Posted on July 7, 2012 by Leo Soderman

Tax, Fee, Penalty, Mandate, Whatever. Chances Are, You Won’t Be Paying It

(Crossposted from AngryBlackLadyChronicles.com)

Yeah, I’m probably preaching to the choir here, but after spending two weeks in a battleground state and watching the ridiculous spin put on the SCOTUS decision to uphold ACA, I figured I’d just get my two cents worth in.

All the uproar has been about the “mandate” and whether it is a tax or not. Republicans have changed tactics, and instead of referring to the ACA as Obamacare, they are now calling it ObamaTax. Yup, they want to scare folks into thinking they will be paying more in taxes because of the ACA.

News flash – most won’t.

The mandate has a very simple purpose – to ensure everyone who can afford medical insurance is getting medical insurance. That’s it. It’s designed to minimize the number of people who are using emergency rooms as their primary care facility and putting the burden of paying for that on the rest of us. It’s about personal responsibility. If you can afford it, you should be paying your way.

And the brilliant part of this is – if you have insurance already, this costs you nothing. Not a freakin’ sausage.

But wait, you say, what about the poor folks?

Continue reading →

Posted on May 10, 2012 by Leo Soderman

Bullies, Bashing and the GOP

Let’s get this straight right up front: What someone does as a teen is not necessarily a reflection of how they are 50-60 years later. there may be clues, but to flat out extrapolate from one to the other is just plain silly. That’s what folks are trying to do with this latest Mitt Romney flap. As written in a Washington Post article, Romney was apparently part of a bullying incident during high school where he and others pinned down another student and cut his hair, ostensibly because they believed he was effeminate and didn’t fit in. They were going to teach him a lesson.

This behavior is, without a doubt, reprehensible. But making the case that since he did it then, he’d do the same now – or even have similar tendencies – is simply ridiculous. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a Romney fan. But fair is fair.

If you want to see how the man’s character has developed, you need to look at more than just his high school years. He protested in favor of the Vietnam War, then got himself moved to France to avoid the draft. His time at Bain Capital, where he made his money buying, then dismantling businesses, pocketing the profits while moving jobs offshore and putting Americans out of work. Or his battle with and elimination of a Massachusetts state-sponsored group that worked to educate against gay bullying. You can look at his current focus at cutting the taxes on the wealthy, while increasing them on the poor. There are plenty of things you can point to that show where his thinking has “evolved”. You don’t need to extrapolate it from his behavior as a teen.

But there is a pattern here. And in that sense, there is some value to knowing about this incident. Romney has always been couched in privilege. And from that privilege comes arrogance and a sense of entitlement. It comes with the perception that those who are different must be made to toe the line. And that getting ahead, getting your own way, takes precedence over the welfare of others. In other words, he acts like a bully.

Today, that bullying is in the form of money. He will spend as much as it takes to get himself the nomination, and if he can, the Presidency. It doesn’t matter how awful things in his past might be, nor what the consequence to the average person is. This isn’t about class warfare, because Romney doesn’t recognize a different class. You can tell by his speeches, his statements – he truly believes that he is average, that everyone has the same opportunities he did. So he believes he is doing the best. And anyone who doesn’t have what he has is just lazy, doesn’t need help. Remember his statement about not being worried about the very poor? He thinks they’re ok. He thinks the fact that they have fallen into a safety net shows that the system works. Never mind the fact that they need a safety net is a prime example that the system isn’t working, and that he is supportive of removing that safety net and letting them fall. Same attitude as “Let Detroit Fail”. If it doesn’t affect him or his cronies directly, he really doesn’t care. But take away a penny of their income in taxes, and they scream of lost freedoms and war on the rich.

It’s the entitlement of bullies. They’ll bash everything around them if they are allowed. It gives them a sense of power, a sense of control. It’s the GOP brand. Case in point – today’s vote in the House on a Republican measure to restore military funding that they gave up in the debt ceiling deal. You’ll remember that in the deal, Republicans agreed that if a debt reduction deal was not passed by November of last year, there would be automatic cuts to the military. They agreed to that because Democrats agreed to cuts on the programs they favor as well.

Now, however, Republicans want to renege. They want to turn back the clock and not cut a penny out of the military. Instead, they want to make further cuts to social programs, like school lunches, health care subsidies, child tax credits and food stamps, on top of the cuts already agreed to. Typical bully behavior. Make the deal, then try to bash your way out of it when it starts going south.

Of course, this deal has no chance in the Senate, and even if it did, it would not get past the President. They made a deal, and they’re going to have to stick to it. But the reality is, they don’t care. How could they? Politically, in an election year, do you really want to pit the poor, children and the elderly against military spending? Do you want to remind folks that you made a deal, in an effort to reduce spending, and that you don’t want to keep your word?

Bullies don’t care.

Again, this isn’t about class warfare. This is about entitlement. They have the money, they want to keep it, and they don’t intend to give any of it away. So they’ll beat up whoever they have to toward that end.

So, no, Romney’s high school activities aren’t indicative of what he would do today. But they are a piece of a puzzle that shows that his sense of entitlement, his willingness to bully those he doesn’t agree with, has a clear progression from then until now.

Posted on May 3, 2012 by Leo Soderman

I Finally Get ‘Personal Responsibility’

The GOP mantra, the conservative rallying cry for “personal freedoms” is one that seems to be particularly hypocritical at first blush. When they demand to legislate what happens in a woman’s body or extend the right of free speech beyond the individual and onto a corporation with the same rights, it just seems all out of whack.

And then I figured it out.

It’s not about “personal freedoms”. It’s about “personal” freedoms. What’s the difference? Everything, actually.

Most people, when they talk about “personal freedoms”, are talking about those rights that should be afforded and protected for individuals. We might actually call them “civil freedoms”. Those things to which we believe every man woman and child should generally be granted,, and protected from usurpation. Makes sense, right?

But that’s not how today’s GOP with their inexorable move to the right mean it. No, they believe in “personal” freedoms. As in, whatever works for them personally is ok, and anything that doesn’t is not ok. When you look at their positions in this context, it all starts to make sense.

Why, for example, do they want to control a woman’s right to decide what she can and cannot do with her body? In this new context, it’s very simple – the control. With that control, they can do whatever they want, and a woman must accede to it. A concrete example is that of Newt Gingrich. Conservatives rail about family values, want to legislate it. So why no real problem with Newt? Because, it’s his “personal” freedom to blow through marriages. He was adulterous and unfaithful. And yet, when he chose to go after Clinton in the 90′s, it was somehow a huge problem. Again, Newt could do that because it was his “personal” freedom to be unfaithful. And in the mind of these folks on the right, whatever you choose to do for yourself is fine, but if someone else does it, bring on the brimstone and hellfire.

