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
Thursday, July 25. 2013
Jay-Z Joins To-Day and Ice-Cream in the Hyphen Graveyard
Up In ARMs: Adjustable Rate Mortgage Applications Soar To 2008 "Pre-Lehman Mania" Levels
FDA warns 15 companies over fraudulent diabetes product claims
Ivy League Prof: Public Health Officials Mislead People To Sway Habits
Guess The World's Most Expensive City
The bitter battle over Alaska's salmon
Conservatives Should Point and Laugh as Detroit Dies
As hospitals buy medical practices, patients face thousands of dollars in new charges
Obamacare’s Waning Popularity - If Obamacare’s such a good policy, why is it bad politics for Democrats?
House G.O.P. Sets New Offensive on Obama Goals
UK UPDATEl Chocolate criminal
Ted Nugent called Trayvon Martin a “17-year-old dope smoking, racist gangsta wannabe.”
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
This could be the definitive comment on the demise of Detroit, written long before Detroit's inglorious collapse was inevitable:
"Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as 'bad luck'."
-- Robert A. Heinlein
Kurt Schlichter: Conservatives Should Point and Laugh as Detroit Dies ... It’s the first of the liberal-run big cities and states to fall, and we should welcome its collapse with glee.
Detroit's financial position collapsed because they couldn't adjust to their rapidly decreasing population and industrial base. The problem with Schlichter's position is that the most productive areas in the U.S. are nearly all blue states, which have been subsidizing red states for generations.
That a statesman, with a due sense of his responsibility, should so far mislead the people by promises which can only, in the long run, lead to disappointment, is a bad sign of our times. Surely he must know that if the people once taste the sweets of plunder, if they begin to enjoy the unearned increment, there will be larger demands made, and that the only end to those demands will be the end of that useful milk-cow, the capitalist class. Having recreation at the expense of another can only be a temporary, a very temporary, expedient. In the first place the wealth of this country is not, by any means, so great as to enable the whole of the inhabitants to enjoy life in the way suggested, and even if it were, a time would very soon come when the person who supplied the recreation would have no more to "pay the piper" with, and then, we fear, the dancing must cease, or go on without music. But will it last even so long? An American candidate said "Capital is sensitive; it shrinks from the very appearance of danger." We think that it is shrinking in this country, and if capital goes beyond the seas, if it is taken to other and safer countries, we shall have the poor of this country dancing to quite other tunes than those which are being composed by their over-sanguine guides for their delectation. We shall have the poor of this country condemned to misery and starvation. They themselves cannot see this, but it behoves those who would constitute themselves the leaders of the people to take heed lest they mislead them into such " sloughs of despond."
Not much more need be said. Detroit slaughtered their milk-cow, ate heartily but wasted the meat and now complain there is no more milk.
I do have one quibble with the quote above, the use of "statesman".
I recently came across this comparison of statesman and politician
And there is this difference between a
politician and a statesman. A politician schemes
and works in every way to make the people do
something for him. A statesman wishes to do some-
thing for the people. With him place and power
are means to an end, and the end is the good of his
country. --Col. Robert Ingersoll
JKB: Detroit slaughtered their milk-cow, ate heartily but wasted the meat and now complain there is no more milk.
Certainly, Detroit didn't respond effectively to their changing fortunes. Detroit politicians didn't provide the vision necessary to transform the city, but merely reacted to their immediate circumstances.
"Changing fortunes"... You're kidding, right?
There wasn't an exodus of people from one of the most vibrant cities in the country on a whim. They left because things there started to get bad. The people at the top (the whipping boys of the left) have the greatest ability to move and when they felt abused or that their future would be brighter somewhere else, they moved - taking their money with them - and leaving the burden of those leftist policies with everybody else.
mudbug: There wasn't an exodus of people from one of the most vibrant cities in the country on a whim.
No. American car manufacturers made a series of bad decisions as to where the market was going, and were slow to innovate, producing lower quality products than competitors. Manufacturing was also off-shored in many industries due to low-cost labor.
