GeorgiaDon

It's quite remarkable how public employees have become the whipping boy du jour. I know quite a few people who work for my city/county, and almost all are so greedy they're holding down two and, in some cases, three jobs. Of course, that's just to eek out a lower middle class standard of living. Awfully uppity for serfs, I know. Actually about the only county employees I know who don't have to take a second job are (surprise!) lawyers. For years, these people have made concession after concession in salary, in exchange for the promise that they won't have to dumpster dive to survive retirement. What fools! Now the oh-so-fucking-superior lawyers and business managers are here to tell those workers that they're greedy pigs to expect their employer to honestly fulfill the contract they signed, after the workers have met their side of the bargain. Stealing people's pensions is no different than stealing their paycheck. A price was agreed to for their labor, and after the job is done the employer gets to decide, unilaterally, that they'll only pay half what they agreed to? But we all know the lawyers will cover their own asses, they won't be short a dime of their exorbitant compensation. Hell, they'll probably pay themselves a big bonus for screwing over retired teachers, police, firefighters, etc. If public workers are to get screwed over, I suggest that the lawyers, managers, and politicians take it on the chin too. In fact they should pay more, as they were the ones to fuck things up in the first place. Let that Harvard grad lawyer try to survive on $100/month. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Hmmm. That explains a lot. Did you get a tin foil hat with your subscription? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I suspect they could exclude the entire interrogation, and still have an overwhelming mountain of evidence to present. It would be a lot "cleaner" if they chose to do it that way. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Damn! I wasn't even aware of the riots: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Detroit_riotBlack day in July Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

You'd best hope not, as they are paying the way for the red states. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

If you're not a progressive, doesn't that make you a regressive? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Exactly the question I raised way back towards the beginning of this thread when SYG was being discussed. I think the defense pretty much abandoned the SYG aspect of self-defense early on.Sure, the defense didn't invoke SYG, although the juror who has been talking to Anderson Cooper has brought it up, so it apparently influenced her thinking at least. What intrigues me is that the same people who have been so vocal in support of SYG through this and other discussions now say Martin should have just gone home. I'm curious in a general sort of way, not just in regard to this particular case: how can you say that people who feel threatened have no duty to retreat, yet say if Martin felt threatened, he should have just gone home. Why should one person have backed down but not the other? What rule governs that? Is the guy with the concealed gun always in the right, by default? It would seem so. Again, it's too bad in this particular case that neither participant backed down. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'm curious why Martin should have just gone home, but it was perfectly fine for Zimmerman to get out of his truck and follow Martin. Granted, the confrontation would not have happened had either of them not acted as they did. But, why does "stand your ground" reasoning apply to Zimmerman and not Martin? When two people are in a place they are allowed to be, and not violating any laws, is there some super-secret rule that says who can "stand their ground" and who should back down and go home? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Dan, I've been arguing exactly the same points, and getting exactly the same response. I am in 100% agreement with you. As are some others, who (perhaps sensibly) realized you can't reason with people who can't entertain any notion beyond their own stereotypes and self-interest, and stopped posting in this thread some time ago. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I look forward to reading the results of your research. Of course I expect to see appropriate controls, adequate sample sizes, and rigorous statistical analysis. When do you expect the study to be published? At essentially all universities where admissions are highly competitive and are based on academic performance, women make up over 60% of the undergraduates in the biological sciences, including particularly challenging areas such as genetics, cell biology, immunology, cell biology, molecular biology, etc. At the university where I teach, 65% of the students are women. Male admissions are declining, not only in biology but even in "traditionally male" areas such as chemistry and engineering. Despite "tradition", it seems that on average males are not competitive with females in the sciences. Would you (Darius11) suggest that we bow to the inevitable and just stop accepting applications from males? Maybe men should just confine themselves to manual labor, as they seem (on average) to be better at that? Or, maybe we should just acknowledge that we don't have a very good idea what any individual is likely to be good at, so we should let them at least try to figure it out for themselves? Past experience is so biased by environment ("traditional gender roles") that it is essentially worthless as a guide to innate abilities, at least as far as intellect is concerned. If you want to talk about childbearing or the ability to clean and jerk 400 pounds, well sure that may be a different matter. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

