Lon g ago I was proven right in my "you are a kook if:" series, as to my conclusioni that you ARE a kook if you ever thought there was EVIDENCE taht vaccines csused autism.
Here is the updated conslustion for my 'you are a kook if" series: autism kooks division:
You ARE a kook if;
183. You bellieve that there is any EVIDENCE that thre is a 78% real rise in autims caused by environmental factors.
184: You believe (takng this further) that there is ANY evidence of ANY increase in autims because of environmental factors.
185. You are Sanjay Gupta, who is a kook (not aone, of course, but Dr. Gupt is much more LEFTIST than he is a medical man of science.).
Here is what I HEARD Dr. Gupta say this weekend: "There has been a 78% rise in autism in a decade. There is an argument whether this increase is due to environment or genes, but it is impossible for genes to have changed so much in a decade to increase autism 78%. Therefore, it must be environmental."
As the hadline states: Dr.Gupta, you are either incompetent or dhihonest, or both. Test for the reader : Can you spot what is wrong with what Dr Gupta said, before I tell you?
It is simply NO TTURE that the "argument" is over whether environment or genetic defects represesent the "cause" of the INCREASE in autism. That is absurd. The INCREASE is ABSURD. Neither genetics or "environment" (absent the Earth passing through something like Sir Aruhur Conan Doyle's "The Poisen Belt") can "explain" a 78% increase in autism. That is because such an increase DID NOT OCUR. Waht occurred was a 78% increase in the DIAGNOSIS of autism, helped along by a CHANGE in the very medical DEFINIION of what consitutes the condition of "autimsm". You don't have to be a medical doctor, or even "trained" in science (as I once was), to realize this MUST be true. A 78% REAL increase in autism is virtuallly IMPOSSIBLE--esepcailly without an OBVIUS "cause".
No. The "argument has NOT been over whether "genes" or "environment" "cause" autism. What Dr. Gupta has doen is DISHONEST< whether he knows it or not. . If your PREMISE is that autism has RELLY increased 78%, then you are BEGGING THE QUESTION (a classic logical fallacy). You are looking at the questin backwards, as Dr. Gupta (deliberatgtely?) did. IF autism is a GENETIC disease, then autism has a genetaic origin, PERIOD. That is the real argument: Is autimsm a genetic condition, or is it "caused"--at leaast in part--by enviropnmental factors (maybe even actiong on fetuses). The EVIDENCE is that autism is probably ENTIRELY a genetic condition. This does NOT "explain" teh 78% "increase" in autism, because that "increase" CANNOT BE EXPLAINED. It does not acutally exist. And it "proves" way TOO MUCH to suggest that it does exist. It is no more likely to propose that such a huge increase is the result pof ENVIRONMENT than it is to suggest that it resulkts from some genetic change.
"But, Skip, isn't it possible BOTH that autism is mainly genetic, but can be TRIGGERED (or even caused)) by changed environmental factors? Sure, that is POSSIBLE. It is not really that likely, but it is POSSIBLE (especially with the EXPANSION of what constitutes autism, ,since maybe we are dealing with SEVERAL conditions, rather than ONE). However, you can see where this is going. This merelyl means that there may not have been an INCREASE in autism at all. And if there ARE environmental factors, they may be factors we cannot do anything about (like background radiation). lThe ponit here is that there is ONLLY one way to actually 'prove" that LEFTIST assertions that environmental "contamination" (not adopting leftists policies of pretty much making us all Amish) have CAUSED an "increase" in autism. More correctly, peple like Dr. Gupta have to "prove' that a SPECIFIC environmental contaminat, or facttor, CAUSES cases of autism. NO such EVIDENCE exists. This is where Dr. Gupta is either incompetent or dishonest. You CAN'T 'prove' that autism is"caused" by "encironment" (translation: MAN'S effect on the environment) by using UNCONTROLLED statistics. We cannot KNOW how much of the "increase" in autism has been "caused" by merely the INCREASE iIN DIAGNOISIS (not just the change in definitioin, but the ATTENTION given to diagnosing the condition).
Nope. Dr. Gupta is a kook. Note, as I always say in my "your are a kook if:" series, I have called mYSELF a "kook" (for my position that women should never have been given the vote), as well as my mother and my daughters. So Dr.. Gupta is in good company. However, in this case, he sis also incompetent or disohonest. No. This is not even a matter of opinion. You simply cannot use UNCONTROLLED "statistics" to standin for real scientific PROOF of the SPECIFIC causes of autism.
Have I just lost 10%, or more, of my "audience"? Am I trying to sabotage myself, so that I don't waste my time on these blog entries anymore? What am I talking aobut? Well, one of my small number of '"followers" (who knows whether they really read the articles, or try to read them by working through the typos?) is named "Gupta" (at least from the info that Googe provides). Is that person realated to Dr. Gupta? I hpe not. Or, if he is, I hope he does not get along with this relative. Now this does seem unlikely, unless lyou are talking about a bvvery distant "relationship". Why? Well, my older daughter works for a Nasdaq listed companty called "Virtusa". That company has extensive operations in INDIA, and my daughter deals with peole in India all of the time. In fact, I suggested to my daughter that "MY" Gupta might be someone connected with HER. My daughter laughed. She says that HALF of the hundreds of millions of people in India are named "Gupta". I am sure she is exaggerating. Further, I can't trust my daughter (who would not want me tryong to, for example, contact someone connected with her at work. Both of my daughters prefer it not to be spread around that their father writes this blog.)In all events, I hope that "my" Gupta either does not really read this blog's articles, or even pay attentino to the headlines, or else is not offended by this "attack" on a namesake of his. I assure him that I have nothing against the "Guptas) of the world. It is certainly not as suspicious a name as "Kennedy". I jsut have a problem with Dr. Sanjay Gupta. And no, I am NOT saying that "my" Gupta is directly connected with INDIA. It had just previously occurred to me that he might be, because my daughter has this "connection" with India. But my aughter pretty much exploded the idea that there is any necessary connectin. I don't even know that "Gupta" is only an Indian name. In a way, of course, I know that it isn't. Obviusly, people named "Gupta" live all over the world, including in the United States. But my daughter did confirm that "Gupta" is a COMMON name in India, which I had thoiught. Anyway, I am not trying to make funof Mr. Gupta's name. I can't afford to offend ANY of my few regualr readers (:if they really are). In fact, even if the people who are wiling to "risk" being known as a "follower" of this blog do NOTHING but make sure and DELETE themselves, my APPARENT 'readershp" immediately falls by an enormous PERCENTAGE. This could easily cause me to become suicidal. Seriously, I do appreciate Mr. Gupta's loyalty to this blog--whatever that means in terms of him actually trying to read it--and hoep it continues. Mr. Gupta, I hope you forgive me for having a little fun with your name., which is hardly as unusual (even in the U.S.A.) as the FIRST names I stuck my daughters with (Kyla and Kenda). That is antoher thing my daughters have not forgiven me for.
I invite anyone, of ocurse, who wants to stand up for Dr. Sanjay Gupta to comment (the standard DODGE of the mainstream media, which I like to throow in from time to time--even though no one has been stupid enough to take the bait yet).
P.S No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Friday, March 30, 2012
Mega-Millions and Lottries: President Oama Wants to Take Them Away from You
See the previous article. This was my ALTERNATE headline.
What abut this 640 million dollar lottery, that President Obama would like for you not to have the excitement of dreaing about?
No. I did not buty a ticket. I have never played thelottrery, except to participate in "pools" (at the urging of otehrs). However, I did minor in math at New Mexcio State Univesity. Ordinarily, the odds of "winning", in ANY form of gamblin against the "house", that lyou are facing a BAD bet. This particular lottery ticket is probably a GOOD BET.
CNN put it this way (frfor once probably getting it pretty much right):
Ordinarily, a $1 lottery ticket is worth LESS than $1. The "houes" is taking out its percentage, and is not paying out to "winners" as much as it is takng from "losers". The PROGRESSIVE feature of this lottery, however, mwans that (for this situation only) the state will likely pay out MORE MONEY than people are spending oon lottery tickets. CNN--undoubtedly using some expert on statistics--has calculated that a lottery ticket--again, only for this particular situation--is "worth $3. No sane person, of course, would PAY $3, if they are able to get to an official outlet, because you can buy a ticket for $1. You can actualy get a rough idea of this by simply comparing the amount of money "invested" by the entire public, with the amount of money that will be received by the entire public (the 640 mililion or so). The ODDS agains winning remain the same : abbout 176 MILLIION to one against yyou. But ou will be in the unique situatin, buying a ticket, that theese odds are actually in your FACOR (because the amount you stand to win is so large). Now the chance of MULTIPLE winning tickets makes the exact odds a little tricky . CNN presumably--thatis, you might presume that if you did not know how bad CNN is--took the cahnnce of multiple winning tickets into aaccount in saying that you had FAVORABLE odds. And you still have only a 1 in 176, miilion chance of wining with ONE ticket. Theoretically, of course, a SYNBDICATE culd try to buy up ALL POSSIBLE NUMBERS. A syndicate actually did that once, and WON. (althugh it turned out they did not actually cover every possible number). If CNN is correct, youmight think that means that you are GUARANTEED a 3-1 PROFIT on your investment. That is obviusly not ture. The more money that is "invested", the more the "real" odds turn against you. lAnd then there is LUCK. What if 100 people share the WINNING numbers. This may be against the odds, but it COULD happen. If 100 SYNDICATES buy up enough tickets to ensure a winning ticket, it WOULD happen. Nevertheless, this is a situatin where you MAY have the pleasure of having the oddsin YOIUR FAVOR--justifying a flyer for some aount you can afford--always remembering thqat the odds agaisnt any one ticket being a winning ticket still being 176 million to one.
When I say that the odds MMAY end up in your favor on this particular lottery, does that mean that the "house" loses? Of course not. Just like a"progressive' machinne in Vegas, you are getting these "better odds' because PREVIOUS PEOPLE have gotten WORSE ODDS (contributing money to the ultimate payout). In fact, in Vegas the house COULD LOSE on a run of "luck" by people gambling. The 'progressive" machines will only pay the "progressiv" amount out ONCE (until it bilds up again), but there an always CAN be MULTIPLE winners. This is NOT TURE in state lotteries, because the sate lottery is set up so that the state NEVER LOSES. If there are multiple wintters, then the AmOUNT of each "win" is reduced. In a fundamental way, you are getting a BETTER deal, in general, in Vegas. You should certainly not play the lottery ,excpet maybe on 1 $1 or $5 flyer for "fun", UNLESS you have someting like this favorable situation . But what else did you expect of GOVERNMENT--another reason I am no fan of state lotteries.
Good luck. I, of ocurse, cannot win, because I did not play.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).
What abut this 640 million dollar lottery, that President Obama would like for you not to have the excitement of dreaing about?
No. I did not buty a ticket. I have never played thelottrery, except to participate in "pools" (at the urging of otehrs). However, I did minor in math at New Mexcio State Univesity. Ordinarily, the odds of "winning", in ANY form of gamblin against the "house", that lyou are facing a BAD bet. This particular lottery ticket is probably a GOOD BET.
CNN put it this way (frfor once probably getting it pretty much right):
Ordinarily, a $1 lottery ticket is worth LESS than $1. The "houes" is taking out its percentage, and is not paying out to "winners" as much as it is takng from "losers". The PROGRESSIVE feature of this lottery, however, mwans that (for this situation only) the state will likely pay out MORE MONEY than people are spending oon lottery tickets. CNN--undoubtedly using some expert on statistics--has calculated that a lottery ticket--again, only for this particular situation--is "worth $3. No sane person, of course, would PAY $3, if they are able to get to an official outlet, because you can buy a ticket for $1. You can actualy get a rough idea of this by simply comparing the amount of money "invested" by the entire public, with the amount of money that will be received by the entire public (the 640 mililion or so). The ODDS agains winning remain the same : abbout 176 MILLIION to one against yyou. But ou will be in the unique situatin, buying a ticket, that theese odds are actually in your FACOR (because the amount you stand to win is so large). Now the chance of MULTIPLE winning tickets makes the exact odds a little tricky . CNN presumably--thatis, you might presume that if you did not know how bad CNN is--took the cahnnce of multiple winning tickets into aaccount in saying that you had FAVORABLE odds. And you still have only a 1 in 176, miilion chance of wining with ONE ticket. Theoretically, of course, a SYNBDICATE culd try to buy up ALL POSSIBLE NUMBERS. A syndicate actually did that once, and WON. (althugh it turned out they did not actually cover every possible number). If CNN is correct, youmight think that means that you are GUARANTEED a 3-1 PROFIT on your investment. That is obviusly not ture. The more money that is "invested", the more the "real" odds turn against you. lAnd then there is LUCK. What if 100 people share the WINNING numbers. This may be against the odds, but it COULD happen. If 100 SYNDICATES buy up enough tickets to ensure a winning ticket, it WOULD happen. Nevertheless, this is a situatin where you MAY have the pleasure of having the oddsin YOIUR FAVOR--justifying a flyer for some aount you can afford--always remembering thqat the odds agaisnt any one ticket being a winning ticket still being 176 million to one.
When I say that the odds MMAY end up in your favor on this particular lottery, does that mean that the "house" loses? Of course not. Just like a"progressive' machinne in Vegas, you are getting these "better odds' because PREVIOUS PEOPLE have gotten WORSE ODDS (contributing money to the ultimate payout). In fact, in Vegas the house COULD LOSE on a run of "luck" by people gambling. The 'progressive" machines will only pay the "progressiv" amount out ONCE (until it bilds up again), but there an always CAN be MULTIPLE winners. This is NOT TURE in state lotteries, because the sate lottery is set up so that the state NEVER LOSES. If there are multiple wintters, then the AmOUNT of each "win" is reduced. In a fundamental way, you are getting a BETTER deal, in general, in Vegas. You should certainly not play the lottery ,excpet maybe on 1 $1 or $5 flyer for "fun", UNLESS you have someting like this favorable situation . But what else did you expect of GOVERNMENT--another reason I am no fan of state lotteries.
Good luck. I, of ocurse, cannot win, because I did not play.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).
Barack Obama: Marxist to the Core (Obama on State Lotteries: A REgressive Tzx)
Yep. Obama's position on sate lotteries is that they represent a refressive tax (not from Rush Limbaugh, but from CNN--Erin Burnett). Do you need any more evidence that President Obama is a MARXIST at heart: believing totally that perhaps the main functhinon of government is redistribution of teh weath (as Obama told Joe the Plumber)?
There are, of coure, legitimate MORAL concerns about gambling (whehter private or public) . The people that DEE:LLY feel those concerns are generally the type of people Obama and leftists HATE (I am not lusing the wrong word here). I am talking aoubt deeply religious people, and others with strong "moral value"). Peple who gamble a lot tend to risk more than they can afford to low: ruining their on lives (okay), and the lives of people wwho may depend on them (for example, wives and children--NOT OKAY). Gambling is looking for a "quick buck", WITHOUT WORKING for it. It therefore should not surprise you especaiy since you know I am not a Christiian, that I have no problem with legalized gambling. For me, it is a matter of FREEDOMSocity has actually shown more SUCCESS in the past at limiting SEX (outside of marraige) and things like ABORTION, than in limting gambliing. Leftists, of course, like sex and abortion, and therefore will OVERSTATE that you can't do anythiing about them--when history shows you can. Indeed, a recent "study" purported to show that people would reather give up SEX than the internet. Now the internet may provide a form of sex, but with the huge ADVANTAGE that you do not have to deal with a real, live woman (in person). I digress (sort of).
Obama, and otother leftists, however, do NOT criticize staate lotteries on the grounds of IMMORALITY. True leftists have NO concerns about morality, except as they can USE people who may actually believe in ti (as to attack "conservatives" who may stray from the straight and narrow because they are fallible uman beings). Nope. Ture leftists regard state lotteries as COMPETION for the INCOME REDISTRIBUTION tax schemes of the true leftist. It is NOT an exaggeration to say that your true leftist, like Obama, regards the MAIN functin of the tax systmen to redistribute the weath.
The appeal of lotteries, of course, is that they raise money through VOLUNTARY action, and not through COERCION. For your average true leftist, his is not a DISADVADVANTAGE of COERCIVE TAXATION. It is an ADVANTAGE. The proponent of state lotteries can plausibly argue that the STATE might as well pick up money that people are going to gamble anyway, and thus avoid lthe problem of TAKNG money from people.
I am seroius here. When Presdident Obama says a state lottery is a "regressive tax", what Obama is saying is that heWANTS to TAKE MONEY from some people, and GIVE it to other people, by COERCION. This is redistributin of wealth. Walter Williams has described it, with some justice, as ARMED ROBBERY of one person to distribut the money to another person. There is no doubt that this principle is MARXIST.
Me? I am not great fan of state lotteries. As stated above, I have no great moral concern about legal gambling (even though I recognize that it can HURAT the poor, who may be "encouraged" to waste money on EASY to participate lotterie, when they might not be otherwise quite so able to FIND a way to satisfy their gambling urge). My problem with state lotterries is baqsically two fold. First, I have a very different concern that Obama--the opposite concer, in fact--with GOVERNMENT being involved. My own "phhlosophy of government" REJECTS the idea that government should fool around in PRIVATE business. yes, I AM saying that gambling should be a PRIVATE business. To the extent there are moral questins, the GOVERNMENT shululd not be an AGENT of induccing some people to do what other people think is IMMORAL. Beyond that, governments LIE about lotteries. They LIE about how the money will be/is used, and generall y LIE about how they are really "doing something" about--say-education. It is a way to INCREWASE the SPENDING (size) of government (even sate governments) by STEALTH and SUBTERFUGE. Why worry about COST, and whether money is being EFFICIENTLY spent, if it is supposedly being VOLUNTEERED by people who want to satisfy a gambling urge?
In short, Obama dislikes state lotteries, because for Obama it is BAD for people to get the idea that yoyu can get people to VOLUNTARILY support government ith non-coercive methods. For Obama, the idea thatit is better for people financing a government program to have a CHANCE to PROFIT (thereby "voluntarily" makng a contributin to government) isa TERRIBLE thing. Obama wants the peole OAMA wants to finance the government to be FORCED to do it, with no possibility of profit. Obama wants to CHOOSE who will PROFIT from government, and who willl be HURT by government. FREEEDOM is the very LAST thing that Obama wants.
You CAN deduce all of this from the fact that Presdient Obama regards state lotteries as a "regreessive tax". In fact, I would be ahsamed, if I were yu, that you needed me to explain this to you (if you ddi). In a way this is beside the pont. Yuo peple who have gotten swept up in the MEGA-MILLINS mania: You should VOTE against OBAMA. This is the kind of thing that Obama is perfectly wiling to TAKE AWAY from you. That shuld be enought reason to vote AGAINST Obama, whehter you are able to work through my loogic or not.
P.S No proofreading or sepll checking (bad eyesight).
There are, of coure, legitimate MORAL concerns about gambling (whehter private or public) . The people that DEE:LLY feel those concerns are generally the type of people Obama and leftists HATE (I am not lusing the wrong word here). I am talking aoubt deeply religious people, and others with strong "moral value"). Peple who gamble a lot tend to risk more than they can afford to low: ruining their on lives (okay), and the lives of people wwho may depend on them (for example, wives and children--NOT OKAY). Gambling is looking for a "quick buck", WITHOUT WORKING for it. It therefore should not surprise you especaiy since you know I am not a Christiian, that I have no problem with legalized gambling. For me, it is a matter of FREEDOMSocity has actually shown more SUCCESS in the past at limiting SEX (outside of marraige) and things like ABORTION, than in limting gambliing. Leftists, of course, like sex and abortion, and therefore will OVERSTATE that you can't do anythiing about them--when history shows you can. Indeed, a recent "study" purported to show that people would reather give up SEX than the internet. Now the internet may provide a form of sex, but with the huge ADVANTAGE that you do not have to deal with a real, live woman (in person). I digress (sort of).
Obama, and otother leftists, however, do NOT criticize staate lotteries on the grounds of IMMORALITY. True leftists have NO concerns about morality, except as they can USE people who may actually believe in ti (as to attack "conservatives" who may stray from the straight and narrow because they are fallible uman beings). Nope. Ture leftists regard state lotteries as COMPETION for the INCOME REDISTRIBUTION tax schemes of the true leftist. It is NOT an exaggeration to say that your true leftist, like Obama, regards the MAIN functin of the tax systmen to redistribute the weath.
The appeal of lotteries, of course, is that they raise money through VOLUNTARY action, and not through COERCION. For your average true leftist, his is not a DISADVADVANTAGE of COERCIVE TAXATION. It is an ADVANTAGE. The proponent of state lotteries can plausibly argue that the STATE might as well pick up money that people are going to gamble anyway, and thus avoid lthe problem of TAKNG money from people.
I am seroius here. When Presdident Obama says a state lottery is a "regressive tax", what Obama is saying is that heWANTS to TAKE MONEY from some people, and GIVE it to other people, by COERCION. This is redistributin of wealth. Walter Williams has described it, with some justice, as ARMED ROBBERY of one person to distribut the money to another person. There is no doubt that this principle is MARXIST.
