Wednesday Highlights

OK ok … a little late but better than not, eh?

  1. After 5 decades … that’s likely an import, eh?
  2. Mr Obama said regarding the Zimmerman trial …. “we are a nation of laws” , which I guess falls under the “do as I say not as I do” category.
  3. Oh, and the left (ignoring the fact that “stand your ground” was actually not part of the Zimmerman defense) thinks that this case is similar to the Zimmerman one … except that it isn’t apparently. The only actual parallel might be that this case and the Zimmerman one where both non-white on non-white violence.
  4. One more on the above … and seriously … if point 8 is a problem then we don’t need a new justice system, we need a new party representing the left-of-the-aisle.
  5. Improvements when your soldiers can innovate.
  6. Arwen and the Virgin.
  7. Overseas remarks on Mr Morsi and his ousting (Hat Tip).
  8. Irony and the EPA.
  9. For the silver screen viewer.
  10. When imminent domain (or the equivalent in China) doesn’t work
  11. This might be related.
  12. Wish I was there.
  13. Character. Kinda Romans 5:3 ish, eh?
  14. Big brother and the X-One.

 

8 Responses to Wednesday Highlights

  1. #2 The DOJ cannot investigate? Which law applies there?

    #3 Interesting thing about that case, it was prosecuted by the same prosecutor…the one you think is a ‘star dream team prosecutor’…which is actually a very strange concept when you think about it. A ‘star defense lawyer’ is one who only takes high profile cases or cases for lots of money, supposedly because he is so good. What the hell is a ‘star prosecutor’? The only people who can prosecute are public servants who take the cases assigned to them. Maybe you can have the Attorney General of a state personally lead a prosecution or maybe you have a senior prosecutor do one, but that hardly lends anything magical to the case. What exactly does the senior prosecutor do when there aren’t any notable cases happening? He’s probably trying regular cases.

    #3 Exactly by what criteria are you saying the case was ‘non-white on non-white violence’? Are you a fan of Jim Crow laws, which seems to be the method that the right is using to determine that Zimmerman isn’t white.

    The ‘other stand your ground case’ does reveal something important about trials. They are all different and you don’t really know anything unless you follow the cases intensely. It’s very easy to get caught up in narratives that paint the case one way or the other. When I first heard about Mumia, it sounded like he was really innocent. Then I heard more and it didn’t. Likewise ever since I was little it was common knowledge that the ‘Fatal Vision’ killer, Jeffrey McDonald killed his wife and tried to make it look like a Mansion style killing by hippies. Recently I heard an author ont he radio arguing no, in fact the murdering hippie story was probably true. Long story short anything you think you know about any particular case is not to be trusted unless you personally make it a point to study every inch of the trial transcripts and evidence…and even then don’t trust your judgement. There’s a reason why trials are long, tedious, boring, and take forever. Anything shorter would just increase the error rate.

  2. Boonton,

    #2 The DOJ cannot investigate? Which law applies there?

    I see, it is just peachy for the Feds to target an individual for political gain? Welcome to the new left, eh?

    From WSJ Best of web (James Taranto)

    Notwithstanding his acquittal, Zimmerman remains a target of privileged men and powerful institutions. The attorney general of the United States is soliciting “tips” that would justify a second, federal prosecution. Andrew Rosenthal, editorial page editor of the New York Times, writes: “Eric Holder reaffirmed yesterday that federal prosecutors were investigating whether George Zimmerman acted out of racial hostility when he killed Trayvon Martin in February 2012. It seems worth a try, although the Justice Department will get attacked for even looking into it.”

    But as London’s Guardian noted a year ago, the Justice Department already looked into it: “Federal agents interviewed many of the neighbourhood watch leader’s friends, colleagues and family members as part of their civil rights investigation into the 26 February shooting but found nobody who believed Zimmerman, 28, was motivated by racial bias.” In the absence of such evidence, would Rosenthal have the federal government hound Zimmerman for the rest of his life?

    “Cannot investigate”. They did. If they re-investigate, do you think they are spending your money wisely?

    What the hell is a ‘star prosecutor’?

    A team selected by the state justice department.

    Are you a fan of Jim Crow laws, which seems to be the method that the right is using to determine that Zimmerman isn’t white.

    Huh? His mother is Pervian and his great grandfather was black. By what criteria are you calling him white?

  3. Boonton,
    Is this a anti-Jewish thing? Jews hold their descent through the mother? Mr Obama is black because he has a black father. Mr Zimmerman is white because he has a white father. You could reverse it and note that Mr Obama is white because of a white mother and Mr Z is hispanic because of a hispanic mother. Hmmm.

