Long Walks in Heaven

A few weeks ago, my beloved dog, Stormi, passed away. He was a black Labrador retriever, 12 years old when he died. 

We got him as a puppy shortly after the passing of both my mother and the dog we had.  I always thought that my mother would have loved him as she had a special place in her hearts for black labs after she became very attached to our black lab, Echo, we had growing up. I’m sure she was looking down and enjoying watching us and I’m sure that she, Echo and Stormi have found each other in heaven and also my father who loved him, waiting for the day we will all be together again.

Stormi was kind and loving.  He didn’t know how big he was, thinking he was a small lap dog, my LAPrador I’d call him. He’d love to climb into your lap, sometimes it was only the front end that made it. He was a people person and was always nearby, usually sitting somewhere in the way, like the middle of the kitchen floor or in the hallway or outside the bathroom, waiting to trip you up.  He’d whine if you were outside and he was in.  He loved to give you big, slobbery kisses and hugs and sometimes would nibble your nose.  I don’t know why, but he loved to nibble noses.

Stormi loved our other animals, and he pretty much let them walk all over him.  When he had a treat and the other dog stole it, he never tried to get it back.  I don’t think he ever growled at anyone or anything in his life.  He loved playing with the grey cat, Smoki, especially when they were both young.  Stormi would chase Smoki around the house.  We always knew when Stormi caught Smoki because his hair was slobbered up in a funky mohawk from Stormi's kisses. In later years the chasing stopped and they became good friends. 

Stormi loved to play and go on walks, the latter became a routine after he tore his cruciate ligament in his knee several years ago and had to have surgery and 2 plates put in his leg.  We first had to walk him with a sling to prevent pressure on the leg so that it would heal.  Once he was allowed to put pressure on it he wasn’t allowed to run.  We couldn’t let him go in the back yard without a leash on because he loved to run.  He and the dog next door, Max, would run back and forth along the fence separating the yards.  So we leashed him.  Then we were given instructions to walk him and keep on increasing the distance.  This is when we started taking him on daily walks, it became a routine and something he loved to do, so much so that he went for a walk his last morning on earth even though he really wasn’t up for it.

Stormi is gone, but not his hair, he shed so much that we will forever be finding it. We used to be constantly sweeping it up.  Sometimes after sweeping we’d have a whole other dog made of hair.  This was even with furmanating him. There’s a brush called the furmanator, it works well, but Stormi had so much hair.

Shortly before he passed, Stormi had been slowing down, his vision failed, he was bumping into things, he was still his loving self, but we knew his time was short.  We prepared our kids, who are grown, for the inevitable. 

I had to go on a week-long trip for work, I hated leaving him, and I hoped he was still with us when I returned.  The day I was to return home I got a call that Stormi had lost much of his energy, but he was still doing ok.  By the time I returned home, though, he was barely moving but enthusiastically wagged his tail when he saw me.  We immediately took him to the emergency vet.  By this time he wasn’t moving at all.  The vet suspected he had lymphoma, a type of cancer, because his all his lymph nodes were swollen as were his eyes. I don’t believe he would have survived much longer and attempting any treatment would have been cruel.  We did the kindest thing we could and we put him to sleep.  I stayed with him petting him and talking to him as he passed. 

As we have done with all our departed pets, we had him cremated.  A little side note, my father had wanted to be cremated and when he passed we complied with his wishes.  We were deciding on what type of container.  We didn’t want an urn or box that screamed “dead person here” so we opted for a plain wooden box.

There is a wonderful pet crematory that all the vets in the area use and we have used before.  What I didn’t know is that they had improved the service they provided.  Their service was excellent.  Our pets had Included was been returned to us in a lovely, heavy duty cardboard box, with a card, very nice.  I was absolutely shocked at what was returned to us, shocked in a good way.  Stormi was returned to us in a beautifully finished cedar box with a name plaque.  They also sent a mold of his paw print, a card and wild flower seeds to plant in his memory.  Never before had I seen anything like this.  It was wonderful. The only problem is now Stormi is in a better box than my father! I think dad’s ok with that though, he loved Stormi.

There is an empty place in our house, but Stormi will always have a special place in our hearts.  We miss him now, but we’ll see him, and all our loved ones, again.  Until then, Stormi and my mom and dad are taking long walks in heaven.

Curosity Lands on Mars, America Celebrates It Together, With the World, Via Twitter

Watching the Curiosity Rover land last night, via Curiosity Cam on Ustream, reminded me of when I watched the United States moon landing.  This time, however, I was able to celebrate it with people around America and the world via twitter.

What is Curiosity? Here 'Actor William Shatner narrates this thrilling video about NASA's Curiosity rover, from its entry and descent through the Martian atmosphere to its landing and exploration of the Red Planet in NASA's hardest planetary science mission to date.'

 

NASA Employs Curiosity by Paul-Gregory Matuszak, @pavelgregory on twitter, explains the Curiosity mission

full article here.

At 1:32 am ET, Curiosity landed in the Gale crater on Mars, just as planned. A few minutes later Curiosity began sending pictures:

The world watched and shared it together via twitter:

My favorite:

 Yes, I was excited:

Later this week Curiosity's Mastcam will be active and bigger, better, color pictures will be sent.  You can follow @MarsCuriosity on twitter and via Ustream Curiosity Cam updates.



