Sunday, November 18, 2012

Babies, breastfeeding and you


My Portland-dwelling cousin is pregnant, and has been contemplating breast feeding lately. And by contemplating, I mean posting pictures of women breastfeeding on Facebook with various slogans about how it's normal and natural. Also, there's some kind of campaign to get a specific Facebook user un-banned. I'm assuming this account had too many boob pics flagged as offensive or spam.

First things first, she's right (you might want to screenshot this. I doubt I'll ever say that about this particular cousin again). Breastfeeding is a normal, natural, healthy act between a mother and a child. It's not shameful, it's not wrong, and it doesn't need to be hidden in back alleys and darkened rooms.

Do you know what's also a normal, natural healthy act? Pooping. Also, peeing, orgasms, picking your nose and scratching your butt. Do you need to be ashamed of any of these acts? Absolutely not. Do I want to watch any of these normal, natural, non-shameful acts? Absolutely not. Well, with the possible exception of orgasms, but that's extremely person and circumstance specific. 

Just because something is normal and natural doesn't mean it's something that should be shared with the rest of the world. While I'm supportive of breast feeding and unsupportive of starving your children, I'm also supportive of basic modesty. When you breast feed in public find a quiet corner and put a blanket over junior's head. You don't need to be ashamed or embarrassed, but you do need to be aware of your surroundings and respectful of the other people around you. 

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

The genius of Clint Eastwood

On the final night of the Republican convention, Clint Eastwood took the stage as the mystery speaker. He delivered an 11 minute unrehearsed bit that even impressed uber lefty and experienced public performer Bill Maher. "He did a bit with just an empty chair and he killed it." He also said "he committed to it, it was consistent and it worked.

If you didn't see it, you should watch Clint's speech before you read any farther. Even my wife said that it was funny, though she disagreed with most of it. It's about 12 minutes long, and safe for work.



The political and chattering classes have had two basic reactions to Eastwood's speech. Conservatives and Republicans loved it, liberals hated it, some going so far as to say they thought he looked and sounded senile.

The thing both of those groups missed is that they weren't Clint's target audience. Don't get me wrong, he delivered a speech to a friendly crowd that he knew would love it, and they ate it up. But he was really talking to the undecided and still-leaning voters.

Clint started by talking about how he felt, how almost all American's felt the night President Obama was elected. Even though I hoped he would lose, and suspected he would be an awful president, it was impossible not to be proud that I lived in a country that could elect a skinny black kid with a funny name to the highest office in the land. I think most Americans, even those that thought he would be a disaster for the country had that thought in the back of their minds.

Over the past six months of campaigning, we have been deluged with lefty media commentary condemning any organized opposition to the President's reelection as racist, mysogenistic, hateful bigotry. It's not true, but the narrative has been intense.

Clint started by describing the emotion of the night Obama was elected, validating the emotions we all felt. Then he transitioned into the last three years, talking about the stagnant economy, high unemployment rates, the horribly mismanaged war in Afghanistan, the major failures of the President's administration.

Then he presented Romney and Ryan, the men with a plan. He presented their qualifications, business men, leaders with records of success and competence and a plan to fix this country. To paraphrase a line from the President, these are the ones we have been waiting for.

Finally we come to the the genius of Clint's speech. After laying out the case against Obama and the case for Romney, he explained that it was ok to vote against Obama.

This is the people's country, not the politicians country. If America is a company, the politicians are the executives and the leaders running it, but we, the people, are the shareholders. Ultimately the politicians work for us, not the other way around. When those politicians fail at their jobs, we as the shareholders have a moral obligation to remove them and find people who can succeed at their jobs.

It's not racist to vote against Obama. A vote for Romney is not a vote for bigotry, hatred, intolerance or any of the claptrap that has been peddled by the media and democrat establishment for the last six months. It's a business decision, nothing more. Obama had his opportunity, he was given his chance, and he failed. Removing him from office, as Spock might say, is the logical decision.

