up.”
The large point though was that Thelma was clearly uninformed. And she was “correcting” someone with her misinformation.
Hey Arthur – thank you for your measured and thoughtful reply. Can you address the “assumptions” that I make about the hidden agendas, and I used the word ubiquitous for a reason. It seems to be everywhere.
I am a research bug, and get my news from a variety of sources… but I do lean way “left” so to speak, even thought the Linear description of the political area is 3D, like the area on the surface of a sphere. I wrote a post on it about 2 years ago – check my blog for the link. And I am a total skeptic. But I believe in Reason and Justice, beyond what laws are passed by the powers that be. Just because something is legal, doesn’t make it right, logical or fair. IMHO.
I can’t address those assumptions because I’m not seeing an example of any in your post. My comment is really more about general guidelines for navigating the free-for-all that is the modern media, and it’s offered for anyone attempting to understand the world in our hyper-partisan climate.
Glad you’re looking at many sources. Just goes to show that people can do that and still arrive at different conclusions – in your case, a commie pinko bastitch and in mine, a right wing knuckle-dragging Neanderthal. 😉
And what better place than Ethics Alarms for a civil excahnge of ideas between a a commie pinko bastitch and a right wing knuckle-dragging Neanderthal?
If that does not work, make sure the A-10 Thunderbolts and Predator drones are armed and ready.
So you’re advocating our own military industrial complex attack your own citizens… Correct? Just to clarify.
Only those who are using violence to deprive a man of his civil rights, or to retaliate for a man’s exercise of his civil rights.
You might want to look up the Ku Klux Klan Act and the Enforcement Act.
While I do understand that this is a media feeding frenzy and the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson will make mountains out of molehills I do believe the victim here is Trayvon. The 9/11 transcript had George muttering that these guys always get away and “f**king coons.” His motivation for following Trayvon when he was told not to was racial. Trayvon had done nothing wrong. If someone was following me you can be sure that if she caught up with me I would fight her with everything in me because for all I know she’s out to kill me. George didn’t have to kill Trayvon. George was the predator,Trayvon the prey,not the other way around. The shot in self defense didn’t have to be fatal since Trayvon was unarmed. Knowing that George is a racist bigot most definitely works against him in which case he should have kept his mouth shut.
ARGHHH!!! The “fucking coons” myth again! This has been retracted by the very experts who first claimed it; CNN’s most recent tests think he is either saying “cold” or something else. This is exactly what the thread is talking about. The media has been reckless, and unless someone follows the daily yes, no, maybe of the facts being misrepresented in the media, you end up relying on bad information.
Similarly, Zimmerman was not “TOLD,” “ORDERED” or otherwise not to follow the kid. He was told “you don’t have to do that.” The recording indicates, in some interpretations, that when he was told to wait, Zimmerman said “okay” and stopped the pursuit, which was not “stalking.” Karla, the comment is guilty of the same distortion that has been pushed from the start, a combination of speculation and intentional misinterpretation.
Of course Martin was the victim–he’s dead, and shouldn’t be. He was minding his own business until the encounter. THAT is one fact that is established. But there is no evidence that Martin is a racist bigot, and if you’ve read all my posts, and been reading fair accounts rather than listening to demagogues, you wouldn’t be repeating this garbage online. I don’t blame you for getting bad information, but I repeating things that were never true or definitely established as facts is what keeps the train rolling. Do you want Zimmerman to be a racist? Al does; the parents do; the CBC does. Fine: wait and see what can be proven in court. The only think we know is that a Hispanic American shot an unarmed kid who was black. There is nothing that tells us that a white kid who acted exactly like Trayvon wouldn’t also be dead if he ran into George that night.
Okay Jack,who do we listen to if we want just the facts? Every g%#&$*m media outlet spins. Blacks want blood,whites say bring back the KKK. I’m angry that the kid died for no other reason than going out to get his little brother some candy and tea, I’m angry that George has an over inflated sense of his own importance as a neighborhood watchman seeing that no crime was being committed. If race wasn’t his motivation what was? And really that aspect of it doesn’t matter. Trayvon wasn’t doing anything wrong and because of George’s actions he’s dead.
