Trayvon Martin Beat his Killer

George Zimmerman

George Zimmerman

The circumstances surrounding the death of teenager Trayvon Martin on that dark and rainy night, February 26th in Sanford, Florida became clearer yesterday. The doctor for the man who shot Martin released the medical records of his examination of George Zimmerman the day after the shooting. Also autopsy records of the black teenager were released. In both reports injuries suffered by the two people were consistent with Zimmerman’s story that he shot and killed Martin in self-defense. If true the hysterics generated over this case may prove to be one more sad case of racism being alleged and loudly expressed but not supported by the preponderance of the evidence.

Trayvon Martin Protest - Sanford

Trayvon Martin Protest – Sanford (Photo credit: werthmedia)

It maddens me because I love my kids, my black kids, and I want the real racism they may face in their lives to be taken seriously when they and I stand up to it. Too much “crying wolf” from people who have other motivations beyond justice for poor young Trayvon. The old Aesop fable, as shown in this video, teaches us you can only falsely claim racism so-many times before people stop listening.

According to Matt Gutman of ABC News the doctor’s report on Zimmerman showed Zimmerman to have had two black eyes, two cuts on the back of his head, bruising in the upper lip and cheek, lower back pain and a “closed fracture” of his nose.

If you add it up that means Zimmerman was punched a minimum of five times, once in each eye, once in the nose, cheek and lip. And with the two cuts on the back of his head you can determine that Zimmerman was honest about Martin slamming his head against the ground after being severely punched a minimum of five times by the 5-foot 11-inch athletically built young man. And when slamming another man’s head against concrete one must be on top of the victim. It won’t work the other way around (this for those who still claim Martin was defending himself).

Further corroborating Zimmerman’s tale was the autopsy which showed that Martin had only two injuries; the gun shot wound and cuts on his knuckles. Clearly Martin was beating the hell out of Zimmerman.

If you’re Zimmerman, and you know you have a gun, how long are you going to take this beating before reaching into your pocket for the gun and shooting the person who may well kill you?

The wisdom of Zimmerman getting out of his car to follow Martin, who he viewed as suspicious, can certainly be questioned. But Zimmerman’s increasingly believable story is that Martin ran and was lost to Zimmerman. Not knowing where Martin had gone Zimmerman quit his pursuit and was no longer following Martin, but was walking back to his car. That’s when Martin came upon him, Zimmerman, and proceeded to attack the self-made neighborhood-watch-guard.

During the uproar in Sanford throughout the month of March few if any Trayvon Martin supporters, news media, or social media posts thought for a moment that Zimmerman might be innocent though I inferred as much in a blog from March 28th I titled Trayvon Martin’s Killer Should Be Punished, Right? 

Reverend Jesse Jackson Sr. discusses funding h...

Reverend Jesse Jackson Sr.

The farcical acts of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton

Al Sharpton

Al Sharpton

have stirred up angry emotions before when such outrage proved misdirected or wrong. Their acts are old and dangerous and should end. Wouldn’t it be wonderful for the whole country if such men with such notoriety and capabilities actually devoted their efforts to helping people, rather than screaming about racist bogey men?

I don’t blame Martin’s parents for starting the protests. They lost a son. They have conducted themselves well, as best I can tell. Their loss does deserve some explanation.

The death of Trayvon Martin is without question a tragedy, and one we all hope is not repeated. Zimmerman may be guilty of manslaughter for ignoring the 9-1-1 operators softly worded direction “You don’t have to do that”. But wouldn’t it be another tragedy if this other young man’s life were ended or destroyed worse than it has been because other zealous criers of wolf made him spend years in jail in fear for his life, whether behind bars or not?

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

Moral Values Then VS. Moral Values Now

Like some old crotchety dude sitting on his front porch bitching about how things were so much better back in his day I find myself wondering about the changing values of America and the results therein. It really is interesting how far we’ve come/gone from whence we came. But unlike the geezer on the porch I don’t long for times past and think, or at least say, that things were so much better back then. In some cases and instances they were better. In other instances we’re better off today.

Travel with me through the time machine and lets take a look back at how things used to be and what the changes have produced.