While the automobile industry's decline hurt Detroit- both the city and the metropolitan area- Detroit did much worse than the metropolitan area. The overall population of the Detroit metropolitan area has remained about the same for the last 50 years, whereas the population of Detroit has declined by over 50%. During this time, the population of the US has increased by about 67%, which shows the relative decline of the Detroit metropolitan area. However, the decline is not relative but ABSOLUTE for Detroit City. Which shows that there is something going on in Detroit City above and beyond the decline of the auto industry.
Detroit City Population
Detroit Metropolitan Area Population
Detroit City as Percentage of Detroit Metropolitan Area
No doubt, there are many problems with Detroit. It will take some time to recover.
I was surprised to read that Detroit (city) was not really the motor city but just the name with the largest letters on the map. The actual factories long ago built outside the city in the greater metropolitan area before moving to other "cities" later on.
Question (in general), did the formation of suburban incorporated areas (or whatever Michigan calls them) hem in Detroit (city) by stopping the city from chasing residents as they fled the city?
In my area, the city yet again tried to annex wealthy neighborhoods to steal some tax dollars. Tax now, years to start providing services (police/fire now, sewer after decades of sewer fees are collected for no service). But a past "oversight" ruined their plan. Seems upon review they still hadn't extended the sewer into some areas annexed in the '70s. State law won't let them annex more until they've got services running in what they have now. In my area, there was a move to incorporate to stop the city but it is now on hold.
That's a common pattern in urban development. The development of the automobile and growth of highways allowed people to spread to the suburbs while still benefiting from proximity to the city. The city then attempts to annex surrounding areas, which suburbanites resist.
Yes, wasn't it awful how the Detroit suburbs continued to benefit from the gaping, arson-ridden hellhole that was the center city, without being willing to continue letting it suck them dry financially? They acted as though they were entitled to escape the riots and crime and build a new life some miles away. How could that be fair to the rioting criminals they left behind? Did they even consider their welfare?
Downtown Detroit was such a vibrant concatenation of social capital that, even today, people all over the country tell themselves, "Just a few more years of saving up, and we'll be able to move to a suburb of Detroit and bask in the central city's warm glow."
It seems that Detroit's worst mistake was failing to construct the wall around the city, with the gun turrets pointing in, before half its citizens figured out they were free to leave.
But most of all, Z makes some excellent points: the industrial and population bases just inexplicably went away one day, mostly because of bad people in the auto industry's management (plus off-shoring). Then, "Detroit politicians didn't provide the vision necessary to transform the city, but merely reacted to their immediate circumstances." Coleman Young, for instance, responded by loudly identifying the inner city as a rebellion against an occupying power, which has always been a winning economic strategy for troubled cities in the past, so how was he to know? And then, "There are many problems with Detroit. It will take some time to recover." If only the city fathers had had access to this trenchant analysis, the city need never have died.
Texan99: Downtown Detroit was such a vibrant concatenation of social capital that, even today, people all over the country tell themselves, "Just a few more years of saving up, and we'll be able to move to a suburb of Detroit and bask in the central city's warm glow."
It happens that more than three million people crowd around Detroit.
Texan99: the industrial and population bases just inexplicably went away one day, mostly because of bad people in the auto industry's management (plus off-shoring).
Among the many mistakes of the auto industry was becoming complacent while competitors, such as the Japanese, developed much more reliable vehicles. That was the primary responsibility of the auto makers, and they failed. After that blow to the industry, even lower cost producers forced more manufacturing overseas, while cutting profit margins on those who remained behind.
They crowd around it, but scrupulously avoid going into it. Does it radiate value from a distance? What are the suburbs taking advantage of, exactly?
...and compared to Coleman Young's five term two decades as mayor, Kilpatrick and crew are choirboys.
We say, don't eat the seed corn. Two others are; don't kill the golden goose, and don't foul your own nest. How did these basic ancient survival paradigms get lost in the shuffle?
They often seem to be forgotten, especially when the trends cross generations.
and if forgotten than the important but hard lessons of consequences should be allowed to be applied, not forgiven and unlearned by bailouts.
