tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post8161768604891517031..comments2024-03-28T08:51:18.908-04:00Comments on the daily howler: THE STORY BEGINS: Two shots were fired in a yellow wood!<b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger117125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-12585827345734566832013-07-26T00:41:24.582-04:002013-07-26T00:41:24.582-04:00(continued from deadrat's previous comment)
T...(continued from deadrat's previous comment)<br /><br />The problem with my approach is that sometimes it's hard to get started because some things remain unknown, and that forces my conclusions to tentative or "neutral" or "weak." The trouble with your approach is that you can't stop. Look at the things that you claim to know but can't possibly: Martin was on drugs because Zimmerman said he looked like he was on drugs; evidence is not solid because leftists wouldn't consider it; you know what's in my heart; I'm judging Zimmerman and not his actions; I'm treating Zimmerman the way you're treating Martin; I've claimed "it was all just a misunderstanding"; Martin got off on "bloody brawling, "his discipline record was "problematic, and that's relevant to Zimmerman's defense"; it has been proven that Zimmerman used his gun in self-defense.<br /><br />Some of these things are absurd on their face -- the solidity of evidence is unaffected by the political views of factions. Some are simply speculation: you wouldn't know what's in my heart even if I told you. And some are demonstrably incorrect. It's a reasonable inference that the jury decided that there was reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did <i>not</i> act in self-defense. But even that isn't known for sure, and certainly self-defense hasn't been proven.<br /><br />But perhaps your most egregious mistake is your claim that what I'm doing to Zimmerman exactly what you're doing to Martin. For instance, it's Zimmerman who had the interest in MMA, it's Zimmerman who has an arrest record for violence, it's Zimmerman whom the court sent to anger management classes, it's Zimmerman whose wife took out a restraining order against him. And I'm telling you that I think all of those things are completely irrelevant to determining his guilt. I have always maintained that the evidence shows that Zimmerman was following Martin, not chasing him or stalking him, that Zimmerman was within his rights to carry a weapon, and to follow Martin, and even to confront him. I have further maintained that there is no evidence of racial animus in Zimmerman's actions that night or in his life, and no evidence that he started the fight. In addition, I think bringing murder 2 charges was an unethical abuse of prosecutorial power, and the verdict was the logical conclusion from the trial and the jury instructions.<br /><br />This doesn't prevent me from thinking that Zimmerman owed an ethical duty that he didn't fulfill. I think the same about Martin.<br /><br />This doesn't stop me from correctly observing that Martin had every right to be where he was that night and every right to confront Zimmerman. And that there's no evidence that he threw the first punch.<br /><br />I understand that this leaves an unsatisfactory picture for people like you who want your narrative to neutralize others' narrative. If it's any comfort those others don't like my position either.<br /><br />Finally, let me return to my white comment. That comment did not demean the legitimacy of your erroneous positions. Those positions are demonstrably wrong independent of your race and my comment. I've discussed some of these above. By the same token, the comment cannot demean the legitimacy of your correct positions, for instance that there's no evidence that Zimmerman did anything to provoke an attack.<br /><br />IMWOY means that your race has influenced your perspective so that you use inapt, ignorant, and potentially hurtful language and draw potentially erroneous conclusions about others. I have discussed the "lynch trials" example at length. On the substance of the white comment, you have returned not a single word.deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-52542397748404424512013-07-26T00:37:55.010-04:002013-07-26T00:37:55.010-04:00MC,