Great question, and the sad answer is, I have no idea who is trustworthy any more. CNN is arguably the least biased news organization, and it has botched this even but good. But one does have to watch for the counter-point to every point—it also helps, for once, to have law degree and a background in criminal law. In this case, the liberal sources have thoroughly disgraced themselves, and the conservative sources, by the luck of the draw, have the easier side of calling foul on obvious fouls. (It is just as often with roles reversed.) This statement—“Trayvon wasn’t doing anything wrong and because of George’s actions he’s dead”—is true, sad, and infuriating. But by itself, it does not describe a crime. That’s what you have to keep in mind.
I don’t know what standard procedure is for the police but I have seen cases where the person is fighting in self defense but the police arriving on the scene don’t give anyone the benefit of the doubt. As far as they’re concerned one is as guilty as the other and treated accordingly.
This case just stomps all over my sense of justice. The feeling that someone must pay.I’ll never get used to it.
I don’t blame you for feeling that way at all.
Supposedly he said “punks”, but I’ve listened to it and it sure sounds like “coons” to me. I think the prosecutor is going with “punks” because the audio is too poor to really prove what he said, and she can remove one of the inflammatory racial elements from the trial.
That’s not even the biggest question here. Let’s assume Zimmerman is totally unbiased, and honestly mistook Trayvon’s innocent actions for criminal ones, got in a fight, and in fear of his life, shot the boy. The more disturbing part of the case was that the police seemingly assumed a young black man must have been engaged in criminal activity, and of course this citizen was compelled to defend his life with deadly force.
Racism isn’t merely ethnic prejudice, it’s prejudice plus institutional power. If the police had not merely relied on notoriously unreliable eyewitness accounts to justify not charging Zimmerman, but done basic forensic tests to establish facts, they probably would have found enough evidence to charge him. Even if they didn’t. they would have appeared to to be investigating impartially, and the evidence would have been available, in case new information arose later. Now the evidence is old and may not be clear enough to resolve the case with any certainty.
What Zimmerman thought he was entitled to do under SYG, and whether he had a propensity to more frequently suspect blacks in criminal activity, certainly may factor into his motivation for having an altercation with Martin, but the more disturbing question is, how much did these considerations factor into the police decision to limit their investigation, and not perform (costly) forensic examinations? Did they just have a “gut” feeling that Martin “fit the profile” of a violent burglar? We should expect the custodians of public order to be diligent and impartial in their investigations.
Whether Zimmerman is a “bigot” also isn’t the real question. Though many have already indicted him in that regard (and Jack is right to condemn any “media outlet” that propagates this characterization), we really don’t know what is in his head. It’s entirely possible (in my opinion, quite likely) that he has black friends, and deals civilly with black people he encounters socially and professionally, yet, on a dark street, a base, natural response to associate a different skin color with “otherness” kicks in, and, being so sure of his non-racist nature, he assumes the “bad” feeling he has about this guy must because this guy is up to no good.
Prejudice and stereotyping is a nearly unavoidable human reaction, an associative reflex, that may have had survival value, when people personally knew – and were related to – all the people in their immediate vicinity, but is catastrophically corrosive to community in any kind of multicultural society, and, unexamined, leads to racist thought.
Zimmerman may be guilty of living the unexamined life, but we don’t expect every citizen to be a paragon of civic virtue; one of the most sacred rights in a society of free people, is the right to go to hell. However, to what standard shall we hold those who we have charged with protecting the rights of those whom the shortsightedness of others would seek to destroy?
1. What it sounds like to you (or me) isn’t evidence, and isn’t probative.
2. You have no way of knowing why no charges were brought originally. I’ve been through this before. The fact that the police don’t arrest immediately doesn’t prove a thing about their belief. They didn’t have probable cause.
