Monday, April 02, 2012

The Week It Got Ugly (UPDATE)

The murder of Trayvon Martin has become a focal point of national attention, which has brought in its train in my week's absence from news of the outside world (even as close to the scene of the crime as I was in Orlando, I purposely tuned out every bit of news I could; I even ignored the weather reports) the ugly, evil parts of our country, the unhindered Id of racial hatred and bloodlust that linger in our national psyche. It is far too easy, I think, to point fingers at "those" racists, at the "Other" white supremacists, and declare them outside the bounds of our national polity. Whether the gussied-up bigots of the "respectable right" on the Internet or the unabashed dregs of humanity from Stormfront and other such nooks and crannies where our worst selves propagate, we are seeing and hearing in and through them the deepest part of ourselves, stripped of our defensive refusal to admit our own racism, our own fear of the Other. To be American is to live with the uneasy truce between this unbridled Id and our Ego's insistence on order in chaos, our national Superego telling us that, with the celebration of Martin Luther King Jr's life and the election of Barack Obama, this ugly past is behind us.

All it takes is the murder of a young black man to remind us how phony this truce is. The maggots crawl over the corpse of the better angel of our collective nature, and we see and hear who we are, who we may always be unless we own it, and in owning it, demand it silence itself.

While I was away, a commenter insisted that new facts had come to light that mitigated my complaint that describing the murder of Trayvon Martin as a tragedy was wrong. I fail to see anything I have read of what has come to light in the past week somehow justifies George Zimmerman killing young Trayvon Martin. Unless, as Charlie Pierce writes in what may well be one of the most beautiful, damning, pieces of writing on this matter I have read, there are just way too many people in our country who believe that some human lives are expendable.

I would also point out that Pierce is spot on highlighting Ta-Nahisi Coates' writings, in particular this piece.

What the future holds in reference to events in Sanford, FL is unclear to me at this moment. What I do know is a young man is dead. He was a young man like all young men, full of contradictions and cross-currents in his life as he struggled to come to terms with his identity; that a seventeen year old might have once been caught with marijuana isn't so much shocking as it is irrelevant. That a young man once flipped off a camera isn't proof of his danger so much as proof he may well have had a sense of humor. We will never be sure how these facets and bits and pieces of his personality might have come together to make Trayvon Martin a man, because George Zimmerman shot him and killed him.

I sit in mourning with Trayvon's family, wishing only this - that someone in a position of authority would say he should not have died that February afternoon, that George Zimmerman's act of violence deserves, at the very least, to be investigated as a crime, and that young Trayvon Martin should not be remembered as anything other than what he was: a young man full of promise that will never be fulfilled because it is still far too easy and convenient to see a young black man as a threat, rather than a human being.

UPDATE: I referenced above what was purported to be a photo of Trayvon Martin flipping the bird. The photo, apparently, was not of Trayvon Martin at all. Even this attempt to portray the young man as some kind of threat has failed utterly and completely. I apologize for repeating the slur without checking my facts first.

51 comments:

Kelly said...

wow... beautifully written Geoff.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Aw. Thanks, Kelly. It isn't much in the midst of the din.

Marshall Art said...

Good thing I stopped by. You have a sad understanding of reality.

First, if you have an issue with racism deep in your twisted soul, go ahead and own it. MY issue with racism is that it exists at all when I find no issue with anyone based on such insignificant things as skin, eye, hair or house color. If you feel you owe some debt to the black race, it must mean that you harbor some ill will toward them. As I do not, I owe them no more than I do any other race or people, nor do I feel anyone owes me for the color of my skin.

Of course your reverse racism is every bit as reprehensible as the racism you believe you see in people like myself or others who don't alter their course due to skin color differences. There is no evidence that race had anything to do with this case whatsoever. Instead, there have been interviews with friends of Zimmerman defending him against such charges, one of whom seemed to me to be a light-skinned black man.

But you apparently can't stand that the thought that this might be non-racial. You apparently want it to be so as to pontificate and wax poetic about the demons you perceive on the opposite side of the political fence. How sad you are.

Then you have the incredible foolishness to cite Pierce as if he has a brain in his head. He views the research into Martin's past as a search for justification of the notion that he is "expendable" (not to mention his idiotic take on right-wing opposition to Obamacare), rather than what it actually was and is. These looks at the kid's life was to not only see how it fits the story so far given by Zimmerman, but to counter the lefty choice of using a picture of the kid that suggests someone much smaller and younger than he was at the time of the shooting, and to possibly give the impression of total innocence compared to the mug shot of Zimmerman with which it is always shown. The following is an unconscionable accusation from a complete moron that you find to be a deep thinker:

"It's a search for an alibi, and it's a search through some of the uglier aspects of American society to find the oldest, cheapest alibi of all — that the lives of black children are less important than the right of someone to pack heat, that the lives of black children must needs always take a back seat to fear, that black children in this country are bargaining chips, and not very valuable ones at that."

