By Taegan Goddard
During a surprise appearance in the White House briefing room, President
Obama that Americans should respect the George Zimmerman verdict, but
white Americans should also understand the problems of racism, USA Today reports.
Said Obama: "Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago."
He added all Americans should do "soul-searching" in the wake of the verdict and the reactions to it.
Below is a transcript of President Obama's remarks as provided by the White House.
THE PRESIDENT: I wanted to come out here, first of all, to tell you
that Jay is prepared for all your questions and is very much looking
forward to the session. The second thing is I want to let you know that
over the next couple of weeks, there's going to obviously be a whole
range of issues -- immigration, economics, et cetera -- we'll try to
arrange a fuller press conference to address your questions.
The reason I actually wanted to come out today is not to take
questions, but to speak to an issue that obviously has gotten a lot of
attention over the course of the last week -- the issue of the Trayvon
Martin ruling. I gave a preliminary statement right after the ruling on
Sunday. But watching the debate over the course of the last week, I
thought it might be useful for me to expand on my thoughts a little bit.
First of all, I want to make sure that, once again, I send my thoughts
and prayers, as well as Michelle's, to the family of Trayvon Martin, and
to remark on the incredible grace and dignity with which they've dealt
with the entire situation. I can only imagine what they're going
through, and it's remarkable how they've handled it.
The
second thing I want to say is to reiterate what I said on Sunday, which
is there's going to be a lot of arguments about the legal issues in the
case -- I'll let all the legal analysts and talking heads address those
issues. The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner. The
prosecution and the defense made their arguments. The juries were
properly instructed that in a case such as this reasonable doubt was
relevant, and they rendered a verdict. And once the jury has 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 history 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 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. And it's inescapable for
people to bring those experiences to bear. The African American
community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of 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 naïve 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
African American boys are painted with a broad brush and the excuse is
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 naïve in understanding that,
statistically, somebody like Trayvon Martin was statistically more
likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else. 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 and that context is being denied. 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.
Now, the question for me at
least, and I think for a lot of folks, is where do we take this? How do
we learn some lessons from this and move in a positive direction? I
think it's understandable that there have been demonstrations and vigils
and protests, and some of that stuff is just going to have to work its
way through, as long as it remains nonviolent. If I see any violence,
then I will remind folks that that dishonors what happened to Trayvon
Martin and his family. But beyond protests or vigils, the question is,
are there some concrete things that we might be able to do.
I
know that Eric Holder is reviewing what happened down there, but I think
it's important for people to have some clear expectations here.
Traditionally, these are issues of state and local government, the
criminal code. And law enforcement is traditionally done at the state
and local levels, not at the federal levels.
That doesn't
mean, though, that as a nation we can't do some things that I think
would be productive. So let me just give a couple of specifics that I'm
still bouncing around with my staff, so we're not rolling out some
five-point plan, but some areas where I think all of us could
potentially focus.
Number one, precisely because law
enforcement is often determined at the state and local level, I think it
would be productive for the Justice Department, governors, mayors to
work with law enforcement about training at the state and local levels
in order to reduce the kind of mistrust in the system that sometimes
currently exists.
When I was in Illinois, I passed racial
profiling legislation, and it actually did just two simple things. One,
it collected data on traffic stops and the race of the person who was
stopped. But the other thing was it resourced us training police
departments across the state on how to think about potential racial bias
and ways to further professionalize what they were doing.
And
initially, the police departments across the state were resistant, but
actually they came to recognize that if it was done in a fair,
straightforward way that it would allow them to do their jobs better and
communities would have more confidence in them and, in turn, be more
helpful in applying the law. And obviously, law enforcement has got a
very tough job.
So that's one area where I think there are a lot
of resources and best practices that could be brought to bear if state
and local governments are receptive. And I think a lot of them would
be. And let's figure out are there ways for us to push out that kind of
training.
Along the same lines, I think it would be useful for
us to examine some state and local laws to see if it -- if they are
designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations
and confrontations and tragedies that we saw in the Florida case,
rather than diffuse potential altercations.
I know that there's
been commentary about the fact that the "stand your ground" laws in
Florida were not used as a defense in the case. On the other hand, if
we're sending a message as a society in our communities that someone who
is armed potentially has the right to use those firearms even if
there's a way for them to exit from a situation, is that really going to
be contributing to the kind of peace and security and order that we'd
like to see?
And for those who resist that idea that we should
think about something like these "stand your ground" laws, I'd just ask
people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he
have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that
he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman who had followed
him in a car because he felt threatened? And if the answer to that
question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we might want
to examine those kinds of laws.
Number three -- and this is a
long-term project -- we need to spend some time in thinking about how do
we bolster and reinforce our African American boys. And this is
something that Michelle and I talk a lot about. There are a lot of kids
out there who need help who are getting a lot of negative
reinforcement. And is there more that we can do to give them the sense
that their country cares about them and values them and is willing to
invest in them?
I'm not naïve about the prospects of some grand,
new federal program. I'm not sure that that's what we're talking about
here. But I do recognize that as President, I've got some convening
power, and there are a lot of good programs that are being done across
the country on this front. And for us to be able to gather together
business leaders and local elected officials and clergy and celebrities
and athletes, and figure out how are we doing a better job helping young
African American men feel that they're a full part of this society and
that they've got pathways and avenues to succeed -- I think that would
be a pretty good outcome from what was obviously a tragic situation.
And we're going to spend some time working on that and thinking about
that.
And then, finally, I think it's going to be important for all
of us to do some soul-searching. There has been talk about should we
convene a conversation on race. I haven't seen that be particularly
productive when politicians try to organize conversations. They end up
being stilted and politicized, and folks are locked into the positions
they already have. On the other hand, in families and churches and
workplaces, there's the possibility that people are a little bit more
honest, and at least you ask yourself your own questions about, am I
wringing as much bias out of myself as I can? Am I judging people as
much as I can, based on not the color of their skin, but the content of
their character? That would, I think, be an appropriate exercise in the
wake of this tragedy.
And let me just leave you with a
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 when I talk to Malia and Sasha, and I listen to their
friends and I seem 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
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,
difficult journey, we're becoming a more perfect union -- not a perfect
union, but a more perfect union.
Thank you, guys.
Friday, July 19, 2013
Department of Justice Will Take George Zimmerman's Gun
By Jozen Cummings
In the days after George Zimmerman was acquitted on second-degree-murder and manslaughter charges for his killing of unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, it was revealed that Zimmerman would receive back all of his property that held during the trial, including the gun he used. But now, according to the Orlando Sentinel, the FBI has requested that Sanford, Fla., police hold the gun and all the other evidence used in the trial pending a further investigation by the Department of Justice.
The Seminole County Clerk of Courts released the evidence earlier this week to the police department.
Before returning individual items to their owners, however, department officials talked to one or more FBI agents in Orlando, according to Sanford police spokesman Capt. Jim McAuliffe.
On Thursday, the police department finalized its plan.
"The evidence is just in a hold status, pending their DOJ investigation," McAuliffe said.
It is being stored in a secure area within the police department, he said.
The items include Zimmerman's gun, Trayvon's clothes, cell phone, the bag of Skittles and beverage found in his pockets – in short all the evidence collected by the agency as it investigated the Feb. 26, 2012, homicide.
Prior to the trial, the Department of Justice was already investigating Trayvon's killing, as well as the Sanford Police Department, which is what prompted the state to press formal charges against Zimmerman. After the six-person jury found Zimmerman innocent on all charges last Saturday, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the DOJ will renew its investigation.
Read more at the Orlando Sentinel.
Like The Root on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter.
In the days after George Zimmerman was acquitted on second-degree-murder and manslaughter charges for his killing of unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, it was revealed that Zimmerman would receive back all of his property that held during the trial, including the gun he used. But now, according to the Orlando Sentinel, the FBI has requested that Sanford, Fla., police hold the gun and all the other evidence used in the trial pending a further investigation by the Department of Justice.
The Seminole County Clerk of Courts released the evidence earlier this week to the police department.
Before returning individual items to their owners, however, department officials talked to one or more FBI agents in Orlando, according to Sanford police spokesman Capt. Jim McAuliffe.
On Thursday, the police department finalized its plan.
"The evidence is just in a hold status, pending their DOJ investigation," McAuliffe said.
It is being stored in a secure area within the police department, he said.
The items include Zimmerman's gun, Trayvon's clothes, cell phone, the bag of Skittles and beverage found in his pockets – in short all the evidence collected by the agency as it investigated the Feb. 26, 2012, homicide.
Prior to the trial, the Department of Justice was already investigating Trayvon's killing, as well as the Sanford Police Department, which is what prompted the state to press formal charges against Zimmerman. After the six-person jury found Zimmerman innocent on all charges last Saturday, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the DOJ will renew its investigation.
Read more at the Orlando Sentinel.
Like The Root on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter.
Memo to Charles Barkley: Shut The Fuck Up
Hey, Charles Barkley!
Posted by Curtis Bunn
Sometimes—OK, a lot of times—you want to tell Charles Barkley to just shut up. This is one of those times.
It is often refreshing when the former NBA star waxes humorously about basketball or personalities or even politics. The mouth-all-mighty finds no topic he does not have an opinion on to spew.
In some ways, it is admirable that he is not afraid to speak his truth, however silly it might be at times.
But saying, as he did on CNBC’s Closing Bell Thursday, that the George Zimmerman verdict of acquittal of killing Trayvon Martin was proper, makes one cringe.
Of course, Barkley is entitled to his opinion. But the very fans who admire his audacity—black men—take this position as a personal affront.
This was a case where Barkley would have been wiser to take a middle-of-the-road approach. Black America is incensed, heart-broken, disenchanted and even disbelieving that a man responsible for the death of a teenager who was minding his business, bothering no one, talking to a friend on the phone was found not guilty on Saturday night of his death.
After days of tears, expressions of anger and vows to be more active in addressing injustice and racial bias, no one wanted or needed to hear Barkley say, “I agree with the verdict.”
It gives the impression that he is a privileged black man in white America, unaware and inexperienced in the racial harassment black men encounter daily just for being black.
For sure, life is different for Barkley; he’s a mammoth figure and personality, a recognizable millionaire who surely receives preferential treatment most everywhere he goes. But one of the worst things he can do—or say—is project that he is disconnected from the community from which he comes. He’s from Leeds, Alabama, for crying out loud.
If he just had to comment on the verdict, it would have been more sophisticated for him to take a different approach. To the cynic, it sounds like he is more interested in coddling to the right wing that historically has expressed through words, actions and legislation its disregard for blacks.
“I’m sorry that young kid got killed,” Barkley said, “but they didn’t have enough evidence to charge him.”
Really?
He went on to say that “racial profiling” took place, but spit out the same gibberish the defense laid out, that “something happened that changed the dynamic that night.”
Barkley added: “Trayvon Martin, God rest his soul, he did flip the switch and start beating the hell out of Mr. Zimmerman.”
Barkley, like those who support the verdict, seemed to disregard that the changed dynamic came when Zimmerman followed Martin, who even ran in an attempt to elude the borderline stalker.
Barkley, of all people, should understand Martin’s right to defend himself when confronted.
After all, this is the same Barkley who blatantly elbowed a puny player from Angola during the 1996 Olympics because Barkley said the player had elbowed him.
This is the same Barkley who threw a heckling fan through a window in a Milwaukee bar during an altercation, the same Barkley who consistently fought when confronted in non-life-threatening situations.
And now, when a man follows and approaches a kid in the dark, Barkley holds it against the teen that he defended himself? Weak.
His view is “probably not a popular opinion among most people,” he conceded, but “looking at the evidence,” Barkley said he concurred with the jury of six white women.
Whatever.
Barkley being Barkley, he continued his outspoken nonsense by attacking the media covering the case, saying it does not have a “pure heart” on race.
“Racism is wrong in any shape or form,” Barkley said. You think?
“A lot of black people are racist too,” he went on to say. “I think sometimes when people talk about racism, they say only white people are racist, but I think black people are too. I don’t think the media has clean hands.”
Here’s an idea, Chuck: Stick to talking basketball.
But Barkley being Barkley, he just cannot shut his pie hole. Of the pundits, he mused: “Every white person and black person who is racist (used) the platform to vent their ignorance. That’s the thing that bothered me the most. I watched this trial closely. I watched these people on television talking about it. A lot of these people have a hidden agenda. They want to have their racist views, whether they are white or black. . . Their biases come out.”
Barkley’s bias is toward shock value. And what was he doing on CNBC, anyway? Basketball season is a ways away.
For sure, Barkley’s right to express his opinion is equal to anyone’s. But five days after the verdict, it would have been nice if he had offered ways to come together in peace or how to deal with Florida’s sick laws that would allow an aggressor to stalk a kid, shoot him through the heart, and walk out of court a free man.
