Sometimes things can be so horrible that they are awesome. I have to admit I’m not sure if this is one of those things, or is it just awesome because it is awesome.
Sometimes things can be so horrible that they are awesome. I have to admit I’m not sure if this is one of those things, or is it just awesome because it is awesome.
Only two people know what truly happened on the horrible night of February 26, 2012 in Sanford and sadly one of those two people will never be able to tell his side of the story. Following the not guilty verdict social media has filled up with everything from full on anger and calls to riot, to disgusting shows of pure joy at the acquittal.
My reaction falls on neither side of that spectrum, the sad fact is that someone lost a son. I couldn’t even begin to imagine the horrors that Trayvon Martin’s parents are experiencing in the loss of their son. Someone lost a child, someone lost a brother, someone lost a friend and a family member. On the flip side of that, even though unlike Martin, George Zimmerman continues to walk this earth and will do so a free man, he will always have to look over his shoulder in fear as well as live the rest of the life knowing that another life was taken by his hand, irregardless of the fact that a jury of his peers found his actions justifiable.
The bigger story in this whole ordeal, if it is possible for something to be a bigger story then someone’s death, is the narrative largely created by the media that has been built around the case. On the night in question a 5’7” out of shape multiracial Hispanic 28 year old male encountered a 5’11” muscular and athletic Black 17 year old male, a horrible and avoidable series of events quickly followed that led to the death of the 17 year old.
Sadly, the above encounter with very similar demo-graphical details plays out on almost any given night in some inner city across America without barely even a brief mention in the National media. The story on everyone’s lips in the the weeks following the incident of Feb 26 was racist white man guns down innocent black teenager in cold blood.
Let the facts be dammed, George Zimmerman was convicted in the court of public opinion as a hateful evil white racists and young Trayvon Martin was an innocent victim and pictured youthful and innocent in his white hoodie would go on to be elevated to iconic status.
If a 28 year old Black male shot a 17 year old multiracial Hispanic in the streets of my hometown Cleveland, would it be a national news story? Or would it just be another case to toss on the way too large pile?
Do I think George Zimmerman is innocent of any wrong doing? That’s irrelevant he was judged by a jury of his peers, who had found that there was enough reasonable doubt to find him not-guilty of murder. Do I think that the events of Feb 26 could have and should have been avoided allowing for both George Zimmerman & Trayvon Martin to be walking this earth and no one outside of their friends and family knowing who they are — absolutely.
That has nothing to do with the fact that this case should have never been the national media story that it became, further antagonizing the state of race relations in our Country.
That’s all I have, other then in the words of rapper Lupe Fiasco, RIP Trayvon Martin and may God watch over your family.
I am torn, at least partially, on today’s ruling(s) from the SCOTUS as they relate to the same-sex “marriage” debate. I am torn in the sense that, while I do agree that the Defense Of Marriage Act is un-constitutional, I don’t necessarily agree with the reason it was struck down (I’ll get to that later). Furthermore, I am also partially torn in the sense that I am a big proponent of clearly-defined terms not being re-defined and given new meanings simply for the sake of changes in the willingness of society to accept change.
I am more libertarian (not liberal) minded on most social issues and have no problems with people who are of the opposite sex and want to make a lifetime commitment to each-other. But I draw the line at changing the meaning of things just because you want inclusion in something that another group has.
The simple truth about marriage, something that many proponents of same-sex “marriage” refuse to understand, is that marriage is and has always been an institution that is between a man and a woman. While it is true that over the past few centuries the reasons that couples enter into marriage arraignments with each other may have changed, starting off as primarily financial arraignments centuries ago to now being about love, commitment & family; what has not changed is the people involved, a husband & a wife — or more specifically one man & one women.
Changing the definition of marriage is like changing the definition of water, it just can’t be done. Just as water is the combination of two hydrogen molecules & one oxygen molecule, marriage is the combination of one man and one woman. Furthermore the argument that “people should be allowed to marry whomever they please,” is simply not a valid excuse for redefining what marriage has traditionally been. If same-sex “marriage” is recognized, why not polygamous “marriage?,” or multiple participant “marriage?”
Many of the supporters of same-sex “marriage” (particularly those coming from a liberal / progressive viewpoint) would state that those are straw man arguments the fact is that redefining the definition of marriage to include government recognition same-sex couples as “married” based on the “people should be allowed to choose” argument, doesn’t just redefine marriage but completely undefines it.
That being said, I do believe that same-sex couples who choose to make a lifetime commitment to each other should have some of the protections afforded to married individuals, such as; financial rights, benefits, inheritance, health decisions… I just don’t believe that the institution of marriage should be trampled on to do so.
The other reason I am torn with today’s decision is that I find it truly saddening that the SCOTUS should have even been deciding on a case that involves the issue of marriage. Not only is marriage an issue that the Federal Government has no business being involved in, it shouldn’t even be an issue that government has any say in.
Marriage and people’s desires to make a lifetime commitment to each-other are private matters between those two individuals or those two-individuals and their faith/church or their interpretation of God.
As a small-government loving Conservative, I want the the government out of my life. If you need the government’s recognition of your union for it to be valid in your heart & mind, are you truly living in a free country?
Remy hits one out of the park again.
As a foul-mouthed, heavy-metal loving tattooed conservative I am often confronted with issues that cause disagreement with others who are supposedly on the same side of the political spectrum as myself.
This morning while drinking my morning coffee and skimming through one of my favorite stops on the interwebs (IOwntheWorld.com) I came across a post about Rosie O’Donnell’s 13-year-old son allegedly getting a tattoo. The ensuing comments on that thread prompted me to write the below response.[IowntheWorld.com is still one of my favorite stops on the interwebs though.]
– – –
This thread reminds me of a conversation I had once with a (very) liberal college professor of mine. Not having liked the college experience much after my first year, I spent most of my next 6 years after High School graduation jumping straight into the workforce. I was a few years older then most of my classmates and thus, pretty much the only one that had the cajones to open up and argue with said (very) liberal college professor when he started on with the usual progressive ideological nonsense. The class wasn’t even a politically oriented one.
One nice spring day, after a rather miserably cold Cleveland winter, I came to class wearing a T-Shirt as opposed to the normal sweatshirts I would wear. I instantly noticed the look of amazement in (very) liberal college professor’s eyes when he notices a bit of one of my half sleeve tattoos poking out of my Ronald Reagan “Old School Conservative” tee shirt.
“Joe,” he started off, the sense of moral superiority firmly in his voice. “I’ve got to say that I’m completely shocked after all the Conservative Right-Wing viewpoints you’ve expressed all semester to see that you have tattoos. How do you justify that while holding such a rigid belief system?”
I chuckled then looked straight at (very) liberal college professor and said, “The answer is in the second paragraph of the Declaration Of Independence. You see as a Conservative I believe that I am endowed by my creator with the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
He didn’t like that answer and pressed on with the ‘how can I justify having tattoos with being conservative line of questioning. He then brought up the religious right and other liberal talking points.
“You are confusing the hard-core religious right, and uppity snobs with what being a ‘conservative’ means,” I went on to tell him. “You see while liberals tend to want to pigeon-hole people and lump everyone into a group into a specific spot where that group falls into the social-order. But as a conservative I am most concerned with the dignity & freedom of the individual. I know that each and every man is his own unique individual and the choices we make as free individuals are our choices & not ones to be made by any other individual or collective.”
He basically didn’t have a response and we continued on with class.
I won’t try to explain my choices of body-art here, as they are my own. Do I regret some of the choices I made? Of course I do, but those choices helped mold me into the man I am today. Each piece of art on my body is a reminder of the person I was at that time & place.
As a firm believe in the first amendment I will never deny the right of anyone to speak there mind. If you think tattoos are stupid, or that they defile the body or any other reasoning you have to dislike body art — that is your right.
It just irks me when people who are supposed to be on the same side of the political spectrum as myself can’t view the choice of getting tattoo as nothing more then an issue of individual liberty — and thus a choice that perfectly aligns with being conservative.
We live in a free country (well for the most part we do, or at least we once did) and part of living in a free society is having to put up with crap that we don’t agree with.
Take for instance the new FX drama The Americans, a show starring J.J. Abram’s other (then Jennifer Garner) muse Keri Russell, about Soviet sleeper agents living in the US in the 1980’s.
