musings on the mainstream "press corps" and the american discourse
Again, who cares?
@ 11:27 AM & 12:47 PM - your 1st comment could be reasonably interpreted as wondering why Zimmerman was punched. 12:36 PM provided a link to a more local source of the incident, possibly in response to your 1st query. As to your 2nd comment, this combox has been the locus for a great deal of commentary about Trayvon Martin's death and George Zimmerman's arrest and acquittal, as well as the manner in which it was covered by the press. Perhaps 9:49 AM was a commentary participant and thought it an interesting event to pass along.
Hi. Im 25years old and I was with my ex for 3years after a year of being together we moved in with eachother with my daughter who calls my ex daddy our relationship was great living apart but once we moved in with eachother the arguments started and my trust issues. I always use to get funny about him going down the pub with his mates while im at home and we then ended up falling out and he would be gone all night and come in at like 3-4am drunk. I also use to get funny about him going away on holiday with his mates every year. I know him breaking up with me was my fault but not sure why he broke up with me anyway money was getting tight living together so we decided to move out and he go back to his mums and I get a place for me and my daughter we argued alot at that point because of the stress trying to find somewhere to live he said he wanted to go on a months break after moving out so we can clear our heads 3weeks into our break me text me saying we’re over I was really upset because I love him so much I was always texting him and ringing him saying I love him give me another chance then he blocked my number so I couldn’t contact him do then I message him on fb asking about my daughter as she was going on about how she doesn’t understand why she’s nit seeing daddy anymore he replies with contact me once your over me and I will have contact with your daughter.so I left it a week and even though im not over him still till this day I messaged him saying I was over him so he replies with im glad to hear your over me we will arrange something for me to see your daughter. I still love him and I wanted him back i told my sister about it and she introduced me to the Famous Prophet Akim,who helps in so many ways.i contacted him and he did his thing,before i knew it,the next day Moric called me and apologized that he was sorry for everything and im sure he will never leave me again. i am so happy now,you can also get in touch with akim on his email .(firstname.lastname@example.org) :)
We should care about Zimmerman being punched, and we should care about Trump supporters being attacked in San Jose, and we should care about violence against conservative speakers on campus. The idea of people being attacked because they're unpopular is chilling. It's reminiscent of early fascism. It's striking that most of these attacks have come from the left.
What we shouldn't care about is your tribal rants about what David thinks "we" should care about.
Obviously David hasn't seen the video put together by the NY Times showing the behavior of folks at Trump rallies. They are curiously missing from his list of deplorable violence.If you only look for attacks from the left you will believe there is a pattern in which "most of these attacks" will seem to come from the left. I find it very hard to care about anything Zimmerman does these days. Picking fights isn't covered by the first amendment.
We should care about Zimmerman being punched for expressing his appreciation for the unpopular artistry of a Confederate Flag tattoo?Or do you think the punch was administered simply because it is Zimmerman who is unpopular? Why might that be?Is it because he committed a homicide and was not convicted of a crime for doing it?Both of those are irrefutable facts.Until a trial we will never know. And even then the perpetrator may not be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. But clearly Zimmerman was doing nothing wrong at the time yet did something to call attention to himself.
Anon 9:54 -- Zimmerman did NOT commit homicide, which is defined as "the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder." Killing in self-defense is not "unlawful', so it's not homicide.Why do you (and many others) believe incorrectly that Z committed homicide? It's because he was unfairly and inaccurately maligned in the national news for long period of time.
No, David in Cal, that is the definition you have chosen to use. You have chosen the definition of murder.The real definition of homicide is less qualified.http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homicide"Simple Definition of homicide: the act of killing another person"
You're right, AnonymousAugust 7, 2016 at 9:51 AM. I got my definition from a different source at https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=homicide%20meaningIt's surprising that dictionaries have different definitions.AnonymousAugust 6, 2016 at 9:54 PM wrote "he committed a homicide and was not convicted of a crime for doing it" This is an ambiguous comment because of the two definitions. Suppose Anon had written, more precisely, "he killed someone legally, in self defense, and was not convicted of a crime for doing it" The response would be "Duh!" Of course he wasn't convicted of a crime, because he didn't commit a crime.
