Today's edition of quick hits:
* No visible injuries: "Surveillance video footage of George Zimmerman being led from a police car shortly after he fatally teenager Trayvon Martin does not appear to show any injuries or bloodstains."
* The region's diplomatic agenda: "Turkey's prime minister arrived in Iran on Thursday for talks dominated by the violence engulfing Syria, while U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon presented an Arab League summit in Baghdad with a U.N.-endorsed plan for ending the fighting and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton headed to the region for discussions focused on the crisis."
* Crisis averted, for now: "Congress on Thursday pushed through a 90-day stopgap measure to extend current highway funding, averting a halt in road and infrastructure projects because of the inability of lawmakers to agree on a broader transportation measure."
* We know what recent GDP reports tell us about economic growth, but there's an alternate measure of economic activity called "gross domestic income," which shows an even stronger recovery.
* At various points during this week's hearings at the Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia's questions "echoed lines of attack you'd just as likely read on a conservative blog or in an RNC email blast."
* There are plenty of rumors today about a possible indictment against South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R), but for now, there's been no official confirmation.
* The House voted on the Simpson-Bowles budget plan yesterday. How'd it turn out? In the final tally, it was defeated, 382 to 38.
* And during a floor debate over the Violence Against Women Act in the House yesterday, Rep. Gwen Moore (D) of Wisconsin spoke of her own personal horrors in remarks that won't soon be forgotten. Republican opposition to VAWA continues to delay the bill.
Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.
Leave a Comment:
You know, I don't give a darn about "visible injuries," as he went after Trayvon!
"Stand your ground" = "Accost black people."
That's simply nonsense. Stand your ground laws protect African-Americans, just as they protect Caucasians, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, and everyone else. Zimmerman clearly wasn't protecting himself. He is clearly a murderer.
Chris Hayes mentioned the case of a Mr. Horn in Texas. He's clearly a murderer too.
Uh, isn't it 38 to 382, for vs against?
Kinda weird that Maddow's so-called "blog" has no context by her. Anyway, this to Rachel, if you are listening. Please stop saying that Zimmerman "allegedly" killed Trayvon. He admits to it. So, it is not allegedly. Secondly, you need to put on your show a comparison of the height and weight differences between Zimmerman and Trayvon. I imagine they are quite stark. No one has done this. If you can make a physical comparison between the killer and the killed, then the public would have a better grasp on judging for themselves the absurdity of Zimmerman being attacked by a 17-year-old skinny kid. Just trying to help you boost your ratings.
If anybody has been unobservant enough to have questions as to the depths of Scalia's intellectual capacity and insight, I think that has now been answered. It's beyond imagination that upwards of 60 million people's health insurance depends on this buffoon. Nice going, Republicans. Hope you're proud of yourselves and your market absolutism.
I agree disgusted.Scalia sounded like the Koch brothers wrote the script for him to follow.The losers will be retirees,parents,people with prexisting conditions,most women and in case they do'nt realize it,those that have group insurance.Premiums will keep rising along with deductibles and copays,companies will keep paying less and less of the cost.With no restraints,insurance companies will empty the wallets of working Americans,while Scalia sits on his fat a$$,going on and on about broccolli.
Huh? I was NOT saying Scalia was insightful or had intellectual depth. Sorry, if I came off giving any whiff of that.
Of course the Republicans are happy with Scalia on the SC. He's perfect for them. A party hack who displays unquestioning obedience to the party. Does whatever it takes to advance the Republican agenda.
It's too bad that the SC (at least with the conservative justices) has become simply another political tool.
Rachel, I have watched your coverage on the Trayvon Martin case and thank you and the MSNBC family for the continued coverage. I wanted to speak on the healthcare vote in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court Justices will hopefully consider the fact that by denying this law they will not only be affecting the millions who are presently covered but the youth of the military who have started college since the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and are able now to continue to be covered until 26 on the insurance of the parents who are serving to protect the freedoms of this country (everyone's freedom). They should understand how unfair it is to ask for these military families to make the sacrifices on a daily basis and put an undue hardship on those families with young adults in college who 1. either don't have a job to pay for insurance or 2. working part-time to get an education and work to help pay for their own education, that now you expect them to not have health coverage. This goes beyond a partisan decision this is a whats right for America in 2012 decision. Just some thought I would like for you to consider on your broadcast that maybe these Justices will hear if you report so they can consider this in a more morally correct decision not on partisan biases.