And how is he being used now by people like Pierce, Sharpton, Shabazz, and you? No one, and I mean NO ONE on the right is doing this. But it is evident in every accusation and plea for "racial healing" by people like you who insist on putting a racial slant to this case before there is any evidence that racism had anything to do with it. That you people don't feel shame is not surprising in the least.

If you race-baiters can't understand the relevance of delving into Martin's lifestyle, as seems to be natural in doing so for Zimmerman, then you have no appreciation for real justice, for really getting to the truth of what happened or for anything more than using this sad event to further demonize your betters. And yes, as you continue with this line of accusation, you cannot assume any moral superiority over anybody, right or left.

"All it takes is the murder of a young black man..."

Who the hell are YOU to decide it was murder? Who the hell made you omnipotent judge and jury over anyone simply because the one who fell was black? How do you know the gun didn't fall out of it's holster as they struggled on the ground, Martin sought to take it, and in the ensuing moments the gun went off? How dare you suggest you can judge anything about a case that has so little solid information released to the public? And you dare call anyone a postule! Where's your big post about the 13 year old white kid set afire by two black kids?

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Art, this blog isn't a commode, so please stop shitting in it.

Alan said...

Methinks he doth protest too much.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

I just love the way, somehow, this whole thing becomes all about the poor, beleaguered guy who shot and killed an unarmed 17 year old kid, having already followed him in his SUV. Of course, this kid, eight years younger, shorter, and about one hundred pounds lighter, broke Zimmerman's nose and bashed his head against the sidewalk!

Except, of course, there's no evidence any of that happened. The only evidence we have is Zimmerman thought a black kid in a hoodie was a threat, hunted him, and killed him. What gives me the right call it murder? What gave Zimmerman the right to execute Trayvon Martin? I've been waiting and waiting for an answer to that, and all I keep hearing is the same racist crap - blackety-blackety-he-used-the-n-word-so-Zimmerman's-no-racist-oh-and-Martin-was-BLACK.

They aren't even pretending anymore. I couldn't care less what Art has to say about this matter; I would erase his comment, but I figure its an object lesson in the kind of despicable garbage that's out there on the internet right now, as all the small-dicked whiteys praise big, brave George Zimmerman for hunting and killing a helpless kid.

Protest too much? Not at all. Art couldn't be more transparent on this matter than if he were writing for Aryan Nations.

Craig said...

I could be wrong here, but it seems like Art's point is not who is at fault, but rather that it is a mistake to jump to conclusions about who is at fault with incomplete evidence.

Personally, I guess I'd at least wait for the grand jury to reach a descision before I started making judgements.

Again, I could be wrong, but it just seems too early for putting a bounty on this guy and publicly posting his address.

For what it's worth. Probably not too much around here. :)

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

No. Art has no point. He never has a point. He is, quite simply put, that kid who comes along, sets a bag of dogshit on fire on someone's porch, then laughs when they get poo on their shoe when the people inside stamp it out.

I've spent way too many years reading his drivel to believe, for one moment, there is anything of value in what he says. He came, he dumped, he ran. Period. He long ago exhausted any benefit of the doubt he may have had; in this as in every other case, he has no agenda other than being a prick for its own sake.

Craig said...

Almighty then. I guess that's one way to respond.

Carry on.

Alan said...

Craig is such an obvious sock puppet.

Marshall Art said...

Oh no! I haven't left at all! And you haven't in any way proven any of your contentions regarding the people involved in the incident or shown anything I've said to be the poop you wish it was. It is simply as Craig so easily realized, that I am simply calling for everyone to back off and wait until the real story is revealed after the investigation and whatever trial might take place presents it.

You, with your white guilt, insist that Zimmerman "hunted and killed" Martin. There is NOTHING that indicates this intention. NOTHING. And you cannot begin to present anything to the contrary. Age, height and weight are no match for skill and determination in a fight. And as far as that goes, I have not heard that Zimmerman outweighs the kid by 100 pounds. But nonetheless, I've bested bigger guys in my life and I've seen smaller guys (even a few chicks) handle themselves well against bigger opponents.

The story is plain. You are simply joining in on the race-baiting antics of those who are determined to make this a story of a white guy taking the opportunity to kill a black guy and you do so without shame.

