90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Week In The News: Egypt, Airliner Crash, Boston Bombing Suspect In Court

Egypt in uproar.  Airliner down in San Francisco. Boston bombing suspect in court. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

Supporters of ousted President Mohammed Morsi (AP)

Supporters of ousted President Mohammed Morsi hold up a symbolic coffin, representing some 51 people killed Monday, in Nasr City, Cairo, Egypt, Tuesday, July 9, 2013. (AP)

Big rivers of news this week. From Congress, with its fireworks on immigration, food stamps, farm bill, filibuster. From Egypt, where many have died as the military and Muslim Brotherhood face off. From the courts, where the trial of George Zimmerman in the death of Trayvon Martin wraps up in drama, and the young Boston bombing suspect made his first appearance. From disaster zones – an airliner down in San Francisco, an oil train and much of a town blown up in Canada. Hot times in the summertime.

This hour On Point: our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

- Tom Ashbrook

Guests

Kelly O’Donnell, Capitol Hill Correspondent for NBC News. (@KellyO)

Michael Crowley, Senior correspondent for TIME, covering foreign policy and national security. (@CrowleyTIME)

Jack Beatty, On Point News Analyst.

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • 1Brett1

    According to Zimmerman’s initial statements to the police dispatcher (based purely on Trayvon Martin walking), Trayvon Martin was an “a**hole” and was like others who “always get away.” According to Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin was a “f**king punk” and was “up to no good.” According to Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin was a “suspect.” If you are out at night walking, wearing a hoodie and carrying candy, a can of ice tea and talking on a cell phone, does that make you an “a**hole,” a “f**king punk” who is “up to no good,” a “suspect” and a type of person who “always gets away”? 

    I don’t know what Florida’s definition is of a person who acts with a “depraved mind.” Did Zimmerman’s opinion of Trayvon Martin indicate he had ill will toward Trayvon Martin? Zimmerman did clearly target Trayvon Martin, called the police on him, pursued him, and shot him, killing him. These sets of actions by Zimmerman in conjunction with his initial statements about Trayvon Martin indicate he did view Trayvon Martin with suspicion and contempt. Yet, Zimmerman had no tangible reason to feel this way, other than Trayvon Martin was someone he had never seen in the community before. Does any of this, or the sum of it constitute a “depraved mind”? It does indicate a corrupt mind, particularly by a person who had taken law enforcement classes at the local community college, was a concealed weapon carrier, and was a Neighborhood Watch leader. 

    If you pull out a gun and shoot someone, killing them, are you expunged of any guilt simply by saying you did so out of self defense, without providing any evidence other than some mild injuries that only really indicate you were punched in the nose (only circumstantial evidence that you were punched in the nose and beaten about your head by the person you killed)? 

    If you kill someone and claim self defense, it would seem you have some burden of proof to show that it was actually self defense, and the proof should be beyond your unsubstantiated story you provide police, a story having more than a few inconsistencies, discrepancies, and some other statements by you that appear to be lies. 

    My opinion is that Zimmerman actually considered Trayvon Martin an “a**hole,” a “f**king punk,” a type among those who “always get away,” a person “up to no good,” and a “suspect” for no legitimate reason other than he had never seen Martin before and there had been some crime in the neighborhood previously. What made Trayvon Martin look like a person Zimmerman considered such a low-life? I am also of the opinion that Zimmerman did get out of his car to go after Trayvon Martin. I also think Zimmerman, most likely, thought the outcome was going to be very different than it was. He had a gun, some sense of authority because of his Neighborhood Watch status and his relationship with local police, and thought he would intimidate Trayvon Martin. I am also of the opinion that Martin didn’t cower when Zimmerman confronted him and Zimmerman panicked as a result. Instead of Zimmerman leaving and letting police take care of Trayvon Martin (even if Martin had punched him in the nose), Zimmerman made a poor judgement call and shot Martin. I am also of the opinion that Zimmerman then made up an elaborate story to support his claim of self defense. That is NOT self defense but manslaughter in my opinion. 

    I hope that Zimmerman is convicted of manslaughter rather than 2nd degree murder (just a little too much reasonable doubt for that, I feel). The maximum sentence is thirty years for manslaughter. I think 15 to 20 is appropriate; with good behavior, Zimmerman could be out in less than 7. He would never be able to become employed at anything pertaining to law enforcement, and he would presumably be on probation if he got out in less than 7. This seems like a just sentence for him.  

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      If you kill someone and claim self defense, it would seem you have some burden of proof to show that it was actually self defense, and the proof should be beyond your unsubstantiated story you provide police, a story having more than a few inconsistencies, discrepancies, and some other statements by you that appear to be lies.
                          
      we live in America where one is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law (not an online comments section) and it is up to the state to prove someone’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. thank god

      • 1Brett1

        Yeah, slick, we are here giving our opinions; it is an opinions forum; we aren’t on the jury; we aren’t in a court of law. Presumably, neither Zimmerman nor the jury is reading this. 

        But, one can’t just go around shooting people, killing them then claim self defense on some flimsy story…It isn’t unreasonable that he will be acquitted. The prosecution has done a lousy job, and the defense has done a great job. Did you hear the prosecution’s closing arguments? The lead prosecutor is an incompetent oaf. 

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          I guess you are entitled to the opinion that we should not be innocent until proven guilty or have the reasonable doubt standard in criminal cases. you know what they say about opinions. if there was a real case the police would have arrested him right away. if the police think they can make a case they will arrest you. that they did not says it all. the most brilliant prosecutor could not polish the turd that was this case. if you think someone is killing you or you are in immanent danger you can defend yourself. that’s a good thing

  • Duras

    Wall Street continues rob the federal reserve. 
     
    Here is how you know there is no “far left” politicians, or even “liberals”: not one democrat will start a public discourse questioning why we continue to throw billions at Wall Street banker but not at poverty and the environment?

    • alsordi

      How about all the billions they throw at defense contractors? …and BTW Wall Street doesnt rob the Fed… they are cousins in crime.

    • Don_B1

      While easy access to the discount window at the Federal Reserve is not what should be happening at this stage, it is the failure of Congress to provide the necessary stimulus to replace the lost aggregate demand from the financial crash and housing and mortgage bubble bursting that left some 25% of homeowners underwater on their mortgages and unable to spend as their had been. That they were using their house equity as an ATM was the result of middle and lower class wages not rising as the wealthy took most of the earnings increases for the last 30 years or so.

      When your spending is my income and my spending is your income, by each of us cutting our spending, all we achieve is both losing income and we become even less able to spend, so the economy tumbles even further into a morass. It is only the government that spend at this time, and the ARRA stimulus of February 2009 was able to stop the tumble, it was still not big enough to get a strong recovery underway.

      And while Dodd-Frank put in place some necessary reforms, the bankers are fighting the writing of the regulations to implement it in an effort to weaken it and essentially return to the ability to overleverage their holdings again, just as they did to create the financial crisis of 2008.

      Every Republican and too many Democrats are willing to allow them to do it also. Watch what happens to the just introduced bill for a “21st Century Glass-Steagall” act, by a coalition of Senators led by Senator Elizabeth Warren. That will determine the likelihood of a new financial crash in five or ten years.

  • Wm_James_from_Missouri

    This is not exactly news of the week but it something that should be brought to the attention of people. “On Point” has aired two shows this week on medical and health issues, so I thought it would be fair game to add to those conversations.

    In the latest issue of “Life Extension” magazine, July/ Aug., 2013, there are two articles that I found somewhat exciting. The first is about an enzyme, called. “Transglucosidase”.

    Apparently, this enzyme will turn the starch you eat into fiber, right inside your intestines! If true, this could be a HUGE advance in food science and go a long way to reducing the negative effects of bad eating habits.

    -

    The second article states that over the last 40 years, melanoma cases have increased 800 % for woman, and 400% for men. These are stunning numbers !

    The article continues to talk about a supplement combination of two items, named, “Polypodium leucotomos” and “red orange complex“. They claim that these two items taken internally will reduce sunburns, and photo-aging, significantly. The number they have quoted are quite significant.

    The magazine is probably available at your local health food store. Here is a link to some abstracts to get you started.

    http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2013/abstracts/jul2013_Berries-Sun-Protection-Saffron-and-Transglucosidase_04.htm

  • allancody

     Neighborhood volunteer he says?

    Remember the Guardian Angels?

    Curtis Sliwah?

    Red berets?

    Groups on the MBTA?

    George Z is conning us into believing he’s a neighborhood watch volunteer. How can you tell?

    How could Trayvon tell that this guy trailing him wasn’t a rapist kidnapper murderer?

    No badge.

    No partner.

    No ID.

    No uniform.

    No training, no chain of command, no boss, no ranking officer, no responsibility to the community.

    No “neighborhood organization”.

    No accountability.

    Unlike the debates about “who do you believe…” and  “who does it sound like to you” fostered by the media pitting their guests against each other for dramatic effect,

    these facts are simple, objective and real.

    If there’s no “neighborhood watch organization”,

    Geroge is proved a liar, and revealed as the  lone wolf vigilante killer that he is!

    Why isn’t that the “story”?

    Rather than Trayvon’s blood test.

    Oh, oh another one… where is George’s blood test?

    Could he be on steriods?

    Maybe that would account for his temper.

    People on steriods shouldn’t carry guns.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      its a pretty simple case. the police initially let him go. if the police can arrest you for something they will. the fact they did not says it all

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        I (and Rod Serling) would love for your freedom to be in the hands of that particular police precinct.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          what does that mean? 

      • Don_B1

        The police initially let Zimmerman “go” but against the recommendation of the chief investigating officer who recommended his arrest but who was overridden by upper level officers who acted outside normal procedures.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          well, looks like I was right.

  • alsordi

    Who really cares about what you talk about to your mistress? Why is the media avoiding the biggest scandal with Snowden??

    The financial and corporate espionage which is making billions on Wall Street.   Not only tens of thousands of top secret employees with access to inside trading tips, but a few Israeli contractors that maintain the surveillance systems.  

    • HonestDebate1

      I care. What do you and your mistress talk about?

      • alsordi

        If thats your thing,  I hear NSA is hiring…check it out.

      • MrNutso

        Call the NSA.  They can tell you.

        • HonestDebate1

          I was just joking, I already have the tape.

  • alsordi

    It seems to me, that these radical Chechnyan kids were set up by the Feds. 

    After the Russians reported them to the FBI, no doubt that 100 gung ho agents were immediately assigned, as usual, to conduct a pandering sting operation on these young students. 

    However, what appears to have happened is that during the announced bomb drill at the marathon, these kids, or someone else with Qui Bono motives,  outsmarted the FBI and switched the backpacks for some stuffed with real ordinance.  

    The Feds screwed up on this one.  And they tried to kill this unarmed kid in boat, then slit his throat  to keep him quiet and they are still beating him up, even before his court appearance.   SOMETHING HERE STINKS REALLY BIG.

    Ever since 911 most of the proudly announced arrests of terrorist come from these sting operations of radical muslim students.   It appears that the kids are on to this strategy.

  • Ed75

    Ireland passed a law that allows abortion in certain circumstances … the beginning of a slippery slide. Watch what happens to Ireland.

    Pope Francis announced that Pope John and Pope John Paul II will be canonized in the near future, a consistory in September will decide the date. The first time two popes are canonized on the same day.

    The militant homosexuals around are going to give blood around the country today, an act which is against the law. They don’t care about the lives of other people, only their rights. The screening is better, but good enough to bet one’s life on? Remember Ryan White and Arthur Ashe? This kind of thing will continue now.

    Pope Francis and Pope Emeritus Benedict blessed a statue of St. Michael the Archangel and put the Vatican under his protection, indicating the difficulty and danger of these times.

    • 1Brett1

      “Ireland passed a law that allows abortion in certain circumstances … the beginning of a slippery slide. Watch what happens to Ireland.” -Ed75

      Maybe God will show his wrath by smiting them with a potato famine or something?

      • Ray in VT

        I bet that that was a pre-punishment which anticipated this move now.

        • 1Brett1

          Well, he is all knowing, all seeing!

      • jefe68

        Or more bad plaid wallpaper.

      • Ed75

        That is funny. The other day, though, I thought I was hearing a historical news report about Ireland – it was about new sectarian conflict in the North.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      and then there is the prophecy that this is the last pope ever. what does it all mean? 
      if you look at the statistics, whenever you legalize abortion petty street crime begins to drop 15 years later.

      • Ed75

        It seems to mean that one has to be right with God right now, the times are getting dangerous.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          you never know when its your time. you should get right regardless

          • Ed75

            Agreed!

    • jefe68

      And the horse hair suite just got tighter.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Horsehair suite?

        I think that was my sister’s dream-room when she was going thru her “horses” phase in grade school.

    • hennorama

      More than 20 years ago, Ireland’s Supreme Court ruled that if the mother’s life was in danger, abortion should be allowed. However, the law had never been changed until recently.

      Here’s just one example of the resulting confusion, a case which seemed to catalyze the recent change in Irish law:

      ‘Pregnant woman dies in Ireland after being denied an abortion’

      “By Victoria Ward
      10:15AM GMT 15 Nov 2012

      “Savita Halappanavar, 31, was 17 weeks pregnant when she developed back pain and tests revealed that she would lose her baby.

      “But despite her repeated pleas over three days, doctors refused to perform a termination as they could still hear the fetus’s heartbeat, reportedly telling her: “This is a Catholic country.”

      “Mrs. Halappanavar’s condition rapidly deteriorated and she died after developing septicaemia four days after the death of her baby.

      “The case has prompted renewed calls for the Irish government to legislate for abortion, with pro-choice campaigners branding her death “an outrage”.

      See:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/9679840/Pregnant-woman-dies-in-Ireland-after-being-denied-an-abortion.html

      The case above resulted in a coroner’s inquest, and the jury ruled in April 2013 that Mrs. Halappanavar, died from “medical misadventure,” meaning incompetence in her care.

      See:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/20/world/europe/jury-cites-poor-medical-care-in-death-of-indian-woman-in-ireland.html?_r=0

      And as Ed75 indicated, in an overwhelming vote of 127 31 in favor, lawmakers in Ireland just passed legislation that allows abortions if the mother’s life is at risk.

      See:http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/world/europe/ireland-abortion/

      That didn’t take long – a mere 21 years after it was ruled that such an exception must be legal.

  • alsordi

    Hours before the marathon,  a line of unmarked blue trucks with fed plates were parked on the comm ave median greenway, between Clarindon and Dartmouth.   Doors were open and filled with high tech equiipment.   Black FBI suburbans were also in this caravan. If they knew this tragedy was to happen, why didnt they just cancel the marathon ??

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      they show up at all sorts of things. its how they spend up all of our money. look at them burning gasoline all day at the airport running their flashing lights. I find the cop and truck wasting our money and burning gas for no reason at the arrivals the biggest glaring waste. do they think a terrorist is going to fly here, get his bags, then blow himself up at the curb? what is the point of that cop and his car wasting our money?

  • HonestDebate1

    The PSA put out by the Broward County Police Department is disturbing. It is inviting trouble in my view. It’s more of the hideous stereotyping of blacks as violent and irresponsible. I get the feeling (I hope I’m wrong) that if there is rioting it will be excused to a certain extent. Some will say they understand the frustration just as this stupid PSA implies. It will be framed as whitey’s oppression succeeding yet again but it will be just the opposite.

    I don’t know what the verdict will be but this is a sham regarding the public’s racially ginned up mindset. The disgusting Obama administration spent money and sent operatives to aid in protest against Zimmerman. They stirred up racial strife. They divide us. They tried to influence the outcome. That’s unacceptable, it’s not justice.

    The sheriff was pressured to arrest Zimmerman and charge him. He resigned. this insistence on judging by the color of skin is despicable.

    • 1Brett1

      If Zimmerman is acquitted (and, in your opinion, should this happen “will be framed as whitey’s oppression succeeding yet again but it will be just the opposite”), how will it be “just the opposite of whitey’s oppression”?

      How has Zimmerman’s being charged and brought to trial some injustice brought about by an insistence on judging him by the color of his skin? It sounds as though you think Zimmerman should have never been arrested.

      • HonestDebate1

        It will be the opposite because it will be blacks venting violently on whites. 22 were murdered after the Rodney King acquittals. I hope I am dead wrong, I really want to be. The PSA and the news of the DOJ ginning up hatred is very troubling.

        I don’t claim to know if he should have been arrested but the Sheriff in charge did not think so and was pressured to do so. The race hustlers (Sharpton, et al) demanded it, the press made it front page news as scores of black on black gang related murders were ignored. This was done for one reason only, the color of skin.

        • 1Brett1

          You hope you are wrong but are presuming there will be violence by blacks? 

          “This was done for one reason only, the color of skin.” That is your opinion. 

          Maybe incompetence and a kind of complicity in conjunction with a sloppy effort to sweep something under the table that should have been prosecuted to begin with would be another explanation?

          • HonestDebate1

            I hope I am wrong about the reaction to the violence if it happens. I hope the police have zero tolerance. I hope no one even hints at excusing it because of the color of skin. But I am not presuming squat.

            My comment was about the PSA. It’s the PSA that assumes there will be violence, not me.

          • 1Brett1

            You mentioned the people killed after the Rodney King stuff…I think you are being evasive, but that’s just me. It sounds as though you are pinning something on the PSA that you yourself see. Is asking people to remain calm if Zimmerman is acquitted excusing violence by blacks? Wow, I think you are reading way too much into that little local announcement. 

            The PSA, it sounds, is calling for cooler heads to prevail and for people to trust in the system. 

          • Ray in VT

            It’s kind of like how the Cairo Embassy provoked the violence against it by denouncing the Innocence of Muslims, right?

          • 1Brett1

            I’m sure the anti-Obama laundry list (including, but not limited to, Benghazi) will rear its ugly head at some point today.

          • jefe68

            The right wingers love the false equivalency, it’s how they roll. 

            Wait for instigation of Godwin’s law

          • HonestDebate1

            Between you, Brett and Ray we don’t have to bring up squat. Ya’ll got it covered.

          • 1Brett1

            It’s “y’all” not “ya’ll,” jeesh, you have embarrassed those who would eat a stick of butter rolled in pig’s ear cracklins then deep fried in lard and smothered in chocolate sauce….now that’s good eatin’ y’all!

          • HonestDebate1

            I meant “ya’ll’ve”

          • HonestDebate1

            Exactly. The assumption Muslims are justifiably provoked to murderous rage by a stupid silly video is a huge insult to the Muslims with half a brain. The apology issued by the embassy was embarrassing. 

          • Ray in VT

            Sure.  Whatever.  I mean it was really about a tweet from one guy, right?  I guess that based upon the history protests and/or violence in the Muslim world over insults to the Prophet such an action was totally unjustified, just so long as one chooses to ignore history and precedent.

          • HonestDebate1

            It was about the anniversary of 9/11 and an America that showed weakness. It was about savages acting like savages and Obama acting as if all Muslims fit the category to sell his meme.

          • Ray in VT

            Sure.  Let’s just ignore what the people in Cairo said they were ticked off about.  I’m sure that you have plenty of evidence that this was some sort of pre-planned thing about 9/11.  What were the cartoon protests commemorating?

          • HonestDebate1

            I don’t paint Muslims with the broad brush you do.

          • Ray in VT

            Where did I do that?  I thought that you liked discrimination?

          • HonestDebate1

            I do like discrimination that’s why I discriminate between the idiot savages and Muslim’s with a brain.

          • Ray in VT

            So maybe the embassy’s message was only to the “idiot savages”, whoever they might be.

          • jefe68

            Why are you bothering with this racist loony tune?

          • 1Brett1

            He reveals more of his pre-conceived notions about race with every comment.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            I don’t think he’s racist.

            But, boy, some of the blinders he has to the company he keeps.

          • HonestDebate1

            I think the same about you but with respect that I don’t have for those who are so eager to toss the word around. 

          • jefe68

            I was think the same as you are up to very recently. 
             After the latest rants about African AMericans I’m now thinking he is.

          • 1Brett1

            I don’t”toss” that word around. I havedeveloped anopinionof him based ona few years of seeinghis comments.Doesit matterthat a racist is called that onceorten times?

          • HonestDebate1

            I’ve never written a racist word. Anyone who calls me a racist is tossing the word around.

          • HonestDebate1

            They can’t excuse any action until it happens. I made that clear, you’re just reframing what I wrote. But what the PSA does sympathize with is the presumed frustration. Why? What do people have to let roll off their shoulders? What do they mean by your patience will be tried? Why would anyone want to raise there hands? What do they mean by raise your voice? Over what? Justice? It’s sick.

            These are not rhetorical questions.

        • Don_B1

          There are indications that many if not most Blacks do not expect justice in this case; it is when they do expect justice and do not think that it was delivered that they riot.

          So I expect you will be disappointed if Zimmerman is not convicted as riots are unlikely.

          Your Mark Anthony approach to crying about how bad something is while tacitly approving of it is one of your big themes here.

    • OnPointComments

      The involvement of the DOJ’s community relations unit is one of the more troubling revelations to come out during the Zimmerman trial.  The involvement is troubling, but it is not surprising; we already know that another DOJ unit, the Civil Rights Division, is against race-neutral enforcement of laws.  And J. Christian Adams, a former DOJ official, wrote “Right now, hanging on the door of a federal employee’s office in the Department of Justice Voting Section is a sign expressing racial solidarity with Trayvon Martin.”  The DOJ picked a side in the case.  Justice should be neutral.
       
      “Judicial Watch announced today that it has obtained documents in response to local, state, and federal records requests revealing that a little-known unit of the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Community Relations Service (CRS), was deployed to Sanford, FL, following the Trayvon Martin shooting to help organize and manage rallies and protests against George Zimmerman. 
       
      “These documents detail the extraordinary intervention by the Justice Department in the pressure campaign leading to the prosecution of George Zimmerman,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “My guess is that most Americans would rightly object to taxpayers paying government employees to help organize racially-charged demonstrations.” 
       
      http://www.judicialwatch.org./press-room/press-releases/documents-obtained-by-judicial-watch-detail-role-of-justice-department-in-organizing-trayvon-martin-protests/#sthash.Kg1h08R6.dpuf

      • HonestDebate1

        It’s absolutely beyond the pale. The last thing this administration wants is a colorblind society. They are ripping the blindfold off Lady Justice.

        • jefe68

          Wow you guys are off the rials today.
          Take your meds.

        • nj_v2

          They should really limit computer access during free time at the treatment facility.

          http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/07/11/2287041/no-the-department-of-justice-did-not-organize-trayvon-martin-rallies/?mobile=nc

          No, The Department Of Justice Did Not Organize Trayvon Martin Rallies

          On the day of closing arguments in George Zimmerman’s trial for the second-degree murder of Trayvon Martin, conservatives have circulated a new attack that the Department of Justice secretly organized rallies on behalf of Martin’s friends and family that helped elevate the issue to a national stage.

          The conservative group Judicial Watch published records that show the Community Relations Service, a civil rights unit of the DOJ, helped with security for the rallies. Conservative groups have interpreted those records to mean there was wrongdoing;the Heritage Foundation has gone so far as to demand an oversight hearing for the Community Relations Service’s “potentially unethical involvement.” Fox News, Daily Caller, and other conservative media have taken up the same spin. CNN picked up the report, as well.

          But the same documents show nothing inflammatory about the DOJ involvement, which was limited to ensuring security for the protests.…

          (snipped)

          • HonestDebate1

            There were police escorts for the 40 mile trek from Daytona Beach to Sanford for the protestors. 

            Are you seriously relying on ThinkProgress?

      • 1Brett1

        Various local organizations and local chapters of other organizations were already “organizing” in Florida and growing restless. The lid was ready to come off. The Community Relations Service was sent down there to help keep the lid on and keep things civil. Your comment (with the help of the conservative ‘Judicial Watch’) has completely distorted this.

        • brettearle

          It would have been a very good idea for DOJ to have anticipated how their involvement would have been distorted by the Right.

          For such a controversial issue, slaked with polarizing publicity, it was clumsily handled.

          I was not all pleased, too, with the President’s comment on the case.

          It was absolutely not appropriate–and it was disappointing.  It’s the last thing the country needs.  I can explain further, what I mean, if you want me to.

          Thanks for your last comments about the acupuncturist and masseuse/healer.  I appreciated reading them.

          I wrote a reply….

          • 1Brett1

            My comment pertained to OPC’s spin, not whether it was a good idea for the DoJ to get involved. He made it sound as though the DoJ initiated protests and rallies and started the whole thing, which is untrue. Whether misguided or not, they were trying to keep the thing from escalating into a riot with their involvement. 

          • HonestDebate1

            “He made it sound as though…”

            I didn’t hear that, all I did was read what OPC actually wrote. 

            Helping organize and manage protest against Zimmerman IS NOT trying to keep it from escalating.

          • 1Brett1

            Yeah, sure, what was your spin…um, “It’s absolutely beyond the pale” and ” the last thing the administration wants is a colorblind society.” No spin there, huh? 

            The spin mostly was supported by him (OPC) but initiated by his link (Judicial Watch). Again, I’m not arguing that their involvement was or was not misguided, but they did not initiate the protests, they were there to help keep them in the realm of citizen protests and not mob violence. 

          • HonestDebate1

            I stand by what I write. If you want to call it spin, that’s fine. Just quote me correctly and you’re gold.

            No one said they “initiated” squat. You made that up.

          • 1Brett1

            Did you not say “it’s beyond the pale” or “the last thing the administration wants is a colorblind society.”? Those are the quotes of yours I posted.

          • HonestDebate1

            Yes and I stand by it, as I said. Can you read?

          • 1Brett1

            You asked that I quote you correctly and I was pointing out that I had quoted you correctly. 

          • brettearle

            I understand that.

            But if DOJ had been more perspicacious, you and he would be debating, instead, more intractable–and therefore, more important–issues. 

          • 1Brett1

            I’m just sick of the “institutionalized, Obama Administration’s reverse-racism epidemic” meme that the necons on this forum perpetuate on a weekly basis, that’s all.

          • HonestDebate1

            You did quote me correctly so calling it spin or whatever is fine. I’m ending this paragraph now, that means, stop. Separate what follows. Ready?

            You made up the part about OPC (or anyone else) implying the DOJ “initiated” the actions. No one said that. No one implied it. That’s the spin. That’s your false premise.

            Do you get it now?

          • 1Brett1

            Geesh…If OPC’s comments get put together with Judicial Watch’s, it sounds like the DoJ went down to Florida and started protests, rallies, etc., and generally ginned up trouble, and that isn’t quite what happened. Get it now?

          • HonestDebate1

            “sounds like..” to you maybe but you made up the part about anyone accusing the DOJ of “instigating” the protest, now didn’t you? That’s your usual MO, embrace it. I’ll even help you out. IMHO Obama himself instigated and wanted the racial strife. He wants riots in the streets. There ya’ go. Problem solved.

