It takes a while to get to the point here, but that's part of what makes it so fascinating. Take a look:
ADDED: Here's a pithy minute of response to the question:
ADDED: Here's a pithy minute of response to the question:
Showing posts with label George Zimmerman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George Zimmerman. Show all posts
Thursday, 1 August 2013
Tuesday, 30 July 2013
This is Sasha Frere-Jones, writing about Jay Z’s new album (which is pretentiously titled "Magna Carta Holy Grail") in the (pretentious but traditionally a bit subtle in its pretentiousness) New Yorker:
But just like the politician that he occasionally texts, Jay Z is exactly who should disappoint us, unless our admiration is mute conformity and our optimism was a party smile. His friend has disappointed us by allowing a squeegee of surveillance to be dragged across America and approving the killing of foreign civilians with robots. Those civilians, in another country, see America the way Trayvon Martin saw George Zimmerman — a force they couldn’t stop physically creating a story they couldn’t fight historically. So what should Jay Z be doing instead of currying favor with critics in an art gallery? Maybe something like what his friend Kanye West thought up in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, when he blurted out, “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.” Jay Z may be our most accomplished rapper but he rarely does anything to alienate anyone the way that West continually, and valuably, does. Which is probably why Carter represents athletes now, for profit and pleasure.I think Frere-Jones fancies himself some sort of genius rapper of the print medium, cramming together disparate references and conveying a tone of outrage over... oh, who know what? What's Frere-Jones's problem here? Jay Z shouldn't work for profit? He shouldn't aspire to an art gallery audience?
Jay Z’s performance at the Pace Gallery, a transparent rewrite of Marina Abramović’s “The Artist Is Present,” took place three days before the Zimmerman verdict, so what could he have done to leverage his influence? He could have ditched the idea of lip-synching to “Picasso Baby” (a weak retread of “99 Problems”) and recreated the Zimmerman-Martin showdown with everyone in the room, following them around the perimeter of the gallery and scaring the shit out of them, eventually pulling a gun. And though that would have been the aggressive vision of a different artist, Jay Z is exactly the kind of figure who could weather the ensuing controversy, retaining all of his homes and maybe even his Samsung deal.Speaking of failing to scare the shit out of people, for whom is this New Yorker shit writ?
Sunday, 28 July 2013
That still runs atop an article by lawprof Abbe Smith which explains the role of the defense lawyer within the criminal justice system. The explanation is familiar to anyone who's considered the topic beyond the shallowest level, but the article appears in the Washington Post because of all the attention to the Zimmerman trial, which explains the presence of the acquitted neighborhood watchman alongside the names of the evil Castro and the accused terrorist Tsarnaev.
The headline drew fire. At Breitbart.com: "the Washington Post outlandishly sought to equate the acquitted Robert [sic] Zimmerman to accused serial rapist Ariel Castro and Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev." At Instapundit: "Which one of these things is not like the others?... 'Tsarnaez = Castro = Zimmerman? Why not just throw in a Hitler? That’s usually how the question is posed at cocktail parties.'"
So look at how this article is teased on the front page at WaPo right now:
Quick! Roll out the Kaczynski!
The headline drew fire. At Breitbart.com: "the Washington Post outlandishly sought to equate the acquitted Robert [sic] Zimmerman to accused serial rapist Ariel Castro and Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev." At Instapundit: "Which one of these things is not like the others?... 'Tsarnaez = Castro = Zimmerman? Why not just throw in a Hitler? That’s usually how the question is posed at cocktail parties.'"
So look at how this article is teased on the front page at WaPo right now:
Quick! Roll out the Kaczynski!
Friday, 26 July 2013
"No high school graduation for Trayvon. No college for Trayvon. No grandkids coming from Trayvon, all because of a law, a law that has prevented the person who shot and killed my son to be held accountable and to pay for his awful crime."
That's terribly sad, but what law? George Zimmerman was acquitted because of the due process law that requires the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and I don't think Trayvon Martin's mother Sybrina Fulton means to attack that law. There's something sickening about seeing this poor woman wheeled about in her tragedy to mouth words of attack on the Stand Your Ground law that had nothing to do with Zimmerman's acquittal. Subjectively, perhaps Ms. Fulton gets satisfaction, but those who are using her should be identified, shamed, and denounced.