You have been waiting for an answer to the question YOU invent regarding Zimmerman "executing" Martin. When you can prove that was his intention, you will find no one defending him at all. Those of us who do defend him do so only because it is the basis of our legal system that all are innocent until proven guilty. You know nothing about the man but think you have the right to judge him as a racist hunter and executioner of blacks. Talk about a flaming sack of shit!

As to whether or not my words have value of any kind, I would leave that judgement to someone worthy of making it. You and your cheerleader, Alan, are not among them. You wouldn't know real value if your lives depended upon it. But it's never been about whether or not my words have value. It's always been that you've been unable to refute what I say, so, in your typical manner, you pretend no value exists. Well, I invite any of your other readers, those who marvel at your prose, to point out the flaws of my words since you and little Alan are incapable of doing so.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

I have no reason to prove anything to anyone. Least of all you.

It isn't your words that are flawed. It is the mind that produces them.

Parklife said...

Doesnt he have his own blog to cry at?

Go on.. Marshall.. crawl back into that cesspool of yours.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Trust me. I know he does. Him and his two-hundred-comment long posts that all boil down to this: Unless you use the same sources I do and come to the same conclusions I do, you haven't proved a thing.

That and, "You know, Geoffrey may be educated but he's not very smart."

In case he reads this - Art, I check my stats; you're my second-highest source of traffic over the past couple months. Several days running, you're the highest source of traffic, so I know you read me. Yes, I read your stuff, too, because folks let me know you've mentioned me. Again.

Man-crushes are so un-becoming.

Alan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alan said...

http://cheezburger.com/5933016064

Add to that... "you're just playing the race card."

:)

Amazing. Clear evidence of racism amongst the tea-baggers? Not racist. Clear evidence of racism against Obama? Not racist. Clear evidence of racism against Jeremiah Wright? Nope, not racist. Clear evidence of any racism anywhere in the universe? Not racist.

Has one of these douchnozzles ever in the history of history admitted that someone somewhere might be a racist or that their actions might be racially motivated? Nope.

A bunch of old straight white phony conservative Republicans -- yes, indeed, they are without a doubt the best possible arbiters of what constitutes real racism. Particularly with racist gems like this from MA: "Instead, there have been interviews with friends of Zimmerman defending him against such charges, one of whom seemed to me to be a light-skinned black man"

(MA won't get why that's racist, obviously, because, as I previously stated, according to these folks, no one anywhere has ever been racist ever.)

Parklife said...

Art is number 2. How appropriate.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

When I first encountered Art, he referred to African-Americans as "colored" and "Negroes". When he got called on it, first he pouted, then he changed his tune a bit. Unlike gay folk, whom he still calls "homo" without ever once admitting that it's derogatory.

Yeah, Art's number 2. Number 1 is Facebook, although some days he's still number one. If I dug deeper, I'd probably find all those weird readers of Art's use the link at his blog (why does he link to me again, if I'm so horrible in every conceivable way?) to come visit.

What I find hysterically funny about his first comment is I explicitly stated I WAS NOT singling out any particular individual or group; I was indicting America as a racist society (not a big shocker there), yet he turned it around, made it about him, then denied America was racist (again, shocker). When you aim in the wrong direction, I guess you'll always miss the point.

Alan said...

LOL. Those site stats are hilarious. Not that we couldn't have predicted that with 100% accuracy. Those things that the busybodies, fusspots, tattletales and scolds pretend to be horrified by are exactly what they're most fascinated by. (For example, homophobes' curious and peculiar fascination and obsession with gay sex. Remember MA's total inability to ever discuss DADT without writing frequently and at length about army shower sex?)

So it isn't any surprise he spends so much time here. Lucky you.

And does Craig ever comment anywhere but that he calls people to a level of discourse his cronies never manage while simultaneously ignoring his buddies' behavior? I mean, is hypocrisy just his schtick or what? Is it supposed to be performance art or something?

I do think it is amusing that MA still has the guts to demand explanations from anyone, when there's been a question on the floor for him for weeks that he's still too cowardly to answer. I guess that just slipped past him. LOL Uh. Yeah, right. Or he'll come up with some other transparently juvenile BS reason why he refuses to answer our questions while demanding we have to answer his.

And then Craig will show up to chastise someone for calling MA mean names, because we know what a saint MA is. ;)

Craig said...

GKS,

I wasn't going to comment further as you didn't seem to be willing to address the point I was trying to raise. But, given the fact that I keep getting mentioned I felt an apology might be in order.

I humbly apologize for showing up and chastizing people for calling MA names. I also humbly apologize for bringing up a point which seems to have gotten lost in all the back and forth. I also humbly apologize for calling people to a level of certain level of discourse, I realize how unreasonable it is to think that adults can disagree without name calling. For all of my manifold sins I humble apologize, and ask your forgivness.

