Wednesday Highlights

Good … well, whatever. Links?

  1. A career suggested.
  2. Or … addicts don’t stop being addicted after public exposure . Surprise, well, not exactly.
  3. This brings to mind the science fiction-like novel I’be been plugging, in its consderation of hate. The novel Vita Nostra ultimately connects note hate but the conjunction of love and fear in the context of education.
  4. Irony in recent Obamacare moves, in which Mr Obama’s very likely Constitutional unilateral decision to not enforce a law is ratified by the House and a veto is threatened.
  5. Small mammal with impressive spine strength noted.
  6. Arrest? That seems extreme if was an emergency thing or in a very rural area.
  7. Pacifism and cinema.
  8. Grist for the “if he was a black man shooting a white one (hispanic?)” things would have turned out differently mill.
  9. He blinded me with science.
  10. Things to appall JSM.
  11. Ya think there’s some backstory/history going on behind there?
  12. Headline stating the obvious.
  13. Oh, he’s likely a racist, just not in the expected way.

 

18 Responses to Wednesday Highlights

  1. 8.Grist for the “if he was a black man shooting a white one (hispanic?)” things would have turned out differently mill.

    Now Zimmerman is Hispanic and not black? Because he had a Brazilian grandmother? You are aware, are you not, that Brazil’s primary language is Portuguese, not Spanish and Hispanic means descended from Spanish speakers, not simply anyone from South America.

    But notice the problem with this type of argument. Yes out of millions of cases, I’m sure you can find one where a black guy was accused of killing a white person and got off (OJ comes to mind). Likewise I’m also sure you can find examples where self-defense worked for a black guy accused of killing a white guy. But the argument is about what would have been more likely to happen. In that case consider these stats

    http://www.theroot.com/views/killing-self-defense-you-better-be-white?wpisrc=root_lightbox

    In essence self-defense arguments are slightly less likely to work in black on black cases, very unlikely to work in black on white, and much more likely to work in white on black. Stand your ground laws seem to only marginally help the chance of scoring justifiable for black defendentants but greatly improve the odds for whites. (It would have been very interesting to have included white-on-white, which is the majority of all violent crime).

    In other words, the alternative universe of black Zimmerman killing white Martin with all else being the same would have much more likely ended with a conviction.

    Now one counter-argument might be that blacks are more violent hence if it’s black.v.white the white is more likely to actually have a justifiable case of self-defense. But if that was the case then wouldn’t it also apply to black.v.black? Crime is about 90% intra-racial. In other words about 90% of black crime victims were victimized by other blacks and 90% of white victims were victimized by whites. If you had more super-violent people in one race but not the other one would expect a lot of self-defense claims working not just for crimes that cross race but crimes within the same racial group.

  2. Re #4, we’ve had an election and a SC decision on the ACA, both in its favor. At this point I think the public is going to tire of the ‘cute tricks’ around obstructing simply for the sake of obstructing. The law deserves its chance at this point.

    Anyway, see http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/does-the-administration-have-the-legal-authority-to-delay-the-employer-mandate-and-what-if-they-dont/ for more clarity. Long story short its convention that regulatory agencies always can read ambiguities in law in a manner that they think works best. In areas where Congress doesn’t want agencies to have that type of freedom they can write laws requiring a specific reading.

  3. Boonton,
    Race is a liberal pre-occupation not conservative, nor mine. His Mother is from Peru. Why is his grandfather’s Portuguese speaking relevant?

    In essence self-defense arguments are slightly less likely to work in black on black cases, very unlikely to work in black on white, and much more likely to work in white on black. Stand your ground laws seem to only marginally help the chance of scoring justifiable for black defendentants but greatly improve the odds for whites. (It would have been very interesting to have included white-on-white, which is the majority of all violent crime).

    And that is relevant only if the probabilities of each case being justified/un-justified are equal. They are not. Which you almost admit in the final paragraph, but don’t seem to notice any disparity in the frequency in which direction non inter racial violence occurs.

  4. Boonton,

    The law deserves its chance at this point.

    I see. Well, that’s a pretty clear rebuttal/disagreement with the President’s action.

  5. Race is a liberal pre-occupation not conservative, nor mine. His Mother is from Peru. Why is his grandfather’s Portuguese speaking relevant?

    Portuguese speaking would be relevant because Hispanic means Spanish speaking. It’s not a race in itself, an Eskimo adopted as a baby to a Barcelonian couple would be Hispanic. As I pointed out race is simply a social construct yet you are the person who continually makes an effort to define Zimmerman as non-white…implying therefore that you feel your set of racial definitions are either more objective or superior to people’s immediate perceptions.

    And that is relevant only if the probabilities of each case being justified/un-justified are equal. They are not. Which you almost admit in the final paragraph, but don’t seem to notice any disparity in the frequency in which direction non inter racial violence occurs.

    That shouldn’t matter. In any violent encounter you can either have a murder (person A kills B, unjustified) or self-defense (B kills A in self-defense). These probabilities between races should be roughly equal even if races have different rates of violent crime. In order for different rates to be ‘legitimate’ you don’t need different rates of violence, you would need one particular race to be exceptionally bad at targetting another race. In other words, suppose black criminals were very bad at attacking whites. By that I mean when they select potential victims, they constantly underestimate how strong they are, whether or not they are armed etc. so they end up getting themselves killed by their victims successfully defending themselves. But at the same time, these very same black criminals do not suffer this poor judgement in selecting blacks to victimize, hence there’d be fewer cases of black self-defense working. Then you’d get the ‘oddness’ we see in the data but I don’t think you could make a case that there’s anything to support that explanation.

  6. Boonton,

    Portuguese speaking would be relevant because Hispanic means Spanish speaking.

    And they speak what in Peru? Oh, wait. Spanish.

    As I pointed out race is simply a social construct yet you are the person who continually makes an effort to define Zimmerman as non-white…implying therefore that you feel your set of racial definitions are either more objective or superior to people’s immediate perceptions.

    And as I pointed out the continued “he’s white” response by liberals is evidence of liberal hypocrisy. Mr Zimmerman if employed by your company would be a diversity hire. But because it fits your outrage narrative and allows you to stir up racial animosities among blacks it is convenient that Mr Z is white so voila … he is white.

    Did you see this (note this is a quote from a piece by a liberal journalist who believed (formerly) that Mr Z was guilty … )?

    One of the most important, and remarkably under-publicized facts that came out at trial is that one of the detectives, while interrogating Zimmerman at the police station that night, told him that the entire incident had been caught on surveillance video. The detective was bluffing, but Zimmerman didn’t know that. His reaction: “Thank God.”

    “Thank God.” How many people who do something wrong, lie about it and are told it’s on tape react that way?

    Why is the liberal press not making a bigger thing of that? Hmm?

  7. And as I pointed out the continued “he’s white” response by liberals is evidence of liberal hypocrisy. Mr Zimmerman if employed by your company would be a diversity hire.

    Companies I’m aware of do not label hires as ‘diversity or nondiversity hires’. They do track the race of applicants but this is done by asking applicants to self-identify (both of us having worked the same place for along time may not have seen this, but if you sit with someone else who’s applying for a job you’ll note after they submit the website will often take them to another page where they are assured their answer won’t be shared with the hiring manager but only kept for HR). So at that point you’d have to present evidence that Zimmerman himself identified himself as either black or hispanic.

    (note this is a quote from a piece by a liberal journalist who believed (formerly) that Mr Z was guilty … )?

    You’ll find that lot, liberals do tend to want to hear evidence that confronts their views while conservatives seek only evidence that confirms it. Anyway I’ll grant you it’s a piece of evidence but it’s not much of one.

    For example, the following could account for a guilty person making that same statement:

    * Misperception of their own guilt. Zimmerman was likewise baffled by the suggestion that Martin could have honesty viewed him as a threat.

    * Calling the bluff, he was afterall a wannabe cop who dabbled in criminal law classes and knew the area from his watch experience. He very well could have knew cops bluff and he might have known the area it happened had no such tape. Or if it did what would be captured would be ambiguious.