I wonder if the President thinks this lad could be one of his sons?.....
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/teenagers-poured-gasoline-boy-walking-home-school-set-fire-cops-article-1.1033062
From the article:
"Police have described the suspects as black 16-year-olds, while the victim is white.
"They rushed him on the porch as he tried to get the door open," Coon told KMBC. "(One of them) poured the gasoline, then flicked the Bic, and said, 'This is what you deserve. You get what you deserve, white boy.'""
I guess I was out-of-town for two weeks when MSNBC surely covered this story.
I must have stepped away when Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson decried this act of unbridled hatred and racism.
My television must have been on the fritz earlier this month, because I guess I missed the number of protests that surely must have occurred because of this horrific act.
I didn't catch Bobby Rush or any other congressmen/women condemning this horrific act of violence. I guess I will have to call my cable company, because undoubtedly these fine members of congress would have denounced this very obvious hate crime from the house floor...
And the reason for that is because that 16 year old black teenager was arrested and charged. The problem with the Trayvon Martin case is the person who killed him is still walking free! These two stories have nothing in common! Get it right.
CMS, you're correct. They DO have differences.
The New York case was a blatant hate crime - and because a story like that (black-on-white racially motivated crime) doesn't fit the mainstream media narrative, there wasn't an ounce of media attention paid to it.
There are many questions as to the motive of Mr. Zimmerman. We have no evidence if it racially motivated - but the circus that has transpired on that case - from the overwhelming media coverage, to the rush to judgement, to the behavior of congressmen/women and 'race hustlers' exploiting this tragic death - has been ridiculous.....and it's a story that fits the media narrative (non-black on black racially motivated crime) whether ANY of the facts coincide or not.
The leftist media views this country as though it's 1964 and its people are the actors in 'Mississippi Burning' - and those are the stories they drive 100 mph towards. It's their template and it's all they know.
As usual, they've embarrassed themselves again - with MSNBC leading the way.
It's too bad you can't focus all that energy in to something worthwhile. You've posted similar articles . under differand names on several threads. It's done nothing but discredit anything you might have to say. You choose to not look at the differances. You choose not to look at why the Marin case is getting so much coverage. You keep bring up cases that are being investigated, have been to trial or are awaiting trial. You still choose to not look at the issue.
John,
Apparently it has something to do with Affirmative Action making Blacks feel inferior and unable to succeed without the help of white people. Trayvon first felt himself to be a victim of racism (as a young black man pursued in the deep south by a large -apparently white- man).Perhaps he then stopped and tried to use the “racepower” of his “innocence” to elicit “white guilt” from Zimmerman. Then he remembered that races are not just races but competing power groups, he realized that white racism doesn’t really matter. Blacks can and do succeed without regard to white opinion – blacks are their own worst enemy. Content no longer to be his own worst enemy - perhaps – quite legally – he decided to “stand his ground” and punch Zimmerman in the nose. Sadly, Zimmerman had not read any of Shelby Steele’s books, was technically not white, felt “innocence” rather than “guilt” and so shot Mr. Martin.
