Tuesday Highlights

Good morning

  1. Ice down under.
  2. Is this the “See I’m such a blatteroon that I should have been killed prior to birth” argument for abortion?
  3. Whence the Zimmerman/Martin outrage?
  4. One more on the above trial.
  5. And Mr Zimmerman back in the news.
  6. Keeping it classy in Ohio, or not.
  7. Ditto.
  8. Chicago politics norms.
  9. It’s (h) a Lucy Nation (that’s supposed to be a pun).
  10. And … its a blech response.
  11. The Apostles’ Creed for the modern liberal.
  12. Cinema.
  13. Playing games with the high speed camera.
  14. Advertising and the sublime.
  15. Reviewing drone studies.

5 Responses to Tuesday Highlights

  1. 15.Reviewing drone studies.

    It seems very clear that drone strikes kill mostly militants but more importantly the rates of civilian deaths while not zero are almost certainly much lower than any other type of military operation that could be plausibly done (manned air attacks, boots on the ground etc.)

    I can see a hypothesis that the distance from actual combat may make it easier for soldier ‘watching a video game screen’ to kill civilians. I think having people in direct combat also increases the chances of civlians being killed. If I was on the ground, concern for my personal safety would greatly push me to ‘shoot first, question later.

    So is the question really about drones or about military strikes in general?

    3.Whence the Zimmerman/Martin outrage?

    That’s pretty clear. Most people know Martin would not have been profiled if he was a white kid walking home. Likewise most people do not believe a black Zimmerman standing over the body of a white Martin would have had so easy a time selling the self-defense story. Gun law also plays a role too. One overlooked aspect of this case is if Martin really was so physically intimidating, if Zimmerman was really the big pussy he is depicted as being, he wouldn’t have followed him if he wasn’t armed. He would have stayed in his car, called the police, and everyone would have went home that night safely.

    Also the outrage is kept alive by many Zimmerman supporters, like the blog you cite, who seem to be purposefully refusing to get it. For example, she concludes Zimmerman didn’t ‘racially profile’ Martin because there’s no ‘evidence of previous profiling’. Most people know there will almost never be ‘evidence of profiling’. Unless some social scientists have been keeping a tally of non-black kids who walked past Zimmerman on other nights of his ‘watches’ how would one have evidence of profiling if he was?

    Note that none of these concerns require one to disagree with the verdict. I think most on the left are able to accept the argument that maybe there isn’t a reasonable doubt of Zimmerman’s guilt therefore ‘not guilty’ must be the verdict but what’s unacceptable seems to be both the unquestioned acceptance of Zimmerna’s side combined with the demonization of Martin as well as the ‘see no evil, hear no evil’ stance on the larger issue of profiling that makes the whole thing quite frustrating.

  2. Boonton,

    So is the question really about drones or about military strikes in general?

    The question? The link was a post reviewing studies on drone civilian casualties. The question I’ve discussed with you is about the pretense that drones are a non-military strike and therefore it is OK to fly drones over nations into which we would not send troops and with which we are not actively engaged in hostile actions. Hence my line of questioning turning the tables to see if the same circumstances would hold if other nations were doing the same to us, which you never came around being able to see the tables turned so that line died a stillbirth.

    Do you really want to be fisked?

    Most people know Martin would not have been profiled if he was a white kid walking home.

    Like you relatives who would be “profiled” as being young adults wandering around at night likely up to no good and high/drunk on a variety of substances.

    Likewise most people do not believe a black Zimmerman standing over the body of a white Martin would have had so easy a time selling the self-defense story.

    But a clearly (from his appearance) Hispanic Zimmerman was … oh wait. This is the “let’s pretend he’s white” line. Remind me how your assumption that he is white benefits Mr Z?

    Gun law also plays a role too.

    Actually it doesn’t. “Stand your ground” frequently noted/quoted by libs in this regard was not actually relevant or invoked in this case. The actual statute invoked was whether a person in his place might have a reasonable expectation of suffering serious injury before using/drawing his weapon. Since he did in fact wait until after he suffered serious injury that seems moot as well.

    One overlooked aspect of this case is if Martin really was so physically intimidating, if Zimmerman was really the big pussy he is depicted as being, he wouldn’t have followed him if he wasn’t armed.

    And the one overlooked part on the libs side is that after he called 911 … he stopped following him as instructed.

    He would have stayed in his car, called the police, and everyone would have went home that night safely.

    Neighborhood watch practices arose because cops stopped walking beats and stayed in their cars. Staying in cars is the thing watches are pointedly in place to not do. So your notion is that he should be on neighborhood watch but not actually do the things that neighborhood watches do. The reason to get out is to let the B&E and drug dealers know you are there so they move on. Duh.

    For example, she concludes Zimmerman didn’t ‘racially profile’ Martin because there’s no ‘evidence of previous profiling’. Most people know there will almost never be ‘evidence of profiling’.

    Are you actually aware there was a “trial”. Very often laws depend on “motive” for which there will be no “evidence of motive” just … why are these similar … because profiling is pretty much akin to motive. Profiling was in fact not demonstrated by the prosecution. That motive was not established. Profiling was question and not substantiated. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist but what was established that it wasn’t relevant in this particular case. Sorry.

    Unless some social scientists have been keeping a tally of non-black kids who walked past Zimmerman on other nights of his ‘watches’ how would one have evidence of profiling if he was?