That's terribly sad, but what law? George Zimmerman was acquitted because of the due process law that requires the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and I don't think Trayvon Martin's mother Sybrina Fulton means to attack that law. There's something sickening about seeing this poor woman wheeled about in her tragedy to mouth words of attack on the Stand Your Ground law that had nothing to do with Zimmerman's acquittal. Subjectively, perhaps Ms. Fulton gets satisfaction, but those who are using her should be identified, shamed, and denounced.
Tuesday, 23 July 2013
"Mark and Dana Michelle Gerstle told friends they do not want to talk publicly about Zimmerman for fear they will be accused of portraying him as a hero — and face a backlash from those who consider he got away with murder. 'They are very grateful to Zimmerman for what he did, but they do not want to get involved,' said a friend, who asked not to be named."
This is a great origin story for a superhero. This is why he needs a costume... with a mask... if he wants to roam around finding people who need help and rushing to the rescue.
Who was that masked man? people will ask.
The answer will be: He was that man that all the important people called a racist, and they wanted to see him put away for a long, long time, but the jury — following the judge's instructions to adhere to truth, justice, and the American way — acquitted. He left the courthouse a free man, and determined to continue in the guardian role that led to branding him as a racist and knowing that anyone he ever helped would simultaneously be hurt by the linkage to the man known as racist, he put on that mask.
This is a great origin story for a superhero. This is why he needs a costume... with a mask... if he wants to roam around finding people who need help and rushing to the rescue.
Who was that masked man? people will ask.
The answer will be: He was that man that all the important people called a racist, and they wanted to see him put away for a long, long time, but the jury — following the judge's instructions to adhere to truth, justice, and the American way — acquitted. He left the courthouse a free man, and determined to continue in the guardian role that led to branding him as a racist and knowing that anyone he ever helped would simultaneously be hurt by the linkage to the man known as racist, he put on that mask.
Monday, 22 July 2013
They're going to struggle to process today's news:
So feel free to go ahead and use that, Zimmerman haters. I know this is tough for you. Another idea: Change the subject to the terrible problem of SUVs rolling over. That's a great old issue that could be recycled.
Zimmerman was one of two men who came to the aid of a family of four -- two parents and two children -- trapped inside a blue Ford Explorer SUV that had rolled over after traveling off the highway in Sanford, Fla. at approximately 5:45 p.m. Thursday, the Seminole County Sheriff's Office said in a statement....This is going to be so difficult for the Zimmerman haters, and I want to help. Remember, the FBI document said:
It's the first known sighting of Zimmerman since he left the courtroom following his acquittal last week....
In an April interview with two FBI agents, Christopher Serino, the Sanford Police Department’s lead investigator on the Martin killing... “described Zimmerman as overzealous and as having a ‘little hero complex,’ but not as a racist.”So he's out there, roaming around Sanford — not running as far out of town as he can — looking for people in trouble so he can play this demented "protector" role to his community. It's just pathetic. Here he is, prowling the streets, looking for signs of trouble and leaping into action. Wasn't he told to stay in his car?
So feel free to go ahead and use that, Zimmerman haters. I know this is tough for you. Another idea: Change the subject to the terrible problem of SUVs rolling over. That's a great old issue that could be recycled.
Saturday, 20 July 2013
"Civil rights leader and MSNBC host Al Sharpton organized the 'Justice for Trayvon' rallies and vigils outside federal buildings in at least 101 cities: from New York and Los Angeles to Wichita, Kan., and Atlanta...."
Meanwhile, in Chicago, the reported number is 8,000, with Jesse Jackson as the big speaker, saying: "We must boycott Florida and stop 'stand your ground.'" Boycott Florida?
ADDED: At the Miami rally, Trayvon Martin's father spoke, and the NYT describes the crowd as "dozens of people."
In addition to pushing the Justice Department to investigate civil rights charges against Zimmerman, Sharpton told supporters he wants to see a rollback of stand-your-ground self-defense laws now in place in more than 20 states.Zimmerman shot when he was pinned down and getting his head bashed into concrete. Stand-your-ground has to do with retreating when you can. Even aside from the fact laws can't ensure that bad things never, ever happen again — or else why is there murder? — stand-your-ground made no difference in Zimmerman's situation.
"We are trying to change laws so that this never, ever happens again," the Rev. Sharpton said.
Meanwhile, in Chicago, the reported number is 8,000, with Jesse Jackson as the big speaker, saying: "We must boycott Florida and stop 'stand your ground.'" Boycott Florida?
