90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Week In The News: Detroit Bankruptcy, Zimmerman Verdict, Abortion Bill

Detroit, bankrupt. Zimmerman, acquitted. Texas goes tough on abortion. Boston bombing suspect on the cover of Rolling Stone. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

Demonstrators mass on 34th Street as police attempt to prevent them from moving uptown, Sunday, July 14, 2013, in New York, during a march against the acquittal of neighborhood watch member George Zimmerman in the killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Florida. Demonstrators upset with the verdict protested mostly peacefully in Florida, Milwaukee, Washington, Atlanta and other cities overnight and into the early morning. (AP)

Demonstrators mass on 34th Street as police attempt to prevent them from moving uptown, Sunday, July 14, 2013, in New York, during a march against the acquittal of neighborhood watch member George Zimmerman in the killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Florida. Demonstrators upset with the verdict protested mostly peacefully in Florida, Milwaukee, Washington, Atlanta and other cities overnight and into the early morning. (AP)

A thunderclap jury verdict to start this hot week.  George Zimmerman, not guilty.  And the whole country, working through the meaning of that.  Some in the streets.

At the other end of the week – Detroit, officially bankrupt.  It was a long time coming.

In between, fury and a deal in Congress over the filibuster and presidential appointees.  Panama finds military gear, buried in sugar, headed for North Korea.  Bradley Manning will face “aiding the enemy” charges.  The Boston bombing suspect gets the cover of Rolling Stone.

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

- Tom Ashbrook

Guests

Pierre Thomas, senior justice correspondent for ABC News. (@pierretabc)

Susan Davis, chief congressional correspondent at USA Today. (@davisusan)

Jack Beatty, On Point news analyst.

From Tom’s Reading List

Los Angeles Times: Zimmerman verdict continues to stoke outrage – ”The six-woman jury that acquitted George Zimmerman in the fatal shooting ofTrayvon Martin was initially split down the middle, with half voting to acquit, two for manslaughter and one for second-degree murder, according to the first juror to speak publicly. She was among those favoring acquittal, the juror told CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Monday night.”

Reuters: Texas governor signs strict abortion law that sparked protests – ”Texas Governor Rick Perry on Thursday signed into law tough new restrictions on abortion, including a ban after 20 weeks of pregnancy, marking one of the biggest victories in a decade for opponents of the procedure in the United States.”

The Boston Globe: Disgust, outrage greet news of Tsarnaev cover in Boston – ”A flattering picture of a shaggy Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover of the latest issue of Rolling Stone, which some have compared to portraits of Bob Dylan and Jim Morrison, has sparked a raft of criticism throughout the region, from local officials who called the cover tasteless to merchants vowing to keep the issue off their shelves.”

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Matt-MC/69207889 Matt MC

    Texas is not the only state to pass such laws. Here in Wisconsin, a similar law was passed but is on hold until the courts determine its constitutionality. I’d like you to talk about the coordinated efforts of these GOP lawmakers. Ironic, as they advocate for state’s rights, but act across state borders, much like the federal government. Also, Tom Ashbrook is my hero. Firefighters and school teachers have nothing on you, my man!

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

      The first rule of ALEC club is “Don’t talk about ALEC club”.

  • Wm_James_from_Missouri

    I prefer to think that this was the big story this week !

    “Scientists Make Genetic Discovery That Could Treat Down Syndrome”

    http://www.christianpost.com/news/scientists-make-genetic-discovery-that-could-treat-down-syndrome-100415/

    “Down Syndrome’s Extra Chromosome Silenced in Lab Cells”

    http://www.technologyreview.com/news/416352/potential-treatment-for-down-syndrome/

    • 1Brett1

      Both articles were interesting, yet they each were about different medical approaches with different objectives and potential outcomes. 

      If chromosomes are treated during pregnancy a woman would have to be tested to determine whether the fetus had Down Syndrome. If there were signs already present, chromosome manipulations would have to reverse developmental effects already present, which go beyond cognitive development. This seems unlikely once a fetus has developed.

      In the second article, the emphasis was especially on treatment after the fact, so to speak, which would treat only some of the cognitive effects of Down Syndrome. The physical effects would not be treated.

    • Jasoturner

      It raises some interesting moral questions.  Is the conscious decision to change the genetic makeup (or genetic expression) of a living human being necessarily desirable?  Is Down Syndrome incompatible with a fulfilling and worthwhile life?  If not, what exactly are we trying to address?

      I could go off on a tear here, noting that the pursuit of excellence (and therefore happiness) is the pursuit of individual excellence, and that our innate abilities are of rather secondary importance.  For instance, I may be a horrible artist, but if I am the best artist I can be, if I can improve, it provides deep satisfaction.  Having more innate talent would not necessarily make learning and producing art more enjoyable.

      On the other hand, there are certainly pleasures that can only be experienced via rather nuanced and intricate patterns of thought or action.  And so one could well argue that anything that improves our physical or mental capabilities opens doorways to happiness/satisfaction that we might otherwise not even comprehend.  In this case, genetic manipulation might be considered a moral imperative.

      Not taking a side here; just think there are interesting issues surrounding this potential treatment.

      • Wm_James_from_Missouri

        I always enjoy your feedback and your post. FYI, I am in the, “the other hand”, second camp, for now.

  • 1Brett1

    More nonsense from the front lines—and those crazy Republicans (and their overly restrictive and invasive use of government)—in the war on women:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/19/us/perry-signs-texas-abortion-restrictions-into-law.html?_r=0

    • pete18
      • jefe68

        And yet the GOP sees fit not helping children get assistance with food by wanting to defund the SNAP program. The hypocrisy of regressive right is clear, as your comment seems fit to point out. You go on about abortion and then wash your hands of the real cost of bringing a child into the world the second the child is born.

        • William

           There is something wrong with SNAP when it advertises in Mexico. Which was started under the Bush II years and terrible idea. Like Bill Clinton said we need to end the welfare state and get people working.

          • Don_B1

            The budget cutting (sequestration) of the Tea/Republicans is the chief reason for the slow recovery and minuscule job growth, as stated this week by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, a Republican appointee, states this week, and what has been the call of most salt-water economists and is backed by empirical data. So it continues to be hard for anyone, not to mention those not working for extended periods, to find a job that pays enough to get off SNAP.

            You just cannot have it both ways.

            Go to Jared Bernstein’s blog (“On the Economy”) for the THIRTEEN and counting posts where he has itemized the job cuts that have been forced by the irrational demands of the sequestration legislation.

          • William

             Ha…nonsense…reductions in spending growth…Bernanke “Mr. Printing Press”….

      • 1Brett1

        The difference is you are providing a link from last February. That bill was defeated. Another difference is your link is an opinion piece. I provided an actual news article on a bill that was passed into law this week, shoved in at the last minute by Rick Perry. So, there is no tit-for-tat here, contrary to what you have tried to do.

        • Ray in VT
          • 1Brett1

            Yep…and there’s also the Republican legislature in Ohio, Wisconsin…

          • Ray in VT

            There’s also Ken Cuccinelli in Virginia, who’s still supporting banning bjs and the like.

          • 1Brett1

            He’s also running for governor…and is ahead in the polls! I’m ashamed of my home state!

          • Ray in VT

            I thought that I just saw a poll that had him down 43-39.  You’re in VA?  I don’t recall you having said that previously.  You spent some time as a kid in Alabama, right?  Feel free to tell me if you think that I’m being too nosy.

          • 1Brett1

            I’ve said so quite a few times..

            Alabama?!?! Never!!!

          • Ray in VT

            I must be remembering the comments of someone else.

        • Don_B1

          But you missed (and I can’t believe you would not have mentioned it if you had known) the actions that the TX Senate took in the process of passing the bill:

          All women attending had the handbags and other parcels inspected, and all tampons, maxi-pads, etc., confiscated by state troopers as potential projectiles, while others were permitted to enter carrying guns, etc.

          And Republicans claim they are not waging a war on women?

          See:

          http://crooksandliars.com/juanita-jean/texas-senate-removes-tampons-mass-des

          • 1Brett1

            I think I talked about the tampon thing last week. 

        • pete18

           Just because they lost the battle doesn’t mean they’re not fighting the war.

  • 1Brett1

    Initially, I thought the Zimmerman verdict something not unreasonable to live with (the jury came to their verdict, etc.) and was glad the trial was over. I didn’t really consider the call for a DofJ investigation to be credible; I even thought it counter-productive. But, between Zimmerman’s many inconsistencies in his story (many of which sound like lies), the juror’s comments about how the jury came to their decision, the shoddy police work in compiling evidence and in doing a thorough investigation, and considering how inadequately the prosecution argued its case, maybe the DofJ should do an investigation. 

    • Francis_Unger

      The DOJ should also investigate the judge, the jury, and the police for civil rights violations.

      • jefe68

        Do you really think that posting childish comments that you’re making some kind of valid point?

        • Francis_Unger

          The police were racist for not supporting the prosecution of George Zimmerman.

          The judge was racist for allowing a jury with 6 white women and no blacks.

          The jury was racist for not convicting Zimmerman when it is obvious he is guilty.

          When you are found to be racist, you should be convicted of civil rights violations.

          • 1Brett1

            Great, another donniethebrasco cluttering up this forum.

          • jefe68

            I think I’m going to ignore this rube and go listen to some Lee Konitz play These Foolish Things…

          • Don_B1

            I think you have a point, and I disagree with jefe and Brett in this way:

            1) The lead investigating police officer did recommend prosecution of George Zimmerman; it was the Chief of Police who overruled and then had to resign or was fired. It was that individual that went off the tracks.

            2) The prosecution could have rejected some of the jurors until a Black person was chosen; but the judge also gave a charge to the jury that basically forced them to find Zimmerman innocent by making Zimmerman the only person that could use Florida’s “Stand Your Ground Law.” What right to “stand his ground” did Tayvon Martin have, and why didn’t he have one expressed in the jury charge? Is it at least partly the fault of the prosecution?

            3) The jury could have used “nullification” but what group of white women who had just been shown a picture of a muscular, tall Black man with a bare chest, would not have that long-inculcated fear of Black men raised to a level where that would not be possible, even if it was still below their radar?

            4) This is not necessarily the overt racism of Jim Crow days, but it indicates a willingness to discriminate against Black people.

    • William

       The police and FBI did not find anything they could charge Mr. Zimmerman with and the jury came to the same decision. It is alarming to see some people wanting to exert mob rule when they don’t agree.

      • Don_B1

        The lead investigating police officer recommended charges against George Zimmerman,, but the Police Chief overruled  them.

        • William

           It turns out the Chief was correct. As was the FBI and now the jury.

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

      I just want to know who’s gonna veto that hack juror’s being fine with Zimmerman going back to being a “neighborhood watchman” (or whatever he is.)

      • 1Brett1

        I thought the juror should have been passed over in the initial pool; she clearly was biased. I was also shocked at what she said about how they reached their verdict. It sounded more like “eennie, meenie, miney, mo” in  conjunction with “I like that Zimmerman guy” than a verdict based on any facts (or lack of facts).

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

          Yeah, it’s saying something when several other jurors, in full anonymity, said “we voted to acquit, but jeez she’s out there”.

    • hennorama

      1Brett1 – I was with you until “But, …”

      Zimmerman didn’t testify, as is his right.  All jurors and juries have their own individual and group points of view.  The police and the investigators may have made mistakes, but that is nothing new.

      The prosecution had a weak case.  They made their best arguments, but lost.

      Case closed.  Let any civil actions sort out the rest.  The DOJ has more pressing matters.

      • 1Brett1

        Juries should follow the law and not make opinions based on impressions from narratives. I would not have had a problem if the juror had said there wasn’t the evidence to convict Zimmerman. 

        As far as Zimmerman testifying; correct, he did not testify, but his statements to police were admissible in court and were used to create a narrative/version of events in court. The prosecution did not do a very good job of punching holes in his story, And, it wasn’t simply a matter of a weak case on their part but also a matter of their not being particularly competent. 

        • hennorama

          1Brett1 – I’m not unsympathetic to your concerns, and the concerns of Mr. Martin’s family, and many others. There may be plenty to criticize about this case, but the verdict is in.

          I’ll again invoke Blackstone’s formulation, that “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”

          Your concerns are properly left to public discussion, in my view.

          • 1Brett1

            I agree with the idea that it is better to let a guilty person go free than an innocent person go to jail.

          • hennorama

            Gotta say — I wasn’t expecting the President to come right out to agree with me, at least not today.

  • Francis_Unger

    I find the Rolling Stone cover offensive the same way people find it offensive if I wish them a Merry Christmas.

    • 1Brett1

      The war on Christmas is something made up by the Right as part of a culture war. It is fake; no one is offended by someone saying Merry Christmas, and you are not prevented from celebrating Christmas in your own way. 

    • jimino

      And I don’t care about your feelings the same way I don’t care about those fools.  But if that is how you want to identify your “thinking” process it does make your other comments more understandable.

  • Francis_Unger

    The Texas law is an overreach, but I believe that it is a reaction to a lack of any ability of the left to openly discuss any flexibility on the abortion issue.

    There are people who support Kermit Gosnell because he provided abortions to people who had “no choice.”

    • jefe68

      Your comment is not as clever as you think it is. You say the Texas abortion law is an overreach and then quickly move into blaming left for the intolerance of the extremist on the right.  

      Openly discuss what exactly?
      What exactly did you think happened in Texas? 
      Did you not pay any attention to the protest and State Senator Wendy Davis’s filibuster. All the evidence points to the extremist on the right in the GOP, who happen to have an unhealthy obsession with wanting to control women. How does one openly discuss anything with a group that is clearly documented as having a no compromise stance on the abortion issue, let alone all other social issues. Your next comment really shows the true colors, although they were clear after the coma. Flexibility indeed.

      • Francis_Unger

        The left’s support of partial birth abortions, 4th trimester abortions, and government funding to abortion providers has created a climate where the right will try to use the same tactics as the left to get as much as they can.

        The other problem that the left has is that the abortion law is not a law, it is an interpretation of the constitution.

        The left needs to stop trying to go through the courts and administrative procedures and try to pass a law that defines abortion instead of continuing to avoid the legislative process.

        If you watched the movie about Lincoln, the 13th amendment was passed by congress.  If the pro-choice and the pro-gay marriage supporters continue to try and avoid the legislative process, they will continue to have their positions eroded by legislatures.

        • 1Brett1

          Government finding to abortion providers? PLease clarify your  misleading statement.

          • Francis_Unger

             http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/public-funding-abortion

          • 1Brett1

            Yeah, I think everyone knows what the Hyde Amendment is.

          • HonestDebate1
          • 1Brett1

            Nope, Rep. Smith is wrong/ deliberately being misleading (not unlike the death panels meme). There are two separate accounting procedures to ensure money collected from/by private insurance does not get mixed with government funding. 

            That is an old argument, easily debunked a long time ago. Why do you rehash old, tired Republican arguments? Smith has been  a staunch opponent of all abortion for as long as he has been in office. Nice try, foolish little man. 

          • Francis_Unger

             http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/public_funding.html

          • 1Brett1

            Yeah, in cases of rape, incest, or if the woman’s life is in danger. Are you saying there should be no Medicaid funding for those conditions?

        • William

           It is interesting to see people called extremist right wing if they are pro-life.

          • jefe68

            My comment was in context to the legislators in Texas who happen to be pretty far the extreme of the right in the GOP.

            Funny how the pro-life people are not really interested in what happens to a children in need.

            Pro-life, an oxymoron if I ever heard one.

          • William

            Who said pro-life people are not interested in children in need?

          • J__o__h__n

            The House budget.

          • William

             700 billion in welfare not enough?

          • pete18

             Yes, much more caring and consistent to allow babies to be murdered and then overspend on food programs to relieve the guilt.

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

          “Partial birth abortion”???

          No more calls, please. We have a loser.

    • 1Brett1

      Which people support Kermit Gosnell? Provide proof of any people in support of Gosnell. 

    • MrNutso

      I’ll ignore the Gosnell comment, because no one supports what he did, and your response to the challenge does not match your assertion.

      With regard to flexibility, pro choice advocates must react to continually anti choice initiatives to totally ban abortion.  The example I will use is many European countries, where there the typical restrictions, such as waiting periods, but where an abortion can be obtained at many medical facilities as opposed to just dedicated clinics, and where there are not constant anti-choice demonstrations, harassment of those seeking abortions, and no shootings or bombings.

      So when the anti-choice forces agree that reasonable restrictions are sufficient and those seek an abortion should be able to get one then we can talk.

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

        Well, you’re on target as your usual.

        But I won’t ignore the Gosnell comment. It shows how everyone, even our “liberal media”, has swallowed the baitless hook of how just whispering the word “Gosnell” is a victory for the anti-choicers and a defeat for lefties.

        For some reason, there’s no meme about how “Gosnell is the kind of quack which happens when good womens’ clinics are driven out of business, and women are made to wait, travel, and jump through hoops”.

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

      Yes, if lefties only were nicer to righties they’d give up the war on women.

      And, by the way, that’s a pathetic attempt to link Texas’ law and Gosnell.

  • Jasoturner

    I think the Rolling Stone cover is actually quite interesting from an editorial standpoint.  You look at that photo, then you think about what he did, and it causes you to ask, “who IS this person?”

    In short, the cover exposes our inability to divine the minds of others, even if those minds are diabolical.

    I understand why people were offended, but I don’t think the photo selection was made without thought by the editors.  It would be interesting to hear them explain their decision making.

    • Francis_Unger

       The Rolling Stone cover is offensive and they will experience economic consequences to their 1st amendment protected speech.

      • nj_v2

        “Offensiveness” is not an inherent trait of an inanimate object, in this case a matrix of colored ink dots printed on a piece of paper.

        Readers or viewers may have various reactions to images.

    • Bluejay2fly

      Imagine if you did not print the names or show photos of terrorists or criminals. No Wiki page giving their bio, no long commentaries and speculations about their lives on TV, or no lengthy newspaper articles detailing every little facet of their disgusting acts, in essence not giving them the publicity they want. 

      • J__o__h__n

        That won’t deter the ones motivated by religion. 

    • hennorama

      Jasoturner – let’s consider:

      1. Prior to this cover, when was the last time the general public thought about Rolling Stone?

      2. Please refer to point 1.

    • John Cedar

      I agree, it certainly is interesting from an editorial standpoint.
      They attempted to improve the sex appeal and public image of a killer who killed innocent runners and a child spectator. They chose to use Photoshop in conjunction with the best photo they could find of him. They removed unattractive colors and shades from around his eyes,  smoothed his flesh tones and adjusted shadows. Hoping to play on the vocal minority who have commented on his looks and his possible innocence. Hoping to sell more copies and perhaps hoping to sway public opinions via his face image, modern photo science and favorable placement at the checkout line. And now this issue is being pulled in a number of retail outlest because of those choices. When an evil plan backfires it is poetic justice.

  • Francis_Unger

    The reaction to the Zimmerman verdict is best responded to by Booker T. Washington:

    “There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the
    troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the
    public. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his
    grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs. There is a
    certain class of race-problem solvers who don’t want the patient to get
    well.”

    • Steve_in_Vermont

      With Al Sharpton being at the head of the list. Why does the black community end up with people like this as their “spokesperson(s)”. Every time something happens (in the black community) out comes the racial/victim card. As long as this continues nothing will change, which is good for these folks such as Sharpton.

      • MB_from_MASS

        Truly spoken like a white guy from Vermont…

        Your opinion of Al Sharpton aside, there are a couple of basic problems with what you’re saying:

        1. These issues do not revolve around “the black community”. They revolve around persistent racism that affects “people” who happen to look a certain way, regardless of which “community” with which they’re associated. That’s the whole point. 

        2. If you think that Al Sharpton is the lead “spokesperson” then you should expose yourself to a more information. Black people don’t have a “spokesperson”. Sharpton is an advocate, as are many many other people (of varying races) who recognize that problems of racism have not miraculously disappeared from our society.

        People like “Franci_Unger” are part of the problem — wanting to pretend that racism persists only in the minds of people who want to promote their own ends. 

        Wake up.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          How do you know Steve’s race?

          Do you assume everyone in the “black community” thinks in lock step?

          • MB_from_MASS

            Ummm…

            “Why does the black community end up with people like this as their…” — kind of obvious…using the word “their” versus “our”.

            I guess you missed my point and/or didn’t actually read what I wrote. Using the phrase “black community” denotes a presumption that there is a group of black people that all think alike and have “spokespersons”…that’s basic racism right there.

  • Francis_Unger

    There is no bravery standing behind the first amendment shield supporting the Rolling Stone magazine.

    The human reaction to reject it and the political and economic actions to provide consequences to the Rolling Stone are brave and noble.

  • Ed75

    This past week the cause of canonization of Cardinal Thien moved forward, he was appointed the Cardinal of Siagon one week before it fell in 1975 and spend the next 13 years in prison in the north. Reminds one of Nelson Mandela.

    This coming week is World Youth Day in Brazil, a million plus young people in Buenos Aires. A new dvd movie about Our Lady of Guadalupe made for WYD is available at:

    http://www.thebloodandtherose.com

    Also Sister Dolores Hart (former movie star) has written a book ‘Ear of the Heart’ about contemplative life.

  • 1Brett1

    She also did her opponent (supposedly a friend of hers) dirty by announcing early and by even running. She told him she wouldn’t run if he announced he was going to, then she announced before he did…She’s as ruthless and underhanded as her father. 

    • Don_B1

      My question would be about the availability of a good Democrat that could beat Liz Cheney but not Mike Enzi, and then if publicity about the inevitable wild statements from Ms. Cheney could help defeat other Republicans in other states.

  • stillin

    AUGUST REIGER. August Reiger is missing from a graduation trip to Equador. August is a valdictorian with a free ride to U of O this fall…please do one hour on this amazing missing young man. WHERE IS AUGUST REIGER?  10 minutes down a trail ahead of his parents and little brother and he seems to have vanished. Please do one hour on AUGUST REIGER.

  • jimino

    Those who can not comprehend the message presented by juxtaposing the Rolling Stone cover photo of an apparently  normal 19 year old with an article detailing the evil done by that person and how he got to that point are indicative of the intellectual incuriousity and willful ignorance that infects a substantial portion of our country. 

    Or maybe they just can’t read and comprehend anything beyond a sound bite. 

    • nj_v2

      I find the fuss over the photo misplaced and even sometimes silly. It makes him look like a “rock star”? It “glamorizes” him? Really? Are there specific rules by which photos are judged to do this? The photo could be a yearbook photo. I believe it originated on his Facebook page.

      The New York Times used the same image for a Sunday cover in May. No outrage then.

      The various cover images (Time and elsewhere) of the Columbine and Newtown shooters didn’t generate any of this reaction, either.

      It’s much more interesting to look at the underlying narrative of the RS story: Fairly well-to-do (at least not poor) white boy, innocent, “normal,” somehow goes bad, turns into a “monster.”

      Which is typical of the narrative in the previous mass crime cases with white perpetrators, the difference being  that this case has “relgion” (or some perversion of it) woven in.

      If one looks at what the brothers say was there motivation—and i can find no reason to doubt or question it—it’s the same motivation of many of those who’ve become “radicalized” over how they view the foreign intervention in the Middle East.

      In their minds, their actions are a justified, logical, righteous reaction to what they see as criminal violence in various Middle Eastern countries.

      Yet this is rarely even acknowledged, let alone discussed in the corporate media.

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

        The photo has been run in other print places, I’ve heard.

        (Yeah, I don’t read a lot of print, so I haven’t seen it myself.)

        Maybe Rolling Stone should have done something to his face to make him look more sinister. I mean, Time magazine did that in the ’90s and that was some great photojournalism, wasn’t it?

        http://www.tc.umn.edu/~hick0088/classes/csci_2101/ojcovers.gif

        • nj_v2

          Time has been foolin’ with their covers for a loooong time.

          They gave Pope John Paul II devil horns in October, 1978. They did something similar with Billy Graham more recently.

          The Disqus image function isn’t working, so i can’t post the image. I’ll try again later. Web is acting glitchy on me today, even my photo-hosting site. The heat?

    • hennorama

      jimino – in this particular forum, it may also be a case of emotional proximity to the Boston Bombing.

  • BannedonNPR

    Banned on OnPoint

    Donniethebrasco

  • BannedonNPR

    You are thin skinned group thinkers who want to brainwash your listeners

  • BannedonNPR

    DonnietheBrasco is back, but is not allowed to comment on this government funded site.

  • BannedonNPR

    Only people who agree with the moderator will not be banned from this site.

  • BannedonNPR

    The site has blocked you from posting new comments. No email, no nothing.

  • BannedonNPR

    If I said anything that offended anyone, I should be given the same opportunity the Rolling Stone has.

    To change my post if it is unclear, or to rescind it if I made a mistake.

    Then ban me, but not just because I disagree with you.

    • Ray in VT

      You should be given the same opportunity at Rolling Stone.  Please, by all means, go try to sell yourself at the grocery store.

      • BannedonNPR

        Just agree with the hosts and you won’t be banned.

        • Ray in VT

          Maybe just don’t be a db and post things like “take a hit for me” or whatever regarding the caller yesterday.

    • Johan Corby

      Are you done?

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

    I really don’t know if Texas is “going tough on abortion”.

    I mean, defunding and closing all those clinics is gonna result in a bumper crop of unplanned pregancies, isn’t it? And that means women will get abortions. Some will just spend a “semester abroad”, an option for every well-off collegian with conservative parents. Others will be forced to go to the coathanger quacks.

    So, good luck getting “tough”, Texas. I await the further rocketing up the charts in coming years of health outcomes for children in Texas.

    Hey, between this and the Big Bidness Roundup Tour, I missed the part where Texas’ Republicans rootin-tootin rugged individuals have promised that they’re no longer interested in leaving the Union.

    • AC

      do you no how much money is to be made on healthy babies from young unwed girls that made a boo-boo? the gray market is an ugly, ugly thing
      also, TX isn’t going anywhere, not unless they want out-right war with neighboring states to steal their water. right now, they’re having some measure of success in legal battles. TX is in desparate need of water….

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

        Well, I’ll take your word on the baby-trafficking.

        But I’m really talking about the whiplash-shift of “We’re considering leaving the Union” speechifying that Perry took at. It seems like it should have been a toxic thing to do, comment on, or appear at at that time.

        However, the press corpse treated it seriously. And now that they’ve decided to stay with us (for now), that embarrassment is gone into the memory hold. IOKIYAR.

        What should be a punchline, a “win the argument” ultimate comeback to Governor Goodhair every time he opens his mouth, simple is forgotten.

        • AC

          no, don’t take my word for it – no real facts, just an observation from bitter feelings at this ridiculously long wait i’m having…& how it seems line skipping often occurs if you’re willing to pay. i have to learn the art of the ‘wink’. how are these people getting their case workers do ‘overlook’ the ethics????
          jk, i’d never be able to do it…

          what does IOKIYAR mean? is it a phonetic play on poor language, ‘I ok, I are’ ??

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

            Well, I do take your word on it, because you’re prospective parent whereas I have no parenting instinct or kids.

            IOKIYAR means “It’s okay if you’re a Republcian”. If a Dem governor of a blue state stepped within 100 miles of a “Secession: Pros and cons” forum, it’d be their political death for higher office. But since it was Rick Perry, it’s not even mentioned–it’s the “youthful indescretion” he had at the age of 50-something.

            IOKIYAR can be applied to many things.

          • HonestDebate1

            I find you interesting AC… and smart. I’m not sure I get you but I sincerely wish you good luck.

  • BannedonNPR

    Am I banned again?

    Donniethebrasco

  • Duras

    The democrats bowed down to republicans again to strike another blow to working Americans.  They came to a bipartisan agreement to tie student loan interest rates to market rates.

    Student loan interest rates are nothing more than taxes on working people, not unlike how state lottery systems are a poor man’s tax. 

    God knows the starting point for negotiations was never going to be Elizabeth Warren’s proposal to make the interest rates the same as what banks get when they take out government loans–.75%. 

    Working people don’t have elected representatives; there is rich man’s party A and there is rich man’s party B.

    • William

       There is an issue of fairness and economics. Is it fair for people that do not attend college to pay for people that do attend college? Even if it is only a loan, it is something the non-college bound person is not going to get. Also, do so much low costs loans actually encourage colleges to keep raising the cost of college? Obama and the GOP both want market forces to work with higher interest rates.

      • jefe68

        Ever hear of the idea of the common good for society? George Bailey explains it better than I can.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu2uJWSZkck

        • William

           The common good is on full display in Detroit.

          • jefe68

            So I guess in your world there are no health departments, you pay for private police protection and fire departments, no National Weather service, no FAA, no EPA, no banking regulations, no public schools or colleges, no public hospitals, well they are fast disappearing, so your social Darwinistic world is taking shape.

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

            Jefe, it’s called Williamworld for a reason.

            I understand it can be reached by jetpack.

          • HonestDebate1

            Absolutely bizarre.

      • Duras

        First, public institutions are bastions of opportunity for kids who have parents that never had the education or income to whisk their kids away to private schools. 

        Second, governors and other elected representatives are in charge of tuition.  I am thoroughly sick of this lie that university presidents are in charge of tuition.  

        At one time in this country, a student could work a summer job and pay for the year’s tuition.  Then Reagan got elected. 

        Moreover, why do you think California is the 9th largest economy in the world?  Why do you think Silicon Valley is located between Cal Berkeley and Stanford?  

        I bet you think high taxes would cause a brain-drain, while terrible universities in South Carolina has nothing to do with that state being the butthole of America. 

        • William

          Not sure about your train of thought but if the cheap loans go away the relationship between the customer and supplier will change and costs will decrease.

          • Duras

            They are public institutions, not free enterprise.   You are wrong.  Politicians have the price controls. 

            Just because you participate in the anti-intellectual fervor, doesn’t mean that you can’t look up how government is actually works.  

          • William

             I think you are missing my point, but you are free to express you thoughts as you see fit.

          • Duras

            You have no point because public universities are not subject to market forces, other than paying professor enough money so they best minds aren’t in the private sector.   Politicians control tuition and pay.  Public universities are tax payer funded, and tuition would be lower if we taxed the rich.  Fact. 

            You don’t have a point.  You are believing right wing lies.  That is all.

  • BannedonNPR

    Rolling Stone is offensive

    Ask Lawrence Odonnell

  • BannedonNPR

    Get ready to hide behind the First Amendment. Be brave like Lawrence O’Donnell and call out the RS for their unfortunate mistake.

  • Lando

    Regarding Tsarnaev, I think people are offended that he is good looking. People would feel a lot more comfortable if he “looked like a terroist.” They keep saying that Rolling Stone is glorifying him, but they’re not. I read the story last night and it was far less upsetting than the recent Frontline.
    I don’t get when people say we should not give him attention – shouldn’t we at least examine his life and what led to his murderous actions? This guy terrorized up my city and killed fellow citizens, I’d like to know why.
    The calls to put the survivors or first responders on the cover are silly. The article is about “Jahar” and makes sense to put him on the cover.

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

    Can we have a guest on a public radio program provide a bit more pushback against the meme of those who’re saying that Detroit and the US are headed in the same direction?

    Detroit is a great example of white flight over a few generations. And the current tea-party Michigan state government is not doing any Michigan municipality any favors.

    Perhaps we can have an hour on Benton Harbor, Michigan. That all-but-ignored story doesn’t make any “fiscal conservative” governor look good.

  • mairelena

    Rolling Stone is publishing an article, which I will be reading at the library this morning, that I understand addresses the banality of evil.  This young man by all appearances was normal, well adjusted, well liked and then committed this monstrous crime. The photo very well expresses the intent and meaning of the article.  What’s wrong with that?  What bothers me is that this young man looks so likable that, if he were walking through a gated neighborhood in Central Florida, would never have been questioned (or shot) by the local self-appointed community watchman.

  • jefe68

    What if George Zimmerman offered Trayvon Martin a ride home that rainy night?

    • 1Brett1

      You know what is really off? The timeline is way off from his version of events.

      Zimmerman’s non-emergency police call:

      At first Zimmerman gives a general description of Martin to the dispatcher. then:

      :58- “he’s coming towards me…”
      1:04- “he’s got his hand in his waistband, and he’s a black male” 
      1:17 “something’s wrong with him.” 
      1:23- “yep, he’s coming back to check me out.”
      1:24- he’s got something in his hands; I don’t know what his deal is.”
      1:37- “these a**holes, they always get away. Yep”
      He then starts to tell the dispatcher his location. then:
      2:06-  “sh*t, he’s running now.”
      It sounds like he gets out of his vehicle and starts moving at this point 
      2:09- He sounds breathy as he continues to give the dispatcher location info.
      2:24- the dispatcher seems to notice his breathiness and asks, “are you following him?”  He says, “yep.” The dispatcher says, “okay, we don’t need you to do that.”

      That is important, as it is only 15 seconds from the time Zimmerman has left his vehicle. Supposedly, Zimmerman had gone all the way to the main drag to get a street name and number on the sidewalk and was coming back on the sidewalk (before the “T”). 15 SECONDS! Does this sound long enough for Zimmerman to have gotten out of his vehicle and walked all the way to the main drag? 

      Zimmerman also said later he wasn’t following Martin. Some reports said he stopped following Martin when the dispatcher told him to, which would have been [2:24].     

