Drive-By Thinking.

perhaps I shouldn't say anything…

…because I'm not fully informed on the subject. What subject? This whole thing with George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. 

I've purposely stayed uninformed on the subject, for multiple reasons. For one, it's quickly escalated from a campfire to an out of control, Santa Ana-driven conflagration; and two, the facts have been lost in the media flurry with everyone from the lawyers to the politicians to the race-baiters getting into the spotlight.

The most unbiased, cut-to-the-chase reporting I could find was via Wikipedia. (Yeah, I know.) So taking that with the proverbial pinch of kosher salt (larger flakes/better flavor), I get that Zimmerman thought he was Matt Dillon (the character, not the actor), took on more than he could chew or was advised to bite into, and when the kid fought back (or fought him off, depending on the source you choose to believe), Marshal Dillon shot and killed the kid. Add to that the bumbled handling of this case by the relevant law enforcement agencies (the real ones) and you have a community up in arms. 

In the end, a kid is dead and a guy with a hero complex (and a history of domestic … er … issues) is being browbeaten from all sides (including having a bounty on his head from the New Black Panthers). The cops seem to have mishandled it from the start, and only now under intense pressure from all sides are they truly mounting a more in-depth investigation.

In my state, regardless of how clear-cut the situation is, or how many dozens of eye-witnesses were present, if I discharged my weapon and claimed self-defense in killing someone else, I would be arrested. I would be taken into custody, have to call a lawyer, and potentially post bond. It would be up to the Commonwealth's Attorney to determine whether or not charges should be dismissed, not for the individual police officer to say "aw, gettowtahere."

I don't know what Florida law is. According to Wiki (again), the police don't arrest unless they determine at the time that the use of force in self-defense was unlawful. The police in this case made a judgement call at the time, and so it's pretty much case closed. So he's (for now) off scot-free and people are pissed about it. And I think they're justified in their indignation. If it were my kid and I was essentially told "too bad, so sad" by the cops, you bet your bippie I'd be all over the media about it.

And because the kid was black and Zimmerman is white, we have the added element of (gasp) racism involved. Whether or not that was the case, that's all the media needs to get its grip into this story and sure as bob's your uncle we have the Sharptons and the Jacksons and the Panthers and all that involved. Rallies nationwide. Add in the anti-gun lobbyists and the fact that this is threatening to become a Department of Justice case as a "hate crime" – despite any real evidence to indicate the necessity – and this is playing right into politics as we know it.

So I would personally like to thank George Zimmerman for 

• making the rest of us law-abiding gun owners look like paranoid zealots waiting for a chance to play hero
• giving the anti-gun lobby a poster boy for their cause
• giving the race-baiters more press.

What does irk me more than anything else though, is the DOJ playing for the spotlight here. This isn't a "hate crime." The only reason I can think of for their involvement is to give them some traction for their boss in a crucial election cycle.

You want to know what a real hate-crime looks like? Tell me why this report out of Kansas City hasn't gotten more attention, then. It happened at the end of February, according to KMBC, and yet I get very few hits about it, and no national attention via the … traditional… media sources.

But because it happened to a white kid who was attacked by black kids… naw. That couldn't be the case.

The Daily Mail article had a commenter who very succinctly made an important point:

As far as the victim is concerned, what is the difference between a "racially-motivated" physical assault and a "normal, violence-motivated" one, and why on earth does the justice system make a distinction? An injured or dead victim is just as injured or dead, whatever the motivation. The law should punish the act, not the thought behind it.

Well said, I think. The law should punish the act. So too should the investigation focus on the act, not the supposed motivation.

But there's no spotlight to be found in that, I suppose.

words mean things.

As far as all this hoo-hah about Rush shooting his mouth off…

Those of you with the wadded britches need to keep one thing in mind: first and foremost, he's an entertainer. Shooting his mouth off is what he's done for the last … oh… twenty years or so (más o menos – some of that there Spanish lingo). So as far as I'm concerned, it shouldn't come as a surprise that he said something controversial. It's what he does best.

I listened to him off and on for years before I ever would have said I agreed with him on anything. However, I always appreciated one thing about Rush: he made you think. Even if you were pissed off as all hell at him over something he said, he made you think about why you were pissed. He made you re-evaluate your own views, and that's not entirely a bad thing. If you hold strong views on something, you should know why you do.

however

I didn't hear the bit that caused the brewhaha firsthand. I've since listened to it in context. I sympathize with his view. I will say that someone as articulate as Rush could well have chosen better wording. There was no need to stoop to the level of discourse most commonly associated with the left side of the aisle.

Y'all: Rush isn't going away because of what he says or doesn't say. It doesn't matter how many sponsors jump ship or not; the size of his audience is too much of a lure for any marketer. Sponsors will return. (I understand Carbonite's stock has taken a hit because of their departure….) Whether I believe he said the right thing or the wrong thing is a non-issue.

but

I don't see any need for him to apologize.

WHAT?OMGWTFBBQ!!!!!!!!!ELEVENTY!!!!!1!!!!

I know. Betrayer of the gender, me. I should turn in my girl card. But before those pearls make permanent indents in the palm of your clenched fists, let me elaborate.

There has been a war on powerful women for years. Even I, the least likely feminazi on the planet, can tell you that. Men throw a little weight around and they're considered admirable and powerful. Women flex their muscles and are automatically tagged "bitch." It's the way of the western world. Personally, I've never much taken notice of it. I've been called that before (and a lot worse, truth be told). As far as I'm concerned, if I've gotten under your skin to that extent I've made my point and won the battle. I spent the first 20 years of my professional life in a male-dominated industry and thus, I've acquired a pretty thick skin. A little splotchy, perhaps, but thick.

That doesn't make those sorts of remarks "right," you would say, and I agree. But it is what it is. Attitudes change slowly. But I'm not here solely for the cultural reprimand.

Allow me to repeat: he doesn't need to apologize.

why?

I've never heard Bill Maher apologize. I've never heard Chris Matthews apologize. I've never personally heard Ed Schultz apologize. I've never heard any of the leftist bloggers, tweeters, wanna-be-pundits, or apologists say they were sorry for ripping on Condi Rice, Michelle Malkin, Michelle Bachmann, Pamela Geller, Laura Ingraham, Hillary Clinton, or … gasp… Sarah Palin.

I'm beginning to cling to the hypothesis that apologies are something that only come from the conservative side of the aisle. Sort of part of that overall morality thing. Conscience and whatnot. But it's still in the hypothesis stage so there's tinkering to be done.

As far as I'm concerned, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. When Bill Maher gets down off his artificially high horse and stops his ridiculous schtick then maybe – just maybe – I'd ask Rush to extend the olive branch. But until then, his statement should stand, sans apology.

I've been told that's a third-grade argument. Maybe it is. If indeed it is, perhaps that's the best possible way of looking at it. After all, calling people names just because you can't hurt them any other way is a third-grade solution, isn't it?

Tit for tat, so they say.

But here's an article that puts the matter better than I can. I don't much mess with the Beast but I like the way Ms. Powers put things.

the next time…

…someone tries to tell me how wonderful and civil the left side of politics is, I will have to show them this article.

I am so sick and freaking tired of being told to be civil, and be nice, and play fair, and how compassionate liberalism is, and how it's so inclusive, and full of diverse thought, and accepting of all viewpoints. Sick and freaking tired of it. Sick of all the double talk and hypocrisy.

Go ahead, my leftie friends. Explain how that article, with all of its evidence to the contrary, fits in with your "message." Try. Convince me that I'm wrong.

[cue crickets]

No, I don't like the columnists, teevee talking heads, celebrities, politicians, and heads of state on the opposite side. I've severed a lot of acquaintances because of it. You have heard me wax apathetic, or be outright insulting to the point of view and those holding it. But you have never, ever heard me rejoice in the light of human tragedy.

Why? It's called humanity. Class. Breeding. Compassion. Civility. None of which these sexual intellectuals¹ seem to possess nor recognize.

why are you taking this so personally?

Because hypocrites piss me off. And because this is only the tip of the iceberg in the war on true civility and civilization in general.

_____

1. Translate as "fucking idiots." There. I said it and I'm glad. Sue me.

a big loss.

RIP Andrew Breitbart.

I of course feel bad for his family and friends, but I can't help but think that this is the worst possible time for the movement to lose such a voice.

(That, and looking at the dates makes me a little more aware of my own mortality.)