open mic

New thread while we get through the summer.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. gmanfortruth says:

    🙂

  2. I have to admit, that Obama is getting adept at scandal avoidance. Just as we learn that the IRS scandal goes up to the IRS chief council, an Obama appointee, he comes out with “Trayvon could have been me”. So the diversion continues.

  3. Nice game today, Phil. A 66 when the rest of the field averages 74 plus……Wow. Enjoy your grand slam!

  4. What I wish the president had said:

    The George Zimmerman trial is over. There is insufficient evidence to prosecute Mr. Zimmerman on federal civil rights charges. End of story.

    This case was a tragedy. Both parties profiled each other. Both approached the situation with negative attitudes, George “they always get away” and Trayvon “a crazy a** cracka”. While we will never know exactly what started the fight, from all the evidence, it appears that Trayvon committed felony assault which is what led to this death. As I said it was a tragedy that just did not have to happen had both of them approached the scene with different attitudes. It is over. Any further violence is inappropriate and unproductive. To those who have threatened Mr. Zimmerman’s life, violation of his civil rights will not be tolerated.

    This country has made significant strides in the last 70 years towards racial equality. While traces of racism still exist, overt government enforced racism is a thing of the past. We do not have colored schools or water fountains any more. Profiling does exist but it to is on the decline. Profiling will never be totally eliminated since it is rooted in ancient tribal mentality. Those of a different skin color or a yellow feather in their hair do not belong to my tribe, hence my self-defense mechanism will come into play automatically until cognitive thought over comes the reaction. When I was younger, I walked onto elevators to see women of a different color clutch their handbags tighter. One of the real issues we need to address in this country is why people react this way. Is there an inherent fear of people of a different color? If that fear is justified than we must address the root issues.

    There is no doubt that the black-on-black murder rate in our large cities is way out of proportion to the demographics. We need to address the root causes. To the leaders of the black community, go home and address this issue. To teenagers of all colors, education and hard work is the route out of poverty and into the American dream. There are many examples of individuals who used education to escape poverty; Bill Cosby and Dr. Ben Carson are just two that come to mind. As Dr. Carson has shown, there is a lot of education available and free of charge at the local library. Schools cannot open up your brain and pour in an education. It comes one word, one sentence, one paragraph, one book at a time, and you, as an individual, have to do it yourself.

    In the long term, our goal should be as Martin Luther King stated, “…by the content of their character not the color of their skin…” I look forward to the day in the not so distant future, when that is true in all aspects of American life; when justice, employment, admission to schools and incidental contact are based on character not color, ethnicity, or country of origin.

    • This case is different, obviously But I profile too. MEN. Not black men, or Middle Eastern men. Just men. Sorry if my glares may upset you, Nothing personal,, I can understand if my glares lead you to believe I’m racist, but maybe it’s time for you , Mr Man, to realize I just have my guard up around strange men. Do I have manophobia? Too Damn Bad! 😉

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Profiling is normal and everyone does it. Go to an airport and try to NOT look for an olive skinned man, good luck. Instead of crying foul over profiling, shouldn’t we solve the reasons thqt people are profiled?

        • Mathius says:

          shouldn’t we solve the reasons thqt people are profiled?

          Yes.

          Sure.

          Let’s do that!

          Black people are disproportionately convicted of crimes. Therefore, people think of black people as criminals. Therefore, we commit more resources to policing black people and are tougher in our enforcement against black people. This leads to more black people being convicted of crimes. Therefore, people think of black people as criminals!

          and round and round she goes!

          If you’d like the second verse, it goes like this:
          As a general over-simplications: black areas tend to be poor areas. Poor areas tend to have inferior schools. Inferior schools do not educate as well. Inferior high school education means no college. No college means low paying job. Low paying job means not a lot of money. Not a lot of money means you tend to live in a poor area. And poor areas tend to have inferior schools!

          and round and round she goes!

          Want the third verse? It goes like this:

          Another economist, Dr. Mullainathan wanted to dive deeper into the issue that blacks are typically paid less than whites in the work force. He wondered if their black names made it more difficult for them to receive jobs. Mullainathan set up studies in Boston and Chicago in which he sent out 5,000 resumes, half with “black” names and half with “white” names. The rest of the information on the resumes were the same. He found that the resumes with black names were 33% less likely to receive a call back from the companies they applied to. In other terms, while it can take a white named applicant 10 weeks to find a job, an applicant with the same qualifications but with a black names can take 15 weeks to find a job.

          (more here if you’re interested)

          and round and round she goes!

          • Excuses, excuses, excuses

            • ::puts on Black Flag hat::

              The hegemonic force bears ultimate responsibility for the situation, whereas the weaker force merely reacts. In a society dominated by whites, who wield almost all of the power and wealth, a situation wherein the weak/poor/minority of black individuals are systematically and cyclically oppressed via inferior opportunities, harsher criminal prosecution, and discriminatory hiring preferences morally lies at the feet of the more powerful force.

              That is not to say that the whites in this case have any obligation to […]

              ::takes off Black Flag hat, throws it across the room::

              I need to go lie down now.. that thing always makes my head buzz uncomfortably.

          • You’re no better than my good (black) friend! Continue to portray them as the victim and they run with it. My friend, liberal (though I don’t believe it for a second..I call him a closet conservative, he just won’t admit it), went rounds on this on Friday. He ended up mad at me, for 30 seconds. In my city, you could end up either way..uneducated and poor..or educated and successful. My friend made his way totally on his own..his parents didn’t even help him. He is his own proof but yet he continues to play the victim. Morgan Freeman..Dem that he is, and one of my fav actors..says paraphrasing..stop calling me a black man and I’ll stop calling you a white man. Racism solved.

            • stop calling me a black man and I’ll stop calling you a white man. Racism solved.

              I think the problems run slightly deeper than that…

              • 911 to the Colonel. Matt is getting out of line already. Please summarize your column on racism, maybe some Texas sized charm will allow him to focus better 🙂

              • Listen, you. You still owe me a snow shovel. You don’t get to talk back to me until you return what you borrowed.

              • PPFFTTT…that is nothing. I am a white guy, a highly decorated veteran that wears a veterans hat, and has an Army sticker on the back of his SUV……..a NRA emblem, and an AOPA emblem. I was pulled over (rightly so) for speeding the other day…well, four weeks ago….broad daylight…and I put my hands in plain sight. That is nothing but common sense. With the amount of shootings that happens to police today and darkened windows on cars….

                However, I will not lament the issue and will continue to say…..we should not have to do that…but the actions of a few mean the majority will suffer.

          • You are so close to “getting it” but not there yet. It is the root cause, the Lowest Common denominator. As I almost shouted to a liberal classmate of mine from the ’60’s last week at a reunion, You, did not have an office in the basement of an apartment building at 141st Street and Lenox Avenue for seven years. You did not hear the literal “roar” coming out of those open windows in Harlem that summer when OJ was acquitted. I could only compare it to what my parents told me that VJ day was like in the city. I was in the trenches in Harlem while my friend, the educator, was pontificating about learned tomes he had read about the “black”experience.

            Young black men have been destroyed by the culture, we the people have created in this country over the past 50 years. There are no father figures. Read Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s writings from the ’70’s. His predictions all came true. The gangsta culture, misogyny, hopelessness have taken over.There is the feeling, correct up to a point, that there is nothing they can do to break out of the rut they are in. Just a few short years ago, all was going to be well because we elected the first black/African-American president who has been absolutely AWOL on the issues that really matter to the black community.

            I could probably be roundly criticized and maybe should be for having the temerity to point out that our first black/African-American president has absolutely no link to the history and experiences of any normal black male in this country. Was thinking about this last month, wouldn’t it have been nice if the first black president could point to his slave ancestors in Virginia, Mississippi or Georgia and perhaps his white linage brought about other than voluntarily back in the nineteenth century. Instead, we have this twerp who seems to care more about Africa than Chicago, raised in a unique culture in his formative years, bearing no resemblance to anything this society had or has to offer.

            Personally, I think he has made things far worse through dashed expectations if nothing else.

            • when OJ was acquitted.

              Don’t talk to me about OJ.. I was living in LA at the time. Woooo boy… if you think it was big out here, imagine how it was down there. That city was a frigging powder keg.

              our first black/African-American president has absolutely no link to the history and experiences of any normal black male in this country.

              I forgot which comedian (Mahr?) pointed this out, but Obama is the whitest black man I’ve ever seen. He’s Harvard educated, likes golf, etc. It was pretty funny and I wish I had the link (I’m too lazy to go digging). But, like all great comedy, there’s a grain of truth in there somewhere: I’m pretty convinced that White America would not have voted for Obama if he were “blacker” in this sense.

              But let’s move past that. It’s not Obama’s fault that this cycle exists, nor is it his fault that it’s not fixed already. I think 99.9% of the issue is self-fulfilling: as I point out, discrimination leads to bad outcomes which lead to discrimination. Does the chicken come first of the egg? Who cares? How do you break out of the cycle?

              So that’s my question for you: How do you break out of the cycle?

              • I have no way to prove it but I think that a “blacker” man could have won. Now, I don’t think that would include a hip-hop artist or rapper but all things being equal, the story of a black man in America rising to president who had the normal disadvantages of a black man brought up in the 50’s, 60’s or 70’s but nonetheless succeeded in business, politics or academia wouold have been compelling.

                There is also the issue of Bush the younger. Let’s face it, the country was well into an “anybody but Bush mode”. That included John McCain who was correctly seen as just more of the same.

                To break the cycle, you have to return to the ’50’s. No, I don’t mean de jure or de facto segregation. As a matter of fact I don’t mean anything having to do with whites. When you read of Harlem in the 40’s and 50’s you read about a neighborhood that mirrored other neighborhoods around it. Yes there was the segregation, some self imposed, most forced but nonetheless, there was not an effort on the part of the residents to “separate” themselves from the mainstream of the society. They did what their neighbors did, they had families, cared about education, worked hard and looked down on out of wedlock births almost as hard as their white counterparts did. OK, I was there in NY City but the evidence says it was the same elsewhere from Selma to Detroit. Despite overwhelming hurdles thrown in their way by the majority race, they were persevering.

                Since I was a teenager, I was a Malcolm X fan. The man understood where it had to start. Dr. King understood where it had to start. Hell, Bill Cosby, not that anyone listens to him, knows where it has to start.

                Unfortunately Blacks are separate from the mainstream of society. Again, some is mistakenly self imposed, some is deliberately imposed from within the community to maintain the power of the Sharpton’s and Jackson’s and some is imposed from without to continue the feel good “they can’t do it themselves” superiority of the new white massa’s running a different but just as destructive plantation in 2013 as it was in 1863.

                So, your solutions are far into the future, generations have already been lost and more will be.There is no magic, quick fix bullet or piece of legislation. This is going to take an awful lot of attitudinal adjustment. Society as a whole must yet again become judgmental about bad behavior and bad choices. It would actually probably benefit us all to do so.

                Just was watching a Pentagon Channel piece on Vietnam which interviewed mostly infantrymen in my age group. Watching the blacks talk and then the whites, I honestly think that was about as close as we have come to having a colorblind society. How much we have lost since then! I’d love to see the Colonel comment on this. As M/Sgt Jesse L. Glover said back in the winter of 1969,”You ain’t white to me and you ain’t black, you is all green”. In a way I wish that it was still so. Know that I have always lived by his words.

              • oookaaayy.. going to take this one below..

    • While we will never know exactly what started the fight, from all the evidence, it appears that Trayvon committed felony assault which is what led to this death.

      Really? And what evidence was that? Nobody saw the fight … one guy saw TM throwing punches down at GZ (but either TM was cockeyed and couldn’t land them or GZ is a martial arts expert after all and was able to deflect those punches) … the evidence (to me) suggests GZ panicked and overreacted … but I’ll admit I have no idea how anything happened (including GZ’s broken nose—something easily done by oneself, by the way—and maybe with some extra bravado after whacking someone) … but you come to the conclusion it was felonius assault (which sounds worse than it actually is – punishable by 1 year or more/not he got his face busted up—which he didn’t).

      This country has made significant strides in the last 70 years towards racial equality.

      Says the white guy.

      Bill Cosby and Dr. Ben Carson are just two that come to mind. As Dr. Carson has shown, there is a lot of education available and free of charge at the local library.

      Ah, Bill to the rescue … one of the really good ones. Oy vey …

      I look forward to the day in the not so distant future, when that is true in all aspects of American life; when justice, employment, admission to schools and incidental contact are based on character not color, ethnicity, or country of origin.

      You mean like the good old days? 60 years ago, my friend, there were still lynchings going on … SYG has created a new type of lynching … and Florida, just as it was the worst offender of lynchings in the entire south during the 40’s and 50’s, is leading the way in 2013 … take a few minutes and look up the Jordan Davis case (from Florida/SYG) … if that wasn’t a modern form of lynching, I’m not sure what is …

      • Mathius says:

        Really? And what evidence was that?

        The evidence is that TM got away. He GOT AWAY.

        And THEN they got in a fight. The only way this happens is if he comes back. This doesn’t prove that GZ’s story of being jumped is true… but it sure makes it seem plausible.

        This country has made significant strides in the last 70 years towards racial equality.

        Says the white guy.

        Nonsense.. it absolutely has.

        … that doesn’t mean it doesn’t still have a long ways to go.

        Ah, Bill to the rescue … one of the really good ones. Oy vey …

        Error: Ad Hominem

  5. I have no way to prove it but I think that a “blacker” man could have won.

    I’ll just leave this here..

    Meanwhile, a 2006 poll showed that, nationwide, 5% of respondents said they would refuse to vote for a well qualified candidate if he were black. Now, we have to take into account that a lot of people probably knew that they should lie about their answer, so it’s safe to assume this is higher than that. But, in North Carolina (?), the number was closer to 33% – I couldn’t find this survey, and it should of course be taken with a grain of salt, but still…

    There is also the issue of Bush the younger. Let’s face it, the country was well into an “anybody but Bush mode”. That included John McCain who was correctly seen as just more of the same.

    True. And even with all that headwind, plus a massive banking collapse, plus record high gas prices, plus two highly unpopular wars, plus Palin (!!!), plus everything else, Obama won by 7.2% of the popular vote. A substantial margin, true. But don’t forget that that already includes a taking 95% of the black vote, 95% of the Muslim vote and a 2:1 margin for the Hispanic vote. If you back this out, I’d be willing to bet that the white vote was pretty close to tied.. despite all that Obama had going for him. That just doesn’t add up in my head.. does it for you? (please don’t ask me to do that math.. please don’t ask me to do the math..)

    To break the cycle, you have to return to the ’50′s. No, I don’t mean de jure or de facto segregation.

    Q: What do you get when you integrate the Little Rock 9?

    A: The Little Rock 9X + c

    BAZINGA!

    There is no magic, quick fix bullet or piece of legislation.

    Could we start by, say, better funding poor district schools and providing more, not less, healthy food and prenatal care to minority and poor youths?

    Could we also start by, say, changing the laws so that “black crimes” such as crack use carry the same sentencing as “white crimes” such as coke use?

    Could we also start by, say, decriminalizing marijuana use so that we don’t wind up arresting and jailing whole generations of black parents to leave their children with half of a family?

    Quick fix? No.

    But it’s a damn good start.

    • Mathius said: If you back this out, I’d be willing to bet that the white vote was pretty close to tied

      Well shoot, looks like Wikipedia did the math for me..

      White vote was 43 for Obama / 55 for McCain.

      So, with all the headwind Obama had: Palin, two wildly unpopular wars, “Anyone But Bush,” the banking collapse, instant-recession, the housing collapse, trampling of the Constitution, Cheney, et cetera.. with all this, Obama STILL lost the white vote by a 12% margin. And that’s after running a very solid campaign while McCain floundered around flip flopping and being wishy washy.

      12 Percent.

      Tell me that isn’t indicative of something that involves racism. I wouldn’t pin it 100% on racism by any means.. but certainly, it has to be a factor.

      • Got to understand that I voted against Obama because I thought he was an empty suit.I will not doubt that there were outright racists who voted against him, there were lifelong republicans who voted against him, there were people who thought he was an empty suit. There are people who thought him a fraud. Being that you have gotten so good at research, tell me what percentage of whites would have voted for Colin Powell in 2000. Discount the die hard democrats who would not vote for JC himself if on the other party’s ticket.

        Schools cannot do what a family does, not even close. Schools taught me. My father made me learn. That is a fact. Not to say that people cannot succeed in spite of but it just makes it a whole lot easier and one less major obstacle in the way. This is something I have some family experience in. I had one grandfather who thought High School was a waste and another who told my dad to never stop learning. We decided in the ’80’s that throwing money at a problem never solves it. Apparently we are back to that issue again. If money were the issue, Parochial schools would all have terrible test scores. they don’t. It is the families and their priorities again. Been involved in a number of Parochial schools in my time, still am. They are both inner city and suburban. They reject nobody. So, it is not a cherry picking situation. Yes, the Catholics do have “Prep” schools which are open to all but academically demanding but we also have trade and business schools.

        Ever teach in a Public School? Ever watch what happens to the “healthy” food at the end of lunch. Like Gun Free zones, if you want to impact the foods these kids eat, you would have to have a snack free zone at least 1,000 yards from a school. No grocery’s, bodegas, candy stores, ice cream trucks or vending machines within a five lock radius.Ban those damned Cheetos anyway!

        Same with the pre-natal care. It is there if you want it.But, how do you get a 14 or 15 year old to take that seriously? Any society that produces 45 year old great grandmothers (I have known a few) ain’t going nowhere.

        Agree on the drugs. Loved it when Guiliani had Bratton confiscate the cars of those suburban Juvenile Delinquents who came into the heights to buy their powder. I vacillate on legalization, always have. But I do believe everybody gets the same punishment.

        • Mathius says:

          Got to understand that I voted against Obama because I thought he was an empty suit.

          I 100% believe this.

          … But McCain / Romney were empty suits too …..

          (in fact, since they’re not dead, I think it’s safe to say that they still are empty suits.

          tell me what percentage of whites would have voted for Colin Powell in 2000.

          The Bradley Effect renders such speculation meaningless. You’d have to ask Nate Silver. I hear he’s between jobs right now, so shoot him an email and see what happens..

          Discount the die hard democrats who would not vote for JC himself if on the other party’s ticket.

          JC would have a harder time with the Republicans, methinks.. nevermind that he was a Jew.. he also had all sorts of socialist ideas like taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

          And, on top of that, he probably looked pretty middle eastern.. just saying..

          And then there was that time he was caught being kissed by another man..

          Schools cannot do what a family does, not even close.

          100% agreement.

          No, 1,000% agreement.

          No, 10,000% agreement!

          I actually saw proposals that tie school attendance to welfare benefits. I’m not sure I really like the idea (I don’t), but at least someone is trying to come up with something creative that addresses this problem. Kids learn in school, but parents have to help as well – even if that just means making sure the kid does his homework and is held accountable for poor grades.

          Maybe the answer is mandatory after school programs for underperformers (read: lazy, not stupid). Didn’t do your homework? Great, stay after school for a week and do it in the bonus round.

          We decided in the ’80′s that throwing money at a problem never solves it.

          True, but there’s a big difference between “throwing money at it” and “making sure that there are enough textbooks for everyone and making sure that it’s not freezing in the winter.

          Also, as the husband of a teacher, allow me to point out that money attracts quality teachers. If a poor school pays half of what a quality school pays, they’re going to attract poor teachers. Poor teachers (A) don’t teach as well and (B) don’t inspire kids to learn as well. So “throwing money” at hiring better teachers would still go a long way toward helping the issue. I have seen – pretty clearly – the difference in the types of teachers in these districts.

          If money were the issue, Parochial schools would all have terrible test scores.

          Maybe it’s that they’re allowed to beat their students with a ruler? Highly motivational, you know..

          Kidding aside, I think there’s a selection bias in the types of people who choose to send their kids to these kinds of schools. This, of course, backs up what we already know and agree. But that doesn’t mean we should just give up on everyone else, does it?

          Ever teach in a Public School?

          No, I’m not a teacher, but my wife is..

          Ever watch what happens to the “healthy” food at the end of lunch.

          No, but I can guess.

          I think a good step would be to get rid of unhealthy vending machines and make an effort to discourage parents from brown-bagging junk food (fully subsidized lunches for all children should be pretty effective on this count). But that’s just a plug in the dam.

          I think, from my experience, that “healthy” options aren’t the same as “quality healthy” options. I think, at schools, lip service is paid to providing “healthy” food, but soggy lettuce (cheap) is not the same thing as a quality salad (expensive). Kids will avoid greens stuff in favor of pizza generally, but much less so if the green stuff is crisp and fresh and there is no pizza. Waste 20 minutes here.

          Sure, some kids will get around it (it’s not like you’re going to lock down the campus for contraband twinkies). But parents are cheap and lazy, and kids will still be hungry. Plus, if they’ve had good food for lunch for year, they’ll acclimate and be perfectly happy to continue eating it (verified by personal experience of kids at a charity school).

          Any society that produces 45 year old great grandmothers (I have known a few) ain’t going nowhere.

          Education, education, education.

          More education (especially sex ed.) means fewer teen pregnancies, and the ones that do happen are generally safer and produce healthier children.

          Suffice it to say, I don’t think sex ed should be optional – or at least it should have a non-optional “abridged course” with just the essentials. And, perhaps, a preliminary course with the most basic of basics taught before kids hit puberty. That would be a good start.

          • See how close we are?

            At this point it comes down to whether education can change behavior. I’m still enough of a block headed Goldwater Conservative to believe, you got to care, you have to want to improve. For the young than means having the mentors to keep you pointed in the right direction and that 99 percent of the time has to come from the home.

            Malcolm’s example was instructive and the exception I think to the rule. He came from a hardscrabble background and was headed towards a life of petty crime and prison. Instead, the man used his brain and sought answers which led him to religion. That in turn expanded his horizons and allowed him to fully develop as a human being. Eventually his questioning nature led him to reject the Nation of Islam and Elijah Mohammed and move forward to a better interpretation of Islam. For this he had to die. Not ever healthy to point out the emperor has no clothes. The fairy tale of the same name stops short of telling you the little boy was guillotined and his family exiled to the salt marshes.

            When my wife taught in Red Hook, the quality of the food was excellent, not wilted lettuce but it was rejected in favor of Twinkies, pork rinds and Cheetos. Kids are coming home today hungry because they reject the lunches Mrs. O and mayor Bloomberg recommend.

            Sex feels good, teenage boys lie, what part of that do you think education will change? As an old guy, we had only the marriage course in Senior Year of High School to go by but, we all knew what condoms were, we all knew how babies were made and abortion was not only illegal but incredibly immoral. I am sure that you heard of the recent case of the man who has 22 children by twelve women. He understands. The women who bore those children probably understood and the women who had more than one definitely understand. There is nothing your fifth, eighth, tenth or twelfth grade teachers are going to do about this. Societal pressure will do something, parental pressure will do something but education won’t. You are a bit too young to remember the controversies over sex it. Suffice it to say that it has been around for four decades and has served as little more than a how-to manual.

            One of the things that fascinates me is the illegitimacy rate among Hispanic immigrants.I have asked many of the first generation immigrants I worked with about out of wedlock babies in their home countries. the incidence is low. However, when they arrive here with their ten year old daughters in tow, a few years go by and the girls surpass the white native illegitimacy rate and in many cases come close to the black rate. The inquiring mind should want to know why this is. You know that my answer is culture or the lack thereof.

            I am the greatest pusher of education you will ever want to meet but education is like democracy, you only get the real thing if deep in your gut you want to have it. Otherwise, you are Egypt. Somebody can stand there and shove it down your throat but they will have to stand there a long time.

          • Very nice kid video on the school lunch program you recommended. Wise ass Greenwich village kid. I suspect the truth is that someone has been selling the food out of the back door of the school. I wish I had the ability my kids promise to teach me to scan and pass along photos. I have a wonderful shot of myself in the army with my “hot lunch” on a particularly cold day when we were out on a filed program. In the center of my stainless steel tray, I have a US quarter for size comparison purposes. Both the Salisbury steak and the scoop of mashed potatoes were only slightly larger. Two months after we discovered the mess sergeant was selling the food out the back door of the mess hall. We found this out on another field problem when we ran out of food half way through the company and S/Sgt. Smith hopped in a jeep and raced back to the Company area. He came back with tons of uncut cold cuts, bread, cheese and five gallon cans of fruit salad. When we got back the next day we discovered that the Mess Sgt was missing two teeth and the fellow we had to leave behind as CQ (barracks guard) watched Sgt. Smith throw the mess sgt. down the stairs of the barracks, drag him back up and do it again. After that, we had steak once a week and honest to God, real fried chicken.

