... from the point of view of Nancy Grace.
What I read between the lines is that she's frustrated that what could have been handled as a public trial, to be dissected, witness by witness, on high-rated commercial television, happened in secret, with the evidence dumped all at once and with the outcome already known.
Now, just because media commentators have an obvious and strong interest in fomenting suspicion and outrage does not mean that the evidence should not be analyzed and questioned. But even as they are suspicious of the various witnesses, I am suspicious of them. They do not want peace, love, and harmony. That's no kind of show.
November 28, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
240 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 240 of 240"Crimso,
"Here's the difference between us: I don't hold you or any other black person responsible for what he did. But you keep insisting I am somehow guilty of slavery."
Yer damned skippy. I will hold whites accountable - for all of it. They have weedled for 400 years, never conceding, always making American life a struggle. And, all the while, living quite comfortably off the proceeds of our blood while spreading the myth of their benevolence.
Whites are guilty as sin itself - even for your friend's problem - because they never cared enough to make "good" a goal in this society.
It's always been force with them - so enjoy what force breeds.
End of story. Full-stop."
This is why it's pointless to engage with the Crack Emcee.
He is a vile and evil racist.
Last California lynching was 1926. Couple of white kidnapper/murderers strung up in San Jose, self proclaimed capital of Silicon Valley.
Anybody know Cracks' real name? He disrespect AA and Meade then hide behind bullshit alias.
Name himself after street drug...
pathetic......
Of course the whole object of the post is Crack because Crack is Ferguson. Crack is Nancy Grace on crack in blackface. Crack is where the Blacks in America are headed. Obama is Crack with a perfect crease in his pants and the ability to shield his hate. If you wanna hear crack when he's with his peeps and bein' "down with he struggle" this is a recent recording of Crack transcribed for your reading pleasure:
Honah stoont
He be turning his life aroun an shît
He be a goot boy
Dint do nuffins!!!
He killt juss cuz he black
An why all you crackas run errethang? Erryone know dat da bruddas built dis bįtch an whitey juss be crackin da whip.
Wiff out niggàs, you crackas be lost an shīt.
We needs ta git all dem black folk out a dis bîtch an git back to Africa where dey know how to treat a black man. Dese crackas will starve wiff out da niggàs doing all dey work of dem an shït.
Gnome sane???
A grand jury in Travis County TX will indict any Republican, even for non-crimes, and a Travis County petit jury will find a Republican guilty and a Travis County judge will then pronounce sentence for the commission of a lawful act. It will then take years of appeals before an appeals court says "ENOUGH!" and reverses the conviction.
Doesn't work that way everywhere else. I haven't had the pleasure of serving on a jury. My son served on a grand jury. For his particular empaneling, the county prosecutors indictment rate went way down. OTOH, his win rate on prosecutions went up. The grand jurors didn't indict in any case where a cop contradicted himself or another cop in testimony.
On one particular Monday, the prosecutor walked in and asked if they knew anything about a case he had been blindsided on- an arrest that went viral on the internet, and the DA's email inbox and voicemail was full. The jurors told him what had gone on- they were more internet savvy then he was. The prosecutor the next day announced no charges would be filed and the case would be dropped, without ever presenting it to the grand jury- which would have refused to indict. Grand jurors, unlike petit jurors, can be aware of anything they read or hear about. And make judgement accordingly.
These were people who had pursued some level of education, very often. These were people who went to church, did everything right - you know, pulled their pants up, you know, did all the things that America would ask African-Americans to do. And in many cases still, nevertheless, found themselves to be plundered by American policy. That really, I think, altered a lot for me because it said, even if we, you know, go to the best-case scenario for African-Americans, you find racism nonetheless.
- TNC
Well, the most obvious is our housing policy. We, you know, in America, we like to think ourselves as a nation of rugged individuals. In fact, our entire vision of what the middle class is today - this vision of having, you know, the house, the picket fence out the suburbs. The, you know, mom, dad, two kids - it's a heavily subsidize version. It's social engineering.
