Can NASA also protect us from Republicans?

Nattering Naybob: The Red Ranger, I was heartened to read in the HuffingtonPost today that NASA is appointing someone they call a “Planetary Defense Officer” as part of an overall effort to defend our earth from asteroids, meteors, and other space-based projectiles that threaten the very existence of us Earthlings. I guess they are trying to do whatever they can to try and protect us from threats from space, while Republicans from the Fringe Lunatic Right (which are about 99.7% of Republicans, lately) do their best to destroy our Earth by rejecting all evidence of global warming (“I’m not a scientist, BUT….”) and scoffing at attempts to reduce carbon emissions, etc. Question for NASA: Can you also protect against Earth-bound threats such as Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, The Koch Brothers, and the NRA?

 

Artists rendering of us all getting killed

The Red Ranger: What a great idea, I suggest we round up some far left radicals and assign them to patrol the universe.  I say we send DiBlasio, Sanders, the Clintons (Bill and Hill) and the Obama’s into space on a never ending search for asteroids, meteors, etc.  The cost of providing them a one-way trip through the universe will surely be less than the cost they would inflict on humans should they remain on earth.

Speaking of costs, in the article it indicates that the cost of this effort is budgeted at $50 million in 2016 which is up from $4 million in 2010.  This is a 52% compound annual growth rate. That is outrageous even by Obama’s standards.  I am sure that if they identify an object on a collision course with the earth some bleeding heart liberal will argue against destroying it claiming we must not have borders and these alien objects have every right to enter the earth.

Nattering Naybob: You have proven yourself a true deficit hawk. You would rather save money than help save the world, literally. I’m surprised you aren’t supporting an idea that your Conservative icon and God, Ronald Reagan, first proposed. One of his few good ideas.

The Red Ranger: I am not a deficit hawk just one for sound fiscal policies.  I am not against spending just want to make sure money is spent wisely with the highest benefit return for all.

Nattering Naybob: One would think that saving the planet from getting hit by an asteroid that would potentially cause the mass extinction of most or all animals and human beings, would be something with a high benefit attached. But that’s just me…

 

 

 

There may still be hope for the Catholic church

Nattering Naybob: The Red Ranger, as you know we both have had some distractions at work (damn job!) and at home so our little blog has been on hiatus for a little while. I think going forward we can be back to normal for the immediate future at least. Due to the recent SGM dormancy, this content of this post is slightly outdated bit I think is still note-worthy.

We discussed in a previous post (in somewhat tongue-in-cheek fashion) what a breath of fresh air Pope Francis seemed to be at the time of his installation this past Spring. My comments to you were concerned mainly with the symbolism of the new Pope’s eschewing of much of the pomp and ceremony that seemed to be the currency of Francis’ immediate predecessor, Pope Benedict, and of many previous Popes in general.

But recently came news, via The Huffington Post and other news outlets , of a potentially seismic shift in the way that the Catholic church does business. While giving an interview to an Italian paper called La Civilita Cattolica, he basically said that the Catholic church has been too obsessed with enforcing its stifling, archaic stances on gays, abortion and contraception… more specifically, on the church’s absurdly impossible opposition to both abortion AND contraception.

I am what you would call a “lapsed” Catholic. I felt that I could no longer support a church whose hierarchy turned the other cheek for decades while its priests, bishops and in some case, cardinals, were inflicting horrible acts of abuse on young boys. Most odious to me, other than the actual crimes and resulting cover-ups themselves, was the fact that the church was draining the pockets of many in its flock to help pay for the multi-million dollar lawsuit victories awarded the victims of church-sanctioned pedophilia… while doing nothing to sell of its own stashes of gold, paintings, and statuary first (we’ll see if Francis does anything about this display of conspicuous consumption in future months and years).

