BANNON AS A CHILD, SAD:
BOOMERBUSTER
OLD CELLO
Saturday, August 31, 2019
BANNON CCP IS A TERROR ORGANIZATION
What a Krugman idiot. See below:
This is your major manufacturing center, and your major creditor, you idiot.
IMBECILE IDIOT MORON INTELLIGENCE SCALE
This is your major manufacturing center, and your major creditor, you idiot.
Sunday, January 20, 2019
CHINA'S GROWTH RATE SUPPOSEDLY SLOWEST IN DECADES CONCERNS GLOBAL ECONOMY
Whose economy is the global economy?
Not yours, baby!
When your so called global economy is centered on China, you know you are fucked, either way!
Slow down, speed up, or just stand still, either way, you are fucked!
No Mickey Mouse graphs.
No wonkish.
No bullshit.
You don't need an economist to tell you that.
A retard, moron, or idiot, could somehow mutter it, in so many mostly monosyllables: such as "China bad shit".
Hassett, Hannity, either of these morons (one an economist, but apparently also a moron, or an idiot, or merely a dunce, it is not clear) could stupidly and idiotically call out China....
This post is dedicated to Paul Krugman.
Not yours, baby!
When your so called global economy is centered on China, you know you are fucked, either way!
Slow down, speed up, or just stand still, either way, you are fucked!
No Mickey Mouse graphs.
No wonkish.
No bullshit.
You don't need an economist to tell you that.
A retard, moron, or idiot, could somehow mutter it, in so many mostly monosyllables: such as "China bad shit".
Hassett, Hannity, either of these morons (one an economist, but apparently also a moron, or an idiot, or merely a dunce, it is not clear) could stupidly and idiotically call out China....
This post is dedicated to Paul Krugman.
"Mental deficiency used to be divided into the following sub-classifications, but these labels began to be abused by the public and are now largely obsolete:
Borderline Deficiency (IQ 70-80),
Moron (IQ 50-69),
Imbecile (IQ 20-49)
Idiot (below 20)."
BAD DIVORCE INCALCULABLE BLUNDER
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
THE OTHER INCALCULABLE BLUNDER BIGGER THAN LOSING WWII TO THE SOVIETS
Was this role below, leading to American style market globalization, quoted in an earlier post from Sir Michael Howard:
"Only one thing could have prolonged the existence of the European Empires---the continuing approval and support of the United States. It was the denial of that support that spelled the end of the old European Empires. The citizens of the United States had not joined in the Second World War to prop up a system of imperial domination against which they had been the first people to revolt. And it has been with genuine bewilderment that they find themselves today so generally reviled as its inheritor....."
I would point out however, regarding Professor Howard's term ' imperial domination ', that the American colonies suffered nothing like imperial domination, really, nothing whatsoever comparable to that of more primitive pre industrial societies at that time.
Reading Bailyn's accounts in Ideological Origins, and The Origins of American Politics, and having been persuaded by Professor Allison's presentations on this topic, nothing like real imperial domination was ever really visited on the American colonists, except in their fevered imaginations.
Granted, they were unrepresented in Parliament, but so also were Birmingham, Sheffield, and I believe Manchester, at that time.....
As Allison pointed out, they were the most lightly burdened people by government impositions in the world, ever, while also being, on the other hand, among the most heavily benefited, I would add, before or since, in all of world history.
The British fought, and won, the Seven Years War, which Washington began, defending the colonies, among many other objectives, against both the French and the Spanish, shortly before the Colonies chose to rebel in gratitude.
"Only one thing could have prolonged the existence of the European Empires---the continuing approval and support of the United States. It was the denial of that support that spelled the end of the old European Empires. The citizens of the United States had not joined in the Second World War to prop up a system of imperial domination against which they had been the first people to revolt. And it has been with genuine bewilderment that they find themselves today so generally reviled as its inheritor....."
I would point out however, regarding Professor Howard's term ' imperial domination ', that the American colonies suffered nothing like imperial domination, really, nothing whatsoever comparable to that of more primitive pre industrial societies at that time.
Reading Bailyn's accounts in Ideological Origins, and The Origins of American Politics, and having been persuaded by Professor Allison's presentations on this topic, nothing like real imperial domination was ever really visited on the American colonists, except in their fevered imaginations.
