The FBI And A Skin Game

When a black youth is shot and killed by another it makes the headlines in the hometown newspaper.  When a black youth is shot by someone other than another black must it be considered a hate crime and beaten to death for months on end?

Of course I'm talking about the Trayvon Martin case.  The seventeen year old was shot and killed by a non-black who was on neighborhood watch patrol.  At first it was described as outright murder.  The President even got involved saying that if he had a son he'd look like the young man.  And of course the usual defenders against racial injustice, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, were on site before anyone could catch their breath.  Talk about making a tragedy a hotbed of racial unrest before the facts were even known!

I suspect a lot of it was because of the photos the media used in telling the story.  George Zimmerman was shown in an old mug shot looking like the thug the media was trying to portray.  And Martin was shown as a twelve year old boy, not a seventeen year old young man.  Prejudicial reporting without a word being spoken or written.

This all happened in February.  Facts are still being discovered.  Like Martin had bruised  knuckles which could have come from the fight Zimmerman claimed they had.  And the fact that Zimmerman had abrasions on the back of his head, black eyes and a broken nose.  All of a sudden it isn't so cut and dried.

Neighborhood watch personnel are supposed to watch for suspicious people in their neighborhoods and notify police.  I believe Zimmerman did.  Did he "stalk" Martin?  Did he kill him because he hated blacks or because he truthfully feared for his life?  I think I'd have done the same thing if my head was being pounded into the ground. If he hadn't had the gun would he have been the victim?

Rather than asking for a rational approach until the facts were know, the rabble-rousers were in full voice.  Bounties were put on Zimmerman's head.  Nothing from the President on that one.

Now, the FBI is thinking of involving themselves and charging him with a hate crime.  It's interesting to me that this is evolving, pardon me for using that term, because Martin was black.

Well guess what?  Zimmerman's great grandfather was black and his mother Hispanic.  Just which community do you most want to offend?

Inconsistent statements the police claim Zimmerman made don't surprise me considering the man has been accused of everything from murder to a hate crime while having his address revealed on the Internet, a price put on his head and his own life at risk.

 It makes me wonder just who is guilty of 'hate' in the whole sorry episode.

Ann Romney And Motherhood Can't Seem To Win!

Well, my short hiatus is over.  I'm surprised that the royal dog house isn't full to the brim.  By browsing today's headlines alone I could fill it.

So, what has my blood pressure soaring today?  I'm torn over the fact that Henry Kissinger was made to suffer through a full body pat down by the TSA or the that Michelle Goldman of Newsweek and The Daily Beast compared Ann Romney's praise of motherhood to the actions of Stalin and Hitler.  I chose the latter though it was a tough call.  But then Mother's Day is just past.

Maybe it's because over the years I've seen few women who can do it all well.  The comments that are most offensive seem to be coming from what appear to be women in their mid-thirties or early forties.  I have no idea if they have children or not, but to suggest Mrs. Romney is 'milking' motherhood and calling it 'creepy' makes me hope they do not.

First they criticize Ann Romney for never having worked a day in her life.  They are wrongly equating stay at home Mom's with salaried positions.  If raising five boys was measured to what these women do to earn their livings, Mrs. Romney's salary would be more like her husband's than theirs!

Proud to have been a stay at home Mom, Mrs. Romney referred to it as "the crown of motherhood".  Ms. Goldberg likened the statement to an award that an authoritarian country might bestow on those having large families.  She went on to liken it to Stalin and Hitler, claiming we make up for the lack of social support or economic security for women by giving "insipid condescending praise" for motherhood.

What is insipid and condescending is that a journalist would ever suggest this about motherhood.  Mrs. Romney is talking about what she knows.  Motherhood.  If she tried to address social support or economic security for women she would be criticized for not knowing of what she speaks!

You wonder why we old fogies  worry about the future of our country?  This is a good example.  The supposedly highly trained and professional TSA agents don't recognize a man of Henry Kissinger's stature even with ticket and identification in hand and proceed to humiliate him in public and women, who are the only ones of us who can produce children, find it within themselves to insult those who choose to stay home and raise them.  I suppose they'd rather have more Octomom's out there milking the system just because they want to have kids without the ability to support them nor the desire to raise them.