But Pope Francis’s comments seem to signal a realization that the Catholic church needs to adapt to the times in order to re-focus on its true mission of helping those who need to be saved, rather than condemning those they think should be damned. If Pope Francis is successful in the Herculean job of changing the culture of the church, or at least starting that journey, then I would be curious if Republicans would also modify their nonsensical opposition to both abortion AND contraception. I have to temper that wish with the fact that the institution of Modern Republicanism is trending more and more towards fundamentalist / evangelical Protestantism, and accordingly may not find much legitimacy in anything that the Catholic church does or says anyway. Much like they treat Obama.

The Red Ranger: Again as you know I am not a very religious person but I respect those who are.  I find it interesting that you refer to the Catholic church as a business as that is sometimes how I view it.  They are more interested in pulling in donations than actually helping their congregations.

If the pope changes the Catholic church’s stance on abortion, contraception, gays, etc. I will then change my stance on religion and be a staunch supporter of the banning of all religions.  If a religion can change its basic tenets on a whim to bring itself into the mainstream and perhaps enhance its monetary pool then it is really not a religion but it is a business as you suggested that is just catering to the needs of its customers.

If I were a long time parishioner of a parish where the priest has been sermonizing against abortions, gays, etc. for the past twenty years and all of a sudden one Sunday he comes in and says, “You know all those things I have been preaching about the last twenty years, forget it, abortion is OK, a homosexual lifestyle is fine and by the way we have a sale on condoms 3 for $15 and you can pick them up on your way out”.  Just doesn’t seem right to be able to change like that.

I would have much more respect for the Catholic church if they actually dug in their heels and held firm to their beliefs regarding abortion, contraception, gays, etc.  Perhaps God is testing them by putting so much immorality in the world now.  If the church caves then we are on a path to certain destruction.  It will be slow but ultimately we will get to a point where anything goes and whatever each person wants to do as long as it makes them happy will be acceptable.

I do not understand why you feel that opposition to both abortion and contraception is absurd.  If someone is able to display self-control and take responsibility for their actions then there would be no issue.  However, when people are always looking for their immediate satisfaction regardless of the outcome then I could see how there could be an issue here.  I guess this just goes hand-in-hand with the anything goes attitude that so many people have today.

Nattering Naybob: Interesting take you have there, Red Ranger. My problem with being opposed to both abortion AND contraceptives, is from a policy perspective, not from a moral one. I do not believe that morality can be imposed. It must come from within. Your interpretation of the Pope’s interview seems to me, to fit right in with what he is worried about: that the Catholic church has become more worried about castigating certain types of behavior, rather than welcoming imperfect people into their fold. As the Pope himself perfectly summarized the problem in his interview:

“We must always consider the person. In life, God accompanies persons, and we must accompany them, starting from their situation. It is necessary to accompany them with mercy. When that happens, the Holy Spirit inspires the priest to say the right thing… God is in everyone’s life. Even if the life of a person has been a disaster, even if it is destroyed by vices, drugs or anything else, God is in this person’s life…This church with which we should be thinking is the home of all, not a small chapel that can hold only a small group of selected people. We must not reduce the bosom of the universal church to a nest protecting our mediocrity.”

Unless he turns out to be a total phony who might later “clarify” his statements, this Pope is a true man on the cloth. He seems to be a genuine follower of the teachings of Christ, who many cite at every opportunity but whose message of unconditional mercy is not observed.

Syria

The Red Ranger: So we have a country that has used chemical weapons on its citizens and the world fails to take quick and decisive action.  I would have thought that a Nobel peace prize winner like Obama would have been able to quickly pull together a bilateral coalition to extract some payback on Assad.  I guess that he does not really have the confidence of the world leaders like everyone thought he would get when he was elected.

In fact, Obama seems to be totally fumbling US foreign relations.  Other than getting Bin Laden which if you believe some accounts Obama wasn’t too interested in following what has he done.  Our relations with Russia are probably at their lowest level since the pre-Reagan years, the Benghazi attackers have gotten away unscathed and even Britian, our former strongest ally, will not fall in line with us.  Let’s not forget his support of the Muslim Brotherhood in the coup that ousted Mubarak in Egypt.  How many Christians have the Brotherhood murdered or how many churches have they destroyed since their ouster in Egypt.

