Pres Obama's selective public grief

steelcityblues

In relation to the murder of two British students last year.

His failure to respond to three letters sent to the White House was because there was no "political value" and not worthy of a few minutes of his time.

Not long after not being shy of speaking on Trayvon Martin, of course.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9173820/Parents-of-murdered-British-students-criticise-Barack-Obama.html

Memnoch

Everyone engages in selective public grief. Look at all that nonsense over Diana. Whenever a British or American soldier dies it's a big deal. Yet very little mention of the countless civilians who don't happen to be invading someone else's home and are getting killed every day through no fault of their own.

All this whataboutry is just an endless circle. It's like giving out about someone protesting something by saying well, why don't they protest X, Y or Z instead.

A pointless and facetious exercise.

P.S. Also... not to play it down or anything, but the British students were killed in a mugging (I believe) and it looks like the killer has been brought to justice. The issue of trayvon has strong racial undertones. I.E. Quite possible he was gunned down for being black. On top of that the person who killed him hasn't been charged with any crime or arrested. It's a completely different situation and it's one where it's appropriate the leader of the country say something.

steelcityblues

Memnoch wrote: »

Everyone engages in selective public grief. Look at all that nonsense over Diana. Whenever a British or American soldier dies it's a big deal. Yet very little mention of the countless civilians who don't happen to be invading someone else's home and are getting killed every day through no fault of their own.

All this whataboutry is just an endless circle. It's like giving out about someone protesting something by saying well, why don't they protest X, Y or Z instead.

A pointless and facetious exercise.

I agree with your point of view that gunned down soldiers are given more prominence by the western establishment in general, than ordinary civilians. Which is always shameful, IMO.

However, if George W Bush, and his main team, decided to publicly condemn a black on white crime, but ignored a white on black crime, would you have had anything to say?

I don't get your protester analogy, obviously someone primarily concerned animal rights will dedicate the majority of their time towards that. The President is supposed to represent everyone.

Memnoch

It wasn't a black on white crime. It was a stupid thug trying to rob two people and when they didn't have anything, he killed them. Probably because he's been brought up in such a way that he doesn't have any empathy or understand. I mean he's a teenager right? Obviously some kind of idiot. Though I doubt that attack was racially motivated. He was also caught AND brought to justice.

There is a lot of violent crime in the US. A lot of people are murdered. The president doesn't comment on every incident.

I've pointed out why he commented in this case. Really you are trying to draw conclusions that aren't just there.

steelcityblues

Memnoch wrote: »

It wasn't a black on white crime. It was a stupid thug trying to rob two people and when they didn't have anything, he killed them. Probably because he's been brought up in such a way that he doesn't have any empathy or understand. I mean he's a teenager right? Obviously some kind of idiot. Though I doubt that attack was racially motivated. He was also caught AND brought to justice.

There is a lot of violent crime in the US. A lot of people are murdered. The president doesn't comment on every incident.

I've pointed out why he commented in this case. Really you are trying to draw conclusions that aren't just there.

How do you explain the odd 'he could have been my son' comment, and would a simple statement of regret not have sufficed?

I think it is significant that the parents of one of the victims wrote to Obama, which I doubt happens in the majority of cases in the US.

Fergus_Nash

But then Obama should have to comment on every single murder in the US using that logic. The deaths get attention because they were two tourists, but they are no different to any other killings.

The Trayvon incident was seemingly a racist issue, and the President took the opinion that it is better for him to condemn that than stay quiet, as racism is still an undercurrent in American society.

But a simple question, are you making this point because Obama didn't condemn a black murderer?

steelcityblues

Fergus_Nash wrote: »

But a simple question, are you making this point because Obama didn't condemn a black murderer?

I am making the point that the parents went to the trouble of sending three letters to the White House, that not getting a response - either publicly or privately- must have been very disheartening for them, and that it makes the President look insensitive.

Also, given his need to highlight Martin's race the other day, it will lead him to criticism that he may consider black victims more important to make statements about. Not what is needed in an election year.

I think a lot of people here would not hold back in their criticism if a Republican President did the reverse.

