Saturday, November 3, 2012

A Perception of the Principle of Presidential Personality and Presence

Excuse the sprawling and generic nature of this post. This was just more about having something to say.

So…I write this in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, which has left a significant portion of New York City damaged. There are huge flooded areas in Long Island City and downtown Manhattan. At least 100 houses have been damaged by fires in Breezy Point, Queens. There are power outages across the city, in some places purposely put in place by Con Edison, the reasoning for which I don’t fully understand just yet. 35 is the number of lives I remember reading that Sandy has claimed.
The vote for the President of the United States is on November 6th (next Tuesday). I *think I* have faith in how Obama will politicize (it will definitely be politicized) this tragedy in a good way. Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, a stalwart conservative who has promoted Mitt Romney hardcore over the course of his campaign, has already semi-turned over a new leaf and praised Obama and the F.ederal E.mergency M.anagement A.ssistance for helping out with the disaster of Hurricane Sandy, especially in his hometown of New Jersey. Romney, however, has leapt back into his American Civil War state-of-mind and said that the individual American states should be in charge of doing preparation and clean-up for disasters that hit them.
However, I’m here to talk about a perception of the Presidential debates. Over the past 6 weeks, the United States has aired their ceremonial 4. The candidates sit on stage as a moderator, usually a T.V. host or journalist of some sort who does not have a sharply-defined political bias, asks them questions about important national and international issues.
After the first debate, the general public opinion is that Obama lost due to Romney’s aggressive lying and refusal to admit the truth about his views on taxing the middle class, where he’ll get the money to fill our deficit, and actually caring about healthcare for old people. The second one centered on the Vice Presidential debate, where Democrat Joe Biden laughed and smiled his way through Republican Paul Ryan’s corporate-bought, plastered-on smile and usual conservative lies on the facts. The third one was a return to Obama and Romney, who were asked questions by a group of undecided voters. Obama was trained to show courage, to say what he had to say, and to point out what kind of scumbag Romney is. The 4th one was much quieter, with Obama civilly attacking Romney and Romney agreeing to all of Obama’s views, which his voter base hated.
But one thing began to occur to me as these debates happened and Lawrence O’Donnell, a T.V. host on the cable channel MSNBC had explained it best.
We watch these debates and make judgments about the Presidential candidates on them, but they are not the true depiction of how these guys will be as Commanders-In-Chief. These debates display them on stage, by themselves, trying to respond to relatively random questions with the best deliberate and clear answers they can give off the top of their heads, and debating with each other face-to-face to show the public the best image of themselves that they can. True, realistic governing is done in closed rooms, with other people around of varying opinions and fields talking to the President about how to act on certain issues. Governing is also shown in the records of the candidates’ responses to public problems in the past. It is not shown in debating with their opponents and constantly trying to sell themselves to the public.
I also have trouble with people, especially undecided voters, who judge the Presidential candidates based on their personalities. My boss told me that I should appreciate Romney because he’s a church-going man (Mormon) and a father who has given to various charities, amongst a list of other things I could give two shits about. Who fucking cares?
He is pro-Life, pro-private sector, an opponent of Obamacare, not a believer of bringing a definitive end to the Afghanistan War, and a believer that Russia is a “geopolitical” enemy….whatever that means. Of course, in the aspect of War, Obama has a bit of failure as well, having launched combat drones into India, Pakistan and other places that have claimed the lives of over 170 civilians, which include women and children. Additionally, this issue over putting a stop to American companies sending jobs to China has to be further delved into. Romney says he wants to stop it, but he used to (and probably still does) work with companies that have done just that.
Anyway, it is the political principles and social views of the candidates that determine if I vote for them. These are the things that will be governing us. Not the church-going, or their love for their family, or where there from or how they look. I mean, I guess one can say that those things will determine if a President is lying or not. But as I’ve mentioned, one can look into a candidate’s voting history when they were much further out of the spotlight for evidence of that. One can also say that President will act in the interests of his personal views, but that then makes them selfish and automatically invalid in my eyes. A good President acts in the interests and the general good of the nation.
My take is that people should sit down and ask themselves to identify and describe what things they believe will develop and further the nation (and the world, if your heart is big) to a brighter, freer and more educated status, and then see which President properly responds to those things in his ideas.
However, it’s a free, democratic country. People are free to vote for their candidates using whatever standards they like. People have both fully supported Obama as well as try to destroy his administration based on the fact that he’s black. But for this whole qualified-guy-in-the-White-House thing to work, it might help if you paid more attention to things that are relevant to the position at hand. 