Monday, August 6, 2012

We used to control the lightning

Yesterday NASA successfully landed the rover Curiosity on Mars. While an enormous technical achievement, for me it's a bitter reminder of what the US space program used to be.

NASA was created in 1958 by an act of Congress, replacing the forgettable National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics (NACA). NASA quickly began working on the X-plane missions, developing the equipment and techniques that would be used to build the rockets to take men into space. Development on the Mercury missions began in 1959, followed by the Gemini missions in 1965 and the Apollo missions that culminated in the Apollo 11 moon landing in 1969. It was followed by five other successful lunar missions, and one failure, Apollo 13.

After success of the Apollo missions, President Nixon was given a choice. One, we could declare victory and abandon the US manned space program. Two, we could begin planning and preparing for more extensive moon missions with the ultimate goal of a permanent manned base on the moon. Or three, we could begin work on a cost effective way to begin hauling men and material into space with the near term goal of building up the US's manned orbital infrastructure. He chose to focus on the last option, which morphed into Skylab and the Space Shuttle program.

We learned a huge amount from both Skylab and the Shuttle missions. We learned how to live and work in space. We mastered orbital repairs, learned enormous amounts about the effect of space flight and travel on humans. We relearned the safety culture and quality control lessons we first learned in Apollo 1. But we did nothing to advance the manned exploration of the stars.

In 1969 America placed two men on the moon.  In 2012 America cannot even place a man in orbit.

The first successful Mars landing was Viking 1, in 1975. Think about that. We spent most of yesterday congratulating ourselves for the exact same accomplishment we first accomplished in 1975.

Don't get me wrong, it is a huge technical accomplishment, NASA has every right to be proud of this success. A quick look at the history of Mars missions shows just how hard launching an object from Earth, transiting to Mars and landing successfully is. In addition, this Mars landing was technically much harder than any other landing we've attempted before.

But it does nothing to advance our exploration of the stars.

The title of this post comes from Larry Niven's book Lucifer's Hammer. In the book, a comet smashes into Earth, killing most of humanity and reducing the survivors to anarchic chaos. One small group, however, is faced with a  choice. They have carved out a stronghold they can live, farm and survive in. They have defended it from marauding armies of cannibals and barbarians. They have survived the end of the world.

But they are faced with a choice. Ten miles away is one of the last functioning nuclear power plants, still manned by many of its technicians and operators. If they do not act, it will be destroyed by a group of crazy, anti-technology barbarians. They will survive, but at a preindustrial level. If they act, some of them will die. They will have to spend time and lives hunting down the barbarians, and actively patrolling around the power plant to protect it. But they will have a perpetual source of electrical power to rebuild civilization.

One of the main characters lays out the choice for them in stark terms. Humanity used to control the lightning, he says. If they defend the power plant, in a decade they may be able to do it again. But if they allow the plant to be destroyed, their children and their grandchildren and their grandchildren's grandchildren will cower under their beds at night wondering why the lightning gods are angry at them. It's a choice between advancing the cause of humanity, or being content to live as you are.

We are faced with that same choice today. We, as Americans, can continue to exist as we do today, or we can advance the cause of humanity by expanding to explore the stars. Right now we are choosing to cower under our beds, content with what we have.

In the 1400 and 1500's Western civilizations chose to explore new oceans and continents while other, just as capable civilizations chose to stay within the bounds of their safe villages and known maps. The history of Western civilization from 1450 to modern days is one of unrivaled advances in culture, technology and knowledge. There were more technical achievements by western scientists and technicians in the 1900's than in all of human history before it. The history of Eastern and Middle Eastern civilizations since 1450 is one of cultural and technical stagnation. Even today, with exceptions for India, virtually all of the technical advances we see come from Westerners, and many of them can be directly linked back to the US space program.

Pushing the boundaries of known territory and bravely moving into uncharted areas forces civilizations to advance technologically and culturally. Civilizations are like sharks. You either keep moving forward or you die. Civilizations that choose to remain where it is safe and known stagnate and are eventually replaced by others.