Better yet, it would have been better if Barkley had just kept his mouth shut.
Posted by Curtis Bunn
Sometimes—OK, a lot of times—you want to tell Charles Barkley to just shut up. This is one of those times.
It is often refreshing when the former NBA star waxes humorously about basketball or personalities or even politics. The mouth-all-mighty finds no topic he does not have an opinion on to spew.
In some ways, it is admirable that he is not afraid to speak his truth, however silly it might be at times.
But saying, as he did on CNBC’s Closing Bell Thursday, that the George Zimmerman verdict of acquittal of killing Trayvon Martin was proper, makes one cringe.
Of course, Barkley is entitled to his opinion. But the very fans who admire his audacity—black men—take this position as a personal affront.
This was a case where Barkley would have been wiser to take a middle-of-the-road approach. Black America is incensed, heart-broken, disenchanted and even disbelieving that a man responsible for the death of a teenager who was minding his business, bothering no one, talking to a friend on the phone was found not guilty on Saturday night of his death.
After days of tears, expressions of anger and vows to be more active in addressing injustice and racial bias, no one wanted or needed to hear Barkley say, “I agree with the verdict.”
It gives the impression that he is a privileged black man in white America, unaware and inexperienced in the racial harassment black men encounter daily just for being black.
For sure, life is different for Barkley; he’s a mammoth figure and personality, a recognizable millionaire who surely receives preferential treatment most everywhere he goes. But one of the worst things he can do—or say—is project that he is disconnected from the community from which he comes. He’s from Leeds, Alabama, for crying out loud.
If he just had to comment on the verdict, it would have been more sophisticated for him to take a different approach. To the cynic, it sounds like he is more interested in coddling to the right wing that historically has expressed through words, actions and legislation its disregard for blacks.
“I’m sorry that young kid got killed,” Barkley said, “but they didn’t have enough evidence to charge him.”
Really?
He went on to say that “racial profiling” took place, but spit out the same gibberish the defense laid out, that “something happened that changed the dynamic that night.”
Barkley added: “Trayvon Martin, God rest his soul, he did flip the switch and start beating the hell out of Mr. Zimmerman.”
Barkley, like those who support the verdict, seemed to disregard that the changed dynamic came when Zimmerman followed Martin, who even ran in an attempt to elude the borderline stalker.
Barkley, of all people, should understand Martin’s right to defend himself when confronted.
After all, this is the same Barkley who blatantly elbowed a puny player from Angola during the 1996 Olympics because Barkley said the player had elbowed him.
This is the same Barkley who threw a heckling fan through a window in a Milwaukee bar during an altercation, the same Barkley who consistently fought when confronted in non-life-threatening situations.
And now, when a man follows and approaches a kid in the dark, Barkley holds it against the teen that he defended himself? Weak.
His view is “probably not a popular opinion among most people,” he conceded, but “looking at the evidence,” Barkley said he concurred with the jury of six white women.
Whatever.
Barkley being Barkley, he continued his outspoken nonsense by attacking the media covering the case, saying it does not have a “pure heart” on race.
“Racism is wrong in any shape or form,” Barkley said. You think?
“A lot of black people are racist too,” he went on to say. “I think sometimes when people talk about racism, they say only white people are racist, but I think black people are too. I don’t think the media has clean hands.”
Here’s an idea, Chuck: Stick to talking basketball.
But Barkley being Barkley, he just cannot shut his pie hole. Of the pundits, he mused: “Every white person and black person who is racist (used) the platform to vent their ignorance. That’s the thing that bothered me the most. I watched this trial closely. I watched these people on television talking about it. A lot of these people have a hidden agenda. They want to have their racist views, whether they are white or black. . . Their biases come out.”
Barkley’s bias is toward shock value. And what was he doing on CNBC, anyway? Basketball season is a ways away.
For sure, Barkley’s right to express his opinion is equal to anyone’s. But five days after the verdict, it would have been nice if he had offered ways to come together in peace or how to deal with Florida’s sick laws that would allow an aggressor to stalk a kid, shoot him through the heart, and walk out of court a free man.
Better yet, it would have been better if Barkley had just kept his mouth shut.
About Curtis Bunn
Curtis Bunn is a best-selling novelist and national award-winning sports journalist who has worked at The Washington Times, NY Newsday, The New York Daily News and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Curtis Bunn is a best-selling novelist and national award-winning sports journalist who has worked at The Washington Times, NY Newsday, The New York Daily News and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Trayvon Martin could be this generation’s Emmett Till
Cenk Uygur talks to TYT panelists Jayar Jackson, John Iadarola, and Jimmy Dore
as well as TV One’s Roland Martin about nation-wide reactions to the
George Zimmerman verdict.
“This case, the death of Trayvon Martin, I believe can potentially serve as the Emmett Till of this generation,” Martin declares, referring to the 1955 murder of a 14-year-old black boy in Mississippi, which has been cited as a strong motivating factor in the Civil Rights Movement.
“There are thousands of young people who are ready to mobilize and organize… I think there’s a moment here where we can actually have a twenty-first century social justice movement that will be beneficial to the rest of this country.”
“This case, the death of Trayvon Martin, I believe can potentially serve as the Emmett Till of this generation,” Martin declares, referring to the 1955 murder of a 14-year-old black boy in Mississippi, which has been cited as a strong motivating factor in the Civil Rights Movement.
“There are thousands of young people who are ready to mobilize and organize… I think there’s a moment here where we can actually have a twenty-first century social justice movement that will be beneficial to the rest of this country.”
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Did Trayvon Martin’s race motivate George Zimmerman’s verdict?
Cenk Uygur talks to panelists Ana Kasparian, Jayar Jackson, and NationBuilder’s Lauren
Brown Jarvis about the Zimmerman verdict. One of the women on the jury,
anonymously referred to as B37, did an interview with Anderson Cooper in which
she referred to Zimmerman as “George” and 17-year-old victim Trayvon Martin as
“that boy,” leading many to speculate that racism or prejudice could have
motivated the not-guilty verdict.
“I think that we forget that a lot of people, no matter how liberal or how loving they are, don’t often interact with communities of people who don’t look like them,” Jarvis says. “I wasn’t surprised by this verdict at all. This is America, and no matter what you say, everything is inherently racial here.
That’s just how this country was founded.”
“I think that we forget that a lot of people, no matter how liberal or how loving they are, don’t often interact with communities of people who don’t look like them,” Jarvis says. “I wasn’t surprised by this verdict at all. This is America, and no matter what you say, everything is inherently racial here.
That’s just how this country was founded.”
The genetically modified food debate: Where do we begin?
Every shred of information, it seems, is contested, and all this turbulence keeps the water muddy.
Now the debate is coming to a head again. Britain is reconsidering its restrictive position. Here in the U.S., bills to require the labeling of GM foods were introduced to the legislatures in 28 states this year. Now that I’m writing on food for Grist, I can’t keep waiting on the sidelines for someone else to clear this up. I’m going to have to figure it out for myself.
A project like this requires humility. Many people — including, I’m sure, many of you — may have greater expertise in this area than I do. If so, let me know where you think I should be pointing the searchlight. Or, if you’re like me, and just want to get reliable information from someone who’s not bent on convincing you one way or the other, well, come along for the ride.
My goal here is to get past the rhetoric, fully understand the science, and take the high ground in this debate — in the same way that greens have taken the high ground in talking about climate. It’s hard to make the case that we should trust science and act to stem global warming, while at the same time we are scoffing at the statements [PDF] of *snort* scientists on genetic modification.
Now that doesn’t mean we have to stop thinking, and simply accept everything that the voice of authority lays in front of us. I’m going to look at the science critically, and take into account the efforts of agricultural corporations to cant the evidence. When Mark Lynas made his speech saying that he’d changed his mind about genetic engineering, I was unconvinced, because he didn’t dig into the evidence (he provides a little more of this, though not much, in his book). Lynas did, however, make one important point: There are parallels between opposition to GM crops and other embarrassingly unscientific conspiracy theories. If there are grounds to oppose genetic engineering, they will have to be carefully considered grounds, supported by science.
Of course people who are concerned about genetic engineering don’t have a monopoly on error and overstatement. As the journal Nature put it in a special issue in on transgenic crops:
People are positively swimming in information about GM technologies. Much of it is wrong — on both sides of the debate. But a lot of this incorrect information is sophisticated, backed by legitimate-sounding research and written with certitude. (With GM crops, a good gauge of a statement’s fallacy is the conviction with which it is delivered.)Over the next few weeks, I’ll be writing a series of pieces, attempting to highlight legitimate concerns and identify the arguments that should be taken out back and … retired. In the courtroom, a judge will often work with both sides to determine a set of facts that all can agree upon, before moving on to argue about how the law should apply to those facts. I’d like to do something similar here: sort out established facts, and gain a sense for what the bulk of the science indicates.
I’m going to start with the most politicized issue: Is there any evidence that genetically modified food is directly harmful to people who eat it? There’s a one-word answer to this: no.
If you aren’t prepared to take my word for it (especially that particular word), things get a bit more complicated. The most persuasive evidence is that millions of people have been eating genetically modified foods for the past 20 years without any obvious ill effects. If anyone exhibited acute symptoms after eating GM food, we would have seen it.
At the same time, the absence of evidence of harm does not prove safety. If the effects were subtle and chronic, and showed up in only a small subset of the population, it’s possible that we could have missed something. And we don’t know what to look for.
That’s the point Margaret Mellon made when I called her at the Union of Concerned Scientists, in Washington, D.C. Mellon has been critical of U.S. policies on genetically engineered crops.
“People need to understand how hard it is to use the scientific method to address the issue of, ‘Is genetic engineering safe?’” she said.
The problem: It’s not a yes-or-no question.
“It does not appear,” Mellon said, “that there’s any risk that applies across the board to all genetically engineered food and to all people. Each plant is different, each gene insertion is different, each person’s response is different.”
In other words, every GM food could be wonderfully healthy until one particular gene insertion causes things to go awry in just such a way that it messes with the immune system of one particular person. How do you deal with this?
“You need to make a list of all the things that might be potential problems and analyze each of these risks in a wide variety of genetically engineered products,” Mellon said.
Dozens of scientific advisory panels have done this sort of brainstorming. The World Health Organization [PDF], for example, reached the fairly common conclusion that the problems in genetically engineered foods are fundamentally the same as the dangers that arise naturally in plant breeding. Each relies on mutations randomly mixing up the genome. Each sometimes provides unexpected outcomes — try to make corn disease-resistant, end up with too many toxins in the kernels. In both GM and conventional breeding, scientists rely on screening to weed out the bad cobs.
However, researchers generally acknowledge that there’s something a little different about genetic engineering. The United Kingdom’s 2003 Genetic Modification Science Review [PDF], led by David King, puts it this way: “By virtue of the different processes involved, there will be some sources of uncertainty and potential gaps in knowledge that are more salient with respect to GM food production techniques.”
If you have no idea what that means, that’s because it’s incredibly vague. Sure, King is saying, there’s something unusual about transferring a firefly gene into a tomato — that kind of thing doesn’t happen very often in nature. (Although it does happen, amazingly — scientists have found examples of genes moving between different species.) But we don’t know what that difference implies. The report goes on to say that the science so far suggests that those implications have amounted to nothing so far. All the same, this unique technique does create “uncertainty and potential gaps in knowledge.”
The quest for greater certainty on genetic engineering leaves you chasing shadows: When you’re dealing with gaps in knowledge, rather than hard data, it’s hard to tell what’s an outlandish hypothetical, and what’s the legitimate danger. Anything, of course, is possible, but we shouldn’t be paralyzed by unknown risks, or we’ll end up huddled in our basements wearing tinfoil hats.
There’s no way to completely eliminate risk. The real question is, have we thought through the realistic potential for problems, and put regulatory safety nets out to protect ourselves?
Trying to answer that opens another can of worms. Critics like Mellon say that, right now, the producers of GM crops aren’t required to do any testing at all. GM boosters say that regulations are so onerous they stifle innovation. Clearly, someone is wrong here. I’ll take that up in my next post.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Monday, July 15, 2013
At Long Last, the Most Perfect Crime
By Rude One
Mystery novels are filled with criminals who attempt to commit the perfect crime. That is, a murder, usually, that they get away with. Most of the time, there is some cat-and-mouse game between the detective trying to solve the case and the killer. The perfect crime is the one that the killer never even gets arrested for, the one where, perhaps, as in the case of Roald Dahl's "Lamb to the Slaughter," the cops unwittingly eat the murder weapon.