This protester was on his own and letting Minn...

How it used to be:

Gay marriage? Why yes. Everybody and I mean everybody was in favor of every marriage being gay. Used to be gay meant something completely different. In today’s context the question of Gay Marriage wasn’t a question at all. It was absurd. I mean really? A man marrying another man? A woman marrying another woman? What the heck are you talking about?

How it is today:

Currently six of the United States allow Gay Marriage, and the momentum clearly shows that list to be growing. Even in states that don’t currently recognize Gay Marriage homosexual domestic partnerships are not uncommon. And last week the President said he was in favor of legalizing Gay Marriage, though he hedged his bets for political reasons and said it was a issue for each state to resolve. (Once again Obama showing the conviction and backbone of a jellyfish)

The results:

Its way to early to offer an opinion on the evolving allowance for Gay Marriage. But its not too early to offer an opinion about the increasingly open subject of being Gay. As recently as 20 years ago it was a big deal when someone was “outed”, revealed publicly that they were homosexual. Now its not even a term people use. Now we discuss with serious straight faces gay children, as if an innocent child knows anything about sex or has an attraction one way or another. More open homosexuality goes hand in hand with more open sexuality.

The love of my life

How it used to be:

Living in sin, unwed! Used to be the idea of living with someone (of the opposite sex) with whom you weren’t married was completely taboo. You just didn’t do it! Because if you did…then…you could be…having sex!!!! OMG!

How it is today:

Really? This was an issue for…who? Men and women co-habitate all the time and its simply not an issue with anyone. And yes…they’re having sex.

The results: 

Certainly you have more children born to unwed parents. We’ve also seen a steady decline in the number of people getting and staying married. According to a Pew Research study published December 2011 shows that barely half of all adults are married, and the age at which both brides and grooms get married for the first time is at a record high age; 26.5 for brides, 28.5 for grooms. In 1960 70% of all adults in the U.S. 18 and older were married. Given that repeated studies show people tend to be happier, more successful, and less likely to be poor when married its hard to see this trend as anything but bad.

The Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana (w...

How it used to be:

Illegal drugs were thought to be dangerous, even marijuana, and addictive, even marijuana. But ever since most states started making various drugs illegal in the 1920s and 30s people have continued to use marijuana, cocaine, heroine, amphetamines and other drugs. Even Franklin Roosevelt‘s doctor gave the President small doses of cocaine to clear up our Chief Executive’s sinuses.

But in the Hardy Boys and later Happy Days world of the 50s, 60s and 70s drug use was for the people on the edges of society.

How it is today:

Because of our more open and informed society there is a perception that more and more of us use illegal drugs. Studies aren’t completely helpful on whether this is true or not. But certainly we’re more accepting of those who do. Legalizing marijuana efforts have been in existence since it became illegal in every U.S. state by the 1930s. They now seem to have more traction, with more and more states allowing for the medical use of marijuana.

A Gallup Poll in 1969  found that 4% of Americans age 12 or older had used pot. By 1977 that number was 24%. In a study reported by CNN in September last year 9% of Americans report using illegal drugs. It’s important to note the difference in the two things just written. The ’69 and ’77 studys merely reported on cannabis and whether a person had EVER tried it. The 2011 study reported on ALL illegal drugs and reported on how many people regularly use them.

About 200-million people use illegal drugs worldwide.

The results:

Illegal drugs cause 250,000 deaths worldwide each year. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime that’s compared to 2.25-million killed from alcohol use, and 5.1-million killed from use of tobacco. But 2.1 million years of life were lost due to drug use, more than the 1.5 million lost due to alcohol, likely because drug deaths generally affect younger people, while alcohol deaths tend to occur in middle-aged and elderly people.

Cleavage

How it used to be:

Sex and all things related to it were private, not to be talked about publicly, and often not even between two consenting adults involved in sex. I’ve done enough genealogical research and seen enough episodes of NBC’s “Who do You Think You Are?” to know sexual relations involving non-married and married couples happened plenty in decades prior to the sexual revolution. But, again, it just wasn’t something people talked about.