      2:34- the dispatcher asks, “what is your name?”  He says, “George” then he says, “he ran!”
      When the dispatcher asks him where his vehicle is parked 3:19 he slowly answers:
      3:23- “I don’t know.” 
      That is a full 1 minute and 5 seconds after he was asked not to follow Martin. So Zimmerman took 15 seconds to reach his destination at the main drag and had turned around and was on his way back, but at 1 minute and 5 seconds after that, after he was told to stop following Martin he wasn’t even back to the “T” where supposedly Martin attacked him?? Hmmm, doesn’t at all sound like Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle but lingering near where he saw Martin go. He also was cagy about giving his home address. (By the way, he never gives the dispatcher an address of where police could meet him–after he supposedly got out of his vehicle to get an address–he just says to have them call him when they get there.) 

      Zimmerman sounds kind of out of it like he was on drugs, but we don’t know that. He was not drug tested by authorities like Martin was by the coroner.

      The timeline of the call’s communication doesn’t jibe with his story.

      • jefe68

        I think Zimmerman is a somewhat misguided in his belief system. Which in my view makes him out to be the kind of person who should never had bought a gun in the first place. 

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

          how did you determine what his belief system is?

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

        perhaps he should have been charged with loitering?

  • http://www.facebook.com/anita.paul.5680 Anita Paul

    Detroit was already in financial trouble.  What did the Republican goverment do cut taxes for business and now the workers have to pay.  When are politicians going to learn cut taxes do not help economies.

  • ChevSm

    Great to hear Pierre Thomas on the show!

  • Joanne Brown

    I think it is significant that city retirees in Detroit could lose their pensions because of the Detroit bankruptcy. I believe that originally bankruptcy was part of the equity court, or something like that. Why ever is it more equitable for investors to get paid ahead of workers? The pensions were part of the city employees’ pay and should take precedence over any other claims.

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

    Wait, Tom, who has to win who over for Obamacare?

    The most conciliatory Democratic president in my memory has to convince Republicans?

    How many public radio guests do we have to have in one place until someone mentions that the cry “Defund Obamacare” is basically a sui generis hissy fit?

    I remember in the 1980s when Ronald Reagan got a law enacted that every Democrat in the House and Senate had a little tantrum and every Dem governor just whined like a baby.

    Oh, wait.

    • pete18

       The answer would be that democrats have to convince the public, the majority of whom are against Obamacare.

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

        If you wanted to get your Soc Sec and called your Tea Party congresscritter and they lied to you…

        Actual, I’m gonna stop here.

        I’m not talking to you, but simply past you to any fool who thinks you have a point. (THi s is public radio, after all.)

        Funny thing about all the TruePrincipledConservatives from Galt’s Gulch. They ignore the idea that red-state, right-wing district conservatives who have Republicans representing them in the Gov’s mansion, House and Senate have paid for and deserve constituent services such as Social Security, interstate and US highways, and the Affordable Care Act.

        • pete18

           This is a very interesting conversation you are having with yourself, don’t let me interrupt. However, whenever you want to get back to my point it was about Obamacare (which was not supported by the majority of voters when it was passed and has grown even more unpopular since they have found out more about it) not social security or the interstate highways (both of which are popular).

          The voters were sold a bill of false promises on what the program was to deliver and that’s becoming clearer even to the most starry eyed balloter.

          The latest one is pretty striking given the blatant guarantee that Obama  wrapped it up in.

          Here’s the President from the White House’s “You can keep your own insurance page.”
          http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/3

          THE PRESIDENT: Here is a guarantee that I’ve made. If you have insurance
          that you like, then you will be able to keep that insurance. If you’ve
          got a doctor that you like, you will be able to keep your doctor. Nobody
          is trying to change what works in the system. We are trying to change
          what doesn’t work in the system. 

          Here’s the latest from the Health Care.gov web page answering the question about whether you can keep your own doctor, after realizing that they can’t really deliver on this specious pledge:

          “Depending on the plan you choose in the Marketplace, you MAY be able to keep your current doctor.”

          https://www.healthcare.gov/can-i-keep-my-own-doctor/

          That’s about what most of Obama’s promises have been worth.

          Now I know you as the world’s savviest media critic interested in reporting to us on what politicians have been lying to us, will soon have a long report castigating the president’s sham proposal.

          Make sure you refer to all those reliable news outlets of yours, I can’t wait to read it.

  • sickofthechit

    Tsarnaev’s picture should be a wakeup call to all those who think that the use of force and incarceration is the way to defeat any would be terrorist.  Being a terrorist is a state of mind or belief.  It is not looking this way or that way, or wearing a certain head/face covering.  His picture shows that fact more clearly than any treatise on the subject.

    If we want to “defeat” or at least diffuse would be terrorists we need to be ready to engage in open conversation about the whys and wherefores of what they are trying to say.  There are many shades of grey here, and a “war” on “terror” or terrorism will never be won.  When we kill 10 innocents with a “targeted” drone attack where does their relatives righteous revenge/retribution end?  It doesn’t, it multiplies generation to generation.

    Learning to talk to one another is the only way to “win” here.
    Charles A. Bowsher

  • MelVT

    Please stop assuming only African Americans’ hearts are breaking about the Zimmerman verdict.  My 16-year-old son is tall and strong.  I worry about how other people see him even though he has the advantage of being white.  Some people just live their lives in fear of young men.  

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

    So many jokes about banning oral sex come to mind.

    Maybe if this weren’t a public radio forum…

  • onpoint080

    The Juror we just heard also said (paraphrase) in reference to Trayvon Martin doing much that led to his own death – that “when George confronted him, .. . . whatever Trayvon did”  it led to his death.

    Hmm – confronted means an “to face in hostility and defiance” and also the juror didn’t know exactly what Trayvon did.

    How could she say “not guilty” with such a lack of knowledge about what confront means and what Trayvon did.  George confronted him – wasn’t Trayvon acting in self defense?

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       She was speculating based on the question she was asked by Cooper IF Zimmerman had confronted Martin.  There was no evidence introduced in the trial that Zimmerman confronted Martin but there was evidence that Martin introduced Zimmerman.

    • MrNutso

      That juror makes it seem like Zimmerman actually talked to Martin.  I don’t recall Zimmerman ever saying he did.  Maybe if Zimmerman politely asked Martin what he was doing and Martin said he was walking home that would have been the end of it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1457438870 Amy Files

    “Yes” to Tom’s question about Obama winning me over on the Affordable Healthcare Act.

    I live in mid-coast Maine – there are very few full-time jobs up here that offer health insurance. Most people get by working 3 or 4 jobs and scraping together enough money to live. Most people LOVE living up here but there is absolutely NO WAY they can afford the $400-800 a month it would cost to buy an individual health care plan (much more if you have a family!). And when you can afford these plans – they often come with $4500+ deductibles which essentially makes them a catastrophic plan and not something that anyone can afford to use if they need to pay that kind of money out-of-pocket before any coverage kicks in.

    Based on the information that the Kaiser Foundation is putting out – as of the end of the year myself and many people I know will finally be able to afford to buy healthcare plans for ourselves. The cost for individuals to purchase is set to be almost half of current rates.

    People say that the problem is that healthy individuals think they don’t need healthcare and don’t purchase it. The problem is that it is currently absolutely unaffordable to most individuals, if getting it through your employer is not an option.

    With the Affordable Care Act I see healthcare actually becoming affordable. 

    This gives me hope for the future.

  • MrNutso

    I agree with the racial sentiments expressed, but I also believe there is a bigger issue that is not being addressed.  The culture that makes people confrontational.  I think the simple fact is that if George Zimmerman did not follow Trayvon Martin as the police dispatcher said, but got back in his car and waited for the police to arrive, Trayvon Martin would be alive and 18 months older.  I don’t care how many robberies there were, how Martin looked or what he was doing.  

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

      But that’s almost the denoument to me.

      A series of laws and rules made George Zimmerman, for all purposes, an “undercover” concealed-carrying armed security guard in a private community.

      Who’d ever heard of such a thing? How could that possibly end well?

      • MrNutso

        What could possibly go wrong?

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      …and if Martin didn’t take a swing at Zimmerman or if Martin simply when home when he was ‘running’ from Zimmerman or if he called 911 he would be alive today.  Many ‘what ifs’ with this tragedy.

      • John

        Martin was standing his ground, it is not his duty to flee right?

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

        Yeah, keep up your crocodile tears.

        If only Martin were armed and shot first.

  • toc1234

    Hey Tom, bravo, another show with various viewpoints… oh wait…

    keep up the mediocre work!

    • John

      Agree with you, pretty one sided conversation on Zimmerman here. But rather than complaining maybe you should raise a good counter point. There is a chance (however small) it will get read on air.  

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

    Police sabotaging prosecution?

    Judge not allowing the word “race” in a trial in FL?

    Jeez, I’m glad I don’t live in Florida.

    Did Gov. Rick “Bat Boy” Scott actually say “There’s no problem with the laws”?

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Jay (the caller) just stated that Martin was ‘cornered’ by Zimmerman.  There was no evidence introduced that Martin was ‘cornered’.  However, there was evidence that Martin had 4 minutes to go home 300 feet after Ms. Jeantel said he started running in ‘fear’ of Zimmerman.  He decided not to go home or call 911.

  • HonestDebate1

    Hey guess what, the stand your ground law is used by more blacks than whites in Florida. There goes another myth. It is not inherently racist. 

    http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/fatal-cases

    • MrNutso

      Guess what, the sky is green.  Stand your ground laws should not exist.  People should be required to leave peacefully rather than be confrontational.

      • HonestDebate1

        I would rephrase it and say the stand your ground law should not have to exist. It is a result of duty to retreat which is insane.

        • John

          Here is a question for you. Do you think the stand your ground law as it is written in Florida today has any problems with it?

          • HonestDebate1

            I don’t know enough about it to say. But I do think the duty to retreat laws were insane and unjust. To my way of thinking none of it is needed. If you are charged with murder then let the facts and evidence determine the outcome as it relates to the specific case. More laws trying to force everything into a box just cloud the issue.

          • John

            I agree with you that duty to retreat laws are insane and unjust. I also believe that stand your ground laws are equally insane and unjust. I agree that none of it is needed. But for me the laws are the issue not clouding it. I see all the race arguments as clouding the issue. People are invoking race because they think that is the only way Zimmerman will be punished. The fact is Zimmerman was acquitted by a Jury of his peers who were presented the evidence of the case. They found there was reasonable doubt as to whether or not he broke the stand your ground law so it was their duty to acquit him. In my view his case is closed. If people have a problem with that don’t blame the jury, don’t blame race, blame the legislators (both liberal and conservative) for their whack-a-mole approach to law making. Sh*t happens, that doesn’t mean we need a law for it.

          • HonestDebate1

            Well said and I agree. The irony is the pressure brought because of race caused the State to over reach and they got nothing. Zimmerman should have been charged with what they could prove under the law without regard to public sentiment.

    • 1Brett1

      “Hey guess what, the stand your ground law is used by more blacks than whites in Florida. There goes another myth. It is not inherently racist.”

      WHo here is claiming it is inherently racist? This is just another straw man you are building so you can knock it down 

    • hennorama

      He Bends To Tea – Hey guess what, you’re

      WRONG. (again, but adding “again” is beyond superfluous at this point.)

      Yet another “big picture/forrest [sic] thing” from a member of AWKWARD.

      (Angry White Keybangers Who Are Really Dense)

      In the linked article, there were 133 “Accused” (who “used” SYG). They were listed by Race as follows:

      76 “White”
      44 “Black”
      10 “Hispanic”
      1 “American Indian”
      1 “Other”
      1 “Unknown

      You really need to be more careful in how you quote your AWKWARD sources.

      As Bill Clinton said, “It’s arithmetic.”

      “Sir.”

      • HonestDebate1

        I corrected it, thanks.

        • hennorama

          He Bends To Tea – when it comes to you and anything involving arithmetic – you should keep both your day and night jobs.

          • HonestDebate1

            Do you have math to refute the stand your ground law is used successfully by more blacks than whites in Florida?

          • hennorama

            Did I make any such claim?

          • HonestDebate1

            Yes, quit talking in circles. If I’m bad at math (I’m actually quite good) as you suggest then the stand your ground law is not used successfully by more blacks than whites in Florida. The stand your ground law is used successfully by more blacks than whites in Florida.

          • hennorama

            He Bends To Tea – TYFYR. A few questions:

            Why did you write “Yes, quit talking in circles”?
            Did I ever suggest you are “bad at math?”
            Did I ever even use the word “math” in my posts?
            I corrected your AWKWARD error, and pointed out that you either misquoted or misunderstood your AWKWARD sources.

            Did you misunderstand that, too?

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

            I heard it was 30% blacks

    • HonestDebate1
  • emdonpoint

    Is there a question whether race is an issue in this case?  Just look at who is concerned about their children – African Americans.  The white  population is not worrying about what to say to their teenage sons.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Shouldn’t all parents of all races tell their children to avoid physical altercations because you’ll never know if it can get out of hand.  That seems to be the clear take away from this tragedy.

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

        You are an embarrassment to my race.

  • JHWillson

    Crocidile tears from Tom, Jack and his guests on the future loss of retiree pension benefits. You can bet that if it were a major election season, the Obama Administration would be all over the issue. Just more left wing hypocracy. Look at the illegal, unequal and unfair treatment of the Delphi Salaried Retirees (former GM employees) during Obama’s vaunted Auto Bailout!

    https://www.delphisalariedretirees.org/delphi/index.php/what-we-are-fighting-for

    The municipal unions will have their day in court, we shall see how much weight it carries. Will the law prevail or will there be another intervention?

    • MrWakiki

      I don’t understand this — do you think republicans “in an election year” would not be supportive of employees’ benefits?

      • JHWillson

        Hopefully the elected representatives will do everything in their power to assist their constituents. That is their job. We will have to wait and see just how much political muscle the unions wield and just how high it is on the current administration’s agenda.

  • sanders25

    In the aftermath of the verdict of the Georges Zimmerman case, I have
    read many of my FB friends being outraged over the outcome.  Though I
    try to understand the Martin family’s pain, protesting against this one
    particular case seems more like missing the forest for the tree.  I
    personally believe that if Zimmerman had killed Martin with a knife or
    some other ‘uncivilized’ forms of weapon, pro-gun folks would have
    accused him of being cruel, since he used the wrong type of weapon.  He
    might have also been convicted.  Which is to explain the strange love
    affair of people in this country with their guns. 
    A recent study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that a
    white person is five times as likely to kill himself with a gun than
    be shot by another person.  Meanwhile, for each African-American who
    commits suicide, five others are shot dead by another.

    And the common denominator here is ‘GUN”. 

    When
    you live in a country where common citizens are more armed than the
    police forces, something is terribly wrong with the picture. And it is
    said that in the good old USA, there are actually more guns than there
    are people. We are the most armed country in the developed world by far,
    with also the highest gun related crimes and the highest prison
    population,  by far.  With the gun manufacturers constantly looking for
    new buyers, they have used their political machine, a.k.a the NRA to
    launch an amazing campaign as to why everyone in this country should be
    packing.  They have twisted the 2nd Amendment to the max in order to
    make you believe that this was the real intentions of the Founding
    Fathers: a wild wild west society where everyone should be prepared to
    withstand an eventual assault by the government.   

    Now,
    instead of protesting against this one crime, the people in the streets
    should be up in arms, and force the US Congress to renew the Assault
    Weapon Ban.  As we are writing this piece, there will be dozens of
    murders in the streets of Chicago, Baltimore, Los Angeles, Miami … you
    name the city.  I know that many point out to a great injustice being
    done to Trayvon Martin and his family.  But that’s what happens in a
    system (read Florida) that is bought by the gun lobby, and I mean both
    Democrats and Republicans.  The laws are so absurd that the Sanford
    Police Department didn’t even care about doing a normal investigation. 
    And while we’re at it, we should not blame the jury and the prosecutors
    for working with what they had in the Zimmerman trial.  The real culprit
    is the Sanford PD that didn’t even care calling the family of the
    victim for about 48 hours after the incident, although they were in
    possession of his cell phone.  In any normal and respected
    city/state/country, someone who commits murder does not get the benefit
    of the doubt, and does not get to be sent home free with his gun after a
    botched investigation.

    Finally, we have an
    irresponsible news media in this country that is more focus on ratings
    than giving real news.  While Fox News is still fixated on the Benghazi
    attacks (sigh!), CNN, MSNBC and others spent weeks covering this one
    case, making us all feel like race crime is at an all-time high, while
    the inverse is happening.  And despite all you hear in the news, the
    outcome of this case will have marginal consequences to our daily lives
    at best. 

    The lesson to be learned here is not that
    ‘the system is biased against certain group (s) or ethnicity’ (though it
    may well be), but instead how our ‘god’, the almighty gun is destroying
    so many lives in this country.  Let’s wake up people and accept the
    fact that we’re not better off with that many guns and assault rifles in
    the streets.  If you don’t believe me, go ask Nancy Lanza.

  • Ray in VT

    History does get written by the winner by and large.

    • John

      Here we find one of the many flaws with the stand your ground law. Two people standing their ground, to the victor go the spoils. It’s like a wild west shoot out.

      • Ray in VT

        It certainly seems like it could end up that way.

  • J_Lawrence_H

    Re: Detroit’s fall.  More evidence of the destructive effects of suburbs
    and many municipalities serving the same area.  The wealth that was
    built in Detroit was domed when people with means were able to take
    their votes, and their children, across some imaginary line so they were
    no longer responsible for “those people”.  Imagine if Detroit were an
    incorporated metropolis like NYC; I don’t think we would be having this
    discussion.
    John H., Iowa

    • William

       Why were they ever responsible for “those people?”  Did the better life in the “burbs”, i.e. nice home, yard, better schools, lower crime, taxes, noise, political corruption, etc.. make the “burbs” much nicer?

      • J_Lawrence_H

         My point was that we have created artificial and harmful “boundaries” in our communities that leveraged human self-interest for destructive purposes.

        • William

          To a large extent the people running Detroit the last 50 years did create a  “no stay” zone for 1.5 million of it’s former residents. These people left when they saw what the future of the city was going to be and they were correct.

  • 1Brett1

    Some have said that finding Martin suspicious-looking because he was a black male and wearing a hoodie was an okay reason to report him to police and follow him, as there had been break-ins by black males in that community. 

    Nope, sorry. If there was a person on the loose/at large who had just committed a crime, and police were looking for him, and Martin fit the description of the criminal, then that would have been a possible valid reason. But simply because crimes had been committed in the past by black males was not a legitimate reason for Zimmerman to profile Martin. That is racial profiling, and saying black males look suspicious because crime has in the past been committed by black males is, essentially, a racist attitude.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Zimmerman said it was Martin’s behavior, not his race that made him specious.  He was walking slowly peering into the back windows of homes.  He thought this was suspicious especially because it was raining.

      You are implying that Zimmerman shouldn’t have called the police?

      • 1Brett1

        No, my comment was about whether profiling is good and what is and is not legitimate profiling. 

        Zimmerman did not just call police now did he? 

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           The profiling question is a good one.

          However, the implication is Zimmerman shouldn’t have called the police.  I haven’t heard anyone int the ‘civil rights’ community address this explicitly but that is the clear implication.

          Let’s say the police arrived before the altercation.  Hopefully the police would have quickly sorted out the situation and sent Mr. Martin on his way.  Would the ‘civil rights’ community be OK with that or would they still be outraged?

          • 1Brett1

            I don’t really have a problem with police being called, but then I have the opinion {OPINION, mind you} that Zimmerman overreacted and misread the whole situation from the beginning.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Well, clearly he was wrong about Martin but hopefully the police would have sorted it out without a hassle.

            You may not have an issue with calling the police but it appears many people do.  The irony is Zimmerman is about as anti-racist as possible based on his documented personal history.

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

            You really oughta stop embarassing yourself saying “police” without reading up on the embarrassing conduct of those cops.

            Actually, strike that: I pray you find yourself on their wrong side when you want justice.

          • HonestDebate1

            “The irony is Zimmerman is about as anti-racist as possible based on his documented personal history”…. and an extensive probing FBI investigation.

    • hennorama

      I’m not involved in Neighborhood Watch, but I am a neighborhood watcher.

      I walk my dog at all hours of the day and night, and occasionally observe things that seem out of place – a vehicle, a noise, an open window, lights, motion, even the occasional odd odor. Typically, I calmly observe the situation for a few moments, and it resolves itself. If there’s no resolution and my Spidey sense is still tingling, I just dial the police non-emergency number to report my observations. No biggie.

      So I can understand how someone might report their suspicions to police, regardless of whether their suspicions are biased or unfounded. It’s a “better safe than sorry” sort of thing, at least that’s why I do it. I’d really feel bad if I saw something but said nothing, and there was a negative outcome.

      But I would never never ever follow anyone or anything, and I don’t understand why one ever would. That’s nutso, regardless of the size of your dog, the strength of your arm, or the caliber of your firearm.

      Let the pros handle it. Get back home, safe.

      Just my $0.02.

      • 1Brett1

        Reporting him to police is one thing. Pursuing him/following him, as you say, and shooting him, killing him, well that, that’s another. But, while perhaps hastily written (often I am writing one of these then a student rings the doorbell), my comment was about profiling. 

        • hennorama

          1Brett1 – TYFYR.

          I understand that your post was about profiling; I was simply relating my personal perspective and experience. Based on that experience, I can relate to those who take “see something, say something” to heart, but not to the extremes that you described.

          Thanks again.

  • HonestDebate1

    Here’s Obama deluding himself and the country about Detroit:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6Su5mjQSaE&feature=player_embedded

    The problem in Detroit is liberal policies run amok for decades. Welcome to the new normal:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hhJ_49leBw

    • jimino

      Capitalism built Detroit.

      Capitalism destroyed Detroit.

      That “creative destruction” inherent in capitalism doesn’t feel so creative sometimes.

      • HonestDebate1

        Nah, it was the liberals.

    • Duras

      Really?  I guess those free trade agreements had nothing to do with it. 

      • HonestDebate1

        Maybe a little but nothing compared to the unions and decades of Democrat rule.

        • Duras

          Why would CEOs move a company to another country when it will cost just as much as labor in America (if not more) to pay for the tariffs? 

          In fact, if labor unions had achieved the power that Japan’s labor unions currently have, a CEO could never move a company overseas because the union would fire him or her. 

          But neo-Feudal attitudes such as yours is the reason why the middle class has been gutted.  

          • Duras

            The conservative mind at a certain point is just entertainment value.  I mean, who argues that the reason why there is unemployment is because there are too many high paying jobs…?

            Do they actually think about what they are saying? 

            Grow a brain.

  • MrWakiki

    One of the things that doesn’t seem to get discussed in the Zimmerman case is ‘vigilante’ 

    Had Zimmerman been a police officer, the boy would still be a live. Anyone who has ever walked down the street and had a person stop next to, question what they were doing, react much differently than if it was a police officer.

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

      I’ll do you one better: Had Zimmerman been “Paul Blart, Subdivision Cop”, Martin would still be alive.

      • MrWakiki

        batta boom.. nice.

        I don’t care white or black — I do not want to be stopped by a vigilante tonight when I go for a walk..

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

          The next time a genuine licensed, bonded, trained, background-checked, uniformed security guard (armed or not) asks me to do something, I’ll thank my stars.

        • HonestDebate1

          Zimmerman didn’t stop Martin.

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

            Really, just give up your crap, polite hack.

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

          what about a friendly neighbor?

    • HonestDebate1

      Beat a cop’s head into the concrete and you will likely be shot.

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

    Susan Davis: “Driven senators of both parties to distraction?”

    Please don’t FalseEquivalence the most obstructionist Congress. This is off-the-charts obstruction.

    And any idea that the GOP won’t destroy the filibuster the next time they’re the Senate majority is just a fantasy.

  • manganbr

    The kind of standing filibuster that we saw Wendy Davis enact in the Texas congress is one thing . . . but I’d be surprised if many Americans cared much about preserving the kind of phone-it-in, offsite, no-actual-filibustering-required- filibustering that goes on in the US senate. 

  • http://hammernews.com/ hammermann

    Unjust improper killing of an innocent person- it is by DEFINITION manslaughter (at least). Stand your ground be damned.

    I’ve been on both sides of this- I’m a night person and despise people turning on lights or dogs barking in a late night stroll, which I have a RIGHT to do. If you drive after 10pm in any smaller community you will get rousted by cops.

     I’ve also lived in a hellish tiny slice of ghetto where the next house was a crack house, another burned out, and a real estate woman shot to death outside the next house. I patrolled the area, and kept my house/aptmt safe for 2 1/2 years. I was young, it was the wild west, and I could play drums at 4am.

    Trayvon had a right to walk there and Zimmer had a right to be suspicious. He didn’t have a right to chase and challenge him with a gun- there was no right answer- the die was cast, and Trayvon had every right to be enraged, even violent at this pudgy wannabe cop (anybody else think Zimmer is more shifty-looking than Trayvon?) who appointed himself local guardian.

    I fully support defending oneself, inc w deadly force, but I hope there are federal charges. You can’t kill an innocent kid getting candy and just walk.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Martin was innocent of what?  Breaking Zimmerman’s nose and pounding his head into the sidewalk?

      There was no evidence that Zimmerman was chasing him or challenged him with a gun. If Zimmerman pulled his gun would Martin take a swing at him? That doesn’t even make sense.

    • OnPointComments

      I find it ironic and comical that you profile a jury that is comprised of nonblack women as unable to render a fair verdict.

  • MrNutso

    I call BS DICK Perry.  If you really believe what you said, you just pass a law banning abortions.  You know that won’t work, so you come up with politispeak and junk medicine to accomplish what know you can’t otherwise.

  • Kathy

    This is Rolling Stone, not People. The faux outrage is really just a silly bandwagon thing.

  • Bruce94

    For the juror who impeached the testimony of Rachel Jeantel because she thought Rachel was “uneducated and lacked communication skills,” let me translate the phrase “creepy-ass cracka” for you. 

    creepy:   paranoid and possibly delusional as, for example, when
    you feel so threatened by an unarmed teen in a hoodie walking home at 7:00 p.m. on a Sun. evening in a mixed neighborhood that you ignore the directive of the police dispatcher and the cardinal rule of the Neighborhood Watch program of which you are ostensibly Captain, that is, not to pursue or confront the person you have just erroneously profiled as “one of these [criminal] #$%-holes who always gets away.”

    ass:   from which we obtain asinine as, for example, when you hide behind an asinine FL state self-defense statute and stand your ground principle to justify use of deadly force even though all the evidence indicates you provoked the fight regardless who threw the first punch and repeatedly lied or made contradictory statements about your actions in order to cover your ass, thus, losing all credibility and predictably refusing to take the stand on your own behalf.

    cracka:    variation of “cracker” for a vigilante living in Georgia or Florida, who after reflecting on the fact that he had killed an innocent, unarmed kid, tells the nation that in retrospect he regretted nothing and would have done nothing different because “it was God’s plan.”  Cracka also applies to any juror who is so clueless after listening to the dispatch call or Hannity interview that they would dare say that Zimmerman’s “heart was in the right place.”

    I want to assure anyone reading this that my usage of the term “paranoia” is strictly non-professional.  I’m neither a lawyer nor doctor.  I know some on this blog were offended the other day when a practicing psychiatrist described Zimmerman’s behavior in general terms like “paranoia,” “overreaction,” and “unstable” based on what the public has already learned from the trial and his actions and statements.  If the doctor had used the DSM diagnosis (e.g. paranoid personality disorder) or had she implied that she had a professional relationship with Mr. Z, there might have been cause for concern over the propriety of her comment.  However, it’s unlikely she crossed any line given that many (if not most) professional mental health, medical and counseling associations have ethical codes, mission statements and strategic plans that promote social justice advocacy by their members on behalf of populations that have been historically oppressed, marginalized, abused or neglected.  Since Trayvon is not here to speak to these issues himself, I was pleased to see a psychiatrist weigh in on Zimmerman’s behavior and IMO draw very reasonable and obvious inferences from Zimmerman’s own actions and words.

    • William

       Rachael said “cracka” was not a racial slur anymore that “they” changed it around the year 2000 to mean either police or security guard. Which begs to ask? Who are “they?”

    • HonestDebate1

      I think she came off as uneducated (19 and can’t read cursive) and lacked communication skills. Ebonics is not good communication. She was also insensitive (“that’s retarded”) and rude. I am amazed at how many hold her to such a low standard and excuse her because they have low expectations for poor blacks. IMHO that can only mean they have low opinions of blacks, it’s sick.

      However, I think Ms. Jeantel’s testimony was largely unimpactful. I have seen many make these points but I haven’t seen anyone impeach her testimony. She seemed very believable.

      • jefe68

        Funny, I always think that you come across as uneducated on some level.

  • nj_v2

    A news story i posted earlier gets flagged and pulled? Really?

    Does one flag result in a post being pulled for “review”?

    It would be nice if On Point resected their listeners enough to provide basic posting guidelines and rules.

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

      I don’t know if it’s something that’s automatic. I’m going to post the title of this mini-series below.

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077212/

      • hennorama

        It might be entertaining/enlightening to try a few words/phrases, both with and without including a Weblink.

        This is not me volunteering, BTW ;-)

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

          Well, I can link to that John Jakes miniseries, but typing in the actual title doesn’t fly here.

          • hennorama

            Those fargin flying icehole bastages.

    • hennorama

      nj_v2 – Perhaps you’re in temporary double secret probation.  Change a word or two, then post again.

      • nj_v2

        Straight story, no comment…

        http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/07/18/ken_cuccinelli_the_republican_candidate_for_governor_in_virginia_wants_to.html

        Ken Cuccinelli Really Wants to Ban Oral Sex

        Ken Cuccinelli wants to keep kids safe from sexual predators by banning oral and anal sex—between consenting adults. On a website his campaign just launched, Cuccinelli, the Republican candidate for governor in Virginia, paints himself as the only real protector of children, because of his efforts as Virginia attorney general to reinstate a law banning all naked fun-time acts besides vaginal intercourse.
         
        Cuccinelli’s claim is that only by reinstating the Crimes Against Nature law, which Cuccinelli dishonestly calls the “Anti-Child Predators Law,” can the state of Virginia prosecute people who rape children. Never mind that rape is already illegal, child molestation is already illegal, and statutory rape is already illegal. His website says that a full 90 sexual predators may come off the sex offenders registry (the site is vague on how) if oral and anal sex isn’t banned outright for everyone, a claim that hopefully will remind voters that enforcing such a law would mean that adults having consensual sex in their bedrooms could become “sex offenders” if they’re caught.…

        (snipped)

      • nj_v2

        Tried posting just the straight story…”Your comment must be approved by a moderator.”

        There may be some sort of auto-review function that kicks in when a Web site link is included in a post, and/or there’s an amount of cut-and-pasted material that exceeds some threshold.

        Of course, there are no guidelines are provided, so who knows.

        • nj_v2

          Okay, so now the repost just appeared.

          It could just be the Interwebs are having a heat stroke.

          • nj_v2

            And now the repost just disappeared.

            Appears deliberate/willful.

        • hennorama

          nj_v2 – been there. It can be frustrating. I take a bit of a different tack in pointing it out when it happens. See:

          http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/07/16/the-gop-and-immigration-reform#comment-965260174

        • hennorama

          nj_v2 – the o & a words were the likely culprits.

        • HonestDebate1

          Yea, it’s happened to me a bunch lately. Just wait and it will be approved and appear. It has to be a disqus algorithm. I don’t think you (or I) are on a watch list. Sometimes the strangest, most innocuous words trigger it and sometimes I still can’t figure it out. 

          As here:
          http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/07/16/americas-organic-food-shortage#comment-965745514

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

      I see what that was now. I changed a few select words.

    • HonestDebate1

      Stop the press, I agree with you… except for the resected part. 

  • Duras

    There is a narrative out there that the jurors of the Zimmerman case came to reason instead of emotion. 

    First, I am wary of anyone who sets up the binary reason/emotion as if you can separate emotion from reason.  Good reason uses emotion in the form of empathy to reason properly. 

    Second, there is an argument is teetering upon a rather old argument that profiling black people as suspicious is reasonable.

    Third, what aggravated Zimmerman?  What aggravated Martin?  If an unidentified and armed man was following me, I would think that I have the right to self-defense.  But apparently, an armed man following me would make me feel that my life is in danger.    The jurors just said that the person who instigated the event was the only one entitled to self-defense.  

     

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       ”The jurors just said that the person who instigated the event was the only one entitled to self-defense.  ”

      I don’t believe they made that claim.  They believed that Martin struck the first blow.  Ms. Jeantel was on the phone with Martin and believes that too.

      Also, Zimmerman’s story was Martin came up from his behind and confronted him.

      The only living witness for most (but not all) of the confrontation is Zimmerman.  The jurors and State didn’t have much to work with but what little they had, including an eye-witness, corroborated Zimmerman’s story.

      • Duras

        Martin had the right to strike the first blow. 

        Also, it wasn’t Martin following Zimmerman, it was Zimmerman who followed Martin.  FACT.

        If you were being followed by an armed man, would you not feel the right to defend yourself, especially if you felt you couldn’t get away?  

        • OnPointComments

          You are wrong; Martin did not have the right to strike the first blow.  If I am following you, you do not have the right to assault me in retaliation.

          • Duras

            You are saying that Martin had no reason to feel that his life was in danger by an armed man following him. 

          • HonestDebate1

            Why would Martin assume Zimmerman was armed? 

          • Duras

            Is following someone a benign activity?  Following someone is usually seen as a malign activity and it is reasonable to assume the worst of people who follow other people. 