On the surface, being a fan of spy movies and the Fox’s 24, The Americans seemed like a show I might want to get into — until I found out the Soviets were the protagonists.
The following quote is from the show’s Executive Producer, Joel Fields:
“It might be a little different to believe and get used to, but we want you to root for the KGB… they’re going to try to get the Soviets to win the Cold War.”
This one is from its creator, Joe Weisberg:
“These were these really competing value systems… and there’s no question that repressive socialism failed, but unbridled consumption hasn’t exactly led to great satisfaction — and one problem is how do we express that dramatically.”
All I really have to say, as a lover of liberty, is that Amblin Entertainment and Fox Television Studios have every right in this free country of ours to broadcast a program such as this. However being in a free country and being a red-blooded America loving capitalist gives me the right to call the producers and stars of this show COMPLETE AND TOTAL DOUCHEBAGS.
48 years ago a Senator from Arizona by the name of Barry Goldwater was the GOP’s nominee in the Presidential election. “The turn will come,” Senator Goldwater had written a few years earlier, “when we entrust the conduct of our affairs to men who understand their first duty as public officials is to divest themselves of the power they have been given. It will come when Americans… decide to put the man in office who is pledged to enforce the Constitution and restore the Republic.”
Unfortunately, the American people did not believe they were ready for such a man and Sen. Goldwater lost his bid to the Presidency. All however was not lost, as the backbone that was his campaign, a campaign that much like a certain Texas Congressman’s campaign in 2012, was established and run by men and women much younger then most elected officials. A campaign that was drawn from organizations like Young Americans For Freedom, the Young Republican National Federation and like-minded individuals from across our great nation. The Goldwater “revolution,” much like another “rEVOLution” today, pioneered the use of small-dollar amount donations and generated a large group of like-minded individuals who spread out continued the fight, giving many of today’s Conservative politicians their first national hearing.
The backbone of that campaign filled Central Committee posts and other elected offices across the country. Slightly less then 20 years later that backbone restored the nation’s might and morale, took the reigns of power back from the Jimmy Carter disaster, ended the Cold War and brought us ten years of peace and prosperity not seen since before the 1920’s.
Are today’s Ron Paul “rEVOLutionairies” willing to truly stand up for liberty like they proclaim, support the best candidate with a chance of winning we have and then take a cue from the Barry Goldwater Conservative revolution and once we reclaim the wheel that steers the ship that is our Nation fill those central committee posts, fight at the grass routes to make sure our side continues to steer it in the right direction?
Or are they going to bitch and moan, ignore our candidate and hand the progressives another four years to stack the Supreme Court, district courts across the nation and do an untold amount of more damage to our nation
This is actually old news, picked up recently by Forbes Magazine and the regurgitated by The Blaze. (which is where I found out about it.) None-the-less, no matter how old this story is, it still is a great example of the American way.
Jack White, singer-songwriter of the White Stripes and the 70th best guitarist of all-time (as decided by the folks at Rolling Stone), opened up a boutique record label called Third Man Records in 2001. In 2010 a few White Stripes fans started to make some noise and complain about certain business practices of Third Man Records. Particularly when they released a limited edition version of the then newly reissued White Stripes debut and sold it via their own eBay page, a sale that netted them $510.
Mr. White explained that this was done basically to cut out the eBay flippers, that were buying the records for cheap and then “flipping” them on eBay at large profits. That did nothing to lessen the anger amongst fans, so White went on to say:
“… make no mistake, we could make twenty thousand split color whatevers for you, and they’ll be worth 20 bucks, and you’ll pay 20 bucks for them, and you’ll never talk about them, desire them, hunt to find them, etc. why should ebay flippers, who are not real fans, dictate the price, make all the profit (taken from the artist and the label) and take the records out of the hands of real fans. there’s a guy who waits in a black suv down the block from third man who hires homeless people to go buy him tri colors when they are on sale. doesn’t even get out of his car. should he be charged ten bucks or two hundred? don’t be spoiled, don’t insult people who are trying to give you what you want.”
Basically the Free Market (what fans were willing to pay on eBay) set the price. Jack White, being a business man found out that fans were buying the records that his business was selling for much cheaper at inflated prices anyways. All he did was cut out the middle man and create more income for his business and the artists signed to that label.
An Occupy Wall Street protester would have a problem with that, but its nothing more then the American Way.
Related: Bob Dylan, Sell Out Nazi Scumbag?
Andrew Breitbart passed away today. My thoughts and prayers go out to his wife, children and everyone that loved him.
All I can say is that if I can garner just 10% of the hatred and vitriol from the lunatic left that Andrew Breitbart inspired, I will have lived a life that was good and worthwhile.
UPDATED: Found this great video from the Franklin Center
Here is an oldie, but a goody from the late, great, George Carlin.
I just read over at Reason, that according to the Marijuana Policy Project, Barney Frank and Ron Paul plan on teaming up tomorrow (not the kind of team up that Rep. Frank usually likes though) to introduce a piece of legislation that would end the Federal prohibition of marijuana.
WASHINGTON, DC – Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) will introduce bi-partisan legislation tomorrow, June 23, ending the federal war on marijuana and letting states legalize, regulate, tax, and control marijuana without federal interference. Other co-sponsors include Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA). The legislation would limit the federal government’s role in marijuana enforcement to cross-border or inter-state smuggling, allowing people to legally grow, use or sell marijuana in states where it is legal.
The legislation is the first bill ever introduced in Congress to end federal marijuana prohibition.
Leading critics of the war on marijuana will explain its significance for state and national marijuana policy at a national tele-press conference on Thursday.
Now 1) this “potential legislation” does not affect me in any way as I do not partake in the enjoyment of Mary Jane (though I used to,) 2) I would never vote for either of these two ass clowns and 3) this bill has about as much of a chance of passing as I have of making it with Christina Hendricks —- I fully support the idea of it and say that it is about damn time.
And any of my fellow “conservatives” on the right leaning side of the political spectrum who oppose this bill — you are idiots, and are not true Conservatives. I won’t even get into the argument about how the “war on drugs” is a forty year old joke that is nothing but a ridiculous waste of tax payer money and has done more to actually increase drug use in this country then to stop it.
It all comes down to federalism and states rights, which is something we on the right are supposed to be champions of. This proposed legislation makes too much sense — which sadly is why it won’t pass.
I really don’t go to the movies much anymore, heck I only really just started watching movies again just recently when I cut the cable and am now relying solely on Hulu and Netflix to watch TV.
But if I wanted to go the movies, it would be nice if the State Legislature here in Ohio took another page from Wisconsin, and do what they might do there…. legalize alcohol sales in movie theaters.
If you’re a movie-goer who loves a beverage at the theater, how would you feel if buying a beer was an option? There’s a provision added to the state budget that would let movie theaters apply for a liquor license.
One of the recent changes the Joint Finance Committee made to the state budget was a provision that would let a movie theater apply for a class B beer or liquor license.
“This motion clarifies state law. Currently, entertainment centers can apply for liquor licenses.
Most communities agree that a movie theater is an entertainment center, but not all do. So this motion adds movie theaters to the list of entertainment centers in state law. It’s still up to the locals whether to grant a license. It doesn’t force them to,” says Bob Delaporte, a spokesperson from Sen. Alberta Darling’s office. Darling is a co-chair of the Joint Finance Committee.
Think about that, the government letting free adults, do adult things. It’s sad that this is a novel idea.
Well it happened again, the rare occasion every 18 months or so when Bill Maher says something that is not totally asinine and I agree with him. Much like when he blasted one of those 9/11 truther whack jobs that was in his audience once, I have to commend him for for something he’s done.
Recently on his HBO show after mentioning that Mohammed (or variations in spelling of) is the #1 new baby name in Great Britain, he had this to say:
“Am I a racist to feel I’m alarmed by that because I am,” Maher asked his panel. “And it’s not because of the race. It’s because of the religion. I don’t have to apologize, do I, for not wanting the western world to be taken over by Islam?”
Here’s the clip.
Anybody who does not find the spread of Islam into the Western world even a little scary, is either a) fooling themselves, b) an idiot or c) actually embracing it.
I wonder if HBO is going to pull an NPR and fire Maher, ala Juan Williams? I doubt it.
You’re probably going not going to hear much about this story, mostly because most musicians tend to lean to the left, thus they are probably not going to complain about it. But according to WLWT in Cincinatti, images of members of some hard rock bands have been used in an attack ad against Steve Franzen, Republican candidate for Kentucky’s Campbell County Attorney.
Jim Daley, [Democrat] released a flier with misleading information on one side and pictures of rock stars from the bands Stone Sour, Avenged Sevenfold and Disturbed with no connection to Franzen on the other.
“Supposedly they’re my clients, but I haven’t seen any of these people,” Franzen said. “I don’t know anything about them, other than supposedly they’re rock musicians.”
Franzen said he’s uncertain of the legality of what Daley sent out.
Notice how neither the article, nor the accompanying video make any mention of which political party the candidates are affiliated in. I had to do a Google search to find out that Franzen is the Republican and Daley, the guy who used the images of Rock Stars as “criminals” is the Democrat. You could be damn sure that if the political parties were reversed, they would have then been mentioned in the story.
Hat Tip: Blabbermouth.net
I don’t really care for any of those bands, so here’s some Sons of Liberty…
Barack Obama was touted as the first truly 21st century President, more in touch with the youth of America then any man ever before him to hold the highest office in the world. His campaign masterfully used every technological advancement at their disposal to get his message out to potential voters, and it worked masterfully propelling him into the Oval Office.
From Wired 2/14/2008:
The use of technology like blogs, mass texting and online phone banks has been key to Sen. Barack Obama’s surprise sweep of recent primaries.
The Illinois senator’s campaign has been making use of a range of technologies — from ringtones to SMS — to inspire Obamamania. And it’s working. Obama’s recent parade of victories in the primaries has given him a slight lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination.
“They’ve been using [texting] to get out the vote, which is incredibly smart because it gives people a way to take immediate political action,” says Julie Germany, director of the Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet. “It’s just what mobile technology is suited for.”
The Illinois senator is not the only candidate whose campaign is using online technology and mobile phones, but his has been one of the most effective in its embrace of new tech strategies.
From Barack Obama’s own campaign site:
[link opens .PDF file]
Barack Obama understands the immense transformative power of technology and innovation and how they can improve the lives of all Americans. He sees that technology offers the tools to create real change in America. Obama’s forward-thinking 21st century technology and innovation policy starts by recognizing that we need to connect all citizens with each other to engage them more fully and directly in solving the problems that face us. In tandem with that goal, Barack Obama understands that we must use all available technologies and methods to open up the federal government, creating a new level of transparency to change the way business is conducted in Washington and giving Americans the chance to participate in government deliberations and decision making in ways that were not possible only a few years ago.
Barack Obama is already using technology to transform presidential politics and to help unprecedented numbers of citizens take back the political process. Obama’s Internet campaign is only the beginning of how Obama would harness the power of the Internet to transform government and politics. On barackobama.com, voters have connected not only with the campaign but with each other; the campaign has used technology to engage those who have not been able to participate in prior presidential campaigns. More than 280,000 people have created accounts on barackobama.com.
Now the man who embraced technology like no other candidate before him, the man who even in campaign ads mocked his opponent John McCain for “not knowing how to use a computer” The same man whose Blackberry is practically another appendage, claims he doesn’t know how to work modern Ipads, Ipods, Xboxes or Playstations. Yet when he was President-elect Obama, he had this to say about his Blackberry:
“I’m still clinging to my BlackBerry,” Mr. Obama said Wednesday in an interview with CNBC and The New York Times. “They’re going to pry it out of my hands.”
Now the same man who used technology and the rise of the information age to elevate himself to the highest office in the world, is claiming that too much media “…is putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy.”
No information is not putting too much pressure on our nation Mr. Obama, Information is putting too much pressure on your agenda to brainwash the masses into allowing you to destroy everything that is great about our nation. Now you are scared of an educated populace, because you know that the more that the people know about your nefarious plans to destroy the founding principles of our great nation, the weaker your grip of power gets.
Obama is a savvy politician, he knows that knowledge will set you free. That fact scares the crap out of him.
More on this from Nick Rizutto.
For more Click Here.