Fergus_Nash

Do you know how many letters Obama receives each day? I don't by the way. I can only guess this is news because a British paper has listened to the story of the parents, and publicised it.

Maybe highlighting the race was a stupid thing to do, I don't know. But when I first read these posts, I thought of sectarian killings in the North and how the President and various leading Ministers would have to make comments about the deaths to try and ease any possible backlash of violence. The undercurrent is similar, and keeping a lid on it is very desirable. That's why Obama might have had to wade in on the discussion.

As for a Republican President, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest if he or she publicly condemned a black person killing a white person if it seemed racially motivated, and didn't comment on a white person killing two black tourists from England.

Carcharodon

steelcityblues wrote: »

How do you explain the odd 'he could have been my son' comment, and would a simple statement of regret not have sufficed?

I think it is significant that the parents of one of the victims wrote to Obama, which I doubt happens in the majority of cases in the US.

I think Memnoch has answered your questions/grievances with Obama in a very conclusive and polite manner.
When I see posts like your it makes my head spin, just feels like a way for people to discredit the president with any type of complaint no matter how trivial.

At the end of the day the Trayvon Martin case is a national story which strikes a nerve among racial tensions in America, Obama is a politician and is only doing what politicians do.
Or maybe he genuinely felt a connection to the senseless murder of a young black youth and which the murderer has yet to be held accountable, who knows...

Overheal

Fergus_Nash wrote: »

The Trayvon incident was seemingly a racist issue

How? Seriously. Only by the media, that have spun this entire thing out of whack. First they were upset with inaudible words that can't even be made out, introducing the racial slur 'coons' which is *widely used*, let me tell you :rolleyes: and this whole thing where they all wear hoodies now. wtf, like.

There was no racial controversy until the media made it one. There is nothing in the case that suggests racial motivation. This became a race issue because the media wanted it to be.

Carcharodon

Overheal wrote: »

How? Seriously. Only by the media, that have spun this entire thing out of whack. First they were upset with inaudible words that can't even be made out, introducing the racial slur 'coons' which is *widely used*, let me tell you :rolleyes: and this whole thing where they all wear hoodies now. wtf, like.

There was no racial controversy until the media made it one. There is nothing in the case that suggests racial motivation. This became a race issue because the media wanted it to be.

The media will always be the media and sensationalize things but to suggest that there is nothing in the case to suggest racial motivation is a bit naive. I think that one could easily make the case that racial profiling took place with the given facts and If anyone says that the same thing would of happened to a white kid walking home eating a pack of skittles, then they are deluded in my opinion.

Who would "they" be ? Black people ? coons ?

I am not saying the kid was an angel but the facts remain that he was unarmed and shot dead my a man that took it upon himself to follow him even after he was told not to. Race shouldn't even have to come into it in my opinion, Zimmerman should be put on trial and this stand your ground law is just nuts.

Manic Moran

I am not saying the kid was an angel but the facts remain that he was unarmed and shot dead my a man that took it upon himself to follow him even after he was told not to. Race shouldn't even have to come into it in my opinion, Zimmerman should be put on trial and this stand your ground law is just nuts.

Well, firstly, the 'Stand your ground' law doesn't apply in this case anyway. Even Zimmerman's lawyer hasn't claimed that it does, and I'm not quite sure who started that tack of conversation. Secondly, in the cases that it does apply, it merely codeified extant law anyway. All it does is reduce the worries of Monday-morning quarterbacking amongst the innocent. It's similar to the recent Irish legislation about meeting burglars with force. That was the case it used to be anyway under Irish common law, just most people didn't know it.

The problem with the Martin case is that there are actually two entirely separate issues, which are generally not being separated by, for lack of a better term, the rabble rousers.

1) Was Mr Zimmerman a racist, or at least, racially profiling?
2) Why has Mr Zimmerman not been charged?

It is quite possible that Mr Zimmerman is a racist or was racially profiling. Being bigoted is not a crime. Neither is following someone on a public street, disregarding a dispatcher's advice, nor even asking someone what they're up to. The police and State Attorney can only act if they have evidence to show a crime has been committed and they have no reason to believe that no matter what the motivation was for Mr Zimmerman to follow Mr Martin in the first place, that at the time the gunshot was fired, Mr Zimmerman was not in fear of serious bodily harm, or even had actually started the violent confrontation. Without such evidence, the police's hands are pretty much tied, no matter how much Jesse Jackson or Mr Martin's parents may want Zimmerman charged.

