As expected the grand jury in the fatal shooting of Michael Brown refused to indict officer Darren Wilson, and also as expected that decision prompted a night of protests and looting. Everybody and their brother seems to have chimed in with their opinion on this.
Cher said "Have problem re decision not 2bring 2 trial,Police who shot young man near St.Louis.Something must b done 2 protect innocent young blk men". Michael Brown was not an innocent young black man, Cher. He was high enough to hallucinate according to the toxicology report, he had just stolen a box of cigars, and he assaulted a police officer. All illegal.
Moby tweeted "darren wilson chased michael brown and murdered him. how did the grand jury get around this basic fact?" The fact is Officer Wilson chased a suspect after the suspect assaulted him. That's his job. The jury got around this "fact" by looking at the evidence, Moby. All of it. Thoroughly. For months.
Magic Johnson offered this: "Justice was not served in Ferguson." Justice works both ways, Magic. Charging a police officer with a crime when he was only following his training and doing his job is not justice.
When the grand jury in the shooting of Trayvon Martin deliberated over whether to charge George Zimmerman with murder, I felt that they would have no choice but to rule against charging based on the lack of evidence. In fact they not only charged him, they charged him with second degree murder. According to Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, one of the leading authorities on the law in the country, even third degree murder would have been difficult to prove given the evidence. I was stumped as to why they went for second degree murder? I think I now know why.
When agitators like Al Sharpton showed up in Sanford, Florida insisting that Zimmerman be charged, the authorities had a choice to make - charge Zimmerman or have a riot. By overcharging him they were able to avoid a riot while guaranteeing an acquittal which means that an innocent man won't go to prison.
Had they done the same thing in Ferguson they could have avoided the devastation from Monday night's riot. A bogus trial is cheaper and much less messy than a riot, after all. Who cares about due process and the rights of the accused?
Nobody is saying that racism doesn't exist, or that race isn't a factor in how police do their jobs. But this really isn't about race. It's not about society. It's not about one family's grief. All of those things are interesting to talk about, but the only issues that matter here are "what happened" and "what does the law say?" The jury concluded that what happened made lethal force justifiable, and therefore it couldn't indict Officer Wilson. That's how our system works. If you don't like it, change the system. If you don't like the laws, then change the laws. But in my opinion you shouldn't wrongfully charge a man who was only doing his sworn duty to protect the public just to appease an angry mob.
The recent allegations against Bill Cosby have become a media obsession. I can't recall a time when somebody so famous was so vilified in the media when there were no criminal charges, no confessions of wrongdoing, and no evidence was presented to support any of the allegations.
Before diving into this subject let's do a quick review of Cosby's story. He was born in 1937 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania where he was raised. He participated in sports and theater in school, but dropped out of high school after failing the tenth grade. After working a few jobs he entered the US Navy and served four years. He finished his high school equivalency while in the navy and after his stint he went to Temple University from 1961-1962 on a track and field scholarship. During that time he worked as a bartender in a local club where he began doing a stand-up routine. After experiencing success with comedy he quit Temple and left Philly for New York. He was soon touring all over the country doing his comedy routine, and landed his first Tonight Show gig in 1963. That led to a Warner Brothers record deal where he had several hit comedy albums and more TV appearances. In 1965 he was signed to NBC's new show "I Spy", co-starring with Robert Culp. The show ran for three seasons and made Bill Cosby a household name. Following I Spy he did two seasons of a sitcom called "The Bill Cosby Show", which was followed by a couple of variety shows called "The New Bill Cosby Show" and "Cos", and a the very successfull cartoon show "Fat Albert and The Cosby Kids" from 1972-1979. From 1984-1992 he had his biggest TV hit with "The Cosby Show" where he played a doctor married to an attorney who was raising five kids.
I mentioned all of this to establish the fact that the man has had a successful career on television and in comedy for fifty years, and that he also was a recording artist with comedy albums which were very popular back in the days before cable TV and the internet. One of the albums that he did included a bit about "Spanish Fly", a potion that supposedly could put the ladies in an amorous mood.
Back in that era people talked about Spanish Fly, but as Cosby points out in this routine it was mostly the lore of stupid adolescent boys. In reality Spanish Fly only affects men and is potentially lethal. My theory is that while this routine was considered funny in its day, in the politically correct world of the last thirty years people began to be offended as they listened to this bit, and rumors began to spread about Bill Cosby being a creep who takes advantage of women after disabling them. Seriously, would a rich and famous TV star need to do something like that to get women? The rumors were no doubt dismissed until he admitted to having an affair with a woman who tried to extort money from him back in 1997, but even then most people didn't give them too much consideration.
In 2004 Mr. Cosby gave a speech at the NAACP's commomoration of the 50th anniversary of Brow vs. Board of Education where he essentially made the argument that most of Black America's problems today are internal, and that equal education is meaningless if people aren't interested in educating themselves. Since then he has repeatedly voiced similar views in various venues across the country on various occasions in what have been called "Call Out" events. YouTube makes these comments easily accessible. In 2007 he co-athored "Come on, People: On the Path from Victims to Victors" with Dr. Alvin F. Poussaint where the two of them elaborated on these issues.
A year after that 2004 speech allegations of sexual assault surfaced as Andrea Constand, the director of operations for Temple University’s women’s basketball team, accused Cosby of inappropriate touching. When no criminal charges were filed due to insufficient evidence, Constand took the matter to civil court seeking $150,000 in damages, which led to a settlement for an undisclosed amount in 2006.
Also in 2005 California attorney Tamara Green alleged on The Today Show that Cosby sexually assaulted her in the '70s. Cosby's attorney said “Miss Green’s allegations are absolutely false. Mr. Cosby does not know the name Tamara Green or Tamara Lucier [her maiden name], and the incident she describes did not happen." No criminal or civil case was ever pursued in that allegation. In 2006 Barbara Bowman accused Cosby of several assaults. This also led to no criminal or civil proceedings.
The fact that these allegations became public shortly after the Call Out events began reminds me of the allegations against black conservative Justice Clarence Thomas when he was nominated for the Supreme Court. There is no question that when a famous black person in America begins to part from the party line of the black political establishment they are soon marked for character assassination.
Fast forward now to October 16 of this year when a comedian named Hannibal Buress did a bit about Cosby being a rapist and the video of it was posted on the Philadelphia Magazine website, which ignited the current furor, debate, and deluge of accusers coming forward.
Among the newer accusers are:
Janice Dickinson, a famous model who claimed that Cosby drugged and raped her in 1982. She left this allegation out of her book "No Lifeguard on Duty: The Accidental Life of the World’s First Supermodel", however. When asked why she omitted it she claimed that Cosby pressured her into leaving it out, yet when asked why she included a passage about intimacy with Jack Nicholson she said "The reason that line made the book is because he told me not to say anything. And I will never, ever respond to anybody--man, woman, vegetable, or mineral--who tells me to keep my mouth shut. Alter what I've been through, I don't think so, pal." Dickinson has admitted to drug and alcohol addiction, and claims to have had sex with 1,000 men. When asked what it was like to have a three-way with singer Grace Jones and actor Dolph Lundgren she said "I don't remember. We were all so high." Her former boyfriend Sylvester Stallone said that she's a publicity hound who will say anything to get attention, after she claimed that he injected her with steroids in her sleep. And just last year the New York Post reported that she was a million dollars in debt and had filed for bankruptcy. Not exactly the most credible witness when it comes to allegations about drugs and sex.
Carla Ferrigno, wife of "Incredible Hulk" bodybuilder Lou Ferrigno who claimed that Cosby stole a kiss at a party in 1967. (By that standard I suppose I'm guilty of sexual assault.)
Louisa Moritz, an actress who claims that Cosby forced sodomy backstage of The Tonight Show in 1971.
Joan Tarshis, an aspiring writer who claimed that Cosby raped her in 1969. Apparently she was so traumatized by the experience that she went back for more a month later, according to her own account.
Some people are inclined to believe the allegations because there are so many women coming forward with similar stories, but that isn't the way our system works. One credible, provable, allegation trumps any number of unprovable allegations. With no charges or convictions to go on, I think you have to just file these allegations in the "maybe" folder.
If it sounds like I'm a Bill Cosby apologist, well maybe I am. The man has earned a stellar reputation in the industry and has managed to remain viable for fifty years, and was willing to put his career and marketability on the line in order to address issues that he felt needed to be addressed in the black community. As Hannibal Buress himself admitted, he doesn't like Bill Cosby because he's "smug" and has been telling African Americans to "pull their pants up".
Yeah, I think Cos deserves the benefit of the doubt here, especially considering that not one case has apparently been solid enough to bring an indictment. In fact, I'd be inclined to dismiss completely these decades-old allegations from women who hung around the sex and drugs saturated entertainment world of the last five decades except for a couple of things.
Cosby did apparently pay a settlement to Andrea Constand, who wasn't part of the entertainment world, and reportedly had 13 women prepared to testify about similar behavior on his part.
Cosby's attorney Martin Singer issued a non-denial denial, which is a statement that appears to be a denail but in fact never really denies the allegations. The statement read "Over the last several weeks, decade-old, discredited allegations against Mr. Cosby have resurfaced. The fact that they are being repeated does not make them true. Mr. Cosby does not intend to dignify these allegations with any comment. He would like to thank all his fans for the outpouring of support and assure them that, at age 77, he is doing his best work. There will be no further statement from Mr. Cosby or any of his representatives," He didn't say that the allegations weren't true, but that they were "discredited". In other words the credibility of the person making the allegations was called into question. That of course has nothing to do with the veracity of the claims, nor does the claim that he is doing his best work. And of course, the final sentence has proven not to be the case as Mr. Singer has issued other statements about the accusers and their backgrounds.
What I and many others like me want to hear is a categorical denial from either Mr. Cosby or his attorney, saying that all of these allegations are lies and that he has never drugged, sexually assaulted, or raped anybody ... EVER! Until I hear that I'm afraid that as much as I like and support the guy, and despite the weakness of many of the allegations, there's going to be this nagging suspicion that maybe he's hiding something.
Now she has gone even more public, giving a speech for the Forbes "Under 20" Summit.
Ms. Lewinsky was only 21 when the affair with the president began. It was a dumb move on her part, but most of us did dumb things at that age. The president was 50 years old, however. One expects more from a middle aged elected official than they do an intern who is barely old enough to buy booze. For that reason I never picked on her. But now she is a grown woman of over 40, and she's trying to pass herself off as a victim of cyberbullying. Sorry Mon, that dog won't hunt. Most cases of cyberbullying only become news when the victim ends up committing suicide. In this case however, a constitutional crisis resulted from the president lying under oath to conceal the relationship. This was a news story that came about because of her choices and actions. It's a hard lesson to learn, but when you carry on with a famous and powerful leader you are inviting the media into your bedroom (or Oval Office or wherever).
In the Vanity Fair article she referred to the affair as a "mutual relationship". In other words they were both consenting adults and it was nobody else's business. WRONG! First of all when an employer has an affair with a subordinate there is an implied "quid pro quo" involved. The rules of ordinary romantic interaction are out the window, as everything must be viewed within the context of the power dynamic of the employer/employee relationship. And second, the quid pro quo aspect is especially relevant when considering a pattern of behavior in an ongoing sexual harrassment lawsuit. This is what you sign up for when you carry on with the leader of the free world.