Granted, they were unrepresented in Parliament, but so also were Birmingham, Sheffield, and I believe Manchester, at that time.....
As Allison pointed out, they were the most lightly burdened people by government impositions in the world, ever, while also being, on the other hand, among the most heavily benefited, I would add, before or since, in all of world history.
The British fought, and won, the Seven Years War, which Washington began, defending the colonies, among many other objectives, against both the French and the Spanish, shortly before the Colonies chose to rebel in gratitude.
WHY NOT HARD ISRAEXIT
You deserve it baby!
If the fricking Arab Muslim bedouins take over the Middle East and all its fricking oil, it will serve your stupid liberal candy asses right!
If the fricking Arab Muslim bedouins take over the Middle East and all its fricking oil, it will serve your stupid liberal candy asses right!
HKEXIT
TRUMPING OUT OF CHINA,
WHAT MATTER, THIS, OR THAT, HONG KONG?
NO DEAL HEXIT!
WHY NOT A BORIS HARD EXIT HONG KONG TOO!
HKEXIT!
WHAT MATTER, THIS, OR THAT, HONG KONG?
NO DEAL HEXIT!
WHY NOT A BORIS HARD EXIT HONG KONG TOO!
HKEXIT!
BANNON THINKS HK IS PATRIOTS 1776 I CALL 1776 A BAD DIVORCE
Then we screwed Britain and Europe again in WWI and WWII.
Saturday, July 19, 2014
RE MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE CAN EACH BE GOOD OR BAD OR SOME OTHER THINGS
Sir Michael Howard, Lessons Of History, "1945--End of an Era?":"Only one thing could have prolonged the existence of the European Empires---the continuing approval and support of the United States. It was the denial of that support that spelled the end of the old European Empires. The citizens of the United States had not joined in the Second World War to prop up a system of imperial domination against which they had been the first people to revolt. And it has been with genuine bewilderment that they find themselves today so generally reviled as its inheritor....."
I don't give a fuck about Hong King and its people.
America forced the West Imperial powers to abandon them to their fucking fate a long time ago.
America forced the West Imperial powers to abandon them to their fucking fate a long time ago.
If you lift a finger for those bitches in HK, you will be labeled an imperialist.
And you will deserve it.
RE HK THE WEST GAVE THAT UP A LONG TIME AGO BABY YOU GAVE IT UP YOU NO ONE ELSE
Bannon and the US should just give up that issue. It will burn them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xDQs5M7lHw
Bannon of course is a complete grifter charlatan. He knows enough history to get ahead. he trumpets the fact that China has staged protests in major capitals around the world, as if that were a great thing! No protests staged by the government in China. He is rejoicing about that. What a fucking idiot.
He could give a fuck about anyone in Hong Kong, or here, or in Israel, or in Hell. Trust me.
China will starve their asses out, and it will serve their Chinese HK asses right. The verdict the judgment of history.
Britain was forced to give it up by us in the 20th Century.
Game over smell the coffee.
Sir Michael Howard, Lessons Of History, "1945--End of an Era?":"Only one thing could have prolonged the existence of the European Empires---the continuing approval and support of the United States. It was the denial of that support that spelled the end of the old European Empires. The citizens of the United States had not joined in the Second World War to prop up a system of imperial domination against which they had been the first people to revolt. And it has been with genuine bewilderment that they find themselves today so generally reviled as its inheritor....."
Bannon of course is a complete grifter charlatan. He knows enough history to get ahead. he trumpets the fact that China has staged protests in major capitals around the world, as if that were a great thing! No protests staged by the government in China. He is rejoicing about that. What a fucking idiot.
He could give a fuck about anyone in Hong Kong, or here, or in Israel, or in Hell. Trust me.
China will starve their asses out, and it will serve their Chinese HK asses right. The verdict the judgment of history.
Britain was forced to give it up by us in the 20th Century.
Game over smell the coffee.
Sir Michael Howard, Lessons Of History, "1945--End of an Era?":"Only one thing could have prolonged the existence of the European Empires---the continuing approval and support of the United States. It was the denial of that support that spelled the end of the old European Empires. The citizens of the United States had not joined in the Second World War to prop up a system of imperial domination against which they had been the first people to revolt. And it has been with genuine bewilderment that they find themselves today so generally reviled as its inheritor....."