          • 1Brett1

            That’s what OPC was trying to do, then you chimed with your over the top two cents. What was his point then? What was your point then? That’s what you both did; you took something and tweaked it to imply the DoJ ginned up protest, rallies, etc. Now you weasel out of it. At least OPC isn’t trying to kick a dead horse. I get it, you are a mosquito, I get. 

          • HonestDebate1

            You are welcome but you are still putting words in OPC’s mouth and divining intent. You owe OPC an apology.

      • hennorama

        OPC – your conclusion that “The DOJ picked a side in the case” may or may not be accurate, and the documents in question may or may not bear that out. I certainly haven’t read them all and have no intention of doing so. But for the conservative Judicial Watch’s president Tom Fitton to label the actions of the Community Relations Service of the DOJ as “… extraordinary intervention by the Justice Department in the pressure campaign leading to the prosecution of George Zimmerman” would hardly be surprising.

        What the CRS is intended to do, and how it functions, are much more like mediation rather than so-called “extraordinary intervention.” And one seriously doubts that they “help organize racially-charged demonstrations,” as Fitton has claimed.

        For the record, this is the Mission of the DOJ’s Community Relations Service, which was created by the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

        “Mission

        “The Community Relations Service is the Department’s “peacemaker” for community conflicts and tensions arising from differences of race, color, and national origin. Created by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, CRS is the only Federal agency dedicated to assist State and local units of government, private and public organizations, and community groups with preventing and resolving racial and ethnic tensions, incidents, and civil disorders, and in restoring racial stability and harmony.

        “With passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, CRS also works with communities to employ strategies to prevent and respond to alleged violent hate crimes committed on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion or disability. CRS facilitates the development of viable, mutual understandings and agreements as alternatives to coercion, violence, or litigation. It also assists communities in developing local mechanisms, conducting training, and other proactive measures to prevent racial/ethnic tension and violent hate crimes committed on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, or disability. CRS does not take sides among disputing parties and, in promoting the principles and ideals of non discrimination, applies skills that allow parties to come to their own agreement. In performing this mission, CRS deploys highly skilled professional conciliators, who are able to assist people of diverse backgrounds.”

        And this is “How CRS Works”:

        “CRS assists willing parties and explores opportunities to develop and implement local strategies that can help law enforcement, local officials, civil rights organizations, and interested community groups respond to alleged hate crimes and find ways to prevent future incidents.

        “State and local law enforcement officials and community leaders may contact CRS to request assistance in improving communication between law enforcement and community members in the aftermath of a hate crime. CRS may help facilitate dialogues between law enforcement and community members to increase mutual understanding about the investigative and prosecutorial process as well as the concerns of people in the community.

        “CRS improves community response mechanisms, by facilitating the development of community capacity to help prevent hate crimes with services and programs that include: conciliation, mediation, training, technical assistance, and other tension reduction techniques.

        “CRS may introduce the community to representatives of agencies that respond to hate crimes, including federal, state, and local law enforcement officials, local government resources as well as community organizations (advocacy organizations, and other service organizations).

        “CRS also responds to requests for assistance from law enforcement and community organizations for contingency planning and self-marshalling training before large protests or events to help keep events safe. We facilitate meetings between all parties involved, and serve as a neutral entity to ensure logistics are coordinated and that information is shared appropriately.”

        See:
        http://www.justice.gov/crs/about-crs.htm

    • jefe68

      The Obama administration spent money and sent “ operatives”… 

      • HonestDebate1

        OPC has the details below. I continue to be amazed at what liberals in the bubble don’t know about.

        • jefe68

          No I’m aware of the mechanics of government. What I’m on about, and pay attention, is how worked up you right wingers get over anything Obama does from playing basketball to tying his shoes. 
          You people are as nutty as a Christmas Fruit cake.

          Judicial Watch is the source, oh please.

          • HonestDebate1

            I don’t care about him shooting hoops or tying his shoes. I care about his inserting the assets of government to influence the justice system. But you don’t have to, that’s just me.

    • hennorama

      HeDebatesNot – I nearly fell off my chair after reading these words from you – “It’s more of the hideous stereotyping of blacks as violent and irresponsible.”

      This coming from the same person who wrote all of the following:

      “I conclude blacks are far more likely to rape whites than vice versa”

      “if you are white you are far far more likely to be the victim of a violent crime perpetrated but [sic] a black than vise versa [sic].”

      “Blacks are 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against whites then [sic] vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit a robbery.”

      “blacks are more likey [sic] to victimize whites than vice versa.”

      “A white woman is far far more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted black man that the opposite.”

      “A white person is far far more likely (about 39 times, 50 by per capita) to be a victim of violent crime perpetrated by a black.”

      “a great case for the fact whites are far more likely to be victims of black violence than vice versa.”

      “the fact that if you are white you are far far more likely to be the victim of a violent crime perpetrated by a black than vise versa. The numbers are especially shocking when you consider Blacks comprise only 12 or 13% of the population.”

      “What I am concerned about is violence. The epidemic of blacks forming mobs and spreading mayhem is troubling. I believe it is enabled by a lack of outrage rooted in white guilt making excuses. Blacks are not expected to be good citizen by liberals.”

      “Time after time the perpetrators are black,”

      One must assume you were wistfully recalling your own words when you wrote about “the hideous stereotyping of blacks as violent and irresponsible.”

      How hypocritical can one be?

      • HonestDebate1

        Do you understand the difference between DOJ numbers of events that happened and assuming irrational behavior from one race for things that haven’t happened? Your disconnects amaze me.

        And your head would explode if I pointed out the real issue I was referring to, regarding my quotes, was about the media creating stereotypes that are in direct conflict with the evidence. You are not nuanced enough to understand.

        But then you’d have to go even farther to get the difference between stereotyping based on the color of skin as opposed to the content of character. Here’s a hint, blacks don’t rape many many more whites because they are black.

        Don’t even try, you’re in over your head. Stick to calling me names. You’re good at that.

        • hennorama

          HeDebatesNot – please point out the “DOJ numbers of events that happened” involved in your claim, which you have written over and over again:

          “Blacks are 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against whites then [sic] vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit a robbery.”

          Please. Show us the “DOJ numbers” sir.

          And please point out the “nuances” involved in all of your quotes above.

          Your hypocrisy is breathtaking.

          You wrote every single “nuanced” word that was quoted, and then you go on to write that a PSA that was created by the Broward [County] Sheriff’s Office is“more of the hideous stereotyping of blacks as violent and irresponsible.”

          It’s a case of 1DishonestPontificatingPot calling the Broward [County] Sheriff’s Office black.

          Please demonstrate the “honesty” of this latest claim of yours, sir, “about the media creating stereotypes that are in direct conflict with the evidence.”

          And please, don’t stop there.

          Please demonstrate the “honesty” of your new “nuanced” claim, sir, that “blacks … rape many many more whites.”

          And please, don’t stop there.

          Please, sir, tell us all exactly what is “the content of character” of “blacks” who, as you claim, “rape many many more whites.” And please demonstrate how you could know “the content of character” of these persons, sir.

          Please.

          • HonestDebate1

            I don’t know the content of character but being black is not enough for me, so sorry that’s all you see.

  • 1Brett1

    “Ireland passed a law that allows abortion in certain circumstances … the beginning of a slippery slide. Watch what happens to Ireland.” -Ed75

    Maybe God will show his wrath by smiting them with a potato famine or something? 

  • Ray in VT

    This is one of the strangest things that I’ve read about in a while:

    http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/06/22/kkk-member-built-mobile-death-ray-planned-on-using-it-on-gov-cuomo/

    • 1Brett1

      I heard about that…bizarre. Have you heard about Rand Paul’s ‘Southern Avenger’? He’s like a bigot superhero for white southerners.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/11/rand-paul_n_3577196.html

      *Note that Paul calls this guy’s rantings some sort of youthful indiscretion, yet the guy is 39 years old and much of his persona/activity has been in the last 4 years. We should all be forgiven for our indiscretions at 35!

      • MrNutso

        Yeah, yeah, some of my best friends are ….

      • Ray in VT

        Yeah, I saw that.  I wish that I could write off anything that I do prior to 35 as a youthful indiscretion.  Were that the case, then I have some work to do before the fall, and my friends and I have always said that God turns a blind eye on anything that happens in Canada.

    • HonestDebate1

      Okay, that’s weird.

    • hennorama

      Ray in VT – my apologies.

      “KKK Member Built Mobile Death Ray, Planned On Using It On Gov. Cuomo”

      is actually the first nominee for this week’s Week In The News “Sign Of The Apocalypse” and not the video game “Angry Trayvon.”

      I stand corrected.

  • Michiganjf

    Republicans say the nuclear option is “without precedent…”

    Well, so is the absurd use of the filibuster by the current clan of Republicans!

    Republicans have NO RIGHT to cry about “abuse!”
    … NOT after their abhorrent record!

    • Michiganjf

      God forbid, if the Tea Party ever came to power, do you think they wouldn’t use any and every device to run roughshod over the minority, regardless of precedent??!!!

      They’re already using every device available to run roughshod over the MAJORITY party in America, and a democratically elected President!!!!!

      Remember, TPer’s represent ONLY 10-14 percent of Americans, yet they’re acting like they have a mandate to DICTATE policy to ALL of America!

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        do you think they wouldn’t use any and every device

        Yeah, that’s the big point of coverage here.

        I can’t find anyone in the press corps who’s recognized the difference from today’s GOP. They’re all thinking Howard Baker and Bob Dole are still in the Senate.

      • jefe68

        Look no further than North Carolina, Wisconsin, Kansas, Mississippi, North Dakota to name a few.  

        North Carolina is extreme with wingers on steroids.

      • HonestDebate1

        From the party of the unconstitutional filibuster threats against Supreme Court nominees, The Cornhusker Kickback, The Louisiana Purchase, meaningless signing statements, delaying settled law by decree, IRS intimidation, EO’s out the yin yang and reconciliation.

        • Michiganjf

          Love that moniker… kind of reminds me of carpetbaggers naming themselves “Honest Dan,” or the like… do you have any points NOT initiated by Republicans or Dixiecrats types who eventually became Republicans??

          • HonestDebate1

            Where am I wrong?

          • Ray in VT

            Well, where in the constitution does it say that one cannot filibuster a Supreme Court nominee?  Jefferson was a part of the Democratic-Republican party (as opposed to Federalist).  EO’s out the yin yang?  What is the floor for that?  Obama has had less than 28 per year, whereas W. had over 36, and there were also the issues with W.’s signing statements.  The delay of the mandate is based upon 7805(a) of the Internal Revenue Code:

            http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Upton-Treasury-ACA-2013-7-9.pdf

          • HonestDebate1

            I’ll look at the code but Obamacare is settled law. He couldn’t extend the tax cuts without the legislature, I don’t see the difference. EO’s that end up being rebuked by the courts (recess appointments, gun laws, etc.) or that he himself has said he has no authority over (deportation) are a different bag. Perhaps I shouldn’t have said “yin yang” and went with “no authority”.

            The Constitution is very clear which procedures require super-majorities. It is very clear that everything not specified does not. Requiring 60 votes for Supreme Court nominees is in direct conflict with the Constitution.

          • Ray in VT

            That is an interesting Constitutional claim that I have never heard before.  Article 2, Section 2, Paragraph 2 says “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

            Care to provide a valid source (so not gemworld.com or Alfred Adask) that says that a filibuster of any of those sorts of nominees is in fact unconstitutional?  Where does it make it clear that “everything not specified does not”?  I don’t have the document committed to memory, of course, so I may be wrong, but, as I have said, your argument is a new one on me.

            As for recess appointments, that also covers appointments going back over the course several administrations (many recent ones, of course, wouldn’t be necessary were it not for the record number of GOP filibusters).

          • HonestDebate1

            It’s a well worn debate, I’m surprised you haven’t heard it. I have not studied it  since Miguel Estrada so forgive me. The Constitution enumerates when a super majority is required:

            http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q138.html

            I think it says everything else requires only a simple majority.But I may be confusing the Constitution with the Federalist papers or Supreme Court precedent. I’ll see if I can find it out. Or it might be a decision defining “advice and consent”.Still my gut memory (faulty) tells me it’s in the Constitution. What is not in the constitution is anything involving filibusters. Anyway you cut it filibustering a judge means 60 votes are required.The Constitution gives the Senate  (and House) leeway in making rules but they can’t conflict with the terms laid out.

            Nice dig but gemworld was right about unalienable. I can’t believe your snark sometimes. It cited timely definitions you at first denied existed and eventually ignored when they were shown to exist. Whatever, enjoy you’re dig.

            Obama’s recess appointments were ruled unconstitutional by a Federal court and the SCOTUS has agreed to hear it.

          • Ray in VT

            Considering that you consider the unalienable vs. inalienable to be a long standing debate that has merit to it, I am not at all surprised that I have not heard of your current position, as it may just be another Internet debate that lives on in the forums populated by so-called “experts”.  I also think that my “snark” is justified, considering the garbage links and backing that you have used in some of your arguments.  Would you care to say when I said that your historical sources did not exist?  There is certainly a mid-19th century and an early 20th century distinction in a couple of sources, although the former doesn’t really show, to my mind, how different or exclusive the terms are, and neither of them allude to any distinction that was supposed to have existed in 1776, which I have still yet to see any evidence for.  So, if by “timely definitions” you mean references decades out of date relative to the document in hand, then you did provide that, and it’s b.s. if one is trying to base an argument for a 1776 difference in meaning.  Also, I will enjoy my dig, thank you very much, although I am surprised that you didn’t say something like “I don’t even know who Alfred Adask is” or something.

            So, there is your interpretation of the Constitution and how it applies to the rules of the Senate, but I asked for a valid source.  A legal precedent would be nice.  Again, I am willing to entertain and accept the argument, but I want some history, evidence and sources, and not what you can recall.

          • HonestDebate1

            You lost me at the first sentence so I stopped reading. I said the framers fretted over every word and they did. You said there was no difference between the words in 18th century and I proved otherwise. The difference was minimal and I never dreamed you would dig in. And all of it was beside the point. The point was our Constitution is unique to the universe because it starts with the premise that we are born with certain rights. Those rights are not bestowed by government. The word “unalienable” was not picked willy nilly. The difference between the two words are infinitesimal. The fact that they went with the barely different “unalienable” merely illustrates the seriousness they applied to the notion that resulted in our very unique founding documents. We are endowed by our creator with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is the premise that makes out founding unique. That’s all my point ever was. Do you hate God that much?

          • Ray in VT

            If you stopped reading after the first sentence, then how do you know what I said?  The sources cited by the “source” that you cited “proves” nothing regarding any supposed difference in meaning in 1776, as they all come from at least 75 years later, and the best sources, such as the ODE, which you claim to have but apparently fail to comprehend the purpose of, do indicate any historical difference.  I forgot that I am anti-God.  Thanks for reminding me.  I forget what I am supposed to think sometimes, so I’m glad that I have others to tell me what it should be.  Notice that I used thanks instead of thank you there.  I did so not because of any sort of stylistic or simple word usage choice, but because of the infinitesimal difference in meaning.  I thought that your point was that there is some sort of hidden, unknown or misunderstood meaning between inalienable or unalienable (which historical sources dating to the era of the American Revolution do not show), and that you only moved to the natural law line of argument when you got schooled by people with better sources and historical understanding on the matter, despite the extensive research that you’ve done on the matter.

          • HonestDebate1

            No, you are wrong. The link had examples from as far back as 1523 and court precedent from 1795. It was a very good comprehensive link. You could not have read it. I subsequently gave you William Blackstone’s definition that John Adams used. I have no idea what your point is. It seems to me you are trying to insist our rights home from government which is absurd.

            I didn’t get past the first sentence because I was talking about unconstitutional filibuster and you want to go back and argue about …. I don’t even know what. I know you’ve never had respect for me but I did have respect for you. I think you are well read and intelligent but I no longer respect the way you use those assets. You’re just another snarky lib making no sense.

          • Ray in VT

            No, you are wrong.  Please provide the 1523 reference, and also please provide the differing definitions, not uses, of the two terms from 1795.  Also, please provide the definition that William Blackstone used, and provide how he differentiated it from inalienable, as well as evidence that Adams both read that work and was the one who made the change to Jefferson’s original.  It seems to me that you are committed to promoting and defending a conclusion that you have drawn from somewhere, likely from such great sources as the great historian behind gemworld.com.

            There’s no need to get personal.  It’s not about me.  It is, however, as far as I am concerned, about your shoddy historical interpretations, which often seemed to me to be based upon sources of dubious accuracy and quality.

      • hennorama

        Michiganjf – given that the TEA Shindiggers are not an actual political party, there is a good chance that they will wind up as simply a passing political fad.

        One imagines the “Tea Party” being largely a footnote 20 years hence, as demographics overwhelm their aging members. Polls indicate that a majority or near majority of Americans have an “Unfavorable” opinion of the TP, which makes it difficult to envision an expansion of their ranks anytime soon.

        See:http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/12/wither-the-tea-party/

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        right but they are 100% “real mericans”

    • MrNutso

      Not to mention, that it was McConnell who first brought the idea up when he was ML.

      • HonestDebate1

        Yes, according to liberals he is the most powerful man in the world. Obama is putty in his hands and completely helpless.

  • alsordi

    No change in Egypt. The Egyptian military is still in charge, and the USA still controls the Egyptian military.  All the rest is democracy theatrics, just like the two party charade in the USA. 

  • MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

    Gasland II just came out on HBO… Tom, let’s show some outrage and have another show on fracking… Or better yet, how about a series, say one show a week diving deep into the facts and ramifications?!??

    • HonestDebate1

      I would welcome that.

    • Coastghost

      Missed it, of course. Did HBO feature a prominent disclaimer: “Electricity derived from natural gas, diesel, and coal-fired power plant operations was not utilized in the production or distribution of this film”? 

      Can hardly wait for the debut of television and radio networks powered entirely by nothing but solar and wind power (the internet will surely follow). As a matter of fact: how about let’s RESTRICT all TV and radio broadcasts henceforth and forevermore to what can be produced and disseminated through solar and wind power electricity generation alone?

      • nj_v2

        More verbal farting from one of the most flatulent handles here.

        http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/meet-ktao-the-nations-largest-solar-powered-radio-station.html

        Meet KTAO, The Nation’s Largest Solar Powered Radio Station

        …140 photovoltaic panels provide the energy needed to transmit auditory delight 40 miles in all directions through radio waves, and to the rest of Planet Earth through the internet. The sunny, dry climate in New Mexico is optimal for the highly efficient, and virtually maintenance-free solar array, producing a staggering 100,000 watts!

        (excerpt)

        • Coastghost

          (snif snif) I seem to detect gas envy . . . (cough cough)

      • MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

        Dude, watch the movie before releasing a stream of verbal diarrhea that implies you’re a shill for the oil and gas industry.

        Even if a fraction of what is presented as explanations is true, big oil and gas are poisoning our water supplies with total disregard for any form of life.

        Being an engineer and having worked in the oil patch, this looks like a serious disaster brewing. Just watch it and ask yourself, what if this is true and Big O&G are poisoning us and lying about it?

        • Coastghost

          Having worked in television news production, I would wonder “what if this is true?” going into the screening. If I emerge from the screening with the same question, my likely conclusion would be “this documentary is a complete failure”.
          On the other hand Diane Rehm has already assured me of the merits of this particular agitprop sideshow, so I’m sure I won’t be seeing it.
          Give a heads-up once our power grid has converted exclusively to solar/wind/geo-thermal/hydro sources. We’ll definitely be waiting.

  • stillin

    Where is the missing valdictorian hiker August Reiger who is missing from a graduation trip in Equador? Why is this not getting more national airtime?  

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      we only care about Ecuador if snowden goes there 

      • stillin

        I believe a lot of people are praying and waiting for this young valdictorian’s SAFE return, I personally am glad Snowden let us in on more government crap, which is unending. I thank him.
        Subject: Re: New comment posted on Week In The News: Egypt, Airliner Crash, Boston Bombing Suspect In Court

  • Ray in VT

    In ongoing the GOP is all about job creation/nobody is trying to ban abortion news, North Carolina is the latest to try get in on the act.

  • nj_v2

    Leading edge of fascism…

    http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/07/11-3

    In ‘Chilling’ Ruling, Chevron Granted Access to Activists’ Private Internet Data
    “Sweeping” subpoena violates rights of those who spoke out against oil giant’s devastating actions in Ecuador

    The US government is not the only entity who, with judicial approval, is amassing massive amounts of personal information against their so-called enemies.

    A federal judge has ruled to allow Chevron, through a subpoena to Microsoft, to collect the IP usage records and identity information for email accounts owned by over 100 environmental activists, journalists and attorneys.

    The oil giant is demanding the records in an attempt to cull together a lawsuit which alleges that the company was the victim of a conspiracy in the $18.2 billion judgment against it fordumping 18.5 billion gallons of oil waste in the Ecuadorean Amazon, causing untold damage to the rainforest.

    (snipped)

    • TomK_in_Boston

      Holy Winston Smith!

  • TomK_in_Boston

    TeaOP clown show of the week:

    They posture endlessly about the national version of Romney’s health care plan from Gingrich and the “heritage” foundation, aka Obamacare, and they now accuse Obama of criminal behavior for not implementing it fast enough!!!!

    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/07/12/2290931/congressman-threatens-to-file-criminal-charges-against-obama-for-delaying-implementation-of-health-law/

    What is WRONG with these people? They are really effed up.

    • MrNutso

      How dare he not implement a law we abhor.

    • jefe68

      The GOP is the real Insane Clown Posse.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Hey, some of those Juggalos would be highly insulted by the comparison.

        • Ray in VT

          Magnets.  How do they work?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    “Harness the rural side of it” sorta discards the large number of rural whites who use SNAP, doesn’t it?

    • MrNutso

      Libertarian Populism

  • bfryer

    I hope your guests will discuss what is going on with the Republican party now. The doubling-down on denial of abortion rights across so many states; the food-stamp denial; the immigration reform effort — all these point to a party that has not learned the lesson of the last election. What is going on here?

    • NrthOfTheBorder

      The creation of electorally-safe districts has allowed a good portion of the country (read “Red States”) to engage in a piecemeal revival of the Civil War. 

      People of these states seem to have an overly romantic attachment to tradition mixed with fundamentalism, neophobia, xenophobia, misogyny – and above all, racism. The shadow of slavery exerts itself well beyond its original time and place.

  • MrNutso

    The House will not allow any bill to go to conference where a compromise could occur.  They want the Senate to only pass bills they have passed.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    O’Donnell: “That’s the traditional way things work…Can they get to that again?” (paraphrased).

    Please tell her how far right the GOP have moved in the last twenty years.

    Crowley: “Democrats feel…” Really?

    This is the most obstructionist Congress ever. It’s not a point of “Democrats feel”. This is background information, nothing that should be news to you now.

  • nj_v2

    Rethuglicon Jackass of the Week. All others pale.

    http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/11/the-charade-of-darrell-issa/

    The Charade of Darrell Issa

    So, this guy who made a stink-pile of money in the car alarm business, and had some youthful trouble with the law over auto-related liberties, gets the break he’s been waiting for after Republicans win control of the House in 2010. He’s given the keys to the biggest Caddie in Congress: the main oversight committee. It’s loaded with everything — subpoena power, an overhead cam worth of auditors and investigators, a hyperkinetic staff devoted to keeping shine on the boss.

    He’s got plans, lots of plans. He’s going to stage television-ready hearings and investigations of the White House. He will bring Barack Obama to his knees. “I want seven hearings a week, times 40 weeks,” he says. Don’t worry about substance, he says of one subject field, “it’ll be good theater.”

    (snipped)

    • hennorama

      Nominee for phrase of the week:

      “an overhead cam worth of auditors and investigators”

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/James-Patrick-Dwyer-Jr/100002088204784 James Patrick Dwyer Jr.

    FIX THE DAMN FILIBUSTER. The way it is now the senate is useless. DO SOMETHING.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      do you really want the senate passing more bills?

  • MrNutso

    Unfortunately, we’re seeing the unofficial filibuster in the House known as the Hastert Rule.  If the Senate bill was brought up in the House, it would pass.

  • Roy-in-Boise

    The GOP of today are like the Whigs of yesterday.

    • Ray in VT

      I bet that their economic policies were roughly in line.

  • edrea

    Congress usually goes the other direction in legislation abuse — as in, normally they are trying to add unrelated riders to bills. The fact is, democracy would be best served by having all legislation deal only with one specific issue. Unfortunately, this is showing that, no matter what you do in terms of parliamentary procedural change, members of Congress (I believe, predominately the GOp — but not exclusively) will use ANY approach to expedite their own interests. SNAP should be debated and passed as its own measures — as should be all matters before Congress. Also unfortunately, no one in Congress is willing to make such a sweeping (yet perfectly doable) change. Democrats should be embracing the Republicans wanting to decouple SNAP from the Ag bill —  as it will make it even more obvious just how unsympathetic the GOP approach is to the needs of 99%.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Given how safe the GOP’s seats are, this obviousness won’t amount to anything, says I. We’re dealing with almost half of government who doesn’t care about governance, and a third of our commercial press are the GOP’s in-house PA system.

      Hell, we can’t even get the press to admit it. We can’t have a Week in the News without someone inside the Beltway saying “Both parties have gotten sooooooo extreeeeeeeeme!”

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        almost half? I think its closer to 99%

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          Yeah, you gotta read some history. Remember Reagan? Dems didn’t throw little sheetfits. Stuff got done.

          Look it up, dumbaff.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            Reagan is not there anymore. he was not “all there” when he was. why the name calling?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    “We have to show that we (the GOP) welcome different kinds of Americans.” per Rove, sometime earlier (the previous decade?)

    This would be a great segue into the doings of anti-choice wingnuts pushing their crap onto every unaffiliated law:

    In NC, “Sharia” law and motorcycle safety. Oh, and no public notice.

    • hennorama

      In January this year, at the Republican National Committee’s winter meeting, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said

      “We [Republicans] must stop being the stupid party.”

      That’s what everyone remembers most, but Jindal continued, right after the quote above, saying:

      “I’m serious. It’s time for a new Republican party that talks like adults. It’s time for us to articulate our plans and visions for America in real terms. We had a number of Republicans damage the brand this year with offensive and bizarre comments. We’ve had enough of that.”

      And also:

      “We [Republicans] must stop looking backward. …Nostalgia about the good old days is heart-warming, but the battle of ideas must be waged in the future.”

      And:

      “We [Republicans] must stop insulting the intelligence of voters.”

      Does anyone know when Republicans are going to stop “damag[ing] the brand,” and start taking Jindal’s advice, to “stop being the stupid party,” stop being nostalgic, and “stop insulting the intelligence of voters”?

      Anyone? Anyone?

      Bueller?

      Source:http://www.businessinsider.com/jindal-gop-stupid-party-rnc-2013-1

  • MrNutso

    Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, there is clear reasonable doubt that my client killed Travon Martin in self defense after ignoring advice from law enforcement and pursuing him.