    Let’s see. Mr Z tutored black kids. That doesn’t seem to fit with your narrative very well. Which is because you’re making crap up to fit your preconceptions (which is another way of saying your profiling). Which aligns pretty well with the Taranto piece the other day which was going on about Mr Z’s “white privilege” which included a white “presumption of innocence” … skewered neatly by any reader who was self-aware enough to realize the presumption of innocence is a right enjoyed by all not a privilege.

  3. The question I’ve discussed with you is about the pretense that drones are a non-military strike and therefore it is OK to fly drones over nations into which we would not send troops and with which we are not actively engaged in hostile actions.

    who has asserted such a thing? Clearly drones are a military strike (there’s a reason, after all, they are piloted by Air Force Officers). ‘Which we would not send troops’ is a bit fuzzy. In any military operation the value of the objective has to be compared to the risks. Drones dramatically reduce risks both of civilian casualties and, of course, to our own troops. That means many operations that would not have been undertaken before drones because their objectives simply weren’t important enough to offset risks now become so.

    I do question whether it’s valid to view a military strike in a country as always being a strike against the country itself. This is esp. true if the country has areas where it is unable to exercise control of its territory (example, Pakistan’s northern zone) or the attack is limited to groups that are carrying on their own private war from inside the country (ex. Bin Laden).

    Martin

    Like you relatives who would be “profiled” as being young adults wandering around at night likely up to no good and high/drunk on a variety of substances.

    That would be at 7PM on a Sunday night? Toxicology indicated that Martin had no drugs in his system from that night, although there were residual traces of pot which couldn’ t have been injested that night.

    But a clearly (from his appearance) Hispanic Zimmerman was … oh wait. This is the “let’s pretend he’s white” line

    I thought you were telling us Zimmerman was black? I’m ok here since I’m squarely in the ‘race is a social construct’ zone but if you’re not you have to figure out what your position is instead of changing it every comment. Zimmerman, white, Hispanic or even black was and is seen as ‘less non-white’ than Martin. If the races here were totally reversed a black Zimmerman would have had a tougher time arguing a self-defense justified killing.

    Stand your ground” frequently noted/quoted by libs in this regard was not actually relevant or invoked in this case.

    Actually it was both in the jury instructions and the law itself was the reason Zimmerman wasn’t arrested that night since the law makes it almost impossible for police to make an immediate arrest if the perp. claims self-defense.

    And the one overlooked part on the libs side is that after he called 911 … he stopped following him as instructed.

    1. that doesn’t answer the question, would he have followed to begin with if he wasn’t armed or would he have simply observed and called the police in?

    2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

    You claim this but it’s not at all clear from the timeline that Zimmerman ever stopped. At 7:11 he said ‘ok’ when the operator said ‘we don’t need you to follow’. 7:13 Martin’s friend is on the phone with him and Zimmerman is on the phone with the police saying he doesn’t know Martin’s location. By 7:16 we have a 911 call about a fight and less than 40 seconds later a gunshot.

    what proof do you have that Zimmerman disengaged on behest of the dispatcher? FOr example, while Zimmerman did state to the cops that night that he went back to his car, he didn’t say it was the dispatcher’s request and he said he then got out again.

    Neighborhood watch practices arose because cops stopped walking beats and stayed in their cars. Staying in cars is the thing watches are pointedly in place to not do.

    Cops would, no doubt, get out of their cars upon being called. If Zimmerman had stayed in his car no one would have gotten hurt that night and since we know that Martin had not committed a crime that night nor was there any evidence he was in the process of committing a crime even if the ‘fucking punk got away’ (Zimmerman’s words), no harm would have came to the community.

  4. Boonton,
    I’ve read that Mr Zimmerman has a black great-grandfather and that his mother was Peruvian. If he has a grandparent that is from Brasil does that make him less or more white in your eyes. The Beeb called his mother Hispanic.

    I thought you were telling us Zimmerman was black?

    Blacker than Ms Warren is Cherokee.

    Actually it was both in the jury instructions

    Odd. I offered that the defense did not call on it, and you counter with what the judge said.

    what proof do you have that Zimmerman disengaged on behest of the dispatcher?

    His testimony which you have nothing to contradict. Oh, wait, you’re a liberal so you think presumption of innocence is a privilege and Mr Z being “white” does not get that from you.

    Cops would, no doubt, get out of their cars upon being called. [...] even if the ‘fucking punk got away’ (Zimmerman’s words), no harm would have came to the community.

    I fail to see how that responds at all to my remark.

  5. His testimony which you have nothing to contradict.

    His testimony? What testimony?

    I fail to see how that responds at all to my remark.

    Neighborhood watch, in general, does not follow people around. They call the cops. You’re remark was that in some places cop don’t ‘walk the beat’ but just patrol from their cars and that’s a bad thing. So what? Cops called to investigate a suspicious person will get out of the cars.

    Odd. I offered that the defense did not call on it, and you counter with what the judge said

    ‘Stand your ground’ offers a continuous ‘reset’ of your ground. Did Zimmerman have a right to be on the street? Yes. So if he was attacked at that moment could he kill to defend himself? Yes. It doesn’t matter if he was engaged in stalking. Doesn’t matter if he baits a fight. The jury still has to find him not guilty.

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>