3. If there is evidence that bias played a role in the conduct of the police, then I agree with you completely. I haven’t seen it, and the CBC isn’t making resolutions about the police.
“What is the proper way for the so-called “left” to point out all these injustices, when there is so much deception in the hidden agendas of the oligarchical, koch brother // citizens united // alec written unjust laws and legislaton? And do you agree with all this “hidden agenda” procedural behavior?”
First, take off your liberal blindfold so you can see beyond “us” and “them” and shift into neutral. For example, how can you knock the Koch brothers and Citizens United and ignore George Soros and MoveOn.org and Media Matters? Also verify everything that comes out of BO’s mouth – a classic example of saying one thing and doing another. If you’re young, check into the race-baiter’s backgrounds so you know they are not what they appear to be now.
Back in the dark ages when I was in high school, we learned to research a topic, form an opinion, then write a paper on the exact opposite of the opinion we formed. Arthur has certainly said it better than I could, but expanding your information sources to include “enemy” websites is enlightening.
This is also a good website to learn how to weigh, measure, and respond. Good job, Jack.
Give me an example of Moveon.org donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to specific candidates with hidden agendas. Give me a break. You can’t even compare the two. The Koch Brothers and CUnited are directly affecting the way our country is being turned into an Oligarchical, Totalitarian Corporatocracy.
How is this not a fact?
Keep dreaming if you think “Soros-Funded” anti-Reich-wing momements are funding Chamber of Commerce meetings where hidden agendas are discussed by Corporate lackies and imps of their Board of Directors. I am not seeing it.
Washington Post a good enough source for you?
http://www.wibw.com/home/headlines/9917556.html
True, but that money went to a Publication for an AD BUY, and it’s 5 years ago… That money went to sway opinion, not policy. That is a False Equivalency. On a Pass Fail, that ‘s a big F.
Keep reading: “In 2004, MoveOn spent millions from wealthy donors such as financier George Soros, but it has grown into a force that has raised millions in donations from members and pumped more than $6 million into ads in this election cycle alone.”
It is a false equivalence to compare moveOn to the Koch’s, but with the challenge you gave (ignoring the loadedness of your language), Arthur’s post is solid.
In all fairness, Jack, I think you need to tell your readers where you get your apparently endless supply of ridiculous train wreck photos.
Not that they will suffice for the anticipated number of actual ridiculous train wrecks that will be discussed here, but so far you’ve done a pretty darned good job of ensuring that supply outpaces demand.
The train wreck photos come from a wonderful website “about weird and wonderful things,” Dark Roasted Blend. It has a special page of train wreck photos…this particular one is completely bewildering.
This was a real accident? I thought it was designed that way! 😛
These arguments are really insensitive and unintelligible…everyone knows that its wrong to kill an unarmed man, a teenager at that…there are no facts that can say Zimmerman was not wrong…he caused the whole event which led to the murder of an unarmed teen…people the facts are the facts…It’s not my place to understand why white people are the way they are…Define what a devil is; and tell me that historically white people/Europeans don’t fit that description…AND NO NOT EVERY WHITE PERSON, BUT ENOUGH TO MAKE IT MAJORITY…
Thanks, Lord—I was waiting for one unequivocally racist and ignorant comment along these lines, and I am grateful for it.
1. It is wrong to kill an unarmed man, almost all the time. It is not, however, necessarily a crime.
2. It is impossible to perceive right and wrong from a hateful and biased mindset such as yours.
hilarious…of course…use “racism” and “ignorant” as the cop out for me telling the truth…it doesn’t bother me…I’m a PhD candidate, therefore somebody had to think I was intelligent at some point…that’s how small your opinion matters
Can you honestly answer this?
“Define what a devil is; and tell me that historically white people/Europeans don’t fit that description”
Appeal to authority. I hope you’re not a PHD candidate in philosophy.
