I don’t see the big deal. It’s not even that great of a picture:
Now that I have that out of my system, I can write a serious post about it tomorrow.
I don’t see the big deal. It’s not even that great of a picture:
Now that I have that out of my system, I can write a serious post about it tomorrow.
I’m getting more than a little annoyed with the self-righteous proclamations of conservatives that George Zimmerman’s been proven innocent of profiling by virtue of his acquittal on charges of manslaughter and murder. The evidence all points to Zimmerman becoming increasingly obsessed with the presence of black males at his apartment complex in the months leading up to Trayvon Martin’s death. Prior to April 2011, Zimmerman’s 911 calls were the work of the neighborhood busybody. For example, he called to report:
But starting in August of 2011, Zimmerman’s calls took on a decidedly different note. He reported:
And then on 26 February 2012 he calls about Trayvon Martin. There’s a pattern here obvious to anyone without an investment in not seeing it. What began as annoying 911 operators with pointless complaints escalated to notifying the authorities any time he saw a black male he didn’t know. The argument that he’s not racist and wasn’t profiling is based on the fact that he “mentored black children” and “had black friends” and is entirely beside the point, because it presumes that he’s an overt and deliberate racist. Those who make it claim victory when they demonstrate that he never wore a white hood or bedecked his body in Nazi ink.
I’ll grant that that Zimmerman didn’t pine for the days of short ropes and sturdy limbs.
I’ll grant that he didn’t dream of goose-stepping down the Champs-Élysées in his dress browns.
But I won’t grant that race didn’t color his judgment when it came to young black men with whom he wasn’t personally acquainted. From 3 August 2011 forward he’s increasingly — and almost exclusively — concerned with unfamiliar black males in his apartment complex. Maybe confirmation bias is more the problem here than racism, but the fact remains that the bias being confirmed is that young black males are suspects until proven otherwise. You can’t look at the 911 calls in the months immediately prior to the shooting and argue otherwise. (At least not honestly.) He transformed from a harmless nudnik into someone very concerned with the presence of unfamiliar black males, which at the very least means that by 11 August 2011 his worldview contained the category “Unfamiliar Black Male” and that the presence of people belonging to it warranted calling 911.
Whether he volunteered the race of Trayvon Martin to the 911 dispatcher or responded to a question about it is immaterial. As evidenced by previous calls, this one was triggered by the presence of an “Unfamiliar Black Male.” And as the escalation of 911 calls indicates, he was becoming increasingly frustrated with the presence of people belonging to this category. Because, in his words, “These assholes always get away.” You can argue that he’s simply referring to generic burglars of an undetermined and irrelevant race, but doing so requires ignoring the larger context of Zimmerman’s recent 911 calls in which all the subjects were of a determined and relevant race.
But if you want to make that claim in order to win an argument with someone on the Internet, by all means, please tell me about call from 2007 in which he reported seeing two Hispanic males with a “slim jim,” or the one from 2009 in which he didn’t identify the race of the people “going into the pool and trashing the bathroom.” Feel free to ignore the cluster of calls immediately before the shooting in favor of the ones from three and five years previous, because we all know that beliefs don’t develop and concretize over time. While you’re at it, continue to insist that people who instigate confrontations are in no way culpable for their outcome. You know why? Because to everyone but you your argument amounts to this guy:
Being in the moral right to shoot away should he decide that the danger he sought is more dangerous than he thought it’d be.
Dan Riehl’s so cute when he’s being racist:
Put directly and too harshly, the tragic reality is that Trayvon Martin got, not only what he deserved, but what he sought, with or without realizing it, on the night of his encounter with George Zimmerman. Less bluntly, thug-life and even wannabe thug-life is not a good life, rarely a long life and never a life that any young man — or woman — of any color or race should want to pursue.
