The Trayvon Martin Shooting

While I don't usually talk about crime stories, there is a particularly egregious situation which is currently happening in Florida. Last month, in a Florida gated community, the leader of the local neighborhood watch group shot and killed a 17 year old black kid.

The victim, Trayvan Martin, walked to the local convenience store during the halftime show of a basketball game. On the way home, Martin was spotted by George Zimmerman, the local watch captain, and a tragic situation began. Zimmerman believed Martin to be "suspicious", in all likelihood because he was a black kid walking in a predominantly white neighborhood, and called the police on him. After calling the police, Zimmerman began following Martin and at some point got into a confrontation with him after getting out of his car. What actually happened is not known, but what we do know is that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin, then claimed self defense when the police arrived. 

When the police arrived, the scene was as follows: Zimmerman, a white man, was standing over the body of Martin, a black child, with a smoking 9mm; Martin was unarmed except for a bag of skittles and an iced tea. Zimmerman claimed that Martin attacked him, and despite there being no eyewitnesses, they took Zimmerman at his word. To this day, Zimmerman hasn't even been taken into custody for his apparently unprovoked murder of a black child. Zimmerman was released after questioning, not charged with any crime, and is currently living at home.  

On the off-chance that his claim of self defense is not simply falsified, Zimmerman's claim of self defense fails to meet muster on several levels.

1. Zimmerman is a grown man who was carrying a loaded gun, while Martin was an unarmed, 140lb, 17 year old kid; there is no reasonable justification for Zimmerman's use of lethal force in this instance.
2. Zimmerman followed and initiated contact with Martin, thus he is unable to claim self defense in the conflict which he initiated.
3. Zimmerman had no legal right to harass Martin, who was simply walking down a public street near the house where his family lived.

The police have yet to comment on their reasoning behind not arresting Zimmerman other than the claim that they are looking into the situation and collecting evidence. In recent days, evidence has appeared that further damns Zimmerman and suggests that he has a propensity for violence. According to reports from the press, in 2005 Zimmerman was arrested for violent battery of a police officer and resisting arrest.

While I don't have access to all of the evidence, I ask, what do you think would have happened if the police arrived at a shooting and found an armed black kid standing over the body of an unarmed white man, and attempting to claim self defense without any evidence? Do you think that he would be released only hours later, without even being charged with a misdemeanor?

Obviously, Zimmerman should be punished for his unprovoked murder of Martin, but the police also hold a responsibility that they must be held to account for. They have demonstrated indifference to the murder of a kid, based purely upon his race, and an unwillingness to do their jobs; jobs that they should be relieved of if we are to have any faith in the legitimacy of the police in that area. We should all look at this and realize that the Martin family situation could one day be our own if we don't push for justice now. 

For more information, go to the links below or watch the following video:

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/family-teen-fatally-shot-neighborhood-watch-leader/nLNq9/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/family-of-trayvon-martin-_n_1332756.html?ref=black-voices

Although the very fact that this needs to be done is disgusting, I would ask anybody who reads this post to follow this link to a petition intended to sway the police to arrest Zimmerman for his crime: http://www.change.org/petitions/prosecute-the-murderer-of-17-year-old-trayvon-martin

Bill Maher - Crazy Stupid Politics

Bill Maher has long been one of my favorite political comedians (competing with Olbermann and George Carlin for favorite) due to his particularly scathing form of humor. Last month, Maher performed in a live-streamed comedy show via yahoo; a performance that I would suggest to anybody who finds the current state of the country to be insane and is not averse to laughing about it. 

Liberty - The right wing perspective

Right Wing “Liberty” in the USA

NOTE – This article is based upon my “Differing Definitions of Liberty” article -- NOTE

 http://sarcasticliberal.blogspot.com/2012/01/differing-definitions-of-liberty.html

With the numerous definitions of liberty comes the inevitable conflict between opposing ideologies inside of a single system when defining what is guaranteed under the guise of a liberated society. In the United States we have a centrist Democratic Party and an extreme right wing regressive Republican Party as the two dominant powers in mainstream politics. Outside of mainstream politics, there are numerous groups that have a huge spectrum of ideals, ranging between the progressive 99% Movement and the extreme right wing Tea Party.

The current Republican Party is populated virtually entirely by a mixture of extreme right wing regressive and hyper-religious right wing Christians; their ideology is a mixture of regressive economic policy (lower taxes, fewer regulations, fewer social programs) and religiously justified social policy (anti-abortion anti-gay marriage). Economically, the right wing proposes massive tax cuts for the rich and corporations while cutting social spending under the belief that “prosperity will trickle down”. In addition to tax cuts, the right wing has remained true to its ideology of deregulation in order to improve the “liberty” businesses to operate without intervention. In order to pay for the reduction of taxes, the right wing has proposed massive austerity measures, ranging from shutting down NPR, to increasing the eligibility age for Social Security recipients.

