If you live long enough, you inevitably discover surprising things about yourself. For example, only this week did I discover I am a racist. It took 58 years, 58 years during which I lived and worked with people of all races in the military, police work, the theater and in performing across the nation, and of course, as a teacher, for me to learn the awful “truth.” More about that later.
Police officers learn many things. Some of them—the seamier details of people’s lives—they’d usually rather not know. One of the more useful things competent officers learn is it’s never a good idea to venture an opinion about a case unless they’ve read the entire case file. If they haven’t, they’re almost certain to get it wrong. They might guess right, but when people’s lives, liberty or reputations are on the line, guessing isn’t an ethical option.
Despite the Lamestream Media’s witless stereotype of bloggers as unshaven rubes in their pajamas, I’ve found that serious bloggers, and particularly conservative bloggers, live by the same set of ethics. They work hard to get it right and construct a clear line between fact and opinion. And as the Media has, to its horror and embarrassment, discovered, bloggers often not only get it right, they often get it faster than the Media.
For those seeking informed, thoughtful, unbiased analysis of the Trayvon Martin case, the blogosphere is—with few exceptions–the only place to go. I have been quite careful in my analysis of the case in part because I am working primarily but not exclusively, from open source materials available to the public. Even so, much about the case can be reasonably characterized as fact. When I’m not sure, I’m careful to use words like “possibly,” “perhaps,” “maybe,” or even “probably” or “likely” when a given assertion is approaching fact, but not quite solidified.
There are some issues, however, that while interesting and important, might not be allowed in evidence at trial. In the Martin case, I speak primarily about the character of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman as revealed by the way they lived their lives, by their actions. The initial media-driven furor over the case has begun to die down as more and more of what the race hustler narrative took as articles of faith were unmistakably disproved. Let’s take the case of arguably the most powerful proof of George Zimmerman’s “racism,” as alleged by those invested in the racist narrative.
The allegation was that Zimmerman—during the 911 call–called Martin a “fucking coon.” It was presented as prima facie evidence of Zimmerman’s racism. CNN used the supposedly superior technology available only to a well-funded major television network and aired a segment by reporter Gary Tuchman that confirmed that Zimmerman called Martin a “fucking coon.” As one might imagine, this did little to calm racial tensions.
In the meantime, J. Neil Schulman, using Roxio, an off-the-shelf, inexpensive program, produced an audio clip of the comment that clearly reveals the comment to be “fucking cold.” The final “d” consonant is unmistakable. To experience the difference for yourself, speak the words “cold,” and “coon.” Notice the “d,” to be audible, must be clearly voiced and percussive, while the “n” of “coon” is stopped and quiet. Take this link to hear Schulman’s audio clip. Schulman also noted:
What George Zimmerman said in rainy 63 degree February weather in Sanford Florida was, ‘It’s fucking cold.’
The remark is not out of context. A minute or so earlier on the 911 tape George Zimmerman tells the 911 dispatcher, ‘It’s raining.’
Some have even suggested that is was not cold or raining on February 26, 2012. Take this link for the weather history for Sanford, FL for that night. You’ll notice that the temperature varied between 53° and 69° with winds of 7-17 MPH gusting to 22 MPH, and of course, it rained. People living in the northern US might not consider that to be particularly cold, but for southerners acclimated to much warmer temperatures, that would be cold weather indeed, particularly when accompanied by rain.
Finally, some nine days later, CNN aired a new segment allegedly using more advanced technology (perhaps they bought a copy of Roxio too?). Take this link to see the segment. If anything, their new audio clip is a bit less clear than that produced by Schulman, but the final “d” in “cold” remains unmistakable. What is ironic and darkly funny is Tuchman asking the tech to play the two words over and over, ostensibly so viewers can make up their own minds, while Tuchman plays at being the completely objective journalist. Tuchman does go so far as to admit that the newly enhanced clip:
…sounds less like the racial slur,
and he does admit that it was:
raining and unseasonably cold that night,
but despite the fact that his technician (a different technician than in the original segment) says the word in question is “cold,” Tuchman can’t quite bring himself to say that definitively, ending the segment by saying:
It’s readily apparent there will still be controversy over what he [Zimmerman] said.
Yes, Mr. Tuchman, and despite incontrovertible evidence that proves to the objective person that Zimmerman muttered “cold” instead of “coon” you’ve helped to ensure that it will remain controversial. Tuchman was far more positive when it appeared that Zimmerman’s character might be smeared. When it turned out his only epithet was toward the weather, Tuchman suddenly became very, very careful.
Let’s examine one more issue before turning to character: the allegation that it was Martin and not Zimmerman yelling for help that night. This too is an article of faith among those invested in the racial narrative.
CNN engaged “audio expert” Tom Owen to analyze audio to try to determine who was yelling that night. They also used “audio expert” Ed Primeau. Both were apparently earlier engaged by the Orlando Sentinel for that purpose. CNN noted:
Owen and another audio expert, Ed Primeau, analyzed the recording for the Sentinel using different techniques, and they said they don’t believe it is Zimmerman who is heard yelling in the background of one 911 call. They compared the screams with Zimmerman’s voice, as recorded in a 911 call he made minutes earlier describing a ‘suspicious’ black male.
‘There’s a huge chance that this is not Zimmerman’s voice,’ said Primeau, a longtime audio engineer who is listed as an expert in recorded evidence by the American College of Forensic Examiners International.
‘After 28 years of doing this, I would put my reputation on the line and say this is not George Zimmerman screaming.’
Owen also said he does not believe the screams came from Zimmerman.
However, the real news is downplayed in the last several paragraphs of the CNN article. Owen admitted that the only sample of Zimmerman’s voice used in his comparison was Zimmerman’s 911 call, where his voice is soft, calm and well modulated, and is not speaking the same words being screamed in panic. He also admitted that he does not have any sample of Martin’s voice. In other words, as flawed as the Zimmerman sample was as a point of comparison, he had no sample at all from Martin. CNN continued:
He cited software that is widely used in Europe and has become recently accepted in the United States that examines characteristics such as pitch and the space between spoken words to analyze voices.
Translation: the software is not admissible in American courts. Europe and America have very different court systems and standards of proof. American standards are generally substantially higher. Notice the careful wording: “has become recently accepted in the United States.” What, exactly, does that mean? Accepted how? By whom? For what purposes? Not surprisingly, his software produced results pleasing and convincing to CNN:
Using it, he found a 48% likelihood the voice is Zimmerman’s. At least 60% is necessary to feel confident that two samples are from the same source, he told CNN on Monday — meaning it’s unlikely it was Zimmerman who can be heard yelling.
So it’s 48% likely to be Zimmerman, but 60% is required to “feel confident.” Notice how CNN handled the fact that because they have no samples for Martin, they can’t do any comparison. They ignored it and said it’s “unlikely” it was Zimmerman. CNN saved the most important quote for last:
The experts, both of whom said they have testified in cases involving audio analysis, stressed that they cannot say who was screaming [emphasis mine].
They “cannot say who was screaming,” yet CNN wrote the article in such a way as to give the impression that it was not Zimmerman. Notice that they did not say it was Martin. Perhaps Roxio would have been helpful here as well. The fact remains that without many substantial and highly specific samples, no audio examiner can deliver a reliable opinion on such things. This article by an ABC affiliate illustrates that point. And this post on Macsmind makes the same point.
NOTE: Investigator Gilbreath, one of the two investigators in the employ of Special Prosecutor Angela Corey, admitted in the bond hearing that the efforts of Owen and Primeau and an unspecified effort by the FBI had provided no illuminating information. In other words, as Gilbreath also admitted, he has no information to disprove Zimmerman’s account of what happened that night, in this, or apparently, any other way.
And what about that miraculous software Owen used? Dan Linehan at Wagist has done yet another invaluable service in the Martin case by revealing that the software about which Owen spoke and CNN so blindly wrote is apparently his own invention! Linehan noted:
So what Tom Owen is actually doing here, is using his own home-grown software to attempt to determine the similarities in speech markers between two radically different types of voice patterns and claiming that it is accurate ‘beyond scientific certainty.’
Beyond scientific certainty is a pretty strong statement.
There doesn’t seem to be any disclosure in the Orlando Sentinel article that Tom Owen owns EasyVoiceBiometrics.com, nor any that he was using his own software package to do the analysis.
I’m not sure whether the Orlando Sentinel author realizes it, but that could easily be construed as a conflict of interest, particularly when the software is currently being sold for $5,000 per license. There’s an extremely transparent profit motive for Tom Owen to promote his product in any way that he can, especially at that price.
The article also presents information that suggests that the credentials of Owen may be somewhat less impressive than they seem, and that some may in fact be essentially self-granted. Anyone seriously following the Martin case should read the entire Wagist article.
The bottom line is quite simple. As an investigator, unless I had genuine experts whose credentials were unassailable, and who could, with methods universally accepted in American courts, affirm their results beyond any reasonable doubt, I would not use them. In this case, the best Owen and Primeau can do is produce a SWAG (scientific wild-ass guess), and on the witness stand would have to admit “they cannot say who was screaming.” Any attorney using such a witness could expect a severe tongue lashing from the presiding judge at the least.
Let’s not forget that CNN did not inform its readers that the software Owen used is apparently his own invention, an invention he is trying to market. There is nothing at all wrong with Tom Owen trying to make a living. Perhaps his software is a useful advance in his field, but surely this is something CNN should have told readers. One might also be forgiven for thinking that CNN carefully chose its words to make it appear that the software was recognized as state of the art in Europe and nearly so in America.
The State of the Evidence:
(1) The Prosecution’s “experts” cannot prove who was screaming, but are willing to state all manner of innuendo. Experts don’t do that. Ever.
(2) The Prosecution’s lead investigator has admitted that the prosecution has no evidence to disprove Zimmerman’s account.
(3) Zimmerman said he was screaming for help while being beaten. His testimony has apparently remained consistent over multiple interviews including a videotaped re-enactment of events.
(4) The sole known eyewitness told the Sanford police that he saw Zimmerman being beaten and that he saw and heard him screaming for help.
Absent new, currently unknown evidence to the contrary, the only version of events supported by independent evidence is that of George Zimmerman.
I could spend article after article deconstructing misconception after lie after half-truth in the racial narrative, but to what end? Those who are actually open to genuine evidence in the pursuit of justice may be convinced, but those invested in the racial narrative are stuck in “who you gonna believe? Me or your own lyin’ eyes and ears?” mode. Their narrative must be true because it should be true, and they believe it’s true, so they cannot abandon it without abandoning their worldview, a worldview of perpetual victimhood, something not easily or quickly done.
An integral part of the racial narrative is that Martin was a cherubic, innocent, hard-working scholarly child “profiled” and killed because he was black, and probably because he was wearing a hoodie. George Zimmerman, on the other hand, was a wanna-be cop, a violent man who hated black people, and a liar and racist vigilante who was just looking for the chance to kill black children who took the law into his hands. That narrative, simplistic and crude, has taken quite a beating, yet still persists.
Arguably the first major blow to the narrative—apart from the facts of the case—was the revelation that Zimmerman worked tirelessly to obtain justice for a black homeless man beaten by a relative of local authorities. To the reasonable man, this would not seem to be the act of a racist.
In an article published on April 25, 2012, Chris Francescani of Reuters pounded what should be the final nails in the coffin of Zimmerman’s racism and vigilante motives. Reuters is a European wire service/news agency analogous to the Associated Press (AP) in America. As with the AP, no rational person would ever accuse Reuters of being conservative in outlook, quite the opposite. Keeping this in mind, Francescani’s article is truly remarkable, remarkable because it appears to be objective journalism.
Among other counter-racial-narrative facts, we learn:
* George Zimmerman and his wife obtained handguns in 2009 because they had been repeatedly attacked by a neighborhood pit bull. The Sanford police recommended they arm themselves, specifically with firearms.
* In June, 2011, after a wave of what appear to have been thefts and burglaries in their gated community—virtually all committed by young, black men–the local homeowner’s association asked Zimmerman to start a neighborhood watch. He was widely respected and relied upon in his community in the role of watch captain.
* Zimmerman’s biography would read like the dream biography of any leftist hero. He was raised “in a racially integrated household,” and actually has black heritage through his “Afro-Peruvian great grandfather.” And more:
Post recalls evening prayers before dinner in the ethnically diverse Zimmerman household, which included siblings Robert Jr., Grace, and Dawn. ‘It wasn’t only white or only Hispanic or only black – it was mixed,’ she said.
* Zimmerman is a serious Catholic and was an alter boy:
He wasn’t the type where, you know, ‘I’m being forced to do this, and a dragging-his-feet Catholic,’ said Sandra Vega, who went to high school with George and his siblings. ‘He was an altar boy for years, and then worked in the rectory too. He has a really good heart.’
* In 2004, Zimmerman opened an Allstate insurance office with a partner, an “African-American friend.”
* Very revealing is this account:
Though civil rights demonstrators have argued Zimmerman should not have prejudged Martin, one black neighbor of the Zimmerman’s said recent history should be taken into account.
‘Let’s talk about the elephant in the room. I’m black, OK?’ the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. ‘There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood,’ she said. ‘That’s why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin.’
Put aside, for the moment, the fact that Zimmerman did not “prejudge” Martin, but was obviously merely watching him because his behavior appeared to be suspicious (thus the 911 call to police). All of this is, of course, very troubling for the racial narrative. Is Zimmerman now to become a “black-white-hispanic?” Americans may choose their racial identity based on criteria of their choosing. Mr. Obama, the child of a black father and white mother, has chosen to identify himself as black. The evidence seems to indicate that to the degree that Zimmerman has bothered to claim a racial identity, it is Hispanic despite having a non-hispanic name, but if he chose he could call himself black and who could say otherwise? If he did that, would the media and racial grievance industry ignore the Martin case, a case of one black man killing another, something quite, tragically common in America?
Some have claimed that outrage over the death of Trayvon Martin is selective, particularly when the common deaths of black men killed by other black men are routinely ignored. Quite contrary to the narrative, it is uncommon for blacks to be killed by those of other races. There is, clearly, evidence to support the selective outrage contention.
The article reveals that Zimmerman was working toward an associate’s degree in criminal justice and was only a single class credit short on February 26. If Zimmerman actually wanted to be a police officer, he was going about it in the right way. Most police officers don’t have any college degree. And as Reuters has revealed, rather than acting as one might expect a vigilante wanna-be to behave, he answered the call of his community, taking on a serious responsibility of protection and service. By all means, read the entire Reuters article. See for yourself.
Some have suggested that any attempt to delve into the character of Trayvon Martin is inherently racist and amounts to “blaming the victim.” Martin’s unblemished victimhood has yet to be unquestionably established. Not only that, if Zimmerman’s character is fair game, so is Martin’s. We all judge others by their actions and demonstrated character. So should it be with Zimmerman and Martin. Keep in mind that much of what I mention here likely would not be admissible in court, but as the racial narrative addresses the court of public and political opinion so must I.
In article 4 of this series, The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 4: Geography and Narrative Analysis, I presented some background information on Martin quite at odds with the racial narrative. Jeff Lipkes, writing for The American Thinker, provides some additional information on Martin, and analysis on why the Media has generally avoided maps of the scene: they tend to raise embarrassing questions about Martin’s motives and movements.
David Martosko at The Daily Caller provides a compilation of 152 tweets from Martin’s Twitter account. Despite the fact that many invested in the racial narrative deny a Twitter account ever existed, one might reasonably believe their eyes in this case. The tweets reveal a young man caught up in “gangster” bragging and posing. He brags about routinely showing up late for classes. He refers to girls as “bitch,” “ho” and uses terms like “yo loose ass pussy.” In one tweet he writes “you the type of bitch that give up your pussy for free and thinks its cool.” Could this be nothing more than juvenile braggadocio? Perhaps, but I haven’t reproduced the many drug references and crude sexual references. Taken as a whole, they would seem not to support the narrative portraying Martin as an innocent young scholar.
Frances Robles at the Miami Herald provides something of an understatement with this headline:
Multiple Suspensions Paint Complicated Portrait of Trayvon Martin.
Complicated to the racial narrative indeed. Robles writes:
In October, a school police investigator said he saw Trayvon on the school surveillance camera in an unauthorized area ‘hiding and being suspicious.’ Then ‘e said he saw Trayvon mark up a door with ‘W.T.F’ — an acronym for “what the f—.’ The officer said he found Trayvon the next day and went through his book bag in search of the graffiti marker.
Instead the officer reported he found women’s jewelry and a screwdriver that he described as a ‘burglary tool,’ according to a Miami-Dade Schools Police report obtained by The Miami Herald. Word of the incident came as the family’s lawyer acknowledged that the boy was suspended in February for getting caught with an empty bag with traces of marijuana, which he called ‘irrelevant’ and an attempt to demonize a victim.
Trayvon’s backpack contained 12 pieces of jewelry, in addition to a watch and a large flathead screwdriver, according to the report, which described silver wedding bands and earrings with diamonds.
Martin reportedly claimed the jewelry was not his and was given to him by a friend he refused to name. The jewelry was taken into custody and Martin was suspended for the graffiti. The article notes that the school police called the screwdriver a “burglary tool.”
What makes a common tool a burglary tool? Context. Virtually every state has a statute regarding burglary tools. When a common screwdriver is carried and or used by a burglar or thief, or found in company with potentially stolen property, property for which the person carrying it has no reasonable explanation, it becomes, under the law, a burglary tool and may be seized as evidence of a crime.
The article also notes that the owner of the jewelry has apparently not yet been found. This is not at all unusual. Victims of burglaries are often unaware of every item taken from them, particularly small items such as jewelry. They might think them merely misplaced if they notice them missing at all. And a surprising number of people don’t bother to report crimes, even felonies like burglary or grand theft.
This was not Martin’s only suspension:
That suspension was followed four months later by another one in February, in which Trayvon was caught with an empty plastic bag with traces of marijuana in it. A schools police report obtained by The Miami Herald specifies two items: a bag with marijuana residue and a ‘marijuana pipe.’
According to Martin’s family, Martin had also been earlier suspended for tardiness and truancy. As Dan Linehan at Wagist reported (noted in update 4) Martin was on another suspension—this one for ten days—on February 26, possibly for trying to assault a bus driver, which is likely why he was in Sanford rather than Miami where he attended school. If so, had Martin not been suspended, he would almost certainly never have chanced upon George Zimmerman.
All of these reports, and a great many more I have not mentioned, paint a picture of Trayvon Martin as a young man in more or less constant trouble with school authorities. Many of the things he is reported to have done could have been turned over to the police for charges, but his school apparently chose to deal with them internally, which is common for schools everywhere. Readers may want to read Robles’ article where Martin’s family and their attorney essentially accuse Martin’s school of lying about him. Some comments speak more about those that make them than about those they accuse.
What is obvious to me in the apparent pattern of behavior woven by Martin before his death is a young man on the road to repeated and serious encounters with the law. I’ve seen countless kids of all races just like him. Some are able, with the help of family, friends and teachers—even police officers—to back away from that self-destructive life. But from what I’ve seen, it appears that Martin was on the downward stretch of that common road and no one seems to have recognized the potential danger, let alone tried to correct him in any meaningful way. Or at the very least, considering the need to maintain the narrative, there will be no admission of this.
This is why character matters in this–and every other–case. As I noted in the last update to this case, what we’ve learned about Trayvon Martin lends credence to the possibility that rather than running home in fear with Zimmerman hot on his heels as the narrative would have us believe, he laid in wait to attack and punish Zimmerman for daring to challenge or “dis” him.
Character counts. It defines and motivates us. It tells others who and what we are. It is surely fair and reasonable to examine the character of Zimmerman and Martin. From what is currently known, Zimmerman would seem to have the character advantage.
ME, A RACIST?
I’ve been called many things in a long and adventurous life, but never a racist, not before writing about this case. In The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 3: The Prosecution Crumbles, multiple reader comments from one “Aurthur Goinsman” read like a recitation of racial narrative talking points. Those interested in the back and forth involved might wish to take the link. For those not so inclined, here’s a representative example (reproduced verbatim, no paragraphs and all):
You are an idiot. Fox News and every other credible news organization has had to post retractions for the pictures they have posted and errors when reporting on his Facebook and twitter account. I know its hard for [crude racial obscenity removed] like you to admit that this was a racially motivated crime and that you wish it were legal to shoot blacks in the street. You can speculate all you want about the reasons for the charges but Zimmerman has no credible evidence supporting his claim and Trayvon on has science and factual evidence on his side. I would love to read your next blog about evolution, birth control and global warming but I’m pretty sure I already know what they would say. Science, methodology and logic are to be thrown out when the victim is of one of the lower brown races. You keep speaking about affidavits but refuse to acknowledge the one the Chief investigator signed saying he was blocked by the state’s attorney from filing charges because he did not believe Zimmerman’s claims and evidencing that there was probable cause. Every single expert confirms that Zimmerman is not screaming for help. Explain that after you are done explaining why the earth is flat, the sun orbits the earth and why you are so angry that you a can’t look at the actual scientific facts instead of Zimmerman’s testimony. You’d rather take Zimmerman’s word for it because if it turns out the evidence is correct and Zimmerman is guilty you might be wrong about a whole race or races of people. It might shake up your view about who you are and what you think and maybe just maybe make you realize that Trayvon was a human being and not a thug or black panther but a teenage just like your kid or anyone else. Unless I’m mistaken Zimmerman is the only one with a history of aggravated violence against authority figures and women. The only reason I feel comfortable calling you a racist, would be the fact that you ignore scientific evidence, visual evidence (mortician) and common sense to make this case fit into the box where you house all of notions about non-whites. I sincerely hope something happens to you that shatters your perfect view of a white utopia and wakes you up to the realities of profiling and the fact that your beliefs on race put you and your children at a great disadvantage. I have a 2 year bi-racial son and I hope that in a situation like Trayvon’s he would call the authorities if someone like Zimmerman were following him, run for his life and failing that if chased and then encountered, by a gun toting wanna be cop, fight for his life. If, Trayvon were alive telling his side of the story with the evidence we have presently backing it up I doubt you would lay your prejudices aside and admit what you already know. ZImmerman racially profiled and then initiated the confrontation that killed Trayvon Martin with a firearm that was not even authorized by the HOA bi-laws.
I asked Mr. Goinsman to visit this post and promised to provide evidence to support my contentions. I also asked him to provide links to support his many assertions of “fact.” I suspect it will surprise no one to learn he has yet to provide them.
Apparently I am a racist because I wish it was legal to shoot blacks in the street, have views with which Goinsman believes he would disagree (apparently, those supporting the narrative would agree with Goinsman) on evolution, birth control, and global warming, because I ignore science and logic where the “lower brown races” are involved, I think the Earth is flat and the sun orbits the Earth, and if Zimmerman is guilty I might be “wrong about a whole race or races of people.” I am also apparently racist because I ignore “visual evidence (mortician),” and keep my notions about non-whites in a box. Where Mr. Goinsman got any of these ideas, I have no idea as I’ve never expressed anything that might even be reasonably mistaken for the views he believes I hold. Mr. Goinsman also asserts that CNN has held to its “coon” finding. Who you gonna believe? Him or your own lyin’ eyes and ears?
None of this is surprising. Those whose worldview is invested in the racial narrative cannot possibly admit error. They seek “justice” for Trayvon Martin, and it would appear that their definition of “justice” can include nothing less than conviction and life in prison for George Zimmerman—if he can’t be killed first (they can always get him in prison)—and no facts or evidence can convince them otherwise. Trayvon Martin must forever be a helpless, harmless victim of all of the evils of racism. He can never be allowed to be just a human being, but is now a symbol to be defined and used by those who would probably have cared little or nothing for him when he was alive. Obviously, anyone not sharing that view must be racist and evil and determined to harm all people of color (the “lower brown races”), but particularly black people. What other motivation could there possibly be for not supporting the narrative? There can be no honest disagreements, no variance from what they believe to be the truth, even if the truth isn’t true or supportable by genuine evidence, as it was with former CBS news anchor Dan Rather when he invented the “fake but accurate” standard.
Therefore, I must be a racist. And if riots, complete with massive violence, theft and arson, occur if the case is dismissed or Zimmerman is acquitted, will those who think rioting a bad thing also be racist? Will they be demonstrating insufficient concern for justice unless they too participate in looting, beating innocents and setting fires? Will this honor the memory of Trayvon Martin? I know not what Mr. Goinsman thinks about this particular issue, but I’ve no doubt that many would think this course of action just and honorable, and that’s a tragedy for every American.
As I’ve previously written, this case now appears to be so completely politicized there is no possibility of justice, which must always be done through careful, calm deliberation, strict adherence to the Constitution, and out of the flames of political—and particularly racial–passion. If the case is dismissed or if Zimmerman is acquitted, does anyone seriously believe that the most racially compromised Department of Justice in American History will lose interest in prosecuting Zimmerman?
I will not bother to enumerate my non-racial bona fides; I’ll not tell you about my black, Hispanic, Asian, Indian (etc., etc.) friends, acquaintances and colleagues. In reality, none of this matters to me or those that know me. When my students enter my classroom each day, I don’t see Angel the Hispanic, or Joseph the Asian or Paige the white girl, I simply see Angel, Joseph and Paige, delightful kids all. My experience leads me to believe that all Americans of good will think the same way.
The long battle for civil rights has been won long ago. Genuine racists are reviled, not welcome in decent company and considered fools and worse. Most Americans of all races have truly taken Dr. Martin Luther King’s words to heart and judge people not on the color of their skin, but on the content of their character. This is the promise and character of America. Those who speak the language of hate and division, whether the President of the United States or those unwilling to consider fact seek not justice, and dishonor Dr. King’s words and intentions for all Americans.
Calling someone a racist has become the equivalent of asking: “when did you stop beating your wife?” All too often, those playing the race card do so dishonestly. They have no real arguments, no actual evidence, just heated rhetoric and assertions that can’t be proved, so they throw down the race card to distract their opponents, to try to put them on the defensive and to cover their own deficiencies. They rely on honest men and women being kindly motivated to protest absurd accusations by proving they are not what they have never been and have no obligation to prove. The very reaction of the innocent to avoid being called racist is obvious proof that racists are social pariahs.
Those making claims of racism always have the burden of clearly and conclusively proving their claims. I will not play their game; no one should. Such lies divide rather than unite us. As always, I’ll trust my readers to determine my motivations, whether my work is supported by evidence or unsupportable rhetoric, and whether any evidence of racism is present in my work.
I will continue to cover this case as developments warrant. Thanks for reading and believing your own eyes and ears.