Craig said...

Oh crap,

I was so overcome that I just realized that (except for attempting to raise a point that seemed to have been overlooked), I actually haven't done any of those things in this thread. My bad.


So, I'll not pollute these hallowed grounds anymore, and you and your cronies can carry on.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Alternative, shorter Craig: You liberals are all meanies.

Alan said...

Key phrase that I'll add some emphasis to, Craig, "IN THIS THREAD."

For my cat, every day is a new day and every moment is completely unrelated to what came before. But then, my cat has a brain roughly the size of a small walnut. Sorry, Craig, I assumed a grown adult might be a tad more evolved than my cat.

See Craig, the rest of us actually see a common thread that runs through all your comments and all MA's comments. In your case, it is the ever present need to chastise others for behavior you have absolutely no problem with when it comes from your friends, which you do indeed demonstrate clearly in this thread with you comments.

In other words, we actually possess the power of memory. There are exercises you can do if yours is slipping.

Alan said...

"I'll not pollute these hallowed grounds anymore"

Oh, boo hoo! *sniff* *sniff*

(Oh, how many times have we heard that before? If only it were true! Alas, it never is. And alas, that's only one.)

Marshall Art said...

Well, bring it, children. What question have I left unanswered?

I don't doubt Geoffie will be loath to search, but if he'll give some indication of where and when that early discussion took place (wherein I used the terms "colored" or "Negro") I can go back and perhaps find it to see what the child finds so troubling about it. I've no doubt he's full of shit. So the challenge is there on two counts: Restate whatever question little Alan thinks is unanswered, and demonstrate your recollection of our early meeting is in any way accurate (don't forget, I'm willing to do the work if you'll but supply the direction).

As to my time here, so what? How is the problematic for you, other than the fact that I expose your bad points of view, false accusations and childishness? I visit a number of blogs and sites. Considering you publish what you think passes for deep and serious thought on a rather public blog, I would think regular traffic might be welcomed. Of course I realize you only want your choirboys to visit, but "man crush"? Can't you do better than that?

What's more, and this is for any one of you sad cases, I'm still waiting for evidence or explanations that demonstrate just how my mind OR words are flawed. I truly get that you believe them so. I just find it interesting that such learned people are unable to articulate in just what way that is so.

"Unless you use the same sources I do and come to the same conclusions I do, you haven't proved a thing."

Another common whine by you kids that remains unproven.

"What I find hysterically funny about his first comment is I explicitly stated I WAS NOT singling out any particular individual or group; I was indicting America as a racist society (not a big shocker there), yet he turned it around, made it about him, then denied America was racist (again, shocker)."

Actually, I was commenting on YOUR racism, that you see it everywhere but mostly where it DOESN'T exist (Alan sees it there, too), and then I compared your sickness to how I view the subject. In doing so I was actually agreeing that it DOES still exist in this country. Go ahead. Try back and actually try reading my initial comment this time.

Marshall Art said...

"Clear evidence of racism amongst the tea-baggers?"

"Clear evidence of racism against Obama?"

"Clear evidence of racism against Jeremiah Wright?"

"Clear evidence of any racism anywhere in the universe?"

None that any of YOU boys have ever presented. What we've presented was blacks amongst the crowds at Tea Party rallies, including including one getting beat up by union thugs and another decried for bringing a so-called assault rifle. We've also had numerous black people speak to the tea party crowds.

We have seen accusations of racism against Obama merely for disagreeing with his candidacy, policies and lack of a record, but very little for merely being black. No one on the right, and certainly not me, has ever claimed that there exists no right-wing bigot. They just don't exist in the same number as the left wing.

We've admitted a ton of racism FROM Jeremiah Wright. But pointing out that he is a race baiter doesn't make one racist. It makes one accurate.

"Has one of these douchnozzles ever in the history of history admitted that someone somewhere might be a racist or that their actions might be racially motivated?"

Well, I don't know why you changed the subject to left wingers, but I for one am more than aware of people acting out of racial motivations. I've spoken of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Jerry Wright and others many times. But if you've got any right wing dudes specifically in mind, I don't recall you've ever supplied anything more than accusation. So I guess that would qualify for racist motivation.

"A bunch of old straight white phony conservative Republicans -- yes, indeed, they are without a doubt the best possible arbiters of what constitutes real racism."

Despite the age, race, sexual or political orientation of any honest person of character, what constitutes racism isn't a mystery. Less mysterious is that which constitutes the playing of the race card. The left likes to play that card, and the right rarely does, if ever. Do you think you're better at identifying it because you're a younger, gay, geeky looking lefty? It doesn't appear so as you have made the same kind of sweeping generalization in your accusation about old, white Republicans. Where's Dan? He loves irony!

And no, I don't get why the following is "a racist gem".

"Particularly with racist gems like this from MA: "Instead, there have been interviews with friends of Zimmerman defending him against such charges, one of whom seemed to me to be a light-skinned black man"

How is giving an example of why Zimmerman is not a racist in itself a racist comment? I'm dying to hear the answer.

As for tired and cliche-like charge regarding "busybodies" and the like, recall once again that any blog open to the public, like this one, has the potential (ever so slight as it might be) to influence people, especially younger people. Thus, should more lies about unnatural and immoral acts like homosexual behavior be published, I would be complicit in its wider acceptance if I did nothing to counter those lies. What's more, it is not possible to counter the promotion of a given sinful and depraved act without speaking of the act itself. That doesn't constitute obsession with the act itself, nor does it please me to discuss it. But I won't cower from doing so as long as those like yourself make any effort to promote it as morally benign.

Just so you know, Craig's sent me a personal email on more than one occasion regarding toning down my insults. And I've deleted comments of rightwingers at my blog. So you've no whine there, either.

So once again, child...what was your question again? Unless Geoffie punks out and deletes this, I'm more than willing.

Marshall Art said...

One more thing: if you Geoffie are truly alerted to posts of mine that mention you, and this alert comes from someone other than Parkie, feo, Dan or little Alan, I just want those people to know they are welcome to comment any time. As you indicated, I give plenty of opportunity for others to make their cases. I welcome everyone who wishes to truly engage.

Alan said...

"What question have I left unanswered? ..."

and

"if you Geoffie are truly alerted to posts of mine that mention you..."

LOL. It amazes me in 2012 that people are still so ignorant of how this here intertube thingy works.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

LOL. It's like Memento in Artland. Also, too, I was reminded the other day of Sen. Ted Stevens "series of tubes" speech back in 2006, wherein the late Senator apparently believed the internet was like one of those old pneumatic messaging systems in buildings from the 1930's and 1940's (not a bad analogy in some ways, I suppose, but the Senator's grasp of the details was really bad, and he came across sounding like a buffoon).

When each day is new, why worry about the past?

Alan said...

"Craig's sent me a personal email on more than one occasion regarding toning down my insults. "

Yeah. Right. Even if it were true (and I think it is more likely that you receive emails from Santa Claus or unicorns), you've merely made my point for me -- not that, once again, you'll be clever enough to see how. Thank you.

"Despite the age, race, sexual or political orientation of any honest person of character, what constitutes racism isn't a mystery"

Hmmm... But didn't he just say ... wait.... Oh yes he did:

"friends of Zimmerman defending him against such charges, one of whom seemed to me to be a light-skinned black man" [emphasis mine]

Check mate.

LOL. Too funny. I throw out some bait and you just can't help but take it. When will you learn that this is just a game I play, saying whatever, to see how many times in one comment I can get you to contradict yourself? Forget it, I already know the answer to that question is "never." For you, MA, to borrow a quote, "The only winning move is not to play."

OK, enough making MA look like a fool for the bazillionth time (not that he needs the help.) Busy, busy, busy Easter weekend, there are souls to corrupt with my eeeeevul librul lifestyle. Bwah! Ha! Ha! Ha! HAaaaa!

Happy Easter!

Alan said...

"When each day is new, why worry about the past?"

Exactly. See previous analogy to my cat.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

These comments would be so totally banned and deleted by Dan, bless his heart.

Seriously, for a moment. The ugliness surrounding the murder of Trayvon Martin has seeped in to some very public supporters of young Martin's family doing things and saying things that are despicable. Since the end here is and shall always be justice for his unnecessary and unjust death, matters are not moved in that direction when George Zimmerman becomes a potential target for any ass with a gun. Then, obviously, we have only traded one injustice for another.

Imperfect as it is, the legal system needs to grind along its ordained paths. There are still so many unanswered questions, so many allegations flying back and forth and swirling around, getting at the heart of what happened that February day will take time.

Nonetheless, the stark fact of a dead young man, a dead young African-American man shot down by a white man, drags our ugly history along with it, against any power to deny it. As this story makes abundantly clear, as I wrote in my very first post on this matter, this is neither unique nor surprising, which perhaps makes it all the uglier.

Parklife said...

"I welcome everyone who wishes to truly engage."

It must be getting lonely over there in Artland. Pitty that some no longer wish to "engage" with him.

"a dead young African-American man shot down by a white man"

Right now, it seems the motivating factor for the shooter going after TM was the race / appearance of TM. Not the race of the shooter.

The vigilante part of this really makes me sick.

Alan said...

