This is ibailey's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following ibailey's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
ibailey
Recent Activity
Is it OK now to admit that I'm scared out of my mind?
And based on the jury's verdict, O. J. Simpson didn't kill two people.
Greenwald is with the Guardian and out of the country because he has a gay partner and was tired of living here as a second-class citizen. Also, I don't believe it is "looking very much like Americans are being good sheep, unconcerned with the potential risks inherent." Plenty of Americans are concerned with the potential inherent risks - but those risks include ones you don't want to acknowledge or think aren't as important. Just because someone doesn't take the view you have doesn't mean they are unconcerned sheep; it means they are Americans who disagree with you.
How is this critical of Obama?
Using either the "you are just a racist" or "you are just pulling the race card" is a cheap way to shut down a conversation before it can go more deeply and become potentially effective. I try not to use either one, even when one or both are thrown my way.
Carlton, As you know - but some others clearly don't - is that black people deal with these issues every day. They have marches and candlelight vigils and town hall meetings and mentoring programs and re-entry programs and a host of other things to deal with the everyday violence in their community. You know - but some others clearly don't - that you can walk into any black church on just about any Sunday and here the kinds of things Bill Cosby said years ago that conservatives praised him so much for. But, of course, the only time some people bring up that issue is to use it in a political debate. They don't join the fight. They don't even seem to care.
That's true, too, Carlton, though there has always been a dedicated group of people working on that issue. And when I've tried to write it about it, several times over the years, I hear from people who use it to confirm what they want to believe, that blacks are criminally-minded, and others who don't want to talk about the stories in public because they know bigots use them to fuel stereotypes. A Catch 22.
Yes, that is an open, honest assessment. Does that make you racist? No. It is something we all do. Here's the problem: Most of our biases - blacks and whites and Hispanics, etc. - when it comes to crime is to assume the strange black dude is a criminal. And it shows up in the classroom and in the courtroom, and on the street. That Zimmerman made that same initial assessment is not the main problem. Had he stopped it right there, called 911 on a suspicious person - even if he was mistaken - and just went home, then none of this other stuff would have happened. But when people claim that Zimmerman did nothing wrong, that they would do everything he did, that concerns me because it says that if I send my son to the store, there could be a George Zimmerman around the corner, and even if my son is doing nothing wrong, he could still end up dead on the street. That's something that so many people seem to not be accepting in this case. I'm glad you are at least trying. Thanks.
John: I accept the verdict. From a strictly legal standpoint, it makes sense for all the reasons I've gone over before. But the big problem with this, beyond the legal stuff, is that so many people are claiming that Zimmerman did nothing wrong. If that's the case, why shouldn't I as a father of a young black son think that means this can likely happen to him as well? There are other neighborhood watch folks who are watching this and saying this is what they would do, too. That concerns, for my son.
But you can have a surplus in a given month, given quarter or a given year; add up enough of those together, you get to dig yourself out of the $1.4 trillion hole Obama was handed when he got into office in 2009, which is happening. Of course we can only mention the deficit when it is worsening and ignore it when it gets better, which seems what some people want to do.
Had they listened to that investigator in the beginning, none of us would even known who Zimmerman and Martin were, for sure. And, yes, to make the proceedings fair, if they wanted to play both those charges, then it should be done from the outset so the defense can respond accordingly.
That's the point I've been trying to make. It's wrong. It's unfair to the defense. But, yes, this case should have made it to court. And the prosecution should have been made to choose, either second-degree murder or manslaughter, and that's it.
If it wasn't adding a charge, the prosecution would not have had to ask for it after both sides rested. Manslaughter is not the same thing as second-degree murder. The prosecution should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what it believes happens. If you say "pick," then the prosecution no longer does. A few years ago, I was in an Horry County courtroom during which the entire trial the prosecutor argued that there was only one person in the room when a little child was killed, that there was no one else around, that no one helped, that the evidence was clear - that it could only have been him. Then after it was obvious the evidence wasn't nearly as clear as that, after both sides rested, the prosecution argued that the jury should also be able to consider an aiding and abetting charge. He never explained who the defendant - who had been in the room alone, according to the prosecution's entire case - had been aiding and abetting. What happened? The jury came back not guilty on the homicide by child abuse charge - because the evidence didn't support it - but found the guy guilty for aiding and abetting - even though the entire case, from the prosecution, was that no one else was involved. It makes no sense to allow the prosecution to do this.
If that's the case, then don't charge the defendant with anything, then at the end give the jury a whole list of laws and say pick which one you think was proved - because that's almost what we have now when these new charges are added. The prosecution isn't supposed to be about getting a particular verdict at all cost; it is supposed to be about making sure justice occurs. This undermines that principle.
If it was already included, from the beginning, then we wouldn't be having this discussion and the prosecution would not have to ask to have them included now. They are not included, and they don't have to be included, even now. It is up to the judge, and she is including - adding - them. You can't argue second-degree murder for the entire trial then after both sides rest say, hey, maybe it was something else. That happens, not only in this case, but in a ton of other ones. It is such an expected development that no one ever really challenges it. I say it is well past time to challenge it. This definitely gives the prosecution multiple bites at the apple, and that's not supposed to happen in our system. And I'll remind everyone that I believe Zimmerman is responsible for Martin's death and should be punished for it. But that's a different issue. Adding these charges in this case - and in others - is wrong. If both sides, for some reason, agree to add them at the end, fine. But it should not be done this way, even though that this way has pretty much become standard.
Yes, I understand that, Sunny. It is a fairly standard thing to add these charges at the end - and it is adding these charges. When the prosecution has a slam dunk case, they object to these being added because they don't want the jury to have any options, but when they are less confident, then want them added. These are not automatic, even though they are pretty much pro forma. I'll dig out some pieces I did on this and how a judge in Conway explained it. He said, from the bench, that he was concerned about doing this sort of thing - but did it any way - because the General Assembly had not stopped it from happening. If the prosecution believes it was a second-degree murder, then the prosecution should have to prove second-degree murder. It shouldn't be able to say, it might be second-degree murder, or it might be manslaughter, or it might be aggravated assault. Those are not the same thing.
They still publish the Penthouse Forum? I thought men realized that wasn't real when pro wrestling was outed as being fake, too.
And what about the need for secrecy issue when it comes to national security? How do we overcome that hurdle?
You haven't been jailed yet, Sunny? I wonder what's taking so long :)
I've seen all sorts of abuse cases from all sorts of different kinds of families. And while the bulk maybe poorer and less educated than the average, a good number also come from the other groups as well. And it is often a shame thing that keeps a lot of people quiet, for decades even.
It's a fascinating situation, for sure. I hope they will pull through this stuff and come out better on the other side. I'm just not sure they will.
All of that's true, Sunny. Does handling this way make future real democracy there more or less likely? It's hard for me to tell.
Those who have asked for and have been given the privileges and responsibilities of marriage - yours truly included - have a lot to answer for, for sure, given that we keep so many people out.
That's not the issue at all, Stonewall. It is already clear that if you kill the guy you live next to, you will go to prison, and there will be no debate. When it comes to a pregnant woman's body, the developing fetus is not living "next" to her, it is developing inside her, meaning her body is paramount in this discussion.