            But for some reason people such as yourself think it is reasonable for someone to assume the worst of black people walking home.

          • HonestDebate1

            That’s sick. I think nothing of the sort. Screw you. 

          • Duras

            Then why are you defending someone who erroneously profiled, followed, and shot an unarmed teen ager?

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

            you seem to have left one stop out

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

            following is a benign and not criminal activity. do you beat people down at the grocery store when you see them in more than one aisle?
            you seem to assume the worst from everyone if you think walking behind is harmful

          • Duras

            Look who acted more reasonably:

            Was it reasonable to suspect Martin?  No.

            Was it reasonable to follow Martin?  No.

            Was it reasonable to assume that he was  “effing punk” while carrying one in the chamber?  Seems pretty sketchy to me.

            Was it reasonable for someone being followed by an unidentified, armed man to feel that he life was in danger?  Yes. 

            Instigators do not have the right to self-defense.

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

            following someone is not instigating a physical fight

          • jefe68

            Depends on the situation, does it not.

    • OnPointComments

      Zimmerman observing Martin was not illegal.  

      If you thought someone was following you and your life was in danger, and you could get to a safe location 300 feet away, would you go there? 
       
      The timeline gives credence to Zimmerman’s story that Martin confronted and assaulted him.
       Zimmerman tells the dispatcher “He’s running.” Over 5 minutes later a gunshot is heard.
       Zimmerman’s call with the dispatcher ends.  Over 3 minutes later a gunshot is heard.
       Trayvon hadn’t gone the 300 feet to his house in 3 to 5 minutes.
       
      The jurors said that the person who was physically assaulted was the one entitled to self-defense.

      • Duras

        Profiling is an unreasonable thought that led Zimmerman to follow Martin.  Then Zimmerman shot an unarmed teenager after following him because he – to Zimmerman – look suspicious.  But what is the reason for Zimmerman’s suspicion other than race? 

        Again, the person who did not profile, who did not follow anyone, and who did not arm himself was entitled to self-defense and no one else. 

        • OnPointComments

          Zimmerman shot Martin because Martin physically assaulted him.  If I am following you, you do not have the right to assault me in retaliation.

          • Duras

            Martin had the right to defend himself.  What you are saying is that the instigator of the event – Zimmerman – had the right to self-defense.

            Moreover, what you are saying is that an unidentified and armed man following you wouldn’t cause you to feel that your life was in danger.  Of course there was reason for Martin to feel that his life was in danger.  The person being followed by an armed, unidentified man has the right to self-defense. 

            I am baffled by this ill-logic that an armed man following someone has a right to self-defense. 

            If Zimmerman had been a uniformed cop, the event would have been different.  Moreover, if Martin punched a uniformed cop, there would be no argument.  But guess what, when cops break down doors they yell “Police.”    

          • OnPointComments

            Why hadn’t Trayvon hadn’t gone the 300 feet to his house in 3 to 5 minutes?

          • Duras

            Why would Travon feel that he could get there when Zimmerman had a car? 

          • HonestDebate1

            Why would any one assume that being followed means potential assassination?

          • Duras

            Oh, I forgot.  People who follow people usually end up being Publishers Clearing House….

          • HonestDebate1

            Sometimes.

          • jefe68

            Ask a woman that question sparky.

          • HonestDebate1

            Are women being assassinated ?

          • OnPointComments

            Your question belies your irrational thinking.  You speculate multiple times that the athletic Martin felt his life was in danger from the short overweight Zimmerman, yet you can’t explain why Martin didn’t go 300 feet to house to escape the threat.  Zimmerman had a car, but Martin was off the road, between the houses on a sidewalk, and could easily have returned to his house in a matter of seconds.  He didn’t.  The evidence shows that Martin assaulted Zimmerman, and unfortunately that mistake cost him his life.

          • Duras

            You are assuming that following people is a benign activity.  In fact, if Martin is indeed physically more endowed than Zimmerman, then Martin has more reason to believe that Zimmerman was armed. 

            Indeed, Zimmerman did have a car, a fact that you don’t address.

            Moreover, in your first comment , you said that it was a matter of minutes.  Now when your argument is falling apart, you turn it into a matter of seconds.

            You are increasingly looking like you have the 12 angry man syndrome.

          • jefe68

            Apparently that’s the subtext of his point.

          • Duras

            Of course it is.  Like my original point says, the people defending Zimmerman are trying to make racism reasonable.

            I grew up in the South and I’ve heard this crap my whole life. 

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

            why is the armed part so important to you. does an armed person have fewer rights than an unarmed one?

          • jefe68

            Maybe I do. What if I thought you were trying to mug me?

          • OnPointComments

            Here’s an example I read about the justifiable use of force:  I’m standing 150 feet away from you with a knife and yell “Come closer and I’ll kill you.”  If I don’t approach you, it is not justifiable use of force on your part if you shoot me from 150 feet away.  You could have been in complete safety by simply going the other way.  On the other hand, if you turn the corner and I’m standing right there by you with the knife, it is justifiable to defend yourself and kill me.

          • Lusitan75

            Nope, sorry.  You don’t have the right to attack someone because you think they MIGHT be THINKING about mugging you.  If all they are doing is following you down the same public street as you, you have several options (call the police, get inside, get onto your private property, etc.) but you can’t just attack someone because maybe you think they might have bad intentions.

            On the other hand, if someone attacks you and there is a legitimate threat of seriously bodily harm, you can shoot them.

            That’s the law.  Martin learned the hard way.  Everyone else should take note: if you think someone is following you, and you have a suspicion about them, call the police instead of attacking them.  It may keep you out of jail, or it may even save your life.

      • Duras

        I just noticed more consciously that you used the word “observing” in your first sentence. 

        I think that “observing” in the scientific sense of the word was the last thing Zimmerman was doing.  If Zimmerman had been truly observational, he wouldn’t have profiled, he wouldn’t have assumed that Martin was an “effing punk.”  Zimmerman wasn’t observing as much as he was overlaying preconceptions onto the event of a person walking. 

        Of course, if Zimmerman had actually observed reality, he would have never followed Martin, and Martin would still be alive. 

        • OnPointComments

          If Martin hadn’t profiled Zimmerman as a “creepy *** cracker, Martin would have proceeded on his way home and avoided the situation all together.

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

            Because (speaking as a white suburbanite myself), nothing stings me to the quick like a black teenager calling me a “creepy *** cracker”.

            Not even the other word I might say to a black teenager.

          • OnPointComments

            Martin didn’t say it to Zimmerman, he said it to Rachel Jeantel. He was profiling Zimmerman based on how he looked.

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

            Boo hoo.

            I know that. I’m just trying to get across to you how little of an insult it is v. “n-”.

            That reflects a certain power that white people have, like when I drive my car with the missing front  license plate (fell off over a curb during a blizzard foray three years ago), and the cops don’t care.

          • OnPointComments

            I’m just trying to get across to you that bias, racism, and prejudice goes both ways. It’s not only the province of white people.

          • Duras

            But who’s the instigator?

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

            Look,  please stop the polite ignorance card.

          • Lusitan75

            Right.  Because you have the magical ability to know, first-hand, how insulting the C-word is the whites (because you’re white?) and how insulting the N-word is to blacks (because you’re black?)

            It’s easy to know how insulting it must be — just listen to hip hop and you’ll quickly learn how terribly insulting it is to them.

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

            Yep. Cracker is to “n-” because black people use the latter for themselves.

            Got any more gems?

          • Duras

            What are you talking about?  An armed, unidentified man was following him?  How can you not see that Martin had a good reason to feel his life was in danger, especially in the rain. 

            I guess people who follow people don’t seem “creepy”…?   That is my whole point.  Martin was the only person who had a justifiable reason to suspect Zimmerman, not the other way around!

  • John

    It is okay to ask the question but putting him on the cover is in bad taste (my opinion). I believe it feeds the idea wich some mass murders crave which is to be remembered… to be infamous.

    • MrWakiki

      I understand your point, but I wonder — should they have never released his picture so people could find him. Should all potential criminals go everywhere (court/prison) with a hood over their head so no one can see them?

      • John

        I think once he was caught his exposure on the media should have all but disappeared. Let the social sciences try to figure out what happened, why he went down this path but don’t glorify him. But I acknowledge this won’t happen. People crave the cringe and the provocative and the news media feeds that. I am just as guilty of this anyone else. But I dream of a world where the victims get more air time than the murderer.

      • HonestDebate1

        The bigger question to me is why didn’t they know who he was without releasing the picture? To my way of thinking, as soon as it happened radical Islamic terrorist should have been suspected. A quick check to see who in the Boston area had a paper trail of terrorist activity would have led straight to the Tsnaraev file. They decided to suspect Christian Conservatives instead.

        • Ray in VT

          I think that radical Islamic elements were suspected, however, one cannot (or one can but shouldn’t) ignore the history of domestic anti-government, racist and anti-abortion violence that has occurred in our country, and how members of any of those movements, driven to extremes, could have perpetrated the bombing, and, lacking any sort of claim of responsibility or overt statement regarding specific motivation, should not have been initially ruled out.

          • HonestDebate1

            If they had checked they would have found Tsnaraev in a second but they didn’t, that’s all. 

            If you want to think Eric Rudolf or Tim McVie represent a movement or anything more than isolated  apolitical nut cases then have at it. The term used at the time was “Tea Party type” which is beyond the pale as far as profiling goes. There is no comparison to the threat from radical Islam. Not in numbers, frequency or scope. But sure the cops should look into all of it. They did not.

    • http://hammernews.com/ hammermann

       Absolutely right (the copycat effect), except that the 5 days of nonstop TV coverage kind of rendered a magazine cover moot.

      • John

        But here we are months later and he is on the cover. Also once he was caught, I think news organizations should have pulled his image and focused solely on the strength of the victims (again my opinion). But we live in a world where cash is king and news organizations are subject to the guilty pleasure of their viewers/readers.

  • MrWakiki

    I think it would be an interesting counter balance if when the news reports on Rick Perry’s Abortion Bill, they also run his commercial trying to steal business from other states.

  • Davesix6

    Thoughts from the great Booker T. Washington
     
    My Larger Education, Being Chapters from My Experience (1911)[edit]
    There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.Ch. V: The Intellectuals and the Boston Mob (pg. 118)
    I am afraid that there is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don’t want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public.
    My experience is that people who call themselves “The Intellectuals” understand theories, but they do not understand things. I have long been convinced that, if these men could have gone into the South and taken up and become interested in some practical work which would have brought them in touch with people and things, the whole world would have looked very different to them. Bad as conditions might have seemed at first, when they saw that actual progress was being made, they would have taken a more hopeful view of the situation.Ch. V: The Intellectuals and the Boston Mob

    http://www.btwsociety.org/library/misc/quotes.php
    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Booker_T._Washington

  • JoanieGentian

    Your WBUR colleague Robin Young met “the Bomber” in her back yard, iirc, when he came to a school party for her nephew. I’d bet the image in her mind as she came to that realization after his identity came out in April…was closer to the image we see on the cover of Rolling Stone than to those we saw in Boston Magazine. 

    Maybe not, but either way it was his self portrait, his self image at one point in time anyway. Maybe that is why I don’t have a problem with Rolling Stone introducing their exploration of who he was with that image. 

    It probably belongs in my collection of infamous magazine covers featuring local people (I live close enough to Devens to think of Tsarnaev in prison as my neighbor).  The other in that collection is John Kerry on the cover of Windsurfing magazine.  I cringed when they handed that to me at a Kerry rally in NH.  He signed it. 

  • http://hammernews.com/ hammermann

    One of bitter ironies is that Trayvon’s mother lived in this gated community to be “safe”- I think most are quite disgusting, and am amazed minorities would live in some exclusive enclave where THEY and their friends are constantly discriminated against. I have a Pakistani pal who lives in a ritsy exclusive area, and his friends can’t even visit without being “cleared” by him, at the time.

    • TyroneJ

      Trayvon’s mother didn’t live in that community. Trayvon’s mother had sent Trayvon to live with his father in that community because Trayvon was fighting with his brother too much.

      • HonestDebate1

        And he had been suspended from school for unlawful behavior.

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

          Well, if it were unlawful, why wasn’t Martin arrested?

          Stop bloviating around the edges in your polite need to assail his character.

          • HonestDebate1

            The school system has a policy to handle things in house and didn’t involve the police. I think that’s a dumb policy and it did not serve Trayvon well.

            And I am not intending to assail his character, at the same time I’m not hiding from the truth. Maybe it’s a fine line, that’s fair. 

            For instance, I think the DOJ pursuing civil rights charges is despicable but if the parents do the same I have nothing but love for them. It’s their right and I will not criticize them. I felt the same way about Adam Lanza’s mother but the libs around here didn’t.

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

            “I’m not intending to assail his character…”

            You’re still assailing his character and pretending otherwise.

            Stop trying to politefluffle your way out of it.

          • HonestDebate1

            I deny the charge, Travon defined himself I played no part. I’ve made plain my preference to judge by the content of character over the color of skin. 

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

            Really, chump: Quit while you’re behind.

          • StilllHere

            You are truly pathetic.

        • jefe68

          The young man is dead. Show a little respect.

          • HonestDebate1

            Please, my heart aches for Trayvon. I’m just stating fact.

          • jefe68

            That’s not what you’re doing.

          • StilllHere

            He’s afraid of facts.

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

            he seemed like such a charming promising young man

  • J__o__h__n

    I missed the show as I was over at the Whitey Bulger trial.  This exchange was amusing:

    Lawyer: Where did you shoot him?
    Flemmi: In the head.
    Lawyer: What location?

    • hennorama

      J__o__h__n – that reminds me of the hilarious and famous quote from “Olga” on ‘The Newlywed Game’ TV show:

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0129703/quotes?item=qt1614499

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

        I thought that was an urban legend.

        However, it’s too funny not to mention.

        • hennorama

          TF – the clip is not difficult to find, if you’re interested, here it is:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvdAoiVp0TQ

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

            As an aside: It was so much easier to wonder if things were mythical before the internet was invented.

          • hennorama

            The pluses and minuses: greater access to information vs. reduced innocence.

  • l84wrk

    I have a grown son and a teenage son. Both have received instructions regarding their behavior in public many times: Take off your cap inside. Don’t slouch. Wear clothing appropriate to the situation. Speak when spoken to by adults and don’t mumble. Take your hands out of your pockets. If stopped by a cop while driving, be calm, respectful and do exactly what they want you to do. If you feel threatened by anyone anywhere, get to safe place or find other people or yell or run away. Do not meet aggression with aggression. Don’t hang out with people who seem to attract trouble. And on and on…

    Yes, I get the teen age “blow and roll” when they hear these things. But, that’s what parents do – teach their kids.

    These instructions have nothing to do with race and everything to do with public perception of a young man by strangers. I’m white and I just about became unglued when Jack Beatty said he’d never had a talk about these things with his sons because of “white privilege.” How incredibly racist to imply that white people instinctively know how to behave in public or aren’t expected to behave.  What the heck kind of parent is Beatty who doesn’t have talks with his kids about respecting themselves or others enough to learn decent public behavior or about respecting authority figures. Do whites somehow “magically” know this?  “White guilt” is a construct that has no basis in reality. As a white mom, what have I ever done to feel guilty about?

    • Tyler Bolles

       You seem to have missed the point of Mr. Beatty’s statement.  To say that white parents and black parents have to worry about the same things in regards to their children’s saftey is naive or disingenuous.  My white boys in Vermont (and Beatty’s in New Hampshire) will probably never know what it’s like to be racially profiled by police, neighborhood watch, security guards, teachers, the way a black teenage boy in FL does.

      • l84wrk

         @tyler_bolles:disqus Perhaps the North is different than here in the Deep South – actually about 10 miles from Florida – where I live.

        Profiling by race in my town would include about half the population. And about half the police force.

        I guess I was caught a little off-guard by the notion that black parents have this “special” talk with their sons. I thought all parents had those talks. I guess I’m naive if I think ALL parents should teach their sons how to conduct themselves. Acting like a thug will make people think you’re a thug, regardless of race. (Please don’t misconstrue this last sentence as anything more than a general statement, not about any one person in particular).

        • Tyler Bolles

          I think the Deep South is probably very different than the Northeast…not better or worse, mind you. 

          I think it’s not a stretch to say that “the talk” some black parents feel like they have to have with their kids is different than telling your kids how to conduct themselves.

          “Don’t act like a thug” is a different talk than “some people will think you’re a thug and treat you like one no matter how you act, because you’re black”.  Is it white privilege that I don’t have to tell my kid the latter?  Maybe.  Is it racist to point that out?  I hope not.

          • l84wrk

            ” I think it’s not a stretch to say that “the talk” some black parents
            feel like they have to have with their kids is different than telling
            your kids how to conduct themselves.”

            I have to totally disagree with this. Parents should talk to their kids about the realities of living in the real world, and that “talk” isn’t the exclusive province of black parents. In the real world, yes, some people do perceive young black men as thugs, regardless of their behavior, so black kids are told by caring parents to do nothing to invite that perception. In the same vein, Lusitan75 above describes the warnings some white parents give their sons. And, sadly, as long as parents have to give those talks, we will have difficulty moving ahead in race relations.

            One group is telling their kids that everyone is suspicious of them and out to get them, and the other group is saying certain folks mean you harm – seems to be the same thing, to me. All parents want their kids to be safe, and that’s where this all comes from.

            I hope the president is correct in saying that things get better as we move across generations. 

            And Jack Beatty needs to come live in South Alabama for a while. I think he’d have some of his stereotypes snuffed out.

      • Lusitan75

        And white parents (at least those who don’t happen to live in lilly-white Vermont or lilly-white New Hampshire) must give their children “the talk” about safety and avoiding going into certain predominantly black neighborhoods and avoiding large groups of young black males for their own safety; how not to make eye contact and just keep walking when the “cracker” and “white boy” insults are slung their way (because anyone who ever grew up in a mixed neighborhood knows how quickly the mob mentality starts if a non-black tries to defend themselves against one of these youths).

        If you don’t think this stuff happens on a regular basis in mixed race, lower-middle class towns where I grew up, you are delusional.

        Black parents aren’t the only parents who need to give their children “the talk” about unfortunate facts of life.  But they act like they are.  And they act like they’re the only people in society for whom the justice system is imperfect.

  • HonestDebate1

    Why is there a need to put a picture of idiots up top?

    • Ray in VT

      So when it’s those people, they’re idiots, but they’re great Americans if you slap some tri-corner hats on them?  I guess that rallies and protests are only good if they are supporting certain causes or ideologies.

      • jefe68

        And he says he’s not a racist.

        • HonestDebate1

          What the hell are you talking about? What does race have to do with the picture? There are more whites in it than blacks. You only see what you want to see, fine me too. I see idiots.

          • jefe68

            No I see you for what you are based on the garbage you post about race. You make comments that highly charged about race and then when someone calls you on them you get all hot and bothered. 

            You called people protesting the result of the Zimmerman trial idiots.
            Knowing all to well that their perspective was coming through the lens of race. Even though in your warped view it’s not about race. You think that by denying people their outrage that it somehow justifies your “white” viewpoint.

        • HonestDebate1

          And to further illuminate the bizarre nature of your comment I would add being an idiot  has nothing to do with the color of skin. I have my opinion, it is this is all ginned-up misplaced outrage. You seem to be jumping to the conclusion that if I call a black person an idiot it is somehow racist. Idiots come in all colors.

      • HonestDebate1

        Not even close, please don’t tell me what I think.

    • hypocracy1

       Who did you want? The Bomber?

      • HonestDebate1

        Okay, that’s funny. How about Detroit’s Mayor? I just think we need to get over it. These protest are ginned up by race hustling haters. That only works on idiots and there seems to be plenty. On Point is just feeding the media frenzy.

    • hennorama

      Must … restrain … fingers …

      • HonestDebate1

        It looks like your fingers hit the keys 28 times then hit post. And you were helpless to stop them. That’s very strange.

        • hennorama

          That wasn’t me. I hired an editor who truncated my commentary.

    • jefe68

      Why is there a need for idiots to make disdainful uninformed comments all the time.?

      • HonestDebate1

        I could suggest a few names of commenters you should ask.

        • StilllHere

          He’s asking himself through written word.

          • jefe68

            Ah isn’t it cute, the little troll is squawking again.

        • jefe68

          Except it was you who posted the dumb comment buddy. At least man up to your inanity.

    • nj_v2

      Just when you thought PatheticallyDisHonestMisDebater couldn’t stoop any lower.

      • HonestDebate1

        It was a simple question.

    • hennorama

      Seems a bit rude for a guest such as yourself to describe Tom Ashbrook and Oliver Sacks as “idiots,” especially in Mr. Ashbrook’s “house.”

      What would Miss Manners say?

  • hypocracy1

    How does juror b37 say Zimzam was guilty of making bad decisions.. decisions that directly resulted in a death of an unarmed teenager.. but then say he is not guilty of manslaughter? 

    • brettearle

      HD–

      Did you get this from yesterday’s Sacks thread?

      HD–

      I finally got around to responding to your last comments, from a couple of weeks ago, about Foreign Policy.

      It’s back on the Syria thread, where we last left off…towards the end of June.

      Obviously, I don’t expect you to spend a great deal of time on it….but when you get the chance…..

      Thanks.

      Brett

      • HonestDebate1

        That’s not me Brettearle. I’ll look up your comment…. when I get a chance. And I will.

        • brettearle

          Put it under the wrong comment.

          I must be getting Tipsy.

  • hennorama

    Re: President Obama’s just-completed remarks on the issues surrounding the Martin/Zimmerman case, from the White House briefing room -

    To contact the White House, go here:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

    • OnPointComments

      I’m interested in your opinion.  If you watched the President’s remarks, do you think either side should perceive that the President has chosen a side in this discussion, based on the content of his remarks?

      • hennorama

        OPC – TYFYR.

        “either side”? Either side of what, exactly?

        An excerpt from the President’s remarks:

        “The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner. The prosecution and the defense made their arguments. The juries (sic) were properly instructed that in a – in a case such as this, reasonable doubt was relevant. And they rendered a verdict.

        “And once the jury’s spoken, that’s how our system works.”

        • OnPointComments

          The Zimmerman trial and verdict.  My perception is that there are some people who think that the trial and verdict were fair, and that Zimmerman was justified in defending himself; other people think Zimmerman profiled Martin, the trial and verdict were unfair, and Zimmerman had no justification for shooting Martin.

          • hennorama

            Please see my just-edited post, above.

  • pete18
    • hypocracy1

       Why do you hate America?

    • HonestDebate1

      That is absolutely on target.

  • hennorama

    Fox News wasted no time pushing the “Why is the President being so racist? Why is he making things worse?” meme.

    Robert Zimmerman (George’s brother) was interviewed live, via telephone. The Fox talking head tried several times to steer Mr. Zimmerman into making negative comments about the President’s remarks, by asking (paraphrasing from memory) “Shouldn’t the President have avoided the issue of race?” etc.

    Robert Zimmerman was very measured, thoughtful and expansive in his responses, and wouldn’t bite in any way. He indicated his full support of the President’s remarks. The talking head interrupted him at least twice, then asked a similar question.

    Fair and balanced? Yeah, right.

    • OnPointComments

      I was watching MSNBC, so I believe that his remarks could not have had been more wise and effective if they had come from a burning bush.

      • OnPointComments

        I’m not actually keeping a list, but relying on memory, so far MSNBC has had its usual cast of commentators who view the speech as “historic” and “powerful,” Eleanor Holmes Norton (I assume everyone knows her opinion), and the attorney for Trayvon Martin.  “Coming up next, the historical context of today’s historical moment.”  I guess fair and balanced is in the mind of the beholder.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       The first ‘guest’ after the Presidents remarks on Fox News was Juan Williams.  Yes, the Juan Williams of “Obama can do no wrong” fame.

      The best Juan Williams could do was call the remarks ‘risky’.  That speaks volumes.

      • hennorama

        WftC – TY for your response.

        Let’s repeat the narrative questions Mr. Williams was asked, with portions of his responses [in brackets].

        Right off the bat was this:

        “Juan that last remark suggests that local prosecutors, local police and indeed the jury may have been RACIST because the outcome, the result would have been different had the alleged victim been white. Now is the President EASING racial tension or STOKING racial tension?”

        [His intent is to ease racial tension, but the risk that he took by coming out is that he will stoke racial tension because it politicizes this whole tragedy...but I'm not sure that he was indicting the jury or the process...]

        “But Juan, Trayvon Martin’s own mother said this was not about race, even the prosecutor in his rebuttal closing argument looked those jurors square in the eye and said this has nothing to do with race. And yet the President suggested that it does. He went so far as to recommend that local law enforcement needs to be better trained regarding race. Again, isn’t he presuming that local law enforcement made decisions based on race, and they insist, as well as prosecutors, they did not.”

        [Well, I disagree. ... I don't think there's any doubt that the country is locked into this as a racial controversy Greg. I think it has stirred lots of discomfort ...]

        “And the President’s second proposal is that we reexamine some of the gun laws, specifically the President said the “Stand Your Ground” law. The President likely doesn’t realize that “Stand Your Ground” has nothing whatsoever to do with the case. It was a procedural maneuver that was waived. Uh, retreat was not an issue in the case because Zimmerman said, and there was no other evidence to the contrary, he had no ability to retreat, and yet the President unknowingly seems to invoke it and he also seems oblivious to the statistical fact that in Florida, more African-Americans avail themselves of that law. But look, after all Juan, we’ve seen people take to the streets, mostly African-Americans, protesting what went on. Some of those protests and demonstrations became incredibly violent. Doesn’t the President now run the risk that he is going to provoke even more demonstrations and let’s hope not, but potential violence? “

        [He said quite explicitly that (violence) is not acceptable behavior.]

        “Look he’s the President of the US, a busy man. I doubt he sat there in front of a television and watched the evidence unfold, and yet he’s offering a JUDGMENT here, the same way he did in 2009 …why is the President of the United States weighing in on local, criminal matters, Juan?”

        [Oh my gosh the President''s taking a tremendous risk .. because people immediately, in reacting to him, and not his words, and not his intent, not his call for soul searching and increased consciousness and better sensitivity on racial issues, will take sides based on “Oh, President Obama spoke out.” What we're seeing here is that this must have been troubling him on a deep level ...I think this is something that speaks to the idea that he's our first black President Greg.]

        One need only listen to the tone of voice used, and to observe the presumptive condescension of the words in the questions (“The President likely doesn’t realize … and yet the President unknowingly …”) to understand the Fox News perspective.

        Watch/listen to the interview here. It’s about 8 ½ minutes in length:

        http://video.foxnews.com/v/2555466884001/is-pres-obama-easing-or-stoking-racial-tension-in-america/?playlist_id=940325739001

    • jefe68

      It’s pathetic, they use white guy victimhood then double down with the reverse racism meme.

      • hennorama

        jefe68 – TY for your response.

        On Fox News, talking head Greg Jarrett was on air, and said this right after the President’s remarks, in part:

        “[The President] went on to talk in broader terms, more specific terms, rather, about the Trayvon Martin case, saying had Trayvon Martin been white, quote “the outcome and the aftermath would have been different. Joining me now is Juan Williams …”

        This is absolutely inaccurate. The President did NOT say “had Trayvon Martin been white” EVER.

        The President’s actual words were:

        “And – and that all contributes, I think, to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.”

        So Fox News begins with a mischaracterized narrative, right from the get-go.

        Then the very first question Jarrett asked Mr. Williams added to the narrative:

        “Juan that last remark suggests that local prosecutors, local police and indeed the jury may have been RACIST because the outcome, the result would have been different had the alleged victim been white. Now is the President EASING racial tension or STOKING racial tension?”

        This use of questions containing a conclusion (the President could only be either easing or stoking racial tension, and nothing more) is common.

        Jarrett could have led with an open question, such as “Juan, what do you think the President was trying to say?”

        But that wouldn’t push the Fox narrative of ““Why is the President being so racist? Why is he making things worse?”

        The same thing happened right after the Juan Williams interview, during the Robert Zimmerman interview. Mr. Zimmerman wouldn’t bite on the Fox narrative questions, and when it was apparent he agreed with the President, his answers were repeatedly interrupted so the Fox talking head could get to the next Fox narrative question.

        Thanks again for your response..

  • hennorama

    President Obama’s full remarks can be read here:

    “July 19th, 2013 02:23 PM ET

    “Full Remarks: Obama speaks on race”

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/19/full-remarks-obama-speaks-on-race/

    Video is no doubt available all over as well.

  • nj_v2

    Rolling Stone cover photo, compare and contrast…

    http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/world/2013/07/18/Malaysians-charged-with-sedition-for-posting-Facebook-pork-photo-.html

    ‘Seditious’ Facebook pork photo leads two Malaysians to court

    Prosecutors on Thursday charged two Malaysians with sedition and inciting religious enmity after they posted a photograph on Facebook considered an insult to the Muslim holy month of fasting.

    They face up to eight years in prison if convicted of both charges in the Muslim-majority nation.Alvin Tan and Vivian Lee, both ethnic Chinese non-Muslims in their 20s, drew criticism when they uploaded a photograph of themselves earlier this month eating pork stew while conveying greetings to Muslims for the current fasting month of Ramadan. Pork is forbidden for Muslims.

    Tan and Lee had indicated last week that the photo was meant to be humorous.

    Both pleaded not guilty Thursday in a Kuala Lumpur court, which refused to allow them to remain free on bail ahead of their trial.

    Malaysia’s attorney general, Abdul Gani Patail, said in a statement that authorities want them detained because “they have the potential to upload content that could stir public anger.” They were expected to be placed in separate prisons ahead of a preliminary hearing Aug. 24 to schedule trial dates.…

    (snipped)

  • HonestDebate1

    Kudos to the Boston Police Department and Boston Magazine for countering Rolling Stone:

    http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/07/18/tsarnaev/

  • HonestDebate1

    IMHO Obama’s remarks were outrageous. What a missed opportunity for his own Sister Souljah moment. He could have attempted to bring us together but he chose instead to divide us yet further. Martins parents have said to keep race out of it, why doesn’t he respect them? He compared himself to Martin when he has more in common with Zimmerman, they’re both half white. The world is upside down.

    • disqus_fw2Bu1dEsd

      It was Obama at his best. 
      The world only seems to be upside down to those with their heads up their arses.

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

      Yep. Funny how the biracial president has this weird feeling he has something unique to bring to the situation.

      Take your poutrage and go away, Mr. “I don’t see race in anything”.

      • Lusitan75

        Funny how the half-white, half-black president only associates himself with the black Martin, and not the half-white Zimmerman.

        It’s a tragic situation, and the president taking sides (as he did from the beginning) doesn’t help.

        • OnPointComments

          It’s surprising to me that apparently none of the President’s advisors suggested to him that the incident and aftermath would also have been an ordeal for the Zimmerman family.  It would have made him appear more neutral and compassionate if he had also extended his sympathy to the Zimmermans.

          • jefe68

            Yeah, lets feel for the guy who shot and killed a 17 year old kid. 
            If the man did not have that gun none of this would have happened.

          • OnPointComments

            If the man did not have that gun, Martin would have likely killed him.

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

            Yep. Bothsides are having an ordeal.

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

          Shove your politeness and “sidestaking” crap. At some point appealing to conservatives is something Obama won’t do unless he lets Allen West write the speeches and Sarah Palin deliver them.

          That’s support that’s not worth his going after.

      • HonestDebate1

        He brought nothing but divisiveness.

    • brettearle

      Honest,

      I responded above your comment.

      Honest.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Mr. Obama was all over the place.  First he praised the legal process and the judge.  Then he claimed that there would be a different outcome if the races of the dead man and the defendant were different despite zero evidence to back up that claim.  Will that help calm things or does it stir the pot?

      Hannity had a African-American civil rights attorney the other night who claimed this is the exactly the wrong case for activists to rally around to fix racial injustices because no racial injustices occurred in this case.  He went on to say that this was the only time he has ever agreed with Hannity and is probably the last. :)

      Mr. Obama also signaled that there probably isn’t a Federal  civil rights case against Zimmerman.  His statement could have been stronger.  He could have said Mr. Zimmerman deserves a speedy investigation and closure to protect his own civil rights instead of continuing to use the full weight and power of the US government to perpetuate a modern day witch hunt.

      • HonestDebate1

        I agree and the sad part is it dishonors true and legitimate civil rights issues. It tacitly excuses the examples of innocent whites being beaten “for Trayvon”. It reduces the word racism to near meaningless.

      • hennorama

        WorriedfortheCountry
        – in your first paragraph, your characterization of the President’s
        remarks is absolutely false.

        President
        Obama did NOT “claimed that there would be a different outcome
        if the races of the dead man and the defendant were different.”

        Here
        were his actual words, per CNN:

        “And
        - and that all contributes, I think, to a sense that if a white male
        teen was involved in the same kind of scenario that, from top to
        bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been
        different.”

        Not
        “the races of the dead man and the defendant” but only “if a
        white male teen was involved” (omitting the implied “rather than
        an African-American teen”).

        This
        distinction is important.

        As
        [OnPointComments] said “each person heard the speech through his
        own filter.” That’s certainly clear here.

        See
        the CNN transcript:

        http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/19/full-remarks-obama-speaks-on-race/ 

    • brettearle

      Honest,

      You’re not being totally fair.

      You’ve done this before.

      You have changed your comments–possibly, because of a legitimate beef, I had, about your ORIGINAL comments.