Mike and Carol Brady of the 1970s TV show The Brady Bunch, were the first couple shown on TV in the same bed together. The show aired from September 1969 to March 1974.

How it is today:

A female friend recently happily admitted to me over lunch that she had another “friend with benefits”; referring to the now accepted practice of having a “Fuck-buddy“. For those not in the know this would be someone with whom you have sex regularly but are not married to and don’t even consider a boyfriend or girlfriend. There are two things to consider here:

1. That “friends with benefits” is so increasingly common that its an expression at all.

And

2. That a female friend happily and willingly admits to being engaged in such a relationship.

Both issues serve as metaphors for how sex is considered not such a big deal by so many people today.

A couple years ago while on a beer drinking expedition with several friends the discussion of sexual partners came up. I revealed that I’d had fewer than 10 sexual partners in my entire life. The reaction from my friends was equivalent to me saying I was a 50 year old virgin. They teased me incessantly the rest of the night. Of the three one was 26 years old, another was in his mid-30s, and another was 50 years old. The older guys were married but had been single for much of their life. Along with the 26 year old they all claimed to have had “well over” 100 sexual partners in their lives. The fact that I was dating my wife at age 20, and had remained happily married to her for over 25 years didn’t change the fact that in their eyes I was fresh and innocent.

But that being my perspective…sex is still a big deal to me. Were I to ever engage in it with someone other than my wife I can’t imagine it being merely casual. It would effect me very strongly emotionally.

The result:

The Centers for Disease Control says 41% of all births these days are to unwed mothers. Black babies are born to unwed mothers 72% of the time.

As The Heritage Foundation determined in a recent study publicly championed during the Presidential campaign of Rick Santorum if a person graduates high school, has a job, and waits until being married before having children they have a 98% likelihood of NEVER being in poverty throughout their entire lives.

This just in: sex creates babies! Of course there are all kinds of contraceptives and medical procedures designed to keep a woman from getting pregnant. But most of them are dependent on the user actually using the contraceptive. And we know from recent news stories that money is not an issue. Contraception is easily acquired in this country. But yet we still keep having babies in less than optimal circumstances.

And the transmission of Sexually Transmitted Diseases is a national crisis according to the Center for Disease Prevention. There are over 19-million STD infections in this country costing the U.S. health care system over $17-Billion each year. 

So a more open society on the subject of sex has done….what? Created more unwanted pregnancy, more unwanted children, and more diseases; including AIDS. The positives, besides the fact that sex is fun and great in so many ways? Well, I don’t know. What do YOU think?

Many other things have changed from way back when until now. But these have been in the news a lot lately, AND I honestly believe these are the big ones.

Brunswick Church (Presbyterian), known locally...

How it used to be:

Roman Catholics make up the most populous church in America. In 1955 75% of Catholics attended church weekly. According to Gallup only 42% of those who claimed a Protestant faith attended church weekly in 1955. Twenty-percent of Americans never attended church, mosque, or synagogue.

How it is today:

According to a Gallup Poll Catholic’s weekly church attendance has leveled off over the past 15 years, to about 45%. Protestant church attendance climbed slightly since 1955 to 45%. Twenty percent of Americans never go to church, a percentage that has remained unchanged for nearly 60 years (despite constant efforts by atheists to make church-going seem like the act of crazy people).

Perhaps not surprising is the fact that those who call themselves Conservative attend church more than any of 28 named sub-groups; and of those 28, Liberals attend church the least.

The result:

Other than Catholics the percentage of people attending church has not changed much in nearly 60 years. But the drop-off from those affiliated with the Catholic church has been dramatic; and since it is the most populous church in the country such a drop-off can’t be ignored.

Is it correct to say that those who are more likely to use drugs and advocate their legalization, those who advocate Gay marriage, those more likely to live out-of-wedlock and have kids out of wedlock, and those advocating a more openly sexual world tend to be liberal more-so than they tend to be Conservative? If that assumption is true (and I think that generally speaking there is no doubt that its true) can it be too much of a surprise that these people are also more likely to not attend church?

A March 2012 Gallup poll indicates that those who go to church are happier, more often. Church attendees give to charities more readily, and lead more successful, fulfilling lives…generally speaking, according to a study published in Canada.