But the verdict in the case of George Zimmerman, accused of murdering Trayvon Martin, proves that everyone from Agatha Christie to James Patterson has been thinking small. The perfect crime is not just the one you get away with. The perfect crime is the one for which you are acquitted in a court of law. In fact, the most perfect crime of all is the one where, no matter what your true intent, the law supports and sanctions your right to murder in cold blood.
The shooting of Trayvon Martin, it turns out, was that most perfect of crimes.
This blog has previously discussed the complicity of the Florida legislature in making laws that are so ludicrously pro-murder that a Trayvon Martin-type killing was inevitable. It has also argued that the police and conservative media figures successfully turned Martin into a nigger thug who was looking for trouble. It has shown, quite clearly, that Stand Your Ground and other so-called "self-defense" laws do not apply to African Americans who choose to defend themselves. Any anger the Rude Pundit feels, at Zimmerman, at the verdict, at the prosecutors, at the defense attorneys, he expressed last night on Twitter; it has been expressed by others and is being expressed in the streets of America tonight. He agrees with Ta-Nehesi Coates that the law in the state of Florida, a law passed by politicians who can be voted out of office if the people of the state really want it changed, demanded that George Zimmerman be let free and given back his gun.
So he'll just say this: On that night last February, when he got out of his car, George Zimmerman became the judge and jury of Trayvon Martin, accused of the crime of being a black male teenager walking in a neighborhood. Zimmerman then became Martin's executioner because, like so many oppressed people before him, Martin resisted Zimmerman's judgment. So Zimmerman did what scared people in power do all the time. He used overwhelming force to stop Martin's resistance. It is the same kind of force that has killed people and movements in America and all over the world.
George Zimmerman wanted Trayvon Martin to submit to his power, to be what Zimmerman had adjudicated him to be. Trayvon Martin refused. Trayvon Martin resisted. And that's why Trayvon Martin, like so many resisters before him, had to be killed.
There was no way George Zimmerman was going to be found guilty because his guilt would have made Trayvon Martin innocent and said that the law was wrong. Even worse, it would have made Trayvon Martin, the black male teenager, right in his resistance, and the state of Florida, if not the entire nation, would not allow that to happen.
Mystery novels are filled with criminals who attempt to commit the perfect crime. That is, a murder, usually, that they get away with. Most of the time, there is some cat-and-mouse game between the detective trying to solve the case and the killer. The perfect crime is the one that the killer never even gets arrested for, the one where, perhaps, as in the case of Roald Dahl's "Lamb to the Slaughter," the cops unwittingly eat the murder weapon.
But the verdict in the case of George Zimmerman, accused of murdering Trayvon Martin, proves that everyone from Agatha Christie to James Patterson has been thinking small. The perfect crime is not just the one you get away with. The perfect crime is the one for which you are acquitted in a court of law. In fact, the most perfect crime of all is the one where, no matter what your true intent, the law supports and sanctions your right to murder in cold blood.
The shooting of Trayvon Martin, it turns out, was that most perfect of crimes.
This blog has previously discussed the complicity of the Florida legislature in making laws that are so ludicrously pro-murder that a Trayvon Martin-type killing was inevitable. It has also argued that the police and conservative media figures successfully turned Martin into a nigger thug who was looking for trouble. It has shown, quite clearly, that Stand Your Ground and other so-called "self-defense" laws do not apply to African Americans who choose to defend themselves. Any anger the Rude Pundit feels, at Zimmerman, at the verdict, at the prosecutors, at the defense attorneys, he expressed last night on Twitter; it has been expressed by others and is being expressed in the streets of America tonight. He agrees with Ta-Nehesi Coates that the law in the state of Florida, a law passed by politicians who can be voted out of office if the people of the state really want it changed, demanded that George Zimmerman be let free and given back his gun.
So he'll just say this: On that night last February, when he got out of his car, George Zimmerman became the judge and jury of Trayvon Martin, accused of the crime of being a black male teenager walking in a neighborhood. Zimmerman then became Martin's executioner because, like so many oppressed people before him, Martin resisted Zimmerman's judgment. So Zimmerman did what scared people in power do all the time. He used overwhelming force to stop Martin's resistance. It is the same kind of force that has killed people and movements in America and all over the world.
George Zimmerman wanted Trayvon Martin to submit to his power, to be what Zimmerman had adjudicated him to be. Trayvon Martin refused. Trayvon Martin resisted. And that's why Trayvon Martin, like so many resisters before him, had to be killed.
There was no way George Zimmerman was going to be found guilty because his guilt would have made Trayvon Martin innocent and said that the law was wrong. Even worse, it would have made Trayvon Martin, the black male teenager, right in his resistance, and the state of Florida, if not the entire nation, would not allow that to happen.
Is it just me, or is this Stand Your Ground shit as stupid as it gets?
SC Supreme Court stops murder trial, orders hearing on ‘Stand Your Ground’ defense
COLUMBIA, SC — An armed
intruder is making a “Stand Your Ground” argument in a murder trial,
saying he shouldn’t be prosecuted for shooting and killing the man whose
home he broke into because it looked as though the man was about to
shoot him first.
The state’s 2006 “Stand Your Ground” law effectively allows people to claim “immunity from prosecution” when they have used deadly force to deal with and even kill people in various situations if they believed they were being threatened by them.
On Monday, before a jury had been seated in the trial of murder defendant Gregg Isaac, Columbia defense attorney Mark Schnee told Judge Clifton Newman that Isaac wanted immunity from prosecution in his 2005 shooting and killing of Antonio Corbitt.
Schnee went on to tell Newman that he wanted a hearing on the matter and asked Newman to grant Isaac that immunity. To help his case, Schnee put Isaac on the stand, and Isaac admitted shooting Corbitt at Corbitt’s own apartment on Fernandina Road in April 2005.
At the time, Isaac also said, he and another man, Tavares World, entered Corbitt’s apartment after World kicked the door in. World and Isaac each had pistols. World and Corbitt began fighting.
As World and Corbitt fought, at one point, Isaac testified Monday, it looked like Corbitt was going to pull a gun from his pants and shoot Isaac, so he – Isaac – shot Corbitt twice. Corbitt stumbled outside and died on a front walk. Isaac told Newman he feared for his life, both from Corbitt and from World, whom Isaac said had threatened to kill him unless he went along with World.
Isaac’s attorney, Schnee, argued briefly to Newman that Isaac should be granted immunity from prosecution under South Carolina’s “Stand your Ground” law, which allows people to use deadly force if they fear for their lives. Isaac testified he was in fear for his life.
The idea that an armed, self-confessed home invader should claim immunity from prosecution appeared to amuse Judge Newman.
“It borders on the preposterous for the defendant in this case to claim he was acting lawfully and had the right to kill Mr. Corbitt,” Newman told Schnee in open court.
Newman turned down a request by Schnee to hold a full hearing on the matter.
After the trial began, Schnee had an emergency petition filed with the S.C. Supreme Court, requesting a stay in the trial because Newman turned down the request.
In an unusual move, the Supreme Court granted that stay on Tuesday, on the trial’s second day, causing Newman to halt the trial and dissolve the jury panel.
The Supreme Court – which rarely stops an ongoing trial – said in its order that it wants to hear arguments concerning the state’s 2006 “Stand Your Ground” law, which effectively allows people to claim immunity from prosecution when they have used deadly force to deal with and even kill people who they believe have threatened them in various situations.
The arguments the high court wants to hear apparently don’t involve the substance of the law – they involve at what point in a trial process a judge should hold a full hearing about whether evidence can be introduced about whether the defendant can assert that he enjoys immunity from prosecution because he was in fear for his life when he used deadly force. If a judge were to grant immunity, then a trial would not have to be held.
“The circuit court is without jurisdiction to proceed,” the high court said in its ruling halting the trial. It was signed by Chief Justice Jean Toal.
So Isaac will get to make his “Stand Your Ground” argument again, before the state’s highest court.
Without commenting on the merits of the case, 5th Circuit Solicitor Dan Johnson – whose high-profile violent crime prosecutor Luck Campbell was prosecuting the case – said in an interview, “I’m glad it’s an issue that the court is taking a look at.”
The issue of when and if a full pretrial hearing should be held on the “Stand Your Ground” law is an important one, Johnson said. “As you know, court time is at a premium. In essence, you’ll have to have a mini-trial before you go ahead with the full trial. It makes it more difficult to have a trial in a speedy fashion when you have to have mini-trials in factual scenarios that might be absurd, in my opinion.”
The long-unsolved Corbitt killing has attracted much publicity.
Last year, Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott held a press conference to announce that his fingerprint experts had re-examined a fingerprint at Corbitt’s apartment and linked it to one of the home invaders. The fingerprint, found on a lamp, came from Isaac.
In the spring of 2012, Lott’s detectives picked up Isaac, and he confessed to the shooting and named World and another man, Vernorris Dixon, as being involved. Isaac, World and Dixon all face charges of murder, attempted armed robbery, first-degree burglary and attempted armed robbery.
It isn’t known when Isaac’s trial will begin again. Apparently, the Supreme Court will want to hear full arguments from all sides. It also will need a court transcript of Monday’s open court discussion between Schnee and Newman.
The state’s 2006 “Stand Your Ground” law effectively allows people to claim “immunity from prosecution” when they have used deadly force to deal with and even kill people in various situations if they believed they were being threatened by them.
On Monday, before a jury had been seated in the trial of murder defendant Gregg Isaac, Columbia defense attorney Mark Schnee told Judge Clifton Newman that Isaac wanted immunity from prosecution in his 2005 shooting and killing of Antonio Corbitt.
Schnee went on to tell Newman that he wanted a hearing on the matter and asked Newman to grant Isaac that immunity. To help his case, Schnee put Isaac on the stand, and Isaac admitted shooting Corbitt at Corbitt’s own apartment on Fernandina Road in April 2005.
At the time, Isaac also said, he and another man, Tavares World, entered Corbitt’s apartment after World kicked the door in. World and Isaac each had pistols. World and Corbitt began fighting.
As World and Corbitt fought, at one point, Isaac testified Monday, it looked like Corbitt was going to pull a gun from his pants and shoot Isaac, so he – Isaac – shot Corbitt twice. Corbitt stumbled outside and died on a front walk. Isaac told Newman he feared for his life, both from Corbitt and from World, whom Isaac said had threatened to kill him unless he went along with World.
Isaac’s attorney, Schnee, argued briefly to Newman that Isaac should be granted immunity from prosecution under South Carolina’s “Stand your Ground” law, which allows people to use deadly force if they fear for their lives. Isaac testified he was in fear for his life.
The idea that an armed, self-confessed home invader should claim immunity from prosecution appeared to amuse Judge Newman.
“It borders on the preposterous for the defendant in this case to claim he was acting lawfully and had the right to kill Mr. Corbitt,” Newman told Schnee in open court.
Newman turned down a request by Schnee to hold a full hearing on the matter.
After the trial began, Schnee had an emergency petition filed with the S.C. Supreme Court, requesting a stay in the trial because Newman turned down the request.
In an unusual move, the Supreme Court granted that stay on Tuesday, on the trial’s second day, causing Newman to halt the trial and dissolve the jury panel.
The Supreme Court – which rarely stops an ongoing trial – said in its order that it wants to hear arguments concerning the state’s 2006 “Stand Your Ground” law, which effectively allows people to claim immunity from prosecution when they have used deadly force to deal with and even kill people who they believe have threatened them in various situations.
The arguments the high court wants to hear apparently don’t involve the substance of the law – they involve at what point in a trial process a judge should hold a full hearing about whether evidence can be introduced about whether the defendant can assert that he enjoys immunity from prosecution because he was in fear for his life when he used deadly force. If a judge were to grant immunity, then a trial would not have to be held.
“The circuit court is without jurisdiction to proceed,” the high court said in its ruling halting the trial. It was signed by Chief Justice Jean Toal.
So Isaac will get to make his “Stand Your Ground” argument again, before the state’s highest court.
Without commenting on the merits of the case, 5th Circuit Solicitor Dan Johnson – whose high-profile violent crime prosecutor Luck Campbell was prosecuting the case – said in an interview, “I’m glad it’s an issue that the court is taking a look at.”
The issue of when and if a full pretrial hearing should be held on the “Stand Your Ground” law is an important one, Johnson said. “As you know, court time is at a premium. In essence, you’ll have to have a mini-trial before you go ahead with the full trial. It makes it more difficult to have a trial in a speedy fashion when you have to have mini-trials in factual scenarios that might be absurd, in my opinion.”
The long-unsolved Corbitt killing has attracted much publicity.
Last year, Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott held a press conference to announce that his fingerprint experts had re-examined a fingerprint at Corbitt’s apartment and linked it to one of the home invaders. The fingerprint, found on a lamp, came from Isaac.
