Trayvon Martin and TANSTAAFL: There Ain't No Such Thing as an Angelic 17 Year Old "Boy"

Okay. TANSTAAFL actually stands for: "Thre ain't no such thing as a free lunch." See Robert Heinlein's great science fiction novel, "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress". However, this blog told you a matter of a day and a half ago that this attempt to portray Tryvon Martin as a TOTALLY "innocent", even angelic, 17 year old boy was absurd. No such thing exists.


As is often the case, with this blog, I was proven right within a matter of HOURS. Suddently, the "news" was that Trayvon Martin had been SUSPENDED from school for marijuana. Now this blog's original statement (about it being likely that Trayvon Martin was tno the only angelic 17 year old boy around) was made in the context of SPECUATION (brought to my attention by my cable TV minded mother) that a HOODD indicated that Martin was probably a gang member. My cable TV minded mother, who I have suggested should apply for a job at CNN (because she loves jumping to speculativewe conclustions based on her own agenda), is now firmly convinced that Trayvon Martin was a gang member (based on the new information that has come out). I see no real evidence of that, although it is certainly possible (and at least as likely as much of the CNN SPECUALTION about George Zimmerman). But what I also told you is that it is IRRELEVANT (excpet in the publicity war, and on the margings) whether Trayvon Martin was really this "angel" tath the media was tryying to portray. As I said,, you are not entitled to kill gang members, or boys who have been suspended from school for marijuana use, for that reason. The key question is the FACTS of teh confrontation between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin, and not the CHARACTER of Martin (or Zimmerman, for that matter).


The AT&T/Yahoo "featured" headline last night was that the Martin family was comlaining that the "police" were trying to "demonize" Trayvon Martin. ..............................................................................Sorry, I was on the floor again in that fetal position, laughting/crying..........................The whole media NARRATIVE here, pushed by tghe famiy and urn with my the media, has been to DEMMONIZE George Zimmerman and the Samford plice. No one has been even interested int the FACTS. The publlicized picture of Trayvon Martin was even, deliberately, one of him as a YOUNGER CHILD. Those who live by the sword, die by the sword. The Martin family has a right to their grief, and I fully understand their anger. But that does not mean they should be allowed to LYNCH a man, in conjuncitn with a media and racial politicians who want to USE them, based on DEMONIZING SPECULATION.


No. Trayvon Marttin was not an angel. George Zimmerman was surely not an angel (or, as this blog put it, a "hero" when he mismanaged the situation so that a 17 year old young man--no matter what his faults--ended up dead). Race really does not appear to be a dtermning factor here. Nor does "character". What you are left with are the ACTUAL FACTS: teh very thing in which our media is so uninterested.


By the way, one of the things I suggested int hat very same article whcih mentioned that Trayvon Martin was almost surely not an "anngel", was that it was entirely possible that Trayvon Martin COULD have tried to take away George Zimmerman's gun (in the context of whether Zimmerman feared for his life, and whehter Martin was simply an "innocent', UNARMED 17 year old boy). Well, another of those "featured" AT&T/Yahoo articles yesterday mentined a report that ZIMMERMAN claimed that Martin had tried to get Zimmerman's gun. Again, read this blog and you get tomorrow's news today--only BETTER than the media reports today's "news".


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Oh, there was also a rather vague reort that Zimmerman thought Martin had something in his hand. Wee KNOW Martin had a cell phone (with which he did NOT call 911, as Zimmerman did). Couuld you SUSPECT a cell phone to be a weapon? Of course you could. Now you can't just soot someone, as a private citizen, or even as a police officer, merely because you suspect a person MIGHT have a weapon. But that is NOT what happened here. Zimmerman was in a FIGHT, which he may have thought was a fight for his life. He MAY be allegeing that part of the fight was over Zimmerman's gun. And Zimmerman MAY have had some reason to suspect that Martin had a weapon of his own. You see how FACTS MATTER? And yet we KNOW that we will NOT get FACTS from our media. We get NARRATIVE. Tht is why this allleged "polll" that 73% of Americans think George Zimmerman should be arrested made me laugh/cry. Forget the eVIL of such a poll, are 73% of Americans really that STUPID (disregarding that the poll probably was skewed by leaving out peole who correctly could not be bothered with an opinion). Shoululd Goerge Zimmerman be arrested, or have been arrested? How the Hell do Iknow. How do YOU know? How does anyone know, except the authorities on the scene. We KNOW that we are NOT getting the FACTS from our media, which probably does not even know the facts (not that they are even interested) It is WRONG to have an OOPINION on whether George Zimmerman shuold be arrested. I will say I havve seen NO actual facts to this point that cause me to conclude that an arrest was indicated, although I would not have regarded an arrest as some sort of "miscarriage" of justice. The police shuld have gone on the FACTS available to them, and on the same basis as if two peole of the SAME RACE had been involved. As best I can tell, whether they were right or wrong, the police did BETTER than our media would have done, as our media would have areested George Zimmerman just o satisfy the 'black community". There is no WORSE standard for "justice" in this country than the media "standard" of catering to RACIAL OPINION and RACIAL FEELINGS (such as the "feeling" that black epoele dont't get a fair deal from the plcie). George Zimmerman is entitled to be treated as an INDIVIDUAL, and not as a pawn in some kind of RACE WAR being assumed by CNN and the rest of the media (not to mention racial politicians.). It is not "justice" to view the workld as "us against them": the "white race' against the "black race', ecept for those enlightened folks on the side of the black race. The law, and justice, should be COLOR BLIND, and based on INDIVIDUALS> Could you not have an opinion that a person should ALWAYS be arrested when an "unarmed" person is shot by another person? Well, you can have that opinion, but it means that you are saying that EVERY woman who may accidentally shoot here husband, thining he is a prowler, should be ARRESTED for murder. I could goon wiht the examples. Suffice it to sy that this is an UNREASONABLE OPINION , Waht about the idea that EVERY white person who shoots an unarmed balck person, no matter what the circumstances, sould have to go through a TRIAL? That, obviusly, is even WORSE, and exposes you as a RACIST. Yep. I just called ALL of CNN, and MOST of the unfiar and unbalanced network, RACIST.