When we discuss public events, what's the...MC,<br /><br />When we discuss public events, what's the best way to confront narrative that's misleading or unfair and get close to the truth of matters? You think that counter-narrative cancels narrative, and I think facts trump narrative. I would suggest that this difference in point of view explains why we seem to be talking past each other.<br /><br />Your method has an obvious advantage: narrative is easy to come by, and sometimes facts are elusive or unobtainable. "That is a very tepid defense of Martin you are offering," you say at the outset, in what I take is a Freudian slip for Zimmerman. And that's true, the burning facts that I'd like to know and that might make my defense of Zimmerman more fiery are not known to me. You boast that you showed "what a real defense of him looks like." So if people spin a tale of Zimmerman as an aggressive racist, you can balance that with a tale of Martin as a violent druggie. This is the Fox News theory of "fair and balanced" -- since people have their thumbs on the left-hand balance pan, we will help by putting our thumbs on the right-hand balance. Well, at least they have the common courtesy to lie to themselves while they're lying to you.<br /><br />If lefty blogs are telling untruths about Zimmerman -- and they are -- you've got the cure: right-wing blogs like realclearpolitics. I watched the Whittle video at the url you posted, and its host reports that the NAACP and some radio host I don't listen to have said that Martin died as the result of a lynching. How to set the balance of nature back in place? Claim that Zimmerman was the lynching victim. There! The two false comparisons cancel!<br /><br />And they are false. To be exact, Roslyn Brock, Chairman of the NAACP National Board of Directors, compared Emmet Till's <i>murder</i> to Martin's murder. Neither was lynched, but it's still a misleading and hateful thing to say. Whittle's solution, and one I take it you endorse is to say, referring to Zimmerman, "An innocent person was tied to a tree, a kind of a tree anyway and was destroyed before he could be tried. This is exactly what happened." But there were no trees involved, literal or metaphorical, and a lynching is not exactly or even approximately what happened. Zimmerman was undestroyed, showed up at his trial, and walked out, acquitted. And Whittle's account of the news coverage of Zimmerman -- "criminal fraud or criminal negligence." But he's is lying to you again. Fraud requires the misappropriation of property, and there is no statute that criminalizes even the worst news coverage. But that doesn't matter -- a false accusation of criminality against Zimmerman has been countered with a false accusation of criminality against his accusers, and the universe is back in balance.<br /><br />(continued at deadrat's next comment)<br />deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-48241123048324313182013-07-25T12:36:06.806-04:002013-07-25T12:36:06.806-04:00That is a very tepid defense of Martin you are off...That is a very tepid defense of Martin you are offering. If he were your brother, of course you would want all evidence showing Trayvon Martin's record of drug abuse and violent behavior. It is absolutely relevant. One of the first things Zimmerman said to the dispatch was he looks like he's on drugs. <br />Now did you see this? Because this is the evidence you are up against, the evidence that you say is not solid. I agree that it is not solid, but mostly it is not solid because the left did not want to countenance it.<br /> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/07/20/bill_whittle_the_truth_about_trayvon_martin_and_george_zimmerman.html<br /><br />I guarantee you that if George Zimmerman had left a trail on the internet that exposed him as a racist thug, that you, me and everyone else would have taken it into account and it would have been much easier for me to see him as guilty of a hostile motive towards Trayvon Martin. But the fact is the racial motive attributed to Zimmerman was either false or a lie and Zimmerman actually has a pretty good track record as a non-racist. Of course all this matters. I say that you in your heart have not truly considered George Zimmerman's position. You are still judging him, not his case. You are doing to Zimmerman exactly what I am doing to Trayvon Martin. The difference is I am overtly advocating for Zimmerman because it was his trial and most of the public was not getting his side of the story. They were either getting Martin's side of the story or a sort of neutral version like yours, one in which Zimmerman made mistakes but it was all just a misunderstanding. That is a very weak defense of Zimmerman. I showed just a touch of what a real defense of him looks like. That there is indeedsolid evidence on the internet that Martin was hooking up for drug recipes and getting off on bloody brawling and his discipline record at school was highly problematic, including I believe a very recent suspension. Are you really telling me that is not relevant to his defense? I understand that courts have all kinds of safeguards to try and prevent prejudging, but I think you and the left are trying to have it both ways. George Zimmerman--anything goes, Trayvon Martin--hands off, don't look at the right-wing lies. <br /> <br /><br />You use Zimmerman's past against him, his lack of gun training, his even having a gun, all of which is irrelevant to the case, since the gun was actually totally legal and he used it legally as a