I contributed to help make the Gosnell movie happen. You can, too. Go to www.gosnellmovie.com and you can help make an important movie happen. Hot Air has some important news about who is blocking the attempt to crowdfund, and two actors who have made youtube videos in support of the crowdfunding.
Archive for the ‘Culture’ Category
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/04/16
Posted in abortion, Character, crime, Culture, Health Care, media, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, Pro-Life, society | Tagged: Gosnell movie, infanticide, Kermit Gosnell, Kickstarter, left-wing media agenda, mass murderer | 1 Comment »
Posted by DNW on 2014/01/22
Anyone who has drunk, or imbibed since we don’t want to sound as if we are alluding to intoxication, a sufficient number of martinis to use the term “perfect martini” also knows that there is really no such thing as a perfect martini. Even martinis made to your favorite recipe will obviously vary to some significant degree with the care which one takes – or doesn’t – in making (proportioning) the drink and with the particular brands of ingredients used.
That rocks glass in your hand on the patio in July, the glass sloshingly filled with cubes and gin and vermouth and a couple of olives, and which you hold in the one hand as you flip steaks on the grill with the other, holds the same nominal drink as that carefully proportioned vodka and vermouth mix poured from a shaker into a coupe glass, and then garnished with a twist of lemon zest.
In the name of decency, there are some limits though.
For example, although either gin or vodka (or both together, Mr. Bond) may be used or substituted, most people would agree that no matter how stingy the application may be, a “martini” made without any vermouth is just not really a martini as most of us understand it.
Speaking of vermouth, many of us, myself for instance, had become comfortably accustomed to Noilly Prat only to discover a couple of years ago that something awful had happened. I first though I had gotten a bad bottle. Instead of the usual clear liquid I was used to seeing, out came a yellow-greenish fluid with a more pronounced taste, smell, and what seemed to me to be oily character. It tasted like the abominable Gallo vermouth. It made my martini undrinkable. Until recently I could not come up with a satisfactory explanation as to what went wrong. Abandoning my theory of a heat spoiled bottle at the second disappointment, I figured my memory of what I like must have been off … very off somehow.
Turns out that the company had been bought out, and the new ownership of Noilly Prat decided that Americans would henceforth receive the European version of their “dry” vermouth; which was distinctly heavier in scent and taste than that to which we were accustomed. Apparently Noilly had for some years, and long before I ever approached a martini glass, been offering a specially dry version for the North American market. After grimacing my way through those last unwitting purchases of the Euro-style and highly scented version of their “dry”, I dropped any pretense of brand loyalty and grabbed a bottle of Martini & Rossi off the shelf the next time out. According to the blog “The Gray Report” (and Gray himself actually prefers the Euro-version), many others did as well. I certainly hated it. Enough people agreed with me implies Gray, to cause sales to plummet sufficient to get management’s attention and to promise to bring back the American version to this market.
So far, I haven’t seen it. Though I can’t say I have looked very hard.
As far as the mix portions go, I for one, have over the years developed a preference for what some web sites, Vermouth101.c0m for instance, are calling a 1950′s mix … basically 3 measures of gin or vodka to one half measure (I’m not using the technical term for “measure” here) of dry vermouth. So for example, a measure might be one of those ounce-and-a-half shot glasses. Then, three full shot glasses of gin, and one half of that ounce and a half shot glass, of vermouth.
You will notice too that as Mr. Niven above protectively recoils from that bottle of vermouth proffered by the cheerfully smiling pixie, he is simultaneously cradling an almost fishbowl sized snifter, which he’s using as the martini mixing glass.
He obviously wants his martini as dry as possible. And I agree to some extent as I mentioned just above.
But I would not go so far as the version of martini supposedly liked best when I first started drinking them during that late 1980s and 1990′s era sometimes credited with the return of the cocktail to prominence. That version, was reportedly almost pure gin or vodka, and I found it as objectionable to my palate as the early 20th century version said to be preferred by FDR: a two gin to one vermouth mix with plenty of brine added. I tried it. Yech. No wonder FDR had a stroke.
Well, no accounting for the taste of certain statist liberals who smoke cigarettes from holders.
We’ve already addressed what are from my point of view the preferable proportions of the two main ingredients in the mix. How they are mixed together is another matter.