Pushing the boundaries of known territory, and moving bravely into uncharted areas is difficult, dangerous and terrifying. The US has suffered 24 deaths directly attributable to our space program. The Soviets suffered hundreds. If we continue to explore, we will suffer more. That is the price of advancing.

As President Kennedy said, "We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."

Thursday, June 21, 2012

When freedom is not freedom

Recently I've been watching reruns of Star Trek: Deep Space 9 on Netflix (actually, Netflix should send the creators of that show a check, since it's the only reason I still pay for the account right now). I didn't watch it much when I was in high school, and it's better than the few episodes I remember, although considering how I remember it, that's not high praise.

One line in an episode I watched recently struck me, though. Garak, the exiled Cardassian tailor/spy (think evil space nazi's, complete with death camps for a perennially abused, overly religious race) and one of the Starfleet officers were discussing freedom of choice and the difference between the Federation and Cardassian legal systems. The Starfleet officer was extolling the wonders of freedom and choice, and Garak responded by saying "the problem with giving people the freedom to choose is that sometimes they make the wrong choice." He's right. By giving people the freedom to make a choice, you are giving them the freedom to make the wrong choice. Without the ability to choose poorly, you really have no choice at all. Put another way, with power comes responsibility, and with responsibility comes consequences for poor use of that power. Just ask this guy.


(that's the guy who chose poorly in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, by the way). And yes, that really was just an excuse to toss a reference to one of my favorite movies of all time into this post.

This brings me to Mike Bloomberg's crusade against anything bad for you. In case you're unaware, Mike Bloomberg, the current mayor of New York City has been carrying out a campaign against anything that is, well, bad for you. He started by essentially banning smoking cigars and cigarettes from any public space, then moved on to ban transfats, heavily regulate salt and butter content in foods, and most recently banned the sale of any soft drink larger than 16 ounces in most settings. The ban has exceptions for supermarkets and convenience stores. His handpicked Board of Health has also discussed banning large popcorn in theaters and regulating other high calorie treats.

Bloomberg has identified obesity as a serious public health issue and decided (correctly) that obese and overweight people generally become that way because of poor decision making in food and beverage choices. He has determined that the best course of action to correct people's poor decision making is to simply remove the option for them to make the "wrong" decision. In other words, he has shifted the decision making process from the consumer to the government. It means that today (well, whenever the NYC Board of Health gets around to approving the proposed rule if you want to be very technical) the citizens of NYC are just a little bit less free than they were yesterday. It's not a big deal, it's not earth shattering, and truthfully I doubt that anyone will remember that you used to be able to get a 32 ounce Coke to go with that hot pastrami sandwich a year from now.

But the citizens of NYC will be a little less free. And that, to me, is a scary thing.

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Ashley vs. The Patriarchy®©™

Ashley Judd made waves a few days ago, complaining that the gossip blogs had noticed her face looked "puffy," and assumed she had had work done. Ignore, for a moment, that she probably did in fact have work done on her face. This was picked up by the feminist blogs and spun into critical analysis of The Patriarchy®©™*. By "critical analysis" I mean criticism, not actual thoughtful commentary.

While I'm actually pretty sympathetic to actors and actresses (it effects both) complaining about the superficiality of Hollywood, with it's laser-like focus on the young and the beautiful at the expense of actual talent and hard work, Ashley Judd is one of the last people in the industry that has any right to complain that she is being judged by those standards.

Let's face it, Ashley Judd built a successful career based on her exquisite face.


Without that face she's just another mildly talented, 3rd tier actress doing bit parts in second rate movies. Think Kirstie Alley without the reality TV show, the weight-loss program or the soft-core porn flicks. Or Megan Fox.

Don't get me wrong, Ashley's not a horrible actress, she's had a few good roles over her (relatively sparse) 36 performance career. She's just not as good as she thinks she is.