As for your question, the obvious answer is that there is no such thing as a devil. Ignoring that, the burden of proof is on you as you were the one who is splitting white people apart from people in general.
PhD in Philosophy? yea right…
There is no devil…Agreed…for sake of answering the question…devil implies evil/unproductive or whatever negative connotation helps you understand…
So who has been the most negative/evil/unproductive people in the history of the world (as far back as we know it)?
So who has been the most negative/evil/unproductive people in the history of the world (as far back as we know it)?
Aside from being completely undeterminable, what does that have to do with anything?
Holy Moley, BG—when in a hole, stop digging. You’ve proven the “PhD’s can be incapable of rational thought” theory; now you’re working on disproving the “people who know something about ethics hang out on ethics blogs” theory, which I also have some doubts about, especially lately. Also the “PhD’s can compose coherent messages” theory….
I’m just messing with you…because I’M THE DEVIL!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
“BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!”
Jack! Jack! Snap out of it,man! *SLAP* Somebody help me here!!
I would not know.
Adolf Hitler claimed it was the Jews, but he is not exactly a reliable source…
This thread is off point. If BG’s PhD was in philosophy, then the argument may be centered around the perception of conscious opinion versus facts.
Every fact is an opinion that a fact exists. There is no discernible method to conclusively determine that an expression of one’s thoughts conveyed from one declarant to another can be sufficiently identified as a fact or mere opinion of fact.
Most racial divides have stemmed from a sense of collective geographic “conquering”–where people are deemed inferior by their lack of physical ability to overcome an opponents will. The American principle of the “conqueror” was solidified in Johnson v. McIntosh (1823), holding that a native land conveyance after the revolutionary war was invalid due to the inferior title held by a conquered tribe. This principle was deeply embedded in Anglo-Saxon philosophy and was a cemented practice of the Atlantic slave trade.
This leads to a chain of inferences: Those who are conquerable are week. Those who are weak lack sophistication. Those without sophistication lack technological productivity. Those without technological productivity lack sustainable resources allocation. Those without sustainable resource allocation cannot increase population. Limited populations have limited markets of ideas. Limited ideas limits sophistication. Leading to a never ending chain of inferences that create geographic superiority. All premised on the assumption that only unsophisticated races are week and hence conquerable.
Does BG imply that white people are the devil? Or does he really imply that sophisticated people reign superior over less sophisticated cohorts? If that is the case, then his argument that the devil represents an unproductive evil is a flawed opinion–of course not a fact.
The shadow question remains: do more sophisticated players take advantage of policy driven laws to take advantage of less sophisticated players–the answer is YES and always will be.
Lastly: was George Zimmerman really a sophisticated player using the no retreat laws to take advantage of an unsophisticated 17 year old? Or was this the case of a policy driven law being implemented by two unsophisticated players?
Before we judge either player’s actions–should we determine if the underlying policy is based on flawed assumptions or just blame it on racial conspiracy or devils?
Right on the money. I concur, and have a comment below that I hope are the sprinkles on your already deliciously scrumptious cupcake and icing comment.
BG, there is no point in arguing with this kind of self-validating garbage. Your comment is convincing on one point: there are PhD’s who know less than the typical bowling alley attendant. (But I already knew that.) Debating the relative virtues and misconduct of races is a fool’s game, and it is not surprising that you enjoy it. I’ve got better things to do, like picking my nose. Enjoy your hateful and paranoid construct; apparently you do. Yes, we’re all out to get you.
Slightly off topic, I had an English teacher in high school who was getting a PHD in English. She couldn’t spell, write a consistent test, analyze a written passage, or even write a fill-in-the-blank vocabulary quiz without at least one of the sentences being grammatically incorrect. I will take the “Cotton Mather was [beholden] God” to my grave. The teacher was called on that mistake during the test by someone who actually had credentials (the student was a word meister who had taken etymology from Johns Hopkins while in middle school), and the teacher’s response was “It’s correct as written.” She got her PHD the next year. I’m sure someone thought she was smart, but that didn’t mean it was true. More like that she diligently did her homework and had an adviser that liked her point of view on one specific topic.
