We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Wednesday, July 17. 2013
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
None of these murders are about race.
Cowards murder children and getfavorite button pushed by yall yankers.
Neither Martin nor Cervini were children. Why push a falsehood? They were young men, in full possession of a man's strength and aggression, but without sufficient wisdom and self-control. Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement. The young men with too much aggression and not enough self-control don't make it, and so their destiny is to be a dire warning to us all.
It is the duty of adult men to temper young mens' aggression by both good example and punishment, and to channel their energies and passions into productive and moral activities. Adult men, if you are not doing this, you are to blame for the decline of civilization into barbarity.
An armed society is a polite society. Young men, heed this lesson well. We are all just going to have to accept this new-again reality: you should assume that everyone you meet could be carrying and prepared to defend themselves.
I speculate that it was the WWII generation upon coming home wanted nothing more of killing, and tried to build a peaceful society where carrying firearms was unnecessary. We now live in the vestiges of that society. Nothing lasts forever. These days, each man must be prepared to take a more active role in the defense of himself, his family and property, against the growing horde of vandals at the gate.
Sweetheart, if they ain't of age they are children.
What, yall ain't appointed to punish other folks children.
Meself ain't no child and yall be rest assured weaponized adult wanna be punisher stalking me find a kiss under his/her pillow.
Stop killing children who defend themselves.
Yall are championing cowards but this boy ain't surprised by yankee ways.
Yall yankees enjoy to stand ground against children standing ground.
Ur not only...(and I type this slowly so you might comprehend)...p-i-t-i-f-u-l...Ur sick !
I get it, ignoring the point for humor's sake. I've said my piece, from a lifetime of experience. I don't consider it debatable. If they are not "of age", they are not legally "adults". But 14-17 year old males, from biology, are young men, and should be treated as such. An 11 year old without a deadly weapon is no threat to me. A seventeen year old can assuredly kill me without one, despite the best efforts of my old man's strength and wisdom.
What'd you do leag, when the coach yelled at you for doggin' it, and he (she?) ordered you to run extra laps? In pads, carrying weights, without a water break. Go cry and tattle cuz he (she?) was punishing you? What'd you do when you and your gang were messin' around, and an adult came along and broke up your fun and games 'fore somebody got hurt? What'd you do leag, every time some adult came along and rightfully kicked your keister (in one form or another) cuz you were screwin' up? Cry for your mama to punish that bad man?
Still pushiing falsehoods I see. Cervini and Martin were the initiating aggressor, young men both. Somebody failed to teach these young men that while kids may fight, men should not. Cuz when men fight, anything can happen, it can't be controlled, and the consequences can quicly become disastrous. It doesn't matter what the law is when men get to fighting, it's nature red in tooth and claw time, and the law will deal with the survivors.
Which is why we channel the aggression of young men into vigorously competitive sports like football and the stock options markets, where we teach them the virtues of playing fairly by the rules, but playing to win. To be humble in victory, graceful in defeat, and to be determined to learn and improve. Nobody likes or wants to punish the screwups, but sometimes the thickheads need some gentle "persuasion".
Just so you know...you are dealing with...
!/ A TROLL
2/ ...you fill the __ (BLANK).
This troll has (IMO) been adding TOOO much Robitussin 2 his "LEAN".
Not worth the trouble.
A particularly vile troll, who went away for a long time, then disappointed me enormously by coming back.
Frankly, I much prefer Zachriel's contributions. He is ridiculous but civil, and seems to be making at least an effort to make sense.
Allow me to cut yall short, shorty.
Shou'd the state declare 14-17 olds adults yall'd be correct but yall be wrong again.
It's clear 'nuff yall short people like to punish other folks children.
Meself had a di, short in stature but full of lung, like yall.
He was the aggressor unlike Cervini and Martin who were aggressed by adults who had weapons.
Yall'd ignore law in acts of passion but law will bite your short tail, when if yall be in company of men.
Keep persuasion in your pocket, sweetheart.
Have it your way leag, I welcome your disagreement. I've said my piece. others can make up their own minds now.