Ahhh, I'm so glad I'm home.  Subject matter was just sitting there waiting for me!

A Royal Dog House

I'm off for the remainder of the week.  Occasionally, usually when I remember, I'll post something different from my usual haranguing just to break up the routine.

This is the royal dog house at Chateau De Gruyeres in Switzerland.  I thought it funny that dogs would be relegated to such plebeian housing when pets of royalty!

Anyway, maybe you can think of who, including me, deserves to be in it over the next few days.  Post your suggestions if you'd like and if there's a good story to be had I'll write it!

Jon Stewart - No Place To Go But Up

Not long ago a reader made a point to me after hearing commentary contrary to my own.  She heard it on the Daily Show and suggested I probably didn't watch it anyway.

I almost answered, but decided against it.  Now I will.  It's an age thing.  Or maybe maturity.  Or maybe decency.  Or maybe all of the above.

In answer to my readers query, I used to watch Stewart regularly.  His satire is top notch.  After awhile, though, I got really tired of the sophmoric humor.  He is so good he doesn't need to stoop to vulgarity to make his points.  If that's what his audience wants, then I question whether they're really interested in his take on the news or if they wait with baited breath to see if he can sink to a new low.

It seems Delta Airlines thinks he had hit bottom by pulling their ads. Kelloggs is probably going to be next.  Why? They too have been targeted for whatever reason.  Supposedly all top management was slated to get the photograph you can see by following the link.  A picture depicting a nude woman, legs spread and a nativity scene ornament between her legs.  It's being referred to as a "vagina manger."

I have no idea what the joke behind this display is but I'd not have found it funny.  It's an 'I'm old, I know' moment for me.  I've been old for a really long time because I've never seen the humor in vulgarity.

Jon Stewart is a very intelligent man.  We agree on very little politically but I still enjoyed listening to him slice and dice government idiocy.  It's disturbing to me, personally, that this is where the majority of his demographic get their news.  It is definitly skewed content.

That he is not uncomfortable about it makes me wonder what kind of a man he really is.  That he  probably earns more money doing this type of humor than if he were strictly a pundit says something about his listeners and his advertisers priorities.  Until he goes a joke too far.

And that, dear reader, is why I no longer watch Jon Stewart.

Elizabeth Warren - High Cheekbones Do Not An Indian Make

Elizabeth Warren is the perfect example of why 'book learnin' should be trumped by common sense.  Of course I'm referring to her claim of being 1/32 Cherokee because her grandfather had high cheekbones.

Does she have any idea how many other nationalities also have high cheekbones?  Most notably Orientals along with Eastern Europeans and Egyptians.  Okay, she grew up in Oklahoma where the Cherokee flourished.  This makes me wonder where the emphasis was in a relative's comment regarding her grandfather.  "He had high cheekbones like all the Indians do," or "He had high cheekbones like all the Indians do."  There are two completely different meanings.

All the nonsense aside, the question as to whether or not she should be teaching at Harvard does make me wonder.  Women have been defending her all day for what a brillient scholar and lawyer she is and that she absolutely earned her place.  If so why did she use her 1/32 degree of minority ethnicity as a tool?  Could she not have achieved the same without it? Was she so insecure with her own being she felt the need to put this forward?  According to her, not at all.  Me?  I think she just keeps digging a deeper hole.

Her reason that she used it in order to meet people like herself, with similar tribal roots, is laughable.  I don't imagine she found too many Cherokees, or native Americans for that matter, in Boston by doing so.

Actually, I've met quite a few native Americans and have gotten to know many quite well. I don't have a drop of Indian blood in my veins.  It's because Hub and I are interested in their culture, have made a study of it and collect their art.  Everything developed quite naturally.  They are not a mystery people lurking in the shadows waiting to be discovered and recognized.

I will suppose Harvard hired her for her abilities.  I will also suppose it would be a good thing if the quest for 'diversity' be retired and academic excellence be rewarded, no matter what sex,  sexual preference, religion, or ethnicity one may be.

The more a person uses dubious crutches to achieve, the more I question their achievements.