--which came first, the tax-base flight or the party monopoly on corruption?
The problem with Schlichter's position is that the most productive areas in the U.S. are nearly all blue states, which have been subsidizing red states for generations
So, if you divide the population into two sets, one set being 60% of the people and the other 40%, the 60% group will generate more taxable events (and at retail and wholesale price points) than the 40% (at producer price points)?
But tell me, grasshopper, what is it that the wholesaler and retailer sells?
buddy larsen: So, if you divide the population into two sets, one set being 60% of the people and the other 40%, the 60% group will generate more taxable events (and at retail and wholesale price points) than the 40% (at producer price points)?
Sorry. We weren't clear. We were referring to 2010 GDP per capita. Eight of the ten highest states in terms of GDP per capita are blue states, defined as voting for Obama in 2012. Nine of the ten lowest states in terms of GDP per capita are red states. They range from Connecticut at $56k to Mississippi at $31k.
Well, shoot, then, if the blue model is that successful financially, then why beat up on Detroit? Maybe it just needs to keep trying the same strategies, and they'll result in solvency if we give them enough time.
Texan99: Well, shoot, then, if the blue model is that successful financially, then why beat up on Detroit?
You're conflating the "blue model" with Detroit, which has had many problems. As we pointed out, blue states are generally more productive even as they help subsidize the red states.
Texan99: Maybe it just needs to keep trying the same strategies, and they'll result in solvency if we give them enough time.
No, they're bankrupt. They can't continue on the same course.
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.
Bulldog: It's also worth noting that 5 of the blue states among the top 10 'most productive' also have the largest deficits.
Connecticut debt per capita $8500
California debt per capita $4000
Mississippi debt per capita $2300
Connecticut per capita GDP per year $56000
California per capita GDP per year $43000
Mississippi per capita GDP per year $31000
There's obviously something more than just debt fueling the difference in GDP. Keep in mind that GDP is per year, while the debt is total. You might amortize the debt over a decade for some idea of its fiscal effect.
Bulldog: Yet New York never really shed its biggest problems, and the city has some big issues looming once again.
Of course they do. Most other cities would love to have New York's problems.
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.
Bulldog: Of course there's more fueling growth in those states, but that wasn't my point, was it?
You say they are "subsidizing their own productivity with debt", but their entire debt is only a small portion of their yearly GDP.
Bulldog: 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.
Big opportunities come with big problems. Not sure there is an actual argument there. Pointing to high taxation would seem to be a better approach.
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....
Bulldog: 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.
As we pointed out, the debt levels are not sufficient to explain the disparity in productivity. Blue states are generally more productive. Also, the 2007 year is just before the financial crisis, so it may not be representative.
Generally, more developed economies tend to grow slower, so that may explain much of the difference in growth rates.
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.
Bulldog: At what point did I say the debt explained the disparity?
When you said, "they are subsidizing their own productivity with debt."
Bulldog: it's just not enough to explain all the differentiation.
Okay. Thank you for the clarification.
Bulldog: Furthermore, you continue to say blue states are more productive than red states, in general.
The question was the cause of Detroit's financial problems. Schlichter claimed it was liberal governance. Yet, the most productive states are those that tend towards liberalism.
Bulldog: As if being blue (Democrat) makes them more productive. Or maybe you mean that in being more productive, they are naturally blue?
Either way, it seems to contradict Schlichter's claim.
I'm confused. How come the most productive states are the ones teetering on the brink of bankruptcy? Have you got a special sense in which you use the word "productive"?
Obama Creates Two New Food Stamp Recipients for Every Job Created
Well, someone has to pay for those jobs. Wait, that don't sound right.
If we are to believe Progressive PR, Obama has become the new Walmart.
Imagine the Waltons (and business interests in general) thank Obama for increasing their profits and thus donations to their favored causes.
Ted Nugent: 17-year-old dope smoking, racist gangsta wannabe.
Naw. Can't imagine why someone would find that offensive.