  4. Obama is black because race is a social construct and his race is whatever society construes it to be. Same for Zimmerman.

    This is a tricky concept so let me use another construct, cool kids in HS. What makes someone cool in HS? Everyone else considers them cool. Does that mean objective criteria can’t come into play? Not at all. When I was in HS wearing clothes from Kmart made you non-cool…clothes from the mall cool. BUT did that mean if you hit the mall with your mom’s visa you automatically became cool? Maybe or maybe not. Ultimately what makes you cool is a social construct.

    And what makes you white or black. Do you think Mariah Carey is black? She is but when I first found that out I was a bit surprised. After all she has blond straight hair and light skin. So why is she black? Because society decided she is (and her too, she is part of society after all).

    With social constructs we can assign probabilities to some objective criteria. For example, we can say darker skin increases your chances of being deemed ‘not white’ but it doesn’t guarantee it anymore than wearing the ‘right’ clothes would make you cool. Under Jim Crow laws there were objective criteria written into law, in an earlier age there might have been court cases alleging she was ‘impersonating’ a white person. But such legal criteria are long gone when it comes to white.v.black (but not Native American it seems). Tell me do you think Mr. Zimmerman checked off ‘black’ or ‘Hispanic’ ever in his life on a form? Why not? Maybe if this was Mississippi circia 1925 he would have had to carry a drivers license with ‘non-white’ stamped on it but today most view him as white.

    Long story short with social constructs who you are is a combination of what you and everyone else thinks you are.

  5. I see, it is just peachy for the Feds to target an individual for political gain? Welcome to the new left, eh?

    What does that mean? Assuming the DOJ does file charges what exactly do you think the DOJ does? Federal charges by definition are against individual persons. Who else would they be against. (Don’t be snide, I know corporations can be charged with crimes too).

    AS for your article, what does it say really? It says the part of the Federal gov’t that prosecutes is considering the requests made by many people to prosecute what they think is a crime. Perviously people have alleged IRS agents committed crimes, ACORN committed crimes, PlannedParenthood committed crimes. What does the Justice Dept do with such requests? It ‘investigates’.

    “Cannot investigate”. They did. If they re-investigate, do you think they are spending your money wisely?

    Did implies past tense, did they finish investigating? Did they close out a file? Is it worth my effort to follow their investigative processes, esp. considering many of these people are probably on salary and get paid the same amount no matter what.

  6. Boonton,
    In the context of Mr Obama’s move on, justice is done … continue and opening new lines of investigation means one hand is doing the opposite of his rhetoric.

    Alledgely the DOJ (?!) paid sums to anti-Z rally’s. How is that “justice has been served” and moving on?

    Did implies past tense, did they finish investigating?

    That would be what the article noted says.

  7. Boonton,

    Obama is black because race is a social construct and his race is whatever society construes it to be. Same for Zimmerman.

    “society construes” which would be his surrounding friends and neighbors, those with whom he associates and not the national press.

    Seems to me if you are not from a persons local context then, the appropriate thing would to be assume a persons race is that which is most beneficial to the person whom you view. The question then, is what is the most beneficial for Mr Z? For your race conscious lefty that would be not-white, for your police that would be white and for the right … dunno, which do you think benefits Mr Z more if those on the right view him as hispanic/black or white?

    So, I’ll wait for you to point to left leaning persons such as yourself condemning the press for their assumption that Mr Z is white which profits them but is more harmful to Mr Z. You might ask yourself, absent local context which would inform you which race, black, hispanic, or white would most benefit Mr Z in your eyes. How does Mr Z benefit from your presumption of him as white?

    Fit that in as well with your defense of Ms Warren as Cherokee.

    Does that mean if I lived in Hong Kong for a decade, learned Chinese I and my kids could put “Asian” on our census forms? I think not. I think your “race is just a social construct” needs some work. Would I acquire lactose intolerance and turn red when I had a beer or two? I don’t think so. Appearance and genetics do in fact matter, which is why Mr Obama remains black even though he is likely just as culturally not-white as the prior two Presidents. Consider sickle cell and other racial genetic medical issues. Do these go away because of cultural context and social construction? You liberals are very gnostic in your rejection of the physical.

  8. In the context of Mr Obama’s move on, justice is done … continue and opening new lines of investigation means one hand is doing the opposite of his rhetoric.

    A curious reading of the Constitution you have. The Executive’s job is to prosecute crimes, investigating them is logically required before one can decide whether to seek an indictment or not. What basis do you have to declare that ‘justice is done’? What basis can you claim that an ‘investigation’ (which may simply consist of a low level person reading the email ‘tips’ to see if there’s anyone with any additional evidence to offer) is a harm to either Mr. Zimmerman or justice?