      I cry FOUL.

      • HonestDebate1

        I don’t know what you are referring to when you say I changed my comment. Please elaborate, could you be mistaken?

        • brettearle

          HD–

          Disqus might be the culprit.

          Your comment might have been truncated, beyond your control.

          I may have knee-jerked my reaction–because I recall another incident, some months ago, when we were `jarring’ over an incident.

          I am referring, earlier today, to your comment–beginning with `IMHO’.

          If I am not mistaken–and I do not believe that I am–the original comment was noticeably longer.

          And my first comment, to you, was as a reaction to the longer comment.

          When I finished that first comment and then posted it, I noticed that your original comment, that I was responding to, was suddenly abridged.

                             *********

          By the way, let the record show that I have been vehement, on occasion, on the “On-Point” discussion site–in reaction to some others’ comments.

          • HonestDebate1

            It’s possible, although I don’t know the comment you are referring to. If I edit a comment it is within 3 or 4 minutes tops but usually to add, not subtract although that does happen on rare occasions. I never go back and change a meaning or hide a point. Sometimes I’ll write comments and think better of it and just not post at all. I try not to be “that guy” and to remain civil. If more than a few minutes goes by I’ll typically reply to myself to add something. The only exception is if I see a grammatical error.

            The other possibility is sometimes I post by accident before I’m done and getting done often means recasting several times. I try to be careful with clarity.

      • 1Brett1

        Yeah, he does that…and I’m sure he’ll claim he doesn’t know what you are talking about. -Wait, sorry, I see he already has…oops.

    • hypocracy1

      Wait… so the Muslim socialist that wasn’t even born in this country was going to bring us together?

      Really?

      Of course Obama can associate with Martin.. Not because he’s black.. But because he knows what it is like to be PROFILED.

      • HonestDebate1

        Alrighty then.

    • 1Brett1

      There you go again with your “Obama-is-not-to-make-any-claims-about-being-black/black-culture-because-he-is-half-white” meme and that he is some kind of phony. And, once again, you mention how Zimmerman is half white…yet you’ve condemned the “liberal media” before for calling Zimmerman a “white Hispanic.” I suppose you’ll reply with with your same tired, “how the color of one’s skin, how ethnicity doesn’t matter” to you, how you mean nothing racially charged by your comments, how you mean nothing in particular by your comment.

      Is the President not respecting Martin’s parents because he made a careful and frank speech? Because he sympathized and praised Martin’s family? Is he showing disrespect for them simply because you say so?

      Is the world really upside down or just different than your mindset/ideology/belief of what it should be? 

      When you say, “he could have brought us together” what you mean to say is, “he should have agreed with my opinion and the opinions of neocons.”

      • HonestDebate1

        Please don’t tell me what I think.

        • 1Brett1

          Please don’t tell me not to tell you what to think.

          • HonestDebate1

            I will every time. The best solution is for you to come to grips with the fact you have no idea and quit trying to read minds.

        • hennorama

          Please don’t think what you tell us.

  • brettearle

    Honest Debate,

    You have a legitimate complaint.

    But you are deflating the strength of your argument when you say, “He compared himself to Martin, when………Zimmerman.”

    You
    are bending over backwards–according to your values and standards and
    perceptions–to be objective about race.  I believe that is what you
    think.

    But you are not listening to one of the President’s comments; it is a comment that every African-American can make:

    Because of skin color, those with darker skin often COME UNNECESSARY UNDER SUSPICION.

    So,
    in terms of how society often views men with darker skin, your
    insistence that Obama is more like Zimmerman is FLATLY unfair.

    However, if you are, by implication, suggesting that the President should have stayed out of this, I could not
    agree with you more.

    This
    is BENEATH a President’s station–especially because of his racial
    background.  But if the President were 100% Caucasian or 100% Latino, or
    were a mixture of the races, or some other race, it is STILL beneath
    the President’s station. 

    The President should NOT be commenting
    about cases that are either up for ajudication or have been
    ajudicated….unless the comment refers to a point that the President
    might be making about policy.

    He should never have said, a she did, months ago, that Trayvon could have easily been his son–had he had one.

    And
    the President certainly should NOT have said–as he apparently did say,
    earlier today–that Trayvon could have been 35 years ago.

    • OnPointComments

      I agree.  I heard someone say (on MSNBC, of all places) that each person heard the President’s speech through his own filter, and that is certainly true.
       
      Hennorama accurately quoted the President down below.  After the quote she referenced, the longest part of his remarks was about racism, and included the statement “if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.”  He added “if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk?”  He also commented that he had passed racial profiling legislation in Illinois.
       
      My filter on his remarks is that although “the jury’s spoken, that’s how our system works,” the President thinks the result was wrong and based on racism.

      • hennorama

        OPC – after the portion of the President’s remarks that I excerpted, this was his next sentence:

        “But I did want to just talk a little bit about context and how people have responded to it and how people are feeling.”

        Context, not racism.  Context.

        This is how the President closed his remarks:

        “And let me just leave you with – with the final thought that, as difficult and challenging as this whole episode has been for a lot of people, I don’t want us to lose sight that things are getting better. Each successive generation seems to be making progress in changing attitudes when it comes to race. It doesn’t mean we’re in a post-racial society. It doesn’t mean that racism is eliminated.
        “But, you know, when I talk to Malia and Sasha and I listen to their friends and I see them interact, they’re better than we are. They’re better than we were on these issues. And that’s true in every community that I’ve visited all across the country. And so, you know, we have to be vigilant. And we have to work on these issues. And those of us in authority should be doing everything we can to encourage the better angels of our – nature as opposed to using these episodes to heighten divisions.
        “But we should also have confidence that kids these days, I think, have more sense than we did back then and certainly more than our parents did or our grandparents did, and that along this long and difficult journey, you know, we’re becoming a more perfect union, not a perfect union, but a more perfect union.”

        • OnPointComments

          As I said, each person heard the speech through his own filter.

      • 1Brett1

        While each person might view just about everything through his/her own lens/filter, what you just did with your reply to brettearle is deliberately distort what hennorama said and what the President said. That’s not your “own filter” but your own deliberate deception. 

        • OnPointComments

          My reference to Hennorama’s comment was simply to avoid repeating part of the President’s speech that had already been posted. I was not opining on her comment.

    • HonestDebate1

      Yes Brettearle I agree and appreciate your perspective, thank you. I also appreciate your being honest about your disagreement with certain points I made instead of just nasty. You’re never nasty even in the most heated of disagreements.

      My comment about Obama and Zimmerman being both half white was meant to illustrate absurdity with absurdity. I understand it is jarring but I intended that. To me the President’s words were jarring too. I fully understand some are put off by my comment. 

      And the comparison does not stop there. Obama’s privileged background was nothing like Trayvon’s life.

      Regarding the other comment you cited: “Because of skin color, those with darker skin often COME UNDER UNNECESSARY SUSPICION.”

      I reject that as a paradigm. That is not the world we live in today. I understand the dynamic exists, I’m not saying it never happens. What I am saying is it happens across the board. People come under unnecessary suspicion every day, whites, blacks, gays, Southerners, Tea Partiers, Christians and on and on. But remember the context, I believe Zimmerman was justified in being suspicious but it wasn’t because of the color of Trayvon’s skin. My problem is with Obama continuing the narrative that Zimmerman was motivated race.

      And I don’t like the word “unnecessary” because suspicion is usually prudent. One should always be aware. That’s a minor point and I know what he meant.

      • 1Brett1

        Of course, you don’t call him a “jerk” “stupid” and many other derogatory remarks…you left that part out. You are nasty sometimes, and sometimes without being attacked first. You are a hypocrite. 

        (I know, you’ll say I’ve butted in, but you’ve butted in to insult me before.) 

        Besides, you are only being overly nice because he is saying something against the President’s statements/role today.

        • HonestDebate1

          I reserve those names for jerks only and my bar is high. Congrats.

  • gslouch

    I’m not out to change anyone’s mind.  The divide in beliefs are clearly visible here, but Trayvon’s mom said something last night that really put it in perspective for me.  She said that Trayvon was not on trial, Zimmerman was, yet they continually tried to besmirch Trayvon’s character.  How true!  What about all of Zimmerman’s lies.  Was he the perfect teenager?  Let’s find out more about his integrity!  It’s a tragedy that a man who killed an innocent teenager will receive no punishment.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Who is “they”?

      The juror said they didn’t know much about Martin other than what he bought and that he went to school in Miami.

      Sounds like there wasn’t ‘besmirchment’ of Martin in the courtroom.

  • hennorama

    [UPDATE]: I really encourage everyone to watch/listen to the Robert Zimmerman (George’s brother) interview from Fox News. He was really very thoughtful.

    Here are the questions Robert Zimmerman was asked, with snippets of his responses [in brackets]. You’ll have to listen to his full responses via the link below, as I am far too lazy to transcribe them:

    “Robert – thank you for being with us. Were you surprised by the President’s remarks?”

    [you know I think the American people wanted to hear from the President. I'm glad he spoke out today]

    “Why? There are so many trials in this country, so many murder cases, why would you expect the American people to want to hear from the President, with everything else going on in the world, on this case?

    [There have to be things that bring us together]

    “I know your brother did mentor minority teens as part of his work, but the President also said one of the initiatives he’d like to see is training of law enforcement. You think he was talking about your brother?

    [sometimes the right encouragement and the right role models and sort of the right shoulder to lean on ...can prevent any engagement with law enforcement ... he made some good points.]

    “One of the things the President said, Robert, that if race were reversed and Trayvon Martin would have been white and your brother not, that the outcome and the aftermath of case [might] have been different. Is that part of the soul searching that your brother’s doing right now?”

    [[[NOTE: The president actually said this: “And - and that all contributes, I think, to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.” He said NOTHING about “if the race were reversed.”]]]

    [...we can speculate a lot about would have been or could have been, but ... if we all do some soul searching ... we can have a better country if we all do our part...it should be about promoting a colorblind America ...]

    (Robert Zimmerman’s response gets interrupted for this next narrative/question):

    “But you know what Robert, you’re going a step further than the President did, because he only talked about the African-American youth in our country and you’re saying that we should not look at color or race and that all kids should be afforded the opportunities in life that we want for our children. Should he have broadened it out to say that he would like us to soul search about all kids in America and the opportunities they may not be getting?”

    [the President was … sincere in his remarks … it should be beyond politics to better address the needs of children ...]

    (Robert Zimmerman’s response gets interrupted three times to get to this next narrative/question):

    “Understood Robert. This is a very noble idea that we can all reach out to the youth of America. I understand that. Do you feel though – first of all I’m curious if your family has had any contact with the President or anyone from the White House or the administration and do you feel that the reaction to the verdict is divided among racial lines?”

    [I think moving anything along racial lines is just a disservice to our country ... I really see eye to eye with the President on that...]

    (Robert Zimmerman’s response gets interrupted twice to get to this next narrative/question):

    “And I know that’s something that your brother did and that your family believes in and that certainly Trayvon Martin’s family – the President has correctly given them credit for handling all of this with such grace and such heart for our nation – they don’t violence either. Let me ask you this the Dept. of Justice will look to see if civil rights changes can be filed or any other actions against your brother in this case, in what happened. You’ve been fiercely defensive of your brother and outspoken as well. What’s your message to the Justice Dept. about whether or not they should pursue any other action against your brother? Let’s get it out there!”

    [...I'm not sure that necessarily that an investigation is a bad thing...]

    “Robert Zimmerman – so great to get your perspective on this today, and we thank you.”

    Watch/listen
    to the video here. It’s about 9 ½ minutes in length:

    http://video.foxnews.com/v/2555412752001/robert-zimmerman-reacts-to-presidents-remarks-on-verdict/

  • HonestDebate1

    A Detroit judge has ordered the bankruptcy be withdrawn. Among her reasons is the action does not honor Obama.

    http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130719/METRO01/307190099/Ingham-County-judge-rules-Detroit-bankruptcy-withdrawn-Schuette-appeals

    • harverdphd

       …or maybe marijuana….

  • 1Brett1

    I suppose that those who would have an opinion about race relations that suggests racism toward blacks still exists, and who wish to talk about race relations openly, are race-baiting haters and idiots, and are racists. But if one wishes to say racism against blacks no longer exists, and that black on white racism/violence is at an all-time high/epidemic (that black crime is swept under the carpet, ignored, and given a complete pass, although many black males are locked up for their violence/murders/robberies, etc., and even disproportionately so, but one shouldn’t believe those statistics), one is just speaking the truth and is not engaging in anything racially charged at all; nope, nothing other than honest examination. In fact, it is honest to call anyone talking about white on black racism a racist, not at all, though, to talk about black on white crime in such terms. 

    I suppose black on black crime is escalating because white people are too afraid to appear politically incorrect and condemn it. I suppose cops are afraid to arrest black people for crimes against other black people; there might be reprisals for not staying out of business that doesn’t concern them, right?

    I suppose it is okay to be afraid of black males, especially those wearing hoodies and who are out of place. It isn’t racist or profiling; it’s just that black males commit crime, so why wouldn’t you look at black males with suspicion? I mean it’s just like looking at a Middle Eastern person with a turban as a terrorist, right? That’s just being careful, right?! White people commit crimes but that’s different. 

    I suppose a white person can choose not to benefit from white privilege, most are not given privilege like blacks are given privilege anyway; besides, white privilege doesn’t really even exist, especially not for a white person who doesn’t FEEL overtly racist. “White privilege” is the mindset of white supremacists, after all, but even they are persecuted and maligned because they are just frustrated in this world of entitled blacks intending to suck off the government’s teat, who expect to get ahead of white people sometimes in a corporation, who commit crime without consequence, and who expect respect even while some still act up; how dare those blacks! Respect is only given if earned. Whites get automatic respect, but why should black people get anything automatically? They should work harder than that; they shouldn’t feel entitled to anything.   

    I suppose a photo of African-Americans peacefully protesting is an unfortunate choice for a weekly news broadcast; they look like idiots, and the editorial choice is racist. But, a photo of Tea Partiers protesting is a view of patriotic, intelligent people exercising their 1st Amendment rights and is to be applauded.   

    I suppose a president can’t ever comment on what is a national debate, currently, especially if he is black (especially because he is only half black); that might be perceived as racially pandering to his own people/to liberalzzzz. It doesn’t matter if he risks political suicide and endless criticism; he is just doing it to look cool to his homies, right? They are where he wishes to put his political capital. He doesn’t care about white people anyway; he panders to blacks…probably because he’s self conscious about being only half black.

    • OnPointComments

      If I could take your comment and put it in a sack, my lawn would be much greener.

      • 1Brett1

        I agree, everything I said has been said in some form by the neocons on this forum and should be viewed as manure. 

        Do you use manure on your lawn? You probably shouldn’t you know. Cut it by one third (not two thirds), hand pick weeds as soon as you see them, apply compost once in a while, and you’ll have a beautiful lawn, without having to add something like manure.

      • StilllHere

        You can pretty much do that with anything he writes.

    • Renoir Gaither

      This is the most inane comment I’ve heard all day:  “I suppose a white person can choose not to benefit from white privilege,
      most are not given privilege like blacks are given privilege anyway;
      besides, white privilege doesn’t really even exist, especially not for a
      white person who doesn’t FEEL overtly racist.”  The fact that it is even stated serves as a reminder of the persistence of white privilege.  I was laughing out of my head with “White people commit crimes but that’s different.”  Why should there be “different,” if that difference doesn’t come from a privilege, a pass to be “different”?  I’m surprised this comment wasn’t removed the moment it arrived.  It only examples what comes out of a white supremacist society that confers entitlement to whites and further attempts to gloss over overt racism with a blanket post-racial explanation of past oppression, past privilege, and a present that is free of white privilege and entitlement that passes as the norm because it is so much a part of the American fabric of everyday life.  This post is emblematic of the tacit acceptance of white supremacy in America, despite its attempts to be “post-racial.”  No doubt the subject of race in American engenders such vehemence; race and class permeate the core of American values, political and judicial activities, and social relationships under a base of white supremacy.

      • 1Brett1

        Renoir (cool name by the way), first I’d like to address one statement you made: “I was laughing out of my head…” You have paid me the greatest compliment, not only by this statement but by your comment itself. Reread my comment with satire in mind; I was being sarcastic. I was using the absurdity I have heard in the last couple of weeks by conservatives on this forum, and in general, to make a point. Yes, my words are absurd; yes, there is a white bigotry involved in the sentiments I have expressed. The sad thing is conservatives don’t even realize the tenor of their responses to modern society.

        One thing that is disturbing about your comment is that you believe my comment should have been removed/silenced. I am not a proponent of such censorship, as inane and offensive as some comments can be…

        Anyway, if you really read through this thread for this comment, you’ll see my intention. If you come to this forum with any frequency, you’ll get used to my views and won’t make the mistake you made. 

        • Renoir Gaither

           Again, as I mentioned in an earlier post, I have to apologize for not recognizing the satire.  But respectfully, I still believe in removal of overt racist comments online (not satirical), because of anonymity accorded their authors.  In short, they allow the “silence” or racism to persist by never engaging the topic, erasing it, in a sense.  And all the while providing a sounding board without real interaction, just provocation.  In your post, I saw no compelling reason to use satire as a strategy; but, to each his or her own self-expression.  For me, satire almost demands overblown language and near comical situations.  The language you used didn’t quite get at the irrational simply because the irrational is normative in the good ol’ USA.  You’re no Swift;-)  But these days, it requires all kinds to combat insanity these days of virtual reality.  So, thanks. 

          • 1Brett1

            I don’t claim to be a great satirist.

            While you may not have seen a reason to use satire, you haven’t spent time on this forum (I have been coming here for almost five years). The neocons have infiltrated this forum and will skin a liberal-minded person alive for being earnest/sincere at times, particularly for this topic (which seems particularly divisive). Even mentioning that there is still a problem with race relations will garner a lot of finger pointing. 

             

            I do disagree about satire needing overblown language; the best satire (and parody) uses subtlety and mimics the real thing very closely. That is why so many people miss good satire (I do not include myself in that category, mind you) and think of it as real. Many people think Steven Colbert, for example, is really a neocon fool.

            P.S.-”HonestDebate1″ is one of those neocons I was talking about.

          • HonestDebate1

            That was satire!!! You’re kidding! You mean you weren’t serious? How could I miss it. I’m so dumb.

            “the best satire (and parody) uses subtlety and mimics the real thing very closely.”

            And that’s why yours was not good satire and just plain silly. 

          • 1Brett1

            It fooled Renoir (briefly) into thinking I was someone with your views. 

          • HonestDebate1

            Those are not my views.

          • StilllHere

            He doesn’t know what he believes.

      • HonestDebate1

        It’s pretty bizarre. Anyone who says racism toward blacks no longer exists is insane. Anyone who says just half of the assertions made is certifiable. I’m not into censorship but I’m also surprised the comment wasn’t removed.

        • 1Brett1

          Since some of my comment was inspired by many of the neocons on here, and you are one of them. Can you state specifically in what ways black are discriminated against by whites? -No, wait, you didn’t say that; you don’t mean that. You mean blacks are discriminated against by Democrats and their policies, by other blacks who want to hold down the good blacks, and so on…that about right? 

          Do you think white privilege is a real phenomenon? 

          Aren’t you just being pretentious for Renoir’s benefit? Come on, tell him your views about “black-on-white violence/racism being an epidemic” (I took that straight from your comments.)

          • HonestDebate1

            Why should I answer you? All you are is nasty.

            Blacks are discriminated against by whites all the time but not under the law. Racism against blacks exists and to say it doesn’t is insane. To do so under the guise of satire fails completely because of the complete disconnect. I have never heard a single person make such a claim or even implication or a hint of an implication. The satire falls flat and makes you look silly.

            Of course there is white privilege, but it’s not limited to whites. Obama was privileged. Affirmative action extends privilege based on skin color. Historically blacks had to sit in the back of the bus now Obama tells Republicans to sit in the back. Harping on white privilege in the context of Zimmerman is destructive and inaccurate.

            Black on white violence is at epidemic proportions, it’s a fact. But it still pales to black on black violence. The biggest oppressors of black males are black males, not white racists. It’s not even in the same universe. I don’t like debating in these terms but it’s the only way to counter current media frenzy.

            As to Renoir, I asked for clarification of his claim that the country is operating under white supremacy. I can’t believe he’s serious. But then again that was what you seem to believe has enough truth to make your “satire” work and he seemed to buy into it. I don’t, crime is crime. And again the context is Zimmerman where the State Attorney withheld evidence to get an unprovable charge; where the AG says he understands the frustration (AKA violent behavior); and where charges were dropped against the NBP after being found guilty. It makes no sense. 

          • HonestDebate1

            Just curious since Mr. Gaither called you out, do you believe America is operating under white supremacy? It’s a yes or no question. Take his advice and call it like you see it. where do you stand?

    • Renoir Gaither

       I see now that you are being totally facetious in your “I suppose” comments.  I suppose your really are taking it to white racists (overt and covert).  Hurray.  A better comment would have been to decisively call American society for what it is:  operating under white supremacy.  If I’m right in digesting your comments, I think your string of rhetorical “I suppose”‘s attempts to turn the tables, I think or hope so.  The strategy melts into a muddied mess, at times.  If I’m correct in identifying your message, I think you’re on the right track.  I suppose.

      • 1Brett1

        Yes. I just replied below, but I am glad you saw my “I suppose” device as a tip off. Thanks, Renoir. Yes, a muddled mess. My statements were taken from neocons I’ve heard from in the last couple of weeks, and I wanted to work all of them in.

        • HonestDebate1

          No one said any of that and to the extent one or two points had a kernel of truth you miss the point completely.

          • 1Brett1

            That’s just one of your pat replies. You are the dishonest one, The “De” should be at the beginning of you sarcastic/satirical nickname.

      • HonestDebate1

        “A better comment would have been to decisively call American society for what it is:  operating under white supremacy.”

        Are you serious?

      • StilllHere

        Your racism would be better wasted elsewhere.

        • jefe68

          Ah yes, the white guy reverse racism meme.

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

            Hey, the TV tells me that they are the New Oppressed Class.

            (Wait, I forgot all the modifiers: Male, Christian, straight.)

        • Renoir Gaither

          Please, don’t try the reverse racism act.  Identifying America as a country with a history of racial discrimination does not make anyone a racist.  Nothing is wasted in any attempt to stamp out racism in any form, as with sexism and homophobia.  So better not to waste your time.  Look elsewhere.  Maybe inside yourself?

          • StilllHere

            Racist excuse-making is even worse, take responsibility for your own failures.

    • William

       Don’t you mean Hispanic privilege? Mr. Zimmerman was Hispanic.

      • Lusitan75

        No, according to the race-baiting mindset we have in the national media, Mr. Zimmerman would only be hispanic if he were shot by a white person.  Then it would be a racial case about how a racist white person shot an unarmed Latino “person of color” and Al Sharpton & Co. would be protesting on behalf of innocent Mr. Zimmerman.

        But since Zimmerman shot a black person, he must be painted as a racist, therefore he must be white.

        If a black adult male shot an unarmed white teenager and was acquitted after claiming it was in self defense, the national media wouldn’t even pay attention to it.

        • William

           It is an interesting historic event that future generations can look back at  to see how bias the MSM and some political officials where during these times.

    • Lusitan75

      —>”I suppose that those who would have an opinion about race relations that suggests racism toward blacks still exists, and who wish to talk about race relations openly, are race-baiting haters and idiots, and are racists. But if one wishes to say racism against blacks no longer exists, and that black on white racism/violence is at an all-time high/epidemic (that black crime is swept under the carpet, ignored, and given a complete pass, although many black males are locked up for their violence/murders/robberies, etc., and even disproportionately so, but one shouldn’t believe those statistics), one is just speaking the truth and is not engaging in anything racially charged at all; nope, nothing other than honest examination. In fact, it is honest to call anyone talking about white on black racism a racist, not at all, though, to talk about black on white crime in such terms.”"I suppose black on black crime is escalating because white people are too afraid to appear politically incorrect and condemn it. I suppose cops are afraid to arrest black people for crimes against other black people; there might be reprisals for not staying out of business that doesn’t concern them, right?”"I suppose it is okay to be afraid of black males, especially those wearing hoodies and who are out of place. It isn’t racist or profiling; it’s just that black males commit crime, so why wouldn’t you look at black males with suspicion? I mean it’s just like looking at a Middle Eastern person with a turban as a terrorist, right? That’s just being careful, right?! White people commit crimes but that’s different.”"I suppose a white person can choose not to benefit from white privilege, most are not given privilege like blacks are given privilege anyway; besides, white privilege doesn’t really even exist, especially not for a white person who doesn’t FEEL overtly racist. “White privilege” is the mindset of white supremacists, after all, but even they are persecuted and maligned because they are just frustrated in this world of entitled blacks intending to suck off the government’s teat, who expect to get ahead of white people sometimes in a corporation, who commit crime without consequence, and who expect respect even while some still act up; how dare those blacks! Respect is only given if earned. Whites get automatic respect, but why should black people get anything automatically? They should work harder than that; they shouldn’t feel entitled to anything.”"I suppose a president can’t ever comment on what is a national debate, currently, especially if he is black (especially because he is only half black); that might be perceived as racially pandering to his own people/to liberalzzzz. It doesn’t matter if he risks political suicide and endless criticism; he is just doing it to look cool to his homies, right? They are where he wishes to put his political capital. He doesn’t care about white people anyway; he panders to blacks…probably because he’s self conscious about being only half black.”<–

      Political suicide?  He will never run in another election in his life.  When Obama speaks, multiple times, about his opinion of a particular case, and only a particular case, then yes, he is pandering.  He doesn't speak about any other case.  Young black teenage thugs shoot and kill an 18 month old baby, but no comment from the President about morality or problems that a case like that illustrates.  No sense of proportion in the President's remarks, such as how, for example, an armed black adult male can also shoot and kill an unarmed white 17 year old teenager and not be convicted of any wrongdoing, and that perhaps the nation as a whole needs to have a conversation about youth culture and related issues, because these issues go beyond the simple black/white conversation that the race-baiters want to have.  All we get is President Obama, pandering to blacks, speaking exclusively about this one particular case, taking sides repeatedly, inflaming the situation (before Martin was Obama's hypothetical son, now Martin is Obama himself!) and carrying the simple-minded race-baiting theme.

    • hennorama

      Hear, hear!  Huzzah!

      One question – is your cheek distended from the extended tongue pressure?

  • harverdphd

    Whatever, whatever, whatever
    Zimmerman is innocent by law, others will break the law in protest – no change there….Tsarnaev is a dead man walking…Detroit is dead and the bankruptcy judge should assign funds to bulldoze the city and plant corn.

    Sleep well…. I will

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    “Girl, 16, lured to roof, raped and thrown off building: cops”

    http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Brooklyn-Rape-Girl-Thrown-Roof-Police-Suspect-Crime-Attempted-Murder-216135941.html

    Disturbing ‘stuff’ is happening all over.

    • 1Brett1

      That relates to this discussion how? 

  • 1Brett1

    I notice the neocons have something about their comments that seems consistent. They cite some black lawyer/political leader/journalist that has made some statement they find agreement with as an argument against a whole opposite opinion with which they disagree. 

    If race doesn’t matter, but content of character does, and a man says something of value, irrespective of his skin color, why use a black man’s statement as a platform to bolster your opinion, as a way to legitimize your own views?

    I say that is a self-consciousness, and is suspect and indicative of something untoward and deliberate.

  • tbphkm33

    Do not write Detroit off yet.  With the very real prospects of cities such as Miami and Phoenix having to be essentially abandoned in the next 50 years due to the effects of global warming, the “rust belt” cities like Detroit stand to see renewed interest.  Anyone looking for longterm investments, 30 to 50 years, run to Detroit and buy property today.  Buy those lots where the city has demolished houses, the investment can only climb. The ROI should be several times what you would earn on Wall Street. 

    • hennorama

      Been there, own that.

      Mean ROI: just under 5%.

      Per month. For years.

      “The time of maximum pessimism is the best time to buy, and the time of maximum optimism is the best time to sell.” – Sir John Templeton

    • StilllHere

      The ROI on Wall Street, what does that even mean?
      Synthetic derivatives, currency swaps, …?

  • tbphkm33

    There is no doubt in my mind that if roles had been reversed and Martin had the concealed weapons permit and shot Zimmerman – the 17 year old would have been put on trail as an adult and found himself in prison within six months.  

    I applaud the President for speaking up on the larger issue of U.S. societies perception on race. 

    — Now, lets see what irrational arguments the  conservative trolls on this discussion board will drag up.  Once again illustrating the true colors of the rightwing and the Not So Grand Old Party. 

    • OnPointComments

      It is just as likely that if all the facts were exactly the same, but the roles had been reversed, there would have been a great protest throughout the country about how unfair it was to charge and send to trial a teenager who had shot in self defense.  When the jury came back with a not guilty verdict, there would have been a celebration similar to the one that greeted the OJ verdict.

      • 1Brett1

        Okay, so now you are on record as characterizing the verdict’s outcome reaction as a “celebration.”

        That will be remembered. You might check with “HonestDebate1,” though.

        • HonestDebate1

          Try to get me out of your head.

          • 1Brett1

            Pat reply on your part, once again.

            You did say that no one looked at this verdict as a celebration. You should have checked with OPC.

        • OnPointComments

          Yes, I was working at a black college when the OJ verdict came in.  There was much jubilation.

          • 1Brett1

            You are being as dishonest as HD1. 

          • HonestDebate1

            I’m clearly keeping you up at night. Really, it’s not healthy. Try harder to get me out of your head.

          • 1Brett1

            It’s 7:53 where I am and I’m waiting for a student (8:00pm lesson), hardly what you imagine…another pat response on your part.

          • HonestDebate1

            It’s not even dark yet, you won’t sleep a wink.

          • OnPointComments

            No dishonestly here. I really was working at a black college, and there really was much jubilation.

          • StilllHere

            In my office, there were a lot of black power salutes.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      OK we got the modus operandi.  Put up a straw man and then disparage and attack, attack, attack.

      • StilllHere

        That’s how he works.

    • John

      Just because they are conservative doesn’t make them trolls. Here is the distinction. If they make a sound argument. Not a troll. If they are just trying to piss you off. Troll. If they make a sound argument and it pisses you off. Not a Troll.

      Okay that being said if the rolls were reversed and are in the unknown land “ifs”. You are probably right things probably would turned out differently. Had Trayvon used the gun maybe he would have ran when the police arrived… not because he is black, but because his is a scared teenager. But to the police that would have changed everything.

      Yes there is racial tension in this country, yes young black men are unequally profiled and yes we as a nation need to embrace our diversity not fear it. But I’m sorry the Trayvon Zimmerman debate shouldn’t be about race. It should be about crazy laws that our boneheaded legislators put into place.

      • HonestDebate1

        I love your first paragraph, especially the last two sentences. Obviously the same rules apply to liberals.

        • John

          This is America! The rules apply everyone else except us.

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

        which crazy law should we do away with? self defense?

        • John

          Stand your ground, duty to retreat both are over reaching in my view and force juries into a box. Let the evidence stand on its own.

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

            neither one of those things affected the evidence in this case. duty to retreat can be convoluted the other way and can result in innocent people going to jail for defending themselves. its a tough balance to strike

          • John

            Yes the evidence didn’t change but the way one is allowed to interpret does. You said it yourself. Duty to retreat leans towards innocent self defenders going to jail.  While I believe stand your ground leans toward guilty aggressors walking free. Both laws (I believe) restrict juries too much on how they are allow to interpret evidence. Also I’m not saying the Zimmerman case would have turned out differently, I simply don’t know. I wasn’t in the courtroom I don’t have all the info. 
            I think it is crazy to force a person to run when they could protect themselves and other by killing an aggressor. I also think it is crazy to allow people to kill someone else because they “reasonably believe” they are in danger. I think they actually have to be in danger. 

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

            right but we have to understand the effects of hindsight. is a cop who has a toy pistol pointed at him in actual danger? no clearly.
             Is it reasonable for him to believe he is in danger? depending on the exact circumstances, yes of course. reasonable belief is a reasonable standard and that’s why we have juries to decide if they really had a reasonable belief or if it was unreasonable. if the toy gun is a fluorescent supersoaker the jury will decide that’s not reasonable. if its a realistic toy gun then the jury should decide that was reasonable. actual danger is irrelevent

          • John

            My addendum: 
            I disagree I think actual danger is the core we are trying to get to but the best we can do is what people think. If there was a 100% way for people to know if they are in actual danger before an event they would have to use that as a basis in their decision making wouldn’t they? But as you correctly point out there are plenty of times where we can’t know whether is actual danger so we have to defer to what one reasonably believes.
            I just think that job is best left to a jury. If there was no actual danger the case should go to court to see if there was reasonable perception. Also I don’t think the law should say explicitly what a person can or can’t do in a situation like this. There are so many factors that get people to that point we should let the evidence stand and take it case by case.   Lets look at your toy gun example again or even better a real gun with blanks, with different versions of the law. Person shoots and kills even though there was no “actual” danger. Now it is up to the jury to decide if the killing was justified. Under duty to retreat, probably guilty of something. Stand your ground as it is, probably not even arrested, but definitely not guilty. Stand your ground replacing reasonable perception, with actual danger. Arrested because there was no actual danger, jury looks at case decided if act was justified, depends on the evidence. Last, no law explicitly saying what a person can and can’t do in this situation, jury looks as evidence and makes a decision.  