In the spring of 2012, Lott’s detectives picked up Isaac, and he confessed to the shooting and named World and another man, Vernorris Dixon, as being involved. Isaac, World and Dixon all face charges of murder, attempted armed robbery, first-degree burglary and attempted armed robbery.
It isn’t known when Isaac’s trial will begin again. Apparently, the Supreme Court will want to hear full arguments from all sides. It also will need a court transcript of Monday’s open court discussion between Schnee and Newman.
Reach Monk at (803) 771-8344.
Sunday, July 14, 2013
White Supremacy Acquits George Zimmerman
By Aura Bogado
Demonstrators outside the Seminole County Courthouse react after hearing the verdict of “not guilty” in the trial of George Zimmerman in Sanford, Florida. (AP Photo/John Raoux)
A jury has found George Zimmerman not guilty of all charges in connection to death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. But while the verdict came as a surprise to some people, it makes perfect sense to others. This verdict is a crystal-clear illustration of the way white supremacy operates in America.
Throughout the trial, the media repeatedly referred to an “all-woman jury” in that Seminole County courtroom, adding that most of them were mothers. That is true—but so is that five of the six jurors were white, and that is profoundly significant for cases like this one. We also know that the lone juror of color was seen apparently wiping a tear during the prosecution’s rebuttal yesterday. But that tear didn’t ultimately convince her or the white people on that jury that Zimmerman was guilty of anything. Not guilty. Not after stalking, shooting and killing a black child, a child that the defense insultingly argued was “armed with concrete.”
In the last few days, Latinos in particular have spoken up again about Zimmerman’s race, and the “white Hispanic” label especially, largely responding to social media users and mass media pundits who employed the term. Watching Zimmerman in the defense seat, his sister in the courtroom, and his mother on the stand, one can’t deny the skin color that informs their experience. They are not white. Yet Zimmerman’s apparent ideology—one that is suspicious of black men in his neighborhood, the “assholes who always get away—” is one that adheres to white supremacy. It was replicated in the courtroom by his defense, whose team tore away at Rachel Jeantel, questioning the young woman as if she was taking a Jim Crow–era literacy test. A defense that, during closing, cited slave-owning rapist Thomas Jefferson, played an animation for the jury based on erroneous assumptions, made racially coded accusations about Trayvon Martin emerging “out of the darkness,” and had the audacity to compare the case of the killing of an unarmed black teenager to siblings arguing over which one stole a cookie.
When Zimmerman was acquitted today, it wasn’t because he’s a so-called white Hispanic. He’s not.
It’s because he abides by the logic of white supremacy, and was supported by a defense team—and a swath of society—that supports the lingering idea that some black men must occasionally be killed with impunity in order to keep society-at-large safe.
Media on the left, right and center have been fanning the flames of fear-mongering, speculating that people—and black people especially—will take to the streets. That fear-mongering represents a deep white anxiety about black bodies on the streets, and echoes Zimmerman’s fears: that black bodies on the street pose a public threat. But the real violence in those speculations, regardless of whether they prove to be true, is that it silences black anxiety. The anxiety that black men feel every time they walk outside the door—and the anxiety their loved ones feel for them as well. That white anxiety serves to conceal the real public threat: that a black man is killed every twenty-eight hours by a cop or vigilante.
People will take to the streets, and with good reason. They’ll be there because they know that, yes, some people do always get away—and it tends to be those strapped with guns and the logic of white supremacy at their side.
The NAACP will seek the Department of Justice's intervention in the Zimmerman case. Read John Nichols's report.
Demonstrators outside the Seminole County Courthouse react after hearing the verdict of “not guilty” in the trial of George Zimmerman in Sanford, Florida. (AP Photo/John Raoux)
A jury has found George Zimmerman not guilty of all charges in connection to death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. But while the verdict came as a surprise to some people, it makes perfect sense to others. This verdict is a crystal-clear illustration of the way white supremacy operates in America.
Throughout the trial, the media repeatedly referred to an “all-woman jury” in that Seminole County courtroom, adding that most of them were mothers. That is true—but so is that five of the six jurors were white, and that is profoundly significant for cases like this one. We also know that the lone juror of color was seen apparently wiping a tear during the prosecution’s rebuttal yesterday. But that tear didn’t ultimately convince her or the white people on that jury that Zimmerman was guilty of anything. Not guilty. Not after stalking, shooting and killing a black child, a child that the defense insultingly argued was “armed with concrete.”
In the last few days, Latinos in particular have spoken up again about Zimmerman’s race, and the “white Hispanic” label especially, largely responding to social media users and mass media pundits who employed the term. Watching Zimmerman in the defense seat, his sister in the courtroom, and his mother on the stand, one can’t deny the skin color that informs their experience. They are not white. Yet Zimmerman’s apparent ideology—one that is suspicious of black men in his neighborhood, the “assholes who always get away—” is one that adheres to white supremacy. It was replicated in the courtroom by his defense, whose team tore away at Rachel Jeantel, questioning the young woman as if she was taking a Jim Crow–era literacy test. A defense that, during closing, cited slave-owning rapist Thomas Jefferson, played an animation for the jury based on erroneous assumptions, made racially coded accusations about Trayvon Martin emerging “out of the darkness,” and had the audacity to compare the case of the killing of an unarmed black teenager to siblings arguing over which one stole a cookie.
When Zimmerman was acquitted today, it wasn’t because he’s a so-called white Hispanic. He’s not.
It’s because he abides by the logic of white supremacy, and was supported by a defense team—and a swath of society—that supports the lingering idea that some black men must occasionally be killed with impunity in order to keep society-at-large safe.
Media on the left, right and center have been fanning the flames of fear-mongering, speculating that people—and black people especially—will take to the streets. That fear-mongering represents a deep white anxiety about black bodies on the streets, and echoes Zimmerman’s fears: that black bodies on the street pose a public threat. But the real violence in those speculations, regardless of whether they prove to be true, is that it silences black anxiety. The anxiety that black men feel every time they walk outside the door—and the anxiety their loved ones feel for them as well. That white anxiety serves to conceal the real public threat: that a black man is killed every twenty-eight hours by a cop or vigilante.
People will take to the streets, and with good reason. They’ll be there because they know that, yes, some people do always get away—and it tends to be those strapped with guns and the logic of white supremacy at their side.
The NAACP will seek the Department of Justice's intervention in the Zimmerman case. Read John Nichols's report.
Trayvon Martin’s Killer Walks as Killing A Black Kid Who Committed No Crime is A-OK in Florida
By Dennis S
“God’s Plan” as George Zimmerman once described the Trayvon Martin killing apparently also included a not guilty verdict at around 10 PM Eastern time, 7/13/13. The plan was to kill an effing punk and one of those assholes (read black) who always get away. The defense lawyers assured us that describing the victim as one of the posse of those effing punks and a-holes in no way hints of hatred, ill-will and spite. And that’s how you convince a jury of 6 women (4 tied closely to guns) to let your guy walk away from a Murder 2 charge and a lesser-included of manslaughter.
So, Zimmerman is a free “softie” (more about that later). Free to patrol the 3 streets (one of the names escapes him) of Retreat at Twin Lakes in Sanford, Florida.
The two biggest myths in all jurisprudence played out the same way they almost always do at trial.
The witness oath means less than nothing. In virtually every case ever tried, perjury is the staple of any number of witnesses and most certainly, defendants (in this case, Zimmerman did his lying outside the court). It’s just as bad in depositions.
The second myth is the highly abused term “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Do you really think cases are decided yea and nay “beyond a reasonable doubt?” Almost never! A sly shyster (Mark O’Mara comes to mind) attorney can cast doubt no matter the weight of the evidence.
The O’Mara’s of our world can snake-oil their way to getting virtually any jury to believe virtually anything, and find a manifest human killing machine innocent because the prosecution didn’t prove their case “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Notable exceptions are black defendants.
Why do I think O’Mara is a “shyster” attorney? Here’s a stark example
(one of many). For closing arguments he brought 2 cardboard cutouts
into the courtroom, one representing young Martin, the other Zimmerman.
The cutouts were designed to show how much taller the kid was than Mr.
Softie. When standing next to the Martin cutout, O’Mara was exactly the
same height. O’Mara is 6’2″. Martin is 71″ (5’11″) according to a
measurement of the body by an associate medical examiner. The Zimmerman
cutout was supposedly 5’7″ (it could have been less). Zimmerman was
called to stand next to the phony Martin cutout and it looked like Paul
Bunyan vs. Matt Roloff from TLC’s “Little People, Big World.” That’s
what a shyster attorney like O’Mara will do. And nobody called him on
it.
I repeatedly listened to and timed the now iconic 911 call replete with multiple screams and the sound of the shot that killed Trayvon Martin. Here’s my take on the tape. I timed the intervals between the screams. I’ve concluded that both the victim and the killer screamed, mostly the killer. I’m convinced that Martin was on top fighting for HIS life. I’m equally convinced he was pummeling Zimmerman.
I’m not remotely convinced that Zimmerman’s head struck the concrete more than 3 or 4 times at the most, and lightly at that, his wildly diverse claims of 12, 25 and dozens of times notwithstanding.
But, back to the 911 tape. You can follow along at the AudioBoo site that has the clearest version I’ve been able to find. I started with what I perceived as a Zimmerman scream 32 seconds into the tape. Listen to the tape. Two different voices without a doubt. At the end, I feel that Zimmerman pulled his gun and Martin sat up, not yet shot and exclaimed, as Zimmerman told Sanford police officer, Doris Singleton, “You got me” meaning, you’ve got a gun and I’m through fighting.
I think Zimmerman advanced the gun to Martin’s chest eliciting 2 Martin screams at :41 and :43 into the tape just before the :44 fatal shot. Zimmerman later changed his story to include more Martin verbiage, but I believe the first version fits the timeline seamlessly.
And Zimmerman? Here’s the non-burnished and accurate version of “Mr. Softie” compliments of a well-researched Reuter’s profile. As you’ll see on the Reuter’s site, Zimmerman is not exactly as painted by O’Mara and friendly witnesses. “Mr. Softie” has a nasty temper. He pushed an alcohol control agent checking out Zimmerman’s underage pal in a bar one night. He was charged with resisting arrest, violence and battery of an officer and beat the rap only when agreeing to a diversion program that included ANGER MANAGEMENT!
Then there’s the “calm” Mr. Zimmerman’s relationship with Veronica Zuazo. The one where he and his then-fiancé each filed a restraining order against each other. Zimmerman was accused of domestic violence (gee, more ‘violence’) and there must have been enough bad guy indicia there to make sure he stayed away from the lady. She terminated the relationship. And how ’bout the gun-toting side of “Mr. Softie?” He was packing a fully loaded Kel-Tec PF9 semi-auto while supposedly heading toward his nearest Target store (yet another lie?) on that fateful night. So you go to the store with a holstered pistol?
To me there were four turning points in the trial. One was the abysmal prosecution effort of Bernie de la Rionda. I’ll just describe it as pathetic and let it go at that. Another critical juncture in the trial was the appearance of prosecution witness Rachel Jeantel, a native Haitian teenager who was on the phone with Martin at vital points prior to the confrontation. I’ve covered this territory before. She could have been a star witness, but, in the main was combative, confusing and added nothing to the state’s case.
Third, was the appearance of prize bullshit artist, John (or Jonathan) Good. This guy claimed to have seen Martin on top raining down blows on Zimmerman, who while having the balls to push a cop and being schooled in MMA for nearly a year, was completely helpless under a boy more than a decade his junior who he outweighed by 46 pounds. In a night variously described as pitch dark and virtually impossible to see even a few feet (remember, Zimmerman had a flashlight), Good, with owl-like night vision, was able to clearly describe the confrontation and exact coloring of the outer clothing of both combatants.
The fourth turning point borders on obscene. I refer to the phony, doctored, fairytale “animation” of the night’s events as seen (“created”) through the eyes of the defense. How Judge Debra Nelson could allow a single pixel of something that even she described as not being evidence into the final argument for the defense defies comprehension and logic.
Nelson said the animation could be used as a “Demonstrative Exhibit.” Even O’Mara allowed that the animation was “Somewhat made up.” What an understatement. To prove Zimmerman was injured on concrete both the victim and defendant were essentially stretched out on just the concrete. The scene was bathed in enough light for the grand opening of an auto dealership and the animation was shot over the shoulder of Good, while O’Mara mouths a running commentary on “ground and pound.”
So, it’s over. The killer walks. Quoting Zimmerman, “These assholes always get away.”
“God’s Plan” as George Zimmerman once described the Trayvon Martin killing apparently also included a not guilty verdict at around 10 PM Eastern time, 7/13/13. The plan was to kill an effing punk and one of those assholes (read black) who always get away. The defense lawyers assured us that describing the victim as one of the posse of those effing punks and a-holes in no way hints of hatred, ill-will and spite. And that’s how you convince a jury of 6 women (4 tied closely to guns) to let your guy walk away from a Murder 2 charge and a lesser-included of manslaughter.