Looking back the awarding of the Nobel peace prize to Obama when they did makes the committee look pretty foolish.  The award shouldn’t have been given based upon hope but on actual results.

 

Nattering Naybob: First, am I to believe that you are still adhering to that Sean Hannity nonsense that Obama “didn’t really want to get Osama bin Laden”? You’re joking, right? From Day 1 in office, Obama informed his National Security team that catching bin Laden would be a priority. Unlike George W. Bush, who replied in a press conference on Marsh 13th, 2012, LESS THAN ONE YEAR AFTER THE 9/11 ATTACKS, and I quote: “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority”.

Every President has foreign policy mis-fires, it’s part of the cost of doing business. Stop reading columns by John Bolton.

The Red Ranger: I did not mean to imply that Obama did not want to get Bin Laden, I was just referencing the fact that there were reports that he wasn’t too interested in watching the actually taking down of Bin Laden.

I would classify a mis-fire as something that happens on a rare occasion.  It seems like other than Bin Laden all of Obama’s foreign policy moves have been mis-fires.

Nattering Naybob: Oh. You are only saying that there are “rumors” (source: unknown) that he did not want to actually watch the video of bin Laden being taken down. Frankly, I don’ think it’s important whether he did or not. All I know is that he was there, watching intently. Or, you may have been seeing those internet reports from the usual Right-Wing nuts, that claim Obama’s image was somehow CGI’d or Photoshopped into the official photographs of the “war room” during the raid.

I find it truly, profoundly, pathetic that so many people waste so much time trying to discredit or criticize every single aspect of this President’s life. Over two years after we successfully captured and killed the perpetrator of the worst carnage ever inflicted on this country’s soil from outside forces, Republicans are still scraping, scratching, clawing, biting, and in some cases, chewing, to find any possible way to criticize Obama’s role in it. Sad.

And still, The Red Ranger always wonders: “What is happening to our country?”

The Red Ranger: Did you find it as profoundly, pathetic that so many people wasted time trying to discredit or criticize every single aspect of Bush’s life?  Or were you just part of the mindless Democratic horde partaking in this sport?

Nattering Naybob: No, I was not, if you want to know the truth. I thought George W. Bush  was an incompetent Chief Executive who listened too much to people who were giving him terrible advice (read: Dick Cheney). However I actually gave him credit for the way he handled the aftermath of 9/11. His “bullhorn moment” at the top of the debris pile at Ground Zero was a stroke of leadership genius, and one of the iconic moments in the history of the American Presidency. I thought he was unfairly criticized for continuing to listen for a few minutes to the reading of the students whose class he was visiting, before he started to take direct action on the news given to him on that morning.

I think Bush did a good job in imploring the nation to not take individual vengeance for 9/11 on Muslims in their neighborhood, or who they came across during their day. I think it was disgusting that someone threw shoes at him during a press conference in Iraq late in his Presidency because I think that could conceivably have been deemed an assassination attempt, and it was horrible that anyone would laugh at that and praise the show-thrower.

Bush was and is a devoted and faithful husband, father, and son, and I think his wife was an excellent and dignified First Lady. I think that any suggestion that he would have taken part in a “plot” to help facilitate 9/11 is outrageous and utterly contemptible because for all his management deficiencies, I think he is at heart a patriot and loves his country.

These are all positive comments that Republicans and the Right-Wing lunatic fringe, would never in a million years consider bestowing on Obama.

Ignorance. Again.

Nattering Naybob: Hello, The Red Ranger. A particular theme that I come back to time and time again, both in our little blog and in pre-Second Grade Minds emails that we have exchanged (on our companys’ time I might add), is ignorance of the general public and the decreasing level of intellectual curiosity among our populus. Oh, we generally know which are the hottest iPhone and Android apps, and we can decipher the complex mechanism of the latest smartphone we have purchased, and how to transfer pictures from said phone, via our TV, thru our MiFi device, and divide half of the gallery and send one half to our desktop computer in the attic and the other half of the gallery to our spouse’s smartphone (“You mean you don’t know how to do that? It’s simple….”), but when it comes to basic knowledge about civics, government, current affairs, or anything not related to amusement, electronic gadgets, or entertainment, most people don’t care anymore.

