Member since: Thu Apr 5, 2012, 08:33 PM
Number of posts: 1,565
Member since: Thu Apr 5, 2012, 08:33 PM
Number of posts: 1,565
- 2015 (9)
- 2014 (20)
- 2013 (39)
- 2012 (48)
and see the determination chiseled into/onto their faces by the power of justice and unity, and of course, the successes they've already enjoyed.
The Occupy Wall Street movement’s success can be measured in part by how public opinion has changed about such issues as corporate profits, widening inequality and excessive executive compensation. By last December, two months after the first occupations at Zuccotti Park, 77 percent of Americans—and 53 percent of Republicans—agreed that “there is too much power in the hands of a few rich people and corporations,” according to a Pew Research Center survey. The Pew study also found that 61 percent of Americans believe that “the economic system in this country unfairly favors the wealthy” and that 57 percent think that wealthy people don’t pay their fair share of taxes. Most of these people won’t be found protesting in the streets, but the nation’s changing mood clearly influences what candidates for office and elected officials think they need to do to satisfy public opinion.
I wonder what flip flops in terms of policy or focus they'll cause in the politcal class and world going forward, and especially now that all the austerity programs here and there have turned into such flops?
Posted by stupidicus | Tue May 1, 2012, 10:35 AM (4 replies)
who in turn used Saddam Hussein, with the less than subtle differences that BHO killed him, whereas OBL used Bush to keep us in the economic death spiral OBL's killer is still striving to end. In other words, BHO is dangling his death before the electorate as a success, much like the one Bush offered his puppetmaster OBL with the failures he sought, making Bush's reelection the icing on his 9/11 cake, which subsequently helped him with his goal of bankrupting us/killing us economically in part due to Bush using SH to polish his "war president" credentials.
“Bin Laden certainly did a nice favor today for the President,” said deputy CIA director John McLaughlin in opening a meeting to review secret “strategic analysis” of the videotape, according to Ron Suskind’s The One Percent Doctrine, which drew heavily from CIA insiders.http://consortiumnews.com/2012/04/04/bin-ladens-personal-debt-to-bush/
And of course, all of us troop-hating, terrorist-loving lefties remember quite well the way the way the millions of dead and displaced Iraqis were used in the 2004 campaign, based on the amount of soap money they spent washing their purple fingers off during and after their convention that year alone.
Terry Holt, a spokesman for the Bush re-election campaign, said Wednesday, ''If Moveon had its way, the United States would not be fighting a global war on terror, and Saddam Hussein would still be the brutal dictator in charge of Iraq.''http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/12/us/2004-campaign-advertising-activist-group-plans-new-ads-attacking-bush-swing.html
I suppose it's not okay to note getting the head of the guy Bush quit thinking and worrying about after he became an unindicted war criminal himself, but okay to make the death and displacement of millions of Iraqis the big dishonest deal they did.
It was after all, all about their freedom to die for and over his lies. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0824-02.htm
The diff between "bragging" over the death of OBL and using those that followed the immoral and illegal invasion of Iraq is exactly what I'd ask, their repective numerical values notwithstanding?
Posted by stupidicus | Mon Apr 30, 2012, 06:02 PM (2 replies)
I'm gonna sign up to read the article in its entirety, so I'm curious to know if they supplied what they think the reasons for their race to the rightwingnut cliff in recent years is all about.
I've long thought and argued that it's all about stuffing their bank accounts with as much money as possible before things like health care and climate change make avoiding "socialistic" solutions to them impossible, and they recieve a disproportionate amount of the bill.
There's also the growing demographic tsunami in this country that threatens their hold on political power, so in a way, their desperation and accompanying obscene policy proposals are merely their way of getting their seat on the ark, like in the movie 2012.
The only challenge they give a shit about, is keeping as much money in the accounts of their monied masters as possible before events overtake them, and undercuts the political power they currently wield that both grows and preserves that pile of dough.
Posted by stupidicus | Sun Apr 29, 2012, 10:53 AM (0 replies)
Zimmerman claimed that he yelled for help, and that various neighbors who peered out to see the fight from their backyards didn’t get involved. Zimmerman, the source said, told officers he was so paralyzed by fear that he initially forgot he had a gun, but he said that after Martin noticed his 9mm pistol, Zimmerman pulled it out of his belt holder and fired one round, a hollow-point—the round that killed Martin. (The autopsy report on Martin has not yet been released.)