Does Research and Statistics Support Gun Control?

Author’s note: I reached out to a respected expert on gun control statistics, Dr. Gary Kleck, professor of criminology at Florida State University.  He was kind enough to send me the chapter The Great American Gun Debate:What Research Has to Say  from The Criminal Justice System, 10th edition, Edited by George F. Cole and Marc G. Gertz. Wadsworth. (Published January 2012). [Note: this paper had been hacked at one point and nasty, unrelated stuff added, I'm working on a new link.]   He also sent me a copy of National Vital Statistics Reports Volume 60, Number 3  which is the final report for 2009 which he says “provides the most recent final mortality data, showing numbers of deaths from all causes, with separate counts for gun deaths.”

Update: 11/21/14 (revised 10/4/15 and 6/12/16): The problem isn't guns, it's mental health, insane people will do insane things. Criminals don't follow laws. If someone is going to commit murder, a crime that has the death penalty/life imprisonment, do you really think gun laws will deter them? The way to prevent these types of incidents isn't to regulate or ban guns, it's to help identify and treat those with mental illness who are a danger to themselves and others.  The people are the problem, not their weapons of choice. 

"Mental health is still not adequately diagnosed or treated in the United States, and especially not among young people...not delivered in a very effective manner.”

In fact,  a Connecticut state review panel has concluded "Medical professionals and school staff missed multiple opportunities to help Adam Lanza with his severe emotional and psychiatric disorders."


Updated: 1/1/13: At the risk of making this insufferably long, I have added one more video that I think needs to be here. It is found underneath #6.

Updated 12/21/12:

Last week we witnessed the horrible shootings in Newtown, Connecticut. I am deeply saddened and brought to tears by the deaths of the 27 people including 20 small children.  While I would prefer not to speak about gun control while people are mourning the loss of their loved ones, there are those who immediately and disgustingly took advantage of the situation to politicize it and tout their gun control agenda.  Therefore, I must respond to them with what I know is true:

1. Gun control doesn't work.  Connecticut has strict gun control laws and that did not prevent the tragedy in Newtown.

2. Guns are not the problem, evil is the problem and evil is what we must fight, not guns. Everyone has a propensity for evil. There are ways to minimize (not eliminate) the ability of vil to take a foothold.

3. The public school systems are failing our children. Schools don't know what to do with smart kids who don't fit the social 'norms' even though they are required, by law, under The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) , to identify and "provide early intervention, special education and related services to infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities." This includes not only those with physical disabilities, but also mental and emotional disabilities.  School systems are failing to do this.  

4. Most importantly, our children must not be left unprotected.  Parents are calling for students to be protected by armed security/police as is the case in Orange County, FL.  It is not feasible for police to be posted permanently at schools.  What is feasible and what would be the best way to protect our children is volunteer teachers/school staff properly trained and armed like they do in Israel.

Israeli Elementary School

We train teachers and staff how to perform first aid/CPR and use an AED to save kids, why not train them to use firearms? this is just another way to protect our precious children.

5. I abhor the term "assault rifle." Anything can be used in an assault. There is a specific type of rifle that is called an "assault rifle," it is fully automatic illegal for most people other than military or police and a few select people to possess.  Media, either intentionally or because they are ignorant, mistakenly call rifles used in the recent crimes "assault rifles."

The department of Defense has long defined assault rifles as “fully automatic rifles used for military purposes.”

Here is an explanation:

Some have included semi-automatic weapons that are capable of switching to automatic in the definition of "assault rifle" but they all have the characteristic of being able to fire automatically.  Guns that are strictly semi-automatic are not "assault rifles."  Some people also confuse "assault rifles" with "Assault Weapons" which are something completely different.

6. What does research and statistics say about gun control?

In the wake of the Colorado theater shootings and the tragic shooting in Newtown, CT, many people have called for stricter gun control laws, while others stand by the second amendment right to own and posses guns.  Those who want stricter control believe it will prevent deaths, many gun advocates state guns help prevent injury and death.  I was interested to find out more information in two areas, the first being the comparison of guns used for violence versus gun use for protection and secondly, mortality rates related to gunshot wounds as compared to mortality rates by other mechanisms.

Choose your own crime stats:

“Perhaps what is most striking about the patterns of gun ownership in the US is that ownership is generally highest in those groups where violence is lowest.” (Kleck 1997, Chapter 3).  “It is well known that guns are used in many violent crimes in the US. [However] The best available evidence indicates that guns are used by victims in self-protection considerably more often than crimes are committed by offenders using guns.  For example, victims used guns defensively about 2.0-2.5 million times in 1993, compared to fewer than 600,000 violent crimes committed by offenders with guns (Kleck and Gertz 1995).”

 

“Defensive gun use is effective in preventing injury to the victim and property loss.  Research based on interviews with large nationally representative samples of crime victims consistently indicates that those who use guns during crime incidents are less likely to be injured or lose property than those who either adopt other resistance strategies or do not resist at all. These effects are usually produced without shooting the gun or wounding a criminal -  only 24 per cent of gun defenders even fired the gun (including warning shots), only l6 per cent tried to shoot the perpetrator, and at most 8 per cent wounded the offender (evidence summarized in Kleck and Kates 2001, Chapter 7).”