This article by CNBC’s Dan Mangan that appears NBCnews.com, shows how the general public’s ignorance of how the new features of Obamacare (the President himself calls it that), is costing us money and restricting us from taking advantage of some of the hard-earned victories of the Health Care battle.

Here is a key passage from the article

Making the job of selling the brand-new exchanges even more difficult is the public’s general ignorance about health insurance. A recent Journal of Health Economics study found that just 14 percent of people were able to correctly define all of four insurance terms that could affect plan-buying decisions: deductibles, copays, coinsurance and maximum out of pocket costs.

But the persistent ignorance about the Obamacare exchanges is striking given extensive news coverage of the health-reform law upheld by the Supreme Court last year as well as a presidential election, which was seen as a referendum on President Barack Obama’s championing of the legislation.

Now I know what you are going to say, Red Ranger: that the Health Care plan is too complicated and too confusing. That may have some credence, and I am sure that the President and his staff did not do the best job they could have in explaining its features. But still, is it not another example of how in this age of supposed unprecedented access to learning (especially via the internet), the general knowledge level, and maybe more importantly, the desire of citizens to learn about topics that affect them, is a sad commentary on the state of our society. Now wouldn’t you agree with that, The Red Ranger.

The Red Ranger: I do agree with you that the general public does not take the time to educate themselves in regard to many of the issues that impact them the most.  How else could you explain an inexperienced, buffoon like Obama being elected President.

However, I too am not all that well informed about how the exchanges work.  One of the key reasons being that I have insurance thru my employer and I was ensured by Obama during the debate regarding Obamacare that I would be able to keep this insurance so there really is no reason for me to spend time learning about the exchanges at this point since I should not need to avail myself to their services.

For something as large as Obamacare the government should have undertaken a media information campaign similar to all the infomercials that are on TV.  They should have created short 30 minute max, informational videos and then bought time on the airwaves and posted on YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, Facebook, Twitter and any other social media site that people are flocking to these days.  For an administration that is supposedly so media savvy they really haven’t done a good job here.

Nattering Naybob: With the exception of a couple of absurd sentences, I find some merit in your retort, especially the last paragraph. That is essentially the crux of my point, that all the social media and internet-based means of communication should be put to better use than simply showing videos of people walking out of restrooms with toilet paper stuck to their shoe. And you are right, some of the ingenuity and innovation that went into his two election victories, should have been employed in the public review portion of Project Obamacare.

I Dream of J.D. With the Unpublished Books

Nattering Naybob: First, my apologies to Stephen Foster about the title of this post. The Red Ranger, I know you are not much of a reader (not that there’s anything wrong with that necessarily), but you may have heard about a new documentary and companion biography that are being released next week about the near-mythic author J.D. Salinger, whose “Catcher In the Rye” is considered by many to be the quintessential story of 20th century teen angst and disillusionment (other than your own real-life experiences in these areas, Red Ranger).

Salinger was probably as famous for his self-imposed withdrawal from public life in the mid-Sixties, as he was for his actual body of work. During this period of seclusion he did not publish any new material whatsoever, despite rumors that he still was in fact secretly writing, with the intention of this work being published only after his death.

He died in January 2010. In the 3-1/2 years since then there has been no indication whatsoever of any such “hidden treasure” of new material, and Salinger fans such as myself had pretty much given up hope that this would ever happen.

However a story in the New York Times (and other media outlets) over the weekend reports that the upcoming book and documentary will reveal that Salinger did indeed finish at least five major works during his seclusion and has left specific publication instructions for their gradual release, starting in 2015. Some of the books’ titles have even been leaked (one such title is purportedly “The Last and Best of the Peter Pans”.)

Just as last year I considered the Yankees’ re-signing of Ichiro Suzuki as the Christmas present you no longer had to buy for me, Red Ranger, consider this spine-tingling announcement as a similar reprieve from your having to purchase a gift for me this coming Christmas. That alone should turn you into a Salinger fan.