The phrase “shaken not stirred” has become a painful cliche that causes me to actually wince when hearing it. But, that doesn’t mean that I don’t prefer the drink mixed that way. In fact, while doing research – well, while idly scanning various books and other websites for confirmation of my own prejudices – I read that martinis were originally meant to be made that way: shaken.
By the time the James Bond novel Casino Royale was published for Ian Fleming in 1953, in the very year Mr. Niven was saving his bowl of gin in “The Moon is Blue” from the debasement of too much, or almost any vermouth, the mixing process seems to have changed from shaking to stirring. Or at least swirling the mix with cubes.
Which leads us to another painful cliche: one which expresses alarm over the possibility of “bruising the gin”.
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, so I can’t explain it to you. And when I hear it, I can only picture some dissipated country club type given to the pointless regurgitation of current mythologies as a way of cementing his image as one who is in need of constantly cementing his image. Out of respect to our early 1950s motif here, I’ll include an image of just that type of fellow as portrayed by actor Louis Calhern, in yet another William Holden movie of that same era, “Executive Suite”.
In any event, I not only have a fictional spy on my shaken side, I apparently have the British medical establishment. You may be thinking I am referring to a recent series of articles based on the premise that James Bond liked his martinis shaken and not stirred because had he been a real person who drank as much as seemingly recorded in the spy novels he, would have had a case of the shakes which made stirring impossible … or something like that.
However, that particular bit of politically motivated kill-joy posturing by the PC crowd is not what I am referring to. What I am citing here is an article in the British Journal of Medicine titled “Shaken, not stirred: bioanalytical study of the antioxidant activities of martinis”.
Shaken martinis were more effective in deactivating hydrogen peroxide than the stirred variety, and both were more effective than gin or vermouth alone (0.072% of peroxide control for shaken martini, 0.157% for stirred v 58.3% for gin and 1.90% for vermouth). The reason for this is not clear, but it may well not involve the facile oxidation of reactive martini components: control martinis through which either oxygen or nitrogen was bubbled did not differ in their ability to deactivate hydrogen peroxide (0.061% v 0.057%) and did not differ from the shaken martini. Moreover, preliminary experiments indicate that martinis are less well endowed with polyphenols than Sauvignon white wine or Scotch whisky (0.056 mmol/l (catechin equivalents) shaken, 0.060 mmol/l stirred v 0.592 mmol/l wine, 0.575 mmol/l whisky).
With authorities like that behind you, who needs some comic book spy on your side?
How’s it to be served then? In what kind of glass? A “martini glass” obviously?
Well, there are different theories. I always specified a rocks glass in restaurants. Occasionally a self-confident middle aged waiter in the tonier kind place would good naturedly admonish me with an “Oh sir! Not really!” and I’d give in and have it in a stemmed glass. I’ve kind of gotten used to them by now. The design is supposed to have a certain logic, and I admit that the drink may taste somewhat better in one. Or at least more like an aperitif to be savored, than a concoction to be guzzled.
Still, I like a squat tumbler in some situations. Summer evening grilling is good time to load up with ice, in my opinion; and a double old fashioned glass works really well for that.
But the classic martini glass is making a bit of comeback without any assistance from me. That is to say, when I say “classic”, a sub 7 ounce capacity glass with a short pulled stem, rather than one of those 12 ounce glass funnels ill balanced on a 6 inch pillar, which has been the popular version for the last 30 or so years.
As an admirable return to basics, take this well proportioned glass sold this Christmas season as an example. Not a pulled stem coupe with that little extra cusp in the bottom (that is to say not one obviously shaped like a mold of Marie Antoinette’s left you know what …) it’s nonetheless pretty appealing all the same.
And, you can still get the champagne coupe/cocktail glasses common in the early 60′s as well. From Germany, just for you: at two for sixty or seventy dollars a pair.
So, what’s the perfect martini? I don’t know really, and haven’t the authority to say. Make it 6 to one. Vodka or gin depending on mood. Rocks or Martini glass depending. Two cubes with the former, or just a bit of cracked ice in the latter. Mix shaken, well, with ice. Poured over a stuffed olive, and a twist of zest added last. Let sit about a minute. Then …
That’s perfect enough for me.
You, are entitled to your own opinion of course.
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2013/12/13
From CNBC (owned by that radical left wing NBC, which owns MSNBC) comes this nugget:
Buried inside a Congressional Budget Office report this week was this nugget: when it comes to individual income taxes, the top 40 percent of wage earners in America pay 106 percent of the taxes. The bottom 40 percent…pay negative 9 percent.