Friday, February 10, 2017
RE THE LAND OF ENLIGHTENMENT OPPORTUNITY
Where was that? When was it? Whom was it for? How long did it last? Is it over? Why?
These are some questions I hope to shed some light on. Bear with me, not an easy task to do in several paragraphs.
Where was that land? It was in Europe, and in the New World and in the other European colonial empires in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.
When was it? It really began in earnest in the 15th Century. Most of it happened well before the American Rebellion.
In fact, North American colonial survival, and eventual prosperity, was only made possible by European great power colonialism and imperialism, not the American colonists' eventual rebellion, democratic republic, and liberty and equality rhetoric.
In fact, North American colonial survival, and eventual prosperity, was only made possible by European great power colonialism and imperialism, not the American colonists' eventual rebellion, democratic republic, and liberty and equality rhetoric.
Whom was it for? It was for European imperial and colonial adventurers and their companions, supporters, and monarchs. It also benefitted enormously all classes in colonial and imperial Europe who were able to benefit from it according to their station. For many of them, regardless of their station, either as conquerors, colonizers, or the innumerable voluntary or involuntary immigrants, it involved tremendous risks, including war, disease, frustration, hardship, and death; as well as survival, prosperity, riches, status, and opportunity, for those who pulled through it. A high proportion of European colonists died, as well as an enormous proportion of native people mostly from European diseases. American colonists who persevered had opportunities, especially in commerce, notably smuggling, plantations in the mid Atlantic and South using slavery, and land speculation everywhere, undreamed of back in the Old World, for common people of their station.
How long did it last? It lasted from the 15th Century until the 20th.
Is it over? Yes, at least for the West, although we are seeing neocolonialism by such nations as China in various places.
Why? Civilizational decline of the West, marked notably by the end of Western colonialism.
Sir Michael Howard, Lessons Of History, "1945--End of an Era?":"Only one thing could have prolonged the existence of the European Empires---the continuing approval and support of the United States. It was the denial of that support that spelled the end of the old European Empires. The citizens of the United States had not joined in the Second World War to prop up a system of imperial domination against which they had been the first people to revolt. And it has been with genuine bewilderment that they find themselves today so generally reviled as its inheritor....."
John H Elliott, Regius Professor of History at Oxford in the 90s, succeeding Sir Michael Howard in that chair, wrote a useful but voluminous book, Empires of the Atlantic World. He doesn't get into my thesis about civilizational decline, but covers the empires, in The Americas, quite well.
Sir Michael Howard, Lessons Of History, "1945--End of an Era?":"Only one thing could have prolonged the existence of the European Empires---the continuing approval and support of the United States. It was the denial of that support that spelled the end of the old European Empires. The citizens of the United States had not joined in the Second World War to prop up a system of imperial domination against which they had been the first people to revolt. And it has been with genuine bewilderment that they find themselves today so generally reviled as its inheritor....."
John H Elliott, Regius Professor of History at Oxford in the 90s, succeeding Sir Michael Howard in that chair, wrote a useful but voluminous book, Empires of the Atlantic World. He doesn't get into my thesis about civilizational decline, but covers the empires, in The Americas, quite well.
FOR BRITAIN HARD VERY HARD BORIS BABY EXIT EU
FOR US HARD VERY HARD TRUMP EXIT CHINA
THIS IS NOT ABOUT A DEAL, BABY.
1776 THE BAD DIVORCE
Saturday, July 19, 2014
RE MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE CAN EACH BE GOOD OR BAD OR SOME OTHER THINGS
"Embarking upon the wrong war, I would suggest, is a bit like getting into a long-term relationship with the wrong person. One can endlessly speculate about how things might have turned out differently, where they went wrong, and whether the other person might change, but in many cases, nothing can make up for that initial fundamental mistake. So it was, in my opinion, in this case. The collapse of the Iraqi Army in the northern part of the country, the fall of Mosul, and the establishment of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria has led to a flood of recriminations directed against the Obama Administration. If only the President had not cut and run too early, Republicans claim, none of this would have happened. Others ask in amazement how the Iraqi Army upon which we spent so much money and which we supposedly "trained" for so many years could have collapsed so quickly. No one--not even Dexter Filkins, who understands the weaknesses of the Malilki government as well as anyone--seems to be able to face the simple truth: that Americans have no means of making Iraqis become whom they want them to be, tolerant and mutually understanding citizens of an independent nation...." DK (my underlining)
He makes some great points here.
