SteeleJoe

How many here look at Internet porn? I'd guess 95 percent. The other 5 are liars.

What's the difference in what that fella did. Not saying its right mind.

Let's see...

Women and men in Internet porn are consenting participants.

1) They are paid for it (or volunteer).

2) They sign release forms.

3) They are not trying to go about their daily lives and have their privacy invaded in an ugly way.

* There may he exceptions to this but I'd wager the vast majority of the porn most people view meets these criteria and that when they don't viewers are generally unaware and are not knowingly complicit in the violation.

You think this is the same as viewing porn on the Internet. You imply that it may be unethical. Ergo you think viewing porn may be unethical as well...so what you are saying is that this guy and porn viewers are equally fugged up?

So, the Justice Department is going to investigate this case further, to find something, anything, that they could use to convict Zimmerman after a jury found him "not guilty"? I would be nice if they would put this much effort into the many real scandals going on such as the IRS targeting scandal. The American people should be flooding the streets in protest. The gov't gets caught red-handed in all these scandals and heads should roll, but they successfully distract the people by going after Zimmerman? We Americans have many serious issues to be concerned with. It is embarrassing that we - as a nation - can get distracted by such tripe. There was a trial, there was a verdict. Move on. Move on to the real problems facing the nation.

That's naive. This trial has become a national concern and opened up wounds about racial tensions. I wouldn't want the justice department to make a case if they don't have one, but there is nothing wrong with a fresh investigation. It is a SEPARATE matter from the Florida trial. Zimmerman will likely face other trials, such as a civil case, and all of those if they happen will based on the law.

The wounds were opened from the outset due to the presidents original ill advised comments that Trayvon Martin could have been his son, all before charges were even brought I might add. Had it not been for the ensuing media s#$t storm the case might have become just another statistic, one of thousands, with no reinforcing of divisions by announcing them, regardless of whether the facts warranted it.

My memory is fairly clear on this: Pres. Obama made his comment when it was already a hot issue - hence the statement. National news was already reporting on it and the case had been gathering steam for a month by then; rightly or wrongly, race is the reason. It's ridiculous to claim that race became an issue because of the POTUS.

How could Mr. Martin be like Mr. Obama? Mr. Obama's mother was white and he grew up in relative comfort and opportunity.

The night Mr. Martin died, I believe six other youn black men were murdered- by other blacks. Where is the outrage about that?

Perhaps Mr. Obama should also address the issue of black on black violence...

And another one making the same tired fallacious "point".

You are effectively saying, 'why aren't people decrying the role race played in a killing in instances where there's obviously no racial component?'

Work it out.

So Helen Thomas died today......I was just reading her Wiki page, here's just about the first quote.

"We were never hyphenated as Arab-Americans. We were American, and I have always rejected the hyphen and I believe all assimilated immigrants should not be designated ethnically. Or separated, of course, by race, or creed either. These are trends that ever try to divide us as a people."

Awesome, no need for anti discrimination laws anymore because we are all Americans and Americans is not a protected classification in America. Oh wait, Bama still refers to people by race so we need him to stop with dividing people by race. It's unhealthy.

Man, you've really become obsessive about the president.

How could someone like yourself, not a stupid man, suggest something so moronic as the president somehow being the only one to observe racial difference - or even that he is a significant reason why such differences are commonly observed?

Refer to the witness of the girl on the phone with Trayvon before he was murdered. He felt harassed and chased by Zimmerman. He had no idea who Zimmerman was. That's the evidence.

I see there are mass protests now to bring Zimmerman up on federal civil rights charges. I see no problem in a complete investigation to see if the charges are legally justified and also reasonably winnable. That's a fair demand. But it's not a fair demand to insist on the charges if they don't have the evidence.

The best bet against Zimmerman was already blown and that was the manslaughter charge. They clearly overcharged from the start.

Neither did Zimmerman knew who Trayvon was.

Right. But Zimmerman was carrying a gun and the dead boy wasn't. Turns out Zimmerman was the one out looking for trouble that night, not the murder victim.