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

            I said that’s the jury’s job to figure out

      • William

        Embrace diversity? Why? Not all cultures are equal and different norms for behavior, values, etc…

        • John

          Exactly, not all cultures are equal, they have different norms, and different values. If we spend all our time fighting about who is right rather than working together to find our common values we won’t accomplish much as a nation. I you fear what you don’t understand you can’t learn from it.  By embracing the diverse culture we live in we can learn a lot from each other. In my opinion learning from each other is better than not.

    • pete18

       No need to speculate, there was just an actually case where the roles were reversed, a black man with a pistol permit shot a white teen in what he claimed was self defense and was acquitted: http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/

      OK, back to your Republican bashing party. Heaven forbid your brain conceives of the possibility of honest disagreements over how the world works and tries to argue ideas instead of regurgitating Ad hominem diatribes.

      • hennorama

        pete18 – that’s not role reversal, that’s race reversal.

        • HonestDebate1

          It’s both.

          • hennorama

            Yeah, except, NO, it isn’t.

            The scenario and roles in both cases:

            Adult male (the shooter role) shoots male teenager.
            Male teenager (the decedent role) is killed by adult male.
            Adult male says he acted in self defense during confrontation.
            Adult male is acquited.

            Only the races changed, not the roles.

            In contrast, [tbphkm33] posited only a role reversal, making the male teenager the shooter, and the adult male the decedant.

            Pay attention.

          • HonestDebate1

            The role of the press was reversed. Pay attention.

          • hennorama

            “The role of the press”? You must be joking if you believe that had significance in the events that led to a teenager’s death.

            AWKWARD and silly.

          • HonestDebate1

            It certainly had a role in the prosecution withholding evidence to over reach.

          • hennorama

            Is that the topic?

          • HonestDebate1

            Yes.

          • hennorama

            How did you arrive at that conclusion? Do you have any evidence to support it?

        • pete18

           A distinction without a difference.

          • hennorama

            pete18 – your response implies race = role.

            Please explain.

        • Lusitan75

          Well that’s exactly why so many people (me included) are sick of hearing about how this case is all about “race”.  But now you seem to be saying that race is not the important factor.  Because just doing a “race reversal” doesn’t get to the point?

          All the race-baiters yapping about how this was a racist trial, a racist outcome, Zimmerman was racist, this could only happen because Martin was black and the shooter Zimmerman was “white”, racist this, racist that, blah blah blah.

          Pete18 posts an example of a recent case where the adult male shooter was black, shot an unarmed 17 year old white kid, and was acquitted based on a claim of self defense.  So, there, an adult black male carrying a gun shot and killed an unarmed white kid in self-defense, and was not found guilty of a crime.

          OK – that’s “race reversal” and if you say that doesn’t matter, then how is the Martin/Zimmerman case about race?  Why are people making it a racial issue?

          In both cases, the 17 year old, unarmed “boys” were shot by armed, adult men.  

          Is the “role reversal” you’re looking for is what would have happened if a 17 year old male had shot and killed an adult male in both cases?  I don’t have any idea how that would have turned out, but it seems that would be a statement more about how society sees a 17 year old carrying a gun, versus an adult male carrying a gun, and whether there would be any difference in perceptions of who was in the right.  That’s not what the race-baiters are complaining about.  

          • pete18

            I couldn’t have said it better. Thanks for writing that so I didn’t have to.

          • hennorama

            Lusitan75 – Thank you for your response.

            A couple of points.

            First, [tbphkm33] began this thread by writing “.. if roles had been reversed…” and went on to describe the reversal as to the shooter/”shootee” roles. That was the premise, which made [pete18]‘s example inapt.

            That was my entire point, that [pete18]‘s post was inapt, You recognize this in your description of the similarities between the two cases. The sole discernible difference was the race of the parties involved. Simple.

            I neither mentioned nor expressed an opinion about the issue of race in the Martin/Zimmerman case. As such, I have no comment on the balance of your post.

            Thanks again for your response.

    • GTV

       Just because there is no doubt in YOUR mind doesn’t make it the truth.  I don’t understand how anyone can be so sure about such an ambiguous circumstance.

      In the minds of many, Zimmerman, by virtue of being white, must have been “profiling” the black teenager.  It would appear that the racism sword cuts both ways. 

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

        I thought it was because he was Hispanic?

        • StilllHere

          Racists like GTV won’t get it.

          • GTV

             Here’s what I “get”: calling someone a “racist” doesn’t make it so.  As I said, “the racism sword cuts both ways.”

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

      you know 17 year olds, even ones not suspended from school for fighting and drugs, are not allowed carry permits right? why do you think that is?
      in your hypothetical does Zimmerman smash travon’s face and head prior to being shot?

    • brettearle

      Default.

      See Above.

    • William

       He mentioned the perception on race but never said why people have perceptions about race.

      • brettearle

         I think that’s fairly implicit and easy to infer.

  • brettearle

    To tbphkm33 below–

    There were no witnesses in the confrontation.

    Had there been REAL and TRUTHFUL eye witnesses–where Martin might have had the gun and was having his head banged against the pavement, while Martin was on the
    bottom, then Martin might have walked away a free man–had he shot Zimmerman.

    We, of course, do not know whether the reverse was  true in this case:

    That Martin was banging Zimmerman’s head against the pavement.

    I suspect that Zimmerman is guilty–but I can’t prove it.  And neither can you.  There WAS reasonable doubt.

    In a civil suit–where a preponderance of evidence can convict–my guess is that I would vote to convict Zimmerman.

    But NOT in a criminal trial where there is reasonable doubt–because of lack of ENOUGH INCRIMINATING evidence.

    In this country, if someone is not up on trial for a Hate Crime, we are not MEANT to find someone innocent or guilty of murder–if we support Civil Rights…whether you, or I, like it or not.

    You don’t TRY defendants in the court of public opinion, my friend.  

    Of course neither of us know the actual evidence, fully, that was  presented.

    I salute the President for speaking out–specifically and clearly, about Race–at ANY TIME OTHER than when he chooses, imprudently, to insinuate himself into a court room proceeding.

    It is worse than discussing how the Cambridge police acted stupidly (even though the Cambridge Police probably did act stupidly with Professor Gates.  But it is NONE of the President’s PUBLIC BUSINESS.  That is beneath the dignity and station of the office of the Presidency to get
    involved, personally, about an incident between a police officer and a private citizen.)

    But the President should NOT NOT NOT speak out, as the result of a trial case where legal process is involved–especially if he, by implication, disagreed with the results.

    It demonstrates an utter disrespect for a fundamental feature of Democracy.

    A President has to be held to a higher standard.

    The
    President should be discussing race–as a national dialogue, as a way
    to increase the quality of law enforcement, as a way to equalize the
    justice system–BUT NOT AS THE RESULT OF A SPECIFIC TRIAL, where the jury has spoken and rendered a verdict.

    That is beneath the station of any President of the United States.

    And such Presidential involvement makes the Racially Ambivalent even more polarized.

    A man stood trial.  Jurisprudence needs to be respected.

    If there are grounds for appeal, I absolutely support it.
    But the President SHOULD STAY OUT OF IT.

    The
    President of the United States should not be insinuating himself into
    any trial–where he is, by implication, questioning the results.

    To
    speak about how he could have been Trayvon, 35 years ago, suggests that
    he has not publicly disidentified with a specific jurisprudence that
    has already been established.

    To say that Trayvon could have been his son–weeks or months ago–is almost as bad.

    It collects unfair sympathy, by a PRESIDENT, for a trial–EVEN IF Zimmerman is guilty.

    A
    President should NOT be making comments about a trial–before, during,
    or after the proceedings–regardless of the President’s race, creed, or
    skin color.

    Have you ever noticed the individual, with a blindfold and the guilt or innocent measures of weight?

    Our
    country may be corrupt–but a President–especially a man of the
    President’s high character and integrity– must uphold protocol,
    symbols, appearances, and formal ethics.

    • Bruce94

      Only in the bizarro world of right-wing, anti-government paranoia (e.g. Fox News) do the President’s remarks constitute “race baiting.”  Your take on his statement is more subtle, but similarly troubling to me.  Given the rancor and civil unrest that has swept the country as a result of this (many would characterize as botched) investigation, trial and verdict, the tone and substance of the President’s remarks were entirely appropriate.  Who better to point to the lessons of the past and the way forward to improve race relations than our President?  There was nothing improper in his call for examining the laws and historical context for this tragedy.  The President never weighed in about the specifics of the case and, therefore, IMO never crossed the line that you seem to think he did, that is, he never said anything that could be reasonably construed as prejudicial to a possible civil rights case that DOJ is only now considering or a civil lawsuit that the family hasn’t even filed yet (and may never file for all we know). 

      I wonder, on the other hand, if you would give the same harsh critique of Zimmerman’s father, a retired state supreme court judge, who published a clearly prejudicial e-book right before the trial started–a book that reportedly delved into all aspects of the case matching the extremist, right-wing screed seen on this forum since the verdict was announced.  In the book, Zimmerman’s father apparently portrays his son as the real victim–the victim of a “malicious” prosecution.  And for him the “true racists” are the Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP, Trayvon Martin’s undertaker, the United Negro College Fund among others. 

      Only those stuck in an alternate reality would view Zimmerman as the victim or would assign all blame to the real victim, Trayvon Martin, for what happened.  Only those in an alternate reality would deny the existence of white privilege in our society and its impact along with class on the justice system where outcomes are often determined by the extent to which you can afford quality legal representation.  Only those caught in an alternate reality would argue that the racial stereotypes and fear-mongering described by the President do not affect how our justice system operates.  In the Zimmerman case you see the defense attorneys unabashedly portraying Martin as the menacing black man or using the history of break-ins in the neighborhood to legitimize profiling and, yes, you have a judge excluding evidence (e.g. Zimmerman’s numerous past calls to police), ruling out any reference by the prosecution to “racial” profiling, and seating a nearly all-white jury. 

      I’m not so naive that I believe that the law guarantees justice; nor do I conflate a not-guilty verdict with innocence.  And I understand that the jury’s job in criminal cases is generally not to determine moral culpability, but rather to examine the evidence and testimony, and apply the law as precisely as they can.  What the President spoke to were the issues of justice and moral culpability as well as the need to improve our laws and legal systems so that when justice is sought, it has a greater chance of being achieved.  His remarks were aspirational, not prejudicial, and as such were in the best tradition of past presidents who spoke out against the scourge of Jim Crow laws.  For the most part, all the President did was to shift the conversation to self-defense statutes, stand your ground laws and gun laws whose application may be having the unintended consequence of increasing the insecurity and violence that we are witnessing in many of our communities.

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

    Nate Silver to leave the NYT for ESPN.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/20/business/media/nate-silver-blogger-for-new-york-times-is-to-join-espn-staff.html?smid=tw-share&pagewanted=all&_r=1&amp;

    The fact that he is about the only person doing what he does bodes poorly for our mainstream press.

    Well, that, plus the Politico dust-up last winter. Hint: When it’s “Politico and Beltway Inbred pundits” v. Random Person X, bet on Random Person X.

    Seems to me like the wrong person is leaving this particular arena.

  • Lusitan75

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: ”There are, frankly, very few African-American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me, at least before I was a senator. There are very few African-Americans who haven’t had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often. And I don’t want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African-American community interprets what happened one night in Florida.”
    Obama just can’t resist talking about the Martin/Zimmerman case (to the exclusion of countless other cases where the racial facts aren’t so convenient for the race-baiters).
    A non-black citizen might reply: “There are, frankly, very few non-black Americans who haven’t had the experience of being threatened with violence by someone like Martin, because of the color of their skin.  That happens to me; that happens to my children.  There are many non-black Americans who have had the experience of a loved one, or they themselves, being attacked by someone like Martin.  That happens often.  And I don’t want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences, and any rational analysis of facts, such as those contained in the FBI crime statistics on race, inform how the non-black American community interprets what happened one night in Florida.”

    • John Cedar

      I am a fair haired green eyed Nordic god but I have been followed in stores before and heard doors lock as I approached cars and been asked “what are you doing here?”

      I am getting the impression that this national librul circle jerk is jumping the shark. Many of my friends were repeat offender Obama voters but they are largely put-off by Obama and Holder on this case. To the point of turning on Obama completely.

      • Lusitan75

        Yes, you’re experience is not unique.  I have also been followed in stores many times before.  These days, it seems to happen more frequently in stores owned by Asian-Americans, but when I was younger I was followed in stores of all types, especially if I was in a group of young males (which I frequently was, as a teenager hanging out).

        It seems that so many black people have the idea that “I know what it’s like to be white, but you don’t know what it’s like to be black.”  

        I don’t know what it’s like to be black, but a black person doesn’t know what it’s like to be white, either.  Something happens to a black person, and they think “this would not have happened if I were a white person” and that’s supposed to be a statement that we all accept without question.  And I reject that.

    • OnPointComments

      One columnist wrote that it is President Obama’s narcissism that compels him to insert himself into this case.  Everything is always about him, whether it’s the Zimmerman case or Professor Gates at Harvard.  He wants it to be about race even when it’s not.

      • StilllHere

        I think that makes a lot of sense.  He’s nuts.

    • hennorama

      Lusitan75 – “A non-black citizen might reply:”

      If you believe that “There are, frankly, very few non black Americans who haven’t had the experience of being threatened with violence by someone like Martin, because of the color of their skin,” you are a fool.

      Frankly.

      BTW, “any rational analysis of facts” shows that the President did not use the word “frankly.”

      If you don’t believe this, please see the video on the following site, starting at 3:10:

      http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-trayvon-martin-race-speech-video-text-2013-7

  • 1Brett1

    Thank you so much to some of the neocons on this forum who both criticized my satirical comment (where I mocked some neocon opinions of current race relations in this country) and provided their own independent commentary irrespective of my satirical comment. 

    You exceeded my expectations in condemning my comment as wildly inaccurate, that no one has those opinions, and that it was nonsense; then, you proceeded to espouse some of the very opinions I was mocking, some of the very opinions you said did not exist/had not been expressed by neocons…of course, that is not completely accurate; some of you expressed those same opinions at other times and prior to my writing my comment, but I also thank you for providing my comment’s inspiration.

    So, thank you to all of the usual neocon suspects on here who lock step with each other as one monolithic stereotype of a middle-aged, conservative, white guy, easily satirized/parodied. You are predictable; you provide endless inspiration from the absurd to the ridiculous…did I mention predictably absurd? Ridiculous?

    • Lusitan75

      “stereotype of a middle-aged, conservative, white guy”

      Gah!  Racist!  Racial profiling!  Call Al Sharpton!  Call the attorney general!  Call the president!  I’ve been racially profiled!  Gaaaaaaaaah . . . 

      Is that sort of like the way Martin nicely fit the stereotype of the young, thuggish, black guy beating the crap out of someone?  Predictable, and easily defended against.  God bless the Bill of Rights.

      • 1Brett1

        Poor, poor maligned middle-aged conservative white guys, being profiled and whatnot….Maybe Ted Nugent, or Chuck Norris, can hold your hand through these traumatic times of persecution of your kind.

        • Lusitan75

          Yes, and perhaps De’Marquise Elkins and Barack Obama can hold your hand through these terrible, traumatic times of persecution of blacks.  The poor, poor black angelic youth of America have it so hard today.

          • 1Brett1

            Translation: there’s is no racism of blacks, no persecution of blacks, particularly black males.  

          • HonestDebate1

            Perfect, thank you.

          • 1Brett1

            Perfect, thank you.

          • Lusitan75

            Almost right.

            There is no “persecution” of blacks; there is no persecution of black males.

            There is racism in the world, and in America, in many forms: white against black, black against white, and many other permutations.

            Justice was carried out in the Martin/Zimmerman case.  The race-baiting class doesn’t like it because the result doesn’t support their (your) twisted world view of evil white people persecuting innocent black people.  Tough.

            Americans of all skin colors are more fortunate than people from any other nation on the planet today, and in general, yes, many, of all skin colors, are ungrateful for the advantages that they have over 90% of the rest of humanity.  

          • 1Brett1

            Way to change the subject…was anyone talking about things that happen in other parts of the world? Does it matter that people in, say, India, are poorer than the poorest in this country? What a ridiculous comparison.

            “Race-baiting class”? That’s a new one.

            “,,,twisted world view of evil white people persecuting innocent black people.”

            Are you talking about “The New World Order” Rev. Van Impe?

          • HonestDebate1

            You are going to make his head explode.

    • HonestDebate1

      Actually your comment makes me sad because it does represent a collective mindset we are seeing. I lament it often. When one looks at the world through the lens of race then race is used as the reason for everything. Honest debate about race relations becomes impossible. Frank assessment and brutal honesty are written off as racist and the conversation ends. The shallowness never scratches the surface. You and I are an example of that, I’ve tried. You have called me a racist and a bigot more times than I can count, over and over again. But there isn’t a racist bone in my body (BTW, I don’t feel the need to prove that to you or anyone), all I have done is be honest and speak the truth without regard to political correctness. 

      You wrote:”I suppose that those who would have an opinion about race relations that suggests racism toward blacks still exists, and who wish to talk about race relations openly, are race-baiting haters and idiots, and are racists”. 

      That is not satire, it’s irony.

      The premise fails right off the bat when you divide people into two categories of those who think racism toward blacks exists and those who don’t. No one on the planet asserts, implies or can imagine that racism toward blacks doesn’t exist. It’s your construct. It’s your lack of ability to grasp the meaning of open honest concern without screaming “racist”. That’s sad because you are not alone.

      But even sadder is the fact that you are so easily manipulated by race hustlers who have no interest in honest debate.

      You seem to think you’ve written something of value; a satirical tome. You are proud of yourself for putting your shallowness on display. You are thumping your chest as you convince yourself you are capable of honest debate. Again, you are not alone. That’s sad.

      • 1Brett1

        Please don’t tell me what I think.

        Are all of those who have a different opinion than yours “easily manipulated by race hustlers”? Are you not manipulated at all?

        Tell me, oh, honest one, what exactly makes the one quote of mine “irony” instead of “satire”? And are the two mutually exclusive? Can an overall comment be satirical and have ironic statements in it? Do you even know the difference between irony and satire? 

        As you said a few weeks ago, satire needs to have some element of truth in it…then, one of your criticisms about my most recent offering is that it only had a “kernel” of truth…me thinks you are just criticizing the stylistic aspects of my comment because it is my comment.

        My intent wasn’t to promote satire, it was to mock neocons. I used satire as a device; but, go ahead, criticize the device which is a form of censorship.

        • HonestDebate1

          Alrighty then.

          • 1Brett1

            Thank you, Ace Ventura.

      • 1Brett1

        By the way, thank you the most for proving my point yesterday!

  • pete18

    As a follow up to the “role,” “race,” reversal discussion here are some numbers that show blacks and white defendants fared equally well under Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ law. There are some numbers that also show the possibility of racial bias in in terms of the percentages of people that go free after killing a black person as opposed to a white person.

    http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/19/under-floridas-stand-your-ground-law-bla

    • Lusitan75

      Pete18, stop challenging the race-baiting class’ insatiable racial grievances with those unfortunate things called facts.  

      Facts, my friend, are no match for race-baiting simplistic arguments about evil white people and innocent black people.  The “Stand Your Ground” law is the “White People Get to Stand Their Ground” law; the media told me so.  A black person said so, and he must be right because he’s black, and I don’t know what it means to be black.

      Therefore, please stop posting your inconvenient facts.  Holder and Sharpton must focus their energies on the “White People Get to Stand Their Ground” law.

      • 1Brett1

        “ race-baiting class’ insatiable racial grievances” 

        That is certainly a mouthful of ****. I suppose, this is intended to characterize liberalz, the “Democrat” Party, blacks who are liberalz, blacks who are members of the “Democrat” Party, whites and blacks who disagree with you, inclusive…figures HonestDebate1 would like it.

        • HonestDebate1

          I just like good satire that is rooted in truth, that’s all. 

          I’m just a poop-shoveling, ‘pinionated piano player and not worthy of your constant mentions. I apologize for getting under your skin to this extent. It really isn’t about me, try to get some rest. 

          • 1Brett1

            Another pat reply. Don’t you get tired of your delusions? 

            I suppose you like “satire” (if that is what you call this) that agrees with your views; that is the difference.

            Are you saying that Lusitan75 was being satirical when he said, “race-baiting class’ insatiable racial grievances with those unfortunate things called facts”? 

            Of course, I could have just used your tactic and said, “no one has said that, Lusitan75, where do you get this crazy stuff?”

        • StilllHere

          Maybe it’s great satire.  You wouldn’t know the difference.

          • 1Brett1

            Where’s your parrot that sits on your shoulder and says, “you tell ‘em, SH, rauw!” 

            No, wait, that’s what you do with other neocons…you don’t have a parrot; you just are one.

    • OnPointComments

      “If a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.”
       
      Commentators and columnists have interpreted this statement in a number of ways.  Perhaps he was saying that a white male teen wouldn’t have made the decision to assault someone he thought was following him, as Trayvon Martin did.  Or maybe he was saying a white male teen, by virtue of his whiteness, could have felt free to assault George Zimmerman because Zimmerman wouldn’t have defended himself against a white male teen, and instead would have submitted to the beating.  The President’s statement is an enigma.

      • hennorama

        OPC
        – that quote is a truncated sentence fragment, and is not a
        “statement.”

        Please
        allow me to assist you in understanding it, by quoting it in context.
        You do remember that President Obama was talking about context, of
        course. The “statement” is at the very end, placing it in the
        proper context:

        “The
        judge conducted the trial in a professional manner. The prosecution
        and the defense made their arguments. The juries (sic) were properly
        instructed that in a – in a case such as this, reasonable doubt was
        relevant. And they rendered a verdict.

        “And
        once the jury’s spoken, that’s how our system works.

        “But
        I did want to just talk a little bit about context and how people
        have responded to it and how people are feeling.

        “You
        know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have
        been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have
        been me, 35 years ago.

        “And
        when you think about why, in the African-American community at least,
        there’s a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it’s
        important to recognize that the African-American community is looking
        at this issue through a set of experiences and a – and a history that
        - that doesn’t go away.

        “There
        are very few African-American men in this country who haven’t had the
        experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department
        store. That includes me.

        “There
        are probably very few African-American men who haven’t had the
        experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click
        on the doors of cars. That happens to me – at least before I was a
        senator.

        “There
        are very few African-Americans who haven’t had the experience of
        getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and
        holding her breath until she had a chance to get off.

        That
        happens often.

        “And,
        you know, I – I don’t want to exaggerate this, but those sets of
        experiences inform how the African-American community interprets what
        happened one night in Florida.

        “And
        it’s inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear.

        “The
        African-American community is also knowledgeable that there is a
        history racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws,
        everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws.
        And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret
        the case.

        “Now,
        this isn’t to say that the African-American community is naive about
        the fact that African-American young men are disproportionately
        involved in the criminal justice system, that they’re
        disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence. It’s
        not to make excuses for that fact.

        “Although,
        black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical
        context. They understand that, some of the violence that takes place
        in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very
        violent past in this country. And that the poverty and dysfunction
        that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult
        history.

        “And
        so, the fact that sometimes that’s unacknowledged adds to the
        frustration. And the fact that a lot of Africa-American boys are
        painted with a broad brush and the excuses given, “Well, there
        are these statistics out there that show that African-American boys
        are more violent,” using that as an excuse to then see sons
        treated differently causes pain.

        “I
        think the African-American community is also not naive in
        understanding that, statistically, somebody like Trayvon Martin was
        probably, statistically, more likely to be shot by a peer than he was

        by
        somebody else.

        “So
        - so folks understand the challenges that exist for African-American
        boys. But they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there’s no
        context for it, or – and that context is being denied. And – and that
        all contributes, I think, to a sense that if a white male teen was
        involved in the same kind of scenario that, from top to bottom, both
        the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.”

        Hope
        that helps you to understand the “statement” and its context.

        The
        President’s remarks above were quoted from this transcript from CNN:

        http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/19/full-remarks-obama-speaks-on-race/

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

          Henno, your idea of “context” is lost on people who are still obsessing over “You didn’t build that”.

          • hennorama

            TF – indeed, but I tend toward the quixotic, as you may have observed.

        • OnPointComments

          If the context is how “people have responded to it and how people are feeling,” then the President missed an opportunity to tell them their feelings are wrong.  Just as it is wrong to profile anyone based on the color of their skin, it is equally wrong to profile an entire portion of the population based on history and what other people have done.

          • hennorama

            OPC – TY for your response.

            I hate to be persnickety, but President Obama said “But I did want to just talk a little bit about context AND how people have responded to it AND how people are feeling.” (emphasis mine)

            We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are.

            - Anais Nin

            Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/anaisnin107089.html#wHpT1aTRxkS2qio8.99

          • OnPointComments

            But sometimes when we see things as we are, we are mistaken. I once had a prolonged discussion with someone who insisted that perception is reality; my argument was that reality is reality. The discussion ended in a draw.

  • 1Brett1

    Just one more satirical mock of neocons:

    “My next door neighbor, who is a highly respected black, said this about liberals, Democrats and blacks: ‘liberals are the ones who are leading the mob by stirring up racism, not conservatives. Policies of the Democrat Party have oppressed black people and have made them the entitled masses they are today, too! And, Obama has caused much of the racial division in this country, and liberals perpetuate it by saying blacks are inferior and need to be mollycoddled, making blacks believe them and staying oppressed! Of course, blacks themselves have also caused much of this modern racism toward themselves and toward whites who don’t want them to be dependent on others by 1) being on the government dole 2) being violent and racist toward whites 3) being violent toward each other 4) not listening to white conservatives who have blacks’ best interest in mind by having the best interest of white conservatives in mind, which in turn serves everyone well, sort of like it was back a long time ago when blacks knew their place and everybody (especially whites) was happy.’”

    “So, I mean, he’s a respected black who said this; therefore, I’m not being racist because respected blacks say this and agree with me all the time.” 

    • brettearle

      Where’s this from?

      This is yours?

      • 1Brett1

        There were some comments yesterday on this particular forum topic from neocons who invoked some quote or comment from a prominent black person or some black person they feel is respected in the black community–even someone that they have in the past categorically condemned/called racist even–and who made some statement that was derogatory about blacks/derogatory toward those who feel Zimmerman was guilty and got away with murder, and who might reinforce their own bigoted beliefs…It just struck me as odd, and it seemed to be a pattern there for a while yesterday. 

        It is as if quoting a black person who says something derogatory toward black people, or liberal policies, or toward those who feel justice wasn’t served quite as well as it could have been in the Zimmerman case, provides cover for either bigotry or a racially charged comment. I am sort of directing my comment to that.

        One neocon commenter even showed a video of a Southern Black Baptist [a faction of the Baptist religion] preacher ranting to his congregation about how members of his congregation who felt Martin was murdered were just seeing “with black eyes…” among other types of such sentiments. This was particularly telling because this preacher is vile and rants about all sorts of topics in his ministry (and telling because this commenter often condemns such ranting from black leaders)–generally, though, he talks about how African-Americans are persecuted–which I thought scraped the bottom of the barrel and was particularly low. The video was searched for on YouTube as in, “let me find some black person preaching about something I agree with; that’ll provide me cover.” The commenter didn’t even know who the guy was, so he must’ve just gone on a search for some black person he could find who was saying the same thing he believed. I thought it was despicable. 

        A couple of other neocon commenters invoked people like Jesse Jackson who said something about people legitimately being afraid of black males once, etc., and I saw a pattern. I question the act of a white person who would go out of his way to quote a black person, someone with whom they otherwise disagree, someone they have categorically dismissed.

        Often, these same neocons will hold up some black commentator from Fox, some conservative who echoes a sentiment they agree with, as if it legitimizes their bigotry or otherwise conservative view.

        • pete18

           Instead of making a point, you’re missing the point. The only reason any white conservative might point to a black commentator who was echoing their point of view, even if they otherwise had condemned on disagreed with that person in other circumstances, is to make an example of the disingenuous debating technique that you and many other leftists on the board use in place of arguing ideas or facts. That is the absurdly fallacious contention that a person’s point of view can only be valid if the person arguing it is of the same hue, gender, sexual orientation, income level etc., etc.,  as someone who is tangentially or directly related to the topic at hand. You know, if you’re not a woman you can’t give an opinion on abortion, (even though everyone has been a fetus at some point in their life) or if you’re not black you can’t have an authentic opinion that might agree with the jury on the Zimmerman/Martin case. If you happen to note that about 1/2 of the women polled in America consider themselves pro-life, or that there are a number of African Americans who agree with the Zimmerman verdict or find the race baiting aspects of the media’s coverage disgusting, proving the argument nullification technique via identity politics
          completely specious, there is a usually just a doubling down of the race card by leftists who use this technique, sprinkled with heavy dose of Ad hominem attacks.

          Here’s an idea, assume some of the people you’re are arguing with might have an honest difference of opinion with you and try your best to argue the ideas and facts of the topic at hand.

          • 1Brett1

            You have mischaracterized my point, but that’s okay and expected. 

            Here’s an idea; you make your points in the style you wish and I’ll make mine in the style I wish.

            Not every one of my comments is a debate or an argument. Some are just things I want to express, and I express them in the way I want to. Kay? In case you didn’t notice, my comment was free standing; it wasn’t in reply to anyone.

            My point was not that a person needs to be black to express something a black person has an issue with or that a woman can only argue women’s issues, etc. My point was that it is a “disingenuous debating technique” (to borrow one of your phrases) to invoke, say, a woman who happens to echo your view to lend credibility to it. That is a chessy, classless tactic. Let me give you an example; let’s say I thought women should be jailed for getting abortions. I then used some famous woman who felt that way and quoted her/invoked her name as a “woman” who agrees with me.

          • pete18

             Your comment was not “freestanding” it was in response to “neocons who invoked some quote or comment from a prominent black person or some black person they feel is respected in the black community.” I was helping you to understand the motivation for those comments, which you misconstrued and then turned into a broad brush attack. Those “neocon” posts were in response to the ubiquitous identity politic attacks that have been frequenting the board. I agree with you about invoking this or that person of x gender or race to validate one’s own own opinion, but that wasn’t what was going on (IMO).

          • 1Brett1

            Which comments, specifically am I referring to? You would have to have read them and know which ones I am referring to to say what the person meant. 

          • pete18

            Yes, sadly, I read the long Odyssey involving your supposed satire and response to Gregg’s posting of the preacher, as well as the comment about Jessie Jackson’s quote. You can start there.

          • 1Brett1

            Yes, Gregg’s posting of the Rev. Manning rant was most unfortunate. Thank you for pointing that out.

          • pete18

             Nice non-response.

          • 1Brett1

            Here’s an idea, instead of hypocritically making an argument by criticizing how someone else comments/telling others how they should comment, why not argue ideas and facts of the topic at hand?  

          • pete18

             It was a suggestion and the argument was about how people make arguments, which was the topic at hand.

          • 1Brett1

            Nope, I was replying to brettearle’s question directed to me. You butted in, which is okay. 

            But, if it was “the topic” then I was just following “the topic at hand” by my reply to you. I’d say you are being a tad hypocritical.

          • StilllHere

            Well done, but more time and effort than he is worth.

        • HonestDebate1

          The truth has no agenda. The truth is colorblind. The truth can be spoken by friends and foes. The truth can be spoken by geniuses and idiots. Honest debate can be undertaken by dishonest people. A person can tell 1000 lies and be absolutely righteous in the very next breath. Discerning thinkers understand this. Others just get confused.

          • 1Brett1

            You’re conflating opinion with truth. You are saying that Rev. Manning (your post with the preacher of whom I spoke) was speaking the truth because he was offering an opinion you agree with.

            Your opinions don’t have a corner on the truth, Gregg.

          • HonestDebate1

            Reread my comment, it did not mention Manning or anyone else. It was a comment about truth not opinion. Why do you tell me what I am saying? I’m saying what I wrote. Read what I wrote. 

          • 1Brett1

            You are using the, “gosh, why would you ever talk about something I didn’t say…” approach, Okay. You know what I am talking about, You put up a YouTube video of Manning where he was preaching to his congregation about how those who had a problem with the Zimmerman verdict were seeing the world through “black eyes and were going against Jesus.” 

            You put that video up. You are now referring to such a maneuver  as “truth” when it is just your (and Rev. Manning’s) opinion.

          • HonestDebate1

            That’s just stupid brett. 

            I did not refer to the video as truth in my reply or ever. I did not mention the video in my reply and you insist I did, why?

            You put that video up. You are now referring to such a maneuver as “truth”

            My reply didn’t have a single thing to do with the video and if truth be told I didn’t even know you mentioned it because I only read your first paragraph. Now I see you did and learn you did so with a blatant lie about him being a Southern Baptist. You seem to think that would be significant if true. Is it impossible for you to debate honestly?

            It is absolutely amazing how you avoid what I write to tell me what I think. And it’s not just me. It seems every other reply of yours begins with, “So you must think…” or “translation…” or “So I guess it’s okay to…” 

            It’s truly bizarro. 

            I find it odd that you harp on Manning who I said was over the top and whose opinions I made a point of saying I did not endorse 100%.  You’ve always insisted on ignoring what I write and telling me what I think.

