Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (3 Viewers)

[IvanKaramazov]

It really saddens me that President Obama had a picture perfect opportunity to try and unite us, but he chose to divide us even further.

OK Stat. How would YOU have taken the "picture perfect opportunity"? Please enlighten us with what Obama should have said that would have successfully united the nation on this matter?

He could have said that the judicial process shows us that our initial assumptions can easily be wrong. Our initial assumptions are fueled by our experience and history. But we should not allow what has happened to us determine the guilt of man until he has had a fair trial. Our assumptions were unfair to Zimmerman. It is a tragedy that a young man died. But it would be a worse tragedy if we let a freedom, that our country is founded upon, die. And that is the freedom that a man is innocent until proven guilty.

That would be extremely UN-unifying, because it would imply that those who don't like the verdict are "letting a freedom die", which is total bull####. Obama stated that the justice system must be respected, but then he went on to say that the frustrations of African-Americans must also be respected and understood.

Yes, this is the "pandering to prejudice" part of the speech. Basically he explained to us that -- and this is Obama's opinion, keep in mind -- black people are prejudiced when it comes to these situations. The correct response is not to ask us to understand and respect those prejudices, but to ask the prejudiced people to learn from their mistake.

He doesn't use the word prejudiced, nor do I, and I strongly reject your use of it here. It is not pandering to prejudice to have empathy towards one's feelings about historical experiences.

You don't get to change the definition of what a word means.

Edit: You're the one who quoted the parts of the speech in which Obama identifies the prejudices that he believes some black Americans brought to this case. You don't get to "strongly reject" the only accurate descriptor of those passages.

 

[timschochet]

It really saddens me that President Obama had a picture perfect opportunity to try and unite us, but he chose to divide us even further.

OK Stat. How would YOU have taken the "picture perfect opportunity"? Please enlighten us with what Obama should have said that would have successfully united the nation on this matter?

Instead of using Treyvon Martins corpse as a prop to give me some kind of street cred in the black community, I would have had my speech writers craft something that would unite us all. I don't have the hundreds of paid speech writers that Obama has at his disposal.

Based on the bolded part of your response to my question, I don't think you read any of the speech. And if you did read it, then I question your ability to comprehend it.

He shouldnt have even mentioned the Martin case. Ever. Period. If he wants to start a dialogue on race relations I have zero issues with that. He should not tie that into this case though.

He would be better off finding other examples. If you want to speak of the unfair effects of racism in this country you need to focus on the people that are just trying to make it in this world and are getting dealt an unfair hand. You need to focus on the woman I work with that works two jobs and is a single mother of two children. What situations does racism cause her problems on a weekly basis? How can those be fixed? Instead we talk about racism when crime is involved.

Like it or not, but the common population doesnt really care to talk about how racism affects troubled black males when they are in trouble. Those discussions will be viewed as excuses. Even though sometimes there may be incredibly valid points. People are not going to care that the best buy employee followed you around last week and all you were doing there was buying a DVD when it is being brought up because you got caught stealing something at Target.

Give me a break. There are MILLIONS of Americans who followed this case, and millions who are upset by the result, and Obama shouldn't mention it?

And you're wrong about the bolded- demonstrably so. Conservatives claim they don't want to talk about racism (though in truth, they do so more than anyone else.) But TV ratings constantly show that racism is a huge issue that attracts attention.

 

[timschochet]

It really saddens me that President Obama had a picture perfect opportunity to try and unite us, but he chose to divide us even further.

OK Stat. How would YOU have taken the "picture perfect opportunity"? Please enlighten us with what Obama should have said that would have successfully united the nation on this matter?

He could have said that the judicial process shows us that our initial assumptions can easily be wrong. Our initial assumptions are fueled by our experience and history. But we should not allow what has happened to us determine the guilt of man until he has had a fair trial. Our assumptions were unfair to Zimmerman. It is a tragedy that a young man died. But it would be a worse tragedy if we let a freedom, that our country is founded upon, die. And that is the freedom that a man is innocent until proven guilty.

That would be extremely UN-unifying, because it would imply that those who don't like the verdict are "letting a freedom die", which is total bull####. Obama stated that the justice system must be respected, but then he went on to say that the frustrations of African-Americans must also be respected and understood.

Yes, this is the "pandering to prejudice" part of the speech. Basically he explained to us that -- and this is Obama's opinion, keep in mind -- black people are prejudiced when it comes to these situations. The correct response is not to ask us to understand and respect those prejudices, but to ask the prejudiced people to learn from their mistake.

He doesn't use the word prejudiced, nor do I, and I strongly reject your use of it here. It is not pandering to prejudice to have empathy towards one's feelings about historical experiences.

You don't get to change the definition of what a word means.

Edit: You're the one who quoted the parts of the speech in which Obama identifies the prejudices that he believes some black Americans brought to this case. You don't get to "strongly reject" the only accurate descriptor of those passages.

I'm not the one changing the definition. You are.

Also, I haven't quoted any part of Obama's speech.

 

[Man of Zen]

It really saddens me that President Obama had a picture perfect opportunity to try and unite us, but he chose to divide us even further.

OK Stat. How would YOU have taken the "picture perfect opportunity"? Please enlighten us with what Obama should have said that would have successfully united the nation on this matter?

He could have said that the judicial process shows us that our initial assumptions can easily be wrong. Our initial assumptions are fueled by our experience and history. But we should not allow what has happened to us determine the guilt of man until he has had a fair trial. Our assumptions were unfair to Zimmerman. It is a tragedy that a young man died. But it would be a worse tragedy if we let a freedom, that our country is founded upon, die. And that is the freedom that a man is innocent until proven guilty.

That would be extremely UN-unifying, because it would imply that those who don't like the verdict are "letting a freedom die", which is total bull####. Obama stated that the justice system must be respected, but then he went on to say that the frustrations of African-Americans must also be respected and understood.

There are those who don't like the verdict. And then there are those who have assumed he was guilty all along and still do despite the verdict. In the eyes of the law, Zimmerman is free, because the law did not find him guily. But now he lives in a society where a great amount of people still assume he is guilty, despite the verdict. He will not "live free". To say we must "respect and understand" the assumptions made by those who will keep him from living free validates the lack of freedom his life will have from now on. There is no reason to justify the societal prison Zimmerman will live in for the rest of his life. Yet you and Obama seem to have reason to continue justifying it.

Sure there is. Zimmerman isn't guilty of what he was charged with. He also isn't completely innocent, in that he was a major player in a situation that resulted in someone dying. Does that mean he should be banned from society? No. Does that mean his life should go on unchanged, and he should be back in exactly the same situation he was before this? Not necessarily.

The great hypocrisy here is that the same people who complain that felons have "done their time" and should therefore be treated the same as everyone else when it comes to job opportunities, voting, etc. are the same ones who are putting bounties on Zimmermans head, and the guy wasn't convicted of anything.

I think Zimmerman should be able to vote.

 

[Politician Spock]

It really saddens me that President Obama had a picture perfect opportunity to try and unite us, but he chose to divide us even further.

OK Stat. How would YOU have taken the "picture perfect opportunity"? Please enlighten us with what Obama should have said that would have successfully united the nation on this matter?