Look at Mitt Romney. I believe he genuinely has no idea how disconnected he is with the average American. Why? Because he’s acted on his “personal” freedoms. He likes the idea of being able to “fire” people, because doing so is to his benefit. Cutting taxes on the wealthy while increasing them on the poor is fine, because it works for him “personally”.

Perhaps that’s the easiest way to translate the right’s obsession with “personal” freedoms. Just think of it as “it’s all about me”. If it helps them, “personally”, then it’s ok. To them, anything that helps others is pointless, unless they garner some benefit to themselves. Altruism does not fit into their views. They don’t see the point, because it doesn’t benefit them. Once you have that concept in your mind, it’s much easier to understand how they think. It’s also much easier to understand why they get supporters.

On the surface, everyone says they want to help others. But more and more, people pay lip service to this idea. They’re willing to help, unless it requires some sacrifice on their part. To be sure, the economy and hardships folks have faced have hardened them and forced them to think about their own situations first. But there has also been a steady move toward the idea that one takes care of themselves first. And as that moves farther, you add “and to Hell with everyone else.”

I think we saw this movement really start in the 80′s. I distinctly remember the movie “Wall St.”, and abhorring the Gordon Gekko character. His mantra “Greed is good; greed works” was particularly offensive to me. But the sad reality is, the second half of that mantra is correct: Greed does work. And I know far too many who to this day still see Gekko not as the villian, but a hero, a role model.

Gekko was right in that greed motivates. And once you get something, you naturally want more. And how dare anyone deny it to you. But we can’t all be Wall St. tycoons. That’s where the simplicity of greed meets the American Dream. Everyone wants to believe they can be the tycoon, the multimillionaire. So, instead of acting on their best interests in reality, they fall prey to the dreams and fantasies of the rich. They’ll vote against their own interests to preserve the chance that someday, maybe, they might be there too.

“Personal” freedoms that they will never see.

And all the while, those with the money and the power will feed them that glimmer of hope, like the slot machine that pays out just enough to keep you pulling the handle. The odds are stacked against you the minute you walk into the casino, but you still drop the cash into the machine. And in the same way, the folks on the right keep feeding those dreams, while taking their livelihood. They’ll let you dream of keeping those taxes if you make it rich, while shipping your jobs overseas. They’ll give what you do pay to oil companies, then write the laws so those companies pay a fraction of what they should. Because it’s all in their personal interest. If they can get you to vote in their interests instead of yours, they win, and they won’t shed a tear for you.

Everything the right does is designed to help themselves, not anyone else. And the damnedest thing is, they tell people right up front – they want to be “personally free”, they want “personal responsibility”. All this time, you thought they were trying to tell you that you were irresponsible. What they were really telling you is that they don’t give a damn about you, they’re being “personally responsible” for themselves and no one else.

Posted on May 2, 2012 by Leo Soderman

From Desperate To Ridiculous

The past week has been particularly tough for Mitt Romney. It seems every step of the way, he has found another pothole to trip over. His statements about bin Laden, his faux pizza delivery, caving to the hard right and firing his gay spokesperson – none of these paints the picture of a guy who can win the Presidency.

And Republicans see this. It’s why they’ve never liked Romney to begin with. But, they’re stuck with him, so now they’re getting desperate, looking for something, anything they can use to try to put a negative spin on the President.

The latest act of desperation? Trying to connect the Obama campaign’s use of the word “Forward” to Marxists and Nazis. Really.

That’s how ridiculous this whole thing has gotten. We can’t use common every day words, because they might have some sinister, nefarious meaning. Never mind that the Wisconsin state motto is “Forward” – the state must have been founded by those evil Marxists, right? And that bastion of Marxism, George W. Bush when he proposed “the way forward” in Iraq in 2006.

This is how ridiculous the conversation is getting. Anything is a “dog whistle” or has some dark, evil purpose. But I think there’s a very valid reason why the Republicans and the right think that way – it’s how they operate. It’s part of their make-up. While the average American thinks of words like “forward” as simply statements of direction of movement, the folks on the right have to find another meaning. It’s because when they use words like “Patriot”, they don’t mean someone who loves their country and fights for it. They mean someone who thinks just like them. When they say “food stamp President”, what they mean is “lazy, dark-skinned thief stealing my money”. Of late, they’ve been even less transparent, calling the President a “tar baby” and “boy”. There’s no shortage of phrases and messages that the right uses to get their base fired up. They are always looking for that “secret” meaning because they’re always including a secret meaning.

And because of that, they will always look for messages that don’t exist. Messages that no ordinary American will ever see. And of course, when we point that out, the argument is that we “just don’t understand”, or we’re blind, or don’t love our country.

You want to raise the level of discourse in this country? Try saying what you mean, and not looking for or using those “dog whistles”. Chances of that happening? Next to zero. And as we get closer to the election, and as Romney continues to bury himself in his own inanity, watch for the desperate to become even more ridiculous.

Posted on April 2, 2012 by Leo Soderman

Remember, They Are Worried About Voter Fraud

Republicans have been yammering about voter fraud for the last few years, working to pass legislation to address this “menace”. Of course, they’re the ones getting caught in the fraud. And today we see yet another example of it in Wisconsin:

The state Republican party says it plans to run fake Democrats in four upcoming recall elections targeting GOP state senators.

Party spokesman Stephan Thompson says the move guarantees that a Democratic primary has to be held. He says that ensures one clear date for the primary and a separate one for the general election, thereby limiting any scheduling control for Democrats.

Republicans used the same tactic last year in recall elections targeting six other GOP state senators. The move gave the incumbents more time to campaign and raise money.

The incidence of actual voter fraud has been so low as to be laughable. Instead, the Republicans will waste time and money on running fake candidates just to play a political game. This isn’t about putting forward a solid agenda, or about doing what’s best for constituents. No, this is about doing whatever it takes to win, regardless of the moral or ethical considerations.

But this right out of their playbook. Create straw man problems, then tell everyone how terrible those non-existent problems are. And when that’s not working, go ahead and actually do what they have been railing against. Is it illegal to run fake candidates? Unfortunately, no. But if they are willing to do that, what else are they willing to do? And how can they be trusted if they are voted into office.

We need pols in office who actually have some ethical backbone remaining. And every day, the Republicans show that they are not the party to display that backbone.