The Red Ranger: I am glad to hear that I do not need to buy you a holiday (I want to be PC in keeping with the paradigm of your ilk) present again this year.  My guess is these books will be published and then there will be some battle amongst his heirs for the proceeds.

I am anxiously awaiting the release of some as yet unfound writings of my favorite author, Dr. Seuss.

Nattering Naybob: Thank you, Red Ranger, I’ve always wanted to be part of an “ilk”.

 

Chris Lane

The Red Ranger: Recognize the name?. Probably not given your allegiance to the MSM and radical, left-wing news sites.

Chris Lane is an Australian baseball player who was gunned down by three teenagers in Oklahoma while he was jogging.  One other item of note in this case is that he was white and his killers are black.  One of the assailants has postings on his Twitter account about how he hates whites.  I wonder if the Department of Justice  is going to be looking into this as a hate crime and whether Chris’ civil rights were violated.  My guess is that they will not, given how the prevalent thinking there is that minorities cannot be racist and it is only evil white folks who can be racist.

When will Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson comment on this case?  Will Barack Obama get in front of the nation and say it could have been him?

My challenge to you, Nattering Naybob, is to find this story on one of your favorite websites where they indicate the racial context of the shooting or that one of the assailants has a history of online racial rants.

Nattering Naybob: Here we go again.

Let me start off by saying that I have always been uncomfortable with assigning any violent act an extra layer of a “hate crime”. I am a  little more sympathetic to a crime being labeled a “civil rights violation”, but even that term is poorly-defined. I don’t know what the point is of saying that a particular murder is a “hate crime” and another isn’t. I feel that any pre-meditated or depraved act of murder, is inherently hateful by definition.

I did a Google search a few minutes ago and I found several links to mainstream media outlets like CBS News, NBC News, Huffington Post, and others, whose first sentence mentioned the fact that one of his killers publicly voiced his hatred for white people. Expecting Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to comment on this case in the same manner as they did the Trayvon Martin case, is a waste of time because their main objective, as African-American activists, is to identify and comment on examples of the African-American community being treated unfairly. That is what they do. I find nothing wrong with admitting this very openly and honestly.

This reminds me of the argument I hear from white people who find fault with such institutions as “Black Miss America”, or any number of any other African-American based contests, ceremonies etc. The familiar dry is, “Oh, is they ever had a White Miss America contest, can you imagine the uproar?” Well, new flash for you: Most all public institutions, competitions, etc. throughout our history have been, by default, nearly 100% white, all along.

The Red Ranger: I tend to agree with you on hate crime.  I am honestly confused by the term civil rights violation.  What does that mean?  Aren’t all murders civil rights violations merely by the fact that they took away the persons civil rights.

Here is another story which is actually even sadder than the Australian baseball player given this guy’s record.

Yes, I believe that the MSM picked up the Chris Lane story as it gathered some notoriety.

Just because in the past, black women were thought by some to not be deserving to compete in beauty pageants with whites, doesn’t make it OK that they have pageants that exclude whites by their very nature.

The Downward Spiral

The Red Ranger: I am not referring to the masterful album from Nine Inch Nails with the title of our latest post, but to the current direction of the US.

Two of today’s top items on the news wires relate to the continued degradation of life within the United States.  Our esteemed Attorney General, Eric Holder, announced today that he is changing the sentencing requirements for low-level, non-violent drug offenders.  So it seems that drug dealers will no longer face mandatory minimum sentences.  I guess the administration is trying to lower the barriers to entry for drug dealers.  Is this part of Obama’s new job initiative to have more drug dealers on the street?  The only problem with this is that drug dealers do not usually file income tax returns reporting their drug profits so the government does not make any additional tax revenue.

Second, it seems that a lot of immigrants are flooding the border near San Diego claiming political asylum.  I guess there are certain rules that ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) follows when people are claiming this at the border that allow them to get into the country and then slip away.  There have been so many claimants recently that ICE has had to pay to put these people up in hotels.  What a great country when we treat non-citizens better than legal citizens.