He could have said that the judicial process shows us that our initial assumptions can easily be wrong. Our initial assumptions are fueled by our experience and history. But we should not allow what has happened to us determine the guilt of man until he has had a fair trial. Our assumptions were unfair to Zimmerman. It is a tragedy that a young man died. But it would be a worse tragedy if we let a freedom, that our country is founded upon, die. And that is the freedom that a man is innocent until proven guilty.

That would be extremely UN-unifying, because it would imply that those who don't like the verdict are "letting a freedom die", which is total bull####. Obama stated that the justice system must be respected, but then he went on to say that the frustrations of African-Americans must also be respected and understood.

Yes, this is the "pandering to prejudice" part of the speech. Basically he explained to us that -- and this is Obama's opinion, keep in mind -- black people are prejudiced when it comes to these situations. The correct response is not to ask us to understand and respect those prejudices, but to ask the prejudiced people to learn from their mistake.

He doesn't use the word prejudiced, nor do I, and I strongly reject your use of it here. It is not pandering to prejudice to have empathy towards one's feelings about historical experiences.

Having empathy for why a people make and hold onto grave assumptions does not mean the grave assumptions they make and hold on to have to be respected. I have empathy for why my kids do wrong things... but they are still wrong when they do wrong.

 

[timschochet]

It really saddens me that President Obama had a picture perfect opportunity to try and unite us, but he chose to divide us even further.

OK Stat. How would YOU have taken the "picture perfect opportunity"? Please enlighten us with what Obama should have said that would have successfully united the nation on this matter?

He could have said that the judicial process shows us that our initial assumptions can easily be wrong. Our initial assumptions are fueled by our experience and history. But we should not allow what has happened to us determine the guilt of man until he has had a fair trial. Our assumptions were unfair to Zimmerman. It is a tragedy that a young man died. But it would be a worse tragedy if we let a freedom, that our country is founded upon, die. And that is the freedom that a man is innocent until proven guilty.

That would be extremely UN-unifying, because it would imply that those who don't like the verdict are "letting a freedom die", which is total bull####. Obama stated that the justice system must be respected, but then he went on to say that the frustrations of African-Americans must also be respected and understood.

Yes, this is the "pandering to prejudice" part of the speech. Basically he explained to us that -- and this is Obama's opinion, keep in mind -- black people are prejudiced when it comes to these situations. The correct response is not to ask us to understand and respect those prejudices, but to ask the prejudiced people to learn from their mistake.

He doesn't use the word prejudiced, nor do I, and I strongly reject your use of it here. It is not pandering to prejudice to have empathy towards one's feelings about historical experiences.

Having empathy for why a people make and hold onto grave assumptions does not mean the grave assumptions they make and hold on to have to be respected. I have empathy for why my kids do wrong things... but they are still wrong when they do wrong.

Peaceful protesting of a verdict that you don't like is wrong?

 

[Politician Spock]

It really saddens me that President Obama had a picture perfect opportunity to try and unite us, but he chose to divide us even further.

OK Stat. How would YOU have taken the "picture perfect opportunity"? Please enlighten us with what Obama should have said that would have successfully united the nation on this matter?

He could have said that the judicial process shows us that our initial assumptions can easily be wrong. Our initial assumptions are fueled by our experience and history. But we should not allow what has happened to us determine the guilt of man until he has had a fair trial. Our assumptions were unfair to Zimmerman. It is a tragedy that a young man died. But it would be a worse tragedy if we let a freedom, that our country is founded upon, die. And that is the freedom that a man is innocent until proven guilty.

That would be extremely UN-unifying, because it would imply that those who don't like the verdict are "letting a freedom die", which is total bull####. Obama stated that the justice system must be respected, but then he went on to say that the frustrations of African-Americans must also be respected and understood.

Yes, this is the "pandering to prejudice" part of the speech. Basically he explained to us that -- and this is Obama's opinion, keep in mind -- black people are prejudiced when it comes to these situations. The correct response is not to ask us to understand and respect those prejudices, but to ask the prejudiced people to learn from their mistake.

He doesn't use the word prejudiced, nor do I, and I strongly reject your use of it here. It is not pandering to prejudice to have empathy towards one's feelings about historical experiences.

Having empathy for why a people make and hold onto grave assumptions does not mean the grave assumptions they make and hold on to have to be respected. I have empathy for why my kids do wrong things... but they are still wrong when they do wrong.

Peaceful protesting of a verdict that you don't like is wrong?

Assuming he is guilty is wrong.

 

[squistion]

It really saddens me that President Obama had a picture perfect opportunity to try and unite us, but he chose to divide us even further.

OK Stat. How would YOU have taken the "picture perfect opportunity"? Please enlighten us with what Obama should have said that would have successfully united the nation on this matter?

He could have said that the judicial process shows us that our initial assumptions can easily be wrong. Our initial assumptions are fueled by our experience and history. But we should not allow what has happened to us determine the guilt of man until he has had a fair trial. Our assumptions were unfair to Zimmerman. It is a tragedy that a young man died. But it would be a worse tragedy if we let a freedom, that our country is founded upon, die. And that is the freedom that a man is innocent until proven guilty.

That would be extremely UN-unifying, because it would imply that those who don't like the verdict are "letting a freedom die", which is total bull####. Obama stated that the justice system must be respected, but then he went on to say that the frustrations of African-Americans must also be respected and understood.

Yes, this is the "pandering to prejudice" part of the speech. Basically he explained to us that -- and this is Obama's opinion, keep in mind -- black people are prejudiced when it comes to these situations. The correct response is not to ask us to understand and respect those prejudices, but to ask the prejudiced people to learn from their mistake.

Wat? I didn't get that from the speech.

 

[avoiding injuries]

if racism wasn't something that black males go through every day of their lives,

It is not every black male, and perhaps not every day, but you are living in a cave if you think that it isn't still a common occurence

If you've read his posts, he's genuine though. He really doesn't believe it exists. Neither, apparently do several other posters here.

It is not that racism doesn't exist, it is that the perception of racism is blown extremely out of proportion. Instead of seeing the great opportunities which do exist, black youth are held back by this incredible feeling of victimhood which is out of sync with the reality of today. Until this culture of victimhood is changed, which even Obama helps promote, black youth are destined to repeat this cycle of poverty and crime.

This. There is a middle ground where one can acknowledge that remnants of racism exist while acknowledging that we have come to a point where those remnants are no longer a valid excuse for poor behavior, that it is no longer "institutionalized".

First off, to be clear: racism has NEVER been a valid excuse for poor behavior. We can make connections without making excuses. For example, it's important to note that most men who are wife abusers were themselves abused as children, and they learned to accept this behavior as "normal". That doesn't excuse their abuse, but it helps us to understand it. The history of racism in this country has played a huge role as to why many blacks continue to struggle with crime, but that doesn't excuse the crime.Second, there is no question in my mind that racism remains institutionalized in terms of the justice system in this country. Statistic after statistic demonstrates that blacks receive more suspicion by police, more arrests, more convictions, greater punishments (including the death penalty) at skewed numbers compared to their percentage of the overall population. The numbers don't lie.