last resort for self-defense. That has been proven. I mean I hate guns, but this case probably has bolstered the sale of guns because so many believe the gun saved Zimmerman's life. The truth is, if Martin really was in an attack mode--if Zimmerman's story is true--then the hypercritical analysis of Zimmerman's behavior that night has been largely a defense of Trayvon Martin; yet, it is Zimmerman's trial. There seems to be this loss of perspective on Zimmerman to the point where even his being a volunteer is a bad thing. Zimmerman acted like a pretty typical security patrol that night actually. There is no evidence that he did anything nasty to cause Martin to attack him. Of course if this were Martin's trial I would also indulge in all kinds of conjecture to see the possibility that Zimmerman did cause it all. My point all along is that I was defending Zimmerman because it his trial, not Trayvon Martin's. You were very wrong with that white of you comment. You used my race to demean the legitimacy of my position. The racist club is, ironically, open to all races.M Carpenternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-32975437849503811362013-07-25T02:27:44.435-04:002013-07-25T02:27:44.435-04:00(continued from deadrat's previous comment)
L...(continued from deadrat's previous comment)<br /><br />Let's review: murder 2 required showing that 1) Zimmerman killed 2) Martin 3) unlawfully and with 4) a depraved mind. Since there was no dispute about 1 and 2, and Zimmerman claimed he shot Martin deliberately, what's left is to show 3 (self-defense with lethal force was not a possibility) and 4 (that Zimmerman's mental state was one of animus or gross negligence). Even granting my conditions, how could any of Jeantel's testimony demonstrate that? And if her testimony was that useless, how is it possible for a prosecutor to ethically maintain the top charge?<br /><br />The advantage of this line of argument is that it doesn't rely on narrative. All can listen to Jeantel's testimony for themselves.<br /><br />Maybe "left wings" are addicted to the narrative of the cute kid Martin, but there's really no solid evidence for your counter-narrative of the devil-without-a-cause version. And it doesn't help your case if you're right. Regardless of how many joints he smoked or how may fights he boasted about, the question we need answered for a definitive resolution is what happened just after the two came face-to-face and Martin said to Zimmerman, "What's your problem?" And absent that, our system dictates an acquittal.<br /><br />When the President says that the verdict is final, that violence in response is intolerable, and the most likely outcome is that there will be no legal proceedings beyond the recently-completed local trial, then it's not much a bus for throwing Zimmerman under. And the fact that you're angry with a comment I made doesn't make me much of a thrower either.<br /> deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-76392181096295135772013-07-25T02:25:39.384-04:002013-07-25T02:25:39.384-04:00MC,
I really have said IMWOY to white people in r...MC,<br /><br />I really have said IMWOY to white people in real life, although it's debatable whether I actually have a real life. I can't say that anyone was terribly amused, but I'm fairly sure nobody called me a Nazi either. This seems to be to be a rather gentle gibe as opposed to say, "racist motherfucker." What do you think it means other than "as a member of the group that sets the norms for this society, not to mention owning everything, you've got some blinders on"?<br /><br />I have considered your position. In fact, I've adopted some of it. If you want to know which parts, I won't make you go back and read my matchless prose. Ask and I'll give you a list. But you don't help your case with the pieces of your program that are absurd and the parts of your rhetoric that are tone deaf.<br /><br />The people who beatify Martin and demonize Zimmerman adopted a narrative. But the proper defense of Zimmerman isn't the opposite narrative. The converse of the stories that one set of ignoramuses tell each other isn't necessarily the truth. It's often just stories that a different set of ignoramuses tell themselves. Contrary to what you claim, making Martin look bad doesn't make Zimmerman look good. There's precious little evidence that Martin had serious behavioral problems. Since his past behavior could have had no legal bearing on Zimmerman's position, how much less could the "possibility" of his behavioral problems have had?<br /><br />The proper defense of Zimmerman begins with the recognition of his ethical failings: he chose to be armed in a public place without the slightest effective training and plan for dealing with a confrontation that could turn violent. His defense continues with a staunch presentation of his legal position -- there is evidence that contradicts some elements of the crime he's charged with, and no evidence that rises beyond a reasonable doubt for other elements. He's neither sinner nor saint. And likely that night, Martin was neither as well. And if there's reasonable doubt about who started the fight and whether Zimmerman feared for his life, then the jury made the right choice.