So, Zimmerman is a free “softie” (more about that later). Free to patrol the 3 streets (one of the names escapes him) of Retreat at Twin Lakes in Sanford, Florida.
The two biggest myths in all jurisprudence played out the same way they almost always do at trial.
The witness oath means less than nothing. In virtually every case ever tried, perjury is the staple of any number of witnesses and most certainly, defendants (in this case, Zimmerman did his lying outside the court). It’s just as bad in depositions.
The second myth is the highly abused term “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Do you really think cases are decided yea and nay “beyond a reasonable doubt?” Almost never! A sly shyster (Mark O’Mara comes to mind) attorney can cast doubt no matter the weight of the evidence.
The O’Mara’s of our world can snake-oil their way to getting virtually any jury to believe virtually anything, and find a manifest human killing machine innocent because the prosecution didn’t prove their case “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Notable exceptions are black defendants.
I repeatedly listened to and timed the now iconic 911 call replete with multiple screams and the sound of the shot that killed Trayvon Martin. Here’s my take on the tape. I timed the intervals between the screams. I’ve concluded that both the victim and the killer screamed, mostly the killer. I’m convinced that Martin was on top fighting for HIS life. I’m equally convinced he was pummeling Zimmerman.
I’m not remotely convinced that Zimmerman’s head struck the concrete more than 3 or 4 times at the most, and lightly at that, his wildly diverse claims of 12, 25 and dozens of times notwithstanding.
But, back to the 911 tape. You can follow along at the AudioBoo site that has the clearest version I’ve been able to find. I started with what I perceived as a Zimmerman scream 32 seconds into the tape. Listen to the tape. Two different voices without a doubt. At the end, I feel that Zimmerman pulled his gun and Martin sat up, not yet shot and exclaimed, as Zimmerman told Sanford police officer, Doris Singleton, “You got me” meaning, you’ve got a gun and I’m through fighting.
I think Zimmerman advanced the gun to Martin’s chest eliciting 2 Martin screams at :41 and :43 into the tape just before the :44 fatal shot. Zimmerman later changed his story to include more Martin verbiage, but I believe the first version fits the timeline seamlessly.
And Zimmerman? Here’s the non-burnished and accurate version of “Mr. Softie” compliments of a well-researched Reuter’s profile. As you’ll see on the Reuter’s site, Zimmerman is not exactly as painted by O’Mara and friendly witnesses. “Mr. Softie” has a nasty temper. He pushed an alcohol control agent checking out Zimmerman’s underage pal in a bar one night. He was charged with resisting arrest, violence and battery of an officer and beat the rap only when agreeing to a diversion program that included ANGER MANAGEMENT!
Then there’s the “calm” Mr. Zimmerman’s relationship with Veronica Zuazo. The one where he and his then-fiancé each filed a restraining order against each other. Zimmerman was accused of domestic violence (gee, more ‘violence’) and there must have been enough bad guy indicia there to make sure he stayed away from the lady. She terminated the relationship. And how ’bout the gun-toting side of “Mr. Softie?” He was packing a fully loaded Kel-Tec PF9 semi-auto while supposedly heading toward his nearest Target store (yet another lie?) on that fateful night. So you go to the store with a holstered pistol?
To me there were four turning points in the trial. One was the abysmal prosecution effort of Bernie de la Rionda. I’ll just describe it as pathetic and let it go at that. Another critical juncture in the trial was the appearance of prosecution witness Rachel Jeantel, a native Haitian teenager who was on the phone with Martin at vital points prior to the confrontation. I’ve covered this territory before. She could have been a star witness, but, in the main was combative, confusing and added nothing to the state’s case.
Third, was the appearance of prize bullshit artist, John (or Jonathan) Good. This guy claimed to have seen Martin on top raining down blows on Zimmerman, who while having the balls to push a cop and being schooled in MMA for nearly a year, was completely helpless under a boy more than a decade his junior who he outweighed by 46 pounds. In a night variously described as pitch dark and virtually impossible to see even a few feet (remember, Zimmerman had a flashlight), Good, with owl-like night vision, was able to clearly describe the confrontation and exact coloring of the outer clothing of both combatants.
The fourth turning point borders on obscene. I refer to the phony, doctored, fairytale “animation” of the night’s events as seen (“created”) through the eyes of the defense. How Judge Debra Nelson could allow a single pixel of something that even she described as not being evidence into the final argument for the defense defies comprehension and logic.
Nelson said the animation could be used as a “Demonstrative Exhibit.” Even O’Mara allowed that the animation was “Somewhat made up.” What an understatement. To prove Zimmerman was injured on concrete both the victim and defendant were essentially stretched out on just the concrete. The scene was bathed in enough light for the grand opening of an auto dealership and the animation was shot over the shoulder of Good, while O’Mara mouths a running commentary on “ground and pound.”
George Zimmerman’s Acquittal Attaches A Face To America’s New Racism
By Jason Easley
George Zimmerman’s acquittal has put the exclamation point on America’s new and much more subtle racism, which is defined by the claims of conservatives that racism is dead.
Even as the jury was deliberating, Zimmerman attorney Mark O’Mara kept selling his client as the victim, “I believe his life is at risk, and I don’t say that for dramatic effect. There are a lot of people who think George killed Trayvon Martin for racial reasons, even though nothing supports that. And if they feel that anger enough, they could react violently.”
O’Mara was wrong. There has been no violence from African Americans. In fact, the delusion that African Americans would immediately turn to violence is a symptom the racism that conservatives like to claim does not exist.
Much like how the Supreme Court used the success of the Voting Rights Act to argue that racism was on the decline, Zimmerman’s attorney used the fact that his client said that he would have done the same thing if Trayvon Martin was white to simplistically argue that there was no racism motivating his client’s deadly act.
America’s new racism is always hidden by claims that it is not racism. Racists are much more savvy today. The defense of Zimmerman was entirely based on criminalizing Trayvon Martin. An unarmed young African-American man was painted as a threat, because he was not white. No one will come out and say it, but that’s the truth.
Some people have asked what would have happened if Zimmerman was black, but I don’t think that is the correct question. The appropriate question is what would have happened to Zimmerman if he would have shot a blue eyed, blond haired, captain of the football team, suburban white kid? My guess is that the entire perception of the case would have been different.
African Americans are being told that they don’t have the same right to safely walk down the street.
The message here is that an African American who is doing nothing wrong is still a threat, and most dangerously, that white people have a right to shoot a minority if they feel threatened.
The race based attacks that Republicans have been using for years against President Obama have seeped into the national consciousness. America’s new unspoken racism has been empowered by the country’s refusal to openly talk about race. Republicans have mainstreamed unspoken racial attitudes, and the defense used these attitudes to get George Zimmerman acquitted.
This sort of racism calls for a new civil rights movement. Barriers to minority voting are being erected on a daily basis, a young African American man was killed for walking down the street. Even if nobody will come out and say it, conservatives are turning the clock back to an ugly time in our national history.
People don’t want to talk about it, but racism is alive and growing stronger by the day.
George Zimmerman’s acquittal has put the exclamation point on America’s new and much more subtle racism, which is defined by the claims of conservatives that racism is dead.
Even as the jury was deliberating, Zimmerman attorney Mark O’Mara kept selling his client as the victim, “I believe his life is at risk, and I don’t say that for dramatic effect. There are a lot of people who think George killed Trayvon Martin for racial reasons, even though nothing supports that. And if they feel that anger enough, they could react violently.”
O’Mara was wrong. There has been no violence from African Americans. In fact, the delusion that African Americans would immediately turn to violence is a symptom the racism that conservatives like to claim does not exist.
Much like how the Supreme Court used the success of the Voting Rights Act to argue that racism was on the decline, Zimmerman’s attorney used the fact that his client said that he would have done the same thing if Trayvon Martin was white to simplistically argue that there was no racism motivating his client’s deadly act.
America’s new racism is always hidden by claims that it is not racism. Racists are much more savvy today. The defense of Zimmerman was entirely based on criminalizing Trayvon Martin. An unarmed young African-American man was painted as a threat, because he was not white. No one will come out and say it, but that’s the truth.
Some people have asked what would have happened if Zimmerman was black, but I don’t think that is the correct question. The appropriate question is what would have happened to Zimmerman if he would have shot a blue eyed, blond haired, captain of the football team, suburban white kid? My guess is that the entire perception of the case would have been different.
African Americans are being told that they don’t have the same right to safely walk down the street.
The message here is that an African American who is doing nothing wrong is still a threat, and most dangerously, that white people have a right to shoot a minority if they feel threatened.
The race based attacks that Republicans have been using for years against President Obama have seeped into the national consciousness. America’s new unspoken racism has been empowered by the country’s refusal to openly talk about race. Republicans have mainstreamed unspoken racial attitudes, and the defense used these attitudes to get George Zimmerman acquitted.
This sort of racism calls for a new civil rights movement. Barriers to minority voting are being erected on a daily basis, a young African American man was killed for walking down the street. Even if nobody will come out and say it, conservatives are turning the clock back to an ugly time in our national history.
People don’t want to talk about it, but racism is alive and growing stronger by the day.
Cenk Uygur's reaction to the Zimmerman case
Cenk believes that the verdict will be a huge victory for the gun nuts and jeopardizes public safety.
It’s Not Riots You Need to Worry About, It’s More Zimmermans
By Sarah Jones
On July 13, Jay Smooth, who among many things does a hip-hop radio show in New York and occasional music commentary on NPR and is the son of an African American father and a white mother, got to the real problem of an acquittal for George Zimmerman for the killing of Trayvon Martin.
Via the Obama Diary, Smooth tweeted, “The fundamental danger of an acquittal is not more riots, it is more George ZImmermans.”
Let’s not gloss over the inferred wrongness of a “riot” by the angry whites at Fox (also known these days as the Republican Party, or conservatives). They would call any demonstration a “riot” (they just did this in Texas against women). When the people they’re doing wrong speak up, they call it a “riot”. This is supposed to mark the victim as the bad one in the court of public opinion (aka, the mainstream media), which is still run by mostly white men, just like our courts.
But it’s not the victimized minority we need to fear. Nope. It’s the empowered Zimmermans. Finding Zimmerman not guilty is the same thing as rewarding sick aggression without cause. There’s a whole lot more where that came from.
Stalking someone without cause is now “defense” in NRA America, courtesy of the Republican Party. Now that Zimmerman got off, thanks to a terrible job by the prosecution who, let’s face it, seemed to be happy to have lost and it wouldn’t surprise me if he was under some pressure to do so, the next Zimmerman is dusting off his/her short fuse and getting ready to go hunting.
Yes, hunting.
What else do you call chasing down an innocent person, confronting them because you profiled them (I was recently robbed by a white man, do I have the right now to chase every white man with a gun?) because another, unrelated person of the same color allegedly committed a crime in the neighborhood? If that’s all it takes to justify chasing and gunning someone down, then every single person in this country is at risk of being profiled.
But not every single person in this country is at risk of being shot down and having their shooter acquitted.
That’s because our justice system is not color blind, or blind to the sex of the accused and the victim.
White men fare better in our system for obvious reasons- white men run the system, and they tend to sympathize with those they identify with; those who remind them of themselves.
I am ashamed of this country tonight, and horrified that we have let out public policy be hijacked by the NRA to such an extent that we can gun down fellow citizens with no repercussions.
Recently, the Supreme Court killed fundamental aspects of the Voting Rights Act under the premise that Congress should sort it out because things are so much better now. That’s the big, dangerous lie conservatives are using to dismantle protections needed for minorities.
Yes, clearly there’s no prejudice here. No need for laws protecting certain groups from the predatory laws of the powerful.
Be careful out there. The streets are teeming with angry, bitter, impotent men like George Zimmerman – someone just looking for a victim to blame for his crappy life. A dog to kick so he can feel better. A life to take so he can feel powerful. Someone like Zimmerman who wants to play dress up cop. Someone who thinks he’s Dirty Harry, and he just needs an easy target to prove it to himself.
Our courts just gave that person a license to pursue and kill without accountability.
On July 13, Jay Smooth, who among many things does a hip-hop radio show in New York and occasional music commentary on NPR and is the son of an African American father and a white mother, got to the real problem of an acquittal for George Zimmerman for the killing of Trayvon Martin.
Via the Obama Diary, Smooth tweeted, “The fundamental danger of an acquittal is not more riots, it is more George ZImmermans.”
The fundamental danger of an acquittal is not more riots, it is more George ZImmermans.Now that the acquittal has happened, the angry whites at Fox News are fear-mongering about the inevitable “riots” of “those people”. Yet there have been no riots, oddly enough, given the magnitude of the injustice.
