What Was That Word? "McSame"?

The White House’s aggressive push for Congressional approval of an attack on Syria appeared to have won the tentative support of one of President Obama’s most hawkish critics, Senator John McCain, who said Monday that he would back a limited strike if the president did more to arm the Syrian rebels and the attack was punishing enough to weaken the Syrian military....

There appeared to be broad agreement with the president, Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham said, that any attack on Syria should be to “degrade” the Syrian government’s delivery systems. Such a strike could include aircraft, artillery and the kind of rockets that the Obama administration says the forces of President Bashar al-Assad used to carry out an Aug. 21 sarin attack in the Damascus suburbs that killed more than 1,400 people.

No, seriously. Cannot even make these things up.

In remarks to reporters outside the West Wing, he called the meeting “encouraging,” urged lawmakers to support Mr. Obama in his plan for military action in Syria and said a no vote in Congress would be “catastrophic” for the United States and its credibility in the world. Mr. McCain said he believed after his conversation with the president that any strikes would be “very serious” and not “cosmetic.

"Catastrophic".

Exaggerate much?

Look. Obama painted himself in a corner with his red line talk. I told y'all that already. Should have never done it. So this whole congressional approval thing is about getting out from under that by being able to place blame and responsibility on congress regardless of whether "approval" is given or not. The best case scenario here is that Congress grows a pair and says "no".

“The debate is shifting away from ‘Did he use chemical weapons?’ to ‘What should be done about it?' ”

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. The debate should be who used chemical weapons since there still hasn't been proof of use by either side. And please spare me the speech about what the rebels do and do not have and what they would and would not do. I've seen suicide bombings in mosques. So please.

In regards to "what should be done about it", that is the job for the UN. And if the UN was actually a functioning neutral body the US would find itself in problems for Libya, providing Saddam with cover for using chemical weapons against Iran and the use of Depleted Uranium munitions in Iraq which is the source of many medical problems.

Yeah. All during the 2008 campaign I heard McSame....and now who's front and center.

Two sides of the same coin.

About That Proof

Two pieces in regards to the "proof" that Assad was the source of the Sarin gas use in Syria: 1) Story Leak reports the following:

The German magazine Focus and The Guardian are reporting that the majority of the information indicating dictator Bashir Assad’s use of poisonous gas comes from the 8200 unit of the Israeli Defense Forces.

The 8200 unit is Israel’s equivalent of the National Security Agency; it intercepts and collects electronic intelligence. The evidence the unit collected apparently consists of a recording of two Syrian officials talking about the use of poisonous gas. There appears to be no physical evidence that the poisonous gas actually exists, yet US officials are discussing the possibility of an imminent attack on Syria. An attack that, as Anthony Gucciardi has warned us, could really be all about entering a ‘hot’ scenario with Russia and other nations who support Assad.

Of course one may not feel that Story Leak is a reputable source, so we can go to their source material, The Guardian

The 8200 unit of the Israeli Defence Forces, which specialises in electronic surveillance, intercepted a conversation between Syrian officials regarding the use of chemical weapons, an unnamed former Mossad official told Focus. The content of the conversation was relayed to the US, the ex-official said.

2) A report from Mint Press

However, from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.

“My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.

Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”

Take that with however amounts of salt you want but I believe this account. It supports a theory I've had that the rebels had these items and they were detonated when the government forces attacked their position which made it look like the Syrian government had deployed the weapons. Unlike the claims of the administration, we know the rebel groups have Al-Qaeda elements in them. We know Al-Qaeda is not beyond killing civilians to further it's aims.

Remember that the US and Israel have a deep interest in going after Syria as it sees that as a way of getting at Hezbollah and Iran. And remember the entire Libya campaign.

Britain’s Rejection of Syrian Response Reflects Fear of Rushing to Act

In an act that should be an example for the US Congress, the British parliament showed a measure of respect for international law and decent aversion to another set of lies by the US government by voting NO on a vote urging "action" on Syria.

But Mr. Obama’s efforts to marshal a unified international front for a short, punitive strike raised concerns about the evidence, reawakening British resentment over false assurances from the American and British governments that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

Even on Thursday, a British summary of intelligence could say only that it was “highly likely” Mr. Assad’s forces were responsible for the use of chemical weapons. And many questions were raised, both Thursday night and in the days before, about whether the American assurances could be taken at face value, whether the expected riposte would accomplish any serious strategic or policy aim, and whether it might set off a worse regional conflict.

And they shouldn't. Libya should stand as the latest example of so called "humanitarian intervention" that was exposed as regime change, a totally illegal aim under the UN charter and international law.

The second example should be the last time the US accused Bashir of using chemical weapons. That accusation was shown to be unfounded and that evidence pointed to the rebels as the most likely source of the chemical weapons.

While I'm at it let me take the opportunity to say SHAME on ABC World News tonight with Dianne Sawyer for acting as propaganda organs for the White House. Dianne Sawyer should be totally ashamed of herself for repeating the claims of the White House as if they were and verified facts, and to launch a smear campaign on Assad. That is not World News. That is World Propaganda. If that is they kind of reporting she and Martha Raddatz are going to do then I suggest they go [back] to GMA where they can do gossip and other light fluff fare.

Anyway back to England:

After the shocking defeat, Mr. Cameron was clear. “I strongly believe in the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons,” he said. “While the House has not passed a motion, it is clear to me that the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that, and the government will act accordingly.”

Now lets see if the so called representatives in Washington have the guts to do the same. If not let's see if the voting public has the guts to put the ones who support this foolishness out of office.

The “US effect” Biases Behavioral Research

This tight clustering went away when it came to the behavioral studies, though, which had a much greater frequency of extreme results. And here, US-based researchers showed a clear indication of bias. Rather than being evenly distributed around the typical answer, the results were much more likely to support the experimental hypothesis. Why do so many papers that produce positive results get published? Fanelli and Ioannidis suggest that it's because behavioral sciences don't have a robust set of theories, in contrast to traditional biology (which has things like evolution and genetics). Without that, researchers are able to be very flexible about the hypotheses that they propose and the methods they use to test them. They also argue that the "publish or perish" mentality that drives US scientists motivates people to report positive results. The two combine, they argue, to make "US researchers potentially more likely to express an underlying propensity to report strong and significant findings."

Not surprised actually. I think that there is also the political correct issue of not wanting to report something that would offend any number of groups. For example, when it Psychology Today reported on the findings that Black women were objectively less attractive (compared to others), a whole storm erupted. Many people, including myself took offense to the publication. However, what I took offense to was the explanation rather than the actual data. Since if we do observe the behavior of people, we cannot miss a strong negative reaction to black (as in dark skinned and tightly curled hair, thick lipped and broad of nose) women. We see it even in publications that claim to represent said women. A lot of people went after the results, when they are pretty much undeniable. The explanation fell far from the root of the problem though and that was the problem with the publications.

Today the medical journals that previously declared certain behaviors as diseases no longer do so for reasons that IMO have nothing to do with objective science but with politics. If one wishes to publish material that is contrary to the new "canon" you can expect to either not be published or to have one's career deaded quickly.

So it's not just a case of "publish or perish" that is a likely culprit but publishing the "right stuff". For example I know someone working on a dissertation in which they asserted that a particular community was segregated. I've long ago explained the difference between separation and segregation. While it may have been proper to declare certain areas segregated in say 1940 because it was clear that black people (or others) could NOT live in certain areas regardless of income, etc. it is impossible to make such a claim in 2013. if one is going to assert a place segregated in 2013 one has to prove that point. Until then you can only factually state that a particular neighborhood is primarily inhabited by a particular ethnic or racial group and that is all. That persons that far up in academia does not realize this basic issue is, in my opinion, symptomatic of the biases that are in the behavioral sciences. This can only be eradicated by enforcing a strict "math" rule to such research. In math 1+1 =2. No way around that. You can make any kind of explanation you want but if you don't show 2 as the proper answer and show your work, it isn't valid. Period.

The Syria "protect civilians" Hoax

If you read anything about this recent "chemical attack" bullshit, you need to read the linked piece:

So the U.S. and its allies are using their own “evidence” and will come to their own conclusions, likely much faster than the UN is able to investigate. Obama will then say that Syria poses an “immediate threat” and that there is no time for the UN to investigate. It’s sadly predictable; we’ve seen it all before.

Of course, the Obama administration and its anti-Syrian allies cannot act as an objective party in this matter, since they have been directly backing the Syrian rebels. Nor can Obama be trusted that his “evidence” that was “smuggled” out of Syria is any evidence at all. Again, this is why there is the UN: to perform an impartial investigation. Even if there were evidence of a chemical weapons attack — which looks likely — such evidence doesn’t say who launched the attack, which, of course, is the key issue

Of course the above is obvious to anyone thinking for themselves.

"My God Is Black"

So one of the fellows who shot Chris Lane in the back while he was taking a run told his sister:

"I can't go to your church anymore because my god is black."

Really now.