    • OnPointComments

      As Zimmerman’s defense attorney pointed out during his closing argument:
       
      7:11:33 — Zimmerman tells the police dispatcher that Trayvon Martin is running.
       7:13:10 — Zimmerman tells the police dispatcher he does not know where Martin is.
       7:13:41 — Zimmerman’s call to Sanford police ends.
       7:16:00 – 7:16:59 — Martin’s phone call from Rachel Jeantel ends.
       7:16:55 — Gunshot heard on 911 call.
       
      The combination of Zimmerman’s call to the police and the Martin/Jeantel phone call shows that 5 minutes elapsed after Zimmerman said Martin was running, and 3 minutes elapsed after Zimmerman lost sight of Martin.  I wonder why during these 3-5 minutes Martin hadn’t walked (or run if he was scared) the roughly 500 feet to the house where he was staying?  Because it was Trayvon Martin who decided that this wasn’t over.  He was going to teach the “creepy a** cracker” a lesson for watching and following him.

      • brettearle

        Regardless of possible prior intent–and your theory is plausible–it does NOT prove or disprove reasonable doubt, as to the defendant’s guilt.

        What happened in the actual physical encounter is the most determinative factor.

      • 1Brett1

        Wait a minute, you’re presuming Zimmerman’s account of Trayvon Martin running, disappearing, and Zimmerman telling the police dispatcher he didn’t know where Trayvon Martin had gone is accurate. Did it occur to you that Zimmerman isn’t being truthful? Your “teach a lesson” fantasy is unconscionable for its opinion presented as some fact. It reveals a lot about your opinion, but not any facts. 

        • OnPointComments

          Even if you think Zimmerman was lying, it doesn’t explain why Martin hadn’t walked or run the 500 feet to the house where he was staying during the time after the phone call to the police ended.

          • 1Brett1

            So unless it could be proven and a good reason offered why Martin didn’t run right home, that automatically makes Zimmerman innocent or justified in killing Martin?

          • OnPointComments

            Beyond a Reasonable Doubt – The standard that must be met by the prosecution’s evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
             
            One logical explanation is that Martin, who exhibited animus toward Zimmerman as evidenced by Jeantel’s testimony, didn’t go home because he was seeking vengeance, and attacked Zimmerman.  Reasonable doubt.

          • 1Brett1

            Reasonable doubt will be why I think Zimmerman will be acquitted. That said, back to your idea of a possible explanation…Martin may have decided to confront Zimmerman, he may have even sucker punched Zimmerman. Is that enough to pul out a gun and kill someone? 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            it certainly backs up his version of the events

          • 1Brett1

            That would be based on Zimmerman’s account of events and timeline. Zimmerman also could have followed and pursued Martin confronting him, which is why Martin never got home. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            so describe your version of events. are you suggesting fat Zimmerman chases down athelete martin tackles him and then shoots him in cold blood? please describe in detail what you think happened

    • brettearle

      That alone makes it more believable for me, as well–as to Zimmerman’s guilt.

      But it DOESN’T mean that Zimmerman didn’t finally act in Self-Defense.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      is that what happened? you must have been there

  • ericd725

     lets see… unarmed child, threatens armed adult’s life and gets killed in self defense…how will history treat this? 

    • Shag_Wevera

      This Child was in late adolescance, and was a star athlete.  Quite intimidating to a fat middle-ager.

      • William

         Tossed out of his house by his mother and used a racial slur before attacking Mr. Zimmerman which makes his action a hate crime.

        • 1Brett1

          So, if you call someone the “n” word, he can shoot and kill you?

          • William

             The sad fact for Martin is that will be his legacy. “some white cracker”…that’s it….

    • brettearle

      Unfair.

      You don’t know what happened.

      I think Zimmerman is, more likely, guilty.

      But your court of public opinion is somewhat of a witch hunt.

      Martin was not a child.  And when did Martin finally know that Zimmerman had a gun.

      • HonestDebate1

        And also how did Zimmerman know Martin didn’t have a gun or a knife? IMHO if Martin had been white or they both had been black no one would even know their names. It saddens me that this has become so consumed by race.

        • brettearle

          Your point’s a fair point about Zimmerman being afraid of Martin being armed.

          But it’s also possible that Martin, had he had a weapon, might have `already’ tried to have used it, either before the deadly scuffle or right at the beginning of the fray.

          In the heat of survival anxiety, the fact that Martin had not produced a weapon might not have played a reasonable factor in Zimmerman’s actions.

          But a jury might be swayed that this could be a factor–when, either concretely or subtly, determining degree of guilt.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        guilty of what? do you really think he left the house thinking “I am going to go murder the first black kid I see”?

    • hennorama

      ericd725 – Let’s remove some of your phrasing, to a more neutral fact-based scenario:

      On a rainy Florida evening, an adult man armed with a concealed firearm observes and follows a male teenager.  A confrontation and fight follows, and the teenager, who was unarmed, is shot and killed by the armed adult man.

      Just the facts.

  • Ray in VT

    Did anyone else see anything about the video game “Angry Trayvon”, where you, as an African-American male in a hoodie, go around robbing and killing?  What the heck is wrong with people?

    • hennorama

      Ray in VT – thank you for bringing us the first nominee for this week’s Week In The News “Sign Of The Apocalypse”.

    • brettearle

      Absolutely outrageous.

      Don’t know why a law hasn’t been broken.  Or has it?

      • Ray in VT

        It’s pretty terrible and tasteless, but I don’t know if it is in any way illegal.  It’s still perfectly legal to be a pr*ck to somebody.  It did get pulled by the maker, and it was maybe online only.  I’m not totally sure about those aspects, though. 

        • brettearle

          The price we pay for Liberty sometimes feels as if it can be too high, in certain circumstances.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      is that a real game?

      • Ray in VT
        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          I was hoping for a link to the game it sounds fun

          • Ray in VT

            Hopefully you are kidding.  You could always go play GTA.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            for a good laugh read travons girlfriends tweets his are pretty funny too.
            RT @Mitchell_Garcia: I’ll slap a girl if she said suck my toes wtf, she must be giving some great dome for some sh*t like that òÕ òÕ òÕ
            RT @ThatBitchJenny_: A f*ck n*gga is FOREVER a f*ck n*gga! Fu*ck ‘em!
            RT @iAmCartoonFYF: 6 Pound 7 Pound 8 Pound #KUSH
            RT @GrandadJFreeman: You know you high AF when you stop at a stop sign and wait for it to turn green
            U WANNA SEE SUM CASH? WELL LEMME SEE SUM ASS
            RT @KissMeEndlessly: puss ass crackas .
            RT @TheyHATEShAHeED: Its crazy how i was jus pissed off,snappin…then i smoked..now im happy:) ha
            RT @stillblazingtho: If you don’t like #weed. #YoureNotMyType
            RT @SheIs_UNdefined: & When Im On That SMOKE, Im Going Super-HAM!
            Its a new year lets make some changes…… f*ck dat wea da weedman at??
            RT @KimmyBtchhh: Some of y’all need a Blunt!
            RT @stillblazingtho: R E T W E E T If you smoke #weed.
            RT @PrettyMeStarr: White People’(s) Call Police , Black People’(s) Call There Cousin
            Read more at http://www.rightwingnews.com/10-random-140-character-thoughts/20-trayvon-martins-tweets-that-stand-out-language-warning/#9ghSYX1J28YXLM0k.99

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            “Right wing news”.

            Cos sometimes Rush is just too fekking squishy.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            way to attack the source regardless of the content whilst completly ignoring the content and deflecting/ casting apsersions. are you saying that those are not his tweets? i just looked up travons tweets and that came up. funny how the main stream media has forgotten to publish these tweets. can you think of any reason why the left wing news has not published these?

          • Ray in VT

            For laughs I would prefer to read all of the racist garbage that was said about his girlfriend over on the comments section of Fox News.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            that’s funny too. over there they accuse me of being a radical liberal shill. over here I am a radical conservative shill. I must be on to something.

  • Coastghost

    WHERE has Obama been all week? He’s freshly returned from his African vacation, but I can’t recall a single soundbite from him this week (not on NPR, that is), about anything, foreign or domestic. Most unusual. 

    • Shag_Wevera

      Who cares?

    • brettearle

      So what?

      Besides, he has a regular radio program, does he not?

  • dsnows

    So, if you provoke someone or start a fight with them, and they then get the upper hand, is it self defense to shoot them. I don’t think so. The only reason Zimmerman pursued Martin, is because he had the gun, and knew he could use it if needed. This is not the intent of “stand-your-ground”.

    • Shag_Wevera

      And Martin jumping on Zimmerman and pounding his face in is irrelevant.

    • brettearle

      You can’t say, with full certainty, that Zimmerman started the fight.

      What’s more any encounter requires an opportunity for someone to defend themselves, with a response that is enough to repel the assailant’s attack.

      If your life is being threatened, or you literally feel that it is being threatened, then it is possible that you might not have the time to figure out how to disable a guy with a bullet, instead of killing the assailant, with that same bullet.

      I HAPPEN TO THINK that my scenario, above is implausible.

      I happen to think that Zimmerman is more likely guilty.

      NEVERTHELESS, the issues enumerated above could easily engender `reasonable doubt’, I think, in the minds
      of the Jury.

      Reasonable doubt is THE threshold for the jury system in the United States, for a crime against the `state’–whether we like it or not.

      Plenty of defendants, who are otherwise guilty, are set free–because of it.

      Conversely, there are, very likely, many defendants in jail, for being convicted of crimes that they did NOT commit.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        the defense challenged the judge or prosecutor to come up with a theory of the case in which Zimmerman is guilty. can you come up with a scenario where its really 2nd degree murder?

    • MikeInMass

      If Zimmerman walks free, would that mean if I’m in Florida and I don’t like someone, I can provoke that person until I’m threatened, then I’m free to blow him away and claim self-defense for the final threats, ignoring that I started the provocation?

      • HonestDebate1

        No it doesn’t mean that.

        • MikeInMass

          Why not?  If I only provoked but did not threaten, then felt my life was in danger, I can stand my ground, right?  Zimmerman started following a kid who was minding his own business until he noticed some guy was following him around.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            this case has nothing to do with the stand your ground law.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        so if I were to insult someone in some way and they jump me and try to smash my head into the pavement I don’t have the right to defend myself because that person was offended by something they perceived I said? you have a right to defend yourself from a physical threat and its irrelevant if they were upset by you in some way

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      1. provoke?
      2. if you feel your life is in danger you can defend yourself , whatever the antecedent events are are irrelevant.
      3.”The only reason Zimmerman pursued Martin, is because he had the gun, and knew he could use it if needed.” are you some sort of a psychic?
      4. HE IS NOT USING A STAND YOUR GROUND DEFENSE
      so that’s 100% irrelevant in this case

  • Lucy Schumer

    I am glad the issue of the train wreck in Quebec was brought up at the very end of the hour. I live a small town in Vermont and we have trains carrying oil go through our town on the way to Burlington, VT. We even had a train derail right in the middle of town a couple of years ago but with no explosions or injuries. My questions are 1) are accidents like this the price we rural residents pay for urban areas appetite for oil?; 2) are pipelines a safer solution?; and 3) will the price in terms of accidents and global warming from use of oil and other hydrocarbons ever be too high to pay? When do we seriously decide to switch to other forms of energy and what might they be, realistically?

    • brettearle

      Least they could do is up the ante on taxes paid for transport–through your peaceful and non-toxic countryside.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        That leads to an interesting idea: Do these companies operate more safely in a place like VT than in industrialized areas full of refineries and plants, such as the various “Cancer Alleys” (LA, etc) or northern New Jersey?

        There’s a whole show (at least) to be done on regulation and enforcement keeping up with the economy and the hazards present.

        • brettearle

          No question…

          Misery likes company, right?

          Toxicity likes company, too?

          “We are cavalier where we can get away with being cavalier.”

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      1. yes and also for the use of oil by rural residents. you use oil too right?
      2.no they cause large oil spills all the time, but instead of only spilling a few railcars full of oil they spill and spill until they are shut off.
      3. not for the people that profit from the oil. how long would your city of Burlington exist with out hydrocarbons to keep you warm in the winter? we are already diversifying our energy sources and this will probably continue. its more adding to our sources not switching, we still use all the old ones 

  • Shag_Wevera

    In the simplest terms possible:

    If you sit on my chest and rain blows upon my face, if I have a gun I will kill you, because I have no idea how far you will go.

    George Zimmerman’s racism, militarism, or MMA aspirations have NOTHING to do with what I have previously said in my post.  Sit on my chest and pound my face and I will shoot you to protect myself.

    • 1Brett1

      Presuming Trayvon Martin was actually sitting on Zimmerman’s chest and raining blows upon his face. The eyewitness accounts are conflicting; one person said Zimmerman was on top, another said Martin was on top. Zimmerman’s statements don’t seem credible enough to simply believe his entire account of what happened.

      The gun being holstered to a strap behind Zimmerman’s back on his right side, under his pants, and additionally under an undershirt, a shirt and a jacket seems like it would be difficult for him to get to if he were lying on it, and considering (as Zimmerman said) he was on his back, Martin was on top of him (as Zimmerman said) and Martin had his knees jammed up into Zimmerman’s armpits.

      Did Trayvon Martin not have the same right to “stand his ground” that Zimmerman did? You are painting a picture that Trayvon Martin may have used potentially deadly force; well, we know Zimmerman absolutely used deadly force. 

  • Shag_Wevera

    I wonder what would have transpired had darling Trayvon used a non-confrontational and non-violent strategy in his encounter with George Zimmerman.

    • 1Brett1

      Yeah, sure, most 17 year olds are trained in crisis intervention, diffusing confrontations and strategies in dealing with difficult people, nice fantasy.

      As long as you are fantasizing, what would have happened had Zimmerman not had a gun? Not left his car? Not targeted Martin as an “a**hole” or a “f**king punk” or “up to no good” or a “suspect”? 

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        maybe he would have been killed and we would never hear about this case. the “what-if” game is fun

  • 1Brett1

    The defense is now talking about a perceived danger that Zimmerman felt, that one only has to be in perceived danger to use deadly force, that if it is reasonable to assume one is in danger one can defend oneself. Why was this reasonable for Zimmerman to assume and not reasonable for Trayvon Martin to have assumed? Zimmerman had a gun, Zimmerman had been pursuing him. Did Trayvon Martin not have the right to protect himself and stand his ground the way Zimmerman was?

    • brettearle

      Brett, I’m not clear on when Martin knew Zimmerman had the gun.

      It’s certainly an important point.

      If Martin knew that Zimmerman had a gun before Zimmerman was close to using it (as in, Martin knowing Zimmerman had a gun, longer than before the last few seconds of his life), then your comment underscores a point that is compelling enough to justify Martin’s actions even more, than they might be justified (assuming Martin did what Zimmerman claimed).

      But, even if Martin knew that Zimmerman had a gun, before these last few moments, it is still possible–whether we like it or not–that Zimmerman feared for his life.

      However, If Zimmerman entered the fight with his gun drawn, then more bets are off.  He’s guilty close to beyond a reasonable doubt–then what I previously thought–or else IS guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

      • 1Brett1

        I didn’t say anything about Martin knowing about Zimmerman’s gun. If Zimmerman feared for his life, why couldn’t Martin have feared for his life? The defense said Zimmerman just had to perceive such a threat. Why couldn’t Martin perceive such a threat, even without seeing a gun? That said, Zimmerman said Martin saw Zimmerman’s gun, even went for it, which is his reason for pulling it out and killing Martin.

        However, Zimmerman’s account of when the gun came into play doesn’t sound plausible to me. It was holstered behind his back under his pants, under his undershirt, a shirt and a jacket. If Zimmerman, as he said, was held down on his back (essentially lying on his gun) with Martin on top of him, pinning him down with Martin’s knees jammed up into Zimmerman’s armpits, how could Zimmerman have gotten to his gun (which is what he said he did when he shot Martin)? This indicates the gun was unholstered in some other way at some other point.

        The standard for manslaughter is much less than for 2nd degree murder. I would like to hear more expert opinion on that aspect of the case.

        • brettearle

          Yeah,

          I read about the armpit aspect, that you wrote, a couple hours earlier and was going to comment on it.

          At first (and maybe more than, at first), it seems like compelling evidence to suggest a glaring glitch in Zimmerman’s story.

          But, again, I haven’t been following all of the accounts….

          Isn’t it possible–if Zimmerman’s account is accurate??–that this `being pinned account’ occurred BEFORE Zimmerman’s arms or hands became loose–and that they became loose as the result of Martin changing his advantageous position, when Martin actually saw the gun or a strap connected to the holster and instinctively went for it?

          If that is so, your hand(s) might STILL take out your own gun and shoot to injure and not to kill.

          Maybe he tried only to injure.  But he never said that.  So, therefore, he simply shot indiscriminately–because he perceived his life to be in danger and was too frightened to anything else but to fire, at the moment he got the chance to do so.

          If someone feels threatened, they can be OVERreacting to the actual threat.

          I do not buy that defense, wholeheartedly–put out by zimmerman’s attorneys, that you mention, above. 

          What’s more, that sort of defense can be easily exploited by the Defendant.

          However, I don’t think that the Defendant has a weaker defense, necessarily–simply because the deceased felt threatened.

          Although, there might be more conviction to the fact that the deceased’s actions became more principally dangerous to the Defendant…as the result of the Defendant knowing that the deceased saw the gun.

          If the deceased felt even more threatened, as the result, then the Defendant could counter again, with feeling more threatened, himself.

          It WOULDN’T be easy to aver that.  But you could.

          Therefore, Manslaughter?

          Or Involuntary Manslaughter?

          Unlikely, but not impossible….

          But WHERE and HOW can you possibly draw the line….?

          Who felt more threatened and when and how and why?

          The PREPONDERANCE of evidence suggests Guilt.

          But that is not beyond a reasonable doubt, is it?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            the preponderance of the evidence shows a clear case of self defense. that’s why the police did not arrest him. if they had any evidence they would have arrested him. that’s what cops do

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Jeezus, can someone tell Futoed-Buddy how hack and slipshod the local PD was in this case?

            You really need to get in trouble with a Boss Hog and Sheriff Roscoe P. Coltrane. Otherwise, stop embarrassing yourself from what sounds like a perch of “My local cops have never screwed up, so these cops haven’t.”

            I lived in suburbs all my life, I’m white, and I know better. Your ignorance is palapable.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            oh so your theory is that good ol boy bumpkin police were so incompetent and/or such extreme racists themselves they could not come up any evidence of wrong doing where there was some? i don’t care who the police are. if they show up and you are standing next to a dead body you shot and they question you for 6 hours and then let you go then there is not a case to be made. cops err on the side of arresting people and do so whenever possible. my local cops are racist scumbags who violate peoples rights whenever possible. they do so to make cases, not to let them go. your presumptions about my frame of reference are pretty funny thanks for making me laugh

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            You really need to get arrested by a Southern deputy while you’re driving with out-of-state plates.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            i have a very low opinion of police in general.
            in that case that’s why they smash your tail light. they need some evidence

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        I have not heard anyone suggest zim pulled the gun before the physical assault

        • OnPointComments

          You haven’t heard anyone suggest that Zimmerman pulled the gun before the physical assault because that story wouldn’t make sense.  Martin was on the phone with Rachel Jeantel almost until the moment the shot was fired.  If Martin knew that Zimmerman had a gun, Martin would have mentioned it to Rachel.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            I cant think of any story that makes sense in which Zimmerman is guilty.

          • brettearle

            How about this story?….

            Zimmerman was overpowered
            and became scared.

            But Martin was not using physical force enough, against Zimmerman, to threaten Zimmerman’s life nor to actually believe that Zimmerman’s life was being threatened.

            Zimmerman overreacted.

            Why isn’t that possible?

            Maybe not definite, as a scenario.  But certainly POSSIBLE.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

             any story that includes “Zimmerman was overpowered and became scared.” is a clear case of self defense. that’s more than what is required for a proper case of self defense. everything else you said is irrelevant, especially in a court. so you need to come up with another scenario where this is a case of murder.

            think about what you are saying for a moment. is it murder when a cop shoots a person pointing a realistic toy gun at them? one need only a reasonable belief ones life is in danger. if someone said something like “you are going to die tonight” and jumped on me and was smashing my head into the ground I don’t think its unreasonable or much of an overreaction to think it might be a good idea to try to defend myself by any means possible

          • 1Brett1

            Nope, being overpowered is not enough of a reason to pull out a gun and kill someone.  “Reasonable” is the key word in “reasonable threat,” and it’s not just a matter of feeling like you are threatened.

            People get beaten up in fights all the time. They don’t have the right to just shoot the person beating them up. 

            You are believing Zimmerman’s story about Martin saying, “your gonna die tonight!”? 

            Also, you conflated Martin displaying his fists to Zimmerman with someone pulling a gun out on a cop that turns out to be a toy. Are you serious?

          • brettearle

             Good points.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            you have a right to shoot someone who is beating you up. its not hard to be beaten to death. when you are being beaten by a stranger in the street are you supposed to just take it and hope the person who is beating you has your best interest at heart and wont kill you and is smart and in control of themselves enough to ensure that they do not kill you unintentionally? are you for real?
            you do not know what the laws are.
            whether he said that or not is irrelevant.I was posing a hypothetical you avoided addressing.
            I was trying to illustrate what you seem not to want to understand. if you think your life is in imminent danger you can and obviously should defend yourself. someone physically attacking you puts your life at danger. its very simple

          • 1Brett1

            I choose what to respond to; you choose what to respond to…just because I don’t respond to something is not avoidance. 

            It depends on whether or not the danger is reasonably real, not just your perception. People who are delusional might think their life is in imminent danger, that doesn’t mean it actually is.

            If someone just comes up and punches you, no you don’t have the right to shoot him. If you can run away, yet you stay and shoot, in most states that is also not legal (however, in a stand your ground state it is legal to stand and kill). But, you’ve said stand your ground doesn’t apply in this case, so…

            If a person won’t let you leave and is, say, hitting your head with a steel pipe, then, yeah, even in a state that doesn’t have stand your ground, you can legally shoot him. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            looks like I was right.

          • 1Brett1

            What were you right about? Zimmerman was found not guilty NOT because he proved he defended himself but because the state could NOT prove he committed murder…believe what you want to, though.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            the state could not prove its case because it did not have a case of murder because this was a case of self defense. after being presented evidence from both sides,a jury of our peers agrees with me. 

          • 1Brett1

            Nope, the jury did NOT agree with you that this was a case of self defense; that wasn’t the verdict. The verdict was NOT GULTY OF MURDER. But, hey, if helps you sleep at night…

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            his positive defense to the charges was one of self defense. the state could not prove it was not. when the system works, I sleep like a baby

          • 1Brett1

            Have you ever heard of someone having a casual conversation over the phone as he was beating on a man to within an inch of his life?

  • TyroneJ

    I was appalled that so many callers were let on the air casting the Zimmerman-Martin issue as a Black vs White thing, and no one challenged them. The media has promoted the narrative of George Zimmerman as white, despite him being only as white as Obama is white, because it sells the story. George Zimmerman’s father is white and his mother is a Hispanic from Peru, with ancestry that includes an
    Afro-Peruvian grandfather. IF one wants to cast the Zimmerman-Martin issue in racial terms, it’s really a Hispanic vs Black issue, not a White vs Black issue.

    • brettearle

      Physical Perception is everything.

      On Zimmerman the human EYE sees white much more than anything else–especially when compared to Martin’s skin.

      That is what ultimately drives the story, I think.

      The eye sees white and then makes a somewhat false conclusion, accordingly.

      This false conclusion actually DRIVES the entire way the incident is presented.

      HOWEVER, it’s not an Hispanic vs Black issue.

      It’s a White-Latino vs Black issue.

      • HonestDebate1

        It’s a tragedy of misunderstanding. It’s not about race, that part was manufactured.

        • brettearle

           I don’t agree.

          And I can’t understand how you can possibly say that with any certainty–especially based on the dispatcher communications.

          • OnPointComments

            There is evidence that some of the media were intent on making this about race.  NBC edited the call to the police dispatcher to make it sound racist.  CNN claimed that Zimmerman had used a racial slur when he hadn’t.  The NY Times coined the phrase, “White Hispanic” to accentuate a white/black aspect.  Many media outlets used smiling innocent photographs of a younger Martin paired with a gruff-looking photo of Zimmerman.  Why would the media do these things?  It made the story more sensational.

          • hennorama

            OPC – the newsfotainment industry, AKA “The News” or The Media,” must now justify its existence, and especially
            its costs, to profit-seeking corporate media conglomerates. Given
            this fact, coverage goes only to the most sensational events that can
            inspire emotional reactions, which will drive the ears and eyeballs
            of audiences to media outlets in an effort to sell more advertising.

          • OnPointComments

            I agree wholeheartedly.  It’s all about ratings, selling papers, and hits on a website, which makes it all about business.

          • HonestDebate1

            I suppose I can’t say with certainty, that’s fair. But the dispatcher communications were not about race other than the dispatcher asking Zimmerman about the color of Martin’s skin. What are you referring to?

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        I had never even heard of white Hispanics until the new York times created them

        • jefe68

          You don’t know to many Latinos do you.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            qué divertido boss

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          You ought to get out more.

          Don’t watch any soccer? Any baseball, at all?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            yeah, a lot of Americans spend time watching soccer

        • StilllHere

          exactly, it’s completely made up by the racists

          • brettearle

            Well, there’s  no question that the New York Times is racist.

            As a matter of fact, while we’re at it, why don’t we pitch in The Washington Post and the Bal’more Sun?

            He who throws around malicious attributions defecates with spiritual diarrhea….

            Good luck in Confession.

    • hennorama

      TyroneJ – there’s the whole race vs. ethnicity thing when it comes to those of “Hispanic origin.” Hispanic origin is considered an ethnicity, not a race, and Hispanics may be any race. The US Census Bureau struggles with this as well, showing the following races:

      White alone
      Black or African American alone
      American Indian, Alaska Native alone
      Asian alone
      Native Hawaiian, Other Pacific Islander alone

      There is also this category:

      Two or more races

      In a nod to the difficulties involved in the “White” vs. “Hispanic origin” issue, they add these supplemental categories:

      Hispanic origin
      Not Hispanic White alone

      See:
      http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0010.pdf
      http://www.census.gov/population/projections/files/filelayout/NP2012_D1.pdf

      • HonestDebate1

        The government should not classify at all. It should be illegal for the government to ask your race on any legal document including the census.

        “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

        Maybe one day, until then, I have a dream.

        • hennorama

          1 BadStoneThee – you wrote “The government should not classify at all.” – that’s rich, coming from a “classifier” such as yourself.

          Here are just a few of your “gems”:

          “I conclude blacks are far more likely to rape whites than vice versa”

          “if you are white you are far far more likely to be the victim of a violent crime perpetrated but [sic] a black than vise versa [sic].”

