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.

Breaking news: Black kid killed, white killer goes free. Again.

Nattering Naybob: Excuse my rather blunt post title, Red Ranger but I think it justified, given the verdict that was handed down on Saturday night. If I were African-American, I would be pretty pissed off right now. What do you suppose would have happened if a black security guard (or whatever Zimmerman’s title was), targeted a white kid who had no apparent intention of committing any criminal activity, and, ignoring his supervisor’s orders to stand down, caused an unnecessary confrontation that resulted in the black security guard’s shooting of the white kid. I’m sure FOX News and all its adherents would be just as anxious to give the security guard “his day in court”. I doubt it.

I do not watch FOX News. I would rather be tasked to find a lost dime from the muddy ground inside a nest of hungry Komodo Dragons. So since I know you do watch FOX News, maybe you can answer this: Did you ever see anyone on that station, between the time of the initial killing of Martin, up to the present moment, ever express the slightest remorse or condolence for the death of an innocent teenager? Rather than their exclusive focus on Trayvon Martin’s Facebook page or the fact that he was caught smoking marijuana?

The Red Ranger:  I am starting to think that you are just writing these blurbs in an effort to keep our blog vibrant.  You cannot honestly believe what you are writing here.

The only thing that I agree with here is that if I were an African-American I would be pretty pissed off right now.  That anger would be directed at my fellow African-Americans who only seemed to get riled up when a fellow African-American is killed by a white, Hispanic or even a white-Hispanic.  The dozens of black on black murders committed daily do not seem to cause any amount of angst in the black community.  They are just accepted and people move on.  Perhaps a little more concern within their own community could lead to a reduced level of crime and violence.  Instead, of worrying about the rare instance where an armed white-Hispanic is viciously beaten by a drug addled black man and then defends himself they should turn their attention inward and focus on their own community but as is the case within the liberal Democratic world it is always someone else’s fault and no one needs to take responsibility.

I am sure there are numerous instances where a black person shoots an innocent white person every day but this does not make the headlines in the MSM since it does not fit their narrative.  I would love to see a statistical breakout of every solved murder to see how many of the killers were white/black vs. whether the victims were white/black.   I am fairly certain that the numbers would show a larger proportion of black on white murders than white on black.

I know that you have fallen prey to the MSM’s portrayals in this case but let’s face the facts.  A jury found Zimmerman innocent so via the transitive property Martin must have been guilty of attacking him to allow him to defend himself with immunity.  Therefore, you cannot call Martin an innocent victim.  Perhaps if Martin were not high on drugs he could have handled the situation in a more mature manner.  Instead of violently attacking Zimmerman he could have just as easily introduced himself, thanked Zimmerman for trying to protect his neighborhood and maybe shared some Skittles with him.

In regard, to FOX News they certainly have had commentators come on who have said that this was a tragedy for all involved and  have expressed remorse over the situation.

If the DOJ seeks civil rights charges against Zimmerman the people of this country will need to take a long hard look at where this country is heading.

Nattering Naybob: Just as you cite cases of same-race murder or murders of whites by blacks, so can I cite many many instances of black suspects being railroaded over the years for victimizing whites. Last time I checked my history (a topic ignored by most Republicans except in the rare cases it suits their needs), very few whites were lynched over the past hundred or so years and if there were, I doubt that any all-black jurors failed to convict the black lyncher(s) despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I might also add as a point of fact that the vast majority of lynchings of blacks in the 20th century took place in the Deep South, which is also a Republican stronghold. I’m just sayin’.

The bottom line is that Zimmerman has a history of targeting African-Americans, he was told by his supervisor to stand down and not pursue Martin, and he ignored that direct order, and it was his gun, shot by his hand, that killed an unarmed teenager. And he walked away totally free on Saturday night, probably into a waiting job at FOX News as a criminality or security analyst.

The Red Ranger: Like any good Democrat you try to paint southern Republicans as the root of all things racist.  Weren’t some of the most racist figures in southern history democrats (George Wallace for example).   By the way did you see the instance on either CNN or MSNBC where when showing a clip of George Wallace they labeled him a Republican.  Of course, I am sure that any card-carrying liberal believed that since there this is no way a democrat could ever be a racist.  I think that this shows either the complete incompetence in the staff of these networks or indicates the total lack of ethics they have as they try to distort history to a gullible American public.