            The kids little brother, Lucas, needs a haircut.

            • Mathius says:

              When we got back the next day we discovered that the Mess Sgt was missing two teeth

              I would’ve paid good money to see this.

              I’m picturing a version of M*A*S*H with Jaime Farr throwing some guy down the stairs.

              • Nah, Sgt. Smith was more like a younger Lee Marvin, wiry but well muscled. Mess Sgt looked exactly like the mess Sgt. in Beetle Bailey with the cigarette dangling from the corner of his mouth.

  6. Mathius says:

    Just for kicks, here’s something else we can discuss on Open Mic day: The American Dream of upward mobility is pretty much a lie. (especially in the South).

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/business/in-climbing-income-ladder-location-matters.html?hp&_r=0

    • Colonel..while you’re at it up above could you summarize your article and discussion with Todd on income mobility. It seems a member of the class was ABSENT that day. 🙂

      • Mathius says:

        I haven’t been “absent”.. I was on sabbatical.

        But, short version: Income mobility in America is a LIE.

        On a semi-related note: I was thinking of buying the city of Detroit for the price of a Happy Meal and renaming it “Matroit”.. I’ll bulldoze a chunk of the city and turn it into a real-life Thunder Dome. What do you think?

        • I mean, sounds good on paper. put all the residents and council members in the cage and let them have at each other…but ain’t too many white boys coming outta Detroit alive these days. Downtown is fine otherwise good luck. Even DPD has warned not to go to the city as they don’t have the manpower to ‘protect’ you.

  7. WHERE IS EVERYONE TODAY? VACATION? Don’t be scared of Mathius..his bark is worse than his bite!

  8. It’s a BOY! I wanted it to be a girl..named Diana..that would fix them 😉

    • Mathius says:

      ::hits snooze bar::

    • The Royal fetus/clump of cells/parasite is now an actual baby! Yeah! Amazing how all of that happened in one day.

      • Mathius says:

        Yup. Amazing. Now can we please stop talking about English nobility?

        • What’s the problem with English nobility? I didn’t care until Diana and Fergie brought some life to the family. Then the 2 boys got a crappy deal with their mom’s death.. I love Harry, troublemaker and all..just wants to have fun..Kate brings more fun to the scene..she should have hooked up with Harry..and now baby King is another story… It’s my soap opera Okay? 🙂

    • Nah, let them get in front of the demographic curve and name the kid Mohammed.

  9. Let’s see if I can get VH out of hiding:

    Federal Judge Blocks North Dakota Abortion Law, Calls It ‘Unconstitutional’
    http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/07/22/federal-judge-blocks-north-dakota-abortion-law-calls-it-unconstitutional/

    • I dunno, maybe I’m stepping out on the ledge here, but methinks that the judge ruled this way because….wait for it….the law is clearly unconstitutional. 🙂

      • So give us the quote.

        • What quote?

          If you are asking me to provide the text of the constitution itself which says this particular law is unconstitutional (which is what I’m assuming you’re asking), as you know, it doesn’t exist. But as you also know, constitutional law doesn’t work that way.

          Like it or not, constitutional law requires a lower court to strike down this law as unconstitutional.

          • Plessey vs Ferguson was constitutional for several decades as well despite strong indications in the Constitution that it was not. So seven judges ruled in favor of Roe vs Wade and we have to live with that for eternity. Could not one just as correctly argue that it falls under the unenumerated powers hence belongs to the states per the tenth amendment?

            • Whether you believe SCOTUS got it right or wrong on the Roe v Wade decision is irrelevant. As it stands, Roe is the law of the land and requires the ND law to be declared unconstitutional.

              • So you if you were a judge on a lower bench you would have supported Plessey and Dred Scot in their day. Right and wrong be damned. That’s justice?

              • So you are now in support of activist judges?

              • Mathius says:

                T-Ray,

                Please do try to appreciate the difference between “illegal” and “immoral”.. in theory, the US tries to line up its laws with “the right thing to do,” but as we all know, it often fails to do so.

                The job of the courts is NOT to decide that a law is good or bad, right or wrong. The job of the courts (in this capacity) is to rule if something violates a superior law recognized by the US government. That’s not to say “God’s Law,” but rather the Constitution.

                So, even if a law is “bad,” it can still be Constitutional. And even if a law is “good,” it can still be Unconstitutional.

    • Not in hiding-just tried to cut my thumb off-it’s fine but typing was painful-then my computer died-just got a new one-but probably will read more than type for another week or so.

  10. Matt, you seem to think that it is everyone’s responsibility to provide for the “poor” in the inner city. Well let me tell you a story about a privileged white kid. At seven, with his brother he collected 500 eggs after school every night and then fed the chickens. He helped is mother churn butter, can over 100 qts of tomatoes plus corn, beans, carrots peas peaches, apple sauce… Helped slaughter and pluck chickens, plant and weed the garden, dig bushels of potatoes and happily eat as much watermelon as he could hold. As for school, he was in a room with 35 other second and third graders. In fifth grade he had 50 classmates in one room. For cloths, he wore his brother’s hand-me-downs. He was 10 years old before the family could afford a second hand television, B&W at that. Prior to having a TV, he listened to the Lone Ranger and Gun Smoke on the radio along with many other shows that required imagination to provide the pictures.

    At 11, he helped build the family home, learning how to roof, wire, saw. By 13, his summers were spent on a construction crew working 9 hr days 6 days a week in 95°F weather and 90% humidity often doing roof work. There was one strong lesson being taught here, better to work with the mind than the back. The lesson was learned. 95% of the money earned was saved rather than squandered. The rural school he attended was mediocre compared to suburban schools. It lacked modern scientific equipment, much of it being depression era. Despite that, he excelled in math and science and graduated #1 out of a class of 42. He earned a scholarship and attended a nearby state university, commuting from home since room and board were too expensive. He continued to do construction work all through college and even took other part time jobs to earn all of the money he needed for school. This was white privilege?

    Many of today’s youth lack the fundamental concepts of saving and building for a better tomorrow. They squander their money and time on trivia, They pass up the free education that is offered to them because it takes work to learn. But you sir, ask us to give more, when more will not solve the problem. My parents went to one room rural schools with first through eighth grade and learned more than these kids ever will unless they wake up.

    As SKT said, look back before Johnson’s Great Society and see how much harm has been done to the black community. Yes there was racism back then but there was also pride in the black communities where today there is mostly contempt. That is what 50 years of government handouts has done. Reagan was right, “Government is the problem.”

    • I have to recommend tonight’s Bill O’Reilly talking points for anyone interested in this discussion. O’Reilly has come close before but this time he nailed it 100%. In addition to carping on out of wedlock births and absentee fathers, he also damns the President, the Black caucus, Jackson, Sharpton and their ilk for failing to call for an end to this madness. If he went off at the politicians, see what he has to say about the entertainment industry.

      http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/index.html

      I know that many of you have no use for O’Reilly. Many evenings, I don’t either but, as my dear old Pappy used to say, “even a broken clock is right twice a day”.

      • He did nail it.

      • Best talking points I have heard.

        I grew up in as a white “minority” in a black dominated neighborhood. I was looked at and followed while shopping in “black” stores. I had groups of blacks gang up on me and try to bully me into feeling guilty for being white. Does this give me the right to feel the black community owes me?

        Want to know how to get rid of “racism”? First, stop calling it race. It is only skin color and there is only one race of humans, no matter what color our skin is. Then secondly, listen to MLK and judge a person by the content of their character. If someone wants to act like a thug then they should not be surprised when they are profiled as a thug. But if someone treats you with respect, then treat them with respect.

        My life is filled with people from many different cultures and they come in all different skin colors. Everyone one of them treat me with respect and they get my respect in return. It’s not hard to over come “racism”, you only have to want to and that I can’t teach.

        • Mathius says:

          You never responded to me on your blog.. tsk tsk tsk

          Want to know how to get rid of “racism”? First, stop calling it race.

          Excellent point.

    • Mathius says:

      Matt, you seem to think that it is everyone’s responsibility to provide for the “poor” in the inner city.

      I’m a liberal, so of course I do.

      he listened to the Lone Ranger and Gun Smoke

      That’s old even by my standards. I go as far back as Mr. Ed, Patty Duke, Lassie, and F-Troop. And, of course, one of my favorites, Get Smart. But Lone Ranger and Gun Smoke.. just a bit too far.

      Did you watch the Long Ranger re-make? It looks horrendous to me. I’m tired of Hollywood cashing-in / butchering my childhood television.

      This was white privilege?

      Sounds like “this person” had a family which conferred a great work ethic and sense of responsibility. That’s one hell of a privilege, in my opinion.

      Many of today’s youth lack the fundamental concepts of saving and building for a better tomorrow.

      Agreed.

      My father pounded this one into me, but somehow my siblings missed the message… odd. I am horrifically debt-adverse. Other than a mortgage (30yr fixed @ 3.125%!!!), I have zero debt and plan on keeping it that way. I could never imagine spending money I don’t have for “trivia.”

      Anyway, I’d really like to see schools add a class for “life skills” which teaches how to balance a checkbook, file taxes, maintain a budget, apply for a job, et cetera. It seems to me that, even in my generation, many of these skills were never learned.

      But you sir, ask us to give more, when more will not solve the problem.

      … I believe more can help break the cycle.

      The cycle, again, is poor education leads to poverty leads to poor education.

      I believe spending the money to hire quality teachers, provide quality food, and quality after school support can help – not solve, but help – alleviate the situation.

      I couldn’t agree more that parents need to be more involved. I’m not sure how to force them to be (though, again, if we stop arresting them for petty crimes, that might be a start).

      But what alternative do you propose? If better funding schools will not solve the problem, what should we do? Should we give up? Just shrug and walk away singing a chorus of Folsom Prison Blues?

      That is what 50 years of government handouts has done. Reagan was right, “Government is the problem.”

      So your solution is just to cut them off, say “sink or swim” and hope for the best?

      • Mathius says:

        T-Ray,

        I realize, right after hitting submit that that might have come off as a little hostile.. please don’t interpret it that way.. just trying to have a spirited debate..

      • Your comment on “white privilege” is interesting from the standpoint that you seem to think that there is a history of Black Fathers not mentoring their kids or of there not being a nuclear family. Not so! If you even suspect this you have to expand your reading. While there was most definitely a separation of the races in this country prior to the ’60’s, the two societies moved in parallel.

        I will admit I do not know enough about social welfare programs inaugurated at the time but they removed the father from the household since if he were present there would either be no benefit or severely reduced benefits.

        • Mathius says:

          Your comment on “white privilege” is interesting

          I didn’t say having a father (or mother!) teaching their children is a “white privilege,” but rather just a privilege in general for anyone, white or black.

          Tons of white families are missing parents who will push their kids to learn and save and have a solid work ethic.

          I just think that society is skewed so much to the benefit of white people that, as detrimental as this is for whites, it’s far worse for individuals in black communities.

          I will admit I do not know enough about social welfare programs inaugurated at the time but they removed the father from the household since if he were present there would either be no benefit or severely reduced benefits.

          I have heard this line before. I don’t know the truth of it or not. I THINK that I’ve heard some support for it discouraging couples from getting legally married as opposed to “living together” for the reasons you imply.

          I don’t think the government should be in the business of ENcouraging or DIScouraging couples from getting married.

          I would love to be able to sit down and try to fix some of the adverse incentives created by certain social programs but I, like you, just am not familiar enough with them.

      • Mat, money will not fix the problem, it makes it worse. Witness the last 50 yrs. SKT and O’Reilly are correct. Let me advise you on your own child. If you want her to grow up being a normal productive adult, do not give her a trust fund. Make her earn her own way.

        Actually society was better off when the girls held back their ultimate gift for a ring first.

        • If you want her to grow up being a normal productive adult, do not give her a trust fund. Make her earn her own way.

          BAH!

          Having a trust fund gave me the freedom and flexibility to pursue my life without the crushing fear of debt and financial ruin hanging over me like the sword of Damacles.

          I have started and will continue to fund my daughter’s savings. She will graduate from college debt free and have some left over that she can be safe and secure while finding her footing in the adult world.

          The problem with a trust fund isn’t that the kid has money – it’s that the parents often don’t teach their kids the responsibility that is necessary for money management.

          Actually society was better off when the girls held back their ultimate gift for a ring first.

          Fist, I don’t think this world ever actually existed.

          Second, I couldn’t possibly disagree with you any more. I would never want to buy a car without a test drive. And if it’s the last car I’ll ever own, you can bet I’ll want to test drive the hell out of it before making that purchase.

          Third, well, sometimes there’s a car you have no interest in purchasing.. but it sure was a lot of fun to test drive those anyway.

          Actually society was better off when the girls held back their ultimate gift for a ring first.

          Also, while we’re on the subject, why, pray tell, is it the obligation of the girl to hold back on their “ultimate gift” and not the guy? It does take two to tango, no?

          • Actually, they mostly did before the pill. The back alley abortions were few and far between and the “shotgun” weddings were not as numerous as you would think. In my own family, cousins, uncles and aunts, we had three out of about 23. Two marriages lasted a lifetime one was over when the baby was born.

            • Rubbers have been around a lot longer than the pill.

              As have the (admittedly flawed) pull out and timing “methods.”

              As has, for what it’s worth, the “hope for the best” method.

              People, but teens especially, are hormone crazed idiots and if they can’t have sex safely, they will have sex unsafely.

              This applies today.
              This applies a hundred years ago.
              This will apply a hundred years from now.
              This applies when pyramids were under construction.
              And it will apply when the humans are living on colonies on Mars.

      • I believe spending the money to hire quality teachers, provide quality food, and quality after school support can help – not solve, but help – alleviate the situation.

        The problem is that we already spend more money per child than any other country in the world. We can solve the education problem with the amount we already spend. Asking for more money is a lazy response to the problem.

        The real answer to the education problem is too hard for most typical Americans to do, parental participation. No matter how much you spend on education it will not matter until the parents of the students are involved in the education process.

        • we already spend more money per child than any other country in the world.

          Not true. But we’re near the top so I’ll give you partial credit. Norway and Switzerland spend slightly more, Luxembourg spends about 50% more.

          I would also suggest that a dollar does not go as far in the US as it does in other countries, so that there might be some price parity adjustment which would knock us down a few more rungs. But I have zero interest in trying to calculate this.

          I would also suggest that some schools may be heavily funded while others are left to rot. So that taking the “average per capital” doesn’t really tell you what’s going on in the inner city schools.

          Asking for more money is a lazy response to the problem.

          But- but- but I’m a liberal! It’s all I know how to do!

          The real answer to the education problem is too hard for most typical Americans to do, parental participation.

          Great!

          Um.. ok.. how do we encourage more parental participation?

          No matter how much you spend on education it will not matter until the parents of the students are involved in the education process.

          I tend not to find that major systemic failures have only one cause. I 1,000% agree that parental involvement is absolutely essential to improving education in this country.

          But I do not believe it is the ONLY thing. Regardless of our relative per capita spending, it’s not enough. I have seen, first hand, the crumbling schools where kids have to share nearly-shredded textbooks. I have seen, first hand, schools that were so stiflingly hot in the summer that teachers had to take their classes in the park. I have seen, first hand, teachers so stupid and unqualified that I cannot fathom how they could possibly add value to the children in their care.

          And, for what it’s worth, I have seen the opposite as well. I have seen gorgeous Edwardian mansions of schools. I have seen a school that handed out an iPad to each student with specially designed lesson plans. I have seen schools (and I have gone to them) that are temples of learning, worshiping at the alter of knowledge with teachers who have a passion for education. They have more money than they knew what to do with. Diverse after-school programs, guidance counselors, the works.

          The former need to be made more like the later. YES. ABSOLUTELY, PARENTS NEED TO BE MORE INVOLVED. But more money is also part of the equation. Maybe, just maybe, parents aren’t involved because they look at the schools their kids go to and lose hope. They look at those schools and see a total waste.. so why bother?

          • Ya gotta get out more often. “maybe parents aren’t involved because they look at the schools and lose hope”. Don’t think so. More likely it is not caring. I know that this may be hard to take but that is the way it is out there. Just spend a few weeks talking to the folks and see what I mean. My one sociology course was fascinating because we touched on ethnicity and educational attainment. the Italians had a pretty terrible record on higher education and even high school. In their case it was because of the closeness of the family and community and the hard work ethic.Kids were guaranteed a job so why bother. The Jewish community though very similar in close family ties and values held education as the be all and end all probably as a response to the constant persecution they faced. Become valuable to society. The Asians run the gamut. Most live in deteriorating neighborhoods abandoned by others with old infrastructure yet demand educational performance from their children., There are those that don’t but I think most do.

            Schools cannot substitute for parents unless you are talking about boarding schools a la “Goodbye Mr. Chips”.

            Do you think Gingrich’s comments about reviving orphanages a few years back was made in a vacuum? Love him or hate him, you can’t deny he is one of the few “thinkers” out there.

            • The Jewish community though very similar in close family ties and values held education as the be all and end all probably as a response to the constant persecution they faced.

              Thanks to Christian discrimination, Jews were pretty much barred from every field that employed uneducated labor (presumably to protect Christians from work-place competition). Thus, it was necessary to get an education or die. This is very, very, very deeply ingrained in Jewish culture. Especially the Ashkenazim lines. I know a great many Jews.. but I can count on a single hand the number who didn’t finish college.

              I’m fairly convinced it’s the only reason the Jews of Europe managed to survive. It’s not that we’re (necessarily ;)) genetically smarter than our non-Jewish counterparts, but, to borrow from Ben Franklin, we put a lot more effort into digging the silver out of the mines. We had to.

              Schools cannot substitute for parents unless you are talking about boarding schools

              No, it has to be a team effort.

              But I just don’t think the schools (especially inner city (read: black/minority/poor)) are pulling their share of the bargain either.

              Do you think Gingrich’s comments about reviving orphanages a few years back was made in a vacuum? Love him or hate him, you can’t deny he is one of the few “thinkers” out there.

              What comment? I don’t pay much attention to him.. it hurts my head.

          • According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the U.S. spent more per student than any other country on public education in 2009, the last year for which information was available. For all levels of public education, the U.S. spent $15,812 per student in 2009. That’s the highest in the world. Switzerland was second at $14,716. Mexico spent $2,895 per student.
            http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/18515

            But- but- but I’m a liberal! It’s all I know how to do!
            Doing the same thing over and over again…

            Um.. ok.. how do we encourage more parental participation?
            You can’t, they have to want to. No matter how much you show someone that life is worth living, if they don’t want to live you can’t stop them from committing suicide.

            Of course you could try teaching people that children matter, that they are more than just blobs of tissue to be discarded by choice, and then they may start to value a life that is not their own. Until society values human life as much as a tree we will not see a change.

            Lastly, your description of run down schools compared to over wealthy schools is an example of government failure. Money will be distributed in proportion to donors as long as politicians are in charge of educational spending.

            • Mathius says:

              M: But- but- but I’m a liberal! It’s all I know how to do!
              FLP: Doing the same thing over and over again…

              Yea.. but this time it will be different, I swear! 😉

              Lastly, your description of run down schools compared to over wealthy schools is an example of government failure. Money will be distributed in proportion to donors as long as politicians are in charge of educational spending.

              Seems to me that schools are funded primarily (though not exclusively) by property taxes, no? I sure pay a lot of property tax, and they tell me it’s for the local school. And we do have a great local school.

              Poor people live in poor areas. Poor areas raise less in taxes. Therefore the school receives less money.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                You have hit upon a problem with all of our views on these subjects.

                The USA is very diverse in how we fund or address issues. Our perspectives are largely driven by personal experience, and may not apply to a “national debate”.

                Education in my part of the country is paid by “property taxes” and general taxes. But it is collected and distributed by the STATE. Two States have done this to eliminate the “rich city” benefit to local education. The result is greater mediocrity statewide. School funding is based on a flat $/student formula tied to enrollment.

                Another allows “local” supplementation via local taxes or donations. Here there are definitely better schools in some areas vs. others. However, enrollment is open, meaning you can put your kid in a good school if there is room and you do the transportation.

                So the generalization that poor areas raise less taxes and thus have less for education does not hold in all cases.

                Now let me make a generalization, for those States which I have looked at. The rate of increase in ADMINISTRATION costs, ie overhead, has been far greater than the rate spent on direct education. In some cases overhead now makes up 50% or more.

                So perhaps the AMOUNT spent on education by the tax payers is not really the issue!

              • Mathius says:

                So perhaps the AMOUNT spent on education by the tax payers is not really the issue!

                Well, you’ll get no argument from me that administration / overhead should be reviewed and probably dialed back.

          • How silly of me… all good things come from Christianity.

            Ok, I’ll trade you one:
            One should sell all he possesses in order to marry the daughter of a learned man (Pes. 49a, b; Ket. 111b; Yalḳ., Ex. 269; comp. Yoma 71a)

            My people were around long before your people. 😉

            ———-

            I would argue, in fact, that the Church (big C) has done more to hinder human advancement than anything else in modern history. But I think that’s a whole other debate.

            • You would get an argument from guys like Thomas Aquinas.

              • Aquinas was born in the 13th century. Jews were pushing education for millenia before he was a gleam in his mother’s eye.

                —-

                Also, I’d love to have heard Aquinas’s opinion on what happened to Copernicus to name just one example.

            • The Nuclear Family evolved from Christianity. Blacks were more religious and had higher marriage rates & lower divorce rates until LBJ’s “Greater Society”. I would not argue there have been many evils committed in the name of God. I would argue blacks prospered more when they embraced Christianity.

              If you engage in an activity and it brings you success, what is the down side? Some people believe in luck, toss salt over their shoulder. OK by me. The difference is we have number that show blacks were more economically upward mobile when they lived by Christian values.

              • The Nuclear Family evolved from Christianity.

                Hog swallop.

                First of all, again, the Jews had nuclear families long before Jesus. I, absolutely, guarantee you that you could find plenty of precedent in ancient Greece, Rome, Babylon, or Assyria. I promise you native Americans had it. Eskimos have it. Hindus have it. The Chinese have it. Ancient cave men had it.

                There have been 1,000,000 different ways to organize the family and the “nuclear family” is nothing new. It is neither, truly, the “traditional” way, nor is it some newfangled creation of Christianity.

                I would argue blacks prospered more when they embraced Christianity.

                I would argue that Christianity spent generations telling black people about the natural order of society and how it is God’s will that they be subservient to their white masters.

                By the way, almost identical arguments are being used today by Christians and Christianity to oppress homosexuals. You’ll get your comeuppance on that count too in a few decades.

  11. Testing……testing

  12. Buck, you did not answer the question. If you were a judge, would you have support Plessey and Dred Scot? I know how precedent works, but somehow Plessey got overturned. It seems the 9th circuit here is always going against precedent. So explain how these bad decision get corrected if some judge does not make the effort to elevate the question again to a higher court.

    • At some point, a judge will elevate the role of being a moral human being above the role of being an arbiter of the law. This is the point at which you might consider them to be an activist judge if you are against their decision or a hero if you support them.

      So, Plessy upholds (if memory serves) that segregation and Dred says that black people aren’t citizens entitled to sue for their freedom. Yea.. these aren’t good.

      And you’re stacking up along side them the upholding of the Row as another example of judges following the “law” over “morality.” I think.. did I get this right?

      So, here’s the thing. The MORALITY of Row is far from decided. As a country, as a people, we have not determined that a fetus is a person. I, personally, am not inclined to believe that a fetus is a person. I am not alone in this opinion (although I may be alone in my reasoning).

      By the time the courts overturned Plessy and Dred, the morality had been pretty firmly established that black people were still humans. We fought an entire war (at least partially) over the question.

      If YOU were the judge, you would have looked at the law and said, that’s a morally imperative law and I cannot in good conscience overrule it, regardless of my job description. To you, the moral issue is settled. You, sir, would have been an activist judge.