Sunday, September 23, 2012

A Rising Tide of Unrest

Ok, so today’s post is simply a rant on something I’ve been thinking about. Pardon the attempt to connect things that have nothing to do with each other whatsoever.

The Wisconsin Sikh Temple shooting in August by a White Supremacist. 
The girl who tried to set her family on fire, also in August. 
The Empire State Building shooting, also in August. 
The Aurora, Colorado shooting at a movie theater showing “The Dark Knight Rises” in July.
The survivalist who hid in his self-built bunker after killing his own family in April. 
The little boy who tried to suicide bomb in embassy in Kabul. 
The 81-year-old man who is accused of killing an 82-year old cop in Kentucky in September.
The killing of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, as well as the riots in Syria and Australia due to the Anti-Muslim video spreading. 
I know there’s the general sense that politicizing these events unfairly cheapens them and objects them to political party spins to get people to vote for whomever. But political discourse cannot ignore them.
Despite the fact that all of these things happened for different, individual reasons in very, varying places, what strikes me is that they’ve happened unusually close together in time. 

I think it’s easy to associate these things with the economy not substantially doing any better, and therefore easy to blame Obama. It’s easy to somehow tie these things to the restlessness and anxiety of people not finding jobs and his so-called “not changing anything”. But if we’re to follow that thread, we’d have to begin asking why there is a lack of jobs, where can the jobs come from, how do we fund that, how much of this is he truly in control of, who is antagonizing him, etc. 

But I digress. 

The number of people on unemployment insurance, or “The Dole” as The Streets would call it, has gone down, but this could be because people have ran out of government assistance and given up on applying to jobs, losing the ability to support themselves as well as some sense of purpose in today’s world. Given that they are still human beings, with the desire to contribute or consume from the world around them and take care of themselves and no place to go and do either, a frustration begins to mount and recklessness colors their actions.

Even amongst the employed in many businesses, there’s a sense of dumbing down and aggressiveness. At my friend’s “office” job, everyone shouts everything across the office to everyone else, completely obliterating any kind of discretion or respect for personal business or opinions. When customers calls and they’re angry because of some sort of disservice or faulty product that’s been sold to them, their call is inconsiderably passed off to other employees, who probably in turn pass it to someone else. The employees there decide for themselves what they do and don’t feel like doing, despite the fact that this attitude is what’s pissed the customer off in the first place. Management does virtually nothing about this. As a matter of fact, I think there’s one managerial person that supports it a bit. Additionally, more than half of that office is made up of people with jail records or people without degrees, and if any given 2 people are not sleeping together, they’re fighting, either with raised voices or fists.

It’s almost seems as if, as bodies age and opportunities shrink, brains regress, and people began to act out in rage all over the place. And it continues to become worse and worse as the richer get richer and the poor get poorer. Perhaps the apocalypse is indeed on the horizon, although I haven’t seen any 7-headed dragons or the Lamb Christ in the sky with 7 seals……yet.

This greedy, capitalistic economic divide is going to continue to turn us into money-starved monsters, all stepping on each other’s heads in order to either keep our jobs or over the mentioning of a job opening. This is what happens when you put the majority of the country’s wealth and power into hands of a small few, especially when that few are business-owners in the private sector, where they have the ability to fire people for anything they want and pay people anything they want without regulation or policy that supports the workers. Plenty of money will come in, but only a miniscule piece of it will reach the people who deal with clients and do most of the work to keep the place afloat. And when workers complain that the labor most certainly does not match the pay, they are simply replaced with someone else much more desperate. And when the people become fed up with having to completely object themselves for a private business or corporate profit and not having any other options but still being hit with gas and electric bills and no way to feed their children or pay rent, naturally they began to entertain some sort of outlet, wrong or right, to strike back at all this.