Posted on April 1, 2012 by Leo Soderman

Zimmerman’s Whereabouts Unknown, Per Lawyer – Update 6

As each day goes by, another piece of evidence pops up that tears into George Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense in the killing of Trayvon Martin. As we have already detailed, Zimmerman has already failed the test of “self-defense”, even if you believe every word of his story.

But this morning (what is it with Sundays), another troll comes into the fray to claim that none of the evidence that is mounting against Zimmerman’s story is true, that it is all made up. So, I thought it might be prudent to put it all together in one place.

UPDATE 4/10/12 2:11 pm: Zimmerman’s lawyer’s have withdrawn themselves from representing him. More importantly, they have not had contact with Zimmerman in days, and never, at any time, did they meet Zimmerman. Any conversations they had were strictly remote conversations, either by phone, email, or text.

Another disturbing fact from their withdrawal is that they say Zimmerman is not in Florida. This differs from their previous statements that Zimmerman had never left Florida. They also state that Zimmerman had communication with Fox’s Sean Hannity, but they he would not tell them what was discussed.

As to the website Zimmerman has launched for contributions to his defense, they say that Zimmerman’s father was putting up such a website when they found out Zimmerman had already done so himself. This does beg the question: If he has no current legal representation, where are those funds going?

911 Call From Zimmerman

In his 911 call from his truck, Zimmerman, describes Trayvon Martin as suspicious, possibly on drugs. He says he walks toward him, then away, then runs. Zimmerman states in his 911 call “These assholes. They always get away.” When asked if he is pursuing, he says he is. 911 dispatcher tells me they don’t need him to do that. Zimmerman says he lost sight of Martin. Zimmerman ends the call, telling police to call him when they arrive.

The Scene

To give some context to the incident, it is important to see the scene:

Neighborhood where Trayvon Martin was staying. There are exactly three streets.

The first important thing to note is that in the neighborhood where Zimmerman was acting as a “neighborhood watch captain”, there are exactly three streets. And only three. There are two entrances, one to the north, and one on the east. These facts come into play when reviewing the information that Zimmerman has given regarding the incident.

The first to note is that by the description Zimmerman gives of where Martin was and which direction he was going, there is only one possible path Martin could have traveled. He would have come in from the north traveled past the clubhouse (there is no sidewalk here), crossed the street, and headed between the houses to where he was eventually killed.

Why do the street names matter? Because Zimmerman, the “neighborhood watch captain”, says he had gotten out of his truck to look at a street sign to see where he was, and that Trayvon Martin attacked him from behind. Which begs the question – if there are only three streets, and the street he was on does not change names, why was he looking at a sign? If you have been neighborhood watch captain in this neighborhood for any period of time, would you not know what street you were on, especially since there are only three streets?

Let’s take a closer look.

Closer look at the area of the incident

This is a closer look at where the incident took place. The red arrow indicates the direction Martin was walking, again from the description on the 911 call. The green area is where Zimmerman’s truck would have been parked. We do not have an exact location, but again, we can determine this from Zimmerman’s description of events in his 911 call. The small red circle is the area where Trayvon Martin lay dead.

Zimmerman’s first information to 911 is that he lost sight of Martin. This would make sense if Martin went around the homes to walk down the central path, headed back to the house where his father and brother waited. Here is where Zimmerman’s testimony gets confused. He says he was returning to his car, to look at a street sign when he was “jumped”. The street sign would have necessarily been on the street. Again, why would he need to look at the sign? But let’s assume he did. If he lost sight of Martin, it would mean that Martin would have had to go around the corner, then come back. But that would have put the altercation to the north of the row of houses, not between the two rows. For Zimmerman’s story to fit, he would have had to been between the two rows of houses.

But where would Martin have been hidden? This is a wide open area. How did he hide from Zimmerman enough that he could not be seen, yet be able to sneak up on him? The description of the events does not match the lay of the land. To believe the story, you would have to believe that Martin turned the corner (after running around it, per the 911 call), then lay in wait until Zimmerman came around the corner, then waited until Zimmerman turned around to leave, before springing out to attack.

UPDATE 4/3/12 9:01 PM: Zimmerman’s father went on the Sean Hannity show along with lawyers to give yet another version of the story…

This version of the story needs a little more detail. Zimmerman’s father says his son exited his truck (#1) while on the 911 call. and had been following Martin when he disappeared around the corner. He continued along the east/west path but had lost sight of Martin and headed down the path to get a street number as a location (#2). He then turned around and was approached by Martin at the intersection of the paths (#3). from there, they scuffled, and the story goes on with his head being bashed into the ground. Zimmerman’s father says they scuffled for about 40 seconds (this can be heard on the 911 tapes).

As with the previous story, the timeline is a problem. From the time Zimmerman hangs up with 911, to the time we know Trayvon Martin was shot, it’s only 2 minutes. 120 seconds. Per this new story, the last 40 seconds of that were spent fighting. That leaves a scant 80 seconds for Zimmerman to have left his vehicle, walked all the way down the path, returned and been confronted by Martin. As we have previously noted, the distance from the car to the place where Martin was left dead was about 200 ft. To add the additional walking distance as described by Zimmerman’s father would have been another 100 ft. That’s a good distance to go. But it also ignores a detail – that in this version, Zimmerman would have walked past that path intersection twice. How did he not see a 6’1″ tall Martin, dressed in a light colored hoodie, not once, but twice? To believe this story, we have to believe that somehow, Trayvon Martin disappeared from view and then returned just to confront Martin. Where did he hide? The area between the homes is about 50 feet wide, with few areas to hide in.

UPDATE 4/5/12 4:18 PM - Adding a new image by Dave Weigel, who writes for Slate and MSNBC:

Scene of Trayvon Martin's Death - Image Dave Weigel

This is the area between the homes where Trayvon Martin was shot. The intersection of the two paths near the right of the picture is the one described by Zimmerman’s father.

In the most recent version of the story, Zimmerman was at this intersection twice. The first time after he lost sight of Trayvon Martin, and continued on to the right of this picture to get a house number. The second time is allegedly when Trayvon Marton approached him and the scuffle began – Zimmerman would have been traveling from right to left.

For his story to flesh out, Martin would have to have been hiding his 6’1″ frame somewhere here in such a way that Zimmerman missed him not once, but twice, and that he would not have seen Martin approach him from the nearest possible hiding spot. To come out from hiding, and go near the intersection would have exposed him for at least a few seconds. But if the new story is to be believed, the scuffle would have had to move all the way back to this location from the intersection of the paths. Two houses down. Again, given the timeline, that the fight was only 40 seconds long, and that it started up near the intersection of paths, this seems implausible.