            Did you comment on the Larry Elder interview? I posted it at the same time some 3 or 4 hundred comments ago. In his case I will actually say I do agree with the opinions he expresses 100%. If you listen to him you will hear the exact same outrage as I have been expressing for years regarding how insulting it is to hold people to lower standards because of skin color. And BTW, I don’t care that Elder is black but in this climate whites don’t go there, they hold back. He doesn’t.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svIDcRFDaPY&feature=player_embedded

          • 1Brett1

            You’ve contradicted your, “The truth has no agenda. The truth is colorblind. The truth can be spoken by friends and foes. The truth can be spoken by geniuses and idiots. Honest debate can be undertaken by dishonest people.” The Manning video is somethingyou put up because you agreed with it. Now you are trying to back away from it.  Also, Manning’s church is from the Black Southern Baptist church, which you keep pretending doesn’t exist. Because his location is Harlem? You are ignorant of a sect of the Baptist church that is not  part of the white northern Baptists. Why don’t you seem to understand or recognize that? 

            I am not harping on Manning, your use if him, as vile as he is, is one example of what I was talking about in my satirical comment. 

            That said, you are telling me what I think in your comment above this one, so, again, your hypocrisy shines on. 

          • HonestDebate1

            Alrighty then.

          • 1Brett1

            It’s Ace Ventura! Hey, Ace!

          • HonestDebate1

            The church was founded in Harlem in 1957, liar.

          • 1Brett1

            Baptists were founded in 1957? Hahahahahaha!

          • 1Brett1

            Baptists were founded in 1957? Interesting…

          • HonestDebate1

            Squirm away.

          • jefe68

            You think you’re dispensing the truth?

            That’s hilarious. You’re such a clown.

          • HonestDebate1

            I didn’t say that… but okay.

          • StilllHere

            you waste your time taking that guy seriously

          • hennorama

            He
            Bends To Tea – this is in response to your post with the Morgan/Elder video, below.

            As you seem to be easily “wowed” by inaccurate statistics, you should consider my prior advice, “…when it
            comes to you and anything involving arithmetic – you should keep both
            your day and night jobs.” 

            You
            are also well-advised to no longer use sources that contain
            inaccurate statistics, such as those Mr. Elder spewed in the video
            you posted.

            As
            demonstrated in a recent post, Mr. Elder should be more careful when
            he speaks in public. Here’s why:

            Mr.
            Elder said this “There’s seven thousand murders last year. Half -
            wait, wait a minute…. half, half of the crimes of mur– ..half of
            the murders in this country are committed by black people even though
            black people are 12% of the population, which means 6% of the
            population are committing almost half the murders. And you throw out
            the old people and the young people Piers, you’re talking about 3% of
            the population committing almost half the murders … this is why
            commonsensical people PROFILE!”

            First,
            Mr. Elder’s errors:

            Numbers
            of Murders in the US:

            2011
            - 14,548 Murders known to the FBI (quite a few more than “seven
            thousand”)

            2012
            - (preliminary report) “In 2012, the violent crime offenses of
            murder and nonnegligent manslaughter increased 1.5 percent from the
            2011 figures” (also quite a few more than “seven thousand”)

            Continuing
            - “USA People QuickFacts” from the Census Bureau reports

            “Black
            or African American alone, percent, 2012 (a) – 13.1%”

            “(a)
            Includes persons reporting only one race.”

            So
            much for “black people are 12% of the population.”

            Next,
            the logical leaps:

            Mr.
            Elder jumped from “12% of the population” to “which means 6% of
            the population” without explanation, then said “you throw out the old
            people and the young people Piers, you’re talking about 3% of the
            population…”

            Sorry
            Mr. Elder – 12% does NOT “mean 6%” without any explanation, at
            least not on Earth.

            Even
            if Mr. Elder used accurate numbers, Mr. Elder’s unequivocal and
            completely unqualified quote is another lie, damned lie and statistic
            because it assumes:

            1.
            All murders that are committed are known about

            2.
            All murderers are identified

            3.The
            race of each and every murderer is known

            None
            of the above are true, making his words absolutely and demonstrably
            false.

            According
            to the FBI:

            For
            2011, (the latest year with final results; 2012 data is still
            preliminary), of the 14,548 Murders known to the FBI, this was how
            the FBI categorized “Murder Offenders by … Race”:

            32.5% White 4,729

            37.7% Black 5,486

            1.8% Other
            256

            28.0% Unknown 4,077

            When did 37.7% suddenly mean “more than half”?

            Mr.
            Elder needs better sources, or to learn how to interpret data in a
            more accurate manner, or both.

            See:

            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-3

            http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-preliminary-annual-crime-statistics-for-2012

            http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

            In
            the meantime, NO ONE SHOULD QUOTE HIM.

          • HonestDebate1

            Okay Hennon, I’ll try to explain it to you but first a few points. I’m getting ready to go to dinner and collect on a bet (thank you). We decided on sushi instead of steak. I’m ready and the wife just out of the shower so I will do this in two parts. In the meantime, which is also a groovy time, you can listen again carefully to the interview, you may see the light and if so all will be forgiven. That’s the kind of guy I am.

            I have emailed Mr. Elder for clarification but I don’t need it. I just know how much you like to focus on the details and find a flaw to throw out the whole enchilada. He has responded in the past but I cannot guarantee he will this time. He was making a broad point and if you want to ignore it that’s typical but his points remains solid. There is plenty enough wiggle room that his claim is just as devastating.

            You are making a big deal about no explanation and that is not entirely fair. The nature of these shows precludes it. He came loaded for bear and IMO did a fine job of getting his point out there but it was a shout fest with little time for explanation. In fairness to you, I am a long time fan and am very familiar with his arguments so I may be in a better place to understand what he was getting at.

            And the final point of this installment is this, I trust what Larry Elder says more than I trust you. He has proven himself to me and America. He is among the most evil, demagogued demographic in the liberal world, a black Conservative. He’s been around the block. He knows full well he cannot go on National TV and lie. Every word is scrutinized. I cannot find a single instance of anyone debunking his claims… except for you. It is unlikely you are that smart and it is impossible to imagine every nasty liberal on the planet didn’t try to refute him.

            Alright, gotta go. I’ll be back in a couple of hours.

          • hennorama

            He Bends To Tea – TYFYR.

            It’s notable that you have not challenged a single specific point in my post.

            I’ll respond point-by-point, then add commentary.

            1. My vote as to who won your bet: your partner. I’ll email my complaint to the FEC if my vote isn’t counted.

            2. I know exactly what Mr. Elder was TRYING to say. You see, I have done the research and know the actual factual information. Mr. Elder’s remarks as spoken are absolutely and demonstrably inaccurate. Whether anyone else took the time to point that out is irrelevant.

            For some reason the words “The truth has no agenda” come to mind just now.

            3. I’m not “making a big deal out of no explanation.” It was merely one in a series of Mr. Elder’s inaccuracies and leaps, and not by itself “a flaw to throw out the whole enchilada.” I know exactly what the explanation is and what Mr. Elder was TRYING to say. No doubt he will tell you (if he responds to your email) something like “My point was inelegantly stated” and/or “I was speaking off the cuff,” à la Mitt Romney and “the 47%.”

            Mr. Elder is on the national stage. As you wrote, “He’s been around the block.” If he can’t perform at that level, the fault is his. And BTW, the “shout fest” you describe was one-sided, with only Mr. Elder shouting.

            If you believe his remarks as spoken, the fault is yours.

            4. As you have found white separatist pseudo-statistics to be so credible that you repeated them over and over, it is unsurprising that you don’t believe someone who challenged, disputed, and then chopped into confetti those exact pseudo-statistics. But you need not believe me. All you need to do is compare Mr. Elder’s words with the information in the links I cited, then decide for yourself.

            Mr. Elder’s skin color and politics have absolutely nothing to do with the inaccuracy of his words.

            =======================

            As you seem to think that there is a broad point in Mr. Elder’s words that is so valuable that his errors and logical leaps can be overlooked, please tell everyone what that broad point is. Once you’ve delineated this broad point, please share your own omniscient “forrest [sic] thing” point of view, as well as the “big picture” that you see.

            Just get it out there. Be bravely omniscient and “honest.” Tell everyone exactly what they are missing, and what is being purposefully hidden from the public at large.

            Please excuse the following repetition from a recent post. It’s likely that most readers missed it, so I’m including an excerpt here.:

            [Outline everything that is being hidden and denied by “tolerant libs” and “the MSM” and/or whomever else you blame. Lay out the whole conspiracy theory for everyone to see.

            Please lay out your refutation of "the notion blacks should fear whites," and especially demonstrate exactly who has, and believes, "the notion blacks should fear whites." Show us how the US is “...a nation convinced blacks are targets for walking down the street with skittles [when] the opposite is true.”

            For extra credit, please show exactly which racial group(s) should “fear” which other racial group(s), and the reasoning involved. Tell us everything. Demonstrate your omniscience about the “forrest [sic] thing” and “the bigger picture.”

            List and explain your statistics, and be “honest” by citing each of your sources. Explain the arithmetic involved, step by step. Show how you understand statistics and probability. Demonstrate the absolute certainty of your positions. Don’t be afraid to use a bunch of unequivocal statements about what “Blacks are more likely…” to do.]

            See:
            http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/07/15/zimmerman-verdict#comment-968380310

            Unlike you, I know exactly what Mr. Elder was TRYING to say. His remarks as spoken are absolutely and demonstrably inaccurate, however. Whether he made an intentional misstatement of the facts or simply misunderstood or misquoted a source is not important.

            The fact that his words are demonstrably inaccurate, however, IS important, as it makes the balance of his remarks automatically suspect.

          • HonestDebate1

            Sorry for the delay but I trusted your numbers but you misread the stats, misrepresented the numbers and I had to start over. I did not read the above because I’m reworking the whole thing. Don’t jump the gun.

          • HonestDebate1

            Hennon, I see you haven’t commented since the first installment so for clarity read below first. I’m posting here to avoid the shrink monster.

            I will use your linked numbers and your criteria. [edit: that was a mistake on my part] I trust that’s acceptable and you don’t need further sources. 

            Your first mistake was context. The quote you used was a reference back to an earlier quote you missed  at 0:23. 

            “7000 murders last year Piers,  of black people…”

            So the part you quoted was after he made clear it was black murders he was talking about.  

            You wrote: “2011 – 14,548 Murders known to the FBI…”

            No you misread, those are murder offenders not murder victims. The relevant page is here:

            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-1

            There were 6,329 black murder victims in 2011. That is “almost half” of the 12,664 total. There were not 14,549 “known murders” as you claimed. Add the 1.5% for 2012 and consider the study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics that concludes 7000 blacks a year are murdered.

            “Each year, roughly 7,000 blacks are murdered. Ninety-four percent of the time, the murderer is another black person. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1976 and 2011, there were 279,384 black murder victims.”

            http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2012/05/23/should_black_people_tolerate_this/page/full

            Walter Williams is an awesomely reliable source but the study was widely reported. I’ll leave it to you to go to BJS and crunch the numbers. The bottom line is Elder is right. the 7K number is accurate, prove it isn’t. I’m assuming Mr. Elder has access to more current real numbers. If he replies I’ll pass it on.

            Your census number (13.1) is an estimate. By your standard its meaningless. Remember the argument you made about black rapes, you made your bed. The last hard numbers come from the 2010 census and it says 12.6%. Elder said 12%, sue him.

            If half the the murders were committed by 12% and half the black population are female then that means that 6% of the population committed “almost” half the murders. The “almost” accounts for the small minority of black female murderers. From there “throw out the old people and the young people” refers to the fact that half the homicides are minors or elderly and unlikely to be premeditated violence. All the numbers are there if you want to crunch them. I’ve spent enough time already.

            The larger point  Mr.Elder is addressing is the notion blacks should fear being stalked and murdered by racist as the disgusting meme suggest. The biggest threat for black males is black males. It’s not even in the same universe.

          • hennorama

            Heeds Not 1 Beat – TYFYR.

            As I replied to several of your points far, far above, let me focus on the remainder of your post.

            You wrote:

            “Your census number (13.1) is an estimate. By your standard its meaningless. Remember the argument you made about black rapes, you made your bed. The last hard numbers come from the 2010 census and it says 12.6%. Elder said 12%, sue him.”

            MY RESPONSE: Either figure – 13.1% or 12.6% – is greater than the figure Mr. Elder used. Thank you for supporting my point that Mr. Elder’s figure was inaccurate. Estimates are not meaningless “by [my] standard,” and I have never said any such thing. I have in the past characterized your USE of estimates as “equine excrement,” and the USE of estimates by white separatists as “lies, damned lies, and statistics.” I’ve actually discussed your use of estimates a great deal, which makes your “honest” words a bit of a surprise. One added example of this discussion:

            “So, Gregg Smith, you’re drawing a conclusion based on an estimate, based on a survey, and the estimate you used “is based on about 10 or fewer sample cases.”

            “No one with any experience in or familiarity with interpretation of data would ever do such a thing, sir.

            “And no one who is honest would lift this excrement directly from another source without attribution, sir.”

            See:
            http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/06/28/week-scotus-obama-snowden#comment-951072952

            ========

            You also wrote:

            “If half the the murders were committed by 12% and half the black population are female then that means that 6% of the population committed “almost” half the murders. The “almost” accounts for the small minority of black female murderers. From there “throw out the old people and the young people” refers to the fact that half the homicides are children or elderly and unlikely to be premeditated violence. All the numbers are there if you want to crunch them. I’ve spent enough time already.”

            MY RESPONSE: As stated, I know exactly what Mr. Elder was TRYING to say when he said the following:

            “Half – wait, wait a minute…. half, half of the crimes of mur– ..half of the murders in this country are committed by black people even though black people are 12% of the population, which means 6% of the population are committing almost half the murders. And you throw out the old people and the young people Piers, you’re talking about 3% of the population committing almost half the murders … this is why commonsensical people PROFILE!””

            This is what he was TRYING to say as to the portion of the populace of the US that “are committing almost half the murders.”

            *12% of Americans are Africa-American.

            *About half of all African-Americans are female, but we’ll throw them out, because few female African-Americans are known to commit murders (FBI data for 2011: “Of the offenders for whom gender was known, 89.3 percent were males. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 3.)” This gets us down to 6%.

            *Since few African-Americans under age 13 (6 for 2011) or over age 64 (32 for 2011) are known to commit murders, we’ll throw this part of the African-American populace out as well. This gets us down to 3%.

            Note that this explanation is completely at odds with yours. You are of course free to believe what you wrote, regardless of its inaccuracy. Maybe Mr. Elder will back you up, but that seems doubtful in the extreme. BTW – I encourage you to share my posts with him, especially the two most recent responses to you.

            ========

            Finally, you wrote:

            “The larger point Mr.Elder is addressing is the notion blacks should fear being stalked and murdered by racist as the disgusting meme suggest. The biggest threat for black males is black males. Go ahead and use 13.1% or 25% for all I care, distort it all you want beyond reason just for kicks. It’s still not even in the same universe, yet not a peep. Defend it.”

            MY RESPONSE: Exactly what you’re asking me to “Defend” is unclear.

            If you are referring to what you described as “the notion blacks should fear being stalked and murdered by racist [sic] as the disgusting meme suggest [sic].” I have never made any such claim, expressed any such idea, and see no evidence whatsoever for such a “disgusting meme.”

            Unless of course by “disgusting meme” you were responding to this question:

            “Who in this forum is the only one all alone on their very own little “one racial/ethnic group in the US is ‘more dangerous to’ or ‘should fear being stalked by’ another racial/ethnic group” island?”

            Your response:

            “Disgusting me, me!”

            Thanks again for your response.

          • jefe68

            The truth has no agenda. 
            Sounds like some kind 0f slogan one would find at a tea party rally. 
            Along with all the other empty rhetoric. 

        • brettearle

          I’ve read your comment, just above, twice.

          For me, there’s a lot to sift through and some stuff that would require having followed prior dialogue.

          It goes without saying that it’s insightful.

          Until I comment further, I’d like your opinion on something–even at the risk of bringing up warmed-over, obvious material:

          I was speaking with a Liberal friend of mine–someone who is about as Liberal as I am, maybe slightly more so–who agrees with me that the President withheld how much of an influence Reverend Wright’s ministry might have had on him.

          Indeed, it may be that the President may not be fully aware of the Ministry’s influence.

          I don’t know.

          I do NOT think, however, that such a parish weighed heavily on his speaking out yesterday.  [My friend and I both decry Obama speaking out on the Zimmerman trial.  We both think that he should be governing above the Fray.]

          But I am wondering how racism, in the GOP, feeds, indirectly into American Islamophobia because of the perceived Anti-American ethic of the Wright videos combined with a part of the President’s youth.

          Dovetailed with the President’s childhood in Indonesia and his father’s birthplace of Kenya this formula is a recipe for an incendiary disaster–when we confront the soft and hard core racism of the GOP.

          I don’t know Alan West’s background–but I assume that the former Representative had more of a direct American heritage than the President.

          It is bad enough that the pure White ethic is a subtext for GOP patriotism, with many in that Party.

          But I can’t help thinking that Old Southern rancid thinking, combined with the concept of the traditional American value of Rugged Individualism, would be as extant–amid the Rank-and-File–if an African-American politician with more perceived `American Roots’ had run for President and had been elected.

          [I think the trickle-down effect, even of the Zimmerman tragedy, might have been more muted.  Maybe not]

          I have always wondered how JC Watts or Julian Bond might have done.

          [The GOP might have despised Bond, even more than Obama, however.  They canNOT stomach a Black Southern intellectual.  It doesn't fit their pre-programmed formula.]

          But, still, the stereotypes–those ascribed to African-Americans by the GOP–don’t stem, I believe, completely from hard-core racism.

          Obviously the `White Supremacy’ doth obtain more than I want, or care to admit.

          But I think the other issue is that the GOP scapegoats African-Americans for the GOP’s own failed policies and ideologies.

          That’s where the soft racism comes in.

          • 1Brett1

            I just finished a lesson at 5, and I have to get ready for a gig later tonight, so don’t have a lot of time…Your comment is an interesting one with some interesting points. 

            There are some points I think are spot on. Your last paragraph is, in particular, on the mark, I think: “the GOP scapegoats African-Americans for the GOP’s own failed policies and ideologies.”

            Stereotypes are a tricky business because there has to be an element of some remote truth for one to get a foothold, to take off. But, stereotypes are not a holistic view; they are reductionist, distilling one aspect of a phenomenon/group of people to its/their lowest common denominator. When characterizing African-Americans in a political discussion using stereotypes, it amounts to…well, a bigoted view, and reduces discussion to a more base exchange, in my opinion. There is nothing “honest” about using the worst possible caricature of an African-American person to point out problems in their community or to talk about problems in a larger society. It serves no healthy purpose but stirs up old wounds and trouble.

            I don’t know about the birther movement. My off-the-cuff feeling about providing an analysis is that it doesn’t need one; it is absurd even on its face, without analysis. Some may be using it as a smokescreen for their racism; some may be just trying to find any far out reason to delegitimize his presidency. I can’t say but think there are various factions within its “movement” just like in any group.

            Thanks for replying , by the way.

          • pete18

             No, they can’t stand a liberal southern intellectual because they find liberal ideas destructive. It’s a pretty transparent proposition.

          • Duras

            Hannah Ardent says that there are two ideologies that interpret history two different ways: one ideology sees history of events as a natural fight against the races; the other ideology sees it as class struggle. 

            There is a racist joke in the South that goes: what’s the best way to starve an n-word?  …Hide his food stamps under his work boots. 

            There is no way the GOP would have radically changed the way income is distributed (during the 1980s and continuing today) without scapegoating black and brown people.  Now, the tea party is a manifestation of their despair.  White people are increasingly finding themselves in the same class as black people and they hate it.  And they despair over it.  But mass delusion thinly covers that despair.

            Of course, republican politicians love food stamps because it gets racist people to vote against their own economic interests.  And this is partly where the rugged individualism (or what I call neoliberalism)–neoliberalism as the right wing politicks it is nothing but massaging the egos.  Republicans politick to the lowest common denominator to make them feel that they are in a higher class than black and brown people.  When in reality, there is the working class and those who make enough to sit on their butts for a decade or century. 

            Thus, their despair is covered up or held by the threads with the delusion that they are still in a better lot than black people. 

            Almost every white person who voted for Mitt Romney, voted for a smaller social security check, higher college tuition, less scholarships, bigger medicare co-pay, and another war with a nation of brown people, but at least he was going to give your boss a big tax cut so he can give you a raise instead of buying a beach house.

            Those same white people are more than willing to vote against their economic interests because to their minds it keeps the white economic power structure in place.  God knows they don’t want to be helped by a black man, let alone have a black man in power with nothing to lose.

            I think the minority/majority state might save America from Reaganism and devolving even more into a pension-less country where most of the private property is owned by Wall Street. 

            Abortion is the other big wedge issue that most republican politicians and their rich counterparts don’t care one way or another but don’t mind taking away a woman’s right to control her own body to make an extra-million. 

            Now before you say I am too cynical about how I view rich republicans, talk to these people.  They are narrow-minded in the sense that they don’t consciously acknowledge that their representative politicians have to stir up racism to get their taxes cut.  They deny it to themselves.  Just like they deny the reality of starving and homeless people all over the world while they buy a second and third home.  They have the real class identity that deludes reality not unlike the racial identity of their neo-Feudal flock.

            Most rich republicans I know are not racist and they don’t care about social issues, but they don’t want to hear the political methods it takes to create the level of inequality they want.

        • jefe68

          I’m curious. Why are you bothering to go through all this trouble? Let the Gergg’s of the world dig their own ditches. 

          They fill this forum with racially charged screeds, of which there is no reaction from BUR, which in and of itself is a statement.

          The lack of respect that is hurled toward people how are not like them is at times astonishing, but not surprising.  

          They are the very face of the ugly American.

          • Lusitan75

            “They fill this forum with racially charged screeds, of which there is no reaction from BUR”

            Aw, does Jefe want nanny BUR to come in and censor those evil white people who don’t tow the democrat phony victimhood / false racism line?

            Poor little sun person.

      • 1Brett1

        It is my own satire, if that is what you are asking.

  • hennorama

    R.I.P., Helen Thomas.

    • brettearle

      She WAS pesky and became more of a gadfly–as she got caught up in her own reputation.

      But she fell from grace, did she not?–because of her comments on the Middle East (sentiments regarded as anti-Israeli, I believe).

      I think that she lost her ceremonial position, as first questioner at a White House Press Conference–and then banished to a fringe wire service.

      Nevertheless, a Legend….

      Who could we compare her to?

      Sam?  Jake?

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         Helen’s wig was MUCH better than Sam’s.

        • brettearle

          Ha.  Ha.

          You may be right.

      • hennorama

        brettearle – Helen Thomas always asked the hard questions on behalf of the public, and was one of a kind.

        The irony of such a staunch advocate for freedom of the press and freedom of expression having her career effectively ended by her own free speech is inescapable, and proof that not all speech is free, at least not free of consequence.

        • brettearle

          `On point’, Henn…at least generally.

          However, if you’re a journalist (as opposed to a columnist) you are shellacking your profession and your own personal reputation–by making comments that make you look biased or otherwise actually shows up your bias.

          [And I am not sure she should get a pass because of her age.  After all, she was still gainfully employed by media services.]

          I am reminded of an incident (if you can believe this) that occurred recently in a different context that is somewhat analogous.

          The Bail Appeal judge for the Hernandez case, turned down Bail–and did so, because she LITERALLY said that the defendant WAS guilty of working with two cohorts to create or cause mayhem (she didn’t use those exact words but they were legalistic, I believe, to include any sort of gratuitous violence.)

          [When I heard it, I couldn't help wondering if the sequence was cropped or abridged--because it was so unbelievable.

          When I pointed this out on air, with hundreds of thousands listening, soon thereafter, it was confirmed for me, that I what I heard and saw, did, indeed, occur the way I heard it and saw it.]  

          • hennorama

            brettearle – Merci bien, encore.

            I agree – Helen Thomas should not get a pass for her remarks, and she besmirched both her profession and her personal reputation when she made them. Still, it drips with irony.

            That is quite a story about the Bail Appeal judge for the Hernandez case. TY for sharing.

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

        How HT “fell from grace” says a lot about who decides what “grace” is. There’s a reason I use the term “Beltway Inbred” for the groupthink she.

        Sam “Mohair Sam” Donaldson?

        Jake Tapper, whose work improves considerably the farther away from DC he turns his focus?

        My best guess is someone from McClatchy. They seem the biggest name service that’s been doing the real work in DC.

  • 1Brett1

    • hennorama

      I fully expected this comment to get a large number of “Likes” from one portion of the audience, but there are none, as of 11:05 PM (GMT) Saturday, July 20, 2013

      • HonestDebate1

        It does make more sense than most of his comments but I’ll refrain.

  • HonestDebate1
    • 1Brett1

      What do you do, troll the internet looking for famous people’s ideologies/statements you can agree with so you can post on here?….James Woods? Really? That is a definite laugh out loud one there.  

      • HonestDebate1

        No, I just go to my usual and trusted right-wing neocon hack sites.

    • hennorama

      Clearly, we all should pay attention to everything James Woods has to say, as his experience in all matters is relevant, always.

      What is his “forrest [sic] thing/big picture” world view?

      Inquiring minds do not wish to know.

      • HonestDebate1

        When good points are made I don’t care where they come from. Mr. Woods has an interesting tie to 9/11. He was on a plane when some of the jihadist hijackers were doing a dry run previous to that awful day. He noted the unusual behavior and reported it. He’s a patriot. 

        I find it odd no one comments on what he tweeted but are willing to post gratuitous nastiness, typical shallowness.

        • 1Brett1

          The HonestDebate1′s glossary of translated Greggspeak phrases:  

          “Good points” = stuff I agree with.

          “jihadist hijackers” = all Muslims

          “Patriot” = person who is a conservative.

          “gratuitous nastiness” = stuff other than stuff I want to argue against.

          “typical shallowness” = liberalzzz or anyone from the DemocRAT Party.

          “I find it odd no one comments” = when people whose ideology I don’t like don’t reply to every aspect of every one of my  comments it means that they are stupid, nasty and wrong in all of their opinions; I’m gonna burst if someone doesn’t reply with something I can argue against soon!     [In Greggspeak sign language: shaking fist in air]

          • HonestDebate1

            That’s just silly and the part about all Muslims being jihadist hijackers borders on libel. Can you be more nasty? Am I in your head to the degree you have to go all to pieces and go insane like this? It’s so over the top I am flagging it.

          • 1Brett1

            Gregg: “I’m telling mom!”

          • jefe68

            Oh you poor little entitled white guy. Being told off by a big bad liberal. I’m telling the people at BUR, who don’t really give a toss about you by the way.

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

      Newsbusters?

      Well, looks like this place has devolved into the PostAnyShiteOneCantGetOnARealMediaCrit journal.

      Hahahahahaha.

      • hennorama

        TF – The capital letters in PostAny … form these words:

        Scam Crap Goo.

        An anagram reveals hidden truth, again.

      • HonestDebate1

        The tweets were from James Woods via Twitchy. Newsbusters passed it along but they are not a player, relax. You’re so funny!

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

          Stop link-pimping crat like Newsbusters. There’s a reason nobody takes them seriously except Armstrong (Paid Hack) Williams, Karen (Fake Video “News”) Ryan, Jeff Gannon, and CNS>

          Relax?

          I say with my regular relaxed yawn: All I did was apply the Single Rule of Media Crit: If it’s genuine media crit, you can provide a link that’s not embarrassing to journos Newsbusters. If it’s only at Newsbusters, it’s not worth anyone’s time.

          • pete18

            Yeah, you know Greg, genuine, serious non-embarrassing links to places like BalloonJuice.com

            Thank goodness we have a professional media critic in our midst to keep us on track.

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

            Screengrab is right there, moron. Do I have to s-p-e-l-l it out for you.

            And when it comes to media crit, Newsbusters is a shitestain which tries to pretend to the Beltway Inbreds that it’s FairAndBalancedConservative.

            Liberal bloggers don’t play that falseequivalence game.

          • HonestDebate1

            I have no idea what Newsbusters has to do with it. However, I do have a little shrine for Brent Bozell in my living room.

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

            You link-pimped Newsbusters.

            Stop your “honesty”. You’re not fooling anyone.

          • HonestDebate1

            Are you saying the tweets were not from Woods and Newsbusters forged them? What else can you be saying?

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

    Jake Tapper is showing his true colors. Any further belief of his being the Next Helen Thomas can be blown up.

    This is a screengrab from Tapper’s show. http://www.balloon-juice.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/racistinchief.png

    When asked about this, Tapper responded

    I asked the panel about a quote from a Fox News pundit. My team rocks and the conversation was great.
    — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) July 20, 2013

    .

    Yes, Jake. Nothing CNN needs more than to repeat crap from some jerkwad at Fox News. Because CNN is reduced to being nothing more than Fox-lite, every hack on is treating “news” as nothing but an audition reel for the asswipes at Fox.

    So, I have a question:

    Is Jake Tapper an anal-raping pedophile?

    Because I asked my panel about a quote I just made up. My team rocks and the conversation was great.

    • 1Brett1

      If you also had two text numbers underneath your quote, one for “yes” and one for “no,” you could claim to be “fair and balanced!

  • HonestDebate1

    Here’s another good tweet, this time from Larry Elder to the AP:

    “George Zimmerman’s changing his last name to “Benghazi”–then you guys will lose interest.”

    • John Cedar

       ”Ben” ghazi, then Obama will ignore him.

    • OnPointComments

      There are a number of political commentators who have suggested that the President wants to prolong the discussion of the Zimmerman case because it takes the place of discussing the IRS, Benghazi (did he get to the bottom of this, as he promised?), DOJ spying on reporters, NSA spying on everybody, and Obamacare.  The commentators may be correct.

      • 1Brett1

        “There are a number of political commentators” = one of Fox’s commentators said this in a panel discussion, and an amateur blogger repeated it.

        • OnPointComments

          As difficult as it is for someone like you to believe, some of us actually venture beyond DailyKos, MotherJones, and ThinkProgress.

  • HonestDebate1

    The tactics of a few libs are so vacuous, nasty and void of any substance that I think they have run off most (not all) of the reasonable liberals that used to be regulars. I miss JGC and Ellen Dibble to name a couple.

    So often comments on substantive issues (Fridays) or substantive comments on daily topics are met with the same ol’ same ol’. This includes:

    Gratuitous nastiness
    Evel Kneival leaps of logic
    reductio ad absurdum arguments
    insane projections
    cooked numbers
    condescension dripping like snot from noses held high
    shooting the messenger without acknowledging the message
    ideological group think
    lies and distortions
    an inability to look past the trees at the forrest
    jack-hammer nuanced shallowness 
    parroting spoon-fed talking points
    telling others what they think and criticizing them for thinking it
    ignoring, dodging and deflection
    and throwing around the word racist with astonishing ease

    All of this in lieu of honest debate. 

    I don’t see this from the Conservatives who seem to be growing in numbers. As my conservative friends make their collective case the liberals double down on the above. In some cases they go batty. It’s really quite shameless. It seems to me the conservatives around here all are unique in their perspectives despite the common denominators, I don’t see that from the left. It creates a dynamic where liberals often seem to assume everyone thinks like they do regarding who they believe. We see them think they are making a valid point by saying things like, “he or she was appointed by Bush” or “that is a Republican policy” or “why do you all of the sudden believe so and so”. As if it matters, as if conservatives endorse ideology over ideas. 

    I’m beginning to rethink the value of being here at all but I do like the show. And I do think it is far more balance than this blog. I’m also a huge long time NPR fan.

    But this place has lost its charm.

    • jefe68

       ”The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
      Nice list. Funny how you’re describing the substance of a lot of what you post if not all. And then there is the victimhood act. Poor little white entitled conservative tea party guy. All the big bad liberals are spoiling your screeds and memes. 

      Spare me the self aggrandizing act. 

      • Lusitan75

        It is the pinnacle of irony to hear the race-baiting class complain about “the victimhood act.”  That’s all you hear from the left. 

        • 1Brett1

          Did you just call jefe part of “the race-baiting class”? What is the race-baiting class? 

          • jefe68

            Did you not get the memo?
            Apparently if you make comments about racily charged screeds, akin to some of the ones posted by Gregg or this rube, you’re part of the ”the race-baiting class”.  It’s the new thing. 
            If you’re a conservative white male, you point your finger and cry foul. It’s as if hundreds of years of history mean nothing.

          • Lusitan75

            See above.  ”Race-baiting class” refers to the group of people engaged in race-baiting.

        • jefe68

          Race-baiting class? Which race is this?
          Entitled white folks? 

          I keep coming back to this quote whenever I read comments like yours:

          “He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don’t let that fool you. He really is an idiot.” ― Groucho Marx

          • Lusitan75

            I know the English language is complex, but pay careful attention and I’ll explain it to you.

            “Race-baiting class” isn’t referring to a “race” of people, it’s referring to a “class” of people.

            The class of people to which “race-baiting class” refers is that group of people (of any race) which engage in race-baiting.

            Ironic that in response to my use of the term “race-baiting class” you immediately, and mistakenly, seek to identify “which race” I’m talking about.  It’s like race is the only issue you can think of.  To a race-baiter there is racism behind every statement and every issue.

          • jefe68

            I know clear well what you’re up to here. It’s what is commonly called hogwash buddy.

            You conveniently leave out hundreds of years of slavery and oppression against African Americans. Now as to class, there were plenty of wealthy African Americans, Jews, Irish, Asians who have been denied access to education (Harvard quotas for Jews in one example), seats on buses and the right to enter establishments such as hotels. Some of whom are white.