We need to calm the fuck down. 
Help each other, now more than ever. 

The anger of these violent crimes is, if not directly representative, then symbolic of the growing unrest. But a strong nationwide community can give these people (even the boy in Kabul) something to rest on when circumstances in a particular individual’s life are terrible at any given time.
Additionally, a strong community will show these greedy business people that we don’t need them. They need us. As I’ve said in a previous post, we need to pass each other opportunities and information about jobs. Obama needs to continue putting an unwavering foot down on keeping unemployment funded, especially if the government agrees with letting private businesses be a strong portion of the economy. There should be places where communities can pool resources together and people can take what they need (with everyone being accountable so that it is clear that they need to take from the resources). Everybody has families and bills and the like to take care of. Rally against an empowered private sector that has the freedom to suck up the economy and leave droplets of paychecks for their workers.
This, of course, does not even begin to be a new idea, but it also is not yet a reality. I have no idea what the nature of those communities-within-a-nationwide-community should be. I suppose it’s different for every culture and geographic location. I just know that today’s focus should not be how to get ahead for yourself, but how everyone can get ahead for each other.

Saturday, August 18, 2012

Chick-Fil-A: Rights and Choices

Alas, business crashes with culture once more! I know I'm late on this subject......but f&*k you.

A particular issue concerning an American business has come up that presented an interesting mixup of people’s rights and choices, both of which end up indicating that even the simplest decisions in your life are inescapably political. Nifty bit of an addition to your perspective.

The business (and issue) in question is Chick-Fil-A, a more-than-50-year-old American fast food chain founded by Samuel Truett Cathy, a Southern Baptist World War II veteran who found out how to fry chicken as fast as McDonald’s fries their hamburgers.

He started his business serving turbo-fried chicken next door to a Ford plant, the workers of which he served all the time. As his success grew, so did his family, starting in 1953 with Dan Cathy and then with two other children who aren’t important. Dan took over running the business in 2001, and Chick-Fil-A continued to offer variations of chicken platters and breakfasts at moderately low prices. Stores have opened up in a bunch of new places. And now Dan’s 2 sons, Andrew and Ross, work at Chick-Fil-A as well. It’s a family-owned business, whose policy is that they treat every person, regardless of gender, religion, age, race or sexual orientation, equally. Yes, sexual orientation……which is interesting because, while they’ve written into the employee handbook that they give a solid smile and “thank you for buying at Chick-Fil-A” to their gay customers, they’ve been funding political groups that work to end homosexuality with the profits from their Chicken Biscuits.

As far back as January 2011, during the battle for Proposition 9 in California, it’s come out that Chick-Fil-A has been giving money to WinShape Foundation, a charitable organization made by S. Truett Cathy and run by his family…which is ok. However, WinShape has been giving millions to political organizations like Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family and even the Eagle Forum, who is working on having gays be legally considered criminals.

Why? This is Dan Cathy’s frame of thinking:

“There's some essential, emotional DNA that God intended for us to get from a Mother and a Dad, that were [observed/served(?)] over life as children, it's implicit in growing up, that we can only get from our Dad, we can only get from our Mother and we're to get it in a whole, dynamic environment where they're interrelating together to build the stability and the self-esteem that God wants us to have to get through our teenage years. Now when we don't have one side or the other, you know, I just have to tell ya, I think we're, you, we're just emotionally handicapped. It doesn't mean we can't survive and have a happy life but it means that we, we're gonna have, you know, some odds stacked against us. And hopefully there could be somebody that intervenes, to help make that up for us.”