The “Fight”

The time between 911 calls, from the time Zimmerman hangs up to the 911 calls that capture the gunshot, are very compressed. Zimmerman’s initial call to 911 ended at 7:15 pm. Cell phone records confirm that Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend, and by her account, he said he was being pursued. She says she heard an exchange between the two, and the phone went dead at 7:16 pm. By the time police arrived at 7:17pm, Martin was dead. So, if Zimmerman’s story is to be believed, he lost sight of Martin, hung up his phone, and in the next 120 seconds, Martin – while on the phone with his girlfriend – made the choice to turn around and head back to approach Zimmerman, hitting him, knocking him down, getting on top of him, struggling for Zimmerman’s gun, and ending with being shot.

But again, let’s look at the lay of the land. Zimmerman, by his own testimony, was parked near “the mailboxes”. If you look closely at the image, you’ll see the location of those mailboxes were at least 2-3 houses from the bend in the road. In other words, in the short time span between 7:15 and 7:17, Zimmerman somehow went from his truck, 2-3 houses down, north to the end of the row, around the corner, around a second corner, and was contacted by Martin after turning around to go back to his truck. And in the fight that ensued, had his head bashed on concrete, struggled for a gun, and shot Martin. All in 120 seconds.

From where the truck was parked to the location of the shooting is approximately 200 ft. of walking distance. Bear with me while a get a bit nerdy…

Average walking speed is about 3 MPH. That’s about 15,840 ft. per hour. Or 264 ft. per minute. So, at an average walking speed, it would have taken almost half of those 120 seconds for Zimmerman to reach the location of the shooting. This means the whole altercation, including not seeing Martin, turning around to go back to his truck, being “jumped” or attacked, the fight, everything, happened in a space of 60 seconds.

Unless – Zimmerman wasn’t walking. But then, this changes the dynamic. If you’re a young kid, walking home, and a guy starts following you, perhaps even running to catch you, aren’t you the one who has the right to stand your ground?

But perhaps the most important element of the timing is the whole discussion of whether Zimmerman had ended his pursuit. And this timing shows that if Zimmerman had ended his pursuit, it happened less than a minute before Martin was shot dead. So even if Zimmerman considers he had ended the pursuit, it’s possible Martin did not feel that was the case and confronted him. But if he had ended the pursuit earlier, the altercation would not have happened where it did, and would more likely have been at the end of the row of houses, or nearer the street.

The Injuries… Or Lack Thereof…

According to Zimmerman’s story, Martin had gotten the upper hand in their altercation and was on top of him, beating his head into the concrete. Zimmerman’s father, a former VA magistrate, says he was severely beaten, with a broken nose and gash to the head. Zimmerman’s attorney says that his client had a gash big enough that it nearly needed stitches. And his brother says that he fired his gun before he lost consciousness from one more blow to the head.

Sounds pretty serious, except these stories also do not fit what we have seen released. In particular, a full video showing Zimmerman arriving at the Sanford Police Department, exiting the police cruiser and walking to an interview room. In none of these shots, is there any visible evidence of a broken nose. No bruising, no blood. There is also no visible evidence of a gash sufficient to require stitches. In fact, no evidence of any real injury at all.

UPDATE 4/2/12 11:52 am – ABC News has released an “enhanced” version of the surveillance video that shows marks on the back of Zimmerman’s head. It is unclear what the marks are, but may be cuts. But there is still no evidence of a broken nose and no visible blood anywhere.

UPDATE 4/2/12 5:54 pm – ABC News now reporting that they have asked a medical expert to analyze the enhanced video, and the there are no signs of significant injury or a broken nose that would be consistent with Zimmerman’s claims.

The fact that there does not appear to be blood on his clothing is significant. Remember his story - Zimmerman says Martin was on top of him, they fought for Zimmerman’s gun, Zimmerman pulled the trigger and shot Martin in the chest. The law of gravity says that blood would fall from the wound. And if not, that same law of gravity says that someone, leaning forward to bash your head into concrete, when shot would fall onto you. This would cause transfer, even if just a little, to your clothing. But Martin was found dead on the grass, face down, with his hands beneath him. Again, the story doesn’t make sense. At least one eyewitness has come forward to state that they saw the altercation, and that he saw the two of them on the grass, not the concrete, and that the “larger man” – Zimmerman – was on top.

We also see that the clothes Zimmerman was wearing, including a jacket, came down over his waistband. So, for Martin to have seen the concealed weapon, the jacket would have to have gone up, the pants shifted down the shirt exposed the waistband, and the holster shifted into view. And somehow, Martin would have to have been able to draw the weapon from the holster. We talked about the timeline above. There’s just a whole lot that needs to have happened in a very short period of time for this story to hold true.

Zimmerman’s gun was confiscated and is locked up in an evidence locker at Sanford PD, but he has not had any action against his license to carry, meaning he can buy another gun or if has another in his possession legally, he may carry it without restriction. Given that he has not been charged, this is within the law.

UPDATE 4/6/12 5:56 PM: On CBS’ This Morning program, one of Zimmerman’s lawyers introduced the idea that “Shaken Baby Syndrome” can kill an infant, and that a person can die from repeated blows to the skull. This line of defense is consistent with the description of the fight thus far, and is being used to explain why there was little visible evidence of his heat being beaten. But again, this shows how the story is changing to fit evidence as it comes out. The original story was that his head was beaten severely and that there was a significant gash. Video has been released that calls that story into question. Now, Zimmerman’s defense is using Shaken Baby Syndrome as a means of saying that the lack of visible injury doesn’t matter.

Of course, this doesn’t affect the true issue of this case. If Zimmerman approached Martin, and Martin felt threatened, there3 is no self-defense claim available.

The Audio Analysis

New analysis of the 911 tapes from Zimmerman and from others that captured someone screaming help have come under more scrutiny over the last few days. Zimmerman claims the screaming was him, calling for help. Others who heard the screaming have said the voice sounded more like the younger Martin. But the contradictions make deciphering this part of the story difficult.

In response, the Orlando Sentinel contacted two forensic experts who specialize in audio analysis. Both use significantly different techniques, one through personal observation of the characteristics of the recordings and the other through sophisticated software analysis. In both cases, the analysts agree on two things: First, that they cannot positively identify the screaming voice as that of Treyvon Martin. With no sample of his voice, they have no way to make a determination on that. But more importantly, both said that the voice was not that of George Zimmerman. The analysts both state that the recordings of the screams and of Zimmerman’s 911 call are of an excellent quality for analysis, and are both certain that Zimmerman is not the one calling for help.

So, What Really Happened?

That’s really the question we all want answered. So a caveat: The following theory is based on what is public evidence, as well as some inference from that evidence. However, based on what is publicly known, I believe it is an explanation that fits what we do know.

