Why was I not notified?

This video exists.  How was I not invited to be in the chorus at least?

One Term More – with subtitles from One Term More on Vimeo.

  • Kulgur

    Lovely video, but I think that they made a mistake.
    (Watch the video before reading this comment, I’m going to spoil something).

    The most powerful image in that video, is the picture of Treyvon Martin and the talk of “Lock and Loading” – an image that appears at 1:30 in a 6-minute video. They don’t try to top that, and that’s early for a video to peak.

    In related news, I still find it frightening that, in a supposedly civilized democracy, one of the most popular parties has “The right to shoot unarmed children” as one of their most important campaign promises.

  • Don Gwinn

    You think so? I found “laws that let ‘em stand their ground” pretty weak . . . I never knew that it was bad to stand your ground. The image of Trayvon Martin is only a powerful argument against so-called “Stand Your Ground” laws if you think such a law was involved in that case, but none were. That case hinges on a simple claim of self-defense. Either Martin was attacked, defended himself, and was murdered by his attacker, or Martin attacked and was killed in self-defense. Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law doesn’t bear on the case and isn’t part of the defense, though it was mentioned a lot early on. Moreover, George Zimmerman’s legal due process has only begun; if we’re ever going to find out what really happened that night, we haven’t yet, but the evidence that Martin was attacked and murdered is not exactly overwhelming.

    “In related news, I still find it frightening that, in a supposedly civilized democracy, one of the most popular parties has “The right to shoot unarmed children” as one of their most important campaign promises.”
    I find it laughable that you think you can pass off the right to self-defense as “the right to shoot unarmed children” and no one will call you on it. That’s as silly as a Zimmerman supporter decrying the “right to attack older men at night with impunity.” Self-defense law has been based on reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm to oneself or another since long before you or I were born. “Stand your ground” laws did not change that doctrine. They only changed the requirement (in some states) that a citizen attacked in some places was required to attempt to retreat before meeting force with force. That’s it. Such a “duty to retreat” is irrelevant in the Martin case. Either Zimmerman is telling the truth, in which case he was down and unable to retreat when he fired, or he’s lying, in which case the lack of a duty to retreat makes no difference and he’s guilty. You don’t know any more than anyone else about which of those conditions apply.

    • Kulgur

      You are right. The facts are enough on their own, and I should have checked mine before writing my comment. I’m not as up to date on the case as I thought I was, and should have expressed myself differently.

    • John Horstman

      Bullshit. Any claim to self-defense goes out the windows after you’ve been stalking someone for blocks. Zimmerman stalked and shot an unarmed teenager. What’s really frightening is that, while that is not in dispute (we heard him discussing his stalking with a 911 dispatcher while he was fucking doing it), the case was at all controversial, and that Zimmerman wasn’t immediately charged. The only person who could possibly have a claim to self defense is Martin; it really doesn’t matter if he ‘attacked’ Zimmerman after Zimmerman left his vehicle to confront Martin, because if he did, it was self-defense on his part.

      Also, the Stand Your Ground law absolutely played a part; it was cited by the police as the reason they didn’t detain or charge Zimmerman after the initial questioning. You’re eliding context on both these counts in order to radically change the narrative.

  • Don Gwinn

    The images of Westboro Baptist Church members holding up “GOD HATES FAGS” signs are problematic, too. I get that the GOP as a national party is worse on gay rights than the Democrats are today, but they don’t own the issue entirely and they certainly don’t claim the Westboro/Phelps clan.

    Meh. I don’t know why I’m arguing about this. It’s obviously not intended to convince anyone who’s not already convinced, just a bit of fun for some true believers.

    • Makoto

      I agree, the GOP doesn’t claim the Phelps clan as their own. The main difference I see is that the Phelps clan is showing up with signs about their beliefs, and the GOP is putting up laws about theirs, but the beliefs still seem to exclude gay rights (among other things). If anything, I’m more worried about those in government with those beliefs.. but you have to admit, a picture of a senator at their seat marking a vote isn’t as striking as a Phelps member with a sign in order to show what they’re fighting for.

  • http://reasonableconversation.wordpress.com Kaoru Negisa

    You see, I think you could have taken the Marius parody lines pretty damn well.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X