I agree with you SB. There's a lot of political bullshit going on if you ask me. The extreme Rightwing of the Republican party (which is a very large part these days IMHO) are so full of hate yet preach how religious they are.

I take offense to the RW spin that liberals are not religious and/or trying to take religion away. What a crock of shit. I was raised in blue collar, democrat family and have ALWAYS held religion as dear as have many many others.

Oh, and let's face it here, ALL this dare I say "racism" came to the surface from RWNJ (rightwing nutjobs) for one reason....we now have a Black President. Some people can NOT stand that fact. Oh, but heaven forbid we even mention race. Obama won, get over it.


TIS

Oh.

You're right about the inferior rhetoric. But it's something black activists are starting to use to defend affirmative action. In the FDNY case, activists are arguing that blacks are at a disadvantage in "reading comprehension" and reasoning. I was kind of surprised they would go that direction.

Zimmerman's lawyers quit saying they lost contact with him. They hadn't heard from him since Sunday. I know yesterday he started a website for donations for a legal fund.

Is he on the run?


Update [5:25pm ET]: This story will be updated as new events unfold

•Zimmerman's attorneys announced they have stepped down and are no longer representing him
•Say they have "lost contact" with Zimmerman and are withdrawing as counsel
•Attorneys say they still believe former client is innocent and acted in self-defense
•Say if there are no charges filed in case, evidence should be made public

TIS



http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/geor...-203437097.html

The rants certainly didn't show his best side. More like him at his worst moments. But I don't think any of us would like to be judged at our worst moments alone. And while one could argue that Mel did the Lethal Weapon movies with Danny Glover for his career, he never really "got anything" out of being friends with Whoopi Goldberg for years. Don't take my word for it. Whoopi came to Mel's defense after the tapes came out and said that he's not racist. You're looking at this too black and white, no pun intended. Only racists use racial slurs? Hardly. There's obviously been many people who have used a racial slur here or there but don't really believe the race they were referring to is naturally inferior or that their race is naturally superior. This is what I mentioned before. The racist accusation has become so widespread, applied to just about anything, that it's lost it's real meaning.



If you listen to the tapes, Mel wasn't "wishing" his girlfriend would get raped. He was simply taking the easy, stereotypical route of dangerous black guys to get his point across.

Also, I don't believe Mel ever claimed to be perfect. But I respect the guy because he recognizes his need for a Savior. In fact, it's probably because of his demons that he sees his need for Christ that much more. I'll take someone like that over the secular, politically correct, humanist, intellectual who sees Christ as just another moral teacher (if they believe He existed at all) any day.

Well, hold on now. If we're going to use that big, broad brush to paint so many conservatives as "racist" or engaging in "hate speech," than that same broad brush can be used to pain so many liberals as "anti-religion."

Because, simply put it's NOT true. Spin it as you wish. Both sides play the game, BUT there is way way more hate coming from the right than the left. This "both sides do it equally" is bull this election cycle.




TIS

First, the "hate speech" card is another one that often gets overplayed. So often I hear the left accuse various right-wing talk show hosts of "hate speech." Well, I've heard most of these guys over the years and, while some of them can get rather bombastic at times, there's been very few times they've said anything even approaching real hate speech. Once again, the definition of "hate speech" has been broadened so much (just like "racist") that it includes just about anything. For example, if one voices their opinion that marriage should be kept between a man and a woman, and is against gay marriage, they'll be accused by many of "hate speech." Today, often all it takes to be accused of "hate speech" is to simply disagree with a liberal on one issue or another.

Second, while I certainly believe there are many liberals who are very religious, there is a certain element on the left - including some in the "separation of church and state crowd" - who looks on religion as an outdated, backward, nuisance and, while they may not go as far as to want to stamp it out completely, they would like to relegate it to some far corner where it has no impact or influence on society.