To me between his not using it first as a heavy and blunt instrument to ward off his attacker, or in the other reasonable alternative, as a warning by making the threat to Martin clear so that he would cease and desist with the alleged life threatening beating he was allegedly administering, shows his intent and interest lied with pulling the trigger first, and not the less humane alternatives. After all, how could Martin have been pounding his head against the ground and struggling over a gun at the same time? How he even "noticed it" in the course of administering the beating as Zimmerman alleges, remains a mystery to me, given he was allegedly in the midst of straddling him (he'd be sitting on top of it, or standing over him bent over focused on the bouncing ball that Zimmerman's head allegedly was) in the dark during the "beating my head against the ground" phase, and had he noticed it he surely would have noticed Zimmerman pulling it out of the belt holster, whereupon a struggle for it would have likely ensued. Maybe Zimmerman is a "quick draw"?
Martin then punched him in the face, knocking him down, and began beating his head against the ground. Zimmerman called out for help, while being beaten, before shooting Martin once in the chest at close range, in self-defense.
This is why his actions under the applicable law as a pants/bedwetting, wouldbe toughguy may be defensible -- we'll have to wait for all the evidence and the jury to decide -- but it never will be morally imo, as I'm sure St. Peter will make clear if you believe in that sorta thing.
I'm inclined to think that this, coupled with his stalking, may put him a bit outside of the protection of the statute. And if the struggle and shooting was over the gun already pulled by Zimmerman, whose "ground" was most threatened?
The more likely scenario to me is that the bedwetter pulled the gun outta fear at the onset, and the rest is history. If there was a struggle over it, then DNA or fingerprint evidence should show that. And if that is shown, then the "quick draw" scenario falls apart. Imo, his claims to being the one yelling for help are pretty damning, and I've yet to see any evidence that there was a struggle for the gun as being part of his original statement to the police as well.
I'm guessing it is the stench of inconsistencies like that that prompted the prosecution, and will likely lead to his conviction. And of course, all his phone calls to the police, etc, can be used to confirm a state of mind I addressed as an essential element in the conviction -- a wreckless and callous disregard for human life.
and if that's the case, I think the ground will be yanked from underneath any SYG defense
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
why would cracking his noggin with the gun as opposed to pulling the trigger first, not be required I ask, to satisfy the language there
After all, the fight wouldn't have occurred but for the provocations of Zimmerman, from start to finish
Posted by stupidicus | Tue Apr 24, 2012, 10:29 PM (1 replies)
what we're really witnessing is how unresponsive our gov truly is to the desires and wishes of the majority on many such issues, and how much they do the bidding of the monied interests whose pockets are filled in a security/police state environment long in the making, starting with the phony war on drugs, and now the equally phony war on terror.
This has had the duel damaging effect of decreasing our collective faith in gov, which has resulted in the natural consequence of less participation by the voters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections
It would be interesting to speculate about or to find cause/effect relationships of this kind for that graph, no?
It should be noted rhat this is a seperate and distinct effort from the efforts rightwingnuts have made in recent years to discourage voting, e.g., voter ID laws, ect, and is much more tied to the historically less recent movement of the ideological center line rightward, which underlies the many disappointments for example, many have voiced with BHO in the last few years. http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/04/10/150349438/gops-rightward-shift-higher-polarization-fills-political-scientist-with-dread
WHile the politics in DC may be center/right, the idea that we are as a nation is a myth http://www.google.com/search?q=the+myth+of+a+center+right+nation&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGHP_en
Posted by stupidicus | Tue Apr 24, 2012, 05:06 PM (1 replies)
offensive offense is generally speaking, the only defense they have for just about everything they are associated with in terms of policies. If one is truly a "tolerant" liberal, such "otherization" tactics are not in compliance with adherence to that ideology. The only thing one has no duty to be tolerant of as such, is the intolerance that such things as blaming the victim indicate.
In the case of this conflict in terms of the factual matters I'm most interested in to determine Zimmerman's guilt, has to do with forensic evidence. Obviously Zimmerman had to have one hand free to be able to shoot him, but did Martin have any bruising that would indicate he first tried to use it as a club?
The circumstances indicate to me that Zimmerman never allowed Martin the time to realize he was armed, which would cause any reasonable person to cease and desist in whatever aggression they were involved in or contemplating. SO what we're left with at best, is Zimmerman exploiting a legality. As we all know and can think of examples of (like rightwingers and abortion/gay marriage/etc) just because something is legal doesn't make it "right", and in this case Martin paid the highest price for Zimmerman being wrong.
good post by the way
Posted by stupidicus | Tue Apr 24, 2012, 04:36 PM (1 replies)
I had thought them dead, or to have at least fallen into gross misuse and disuse by close to half of the US population, starting with the rise in rightwinger media acquisitions and the likes of that rightwing slut Rush Limbaugh.
That marked the beginning of the death of the concept of "agreed upon facts" that had long served us well in terms of our ability to deal with the issues we're collectively confronted with and in need of our collective attention, as well as a means by which to retain the civility in sufficient enough measures to prevent a lack of it from serving as an impediment to successful cooperation. Can anyone reasonably deny that rightwinger dishonesty in the form of all too often, fact-free defamations about others (like all those commies in Congress, and college age sluts, etc), and the frustrations spawned by their living in total denial of inconvenient facts http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/20/468255/republican-meterologist-climate-change-has-nothing-to-do-with-al-gore/ (that all too often motivate them in their defamation efforts) underlies and is responsible for, most of the incivility we see in the public square today? And just as obvious to this observer, has been another product of this willful and deliberate killing of the concept of agreed upon facts -- the immunity almost all rightwingers have to anything resembling the "Have you no shame sir?" kinda question. In their case, shame has been completely lost as a pov changing/behavior modification tool.
We all know the answer to that question, and members of the party of "NO!" answer it almost daily for those that don't. The killing of that concept also required the issuance of a license to lie without fear of reprisal from their minions of both the political and financial kind, which made the 9th Commandment a casualty in the modern rightwing "War on Truth", which came about primarily and is perpetuated by, them knowing they can't win the debates on the issues honestly, leaving them little choice but to constantly double down on their dishonesty, and I'd argue, this explains the behavior of the lie nympho the Mutt is.
Obviously our salvation on many fronts as a people lies in finding a way to resurrect the concept of agreed upon facts, and the rightwinger lies and denials that stand in the way of that. It however is gonna be just about if not more the daunting task, than BHO and the dems cleaning up the mess the repubs have put this country in (with some help from them in the past) in a fraction of the time it took for them to mess it up.
Maybe we can get someone to bring it up at their next "values" summit. http://www.valuesvotersummit.org/ lol
By REX W. HUPPKE
Published: Monday, April 23, 2012 at 3:00 a.m.
Last Modified: Sunday, April 22, 2012 at 4:37 p.m.
Page 1 of 3
A quick review of the long and illustrious career of Facts reveals some of the world's most cherished absolutes: Gravity makes things fall down; 2 + 2 = 4; the sky is blue.
But for many, Facts' most memorable moments came in simple day-to-day realities, from a child's certainty of his mother's love to the comforting knowledge that a favorite television show would start promptly at 8 p.m.
Over the centuries, Facts became such a prevalent part of most people's lives that Irish philosopher Edmund Burke once said: “Facts are to the mind what food is to the body.”
To the shock of most sentient beings, Facts died Wednesday, April 18, after a long battle for relevancy with the 24-hour news cycle, blogs and the Internet. Though few expected Facts to pull out of its years-long downward spiral, the official cause of death was from injuries suffered recently when Florida Republican Rep. Allen West steadfastly declared that as many as 81 of his fellow members of the U.S. House of Representatives are communists
more here http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20120423/WIRE/120429858/1033/news?p=1&tc=pg&tc=ar
Posted by stupidicus | Mon Apr 23, 2012, 05:47 PM (0 replies)
by those who hold the pov you're criticizing here.
As I've already noted elsewhere in other posts on this issue, as I see it the proximate cause for their apathy for the victim, and the povs that give that apathy life , largely have their origins in prioritization, and given the 2nd Amendment right issues involved here, it's reasonable to assume they are the ones recieving the priority treatment and serve as the proximate cause for the apathy.
What's missing imo, and what needs to be understood to break the apathy, is the libertarian (at least civil vein) element represented in the "Wild West" mentality that underlies their povs on the 2nd Amendment, and their aversion to the idea that the modern gov or private orgs can serve the role of Wyatt Earp and ask kooks like Zimmerman to leave their weapons at his office http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-24/news/os-trayvon-martin-neighborhood-watch-20120321_1_zimmerman-community-ties-neighborhood-watch -- analogous to the rule Zimmerman was in violation of as a NW person -- so as to avoid their misuse like in this case. The simple fact of the matter is, Zimmerman was to much the sissy to be in that position without one.
What it boils down to is this -- there's nary an issue supported by those of this ilk that doesn't ignore abuses that can come just as easily from the individual as it can from the gov, as was the case here. AWK AWK, STATIST STATIST the unfettered 2nd Amendment rights advocates whine, while completely ignoring that this is part of the role of governemnt -- to protect us from each other, and to provide justice we'd otherwise have great difficulties in finding on our own, short of an "eye for an eye" rule prevailing as the provider of it -- while also ignoring the inarguable and eternal existence of bad actors amongst us that is behind giving the gov that role. One needn't look past say, a Ron Paul's pov on the Civil Rights Act to see this, or the the rightwingnuts whining generally about EPA rules, to see the competition between the individual and the society in which they and we are all immersed in and dependent on. In the latter case here, the threat is similarly to their private/individual property "rights" and the ability to do whatever they damn well please with it, the wider society be damned. This is behind ALL the rightwingnut objections the efforts to curtail global warming, etc, enviromental issues. http://www.monbiot.com/2012/01/06/why-libertarians-must-deny-climate-change/
Of course a balance needs to be struck between the two competing interests here -- that of the individual in a free society and the interest of that society in protecting the individual from the bad actors, whether an individual or a collective like corporations -- and that is problem here, the way the "stand your ground" laws has put these competing interest on this issue in a state of imbalance, tilted towards/favoring the bad actors. The Tombstone they imagine and desire was killed by a simple city ordinance, and obviously to them, a few tombstones resting over even innocent corpses is not too high a price to pay to keep their "rugged individualism" at the root of such, alive and well.
Some ask "what if Zimmerman was black, and his victim white?". I'd like to ask the apathetic, 2nd amendment worshippers, "What if Zimmerman was a black police officer and Martin was white, with the former acting under the color of law?" Oh that's right, first his gun would have been taken away, and we'd be hearing whines about how it's alright and reasonable to be protecting us against potential bad actors in the gov in that way. Their blind priorities has blinded them to the concept of proportionality http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=zimmerman%20military%20engagement%20rules&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDMQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthinkprogress.org%2Fjustice%2F2012%2F04%2F10%2F460965%2Fzimmerman-shoot-kill-troops-military%2F&ei=OGmVT9SKEMG-gAf4_diFBQ&usg=AFQjCNGbHCI7jUI3UclKoeLDUXK5ocq6Dw that I had thought upon first hearing of this case, would be the death knell to any defense he might have. http://www.bushipower.com/sd_law.php
Their apathy stems for their desire to be able to do as Zimmerman did, putting them in the "Cow-Boys" camp, not that of a wouldbe do-gooder like Wyatt Earp. This of course can only stem from their awareness of the private wouldbe bad actors they want protection from, even at the expense of the production of private bad actors like Zimmerman these "stand your ground" encourage and enable. It's really worse imo than mere apathy, it's an unspoken desire on their part to be able to take a human life under circumstances where it's neither necessary nor morally justifiable.
It's now legally justifiable in some cases, and that's what they want to preserve, along with the 2nd amendment rights that the exploitation of make it easiest to assert that legal right..
Posted by stupidicus | Mon Apr 23, 2012, 11:13 AM (0 replies)
and of course, growing tuition costs with stats like http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014104389 this can cause a bit of unrest too.
Of course as some have noted, they have legitimate purposes as well, and those purposes are easily identified, as the nefarious ones will be, should their use result in an increase of arrests http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Riley in the midst of their use by universities.
Unlike the recent GPS use case http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-warrants-needed-in-gps-tracking/2012/01/23/gIQAx7qGLQ_story.html thSCOTUS ruled against on "search" grounds, in that case they've already said that survellience alone doesn't qualify as such. Rather than a GPS device, the police can just put a drone on your tail instead, as could a university for political troublemakers if their campus police wanted to, because there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in the great outdoors.
And as you might also surmise as well, the more numerous such flights become the more it supports the rationale used in the pot bust decsion, and undercuts those of the dissenting opinions as well.
SO as I'm seeing it, good intentions/uses of not, our 4th amendment rights are gonna be eroded regardless.
Perhaps maybe one of those posters whining about "paranoia" can show the flaw in my facts or reasoning here.
Posted by stupidicus | Sun Apr 22, 2012, 10:16 PM (1 replies)
the "both sides do it/are equally guilty" false equivalence has been a pet peeve of mine for a decade or more now.
Imo, this became inarguable after what happened to Durbin over his "Gulag" comment http://www.talkleft.com/story/2005/06/16/496/87846 as a memer of the troop-hating, terrorist-loving party so many rightwingers shamelessly talked about at the time
Posted by stupidicus | Fri Apr 20, 2012, 11:38 AM (1 replies)