I want to extend the analogy just a bit.
Getting into the wrong kind of war, or marriage, can also, I think, be like getting into a bad divorce.
Not that I do not think there are good divorces severing bad marriages.
There can also be bad divorces, however, severing good or at least acceptable and proper marriages.
Good or bad, with regard to marriages, are also relative terms, I fear.
One such good proper or acceptable marriage, I would call it a good marriage as marriages of that type, back then, went, loose and arguably somewhat faithless as it was, a marriage of convenience even, or of obligation, but a good marriage of convenience or obligation, as arranged marriages of convenience or obligation went,
was that of Britain with its American colonies.
The divorce of 1776 I would therefore call a bad divorce of an otherwise good marriage.
Certainly, the divorcing colonists claimed, wrongly I would assert, that the grounds on which they sought divorce were violations of those sublime principles which only both lovers (along with other British Anglo colonies' marital ties to Britain), as only true lovers could, had shared.
"...I strongly suspect that if a Democrat wins in 2016 we may be threatened with the break-up of the nation....." DK
Sadly, if such a thing were to occur, I would look back and suggest that it is, in part, a consequence, and a vindication to some small extent, of the point I have made above regarding bad divorces, coming home to roost, 250 years later.
Who cares, moreover, that other Anglo British colonies eventually broke away, as well?
That too, may turn out, in the fullness of time, to have been a series of ill considered divorce developments.
A whole host of profound counter factual implications follow, had this bad divorce not back then occurred.
Terms search: Before 1776
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
EXCERPTS 10 YEARS AFTER DK POST THE VITAL CENTER TRADING AMERICAN INTERESTS THE OTHER INCALCULABLE BLUNDER
People seem to like this old DK post, here are a few excerpts, re clash of civilizations:
"The Egyptian elections gave two Islamist parties, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists, well over half the votes. Something similar has happened in Tunisia. The Egyptian brotherhood has announced that it opposes, for now at least, a coalition with the Salafists. But the significance of these developments remains enormous. A clash of civilizations looms on the horizon, because the momentum of western civilization has been halted, and then reversed, in the last half century.…Western civilization has been under attack from the left and the right here in the United States….A clash of civilizations looms because the hegemony of western civilization is now a thing of the past….Israel was created by secularists in the wake of the Second World War, when no one imagined what a role religion would play in the lives of those not yet born. It dreamed, apparently, of a relatively secular Middle East in which it could co-exist with its neighbors."
Yes.
I would just add that the West has most tellingly been under attack here, not either from the left, or from the right, as DK says, but rather from what has been called by, eg E J Dionne, The Vital Center, the bi partisan globalist consensus, especially in the last half century to which he refers.
Another very very important point, one I have referred to in posts, as 'the other incalculable blunder', was one Sir Michael Howard pointed out at various times, that the later decline of the West, after WWI, but especially at and after WWII, was the result of strictly American decision making.
Basically, we got rid of Western Europe's civilizational empires such as they admittedly were, starting after WWI, taking over only what we felt like having, and then singlehandedly during and after WWII, left Eastern Europe under the control of an absolutist Orthodox Civilizational, lower class, merely ostensibly socialist (fit with FDR) , dictator, Stalin.
One reason why someone like Field Marshall Montgomery, who had been in a position to know, and who (unlike Patton) survived the WWII debacle, pointed out that we had lost it to the Soviets.
http://bozonbloggon.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-other-incalculable-blunder-bigger.html
Terms search: vital center, trading American interests, bad divorce, before 1776.
Another very very important point, one I have referred to in posts, as 'the other incalculable blunder', was one Sir Michael Howard pointed out at various times, that the later decline of the West, after WWI, but especially at and after WWII, was the result of strictly American decision making.
Basically, we got rid of Western Europe's civilizational empires such as they admittedly were, starting after WWI, taking over only what we felt like having, and then singlehandedly during and after WWII, left Eastern Europe under the control of an absolutist Orthodox Civilizational, lower class, merely ostensibly socialist (fit with FDR) , dictator, Stalin.
One reason why someone like Field Marshall Montgomery, who had been in a position to know, and who (unlike Patton) survived the WWII debacle, pointed out that we had lost it to the Soviets.