    Alledgely the DOJ (?!) paid sums to anti-Z rally’s. How is that “justice has been served” and moving on?

    Charge was debunked by Slate. when you have facts to offer let me know.

    Re: Social Constructs

    “society construes” which would be his surrounding friends and neighbors, those with whom he associates and not the national press.

    The National Press is not part of US Society?

    Seems to me if you are not from a persons local context then, the appropriate thing would to be assume a persons race is that which is most beneficial to the person whom you view. The question then, is what is the most beneficial for Mr Z? For your race conscious lefty that would be not-white, for your police that would be white and for the right … dunno, which do you think benefits Mr Z more if those on the right view him as hispanic/black or white?

    I’m sorry but you’ve stepped in it now. If you had a color blind society then asking what race would it be most beneficial for Mr. Zimmerman to be perceived as would be as nonsensical as saying would it benefit Mr. Z more if people think he wears boxers or briefs? If you admit society is not color blind then it matters what race Mr. Z is seen as and from Mr Z’s POV some choices are more benefical than others.

    So how about asking from Martin’s POV? Would he have been better off that night if Mr. Z thought he was white?

    So, I’ll wait for you to point to left leaning persons such as yourself condemning the press for their assumption that Mr Z is white which profits them but is more harmful to Mr Z

    Do you have any evidence that Mr Z ever objected to being considered white or at least non-black? And I think you’re missing the point about social constructs. No one person or group decides social constructs, they are collective decisions.

    Think again in terms of who is cool or not. The ‘press’ or ‘media’ doesn’t decide this. If they did there would never be a flop movie or big album released by a huge star that bombs. It’s absurd to say we should consider a person cool if that benefits him or herself. Then you should consider everyone cool and everyone should consider you cool, but trust me that’s not going to happen in 99.999999999% of all quantum universes possible.

    Fit that in as well with your defense of Ms Warren as Cherokee.

    I pointed out American Indian is a bit different because there actually are legal definitions for what makes one a Native American (set by the tribe, I believe). This may produce an ‘objective definition’ rather than fuzzy social consensus but the flip side of it is that people you wouldn’t normally consider part of the group would have to be.

    Does that mean if I lived in Hong Kong for a decade, learned Chinese I and my kids could put “Asian” on our census forms?

    If you wanted, I believe the census forms let you self-define your own race. This avoids the ugly business of trying to tell people they aren’t the race they think they are because their skin tone is ‘off’ or because they had too many or too few grandparents of a particular race.

    Would I acquire lactose intolerance and turn red when I had a beer or two? I don’t think so. Appearance and genetics do in fact matter, which is why Mr Obama remains black even though he is likely just as culturally not-white as the prior two Presidents

    Suppose I told you I know a ‘pure Chinese’ person who happens to not be lactose intolerant. Will you tell me she isn’t Asian? If so what is she? And how can ‘appearance and genetics’ matter if you think there’s also a thing as ‘culturally white’? If a baby from China was adopted by a Scottish family, grew up speaking only English and having no awareness of Chinese culture you’d still identify her as Chinese. Do you mean to say there’s ‘cultural race’ and ‘genetic race’ which may or may not be in sync with any one individual? Say you had a black person from London, a black person from Nigeria and a black person from Newark NJ all visiting Times Square and chatting with each other they would identify themselves as 3 different ‘cultural races’? How about as different ‘genetic races’? While they all probably share some genes the blacks from London and Newark probably have more genes from whites and Native Americans in their inheritance than the Nigerian.

    Again what you have here is your concept is falling apart as badly as if you defined jello as a picture then tried to nail it to the wall. There’s a reason for that, the fuzziness is caused by it being a social construct. Social constructs are free to follow objective standards (for example, I agree it’s highly unlikely that people will ever consider Mr. Obama not-black now matter what manner of speaking he adopts, how many whites show up in his family tree, or anything else you can think about, darker skin that is not of Indian or Native American ‘style’ seems to always be construed as ‘black’ but not the opposite) but they are also free to ignore them (in a different age someone like Mariah Carey might have been considered either white or black).

    You are free to try to force them to be objective by enacting objective standards that you will ‘declare’ will decide whether or not someone belongs or not, but then you’ll experience a disconnect as some people will meet that legal criteria but society just doesn’t ‘feel right’ putting them in that category. How else do you explain your fixation on Ms. Warren? It was established she had Native American blood in her family tree was it not? What is your objection then? It’s that she violates your conception of what a Native American is. But where is that conception coming from? Who ‘decided’ upon that conception? Is that conception fixed or can it change? If the latter then how does it change?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>