Me? I am not great fan of state lotteries. As stated above, I have no great moral concern about legal gambling (even though I recognize that it can HURAT the poor, who may be "encouraged" to waste money on EASY to participate lotterie, when they might not be otherwise quite so able to FIND a way to satisfy their gambling urge). My problem with state lotterries is baqsically two fold. First, I have a very different concern that Obama--the opposite concer, in fact--with GOVERNMENT being involved. My own "phhlosophy of government" REJECTS the idea that government should fool around in PRIVATE business. yes, I AM saying that gambling should be a PRIVATE business. To the extent there are moral questins, the GOVERNMENT shululd not be an AGENT of induccing some people to do what other people think is IMMORAL. Beyond that, governments LIE about lotteries. They LIE about how the money will be/is used, and generall y LIE about how they are really "doing something" about--say-education. It is a way to INCREWASE the SPENDING (size) of government (even sate governments) by STEALTH and SUBTERFUGE. Why worry about COST, and whether money is being EFFICIENTLY spent, if it is supposedly being VOLUNTEERED by people who want to satisfy a gambling urge?
In short, Obama dislikes state lotteries, because for Obama it is BAD for people to get the idea that yoyu can get people to VOLUNTARILY support government ith non-coercive methods. For Obama, the idea thatit is better for people financing a government program to have a CHANCE to PROFIT (thereby "voluntarily" makng a contributin to government) isa TERRIBLE thing. Obama wants the peole OAMA wants to finance the government to be FORCED to do it, with no possibility of profit. Obama wants to CHOOSE who will PROFIT from government, and who willl be HURT by government. FREEEDOM is the very LAST thing that Obama wants.
You CAN deduce all of this from the fact that Presdient Obama regards state lotteries as a "regreessive tax". In fact, I would be ahsamed, if I were yu, that you needed me to explain this to you (if you ddi). In a way this is beside the pont. Yuo peple who have gotten swept up in the MEGA-MILLINS mania: You should VOTE against OBAMA. This is the kind of thing that Obama is perfectly wiling to TAKE AWAY from you. That shuld be enought reason to vote AGAINST Obama, whehter you are able to work through my loogic or not.
P.S No proofreading or sepll checking (bad eyesight).
Thursday, March 29, 2012
George Zimmerman and Citizen's Arrests
See the previous article. I thought an addendum mentining a citizen's arrest would be appropriate. Can you make a "citizen's arrest" as a private citizne? Of course you can. What do yyou think those airline passengers essentially dd who TACKELED that airline pilot. And you have stories all of the time about a "little old lady" who jumbs on a criminal stealing sometng of hers, and holds him for the police.
Problem: Yu haved better be RIGHT. Yu make a "citizen's arrest" pretty much at your own risk. If Geroge Zimmerman culd actually show that he ws pursung Trayvon Martin for a CIMRE< he would be in better shape (although hardly home free, as incidents involving police and the killing of unarmed civilians ilustrate). There appears to bee NO EVIDENCE that Trayvon Martn was committing a crime, and it appears 100% certian that ZIMMERMAN had no knowledge that Martin was actully in the midst of committing a crime. If Martin were in the process of committing a crime, and Zimmerman pusuing him for it (like a little old lady), Zimmerman WOULD have the legal "right" to PHYSICALLLY DETAIN the criminal (use physical force, if not deadly force). That is the RISK yu run if you assume someone is a criminal, and take actinon against them on that assumption. You had better be right, or you could be in trouble. Taht is why I would be reluctant to ut myself in th eposition that George Zimmerman put himself in, where a confrontation obviouslyl might occur. That doesnot change the fact, whether you agree with Zimmerman's JUDGMENT or not, that Zimmerman ws guilty of homicide. That idepenmds on the EXACT facts--facts in whidch our media is NOT INTERESTED as they ursue what they thingk will increase their ratings AND advance their agenda: SPECULATION.
No, I was NOT interested in SPECULATING about the gilt or inocence of even Casey Anthony_-even though I think the very BBASIC bacts would have made me not let here get away (as a juror) wihout at least a manslaughter conviction. The LACK of facts would have led me not to chrate Casey Anthony with first degree murder. I always thought that was a ridiculous charge to have meade, simply becaseuse the only basis for it was MMEDIA-TYOPE SPECULATION. But that constant media SPECULATIN on the guilt or innocence of Casey Anthony was ridiculos, and EVIL. No, I would not evenv have given my OPINIOINS (based ont he very basic facts, and not any kind of review of the actal evidence--especiailly before the trial--if I had been n the "official' media. Yep. As far as the Constitution is concerned, I am a "journalist", and part of the "press". But even though I could hardly have done anytihing to Casey Anthony with MY "specualtion", I pretty much aovided any such specualitn (which the enitre media should do, elspecially in criminal casesl).
Problem: Yu haved better be RIGHT. Yu make a "citizen's arrest" pretty much at your own risk. If Geroge Zimmerman culd actually show that he ws pursung Trayvon Martin for a CIMRE< he would be in better shape (although hardly home free, as incidents involving police and the killing of unarmed civilians ilustrate). There appears to bee NO EVIDENCE that Trayvon Martn was committing a crime, and it appears 100% certian that ZIMMERMAN had no knowledge that Martin was actully in the midst of committing a crime. If Martin were in the process of committing a crime, and Zimmerman pusuing him for it (like a little old lady), Zimmerman WOULD have the legal "right" to PHYSICALLLY DETAIN the criminal (use physical force, if not deadly force). That is the RISK yu run if you assume someone is a criminal, and take actinon against them on that assumption. You had better be right, or you could be in trouble. Taht is why I would be reluctant to ut myself in th eposition that George Zimmerman put himself in, where a confrontation obviouslyl might occur. That doesnot change the fact, whether you agree with Zimmerman's JUDGMENT or not, that Zimmerman ws guilty of homicide. That idepenmds on the EXACT facts--facts in whidch our media is NOT INTERESTED as they ursue what they thingk will increase their ratings AND advance their agenda: SPECULATION.
No, I was NOT interested in SPECULATING about the gilt or inocence of even Casey Anthony_-even though I think the very BBASIC bacts would have made me not let here get away (as a juror) wihout at least a manslaughter conviction. The LACK of facts would have led me not to chrate Casey Anthony with first degree murder. I always thought that was a ridiculous charge to have meade, simply becaseuse the only basis for it was MMEDIA-TYOPE SPECULATION. But that constant media SPECULATIN on the guilt or innocence of Casey Anthony was ridiculos, and EVIL. No, I would not evenv have given my OPINIOINS (based ont he very basic facts, and not any kind of review of the actal evidence--especiailly before the trial--if I had been n the "official' media. Yep. As far as the Constitution is concerned, I am a "journalist", and part of the "press". But even though I could hardly have done anytihing to Casey Anthony with MY "specualtion", I pretty much aovided any such specualitn (which the enitre media should do, elspecially in criminal casesl).
George Zimmerman and "journalists": Who Has the Better "Right' to "Follow" People
I am cursed with a brain. That is why Id on't let HINDSIGHT blind me to real facts. You see any number of people asserting that George Zimmerman had no "right' to "appont h
imself" as "protecter" of his neighborhood. The people asserting this astounding proposition are spreading MANURE. Sure, Zimmerman might "overstep", and may expose himself to tooo much risk by taking this too serusly, but Zimmerman has a RIGHT to observe in his neighborhood, and APPROACH peple he does nto recognize to try to find out who they are. Now, it is true they don't have to TELL him, which is where Zimmerman could get into trouble (and did). And Zimmerman has not "right' to GRAB someone (not committing a crime), or pull a gun on someone (not committing a crime). But there are all kinds of people out there saing that Zimmerman was VIOLATING THEA LAW by merely following Trayvon Martin (peacefully--that is, the pople takng this absurd position seeem to say that Zimmerman could not even do it peacefully). That is absurd, unless lyou have a very "special" meaning of "oollow". By the way, NO ONE seems to be interested in this question: WHY did Trayvon Martin RU? No, I have not seen that question really answered, as if Trayvon Martin has a "right " to ASSUME that George Zimmerman was going to try to do him harm. Or did Trayvon Martin haave something of a guilty conscience because he was up to something a little shady? I don't know, but I don't see exactly why Trayvon Martin was running away from George Zimmerman. enough media-type SPECULATION which has only marginal relevance. I want to explain this, before I go into "JOURNALISTS" who "FOLLOW" people, one of my own recent experiences.
I was walking aimlessly around a field outside of a field near the public library, waiting for the library to open (a matter of ten mnutes or so). I did not feel like sitting around at the library door. As stated, I was AIMLESSLY walking back and forth behind the back walls of a number of houses (wose back yards "look out' upon this open area--a drainage area/field). Now this was broad daylight, lalthough I think that the situation might be more "tense" all around at night. This is El Paso, which is a relatively SAFE city (believe it or not), but still has its share of burglaries. Some say that increased difficulty for illegal immigrants in getting across the border has DECREASED theft in El Paso. I am not sure about that, and hav ve no idea whether statistics back that up. I have never really endorsed the idea that illeagal immigrants were a JAMOR surce of crime in El Paso. I digress. Th epont is that I was LOITERING, wiht no apparent reason, in an open area behind some residential properties. Don't get disracted here with the thought: "Gee, Skip is WEIRD." My daughters could hve told you that long ago, and pretty much tell anyone who will listen that their father is weird. That is irrelevant here, and sort of makes the pont. I am not a blakc man.
As I was walking back and forth--indeed, walking back toward the wall at the back of the residential homes---I saw a man in the distance. He actualy seemed to FOLLOW me towrd the wall, as if wanting to TALK to me. Yp. He had a lperfect RIGHT to do that--as much right as I had to be there. Now this man approached me from the open drainage area (which has small trees and stuff, and where some hoomelss people sometimes live. Did I have moe reason to be AFRAID of this man than Trayvon Martin had to be afraid of George Zimmerman? I don'tknow. I think maybe so. It is true this was broad daylgiht, but there are aslo NO PEOLE usually in this area (you may add in your mind: "ecept weird people like Skip"). Thre were no peole there this day. the library was half a block away, wiht a big mound of dirt int he way. Wathat did I do? I did NOT "run". I did NOT try to "lose" this man. We had a nice conversation about what I was doing there--if a slightly off-beat conversation. My own opinion ws confirmed --in my mind--that this was a HOMELESS man (maybe thiniing he was speakng to another homess man). Would I have been "justified" in running away from this man, and then turning aournd and ATTACKING him if I decided he was some sort of "threat" to me (even though I never found out what hhe wanted)? I don't think so. The man had a perfect right to come up to me and try to engate me in conversation. Those hindsight merchants out there with an AGENDA are WRONG when they say he had no such "right", because he wasn't a policeman. . No, I have not ccarried or shot, a gun since I was honorably discharged from the United States Army some 40 years ago..
What if I was wrong? What if this man were a "neghborhood watchman", or--more likely--an UNCERDOVER COP. I had never considered that possibility until the George Zimmerman matter. Indeed, Trayvon Martin coulld certainly have suspected he was dealing with an UNDERCOVER cop, which would not make his actinos look very good. But that is not the pont here. I did not HAVE to answer any questions, unless the gy flashed a badge and demanded my identity. That is, however, the worng end from which to consider the "rights' of George Zimmerman. Zimmerman had a RIGHT to approach a suspicion person and try to engage that person in converssation Thre may be some DANGER involved in that sort of thing., but there is NOTHIGN wrong iwith it. If Martin attempted to run, it maight be perfectly natural to "foolow" him to see more about what he is doing. There is not even anything wrong with Zimmerman "following" stranger int he area to see if he is up to mischief. Again, it is WRONG to say that this would make you an "ggressor", and justify a violent attack against you. As I sugget, what if my "homeless man" had started jogging after me to get my attention. Would hat "justify" me in turning around an dATTACKING him? Idon't think so. I aclutally have a RIGHT to RUN, if I want. That does not necessariy give me the right to ATTACK physically a person I thik is "following" me.
What if Zimmerman called out THREATS to Trayvon Martin? What if Zimmerman GRABEED him? What if Zimmerman PULLED HIS GUN. That is why this "neighborhood wathc" bsiness is RISKY, especialy with a gun. (though without a gun, there is that other obvious risk). Was that homeless man taknig a RISK approaching me? Darn right he was. And maybe I was takng a risk by talking to hm. But life REQUIRES all of us to take SOME risks. It is the MEDIA how are stirring up RACE FEAR and HTRED such that people wil react wrongly (such as Trayvon Martn NOT CALLING THE PLICE, if he were really that scared). If balck peple really look upon the olice as their enemy, then it is thte MEDIA that is reallyl PSHING that sefl-defeating idea. This case (the Martin case") is a matter of FACTS. Just how aggressively did Zimmerman "approach" Trayvon Martin, and tid Trayvon Maritn really ATTACK Zimmerman (or just meet an overly aggressive approach by Zimmerman that appeared to be an attack on Marng) . To me, the answers to theese questins are NOT obvious, and I have seen NO actual "evidence" that shows me that Goerge Zimmerman did more than he had a "Right" to do. AS I have said repeatedly, Zimmerman toolk MORE RISK thanI would be prepared to take. But that does not anseer the KYE FACTS. It is NOT a "key fact" that Zimmerman merely tried to approach Martin, unless Zimmerman did so in a way that constituted an aSSAULT (wehther physical contact was actually made or not).
Ah. "Journalists". "Journalists" SEEM to be takng the positin that it is ALL RIGHT to physically asssault someone who is FOLLOWING you.. We could get rid of a lot of people if this ridiculous proposition is accepted (in that broad kind of assertin, which is the very by road kind of assertin that som many "journalsits" are makng in this case). Who is it that does the most FOLLOWING in this coutnry, in an obnozious and even ASSAULTING way? Right. It is those HPOCRITES known as "JOURNALISTS". You may remember Princess Di, who many think was HOUNDED to here DEATH by a sorrt of "journalist". Are American "journalists" any better than those photographers pursuing Princess Di? I don't think so. In some ways, American "journalists' are WORSE. Notice how every time a person (well nown politician or just a "celebrity" by circumstqance) turns around and ASSAULTS a "jopurnalist" (like Trayvon Martin turned around and assaulted Zimmerman?), "journalsits" jump all over the person who DARED to HTI a "journalist" (no matter how "aggeessive" the "journalist" had been). Do you see how this Martn case could have a silver lining.? What if it became ACCEPTED that a person being "pursued" could turn around and REAK THE NOSE of the 'journalist" ? This might be one of the best things that ever happened to civilization!!!! If we someohow managed that, we shuld probably PARDON Zimmerman by acclamation, and erect a satue to Trayvon Martin as giving his life so civiliztion could live. I am actually somewhat amazed, especially in a state like Texas, how "journalists" are not SHOT outside of peole's homes more often than they are. Remember Texas law, which says you can SHOT an intruder outside of your house!!!
Yuo say "journalists' have special rights? That is jsut thepoint. they DON'T. A "journalist" has NO MORE RIGHT to go up and stick a mike in someone's face, or chase soemone down a road, than George Zimmerman has. The Supreme Court has ALWAYS held that "journalists" have no more rights than any other citizen. In fact, looked at proeperly, EVERY CITIZEN (ore even non-citizen) is a "journalist". Is there any reason Zimmerman could not have been gathering materila for a book or for a "free lance" article for which someone might PAY him (Zimmerman hopefully not being as stupid as the author of this blog, who does NOT get paid a dime for thies articles)? "Jounalists' have a "right" (First Amendment, realizing we are LL "journalists"), to TELL a story. They have no special "right' to GET a "story". They often make up a public "right to know" to justify the most OUTRABEOUS behavior. That is a crock They MADE THAT UP. Agian, all "journalists" have th eright tod od is PUBLISH whatever they can find out. they have NO MORE RIHGT to "find out" , or make people tell them, thn George Zimmerman (or any otehr person).
There is just no doubt. "Journalists" are the worst hlypocrites who have ever walked the Eararth , on two legs or four.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight) . Wahat a I doing going to a library? AUDI BOOKS. I treally is effectively mpossible fore me to read a whole book anymore, or an article aas long as most of my blog entiries. And I have nothing agaisnt guns. However, I just have had no urge to own one,or shoot one, since I was discharged from the army thoose 40 years ago. My younger DAUGHTER, in contrast,, liked to shoot a pistol even in high school. That shuld scare the HELL out of you!!!!!! Not that I think my younger daughter, wieghing maybe 110 or 115 pounds, could not handle EITHER George Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin without a gun. That is here problem. She has TOO MUCH confidence. It might get here in troulbe some day, as maybe it go t George Zimmerman in trouble. Did I mentin that my younger daughter also takes BOXING LESSONS? You really should have NIGHTMARES about this, and WOULD HAVE (like me) if you had ever MET my younger daughter (an attorneyin New Yrok City--my REVENGE on New York City for, wel evelrythign about New Yrok City. (eseically the politics). Then there is my OLDER DAUGHTER, who represents my REVENGE on Massachusetts and Boston (Massachusettts being the ONLY sate not to vote for Ronald Reagan in 1984, for whic I will never forgive the state).
imself" as "protecter" of his neighborhood. The people asserting this astounding proposition are spreading MANURE. Sure, Zimmerman might "overstep", and may expose himself to tooo much risk by taking this too serusly, but Zimmerman has a RIGHT to observe in his neighborhood, and APPROACH peple he does nto recognize to try to find out who they are. Now, it is true they don't have to TELL him, which is where Zimmerman could get into trouble (and did). And Zimmerman has not "right' to GRAB someone (not committing a crime), or pull a gun on someone (not committing a crime). But there are all kinds of people out there saing that Zimmerman was VIOLATING THEA LAW by merely following Trayvon Martin (peacefully--that is, the pople takng this absurd position seeem to say that Zimmerman could not even do it peacefully). That is absurd, unless lyou have a very "special" meaning of "oollow". By the way, NO ONE seems to be interested in this question: WHY did Trayvon Martin RU? No, I have not seen that question really answered, as if Trayvon Martin has a "right " to ASSUME that George Zimmerman was going to try to do him harm. Or did Trayvon Martin haave something of a guilty conscience because he was up to something a little shady? I don't know, but I don't see exactly why Trayvon Martin was running away from George Zimmerman. enough media-type SPECULATION which has only marginal relevance. I want to explain this, before I go into "JOURNALISTS" who "FOLLOW" people, one of my own recent experiences.
I was walking aimlessly around a field outside of a field near the public library, waiting for the library to open (a matter of ten mnutes or so). I did not feel like sitting around at the library door. As stated, I was AIMLESSLY walking back and forth behind the back walls of a number of houses (wose back yards "look out' upon this open area--a drainage area/field). Now this was broad daylight, lalthough I think that the situation might be more "tense" all around at night. This is El Paso, which is a relatively SAFE city (believe it or not), but still has its share of burglaries. Some say that increased difficulty for illegal immigrants in getting across the border has DECREASED theft in El Paso. I am not sure about that, and hav ve no idea whether statistics back that up. I have never really endorsed the idea that illeagal immigrants were a JAMOR surce of crime in El Paso. I digress. Th epont is that I was LOITERING, wiht no apparent reason, in an open area behind some residential properties. Don't get disracted here with the thought: "Gee, Skip is WEIRD." My daughters could hve told you that long ago, and pretty much tell anyone who will listen that their father is weird. That is irrelevant here, and sort of makes the pont. I am not a blakc man.
As I was walking back and forth--indeed, walking back toward the wall at the back of the residential homes---I saw a man in the distance. He actualy seemed to FOLLOW me towrd the wall, as if wanting to TALK to me. Yp. He had a lperfect RIGHT to do that--as much right as I had to be there. Now this man approached me from the open drainage area (which has small trees and stuff, and where some hoomelss people sometimes live. Did I have moe reason to be AFRAID of this man than Trayvon Martin had to be afraid of George Zimmerman? I don'tknow. I think maybe so. It is true this was broad daylgiht, but there are aslo NO PEOLE usually in this area (you may add in your mind: "ecept weird people like Skip"). Thre were no peole there this day. the library was half a block away, wiht a big mound of dirt int he way. Wathat did I do? I did NOT "run". I did NOT try to "lose" this man. We had a nice conversation about what I was doing there--if a slightly off-beat conversation. My own opinion ws confirmed --in my mind--that this was a HOMELESS man (maybe thiniing he was speakng to another homess man). Would I have been "justified" in running away from this man, and then turning aournd and ATTACKING him if I decided he was some sort of "threat" to me (even though I never found out what hhe wanted)? I don't think so. The man had a perfect right to come up to me and try to engate me in conversation. Those hindsight merchants out there with an AGENDA are WRONG when they say he had no such "right", because he wasn't a policeman. . No, I have not ccarried or shot, a gun since I was honorably discharged from the United States Army some 40 years ago..
What if I was wrong? What if this man were a "neghborhood watchman", or--more likely--an UNCERDOVER COP. I had never considered that possibility until the George Zimmerman matter. Indeed, Trayvon Martin coulld certainly have suspected he was dealing with an UNDERCOVER cop, which would not make his actinos look very good. But that is not the pont here. I did not HAVE to answer any questions, unless the gy flashed a badge and demanded my identity. That is, however, the worng end from which to consider the "rights' of George Zimmerman. Zimmerman had a RIGHT to approach a suspicion person and try to engage that person in converssation Thre may be some DANGER involved in that sort of thing., but there is NOTHIGN wrong iwith it. If Martin attempted to run, it maight be perfectly natural to "foolow" him to see more about what he is doing. There is not even anything wrong with Zimmerman "following" stranger int he area to see if he is up to mischief. Again, it is WRONG to say that this would make you an "ggressor", and justify a violent attack against you. As I sugget, what if my "homeless man" had started jogging after me to get my attention. Would hat "justify" me in turning around an dATTACKING him? Idon't think so. I aclutally have a RIGHT to RUN, if I want. That does not necessariy give me the right to ATTACK physically a person I thik is "following" me.