The presumption that degrees and credentials=intelligence has probably caused as much needless pain, waste and destruction as any pestilence.
Jack, I deal with Nazi nithings on Usenet on a near-daily basis.
BG’s comments look almost exactly like the comments by the Revd, Topaz, and Carolina Reb.
Given the fact that some people (like Joanna Ramos and George Fergusson) have been killed or maimed due to a single punch, the only unarmed men would be quadruple amputees.
Everyone knows [what poster believes]…there are no facts that can [contradict what poster thinks happened]…[restatement of the “facts” that kind of support the poser]…people the facts are the facts…[false modesty with an inherent assumption that all people who disagree with poster are bad]. [Throw off the false modesty and claim that other group is evil]…[modify latter statement to note that it doesn’t apply to everyone in the group, just the majority of the group.]
Everyone knows that Thor is the God of Thunder…there are no facts can contradict the mighty hammer Mjolnir…Thor has used this hammer repeatedly…people the facts are the facts…It’s not my place to understand why non-Norse people are the way they are…Define what a devil is; and tell me that historically non Norse don’t fit that description…AND NO NOT EVERY NON-NORSE, BUT ENOUGH TO MAKE IT MAJORITY…
this is just utter non sense…
senseless indeed…
instead of your philosophical jargon…prove inaccuracies in my argument..
Can you honestly answer this?
“Define what a devil is; and tell me that historically white people/Europeans don’t fit that description”
I made an accurate parallel to your argument because I thought that would be easy for you (and anyone else reading) to understand.
You want a point by point takedown? Here it is:
everyone knows that its wrong to kill an unarmed man, a teenager at that
Fallacies:
* Appeal to belief.
* Ambiguity
It doesn’t matter what everyone knows, and even though killing is normally wrong, there are times when killing an unarmed teenager is ethical… like when he’s beating your head into pavement.
there are no facts that can say Zimmerman was not wrong
Fallacies:
* black or white
* begging the question
Either Zimmerman was right or Martin was right. There is no middle ground to you. You also use the most blatant begging the question I have ever seen. This conclusion is one of your premises
he caused the whole event which led to the murder of an unarmed teen
Fallacies:
* false cause
* black or white
Just because something came first doesn’t mean that it is to blame for what came later. My old government teacher in high school explained it this way: “I hate the band Bush, I wish they never existed, but I can’t blame Nirvana.” Again you’re assuming that their can be no middle ground in the appropriateness of actions
people the facts are the facts
This is just nonsense.
It’s not my place to understand why white people are the way they are…Define what a devil is; and tell me that historically white people/Europeans don’t fit that description…AND NO NOT EVERY WHITE PERSON, BUT ENOUGH TO MAKE IT MAJORITY…
Fallacies:
* non sequitur
* burden of proof
This has nothing to do with whether or not Zimmerman is guilty of anything. You are also the one claiming white people are different, so it is you who has to back that up.
Now we know your secret recipe…
Basic logic, decent memory, and breathtakingly awesome google-fu?
Shhhhhhhh..
tgt just speaking from a single point in the history of the US concerning the treatment of blacks by whites one would conclude that whites are evil. From my own observation of blogs and comments there is an unacceptable amount of blatantly racist comments from whites concerning this case. But beyond that there is no evidence that I know of that proves whites are more evil or less than others. Consider the black on black crime here in the US and in Africa. All races are capable of horrendous crimes.
I agree wholeheartedly.
As an interesting side note, I think I’ve seen more blatantly anti-white comments concerning this case than anti-black comments, but not by much.
Yes and the beatings of innocent people in payback for Trayvon.
Yes and the beatings of innocent people in payback for Trayvon.
Those persons who did those beatings should be prosecuted under the PATRIOT
Act.