Well my God is black and doesn't condone shooting anybody in the back. So exactly what "black god" is it that this guy has "found" that condones such actions?

Furthermore what "black god" thinks highly of pants hanging off your ass and disrespect of women in public over social media?

I have studied a number of black religions and I haven't found one yet that has such ideologies.

So I want someone to ask this person exactly what "black god" he is following, cause it's not any that I know of.

Total Parental Fail

They were bored?

Let's see, was there a library accessible? Was there a track or a park they could have gone to and, I don't know, learned how to run long distance, work out? Learn some Kung Fu (which is good for developing discipline and impulse control)?

How about reading? Anyone thought that reading would be a good way to pass time?

Like music? Anybody thought of making some music? Spoken word?

I can think of all kinds of shit to do other than find a gun and pick someone minding their own business to shoot in the back

And really...really....what kind of fucked up parenting has been done by the parents of these kids where upon hearing the suggestion of "hey lets find someone to shoot!" The immediateresponse is "You're fucked in the head. I'm out of here?"

No, seriously.

I was a 15 year old. I was a latch key kid. I was raised by a single parent. No way no how I was going to be hanging around with ANYONE that seriously contemplated shooting someone. Why? Because it was made clear to me from before I could remember that "thou shalt not kill." (which is actually an admonishment against murder and not to all killing, but that's beyond the scope of this post). While I no longer ascribe to the specific religion that I got that message from, the one I do subscribe to is also quite clear on that.

15, 16 and 17 year old's know that killing is wrong. They're old enough for that. The acceptance of such a plot is a failure of imparting morals and the value of life by the parents and by extension the community in which they lived.

Here's a clue for parents with kids sitting on their asses at home during vacations and breaks:

Book reports. If you have no plans for your child to be supervised during the summer while you are at work (a bad idea), then you should have weekly book reading and reporting assignments for them. No kid who has work to do is going to be bored enough to consider the fun of killing a random person on the street. Side benefit is the educational value of reading and writing. I have a nice list of books that will keep your child well occupied.

Math problems: Your child should be given hard ass math problems to do which are required to be done by day's end. Not so much that the entire day would be taken up by it, but enough so that there is not enough time to contemplate whether shooting a man in the back is a good idea. Side benefit: better math grades next semester.

Home chores: These little rug rats have nothing to do? Time to learn how to earn their keep. They should be cooking dinner for when YOU the parent comes home. There is no sitting on your ass all day while I work then come home and cook for some able bodied teenager. No. warming up previously prepared food should be their job along with vacuuming/sweeping and perhaps laundry. Earn their keep. If you have a vehicle, it's their job to clean and hoover it every weekend.

Bored 15 year old thinking driving up on a man and shooting him in the back....total parental fail.

The Harriet Tubman What?

On August 14, 2013, Russell Simmons posted these words on twitter: “Funniest thing I’ve ever seen Harriet tubmans [sic] sex diary.” Those are words guaranteed to catch one’s attention, the way a bomb going off gets attention. Simmons wasn’t lying or joking either. His latest entertainment venture, All Def Digital, had in fact produced something he called The Harriet Tubman Sex Tape.

Simmons claims that he wanted to show Tubman “turning the tables” on the slave master.

These Negroes here.

From Huffington Post:

but I still maintain that comedy should push the edge. I misunderstood the underlying implications and I'm deeply sorry for that. Because I thought the slave took advantage of and blackmailed the slave master. That's what I thought. "Django," whatever…and I liked "Django." I'm not Spike Lee. I ain't a hater. I thought "Django" was good.

These Negroes here.

Never the fuck mind that Django is fiction. I don't care if one thinks that Django was good. What kind of so called black person, descendant of enslaved Africans, doesn't understand "the underlying implications" of a sex parody of one of THE seminal black women in African-American history? Perhaps the same type of negro that thinks comparing their sexual prowess with to the lynching of Emmett Till But this is not surprising when we have a generation of completely clueless young black people, many of whom think the accounts of slavery and Jim Crow are fictional accounts made for movies. It's hard to blame them when those who should know better are busy sanitizing black history in an ongoing and continuous effort to gain and maintain white acceptance. Which leads us to the second part of the original linked piece:

The movie does tell some historic truth but with an underlying message that political action is acceptable only within very narrow parameters. The son in the film goes on a journey from the lunch counter sit-ins to the Freedom Rides to the Black Panthers. Daniels should have just left the Panthers alone instead of depicting them as disrespectful young people who never remove their black berets and give offense at the dinner table. But he couldn’t leave the Panthers alone. If white people can be appeased with the right attitude there is no need for radical politics to be taken seriously. The Black Panthers also have to be brought low in the popular consciousness of a Lee Daniels movie.

It was the brief clip of Oprah's character saying to who I assumed to be a black panther that everything he had was because of his brother (who I assume to be The Butler). It was at that point that I understood that this "epic" about a Butler was going to be yet another broadside at black folks who wont react to racism in the "proper" manner (meek, forgiving and with a smile). Up until that point I was going to see The Butler, but decided I won't support a film that disrespected the Panthers. The Panthers for all their faults were faulty for us and therefore deserve our respect. Not uncritical respect, but our respect.

In terms of the "all you have" comment. Harpo should have thought long and hard on that point. Isn't it SAD that a black family, indeed that black folks nation wide, depend upon the "kindness" of "benevolent" white folks for employment opportunities. I don't know about you, but that strikes me as particularly fucked up. I don't know about you, but that sounds vaguely like sharecroppers.

All I have to say to these folks is that when the next college frat does a black face party or a Republican group gets together for an Antebellum South costume party, I don't wanna hear a damn thing from these "celebrities".

Confirming What The Informed Already Knew

CIA Admits Role in Iran Coup Well that only took six decades. The CIA has finally admitted its participation in a 1953 coup that ousted Iran's prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. The U.S.- and British-orchestrated coup influenced years of anti-American sentiment. Now, almost 60 years to the day later, the CIA released a version of "The Battle for Iran" internal report to a Freedom of Information Act request. Under the section titled "Covert Action" it reads: "[T]he military coup that overthrew Mosadeq and his National Front cabinet was carried out under CIA direction as an act of U.S. foreign policy," to avoid leaving Iran "open to Soviet aggression." The American role has long been common knowledge, but the CIA had refused to confirm that aspect of the operation.

So every time you see a mofo talking shit about Iran, you point 'em to this and end the conversation.

Stopped and Frisked in London Airport

Mr. Miranda, Mr. Greenwald said, was told that he was being detained under Section 7 of the British Terrorism Act, which allows the authorities to detain someone for up to nine hours for questioning and to conduct a search of personal items, often without a lawyer, to determine possible ties to terrorism. More than 97 percent of people stopped under the provision are questioned for under an hour, according to the British government.

Mr. Miranda was in Berlin to deliver documents related to Mr. Greenwald’s investigation into government surveillance to Ms. Poitras, Mr. Greenwald said. Ms. Poitras, in turn, gave Mr. Miranda different documents to pass to Mr. Greenwald. Those documents, which were stored on encrypted thumb drives, were confiscated by airport security, Mr. Greenwald said. All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden. The British authorities seized all of his electronic media — including video games, DVDs and data storage devices — and did not return them, Mr. Greenwald said.

Ahh. You know how these politicians say how the laws they want passed (or just rushed through the legislative bodies) say that the laws will not be abused and the rights of the public will be respected.

Yeah, all that jazz.

Funny how all these European states are showing themselves to be simple extensions of the US govt. Why not just officially make them US states and collect taxes. I mean if they are going to stop the plane of the Bolivian head of state from going about his legitimate business though he posed no threat to them at all, then what's the point of calling yourself an independent nation?

Michael Dawson: Hater

So Michael Dawson writes up a critique of the proposed Hyperloop in which he essentially walks in and takes a shit on the proposal and leaves. That his critique is but a fraction of the length of the proposal not to mention his numerous comparisons to Tesla automobiles is telling that Michael is a hater.

I put the scare-quotes around the word “plan” here because Musk’s ridiculous proposal is clearly little more than a cocktail napkin fantasy being publicized to keep Tesla’s stock price in the rarified strata where it presently resides so undeservingly.

Cocktail napkin. You would not believe the number of ideas that are now commonplace that originated on that form of paper. I sure wouldn't use "cocktail napkin" as some kind of offense. I suppose that Michael doesn't have many "oh damn!!" ideas while he's out and about. Anyway, why the fixation on Tesla?

The Hyperloop imagined by Musk, who is invariably described as “a billionaire” as if that should-be-unspeakable status somehow renders one a technical genius in one’s chosen field of exploitation, would be a giant techno-tube shooting people from Los Angeles and San Francisco in half an hour.

Now I'll agree that being a billionaire doesn't mean one has unspeakable status. But if one is using one's billions to address a world wide issue of travel and energy use, then yeah you get attention for that. Besides Michael, where is your non-billionaire idea for long distance travel? Oh right, not in this offering. I'll take the billionaire's actual idea (however flawed) over Michael's non-idea any day. Besides that billionaire is doing a lot of hard math stuff and solving relevant problems to put his crafts into space and vehicles on the road. Michael is doing what exactly?