Now, I know he’s saying that no person of any “color or race” should want to be a thug, but we all know that Dan Riehl has a long history of cowering in corners:
Dan Riehl recently encountered some black people who “were technically thugs.” What did these “technically thug[gish]” black people do? “There was no confrontation,” Riehl informs his readers, but “there were maybe ten or so” of them in the bus, which is about nine or so more than is required to trigger a flight-or-flight response in folks like Riehl. Somehow, he managed to keep it together long enough to hear what these “pretty young, not that big” black “kids” were saying.
Re-reading that post, I’m struck by the similarities: a white man’s confronted by “pretty young, not that big” kids who he considers “technically thugs,” but luckily for all involved, “it [by which he means, not insignificantly, the black kids] went on but not really to a level that was so loud, or so confrontational that it needed to be addressed.” The implicit question is, of course, “Addressed by whom?” In the wake of Trayvon Martin’s death, for Dan Riehl the answer is “By the likes of George Zimmerman.”
Because Zimmerman’s going to become a folk hero in the style of Bernard Goetz, someone white people call out to
in their moment of desperation when a black kid approaches them on a sidewalk, armed with concrete. Or maybe he’ll become an Arthurian figure who will rise again in their hour of greatest need when the kids behind the counter at McDonald’s have tattoos and wear their caps crooked. Or maybe the next time Dan Riehl finds his ass on a bus with some black kids it won’t be so clenched because, like his hero, he’ll be carrying concealed heat.
Because maybe next time those kids won’t “get away” with threatening Riehl with their youth and blackness, but will get “not only what [they] deserved, but what [they] sought, with or without realizing it, on the night of [their] encounter with [Dan Riehl].”
*Actual quotation from the article: “That’s life in the big city, or just another day in the hood if you prefer, bro. Deal with it.”
UPDATE: According to Robert Stacy McCain, “Nobody is saying Trayvon Martin ‘deserved it,’ and it is astonishing that the Tampa Bay Times would employ a reporter who would write such a dishonest sentence, or editors who would let that lie appear in print.”
We’ve all been saying as much, but right now Charles Pierce is — to paraphrase Hunter S. Thompson talking about himself — really writing the fuck out of words:
Some night very soon, if he so chooses, George Zimmerman can load his piece, tuck it into the back of his pants, climb into his SUV, and drive around Sanford, Florida looking for assholes and fucking punks who are walking through neighborhoods where he, George Zimmerman, defender of law and order, doesn’t think they belong. He can drive around Sanford, Florida and check out anyone who is dressed in such a manner as might frighten the average citizen who has been fed a daily diet of “Scary Black Kids” by their local news and by their favorite radio personalities, and who is dressed in such a manner as might seem inappropriate to their surroundings as determined by George Zimmerman, crimebuster. He can drive around Sanford, Florida until he spots an asshole or a fucking punk and then he can get out of his SUV, his piece tucked into the back of his pants, and he can stalk the asshole or the fucking punk, the one who is in the wrong neighborhood, or who is dressed inappropriately, at least according to George Zimmerman, protector of peace. If the asshole, or the fucking punk, turns around and objects to being stalked — or, worse, if the asshole, or the fucking punk, decides physically to confront the person stalking him — then George Zimmerman can whip out the piece from the back of his pants and shoot the asshole, or the fucking punk, dead right there on the spot. This can happen tonight. That is now possible. Hunting licenses are now available and it’s open season on assholes, fucking punks, and kids who wear hoodies at night in neighborhoods where they do not belong, at least according to George Zimmerman, defender of law and order, crimebuster, and protector of the peace, because that is what American society has told George Zimmerman, and all the rest of us, is the just outcome of what happened on one dark and rainy night in February of 2012.
… just make sure he’s black.
After your inevitable acquittal, you’ll be the darling of the conservative lecture circuit for years.
My dissertation contains a rather lengthy discussion of Cesare Lombroso, his theory of being “born bad,” and the complicity of later evolutionary theorists in its dissemination. I could’ve saved myself quite a bit of hand-wringing had I these photographs at my disposal. They depict a young Adolf Hitler — recently released from jail and fresh off writing Mein Kampf — rehearsing the part of the “Adolf Hitler.” Because apparently Hitlers aren’t born but made:
This is the face of evil. Do what I do everyday — laugh in it by being alive.
*I don’t know why I’m titling everything after comedy routines of late either. But I am:
And after today’s “women must register tampons and maxi pads as lethal weapons” nonsense in Texas, I believe we’ve found this one’s:
Ann Coulter has an interesting column on the George Zimmerman case — and I say “interesting” because its sole concern is to indict Trayvon Martin for crimes committed by “young black males” who aren’t him. They may not even be themselves. To wit:
A few days later, another house was burglarized. The thieves made off with jewelry and a new laptop. Roofers working across the street had seen two black teenagers near the house at the time of the robbery. When they spotted one of the teens the next day, they called the police.
This time, the roofers followed the suspect so he wouldn’t get away. The cops arrived and found the stolen laptop in his backpack. This was the same black teenager Zimmerman had seen looking in a neighbor’s window.
I understand how the roofers could recognize one of the people they saw “near the house,” and that the police could positively identify him as one of the robbers because he’s in possession of stolen property. But how exactly does Coulter know that the black teenager arrested with the laptop is the same one Zimmerman saw? Especially given that — if nothing else — this trial’s proven that George Zimmerman is utter shit at identifying and assessing the relative threat of young black males. Given that this unnamed black teen was presumably convicted on the strength of the possession charge, from a legal standpoint it’s immaterial whether Zimmerman testified against him. But given the perspective of his current defense strategy — which amounts to him having been “socialized” by young black criminals to assume that all young black males are criminals — it seems odd that Coulter would defend Zimmerman by demonstrating that his profiling is vindicated. “He may be a racist who believes all young black males are criminals,” she essentially argues, “but Trayvon Martin was exception, and as a vigorously law-abiding citizen, Zimmerman had no choice but to abide by the rule.”
And here — and the following is graphic and I advise you not to click through if such things disturb you — here is what happens when men like Zimmerman treat an “exception” like the “rule.” The defense has released countless images of a teenage Martin puffing his chest in his bathroom mirror like every other kid his age, but this is the image of Martin that matters. A young man, dead in the wet grass, his life cut short because Zimmerman mistook Skittles for a deadly weapon. The defense’s reliance on those images of Martin posing like a “thug” points to the perfidy of their logic: Zimmerman hadn’t seen those images when he started following Martin, nor did he know anything about Martin being involved with the insidious crime of enjoying marijuana. He just saw the kid who’d been in that dead body and decided he needed to be taught a lesson.
Say what you will about the legal maneuvering about lesser charges, but it’s clear that Zimmerman’s guilty of a premeditated action, and if his defense manages to convince the jury that “sensible” racial animus trumps that, we’re all the poorer for it.
UPDATE: And Zimmerman’s defense closes with what Richard Wright, in a petulant interview with the French press, called a “behold this nigger” moment: a photograph of Martin sitting shirtless on his father’s couch. It’s just like a slave auction — right down to the selling of a black body.
Before you laugh, you should know that intellectual heavyweights like the Internet’s own Jeff Goldstein are a crucial part of the movement to make “North Colorado” the 51st state. The movement’s “willing to make our voices heard even while being labeled kooks and ‘fringe’ elements,” which is a good thing, since it sounds like something concocted by kooky fringe elements. Who are these people? Don’t know. But according to Jeff they
represent a growing number of contiguous outlying counties that surround the Denver/Boulder doughnut hole owned by the hipsters and Democrats, and the many out-of-state (and illegally out-of-country) imports who have taken over Colorado government, at least for the time being[.]
I wonder what those counties have in common? Let me see now:
They “represent” a group wants to form a state that will be on average 94.94 percent white. They specifically want to exclude urban areas like Denver County, which threatens their Great White Fever Dream with its 10.4 percent blackness. Not that their desire for a white state prevents them from explicitly comparing their plight to the Civil Rights Movement. Except if you scroll down, you’ll see that their new white state will require that “the streets run with blood like we’ve never seen before.” (That sounds ominous until you remember how low a benchmark that is for shut-ins like these.) So it’ll be just like the Civil Rights Movement, only with lots of guns and violence. I bet Jeff’s sitting at home right now thinking about rolling naked on the floor — I mean grappling — and choking the life from some dusky liberal relativist.