Prosecuted under a horrible totalitarian law that was supposed to only apply to terrorists? Ugh.
Also, what beatings?
I retract the “what beatings?” question.
tgt regarding the beatings in Trayvon’s name there was an elderly man beaten by black youths who claimed they said it was for Trayvon. Also this story. It’s not for sure that the latter has much to do with Trayvon, only one woman reportedly yelled after the beating that it was.
She was, however, the only witness. I don’t think it’s that crucial a detail.
http://globetribune.info/2012/04/24/justice-for-trayvon-cited-in-payback-beating-video/
Oops. Forgot to post the link for tgt.
I didn’t see you retracted,tgt,until after I posted.
I’ll bite.
A devil is a construct through which religions the world over help to define evil. Instead of defining actions as moral or immoral(unethical or ethical), religion has constructed a being which can be blamed for their actions allowing people a scapegoat. “It wasn’t me who did it! The boogeyman made me do it!”
White people and those of European descent are not devils. It is your place to understand “white people” as you are part of society. It is your duty as a member of society to understand and get along with other people regardless of race, creed, color, intelligence, or if they pick their nose or not.
I’m just trying to wrap my head around what you think unproductive means.
With you being a man about to get a PhD, surely you can answer such a simple question? And be descriptive. Explain to me how Europe is the land of the unproductive or how the white man is the devil.
P.S. Can I get the name of your professor who is sponsoring you for your PhD? Or maybe just the University?
I’d also be interested in the answers to those last questions, along with the subject matter you are getting a PHD in.
I do find it sort of ironic that he’s lambasting Europeans for being unproductive while using a technological medium that came in being in large part due to discoveries and inventions made by scientists and engineers of European descent. Really, as a would-be historian, I can say that while Europe has been guilty of many crimes, it’s also been one of the more intellectually productive regions in history, Dark Ages being somewhat exempt from that.
Judaism (and Christianity from which it inherited the idea) teaches that there is a Devil who opposes God.
But it still teaches that humans are responsible for their own actions. Humans who sin on advice from the Devil can not disclaim culpability by arguing that they were merely following the Devil’s advice. (A similar concept was established in Nuremberg.)
The white man serves the Devil.
So does the white woman.
So does the black man.
So does the black woman.
So does….well, you should get my point by now.
Jesus Christ can save any person from the Devil.
But God is the creator of everything and He is everywhere. Therefore God created the devil and is inside all of the devil’s actions. I do enjoy this loving God.
“But God is the creator of everything and He is everywhere. Therefore God created the devil and is inside all of the devil’s actions. I do enjoy this loving God.”
He created people too. At one point He wished He hadn’t! Lol.
Just following things to their logical conclusions… If God wished He hadn’t created people, He wouldn’t have, that’s the awesomeness of God.
tgt I can’t find your and Jack’s comments on stalking but one of the definitions of stalking is,”: to pursue obsessively and to the point of harassment.” That does fit what you’re saying I think. If someone were following me,especially at night,I would feel harassed…and scared.
This thread is off point. If BG’s PhD was in philosophy, then the argument may be centered around the perception of conscious opinion versus facts.
Every fact is an opinion that a fact exists. There is no discernible method to conclusively determine that an expression of one’s thoughts conveyed from one declarant to another can be sufficiently identified as a fact or mere opinion of fact.
Most racial divides have stemmed from a sense of collective geographic “conquering”–where people are deemed inferior by their lack of physical ability to overcome an opponents will. The American principle of the “conqueror” was solidified in Johnson v. McIntosh (1823), holding that a native land conveyance after the revolutionary war was invalid due to the inferior title held by a conquered tribe. This principle was deeply embedded in Anglo-Saxon philosophy and was a cemented practice of the Atlantic slave trade.