The separation of church and state is a constitutional right. Standing up for it does not make one anti-religion. Because I don't want a creche on the front lawn of town hall doesn't mean that I don't celebrate Christmas - the true meaning of it. It means that I understand that we shouldn't have religious symbols on government property. That doesn't make me anti-religion. It means that I celebrate that this country was founded on religious freedom.

A constitutional right? Don't think so. That phrase was used in letters by Jefferson and Madison but you won't find it anywhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

What you have is the first part of the First Amendment of the Constitution - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." And obviously the debate comes in how that's interpreted and applied.

I wouldn't call somebody, like yourself, "anti-religion" simply because they don't think religious symbols should be on government property. Although, that does bring up questions about "In God We Trust" on our money, religious symbols in the national capital, etc.

But I would say that there are some on the secular left who misinterpret and misapply the "separation of church and state" phrase to isolate and minimize religion as much as possible.

Well, it certainly appears he's gone into hiding.

Regardless of what the Special Prosecutor will announce regarding whether or not Zimmerman will be arrested and charged with a crime (I've heard a decision will be made within 72 hours, as of this writing), the New Black Panther Party has offered a bounty for Zimmerman's "capture." (And why doesn't anyone seem to be publicly questioning the legality of this? ) And I'm sure there are plenty of other nut-jobs who would love to take a shot at him if they saw him walking along a street.

If I were Zimmerman, I, too, would lay low for now. But, his being dropped by his lawyers after they didn't hear from him for all of a day-and-a-half (more or less) does seem a bit hasty, IMO.

Signor V.

Jefferson did more than refer to it in some letters. He stated it in letters and speeches when he was President. Additionally, James Madison referred to "the total separation of the church from the state." When he was President in 1822, he said, "...religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

And in Reynolds v US, the Supreme Court has referred to Jefferson's phrase as the true meaning of the First Amendment.

As for those symbols, we were a country founded by Christians, so they used Christian phrases. However, God wasn't added to the Presidential oath until the mid 1800s and He wasn't in the original Pledge of Allegiance either.

As Jefferson said, religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God. In other words, private, personal.

Except the secular left overplays that. For example, they argue that since those who are against gay marriage or abortion are so usually because of religious belief, their stance on these issues should be dismissed altogether. That's what I mean when I say they try to isolate religion. There's a difference between the government establishing a religion (like a state religion) and religious beliefs having influence. In the south, you'll have a strong Baptist influence. In Boston, a strong Catholic influence. In Utah, a strong Mormon influence. None of this is automatically unconstitutional.

This is rather far afield from "crime and justice" but the people who are most fervently in support of gay marriage or abortion rights aren't in favor because some religions are opposed. They have non-religious reasons for supporting.

If all some person can point to as reason for their opposition to gay marriage or abortion rights is because their God said so, then no that's no longer sufficient post-Enlightenment.

And it's not just the big bad secular left which is supportive of gay marriage. Even some wealthy hardcore right-wing straight conservatives have come out in favor. The center is not holding on this issue.


New Donors

Martin's parents already distanced themselves from the NBPP. His attorneys didn't just drop Zimmerman because they hadn't heard from him. They also dropped him because he talked to Sean Hannity without their presence (Hannity refused to share what was discussed) and most ridiculously tried to talk to the special prosecutor. He also set up his own website. His attorneys still believe in his innocence but they do not believe they can effectively represent him.

That his attorneys called a news conference to announce their intent to withdraw is mind boggling, and coupled with their representations about Zimmerman's apparent lack of cooperation, could constitute a violation of the Canon of Ethics.

First, an attorney can not just decide to withdraw representation; he or she must receive express representation from the court. This is not automatic. More than once I have been compelled to represent a client where my firm petitioned for withdrawal, based on failure of my client to pay fees.

Once the petition to withdraw is approved, the attorney, though not representing the client, may still not disclose any information remotely relative to the attorney/client relationship. Thjat is a privilege enjoyed by the client.

It is bizarre that the attorneys would throw Zimmerman under the bus at a news conference.

