After Zimmerman Acquittal

After listening again and again, ad nauseum, to President Obama's impromptu comments made at a surprise press conference last week, as well as the obsequious commentary by most news outlets that followed, including the one I'm posting below, by Mark Shields and David Brooks of the PBS Newshour, I find I have to toss my two cents into the pile. 

But I'll make it quick, since most of it's already written. I don't often post comments online, but in the case of Shields and Brooks, I couldn't help it. I was pretty appalled by the apparent lack of perspective, especially coming from David Brooks. It's already established that he has a sort of man-crush on Obama, but in this case, I had hoped that, at the very least, Brooks might have been able to put a proper distance between his reverence for the man and the disconnect between the circumstances related to the Zimmerman trial and Obama's comments. 

Alas, Mr. Brooks disappointed, and I'm beginning to wish the NewsHour would replace him with another conservative to provide some kind of balance to this conversation since the distinction between the two pundits is getting pretty blurred.

So here's Shields and Brooks, responding to Obama's speech (a speech that, by the way, offended me deeply, particularly his comments about white men locking car doors when they see a black man walking by, or white women clutching purses a little closer when a black man enters an elevator), followed by the comments I posted (including discussion with someone named Elizabeth), followed by commentaries published today in the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal. 

Watch Shields, Brooks on Obama's Remarks on Race and Confrontation on PBS.

My response to Shields and Brooks’ praise for Obama’s post-Zimmerman acquittal comments:

Neither of our esteemed pundits here were able to stop gushing about Obama long enough to observe that the Zimmerman trial was not, in fact, about race, that Obama's comments were not relevant to the trial of George Zimmerman, that George Zimmerman was not, in fact, a racist, and who, by the way, was not, in fact, white. Darn, those facts. Nevertheless, Shields and Brooks still are enthralled. Sorry, gentlemen. Let's be clear: Obama was not being presidential. He was being divisive and disingenuous, and true to his credentials, he was being a "community organizer," rallying the people who tomorrow will rally in the name of Trayvon Martin to perpetuate the false narrative that this trial was about race. Facts, truth, that's what's missing from this conversation.

Someone named Elizabeth replied to my comment:

The trial was less about Zimmerman being racist and rather a racist system in which an unarmed 17yr old could be killed and there NOT be an investigation. A system in which Martin was deemed guilty based solely on the statements by his killer. A system in which only the deceased was drug tested. A system in which there was no investigation for 45 days and likely would not have been without national public outcry. I can tell you this, as a parent of 17yr old, I would DEMAND an investigation if my child was shot and killed while walking home. If you have children, it is likely you would demand it too.

My response to Elizabeth:

Of course there needed to be an investigation. That goes without saying. What there didn't need to be was a scapegoat. What there didn't need to be was a "conversation" based on this tragedy. What there didn't need to be was a cynical exploitation of a set of circumstances that could have been dealt with at the local level, with justice probably being done, without politicians like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and the Congressional Black Caucus and the president himself interjecting their views and elevating poor Trayvon Martin into something he never was: a martyr, a symbol for their cause. He was just a kid, not a perfect kid, just a kid. And Zimmerman, just a guy, not a perfect guy, just a random guy. And this thing happened. And it was terrible. And yes, I have children, and yes, I would demand justice. But what I wouldn't want is for this situation to be cynically exploited.

Elizabeth's reply:

It wasn't until there WAS national outcry, that an investigation was started. Till that time, Martin's parents pleas for an investigation fell on deaf ears. As far as the Sanford Police Dept was concerned it was "case closed".

My reply to Elizabeth:

If it was, as you say, "case closed," perhaps it's because the case was more complicated than it appears. From the trial, we learn that GZ was in bad shape, was bruised and beaten, that he was devastated when he learned TM had died, that he was cooperative, that there had been crimes in the neighborhood, that he was not the racist the media portrayed him to be, that this was not a white on black crime, on and on. It seems the outcry was based on what people thought it was, not what it actually was. That's not to say GZ shouldn't be held accountable for what happened--wrongful death, manslaughter, whatever. But the politics propelled this into something it never was. That's what's troubling. At least, that's how I see it.

Recommended Reading

"Rhetoric, Race, and Reality in America," by David A. Lehrer and Joe R. Hicks (commentary in Los Angeles Times)

"The Decline of the Civil Rights Establishment," by Shelby Steele (commentary, Wall Street Journal)

What's So Controversial About This?

Since the Los Angeles Times (among other papers) won't publish this ad by Heroic Media in support of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Act because it's "too controversial," I'm posting the ad here, with this question: Since when is it controversial to publish images of babies? 

Obviously the "controversy" here is not the picture itself, which is not offensive, but what's implied by the picture: that babies at this stage of development can be legally aborted even though scientific evidence and advances in neo-natal medicine have conclusively determined that the unborn can feel pain, can even survive outside the womb, indeed, are as much human as you and I. 

The "controversy" is not the image itself but what's implied by the picture: that these tiny human beings are not protected by the very people entrusted to their care: the adults responsible for conceiving them and the government entrusted with guaranteeing them life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. 

The "controversy" is not the image itself but what's at stake by the publishing of the image: the awakening of a seared, collective conscience that maybe the so-called constitutional "right" to abortion must be re-examined. The unborn are not property, not things, not political football. They are people. They're human. They're vulnerable. They need heroes, not cowards.

That's the controversy. By refusing to publish the ad, the Los Angeles Times and their ilk are exposed as the cowards that they are. 

"Fall Forward" (Denzel Washington)

I like this commencement speech by Denzel Washington (University of Pennsylvania, 2011). He seems sincere, humble, honest. The speech is sweet, funny, a little clumsy, but ultimately, quite moving.

I like his emphasis on faith, on persistence (even after failure), on trying things you don't feel comfortable doing (like speaking at commencement ceremonies). I like that he himself didn't quit, even when he almost flunked out of college. 

I like that he's a man of faith. Thank you, Lord, for this man, for this speech. It's a good message for this generation.