So combined we are paving the way for illegal immigrants to enter the country to become drug dealers.  What a place we are becoming.

Nattering Naybob: I am somewhat in agreement with you on the first part of your screed, Red Ranger. I am a little queasy about letting drug dealers, no matter how small-time, off the hook. They should at least be subjected to some kind of rigorous, verifiable, accountable form of community service. I have to learn more about exactly what the plan is, although I am generally supportive of any effort to overhaul the prison system. From the sound of it, it seems like nothing is carved in stone yet. I know that Eric Holder falls into the same category for Republicans that President Obama does, that is, anything he does will be precipitating the fall of all Mankind, no matter what it is. Republicans also have, and have had, the same feeling toward Van Jones, Susan Rice, and Michelle Obama. Do I notice a trend on the part of my Republican “friends”?

Regarding the immigration issue, you are already assuming that illegal immigrants all become drug dealers when you have absolutely no basis to back that up and so have no right to make such an insulting, incendiary claim. The vast majority of immigrants, whether legal or illegal, work very hard at occupations that most “real” Americans would think beneath them, such as busboy or day laborer. If you want to talk about drug dealing and abuse, there is already plenty of that committed by All-American white teenagers and young adults in the suburbs. And just in case you are (again) implying that Obama is soft on illegal immigration, that too is a falsehood because Obama has a more stringent record of deportations than his Republican predecessor in office.

The Red Ranger: Yes, you have identified the trend, your Republican friends do not like those who are trying to avoid the laws and constitution of this great land.  I hope you are not relying on that old liberal trick of calling anyone who disagrees with them either a racist or a bigot.

My last comment was meant to be more tongue in cheek drawing the two issues together.  I realize that most illegal immigrants will not become drug dealers as that is a job that any “real” American would want.

Nattering Naybob: Oh I get it, The Red Ranger, you are using subtlety and irony on me with the illegal immigrant / drug dealer comment. Those sophistications are way over my head today apparently. I am going away for a much-needed mini-vacation to recharge my batteries.

What could a Muslim religious scholar, possibly know about Jesus?

Nattering Naybob: Greetings, The Red Ranger. I assume you saw or heard of the so-called “interview” conducted by Lauren Green of FOX News, where she spent nearly ten minutes repeatedly questioning author Reza Aslan on why a Muslim was qualified to write a book about Jesus (“Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth”) or if he or she were qualified, why would they then write that book at all. The fact that Ms. Green holds the title of “Religion Correspondent” for FOX News makes her “questions” even more absurd.

Red Ranger, I know that every single media source or website that I link to or quote from, you think is biased or not valid, so this time I am going to annotate the story by linking to an article from the American Conservative.com, that refers to the “cringe-worthy” interview featuring a “misguided line of questioning”. As our President is fond of saying, “Now…let me be clear”, because this bears repeating: This article is from the American Conservative. Good for them for calling out FOX News’s totally transparent agenda of fear-mongering. The article links to the entire video of the “interview”, which lasts almost ten minutes but is worth watching if for no other reason than Mr. Aslan’s cool, calm, collected, yet firm, reaction to the whole fiasco.

The Red Ranger: OK, so I was wondering why would the Nattering Naybob get so worked up about this relatively innocuous, pedestrian interview, Then through a little detective work I realized that the radical left was all abuzz over this interview and commentary about it had popped up all over the liberal blogsosphere.  As is usually the case the left never fails to crucify anyone who dares to defend Christianity.  Here is a link to something found on FOX News.

So I will agree that maybe the interview did not live up to the exceptionally high standards that the FoxNews network has become expected to deliver it is still better than anything put out by the schlock, faux journalistic MSM.  I guess when you are the best, people are ready to jump on even the slightest misstep.