The bottom 20 percent actually pay a negative fifteen percent federal income tax rate! it’s time that the bottom 40 percent pay their fair share. It’s time the bottom 20 percent stop getting more back in income tax returns than they pay in. Because, as the lovely lady from CNBC said, “the rich aren’t only paying their fair share, they’re paying everyone’s share.”
Posted by DNW on 2013/11/22
Do you know the difference between … well, you know, and Shinola?
The difference is that Shinola, is made in America. Mostly. Or assembled here. Really, and it’s just too cool for school.
Except that it isn’t because it’s connected with school. A famous design school, The Center for Creative Studies, located in Detroit, Michigan.
Hand made bicycles, Swiss watch movements assembled in the USA and fitted with leather straps hand made in Florida; and footballs. Real honest to goodness footballs, made in America and made to be used.
Well maybe you would use it. On grass, once or twice.
This is another “neat things” posting, not commercial advertising; and neither Truth Before Dishonor nor myself receive any compensation whatsoever for these entries. Not even coal ranges. Certainly not Morgan Roadsters. The manufacturers neither solicited nor even approved these postings. Except here, where I got permission to mention, first.
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2013/11/20
37% you say? Hm, it actually doesn’t seem like 37% of the people I meet are complete morons or absolute pieces of sh**. Maybe I should make up a ‘worthless p.o.s. idiot test’:
1. Are you entitled to an income just for being alive?
2. Are you entitled to healthcare just for being alive?
3. Do you believe your gender, race, ethnicity, or combination thereof entitle you to preferred treatment in any aspect of societal interaction, i.e. preferences for hiring, housing, public assistance etc., or deference in ordinairy social interactions?
4. Would you refuse miltary service, or other public service, to qualify for the above “entitlements”?
5. Are you of sound mind and body but not actively seeking employment?
6. Do your engage in non-contraceptive-use extra-marital sex while without the means to independently (free of public assistance) raise a dependent child?
If you answered “yes” to any of the above questions, you are most likely a “worthless p.o.s. idiot”.
And you probably still think Obuggerme is just swell.
(typos in original)
Sadly, far too many people have rejected the US Constitution and would say “yes” to one or more of those questions.
Posted by DNW on 2013/10/07
A Troll has demanded an explanation.
We all know what trolls are. They generally speaking are attention seeking, manipulative neurotics, sometimes ideologically committed, and presumably found on the Internet.
But they actually existed before the advent of the Internet, and one still runs into them in real as opposed to “virtual” life.
Out in the real world they are usually given labels such as, interfering users, jealous schemers, spiteful meddlers, annoying crackpots, social nuisances, or the like.
On rare occasions, their relentless emotional needs and the drive to satisfy them, lead the Troll into positions of considerable political power or social influence. Once there, their amoral-ism and boundary-less will-to-power-over-others, is likely to wreak more havoc and human damage than they ever could hope to achieve while their noxious influence was confined to some local neighborhood.
Trolls, whether encountered in real life or in a virtual, all share a number of what are by now familiar ploys or gambits which they use in the hope these manipulation techniques will bring them what they want.
This includes the presumption of a right of affiliation, as the context for delivering their casual insults; charges of hypocrisy, or double standards (unfair discrimination) when they are called out; displays of indignation; feigned victim-hood; attempts to intimidate those who resist; and the very common Troll technique of leveraging the moral generosity of the principled man back against him.
Verbally, they engage in equivocation, deceit, constant redirection, and/or any other behavior which will protract and obscure rather than clarify and resolve a specific question.
Clearing the question away, is not their intention.
Their focus is always on maintaining contact with the other as “provider”.
For what they seek is not the freedom to access the material world in order to extract what they want from it, but the social privilege of accessing other persons – made compliant one way or another – in order satisfy their urges.
The difference the Internet makes in their game is that it constitutes an electronic barrier between the Troll Personality and the targets of their attention. Blogs don’t serve liquor, they are private, open to limited participation by invitation – generally by default at first – only, and not subject to government regulation. At least not yet.
Nonetheless, a view of Internet practices makes clear that the Internet troll and the modern liberal, (read collectivist) in their insatiable hunger for a piece of the lives of others are essentially one and the same. The Internet troll and the Modern Liberal being merely two manifestations of the same general species, observed while operating in different environments.
