What I've said before deserves reiteration: the print and broadcast media in this country are despicably corrupt. A citizen receives from them half-truths at best, but at times they promulgate nothing except lies. Anyone who thinks that, by reading newspapers or attending to broadcast media, he will become informed is naive. It won't happen. The media are in the business of manipulating public opinion, not informing it. The New York Times may be the worst culprit of them all, representing most of what's unfit to print.
Trayvon Martin's death is a tragedy. It's always a grievous event when a young person is shot and killed. But have the media not compounded the death of this 17-year old boy? Have they not speculated, lied, and otherwise misled the public? You bet they have.
They have, in addition, provided Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson various opportunities to voice their racist opinions. Why must this be? After all, these men are rabble rousers who contribute little or nothing to meaningful discourse and to problem-solving. They frankly strike me as, at times, incapable of coherent thought and reasoned discourse.
Perhaps the better question -- one that few bother to ask -- is who owns the media, and why are they allowing these travesties in news coverage? That's a separate, but related, question best reserved for another day. So back to the matter at hand.
We do not at this time have all the facts regarding the Martin-Zimmerman incident and, until we do, we should be careful about setting forth any substantive conclusions about it. There's only one conclusion I'm willing and able to draw at the moment, and that concerns the reckless manner in which conclusions have thus far been reached. Consider the following questions:
Did Zimmerman pursue Martin when instructed not to do so? There's no evidence on the table that he did. When he was told to give up pursuit, he said "Okay." How does one know that he didn't then begin walking back to his vehicle as he claims?
Did he act irresponsibly with a gun? There's no evidence that he did this either. If while returning to his vehicle, Martin then struck and knocked him down and began beating his head against the pavement (all of which is consistent with Zimmerman's wounds, his account of the incident, and the subsequent account of an eyewitness), Zimmerman had a right to defend himself with deadly force. With all due respect to Geraldo Rivera, there's nothing irresponsible or "crazy" about that.
Was the killing of Martin engendered by racism? There's no evidence that Zimmerman was a racist; in fact, there's an impressive body of evidence developing which suggests the very opposite. So much for the idiotic Black Panthers, a vigilante organization.
Should Zimmerman be arrested? On what legal basis can he be arrested when there's no evidence of criminal wrongdoing? Journalist Juan Williams and others are mistaken to think that arrests can and should be made in this whimsical way.
Is race, color, or ethnicity relevant in this case? No. That Martin has black skin like Barack Obama's is irrelevant. The President's pronouncement about the case, although striving to show empathy, served instead to inflame racial passions. He should be careful about that. This was not the first time he's spoken improvidently about racial matters. You will probably remember the case of Professor Gates at Harvard. Obama made public statements about that episode which were also ill-advised. Take Obama away from a script and he's invariably imprudent.
Who are the real racists in this story? They appear to be the liberal media, the two sham clergymen, and the Black Panthers.
Who are the guilty and the innocent? This has not yet been determined. A rush to judgment and impulsive mob verdicts, however, should be avoided at all costs.
Intelligent people remember the monstrous injustices inflicted upon the Duke lacrosse team. They also remember the injury resulting from Mr. Sharpton's race-baiting in the Tawana Brawley incident. It would seem that the American public would have, by now, learned something from these and other such occurrences, but the band plays on, and the big stupid public still listens.
What explains all this insanity? My hunch is that it's a way to heap guilt and shame upon Anglo-Saxons for the fact that blacks were long ago an oppressed and enslaved people. But, more directly, the motive seems to be to bring about a vast transformation of power in this country that even the glaring inequities and outrages of affirmative action have not yet been able to accomplish. This is what the civil rights movement has become -- little more than an illicit power grab.
The foundations of this nation are shaking. Can't you tell? The wound of race is continually being re-opened and re-infected by the kind of monotonous race-baiting and biased reportage which have become all too common. The situation is exacerbated because Mr. Razzle Dazzle is in the Oval Office and a Stedman Graham look-alike is heading up the Justice Department. Most people, I dare say, don't know whether to laugh or to weep. But be assured that comedy elevated to real life sooner or later takes on a tragic dimension.
March 28, 2012