"Imperfect as it is, the legal system needs to grind along its ordained paths."

Exactly. And the actual point here is about the injustice of a guy who shoots a kid on February 26, and still well over a month later, no charges have been filed against him by the group of Keystone Kops handling this case, several of whom have either been fired or have resigned in disgrace.

So no, I don't want to try him in the court of public opinion, as MA and Craig believe, but I do want him to stand trial.

So, you know...I don't think it is out of the question to ... you know ... maybe arrest a guy who shoots an unarmed kid. Yeah, I know it's totally bleeding heart liberal to think that wandering neighborhoods shooting children might possibly result in a trial.

But to Craig and MA and the rest of their shoot-first-ask-no-questions-later band of Wild West yahoos, grown men who shoot children should go free with no trial, apparently, because he couldn't have possibly done anything wrong, because there is no such thing as racism.

Not that any of that really needs to be spelled out that clearly for anyone with half a brain, but we're talking Craig and MA here and we've clearly seen what little they're working with.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

How simply put!

Oh, and I'd far rather be associated with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson in this matter than . . . pretty much anyone on the other side. I actually voted for both men, Sharpton in the 2004 IL Democratic primary for President (not that excited about John Kerry!) and Jesse Jackson in the 1988 NY Democratic primary (not that excited about Michael Dukakis!).

Alan said...

Well, obviously raising the scaaaaarrrryyy specter of Jackson or Sharpton is supposed to "shame" us. Of course, coming from someone like MA who can never bring themselves to ever say a word against, say, a thrice-divorced drug user, illegal Viagra importer, and gluttonous idiot like Rush Limbaugh. Attempts at shaming from people like MA who have no shame? Not likely to be effective.

More succinctly put: It's a dog whistle. Funny how so many of their boogie men -- Sharpton, Jackson, Wright, Obama -- happen to be black.

But I'm sure that's *totally* coincidence. Because, as they never tire of pointing out, there's no such thing as racism, ever. Except when there is, but then it's only from people on the left.

Marshall Art said...

No Alan, I'm not about to go searching for those questions you claim I haven't answered. Not when you could simply restate them with little effort (assuming they actually exist).

"LOL. It amazes me in 2012 that people are still so ignorant of how this here intertube thingy works."

The point, child, was regarding whether Geoffrey visits my blog on his own or truly when alerted by others. What's with you guys and understanding the obvious?

I must admit, though, that I don't get your point regarding Craig's emails to me. Is it that you're contending I'm snarky and no one else is? When have I ever denied that I enjoy a shot now and then?

"Check mate."

Again, Alan. Show me how pointing out how I am racist by showing that charges of racism against Zimmerman can't be true. His friends say he associates with all sorts of people. I witnessed an interview with a friend who appeared to be a light-skinned black man. How is pointing all this out racist on my part? Apparently for the feeble-minded like yourself, defending against a charge of racism is itself racist. Pretty convenient for those like yourself intent on demonizing the opposition. Pretty sad.

Thus, in all this, you haven't achieved your goal of "trying" to make me look foolish, but instead prove yourself to be. I'm totally enjoying this game you think you're winning. Why don't you start posting a score like parkie used to do when he thought he was winning?

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey said,

"There are still so many unanswered questions, so many allegations flying back and forth and swirling around, getting at the heart of what happened that February day will take time."

...and thereby, like the perennial blind squirrel finding a nut, stumbled upon my point. Yet, while acknowledging this, he still has no trouble convicting Zimmerman. Hey Dan! More irony!

I have no problem with Zimmerman standing trial if wrongdoing is suspected. But not having been there myself, I will wait to see how it unfolds before presuming to know one way or the other whether he should be. There are cases where shooters are perceived to be innocent of malicious intent. A recent story of a woman shooting and killing a potential rapist shows that she was not charged or likely to be charged. For the rest of us, it can mean no more than law enforcement professionals doing their job as they see it. At the same time, it does not mean that they've voided any future opportunity to bring charges. This is all common and basic. But to acknowledge it eliminates the opportunity to pontificate about racism.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

As Alan made clear, he needs to do nothing to make you look foolish. You do this on your own.

At what point does our ignoring you not become glaringly obvious?

Marshall Art said...

OOH! More juicy bait!

Any cursory reading of my blog should indicate to any honest lefty that I have as little regard for white leftists as I do black ones. That's because race only matters to the left. It's why Obama was elected over Hillary, when there was little to separate the two except race. Indeed, as far as Barry is concerned, he's only half black, and I never much cared for his white half, either. It's their policies, opinions and blatant stupidity to which I object. Not their skin color. So please, little Alan, any time you think you can demonstrate more racism from the right wing than the left, feel free to try. I'll still have the facts as presented in this article.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

And the ugliness and blatant, blind racism continues.

Parklife said...

Unbelievable.

His capirote must be fitting a bit tighter these days.

Alan said...

Wow. That was pretty amazing even for MA.

I love that we're the ones who are stupid, and yet he continues to freely admit again and again that he has absolutely no idea what we're talking about. We're the morons, but his every comment is begging for clarification about our very obvious points.

Fer example, anyone who has ever read anything I've ever written would know why I would think a statement like this is just flat out, completely moronically stupid: "So please, little Alan, any time you think you can demonstrate more racism from the right wing than the left, feel free to try".

Anyone but MA. Once again, MA, will never understand why I would think such a statement is stupid, EVEN THOUGH I HAVE EXPLAINED EXACTLY SUCH A POINT ABOUT 800 GAGILLION TIMES.

Again, MA, why would I explain anything to you? If you can't understand even the most basic clear points that I have discussed in a zillion comments over the years, in fact, a point I make in these comment threads more often than nearly any other, then why would I try one more time?

Everyone else reading this already knows why I would think the very premise of that sentence is stupid.

Everyone, except you.

Because you're just flat out stupid. Period.

But hey, even though you avoid my questions, and refuse to answer my previous set like a coward, I'll ask another one and give you a chance, because I'm a great guy.

So here's your chance to prove you're not an utter moron, MA. My reasons for not responding to that challenge are clear to anyone who has ever read my comments. Prove to me you've ever bothered to actually read anything I've written. Seriously, without insult and side-commentary, just attempt to explain why I would think that sentence is stupid on its face. It shouldn't take more than a sentence or two.

So there's your challenge, MA. Can you, without names, and your usual bullshit, without side commentary, can you accurately state one clearly obvious position I would take on that particular sentence?

Or is this yet another question you're too much of a coward to answer for more transparently juvenile bullshit reasons like we've already seen in this thread?

Put up or shut up, kitten.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Yup. No racism on the right.

Alan said...

No none at all. Thing is, I'm not even surprised from him.

Huh. Nothing from MA yet as answer to my question. I'd be surprised except the same thing happened before. And I'll say the same thing I said before, maybe he's busy. lol

---

BTW, MA, I'll say the same thing now that I said on my earlier challenge that you were either too cowardly to answer, and are now too stupid and lazy to google (hint, it took me literally 10 seconds to find it again using the great Google machine, you twit.).

I have no interest in a "gotcha" moment here, I just wondered if you can briefly and accurately summarize what I believe, without all your usual BS. Keep your opinions and judgements about my opinion out of it for one single solitary comment and without all that baggage just simply state my view on the previous statement of yours: "So please, little Alan, any time you think you can demonstrate more racism from the right wing than the left, feel free to try."

No gotcha moment, as my view is already crystal clear to everyone else here. I'm sure you can't accurately tell me how I would respond to that, even though it should by now, be abundantly obvious to even you. So, if you cannot respond accurately, then obviously attempting to ever explain anything to you is a total waste of time, and is not cowardly at all.

So, take the challenge, if you dare, MA. Downside for you, get it wrong and you prove you're just as stupid as we think you all are. Upside, for you, get it right and you get to prove you're not as much of an idiot as we all think, AND that you can, for one comment at least do something we all think you are incapable of doing: accurately summarizing someone else's ideas. I'll even assume for the sake of argument that you'll attempt to answer the question without getting cheat notes from one of your cronies.

Or don't rise to the challenge, and prove you're every bit as much of a coward as you think we are.

:)

Marshall Art said...

"At what point does our ignoring you not become glaringly obvious?"

I guess when you actually ignore me. You haven't in this post or the others to which I've recently posted comments.

"And the ugliness and blatant, blind racism continues."

Yeah, I know, but why do you persist? Truly, you haven't explained what makes anything I've said racist. Merely saying it is is no more than whiney accusation.

"Yup. No racism on the right."

You do realize the comments you believe are your proof are simply responses to the threats of the race-baiters, don't you? You do realize they are referring to specific people within the greater black community, don't you? Of course you don't. You're not capable of objectivity.

Marshall Art said...

"I love that we're the ones who are stupid,"

It's nothing to be proud of.

"he continues to freely admit again and again that he has absolutely no idea what we're talking about"

That's because regarding those things to which I freely admit, you refuse to enlighten. Those things have to do with things like your accusations of racism. When you present an example, I've easily shown how the example doesn't work, such as the comment regarding Zimmerman's black friend with the light skin (of whom I stated "appeared" to be a light-skinned black). And as far as the unanswered questions, just re-ask them. How can a Google that when I have no idea even what the topic was? Should I Google "unanswered questions for Art from Alan"? You're the Google master. You tell me.

"anyone who has ever read anything I've ever written would know why I would think a statement like this is just flat out, completely moronically stupid: "So please, little Alan, any time you think you can demonstrate more racism from the right wing than the left, feel free to try"."

But even more stupid is that you refuse to explain yourself. I mean, I could guess, but that would entail a description of your character and you requested I not go there.

"EVEN THOUGH I HAVE EXPLAINED EXACTLY SUCH A POINT ABOUT 800 GAGILLION TIMES."

Then 800 gagillion and one shouldn't be too much of a burden, Sugar.

"Everyone else reading this already knows why I would think the very premise of that sentence is stupid."

Really? Maybe one of them can explain it. One thing's certain, you can't answer the question I posed in that "stupid" sentence. Far easier to simply call it "stupid".

"Prove to me you've ever bothered to actually read anything I've written."

I haven't seen much over the last year or so that wasn't simply cheeky insults and suggestions that an opponent is a moron without any explanation why you would think so. I know there have been repeated comments regarding "busybodies, fusspots, etc" but nothing substantive. Geoffrey at least tries with his posts. But it's been likely years since I've seen anything like a serious opinion from you (which at least shows that I don't hit this site that much after all, since you don't seem to do much at Dan's but whine that he still engages with people like me.)

What else can I think of? Of course I know you've had nothing but wonderful things to say about those who oppose your position on sinful sexual practices, but again, it's been a long time since I've seen anything akin to a reasoned defense of them.

"can you accurately state one clearly obvious position I would take on that particular sentence?"

I freely admit that I'm not sure which sentence you mean exactly. Should I try to Google it, or is it this one:

"So please, little Alan, any time you think you can demonstrate more racism from the right wing than the left, feel free to try".

If so, right off I'd say one position you'd take is that you're not little. Another would be that you think the statement is stupid. Another would be that you hope saying it is stupid will give you a way out of actually fulfilling the request. Other than that I got nothin'. But there's three clearly obvious positions YOU'D take, sweetie-pie. What others are there? C'mon, honey. Help out a moron.

Marshall Art said...

"hint, it took me literally 10 seconds to find it again using the great Google machine, you twit."

Of course you know what you're looking for. I have no clue what questions you think I haven't answered. That's why I've asked you to restate them, Muffin.

Irony alert!

"I have no interest in a "gotcha" moment here"

Yet that's exactly what you've set up, pumpkin. But no matter what my answers are, to whatever unanswered questions you won't repeat, if you don't demonstrate just how they are stupid, rather than to just once again remind me of how stupid I am, calling me stupid has no value. You're just a little snookums calling me names. That doesn't bother me, pookie. It just makes you, I don't know, like a yappy little dog.

So, even if I am judged just the stupidest dude around, do I still get to hear those unanswered questions again, or will you bail like the frightened little poopsie you are?

Alan said...

Well, after all that I'd say a verbal coup de grace from me is unnecessary.

Happy Easter everyone.

Alan said...

For those of you playing the home version of our game, I'll just say that the simple one sentence answer to my simple question was this:

"But you do it too" is never a rational response to any criticism.

But all of you (well, obviously not quite all of you) already knew that, because you bother to read and can understand what I write and I've made that same response uncountable numbers of times.

Marshall Art said...

But it wasn't a "you do it, too" response, Button. It was a "why do you insist racism is a right-wing thing when there is so much evidence that the harm done to the black community has been perpetuated by your side of the political divide?" You keep insisting that I claim no racism on the right, or even in America. Never have, and it's never been the point. The point is the constant playing of the race card by your side, when most of the support of minorities has been historically a result of right-wing policies, as my link plainly shows.

So your "simple answer" is merely an example of your being simple-minded and not truly honest, and thus you've proven nothing about me, but plenty about yourself.

I can't combat lies constantly insisted as truth, but only put the truth against it where those lies are public told and hope those honestly seeking the truth can see the difference, or explain how I've been wrong. The latter has never happened here. You girls have only accused me of being wrong and pretend it's plain to see to avoid the hard work of defending the false charge. (false, that is, until you can actually prove me guilty)

But here's a little more irony for you kids: My contention that racism, bigotry and intolerance is more prevalent on the left stands. The attitude of you guys toward me and my opinion would be proof enough, but you have not addressed the difficult aspect of Zimmerman being a registered Democrat. Now, I don't believe there has been any evidence that he is motivated by race, and testimony from friends indicates he isn't. But how do you reconcile this against YOUR position that we on the right are the racists?

Virtual Tin Cup

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More