Because there’s nothing racist about wanting to create a white state if it’s just an accident of ideology that everyone invested in its creation is white. Unrelatedly:
*Stolen from a comment David Cross made when I saw him perform at the Irvine Spectrum Center many years ago.
Ann Althouse finally tired of horrible people agreeing with the horrible things she writes and closed her comments to all but her husband. That Meade’s the foremost offender when it comes to defending her offensive positions seems not to have occurred to her. But I congratulate her on this “new experiment”:
Perhaps this is the first day of the new era on this blog. You won’t be able to see the comments that would have been written, but you will see how it changes me.
I’m not sure what “it” is, but I do so hope it “changes” her into something resembling a rational and compassionate human being.
I’d settle for sober.
I’m a little concerned about this idiot pack she’s loosed upon the rest of us, so if you notice a slight uptick in fringe lunacy, remember we have a policy that you’re welcome to enforce with wild abandon.
UPDATE [SL]: Why does Ann Althouse HATE FREE SPEECH? As I understand it from Althouse’s previous writings, if the principle means anything it sure means that people must have unlimited access to the comment sections of other blogs.
Steven Attewell and I decided that we didn’t want to wait until next February to continue talking about Game of Thrones, and so we decided to start over. Here’s our take on “Winter Is Coming,” the serie’s inaugural episode. I’m including links to the works I referenced and will have Steven do the same.
Works SEK discusses:
Works Attewell discusses (warning, all of these posts contain spoilers for all five books):
(This is obviously one of my visual rhetoric posts, all of which can be found here.)
In my first post on “In Care Of,” I discussed the importance of the logic of the “Oh Really” sequence to the episode; in the second, I not only proved that cowboy hats aren’t the new lasers, but also that Matthew Weiner is dedicated to creating pain by any means necessary, including undermining the importance of structural elements like the “Oh Really” sequence. In other words, my first two posts were about how Weiner creates tension via the visuals and sustains it by undermining the visuals that created it via the narrative. Most television shows — and most television writers — have a particular set of visual and narrative crutches they break out when they need to rouse their viewers. For example, Joss Whedon favors hackneyed speeches undermined by immediate circumstances:
BUFFY: No, it doesn’t stop! It never stops! Do you — do you think I chose to be like this? You have any idea how lonely it is? How dangerous? I would love to be upstairs, watching TV or gossiping about boys or — God, even studying! But I have to save the world. Again.
LOKI: Enough! You are, all of you are beneath me! I am a god, you dull creature, and I will not be bullied by —
(HULK flattens LOKI by SMASH)
Whenever one of Whedon’s characters starts to speechify like William Wallace pontificating about the theoretical possibility of Scottish independence, that character’s likely to find his or her authority undermined either by their own words or someone else’s actions.* Whedon telegraphs it to a man who proceeds to semaphore it at your face. Which is why Mad Men continues to make for compelling television: Weiner and his writers are clearly aware of how they’re manipulating us and, like a great boxer, always slug us where we’re not expecting. Especially when they’ve established those expectations in a particular episode. In the last scene of this one, he combines the “Oh Really” sequence with its content-dependent and confessional opposite. To wit:
He opens with this long shot of the Draper/Whitman family. They’re all clearly staring up at something, and because of the extremely high angle, seem to be dominated by whatever that something is. Establishing that something’s doing the dominating before actually showing it on screen has two effects: the first is to rouse our curiosity; the second, to remind us of what’s become obvious by now, i.e. that this family’s been burdened by an unknown and unspoken something for quite some time. Of course Don knows what it is, but to Sally, in particular, there’s just been this horrible presence that’s tainted her father’s relationships with everyone. She has no idea what it is, but this shot’s telling you here it is. But before cutting to this looming presence, Weiner thinks we need a refresher on how close this family is at the moment: