• Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 1,287 other followers

  • Archives

High Times or Low Times

 

High Times or Low Times

Every one is now talking about the votes in Colorado and Washington to legalize marijuana for recreational use.  I am actually surprised at this conflict, but I am glad that someone else besides us Californians are finally the crazy hippies making up wild and unreasonable laws and being the nation’s crazy cousins.

Here is the deal (especially if you are not in the United States):  Federally speaking our government has declared Marijuana illegal, but some states have decided to declare I legal in their state and fly the proverbial “bird” at the federal regulators.

To start I will make it clear that I oppose this idea.

One reason is the idiotic idea that if the federal organizations that we put in place to regulate drugs, medicines etc. can be overrun by states at any given moment then we actually have no governing body or guidance for the chemicals that are introduced to people’s systems.  Either these governing bodies are the law or they are not.

Here in California (particularly during the daytime and ridiculously odd hours of the morning) we are inundated with commercials for drugs and chemical products that were once normal and available over the counter or by prescription that have now been deemed so unsafe that lawyers come on television to gather all the people who used these substances together to be a part of the massive lawsuit that is taking place.

Once it is determined that these substances can cause catastrophically negative results, the federal government steps in and deems that substance illegal due to the lack of safety.  These organizations have deemed marijuana illegal and unsafe.

Some states have decided that the sovereignty of the state allows each state to override these laws and do whatever they want as part of a democracy.

The big misunderstanding here begins with the idea that we are a democracy.  In a true democracy, at least in concept, every person has a say in everything.  The founding fathers of the United States felt that allowing every person to have a say in every little thing the government does would make every decision incredibly slow and would be prone to the confusion of the crazy ends of various views.

They decided to have a representative democracy where everyone has a vote on who represents you in the various levels of government and then those people make the decisions (by vote) on these things.  This (in theory) makes the decisions faster and should limit the power of the crazy wings of society from gaining too much influence (they so underestimated the power of crazy people gathering together).

In this case the states are attempting to override the representatives they have at the federal level by basically saying that they refuse to listen to what they have to say.  In other words a few states (including my state, California) have decided to undermine the representative democracy that we have in place and the people those folks have put in place to protect our safety.

In a representative democracy, the fact a group of us disagree is not an acceptable reason to ignore what they say as a matter of fact, it is an expected norm.  The fact all things are done by vote implies that there will be groups of people in most (if not all) decisions who do not agree with the government.  Do those people get to do whatever they heck they want in every decision?  If so then there is no democracy pr representative democracy:  What we have then is a chaos of every man, woman and child for themselves.

This is not a war on drugs or against the war on drugs, this is not a fight against oversized government or for the rights of states, the passing of these laws is a war against our form of democracy and as such a war on our own government as an institution.

Moving on, another reason I oppose this law is the foolishness of the arguments that so many have been programmed to believe.  It is amazing to me how many people have been programmed with little quotes such as:

  • Marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol and kills less people so it should be legal
  • Marijuana is not really a drug, it comes from the ground (as if many of the different drugs on earth do not come from natural substances – should poison mushrooms be legalized because some group of people decide they are not dangerous)
  • Legalizing drugs will put drug dealers out of business and eliminate a large segment of the crime we experience in our cities.  Like legalizing alcohol eliminated all of the crime from prohibition.

Comparing marijuana to alcohol is not even as close as comparing apples to oranges, it is more like comparing apple juice to being beat up in your sleep.

Why do I believe that alcohol should be legal:  because it is simply a drink that can be abused.  Alcohol has become a major part of many cultures because of lack of access to good water etc. and has been used for centuries in some cultures at every meal often without any intoxication etc.  You can get drunk and can get addicted to it, yet you can sip a fine wine with a plate of pasta or Mediterranean food and never run any risk of intoxication (unless you are already an alcoholic I suppose).

In terms of the use of marijuana, the main reason people use it is always to be intoxicated.  I have had conversation after conversation about this with people and I always set them up the same way (for a large part of my life I was an avid pot smoker myself so I am not alien to the culture):  After the person has gone into a discourse about all of the other reasons he/she uses marijuana and how high is not the goal, I ask the question that requires a heart and mind check.  What if I had a virgin Marijuana that would have the exact same smell and taste as well as producing all of the same results, yet would not produce any “high” at all.  Would you still want to use it?

This is usually met with stumbles and confusion and in a few rare cases a person may try to convince themselves (which is usually painfully obvious) that this would make no difference.  The honest truth is however, that the real desired result is to be intoxicated and the other possible positive effects could be better produced by other substances in existence minus the high.

So, the truth is that the conflict is not one of if some awesome medicine is ripped out of the hands of those desperately in need by the evil federal morons based on one-hundred year old propaganda.  The conflict is about weather or not the government has the right to stop people from getting high or not.

On California, a few years ago, a law was put before us to allow the terminally ill and incredibly sick to use marijuana by prescription.  There were images of the desperately ill in commercials and discussions of depriving the dying from some level of peace.  I suppose I drank the Kool-Aid along with many others and I voted for this law.  I use the term law loosely because it turned out to be a Trojan horse.

As I stated previously, I have only been out of the culture of constant pot use for so long and at the time this was passed in California I got to see the insanity of the fallout.  Suddenly, a huge segment of my friend-base sought out information about what things you need to say to get a card that allows you to legally smoke marijuana and which doctors either were handing these “Cannabis Cards” out like candy at the receptionist’s desk or who you could pay a small fee to and they would write you a prescription.

Suddenly, I had droves of friends with incessant headaches and back pain.  Some were thanking God for their cataracts and on and on.

Then there were trips to “Cannabis Clubs” which are sort of like warehouse stores for cannabis (sort cannabis Costco or Sam’s Club).  With various kinds, potencies and ways of delivery and lots of potheads sitting around in all day as if in the Starbucks of pot in their tie-dyed Bob Marley shirts and multicolored knit hats.

Face it; the people of California got hustled.  I remember seeing on the news the story of a politician in southern California describing how there needed to be a limit on the number of “pot clubs” in their city because their city had allowed there to be more pot clubs then there were Starbucks and McDonald’s combined.  If you are not familiar with the culture of the cities in California then you might not understand how ridiculous of a development that is.  I didn’t research the facts of that statement etc. but I have noticed the ridiculous number of these things that have surfaced.  If there were really that many terminally ill people in every city in California for the amount of years that many of these things have been open then the entire populations of these cities would have been wiped out years ago, pot and all.

The terminally ill argument is a Trojan horse to Universal Pot Care and is the road to getting our tax dollars or your medical insurance to pay for you to smoke as much and as strong as you want.

Then we get back to this only true motivation being to get high.  What does it mean to be high?  This idea that intoxication is somehow a healthy thing is foolishness.  That somehow the dizziness, painful coughing, distorted thinking and processing is somehow a benefit to the body is a reach at the level of the ridiculous.  These things are all the results of your body trying to reject something.

In the case of smoking it, you start with the idea of ingesting smoke.  That, in and of itself is an incredibly unhealthy thing to do and is poisonous to your system.  The human body is simply not designed for ingesting smoke.  Before the pot smokers reading this get into the whole “safer than cigarettes” thing, I also used to smoke a pack of cigarettes a day and quit due to the fact that it was unhealthy (as well as expensive).  This logic is like saying shooting yourself in the head is worse than stabbing yourself in the head so I should be allowed to stab myself.

As a general rule, one of the signs of smoking “good weed” is the coughing that accompanies inhaling it unless you smoke so much that you train your system, not to choke on it.  What I am getting at is not the idea that this choking somehow kills you or anything like that, but what that choking symbolizes.  If you were to use something else, let’s say eating a turkey.  If you were sitting at a turkey dinner with your family and the turkey made you choke to the point of not breathing for a few seconds and almost throwing up, would you say:  “Man!  That’s some good turkey?”

Absolutely not!  That’s because the choking is a sign of your body rejecting something for whatever reason.

If a good marijuana causes intoxication: altered awareness, mild to heavy changes in equilibrium and several different kinds of artificial emotions etc. then is it not doing something ultimately unhealthy.  Is it not altering (weather in a small or large way) your brain chemistry and killing brain cells.

In what universe do we legalize something that is self destructive (which is already illegal) for casual fun.  How do we not see how changing the way you think, changing your ability to balance, and artificially altering the way you interact with world is not a normal part of your body’s functioning but the effects of your body resisting a mild level of poisoning?  This is a poisoning that is self-induced and that feels (what we believe) to be good when our body tries to fight and reject this poison.