Ashley Judd is being judged by the exact same standards she has been judged throughout her entire professional acting career. She was totally ok with it when she was a hot 20-something actress causing erections in every 14 year old boy that watched her movies. For the first time, though, she's being judged by those same standards and has been found lacking. And now she's pissed at The Patriarchy®©™*.

What's really ironic is that she's really not being judged by The Patriarchy®©™* at all. The Patriarchy®©™* couldn't care less about her. The Patriarchy®©™* probably doesn't even remember who she is. As far as The Patriarchy®©™* is concerned, her career ended in the early 2000's, around the same time she stopped making studios money, and consequently, stopped landing major roles. This story was first "reported" on the gossip blogs, and her response was picked up by the feminist blogs. I have bad news for all of The Patriarchy®©™* hating women out there. There are two groups of people that read those types of blogs, women and gay men. Neither of those groups are part of The Patriarchy®©™*. She's being superficially judged (and found lacking) by the same people that habitually complain about the superficial judgements of The Patriarchy®©™*. Pot, Kettle, Black, some assembly required.

Like I said above, there are some actresses that could make this complaint and I would nod in agreement. Meryl Streep, Glenn Close or Judi Dench come to mind. These are actresses that while they may not be gorgeous (except Meryl Streep, the older she get's the better she looks), are amazing actresses, with serious roles to their credits. They deserve to be judged by the body of their work, by the obvious talent they possess and hard work they have clearly put into their careers.

Ashley Judd, on the other hand, has built a career not on the body of her work, but on her body itself. And that is how she's being judged.

*Every time you see The Patriarchy®©™ you can insert "group of executives responsible for ensuring that the movies their studios fund actually make money" if you want accuracy.

Monday, April 2, 2012

Why conservatives think the media lies

Short answer, because they do.

Two examples from the Zimmerman-Martin shooting.

CBS
911 tape as played by CBS:

(Skip forward to 0:24 for the good stuff)



Zimmerman: This guy looks like he's up to no good…

Zimmerman: He looks black.

Please note the audio is presented as one clip by CBS. Yes, I saw that they tossed the ellipsis in there, but the way the audio is edited, it really sounds like one continuous clip.

The ACTUAL 911 tape:


(disclaimer, I have no idea who Craig Boyce is. He just had the best audio on YouTube)

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he's up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

The dispatcher goes on to ask about clothing, eliciting the now-famous hoodie response.

Even though there's technically no lie there (he did actually say everything attributed to him), the editing is extremely deceptive and completely changes the tone of the exchange (race focused, versus relaying information after the dispatcher specifically asks for it).

ABC News 3/28/12


ABC News 4/2/12


I actually think Heinlein's razor may apply here, never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice.

I'm willing to give ABC reporter Matt Gutman the benefit of the doubt here for simply rushing a story to press without bothering to do his due diligence, as opposed to maliciously reporting something that would inflame the racial fires (and give him and his networks those ever-precious ratings).

My gripe here is that ABC rushed this story to press based on a tape that has such poor definition that you can't really see anything. From the original tape anything less than a gaping hole in the back of Zimmerman's head would be hard to see. From the cleaned up tape, it's pretty obvious that Zimmerman took a hard blow or three to the back of his head.

What's less defensible was Matt Gutman's twitter feed, where he aggressively defended his story from people who questioned it. Until, of course, they were proven right. As an editor in a perfect world I would want to hold this story until the enhanced version of the tape was available. Of course, that would mean holding the story for 3 days, and would risk losing ratings to another network. And besides, we all know what really happened anyway, right?

The things that really bother me about both of these stories, is that I don't actually think any conscious decisions were made to lie, deceive or incite a race riot (that is the end result to the racial flame-fanning that has been going on). This is just a natural progression of two newsrooms that "knew" what happened, and so the stories were presented in the context of that "truth." But because everyone "knew" what happened, the checks and balances that should have prevented any of these incidents from ever happening didn't happen. No editor looked at the editing of that tape and said "hold on," because everyone in the production cycle actually thought that was the truth. In their minds, Zimmerman obviously was racially motivated, how could he not be? Therefore of course his racial bias would come out in the tape. He was racist. Racists are racist. That was the truth (as they perceived it).