The president's remarks:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posttv/politics/obama-tryavon-martin-could-have-been-me-35-years-ago/2013/07/19/1bd5fa26-f09b-11e2-9008-61e94a7ea20d_video.html

The fact that Zimmerman was carrying a gun has nothing to do with this, as it was a coincidence that he was licensed to carry a gun whare the victim wasn't.

Errr...the fact that one party in a confrontation was carrying a gun has nothing to do with a subsequent shooting?

It wasn't a "coincidence" that Zimmerman was licensed. It didn't happen to him randomly, he made it happen (as is his right) and he chose to carry it when he went out to follow the young man. Legal? Yes. Reasonable? Some would say so. Coincidental? Of course not.

...

Obama says Trayvon Martin could have been him 35 years ago? I sorely wish it had been.

I am reading that as a wish that our U.S. president had been murdered 35 years ago. Please confirm. If so, that's about an extreme as expression of Obama Derangement Syndrome as you're likely to find.

Fortunately the Secret Service, were it to read the comment at this forum, likely would not consider the statement to be a threat worthy of pursuit, but a threat nonetheless.

The post is best deleted as we don't know whether the US Embassy monitors these kinds of websites to identify such remarks, what with NSA, FBI at the embassy etc.

There was more than one such comment, just perhaps slightly more veiled.

The only change is the name of the child that was murdered in the 50's it was 14 year old "Emmett Till".

Today it is i7 year old Trayvon Martin.

Cheers:

I can't stomach that though I thought I'd see it sooner or later.

The murder of Emmett Till is something that struck a deep chord within me upon reading of it as a boy. So much so that I have over the last nearly 40 years done as much study of it as I could and even written on it fairly extensively. I want to say unequivocally that the comparison is absurd, inane and offensive.

I can guarantee you if a black man had shot Trayvon neither the media nor obama would give a hoot.

Wow, that's original.

1) The OBVIOUS issue here is that some believe race was a factor in the killing and in the acquittal.

2) If many people felt a black murderer had gotten away with an unjustified killing (as many do in this instance), there would be outrage. That it would likely be nowhere as big a deal if the victim were black, is a sad fact of US society.

I've given the thread a few moments thought now.

I'm hoping this thread might show some understanding and empathy for Trayvon and for his family, friends - and to include the larger picture of young black males in the United States whose legacy is 200 years of slavery and another hundred years of Jim Crow laws. Destroyed families from their outset.

However, I see my worst fears of this thread topic are already being realized. The other side is in fact the other side, i.e., it hasn't any feeling for a kid who got very nervous about some little white sh*t following him in silence with eyeballs fixed on him.

The other side is devoid of human feeling, sympathy, caring for the black kid, the deceased. Can't put themselves in the other fellow's shoes and haven't the slightest interest in trying to do so. To them Martin is bad, Zimmerman is good. White is right and if you're black get to the back.

The SOS is polluting this thread too.

Empathy for a hood that attacked a man that just happened to be carrying a weapon to defend himself? That is the funniest thing I have read all day. Thanks for that.

I'll stop now and I can tell this thread will digress quickly and I want to stay out of the ban zone. One cannot debate with a person that has a 180 degree diametrically opposite view of reality without becoming incensed with the stupidity of the premise for the argument. Much like wrestling with pigs. You both get dirty but the pig likes it.

Zimmerman "just happened to be carrying a weapon"...

Classic.

You should also be disappointed at this president for not really giving two sh%ts about blacks who kill blacks on a daily basis but goes all sentimental when a non black kills a black.

"If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin." Puke!

Hmmm so Trayvon Martin could have been president Obama 35 years ago. Does that mean Mr Obama was also suspended from school and had been involved in drug taking and potentially dealing too? Of course we shall never know as Obama has sealed all records relating to his past, which makes them one of the few places the NSA and FBI don't monitor, Mosques being the other exception.