The FHA and the HOLC made a decision during the 1930s, and into the 1940s, '50s and '60s, to basically subsidize the housing market. And they did this by saying to banks, if you give a loan to Americans and they default on this loan, we'll cover it. This was the FHA loan. One group of people in specific were cut out from the FHA loans - and that was African-Americans. And it went even beyond that.
It went to - when we have the G.I. Bill. When we have veterans coming back who have the, you know, the chance to take advantage of education policies, housing policies. African-Americans are then cut out. The discrimination begins in the government, but it basically spreads out to the entire real estate industry. To the point, the government actually generated maps based on where different populations of people lived, and basically marked who could be eligible for loans and who could not be eligible for loans.
And this had a tremendous impact on African-Americans because they were basically cut out of one of the largest wealth-building projects - if not the largest wealth-building project - in America.
Now what do you say to people who say - OK, well, that's a bummer, but that was a long time ago. In fact, those practices were specifically outlawed with the Fair Housing Act back in 1965 - and that a lot of these other government-sanctioned, government-enforced practices of discrimination went out in the '60s. And so why is this something to be talking about now?
COATES: Well, I say two things. The first is that, when you injure a person, the fact that you, you know, stopped the action that's injuring them does not mean the person has been repaired at all. You know, if somebody is stabbing you, it's very good if they stop stabbing you. It'd be much better if you were bandaged, taken to a hospital and gotten a chance to heal. We, you know, ostensibly outlaw these practices. And I should be very clear - we have reports of redlining extending even into today.
But let's just - you know, be that as it may, let's say it did stop when we had the Fair Housing Act. We did nothing in terms of repairing the actual damage that actually was done. Beyond that, I think there's a broader argument about history. It's only when our history isn't flattering at all that we say it doesn't matter. And my argument is, if you're going to take the credit from history, you also have to take the debts that come with it. It can't be, you know, I want history when it makes me feel good but when it - you know, when it's a bummer, I don't want any part of it.
The most obvious of it is that, to this very day, we are still paying pensions to the families of veterans of World War I. We still pay those pensions out. No one would say, well, I just got here in 1960 - my family just got here in 1960. I shouldn't have to pay for that. We understand that as a collective state.
We have debts that extend way beyond the individual's lifetime. And we also understand that when you become a part of America, you become a part of a bigger thing. And that thing is not just limited to the moment when you got here. The problem with reparations, you know, isn't an ancestry question. It isn't a question of when folks arrived. The problem is that it challenges something that's very, very core and deep, you know, about America.
And that is us as the uncomplicated, the unvarnished, the un-nuanced champion of liberty the world over. And what the question of reparations ultimately raises, is that this land of liberty, this land of freedom, was made possible by slavery, was made possible by plunder - was made possible by selling people's kids. That's what it is. And that's very, very hard for us to absorb and take.
That people are shocked that South Africa, almost 20 years out of apartheid, is struggling with fairness and democracy, reflects a particular ignorance, a particular blindness, and a peculiar lack of humility, about our own struggles.
On the great issue of the day, the generations that followed George Washington offered not just disappointment but betrayal. "The unfortunate condition of the people whose labors I in part employed," Washington wrote, "has been the only unavoidable subject of regret." Americans did not simply tolerate this "unfortunate condition," they turned it into the cornerstone of the American economic system. By 1860, 60 percent of all American exports came from cotton produced by slave labor. "Property in man" was, according to Yale historian David Blight, worth some $3.5 billion more than "all of America's manufacturing, all of the railroads, all of the productive capacity of the United States put together."
In short order, Washington's slaveholding descendants went from evincing skepticism about slavery to calling it "a positive good" and "a great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." And they did this while plundering and raiding this continent's aboriginal population. For at least its first 100 years, or perhaps longer, this country was a disappointment, an experiment which—by its own standards of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness—failed miserably. America is not unique. It is the product of imperfect humans. As is South Africa. That people turn to the country of Nelson Mandela and wonder why it hasn't magically transformed itself into a perpetual font of milk and honey is a symptom of our blindness to our common humanity.