<br /><br />I don't think you're a clueless white guy for defending Zimmerman. I don't even think you're a CWG if you trash-talk Martin. That just puts you in bad company but on the other side of the field. What makes you a CWG is how you go about it. Let's chat about your claim that the trial just concluded was like the infamous, but as it turns out non-existent, "lynch trials" of times gone by. There were no lynch trials, just lynchings. And Zimmerman's trial wasn't a lynching, not least because he's alive, but also because the proceedings were scrupulously fair. If you don't realize the grotesqueness of your metaphor, then you might be a CWG. That doesn't make you a racist, that makes you ignorant.<br /><br />You have an excellent but unused argument that Zimmerman was charged inappropriately. I spent some time yesterday listening to the direct examination of the prosecution's star witness, Ms Jeantel. From the time she finished spelling her name until the prosecution handed her to the defense, can anyone tell me a single relevant statement she made that wasn't hearsay? I heard but one statement she made that a judge would have ruled admissible on challenge from the defense. Forget about her black English, her attitude, and her inability to project and articulate her speech. Even forget about her credibility problems. Let's even grant that she reported her cell phone conversations with Martin accurately and that he told her the truth about what was happening. Can anyone tell me more than that single statement that supported the proof of any of the elements of the crime of murder 2?<br /><br />(continued in deadrat's next comment)<br /><br />deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-37257984932108237692013-07-24T20:08:13.309-04:002013-07-24T20:08:13.309-04:00Would you really ever say it's mighty white of... Would you really ever say it's mighty white of you to a white person in real life? I know what you mean but I won't use the word. <br /><br />You have to consider my position. I am defending a white guy who shot and killed a young black man. The President has identified with the victim. The whole left wing seems to have basically made a saint of Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman's defense absolutely required us to contemplate the possibility that Trayvon Martin had serious behavioural problems. On the left it was taboo to say anything bad about Martin, which left Zimmerman undefended. In order to defend Zimmerman I had to introduce evidence that made Martin look bad. For that I get "Mighty white of you." and all kinds of comparisons to rightwing nuts. Obviously by defending Zimmerman and talking bad about Trayvon Martin I must be a clueless white guy. I know for a fact though, that there are a whole lot of smart black folks out there who have lived the life who got Martin sized up pretty good but it just is not politick to speak out in Zimmerman's defense. <br />Well, I think the left-wings refusal to look at the trail of bad behavior left behind by Martin is in itself a form of racism. It's easier to pretend he was a cute kid than an acting out rebellious angry young man. I think the President and all the left wing threw Zimmerman under the bus. And your mighty white of you comment tells me you would gladly help with the throwing.M Carpenternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-19968501221529227992013-07-24T15:31:49.498-04:002013-07-24T15:31:49.498-04:00Last word here is yours for the taking.Last word here is yours for the taking.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-58235664359305737702013-07-24T15:30:34.698-04:002013-07-24T15:30:34.698-04:00Rather than argue your (ridiculous) position on th...Rather than argue your (ridiculous) position on that against me, here, in this stale thread, maybe you'd consider arguing it against Somerby, as it's essentially the thrust of one of his column's today.<br /><br />You've already commented in that thread, but you took the very low road of slagging off on David in California (an easy target), and didn't address what Somerby wrote at all.<br /><br />If you can't be bothered, etc. etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-47435877112818749982013-07-24T15:27:22.596-04:002013-07-24T15:27:22.596-04:00If you can't bother to acknowledge that "...If you can't bother to acknowledge that "erroneous reporting" could predictably lead to increased "hurt, anger and distrust" -- if you find that to be condescending, sanctimonious, too bad for you as it's merlely factual.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-52984660435640698282013-07-24T13:51:26.061-04:002013-07-24T13:51:26.061-04:00M Carpenter,