Now...now...you're not suggesting...R U? hez a "southern BOY"...doncha know...
Keep that piece in your pocket.
Others about need find their minds, first, fore they can make them up.
It's like sending children to bed, they all need a nap.
Forget what I said B4...
U're not a "fudge packer"...RU... (as opposed to a GREEN BAY Packer"... (apologies to the "Pork Packers" of the Great State of Wisconsin)...
Well...THERE U GO AGAIN...
Hey "SHIT 4 BRAINS"...what do all y'all call a BOOMRTANG that won't come back?
...nobody help...this question is for the NMAPI (New Mexico Albuquerque Pathetic Integer)...
He tinks "Tang" was a "FRUIT" juice that the Mercury Guys carried aloft suborbitally....
A BOOMERANG that won't come back is the ?......waz Ur response ????
Don't answer unless Ur 'non-de-guerre' is...well...U know...
It's pointless to argue or debate a troll. It's up to the proprietors of the MF blog to determine whether his inflammatory and nonsensical posts add anything to the discussion. As for me, I now skip over everything he posts (just like Web page ads) and none of it registers in the slightest with me.
In any case, the point of the article was to note the enormous difference in the way the two incidents involving gun deaths were treated by the media and the grievance industry. I can't even begin to understand why so many ostensibly sensible people have so much invested in punishing Geo Zimmerman, although I do see the hidden hand of politicians like Barack Obama in either causing or taking advantage of the divisiveness that has followed Martin's death. As for the witch hunt by the DOJ and the attendant publicity, at this point it would be impossible for Zimmerman to get a fair trial anywhere in this country, so I suspect there's no chance a civil rights suit would go beyond an indictment that gets thrown out of court on Day 1. The DOJ's trolling for tips via an Internet hot line is as prejudicial a step as any prosecutor could ever take. It further compounds the stupidity and incompetence of the state prosecutors.
I'd like to fix something in your comment:
Don't you mean the "media and grievance industry"?
So true...but I'd like to forward 'our' Metro-Sexual "Hurt Feelings Report Form" 2 southern Boy...(actually...he be the NMAPI)...but desert gophers won't know the diff.
Yeah. Cool it guys. Clowns like leag get their jollies from the reaction to their jabberwocky. The more indignant your reaction, the more outrageous their response, and the more it escalates, the better their high. Close to being a mental illness I think. If everyone totally ignores him, he'll go away. I think most of the widely read blogs ban these sickos pretty fast, but BD seems to have unlimited patience.
This is News Junkies posting under his administration.
He's never been shy to delete me posts but meself appreciate his indulgence.
Yall might reconnoiter some specs, yanker.
I'm not sure what Leag is getting at, aside from "don't kill kids", which I think all of us agree with.
But killing kids isn't the issue. Any more than race is the issue.
Defending oneself is the issue. Kids, unfortunately, aren't aware of the laws. They tend to think if you provoke them with words or other non-physical activity, then YOU are at fault for them attacking you.
Case in point. Many years ago, my 5 year old son socked another kid hard while he was in the park. We ran over and scolded him, apologized to the parents, did what we could to help the poor kid.
My son, meanwhile, 'stood his ground' in the best way Trayvon Martin's supporters would assume - he felt threatened, and lashed out. When told he was not supposed to hit others, he replied "But that boy MADE ME WANT to hit him."
Explaining to a child that the law doesn't support his physically violent response is very hard to do. Assuming the other child was carrying a gun (who knows these days - some parents are crazy), I would have understood its use.
In many ways, both Zimmerman and Trayvon were children who didn't understand the issue of escalation. Zimmerman was foolish to put himself in a dangerous situation. Trayvon was foolish to not listen to his friend's texts telling him to keep walking. That one was an adult and another a teen is immaterial. Size-wise they were roughly similar, though I give the edge to height and speed over stockiness, making Trayvon more threatening a presence than Zimmerman.
In the case of Cervini, I'd say the same. 3 kids outnumber 1 man.