NTM

Memnoch

Overheal wrote: »

How? Seriously. Only by the media, that have spun this entire thing out of whack. First they were upset with inaudible words that can't even be made out, introducing the racial slur 'coons' which is *widely used*, let me tell you :rolleyes: and this whole thing where they all wear hoodies now. wtf, like.

There was no racial controversy until the media made it one. There is nothing in the case that suggests racial motivation. This became a race issue because the media wanted it to be.

You're joking right? There is this emerging trend of 'white victimisation,' where people seem to get upset anytime it's pointed out that racism is still a big problem. Words like political correctness get thrown around a lot and the whole theme of white people being unfairly oppressed or sullied is very popular among many circles. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. There are always idiots who will cry racism at everything. But in this case, it really does seem obvious. I don't need the media to tell me that this guy's actions were most likely racially motivated.

It is quite possible that Mr Zimmerman is a racist or was racially profiling. Being bigoted is not a crime. Neither is following someone on a public street, disregarding a dispatcher's advice, nor even asking someone what they're up to. The police and State Attorney can only act if they have evidence to show a crime has been committed and they have no reason to believe that no matter what the motivation was for Mr Zimmerman to follow Mr Martin in the first place, that at the time the gunshot was fired, Mr Zimmerman was not in fear of serious bodily harm, or even had actually started the violent confrontation. Without such evidence, the police's hands are pretty much tied, no matter how much Jesse Jackson or Mr Martin's parents may want Zimmerman charged.

Being racist isn't a crime. ACTING on your racist ideas is. It's called hate crime. The items you list might not be crimes on their own but they are, most certainly, pieces of evidence. Since the only other person who could tell us definitively what happened is dead, we are left with the issue of is Mr. Zimmerman trustworthy and telling the truth about what happened? All these pieces of evidence suggest that at the very least he is being dishonest.

I don't think the police's hands are tied at all. Zimmerman seems to be lying and there is a strong alternate hypothesis under which he can be charged.

Ironically, the stand your ground law probably applies to Trayvon more than to Zimmerman. Since it was Zimmerman who sought confrontation with an unarmed, innocent kid who was minding his own business.

P.S. Just as a matter of clarification. How does the new law work in Ireland? What can/can't I do to potential burglers in my home?

RichieC

This Trayvon case is a tinder box about to go off, I was unsurprised the president weighed in.

There's video footage of Zimmerman being led into the police station, sure doesnt look like a man who had his nose broken and his head smashed.

It should be noted that Zimmermans father is a retired Judge, so it's rather unsurprising that no charges have been filed.

Cork boy 55

The POTUS should not discuss on-going crimnal cases
is he is forced by media to comment they should stay neturl just offer condolences and tell people the legal system is in play.
and he/she should not take sides and play the race card nuts.

Imagine this

"Zimmerman looks like my son"
George W Bush

Nuts

Manic Moran

Memnoch wrote: »

Being racist isn't a crime. ACTING on your racist ideas is. It's called hate crime.

No. Acting unlawfully on your racist ideas is a crime. Hate crime laws are generally sentencing enhancements. eg: If battery ordinarily gets you two years in jail, battery because the victim was black will get you ten. But the battery has to be unlawful to begin with.

The items you list might not be crimes on their own but they are, most certainly, pieces of evidence. Since the only other person who could tell us definitively what happened is dead, we are left with the issue of is Mr. Zimmerman trustworthy and telling the truth about what happened? All these pieces of evidence suggest that at the very least he is being dishonest.

And that he has lied to police or the State Attorney's office can be proven? His actions and comments may leave him open to the inevitable civil suit, but that's a different issue.

I don't think the police's hands are tied at all. Zimmerman seems to be lying and there is a strong alternate hypothesis under which he can be charged.

Hypothesis is well and good. Can evidence be provided that will convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt? If 'no', then the issue is closed as far as the criminal justice system is concerned.

P.S. Just as a matter of clarification. How does the new law work in Ireland? What can/can't I do to potential burglers in my home?

Irish common law before the legislation: The Constitution protects a dwellinghouse against both government and private invasion. A burglar is violating this Constitutional protection, and is considered an attacker against the person and may be met with reasonable force to drive him off or end the threat. Homeowners are not under an obligation to retreat or avoid confrontation (DPP v Barnes)

Criminal Law Defence and the Dwelling Act 2011 :
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0113/home.html

The Criminal Law Defence and the Dwelling Act 2011 recognises the constitutional position of a person's home and allows for a person to use reasonable force in defending the home.

The aim is to protect people in their dwelling from assault and to protect their property.

The new Act provides that a person is not under an obligation to retreat from their home when there is an intruder.

If you compare the text of the legislation http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/act/pub/0035/index.html with the Judgement of the Court in 2006 http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/bce24a8184816f1580256ef30048ca50/aded5c6b04f391478025725d00516c14?OpenDocument you'll find that they're pretty much identical.

There's video footage of Zimmerman being led into the police station, sure doesnt look like a man who had his nose broken and his head smashed.

I believe that video was taken four hours after the shooting, in which time the medical teams had a bit of an opportunity to clean him up a bit. I don't recall anyone in a position to make the claim that the nose was broken actually doing so, but there does seem to be sufficient evidence that there was a fight.

NTM

RichieC

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

The POTUS should not discuss on-going crimnal cases
is he is forced by media to comment they should stay neturl just offer condolences and tell people the legal system is in play.
and he/she should not take sides and play the race card nuts.

Imagine this

"Zimmerman looks like my son"
George W Bush

Nuts

Bush is Hispanic?

he allowed himself one personal word in an otherwise measured statement. You're obviously a republican (or at least ideologically identify with them) since you're a military hard guy, so it's no surprise your taking Malkin et alls sides in the row.

Overheal

Carcharodon wrote: »

Who would "they" be ? Black people ? coons ?

By They, I meant the media.

Seriously. You've just exemplified what pisses me off about the entire spiel.

Memnoch wrote: »

in this case, it really does seem obvious. I don't need the media to tell me that this guy's actions were most likely racially motivated.

Not good enough. Why does it seem obvious? What evidence are you basing this off?

RichieC

This outragious tale isnt getting half the press:

As the Trayvon Martin case draws national attention, we look at another fatal shooting of an African-American male that has received far less scrutiny. Kenneth Chamberlain, Sr., a 68-year-old African-American Marine veteran, was fatally shot in November by White Plains, NY, police who responded to a false alarm from his medical alert pendant. The officers broke down Chamberlain’s door, tasered him, and then shot him dead. Audio of the entire incident was recorded by the medical alert device in Chamberlain’s apartment. We’re joined by family attorneys and Chamberlain’s son, Kenneth Chamberlain, Jr., who struggles through tears to recount his father’s final moments, including the way police officers mocked his father’s past as a marine. "For them to look at my father that way, (with) no regard for his life, every morning I think about it," he says.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/29/killed_at_home_white_plains_ny

The police are actually recorded calling him the N word and laughing about his military career while he lay there dead.

Carcharodon

Overheal wrote: »

Dont make me get myself banned. By They, I meant the media.

Seriously. You've just exemplified what pisses me off about the entire spiel.

I didn't realize all the media are wearing hoodies now, must of missed that one.

RichieC

Carcharodon wrote: »

I didn't realize all the media are wearing hoodies now, must of missed that one.

A few politicians did too, and a basketball team.

Overheal

I mean **** I was wearing Hoodies before it was a political statement. I doubt wearing one makes me come off as a dangerous criminal though.

Carcharodon

RichieC wrote: »

A few politicians did too, and a basketball team.

Yea, I saw the Miami heat team make that statement and also the politician do it in congress or some political setting, he was thrown out(correctly so).

James Cessna

steelcityblues wrote: »

In relation to the murder of two British students last year.

His failure to respond to three letters sent to the White House was because there was no "political value" and not worthy of a few minutes of his time.