What individual trolls sometimes achieved in their neighborhoods, and what the Troll Party has now managed in politics through insinuating itself into the administration of our Federal Government, the Troll Horde now wish to complete by ensuring that they may intrude themselves into every human interchange or transaction that piques their interest or excites their avarice: And to do so on their own terms, and in a way that gives them appropriatve control, be the realm virtual or real, social or political.
This is not to say that a Troll might not be telling the truth about its own views. That is to say it, or they, may be accurately describing their own states of mind when they say that it is wrong to cut them out of your intellectual life, because, say for instance the First Amendment to the Constitution of the Federal Government of the United States, prohibits Congress from making any law “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …”.
They may in fact be so mentally twisted by their needs and their lack of inhibitions in satisfying them, that the techniques I described above have become their unconscious nature. Practice of deceit and manipulation became second nature, second nature became first nature. Eventually nothing is left but a Troll nature where a man’s nature once stood.
Let’s take the specific example of a complaint over the stifling of “free speech”, as our illustrative paradigm.
In a recent accusation over his expulsion from this blog, Mr. Perry Hood has written:
“Regarding free speech, must I remind you that blogs make use of the internet of which you have neither ownership nor control? Thus, what aspect of free speech do you folks not understand. Have anything I’ve written constitute a personal threat made to any of you? Of course not. So I ask again, what is it that you folks fear from me? I would really like to know.And then, again, there is DNW, who by virtue of his hidden identity, forthrightly reveals mine. Don’t lecture me about values, DNW!”
Let’s look at some of the elements above.
Mr. Hood says, “ Regarding free speech … blogs make use of the internet of which you have neither ownership nor control.”
We notice here that:
1. He now entirely sidesteps the Constitutional issue upon which he had been generally hanging his claims. He must abandon it, since there is no issue of Congress making a law abridging his freedom of speech, when someone in the neighborhood kicks him off their front porch.
2. He attempts to redraw his accusation in terms of control of the Internet.
3. But no one is trying to control his access to the Internet.
4. He introduces the idea of ownership, (of the Internet) in order to refute it.
5. But no one has claimed private ownership of the Internet.
6. He attempts to stake a public claim to blogs which are private, by saying that they are found on the Internet which is not privately owned.
7. But by this il-logic he might as well argue that he may ride in your car because you drive it on the highway, or live in your house because it is on a public street, or molest your children because they attend a public school.
Mr Hood then goes on to say, “Thus, what aspect of free speech do you folks not understand.”, speciously implying as I mentioned earlier regarding the Troll mind-set, a “ presumption of a right of affiliation as the context for delivering the casual insult”. In other words, his Constitutional gambit bankrupt, his Internet framing proven irrelevant, he must now “presume” a right of affiliation and access where none is in evidence.
Mr. Hood goes on to ask, “ Have anything I’ve written constitute [sic] a personal threat made to any of you?”; while assuming that the obvious answer is, as he tells it, “ Of course not.”
However, because we have had long experiences with Mr. Hood on the Common Sense Political Thought blog, as well as on the First Street Journal blog, we immediately notice that what he says is not true. Which is why he was on thin ice before he was ever granted an exemption and allowed to make any comments here in the first place.
Mr. Hood has, as we all know, had his privilege of participation on the blogs above mentioned and numerous other blogs repeatedly suspended or banned for just that kind of behavior: personal threats.
What apparently grieves Mr. Hood, is that after calling us traitors, and refusing to intellectually justify the supposed moral claims he lays against others as a pretext for calling them treasonous, he was not afforded the 20 or so warnings and advisories, and “second chances”, which he usually gets.
He was given two. Which was two more than the number to which he was entitled.
But when a man labels you as treasonous for resisting his attempts to appropriate the lives of yourself and your family, and then doubles down when called on it, what point is there in further talk?
The Internet is wide open to Mr. Hood. Let him build himself a cozy fire with the means already given to him by someone else, and attract who he can with the wafting aroma of his roasting cant, envy, and malice.
If any do drop by, he is welcome to their company, and to their intellectual and emotional companionship.