In either case, the shootings were tragic and generally (in the broadest of senses) unnecessary, but completely understandable. As a result, both verdicts are absolutely correct.
I feel bad for any parent who loses a child, especially in cases which are so poorly managed as both of these. But regardless of how poorly managed they are, the law remains the law.
I'm not sure what Leag is getting at...
No shite...neither do I...nor does SHE...
"both GZ and TM were children": I refer the gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago. They're 26 and 17 respectively. Childhood is long over for both of them. Men accept the consequences of their actions. And young men are often tried as adults.
"GZ was foolish to put himself in a dangerous situation". Umm, it's his neighborhood, he's carrying, and there's a spaced-out kid wandering around casing the neighbors. What's to fear?
And, if a person is foolish to accept a duty to guard their neighbors that puts them into harm's way, I guess you don't think much of our police or soldiers. I'm sure that's not true, which means that perhaps GZ was not a fool, but a valued and honorable member of the community. Sometimes a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do, and it that includes walk into danger, then that too.
I'm not gonna slag anybody who volunteered to walk the line for his family and neighbors. In my book, GZ did nothing impeachable that night. We would be blessed to have more men like GZ.
"GZ was foolish to put himself in a dangerous situation". Umm, it's his neighborhood, he's carrying, and there's a spaced-out kid wandering around casing the neighbors. What's to fear?
In support of Mr. Fleming, I would point out that Zimmerman was a homeowner in the HOA, whose vehicle was parked in a common element of that HOA. He was one of the owners of the common element. As such, Zimmerman had every right to be walking in a common element of that HOA. Moreover, as a homeowner, he had more right to be walking in the common element than Trayvon Martin, who was a guest.
Those who say Zimmerman should not have gotten out of the car are admitting that Trayvon Martin was a dangerous person. So much for the "killing a child" meme.
Zimmerman simply shouldn't gotten out of his car because he SUSPECTED Trayvon was dangerous.
I won't make judgements about Trayvon, he was no saint. But in this instance, he was not engaging in criminal activity.
However, since Zimmerman suspected Trayvon, he clearly put himself in harm's way.
When Zimmerman was in his vehicle in a common element of which Zimmerman was a partial owner- IOW that Zimmerman was in effect IN HIS OWN DRIVEWAY- you are telling me that Zimmerman should not have gotten out of his vehicle and walked around his own property.
Similarly, when you are in YOUR OWN DRIVEWAY IN YOUR OWN PROPERTY, and you see a stranger ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY, you are going to inform us that that YOU should not get out of your vehicle? ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY. Decime otro de vaqueros.
Should Zimmerman and all others be so fear-ridden that they should not walk THEIR OWN PROPERTY if they see a stranger on their own property?
Being a child may be defined by age, but actions speak louder than words. Many adults are children, as are many teens.
I'll stick with my comment that in many ways, both these people were children. Perhaps not in age, but simply in action.
I will add this - I respect GZ for being a member of neighborhood watch. I don't necessarily think volunteering means he's completely capable of doing the job properly.
I'm sure you could say the same of some soldiers, even some officers. I respect that they serve, but that doesn't necessarily mean they know what they are always doing, in every instance.
GZ, without a doubt, overstepped his bounds. Not a criminally, but certainly beyond his mental and physical capabilities. His gun provided his bravado.
I don't think he is any kind of hero, and in fact I think he screwed up big time. While I agree with the verdict, if I had the opportunity to slap him in the head and say "WTF were you thinking?", I'd love to do so.
As for Martin, he was no saint. And if GZ is going to see his character smeared, then so should Martin. The press' constant harping on GZ and their promotion of the 'outrage' over the verdict shows how out of touch they truly are with society. We need people to step up and simply say "the verdict was just, but the two personalities involved were flawed". That's the best answer.
Zimmerman could have not gotten out of the car. Martin could have kept walking. In either case, the ability to de-escalate was ignored and each upped the ante. This leads to a tragic result.
In your own driveway you should not get out of your car. Yeah, right.