— jay smooth (@jsmooth995) July 13, 2013
Let’s not gloss over the inferred wrongness of a “riot” by the angry whites at Fox (also known these days as the Republican Party, or conservatives). They would call any demonstration a “riot” (they just did this in Texas against women). When the people they’re doing wrong speak up, they call it a “riot”. This is supposed to mark the victim as the bad one in the court of public opinion (aka, the mainstream media), which is still run by mostly white men, just like our courts.
But it’s not the victimized minority we need to fear. Nope. It’s the empowered Zimmermans. Finding Zimmerman not guilty is the same thing as rewarding sick aggression without cause. There’s a whole lot more where that came from.
Stalking someone without cause is now “defense” in NRA America, courtesy of the Republican Party. Now that Zimmerman got off, thanks to a terrible job by the prosecution who, let’s face it, seemed to be happy to have lost and it wouldn’t surprise me if he was under some pressure to do so, the next Zimmerman is dusting off his/her short fuse and getting ready to go hunting.
Yes, hunting.
What else do you call chasing down an innocent person, confronting them because you profiled them (I was recently robbed by a white man, do I have the right now to chase every white man with a gun?) because another, unrelated person of the same color allegedly committed a crime in the neighborhood? If that’s all it takes to justify chasing and gunning someone down, then every single person in this country is at risk of being profiled.
But not every single person in this country is at risk of being shot down and having their shooter acquitted.
That’s because our justice system is not color blind, or blind to the sex of the accused and the victim.
White men fare better in our system for obvious reasons- white men run the system, and they tend to sympathize with those they identify with; those who remind them of themselves.
I am ashamed of this country tonight, and horrified that we have let out public policy be hijacked by the NRA to such an extent that we can gun down fellow citizens with no repercussions.
Recently, the Supreme Court killed fundamental aspects of the Voting Rights Act under the premise that Congress should sort it out because things are so much better now. That’s the big, dangerous lie conservatives are using to dismantle protections needed for minorities.
Yes, clearly there’s no prejudice here. No need for laws protecting certain groups from the predatory laws of the powerful.
Be careful out there. The streets are teeming with angry, bitter, impotent men like George Zimmerman – someone just looking for a victim to blame for his crappy life. A dog to kick so he can feel better. A life to take so he can feel powerful. Someone like Zimmerman who wants to play dress up cop. Someone who thinks he’s Dirty Harry, and he just needs an easy target to prove it to himself.
Saturday, July 13, 2013
George Zimmerman Verdict: Not Guilty
By Yamiche Alcindor
USA TODAY 10:01 P.M. EDT July 13, 2013
SANFORD, Fla.--George Zimmerman, the man accused of murdering Trayvon Martin, has been found not guilty of second murder and manslaughter.
The verdict is the culmination of a case that captured the nation's attention and will undoubtedly be imprinted in America's history. The not guilty verdict means the jury of six women found that Zimmerman justifiably used deadly force and reasonably believed that such force was "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm" to himself— Florida's definition of self-defense.
The women decided Zimmerman didn't "intentionally commit an act or acts that caused death" or demonstrate a "depraved mind without regard for human life" --Florida's definitions of manslaughter and second degree murder, respectively.
"Its means there was reasonable doubt," said Susan Constantine, a jury consultant and body language expert who attended Zimmerman's trial regularly. "They just could not put the pieces together."
The case has gripped the nation since the shooting happened on Feb. 26, 2012. Police initially did not charge Zimmerman with a crime, citing Florida's "stand-your-ground" law, which allows someone who believes they are in imminent danger to take whatever steps are necessary to protect themselves.
Protests ensued in several cities, including New York, by supporters of Trayvon's family. Many protesters voiced the opinion that Trayvon was targeted and killed for racial reasons. Trayvon was black and Zimmerman is Hispanic.
"You have a little black boy who was killed," said Benjamin Crump, an attorney for the parents of Trayvon. "It's going to be reported in history books and 50 years from now, our children will talk about Trayvon Martin's case like we talk about Emmett Till."
Emmett Till, a 14-year-old black young man, was tortured, murdered and grossly disfigured in Mississippi after being accused of flirting with a white woman.
In Zimmerman's case, State Attorney Angela Corey stepped in and charged Zimmerman with murder on April 11, 2012. Prosecutors however never argued that Zimmerman racially profiled the teen and instead said the teen was profiled as a criminal.
The five-week trial of Zimmerman, held in the same Florida city where Trayvon was killed, brought the facts of the case under a nationally-televised spotlight, with every moment captured on camera.
More than 50 witnesses testified and on the first day of deliberation requested a list of the plethora of evidence that lawyers presented.
Some of the items include several statements Zimmerman gave to police, Trayvon's autopsy report and photos of both Zimmerman's injuries and Trayvon's body. Witnesses included forensic experts who testified about the angle in which Trayvon was shot, the position Zimmerman's gun may have been in, and where DNA and blood was found.
Other witnesses offered conflicting statements about how the fight happened, who had the upper hand when Zimmerman shot and who was screaming for help in a 911 call recording.
Eyewitness Jonathan Good said he saw Trayvon on top of and striking Zimmerman moments before the teen was shot. While Selma Mora, who lived a couple of houses down from Good, said Zimmerman was on top and told her to call the police.
A 911 call recorded screams and the fatal gunshot moments before the shooting. Who was screaming was a critical question before the jury.
The defense called nine people -- including both of Zimmerman's parents -- to testify that the screams belonged to Zimmerman. Both of Trayvon's parents and his brother all said Trayvon was screaming moments before he was shot.
In at times riveting detail, prosecutors tried their best to convince jurors that Zimmerman was a killer who "tracked" Trayvon, an innocent teenager, and murdered him before police arrived.
"That child had every right to be afraid of a strange man following him," prosecutor John Guy told jurors before they began deliberations. "This case isn't about standing your ground. It's about staying in your car."
Fellow prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda focused heavily on the state's theory that Zimmerman, frustrated by recent burglaries in his neighborhood, profiled Trayvon as a criminal and choose to take the law in his own hand.
"A teenager is dead, and he's dead through no fault of his own," de la Rionda said to jurors. "He's dead because another man made an assumption."
The majority of legal experts USA TODAY interviewed however said the prosecution had a weak case based largely on circumstantial evidence. Some said the state could possibly succeed if they appealed to the emotions of jurors. However, sympathy was not supposed to play a part in the verdict and defense attorneys reminded jurors of that fact repeatedly.
Mark O'Mara, an attorney for George Zimmerman cast Trayvon as the aggressor saying the teen may have been charged with aggravated battery had he survived the shooting. Trayvon, instead of going home, likely hid, waited for Zimmerman and confronted him, the lawyer said.
"Trayvon Martin came towards George Zimmerman," O'Mara said. '"That is not an unarmed teenager.'
O'Mara explained saying Trayvon used his fists and a concrete sidewalk to threaten great bodily harm.
He also focused on what he said was the state's failure to prove Zimmerman did anything legally wrong. "Where is one shred of evidence to support the absurdity that they are trying to have you buy?" O'Mara asked pointedly in his closing statement to the jury.
Elizabeth Parker, a former prosecutor who is now a criminal defense attorney in Palm Beach, Fla., said the defense did a good job of humanizing Zimmerman .
"The defense did a phenomenal job of presenting their case through the state's witnesses," Parker said. "They were able to get George Zimmerman's testimony in through several witnesses --sparing him from having to undergo vigorous cross-examination by these bulldog prosecutors."
One such is example was the testimony of Sanford police officer Christopher Serino, called by the state and later the defense, Parker said. Serino agreed with prosecutors that Zimmerman may have been profiling Trayvon but said no physical evidence or witness statements contradicted Zimmerman's claim of self-defense and that the medical examiner's report supported Zimmerman's version of events.
Still, Valerie Houston, pastor of Allen Chapel AME Church in Sanford, said she hoped Zimmerman was convicted because he followed Trayvon and initiated the events leading up to the shooting. Many meetings in support of Trayvon and his family were held in her church and Houston joined those who early on asked for Zimmerman to be arrested.
"I feel that he's guilty," Houston said. "If he's not found guilty people will be disappointed--the African American community for sure."
Now that the verdict is in, people who share Houston's views will have to accept that the justice system believes Zimmerman is innocent.
However, despite now being a free man, Jose Baez, a Florida criminal defense attorney, said Zimmerman will likely go into hiding and be unable to live a normal life for some time.
"The end is not near for George Zimmerman," he said.
USA TODAY 10:01 P.M. EDT July 13, 2013
SANFORD, Fla.--George Zimmerman, the man accused of murdering Trayvon Martin, has been found not guilty of second murder and manslaughter.
The verdict is the culmination of a case that captured the nation's attention and will undoubtedly be imprinted in America's history. The not guilty verdict means the jury of six women found that Zimmerman justifiably used deadly force and reasonably believed that such force was "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm" to himself— Florida's definition of self-defense.
The women decided Zimmerman didn't "intentionally commit an act or acts that caused death" or demonstrate a "depraved mind without regard for human life" --Florida's definitions of manslaughter and second degree murder, respectively.
"Its means there was reasonable doubt," said Susan Constantine, a jury consultant and body language expert who attended Zimmerman's trial regularly. "They just could not put the pieces together."
The case has gripped the nation since the shooting happened on Feb. 26, 2012. Police initially did not charge Zimmerman with a crime, citing Florida's "stand-your-ground" law, which allows someone who believes they are in imminent danger to take whatever steps are necessary to protect themselves.
Protests ensued in several cities, including New York, by supporters of Trayvon's family. Many protesters voiced the opinion that Trayvon was targeted and killed for racial reasons. Trayvon was black and Zimmerman is Hispanic.
"You have a little black boy who was killed," said Benjamin Crump, an attorney for the parents of Trayvon. "It's going to be reported in history books and 50 years from now, our children will talk about Trayvon Martin's case like we talk about Emmett Till."
Emmett Till, a 14-year-old black young man, was tortured, murdered and grossly disfigured in Mississippi after being accused of flirting with a white woman.
In Zimmerman's case, State Attorney Angela Corey stepped in and charged Zimmerman with murder on April 11, 2012. Prosecutors however never argued that Zimmerman racially profiled the teen and instead said the teen was profiled as a criminal.
The five-week trial of Zimmerman, held in the same Florida city where Trayvon was killed, brought the facts of the case under a nationally-televised spotlight, with every moment captured on camera.
More than 50 witnesses testified and on the first day of deliberation requested a list of the plethora of evidence that lawyers presented.
Some of the items include several statements Zimmerman gave to police, Trayvon's autopsy report and photos of both Zimmerman's injuries and Trayvon's body. Witnesses included forensic experts who testified about the angle in which Trayvon was shot, the position Zimmerman's gun may have been in, and where DNA and blood was found.
Other witnesses offered conflicting statements about how the fight happened, who had the upper hand when Zimmerman shot and who was screaming for help in a 911 call recording.
Eyewitness Jonathan Good said he saw Trayvon on top of and striking Zimmerman moments before the teen was shot. While Selma Mora, who lived a couple of houses down from Good, said Zimmerman was on top and told her to call the police.
A 911 call recorded screams and the fatal gunshot moments before the shooting. Who was screaming was a critical question before the jury.
The defense called nine people -- including both of Zimmerman's parents -- to testify that the screams belonged to Zimmerman. Both of Trayvon's parents and his brother all said Trayvon was screaming moments before he was shot.
In at times riveting detail, prosecutors tried their best to convince jurors that Zimmerman was a killer who "tracked" Trayvon, an innocent teenager, and murdered him before police arrived.
"That child had every right to be afraid of a strange man following him," prosecutor John Guy told jurors before they began deliberations. "This case isn't about standing your ground. It's about staying in your car."
Fellow prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda focused heavily on the state's theory that Zimmerman, frustrated by recent burglaries in his neighborhood, profiled Trayvon as a criminal and choose to take the law in his own hand.
"A teenager is dead, and he's dead through no fault of his own," de la Rionda said to jurors. "He's dead because another man made an assumption."
The majority of legal experts USA TODAY interviewed however said the prosecution had a weak case based largely on circumstantial evidence. Some said the state could possibly succeed if they appealed to the emotions of jurors. However, sympathy was not supposed to play a part in the verdict and defense attorneys reminded jurors of that fact repeatedly.
Mark O'Mara, an attorney for George Zimmerman cast Trayvon as the aggressor saying the teen may have been charged with aggravated battery had he survived the shooting. Trayvon, instead of going home, likely hid, waited for Zimmerman and confronted him, the lawyer said.
"Trayvon Martin came towards George Zimmerman," O'Mara said. '"That is not an unarmed teenager.'