Southern democrats and southern Republican all voted against the civil rights act so it is not just a Republican thing.  A Republican wrote the voting rights act..  A Democrat put the Japanese in internment camps.  I could go on and on but history has time and again shown the Democrats to be the more racist party.  However, the MSM has taken it upon themselves to re-write history and portray the Democratic party as some long standing champion of minorities and immigrants when they were historically anything but that.

To me the bottom line is you have Trayvon Martin with a history of drug abuse and violent behavior viciously attacking someone who was just trying to make their neighborhood a safer place.  Martin misjudged his victim as I am sure he thought he could beat up some overweight white guy.  I am sure that if he Zimmerman was not legally carrying a weapon he would have become just another victim of black on white crime and Trayvon would have boasted on his Facebook page about how he beat up some “Cracker”.

Nattering Naybob: We have a fundamental disagreement on this one. Zimmerman and his family, especially his brother, have a history of racist attitudes that indicate a proclivity on George’s part to target out an African-American teenager. How in God’s name is it pertinent whether he had a “history of drug abuse”, meaning he was caught smoking pot. I guess that makes Zimmerman’s murder, justifiable homicide in your eyes. Yet Zimmerman was not even charged with that.  This article lays out a report released by the city of Sanford, which summarizes serial instances of Zimmerman acting recklessly and focusing much of his suspicions on African-Americans, some of whom may be he imagined. I find the whole thing disgusting.

Finally, your portrayal of Zimmerman as am “overweight white guy” is a little mis-leading. It is true that right now he probably could stand to ignore the recipes in the latest Paula Deen cookbook, but on the night he murdered Trayvon Martin he actually looked very fit.

The Red Ranger:  Martin not only had a history of drug abuse he had drugs in his system on the night of the incident.

What is your definition of fit?  He was described by someone during the trial as being a .5 and a scale of 1 to 10 in regard to fitness. I cannot comprehend how you reference everything in Zimmerman’s past but fail to recognize anything in Martin’s past as being integral to this case. Clearly, you are having a hard time accepting the fact that you are wrong in this instance since the jury found him not guilty. Why do you constantly fall victim to the MSM and liberal manipulation of the facts?

In the last paragraph Zimmerman did not call to report a black male.  He only identified Martin as potentially being a black male when asked by the dispatcher.  This is the exact misrepresentation of the facts that has gotten NBC, etc. into hot water.

The Nattering Naybob: I submit forthwith a before and after image of George Zimmerman. Compared to how he looks  now, I feel confident stating that he was “fit” immediately after the shooting. As an apologist for a de-facto law enforcement agent who deliberately disobeyed his supervisor’s orders, resulting in the murder of an unarmed teenager, I know that you will do anything to portray Zimmerman as being at a physical disadvantage on the night of the shooting. If he was in fact at a fitness level of “0.5” on a scale of 1 to 10, as you state, he should not have been on duty in the first place. I think we should give our small but loyal band of readers time to digest all our comments above, then we can continue with another posting during which I will respond to your latest “blame the victim” whining.

Happy Anniversary to Us

Nattering Naybob: Red Ranger, don’t give me the silent treatment for forgetting this, but this past July 9th was our one-year anniversary of subjecting our small but loyal band of readers to this little blog of ours. Sadly, one of our first posts was about the Aurora moviehouse shootings, and our most recent one is about the Trayvon Martin shooting (with the Newtown massacre in the middle). So the reckless use of, and easy access to, guns, has certainly been one of our main themes so far. Another has been my courageous (and mostly effective, I think) defense of our President and Commander-In-Chief against your withering, cruel, and frankly un-patriotic attacks. Plus we threw in a little Yankee stuff. And let’s not forget the Boston Marathon bombing and your riveting first-person accounts of that horrible day and its aftermath. Thus it was a very busy first year, The Red Ranger. Your thoughts.

The Red Ranger: Wow, time flies when you are having fun.

It was an interesting first year.  I think we started off strong, hit a lull and are now picking it up again.  I certainly enjoy the back and forth of a good debate although your tiresome rehashing of the same old liberal talking points can be a little tough to take at times.  I have to keep reminding myself that you are not allowed to have any individual thoughts and must follow the mantra of the democratic party no matter how misguided it is.

Nattering Naybob: I was going to send you a belated anniversary card, but not after that snide and false allegation. Your saying that I employ talking points of my identified party,  is like George Zimmerman calling someone else “reckless”. More thoughts on that verdict soon, The Red Ranger.

George Zimmerman Trial

The Red Ranger: With the George Zimmerman trial nearing completion and the evidence pointing to Trayvon Martin clearly being the aggressor I wonder how all of the MSM will handle the verdict.  However, seeing how juries work in Florida I would not be shocked if Zimmerman were found guilty.  If Casey Anthony could be found innocent then anything is possible.

The prosecution clearly had a very weak case given the string of laughable witnesses they paraded out.  The best of course was Rachel Jeantel who claimed she wrote a letter and then it was pointed out that she could not read cursive writing.  You would have thought the prosecution would have known this before putting her on the stand.  Also, Trayvon’s father had to hear the tape 20 tapes before he was able to realize it was Trayvon’s voice.  I guess someone told him he needed to change his story.

It is really too bad that this guy was treated the way he was by the media.  Just like there is a fund for victims of crimes there should be a fund for victims of the media.  All media companies should have to put 0.5% of their revenue into the fund and the funds should be distributed to those wrongfully portrayed in the media.  Any year that there is no one deserving of the payout the monies should go back to the media companies.  That will teach them to be more honest.

I just hope that if he is found innocent there is no rioting.  Who can forget the day we left work early because of the rumors of rioting in NYC after the Rodney King verdict.  I remember walking to the Port Authority with you anxiously approaching every corner ready to run for our lives.  Ultimately, the biggest headache was waiting for the buses since everyone got out of work early on the buses were not on there rush hour schedule.

Nattering Naybob: First of all I remember nothing about walking home with you towards the Port Authority Bus Terminal in the aftermath of the Rodney King trial. You seem to remember nothing of the malfeasance of the GW Bush administration which ended a little over four years ago yet you remember a single day some 22 years ago and where I was looking and how I looked, doing it. Assuming all this is true, the reason I may have been peeking around corners was simply to protect you (since you are about 5 months younger than me) from crossing the busy streets of New York in your usual rash and petulant manner. I have always had an instinct for keeping people from being struck by vehicles, as I also alluded to in our most recent blog when I prevented my elderly school crossing guard (and myself)from being run over a truck, when I was just in first grade.

Regarding the Zimmerman trial I have not studied the forensics reports or the trial transcripts so I cannot comment on the case, which is still pending.  Maybe we should contact Nate Silver and see if he has made any predictions about the pending verdict. The one item that I do agree with you wholeheartedly is the speciousness (let me know if you need a definition of that, The Red Ranger) of both sets of parents claiming that the screams heard during the scuffle, were from their respective son(s). I am not sure what that proved, if anything, except both protagonists had parents who would do anything to defend their son, or the memory of their son, in Trayvon’s case.

I don’t see why (or how) you want to take 0.5% of “the media”’s revenue and create a fund for suspects who you think are wrongfully victimized by the media. The media did not write up any police reports, the media did not collect any forensic evidence, and the media certainly did not pull the trigger of the gun that killed an unarmed teenager on his way home from getting Skittles and a can of iced tea. 

And regarding the letter that was supposedly written by someone who could not understand what she herself wrote, there is never any limit to the sheer stupidity of prosecuting attorneys. Just remember the OJ Simpson trial when Christopher Darden of the DA’s team prosecuting Simpson, insisted (against the wishes of Marcia Clark, the Prosecution’s lead attorney), that Simpson try on a set of black leather gloves that Simpson supposedly used in the murder of his ex-wife Nicole. The glove that Simpson put on did not fit his hand properly, probably because leather expands and contracts over time, and even if it did fit SImpson, that in itself would not have proven much of anything.