Congratulations, you have just had G...M Carpenter,<br /><br />Congratulations, you have just had Godwin's law invoked on you.<br /><br />If you don't want to address the specific points I made about your words, that's OK with me. If you'd like to defend the proposition that being white in America doesn't involve cluelessness about race, that's fine with me too. But stop pretending that I mean that the obtuseness is part of some genetic flaw.<br /><br />You're the only one tossing the word "racist" around. Let that give you some pause.deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-5473129582356494022013-07-24T13:44:56.100-04:002013-07-24T13:44:56.100-04:00Anonymous @ 1:13P,
I was responding to MC: &quo...Anonymous @ 1:13P,<br /><br />I was responding to MC: "I know being hassled by security is an odious experience and black people get it much , much worse than white people. I would suggest that makes the black community all the more susceptible to demagoguing on this issue."<br /><br />If you can't be bothered to read the thread, kindly keep your thoughts about my imagination to yourself. Thanks in advance.deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-4004118961171391392013-07-24T13:41:18.700-04:002013-07-24T13:41:18.700-04:00Anonymous @ 1:17P
Please spare me your sanctimony...Anonymous @ 1:17P<br /><br />Please spare me your sanctimony. If my contributions depress you so much, then don't read them. If you can't see the condescension in your "largely ginned up" argument, then so be it. At least I can spare you the pretense that the benighted opinions of ignoramuses sadden me.<br /><br />Neither is your literal mindedness my problem.<br /> deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-80829357906224262472013-07-24T13:17:31.573-04:002013-07-24T13:17:31.573-04:00Further, the most egregious mischaracterization go...Further, the most egregious mischaracterization going on here, other than the one adverted to above at 1:13, is the one you engaged in at 7:28, and then pathetically pretended was mere hyperbole rather than a fundamental alteration of my statement.<br /><br />I'll repeat for you my "argument":<br /><br />"The hurt, anger, and distrust were largely ginned up by erroneous reporting."<br /><br />What you've contributed since that point has been quite sad.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-42689608479152594512013-07-24T13:13:39.051-04:002013-07-24T13:13:39.051-04:00"characterizes a community as particularly su..."characterizes a community as particularly susceptible"<br /><br />Where did that happen, outside your imagination?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-79856327007707441422013-07-24T12:57:01.045-04:002013-07-24T12:57:01.045-04:00Anonymous @ 6:07A, 6:35A
In the first place, 6:07...Anonymous @ 6:07A, 6:35A<br /><br />In the first place, 6:07, we're not on a second-syllable basis. Secondly, where have a made any comments about media influences on white people? After you've answered that, you can tell me where I said that black people have any special sense. Your pal @ 28 minutes later can jump in on that one if you need help.<br /><br />I have objected to the condescending attitude that characterizes a community as particularly susceptible to demagogues or that communal anger and distrust is "largely ginned up." Is it so difficult to think that members of the black community might come to their beliefs in the same way as normal, flesh-colored people? By making their own judgments based on their own experiences, however limited, and through their own filters, however faulty? That they're not any more susceptible or more easily goaded because you disagree with them?<br /><br />It is not required that you agree with people whose views oppose yours. Or to deny the existence of demagogues and hustlers who live on agitation. But I think it is necessary not to misstate my argument to say that black people aren't influenced by media. And I think it best not to dismiss my argument with the use contemptuous terms like "magic negro," especially when you don't really understand what they mean. And I'd prefer if you didn't attribute pretense to me when you can't bother to characterize my statements correctly.<br /><br />Unfortunately, none of this is seriously odd. In fact, it's just SOP.deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-59270827013878569472013-07-24T12:09:39.541-04:002013-07-24T12:09:39.541-04:00"White in America has often included more tha..."White in America has often included more than a little cluelessness, amnesia, unseeing, and tone deafness. When I say that it's white of you, I just mean that it's white of you."