O'Mara explained saying Trayvon used his fists and a concrete sidewalk to threaten great bodily harm.
He also focused on what he said was the state's failure to prove Zimmerman did anything legally wrong. "Where is one shred of evidence to support the absurdity that they are trying to have you buy?" O'Mara asked pointedly in his closing statement to the jury.
Elizabeth Parker, a former prosecutor who is now a criminal defense attorney in Palm Beach, Fla., said the defense did a good job of humanizing Zimmerman .
"The defense did a phenomenal job of presenting their case through the state's witnesses," Parker said. "They were able to get George Zimmerman's testimony in through several witnesses --sparing him from having to undergo vigorous cross-examination by these bulldog prosecutors."
One such is example was the testimony of Sanford police officer Christopher Serino, called by the state and later the defense, Parker said. Serino agreed with prosecutors that Zimmerman may have been profiling Trayvon but said no physical evidence or witness statements contradicted Zimmerman's claim of self-defense and that the medical examiner's report supported Zimmerman's version of events.
Still, Valerie Houston, pastor of Allen Chapel AME Church in Sanford, said she hoped Zimmerman was convicted because he followed Trayvon and initiated the events leading up to the shooting. Many meetings in support of Trayvon and his family were held in her church and Houston joined those who early on asked for Zimmerman to be arrested.
"I feel that he's guilty," Houston said. "If he's not found guilty people will be disappointed--the African American community for sure."
Now that the verdict is in, people who share Houston's views will have to accept that the justice system believes Zimmerman is innocent.
However, despite now being a free man, Jose Baez, a Florida criminal defense attorney, said Zimmerman will likely go into hiding and be unable to live a normal life for some time.
"The end is not near for George Zimmerman," he said.
The Grandmaster Trailer - Tony Leung Becomes a Legend
Directed by acclaimed filmmaker Wong Kar Wai, THE GRANDMASTER is an epic
action feature inspired by the life and times of the legendary kung fu
master, Ip Man.
The story spans the tumultuous Republican era that followed the fall of China’s last dynasty, a time of chaos, division and war that was also the golden age of Chinese martial arts.
Filmed in a range of stunning locations that include the snow-swept landscapes of Northeast China and the subtropical South, THE GRANDMASTER features virtuoso performances by some of the greatest stars of contemporary Asian cinema, including Tony Leung and Ziyi Zhang.
By Angie Han
It feels like we’ve been waiting forever for Wong Kar Wai‘s The Grandmaster, but next month our patience will finally be rewarded. To prepare us for the martial arts epic’s release, The Weinstein Co. has released a new full-length U.S. trailer.
Tony Leung leads the cast as Ip Man, who’s probably best known in the U.S. as the guy who trained Bruce Lee. In the 1930s, when The Grandmaster begins, he’s a happily married man practicing the Wing Chun kung fu form in southern China. He’s challenged to a fight by a martial arts master from the north (Wang Qingxiang), and then later by the man’s daughter (Zhang Ziyi).
The trailer starts out with the same rain-soaked scene we’ve enjoyed in other trailers, but quickly moves on to other, equally dramatic scenes.
There’s no dialogue at all, lest the appearance of subtitles turn off American moviegoers. At least the voiceover isn’t as annoying this time around. Wong hasn’t done much in the martial arts genre, but he seems to acquit himself nicely. There’s lots of exciting action, choreographed beautifully by the Yuen Woo Ping, but Wong hasn’t lost the moody introspection that marks his other works.
The Grandmaster opens August 23rd.
The story spans the tumultuous Republican era that followed the fall of China’s last dynasty, a time of chaos, division and war that was also the golden age of Chinese martial arts.
Filmed in a range of stunning locations that include the snow-swept landscapes of Northeast China and the subtropical South, THE GRANDMASTER features virtuoso performances by some of the greatest stars of contemporary Asian cinema, including Tony Leung and Ziyi Zhang.
By Angie Han
It feels like we’ve been waiting forever for Wong Kar Wai‘s The Grandmaster, but next month our patience will finally be rewarded. To prepare us for the martial arts epic’s release, The Weinstein Co. has released a new full-length U.S. trailer.
Tony Leung leads the cast as Ip Man, who’s probably best known in the U.S. as the guy who trained Bruce Lee. In the 1930s, when The Grandmaster begins, he’s a happily married man practicing the Wing Chun kung fu form in southern China. He’s challenged to a fight by a martial arts master from the north (Wang Qingxiang), and then later by the man’s daughter (Zhang Ziyi).
The trailer starts out with the same rain-soaked scene we’ve enjoyed in other trailers, but quickly moves on to other, equally dramatic scenes.
There’s no dialogue at all, lest the appearance of subtitles turn off American moviegoers. At least the voiceover isn’t as annoying this time around. Wong hasn’t done much in the martial arts genre, but he seems to acquit himself nicely. There’s lots of exciting action, choreographed beautifully by the Yuen Woo Ping, but Wong hasn’t lost the moody introspection that marks his other works.
The Grandmaster opens August 23rd.
GOP - The Party of No
By Eugene Robinson
Self-delusion is a sad spectacle. Watching Republicans convince themselves that killing immigration reform actually helps the GOP is excruciating, and I wish somebody would make it stop.
House Speaker John Boehner’s unruly caucus has been busy persuading itself not to accept or even modify the bipartisan immigration bill passed by the Senate. Rather, it wants to annihilate it. It’s not that these Republicans want a different kind of comprehensive reform; it’s that they don’t want comprehensive reform at all.
The Obama administration “cannot be trusted to deliver on its promises to secure the border and enforce laws as part of a single, massive bill,” Boehner (R-Ohio) and the GOP leadership said in a statement. Instead, the idea is supposedly to deal with the tightly woven knot of immigration issues one at a time.
That’s like sitting down with a piece of cake and saying, “First I’m going to eat the flour, then the sugar, then the eggs.”
House Republicans think they can begin with “border security,” which would be laughable if the need for real immigration reform were not so serious. It is ridiculous to think the nearly 2,000-mile border between the United States and Mexico can be made impregnable.
The border, after all, was judged 84 percent secure last year by the Government Accountability Office — meaning that only 16 percent of attempts to enter the country illegally from Mexico were successful. Any improvement, at this point, would necessarily be fairly modest. Perhaps Republicans know of a border somewhere in the world that is 100 percent secure. I don’t.
And never mind that the flow of undocumented migrants is way down from its peak, while apprehensions of would-be migrants are way up. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Senate bill, if enacted, could slash illegal immigration in half. No realistic increase in border security would do as much.
So the House Republicans’ intransigence isn’t really about the border. It’s about avoiding the central question, which is what to do about the 11 million undocumented migrants who are here already.
In the view that has become far-right dogma, giving these people a path to citizenship “rewards bad behavior” and puts them ahead of presumably well-behaved foreigners who are waiting “in line” for admittance. For the most adamant House Republicans, giving the undocumented any legal status and permission to stay would amount to “amnesty.”
No legal status, of course, means no solution. Opponents of comprehensive reform should just come out and say what they mean: Rather than accept measures that studies say would not only reduce illegal immigration but also boost economic growth, House Republicans would prefer to do nothing.
This makes no sense as policy or as politics. Amazingly, however, some conservatives who should know better — magazine editors Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard and Rich Lowry of National Review — contend that the GOP would actually help itself politically by killing the Senate immigration bill.
This line of argument — I can’t call it reasoning — holds that the Senate bill must be killed because it does not end illegal immigration for all time, it does not fix the legal immigration system for all time and it is really long. The GOP should not waste time and effort chasing after Latino and Asian American votes, according to this view, and instead should concentrate on winning working-class whites with an economic message for the striving middle class.
As for the Senate bill, Kristol and Lowry wrote in a joint editorial that “House Republicans can do the country a service by putting a stake through its heart.”
Some House Republicans worry openly that giving undocumented residents a path to citizenship would eventually add millions of Democratic voters to the rolls. But they should be more concerned about the millions of Latino citizens who are unregistered or do not bother to vote. Democrats are making a concerted play for these people. Republicans are telling them they’d like to deport their relatives and friends.
Most House Republicans have nothing to worry about for the time being; their districts are safe. But the GOP’s fortunes in national contests — and eventually in statewide races — will be increasingly dim. Maybe they’ll wake up when Texas begins to change from red to blue.
In the meantime, it’s sad to see a once great political party carry on as if whistling past the graveyard were a plan.
Read more from Eugene Robinson’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook. You can also join him Tuesdays at 1 p.m. for a live Q&A.
Self-delusion is a sad spectacle. Watching Republicans convince themselves that killing immigration reform actually helps the GOP is excruciating, and I wish somebody would make it stop.
House Speaker John Boehner’s unruly caucus has been busy persuading itself not to accept or even modify the bipartisan immigration bill passed by the Senate. Rather, it wants to annihilate it. It’s not that these Republicans want a different kind of comprehensive reform; it’s that they don’t want comprehensive reform at all.
The Obama administration “cannot be trusted to deliver on its promises to secure the border and enforce laws as part of a single, massive bill,” Boehner (R-Ohio) and the GOP leadership said in a statement. Instead, the idea is supposedly to deal with the tightly woven knot of immigration issues one at a time.
That’s like sitting down with a piece of cake and saying, “First I’m going to eat the flour, then the sugar, then the eggs.”
House Republicans think they can begin with “border security,” which would be laughable if the need for real immigration reform were not so serious. It is ridiculous to think the nearly 2,000-mile border between the United States and Mexico can be made impregnable.
The border, after all, was judged 84 percent secure last year by the Government Accountability Office — meaning that only 16 percent of attempts to enter the country illegally from Mexico were successful. Any improvement, at this point, would necessarily be fairly modest. Perhaps Republicans know of a border somewhere in the world that is 100 percent secure. I don’t.
And never mind that the flow of undocumented migrants is way down from its peak, while apprehensions of would-be migrants are way up. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Senate bill, if enacted, could slash illegal immigration in half. No realistic increase in border security would do as much.
So the House Republicans’ intransigence isn’t really about the border. It’s about avoiding the central question, which is what to do about the 11 million undocumented migrants who are here already.
In the view that has become far-right dogma, giving these people a path to citizenship “rewards bad behavior” and puts them ahead of presumably well-behaved foreigners who are waiting “in line” for admittance. For the most adamant House Republicans, giving the undocumented any legal status and permission to stay would amount to “amnesty.”
No legal status, of course, means no solution. Opponents of comprehensive reform should just come out and say what they mean: Rather than accept measures that studies say would not only reduce illegal immigration but also boost economic growth, House Republicans would prefer to do nothing.
This makes no sense as policy or as politics. Amazingly, however, some conservatives who should know better — magazine editors Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard and Rich Lowry of National Review — contend that the GOP would actually help itself politically by killing the Senate immigration bill.
This line of argument — I can’t call it reasoning — holds that the Senate bill must be killed because it does not end illegal immigration for all time, it does not fix the legal immigration system for all time and it is really long. The GOP should not waste time and effort chasing after Latino and Asian American votes, according to this view, and instead should concentrate on winning working-class whites with an economic message for the striving middle class.
As for the Senate bill, Kristol and Lowry wrote in a joint editorial that “House Republicans can do the country a service by putting a stake through its heart.”
Some House Republicans worry openly that giving undocumented residents a path to citizenship would eventually add millions of Democratic voters to the rolls. But they should be more concerned about the millions of Latino citizens who are unregistered or do not bother to vote. Democrats are making a concerted play for these people. Republicans are telling them they’d like to deport their relatives and friends.
Most House Republicans have nothing to worry about for the time being; their districts are safe. But the GOP’s fortunes in national contests — and eventually in statewide races — will be increasingly dim. Maybe they’ll wake up when Texas begins to change from red to blue.
In the meantime, it’s sad to see a once great political party carry on as if whistling past the graveyard were a plan.
Read more from Eugene Robinson’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook. You can also join him Tuesdays at 1 p.m. for a live Q&A.
8 Stupid Lies Fox News Keeps Telling About Food Stamps
By Elisabeth Parker
Way to go, Congress! Three weeks ago, the GOP-led House of Representatives approved a bill providing millions in farm subsidies, while removing food stamps from the farm bill package entirely. Then, on July 11th, they actually went ahead and passed this travesty of a bill even though it disproportionately penalizes people in their own states!
Believe it or not, “red” states are the real welfare states, and the states most dependent on food stamps are all run by Republicans. As those “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” in France might murmur in their cafés over glasses of wine and acrid Gitanes cigarettes, “quel ironie.”
Meanwhile, here in “blue” America, we’re covering our ears against a heavy, clangorous din as millions of jaws drop to the floor. How do these conservatives keep getting away with this crap? Maybe it has something to do with all the vile myths and outright lies churned out by the right wing propaganda machine — oops, I mean, ‘media’ — on a daily basis. As is generally the case with legislation and sausages, right-wing propaganda is a messy and unappetizing business, and most of us really don’t want to watch it being made.