I'd be curious to learn if black populated areas have more police assigned to those districts vs white populated areas plays a role in these "skewed" stats. It would make sense.

 

[timschochet]

Let's get something clear: most blacks in this country assume 3 things about this case:

1. George Zimmerman is a racist.

2. George Zimmerman racially profiled Trayvon Martin.

3. George Zimmerman wrongfully killed Trayvon Martin.

It seems pretty clear to me that point #1 is a false assumption, based on faulty information. But I continue to hold that points #2 and #3 are absolutely correct (though not necessarily connected to each other.) These are not prejudicial beliefs; they can be achieved by logical deduction having gone over the facts of this case as we know them (please don't ask me to explain this again- I have done so several times in this thread and won't bore anyone by repeating myself- you're welcome to go back and look over my arguments and accept or not accept them as you choose.)

 

[The Commish]

Bonzai,

Do you happen to be an inner city counselor by any chance or at the very least work in those types of neighborhoods?

Something like that, yes.

Seems like it. My view on this seems to be similar to yours and I spent a good amount of my teen, college and 20s working in a similar capacity with inner city kids and parents.

 

[The Commish]

I can't believe people are still pushing the racism / racial profiling issue with no evidence to support that narrative and lots of evidence contrary to it. I mean yeah I believe it because this is Tim and the FFA but still.

The answer is in between IMO the two extremes of jon and tim. It's naive to think that his race wasn't part of the profile. It's clear it wasn't the initiating factor, but I believe it helped it was part of the "they" Zimmerman made reference to. Is that racial profiling in it's strictest sense? No. With that said, what evidence do you think we have? That Zimmerman dated a black girl? That he did work with minority charities? I'm certainly not poo pooing efforts like that, but I really don't see it as definitive evidence one way or the other as to what he was thinking that night. It's quite possible the recent events in his neighborhood had him thinking very differently in that moment, but that's anyone's guess. The last thing we are left with is the jury, but forgive me if I put little credence into what an all white jury believes with regards to racism.

Again, I don't think it was the driving factor in his decisions, but I think it was an element.

I want to challenge you here. You state that my argument is extreme. Yet when I read the whole of your paragraph, I find very little distinction between your argument and mine. I may differ with your statement "it's clear that it wasn't the initiating factor" because I don't think any aspect of Zimmerman's thinking that night was clear. But that's hardly an extreme position. I have stated earlier that while I believe that Zimmerman was racial profiling that night, this in itself does not make him guilty of any crime- I regard racial profiling as something almost all of us are guilty of from time to time- not a good thing by any means, but also not something that I make a habit out of condemning others for when I have done it myself. It is something that as a society we should work to resolve IMO- you can disagree with me on that, but again I don't think it's an extreme position.

So how am I extreme?

There's a substantial distinction. You think Zimmerman's primary factor in profiling was the kid's race....that's what racial profiling means. I don't think it was the primary factor. Being guilty/not guilty of a crime has nothing to do with what I am talking about. There's a scale here where you're on one end suggesting Zimmerman's primary factor in profiling Martin was his race. Then there's jon_mx saying his profile had nothing to do with race. Those are the "end points" (aka the extremes) of the scale. I'm not suggesting that the position is extreme as a matter of degree. Make sense?

 

[parasaurolophus]

It really saddens me that President Obama had a picture perfect opportunity to try and unite us, but he chose to divide us even further.

OK Stat. How would YOU have taken the "picture perfect opportunity"? Please enlighten us with what Obama should have said that would have successfully united the nation on this matter?

Instead of using Treyvon Martins corpse as a prop to give me some kind of street cred in the black community, I would have had my speech writers craft something that would unite us all. I don't have the hundreds of paid speech writers that Obama has at his disposal.

Based on the bolded part of your response to my question, I don't think you read any of the speech. And if you did read it, then I question your ability to comprehend it.

He shouldnt have even mentioned the Martin case. Ever. Period. If he wants to start a dialogue on race relations I have zero issues with that. He should not tie that into this case though.

He would be better off finding other examples. If you want to speak of the unfair effects of racism in this country you need to focus on the people that are just trying to make it in this world and are getting dealt an unfair hand. You need to focus on the woman I work with that works two jobs and is a single mother of two children. What situations does racism cause her problems on a weekly basis? How can those be fixed? Instead we talk about racism when crime is involved.

Like it or not, but the common population doesnt really care to talk about how racism affects troubled black males when they are in trouble. Those discussions will be viewed as excuses. Even though sometimes there may be incredibly valid points. People are not going to care that the best buy employee followed you around last week and all you were doing there was buying a DVD when it is being brought up because you got caught stealing something at Target.

Give me a break. There are MILLIONS of Americans who followed this case, and millions who are upset by the result, and Obama shouldn't mention it?

And you're wrong about the bolded- demonstrably so. Conservatives claim they don't want to talk about racism (though in truth, they do so more than anyone else.) But TV ratings constantly show that racism is a huge issue that attracts attention.

You are full of it. Talking about real issues that occur doesnt grab headlines. There is a reason you won't hear Obama talk about it other than when it is a case like this.

Even you only bring up law enforcement issues and crimes when you pretend to care about race.

 

[Politician Spock]

Let's get something clear: most blacks in this country assume 3 things about this case:

1. George Zimmerman is a racist.

2. George Zimmerman racially profiled Trayvon Martin.

3. George Zimmerman wrongfully killed Trayvon Martin.

It seems pretty clear to me that point #1 is a false assumption, based on faulty information. But I continue to hold that points #2 and #3 are absolutely correct (though not necessarily connected to each other.) These are not prejudicial beliefs; they can be achieved by logical deduction having gone over the facts of this case as we know them (please don't ask me to explain this again- I have done so several times in this thread and won't bore anyone by repeating myself- you're welcome to go back and look over my arguments and accept or not accept them as you choose.)

Obama wasn't speaking to you on Friday. Obama's speech wasn't about you, despite how ofter you assume so many things are all about you.

He was speaking to the nation, of a which a large chunk still assume all three you list above, and couldn't produce a logical argument to support any of them.

That is why Obama didn't try to make the case like you just did that there is logic behind the assumptions. He specifically made the case that it is their experiences and history that are behind their assumptions.

Their experiences and history compel them to believe Zimmerman is guilty, and is still guilty even if proven innocent. Having empathy for why they have their assumptions does not mean we have to respect the assumptions.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Obama ensured his life will change thanks to his speech on Friday. He validated the assumptions of thosw who will change it for him. I find it sickening that a president would go out of his way to do that.

I think your perception of Obama's remarks is the real issue here.

 

[Bonzai]

Let's get something clear: most blacks in this country assume 3 things about this case:

1. George Zimmerman is a racist.

2. George Zimmerman racially profiled Trayvon Martin.

3. George Zimmerman wrongfully killed Trayvon Martin.

It seems pretty clear to me that point #1 is a false assumption, based on faulty information. But I continue to hold that points #2 and #3 are absolutely correct (though not necessarily connected to each other.) These are not prejudicial beliefs; they can be achieved by logical deduction having gone over the facts of this case as we know them (please don't ask me to explain this again- I have done so several times in this thread and won't bore anyone by repeating myself- you're welcome to go back and look over my arguments and accept or not accept them as you choose.)