' (Eisenhower:) "From a tactical point of view," he said, "it is highly inadvisable for the American Army to take Berlin and I hope political influence won't cause me to take the city. It has no tactical or strategic value and would place upon the American forces the burden of caring for thousands and thousands of Germans, displaced PERSONS
and Allied prisoners of war." Patton was dismayed. "Ike, I don't see how you figure that out," he said. "We had better take Berlin, and quick-- and on to the Oder!" '
and Allied prisoners of war." Patton was dismayed. "Ike, I don't see how you figure that out," he said. "We had better take Berlin, and quick-- and on to the Oder!" '
'...(Patton) again urged Eisenhower to take Berlin. It could be done, argued Patton, in forty-eight hours. "Well, who would want it?" Eisenhower asked. Patton paused, then put both hands on Eisenhower's shoulders and said "I think history will answer that question for you." ' Toland, The Last 100 Days, p 371.
http://bozonbloggon.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-other-incalculable-blunder-bigger.html
Terms search: vital center, trading American interests, bad divorce, before 1776.
YAMNAYA EXTERMINATED THE REST ACROSS ALL MIDDLE EURASIA
Exterminating all the way into Stonehenge England.
The first to really use the wheel and the horse and the horse drawn wagon.
Innovators, entrepreneurs.
These were not your Noble Savage.
The nearest historic parallel is obviously the Mongols.
These were not vegetarians..............They were pastoral.
They probably also ate men women and children. They were pastoral environmentalists! Sustainability.
You can call this mixing, but I have a hard time thinking of extermination as mixing.
So they spared and outraged a few conquered women.
Reich tends to lump all such things into his Whig catch all mixing rubric. He uses the term replacement. Fine point of law.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LswA9_jz9G0
The 50 minute mark, approximately.
The first to really use the wheel and the horse and the horse drawn wagon.
Innovators, entrepreneurs.
These were not your Noble Savage.
The nearest historic parallel is obviously the Mongols.
These were not vegetarians..............They were pastoral.
They probably also ate men women and children. They were pastoral environmentalists! Sustainability.
You can call this mixing, but I have a hard time thinking of extermination as mixing.
So they spared and outraged a few conquered women.
Reich tends to lump all such things into his Whig catch all mixing rubric. He uses the term replacement. Fine point of law.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LswA9_jz9G0
The 50 minute mark, approximately.
SO WHAT DID TRUMP KNOW IF ANYTHING YET TAGGED ASSAD?
DID ISRAEL KNOW ANYTHING, OR NOT?
Or, is Postol himself an agent, rather than a disinterested rocketry academic?
Friday, April 14, 2017
RE SDW COMMENT ON DK'S SITE
SDW:
"Theodore Postol, emeritus Prof at MIT and an expert on military rocketry shows convincing evidence that sarin was spread by an explosion originating on the ground, not by an air to ground device. He believes this was a false flag operation. There is a link on following post to addendum by Postol giving further evidence."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-13/top-missile-and-chemical-weapons-expert-debunks-trump’s-claims-about-syrian-chemic-0
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-13/top-missile-and-chemical-weapons-expert-debunks-trump’s-claims-about-syrian-chemic-0
So, who has a motive to do a false flag chemical weapon attack in Syria to pin it on Assad? Take some guesses.
RELIGION RACE SLAVERY POLITICS REBELLION
One could not hope for a better account, 1660 -1832, Anglophone, Re empires of the European Atlantic world, than The Language of Liberty ch 3.
Friday, August 30, 2019
YOU CAN CALL THIS MULTICULTURAL MIXING IF YOU WANT
'"Preferential access to local females... 90% population replacement" is a very gentle way of describing how Group B slaughtered all the males of Group A and took the females that survive the mass slaughter as sex slaves. Many of these interesting data points undoubtedly tell some pretty horrible tales.' Commenter Phil Gerber, on Reich's 12/3/2018 Who We Are lecture on Youtube ...
Neanderthal DNA in modern humans is 2%, as Kai Ruisdahl says, after we do the numbers.
Neanderthals were offwhite, big, with red hair.
Modern humans were black as the ace of spades, and much more numerous.
You figure it out.
Neanderthal DNA in modern humans is 2%, as Kai Ruisdahl says, after we do the numbers.
Neanderthals were offwhite, big, with red hair.
Modern humans were black as the ace of spades, and much more numerous.
You figure it out.