<br /><br /> This is precisely how racist logic works. Here is another version of your speech <br /><br />"Jewish in Germany has often included more than a little venality, deception, selfishness,and degeneracy. When I say you are jewish. I mean you are jewish."<br /> deadrat, circa 1933, Germany<br /><br />Pretty pointless talking to such a proud racist<br /><br />M Carpenternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-20331413767724065032013-07-24T06:35:24.745-04:002013-07-24T06:35:24.745-04:00It is seriously odd for you to pretend you're ...It is seriously odd for you to pretend you're taking the high ground against condescension by asserting that black people wouldn't be influenced by hearing wrong "facts" and by not hearing suppressed facts, deadrat.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-72736536989126893352013-07-24T04:22:08.013-04:002013-07-24T04:22:08.013-04:00Anonymous @ 9:42,
Oh, sorry. My bad. Note to se...Anonymous @ 9:42,<br /><br />Oh, sorry. My bad. Note to self: don't use hyperbole with the literal-minded.<br /><br />Black people don't make their own judgment "largely" due to outside agitators -- so much less condescending.<br /><br />(rat, sinking ship, heh, heh. But only the live ones leave.)<br />deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-58776999593976001052013-07-24T04:15:53.627-04:002013-07-24T04:15:53.627-04:00M Carpenter,
Have I identified your race correctl...M Carpenter,<br /><br />Have I identified your race correctly? I think I have, but I haven't said one word about the content of your character. I don't know you; I've never met you; I have no idea about your character. Ih fact, I specifically disavow any claim that you're a bigot because that would require knowing your character.<br /><br />I have registered my objections to your words. Now, why don't you drag yourself off the fainting couch, and address what I've actually written instead of continuing to swoon over imagined insults to your character?<br />deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-86192543231337033722013-07-23T23:48:29.242-04:002013-07-23T23:48:29.242-04:00"White in America has often included more tha... "White in America has often included more than a little cluelessness, amnesia, unseeing, and tone deafness. When I say that it's white of you, I just mean that it's white of you."<br /><br /> You have identified me and the contents of my character by the color of my skin. I guess that is reality. M Carpenternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-38396980633457430342013-07-23T22:20:57.902-04:002013-07-23T22:20:57.902-04:00M Carpenter,
Am I saying that all white people ar...M Carpenter,<br /><br />Am I saying that all white people are more than a little clueless? No, I'm saying that <i>you</i> are more than a little clueless. So you can stop hiding behind the "we are white." It's also true that everybody regardless of race has their moments of cluelessness. But I'm not talking to everybody, I'm talking to you. So stop hiding behind the errant human collective. I'm not implying that I'm less clueless than you are about your commentary here. I'm stating it outright. Stop hiding behind my "arrogance."<br /><br />A brief review of my peerless prose will reveal that I've never called you a racist. This is something that your defensiveness has invented and ironically, turned on me. Stop hiding behind your outrage.<br /><br />I happen to agree that the case for murder 2 was thin, and that the prosecution was politically motivated. I also agree that demonizing Zimmerman is disgraceful.<br /><br />But here's the thing. I also know I'm not part of a lynch mob. And not just because I don't agree with venal journalists and demagogues who have pilloried George Zimmerman. I know that I'm not part of a lynch mob because I know what a lynch mob is and I know a bit about the history of lynch mobs in the United States. Thus I know that "lynch trial" is a contradiction in terms, and that there's a touch of the grotesque in your riding the term as a metaphorical hobbyhorse. Apparently these things are either unknown to you or unimportant to you. <br /><br />It seems to me from reading your comments that you're perfectly capable of responding to the substance of what I write. If you don't agree with what I've said, fine. But leave off the rhetorical outrage at someone you don't know, whose opinion can't possibly cause you any real angst, and who hasn't defamed you in the way you've claimed.<br />deadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-59376606573432558642013-07-23T21:42:34.713-04:002013-07-23T21:42:34.713-04:00So you have to transform "largely" into ...So you have to transform "largely" into "all due to" in order to feel you can run off from your sinking ship, rat? <br /><br />So much of what you've written has been admirable -- why not own up here?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-499308967149532602013-07-23T20:58:11.853-04:002013-07-23T20:58:11.853-04:00MC, I'm rightwing too.