Not long after not being shy of speaking on Trayvon Martin, of course.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9173820/Parents-of-murdered-British-students-criticise-Barack-Obama.html

The Left is clearly “milking” this incident for all it is worth!

They clearly want George Zimmerman to be the aggressor in this incident.

They are hoping against all hope they can rally the blacks and Hispanics in America to cast a "sympathy" vote against the "white" Republicans.

Those on the left have no shame! They will use any "incident" to their political advantage if they believe they have an opportunity for even the slightest bit of success!

They could care less about Trayvon Martin. They are using the death of this poor child to advance their own political agenda!

southsiderosie

James Cessna wrote: »

The Left is clearly “milking” this incident for all it is worth!

They clearly want George Zimmerman to be the aggressor in this incident.

They are hoping against all hope they can rally the blacks and Hispanics in America to cast a "sympathy" vote against the "white" Republicans.

Those on the left have no shame! They will use any "incident" to their political advantage if they believe they have an opportunity for even the slightest bit of success!

They could care less about Trayvon Martin. They are using the death of this poor child to advance their own political agenda!

Last I checked, Jeb Bush was not a liberal, and when asked about this incident, not only called it a "tragedy", but said that he did not think the Stand Your Ground Law (which he signed) was applicable in this case.

The capacity to be appalled by this situation, or to have some sense of empathy for the victim and his family, is not limited to liberals or blacks.

Overheal

southsiderosie wrote: »

The capacity to be appalled by this situation, or to have some sense of empathy for the victim and his family, is not limited to liberals or blacks.

Or to people who think this is a race issue. Still isn't one though.

Manic Moran

Those on the left have no shame! They will use any "incident" to their political advantage if they believe they have an opportunity for even the slightest bit of success!

How does this differ from the more enthusiastic members of the right? And what's with the bold lettering? Emphasis doesn't make you any more correct.

NTM

steelcityblues

southsiderosie wrote: »

Last I checked, Jeb Bush was not a liberal, and when asked about this incident, not only called it a "tragedy", but said that he did not think the Stand Your Ground Law (which he signed) was applicable in this case.

The capacity to be appalled by this situation, or to have some sense of empathy for the victim and his family, is not limited to liberals or blacks.

I think Pres Obama was right to feel appalled by another murder, but he should have refrained from putting his comments into a racial context. Zimmerman might be a murderer, but whether he is a racist is another matter.

RichieC

steelcityblues wrote: »

I think Pres Obama was right to feel appalled by another murder, but he should have refrained from putting his comments into a racial context. Zimmerman might be a murderer, but whether he is a racist is another matter.

He says under his breath while on the phone to the police "fking Coons".


it's funny, because MSNBC said they used the best sound gear in the business to extract it, and it wasn't clear at all, but when the young turks done with their - I dunno, obviously crappy gear it was clear as day.

here it is... (flick to 2:40 in the video to hear the extracted audio)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNI5CA5jijw

The guy was pretty much harassing the police every time he spotted a black guy in his neighbourhood. He clearly has issues.

I'm pretty much convinced at this stage that the only reason he's not being charged is because his father is a retired magistrate. The right wing press/blogosphere didn't even get involved in this story until they had a bunch of ad hominem nonsense about Tray with which to smear his image with in the media.

this is a decent write up on how this story initially baffled those on the right.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201203270002

steelcityblues

On one comment, you are going to label him as a racist? Even the YT hosts are not doing it in that clip.

You are probably closer to the mark that he is out free because of his Dad being a Judge.

This wasn't exactly a normal, care free day, which is obvious from him making a 9/11 call in the first place. People don't always say the right things in times of panic.

The fact that NBC edited the phone call shows that a large part of the media are getting a warped thrill out of this whole story.

RichieC

steelcityblues wrote: »

On one comment, you are going to label him as a racist? Even the YT hosts are not doing it in that clip..

In the context which he made it? I'm gonna say there's a decent chance he is. Also based on his incessant calls to the police every time he spotted a black youth in the area, of course I already said that so why I'm having to explain it again is a bit weird.

Overheal

RichieC wrote: »

In the context which he made it? I'm gonna say there's a decent chance he is. Also based on his incessant calls to the police every time he spotted a black youth in the area, of course I already said that so why I'm having to explain it again is a bit weird.

You've plugged that into this thread twice now so I need to ask, did he only call the police when there was a negro gentlemen caller in his neighborhood? Do you have a source for that, or have you self-imposed that idea?

Manic Moran

it's funny, because MSNBC said they used the best sound gear in the business to extract it, and it wasn't clear at all, but when the young turks done with their - I dunno, obviously crappy gear it was clear as day

Perhaps the crappy gear didn't do a distortion-free enhancement and the distortion ended up with its own result. Or maybe he actually did say 'coons', a quick googling that the critters are actually to be found in Sanford, FL. Or maybe he is as racist as some people claim, which doesn't make him a murderer.

RichieC

Overheal wrote: »

You've plugged that into this thread twice now so I need to ask, did he only call the police when there was a negro gentlemen caller in his neighborhood? Do you have a source for that, or have you self-imposed that idea?

akaik he also made calles about a pothole and another about children outside playing on the road and another reporting a garage door being open.

Overheal

RichieC wrote: »

akaik he also made calles about a pothole and another about children outside playing on the road and another reporting a garage door being open.

so not necessarily a pattern of racial discrimination. thats what Im getting at.

Look, I can be wrong. I've been spectacularly wrong in the past, like Fukishima, but I'm a born skeptic.

RichieC

Forensic Experts: with ‘Scientific Certainty’ it was not Zimmerman’s voice screaming for help

After the Sentinel contacted Owen, he used software called Easy Voice Biometrics to compare Zimmerman’s voice to the 911 call screams.

“I took all of the screams and put those together, and cut out everything else,” Owen says.

The software compared that audio to Zimmerman’s voice. It returned a 48 percent match. Owen said to reach a positive match with audio of this quality, he’d expect higher than 90 percent.

“As a result of that, you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it’s not Zimmerman,” Owen says, stressing that he cannot confirm the voice as Trayvon’s, because he didn’t have a sample of the teen’s voice to compare.

Forensic voice identification is not a new or novel concept; in fact, a recent U.S. Department of Justice committee report notes that federal interest in the technology “has a history of nearly 70 years.”

http://freakoutnation.com/2012/03/31/forensic-experts-with-scientific-certainty-it-was-not-zimmermans-voice-screaming-for-help/

Manic Moran

I wonder how one even gets to 48%?

In any case, 'so what'? There is still the problem that an eye-witness to the fight puts Zimmerman on the ground with Martin wailing on him. I can still shout for help while hitting someone.

This is the problem with the media doing their own independent analysis on limited information: They only put out what they have available, not all the evidence, and if there's one sensible thing Mr Zimmerman has done, it's to shut up and say nothing except a basic statement to the police. After the leak of the partial report from the police, nothing further has come from that side either. All we're doing is further trial by media, and it's not even a fair trial.

NTM

southsiderosie

steelcityblues wrote: »

I think Pres Obama was right to feel appalled by another murder, but he should have refrained from putting his comments into a racial context. Zimmerman might be a murderer, but whether he is a racist is another matter.

I didn't hear Obama call him a racist though. I just heard him reflect on the situation as pretty much every black parent I know did - that Trayvon could have been their child.

To be fair, most of the parents of teenage boys I know shuddered when they heard that story. But given the statistical likelihood of young black men a) being profiled and/or b) being murdered (often by another young black male), I think story just hit the parents of black children in a way that it, understandably, does not hit the parents of non-black children. And I don't really see what is wrong or racist about that - different racial and ethnic groups in the United States have different histories, especially with violence and/or the relationship with the police and the judicial system, so how they respond to these kinds of situations will obviously differ.

To use a different example, anyone with an ounce of humanity could not help but be horrified by the Matthew Shephard case. But it is completely understandable that, for the parents of gay teenagers, that case hit home in a way that it did not for the rest of us. Acknowledgement of that difference isn't an attempt to sow discontent - it is completely rational.

timesnap

RichieC wrote: »

he allowed himself one personal word in an otherwise measured statement. You're obviously a republican (or at least ideologically identify with them) since you're a military hard guy, so it's no surprise your taking Malkin et alls sides in the row.

Was'nt there another occasion when he condemned a police force who arrested a black man for trying to get into his own house?
EDITFrom the latest edition of the LA Times:

The last time Obama commented publicly on a case of possible racial profiling was after Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.was arrested trying to force open the jammed door of his Cambridge home in 2009. After criticizing the arrest as "stupid," the president got an avalanche of criticism and wound up sitting down for a beer in the White House garden with Gates and the white cop who arrested him. That meeting sent the wrong message, implying that racial profiling is an individual problem rather than a systemic one

.
The full article is very interesting about other minor incidents in his past and being American and black.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-aubry-obama-trayvon-martin-20120401,0,4690960.story

i personally feel Obama has done a superb job of not making skin color an issue but for what it is worth my opinion is that this case does reek of racism and it was only human of him to let the mask slip.

Since Dubya has also been brought up with the question being asked what if he had made the same remark about 'if i had a son', i can honestly say i never detected any trace of skin color prejudice in him personally,with Bush it was more about class and he saw no immorality in people who were *weak* having no place in America.
Overall i think the Bush administration was racist but imo that was more down to Cheyney and Rumsfeld,the way Powell was sidelined for instance.

Given that Bush as i said did not seem racist,it is hard to see how on the one hand he could work so closely with Rice and yet the Administration as a whole neglected the victims of hurricane Katrina who for the main part were very poor and black.
This is the problem with ideology it makes us see people as nothing more than numbers and not as human beings.
i wonder how so many leading bible thumping politicians reconcile their behavior with the preaching of *their* Jesus?
Selective public lack of grief?

steelcityblues

southsiderosie wrote: »

I didn't hear Obama call him a racist though. I just heard him reflect on the situation as pretty much every black parent I know did - that Trayvon could have been their child.

To be fair, most of the parents of teenage boys I know shuddered when they heard that story. But given the statistical likelihood of young black men a) being profiled and/or b) being murdered (often by another young black male), I think story just hit the parents of black children in a way that it, understandably, does not hit the parents of non-black children. And I don't really see what is wrong or racist about that - different racial and ethnic groups in the United States have different histories, especially with violence and/or the relationship with the police and the judicial system, so how they respond to these kinds of situations will obviously differ.

To use a different example, anyone with an ounce of humanity could not help but be horrified by the Matthew Shephard case. But it is completely understandable that, for the parents of gay teenagers, that case hit home in a way that it did not for the rest of us. Acknowledgement of that difference isn't an attempt to sow discontent - it is completely rational.

I really don't see how you can come to the conclusion that every black parent can relate to Trayvon Martin, especially when we don't know enough about Martin yet.

Obama had the chance to respond in a purely human context, but he to add the weird 'could have been my son' comment. The sons/daughters of Presidents do not grow up in a low income environment like Martin did.

The Shepherd situation was terrible, and again you could be any parent, or individual, and feel sympathetic. Why limit it to parents of gay sons/daughters?

southsiderosie

steelcityblues wrote: »

I really don't see how you can come to the conclusion that every black parent can relate to Trayvon Martin, especially when we don't know enough about Martin yet.

Obama had the chance to respond in a purely human context, but he to add the weird 'could have been my son' comment. The sons/daughters of Presidents do not grow up in a low income environment like Martin did.

The Shepherd situation was terrible, and again you could be any parent, or individual, and feel sympathetic. Why limit it to parents of gay sons/daughters?

Did you actually read my comment? I very clearly stated that while ANYONE would be moved by the Shephard situation, clearly it hit the parents of gay teenagers in a way that it would not hit other parents whose children are not gay and would likely not be targeted for gay-bashing. I think this is pretty self-explanatory.

amacachi

Manic Moran wrote: »

I wonder how one even gets to 48%?

By speaking I assume. It's probably similar to the plagiarism detection software used now, I did well to get it below 50%.

Amerika

Does anyone here support the New York Times use of referring to Zimmerman as a "white Hispanic?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/22/us/police-chief-draws-fire-in-trayvon-martin-shooting.html?_r=1

Carcharodon

Amerika wrote: »

Does anyone here support the New York Times use of referring to Zimmerman as a "white Hispanic?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/22/us/police-chief-draws-fire-in-trayvon-martin-shooting.html?_r=1

The racial and ethnic makeup of many Latinos is pretty complex and this description looks to be an accurate one of Zimmerman although that may be for him to decide not us.

I do believe the term 'white hispanic' is being used here to try and highlight/fuel the racial element of the issue.
If Zimmerman was the one shot he would probably just be referred to as Latino but thats the media for you.

RichieC

Amerika wrote: »

Does anyone here support the New York Times use of referring to Zimmerman as a "white Hispanic?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/22/us/police-chief-draws-fire-in-trayvon-martin-shooting.html?_r=1

Yea, His mother is Hispanic and his father is US born white man retired magistrate. (important to remember this when wondering why he wasn't arrested.)

Amerika

Carcharodon wrote: »

I do believe the term 'white hispanic' is being used here to try and highlight/fuel the racial element of the issue.
If Zimmerman was the one shot he would probably just be referred to as Latino but thats the media for you.

I agree. What really gets me is not that they did it in the first place (sadly it is now pretty much expected from the NYTimes), but that they keep getting a free pass on these sort of things... that should diminish their brand. But I guess they can always redeem themselves when they start referring to Barack Obama as a white African American. Don’t hold your breath though!

timesnap

Amerika wrote: »

I agree. What really gets me is not that they did it in the first place (sadly it is now pretty much expected from the NYTimes), but that they keep getting a free pass on these sort of things... that should diminish their brand. But I guess they can always redeem themselves when they start referring to Barack Obama as a white African American. Don’t hold your breath though!

Amerika in this world gone mad with political correctness please make more effort to phrase things exactly right, he is a white African Irish* American, with documents to prove it so he has!

*timesnap wonders to himself if Irish Americans had to pay tax to Ireland what they would call themselves:p

southsiderosie

Amerika wrote: »

I agree. What really gets me is not that they did it in the first place (sadly it is now pretty much expected from the NYTimes), but that they keep getting a free pass on these sort of things... that should diminish their brand. But I guess they can always redeem themselves when they start referring to Barack Obama as a white African American. Don’t hold your breath though!

Actually, these are census categories. White is a race, but Hispanic is an ethnic group.

In addition, this is a distinction that is drawn pretty regularly in Florida. A lot of Cubans are white, but ethnically Hispanic. So when I worked down there, people would often refer to whites who weren't Hispanic as 'Anglos'.

I don't think there is an agreed-upon way to talk about Hispanics as a group (perhaps because they are culturally and racially heterogeneous) so sometimes things get awkward - especially since the incident in question is racially charged.

To be honest Amerika, this just seems like more faux outrage to me.

Amerika

Yes, but if Zimmerman would have done something prior to this unfortunate event that was commendable or honorable, I'd bet big that the NY Times would have just listed him simply as "Hispanic."

southsiderosie wrote: »

To be honest Amerika, this just seems like more faux outrage to me.

The whole bloddy mess from those not directly involved is faux outrage IMO. I feel sorry for the young man who was shot and killed, and I feel sorry for the man who did the shooting. But I feel contempt for the media and the activists in the aftermath of the tragedy.

Amerika

timesnap wrote: »

*timesnap wonders to himself if Irish Americans had to pay tax to Ireland what they would call themselves:p

Irish Tea (taxed enough already) Partiers?

southsiderosie

Amerika wrote: »

Yes, but if Zimmerman would have done something prior to this unfortunate event that was commendable or honorable, I'd bet big that the NY Times would have just listed him simply as "Hispanic."

The whole bloddy mess from those not directly involved is faux outrage IMO. I feel sorry for the young man who was shot and killed, and I feel sorry for the man who did the shooting. But I feel contempt for the media and the activists in the aftermath of the tragedy.

I have no love for Al Sharpton, and I don't think that wild media speculation has helped matters at all. But I understand why people are upset, especially in Florida.