FORCED CONFESSIONS A LA CARTE WERE EITHER SHEIKH MOHAMMAD OR SIMON ACTUAL PERPETRATORS?
That has never been a question to be decided in our system. It also theoretically has nothing to do with the penalthy phase.
Whether they were or not, they have always been punished under our system as if they were actual perpetrators.
What if a forced confession is admitted? Should that ever be a mitigating factor rather than a factor re question of guilt or innocence?
It is important to note that neither Simon nor Sheikh Mohammad, were or are entitled to protections associated with citizenship. That was not the ground on which Simon's judgment and sentence were reversed.
Sheikh does not properly fall under the laws of war.
How is he different from any illegal of any government anywhere? He is not.
if the case against Sheikh is based only on a forced confession, then his case is no different from Simon's, and should be decided in his favor as a matter of law, rather than fact for a tribunal or a jury.
It is important to note that neither Simon nor Sheikh Mohammad, were or are entitled to protections associated with citizenship. That was not the ground on which Simon's judgment and sentence were reversed.
Sheikh does not properly fall under the laws of war.
How is he different from any illegal of any government anywhere? He is not.
if the case against Sheikh is based only on a forced confession, then his case is no different from Simon's, and should be decided in his favor as a matter of law, rather than fact for a tribunal or a jury.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammad: Trial date set for 'architect of 9/11'
Lawyers for the group are trying to bar the use of confessions the defendants made to the FBI in 2006.
They argue that the confessions are unusable in court because of the harsh interrogations carried out during their detention.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has alleged that he has been repeatedly tortured during his detention in Cuba.
CIA documents confirm that he was subjected to simulated drowning, known as waterboarding, 183 times.
The four other men - Walid bin Attash, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Ammar al-Baluchi and Mustafa al-Hawsawi - were also interrogated by the CIA in a network of overseas prisons, known as "black sites," before they were passed on to the US military.
SIMON, A SLAVE V. THE STATE OF FLORIDA FBJ ARTICLE VOL 93, NO 5 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2019
While a good and interesting article, as far as it goes, the author fails to place the interrogation techniques used on Simon in the wider context of police procedures that were ubiquitous, and unevenly applied.
Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Asians, or even white local citizens, suspected of a crime, would have been treated little or no differently than Simon, and would have been subject to similar mob rule if suspected under similar circumstances.
Their whiteness would have protected them almost as little as Simon's darkness put him at ostensibly greater risk.
Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Asians, or even white local citizens, suspected of a crime, would have been treated little or no differently than Simon, and would have been subject to similar mob rule if suspected under similar circumstances.
Their whiteness would have protected them almost as little as Simon's darkness put him at ostensibly greater risk.
Suspected white cattle rustlers in the West were treated just that way, they were often summarily lynched by a mob, confession or not, all good God fearing white folk.
Notice that Judge Finley chose to ignore fine points of law twice, as recounted in the article. He had not later been reformed by his lesson from the Supreme Court in the Simon case reversal re jury questions.
It is a general point I once made in an article I presented here and there in Florida, touching on rules of evidence, and the role of the judge.
In Florida, back in the 1850s, as now, such questions of law are often, in practice rather than in law books or law classes, passed over by the judge in a ruling and then given to the jury as questions of fact, and seldom are such decisions overturned when appealed.
Also, judges found that they were less likely to be reversed by ruling a matter a question of fact (and thus one for the jury to decide, and out of their hands) than to rule it a question of law (that is, one only for the court to decide) and then guess wrong.
Bobbitt might characterize the judicial reasoning for this type of trial court decision 'prudential', if that makes any sense. He might also have a different category altogether for it.
On the evidence described, it certainly does not look like a mixed question of law and fact, and Simon's lawyer apparently made that quite clear, and provided a lot of law on the point of law itself.
It seems that Simon was better defended than most other litigants, white or black, slave or free, under similar circumstances in a similar place and time.
It makes sense to compare the quality of Simon's defense, as Hardy describes it, to that of the defendant in " To Kill A Mockingbird ", portrayed by Gregory Peck, Jeff Bridges, and others.
Had the case been decided on the law, as it should have been, (as there was apparently no other evidence linking Simon to these crimes elicited) and as the Florida Supreme Court so held, there might not have been a jury verdict from which to appeal, (and would likely not have been one after remand). There might have been an appeal, and a decision on appeal, ruling on a point of law. Finley, as the article notes, was surprised (had certainly reasonably expected his ruling Simon's confession admissible not to be reversed).
