Maggie's Farm

It's also worth noting that 5 of the blue states among the top 10 'most productive' also have the largest deficits. In other words, they are subsidizing their own productivity with debt.

California is, obviously, the most notable example. It's clear that California is headed down a very similar road as Detroit, though it has more opportunities to avoid a similar outcome, since its revenue and industrial base is more diverse. Yet it will, no doubt, hit the wall at some point.

Detroit failed for many reasons, and poor planning by the state and local government are among the biggest reasons. Sure, business fails - but business fails in many places without similar results. The auto industry failed in fantastic fashion (and is still failing, despite claims to the otherwise) and Detroit had put all its eggs in one basket.

Its politicians believed, at the height of the city's prosperity, that this was a never ending upward climb that could, and should, be redistributed to create a 'fairer' society. Detroit sought to be the very model of the future modern, wealthy, 'capitalist' city.
Because they misunderstood what made them as great as they were, they were unable to address the problems which resulted from the decline of the auto industry.

They promoted laziness and while they claimed to be offering a better education, they in fact were not. Because spending money on education is not the same as educating.

The city was a one-trick pony and its politicians had a single trick, as well - redistribution. We now see the results.

Remember, New York faced a similar event in the 1970's, for many of the same reasons. Quick thinking and talented financiers stepped up to pull some rabbits out of hats. New York was also blessed with a more diverse corporate base. Yet New York never really shed its biggest problems, and the city has some big issues looming once again. The successor of Bloomberg will likely run into some similar issues as the 1970's in the next 4-8 years, especially if someone like (ahem) Wiener wins.

Detroit is the first of many to come. It is the epitome of what happens when you kill your own business base to promote a social agenda, especially when that business base is limited and making poor decisions.

Of course there's more fueling growth in those states, but that wasn't my point, was it? You chose to make it my point, as you typically do by shifting a discussion. You're talented in that regard, but extremely transparent about how you choose to shift your discussion points to things you're more comfortable with. Doesn't make you right, but it does make you sound like you know what you're talking about, even if you don't.

The larger debts are becoming a drag on states which have them. California will have more opportunity to deal with it, if it chooses to, due to its diversity of economic opportunity. Others have more limited capabilities. Either way, it avoids the main point, which is living within your means.

Which brings us to New York City. Sure, lots of cities would like New York's benefits. There is tremendous opportunity here. But it is often squandered. The problems looming here are growing, not shrinking, despite the city's many capabilities.
However, because (like California) it has a diverse economic base, it may be able to deal with these issues effectively. Notice I say "may" and not "will", because the current crop of Mayoral candidates lack the pedigree or background to provide useful leadership. This is a city which has gone from effectively dealing with some of its larger problems (like crime) and has spent the last 2 years focusing on nonsense like super-sized sodas, sugar, trans-fats, and smoking rather than dealing with its massive problems in education, taxes and transportation (the subways, buses and cabs are a mess....not to mention the roads which are constantly being fixed because of substandard work. The road outside my office? 3 times in 3 years it's been blocked off for up to a week, and I'm at a very busy intersection).

So yeah, lots of cities wish they had New York's benefits, but many other cities are glad they DO NOT have New York's problems.

For what it's worth I took the time to pull some numbers since 2007. Since that time, Mississippi has seen its debt grow at a lower pace, and its productivity at a faster pace, than Connecticut.

These are only two states, but I'm sure the information can be further delved into to determine that this is a relatively common theme. In reality, I don't think it's particularly indicative of much of anything except to say if you spend more than you have, then you can temporarily appear more productive than you really are.

Over time, the truth will begin to be apparent that you've run out of options for growth and you will be forced to contract. It's actually a common theme running throughout history for anyone looking to see if running deficits forever is a good idea....

You don't seem to understand English. I know I say this every time you appear on these threads, but it's true. At what point did I say the debt explained the disparity? That's your point, not mine.

They are subsidizing their increased productivity with debt, to a degree. I notice you've managed to simply twist it to say that it's just not enough to explain all the differentiation. Of course not! But it's worthy of consideration, something you seem unable to process.

Furthermore, you continue to say blue states are more productive than red states, in general. As if being blue (Democrat) makes them more productive. Or maybe you mean that in being more productive, they are naturally blue?

Neither of these are germaine to the discussion. What is germaine is the blue states spending considerably more than they have. Even you will admit this is unsustainable.

Or maybe you won't, because you'll spout out "as long as their productivity grows faster than their debt, it is sustainable". Which I'll agree with, then point out that I just pointed out this was not the case for the last 6 years (possibly longer).

But you love to troll, don't you? It's a perverse pleasure, I imagine. You have lots of facts to back up YOUR points, rarely stop to consider or discuss logically the points others make. So you shift the discussion, and engage in misdirection to make your point the one you discuss and feel superior, I assume. You're an odd bird, that's for sure.