Without getting into details, it is public knowledge that if Obama had been CAUGHT during his naughty youth phase of illegal drug involvement, he would not only never have been president, he would more likely had been a felon on the early death road like so many other young African Americans. Given this reality, I am very disappointed that Obama has not shown more leadership on the issue of drug laws and how the laws ruin many more lives than the drugs.

We've seen this one a lot.*

I have no position on how much the President cares and his failure to give what you regard as appropriate attention to the two different things, but they ARE two different things. There's no inherent hypocrisy in lamenting the perceived fact (accurate or not, sincere or not) of a killing with race as a factor and not doing the same with the many without: if the US is still a place where a man can be killed BECAUSE he's black ( not just because he happens to be, like Trayvon(?) and the many victims of black murderers), that is horrible and sad in a different way than the fact that we have as much crime as we do (or that so much of it is committed by black males). And it is a separate issue.

Indeed it would be both wrong and idiotic to suggest that the deaths of black murder victims are tragic BECAUSE they are black - which would be implicit if Obama were to go on record speaking about all black victims.

* (In many cases, I know it's because it's very appealing to people who really need to highlight racism in blacks so as to feel better about white racism: perhaps is also fun for those people because a great number of those killings are of criminals by other criminals - ie black males - like Trayvon - get killed because they are up to no good.)

The difference - at least in part - would indeed appear to be that it was Rolling Stone Magazine...

The specific graphic design of the NAZI swastika is not religious. It symbolizes the fascist movement started by Hitler in Nazi Germany.

To this day it is a sacred symbol in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Odinism. It is a common sight on temples or houses in India or Indonesia. Swastikas also have an ancient history in Europe, appearing on artifacts from pre-Christian European cultures.

The famous archeologist Heinrich Schlieman discovered the hooked cross on the site of ancient Troy. He connected it with similar shapes found on pottery in Germany and speculated that it was a “significant religious symbol of our remote ancestors.”

In the beginning of the twentieth century the swastika was widely used in Europe. It had numerous meanings, the most common being a symbol of good luck and auspiciousness.

However, the work of Schliemann soon was taken up by "völkisch" movements, for whom the swastika was a symbol of “Aryan identity” and German nationalist pride...

The Nazi party, however, was not the only party to use the swastika in Germany. After World War I, a number of far-right European nationalist movements adopted the swastika. As a symbol, it became associated with the idea of a racially “pure” state.

Many people are aware of this, and Jingthing must be because so many have posted it before (I mostly stopped informing people of this about 10 years ago because it seems so cliche). The fact is )and I assume this is what JT is alluding to) the NAZI swastika is distinct - 45 degree axis, on a white circle surrounded by red - and even absent those details, context matters and has obvious connotations.

By the way, if your post consists of a C&P, you should credit the source lest it appear that you are trying to take credit for someone else's scholarship.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007453

I was not trying to take credit for someone else's scholarship in my previous post...

But if you add again 45° axis from the original sign , like you just did..., you will have again the same original swastika...

And if you turn it upside down you will have the same result.

I've no problem with people who try to describe this symbol with their own words.

But that people use it nowadays without knowing the real origin like the OP is simply sad...

I didn't add it - what an odd and offensive thing to say. Yes, with a 45 degree axis, it is still a swastika. This is obvious and indeed I never once suggested it is called something else or becomes a new thing entirely if it is used in the way I describe. however, youleft out the white lozenge and the red background. And the reference to context.

Here's some reaction to the verdict from Iran, I guess there are some things the Iranian regime and some Americans appear to agree on.

http://freebeacon.com/irans-mullahs-demand-justice-for-trayvon/

Iran’s foreign ministry on Friday criticized the acquittal of George Zimmerman and chastised the United States for widespread “racial discrimination.”

“The acquittal of the murderer of the teenage African American once again clearly demonstrated the unwritten, but systematic racial discrimination against racial, religious, and ethnic minorities in the US society,” Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Seyed Abbas Araqchi was quoted as saying by Iran’s state run Fars News Agency.

Seriously? Are you really going that route? Aren't you embarrassed?

If you'd been around in the 40s perhaps you'd be pointing to the fact that the Nazi newspapers condemned lynching in the southern states, when someone objected to it. Reminiscent of people in the 60s pointing out that protestors felt the same way about the war in Vietnam as the Soviets did.

I heard that Pol Pot liked puppies. Do you?

This is getting ugly. There is no such report proving the victim was "very high" on the night his being slain.

Yes, the child... the poor baby was high on drugs. Did mommy and daddy know that? Did they know everything else that people are telling you exist for all the public to put together and see that there is another story here that Obama and Sharpton and Jackson don't want you to hear?

Yeah! Obama. What a klutz. "You know, if I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon," Obama said.

Yes, Mr. President, I do believe that he would. I also believe that he would behave like Trayvon.

Martin's toxicology report indicates that THC, the active drug in marijuana, was in his blood at the time of his death on February 26, 2012.

From that report... "Zimmerman was on the medications Librax and Temazepam at the time of the incident."

Temazepam use is known to be particularly associated with violent or disorderly behaviours

Marihuana can stay in the bloodstream for up to 28 DAYS and is not associated with violent behaviour.

It is worth noting that Trayvon had been to the store to buy products that can be used to produce lean ( I'm not saying that he WAS going to use them for that ).

Why is that worth noting?

People are outraged because "Rolling Stone is supposed to be an entertainment magazine"? That's a new one.

Whether you like it, or not. Rolling Stone is perceived as a rock music magazine and most of its content is about entertainment. They also do some serious articles on current events, but this is not about the article inside. It is about the cover of the Rolling Stone.

If you look at the past covers, you will find plenty of glamorous photos of The Beatles, The Rolling Stones. Bob Dylan and even Denzel Washington and Winona Ryder, but the only serious bad guy that I can remember was Charles Manson, many years ago, and he looked exactly like the wild eyed lunatic that he is. There was no attempt to glorify him.

In general, being on the cover of the Rolling Stone is perceived as an endorsement and that is why the public is so riled about this.

We take all kinds of pills

that give us all kind of thrills

but the thrill we'll never know

Is the thrill that'll getcha

when you get your picture

on the cover of the Rolling Stone

-Dr. Hook

I think it's untrue that the issue is that it's "supposed to be an entertainment magazine" but on consideration, it might be a factor. Do you think if Time used the same photo, it would be OK? If Entertainment Weekly did an article - with a black cover - people would be outraged? Maybe.

As for the type of photograph used, I've already said I think there's a legitimate or at least understandable cause for complaint there. But I question your implicit accusation of an attempt to glorify the lowlife - especially given the accompanying text on the cover let alone the reported content of the article (and aside from the fact that it would be a truly bizarre thing for RS to do).

As long as they are aiming at you then you are pretty safe. I have seen Thais shooting and only bystanders are at risk.

Yes, because as everyone one knows it is possible to determine shooting skill based on nationality. And no one has ever been assassinated by gun here.

Genius.

Is there a world outside of Thailand for Thais?

Ever meet a Jew in Thailand?

Come to the Phitsanulok area and you can meet one: ME.

Although my complete family was murdered in WWII (I was the only survivor) I cannot be very angry regarding this subject. I quote Baboon's wise words: "Against stupidity, the gods themselves fail to contend".

For me it is a little to easy when people say that Thais do not know and do not respect our history and culture. In general this might be true, but I give you an example to think about:

My Thai wife is far from stupid but in the beginning of our relationship I found out that she had never heard about van Gogh, Rembrandt and so on. My first reaction was: "that is impossible".

Later I asked myself: "Do YOU know any Asian painter from i.e. van Gogh's period?" I have to admit that I did not. Two possibilities: They don't exist, or I am ignorant.

They simply don't exist

You simply don't know what you are talking about. And you are thinking quite simply.

