always had a “call to arms” with a defined enemy or group that was to be protected.  Who is the enemy in this diary against whom we are called to give defense?  And racist groups are hardly the only sort of organizations that use fear to try and recruit.  Read any environmentalist tract for an obvious example.  It’s not a tactic unique to racists by any means.  To say “fearmongering” would be accurate, but to use “race war kook” says to me that you are trying to paint the diarist with the usual leftist smear.

Yes. I read the whole thing.

You apparently do not see the pessimism that permeates this entire piece. The part you highlight in your own comments might as well have been written by Eeyore, and reinforces the passages where TPP asks “Do you see a clear dividing line that could destroy our nation?  Will we descend into chaos and anarchy? Will the perfect storm grow totally, irrevocably out of control?  Will the American people allow the news media to create expectations that will soon morph into a self fulfilling prophecy?  Can’t you just feel it coming?”

I’ve made a good study of racist groups back in the 80s and 90s, and they use this exact same phrasing in their recruiting literature. This prompted my “race war kook” comment, which you should note I said he sounded like, not was. Since you perceive a “call for peace” in his message, maybe you can perceive the distinction between saying someone sounds like a race war kook and saying he is one.

How do you defend that?  You just saw a posting on Colorado Peak Politics and probably didn’t bother reading the whole thing.  After all, you already know what we conservatives think about the whole Zimmerman/Martin affair.  Why bother reading it and going to the trouble of thinking?

“Bigotry” is currently the exclusive domain of the social conservative.

Anyway, see my response to TPP above, and see how well I fit in the box you’d love to shove me into.

See? Your presumption that I must believe he’s guilty is a reflection of the emotional investment you’ve placed on this issue.

All I ever wanted was to see the guy be arrested. In Florida, it’s de rigeuer to let the perp off if the victim is black. You DO recall that they didn’t even bother trying to inform his family at first, right?

So, now it’s going before a jury. At this point, I’m perfectly satisfied. Nice try.

But there is a third highly unlikely possibility, really little more than a hope; that common sense will prevail.  That we the people, united, will see through the smoke screen and reaffirm our individual and collective commitment to the ideals of equal justice for all, but most importantly justice for the individual and for humanity.  The justice that is so necessary that it is the cornerstone of civilization.  That which makes it possible for us to live together in peace.

Yes the lead up to this in the previous paragraph is a bit overwrought, I think TPP is guilty of going to the extreme in “what if”, but you seem to have overlooked the second part of the paragraph you first quote,

If there is an acquittal, the created expectation is that there will be riots, similar to what happened in 1992 and there will be looting and righteous indignation.

He lays out both sides equally,  which is, of course, the part you can’t stand.  You have totally lost the ability to see both sides Ari.  You have descended into abject bigotry, as have most of those who call themselves Polsters.  You can’t converse, you only snipe with empty vitriol, you can no longer write anything with content, when faced with a conservative viewpoint.  What you are now, compared to what you used to be, is why I left Pols, and why I won’t be coming back.

His next to last paragraph,

Is peace what we want?

Well, is it?

Amen

Aristotle

Are you absolutely sure Zimmerman is guilty?  Try reading what is written instead of looking for opportunities to push your obviously misguided agenda.  Isn’t it apparent that Zimmerman wants a trial?  Why do you suppose the judge allowed bail?  

My commentary was about the reaction of people like you and half of those people will be disappointed or perhaps gleeful and some will even be violent which has already happened.  The only thing that is certain is that you believe your justice is the only justice.  And you decide innocence or guilt by the color of a person’s skin.  And you read what you want to read.  

Seems like it’ll be less of a political issue and more of a societal/social/race issue. A lot of people will be upset regardless of the outcome.

My issue with this and the coverage high-profile cases like this recieve is that they are presented with the perspective of the presumption of guilt or innocence before things are close to finalized. There was a story on MSN today or yesterday about two Jewish kids in Baltimore who beat up a black kid. The article stated authoritatively what happened, but didn’t offer the source (i.e. witness accounts, victim account, perpetrator account, etc).

It’s not even just cases like this, Elizabeth Smart, JonBenet Ramsey, et al. The media always has a narrative about what definitely happened even though it’s never quite as black/white (no pun intended) as they present it to be. But as the adage goes, they have papers to sell.  

So you’re certain Zimmerman is innocent? I thought you guys wanted “all the facts to come out.” Where better to do that then at trial?

You sound like one of those race war kooks.