After this, he says a few sentences about how he wants to play the parent of his employees, and them not being from a household with a mother and father makes this difficult for him. And then he said the quote most famously floated around the internets in pertinence to this controversy:

"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is about,"


So, then…this is a fight against gay parents who will end up raising “emotionally handicapped” children that will be hard to hire at Chick-Fil-A due to the difficulty for Truett to be their make-pretend parent, although he holds out the hope that someone intervenes in this hypothetical child’s non-whole, non-dynamic environment.

Very good, Mr. Truett, very good.

Now, while I’ll agree that his beliefs are older than World War I and the LGBT community’s struggle is made this much harder by Chick-Fil-A supporting a bunch of narrow-minded social tyrants, the company and the founders are not without their rights to do these things. Which means that Chick-Fil-A is not the battleground for this issue. Others didn’t seem to think so, though.

Since this revelation of personal belief, both enormous support for and rebellion against the store has swollen up amongst ranks of all kinds, both of which I found to be kind of lopsided and stupid.

Starting from January of 2011, various colleges such as Indiana University and Northeastern University, and have signed petitions and submitted them to the Student Government saying that they did not want a Chick-Fil-A store on their campus. Now, this, I am completely ok with. The resistance was brought about democratically by the people who are paying to get an education and spend serious studying time at those institutions. Their money IS that school, so I think they can have a say as to whether Chick-Fil-A is setup there or not. However…..

In support, former governor of Arkansas and conservative politician Mike Huckabee began to build the concept of a Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day movement, and on August 1st, 2012, tons of people showed up at various locations of the chain and bought up a bunch of fried chicken. People in line at the drive-thrus would buy food for the people behind them. People were eating it for breakfast, lunch and dinner. All on account of Mike fucking Huckabee. I think someone should look into Huckabee’s bank accounts. He had to be promised some sort of payoff for inspiring people to buy up chicken by the mass amount from a man who is already the 799th richest person in world (799 is a large number, but keep in mind, that’s out of 7,000,000,000 people on this planet). It’s clearly evident by the anti-gay donations that financial support was never S. Truett or Dan Cathy’s problem, yet the conservative logic was to a give a spectacularly rich person even more money for expressing his opinion.

In rebellion, the gay community has setup August 3rd as a day to show up to Chick-Fil-A locations and have a “kiss off” in front of the chains. But this is just them forcing their beliefs on the store, and that is not the kind of image that the gay community needs right now.

Three different mayors, which includes Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a former White House Chief of Staff to Obama, have all announced that they will block any attempt by Chick-Fil-A to open their business in the mayors’ respective states, as Chick-Fil-A’s values do not reflect the values of those cities. I can definitely understand the drive to do that, but they cannot block a store’s receipt of a business permit because they do not agree with the store owner’s personal beliefs.

It was also reported that The Jim Henson Company, who are responsible for “The Muppets”, had a business partnership with Chick-Fil-A but then bowed out and donated money to G.L.A.A.D., an organization for the gay community. They were free to do this and I applaud them for it.

In response to the Mayors’ statements, The ACLU is pro-actively going to bat for Chick-Fil-A, because their thought is that if a government can stop a business from opening because of their anti-gay statements, they then have grounds to stop a business from running because of their pro-gay statements. I can understand this…but…I don’t know. Seeing the headlines “ACLU supports Chick-Fil-A’s right” doesn’t show me the indignation for the anti-gay funding, and it in turns makes me not want to be associated with what they’re about. Besides, I’m absolutely positive Chick-Fil-A doesn’t require the ACLU’s help.

A New York Times Article said: For many, it comes down to this: Eating at Chick-fil-A supports heterosexual marriage and religious freedom. Refusing to eat there supports same-sex marriage and equality. I find the rhetoric of the dilemma to actually be somewhat the opposite.

Eating there supports anti-gay legislation and bigotry. Refusing to eat there means you can just get a chicken sandwich somewhere else. This is simply about choice, not Chick-Fil-A’s rights or gay rights.

I could see if they were actively pursuing to ruin the daily lives of the LGBT community on the local level, throwing chicken sandwiches at customers and allowing employees to piss in the soda cups or something. Immediate action would then have to be taken. But they did say that, regardless of a person’s preferences or history, they treat every customer with respect.

I don’t think this is the sort of thing that deserves protest…..on either side. I don’t think gays going to Chick-Fil-As to make out is a good idea, and at the same time, conservative Christians families showing up to eat Cathy’s pressure-fryer cooked chicken sandwiches (especially on the advice of Mike dumb-ass Huckabee) is just stupidity beyond regular stupid.

Energy and work should be put towards ensuring that gays can marry just like everyone else, and that is fought for at the local and national political courts, where the organizations supported by Chick-Fil-A show up.

Some restaurant chain owned by an 8,000 year-old man with a family that has social ideas older than the first dinosaur isn’t the battlefield for this. Gays and gay-community supporters should ensure that they don’t eat there anymore (I personally think no one should, but whatever). I’m sure there are plenty of restaurants that will provide you with delicious chicken sandwiches without the anti-gay consequences.

Saturday, August 4, 2012

Coming Attractions

I totally have some stuff in the works. As I've said before, with this new job, it's been difficult for me to get back into arranging thoughts and ideas to publish into the cyberspaces. But I will return soon. Give me a little more time.

Saturday, April 21, 2012

Trayvon Martin: A Perspective on Objectivity

Note: I know this subject and all of what I’ve written here has appeared 10,000,000 times over in national media already, but 1) I found it important that I state somewhere my opinion on the matter thus far and 2) I refuse to assume that all of the random people who may come across this blog are familiar with the case.

What most comes to my attention about public opinion concerning the murder of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman is this sentiment of “let’s wait until we know all the facts before we make a judgment” Now, objectively this is fine. In all cases, no one should be rushing to any conclusion until there is a clear path of evidence leading to it. But…..what new possible piece of evidence will turn up that can show that Zimmerman did not make a terrible, terrible judgment call? So far none that I can see. I would love to be able to say that I’m being objective about this, but George Zimmerman’s guilt appears way too clearly in order for me to make that claim. Wait……unfamiliar with the case, you say? Well, let me brief you:

On the raining night of February 26th, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in The Retreat at Twin Lakes in Sanford, Florida, 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, an African-American high school student, was returning to his father’s girlfriend’s house to watch the NBA All-Star Game with a group of tremendous Weapons of Mass Destruction such as: a bag of Skittles (an oddly vibrant confection for its attachment to such an event), a can of Arizona Iced Tea, and an ongoing conversation with one of his 16-year-old friends on the phone.
Around this time, armed, self-appointed Neighborhood Watch Captain George Zimmerman, 28 years of age, was cruising by at some distance in his vehicle when he spotted Martin and thought he was “suspicious” because he was “wearing a hooded sweatshirt and walking slowly in the rain”.
Mr. Zimmerman contacted a dispatcher at a non-emergency police number about his “observation”, since he knew of a small history of break-ins in this area. Trayvon Martin reportedly appeared to be up to no good and “on drugs or somethin’”
Martin then noticed Zimmerman in his car and came closer to check him out. I have to guess Trayvon’s analysis of what he saw was not good.
Because he then ran off in between the surrounding suburban homes and Zimmerman, still on his cell phone with the dispatcher, got out of his car to chase him.
Upon hearing the wind hit the speaker of the phone (I think), the following exchange happened:

911 dispatcher:
Are you following him?


911 dispatcher:
OK. We don’t need you to do that.


Meanwhile, Martin, who is still on the phone with his own friend, purportedly told her that he was being followed and was trying to escape.

Here’s one of the many points where the stories differ:
Martin’s phone friend later testified that Martin had got away, when Zimmerman caught up to him again. Martin asked him why he was following him. Zimmerman asked him what he was doing there. There was a scuffle and the phone call was ended.

According to Zimmerman, Trayvon had escaped. Zimmerman returned to his car when he was suddenly confronted by the “suspect” and asked “Is there a problem?”. Zimmerman then attempted to reach for his phone. Trayvon initiated a fight in which the teenager, around 6 feet tall and 160 lbs, punched Zimmerman, 5’7” - 5’9” and 200 - 225 lbs., knocked him to the ground and began beating his head on the pavement. Zimmerman began reacting in self-defense.