Seriously? You think Zimmerman initiated contact?
That's pretty nuts. Not impossible, but highly unlikely.

The key point most Martin supporters make is "Zimmerman disobeyed an order to not follow Martin." Which is true.
However, he was also asked to find out where Martin went (this is on the 911 tapes) which implies the need to follow Martin.

Meanwhile, Jenteal originally said that Martin initiated contact in her original deposition - a fact she recanted in the courtroom. It's worth noting that while Zimmerman was 'ordered' (he was not ordered) to not follow, Martin was told by Jenteal to not initiate contact and keep walking. Yet he didn't. He laid in wait for Zimmerman.

Remember, Zimmerman passed a lie detector test. And, when a police bluffed Zimmerman and said there were cameras that had it all on tape, Zimmerman replied "thank God".

Hardly the kind of thing someone would say if their story was a lie.

Regardless, the key point of the Zimmerman trial was that reasonable doubt is required as to whether he murdered Martin. Clearly, there is more than reasonable doubt, and the verdict is correct.

All things considered, Zimmerman's version of events stand up to common sense and expectations than any other version of events.

http://www.dlas.org/questions-zimmerman-verdict/

Martin's background was never questioned during the trial, but Zimmerman's was - and still is, by the media. The 'reason' Martin's background was off limits is supposedly because he was not on trial but Zimmerman was. Yet if you want to get context regarding Zimmerman's state of mind and reasons for behaving as he did, you need to understand just what he was up against. No, he didn't know Martin and Martin's background would not have played a role in Zimmerman doing anything specifically because of who Martin was. But when his background is framed contextually against what was occurring in Zimmerman's neighborhood, Zimmerman's behavior is not only understandable but expected.

I'm not making any judgements about Martin. A teenager is dead and that's lamentable. But if anyone questions Zimmerman's behaviors, then questioning Martin's is fair game, and Martin's behaviors may not have been illegal, but they were behaviors that would have drawn suspicion in many neighborhoods.

Martin had choices he chose not to pursue. It's likely he made one very bad choice - highly likely - to confront Zimmerman. It's hard to see many scenarios where a rather milquetoast character such as Zimmerman would willingly initiate a confrontation with a younger, taller, and seemingly drugged (Zimmerman suggested as much with his comment about Martin's behavior) individual.

Zimmerman made some poor choices. He made no criminal choices. Martin made some poor choices. Probably one or two criminal choices. But there is some reasonable doubt on that point, as well. So we're left with two non-guilty individuals making bad choices.

You do admit Jeantel changed her story, don't you? So using her as 'evidence' is a stretch. Useful if you believe Martin was a 'victim', but hardly worth using to argue a point. I happen to believe they were both victims of their own stupidity.

Zimmerman had a gun? What news! So what? Even a brief review of his character and history proves him to be milquetoast and unlikely to initiate contact with someone of questionable motives. In fact, most of my friends who carry do so because they are incapable of defending themselves physically. Makes sense to me, so I hardly see how that's an issue here.

I didn't say Martin was drugged. I said "seemingly" drugged, which was Zimmerman's point of view. Funny how you're willing to ignore simple facts when they suit your purposes.

Zimmerman did follow Martin, and did get out of his car AFTER he was told to not follow Martin, but ASKED where Martin had gone. I'm not sure that's a request to follow someone, but Zimmerman clearly felt he needed to see where Martin had disappeared to in order to inform the 911 operator. So he wasn't acknowledging one request (not to follow) while acknowledging a more recent one (to determine where Martin had gone).

Do you deny that Jeantel told Martin to just walk away and avoid Zimmerman? That's as legitimate an instruction as the one Zimmerman received. Why didn't he try to do that?

I know, you'll stick with Jeantel's POV, which is questionable at best since her story varied dramatically. Zimmerman's story, however, never varied. Usually that's a sign of legitimacy. I notice you haven't acknowledged this fact.

"Entirely consistent" and "Completely changing" are two very different things. Her first conversation with the police aligned more closely with Zimmerman's explanation. She changed her POV much later, when her memory was less likely to be as clear - and with substantial prodding, no doubt (not proven, but probable). Admit what you know - she changed her story, and that should be admissable evidence.

Your view that Zimmerman may have been emboldened because he carried a gun is at odds with his general behavior and characteristics. More likely, he carried the gun to not be emboldened, but for a circumstance such as the one he LIKELY encountered - being jumped.

Zimmerman did jump to conclusions about the drugs, but that's not my point, is it? That's you changing the point again. Zimmerman FELT Martin was drugged, and therefore a potential danger to himself and the community. As a result, he knew confronting a drugged person would put him at risk, so he was unlikely to do this even with a gun.