I have been okay with use by the seriously or terminally ill in the same way the I believe that chemotherapy should be legal.  If someone is at that is sick is advised to get chemotherapy, there is the assumption of some negative results that are outweighed by the positive results.  On the other hand, if a patient who is not seriously ill wants chemotherapy for some other effect, in this case we’ll say for the feeling of having other people feel sorry for him/her, then that person will not be allowed.  There is a perceived benefit in getting more attention which could make a person feel better about himself/herself, but the perceived benefits do not make the dangers worth it.

The truth is, this is all an elaborate scheme to make the government cosign the idea that it is okay to get high as much as you want (to poison your body as much as you want).

As I was writing this, at least for some people, I just discovered that all of this is a Trojan horse for the idea that all drugs should be legal.  I have the television on in the background and they started to have a discussion on this topic with that Sir Richard Branson fellow.  This Sir Richard Branson fellow, somehow an expert on American marijuana and drug policy moved from the passing of these laws to ending the war on drugs totally.

His idea was to allow the citizens of the United States to use whatever drugs etc. they wish and then when each individual realizes the need for recovery having government sponsored programs (specifically with methadone as he mentioned) they will be admitted to these programs for care and somehow magically live happily ever after.  His logic is that these methadone clinics will cost less than prison and it would lessen the crime.

The problem with all of this is that, clearly he has not been around many people at the various levels of using and recovery and if he has, he clearly only understood an incredibly small part of the culture.

The question I have is are we so culturally drawn to the desire for people to be high that we lose all ability to use common sense.  Whole states have decided to try to override federal law.  People have lied and misled us to believe this had other, more noble motives when secretly the motive is just to get high.  The solution to the war on drugs has in effect become:  Just cancel the war and let everyone get high and magically they will get less high.  The war here is not on drugs; it is a war on our government systems and on good sense.  The strange part is that most of the country is on the side of the complete anarchy of every man, woman and child doing as they feel, and making it almost mandatory that everyone get high.

If there is some incredibly evil person (we’ll call this person “the man”) this divide and conquer focus of anarchy and undermining of our government system would be an awesome way to take apart everything that holds us together, particularly if we are all too high to do anything about it.

Perhaps the threat of this level of crazy is why our founding fathers decided on a representative democracy instead of a direct democracy as a defense.

 

Alethinos Paradoxos

 

Are We Still Talking About This Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman Thing?

Are We Still Talking About This Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman Thing?

trayvon-Armed with

I have mentioned in previous articles that I believe there is a huge push to distract the planet from the real issue in this case.  The real issue is that a min hid in the bushes, armed with a gun, followed a young man (who was armed with candy and a soda) stalked this man for several blocks, spoke to the police who told this man to stop following this man and leave him alone, then this man jumped out at this man in a threatening manner, got into a fight with this man (and apparently got the snot kicked out of him), then shot this man that he had been stalking and hunting down to threaten and possibly beat up.

Today, I saw that the lawyers for this George Zimmerman person released a picture of Mr. Zimmerman with a bloody face and swollen nose saying that it supports his story.

The problem I have with all of this is that Mr. Zimmerman’s story is one of breaking the law, ignoring the police, attacking a man he had been stalking for no reason except for the fact that this YOUNG BOY looked scary to a man hiding in the bushes looking for people who look scary.  In Mr. Zimmerman’s story he ends up shooting this man and it is okay because, in defending himself in perfectly legal manner when being stalked by an armed idiot in the middle of the night, young Treyvon Martin kicked the snot out of him.

I am absolutely befuddled by the fact that this is even a serious conversation and that George Zimmerman has the support of anyone that he is not related to or that is not locked up in some compound off in the woods living off of canned food in camouflage with their rifle awaiting some weird new world order.

Have we really come to a point that any idiot who can get access to the media can drive public opinion to absolutely ridiculous ideas as truth?  The lawyers for Mr. Zimmerman have been able to manipulate public opinion to the place where there is even a discussion about if it was warranted for this ridiculous stalker to shoot this man he watched, stalked, attacked and killed while the police were telling him not to do it.