Rosaline Wilson, 62, said she came to the rally remembering her 14-year old brother who she said was killed by a police officer several decades ago while he was riding home from school. Because of the experience, she said, Wilson was not surprised by the Zimmerman verdict, but thinks there is hope for the future.We need something concrete... Speaking of concrete, does anyone at these rallies mention that Martin bashed Zimmerman's head on the concrete?
"We need solutions; we need something concrete; we need change," she said.
ADDED: At the Miami rally, Trayvon Martin's father spoke, and the NYT describes the crowd as "dozens of people."
Talk about context — and he did — look where we find ourselves. After the verdict in the George Zimmerman case — otherwise known as the Trayvon Martin case — Obama may have wanted not to speak, but our nation casts its weary eyes toward the face that we (once) imagined would emanate rays of racial healing. Come on, Obama, you've got to do it. He got profiled all the way into office, and now we expect him to perform in accordance with our stereotype.
He resisted for a number of days. Who knows what he was thinking? Was he waiting to see if there would be riots? To hear what others might say (so he could enter the conversation late and seem, perhaps without really saying anything, like the voice of reason)?
Then, on Friday, he made his way out to the lectern in the White House briefing room — "no advance warning and little of the orchestration that usually accompanies presidential speeches" — and spoke without a teleprompter, extemporaneously. As the NYT has it:
talked to summoned the NYT — I'm sure that was okay with Obama — and painted this picture:
We don't know what he said Thursday night, but we do have the full video and transcript of what that became on Friday. Listening to the remarks again, I imagine what talking points he had in his head, and my guess is 5 "CONs": CONDOLE, CONTEXT, CONVENE, CONVERSE, CONFIDENCE. Let me show you this in the transcript:
He resisted for a number of days. Who knows what he was thinking? Was he waiting to see if there would be riots? To hear what others might say (so he could enter the conversation late and seem, perhaps without really saying anything, like the voice of reason)?
Then, on Friday, he made his way out to the lectern in the White House briefing room — "no advance warning and little of the orchestration that usually accompanies presidential speeches" — and spoke without a teleprompter, extemporaneously. As the NYT has it:
After days of angry protests and mounting public pressure, President Obama summoned five of his closest advisers to the Oval Office on Thursday evening. It was time, he told them, for him to speak to the nation about the Trayvon Martin verdict, and he had a pretty good idea what he wanted to say.Summoned! So commanding. He talked to 5 advisers. We're not told who, but one of them
For the next 15 minutes, according to a senior aide, Mr. Obama spoke without interruption, laying out his message of why the not-guilty ruling had caused such pain among African-Americans, particularly young black men....So the man is capable of speaking spontaneously for 15 minutes straight, and his 5 companions — obviously 5 believers — refrained from interrupting him. It's not really that amazing to go on for 15 minutes, and we sayw him do that at the lectern on Friday, presumably because he convinced himself — with the support of the 5 — that talking, just like that, would take us to that higher level that was promised by those Hope posters.
We don't know what he said Thursday night, but we do have the full video and transcript of what that became on Friday. Listening to the remarks again, I imagine what talking points he had in his head, and my guess is 5 "CONs": CONDOLE, CONTEXT, CONVENE, CONVERSE, CONFIDENCE. Let me show you this in the transcript:
[CONDOLE] ... First of all... I send my thoughts and prayers... to the family of Trayvon Martin....That's it: the 5 "cons." Don't even have to write it on your hand. Maybe in his head, he pictured one "con" superimposed on the face of each of the 5 believers he practiced with. Michelle was "confidence," all about the children and the hope, and so forth. That's just my sense of how he got through the 15 minutes, and he did it pretty well if you think about everything he had to pull together, all the people he needed to appease and inspire, and the theater of seeming to speak from the heart and the mind.
[CONTEXT] The second thing... a lot of arguments about the legal issues... But I did want to just talk a little bit about context and how people have responded to it and how people are feeling... in the African American community... a lot of pain... recognize that the African American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away.... those sets of experiences inform how the African American community interprets what happened one night in Florida.... black folks do interpret the reasons... in a historical context.... So folks understand the challenges that exist for African American boys.... they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there’s no context for it and that context is being denied....
[CONVENE] Now... How do we learn some lessons from this and move in a positive direction?.. I'm not naïve about the prospects of some grand, new federal program. I'm not sure that that’s what we're talking about here. But I do recognize that as President, I've got some convening power, and there are a lot of good programs that are being done across the country on this front. And for us to be able to gather together business leaders and local elected officials and clergy and celebrities and athletes, and figure out how are we doing a better job helping young African American men feel that they're a full part of this society and that they've got pathways and avenues to succeed....