Even given your proclivity for outlandish political analysis, I believe that you and I could most likely, without any formal legal training, together put on a combined prosecution of any criminal suspect, better that most trained prosecutors in the country.

The Red Ranger: I think that we would make an awesome prosecutorial pair. Our first case should be the trial of Lois Lerner the IRS lackey who targeted conservative groups for unfair scrutiny.  Any government employee who takes the fifth amendment should immediately be tarred and feathered.  To think that you and I contributed to paying her salary.  As you can tell her actions (pleading the fifth) really annoyed me.  I can understand the targeting of the conservative groups, as wrong as that is, but at least admit the truth when you are caught.

Nattering Naybob: Yes, but my fear is that if we ever prosecuted the IRS case, you would insist on making Ms. Lerner try on a black leather glove that doesn’t fit, which would confuse the jury to no end and probably cause a mis-trial.

Suzy out of Favor, apparently

Nattering Naybob: Red Ranger, I believe you may have heard that the former women’s distance running star Suzy Favor Hamilton was discovered this past December to have begun a new career as a $600 an hour escort in Las Vegas. Yesterday the Big Ten removed her name from their Athlete of the Year award for each of the three years Favor Hamilton won it (1988 thru 1990).

I find the Big Ten’s decision completely outrageous. Apparently the decision comes from people who are themselves beyond moral reproach in every respect. How in the world can they negate an athlete’s accomplishments that took place roughly 25 years ago because of what she is now doing with her life? Favor Hamilton stated that choosing this lifestyle was in part a coping mechanism in response to “depression and other personal issues”.

Red Ranger, I know that during the nearly one year our little blog has been on cyberspace, you have demonstrated what I would call a zero-tolerance policy for anyone who displays human weakness of any kind, whether involving drugs, unemployment, or the management of their personal finances. So I am interested in your reaction to this story. Maybe you’ll surprise me. May I remind you in advance that prostitution would not be necessary if (frequently, married) men did not find it acceptable to hand over money to engage in an activity that is best conducted free-of-charge between consenting adults in a mutually respectful relationship, whether that relationship lasts one evening or 50 years.

The Red Ranger: One point of clarification, I think the award was named for Suzy Favor and they took her name off of it not that they took the award away from her.  However, I could be reading the story wrong.

I do not think I have shown zero tolerance, however, I do like to hold those in public positions to a higher standard.  In this case, I really do not consider Suzy Favor to be a public figure though.  She had her fifteen minutes of fame and I would doubt that if you asked 1,000 people on the street if more than one knew who she was.

In regard to this case I really do not consider it to be a big deal.  What she was doing was between two consenting adults.  It is not like she was holding a gun to these men and forcing them to have sex with her.  The Big Ten has Probably overreacted here.  I wonder if the award was named for some football or basketball player who was later arrested for domestic violence or DUI if the outcome would have been the same.

Being a married man I would not have any inclination to visit a prostitute but if a vote came up in regard to legalizing it, much to your surprise, I would probably favor it.  If the two people involved were consenting adults I really do not see the big problem.  I know the morality, etc. but that is something the two people involved would have to deal with themselves.  In addition, these services could be taxed and raise money to help pay down part of the trillions in debt that has been run up in the past few years.

Nattering Naybob: Just as we will be celebrating our wonderful nation’s independence tomorrow (my wife and I will be watching the corny but strangely hypnotic movie “1776” as we do every Fourth of July), I will also be celebrating your take on this subject (except for the part about the debt “that has been run up in the past few years”… make that past 12+ years, all post-Bill Clinton.)

You are right, I misunderstood the relation of her name to the award. Even so, I still feel that they should have left the award in her name. It is not a situation like Lance Armstrong’s, where the athletic accomplishments themselves were tainted by cheating during the actual competition. I think in retrospect it was probably a dumb idea for the Big Ten to have named the award after a specific person anyway.

Plus, Favor Hamilton engaged in an essentially victimless “crime”, if that is even what is should be referred to as. I believe working as an escort is legal in Las Vegas. I do not say this with any direct knowledge since I have never been to Las Vegas and the closest I have come to an escort is when the elderly crossing guard Mr. Labriola escorted me across 91st Street on my way to school when I was in first grade. He was a nice man but so old that midway across the street I wound up having to shield him from an oncoming truck. Have a happy Fourth of July, Red Ranger.