Stories of blacks, whites and Hispanics killing each other seldom appear on national news. The fatal shooting of my grand nephew never received a mention from President Bush - I never held that against him. From the beginning, the unusual point of the news coverage was whether the “Stand Your Ground” law itself was impeding the formation of a grand jury. The possibility of racism in the police department was of interest as was the potential of the shooting being a “hate crime”. I just don’t think the story would have had the “legs” without the “Stand Your Ground” angle. I do believe this story is worthy of national attention - it forces us to ask some very unpleasant questions. Was Trayvon followed by Zimmerman because of racial profiling – probably. (But Zimmerman is Hispanic! You might want to check to see if there is any Hispanic / Black racism in Florida first.) The killing was a “hate crime” – I seriously doubt it – Zimmerman just got scared – the kid was supposed to run – not stand his ground. Lots of things yet to find out – did Zimmerman or Martin have martial arts training – is Zimmerman’s father part of an “old boys” network in the city and state - facilitated by contacts from his Magistrate days in Virginia - has voice analysis been done on the screams from the cell phone recordings - what do forensics tell about the incident - why are the police confused when even the author of the law does not believe it applies in this case … After a few weeks you would expect more answers.
So I don’t have a problem with President Obama’s response when questioned by the press. True – as a politician he should have stopped with:
“Well, I'm the head of the executive branch, and the attorney general reports to me, so I've got to be careful about my statements to make sure that we're not impairing any investigation that's taking place right now.”
Followed by a “no comment” – that would have been the smart move in an election year.
I think President Obama’s grasp of Christian doctrine has the same rigor as Opra’s so I’ve had my reservations about him - but I’m kind of glad he spoke up like a man for Trayvon - instead of speaking like a politician – I’m kind of glad he “stood his ground”.
Coop'
Larry74, sadly, your entire post is a lie. I have only posted under the name above which is a hybrid of my first name, my wife's name - and part of my last name. Period.
Cooper, your post was interesting. I discovered Shelby Steele's magnificent book, 'White Guilt,' while on vacation in Florida in 2008. I couldn't put it down - and reread it a year later. I've since picked up all of his books.
Overnight, Steele became one of my mentors in life. He's the only one that cuts through the fog of nonsense that we hear on racial issues in the media. He would run rings around any of the MSNBC anchors - assuming he would EVER be interviewed by them. Instead, that network has elevated a race-hustler as one of its anchors. Truly unbelievable.
Rachel, I would first like to say thank you to you and the MSNBC family for the continue coverage of the Trayvon Martin case. People need to be aware of the injustice in today's society and take steps to correct that injustice. The main reason I wanted to blog is I think that the Supreme Court Justices who are deciding this healthcare law are forgetting that some of these factors effect the military families fighting for everyone's freedom. Some of these military families have children who have graduated high school and are young adults who are now able to be covered by their parents insurance whereas before it was not possible. I believe these Justices need to consider their decision as a morally correct decision to vote for this healthcare bill for the coverage of the millions who are presently covered by this bill presently including the young adults. As a military spouse we make sacrifices daily that most Americans are unaware of yet you want to continue to put undue burdens on our families by attempting to figure out how to protect the health of our children because they are no longer under the age of 18, really?! I am stating this in hopes that you or someone will bring attention to this in your coverage of this decision so these Justices can have that information to consider as well. This is an American decision not a partisan decision and the decision should be made as such!
Per "no visible injuries," shortly after the police station video footage we've seen was shot, Det. Serino, the lead homicide investigator, must have questioned George Zimmerman, thus getting an up-close view of Zimmerman himself, and based on whatever transpired in the interrogation room, Det. Serino was "unconvinced" by Zimmerman's account of what happened, thus Det. Serino recommended that manslaughter charges be filed against Zimmerman.
IOW, besides the absence of blood stains on Zimmerman or a broken nose or any other sign of a life-or-death struggle in the video footage we've seen, Zimmerman's interrogator, Det. Serino, must not have seen any of this either, which cast doubt on any "self-defense" claims Zimmerman might have made while being questioned, thus Det. Serino's "unconvinced" statement.
BTW, were any other people present in the interrogating room besides Zimmerman and Det. Serino? Zimmerman's lawyer? Some other police officers? Was this room under video surveillance (with sound) so a record could be kept on file of the proceedings, the questions Det. Serino asked and George Zimmerman's responses?
Why would a woman vote Republican right now???