[CONVERSE] And then, finally... There has been talk about should we convene a conversation on race. I haven't seen that be particularly productive when politicians try to organize conversations. They end up being stilted and politicized, and folks are locked into the positions they already have. On the other hand... That would, I think, be an appropriate exercise...
[CONFIDENCE] And let me just leave you with a final thought... Each successive generation seems to be making progress... we should... have confidence that kids these days... have more sense...
Race-balancing in Connecticut.
It's easy to think: Why must we talk about "too few" white/nonwhite children? And: If "too few" has important meaning, what is the chance that meaning is well-expressed by a law that defines "too few" in terms of the racial balance happens to be in other places rather than any idea of the classroom benefits of diversity? The Connecticut statute attempts to control the effects of choices about where different people live — choices based in part on affluence and, in some unknown part, on race. It dictates a concept of "too few," and it does so intentionally to block people from thinking about "too few" in a deeper, more substantive way.
By the way, after following the George Zimmerman trial, it's interesting to see the NYT repeatedly and confidently write "Hispanic" as if everyone knows it's a race. The Hispanic woman Susie Ponce speaks of the need for "more white children," and we're not supposed to get confused and think: Aren't her children white? White Hispanic?
In addition to New Lebanon and Hamilton Avenue Elementary, the two schools on the western edge of town with too few white students, two schools on the far eastern and northern sides of town are flirting with imbalance of an opposite kind: having too few minority children... The imbalance was created by a steady increase in black and Hispanic residents on the western side of [Greenwich]...Once the state law is in place, complying with it takes precedence. Who knows what choices would be made without it? But the situation that Ponce likes, that is threatened with change to comply with state law, came into being while that state law was in force. We never get to see what would have happened without that law, which (in some form at least) dates back to the 1960s.
Susie Ponce, whose parents are from Colombia, moved to western Greenwich from Queens in 2007. She thinks Hamilton Avenue Elementary, which her two children attend, could have more white children, she said, but it has an array of nationalities.
“If I had a choice, I would keep my kids where they are right now,” said Ms. Ponce, who until recently was the school’s parent coordinator. “Because not only are they getting a great education, they are getting the social-emotional intelligence that I grew up with, just being exposed to other children from different cultures.”
It's easy to think: Why must we talk about "too few" white/nonwhite children? And: If "too few" has important meaning, what is the chance that meaning is well-expressed by a law that defines "too few" in terms of the racial balance happens to be in other places rather than any idea of the classroom benefits of diversity? The Connecticut statute attempts to control the effects of choices about where different people live — choices based in part on affluence and, in some unknown part, on race. It dictates a concept of "too few," and it does so intentionally to block people from thinking about "too few" in a deeper, more substantive way.
By the way, after following the George Zimmerman trial, it's interesting to see the NYT repeatedly and confidently write "Hispanic" as if everyone knows it's a race. The Hispanic woman Susie Ponce speaks of the need for "more white children," and we're not supposed to get confused and think: Aren't her children white? White Hispanic?
Friday, 19 July 2013
Asks TalkLeft.
I hope not because our laws do not allow such conduct. It is not illegal for a private citizen to follow someone. It is illegal to physically assault another person who has not threatened him with the imminent use of force.
I am very disappointed that the President has chosen to endorse those who have turned a case of assault and self-defense into a referendum on race and civil rights. And that he is using it to support those with an agenda of restricting gun rights.
This halting, awkward performance had to have been carefully thought out, but you're supposed to absorb the anguish and agonizing as he walks back any expectation that the federal government will do anything:
From the NYT write-up:
From the NYT write-up:
“You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son... Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.”These are memorable but empty statements. Fill them with whatever you want. This isn't a critique of the legal system and how it handled the case. It's a vague claim of authority to empathize.
“I don’t want to exaggerate this, but..."But! Have it both ways. I don't want to exaggerate, but I've just got to say it anyway.
"... those sets of experiences inform how the African-American community interprets what happened one night in Florida. And it’s inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear.”That's utterly banal: People understand things within the context of their own experiences.
“I think it would be useful for us to examine some state and local laws to see if it — if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations and confrontations and tragedies that we saw in the Florida case, rather than diffuse potential altercations”...Useful to examine the laws... okay.... He's really not saying anything, and yet the New York Times must sum up by giving him credit:
Mr. Obama spoke in deeply personal terms — an extraordinary moment for a president who seemed, at least during first term, often to shy away from the issue of race.What is deep and extraordinary? The case was already racialized, and he resonated with a bit of that without saying too much.
Thursday, 18 July 2013
"There are very few people have a pure heart when it comes to race. Racism is wrong in any, shape, form.... I think sometimes when people talk about racism, they say only white people are racist. There are a lot of black people who are racist. I don't like when it gets out there in the media because I don't think the media has clean hands... [T]he main thing I feel bad for, it gives every black and white person who is racist a platform to vent their ignorance. That's the thing that bothers me the most..."
Said Charles Barkley.
Said Charles Barkley.
"... and we will see just how many civil lawsuits will be spawned by this fiasco."
This is why you don't want to say Stand Your Ground has nothing to do with George Zimmerman.
This is why you don't want to say Stand Your Ground has nothing to do with George Zimmerman.
Tuesday, 16 July 2013
What nonsense! Let me translate: Holder wants relief from the pressure to prosecute Zimmerman, so he's shifting to a topic that has nothing to do with Zimmerman but that low-information people think has to do with Zimmerman. (Zimmerman was pinned down before he decided his life was on the line, and he had no route of escape.)
And, yes, I know Holder is also talking about investigating the Zimmerman matter. But "investigating" is code. As we saw with Benghazi, it means: We're hoping that if enough time passes, you'll forget about it.
This is all so thoroughly lame. But at the same time: It's a very powerful person speaking dishonestly and threateningly about the exercise of power. What a disgusting combination.
And, yes, I know Holder is also talking about investigating the Zimmerman matter. But "investigating" is code. As we saw with Benghazi, it means: We're hoping that if enough time passes, you'll forget about it.
This is all so thoroughly lame. But at the same time: It's a very powerful person speaking dishonestly and threateningly about the exercise of power. What a disgusting combination.
Drudge has the transcript of last night's Piers Morgan interview on CNN:
MORGAN: You felt that there was no doubt in your mind from what Trayvon was telling you on the phone about the creepy ass cracka and so on, that he absolutely believed that George Zimmerman, this man, you didn't know who he was at the time, but this man, was pursuing him?Here's my post from June 27th, with embedded video from Jeantel's testimony. I said (boldface added):
JEANTEL: Yes.
MORGAN: And he was freaked out by it?
JEANTEL: Yes. Definitely after I say may be a rapist, for every boy, for every man, every -- who's not that kind of way, seeing a grown man following them, would they be creep out?... And people need to understand, he didn't want that creepy ass cracker going to his father or girlfriend's house to go get -- mind you, his little brother was there. You know -- now, mind you, I told you -- I told Trayvon it might have been a rapist."
You assume that there's no way he'd say "cracker" if he didn't see him as white? But he didn't say "cracker." He said "creepy ass cracker." I understand the use of "ass" as an intensifier connected to the adjective "creepy." Creepy-ass cracker, as in very creepy cracker.Call out the gay rights activists. In this interpretation, it was a gay-bashing!
But "ass" could go with "cracker" — "ass-cracker." The conversation continued, according to Jeantel: "So... he told me the man was looking at him, so I had to think it might have been a rapist."
Why rapist? A man raping a man? How common is that as a fear? But it was the first thing Jeantel thought to say after he said creepy-ass cracker/creepy ass-cracker. The term "ass cracker" could easily mean a man who rapes a man, especially one who goes after a teenaged boy....
The word "creepy" makes special sense if you reinterpret the "ass" to go with "cracker." Martin said a man was following him, looking at him. He might have thought Zimmerman was a man out looking for sex and was watching him for that reason. What conversations had Martin had in the past with Jeantel about worries of this kind. She "had to think it might have been a rapist."...
Why didn't Martin take Jeantel's advice and run home? The rapist/ass-cracker theory makes sense of Martin's decision to go after Zimmerman. If he saw Zimmerman as a sexual predator, he might think confrontation was a good idea or even an important step: These creeps in the neighborhood need to know that I'm not their prey. It's not enough to run inside daddy's house. My manhood must be established here and now or I can't walk free around here anymore.
ADDED: Thanks to Irene for nudging me to post this. It was right there in the testimony, and the defense lawyers — who were pretty astute about hearing cues and following up — missed this.