This leads to a chain of inferences: Those who are conquerable are week. Those who are weak lack sophistication. Those without sophistication lack technological productivity. Those without technological productivity lack sustainable resources allocation. Those without sustainable resource allocation cannot increase population. Limited populations have limited markets of ideas. Limited ideas limits sophistication. Leading to a never ending chain of inferences that create geographic superiority. All premised on the assumption that only unsophisticated races are week and hence conquerable.
Does BG imply that white people are the devil? Or does he really imply that sophisticated people reign superior over less sophisticated cohorts? If that is the case, then his argument that the devil represents an unproductive evil is a flawed opinion–of course not a fact.
The shadow question remains: do more sophisticated players take advantage of policy driven laws to take advantage of less sophisticated players–the answer is YES and always will be.
Lastly: was George Zimmerman really a sophisticated player using the no retreat laws to take advantage of an unsophisticated 17 year old? Or was this the case of a policy driven law being implemented by two unsophisticated players?
Before we judge either player’s actions–should we determine if the underlying policy is based on flawed assumptions or just blame it on racial conspiracy or devils?
The following sentence is false.
The previous sentence is true.
This is the paradox of existence, with free will thrown in to boot.
Reality can change – and one person’s will can change reality for large numbers of human beings – for the whole planet as well. The “white men” forced a brand of reality upon the inhabitants of North and South America in the 16th century, and Africans as well by importing them over as slaves. They did this at the point of a barrel of musket, cannon and steel. It was their choice, to exploit and manipulate. It’s their own Karmic Debt they’ll pay eventually.
In the meantime, the opposite could be implemented so easily in theory. It is the choice of the “ruling elite” per se, of course with deception and trickery, to act as if this is not possible. But if Humans on this particular Planet Earth in this particular Reality in which I type this reply were to apply with all their might the same energy into lifting all of us up instead of suppressing and exploiting each other, what a different Reality this would be, “God” or “Not God”.
Free will exists, and it is a choice… but someone could force his own will upon you and give you no choice.
I don’t believe you understand the terms “reality” or “free will”
Its simple Economics and Law. The law defines the boundaries for the reality of free to operate.
Huh? What does that have to do with free will or actual reality. If we’re going to equivocate, I think I can successfully argue that you’re a German Shepherd.
I’ve given up on blameblakeart’s random capitalization, but that doesn’t make yours any better.
I find it to be crazy that a man kills a child and he walks out like a hero, and if he had killed a white child he would be lynched. Justice is not blind just prejudiced.
Who has ever called Zimmerman a hero? When was the last time you heard of someone who killed a white teen being lynched? In Maryland, a drunk teen just killed three of them and could be out on the street in a year. These are just fantasy, buper-sticker rallying cries…if you believe them, you shouldn’t, and if you don’t you shouldn’t be repeating them.
I agree with almost everything you wrote. The family’s histrionics over the defendant’s release on $150,000 bail is misplaced. It was a reasonable amount, the defendant does not appear to be a flight risk, and he should not sit in a jail for a year awaiting trial. I lose you when you write that blacks, Democrats, and the President need to step forward and calm the country down. I don’t see the country as the powderkeg that you see. I agree with you that the media should not be running stories in which the speculate that people (ie, blacks) may riot if Zimmerman is freed. More than irresponsible, it portrays African Americans as prone to riot and criminality when they disagree with the criminal justice system. If blacks perceived the criminal justice system as overwhelming unfair, and an acquittal was just one more glaring example, maybe some folks out there would take it to the streets –because there was no other recourse. But despite all the unfairness in our justice system, I think most Americans believe it is more fair than unfair, blacks included. If the case is removed to a white suburb and an all-white jury, people may cry foul, but if a diverse jury, that includes blacks, ultimately acquits, I believe most Americans will accept the verdict.
To put some of this into perspective, check out Balko’s link to the Reuters story on George Zimmerman. As Balko put it: this is the story MSM should have done a month ago… I’d put in the link at this point if only I knew how to do that… Its in the archive section for Apr 29th on The Agitator log, which is on Jack’s blogroll. [JM: Thanks, Mike. The link is here.]]