If this man is found not guilty, it would make an absolute mockery of our entire legal system and ability to manage our right to bear arms.  How do we stand before the entire planet and say it is okay in our country to chase down and fight with any person we are not comfortable with.  That is the primary problem her and the primary offense is that Zimmerman was already engaged in an egregious act of breaking the law before the conflict with Martin took place.  Then his confrontation of Martin was a whole other egregious act.  In the act of committing these crimes (against the law and crimes against humanity) he wound up killing a young man who according to the evidence, was only guilty of eating candy and drinking canned iced tea (drinking soda being illegal only in New York as far as I know).

I don’t know how this is a case and a story.  WTH!?  The only story is why is this man not strapped to somebody’s electric chair yet for such a horrible act.  How does a parent swallow the idea that their child was stalked, fought and killed by some wannabe vigilante running the streets of the United States killing innocent children and that he might be within his rights to do this according to the courts?

Could somebody explain to me what Trayvon Martin was guilty of that deserved the death penalty at the hands of the idiot.  George Zimmerman is an embarrassment to our entire nation and its legal system.  We need to deal with this and his legal team’s use of the international media to expand the coverage of this has forced our hand.  This must be handled in an extreme and public way or we have said to the world that on the streets of the United States you can stalk and kill people who you are scared of.

😦

Alethinos Paradoxos

The Election, the Race and Race

The Election, the Race and Race

Over the past few weeks, there has been a lot of talk about the election and the implication that this is the first time that the “white male vote” has not decided the election.Races

Holy cow!?  I am not convinced this is true, but if there have been powers that be in politics that have subscribed to the logic that the vote that will make a difference is the “white male vote” particularly in “swing states” then our whole electoral process has strongly shaped and directed by one group from our country and all of the women and otherwise non-white males have been second class citizens in terms of political influence and power.

The reason I stated earlier that I am not convinced this is actually true (or completely true) is because the facts say that the president received about the same percentage of the votes from Caucasian men as Bill Clinton in 1992 and more than many of his democratic predecessors over the past 40 years or so.

That implies that the challenge in capturing the votes of Caucasian males has little to do with the race of the current president and has more to do with the collective mindset of voters who identify themselves as white males.

Some of the public displays from the republican party over the past few years have demonstrated that some of the more prominent republicans have been completely out of touch with the tines and the rest of the country.

Some of the more extreme examples include:

Todd Akin:  Victims of ‘Legitimate Rape’ Don’t Get Pregnant…If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down

Tom Smith:  Implied that rape victims are the same as women who have women who get pregnant outside of marriage

Herman Cain:  (In speaking about China who has had nuclear weapons since long before I was born) So yes they’re a military threat. They’ve indicated that they’re trying to develop nuclear capability and they want to develop more aircraft carriers like we have. So yes, we have to consider them a military threat.

There are more and more and even moments like the misstatements (or lies if you are a bit more to the Left Wing) that Mitt Romney has been accused publically of.  Look up Mitt Romney Debate Lie and you might be surprised at what you see.  Some who follow these sorts of things might remember one debate where a misstatement was publicly corrected in front of the entire planet (Click Here to See Video).

What you see here is a party creating the public perception that they are out of touch, misinformed and possibly the stereotypical shady politicians that a growing number of Americans are coming to believe are “the problem” with our government.

The question is not one of weather the Republican Party is due for a re-branding and a change in its public expressions of itself.  Most of us have heard a lot of this talk from prominent republicans and pundits over the past few months and assume all of that to be the changes that need to happen for Republicans to remain a force in American politics.  What I mean is that I am not surprised that there are groups of politicians that are capable of doing stupid things publicly.  My concern is that there has been enough support for such ridiculousness that has allowed it to get this far out of hand.

The deeper aspect of the challenge I am having is that there is an implication in all of this that the predominance of American White Caucasians support this group of folks we have seen doing all of this craziness over the past few years no matter how ridiculous they get.  This means that either the predominance of Caucasian men in America are in absolute agreement with this insanity or that this group will root for their political team no matter what they do as if it was their local football team that they have always rooted for.

Some of the reports I have heard and read imply that much of these extreme opinions are based on the fact that the Caucasian male vote wants this extreme, outdated and misinformed public face and that is why that is what we get.  That I find a bit hard to swallow.  That we all are somehow all living as aliens in this huge extremist White-man-istan and that all other people who live in America are just allowed to vote to make us feel like we had some say.  Then it is implied that that has been the way it has been until the presidential election when an African American Incumbent President managed to get enough non-Caucasian male votes to overpower the government of Whitemanistan.