The Red Ranger: Having been to Vegas a number of times I know that prostitution itself is illegal in Las Vegas, Clark County but is legal outside of Clark County.  However, the strip is usually inundated with hawkers handing out pamphlets for escort services. They even have those little trucks with mini-billboards travelling up and down the strip advertising escort services.

“This is now decided as a nation”

Nattering Naybob: The Red Ranger, I am curious what you think about the Supreme Court’s twin rulings yesterday that basically represents a sea change in the acceptance, both legally and socially, of same-sex marriage. I will allow the following typically pithy and eloquent quote by Rachel Maddow to summarize the importance of both rulings:

“Bottom line here: the federal ban on recognizing same-sex marriages is dead. California’s ban on recognizing same-sex marriages is dead. There are 12 states in the country where this is now legal, and the political winds on this are blowing so hard in one direction that the idea that we will go back is almost unimaginable in any state in the country … This is now decided as a nation. The argument is won.”

I admit that my stance on same-sex marriage has evolved over the last fifteen years. I suppose you could say the same of many thousands, I dare say millions, of other people across the country. I would like to think that my initial oppostion to it was based largely on what I believe is a basic human instinct of not publicly supporting a lifestyle in which you yourself would not engage; in other words, I could not ever conceive of marrying another man, or having sexual relations with another man, which must mean that I am against other people doing either or both.

And besides, like I said to my wife yesterday, why should heterosexual married couples be the only ones miserable? Although my wife has been a long-time supporter of gay rights, and same-sex marriage, I get the feeling that this rationale did not resonate with her. Since I said this yesterday, she has not spoken to me. I am not understanding this, did I say something wrong?

The Red Ranger: Like you, I cannot conceive of marrying another man (unless of course Sean Hannity comes out).  I am generally against the gay lifestyle but if allowing gays to marry tones down their in your face attitude about their lifestyle then that would be a good thing in my mind.  In general I do not believe that this will have a significant impact on my life.  I just worry that we cater too much to the fringe, deviant element in society while ignoring those who lead an honest, hard working, moral life.

Also, extrapolating this ruling out, shouldn’t I be allowed to have as many spouses as I want (one wonderful wife is not enough).  I am sure that in twenty years they will be saying that people are born with the need for multiple spouses and that they do not have a choice in the matter.

This ruling is just another step in the inexorable march toward a society that lacks any moral compass and is just another move closer to the downfall of society which is happening slowly over time with each of these seemingly small events.

Nattering Naybob: Thank you for using one of my favorite words,”inexorable”. However I do not understand your extrapolation about marrying multiple spouses as it pertains to same-sex marriage. What is the connection? At least you don’t say, “Same sex marriage? Good God, what next? Allowing people to marry horses?? [harumph, harumph]”, like most Repubicans say when asked about same-sex marriage. Maybe you had that planned in your rebuttal, who knows.

By the way, I think that another complaint about same-sex marriage–that it “cheapens” the institution of marriage–is patently absurd on its face. Think about it: If gay couples can now get married, and now DO in fact get married, how does that cheapen your own marriage, or my marriage? (Or the perfect marriage of peanut butter and chocolate?) Do you think it would prevent a young heterosexual couple from getting married? “Oh, darling, if it were ten years ago, I’d get an engagement ring and ask for your hand in marriage, but since same-sex marriage is now allowed, gee… I just don’t know. Maybe we should be just friends.”

On my way home from work each day I walk right past the Fox News headquarters on Sixth Avenue. If you want, you can forward to me a mash note to Sean Hannity, and I can drop it off at the reception desk of Fox News. Hmmm… “Red Ranger-Hannity”. Has a nice ring to it.

The Red Ranger: It is not in regard to same sex marriage per se but the expanded definition of what marriage is.  I was taking the revision of the marriage definition to an extreme.

I agree that it does not cheapen the institution of marriage.

Perhaps I can connect with Sean on e-Harmony.