D in C, you should bear in mind that you weren't present at the homicide (nor was I). We don't know everything that happened. The jury did not find him 'innocent.' They found him not guilty on the basis that the State hadn't proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, a high standard. He may very well have been guilty - it just wasn't proven, and neither of us were there.
We aren't very good at handling indeterminacy. You cannot call someone not guilty and then treat him as if he had been convicted, any more than you can treat him as innocent. You have to treat him as "unknown" with respect to that act. But people don't think that way. They will force their conclusion one way or the other because leaving it undecided creates a kind of mental tension (anxiety) that people seek to resolve.
AC/MA as a point of logic, you're right. But, that's a sort of academic point. Since I wasn't there, I can't rule out anything. For all I know, Donald Trump may have shot Travis Martin.The fact that the jury found Z not guilty is one thing, but that's not all. The medical evidence and testimony presented under oath at the trial made it pretty clear that Martin had attacked Z and was bashing his head against the sidewalk when Z shot him. The case should never have been prosecuted. The prosecution had no case. The prosecution was a political decision.
This isn't academic at all, David. People who encounter Zimmerman and treat him as if he were a murderer are not respecting our legal system.
They should have done a better job charging and prosecuting the case.
D in C, you aren't correct. That had some bruising and a witness said Martin was on top of Z, I believe punching him (I think you are wrong about 'bashing' his head against the road, you should try to be objective) doesn't make anything 'clear.' We don't know how the whole thing started, Z might have attacked first.
The liberal press is claiming that Trump made up a video showing the transfer of cash to Iran, that no such video exists. Meanwhile, conservative websites are showing screen shots of a pallet of money they claim comes from a video called "Rules of the Game" released by Iran last Feb. The problem is that the video doesn't match Trump's description and there is no reason to think the pallet shown is money and not some other commodity being shipped, since it was not labelled as such in the Iranian video.So conservatives have eye-witness evidence that the liberal press not only lies but is out-to-get Trump. Liberal websites don't know this video exists and is being circulated in this way, because liberals don't read conservative websites and vice versa.But the meme about lying media and lying liberals is being given what conservatives consider credible support, that they see with their own eyes.This is why we are talking at cross-purposes in our country.Based on the comments at the conservative websites, there is no critical thinking whatsoever being applied to the evidence of the video screen shot. It is accepted at face value. So, Somerby's attempts to teach a more critical approach is a good place to start, in my opinion.
The "liberal" press claimed nothing. Trump himself admitted he made up seeing a video.You made up that the "liberal" press made a "claim". They reported a fact to which Donald Trump himself attested.
Trump may have seen the same crap that is circulating at the conservative websites and among conspiracy theorists of the right. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I don't know how or why they talked him into recanting. Obviously I cannot even know what he saw. But, there is such a photo being talked about by conservatives and it does create a sense among them that something is being lied about or suppressed, even more when Trump changes his story. They will all just be convinced he saw something top secret and changed his story because he wasn't supposed to talk about it.In the meantime, the liberal press is very definitely claiming that Trump made up the video.
"Trump may have seen..." what? That which he admitted he did not see? You "seem" as delusional as he.
Troll -- discussion over.
There was never a discussion. You were spouting gibberish and I used Somerby's more critical approach to point that out.
Done talking to trolls.
Elsewhere, liberals are complaining about the treatment of a black woman who was arrested after being stopped for crossing a white line (she claims she didn't) and then calling 911 on the officer for harassment.Out of several hundred comments, no one mentioned that the officer might want to assess whether she was driving under the influence and may have approached her with handcuffs because he suspected she might be intoxicated.The info all comes from the woman's lawyer and the only statement released by the police is that the circumstances were investigated and the officer was not at fault. What bothers me is the dismissive attitude toward behavior that might suggest DUI -- the "so what if she crossed the white line or was argumentative" attitude. These things go with being under the influence and it is the officer's duty to take someone off the road if they are impaired because lives are truly at stake.MAD and other organizations fought a lengthy battle to increase public awareness of drunk driving and it all seems to be ignored when the public is preoccupied with other issues. The police cannot make a statement about the driver's condition because she has a court appearance coming up. But it provides an explanation for both the officer's behavior, the lack of police discipline against him, her behavior and why she was stopped in the first place, that is every bit as plausible as racism, in my opinion.