What if Zimmerman called out THREATS to Trayvon Martin? What if Zimmerman GRABEED him? What if Zimmerman PULLED HIS GUN. That is why this "neighborhood wathc" bsiness is RISKY, especialy with a gun. (though without a gun, there is that other obvious risk). Was that homeless man taknig a RISK approaching me? Darn right he was. And maybe I was takng a risk by talking to hm. But life REQUIRES all of us to take SOME risks. It is the MEDIA how are stirring up RACE FEAR and HTRED such that people wil react wrongly (such as Trayvon Martn NOT CALLING THE PLICE, if he were really that scared). If balck peple really look upon the olice as their enemy, then it is thte MEDIA that is reallyl PSHING that sefl-defeating idea. This case (the Martin case") is a matter of FACTS. Just how aggressively did Zimmerman "approach" Trayvon Martin, and tid Trayvon Maritn really ATTACK Zimmerman (or just meet an overly aggressive approach by Zimmerman that appeared to be an attack on Marng) . To me, the answers to theese questins are NOT obvious, and I have seen NO actual "evidence" that shows me that Goerge Zimmerman did more than he had a "Right" to do. AS I have said repeatedly, Zimmerman toolk MORE RISK thanI would be prepared to take. But that does not anseer the KYE FACTS. It is NOT a "key fact" that Zimmerman merely tried to approach Martin, unless Zimmerman did so in a way that constituted an aSSAULT (wehther physical contact was actually made or not).
Ah. "Journalists". "Journalists" SEEM to be takng the positin that it is ALL RIGHT to physically asssault someone who is FOLLOWING you.. We could get rid of a lot of people if this ridiculous proposition is accepted (in that broad kind of assertin, which is the very by road kind of assertin that som many "journalsits" are makng in this case). Who is it that does the most FOLLOWING in this coutnry, in an obnozious and even ASSAULTING way? Right. It is those HPOCRITES known as "JOURNALISTS". You may remember Princess Di, who many think was HOUNDED to here DEATH by a sorrt of "journalist". Are American "journalists" any better than those photographers pursuing Princess Di? I don't think so. In some ways, American "journalists' are WORSE. Notice how every time a person (well nown politician or just a "celebrity" by circumstqance) turns around and ASSAULTS a "jopurnalist" (like Trayvon Martin turned around and assaulted Zimmerman?), "journalsits" jump all over the person who DARED to HTI a "journalist" (no matter how "aggeessive" the "journalist" had been). Do you see how this Martn case could have a silver lining.? What if it became ACCEPTED that a person being "pursued" could turn around and REAK THE NOSE of the 'journalist" ? This might be one of the best things that ever happened to civilization!!!! If we someohow managed that, we shuld probably PARDON Zimmerman by acclamation, and erect a satue to Trayvon Martin as giving his life so civiliztion could live. I am actually somewhat amazed, especially in a state like Texas, how "journalists" are not SHOT outside of peole's homes more often than they are. Remember Texas law, which says you can SHOT an intruder outside of your house!!!
Yuo say "journalists' have special rights? That is jsut thepoint. they DON'T. A "journalist" has NO MORE RIGHT to go up and stick a mike in someone's face, or chase soemone down a road, than George Zimmerman has. The Supreme Court has ALWAYS held that "journalists" have no more rights than any other citizen. In fact, looked at proeperly, EVERY CITIZEN (ore even non-citizen) is a "journalist". Is there any reason Zimmerman could not have been gathering materila for a book or for a "free lance" article for which someone might PAY him (Zimmerman hopefully not being as stupid as the author of this blog, who does NOT get paid a dime for thies articles)? "Jounalists' have a "right" (First Amendment, realizing we are LL "journalists"), to TELL a story. They have no special "right' to GET a "story". They often make up a public "right to know" to justify the most OUTRABEOUS behavior. That is a crock They MADE THAT UP. Agian, all "journalists" have th eright tod od is PUBLISH whatever they can find out. they have NO MORE RIHGT to "find out" , or make people tell them, thn George Zimmerman (or any otehr person).
There is just no doubt. "Journalists" are the worst hlypocrites who have ever walked the Eararth , on two legs or four.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight) . Wahat a I doing going to a library? AUDI BOOKS. I treally is effectively mpossible fore me to read a whole book anymore, or an article aas long as most of my blog entiries. And I have nothing agaisnt guns. However, I just have had no urge to own one,or shoot one, since I was discharged from the army thoose 40 years ago. My younger DAUGHTER, in contrast,, liked to shoot a pistol even in high school. That shuld scare the HELL out of you!!!!!! Not that I think my younger daughter, wieghing maybe 110 or 115 pounds, could not handle EITHER George Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin without a gun. That is here problem. She has TOO MUCH confidence. It might get here in troulbe some day, as maybe it go t George Zimmerman in trouble. Did I mentin that my younger daughter also takes BOXING LESSONS? You really should have NIGHTMARES about this, and WOULD HAVE (like me) if you had ever MET my younger daughter (an attorneyin New Yrok City--my REVENGE on New York City for, wel evelrythign about New Yrok City. (eseically the politics). Then there is my OLDER DAUGHTER, who represents my REVENGE on Massachusetts and Boston (Massachusettts being the ONLY sate not to vote for Ronald Reagan in 1984, for whic I will never forgive the state).
AT&T/Yaho "News": Partisan Political Hacks To Whom Yu shuould lPay no Attentino (Except Boycott)
Who is former Senator Dorgan? You don't know? I din't think you did, if you are an average person with an actual LIEF (or don't live in the Dakotas, a I THINK, without being sure, that he is the former Seantor from North Dakota. That did not stop something known as "The Daily Tciker" from having a FEATURED "top story" on my AT&T/Yahoo News" default lpage (ATl&T and Yahoo being the names takng responsibility accross the top of the page, and I am hppy to give it to them--may they CHOKE on it):
$4 Gas: There is "no justification" for high gas prices salys former Senator Dorgan."
This is PURE PROPAGANDA. Trnalation: The mainstream media wants to PUSH the pro-Obama idea that there is "no justification" for high gas prices (not Obama's fault, that is, when it IS Obama's fault, in substantial part). . In other words, thi is the MEDIA positon. But they (the media) are DISONEST. They don't want to assert it is their position. Among other things, NO ONE thinks the media have ANY credibility. Thuys, what does the media do? Easy . They look around for ANYONE that had some kind of position who is putting forth the MEDIA position. Then they cite that person as a "leading expert".
Who is Senator Dorgan , a person wo, if I remember right, did not e ven RUN for re-electin because he was gong to be BEATEN, such that his opinion on gas prices is a "top story". Nope. PROPAGANDA, pure and simple. Oh, when is the last time you saw a mainstream media source cite, say, Rick Santourm (before he was running for President), as "authority" for a 'top story" as to is OPINNION on something. It doesn't happen that the maisnstream media cites a CONSERVATIVEW "has been" for anything, UNLESS it is to support the MEDIA position on something (same purpose as citing Dorgan). In other words, a "conservative" CAN get mainstream media notice by CRITICIZING other conservatives. That suddenly makes anyone, with the most flimsy credentials, a "key" conservative.
P.S No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight)). No, my eyesight did NOT keep me from checking out just who Senator Dorgan WAS. (past tense to denote a hhas been). If I got it wrong, that merelyl illustrates my point how ridiculous this "top story" was. Oh, I know I COULD have looked at the body of tarticle. But that would hahave been "cheating'. I refuse to reaad PURE PROGAPANDA right out of George Orwell's "1984", unless I HAVE to for urposes of an article. I don't feel it mattered here to make my point. Read, again, the article this week, quoting ABC (lol), as to how Obama made a great fanfare of approving oil EXPLORATION off of the Atlantiic, Coast, but will not app9rove DIRILLING (pretty much the same dihsonest ploy the Obama Administratin has attempted firght down the line, including supposedly "opening" up areas like the Gulf OMexico (after previously SHUTTING DOWN driling, even in the face of a Federal court order), with a ctch: Few drillling PERMITS are actually granted. In other words, Obama is making sure little DRILLNG takes place on Federally contorlled land--as little as the can possibly arrange while PRETENDING to be in faovr of expanidng oil production.
$4 Gas: There is "no justification" for high gas prices salys former Senator Dorgan."
This is PURE PROPAGANDA. Trnalation: The mainstream media wants to PUSH the pro-Obama idea that there is "no justification" for high gas prices (not Obama's fault, that is, when it IS Obama's fault, in substantial part). . In other words, thi is the MEDIA positon. But they (the media) are DISONEST. They don't want to assert it is their position. Among other things, NO ONE thinks the media have ANY credibility. Thuys, what does the media do? Easy . They look around for ANYONE that had some kind of position who is putting forth the MEDIA position. Then they cite that person as a "leading expert".
Who is Senator Dorgan , a person wo, if I remember right, did not e ven RUN for re-electin because he was gong to be BEATEN, such that his opinion on gas prices is a "top story". Nope. PROPAGANDA, pure and simple. Oh, when is the last time you saw a mainstream media source cite, say, Rick Santourm (before he was running for President), as "authority" for a 'top story" as to is OPINNION on something. It doesn't happen that the maisnstream media cites a CONSERVATIVEW "has been" for anything, UNLESS it is to support the MEDIA position on something (same purpose as citing Dorgan). In other words, a "conservative" CAN get mainstream media notice by CRITICIZING other conservatives. That suddenly makes anyone, with the most flimsy credentials, a "key" conservative.
P.S No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight)). No, my eyesight did NOT keep me from checking out just who Senator Dorgan WAS. (past tense to denote a hhas been). If I got it wrong, that merelyl illustrates my point how ridiculous this "top story" was. Oh, I know I COULD have looked at the body of tarticle. But that would hahave been "cheating'. I refuse to reaad PURE PROGAPANDA right out of George Orwell's "1984", unless I HAVE to for urposes of an article. I don't feel it mattered here to make my point. Read, again, the article this week, quoting ABC (lol), as to how Obama made a great fanfare of approving oil EXPLORATION off of the Atlantiic, Coast, but will not app9rove DIRILLING (pretty much the same dihsonest ploy the Obama Administratin has attempted firght down the line, including supposedly "opening" up areas like the Gulf OMexico (after previously SHUTTING DOWN driling, even in the face of a Federal court order), with a ctch: Few drillling PERMITS are actually granted. In other words, Obama is making sure little DRILLNG takes place on Federally contorlled land--as little as the can possibly arrange while PRETENDING to be in faovr of expanidng oil production.
Unemployment Claims: No Improvement in New Unemployment Claimsin More Than Gwo Months, as Media LIES Get Worse (Xcorre: Blog 8,311-Revised Media 0-
The report on new unemplyment claims came out this morning, as usual, and it exposed media LIES that have gone nuclear. This has gotten ridiculous, it is so bad, even though this blg has exposed the LIES in the way the media reports this weekly number for YEARS> Before going on, read last Fridya's blog article on last Thursday's report, and realize this blog is NEVER WRONG (except, perhaps, in underestimating how UNRELIABLE these numbers are).
What wwere the disgracefu media headlines last week (pointed out, IN FORESIGHT, as disgraceful by tis, blog, although it was even worse than I thought)? Last week's orgasmic headlines were that the number of new unemployment claims last week had FALLEN 5,000, to 348,000, the LOWEST level since February, 2008. That repeated the SAME media headlines from six weeks or so before, when the INTITIAL report had also shown (supposedly) new unemplyment claims at 348,000. Problem: this was all a LIE, as this blog todld you. The media was comparing an UNREVISED number (the 348,000 initially "reported" last week) with a REVISED number (revising the number initially reported the previoius Thrsuday). In actual fact, as this blog reported, last Thursday number showed NO IMPROVEMENT in the number of new unemployment claims in two monthsand merely kept us in the SAME range of 350,000 to 365,000 that we have beenin almost this entire year. Little did I know howRIGHT this blog was--although you should know by now that this blog is NEVER WRONG.
The REVISED number of new unemployment claims for LAST THURSDAY was 364,000. That was an UPWRD REVISION (bad) of fully 16,000. So much for new unemployment claims FALLING 5,000 last week, to a "new" four year low. The media can now RECYCLE the SAME LIES again, becakuse the REVISED number has STILL not been below 350,000 in those same last four years, although it has been right at 350,000 several times in the past few months. We are now approaching THREE MONTHS that the number of new unemployment claims has been in that same 350,000 to 365,00 range. Pluse, we now find out that the number is at the TOP of that range, instead of at the botoom (as reported last week, in the weekly MEDIA LIES--which incudes the LIES of teh "business network" of the unfair and unbalanced company--the "F" word). It gets wrose, from the media: far wrose (hard as that is to belive).
The nnumber of new unemplyment calims reproted this mrning was 359,000. Notice that is 11,000 ABOVE the number initially rreported last Thursday (when a reported 4,000 "drop" has now turned into an 11,000 RISE). What is the media headine I saw (on MarketWatch.com)? Right. You just can';t be a WORSE liear than this. The media headline was 'Improving trend in Jobless claims continues," and the article says that the number of new unemplyment claims FELL 5,000 (the same LYING headine as last week). On an apples-to-apples basis (comapring the UNREVISED reprot with the UNREVISED report), this is an obvius LIE. This was acttaully a RISE of 11,000. Remember, the 359,00 is an UNREVISED number, to be REVISED nexte week. The revision is amost ALWAYS upward, and has consistently been revised UPWARD by about 3,000. That would mean that the most likely number for this Thursday, as revised, will be around 362,0000. BUT. Look at the GAMES being played with these numbers, and especailly with the REPORTING of these numbers. Thjese people (the MIEDIA, and maybe the Labor Department) have been concluslively exposed as LIARS (some of the wrost, most obvious, liars to ever exist on this Earth). That is how a BAD reprort on new unemplyment claims (last Thursday's REVISED 364,000 and this week's HIGH number of 359,000--high for the range over the past three monghs) can be SPUN as "good" news showing an "improving trend".
Again, what the last wo months show is NO IMPROVEMENT in new unemplyment claims for going on three months. In fact, the last two weeks show a DETERIORATION (repeating the patter on the previous two years at this time of year), even though that deterioration has not yet last long enough, nor has the number gone high enough, to say that the"trend" has turned NEGATIVE. We CAN definitively say--giving the LIE to media LIEARS--that there is NO present "trend": NO IMPROVEMENT in new unemplyment claims for going on three months (almsot this entire year). But the media REPORTING of the way that tkhese numbers are released, and then revised, has NEVER had a headline: "New unemplyment claims rise to two month high." Yet, that is exaclty what has happened. Today's report was BAD--not a contnuation of an "improving trend". Do you need any more evidence that you shuld pay NO ATATENATION to what the media says, other than to try to figure out their LIES (which is how this blog can help you).
Look at where we are. We know that today's headliness, and reportof a "fall" in new unemplyment claims, are LIES. We know that there is a substantial risk that the same DETERIORATION in these weeekly numbers that occurred the past two years is on the verge of taking place, although we can't yet be sure. WE know that the weekly numbers are unreliable. But a revison of 16,0000 is RIDICULUOS (although it has happened before). It again makes a LIE aout of the reporting of these emplyment numbers as concrete numbers, when they are basically ESTIMATES written on water. This was a 16,000 ERROR in the initial report . That is on top of a "margin of error" in the SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT which is 50,000 or more. That is why these weeky numbers ONLY mean something OVER TIME, and why the initially released weeky number (or even the revised number the next week) cannot be "reported" as a concrete number, unless lyou want to LIE. The meidia does ant to LIE.
Where is the APOLOGY from the media for the LIES on reporting these numbers? No apology, because these peole havve no shame. They are LIARS, and they know they are LIARS. But they don't care. They don't figure YOU caere. They figure that each week's lies disappear, and are forgotten, as this week's lies are put out--as if you shouuld pay jsut as much attentino to this week's lies as if you had not jsut been shown that the way the media reorts these numbers is always a LIE.
Look how bad off we are here, if we are not media liears. As stated, the consistent LIE has averaged about 3,000. That is, the number of new unemployment claims has been consistently revised UPWRD 3,000 or so the next week. But, this week, the number was revised UP that ridiculous total of 16,000 (seemingly to AVOID that headline, which has never happpened, that we have reached a recent HIGH, as the number is deteriorating). Therefore, what can we expect next wek? Can we expect the 359,000 to be revised DOWN, because last week's number was revised UP SO MUCH? It is really impossible to know what to expect, when you have this kind of aberrationn. Although it has happened before that this weekly revisoin has been above 10,000, it is rare. All we can say is that, in past occasins, the number has settled back into this CONSISTENT revision UPWARD of about 3,000 (CONSISTENTLY maknig the weekly number appear better than it really is). Are we suddenly going to have the REVISION bounce around as much as the weekly number bounces around? Taht is not what history wuld tell us. But who knows. The way these weekly numbers are REPORTED has more to do with FANTASY than reality. The real HEADLINE this morning shuld have been about taht ridiculous 16,000 REVISION of last week's number, and what it shows about the "meaning" of eacch Thrusday's initially reported number (not to mentin the media lies in reporting that weekly announced number). Maybe some of the articles tallk aobut his dEEP in the article. I don't see well enough to go into this in any kind of depth . That is the point of the medi LIES. They don't expect that even people wwo CAN SEE will go beyond the headlines, and maybe the first paragraph or two.
The media is simply uninterested in "journalism", or "facts". They think they are getting away with this, because they are all the SAME. I don't think they are. I believe that there "respect" for the media goes down every day, and is now lower than it has ever been--even for people who do not follow and esxpose the media LIES the way I do. On a gut level, people perceive that they are being lied to, because all the media cares about is a "storyline". Michael Crichton wrote "Airfarame" about a decade ago, and it has gotten much WORSE since then. My own concuson is that today's "journalists" are being TRAINED to be StUPID and DISHOENST. Read my weekly articles (almost, ) over the past few YEARS, on the meid areporting of these wekly released numbers on new unemplyment claims before you DARE to say I am overstating this. And this week's reporting, combined iwth last week's, is the WORST yet (when even I did not think it could get any worse).
P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).
What wwere the disgracefu media headlines last week (pointed out, IN FORESIGHT, as disgraceful by tis, blog, although it was even worse than I thought)? Last week's orgasmic headlines were that the number of new unemployment claims last week had FALLEN 5,000, to 348,000, the LOWEST level since February, 2008. That repeated the SAME media headlines from six weeks or so before, when the INTITIAL report had also shown (supposedly) new unemplyment claims at 348,000. Problem: this was all a LIE, as this blog todld you. The media was comparing an UNREVISED number (the 348,000 initially "reported" last week) with a REVISED number (revising the number initially reported the previoius Thrsuday). In actual fact, as this blog reported, last Thursday number showed NO IMPROVEMENT in the number of new unemployment claims in two monthsand merely kept us in the SAME range of 350,000 to 365,000 that we have beenin almost this entire year. Little did I know howRIGHT this blog was--although you should know by now that this blog is NEVER WRONG.
The REVISED number of new unemployment claims for LAST THURSDAY was 364,000. That was an UPWRD REVISION (bad) of fully 16,000. So much for new unemployment claims FALLING 5,000 last week, to a "new" four year low. The media can now RECYCLE the SAME LIES again, becakuse the REVISED number has STILL not been below 350,000 in those same last four years, although it has been right at 350,000 several times in the past few months. We are now approaching THREE MONTHS that the number of new unemployment claims has been in that same 350,000 to 365,00 range. Pluse, we now find out that the number is at the TOP of that range, instead of at the botoom (as reported last week, in the weekly MEDIA LIES--which incudes the LIES of teh "business network" of the unfair and unbalanced company--the "F" word). It gets wrose, from the media: far wrose (hard as that is to belive).
The nnumber of new unemplyment calims reproted this mrning was 359,000. Notice that is 11,000 ABOVE the number initially rreported last Thursday (when a reported 4,000 "drop" has now turned into an 11,000 RISE). What is the media headine I saw (on MarketWatch.com)? Right. You just can';t be a WORSE liear than this. The media headline was 'Improving trend in Jobless claims continues," and the article says that the number of new unemplyment claims FELL 5,000 (the same LYING headine as last week). On an apples-to-apples basis (comapring the UNREVISED reprot with the UNREVISED report), this is an obvius LIE. This was acttaully a RISE of 11,000. Remember, the 359,00 is an UNREVISED number, to be REVISED nexte week. The revision is amost ALWAYS upward, and has consistently been revised UPWARD by about 3,000. That would mean that the most likely number for this Thursday, as revised, will be around 362,0000. BUT. Look at the GAMES being played with these numbers, and especailly with the REPORTING of these numbers. Thjese people (the MIEDIA, and maybe the Labor Department) have been concluslively exposed as LIARS (some of the wrost, most obvious, liars to ever exist on this Earth). That is how a BAD reprort on new unemplyment claims (last Thursday's REVISED 364,000 and this week's HIGH number of 359,000--high for the range over the past three monghs) can be SPUN as "good" news showing an "improving trend".