There is, still, unbroached in the article, the matter of whether Simon had been, in fact, nevertheless, the actual perpetrator.....
The fact that he gave an erroneous account of where a particular fire began, which was contradicted at trial by defense eye witnesses, is not, itself, much proof at all of Simon's actual innocence, the inference drawn there being that he had guessed wrong.
What if he gave a self serving false account of where a fire started, which might later be used to set aside his confession, even though he was the actual perpetrator? That may be what happened.
Not having read all the background material, I cannot say that the possibility of Simon as the actual perpetrator is foreclosed by the record recounted here.
There may be other issues running around here, based on the account in the article.
Simon's owner urged him to confess and was present. One wonders, in the first place, how Simon had been fingered as the arsonist.
That question, a quite important one, is not answered in the account, and may not appear in existing records.
Why did the owner urge his valuable property to confess to crimes which would surely have robbed him of his investment in Simon anyway, lynch mob or no lynch mob?
What might have been the owner's motive for that drastic step? It is very hard to believe that the mob would have lynched the slaveowner too, unless there is something we are not being told.
What other evidence was there for Simon's guilt not brought forward? Did Simon have a co conspirator, and if so, who? What motive would Simon have had for such a string of attacks? It is hard to imagine a slave having much of a motive.
What about this possibility: Simon was put up to it, ordered even, by someone. He might have been so ordered by his master. It would have been hard for him to have disobeyed, under the circumstances, as hard as refusing to confess, shall we say. In that case, would not the slaveowner urged him not to confess, so that he might be slienced forever by the lynchmob outside?
A smart guilty slaveowner might have taken that route.
So, why did slaveowner urge confession. Maybe the answer is that some among the mob were slaveowner's rivals or enemies somehow, and even suspected slaveowner had ordered Simon to torch these sites for slaveowner's reasons, rational or irrational.
Let's just put it this way: Under these conditions, if Simon confessed, he was a dead man, and if he refused to confess, he was a dead man. A Morton's Fork.
The three justice Florida Supreme Court panel, which reversed J Finley's erroneous ruling giving the matter of Simon's confession to the jury, and themselves thereby ruled against four different groups of white racist victims of arson, in favor of Simon, a convicted negro slave, were all prominent slave owning racist lawyers, more than one from the North, not the South, who later all became significant figures in the Confederacy.
Simon died in prison, February 1854.
Lincoln went back into politics, 1854.
Notice that Judge Finley chose to ignore fine points of law twice, as recounted in the article. He had not later been reformed by his lesson from the Supreme Court in the Simon case reversal re jury questions.
It is a general point I once made in an article I presented here and there in Florida, touching on rules of evidence, and the role of the judge.
In Florida, back in the 1850s, as now, such questions of law are often, in practice rather than in law books or law classes, passed over by the judge in a ruling and then given to the jury as questions of fact, and seldom are such decisions overturned when appealed.
Also, judges found that they were less likely to be reversed by ruling a matter a question of fact (and thus one for the jury to decide, and out of their hands) than to rule it a question of law (that is, one only for the court to decide) and then guess wrong.
Bobbitt might characterize the judicial reasoning for this type of trial court decision 'prudential', if that makes any sense. He might also have a different category altogether for it.
On the evidence described, it certainly does not look like a mixed question of law and fact, and Simon's lawyer apparently made that quite clear, and provided a lot of law on the point of law itself.
It seems that Simon was better defended than most other litigants, white or black, slave or free, under similar circumstances in a similar place and time.
It makes sense to compare the quality of Simon's defense, as Hardy describes it, to that of the defendant in " To Kill A Mockingbird ", portrayed by Gregory Peck, Jeff Bridges, and others.
Had the case been decided on the law, as it should have been, (as there was apparently no other evidence linking Simon to these crimes elicited) and as the Florida Supreme Court so held, there might not have been a jury verdict from which to appeal, (and would likely not have been one after remand). There might have been an appeal, and a decision on appeal, ruling on a point of law. Finley, as the article notes, was surprised (had certainly reasonably expected his ruling Simon's confession admissible not to be reversed).
There is, still, unbroached in the article, the matter of whether Simon had been, in fact, nevertheless, the actual perpetrator.....
