The Zimmerman Distortion

You'd think that with a trial open to all -- who chose to view it -- and with a verdict handed down by a jury that, to most, seemed fair, the issues of this Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman trial should have been resolved.  But, that's not what's happened.  Racial agitators won't let it happen.

The facts brought forth during the trial is that the neighborhood where the incident took place was one where there had been a rash of break-ins.  That's why there was a neighborhood watch group in the first place.  Also, Trayvon Martin had walked between buildings and had been looking from a certain distance into nearby home windows.  That is, of course, no proof of intended unlawful behavior.  But, it does explain why such behavior would attract the attention of someone in a neighborhood watch group.

Despite that background, the incident might never have come to such an unfortunate end, if Trayvon Martin had not assaulted Zimmerman.  (From the evidence brought forth at the trial, Trayvon Martin was sitting on top of Zimmerman; battering his face to the extent that blood flowed freely from Zimmerman's  nose, and banging his head on the concrete on which Zimmerman was lying.)  Principles of self defense made it appropriate for Zimmerman to grab his gun and shoot Trayvon Martin dead.

But racial terrorist are not letting it end there.

1. They are agitating for a repeal of Stand-Your-Ground Laws -- laws that were never invoked in this incident.

2. Many in the African-American community are convinced that this incident shows once again that they are victims.  And, indeed, Obama has fed into this narrative of their victimhood.

3. Racists such as Al Sharpton have linked Trayvon Martin to Medgar Evers and other true victims and martyrs of racism.  That is shameful.

African Americans want something, but what?  Do they want greater advantage over whites in being admitted to America's colleges?  Why do they not address black-on-black violence?  Why do they not focus on the relatively sorry state of black schools?

I would argue that these are reasonable thoughts.  People like Sharpton aren't into reason.  Racial turmoil is what he feeds on.  It's what puts money into his pockets

Philandering Politicians

We love to be titillated by the amorous adventures of our politicos.  Consider the following: Bill Clinton, JFK, Mark Sanford, Eliot Spitzer, and Anthony Wiener.

Mark Sanford went on a trip with his girlfriend in South America while telling his staff he was hiking on the Appalachian Trail.  The voters reelected him as their governor.

Bill Clinton opened his zipper, took out his erection, and had his intern give him oral sex in the Oval Office of the White House.  The American public continues to love him.

JFK bedded a lot of women while president.  He also bedded a hooker, the Judith Exner woman.  But, he didn't pay.  Didn't have to.  The Chicago gangster, Sam Giancana, picked up the tab.

Anthony Wiener, to the best of my knowledge (based on NY newspaper accounts) never committed adultery.  His transgression was more serious.  By putting a shot of himself in his shorts on Facebook, he was acting childishly.  NY voters have yet to be heard from.

Eliot Spitzer patronized fancy hookers in Washington DC.  How does this compare with the other politicos?  It seems hardly less noble than wielding the highest office in the land over some simple minded intern to gain a sexual favor.  Mark Sanford had a girlfriend, who he referred to as his soul mate.  One can only wonder whose wife felt more betrayed, Sanford's or Spitzer's.

As to Wiener -- he's just childish and ought to be sent back to the third grade.

Why Can't The Egyptians Be More Like Us

Everyone wants Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood to sit down and compromise with the secular Egyptians.  Ah, yes, another fairy tale.

Secular people can't understand why people of goodwill can't sit down and work out their differences.  What they don't seem to understand is that compromise with religious people is nigh to impossible.  Religious people follow God's will.  How can you compromise with that.  For Muslims, God's will is set forth in the Quran and in Sharia law.

For Christians it's right-to-life.

America has one big advantage.  We have a Constitution which specifically separates Church and State.  But people, whenever they feel strongly about something, try making an end run around the Constitution.  Right-to-Life is one such attempt.  For generations, we conferred personhood only after the fetus emerged from the womb -- not before.  This may please Christians, or not, but this is the way it's always been.  But, of course, Christianity posits the Immaculate Conception.  And, for Christians, this is when life begins, and, by extension, personhood.

Christians and many other religions believe that a child is a gift of God.  More technically minded people feel it's what happens when a sperm hits an egg.  Most people are repulsed by the idea of forcing a woman, and especially an 11-year old, to bring to term a fetus resulting from her father's or other family member's sperm.  A non-family member raping the female is even more repugnant (if that's possible).  And, yet, under the child-is-a-gift-from-God theory, some would argue that aborting the victim's fetus can not be allowed.  If this kind of thinking won't turn a God fearing person into an atheist, I fear nothing will.

What does God have to say about in vitro fertilization?  What does God have to say about a husband and wife who go to India to rent the womb of some poor lady for purposes of implanting their fertilized egg and then taking the baby when the Indian lady gives it birth?  Are we really going to tell a woman that she must bring her fetus to term, not because she wants to, but because God insists on it?   In Texas, the answer apparently is "yes."

Morning Joe: A Good Show Gone Bad

I used to enjoy Morning Joe.  Their guests, though leaning a bit to the left, were reasonably well balanced regarding their political views.  In other words, one could hear both sides.

But, then two things happened.  They started inviting as a guest the notorious Al Sharpton; correction, the notorious Reverend Al Sharpton, generally recognized as a racial extortionist, a man who'll clear you of charges of racism despite your seeming to hire remarkably few African Americans in your business, if you make a generous donation to one of the "charities" he operates.  I was still watched Morning Joe except when Sharpton appeared. When his face came on the screen, I changed channels.

Mika, always a bit odd, was tolerable until she began abusing the production staff.  I didn't see this myself, but a friend, whose veracity is beyond question, told me of a show where crulnuts (some sort of combination of crullers and donuts filled with some sort of delicious, but highly caloric filler) was brought on the set.  When invited to do so, the stage hands ran over to the crulnuts and took some.

This seemed to incense Mika.  How dare they enjoy baked goodies that might lead to obesity.  She ran over to the crulnuts and turned over the tray.  But that didn't stop the stage hands.  They slipped pieces of the baked confection out from under the tray and kept eating.

Mika flipped her cork.  She dragged over an industrial waste container and then slid the tray, pastries and all into the garbage.

Who can possibly want to watch such a woman.  And, of course, her father the genteel, anti-Semite, Prof Zbigniew Brzezinski is no prize either.

Goodbye Joe Scarborough.