      But, to answer your question on behalf of Buck. If he, today, were sitting on the bench was was presented with Plessy or Dred, of course he would overturn them. But if he were on the court in the 1850’s… well maybe, maybe not.

      And here’s the bonus: In 50 years, people may look back at Judge Buck’s ruling upholding Row as a landmark example of a bad court decision in company with Plessy and Dred. And Buck will hang his head in shame and lament how wrong he was and how he didn’t know better and how he wishes he could go back and change his ruling. OR, perhaps, future generations will look back and be confident he made the right call. Only time will tell.

      By the way, my favorite thing about the abortion debate is that it has a built-in expiration date. 10 years, maybe 20. That’s it. The debate will be over and no one will care about Row again. (link. Click download in the lower right for the full text)

      • I have to go to the dentist and then to work. Did not read all of it. RE; Roe it is more a state’s right (unenumerated) than federal issue. Let the states handle. it.

      • Oh and let Buck answer. He needs to commit.

        • Perhaps I’m mistaken, but wasn’t Plessy overturned by Brown v Bd of Ed — another SCOTUS decision?? And I’m pretty sure there were several lower court cases that upheld Pkessy as the law of the land along the way, as those courts were bound to do.

          Rightly or wrongly decided is irrelevant here. As is illegality v immorality (which Mathius pointed out above). The nd judge had to find this law unconstitutional based on the law as it exists today.

          • Ducked the question again.

            Our system of legal precedents is a subjective database that is used to solve subsequent problems. I work with quantitative databases, much more precise and determinable. We predict property values of unknown samples based upon an historical database of analytical measurements of previous samples. That database will yield accurate predictions as long as the data in the database is accurate. Frequently, we need to expand the database because the new samples are exhibiting values not represented in the database. If we add new data to the database that has incorrect or inaccurate values, we eventually corrupt the database and it loses its predictive ability. So we are constantly evaluating the database for validity and double checking all new data before it is included.

            The same process should/must be used in the legal precedent system. Bad decisions included in the system corrupt its value to adjudicate future cases. I see nothing wrong in a lower court saying that a decision is inherently wrong and needs serious review. Yes Plessey was eventually overturned by Brown vs Board as it should have been. Why did it take 50 years?

            As I see it, the current Roberts Court has made two fundamentally bad decisions that need review. The first on is the ObamaCare penalty. Roberts stated that it falls under the Feds broad taxing authority but that taxing authority is quite limited according to the Constitution. They can levy tariffs, excise taxes, per capita taxes (levied on the states not the individuals) and income taxes according to the 16th amendment. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say they can levy a tax on an individual for lack of a commercial activity. If it is not a tax, then it is a penalty and requires due process, i,e., a court hearing or trial prior to it being accessed.

            The second bad decision was the one on CA gay marriage ban. Their decision was that citizens did not have standing to argue for the law when the governor and the CA AG did not support it. Had the state chosen to defend the law, then I would agree. But since they abandoned it, then it is up to the people to defend it. Frankly, we out voted the governor and the AG 8,000,000 to 2. I would think liberals would be up in arms over this decision as it fundamentally weakens the initiative process.

  13. making a “scapegoat” of the erstwhile neighborhood watch captain, the Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto tut-tuts that:

    “Zimmerman is not without sin. The facts of the case seem consistent with the view that he was an overzealous wannabe cop, and it seems to us that he exercised poor judgment in following Martin after the 911 dispatcher urged him not to. There is no denying that the results were tragic. And even if the shooting was justified by self-defense — the jury verdict affirms only that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not — Martin did not deserve to die. While private citizens have a right to the defensive use of force, its punitive use is rightly left to the state.”

    Biased as only a white survivor of a bloody beating during a home-invasion robbery by two young black men can be, I feel that in the main, Zimmerman’s defenders are doing a creditable job of refuting those who want him shoved into a federal slammer on snivel-rights charges.

    Knocking Zimmerman for his supposed “overzealousness” ignores the fact that he was doing a job he had volunteered to do: supporting law enforcement by serving as a neighborhood watch captain. His community had experienced a rash of property crime that prompted, according to a report in The Daily Beast, his neighbors’ “decision last September to start a neighborhood-watch organization, which was initiated by Zimmerman himself. The burglary of Olivia Bertalan’s home was just one of at least eight reported over the previous 14 months-several of which, neighbors said, involved young black men.”Slagging his efforts as “amateur sleuthing” is like calling an attempt to extinguish a home fire with a garden hose “amateur firefighting.”

    As to the “series of reactions” it “set in train,” at whose door may most of those reactions be laid — principally, the decision to initiate physical violence in the first place? On no one other than Trayvon Martin. As Jack Cashill noted in a recent American Thinker piece,

    “Martin was not the innocent little boy that the media relentlessly and corruptly portrayed him to be. At the time of his death, he was five feet, eleven inches and weighed 158 pounds. To put this in perspective, legendary boxer Tommy ‘The Hitman’ Hearnes was six feet, one inch and 145 pounds when he first won the world welterweight title as a twenty-one-year-old.” And text messages recovered from Martin’s cell phone reveal that he was a habitual, enthusiastic, and sadistic brawler. About one defeated opponent, he texted, ‘im not done with fool….. he gone hav 2 see me again … he aint breed nuff 4 me, only his nose.'”

    This is who, according to Zimmerman’s account as recorded in a Florida Department of Law Enforcement interview with one of his neighbors, got into the watch captain’s face and said, ” ‘Do you have a problem, Mother Fucker?’ Zimmerman said he responded, ‘No, I don’t have a problem.’ Martin then allegedly said, ‘You do now,’ and struck Zimmerman in the face. Zimmerman reported seeing ‘stars,’ and ‘fell back first onto his butt and then on to his back.’ As he struggled on the ground with Martin, the teenager … sat atop Zimmerman in the ‘mounted position’ and punched the neighborhood watch captain in the face and head and slammed his head on the pavement.'”

    The pictures of Zimmerman’s injuries, which may be seen here, bear out his account of the ordeal he was undergoing and indicate that, contrary to Taranto’s assertion, Martin did deserve the fatal blow he was dealt — because the latter was in the process of killing the former. Martin had completely subdued Zimmerman, but not satisfied with his thuggish triumph (“he aint breed nuff4 me”), he jumped on his hapless victim and subjected his head to blunt-force trauma with deadly weapons: to wit, his fists and the hard concrete sidewalk. Zimmerman endured nearly a minute of this before he acted. His shot was not “punitive,” but preventive. He was quite reasonably convinced that his death was at hand.

    He was being murdered — and he stopped it.

    These refined gentlemen in their comfortable offices need to cease their unwarranted criticism of an innocent man who has already been through too much – and who is sure to go through more. They’re simply echoing the calumny of lead prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda, who in his closing statement declared that Zimmerman “[has] got a gun, he has the equalizer, he’s gonna take care of it, he’s a wannabe cop.”

    Wrong. George Zimmerman was an ordinary citizen trying to perform a service to a community with a crime problem.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/enough_of_the_tut-tutting_on_zimmerman.html#ixzz2ZseF1aJF

  14. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius and Buck

    Welcome Back, I have missed you both. Now if Todd would just resurface.

    Frist order of business……….. If there is to be a discussion on the reasons for the condition of the “Black Family” or lack of “family” then everyone needs to do some more research. The arguments I see above echo those I heard decades ago.

    Mathius, the current condition is not the result of a long term trend from slavery to today. Things were actually “better” in the 50’s. Then something changed. This something is not being revealed in new academic works. But these works are denigrated by the “liberal/progressive” and “race industry” establishment.

    But before we get into the “something” I suggest everyone take the time to read the following article. It is a pretty good summary of how policies unfolded in this country. It includes lots of stuff related to the many discussions here about how policy is made, how activists change culture (good and bad), about activist judges even. Something for everyone.

    http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_3_black_family.html

    • Now if Todd would just resurface.

      Todd is locked in DPM’s basement.

      Also, where in the world are Black Flag, Charlie and USW?

    • If there is to be a discussion on the reasons for the condition of the “Black Family” or lack of “family” then everyone needs to do some more research. The arguments I see above echo those I heard decades ago.

      I’m a busy man.. if you know the right answer, I’d love to hear it.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        Being busy is not an excuse for remaining uneducated.

        BF is stuck in the Tar Sands, USW is buried in family and new job, and Charlie self-exiled himself after he and Gman got into it again.

    • Mathius, the current condition is not the result of a long term trend from slavery to today. Things were actually “better” in the 50′s.

      I sincerely doubt that.

      I’m sure the version of the Civil Rights era I learned about in school was thoroughly colored by white-guilt, but I seem to recall plenty of lynchings, assassinations, church bombings, et cetera. Schools were integrated only under the auspices of the national guard (and even then, only in limited numbers). Rosa Parks had to sit in the back of the buss until she refused, after which there were some riots. 14 year old Emmett Till was murdered for whistling at a white woman and the all-white jury acquitted the his two murderers despite “strong” evidence. University of Alabama manages to find ways around court orders to admit a black student. In Birmingham, the police commissioner gave the Klan a 15 minute grace period to beat incoming protesters before the police would be called in to “protect” them. Nat King Cole was attacked for performing before a white audience.

      Oh yea.. peachy time to be black.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        The topic is the economic condition of the “Black Family” including its increasing trend to remain in poverty.

        That was the context of my comment that things were “better”. Which is shown in the article I cited.

        Unemployment, poverty, etc was all LOWER in the 1950’s. DESPITE the racism that you described. So obviously that RACISM was not the cause of the problem we have today.

        • Mathius says:

          The “economic condition of the “Black Family” including its increasing trend to remain in poverty” in the 1950’s was “shut your mouth n****r and know your place.” No you can go and pick my cotton for slave-wages.

          The “economic condition of the Black Family” in the 1950’s was abject 3rd world poverty. You think there were a lot of “upwardly mobile” professionals in the black community in the 50’s? You think there was a solid middle class somewhere? No. There were a handful of exceptions, but overall, they were just a half-step above being slaves, and their “economic condition” regardless of their acceptance of Christianity reflected that status.

          No, things were not better for their “economic condition” in the 50’s. Things were not better for African Americans in pretty much ANY way I can think of in the 50’s except that they didn’t have to tolerate the insufferability of such revisionist history.

          Let’s get a first-hand account and settle this. SK? You around? You’re like 110 years old, aren’t you?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            I thought you wanted a rational discussion based on facts. Sorry if I mistook your intent.

            Apparently you just want to throw the same left wing platitudes around and call that history.

            SK already commented on this when he stated that things turned for the worse in the 60’s and that prior to that there was a growing middle class among the black community.

            Something that is, once again, discussed in the article I cited. It is documented in other literature as well.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            From the article: “Yet those most familiar with what was called “the Negro problem” were getting nervous. About half of all blacks had moved into the middle class by the mid-sixties, but now progress seemed to be stalling. The rise in black income relative to that of whites, steady throughout the fifties, was sputtering to a halt. More blacks were out of work in 1964 than in 1954. Most alarming, after rioting in Harlem and Paterson, New Jersey, in 1964, the problems of the northern ghettos suddenly seemed more intractable than those of the George Wallace South.”

            This is consistent with my memory of those years, SK’s memory and it seems that of D13.

            There is another new piece of work by a “black” female economist that shows how the reaction to the Civil Rights Act by the “black” community helped destroy the “Black Businesses” in the “black neighborhoods”. This accelerated the “unemployment” in that group. It also caused even greater migration to the larger cities. Which turned out to be a welfare trap.

            This same study apparently addresses the same negative affects of busing on the “black” community. How this can be tied to the erosion of educational quality in the black communities.

            Racism has a role just as all biases have a role in society. But to try and hold racism or even “white” privilege as the sole cause is simply wrong headed. History has shown that such arguments have led to polices that were destructive in the long run.

            Both in terms of their actual impact and in how they created stereotypes that have been used to retard actual progress.

            • Mathius says:

              But to try and hold racism or even “white” privilege as the sole cause is simply wrong headed.

              I have never said it is the sole cause. Just that it’s a heavy factor.

            • Never forget that Dr. Kenneth Clark, the brilliant black Psychologist said, when talking about forced busing, “Be careful, there are a limited number of white poker chips in this game.’ He was of course referring to white flight from both the schools and neighborhoods. Dr. Clark was one of those who believed that more could be accomplished through education and gradual improvement than through throwing the baby out with the bathwater. He was fortunate in that he was so well known, the charges of “Uncle Tomism” would not stick. Not so for Dr.Thomas Matthews a brilliant surgeon living in Sugar Hill who lost his career by being as outspoken as he was on the subject. .

          • Aye, there can be only one!

            You really have to do the research.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlem_Renaissance

            As I said, the Black community paralleled the white. Everybody was moving up. The war on Poverty created a problem in that Social Welfare programs were seen as the panacea for current and previous problems. It was, I think about this time, late ’50’s and early ’60’s that “Let’s throw money at it” began. When I started working for NYC in ’68 I was in something called the Department of Relocation. A housing unit yes, but one aimed at placing poor families usually displaced by fire into hotels and then permanent housing. Talk about burn-out.

            Anyway, essentially i was doing the job of a Social Worker. What was very evident from my intake interviews was that the Southern States in the early ’60’s refused to implement the same programs the North had. Their solution to their problems was to pack them on the Grayhounds and ship them North. More than one client told me at the time that they were given a choice of NY City, Boston or Chicago. They were also shown tables of welfare benefits in those cities. What they did not know was the high cost of living up North compared to Bindletooth Alabama. I found it interesting later on when I found that James Earl Carter, Governor of Georgia’s Department of Social Services was about as guilty as can be in this charade. I used to ask the tenants if they really thought things would be better here. They gave me the answer that they were almost told “The Streets are Paved with Gold’. These folks started destroying places like Harlem and Bed Stuy. They destabilized the neighborhoods. Old timers, to this day will tell you that and those old timers are the ones who remember Harlem before the collapse.

            I will tell you that whatever latent liberalism I may have had was quickly beaten out during this period.There are things I won’t forget anytime soon and they happened in multiples.There was not just one or two incidents in a three year period. Every day walking into the office consisted of asking “What went wrong today?”

            When you interview a twenty six year old mother of five whose kids all have different last names, it is hard to keep breakfast down. When the cops call you to a hotel room where a 18 month old has a pair of scissors sticking out of her head, rammed there by her three year old brother who was “babysitting” things can get pretty damn intense. .

            • Mathius says:

              Things are pretty f***ed up. Now, then, here, there.

              But I just need to hear read this very flatly. Humor me, I’m a bit slow, you know. You, SK, who was alive and working in Harlem in the late ’50’s as something akin to a social worker, state to me as follows: The economic condition of the ‘average’ black family in Harlem was better in 1950 than it was in 1960 or today? The ‘average’ black family had economic opportunity and achievement roughly equivalent to what the ‘average’ white family had?

              Did I get that right? I mean, I’m sure my head is full of all sorts of liberal noise, and it’s still buzzing from wearing the Black Flag hat the other day.. but it’s just really hard to wrap my head around this concept.

              And, while we’re on the subject (anecdotally since you were in NY at the time), how were things in the 1950’s for black individuals relative to the ’60’s and today in Southern states that were, shall we say, less progressive than New York?

              • OK, first of all it was not me. The income figures were from JAC.

                NYC could have been unusual I guess, maybe all northern cities were. My Dad was a bartender for the Astor Hotel fairly classy joint. I’d consider this blue collar today by his income standard. He worked with all sorts of minorities who made about what he made. I went to Harlem as a kid, seemed the same as my neighborhood to me, people too. I was on 171st Street. Sugar Hill in Harlem ran up to 165th Street, East of Broadway. Willie Mays and Frankie Lymon of the Teenagers lived in the lower 160’s. Real Harlem started South of 155th Street. the area ran the gamut from 5 story tenements to ten story luxury class buildings to

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strivers%27_Row

                . Technically, the Polo Grounds, where the Giants Played and later the Mets was immediately North of Harlem but not part of Washington Heights. Today that area with its massive Housing project is in a Harlem Community Planning board.

                I started working for the city in 1968 not the 50’s. Black folks and white folks rode the subways in the same cars, next to each other. They went to mixed schools, used the same hospitals and as far as my parents were concerned were no different than we were. Now I know my folks were something special but I don’t remember much racism at least overt, including the N word from any whites above the type that in the South would have been called, poor white trash.

                Check out some of the stuff Barry Lewis has done on NY history which has appeared on C-Span. It is often eye opening. When my eldest was in the Army, supervising 30 some medics from all over the US from all races, they assumed, get it assumed that blacks rode in the back of the bus up North too. I would bet you that 70 plus percent of young blacks in NY today actually believe that. It is a nice way to keep people down and under your thumb to dredge up non-existent “facts”.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Racism today is open and easily seen if one is open minded. G. Zimmerman wants the President and the Lefties to leave ha alone. He will get this done by changing his name to Ben Ghazi. 🙂

      • We had the investigation, the trial, the verdict, and after all was said and done, the president added an additional caveat: had the situation been reversed, the verdict would have been different.

        MRCTV doesn’t have the resources of an NBC, CBS, ABC, or CNN, but you would tend to think that if such an assertion were made, they could find just one example of the Martin-Zimmerman situation in reverse.

        It took me less than 30 seconds to find the 2009 clip of the acquittal of a black man, charged with manslaughter, who gunned down a white teen he thought was about to attack him.

        I don’t recall seeing angry white people calling on the Department of Justice to file civil rights charges against Roderick Scott, and I certainly don’t remember this receiving the soap opera-like coverage on major news networks. I suspect this didn’t rise to the fever pitch in the media because this tragedy didn’t fit their poor-blacks-are-always-victims narrative, and even black people would laugh at Chris Matthews if he tried to apologize for all of them.

        All violent crime is tragic, including the crime the media chooses to ignore. It’s the job of the media to report the news, not incite it. And if there are those who do wish to exploit tragedy, do some homework first so you don’t look the fool.

          • Mathius says:

            • I hope evidence matters in such cases. With Zimmerman, there was clear evidence that Martin had hit him & was bashing his head on the concrete. Could it be that blacks are more likely to drop out of school, making it harder to find a job, making them more prone to turn to crime?

              Solution!!! Open Jewish Academies in all major cities and require any/all failing students to attend! (Catholic schools are too soft on discipline & then there’s that sex thing hanging over them)

              • Mathius says:

                I think my chart was on a percentage basis. In other words, for any given crime, if you are B-B, B-W, W-B, or W-W, these are your liklihoods of being let off on self-defense crimes.

                So, even if blacks were committing more crimes on whites, it wouldn’t factor in – what this shows is that if you’re white and kill a white person, you are far less likely to go to jail than if you are black and kill a white person.

                And if you’re a white person who kills a black person, you’re the least likely to go to jail.

                Sure feels like there’s a thumb on scale here..

  15. Recently, my nephew and niece came to Cherry Hill for a visit. I got their favorite junk food, toys and books to make the trip extra special. The previous December, after watching A Christmas Story, Santa brought my 9-year-old nephew a BB gun. It was his favorite toy so I figured, why not? What could go wrong? I had a BB gun at his age and grew up to become a gun-skeptic liberal. Maybe the same would happen with my nephew, I reasoned to myself while stocking up on kid-friendly cereal at the grocery store. And with Dick’s Sporting Goods Store right next door it wasn’t hard to just pop on over and pick one up! Brilliant!

    While strutting into the “Outdoor” section of Dick’s, convinced I’m the coolest uncle in the world, I quickly noticed a BB gun marketed for girls. A hot-pink little number, it stood out among the bright orange and camo-colored hunting gear. Why not get one for my niece as well? I’m all about equality, right? And irony. I still have to chuckle at the thought.

    Not so fast there, partner.

    “You’ll need a license for that,” the clerk informed me when I asked to see a modestly-priced BB gun. Surprised but undaunted, I whipped out my drivers license and slid it across the counter. At which point it was obvious to me that it was obvious to him I’m not a gun person.

    “To buy a gun in New Jersey you need a Firearm Purchaser ID Card from your Township’s police chief. Even a BB gun. Can’t even take one down to show you without it.”

    For better or worse, there would be no BB gun that day. Not for me anyway. Without a comprehensive criminal background check first I couldn’t buy one. I couldn’t even look at one. Not even a pink one.

    But it’s just a toy I thought, my cool-uncle strut quickly vanishing.

    By the time I reached my car, I was actually a little bit mad. It seems the only thing I fancy less than guns is being told I can’t have a gun. I decided then and there as a matter of pride that I couldn’t go another day without a Firearm ID and drove straight to the Cherry Hill police station to make it happen. Nothing was gonna stop this drama queen from getting that damn pink BB gun.

    Read more at http://www.politickernj.com/jrlassiter/64820/laws-trenton-only-slightly-less-crappy-gun-laws-washington#ixzz2ZtGAVgWd
    or sign up for a free trial of State Street Wire at http://www.politickernj.com/freetrial

  16. Just A Citizen says:

    On the subject of SCOTUS, activist judges, and the method of Constitutional interpretation…..as well as our history of racism and slavery. I suggest everyone reads the actual Dred Scott decision written by Justice Tarney. By the way, I disagree with the Justice’s interpretation of American history relative to the Founder’s views on “negroes”, but his argument does capture the nature of how the “civilized” world viewed other cultures that were “not civilized”.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2933t.html

  17. @Mathuis: I would argue that Christianity spent generations telling black people about the natural order of society and how it is God’s will that they be subservient to their white masters.

    I challenge that statement. Please give book, chapter and verse that shows your supposed Christian doctrine. Please explain in context your reference.

    • Mathius says:

      Sure! Why not? I didn’t spend all that time reading this thing cover-to-cover for nothing.

      ::thumps down bible with a dull thud::
      ::blows the dust off the cover::
      ::turns to dog-eared pages::

      Starting with the old stuff:

      However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. -Leviticus 25:44-46

      But..

      If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Exodus 21:2

      Catch that? Foreigners can be slaves for life.. Jews, just for a few years.. Wonder why that is. Could it be that a Jew and a “foreigner” are not equal before the eyes of the lord?

      Meanwhile, of course, it’s cool to beat your slaves to death.. with some caveats:

      When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. Exodus 21:20-21

      Sometimes people tell me that doesn’t count because it’s the OLD Testament.. ok, how ’bout some newer stuff:

      Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. -Ephesians 6:5

      Oh, and Christian slaves should be happy that because they’re helping other Christians.

      Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. – 1 Timothy 6:1-2

      If you’d like, I’d be happy to show you a dozen or so wholesale massacres perpetrated on “other” people. Samson, especially, was a mass murdering psychopath and he was held up as a shining example – a hero – but he killed Philistines, so that’s cool. Somewhat tangential, sure, but I’d suggest that saying it’s cool to murder thousands of otherwise innocent men because they happen to be Philistines and not Jews suggest that Philistines are inherently inferior in the eyes of the lord (or else, wouldn’t Ex 21 / Deut 19 (eye for an eye..) apply).. haha, NOPE! That only applies amongst equals. Blinding an equal is punishable by a blinding.. but blinding a slave, nope, that’s punishable by releasing the slave. If the punishment must fit he crime (that’s the core of Ex 21:24… ie, Code of Hammurabi), then it seems to me that the bible is pretty clearly demonstrating that this is a lesser crime.

      Plenty of support here for what I’m saying. And of course, that’s just the direct stuff. I’m sure I could dig up tons of papal decrees and treatises by saints saying all kinds of atrocious stuff on the subject. And ooooh boy.. the stuff your run-of-the-mill preacher cooked up in ye olden tymes.. that stuff’ll set your hair on fire and make you think the Westboro folks are tame by comparison.

      • Still waiting for you to show how “Christianity spent generations telling black people about the natural order of society and how it is God’s will that they be subservient to their white masters”. All you have done is demonstrated your ignorance of the meaning of the word slave as used in biblical times and your lack of understanding of Levitical law.

        But back to your statement. Where does the Bible teach that “black people” should be subservient to “white”s?

        • Mathius says:

          Fair enough. I don’t recall it specifying “black” as opposed to “foreign” or “not Jewish/Christian.”

          However, there’s plenty of support for the idea of a natural hierarchy of people with Jews/Christians at the top and “others” at the bottom. Preachers and personification and legislators throughout recent history have relied on this to advocate for the continuation of slavery and the subjugation of the “other.”