            Race baiting indeed.

          • Lusitan75

            Jefe thinks its hogwash.  OK, Jefe.

            “You conveniently leave out hundreds of years of slavery and oppression against African Americans.”

            Um, I leave that out from where?  What does your statement even mean?

            I don’t dispute that blacks were slaves in America for hundreds of years.  But I don’t accept that as an excuse for turning the Martin/Zimmerman case into an overblown, phony racial issue.

            “there were plenty of wealthy African Americans, Jews, Irish, Asians who have been denied access to education (Harvard quotas for Jews in one example), seats on buses and the right to enter establishments such as hotels. Some of whom are white.”

            But only blacks get to complain about racial issues, right?  That’s what you imply in many of your comments. 

    • hennorama

      To
      Tea Bends He – while you did not single [hennorama] out in your
      little screed, please allow me to respond.

      I’ll
      simply respond to one of your earlier posts here (the
      referenced post is here):

      http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/07/19/week-in-the-news-zimmerman-abortion-filibuster#comment-971025054

      Well,
      well, well. You used an actual reliable source, for once. And you
      cited a source, to boot. Well done

      As
      to your comments:

      You
      should stop your little Snoopy dance, and take the word “gotcha”
      out of your head.

      A
      question from Megyn Kelly to Karl Rove, on Election Night 2012 comes
      to mind – ”Is this just math that you do as a Republican to make
      yourself feel better, or is this real?”

      Mr.
      Elder used information about three separate groups of people –
      crime victims, criminal offenders, and a portion of the US populace,
      each of which has something in common — they’re all ”black” –
      to, as President Obama said “[paint] with a broad brush.” Mr.
      Elder’s figures were just a little bit off – by a factor of at
      least 1328.

      More
      on that later.

      Apologies
      as to “an earlier quote [ I ] missed.” My commentary was based
      on YOUR quote of Mr. Elder from three days ago — “Half the
      murders in this country are committed by black people even though
      black people are 12% of the population.”

      See:

      http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/07/15/zimmerman-verdict#comment-967751488

      I
      should know by now to not trust your quotes. Mea culpa. My
      apologies for not confirming what you apparently thought was Mr.
      Elder’s strongest point, and for arguing against YOUR quote of his
      words.

      When
      I examined YOUR quote, I found that – surprise! – you had truncated
      Mr. Elder’s words. So I quoted Mr. Elder accurately, and much more
      completely. While they were his exact words, I missed the fact that
      he changed the subject midstream, from “7,000 murders last year
      Piers, of black people…” to, “There’s seven thousand
      murders last year. Half – wait, wait a minute…. half, half of the
      crimes of mur– ..half of the murders in this country are committed
      by black people even though black people are 12% of the population,
      which means 6% of the population are committing almost half the
      murders. And you throw out the old people and the young people
      Piers, you’re talking about 3% of the population committing almost
      half the murders … this is why commonsensical people PROFILE!””

      Again,
      mea culpa.

      Now,
      looking at all of Mr. Elder’s words together, it would appear that
      Mr. Elder’s conclusion is that it’s just “commonsensical” to
      profile others, because, according to him, “you’re talking about 3%
      of the population committing almost half the murders …”

      This
      makes a focus on Mr. Elders’s discussion of offenders (“12%…6%…3%
      of the population committing almost half the murders …” obviously
      unfounded. Again, mea culpa.

      Let’s
      say that the conflation of his earlier words, “7,000 murders last
      year Piers, of black people…” with “There’s seven thousand
      murders last year. Half – wait, wait a minute…. half, half of the
      crimes of mur– ..half of the murders in this country are committed
      by black people…” was not intentional.

      Still,
      his words “7,000 murders last year Piers, of black people…”
      are inaccurate. As you helpfully pointed out, “There were 6,329
      black murder victims in 2011.”

      If
      you find it necessary to edit Mr. Elder, and to put the word “almost”
      into his mouth – let’s just say it wouldn’t be the first time
      you’ve misquoted someone.

      If
      you also want to quote Mr. Williams’ “Each year, roughly 7,000
      blacks are murdered.” to make yourself feel better, go right ahead.

      I
      also have a question for you, Mr. Smith. You wrote, “So the part
      you [hennorama] quoted was after he [Mr. Elder] made clear it was black murders
      he was talking about.”  Exactly what are “black murders” sir? Your phrasing is notable.

      You
      wrote, “The bottom line is Elder is right. the 7K number is
      accurate, prove it isn’t”

      Since
      you used the FBI’s Expanded Homicide Data Table 1 as your source
      above, let’s use the same source, OK? Here are the FBI’s Expanded
      Homicide Data Table 1 “Murder Victims” data for 2008 through
      2011, showing both the Total Murder Victims and the “Black”
      victims:

      Murder
      Victims by Race and Sex, 2008: Total 14,180. Black 6,782

      Murder
      Victims by Race and Sex, 2009: Total 13,636. Black 6,556

      Murder
      Victims by Race and Sex, 2010: Total 12,996. Black 6,470

      Murder
      Victims by Race and Sex, 2011: Total 12,664. Black 6,329

      If
      you think those figures are equivalent to “7,000 murders last year
      Piers, of black people…” or “Each year, roughly 7,000 blacks
      are murdered, ” fine. BTW, If your suppliers know you think 6,329
      is the same as “7,000” or “roughly 7,000,” you might want to
      double check the weights and numbers of things delivered to your
      business.

      =========

      Let
      me pierce your “gotcha” bubble.

      The
      FBI uses Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) to collect the data it compiles
      into its statistical tables. In your haste, you probably overlooked
      this important disclaimer from the FBI, about their Expanded Homicide
      Data tables:

      “Expanded
      Homicide Data

      “Data
      collection

      “The
      Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program of the FBI collects
      supplementary homicide data that provides information regarding the
      age, sex, and race of the murder victim and offender; the type of
      weapon used; the relationship of the victim to the offender; and the
      circumstance surrounding the incident. Data gleaned from these
      supplemental data are provided in this section.”

      On
      the same page, there’s this:

      “Overview

      “Of
      the 12,664 murder victims in 2011 for which supplemental data were
      received, most (77.6 percent) were male. (Based on Expanded Homicide
      Data Table 1.)”

      Notice
      the qualifying phrase “for which supplemental data were received,”
      which you no doubt overlooked.

      See:

      http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expanded-homicide-data

      It’s
      helpful to know that supplementary data is not received for every
      homicide. This means that there will be different totals for the
      number of murder offenses, murder victims, and murder offenders,
      depending on the supplementary data received by the FBI. This would
      happen even if supplementary data were available for all homicides,
      as there is some overlap and some differences due to issues of
      multiple offenders for one victim, multiple victims for one offender,
      etc.

      This
      means that the numbers in the different tables, that separately show
      totals for murders/offenses, murder victims, and offenders/murderers
      are not 100% interchangeable.

      The
      three separate FBI figures for 2011, for Murder Victims, Murder
      Offenders, and Murder Offenses:

      *Murder
      Victims by Race and Sex, 2011: Total 12,664. Black 6,329 (from
      Expanded Homicide Data Table 1)

      (These
      are the numbers you quoted in your post. Unfortunately, you
      misunderstood what these statistics represent. These are not ALL of
      the “Murder Victims” from 2011 — these are “the 12,664 murder
      victims in 2011 for which supplemental data were received.” So
      there’s no “gotcha!”)

      *Murder
      Offenders by Age, Sex, and Race, 2011: Total 14,548. Black 5,486
      (from Expanded Homicide Data Table 3)

      (These
      are the numbers I quoted, as I focused on your quote from Mr. Elder,
      that “Half the murders in this country are committed by black
      people even though black people are 12% of the population.”)

      *Offense
      Analysis United States, 2007–2011 Murder, 2011: 14,612 (from Crime
      in the United States 2011, Offenses Known to Law Enforcement Table 7)

      So
      indeed, you are correct. My figure of “14,548 Murders known to the
      FBI” for 2011 was inaccurate, as written. It was TOO LOW, by 64.
      I should have written “14,548 MurderERs known to the FBI” or
      “14,612 Murders.”

      Since
      Mr. Elder used the term “murders,” and to the FBI, “murder” is and offense, then the CIUS Offenses Known to
      Law Enforcement Table 7 is most applicable, right? Apples to apples,
      and all that.

      What
      does all of this prove? It proves that unless one uses these terms
      properly, it’s easy to conflate the numbers of murders, murder
      victims, and murderers, intentionally or otherwise. That’s exactly
      what Mr. Elder did.

      Mr.
      Elder mashed everything together. He began with the number and type
      of offenses (“7,000 murders last year Piers”), switched
      to who the victims were (“of black people”), went back to the
      number and type of offenses (“7,000 murders”), switched to who
      the offenders were (“half of the murders in this country are
      committed by black people”) then talked about the racial
      composition of the US (“black people are 12% of the population”)
      then switched back to who the offenders were (“6% of the population
      are committing almost half the murders. And you throw out the old
      people and the young people Piers, you’re talking about 3% of the
      population committing almost half the murders.”)

      =======

      Unfortunately,
      Mr. Elder mashed data about murder victims, murder offenders, and an
      estimate about a portion of the US populace all together, into one
      unqualified, unequivocal mess.

      These
      are the two data points that Mr. Elder was actually trying to
      utilize, again from the same FBI web page quoted above,

      -
      “Concerning murder victims for whom race was known, 50.0 percent
      were black, 46.0 percent were white, and 2.6 percent were of other
      races. Race was unknown for 175 victims. (Based on Expanded
      Homicide Data Table 2.)”

      -
      “Of the offenders for whom race was known, 52.4 percent were black,
      45.2 percent were white, and 2.4 percent were of other races. The
      race was unknown for 4,077 offenders. (Based on Expanded Homicide
      Data Table 3.)”

      See
      again:

      http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expanded-homicide-data

      =======

      Mr.
      Elder used information about three separate groups – black murder
      victims, black murderERS, and the black population of the US, each of
      which has something in common (they’re all “African-American”)
      to, as President Obama said “[paint] with a broad brush.”

      Mr.
      Elder made his final point “… you’re talking about 3% of the
      population committing almost half the murders … this is why
      commonsensical people PROFILE!”

      See,
      the thing is, that is just flat out wrong.

      It’s
      not “3% of the population committing almost half the murders …”
      It’s more like 0.002258 “percent of
      the population committing almost half the murders …”

      For argument’s sake, let’s use Mr. Elder’s figure of “7,000 murders
      last year Piers, of black people…”, and assume that there were
      also exactly 7,000 murderERS of those victims, and that all 7,000
      murderERS were “black people.”

      Now
      let’s ballpark the US population – Census Bureau says “2012
      estimate 313,914,040” – let’s round down to 310 million, which
      makes the arithmetic really simple.

      Mr.
      Elder said “you’re talking about 3% of the population committing
      almost half the murders …”

      3%
      of 310 million is 9.3 million people.

      Therefore,
      according to Mr. Elder “you’re talking about [9.3 million people]
      committing almost half the murders…”

      Wow.
      9.3 million people committing murders, and they’re all “black.”
      No wonder Mr. Elder said “this is why commonsensical people
      PROFILE!”

      Except
      that’s true AT ALL, is it? Remember, we have assumed 7,000
      murderERS, above.

      Take
      out your calculators everyone. Divide 7,000 by 310,000,000, then
      multiply by 100 (to convert to “percent”).

      You
      should get a result of 0.0022580645161290322580645161290323. Let’s
      round down to 0.002258 percent.

      That’s
      a teeny bit less than “3% of the population.” In fact, it’s a
      mere 1328 times less. (3 divided by 0.002258, rounded down)

      If
      we used the FBI figures for 2011, “Of the offenders for whom race
      was known, 52.4 percent were black” – this figure is 5,486 – and
      the US Census estimate of the US population – 313,914,040 – we
      would get an even LOWER “percent of the population committing
      almost half the murders …” (0.001748 percent).

      That’s
      a very broad brush you’re using, Mr. Elder. You might want to use
      one that’s AT LEAST 1328 times more narrow.

      Other
      than that, your points are well taken, sir.

      • OnPointComments

        It’s easy to get bogged down in the numbers.  The crux of all the number-crunching (which I think you mentioned somewhere in your 1,957 words) is that in a comparison of the number of black vs. nonblack murderers, African Americans are represented at a rate that is disproportionately far higher than their representation in the population as a whole.
         
        The preceding paragraph is 59 words.  Oops, I got bogged down in the numbers for a moment.

        • 1Brett1

          “It’s easy to get bogged down in the numbers” =
          I would rather go with the distorted and cherry picked numbers that are compatible with what I want to believe. 

          The preceding paragraph is 30 words (including the = sign). Oops, I got bogged down in trivial irrelevant comparisons and divulged that I waste time counting words in others’ comments.

          • pete18

            Does that mean that you think OPC is wrong in his general assertion?

          • OnPointComments

            Better 1,952 words from someone who has a keen intellect than your 30 words. And if you think I personally counted the words, then you’re simpler than I thought.

          • 1Brett1

            And Gregg says “libs” are nasty…if you think I counted yours of hennorama’s words to make my point, you are a presumptuous fool.

        • hennorama

          OPC – TYFYR.

          My response – Yes. And?

          Tempting as it may be to end there, I shan’t.

          A wise person once told me -

          “When you start to generalize, stop for a second, then put the word “all” in front of what you are generalizing about. Change it to an absolute. If your words still make sense, then go ahead; if not — it’s time to re-think.”

          e.g. “[All] 3% of the population committing …”, “[All] red cars are…” etc.

          Another wise person told me something else -

          When you use numbers to make a point, ask yourself these questions: “If the numbers are true, so what? What is the significance?” What ultimate point are you trying to make?”

          I reduced someone’s words into a number – 0.002258 percent. So what?

          Rather than effectively accusing 3% of the entire US population – more than 9.3 million people – of “committing almost half the murders … this is why commonsensical people PROFILE!,” my tiny little number tells the average American that in reality, if they personally interact with one hundred thousand people in a year, they should be worried about TWO of them, half the time. And if you instead interact with 10,000 people in a year, you should really worry about less than one quarter of ONE person.

          Watch out for that left leg, everyone!

          0.002258 percent. 2 out of 100,000.

          Not 3 out of every 100 people, as Mr. Elder wants you to believe.

          Thank you for your measured response.

          “Perfect numbers like perfect men are very rare.”

          - Rene Descartes

          Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/renedescar378858.html#ZTfq4tOK4b6M2lJB.99

          • OnPointComments

            I personally knew René Descartes. Before he met me, his quote was “Perfect numbers like perfect men are nonexistent.”

      • HonestDebate1

        Really? Are you serious? I linked the video, if you are going to comment on it then watch it. So you are off by over 7K and it’s my fault for quoting Elder? And, you claim, Elder is off by less than 700 and get hung up there. I guess that’s easy for someone who writes off well over 37,000 black rapist as a rounding error…. or something. 

        You should really be ashamed of yourself Hennon.  Look at yesterday’s board, watch MSNBC, listen to Sharpton and the race hustlers, all telling us black kids are not safe because of racism in America. The spoon fed fear is disgusting. I don’t like talking about this issue in these terms but I didn’t choose the terms. To shine the light on the lie one must point out the facts. OPC is right about getting bogged down in the numbers. I fell prey and foolishly followed you  down the road. I got bogged down in the numbers but what you did is use the numbers to lie, to distort and to obfuscate he truth. The fact is the risk to blacks from whites is infinitesimal compared to the risk blacks face from other blacks. All of your verbiage (I think OPC was off by a couple of zero’s, my God!) and distortion cannot change that fact which is the point. You won’t acknowledge the point. You do all you can to minimize it.

        It’s very simple, I even over thought it. Let’s say 12% of the population committed 100% of the murders. Divide it in half, 6% killed 50% and the other 6% killed the other 50%. So if you are talking about 50% of the murders then you are talking about 6%.

        Of the 38 or so million blacks in America about 11.3 million are under 17 years of age and another 12. 3 million are over 45. That’s much much more than half. I’ll leave it to you to get bogged down in the numbers and cross reference the ages with the murder stats but I think you will find you can throw out the ole and young to get to the 3% or very close. Table 4.

        http://www.census.gov/population/age/data/2010comp.html 

        The fact is the meme falls apart if blacks as a percentage of population are even slightly more responsible for black murders than whites.

        Your other hang up is the 7K number. Again I’ll leave it up to you to do the math. I got the 6,329 number from the same chart as the 12,664 number. If 12,664 is low and should be 14,612 the what does YOUR reasoning do to the 6,329 number? Smarty pants.

        • hennorama

          [EDITING IN PROCESS] 1:50 AM Wednesday, July 24, 2013 (GMT)

          • HonestDebate1

            You’re trying to be funny Hennon but you hit the nail on the head. You could not have made my argument better. Honest debate on race is no longer possible when the cold hard truth is represented as racist (white separatist pseudo-statistics).

            It’s very sad. I’m completely sincere.

            And BTW, your math doesn’t work. It would be 3% not 1.5%. You are not talking about half the comments you said almost all. Just wave the white flag and be gone.

          • hennorama

            To Tea Bends He – TYFYR.

            My post was an example of “painting with a broad brush.”

            It was actually a difficult exercise because my mind doesn’t work like that at all. The technique was exactly the same as what Mr. Elder did, as well as those white separatists whose pseudo-statistics you are so fond of quoting.

            That is not to in any way imply that Mr. Elder is a white separatist. He just used the same techniques.

            As to the move from 3% to 1.5% to 0.75% – I was just following Mr. Elder’s example. Start with the large group, eliminate females, then “throw out the old people and the young people.” It doesn’t matter whether the last two are exactly accurate. In fact I think he just threw in “throw out the old people and the young people” off the cuff. BTW – it was hilarious that you felt the need to reach down to a cutoff point of “over 45” as a proxy for “the old” while writing your prior post.

            My use of the term “white separatist” is based on the way the publisher of ‘The Color Of Crime,” Jared Taylor, has described himself. If you read “racist” into that, that is your interpretation, sir, as I do not use that term except in quoting others or when describing my recovery from that condition.

            As I wrote in a reply to you, regarding another term you comfortably used:

            “Please note that you introduced the term “White supremacist site” to this discussion.

            “I prefer the term “white nationalist/separatist/supremacist” or similar, as it is difficult to distinguish between the three descriptors. I have used the term “white supremacist” to describe particular links from the KKK and the Aryan Nation, as they clearly are “supremacist” in my view. But I’m otherwise careful to not use that term alone, due to its connotation. You seem much more comfortable with it, for some reason.”

            See:
            http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/07/15/zimmerman-verdict#comment-968122483

            And here’s just a bit more about Mr. Taylor, whose claim you’ve misquoted, and which you now describe as “the cold hard truth.“ This is also from a prior post:

            “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://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/07/12/week-in-the-news-238#comment-962393268

            “Honest debate on race is no longer possible when” people from North Carolina (mis)quote white separatist pseudo-statistics, and believe them to be “the cold hard truth.”

            A wise person once told me -

            “When you start to generalize, stop for a second, then put the word “all” in front of what you are generalizing about. Change it to an absolute. If your words still make sense, then go ahead; if not — it’s time to re-think.”
            e.g. “[All] 3% of the population committing …”, “[All] red cars are…” etc.

            Another wise person told me something else -

            When you use numbers to make a point, ask yourself these questions: “If the numbers are true, so what? What is the significance?” What ultimate point are you trying to make?”

            The only “flag” I’ll be raising, sir, is the figurative one that challenges unexplained, unsubstantiated, undocumented, unsupported, and unattributed claims, such as those you’re fond of making.

          • HonestDebate1

            You replied to my comment but must not have read it. I explained Mr. Elder’s  reasoning, you did not use his logic. I explained I over thought it. He did not eliminate females. I gave you the census numbers to crunch. They broke down the numbers to age 45 but that included 12.3 million where I need only 8 to make my point about half the population. Now get to work looking for that magic age. Maybe it’s 55. Crunch away.

            No hennon, you’ve lost this argument. Larry Elder was right.

          • HonestDebate1

            If you had said half instead of all you would have been right, but you didn’t. You lied about Mr. Elder who said half.

            “…all [half?] of the quoting of white separatist pseudo-statistics as if they were fact in this On Point forum are done by people from North Carolina even though people from North Carolina are 3% of the population…”

            You are looking sillier and sillier.

          • hennorama

            He Bends To Tea – – TYFYRs. I’ll consolidate my replies here.

            As I said, my comment was an example of “painting with a broad brush.”

            I merely took Mr. Elder’s quoted remarks, then substituted words and phrases using Find & Replace in my word processing software. The “painting with a broad brush” technique in this case is used to conflate the actions of a small group with the much larger group, using repetition and association.

            The trick in the exercise was in identifying exactly where the verbal sleight of hand occurs, and then in identifying exactly what one wishes to generalize about (a.k.a. paint with a broad brush). It took a number of tries to get it right, because, as I said, my mind does not work this way at all.

            I’ll just put Mr. Elder’s words up first, then show how it was done:

            Mr. Elder said:

            “7,000 murders last year Piers, of black people…” ………. “There’s 7,000 murders last year. Half – wait, wait a minute…. half, half of the crimes of mur– ..half of the murders in this country are committed by black people even though black people are 12% of the population, which means 6% of the population are committing almost half the murders. 6% of the population are committing almost half the murders. And you throw out the old people and the young people Piers, you’re talking about 3% of the population committing almost half the murders … this is why commonsensical people PROFILE!”

            As I wrote earlier, Mr. Elder mashed things together.

            Notice the repetition and associations used. 7,000 murders – twice. Black people – three times. Half – seven times. Murders – six times. Committed/committing – four times. Population – four times. The associations – 7,000 murders, black people, committed/committing murders, black people, 12% of the population, committing murders…

            This is how the metamorphosis occurred. You can try it yourself.:

            We first replace “7,000 murders” with “Almost 20 instances of quoting white separatist pseudo-statistics as if they were fact”

            Then we replace “last year” with “over the last 5 weeks”

            Next we replace “half” with “all”

            Then “murders” becomes “quoting of white separatist pseudo-statistics as if they were fact” and then “quoting of white separatist pseudo-statistics”

            Then “crimes of mur–” became “quoting of pseu–”

            Then “in this country” became “in this On Point forum”

            Now comes the verbal sleight of hand. This was the most difficult part for me. As I wrote earlier, Mr. Elder used information about three separate groups of people – crime victims, criminal offenders, and a portion of the US populace, each of which has something in common — they’re all ”black”

            So I had to find the common denominator to use. I finally landed on “North Carolina.”

            So I replaced “black people” with “people from North Carolina”

            That didn’t “read” exactly right, so I changed “of” to “by” to read “…Piers,… by people from North Carolina…”

            Then “committed” became “done” and “committing” became “doing”

            Then I found that North Carolina has about 3% of total US population, and so 12% became 3%, 6% became 1.5%, and 3% became 0.75%

            The final change was to make the first group much more specific – changing “Piers,… by people from North Carolina…” to “Piers,… by On Point commenters from North Carolina…”

            Then it was just edited for consistency of tense, etc. and “people from North Carolina” was added at the end, for emphasis and clarity.

            You can try it for yourself.

            I used the same Find & Replace concept twice yesterday, in the “Race In America Today” forum, during an exchange with commenter [Geheran1958]. You can read more beginning with [Geheran1958]‘s original post, here:
            http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/07/22/race-in-america-today#comment-972327489

            The point is to show how this “painting with a broad brush” works. I personalized it for you so that you might experience it yourself, from the other side for a change.

            Thanks again for your responses.

          • HonestDebate1

            I’m not reading all that and following you through the machinations, but I see the problem. You cannot simply change “half” to “all” without changing the math. Those words represent real numbers in the equation. You are thinking arithmetic but you should be thinking algebra.

            You do realize you’re all alone on this don’t you? Every Larry Elder hater on the planet accepted the algebraic expression. It’s true Hennon, it really is. Quit while you’re behind.

          • hennorama

            Dea … oops I mean, Dude, you’ve seriously missed the point.

            My little exercise in “painting with a broad brush” is about three groups who have something in common:

            1. Those who quote white separatist pseudo-statistics
            2. North Carolinians
            3. On Point commenters

            The “something in common” has done ALL of the “Almost 20 instances of quoting white separatist pseudo-statistics as if they were fact over the last 5 weeks in this On Point forum.”

            The point is to show how this “painting with a broad brush” works. I personalized it for you so that you might experience it yourself, from the other side for a change.

            Thanks again for your response.

            PS: If you’d like to continue to argue over statistics and Mr. Elder’s misuse of them, fine. Fire away, D.

          • HonestDebate1

            I’ll play a little longer to give you a chance to prove you are not disingenuous and are interested in admitting error in an effort to engage in honest debate. 

            As a matter of fact you are the sleight of hand trickster and you are dodging on one issue I caught you on. I will elaborate under the Ghandi quote comment above. 

            I will then go up top and prove the 12% to 6% (and to 3%) thing that you are digging into. We’ll see if you will admit when you’re wrong.

          • hennorama

            Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.

            - Mahatma Gandhi

            Truth stands, even if there be no public support. It is self-sustained.

            - Mahatma Gandhi

            The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.

            - Winston Churchill

            Read more at:
            http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mahatmagan137654.html#3ymeOkt7030zl0t4.99
            http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mahatmagan173176.html#eGKCq416wa9sxHIc.99
            http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/winstonchu129864.html#tOS8Om8yeK5E4qvP.99

          • HonestDebate1

            Unless I missed it, you did not acknowledge this paragraph:

            “Your other hang up is the 7K number. Again I’ll leave it up to you to do the math. I got the 6,329 number from the same chart as the 12,664 number. If 12,664 is low and should be 14,612 then what does YOUR reasoning do to the 6,329 number? And don’t forget the 1.5% increase from 2011 (your source).”

            I don’t need a book. Just use the same logic applied to your 14,612 and interpolate the increase to the 6,329 number… and add the 1.5%. I’m not sure if you love estimates or hate them as you seem to use them as you decry them. The 7K figure has to be very close, prove it isn’t. Use your methods and criteria. It’s a sleight of hand to use the 6,329 number from one table and use the 14,612 from another. 

            It will be later when I shame you up top so consider this a chance to preemptively admit Elder’s algebra was correct.

    • 1Brett1

      The HonestDebate1′s glossary of Greggspeak phrases Vol. II:

      “libs” = commenters I don’t like and who don’t deserve any of my respect; but, I am justified in my lack of showing respect, unlike “libs” who don’t show enough respect to me and who are not justified in doing so. 

      “reasonable liberals” = those who either don’t reply to me at all and let me spew my nonsense, or those who reply very indirectly to me only once letting me always feel more powerful and always letting me have the last word, which I like.

      “the same ol’ same ol’” = comments from “libs” I disagree with and don’t want to hear from. 

      “gratuitous nastiness” = see Vol. I

      “Evil Kneival [sic] leaps of logic” = stuff I don’t agree with.  

      “insane projections” = denials I tell myself to make myself feel better.

      “cooked numbers” = numbers I don’t agree with/numbers different than the made up/distorted ones in my narrative. 

      “an inability to look past the trees at the forrest [sic]” =  Some say this one comes from an old field guide called,  “The Stuff I Learned from Forrest Gump,”  a book of homespun proverbs, hence the variation on the word “forest,” as a kind of pun. [A.K.A "I can't see the chocolates for the shiny wrappers"]. There is some disagreement over that interpretation, however. Linguists also are in disagreement as to its meaning. Generally, though, it is accepted as meaning, “stuff I want to look at and argue, NOT stuff others want to say or points they wish to argue, so why can’t they just say the things I either want them to say or make points I can argue with easily?”  Some historians also note that the word “forrest” indicates a belligerent nature, refusing to properly spell the word “forest,” even after having its misspelling pointed out. A.K.A. “No ‘lib’ is gonna tell me how I’m ‘posed to spell “forrest” damn it!”

      “parroting spoon-fed talking points” = stuff from “libs.”

      “honest debate” = this is from the earliest evolution of Greggspeak. The origins are unknown. It is readily accepted that it means, “stuff I believe and say that are facts, and those same stuff I use to win my arguments over “libs,” which I am victorious in every time!”

      “my conservative friends” = other neocons/Republicans/neo-libertarians I agree with [translation: ALL neocons/Repbulicans/neo-libertarians] who also pat each other on the back after beating on the “libs” making us all feel better and close to each other.

      “the conservatives around here are all unique in their perspectives” = the same talking points by conservatives, over and over, but said by either a young white female neocon, an old white male neocon, a young white male neocon, or an old white female neocon…it runs the gamut of neocon diversity.

      “as if conservatives endorse ideology over ideas” = as if, in a “libs” mind, their ideology were as important as mine. 

      HD1′s glossary of Greggspeak Vol. III will be released soon!

      • hennorama

        Wow.  A Greggspeak-To-English lexicon.  Impressive, that.

        Will it be available as a mobile app soon?

        • 1Brett1

          It was being developed but Sean Hannity holds the patent!

          • Steve__T

             I thought that it was Rush Limbaugh.

      • Ray in VT

        I think that I used to be a “reasonable liberal”, but I have been downgraded, I think, to “lib.”  I think that this is due to the fact that I am not willing to let a lot of b.s. slide.  I think that it is pretty funny that the whole unalienable vs. inalienable thing still has legs.

        • 1Brett1

          Well, Ray, yes I do believe you have been downgraded; but, that’s okay, you’ll always be a reasonable liberal to me (and not in the HD1/Greggspeak sense, either)! Now go on, you big lug, before I have to say I’ve got something in my eye…

          • Ray in VT

            Aw shucks, Brett, you’re getting me all verklempt.  I need a moment.  I consider you to be pretty reasonable as well, and also not as in the glossary definition that you gave.

          • HonestDebate1

            Peas in pod, enjoy.

          • HonestDebate1

            As soon I posted I realized it’s not really true. I still have a soft spot for you Ray despite your downgrade. Brett is in a class all by himself as far as unreasonable, nasty, illogical  and dumb goes. Occasionally you are still worth putting up with to engage, he rarely is.

          • Ray in VT

            I think that I have previously commented upon what I think are the relative merits and demerits of your positions and posts on a number of topics, and, if my memory serves me correctly, then I will stand what I have said in the past, both positive and negative.

          • jefe68

            Poor little regressive conservative, having your feelings tramped on by liberals.  

        • HonestDebate1

          It only has legs because thou won’t let it go and now you bring it up yet again. I don’t even know what your point is about the words, no idea. They chose “unalienable” live with it and let it go. 

          You are the one that post BS like 97% of climate scientists agree about AGW, or that Bush lied us in to war or that Rush isn’t “almost always right 99.7% of the time” or that the NAACP isn’t racist. Plus you now are just snarky as all get out, hence the downgrade.

          • Ray in VT

            I bring it up, sometimes with thee, because of your insistence upon some supposed great difference between the two terms.  I am fine living with the choice of the word, because I am quite confident, based upon the historical evidence, that a difference in meaning did not exist in the minds of the members of the Continental Congress in 1776.

            I will stand by my positions that you cited, as polls as published scientists have showed roughly that number in agreement.  I mean, those pieces are nothing compared to the massive weight of science brought to the table by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.  I have cited the lies that Bush has told, but I forget that I must live with your oft cited definition, seeing as how you are some sort of dictionary unto yourself.  Yeah, I do think that Rush is full of it, and I have yet to see the evidence from the supposed “audit” by his pal, but I’m sure that it is very convincing, and who doesn’t think that the NAACP should be viewed in the same light as the Klan?  Oh yeah, anyone with an ounce of sense.  I find what you call snark to be the appropriate response to constantly stated, and apparently firmly believed in, nonsense.

          • HonestDebate1

            Dude, how many times must I say it, the difference between the two words is extremely minor. I’ve never ever ever said what you claim I insist. Ever.

            What is the problem? Forget the word, forget the timely definitions that show the MINOR difference regarding the ability or inability to personally revoke them. Who cares? Are you offended by the concept that our founding was based on the notion we are are endowed by our creator with the [omit the word altogether] right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? That’s what it seems like to me but you never say when I ask. 

            The 97% of 31% of a left wing selected small sample that aren’t even all climate scientist is old news, it’s silly as is the rest of it. Believe what you want, I don’t care.

            “Almost always right” a certain percentage of the time is a joke. I’ve told you that too. You repeatedly miss the “almost always”. It’s impossible to be almost always right a certain percentage of the time. The logic fails completely. Rush is making fun of you. There is too much ideology in your eyes to see it.

            But I do have a question I’ve asked before. If you answered it, I missed it. I even gave definitions from 4 dictionaries including Oxford about a lie. I have no idea why you insist it’s my definition. It’s not, it’s THE definition. If there is no intent to deceive then its just a mistake. So the question: What is the difference between being wrong and telling a lie? I beg you to answer.

          • Ray in VT

            I don’t even think that there is a minor difference.  You say that there are timely definitions, yet the definitions that you gave were from 1856 and 1910 (or was that 1523, I forget).  The other examples are merely uses, and they do not make any attempt to differentiate between inalienable and unalienable.  For instance, here is part unalienable from Bouviers:

            “Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer”

            Here is inalienable:

            “this word is applied to those things, the property of which cannot be lawfully from one person to another … there are also many rights that are inalienable, as the rights of liberty, or of speech.”

            http://books.google.com/books?id=mIszAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Bouviers+Law+Dictionary&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kJvuUcLNPJWv4APE3IDgDA&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Bouviers%20Law%20Dictionary&f=false

            Sounds the same to me.  Rights which cannot be lawfully transferred, and even if there were some difference, that is still some 75 years after the fact.  You claim that there are other historical definitions, and I do mean definitions and not simply examples of usages, yet you have not provided them when I have asked.