Either way, at the end of this, George Zimmerman produced a 9mm handgun and shot Trayvon Martin once in the chest.

Since a clear path of evidence detailing what really happened does not exist, the media has resulted in a campaign of two things:
Speculation of the Variables
  • Numerous people in the neighborhood called the police to report the sounds of screaming, scuffling and the gunshot when it happened. But no one knows who was screaming. Trayvon’s mother said it was her son, and Zimmerman (as well as friends of his) is saying it was him.
  • There’s a witness who says he saw a person in a red shirt (Zimmerman) on the floor being beat up, and when he went upstairs to report it, Trayvon Martin was on the ground. There’s also a kid who, walking his dog at the time, told the police he saw someone with a red shirt (Zimmerman) on the floor.
  • When Martin was shot, narcotics cops showed up on the scene instead of homicide…for some reason. The mother of the boy with the dog mentioned above says that the police pressured him to say that he saw the person in a red shirt on the floor. In addition, they asked him for his testimony five days after the incident happened and his memory naturally began to compromise itself. Another witness, a teacher, reported to the police that she heard the teen cry, and the cops corrected her saying that it was Zimmerman. The case was fresh, and they had already began to attempt to manipulate witnesses’ stories to their own end.
  • Fresh from killing an unarmed, solitary high school student, Zimmerman was arrested, brought into the police station……and then released. That night. Yes, just like that. He told cops he shot Trayvon Martin in self-defense, aligning himself with the “Stand-Your-Ground” law which states that a person can use deadly force if they REASONABLY believe it is NECESSARY to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm. Cops in Florida just up and trusted that Zimmerman’s reasoning was correct. So they let him go.

After that, the media has begun Profiling The Victim and The Perpetrator:
Trayvon Martin was a High School Student in Miami, living with his mother and older brother. He was visiting his father and his father’s fiancĂ©e on the night of his death. His history includes him being caught with women’s jewelry in his backpack by school police last October (jewelry that wasn’t claimed to be missing by anyone) and being suspended from school because he was caught with a baggie that had traces of marijuana in it. He was also busted for scrawling “W.T.F.” with some friends of his on a school locker. He’s gotten in trouble for truancy and tardiness.
So, clearly: stolen jewelry, skipping school, weed, and amateur graffiti now composes the portrait of an insane bomb-plotting Anarchic terrorist……instead of an immature boy.

A white supremacist hacker also claimed to have hacked into Trayvon Martin’s e-mail, and spread photos across the web of him with his middle fingers up, pants extremely sagged, and flashing his gold teeth, in attempt to lend some criminal or misfit credence to Martin’s name. Of course, the photos are not of him, but of some other teenager with the same name. And of course, anyone taking the claims of a White Supremacist seriously should probably shoot themselves.

Talk Show Host and right-wing commentator Geraldo Rivera said that the shooting was Trayvon Martin’s fault because Rivera thought “the hoodie is as much responsible for Trayvon Martin’s death as George Zimmerman was.” He purportedly does not allow his own children to wear hoodies because “there is no rehabilitating the hoodie…unless it’s raining out or you’re at a track meet, leave the hoodie home.” In addition to my personal offense at this since I always wear a hoodie when it’s cold or raining out and I’m of much darker complexion than Trayvon Martin, I think it’s fun to note that it was raining the night Trayvon Martin was killed. So then, anyone listening to Geraldo Rivera should also conclude that their life has no value.

What has been assembled on his side of things is that he was walking home when he began being followed by a strange man. He went over to get a clearer look at his possible stalker (he probably first thought it was someone he knew) and then ran away. When Zimmerman caught up with him, Trayvon asked why he was being followed, and Zimmerman began to interrogate him out of the imaginary authority in his head that was telling him he could do such a thing. The next thing you know, they’re scuffling. I mean, I imagine that if you were a boy walking home at night and being stalked by some fat, presumably white guy in a car who runs up to you and starts questioning without identifying yourself, your defenses would go up as well. Presuming you’re aware the history of crimes against innocent minorities by lawkeepers. And you’re, you know, a minority.