It's obvious from reading her story that Ms. Lewinsky is in search of a cause to rebuild her reputation and salvage some legacy apart from being a presidential bimbo. I hope she finds that cause, and goes on to live a fulfilling and productive life. Cyber bullying is a terrible thing, and opposing it is certainly a worthy enough endeaver, but this isn't the right cause for her any more than racism would be the right cause for O. J. Simpson. Perhaps she should consider the issue of sexual harrassment.
The Ebola story has hit full force recently in the media, causing many people to form irrational conclusions based on ignorance, suspicion, and hype. Today alone I saw a FOX News anchor babbling for a half an hour about it, read the opinions of some who attribute the stock market decline to it, and came across a story of a Texas congreeman who theorized that Obama is allowing it to spread so that he can declare an emergency and increase his executive powers. Have we taken leave of our senses?
First of all let's establish what Ebola is. It's a virus that is spread by contact with bodily fluids. It's not as difficult to contract as HIV, but it's not as easy to contract as influenza either. And while in the past it has been said to have a 90% mortality rate, this time around it's more like 60%. And we should remember that the high mortality rate in Africa is largely due to their living conditions and culture.
Secondly, let's remember that the DOW has recently been setting record highs of over 17,000 so a little profit-taking was in order. Bear markets aren't triggered by unfounded fears of epidemics. They're brought about by hard numbers from the business and financial worlds. My guess is that by the end of the year we'll see the DOW approaching yet another record high. (10/31/2014 .... UPDATE!!! That was fast! The DOW hit a new high today. 12/5/14 ... DOW approaching 18,000!)
And finally, the idea that Obama is in any way basing his lack of an urgent response on some sinister motivation is not only baseless, it's embarrassingly stupid. Just as with his response to the ISIS situation I attribute Obama's slow Ebola response to nothing more than incompetence. Enough with the partisan conspiracy crap.
Pandemic pandemoneum is nothing new. In 1976 the Swine Flu was blamed for the death of a soldier at Fort Dix, New Jersey but the vaccine for the Swine Flu was blamed for 25 deaths. In 1997 the Avian flu in Hong Kong was responsible for six deaths, but watching the news you would have thought that the death toll was in the thousands. In 2003 SARS hit the headlineswhen 8,000 people contracted it leading to 774 deaths. While this was more serious than the previous two, no deaths were reported in the U.S. Then there is the West Nile virus, which brought a reported 10,000 cases in the U.S. over the past ten years with a mortality rate of around 5%. More people die from the flu than that.
The media loves these stories because most people don't know much about these diseases and in general people fear the unknown, and fear drives ratings. When the light of truth shines on the subject the fears subside and the ratings dwindle and everybody gets on with their lives. Such will doubtless be the case with the Ebola story as well.
A grand jury has determined that race car driver Tony Stewart will not face criminal charges in the death of fellow racer Kevin Ward on August 9 in upstate New York. The investigation showed no criminal intent from Stewart's driving, and the toxicology report revealed that Ward had marijuana in his system at the time of the incident, which could explain why he apparently tried to latch on to the wing of Stewart's car as it whizzed by. This is just one more example of how young people who get high sometimes use bad judgment and get themselves killed.
* * * * *
Tony Stewart will not be charged by an Ontario County (N.Y.) Grand Jury in the death of Kevin Ward Jr.
The grand jury determined
Wednesday that there was no evidence of a criminal act. The case was
passed on to the grand jury by Ontario County District Attorney Michael
Tantillo last week.
Tantillo said "two dozen" people
were interviewed in the case and revealed that toxicology reports
determined that Ward had marijuana in his system.
"There is toxicology evidence in
the case related to Kevin Ward, that actually indicated at the time of
operation that he was under the influence of marijuana," Tantillo said.
"There was no toxicology work performed on Tony Stewart, however a
certified drug recognition expert had interviewed him on the night of
the collision and determined that he found no basis to observe any
alcohol consumption or impairment by drugs."
When asked about Ward's toxicology reports, Tantillo said that the amount in his system was "enough to impair judgment."
Tantillo also said that there
was no evidence of "aberrational" driving from Stewart before he hit
Ward and that it appeared Stewart was driving in a straight line until
he hit Ward. Two videos of the accident were used as evidence in the
investigation.
I named this blog The Snow Monkey in part because it is a counterintuitive concept since monkeys typically live in tropical regions. I often see things different from the majority, and I don't subscribe to the idea that one party is good and the other is evil.
After the 9/11 attacks Democrats were blaming Bush for not acting on intelligence advisories (or for actually conducting a false flag operation) and Republicans were blaming Clinton for not taking bin Laden out when he had the opportunity. I felt that there was plenty of blame to go around. When Osama bin Laden was killed in 2011 Democrats were saying that Obama succeeded where Bush failed. Republicans were saying that Obama didn't get him, our military did. My take on it was "Why do people insist on partisanship at a time like this? You have to give Obama credit for authorizing the mission, but at the same time you can't seriously believe that none of the groundwork for that mission was laid during the Bush administration. Why can't we just be happy that he's dead and say 'Good for us! We finally got that bastard. GO AMERICA!' ? "
In order to see things objectively you have to leave the two-party mentality behind and drop the partisan talking points. That's true when it comes to foreign policy and it's equally true when it comes to the economy. Take this week's Forbes article, for example.
This is the best private sector jobs creation performance in American history
“What’s now clear is that the Obama administration policies have
outperformed the Reagan administration policies for job creation and
unemployment reduction. Even though Reagan had the benefit of a growing
Boomer class to ignite economic growth, while Obama has been forced to
deal with a retiring workforce developing special needs. During the
eight years preceding Obama there was a net reduction in jobs in
America. We now are rapidly moving toward higher, sustainable jobs
growth.”
The article goes on to state that the average stock market returns during the Obama administration are better than those of the Reagan administration. Had this come from a left-wing publication or MSNBC it might be suspect, but Forbes has never been known as a liberal magazine. The polls may not reflect this but Obama has presided over an impressive economic recovery. We can debate all day long what these numbers mean, but the idea that Obama has wrecked the economy is now hard to accept.
Personally I believe that the economy is cyclical and that presidents get too much of the credit in good times and too much blame in the bad times. I do feel that Reagan was a bit of an exception because his administration marked a transformation in how we view the role of government and the progressive tax system. Supply-side economics, referred to as "vodoo economics" by some of his opponents including his own VP, was a radical concept at the time and the Reagan Revolution included that as part of its platform.
As for Clinton, he was fortunate enough to take office at a time when the technology revolution and the worldwide web produced an incredible economic boom that eventually went bust at the end of his term. I will credit Clinton (and Greenspan) for managing the growth fairly well, but it would be a bit of a stretch to say that he produced it, despite the fact that his vice-president took partial credit for creating the internet.
Bush took office less than a year after the dotcom bubble burst and inherited a sluggish economy that eventually plunged into a recession following 9/11. Despite the obstacles he faced the economy rebounded and grew steadily from 2003-2008, only to tank again as a result of the financial meltdown of 2008 where again, there was plenty of blame to go around.
Obama inherited a mess and has constantly reminded us of that fact, but now with this latest report he can honestly say that things have indeed turned around. How much of this is cyclical and how much is due to Obama's leadership is certainly debatable but the facts are there for all to see, and if this trend continues as the article suggests it will be hard for the Republicans to make a strong argument for changing parties in 2016 based on the economy.
As we observe the 13th anniversary of the worst terrorist attack on American soil I thought that this would be a good opportunity to state my views on what happened. I believe that there was a conspiracy to destroy the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. I believe that dozens of people were involved in the conspiracy, but none of them were named Bush, Cheney, or Wolfowitz. None of them worked for the US government or an oil company. I believe that they were all members of Al Qaeda and here's why.
Al Qaeda had a history of conducting well orchestrated attacks like we saw on 9-11. They had the funds, the organizational skills, and the planning to pull it off. And they were dedicated enough to their cause to have 19 of their members commit suicide carrying it out.
I can hear some of you now yelling out "but what about WTC 7?" "Why wasn't there any plane debris in Shanksville, Penn.?" "Why wasn't there a plane in the video of the Pentagon attack?" "Why was the WTC the first skyscraper to ever collapse because of a fire?" All of those questions have been asnwered by experts for anybody who's really interested in the truth. I believe that many of the "truthers" want their story to be heard, and they're more interested in that than the truth.
There's an old saying that "if it sounds too good to be true then it probably is". That usually has to do with investment scams, but I think the same principle is applicable here as well. As much as the truthers would like for this conspiracy theory to be true, it just isn't possible. You see, the logistics of pulling off a government conspiracy in cahoots with the military-industrial complex to attack targets in the US as a pretext to go to war for oil make the theory completely impossible. How many people would have to keep quiet? How many people involved in the subsequent investigations would have to be involved in the coverup? How much of the preparatory work would have had to be conducted without detection? Remember, this was the same administration that couldn't find Osama bin Laden and looked for months for Saddam Hussein, and never did find the stockpiles of WMD that they claimed were there in the buildup to the invasion of Iraq. After all, this was the same president who said "is our children learning?" and "misunderestimate", and "subliminable". Do you really believe that these guys were capable of plotting and carrying out the most brilliant false flag operation in world history?
1998 Al Qaeda embassy attack
Here's what really happened. Osama bin Laden formed Al Qaeda at the end of the Afghan-Soviet war around 1990. When Saudi Arabia invited US troops into their country to defend against a possible invation by Saddam's Iraqi forces, bin Laden was incensed and began carrying out terrorist attacks against the west. In 1992 he sent soldiers into Somalia who shot down two US helicopters in Mogadishu. In 1993 the WTC bombing killed six people. The mastermind of the operation was a radical Muslim named Ramzi Yousef. Yousef avoided capture until 1995 when he was discovered in a house in Pakistan owned by bin Laden. In 1998 bin Laden told ABC reporter John Miller that he intended to keep targeting Americans. Later that year Al Qaeda blew up the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Three years later they followed that up with the 9/11 attacks.
That's my theory anyway. Let me ask you what you think is more likely. Is it more likely that the cabal or international bankers or the military-industrial complex along with the Bush administration planned this and executed it to perfection as a premise to go to war in Iraq? (First of all, they didn't claim that Iraq was behind the attacks. They said that 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. If they lied about all of this why didn't they just say that the hijackers were Iraqis? And if they lied about WMD instead of just telling us what their flawed intel led them to believe, why didn't they just plant stockpiles of WMD in Iraq so that they could "find" them later and justify the invasion rather than stand before the whole world with egg on their collective faces? To me it sounds more like incompetence than anything else.) Or is it more likely that a small group of well-trained and well-funded radical Muslims who were already linked to a previous attack on the WTC discovered breaches in our air travel system and exploited them in an attempt to destroy our economy?
This is just the big picture analysis argument against the government conspiracy. And now for a more detailed analysis of the evidence.