The same thing happened with the ABC tape. Because they all thought they knew what happened, all of the evidence neatly fit into a case against Zimmerman. Any alternate theories were simply discarded (or didn't even occur to them), because they conflicted with the truth, as the writers and editors perceived it.

In case your wondering, yes, this same thing has happened with Zimmerman's defenders. Anyone remember this photo?

In case you never saw it, this image spread like wildfire through conservative blogs and social media sites as an example of media bias in ignoring Martin's dark side. There's only one problem. As Dr. Jones once said to Indiana, "it's a fake."

Well, the Martin side is fake, the Zimmerman side is a real photo. The Martin side was pulled off of a Facebook page that was clearly not the correct Treyvon Martin's page, and then posted on a white power message board. I'm not going to link to the Facebook page or message board for obvious reasons. From there it spread through the internet, and even though it has been debunked, it's still cropping up on some conservative websites, because it fits the narrative of honest, hard working citizen beset upon by thuggish gangster, who had the good luck to have the means for defending himself upon him. Again, it fits the narrative, therefore it must be true, therefore evidence to the contrary is discarded or ignored.

There is one other point that needs to be made, though. Social media and blogs like mine don't claim to be the arbiters of what is true and correct. Well, most don't. Some do, they're delusional. The mainstream media, of which ABC and CBS are founding members, do make that claim. They have volunteered to be held to a higher standard, by openly and explicitly saying they are journalists, while denigrating bloggers and social media as, well, amateurs. When you hold yourself to a higher standard, when you hide behind the banner of objectivity, you don't get to complain when people call you out for being dishonest and pushing an agenda.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

The curious case of Trayvon Martin

For those of you who don't know, I was recently in Las Vegas for my birthday (thanks Tori!). As I was sitting in New York, New York eating my steak and drinking my beer, my wife looked at her phone and said "Oh good, there's going to be a full investigation." Since we had been talking about the gigantic map behind her a few moments before, I had no idea what she was talking about. I asked, and she told me the story of Trayvon Martin. I had no idea what she was talking about (self-imposed news blackout, remember?), and after a little bit of googling, I had gotten most of the story.

Short version, Trayvon Martin (forgive me if I'm spelling his first name wrong, I've seen it a couple different ways) was staying at a friends house in an unfamiliar gated neighborhood of Sanford, FL. At some point he went to a corner store for candy. At around 7pm he began walking back to his friends house carrying a soda and a bag of candy in his pocket. George Zimmerman, a local resident and the neighborhood watch captain saw him and called 911, reporting that Martin was acting suspiciously. He reported that Martin was walking slowly, looking at all the houses and appeared to be under the influence of a controlled substance. After being asked by the he dispatcher he described Martin (correctly) as a black teenager and described his clothing. Zimmerman is not black. The dispatcher told Zimmerman that patrol units were on the way and requested that he not follow Martin. Zimmerman responded by saying that there had been multiple break ins in the last couple of months and that "those f*****s" always got away.

When Zimmerman first noticed Martin, he was in his vehicle, and had a legally possessed 9mm pistol in his glove compartment. He exited his vehicle to follow Martin more discretely, and brought the pistol with him. I don't know how he carried the weapon, but I assume either at this side in his strong hand, or tucked into his waistband.

On the dispatch tapes you can hear Zimmerman talk to the dispatcher for a couple minutes before Martin begins to run away from Zimmerman, and pursues him. It ends when Zimmerman looses sight of Martin.

You can listen to the entire dispatch tape here. This is a compilation of all of the 911 calls about this incident and is about 35 minutes long. It contains screams, the sound of a gunshot and multiple expletives. Don't listen to it with your 2 year old standing behind you.