Whatever the truth is, I hope that this is the end of all of this and that we won’t be hearing of such things ever again.  My hope is that over the next four years the parties will come to reflect some level of common sense and will both come to reflect a focus on the more diverse cultural makeup and more diverse thinking of the melting pot that is (or at least is supposed to be) America.

I would like to think that no single group has the political power to render any of the other groups in our country so irrelevant that the politicians can say and do any sort of crazy thing and still be able to overpower all forms of other thought.

Hopefully more equally represented than ever before;

Alethinos Paradoxos

Oh Shih-Tzu This Election is Dog Eat Dog!

Oh Shih-Tzu This Election is Dog Eat Dog

Okay this is an official WTH!  I’ve been catching bits and pieces of this and it is all just coming together in my mind, so bear with me as I sort it all out…!

So this Romney person took a family trip at some point in history and strapped his dog on the roof of the car…  WTH?!?!  This story hits the news and goes all viral.

Then someone finds some evidence that this Obama character ate dog as a small child…  (remember all that dog shopping they were doing when he first came into office, HMMM?).

I have been pretty busy the last few days and just decided to look this story up and I stumbled across what I presume to be the next viral trip in this really weird saga:  The Romney camp or someone is releasing a story that he once saved a dog from drowning using his jet ski.  I have to admit, my mind is having a really hard time making the jump from dude who strapped the family Irish Setter on the roof of the car in a cage for family vacation to cool super-hero, dog saving guy who is in his disguise as a mild mannered presidential candidate.

Here is my real question:  WTH!?!?  What are we talking about this for?  I suppose the strapping the dog on the roof in 1983 is a bit unnerving and disturbing, but I am not sure that alone would eliminate a person from being able to run for president.  (for those of us who remember the early eighties, just about any information that surfaces from that period should probably be ignored – what a weird time in history).

On the other hand the eating dog in another country as a child story is even less earth shattering to me.  The fact that as a child in another country someone had you eating something that you are probably now grossed out by really bears no impact on which way I vote at all.

Now that Romney super dog saver stuff starts to sound a bit desperate.  I suppose it would have had an impact on me if I had heard it prior to the strapping the dog on the roof story, but suddenly hearing it for the first time now cheapens the story a bit.

What’s next; Ron Paul is going to announce that he was raised in the wilderness by a pack of wild dogs?  Newt Gingrich is really a shaved down Shar-pei?

I am not actually as amazed at these three stories as I am at the energy that many outlets of the media and particularly the campaigns and the supporters are putting into all this dogfight stuff.  The internet is all abuzz with these serious sounding rants trying to really prove one candidate or another is completely disqualified for president because of some dog incident and now dog heroics make the better president.

 

I did however, while I was writing this stumble into new information in the saga (which I have not verified and could be totally fictitious) stating that this Romney character is listed two different national animal cruelty websites for other major animal cruelty incidents.  In light of that I might want to slow down and start taking some of this more seriously.  If this is a habit and not an old, isolated incident, we might have a real problem.

Let me help you catch up to my change. I stopped typing to get some good, all-American food (got some nuggets from under the golden arches) and stepped away for a minute.  I decided to look at some of the current waves of web dog fighting and stumbled across http://www.dogsagainstromney.com/ .

As I said, I just saw all of that and have yet to verify any of it, but if it does turn out to be true there really is a serious problem in the Romney camp.

Why my change of tone?  If a person is not qualified to lead a sports team due to animal cruelty and needs to spend time in prison to leave and have a terrible time finding the next job (even though that person is a star athlete) then a repeat offender that is running for president is going to be a hard sell.  

I am of course describing quarterback Michael Vick.  Especially with all of this racial tension or whatever it is that weaves its way in and out of all things political lately, the idea that a rich Caucasian gentleman can get caught for animal cruelty and run for president no problem while an African American athlete who gets caught for animal cruelty gets the book and the kitchen sink thrown at him will not go over well.

I actually do find that the dog-fighting was probably considerably more egregious, but it’s not just about what I think. 

I am however quite concerned that there may be this tendency and this particular site says that he is not allowed to adopt pets because of these animal cruelty entries.  I suppose I will keep an eye on this for a few weeks before I deem it to be just silliness.  If he turns out to be a serial offender, there could be major fallout.   COULD RON PAUL END UP AS THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE?