1. Truthers claim that a missile hit the Pentagon. The fact is there were at least a hundred witnesses who saw an airliner strike the building. In addition to that, conservative commentator Barbara Olson was on that plane and has never been heard from since along with all of the other passengers on all of the other planes that were hijacked. Olson was on her way to tape a segment of Bill Maher's TV show Politically Incorrect. Maybe this is one reason Bill Maher is so adamantly opposed to the government conspiracy theory.
2. Truthers claim that WTC 7 was brought down in a controlled implosion. I will admit that it looks like a controlled implosion, but to do a controlled implosion on a 47 story building like that would have created an audible blast of 130-140 decibels for up to half a mile which wasn't reported by anybody there. Besides that, it would have been virtually impossible to transport that much explosive material into the building undetected.
3. Truthers claim that the statement "maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it" by WTC 7 owner Larry Silverstein is proof that it was a controlled implosion. But Silverstein is on record saying that he was talking to the fire chief about pulling the firefighters out of the building because it was obviously in danger of collapsing. He was not talking to a demolition crew.
4. Truthers reject the investigation and findings of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), apparently considering them complicit in the conspiracy. (Use Google and see the numerous references to the NIST cover-up.)
5. Truthers reject the findings of Popular Mechanics' 2005 article called "Debunking the 9/11 Myths", so I guess they're also in on the cover-up, even though they consulted more than 300 experts in fields like air traffic control, aviation, civil engineering, fire fighting, and metallurgy, and then rigorously, meticulously, and scientifically analyzed the 25 most persistent 9/11 conspiracy theories.
This is just a small sampling of the many things that truthers get wrong. For further illumination see:
Many of the leaders of Al Qaeda have been eliminated since 2011, including Osama bin Laden. And yet the threat continues, as we're seeing now with ISIS in their quest for a caliphate in Syria and Iraq, and their threats against the US. In order to defeat our enemies we need to first of all recognize who our enemy is. When conspiracy theorists cloud the issue with featherbrained accusations it distracts us from the real issue and how to resolve it. Hopefully we won't need to experience another 9/11 to convince us all that the threat from militant Islam is real.
A couple of years ago I created a blog called Media Douchebags in response to the horrific media handling mishandling of the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman story. My thinking at the time was that I would devote the blog to similar cases of media distortions. While there is certainly no shortage of such cases, circumstances compelled me to return to blogging about the dinar and I never did anything more with that blog. You can read that one article here, however.
In following the recent story of the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo. I was struck by the parallels with the Trayvon Martin case. The first thing that got my attention was when I learned about the popular use of Swisher Sweets cigars for rolling joints. It reminded me of the alternative use of Trayvon Martin's Skittles and Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail which are often mixed with cough syrup to create a codeine-based drink called "lean". In other words both of these young men had just left a convenience store where they scored some of the necessary material for getting high, and may have already been under the influence.
But the similarities don't stop there. They also include:
Both were portrayed as boys when in fact they were both over six feet tall.
Both were constantly referred to as unarmed which suggested that they were gunned down in cold blood, ignoring the injuries that they apparently inflicted upon the shooters.
Both had posed for photos making gang signs and displayed gangsta behavior.
Both came from a broken home.
Both were living in a temporary location in a suburb of a major city.
Both were incorrectly reported as having been shot in the back.
Both were unemployed.
Both were portrayed as having great ambitions in life.
And beyond that, their fathers' are about the same age and bear a strong resemblance to one another.
Michael Brown Sr. & Tracy Martin
Taking all of this into consideration, these two cases a thousand miles and two years apart suggest to me that they represent something more than a culture of racism or police brutality. I believe they represent a cultural climate in America that leads to bad judgment and a lifestyle condusive to such tragic ends. These two young men were at a point in their lives where they should have been preparing for adulthood. They should have had a strong male figure in their lives living an example for them of how to be a man. They should have been watched a bit more closely. Instead they fell through the cracks.
I'm not saying that they don't bear any responsibility here, but good parenting might have made a difference. Young people need guidance. They're not experienced enough in life to understand how things work, and they need good adults to help them to make good decisions.
I did a lot of stupid things as a teenager, and I'm hardly alone in that. I know from experience that without the right influence most kids will make poor choices and suffer the consequences. With good examples and proper guidance most kids will make better choices and fare better in life.
Tracy Martin recently said that fathers need to "go out and teach our children how to walk and how to talk ... just basic etiquette on how to deliver themselves in the public". You can't help but wonder if he's referring to his own son's suspicious behavior before he lost his life in Florida two years ago.
Something that many white people don't realize is that hip-hop and gangsta rap is as divisive in the black community as the Vietnam War was in the white community. When Shaquille O'Neal asked his dad if he could listen to rap music his dad, a former seargent in the U.S. army, told him "okay, but you better not let me catch you listening to any of that gansta rap!" Years later Shaq stated about his rapping:
``I talk about stuff I know. You'll never hear me talk about gangsta rap, 'cause I'm no gangsta,'' Shaq sez. ``And I really wouldn't be calling girls the `B' word on my album, 'cause I got a lot of beautiful women in my life and I don't wanna get them upset. So I just try and say things that'll make people go `oooh,' that'll make them think a bit.''
Shaq also credited his father with disciplining him when he needed it. As a result he was able to stay out of trouble, focus on his goals, and have a great career.
The famous neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson was the son of a single mother in Detroit. His mother required him and his brother to read two books a week and write a book report for her. She also limited their television viewing and playtime. As a result they both finished their education and had successful careers as well. (Dr. Carson's brother Curtis was a mechanical engineer.) Stories like these are repeated every day with parents who play an active role in their children's lives and keep them on the straight and narrow. Unfortunately many children stray from the straight and narrow, and in the cases of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown they end up on the broad road to destruction.