            My problem with natural law theory, as I have stated, is that it, along with many other theories, merely amounts to pretty words and an ideological foundation that carries no force in the real world.  Our rights, as we experience them today, are largely the result of experiences from the British colonial era and what could be negotiated in 1791, and, indeed, we can be denied life and liberty, but there must be due process of law.  Pursuit of happiness is squishier.  If dumping oil old in the river near my house makes me happy, then is the government infringing upon my happiness by denying me that?  Of course not.

            You seem to think that I hate god, as you have told me several times.  That is something that I was not aware of until you told me that I did so.  I find it to be a strange concept to hate something that I do not believe exists, and I put no faith in any sort of higher power to either provide me with, or to protect, rights.  I see no historical evidence that it has happened in the past, so I’m not banking on it now or in the future.

            I guess that if you want to believe in a petition hosted by some creationists and headlined by a guy who said that smoking didn’t cause cancer instead of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, then go ahead and do that.  It certainly seems well in line with your habit of endorsing individuals and positions with questionable validity and sources.  You might want to read that Cook paper a little closer, as your math is a bit off, but you certainly showed that with your interpretation of some of the crime stats out there.

            For Rush to make fun of me, I guess that I would have to care, and I really don’t care what he has to say.  I don’t think that he is clever or witty, and I think it is you that has too much ideology in your eyes if you think that people like him and Beck or World Nut Daily are good sources of information.

            I have repeatedly answered your question about what constitutes a lie and provided you with several definitions that do not require intent for something to be a lie.  So, if you want to stick to the lie that “by any definition one must know that one is lying for one to lie” or whatever, then feel free to keep believing it.  Apparently that gives one an out from your point of view, but if you insist upon your definition, with the full knowledge that there are other definitions to do not require intent, then you are attempting to create a false impression.  I believe that the dictionary also calls that a lie.

          • HonestDebate1

            The actual existence of God is irrelevant. The point is our founding  documents began with the premise that we are born with (endowed) certain rights. They do not come from government, not the British government, not any government. I don’t see how you can argue that is not our founding premise even if you disagree with said premise. 

            And you can’t tell me the difference between a lie and being wrong. I gave you several definitions, you have not given me several definitions, just one: to create a false or misleading impression. 

            It doesn’t say to be false or misleading, it says “to create” which implies intent. I begged you to tell me the difference but you refuse because the difference IS intent. Otherwise there is no such thing as being wrong and anytime someone s wrong, they are lying. That’s crazy, why are you doubling down on this? You cannot be serious.

          • Ray in VT

            Who is arguing against the concept of inalienable rights?  It is certainly not me, although I will argue that that is the only founding premise embodied in the Declaration.  There’s much more to it than that, such as government being derived from the consent of the governed and the right to rebel should certain rights and principles be violated.  I believe in the concept of natural law, I just don’t trust in theories to secure our liberties in practice.  My main contention has all along been that there was no historical difference between inalienable and unalienable, as opposed to, say, this position taken by you: ”
            If they had used inalienable, it would not have meant our rights come from government.”
             http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/06/07/week-in-the-news-dna-evidence-turkey-susan-rice
             
            That is wrong, and to argue that it is so is not supported by the historical definitions that existed.  I am still waiting for you 1523 definition or how Blackstone defined them differently.

            To create a false or misleading impression is one good definition of a lie, and seeing as how you said that by any definition of the term one must know that one is lying in order to lie, and seeing as how that definition does not say anything about intent, no matter what you choose to infer from it, then that one definition is enough to disprove your statement.  Also, seeing as how you are aware of that fact, yet choose to believe otherwise, your attempt to create the false impression that it is the only definition is a lie as far as I am concerned.  But since you ask, there is this from the OED:  something grossly deceptive.

            From Merriam-Webster’s: an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker ; something that misleads or deceives.

            Random House:  something intending or serving to create a false impression.

            I have also provided examples of what I think to be the differences between a wrong or misstatement and a lie, but perhaps you missed it in one of my posts that you chose not to read.

          • HonestDebate1

            My main contention has all along been that there was no historical difference between inalienable and unalienable, as opposed to, say, this position taken by you: ”
            If they had used inalienable, it would not have meant our rights come from government.”

            What are you talking about? It’s true, inalienable would NOT have changed the premise at all. Either word “unalienable” of “inalienable” still reflected the rights were endowed by our creator. Are you now saying they are different and it would have changed the premise? Or are you saying I claimed the minor difference has squat to do with that premise?

            What is the difference between a lie and a mistake? It’s a simple question you won’t go near. It is impossible to answer without acknowledging intent. So you don’t answer but you know in your heart.

          • Ray in VT

            I have not claimed that there is a difference.  You have, as your words that quoted shows.

            Again, I have given examples of what I consider to be the difference between a lie and a mistake.  Maybe you just missed it.  Do you stand by your claim that by any definition one must know that one is lying in order to tell a lie, itself a barefaced lie.  Admit it.  You know it in your heart to be true, except that perhaps your ideology or your desire to think of yourself as an honest broker, despite evidence to the contrary, prevents you.

    • 1Brett1

      Still Here, On Point Comments, notafeminista, Lusitan75, to name a few of your “friends”…those are polite reasonable commenters here for honest debate? 

    • hennorama

      To
      Tea Bends He – TYFYRs.  Due to the usual DISQUS format/threading issues, this is placed here.  It is NOT a direct reply to the above, but is rather a consolidated response to your posts:

      http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/07/19/week-in-the-news-zimmerman-abortion-filibuster#comment-975180502

      and

      http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/07/19/week-in-the-news-zimmerman-abortion-filibuster#comment-975192753

      both of which are below.

      Again, I’ll consolidate. That’s doesn’t
      mean I’ll be brief, however.

      First,
      when you “go up top and prove the 12% to 6% (and to 3%) thing ..”
      please be sure to begin with an accurate figure for the percentage of
      the U.S. population whose race is described as ‘Black or African
      American’, and include the reference year. Remember that Mr. Elder
      said “7,000 murders last year Piers, of black people…”
      Consistency and accuracy are important, wouldn’t you agree?

      Moving
      on -

      Apparently
      I must now be responsible for both your lack of reading AND your lack
      of comprehension.

      The
      irony of you writing in succeeding posts:

      “You
      replied to my comment but must not have read it.”

      “I’m
      not reading all that and following you through the machinations, but
      I see the problem.”

      “Unless
      I missed it, you did not acknowledge this paragraph:”

      is
      no doubt lost on you, despite your omniscient “forrest [sic] thing”
      point of view.

      The
      hilarity of someone who quotes – MISquotes actually – white
      separatist pseudo-statistics, and who then writes things such as:

      “You
      should be ashamed of yourself.”

      “You
      are despicable and promote racism, lies and false narratives. You
      should be ashamed.”

      “Have
      you no shame?”

      “I
      guess that’s easy for someone who writes off well over 37,000 black
      rapist as a rounding error…. or something.

      You
      should really be ashamed of yourself Hennon.”

      “It
      will be later when I shame you up top so consider this a chance to
      preemptively admit Elder’s algebra was correct.”

      is
      no doubt also lost on you, despite your omniscient “forrest [sic]
      thing” point of view.

      Please
      allow me to continue, bemused and unabashed.

      Imagine
      my relief in reading that you would “give [me] a chance to prove [I
      am} not disingenuous and [am] interested in admitting error in an
      effort to engage in honest debate.”

      I
      was really very worried that I’d never get such “a chance,”
      especially from you, oh omniscient one. Thanks ever so.

      Of
      course, I’d have to point you back to the very open-minded “I’m not
      reading all that” sentiment you expressed earlier. Perhaps you
      missed this post, in which I thrice used the phrase “mea culpa”:

      http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/07/19/week-in-the-news-zimmerman-abortion-filibuster#comment-971459501

      I
      know you didn’t miss it, as you replied to it. Maybe you just don’t
      remember it. Please refer to my previously expressed concerns and
      worries for you relating to memory.

      DISCLAIMER:
      I am not a health care professional and any advice offered or concern
      expressed should not be interpreted as medical advice.

      While
      I had a desire to take OPC’s sage words “It’s easy to get bogged
      down in the numbers” to heart and action, and HAD done so by
      refraining from creating more statistical confetti, you seem
      insistent. Fine.

      ================

      Before
      we go further, let me remind you that none of the following are true:

      1.
      All murders that are committed are known about

      2.
      All murderers are identified

      3. The
      race of each and every murderer is known

      As
      to FBI data collection –

      “Data
      collection

      “Expanded
      offense data, including expanded homicide data, are details collected
      beyond the reports of the number of crimes known. As a result, law
      enforcement agencies can report an offense without providing the
      supplemental information about that offense.”

      See:

      http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-offense-data

      This
      means that the different tables separately show different totals for
      murders/offenses, murder victims, and offenders/murderers. Again,
      that’s because “law enforcement agencies can report an offense
      without providing the supplemental information about that offense.”

      Here
      are all the “Unknown” Totals and percentages for “Murder
      Offenders by Age, Sex, and Race, 2011” (from Expanded Homicide Data
      Table 3):

      Age:
      4,653 (32.0%)

      Sex:
      3,925 (27.0%)

      Race:
      4,077 (28.0%)

      The
      three separate FBI figures for 2011, for Murder Victims, Murder
      Offenders, and Murder Offenses (all sources as previously noted):

      Murder
      Victims, 2011: Total 12,664. Black 6,329. This is NOT 7,000.  Black = 50.0 %.

      Murder
      Offenders, 2011: Total 14,548. Black 5,486. This is also NOT
      7,000. Black = 37.7%

      Offense
      Analysis United States, 2007–2011 Murder, 2011: 14,612. “Half”
      = 7,306, which is also known as “none of the above.”

      Decide
      which of the three you want to focus on.

      Remember
      though – Mr. Elder did NOT focus. Mr. Elder mashed everything
      together. He began with the number and type of offenses committed
      (“7,000 murders last year Piers”), switched to who the victims
      were (“of black people”), went back to the number and type of
      offenses (“7,000 murders”), switched to who the offenders were
      (“half of the murders in this country are committed by black
      people”) then talked about the racial composition of the US (“black
      people are 12% of the population”) then switched back to who the
      offenders were (“6% of the population are committing almost half
      the murders. And you throw out the old people and the young people
      Piers, you’re talking about 3% of the population committing almost
      half the murders.”)

      Just
      be sure to stay in the same category. Add 1.5% to any of them –
      still not close to “7,000 murders Piers”. And if 7,000 is
      inaccurate, and it is, then it follows that you’d need to compare
      either 6,329 Black victims (+1.5%), and 5,486 Black offenders
      (+1.5%), to the 14,612 number of MURDERS. Neither of the first two
      figures is “half” or “almost half” of the third figure.

      ==========

      Again,
      the background –

      You
      were upset about some tweets made by some obviously foolish jerks,
      and went off about “tolerant libs” being mean to poor Mr. E.

      I
      eventually asked you to

      “Please
      demonstrate that those persons are:

      A.
      tolerant

      B.
      “libs”

      C.
      “tolerant libs”

      You
      wrote “KMA, no.” Very classy.

      Indeed,
      I “should really be ashamed.”

      Yeah,
      right.

      Then
      you quoted Mr. Elder. I responded to your quote of his words,
      pointing out some underlying assumptions implicit in the subject
      quote, all three of which were false. Unfortunately, I mislabeled
      data about “Murder Offenders” (a.k.a. MurderERs) as data about
      “14,548 Murders known to the FBI.”

      This
      mislabeling continued in later posts.

      But
      mislabeled or otherwise, the data (now [properly labeled] below, and
      in the forum) showed that:

      “For
      2011, (the latest year with final results; 2012 data is still
      preliminary), of the 14,548 Murder[ER]s known to the FBI, this was
      how the FBI categorized “Murder Offenders by … Race”:

      32.5% White 4,729

      37.7% Black 5,486

      1.8% Other
      256

      28.0% Unknown 4,077”

      The
      intent was to show two things – A) not all offenders are known to
      the FBI (28.0 percent Unknown!), and B) “Black people” were not
      “committing almost half the murders” and/or that “half of the
      murders in this country are committed by black people.”

      That
      seemed quite evident from the data above, making Mr. Elder
      demonstrably incorrect. In my mind, it was “’nuff said” – after
      all, 37.7% was neither “almost half” nor “half.”

      Your
      initial response suggested that I should denigrate Mr. Elder by using
      a racial epithet – (“Why don’t you just call him a house nig&#
      like the rest of your compatriots?”)

      Class
      just oozes from your words, sir. For some reason the words “judged
      … by the content of their character” come to mind just now.

      I’d
      continue, but it seems pointless. Maybe OPC can explain it to you if
      you don’t understand by now.

      • HonestDebate1

        He began with the number and type of offenses committed (“7,000 murders last year Piers”), switched to who the victims were (“of black people”), went back to the number and type of offenses (“7,000 murders”),

        Wrong, he began with the number of murders of 7000 “black people”. Don’t lie. It was a single sentence not broken as you wrote it.

        “7,000 murders last year, Piers, of black people.”

        Later he used th same 7000 number but neglected to say “black people”. He was clearly talking about black people. Only a fool, or a disingenuous deflector would say he was taking about a different subset or conflating separate issues. He did not switch back and forth, he was talking about black murders all along. Don’t be an idiot.

        You gave me the known offenders, but the subject it known victims. You are the one conflating. If the 7000 figure is wrong, you have not proven so. If the 12,664 figure is low by your criteria then the 6,329 figure from the same table is too. You are also neglecting the over 4000 whose unknown. Is it reasonable to assume 100% pare white? Is it unreasonable to assume a few hundred could be black? You don’t have a leg to stand on yet you still persist. As if it matters given the overwhelming disparity. Have you no shame?

        • hennorama

          “Black murders” – quoting Saint Reagan – “There you go again”

        • hennorama

          Bonehead Test – if you think Mr. Elder’s point during that exchange was solely about victims, and not offenders, feel free to continue with your delusion.

          This is the full subject phrase from Mr. Elder:

          “7,000 murders, last year Pierce, of black people, almost all of those were committed by black people …”

          This was later followed by :

          “There’s 7,000 murders last year. Half – wait, wait a minute…. half, half of the crimes of mur– ..half of the murders in this country are committed by black people even though black people are 12% of the population, which means 6% of the population are committing almost half the murders. 6% of the population are committing almost half the murders. And you throw out the old people and the young people Piers, you’re talking about 3% of the population committing almost half the murders … this is why commonsensical people PROFILE!”

          Guilt by association. Painting with a broad brush.

          Again, this is the verbal sleight of hand, the “switcheroo” so to speak. Start with the race of victims, switch to the race of offenders, then switch again, to the race of the larger group, then switch again, back to the race of offenders.

          I’ll rephrase, if it makes it easier for you.

          We have one false number (7,000 murders of black people) that’s supposed to equal half the murders in the country (also false), and that black people commit half of the murders in the country (also false), all followed by Mr. Elder’s ultimate conclusion that’s LAUGHABLY FALSE -

          “And you throw out the old people and the young people Piers, you’re talking about 3% of the population committing almost half the murders.”

          Mr. Elder wants you to think that there are more than 9.4 million Americans “committing almost half the murders.”

          ==========

          Repeating, as patiently as possible (think of Donald Rumsfeld’s phrase “known unknowns” while reading this):

          Not all Offenses are known to law enforcement. This means “half” or “almost half” of what Mr. Elder described as “the murders in this country” is not quantifiable.

          Not all Victims are known to law enforcement. Also, the Race of all Victims is not known. This means the number of “murders last year Piers, of black people…” is not knowable.

          Not all Offenders are known to law enforcement. Since not all Offenders are known to law enforcement, the Age, Sex and Race of all Offenders is not known to law enforcement. Even of those Offenders who are known to law enforcement, there are significant “known unknowns.” This means that Mr. Elder’s claim that “half of the murders in this country are committed by black people” is not an accurate phrase.

          Then we have the following to consider:

          The number of known Offenses does not equal the number of known Offenders.
          The number of Victims does not equal the number of known Offenders.
          The number of known Offenders does not equal the number of Victims.

          ==========
          OFFENSES:

          The FBI quantified the number of Murders for 2011 as 14,612.

          OFFENDERS:

          For the Total of 14,548 Murder Offenders that are “known to law enforcement,” not all supplementary information (Age, Sex, and Race) is known to the FBI. The FBI table shows 5,486 Black Offenders. This means Black = 37.7%. This is neither 7,000 nor half of all known Offenders.

          The Unknown categories for the Total of 14,548 “Murder Offenders by Age, Sex, and Race, 2011” (from Expanded Homicide Data Table 3):

          Age: 4,653 (32.0% Unknown)
          Sex: 3,925 (27.0% Unknown)
          Race: 4,077 (28.0% Unknown)

          VICTIMS:

          There were more than 12,664 Murder Victims in 2011, but supplemental data was received by the FBI for only 12,664, not ALL the victims. The FBI shows that, of the 12,664 Murder Victims in 2011 for which supplemental data were received, 6,329 were listed as Black. (NOT 7,000)

          Of the 12,664 Murder Victims in 2011 for which supplemental data were received, (notice the qualifying phrase “for which supplemental data were received”), not all supplementary information (Age, Sex, and Race) is known to the FBI. (aka. more “known unknowns”)

          Looking at the FBI’s “Expanded Homicide Data Table 2, Murder Victims by Age, Sex, and Race, 2011”

          In this smaller cohort – “the 12,664 murder victims in 2011 for which supplemental data were received,” the following was Unknown:

          Age 127 (1.0% Unknown)
          Sex 22 (0.2% Unknown)
          Race 175 (1.4% Unknown)

          See:
          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-2

          =========

          We can go around and around about Mr. Elder’s “inelegantly stated” mishmash, which wound up with him saying “And you throw out the old people and the young people Piers, you’re talking about 3% of the population committing almost half the murders … this is why commonsensical people PROFILE!”

          According to Mr. Elder, there are more than 9.4 million Americans (3% of the estimated population) “committing almost half the murders …” If that were true, then everyone should be scared.

          But that’s not even close to true, or “honest” or “the cold hard truth” or whatever you’d like to characterize it as.

          Let’s go back to the FBI data. They say they know about a Total of 14,548 “Murder Offenders” by Age, Sex, and Race, 2011: Total 14,548. The FBI also estimates “In 2012, the violent crime offenses of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter increased 1.5 percent from the 2011 figures.”

          If we assume that 1.5% increase also transfers to the number of Offenders (which isn’t necessarily true, but we have to start somewhere), we’ll bump that up to an estimated number of “Murder Offenders” – 14,766 for 2012 Remember, this is just an estimate.

          Now let’s go to the Census Bureau’s estimate for US population in 2012 – 313,914,040.

          Now it’s just a matter of dividing to get the estimated percentage.

          14,766 estimated Offenders divided by 313,914,040 estimated US population, multiplied by 100 (to convert to percentage) rounds to 0.00470 percent. OK so far?

          This is kind of a small “% of the population committing almost [in this case, ALL] the murders …” don’t you agree?

          Comparing that to Mr. Elder’s figure of “3% of the population committing almost half the murders …,”

          0.00470 percent is about 638 times smaller, and that’s for those committing almost [in this case, ALL] the murders …” and not just those “committing almost half the murders …”

          Now, the FBI likes to discuss “crime rates per 100,000 inhabitants.” This is a bit of an apples to oranges thing, because we we talking about Offenders above, and not Offenses/crimes.

          But as we’re dividing an estimate by another estimate, to get a third estimate, we really are just looking for a reasonableness check, and not a direct comparison.

          So here’s the arithmetic:

          We’ll just multiply our tiny little percentage by 100,000. We get 4.70. This is the estimated number of “Murder Offenders” per 100,000 Inhabitants.

          This isn’t a perfect comparison, as stated.

          Now let’s double check against the latest FBI stats, for 2011. Different year, but we’re checking for reasonableness of the 2012 estimates, above.

          From “Table 1 Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1992–2011

          Murder and non-negligent manslaughter for 2011 (Remember these are Offenses NOT Offenders)

          Volume (Number) 14,612

          Rate 4.7 per 100,000 Inhabitants.

          So we see that the two numbers are an exact match. That means our estimate is pretty reasonable.

          Conclusion:

          There is an estimated 0.00470% of the population committing almost ALL the murders in the country.

          That’s an estimated 0.0047 Murder offenders per 100 inhabitants

          or 0.047 per 1,000 inhabitants

          or 0.47 per 10,000 inhabitants

          or (as indicated above) 4.7 per 100,000.

          ==========

          Getting back to what Mr. Elder was TRYING to say. Per the FBI for 2011:

          - “Concerning murder victims for whom race was known, 50.0 percent were black, 46.0 percent were white, and 2.6 percent were of other races. Race was unknown for 175 victims. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 2.)”

          - “Of the offenders for whom race was known, 52.4 percent were black, 45.2 percent were white, and 2.4 percent were of other races. The race was unknown for 4,077 offenders. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 3.)”

          See again:
          http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expanded-homicide-data

          Please note the important qualifying phrase in both cases – “for whom race was known” and at least try to understand what that means. Mr. Elder used no qualifiers whatsoever, which is how he got into trouble. Then he mashed everything together, making one unqualified, unequivocal mess.

          If you really want to know about the various categorical intersections in the FBI supplemental data, go to “Expanded Homicide Data Table 6, Murder, Race and Sex of Victim by Race and Sex of Offender, 2011
          [Single victim/single offender]

          These are much smaller cohorts of Victims, Offenders, and Situations (Single victim/single offender), so considerable care must be used when interpreting the information.

          FYI, for 2011 “Single victim/single offender situations accounted for 48.4 percent of all murders for which the UCR Program received supplemental data.“ This was the most common known Victim/Offender Situation.

          Here are a few data points from this Table:

          For the 3,172 Single victim/single offender circumstances with White Victims, 2,630 Offenders were White (82.9%), 448 were Black (14.1%), 33 were Other (1.0%), and 61 were of Unknown race (1.9%).

          For the 2,695 Single victim/single offender circumstances with Black Victims, 2,447 Offenders were Black (90.8%), 193 were White (7.2%), 9 were Other (0.3%), and 46 were of Unknown race (1.7%).

          This is not at all surprising, as the vast majority of violent crimes are INTRAracial.

          See:
          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-6

          ==========

          Rather than doing as Mr. Elder had done, generalizing about large groups of people, and making them guilty by association with much smaller groups, why not start with what Mr. Elder was TRYING to say:

          - “Concerning murder victims for whom race was known, 50.0 percent were black, 46.0 percent were white, and 2.6 percent were of other races. Race was unknown for 175 victims. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 2.)”

          COMMENT: Compared to the 2012 estimated percentage of Americans who are “Black or African American alone” (13.1%), and the percentage of Americans who are “White alone” (77.9%), these percentages of the victims whose race is known are disproportionate.

          - “Of the offenders for whom race was known, 52.4 percent were black, 45.2 percent were white, and 2.4 percent were of other races. The race was unknown for 4,077 offenders. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 3.)”

          COMMENT: Compared to the 2012 estimated percentage of Americans who are “Black or African American alone” (13.1%), and the percentage of Americans who are “White alone” (77.9%), these percentages of the offenders whose race is known are disproportionate.

          That is definitely accurate, and doesn’t make anyone guilty by association.

  • 1Brett1

    Just a little bit of Republican nonsense for a Sunday:

  • jazminesinc

    I am white, live in what was and still is a very much Black neighborhood.  My home has been broken into.  I see Black teenagers everyday loitering and looking “suspicious”.  Not a reason to think they are an immediate threat.

    However, turn the tables, go back to OJ Simpson?  He was acquitted and his alleged victims were white.  Point, racism in the world is alive and well!

  • OnPointComments

    A letter from a source with which I don’t usually agree, but I do this time:
     
    http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/aclu_letter_to_ag_holder_re_gzimmerman_case.pdf 
     
    “We are writing to clearly state the ACLU’s position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case. Even though the Supreme Court permits a federal prosecution following a state prosecution, THE ACLU BELIEVES THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS SOMEONE FROM BEING PROSECUTED IN ANOTHER COURT FOR CHARGES ARISING FROM THE SAME TRANSACTION. A JURY FOUND ZIMMERMAN NOT GUILTY, AND THAT SHOULD BE THE END OF THE CRIMINAL CASE.”  (emphasis added)
     
    President Obama said “…Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.”  I’m more concerned that George Zimmerman could be me, or someone else, tomorrow.  Not in a shooting; the chances are slim for that happening to me.  But it’s scary to think that if I ended up accused in a trial for something else, and was acquitted, that the federal government could decide double jeopardy be damned, we aren’t  through with you yet.

    • 1Brett1

      “emphasis added” = stuff I want to emphasize that is really only one component of the larger intent of the letter.

      And, so, let me get this straight, you worry about being falsely accused (your opinion), arrested, tried and acquitted for something, then tried again in a case of double jeopardy, and that is more likely to happen to you than being killed by someone of another race? 

      I thought you guys believed black on white crime is at epidemic levels? 

      • OnPointComments

        Comprehension is obviously not your forte. The letter would not have been written without the DOJ’s decision to proceed in its investigation of Zimmerman. Pay attention.

        • 1Brett1

          Obviously, reading comprehension is not yours, plus you are now playing the role of a mind reader…hmmm, so you’re a mind reader who can not comprehend direct and simple written language…hmmm. 

          1) You are presuming to know that the ACLU would not have drafted a letter about police profiling if the DoJ had not considered investigating the Zimmerman trial. What absurdity!

          2) Frankly, it seems the main intent of the letter is to ask the DoJ about helping to end racial profiling, something you are not comprehending. 

          3) Another aspect of the letter is to praise the DoJ for helping maintain calm after the verdict…weren’t you criticizing the DoJ for doing so? 

          Did you even read the letter past the first paragraph? It doesn’t seem like you did.

          Pay attention.

  • Geheran1958

    Buckle-up. More Detroits are on the way. In virtually every case, these insolvencies are the result of decade’s long collaboration of politicians and unions. The game is not new: “scratch my back, I’ll do the same for you”. Unions received overly generous salary and benefits programs, politicians collected their votes. That coupled with years of accounting tricks and kicking the can down the road just intensified the mess an order of magnitude. Eventually, the “big kahuna” – the USofA – will fall victim to the same disease.

    • OnPointComments

      In my experience with governments, a politician or elected official will nearly always support something that garners current votes or contributes to self-aggrandizement, especially if the bill comes due after their term of office.  You’re right, eventually the bill comes due.

      • Geheran1958

        Politicians and unions -the bane of all democracies.

    • wbsurfver

      I think it is more likely caused by the state of the USA from all the bank bailouts, credit default swaps, sending all the jobs to China, NAFTA, the abolishment of glass stiegel etc etc

      • Geheran1958

        Take a look at the numbers. Believe me, one does not have to be a finance guru to conclude its the unrealistic salary and benefits programs that is 90% of the problem. Even if Detroit were to tax its residents at 100%, it still would not solve the problem. The Motor City has two choices: cut salaries, health and pension benefits or go for a Federal bailout. The tatter is probably not going to happen.

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

          bulldoze it

  • Steve_in_Vermont

    pinEdit
    Evaluation 6.1.1029
    So, after all these comments, just what are we actually
    going to do about “racism” in America. I, for one, don’t believe there is
    anything realistically we (as a society) can/will do to change perceptions
    and altitudes of either race. Hence, like the “war on drugs” we’ll be discussing
    this for years to come. Welcome to the “new normal”.

    • wbsurfver

      (meant to post below)

  • OnPointComments

    Speaking of context…
     
    “How the Media Has Distorted a Tragedy”
     http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/07/21/how_media_lies_have_distorted_a_tragedy_119311.html 
     
    Excerpt:
    President Obama spoke some undeniable truths when he noted that the African-American community’s reaction must be seen in the context of a long, terrible history of racism. But there is another context too: that of an ideology-based, media-driven false narrative that has distorted a tragedy into a racist outrage.

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

    Yes, Dbag. Liberal bloggers don’t pretend they’re not liberal.

    Any time you want to look at a CNN screengrab, go ahead.

    Are you playing stupid or seriously so?

    • pete18

      I’m still trying to figure out how it is in your mind that
      a screen grab becomes a reliable newssource but a link to or a copy of a tweet doesn’t only because you like one source and don’t like the other? Please make sure you include as many Ad Hominem attacks as you can in your response because it always makes you sound more convincing and confident about your argument.

  • wbsurfver

    The Trevon Martin thing is being used to inflame race relations. This is what Larry Pinkney has said who was one of the original black panther members. Obama would never critisize all the white police who blacks are afraid of as he is trying to build a police state and in reality Obama works for white bankers and not the other way around. The establishment also wants to reign in on more gun control. Martin Luther King’s family believes the govt killed him (just look that up it’s a fact). Jessie Jackson well knows this but is a sell out to the establishment as are the new black panthers.

  • HonestDebate1

    If Apples were murders
    An homage to the algebra of Larry Elder 

    Once upon a time in a land where everything was a color in the rainbow, there was a community of apple farmers. They were 100 strong if you counted everyone. Revenue from the sale of apples sustained their needs. Apples were the life of the community.  They grew red apples and yellow apples, every apple was precious. The yellow and red apples both brought the same price at market. They both had equal potential to sell well. The color made no difference to the buyer who was far more concerned with the general character of the apple. Some had deficiencies and some did not; some stood out… big time… both ways… both colors. 

    It was decided, despite the sacrifice to their budget, 14,000 apples (half red and half yellow) would be pulled off the market and eaten. To ensure equality, the apples to be eaten were divided evenly, 7000 each, between the red people and the yellow people. The community consisted of 12 yellow people and 88 red people. This meant 12 yellow people got 3500 red apples and 3500 yellow apples; and 88 red people got 3500 red apples and 3500 yellow apples. 

    There was much concern over red people eating yellow apples, the yellow apples were the topic of discussion. Some were angry that 12 people got 7000 apples but the real concern was with half (not all) of the apples, the yellow ones. 6 yellow people ate 3500 red apples and 6 yellow people ate 3500 yellow apples. In other words, 6% of the community’s population ate 50% of the yellow apples. 

    Of the 6 yellow people 2 were infants who did not have teeth yet, they couldn’t eat apples. 1 was very old and also didn’t have teeth to eat an apple with. This meant 3 yellow people ate half of the yellow apples.

    • HonestDebate1

      There were some who argued that there were 13 yellow people instead of 12 and the extra guy had teeth. The same ones claimed there were only 12,658 apples of which 6,329 (not 7000) were yellow. And that the half of the yellow apples that went to the yellow people was 3164.5 and not 3500. There argument was it was actually 4 yellow people who ate only 34164.5 apples. The logic being it was all much ado about nothing.

    • Ray in VT

      Is there an epidemic of groups of yellow people trying to eat one red apple, and is it true that red people never ever try to have their way with a yellow apple?

      • HonestDebate1

        Some had deficiencies and some did not; some stood out… big time… both ways… both colors. 

ONPOINT
TODAY
Apr 24, 2014
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, left, talks with Sen. Ed Hernandez, D-Covina at the Capitol in Sacramento, Calif., Monday, April 21, 2014. Hernandez proposed a constitutional amendment that would ask voters to again allow public colleges to use race and ethnicity when considering college applicants. The proposal stalled this year after backlash from Asian Americans. (AP)

California as Exhibit A for what happens when a state bans affirmative action in college admissions. We’ll look at race, college and California.

Apr 24, 2014
A Buddhist monk lights the funeral pyre of Nepalese mountaineer Ang Kaji Sherpa, killed in an avalanche on Mount Everest, during his funeral ceremony in Katmandu, Nepal, Monday, April 21, 2014.  (AP)

A Sherpa boycott on Everest after a deadly avalanche. We’ll look at climbing, culture, life, death and money at the top of the world.

RECENT
SHOWS
Apr 23, 2014
Attendees of the 2013 Argentina International Coaching Federation meet for networking and coaching training. (ICF)

The booming business of life coaches. Everybody seems to have one these days. Therapists are feeling the pinch. We look at the life coach craze.

 
Apr 23, 2014
In this Thursday, Dec. 20, 2012, file photo, Chet Kanojia, founder and CEO of Aereo, Inc., shows a tablet displaying his company's technology, in New York. Aereo is one of several startups created to deliver traditional media over the Internet without licensing agreements. (AP)

The Supreme Court looks at Aereo, the little startup that could cut your cable cord and up-end TV as we’ve known it. We look at the battle. Plus: a state ban on affirmative action in college admissions is upheld. We’ll examine the implications.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
The Week In Seven Soundbites: April 18, 2014
Friday, Apr 18, 2014

Holy week with an unholy shooter. South Koreans scramble to save hundreds. Putin plays to the crowd in questioning. Seven days gave us seven sounds.

More »
Comment
 
Our Week In The Web: April 18, 2014
Friday, Apr 18, 2014

Space moon oceans, Gabriel García Márquez and the problems with depressing weeks in the news. Also: important / unnecessary infographics that help explain everyone’s favorite 1980′s power ballad.

More »
Comment
 
Some Tools And Tricks For College Financial Aid
Thursday, Apr 17, 2014

Some helpful links and tools for navigating FAFSA and other college financial aid tools.

More »
Comment