Whether you agree with...MC, I'm rightwing too.<br /><br />Whether you agree with the verdict of the trial or not, if there's anything you can take away from how this matter has been handled on this blog, it is that some things just demand a detachment that is as nonideological as can bed managed<br /><br />That just not just a pretty thought, in certain matters it's the only way to keep from maligning a dead man, railroading a defendant, and giving ground to some really egregious demagoguery on both sides.<br /><br />That's what we can take away from this blog on this matter. <br /><br />Oh, and we can hope that we have the discernment to know to when that sort of detachment is required in the future. CeceliaMchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16017255006204800193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-50515559441470891692013-07-23T20:43:12.492-04:002013-07-23T20:43:12.492-04:00Mike L.
Your interpretation is plausible and if i...Mike L.<br /><br />Your interpretation is plausible and if it were Trayvon Martin's trial, I might agree that there could be reasonable doubt, that his attack on Zimmerman may have been a reasonable response. I think you are very correct in making that case.<br />My point about security is only that your story is the less likely story and in the absence of any proof, the breaks go to the defendant, Zimmerman<br />Where I disagree with you most is your statements that those of us defending Zimmerman were wrong to surmise that Martin's intention may have been felonious. The defendant has the right to do that. It would have been totally foolish of me to defend Zimmerman without looking into the possibility that Martin was an aggressive jerk because that is Zimmerman's defense. <br />M Carpenternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-26935712862285707842013-07-23T20:26:23.909-04:002013-07-23T20:26:23.909-04:00Cecelia
You may say I am giving a right-wing narr...Cecelia<br /><br />You may say I am giving a right-wing narrative, but that is just a coincidence. I am seeing this through George Zimmerman's eyes, because this was his trial. I believe that it is the liberal, progressive position to defend the right of an individual to receive a fair trial. There was no evidence, except that ginned up in the press to justify a murder charge. That was a political charge and as a liberal I am angry in the same way that lynch trials used to make liberals angry. The principle that I care about is not fairness for black people before the law, it is for All people. I think the left abandoned their principles in this case. <br />I believe there is real racism in our country, I think the drug war is racist, but making a martyr out of George Zimmerman was stupid, and a serious setback for the cause against racism. The ease with which left-wingers presumed the police and detectives of Sanford to be incompetent and racist was horrible. The right wing has long caricatured the left-wing as a bunch of self-righteous academics with no street smarts. Well, I have got to say that this case has proven them correct. <br />Also, as far as to how I have talked about Trayvon Martin. George Zimmerman was on trial for his life. A defendant has the right to try and pin the blame on another. That is quite often a fundamental part of a defense, to show that another person was actually culpable. It makes no sense to defend Zimmerman without exploring the possibility that Martin was something more than a sweet kid. Yet,if Martin had survived and was on trial I would have also bent over backward to see this thing through his eyes.<br />A hypothetical question--If it had turned out that Zimmerman was racist, that his cell phone had Nazi crap and texts about stalking and shooting black kids, do you think for a second that the whole left-wing would not be screaming about it? Why then, is it so impermissible for the right-wing to pay attention to the very incendiary trail that Martin left on the internet? I am getting called a right winger for even mentioning evidence that seems to be pretty legit and really greatly works in Zimmerman's favor. I want to know the whole story as much as possible not the left or right side of it. M Carpenternoreply@blogger.com