About . . . . Classes . . . . Books . . . . Vita . . . . Blog. . . . Podcast

by Peter Moskos

November 9, 2013

Right Wing Lies (IX)

Turns out Obama was a cross-dressing teenager who turned gay tricks for coke! This one must be true. Why? Because I read it on the interwebs!

Man, I wasted far too much time today responding to comments from people who still comment about what a shame it is that the government provided "hundreds of thousands of dollars" to a murdered two-bit drug-dealing father-of-many married-to-none black man, Larmondo "Flair" Allen. This single post got 4,000 hits yesterday (and all from google searches, which is the tough way to find something. Usually massive spikes are due to some prominent site posting a link). That's about 3,500 more than an average day.

The problem, of course, is it's not true. I mean the looser "Flair" existed, but he wasn't living large sucking the government's tit.

Call me crazy, but if people believe an email that says some loser with nine kids gets $13,500 per month in free government cash (the real figure is closer to $550), how much of a lie does something have to be before idiots might reconsider something that goes against their world view?

And how many people need to believe a lie before these people dictate social policy based on that lie?

[For a more a real conception of who receives welfare, read this.]

In many comments (and tens of thousands of page views) regarding "Flair," not one person -- not one -- said, "Gosh, I guess since my facts were wrong, I've got to reconsider what I believe." Not one. Turns out for some, the facts don't matter. As a professor who enjoys a good political debate, I find that very frustrating.

To hate something based on truth is one thing. But to hate based on lies? It's the foundation of fascism.


Andrea said...

I would suggest that the problem is not "right wing" lies or "conservative" lies, but lies. Both sides do this, and people on both sides believe the crap that comes from their side, while sneering mightily at the other side's crap. People so love to be outraged that they don't care if the prompt is true.

You're correct, of course, about the minimal amount of effort it would take to discover the lie. I'm a fiscal conservative, so I laugh at the attempts to legislate morals, but I DO care about welfare fraud. There is waste and abuse, but there are people who truly need it, and I want it to be available for them. As you note, if it's available for anyone, someone will abuse it; that's just human nature. I'd like to keep the abuse to a minimum, but I don't need to be all outraged over nonsense; there's enough real abuse to seethe over. :-)

PCM said...

There are lies all around, but I do think, at least since the fall of communism, that the left is more often on the side of truth. What I find disturbing about right-wing lies is A) there is often a race (or racist) angle and B) when informed that they are wrong on the facts, believers just double down.

I do think lefties (perhaps because lefties are more secular?) are more often willing to abide by scientific principles and evidence-based re-thinking.

Mind you this doesn't mean the left is always correct. But it scares me when people refuse to change their beliefs after being shown their facts are incorrect.

I'd be happy publish forward left-wing email lies if somebody would bring them to my attention. But the left doesn't have the boogie men of the ACLU, Obama, and absolutely anything reported by "The Media." Perhaps the extreme right is so crazy, the left don't have to make shit up.

Tarheelsubsailor said...

Found your info when researching the "entrepreneur" email and read the many responses. I am an unapologetic liberal and find that my liberal friends don't send these grossly distorted emails to me. I DO get this stuff from my right wing friends who seem impervious to the facts. From Obama to Trayvon, the absurd claims seem so transparently false, yet they send them on. When I challenge this stuff with facts, many take me off their forward list (which suits me just fine). Others continue to send the lies and distort ions so I reply to all when challenging the typically racist or xenophobic communications. But I doubt they take time to read facts, because it doesn't fit their world view.

I've also noticed that "righties" have the need to personally attack anyone who challenges them. Respectful dialogue is not welcome.

This site is refreshing, as are the well researched and well written responses. It's now marked as one of my favorites! Keep up the good work!!

PCM said...

Thanks. I suspect I've been removed from my right-wing friends' email forwards because I haven't received one in a while. That's OK.

But it is odd because all I did was respond and point out obvious mistruths when I was sent a whopper. Personally, I would appreciate a polite fact checker when I send email. But apparently my right-wing friends do not.

PCM said...

And, oh yeah, buy my books!

Andrea said...

If, as you say, the left were more often on the side of truth, I'd lean more left. :-) It's true that the left seem more science-friendly, but they also manipulate the science to say what they want it to say. Lefty spin in the media is just embarrassing. And yes, the left also engages in relentless attacks. Disagree with any Democratic policy, and I'm automatically racist, hate women, hate the environment, hate poor people, and I'm a "paid shill" of Big Oil and "banksters". Lefties will also howl about how "Bush was worse!!", which apparently excuses any current scandal.

One thing is certain, politics have become very divisive and nasty, and most people seem content to keep it that way, because it's easy.

PCM said...

I'm with you on much of that.
But Bush *was* worse!

Andrea said...

Ha! :-)
I disagree. I thought Bush sucked, and Obama would have to be better by default, and he has proved me wrong.

Ah, well, I'm sure another 10 trillion in debt will make everything right!

DB said...

I find some of the comments here interesting and not necessarily in agreement with my experiences. I am a right wing conservative who doesn't abide by all those values all the time, but would like the truth no matter which side of the fence it lay upon. So, my belief is that so much BS has gone back and forth that it is hard to know what the facts are. I agree with PCM here on this particular item, but there are others that swing in an opposite direction on much the same topic.
However, what got me going on this was the gentlemen above commenting on false facts concerning Trayvon Martin. I studied this case deeply as it has so many opposing ideals and beliefs - but I am curious as to what the gentlemen believes were untrue about the case? I am willing to engage in civil reasonable and give/take dialogue on the topic.

DB said...

Bush sucked, Obama sucked. Lets face it, presidents are puppets placed by which economic engine can put all the pieces of the puzzle in all the right places. All choreographed by the media to ensure the message (that PCM has pointed out is rarely fact checked) gets out there. Votes are bought, directly or indirectly. Presidents do what the money wants them to do.....

PCM said...

There's one specific part related to Trayvon I find untrue and often repeated: That Trayvon jumped Zimmerman and was shot by Zimmerman *at Zimmerman's car*. That would in fact change a lot about the altercation. But we know it isn't true. Trayvon was shot by Zimmerman after Zimmerman when looking for him. That to me is an important detail. Zimmerman went looking for Trayvon even after police urged him not to. So if one thinks (incorrectly) that Zimmerman was at his car waiting for police when he was jumped by Trayvon, well it's just not true.

DB said...

PCM, Sir - I agree with you 100% concerning the car issue. I ask you though, as an academic - is there a law, an infraction even that prevents me or you or Zimmerman from following anybody for any amount of time? If not, the point is rather moot. Now, don't get me wrong here; I do think Zimmerman was an overzealous want to be who should have followed the advice of the dispatcher. But, if using poor judgement put people in jail - well, you know as well as I that we would have an overcrowding issue. I liken it to seeing someone in my neighborhood who is unfamiliar and possibly suspicious. I follow him a bit, to see what the hell he is doing and maybe decide if I'm going to call the police (neighborhood watch sort of stuff). The guy knocks me down, mounts me, and begins raining blows down so that my head is bouncing off the concrete. In california, that type of act is covered under 243(f)(4) PC as actions probable to cause great bodily injury or death. That same law provides the backing to use deadly force. An additional point, what the hell does "stand your ground" have to do with any of this stuff - doesn't apply... and wasn't used in the defense - but it was (and is) a media talking point that muddied the waters. I look forward to your point of view sir!

PCM said...

I'm pretty sure pursuing somebody with the intent to commit a crime is, in fact, a crime. And the intent to cause a crime is based on the fact that Martin was innocent. It might be hard to prove, but it's still a crime. You can't go around detaining people -- or even harassing them -- if you're not police. Well, you can, but you had better be right! If not, it's kidnapping.

But that said, I have written that I think the verdict, horrible though it was, should be seen as legally correct.

But I would put the "stand your ground didn't matter" in the category of right-wing lies (though for this discussion I'll soften it to "misunderstanding").

*Zimmerman* didn't explicitly use the defense, but the judge did explicitly instruct the jury to consider "stand your ground": "...he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force." And -- according to at least one member of the jury -- use it they did!

Here are the jury instructions ("stand your ground" line is on page 12) http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2013/07/12/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf

And one jury told CNN, "because of the heat of the moment and the 'stand your ground.' He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right."

So clearly stand your ground *did* matter. Right? To me it's another factual issue. You say it doesn't apply; I'm pretty sure it did. Which one of us is correct? Do correct me if I'm wrong.

DB said...

Whoa sir…. I want to challenge you a bit and I hope you don’t take offense. First, what crime is it that he intended to commit (factually)? Second, it's my belief there is no factual crime, and to surmise that he was going to detain Martin is pure speculation and you know that isn’t going to fly in court. So, I will play devil’s advocate and let’s PRETEND that his intent was to detain Martin and move him to where the police would respond (kidnapping). Does that now provide Martin with all he needs to smash Zimmerman’s head into the ground? I am using factual information and what you are providing is a guess – so could this be a left wing lie (sorry, misunderstanding)? Again, is Zimmerman a wanna be geek? Yep, sure is. Did his stupidity and actions create this event – yep! Should he have listened to the dispatcher – yep! Yet, how many of us have kinda checked out the dude standing on the corner of our block, or asked some guy what he was doing in our neighborhood when we know he isn't a resident. More than will admit. Regardless, under the law-he committed no crime and I watched the “liberal” media decimate the man while insinuating he committed crimes, that he was white, that he attacked Trayvon – all which ended up being untrue (but, the right lies too much?).I think its fair to say that the right and left are so involved in deceit that it is difficult to follow anything unless you were there.

Lastly, I will concede to the stand your ground point in that “technically” it was used. However, I will again argue, “what difference does it really make” when you add the right of regular old self-defense. One does not have the ability to evade when on his back having his head bashed into the ground, so I really don’t see the stand your ground point at all. Using your own CNN quote – if the juror understood the totality of law – her statement also refers to plain old self-defense.
So, in all-we can either agree to disagree or maybe you can convince me that my thinking is just plain wrong. I enjoy this type of back and forth, so please engage me. By the way, I grew up in Frederick MD and I can appreciate your days at BPD – well served brother.

DB said...

OK, So I went and read your link providing what I assume is your full perspective on the verdict. I also see where my points have been brought up in the comments section of that blog and I don't see where you really provide factual detail in response. I'm not trying to be argumentative at all, I've read your books and you've convinced me on portions of the drug war - so much that I've had arguments with co-workers. However - I must ask a direct question. You say "in a state without stand your ground, Zimmerman probably would have been convicted". You explain your reasoning as the jury seeing Zimmerman as a big headed punk - I hope this isn't something you teach your students. So, really - legally - why? That is the question I wish to debate if you would enjoy engaging me. Why does stand your ground make a difference (stand your ground v. self defense?). Thank you in advance.

PCM said...

I'll get back to this thread tomorrow (I'm enjoying it). But in the meantime, could you explain to me something else from a conservative perspective.

As a good liberal, I don't really care about what we call what happened in Benghazi. I mean, call it what you want: terrorist, accident, bad planning, a giant shit storm. Whatever. OK. It was a "terrorist attack." Shit happened; it was bad; I hope we learn some lessons.

But so now some it turns out that some guy on 60 minutes was lying about what happened there (and his role in it). Does this matter? Does this change anything? Does this knock out some foundation of conservative belief about Benghazi that I don't even know about? I mean, I can understand why it's embarrassing for 60 minutes, but why should the rest of us care? I feel lack I'm lacking some important piece of conservative mindset to understand the real issue. Please explain!

DB said...

So, I want to be clear that I am no Benghazi expert; however, I think I can offer you some insight. First, it's unclear exactly what the guy lied about, but generally it appears mostly based on his actual presence during the incident. additionally, it appears that his motivation is to drum up some interest in his book which was being released shortly after the 60 minutes interview. the book is supposedly about his warnings to the Department of State of poor security at the embassy. As far as I know, it has little or no bearing on the overall incident as it currently stands. It is correctly being referred to as a militia uprising and the US government has placed some type of international warrants on the ring leaders. I think the big stir is simply that he pulled the wool over a journalists eyes - which to me is interesting in that they so rarely get it right anyway. I will also add that it's not nearly embarrassing as my local news channel giving false names for the crew of the Korean airliner that crashed at SFO - now that was unbelievably stupid and gores to show just how desperate journalists are to get the "scoop"

PCM said...

Thanks. And back to Stand Your Ground.

We agree that Zimmerman didn’t explicitly use a Stand Your Ground defense. But we also can agree (I think) that Stand Your Ground was a factor in the initial investigation, the initial decision not to arrest or prosecute, and the final jury decision. That’s why it matters.

And that’s why I think it’s fair to say: different state, different investigation, different results.