Nowhere is that blindness more apparent then in the constant, puerile need to critique Mandela's turn toward violence. The impulse is old. "Why Won't Mandela Renounce Violence?" asked a New York Times column in 1990. Is that what we said to Savimbi? To Mobutu?
TA-NEHISI COATESDEC 6 2013, 10:13 AM ET
Gettysburg Times, July 17, 1995
Nelson Mandela died yesterday, and all around the world, much-deserved hosannas are coming in, praising the life of one of the most important figures in modern Western history. That last bit reflects my own bias. What's become clear in all my studies of our history of World War II, of the Civil War, of Tocqueville, of Rousseau, of Zionism, of black nationalism, is that understanding Enlightenment ideals requires understanding those places where ideals and humanity meet. If you call yourself a lover of democracy, but have not studied the black diaspora, your deeds mock your claims. Understanding requires more than sloganeering, and parroting—it requires confronting our failures.
For many years, a large swath of this country failed Nelson Mandela, failed its own alleged morality, and failed the majority of people living in South Africa. We have some experience with this. Still, it's easy to forget William F. Buckley—intellectual founder of the modern right—effectively worked as a press agent for apartheid:
Buckley's racket as an American paid propagandist for white supremacy would be repeated over the years in conservative circles. As Sam Kleiner demonstrates in Foreign Policy, apartheid would ultimately draw some of America's most celebrated conservatives into its orbit. The roster includes Grover Norquist, Jack Abramoff, Jesse Helms, and Senator Jeff Flake. Jerry Falwell denounced Desmond Tutu as a "phony" and led a "reinvestment" campaign during the 1980s. At the late hour of 1993, Pat Robertson opined, "I know we don't like apartheid, but the blacks in South Africa, in Soweto, don't have it all that bad."
Buckley's racket as an American paid propagandist for white supremacy would be repeated over the years in conservative circles. As Sam Kleiner demonstrates in Foreign Policy, apartheid would ultimately draw some of America's most celebrated conservatives into its orbit. The roster includes Grover Norquist, Jack Abramoff, Jesse Helms, and Senator Jeff Flake. Jerry Falwell denounced Desmond Tutu as a "phony" and led a "reinvestment" campaign during the 1980s. At the late hour of 1993, Pat Robertson opined, "I know we don't like apartheid, but the blacks in South Africa, in Soweto, don't have it all that bad."
Understand the racism here. It is certainly true that "most African rulers" do not willingly hand over power. That is because most human leaders do not hand over power. What racism does is take a basic human tendency and make it it the property of ancestry. As though Franco never happened. As though Hitler and Stalin never happened. As though Pinochet never happened. As though we did not prop up Mobutu. As though South Carolina was not, for most of its history, ruled by Big Men as nefarious and vicious as any "African ruler."
To not see this requires a special disposition, a special blindness, a special shamelessness, a special idiocy.
Ms. Althouse, somebody is spamming your comment section.
Is it me or did the crazy just happen here?
I think at some point ripping off another person's writing is just not right even with attribution. It is theft of a kind, an intellectual hijacking that might be less appreciated by the actual author/thinker than anticipated. It is not honorable. Particularly bad when the theft is of bullshit. Worse when you paste it on another person's wall.
Pretty sure they just made that shit up.
87% of statistics are made up on the spot.
It is possible if the corrupt Mexicans weren't able to kick out William Frank Buckley Senior Mexico could have become a more successful country than the U.S.
Rcocean said... [hush][hide comment]
Of course none of you won't. You'll only respond on the Althouse site because, y'know.
Yo! I been there..
Nobody to talk to
Say, R, you know Cracks real name?
He all over the professor putting her name and picture out there for his gang to see....
Crack is a punk...in the penitentiary sense......