Moreover, Zimmerman's alleged communications with a news show host and the special prosecutor, though ill-advised, would not be a basis, on which a judge would allow a withdrawal of counsel. Similarly, that Zimmerman has apparently gone into hiding and become difficult to contact would not normally be enough to allow a petition to withdraw.

Like you, I am quite surprised by those attorneys' actions. However, they provided Zimmerman with limited legal advice that may have not addressed any potential legal claims against him; he did not retain them. As far as we know, they made no representations to any court as his legal representatives. Thus, any lawyer-client relationship did not exist.

AG vows thorough review in Trayvon Martin case

By PETE YOST and SUZANNE GAMBOA | Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday that the Justice Department will take appropriate action in the killing of Trayvon Martin if it finds evidence that a federal criminal civil rights crime has been committed.

The attorney general made the comments in an appearance before a civil rights organization founded by the Rev. Al Sharpton.

Holder said the department will conduct a thorough and independent review of the evidence in the Martin matter. One of the department's top priorities, said Holder, is preventing and combating youth violence and victimization.

The Justice Department launched an investigation of the Martin killing three weeks ago.

"I know that many of you are greatly — and rightly — concerned about the recent shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, a young man whose future has been lost to the ages," Holder told the 14th annual convention of the National Action Network.

"If we find evidence of a potential federal criminal civil rights crime, we will take appropriate action," said the attorney general. "I also can make you another promise: that at every level of today's Justice Department — preventing and combating youth violence and victimization is, and will continue to be, a top priority."

The attorney general says that Justice Department officials including Tom Perez, the assistant attorney general for the civil rights division, and U.S. Attorney Robert O'Neill from Florida have traveled to Sanford to meet with the Martin family, members of the community and local authorities.

He says representatives from the department's Community Relations Service are meeting with civil rights leaders, law enforcement officers and residents to address community tensions.

Neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman says he shot Martin in self-defense after following the teenager in a Sanford, Fla. a gated community outside Orlando on Feb. 26. He said he was returning to his truck when Martin attacked him and that he shot the unarmed teen during the fight. He wasn't arrested partly because of Florida's "stand your ground" self-defense law.

The lack of an arrest has led to protests across the nation and spurred a debate about race and the laws of self-defense. Zimmerman's father is white and his mother is Hispanic. Martin was black.

Why would Justice Department officials meet with family members?

It beats me. I found that a bit confusing myself. That's why I posted the article.

It is my understanding that these attorneys never met Zimmerman and only have had phone conversations with him. I assume that you can still represent someone you never met.

I don't know about the ethics of these lawyers making this announcement but hey it's turned out to be a big case and it's possible they want the limelight. As a matter of fact, I believe they said they'd represent Zimmerman again if he wants them to.



TIS

Giving the attorneys the benefit of the doubt: They said Zimmerman, against their advice, talked to the prosecutor. Whatever Zimmerman said to the prosecutor could fatally damage their ability to represent him. If they stayed with him, and something came out in a trial that Zimmerman said to the prosecutor that they weren't party to, it could result in a mistrial.

What in the world would he want to talk to the prosecutor about? I am no law expert BUT agree that does seem like a major no-no.

Btw, he never did speak with her because she refused to talk to him. But, had the DA spoken to Zimmerman, would she have been tossed from the case, no matter what might have been said?

So I guess next best choice for legal adviser choice was Sean Hannity.



TIS

Such a meeting taints their objectivity.

When a lawyer "fires" a client he or she should only say there are "differences" between the client and the lawyer. Anything more could jeopardize attorney/client privilege.

MSNBC is reporting that law enforcement "officials" are saying that the FL Prosecutor will be charging Zimmerman with criminal charges, though it's not known exactly what charge/s.



TIS

So is Fox.

My local news is saying that the announcement will be made at 6:00 tonight.

Nothing like doing justice around a television schedule.

Really, this is ridiculous. It almost reminds me of Lebron James' "decision."

Right? Call up the officials and tell them to make their announcement at 6:07. This way the networks can get in a few commercials first.