And yes my nuggets were made of chicken (as far as I know 100% white meat)

 

Til next time

Your Dawg, Alethinos

Isolated or Forthcoming

Isolated or Forthcoming

 You may or may not have heard, but candidate Mitt Romney has a bit of a faith problem  brewing at Liberty University.  Liberty University being the university that was founded by evangelical leader Jerry Falwell. The conflict of course is tied to Mr. Romney’s affiliation with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The university’s Chancellor, Jerry Falwell Jr.’s invited the presidential candidate to deliver its 2012 commencement address.  Being a predominantly evangelical school, the university is used to having an evangelical speaker deliver the commencement address. 

The student body was not as open as Chancellor Jerry Falwell Jr. and comment after comment appeared by the hundreds from angry students.

The university has a history of having prominent republican candidates such as Ronald Regan and Sen. John McCain.  These previous speakers have not created an uprising of this sort, so what is the only difference.  The fact he is affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has made him offensive to the students. 

One student’s protestations demonstrated a huge shift that may be taking place at the university:   “We came to Liberty because of our faith in Jesus; not for political reasons.”

The problem I see here is not the commencement address at Liberty University, the problem is much bigger.  The problem I see is the awkward relationship that evangelical Christians have with Mr. Romney as the Republican Party is traditionally a party dominated by evangelical/conservative Christians.   At this university, the normally accepting student body that has in the past had Catholic and Jewish commencement speakers in the past suddenly has students that refuse the idea of talking or inviting politics into Christian discussion. 

In other words, a person who would normally be herded into the cheering, way to the right wing section is now determined to keep religion and politics separate. 

My question is:  Will this take place Republican Party wide if Mitt Romney is bouncing around at the forefront of his party for too long?  Is there going to be an uprising amongst evangelical Christians that drives some or even many of them away from the political arena.  I cannot truly know or state if this would be good for the Republican Party, but I have to say that it would not seem to be good for the Republican Party base and ultimately the party as a whole.

Check this out…

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-april-2-2012/indecision-2012—endless-suffrage-2012—jump-on-the-bandwagon-edition?xrs=share_copy

Funny but true, many of the endorsements for Mr. Romney seem almost forced against someone’s will.  They also seem so painful to some that people are unable to fake it.

What I am getting at is:  Could this be the Republicageddon  that destroys the Republican Party?

All that time in the public eye campaigning is going to be tough on supporters who are not in love with the candidate.  Then what happens if the Republican Party ends up with him at the front of their party for four to eight years as president?

This incident at Liberty University may be a smaller version of things to come or an isolated incident.  What it is however is something the Republican Party ought to consider before going any farther in the direction it is heading. 

Distracting From The Real Issue

Distracting From The Real Issue

 

I’ve been thinking over this Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman thing (as it is all the rage in the news these days) and a sudden thought hit me today.  Why is the discussion only about race?  WTH!? (What the Heck!?)  There is a much bigger issue here and it is crazy!

So as I pondered all the racial questions, the motive behind this, the whole hoodie and Skittles thing, the right to bear arms thing, listened to the police call over and over again etc. I missed one glaring thing that is the overarching key issue here. 

Let me slow down and get you to where this all came from:

A guy, who is supposed to be a neighborhood watch guy is neighborhood watching (not neighborhood defending because that is the job of the police).  This guy has a gun he has legally.  He sees somebody he perceives to be a threat or dangerous or suspicious or whatever.  This person looks at him and (I guess) heads in his direction then walks briskly away.  This neighborhood watch person then follows this person (apparently even going so far as to drive after the person and then a ways down the road getting out of the car near this person.  Then this neighborhood watch person is so scared of this person that he walks this scary person down, pulls a gun on this young man (who is apparently armed with a bag of Skittles) and shoots him out of fear.

The real question at hand is:

Is there a law someplace in the United States that says a person can feel intimidated by a person he/she sees on the street, chase the (potentially unarmed person) down the street, run up on this person, and shoot this unarmed person in cold blood and be perfectly within the law because he or she found that person to scary, intimidating or to look shady.

If there is such a law, there is a list of people I need to be scared of in the next couple of days.

This is without even considering the police officer on the phone trying to talk this guy out of following Trayvon or even considering what made this young man armed with Skittles seem so dangerous to Mr. Zimmerman.