AFAIK your history is on the right track, albeit simplified a lot, leaving out certain economic speed bumps such as the great depression. One problem is that farming today is not the (relatively) simple enterprise it was in the 1800s, where your typical farmer operated 40 acres (maybe) with the use of a mule or two. Equipment costs (all that specialized machinery) costs as much or more as what it costs to set up a DZ. Seed stock costs a fortune and all that cost has to be put in at the start of the season, as does fertilizer, herbicides, insecticides, etc, all in anticipation of a payoff at harvest time. The whole industry runs on an economy of scale that dictates that you have to plant huge acreages because the return/acre is so low, except for a few specialty crops. Then, one late hard freeze or hailstorm can wipe out your whole crop, and your entire up-front investment is lost. This is different from the day when farmers could save seed over from the previous year, and hand plant/harvest a few acres. It was a very hard way to make a living, even then, but farmers didn't have to bet their life savings (and much more) every single season. Now, one approach would be to say let individual farmers bear the entirety of that risk themselves. That way, the taxpayer would avoid the expense of subsidizing or insuring farming. However advocates of that choice should at least recognize that the consequence will be the gradual loss of smaller and medium-sized farms that are owned by actual farmers, as it is inevitable that sooner or later a bad season will wipe out a crop and that will be that for such farmers. Large corporations, on the other hand, have both large cash reserves and geographically widespread operations, so they can withstand a failed crop here and there. Some may say fine, small farms should go extinct then. Well, the cost there is that the large corporate farms will always follow the crops that are amenable to mechanized production and that return the most money, which may not be crops for human consumption. These days corn production for ethanol, for example, takes a lot of acreage out of production in regard to food. Large corporations have no responsibility to feed the planet, they are only interested in profit. Having lots of small, individually owned farms means lots of farmers willing to chase smaller "niche" markets, which means you and I have the opportunity to buy foods that are not amenable to large-scale highly mechanized production. Look at it this way, when you go to your local farmer's market how often do you see a Tyson Foods booth selling organic broccoli or rhubarb? I agree that the subsidy program needs serious house cleaning. I'd just argue that decisions should be based on a rational discussion of what intended goal is. Do we want a diverse food supply, in terms of both variety of foods and variety of food producers? Or are we content to have the entire food production system in the hands of a half dozen giant corporations, and have our choices limited to what they think they can produce most profitably? Will short-term tax savings be overwhelmed by higher food prices as fewer and fewer producers control more and more of the market? Once we decide what we want re food supply, we can rationally discuss the most efficient way to achieve that. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I caught a bit of the interview, including where this issue was discussed. As I understood it, the jurors who initially voted guilty (either manslaughter or murder) did so out of the belief that Zimmerman initiated the conflict by pursuing Martin. However the law only addresses whether or not Zimmerman (in this specific instance) reasonably felt his life was in danger at the instant he shot Martin; the circumstances of how they got to that point are not relevant given how the law is written. They even sent a question to the judge to clarify the point. Once they understood the law as it is written, the only relevant question was whether or not Zimmerman could reasonably have feared for his life (or serious injury) at the instant when he drew his gun and shot Martin. So it seems the law in Florida allows someone to provoke a confrontation, even to throw the first punch, and then to kill if the fight turns against them. Presumably they could still be accountable for assault for throwing the first punch, but not with murder. Seems like an open invitation for hotheads to me. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

The juror I heard interviewed this morning said something similar: "Martin could have walked away, and Zimmerman could have stayed in his car."Yep, there are a dozen ways this could have ended differently. I have no idea who first laid hands on the other, but I'm sure the confrontation could have been avoided, either by both parties keeping their distance or by both parties treating the other in a calm and respectful manner. Zimmerman could have identified himself as Neighborhood Watch, and asked Martin if he lived in the neighborhood. Something as simple as "I don't think I've met you before, are you new here?" Martin could have explained he was staying with his father. A few civil words would have defused the situation. Instead we get a dick-swinging match driven by mutual fear and disrespect. Completely unnecessary, and in that sense tragic. And no, I don't (and never have) believe that Zimmerman saw Martin from a distance and decided to kill him then and there. I hope the justice department does not pursue civil rights charges in this case. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'm not sure what you mean by "fucktwat rocket", but that made me laugh. I get a picture of her strapped to a rocket like Wily E Cyote. CYA! It's not just the language I can't follow, it's the "disrespect everyone", in-your-face culture. Apparently she's outrage at the acquittal, but if so she should look to herself. No-one could take her testimony seriously, given the attitude she gave. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Will you go on the record as opposing "stand your ground" laws? Because it sounds as if you are saying people have a duty to retreat if possible. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well, the actions that Zimmerman claimed he took. We still don't know how the fight started, and we probably never will. The fact that Martin was winning when Zimmerman fired his fatal shot seems pretty clear, but the only evidence that Martin started the fight are Zimmerman's statements. For the record, I think Zimmerman should have been tried, and I think he should have been acquitted. Which is exactly what happened. I agree with every bit of this. I'll add that I thought murder 2 was a stretch, and that manslaughter would have been more appropriate. The prosecution was irreparably damaged by some poor witnesses, notably the girl who TM was on the phone with, but it's hard to predict just what witnesses will do on the stand. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I guess I missed the part where he beat up the clerk and stole the skittles. I could definitely see the fear in that clerk's eyes. Sure, he wasn't 12 years old. What's your point? A 12-year-old is a cute little kid, but a 17-year-old black male in a hoodie must be a thug? As much as the picture of TM the 12-year-old is misleading, the point of videos like the one you posted just as bad, as the point is to cater to the all-too-ingrained fear of black males that is epidemic in US society. "The video they don't want you to see" indeed! Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

You need a new dictionary. The one you're using has some incorrect definitions.It also spells words strangely. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

You didn't get a personal memo? How rude of her. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

This case was about reasonable doubt. The prosecution's theory was that Zimmerman initiated the fight, the defense's theory was that Martin started it. If the jurors were not able to agree with the prosecution, beyond a reasonable doubt, they were obligated to return a verdict of "not guilty". That the prosecution was not able to prove their theory beyond a reasonable doubt does not automatically make the defense theory true. Martin was doing nothing illegal when Zimmerman decided he was up to no good. He was walking on a sidewalk in a neighborhood he had every right to be in, while talking on a cell phone. The defense certainly did not even try to prove that Martin was committing a crime when Zimmerman profiled him as a criminal. Zimmerman certainly did not know who Martin was at that point, and knew nothing about him personally. On what basis did he decide Martin was worthy of suspicion? Do you think he would have called the police and then followed Martin, had Martin been wearing dress pants, a white shirt, and a tie like a Mormon missionary? Black males get profiled a million times every day in this country. OCHUTE's post is a prime example. Sometimes that leads to confrontations. It's interesting that Zimmerman has a right to self defense, but apparently Martin did not. It is a tragedy that young black males are presumed to be thugs, by OCHUTE, by you, and by millions of others. It is a tragedy that so many people die for no good reason. I heard one commentator ask if he now has to dress his sons in a tuxedo before he lets them go to the store. If they are confronted by an unknown stranger, are they obligated to meekly acquiesce to every demand? I for one have no idea how to answer his questions. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

How's the faculty position working out? Hope you're having fun with it. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

She probably can't fix a transmission either. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well I for one can certainly see how that would get you all worked up. Can't have that "understanding and respect" when the right wing agenda is so much better served by suspicion and hate. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well, it would make it hard to argue "I forgot my ID at home, officer". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)