Nattering Naybob: Good for you for not buying into the standard “cheapening marriage” theory. Regarding e-Harmony, whatever floats your boat, Red Ranger.

Edward Snowden

The Red Ranger:  By now I am sure you have heard of the NSA whistle blower Edward Snowden who has spilled the beans about the elaborate government spying operation that has been transpiring over the last few years.  I give him credit for doing what he did although I am unsure what it really means.

I am torn since I want the government to do what it can to protect us but I also fear the inevitable over reach of the government’s tentacles into everyone’s life.  If the government truly just collects the data and then uses it once they get a lead from another source than that is probably OK but if the government is randomly or even systemically listening to every phone call made by a Muslim who immigrated to the US from another country that is probably not too cool.

I disagree with Dick Cheney who labeled him a traitor.  Even though this program may have allowed some insight into allegedly terrorist activities that still doesn’t mean it was the right thing to do.  The government could stop all terrorist activities if they just totally controlled all aspects of everyone’s lives.  However, I am sure that even you would agree that is a less than enjoyable state of living.

If there was going to be one terrorist event every ten years but in the intervening years we were free from unnecessary government snooping that may not be a bad trade off.  Unless of course you were one of the victims of the terrorists activities.

Nattering Naybob: I too have mixed feelings about the whole thing, in part because the details are a little murky. The question of privacy vs. keeping people safe, will probably never be settled. If we lean towards the sanctity of privacy, and we God forbid are victims of a major terrorist plot, people will probably start saying the hell with privacy, we need to protect our citizens. If we put national security in the forefront and maybe “push the envelope” on privacy and surveillance protocols, then the privacy advocates and “Government stay out of my private life” advocates, are up in arms… until we have a terrorist attack.

What kind of agency or body could be trusted to monitor the checking of personal data and ensure a balance? No matter who or what is appointed to do this, people from both sides of the argument will claim that their interest (either privacy or security) is being short-changed.

I see where Sean Hannity has totally reversed the doctrine he espoused during the Bush administration — National security at all costs– and is now sounding like a card-carrying member of the ACLU by saying that Obama is violating the Constitution (of course Obama is violating the Constitution, that’s all he has done every single day of his Presidency, right Sean?) Well, I guess it’s a matter of Hannity being against the Fourth Amendment before he was for it.

The Red Ranger: I did not read the article you attached since I saw mediamatters in the URL so I knew it was a bogus story. If what you say about Hannity is true then shame on him.

June 6th, 1944

Nattering Naybob: I was all gung-ho this past week (justifiably I think) about the 40th anniversary of Secretariat’s 1973 Belmont Stakes victory. But I would be terribly remiss if I did not also acknowledge something even more important than Secretariat that also happened earlier in June, 69 years ago to be exact: The invasion of Normandy by the Allied Forces, otherwise known as D-Day, June 4, 1944.

Far be it from me, Red Ranger, to wax poetic about the importance of this event. That has been done, with far greater eloquence than I ever could muster, by scores of learned and studied historians. I will only say that any freedom we now have as a Nation is due directly to this event and to the sacrifices of all the men and women who served in World War II and all the other armed conflicts in which our country has engaged, even ones that may not have been as “popular” or well-executed.

For all our citizenry’s chest-thumping and flag waving about “supporting our troops”, we still do far less than we should in all aspects of helping members of the military and their loved ones. The mere fact that a backlog of up to two years exists in the VA to even review veterans’ disability claims, is a story so unfathomable and irresponsible that it should be reported on every single day by the news media. Some outlets have brought this issue to the fore (Rachel Maddow, for one), but not enough and not vigorously enough. I am totally prepared to lay his share of the blame for this, on our Commander-in-Chief, of whom I am a loyal supporter.

Unfortunately, the vocabulary of our perception of the military has been reduced to such things as teary-eyed, well-orchestrated surprise “re-unions” of soldiers with their little children, broadcast on TV and even now Diamond Vision screens at baseball games. While these scenes choke me up as much as anybody, they are part of a mis-guided trend towards sanitizing warfare and its consequences. Recent studies that take a harder look at these stunts have suggested that being re-united with their father or mother in such a public way can have long-lasting negative effects on the children involved, as this article by Tara Swords summarizes in the Washington Post.

Off my soapbox now and back to D-Day. There is a terrific website called the Doing History Project that I have come across that has loads of information about D-Day, its planning and importance. On this site is included a draft of a poignant letter that Dwight D. Eisenhower, Allied Commander of the D-Day operation, had drafted and was prepared to deliver in the unfortunate event that the mission had failed:

“Our landings have failed and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based on the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.”

It is no wonder that Dwight Eisenhower has been held in increasingly higher esteem in recent years.

Of course Steven Spielberg’s brilliant “Saving Private Ryan” is a recent example of paying homage to the real-life experiences of D-Day. Many veterans of the actual invasion have said that “Private Ryan” replicates the experience of that horrible day, and the days after, better than any film ever has. To think that this film was beaten out by “Shakespeare in Love” for the Best Film award at the 1999 Academy Awards, is not only the greatest injustice in the history of award ceremonies, but perhaps in the history of the world at large.

The Red Ranger: First off let me say that I actually thought “Shakespeare in Love” was a very good movie and I am no fan of Gwyneth Paltrow.  Is it better than Saving Private Ryan, I don’t know.  Outside of the opening sequence SPR seemed to drag on a little too long for me.   Perhaps there was some backlash against the whole Spielberg/Hanks thing.

As far as veterans go they should get the best care possible without a doubt.  However, the cynic in me is starting to believe that there is an epidemic of PTSD claims.  Obviously, what some of these veterans go through is beyond anything you or I will see in our lifetime.  However, these people know this going in and should be ready for it.  In reality it is not always the brightest that go into the military (however, they are probably the bravest).  My hypothesis is that when some of these veterans get out of the military and are unable to obtain a job in the civilian community they fall back upon PTSD as a way to justify their inability to prosper in the civilian world.  Clearly, this does not apply to everyone but I am sure there is some percentage who attribute their issues to PTSD and there is always some doctor willing to concur.

If only our current leaders took responsibility like Eisenhower did instead of highlighting their lack of knowledge or recusing themselves.  Just goes to show how far we have fallen in terms of leaders and their values.

Nattering Naybob: The whole question of PTSD is a tricky one. It is true that there are more PTSD claims than in the Vietnam War, say, because it was only designated as an official condition in 1980. Whether or not it’s being abused, I don’t know how that can be measured although I have no doubt that there are some people who claim to have it just so they can get sympathy, related benefits, etc. The same can be said for just about any disease or condition. Many people think that autism is over-diagnosed. I remember during the 80’s and 90’s, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome was all the rage, and it was no doubt diagnosed many times as the cause for a lot of people’s inability to stop watching TV and get off the couch.

Here is the link to the official “PTSD” page on the website of the Department of Veterans Affairs. It is rather lengthy and a bit technical at times, but I think it only fair to include the link in case anyone reading this blog wants to learn more about it especially as it pertains to veterans.

I am not a Gwyneth Paltrow fan either but I thought she was good in the Iron Man movies. I think people say that a lot about her: “I am not a fan of hers, but she was good in such and such a movie”. It’s probably her off-screen persona that people dislike, including me. There is just something about her that makes people want to smush a whip cream pie into her face.

The Red Ranger:  I do remember Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.  I think I caught that after your 500th rant about how great Obama was.

I also agree about autism.  It seems like every kid who may be a little slower learning than the others has autism or at least a mild form of it.  I think it is a way for parents not having to face up to the fact that their kid might just not be as smart as others. Compared to you and me everyone has some form of autism.

I have not seen the Iron Man movies (yes, you have found the one person who hasn’t seen them).  A whip cream pie to the face would be nice to see.

Nattering Naybob: I find it necessary to emphasize that  I and presumably you, Red Ranger, acknowledge many genuine cases of autism exist, and that it is a serious condition. That being said, I see your point about the futility of anyone holding themselves up against our record of intelligence, insight, and yes, humility.

Have we made poverty too comfortable?

The Red Ranger: Here is an interesting article and one I agree with. Teach a man to fish.

Nattering Naybob: If there is a dwindling supply of fish in the ocean it makes less and less difference whether a man knows how to fish or not.