My contribution :) http://www.cafepress.com/politigear2012
Please feel free to delete TRMS not a sales pitch just some sharing of creative art :)
Two reasons for starters:
Probably because they realized that small government is preferred over big government - and that a massive federal government and federal spending affects the monetary well-being of the family that they're trying to raise.
Probably because they realized that abortion is murder - and that the 'pro-choice' or 'anti-life' ethic is demeaning and destructive towards women.
Hmmm Blah blah blah fox news blah blah fox news..That's what I hear...Taking away WOMENS rights is Massive government, and being able to obtain proper health care as a WOMEN is more well being to her family than monetary well being. If you would watch TRMS, or read another website or watch another news channel you would know this goes way past the issue of abortion WAY PAST..John I see your name is John I don't know many women named John, but it's possible...So if you're a man, that gives you the professional experience, and life experience to know what is best for a woman and her healthcare? I did not know you guys had the special ability to know what women need, and feel, and deal with physically or mentally on a daily basis..Or is it a control thing because us little women just don't know what's best for us.
Now if you will excuse me I have to try and make an appointment with Mr. Santorum, or Romney to see if they can give me re-fills on my prescriptions, and take a look at my well being..Unless your qualified?
I have been paying some attention to the Travon Martin reports. I live in Oklahoma. We had a case this year. A pharmasist was convicted and jailed after he shot and killed an armed robber. You may have heard of this hi profile case. It would be intersting for you to make a comparison of the Martin case with this oklahoma case. There is a petition being circulated in Oklahoma to free the pharmasist. Sad and scary. I'm an older chubby white business man. None of this makes any sense. We all know whats sensable.
A Cop Rapes Woman at Gunpoint.
An 11-Year-Old Rape Victim is Smeared.
KBR sues rape accuser for $2 Million.
What is it with our inability to find justice for victims?
If events of the last few months have sent any sort of message to women in America it's this:
"if you're raped or sexually assaulted, justice won't be on your side."
What happens when the people who are supposed to protect you are the rapists themselves... such as when two New York cops, who were caught on video repeatedly returning to the home of an intoxicated woman to rape her, were acquitted. Jurors said it was mostly because the victim was drunk.
What happens when the press and public spend as much time parsing a victim's history and "character" than the person accused of brutally assaulting her?
Women can't win.
The structures, institutions and organizations supposed to help rape victims are often simply tools of a social attitude that blames them for the crimes committed against them.
This week brought the absurd announcement from KBR that it was seeking repayment of legal fees from Jamie Lee Jones, had accused her colleagues of raping her and the company of trying to cover it up but had lost her rape case in front of a jury.
Al Franken still got legislation passed so it wouldn't happen again.
And then just this week, an off-duty police officer was arrested for allegedly raping a woman at gunpoint in broad daylight, abusing his authority in the grossest way.
There is a recent story out of Springfield, MO about a young girl whose school utterly failed her after she reported her rape to authorities, instead humiliating her and sending her back to be victimized again, violently, by the boy she initially accused (he later confessed to the second crime). The school continued to deny wrongdoing and doled out punishment instead of remediation for the traumatized young woman.
Lara Logan, after being brutally raped in Egypt, had to face a firestorm of questions about whether women reporters belong in dangerous situations.
An 11-year-old girl in Texas, who was caught on video being gang-raped by 14 men and boys in an abandoned house, had to face media scrutiny when a New York Times reporter reported accusations by townspeople about the clothes she wore and her mannerisms.
And the Republicans kicked off the year by repeatedly trying to sneak a new definition of rape onto the books.
What exactly is a rape culture, anyway?
Is it the assumption that come from society's assuming sex is a transaction involving men taking what women have to offer--but not offer too enthusiastically, lest they be deemed promiscuous--thereby creating a Catch-22 (and ignoring violence that falls outside the gender stereotype boundaries)?
Rape culture is refusing to acknowledge that the only thing that the victim of every rapist shares in common is bad @!$%#ing luck.
Rape culture is refusing to acknowledge that the only thing a person can do to avoid being raped is never be in the same room as a rapist.