The fact that he gave an erroneous account of where a particular fire began, which was contradicted at trial by defense eye witnesses, is not, itself, much proof at all of Simon's actual innocence, the inference drawn there being that he had guessed wrong.
What if he gave a self serving false account of where a fire started, which might later be used to set aside his confession, even though he was the actual perpetrator? That may be what happened.
Not having read all the background material, I cannot say that the possibility of Simon as the actual perpetrator is foreclosed by the record recounted here.
There may be other issues running around here, based on the account in the article.
Simon's owner urged him to confess and was present. One wonders, in the first place, how Simon had been fingered as the arsonist.
That question, a quite important one, is not answered in the account, and may not appear in existing records.
Why did the owner urge his valuable property to confess to crimes which would surely have robbed him of his investment in Simon anyway, lynch mob or no lynch mob?
What might have been the owner's motive for that drastic step? It is very hard to believe that the mob would have lynched the slaveowner too, unless there is something we are not being told.
What other evidence was there for Simon's guilt not brought forward? Did Simon have a co conspirator, and if so, who? What motive would Simon have had for such a string of attacks? It is hard to imagine a slave having much of a motive.
What about this possibility: Simon was put up to it, ordered even, by someone. He might have been so ordered by his master. It would have been hard for him to have disobeyed, under the circumstances, as hard as refusing to confess, shall we say. In that case, would not the slaveowner urged him not to confess, so that he might be slienced forever by the lynchmob outside?
A smart guilty slaveowner might have taken that route.
So, why did slaveowner urge confession. Maybe the answer is that some among the mob were slaveowner's rivals or enemies somehow, and even suspected slaveowner had ordered Simon to torch these sites for slaveowner's reasons, rational or irrational.
Let's just put it this way: Under these conditions, if Simon confessed, he was a dead man, and if he refused to confess, he was a dead man. A Morton's Fork.
The three justice Florida Supreme Court panel, which reversed J Finley's erroneous ruling giving the matter of Simon's confession to the jury, and themselves thereby ruled against four different groups of white racist victims of arson, in favor of Simon, a convicted negro slave, were all prominent slave owning racist lawyers, more than one from the North, not the South, who later all became significant figures in the Confederacy.
Simon died in prison, February 1854.
Lincoln went back into politics, 1854.
Dred Scott decision, 1857.
Many other important events, 1850s.
JACK DORSEY TAR BABY, BABY! WANTED IN INDIA RACIST PHOTO
Those dang Hindus would string his ass up!
Well, he had his ass hacked, so how in hell can Twitter users sleep at night?
Twitter Shaming!
Well, he had his ass hacked, so how in hell can Twitter users sleep at night?
Twitter Shaming!
I NORMALLY FAVOR A LOT OF BODY SHAMING SHAME FATTIES SHAME THE STARVING TOO
If they are fat, you shame them, you don't feed them.
If they are starving, you shame them, you don't feed them either.
Macaire et Bertrand
But I make cavalier exceptions. I am rather a Caliban figure.
The Venus of Willendorf:
If they are starving, you shame them, you don't feed them either.
Macaire et Bertrand
But I make cavalier exceptions. I am rather a Caliban figure.
The Venus of Willendorf:
Thursday, August 29, 2019
NEGROES AMERICAN INDIANS WHITE SETTLERS ENDOGAMY VERSUS MIXING AND DAVID REICH
Let's just put polite discussion of this butt ugly racial PIG'S BREAKFAST history off, until tomorrow, shall we?
Many negroes thought they were mulattoes because they must have mixed with Indians. That turned out not to be true at all, in fact the opposite, almost no mixing.
White colonists, then later American citizens, the only citizens then showing, on the other hand, turned out to be the cause of mulattoism in negro slave populations.
They did a North Eurasian dick move on their slave women, perfectly legal, if not moral, like the white West Eurasians did on conquered and enslaved ANI dark Indian women. See David Reich, ch 6.
Many negroes thought they were mulattoes because they must have mixed with Indians. That turned out not to be true at all, in fact the opposite, almost no mixing.
White colonists, then later American citizens, the only citizens then showing, on the other hand, turned out to be the cause of mulattoism in negro slave populations.
They did a North Eurasian dick move on their slave women, perfectly legal, if not moral, like the white West Eurasians did on conquered and enslaved ANI dark Indian women. See David Reich, ch 6.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)