When looked at through the lens of “liberty”, the Republicans are promoting a hard line, regressive model for the economic policy of the USA. The “liberty” that the Republicans promote in the USA is the liberty for the rich to pay less into the support for those who are less fortunate; the “liberty” for industry to pollute and abuse workers indiscriminately; the “liberty” for the poor to be “ruggedly individualistic” and live without quality education, social programs or support from the government (until untreated cancer brought about by “liberated” industry kill them, of course.). As is consistent with the classic right wing ideology, everybody is expected to take care of themselves and “pull themselves up by the bootstraps” in order to advance in society.

If I am not making myself clear enough: I believe that the policy suggested by the Republicans in recent years is extremist, dangerous to the country, and based upon flawed facts. In order to help the rich, who are doing well already, through tax breaks, we are weakening the social programs in our country to the point where the next generation will suffer. Educational and health programs are being cut for the poor during the austerity measures, thus the next generation will be woefully unhealthy by international standards. By removing environmental regulations, industry can produce more goods, cheaper, but the price for this prosperity is the negative externality of cancer, smog, and polluted water for the general population; when the right wing argues that industry is constrained by regulations, they are actually stating a fact, but they don’t mention that those same regulations protect the population of the USA. Lead paint, while toxic, is cheap and easy to produce, thus it was used in buildings up until the time regulations were put into place to stop this practice. The future that the Republicans offer the country is one where a small minority of rich citizens wants for nothing, while the rest of us exist in a toxic and impoverished country.

Breaking from the traditional right wing “small government” model, the Republicans have suggested a series of Christian faith based policies in social policy. The right wing ideal of “liberty” would suggest that individual social rights would be up to the individual and not appropriate for government intervention. Unfortunately, the right wing in the USA is not just regressive, but also heavily religious and thus they support Christian influence in laws. It is important to note that not all Republicans support Christian social policy (Ex. Ron Paul), but as a party, they are heavily in favor of such social policy. The Republican Party is heavily against all advances in gay rights, including fighting gay marriage and the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, as well as abortion rights for women. Under their own definition of “liberty”, the right wing is attempting to limit the “liberty” of a certain segment of the population, through “big government regulations”, in order to regulate the social lives of individuals.

To put the schism between the small government and big religion ideals of the Republicans into perspective, we can look at the gay marriage and gun control fights inside of American politics. In both social policy situations, the states are attempting to create laws in order to regulate the conduct of citizens living within their borders. In reference to gay marriage, the right wing is unwilling to let states decide whether or not it is allowed within their borders; this argument is not a right wing argument as it supports the government’s intervention into the individual’s life. On the gun control argument, the right wing holds the right to carry anything up to an assault rifle to be constitutionally protected and thus the states can make laws for their citizens without federal intervention; this is a right wing argument for gun control, as the government is allowing citizens to act independent of government regulations despite potential for abuse. The two situations are identical in terms of the problem posed: Does the federal government have the right to regulate personal choices of citizens? Yet, the right wing is inconsistent in its answer to this question. The inconsistency in the answers on these two issues is due to religion superseding right wing “liberty” ideology within the Republican. 

Gasland

With the current debate over the merits of domestic oil production, those in Washington have focused virtually entirely upon the economic impacts of drilling and hydraulic fracturing ("Fracking"). While it is true that oil production can bolster a weak economy by creating construction and oil extraction jobs, the job creation estimates are often vastly overestimated; if virtually every domestic oil source were opened up immediately, we would likely only gain around 100,000 jobs and few of these would be permanent (once extraction infrastructure is built, construction jobs decrease). The environmental cost of such actions would be incalculable, unavoidable, and spread throughout our entire society. We should not simply look at the benefits of domestic oil production but rather as half of a cost benefit analysis: The benefit of several thousand jobs, at the cost of out environment.

I am not saying that all oil production should be stopped, but that we must weigh the benefits of dangerous extraction methods, such as fracking, against the costs to our environment. Regardless of one's views on environmental protection, the fact remains that petrochemicals are necessary in our society and without them, our economy and transportation infrastructure would grind to a halt. On the other hand, we must protect the environment and not allow the economic interests of a few, albeit a minority which has captured vast portions of our economy, to reign supreme and let them strip mine the country.

Fracking is a very dangerous, yet increasingly common practice in the United States. The general idea behind fracking is to pump massive amounts of fracking chemicals into the earth where there are oil shales; these shales break apart and release the oil captured within their layers (Oil shales: imagine a layer cake, where the oil is the icing between layers of cake). Once the oil is released from the shale, it can be extracted, transported and refined into a usable form. The fracking process is basically giving the earth a giant, chemical enema in order to get otherwise un-extractable oil

The first problem with fracking is that the chemicals used to break apart the oil shales are not regulated or even disclosed to the public or the government. Due to their stranglehold on our politicians, the oil companies are able to pump thousands of gallons of undisclosed chemicals into the earth with only the need to assert that these chemicals are harmless. Gee, I wonder if a company would be willing to lie to the government and public about the toxicity of their products in order to make billions of dollars in profit (Tobacco, pesticides, etc.)?

The second problem with fracking is the affect that fracking has upon humans who live in the vicinity of the process. There are far higher rates of cancer, birth defect, and severe degenerative illnesses in areas where fracking has been employed. Without disclosure of just what fracking fluid is, there can be no causal linking between the process and the severe consequences on the local population, thus there is no accountability for the companies. They would have us believe that the people who live in the vicinity of their process, whether in New York or Tennessee, are just simply unlucky and that this unluckiness just happened to occur when the fracking started.