As this was happening, Martin was on the phone to his girlfriend in a different city. He supposedly told her a strange man was following him, and he was afraid. She told him to run, but he told her he would walk fast, but was not going to run. Eventually he did run, and told his girlfriend he thought he had lost Zimmerman, before telling her he saw Zimmerman again. Eventually he told her he was going to confront Zimmerman. While still on the line his girlfriend reported that Martin said "why are you following me?" Zimmerman responded by asking "what are you doing here?" Those questions were followed by the sound of scuffling, and the line went dead.

Other witnesses reported seeing two people struggling, followed by a gunshot. One witness reported hearing someone screaming, and screams for help can be heard in the background of one of the 911 calls, but it's difficult to hear who is yelling what. Martin's family and their lawyer claim it's Martin yelling, Zimmerman claims it's his voice. The voice sounds young and black to me, and it's very possible there was a second, quieter voice in the background, but again, it's very difficult to tell.

When police arrived Martin was dead of a single gunshot wound and Zimmerman stated he shot Martin in self defense. Police conducted an investigation at the scene and did not arrest Zimmerman citing insufficient evidence to support an arrest. Because Martin was dead of a gunshot wound (a homicide in CSI parlance) I'm assuming detectives also conducted an investigation and determined the evidence did not support an arrest.

On Monday, the FBI and federal DOJ announced they would be conducting an investigation into the shooting. On Tuesday, Martin's girlfriend came forward, as far as I can tell, for the first time to talk about her phone conversation with Martin during the incident. To me, this is suspicious. The incident occurred on February 26, and to the best of my knowledge, she came forward on March 20, a full month after the incident. Her statement was released by the lawyer for Martin's family in a recorded deposition. Her statement, coupled with the length of time it took her to come forward and the involvement of the Martin family's lawyer in guiding her testimony during a secret deposition doesn't pass the smell test for me.

Those are the public facts.

Those are ALL of the public facts. Despite the histrionics from the usual suspects (I'm looking at you Gawker, Jezebel, Mother Jones and Huffpo) those facts, read by an impartial observer (the infamous "reasonable man test") don't necessarily equal murder. They don't necessarily equal self-defense, either. They equal ambiguity.

For example, assume this set of facts. After Zimmerman found Martin a second time, Martin decided to confront him. (Remember, he told his girlfriend that he was going to). Martin, being 16 and male, approached Zimmerman aggressively, and demanded to know why Zimmerman was following him. Zimmerman asked Martin who he was, and instead of answering, Martin lunged for the weapon Zimmerman had in his right hand. They struggled for the weapon, and during the struggle Zimmerman realized Martin was younger and stronger than him and was going to be able to wrest possession of the weapon away from him. Fearing for his life (basic rule of self defense, if someone other than a police officer tries to take your weapon, you are allowed to assume they are going to attempt to kill you with it) Zimmerman was able to bring the weapon up and squeeze off a single round. After the round was fired, Martin fell backwards. Realizing the threat was over, Zimmerman did not fire a second round, but instead leaned over him and attempted to provide first aid until police arrived.

Given that set of circumstances, the shooting is completely justified. Zimmerman's judgement for continuing to follow and pursue Martin was poor, but poor judgement is not a criminal offense.

Here's a second set facts to assume. Zimmerman, angry that a series of break ins had occurred, and frustrated that the police appeared unable to prevent them followed Martin, telling police that "those f****s always get away." He followed Martin until feeling cornered, Martin decided to confront Zimmerman. As Martin approached Zimmerman, the undisciplined, poorly trained Zimmerman panicked and brought his weapon up (if you want to assume the utter worst, maybe he thought "I'm gonna bag myself a n****r"). Martin, seeing the strange man who had aggressively followed him now pointing a pistol at him, believed that his life was in imminent danger. In self defense, he grabbed for the weapon and tried to force the muzzle away from his body while screaming for help. Zimmerman panicked (or giggled with glee, depending on how evil you want to paint him) and squeezed off a single round, striking Martin in the chest.

Based on that set of circumstances, you could make a decent case for first degree murder, and a pretty solid manslaughter case.