Zimmerman was parked on the north/south section of Twin Trees Rd., south of the crosswalk. He is far enough north to see Trayvon Martini leave the shelter of the clubhouse building and walk toward the corner. In his 911 call, Zimmerman says “These assholes. they always get away”. He says Martin walks “toward” him, looks at him, then walks away. He says Martin begins to run.

From Martin’s point of view, he’s walking home. It’s is raining so he walks along the front of the clubhouse to shelter himself. He’s talking to his girlfriend. From there, he walks toward the crosswalk to cross the street. He looks down the street and sees Zimmerman exiting his vehicle. Away from shelter he runs across the street and sees Zimmerman following him.

Zimmerman tells dispatchers he is following Martin. By the time he hangs up, he is near the crosswalk and continues to follow Martin, who tells his girlfriend he is being followed. Zimmerman is not going to let this one get away, and having temporarily lost him when Martin went down the walk, he picks up the pace to catch up to him.

Zimmerman has called the police, and wants to detain Martin until the police arrive. He tries to stop Martin. Martin, who has no idea why he is being followed, challenges Zimmerman. They fight. Zimmerman pulls his gun to end the fight, killing Martin.

Can this be proven? Not yet. But it fits the evidence so far more cleanly than Zimmerman’s contradiction-riddled story.

There is one more thing of note. I have not brought the issue of race into this, and the decision not to is deliberate. Race is only an issue in this matter after the determination that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. Self-defense is the key to Zimmerman’s story. In looking at all the evidence thus far, there is very little to suggest that Zimmerman “broke off the pursuit” and far more to suggest that he got his man – and then devised a story to move the blame away from himself and onto the victim.

Posted on April 1, 2012 by Leo Soderman

Trayvon ‘Aggressive’? Zimmerman ‘Racist’? Neither One Matters

The drum beats from conservatives over the last few days have been to paint Trayvon Martin, the slain 17-year-old, as the “aggressor”. From phony Facebook pictures to digging up his suspension from school, there has been an all-out effort on the part of a number of conservatives to paint Trayvon as the one who was aggressive, and that Zimmerman was defending himself.

So what?

Zimmerman is most likely a racist, from his profiling of Trayvon to his “F-ing coons” muttering as he got out of his truck. He likely went after Trayvon with the intent to not let another “asshole get away” to paraphrase him.

Again – So what?

All of these are side issues and certainly point out flaws in the case. The Sanford PD botched this from the beginning, and have done a poor job of trying to cover their tracks. They didn’t collect evidence, they tried to get people to change their stories.

And yet again, I ask – So what?

It isn’t that I don’t care about Trayvon. Or racism. Or incompetent police work. It’s that this case comes down to one thing, and one thing only. Was it self-defense?

That’s Zimmerman’s claim. And it’s unsupportable. See, he thinks the Stand Your Ground law applies. And he’s dead wrong. The SYG law applies to protecting your property (why it’s also called the Castle Doctrine). Zimmerman was not on his property. The general law in FL says that to use deadly force, you must be in danger yourself. But Zimmerman wasn’t in danger, at least not until he put himself is a position to be in danger.

The SYG law, and the general rules of self-defense apply when you are defending. But that’s not what happened, by Zimmerman’s own admission, and by the evidence of the released 911 call. On that call, he describes Trayvon as approaching him, looking at him, walking away, then running away. There was no attack.

There’s a reason the 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman they didn’t need him to follow Trayvon. They are looking out for the safety of the individual calling. The moment Zimmerman chose to step out of his vehicle, he chose to put himself in harm’s way. What happens after that is irrelevant. He went looking for Trayvon. He wasn’t standing his ground, he was pursuing. And at that point, all bets are off.

Had he “stood his ground” and stayed in his truck, there would be no discussion. But Zimmerman chose to pursue. If you get yourself into trouble, if you choose to get in harm’s way, you lose the expectation of self-defense. That’s like the idiots who’ll circumvent all safety precautions and climb in with the lion at the zoo, then claim the zoo was negligent when they’re mauled. No, stupid, you jumped in with the lion. You created the situation.

All these other points are certainly things that need to be addressed. We need to find a way to minimize racism in our society. We need to examine proper police procedure. We need to address whether the Stand Your Ground laws are too vague and confuse people into thinking they can pull a gun whenever they want. But none of these matter to the number one focal point of this case. Did George Zimmerman fire the gun in self-defense?

Not by Florida law.

Posted on March 26, 2012 by Leo Soderman

After All, It Was You And Me

I shouted out “Who killed the Kennedys” When after all, it was you and me

- Rolling Stones, “Sympathy For The Devil”

The news cycle for the last two weeks has been consumed by the Trayvon Martin case, understandably. And the issue is full of vitriol, concern, media hype and real questions. Sorting through it all is important. Let’s look at some of what we know, and what is still up in the air.

On February 26th, Trayvon Martin and his brother were watching the NBA All Star game with their dad at the dad’s girlfriend’s home in Sanford, FL. The younger boy wanted some candy, and Trayvon walked to the 7-Eleven, buying some Skittles and a can of iced tea. On his way back home, he was spotted by George Zimmerman. Zimmerman is a self-appointed captain of an unofficial neighborhood watch program. While there are more than 200,000 registered neighborhood watch programs, Zimmerman is not one of them. Nonetheless, he has taken to patrolling the neighborhood he lives in with his parents.

On 2/26, he saw Trayvon Martin walking through the tract, returning from the 7-Eleven. Zimmerman deemed him suspicious, and called 911. He describes Martin as suspicious because he was “walking around looking about”. He opined that Martin may have been on drugs. He adds that he has his hands “in his waistband”. This would would make sense if it was cold or raining out, and his hands were in the pockets of his hoodie.

First, Zimmerman says Martin was staring at him, and approaching him, then says “These assholes. They always get away”. From the 911 tapes, it sounds at this point as if Zimmerman exited his vehicle. He says that Martin is running away. Zimmerman mutters something that has alternately been transcripted to “fucking coons” or “fucking goons”.

Police ask Zimmerman if he is following Martin, and he indicates that he is. 911 operator tells Zimmerman that he doesn’t need to do that. The dispatcher lets Zimmerman know that they are on the way. Zimmerman, when asked where he lives in the complex, declines to give the information, and tells the dispatcher to have police call him when they are in the area. Moments after the 911 call, Martin is shot and killed.