What I find shocking is that these figures need to be reported at all. It seems obvious to me, and has for a very long time.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

The Best and Worst Times to Share on Facebook, Twitter

Using Social Media for business or with the direct intent of getting as much exposure as possible then you can benefit from this Mashable article telling you the best schedule from which to operate when posting.

The Best and Worst Times to Share on Facebook, Twitter.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

Republicans Need to Talk with More Heart

It’s tough out there. It’s tough just about everywhere.

This will be one of those blogs my wife wishes I wouldn’t write because I’ll reveal far too much personal feelings and personal information.

This Obama recession just keeps dragging on. Now we have the buttressing good news of declining gas prices which are made worse by the declining oil prices which is caused by declining economic forecasts. Economists say things could be getting worse…again. But then again…we could just be early with the annual Post-Memorial Day decline of oil and gas prices.

Are you struggling right now financially? I don’t talk to anyone these days who isn’t. It seems a lot of people are like my family…making a steady average to above average income…less than in years past but definitely average or above average…not saving anything…meeting all bills, but just barely…all while living humbly (at least humbly compared to the past 20 years). Things around the house that break, stay broken, at least for a while. We have a desire to help our adult kids, but not the means, other than a roof over their heads, which they reject. And it’s been this way for 2-3 years now.

I have one huge fear. No, not that I or someone in my family gets sick. But now that I mention it…that gives me chills too. Actually my biggest fear is that Barrack Obamawins re-election six short months from now.

Barack Obama

It’s not hard to argue that Obama is the most Progressive/Liberal President in U.S. history. And if he’s not he’s a close second, at least on domestic matters to Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933. Lietuvių: Fra...

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933. 

And what do they have in common? Both inherited serious economic problems and prolonged them through their own economic policies.

In June 1933 FDR signed into law a series of bills that were anti-competition, like the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, and pro-union measures, like Obama’s pro-union agenda including suing Boeing for having the audacity of locating a plant in a right-to-work state, thereby raising wages to artificially high levels and prices for goods in eleven key industries 25-percent higher than they otherwise would have been.

Such Government control has never been shown to work on a large economy effectively. Or as Winston Churchill said when assessing socialism’s inherent virtue, “the equal sharing of miseries.”.

Question: Can you name one government social program that makes you rich? How about one that makes you reasonably well-off? How about one that sustains you at average life-style levels? You can’t. Because it doesn’t exist. Government entitlement programs give you enough food and shelter and medicine in order to survive; never to thrive. So, with more people dependent on government for subsistence fewer people are eligible for a life of thriving success. The Heritage Foundations 2012 Index of Government Dependence showed more Americans dependent on government for subsistence than ever before.

Which leads me to the question: Has government made it too easy to rely on pay-outs for assistance. Rather than helping the truly needy, are we not creating more needy by creating dependence?

With unemployment benefits now extended 99 weeks in most circumstances dependence on that weekly government check is paramount. How can a teacher who’s been unemployed for nearly two years still be considered a teacher? Isn’t it obvious that if you can’t find employment in your field after two years you are no longer in THAT field? I think its obvious that too many people refuse employment or to look for employment in whatever job they can land in order to hold out for employment in their chosen field, subsisting ever so precariously on government assistance, until that job materializes and not coincidentally after their skills have diminished through nearly 2 years of unemployment.

Republicans consistently miss the boat on winning the support of these people and others who display sympathy for such folks. Republicans don’t talk enough about how they can help the poor and the lower middle-class by expressing the obvious: we have a better plan. How many people would prefer a government check that barely meets their needs over a paycheck no matter what the source for the paycheck?

Mitt Romney at one of his presidential campaig...

Mitt Romney can be our next President. But he has to show the compassion for the millions of those who are lost in this meager “recovery” or barely surviving. He can do it by simply emphasizing the obvious. Jobs are better than social programs. And he can do it by better demonstrating the compassion that non-thinking independents and Democrats like most. A sense of sympathy and concern for the most down-and-out will go miles in pulling them from the clutches of the Democratic party.