28-year old George Zimmerman, half Peruvian and half white, lived in The Retreat at Twin Lakes with his wife. He is an ex insurance underwriter who was pursuing an Associate’s Degree in General Studies at Seminole State College while working as a Neighborhood Watch Captain. He’s been described as having a “Jekyll and Hyde” personality, due to his history of violent outbursts. 7 years ago, working as a security guard, he responded to a drunken woman’s disorderly conduct by “picking her up and throwing her”. He was subsequently fired. In July of 2005, Zimmerman was arrested on charges of resisting arrest against a police officer with assault and battery. A month later, his ex-wife filed an Order of Protection against him, which included that he was not allowed to own a firearm, although this was later repealed. His friends and family swear that he’s not a racist, but before this incident, Zimmerman purportedly had a long record of reporting young minorities as suspicious to the police.
So, yes: after assaulting a police officer, being fired from security, being ordered by the courts to stay away from his ex-wife, being forbidden to own a gun, and having racial paranoia, it makes perfect sense to let this man get a hold of a Kel Tec PF-9 and let him administer justice according to his own judgment.

Zimmerman says Martin approached him when he was trying to get back into his car, punched him and began slamming his head on the floor, resulting in a bleeding head and a broken nose. A video taking place half an hour after the altercation showed Mr. Zimmerman handcuffedat the police station with no bruises of any kind on his head or face. Various reports later said that they could make out what might have been some slight bruising, but no bandages. At the police station, a lead homicide investigator listened to George Zimmerman tell his side of the story and thought he was full of shit. So he tried to file charges of manslaughter against him, but the State Attorney’s office overruled this and said there was no evidence to go against Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense. When they brought him in, they didn’t even bother to take a drug or alcohol test, so Zimmerman could’ve been blasted sky high on P.C.P. and Jamaican White Rum for all they knew and no one would’ve caught this.

What new piece of evidence can pop up that will turn this against Trayvon Martin? What facts can turn Zimmerman’s guilt around? Did Trayvon throw an AK-47 down the sewer before Zimmerman approached him? Did Trayvon begin ninja-star throwing the Skittles at the Watch Captain, prompting Zimmerman him to defend himself from death-by-candy? Was the Iced Tea really radioactive waste being sold to North Korea for a new global Communist uprising? Is Trayvon Martin the Son of Sam?

You can imagine the various pieces of public reaction that has sprouted thus far: there have been numerous rallies across the nation pushing for justice for Trayvon Martin, some of which have been attended by Trayvon Martin’s parents. Famous basketball players and Harvard students have taken photos of themselves wearing hoodies in support of him. Famous film director Spike Lee (who, ironically, my next post will be about) tweeted the address that he thought Zimmerman might’ve been hiding at, but he was wrong and the family living there was forced to move. He later apologized. Black Nationalist political group The Black Panthers put a $10,000 bounty out for Zimmerman’s capture, while White Nationalist political group the National Socialist Movement went down to the area of the crime to make sure no white people were hurt in any upcoming riots. In all this, I sincerely hope George Zimmerman is brought to justice, if not because his terrible judgment has caused an innocent young person to die, but because it will set some sort of standard for cops in the future thinking they can freely make up shoddy reasons to kill unarmed teenagers and then execute. This case can be one step towards preserving some sort of stability or giving the police another piece of authoritarian rule. In the case of the latter, I absolutely expect riots. Meanwhile, I shall leave you with this creative Malcolm X vs. Martin Luther King Jr. take on the subject:

Saturday, March 31, 2012

Be back in a week or so...

You know the usual. I may take off for a long period of time, but this blog will not die!........unless it's being transferred to another place or something. Got 2 subjects I want to cover. Will be back soon.