The third problem with fracking is the affect that it has on the environment. Despite the assertions by the oil companies that fracking fluid is safe, all evidence points to the fact that it is unbelievably toxic to the environment. We don't know the full scope of the potential for environmental damage by fracking other than the fact that the potential is somewhere between large and unprecedented.

The following video is the movie, Gasland. This documentary, written and directed by Joshua Fox, is an amazing view into the affects of hydraulic fracturing on those around it. While watching this movie, I would like everybody to keep in mind: What you see here are the untold consequences of the policies that are being discussed when you hear about politicians talk about "business friendly" energy policies. If you live over oil shales and the government remains in the clutches of big oil, this could be your neighborhood and the people.

Part 1

Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZakFXs2OfbY&context=C321ffb7ADOEgsToPDskIXzUCtTMT_1R3-fc3Lxl_g

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

To those who support fracking as a viable method of producing oil after viewing this movie I pose two questions:

1. Would you live next to a fracking field?
2. What is the value of oil and economic gain if you destroy the planet by making it uninhabitable?

Huffington Post Article: 10% of Wall Streeters are Psychopaths

This study might explain a great deal about the causes of the recent economic collapse. It is unsurprising that psychopaths, who are intelligent, amoral, and competitive risk-takers, would self select themselves to study business. The real question here is:  Huffington Post is a reliably good, if somewhat leftward biased, publication and I would suggest  it to anybody who wants to keep up on current events.

One Out Of Every Ten Wall Street Employees Is A Psychopath, Say Researchers

The Huffington Post  |  By Alexander Eichler Posted: 02/28/12 04:22 PM ET  |  Updated: 02/28/12 04:22 PM ET

1,028

61

2

136

320

GET BUSINESS ALERTS:

SIGN UP

REACT:

InspiringGreedyTypicalScaryOutrageousAmazingInnovativeInfuriating

FOLLOW:

 Wall Street,  Mental Health,  Video, Rogue Trader, Wall Street Psychopaths, Mental Illness, Mental Pathology, Pathology, Psychopaths, Psychopathy, Stock Traders, Stockbrokers, Wall Street Mental Health, Wall Street Psychology, Business News

Pictured: Christian Bale as Patrick Bateman, a Wall Street investment banker and psychopath. Researchers believe as many as 10 percent of people in the financial industry may exhibit the traits of clinical psychopathy.

Maybe Patrick Bateman wasn't such an outlier.

One out of every 10 Wall Street employees is likely a clinical psychopath, writes journalist Sherree DeCovny in an upcoming issue of trade magazine CFA Magazine (subscription required). In the general population the rate is closer to one percent.

"A financial psychopath can present as a perfect well-rounded job candidate, CEO, manager, co-worker, and team member because their destructive characteristics are practically invisible," writes DeCovny, who pulls together research from several psychologists for her story, which helpfully suggests that financial firms carefully screen out extreme psychopaths in hiring.

To be sure, typical psychopathic behavior runs the gamut. At the extreme end is Bateman, portrayed by Christian Bale, in the 2000 movie "American Psycho," as an investment banker who actually kills people and exhibits no remorse. When health professionals talk about "psychopaths," they have a broader range of behavior in mind.

A clinical psychopath is bright, gregarious and charming, writes DeCovny. He lies easily and often, and may have trouble feeling empathy for other people. He's probably also more willing to take dangerous risks -- either because he doesn't understand the consequences, or because he simply doesn't care.

An appetite for risk can seem like a positive business trait on Wall Street, where big gambles sometimes lead to big rewards. But for the people DeCovny is talking about, the outcomes matter less than the gambles themselves -- and the chemical rush of serotonin and endorphins that accompanies them.

This is hardly the first time that mental illness has been equated with a certain capacity for professional success -- especially in the financial sector, where some stock traders have actually scored higher than diagnosed psychopaths on tests that measure competitiveness and attraction to risk.

Some psychologists have long claimed that the qualities that make for a high-achieving politician or stockbroker are also the same traits that psychopaths have in abundance.

Other researchers generalize it to bosses as a species, saying that about 4 percent of all executives are psychopaths -- and that their relative lack of scruples is what helps them excel in business.

At the same time, the fast-moving, high-pressure environment of Wall Street probably compromises the mental health of some of its employees. A recent study found that many young bankers developalcoholism, insomnia, eating disorders and other stress-related ailments within just a few years on the job.

Stockbrokers have also been shown to experience clinical depression at a rate more than three times as high as the general population.

DeCovny writes that for someone with a "latent" compulsive gambling problem, a job trading stocks can trigger pathological responses that send the person into an escalating pattern of lies, debts and even embezzlement and fraud.

A person with this problem would feel gratified by an enormous loss, because of the way their brain's reward system works -- which DeCovny says may explain the activities of such notorious rogue traders as Kweku Adoboli, Jerome Kerviel and Nick Leeson, three men who gambled and lost the combined equivalent of $10.3 billion for their respective institutions over the past 17 years.