The Democratic party does a far superior job of giving the poor hungry man a fish; but as every Republican knows the Dems do a far inferior job of teaching a man to fish. We wrote a parable on such a subject some years ago called: The Fisherman, the Hungry Man, and the Wise Man.

Those who are struggling is a long list that sadly seems to be growing longer. An about-face can be achieved by repeatedly emphasizing the words of John Kennedy, “Ask not what your country can do for you…”, and instead emphasizing what can you do for yourself, your family and your country. Do what you need to do, and pretty soon you will be able to do what you want to do. The Republicans have historically been more vocal in support of “traditional values”. They now need to show how those “traditional values”, like a rising tide, can and will lift all boats.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.

Consequences! Shouldn’t we all Suffer?

When you break the law shouldn’t you go to jail or pay a fine?

When you lazily lay around all day and night week after week, month after month, doing no work shouldn’t you be deprived of any sort of compensation? Pay? Salary? Should you not suffer financially?

If you eat too much food, and food with too many calories shouldn’t you be fat?

If you run a business foolishly; spending more money than your business takes in shouldn’t your business fail?

And if you elect leaders who lie to you, and say they’ll take care of you knowing they really can’t, don’t you deserve what you get?

Nicolas Sarkozy - Meeting in Toulouse for the ...

Nicolas Sarkozy – Meeting in Toulouse for the 2007 French presidential election 0297 2007-04-12 (Photo credit: Guillaume Paumier)

When France (and the rest of Europe) spoils their children citizens with endless entitlements, and social programs (all while relying on the United States for their military defense) and they run-up a debt that becomes insurmountable they turn to a Conservative like Nicolas Sarkozy to bail them out. But when Sarkozy cuts back on the spending that got France into its financial mess that it’s in, the children…errr…the citizens whine and vote him out of office in favor of a man who promises to spend, spend, spend…Oh…and tax their rich up to 75%. In case the brilliance of Francois Hollande‘s scheme eludes you let me elaborate. He’s going to drive millionaires out of his country, all while establishing a nation of equally poor people supported by a diminishing wealthy class, until there is no more wealthy class and every child …err…citizen is equally miserable. Such is the failed policies of Socialism.

Shouldn’t Europeans got through a period of austerity to correct the over spending they’ve lavished themselves with in recent decades? When overspending for a period, something we all do, don’t you need to hold more tightly on to your money for a while in order to bring yourself back into balance?

Official portrait of Vice President of the Uni...

Vice President of the United States

Vice President Joe Biden appeared on Meet the Press this weekend. He says Gay and Lesbian committed couples should be entitled to each social and civil right, including marriage. For the record I think they should be afforded every social and civil right to. After all why should we discriminate based on a person’s behavior? (Oh…wait…we already do….never mind). And yet President Obama showing the leadership that he has demonstrated repeatedly in his 3+ years in office has said “His position is evolving”. The fact that his 2008 position was to stand against Gay Marriage is meaningless to where he stands now. The fact that his position is “evolving” is a head fake for Gay Rights advocates that he’s got their backs.

President Barack Obama and France's President ...

President Barack Obama and France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy stand together on Friday, April 3, 2009, during the review of an honor guard at the Palais Rohan in Strasbourg, France. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

President Obama’s lies and lack of truthfulness and openness is so tired. Democrats can help me understand him better if they can just explain to me when I can trust a word that’s coming out of his mouth. Rather than disingenuously saying “well…everybody does it” as your constant fall-back excuse for your party’s leader; shouldn’t the President suffer the consequence of his failures? Shouldn’t we vote him out of office for his lies alone?

Well, that’s what’s in the news this morning. It’s a recurring theme I hope we can visit again. It seems to me one never learns from one’s mistakes or failures unless there are consequences for having committed the sin or sins to begin with. But America is such a forgiving nation that we are repeatedly picking up and dusting off those who have fallen and sending them on their way to trip on the same curb. That’s fine and good. I’m glad we’re a forgiving and generous people. But isn’t the guy who keeps falling down less likely to do so if he picks himself up and observes the curb he keeps taking for granted? Once in a while we should trust that the guy is OK and he can do it.

Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.