Again, what the last wo months show is NO IMPROVEMENT in new unemplyment claims for going on three months. In fact, the last two weeks show a DETERIORATION (repeating the patter on the previous two years at this time of year), even though that deterioration has not yet last long enough, nor has the number gone high enough, to say that the"trend" has turned NEGATIVE. We CAN definitively say--giving the LIE to media LIEARS--that there is NO present "trend": NO IMPROVEMENT in new unemplyment claims for going on three months (almsot this entire year). But the media REPORTING of the way that tkhese numbers are released, and then revised, has NEVER had a headline: "New unemplyment claims rise to two month high." Yet, that is exaclty what has happened. Today's report was BAD--not a contnuation of an "improving trend". Do you need any more evidence that you shuld pay NO ATATENATION to what the media says, other than to try to figure out their LIES (which is how this blog can help you).
Look at where we are. We know that today's headliness, and reportof a "fall" in new unemplyment claims, are LIES. We know that there is a substantial risk that the same DETERIORATION in these weeekly numbers that occurred the past two years is on the verge of taking place, although we can't yet be sure. WE know that the weekly numbers are unreliable. But a revison of 16,0000 is RIDICULUOS (although it has happened before). It again makes a LIE aout of the reporting of these emplyment numbers as concrete numbers, when they are basically ESTIMATES written on water. This was a 16,000 ERROR in the initial report . That is on top of a "margin of error" in the SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT which is 50,000 or more. That is why these weeky numbers ONLY mean something OVER TIME, and why the initially released weeky number (or even the revised number the next week) cannot be "reported" as a concrete number, unless lyou want to LIE. The meidia does ant to LIE.
Where is the APOLOGY from the media for the LIES on reporting these numbers? No apology, because these peole havve no shame. They are LIARS, and they know they are LIARS. But they don't care. They don't figure YOU caere. They figure that each week's lies disappear, and are forgotten, as this week's lies are put out--as if you shouuld pay jsut as much attentino to this week's lies as if you had not jsut been shown that the way the media reorts these numbers is always a LIE.
Look how bad off we are here, if we are not media liears. As stated, the consistent LIE has averaged about 3,000. That is, the number of new unemployment claims has been consistently revised UPWRD 3,000 or so the next week. But, this week, the number was revised UP that ridiculous total of 16,000 (seemingly to AVOID that headline, which has never happpened, that we have reached a recent HIGH, as the number is deteriorating). Therefore, what can we expect next wek? Can we expect the 359,000 to be revised DOWN, because last week's number was revised UP SO MUCH? It is really impossible to know what to expect, when you have this kind of aberrationn. Although it has happened before that this weekly revisoin has been above 10,000, it is rare. All we can say is that, in past occasins, the number has settled back into this CONSISTENT revision UPWARD of about 3,000 (CONSISTENTLY maknig the weekly number appear better than it really is). Are we suddenly going to have the REVISION bounce around as much as the weekly number bounces around? Taht is not what history wuld tell us. But who knows. The way these weekly numbers are REPORTED has more to do with FANTASY than reality. The real HEADLINE this morning shuld have been about taht ridiculous 16,000 REVISION of last week's number, and what it shows about the "meaning" of eacch Thrusday's initially reported number (not to mentin the media lies in reporting that weekly announced number). Maybe some of the articles tallk aobut his dEEP in the article. I don't see well enough to go into this in any kind of depth . That is the point of the medi LIES. They don't expect that even people wwo CAN SEE will go beyond the headlines, and maybe the first paragraph or two.
The media is simply uninterested in "journalism", or "facts". They think they are getting away with this, because they are all the SAME. I don't think they are. I believe that there "respect" for the media goes down every day, and is now lower than it has ever been--even for people who do not follow and esxpose the media LIES the way I do. On a gut level, people perceive that they are being lied to, because all the media cares about is a "storyline". Michael Crichton wrote "Airfarame" about a decade ago, and it has gotten much WORSE since then. My own concuson is that today's "journalists" are being TRAINED to be StUPID and DISHOENST. Read my weekly articles (almost, ) over the past few YEARS, on the meid areporting of these wekly released numbers on new unemplyment claims before you DARE to say I am overstating this. And this week's reporting, combined iwth last week's, is the WORST yet (when even I did not think it could get any worse).
P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
AT&T and Yahoo "News": Anti-Hispanic Racists and Liars
This is a floow up t the previous article, because it is obviiously a developing media narrative in the campaign to ALYNCH George Zimmerman (who may or may not have committed a form of homicide, but who is not getting a fair shake). Here is the present "featured" headlinline on AT&T/Yahoo "News" (not clear from waht original source, but I am hppy to give AT&T and Yahoo full credit):
"Trayvon Martin video shows no blod or bruises on George Zimmerman"
That is not true, except in a very TECHNICAL way that LIES. This is the same video that I SAW Anderson Cooper present on CNN. Anderson Cooper even commented that the vidoe was not good enough (not being made for that purpose) to "show" "blood" and "bruises" on George Zimmerman. Now it is certainly true taht there is obviusly not a LOT of blood STILL on Zimmerman (for example, his face) at the time of the video. Washe CLEANED in any way? As usual, the media is not interested, because this is not about the facts (which wouuldhave to WAIT for a disclousure of what the POLICE found when they arived at the scene, and when they EXAMINED Zimmerman (as you see a police officer doing on the video).
Now you know that Zimmerman was not severely beaten up, because he was not sent in an ambulance to the emergency room from the scene. Nor was he brought to the emergency room by a police car. Thus, you can assume that the plice did not see any SERIOUS injuries. I had a broken nose once, with almost no obvious mark (from a distance, or which would have shown on this video). We can assume that, as stated, Zimmerm had no SEROUS injuries. He might say that he managed to shot his attacker before serious injury was inflicted. But the key point here is: Can we also assume that the police SAW physical levidence to support George Zimmerman's story--at least to some degree? I think we can ASSUME that, in the absence of real evidence on the ponit. Whey? Well, it is almost inconceivable that the state's attorney (representative of the D.A., or whatever it is called in Florida) would have said that there ws no basis to charge George Zimmerman is there was NOT A MARK ON ZIMMERMAN. Yet, that is what the LYING headline implies, and what Anderson Cooper was trying to imply (while SAYING that the video ws not GOOD ENOUGH to really see whehter there wwas any blood or damage to the back of Zimmerman's head. Further, the CITY MANAGER said theat the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE supported Zimmerman's story. There is almost no possibility that he woululd have said that unless lthere was SOME physical evidence that supported Zimmerman's story, including SOME evidence of SOME injury. Again, the media is not interested in waiting for the FACTS. They insist on SPECULATING from INADEQUATE evidence. In this case, what the police FIRST on the scene SAW, and what is in ALL of the police reports, is necessary to get the facts.
Oh. The media is STILL uninterested in whether there was an blood, or any bruises, on TRAYVON MARTIN. You have that eyewitness who says he saw ZIMMERMAN on the bottom with his head being banged against the ground. There is all of tthis talk of SCREAMING. Is it credible that there was NO evidence of any of tis on EITHER Zimmerman or Martin? I don't think so, although it may be barely possible. Would the city manager reallly have said that the "physical evidence" supported Zimmerman's story, again, if there was NOT A MARK on Zimmerman? That, too, seems extremely unllikely (although, again, barely possible0. THIS woululd have been a somewhat "fair" headline: "Police vidoe shows no serous beating suffered by Zimmermna". The actual headline is simply disgraceful, from tghe video I SAW on CNN. Zimmerman was brought into the room in handcuffs, and it is hardly like the police were treating him like some kind of honored guest. This video is MAINLY to show that thre was no COERCION on the part of the police-no MISCONDUCT on the part of the police. It is part of the LIE that this video was ever intended to be conclusive EVIDENCE fof teh injuries suffered by George Zimmerman. It simply did not have that purpose, and is INADEQUATE for that purpose. If, of course, Ximmerman did seek medical attention, after being released, that report MIGHT be relevant evidence as well.
If you are inteested int he FACTS., then you have to be willing oto WAIT for the FAC CTS. Sure, show the vidoe. But to then SPECULATE on whether the video is consistent with Zimmerman's story, especially when the police KNEW Zimmermn's story had had BETTER information on Zimmerman's "marks' of injury, may be what "modern" "journalism" does (IF they think they can get away with it) to support their agenda and "storyline". That does not make it RIGHT. It is NOT RIGHT. It is evil stuff.
As to the anti-Hispanic racism, beyond the UNFAIRNESS to an Hispanic, see tomorrow's article, planned for tomorrow morning. As a "tease", consider the fact taht the New York Times has refereed to Zimmerman as a "white Hispanic" (like, I presume, President Obama is a "white African-American). If you don't consider that RACIST, then you have no idea of what the term means. That "white Hsipanice" term has been picked up around the media, including by CNN. I read an article in the Washington Post ("positions") seeming to CRITICIZE the term (DUH!!!). But where is the mainstream media UTRAGE about the term, and raising it at all?
See the article palnned for tomorrow morning about the PICTGURES, andd what I consider the obvius RACISM of AT&T, and Yahoo "News', and The Cutline, in simply refusing to REFER to Zimmerman as Hispanic.--while constantly referring to Travon Martin as "African-American". That, o fcourse, is what led to "white Hispanic" i the first plce. As far as the mainstream media is concerned, this is BLACK versus WHITE. And they don't wan tto confuse their nice, RACIST narrrative by sticking an Hipanci in the middle of this. Therefore, they have to JUSTIFY not referring to Zimmerman as Hiispanic. Did Zimmerman being an Hispaniic have anything to do with what happened? How would I know: certainly NOT be listening to the mainstream media. Did Trayvon Martin being African-American have anything to do with what happened? I have seen NO EVIDENCE of that.
We would all be better off if we simply IGNORED race in this kind of case, and tried to get the FACTS. If the INDIVIDUAL George Zimmerman shoululd be chared with manslaughter, based on the FACTS., so be it. Trayvon Martin is entitled to INDIVIDUAL justice an NOT "racial justice". Sure, if FACTS come out that indicate that Martin did not get individual justice specificaly because of his race, then something needs to be done. But that can come later, based--again--on FACTS (rather than specualaitn designed to pit races agasint each other). Modern "journnalists" START with the conclusion, and then look for what they can SPIN as facts to support the conclusin they have reached. See Michael Crichton's novel, "Airframe", which is the best descriptiong I have seen of how modern "journalism" works. Again, this may be how they work, but it is EVIL stuff.
Get the FACTS first. Then you can determine the conclusions. There are enough facts here to indicate that the case shuld be reviewed very carefully to make sure the INDIVIDUALS are treated fairly. What worries me is that the RESULT will be a LYNCHING of George Zimmerman based on the STORYLINE. That is RACISM: if George Zimmerman is CHRGED (not to mentin convicted) JUST because he shot an unarmed young black man (while he, himself, is Hispanic). Now this would be all right IF an Hispanic would be CHARGAED for killing an HISPANIC under the same FACTS. Or if an African-American had killed an unarmed African-American under the sameFACTS. Or if a "white' person had killed an unarmed young white man under the same FACTS. We need to take RACE OUT OF IT. Instead, people like those of CNN have made this all about RACE. And I am afraid THAT is the reason George Zimmerman will be indicted: the wrong, RACIST reason.
As I have said before, I would not have done what Zimmerman did. No, AI am not talking aoubt "disobeying" what was NOT a police "command", although I probaly would not have done that either. Zimmerman put himself in a position where things could too easily go wrong. Stil, people often do that. And don't we NEED peole like Zimmerman, trying to take "pro-active" measures to "protect" their eneighborhoood? Asi I have said, our balck inner cities and GANG neighborhoods could certainly use SOMETHING. And there are occasioinal stories about BLAKC peole "taking back" their neighborhood from durg dealers and the like. This is all COMPLEX stuff, and making it all about RACE (when most people in America are willing to go BEOND RACE) is the WRONG way to react to this sort of thing.
P.S. No proofreading or sepell checking (bad eyesight). Yes, I am PREDICTING that George Zimmerman will eventually be indicted, although iI am convinced it will be for the WRONG reason (political, race based). I am open to the idea that the SHOULD be indicted, except I know I have NO way of knowing that because our media is simply uninterested in "neutral" facts. I hope that FACTGS come out that make it fairly clear whehter ZZimmerman should be indicted/convicted. I have this sneaking suspicion that it mmay be a CLOSE QEUSTIN, whch means that Zimmeraman might end up being railroaded when the case against him is very doubtful (which the mediaia would CONDEMN if it happened to a "real" (lol) Hispanic how had shot an unarmed "white" person. Then the questins woululd all be about "fairness", and whether the Hispanic was recieiving a "fair shake" 9or being railroaded by "whites'). It shows how fundamentally RACIST our media is that THEY are the ones doing the RAILROADING here BASED ON RACE.
"Trayvon Martin video shows no blod or bruises on George Zimmerman"
That is not true, except in a very TECHNICAL way that LIES. This is the same video that I SAW Anderson Cooper present on CNN. Anderson Cooper even commented that the vidoe was not good enough (not being made for that purpose) to "show" "blood" and "bruises" on George Zimmerman. Now it is certainly true taht there is obviusly not a LOT of blood STILL on Zimmerman (for example, his face) at the time of the video. Washe CLEANED in any way? As usual, the media is not interested, because this is not about the facts (which wouuldhave to WAIT for a disclousure of what the POLICE found when they arived at the scene, and when they EXAMINED Zimmerman (as you see a police officer doing on the video).
Now you know that Zimmerman was not severely beaten up, because he was not sent in an ambulance to the emergency room from the scene. Nor was he brought to the emergency room by a police car. Thus, you can assume that the plice did not see any SERIOUS injuries. I had a broken nose once, with almost no obvious mark (from a distance, or which would have shown on this video). We can assume that, as stated, Zimmerm had no SEROUS injuries. He might say that he managed to shot his attacker before serious injury was inflicted. But the key point here is: Can we also assume that the police SAW physical levidence to support George Zimmerman's story--at least to some degree? I think we can ASSUME that, in the absence of real evidence on the ponit. Whey? Well, it is almost inconceivable that the state's attorney (representative of the D.A., or whatever it is called in Florida) would have said that there ws no basis to charge George Zimmerman is there was NOT A MARK ON ZIMMERMAN. Yet, that is what the LYING headline implies, and what Anderson Cooper was trying to imply (while SAYING that the video ws not GOOD ENOUGH to really see whehter there wwas any blood or damage to the back of Zimmerman's head. Further, the CITY MANAGER said theat the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE supported Zimmerman's story. There is almost no possibility that he woululd have said that unless lthere was SOME physical evidence that supported Zimmerman's story, including SOME evidence of SOME injury. Again, the media is not interested in waiting for the FACTS. They insist on SPECULATING from INADEQUATE evidence. In this case, what the police FIRST on the scene SAW, and what is in ALL of the police reports, is necessary to get the facts.
Oh. The media is STILL uninterested in whether there was an blood, or any bruises, on TRAYVON MARTIN. You have that eyewitness who says he saw ZIMMERMAN on the bottom with his head being banged against the ground. There is all of tthis talk of SCREAMING. Is it credible that there was NO evidence of any of tis on EITHER Zimmerman or Martin? I don't think so, although it may be barely possible. Would the city manager reallly have said that the "physical evidence" supported Zimmerman's story, again, if there was NOT A MARK on Zimmerman? That, too, seems extremely unllikely (although, again, barely possible0. THIS woululd have been a somewhat "fair" headline: "Police vidoe shows no serous beating suffered by Zimmermna". The actual headline is simply disgraceful, from tghe video I SAW on CNN. Zimmerman was brought into the room in handcuffs, and it is hardly like the police were treating him like some kind of honored guest. This video is MAINLY to show that thre was no COERCION on the part of the police-no MISCONDUCT on the part of the police. It is part of the LIE that this video was ever intended to be conclusive EVIDENCE fof teh injuries suffered by George Zimmerman. It simply did not have that purpose, and is INADEQUATE for that purpose. If, of course, Ximmerman did seek medical attention, after being released, that report MIGHT be relevant evidence as well.
If you are inteested int he FACTS., then you have to be willing oto WAIT for the FAC CTS. Sure, show the vidoe. But to then SPECULATE on whether the video is consistent with Zimmerman's story, especially when the police KNEW Zimmermn's story had had BETTER information on Zimmerman's "marks' of injury, may be what "modern" "journalism" does (IF they think they can get away with it) to support their agenda and "storyline". That does not make it RIGHT. It is NOT RIGHT. It is evil stuff.
As to the anti-Hispanic racism, beyond the UNFAIRNESS to an Hispanic, see tomorrow's article, planned for tomorrow morning. As a "tease", consider the fact taht the New York Times has refereed to Zimmerman as a "white Hispanic" (like, I presume, President Obama is a "white African-American). If you don't consider that RACIST, then you have no idea of what the term means. That "white Hsipanice" term has been picked up around the media, including by CNN. I read an article in the Washington Post ("positions") seeming to CRITICIZE the term (DUH!!!). But where is the mainstream media UTRAGE about the term, and raising it at all?
See the article palnned for tomorrow morning about the PICTGURES, andd what I consider the obvius RACISM of AT&T, and Yahoo "News', and The Cutline, in simply refusing to REFER to Zimmerman as Hispanic.--while constantly referring to Travon Martin as "African-American". That, o fcourse, is what led to "white Hispanic" i the first plce. As far as the mainstream media is concerned, this is BLACK versus WHITE. And they don't wan tto confuse their nice, RACIST narrrative by sticking an Hipanci in the middle of this. Therefore, they have to JUSTIFY not referring to Zimmerman as Hiispanic. Did Zimmerman being an Hispaniic have anything to do with what happened? How would I know: certainly NOT be listening to the mainstream media. Did Trayvon Martin being African-American have anything to do with what happened? I have seen NO EVIDENCE of that.
We would all be better off if we simply IGNORED race in this kind of case, and tried to get the FACTS. If the INDIVIDUAL George Zimmerman shoululd be chared with manslaughter, based on the FACTS., so be it. Trayvon Martin is entitled to INDIVIDUAL justice an NOT "racial justice". Sure, if FACTS come out that indicate that Martin did not get individual justice specificaly because of his race, then something needs to be done. But that can come later, based--again--on FACTS (rather than specualaitn designed to pit races agasint each other). Modern "journnalists" START with the conclusion, and then look for what they can SPIN as facts to support the conclusin they have reached. See Michael Crichton's novel, "Airframe", which is the best descriptiong I have seen of how modern "journalism" works. Again, this may be how they work, but it is EVIL stuff.
Get the FACTS first. Then you can determine the conclusions. There are enough facts here to indicate that the case shuld be reviewed very carefully to make sure the INDIVIDUALS are treated fairly. What worries me is that the RESULT will be a LYNCHING of George Zimmerman based on the STORYLINE. That is RACISM: if George Zimmerman is CHRGED (not to mentin convicted) JUST because he shot an unarmed young black man (while he, himself, is Hispanic). Now this would be all right IF an Hispanic would be CHARGAED for killing an HISPANIC under the same FACTS. Or if an African-American had killed an unarmed African-American under the sameFACTS. Or if a "white' person had killed an unarmed young white man under the same FACTS. We need to take RACE OUT OF IT. Instead, people like those of CNN have made this all about RACE. And I am afraid THAT is the reason George Zimmerman will be indicted: the wrong, RACIST reason.
As I have said before, I would not have done what Zimmerman did. No, AI am not talking aoubt "disobeying" what was NOT a police "command", although I probaly would not have done that either. Zimmerman put himself in a position where things could too easily go wrong. Stil, people often do that. And don't we NEED peole like Zimmerman, trying to take "pro-active" measures to "protect" their eneighborhoood? Asi I have said, our balck inner cities and GANG neighborhoods could certainly use SOMETHING. And there are occasioinal stories about BLAKC peole "taking back" their neighborhood from durg dealers and the like. This is all COMPLEX stuff, and making it all about RACE (when most people in America are willing to go BEOND RACE) is the WRONG way to react to this sort of thing.
P.S. No proofreading or sepell checking (bad eyesight). Yes, I am PREDICTING that George Zimmerman will eventually be indicted, although iI am convinced it will be for the WRONG reason (political, race based). I am open to the idea that the SHOULD be indicted, except I know I have NO way of knowing that because our media is simply uninterested in "neutral" facts. I hope that FACTGS come out that make it fairly clear whehter ZZimmerman should be indicted/convicted. I have this sneaking suspicion that it mmay be a CLOSE QEUSTIN, whch means that Zimmeraman might end up being railroaded when the case against him is very doubtful (which the mediaia would CONDEMN if it happened to a "real" (lol) Hispanic how had shot an unarmed "white" person. Then the questins woululd all be about "fairness", and whether the Hispanic was recieiving a "fair shake" 9or being railroaded by "whites'). It shows how fundamentally RACIST our media is that THEY are the ones doing the RAILROADING here BASED ON RACE.
President Obma on Oil: Liar-in-Chief
I feel like crying every time I hear President Obama LIE about his energy policy, because he is so BLATANT about it. Here is the ABC "News" headline (featured, in one of those randuom acts of "journalism" that is so unusualat ABC, and in these featured headlines on AT&T/Yahoo):
"President Obama okays oil exploration off of the Atalntic coast, but not drilling"
Read that sent3ence again. You know what is coming. As on the Keystone pipeline, Obama is ging to BRAG about how he has "opened" up "exploration" along the Atlantic coast, as if that does ANYTHING abut actually producting more oil in this coutnry. That is exactly what Obama has done on his LIE about his "allof the above" energy plicy. EVERONE (I really mean "everyone" here, including Obama) knows thqat Obama has done his absolute best to BLOCK actual oil drilling almsot everywhere he has the power to do so. That includes the Fulf of Mexico, and making it as difficult as lpossible to drill on ALLL Federal lands. Yet, Obama tries to take "credit" for "expanded" oil productin--which is TOTALLY the result of PRIVATE LANDS (induced by PRICE) and drilling permitd from before Obama took office. Then there is the Keysonte Piperline, where Obama went to Oklahoma to "take credit' for "pushing' through the part of the pipelie from Oklahoma to the Gulf Coast (while continuing to BOICK the important part of the pipeline FROM CANADA. What Obama has counted on is MEDIA sycophants to let him getaway with these obvius LIES.
Obama counted no the same thing here. But ABC had evidently had enough (for one lonnely story, and past time). Thus, the ABC headline makes a piont os saying that Obama's atttemtpt to suggest he is "pushing" oil production is not really true. You are not "pushing" oil PRODUCTION, unless you allow DIRILLING. "Exploration", as the ABC headline suggests, does ot produce ONE DROP of oil. In fact, there is little INCENTIVE to SERIOUSLY "explore", if you pretty much nonw you will not be alowed to DRTILL. It is an Obama Big Lie (Orwellian style) that he is "pushing" expanded oil productin, and he knows it. Expect the media to fall into line, and not CONFRONT Obama about the way he will "spin" this "decisin" as a mjor step forward in domestic oil production. Obama is doing nothing but PLAY GAMES with oil, while tryin gto BLOCK as much driling as he can.
How can anyone actually vote for this man to be re-elected Presdient of the Uniteed States? I truly don't know. Notice I,, personally, ask the same questin aobut Mitt Romney. I have no good anwer to the questoion: "Then who are we supposed to vote for?" I just refuse to vote for people I know are disasters, even if one (Romney) MIGHT be a lesseer immediate disaster than th eother. But do I want "conservatives" to be blamed for the disaster that is gong to happen with Romney (even if the disaster MIGHT be not quite as bad as if Obama stays in office). I don't pretend to say this is any easy decisn, but I have made the decisin (right or wrong) that I jsut can't stand voting for a candidate I consier only a slightly "lesser evil than Obama--in practive, mayhbe not even a "lesser eviL' as the GOP has an INCENTIVE to ooppose Obama's worst policies that they don't have with Romney.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).
"President Obama okays oil exploration off of the Atalntic coast, but not drilling"
Read that sent3ence again. You know what is coming. As on the Keystone pipeline, Obama is ging to BRAG about how he has "opened" up "exploration" along the Atlantic coast, as if that does ANYTHING abut actually producting more oil in this coutnry. That is exactly what Obama has done on his LIE about his "allof the above" energy plicy. EVERONE (I really mean "everyone" here, including Obama) knows thqat Obama has done his absolute best to BLOCK actual oil drilling almsot everywhere he has the power to do so. That includes the Fulf of Mexico, and making it as difficult as lpossible to drill on ALLL Federal lands. Yet, Obama tries to take "credit" for "expanded" oil productin--which is TOTALLY the result of PRIVATE LANDS (induced by PRICE) and drilling permitd from before Obama took office. Then there is the Keysonte Piperline, where Obama went to Oklahoma to "take credit' for "pushing' through the part of the pipelie from Oklahoma to the Gulf Coast (while continuing to BOICK the important part of the pipeline FROM CANADA. What Obama has counted on is MEDIA sycophants to let him getaway with these obvius LIES.
Obama counted no the same thing here. But ABC had evidently had enough (for one lonnely story, and past time). Thus, the ABC headline makes a piont os saying that Obama's atttemtpt to suggest he is "pushing" oil production is not really true. You are not "pushing" oil PRODUCTION, unless you allow DIRILLING. "Exploration", as the ABC headline suggests, does ot produce ONE DROP of oil. In fact, there is little INCENTIVE to SERIOUSLY "explore", if you pretty much nonw you will not be alowed to DRTILL. It is an Obama Big Lie (Orwellian style) that he is "pushing" expanded oil productin, and he knows it. Expect the media to fall into line, and not CONFRONT Obama about the way he will "spin" this "decisin" as a mjor step forward in domestic oil production. Obama is doing nothing but PLAY GAMES with oil, while tryin gto BLOCK as much driling as he can.
How can anyone actually vote for this man to be re-elected Presdient of the Uniteed States? I truly don't know. Notice I,, personally, ask the same questin aobut Mitt Romney. I have no good anwer to the questoion: "Then who are we supposed to vote for?" I just refuse to vote for people I know are disasters, even if one (Romney) MIGHT be a lesseer immediate disaster than th eother. But do I want "conservatives" to be blamed for the disaster that is gong to happen with Romney (even if the disaster MIGHT be not quite as bad as if Obama stays in office). I don't pretend to say this is any easy decisn, but I have made the decisin (right or wrong) that I jsut can't stand voting for a candidate I consier only a slightly "lesser evil than Obama--in practive, mayhbe not even a "lesser eviL' as the GOP has an INCENTIVE to ooppose Obama's worst policies that they don't have with Romney.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).
Anderson Cooper: Racist Liar (as This Blog Has Shown Repeatedly--Especially as to the Liar' Part)
Anderson Cooper, this very night: "No one wanstgs to rusg to judgment" (talking, of course, about George Zimmerman)
Naderson Cooper, you do this all of the time. Yes, I ACCUSE you of being a REPEAT LIar, who often gives this kind of "ound bite" (like "no one wanst so twist anyone's words here") to try to make people ignore that yuu have jsut DONE what you say no one should do. No, Anderson, you are one of the wort, mots blatant liears I have ever seen, and otnight is an examp,le
Yuo mad the above quoted satement right AFTER yu attempted to CONVICT George Zimmerman of homicide based totally on SPECUALTION. No, this is NOT a matter of opinion on my part. Anderson Cooper jsut lookecd staright at the camer and LIED aubt what he had jsut done. It does not get any worse than that.
What had Cooepr just done? He had played a "kpolice video" of George Zimmerman at the plice stattion (obviouslysome time AFTGER tghe shooting), and Cooper was OBVIOUSLY (not, again, a matter of opinoion) trying to make the CASE taht the vidoe did not show injuries consistent with the fight (a word lthe media jsut REFUSES to uswe--"strugggle" was Cooper's euphemism) with Trayvon Martin. Cooper himself says that the video was NOT CLEAR enough to really evluate Zimmerman's injuries, but then proceeds to SPECULATE. So much for "not rushign to judgment". Anderson Cooper, your are a LKIAR, and not jsut a graden variety liar. You are a world class liear, who REALIZES the LIE you are telling, but do so to try to Justify" unconsciioniable conduct. Cooper even had a "guest" on the opening segment with NO "qualifications" to evaluate injuries, who was asked to comment (speculate--rush to judment) on INADEQUATE information (what Cooper ADMITTED was inadequate information). This reminds me of CNN on Sunday, where CNN tried to SPECUALTE on that attempt to 'enhance" the 911 tape to allege that George Zimmerman (actually said "f---ing coons", even tought the idea is ABUSRD on its lface and not shown by waht CNN did (as CNN itself admitted, just as Anderson Cooper admitted tonight that the video was NOT sufficient to evaluate injuries, or even distinguish blood)
Doubt me? Never , ever, do that. I am agina going back to my legal career to tell lyou aboutgt something called the "best evidence" rule. It is usually used iwwith documents, but really appies to any attempted description or recording. The idea is that a "description" of a document is NOT evidence, if the doocument itself is available. Here, lyou have a police video NOT designed to show any"closeup" of lblood or injury. And Anderson Cooper admitted it was not sufficient for that purpose. But you can SEE on the video, police officers examining Zimmerman's injuries. There were, presumably, also police offices AT THE SCENE who EXAMINED Zimmerman's injuries. Thre SHJOULD have been bot a RECORD of those obvservatgions and--really--close up photographs (although Cooper was uninterested in whether such things exist, becuse he--LIAR that he is--was all about "rush to judgment' on INDEQUATE INFOROMATION (total specualation) ,.There IS evidence of the injuries, if any, that Zimmerman suffered. That evidence is the "best evidence" oof twaht those injuries were. There is no need to engage in SPECULATIVE "rush to judgment". I can't take it. The more I thinabout it, the angrier I getr. Anderson Cooper, YOU ARE A LIAR, There was evidently even an emegency room visit by Zimmerman, according to Coopeper, allthough after the fact. Cooper acted like SPECULATIN about those things is "news', insted of a "rush to judgment" with SPECUALTION. Cooper is wrong, and a LIAR. And look at the main pint here. The AUTHORITIES had access to much BETTER informatino on Zimmerman's injuries than Cooper (what about blood on the PAVEMENT (or whatever).? CNN has been RUSIHNG to judgment saying the authorities should have CHARGED Zimmerman. Yet, they had BETTER information than Cooper. How can you "criticize" and try to DESTROY this H:IPANIC man, when FACTS exist which may blow your entire SPCULATIN right out of the water? This is not "journalism". It is Anderson Cooper trying to act as a prosecuting attorny, except that almsot NO prosecuting attorney would be this INCOMPETENT (unless, maybe, you go to the Duke Rape Case).
See the comment on my bog article about the IMPORTANCE of COMPARING the injuries suffered in this incident by Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. Anderson Cooper seemed UNINTERESTED in whethre Trayvon Martin even suffred BRUISES (aside from the gunshot which killed him). The physical evidence, including the injuries to both men, is really vey important in building up a picture of what happened here. No, I can't say taht George Zimmerman is innocent. However, Anderson Cooper showed me NOTHING which indicate to me thaqt Cooper is GUIILTY (beyond a reasonable doubt)--even of manslaughter (the most likely "charge" here,, if a ccharge were to be madeL). Cooper did give an apparent "fact" ere. The media is tryin g to make much of A "lead investigator" (NOT on the record, makng this pretty much SPECUAATION) wanitng to charge Zimmerman with "mannslaughter". Cooper says the investigator was OVERRULED by the "state's attorney". This is CNN, so I don't vouch for all of this. But, again, Coooper was UNINTERESTED in the reasons the STAT'S ATTORNEY had for not wanting to make an IMMEDIATE charge (no hurry, really, unless--like CNN--you are RUSHING TO JUDGMENT). The state's attornney had BETTER information thatnn Anderson Cooper. But Anderson Cooper has the "advantage" of being DISHOENST. Thus, Cooper was essentially saying that HE couuld "evaluate" better than the state's attorney whehter this ONE "investigator" (IF the accounnt of what he wanted is correct)was right--or whether the state's attorney (with ALL of the facts available to him from the investiagtion) was right.
Ah. Cooper's guest. Talk about BIAS, and a TOTAL IDIOT. That guest was trying to "sell" the idea that Zimmerman "violated" Florida gun license laws because he needed a license to be "emplyed" as a "self-apporinted" neighborhood watchman. Say waht? Anyone who would say THAT--inherently unlilkey--is SUSPECT for the CRIME of MISREPRESENTING himself as an EXPERT. So Florida is going to say you need a LICENSE as a SECRUITY GUARD to act as merely a busybody citizen keeping a "watch" in your neighborhood. As an attorney for more than 30 years, this is NEWS TO ME. I wuld not beliefve it unless a REAL expert on Florida law--not a "hired gun" sued by CNN to "rush to judgment--were to support this strange position. Would Zimmerman really ahve been suject to arrest for carryhing a gun had the shooting NOT TAAKEN PLACE. CNN cdrtainly procuded NO reason to believe that is true. Rather--TWISTINGwhchAndreson Cooper and his guests ALWAYS do--despite the Cooper promo where he LIES about that--this guest was SPECULATING about his own novel "interpretation" of Florida law. This guest also totally MISREPRESENTED the statement of the 16 year old girl. The 17 year old girl made here statement AFTER TAHE FACAT (after who knows what coaching, as a biased "witness" in the first place). Tis guest strongly suggested that the girl was "recorded" makng the satement AT ATHE ATIME. As far as I know, that is untrue. As far as I now, and Coooper was again uninterested in explaining WHEN and HOW the 16 year old girl made her satement, there was NO 911 call from either Martin or the 16 year old girl AS THE "FOLLOWING" was taking place. Zimmerman is subject toa this disgraceful CNN manufacuure/specualtion on "f---ing coons" ONLY because Zimmerman CALLED 911 so that events would be recorrded AS THEY WERE HAPPENING. That does not appeaqr to be ture of either Martin or the 16 eyar old girl. Sure, you can come up with excuses for Marint and the girl, but it is a fACT taht it was ZIMMERMAN who called 911 BEFORE the shoooting occurred. I agree almost entirely with the comment on the importance of an OBJECTAIVE analysis of the FACTS on the pre-shooting injuries suffered by Trayvon Martin. The one area where I might disagree is the idea that Zimmerman might be guilty of 'murder". That is barely possible, but very UNLIKELY on the factgs we aahve (always realizing that the media has been UNINTERESTAED in the actual facts--MAKING THEM UP when they don't have them, as Anderson Cooper has done by trying to use this inadequate police video to bootstrap into an "analysis" of Zimmerman's injuries, based on total specuation).
No. Anderson Cooper is a blatant LIAR. I continue to have no opinino on whehter the evidence exists to charge George Zimmerman with mansluaghter, much less convict him. What Cooper did appear to do tongiht is CONVICT the media of LIBEL and SLANDER of the Samfor d police. They brought Zimmerman into the police station in handcuffs. They did not atutomatically accept his story. What did they do wrong? After all, it appears to be a CLOSE decisin, depending on FACTS we don't have, whether to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter. Why shuld the police do that without inupt from theD.A.'s office, who would have to PROSECUTE. And what is wrong with trying to make sure yoiu have actual EVIDENCE to go forward with a charge. You can always bring the mateter to a grand jury LAATER, which is what is evidently being done. Why shuold you show BIGOTRY against an HISPANIC by"rushing to judgment'?
Now you and I would regard it as a stretch to convict Anderson Cooper of RACISM against Hispanics based on his UNFAIRNESS towadrd George Zimmerman (an Hiispanic, fro appearance and as far as the facts available to me show). By CNN standdards, being UNFAIR to an HISPANIC his way raises RACE QUESOIONIS (questions which I have long raised about CNN as to a totally race based mentality) . If CNN , and Anderson Cooper, are "going after" George Zimmerman because they FAVOR the African-American over the Hispanic (for purposes of CNN's own agenda), is that not RAcCIST? Of course it is. There is a BETTER case agaisnt Anderson Cooiper on this ground thatn CNN ever had against, say, the Tea Party (as a whle)--or, for that matter, against the United Sateas of America and the Samfor d plice, which is the storyline CNN was tyring to push.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Naderson Cooper, you do this all of the time. Yes, I ACCUSE you of being a REPEAT LIar, who often gives this kind of "ound bite" (like "no one wanst so twist anyone's words here") to try to make people ignore that yuu have jsut DONE what you say no one should do. No, Anderson, you are one of the wort, mots blatant liears I have ever seen, and otnight is an examp,le
Yuo mad the above quoted satement right AFTER yu attempted to CONVICT George Zimmerman of homicide based totally on SPECUALTION. No, this is NOT a matter of opinion on my part. Anderson Cooper jsut lookecd staright at the camer and LIED aubt what he had jsut done. It does not get any worse than that.
What had Cooepr just done? He had played a "kpolice video" of George Zimmerman at the plice stattion (obviouslysome time AFTGER tghe shooting), and Cooper was OBVIOUSLY (not, again, a matter of opinoion) trying to make the CASE taht the vidoe did not show injuries consistent with the fight (a word lthe media jsut REFUSES to uswe--"strugggle" was Cooper's euphemism) with Trayvon Martin. Cooper himself says that the video was NOT CLEAR enough to really evluate Zimmerman's injuries, but then proceeds to SPECULATE. So much for "not rushign to judgment". Anderson Cooper, your are a LKIAR, and not jsut a graden variety liar. You are a world class liear, who REALIZES the LIE you are telling, but do so to try to Justify" unconsciioniable conduct. Cooper even had a "guest" on the opening segment with NO "qualifications" to evaluate injuries, who was asked to comment (speculate--rush to judment) on INADEQUATE information (what Cooper ADMITTED was inadequate information). This reminds me of CNN on Sunday, where CNN tried to SPECUALTE on that attempt to 'enhance" the 911 tape to allege that George Zimmerman (actually said "f---ing coons", even tought the idea is ABUSRD on its lface and not shown by waht CNN did (as CNN itself admitted, just as Anderson Cooper admitted tonight that the video was NOT sufficient to evaluate injuries, or even distinguish blood)
Doubt me? Never , ever, do that. I am agina going back to my legal career to tell lyou aboutgt something called the "best evidence" rule. It is usually used iwwith documents, but really appies to any attempted description or recording. The idea is that a "description" of a document is NOT evidence, if the doocument itself is available. Here, lyou have a police video NOT designed to show any"closeup" of lblood or injury. And Anderson Cooper admitted it was not sufficient for that purpose. But you can SEE on the video, police officers examining Zimmerman's injuries. There were, presumably, also police offices AT THE SCENE who EXAMINED Zimmerman's injuries. Thre SHJOULD have been bot a RECORD of those obvservatgions and--really--close up photographs (although Cooper was uninterested in whether such things exist, becuse he--LIAR that he is--was all about "rush to judgment' on INDEQUATE INFOROMATION (total specualation) ,.There IS evidence of the injuries, if any, that Zimmerman suffered. That evidence is the "best evidence" oof twaht those injuries were. There is no need to engage in SPECULATIVE "rush to judgment". I can't take it. The more I thinabout it, the angrier I getr. Anderson Cooper, YOU ARE A LIAR, There was evidently even an emegency room visit by Zimmerman, according to Coopeper, allthough after the fact. Cooper acted like SPECULATIN about those things is "news', insted of a "rush to judgment" with SPECUALTION. Cooper is wrong, and a LIAR. And look at the main pint here. The AUTHORITIES had access to much BETTER informatino on Zimmerman's injuries than Cooper (what about blood on the PAVEMENT (or whatever).? CNN has been RUSIHNG to judgment saying the authorities should have CHARGED Zimmerman. Yet, they had BETTER information than Cooper. How can you "criticize" and try to DESTROY this H:IPANIC man, when FACTS exist which may blow your entire SPCULATIN right out of the water? This is not "journalism". It is Anderson Cooper trying to act as a prosecuting attorny, except that almsot NO prosecuting attorney would be this INCOMPETENT (unless, maybe, you go to the Duke Rape Case).
See the comment on my bog article about the IMPORTANCE of COMPARING the injuries suffered in this incident by Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. Anderson Cooper seemed UNINTERESTED in whethre Trayvon Martin even suffred BRUISES (aside from the gunshot which killed him). The physical evidence, including the injuries to both men, is really vey important in building up a picture of what happened here. No, I can't say taht George Zimmerman is innocent. However, Anderson Cooper showed me NOTHING which indicate to me thaqt Cooper is GUIILTY (beyond a reasonable doubt)--even of manslaughter (the most likely "charge" here,, if a ccharge were to be madeL). Cooper did give an apparent "fact" ere. The media is tryin g to make much of A "lead investigator" (NOT on the record, makng this pretty much SPECUAATION) wanitng to charge Zimmerman with "mannslaughter". Cooper says the investigator was OVERRULED by the "state's attorney". This is CNN, so I don't vouch for all of this. But, again, Coooper was UNINTERESTED in the reasons the STAT'S ATTORNEY had for not wanting to make an IMMEDIATE charge (no hurry, really, unless--like CNN--you are RUSHING TO JUDGMENT). The state's attornney had BETTER information thatnn Anderson Cooper. But Anderson Cooper has the "advantage" of being DISHOENST. Thus, Cooper was essentially saying that HE couuld "evaluate" better than the state's attorney whehter this ONE "investigator" (IF the accounnt of what he wanted is correct)was right--or whether the state's attorney (with ALL of the facts available to him from the investiagtion) was right.
Ah. Cooper's guest. Talk about BIAS, and a TOTAL IDIOT. That guest was trying to "sell" the idea that Zimmerman "violated" Florida gun license laws because he needed a license to be "emplyed" as a "self-apporinted" neighborhood watchman. Say waht? Anyone who would say THAT--inherently unlilkey--is SUSPECT for the CRIME of MISREPRESENTING himself as an EXPERT. So Florida is going to say you need a LICENSE as a SECRUITY GUARD to act as merely a busybody citizen keeping a "watch" in your neighborhood. As an attorney for more than 30 years, this is NEWS TO ME. I wuld not beliefve it unless a REAL expert on Florida law--not a "hired gun" sued by CNN to "rush to judgment--were to support this strange position. Would Zimmerman really ahve been suject to arrest for carryhing a gun had the shooting NOT TAAKEN PLACE. CNN cdrtainly procuded NO reason to believe that is true. Rather--TWISTINGwhchAndreson Cooper and his guests ALWAYS do--despite the Cooper promo where he LIES about that--this guest was SPECULATING about his own novel "interpretation" of Florida law. This guest also totally MISREPRESENTED the statement of the 16 year old girl. The 17 year old girl made here statement AFTER TAHE FACAT (after who knows what coaching, as a biased "witness" in the first place). Tis guest strongly suggested that the girl was "recorded" makng the satement AT ATHE ATIME. As far as I know, that is untrue. As far as I now, and Coooper was again uninterested in explaining WHEN and HOW the 16 year old girl made her satement, there was NO 911 call from either Martin or the 16 year old girl AS THE "FOLLOWING" was taking place. Zimmerman is subject toa this disgraceful CNN manufacuure/specualtion on "f---ing coons" ONLY because Zimmerman CALLED 911 so that events would be recorrded AS THEY WERE HAPPENING. That does not appeaqr to be ture of either Martin or the 16 eyar old girl. Sure, you can come up with excuses for Marint and the girl, but it is a fACT taht it was ZIMMERMAN who called 911 BEFORE the shoooting occurred. I agree almost entirely with the comment on the importance of an OBJECTAIVE analysis of the FACTS on the pre-shooting injuries suffered by Trayvon Martin. The one area where I might disagree is the idea that Zimmerman might be guilty of 'murder". That is barely possible, but very UNLIKELY on the factgs we aahve (always realizing that the media has been UNINTERESTAED in the actual facts--MAKING THEM UP when they don't have them, as Anderson Cooper has done by trying to use this inadequate police video to bootstrap into an "analysis" of Zimmerman's injuries, based on total specuation).
No. Anderson Cooper is a blatant LIAR. I continue to have no opinino on whehter the evidence exists to charge George Zimmerman with mansluaghter, much less convict him. What Cooper did appear to do tongiht is CONVICT the media of LIBEL and SLANDER of the Samfor d police. They brought Zimmerman into the police station in handcuffs. They did not atutomatically accept his story. What did they do wrong? After all, it appears to be a CLOSE decisin, depending on FACTS we don't have, whether to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter. Why shuld the police do that without inupt from theD.A.'s office, who would have to PROSECUTE. And what is wrong with trying to make sure yoiu have actual EVIDENCE to go forward with a charge. You can always bring the mateter to a grand jury LAATER, which is what is evidently being done. Why shuold you show BIGOTRY against an HISPANIC by"rushing to judgment'?
Now you and I would regard it as a stretch to convict Anderson Cooper of RACISM against Hispanics based on his UNFAIRNESS towadrd George Zimmerman (an Hiispanic, fro appearance and as far as the facts available to me show). By CNN standdards, being UNFAIR to an HISPANIC his way raises RACE QUESOIONIS (questions which I have long raised about CNN as to a totally race based mentality) . If CNN , and Anderson Cooper, are "going after" George Zimmerman because they FAVOR the African-American over the Hispanic (for purposes of CNN's own agenda), is that not RAcCIST? Of course it is. There is a BETTER case agaisnt Anderson Cooiper on this ground thatn CNN ever had against, say, the Tea Party (as a whle)--or, for that matter, against the United Sateas of America and the Samfor d plice, which is the storyline CNN was tyring to push.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
President Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and CNN on George Zimmerman: Anti-Hispanic Bigots
Did I just call the President of the United States a "bigot". You bet, and there is no doubt about it. Look at what the President said about Trayvon Martin:
"If I had a son, he would have looked just like Trayvon Martin"
That is essentially the OFFICIAL reason that President Obama injected himself into a single local killing, leading a lynch mob agaisnt an HISPANICE.
Let me put it another way. If I had ever sired a son, he woulld probably look something like George Zimmerman, Hispanci. That is because my only children (two daughters, just like President Obama) were from an Hispanic (Mexican-American) mother. That is exactly like George Zimmerman, although his mother was an Hispanic connected to a different country than Mexico. What if I were President (you don't really have to go get runk just over this horrible thought)? Would it have been acceptable for me to say that I "sympathize" with George Zimmerman because he looks like the son I might have had? Would have not be , correctly, constured as anti-African-American bigotry? Qu.E.D. President Obama is an anti-Hispanic bigot, at least in any matter involving an African-American. Or, if yoiu prefer, President Obama is BIGOTED against anyone who is not blacck--at least in his public politics. What busines does the President of the United Staes have in "picking sides" based on whether a child LOOKS like it might have been the President's child. The obvious implication is that the President wouuld NOT have regarded it as his business (as it wasn't) if Trayvon Maratin did not LOOK the way he did (in a five year old picture). What if I have been a "white European President", and said this same thing abut a "white of European ancestry" who was shot by a black man, in an effort to put the entrrire power tf the Federal Government agaisnt the black man? Would private citizen Obama, CNN, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton not ALL call me (the "white European President") a RACIST? Of course they would. These are the worst hypocrites, and some of the worst racists (racial politicians) to ever exist on this Earth. Yes, I just said that CNN is comosed of people who play "racial politics": deliberately trying to pit one race against another. In this case, CNN is trying to ralroad an HISAPANIC.
An item of news ni the past day or towo is that a former head of the NAACP has blasted Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton for EXPLOITING Trayvon Martin for their own gain, by attempting to stir up racial hatred and put the "races" in this country against each other. That is absolutely true. It is what Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton DO. But look at how this same, just, criticisxsm applies to CNN and President Obama. CNN is trying to EXPLOIT Trayvon Martin by inciting the races against one another, even though his means RAILROADING an HIPANIC. It is CNN which has tried to say that George Zimmerman, an HISPANIC, is a representative of what is wrong with this country in its tratment of African-Americans. In other words, CNN has--in effect--said that what George Zimmerman has done shows that ALL HISPNAICS are racist. Now you might say that CNN did not really mean to say thaqt: that CNN really meant to USE Trayvn Martin to say that WITE AMERICA is racist. CNN was just caught in the EMBARRASSMENT that George Zimmerman is Hispannic. Q.E. D. CNN is full of RACISTS trying to pit the people of this country agaisnt one another based on RACE., The idea that CNNN is more bigoted agsint "white Americans" than against Hispanics merely proves this pont. CNN, and the entire mainstream meddia, have tried to EXPLOIT Trayvon Martin for their own purposes, just like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They are EVIL people, spreading evil. And yes, I am simply using CNNN to stand in for the entire mainstream media, including Sheppard Smith and the entire unfair and unbalanced network.
I am offended,on behalf of myudaughters, by this attempt to railroad an Hispanic basedon cynical racial politics. You shoulld be offendined, as a HUMAN BENG (as I also am) by this.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). I keep wanting to refer to George Zimmerman as "George Rodriguez", a common Hispanic name, and the name of a long-time former County Attorney of El Paso (including when I started practicing as a lawyer here). Zimmerman, of ocurse, has the last name of his FATHER--as my daughters have my Scottish last name (although I have a vast mixture of etkhnic heritage, like most people, including purported Nataive American "blood"). CNN, and the rest of the media, seem to take the shallow, BIGOTED view that whether they should recognize a person as "Hispanic" depends on the last name. The last name of my daughters' mother, for example, was "Flores". Are "jousrnalists" really this SEXIST (only recognizing the father)--not to mentin this STUPID? I am afraid they are. My daughters, as ardent feminists, probably should have taken their mother's name. They BOTH seem itent on keeping their prsent last name, even after marriage. Raising feminist daughters remains almost the greatest shame of my life, exceeded only by my OWN shame when I was fored to "come out of the closet" as a FEMINIST myself, in this blog (forced by the fact that I am obviusly ore feminist than almsot every leftist out there, as this media focus on Zimmerman's last name again proves). Would I go on CNN and say these tings? Damn right I would.
"If I had a son, he would have looked just like Trayvon Martin"
That is essentially the OFFICIAL reason that President Obama injected himself into a single local killing, leading a lynch mob agaisnt an HISPANICE.
Let me put it another way. If I had ever sired a son, he woulld probably look something like George Zimmerman, Hispanci. That is because my only children (two daughters, just like President Obama) were from an Hispanic (Mexican-American) mother. That is exactly like George Zimmerman, although his mother was an Hispanic connected to a different country than Mexico. What if I were President (you don't really have to go get runk just over this horrible thought)? Would it have been acceptable for me to say that I "sympathize" with George Zimmerman because he looks like the son I might have had? Would have not be , correctly, constured as anti-African-American bigotry? Qu.E.D. President Obama is an anti-Hispanic bigot, at least in any matter involving an African-American. Or, if yoiu prefer, President Obama is BIGOTED against anyone who is not blacck--at least in his public politics. What busines does the President of the United Staes have in "picking sides" based on whether a child LOOKS like it might have been the President's child. The obvious implication is that the President wouuld NOT have regarded it as his business (as it wasn't) if Trayvon Maratin did not LOOK the way he did (in a five year old picture). What if I have been a "white European President", and said this same thing abut a "white of European ancestry" who was shot by a black man, in an effort to put the entrrire power tf the Federal Government agaisnt the black man? Would private citizen Obama, CNN, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton not ALL call me (the "white European President") a RACIST? Of course they would. These are the worst hypocrites, and some of the worst racists (racial politicians) to ever exist on this Earth. Yes, I just said that CNN is comosed of people who play "racial politics": deliberately trying to pit one race against another. In this case, CNN is trying to ralroad an HISAPANIC.
An item of news ni the past day or towo is that a former head of the NAACP has blasted Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton for EXPLOITING Trayvon Martin for their own gain, by attempting to stir up racial hatred and put the "races" in this country against each other. That is absolutely true. It is what Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton DO. But look at how this same, just, criticisxsm applies to CNN and President Obama. CNN is trying to EXPLOIT Trayvon Martin by inciting the races against one another, even though his means RAILROADING an HIPANIC. It is CNN which has tried to say that George Zimmerman, an HISPANIC, is a representative of what is wrong with this country in its tratment of African-Americans. In other words, CNN has--in effect--said that what George Zimmerman has done shows that ALL HISPNAICS are racist. Now you might say that CNN did not really mean to say thaqt: that CNN really meant to USE Trayvn Martin to say that WITE AMERICA is racist. CNN was just caught in the EMBARRASSMENT that George Zimmerman is Hispannic. Q.E. D. CNN is full of RACISTS trying to pit the people of this country agaisnt one another based on RACE., The idea that CNNN is more bigoted agsint "white Americans" than against Hispanics merely proves this pont. CNN, and the entire mainstream meddia, have tried to EXPLOIT Trayvon Martin for their own purposes, just like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They are EVIL people, spreading evil. And yes, I am simply using CNNN to stand in for the entire mainstream media, including Sheppard Smith and the entire unfair and unbalanced network.
I am offended,on behalf of myudaughters, by this attempt to railroad an Hispanic basedon cynical racial politics. You shoulld be offendined, as a HUMAN BENG (as I also am) by this.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). I keep wanting to refer to George Zimmerman as "George Rodriguez", a common Hispanic name, and the name of a long-time former County Attorney of El Paso (including when I started practicing as a lawyer here). Zimmerman, of ocurse, has the last name of his FATHER--as my daughters have my Scottish last name (although I have a vast mixture of etkhnic heritage, like most people, including purported Nataive American "blood"). CNN, and the rest of the media, seem to take the shallow, BIGOTED view that whether they should recognize a person as "Hispanic" depends on the last name. The last name of my daughters' mother, for example, was "Flores". Are "jousrnalists" really this SEXIST (only recognizing the father)--not to mentin this STUPID? I am afraid they are. My daughters, as ardent feminists, probably should have taken their mother's name. They BOTH seem itent on keeping their prsent last name, even after marriage. Raising feminist daughters remains almost the greatest shame of my life, exceeded only by my OWN shame when I was fored to "come out of the closet" as a FEMINIST myself, in this blog (forced by the fact that I am obviusly ore feminist than almsot every leftist out there, as this media focus on Zimmerman's last name again proves). Would I go on CNN and say these tings? Damn right I would.
ABC "News" and AT&T/Yahoo: Fools
Here is the ridiculous way an ABC "News" story, featured on AT&T/Yahoo "News", started off this morning:
"Supreme Court justices are not foools. They know that the public HANGS ON THEIR EVERY WORD" (empphaisis added, to show who the FOOLS are here)
No. Supreme Court justices are ot fools, although they tend to be political ideologues (more on the left than on the right), rahter than neutral oracles applyng the Constitution in a neutral mannter. The point heere is that the peole of ABC "News" ARE fools, and that the above statement proves it.
How can any SANE person say that the "public" hangs on every word from the Supreeme Court justices?...............................................................................................................................................Sorry, on the floor jsut luaghing this time, as this joke was not worth crying abut...................Actually, I like to wake up in the morning to a good joke, which is what ABC is. Even I, and I folow these things more closely than the public, don't "hang on every word" of Supreme Court justices. To be that much of a FOOL, yoiu have to be a "journalist".
"Supreme Court justices are not foools. They know that the public HANGS ON THEIR EVERY WORD" (empphaisis added, to show who the FOOLS are here)
No. Supreme Court justices are ot fools, although they tend to be political ideologues (more on the left than on the right), rahter than neutral oracles applyng the Constitution in a neutral mannter. The point heere is that the peole of ABC "News" ARE fools, and that the above statement proves it.
How can any SANE person say that the "public" hangs on every word from the Supreeme Court justices?...............................................................................................................................................Sorry, on the floor jsut luaghing this time, as this joke was not worth crying abut...................Actually, I like to wake up in the morning to a good joke, which is what ABC is. Even I, and I folow these things more closely than the public, don't "hang on every word" of Supreme Court justices. To be that much of a FOOL, yoiu have to be a "journalist".
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
George Zimmerman and the Black Panthers: Hate Crime
No. There is NO chance that George zimmerman committed a "hate crime": NO chance that he killed Trayvon Martin BECAUSE Trayvon Martin was balck (or did antything else to Trayvon Martin BECUSE Trayvon Martin was black). Now there is NO way for me or you to know whether George Zimmerman committed, say, the state crime of manslaughter. That is because we don't have the FACTS, partly because the media is NOT INTERESTED in getting the FACTS to us (ony "partly", because the media does not even have all of the facts, which has not stopped them from trying to LYNCH George Zimmerman, just like a classic lynch mob of the Old West). I have seen o convincing EVIDENCE that George Zimmerman committed mansluaghter, but the possibility is certianly there.
George Zimmerman has not committed a hate crime. But one group definitely HAS. You MAy have heard about the BOUNTY put on George Zimmerman by the Black Panthers. The media has DOWNPLAYED it, as they always do (which is why you MAY not have seen it), but is it not obvious that the Black Panterhs have committed a HATE CRIME? They have offered a $10,000 BOUNTY for the person who "gets' George Zimmerman.
Say you are in the mainstream media and try to DEFEND not maknig a BIG DEAL out of this? Are you not just exosing yourself as one of the worst hypocrites who has ever walked this Earth, on two legs or four. You doubt me on this? I keep telling you to NEVER do that. Imagnie (it is unimaginable, because the group would be so stupid) that a conservative group had put a BOUNTY on some black person who mmay have commited a homicide against a "white" person? Can yo even IMAGINE the reacitnn of the mainstream media. Talk about callling the USA a RACIST COUNTRY.
But I can hear the mainstream media sayign "Hey,m the Black Pantehers are a 'fringe group', not representative of the balck peole in this country.". YHOU HYPOCRITES (mainstream media). What does that have to do with whether the Black Panters have committed a hate crime. Th e media is GLAD to pick out "fringe" groups that they feel they can label as "right wing", and then assert GUILT BY ASSOCIATION.
This is the ral EVIL of the media coverage of the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin matter. it is exaclty right that the Black Panters are not representative of black people n America. However, neitehr is George Zimmerman representative of "white" people in America (or Hispanics, if you prefer). Nor are the Samford olice (seemingly more responsible in this matter than the media) more representative of "white people" in Aermica than the Balck Panthers are represenative of blakc peole in America. I REJECT the idea that the Samford police are representative of ME, or of any other "white people' out there. Do not "white peole" bleed? (Go through the entire sppech from the "Merchant of Venice" about Jews yourselfl.) We are iINDIVIDUALS I don't know that the Samford plice have done anything obviusly wrong here, but I am not "responsible" for what the Samford police do. I am not responsible fore what ANY other white lperson does. They are INDIVIDUALS< just like. me. George Zimmerman is an INDIVIUDAL, and sould be ENTITLED to be treated like one (rather than as some symbol of a RACE WAR that CNN and the rest wnat to assert is happening n this country as "withe peole" "oppress" black people). Yes, Trayvon Martin is an INDIVIDUAL too, and should receive the same justice as aynyone else. But that is not a matter of RACIAL jsutice. It is a matter of INDIVIDUAL justice. The days when there was some sort of organized attempt to oppress balck people are long gone. INDIVIDUALS who still may try to do that--no evidence that George Zimmerman is one--should be lprosecuted. But the whole pont is not to look at society as composed of GROUPS entitled to "justice", but rather we should look at oru society as INDIVIDUALS all entitled to the same RACIALLY NEUTRAL justice.
Oh. You remember the Black Panters. They were also responsible for INTIMIDATING voters in 2008 on RACIAL grounds. The racists of the Obama Administration were not interested in prosecuting, even though that (unlike the rather ridiculous "hate crime" law) is a clear function of the CIVIL RIGHTS divison of the Justice Department. If a person in this country is subject to INTIMIDATION based on his or her rce, in connection with VOITNG, that IS an obvius Federal crime. OUr media was not much interested, as they are not much interested now in the Blakc Panters.
Are the Blakc Panthers engaged in a criminal conspiracy to SOLICIT MURDER? If they were "white", the media would definitely be saying so. Terroristic threats? Solicitatin of perjury and wrongful interference with the criminal justice system? There are porbably at least TEN Federal crimes that you could ALLEGE that the Black Panthers have committed, incuding that obvius one of a conspiracy to commit a hate crime.
The media has reached a new low point. The "coerage" of the George Zimmerman matter is probably the worst perforamnce by our media in the history of this country. These peole should be ahsamed, except they have no shame. They don't have weither the moral sense or the competence to feel shame.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Oh, what if the TEA PARTY had put a "bounty" on a black person (for any reason). Yuo remember how the mainstream media tired to say that the entire Tea Party movement was racist because of a few racist signs? yep. You guessed it. You eleftist ut there: I do NOT turn th ee other cheek. Thereofre, let me be the firtst to make this asseritn: The Blakc Panters DO represent all of you. You are RESONSIBLE for them Yu are ENCOURAGING them by your attempt to LYNCH George Zimmerman. The Balck Panthers, and this "bunty", are YOU (you leftists out there, including you members of the mainstreammedia). You should see that there is a much BETTER case for this assertin thatn for the ridiculous assertin that all Tea Party sympathizers wre racist jsut becuase a FEW Tea Prty members may havebeen racist.
George Zimmerman has not committed a hate crime. But one group definitely HAS. You MAy have heard about the BOUNTY put on George Zimmerman by the Black Panthers. The media has DOWNPLAYED it, as they always do (which is why you MAY not have seen it), but is it not obvious that the Black Panterhs have committed a HATE CRIME? They have offered a $10,000 BOUNTY for the person who "gets' George Zimmerman.
Say you are in the mainstream media and try to DEFEND not maknig a BIG DEAL out of this? Are you not just exosing yourself as one of the worst hypocrites who has ever walked this Earth, on two legs or four. You doubt me on this? I keep telling you to NEVER do that. Imagnie (it is unimaginable, because the group would be so stupid) that a conservative group had put a BOUNTY on some black person who mmay have commited a homicide against a "white" person? Can yo even IMAGINE the reacitnn of the mainstream media. Talk about callling the USA a RACIST COUNTRY.
But I can hear the mainstream media sayign "Hey,m the Black Pantehers are a 'fringe group', not representative of the balck peole in this country.". YHOU HYPOCRITES (mainstream media). What does that have to do with whether the Black Panters have committed a hate crime. Th e media is GLAD to pick out "fringe" groups that they feel they can label as "right wing", and then assert GUILT BY ASSOCIATION.
This is the ral EVIL of the media coverage of the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin matter. it is exaclty right that the Black Panters are not representative of black people n America. However, neitehr is George Zimmerman representative of "white" people in America (or Hispanics, if you prefer). Nor are the Samford olice (seemingly more responsible in this matter than the media) more representative of "white people" in Aermica than the Balck Panthers are represenative of blakc peole in America. I REJECT the idea that the Samford police are representative of ME, or of any other "white people' out there. Do not "white peole" bleed? (Go through the entire sppech from the "Merchant of Venice" about Jews yourselfl.) We are iINDIVIDUALS I don't know that the Samford plice have done anything obviusly wrong here, but I am not "responsible" for what the Samford police do. I am not responsible fore what ANY other white lperson does. They are INDIVIDUALS< just like. me. George Zimmerman is an INDIVIUDAL, and sould be ENTITLED to be treated like one (rather than as some symbol of a RACE WAR that CNN and the rest wnat to assert is happening n this country as "withe peole" "oppress" black people). Yes, Trayvon Martin is an INDIVIDUAL too, and should receive the same justice as aynyone else. But that is not a matter of RACIAL jsutice. It is a matter of INDIVIDUAL justice. The days when there was some sort of organized attempt to oppress balck people are long gone. INDIVIDUALS who still may try to do that--no evidence that George Zimmerman is one--should be lprosecuted. But the whole pont is not to look at society as composed of GROUPS entitled to "justice", but rather we should look at oru society as INDIVIDUALS all entitled to the same RACIALLY NEUTRAL justice.