Zimmerman’s account of what happened next is that he was returning to his vehicle and he was approached from behind by Martin. He states that he was looking at a street sign to determine where he was. He says that Martin asked him if there was a problem, and Zimmerman said no. According to Zimmerman, when he said “no”, Martin allegedly replied “you do now!” and punched him in the face. Zimmerman says he fell down, hit his head on the concrete, and that Martin jumped atop him. It was then that he pulled his gun from its holster, and fired into Martin’s chest at close range. All sounds plausible.

But then the reports of neighbors started coming in. Many reported hearing a young man’s voice crying for help, right up until the gunshot. Most have said they heard Martin. Some say it was Zimmerman. Of note, at least one witness who said she heard Martin states that she was “corrected” by police who said “You mean you heard Zimmerman”. Others say they saw Zimmerman on top of Martin, while yet others say the situation was reversed.

Adding to the confusion, one Zimmerman supporter says Martin was shot because he was giving inappropriate answers to Zimmerman’s questions. Also muddying things is the fact that the initial police report did not indicate Zimmerman had any injuries, but an amended report later did. And a larger issue comes with concern about the “Stand Your Ground” law in FL, which some have derisively called the “Shoot First” law, and is also referred to as the Castle Doctrine.

Let’s look at the events, some plausible explanations and where this could have been avoided. Zimmerman’s initial 911 call doesn’t give any specifics as to why he thought Martin was “suspicious”, just that he was walking and looking around. In fact, if Zimmerman was parked on the street where Martin was walking, especially if parked ahead of him, Martin’s walking past could easily have been interpreted as “walking towards me” and “looking at me”. Since there is no surveillance video that has come to light, we can’t know. But it is clear from Zimmerman’s 911 call that Martin did not actually approach the vehicle, and instead walked away. Zimmerman has a history of calling 911 for “suspicious” activity, including calling about a suspicious “7-9 year-old”. In every situation, the “suspicious” individuals were black. No whites, no hispanics.

From the 911 call, we hear clearly that Zimmerman says “These assholes. They always get away”. So, Zimmerman has put Martin into a “they” category, into some predefined group of individuals. Does he mean black? Does he mean kid with hoodie? This statement is followed shortly thereafter by the disputed “fucking coons” statement. One Zimmerman supporter says that he actually was saying ”fucking goons” and referred to it as a term of endearment. Which of course, makes no sense in the context. A term of endearment for someone you’re following as suspicious?

Regardless of what was said, Zimmerman then chose to exit his vehicle and follow Martin. This is against neighborhood watch guidelines – as is carrying a weapon. In fact, Zimmerman is told by the 911 dispatcher that they don’t need him to do that. Zimmerman continues anyway.

This is the first real point where the shooting could have been avoided. Had Zimmerman not exited his vehicle, nothing happens. Martin gets home, and is watching the NBA game with his family.

Zimmerman states that Martin then began to run, and that he lost him. His further statement is that he stopped to look at a street sign to figure out where he was. This is an individual that had called 911 more than 40 times in a little more than a year, but doesn’t know what street he is on? This seems unlikely, at best. He then states that he was walking back to his car and was approached by Martin.

This is where the plausibility really starts to get iffy. The same kid that moments before was running away – per his 911 call – has now doubled back to challenge a man that outweighs him by 100 pounds? Wearing a gun in a holster on his hip? This really doesn’t pass the smell test. Defenders of Zimmerman point to his injuries – reported later – as evidence that he was in a scuffle, and use that to claim the Zimmerman was attacked. Again, doesn’t sound likely.

Here’s a more likely scenario: Zimmerman caught up with Martin, and tried to detain him (Remember – “These assholes. They always get away”). Reports vary as to what Zimmerman said, but there seems to be agreement that the two had some words between them. If you are a 17-year-old kid, and some guy off the street, no badge, no authority, tries to detain you, what would you do? In this scenario (and in my opinion a much more plausible one), Zimmerman is the aggressor. And in terms of the “self-defense” aspect, Martin is the one being “attacked”.

From this scenario, a scuffle is easily believable. And it is possible that at this point, Zimmerman does take a punch to the face, and falls backward. The kid, angry by this point, keeps fighting. But remember, it wasn’t a long scuffle. There is very little time, perhaps 90 seconds, between the end of Zimmerman’s 911 call and the calls from neighbors who heard cries for help.

In this scenario, it is possible it was Zimmerman crying out, and when he could, he unholstered his gun and fired into Trayvon Martin’s chest, killing him. But this would be far from self-defense. It would be like starting a bar fight, then claiming self-defense when you kill someone.

In my opinion, this is a far more plausible scenario than Zimmerman’s statement. And in this scenario, there were at least two distinct times when this could have been averted. Even if you take Zimmerman’s account as the truth, the fact that he followed Martin takes this out of the realm of self-defense. Zimmerman chose to put himself into a situation that could be considered dangerous, then used his gun to get out of it.

If you think that’s self-defense, let’s use another example. An abusive ex-husband is angry that his former wife has taken up with another man. He goes to the house, finding the other man there. He shoves the man, and the man hits back. The husband pulls a gun and kills him. By using the logic in Zimmerman’s claim, the ex-husband was simply defending himself.

Here’s the text of the relevant law in FL that is being used in Zimmerman’s defense:

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

So with this law, the defense would have to be that Zimmerman was attacked by Martin, and felt he was in danger of death of great bodily harm. Let’s remember that Martin was outweighed by Zimmerman by 100 pounds. His nickname was “Slim” because of how think he was. There were no other weapons found, nor threat of weapons reported. Even if Zimmerman’s testimony is accurate, and that he was somehow sucker punched by Martin, there is no evidence that he was in danger of death or great bodily harm. At worst, he was in a fistfight with a kid half his size. Which he ended with a gunshot.

That’s not just parsing words. The definition of self-defense in terms of this statute are laid out very clearly at the top of the statute:

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

By the definition in the statute, right at the top, Zimmerman has no claim of self-defense from this law. Martin did not unlawfully or forcibly enter any property or vehicle, nor had any unlawful and forcible act occur. The altercation occurred because of Zimmerman’s decision to follow Martin, regardless of the outcome. Martin had not committed any crime. Except, perhaps, of looking “suspicious”.

And that is where the real problem lies. That in this day and age, a kid wearing a hoodie, jeans, and sneakers is “suspicious”. This isn’t about why the trigger was pulled, or whether Zimmerman was justified. There is a much bigger issue here. Kids wear hoodies all the time. But an individual with, at best, a predetermined idea that black kids in his neighborhood were bad, decided that this 17-year-old boy was a threat. Enough to follow him despite being instrcuted not to, despite neighborhood watch guidelines against carrying a weapon. He decided Trayvon Martin was suspicious. And because of that, Trayvon Martin is dead.

So why did I start this post with a Rolling Stones quote? Because we all bear some responsibility in this. No, this isn’t “White people’s guilt” or any other pop psychology pablum. It’s real.

If you have ever sat and listened to someone tell a joke with racial undertones, or a flat out racist joke, and uncomfortably laughed just to be polite, you have been part of the problem. And yes, I have. I’m not racist. But this isn’t just about being a racist. This is about standing by while others perpetuate the racism. Most don’t intend it, but it’s there.

There’s a difference between cultural bias and racism. I have black friends who have described one attitude or another as ”a black thing”. In general, they are referring to something that tends to be based in the cultural make-up of blacks, and that doesn’t relate to race. And then, there is racism.

It’s insidious. It creeps in. But in the last few years, it has moved into the mainstream again, not far from the attitudes in the 50′s and 60′s that kept minorities at the back of the bus, out of classrooms, and away from businesses. It’s couched in careful wording, but it’s there. When Rick Santorum says he doesn’t want to give blacks other people’s money, referring to welfare, he didn’t say minorities. He didn’t say all folks on welfare. He said “blacks”. That’s not just couching it in pretty wording, it’s blatantly racist. And yet, there was little furor over the statement. And the fact that he’s challenging for the GOP nomination is proof that this kind of speech isn’t just acceptable to many people, but welcomed.

And we let it go by.

There is just as much of a problem with race in this country as there ever has been. A friend commented to me this morning that the human race will never change, that we are not far different from the gorillas that beat up orangutans, that we cannot overcome our genetic predisposition to attack those that are different. I don’t agree.

When you see these young men, what do you see? ©2012 Leo Soderman, Creative Commons Non-Commercial

We can change. First, by changing ourselves. When you see a trio of dark-skinned young men coming toward you, do you give them a wider berth? Do you look away so as not to meet their eyes?

Or do you smile and nod? Say hello.

Do you think a neighborhood is especially “bad” if it is predominantly black or hispanic?

If so, you are helping perpetuate the myth, the lie, the racism. You don’t intend to, but you are. Yes, many neighborhoods that have a predominantly minority population are trouble-ridden. But perhaps the problem isn’t the minority, but the standard of living. The lower wages, the fight to survive that attracts elements of society that will work to take advantage of the poverty and the desire to have a little more. Think there aren’t drug dealers in expensive neighborhoods? Of course there are. There’s just more money and more discretion as to how the deals are done. Think there isn’t prostitution in more affluent environs? Wrong again – ask John Edwards or David Vitter.

No, their situation isn’t about the color of their skin. But when you hear someone refer to a neighborhood as “pretty dark”, they’re usually not referring to a lack of street lights.

So when we allow that kind of speech, that kind of attitude, even by a nod of recognition, we continue the problem. Many have come to accept that it’s ok to be nervous around black kids wearing hoodies, that they must be trouble makers. And “suspicious”.

And that’s why Trayvon Martin is dead. After all, it was you and me.

Posted on March 25, 2012 by Leo Soderman

The Wrong Day To Mess With Me

I’m not in a good mood. My congestive heart failure symptoms are giving me fits today. Weight is up, chest hurts, didn’t sleep. I thought I’d take it easy, not write any political posts, just kind of unplug.

I even, for the most part, just blew off the right-wing posts I was seeing, regardless of how near-sighted, self-centered or just plain stupid they were.

And it was working just fine, until someone decided to turn a post about how to fix Facebook settings into an attack on the left, and Christians on the left in particular.

Don’t ask me why, but it set me off. Maybe my filters are just off today. Maybe I’m just tired of the hypocrisy. Maybe my inner asshole decided it needed to come up for air. Whatever it was, I had a rage come up that made my blood boil. Not a great idea for a guy with a bad ticker.

I let loose on the individual in question, but the anger, the rage is still there. And since writing is my way of making sure I don’t go looking for a bar fight, I decided to get it out. So, if you’re still reading, be prepared – I’m about to vent. As in radioactive steam release vent.

I’m usually fairly mild mannered in my writing. I don’t usually drop the f-bomb. So if that word offends you, feel free to go look for cute kitten pictures now. Because I’m fucking pissed.

Why? Let’s start a little list, shall we?

For example, don’t rail against sharia law, and how Muslims are going to somehow circumvent the Constitution and how you have to pass laws to ensure it never happens, then turn around and tell us that the country should be ruled by your God’s law first, and the Constitution second.

Don’t tell me you defend the Constitution then work to dismantle every bit of it you don’t like.

Don’t find some reason to turn any discussion, no matter how mundane, into an attack on your religion, then turn around and try to tell me you know the difference between a “Christian” and a Christian, just because they don’t agree with everything you say. Or question the faith of the President of the United States.

Don’t tell me you’re all for the civil rights and equality for everyone and then argue against women’s reproductive rights, the rights of homosexuals to marry, or the right of a Muslim church to build a mosque in which to pray.

Don’t rail against Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck and the rest of the right-wing blowhards and then ignore it when Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson or Bill Maher say something equally as offensive.

And don’t dare bring me the fucking “They do it too” excuse. Don’t. It only shows how stupid you are and how stupid you think I am.

Don’t talk to me about how you represent “the 99%” and then break into buildings. Here’s a clue genius – 99% of people don’t think someone who is breaking the law represents them. Peaceful, persistent protest, yes. Doing shit that is intended to aggravate “the man”, like hurling things at the police or through windows? Not a chance.

Here’s another clue: There really is supposed to be a separation of church and state. You deciding there isn’t doesn’t change history or the Constitution. I’m an agnostic, have been for most of my life. Your ardor for your faith does not give you the right to force me to bend to your beliefs. See “sharia law”.

Oh, and by the way, the 1st Amendment protects you from the government stifling your free speech. It doesn’t protect you from the consequences of voicing your asinine beliefs.

For those who haven’t figured it out, things like Unemployment Insurance and Social Security aren’t “entitlements”. If I paid my money into the system, they were an investment. If your investments are so fucking precious, how about treating these investments with the same amount of care, rather than raid them to fatten your damned offshore Cayman Islands bank accounts.

Don’t tell me it’s too easy to get welfare or assistance, then tell me that I can’t get any medical insurance or food assistance because my disability insurance pays me too much. And my rent is more than half of what I get.

Don’t rail against the President about gas prices (regardless of political stripe) but tell me oil companies need continued subsidies. And don’t tell me gas prices are about supply and demand when we have a surplus and prices are still climbing. Meanwhile, speculators are laughing their asses off as we have to make decisions about whether we eat or put gas in the car. Think that’s an exaggeration? I made that exact decision yesterday.