I have already stated that George Zimmerman's poor judgment escalated the situation in the Trayvon Martin case. It remains to be seen how Officer Wilson's judgment and actions might have contributed to the tragedy in Ferguson. But instead of defaulting to the accusatory "he had no right to kill that boy" position, maybe we should be asking "how did these young men end up on the road to destruction?" As comedian Bill Burr says, "even firemen dig through the debris to see how the fire started".
Supposedly there is now a link between the "bogus" Sandy Hook shooting spree and the "bogus" beheading of James Foley. Referred to as "the smoking gun" by conspiracy nuts, the former classmate of deranged mass murderer Adam Lanza known as Alex Israel is actually played by the same actress who pretended to be James Foley's sister Katie.
The fact that family members can still manage a smile or chuckle doesn't prove anything. In fact, if these were all actors you would think they would go out of their way to stick to the script and portray nothing but grief. The fact is people deal with grief in different ways. Sometimes laughter helps you to cope with the pain.
As one who has done his share of debunking, I think it might behoove this putz to dig a little deeper. You can't just take a bunch of goofy theories and slap two still frames alongside of each other and claim that you proved anything. Let's see some documentation. How about a profile and a name for this "actress"? How about a link to a Facebook or Twitter page where the actress admits taking part in this hoax? How about an actor profile for the alleged brother? Or maybe a bio on James Foley that shows no sister named Katie or a photo of Katie that doesn't match?
I think a better comparison of the two might be this video.
The hair is not the same, knucklehead. Alex has hers parted slightly to the right and Katie has hers parted on the left side. And the noses are different, too. And then there's the teeth.
Look at the slightly crooked and gapped teeth on Alex vs. the big, straight chompers on Katie. They are obviously two different people.
Besides that, the Sandy Hook shooting wasn't faked. How hard would it be to cover up the fake killing of 26 people? You would think that somebody would have slipped up somewhere and got caught alive and well since 2012 but no, they're all still dead. Snopes did a pretty thorough investigation into it and dispelled the conspiracy BS point by point. But even if you reject Snopes' findings you still have to explain the reason our government would fake the murder of 26 people? To confiscate our guns? Okay, that was two years ago folks. How many of your guns have been taken away?
You have to understand that whatever biases members of the mainstream media may have, they still have to maintain a certain amount of credibility. They still have accountability to their respective news organizations. The same is true for politicians. In fact some people believe that Al Gore's embellishments cost him the presidency. Whatever you think of the mainstream media and the US government they still have more credibility and accountability than these anonymous news sources and conspiracy theory pimps on the internet.
It's fine to question your government. It's great to look for answers. It's even okay to say that there are bad people in powerful positions in our government, military, and business communities. But it's not okay to fabricate and lock yourself into one viewpoint to the point that facts and the truth are no longer of any interest to you. The truth matters. And the truth here is that over two dozen people were gunned down at an elementary school in Connecticut two years ago. The familes were devastated, and now they have to deal with conspiracy nuts saying it didn't happen. Shame on you! Whatever your position on gun control you have no right to spread these lies.
And ISIS is real, folks. They might be engaging in a bit of propaganda and PR but they are a true terrorist organization, and the sooner we realize that we have an enemy to face and stop spreading these idiotic conspiracy theories the better. There's too much at stake.
Like most people I was troubled over the recent suicide of the legendary comedian and movie star Robin Willians. When his publicist said that he had been struggling with depression recently I immediately thought of Williams' idol Jonathon Winters, who admittedly was committed to a psychiatric hospital in 1959 and 1961 and also struggled with alcoholism and depression. When Winters died last year Robin Williams wrote a tribute to him in the NY Times. Nobody could have imagined at the time that a little over a year later similar eulogies would be delivered for Williams.
A lot of pundits have offered their thoughts on what was responsible for a rich and famous celebrity ending his own life. Some say it was due to financial problems. Other say it was chronic depression. Still others claim that it was brought on by the medication he was taking after being diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease. Whatever the cause, it was a tragic ending to a brilliant career.
Most people would list "Dead Poet's Society", "Good Will Hunting", "Good Morning Vietnam", or "Mrs. Doubtfire" as their favorite Robin Williams movie, but I think my favorite was "Awakenings". This movie showed you the depth of two great actors. Robin Williams playing a character who wasn't funny and Robert DeNiro playing a character who wasn't dangerous in a mostly true story that was completely fascinating.
High School photo
Williams claimed that he was a fat child who was bullied and turned to humor to ward off the bad guys, but his mother denies that he was ever fat. He apparently also claimed to be from Scotland earlier in his career, and David Letterman made reference to this recently in recalling the first time he saw Williams doing stand-up in the 70s. Williams was actually from Chicago and also lived in Detroit and northern California as a child. His father was an automobile executive and was gone for much of his childhood, and since his mother also worked he was raised with the help of a maid. Interestingly enough Williams' second wife was his former nanny during his first marriage. At the risk of sounding like an armchair psychologist I have to ask if perhaps there wasn't some transference in play here?
Another interesting thing I discovered was a quote from Bob Zmuda, a friend of Williams, comedic partner of Andy Kaufman, and the founder of Comic Relief.
“There had to be two people in the room with him", his friend Bob Zmuda told CNN’s “New Day.” “Then you were an audience, and then he came alive.” But one-on-one, Zmuda said, Williams “had no social skills. He couldn’t handle it… I knew this man for 35 years and yet it was like I was in an elevator with a stranger.”
No social skills, but when there was an audience he "came alive". For somebody like that it had to be difficult to function the majority of the time with no audience around. And as the reports came in we learned that he died alone, having spent the night in a separate room from his wife. His body wasn't discovered for an estimated ten hours. So tragic!
Williams' untimely death serves as yet another example of the old saying "money can't buy hapiness". The simple truth is that many celebrities are driven to stardom by the same demons that eventually destroy them. The emptiness and need for approval that is missing in their lives seems to subside when in front of a crowd, but when the crowds are gone they have to face the demons again. That's why so many are beset by drugs, alcohol, and depression. What they sought and eventually found in the entertainment business was only a temporary high that eventually wore off. The drugs and alcohol are really just a substitute for the entertainment high which in itself was a substitute for a breakdown in their social and familial environments. John Belushi, Chris Farley, Freddie Prinze, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Heath Ledger, Amy Winehouse, Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley, Curt Kobain, Anna Nicole Smith, Judy Garland, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin ... etc. The list goes on and on of celebrities who self-destructed. And many who didn't self-destruct like Rodney Dangerfield, Mike Wallace, Ashley Judd, and Owen Wilson have battled depression throughout their lves. It's always good to be reminded that the glitz and glamour of fame while alluring, may be nothing more than a facade or a bandaid on a mortally wounded soul.
The Guardian did an incredibly insightful piece on Williams a few years ago. Reading it now you have to wonder how those closest to him could have been caught off guard by his sudden decline? Despite the incredible volume of work he left over the past 35 years, it may be that Robin Williams' true legacy will be a reminder that all is not as it appears in Hollywood.
I have been waiting to write about this until the facts are available, but I think there's been enough brought out so far to form some valid opinions and conclusions. As you probably already know an 18 year old black man (I hesitate to call anybody 6'4" and nearly 300 lbs. in this situation a boy even though it could very well be appropriate regarding his maturity level) was shot and killed by a 28 yeard old white police officer on Saturday, August 9. The timeline according to USA Today includes:
Saturday Aug. 9
11:48 a.m. to noon – An officer responds to a call of a sick person. 11:51 a.m. – Another call comes in about a robbery at a convenience store. The dispatcher gives a description of the robber and says the suspect is walking toward the Quick Trip convenience store. 12:01 p.m. – The officer encounters Michael Brown and a friend as they walk down a street. Brown is shot to death as a result of the encounter. 12:04 p.m. – A second officer arrives on the scene followed by a supervisor one minute later. An ambulance responding to the earlier sick person call drives by and responds to assess Brown.
Sunday Aug. 10
10 a.m. – Michael Brown, 18, was unarmed, St. Louis County Police Chief Joe Belmar says in a news conference. Belmar says Brown physically assaulted the officer, and during a struggle between the two, Brown reached for the officer's gun. One shot was fired in the car followed by other gunshots outside of the car.
I'm going to leave out a lot of the rhetoric and talking points that you get from the talking heads and focus instead on facts and logical conclusions based on those facts. First of all, let's deal with the word that makes this story so compelling ..... "unarmed". Here's a video of a policeman who was shot and killed with his own gun by an "unarmed" suspect.
Here's another video of an unarmed suspect rushing a police officer with nearly the same results. Fortunately for him there was another officer nearby who came to his aid.
This is not to say that this is what happened in the Michael Brown shooting. It's just a reminder of what cops face on a regular basis. Policemen have a second or two to make the decision .... "do I shoot an unarmed man or do I allow him the opportunity to overpower me, take my gun, and shoot me with it?"
Surveillance camera still frame from the
strongarm cigar box theft
The initial media reports on the shooting in Ferguson had the narrative of "unarmed black teenage boy shot by white policeman ... riots ensue". When it was revealed that Brown was 6'4" and weighed 290 lbs. the talking points became "he was a gentle giant". When the police released a video of the "strongarm robbery" of a box of cigars, it was obvious that not only was this no little boy, but he was not exactly gentle either as he tossed aside the convenience store clerk like a rag doll. At that point the talking points became "they're attacking his character".
Brown's friend Dorian Johnson initially claimed that Brown was shot once in the back.
Johnson says he was within arm’s reach of both Brown and the officer. He looked over at Brown and saw blood pooling through his shirt on the right side of the body.
“The whole time [the officer] was holding my friend until the gun went off,” Johnson noted.
Brown's friend and accomplice Dorian Johnson
Brown and Johnson took off running together. There were three cars lined up along the side of the street. Johnson says he ducked behind the first car, whose two passengers were screaming. Crouching down a bit, he watched Brown run past. “Keep running, bro!,” he said Brown yelled. Then Brown yelled it a second time. Those would be the last words Johnson’s friend, “Big Mike,” would ever say to him. Brown made it past the third car. Then, “blam!” the officer took his second shot, striking Brown in the back. At that point, Johnson says Brown stopped, turned with his hands up and said “I don’t have a gun, stop shooting!”
When the autopsy was released a few days later it showed that all of the shots were fired from in front of Brown, and he was not shot from behind as Johnson claimed.
At this point the narrative changed once again from "he was shot in the back" to "the autopsy proves that he was surrendering." A few days later it was revealed that the policeman suffered a swollen face (some say he had an injury to his eye socket) in the struggle. It should come as no surprise that Dorian Johnson lied about what happened, as he has previously been charged with filing a false report. Additionally Johnson changed his original story to include the previously omitted admission of stealing the cigars.
Now for those of you who are wondering what would motivate somebody to steal a box of cigars, these weren't just any cigars. They were Swisher Sweets, which are known for being used by weed smokers who replace the tobacco with marijuana. "Cheap cigars that most people use to roll blunts with. Very easy to split and dump out the tobacco to replace with weed. Popular among rappers."
The New York Times reported that Brown had "no adult arrest record, according to the police, who said they could not speak to whether he had been arrested as a juvenile." They can't speak to it because juvenile criminal records are usually sealed. And since he was only 18 years old his adult record would have only gone back a year or so. It remains to be seen whether his death will allow for his record (if any) to be made public, but it does seem curious to me that they would make a point of using the caveat "adult" in their statement.
The officer who fired the fatal shot was Darren Wilson, a six year veteran policeman who had served four years at Ferguson and two with another St. Louis area police department in Jennings. By all accounts Wilson had an excellent record with no complaints and at least one commendation.
I think we can all agree that a police officer shooting and killing an unarmed man who has his hands raised in surrender would be guilty of murder. Likewise we can all agree that an officer who is being attacked in an effort to take his gun away would be justified in using deadly force. I think we can also agree that much of what we're hearing from the parties involved in this story is just meaningless chatter. The race of the officer and the racial composition of the Ferguson community aren't really the issue here. The only thing that matters is what happened, and to determine what happened we have to look at verifiable facts, such as the ones I've listed here.
So to sum up, a 6'4" 290 lb. young man stole a box of cigars that are known for being used to create blunts for smoking weed. A few minutes later an officer with an admirable record of service confronted him and an altercation followed, resulting in an injury to the face of the officer who ended up firing six shots from the front with the last one striking the subject in the head as the fatal wound. The key witness who claims that Brown was surrendering at the time that he was shot was with Brown during the theft and has a previous charge of filing a false report, and the subsequent riots in Ferguson are based largely on his account of the events.
We'll be waiting awhile for the toxicology report and any news on Michael Brown's possible juvenile arrest record to add further illumination on the events, but for now these are verifiable facts. Based on the facts, what do you think is more likely to have occurred? A racist, white cop shot an unarmed black teenager "execution style" in broad daylight just for jaywalking, or a 6'4" 290 lb. thief was fatally shot by a police officer when a confrontation ended in a violent struggle?
In July a jury awarded Jesse Ventura $1.8 million in his defamation case against the estate of Chris Kyle, a heralded military sniper who won several commendations and claimed to be the most lethal sniper in US military history. Kyle stated in his book American Sniper that he had an altercation in a San Diego area bar with a man he referred to as "Scruff Face" who was making deragatory remarks about President Bush and said that the navy seals "deserve to lose a few". In interviews promoting the book he identified "Scruff Face" as Jesse Ventura. As a result Ventura was shunned by many.
Ventura claimed that the incident never happened and that he had never met or even heard of Chris Kyle before the book was written. He filed a lawsuit against Kyle for defamation in 2012, but Kyle died tragically in an incident at a shooting range in Texas in February of 2013 before the suit began. At that point Ventura made Kyle's estate the subject of the lawsuit.
Kyle's widow was on FOX News with Bill O'Reilly last year when O'Reilly said that Ventura should drop the case if he wants to restore his reputation. In fact it was getting a jury to award him $1.8 million that restored his reputation, because now people are forced to conclude that the evidence backed Ventura's story. That's why we have civil litigation and defamation lawsuits. It's how we as a society choose to settle these disputes rather than resort to a duel as occurred 200 years ago when Vice President Aaron Burr fatally wounded Alexander Hamilton.
I want to make it clear that I have no use for Jesse "The Body" Ventura. I consider him a loudmouth, arrogant jerk. I think it's admirable that he served our country as a navy seal, but I have no interest in wrasslin' and never was a fan of his political career or conspiracy nut theory show. On top of that he is an avowed atheist and I am a devout Christian.
However, the reaction to his defamation suit victory really hit me the wrong way. Aren't people interested in facts? Doesn't the truth mean anything anymore? Defamation is notoriously hard to prove, especially for celebrities like Jesse Ventura. The case was won because the jury looked at the evidence and concluded that Chris Kyle made up the whole story, and profited an estimated $6 million from the sale of 1.5 million copies of the book in question. The promotion for the book included the story of the alleged altercation, so one could assume that the profits from the book came in large part from the fabrication.
Sarah Palin called him a jackass and said that suing Kyle's widow wouldn't help his reputation. Again, you might not like the fact that Ventura sued the estate, but had he dropped the lawsuit Kyle's claims about Ventura would have gone forever unaddressed. On Twitter CNN's Anderson Cooper said "has he no shame?", but apparently he never tweeted that Kyle's lies which were now confirmed by a jury were shameless. The fact is Kyle's story about Ventura makes many of the other claims he has made about himself questionable.
This is not to say that Kyle didn't deserve the many commendations he received, nor does it mean that his service to our country shouldn't be applauded. But like it or not, Jesse Ventura also served as a navy seal and nobody has the right to destroy his reputation with lies to generate book sales.
The famous attorney Alan Dershowitz defended Claus von Bulow who was one of the most unlikeable men in America, simply because he felt like the system was railroading the guy. Our justice system is supposed to work for people we don't like as well as for people we do. What is supposed to matter is the law and the facts.
I felt the same way when Paula Jones sued Bill Clinton for sexual harrassment while he was governor of Arkansas. I didn't like her, and I felt that her suit was frivolous and politically motivated. However, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in her favor which gave her the right to pursue it. At that point Clinton was obligated to either go through the process and tell the truth or settle out of court. Instead he chose door #3 - lie and risk impeachment. Some people thought that lying about such a trivial thing as sex was no big deal, but the point is the president of the United States was denying an American citizen due process by obstructing justice. Whether you liked Paula Jones or not she had the right to sue by virtue of a Supreme Court ruling.
Now that this matter is resolved Ventura can now go back to his delusional plan to run for president in 2016 or to his goofy TV show or whatever else he decides to do, knowing that he has forever settled this issue of publicly disrespecting his fellow navy seals. That's how our system works, and that's how it should work.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)