          Here’s the results of approximately 3 seconds of Googling:
          http://newchristiancrusadechurch.com/sermons/sermon3.htm

          Or, better yet, here’s Jerry Falwell:
          “If Chief Justice Warren and his associates had known God’s word and had desired to do the Lord’s will, I am quite confident that the 1954 [Brown v Board] decision would never have been made. The facilities should be separate. When God has drawn a line of distinction, we should not attempt to cross that line.”

          Got that? It’s the lord’s will that we have segregation.

          ——————-

          When I say “Christianity” spent a lot of time preaching segregation and slavery and “natural order,” I don’t mean to say that it is ALL Christians who did this or even, necessarily, that every point is supported by my personal reading and interpretation of the original texts. Personally, I am not Christian and believe none of this stuff (including the Old Testament – I’m a very bad Jew). But, building on source material, a case for some very bad things can be made. And HAS been made. Particularly by the Church (big C) in ye olden Europe and the Christian Right in this country.

          ——————-

          your lack of understanding of Levitical law.

          Care to clarify? I’ve worked hard, and spent a great deal of time, trying to fully understand what, exactly, the bible says. I read this thing. It took a long time. And it was really boring. I made notes, I looked up different translations to clarify passages. I applied what critical reasoning I could and tried to appreciate historical context. But, I was not “trained” in any official capacity, so perhaps I am missing things. If you have a fuller understanding, I’d love to hear it.

          • Just because some people do something in the name of a religion does not mean that it is the teaching of that religion. What Christ teaches and what men teach is more often two entirely different things.

            As for skin color, Jews in biblical times came in all colors. For an example look at the crowd make up at Pentecost in the book of Acts (chapter 2).

            As for a class on Levitical law, that would take more time that a blog site can offer. Let me point you toward a well informed source: http://www.gty.org/resources/bible-introductions/MSB03/leviticus

            But let me also say that I do not tend to get into deep theological discussion with non-Christians, saves me unneeded stress. If you want more detail on anything you read please direct them toward the staff at GTY (letters@gty.org), I am sure they would be happy to talk with you.

            • Just because some people do something in the name of a religion does not mean that it is the teaching of that religion.

              AMEN!

              By the way, let’s all (not you, specifically) try to keep this in mind. *cough* Islam *cough*

              • Gonna be hard to convince me of that but I am open to……………………………ummmmm…….discussion…especially on the morality police in various Muslim/Islamic countries. But I can keep an open mind……

              • Mathius says:

                Who invited you to this conversation, colonel? Get back in your foxhole. We’ve hashed it out over Islam before, and I don’t think butting heads with you over it is going to do either of us any good.

          • BTW, if you or anyone reading this wants a good book that discusses the meaning of the word “slave” in biblical times check out the book “Slave: The Hidden Truth About Your Identity in Christ” by John MacArthur http://www.amazon.com/Slave-Hidden-Truth-Identity-Christ/dp/B007BW9DOO

            Disclaimer: This book is written for followers of Christ and some of the topics may offend non-believers.

            • I’m not so easily offended.. but I don’t really have the time or the stomach for a whole book on the hidden truth of the meaning of slave in the bible.. care to give me the cliff notes version?

              These days, a kid, a full-time job, grad school.. just no time to spare for reading lately.. sadly

  18. Just A Citizen says:

    d13thecolonel

    Good afternoon Sir.

    Left Nevada with a balmy 103 F on the thermometer. It was 115 in Redding so I stuck to the mountains on the way home. Topped out at 100 along the way.

    Everybody was telling me how strange this was and I had to remind them of these temps in July back in the 60’s and 70’s when I was hunting mavericks in the high sage.

    Then there was the 8 year drought of the 70’s that caused them to stop building in northern Nevada.

    Funny how so many can have such short memories.

    Hope all is well in the Great Republic.

    • Howdy, sir…….glad you and yours arrived safely. Yep….memories are very short on some items and long on others.

      things are wonderful in the Republic. Hoping that Greg Abbott will be the next governor. Will be working in his campaign, I think. No one else has really stepped forward. He was a better than average AG. He is not a Perry clone like the left wants everyone to think….he actually thinks pretty good and is a fiscal conservative.

      Have good day, sir.

  19. AT Mathius clone…….Where is the real Mathius and what have you done with him. The REAL Mathius would have never said the following::” I have started and will continue to fund my daughter’s savings. She will graduate from college debt free and have some left over that she can be safe and secure while finding her footing in the adult world. The problem with a trust fund isn’t that the kid has money – it’s that the parents often don’t teach their kids the responsibility that is necessary for money management.”

    A true Liberal would never have made that statement. This statement smacks of conservative values and ethics.

    D13 further muses….isn’t it interesting that when one takes on a child how things change.

  20. Off topic for a sec…just saw news report that if you are tired of waiting in long airport security lines, you can PAY to get an expedited pat down……….for $85 dollars.

    • Mathius says:

      There is no “off topic” on Open Mic day.

      For example, I can change the subject and point out that there is something seriously wrong with Dubai.

      Meanwhile, what does that $85 get you? Do they hire someone with smaller hands for the cavity search?

      • 85 bucks gets you on a frequent flyer list for five years and I made sure that your application for female pat down expert be disqualified. You have a new child.

  21. Your humor for the day compliments of Carlos Danger, the real white Hispanic:

    http://twitchy.com/2013/07/23/anthony-weiner-admits-to-seeking-re-erection-allegedly-sexted-as-carlos-danger/

  22. This is not new. In 1991 in Saudi, a woman was stoned to death for reporting a rape. I was there….did not see it. The UAE has the same laws as does Egypt. It is viewed upon that rape is still sex outside the marriage and that if a woman is raped, she is responsible for being raped. Welcome to Islamic law.

    • Mathius says:

      The thing that gets me is the dichotomy of a Western appearance in a place like Dubai. I’d expect something like this in SA or Egypt. But the UAE gives a very deliberate impression of being more progressive, so it’s must more shocking when something like this happens.

      You’ve got to wonder about what the guys are thinking when they write these laws. I mean, even if it is sex outside of marriage, you don’t punish someone for a crime they committed against their will. If I hide my stolen goods on your property, should you get punished for stealing?

      • You are preaching to the choir….my friend. As a commander, I had to counsel my females all the time. Especially if they went to town, their arms could not be uncovered lest being arrested and actually whipped. When it was 100 degrees, I had the local men walk off the job when the females took off their uniform tops and wore t shirts to work the flight lines and the mechanics stations. I had one Kuwaiti actually slap one of my females for her hair style. It is brutal over there to women.

        • Mathius says:

          In America, we had a somewhat converse problem.

          See, I went to high school in LA, and LA can get Texas-hot. But boys had to wear long pants. Girls could wear pants or skirts. So the boys were roasting alive and the girls were nice and comfortable. I saw in the news the other day though that a group of boys at some other school decided they’d had enough and took to wearing skirts in protest.

          First world problems, eh?

          Source.

          • but….but….but I liked the short skirts on girls..and, for the record, I do not care if any kid wants to wear a skirt. If some guy has the guts to wear a skirt…..go for it….but be prepared for the consequences. I would not suggest that in most areas of Texas….perhaps Austin but we view Austin as our liberal experiment….we keep them corralled there.

            • When I was in middle and high school, I loved seeing the girls in their short skirts hiked up a bit too far.. made life worth living.

              But I picked my little sisters (age 9) up from my old school a few months back and saw a bunch of high school girls dressed that way. All I could think is how inappropriate that was and how they’re just kids.

              I’m getting old.

      • Oh……on your observance of Dubai……very interesting place. Been there….beautiful city, western buildings, modern designs……………..but rife with morality police with massive swords and not adverse to be-headings on the streets and restaurants for a female wearing western clothes.

  23. It did not take long for Detroit to ask for a Federal bailout. If you do it Mr. President, you will have to bailout other cities and then you will have to bailout any business that wants it. Don’t do it. A bankruptcy is just that……subject to the same laws as private business. Creditors line up and stand in line….and if pensions plans are hammered….too bad.

    • If they do Detroit which is just more money after bad, then everyone will default including the entire State of California
      .

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I agree. The end result is what may cause huge problems.

      • Haven’t you heard. The state of CA is now solvent!. With Brown’s new income tax and sales tax all is well, the red ink has stopped and we are paying down our debt. Brown solved the pension problems too by getting unions to kick in another penny. Of course, the 175B$ pension liability is still out there ready to strike. Oh wait, this all might change when Phil Mikelson decides to leave the state.

        • You are baaaad. California is going to end up like Detroit…..there is an exodus Unfortunately, a lot of them are coming to the Republic and forgetting to leave the California bad habits behind They do not find a give away state here and are incredulous that we have a balanced budget. They do not know what one is.

      • Mathius says:

        everyone will default including the entire State of California

        California’s running a surplus.

        Also, please appreciate the fact that California is hurting somewhat due to the fact that it is exporting billions of dollars to subsidize red states.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state#Graphical_representation_of_net_contributions_from_states

        • It’s called redistribution of wealth. I thought you supported that.

          • Mathius says:

            Sure I do.

            But imagine you make a decent living. Your brothers, despite their sincere efforts, just can’t make ends meet. So you help them out – as brothers do – by cutting a check each week. They use this check to pay their bills and stay solvent. You, on the other hand, are now struggling to keep your head above water. Do they get to point and you and mock your financial woes?

            By the way, it’s interesting to me how much is made of the idea that welfare makes people dependent on handouts.. how do you see this as it applies to states on federal welfare? And do you find it interesting that the list of welfare recipients is predominantly red / deep-red?

        • See Item #14 in T-Ray’s action plan.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          Turn ALL Federal Lands not needed for military reservations over to the States.

          Eliminate all FEDERALLY MANDATED programs on the States.

          Then eliminate ALL subsidies to the States.

          Until everyone understands why certain states get more than they contribute to the Federal coffers this argument is nothing but silly.

  24. @ Mathius…..Re: equal money for poorer schools. Texas tried that, sir, for over 20 years….it was called “The Robin Hood Approach”…….All school districts received the same money….there was an outcry from the richer districts because a homeowner in Dallas, for example was paying property taxes that went to other school districts in other cities. The salaries of teachers was leveled where a teacher in a predominantly Hispanic town on the Texas border made the same money as a teacher in the rich area of Dallas or Houston or Fort Worth. The sports facilities were paid the same…..the text books were the same and computers were in ALL classrooms…..it changed nothing. Drop out rates were the same. What did happen was that bonuses were added for increased graduation rates which resulted in false graduation rates…..meaning that they taught a student how to pass a specific test and not teaching the three R’s so bonuses would be paid. That was a dismal failure,

    Even with the salaries being the same, teachers did not want to go to the border or go to schools in poorer districts. Teachers who lived in the poorer districts, wanted teaching jobs in the affluent neighborhoods because the quality of student was better. It did not matter that the money and the schools and the allocations were the same…..it was the students. Black teachers did not want to teach in black schools. THAT was the reality. My significant other is a retired public school teacher from Dallas, She taught special education in public schools…..blind kids. In traveling to the different schools, she saw many things that upset here but pointed to cultural differences. As an example, when she would walk into a classroom in a historically black school to work with a blind black kid, the TV’s in the room were tuned to Oprah Winfrey, the View…etc.. the teacher reading a book or texting and the kids were unruly. THIS IS CULTURAL…the teachers were paid the same, the equipment in the rooms were the same, the text books were the same, the budget to the school was the same…..what other answer is there? When she walked into a classroom in a more affluent area, the TV was tuned to educational feeds. One other observation she made….the Asian kids or Cuban kids or the kids from India were not listening to radios or “rappin”…..they were studying….but it was not the same among the blacks and hispanics.

    The high drop out rates among the blacks and hispanics had nothing to do with the amount of money…it is cultural. It is amazing that the Cuban students excel….the Asian students excel….the India children excel….in the same schools but the blacks and hispanics do not. Why is that?

    I submit that this points out to a leadership problem and an imposed culture of dependency. Explain to me why Asians, which are very strong family, which have been persecuted as bad as or worse than the black or hispanic culture excel in the same environment? If that is not culture….what is it? And culture begins with the family….not government but government can create a change in culture by its policies.

    • Two question I would have is why is there a TV in the classroom and why is it turned on?
      In grade school we would occasionally get to listen to a radio show called Freddie the Field Mouse but that was a special treat. Later we got to listen to the World Series but if anyone got out of line, off it went. The only other time that broadcast media was brought into the classroom was after the shop teacher came into our history class and whispered something to the teacher who got a very strange look on his face. He left and came back with an ancient tube radio ans said we needed to hear history in the making. That was Nov. 22, 1963.

      • LOL….I asked the same question……the TV’s are in all classrooms in Texas under the guise that current events and world situations change so quickly that it was thought to have instant access to world events would be an invaluable teaching tool. It was an experiment….not working.

  25. So my house was struck by lightning yesterday.. Colonel, are you trying out some new toys?

  26. Just A Citizen says:

    Re; Some of the reason why certain red states get more fed money per capita than others.

    http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2004/articles6/state_by_state_government_land_o.htm

    The other is the total population.

    For example, the per capita take by Montana is about the per capita contribution of California.

    But Montana has less than One Million people. So the COST of managing the federal lands in Montana is going to cost more per capita than in California. This is because the Cost to manage federal lands is fairly constant, given similarity in external factors such as military reservations.

  27. A very good commentary and something I’ve always wondered about. But remember, the war on women is from the right.

    http://therightscoop.com/why-do-democratic-women-willingly-embrace-misogyny/

  28. Just A Citizen says:

    Time for a little funny…………..

    There may be hope for the Brits after all………………… seems at least one pub is managed on the Montana model.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/24/john-oliver-royal-family-inbred_n_3643871.html

  29. @ Mathius…..you asked…”So can we have the money back?” From the Texas perspective…yes sir……you can have your money back from us….but there is a caveat…For each California transplant you take back we send that money to you. Fair?

    • Mathius says:

      Kathy, I don’t know if you’ve ever been to Mexico.. but well, a lot of the water down there works just fine as a laxative..

      • That it can!

        Just trying to make sense of the choice of verbiage to describe those that come here ILLEGALLY!

      • The other thing that the water does in Mexico is that it is very adept at urinary tract infections…..they own it.

  30. These poor, poor people that got sucked into attending this propaganda nonsense……FOR 1 HOUR AND 6 MINUTES!

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/07/24/obama_rips_endless_parade_of_distractions_political_posturing_and_phony_scandals.html

    • Let’s see if I get this right. Obama is on the road blaming Republicans for not passing his economic agenda but instead concentrating of sideshow scandals. He has created over twice as many jobs as in any other recovery yet our unemployment rate hangs above 7.5%, we have more people on food stamps then ever before, boomers are retiring at a high rate instead of finding another job, more people are applying for disability then ever, new unemployment numbers continue to exceed new jobs by a factor of 2, we have fewer overall jobs then when this all started, most new jobs are low wage or part time……

      What am I not seeing?

      Our little company which ships analyzers to major chemical and petroleum companies around the world has seen a global decline in activity during the first half of this year. I have talked to our sale reps to see if it is just us or if it is more wide spread. The sales reps sell products from other companies so their view wider than mine. The answer was that all their businesses were down not just ours. More inconsistent data.

  31. All the rhetoric on tv and the news and Huffpo about how backwards and racist Texas is to its minorities….and our love affair with guns…..so I decided to take a look and lo and behold, I found the following on racially motivated hate crimes in Texas. The last stats posted were from 2011. I did not realize that we were so…….hateful.

    Out of a population of 26,059,203 there were exactly 148 racially motivated hate crimes in Texas….yes, that is right….. 0.0000056 per capita. So I dug further……of the 148 racially motivated hate crimes (which includes verbal intimidation) there were 61 white, 22 black, 2 Asian, 4 listed as multiracial, and 59 unknown.

    Now, I wanted to dig even further, seeing as how Texas is an undisciplined, gun totin’ state….not one hate crime involved a firearm.

    What were the hate crime offenses you ask? Well, how about 23 aggravated assault, 2 burglary, 39 simple assault, 38 intimidation, 44 vandalism.

    So, I kept reading….and got to the section of Family Violence and sexual assault. I wanted to see what us gun totin’ miscreants used fire arms in these situations.

    Weapons
    The most common weapon involved in sexual assault
    cases was physical force through the use of hands, feet
    and/or fists (strong arm), which accounted for 93.8% of
    the incidents. Knives or cutting instruments (1.2%), blunt
    objects (0.5%), firearms (1.2%), drugs (1.8%), asphyxia-
    tion (0.3%) and other weapons (1.2%) account for the
    remaining cases.

    You do not want to know the racial breakdown of the family violence and sexual assaults as it would be another story all by itself. I will simply say that white family violence was 11.9% of the reported cases and white sexual assault was 13.8 %…you do the math on the rest.

    Special Note: I tried to post these stats on Huffpo and was denied. No one wants the truth.

  32. @ Mathius…….***** peering over edge of foxhole, scanning with IR***

    Agreed on the butting of heads,so understand that I desire “relevant” discourse. So, I will ask you to explain, how your belief remains intact in light of the discussion that we have already had concerning the moral police that runs rampant in the following countries:

    Hard line enforcement: Egypt, Bahrain, Qatar, Algeria, Libya, Sudan, Chad, Yemen, Oman, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran….

    Moderate enforcement: Turkey, Tunisia, and Morocco

    Hard line enforcement includes the following: Instant be-headings without trial for women wearing Western clothing that exposes anything above the ankles, the showing of bare arms and shoulders, anything tight that shows curves or figures. Stoning without trial for reporting rapes or sexual misconduct, eating meals with foreign men without escort, and reading magazines that show lingerie, swimsuits, or the like outside of their own homes. Imprisonment for buying western clothing, magazines, etc without husbands approval. Mercy killings for siblings, off spring etc, without trial, if husband so desires.

    Explain why this is not violence when the entire region supports and condones this conduct.

    • Consider that, as evil as governments like S.A., or the UAE are, it is due to the people exercising power and not the religion. Remember, the Church (big C) in the middle ages was just as bad, if not far worse, than anything you’ll see in these places.

      So the question is this: why is it proof of Islam’s inherently violent nature when a Muslim fundamentalist government is abusive in this manner, but it is an exception we should write off when a Christian fundamentalist government does this?

      In other words: They’re doing the same thing your religion did (and which my religion did long before that) – so why is it a reflection of their whole religion but for you, only a reflection of individuals?

      when the entire region [sic?] supports and condones this conduct.

      I’ll assume you meant “religion”.. so allow me to point out that this is NOT true. There are 1.1 billion Muslims, and the vast majority of them do NOT support the things you mention.

      Islam, like Christianity, like Judaism, is open to interpretation – there is no sole arbiter of what it means “to be Muslim,” just as there is no arbiter of what it means “to be Christian.” Some Muslims are extremists. Some Christians are extremists. Some Jews are extremists.

      Almost every religion can be taken to wild extremes. Evil thing have been done in the name over virtually every religion. People have been repressed in the name of virtually every religion. If that makes Islam a religion of violence, I won’t argue with you.. but then you’ll have to concede that Christianity is as well.

    • oops.. too many links, I guess… stuck in moderation..

      • Just A Citizen says:

        I think it is the way you tied the links to your sentences. I checked the posting and it is all there but the links did not come through here. Not sure they are necessary anyway.

        You have made this point before along with BF. I think you are wrong in your conclusions.

        That does not mean that ALL Muslims are violent. But I think you fail to understand MODERN differences between the two religions that are fundamental.

        One of those is the POLITAL aspect of Islam that is built into the religion.

        • One of those is the POLITAL aspect of Islam that is built into the religion.

          One wonders what the “political” aspects of Christianity and Judaism are..

          And I’d just like to point out, subtly, that the word Talmud literally translates to “Law.”

          ——

          But, OH! You specified “MODERN” differences, didn’t you.. sneaky, sneaky…

          I think we have to take this in two parts: Political/oppression, and radicalism/violence.

          Can we agree that, with neither religion as exercised by individual people – AS A RELIGION – is any more violent than the other and that radicals and extremists exist and murder and are condoned or condemned as part of each major religion? That is, believing in Islam or believing in Christianity does not mean that you are necessarily more disposed to be radical or violent, all else being equal.

          If we can get past this point, I will be happy to take a whack at your second point: that modern political Islam is inherently more evil than modern political Christianity.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            I think one has to look at the fundamental principles taught and held by those who are viewed as the “keepers” of the religions in general. When you pick topics like oppression you fall into using examples as the argument of the teachings. This is where it becomes an endless circle of person….religion……a few persons……religion…………etc, etc.

            Islam is an ARAB religion. Created and spread by the ARAB tribes via the SWORD.

            The ARAB world is still viewed as the CENTER or the KEEPERS of the religion. The Koran has not changed in all these centuries, nor have the ARAB interpretations varied that much. The changes seem to occur as you move farther from the ARAB world and closer to the WEST.

            Christianity was created by JEWS with a different vision and spread by conversion of faith via WORD. No doubt it was later used by some to justify war or other atrocities. But note the difference in origin and method of advancement.

            Islam called for a political system based on the religion. Christianity did not. Personally I think this is why we find so many variations and contradictions between political actions and Christian teachings throughout history.

            You do not find as much with those dominated by Islam.

            The Bible was a series of writings by numerous people constructed over centuries. It was in fact a HISTORY book with the newest teachings of Jesus included in the “NEW CHAPTERS”.

            The Koran is not a history but the “LAW”. More akin it seems to the JEWISH people’s religion and books of “LAW”.

            Today you will find no international or major “Christian” church or accepted “authority” on Christianity proposing that conquest and oppression of others is a CHRISTIAN undertaking.

            You cannot say the same for ISLAM.

            Now with that said, I noted long before on this subject that one needs to consider the relative ages in a discussion of the past relative to the present. With Islam being over 700 years younger, and given the closed and somewhat brutal nature of the region in which it developed, we may be seeing the progression towards a more “passive” version of Islam. We can consider were Christianity was at its equivalent period of evolution.

            As the religion is spread it will almost certainly be modified by those non Arab cultures which adopt it. If it is adopted and not imposed. Time will tell.

            But in the here and now we should recognize the inherent problems with the religion as it is taught by thousands to millions. Combating this reality cannot be done with guns, unless we are in fact attacked.

            • Mathius says:

              Islam is an ARAB religion. Created and spread by the ARAB tribes via the SWORD.

              True.

              Likewise, Christianity is an ARAB religion. Created and spread by the ARAB tribes via the SWORD. … and then eventually on to everyone else.

              Remember, Jesus was (probably) Arab.

              Christianity was created by JEWS with a different vision and spread by conversion of faith via WORD.

              Methinks that if his is your opinion of how Christianity spread, you and I have very different views of history.

              Certainly, word played a large roll. But it seems you’re forgetting the Crusades, to say nothing of the power of the Church of England to command conversions, the conquistadors conversions of native Americans, et cetera. Holy hell, the INQUISITION!

              Your rose colored classes are letting you see the violence and “SWORD” in the spread of Islam, but you seem be be blind to that same violence in the spread of Christianity.

              Islam called for a political system based on the religion. Christianity did not.

              You should know there’s a great deal of debate over what the Koran actually says about the necessity of implementing Sharia law. My personal read from the book was that Islamic law should be implemented where necessary to protect Muslims from discrimination. As long a Muslims are free to practice their religion, I saw – me, personally, you can go Google if you so choose – no support for the idea that Sharia is a necessary thing as a political entity.

              FURTHER, the religious aspects of Sharia law are specifically non-binding on non-believers. That is, a Christian living under “accurate” Sharia law would be bound only by the more secular aspects (ie, don’t steal), but not by the religious ones (ie, cover your head). So long as they do not make any attempt to interfere with Muslims’ free exercise of their religion (caveat: attempts to convert away Muslims would still be a crime.. so I’ll give you that).

              FURTHER, the really nasty aspects you see in “sharia law” – beheadings and such – are not supported by any source texts any more than the bible permits forced conversions by Spanish conquistadors. These things are created by men interpreting their religion and extrapolating it in light of their culture and opinions and beliefs. It is not “Muslim”.. it is just under the guise of Islam.

              so many variations and contradictions between political actions and Christian teachings throughout history.

              You do not find as much with those dominated by Islam.

              NONSENSE! Political Islam is almost completely at odds with Muslim teachings. Your ignorance of what the Koran says leads you to be informed by the political structures you see in the news and the flashy extremist exceptions. You see these, form an opinion of Islam, and then state that it matches the political structures.. that’s circular reasoning at its worst.

              Islam certainly has its violence baked in, but no more than Christianity and Judaism. Hell, the Old Testament, especially, is loaded to the breaking point with horrific violence done with God’s blessing against the non-believer. There’s less of that in the New Testament, but if you’re going to suggest that the source for Islam is violent and that Islam is therefore violent, at the very least, you’ll have to say the same is true for Jews. Would you like to say that?

              Today you will find no international or major “Christian” church or accepted “authority” on Christianity proposing that conquest and oppression of others is a CHRISTIAN undertaking.

              Define “major”.. I suppose the Klan is still skulking around somewhere..

              But you’re right.. I can’t think of a major Christian group suggesting you should go conquest and oppress others.. but then again, that’s easy to say when you’ve pretty much already won.

              Christianity is, far and away, the most power political force on this planet. It owns the United States government wholesale. It’s easy to be magnanimous when you’re on the top. And then ignore how you got there and blast others for essentially doing exactly what you did.

              And then write it off because “it was another time.” Very convenient, in my opinion.

              We can consider were Christianity was at its equivalent period of evolution.

              We very well could consider this to be true.

              Since it is true.

              As the religion is spread it will almost certainly be modified by those non Arab cultures which adopt it.

              It HAS spread. They are in Europe and Africa and America. There are 200mm+ in Indonesia and 16mm+ in Russia and 2.6mm in the US. These are not all “Arabs” as if the race meant anything. And they are not all “culturally arab” – whatever that might mean – either.

              Wikipedia says there are 1.6 BILLION Muslims spread across the planet – yet you persistently ignore this and act as if it’s a small niche religion occupying only the middle east and which is completely homogeneous in their beliefs.. this could not be further from the truth. If they all thought the say way as the subset you think of, we’d all be dead by now.

              inherent problems with the religion as it is taught by thousands to millions

              Fine. I will stipulate this.

              I recognize the problem with the religion as it is taught by “thousands to millions.”

              Will you recognize the lack of problems with the religion as it is taught to the rest of the 1.6 BILLION adherents?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                Lets start with the first errors first.

                Jesus was almost certainly NOT ARAB. You even told me that Jews were a distinct tribe, race, ethnic group, etc.

                The people who populated the region we now think of as Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria were not ARABS. They had contact and probably had relatives among the Arab but they were different people in those times.

                Christianity was not spread by the SWORD, by Jesus nor his first followers. Jews fought for what they considered their homeland, but that is certainly a different issue than spreading their religion by the SWORD.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                Re: SWORD

                I was very specific in my first comment that I was referring to the beginning of the religion.

                The “Crusades” were long after “Christians” became known as Christians and long after the “word” had been spread.

                So I DO NOT suffer from wearing Rose colored glasses. I was among the first here to point out the violence of history done in the name of Christianity.

                The difference is in the origins however. One was the word of a prophet aimed at nothing but duty to God and peace. The other was the word of a prophet aimed at the conquest of his enemies. The first of which were also ARAB by the way.

              • The crusades were essentially a belated Christian counterattack in a centuries old war started by the Arabs. The Arab empire had invaded and conquered most of Christian Spain and even part of southern France. They were pushing on eastern Europe as well. After 300-400 years of this the Christians finally stopped playing defense and counterattacked at the heart of the Arab Empire in the ME. Atrocities occurred on both sides but overall the Arabs were the original aggressors. The war of Arab aggression continued on even after the Crusades ended.

                Spain did not reclaim all of the peninsula until Isabella and Ferdinand came to power. After reclaiming the territory, they tried to live in peace with the remaining Muslims but eventually were forced to drive them out. I would suspect that the brutality of the Inquisition is in part a result of this bloody history.

                Matt, you are right in that Christianity was sometimes spread by the sword, but the dominate method is by the word and always has been. Not so for Islam.

  33. Eric Holder declares war on Texas:

    In a speech to the Urban League in Philadelphia, the attorney general said the Justice Department is asking a federal court in San Antonio to require the state of Texas to obtain approval in advance before putting future voting changes in place.

    I guess liberals only likes the SCOTUS when it rules in their favor otherwise they ignore them completely. This administration is the most unconstitutional ever in American history and they are getting away with it. How are they getting away with it? Just look at the first paragraph of the article:

    Attorney General Eric Holder announced Thursday the Justice Department is opening a new front in the battle for voting rights in response to a Supreme Court ruling that dealt a major setback to voter protections.

    Look at the key words used by the Associated Press. “battle for voting rights”, “major setback to voter protections”.

    The facts are that no voter rights are being fought for by the Obama Administration and no voter protection we removed by the recent SCOTUS ruling. So the AP is baiting the public to stand up to a strawman and they dress that strawman in a GOP blazer with a white face.

  34. Some more Weiner humor. Too easy, just too easy.

    http://freebeacon.com/late-night-hosts-roast-weiner-over-sexting-scandal/

    • Another diversion by the MSM

      • When a city has a crack epidemic, do you blame the crack dealers or the people buying and consuming crack?

        How is the media at fault when all it is doing is just “giving the people what they want”? You know it’s what they want because Fox’s ratings (infotainment) are much better than, say, Bloomberg or BBC or Al Jazeera or PBS (closer to “straight” news).

        Market forces demand sideshows.. the media isn’t cramming it down our throats, we’re screaming at them to give us more, or we take our eyeballs (and attendant advertising revenue) elsewhere. Don’t blame the crack dealer.. blame the junkies.

        If we, as a society, really wanted to watch real news, sideshow-free, you don’t think market forces would have created a channel for us by now?

        • It did. It’s called the internet! 😉

          • The internet is little better. Hard news sites are few and far between. The BIG sites, if you prefer, the “Mainstream Media of the Internet,” are sites like HuffPo, Blaze, Daily Mail, etc. They’re every bit as biased and useless and side-show-prone as Fox / CNN.

            • For the non-intellectually challenged camp. Believe nothing unless it can be verified or you were standing next to it. Your definition of the media is was and probably always will be correct. I’m reading a book on the life and legends surrounding Wyatt and the other Earp brothers. Bought it a few years ago but after watching both Earp Movies (The Russel and Costner ones) decided to break it open. The author makes a real effort to present Earp factually including as much as we know about him and characters like Doc Holliday. What he does more interestingly is examine the outright lies and mistruths published throughout the media during their lifetimes and after, (Earp died in 1929).

              Many of the made up stories have, because of their age and the laziness of later authors and scriptwriters become “fact”. Does not matter that the cast of characters is wrong, the timelines are wrong or the body count impossibly inflated. It is fact to be quoted and then cited later by another lazy POS.

              I have found in the past 40 years that radio is probably the best source of news. the “feeds” are almost live so the stories come through as they happen. Then, thanks to this wonderful Al Gore invented Internet thing, you can do your own follow-up. Despite my troglodyte political leanings, I am the first to call into question stories like the one currently circulating about Obamas “hot Microphone” on 4 July. Unless I can independently verify, it never happened.

              • Mathius says:

                Tombstone was a great movie…

                Turkey Creek Jack Johnson: Why you doin’ this, Doc?
                Doc Holliday: Because Wyatt Earp is my friend.
                Turkey Creek Jack Johnson: Friend? Hell, I got lots of friends.
                Doc Holliday: …I don’t.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Ransom Stoddard: You’re not going to use the story, Mr. Scott?

                Maxwell Scott: No, sir. This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.

              • The man who shot liberty valance…..

        • Don’t blame the crack dealer.. blame the junkies
          Careful, you may loose your liberal club membership card with statements like that.

          I did find it funny that you include Al Jazeera as an example of being closer to “straight” news. You probably think Russia Today is an independent voice of reason.

          • Mathius says:

            I think Al Jazeera is not what you think it is. Link.

            Better than Breitbart any day of the week.

            Careful, you may loose your liberal club membership card with statements like that.

            I may be a liberal.. but I’m allllll over the map depending on the issue. I think the toughest thing is that I insist on considering nuance to every position, so it frequently brings me out of line with straight-line liberals and conservatives. If the liberals could have revoked my membership, they would have done it a long time ago.

            • I think Al Jazeera is not what you think it is.

              Nope, they are exactly what I think they are: “For Al Jazeera, which is financed by the government of Qatar,”

              • Mathius says:

                Still 100x better than breitbart / blaze / red state.

                Al Jazeera (English) headlines:
                Egypt braces for Friday rival protest
                Tunisian politician Mohamed Brahmi shot dead
                UN: Syria death toll rises above 100,000
                Spain Train Crash driver held in custody <<—– SIDE SHOW
                AU happy with Zimbabwe vote preparations
                Spain jobless figures show glimmer of hope
                Pope sends message of hope for Brazil's poor
                US politicians back Prism spying "programe"
                Tall women face higher cancer risk: study

                Fox “News” headlines:
                Weiner admits sexting 3 women <<——- SIDE SHOW
                AG takes on Texas
                Reps seek answer for fatal seal team 6 crash <<—– maybe side show
                'EXTREMELY TROUBLING' Palestinian leader honor killer <<—– Bias
                Summer of disconnect with Obama <<— bias
                Obama shoots air balls from outside <<—- bias AND side show
                Boehner calls out rep King on immigration insult <<—– side show

                ::holds nose::
                Breitbart headlines:
                Weiner sexting <<—- side show
                Carlos Danger <<—- same side show
                Weiner loses lead in NYC mayor's race after sexting scandal <<— partial sideshow
                With new revelations, Democrats waver on Weiner <<—- same side show
                WSJ: Obama worst president for middle class in modern times <<– BIAS
                Military Censors Christian Chaplain <<— side show at best, probably BS
                Weiner Sexted at least two more women <<—- harping on the same side show
                North Korea to put captured US spy on ship for display <<— bias
                GOP leadership ignores facts to attack Steve King <<— bias

                I won't do HuffPo because I'm sure you can see the bias there without any help from me.

  35. Mathius says:

    JAC,

    Jesus was almost certainly NOT ARAB.

    Jesus most certainly was.

    What? You think he was a blond haired, blue eyed, white guy who just so happened to be living in Jerusalem two millennia ago? Jesus was a Semitic Jew.

    Per our friends at Dictionary.com:
    Ar·ab [ar-uhb]
    noun
    1. a member of a Semitic people inhabiting Arabia and other countries of the Middle East.

    ——–

    Jesus was brown skinned, brown eyed, had a big Jew-nose and a uni-brow, probably sucked at sports, and grew up in a Arabic culture. He was one of them. Sorry.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      The term “semitic” and the phrase “inhabiting Arabia and other Middle Eastern Countries is redundant.

      Semitic was a term invented to describe ALL PEOPLE with similar language roots that inhabited the broader region. It has even been applied to some people of northern Africa and “Ethiopia”.

      This does not mean they are the same people with respect to their Tribal or regional roots in the “Bible” times. Most of these “peoples” were at war with each other many times throughout history. The Arabs were no friends of the Persians or Assyrians before them. Nor were the “Israelites”.

      My use of ARAB is specific to those tribes and groups which identified themselves as separate and which were identified by others as separate. They did not live in the area we now call Israel, Jordan, Syria, etc.

      While the word Semitic can include Babylonians and Assyrians as well as “Hebrews” all three of these groups were separate.

      The ARAB people who were tied to Islam from the beginning were those people from the deeper Saudi peninsula. They are identified as a distinct group/tribe/people in the history of all people within the region.

  36. Mathius says:

    JAC,

    One was the word of a prophet aimed at nothing but duty to God and peace. The other was the word of a prophet aimed at the conquest of his enemies.

    Jesus was a pretty good guy. Other than one spat with the money changers, I don’t recall him doing a single violent thing in the bible, and actively discouraged others from doing so as well.

    “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” Matthew 26:52

    —————

    So what about us Jews?

    God was cool with all sorts of slaughter to advance the Jewish cause and convert our enemies. There’s one particularly great story where the Jews lay siege to a town. They tell the people living there that if the men all undergo circumcisions, the town will be spared. The men agree. And while they’re all in pain recovering, the Jews storm in, slaughter all the men and boys and “take” the women.

    So, now, are Jews, like Muslims, called to do violence and spread our religions by the sword? We’re both evil, right?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      I have not once used the word “evil” to describe the Muslim, Jew or Christian religions.

      I am trying to stick with the facts of history to form an opinion as to whether Islam is compatible with my core values. In my opinion IT IS NOT.

      While the other two religions are not entirely either they are certainly more compatible. At least in the AMERICANIZED or European/British versions.

      I view the spread of Islam via migration as a threat to our way of life. To my freedom and liberty. I use migration because that is how the harder form of the religion is spread. Christian converts to Islam are not going to go along with the “fundamentalist” view much.

      Thus my comment about moderation as it spreads. I was describing “conversion” via the “word” as opposed to simple migration of people who may be carrying the fundamentalist view with them.

      Now here is one for you. There is much written about what Muslim Scholars view as the history of Islam and the role of the many Hebrew Profits as those who came before Muhammad. So here is the question.

      Where is the evidence of Islam existing BEFORE Muhammad??

      Where did this religion exist??

      If there is evidence then what was the basis of this Islam before Muhammad??

      After all, the Muslim teaching is that Muhammad carried the TRUE word of God in order to correct all the past “misinterpretations”.

      • Mathius says:

        While the other two religions are not entirely either they are certainly more compatible. At least in the AMERICANIZED or European/British versions.

        AH!

        Ok, this I can see. It’s not so much that they’re “Americanized” as that they’ve moved pretty far from a fundamentalist perspective and been colored by western / progressive mentality?

        Ok.. how do you feel about the “Americanized” version of Islam?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          The Americanized version, as in that version I have seen practiced by Americans who converted and some second/third generation immigrants is pretty benign. At least it appears so. The AMERCICAN values have priority.

          This is not the case with the newer immigrants I have met or the Americans who have fallen prey to the “fundamentalists”. Their view is Islam FIRST, SECOND and ALWAYS and that their law overrides US Law and core values.

          The “western progressive” mentality was called the ENLIGHTENMENT. You should thank your God our Founders came along at the end of that period and not another.

          • Mathius says:

            Would you agree that the same exact thing can be said of Christians?

            That is, President Kennedy was an “American first, and a Catholic second,” right?

            But if someone is a Christian first and an American second, would you consider them this same way as you describe?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              Yes!

              But let me expound briefly. It is not that one is an American first and a catholic (insert religion) second.

              It is whether one uses the primacy of their religion to undermine core American principles.

              Now part of the problem with my argument is that those “CORE” American principles are becoming harder to identify and they are certainly changing.

              And let me head you off at the pass. Don’t try to link Christian primacy over American principles as the primary argument on issues like abortion and gay marriage. There is no doubt some fundamental religious believes tied to those issues. But there is also a great deal of “normative” human behavior, “common law”, and logical thinking.

              I would, however, view an organized attempt to use Govt to impose Christian or Jewish beliefs, religious laws and practices on me as Un-American.

              • Mathius says:

                And let me head you off at the pass. Don’t try to link Christian primacy over American principles as the primary argument on issues like abortion and gay marriage. There is no doubt some fundamental religious believes tied to those issues. But there is also a great deal of “normative” human behavior, “common law”, and logical thinking.

                Abortion I’ll give you.. I think the Christian fundamentals are deep in the thick of this and a pretty powerful voice. I think I hear a lot about the “sanctity” of life.. which does sound distinctly religious.. BUT – but – I will stipulate that there is a solid secular argument against abortion and at least a fair amount of the opposition is driven by this secular stance. So I’ll call this a toss-up.

                HOWEVER. However, there is no secular argument against gay rights. The “normative” and “common law” opposition to gay rights are, at best, being stogily stuck in the past. But the vast overwhelming opposition derives from Christianity. Remember when the Mormons were running a phone-a-thon / push-poll from Utah into California for Prop 9? No, sir, I will not give you this one.

                This is Christianity imposing it’s will OVER the American ideal of freedom and mind-your-own-life and secular government. This is primacy of religion over western thought. HARRUMPH!

              • Mathius says:

                I would, however, view an organized attempt to use Govt to impose Christian or Jewish beliefs, religious laws and practices on me as Un-American.

                Right.. so what would you call it when (as I mentioned) the Mormon Church was actively drumming up support for Prop 8? And how the Catholic Church support it?

                Wikipedia:
                Other religious organizations that supported Proposition 8 include the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America,[77] Eastern Orthodox Church,[78] a group of Evangelical Christians led by Jim Garlow and Miles McPherson,[79] American Family Association, Focus on the Family[80] and the National Organization for Marriage.[81] Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church, also endorsed the measure.[82]

                What was this if not an organized attempt to use government to impose Christian or Jewish beliefs, religious laws and practices?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              One more thought and perhaps the most important relative to American vs. Religion.

              Because of our history, people can be Christians or Jews “first” but still live happily under, and defend, the core American principles of individual freedom, liberty and justice for all.

              Obviously there are small groups/sects that may not but we are talking mainstream religion here.

              The million dollar question is whether the same can be said of those holding to ISLAM.

              If ISLAM comes first, not just God, but Islam, then can they exist within the American model?

              I think the jury is still out on that question. As I said above, some certainly can but others can’t. Which side will win out?

              What we do know is that the Socialists and Communists cannot. Yes, that was a little fishing for bites. 🙂

              • Mathius says:

                If ISLAM comes first, not just God, but Islam, then can they exist within the American model?

                Yes.

                Yes they can.

                And yes they do.

              • Mathius says:

                I think the jury is still out on that question. As I said above, some certainly can but others can’t. Which side will win out?

                They are not at odds, necessarily.

                Just as Judaism has the “kill the non believer” stuff, so does Islam. But a devout Muslim, like a devout Jew or a devout Christian, can still prioritize the Love Thy Neighbor stuff.

                Your assumption is that Islamic faith is necessarily at odds with a peaceable American existence, and it is not. Thus neither side has to “win out.”

              • Mathius says:

                What we do know is that the Socialists and Communists cannot. Yes, that was a little fishing for bites.

                Seems Charlie is just fine.. maybe a little irked, but he works within the system the way it is supposed to be.. voting, raising awareness, et cetera. Maybe you don’t like it, but there’s nothing wrong here. Nothing “at odds” with America or its fundamental principles.

            • The Kennedy statement was in the context of whether he would be taking orders from the Vatican or not. This in turn harkens back to the charges against Al Smith, the popular Democratic Governor of NY who ran for president against Hoover in ’28. The profound anti-catholic bias of the time doomed the candidacy. There was going to be this tunnel built directly to the Holy See from under the White House or something.

              Too bad it all happened. If Smith would have won, it would have been Mr.Smith’s depression. Then again, the Catholics would have been blamed. “Let the pogroms begin”, in alternate history.

      • Mathius says:

        Where is the evidence of Islam existing BEFORE Muhammad??

        Huh? What?

        There was no Islam before Muhammad.

        A Muslim scholar might trace the roots of Islam back to Abraham (just as a Christian scholar might).

      • Mathius says:

        After all, the Muslim teaching is that Muhammad carried the TRUE word of God in order to correct all the past “misinterpretations”.

        Correct.

        They hold that God passed down the “true and correct” word to the Jews, but it was lost and distorted over generations of oral retelling.

        He then sent down Jesus (a prophet, not his son) who set the record straight again. But the bible was, once again, corrupted and interpreted and mistranslated, and so the perfection of God’s word was lost even if it’s “pretty close.”

        So God says, let’s try again. This time, write it down as I give it to you. And no translating either – it has to be in the original form. (Translations are officially “commentary” on the Koran, not technically the Koran itself – this is different from Christianity where the Bible is the bible whether you’re reading Aramaic or English).

        And then, in a nifty trick, Islam clarifies that any inconsistencies between the three holy texts stems from human error and the Koran, which is the only one to have avoided corruption, should be considered as primary.

  37. Mathius says:

    JAC,

    Jews fought for what they considered their homeland, but that is certainly a different issue than spreading their religion by the SWORD.

    I would suggest that modern Palestinians would say that they are fighting for what they consider to be their homeland, too..

    • Just A Citizen says:

      And how is that relevant to our discussion about the history of the two religions???

      Do you realize the contradiction in your assertion given your prior claim that everyone in the region are ARABS??

      I also think your claim is a gross over simplification of the real issues in that conflict.

      • Mathius says:

        I guess I’m not following your point..

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          We were discussing “origins” as in the ancient history of the region and both religions.

          My comment about the Jews or “Israelites” was to show the differences in their “wars” against other tribes as opposed to what the Arabs and later Persians did in the name of the religion. The latter being more akin to the Crusades than the wars of the “Hebrews” described in the Bible.

          The issue is to what extent each religion called for the use of the SWORD to spread the religion. To what extent was conquest done in the name of the religion as opposed to simply using the religion to justify conquest for other purposes.

          My read on ancient Israeli/Hebrew history is that these many wars were tribal and over homeland. Their religion was used to explain their victories, losses and to some extent justify RETAKING the land they believed they had been given by God.

          That is different than conquering a region for the purpose of ESTABLISHING what you believe is the TRUE WORD OF GOD.

          Ever notice how Muslims use insults to Islam as a call to arms where Christian people use their national or territorial origin??

          We fight against Afghans, the Muslims respond that we are waging war against ALL MUSLIMS and that as INFIDELS we must be removed. Yes, a bit of a generalization but it shows the difference of which I am speaking.

          • Excellent point. As I never tire of saying, the Mediterranean basin and the Middle east, well into Persia was pretty Christian long about the time Mohammed started out. Got that way through spreading the “good news”. Did not stay that way. The advent of the Crusades was an attempt to stem the advance of Islam and re-take places (especially the Holy Land) that had been lost through conquest.

            Jews, to my knowledge, fought for their traditional homeland which they believed was God given. They were not particularly interested in spreading their religion.

  38. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    A good article which includes a little of what we are both talking about. The original views, history and the ensuing power struggle for control of Islam. Notice the use of the term Arabs in the piece….. bwahahahaha

    http://abdalhaqq.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/issues-of-authority-in-islamic-history/

  39. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    Now moving to the modern period. I will grant you this point;

    It seems to me that Modern Israel, that is the Jewish State established by International Charter, was more akin to the Islamic Caliphates of older times. Where in the Arabs and then Persians established a Muslim State in the same region.

    The new nation was established for the purpose of creating a Jewish State. While this is a return to their “homeland” the caveat of “Jewish State” creates an immediate conflict with the Muslim populations. Which is then used to scare the hell out of the locals and convince them to revolt and then run away. Thus the West Bank, Gaza and the term “Palestinians”.

    In summary, I see the ancient conflicts as primarily tribal until Islam comes along. I see the modern conflict as more “religious” in nature, by both sides.

    After all, with the exception of the Arabs, they are all Canaanites, so they should be able to get along.

  40. Request for Mathius………I do not want to discuss any other religion nor its atrocities….Just because other religions have done the same or worse…..means nothing to me…..right now, I want to focus on Islam/government. You are using the term extremist…are you referring to the governments?

    • Mathius says:

      You are using the term extremist…are you referring to the governments?

      I believe that there are government which are Fundamentalist Islamic in nature. These states have overreached the source material and infused CULTURAL biases and beliefs which they have incorporated into their official “version” of Islam.

      For example, the Koran does not specify anything of the sort that 4 male non-relative witnesses must testify in order to convict a man of rape. That’s not KORANIC. That’s whatever-it-is-that’s-messed-up-culturally over there.

      So, S.A, and the UAE, and others are “extremist governments” which also happen to be Islamic. This is entirely separate from saying that Islamic governments necessarily are extremist.

      • Fair enough from one perspective……but silence is acceptance. If there there are one billion plus Muslims in this world that do not believe as you state….then why are there still moral police representing the Islamic faith? Why are there still mercy killings? It is perfectly clear to me, that most, if not all, religions have some sort of aggressive or violent past. However, I am unaware of any religion today, that has the same violence as exhibited by the Islam faith, extremists or not, and that there is nothing being done to stop it by the one billion. Silence is acceptance, doing nothing is acceptance.

        I have personally been in on meetings and briefings in SA in 1991/92, meeting with my Muslim counterparts on the planning and execution of the invasion of Kuwait….there was much discussion about what was acceptable behaviour should the invasion continue into Iraq… Rape is considered, I am told, under Islamic Law, an acceptable conduct….then these same Muslims, drop down on their prayer rugs…..it is absurd. You may say the Koran does not say anything about this…..but the Islamic faithful say it is ok.

        My comment to those under my command was that I would personally shoot on sight, any member of my command that conducted themselves as such. I was taken to task by two clerics saying that Islam allows such behaviour and that I could not interfere in the “practice of Islam”. This what I witnessed first hand and this was not an isolated incident with just me…it was widespread. I repeated my assertion and in fact assigned a mech infantry platoon to each of my counter parts to enforce my orders. This is ludicrous behaviour. Fortunately, I did not have to do this but I was mocked, by Islamic clerics, for my stance on “acceptable behaviour”. So, as you can see, as far as I am concerned, this is a prolific stance among the Muslim/Islam faith.

        I guess you can claim it is cultural…..but does that really change anything.

        • Mathius says:

          but silence is acceptance. If there there are one billion plus Muslims in this world that do not believe as you state….

          I don’t state this. Wikipedia states this: 1.6 billion to be more accurate.

          And they are not silent. You’re just not listening to them.
          Muslims for Human Rights
          Muslim World Journal of Human Rights
          Women have the same rights as men
          Free Muslim Coalition (anti-extremism + pro-women’s-rights)

          I’m sure I could easily dig up a dozen more.

          The narrative of “Muslims are sitting by silent” has permeated our world view, but it simply isn’t true. Do this: walk into any – any mosque in America, walk up to the first authority figure you find, and ask him his view of women’s rights or human rights or extremism in S.A. or the U.A.E. Go ahead. I’ve actually done this. I think you’ll find that they are all actively fighting against the abuses you note.

          But this isn’t as juicy a narrative for the media, so it gets no airtime.

        • Rape is considered, I am told, under Islamic Law, an acceptable conduct

          Then you were told wrong.

          The burden is actually on men to produce 4 witnesses in order to convinct a woman of “lewdness.”

          28 For their Lord’s displeasure is the opposite of Peace and Tranquillity;-
          29 And those who guard their chastity,
          30 Except with their wives and the whom their right hands possess [slaves],- for (then) they are not to be blamed,
          31 But those who trespass beyond this are transgressors;-

          So, this is from the Koran. Translated:
          28. You do not want to piss off God.
          29. For those who do not want sex, (30) except wives and slaves, because then the men are not at fault (31), then going beyond what the women want is a transgression.

          It’s a little opaque, I’ll grant you, but I don’t think it leaves much room for doubt. So a man can rape his wife.. ok, that’s pretty bad. And he can rape his slaves.. also pretty bad (although obsolete). But you are expressly forbidden (it is a transgression against Allah) to force a woman to be unchaste against her will (and the man is to blame).

          In fact, the Islam is, textually, the most progressive of the three religions (by a long measure) on women’s rights. In no way does it condone rape.

        • I was taken to task by two clerics saying that Islam allows such behaviour and that I could not interfere in the “practice of Islam”.

          The clerics were also wrong. There is no Koranic support for this opinion. None.

          They were talking about their CULTURAL interpretation of Islam. And that’s pretty bad.

          But it should reflect badly on their particular branch (think of it as a separate and extremist sect), and not on the religion as a whole. Again, there are a lot of Muslims out there and the vast majority recognize rape as a crime.

        • I guess you can claim it is cultural…..but does that really change anything.

          Yes.

          Yes it does.

          Because then you do not paint an entire faith and 1.6 billion adherents with the same brush you use for a messed up sub-set.

          —–

          I know people don’t like me bringing things back to Christianity, but just consider: If there was a Christian country out there imposing biblical law (ie, England circa the middle ages), would you believe that all other Christians (the 2.1 Billion of you) should be painted with the same brush? Or would you shake your head, say those guys are nuts, and hold that they are not indicative of your religion but rather just a particular (and anomalous) exception?

  41. Regarding the Mormons on Prop. 8 or the abortion issue. Can you divorce religious objection from Moral objection? I had a very good friend, a member of The Ethical Culture Society, who was born a Jew but was agnostic at best. We used to hammer this one around quite often. What we did agree on was that there are certain things that are destructive to the society whether you are a believer or an atheist. This was the early ’80’s long before the issue of gay “marriage” was anything other than a joke. I can and do make arguments that this, pornography, drug usage, abortion and a host of other things that society now seems willing to embrace as an extension of Constitutionally protected “rights” are destructive to society.The question then devolves to: can morality be exclusive of religion?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      SK

      ABSOLUTELY YES!!

      • This is not meant in any way to argumentative. Where did morality come from?

        • It came from the nuns in grade school..they had a way of putting the guilt trip on a kid. 😉

        • Mathius says:

          Morality is a logical structure built from first principles which we accept as true.

          What are your “first principles”?

          Mine are:
          (A) I am a free human being and I should not impose on another human being
          (B) Except where necessary to provide for the greater good of mankind

          Yours, presumably, omit point B.

          So, tell me, starting from A, how do you get to “we should legally prohibit homosexuals from getting married”?

          • Ahh, I would say that I agree with point B which is where my opposition stems. So, we have a disagreement over what constitutes the greater good of mankind.

            Now this point B thing, it opens us both up to the criticism that “we” are the arbiters of the greater good and that “we” want to impose our views on others. Both are absolutely true.

            Now, the discussion heads to the question by what right does anyone impose their views on others?

            • Indeed. It’s a sticky complicated mess. The two are, necessarily, in conflict and need to be weighed against each other.

              It’s all a matter of opinion – when does the greater good override someone’s rights? Sometimes, I’m jealous of the pure simplicity of a lunatic like Black Flag.. sure it’s crazy.. sure the results would be catastrophic.. but boy is it nice and tidy.

              And if I were robot instead of a human, I’d probably go that route. But I’m not, so I have to do the best I can with what I’ve got.

              • Think on the concept that it is part of the social compact. We live in groups. We establish rules that we are willing to live by. Part of that, is agreeing to go along with certain things which may rub us the wrong way.

                Almost every position I take is based on analysis of how it has worked in the past. I am a great believer in never doing change for the sake of change. I have to be pretty sure that what is being proposed is better than what went before. I also like to walk into something “eyes wide open” meaning I have at least tried to prepare for the consequences and have not deluded myself.

                The collapse of the American educational system and the collapse of the American family, black and white, are examples of things gone wrong because of “change”. If you think back you can see how, when and why that change started.

                The other day, standing on the line in Shoprite, I saw, side by side, a commemorative issue of “LIFE” magazine and one of “people”. How bloody far we have fallen. As a teen I was a subscriber to “LIFE”. While many will remember it for its fantastic photographs, I remember it for its stories, many in depth which accompanied the photos. In the early ’60’s, the 100th anniversary of the Civil War, there were stories after stories with illustrations on all aspects of that war. I got my AP History credit in ’64 based or reading and re-reading historical articles “LIFE” published on the Civil War and the 1st World War (50th anniversary). Now, this was a popular, general circulation magazine very apolitical with an excellent circulation. Besides the newsstand and subscriber readers almost every waiting room in the country, school library and hospital had the magazine available. Today, its is gone, replaced by that piece of S— “People” and its clones which tells me everything I need to know about the Kardashians, the little limey prince, and who has most recently fallen off the wagon. Worse, they tend to glorify these clowns.

                If you have the time, I recommend this particular issue. Read it and tell me if there is a general circulation magazine, print or E version which presents the story of the consequences of a screw up like the drug Thalidomide as well as this does.

                http://books.google.com/books?id=Hk4EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA29&dq=Thalidomide+babies&hl=en&sa=X&ei=npjyUZKWJoqg9QS-74HADw&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Thalidomide%20babies&f=false

                VH, if you are out there, damaged finger and all, read this. It will give you a idea of where the abortion controversy/debate began.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          SK

          From the mind of man!

          • Giving man an awful lot of credit there methinks.

            My Dad used to say that all babies are born animals and it was our job as parents to civilize them. The question is how exactly did our forebears manage to civilize themselves. I think that we can all agree that the 20th Century showed well what man was capable of doing to fellow man when left to his own devices.

            My problem with “Star Trek” was the logic of Mr. Spock and the Vulcans. Where logic alone leads us is a dark and dangerous place.

            • Mathius says:

              Vulcan society sure seems a lot better than human society to me. I would happily move there, but I suspect they wouldn’t want me – we humans are a nasty bunch.

              (note: I’m enough of a Trekkie to know all about the other issues Vulcans have, but they’re still a lot better than we are – they exist as a mirror for the purity of logic and science, less humanity – they have their failings, but on balance are still “more evolved” than us by a long shot).

              And Spock (Nimoy, not Quinto) is the MAN.

              • Logic would, if not tempered by something else, lead us to infanticide, euthanasia, more abortion than we have now and eugenics. They all make sense unless you recognize something of value in the human beyond the ability to produce. Perhaps it is the soul.

              • Mathius says:

                infanticide – False. Logic would prevent unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

                euthanasia – What’s wrong with [voluntary] euthanasia? I think it’s morally wrong to make people continue to live against their wishes, especially if they are suffering.

                more abortion – False. Logic would prevent unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

                Eugenics – Eugenics get a bad rap because of the (INVOLUNTARY) way they’ve been tried. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with eugenics as a (VOLUNTARY) practice.

                —–

                Perhaps it is the soul.

                Please provide evidence for the existence of this “soul” thing you speak of?

              • I have logically decided to have a baby with my spouse

                1. I die, my wife gets measles, I lose my job, my wife loses her job, fetal abnormalities are detected. Shall I go on?

                2. Who said anything about voluntary? There are societal resources being wasted.

                3. Same as number 1

                4. Same as number 2

                Finally……Rejecting these things even though rejection is illogical.

              • Mathius says:

                SK,

                Let’s talk about abortion.. I’ll take this below. (boy, I sure do miss the days when SUFA had numbering on their threads so I could say “see #26”.. oh well). I think you’ll find what I’m going to say interesting.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              SK

              Once again I see someone trying to blame LOGIC for irrational human behavior.

              LOGIC is nothing but a means of thinking aimed at eliminating contradictions in thinking or argument.

              REASON is the application of serious and critical thought. The pursuit of discovering TRUTH of the Universe.

              So yes, MORALITY is a creation of mankind. It comes from the mind of man. We thought it up. We tested it. WE discarded those that did not fit and kept others. We continue to search for the right combination.

              The aberrations of human behavior in history do not negate the use of logic or reason, or that it is MAN that decides what is moral and what is not. And they certainly do not represent any LOGIC that I can think of when it comes to morality or ethics.

              But then it depends on the metaphysics you choose in the beginning. Maybe GOD told them to behave badly as a message to the world. Seems to me that is just as plausible as trying to claim the Holocaust was “logical”.

              If this were not the case the entire field of philosophy would not exist. There would never had been a reason for it.

  42. Mathius:

    I “self exiled” myself when Gman altered one of my comments. Yes, it was an evil, nasty, response to his usual insanity, but I’d even asked not to have to deal with him anymore (because it’s too frustrating having to deal with a lunatic). I was having some decent back and forths with JAC at the time and I thought, enough of this (you’re going to alter what I type, no matter what I type, that’s it).

    So here we are, round two of the “shoot first, ask questions later” law (a.k.a., Stand Your Ground): http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/after-trayvon-will-there-be-justice-for-floridas-other-stand-your-ground-victim-20130717

    That’s for yous to go back and forth on. I have no intention of engaging, although I do think Malcom X’s words put into action in Florida just might make those white lawmakers rethink that crazy ass law they have. Even Bill O’Reilly seemed disturbed at the thought of armed black men …

    Check out what the creator of The Wire, Treme, etc., had to say about it (the Zimmerman verdict): http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2013/07/snhu-mfa-graduate-joelyn-drennan-stand.html

    And in case you missed, Matt, my graduation speech back in June this year … I start yapping at about 4:00 minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66-T2P2MBzo

    It’s good your back here, Matt, this place is dead with the sanity of the left … even your left 🙂

    • Charlie, re-read Malcolm. Acknowledge the change.

      Nice to have you drop in.

    • Missed us already?

        • Mathius says:

          Reposting for you, Charlie, in case you missed it:

          In the event of a murder, this is the likelihood of the killing being found “justifiable” relative to a white-on-white murder. So a black-on-black murder is approximately 25% less likely to be ruled “self defense” than a white-on-white murder.

          Note that, for some inexplicable reason, you’re (… doing some math … ) ~8.75 times more likely to be able to use “self defense” under Stand Your Ground if you are white and kill a black man than if you are black and kill a white man. I’m sure that’s just coincidental though, because the Supreme Court tells us that racism is over.

        • Your right, Florida is an awful place. Maybe you should join the other race baiters in boycotting the state. PLEEEEEEASE boycott Florida.

          I mean really, you think linking to a isolated story makes for a pattern? Should I link in return the dozens of murders of young black men by other black men? or the stories of whites killed by blacks? Would you even care if it was a Hispanic kid shot by another Hispanic or even a black kid?

          Do you only care when you can assign a color to the victim that is different from the perp? or would you like to join me in thinking that EVERY murder is a travesty that demonstrates the decline in the morals of America.

          Glad to have you back charlie, hope you stick around for awhile before you next temper tantrum and you storm off in a huff, rather unbecoming of a gentleman of your advance years.

          • EVERY murder is a travesty

            Agreed.

            that demonstrates the decline in the morals of America.

            Nonsense. Morality in this country have been on the general upswing since its inception. Ending slavery, ending segregation, universal suffrage, women’s lib, now gay rights… who knows what’s next?

            And meanwhile, murder has always been and will always be a moral evil in society. We’re human – we like killing each other. That’s not going to change any time soon.

            charlie, hope you stick around for awhile before you next temper tantrum and you storm off in a huff, rather unbecoming of a gentleman of your advance years.

            ::throws penalty flag::

            5 minutes in the box for rudeness!

            Be nice – now hug and make up.

            • Seems to me the temper tantrum comes from the guy who alters a post and/or blocks one … me, I’m just your average shit stirrer … well, maybe not average …

              And if Matt doesn’t know it yet, brother, it won’t be long before the religious flag FLP wraps himself in will wear you down … he’s got the Bible to back him up …

              oy vey

              • Charlie, you be nice too or I’ll put you in the penalty box with him.

                —-

                I can hold my own on religious arguments. Don’t you worry about me.

    • Mathius says:

      What do you mean “your left”??

      Huh? Huh?

      I’m the REAL left.. you’re just the lunatic fringe 😉

      Anyway, no interest in getting back into Trayvon.. suffice it to say, my views do not line up with the neat little narrative in the media (this was after a great deal of research – I started out ready to fry Z-man). Anyway, I think Anita put it best: https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/q71/1004611_663282293700991_1411599185_n.jpg

      Sorry you’re staying out.. I could really use the backup in this asylum..

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I’m enjoying reading your posts Mathius?, keep it up. At least you can debate without the personal attacks and name calling. Bravo. 🙂

        • Mathius says:

          Oh yea, and you’re a doo-doo-head! 😉

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Stand you ground laws are an example of govt trying to legislate natural right to self defense. Good law for some (elderly). Bad law otherwise. Tray on Martin was a punk thug who got what he deserved. Want to stop theses sad deaths? Teach kids to keep their damn hands to themselves. Martin initiated violence and paid a high price. It is a shame in so many ways”

          • Tray on [sic] Martin was a punk thug who got what he deserved.

            You don’t know that.

            Just like Charlie has no evidence to suggest that Z murdered T, you have no evidence to suggest that T “got what he deserved.”

            Frankly, I find this extremely noxious.. he was 17 years old. Who wasn’t an idiot at 17? No 17 year old deserves to be killed. He might have been a “punk thug” or he may not have been. I’ve never met anyone who was so one-dimensional that they were just a complete thug with no redeeming qualities. Trayvon was a human being and human beings are complex with both good and bad. His friends seemed to care about him. His family loved him. There was undoubtably at least some good to him.

            But, regardless, he was still just a kid. He wasn’t a man, he hadn’t fully matured. I really think this is both unkind and unfair of you. He was a kid. And maybe he made some mistakes, or maybe he didn’t – we don’t know – but he sure as hell didn’t “deserve” to be killed.

            • Nicely said (a lot nicer than I’d put it) …

              I was using a SUFA spark of the week on my blog to poke fun at such insane statements “will the barbarians riot?” … “he got what he deserved”, etc. … but I stopped this week (after just 2 weeks) because it really is giving too much air to racism at its worst (the cowardly kind that hinds behind keyboards) … so it goes.

              • I remember someone named Goldie used to post her (in all caps).. and USW banned her after she called Obama a Kenyan Zebra.

                I think gman – who used to work in corrections, if I recall correctly – has a strong view on “punks and thugs,” but I suspect you’d find so such opinion on people just based on their race.

                I don’t think you have grounds to call anyone here a racist.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Kids kill too Mathius. I mostly believe Zimmerman was attacked, time to shoot. The didn’t have to die, he could have gone home, instead, he acted like a barbarian, the evidence completely supports that story.

              As I said, peopl need to keep their hands to themselves and this won’t happen. Age is irrelevant. Oh, mix skittles with the iced tea he was carrying with some cough syrup and you get what’s called “lean”. Damn those innocent kids with their skittles , they can do no wrong, can they?

              • Kids kill too Mathius.

                Agreed. But kids are still kids. And kids do not have the critical reasoning skills and maturity to “deserve” death for their actions. Kids are idiots. If it helps you, think of kids the same way you might think of a mentally handicapped individual – if a mentally retarded man kills someone, is he really deserving of death?

                I would suggest that death is (probably) never due to anyone ever under any circumstance. But if it is ever due, it is only in a malicious, pre-meditated, deliberate killing.

                I mostly believe Zimmerman was attacked,

                I do too.

                time to shoot.

                Maybe. If so, it’s a lousy situation. Not necessarily something the kid “deserved,” but something the kid had rendered unavoidable.

                The didn’t have to die, he could have gone home, instead, he acted like a barbarian, the evidence completely supports that story.

                I agree. This is my personal take. Me – personally – but that’s a far cry from saying that a kid deserved what he got.. he wasn’t old enough, mature enough, to make a decision like that to deserve to die.

                What if he was 12 and jumped Z, who then shot him? Maybe it’s not Z’s fault, per say, but did the 12 year old “deserve to die”?

                What if he was 8? Can an eight year old “deserve” something like that? 5? If a five year old has a temper tantrum and attacks a man (assume the man is infirm).. maybe the man shoots the kid.. and maybe – just maybe – it’s legitimate self defense. And the kid dies. But would you still be saying that he “deserved what he got”?

                A kid can’t “deserve” death because a kid is not mature and thoughtful enough to render a decision equivalent to the value and importance of his life.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                It all depends on circumstance, that is true. I don’t have worry about younger kids, but I know too many victims of young punks who deserved a bullet for their actions. I do speak from some experience.

                You are right, not a racist at all. I judge people by their character and actions. I’d shoot a pasty white thug just a quick as any other thug. Yes you would be welcome in my home!

      • The problem with the Trayvon trial (not the absurd 2nd degree charge—that was the media) … is the FACT we have to take the shooter’s word for it (no witnesses at the time he shot the kid). Did he have to shoot to kill? Did he really believe his life was in danger? To agree, one has to ASSUME he was telling the truth.

        Now, anybody would embellish their story after killing someone, never mind a kid. He said, “You’re gonna die tonight, motherfucker.” … He slammed my head against the concrete (even though there’s two tiny scratches on my head … he hit me in the fact 25-30 x’s (really? The kid had a scratch on the ring finger of his weaker hand) … etc., etc., … he was proven to have lied several times (including on Hannity about SYG) … yet the jury took the law and applied GZ’s version of what happened.

        The point being, it’s open season on anybody now in FL (but especially if you’re African-American) … see Jordan Davis case …

        Trayvon may well have been a punk (and he may not have been) … big deal … he was 17 … the shooter was 28 and 50 pounds heavier … was he really going to die if he waited for the cops he’d already called (which turned out to be another couple of minutes)? You loose a fight and have the right to kill? You stalk someone and wind up in a fight (and nobody knows how it started) and you get to kill someone? How about maybe he punched himself in the nose immediately after killing the kid? Nobody saw the blood on his face until it was over. And Lord knows how the blood from GZ’s nose never appeard on TM’s hands (even though the was allegedly suffocating him) … I’m just saying …

        • Mathius says:

          we have to take the shooter’s word for it

          I don’t know that I agree with you on this..

          The point of the US legal system is that you’re innocent until proven guilty.

          The burden of PROOF that the shooter is lying is – and should be – on the state.

          If the shooter says “I was defending myself,” he shouldn’t have to prove that. The state should have to prove that he wasn’t defending himself.

          Otherwise, we have a legal system which presumes guilt.

          • He was caught in lies …several lies … but the jury found his version to be the truth … i.e., his was the only story to tell … that’s a scary scenario … and one lunatics (i.e., the Jordan Davis case) obviously feel they can depend on) …

            • but the jury found his version to be the truth

              No.

              The jury found that they couldn’t disprove his version of the truth.

              Therefore, with a reasonable doubt, he was NOT GUILTY.

              “Not guilty” should not be confused with “innocent.”

              • “Not guilty” should not be confused with “innocent.”

                Fair enough as regards the verdict (even if I disagree with it) … the point is the law … not GZ or TM … it’s an absurd law … it guarantees these kinds of disputes turning disastrous (again, see Jordan Davis killing) … I don’t like how loud you’re playing your “thug” music … and let’s face it, a few African-American teenagers in an SUV in FL is thug city … so I get into it with you verbally and when I think you’re reaching for something (my version of fearing for my life) bada-boom, bada-bing … another dead African-American teenager … great law …

                Not to worry, FLP … I’ve been to that shit state a dozen or so times … no interest in returning … talk about slave wages and racist legislation … you can have it, my heavenly brother …

              • [with all due sarcasm] great law

                Stand Your Ground is a terrible law. It states that you do not have any obligation to retreat or attempt retreat in order to utilize lethal force in self-defense.

                Stand Your Ground was NOT utilized in the Zimmerman trial. His defense was not “I could have avoided the fight, but chose not to, and defended myself instead, killing him.” His defense was “he jumped me, beat me, and I killed him in the fight.” According to Zimmerman (who every well would be lying his ass off), there was not even the opportunity to retreat, thus Stand Your Ground did not apply.

                I think Stand Your Ground should be repealed. I think it’s atrocious to suggest that “not retreating” is more important than “not killing someone.” But that’s just me.. I value human life over some vague notion of a wild-west independent gunslinger cowboy action-hero fantasy land.

                it guarantees these kinds of disputes turning disastrous (again, see Jordan Davis killing)

                Again, I’m not sure this is a great example as I am not completely familiar with the case the way I am with Z and T. However, I agree with your point. Stand Your Ground is a recipe for conflict escalation.

                Not to worry, FLP … I’ve been to that shit state a dozen or so times

                ::YELLOW CARD::

                FLP: I, too, may think your state is (at times), bat-shit crazy and backward, but boy do you have some nice beaches and some gorgeous young ladies (almost as nice as ours). Plus your weather is great (except for the occasional hurricane). I’m from CA, myself, and FL is like our screw-up little brother.. we may want to slap you upside the head to knock some sense into you from time to time (*cough* hanging chads *cough*), but we still love you.

                Texas though.. well Texas can go f*** itself! 😉

        • Mathius says:

          yet the jury took the law and applied GZ’s version of what happened.

          I really didn’t want to get into this.. but hell, here it is..

          Before I say this, please note that I started out with your (almost exact) opinion(s).

          Here’s what’s missing from your analysis. On the police recording with Zimmerman, he gets out, follows the kid, reports the kid running, et cetera. But then – then – he reports that he lost him.

          Get that? Z was a (possibly racist) almost certainly overzealous cop-wannabe cowboy. All true. He (almost certainly) scared the crap out of an otherwise innocent teenage boy. Also true.

          But then the kid got away!

          He escaped. He was free and he was safe.

          Zimmerman – at the time, not afterward – states that the kid got away and agrees to meet up with police later to give a statement.

          This is hugely important. Because the question is now: how did they wind up in a fight?