Stand Your Ground allows a person to use lethal force based on that person's perception of a threat. That threat does not have to be real, it does not have to be lethal, and the person standing ground does not have to be correct. And the burden of proof is on the state, not the person who stood ground and used forced.

In another state, without Stand Your Ground, Zimmerman could have been considered negligent. Ie: “departing from the conduct expected of a reasonably prudent person acting under similar circumstances.” (copied from some legal website). Put another way, “acting reasonably refers to the way a reasonable person would act in similar situation.”

Zimmerman was following an innocent person, determined not to let “these people” get away, and ignored recommendations from the 911 operator to stay put. I would say that is not reasonable and hence negligent. I don’t think Zimmerman acted reasonable. Perhaps you do. But now we’re getting into subjective legal territory, so we may reasonably disagree.

But if Zimmerman did not act reasonably (and was hence negligent in his actions), it wouldn’t matter that Zimmerman later felt under threat, because it was he, Zimmerman, who opened up the giant can of whoop-ass.

(And as to what crime Zimmerman committed, outside of homicide, which I don’t think he intended to do when he got out of his car, I think it’s better to think of harassment rather than kidnapping. Because, as you say, we can’t assume Zimmerman intended to detain. But we do know at the very least he intended to follow and locate Martin, which could easily fall under a broad definition of harassment--and yes, harassment is always kind of a subjective bullshit charge, but if you wanted to prosecute Zimmerman, you have the prosecutorial discretion to do so.)

Another key link (along with the final jury decision, which is pretty key) to Stand Your Ground is that Stand Your Ground prevents criminal prosecution (including arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant). This was very relevant in the Martin killing.

Stand your ground morphed Zimmerman from a suspect to a defendant, which changed the whole nature of the case. Had Zimmerman been arrested and treated as a homicide suspect, there been a different and better initial investigation, things might have (come on, they would have) been different.

Clearly stand your ground mattered, right? The only question is how much.

DB said...

1 of 2 (sorry)
Yes sir, we can agree that stand your ground was a factor and I will certainly fold to the “possibility” of a different result in a different area (anything is possible).

The anything is possible concept is a usual life event – one cop arrests for drunk in public where another cop finds the guy a ride home – no two things are always the same even if they should be.

I do disagree on your definition of Stand Your Ground. Florida law states that a person may use deadly force if he “reasonably” believes that such force is necessary. While reasonably is based on an individual’s perception, it must then be verified by a jury of his peers if it then goes to trial. Otherwise it must be reasonable to the investigators. I believe the definition sounds very similar to justifiable use of deadly force by a peace officer (reasonableness standard).

So, although it is an individual’s perspective, the act must still pass a serious litmus test before one just walks. Also, the burden is always on the prosecution, so I guess where we differ might be in support of this law.

I think a civilian should have the same ability to protect themselves from a reasonable threat as would a police officer – I think Stand your ground provides that and I believe that it was not incorrect to include it in the jury instructions so that it might be considered (I also want to point out that the Stand Your Ground law has successfully been defended in Florida and remains in effect).


So, we move on to the other States argument in regards to reasonableness. Again, I don’t necessarily find Zimmerman’s actions so terribly negligent. Let me put it in perspective. Did you ever get a radio call of a drunk driver with the 911 caller following? We get them all the time and although we don’t encourage following, we don’t discourage it either. To me, this is far more dangerous than simply following a gentleman through a residential area on foot. I really don’t see the negligence in this simple act. A dispatcher has no legal authority and she simply offered an opinion. Was her opinion based on the fact that she wanted him to meet the cops, or she had been trained not to have people follow – did she even testify to provide her intent in making the statement (??).

DB said...

2 of 2
His statement about, “these people” is proof of absolutely nothing and I’m surprised you mention it. Was this about racism? These people could, and I surmise did, refer to thugs in general.

Let me play devil’s advocate and pretend Zimmerman is a racist. Still, his act of following Martin is not unreasonable if he could provide some articulate and reasonable facts as to why he was following. He thought the guy might be a burglar –

When you were a cop – did you ever see a thug and say – “that guys up to no good and I’m gonna keep an eye on him.” I support criminal profiling so by association, I support Zimmerman’s mindset in following the guy.

So, I guess we are definitely in the agree to disagree area…but, I did want to provide some examples that might at least give you some insight to why I think this way.

As far as Zimmerman committing a crime “pre-incident”, I can only say that this is very, very weak at best. I think “Stalking” might be the closest thing that truly applies. The legality of the section seems to require a repetitive instance of harassment or following and must cause substantial emotional distress. I don’t think Zimmerman following him for a short moment before losing him can constitute harassment. As a cop, if you got called to one person following another for a few blocks what would be the outcome – is there a statute in MD that you would arrest for – or even one that applies. My DA would laugh me out of the room if I brought a “harassment” case to him that sounded like the moments before Zimmerman and Martin truly became engaged (the fight). Overall, this is just reaching in my opinion.


Lastly, you talk about Stand Your Ground's ability to stop criminal prosecution, detention, arrest…etc. None of that occurred here. Zimmerman was detained, transported to the PD, and interviewed. I’m sure this could even have been challenged as a “de facto arrest” but I understand he consented….but, consent is always very challengeable.

Regardless, I agree that not being arrested originally plays in his favor - but, by law it was reasonable and the right thing to do. If this was done right there never would have been the need for a "special prosecutor" who ultimately provided a probable cause declaration that lacked sufficient evidence of the charged crime - but thats another story.

Regardless of the early benefits of not being formally arrested (which he still was later) - would you not also agree that the negative media hype, national coverage, and media bias kinda evened out the playing field.

Stand your ground mattered (to whatever degree) because it is the law in Florida and many other places. A righteous law in my opinion as is the Castle Doctrine. Are my conservative colors showing?

One should have the luxury to reasonably defend oneself. So, overall I think it is a combination of semantics and our liberal / conservative differences that define our perspective on this one.
I just want to say that the death of Martin was a tragedy that clearly did not need to occur. It was the action of both, one legal but maybe not the smartest, the other – clearly illegal, that mixed to make this event happen.

I think that the vilification of Zimmerman was wrong, the racial aspect of this event was absolutely poorly played, and the media was horrible – but even with all that – Zimmerman is a free man and Stand Your Ground is still in place. The expected Federal Civil rights charges never came, probably because the FBI failed to support the charge in their investigation. How can so many be so wrong - especially in light of so much drama?

So, Ultimately, there is nothing to come of this other than a further racially divided nation. The morale of the story here is violence is not the answer in a situation such as this - but do you think that message was ever sent???

PCM said...

“Yes sir, we can agree that stand your ground was a factor.” Thank you for being willing to look at the facts. I hope now you might even tell others that Stand Your Ground *did* play a role in this. And I hope you can understand why I think Stand Your Ground is a bad law (because shit like this can happen). Why not just go pick fights when people you want to kill. And then kill them when they start fighting back? (Would make a good movie: Fight Club meets Taxi Driver meets Dirty Harry)

As to the reasonableness issue, I’ll buy what you’re saying. But (again, veering into the subjective matter of opinion) I don’t want every citizen to have the same right to use deadly force as a sworn police officer. I think Obama made a very good point when he raised the hypothetical as to what would have happened if Martin had also been armed? Stand Your Ground raises the very real possibility of situations in which both parties in a fight are legally justified to use deadly force against each other. May the quickest draw win? This is craziness, not righteousness. I don’t want legal two-sided shoot-outs among idiots. The difference between Stand Your Ground and the Castle Doctrine (which I generally do support) is that in the latter you’re minding your business, but in the former you can go out looking for trouble and then kill when you find it.

So the Right immediately stuck up for Zimmerman because 1) he killed a black guy wearing a hoody whom he thought was a criminal and 2) the media jumped on Zimmerman. And the Left jumped on Zimmerman because, well, he killed an unarmed black guy. I don’t see those as moral equivalents. In judging Zimmerman’s character I certainly do hold Zimmerman’s pattern of behavior against him. He’s a vigilante because he couldn’t be a cop. And I mean, jeeze, he later threatened to “stand his ground” against his (ex?)wife! Zimmerman is not a good egg.

But the Right makes up facts to make it appear that Zimmerman was reasonable when he wasn’t. That’s why the little “facts” of where he was when Martin jumped him matter. The right put themselves in Zimmerman’s shoes and said, yeah, I wouldn’t have liked that kid, either. (The cop in me might have watched Martin some… but as a cop you watch everybody. And as a cop Martin would not have jumped me). “Trayvon jumped him for no reason.” “Trayvon really was casing houses to rob (despite no evidence to support that lie). What’s more, I find Martin’s behavior entirely reasonable. Scared? First try and run away and then, if that doesn’t work, jump the guy.

Remember Bernie Goetz? I was pretty young in 1984, but I remember my reaction when I heard some white guy shot a couple black kids. My first thought was “good.” Why? Because being mugged on the subway was a very real fear of mine (yes, I rode the subway alone when I was 13 in a much rougher Chicago.)

I don’t fault people too much for their initial reactions. They are what they are. But in the end Goetz *was* being mugged while Martin was just going home minding his own business; he was unarmed; and he ended up dead. All the while Zimmerman has again and again shown behavior consistent with being a egoistic aggressive bully (did you hear Curtis Sliwa’s attacks on Zimmerman on Fox? Powerful stuff “coming from a guy who knows a little about self-proclaimed vigilantes!”).

I’m don’t mind that we don’t agree on everything. That’s fine. I don’t want to agree about everything. The world would be boring if we all agreed. I’m happy we can have an interesting and productive talk about it. I’ve learned.

And yeah, ultimately I agree that not much good came out of this. The Left is more convinced than ever that stand your ground is racist (see also: Marissa Alexander). The Left thinks that a lot of white America is suspicious of every black kid walking home (and that such suspicion is reasonable under the law). Blacks see a white guy, once again, getting away with murder. And conservative are more convinced than ever that a white man in America just can’t get a break.

Tarheels sailor said...

Wanted to respond to DB, who is so much more reasonable than the conservatives I typically encounter. My reference in relation to Trayvon was specifically in relation to a chain email I received purporting to shows"a photo of the real Trayvon that they don't want you to see!" This photo showed a black man with many tattoos and loaded with "bling." The purpose was to show us naive folk what a gangster this young man was, rather than the 16 year old depicted in other photos. Problem is that the photo was of a 32-year old rapper from LA, not Trayvon Martin. The purpose of this chain email is pretty obvious, and truth was not the goal.

(And I do believe George Zimmerman got away with murder)

Didn't take a minute to prove the email and photo were false.


Thanks, DB, for your respectful dialogue and willingness to disagree while not being

PCM said...

DB, thanks again for your exchange. It was good. I learned. I had a good time. (what else can you ask for?)

PCM said...

This is like strike six against Zimmerman. He's a complicated man... don't no understand him but his woman. And sometimes not ever her. Again:

"George Zimmerman 'pointed a shotgun at his girlfriend'"


DB said...

Well, clearly there are some points we don't agree on, but as you said - I have no problem with that and I think part of the point of debate (discussion) is to learn about how others see things. It's difficult to swallow sometimes, but a view is a view and it's based in so many things which are unique to an individual which is also the cause of such division.

I was interested in our discussion how you concentrated heavily on whether stand your ground was part of the decision at trial. While you have educated me there, I was never much concerned about that point. This is just one area that shows the deep rooted differences that we have and where they come from. Some of the points that are so very important to you and your argument (stand your ground, where Zimmerman was during the final assault) are not a major part of my argument (Stand your ground or not - I thought he was innocent, I don't care where he was - Martin assaulted him with deadly force). I only wanted to bring this up as I think it is the basis of our disagreement - we are not even arguing the same things - I don't know if I'm explaining this right, but I think you might see my meaning.

Regardless, we will disagree on the case in general, but we do not disagree on the fact that Zimmerman is a pure douche. Clearly a wanna be, and clearly a "bad egg" as you said. Anyone that runs into the police this many times in a year has something going on....I imagine Zimmerman will get whats coming to him, much the same as OJ did (I hope I'm not opening a can of worms there).

I really did enjoy this as well. I find it enlightening to be able to speak to someone on your side of the fence who has some experiences with the "real world". It's my opinion that many liberals spew hatred of the police based on so much they have very little knowledge of, and much worse - they take no time to educate themselves (as I am doing with you). Thank you for this conversation. I do have a topic that I want to debate, but I want to review your book again and do some research before we engage. It has to do with the legalization of drugs.....till then...

PCM said...

For an articulate left-wing take on the matter, see Ta-Nehisi Coates. He makes a persuasive plea for the idea that Martin (you know, the dead guy) was actually, gasp, the victim!

Of course we will never know for sure what actually went down, but if I were a betting man...