Elsewhere you were driving drunk down an alley with a chicken in your lap and your fly unzipped.What bothers me is I have provided as much documentation as you did in your comment. Which makes me a slightly better person.
You are about as funny as Maureen Dowd.
Speaking of MoDo, today she sure showed some more of that support for Trump Bob Somerby has been pointing out.
Actually, she did. She savaged Bill and Hillary while producing a Trump narrative that could be considered a reduction ad absurdam by anyone slightly favorable toward Trump. Put that together with the folks claiming you cannot diagnose a candidate's psychiatric condition outside of a therapeutic relationship, and Dowd did Trump a big favor today.The bottom line on her column is "How can he be crazy when he is a major party's candidate?" Of course, she has written something that can be taken two ways, which spares her some criticism, but not much judging by the comments to her column.
Sorry -- reductio not reduction. Damn that autocorrect.
And it's absurdum, not absurdam.
Dowd creating a fictional "Flake Act." the irony is sublime.
I didn't find it sublime at all. I found it annoying.We have laws about how to handle the situation when a president becomes incapacitated. We don't have a law to handle when a candidate becomes incapacitated and it does seem like an oversight.We (and the founding fathers) may have always assumed that the voters would be too sensible to elect someone regardless of their fitness to serve. Now we are faced with a situation where a party is supporting an unfit candidate for political reasons and some voters appear willing to elect an unfit candidate for protest or personal reasons. If we have no faith in democracy to correct this problem, it seems reasonable for Congress to take matters out of the voters hands. There are many examples of how this is already being done in our system (electoral college, for example, or having the senate and house elected in different ways). The founding fathers didn't trust the rabble to use their vote intelligently. It remains to be seen whether they will weed out someone like Trump.Calling such legislation the "Flake Act" treats it as if it were not something reasonable to consider. It isn't ironic. It is Dowd's lack of insight about the current situation and how it is upsetting voting patterns.If Congress decided it wanted to interfere in an election by passing a law requiring a sanity test (or any kind of health test now that candidates in their 70s are running), would it even be constitutional and how could it apply to the current election? Once again Dowd is superficial. Perhaps she and the Trumps share common interests in the New York monied class. I cannot understand how anything about him would otherwise appeal to anyone literate enough to write a newspaper column. This is just a way to knock the Clintons and mock the concerns of people who think Trump is dangerous. There is nothing subtle or ironic about it. It is just another blatant love letter to Trump.
That wooshing sound was the point flying overhead, 452. It seems Mr. Jackson agrees with you about Dowd.
Some of the left conspiracy theorists are suggesting that Trump's brouhaha with Kahn and his flurry of other ridiculous statements was to distract attention from any focus on his Russian connections, sources of funding and promotion of pro-Russian policies. There has been very little investigation of any of this.Obama seems to have been willing to go along with the silence on Trump's Russian connections because he doesn't want his hand forced on calling out the Russian hackers of the DNC. So both Trump and the Democrats have a vested interest in keeping talk about Russia quiet.
Anon 12:48, I'm not following you. What did you mean when you said, "...because he doesn't want his hand forced on calling out the Russian hackers of the DNC."?
I think Obama has proof that the people who hacked the DNC were Russians working within the Russian government, but he doesn't want to make a stink about it because of the diplomatic ramifications. Or maybe he is trying to decide how to respond still. This is a kind of government sponsored cyber warfare because it is interference in our election. It is like when a plane crosses into another country's airspace, except it cannot be an accident. He has to decide how serious the incursion is and what kind of response will deter but not escalate the situation. Having a public outcry about it might force him into stronger action than he might wish to take.That was my point.
Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.