Oh, I almost forgot. The Troll asks, “So I ask again, what is it that you folks fear from me? I would really like to know”
The answer to the question, though revulsion rather than fear is the right idea, involves having any portion of your life repeatedly wasted on a project which you know from long experience is pointless and foolish before you embark upon it: that is to say, the project of repeatedly attempting to reason with an entity which has deconstructed itself into a sometimes wheedling, sometimes demanding, sometimes threatening appetite, but never right-reasoning man.
Does that answer the question?
Perry, you called your own shots. You made yourself into what you now are. You showed us what you are through demonstration, and told us through affirmation.
What is there that is left to say?
Posted by DNW on 2013/10/01
From a picture floating around the Internet. Very “60′s”
No particular reason for re-posting it. I just think that the image has a certain atmosphere, and even beauty. In fact I find it almost mesmerizing.
Our friend Ropelight likes boats, maybe he can do something with this.
UPDATE: I deliberately withheld any reference to the subject matter from the title of this posting because although I was fascinated by the image I didn’t want to attract attention to it on the usual grounds of prurience.
I figured it would just appear as part of the “home page” series.
Nonetheless it’s received an unusual number of individual page clicks. A sophisticated readership this one, unless there are lots of people using search engines to look up the phrase “Just because”, and winding up here.
FYI then, the lady is/was a model and actress in Italian new wave type films.
Regardless of her looks, she’s as you might expect, also Italian by nationality.
The photo is probably, I would guess, from the late 1950′s to possibly the mid 60′s.
I came across her while wracking my mind for alternative movies my folks might be interested in watching, rather than the brainless and unamusing crap they pay for in their monthly satellite bill.
If anyone can “guess” her name, I’ll post an image of a combustion turbine as your reward …
I’ll throw in an image of a copy milling machine too, if you can name one of her movies.
Second update: A PRIZEWINNER!
The contest only lasted a few hours and is well over. Yet commenter out-of-the-blue Tom Hamilton comes in late and wins a prize nonetheless, because: a, he used the word “existential” in his comment, and b, I had a couple of pictures left over.
Therefore, as an anodyne for government shutdown boredom, or in order to more fully celebrate it, let’s review 1960′s female style, Italian style …
Posted by Yorkshire on 2013/08/16
Is this Egypt’s version of Kristallnacht
A massive, coordinated attack on Jews throughout the German Reich on the night of November 9, 1938, into the next day, has come to be known as Kristallnacht or The Night of Broken Glass.
The attack came after Herschel Grynszpan, a 17 year old Jew living in Paris, shot and killed a member of the German Embassy staff there in retaliation for the poor treatment his father and his family suffered at the hands of the Nazis in Germany.
On October 27, Grynszpan’s family and over 15,000 other Jews, originally from Poland, had been expelled from Germany without any warning. They were forcibly transported by train in boxcars then dumped at the Polish border.
For Adolf Hitler and Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels, the shooting in Paris provided an opportunity to incite Germans to “rise in bloody vengeance against the Jews.”
Meawhile in Egypt, BO’s Buddies, The Muslim Brotherhood is doing to Christians in the way the NAZI’s handled the Jews in 1938
Reported List of Churches and Christian Institutions Attacked in Egypt Since Wednesday Will Astonish You
Aug. 15, 2013 11:59pm Erica Ritz
A wave of devastating violence swept through Egypt Wednesday as the government attempted to disband the supporters of ousted president Mohamed Morsi from their sit-ins. According to the Associated Press, 638 people have now been confirmed killed, and nearly 4,000 are injured.
The fighting is far from limited to the Islamists and the military, however. Since Wednesday’s violence began, there have also been a wave of attacks on churches and Christian institutions.
Amira Mikhail at Nile Revolt compiled a shocking list with the help of Mai El-Sadany, Amir Beshay, “aggregating information that was shared online about attacks on churches and their institutions around Egypt.”
“Please note that this is a work-in-progress and information so far is unverified although most is backed up with tweets and photos,” she wrote. “We are hoping to continue the efforts to verify details. If you have any corrections or updates to church names, photos, or details, please reach out to firstname.lastname@example.org or my twitter.”
Though there may be some changes made to the list, what has been assembled so far is staggering.