I have seen the swastika T-shirts in 3 malls here in Manila recently as the trend is starting to spread. It must also be noted that this symbol is thousands of years old and maybe westerners should better educate themselves on the origins of the swastika and stop giving its meaning over to Hitler. Hitler is long dead and it is time to restore the symbol back to it religious meanings. As the world war 2 generation dies off lets free up the symbol and allow the kids to wear it and not expect them to bow down to western dogma.

The specific graphic design of the NAZI swastika is not religious. It symbolizes the fascist movement started by Hitler in Nazi Germany.

To this day it is a sacred symbol in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Odinism. It is a common sight on temples or houses in India or Indonesia. Swastikas also have an ancient history in Europe, appearing on artifacts from pre-Christian European cultures.

The famous archeologist Heinrich Schlieman discovered the hooked cross on the site of ancient Troy. He connected it with similar shapes found on pottery in Germany and speculated that it was a “significant religious symbol of our remote ancestors.”

In the beginning of the twentieth century the swastika was widely used in Europe. It had numerous meanings, the most common being a symbol of good luck and auspiciousness.

However, the work of Schliemann soon was taken up by "völkisch" movements, for whom the swastika was a symbol of “Aryan identity” and German nationalist pride...

The Nazi party, however, was not the only party to use the swastika in Germany. After World War I, a number of far-right European nationalist movements adopted the swastika. As a symbol, it became associated with the idea of a racially “pure” state.

Many people are aware of this, and Jingthing must be because so many have posted it before (I mostly stopped informing people of this about 10 years ago because it seems so cliche). The fact is )and I assume this is what JT is alluding to) the NAZI swastika is distinct - 45 degree axis, on a white circle surrounded by red - and even absent those details, context matters and has obvious connotations.

By the way, if your post consists of a C&P, you should credit the source lest it appear that you are trying to take credit for someone else's scholarship.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007453

There is a double standard displayed. RS isn't the first to have an "image" labeled offensive. Conservative magazines use a Taliban terrorist, a 9/11 image and convicted criminal OJ Simpson. No one complains.

? Time and Newsweek aren't/weren't Conservative magazines.

They are news magazines. Rolling Stone is supposed to be an entertainment magazine, which is why folks are outraged.

People are outraged because "Rolling Stone is supposed to be an entertainment magazine"? That's a new one.

That magazine has done a LOT of journalism that wasn't just about entertainment, some of it rather important and of a high standard. As a hint for recent example, I will offer you a name:

McChrystal. Look it up if you (surprisingly) don't know.

I'm not aware of anyone objecting to that article because Rolling Stone was the wrong kind of magazine. The New York Times (in 2010) said that story, "was just the latest in a string of articles resonating in the nation’s corridors of power." They also said, in the same article about that magazine's solid record of investigative journalism, that RS "has attracted enormous attention for its political coverage".

By the way, it has been rather tough at times on the current administration and Wenner has said that is because of disappointment with the president. Are you outraged because of your imagined belief that RS has to stick to entertainment?

Despite being a big fan of the place, threads like this always make me think that as a country, you blokes have some pretty farked up and dysfunctional undercurrents.

I am FAR from being a self-loathing anti-American American (such people exist, LOTS of them) and I think the US is mostly a great place with a lot of good to be said about it...I also think that outsiders very often are very unfair and inaccurate in their judgements of the place and their pronouncements about it...

But I think your post is very astute: both as a description of this thread (and others) and what it signifies.

How many people have actually read the article? Anyone?

Apparently it is unflattering and does not paint him as a hero. The article examines the circumstances of how he became involved in the act of violence. The picture has been circulating for quite some time. There are dozens of websites set up proclaiming his "innocence". How better to respond to such hero worship than to target those who would portray him as a sensitive lad and reveal his actual background and behaviour?

Kids his age post hundreds of pictures and the use of the photo is a reflection of the Rolling Stone readership. The people who say they will boycott the magazine would not read it anyway, even if the Osmonds were on the cover.

By all accounts he was a rather nice guy and was popular. How does a sensitive looking kid like that become a mass murderer? The background information in the story is going to shock some people, most likely because they won't want to read about a nasty family that encouraged violence, or the community that facilitated a brutal act of cruelty. Sometimes, to better understand a killer we must be able to see the killer and learn that the outward appearance is not reflective of the inside.

I suggest that the critics read the article and then comment.

It's not about the content if the article. It's about having a glamour shot on the front cover. This is probably one of the highlights of this insignificant soul's existence. He does not deserve any highlights.

Why not use a picture of him with blood all over himself after he was extracted from the boat and arrested.

In the grand scheme of things it is not important to me, you or anyone on here. But it ain't always about you.

This is about grieving families and a slew of people that are now disabled and have had their lives completely altered being deeply offended and sending the wrong message to other insignificant souls looking for a way to gain significance.

A lot of the criticism, I understand, IS about the (imagined) content of the article or even it's very existence. Some - perhaps rightly, in my view - complain about the type of photo used but many object to him being on the cover at all.

Even on this thread, a minority of the objections were about the aesthetics of the cover and amongst other complaints about the article we even had a poster say:

"If RS had any brains they'd straight out apologize instead of standing by this horrendous decision that they themselves initiated. So now I have learned that Rolling Stone zine hasn't any brains, sensibilities, sensitivities. All they see is the guy as a sexpot with no named girlfriends and a sweet guy by the accounts of the buddies they chose to interview.

Nothing about the horrors he committed and his self-satisfaction at what he did."

Which of course, said poster stated without ever reading the article or even about its content.

*And anyone who is worried about giving this guy attention he doesn't deserve, encouraging other miscreants, or hurting victims and their families...well, we'll have to completely rethink journalism in a massive way if we want make those worthy concerns of paramount importance.

One thing I have learned from ThaiVisa is that even though we speak English, the British, the Australians and the Americans are nothing at all alike. I know what Thailand is like, but most of my knowledge of British and Australian people is from this website. (I have been to England once to visit a Thai friend).

Are you serious?

Classic.

This is a most vacuous manifestation of the progressives tendency to search for moral relativism under any stone, rolling or not. The murderer represents a totalitarian ideology that seeks to usurp western democracy, which would presumably curtail music and youth culture in general, which gives Rolling stone it's raison d'etre. Saddest of all is the fact that had Dzorkhar Tsarnaev not been photogenic then his photo would have never made the front cover.

It's none of those things. If anything the opposite. There exists in the world a stone-age ideology that would be ridiculous if, in this era of increasing destructive power, it weren't so dangerous. From time to time it infects individuals more virulently than usual, with (literally) explosive results. Liberal thinkers, aghast at prospect of acknowledging the role religious beliefs play in this, search for explanations everywhere. Perhaps the true cause is poverty. Or some political grievance. Or anything that allows them to avoid any implicit criticism of religion - no matter how slight. Because if they do criticise religion - any religion - then they're stuck. They either admit that their conservative enemies are correct and Christianity is superior to at least some other religions in some ways, or that the whole thing is bullshit and we should stop dogmatically swallowing the "wisdom" of books written by people who literally knew too little about the world to keep faeces out of their food.

But this story knocks another chink in that world view. This good-looking young man had an American upbringing no different from thousands of others. No indication of mental illness (except in the broadest sense: to do what he did some part of his brain must be malfunctioning). And he ended up destroying his own and several other lives for no rational reason. A terrorist.

This is something worth investigating. A phenoma worth trying to explain. And honestly, I'd expect the folks at Rolling Stone to do a better job of it than most.

It's a very good post even I'm less sure I'd agree with all of it.

I'm almost asleep so for the moment I'll just say this:

"This good-looking young man had an American upbringing no different from thousands of others."

Not at all sure this is true.

Okay, those who see nothing wrong with the cover, lets pursue this to it's next logical conclusion. How is this mock up cover different to the actual one?

How is it different?

1). He doesn't look glamorous.

2) The photo is stark reminder of the brutality of his crime.

3) The real cover didn't have that stupid blurb on the cover which trivializes the event and negates any attempt at journalism.