          If Trayvon got away, then why were they in a fight? How did that happen unless he came back to fight.

          There are a lot of maybes here, and plenty of ways to still make it Z’s fault.

          But what there isn’t is anything close to the evidence I need to believe that Z started the physical altercation. I find tons of room to believe that T, WHO GOT AWAY, made the choice to confront Z. And that wouldn’t have been in his own self-defense because the confrontation was a choice.

          Now this could be wrong. There are a lot of missing facts and we just don’t know exactly what happened. But I’m a long way from convinced that Z wasn’t defending himself.

          So you said: “the jury took the law and applied GZ’s version of what happened” and I say that’s not quite right.. what the jury did was find that the state lacked sufficient evidence to prove that Z’s version was NOT true. Perhaps that’s a subtle distinction, but remember, it’s the core of our legal system that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the accused.

          • There are a lot of maybes here, and plenty of ways to still make it Z’s fault.

            But what there isn’t is anything close to the evidence I need to believe that Z started the physical altercation. I find tons of room to believe that T, WHO GOT AWAY, made the choice to confront Z. And that wouldn’t have been in his own self-defense because the confrontation was a choice.

            Fair enough … my point is the state of mind of the shooter at the time he shot (fearing for his life—he told several lies about the severity of the “beating”) …

            Now this could be wrong. There are a lot of missing facts and we just don’t know exactly what happened. But I’m a long way from convinced that Z wasn’t defending himself.

            Defending oneself does NOT require killing someone … especially in a situation where you already know the police are on the way AND someone has already confronted both of you (Witness Goode) …

            So you said: “the jury took the law and applied GZ’s version of what happened” and I say that’s not quite right.. what the jury did was find that the state lacked sufficient evidence to prove that Z’s version was NOT true. Perhaps that’s a subtle distinction, but remember, it’s the core of our legal system that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the accused.

            At first it was a 3-3 (2 manslaughter and 1 2nd degree) … I think the final verdict has more to do with those who weren’t going to back down (3 acquittals) and “I wanna go home already” … but either way, the LAW is the problem … and GZ certainly KNEW the law well (A in the class) after telling Hannity he didn’t know the SYG law (another lie that would lead ME to not believe HIS version of events).

            • i.e. (me not to believe his version of events) … I’m there it’s screw the law … he’s guilty of manslaughter .. he didn’t need to kill anyone … (My opinion).

              • I don’t even see manslaughter.

                Honestly, I can’t even see a conviction for reckless endangerment.

                I still think he made some bad judgments and bears ultimate moral responsibility.. but legally.. nothing. Sorry.

            • he told several lies about the severity of the “beating”)

              Lying is not a crime.

              He did not testify in court.

              Defending oneself does NOT require killing someone

              Depends on the situation.. if what he said was true and he was getting his head banged against the concrete, yea, I would shoot center mass, too if I’m worried about being killed. Sometimes, it’s a harsh world and self-defense does require killing someone.

              I can’t speculate if that was the case here or not. There’s a lot of noise, very few facts, and the only witness has an incentive to lie.

              … especially in a situation where you already know the police are on the way

              Nonsense.

              When you’re getting beat up, you’re just going to keep taking it because, hey, the cops are on their way? Right.

              The cops were on their way for a non-emergency follow-up statement to a possibly sketchy individual in a neighborhood where they were already notoriously slow to respond. Yea.. the cops’ll be here any hour now, no reason to fight back..

              Again, this assumes that Z’s narrative is accurate – it may not be. At the very least, I suspect it is strongly colored. But that’s irrelevant. Because I don’t have the facts to say he’s wrong. It very well might have occurred exactly as he says.

              the LAW is the problem

              WHAT law? Stand Your Ground was never invoked in the trail.

              It’s a shit-law, don’t get me wrong, but it is not to blame for the fact that Z was not convicted.

              It is possible – I would personally suggest probable – that Stand Your Ground played a strong roll in the lead-up to the events which lead to T’s death. But I have nothing resembling evidence to support that.. just my gut. And that’s not good enough, now is it.

              Still, I agree, Stand Your Ground should be repealed.

              • Lying goes a long-ass way to whether I believe you killed someone in self-defense or not, no? I mean his word is the only word and he’s proven a liar on several counts … why the hell would I believe he was hit 25-30X’s in the face, etc., etc., etc. … oy vey. It was part of the jury charge … it was what they had in the jury room as part of Self-defense … it’s FL law now … he didn’t use the hearing, but it was still part of the trial/charge to the jury. ugh (you’re giving me a BF headach on SYG) …

              • Lying goes a long-ass way to whether I believe you killed someone in self-defense or not, no?

                I’ve told a lot of lies in my time. And if I was fighting for my life and my reputation on national media, I might tell a lot more.

                why the hell would I believe he was hit 25-30X’s in the face, etc., etc., etc. … oy vey. It was part of the jury charge

                The jury didn’t have to believe him. He didn’t testify.

                (you’re giving me a BF headach on SYG) …

                I don’t understand why this is giving you a headache. I think SYG is a shit law and should be repealed. It leads to an escalation of violence. I’ve said this four or five times.

                I just don’t think Zimmerman is relevant to SYG because it was never invoked as his defense or justification. The only way it factors in is pure speculation.

  43. Hey, JAC,

    You’re a moderator, right? Just out of curiosity, are there any back-end metrics such as “number comments posted” or such? I’d be highly amused to know how many comments I’ve posted here over the years (and where I rank with the rest of you).

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      I could not find a way to get stats on ALL TIME comments. I did a search of comments with your name and got 14,716. But that includes comments by others where your name was used in the comment block. Most of those would be responses to you but some of them simply referenced you in the discussion.

      There is data on “The most recent 1000 comments”. Here is the summary.

      Gman 199
      Charlie 134
      Mathius 122
      D13 116
      JAC 109
      SK 72
      FLP 51

      This would represent the comments made sometime after your withdrawing from conversation. Before the election. But I didn’t scan them all to find the earliest date.

      There have been a total of 152,511 comments made on SUFA.

  44. @ Mathius (I’m ignoring the lunatic and his rants (although I am curious why he isn’t calling the African-American community “barbarians” today), just so he understands, I’m not engaging) …

    “Stand Your Ground was NOT utilized in the Zimmerman trial.”

    Red flag!!!!

    It’s a hearing pre-trial and it wasn’t utilized … but … and it’s a big but (like mine) … it was part of the jury charge … it has to be in FL (land of opportunity for racists and blood lusters) … it’s part of the Self defense law.

    • Be that as it may, Zimmerman’s defense never claimed he was standing his ground. It claimed he was jumped and wound up shooting in the middle of a (losing) fight.

      True or not, SYG is completely irrelevant. And, as a jury instruction, might as well have been about jaywalking law.

  45. @ Matt: I’ve told a lot of lies in my time. And if I was fighting for my life and my reputation on national media, I might tell a lot more.

    I pointed that out earlier … OF COURSE you’d embellish/lie … anyone would … so? You still have to believe his version of the story to find he acted in self defense.

    Headache: it’s part of the jury charge!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! x 1,000 🙂

    • Before you tell me what the prosecution has to prove again … that’s the issue … there’s only 1 version of the story being told … and it’s full of lies (enough to not believe it).

    • there’s only 1 version of the story being told … and it’s full of lies (enough to not believe it).

      There were two versions of the story being told. The defense and the prosecution.

      The jury found that they couldn’t fully discredit either. Thus, not guilty. Maybe it was full of lies or maybe not.. but the jury obviously didn’t agree with you that it was beyond a reasonable doubt to discredit.

      Headache: it’s part of the jury charge!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! x 1,000 🙂

      Maybe I’m not understanding.. why is this so relevant?

  46. @ Matthius … ah, corrections! Home of the truly cowardly … sorry, Matt, but i’m not interested in what you think I’m entitled to call someone. I think the guy is an out and out racist … I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

    Then again, he can always change what I type in here and make me look like one, right? And I wouldn’t doubt he’d do it for a second.

    • Don’t make me give you another yellow card..

      I see a lot of Islmophobia on here that borders, in my mind, on outright racism (although, technically, it’s religion-ism, since it’s not about the race specifically). I think, if you wanted to make that case, you would find me far more willing to nod along..

      But you’re accusing gman of racism, presumably against black people, and I just don’t see support for that.

      Carl Sagan said it best:

      Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

      You do not have sufficient evidence.

      If I were black instead of pasty, pasty white, I have zero doubt that gman would welcome me into his home with open arms, introduce me to his family, and argue viciously with me for hours over many beers. And I have zero doubt that he would feel the need to lock up his jewelry first or arm himself (unless that’s his standard mo – it probably is).

      He’s not biased against a race (black people) – he’s biased against punks and thugs (and perceived thugs and punks). There’s a clean-cut black kid in my office who wears really preppy clothes (polos and such) – I guarantee you that gman wouldn’t give him a second look if he was out on his neighborhood patrol, but that a white kid in a doo-rag and tats would get himself followed around for a while.

      • He’s not biased against a race (black people) – he’s biased against punks and thugs (and perceived thugs and punks).

        It’s his assumption (like TM) that AA kids in hoodies, etc., are thugs … what you describe in your office he might see as “one of the good ones” … that isn’t a case for non-racist (to my mind) … sorry, Matt … I think there’s more than enough evidence (but I don’t intend to search for it — and it’s here alright)

        • It’s his assumption (like TM) that AA kids in hoodies, etc., are thugs

          Right.. all kids in hoodies…

          Sure.. probably accurate.

          But he thinks ALL kids in hooides, black or white, are thugs and punks. This doesn’t make him racist – it makes him the crotchety old man from the movie Up or Network (come to think of it, they might be the same character).

          I’d shoot a pasty white thug just a quick as any other thug. – G-Man

          • AA = African American …

            Changes things.

            Yes, lots of correction people “would shoot” pretty much anything … and probably from watching too many jason straithern movies … or Rambo … or Lethal Weapon a few dozen too many times … or maybe because they aren’t cops … beats me who the hell would want to be in corrections … except my dealings with corrections (albeit limited to the Toombs in NY) reminds me of how macho CO’s talked from behind their bars … about the cops who didn’t frisk those arrested well enough/those who were arrested (me), etc. … lots of talk … tons of it … and when one was caught with a slap through the bars from one of us, he need six of his best buddies to do the dirty work …

            I’ll be they’d shoot any other thug … like I said, from the safety of their keyboard at home (probably in the cellar) …

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Why is it that dislike or concern for what appears to be the violent nature of Islam is called “Islamophobia”???

        “Phobias” are psychological disorders that have no rational basis. They are PSYCHOLOGICIALLY induced FEAR.

        Lack of evidence, error in thinking, etc should not be called a “PHOBIA”.

        The fact that this term was quickly constructed to attack ANY critics of the religion makes me suspicious of their motives. Perhaps they are what some suspect them to be.

        • There are 1.6 billion of them.

          If they were what “some” think them to be, we’d all be dead by now.

          • Nah, you gotta be able to organize and, you have to look at the larger picture rather than focus on getting “even” with the guy in the next village for poisoning your sheep. That’s where T.E. Lawrence’s observations on the Arab revolt come in. They miss the “larger” picture. God help us if they ever produce another Saladin.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            That still doesn’t address my point.

            What “some” think them to be is based largely on reaction to perceived evidence. That is NOT a PHOBIA.

            Bad judgment if you like, and as you have tried to argue here.

            By the way, what many of the 1.6 billion do with respect to their actions is not relevant to the question of whether there is in fact an inherent violence that is within the religion itself.

            Your argument is that the Quran does not support this view. But the ACTIONS of those who invented the religion and those that immediately followed seem to contradict your argument. And the argument of the Islamic Scholars I’ve read on the “internet”. The Saudi Arabian official site was a sick joke. Going on about how some have misapplied Islam to justify all kinds of violence, etc….. in a Country that condones this “misinterpretation”.

            And as I have said before, I do think the difference between the violent perception and that which you hold lies in the difference between the ARAB and other Middle Eastern cultures and those found elsewhere.

            But you must also recognize how ISLAM is used by the militants in SE Asia as a justification for their violence as well.

            When large numbers of people can march to war BASED on their religion alone, then something seems wrong in the religion. You say the Quran does not justify this. Yet they say it does. YOU = Pasty White Jew California Liberal migrated to NY.; THEM = ?? born and raised under the MUSLIM religion for generations.

            I do want to commend you on your arguments on this topic. They have been well researched and stated eloquently. I understand your view and defense. I simply disagree with your conclusion relative to the bigger picture. It may very well be that Islam is essentially the same as Judaism and Christianity and it does not call for “Holy War” against all infidels.

            However, we must deal with the reality that there is a VERY LARGE number of Muslims who do not share your view. They are NOT reacting only to our presence on their land. They are in fact desiring a Holy War to spread Islam around the world. They have resources and motivation. Because of the history of this religion being used to rationalize conquest and violence it is more easily subverted for this purpose today.

            There is something wrong with story. Something deeply wrong. I agree we should not just “condemn” Islam as a “violent religion” if it is not justified. If this is true, then we need to discover what is REALLY the flaw and engage Muslims in getting it corrected.

            Of important note, Muhammad began his “enlightenment” at the age of 40 (approx.). It took him many years to have all the verses “revealed” to him. He died at about 62. He spent the last 10 to 12 years of his life waging WAR against his “enemies”. These enemies did not agree with HIS NEW RELIGION.

            Islam is based on the Quran and the Sunnah of Muhammad. The Sunnah is the collection of the sayings and actions by Muhammad himself. Perhaps that fact he spent half of his life AFTER his revelation fighting a “religious war” had something to do with the quick turn towards conquest for Islam following his death.

            • When large numbers of people can march to war BASED on their religion alone, then something seems wrong in the religion. You say the Quran does not justify this. Yet they say it does. YOU = Pasty White Jew California Liberal migrated to NY.; THEM = ?? born and raised under the MUSLIM religion for generations.

              Oh, come on, JAC … (and you too Stephen) … what happened to history (Stephen) … why are you not looking at why Muslims in Southeast Asia might have a hardon for the U.S.?

              THEM = ?? born and raised under the MUSLIM religion for generations.

              And many of THEM have lived with U.S. interests destroying their own culture for generations (not to mention bombing them back to the stone age at times) … unfair assessment, JAC.

              There are nuts in all stripes … and flying flags under various causes … no matter what the religious fervor there HAS TO BE something else creating fertile grounds for a war mindset … we (the U.S.) are pretty damn good at it … add our fuel to their interleague (if you will) beefs and you have one hell of a shit storm of religious zealotry … but no less, I might add, than some in the tea party here … oh, so anxious to call this lame-ass president a coward and apologizer after he’s proven to be an equally competent killer of innocents (drones, wars that never end, etc.) … it’s all nonsense. Some people are nuts (BF, Gman) … some are less nuts (Moi, according to Matt, but he’s only a half-lefty) … and some are reasonable enough not to group an entire culture/religion/race, whatever into some nasty ass generalization (i.e., barbarians) …

              • Mathius says:

                Moi, according to Matt, but he’s only a half-lefty

                Ok, that’s it! You’re out of here!

                ::RED CARD!::

                😉

              • History is a mixed bag. I was reading a piece the other day about Vietnam, the author seemed to think that not acting at all and acting the way the US did were the only options available. Regardless of which side you came down on in that war there were a great many options not explored.

                The US missed all the signals on Vietnam to begin with. Perhaps there could have been a better outcome without US involvement other than political. On the other hand the US fought the war incrementally. Rather than go all out, it was decided to gradually escalate and put the pressure on until the North Vietnamese cried uncle. When boiling frogs, the incremental increase in heat may beat the hell out of dropping them in scalding hot water. In fighting a war, the opposite is true. It must be painful. Painful up front actually saves lives in the long run. Had the Christmas bombing by Nixon been done by Johnson six years earlier, how many North, South and US serviceman’s lives could have been saved? The bombings demonstrated that there actually was a point where they would yell uncle.

                Looking at Southwest Asia, they hated us before we came, they hate us now and they will hate us when we leave. If we never showed up they would have hated us anyway.You Charlie, would agree that Hitler used the Jews as a bogeyman to stir up the Germans, that the rich white plantation owners used the “negro” threat to stir up the poor whites. The Mullah’s use the west for the same purpose.

                We have a secular culture whether you like it or not. They don’t. UBL’s personal Mullah was interviewed a few years ago and said that the US was once a Christian Nation, now it was a pagan nation. This is from a man who was educated and spent many years here in Virginia.There is a depth to their belief system that we can only wonder at and there is no Pope, no Emperor like Hirohito who can call it off. It is one hell of a problem.

            • Mathius says:

              What “some” think them to be is based largely on reaction to perceived evidence. That is NOT a PHOBIA.

              That is exactly what a phobia is.

              If you are bitten by a dog, and you perceive all dogs to be a threat, you have a phobia of dogs. (Cynophobia, in case you were wondering).

              If you are attacked by (a small sub-set) of Muslims and you perceive all Muslims to be a threat, you have a phobia of Muslims.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                If I watch dogs closely because I now know they have a tendency to bight that is a RATIONAL view. Not an irrational fear with no basis in any fact.

                It is not a psychological condition.

                If I am attacked by Muslims and upon study of Muslim history I find a long line of violence then YES, I will perceive them as a “potential” threat. I do not have a phobia.

                With more evidence and interaction my “suspicions” will be refined and honed to focus more specifically on the threats.

                A phobia would mean that in the face of any and all evidence I have a deep seated FEAR of ALL MUSLIMS.

                The phrase should not be applied to people who have concerns about this religion.

            • Mathius says:

              But you must also recognize how ISLAM is used by the militants in SE Asia as a justification for their violence as well.

              I do recognize this..

              It is the exact same way that Christianity was used by militants in Europe as a justification for violence as well.

            • Mathius says:

              However, we must deal with the reality that there is a VERY LARGE number of Muslims who do not share your view. They are NOT reacting only to our presence on their land. They are in fact desiring a Holy War to spread Islam around the world.

              This is true.

              But a “very large number of Muslims,” say 10 million (completely made up number) is still a small percent of the total number of Muslims. ~0.625%.

              You cannot assume that this 0.625% is indicative of the entire religion nor all it’s other 99.375% practitioners.

              But even if it’s 100mm, they still only represent 6.25% of the total Muslim population. That’s a small sub-set by which to judge the whole, no?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                Here is an error in your argument. One similar to what BF used to make, since you’ve been channeling BF of late.

                “You cannot assume that this 0.625% is indicative of the entire religion nor all it’s other 99.375% practitioners.” This is NOT my conclusion.

                It is that the RELIGION as established and practiced from the beginning makes it easy for that small percentage of 10 million to rationalize violence in the name of Islam. It is the weaknesses in the Religion itself that allow them to impose their will on others and the others don’t fight back.

                Now with that said, I think we have reached agreement on a general part.

                Those who wish to rule over others can find their justification and/or rationalization anywhere they want.

                I am simply saying that Islam, as developed and practiced for centuries, is easier to use in this regard. It has not evolved as a RELIGION of peace like Christianity and Judaism. And lets not forget the Hindus and Buddhists.

                I do think it will evolve, however, and its spread to non middle eastern cultures will be the cause.

              • Mathius says:

                since you’ve been channeling BF of late.

                I can’t be the arch-liberal AND the arch-libertarian.. that’s just crazy talk.

                I am simply saying that Islam, as developed and practiced for centuries, is easier to use in this regard. It has not evolved as a RELIGION of peace like Christianity and Judaism.

                Nonsense.. but let’s move on.. we’re not getting anywhere with this.

            • Mathius says:

              Perhaps that fact he spent half of his life AFTER his revelation fighting a “religious war” had something to do with the quick turn towards conquest for Islam following his death.

              There is some debate in Muslim circles about the relative import of the Sunnah. While it is, I believe, considered holy by all Muslims, some place more and some less value on it relative to the Koran. (this is much like a Jew might prioritize the Talmud more or less, or a Christian might prioritize the Old Testament more or less).

              So, yes, you might have a point here.. I honestly haven’t read this. So I can’t speak (the Koran was enough for me, thank you very much).

              ::adds Sunnah to to-read list right behind Book of Mormon::

              ——-

              That said, I would suggest that it’s really up to the person/society to get out of Islam what they want to get out of Islam. There’s plenty of love-thy-neighbor stuff (including the entirety of the New Testament), and there’s plenty of violence as well. If a person is so inclined, they can find (some) support for doing evil, or they can find support for good.

              Just like the Bible.
              Just like the Torah.
              Just like the US Constitution.

  47. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    You stated your dislike of the FL Stand Your Ground law. Your opposition doesn’t seem consistent with your arguments in Z’s case. The SYG law does not allow someone to just attack anyone. It simply says you cannot be charged with murder if someone attacks you and you did not first try to run away.

    You have a right to be where you are……….the law requires that.

    Your are assaulted………… the law requires that.

    You kill because you fear for you life…………… the law requires that. Which of course is the real test in the defense against a murder charge.

    Let me play a scenario of why the stand your ground provision is correct.

    I am assaulted while on a walk. That is a “pasty white guy in a hoodie” has pushed me against a wall, pulls a knife and demands my wallet. I say no thank you. He comes towards me again, reaching in his hoodie pocket for what looks like a gun.

    I turn and run. He shoots me in the back and takes my wallet.

    Without SYG this was what was required of me to avoid prosecution and being found guilty if instead I had pulled a gun and shot the SOB.

    I don’t think these laws have created some “wild west” situation on our streets. The couple of cases where it was improperly invoked as a defense have been overturned by jury.

    Does it pose a risk of abuse? Yes, as do all laws which carve out exceptions. But in the is case the majority of cases appear to have created exceptions to the innocent being killed when they could have defended themselves.

    Sorry, got off on a tangent there for a minute. Here is the actual Florida Law. My focus here is to have you explain what needs to be changed in the law. How can it be improved to address your concerns but still allow self defense.

    Note that the law mentions responding to force with force.

    http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

    BUCK ………. your chance to get into the fray as well.

    • “Without SYG this was what was required of me to avoid prosecution and being found guilty if instead I had pulled a gun and shot the SOB.”

      That is blatantly untrue. Enough said.

    • Mathius says:

      I turn and run. He shoots me in the back and takes my wallet.

      This is where your scenario lost it.

      The obligation to retreat is an obligation to retreat IF SAFELY ABLE TO DO SO.

      In this case, because he had a gun, running away is not a viable option, generally speaking.

    • How about equal force, JAC … a guy with a knife or a gun is one thing. A guy smacks you upside the head, punches you in the face … calls you names … doesn’t like it that you’re playing music too loud?

      GZ over-reacted (in my book) … but this lunatic who killed Jordan Davis … that’s what SYG is creating.

      But in the is case the majority of cases appear to have created exceptions to the innocent being killed when they could have defended themselves.

      Check your stats, my friend. The stats thus far are proving it’s a plague for African-Americans … at least more so than whites (victims vs. likelihood of getting off on SYG) … especially in FLA.

      • Mathius says:

        How about equal force, JAC

        This is not reasonable.. you have to respond with the force available and to the point that you feel safe. You have to have been in fights.. you do what you need to do to win. You can’t stop and evaluate.. well he punched me, so now I’m allowed to punch.

        The stats thus far are proving it’s a plague for African-Americans … at least more so than whites

        This is true.

        • This is not reasonable.. you have to respond with the force available and to the point that you feel safe. You have to have been in fights.. you do what you need to do to win. You can’t stop and evaluate.. well he punched me, so now I’m allowed to punch.

          That’s oversimplifying it, Matt … a gun vs. a punch … 2 punches … 25-30 punches? 2 punches, no way. 3 pucnhes no way … 25-30, sure … but you better be able to show at least 15-20 of those punches landed.

          The problem, of course, is if there are no witnesses, I can say he hit me 2,000 x’s and told me “you’re gonna die tonight, MF’er” … etc.

          It is an absurd law for the simple fact there already was/is a self defense law on the books. This begs more violence than is necessary, whether in one-on-one situations or in general (the mindset is in place: I have a gun, I can kill the SOB). And then when everyone learns the SOB wasn’t armed (Jordan Davis) … well, my guess is the guy who shot him will go away (if for no other reason, than from fear of what Gman calls “the barbarians rioting”) … but the fact he had it in his mind to shoot first is why so many more of these cases will occur over time. It’s an absolutely absurd law …

        • Your stats are meaningless unless they are corrected for the ratio of overall crime rates of race A vs race B.

          • Oy vey … yet each study/stat from Florida supports the argument that getting off on SYG / vs. getting killed because of it … says it’s better to be a pasty white guy than an African American … go figure …

        • Just A Citizen says:

          I don’t accept your conclusions regarding Stats proving anything.

          Without the situation of each incident the stats are meaningless. Just like trying to build a case of discrimination on statistics alone. Correlation and variation do not mean causation.

      • Do police officers respond with equal force? Equal force gets you killed or seriously injured.

    • Mathius says:

      Here is the actual Florida Law. My focus here is to have you explain what needs to be changed in the law. How can it be improved to address your concerns but still allow self defense.

      3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat [if doing so so is not safely practicable and he or she is outside of his/her residence] and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

      There I fixed it..

      • 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        Actually I think you made it worse. Who decides now what was “reasonably practicable”?

        In my scenario you could say running was practicable, and then the guy shot me in the back.

        • Mathius says:

          I suppose that’s a question of fact for the jury to determine. Such is life.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            Which is already the case. So see, there is nothing wrong with the current wording.

            As I said on day one of this fiasco, any perceived problems in the law are really due to its use by local LE and/or prosecutors. That was the controversy in FL. The Politics overrode the local judgment of how the law applies. Maybe that was a good thing in the long run.

            Or maybe Z’s attorney’s should have used the court review. But if they had it would have just been more accusations of racism. So in the end his lawyers turned out to be very smart.

            A JURY found him innocent based on evidence and lack of PROOF by the State that he was guilty of any crime. His acquittal would have been the same in those states where self defense was legal before the SYG laws were written.

            As I explained to Charlie a couple weeks back, SYG laws were passed in response to courts finding victims guilty of harming criminals that were attacking them. Even in their own homes.

            Good example of how bad law promulgates a reaction that can be equally bad law.

            I am with the Colonel on his view the other day. Let SYG laws stand. Just eliminate the administrative review that allows people to get off without trial. If the State has doubts then prosecute and let a JURY OF PEERS decide.

            • Hold on a minute, JAC … A JURY found him innocent based on evidence and lack of PROOF by the State that he was guilty of any crime. His acquittal would have been the same in those states where self defense was legal before the SYG laws were written.

              With an all African American jury … or a 5-1 ratio? I’ll come out of retirement to book that bet, my brother. I’ll even give you 5:1 odds. The initial vote was 3-2-1 … the single minority juror declaring 2nd degree … boy, are you reading this verdict wrong.

            • Mathius says:

              A JURY found him innocent

              A jury did no such thing.

              A jury found him not guilty.

              Those are very different animals. Please stop using them interchangeably.

              Innocent means he did nothing wrong. Not guilty means they couldn’t prove that he did nothing wrong.

              Innocent means he was justified in killing Martin. Not guilty means the jury couldn’t be sure that he wasn’t (note the double-negative) justified.

              • The prosecution lost this case, no mattter how confused the jurors were about the law, when they allowed a 5:1 white to black ratio … end of story …

                What makes me say that? Because we’ve come so far in 70 years … oy vey …

  48. I thought that anyone committing a felony was responsible for all deaths associated with that felony. We call in felony murder. Does in not include the perpetrator? If TM was committing a felony assault, then his death is his responsibility.

    • Mathius says:

      I thought that anyone committing a felony was responsible for all deaths associated with that felony.

      Is that true? Makes (some) sense..

      Maybe a state-by-state case?

      If TM was committing a felony assault, then his death is his responsibility.

      If – IF – TM was committing felony assault, then his death is his responsibility. True.

      But he was still a kid. Just a kid.

      And even if it’s his fault and even if it’s his responsibility and even if GZ was just reacting and was completely innocent, TM still did not “deserve” to die. That doesn’t make GZ a murderer or, even, responsible.

      Even if it’s all his fault, he’s still just a kid.. he was too young, too immature, to be held to account for his actions at the cost of his life. Sad.

      • Too young, too immature, baloney. He may have been a demure quiet person with family and friends but he had picked up the smart ass, gangsta, with an attitude culture. He profiled GM no differently than GM profiled him. Had he found GMs gun first what would have been the result? There are multiple number of ways he could have handled the situation, first by just going home, next by being simple cordial. Instead he chose to be confrontational.

        • “Had he found GMs gun first what would have been the result? There are multiple number of ways he could have handled the situation, first by just going home, next by being simple cordial. Instead he chose to be confrontational.”

          And if that’s not a typical wingie response (the burden is on the AA “kid”) …. exactly what David Simon (The Wire, Treme, etc.) stated … you can SYG with a gun if you’re white, but try it with your fists as an AA, and you’re guilty of everything T-Ray accuses TM of … which is mostly being different from him. How white of you, T …

          Matt’s point, by the way, was that TM (any kid) didn’t “deserve” to die (whether he was guilty or not) … G has stated “he got what he deserve” (and you probably agree) but that’s why we call it your blood lust) … the colonel (and I respect him) wants to be able to kill someone for stealing his garden hose … JAC wanted to whack somebody for pushing him … I say you’re all blow hards … watching too many Death Wish reruns … it’s all just macho nonsense until some poor kids are killed by a lunatic who thinks he’s Wyatt fucking Erpp.

        • Mathius says:

          Instead he chose to be confrontational.

          Objection: calls for speculation.

          Judge Buck: Sustained!

  49. @JAC “It has not evolved as a RELIGION of peace like Christianity and Judaism. ”

    Do you have any idea how unpeaceful some Christians & Jewish sects are? I know you do … it’s all according to what you stated earlier, JAC … people who want to find a way to control, etc. … Islam “may” make it easier (from our perspective–I have ZERO idea as to that) … but it doesn’t change the fact there has to be outside factors contributing to the ground being fertile enough to engage so many followers in a single cause … and that can be anything …

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Charlie

      OK, please post the names of those “SECTS” you are referring to. Include the geographic land area where they control the religious “rules” and the number of people who follow them.

      The outside factors you claim exist are not always from the “outside”. I suggest you stop trying to blame the USA for every tribal or religious struggle in the world.

      I know you and Chomsky would like to believe our mere presence is enough justification but that is simply irrational. As is blaming things from over a hundred years ago. There are times when our actions are part of the complexity of the situation, but it is not always.

      The MUSLIM struggle in SE Asia is not related to us bombing anyone. That is not where the Muslim struggle for power is occurring.

      • “The MUSLIM struggle in SE Asia is not related to us bombing anyone. That is not where the Muslim struggle for power is occurring.”

        I’m not saying it is, JAC … what I was saying (trying to) was that SE Asia already has a long standing beef with us (and the French) … but I agree with Mr. Chomsky that the chickens are coming home to roost (You’re right about that–what I believe). You don’t get to shit on the world and erase it overnight. How long was Ireland (a substantial part of it) happy to be living under the crown? How many hundreds of years did that last?

        Our involvement in SE Asia merely made it easier for those seeking to indoctrinate others with radical Islam (that was the point). It isn’t JUST Islam (the religion) … there’s always something behind such a firestorm of hate. Kind of like how those in the colonies felt about the Brits, come to think of it.

  50. Instead of arguing about this BS case that was never about race but made so by the race baiters, that should never had made the national news, why don’t we go back to a topic of more importance. We have a national debt problem, a war lurking in the ME that we are now going to push more guns into, and multiple other problems that need addressing. Forget TM/GZ. it is over. Look at my list from the other day and pick a topic. Or go back to the welfare culture discussion above.

    • “that should never had made the national news”

      Man you love getting things wrong … it wasn’t national news (or local) until some kid posted it on Youtube … THEN it went viral and the media picked up on it …

      By the way, the Jordan Davis case was pretty much out of the public eye until last night (CNN) … yes, those “race baiters” … imagine bringing to the public news about a law that permits some Neanderthal to shoot 8-10 bullets at kids in an SUV (killing one) because they were playing their “thug” music too loud for him. Yeah, that should never hit the light of day … you ever wonder why lynchings were often conducted by men wearing hoods?

      Sometimes you righties kill me … 🙂

      • My position in the GZ case from the start is that it was a local case. If there was sufficient evidence of a crime, then charge GZ and have a trial. They did only to learn there was insufficient evidence. SYG was not issue in this case. As for the Davis case, my position is the same. Let there be a trial. Let the facts be heard. What preliminary information you have presented would indicate that JD is guilty of murder in this case. But there needs to be a trial to ascertain that. My position is independent of race, color, hair style, ethnicity, ….

        • GZ’s case wasn’t taken to court originally because the investigating Det was overruled (he thought it was manslaughter) … and when the police didn’t bother to use TV’s cell phone to a) find out who his parents were (until the next day) and b) bother to ever talk to the girl from Miami, it suggests they weren’t really “investigating” anything.

          As for juries and trials … ever hear of the OJ Simpson trial? 11-1 (black to white jury composition) … 11-1 original vote (acquittal vs. guilty) … that lasted about 4 hours. GZ’s trial 5:1 white to minority makeup … 3-2-1 original vote … trials/juries … sorry, they don’t prove or disprove a damn thing sometimes (maybe most times). Melissa Alexander simply would have been better off (another FL SYG case that backfired on a minority) killing her ex-husband rather than fire warning shots (she’s doing 20 years because the same state atty general prosecuted her and rejected her SYG claim). Yes, she’s a minority. Her ex admitted to beating her in the past (and other women) … great system … if you’re white … maybe.

          Oh, yeah … it took the jury all of 12 minutes to convict Ms. Alexander …

          Maybe she should’ve punched herself in the nose, used a comb to cut the back of her head and claimed he said “you’re gonna die tonight, MF’er” … then again, an all white jury probably wouldn’t have believed her …

          Oy friggin’ vey.

  51. Just had an interesting experience today. walking down the street in the adjacent town, Elmwood Park. Young black guy (20’s ?) coming towards me. I am pretty much aware of what is going on around me and sweep the street with my eyes from time to time. Noticed he is staring at me. I break eye contact (but don’t look away). A few seconds later I look back at him and he is now glaring at me. This time I do not break eye contact nor does he. He walks past me, I walk past him, nothing happens.

    Now, I gotta tell you, this guy, because I’ve seen it before, was trying for whatever reason to intimidate me. OK, you can say he wasn’t but I have been there before many, many times. What he did was not only rude but was sending a very poor message. Had I not been a NYC boy, and hailed from one of these suburban towns with limited urban experience, I might have been intimidated. I have seen friends and neighbors out here who lack the urban experience cow when they should not.

    My old pappy used to say that in the city if you want to avoid problems in any neighborhood, you gotta walk down the street like you own it. That does not mean you glare at folks or that you stare at them. It does mean that you make sure that they sense you have as much of a right to be there as they do.

    In retrospect I think that Mr. Zimmerman does not have that sense and he ran into a young man who was testing him the way that fellow tested me today. Young folks have to understand that these things are not games. This challenge stuff will dredge up emotions and feelings that go back to our survival in the stone age and have nothing to do with reason, logic or thinking. .

    Charlie, what say you? You’re a city guy?

    Continuing, When I used to go into really bad neighborhoods and ran into guys shooting craps on the stoop or waiting for the drug deal to go down, I, the obvious interloper in their neighborhood, always made it a point to engage them in conversation. Hi! How ya doing? works fine. If you are lucky enough for something else to be going on like kids playing in an open fire hydrant, you can do small talk like, “They sure are having a good time aren’t they?” This stuff breaks the ice. Another word of wisdom regarding that cave man thing. Never, repeat never get into a confrontation with a guy who is with his girlfriend. I don’t care if he just stepped on your foot at the bar or spilled his beer all over you. Smile, say it’s ok and beat a retreat otherwise the dumb SOB will try to demonstrate to the dame just how tough he is. .

    • I think that Mr. Zimmerman does not have that sense and he ran into a young man who was testing him the way that fellow tested me today.

      One big mistake here, Stephen (although I think I know what you’re driving at). Mr. Z pursued the man first. I suspect the kid probably was pissed off about it, saw Z was a bit of a whimp and confronted him. Still doesn’t deserve to die for it.

      Young folks have to understand that these things are not games. This challenge stuff will dredge up emotions and feelings that go back to our survival in the stone age and have nothing to do with reason, logic or thinking.

      Charlie, what say you? You’re a city guy?

      I agree 1000%. I’ve had many similar experiences … one where i was walking back to the SI ferry on South Street after working my 2nd job … 3 young African-American kids had crowded the sidewalk and I had to say excuse me twice before I brushed past the one on the extreme left. Words were muttered as I passed. I returned words … heard “you can beat the shit out of that fat man” … I said, “Nobody stopping you from trying, brother.” Nothing happened … was I nervous? You bet your ass I was. Would I have fought. You bet your ass … Would I have won? No fucking way, but, yes, there’s a street language that can be expressed with or without words. It sucks. It wasn’t the first experience like that for me. Happened a few times on a train, including with a guy my age (white) who thought he was a bully. Not a punch thrown, but he backed down (that guy would’ve been creamed). It’s one of the reasons (along with parking/traffic tickets by Mr. Bloomberg) I very rarely go into Manhattan anymore (and I used to live there).

      Continuing, When I used to go into really bad neighborhoods and ran into guys shooting craps on the stoop or waiting for the drug deal to go down, I, the obvious interloper in their neighborhood, always made it a point to engage them in conversation. Hi! How ya doing? works fine. If you are lucky enough for something else to be going on like kids playing in an open fire hydrant, you can do small talk like, “They sure are having a good time aren’t they?” This stuff breaks the ice. Another word of wisdom regarding that cave man thing. Never, repeat never get into a confrontation with a guy who is with his girlfriend. I don’t care if he just stepped on your foot at the bar or spilled his beer all over you. Smile, say it’s ok and beat a retreat otherwise the dumb SOB will try to demonstrate to the dame just how tough he is.

      Yep, and it sucks … and how some of the kids talk on trains (another incident for me) in front of woman made me very angry and I said something … all it got me was more lip from the kids and frustration … but that’s our world today. When I was a kid, had I said something like the shit these two kids (15 maybe?) were spewing, I would’ve been smacked by SOMEONE on the train. I was very upset when I returned home and realized this is what my wife and daughter have to put up with when they travel now. It really does blow (here’s where I’m as conservative as the next guy) but it’s here and there’s little we can do about it.

      It’s also why I don’t envy the young today. It isn’t getting any better, that’s for sure.

      • It seems that you are confirming a lot of what I and others were saying above. There is a difference between racial issues and cultural issues. In my company we have a female president, a black VP, other blacks and females in professional positions, plus Hispanics and Asians. There is no discrimination or strife within this crew. All are cordial and friendly the same as Mathius described. However, what you described meeting on the streets and subways of NY is boorish, insulting, threatening behavior by individuals with attitudes. Skin color is irrelevant. Gman’s position is the same. He abhors thuggish behavior not people of different skin color.

        The sad part is that the government policies of the last 50 years has contributed to this behavior. We have destroyed families, provided excuses for failure, and granted groups “protected status”, etc. These policies are failures.

        • T-Ray, I see huge differences in ethnic actions based mostly on where one resides. In rural areas, most people, regardless of race or religion, are generally polite and freindly. Where as in the urban areas, it is much more of the intimidation and don’t disrespect me attitude that is more prominent. It’s all races too, not just AA’s. Could it be an “urban culture” that has sprung up real fast that it has been overlooked as a cultural change?

          As I said the urban inner city mentality is much of what has been described by others, or as I like to call it “thuggery”. Young thugs who basically disregard everyone else as having a right to the same street as them. Sad as it may be, the thugs are getting younger and more violent. When will SYG laws become the deterrent they should be? As more and more people arm themselves, the thugs are getting outnumbered. Hence the complaining about the law, it’s working as designed, although it does need some fixing.

          • It is the hip-hop, tough guy, every second word starting with the letter F, wear your pants hanging off your ass BS. Act like a punk, get treated like a punk.

            Years ago, in a discussion with a black guy who had it all together (no doubt an uncle Tom), I actually heard him say, “Integration worked far better than anyone imagined. It brought everyone down to the same level.”

            This has rattled around in my mind ever since. My take would be that in an effort not to offend, everyone backed off complaining about the thug culture that was developing. This in turn, gave the green light for everyone to act that way. Remember when Ebonics was all the rage and even English professors were defending it?

            • Whoops! Forgot to end that with a Yo!

              Wasshappenin?

            • That’s basically what I meant by protection status. The powers that be granted special protections, economic breaks and quotas and such and those short cuts were accepted. Unfortunately the outcome was not what was expected by the powers that be. However, it is what was predicted by a few. My views, attitudes, upbringing is certainly rural. Here we wave at each other as we pass whether we know each other or not.

      • Condition Yellow keeps you, and the would-be criminal, out of trouble by deterring all but the most vicious or deranged assailants. In the latter case, Condition Yellow gives you time to react.

        Condition Orange is “bare fear,” or, to use the words of Barack Obama and other critics of stand your ground laws, “you feel threatened.”

        Condition Red means that the law’s ideal “reasonable person” knows that his or her life is in danger. Only at this point does “stand your ground” become operational.

        I think the problem with SYG, T (and I’m not being a jerkoff about it) is it’s being used (and will continue to be used) in Conditions Orange & Yellow). This Jordan Davis case is what I fear the most for ANY KID/ADULT … but if my kids are AA, I’m scared shitless about SYG.

  52. @T … okay, I see … I meant it in the rhetorical (i.e., part of the system) sense … assumed you understood that.

    • Just like a politician or lawyer, he ducks the question.

      • What was the question, sir dance around a lot?

        • You asked “how white are you?” Not very rhetorcical in my book. I threw it back, “Quite likely less than you.” Since you first brought up race between us, how white are you?

          • Now I see the problem, T … YOU misquoted me … here’s the quote: How white of you, T …

            OF you … do you see the difference?

            Fair enough, easy mistake to make … maybe that’s why you didn’t understand the context … it’s a problem I sometimes have myself (responding too quickly, seeing what I want to see, etc.) … we’re human, it’s okay … 🙂

            To answer YOUR question, though … I’m half Sicilian/half Napolitan … but Sicilians were conquered by pretty much everybody over time, especially the Moors, so maybe I’m a generation or two removed from having another race in my bloodlines … you shouldn’t trouble yourself about this, you know … especially if you worship those founding fathers of yours … all men are created equal you know … we’re all just humans … all just trying to get along … some with historical disadvantages that aren’t erased so easily … you should rejoice in your humanity, embrace life since it’s too short to be so mean and cynical … or as Art Carney used to tell Jackie Gleason: “Smile, Ralphie boy!”

            • Just can’t wait for the across the board DNA testing. I would love to find out who is in my woodpile. We too, from Galacia in Eastern Poland or Russia or the Ukraine depending on the century, have been on the traditional invasion route to Europe. My slanty deep set eyes (Mongolian horsemen?) and the red highlights that used to be in my beard (Vikings?) must mean something. My Dad’s dark complexion, his tight curly hair and the fact that he was routinely called “Tony” by his co-workers doesn’t exactly fit either. We sure missed the Aryan boat.

              • Ah, the curly hair! My old man had curly hair! And you know how northerners attempt to insult southerners in Italy, right? Mom used to say they’re ____ turned inside out! Oy vey …

                Of course Mom was from a tiny town near Naples so she too was considered “southern” by the highbrows up north (Milan) … My kids have German and Dutch from their mother …. now my Granddaughter has Irish blood … it’s all good … we’re all barbarians at the gate!

              • The old man used to say, just keep mixing it up. You get beautiful bright kids.

            • 98.44% German, Danish, Welsh, Scot, Irish, and Norwegian. 1.56% Native American. Had ancestors and relatives in who served during Queen Anne’s War, the French and Indian War, multiple ancestors and other relatives in the Revolution (several KIA, POW), War of 1812, Civil War, WWI, WWII (Dad was at Pearl Harbor and Saipan), Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq War (2),

  53. I just realized this equivalence:

    Phony scandals = vast right wing conspiracy

  54. T: I’d agree with everything he said there … all 5 points … but I’m a white guy who’s had the full advantages of being white, going to school, etc. so much so, I was able to re-legitimize myself after being a criminal (not so easy in the black community) … the 5 points are an oversimplification of the problem (the bigger picture, if you will) … something O’Reilly makes a living at. Personalities and choices are developed and grow from an early age … in a situation where there is no father figure, etc., they are only enhanced in a negative way by early involvement with a bad element. Some urban areas are now treated the way indian reservations are (isolated by funds, opportunities) … you can’t blame the community exclusively for what the powers that be (the money) does to them. Right now, the powers that be are finishing a job on the middle class (forget blaming unions, my friend, this has everything to do with the money in this country) … I say it’s capitalism’s chickens coming home to roost (across the board, not just the black community) … it’ll be at a theatre near you soon.

    Then again, I’m captain Cannoli!

    I thought this was a nice closer, but I’d want to hear more … “If conservatives are so concerned about black-on-black crime, it’s a little concerning the only time I hear them talking about it is when they want to stick it to the black community.”

    • gmanfortruth says:

      🙂

    • Charlie, you were making great progress until you got to the capitalism part. It is not capitalism that is destroying black families. It is the socialism of our welfare state. SKT described the changes in NYC quite clearly from the 50s to the current day. We made great progress in race relations in the 50s and 60s until we instituted the Great Society and turned those communities into the equivalent of trust fund recipients.

      Even as a youngster, I could see the inherent wrong in separate but equal and in any citizen being denied voting rights. I did not like the violence associated with either side of the struggle but the result I agreed with then and support now. Then as now I see the inherent wrong in quotas and protected classes of people. It is just the photographic negative of the old racism.

      Our social welfare system not only is harmful to blacks, it fosters these same problems of fatherless families in all races. It is a failed system that needs correction.

      • We made great progress in race relations in the 50s and 60s until we instituted the Great Society and turned those communities into the equivalent of trust fund recipients.

        T, you were making great progress until you wrote the above. Are you serious? Have you bothered to read up on anything during that time period? Good God, you’re showing your age. And if Stephen believes that nonsense, he’s in serious denial. I know he knows better. Maybe you should ask a few blacks from those time periods what the “American dream” was like for them … and you can skip the Bill Cosby anecdote … for every BC, there are hundreds of thousands who were shit on during the same period(s)

        Even as a youngster, I could see the inherent wrong in separate but equal and in any citizen being denied voting rights. I did not like the violence associated with either side

        I wonder how you would’ve felt if you were on the side getting the shaft? If you can’t “imagine” that, think back to your own revolution. The colonies didn’t like getting the shaft either. You have to be kidding. The foremost reason I’m not a member of the American communist party is because a) they’re against violence and b) they’re for gun control. I think this country’s citizens are way better off having weapons (reasonably, mind you) than not. We might even agree, but for different sides of the revolutionary approach.

        Our social welfare system not only is harmful to blacks, it fosters these same problems of fatherless families in all races. It is a failed system that needs correction.

        I agree to a point … but I have no proof otherwise that capitalism led us right to where we are (and please don’t give me the “this isn’t free market capitalism” lecture — we NEVER had that and NEVER will (because it would fail instantly) … this is where capitalism has led us — the 1% throwing bones to those it continues to neglect and an EVER EXPANDING CLASS SYSTEM … why our middle class is evaporating before our eyes while corporate profits soar (to record heights–for all the work those “investors” are doing?) … we get a little closer to the third world every day, my friend.

        • All you are doing is giving them an excuse for failure. Why is it that the University of California tries to suppress Oriental enrollment and the NY system tries to suppress Jewish enrollment all in the name of diversity? Are these not also strongly discriminated against minorities?

          • The NY system tries to suppress Jewish enrollment? Brother, that is a new one to me … but let’s just say we’re never going to agree on this issue, T. I respect your opinion … I agree up to a point … but there’s no doubt “in my mind” that we veer in different directions as to cause … I don’t say capitalism is the ONLY reason for our problems, but I do believe it’s the main reason. Just an opinion … no more or less informed than the next guy.

        • From a very conservative source but well presented and argued.

          http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/please_lets_have_that_honest_conversation_about_race.html

  55. Mathius says:

    SK,

    Abortion. Nevermind, I wrote out something, but I’m sending it off to USW for a guest-post.. my first!

%d bloggers like this: