Month: July 2013

The Scottish legal system is unique in that it offers juries three verdicts: guilty, not guilty, and not proven.
buy ivermectin online buy ivermectin no prescription

The third, often referred to in legal circles as a "Scottish verdict", implies that judge and jury are not convinced that the accused is not guilty but there is insufficient evidence to prove guilt. Given the paucity of eyewitnesses and the disputed nature of what little evidence existed aside from the defendant's statement, the Zimmerman trial appeared from the very beginning to be headed for a Scottish verdict. The state simply was unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the confrontation was initiated by Zimmerman and not Martin. In that sense, the verdict is unsurprising.

A great many proud centrists, Very Serious People, and secretly-elated observers on the right have sought refuge in the argument that "Everybody lost.

" While it is true that Mr. Zimmerman will suffer extrajudicial consequences, this statement is as insulting as it is facile. It is hardly splitting hairs to note that while everybody lost, the person who died lost quite a bit more than the one currently at home on his sofa.

In the larger sense this incident and trial are a glimpse into the endgame of the last four decades of gun politics, the logical result of a mindset that sees threats everywhere and believes that the Constitution guarantees each individual the right to respond to those threats, real or perceived, in any manner he sees fit. We insist not only that we have the right to be armed at all times in whatever manner we choose, but also, with the proliferation of "Stand Your Ground" laws, to be the sole judges of when using our arms is appropriate. In other words, the death of Trayvon Martin is exactly what is to be expected from a culture that arms every numbnuts who can afford a pawn shop pistol and believes that those same people are qualified as judges, juries, and executioners. "Feeling threatened" is the only requirement that must be met to justify a death sentence; if one happens to feel threatened whenever a black male is within 50 feet, so be it. We must allow each armed would-be vigilante to make that choice, because Freedom.

That, really, is at the heart of this incident: would a jury agree that being black, male, and hooded is sufficient to arouse suspicion?

Even if that suspicion initiates a sequence of events that ends in death?
buy fildena online buy fildena no prescription

If you weren't sure if the (all-white) jury would buy that argument, a refresher on the American judicial system might be in order. This has long been a society – including the courts – that considers some lives more valuable than others. The right to feel safe and secure in one's person and property has been particularly sensitive to the rankings of the social hierarchy over time.

That is why we create an ever-larger class of people walking around with guns – because our (mostly white, mostly male) courts and legislatures recognize how important it is for this (mostly white, mostly male) group to feel safe. If it so happens to make everyone else – black males, women, etc. – feel less safe, so be it. Every black male in America leaving his house wondering, "Is today the day I get shot for having my hand in my pocket?" is, legally and socially, a small and justified price to pay for the greater sense of security that carrying a concealed weapon provides insecure white people.

The biases of the legal system, like the society it reflects, are deeply ingrained. No one sits around rubbing his hands and chuckling, "Let's kill us some black guys!" like a Hanna-Barbera cartoon villain. It is a quiet, persistent, passive bias that enables things like this to continue to happen. It is every judge and jury that accepts without question that black male, especially when dressed In a Certain Way, is suspicious and threatening. It is every example of the benefit of doubt being given to the shooter in instances of self-defense, as though "self defense" is a well-defined concept independent of the judgment, prejudices, and irrationality of the shooter. It is everyone who insists that "It's not about race" to assuage their own guilt, irrespective of the fact that a similar verdict with the racial roles reversed could scarcely be imagined.

If you've shopped for or purchased a new car, you notice that window stickers are a decent source of unintentional hilarity. In an effort to make each car seem as feature-laden and fully loaded as possible, manufacturers will often list items so basic that no car could be sold without them. Steering wheel. Bumpers (front and rear!) Radio. Windshield wipers. Cupholders. It's certainly fair to point out that the car has these amenities, but as a consumer, you're interested in what the car offers beyond the bleedingly obvious.

So that's what car dealers emphasize. You already know it comes with seat belts and a dashboard, so the dealer is going to sell you on satellite radio and rear view cameras. To do otherwise would be suspicious. Let's put it this way: if their sales pitch is "This car has a windshield!", as a consumer you would assume (justifiably, no doubt) that this is a pretty lousy car.

I think of this example every time I receive a pay stub. My current and most recent former employer both embraced the new "management theory" trend of giving employees lengthy statements of benefits or "Total Compensation" figures.