Theres a difference between trying to understand or appreciate another's point of view versus presenting yourself as their spokesperson. You're getting a little weird with this here. But I agree that you can have 2 and 3 without 1.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

The great hypocrisy here is that the same people who complain that felons have "done their time" and should therefore be treated the same as everyone else when it comes to job opportunities, voting, etc. are the same ones who are putting bounties on Zimmermans head, and the guy wasn't convicted of anything.

You've done a complete mapping of the views of people on Zimmerman vs felons who have "done their time?" Wow, that's impressive. Do you mind sharing this extensive dataset?

 

[Statorama]

Interesting opportunity for a politician in need of a Hail Mary to come out in defense of the verdict and of Zimmerman in particular, especially if they focused on how a Hispanic is being portrayed and vilified

 

[Bonzai]

It really saddens me that President Obama had a picture perfect opportunity to try and unite us, but he chose to divide us even further.

OK Stat. How would YOU have taken the "picture perfect opportunity"? Please enlighten us with what Obama should have said that would have successfully united the nation on this matter?

He could have said that the judicial process shows us that our initial assumptions can easily be wrong. Our initial assumptions are fueled by our experience and history. But we should not allow what has happened to us determine the guilt of man until he has had a fair trial. Our assumptions were unfair to Zimmerman. It is a tragedy that a young man died. But it would be a worse tragedy if we let a freedom, that our country is founded upon, die. And that is the freedom that a man is innocent until proven guilty.

That would be extremely UN-unifying, because it would imply that those who don't like the verdict are "letting a freedom die", which is total bull####. Obama stated that the justice system must be respected, but then he went on to say that the frustrations of African-Americans must also be respected and understood.

Yes, this is the "pandering to prejudice" part of the speech. Basically he explained to us that -- and this is Obama's opinion, keep in mind -- black people are prejudiced when it comes to these situations. The correct response is not to ask us to understand and respect those prejudices, but to ask the prejudiced people to learn from their mistake.

Wat? I didn't get that from the speech.

That is his prejudiced interpretation of the speech. Hopefully he can learn from this mistake.

 

[collective]

George Zimmerman emerges from hiding to rescue someone trapped in overturn truck

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-emerged-hiding-truck-crash-rescue/story?id=19735432

George Zimmerman, who has been in hiding since he was acquitted of murder in the death of Trayvon Martin, emerged to help rescue someone who was trapped in an overturned truck, police said today.

Sanford Police Department Capt. Jim McAuliffe told ABC News that Zimmerman "pulled an individual from a truck that had rolled over" at the intersection of a Florida highway last week. Florida Highway Patrol is now handling the case, McAuliffe said.

The crash occurred at the intersection of I-4 and route 417, police said. The crash site is less than a mile from where he shot Martin.

It's the first known sighting of Zimmerman since he left the courtroom following his acquittal last week on murder charges for the death of Martin. Zimmerman, 29, shot and killed Martin, 17, in Sanford, Fla., on Feb. 26, 2012. The jury determined that Zimmerman shot Martin in self-defense.

The acquittal prompted dozens of protests across the country this past weekend and his lawyers have said that Zimmerman has been the subject of death threats. His lawyers said Zimmerman has been wearing a bullet-proof vest when he ventures out in public.

Zimmerman's parents told ABC News' Barbara Walters they too have received death threats and have been unable to return to their home.

"We have had an enormous amount of death threats. George's legal counsel has had death threats, the police chief of Sanford, many people have had death threats," Zimmerman's father, Robert Zimmerman said."'Everyone with Georgie's DNA should be killed' -- just every kind of horrible thing you can imagine."

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It really saddens me that President Obama had a picture perfect opportunity to try and unite us, but he chose to divide us even further.

OK Stat. How would YOU have taken the "picture perfect opportunity"? Please enlighten us with what Obama should have said that would have successfully united the nation on this matter?

He could have said that the judicial process shows us that our initial assumptions can easily be wrong. Our initial assumptions are fueled by our experience and history. But we should not allow what has happened to us determine the guilt of man until he has had a fair trial. Our assumptions were unfair to Zimmerman. It is a tragedy that a young man died. But it would be a worse tragedy if we let a freedom, that our country is founded upon, die. And that is the freedom that a man is innocent until proven guilty.

That would be extremely UN-unifying, because it would imply that those who don't like the verdict are "letting a freedom die", which is total bull####. Obama stated that the justice system must be respected, but then he went on to say that the frustrations of African-Americans must also be respected and understood.

Yes, this is the "pandering to prejudice" part of the speech. Basically he explained to us that -- and this is Obama's opinion, keep in mind -- black people are prejudiced when it comes to these situations. The correct response is not to ask us to understand and respect those prejudices, but to ask the prejudiced people to learn from their mistake.

He doesn't use the word prejudiced, nor do I, and I strongly reject your use of it here. It is not pandering to prejudice to have empathy towards one's feelings about historical experiences.

You don't get to change the definition of what a word means.

Edit: You're the one who quoted the parts of the speech in which Obama identifies the prejudices that he believes some black Americans brought to this case. You don't get to "strongly reject" the only accurate descriptor of those passages.

I'm not the one changing the definition. You are.

Also, I haven't quoted any part of Obama's speech.

Okay, I see that you just responded to some quotes that Christo provided. My fault on that.

Still, when somebody says "I come from the following background, which colors how I interpret X," they are conceding that they are prejudiced when it comes to X. That's what the word means.

 

[Politician Spock]

Obama ensured his life will change thanks to his speech on Friday. He validated the assumptions of thosw who will change it for him. I find it sickening that a president would go out of his way to do that.

I think your perception of Obama's remarks is the real issue here.

I went out of my way to avoid this whole Martin/Zimmerman issue... until I heard Obama's speech about it on Friday. If my perception is "the real issue", then "the real issue" didn't even exist until Friday.

 

[The Commish]

Assuming he is guilty is wrong.

Assuming anything prior to the trial is wrong. That's how we get into these bias pissing matches. Problem here is he was proven not guilty yet there is a faction that also understands he's certainly not innocent. But that's not how the legal system works. I've listened and even read Obama's speech several times trying to understand the negative message so many have issue with (mainly because there are some pretty bright people like IK here that have issue with his speech) but I'm not getting the negative message.

IMO, he's giving us a little insight to what it's like to look at our society from an African American's POV. Something few of us have attempted to do. It's really hard to do. He's not saying that the POV is right. He's explaining what it is and that we need to respect it. There's nothing wrong with that message IMO. He's right. This country would be a lot better off if we took time to look at situations outside from various POVs. Our self centered nature is drawing divides among us making us less and less tolerant of people who don't think just like us.