Right.

Aside from the obvious question of who would be willing to risk traveling at such a velocity in constant, extremely close proximity to terrestrial solid objects, the rank silliness of the “plan”

I assume Michael is one of those risk averse liberals. Anyway I am certainly game for riding in one of these should it be made. But more to the point, that today's vehicles readily go 90+ MPH on the roads was thought not only to be impossible at one point that one would have to be nuts to do it. Also why does Michael think that included in real world development plans would be safety and accident mitigation technologies (perhaps some that we haven't even thought of yet)?

Hater.

For starters, take expense. It’s humorous to watch Musk, whose entry-level Tesla S sedan costs $69,900 and also relies on huge public subsidies and tax breaks beyond those already flowing to all car owners via street construction and foreign oil wars, assure his hapless admirers that his Hyperloop, which would require not only large numbers of extremely specialized forms of the motors used in Tesla cars but an unspecified source of solar self-power for the whole system, could be built for a mere $6 billion.

Why the obsession with Tesla? What does the price of the Tesla model S, sold with a large purpose of making a profit have to do with the pice of tea in China? First of all, assuming that Tesla makes all the parts of the 'loop (highly doubtful) does Michael not understand the concept of economies of scale? The amount of magnets and motors and the like would drive down the price of these items AND any other product that uses them.

Secondly, the roads are not "pubic subsidies" to Tesla buyers. Car owners are taxed (and tolled) for the use of roads. We pay for these roads just like we pay for our vehicles. If anything cyclists (I bike) get a free ride on the road since their "vehicle" of choice is not taxed and therefore contributes nothing to the upkeep of the roads that they travel on (admittedly with far less destructive impact).

Thirdly, while I too object to foreign oil wars. They are not necessary and are done by and for the benefit of a small group of people.

Fourth: Had Michael bothered to read the proposal he would know that the "unspecified source of solar self power" was specified: On the fucking roof of the tube. Yes, the images and the text clearly state that the panels would be on the length of the tube with batteries wherever necessary (including in the transport pods) to store power for bad weather conditions (night, clouds, etc.).

Even more importantly, the matter of energy use is treated with equal un-seriousness by Musk. On this front, consider not only the substantial difficulties that plague Tesla car owners trying to make use of their purchases, but remember that “electric” vehicles are really coal, natural gas, and nuclear vehicles, given the fact that 88 percent of U.S. electricity is still made from those sources, with little prospect of serious reduction.

Unserious you say? I mean really? Solar powered but unserious? Again what is with the Tesla comparison? Since we're on that....again.... lets remind Michael of a few things.

1) Yes the vehicles are Zero-Emissions. That means that the product itself produces no emissions when operating. So there is no trickery here. It is exactly what it stated. Now if one is interested in the energy used to produce the car, batteries and the source of the electricity that is an entirely different argument. Why? Because EVERY vehicle on the road, electric or not has similar costs. What the Zero-Emissions claim does is remove the "in use" emissions of the IC motivated vehicle.

2) While it is true that the vast majority of energy production in the US is "dirty" the fact is that per KJ of energy needed to move a 2 ton vehicle roughly 300 miles is less for an electric vehicle than it is using chemical combustion. Why? the IC engine is only 35% or so efficient. Most of the energy produced by the IC engine is lost as heat. An electric motor is 90% efficient in converting stored energy into mechanical energy (moving the vehicle not heating it up) (People with more knowledge on this process please forgive my gross simplification of the subject). Therefore even though the grid is dirty, using it is far better in the long run than using gasoline.

Furthermore as the population becomes more aware of Solar energy and solar panel installation drops in price, many people with electric vehicles will have harnessed solar energy to recharge their vehicles (and/or use their vehicles to power their homes) so the entire "dirty grid" argument goes out the window.

Musk is also silent about the wild impracticalities of all his products. Why should tourists be visiting Earth’s low orbit on a planet that has yet to get serious about either poverty or ecological sustainability? How could 200 million drivers ever possibly recharge electric vehicles in a way that would sustain present time economies, bad as those already are? What happens when the Hyperloop experiences its first serious malfunction? Elon? Elon? [Crickets chirping...]

I don't know why tourists should be visiting Earth's low orbit. I don't have the income to do it. If someone who does wants to do it, enjoy. Self centered people are not going to suddenly become interested in the plight of the poor because Michael or I think they should be. I learned that a long time ago. There will always be people with more disposable income than concern for other humans. Deal with it. On the other hand, the technological innovations that will come from these near space trips will certainly be beneficial to getting us off dirty energy.

As for the200 million drivers recharging electric vehicles, well by the time you get that many people into purely electric vehicles there will have been a massive infrastructure change in the US. Personally I think a mandate for Solar panels on all new housing and the use of fuel cell technology would be a great start. Remove the need for the individual home (or buildings) from having to suck all it's juice from a central grid will greatly reduce the strain on the central grid AND provide a means of charging all those cars without increasing the load on said central grid.

Musk is thinking ahead. Michael unfortunately cannot see beyond perhaps a few years in front of him. Maybe not past his own lifespan. The rest of us are excited to see what could become of this 'Loop proposal and the multiple changes that would accompany it. We're too busy imagining the possibilities to be hating.

The Wishful Thinking Left

Pretty much sums up my current general opinion of so called lefties. Black left not excluded.

Next, like it or not, the actions of “Russia, China and Iran” in Syria have been in accordance with international law, unlike those of the “U.S. and its Gulf allies”. From the viewpoint of international law, the current government of Syria is legitimate and responding to its request for help is perfectly legal, while arming rebels is not. Of course, the leftists who sign the petition would probably object to that aspect of international law, because it favors governments over insurgents. But just imagine the chaos that would be created if every Great Power was arming the rebels of its choice all over the world. One could deplore the selling of arms to “dictatorships”, but the U.S. is hardly in a position to lecture the world on that topic.

Moreover, it is “Russia and China” who have, by their vote at the UN prevented another U.S. intervention, like the one in Libya, which the Western Left, opposed very lukewarmly, if at all. In fact, given that U.S. used the U.N. Resolution on Libya to carry out a regime change that the resolution did not authorize, isn’t it natural that Russia and China feel that they were taken for a ride in Libya and say: “never again!”?

And

That brings us to a second problem with the petition, which is its tendency towards revolutionary romanticism. The present-day Western Left is the first to denounce the “Stalinist” regimes of the past, including those of Mao, Kim Il Sung or Pol Pot. But do they forget that Lenin fought against tsarism, Stalin against Hitler, Mao against the Kuomintang, Kim Il Sung against the Japanese and that the last two ones, as well as Pol Pot, fought against the U.S.? If history should have thought us anything, it is that struggling against oppression does not necessarily turn you into a saint.

My emphasis.

Technology and Male Labour

I've been discussing in recent blog posts in regards to the changes technology will have not only on the job market but on gender relations. Some people are not convinced about what I'm proposing. That's fine as I will let the evidence continue to speak for me. The latest is the simple lawn mower.

Illinois is procuring $42k lawn mowers which are described as huge Roombas. What is it that the state is saying? It "reduces costs" and reduces "safety risks".

The machines have performed well and so far have been low maintenance, said Kerry Brown, a tollway maintenance section manager.

While the Spider has been cost-effective compared with traditional landscaping, the big advantage has been reducing the risk of accidents and injuries, Brown said.

I've said that these will be the first line arguments for replacing humans with machines. Not that I object to safer, but there are ways to deal with embankments that do not involve robots. Understand that this is an effort to remove the fallible and liable human element.

For now the robots are remote controlled by a person with a "joystick" who can be a football field away. I call that a "design flaw" that will eventually be fixed. With computers as powerful as they are, there is no reason why the "roomba" cannot be equipped with GPS and a telematics system to navigate it's given terrain.

Just as you see tractors left out on the highways between grass cuttings expect these rechargeable grass cutters to be assigned a certain amount of acreage and be put on a schedule (as we saw in I, Robot) and go off to cut grass unattended and then return to recharge via solar power for the next run. A human will only be needed for repairs (for the time being).

And of course once the technology goes mainstream the costs will go down from $42K to less than any full time worker would be willing to work for. Entire landscaping crews all over the country, mostly men will be out of employment and that market will cease to exist as a job engine.

Oh and wait until the snow plows get telematic systems..... "No, we don't need you to cut the grass." "No, we don't need you to drive the plow all day/night."

"So what do I do?"

"Perhaps go sign up for college...and the loans that come with it."

Stop-and-Frisk Practice Violated Rights, Judge Rules

In what should have been a "decided while sleeping...no...comatose" decision.

judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, found that the Police Department had “adopted a policy of indirect racial profiling”

Well duh.

But I must object. It doesn't even matter if it is direct or "indirect" racial profiling. The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution is quite clear as to when the police may bother a citizen:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You cannot stop a citizen "just because", nor can you search a citizen "just because". It doesn't even matter that the vast majority of gun crimes in NYC are committed by African-American males. You CANNOT stop and frisk a citizen without probable cause.

Unless....

Being black is considered probable cause.

That is the ONLY reason that can be proffered to excuse this practice. Dare any elected official, or official seeking election come out and say it, if they support stop and frisk?

The data is clear. over 90% of the stops result in nothing. No arms found. Nothing at all.

Why is it we're even having a discussion on the legality of stopping citizens for no probable cause at all and with a "bust" rate of less than 10%?

Let's review my run down of the NYPD program from the previous link:

So let us review: 1) between 82 and 90% of the persons stopped by NYPD were innocent. They were not committing a crime, had not committed a crime and were not engaged in any behavior other than walking to and from wherever they had a right to go to or from perhaps with other people.

2) Of the remaining 20% of the people stopped, 86 percent of them were arrested or fined for having marijuana. And most of that was found after an illegal search (after the illegal stop). Your officers then willingly committed perjury in order to give these persons arrest records which would have a negative impact on their education and employment opportunities, therefore increasing the likelihood that those persons would commit "major" crimes. Smart.

3) The remaining 5% or so, actually had contraband or something warranting an arrest. And you as a professional cannot figure out a means of getting to these persons without blatant and gross violations of the constitutional rights of the massive number of people stopped.

As I said before It's the 4th Amendment stupid.

If It Walks Like A Duck....

Most of us know the phrase “If it Walks like a duck...'etc. This phrase is generally used when someone is trying to show that two things that are claimed to be different are probably not. It is also one of the weakest “intellectual” argument that exists.

Long ago I decided that the best way to counter the “walks like a duck” argument is to give an example of water and ethanol. Water is one oxygen atom with two connected hydrogen atoms (H=O=H). Ethanol contains 2 carbon atoms, 6 hydrogen atoms and one Oxygen atom. (H3C-H2C-OH).

Water and Ethanol are both clear. Walks like a duck. Water and ethanol are both liquids (at room temperature). Quacks like a duck. Both can exist in a vapour form. Looks like a duck.

One will put out a fire. One is very flammable and is a psychoactive drug.

Definitely not a duck.

This one example shows the weakness of the proposition that because an argument “sounds a lot like....” another one, that they are indeed equal.

As someone who strongly advocates for African people I often hear garbage comments like “that sounds racist” (and they don't mean that in the way I mean it). Similarly as someone who doesn't do the gender bullshit I get the “that's sexist/misogynist” commentary from folks who usually have never even bothered to research their own favorite topic because if a man wrote it it's wrong (mansplaining) and if a woman wrote it in “support” of men then she's a dupe.(brainwashed by The Patriarchy)

Like a duck.

This phenomenon one of the largest problems facing African intellectuals. They don't want to sound “racist” or that could sound like something a “racist” might say about black people and so they say something not entirely truthful or supportable with evidence instead of speaking frankly and truthfully. And that's when they're not busy burying unfavorable information.

For example I was listening to a podcast where a group of men were discussing the new movie Fruitvale Station. The conversation went into the Zimmerman verdict and one of the individuals decided to inform the public that when it comes to violent crime, white people assault/kill white people, black people assault and kill black people, etc. etc. His point being that criminals generally target the people who they live around and so the term “black on black crime” is stupid. Of course the statement is absolutely true. No doubt about that. The problem of course was that by and large the issue of crime is not so much who is doing crime against whom (though when you look at things such as the flashmob violence in Chicago and the epidemic of iPhone roberries, interracial crime can be higher than people think) but how much crime each group is committing. There was another salient fact left out of that statement. When you compare rates of crime, specifically assault and homicide, between the groups, African-Americans stand out, far and ahead as both perpetrators and victims. As a matter of fact in some geographic locations upwards of 90% of all assaults and homicides are caused by African-American males (generally between the ages of 15 and 30). In other words, in some places African-American males are theface of certain crimes.

Generally speaking there are many white people who object, quite strenuously, to the idea that they pay taxes that go to policing “those people” who they already pay taxes for welfare, etc. There are a lot of people, particularly African-American who do not want to make statements in public that seem to be supportive of such attitudes because it would provide “ammunition” for racists. Never mind that millions of black middle class families make such statements with their feet and money by moving into the neighborhoods that these “racist” white people created and live for “better schools” and “better lifestyles” and to “not deal with niggas”. I mean seriously did you see masses of rich black people moving INTO Detroit over the past 30 years or so?

Even though doing so would have raised property values, provided an increased tax base and provided employment which would have lead to better schools (among other things) for that 86+% black city? Nope. Shortly after the Zimmerman verdict I saw a repost of the report that every 28 hours there is an extra-judicial killing of an African-American. Certainly that is a cause for concern. Police ought not be killing anyone who isn't an immediate threat to them or others. However; in the few weekends that past after the Zimmerman verdict we saw 15 people shot in a weekend in Brooklyn NY. All African-American. All.

In Chicago 21 people were shot over a single weekend of July 15. On the weekend of July 20 another 22 were shot, 6 dead. In Chicago.

Oh and over the July 4th weekend, 72 people were shot. In Chicago.

If my math skills serve me correctly that's 130 shot in two cities in the space of a month. According to the Malcolm X Movement document it would take the police, nationally, 4 months to shoot that many people. In fact between NY and Chicago alone in July, AA men have shot at more AA men than the total number of extrajudicial killings cited in the report.

I take my police brutality seriously but methinks there is a far larger problem afoot. But what do I know?

My friends, acting as if there is not a serious crime problem in our communities and playing “it's no different than any other group” is not going to play in the world where statistics and news is but a click away for anyone to find.

But that isn't the entire argument though because even with these absolutely horrible statistics, the fact is that relative to the entire black population of Chicago and NY. These individuals represent a small minority of the population. That is what makes citing such information “not racist”. Because it separates out the criminals from the general population. It is racist to state that the high level of crime is representative of all members of the community.

To underscore this fact we can look at an old report at the Heritage Foundation we find the following:

In a longitudinal study of 394 families in England, David P. Farrington, professor of criminology at Cambridge University, found that approximately 4 percent of these families accrued almost half of the convictions of the entire sample. "The fact that delinquency is transmitted from one generation to the next is indisputable.... [F]ewer than 5 percent of the families accounted for almost half of the criminal convictions in the entire sample.... In order to achieve such concentration of crime in a small number of families, it is necessary that the parents and the brothers and sisters of offenders also be unusually likely to commit criminal acts."

This is similar to the study done about male rapists where it was found that ~4% of the men had committed 90% of the admitted to rapes.

Overall it is a small portion of the population that is causing a LOT of problems.

So beware the “Walk Like A Duck” argument. The person offering that argument is telling you that they aren't interested in details and specifics. That's always a bad sign in any attempted informed conversation.

Fraternities Are Gangs?

Sometimes...well more often now than in the past I read some stuff on "liberal" media that just gets my head shaking. Makes me wonder exactly what kind of editorial oversight went into posting pieces. I mean it appears that if you belong to certain organizations or have big name recognition in left circles you can write just about anything and get it posted to prominent blogs without so much as a "hey ummm....this is not factual, you need to change this if you want us to publish this here."

So it is with one Rodolfo Acuna who in his piece Love the Kids, Hate Gangs wrote the following:

This is not true only of street gangs but also other close knit groups. For instance, at the college level fraternities are gangs, and I feel much the same about fraternities as I do about street gangs. I love the kids but feel ambivalent about fraternity culture.

Really?

This fellow thinks the same about say Alpha Phi Alpha as he does about Crips?

What. The. Fuck?

A thinking person would have stopped themselves as soon as they wrote that bullshit because they would realize that for whatever surface "close knit group" characteristics a fraternity like Alpha Phi Alpha may have with Crips (which would be male membership), they have NOTHING else in common. They don't share a identity, purpose or direction.

Lets be clear. If any "close knit group" is a gang, then the word "gang" has no meaning. Indeed we have seen references to "The Gang of Eight" in reference to immigration legislation. But in reference to this piece we know full well that "gang" is used here in order reference street gangs involved with violence and drug sales and making a direct comparison with male greek letter organizations on college campuses and we're supposed to believe this to be a valid comparison.

Of course Acuna can make such a statement because he has a bias against fraternities and in particular against straight male identified fraternities. He says so himself:

Universities spend a hefty portion of their student service budget on catering to the Greeks. The members are middle and upper class kids who are generally not progressive in regards to homophobia, sexism, and racism and drinking.

You'll note that this....person does not even bother to say "Fraternities and Sororities". He does not do this because well, the women can be excused I suppose since they are perpetual victims of The Patriarchy(tm). No, the problem is with straight males (White males in particular in reference to his piece) who are in his opinion holding values about drinking, gender and sexism that do not meet his standards.

And just who the fuck is he?

Oh right just another left academic of sorts who love to rail against opponents who are "not progressive" by using dubious examples of behavior and passing judgment on people. Just the kind of things that in the recent past, the same lefties complained that the conservatives were doing. I suppose now it's OK.