Jeantel's version of events, we know, are open to question due to her changing story. Martin also said he could take on Zimmerman and wasn't worried - indicating he felt more than confident in his ability to engage Zimmerman in a street fight, and showing a willingness to do so.

Zimmerman never changed his story and showed relief when he was lied to about a video tape existing. He didn't testify, but he gave his version of events MANY times, and there were no inconsistencies, which is one reason the special investigator suggested the prosecution not pursue a murder case - he believed Zimmerman's version of events, and not the alternatives. He stated as much when the prosecution examined him. He knows more than you about what happened that night, meaning your version is far more speculative than his.

Zimmerman's comments on TV about his knowledge of the law is immaterial to the case. Everybody lies from time to time, particularly when they feel threatened, as Zimmerman did. You've chosen to include it as part of your view of Zimmerman's character, but you've refused to acknowledge Martin's activities which make Zimmerman's 'profiling' of him somewhat accurate in the most general of senses. He was not a young kid. He was a problem, shipped off by his mom to hopefully get better discipline and not receiving it. He was a problem at school, and he was not completely clean in general.

I'd like to hear a full accounting of events, as you seem to think they occurred, and why you think Zimmerman is "guilty" of something - what is he guilty of, why, and what evidence exists to support your view, aside from an emotion?

By the way, I keep seeing the word "profile" show up regarding Zimmerman. I say big deal?

We all profile. It's called first impressions. I recently had a conversation with a friend who is absolutely convinced Zimmerman murdered Martin. He doesn't question his views at all, mainly because of the 'profiling' claim.

I point out to him that Zimmerman is 1/4 black. Not an issue for him.
I point out Zimmerman had a business partner who was black. Not an issue.
I point out he voted for Obama. Not an issue.
Then I asked this friend if he met anyone new today. He said yes, he'd gone to a business meeting and met someone he was trying to do business with. I asked him who it was and what his opinion of the person was.

He looked at me and asked why I wanted to know. I just asked him to answer the question. I got a detailed description of this fellow. I said "what did you think of him when you first walked in the room?"

He got quiet. He realized that he profiled that fellow when he walked in the room and had made some judgements about this guy. Some which were wrong.

I said "you profiled this guy? Seriously? After you just complained about Zimmerman profiling Martin? Wow."

We all profile, and often there's nothing wrong with it because we all operate off first impressions to a large degree. So the issue isn't profiling at all. "Profiling" is a code word for "racist", when in fact Zimmerman is clearly not a racist based on his heritage and behaviors in the past.

Progressives love code words as much as Conservatives, only they place themselves on a morally superior pedestal to support their use of code words.
"Profiling" is without a doubt meant to imply "racist", even though every single person in the world profiles every day.


As I was leaving Israel, I was profiled. I was glad I was profiled, even though I generally oppose its use by public officials. I spent a long time being questioned by agents because of a funny thing that happened with my ticket. As the agent pointed out to me, the activity was designed to keep me safe. I agreed, even though I was frustrated with the length of time I was questioned.

Profiling is justifiable and useful at times, even if we think it's unfair.

Zimmerman did nothing wrong, and I'm waiting for someone who thinks he engaged in criminal activity to point out what that activity was.
And don't say "shooting a 17 year old". That's an emotional response based on your belief that Zimmerman attacked Martin, despite the overwhelming evidence which suggests the reverse is true.

Yes, he will be followed. You may think that is some form of divine justice.
From my perspective, there's a big difference between that and him following Trayvon. Zimmerman did not set out to shoot anyone, just provide information of a suspicious person (given the crimes in the neighborhood, this is perfectly legitimate thinking) wandering in the neighborhood. Martin had no reason to think someone was following him to do harm. That was his own wild imagination.
Meanwhile, Zimmerman will be followed by crazed people, who listen to insane commentary supporting their false beliefs, spouted by people like you. Whatever you believe, it seems that you feel Zimmerman deserves to have been found guilty, and therefore the threat of death following him is just and right. Your commentary - at odds with the evidence and all the testimony provided before and during the case - only inflames people who would seek to kill Zimmerman.
You can smile smugly and say "hey, I'm just presenting an alternative view of events which may possibly have occurred, and I have no role in anything that happens to Zimmerman."

All true. But you know, deep in your heart, that views like yours lead may lead to the murder of a person not necessarily deserving of that outcome.

I hope your proud of your commentary and your promotion of a theory which may suit as certain twisted view of the available evidence.

I, for one, have made my point clear while you have not. I say Zimmerman did not murder or even commit manslaughter. It was a series of unfortunate events which people like yourself are using to point fingers and decry racism, when none existed in the set of events.


As for my friend, no he didn't shoot anyone. Nor did Zimmerman profile Martin in order to shoot him. That's you, once again, twisting logic to suit your perverse need to troll and spew hatred while posing as "rational thought".