 

[Statorama]

George Zimmerman emerges from hiding to rescue someone trapped in overturn truckhttp://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-emerged-hiding-truck-crash-rescue/story?id=19735432George Zimmerman, who has been in hiding since he was acquitted of murder in the death of Trayvon Martin, emerged to help rescue someone who was trapped in an overturned truck, police said today.Sanford Police Department Capt. Jim McAuliffe told ABC News that Zimmerman "pulled an individual from a truck that had rolled over" at the intersection of a Florida highway last week. Florida Highway Patrol is now handling the case, McAuliffe said.The crash occurred at the intersection of I-4 and route 417, police said. The crash site is less than a mile from where he shot Martin.It's the first known sighting of Zimmerman since he left the courtroom following his acquittal last week on murder charges for the death of Martin. Zimmerman, 29, shot and killed Martin, 17, in Sanford, Fla., on Feb. 26, 2012. The jury determined that Zimmerman shot Martin in self-defense.The acquittal prompted dozens of protests across the country this past weekend and his lawyers have said that Zimmerman has been the subject of death threats. His lawyers said Zimmerman has been wearing a bullet-proof vest when he ventures out in public.Zimmerman's parents told ABC News' Barbara Walters they too have received death threats and have been unable to return to their home."We have had an enormous amount of death threats. George's legal counsel has had death threats, the police chief of Sanford, many people have had death threats," Zimmerman's father, Robert Zimmerman said."'Everyone with Georgie's DNA should be killed' -- just every kind of horrible thing you can imagine."

Sounds like Mr. Zim owns a police scanner

 

[Bonzai]

It really saddens me that President Obama had a picture perfect opportunity to try and unite us, but he chose to divide us even further.

OK Stat. How would YOU have taken the "picture perfect opportunity"? Please enlighten us with what Obama should have said that would have successfully united the nation on this matter?

He could have said that the judicial process shows us that our initial assumptions can easily be wrong. Our initial assumptions are fueled by our experience and history. But we should not allow what has happened to us determine the guilt of man until he has had a fair trial. Our assumptions were unfair to Zimmerman. It is a tragedy that a young man died. But it would be a worse tragedy if we let a freedom, that our country is founded upon, die. And that is the freedom that a man is innocent until proven guilty.

That would be extremely UN-unifying, because it would imply that those who don't like the verdict are "letting a freedom die", which is total bull####. Obama stated that the justice system must be respected, but then he went on to say that the frustrations of African-Americans must also be respected and understood.

Yes, this is the "pandering to prejudice" part of the speech. Basically he explained to us that -- and this is Obama's opinion, keep in mind -- black people are prejudiced when it comes to these situations. The correct response is not to ask us to understand and respect those prejudices, but to ask the prejudiced people to learn from their mistake.

He doesn't use the word prejudiced, nor do I, and I strongly reject your use of it here. It is not pandering to prejudice to have empathy towards one's feelings about historical experiences.

You don't get to change the definition of what a word means.

Edit: You're the one who quoted the parts of the speech in which Obama identifies the prejudices that he believes some black Americans brought to this case. You don't get to "strongly reject" the only accurate descriptor of those passages.

I'm not the one changing the definition. You are.

Also, I haven't quoted any part of Obama's speech.

Okay, I see that you just responded to some quotes that Christo provided. My fault on that.

Still, when somebody says "I come from the following background, which colors how I interpret X," they are conceding that they are prejudiced when it comes to X. That's what the word means.

If your intention was to get into a semantic squabble, then so be it. But in my experience, it plays out exactly the opposite. It's the people who do not understand how their background colors their interpretations that are most prejudiced.

 

[Politician Spock]

Assuming he is guilty is wrong.

Assuming anything prior to the trial is wrong. That's how we get into these bias pissing matches. Problem here is he was proven not guilty yet there is a faction that also understands he's certainly not innocent. But that's not how the legal system works. I've listened and even read Obama's speech several times trying to understand the negative message so many have issue with (mainly because there are some pretty bright people like IK here that have issue with his speech) but I'm not getting the negative message.IMO, he's giving us a little insight to what it's like to look at our society from an African American's POV. Something few of us have attempted to do. It's really hard to do. He's not saying that the POV is right. He's explaining what it is and that we need to respect it. There's nothing wrong with that message IMO. He's right. This country would be a lot better off if we took time to look at situations outside from various POVs. Our self centered nature is drawing divides among us making us less and less tolerant of people who don't think just like us.

You are assuming that people are not getting that experiences and history give the AA community a different POV. Do you recognize that it is possible for someone to understand that point 100%, yet believe that should NOT be the basis for reaching judgement? It produces a pre-judgement. A prejudice. That is not a thought process that should be encouraged. It should be discouraged, despite how devastingly real the experiences and history of the the AA community is and has been.

 

[squistion]

Yes, this is the "pandering to prejudice" part of the speech. Basically he explained to us that -- and this is Obama's opinion, keep in mind -- black people are prejudiced when it comes to these situations. The correct response is not to ask us to understand and respect those prejudices, but to ask the prejudiced people to learn from their mistake.

He doesn't use the word prejudiced, nor do I, and I strongly reject your use of it here. It is not pandering to prejudice to have empathy towards one's feelings about historical experiences.

You don't get to change the definition of what a word means.

Edit: You're the one who quoted the parts of the speech in which Obama identifies the prejudices that he believes some black Americans brought to this case. You don't get to "strongly reject" the only accurate descriptor of those passages.

I'm not the one changing the definition. You are.

Also, I haven't quoted any part of Obama's speech.

Okay, I see that you just responded to some quotes that Christo provided. My fault on that.

Still, when somebody says "I come from the following background, which colors how I interpret X," they are conceding that they are prejudiced when it comes to X. That's what the word means.

I think you are confusing someone acknowledging that they have a different perspective based on their experiences with prejudice.

 

[The Commish]

Obama ensured his life will change thanks to his speech on Friday. He validated the assumptions of thosw who will change it for him. I find it sickening that a president would go out of his way to do that.

Oh Bull####....society already had the consequences in store for Zimmerman well before Obama uttered the first word of his speech.

 

[renesauz]

if racism wasn't something that black males go through every day of their lives,

It is not every black male, and perhaps not every day, but you are living in a cave if you think that it isn't still a common occurence

If you've read his posts, he's genuine though. He really doesn't believe it exists. Neither, apparently do several other posters here.

It is not that racism doesn't exist, it is that the perception of racism is blown extremely out of proportion. Instead of seeing the great opportunities which do exist, black youth are held back by this incredible feeling of victimhood which is out of sync with the reality of today. Until this culture of victimhood is changed, which even Obama helps promote, black youth are destined to repeat this cycle of poverty and crime.

This. There is a middle ground where one can acknowledge that remnants of racism exist while acknowledging that we have come to a point where those remnants are no longer a valid excuse for poor behavior, that it is no longer "institutionalized".

First off, to be clear: racism has NEVER been a valid excuse for poor behavior. We can make connections without making excuses. For example, it's important to note that most men who are wife abusers were themselves abused as children, and they learned to accept this behavior as "normal". That doesn't excuse their abuse, but it helps us to understand it. The history of racism in this country has played a huge role as to why many blacks continue to struggle with crime, but that doesn't excuse the crime.

Second, there is no question in my mind that racism remains institutionalized in terms of the justice system in this country. Statistic after statistic demonstrates that blacks receive more suspicion by police, more arrests, more convictions, greater punishments (including the death penalty) at skewed numbers compared to their percentage of the overall population. The numbers don't lie.