List courtesy of Amira Mikhail:
Father Maximus Church
St George Church | Burned | Source
Good Shepherds Monastery | Nuns attacked
Angel Michael Church | Surrounded
St George Coptic Orthodox Church |
Al-Eslah Church| Burned | Source
Adventist Church | Pastor and his wife kidnapped |
St Therese Church |
Apostles Church | Burning | Source
Holy Revival Church | Burning | Source
Qusiya Diocese | MCN
That is a small list of Christian Churches BURNED by BO’s BFF, The Muslim Brotherhood. See the WHOLE list here. Where’s Obama’s OUTRAGE? Hell freezes First:
Posted by DNW on 2013/08/14
No one expects Ariana Huffington’s snide exercise in left-wing propaganda to be or to even look neutral. And it has become abundantly, tediously, wearyingly, evident that anything involving or related to homosexual and gender disorders will receive the kind of histrionically laudatory headline ledes usually associated with the notoriously shameless and scruple free British tabloids.
This one though, is so contemptibly and unbelievably lunatic as to (nearly) beggar the imagination.
“Manning delivers heartfelt speech to packed courtroom
Army whistleblower Bradley Manning took the stand Wednesday and spoke candidly about his personal issues, controversial actions and hopes for the future.
‘I am sorry. I am sorry…’
Unbelievable? Believe it.
AOL and the Huff Po have obviously gone completely insane with everyone knows who at the helm.
Marvel then, at the morally disordered interior of Ariana’s mind, laid out for all to the world to see.
Posted by DNW on 2013/07/14
UPDATE. The following changes illustrated by the strikeouts have been made out of a respect for accuracy and fairness, something we, especially those on my side of the Martin-Zimmerman news reporting fiasco issue should be highly mindful of – even if the attempt to be accurate and fair seems to fly in the face of what seems to be self-evident: i.e., in this case the “CBS This Morning” logo. See the latest posting on this matter.
Second update. It appears that our scrupulosity was was uncalled for.
CBS News was in fact responsible for the computer generated video insert in their report which portrayed George Zimmerman shooting down an non-aggressive and child-like Trayvon Martin (dressed in short pants) from a distance . CBS, through one of their employees had denied that the video, or the segment, “belonged” to them, but rather to Reuters, whatever “belonged” was supposed to mean in their usage. I was never able to clarify it with them, and and continued attempts to do so became pointless in the face of the evidence, still available, that it was they who had in fact had published the recklessly misleading and prejudicial account of the shooting of Trayvon Martin.
According to CBS News … Or, maybe not CBS, but Reuters ….
This is John’s blog, so I hesitate to quote commenter Eric on another blog accurately if vulgarly referring to leftists as being lower than snake shit.
But frankly, how could anyone deny it? How could anyone who as been watching the lead-up to the Zimmerman trial possibly argue that they, the members of the mainstream, left-leaning, almost completely populated by Democrats media, have any interest in presenting an accurate recounting of facts?
Time after time, they persistently demonstrate they have no such interest in getting the details right, and that they will elide, insinuate, and even deceptively edit the record for effect; as NBC News did with the police department recording of Zimmerman speaking to the Sanford Police Department dispatcher.
Exactness, or even accuracy and truth mean nothing to them when their narrative is at stake.
They won’t even get the petty details correct for fear that exposing these details might redound negatively upon the story line they are attempting to push.
Over at the Huffington Post for example, with the trial over and while they are covering the verdict wrap-up, they are still saying Trayvon bought an “iced tea”. Whether they never paid close enough attention to the police photos to notice what it was Martin actually bought, or whether they are sensitive to either a potential racial stereotyping of the purchase, or the possible drug use implications of what it was that he did buy, in each and/or any event, they are perpetrating a fraud on those readers seeking objective information, and a truthful recounting.
“Objective and truthful”: That would be a recounting on which civil peace and other human lives might even depend.
Below is another example of the journalistic malpractice that has gone on during this case. It is illustrated by a screen capture I managed to make some months ago, and which I recently had to do a computer file search on, in order to find again.
This is the same screen capture I had mentioned in an earlier posting as not being ready to hand.
This looked to be
is taken from a “CBS This Morning” computer animation of the shooting which was Reuters apparently allowed to be re-presented on Yahoo:
Look what’s being shown here for God’s sake: Zimmerman, gunning down a kid in short pants from yards away. No wonder the low information types went out of their minds.
And here is a capture of the web address …
And this is a close up of the logo,
And here is the link: news.yahoo.com/family-florida-boy-killed-neighborhood-watch-seeks-arrest-044537742.html
Try it for yourself, and see what you come up with.