          “Blacks are 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against whites then [sic] vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit a robbery.”

          “blacks are more likey [sic] to victimize whites than vice versa.”

          “A white woman is far far more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted black man that the opposite.”

          “A white person is far far more likely (about 39 times, 50 by per capita) to be a victim of violent crime perpetrated by a black.”

          “a great case for the fact whites are far more likely to be victims of black violence than vice versa.”

          “the fact that if you are white you are far far more likely to be the victim of a violent crime perpetrated by a black than vise versa. The numbers are especially shocking when you consider Blacks comprise only 12 or 13% of the population.”

          “What I am concerned about is violence. The epidemic of blacks forming mobs and spreading mayhem is troubling. I believe it is enabled by a lack of outrage rooted in white guilt making excuses. Blacks are not expected to be good citizen by liberals.”

          “Time after time the perpetrators are black,”

          Just out of curiosity Mr. Smith, can you prove all of the “classifying” claims you made in your words above? Can you point to the sources and methodologies and arithmetic involved in your claims, one by one? You confirmed all of them, right? After all you have written “I [Gregg Smith] don’t post anything without verifying.”

          Really?

          Prove it.

          • HonestDebate1
          • hennorama

            1 BadStoneThee – no one said you were.

            You are, however, a “classifier,” who is completely and unfailingly unwilling and unable to “verify” all of the “classifying” claims you have made. You cannot point to the sources and methodologies and arithmetic involved in each of your claims above, one by one.

            In other words, you sir are 1DishonestPontificator, who spouts unverified and unproven claims, over and over and over, and nothing more.

          • HonestDebate1

            You are the one who said the numbers meant nothing. I’m not chasing you to the weeds, you’ve already lost that argument once. Get over it. Your reply has nothing to do with my comment.

            The government has no business asking you  your race, that’s all.

          • hennorama

            1DishonestPontificator – a correction and a translation for the readers:

            CORRECTION: I am not, in any way, shape or form, “the one who said the numbers meant nothing.”

            I am however, “the one who” has repeatedly challenged you to explain, substantiate, document and support your claims. I am also “the one who” has repeatedly described various of your claims as “equine excrement.”

            TRANSLATION: “I’m not chasing you to the weeds,” meaning:

            I, Gregg Smith, am completely unwilling and unable to “verify” all of the “classifying” claims I have made above. I cannot point to the sources and explain the methodologies and arithmetic involved in my claims above, one by one. I am also loathe to admit that the actual sources of my claims are white nationalist, white separatist and white supremacist sites, such as these:

            http://unskkk.com/flyers/download/10.PDF (from the “United Northern & Southern Knights of the Ku Klux Klan”

            http://www.aryan-nation.org/justice_for_jonesboro-flier.pdf (from “Aryan Nations”)

          • HonestDebate1

            CORRECTION: I am not, in any way, shape or form, “the one who said the numbers meant nothing.”

            “In other words, the tables are estimates, generated from survey responses, taken from a fairly small number of households. As such, they come with significant limitations.”

          • hennorama

            1 BadStoneThee – TY for quoting me accurately. Given your history, this comes as a bit of a shock.

            Did you have a point?

            I ask because you seem to think you’ve disproved my CORRECTION.

            Unfortunately for you, one must note the complete absence of the words “the numbers meant nothing.” Instead we have a quote that is a completely accurate description of the data to which I referred, describing its “significant limitations.”

            Thank you for supporting MY point, sir. Well done.

          • HonestDebate1

            I did not use quotes and now you act as if I did. Are you seriously claiming that poo pooing the numbers and saying they have significant limitations (off by over 37K) is not “in any way, shape or form” saying they are meaningless?

            You said it alright.

          • jefe68

            If I could say what you really are I’m sure it would be removed.

            In light of that I do think you do remind me of the rear end of a Donkey though.

          • HonestDebate1

            Why thank you. What possible reason justifies the government asking you your race? I can’t think of any.

          • jefe68

            I wish they could ask for peoples IQ’s.

          • HonestDebate1

            Mine’s 12, what’s your point?

          • jefe68

            12? Your IQ can’t be 12. A normal score is 90 to 109.

          • HonestDebate1

            Okay, 13.

          • 1Brett1

            Just be glad they don’t ask you for your views on race; you’d be on a list somewhere. 

        • jefe68

          Wow, you really are found of digging huge holes for yourself.

          • HonestDebate1

            You don’t have to agree that all men are created equal.

          • jefe68

            Except that at the time that was written Women were not equal, nor were African Americans. 
            Your use of the Declaration of Independence as a means to give credence to your perverse viewpoints on race is laughable. 

            If that’s your view, then should it not be illegal for states to ask for ID to vote?

          • HonestDebate1

            They were equal and eventually the language prevailed over the circumstances. That was a long time ago. 

            It should absolutely be required to show ID to vote.

          • jefe68

            No women were not equal. They were property, like cattle or a horse. 

            You know what, the level of misinformation that comes out of your mind is staggering. You really do not have a clue about social justice at all.

            Are you aware that Chinese were not even allowed to become full citizens until the early 50′s. 

            Women are still not paid the same as men for the same jobs. 

            I could go on, but I really think it’s a waste of time, your that far gone.

          • HonestDebate1

            They were equal despite not being treated as equal. I don’t expect you to get it, I’m just glad our framers did.

          • 1Brett1

            No, jefe, women and slaves were equal, the framers just made the language and laws reflect that they weren’t knowing that one day the country would right itself; they were visionary that way! 

            Colonial slave: “I am sure glad I’m equal, own land, am free, and so forth; someday our founding documents will catch up to how I’m living, the founders know this…they know this…they know…”

            Is this guy for real? Is his desire to argue so great he’ll go out of his way to look foolish?

  • turkoz

    tom needs to find guests who can use periods rather than ramble on continuously…they make jack seem mute by comparison!

    • http://www.CayerComputing.com/ Melissa A. Cayer

      I wonder how much the guests get paid to be on the show.

  • 1Brett1

    There are three streets in the gated community where Zimmerman had lived for four years, where he killed Martin. The street where Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and went in the same direction as Martin is adjacent to the street where Zimmerman lived. Zimmerman, while not only living in the enclave for four years, was also the head of Neighborhood Watch and regularly patrolled the neighborhood. Zimmerman also walked his dogs everyday along those same three streets in the neighborhood….Do you know the name of the street adjacent to your street? Do you know names of the two streets closest to your street? Zimmerman also claimed he couldn’t get an address number of where he had left his car, yet photos of the townhouses on that street clearly have numbers displayed on every house. Does anyone believe Zimmerman’s claim that he didn’t know the name of the street he was on or that he didn’t see any street addresses? 

    • jefe68

      In my opinion Zimmerman’s story is a load of bull.
      Don’t forget the mysterious moving bushes.

  • 1Brett1

    I think there is enough doubt not to convict Zimmerman of 2nd degree murder. Is there enough doubt for him not to be convicted of manslaughter? Well, that’s another question; I can’t say…If one presumes Zimmerman felt he was in imminent danger of being severely injured or killed, was that feeling of danger reasonable? 

    I’ve been in fights before where I was punched in the face. I didn’t think I was in imminent danger of being severely injured or killed; I did feel as though I needed to either fight or flee. Was Martin so overpowering that Zimmerman couldn’t get away? No, I think Zimmerman felt he didn’t need to get away, he had a gun.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      in fact in florida one has no requirement to try to get away. he has not asked to be tried under that law. when you were punched in the face were you alone, at night, being jumped by a stranger? if you did feel they were trying to kill you, maybe because they said something like “you  are going to die tonight”, would you pull your pistol when they were slamming your head into the pavement?
      would that be the wrong thing to do?

      • 1Brett1

        As long as you are taking Zimmerman’s story as a completely factual account of events, why not consider Martin also had the right to stand and fight; he just didn’t have a gun like Zimmerman. All Martin had were fists. If someone pointed a gun at you and you felt like you could punch them and end the threat, would you?

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          I don’t know why I should answer your questions if you wont answer mine. has anyone suggested that Zimmerman pulled his gun while standing or before he was being beaten? I was actually in a situation where a crazy person was pointing a gun at me and I considered physically ending to confrontation, I am pretty sure I could have grabbed the gun, lucky for me my wife was there and she was able to use psychology to save us, so I never had to find out would have actually happened if I had tried to grab the gun.
          I was cornered in my situation but if you ever have a gun pulled on you the very best tactic is to run away if possible, this is advice from a martial arts master. running increases your chance of living the most.
           its pretty stupid to start fights with anyone, you don’t know if they have a gun or a black belt or what. so if you are going to go around trying to jump people and one shoots you then that’s not a problem as far as I am concerned. its too bad that that kid was a stupid kid and did not know any better.

          • 1Brett1

            Yeah, but as you know, we are not the criminal justice system; and, besides, we can’t just say, “oh, well, if you jump somebody you get what you deserve” and expect to be offering anything of analytical value. 

            I will agree that Martin probably had a stupid streak, something most 17 year olds have. He should have quickly identified himself to Zimmerman and why he was out, and he should have gone straight home. However, Zimmerman did not identify himself as a Neighborhood Watch captain. He also did not ask Martin what he was doing.  

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            i am sure it could have gone a lot of different ways.  its a tragedy but, like the police, I cant really see any crime in zimmermans actual actions

          • jefe68

            He shot an unarmed person. That’s manslaughter or at the very least wrongful death.

          • OnPointComments

            Rubbish.  If an unarmed person broke into my house and I got my shotgun and killed him, I am justified in the killing.  Shooting this unarmed person is neither manslaughter or wrongful death.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            …and you’ve turned it into “in my house”.

            Classless, classless trolling.

          • jefe68

            It’s the false equivalency thing again. This guys does it all the time. 

          • jefe68

            How does someone breaking into your home have any bearing in a case of two people on the street at night?

            Actually you could be charged with a wrongful death charge depending on the circumstances.

            The law is not black and white as you would like it to be.

          • HonestDebate1

            Do you think if Joshua Chellew had a gun he would not have been justified in shooting these thugs?

            http://mdjonline.com/view/full_story/23037003/article-Mableton-teens-linked-to-gang-are-accused-in-beating-death?

            They were not armed. Will this be a National story? Should it be?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            people are killed by unarmed people all the time, statistically they are more dangerous than assault rifles.  its not manslaughter if he was defending himself from imminent harm also known as self defense.that’s what the jury is deciding.   wrongful death is a civil issue not a criminal one. I bet there will be a case of that nature but that’s a very different thing than a 2nd degree murder case

          • 1Brett1

            “people are killed by unarmed people all the time, statistically they are more dangerous than assault rifles.”

            Statistics don’t kill people, people with guns do…at least more than unarmed people do. Besides, wrong thread; this isn’t a n “assault rifle” thread.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            2011 FBI statistics
            deaths from rifles of all kinds =323
            deaths from “personal weapons” hands fists feet ect= 728
            looks like twice as many killed by unarmed people than rifles of all kinds. wow and not all rifles are assault rifles. you should apologize for trying to mislead everyone.
            http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

          • 1Brett1

            Here’s what I said, “statistics don’t kill people, people with guns do…at least more than unarmed people do.” 

            Also, the thread was about the Zimmerman case, NOT assault rifles!

            Here’s what I said about that: “Besides, wrong thread; this isn’t an ‘assault rifle’ thread.”

            Like I told you, It was not a thread about rifles, it was about Zimmerman killing Martin (he used a handgun not a rifle of any kind). Most violence with guns is with handguns. You should apologize for trying to opportunistically twist the thread into a political discussion about assault rifles; the Zimmerman case had nothing to do with that. 

            You should also apologize for such cheap tactics in trying to put words in my mouth, Futo Buddy.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            you brought it up.
            the Zimmerman case has spawned a lot of discussion that really has nothing to do with it.  why should I not have the same right as anyone to use this case to discuss my own pet issues? why is it ok for al sharpton?  lol “You should also apologize for such cheap tactics in trying to put words in my mouth” ROFL ditto

          • 1Brett1

            Nope, I didn’t bring up assault rifles, you did. Also, Al Sharpton isn’t commenting on this forum. And, you can bring up whatever you want to.  

            You should just apologize for being…I don’t know what one would call you, but you should apologize for it. LOL, ROFL, LMFAO, and any other overworked internet acronym you might wish to insert. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            why not? they are great for saving time. at first I also found them offensive but if you can’t beat em, join em. Also, lucky for you, I don’t know how to do those emoticons very well. :P

          • 1Brett1

            So, you were really “rolling on the floor” and wanted to write that you were, but you decided to save time by abbreviating…okay, then.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            yes exactly, its very difficult to type while rolling on the floor

          • MikeInMass

            I thought the idea of neighborhood watch was keep your eyes open and call the police to handle the situation.  Zimmerman had no (police) authority to confront Martin, and probably very little if any training on dealing with such situations.  If he stayed in his car, Martin probably would not have been a threat to anyone.  If you see a uniformed officer step out of a police car, you have a certain expectation that is quite different from what you get seeing some random person following you in the dark.

            Because he wanted to be the hero, and had the gun to back him up, he overstepped his bounds, and a kid, who still had lots to learn about life, just like almost all 17-year-olds, is dead.  Who is more responsible for the death, the dumb kid, or the older man who escalated the situation?

            by the way, are/have you been the parent of a teen?  just wondering?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            what’s the evidence that Zimmerman “confronted” martin or “overstepped his bounds”? if there was some and he did does one need authority to ask a stranger in their neighborhood, “how’s it going”? does it have anything to do with the issues in the case?
            many teenagers are stupid. they take stupid risks people who live to be adults should know better than to take and they get themselves killed.  this particular child was defiantly on a path to some sort of big trouble with all the drugs guns violence and casual sex that was part of his life

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           Also, Martin had the ‘right’ to run the 300 feet home in the 4 minutes gap when he was supposedly running in fear for his life — as the prosecution claims.  Zimmerman was not blocking his route home.  If he had gone home, he would be alive today.

          Too many  ‘what ifs’ to convict.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            I (and Rod Serling) woudl love for you to have been black and dependent on the whim of CowardWithAGun Zimmerman to not shoot you.

          • jefe68

            Zimmerman killed this 17 year old kid.
            What part of the term wrongful death or manslaughter do you not understand?

  • Ray in VT

    The Senate Labor Committee this week passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which “would ban employers from discriminating against workers based on sexual
    orientation or gender identity”

    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/07/10/senate-panel-passes-lgbt-nondiscrimination-bill/

    I’m willing to bet, though, that it will fail to muster the 60 votes that have become necessary to move legislation in the Senate, and it would likely die in the House anyways.

    • HonestDebate1

      I would support that for the public sector and oppose it for the private sector. 

      • Ray in VT

        I would support it for everyone.  I don’t think that racial, ethnic, gender or sexual orientation discrimination belongs in the work environment, public or private.

        • HonestDebate1

          “I don’t think that racial, ethnic, gender or sexual orientation discrimination belongs in the work environment, public or private.”

          Interesting that you put it that way. I would agree 100%.

          • Ray in VT

            I would include in the “work environment” considerations around the hiring and firing of workers as well.

          • Markus6

            This is close to saying you’re against people being bad. It sounds good, but be careful of the consequences. 

            Many companies evaluate the difficulty of firing someone before they hire them. Hiring people by american companies in some european countries is limited because the difficulty and cost of getting rid of them if they’re incompetent, is very high. This practice is not limited to geography by any stretch. 

            A manager once went to the company lawyer to talk about an employee who was incompetent. Her (the lawyer’s) first question was “is it a pale male”, meaning is it a white guy. White guys could be fired more easily without worrying about wrongful termination suits. 

            If you make something expensive, you’ll get less of it. All companies have to fire people at some point. Make that difficult enough and they’ll lean away from hiring them in the first place.

          • HonestDebate1

            I agree with you. My point is I don’t think government should be telling businesses who they can hire. For instance, “Hooters” should not be forced to hire transgendered ugly “girls”. 

          • Ray in VT

            Well, it is a good thing that this proposed legislation doesn’t address that.  It merely says that one can’t fire one’s accountant for coming out of the closet, just like, under current law, one could not fire that accountant were one to learn that he or she violates the one drop rule.

          • HonestDebate1

            All I know about it is what I read in your link. It seems to me Hooters cannot discriminate against ugly transgendered “girls”. I could be wrong. I mention Hooters because I recall men suing them because they weren’t hired. I don’t know what came of it.

            Markus6 put it better than I did.

          • jefe68

            You really love using false equivalencies don’t you. 

  • 1Brett1

    What if Trayvon Martin had been cruising his neighborhood, calling the police, saying he saw Zimmerman and Zimmerman was up to no good, that he was an a**hole, that he was a f**king punk, and that he was a suspect when Zimmerman was just walking and talking on the phone? What if Martin had had a gun and pursued Zimmerman? What if Zimmerman had confronted Martin as to why he was following Zimmerman? Maybe Zimmerman could have even punched Martin, then Martin pulled a gun and shot Zimmerman? How many would consider Martin guilty of murdering Zimmerman? How many would consider Martin targeting Zimmerman and committing black on white crime in “murdering” Zimmerman? Would this have been another example of an “epidemic” of black on white crime? One worthy of conservative blog discussions about how blacks are given a pass for their violence against whites?

    • OnPointComments

      If your scenario had occurred, and the police had concluded that Martin was justified in shooting Zimmerman and therefore hadn’t brought any charges, but then because of political pressure subsequently falsified an arrest warrant and complaint (as alleged in the criminal indictment of FL state attorney Angela Corey in her charges against Zimmerman), how many liberal blog discussions would there have been about how unfair the justice system is to people of color?

      • 1Brett1

        Hoo-hoo-hooo, you sure do grab at whatever straws you can, no matter how much they have marinated in fecal matter. 

        You do know that the “criminal indictment” of which you speak is not real, not a “criminal” indictment at all? It is the product of nut cases (akin to 9-11 conspiracy theorists acting as “deputized” citizens arresting Bush for masterminding the attack on the Twin Towers).

        It is a “citizens’” grand jury, formed by the same types who call for the impeachment and imprisonment of Obama for not really being born in the US, that have called for an indictment of Angela Corey.

        • OnPointComments

          “Various legal commentators, including Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, have called Corey’s omissions unethical and criminal in their own right, as she apparently rushed to charge Zimmerman based on her then campaign for reelection and concomitant pressure by black activists such as Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.”
           
          http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130709-905131.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

          • 1Brett1

            An opinion piece in a news outlet that paid a legal expert to write it is a far cry from a “criminal indictment.” 

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      how could a 17 year old legally possess a concealed firearm?

      • 1Brett1

        How could you be a weatherman?

      • jefe68

        I don’t know, you’re the anything goes gun freedom guy.
        Have you not heard of Keystone Firearms who make the Crickett and Chipmunk brands which are especially marketed for children?

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          I “liked” it cause you said “for children” and not “to” children. its besides the point on this thread but why would you want a child using a dangerously oversized adult firearm?
           personally I would not care about the race of the individuals and would hope it would not matter but I know in reality race can be an issue and it could go either way. lets not kid ourselves and think racist police are going to be deferential to a  Hispanic no matter how “white” they say he  is. evidence is evidence though and you need some if you are going to make a murder case no matter what color your criminal is if they can afford a lawyer. with all the stuff on his cell phone and his girlfriends and his racist drug sex and violence fueled tweets I don’t know that  he is really the sweet ten year old little leaguer that most Americans were initially shown by the media so that might play a role were he to shoot someone

  • http://www.facebook.com/russell.ludwick Russell Ludwick

    On the Zimmerman case.  My friends and I were once attacked by a guy with a golf club.  We inevitably got in a scuffle, punches were thrown and a fight for the golf club ensued.  Luckily a cop showed up and broke up the fight, but I can relate with Martin.  I can’t believe that the guy with the gun is claiming self defense, I call shananigans. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      so someone with a gun cant claim self defense?

      • jefe68

        They can claim anything they want.
        Whether it’s legal or true is another thing.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          its true, self defense is legal jefe.

      • northeaster17

        Not when they accost and shoot an unarmed kid.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          what evidence is there he “accosted” anyone?

      • StilllHere

        depends on how many times their skull has been hit into the cement by the other guy

  • OnPointComments

    A bizarre claim of the “Stand Your Ground” defense:
     
    “An armed intruder is making a “Stand Your Ground” argument in a murder trial, saying he shouldn’t be prosecuted for shooting and killing the man whose home he broke into because it looked as though the man was about to shoot him first.”
     
    http://www.thestate.com/2013/07/10/2856356/sc-supreme-court-stops-murder.html

    • jefe68

      This shows why these laws are just dumb.

      • OnPointComments

        ‘Stand your ground’ laws have been enacted, in part, to counter ‘duty to retreat’ arguments.  I’d hate to be in a situation where I was attacked and defended myself, yet was charged because someone thought I might have had the opportunity to run away.
         
        “This principle [duty to retreat] required that someone who found themselves in a violent confrontation had to try to defuse the situation and retreat “to the wall” before resorting to deadly force.”
         
        “The “duty to retreat” also made it easier for prosecutors to prove that a killing was not in self-defense. The facts that can be proven are often murky (particularly when of the two people who know what happened, one is the defendant and the other is dead) and prosecutors could often, by pointing to a defendant’s failure to retreat, obtain a conviction even without establishing the precise facts.”
         
        http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/21/opinion/bellin-stand-your-ground-law

        • jefe68

          I don’t know about you, but I don’t go to places where I get into fights. 
          These laws are repugnant. 

          • pete18

             A wise person would try hard to stay out of those situations. No doubt Zimmerman made some foolish decisions to get himself into a bad situation. And certainly no one could fault Trevon Martin for feeling threatened in the described scenario and acting proactively to defend himself. That being said, it still is quite possible that Zimmerman rightfully defended himself. Strikes me as a tragedy all the way around with no way to fully know what really happened.

            However, in regards to the stand your ground law, sometimes the fights come to you.
            Home owners and business owners often being the prime targets of the of armed attacks and the “duty to retreat” insanity. In those situations people shouldn’t be punished for defending themselves.

    • hennorama

      OPC
      – while looking for something else a while back, I came across this
      article:

      “Florida
      ‘stand your ground’ law yields some shocking outcomes depending on
      how law is applied”

      By
      Kris Hundley, Susan Taylor Martin and Connie Humburg, Times Staff
      Writers

      Friday,
      June 1, 2012 10:25am

      “Florida’s
      “stand your ground” law has allowed drug dealers to avoid
      murder charges and gang members to walk free. It has stymied
      prosecutors and confused judges. • It has also served its intended
      purpose, exonerating dozens of people who were deemed to be
      legitimately acting in self-defense. Among them: a woman who was
      choked and beaten by an irate tenant and a man who was threatened in
      his driveway by a felon.

      “Seven
      years since it was passed, Florida’s “stand your ground”
      law is being invoked with unexpected frequency, in ways no one
      imagined, to free killers and violent attackers whose self-defense
      claims seem questionable at best.

      “Cases
      with similar facts show surprising — sometimes shocking —
      differences in outcomes. If you claim “stand your ground”
      as the reason you shot someone, what happens to you can depend less
      on the merits of the case than on who you are, whom you kill and
      where your case is decided.”

      http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133

      Some
      of the most interesting things are things found along the way …

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Government spending is out of control.  We all know about it.

    Eric Holder’s travel costs were $1.45M in 2011 alone.

    The head of the FBI’s travel costs were $1.25M in 2011 alone.

    There is no respect for taxpayer dollars.  It adds up.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-12/holder-fiscal-2011-travel-cost-taxpayers-more-than-1-45-million.html

    • OnPointComments

      If I wanted to compile a complete and comprehensive list of all wasteful government spending, I wonder if finishing the list would even be possible.  My guess is that wasteful spending occurs at a faster rate than it can be catalogued.
       
      Another example:
      “The U.S. military blew through $34 million on a hulking headquarters in southwestern Afghanistan that probably will never be used by U.S. forces, in an example of government waste that has military commanders fuming…The building will probably be demolished.”
       
      http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/10/military-dumps-34m-into-afghanistan-hq-that-us-forces-wont-use/

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         We have to start somewhere and also call it out when we see it.

        • StilllHere

          Those who “work” for the gov will come to its defense, they do every time.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        And when there’s a conservative (whatever that means any more) in the White House, you won’t matter and nobody will listen to you.

        But don’t let me stop your fantasy.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Call me the next time all these True Principled Conservatives succeed in making any right-winger anywhere cut something for reals, rather than out of pissy spite.

      Cos the week in the news I see are Republicans and Tea-baggers obsessed with regulating the va-jay-jay.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        (Not sure why I have two comments here saying the same thing except for one going into moderation for that “v” word until it was determined I used it in a medical sense.)

    • jefe68

      I get it. You want the US government to stop all functions. What do you replace it it with? The US of Koch brothers LTD…

      • HonestDebate1

        Yea there is no middle ground, either total waste fraud and abuse or nothing. Your logic is impeccable. And you got the Koch Bros. in too, nice. How much is Obama paying you?

        • StilllHere

          Exactly, he’s on the government payroll, definitely.

    • StilllHere

      The usual suspects will take this to the extreme suggesting you want to drown the gov.  They have no answers, only evasions.

  • tbphkm33

    The Snowden case is interesting – now seeking asylum in Russia.  What kind of people does he have advising him???  Reality is that thousands of people travel around the world every day with fake passports.  Many even enter the homeland of the empire (that be the U.S.) with fake passports.  Readily available for a price by criminal elements worldwide.  I wager to bet the Russians, even knowing he’s traveling on fake documentation, would happily drive him across the tarmac to deliver him right onto his plane of choice.  Point being, it should not be this difficult to spirt him out of Russia.  Plus, in six months, Washington can easily kidnap him off a street in Caracas and bundle him into a shipping crate for a quick flight home.  

    • brettearle

      Snowden is a significant commodity, now–for a number of reasons.

      I doubt that the US will apprehend him–without some prodigious concessions.

    • 1Brett1

      Now that the lunatic conspiracy theorists have spoken, the sane of us can shake our heads and get on with our day. 

      Some people should lift up their butt cheeks and check to see which end they’re speaking out of before commenting.

      Sorry, tbphkm33, that’s a bit over the top, even for you.

      See how that works?

  • hennorama

    Count me as one who will be pleased when the Zimmerman/Martin case is finally over, and we can get back to more important things, such as “Who Killed Snuffy The Seal?”

    See:http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/shark-week

    • brettearle

      Can we all just get along?

      • HonestDebate1

        That’s what I’m worried about. I would love to see, whatever the verdict, everyone grieve in solidarity and accept the ruling peacefully. I actually think that may happen but I’m a dreamer.

      • hennorama

        brettearle – Speaking only for myself – I’m game, but please don’t ask me to suffer fools, gladly or otherwise.

  • StilllHere

    The House was right, the sequester has been a non-event.  This is our only hope to get government spending under control.  The government can be smaller and still provide essential services, and still be guilty of incredible waste.

    • northeaster17

      If you are a Federal Tech it is not a non event. I’m not but I’ve seen first hand that being furloughed sucks.

      • StilllHere

        For everyone but taxpayers.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      lets have another sequester every 6 months until the deficit is closed or until people miss IRS agents or national parks on the moon

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Reality-world denizens would disagree.

  • 1Brett1

    Give a neighborhood watch guy a license to carry a concealed weapon and what happens? He shoots and kills a teenager on the way home from 7-11 after the kid buys Skittles and ice tea…it was probably self-defense, though, so it’s okay, we’ll just use our judicial system to exonerate him later. A long trial takes place and both sides are represented, so why the problem? In fact, the neighborhood watch guy should never have even been arrested in the first place; he simply defended himself. He said so! The trial is just an example of more governmental waste and excessive regulation tying the hands of our citizenry…a**hole liberals, f**king democrat punks!

    • tbphkm33

      … and now that the rightwing lunatic fringe has spoken, maybe the sane of us can shake our heads and get on with our day.  

      Some people really should lift a butt cheek and check which end they are talking out of before writing comments. 

      Sorry Brett, that was a bit over the top, even for you. 

      • 1Brett1

        Um…I was using sarcasm. What other comments have I made that you feel are “over the top” by other people’s standards? Do you even know my politics? …Doesn’t seem like you do.

        • HonestDebate1

          Sarcasm can be a wonderful tool for creative pontificators… or just stupid tripe when people go on emotional rants.

          • 1Brett1

            You liked it, so…but I digress; that was either an emotional rant or sarcasm, not both, and something is either a wonderful tool and creative or pontificating, not both. 

            You should pace yourself; when you champ at the bit to opportunistically put me down, you end up in a hilarious contradiction in terms. But, you’ve just gone out of your way to join a commenter’s bashing by insinuating yourself into his thread unnecessarily, something you’ve as much as chastised me for in the past. I guess you’re no better a person than I? (He, however, misunderstood and thought I WAS really a rightwing nut like you! At least he has an excuse!)

          • HonestDebate1

            Sarcasm can be a wonderful tool for creative pontificators… or just stupid tripe when people go on emotional rants.

  • HonestDebate1

    100 years ago this week the highest temperature ever recorded on Earth, 134 degrees, occurred in Death Valley, CA.

    • jefe68

      And your point other than on that day it was hot in death valley, is what?

      • HonestDebate1

        No point really just a celebration. A century is a long long time… to humans, it’s a pittance to Earth

  • pete18

    Maybe you can list some of those trusted, objective, news sources where you go to to form your caricatured, democratic-talking-point-driven  understanding of the Tea Party from. It would be so enlightening to be guided by the world’s sharpest media critic.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      If you want to show off your problem understanding media, start your own thread.

      For me, I won’t waste my time “teaching a pig to sing”.

      • pete18

        Really? But you’d be so good at it, your last post was a swine symphony.

  • HonestDebate1

    I’m not a fan of Don Lemon but he and I are on the same page regarding the PSA:

    “I want to say this as judiciously as possible, and I’m not just saying this because I’m African-American, but to hear people come out before hand and talk about the possibility of violence and not rioting, it strikes me as, ‘those barbarians can’t contain themselves’ and it strikes many people as that well.”

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      I don’t agree.  I believe that they asked for no celebrations or demonstrations from anyone.  Notice there was no mention of race.  Jesse Jackson tweeted a similar message which was appropriate since last year he was calling for ‘war’. So in some ways it was a retraction of his previous statement.

      Sure, it would be nice if a PSA unnecessary and maybe it is unnecessary but caution should be the watchword.  Also, if they didn’t say anything and there happened to be some sort of riot I guarantee there would be criticism for the authorities not being proactive.

      • HonestDebate1

        I don’t disagree but I think there has to be an assumption that blacks are unreasonable to make the request. I do not think the PSA was directed at whites who may be upset if Zimmerman is found guilty but I realize that is not your claim. The tenor and delivery of the message seemed to be directed at blacks who were assumed to be more concerned about color of skin than justice. Why would they say your patience will be tried or ask that you don’t raise your hands if the verdict is just? I don’t like it. I am not ready to endorse that view even if it turns out to be true.

        I am not even saying the PSA wasn’t necessary or prudent. I am saying two things: 1) it should’t be and I refuse to accept it is before I am proven wrong, if I am, and 2) to the extent it is necessary it is artificially so as a result of the media.

        My biggest concern is that if Zimmerman is acquitted and if there is violence as a result, that no one, no one, sympathizes in any way with those who act out. I am very concerned some will take the position of, “well, who could blame them” and I believe that is a racist view.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           I agree with you that there is zero excuse for acting out. 

  • HonestDebate1

    Now that the trial is over, I am more convinced than ever (still speculation) this case was not about race. I thought it was completely inappropriate that Obama weighed in at all but to interject race with his, albeit factual, statement about the color of skin was nothing short of disgusting. I also sincerely hope the media in general and NBC in particular pays a price for the racial strife they fomented. I have been clear from the beginning the ginned up racial overtones were despicable. I am somewhat gratified such talk has been dialed back a bit since the first OP shows related to this topic. 

    Having said that, it occurs to me: what difference does it make? I expect some will say it makes a huge difference and I am eager to hear from you. What if Zimmerman was the biggest racist in the world and went out hunting blacks to kill but the facts were the same? Would it matter? I say no. Dead is dead. The color of skin should be totally and completely irrelevant. The merits of the facts are all that matters.

    • jefe68

      I bet at a party you’re the guy everyone wants to get away from. You know, you smell like mothballs, bad booze and lousy conversation.

      • HonestDebate1

        You pegged me.

        • jefe68

          Mind you, I bet you’re a wealth of advice on gardens.

          • HonestDebate1

            I ate my last salad of lettuce tonight but the arugala is still hanging. I dug about 60 lbs of potatoes day before yesterday and the squash is coming on strong. Tomatoes are around the corner and the basil will be on time.

          • jefe68

            What do you do when you have vine borers?

          • HonestDebate1

            Go fishing.

        • StilllHere

          He also knows what you’re thinking at all times.

    • 1Brett1

      Well, to indulge your silly, stupid “Zimmerman as KKK” fantasy “what if” scenario, yeah it might very well have spoken to motive/premeditation if he had set out to “hunt blacks” that night. A 1st degree murder charge could have legitimately stuck.

      But I now feel badly for even indulging you in your variation on your meme/diatribe of “white-guilt-and-Obama-intentionally-ginning-up-racial-tension-for-the-purposes-of-destroying-the-country-have-given-rise-to-more-black-on-white-reverse-racism-in-this-country-causing-innocent-whites-to-be-persecuted/prosecuted.”

      It is quite possible that Zimmerman will be acquitted, but that won’t necessarily be because of any merits of facts, but lack of evidence to support the state’s case. Period. We don’t know what happened that night. We can’t necessarily believe all of Zimmerman’s account, it’s just that the state didn’t really competently make it’s case, which is where the burden lies for conviction. 

      You say you have no judgment and feel that justice should take its course, but we all know that’s crap. We’ll see what you say if he’s convicted of manslaughter (I imagine that you will say it is because of white guilt, fear of race riots, etc., or some such nonsense). If he is found not guilty, will you say that it is a correct verdict and he was defending himself against the thug Martin? 

       

      • HonestDebate1

        You live in your own little bizarre world. I have not taken sides.

      • HonestDebate1

        You did make a good point though about the lack of evidence to support the State’s case. The State overreached, as you wrote the charges were not commiserate with the evidence. It wasn’t about the evidence, it was about the color of skin. That never ends well.

        We’ll see, for all I know Zimmerman will do life.

        • 1Brett1

          The word you wanted was “commensurate” not “commiserate.” But, I wouldn’t characterize what I said in the way that you have, that would be tweaking my words to mean something other than what they meant. 

          The prosecution simply did not do a good job. The 2nd degree murder charge wasn’t all that outrageous, particularly when a lesser manslaughter charge can be determined. I don’t think the evidence was strong for 2nd degree murder but there was enough to charge him.

          One thing that struck me (or reminded me, I should say) is how sleazy lawyers are. Both sides used some despicable approaches. Martin was neither a fearful child nor was he a dangerous thug, for example; there are many others.

          About all I can say is I think Zimmerman acted irresponsibly as a concealed weapon gun owner/user and was probably just a little too full of himself, but I don’t think he is a monster. He got himself in too deep. Martin was a stupid-assed kid who got cocky at the wrong time. 

          If Zimmerman gets acquited, I won’t be surprised, and I know the limitations of the law. Justice has limits, human limits. I would rather see a guilty person go free than an innocent man go to prison. If he is convicted of manslaughter and spends a few years in jail, that wouldn’t be something too far from reasonable. It is a tragedy that Martin is dead, and Zimmerman has some culpability for his death.

          If I were on the jury, my vote would be NOT guilty, just so you know. 

          • HonestDebate1

            You did not say anything about the prosecution not doing a good job. I just went by what you wrote.

            “… that won’t necessarily be because of any merits of facts, but lack of evidence to support the state’s case. Period.”

          • 1Brett1

            I said so more emphatically in other comments, but I also said so in this comment. Be persnickety already…I guess I should have been clearer, but I did say, “the state didn’t really competently make it’s case,” which, yes, that is saying something about their not doing a good job. I suppose you wish to interpret it all the way you want so you have something to argue with, though; same sh*t, different day, as they say. 

          • HonestDebate1

            I was replying to the comment I replied to.

            On one hand you say “didn’t really..”, on the other you proclaimed and said “period”.

            Not that I care, just get your story straight before you say I’m twisting your words. I don’t interpret or try to read minds. You wrote what you wrote and I replied to what you wrote. I know the concept is strange to you.

            I said you made a good point, take yes for an answer. The State clearly did not have the evidence to support the case…as you said. The prosecution was at a disadvantage from the start. I think that is because of political pressure brought to bear. It’s not everyday that Sheriffs resign to keep from violating the oath they took but it happened here according to Mr. Lee.

            But I am not prepared to say they didn’t do a good job and won’t be successful.

          • 1Brett1

            And, of course, my use of the word “period” means what you say it means and not what I say, that Zimmerman’s acquittal won’t be because of facts…but whatever. I don’t have to say everything about this case in one comment to convey all that I think about it. You have replied to almost all of my comments on the case to know what I think about it, but you just like to argue; I get it.

            I have made a clarification, but you wish ignore that and to argue with some point you squirrel out that you find weak enough to argue with rather than accept my clarification. Why? Again, because you have an obsession with arguing.

          • HonestDebate1

            What are you even arguing about? I have no idea.

  • conservativetom

    Your guests missed the point on the Immigration reform bills.  The problem is we have a porous southern border still.  Recall Congress tried to fix the illegal immigration problems in 1986.  We now have another 11 million or so illegals in the country.  Worse we have a major drug & violence problem on & near our southern border that most of the media just ignores.  Before we have more illegals crossing the border, let’s fix the border, the violence & drug gangs!  Then we reform immigration laws to give illegals a shot at becoming citizens.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       They didn’t ‘miss the point’.  They want open borders as long as they believe it helps Democrats politically.

      • conservativetom

        Very good point!

    • jefe68

      Woe is me.

      • conservativetom

        Don’t understand your point!

    • hennorama

      conservativetom – do you have any evidence to support your claim that “The problem is we have a porous southern border still”?

      I ask due to information from various reliable sources indicating that net migration from Mexico into the US has stopped and may actually have reversed to a net outflow. This takes both legal and illegal migration into account. Here’s what the most recent report from the Pew Hispanic Center says:

      “Net migration to the United States from Mexico has fallen to zero, and may have reversed.”

      See:
      http://www.pewresearch.org/key-data-points/immigration-tip-sheet-on-u-s-public-opinion/

      http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/23/net-migration-from-mexico-falls-to-zero-and-perhaps-less/

      Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush agreed, even expanding it to include the entire country, saying in an interview on ‘Meet the Press’:

      “If you look at the number of illegal immigrants coming into the country, it is net zero. It’s been that way now for almost two years.”

      See:
      http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/aug/28/jeb-bush/jeb-bush-says-illegal-immigration-net-zero/

      • pete18

         That doesn’t mean the border isn’t porous, it just means with our economy in a protracted slump (thank you Mr Hope and Change) the attraction to come over here is greatly diminished. Your statement is like saying the holes in the roof don’t need to be fixed because it stopped training outside.

        • anamaria23

           What jobs did the Repubs TP create after running in 2012 on job creation?  What Congress refused to even consider the Jobs Recovery Act?  What govenors slashed public hiring and jobs? What pols are pushing austerity when it is proven not to fix any economy. How many jobs lost due to sequester?
          Remember the  Repub pledge on Inaugauration night 2009?    “unyielding opposition to any Obama administration economic policy”?
          Number ONE priority by Mcconnell, 20 yr Senator from state where people are desperate, some hungry:  make Barack Obama a one term President.
          Your  comment is  laughable.

          • pete18

             Laughable to an Obamaphile, yes.
            The Republicans opposed Obama’s policies because they thought them to be destructive and they have been proven right. Obama still got everything he wanted passed and the deficit has gone up, the economy’s still awful, and Obamacare, the complete distraction from the economy that no one wanted, is a disaster that doesn’t deliver on any of its promises. There’s no way to blame Obama’s economic problems on the Republicans. Obama owns it, he’s the President who started off with majorities in both houses. However, you can give him credit for slowing down the immigration flow. Nicely done!

          • anamaria23

            What have the Repubs done to create jobs?  How many jobs have the repubs created?
            What are their ideas except decrease taxes on wealthy?

          • HonestDebate1

            Republicans have passed over 25 jobs bills in the House that never got a vote in the Senate. Opposing tax hikes is not advocating for tax cuts.

          • anamaria23

            Like what? Tell us about the 25 bills passed.  hardly  bold or impressive or even useful.

            Letting tax cuts expire is not a tax hike.

          • HonestDebate1

            My favorite was “Cut, Cap and Balance” which S&P says would have prevented the downgrade. It never got a vote and would likely have passed.

            When taxes go up, that’s a hike. And it was Obama who did not let them expire, he extended them all to prevent it. 

          • pete18

            HD1 lays down part of the case below. The Republicans have offered numerous ideas and bills as alternative to Obama’s
            anti-growth strategy, if you missed them you can blame yourself for not looking and the mainstream press for 
            restrained coverage about them. Here’s a few: http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/10/28/the-gop-jobs-plan-vs-obamas/

            Obviously, with only a house majority and a veto ready President none of their ideas have a chance of becoming law. But even if they had no alternative ideas and  had only been able to successfully block the plans Obama got passed, the economy would be in far better shape. 

        • hennorama

          pete18 – TY for your response.

          Please note that I did not dispute [conservativetom]‘s claim. I merely inquired as to whether he had any evidence to support the claim that was made, and presented information that called the claim into question.

          I asked a question, and made no statement other than to describe the contrary information from Pew and Gov. Bush.

          TY again for your response.

          • HonestDebate1

            I don’t dispute what you say, I just present information to call the claim into question. Alrighty then.

            Dispute: to call into question

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dispute

          • hennorama

            1BoneheadTest – TY for your response, and the surprise use of a dictionary as a reference, from one who repeatedly says “I don’t care what the dictionary says” and “I don’t care what word you use”.

            Please note that it was the information that calls the claim into question.

            I merely presented contrary information for the reader. Information is neutral, sir, a fact which you seem to completely misunderstand.

            A question asking a claimant for evidence to support their claim is merely that – a question. A curious reader who is open-minded would like to see evidence, don’t you agree, sir?

            The fact that there is evidence contrary to a claim does not in and of itself mean the claim is inaccurate. It merely means that some evidence exists to call the claim into question.

            Sorry for your confusion.

          • HonestDebate1

            I love dictionaries, I use them all the time. I love words and choose them carefully. Words have meanings so do sentences. I’ve never written anything to dispute
            (aka call into question) that notion.

            Present: “to lay (as a charge) before a court as an object of inquiry”

            You disputed the claim by presenting information that calls it into question, that’s all. Just own it, you look silly.

            BTW, I love the new names and appreciate the respect you show me by calling me sir.

          • hennorama

            1BoneheadTest – one must note that your aversion to reading is in evidence once again.

            Rather than reading something in its entirety, you stop when you find something that you believe confirms your pre-drawn conclusion. In other words, your first draw a conclusion, and only then search for evidence, halting as soon as any evidence supporting your conclusion is discovered. In addition, you only show the evidence that supports your conclusion rather than the entirety of the evidence.

            This is narrow-minded and dishonest, sir.

            For example, you used http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary as your source for the definitions you placed in your posts. This is the entire listing for the verb “present,” from YOUR source:

            “Definition of PRESENT

            transitive verb

            1a (1) : to bring or introduce into the presence of someone especially of superior rank or status (2) : to introduce socially
            b : to bring (as a play) before the public

            2: to make a gift to

            3: to give or bestow formally

            4a : to lay (as a charge) before a court as an object of inquiry
            b : to bring a formal public charge, indictment, or presentment against

            5: to nominate to a benefice

            6a : to offer to view : show
            b : to bring to one’s attention

            7: to act the part of : perform

            8: to aim, point, or direct (as a weapon) so as to face something or in a particular direction

            intransitive verb

            1: to present a weapon
            2: to become manifest
            3: to come forward as a patient
            4: to make a presentation”

            See:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/present

            One notes that you showed ONLY definition 4a, skipping right over 1a(1) and 1b, and stopping before 6a and 6b.

            One also notes that the definition you cited is a narrow legal definition that does not apply. Regardless, it uses the phrase “as an object of inquiry” which is exactly what had been done in my posts. My initial post used the phrase “I ask” and a subsequent post used “I merely inquired” and “I asked.”

            Again, sorry for your obvious confusion, and your inability to select an applicable definition.

            Your narrow-mindedness and dishonesty are all your own, sir.

          • HonestDebate1

            I’d like to laugh with you but you’re serious aren’t you? I think you are, so I have to laugh at you.

            Nut: a hard-shelled dry fruit or seed with a separable rind or shell and interior kernel 

            I don’t care what the dictionary says, you’re a nut.

          • hennorama

            1BoneheadTest – the most remarkable and telling aspect of your response is that when replying to a post stating that your “debate” habits are both narrow-minded and dishonest, you do not in any way dispute this, and instead change the subject.

            That says far more about you than I ever could, sir.

            Some might label this as “laughable.” I couldn’t possibly comment, as I am not an expert on humor.

          • HonestDebate1

            What’s that got to do with the porous border?

          • Mike_Card

            Off topic.  Hey, Gregg!  I’m going to Asheville for the first time; actually, first time in the Carolinas.  Besides touring the Biltmore, what should I do for 2 days?

          • HonestDebate1

            It all depends on what you like. The Biltmore is cool but a little pricey. Lavinia Plonka (she’s a friend) has Feldenkrais classes at her movement center if in you’re into that sort of thing. There’s good food but I can’t recommend anyplace off the top of my head. There’s golf. Asheville is a hip town. If you are staying at the Grove Park Inn, you’re gold. That place is incredible. There used to be a vibrant music scene but I haven’t been there for a while. There’s a lot of hippies and tree huggers, not that it’s a bad thing. Moog Music is downtown but it’s not really an attraction except for folks like me. Mainly it’s just beautiful in the Mountains, enjoy the weather. You’re right there at a few National parks. There’s plenty of places to hike or Trout fish. Lake Fontana is awesomely beautiful. 

            When are you coming? I’ll see if I can find out what’s going on then, there are lots of festivals, concerts and such.

          • Mike_Card

            Thanks, Gregg.  I’m getting there in September, after Labor Day and will only have 3 days–one of which is tentatively scheduled for Biltmore stuff.  We’d love, love some music advice!

          • hennorama

            1BoneheadTest – you asked me, in the “skinny” thread below,

            “What’s that got to do with the porous border?”

            That question is more properly directed to yourself, sir, right here.

          • HonestDebate1

            Nothing, that’s my point.

          • pete18

            The question implies that you dispute his point, otherwise, why ask it? I find it hard to believe that you don’t have an opinion on whether the border is porous or not.

          • hennorama

            pete18 – TY for your response.

            Indeed, one could infer such an implication, were one so inclined.

            However, I am truly interested in the response to my question, and any evidence supporting [conservativetom]‘s claim. Here’s why:

            A. I have not drawn any conclusions about the porosity of US borders, whether they are “southern” or otherwise.
            B. I do not know whether any such evidence exists.

            Ergo, my question.

            TY again for your response.

          • pete18

            Given the confrontational nature of most posts back and forth on these threads, the open question that isn’t trying to make a point would be the exception to the norm and I would say needs clearer articulation up front if it wanted to be understood that way.

            As to the porous border question, I don’t think you have to go any further than the 
            estimated number of illegals currently living here as your evidence.
            It is currently illegal to come here without going through the official immigration process, but since millions of people have been able to get here without using that system the border is obviously porous.

          • hennorama

            pete18 – TY again for your response. I agree with your first sentence. My only quibble would be that since this was [conservativetom]‘s first post in this forum, there was no confrontational history.

            A few points about the rest:

            The presence of millions of “illegals” is possible evidence of PAST border porosity, but the subject claim said “…we have a porous southern border still,” meaning the author believes this is the current state of affairs. So we’re looking for evidence that is as current as we can find.

            In addition, there is evidence that unauthorized migration overall, and especially from Mexico, has declined from its peak in 2007. According to Pew, from a report released January 29, 2013:

            “Trends in unauthorized immigration: The most recent Pew Hispanic Center estimate is that 11.1 million unauthorized immigrants lived in the U.S. in 2011. Unauthorized immigration peaked at 12.0 million in 2007, and fell since then mainly because of less immigration from Mexico, the largest source of U.S. immigration (Passel and Cohn, 2012). In 2010, unauthorized immigrants from Mexico made up 58% of all unauthorized immigrants (Passel and Cohn, 2011).

            And Pew (again) shows that in 2010, the vast majority (63%) of unauthorized adult immigrants had lived in the U.S. for at least ten years, and 15% for less than five years:

            “Unauthorized Adults by Duration of Residence in the U.S., 2010:

            “The Pew Hispanic analysis finds that 35% of unauthorized adult immigrants have resided in the U.S. for 15 years or more; 28% for 10 to 14 years; 22% for 5 to 9 years; and 15% for less than five years.”

            See:
            http://www.pewhispanic.org/2011/12/01/unauthorized-immigrants-length-of-residency-patterns-of-parenthood/
            and
            http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/01/29/a-nation-of-immigrants/

            Thanks again for your response.

      • conservativetom

        hennorama, thanks for the info on the Pew Center & Jeb Bush.  However, “net zero” just means as many illegals are leaving as arriving.  And this is just a result of our poor economy since 2008.

        However, there is plenty of evidence out there about our border & crime, so I’ll provide you with some.

        First the NY Times (hardly conservative):
        http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/27/world/americas/central-americans-pour-into-mexico-bound-for-us.html?_r=0

        http://latitude.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/crime-and-banishment/?ref=illegalimmigrants

        Next look at the FBI 10 Most Wanted.  Five, maybe 6 are illegals.  And at least 2 are crossing the southern border.  Of course there are many more criminals doing this.

        http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten

        Finally, one of the recent surges in border crossings:
        http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/05/stats-show-surge-in-illegal-immigrant-border-traffic-despite-napolitano-claims/

         
         
         
         

        • hennorama

          conservativetom – Thank you for your response, and welcome to the forum.

          A couple of points:

          1. The Pew Hispanic Center analysis took BOTH illegal AND legal migration into account. Please note that, again according to Pew and from one of the linked articles,

          “Just over half (51%) of all current Mexican immigrants are unauthorized, and some 58% of the estimated 11.2 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. are Mexican (Passel and Cohn, 2011).”

          Also, per the same source,

          “The most recent Pew Hispanic Center estimate is that 11.1 million unauthorized immigrants lived in the U.S. in 2011. Unauthorized immigration peaked at 12.0 million in 2007, and fell since then mainly because of less immigration from Mexico, the largest source of U.S. immigration (Passel and Cohn, 2012).”

          This implies net outflow of 900,000 unauthorized immigrants, with the likelihood that the majority of the outflow going to Mexico. Some of this is no doubt due to increased numbers of deportations.

          I would encourage you to read more information from Pew, starting here:

          http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/23/ii-migration-between-the-u-s-and-mexico/

          2. Citing arrest numbers as evidence of a porous border does not seem to be the strongest possible evidence, as those stats can be interpreted as improved security and greater interdiction. Arrest stats can cut both ways on this issue, with some interpreting them as evidence of greater activity and reduced security, and others citing them as evidence that security efforts are successful.

          Thanks again for your response.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      yes we need to reform drug laws first

  • John Cedar

    As usual, the brilliant Ann Coulter has an insightful opinion. This time about the Zimmerman trial. She relates the story of a black man who used a gun to defend himself from a white mob. The people on the right stuck up for the black man and the people on the left put him in jail.

     
    “In 2006, the ironically named John White was sound asleep at his nice
    Long Island home when his teenage son woke him to say there was a mob of
    white kids shouting epithets in front of the house. The family was in
    no imminent danger. They could have called 911 and remained safely
    behind locked doors.

    But White grabbed a loaded Beretta and headed out to the end of the
    driveway to confront the mob. A scuffle ensued and White ended up
    shooting one of the kids in the face, killing him.

    White was charged and convicted only of illegal weapons possession —
    this was New York, after all — and involuntary manslaughter. He was
    sentenced to 20 months-to-four years in prison, but after serving five
    months was pardoned by Gov. David Paterson. ”

    • 1Brett1

      So, vigilantism is A-OKAY, and it doesn’t even matter if you use an illegal gun; that is all just some liberal crap anyway…that says it all. Sounds like the guy did exactly what he shouldn’t have done. Is the wild west an ideal to which our society should aspire?

      Oh, and Ann Coulter is to the pseudo-intellectual neo-conservative as Sarah Palin is to the blue collar neo-cnservative. To hold her up as having an opinion worth repeating doesn’t really bolster your silly example (which is designed to be some kind of comparison to the Zimmerman case, I guess).

      Paterson was a laughing stock who extolled the virtues of cocaine use, among a lot of other cavalier and corrupt ideas he regularly espoused.

      • jefe68

        Ann Coulter tweeted Hallelujah! when she heard of the verdict. This is the kind of bottom feeder that the right wingers are applauding. It’s amazing, and sad.

      • John Cedar

        I don’t think Coulter was sanctioning vigilantism by  relating a similar murder. I think she was pointing out that conservatives are consistent in supporting the right to use lethal force in self defense regardless of the race involved. and she bothered to make that point because the opposite point is constantly being made.

        You should thank her, because she also unwittingly shows that you libtards are not simply driven by hatred for white males but that you are simply driven by utopian ideological idiocy.

        • 1Brett1

          Ooh, “libtards”…oh, and “driven by utopian ideological idiocy.” Well, then. 