NO...but they all too often mislead. Anyone who has spent any real time in this hobby knows that.

 

[Politician Spock]

Obama ensured his life will change thanks to his speech on Friday. He validated the assumptions of thosw who will change it for him. I find it sickening that a president would go out of his way to do that.

Oh Bull####....society already had the consequences in store for Zimmerman well before Obama uttered the first word of his speech.

Obviously!!! Obama sealed it!

 

[The Commish]

Assuming he is guilty is wrong.

Assuming anything prior to the trial is wrong. That's how we get into these bias pissing matches. Problem here is he was proven not guilty yet there is a faction that also understands he's certainly not innocent. But that's not how the legal system works. I've listened and even read Obama's speech several times trying to understand the negative message so many have issue with (mainly because there are some pretty bright people like IK here that have issue with his speech) but I'm not getting the negative message.IMO, he's giving us a little insight to what it's like to look at our society from an African American's POV. Something few of us have attempted to do. It's really hard to do. He's not saying that the POV is right. He's explaining what it is and that we need to respect it. There's nothing wrong with that message IMO. He's right. This country would be a lot better off if we took time to look at situations outside from various POVs. Our self centered nature is drawing divides among us making us less and less tolerant of people who don't think just like us.

You are assuming that people are not getting that experiences and history give the AA community a different POV. Do you recognize that it is possible for someone to understand that point 100%, yet believe that should NOT be the basis for reaching judgement? It produces a pre-judgement. A prejudice. That is not a thought process that should be encouraged. It should be discouraged, despite how devastingly real the experiences and history of the the AA community is and has been.

Don't understand what you're saying here. You are talking as if they are basing their prejudice on events that happened to others, decades ago. In my experience, that's not the case. These experiences continue today. They live with them daily. For them to assume things are going to happen a certain way isn't any different that you or I assume things are going to happen a certain way. There is a certain amount of "believe you're gonna fail and you'll fail" in them, but there's a much larger portion that can be 100% supported by their personal life experiences. We can get up on our high horses all we want and tell people how they should/shouldn't do X and look down on them for doing it, but it's really just IMO, we wouldn't be wasting our breath preaching at them if we really understood their POV, we'd be helping change their perception with our actions.

 

[Statorama]

What Obama could have said: dont punch people in the face and bang their head on the concrete because you might get shot.

There's no mention of race there, just a simple call for a minimal amount of human courtesy. Might make a person rethink whether punching someone in the face is really worth it, considering the possible consequences.

I'd like to think we may someday live in a world free from savagery. Having a president that excuses that kind of behavior based upon the skin color of the person involved gets us no closer to that goal.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I think you are confusing someone acknowledging that they have a different perspective based on their experiences with prejudice.

I don't think I'm really confusing those two things as much as I'm saying that one amounts to the other.

This is slightly off-topic, but I very strongly believe that one of the key goals of a liberal education should be ability to think beyond your own parochial experiences. That's not to say we can't acknowledge that we all have these, but that we should actively work to purge them from our thought processes wherever possible.

 

[Statorama]

Obama ensured his life will change thanks to his speech on Friday. He validated the assumptions of thosw who will change it for him. I find it sickening that a president would go out of his way to do that.

Oh Bull####....society already had the consequences in store for Zimmerman well before Obama uttered the first word of his speech.

Obama could have changed some minds though. All Obama did was say it was ok for people to do so.

 

[The Commish]

Obama ensured his life will change thanks to his speech on Friday. He validated the assumptions of thosw who will change it for him. I find it sickening that a president would go out of his way to do that.

Oh Bull####....society already had the consequences in store for Zimmerman well before Obama uttered the first word of his speech.

Obama could have changed some minds though. All Obama did was say it was ok for people to do so.

Going to assume you're a bit rusty....perhaps do some stretching in a couple of the other threads we have.

 

[renesauz]

Assuming he is guilty is wrong.

Assuming anything prior to the trial is wrong. That's how we get into these bias pissing matches. Problem here is he was proven not guilty yet there is a faction that also understands he's certainly not innocent. But that's not how the legal system works. I've listened and even read Obama's speech several times trying to understand the negative message so many have issue with (mainly because there are some pretty bright people like IK here that have issue with his speech) but I'm not getting the negative message.

IMO, he's giving us a little insight to what it's like to look at our society from an African American's POV. Something few of us have attempted to do. It's really hard to do. He's not saying that the POV is right. He's explaining what it is and that we need to respect it. There's nothing wrong with that message IMO. He's right. This country would be a lot better off if we took time to look at situations outside from various POVs. Our self centered nature is drawing divides among us making us less and less tolerant of people who don't think just like us.

And I'm generally on the opposite side of (most of) this opinion wise from you and Tim. BOs speech seemed pretty benign to me

 

[Slapdash]

This thing still going? Give it a rest, guys.

 

[The Commish]

Assuming he is guilty is wrong.

Assuming anything prior to the trial is wrong. That's how we get into these bias pissing matches. Problem here is he was proven not guilty yet there is a faction that also understands he's certainly not innocent. But that's not how the legal system works. I've listened and even read Obama's speech several times trying to understand the negative message so many have issue with (mainly because there are some pretty bright people like IK here that have issue with his speech) but I'm not getting the negative message.

IMO, he's giving us a little insight to what it's like to look at our society from an African American's POV. Something few of us have attempted to do. It's really hard to do. He's not saying that the POV is right. He's explaining what it is and that we need to respect it. There's nothing wrong with that message IMO. He's right. This country would be a lot better off if we took time to look at situations outside from various POVs. Our self centered nature is drawing divides among us making us less and less tolerant of people who don't think just like us.

And I'm generally on the opposite side of (most of) this opinion wise from you and Tim. BOs speech seemed pretty benign to me

I won't lie....I haven't really read Tim's comments on Obama's speech, but it makes me a bit nervous that my view on this is similar to his if that is indeed true.

 

[Leonidas]

George Zimmerman emerges from hiding to rescue someone trapped in overturn truck

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-emerged-hiding-truck-crash-rescue/story?id=19735432

George Zimmerman, who has been in hiding since he was acquitted of murder in the death of Trayvon Martin, emerged to help rescue someone who was trapped in an overturned truck, police said today.

Sanford Police Department Capt. Jim McAuliffe told ABC News that Zimmerman "pulled an individual from a truck that had rolled over" at the intersection of a Florida highway last week. Florida Highway Patrol is now handling the case, McAuliffe said.

The crash occurred at the intersection of I-4 and route 417, police said. The crash site is less than a mile from where he shot Martin.

It's the first known sighting of Zimmerman since he left the courtroom following his acquittal last week on murder charges for the death of Martin. Zimmerman, 29, shot and killed Martin, 17, in Sanford, Fla., on Feb. 26, 2012. The jury determined that Zimmerman shot Martin in self-defense.

The acquittal prompted dozens of protests across the country this past weekend and his lawyers have said that Zimmerman has been the subject of death threats. His lawyers said Zimmerman has been wearing a bullet-proof vest when he ventures out in public.