Government agents, law enforcement, military personnel, armed security guards, armored car drivers etc. none of these can chase down people simply because the are intimidating or look suspicious and shoot them in cold blood.

As a matter of fact, an armed person (who does not have a badge on) following an unarmed citizen of the United States is not only an aggressor, but if the police showed up, I have to ask myself which one should their guns be pointed at? 

In other words, if Treyvon had hit this strange man with a gun that was following him all over Florida with a brick or a bat, I think he would have been the innocent one.

The other big question is: How is this even a case?  This should be automatic.  This guy chased down and murdered a kid.  The race thing is a secondary issue.

A real shocking thing for me is the people who protest against this guy being charged and want this guy to be set free with no charges.  Who are you and what country do you live in (or planet do you live on).  Are you sure you want to set a precedent that a parson can say that a person looks suspicious, follow them down the street, shoot them in cold blood with no real reason and not even be charged with anything.  That can’t possibly end well.

I am a firm believer in the right to bear arms.  I also believe in the right for people to get drivers licenses.  I don’t believe in the right to cold blooded, unprovoked murder and more than I believe in the right for a person to drive on the curb and run someone over that they are scared of or looks suspicious.

If we get past all of the hype, this is just common sense.  This Zimmerman guy has a real problem.  He, as a private citizen, chased down a young, unarmed man, shot and killed him.  Black, white, Chinese, Latino, or whatever; it is a crime.  A very serious one.  This man, did a premeditated murder.  I am not convinced that I have evidence that he didn’t really believe this guy might have done some crime or that his intentions were to kill a black person or anything of that nature.  What I do know is that he followed a young man that turned out to be unarmed , shot and killed him.  He was willing to risk prison and the death penalty to seriously harm or kill another person and has earned that.

All of the racial profiling talk, right to bear arms talk etc. are discussions for after this guy is in prison for such an egregious crime. 

 

Some thoughts…

The Romney Race Card

The race issue has come up again in American politics with a question to Mitt Romney about the doctrines of the “Book of Mormon”. 

This guy named Bret Hatch apparently got the microphone at a Mitt Romney town hall meeting and started reading quotes from the Book of Mormon about blacks and their being a curse and the idea that because of that people of color are somehow a lesser people.   

Romney cut this man off and demanded that he ask a question.  Mr. Hatch (apparently a Ron Paul supporter) then asked if Romney thinks it is okay for a white man to marry a black woman.

Mitt Romney responded with a firm “NO!”   The question is, can old Mitt “un-ring” the bell?

The race card has officially been pulled almost at the same moment that Mitt started to shift his campaign from a focus on the republican primary to the Presidential election.  Now that this has been mentioned and has made the news, it will be a growing conversation from here on out.

Mitt may be able to pull a similar card on the President by bringing up the man that President Obama was calling his pastor when he was first elected, Jeremiah Wright.  The only problem Mr. Romney will have with this argument is that the Reverend Jeremiah Wright is an individual with racist leanings that President Obama has long distanced himself from and the Book of Mormon is the religious doctrine of his faith.

This is a real problem for the Romney campaign is on two fronts:

  1. The racial tension of the country is mounting fast and the Republican party is already skating on thin racial ice.  
  2. The Religious Right, a huge part of his own Republican party already has huge doubts about his Mormon faith and this just brings those things to the surface amidst heated words from other candidates from his own party.

Ol’ Mitt is the most likely candidate by far, but he is taking a beating before he has even begun the real presidential campaigning.

This is also a big problem for the Republican party, which has been struggling to distance itself from the idea that it is the party for those who think minorities are somehow lesser people except for a rare few that join them.  Count this as another step, way in the wrong direction.

I am forced to think that this might be one of those things that might demonstrate that he might not be the best candidate as he might not be electable.  His own party doesn’t like him, his religious leanings are going to be an ongoing stress, many think of him as a flip-flopper, and other Republican politicians are having a field day discussing why he is not a good candidate (some suddenly endorsing him later).

I cannot see these questions going away and any answer to the race and the Book of Mormon question has the challenge of trying to convince people that the written doctrine of his religion and his beliefs are at complete opposites ends of the spectrum.  (Although I do believe the official stance of the church has departed away from such doctrine, it is still in writing).

%d bloggers like this: