For Once, I'm Not Taking Sides

Perhaps you've noticed how I get pretty mouthy on subjects I'm passionate about.

Regarding the Trayvon Martin case, I'm not taking sides.

I don't have the facts. None of us does.

What we have is the media's reporting of what appears, essentially, to be a "he said/the 9-1-1 tapes said/the-girlfriend-who-wasn't-there said situation.

It seems the police have earwitnesses, at least one of whom has been all over television turning what she heard into conjecture. Removing that, her facts, if I interpret them correctly, are: she heard screaming and then a gunshot.

Some media outlets have reported Trayvon was an innocent. Some others have reported he was the subject of a police search at his high school and found in possession of a possible "burglary tool" along with some jewelry that couldn't be accounted for.

I have several different kinds of that particular "burglary tool"(a screwdriver) in my basement.

Some folks offer that Zimmerman overstepped the bounds of his Neighborhood Watch duties. His brother says he wasn't even "on duty" that night, but rather headed to a store. Some point out that he acted contrary to what a police dispatcher told him to do. His lawyer calls the dispatcher's words, "a request, not an order."

It goes on and on, back and forth.

Let me say this.

In my early twenties, there were times when I foolishly acted outside the scope of my authority, both as a civilian witness and as a law-enforcement officer. I'm fortunate that my mouth, and my good intentions, did not result in physical harm to anyone, least of all me.

Sometimes reasoned thinking is impossible during an adrenaline rush.

I've also been in situations where I drew a gun too quickly and then had to defend myself against individuals trying to take it away from me. Shooting them was not an option. That happens to cops, time to time. I imagine it happens occasionally to civilians who carry guns for self-defense, too.

I have no idea what Zimmerman did or didn't do. I have no idea what young Trayvon Martin did, or didn't do.

All I know is that people are expressing opinions on an incredibly volatile subject based on what the lawyers call, "facts not in evidence."

That, my friends, could get someone hurt.

Blago's Last Hurrah (If We're Lucky)

The Blago coverage this week neatly sums up the idiocy of the media, local and national. As if we needed another reminder after this political season. Not one Chicago station had the guts to give it a two minute hit and move on. It was newsgasm to the end.

Our former governor is a sociopath at best, a psychopath at worst. A flaccid charmer without the ability to feel anything except for himself. Blogger Rob Feder's use of the word "pathological" just scrapes the surface. We seldom give the correct definition to Evil but Blago surely comes close. He may care for his kids, but in the way some people do about their relatives' pets.

Goudie's question to Blago's wife ("Do you plan to stay with him?")outraged many but probably reveals insider knowledge and illustrates a given about Blago's future. Patty will stick with him about as long as a cowboy with a hobbled horse.

It's tough on the kids, yes. For awhile. Best they're away from him.

What makes me the most ill about the whole disgusting affair, however, are the people who still worship and support this bastard.

More than anything else, Blago's backers illustrate why Illinois government is in such a shambles: we are a state and nation of mindless sheep who believe only what we hear in the latest and best served soundbite.

What's terrifying is that there are others . . . many, many, others . . . holding, or aspiring to, public office whose rapacious lust for power overwhelms that of our former Governor.

They don't have goofy hairjobs. They don't dance for the cameras. And you won't see them coming until they have you by the throat.

The Christian Right's Rush to Judgement

I sure don't like Rush Limbaugh.

I used to listen because I met him a couple of times when I worked in Kansas City radio and he seemed like an interesting and funny guy. That was before he created the persona we all see and hear today. Worlds of difference.

A couple of my former colleagues who knew him well back then tell me he tried out many different "acts," trying to find one that would win him celebrity status. I've always believed this is the one that stuck. It works for him. It may well have radically changed his personality. So be it.

Some say he's "just an entertainer." Makes no difference. People rely on him to tell them how to vote and then they follow through.

It really disturbs me how his agenda, which is mostly interchangeable with that of the so-called Christian Right, regularly rips on women, minorities, and those whose beliefs don't fit their mold.

It's fine for a church to tell its members how to behave in matters of theology. It's wrong to believe government should have the power to do so as well.

Those who believe birth control is wrong should not practice it(they are frequently called "parents" by the way). Those who believe sexual activity, other than for procreation, is wrong should not fornicate. Those who believe abortion and homosexuality are sins are absolutely entitled to those views.

As philosophies, as religious tenets, that's fine.

Just don't enact laws that force me to embrace those views.