What's your name Crack(Gregory?) Where you at?
Caroline keikki mingus your sister? You lie.....
Monetrunner says:
Honah stoont
He be turning his life aroun an shît
He be a goot boy
Dint do nuffins!!!
He killt juss cuz he black
An why all you crackas run errethang? Erryone know dat da bruddas built dis bįtch an whitey juss be crackin da whip.
Wiff out niggàs, you crackas be lost an shīt.
We needs ta git all dem black folk out a dis bîtch an git back to Africa where dey know how to treat a black man. Dese crackas will starve wiff out da niggàs doing all dey work of dem an shït.
Gnome sane???
That's a parody, right? Like Betamax and Laslo stuff?
That's a parody, right? Like Betamax and Laslo stuff?
I should hope so, given the work that went into it. Dialectical writing is tough.
Speaking of Crack, has everyone recovered from his ejaculation. I have no idea what he said, having passed over his avatar. I don't read his drivel anymore. I certainly don't visit Little Crack Footballs for the cask strength crazy; why give him the traffic? I just saw a metric buttload of long posts, and figured it was a meltdown. Can someone who gave a shit enough to read those posts be kind enough to distill it into a short paragraph for my amusement. I totally understand if no one wants to bother.
Chef, The last blast of comments appear to be a collection of T-N Coates passages. I'm not sure. Crack's attribution standards aren't the most clear.
What went before is nothing that Crack hasn't said before. Likewise for those who spar with him.
Chef Mojo, yes that is a parody. I don't even claim it; I found it on another site but it was so perfect, so spot-on, that I had to had to use it. It's every Black who ever got in front of the cameras in Ferguson. It's everyone that the Gentle Giant every hung with. It's everyone who told us that the hulk who grabbed that store clerk by the shirt and shook him like a rag doll was an aspiring college student on his way to grandmother's house.
Regarding Crack. You don't need to read him to know him. He's the victim class writ large. He's a passive-aggressive cry baby. His Gentle Giant meant no harm when he went back to rough up that Pakistani clerk. So Crack's a tough guy, right? Not really. He whines that the a cop shot the Gentle Giant after the GG beat the cop and came back to teach him a lesson. Only the cop wasn't an unarmed Pakistani store clerk and the GG never had it explained to him that the world wasn't his victim. He figured that the only people who could threaten his life were the peeps in the hood. He was wrong, and now he's dead.
Gnome sane???
CWJ said...
Chef, The last blast of comments appear to be a collection of T-N Coates passages. I'm not sure. Crack's attribution standards aren't the most clear.
What went before is nothing that Crack hasn't said before. Likewise for those who spar with him.
Wait just a dang minute, bub. Some of my stuff is as fresh as a giant steaming pile of fresh......
homemade pasta.
Me and Crack juss playin'. Sorry if we be all boring and stuff.
I want to know Cracks name(Eugene o'Leary?) and location.
Come out Crack, expose yourself, sissy......
In which Frederick Wilson II explains it all for the Cracks of America.
"
Blogger Chef Mojo said...
In which Frederick Wilson II explains it all for the Cracks of America.
11/28/14, 9:52 PM"
Good advice for people of all colors.
I want to know Cracks name(Eugene o'Leary?) and location.
Come out Crack, expose yourself, sissy......
Maybe this will help:
Radio Alert - Emcee Is on Uncle Ray's Psycedelic Soul Again
Crack Emcee Is On the Radio
I think part of what Crack quoted from above was an interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates on NPR, which was covering Coates's essay in The Atlantic, "The Case for Reparations". Kevin Williamson wrote a rebuttal in National Review, but he doesn't simply dismiss Coates:
"Mr. Coates’s beautifully written monograph is intelligent and sometimes moving, and the moral and political case he makes is not to be discounted lightly, but it is not a persuasive case for converting the liberal Anglo-American tradition of justice into a system of racial apportionment."
Both pieces are worth a read.
Chef Mojo said...
That's a parody, right? Like Betamax and Laslo stuff?
I should hope so, given the work that went into it. Dialectical writing is tough.
Speaking of Crack, has everyone recovered from his ejaculation. I have no idea what he said, having passed over his avatar. I don't read his drivel anymore. I certainly don't visit Little Crack Footballs for the cask strength crazy; why give him the traffic? I just saw a metric buttload of long posts, and figured it was a meltdown. Can someone who gave a shit enough to read those posts be kind enough to distill it into a short paragraph for my amusement. I totally understand if no one wants to bother.
I can do it in a sentence.
The whining loser is upset.
That's all you need to know since every one of his posts is a grievance. They all repeat, "I'm a loser and it's all your fault."
Life is short and we all have better things to do than to play his little games.
crack gets $3 a comment, and $1 for every response to his idiocy. Slave wages IMO.
I'm reminded of Rosie O'Donnell: "It's the first time in history fire has ever melted steel".
Does the Left really believe that this is all a conspiracy that goes all the way up to the Governor's office?
Garage said: The lesson is always, always always always trust the government when they kill your child. Shut up, and do not question anything.
The entire grand jury process is the way the "questioning" takes place. The same with all the forensics, autopsies, testimony, evidence gathering, etc. I realize that you don't like the results of the process, but that doesn't mean the process didn't take place.
You're arguing with a cartoon of what happened, not what REALLY happened.
If you absolutely require some sort of explanation check your local right wing website.
Like the NY Times for example?
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/25/us/evidence-released-in-michael-brown-case.html?_r=0
As for right wing/left wing: Opinion polls taken after the grand jury announcement showed that over 75% agreed with the decision. Some of the polls had the numbers as high as 85%. Is this a "right wing" thing? Does the "right wing" really have that much power over the country?
----
Conspiracy theories have several sources, but I'm thinking that this one is the result of cognitive dissonance. When someone is confronted with facts that demolish their prejudices, and when it's clear that their prejudices need to change in order to fit the new facts, conspiracy theories are kind of a medication. They prevent the person from having to confront their beliefs in any meaningful way.
Sort of like a child who doesn't want to give up their teddy bear -- they clutch to the conspiracy theory in order to prevent them from dealing with reality.
In this case, people like Crack and Garage who have gone all in on defending Michael Brown, are having to rely on conspiracy theories to explain the outcome, because they don't want to face the facts clearly in front of them. In Crack's case, it has to do with race; in Garage's case, it has to do with mistrust of "The Man"; and in Nancy Grace's case, it has to do with pumping up her ratings.
Rosie O'Donnell pulled a similar stunt with her "first time fire has ever melted steel" comments after 9/11. Like Nancy Grace, she was hinting at a massive conspiracy involving the government. It got Rosie what she needed, which was notoreity.
I'm beginning to suspect Crack is a computer program.
I've long thought Crack was actually a Mead sock-puppet, in service to both a sociological experiment, and a bet between Mead and Ann regarding how many times "Crack" could bait people into using the "N" word.
That's why I almost always just scroll over Crack's posts. From his posts I have read, they are devoid of any information I might find valuable, and full of hate, misinformation, and stubborn ignorance. Who needs that?
Well, that shows it.
Coates is a shitty writer and a blithering moron to boot. Anybody who cites him as a source should just sit down and be quiet because it's kind of sad.
I think part of what Crack quoted from above was an interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates on NPR, which was covering Coates's essay in The Atlantic, "The Case for Reparations". Kevin Williamson wrote a rebuttal in National Review, but he doesn't simply dismiss Coates:
Kevin also intelligently discussed the idiocy of Brand and Dunham.
He is good at making complete morons seem cogent.
I had exactly the same impression at the time of 9/11, when Bush got a lot of flack from the media, until he turned it round with his little speech about the perps hearing from us. CNN et al thought he'd totally failed in his most important duty ..…to appear on their stations to answer questions from reporters.
Post a Comment