For example, the pay stub lists not only my salary and what I pay to get health insurance, but also what my employer contributes monthly to the cost of my insurance. As the cost of health plans is quite substantial, this adds many thousands of dollars in additional income.

Er, "compensation."

In a sense, I think this is a great idea if for no reason other than to show Americans the behind-the-curtain costs of our ridiculous system of health care. In every other sense I find this practice somewhere between irritating and insulting.

When I say my employer gives me a list, I mean a list. There must be 30 things that I am told are part of my overall "compensation". This includes some items of real economic value – contributions to insurance and TIAA-CREF, for example – but is lengthened substantially by things of minimal value (discounted tickets to university sporting events?) or almost none (free notary service!) Most irritating are the things that one cannot avoid having on a university campus – e.g., use of the library or rec center.

The university must have these facilities. Allowing me to use them costs my employer absolutely nothing. How does this constitute "compensation"?

I object to this practice because it is little more than a smoke-and-mirrors trick employers are now using because Americans have finally begun to notice that their wages – you know, the actual money we get paid – hasn't changed in the last few years. Statistically, adjusting for inflation real wages have actually fallen for most Americans since 1970. These statements of benefits are intended to (over) compensate for the semi-annual "By the way, unfortunately there is no money for raises this year" letters and emails. You're not getting a raise, but look at how much we already pay you. It's way more than just your salary – it's also free use of the university parking deck on weekends!

Stop complaining already, you ingrates. Look at how much we do for you. It's almost admirable, the amount of the balls it takes to pursue a strategy of telling employees, "You don't understand your own compensation" in salary negotiations, as if landlords and banks will accept free library checkout privileges in lieu of cash.

White people across the nation spent the weekend resting their sore knees after a busy week of taking turns kicking Paula Deen in the ass to prove thoroughly, appropriately repulsed they are by the very idea of racism.

Before we go on, I have to admit that I hate Paula Deen in ways that defy description. Her fake-ass accent, her insufferable cokehead kids with their spinoff shows, her shameless hawking for labor/animal abuse superstars Smithfield, her "Ain't heart disease and obesity hilarious!" cooking style, and her paid shilling for a diabetes drug when her daily butter intake finally caught up with her…
buy xenical online buy xenical no prescription

she's just a disgusting human being all around. That she apparently held and/or holds racist tendencies is neither surprising nor, in my case, a reason to think less of her. I really can't think less of her without getting to know her and adding some sort of personal component to my loathing.

That said, it's hard not to feel like we're going a bit overboard here. I would rather Food Network fire her because her show is an appalling trainwreck – like Divine from the John Waters films making a dessert buffet for a live in-studio meeting of the Daughters of the Confederacy. I would rather she lose endorsement contracts because the lifestyle she promotes is disgusting. I would rather her book contract be rescinded because her books are garbage aimed at morons. I would rather the public turn on her because she's a grating, cloying, parody of the worst things about America. All of these seem like worse offenses than an admission under oath that she used the word "nigger" thirty years ago.

Yes, I find that offensive too, and I have no sympathy for her.
online pharmacy diflucan best drugstore for you

None. If it cost her a job, endorsements, and other opportunities, she has no one to blame but herself. But is it necessary for us to howl until she's burned at the stake for what happened? As Jimmy Carter said, "I think she has been punished, perhaps overly severely, for her honesty in admitting it and for the use of the word in the distant past.
online pharmacy amoxicillin best drugstore for you

" And as Jesse Jackson Sr. said, "She should be reclaimed rather than destroyed." Perhaps the problem is that Deen is so generally unlikeable that we're merely seizing on this as a reason to crap all over her. But it sure seems like some of us are using vehement, public condemnations of her actions as a means of allaying guilt – "I'm glad they got her and not me."

Screw Paula Deen. I'm glad to see her fail. Can any of us, though, say with a straight face that we've never thought or said things that are offensive? Racist? Homophobic? Sexist? We all like to say "Yes, but that was in the past, I've changed. If the rest of us can fall back on that, why not Deen?
buy cymbalta online buy cymbalta no prescription

Maybe she used to talk like that but no longer does. Maybe she still does. Who knows. The point is that the Downfall of Paula Deen strikes me as a case of the right thing happening for the wrong reasons.