    Why is the liberal press not making a bigger thing of that?

    I love it when you quote liberal press to cite stories you think the liberal press isn’t reporting. How often in your huge slew of right wing press and blogs did you find the conservative press honestly report some of the misinformation that cuts against Zimmerman? Such as the numerous doctored pics of ‘Gangster Martin’ that flooded Facebook since the incident?

  8. Boonton,

    Companies I’m aware of do not label hires as ‘diversity or nondiversity hires’.

    Actually that’s untrue. Any company larger than 50 has to demonstrate that their hiring practices are race (and other group) neutral by including demonstrating that the race mix of their hires matches that of their applicants. Apparently the last 30 years just past by without you noticing any race related hiring cases hitting courts. Which brings to another point, you have been repeating that race is a social construct. Which is possibly true, and another discussion, but besides the point. Liberals for decades (half century) have pushed and established in this country that race is not a social construct. It is a legal one. Diversity hiring requirements, affirmative action, affirm action city contracts and so on mean that race is a legal construct. And by the legal construct as established, Mr Z is not white.

    … but only kept for HR

    Because HR needs that data for legal reasons to establish with the state that they satisfying federal race based legal requirement laws. Laws. Race is a legal construct, not social.

    You’ll find that lot, liberals do tend to want to hear evidence that confronts their views while conservatives seek only evidence that confirms it.

    ROTFL. Wow. Tears to eyes.

    Such as the numerous doctored pics of ‘Gangster Martin’ that flooded Facebook since the incident?

    And facebook is what? You’ll note that isn’t a press outlet. And wow, you’re calling to account not noticing or remarking on “facebook”. Yikes.

  9. Boonton,

    * Misperception of their own guilt. Zimmerman was likewise baffled by the suggestion that Martin could have honesty viewed him as a threat.

    I don’t understand your point here. Let’s see, Mr Z gives testimony. The detective offers that it was recorded by a security camera. Mr Z is relieved. How does his misconception of Martin seeing him as a threat confuse the reaction?

    Your second objection implies the detective is less experienced at interrogation than Mr Z. You can check that, but I find it unlikely.

  10. Any company larger than 50 has to demonstrate that their hiring practices are race (and other group) neutral by including demonstrating that the race mix of their hires matches that of their applicants.

    Please cite this law. Pretend I’m a company with 49 employees planning on hiring my 50th, please show me a page that requires me to track each employees race and hire in proportion to applications.

    I don’t understand your point here. Let’s see, Mr Z gives testimony. The detective offers that it was recorded by a security camera. Mr Z is relieved. How does his misconception of Martin seeing him as a threat confuse the reaction?

    Because if his perception is completely off he imagine security footage would show he was totally in the right, even if he wasn’t. Certainly you haven’t lived for such a short period you have never encountered emotionally charged situations where individuals thought they were perfectly in the right when everyone else could see the complete opposite?

  11. Which is possibly true, and another discussion, but besides the point. Liberals for decades (half century) have pushed and established in this country that race is not a social construct. It is a legal one.

    Except you can’t find such a law anywhere. If this was the case race would have to be legally defined, except for the case of Native Americans where tribal association was sometimes defined by treaty, there’s no valid law on the books anywhere in the US that will tell me who a black person is or who a white person is.

  12. Boonton,

    Except you can’t find such a law anywhere.

    Which only proves I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know where to find the law against murder in my state. However I’m pretty sure it’s illegal.

    If this was the case race would have to be legally defined, except for the case of Native Americans where tribal association was sometimes defined by treaty, there’s no valid law on the books anywhere in the US that will tell me who a black person is or who a white person is.

    Yah, and there is no law defining pornography “I know it when I see it” but there are in fact laws against the same. Apparently you live in some fantasy planet with no hate crimes, no affirmative action, and no equal employment acts, no city/state minority contracts because there are no laws defining what in fact a minority might be.

  13. Which only proves I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know where to find the law against murder in my state. However I’m pretty sure it’s illegal.