But when I click through the link, I just find a column (by Eugene Robinson) that portrays the verdict in the George Zimmerman case to mean: "Our society considers young black men to be dangerous, interchangeable, expendable, guilty until proven innocent."
Legally, that makes no sense. If Trayvon Martin were on trial for beating up George Zimmerman and had argued that he acted in self-defense, the jury would have had to view Zimmerman as guilty until proven innocent. I'm sure Robinson knows that, which is why he said "Our society considers" instead of sticking to the confines of court procedure, even as he appropriated the legal lingo of burden of proof.
If the legal doctrine that governed the jury's decision-making precludes the interpretation that the jury found Trayvon Martin to be dangerous, interchangeable, and expendable, what is the basis for the assertion that our society considers young black men to be dangerous, interchangeable, expendable? Robinson's next sentence is "This is the conversation about race that we desperately need to have — but probably, as in the past, will try our best to avoid."
Okay, let me attempt that conversation, Mr. Robinson.
Here's my response to what you just said. I think our society demonstrated great care toward Trayvon Martin, even to the point of putting Zimmerman through a trial that should not have happened. That is, it was an excess of care for Martin, a bending-over-backwards to show that we care about Martin and all the young men he was seen to represent. And now, after an extensive, careful trial, and a jury verdict that clearly hewed to well-honed instructions about evidence and burden of proof, you still want to use it to assert that we don't care. If that's the kind of conversation we get when we try to respond to the invitation to have a conversation, can you see why it's something we avoid?
Now, just there, I did not avoid. I tried to be game about conversation, and I said what I truly think, which is probably what other conversation-about-race avoiders think. If you really mean "conversation," then let's continue, with a fair response to that. If what you really mean by "conversation" is let me lecture you until you humbly accede, then could you please stop calling it a "conversation"?
Reading further into the article, I see I've got to take back my overly optimistic statement "I'm sure Robinson knows that." I'm not sure, because to say I believe that Robinson knows that — "If Trayvon Martin were on trial for beating up George Zimmerman and had argued that he acted in self-defense, the jury would have had to view Zimmerman as guilty until proven innocent" — is to say that Robinson is deliberately deceiving when he writes:
The assumption underlying [the jury's] ho-hum approach to the case was that Zimmerman had the right to self-defense but Martin — young, male, black — did not. The assumption was that Zimmerman would fear for his life in a hand-to-hand struggle but Martin — young, male, black — would not.That assumption is either ignorant or shamefully deceptive. The accused is the one whose rights are systematically protected in the criminal process. Is that too boring? Ho-hum?! Ho-hum for all the rights of the criminally accused! Even if all Robinson cares about is how young black males are treated, young black males — the ones that still live — need these rights too. If the police — who had already been called — had arrived before Zimmerman saw fit to shoot his gun, if they had caught Trayvon Martin on top of Zimmerman, pinning him down, and knocking his head into concrete, they would have arrested Martin, and Martin would have benefited from those rights you think are ho-hum when they protect Zimmerman.
So there, I've now said 2 things in the "conversation" Robinson wants to have. And I'll say one more, and it's why I found the front-page teaser "Why are black boys expendable?" heart-wrenching. It's because so many young black males do end up shot dead or in prison. Can we talk about that? Or are must we fixate on the one young black male selected to be the conversation piece?
Monday, 15 July 2013
Says TalkLeft.
If the public wants to... believe them, that's their right. If they want to bring civil lawsuits against George Zimmerman or law enforcement or public entities, that's their choice. But when it comes to those lawyers and their public relations team using their bully pulpit to inflame passions and exert undue influence on the actions of law enforcement and public officials, including elected prosecutors, who have a duty not to bring charges without a good faith belief they can prove those charges beyond a reasonable doubt, all the while having a financial stake in the outcome of related civil litigation, I object.Much more at the link.
Sunday, 14 July 2013
Here's the text:
1. This is a measured and fairly bland statement. Obama sounds like a mild-mannered pastor.
2. The word "passion" — which appears in the 3rd and 4th sentences — takes the place of more violence-related words like "anger" or "outrage." He acknowledges and manages the emotion.
3. In sentences #5 and #6, he counters emotion with intellect. First, respect the rule of law and the legal system. And second, respect Martin's parents, who have called for calm reflection. Think, calmly and rationally.
4. There's advice about what we should do to move forward. It's not to brood over the past, but to do positive things for people who are still alive. (I thought of Lincoln's "It is for us the living...")