Zimmerman's parents told ABC News' Barbara Walters they too have received death threats and have been unable to return to their home.

"We have had an enormous amount of death threats. George's legal counsel has had death threats, the police chief of Sanford, many people have had death threats," Zimmerman's father, Robert Zimmerman said."'Everyone with Georgie's DNA should be killed' -- just every kind of horrible thing you can imagine."

Good Guy, he is

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Assuming he is guilty is wrong.

Assuming anything prior to the trial is wrong. That's how we get into these bias pissing matches. Problem here is he was proven not guilty yet there is a faction that also understands he's certainly not innocent. But that's not how the legal system works. I've listened and even read Obama's speech several times trying to understand the negative message so many have issue with (mainly because there are some pretty bright people like IK here that have issue with his speech) but I'm not getting the negative message.

IMO, he's giving us a little insight to what it's like to look at our society from an African American's POV. Something few of us have attempted to do. It's really hard to do. He's not saying that the POV is right. He's explaining what it is and that we need to respect it. There's nothing wrong with that message IMO. He's right. This country would be a lot better off if we took time to look at situations outside from various POVs. Our self centered nature is drawing divides among us making us less and less tolerant of people who don't think just like us.

What insight did Pres. Obama give?

Did he actually tell us what ha happened to him?

One of his comments was about something that he did tell us about previously, in his book when he claims his own grandmother - who was a bank vice president who raised him with his grandfather because his parents had split - when allegedly a black bum approached her car she put down her lock. Wow, an elderly woman with a child in the car is approached by a bum and she locks the car door. Obama took it as a sign of racism on the part of his grandmother, or so he wrote.

What else has he told us to help move this national conversation along? Nothing. Fact is Pres. Obama has zero in common with the black American experience.

George Zimmerman - who is part black, part Peruvian (or Hispanic/Latin, your pick) coming up and living in subburban Virginia and Florida probably has a lot more to tell us and probably really has had these experiences. Somehow that concept is lost in the conversation, that the accused had as much standing as the victim to any claims of experience or reaction or understanding as to profiling. Our president however probably has far less than either.

 

[Bonzai]

I think you are confusing someone acknowledging that they have a different perspective based on their experiences with prejudice.

I don't think I'm really confusing those two things as much as I'm saying that one amounts to the other.

This is slightly off-topic, but I very strongly believe that one of the key goals of a liberal education should be ability to think beyond your own parochial experiences. That's not to say we can't acknowledge that we all have these, but that we should actively work to purge them from our thought processes wherever possible.

I don't disagree, but it's a difficult thing to pull off. I don't think most people even get to the point of acknowledgment.

I think this from DFW is relevant:

"There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, "Morning, boys, how's the water?" And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, "What the hell is water?"

 

[squistion]

Assuming he is guilty is wrong.

Assuming anything prior to the trial is wrong. That's how we get into these bias pissing matches. Problem here is he was proven not guilty yet there is a faction that also understands he's certainly not innocent. But that's not how the legal system works. I've listened and even read Obama's speech several times trying to understand the negative message so many have issue with (mainly because there are some pretty bright people like IK here that have issue with his speech) but I'm not getting the negative message.

IMO, he's giving us a little insight to what it's like to look at our society from an African American's POV. Something few of us have attempted to do. It's really hard to do. He's not saying that the POV is right. He's explaining what it is and that we need to respect it. There's nothing wrong with that message IMO. He's right. This country would be a lot better off if we took time to look at situations outside from various POVs. Our self centered nature is drawing divides among us making us less and less tolerant of people who don't think just like us.

What insight did Pres. Obama give?

Did he actually tell us what ha happened to him?

One of his comments was about something that he did tell us about previously, in his book when he claims his own grandmother - who was a bank vice president who raised him with his grandfather because his parents had split - when allegedly a black bum approached her car she put down her lock. Wow, an elderly woman with a child in the car is approached by a bum and she locks the car door. Obama took it as a sign of racism on the part of his grandmother, or so he wrote.

What else has he told us to help move this national conversation along? Nothing. Fact is Pres. Obama has zero in common with the black American experience.

George Zimmerman - who is part black, part Peruvian (or Hispanic/Latin, your pick) coming up and living in subburban Virginia and Florida probably has a lot more to tell us and probably really has had these experiences. Somehow that concept is lost in the conversation, that the accused had as much standing as the victim to any claims of experience or reaction or understanding as to profiling. Our president however probably has far less than either.

Actually he did.

 

[Politician Spock]

Don't understand what you're saying here. You are talking as if they are basing their prejudice on events that happened to others, decades ago. In my experience, that's not the case. These experiences continue today. They live with them daily.

No. I'm not talking as if they are basing their assumptions on events that happened to others. I'm saying they are basing their assumptions on their experiences.

For them to assume things are going to happen a certain way isn't any different that you or I assume things are going to happen a certain way.

To have an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason is prejudice whether they do it, or you or I do it.

There is a certain amount of "believe you're gonna fail and you'll fail" in them, but there's a much larger portion that can be 100% supported by their personal life experiences.

Not only do I understand that, I believe they are victims of the system. For much of my life I believed the Republican/conservative mindset that everyone has a an equal opportunity. I realized around six years ago that it's BS. These people don't. They are victims of the system. They have every right to "believe you're gonna fail and you'll fail". However, assuming Martin is guilty based on that experience, and not on the knowledge of what happened, thought, or reason, is prejudice by the very definition of the word prejudice.

We can get up on our high horses all we want and tell people how they should/shouldn't do X and look down on them for doing it, but it's really just IMO, we wouldn't be wasting our breath preaching at them if we really understood their POV, we'd be helping change their perception with our actions.

I support the AA community (and others) who are victimized by the system. I want to see the system defeated. You and I can discuss what I believe "the system" is, as that discussion itself is worthy of it's own thread. But the system will NEVER be defeated if the victims can't use logic and reason to form their beliefs, and instead base their beliefs on their own experiences.

 

[Da Guru]

Good article by Romany Malco in the Huff Post.

 

[RCon]

As I commented last night, conservatives in general have an aversion to dealing with racial issues.

Conservatives claim they don't want to talk about racism (though in truth, they do so more than anyone else.)

 

[The Commish]

Don't understand what you're saying here. You are talking as if they are basing their prejudice on events that happened to others, decades ago. In my experience, that's not the case. These experiences continue today. They live with them daily.

No. I'm not talking as if they are basing their assumptions on events that happened to others. I'm saying they are basing their assumptions on their experiences.

For them to assume things are going to happen a certain way isn't any different that you or I assume things are going to happen a certain way.

To have an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason is prejudice whether they do it, or you or I do it.

There is a certain amount of "believe you're gonna fail and you'll fail" in them, but there's a much larger portion that can be 100% supported by their personal life experiences.

Not only do I understand that, I believe they are victims of the system. For much of my life I believed the Republican/conservative mindset that everyone has a an equal opportunity. I realized around six years ago that it's BS. These people don't. They are victims of the system. They have every right to "believe you're gonna fail and you'll fail". However, assuming Martin is guilty based on that experience, and not on the knowledge of what happened, thought, or reason, is prejudice by the very definition of the word prejudice.