Nattering Naybob: As a tribe, you Republicans are nothing if not lock-step. As you all invariably do, you defend the actions of someone on the Right, or who espouses Right-leaning dogma in an offensive and intolerant manner, by saying that it is an “attack” or an attempt to “crucify” that person’s advocacy for that issue. For example, if someone on the Right makes a speech or posts a blog saying that there should be absolute unfettered access for all Americans to assault weapons, and a Liberal replies by saying that might not be a good idea, the Right-winger will say that the Liberal hates the Constitution, or that they are are soft on criminality, or that they are unfairly savaging the Right-leaning blogger in a partisan fashion.

So it is with this issue, Red Ranger, when you claim that Ms. Green was “defending Christianity”. Only you are wrong on two accounts, achieving a kind of propagandistic daily double. First, Ms. Green’s question about “why a Muslim should be writing a book about Jesus” had nothing to do with defending Christianity per se’. Instead it was yet another attempt to demonstrate a deep mistrust of all things Muslim, which has been FOX News’s stock and trade since September 11, 2001.

Second, and perhaps most important, it is not the anchor’s job to “defend” Christianity in the first place, it is her job to bring out points and ideas from the author’s book that will enlighten or educate the viewers. Ms. Green did none of that, and when the author suggested that she did not even read his book, she did not disagree with or correct him. Instead of giving Ms. Green the title of “Religion Correspondent”, why doesn’t FOX News just call her “Christianity Correspondent– or sometimes Judaism Correspondent When President Obama Calls For a Two-State Solutions and So Hates Israel”?

The Red Ranger: As usual the liberal left’s paranoia and insecurity comes through.  Has there ever been any group that is so completely and utterly inept at defending there positions or supporting why they have those positions.

How does posing a simple question demonstrate a deep mistrust of all things Muslim.  I suppose that if I wrote a book on Islam and was questioned by an Islamic reporter about why I wrote it then they would be demonstrating a deep mistrust of all things Christian just because they asked the question.

I didn’t realize that you had written Ms. Green’s job responsibilities.  Does your emploiyer know that you are moonlighting at another network?

Superman (a.k.a., George Zimmerman)

The Red Ranger: Another heroic feat by George Zimmerman.  I hope no one has any kryptonite near him.

I am glad he did not take the cynical approach and think why should I help all I get for my good deeds is called a racist.  If it came out that he drove by the crash and didn’t help the family I am sure everyone would have crucified him.

Nattering Naybob: Please explain, if you would, what you mean by “another heroic feat” by George Zimmerman. Do you consider his killing of an unarmed teenager who clearly was no threat whatsoever, to be “heroic”?

The Red Ranger: Has your new tactic become to delay your responses to my posts so that my posts no longer have a sense of urgency or relevancy? I meant taking the time and caring about his neighborhood enough to patrol it so that others in the neighborhood could enjoy it safely.

Nattering Naybob: You may be on to me, The Red Ranger.  In fact the audacity (I mean a “bad” audacity, not the good, Barack Obama audacity) of your political and social dogma sometimes stuns me into a kind of intellectual paralysis, delaying my responses for a few days. I have to do some New York Times crossword puzzles or study a good book on chess moves, in order to re-sharpen my mind sufficiently to wrap my head around your world view, and respond with appropriate speed.

So George Zimmerman allegedly saved a few people’s lives. I chalk that up to the fact that even a broken clock is right twice every 24 hours. He owes society an awful lot of good deeds,

Zimmerman v. Trayvon, once again

Nattering Naybob: Red Ranger, I know our little blog has been quiet lately, for which I take sole blame in my role as defacto blog administrator. Anyhow, the aftermath of the George Zimmerman verdict has cooled down just a bit but even so I believe the issues surrounding it are still very much pertinent.

Accordingly, I would like to calmly review some of the charges that you and many on the Right are putting forth about Trayvon Martin as it pertains to his being killed by George Zimmerman after Zimmerman was ordered by his supervisor to “stand down” and not pursue or directly confront Martin. First, your claim that he “had drugs in his system”. First off, there was only one “drug” in his system, not “drugs”, which implies that he experimented with multiple narcotics. As this article in Time Magazine by Maria Szalavitz points there is an inherent problem with any implication that Martin’s use of marijuana had any material impact on the struggle between Zimmerman and Martin, or the case as whole:

…The levels of THC detected don’t reflect Martin’s character or even his state of mind the night he was shot. For one, they are so low as to almost certainly not be connected to recent intoxication:  1.5 nanograms of THC were found as well as 7.3 nanograms of THC-COOH, a metabolite of THC that can stay in the system for weeks after cannabis has been smoked. Immediately after inhaling, THC levels typically rise to 100 to 200 nanograms per milliter of blood, although there can be a great deal of variation.