Oh. You remember the Black Panters. They were also responsible for INTIMIDATING voters in 2008 on RACIAL grounds. The racists of the Obama Administration were not interested in prosecuting, even though that (unlike the rather ridiculous "hate crime" law) is a clear function of the CIVIL RIGHTS divison of the Justice Department. If a person in this country is subject to INTIMIDATION based on his or her rce, in connection with VOITNG, that IS an obvius Federal crime. OUr media was not much interested, as they are not much interested now in the Blakc Panters.
Are the Blakc Panthers engaged in a criminal conspiracy to SOLICIT MURDER? If they were "white", the media would definitely be saying so. Terroristic threats? Solicitatin of perjury and wrongful interference with the criminal justice system? There are porbably at least TEN Federal crimes that you could ALLEGE that the Black Panthers have committed, incuding that obvius one of a conspiracy to commit a hate crime.
The media has reached a new low point. The "coerage" of the George Zimmerman matter is probably the worst perforamnce by our media in the history of this country. These peole should be ahsamed, except they have no shame. They don't have weither the moral sense or the competence to feel shame.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Oh, what if the TEA PARTY had put a "bounty" on a black person (for any reason). Yuo remember how the mainstream media tired to say that the entire Tea Party movement was racist because of a few racist signs? yep. You guessed it. You eleftist ut there: I do NOT turn th ee other cheek. Thereofre, let me be the firtst to make this asseritn: The Blakc Panters DO represent all of you. You are RESONSIBLE for them Yu are ENCOURAGING them by your attempt to LYNCH George Zimmerman. The Balck Panthers, and this "bunty", are YOU (you leftists out there, including you members of the mainstreammedia). You should see that there is a much BETTER case for this assertin thatn for the ridiculous assertin that all Tea Party sympathizers wre racist jsut becuase a FEW Tea Prty members may havebeen racist.
President Obama's Father Was a Kenyan, and He Thinks of Himself as African-American (couier-journal.com villains/racists)
Does the above headline strike you as racist? I think it should, although it may seem mild to what the RACISTS of the mainstream media are doing with this Trayvon Martin/George Zimerman mattter. And that is the pont. The above headline is almost a dircet quote, with the names changed to protect the GUILTY RACISTS of couier-journal.com. I found the story while doing a quick internet search to confirm for myself that George Zimmerman is Hispanic. You can do the same Google search for "George Zimmerm hispanic" (no quotes in earch).
The absurd Couier-Journal headline give you a feeling of how BAD this particular mainstream media source is, although I think they were just picking it up from the rest of teh mainstream media ("Have you stopped beating you wife" is a FAIR questin compared with this headline, which I have slightly paraphrased): "Is George Zimmerman a Racist Killer, ore Merely an Overzealous Cop Wannabee". Isn't that a MARVLUS example of a fair headline (sarcasm disease rearing its ugly heead again). Well, in the body of the story you find that these people of courier-journal.com really are anti-Hsipanic RACISTS (true of Barack Obama as well, and the entire mainstream media in the George Zimmerman matter?--the evidence is certainly as strong, or stronger, thatn the (non)evidence that George Zimmerman is a racist. Here is the disgraceful sentence in the courier-journal "story", which I adapted for my SATIRIC headline above:
"George Zimmerman has a Peruvian mother, and he thiks of himself as Hispanic." Say what? YLU RACISTS. "Thinks of himsself as Hispaic"? My daughters have a Mexican-American mother, and they have put down "Hispanic" on every document that asked for that information. Where were all of those stories about Obama being only "half-black", with a kenyan father? Hispancis themselves, of course, as is true of almost all of us, are a MIXED race group that can be classified as mainly CAUCASIAN (white). But what flak would Rush Limbaugh have gotten if he kept saying that: "Barack Obama had a Kenyan father, and thinks of himself as African-American". The clear implicatn is that George Zimmerman is taking a liberty by "thinking of himself" as Hispanic. George Zimmerman AND MY DAUGHTERS are just as much Hispanic as Barack Obama is black. The whole sentence was condescending and OFFENSIVE. Almost all of what the meida has said on the George Zimmerman matter is RACIST and offensive.
George Zimmerman is Hisaniic. If anyone wants to argue whether people from PERU are "Hispanic" I want to have that conversation with you RACISTS. Now "racist" is a little bit of a stretch dealing with Hispanics, because they are NOT a race. Their "race" is primariy WHITE (Caucasian). However, I am adopting here the mainstream media terminology, and that terminology means that George Zimmerman SHOULD be merely referred to as HISPANIC. The failutre to really do that indicates how RACIST the media really is in thss Trayvon Martin matter.
Just think how the media would be referring to George Zimmerman if HE had been shot by a "WHITE" cop? You wouuld have seen "Hisanic" used THREE TIMES in every sentence.
These (members of the media) are truly EVIL people. And yes, they ARE generally RACIST. I don't know how they live with themselves, but I guess they can if members of the Ku Klux Klan could.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Oh, you now, and I know, what the real mainstream media agenda is here. Sure, they are RACiSTS, in that they dEFINE everyone in terms of his or her race. And they are tearing this ocuntry apart by deliberately trying to put races in conflict with one anotehr. But they have an overrideing intent to LABEL the USA as a RACIST country/society. That is CNN's main missiion in life, and one of the main missions of almsot the entire mainstream media. Have I said these are EVIL people spreading evil? I know I have. And I am sure I will regularly say it in the future, because it is true.
The absurd Couier-Journal headline give you a feeling of how BAD this particular mainstream media source is, although I think they were just picking it up from the rest of teh mainstream media ("Have you stopped beating you wife" is a FAIR questin compared with this headline, which I have slightly paraphrased): "Is George Zimmerman a Racist Killer, ore Merely an Overzealous Cop Wannabee". Isn't that a MARVLUS example of a fair headline (sarcasm disease rearing its ugly heead again). Well, in the body of the story you find that these people of courier-journal.com really are anti-Hsipanic RACISTS (true of Barack Obama as well, and the entire mainstream media in the George Zimmerman matter?--the evidence is certainly as strong, or stronger, thatn the (non)evidence that George Zimmerman is a racist. Here is the disgraceful sentence in the courier-journal "story", which I adapted for my SATIRIC headline above:
"George Zimmerman has a Peruvian mother, and he thiks of himself as Hispanic." Say what? YLU RACISTS. "Thinks of himsself as Hispaic"? My daughters have a Mexican-American mother, and they have put down "Hispanic" on every document that asked for that information. Where were all of those stories about Obama being only "half-black", with a kenyan father? Hispancis themselves, of course, as is true of almost all of us, are a MIXED race group that can be classified as mainly CAUCASIAN (white). But what flak would Rush Limbaugh have gotten if he kept saying that: "Barack Obama had a Kenyan father, and thinks of himself as African-American". The clear implicatn is that George Zimmerman is taking a liberty by "thinking of himself" as Hispanic. George Zimmerman AND MY DAUGHTERS are just as much Hispanic as Barack Obama is black. The whole sentence was condescending and OFFENSIVE. Almost all of what the meida has said on the George Zimmerman matter is RACIST and offensive.
George Zimmerman is Hisaniic. If anyone wants to argue whether people from PERU are "Hispanic" I want to have that conversation with you RACISTS. Now "racist" is a little bit of a stretch dealing with Hispanics, because they are NOT a race. Their "race" is primariy WHITE (Caucasian). However, I am adopting here the mainstream media terminology, and that terminology means that George Zimmerman SHOULD be merely referred to as HISPANIC. The failutre to really do that indicates how RACIST the media really is in thss Trayvon Martin matter.
Just think how the media would be referring to George Zimmerman if HE had been shot by a "WHITE" cop? You wouuld have seen "Hisanic" used THREE TIMES in every sentence.
These (members of the media) are truly EVIL people. And yes, they ARE generally RACIST. I don't know how they live with themselves, but I guess they can if members of the Ku Klux Klan could.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Oh, you now, and I know, what the real mainstream media agenda is here. Sure, they are RACiSTS, in that they dEFINE everyone in terms of his or her race. And they are tearing this ocuntry apart by deliberately trying to put races in conflict with one anotehr. But they have an overrideing intent to LABEL the USA as a RACIST country/society. That is CNN's main missiion in life, and one of the main missions of almsot the entire mainstream media. Have I said these are EVIL people spreading evil? I know I have. And I am sure I will regularly say it in the future, because it is true.
"Bailout Ben" Bernanke Raises Gas Prices--Again (Wall Street Economic Fascists Cheer as Bailout Ben Promises to KEEP Bailing Them Out0
I am not kidding iwith the headlnline. "Balilout Ben" Bernanke gave a mere SPEECH (or comments) yesterday, and the economic fascists on Wall Street (thinking they have a "partnership" with government--especailly Bernanke--fools that they are) promptly drove stock prices up. No. This is not just my opinio (other than the reference to economic fascists). It was unviersally agreed that yesterday was a "Bernanke raly, because Bernanke"indicated" he was going to keep artificially holding interest rates down and "stimulating" the econmy, even it it may mean mrore "quattative easing" (printing money by the Fed buying our own bonds).
This is what Bernake has been doing for more than three years: STIMULATING WALL STREET by CONTINUING baliout polices that go beyond anything the Federal Reserve has ever done. The result has been a "statlth" inflation this has created includes substantial rises in FOOD and ENERGY prices (not to mention other commodoties),. Yes, Ben Bernnake, along with Obama, has been as responsbile as any other single person for HIGH GAS PRICES.
Doubt me? Never do that, if you want to reetain your credibiity. What happened yesterday, and today? The price of OIL (and ttherefore the price of GASOLINE, ni the end) went UP to above 107 dollars a barrel--basically atthe highest level it has been this year (spikes may have gone SLIGHTLY higher based on eariler Fed actions), and HIGHER than it was last year (when the price of gasoline was (according to BERNAKE not more than a month ago) creating a WEAK economy last summer. That is why the peole on Wall Street, including Bernake (whose main goal has been to HELP WALL STRET), are so STUPID. Higher oil prices, and Bernake policies in general, make a REAL RECOVERY impossible (along with ObamaCare, Obama regulations, and other artificial burdens on the econmy from the Obama Administration). From an objetive pint of view, if you are not an economic fascist, yesterday was BAD NEWS for the ultimate health of the stock market (not to mention the ECONOMY, which the economic fascists on Wall Street do NOT CARE about anyway).
Message to "Bailout Ben": "Bailout Ben, you are the worst failure in the history of world finace. You hav presided over the worst recessin since the Great Depression, being head of the Federal Reserve since EARLY 2006 (excctly when the econmy began to collapes) . You did NOTHING to deal with the housing bubbble, or the other obvius problems artificially being created. You got ALLIES when a Democratic Congress was sworn in during January of 2006. Together, you made the recession as bad as it could possibly be. Then you, Bailout Ben, presided over the biggest intrlusion of government into the private economy, and the worst lPRINITNG OF MONEY, that has ever happened in this country. The result has been the WROST RECOVERY since the Great Depression. Now you are "doubling down" on the same failed polices, including an UNDER THE TALBE involment in the BAILUTS in Europe. You are not known as 'Bailout Ben' for nothing. Have I mentinoed that you are DISHOENST (intellectually)? For Wall Street to pay any attention to you is merely to epose themselves as The Stupidest Peole on Earth, as this bgo has shown over almsot the past decade I give you NO PASS. You are a FAILURE; the worst failure in the history of world finance."
P.S. No proofreading or spel checking (bad eyesight).
This is what Bernake has been doing for more than three years: STIMULATING WALL STREET by CONTINUING baliout polices that go beyond anything the Federal Reserve has ever done. The result has been a "statlth" inflation this has created includes substantial rises in FOOD and ENERGY prices (not to mention other commodoties),. Yes, Ben Bernnake, along with Obama, has been as responsbile as any other single person for HIGH GAS PRICES.
Doubt me? Never do that, if you want to reetain your credibiity. What happened yesterday, and today? The price of OIL (and ttherefore the price of GASOLINE, ni the end) went UP to above 107 dollars a barrel--basically atthe highest level it has been this year (spikes may have gone SLIGHTLY higher based on eariler Fed actions), and HIGHER than it was last year (when the price of gasoline was (according to BERNAKE not more than a month ago) creating a WEAK economy last summer. That is why the peole on Wall Street, including Bernake (whose main goal has been to HELP WALL STRET), are so STUPID. Higher oil prices, and Bernake policies in general, make a REAL RECOVERY impossible (along with ObamaCare, Obama regulations, and other artificial burdens on the econmy from the Obama Administration). From an objetive pint of view, if you are not an economic fascist, yesterday was BAD NEWS for the ultimate health of the stock market (not to mention the ECONOMY, which the economic fascists on Wall Street do NOT CARE about anyway).
Message to "Bailout Ben": "Bailout Ben, you are the worst failure in the history of world finace. You hav presided over the worst recessin since the Great Depression, being head of the Federal Reserve since EARLY 2006 (excctly when the econmy began to collapes) . You did NOTHING to deal with the housing bubbble, or the other obvius problems artificially being created. You got ALLIES when a Democratic Congress was sworn in during January of 2006. Together, you made the recession as bad as it could possibly be. Then you, Bailout Ben, presided over the biggest intrlusion of government into the private economy, and the worst lPRINITNG OF MONEY, that has ever happened in this country. The result has been the WROST RECOVERY since the Great Depression. Now you are "doubling down" on the same failed polices, including an UNDER THE TALBE involment in the BAILUTS in Europe. You are not known as 'Bailout Ben' for nothing. Have I mentinoed that you are DISHOENST (intellectually)? For Wall Street to pay any attention to you is merely to epose themselves as The Stupidest Peole on Earth, as this bgo has shown over almsot the past decade I give you NO PASS. You are a FAILURE; the worst failure in the history of world finance."
P.S. No proofreading or spel checking (bad eyesight).
Trayvon Martin and TANSTAAFL: There Ain't No Such Thing as an Angelic 17 Year Old "Boy"
Okay. TANSTAAFL actually stands for: "Thre ain't no such thing as a free lunch." See Robert Heinlein's great science fiction novel, "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress". However, this blog told you a matter of a day and a half ago that this attempt to portray Tryvon Martin as a TOTALLY "innocent", even angelic, 17 year old boy was absurd. No such thing exists.
As is often the case, with this blog, I was proven right within a matter of HOURS. Suddently, the "news" was that Trayvon Martin had been SUSPENDED from school for marijuana. Now this blog's original statement (about it being likely that Trayvon Martin was tno the only angelic 17 year old boy around) was made in the context of SPECUATION (brought to my attention by my cable TV minded mother) that a HOODD indicated that Martin was probably a gang member. My cable TV minded mother, who I have suggested should apply for a job at CNN (because she loves jumping to speculativewe conclustions based on her own agenda), is now firmly convinced that Trayvon Martin was a gang member (based on the new information that has come out). I see no real evidence of that, although it is certainly possible (and at least as likely as much of the CNN SPECUALTION about George Zimmerman). But what I also told you is that it is IRRELEVANT (excpet in the publicity war, and on the margings) whether Trayvon Martin was really this "angel" tath the media was tryying to portray. As I said,, you are not entitled to kill gang members, or boys who have been suspended from school for marijuana use, for that reason. The key question is the FACTS of teh confrontation between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin, and not the CHARACTER of Martin (or Zimmerman, for that matter).
The AT&T/Yahoo "featured" headline last night was that the Martin family was comlaining that the "police" were trying to "demonize" Trayvon Martin. ..............................................................................Sorry, I was on the floor again in that fetal position, laughting/crying..........................The whole media NARRATIVE here, pushed by tghe famiy and urn with my the media, has been to DEMMONIZE George Zimmerman and the Samford plice. No one has been even interested int the FACTS. The publlicized picture of Trayvon Martin was even, deliberately, one of him as a YOUNGER CHILD. Those who live by the sword, die by the sword. The Martin family has a right to their grief, and I fully understand their anger. But that does not mean they should be allowed to LYNCH a man, in conjuncitn with a media and racial politicians who want to USE them, based on DEMONIZING SPECULATION.
No. Trayvon Marttin was not an angel. George Zimmerman was surely not an angel (or, as this blog put it, a "hero" when he mismanaged the situation so that a 17 year old young man--no matter what his faults--ended up dead). Race really does not appear to be a dtermning factor here. Nor does "character". What you are left with are the ACTUAL FACTS: teh very thing in which our media is so uninterested.
By the way, one of the things I suggested int hat very same article whcih mentioned that Trayvon Martin was almost surely not an "anngel", was that it was entirely possible that Trayvon Martin COULD have tried to take away George Zimmerman's gun (in the context of whether Zimmerman feared for his life, and whehter Martin was simply an "innocent', UNARMED 17 year old boy). Well, another of those "featured" AT&T/Yahoo articles yesterday mentined a report that ZIMMERMAN claimed that Martin had tried to get Zimmerman's gun. Again, read this blog and you get tomorrow's news today--only BETTER than the media reports today's "news".
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Oh, there was also a rather vague reort that Zimmerman thought Martin had something in his hand. Wee KNOW Martin had a cell phone (with which he did NOT call 911, as Zimmerman did). Couuld you SUSPECT a cell phone to be a weapon? Of course you could. Now you can't just soot someone, as a private citizen, or even as a police officer, merely because you suspect a person MIGHT have a weapon. But that is NOT what happened here. Zimmerman was in a FIGHT, which he may have thought was a fight for his life. He MAY be allegeing that part of the fight was over Zimmerman's gun. And Zimmerman MAY have had some reason to suspect that Martin had a weapon of his own. You see how FACTS MATTER? And yet we KNOW that we will NOT get FACTS from our media. We get NARRATIVE. Tht is why this allleged "polll" that 73% of Americans think George Zimmerman should be arrested made me laugh/cry. Forget the eVIL of such a poll, are 73% of Americans really that STUPID (disregarding that the poll probably was skewed by leaving out peole who correctly could not be bothered with an opinion). Shoululd Goerge Zimmerman be arrested, or have been arrested? How the Hell do Iknow. How do YOU know? How does anyone know, except the authorities on the scene. We KNOW that we are NOT getting the FACTS from our media, which probably does not even know the facts (not that they are even interested) It is WRONG to have an OOPINION on whether George Zimmerman shuold be arrested. I will say I havve seen NO actual facts to this point that cause me to conclude that an arrest was indicated, although I would not have regarded an arrest as some sort of "miscarriage" of justice. The police shuld have gone on the FACTS available to them, and on the same basis as if two peole of the SAME RACE had been involved. As best I can tell, whether they were right or wrong, the police did BETTER than our media would have done, as our media would have areested George Zimmerman just o satisfy the 'black community". There is no WORSE standard for "justice" in this country than the media "standard" of catering to RACIAL OPINION and RACIAL FEELINGS (such as the "feeling" that black epoele dont't get a fair deal from the plcie). George Zimmerman is entitled to be treated as an INDIVIDUAL, and not as a pawn in some kind of RACE WAR being assumed by CNN and the rest of the media (not to mention racial politicians.). It is not "justice" to view the workld as "us against them": the "white race' against the "black race', ecept for those enlightened folks on the side of the black race. The law, and justice, should be COLOR BLIND, and based on INDIVIDUALS> Could you not have an opinion that a person should ALWAYS be arrested when an "unarmed" person is shot by another person? Well, you can have that opinion, but it means that you are saying that EVERY woman who may accidentally shoot here husband, thining he is a prowler, should be ARRESTED for murder. I could goon wiht the examples. Suffice it to sy that this is an UNREASONABLE OPINION , Waht about the idea that EVERY white person who shoots an unarmed balck person, no matter what the circumstances, sould have to go through a TRIAL? That, obviusly, is even WORSE, and exposes you as a RACIST. Yep. I just called ALL of CNN, and MOST of the unfiar and unbalanced network, RACIST.
As is often the case, with this blog, I was proven right within a matter of HOURS. Suddently, the "news" was that Trayvon Martin had been SUSPENDED from school for marijuana. Now this blog's original statement (about it being likely that Trayvon Martin was tno the only angelic 17 year old boy around) was made in the context of SPECUATION (brought to my attention by my cable TV minded mother) that a HOODD indicated that Martin was probably a gang member. My cable TV minded mother, who I have suggested should apply for a job at CNN (because she loves jumping to speculativewe conclustions based on her own agenda), is now firmly convinced that Trayvon Martin was a gang member (based on the new information that has come out). I see no real evidence of that, although it is certainly possible (and at least as likely as much of the CNN SPECUALTION about George Zimmerman). But what I also told you is that it is IRRELEVANT (excpet in the publicity war, and on the margings) whether Trayvon Martin was really this "angel" tath the media was tryying to portray. As I said,, you are not entitled to kill gang members, or boys who have been suspended from school for marijuana use, for that reason. The key question is the FACTS of teh confrontation between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin, and not the CHARACTER of Martin (or Zimmerman, for that matter).
The AT&T/Yahoo "featured" headline last night was that the Martin family was comlaining that the "police" were trying to "demonize" Trayvon Martin. ..............................................................................Sorry, I was on the floor again in that fetal position, laughting/crying..........................The whole media NARRATIVE here, pushed by tghe famiy and urn with my the media, has been to DEMMONIZE George Zimmerman and the Samford plice. No one has been even interested int the FACTS. The publlicized picture of Trayvon Martin was even, deliberately, one of him as a YOUNGER CHILD. Those who live by the sword, die by the sword. The Martin family has a right to their grief, and I fully understand their anger. But that does not mean they should be allowed to LYNCH a man, in conjuncitn with a media and racial politicians who want to USE them, based on DEMONIZING SPECULATION.