We can get up on our high horses all we want and tell people how they should/shouldn't do X and look down on them for doing it, but it's really just IMO, we wouldn't be wasting our breath preaching at them if we really understood their POV, we'd be helping change their perception with our actions.

I support the AA community (and others) who are victimized by the system. I want to see the system defeated. You and I can discuss what I believe "the system" is, as that discussion itself is worthy of it's own thread. But the system will NEVER be defeated if the victims can't use logic and reason to form their beliefs, and instead base their beliefs on their own experiences.

And this seems to be the disconnect. We all learn from experiences. This isn't a top down kind of change. As soon as people see a pattern of change in practice, then they start changing themselves. Few folks are invested enough to try and institute that kind of change though. They are content with sitting in an ivory tower telling others that if they'd just listen to what they were saying and trust them, things would be better. That's not how it works. I can tell you it's not going to hurt to stick your finger in a light socket, but if you get knocked unconscious in practice, you aren't going to believe me over your own experiences.

 

[Mister Martie]

This thing still going? Give it a rest, guys.

Don't get discouraged, Tim. A couple thousand more posts and you might change someone's mind.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Assuming he is guilty is wrong.

Assuming anything prior to the trial is wrong. That's how we get into these bias pissing matches. Problem here is he was proven not guilty yet there is a faction that also understands he's certainly not innocent. But that's not how the legal system works. I've listened and even read Obama's speech several times trying to understand the negative message so many have issue with (mainly because there are some pretty bright people like IK here that have issue with his speech) but I'm not getting the negative message.

IMO, he's giving us a little insight to what it's like to look at our society from an African American's POV. Something few of us have attempted to do. It's really hard to do. He's not saying that the POV is right. He's explaining what it is and that we need to respect it. There's nothing wrong with that message IMO. He's right. This country would be a lot better off if we took time to look at situations outside from various POVs. Our self centered nature is drawing divides among us making us less and less tolerant of people who don't think just like us.

What insight did Pres. Obama give?

Did he actually tell us what ha happened to him?

One of his comments was about something that he did tell us about previously, in his book when he claims his own grandmother - who was a bank vice president who raised him with his grandfather because his parents had split - when allegedly a black bum approached her car she put down her lock. Wow, an elderly woman with a child in the car is approached by a bum and she locks the car door. Obama took it as a sign of racism on the part of his grandmother, or so he wrote.

What else has he told us to help move this national conversation along? Nothing. Fact is Pres. Obama has zero in common with the black American experience.

George Zimmerman - who is part black, part Peruvian (or Hispanic/Latin, your pick) coming up and living in subburban Virginia and Florida probably has a lot more to tell us and probably really has had these experiences. Somehow that concept is lost in the conversation, that the accused had as much standing as the victim to any claims of experience or reaction or understanding as to profiling. Our president however probably has far less than either.

Actually he did.

No, he didn't. This is what he said:

Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.

Thirty-five years ago was 1978. Pres. Obama was 16 then, he was attending an exclusive, expensive private prep school in one of the most cosmopolitan areas of the country. Obama's friends were largely white and Hawaiin. Martin and Obama could not have been more different. If Obama was ever looked at funny it was to the same extent any long-haired kid, toking fan, of the same age or any background would be looked askance at anywhere else but probably a lot less so in Honolulu than Orlando Florida.

There are very few African American men in this country who haven't had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me. There are very few African American men who haven't had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me -- at least before I was a senator.

Pres. Obama became a senator at age 34, 1996.

When Obama was 16 or so, then called Barry, he does tell this story, in his own book, about his own grandmother and grandfather after his grandmother had refused to take a bus because she had been approached by a bum at the station:

His grandmother:

"Her lips pursed with irritation. 'He was very aggressive, Barry. Very aggressive. I gave him a dollar and he kept asking. If the bus hadn't come, I think he might have hit me over the head."

His grandfather:

He turned around and I saw that he was shaking. 'It is a big deal. It's a big deal to me. She's been bothered by men before. You know why she's so scared this time. I'll tell you why. Before you came in, she told me the fella was black.' He whispered the word. 'That's the real reason why she's bothered. And I just don't think that right.'

"The words were like a fist in my stomach, and I wobbled to regain my composure. In my steadiest voice, I told him that such an attitude bothered me, too, but reassured him that Toot's fears would pass and that we should give her a ride in the meantime. Gramps slumped into a chair in the living room and said he was sorry he had told me. Before my eyes, he grew small and old and very sad. I put my hand on his shoulder and told him that it was all right, I understood.

"We remained like that for several minutes, in painful silence. Finally he insisted that he drive Toot after all, and I thought about my grandparents. They had sacrificed again and again for me. They had poured all their lingering hopes into my success. Never had they given me reason to doubt their love; I doubted if they ever would. And yet I knew that men who might easily have been my brothers could still inspire their rawest fear."

If this is all true as Obama wrote it (who knows, because grandma's & grandpa's stories contradict), then the guy carries his own baggage with his own grandparents, but otherwise he has never told any real life stories that would support the kinds of experiences that people like Zimmerman and Martin have likely had.

 

[Joe McGee]

Good article by Romany Malco in the Huff Post.

Good quote here - And from where I stand, anyone who still relies on corporate-owned media pundits to support an argument isn't equipped to offer worthwhile solutions.

 

[squistion]

Pres. Obama became a senator at age 34, 1996.

When Obama was 16 or so he does tell this story, in his own book, about his own grandmother and grandfather after his grandmother had refused to take a bus because she had been approached by a bum:

His grandmother:

"Her lips pursed with irritation. 'He was very aggressive, Barry. Very aggressive. I gave him a dollar and he kept asking. If the bus hadn't come, I think he might have hit me over the head."

His grandfather:

He turned around and I saw that he was shaking. 'It is a big deal. It's a big deal to me. She's been bothered by men before. You know why she's so scared this time. I'll tell you why. Before you came in, she told me the fella was black.' He whispered the word. 'That's the real reason why she's bothered. And I just don't think that right.'

"The words were like a fist in my stomach, and I wobbled to regain my composure. In my steadiest voice, I told him that such an attitude bothered me, too, but reassured him that Toot's fears would pass and that we should give her a ride in the meantime. Gramps slumped into a chair in the living room and said he was sorry he had told me. Before my eyes, he grew small and old and very sad. I put my hand on his shoulder and told him that it was all right, I understood.

"We remained like that for several minutes, in painful silence. Finally he insisted that he drive Toot after all, and I thought about my grandparents. They had sacrificed again and again for me. They had poured all their lingering hopes into my success. Never had they given me reason to doubt their love; I doubted if they ever would. And yet I knew that men who might easily have been my brothers could still inspire their rawest fear."

If this is all true as Obama wrote it (who knows, because grandma's & grandpa's stories contradict), then the guy carries his own baggage with his own grandparents, but otherwise he has never told any real life stories that would support the kinds of experiences that people like Zimmerman and Martin have likely had.

I don't believe that he was talking about when he was 16 years old, he specifically said "at least before I was a senator." Not a stretch to believe that actually happened to him as an adult before the age of 34, along with being followed in department stores.