You left your first comment at 8:00. Two and a half hours later, you left another. Then, eight minutes later, you left yet another.
Obsess much, do we?
I'd use the word "fixated." He's never convinced a single person of anything, yet back he comes, day after day, peddling his liberal drool. He's obviously got something loose up there.
Which do you find offensive, the being that, or the description of the being that?
I see. So you weren't being sarcastic at all, but rather, you were endorsing Whittle's report.
Seeing the truth about him (the Facebook posts, the screen-caps of his texts, the school report of possession of stolen property, facing expulsion from the school, etc.), its pretty accurate. But in our PC nirvana, its intolerant and that catch-all R-word.
About the only mistake he made was underestimating his victim, and the amount of resistance he would bring to bear. Cost him dearly, sad to say.
fred zeppelin: Seeing the truth about him (the Facebook posts, the screen-caps of his texts, the school report of possession of stolen property, facing expulsion from the school, etc.), its pretty accurate.
Was he charged with receipt of stolen property?
Suspended for writing WTF on a locker, and an empty baggie.
Screen caps? Seriously?
Yes, an unarmed teenager is shot while brandishing Skittles, and he's guilty. As we said, we can't imagine why someone would find that offensive.
The School, along with the Police, didn't charge him, seeing it was 'found property on school grounds'. Any place else, it would be possession of stolen property. But, to lower the crime rate in Miami schools, the charging was changed, to diminish the crime rate.
It was more than writing on a locker...
Yes, FB and from his phone show his propensity of violence, 'thug life', and the other less than social behavour. Nice dodge for omission - its odd, seeing how others have used it for prosecution, but get it cloaked away in this case.
Wow - an unarmed 17 year old charges across 100m of ground, attacks you, and continually slams your head against the concrete, breaks your nose, and refuses to stop - what do you propose - buy him more skittles and Arizona Watermellon drink, and promise to bring him more if he stops?
Denial is not a river in Central Florida, lad...
Brandishing Skittles? The Skittles bags must have gotten a lot sharper and heavier since I last checked them, to do that kind of number on Zimmerman's skull.
If we aren't permitted to draw any disquieting conclusions about Martin that haven't been adjudicated by a judge and jury, then what's the basis for all the criticism of Zimmerman?
fred zeppelin: Wow - an unarmed 17 year old charges across 100m of ground, attacks you, and continually slams your head against the concrete, breaks your nose, and refuses to stop - what do you propose - buy him more skittles and Arizona Watermellon drink, and promise to bring him more if he stops?
No one was there, however, Jeantel's testimony was that Martin said "Get off, get off" at the beginning of the altercation, which took less than a minute. That implies that Zimmerman, who had been following Martin, initiated contact.
--for some reason, as i came to the end of your back n forth with T99, i had a sudden vision of the astronaut dismantling HAL as HAL sang "Daisy, Daisy" ever more slowly in ever less intelligible basso-profundo.
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.
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.
Bulldog: You think Zimmerman initiated contact?
It's likely. Zimmerman followed Martin in his truck. He parked, then followed Martin on foot. Jeantel testified that Martin said he had lost Zimmerman, then Zimmerman suddenly appeared behind him. They exchanged words, then Martin said "Get off, get off". That certainly seems reasonable considering the circumstances.
Bulldog: Clearly, there is more than reasonable doubt, and the verdict is correct.
The verdict is the verdict. One of the jurors has said that Zimmerman got away with murder.
Bulldog: It's hard to see many scenarios where a rather milquetoast character such as Zimmerman
Um, Zimmerman had a gun.
Bulldog: would willingly initiate a confrontation with a younger, taller, and seemingly drugged (Zimmerman suggested as much with his comment about Martin's behavior) individual.
Martin wasn't on drugs. (There were small residues of marijuana in his system.)
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.
Bulldog: You do admit Jeantel changed her story, don't you?
No one is entirely consistent in their memories.
Bulldog: Zimmerman had a gun? What news! So what?
It answered your question as to why "a rather milquetoast character such as Zimmerman" would approach someone he viewed as a dangerous drugged-out prowler. He was defending his neighborhood.
Bulldog: I said "seemingly" drugged, which was Zimmerman's point of view.
That's right, which shows that Zimmerman was jumping to conclusions.
Bulldog: Do you deny that Jeantel told Martin to just walk away and avoid Zimmerman?
And, according to Jeantel's testimony, Martin said he had lost Zimmerman, then Zimmerman reappeared behind him.
Bulldog: Zimmerman's story, however, never varied. Usually that's a sign of legitimacy. I notice you haven't acknowledged this fact.
Zimmerman never testified, however, we know he isn't truthful when it suits him, such as on the bail question. Also,
on the question of his knowledge of self-defense laws. The claim that Martin said "You're going to die tonight" is highly suspect and seems designed to fill the requirements of the law, rather than something that actually happened. It made sense when Zimmerman thought he was dealing with a dangerous drugged-out prowler, but makes no sense in the case of a teen returning from the store after buying his step-brother some candy.
"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?
Bulldog: Your view that Zimmerman may have been emboldened because he carried a gun is at odds with his general behavior and characteristics.
It's seems consistent with his behavior and characteristics. In particular, he was frustrated by those whom he viewed as punks getting away.
Bulldog: Jeantel's version of events, we know, are open to question due to her changing story.
Sure they're open to question. Nevertheless, it should be possible to reach some reasonable understanding of events from her testimony.
Bulldog: Zimmerman's comments on TV about his knowledge of the law is immaterial to the case.
We're not discussing the legal case, which as been decided.
Bulldog: Everybody lies from time to time, particularly when they feel threatened, as Zimmerman did.
Well, there you go.
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.
Bulldog: By the way, I keep seeing the word "profile" show up regarding Zimmerman. I say big deal
Zimmerman's brother stated that "he's going to be looking around his shoulder for the rest of his life."
Yes, he'll be looking around his shoulder. Can you imagine? The feeling is like you're being followed, everyone just assuming you're a criminal. I mean, if I were him, I'd wear something to hide my face.
Bulldog: I said "you profiled this guy? Seriously? After you just complained about Zimmerman profiling Martin? Wow."
Did your friend shoot the guy? Just curious.
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".
Bulldog: Zimmerman did not set out to shoot anyone,
Bulldog: Martin had no reason to think someone was following him to do harm.
Not agreed. From Jeantel's testimony, we have evidence that Martin felt threatened, which is also evident from Zimmerman's own testimony.
Bulldog: 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.
Zimmerman deserves to live his life in peace so that he can more clearly hear the beating of his own heart.
Bulldog: As for my friend, no he didn't shoot anyone.
Of course not.
Doesn't matter who initiated contact so the point is moot. The critical factors are that Martin continued to use force (unlawfully) against Zimmerman when he was no longer a threat. And in applying that force, he created a situation with the concrete sidewalk in which a reasonable and prudent person would have a reasonable belief that they were facing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.
JKB: Doesn't matter who initiated contact so the point is moot. The critical factors are that Martin continued to use force (unlawfully) against Zimmerman when he was no longer a threat.
Of course it matters. If someone grabs you in the dark, you have the right to fight back. It was less than a minute from when Martin said "Get off, get off" to the gunshot.
You might find the truth offensive but that doesn't stop it from being true.
The description is based on actual known facts.
Best argument is that the Martin wasn't only that.
One the best Bill Whittle commentaries ever! But the sheeple will never understand.
Facts to the left is like garlic\sunlight to vampires, and fitting too.
Sharing chocolate!: The HORROR! The horror... And then there's that "opening the child's sealed letter to her mom"...
Ordering pizza in 2015.
This may send a chill up your spine. Or not.
"Yes, an unarmed teenager is shot while brandishing Skittles,"
No. A black baby was shot by a vigilante Klansman.
Get your hyperbolic facts straight, you scumbag liar.
cc: No. A black baby was shot by a vigilante Klansman.
Zimmerman was hardly a Klansman. Rather, Zimmerman profiled a young black man, followed him in the dark, creating a situation that spiraled out of control.
Zimmerman told the police Martin had said "You're going to die tonight". That made a modicum of sense for only as long he believed the youth was a dangerous prowler. Once it was clear Martin was returning from the store after buying his step-brother some candy, Zimmerman's statement no longer made sense.
Zimmerman told the police Martin had said "You're going to die tonight". That made a modicum of sense for only as long he believed the youth was a dangerous prowler. Once it was clear Martin was returning from the store after buying his step-brother some candy, Zimmerman's statement no longer made sense.
From CNN, June 2012:
In an interview just after the shooting, Zimmerman told police that the struggle began when Martin "jumped out from the bushes" and punched him in the face, knocking him down.You can also check out Zimmerman's written statement to the police. There is a link to it in the article.
"I started screaming for help. I couldn't see. I couldn't breathe," he said.
"He grabbed my head and started hitting it into the sidewalk," he said. "When he started doing that, I slid into the grass to try to get out from under him. ... I'm still yelling for help."
Martin, he said, put his hand over Zimmerman's mouth and nose and told him, "You're going to die tonight."
"When I slid, my jacket and my shirt came up. ... I felt his hand go down my side, and I thought he was going for my firearm, so I grabbed it immediately, and as he banged my head again, I just pulled out my firearm and shot him."
Seems to me that when someone is pounding on me and telling me "You're going to die tonight," it is a valid conclusion that I am dealing with a "dangerous prowler."
Z-Team, are you ignoramuses or liars?
One more reason why the Z-Team merits contempt.
Gringo: Seems to me that when someone is pounding on me and telling me "You're going to die tonight," it is a valid conclusion that I am dealing with a "dangerous prowler."
Except it doesn't make sense Martin would say that.
Except it doesn't make sense Martin would say that.
Trayvon Martin was on top of Zimmerman, pounding on him, and you tell me it doesn't make sense Trayvon Martin would say that. Tell me another one.
It doesn't make sense that Martin would get on top of him and pound his head into the concrete, either, so that must not have happened.
For that matter, it doesn't make sense that Zimmerman would have shot him, so what's the problem?
Zimmerman told the police Martin had said "You're going to die tonight". That made a modicum of sense for only as long he believed the youth was a dangerous prowler.
We have established that Zimmerman had good reason to believe Trayvon Martin to be a dangerous prowler, based on Trayvon Martin's pounding on Zimmerman. Which means that BY YOUR OWN STATEMENT, it makes "a modicum of sense" that Trayvon Martin had said, "You're going to die tonight."
Z-Team[after I point out Trayvon Martin was pounding on Zimmerman.]:
Except it doesn't make sense Martin would say that. ["You're going to die tonight."]
So first it makes "a modicum of sense"- IF your criterion was satisfied- and then "it doesn't make sense," even though we have established that YOUR criterion for it making "a modicum of sense" was satisfied.
Please make your mind up. Changing the goalposts is not appreciated.
--back in the 60s in south Louisiana, amongst us teenage tough guys, it was pretty much accepted that if you sucker punch somebody in the nose hard enough to flatten him, he will go nuts and try to kill you. That's why we never did it.
It'd strange, when you think about, how high is the probability that if you know a lefty's position on Zimmerman, you can guess with virtually 100% certainty his position on AGW, Detroit, the economy, foreign affairs, abortion, unions, education, taxation, all the scandals, everything.
Or you can pick any of the other issue/shibboleths, and know with certainty his position on Zimmerman.
There's almost never even the slightest degree of variance.
It's like, the left isn't free to just expound ore declaim --on anything --on everything it has to follow a script.
the only other activity that resembles this, is the stage, or movie set, or street theater, or interpersonal gaslighting.
If the actual truth were available to the left's discourse, (poof) there couldn't 'be' a 'left'.
As instapundit says, it's Potemkin Villages, all the way down.
It's the antithesis of 'the truth shall make you free' --it's the 'narrative' shall make you a slave. And the proof is right there, in the precision march of the words of the acolytes.