“THC in blood or urine tells us nothing about the level of intoxication,” says Carl Hart, associate professor of psychology at Columbia University and author of the leading college textbook on drug use and behavior. “That would be like someone going to have a beer some evening, and when he goes to work the next day, you can find alcohol metabolites in his bodily fluids. That says nothing about his functioning.” (Full disclosure: Hart and I are working on a book project together).

Moreover, even if Martin had been stoned out of his mind, it wouldn’t predispose him to violence. “I have given hundreds of doses of marijuana to people in the lab, and no one has gotten violent ever and everyone has been able to respond to the situation in an appropriate manner, when given low or large doses and single or repeated doses,” Hart says.

The night of the killing, Zimmerman began following Martin, who had gone to a 7-Eleven to get Skittles and an Arizona iced tea during a break in the NBA All-Star game. Zimmerman told a 911 operator that he was worried about Martin because he “looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs.” He was informed that the police would handle the situation and that he should not take further action. Zimmerman didn’t heed that advice; an altercation ended with Zimmerman shooting Martin in what he says was self-defense. He was charged months after the Feb. 26th killing, following widespread public outrage over the perceived lack of an appropriate criminal justice response.

So explain exactly why, The Red Ranger, you and your Right-wing friends  are so insistent on bringing this up at every opportunity since it has absolutely nothing to do with the case?

The Red Ranger: Your continued misstatement of the facts is dumb founding me.

First off Zimmerman’s 911 call was handled by a 911 operator who is not his supervisor.  Secondly, he was not ordered to stand down as you put it.  When he told the 911 operator he was following the suspect the operator responded, “We do not need you to do that” which is a far cry from an order and certainly open to interpretation.

From now on I will only refer to the single illegal drug found in Martin’s system.  Thank you for pointing that out. Now that I know he only had one illegal drug in his system I guess that is OK.  In your warped view of the world is it OK for everyone to only have one illegal drug in their system?

Since there is no way of knowing how any one individual may act with an illegal drug in their system you cannot say with certainty that it did not have any bearing on this case.  He did have the drug in his system which is a fact that cannot be argued.  The impact of that drug is debatable.  But after all people take drugs to change their mood or actions not to act exactly like they would have if they didn’t take the drug.

Nattering Naybob: Yes, having a single type of drug in his system is in fact “better” than having “drugs”, plural, in his system, especially when it is marijuana. What is your main issue with this fact: that marijuana is illegal (as I agree, by the way, that it should be), or that it supposedly altered his personality to the point where it made him overly aggressive during the altercation with Zimmerman.

You say that it was not Zimmerman’s supervisor and he was not told to “stand down”. According to the report above that I excerpted.

Zimmerman told a 911 operator that he was worried about Martin because he “looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs.” He was informed that the police would handle the situation and that he should not take further action.

What part of “he should not take further action” does not equate with “stand down”? Additionally, since the 911 operator is viewed an adjunct of the local police, the fact that it was the 911 operator and not his “supervisor”, makes his refusal to do as told, even more egregious.

I do not understand why you have such hatred for this kid. In your world, because Martin did not have an idyllic life out of a Dick and Jane  book, he bears partial responsibility for being shot. That’s what it comes down to.

The Red Ranger: I do not have any hatred for Trayvon.  Just because I disagree with his lifestyle of drug use and fighting doesn’t mean I hate him.  What I do hate is the fact that the media was so quick to convict Zimmerman, so much so that they intentionally distorted the truth.  The fact that the public was so easily swayed by the false presentation of the facts by the media just leads me to worry that this will happen on a much grander scale in the future.