    • brettearle

      default

    • HonestDebate1

      I agree, she’s brilliant. Here’s the entire article, thanks for pointing it out.

      http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2013-07-10.html#read_more

      “The only reason it’s hard to imagine the Zimmerman case with the races reversed is that it’s hard to imagine a white teenager living in a mixed-race, middle-class community, mugging a black homeowner. This is not a problem of society’s reactions, but of the facts.”

      • Mike_Card

        Ann Coulter is brilliant?  You’re just posing, you kidder, you!

        • HonestDebate1

          Heh, I knew you’d like that. So is Sarah. Hillary, not so much. You know how I am.

          • Mike_Card

            As long as you let me, I’ll let you.  But I don’t think we’ll agree!

          • HonestDebate1

            That’s a deal… and I agree.

    • hennorama

      While generally trying to avoid Ms. Coulter’s image and words, as they tend to nauseate me, at times I can’t avoid them.  At these times, I always recall what I say when bidding adieu to a friend I visit weekly – “See you next Tuesday, beotch!”

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      “The brilliant Ann Coulter”???
      Hahahahahaha.

      Althought you got the part about Coulter being “as usual”.

  • Mike_Card

    Got a nominee?

    • HonestDebate1

      I’m busy that day.

      • Mike_Card

        Figured that.  But you’d be good, if you could!

        • HonestDebate1

          I actually did one time. It must have been 9 or 10 years ago. Mike Collins is sort of the Tom Ashbrook of Charlotte’s NPR affiliate, WFAE, except I don’t think he is syndicated. Their shows are quite similar though. For a while, once every 6 weeks or so, he had a show of “Average Joes”. I heard the first liberal lovelfest installment and ripped it on their blog where I was kind of infamous, like here. So they invited me on and I went. It was a lot of fun.

    • JONBOSTON

      If On Point was to get a direct counterpoint to Jack Beatty, it would have to be the head of the Republican national committee. Beatty is a farce–his pretense of  fairness and objectivity is a joke. He’s nothing but a one trick predictable pony , namely all things wrong begin and end with the Republican party. He brings absolutely nothing to the program other than feeding the complaint that NPR is ultra liberal. 

      • jefe68

        No they don’t. If you don’t like the show don’t listen.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Cacimbo-Smith/1142235495 Cacimbo Smith

    Please stop referring to D. Brooks as a conservative. He does not consider himself a conservative and since he voted for Obama he really is not even much of a Republican.

    • HonestDebate1

      They call Frum a Conservative too.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Cacimbo-Smith/1142235495 Cacimbo Smith

    For years the talking heads endlessly referred to Bush as a moron. Now they want us to follow his guidance on immigration. Pathetic.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      they even defend the violations of privacy that bush implemented

  • JONBOSTON

    To answer your question, how about Charles Krauthammer or Rich Lowery. Or Bret Stephens of the WSJ…..

    • HonestDebate1

      I think Lowery has actually been on, oh how they howled. Krauthammer would be great. PBS has him.

      • JONBOSTON

        Charles Krauthammer is terrific. Brilliant mind. My daughter knew his son at Harvard and one of my closest friends, a gastroenterologist, grew up with him in Montreal. Krauthammer is someone everyone should admire. He’s shown how one can overcome disabilities and confinement to a wheelchair.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          I just can help seeing Skeletor when I see him on tv

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      “Starbursts” has been here telling us about the future of the Reasonable Republican Party.

      Without having anyone ask him if he’s over his crush on (the rapidly aging) Sarah Palin.

      And Krackhammer? Puhleeze.

  • JONBOSTON

    I have a very difficult time understanding the immigration debate. I don’t believe  we have any obligation ( legal or moral) to offer citizenship to people who came here illegally and partook of this country’s wealth ,opportunity, and services .Frankly, other than Democrats who are looking to expand the welfare rolls and obtain new voters and those Republicans pushing  the big business agenda to expand the pool of low wage labor, I don’t believe most Americans care one iota other than wanting our borders shut , once and forever. What they do care about are jobs and economic growth and a better life for their children and themselves. Anyway, why increase America’s  “confederacy of fools”  by 11.0m? (see below)

    I saw this quote from Ben Stein and wished I had said it :

    “The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgement to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for heir president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America.. Blaming the prince of fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president.”

    My sentiments exactly….

    • HonestDebate1

      That Stein quote really hits home Jon but I feel compelled to point out, with all due respect to this blog, it seems worse when one hangs out at sites like this and listens to NPR. I still have an inkling of hope and confidence in the American people as a whole and that is not represented here. But Obama did get re-elected. That gives me reason for pause. 2014 is the last hurdle for Obama, then it’s over for real. But even then that assumes it’s not already over and Republicans have the will stop it if they hold the House and/or make gains in the Senate.  

      • JONBOSTON

        I hope you’re right Greg but I’m not so optimistic. So many indicators point in a different direction. Our public schools, especially urban schools serving minority populations , are a disaster. Our colleges and universities are bastions of political correctness and produce intellectually vapid graduates with worthless degrees in unserious curriculae like black studies, women’s studies, LGBT studies, latino studies, native American studies, blah , blah. The prevailing culture has degraded and the entitlement culture has spread like wildfire. Today’s young are lazy and feel entitled. 
        And look who we have as political leaders? Obama is a pretend president more interested in the trappings of the office than governing. A total disaster. The leaders of the Democratic party– Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Pelosi is the dumbest person I’ve ever listened to , Reid the slimiest. And Republicans are led by  Mitt Romney, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell –all nice guys not up to fighting over principal ( do they have any?) and pushing back against today’s Democratic party which spews filth and spreads lies in their demagogic appeal to idiot voters.

    • John Cedar

      What is your source for the alleged Ben Stein quote?
      Sounds long winded and could have been boiled down to a sentence or two that most every conservative has already expressed.

  • OnPointComments

    I agree with the not guilty verdict handed down by the Zimmerman jury.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      it shows that the system still works

  • HonestDebate1

    I echo OPC below. If there is an injustice here (regarding the verdict) it is in the State overreaching for political purposes. I’m not so sure he should go scott free but given the circumstances and the options the jury was presented with it was IMHO just.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      what crime did he commit?

      • OnPointComments

        None.  He was attacked and defended himself.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          it seemed like a clear case the whole time

        • jefe68

          That’s an interesting tale. You seem to know more than most. I guess you were an eye witness. 

      • HonestDebate1

        Possibly none, I’m not smart enough to say. The last ditch effort by the prosecution was child abuse which seems a bit nuts. Reckless endangerment? I really don’t know and am not prepared to debate the law but I do feel like the State overreached so they got nothing. There are times when the consequences of totally justified actions result in such tragedy that some measure of penalty remains appropriate. And I’m not even suggesting Zimmerman should have been penalized at all. I’m saying the jurors did not have that option because of race hustlers feeding the willing masses a meme that was manufactured. It’s sick.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          the whole thing is pretty disgusting. it was very telling when the defense moved for a dismissal and asked if someone, either the judge or the prosecutor, could come up with any theory of the case in which he was guilty. its a civil case at best and was never anything different. you have a right to defend yourself and doing so is not a crime. its just a sad story of someone who attacked a man with a gun with fists.

          • jefe68

            So if I approach you on the street and start asking you a load of questions and get aggressive, and your response is to throw a punch, I then have the right to shoot you dead. Correct me if I’m wrong.

            The problem here is Martin is dead and there are no other witnesses. 

            The sad thing is if Zimmerman just did what he was told by the police dispatcher none of this would have happened. 

          • HonestDebate1

            Why are you making stuff up?

          • jefe68

            It’s called a hypothetical.

            You make up stuff all the time, sparky.

          • HonestDebate1

            Then make up something relevant. Zimmerman did not approach Martin on the street, ask questions and get aggressive.

          • StilllHere

            That’s how he rolls.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            in general that’s correct. don’t punch people, that’s assault with a dangerous weapon, even if you asked them questions or upset them somehow. the person you are punching has a right to defend themselves. hundreds of people are beaten and or pushed to death every year in our country. would you want it to be illegal to defend yourself?
            I don’t know that we have any evidence that shows that Zimmerman did or did not do what the dispatcher said so that’s a leap.

          • jefe68

            He got out of his car.
            He was told not to engage with Martin.

            What part of that don’t you understand?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            oh now it makes sense. you just have the order wrong. its not your fault that’s what the media was saying for a while. he was already out of the car when he was told not to get out he was on his way back to his car when he was attacked. you seem like you don’t think self defense is valid

  • hennorama

    Having not seen the entirety of the evidence, I shan’t express an opinion as to the Zimmerman ‘not guilty’ verdict.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      I wish others would show as much restraint. the fact the police could not come up with any evidence against him to arrest him in the first place says a lot to me

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        The local police covered themselves in pigshat when  this case broke.

        I will never tire of telling you of that fact.

      • hennorama

        Futo Buddy – Thank you for your response and your kind words.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          de nada

    • brettearle

      That’s the problem, henn:

      “The evidence before them.”

      But it may very well be that it was surely not the whole story.

      Although I’m in your position–in terms of not being an `expert’ on the case–from what I do know, I would say that we were looking at guilt, by preponderance of evidence, only.

      Therefore, to me, there was reasonable doubt.

      • hennorama

        brettearle – TY for your response.

        Again, I must insert a caveat – I have read, seen and heard very little about this case.

        That said, the little I know of the reported circumstances implied a difficult case for the prosecution. This is not surprising, as only one of the persons involved is still alive and able to tell the tale.

        I would also invoke Blackstone’s formulation, that “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”

        Mr. Zimmerman is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Or as the kids say,

        “Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat”

        The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies.

        http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Ei+incumbit+probatio+qui+dicit

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Have you heard of this Florida verdict?

      Marissa Alexander had never been arrested before she fired a bullet at a
      wall one day in 2010 to scare off her husband when she felt he was
      threatening her. Nobody got hurt, but this month a northeast Florida
      judge was bound by state law to sentence her to 20 years in prison.

      Threatened mother of three fires warning shot to scare off husband, nobody gets aimed at or hurt. She claims “stand your ground”. She gets 20 years in prison.

      Florida justice, baybee!

      Oh, and did I mention she was black? Whocoodanode?

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/19/marissa-alexander-gets-20_n_1530035.html

      • hennorama

        TF – TY for your response.

        No, I hadn’t been aware of that particular case, and without knowing the evidence I won’t comment on the verdict.

        In the case cited, no one was shot, so the following is not directly comparable. That said, as I pointed out to another poster in this forum, the Tampa Bay Times ran a story about a year ago titled “Florida ‘stand your ground’ law yields some shocking outcomes depending on how law is applied.”

        FTA:

        “…the Tampa Bay Times has identified nearly 200 “stand your ground” cases and their outcomes. The Times identified cases through media reports, court records and dozens of interviews with prosecutors and defense attorneys across the state.”

        This was the most pertinent sentence, apropos of the case you cited:

        “If you claim “stand your ground” as the reason you shot someone, what happens to you can depend less on the merits of the case than on who you are, whom you kill and where your case is decided.”

        See:
        http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          that’s  true of any claim of self defense

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        so to make things fair white Hispanics should also be treated unfairly by the justice system?

      • HonestDebate1

        What is the relevance of the color of her skin?

      • brettearle

        TF,

        I read the link.

        While the 20 year sentence seems clearly outrageous, it might be important to point out that a self-defense/stand your ground defense might not have been prudent, in this case:

        In the article, the Judge pointed out that the Defendant–presumably, according to the evidence, unless the judge is biased or incompetent (which is possible)–had time to leave the house, wherein she had felt threatened.

        She did NOT have to return to the house.

        I do not believe that her spouse’s skin color was mentioned in the article.  That is an additional factor to consider when trying to compare this incident to the Zimmerman/Martin contretemps. 

  • HonestDebate1

    I have to say I am fascinated by State Attorney Angela Corey. The Prosecution is in full CYA mode but she is very impressive in her knowledge, decorum, eloquence and even her body language. She’s doing the best she can to put lipstick on this pig.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      she cant help her resemblance to a pig, that’s not nice

  • OnPointComments

    Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has issued a statement in support of the Zimmerman verdict, saying “If I had a son, he would look like George Zimmerman.”
     
    Just kidding.  She didn’t really say that.
     
    However, this is true:  Several sources (the NAACP, Rev. Sharpton, many in the Twitterverse) are pushing for a federal investigation of Zimmerman by the DOJ.  I hope that Eric Holder and the DOJ aren’t that stupid.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      imagine if she did

    • StilllHere

      Excellent.

  • jefe68

    It’s not over for the Zimmerman’s. They are bankrupt from the trial costs and Mrs. Zimmerman is facing a trial for perjury.

    • HonestDebate1

      Do you think Zimmerman should sue NBC? I do.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        and the new York times

      • OnPointComments

        Some commentators have said Zimmerman has a case against NBC for its shameful editing of the tape, and a case against the state of Florida for withholding evidence it was required to turn over to the defense.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          yup and the guy who got fired for revealing the prosecutors office had withheld exculpatory evidence has a pretty good lawsuit too

      • jefe68

        He’s not in any financial shape to sue anyone.
        His wife is facing a third degree felony perjury charge which has a 5 year prions sentence and $5000 fine. 

        Then there are all the civil suits he will be facing.

        This whole story is nothing short of tragic for everyone involved. That some on the right, Ann Coulter for one, seem to think this a cause for celebration, well that says a lot about how low they are as human beings. 

        • HonestDebate1

          That’s not what the lovely Ann Coulter said. Why do you libs put so much stock into what you think people seem to think?

          • StilllHere

            This guy knows what everybody is thinking at all times.

          • jefe68

            The little troll is squeaking again.

          • 1Brett1

            I know…it’s another one of SH’s standing behind Gregg’s apron strings and saying, “you tell ‘em!”. 

          • jefe68

            She is quoted as tweeting this.

          • HonestDebate1

            https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter

            Zimmerman could have been convicted of second degree murder thereby justifying the States ridiculous charge, signaling the jury system failed and politics ruled the day. That did not happen. Hallelujah. 

        • OnPointComments

          The 2012 Florida Statutes – JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE – A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 [use of deadly force to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself] is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force.
           
          http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

          • jefe68

            Interesting. Then I guess that woman who just received a 20 year sentence for firing a warning shot at her abusive husband should be set free. At least by the laws of Florida.
            Someone should tell the judge.

            One more reason why I never go the Florida, it’s a backward state.

            The Martin family has already settled a wrongful-death lawsuit against the homeowners’ association in the gated community where he was killed. The amount is not disclosed.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            clearly she should be. what’s her name we can print up some “justice for that lady” tee shirts. lets get the ball rolling on righting that wrong

        • HonestDebate1

          Assume he could, should he?

      • StilllHere

        I’m sure he could get someone to do it pro bono, it reeks of the whole Dateline-Ford tragedy.

        That some on the left see this as some sort of cause to allege racism or injustice speaks to their pond-scum nature.

  • gslouch

    wow! just heard the verdict.  Unbelievable! I guess I’ll take a bodyguard if I ever go to a convenience store to buy skittles and a soda.  These items have achieved the status of deadly weapons.   Please Florida, just secede! Shameful!

    • HonestDebate1

      With that impeccable logic all you need to do is get M&M’s and chocolate milk and you’re gold.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      No, you don’t need a bodyguard. You need to not leave witnesses. (That is a joke. I think.)

      From the day it happened, I’m just figuring this situation was preordained when someone with Zimmerman’s profile, lack of knowledge and training, self-appointed status, and a concealed gun, decided he had to intervene.

      This happened in a private subdivision, didn’t it? I wonder how quickly they change their tune on who does and doesn’t get to “protect” them.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        funny everything that keeps coming out about travon paints the picture of a young man spiraling way out of control with drugs sex and violence

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          Funny how Zimmerman knew all that like he some goddamned “precog” from Minority Report.

          You’re embarassing yourself with your projection to justify this.

          I hope your non-carrying self never gets confronted by some goober with a gun. Who knows how little it would take for someone to shoot you in self defense?

          (And since I’m not a goober, and I’m not carrying right now, the above is not to be considered a threat or warning in any manner.)

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            I have been confronted by a crazy person with a gun when I happened to be unarmed. after I talked my way out of it I did not circle around and try to jump the person with the gun. was that what I should have done.

        • jefe68

          And Zimmerman has a history of violence from assaulting a police officer to a restraining order by an ex-fiancee.

          You want to smear the life of a dead kid, which I think speaks to how low of a bottom feeder you are, go ahead. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            keep calling him a kid. keep imagining him to be the innocent little leaguer initially shown to the American people who could not have possibly done anything wrong. what service is it to anyone to pretend he was a saint? what is the point of your vitriol and name calling?

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      fists are deadly weapons. a body guard is not not necessary just don’t try to attack someone who has a gun

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    which was it? what does either of those things mean in reality?

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Hilarious. Quit while you’re behind, chump.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        as much as your vague proclamations make sense to you. they are just odd spoutings unless you can explain what you  mean

  • hennorama

    Question: since George Zimmerman has been acquitted of criminal charges, is he now free to profit from his story?

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      I would bet that would be a bad idea. he is already expecting multiple civil suits. if he were to make money before there would be more suits and that money would be at risk. he needs to wait for those to blow over before he writes his book and goes on a media tour

      • HonestDebate1

        Good point.

      • hennorama

        Futo Buddy – TY for your response.

        I believe you have some misunderstandings of civil litigation. The following are implicit in your response (please correct any inaccuracies):

        1. An entity with “deep pockets” is a “lawsuit magnet”

        2. Having no or few assets when one is hit with a civil damages verdict means one wouldn’t have to pay damages from any assets acquired in the future

        It is true to some extent that “deep pockets” attract civil lawsuits. In any civil case, the plaintiff must consider whether any damages can be recovered, so the ability of the defendant to pay is a factor.

        If the defendant is insolvent at the time of judgment, that does not absolve them of a duty to pay. Civil damage judgments can be collected in a variety of ways, from putting liens on real estate, vehicles, and other assets, to freezing bank accounts, garnishing wages, attaching other earnings, etc.

        There can be time limits involved in collecting judgments, and they vary by jurisdiction. But they tend to be fairly long and renewable, as the intent of the legal system is to make injured parties “whole”. If this was not the case, then all defendants in civil cases would take great pains to become “judgment proof” prior to a verdict.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          1.  well it looks like we both understand that it makes more sense to sue someone with money. of course, lack of money does not preclude doing so. 
          2. sure but you cant get blood from a stone. a person could win a 10 million judgment against me but they will never, ever see it.
          people do in fact go through great pains to protect their assets from civil liability. hence LLCs and incorporation  and such. there are also all the stories of people giving or “selling” their assets to family members of friends in advance of a divorce proceeding. sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.
          for a man in zims position it would be wise to wait until the civil cases are settled before becoming rich. you seem to understand things well enough to accept that

          • hennorama

            FB – TY for your thoughtful response.

            No disagreement here regarding your points 1 & 2.

            But as to your penultimate sentence, “for a man in zims position it would be wise to wait until the civil cases are settled before becoming rich.” -

            One must consider that the value of the stories involved in this case decrease with the passage of time. A day, a week or a month may not matter, but a year, or two, or five, certainly would. This means that “wait[ing] until the civil cases are settled” has a cost, and likely a significant one, reducing the possibility of “ a man in zims position … becoming rich.”

            TY again for your response.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            I defiantly appreciate that factor of it. its a catch 22 for sure. i bet even in a few years he can write a book and sell a few copies and whenever it is his “first interview” will be worth a few bucks if he plays his cards right

          • hennorama

            FB – TYFYR.

            Your reply is another in my ongoing series – Typos as Freudian slips that make me chuckle, Part 7 (I think):

            “I defiantly appreciate” vs. “I definitely appreciate”

            Naturally, autocorrect or a similar spell checking feature may be involved, but I can “definitely” imagine Futo Buddy “defiantly” appreciating something, e.g., “I, Futo Buddy, defiantly appreciate my firearms!”

            But don’t feel bad, FB. Not only is “definitely” one of the most frequently misspelled words in the English language, your example is the second in this forum in the last 5 days alone.

            Fore sum freequently Miss Pelled werdz, sea:

            http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/spelling-and-word-lists/misspelled.html

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            autocorrect can be pretty funny as was your characterization. lucky I did not just make a comment about autoerotic. I spell poorly so I should keep an eye on that. maybe they should make one of us proofreaders for ‘bur, I correct them about once a week and I don’t even get paid

          • hennorama

            FB – TYAFYR.

            I hope you received my words in the spirit of good humor in which they were intended. My chuckling was in regard to the nature of the words alone, and was not directed toward you, the author of said words, in apparent partnership with an unthinking piece of software.

            I hope too that my imagining you “defiantly” appreciating something, e.g., “I, Futo Buddy, defiantly appreciate my firearms!” was at least a slight approximation of how you might act, and that you took no offense at the liberties taken in “painting your picture,” as no offense whatsoever was intended.

            Any lack of spelling ability that may exist on your part is more than made up for by the clear passion you express.

            One can only hope that you continue to express your views, regardless of how they might be spelled. Our nation thrives on passionate argument, and needs more individuals such as yourself, who are willing and ready to express themselves with the passion you clearly possess.

            One notice that regardless of the order or disorder of the letters you type, your intent comes through clearly and loudly.

            Please continue, sir.

            I for one shall be watching and listening with great attention.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            you are lucky I enjoy being patronized

          • hennorama

            FB – my words were sincere. Whether of not one disagrees with your views, your passion is clear and commendable.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            i calls em how I sees em

    • HonestDebate1

      Of course, everybody is from him to the lawyers, to Martin’s parents, to the jurors. even the pontificators and spectators. 

      • hennorama

        1DebateSnotHe – TY for your response.

        • HonestDebate1

          I would not necessarily call those I debate (including you) Snot.

          • hennorama

            1TadStoneBeHe – did you perceive that you were being “called Snot”?

            One must consider the potential involvement of random typos, malfunctioning spellcheckers, excessive caffeine intake on the writer’s part, and assorted other possibilities, wouldn’t you agree?

          • HonestDebate1

            did you perceive that you were being “called Snot”?

            No, where’d you get that?

            I was just going by what you wrote, not a perception. You’ve done it before with “He 1 Debate Snot” in debates with me. I just don’t think you should be that nasty to yourself. I don’t debate snot, I debate liberals. I did mention before that I loved the new names so thanks but I just think it’s a bit over the top to suggest liberals are snot. That’s all.

          • StilllHere

            Really pathetic string by this lady, why encourage her.

          • hennorama

            Eel Thrills – what a bravely indirect “critique.”
            Well done.

          • HonestDebate1

            I searched anagram and google asked me if I meant “nag a ram”. I came away thinking it was just a stupid as hell game for kids.

          • hennorama

            BatheNoSteed – you “thinking”? HA! Good one!

          • HonestDebate1

            Call it a guilty pleasure. Apologies to the blog for making her do tricks. 

          • hennorama

            1TotDebaseHen – would 1DebatesNotHe be preferable to your delicate sensibilities?

          • hennorama

        • hennorama

          1TotDebaseHen – would 1DebatesNotHe be preferable to your delicate sensibilities?

          • HonestDebate1

            Be as silly as you feel comfortable being, it’s all good. It’s not about me.

          • hennorama

            1ObeseHatDent – Alrighty then:

            I believe you may have meant to write “It snot about me” but I may be mistaken.

          • HonestDebate1

            Hennon- “talking to yourself, again?That is a worrisome habit, according to some.  Of course, I couldn’t possibly comment, as I am not a health care professional.”

          • hennorama

            ahhh … the vagaries of caffeine uptake …

    • OnPointComments

      My guess is that he is free to profit from his story, and that he will.  The usual aftermath of this type of incident is a contract for a movie, book, and interviews.  It was reported that Casey Anthony got $2 million for one interview; ABC paid $215,000 for another interview; CNN reported she got $1 million for an interview.

      • hennorama

        OPC – TY for your response.

  • OnPointComments

    It is interesting, bordering on comical, to switch among the news networks after the verdict.  CNN, ABC, and Fox are interviewing a variety of people from both sides, presenting fairly balanced and rational viewpoints; MSNBC is all vitriol, hype, hysteria, and race-baiting, and is an embarassment.  I hope that NBC’s new owner, Comcast, has a chance to clean house before MSNBC’s abysmal ratings does it for them.

  • HonestDebate1

    As the predicted nightmare scenarios do not unfold, some of the usual race hustlers are still trying their best to make the case about race. I expected it from MSNBC (Al Sharpton, Melissa Harris-Perry), the NAACP and the AP. MLK’s daughter is on the bandwagon. And this clown Benjamin Crump should be ashamed of himself for spitting on the graves of Emmett Till and Medgar Evers by comparing them to Martin. It’s sick.

    • jefe68

      Race hustlers? You mean like you.

    • brettearle

      HD–

      It is unfair to suggest that Race definitely does not enter into the matter.

      As Pierre Thomas, broadcast journalist from ABC, has
      alluded to, none of us know what was in the Defendant’s mind when he pursued the deceased or pulled the trigger.

      But all of us know what the Defendant actually said to the dispatcher.

      The actual ACT of self-defense may have had nothing to do with Race–if, indeed, the Defendant was literally justified in doing what he did.

      But we don’t know that.

      The jury couldn’t reach a verdict beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

      But that DOESN’T mean that the Defendant was innocent.

      It only means that there wasn’t enough evidence to find the Defendant guilty.

      It doesn’t mean he WASN’T guilty.

      There could be more Evidence that we don’t know about–and will likely NEVER know about.

      What’s more, some of the Evidence, presented, might have been distorted for any number of reasons:

      Eyewitness testimony that was skewed.
      Forensic analysis that was inaccurate. 

      And if the Defendant WAS guilty, it can certainly mean that an element of a Racial motive was involved–ESPECIALLY because of the dispatcher communications.

      What’s more, even if the Defendant was innocent, it DOESN’T mean that the Defendant wasn’t capable, possibly, via a different scenario, of harming the deceased, anyway–because of the deceased’s race.

      ALL of this still possible.

      • HonestDebate1

        It is more unfair to suggest race was a factor. I will always, in lieu of evidence, assume humanity as a whole isn’t stupid an shallow enough to kill because of racism. More importantly, IMO, it does not matter one iota if it was. Martin is just as dead.

        For instance, I don’t think these guys should be treated any differently because they are racist murderers. They are just murderers and that’s enough.

        http://mdjonline.com/view/full_story/23037003/article-Mableton-teens-linked-to-gang-are-accused-in-beating-death?

         

        • 1Brett1

          Yes, 1st degree murder is 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder is 2nd degree murder, manslaughter is manslaughter, and so on, but (and I’m speaking in general terms (your “these guys…” paragraph), race can in some circumstances speak to motive, so it can be a factor in some murder trials. 

          • HonestDebate1

            I understand there is everything from accidents to self-defense to pre-meditated murder but race should play no part and is irrelevant. The only place it matters is with hate crimes which are stupid in my opinion.

          • brettearle

            HD,

            You are ignoring an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest that skin color can affect jurisprudence, in this country.

            Not always, but periodically. 

            If not more than that.

          • HonestDebate1

            That’s actually my point Brettearle. The irony is the result of race being artificially introduced into the equation was Trayvon’s killer paying no penalty whatsoever. The charge was ridiculous and there was no way to prove it. The race hustlers, most notably (but not limited to) Al Sharpton, insisted race was the motivating factor. People actually believed Zimmerman was a racist stalking blacks. The President weighed in. So the State overreached because of politics, because the race hustlers prevailed. That’s not justice.

      • OnPointComments

        Zimmerman’s life history is replete with proof that he is not a racist.  If we believe the testimony of Rachel Jeantel, the only clearly racist words in this case were uttered by Trayvon Martin.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          have you heard her tweets?

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        you took it too far.
        “It doesn’t mean he WASN’T guilty.”
        in fact he was found “not guilty” which is different from innocent but is the same as not guilty.
        by withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense the prosecutor broke the law to try to get a conviction on zim what else is left for them to do to try to get him?
        like the refrain in law class” anything is possible”

  • hennorama

    Followup question:

    Assuming George Zimmerman is free to profit from his story and does so, and he incurs no subsequent civil damages from the Martin family, and after taking all legal and other related expenses into account, net-net Mr. Zimmerman benefits economically from this case, should he in some way compensate Trayvon Martin’s family for killing Mr. Martin?

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       I doubt Zimmerman is thinking profit right now.  He is probably wondering if he’ll ever get any kind of normal life back.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        that’s what I think of. I am sure people will hoot and holler when he makes some money from an interview or a book. what the heck is he supposed to do, go back to his job? does anyone think that is a realistic option? he is going to need money for security and legal costs for the rest of his life and working a normal job is probably out of the question given how many people have threatened his life and how he has and will be hounded by the media for the rest of his life.

      • hennorama

        WftC – TYFYR.

        Indeed, Mr. Zimmerman is no doubt simply breathing the biggest sigh of relief he ever has in his life.

        One hopes that he appreciates that he is indeed still breathing, and has at least some modicum of regret for having ended any opportunity for one young man to breathe ever again.

        One wishes too that all involved have the Five F’s to fall back upon – family, faith, friends, fortitude and forgiveness of self and others.

        Thank you again for your response.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      you don’t think they will write books of their own? is this a “should” in a moral sense or a legal sense?

      • hennorama

        FB – TYFYR.

        No doubt anyone and everyone even remotely involved in this case will try to “cash in” by any available means.

        My question was focused solely on Mr. Zimmerman in relation to Mr. Martin’s family, regardless of that family’s actions or inactions. The implied question contained within my question is “Does Mr. Zimmerman have an obligation to compensate anyone for taking Mr. Martin’s life?

        Please feel free to interpret “should” in any way you wish.

        TYAFYR.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          to answer the question you need to clarify if you are asking in the legal or moral sense.  I am not sure what someone’s obligation is to someone’s family who attacks them and dies in the process. in a legal sense in a case of self defense in florida the person has immunity  from civil claims. I think he has already apologized, compensate usually refers to money,  do you think giving them money makes sense or will make up for their child? how much should he give them? what would be really great is if they could come together like Rodney king and reganold denny(sp) and maybe form a joint foundation of some sort. perhaps, to help youth avoid drugs and violence

          • hennorama

            FB – TYAFYR. It was indeed thoughtful.

            You might simply consider my questions as thought problems/experiments and formulate two conditional “if … then” responses. One might begin along the lines of “If we’re considering the moral sense of this question, then …” and/or “Taking only strict legal considerations into account, then …”

            You get the idea.

            I appreciate the spirit of the balance of your response. Thank you again.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            I attempted to answer both. short answer=no

          • hennorama

            FB – fair enough. TYFYR.

  • 1Brett1

    The verdict is in…I agree with the sentiment that the same system letting Zimmerman come in the front door the night of the killing and out through the back door, the same system that didn’t see Zimmerman’s actions as anything having potential to bring charges against him, the same system that had the state perform with mediocre skill during the trial, was the same system that acquitted Zimmerman. 

    The jurors were not at fault; they could only work off of the strength of the prosecution’s arguments, which were weak. They had only circumstantial evidence to work with. Witnesses conflicted on what they saw, and hearing their accounts represents hearing inconsistencies/discrepancies. Zimmerman’s account was taken as the truth, yet his account didn’t completely jibe with his actions, and his account also had inconsistencies and discrepencies; there was even a couple of statements by Zimmerman that appear to be out and out lies. But, that’s okay, he didn’t need to prove he didn’t murder Trayvon Martin, that can be left up to doubt; the burden was on the state to prove he did murder Trayon Martin, and they didn’t prove that.

    The state did not prove Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin, and that was their burden, beyond a reasonable doubt; meaning, if any of the jurors had any doubts, any doubts that weren’t biased, deluded, unrealistic, unreasonable, they should should have acquitted, and they did. I would rather see a guilty man go free than an innocent man go to prison. Our judicial system is set up the way it is, irrespective of how competent police are at interviewing and gathering evidence, whether prosecutors perform well, etc. 

    Conservatives seem to be claiming a victory of sorts, that Zimmerman had a right to defend himself and simply defended himself. He may very well have defended himself; he certainly had a right to do so. But, we don’t know for sure whether he actually was acting in self defense; we just know that the state did not present enough evidence well enough to prove a guilty verdict for murder.

    I just left a conservative website (I wanted to see what they had to say about all of this). I had no intention of leaving a reply, but one of the comments was, “Finally, justice has been served, and this proves that Zimmerman was just a man  defending himself against a thug who was beating him to death. Zimmerman had the right to protect his own life by using lethal force against a punk who would have killed him had he not had a gun, and the case proved that.”

    I decided to reply to that with, “You are misreading the trial’s verdict. The NOT GUILTY verdict doesn’t mean that Zimmerman was proven to be justified in using lethal force for self defense; it means that the state could not prove he committed murder, which is much different than what you are saying.” 

    Interestingly, I got 10 thumbs down within seconds of my reply (I’m sure many more by now). I got no thumbs up. I didn’t say I thought the verdict should have been different; I didn’t say I thought Zimmerman committed murder; I didn’t say that Martin was just a child who was racially profiled, stalked, hunted down and murdered for being black…those should have gotten thumbs down, as there are doubts (legal doubts/judicial doubts, mind you) about those kinds of ideas about the case. I got thumbs down for pointing out what the verdict actually means. This at least indicates there might be a sentiment out there that the acquittal means Zimmerman was innocent because he defended himself. No, he is not innocent, merely not proven guilty, which is an imprtant distinction.

    • pete18

      ” He may very well have defended himself; he certainly had a right to do so. But, we don’t know for sure whether he actually was acting in self defense; we just know that the state did not present enough evidence well enough to prove a guilty verdict for murder.”

      No argument with that.

    • jefe68

      Some on the the right are loving this a little to much. That’s what I find so tragic here. That this is a story of violence and death and the misuse of a handgun by someone who was not trained well enough in firearms.
      What kind of people gleefully applaud Zimmerman’ acquittal as if Trayvon Martin’ life meant nothing.If Ann Coulter’s remark of hallelujah is the litmus test commonsense, well she and anyone who supports her has failed.  I agree with your narrative that the prosecution did just not present a strong enough case against Zimmerman.    

      • HonestDebate1

        No one loves it.

      • 1Brett1

        Well, so far, ALL conservatives I have read/heard from have applauded the verdict, not for the reasons I stated I felt were just: that our justice system is set up in a certain way for there to be a burden of proof for guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that this burden was not met so Zimmerman should have been acquitted based on how our law works. No, so far I have heard these reasons from neocons 1) Zimmerman had a right to defend himself 2) The state was overzealous, overreaching, in even arresting Zimmerman. 3) He was only brought to trial because of white guilt/political correctness/reverse discrimination. 

        I have also heard the same necons use race in two diametrically opposed ways at the same time. 1) “It was not about race; Zimmerman did not profile Martin because Martin was black.” 2) “Zimmerman was charged with this crime because Zimmerman is white; if Zimmerman were black, we wouldn’t have heard about this, or if Zimmerman were black and Martin had been white, we wouldn’t have heard about this crime.”

        So, it seems race is not an issue for neocons in this case unless it is a good tool to reinforce some other agenda.   

        • pete18

           Please, don’t get on a myopic high horse over this one, there are dirty hands everywhere. There were just as many ugly proclamations and reactions on the left, making Zimmerman out to be a guilty racist before anything was argued before a jury.

          • OnPointComments

            If you want to read some really vile comments, go on Twitter and click on any of the trending topics related to the Zimmerman trial.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            or worse read travons or his girlfriends tweets.

          • 1Brett1

            My reply was in response to how people have been applauding the verdict; there wasn’t any “myopic high horse” involved. I haven’t expressed my opinions about how some “on the left,” as you say, have viewed this trial. So, save your condemnations of my views on that aspect of this trial until such time as I express them, if you will.

          • pete18

             Well, then please tell us your views on how the left has been reacting to this case.

          • jefe68

            I agree there are also people on the left who are doing the same as those on the right.

            It’s sad really.

          • 1Brett1

            Some on the left have been reacting and saying things that aren’t true about the trial and about Zimmerman’s actions, etc. Yes. When it happens on either side it is wrong too.

          • pete18

             Agreed, but I take it that you find it worse and more intense from the right?

          • 1Brett1

            Well, what I am finding is that you aren’t offering any criticism of the right at all in this matter. 

          • pete18

            I’m just asking a simple question to clarify your previous
            answer, which seemed more like an aphorism than a direct answer.

          • 1Brett1

            I gave you a direct answer, which is a lot more than you’ve given me. This is a perfect example of you neocons being evasive and one sided.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        ann coulter says things to upset people like you to get attention. I did not see any high fiving or celebration in general. I think many people are relieved to see that the legal system worked even after the man was railroaded by the media and politicians. compare that to oj being found not guilty.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      for once I have to agree with you. well said. people on both sides of this seem ignorant of many legal nuances

      • 1Brett1

        It may very well be true that there is ignorance on both sides, and one might very well be able to dredge up some liberal saying something about this trial, ignorant of the facts; however, that was not included in my comment, so therefore, it was not for you to “agree with,” as you say. What you say you are “agree[ing] with” is a figment of your imagination/a hysterical form of reading incomprehension. 

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          I guess I will never make the mistake of agreeing with you if it is going to be so confusing and cause you to get confused and lash out.
          I agreed with what you said. I added that both sides don’t seem to understand the law. was that hard to understand? maybe you should try to relax a little

          • 1Brett1

            Awwww. Or you could just have started a new paragraph, or you could have prefaced your last sentence with, “Also, people on both sides…” or something to show a transition to an opinion added in addition to agreeing with my post.

            I guess now I’ve hurt your feelings…and for that I apologize. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            I could have been more clear I forgive you

          • 1Brett1

            Hey, I’ve read at least one book on that! (Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            I am not sure why you found that particular comment so interesting

  • jefe68

    A hypothetical point: 
    If you’re ever in a heated argument with anyone, and you’re pretty sure there aren’t any witnesses, it’s always best to kill the other person. They can’t testify, you don’t have to testify, no one else has any idea what happened; how can the state ever prove beyond a doubt is wasn’t self-defense?

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      …. or if you decide to sucker punch someone and break their nose and then continue to pound they head into the sidewalk be certain they don’t have a gun.

      That said,  it is still a tragedy with poor choices all around.

      • jefe68

        That’s true, it’s nothing but tragic for all those involved.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          is there any evidence that Zimmerman hit travon first? has anyone suggested that?

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           Didn’t you posit a hypothetical?

          Just because my hypothetical is possibly what happened doesn’t mean I “know what happened”.  I never claimed to “know what happened”.

          Zimmerman was the “protagonist”?  That makes Martin the antagonist?  This is a tragedy but I don’t believe these labels are appropriate.

    • brettearle

      Some day, Lie-Detector Technology might be nearly full-proof–like DNA evidence.

      And, on that same day, an Amendment to the 5th Amendment might be employed–which says you won’t be able to use the 5th Amendment, under these circumstances.

      Would any of us like to see jurisprudence function under such `innovative’ conditions?

      I’m not sure I would.

      But maybe that day is coming…..

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        I have read at least one book like that

        • 1Brett1

          What? Just one book? …No, wait, you said, “at least one book.” Goodness.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            what’s the point of your reply?

          • 1Brett1

            That you might’ve read more than one book on futuristic/state-of-the-art lie-detector technology? 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

             i was making the point that that is a fairly common meme in science fiction. I am not sure what point you were trying to make

          • 1Brett1

            A common science fiction meme is, “I’ve read at least one book on that”?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            do you have trouble reading?

          • 1Brett1

            Haveyou readat least one bookonthat?

      • hennorama

        brettearle – forget about “Lie-Detector Technology” and instead think about potential “mind reading technology,” such as functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) and their implications.

        You can read an interesting article about “mind reading” here:

        http://www.salon.com/2012/12/15/mind_reading_is_possible/

        • brettearle

          Right on,

          Herr Synapse

          • hennorama

            Hair sin naps? Wha?

          • brettearle

            Hear, wee goe a’gin….

          • hennorama

            Negative yelp review: hairs in apps.

            From TMZ, for your smartphone, the latest on celebrity coiffure catastrophes: Hair Sin Apps

            Next on ‘Pawn Stars’ – Richard “The Old Man” Harrison nods off: Harr’son naps

            For the fetishist’s mobile device: hare sin apps

          • brettearle

             Is that, above, a picture of Phil Specter after being too sedentary in jail, for all these months?????

            Hare up My Apps….

            ….is how I’m feelin’ right about now

          • hennorama

            brettearle – Yep, none other than Phil “Wall Of Sound” Spector, during one of his two murder trials.

            This is his prison mug shot:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spectormugshot2009.jpg

          • 1Brett1

            Hey, now, naps are the fruit of gods! And my hair commits no sin!

          • hennorama

            Pssst …

            Proving punctuation’s power:

            Particular prompt post-perm – Hair sin: naps.

          • 1Brett1

            I once took a nap during a perm…and the white afro was born. I was kidded about my Room 222 aspirations (oops, dating myself). 

          • hennorama
          • brettearle

             WHAT
            IS
            THHHHHHHAAAATTTT?

          • hennorama

            1Brett1 – “Dude from ‘Room 222′ “ makes Honorable Mention on this list:

            http://listoftheday.blogspot.com/2010/07/top-9-white-guy-afros-of-day.html

            To me, the funniest thing is that anyone would take the time and go through the effort involving in compiling such a list.

            BTW – note the “ ‘Boston’ connection” at the top of the Honorable Mention list.

          • brettearle

            You can’t date yourself.

            You’re not that self-centered.

          • 1Brett1

            Ha!

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      a state trooper said about the same thing. he said “if you ever do have to shoot someone in self defense its best to kill the other person because you , even if you are in the right, don’t want the other guy to be able to tell his side of the story.”

      on the other hand if you really shoot someone more than you have to, then you can be found guilty of manslaughter or another homicide charge.  for example if zimmerman had then gotten up and shot travon in the head  after he was already incapacitated then Zimmerman would be guilty of a crime.
      the state could use physical evidence and the testimony of witnesses and the defendant to convince a jury of his peers beyond a reasonable doubt. they do it all the time.

      • 1Brett1

        Yes, if you are going to murder someone, kill them with one shot if you can; two makes the act murkier for a self defense plea. Good advice, there, Fido Buddy!

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          don’t thank me, thank a highly trained upstanding member of law enforcement. aren’t cops great? they make me feel so safe. you are still pushing the murder nonsense?

          • 1Brett1

            Still pushing some “arm-yourself-because-cops-can’t-be-trusted” agenda? By the way, love your FaceBook page, it looks like a serial killer’s bulletin board.  

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            I just cant take credit for that little nugget of wisdom.
            my agenda? you discovered my secret agenda:
            step 1. upset brett1 causing him to stalk my facebook page in a desperate search for material for ad hominem attacks
            step 2. dissolve the legislature
            step 3. moon base

            actually I would imagine a serial killer would be more like you and attempt to be anonymous on the net, I don’t have anything to hide. what are you hiding?

          • 1Brett1

            Hey, you advertise to visit your FaceBook page on this forum, for one thing; if you don’t want people to visit to see what you’re about, don’t make that readily available. Secondly, your name isn’t “Futo Buddy.” Third, Your FB page has no personal information, just a photo of Malcolm X with a rifle; and, status updates where you answer questions things like your love for assault rifles, your favorite Botwin (Weeds) being Shane (who murdered an adversary of his mother’s, by the way), and other weird nonsense. I wouldn’t exactly call any of that  an attempt at making yourself a real person on the net and forgoing anonymity. 

            Also, I would never divulge–for example, to a nutcase like you–my FaceBook page. And, yes, my real name is Brett. Beyond that, you’ll get no personal information from me. I used to share my personal information on this forum, but in the last three years, weirdos have infiltrated this forum, so, nope, that’s not gonna happen. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            I just use my facebook to sign on here, not really advertising aything. i am not sure what you are looking at.  I have never made a post about any botwins. perhaps facebook is displaying a list of the apps or whatever they call them that “friends” have participated in. I hate to break it to you but you are now one of those creepy wierdos. what are you afraid of?

          • 1Brett1

            Didn’t you read at least one book on that? 

            Malcolm X profile photo with a rifle?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            I like civil rights.
             you got a problem with that you creepy ass cracker?

    • hennorama

      A non-hypothetical and non-rhetorical response:

      “a heated argument with anyone” is an insanely low level of circumstance during which one would/should ever consider whether or not one would/should “always … kill the other person”.

      If that was the universal standard, the world population would be far lower than it is at present.

  • pete18

    And the list of “reasonable” left-wing media figures
    is…….? Anyone? Anyone?

  • OnPointComments

    Sometimes I play a little game.  When the Hennorama/HonestDebate1 comments go back and forth more than once, I bet on which one will (1) get the last word, or (2) will make it to the one-character wide comment first.  So far in this board’s battle:  HonestDebate1 is ahead by two.  They both have more stamina than I do.
      
    I have a very low entertainment threshhold.

    • HonestDebate1

      That’s a hoot! I can’t believe anyone reads that stuff.

    • hennorama

      Hahahahaha!  OMG, OPC you are hilarious!

      Correction: OMG, OPC you are hilariously detail-oriented!

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      you should have to drink when it gets to a single column

  • davecm

    What I have gathered about the Zimmerman trial is this:
    If this had been a white/white, black/black or black/white killing, you would have never heard about it!
    But! because there was an agenda to push by those on the left, gun control at that time, they turned this into a issue.
    There was not enough conclusive evidence at the start to convict Zimm- in this case, the jury and the verdict proves that point.
    But! the liberal media, the Sharptons of the world, Obama himself and even Onpoint had to press their agenda.
    So, they labeled Zimmerman a WHITE hispanic!
    So, now we have a WHITE man killing a black child.
    Now! once again America enters the “racial” issue!
    Go back and listen to Sharpton as he spewed out his racial poison.  
    Now! what ALL this has accomplished, whether Zimm- is guilty or not, is a deeper divide in race relations in American.
    On the morning news, one of Martin family’s lawyers compares this to the injustice of the civil rights days.
    NAACP jumps on the wagon stirring up the agenda with comments like, racial profiling, stating Martin’s civil rights were taken away.
    No one wants to look at maybe the real cause of all this?
    Broken homes, bad role models, moral decay, a impotent govt. that has no guts to enforce laws.
    As one person once said, so goes the family, so goes the nation!
    Our nation no longer knows what is right or wrong, only what is politically correct!

    • OnPointComments

      The media WANT this to be a racially-divisive and racially-infused issue, and they do everything in their power to make it that way.  Making it sensational drives higher ratings, more newspapers sold, more website hits.  The Al Sharptons & Jesse Jacksons of the world make their living off of promoting racial dissension.
       
      The winner (or loser) in the sensationalism sweepstakes is MSNBC, but Salon has tried hard to overcome MSNBC in the hype, hysteria, and race-baiting categories – a sampling of Salon’s articles:
      “White supremacy, meet black rage”
      “Zimmerman verdict: A green light for racist vigilantes”
      “America’s summer of hate”
      “Most disgusting reactions to Zimmerman acquittal”
       
      It makes me wonder if there are still editors who can choose to not approve a story.

      • HonestDebate1

        Unfortunately it’s not just the media, the DOJ and Obama are fueling it too.

      • 1Brett1

        Yeah, well, we already know how “the media” are, and I agree; they will beat this to death. So far, I’ve only heard a brief, sober analysis of the trial and verdict from either side of the debate, the rest has been a platform for political wrangling, gawking, and sensationalism.

        • harverdphd

           Maybe you should watch your drinking…

    • 1Brett1

      Let’s see. All neocon diatribes present and accounted for regarding the Zimmerman trial? Check! A case of reverse discrimination? Check. Merely a left-wing conspiracy to gin up racial unrest? Check. A left-wing smear campaign to condemn gun ownership and malign concealed weapons? Check. Political correctness only? Check. This case is the result of the plight (and blight) that is African America (“broken homes, bad role models, moral decay, an impotent government that has no guts to enforce laws,” etc.)? Check. The wrongful arrest of Zimmerman to begin with: an example of how our nation no longer knows right from wrong? Check….You managed to get in every stereotyped neocon view on this trial in one comment.

      • davecm

        The truth hurts, so we resort to name calling.
        All shall be revealed in the passage of time and will probably be to late by then.
        There are no winners here, sadly only people who are blinded by what the liberal media feeds them!
        Most liberal people I know are not concerned so much with facts, but just winning the argument! 

        • 1Brett1

          “all shall be revealed” …what is this some biblical prophecy? 

          Are you J.R.R.Tolkien writing a trilogy.. or should I say, ‘trollogy’?

          And, of course, you’d be remiss if you didn’t throw in the “blinded by what the liberal media feeds them” for sh*ts and giggles! Good show, old boy!

          davecm: “truth=rants about liberalism, race relations, and whatever I want to say about a failed country/society that is not conservative enough”…about right, aye?

          • harverdphd

             you’re beaten…go home

          • 1Brett1

            Well, only an idiot would spend time seriously responding to his diatribes. 

            Of course, you’re just a troll, so don’t just go home, go away.

  • hennorama

    Vive la France!  Joyeux Quatorze Juillet!

    • 1Brett1

      Happy Bastille Day!

  • brettearle

    There’s no question race is involved.  And I still think that Zimmerman’s more likely guilty, than not.

    For those who try to make themselves believe otherwise, it is, for the most, a convenient Denial–designed to bolster a sense of purer justice and to stoke the belief that the race card was being used, gratuitously and manipulatively….as a platform for the Sharptons and the Jacksons to reconfirm their diagnosis about the criminal justice system and about `White America’. 

    But I still deplore the networks showing pictures of Martin as a younger adolescent, today–much less at other times.

    And I do not appreciate the President chiming in months ago–much less today, when he only mentions the Martin’s family.

    He discusses a respect for the Verdict.  But I do not think he went far enough.

    If he is going to console Martin’s parents–which he obviously should do if he’s going to make a public statement, at all–then he should also have a word of comfort for the Defendant.

    Even if it is Crocodile Comfort.

    After all, even if the President and many others–including myself–think Zimmerman was probably guilty, the LAW said otherwise.

    The President should react accordingly and go further in his public statements–IF he feels he HAS to make any public statement at all.

    Indeed, I think he should have STAYED OUT OF IT.

    [As in, "the police acted stupidly."  Gates might not have been  treated fairly; or he provoked Crowley.  But the President SHOULD have stayed out of it.] 

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      beer summit in florida?

    • OnPointComments

      I agree.  He should have stayed out of it.

  • OnPointComments

    “Dershowitz to Newsmax: ‘Prosecutorial Tyrant’ Violated Zimmerman’s Rights”
     http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Dershowitz-Zimmerman-Prosecutorial-Misconduct/2013/07/14/id/514957 
     
    Excerpt:
    Famed defense lawyer and Harvard law professor Alan M. Dershowitz is calling for a federal investigation into civil rights violations stemming from the George Zimmerman case — but he says the probe should focus on prosecutorial misconduct rather than on allegations of racial profiling and bias.
     
    “I think there were violations of civil rights and civil liberties — by the prosecutor.  The prosecutor sent this case to a judge, and willfully, deliberately, and in my view criminally withheld exculpatory evidence.  They denied the judge the right to see pictures that showed Zimmerman with his nose broken and his head bashed in. The prosecution should be investigated for civil rights violations, and civil liberty violations.
     
    “The prosecutor had in her possession photographs that would definitely show a judge that this was not an appropriate case for second-degree murder.  She deliberately withheld and suppressed those photographs, refused to show them to the judge, got the judge to rule erroneously this was a second-degree murder case.  That violated a whole range of ethical, professional, and legal obligations that prosecutors have. Moreover, they withheld other evidence in the course of the pretrial and trial proceedings, as has been documented by the defense team.”

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      he is the best living oj lawyer

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    RT @GrandadJFreeman: You know you high AF when you stop at a stop sign and wait for it to turn green
    oh travon we hardly knew ye

    • 1Brett1

      WHA?!?! 

      “I’ve read at least one book on that!”

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        its one of travons tweets. like this gem:
        “RT @iTeachSEXOLOGY: d*ck slipping out when you got her in doggy? Either u trying to long stroke wit a short d*ck or she need to arch that back”
        and one that’s more germain to the discussions of the day:

        “RT @PrettyMeStarr: White People’(s) Call Police , Black People’(s) Call There Cousin”
        we can learn so much from travon.

  • OnPointComments

    “Column: Media got Zimmerman story wrong from start”
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/14/zimmerman-trayvon-martin-nbc-news-column-rieder/2516251/ 
     
    Excerpt:
    Some of the media’s major mistakes stemmed from stories that fit neatly into that widely accepted narrative. 
    – NBC News edited Zimmerman’s comments during a phone call to inaccurately suggest that he volunteered that Martin seemed suspicious because he was black.
    – ABC News broadcast a story reporting that a police surveillance video showed no evidence that Zimmerman suffered abrasions or bled during the confrontation with Martin
    – When it emerged that Zimmerman’s mother was Peruvian, some news outlets took to referring to him with the rarely used phrase “white Hispanic”
    – There was evidence that Zimmerman decidedly got the worst of it during the struggle before he shot Martin.
     
    A healthy dose of skepticism should always be part of the journalism process.  Back in 2006, the nation’s media gave huge play to a saga in which three Duke University lacrosse players were charged with raping a stripper at a team party. But the case collapsed, the prosecutor was disbarred and many news organizations looked seriously foolish.  Asked what had gone wrong…a former New York Times public editor responded: “It was too delicious a story.”
     
    Sound familiar?
     
    Let’s hope we see much, much more of that [a healthy dose of skepticism] the next time the news media encounter a story that’s “too delicious.”

  • HonestDebate1

    Why is Obama weighing in at all? What makes this tragedy worse than all the others he is silent over? If he wants to make a difference why isn’t he coming out against gang violence which is a real problem? What the hell does he mean by, “those passions may be running even higher”. Why? Here’s his stupid statement:

    The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy.  Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America.  I know this case has elicited strong passions.  And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher.  But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken.  I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son.  And as we do, we should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities.  We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis.  We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this.  As citizens, that’s a job for all of us.  That’s the way to honor Trayvon Martin.

  • hennorama

    Apologies in advance for the very long-winded nature of this post. As I was unsuccessful in posting it in one piece, I’m breaking it into smaller chunks.

    PART 1 of 8

    The topic is “Lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

    This is not about any particular person, but instead is about a particular claim, which I view as a Lie, damned lie, and statistic.

    No doubt some readers have observed that I am careful to attribute the words and thoughts of others to their originators, and to delineate sources of material and information in my posts, including direct links to sources.

    As one might expect, I’m not a fan of unexplained, unsubstantiated, undocumented, unsupported, and unattributed claims. As such, I often challenge those who make such claims. These challenges are intended to allow the claimant the opportunity to demonstrate the validity of their claim, or to “walk it back” if they are unable to support what was written. The aim is to improve the discussion by trying to separate unsupported opinion from demonstrable fact.

    About three weeks ago, one particularly unusual claim caught my eye:

    “If you want to talk about race then be honest and confront the fact that black on white racism is a far worse problem today that the inverse. Blacks are 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against whites than vice versa”

    My first thought, as one might expect, was “39 times more likely? That can’t be right.” That thought was followed quickly by “Why would anyone believe that?” and then “Why would someone try to show something about race by making a claim about crime?”

    I noticed the words “honest” and “fact” prefacing a claim about racism “today”, followed by the unequivocal “Blacks are 39 times …” claim. Clearly the writer believed that what they had written was honest, factual, and current.

    (continued)

  • hennorama

    PART 2 of 8

    I didn’t respond right away, as I was curious about the “Blacks are 39 times” claim. It stood out like a sore thumb to me, so I did some research, using online sources.

    The first thing I noticed while doing this research is that there are a LOT of white nationalist/separatist/supremacist links on the Web. (BTW, I DO NOT recommend anyone plugging the claim above that begins “Blacks are 39 times…” into any search engine, because it will lead to some very unsavory sites.)

    Reluctant but undaunted, I read these online sources one by one, and followed the links inside the articles, reading those articles as well. I soon discovered the original source of the “Blacks are 39 times more likely” claim.

    Here are the main points uncovered via the research, followed by details about each point, below:

    1. The source of the claim above (which will hereafter be referred to as “the subject claim”) is a white separatist/nationalist/supremacist publication.

    2. The original source claim is based on data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), using the NCVS Statistical Tables from 2001 through 2003, making the original claim now long out-of-date.

    3. The original source claim is a fallacy based on faulty reasoning and logic, and does not take the limitations of the NCVS estimates into account.

    4. The subject claim (“Blacks are 39 times more likely…”) is a MISQUOTE of the original claim. The MISQUOTED subject claim removes words from the original claim, resulting in a claim that is unequivocal and completely unqualified.

    5. If one was really concerned about racism and violent crime in the U.S., one would simply go to the latest FBI’s Hate Crime Statistics, which discuss racially motivated crimes, as opposed to interracial crimes in general. (continued)

    • Ray in VT

      I found the New Century Foundation linked to the 39 times more likely claim, but I didn’t dig deeper into that one.  I did do some looking into the claim that in 2005 there were between 0 and 10 rapes of black women by white men.  I also found that claim to be below questionable, in part based upon the very limited sample sizes in some of the surveys.  Of course I also took exception to the claim that that was even what the table and the asterisk said.  At any rate, I found a BJS document that said that about 88% of forcible rapes were perpetrated by someone from within the victim’s ethic group.

      • hennorama

        Ray in VT – Thank you for your response.

        Trust me, you don’t really want to “dig deeper into” those white nationalist/separatist/supremacist sites.

        Regarding the claim using NCVS Table 42 data from 2005, let me first point you to this post, which shows 13 years of NCVS estimates about Rape/sexual assault:

        http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/06/28/week-scotus-obama-
        snowden#comment-951716167

        A few comments and observations:

        If one looked at those 13 years of data, and in 2013 wanted to show something about interracial crime based on that data, why the focus on the single year 2005? After all, in eight of the thirteen years, we see “0.0*” in the column for the “Black or Black only victim/White offender” combination, right? Why not talk about those seven other years too?

        In my view, the reason is that ONLY the 2005 data (33.6 for “White only victim/ Black offender” and 0.0 * for “Black only victim/White offender”) shows BOTH a positive number in the “White or White only victim/ Black offender” column that’s not “ *based on about 10 or fewer sample cases” AND 0.0 * for the opposite combination.

        In other words, weak and limited though it may be, out of thirteen years worth of data, that is the strongest “evidence” for some pre-drawn conclusion about interracial rape and sexual assault.

        I could be wrong, of course.

        However, the claimant did use only a single year’s data, and then tried to make it appear stronger, by mischaracterizing the “evidence,” claiming “The asterisk stipulates 0 means 10 or less.”

        As you know, the asterisk actually means
        “ *Estimate is based on about 10 or fewer sample cases.”

        (BTW, I think the site below is the real origin of these claims about 2005. The writer accurately described what the asterisk meant, but apparently that was not good enough for subsequent claimants.):

        http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/04/democrats_and_the_politics_of_1.html

        As I wrote in my post linked at the start of this comment,

        “These low sample case numbers are not surprising, because the crimes of Rape and Sexual assault are statistically rare. Again, quoting the BJS on the matter:

        “There is a large margin of error around statistically rare crimes, such as rape/sexual assault.”

        Trying to demonstrate anything about the already rare crimes of rape and sexual assault by using victimization estimates of MUCH MORE RARE interracial rapes and sexual assaults, and basing a conclusion on an estimate “based on about 10 or fewer sample cases” is a very risky and precarious undertaking.

        AT BEST.

        At worst, it’s something else entirely.

        Remember, as I wrote in “PART 6 of 8,” even with a confidence interval of 95%, the NCVS estimates could differ from the actual victimization experiences of the hundreds of millions of persons in the U.S. population by as much as 50 percent.

        You may be interested in this very interesting chapter from the 2006 book ‘The Many Colors of Crime – Inequalities of Race, Ethnicity, and Crime in America’ edited by Ruth D. Peterson, Lauren J. Krivo, and John Hagan, each of whom is a Professor of Sociology.

        Notice the title.

        Remember the source of the claim I wrote so extensively about, ‘The Color of Crime’?

        I emailed the editors of ‘The Many Colors of Crime,’ and they confirmed what I suspected, that the book’s title was chosen as a response to TCOC.

        The chapter was written by Robert J. Sampson and Lydia Bean.

        Robert J. Sampson is the Henry Ford II Professor of the Social Sciences at Harvard.

        Lydia Dean is now Dr. Lydia Bean, with a Ph.D in Sociology from Harvard, and is Assistant Professor of Sociology at Baylor University.

        They are actual experts.

        Thanks again for your response.

        • Ray in VT

          Thank you for your response, Hennorama.  Here is the source for the number that I cited:

          http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/sexoff/sexoff.pdf

          Here is a quote that I received from someone with whom I have communicated on the subject, and she is in part responsible for collecting and analyzing much of this crime data that we have been talking about:

          “With anyone interested specifically in this type of crime, and using NCVS data, I would always caution to be aware of the sample sizes and making inferences from such small cases. To make more reliable estimates, one can roll up years (like in the report I linked to above), and look at further characteristics of the crime that way over longer time periods which give more stable estimates.”

          • hennorama

            Ray in VT – TY again for your response and the source. I came across several similar sources during my research.

            What I found most interesting and encouraging in your reply is the evidence that members of the forum look deeply into the issues under discussion, doing their own research, and going so far as to communicate with topical experts.

            Well done sir. Please keep up the great work.

          • Ray in VT

            Right back at ya.

          • hennorama

            Merci bien, monsieur.

          • Ray in VT

            De rien.  Also, I just edited my previous post.  Just FYI or FYE.

  • hennorama

    PART 3 of 8

    THE DETAILS:

    1. The original source made a claim that, “Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.” (Notice the words “…an estimated…” are NOT in the subject claim.)

    This original claim is from a 2005 publication titled “The Color of Crime” (TCOC), from the New Century Foundation. The New Century Foundation was founded by Jared Taylor, a well-known self-described “white separatist” and “racialist” who has written such things as:

    “Blacks and whites are different. When blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western civilization — any kind of civilization — disappears.” — American Renaissance, 2005

    See:http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/jared-taylor

    FYI, m-w.com defines “racialism” as “a theory that race determines human traits and capacities.”

    To be as polite as possible, these people have a racially biased point of view. This makes anything they say on the topic of race suspect from the get-go.

    Anyone interested can read more about New Century Foundation, Jared Taylor, and their publication ‘American Renaissance’, on these sites:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Century_Foundation

    http://www.amren.com/about/issues/ (NOTE: this is the [About] section of the ‘American Renaissance’,website)

    http://www.nc-f.org/ (NOTE: this is a portal to various New Century Foundation publications)

    http://archive.adl.org/Learn/Ext_US/jared_taylor/default.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=2&item=taylor

    http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/american-renaissance (continued)

  • hennorama

    PART
    4 of 8

    2.
    The 2005 version of TCOC used data from the National Crime
    Victimization Survey (NCVS) Statistical Tables from 2001 through
    2003, which were the most current NCVS data available at the time of
    publication.

    However,
    the subject claim “Blacks ARE (emphasis mine) 39 times…” used
    the present tense, meaning that the claim was current. There are
    multiple years of more recent NCVS data available which are not taken
    into account. This claim is therefore obsolete, regardless of
    whether or not it may have once been true.

    3.
    The 2005 version of TCOC includes this as a “Major Finding”
    about Interracial Crime:

    “Blacks
    are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime
    against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit
    robbery.”

    This
    is the source of the subject claim, as stated above.

    The
    fact that TCOC is racially biased doesn’t necessarily mean the claim
    is inaccurate. Further examination is needed.

    In
    order to understand the “39 times” claim, I read both the
    original 1999 version of TCOC, which used National Crime
    Victimization Survey (NCVS) data from 1994, and the 2005 version,
    which used NCVS data from 2001 to 2003. These publications can be
    downloaded here:

    http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime1999.pdf

    http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.pdf

    Since
    TCOC used figures from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)
    to come up with the “Blacks are an estimated 39 times…” claim,
    I then read everything I could find about the NCVS, the Uniform Crime
    Reports (UCR) from the FBI, the differences between the two, and all
    sorts of other stuff about interracial crime, race and crime, poverty
    and crime, various theories of criminology, etc.

    (continued)

  • hennorama

    PART
    5 of 8

    I
    viewed NCVS questionnaires, various data sets from both the NCVS and
    the FBI/UCR for multiple years, crime trend information, population
    and demographic estimates, you name it. Essentially I immersed
    myself in the topic for a full day.

    Here’s
    what I discovered:

    Their
    premise is whacked.

    TCOC
    goes through several calculations to come up with what they call “the
    rates at which blacks and whites commit interracial crime” which
    they then divide into one another to come up with their original
    claim.

    This
    is a more accurate description of their “methodology”:

    We
    pretend that the National Crime Victimization Survey is not about
    victims, but instead is about offenders. This is despite the fact
    that the NCVS does not discuss offenders per se, and none of the
    titles of its over 110 Statistical Tables uses the word “offender”
    except as contained in the term “victim-offender relationship”
    (in multiple Table titles) and

    “perceived
    drug or alcohol use by offender” (Table 32)

    “relationship
    to offender” (Tables 33, 34)

    “perceived
    gender of offender” (Table38)

    “perceived
    age of offender” (Tables 39, 41)

    “perceived
    race of offender” (Tables 40, 42)

    “by
    armed or unarmed offenders” (Table 60).

    We
    then ignore all of the limitations of the NCVS, including:

    -
    NCVS surveys only certain persons (those age 12 and older) victimized
    by certain types of crime.

    -
    None of the survey responses are independently confirmed.

    -
    NCVS results are estimates based on the survey, not actual facts

    -
    NCVS defines rape and sexual assault differently and more broadly
    than the FBI’s definition.

    -
    NCVS estimates of “Crimes of violence” include both “Attempted”
    and “threatened” violence, and both verbal threats of rape and
    threats of sexual assault. (continued)

  • hennorama

    PART
    6 of 8

    (TCOC
    “methodology” and NCVS limitations, continued):

    -
    “Attempted” and “threatened” violence together consistently
    account for roughly three fourths of the estimated numbers of “Crimes
    of violence” in the NCVS Statistical Tables.

    (NOTE:
    None of the above is intended to call the NCVS data into question,
    but merely to show some of its characteristics and limitations.)

    We
    next pretend that the estimated number of single-offender
    victimizations in Table 42 of the NCVS (the source of the figures
    TCOC used in the original claim) is equal to the number of “victims
    of violent crimes,” despite the fact that any and all individual
    victims surveyed may have been the victim of multiple separate
    offenses during the survey period. We also pretend that this
    estimated number is not an estimate.

    We
    then pretend that the word “Perceived” does not exist in what
    Table 42 labels “Perceived race of offender.” We also pretend
    that the estimated percentages of “Perceived race of offender” in
    Table 42 are not estimates.

    We
    then pretend that multiplying one estimate by another estimate yields
    a reliable, exact, specific result, and that this result is not
    itself an estimate of an estimate multiplied by an estimate.

    We
    don’t discuss any of the following relevant terminology in any
    meaningful way – estimation procedures, accuracy of estimates,
    sampling error and nonsampling error, margins of error, standard
    errors, confidence intervals, correlation values, etc.

    We
    also fail to mention that even with a confidence interval of 95%, the
    NCVS estimates could differ from the actual outcomes experienced by
    the hundreds of millions of persons in the U.S. population by as much
    as 50 percent.

    We
    also don’t discuss probability theory or calculations at all, despite
    the fact that we use the phrase “more likely … than” in our
    claim.

    (continued)

  • hennorama

    PART
    7 of 8

    (TCOC
    “methodology”, continued):

    We
    of course assume that “Blacks” are a homogeneous group, meaning
    that we can discuss “the average black” and “Blacks” as
    follows, from the 1999 version of TCOC:

    “Put
    in the most easily understood terms, the average black was therefore
    56 times more likely to commit criminal violence against a white than
    was a white to commit criminal violence against a black.”

    Other
    than that, TCOC’s calculations are accurate.

    4.
    The subject claim is “Blacks are 39 times more likely to commit a
    violent crime against whites than vice versa.” This is a MISQUOTE
    of the original TCOC claim, which is (with emphasis added) “Blacks
    are AN ESTIMATED 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime
    against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit
    robbery.”

    The
    MISQUOTED subject claim removes the qualifying words “AN ESTIMATED”
    from the original claim, resulting in an unequivocal claim that is
    even more faulty and fallacious than the original.

    This
    is not what one does if one is interested in honest debate.

    -5.
    The FBI’s Hate Crime data for 2011 clearly calls the TCOC claim into
    question, as it shows that the race of known Hate Crime offenders was
    roughly in line with the racial demographic composition of the US
    population, and that single-bias hate crime offense motivations were
    nearly a mirror image of the “White alone” and Black or African
    American alone” U.S. racial demographics.

    (2009
    Census data indicates “White alone” as 79.57 percent, ”Black or
    African American alone” as 12.91 percent)

    See:

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2011/narratives/offenders

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2011/narratives/incidents-and-offenses
    (continued)

  • hennorama

    PART
    8 of 8

    Interracial
    crime is not in and of itself indicative of racism or bias on the
    part of the offender, but the claims in TCOC would lead one to think
    that it is, as it contains phrases such as “when blacks commit
    violent crimes they target whites…” and similar.

    True
    “Hate Crimes” are rare, thankfully, and the FBI uses a narrow
    definition and careful methodology. I’ll quote the most pertinent
    part:

    “Because
    motivation is subjective, it is sometimes difficult to know with
    certainty whether a crime resulted from the offender’s bias.
    Moreover, the presence of bias alone does not necessarily mean that a
    crime can be considered a hate crime. Only when law enforcement
    investigation reveals sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable and
    prudent person to conclude that the offender’s actions were
    motivated, in whole or in part, by his or her bias, should an
    incident be reported as a hate crime.”

    See:http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2011/resources/methodology

    =========================

    Summing
    up:

    Both
    the subject claim “Blacks are 39 times more likely to commit a
    violent crime against whites than vice versa” and its source, the
    claim from the 2005 version of TCOC, that “Blacks are an estimated
    39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than
    vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery” misuse and
    misrepresent otherwise valid statistical data, manipulate said data
    without regard for its clear limitations. They then take the
    resultant invalid calculations and project them onto an entire race
    of people, in an effort to prove their pre-drawn conclusions about
    “Blacks”

    .

    These
    claims are nothing but Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

    One might even call them
    equine excrement.

    • HonestDebate1

      Let’s assume you are correct (I don’t), throw out all the alleged vagaries and exaggerations, and say it’s just twice as likely. Better?

      • hennorama

        DebatesNotHe – TYFYR.

        No.

        Guesses are not worth the flow of electrons involved in writing them. They have even less value when the topic is as sensitive as is the topic of race, and less value still for anyone who purports to be “honest” and a “debater.”

        Stick
        To
        Foaling
        Ungulates,

        sir.

        • HonestDebate1

          How about “more likely”. Can you dispute that with hard facts?

          Or better yet, will you condemn the sick conventional wisdom that fueled the Zimmerman media frenzy: blacks should fear whites?

          “There is nothing more painful for me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery—then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.” -Jesse Jackson

          • hennorama

            HeDebatesNot – given your record – repeatedly spouting unexplained, unsubstantiated, undocumented, unsupported, and unattributed claims; repeated unwillingness and inability to respond to challenge – I have no interest in discussing a hypothetical question.

            If you wish to make a claim, please do so with some actual factual information rather than guesses, misquoted claims, claims from white separatists/nationalists/supremacists, etc., etc.

            In other words, do as you say (“I [Gregg Smith] don’t post anything without verifying.”) and not as you do.

            Sir.

          • HonestDebate1

            Thank you, I’ll take that as a no.

          • hennorama

            HeDebatesNot – given your record of misreading, misunderstanding, and misinterpreting the written word, your response is unsurprising.

  • Coastghost

    Well, henn, you’re not getting less prolix or long-winded. The one link I do not see cited in your eight-part opus is for the (Federal) Bureau of Justice Statistics (you can navigate to the data quite easily by simply Googling “black-on-black murders” [the data have been cited in the past year in WaPo and WSJ--the WSJ link features an interactive database I have not had time to load]).
    Some of the data (some of which are conflated in the WaPo piece with CDC data) cover the period 1976 to 2005, some cover the period 2000 to 2010. The data as reported: some 85% of white homicides (white male homicides, I think the data specified) are committed by white (male) perpetrators, and between 93% and 94% of black (male) homicides are perpetrated by black (male) perpetrators. A black homicide victim would thus have a better than 9 out of 10 chance of being killed by another black male and a less than 1 in 10 chance (almost 1 in 20 chance) of being killed by a white male.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304830704577496501048197464.html
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/therootdc/post/trayvon-martin-one-year-later-when-will-black-on-black-murders-get-the-attention-they-deserve/2013/02/26/f3c1fa4a-7fa1-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_blog.html

    • hennorama

      Coastghost – TY for your comment.

      Homicides of any sort were not my topic.

      The subject claim used data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Homicide victims are poor interviewees.

  • pete18

    To 1Brett1,


    Unlike “Leo Tolstoy Hennorama” and the “artist formerly
    known as Greg,” I cannot bring myself to post a single letter column response, so I’m putting my answer to your last post below (“I gave you a direct answer, which is a lot more than you’ve given me. This is a perfect example of you neocons being evasive and one sided.”) here.

     You’re projecting, “some on the left have said bad things,” and “it’s bad when everyone does it,”is a sort of general whitewash answer that doesn’t rise to the level of detail and
    ferocity that you’ve been leveling against “neocons” in your previous posts. It gives the appearance that you are more upset with how the right has been reacting to this case than the left.  All I was trying to find out is whether that was actually true or not. Your last broad-brush, ad-hominem post continued to be evasive on that point, while, ironically,
    accusing me of evasiveness.

     
    I’m not claiming a superiority of even-handedness about this.
    During the entire Zimmerman/ Martin affair I’ve only posted one comment on the topic, before my back and forth with you, and that was only to point out that while I thought it was reasonable and possible that Zimmerman acted in self
    defense (I do not know) the whole event was a tragedy. It struck me to be a series of poor choices, first by Zimmerman, and then by Martin  (although I also think it was possible he felt his life was threatened and rightfully tried to defend himself), which led to the killing of an innocent young man. I don’t think whether Martin smoked pot or tweeted racist things, or Zimmerman abused his cousin is relevant. All that
    matters is what went on during their scuffle and given the available evidence that is an unknowable thing.

    I believe that there have been ugly comments and assumptions on both sides of the political isle but I think the left’s reaction, particularly in the press and by the major party standard bearers, has been far more presumptuous and destructive.  I think your critiques about what “neocons” have been doing pales in comparison.  My only caveat in this statement is that I have not been spending my time pursuing the web reading stories about this case or looking for commentary about it, so there may be things I’ve missed.

    The long history of racial injustice in the legal
    system makes it understandable as to why many in the public are angry about the case and suspicious as to how it was ruled on, but it is inexcusable for the press and politicians to falsely agitate that narrative (particularly egregious
    is the NBC edited tape) when it is unsupported by the facts.

    • hennorama

      pete18 - Thank you for your very kind words comparing me to Tolstoy.

      However, I must dispute any such comparison, as my words have never been worthy enough for my moniker to be placed next to Tolstoy’s, or indeed even anywhere in the VICINITY of Tolstoy’s.

      Neither have my posts ever been lengthy enough to compare them to the length of Tolstoy’s betimes astoundingly lengthy work.

      BTW, Tolstoy’s ‘War and Peace’ is merely #15 on this “List of longest novels”:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_novels

      TY again for your very kind words.

      • pete18

         You’re welcome. Although, you make a good point, you’re not Tolstoy, you’re Proust.

        • hennorama

          HA! I almost did a “spit take” when I read that one! I should have learned by now not to drink and read DISQUS comments simultaneously.

          • pete18

            Brevity is the soul of spit! 

          • hennorama

            Spit the toll of bev’rages be.

  • conservativetom

    hennorama, thanks.  I’ll take a more in depth look at the Pew report.  Also, I recommend you look at the FAIR URL:

    http://www.fairus.org/issue/us-mexico-border-fence-and-patrol-operations

    Half a million illegals a year is still a lot, even though it is less than half the peak in 2005.

    • hennorama

      conservativetom – FYI, had I not wandered back into this forum I would have never seen your post.  Clicking the [Reply] button would have sent your response directly to my DISQUS dashboard, where I would have seen it.

      As to FAIR – count me a “not a fan.”

      This is a nativist group that some have labeled as a hate group.  FAIR is part of the John Tanton Network. 

      Quoting the NY Times, from April 2011:

      “While the whole movement grew more vehement as illegal immigration increased, Dr. Tanton seemed especially open to provocative allies and ideas. He set off a storm of protests two decades ago with a memorandum filled with dark warnings about the “Latin onslaught.” Word soon followed that FAIR was taking money from the Pioneer Fund, a foundation that promoted theories of the genetic superiority of whites.

      “Dr. Tanton, who remains on the FAIR board, denied charges of racial bias and donated his papers to the University of Michigan to show that he and colleagues “are not the unsavory types sometimes alleged.” They include hundreds of private letters, some outlining his interest in genetic differences between the races and concerns about the country’s changing ethnic mix.

      AND from later in the same article,

      “Then The Arizona Republic revealed the contents of a memorandum he had sent to friends before a brainstorming session. “Will Latin-American migrants bring with them the tradition of the mordida (bribe)?” he asked. “As whites see their power and control over their lives declining, will they simply go quietly into the night? Or will there be an explosion?”

      “Latino fertility rates caused him special alarm: “those with their pants up are going to get caught by those with their pants down!”

      “Soon followed the news that FAIR had received grants from the Pioneer Fund, whose most famous grantee was William B. Shockley, the Nobel-winning physicist who argued that for genetic reasons, blacks are intellectually inferior to whites.”

      See:
      http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/us/17immig.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

ONPOINT
TODAY
Aug 21, 2014
In this November 2012, file photo, posted on the website freejamesfoley.org, shows American journalist James Foley while covering the civil war in Aleppo, Syria. In a horrifying act of revenge for U.S. airstrikes in northern Iraq, militants with the Islamic State extremist group have beheaded Foley — and are threatening to kill another hostage, U.S. officials say. (AP)

An American is beheaded. We’ll look at the ferocity of ISIS, and what to do about it.

Aug 21, 2014
Jen Joyce, a community manager for the Uber rideshare service, works on a laptop before a meeting of the Seattle City Council, Monday, March 17, 2014, at City Hall in Seattle. (AP)

We’ll look at workers trying to live and make a living in the age of TaskRabbit and computer-driven work schedules.

RECENT
SHOWS
Aug 20, 2014
In this Oct. 21, 2013 file photo, a monarch butterfly lands on a confetti lantana plant in San Antonio. A half-century ago Monarch butterflies, tired, hungry and bursting to lay eggs, found plenty of nourishment flying across Texas. Native white-flowering balls of antelope milkweed covered grasslands, growing alongside nectar-filled wildflowers. But now, these orange-and-black winged butterflies find mostly buildings, manicured lawns and toxic, pesticide-filled plants. (AP)

This year’s monarch butterfly migration is the smallest ever recorded. We’ll ask why. It’s a big story. Plus: how climate change is creating new hybridized species.

 
Aug 20, 2014
A man holds his hands up in the street after a standoff with police Monday, Aug. 18, 2014, during a protest for Michael Brown, who was killed by a police officer Aug. 9 in Ferguson, Mo. (AP)

A deep read on Ferguson, Missouri and what we’re seeing about race, class, hope and fear in America.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
Your (Weird? Wonderful? Wacky?) Roommate Stories
Tuesday, Aug 19, 2014

We asked, and you delivered: some of the best roommate stories from across our many listener input channels.

More »
1 Comment
 
Our Week In The Web (August 15, 2014)
Friday, Aug 15, 2014

On Pinterest, Thomas the Tank Engine and surprising population trends from around the country. Also, words on why we respond to your words, tweets and Facebook posts.

More »
Comment
 
Nickel Creek Plays Three Songs LIVE For On Point
Wednesday, Aug 13, 2014

Nickel Creek shares three live (well, mostly) tracks from their interview with On Point Radio.

More »
Comment