    That’s a reasonable bet, yet it’s not evidence a less obvious law like race tracking if you have over 50 employees exists. You asserted that it does. I assert that it doesn’t. You’re obligated to bring something to the table.

    BTW, I bet you could find the law on murder in your state in less than 5 minutes.

    Yah, and there is no law defining pornography “I know it when I see it” but there are in fact laws against the same

    To the degree it’s illegal, pornography is defined.

    As for discrimination and hate crime laws, they do not require a legal definition of race or religion or anything else. If you kill someone because you declare you’re a new Black Panther and will kill white people, the prosecutor doesn’t have to prove your victim was actually white. If you fire Mr. Mayes because you think Mayes is a Jewish name, no one has to prove it is in fact Jewish. Such laws don’t apply to attacks on particular races, they simply apply to attacks based on race (or religion, gender, orientation etc)

    A law that actually required some quota of hires equaled the racial breakdown of applicants, though, would actually require some definition of race.

  14. Boonton,
    Google “small business 8a” and you’ll find programs for minority and “disadvantaged” owned businesses. Interesting that you can have such a thing with no actual definition of minority. More to the point, if Mr Z owned a business he could apply for such a program. You and I, I suspect could not.

    (see this for example).

  15. If you actually read what you cited you’ll note that only actual Indian tribes are automatically considered disadvantaged. Blacks or individuals who have ‘held themselves out’ as such and then there’s a ‘rebuttable presumption’ they are disadvantaged. In other words pretty consistent with a ‘social construct’ view of race. If you were writing a law to give something to ‘cool kids’ you’d come up with something very similiar.

    And as for what is actually given, it seems pretty paltry. You can ‘assistance’ which sounds basically like free advice and you get some help bidding for Federal contracts. Since most small businesses are not Federal contractors, I doubt this is something that impacts many businesses. Your assertion was that all businesses over 50 people had to track race. Still missing your evidence for that.

  16. Boonton,

    And as for what is actually given, it seems pretty paltry

    Uhm, so would a business owned by a Hispanic person such as Mr Z qualify or not? You apparently have never heard of cities having programs to promote minority owned businesses, giving them preferences on contract awards. Odd that they might try to do that without any way of actually defining who is eligible. You said there were no legal definitions of minority. Clearly that is false.

    Some regulations you wantor more? “180 laws” regulate equal opporunity. These don’t apply to companies under 50. They do over. You must document and establish compliance with all those laws if you are over 50. Hence my contention that “over 50″ you need an HR department, because you have to document and be able to defend against the state and other claimants your compliance. It’s interesting to note that one can state “Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs” but you would claim that such terms like “race, color, or national origin” are legally never defined and are meaningless. Gotcha.

  17. Boonton,
    For any federal contract over 10k (which is quite small) “For any record contractors maintain, they must be able to identify the gender, race, and ethnicity of each employee; and where possible, the gender, race, and ethnicity of each applicant or Internet applicant, whichever is applicable to the particular position.” But recall, you claimed one does not have to track those and there is no legal definition of any of that.

  18. Uhm, so would a business owned by a Hispanic person such as Mr Z qualify or not?

    Well to start mr. Z would have to refer to himself at least as Hispanic or black. I’ve asked you several times if you had any evidence he ever said he was a minority, you haven’t provided any

    Some regulations you want … or more? “180 laws” regulate equal opporunity. These don’t apply to companies under 50. They do over. You must document and establish compliance with all those laws if you are over 50.

    All these simply say you cannot discriminate based on race. Where does it say you must track all employees or applicants based on race? It doesn’t even say you have to document you’re not discriminating, just don’t discriminate.

    “Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs” but you would claim that such terms like “race, color, or national origin” are legally never defined and are meaningless. Gotcha.

    Why would a social construct be meaningless? Ask anyone in middle school if being popular or not is meaningless. Yet you’re never going to make an objective definition to sort the popular kids from the not.

    For any federal contract over 10k (which is quite small)…

    And where does it say the ratio of different races hired must align with the races who applied? (also they list it at 150 employees or contracts of $150K only with the Fed. gov’t)

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>