Technology and Labour...

A few months ago I wrote a piece on the upcoming changes in gender relations that will be caused by massive changes in technology. The piece upset a "few" people who thought I was being "anti-male". Unlike a lot of folks, I don't have my head in the sand. Of course things do not have to work out as I predict but that does not make it any less likely to happen.

The primary point of the piece was that the changes will occur as a result of displacing men from the workplace by eliminating physically dangerous manual labour by means of robots and drones. Robots and drones will replace firemen, police officers, and the like because they will be able to do the same work for far less costs such as salaries, healthcare, sick days, liabilities and of course risk of death. A few men and women will be hired to maintain and program these drones but they will be far fewer than the vast numbers of men who will be tossed out of their jobs.

The next thing I'm going to point out is the mechanization of the farm. This is important for two reasons. The first is the current immigration debate. Understand that many illegal immigrants (I refuse to use the term "undocumented") are in the US to be exploited on farms and factories across the US. Jobs that Americans allegedly will not do. What happens when the robots hit the farms?

The engineers were testing the Lettuce Bot, a machine that can "thin" a field of lettuce in the time it takes about 20 workers to do the job by hand.

The thinner is part of a new generation of machines that target the last frontier of agricultural mechanization - fruits and vegetables destined for the fresh market, not processing, which have thus far resisted mechanization because they're sensitive to bruising.

Researchers are now designing robots for these most delicate crops by integrating advanced sensors, powerful computing, electronics, computer vision, robotic hardware and algorithms, as well as networking and high precision GPS localization technologies. Most ag robots won't be commercially available for at least a few years.

Bruising is the primary bottleneck to robots doing the work of humans in the field. That hurdle will soon be cleared. Believe that. And when this hurdle is cleared a lot of field that requires pressure sensitivity will be affected. Nurses to give shots? Not anymore. But that's for later.

Understand that once this technology is perfected the mass importation of labour will be no longer necessary. The only person the farmer will have to pay for is himself and those who repair his machines. Productivity will skyrocket and more humans will be displaced. Of course they will be told that they have been "freed" from physical labour and can now compete in the upper (more prestigious) jobs that requires a high debt college degree.

Of course all these unemployed men won't make for "good" husbands, unless of course they are stay at home dads.

*smirk* In the movie Surrogates, the "Dreddies" rejected technology. They did so because ultimately the technology had made being human with human interdependencies and vulnerabilities impossible. I'm not suggesting that one become a luddite. I certainly am not against the use of technology but I think that too few are thinking of the huge changes that are upon us in societies that are "advanced".

Other links:

Technology and The Coming Gender Relations

Steve Wozniak Wants 'Human Computer' to Tutor Kids

I, robot, The Social Problem

No Group Struck More Than Black Mothers?

So while reading a piece here I saw the quote from Essence Magazine in which the author (not stated) said:

The Zimmerman verdict disappointed and enraged millions this weekend—but perhaps no group of people was more struck than Black mothers, who worry daily about the dangers their sons face because they are profiled without consequence. These are women that ESSENCE seeks to serve and support every day.

Two points here:

1) How is it possible that the group that is "most struck" by the Zimmerman verdict are Black mothers and NOT All black men (fathers or not) who are the targets of said violence? Black mothers can be "concerned" as much as they want. At the end of the day it is the men and boys who are the ones who are potentially on the exit end of a gun. It stands to reason that these men and boys are the most struck by anything in the system that makes it easier for them to be gunned down by so called "well meaning citizens".

Which leads me to point two.

2) I long since stopped reading Essence and Ebony. I would say that Essence is not for me as a black man anyway. They even say so:

These are women that ESSENCE seeks to serve and support every day.

Fine. If I'm not being served and supported then I don't patronize. I'm not one of those folks who sit at counters where I'm not wanted. *ahem*

I have more problems with Ebony. That was a magazine I assumed (wrongly) was for black *people*. However since about 2 years ago it seems it hired a cotorie of so called "feminists" who have proceeded to turn that magazine (website) into a place with a lot of bullshit. It's pretty clear to me that there are no straight black men with an ounce of self respect working in any editorial decision making capacity at that location. The last thing I read....no...second to last, the last thing is going to be posted on, over there was how men can stop rape. It had to be the WORST, factually erroneous piece I have seen in many many years. Yet it was supported and circulated, without question, by so called Intelligent Negroes(tm).

So yeah, Essence completely blew that opening paragraph. It's been up for just under a month and apparently nobody there has thought to modify that paragraph.

*smh*

How Zimmerman Could – and Should – Have Been Convicted Under Florida Law

Actually, there is such a law. In Florida: "A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows [or] harasses ... another person and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree." Fla. Stat. § 784.048.

Ummmm... I said this a long time ago and I'm not even a lawyer.

The Risks

So yeah, I'm back after a little break. Haven't posted so much since I first opened this blog. I see all you regulars in the stats. Thanks for checking in. :-) Anyway. The following is old news for people who keep up with such things: Florida Cops Shoot Unarmed Black Man In His Mother’s Driveway With the usual excuse: Sheriff: Deputies said man 'lunged' from car before he was shot in his yard

Deputies Jeremiah Meeks and Matthew White responded to a 911 call on Saturday of a possible burglary and found Roy Middleton, 60, rummaging through a car in the 200 block of Shadow Lawn Lane in Warrington, Morgan said. Middleton was searching for a loose cigarette in his mother’s car.

Morgan said the deputies reported that, after they'd made multiple commands to Middleton to show his hands, he eventually lunged out of the car and spun toward them, causing them to "fear for their safety."

"As much as we are trained and as much as officers -- which have Type A personalities -- like to say we are in control, we are not," Morgan said at the conference.

During an afternoon press conference, Morgan played the 911 call made by a neighbor along with the corresponding radio traffic from officers on the scene.

Middleton has said he was in his mother's car, searching for a cigarette. When he backed out of the vehicle, he had his car keys in his hand with a metal flashlight attached, he told his mother. The deputies opened fire.

So to review: This man was in his own vehicle on property that he had every right to be on. He was looking for something in his car and a neighbor called the police to report something suspicious and a 60 year old man (60 year olds don't commit many crimes)was shot.

I wonder if the neighbor, being all concerned and all, bothered to call the owner of the residence that he thought was being burglarized. I suppose not. They aren't THAT neighborly.

But this underscores one of the reasons why people in certain communities do not call the police (or cooperate with them). It is a well known fact that police are more likely to shoot a black person (usually male) due to a claim of "feared for their lives" regardless of whether there was a fear of anything. In some situations the police themselves create a situation in which conflict can occur. I'll use myself as an example.

A few years back I was doing my 6 month oil change. I had music playing and my top down. Someone in the complex I live in did not "appreciate" the music I was playing (not loud, but with the top down, audible). They decided it was a good idea to call the police. I was going in and out of my residence with tools and towels and stuff when I saw unmarked police cruisers go by at a high rate of speed. I thought to myself that something must be going on somewhere and went about my business.

So I was leaning into my vehicle with a chrome tool for something or other when lo and behold I found that I was the police business. Two officers, one of which was gripping his sidearm came at me with some "turn that down". Now imagine that these officers saw the flash of chrome from the tool in my hand and "feared for their safety"? Luckily for me it was daylight. Night time could have ended a lot differently. All because some neighbor didn't have the courtesy to lean out a window and say "Excuse me, I'm trying to sleep."

That's not much different than what happened here except that the suspected offense was more than noise complaint.

And lest some idiot says "well he was rummaging in a car late at night." Let me reming you that anyone can drop anything of value in their car at any time, including late at night and be found looking between and under seats.

Compare And Contrast

Over the past few months we heard about Trayvon Martins "weed" use that "proved" that he was a thug. In NY black men are stopped on the street and harassed by the police for having marijuana on their person. In fact a man was shot by NYPD for having lit his splif in mid-town. Wherever we look we are told that weed is bad....except...

The 'Marijuana Moms of Beverly Hills' who say taking drugs makes them better parents - See more at: http://www.miaminewsday.com/national/10751-the-marijuana-moms-of-beverly-hills-who-say-taking-drugs-makes-them-better-parents.html#sthash.FOuANe2W.dpuf

So not a thug.

Can you just imagine an article featuring black folks peaceably smoking some herb?

Juror B37 Quotes Virginia Black Codes

"He hit him first"

"1669. Act I. If a slave resist his master and by the extremity of the correction, chance to die, his death shall not be a felony, since it cannot be presumed that malice (which alone makes murder a felony) would induce a man to destroy his own estate.

" "Did not appear to have a purpose" "George didn't recognize who he was"

no Negro or slave may...go from his owner’s plantation without a certificate and then only on necessary occasions; the punishment twenty lashes on the bare back, well laid on...And, further, if any Negro lift up his hand against any Christian he shall receive thirty lashes, and if he absent himself or lie out from his master’s service and resist lawful apprehension, he may be killed and this law shall be published every six months. "

A slave shall not go from where he lives without a license of letter showing he has authority from his master.

All meetings of slaves at any meeting house or any other place in the night shall be considered an unlawful assembly, and any justice may issue his warrant to enter the place where the assembly may be for apprehending or dispersing the slaves, and to inflict corporal punishment on the offenders at the discretion of the justice, not exceeding twenty lashes.

1748. Chapter XXXVIII. Section 22. An accidental homicide during correction of a slave still does not make one liable for prosecution or punishment, unless the slave is killed willfully; on a manslaughter verdict, there is no forfeiture or punishment.

I knew that....person's commentary sounded familiar.

Two Points On Juror B37

1) Juror B37 said "It was pouring." YouTube Link of CNN Interview I don't know if the prosecution entered the weather report for that evening into evidence, but I covered that in Trayvon Watch Part 8:

At the time of the confrontation between Zimmerman and Trayvon, ~7:09 PM, Feb 26, 2012, it was slightly raining. What we would call a "light drizzle".

6:53 PM 63.0 °F 60.1 °F 90% 30.30 in 7.0 mi NE 6.9 mph - 0.00 in Rain Light Rain 7:53 PM 63.0 °F 60.1 °F 90% 30.30 in 10.0 mi East 5.8 mph - 0.03in Overcast

It wasn't pouring. It wasn't sleeting, snowing. Nor was there a hurricane blowing through the town. It was lightly raining which means if you're covered you're unlikely to be running (which probably would have made Zimmerman suspicious as well), or in any particular rush to get home (particularly if you're talking to a female on the phone before you get back under parental supervision).

So this juror went on facts that were possibly not in evidence but was incorrect. It was NOT pouring. 2) Juror assumed Trayvon was a criminal:

CNN Interview

Trayvon was suspicious because:

1) "He was cutting through the back" Translation: Niggers can't take short cuts. Niggers must walk in designated pathways only.

2)"It was raining." Translation: Niggers ought not walk in the rain. Niggers can only walk in the rain with a permit.

3) "He was looking in houses": Let me stop here for a minute. I went for my run yesterday evening just after dark. I walked the last quarter mile. I looked into windows of houses and apartments. According to this....person...I should have been considered "suspicious". A test for anyone reading this: Walk down the street in a residential neighborhood and see how long it takes for you to look in the direction of a house.

Anyway. Translation: Niggers must not look anywhere but down at their feet or straight ahead.

4) "Did not appear to have a purpose": Translation: Niggers can't just take a stroll. If niggers don't have a reason for being out and about, then they should expect to be accosted and shot.

5) "George didn't recognize who he was": Translation: Nigger didn't have his ownership papers on hand.

Juror B37

"That Boy"

"Those people"

I told you all that the stated completely FAILED to cast Trayvon as the victim.

No one who thinks of Trayvon as "That boy" is going to grant him the humanity to defend himself against a man that was stalking him.

That Juror B37 completely identified with George Zimmerman about "getting those punks" when not only was there NO crime being committed and no "punks" to go after or apprehend underscores the complete incompetence of the state's attorney's office.

Juror B37 has essentially admitted that she believes that any black male walking in a neighborhood is one of "those people" who rob and therefore should be subject to random white citizens stalking and random questioning.

And as to her commentary about Jeantel. Get a clue miss: The biggest liars on the planet can read and write cursive AND speak English very well. But I suppose so long as those persons are not one of "those people" they can remain "credible".

Not racial my ass. How dare "that boy" raise his hand to a good white citizen? Used to be: How dare "that nigger" raise his hand to a good white citizen!

Trayvon Martin Watch: Sean Bell Verdict II

I learned a very hard lesson when I followed the Sean Bell trial: Understand the law.

It seemed obvious to me at the time that Sean Bell was murdered by the police officer. After all how else could you explain two full clips being unloaded into a car of unarmed passengers? One full clip discharged. A reload and then another full clip discharged. It had to be murder. The problem was that I, along with many people did not understand how the law handles a homicide. You see a dead body represents a homicide. That homicide could be justified or unjustified. It all depended on the circumstances.

Murder is a circumstance. It requires that the state prove, beyond reasonable doubt that the perpetrator has intended to kill his or her target and had malice, hatred or something along those lines. The key point being "prove beyond reasonable doubt."

The police get the benefit of the doubt when they shoot at someone. They get it from the justice department and they get it from the public. The idea being that police do not shoot unless they have to. When they have shot someone it is because the suspect did something to "deserve it". It was only late into the trial that I realized that the entire thing had been, in my opinion a publicity stunt.

If you read all the counts you'll note that there is NO second degree manslaughter charge against Isnora or Oliver for shooting at Guzman. This is significant because first degree manslaughter charges requires the proof of intent. I said back in march of 2007 that intent would not be provable. Second degree manslaughter requires no intent. Once it was shown in court, by both Isnora and Oliver that the target of their weapons fire was Guzman, it didn't matter what happened to Bell (case wise) Bell becomes collateral damage from the assault on Guzman. So the question that needs to be asked is why was there no second degree manslaughter (or attempted manslaughter if such a charge exists) leveled at Isnora and Oliver? If the prosecutor did not ask for such an indictment, was he or his office acting in concert with the police department to assure that the officers would be acquitted?

If you've followed all my Trayvon Watch posts you'll understand why I am focusing on the state's case rather than the "evidence". I believe the Florida prosecutors made the same mistake that the was made in NY. I cannot say that the "fix was in" but I can certainly say that the state's attorney's office fucked up. Let me explain how I think they fucked up royally on this case:

1) Wrong charges

While I was on Twitter and Facebook I repeatedly told people that murder 2 was not a proper charge and that it was a mistake to bring that charge. I said that the state would be unable to prove intent, much less malice on the part of Zimmerman beyond reasonable doubt. The reason is simple, Just as the NYPD was given the benefit of the doubt, this "neighborhood watch" person would also get the benefit of the doubt from any jury. The person in charge should have chucked any suggestion of murder II in the trash.

There is a second reason why Murder II should have never been on the table: It put the jury's focus on Zimmerman as potential victim> rather than as the actual perp. Since most of the fact in the case were not in dispute the prosecution essentially joined with the defense by having the jury spend two weeks deciding whether Zimmerman was scared for his life or not. Of course he was. The prosecution by waving around "intent" in order to convict on murder II, allowed the jury to contemplate Zimmerman as victim. This played directly into the jury instructions which had a clear exception for murder and manslaughter: How did Zimmerman feel? Of course both the prosecution and the defense had been making the jury think about that for two weeks. Which brings us to point number two

2) Wrong focus:

What essentially happened here, and as evidenced in my previous postings on the trial, everything was focused on Zimmerman. Mostly because of the wrong charges. It was wrong from the very beginning.

"Fucking Punks."

While that may have been "shocking" for an opening statement. The focus was entirely wrong. The prosecution should have spent the entire opening session on what Trayvon was (or might have been) thinking and doing. The opening line should have been:

"I'm being followed."

They should have lead with the forthcoming statement from Jeantel as to Trayvon noticing he was being followed.

They should have told the story of the events of that night through the eyes of the victim. Had the prosecution not had to try to prove malicious intent on the part of Zimmerman, they could have focused on Trayvon's story of walking to the store. Buying his skittles and iced tea. Of taking (or placing) the call to his lady friend. Of innocent banter on the walk home with his hood up to protect against the light rain. How he's a long way from home and it's night time and the lights are on in the apartments and people are doing the evening thing and he's looking around. Then the change in his conversation when he notices he's being followed by someone in a car. How he knows that a car should have passed him by now but is staying behind him. How he feels that he is in danger from a person who is clearly stalking him. Then the decision to run. Because the car "can't" come up on the curb between the buildings, but now the strange guy is on foot. What to do?

What to do?

Do I go home and bring the danger to my house?

Do I run?

Do I hide?

What does this strange man want?

Why are you following me?

The guy's got a GUN!!!

fight or flight

Trayvon is acting in self defense!!!

This is what the prosecution should have been for the entire two weeks: Martin. All day every day. What did Martin think was going on?

The prosecution should have hammered away at the very concept That Zimmerman was acting in self defense. Object every single time there is the slightest reference to defense by anyone other than Trayvon.

Of COURSE Trayvon fought him. He was fighting for HIS life!!!

Of course he smashed Zimmerman' head against the concrete! He was fighting for his life against an armed stalker. What the fuck would you DO?

And yes, I'd say "What the fuck would you do?" in open court and take the fine or contempt charge. It is THAT important to make it clear what the victim thought.

3) The Right Charges:

In order to make their manslaughter case stick the state should have brought up 2 additional charges:

A )Aggravated Assault and Aggravated Stalking.

From my previous posting aggravated stalking has the following:

“Credible threat” means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat had the intent to actually carry out the threat.

There is absolutely no reasonable doubt that Zimmerman stalked Trayvon. Zimmerman told on himself to that effect. Since Trayvon was not in the process of committing a crime nor was he "caught" exiting a building with "goods in hand" or anything like that, there was no reason to follow Trayvon, especially on foot.

Notice that the requirement here is that the victim have a reasonable fear for their safety. Clearly Trayvon was in fear of his safety due to the pattern of behavior that Zimmerman exhibited. Secondly, it doesn't matter WHAT Zimmerman thought he was doing (ie: protecting his neighborhood); his actions meet the definition of stalking.

Once you get the Jury to convict on the stalking charge, Manslaughter is easy to get to because you've established criminal activity on the part of Zimmerman and after that all that "I thought I was going to die" from the Zimmerman camp doesn't matter. When in the commission of a crime one kills someone you don't get covered by self-defense.

B) Manslaughter

Per the instructions given to the jury, manslaughter exceptions are:

The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following three circumstances: 1. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or 2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or 3. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.

As we go through these items we would have concluded:

1) Once we put aggravated stalking on the table, Zimmerman fails item 1. 2) Zimmerman did not shoot Martin "by accident" so he doesn't get covered under item 2. 3) The "sudden combat" exception does not apply if one is committing a crime. Try shooting a police officer who has taken you down after trying to arrest you for a crime you committed. You're not going to be able to argue "sudden combat".

Because the prosecution failed to establish criminal activity on the part of Zimmerman they could not get a conviction on the charges they filed. Because they wasted their effort on trying to prove the unprovable (legally). The prosecution allowed Zimmerman to be cast as the victim rather than the dead Trayvon.

4) Zimmerman had choices:

I haven't seen all the testimony but I haven't heard one piece of reporting that suggested that Zimmerman had choices. Zimmerman could have announced himself to Trayvon as a "friendly neighbor" who was "offering help to someone who looked lost".

Zimmerman could have driven right up to Trayvon and rolled down his window and said something to the effect: "hey there, you look kinda lost, I live here can I help you find a location?" If Zimmerman wanted to be more forceful, he could have rolled up on Trayvon and announced himself as neighborhood watch and ask if Trayvon needed help.

But Zimmerman said he thought the skittles was a gun. Oh, so Zimmerman left his vehicle expecting to get into a gun fight? Really?

Side issues:

5) Not a single black juror? I'm not saying that a black juror could not have come to the same conclusion as the rest of the jury but I believe it would have been harder to get a black juror to not see Trayvon as a victim because he or she would have to consider that they could have easily been Trayvon walking down the street minding his own business. Understand that jurors are expected to use their judgement and experiences when evaluating the credibility of witnesses and their statements.

6) I didn't see it mentioned but if it wasn't I think that the fact that the Zimmerman sitting in the courtroom was not the Zimmerman of 18 months ago would have been important. Zimmerman blew up and grew hair while he was awaiting trial.

7) Was there a black prosecutor in this office who could have made opening/closing statements? No disrespect to the prosecutors but I don't think they really understood exactly how offensive the idea of an innocent black male being stalked and killed is. I don't think they truly understood what was at stake here. Their focus on Zimmerman and how he was a "wanna be cop", played directly in the narrative of the defense. That Zimmerman was a good guy trying to do right and got himself into a bad spot. He wanted to get the "fucking punks". Well who doesn't want to get the fucking punks? How is that supposed to get a jury to see Trayvon as a stalking victim?

A good black attorney. Heck, even a non attorney would have instead focused on Trayvon. The closing argument as I see it would have been a clear narrative from Trayvon's point of view.

It would have been all about the fact that I'm walking in the drizzle to the store. I'm not in a rush 'cause I have no appointments. I'm talking to my lady friend.

I would have been right up in the jury's faces, particularly the mothers. I would have had them on the phone with their son walking home from the store. I would have let the hear the panic in my voice as I realize that someone is following me. I want them to hear me running away from this stalker. I want them to feel the panic as they realize the stalker is now on foot and is face to face with their son.

Their child is face to face with a potential killer and there is nothing they can do all they can do is hope he survives. Drop the phone in front of the jury. See which ones look to pick it up. You've won.

This was not a case that is won trying to get into the mind of Zimmerman. It was a case to get into the shoes of Trayvon Martin. I believe a black attorney would have understood that.

This concludes the Trayvon Watch series.

Trayvon Watch Part 11: Jury Instructions

http://documents.latimes.com/zimmerman-final-jury-instructions/

Trayvon Watch Part 10: Until Proven Otherwise

So for the past couple of months I've been watching and reading the commentary on various, shall we say, Pro-White, websites as it regards the Trayvon Martin case. Today, one of them, VDare decided to run a piece by Ann Coulter (the one allegedly involved with JJ from Good Times), in which she defends Zimmerman. Before I get into her piece I'm going to re-iterate my oft stated position that the state did not prove murder 2, nor do I think that Zimmerman is in fact guilty of murder 2. This does not mean I don't think Zimemrman is not responsible for the killing, nor that he shouldn't have been charged with something, but that it was IMO a mistake to charge Zimmerman with murder 2. Now onto Ann.

One of the things you will note with many "pro-white" websites is a focus on black crime. I'm not going to get into a debate about black crime. Relative to other US populations black crime, particularly assault and homicide (usually but not always linked) are ridiculously high. Yes, in certain locations practically all assaults on the books have a black face, usually male. Discussing the reasons for this phenomenon is beyond the scope of this post. What is within the scope of this post is that even with the way out of proportion levels of crime committed by black men, it still represents a small minority of the overall black male population.

Using NYC as an example, there were maybe 300 murders in the city last year. I'm rounding, probably up. Most of which were committed by black males. There are 8 million people in NY. A good 2 million or so are black. If we assume, wrongly, that both the victim and the perpetrator of these crimes were criminals it still wouldn't even be 1% of the total black population. If we were to throw in burglaries and other forms of violent crime, you STILL wouldn't hit 1%. As a matter of fact, the majority of records that black males have are for non-violent offenses, number one being drug possession (with or without intent to sell).

Furthermore, when we look at cross racial crimes, they are but a fraction of the amounts of intra-racial crimes. That is, for a white person to proxy their chances of being a victim of a black criminal by the number of crimes blacks commit against each other, they would need to drop that chance to 10% (usually). Not to say it cannot happen. We know it can and does, but the fact of the matter is that the vast majority black people you see on the street isn't paying you any attention. Just like Trayvon was doing when he was minding his business walking from the store.

Which brings us to Ann:

There were at least eight burglaries in the 14 months before Zimmerman's encounter with Martin. Numerous media accounts admit that "most" of these were committed by black males. I'm waiting to hear about a single crime at Twin Lakes that was not committed by a black male.

Lets take that point at face value. There are about 17,000 black persons in Sanford Fl. According to Ann around 8 of them committed burglaries.

Eight.

Ocho.

So according to Ann, if 8 persons who look a certain way have committed crimes in a given location, it is OK to stalk everyone else who "fits the description" on the chance that they too 'might" be number 9?

ust six months before Zimmerman's encounter with Martin, two men had broken into the home of a neighbor, Olivia Bertalan, while she was alone with her infant son. She had just enough time to call 911 before running upstairs and locking herself in a room. The burglars knew she was home, but proceeded to rob the place anyway, even trying to enter the locked room where she held her crying child.

Bertalan had seen the burglars just before they broke into her house—one at the front door and one at the back. They were young black males. They lived in the Retreat by Twin Lakes.

In another case, a black teenager strode up to Zimmerman's house and, in broad daylight, stole a bicycle off the front porch. The bike was never recovered.

Weeks before Zimmerman saw Martin, he witnessed another young black male peering into the window of a neighbor's house. He called the cops, but by the time they arrived, the suspect was gone.

A few days later, another house was burglarized. The thieves made off with jewelry and a new laptop. Roofers working across the street had seen two black teenagers near the house at the time of the robbery. When they spotted one of the teens the next day, they called the police.

This time, the roofers followed the suspect so he wouldn't get away. The cops arrived and found the stolen laptop in his backpack. This was the same black teenager Zimmerman had seen looking in a neighbor's window.

An interesting rundown of prior events. Here's the kicker though, these were actual crimes. Had Zimmerman (or anyone else) ran into the two men (one was actually a minor) in the act Zimmerman could have blasted them to kingdom come and be sitting on his porch with a beer and no one would have said a thing.

Had Zimmerman caught the kid who stole his property from off his property and put a bullet in his head, I'd have nothing to say. Nothing at all. I wouldn't even care if the bike thief was unarmed. You steal you take the chance on having things go very wrong. Oh well.

In the case of the roofers they saw the same men who had committed a crime and followed them. Two points here:

1) As I've pointed out in many writings, it is often a small group of people who are responsible for numerous crimes, rather than a one to one to one relationship between a crime and a new perp.

2) The roofers followed the perpetrators of an actual crime. Had they gotten into an altercation they would have the legal upper hand in anything that happened because a crime had already been committed.

The last point is the point missed by all of the "pro-white" writings I have seen. Not a single one of them, in the months that I have read their commentary has once said:

"Trayvon was committing no crime." "Walking down the street is not a crime." For all their talk, I seriously wonder what these "pro-white" commentators would do if they had been stalked by a strange man (cracker or not) in a car, who then exited said car and perhaps showed a gun. Would they lead him to their house? I mean really, if you are in a neighborhood that is "rife" with burglaries, would you allow a strange man to follow you to the "safety of your home" knowing full well that if he really wants to kill you, he now knows where you lay your head to rest?

Really?

Ann goes on to make a comparison with John White who shot a kid who was menacing his family and threatening to kill his son. Let's make quick minced meat of this laughable comparison.

John White was sleeping in his house. Zimmerman was driving along a "public" street.

John White's son had been threatened by the teenager(s) in question. Zimmerman had no prior contact with Trayvon.

The teenagers came to John White's property and were on his property. Zimmerman was not on his property. Trayvon was not on Zimmerman's property.

The teenagers threatened John White, His family and his property. Zimmerman posed a threat to Trayvon and confronted him.

John White showed his weapon and warned the teenagers. Zimmerman claims that he made no confrontation nor did he warn Trayvon that he was armed (by his own testimony).

John White discharged his weapon. Zimmerman discharged his weapon. This is the only thing they have in common. Clearly though the "long story" explains why John White was fully within his rights, while Zimmerman was clearly reckless in his behavior.

What it boils down to with these folk is that since black men commit so much crime then every black male is to be seen as a criminal until proven otherwise. That Trayvon, by dint of being black, must have had criminal intent against Zimmerman "The Cracker" and was simply waiting to beat up on Zimmerman (supposedly with his free hand while talking to his lady friend, cause you know how athletic and coordinated black men are).What they hope is that the jurors in this case will agree with such a sentiment. The state in levying a charge they cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt, may have provided the means to confirm such an idea. Hopefully they are bright enough to include lesser charges for consideration and the jury rejects this ideology.

Trayvon Watch Part 9: The Armed Stalker is Not The Victim

So the Defense has rested. As expected Zimmerman did not testify in person. Why should he have? I wouldn't have. Zimmerman told his story a couple of times and it is on tape. His story has been "confirmed" by a number of credible witnesses. What was his story?

He stalked Trayvon while in his car because Trayvon was "not walking fast enough in the rain" and "looking at his surroundings".

Zimmerman then left the safety of his vehicle from this "clear threat" of a man "walking too slowly in the rain" and "looking at his surroundings" with his loaded gun and followed this person.

Zimmerman found himself in an altercation with this unarmed man who had been "walking too slowly in the rain" and "looking at his surroundings" and in the ensuring fight killed the unarmed man who had been "walking too slowly in the rain" and "looking at his surroundings".

Zimmerman's defense team would like for the jury to disregard the fact that Trayvon was "walking in the rain" and "minding his own business" when he realized he was being stalked by a man he did not know or recognize.

Zimmerman's defense would like the jury to disregard the fact that there was only one person in this entire situation who had an ongoing and credible fear for his life from a man he discovered was not only stalking him but had a loaded firearm.

Zimmerman's defense team would like the jury to disregard all of that and act as if Zimmerman was just another guy, walking in his complex with his loaded gun when he just happened to be jumped by Trayvon for no other reason that being a "creepy cracker."

I do not know what charges the jury will be told they can convict on. What I do know is that as I predicted, the state has not proven beyond reasonable doubt that a murder II has occurred. The reason for this is that they did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was "malice" and intent. It would seem to me that the state in this case has done the same mistake that the state of NY did with the Sean Bell killing trial.

If the state has failed to add any charge that is something akin to "criminally negligent homicide", then Zimmerman walks. Zimmerman should have known that by leaving his vehicle has was creating a situation in which he was a danger not only to himself but to anyone else he encountered. His decision to escalate the situation lead directly to the shooting. He never considered that to Trayvon, HE was the one who was about to commit a crime. Zimmerman did not consider that by following Trayvon in his car, that HE came across as a person who was stalking a would be victim and that Trayvon had decided he would not be a victim.

This last point is why I haven't even commented on the latter part of the trial. I expect that Trayvon took matters to deal with someone who by any objective standard was stalking him. This is where I refer the reader back to the long story - short story theory. The prosecution in it's closing argument will have to stress that this was a created situation by Zimmerman against a person who was minding his own business. That if Zimmerman had not acted negligently he would not be on trial now and Trayvon would be alive. That the injuries that Zimmerman sustained were his own fault. Yes, his own fault. You do not stalk and confront someone and then when they act to defend themselves shoot them and call it self-defense and walk away clean as if it was an innocent accident.

The prosecution does not need to find "disrepancies" in Zimmerman's story. It does not matter if the gun was pressed to Trayvon's chest or only on the shirt. It does not matter if Trayvon was found face up or face down. It does not matter if Trayvon was on top or on the bottom. The fact of the matter is that Trayvon was walking down the street minding his own business, talking to his friend and observing his surroundings when he noticed he was being followed by a vehicle with a strange man in it. That he tried to get away from the "creepy ass cracker" who was following him and that the man exited his car, with a loaded gun, and continued to follow Trayvon on foot even after, by his own testimony he had been spotted by Trayvon.

The prosecution must repeatedly bang on the point that the armed stalker is NOT the victim.

The armed stalker is not the victim.

Lolo Jones Mocks Rachel Jeantel On Twitter: ‘Madea Goes To Court’ [OPINION]

Hey Lolo;

Followed your track career. Watched the NBC bio right before the Olympics. Felt bad for you when you lost your race.

Next time. I'll be changing the channel or rooting for someone else.

That is all.

The Ghost.

Is Silicon Valley's immigration agenda gutting the tech industry's middle class?

The kicker:

Callahan says that there may be a surplus of American IT workers looking for employment, but that’s because their skills don’t match up with today’s marketplace. "A lot of folks looking for work are older professionals. As the infrastructure of tech companies increasingly moves to the cloud, these positions have dried up. You don’t need a big IT staff to get a company to global scale anymore."

I can attest to this personally. Due to the way software and updates are distributed these days, the days of needing a lot of "on the ground" tech staff are numbered. One person with a comprehensive system in place can do what used to be done by 4 or 5 people.

Remember I've been talking about the future of [un]employment for a while now. And recently. Lastly:

How can both of these things be true at the same time? The answer reflects a larger trend in the American labor market: an increasing gap between the top earners and everyone else. In Silicon Valley, elite programmers are in high demand, fought over by employers who pay six- and seven-figure salaries on top of generous stock grants. It's understandable that these companies would spend money lobbying Washington for more access to premier talent.


But in the broader IT market, the environment is more like manufacturing, with less-skilled Americans being replaced by cheaper foreign labor. The largest employers of H1-B workers aren’t firms like Facebook and Microsoft, they are actually outsourcing companies like Infosys, Tata, and Wipro. These companies account for around half of the annual H-1B workers, and the majority of their employees are overseas, according to a recent report from Computerworld. The study found that less than three percent of H-1B workers apply for permanent residency. Most learn the job, then leave to continue the job from their home country.

Trayvon Watch Part 8: Mind How You Walk....Niggas.

Today the jury got to listen to the unedited tapes of Zimmerman's statement to the police after he shot Trayvon. In the interview he stated why Trayvon caught his attention:

In the recording, Mr. Zimmerman waived his right to a lawyer and said that his concern was piqued that night by the sight of Mr. Martin walking in the rain. Burglaries had been rampant in the neighborhood, he said, prompting him to start a Neighborhood Watch. “These guys always get away,” he told Officer Singleton, a statement that prosecutors would later seize upon. “It was raining out, and he was leisurely walking, taking his time, looking at all the houses. When I drove by he stopped and looked at me.”

Not that Trayvon was trying car doors, house doors or maybe using a flashlight to see if any home was empty.

Trayvon was suspicious because he was leisurely walking. Shit I see people in my neighborhood do every day.

At the time of the confrontation between Zimmerman and Trayvon, ~7:09 PM, Feb 26, 2012, it was slightly raining. What we would call a "light drizzle".

6:53 PM 63.0 °F 60.1 °F 90% 30.30 in 7.0 mi NE 6.9 mph - 0.00 in Rain Light Rain 7:53 PM 63.0 °F 60.1 °F 90% 30.30 in 10.0 mi East 5.8 mph - 0.03in Overcast

It wasn't pouring. It wasn't sleeting, snowing. Nor was there a hurricane blowing through the town. It was lightly raining which means if you're covered you're unlikely to be running (which probably would have made Zimmerman suspicious as well), or in any particular rush to get home (particularly if you're talking to a female on the phone before you get back under parental supervision).

So basically Zimmerman's opinion was that Trayvon was suspicious because he was walking to leisurely [for a negro].

Zimmerman is letting us know that in his opinion, black males aren't supposed to be walking "leisurely" in weather HE thinks warrants non-leisurely walking.

Straight face.

So now you know my fellow Negroes: If it's raining outside, you make damn sure you don't walk to "leisurely" lest you arouse the suspicions of some random "creepy ass cracker" with a gun.