The truth is, depending on how I flesh out that set of facts, I can clear Zimmerman completely, indict him completely, or create one of a half dozen scenarios somewhere in between.

If you want to know what I actually think happened, it's somewhere in the middle. Martin and Zimmerman were standing toe to toe puffing their chests when either Zimmerman brought up his weapon to detain Martin, or Martin saw his weapon and panicked. (At no point in the 911 call did Zimmerman sound panicked or even particularly excited.) They struggled for possession of the weapon, Martin screamed for help and during the struggle a round was fired, probably accidentally. The round struck Martin in the chest. Martin let go of the weapon and fell backwards, mortally wounded. Zimmerman, shocked and surprised, stepped back and stood by until PD arrived.

Now here's the important part. There are exactly two people in the world who know exactly what happened that night. One of them is dead and one of them will never say another word about it publicly without a lawyer present. Martin's family doesn't know. Zimmerman's friends don't know. Huffington Post, Mother Jones, Gawker and Jezebel, despite their self-righteous smugness, certainly don't know.

I've been working on this post for 2 days. The talkerazzi have been discussing Zimmerman's guilt for several weeks now (at no point have I seen an article, column or post that even suggest Zimmerman might be anything but guilty). What happened that night from start to finish took a grand total of 10 minutes. The final confrontation that ended with Martin's death took less than a minute from the time Martin told his girlfriend he was going to turn and confront Zimmerman to the time that the shot was reported fired. The confrontation happened on a poorly lit street between two people who knew nothing about the other one. Those circumstances are important. Neither Zimmerman or Martin had the benefit of reading what you have just read, the ability to sit back in your comfortable chair with the tasty beverage of your choice and ponder every aspect of the situation. They did not know each other. They did not know what the other one was doing, what they were thinking, and what the other's intentions were. They were both placed in a situation where they were forced to make quick decisions with imperfect information with deadly consequences.

I cannot stress the importance of understanding what both Zimmerman and Martin did not know about the situation they found themselves in. Neither of them knew, or could be reasonably expected to know, very pertinent facts that would have vastly changed the nature and tone of their encounter. We have much, much more information than either of them did, and it's important to judge both of their actions based upon the facts and circumstances as they knew them at the time.

At any point either one of them could have prevented the incident from happening. Zimmerman could have stood 20 yards away and introduced himself to Martin, asking if he could help him. He could have maintained a solid safety cushion by dealing with Martin at a distance, keeping the weapon in reserve in case Martin turned out to have a weapon of his own. Instead of attempting to evade, Martin could have turned to Zimmerman asking if he lived near there, explaining that he was staying with a friend and was lost. But neither chose to do that. Martin turned and ran, making himself look very, very guilty in the process. Zimmerman chose to pursue Martin, making himself look very, very aggressive in the process.

The assumption that of course a white man killed a good, never hurt anyone black kid for no reason at all is a racist and vile assumption. It's just as racist and vile as the "of course the black kid was a criminal up to no good" assumption.

Most people reading this post have never been forced to make a violent decision in a few seconds, with imperfect and incomplete information with potentially life-altering (or life-ending) consequences. It's an art form and an acquired skill, one that very few people have, one that requires training, practice and discipline. Police officers and other first responders spend an inordinate amount of time discussing hypothetical situations, running through the various permutations of what could happen, and what the best response would be over and over again. The point is to already know the best solution before you are put in a situation like this, to train your mind to gather what information you can, and make the best tactically and legally sound decision quickly. Neither Martin or Zimmerman had the benefit of that training.

If Zimmerman acted wrongly he deserves to be forced to answer for his actions. But he also deserves the same assumption of innocence and the fair hearing that every one of us would expect if we were in a similar situation. This concerted effort to railroad him, in absence of any real incriminating facts is despicable. I pray with every fiber of my being that everyone engaged in this social media driven lynch mob is someday put in the exact same situation, including the lynch mob.

I'll bring the rope.