Saturday, September 28, 2013
Thursday, September 26, 2013
George Zimmerman’s Wife Now ‘Doubts’ his Innocence (Watch)
*Shellie Zimmerman told the "Today" show's Matt Lauer that she's unsure of what exactly happened when her estranged husband, George Zimmerman encountered an unarmed Trayvon Martin on the night of February 26, 2012.
"This person that I'm married to that I'm divorcing, I've kind of realized now that I don't know him," she told Matt Lauer on Thursday. "And I really don't know what he's capable of."
She's also unsure it was self-defense.
"I'm
conflicted on that," she said. "I believe the evidence, but this
revelation in my life has really helped me to take the blinders off."
Shellie Zimmerman says she doesn't believe her husband profiled Martin, who was black.
Since the trial, she says her husband treated her like she's "disposable" and went on a "victory tour" without her.
Earlier
this month, the two were involved in an altercation at her central
Florida home. Since then, she's been unable to serve him with divorce
papers because she doesn't know where he is. READ MORE WATCH VIDEO
Monday, September 23, 2013
History: THE SHORT VERSION
The person or persons involved in formulating this idea need to be fired and removed from gov't entirely as quickly as possible. The fact is that this nations Founding Fathers were ahead of their times in granting the people the bill of rights etc., but it is the ultimate evolution of government, as a result of social progress.
In prehistoric times, tribal cohesion was discovered to be an effective way to distribute the tasks and thus efficiently save energy needed for the species survival. Eventually these tribes grew larger and the leadership found room to horde resources for themselves, rather than equitably redistribute them. This hording would continue until the efficiency of the tribes energy management became intolerable for most and the tribal community would break down.
Next came the idea of codified laws, that allowed individuals to determine how energy should be appropriated for the efficient benefit of society. Though these models were terribly flawed, they did represent an advancement over the tribal structure. Because the "rule by law" allowed for the creation by law, of the "medium of exchange", which allowed for the increasingly efficient distribution of work. The new exchange mediums meant that artist no longer had to tend fields or herd sheep, thinkers and investigators into any all fields of inquiry could sustain themselves, just as well as those who had labored in the fields. Public works could be commissioned by the gov't on the peoples behalf for the benefit of all and paid for by laying taxes.
Obviously, those who wrote the laws, included in them their own prejudices and designs about their social preferences and incorporated them into societies "order". Of course, with fewer people able to watch these esoteric ministrations, room for inequitable hording of assets grew large, while the preferential ramification of laws being written, ultimately created unmanageable inequities that impacted large portions of societies ability to survive. When this grew to untenable proportions, and the powers that be decided they would not back down for various reasons, the social order dissolved and had to be rebuilt from scratch.
This sequence has repeated itself throughout the annuls of human history. This is what we are seeing once again. There is no historical evidence that any government can survive the loss of the confidence of it's own people, yet "the powers that be" still hope against hope, or remain willfully ignorant of this fact, in order to preserve the status quo that supports them in their positions of power. For a time they can turn the armies, meant to ensure a defense against outsiders, against the very people who make up those armies. But, in the end it turns out to be a fools errand.
The danger for all at this stage in history, where there is so much reliance on technological infrastructure, is; will gov't transition or will it be pushed to the breaking point? Will gov't transition to a more equitable distribution of wealth that represents the work, of the human energy that created it, or will those in power attempt to continue to horde power and the spoils of the wealth it creates for themselves? Will they continue to do so until so much confidence in government is lost that the systems break?
We have the tools to cause government to transition away from highly centralized and inequitable distributions of power and wealth, but it takes a great deal of effort to apply the needed pressure incrementally. Of course, history shows that, if the wherewithal cannot be found to push for the necessary transitions, the system will eventually break down and we'll have to start from scratch again.
---
In prehistoric times, tribal cohesion was discovered to be an effective way to distribute the tasks and thus efficiently save energy needed for the species survival. Eventually these tribes grew larger and the leadership found room to horde resources for themselves, rather than equitably redistribute them. This hording would continue until the efficiency of the tribes energy management became intolerable for most and the tribal community would break down.
Next came the idea of codified laws, that allowed individuals to determine how energy should be appropriated for the efficient benefit of society. Though these models were terribly flawed, they did represent an advancement over the tribal structure. Because the "rule by law" allowed for the creation by law, of the "medium of exchange", which allowed for the increasingly efficient distribution of work. The new exchange mediums meant that artist no longer had to tend fields or herd sheep, thinkers and investigators into any all fields of inquiry could sustain themselves, just as well as those who had labored in the fields. Public works could be commissioned by the gov't on the peoples behalf for the benefit of all and paid for by laying taxes.
Obviously, those who wrote the laws, included in them their own prejudices and designs about their social preferences and incorporated them into societies "order". Of course, with fewer people able to watch these esoteric ministrations, room for inequitable hording of assets grew large, while the preferential ramification of laws being written, ultimately created unmanageable inequities that impacted large portions of societies ability to survive. When this grew to untenable proportions, and the powers that be decided they would not back down for various reasons, the social order dissolved and had to be rebuilt from scratch.
This sequence has repeated itself throughout the annuls of human history. This is what we are seeing once again. There is no historical evidence that any government can survive the loss of the confidence of it's own people, yet "the powers that be" still hope against hope, or remain willfully ignorant of this fact, in order to preserve the status quo that supports them in their positions of power. For a time they can turn the armies, meant to ensure a defense against outsiders, against the very people who make up those armies. But, in the end it turns out to be a fools errand.
The danger for all at this stage in history, where there is so much reliance on technological infrastructure, is; will gov't transition or will it be pushed to the breaking point? Will gov't transition to a more equitable distribution of wealth that represents the work, of the human energy that created it, or will those in power attempt to continue to horde power and the spoils of the wealth it creates for themselves? Will they continue to do so until so much confidence in government is lost that the systems break?
We have the tools to cause government to transition away from highly centralized and inequitable distributions of power and wealth, but it takes a great deal of effort to apply the needed pressure incrementally. Of course, history shows that, if the wherewithal cannot be found to push for the necessary transitions, the system will eventually break down and we'll have to start from scratch again.
---
Sunday, September 22, 2013
shannoninmiami commented on Theories: Trayvon Martin and the 3 Stooges.
shannoninmiami commented on Theories: Trayvon Martin and the 3 Stooges.
@Lonnie,
i gotta address your latest comment 1st because i’ve been screaming
this since i read the statues on stalking! and this isn’t even touching
on the self defense laws yet. but your right that bitch had NO right to
use the deadly force at all! period! he is a flat out murderer!
784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.—
(1) As used in this section, the term:
*(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
*(b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose. The term does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or other organized protests.
*(c) “Credible threat” means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of the person making the threat is not a bar to prosecution under this section.
*(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
*(b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose. The term does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or other organized protests.
*(c) “Credible threat” means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of the person making the threat is not a bar to prosecution under this section.
George Zimmerman Divorce on Hold; He Can’t be Found to be Served
Yes, what we're trying to say is that the divorce proceedings are on hold because the Zman's gone ghost.
The divorce can't move forward until George is served with papers, but Shellie's lawyer tells TMZ, George has gone underground. READ MORE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)