That’s why this video from Media Matters for America is such an eye-opener. After watching this montage of casually callous, ignorant, and appalling statements from Rush Limbaugh and the talking heads at Fox News, you’ll have a better idea of why folks from high-poverty states — like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Missouri, Tennessee, Texas, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Arizona, New Mexico, Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama, Maine, and Arkansas — keep voting for these conservative meanies.
Here’s the video:
The quotes from this lovely video cliptage all center around eight tired, inaccurate, and mean old myths about food stamps and poverty in general:
(1) If you need food stamps, you’re a loser and it’s your fault;
(2) Liberal politicians promote food stamps so people will become dependent on welfare, and vote for them;
(3) People on food stamps aren’t really poor, and don’t really need help;
(4) We can’t possibly have hunger in America, because so many Americans are clinically obese;
(5) Speaking of which … maybe some of these food stamps recipients should go on a diet;
(6) People on food stamps are welfare cheats;
(7) Who needs food stamps when we can go dumpster diving?; and
(8) Having a social safety net is bad, because it creates a culture of dependency.
Why do we think it’s so horrible for people to take care of each other? Families and human societies have done exactly that since long before civilization began. Having a social safety net to help in times of misfortune — especially when so many people’s fates are determined by huge, global, multi-national corporations and rich people who keep not creating jobs — is a crucial hallmark of civilization. In fact, our ability to form emotional bonds, work together cooperatively, communicate, and form mutually supportive communities is a big part of what supposedly sets humans above other life forms (though the opposable thumbs and more complex/proportionally larger brains certainly help).
Since conservatives claim to love Jesus Christ so much, you’d think they’d want us to love and take care of one another the way Jesus so famously taught. Instead, they envision a dark, dystopian world dominated by a sociopathic elite that either uses or crushes everyone in their path. I’d call it “social Darwinism,” if these religious zealots actually believed in Darwin.
Author: Elisabeth Parker Elisabeth Parker is a writer, Web designer, mom, political junkie, and dilettante. Come visit her at ElisabethParker.Com, "like" her on facebook, "friend" her on facebook, follow her on Twitter, or check out her Pinterest boards. For more Addicting Info articles by Elisabeth, click here.
Way to go, Congress! Three weeks ago, the GOP-led House of Representatives approved a bill providing millions in farm subsidies, while removing food stamps from the farm bill package entirely. Then, on July 11th, they actually went ahead and passed this travesty of a bill even though it disproportionately penalizes people in their own states!
Believe it or not, “red” states are the real welfare states, and the states most dependent on food stamps are all run by Republicans. As those “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” in France might murmur in their cafés over glasses of wine and acrid Gitanes cigarettes, “quel ironie.”
Meanwhile, here in “blue” America, we’re covering our ears against a heavy, clangorous din as millions of jaws drop to the floor. How do these conservatives keep getting away with this crap? Maybe it has something to do with all the vile myths and outright lies churned out by the right wing propaganda machine — oops, I mean, ‘media’ — on a daily basis. As is generally the case with legislation and sausages, right-wing propaganda is a messy and unappetizing business, and most of us really don’t want to watch it being made.
That’s why this video from Media Matters for America is such an eye-opener. After watching this montage of casually callous, ignorant, and appalling statements from Rush Limbaugh and the talking heads at Fox News, you’ll have a better idea of why folks from high-poverty states — like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Missouri, Tennessee, Texas, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Arizona, New Mexico, Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama, Maine, and Arkansas — keep voting for these conservative meanies.
Here’s the video:
The quotes from this lovely video cliptage all center around eight tired, inaccurate, and mean old myths about food stamps and poverty in general:
(1) If you need food stamps, you’re a loser and it’s your fault;
(2) Liberal politicians promote food stamps so people will become dependent on welfare, and vote for them;
(3) People on food stamps aren’t really poor, and don’t really need help;
(4) We can’t possibly have hunger in America, because so many Americans are clinically obese;
(5) Speaking of which … maybe some of these food stamps recipients should go on a diet;
(6) People on food stamps are welfare cheats;
(7) Who needs food stamps when we can go dumpster diving?; and
(8) Having a social safety net is bad, because it creates a culture of dependency.
1. If you need food stamps, you’re a loser and it’s your fault.
“The image we have of poor people as starving and living in squalor really is not accurate. Many of them have things, what they lack is the richness of spirit.”Not only does this sort of thinking promote the idea that people are poor for lack of a work ethic and good morals, it also catches those of us who do need help in a vicious cycle of self-hatred, self-blame, and secret shame that encourages us to hate food stamp recipients and vote against welfare programs even while we’re being helped by them. We’re not the ones who should feel ashamed. People who think it’s okay for people to starve and go without basic necessities in a land of wealth and plenty are the ones who should feel ashamed.
– Stuart Varney
2. Liberal politicians promote food stamps so people will become dependent on welfare, and vote for them.
“Re-elect Obama, food stamps for everyone.”Obviously, this is not true … otherwise the folks living in the Republican-dominated states listed above would stop voting for these jerks!
– Laura Ingraham
3. People on food stamps aren’t really poor, and don’t really need help.
“They’re all gonna have a phone, a TV set, a car, and 120 free minutes, and food stamps.”First of all, having a cell phone, television, a car, and food stamps does not make you well-off. We are only able to afford cheap consumer electronics because they’re produced in countries with low wages, unsafe working conditions, and few regulations. Meanwhile, many of us don’t have secure employment any more because globalization’s incessant race to the bottom has unfairly forced us to compete against these workers. Instead of promoting fairness, safety, and higher living standards amongst our trading partners, we’re lowering our own standards. Thanks to Walmart, we can afford to buy lots of cheap, plastic crap. But life’s necessities — like food, housing, healthcare, and gas or transportation remain impossibly expensive for many of us.
– Rush Limbaugh
4. We don’t have hunger in America, because so many Americans are clinically obese.
“Sixteen MILLION children face a summer of hunger. Now, Michelle Obama told us they’re all so fat and out of shape and overweight that a summer off from government eating might be just the ticket.”I can barely even get past the spectacle of a disgustingly obese, cigar-chomping, mean-spirited slob like Rush Limbaugh giving health advice to the less economically fortunate amongst us … but here goes. Believe it or not, it is possible — and increasingly common in America, according to Elaine Watson’s recent article in a trade publication for nutritionists — for us to be obese and malnourished at the same time. That’s because there’s a vast gulf between getting enough — or too many — calories, and getting enough nutrition and exercise. Calories and junk food are cheap. More nutritious foods, like fresh produce, are often more expensive and inaccessible to low-income people living in isolated rural or inner city areas (and who often don’t have cars). Exercise opportunities are also challenging in unsafe and isolated neighborhoods, especially if you have chronic health problems from obesity and malnutrition.
– Rush Limbaugh
“Poor people in America have an obesity problem. And yet, we give more people food stamps.”
– Geraldo Rivera
5. Maybe some of these food stamps recipients need to go on a diet.
“I should try it, because, do you know how fabulous I’d look? I’d be SO SKINNY!”Squeeeeee! She can look caring AND lose weight! Sounds like a win-win for Tantaros, who is already such a slender wisp of a thing — both physically and mentally — she might flat-out disappear. Which could also be a win-win for the rest of us. What’s not to like?
– Andrea Tantaros’s giddy thoughts on taking the food stamps challenge and spending only $130 per month on food.
6. People on food stamps are welfare cheats.
“Remember that lottery guy? Still getting food stamps! Come on!”This old and tiresome trope started when Ronald Reagan conjured up images of welfare queens driving pink Cadillacs. Funny, I always thought those were Mary Kay saleswomen. But it makes absolutely no sense that this hypothetically undeserving thief would risk felony charges just to scam $130 in food stamps per month. If you’re going to game the system, why not just throw on a suit, work for a bank, and cheat investors and mortgage holders? It’s easier and better paid, plus Wall Street’s white collar criminals almost never do jail time.
– Gerry Willis
7. Who needs food stamps when you can go dumpster diving?
“There’s always the neighborhood dumpster. Now you might find competition with homeless people there, but there are videos produced to show you how to healthfully dive and survive until school starts back up in August.”Yikes! If our local homeless population here in San Jose, CA saw Rush Limbaugh’s plumber-butt sticking out of a dumpster, they’d run screaming for the hills. I don’t even know where to begin, because the image of desperate parents digging around in dumpsters to feed their children scraps of moldy food until free school lunches resume is downright Dickensian. Do we seriously want to live in the squalid world of “Oliver Twist“? I’m seriously starting to think our Republicans actually do. I don’t know how Limbaugh caught wind of the Freegan movement (the practice of … um … “reclaiming and eating discarded food”), but this is hardly how we should expect citizens of a supposedly first-world democracy to live.
– Rush Limbaugh
8. Having a social safety net is bad, and creates a culture of … um … Depends™ency.
“Well, it’s like we’re wearing one, gigantic Depends undergarment. It’s like, hey, we’re America, don’t worry about it. Now, pretty soon we won’t have to go to the bathroom for ourselves.”Is this some new and even more vile version of what “All In The Family‘s” Archie Bunker hilariously malapropped as “tinkle down theory?” Like, if we come together as citizens and build a safety net that catches us when we fall into hard times, we’re literally shitting on each other? Like, ew. Thanks for the lovely image, Kimberly Guilfoyle.
– Kimberly Guilfoyle
Why do we think it’s so horrible for people to take care of each other? Families and human societies have done exactly that since long before civilization began. Having a social safety net to help in times of misfortune — especially when so many people’s fates are determined by huge, global, multi-national corporations and rich people who keep not creating jobs — is a crucial hallmark of civilization. In fact, our ability to form emotional bonds, work together cooperatively, communicate, and form mutually supportive communities is a big part of what supposedly sets humans above other life forms (though the opposable thumbs and more complex/proportionally larger brains certainly help).
Since conservatives claim to love Jesus Christ so much, you’d think they’d want us to love and take care of one another the way Jesus so famously taught. Instead, they envision a dark, dystopian world dominated by a sociopathic elite that either uses or crushes everyone in their path. I’d call it “social Darwinism,” if these religious zealots actually believed in Darwin.
Author: Elisabeth Parker Elisabeth Parker is a writer, Web designer, mom, political junkie, and dilettante. Come visit her at ElisabethParker.Com, "like" her on facebook, "friend" her on facebook, follow her on Twitter, or check out her Pinterest boards. For more Addicting Info articles by Elisabeth, click here.
Friday, July 12, 2013
Is VA Gov. Bob McDonnell Negotiating Resignation Over Felonies?
By Susie Madrak
Turns out that VA's wingnut Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who's running to replace O'Donnell, is also involved in this same scandal. Oops!
Even though he denies it, there are numerous rumors that outgoing VA Gov. Bob McDonnell, the man who wanted to be Mitt Romney's vice president, has a different kind of future in store -- namely, agreeing to resign in exchange for avoiding charges. I guess we'll know soon!
Turns out that VA's wingnut Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who's running to replace O'Donnell, is also involved in this same scandal. Oops!
Even though he denies it, there are numerous rumors that outgoing VA Gov. Bob McDonnell, the man who wanted to be Mitt Romney's vice president, has a different kind of future in store -- namely, agreeing to resign in exchange for avoiding charges. I guess we'll know soon!
RICHMOND — A prominent political donor gave $70,000 to a corporation owned by Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell and his sister last year, and the governor did not disclose the money as a gift or loan, according to people with knowledge of the payments.
The donor, wealthy businessman Jonnie R. Williams Sr., also gave a previously unknown $50,000 check to the governor’s wife, Maureen, in 2011, the people said.
The money to the corporation and Maureen McDonnell brings to $145,000 the amount Williams gave to assist the McDonnell family in 2011 and 2012 — funds that are now at the center of federal and state investigations.
Williams, the chief executive of dietary supplement manufacturer Star Scientific Inc., also provided a $10,000 check in December as a present to McDonnell’s eldest daughter, Jeanine, intended to help defray costs at her May 2013 wedding, the people said.
Virginia’s first family already is under intense scrutiny for accepting $15,000 from the same chief executive to pay for the catering at the June 2011 wedding of Cailin McDonnell at the Executive Mansion.
All the payments came as McDonnell and his wife took steps to promote the donor’s company and its products.
The payments to the corporation, confirmed by people familiar with the transactions, offer the first public example of money provided by Williams that would directly benefit the governor and not just his family.
The money went from a trust, controlled by Williams, to MoBo Real Estate Partners, a limited-liability corporation formed in 2005 by McDonnell and his sister, the sources said.More here from the Maddow blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)