So now, what do we have here? We have as everyone already knows, a clear pattern of the news media attempting to inflame passions and railroad a verdict with a grave indifference to the false narrative they were constructing. It may have been motivated by ideology in some cases, racial animus in others, or a “mere” desire to profit from whatever outrage and attention could be stimulated or provoked in others.
What possible excuse though could these sub-moral creatures offer up for their behavior?
Well, my experiences in dealing with the type convince me that their nihilism is so deep that they are indifferent to the harm they might wreak, and the very idea of excusing their behavior would seem as alien to them as considering it within a framework of “right and wrong” in the first place.
That, is what we are dealing with folks. We need to remember that always. As if we could ever forget, that is.
Posted by DNW on 2013/07/01
I had intended to post this up Friday last but didn’t get to it, because the network graphic I had captured (depicting a pursuing Zimmerman shooting Trayvon at a distance) months ago wasn’t handy, and an area-wide power outage cut the entire effort short.
So, this commentary is much less topical than it was a couple of days past. Nonetheless:
As I had predicted many months ago, when the facts of the matter were still uncertain: the question in the Zimmerman case would likely evolve into a question as to whether Zimmerman, if he was the victim of an unjustified physical assault – and we do not absolutely yet know that to be the case – even had the right to defend himself against a battery by responding with deadly force.
Those who have had their attention drawn to the case will no doubt have noticed the changing nature of the claims of the “let’s hang Zimmerman” crowd.
As the news dribbled out we’ve gone from network news graphics depicting Zimmerman poised at a distance while shooting a child-like Trayvon after he had supposedly chased Trayvon into a corner; to a subsequent insistence that while Zimmerman may have been in a “scuffle” he had suffered no physical injuries; to a now new theory suggested by the bald headed fellow pictured above : i.e., you have the obligation under certain circumstances to take an unjustifiable beating.
A beating or “whupping’” in the affected language of the effete clown in the suspenders, that would leave you like this:
ZIMMERMAN, AFTER ENCOUNTERING TRAYVON MARTIN
As I wrote over a year ago on First Street Journal,
Oh, one last thing that despite all of my commentary, I have not yet mentioned.
In my dealings with progressives and lefties, for all of their hyperbole about what they conceive of as rights, for all their willingness to engage in political violence, for all their talk of resisting injustice and fighting for the right of peoples or for justice or for whatever, they seem to nonetheless believe that it is your moral obligation to take a beating, or suffer a rape, rather than kill the offender.
When it comes down to it, if everything that could conceivably be exculpatory for Zimmerman is proved to be true, (and I don’t imagine it will) and if he did nothing whatsoever to provoke Trayvon into a physical assault, and if it is shown that he was having his head pounded against the pavement at the very moment he shot Trayvon, there will still be many on the left that will say it was unjustified.
An essential characteristic of the leftist organism is their different sense of personal boundaries.
Well, we’ll see how it plays out.”
Well, we are now seeing just how it is in fact playing out. And it is just as I predicted.
Legal Insurrection has this, on the actual theory being developed by the prosecution, the courtroom deployment of which seems to have been waiting in the wings.
In an effort to explain the image I had in mind as I responded to Yorkshire, I am adding the marked up picture below.
If anyone has an updated trial based map which is properly scaled and refers to an uncontested version of the respective parties’ movements, they are welcome to suggest it, and I will happily remove this one.
Until such a time then …
The red pointer shows the GPS location of the shooting, per the Wiki site. If the Wiki coordinates are accurate, the death location is less further down the condo access path toward the Green condo, than news accounts and graphics originally suggested; graphics which I had accepted.
The red star seems to be the agreed upon location of Brandy Green’s condominium.
The yellow circle represents a location that is both two doors down from Brandy Green’s condo (or townhouse) and between two buildings; a spot which has been suggested as a place Trayvon had sought out to “escape” from Zimmerman’s view. That is to say, a place obscured between two buildings on the one hand, while being two doors away from home, on the other. (This construction of events is more or less per Rachel Jeantel’s statements, and assumes she is telling the truth in this regard.)
The green circle is where Zimmerman, if he is telling the truth about his own movements, paused to turn and go back to his vehicle.
The rest is self-explanatory. A 100 ft scale is found in the lower left corner of the image.
Get yourself a ruler if you need to.