Rape culture is avoiding talking about what an absurdly unreasonable expectation that is, since rapists don't announce themselves or wear signs or glow purple.
This massive spate of 2011 rape cases and controversies in their wide scope and variety, and the inevitably depressing results, are a perfect illustration of the cultural problem writ large.
Let's start with two examples from earlier this year.
The Julian Assange case:
A powerful man accused of "acquaintance rape," based on two women's accounts. One involved a forcible sexual encounter that began as a consensual one, and another involved penetrating a woman while she was asleep. Both women were sophisticated professionals who knew Assange, and both were alone with him when the alleged assaults took place.
Both women were blamed, smeared and their identities revealed online, accused of being part of a supposed worldwide conspiracy to bring Assange down
The Texas gang-rape case:
A large group of boys and men were caught on video brutally and repeatedly gang-raping a young girl. In this case, there was physical corroborating evidence, the victim was too young to legally consent, and the accused were relatively powerless men in a poor community.
The young woman was smeared when prominent newspaper stories fixated on her appearance, her dress, and her behavior rather than the demeanor and histories of the men involved.
So the lesson is clear:
If you report an unexciting rape that happened in your home while you were alone with the perpetrator, you get blamed.
If you are recorded on video being repeatedly raped by a massive number of people, you also get blamed.
If you're a grown woman: blamed.
If you're a child: blamed.
If it's your word: blamed.
If there's physical evidence: blamed.
Rape culture does not just encourage men to proceed after she says "no".. nor does it simply teach men that a lack of physical resistance is an invitation... nor does it only tell men to assert ownership over whichever female body they desire.
Rape culture also tells women not to claim ownership over their own bodies.
Rape culture also informs women that they should not desire sex.
Rape culture also tells women that saying yes makes them bad women.
Both rape and rape accusations are products of the roles assigned by rape culture.
In the traditional seduction scenario, a woman is expected to not desire to have sex, and to only submit after the man has successfully coerced her into submission but when the preferred model for consensual sex looks a hell of a lot like rape, an array of @!$%#ed-up scenarios are inevitable:
The woman never wanted to @!$%# the guy, refuses to submit, and is raped;
The woman submits to the man's coercion in order to avoid other negative consequences (like being raped);
The woman had desired the sex all along, but must defend her femininity by saying that she had been coerced into sex.
Thankfully, a good deal of modern men and women reject these antiquated ideas, but they're far from being banished from the sexual landscape.
The landscape may seem somewhat bleak at the moment, but there's hope in the grassroots movements for media justice and for countering the rape-culture narrative that have sprung up this year.
Online activism like a petition demanding the press retract accusatory and prurient coverage are beginning to hold the media accountable for the lens they hold to victims.
And demonstrations such as "Slutwalk", whose message is encapsulated by the idea that nothing causes rape except a rapist and a lack of consent, is creating a powerful and conversation-starting counter-narrative to these high-profile defeats.
Where justice and authority let victims down, solidarity, activism, and a massive effort to create awareness will have to fill the breach.
Republican opposition to VAWA continues to delay the bill.
There are a lot of rightwingers who appear to believe that the Democrats are the ones who are waging a war on women. I am just dumbfounded at what those people use for brains and logic. And to think that the person who was once Mr. Republican (Barry Goldwater) would have been just furious at what republicans are now doing in the name of conservatism.
Ms. Berman needs to be listened to. I am totally ashamed of what my country has become.
And if you want more about what a sorry bunch we have in positions of power, check out the following.
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/29/killed_at_home_white_plains_ny
A full grown "man" chases a kid down and kills him in cold blood. The kid was not committing any crime he was merely walking down the road. So tell me how the murdering SOB can claim self defense. How is it self defense if he chased the kid down? How is it justified when the kid had committed no offense?
Any scumbag that attempts to side with the paranoid racist Zimmerman is obviously just as paranoid and racist as he is.
Could Plexico Burris have used the stand your ground law as a defense? "Your honor I saw I was going for my gun so I shot myself, it was a clear case of self defense."