Really? In Obama's America, citizens should not get out of their car and walk around their own neighborhood looking for where the curious stranger disappeared to, because it's too dangerous? Are you arguing that we should consider all curious strangers to be violent killers until proven otherwise? Or are you arguing that a little bravery is imprudent, and we should just wait for the police? And what's to be done when the police can't or won't help? GZ's neighborhood was under continual assault by the thugs, and the police couldn't stop it. Should people retreat, or take a stand?
I reckon it's just a worldview, there's no convincing that can be done. Some think retreat is the better part of valor. Others choose the duty to take an active defense of their civilization, community, and themselves.
"In many ways, both Zimmerman and Trayvon were children who didn't understand the issue of escalation. Zimmerman was foolish to put himself in a dangerous situation. Trayvon was foolish to not listen to his friend's texts telling him to keep walking. That one was an adult and another a teen is immaterial."
I agree with your view of the events of that night. One got overconfident knowing he was packing a gun for protection, the other from thinking he was skilled enough as a street fighter that he could handle himself dealing out "whoop-ass" in the dark of night.
(As I wrote once before, Rachel Jeantel is not doing the Martin family any favor by talking about the case, even with her lawyer by her side. As best I can tell from closely watching the video of her interview by Piers Morgan the other night, she said just before he was shot TM was "whooping" GZ, but was not intending to kill him. Apparently she did not realize that made Martin look like the aggressor, but Morgan obviously smelled a news scoop. He tried to get her to clarify or rephrase or backtrack on what she'd just said, but she did drifted off onto something else in answer to his question. Anyway, if you can bear to listen to him---I can't---Rush Limbaugh has more of his own commentary on on the same point.)
Ms. Jeantel suggested in an interview at HuffPo Live that Martin pulled the first punch. She's a time bomb trying to push her 15 minutes of fame until the truth comes out, probably not the mythology her handlers designed to fit the prosecution's narrative.
I agree with John Fleming; by age 12 - 13, a boy with good mentors learns how to negotiate without resorting to physical violence. Our problem is all the fatherless youngsters without role models. We need to get the adult elephants back in the herd to teach the juveniles some manners before the parade passes us by.
I've pointed out that Jenteal's commentary on Piers Morgan was satirized some time ago on the TV show Tosh.0.
Whether you watch it or not, his piece on "n***er" vs. "n***a" is absolute comedy gold. Adding the 'a' does not change anything, except in the minds of uninformed youth. However, if that is what they believe, then the term 'n***a' is open for all to use and is no longer pejorative.
Rush is correct in how he handled that situation, though I give Tosh.0 props for hitting the nail on the head first.
In the spirit of constructive suggesting, I believe Neighborhood Watch volunteers or hires should wear some identifying garb - helmet, luminous holster, etc. - - -
I suggest they stop stalking boys.
Some day wanabe cop might meet a bear cloaked in hoodie.
"Stalking"? If you live in a nieghborhood that has endured breakins and you form a nieghborhood watch (which I understand is encouraged and supported by law enforcement) then is it really "stalking" to try to keep an eye on a suspicious person? Especially now that the trial is over and we discover Trayvon had possesed stolen jewelry and burgularly tools before. And we discover that little Trayvon had those tools with him that very night that he attacked Zimmerman. And finally the media concedes that skittles and tea is NOT what all of us naive adults who don't do drugs think it is but in fact part of a concoction that teen drug users take to get a little high. It would appear that Zimmerman was right and Trayvon was indeed "suspicious". In all of this it was only Zimmerman who acted in a legal manner and poor little Trayvon simply picked the wrong "creepy ass cracka" to put a beat down on. I do feel bad for Trayvon's mom who couldn't control the little shit and sent him to his dad's who choose not to control the little shit. Who knew if you let your kid do drugs and rob people that they might someday get shot by someone not willing to go along with the the little shit's aggressive attitude. Who could have seen this coming? Certainly not mom with her head in the sand and not dad. But no worries they will both become millionaires with with millions for sleazy lawyers too.