5. Looking toward the future, Obama draws our focus to "gun violence," which is a standard move for him (used after the Tucson massacre and the Sandy Hook massacre). That's the specific substantive issue he flags.
6. There is no mention of race. The closest he comes is in the idea of "widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities." There's a slight suggestion that some of us are insular, within "circles" or "communities," which could be understood as our racial groups, but you have to stretch to say that. (Similarly, there's "any one community" in sentence #2.)
The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America. I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken. I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son. And as we do, we should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities. We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that’s a job for all of us. That’s the way to honor Trayvon Martin.Comments:
1. This is a measured and fairly bland statement. Obama sounds like a mild-mannered pastor.
2. The word "passion" — which appears in the 3rd and 4th sentences — takes the place of more violence-related words like "anger" or "outrage." He acknowledges and manages the emotion.
3. In sentences #5 and #6, he counters emotion with intellect. First, respect the rule of law and the legal system. And second, respect Martin's parents, who have called for calm reflection. Think, calmly and rationally.
4. There's advice about what we should do to move forward. It's not to brood over the past, but to do positive things for people who are still alive. (I thought of Lincoln's "It is for us the living...")
5. Looking toward the future, Obama draws our focus to "gun violence," which is a standard move for him (used after the Tucson massacre and the Sandy Hook massacre). That's the specific substantive issue he flags.
6. There is no mention of race. The closest he comes is in the idea of "widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities." There's a slight suggestion that some of us are insular, within "circles" or "communities," which could be understood as our racial groups, but you have to stretch to say that. (Similarly, there's "any one community" in sentence #2.)
Watching the verdict announcement last night, I thought: If it's not guilty, he can just walk away... except he can't. He has no further business with this court — as the judge put it — but he has the task of finding a way to move forward into the rest of his life, which includes so much hostility — death threats and all — from people he cannot identify, while he is stuck with a famous face.
So how does he change that face? One way is to drop the packed-on poundage, which bloated and puffed up his face. He can grow his hair and beard, wear glasses, adopt an alias, and relocate to some part of the country where people don't expect to see him. But by packing on over 100 pounds before the trial, he created a face that he now has the power to radically modify. That weight, because it was rapidly gained, should be relatively easy to drop. And, remember, there was evidence at trial that Zimmerman had previously worked hard at weight loss and his success was impressive.
At trial, Zimmerman suffered the humiliation of looking like a pudgy dweeb. Millions heard witnesses describe him as — even in his pre-weight-gain form — a fat and unathletic guy. But that guy is the guy he needs not to look like. Well, no one really wants to look like that, but he has far more motivation than the usual obese person to lose that weight. His very special needs for disguise and for a positive path forward in life coalesce powerfully with the mundane enterprise of working out and eating sensibly.
I don't know if that was deliberate. Maybe his weight gain was caused only by stress or by stress plus a strategy to inspire empathy — that poor, stressed man — or maybe he gained weight to make a visual argument to the jury that he couldn't possibly have thought of himself as a prowling vigilante capable of confronting an athletic teenager.
Whatever the reason, his huge weight gain is now the basis of an excellent opportunity to become unrecognizable.
So how does he change that face? One way is to drop the packed-on poundage, which bloated and puffed up his face. He can grow his hair and beard, wear glasses, adopt an alias, and relocate to some part of the country where people don't expect to see him. But by packing on over 100 pounds before the trial, he created a face that he now has the power to radically modify. That weight, because it was rapidly gained, should be relatively easy to drop. And, remember, there was evidence at trial that Zimmerman had previously worked hard at weight loss and his success was impressive.
At trial, Zimmerman suffered the humiliation of looking like a pudgy dweeb. Millions heard witnesses describe him as — even in his pre-weight-gain form — a fat and unathletic guy. But that guy is the guy he needs not to look like. Well, no one really wants to look like that, but he has far more motivation than the usual obese person to lose that weight. His very special needs for disguise and for a positive path forward in life coalesce powerfully with the mundane enterprise of working out and eating sensibly.
I don't know if that was deliberate. Maybe his weight gain was caused only by stress or by stress plus a strategy to inspire empathy — that poor, stressed man — or maybe he gained weight to make a visual argument to the jury that he couldn't possibly have thought of himself as a prowling vigilante capable of confronting an athletic teenager.
Whatever the reason, his huge weight gain is now the basis of an excellent opportunity to become unrecognizable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