No. Trayvon Marttin was not an angel. George Zimmerman was surely not an angel (or, as this blog put it, a "hero" when he mismanaged the situation so that a 17 year old young man--no matter what his faults--ended up dead). Race really does not appear to be a dtermning factor here. Nor does "character". What you are left with are the ACTUAL FACTS: teh very thing in which our media is so uninterested.
By the way, one of the things I suggested int hat very same article whcih mentioned that Trayvon Martin was almost surely not an "anngel", was that it was entirely possible that Trayvon Martin COULD have tried to take away George Zimmerman's gun (in the context of whether Zimmerman feared for his life, and whehter Martin was simply an "innocent', UNARMED 17 year old boy). Well, another of those "featured" AT&T/Yahoo articles yesterday mentined a report that ZIMMERMAN claimed that Martin had tried to get Zimmerman's gun. Again, read this blog and you get tomorrow's news today--only BETTER than the media reports today's "news".
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Oh, there was also a rather vague reort that Zimmerman thought Martin had something in his hand. Wee KNOW Martin had a cell phone (with which he did NOT call 911, as Zimmerman did). Couuld you SUSPECT a cell phone to be a weapon? Of course you could. Now you can't just soot someone, as a private citizen, or even as a police officer, merely because you suspect a person MIGHT have a weapon. But that is NOT what happened here. Zimmerman was in a FIGHT, which he may have thought was a fight for his life. He MAY be allegeing that part of the fight was over Zimmerman's gun. And Zimmerman MAY have had some reason to suspect that Martin had a weapon of his own. You see how FACTS MATTER? And yet we KNOW that we will NOT get FACTS from our media. We get NARRATIVE. Tht is why this allleged "polll" that 73% of Americans think George Zimmerman should be arrested made me laugh/cry. Forget the eVIL of such a poll, are 73% of Americans really that STUPID (disregarding that the poll probably was skewed by leaving out peole who correctly could not be bothered with an opinion). Shoululd Goerge Zimmerman be arrested, or have been arrested? How the Hell do Iknow. How do YOU know? How does anyone know, except the authorities on the scene. We KNOW that we are NOT getting the FACTS from our media, which probably does not even know the facts (not that they are even interested) It is WRONG to have an OOPINION on whether George Zimmerman shuold be arrested. I will say I havve seen NO actual facts to this point that cause me to conclude that an arrest was indicated, although I would not have regarded an arrest as some sort of "miscarriage" of justice. The police shuld have gone on the FACTS available to them, and on the same basis as if two peole of the SAME RACE had been involved. As best I can tell, whether they were right or wrong, the police did BETTER than our media would have done, as our media would have areested George Zimmerman just o satisfy the 'black community". There is no WORSE standard for "justice" in this country than the media "standard" of catering to RACIAL OPINION and RACIAL FEELINGS (such as the "feeling" that black epoele dont't get a fair deal from the plcie). George Zimmerman is entitled to be treated as an INDIVIDUAL, and not as a pawn in some kind of RACE WAR being assumed by CNN and the rest of the media (not to mention racial politicians.). It is not "justice" to view the workld as "us against them": the "white race' against the "black race', ecept for those enlightened folks on the side of the black race. The law, and justice, should be COLOR BLIND, and based on INDIVIDUALS> Could you not have an opinion that a person should ALWAYS be arrested when an "unarmed" person is shot by another person? Well, you can have that opinion, but it means that you are saying that EVERY woman who may accidentally shoot here husband, thining he is a prowler, should be ARRESTED for murder. I could goon wiht the examples. Suffice it to sy that this is an UNREASONABLE OPINION , Waht about the idea that EVERY white person who shoots an unarmed balck person, no matter what the circumstances, sould have to go through a TRIAL? That, obviusly, is even WORSE, and exposes you as a RACIST. Yep. I just called ALL of CNN, and MOST of the unfiar and unbalanced network, RACIST.
George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin: Injuries (Media: Don't interrupt Our Narrative with Facts)
What should police do when investigating a potential homicide, and claim of self-defense? Well, the media pretty much dismissed the city manager's assertion that the police shouuld actually evaluate the FACTS, as they appear to be (unless and until those "facts" are contradicted). The city manger of Samford specifically mentioned "physical evidence". As this blgo--tomorrow's news today--told you at the time (days ago), perhaps the key fact is PHYSICAL INJURIES of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin (respectively land comparativeely).
How can I talk about "physical injuires" for Trayvon Martin. He is DEAD. Right, but those are NOT the key "physical injuries' for evaluating WHAT HAPPPENED. The media wants ot give OPINION, based on their NARRATIVE, as to "who screamed", and who was the "aggressor". But we seem to be now getting infformation ththat George Zimmerman had a BROKEN NOSE. He may hae had other bruises and contusions. The media is uninterested, as susal. Did Trayvon Martina have any bruises, or other physical injuries NOT caused by the gunshot wound? If not, how could you possibly maintain a position that Trayvon Martin was the one SCREAMING, or even the one pushing the "'fight" (which the medi keeps insisting on calling a "scuffle"--pathological liars that they are--SHEPPARD SMITH< YOU ARE A LIAR-see previous article).
This matters. If you don't think it matters, then you shuld apply to work at CNN, or somewhere else in the media. The media would rather conctrate on the LAWYER'S view of the "testimony" of a BIASED 16 year old girl who was not there. But there are FACTS here. You have an actual eyewitness who says George Zimmerman was the one on the botttom, screaming. What if the INJURIES support that? Again, Trayvon Martin could hardly be the one SCREAMING in PAIN if he suffred NO injuries.
No. I don't know these facts. Neither do you. That is our problem. We cannot depend on our media to even CARE about giving us the actual facts. They are to busy with a POINT OF VIEW.
You should view "journalists' with nothing but contempt. That is my, correct, view.
How can I talk about "physical injuires" for Trayvon Martin. He is DEAD. Right, but those are NOT the key "physical injuries' for evaluating WHAT HAPPPENED. The media wants ot give OPINION, based on their NARRATIVE, as to "who screamed", and who was the "aggressor". But we seem to be now getting infformation ththat George Zimmerman had a BROKEN NOSE. He may hae had other bruises and contusions. The media is uninterested, as susal. Did Trayvon Martina have any bruises, or other physical injuries NOT caused by the gunshot wound? If not, how could you possibly maintain a position that Trayvon Martin was the one SCREAMING, or even the one pushing the "'fight" (which the medi keeps insisting on calling a "scuffle"--pathological liars that they are--SHEPPARD SMITH< YOU ARE A LIAR-see previous article).
This matters. If you don't think it matters, then you shuld apply to work at CNN, or somewhere else in the media. The media would rather conctrate on the LAWYER'S view of the "testimony" of a BIASED 16 year old girl who was not there. But there are FACTS here. You have an actual eyewitness who says George Zimmerman was the one on the botttom, screaming. What if the INJURIES support that? Again, Trayvon Martin could hardly be the one SCREAMING in PAIN if he suffred NO injuries.
No. I don't know these facts. Neither do you. That is our problem. We cannot depend on our media to even CARE about giving us the actual facts. They are to busy with a POINT OF VIEW.
You should view "journalists' with nothing but contempt. That is my, correct, view.
Monday, March 26, 2012
George Zimmerman's, Or Is It CNN'S, Raccoon Fetish
Do the dishonest hypocrites at CNN have sex with raccoons. That is the only explanation that I can see for CNN to keep playing that "enhanced" (ALTERED) tape that CNN WANTS to say "proves" taht George Zimmerman said "fucking coons". Hey, I HEARD the terrible, evil people at CNN on Sunday, and they appeared to violate FCC rules by PLYAING thsese words. Oh, they did say that they were sorry for any "offense" (These dishoenst hypociites offend ME every single day without violating FCC rules, which which CNN does not have to comply because it is not an "on-air" network).
You don't think the people on CNN are dishonest hypocrites? Never doubt me. Remember those Danish cartoons? CNN, along with most of the mainstream media, would NOT show those (essential to the story) for fear of "offending" Muslims. And what is so "important" abut this ALTERED tape that CNN decides to OFFEND more than usual? CNN itself admitted that there is NO consensus in CNN that "fudking coons" is what George Zimmerman really said, if anything. You may remember that this is not the first time that people have played around with SOUND (such as by playing records, or whatever, backwards to fiind "hidden" messages) to make mere NOISE appear to be words.
Nope. The peole of CNN are some of the most dishonest peoplewho have ever lived, along with the rest of the media. I know, and you should know, that the peole USHING this rridiculous contention DO NOTA CARE whether it is true. Their goal is to SMEAR George Zimmerman, and this is a way of doing it. By the time the truth comes out, if the whole "issue" does not jsut fade awaylfor lack of support, CNN will have accomplished what it wants. AFTER saying that CNN could not tell us whether this is what the 911 NOISE really "hid", CNN proceeded to talk about how this SPECUALTION would probably make George Zimmerman guilty of a "hate crime" (itself doubtful, under an y objective view of what happneed, in its entirety). This has nothing to do with "truth" or "journalism". This is a SMEAR and a LYNCHING. Oh, as this blog has told you, the attempt to put out "fucking" as something Zimmerman said is just as much a part of this as the atttempt to SMEAR him as a racist (without evidence).
Read the headline again, and be advised that it is just as likely that George Zimmerman was talking about "fjucking raccoons" as that he was making a racial slur. Taht is why the headline refers to a "raccoon" fetish. CNN definitely has a COON FETISH, along with the other dishonest leftists out thre.
How many times have you heard COON used as a racial slur, in yhour life (even on film or televison). I NEVER have, EXCPET in the context of LISTING racil epithets. I have NEVER, in fiction or real life, heard a person say to another person: "You fuckng coon,", or any similar phrase. It is absud. I would have trouble believing it was said wen if I thought I heard it in clear language. It is alomst IMPOSSILBE to imagne Zimmerman saing ti as if that were the first phrase eo come to mind when he is pursuing a black young man. No, I don't even know exactly what it MENAS. Doo you? I know it is a slur, because of those "lisitings" I have heard of racial slurs. Maybe thre is some movie, somewhere, that I have forgotten, that has a character use that term. But it would lamost have to be a PERIOD move. I really think the word is ARCHAIC, unless it is still used in some restricted, backwoods places. I stand by what I said, and what I meant in the headline: It is jsut as likely that George Zimmerman saw a raccoon thqat almost tripped him as that he made THIS racial slur. I admit that both are almost impossible, but about equally so.
I spent the first 12 years of my life mainly in the small Arkansas hill country town of Mt. Ida (which Stephen Hnunter libeled as having a saloon as its main business, in his "Hot Springs" (37 miles or so from Mt. Ida). For me, growing up, "coon" definitely referred to a RACCOON. Doest he derivationfof the word as a racial slurr have anything to do with "raccoon"? I don't know, and I con't care. This whole thing, about "fucking coons", is MADE UP--to a 90% certainty. What about that other 10% (a generous number, as I was tempted to go with 99%)? All I can say is that if "journalists" are now treating as "news" a 1% "chance", or ven a t0% chance, then there is a99% chance they will LIE to DESTOY people. What am I saying? For a decade or s, this blog has PROVEN that today's "journalists", especially including CNN, WILL LIE to DESTRY people in pursuit of an agenda. Taht is a 100% true fact.
Meanwhile, it turns out that George Zimmerman is an HISPANIC being LYNCHED by CNN (along with President Obama and others). Further, he and his wife TUTOR African-American children (among others), on weekends (evidently as a public service, and certiainly without being paid any substantial amount). George Zimmerman has African-American friends (although this smacks of the "condescending"" "Some of my best friends are black." I repeat what this blog has correctly told you: You are NOT a "racist" if you have an impression that a sukspicious looking, even gang-looking, young black STRANGER in your enighborhood has a fair likelihod of being a criminal. You may feel th esame way about "gang-looking" WHITE strangers in your neighborhood. But even if you don't feel QUITE the same, this is not 'raccism (of the h"hate crime" type, or veven as bad as the CNN type). It is merely human nature at work. In this case, George Zimmerman was evidently JUSTIFIED in worring about HIGH CRIME in his area. Whehter he may have been 5% more suspicious of a black, strange you man (from his point of view) than of a white strage young man is irrelevant, and a quesiton we simply could never answer.
Stay tuned for my future headline (keyed to yet another media story abut George Zimmerman being an HSIPANIC lynched in America,), which will read (my headline) about as follows: "President Obama's father was Kneyan, and Obama thought of himself as African-American." If you think that phrasing is RACIST, say hello to the "courier-journal.com", as the article will explain. My 50% Mexican-American daughters should be able to identify with George Zimmerman, although his mothe was evidenty Peruvian. I have told you that CNN is "The Racist Network"? I know I have, so you don't have to answer that question.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight), although I don't guarantee whether a "forensic" review of my compture would reveal not only thaqt I can actually see, but that I typed, "under my breath", "the fucking coons" when referring to the people of CNN. The peole of CNN shoululd only hope that I thought that WELL of them, black and white. I don't even know what the supposed racial insult means. I do know exactly what I think of CNN. Let me again put it this way, as I have before: If Hell exists (I am, after all, agnostic), I LOOK FORWARD to meeting all of my "good friends", and anti-Christians (as I am not) from CNN there. As I have said, my only worry is that meeting EVERYONE fromm CNN in Hell would make me so hapy that Hell exists that God would never let me have the joy (for alll eternity, with no ACLU "appels") of knowing that the CNN people are in Hell. However,, i can outsmart God on this one, as I have previously said. If Hell exists, I KNOW that everone from CNN will be there (along with almost all oother media people). Terefore, it does not really matter if I SEE them. Look at the SACRIFICE I am willing to make here. I am ROOTING for Hell to exist, to my own personal detriment, just to have the satisfactin of knowing that "justice" has been done. You can't get any more noble than that. Would God grant me an Obama-type WAIVER from the usual requirements for this extreme NOBILITY an dSELF-SACRIFICE? Somehonw, I doubt it. Still, this is the best way I know of informing you what I really think of the peole of CNN, black and white.
P.P.S. Note to myself: Be careful, if I am ever in Samford, Florid. The pacle is obivusly overrun with fuckng raccoons. I ahve always thought thte creatures look fairly sinister. I will now return to my policy of NOT using "fuckng", either in this blog or personally. It is the refuge of little minds. However, I simply refused to show less "courage" (lol, as if anyone cares these days, except when they are trying to SMEAR somone) than CNN. If George Zimmerman, by some miracle, did use the phrase cNN is tryiong to SMEAR him with, then he turly should be ashamed of himself.--just as much for not living in this CENTURY as for any racism it shows.
You don't think the people on CNN are dishonest hypocrites? Never doubt me. Remember those Danish cartoons? CNN, along with most of the mainstream media, would NOT show those (essential to the story) for fear of "offending" Muslims. And what is so "important" abut this ALTERED tape that CNN decides to OFFEND more than usual? CNN itself admitted that there is NO consensus in CNN that "fudking coons" is what George Zimmerman really said, if anything. You may remember that this is not the first time that people have played around with SOUND (such as by playing records, or whatever, backwards to fiind "hidden" messages) to make mere NOISE appear to be words.
Nope. The peole of CNN are some of the most dishonest peoplewho have ever lived, along with the rest of the media. I know, and you should know, that the peole USHING this rridiculous contention DO NOTA CARE whether it is true. Their goal is to SMEAR George Zimmerman, and this is a way of doing it. By the time the truth comes out, if the whole "issue" does not jsut fade awaylfor lack of support, CNN will have accomplished what it wants. AFTER saying that CNN could not tell us whether this is what the 911 NOISE really "hid", CNN proceeded to talk about how this SPECUALTION would probably make George Zimmerman guilty of a "hate crime" (itself doubtful, under an y objective view of what happneed, in its entirety). This has nothing to do with "truth" or "journalism". This is a SMEAR and a LYNCHING. Oh, as this blog has told you, the attempt to put out "fucking" as something Zimmerman said is just as much a part of this as the atttempt to SMEAR him as a racist (without evidence).
Read the headline again, and be advised that it is just as likely that George Zimmerman was talking about "fjucking raccoons" as that he was making a racial slur. Taht is why the headline refers to a "raccoon" fetish. CNN definitely has a COON FETISH, along with the other dishonest leftists out thre.
How many times have you heard COON used as a racial slur, in yhour life (even on film or televison). I NEVER have, EXCPET in the context of LISTING racil epithets. I have NEVER, in fiction or real life, heard a person say to another person: "You fuckng coon,", or any similar phrase. It is absud. I would have trouble believing it was said wen if I thought I heard it in clear language. It is alomst IMPOSSILBE to imagne Zimmerman saing ti as if that were the first phrase eo come to mind when he is pursuing a black young man. No, I don't even know exactly what it MENAS. Doo you? I know it is a slur, because of those "lisitings" I have heard of racial slurs. Maybe thre is some movie, somewhere, that I have forgotten, that has a character use that term. But it would lamost have to be a PERIOD move. I really think the word is ARCHAIC, unless it is still used in some restricted, backwoods places. I stand by what I said, and what I meant in the headline: It is jsut as likely that George Zimmerman saw a raccoon thqat almost tripped him as that he made THIS racial slur. I admit that both are almost impossible, but about equally so.
I spent the first 12 years of my life mainly in the small Arkansas hill country town of Mt. Ida (which Stephen Hnunter libeled as having a saloon as its main business, in his "Hot Springs" (37 miles or so from Mt. Ida). For me, growing up, "coon" definitely referred to a RACCOON. Doest he derivationfof the word as a racial slurr have anything to do with "raccoon"? I don't know, and I con't care. This whole thing, about "fucking coons", is MADE UP--to a 90% certainty. What about that other 10% (a generous number, as I was tempted to go with 99%)? All I can say is that if "journalists" are now treating as "news" a 1% "chance", or ven a t0% chance, then there is a99% chance they will LIE to DESTOY people. What am I saying? For a decade or s, this blog has PROVEN that today's "journalists", especially including CNN, WILL LIE to DESTRY people in pursuit of an agenda. Taht is a 100% true fact.
Meanwhile, it turns out that George Zimmerman is an HISPANIC being LYNCHED by CNN (along with President Obama and others). Further, he and his wife TUTOR African-American children (among others), on weekends (evidently as a public service, and certiainly without being paid any substantial amount). George Zimmerman has African-American friends (although this smacks of the "condescending"" "Some of my best friends are black." I repeat what this blog has correctly told you: You are NOT a "racist" if you have an impression that a sukspicious looking, even gang-looking, young black STRANGER in your enighborhood has a fair likelihod of being a criminal. You may feel th esame way about "gang-looking" WHITE strangers in your neighborhood. But even if you don't feel QUITE the same, this is not 'raccism (of the h"hate crime" type, or veven as bad as the CNN type). It is merely human nature at work. In this case, George Zimmerman was evidently JUSTIFIED in worring about HIGH CRIME in his area. Whehter he may have been 5% more suspicious of a black, strange you man (from his point of view) than of a white strage young man is irrelevant, and a quesiton we simply could never answer.
Stay tuned for my future headline (keyed to yet another media story abut George Zimmerman being an HSIPANIC lynched in America,), which will read (my headline) about as follows: "President Obama's father was Kneyan, and Obama thought of himself as African-American." If you think that phrasing is RACIST, say hello to the "courier-journal.com", as the article will explain. My 50% Mexican-American daughters should be able to identify with George Zimmerman, although his mothe was evidenty Peruvian. I have told you that CNN is "The Racist Network"? I know I have, so you don't have to answer that question.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight), although I don't guarantee whether a "forensic" review of my compture would reveal not only thaqt I can actually see, but that I typed, "under my breath", "the fucking coons" when referring to the people of CNN. The peole of CNN shoululd only hope that I thought that WELL of them, black and white. I don't even know what the supposed racial insult means. I do know exactly what I think of CNN. Let me again put it this way, as I have before: If Hell exists (I am, after all, agnostic), I LOOK FORWARD to meeting all of my "good friends", and anti-Christians (as I am not) from CNN there. As I have said, my only worry is that meeting EVERYONE fromm CNN in Hell would make me so hapy that Hell exists that God would never let me have the joy (for alll eternity, with no ACLU "appels") of knowing that the CNN people are in Hell. However,, i can outsmart God on this one, as I have previously said. If Hell exists, I KNOW that everone from CNN will be there (along with almost all oother media people). Terefore, it does not really matter if I SEE them. Look at the SACRIFICE I am willing to make here. I am ROOTING for Hell to exist, to my own personal detriment, just to have the satisfactin of knowing that "justice" has been done. You can't get any more noble than that. Would God grant me an Obama-type WAIVER from the usual requirements for this extreme NOBILITY an dSELF-SACRIFICE? Somehonw, I doubt it. Still, this is the best way I know of informing you what I really think of the peole of CNN, black and white.
P.P.S. Note to myself: Be careful, if I am ever in Samford, Florid. The pacle is obivusly overrun with fuckng raccoons. I ahve always thought thte creatures look fairly sinister. I will now return to my policy of NOT using "fuckng", either in this blog or personally. It is the refuge of little minds. However, I simply refused to show less "courage" (lol, as if anyone cares these days, except when they are trying to SMEAR somone) than CNN. If George Zimmerman, by some miracle, did use the phrase cNN is tryiong to SMEAR him with, then he turly should be ashamed of himself.--just as much for not living in this CENTURY as for any racism it shows.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)