Don’t tell me that climate change and evolution are “controversial theories”, but insist that “creationism” or “intelligent design” are sound scientific hypotheses.

Don’t tell me about defunding organizations like Planned Parenthood and remove access to birth control, then rail against abortion because of unwanted pregnancies. And when you talk about womens’ pregnancies in terms of barnyard animals I have two words for you: Fuck. Off.

Don’t talk to me about how a racist can’t be a racist because he’s not actually a caucasian while a family buries their young son because he had the temerity to walk back from 7-Eleven with Skittles and iced tea. And don’t even defend the very same racist who is heard saying “fucking coons” on a 911 tape when the kid he followed, who he vastly outweighed ended up with a hole in his chest from the gun that was fired in “self-defense”.

And you better not try to tell me that “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. No, stupid fucking people with access to guns kill people. And no, genius, that doesn’t mean I want to take away your guns. It means there are responsible ways to control who has a gun and when they can have it on them, and if your excuse for carrying it is the Second Amendment, your reading comprehension in terms of the Constitution is embarrassingly low. Look up the definition of “well-regulated militia”, and I’m pretty sure you ain’t it. And it doesn’t give you the right to carry a bazooka like an extension of your johnson. You don’t need a fucking AK-47 to hunt rabbits, moron.

The next person who uses the term “race card” in my presence may get a well-placed fist in the puss. Racism is racism, and I don’t care who is guilty of it. And guess what? It’s out there, uglier than ever. And if you’re black, and you see something that was racist against a black, it’s ok to call it out. And I expect you’ll call out racism against whites, hispanics and Asians. Just like I expect all of them to do the same. Same with anti-Semitism. I don’t care the race, creed or religion of the person being racist. If it’s wrong it’s wrong.

And don’t – don’t - defend a racist remark by trying to redefine it. The word “nigger” is not defined as someone who is lazy or slothful. It’s a derogatory term derived from the mispronunciation of “negro”. So using your definition of it to excuse a bumper sticker that says “Don’t Re-Nig in 2012″ isn’t fooling anyone. If you’re going to be racist, at least have the decency of wearing your fucking hood so we can see you more easily.

Speaking of hoods, wearing a hoodie and jeans isn’t supposed to be a death sentence. And then turning around and saying that the reason a kid got killed was his choice in clothing is the epitome of stupidity and blatant idiocy. Maybe the problem is the perception that someone wearing a hoodie is automatically a thug, you fucking gasbag.

And no, there isn’t a “liberal media bias”. There is a bias to what makes money. Fox is focused on the right because Murdoch realized he could make a buck there. Liberals don’t watch as much TV. If they did, he’d try to suck that market dry too. CNN, MSNBC, and all the rest – they aren’t journalism anymore. They are reporters. They repeat what they’re told and fuck the truth. It’s waht they can get you to watch that’s importannt. How the hell else do you justify nearly 30 Republican debates with the same questions asked over and over and over again, like there was any real chance of the answer changing.

Another clue for some of you – just because Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul call it “gotcha journalism”, it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t answer the damned question. If you are asked a question about something you said, it’s your own damn fault for saying it. Blaming the person asking the question and calling it a gotcha question means you realize you opened your fucking mouth when you shouldn’t have, and now you don’t want to have to answer for it. Shut up, and either back your statement or recant it. But asking you about something you said isn’t “gotcha journalism”. It’s follow-up.

Oh, and you rocket scientists on the “professional left”… Just because you had some unrealistic fantasy that the President would fix eight years of backward, destructive policies within 90 seconds of taking office doesn’t mean the rest of us had the same stupid expectation. And the most ridiculous thing you do is then decide you’re going to punish the one guy who actually has gotten things moving in the right direction by not voting for him, or trying to weaken him. Result? You allowed the guys who fucked things up for eight years to gain back the House so they could proceed to spend two years doing nothing but get in the way. Awesome plan. What’s next? Tell folks on the left they should vote for Romney ’cause he’s no different? Oh, right, some of you have already done that. Idiots.

Here’s another thing – shut the fuck up about family values while you’re on your third wife, screwing hookers while you’re in diapers, having sex with Congressional pages or trying to have an illicit homosexual hookup in an airport bathroom while claiming you’re straight. You’re all bunch of hypocrites. And don’t give me the bullshit that the media only covers the screwups on the right because of the bias. They cover the screwups on the right because the right claims to be the arbiters of what are “true family values”. The left doesn’t make that claim, so when they screw up, it’s less of a deal. If the right didn’t spend so much time acting like they were the pristine vestal virgins they want everybody to believe they are, it wouldn’t be as big a deal when they screw up. Bill Clinton got blowjobs in the Oval Office, and they moved to impeachment. Vitter does hookers while wearing a diaper, and he’s still getting voted in. Gingrich is on his third wife – having cheated on the first two – and he’s still running for office. So tell me again, where’s the bias?

I also can’t fathom how the guys who are so concerned about voter fraud can’t even count votes properly in their own caucuses. They can’t complete a simple primary without accusations of voter fraud within their own people. Maybe that’s why they’re so afraid someone else will do it, even though there is no credible evidence that it happens.

But probably the one thing that really, really pisses me off is the willful, even spiteful ignorance of facts. As the saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinion, even your own conclusion. But you are not entitled to your own facts. Rather than pursue fact and deal with issues based on those facts, there is a culture of simply throwing out conjecture and outright falsehoods and treating them as fact. That’s the willful ignorance. But the spiteful ignorance is when you present the facts, and instead of addressing the facts, the subject gets changed. Can’t win with your argument? Change the argument!

Along a similar line is the incessant use of a straw man argument, based on nothing but hot air. Sure, we all occasionally make an argument based on a misunderstanding of information. But in those cases, most of us, when presented with contradictory facts, will at least concede that we need to do more investigation. That’s perfectly ok – we all have the right to change our minds or be more educated. No, what I get really torqued about are the people who make stuff up out of thin air, and when you call them on it – ask for proof – they move on to the next lie, the next fabrication. They never retract a thing, they never acknowledge the facts in front of them. They just move on to the next piece of bullshit. So why does this piss me off the most? Because these people are the same ones that will demand an unending chain of proof for anything you say, and when you provide it, they’ll still call you the liar, and complain the truth is “manufactured”.

Just stop. Please. It’s bad for my heart to get this pissed off. And you guys are working too hard at it.

There. I got it off my chest. Do I feel better? No. But I’ll have to deal with the fact that sometimes, you can’t fix stupid.

Page 1 of 912 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Edited For Clarity