“There is also evidence indicating that some criminals may be deterred from making some criminal attempts in the first place by the prospect of victim gun use against them. Criminals interviewed in prison indicate that they have refrained from committing crimes because they believed a potential victim might have a gun, and crime rates have dropped substantially after highly publicized instances of prospective victims arming themselves or being trained in gun use, or victims using guns against criminals. (research summarized in Kleck and Kates 2001, Chapter 7).”

Information I had not even considered, “that when criminal aggressors possess guns in a crime incident, they are substantially less likely to attack and injure their victims in the first place. At least nineteen studies have found that offenders possessing guns are less likely to injure their victims than offenders with other weapons or no weapons. The explanation appears to be that possession of a lethal weapon enables aggressors to intimidate victims without actually attacking them, in crimes where the offender’s goal is not to kill the victim.” Kleck 2011

Many gun control proponents state that having stricter gun control laws that restrict who can purchase guns will prevent criminals from obtaining guns.  Studies show that most criminals do not obtain their guns from a conventional retail dealer of guns. 

Eight four percent, of 943 felon handgun owners surveyed,
did not purchase the gun from a conventional retailer.

Another question that has surfaced is: why do people focus more on gun injury related deaths? Why guns when more people have died from poisoning and motor vehicle accidents individually and followed closely by falls? There are restrictions on some types of poisons, but that didn’t prevent 41,592 deaths by poison in 2009. There are even less restrictions on motor vehicles which caused 34,485 deaths in 2009.Both of these cause more deaths than guns. All of these can be used by in the commission of murder.

According to: National Vital Statistics Reports Volume 60, Number 3 December 29, 2011Deaths: Final Data for 2009 (Table 18) in 2009, a total of 177,154 deaths were classified as injury related Four major mechanisms of injury in 2009— poisoning, motor-vehicle traffic, firearm, and fall— accounted for 75.1 percent of all injury deaths.

Mechanism	Number of Deaths 2009	Percentage
Poisoning	41,592	23.5%
Motor-vehicle traffic	34,485	19.5%
Firearm	31,347	17.7 %
Fall	25,562	14.4 %

If you want to see more statistics, you can check out the Explore the Wallstreet Journal's interactive murder database of killings committed in the U.S. from 2000 to 2010 (h/t Adam Baldwin) where can limit your search by criteria.  For example: There were 28 drowning murders in 2009.   I'm not sure how accurate the interactive database is, the database  does not include Florida.  The CDC's 2009 vital statistics report, Table 18, says 41 drowning murders in 2009. If the interactive database is correct, 13 occurred in Florida.  That seems a little high to me, but it's possible. Still the interactive database lets you get a feel for the numbers and gives you the ability to compare different categories.

Why then are guns singled out as needing restriction or banned? Could it be, perhaps, a matter of politics? Though there are gun proponents and gun control advocates on both ends of the political spectrum, it seems as though it is mostly the liberals and progressives that want gun control and the conservatives and moderates that defend the second Amendment right to bear arms. That this topic has become entrenched in people’s political belief system, it is difficult, but not impossible, for people’s minds to be changed on the topic of gun control.

Research shows that gun control will not help prevent gun related crimes, nor will it prevent people from obtaining guns. In fact, stricter gun control would cause an increase in crime, increase gun related crime, and victim injury/death.

In response to the question:  What is the defense of those that would try to discredit this study?

Dr. Kleck responded: "I have thoroughly rebutted all of the criticisms of my and others' survey estimates of the frequency of defensive gun use in one convenient source, a chapter in the 2001 book Armed, by Gary Kleck and Don B. Kates."

Dr. Kleck stands by the data in the study. 

Thank you Dr. Kleck!

REFERENCES

Kleck, Gary. 1997. Targeting Guns: Firearms and their Control. N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter.

Kleck, Gary, and Marc Gertz. 1995. “Armed resistance to crime: the prevalence and nature of self-defense with a gun.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 86:150-187.

Kleck, Gary, and Don B. Kates.  2001.  Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control.  Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.

America Needs to Return to the Basics

Common sense dictates that the founding fathers were intelligent men who knew what they were doing; after all they created the greatest nation on earth. They set up the government in a very sensible way. It is, therefore, senseless to stray from the path they put us on, yet this is what has happened. Our nation no longer resembles the nation that was started by our founding fathers. It is not the nation we once knew. To repair the damage that has been done, we need to go back to the basics found in the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and the Bill of Rights. 

Our founding fathers stated in the The Declaration of Independence, "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," rights that are given by God and cannot be altered by law (versus inalienable rights which are subject to be changed by the laws of man) "that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This is frequently misinterpreted to mean everyone has the right to be happy. “Pursuit” is in there for a reason, everyone has the right to “pursue happiness” this does not meant that everyone guaranteed happiness.  The government is not responsible for your happiness.

The Preamble to the Constitution and article I, section 8 states "promote" (not provide) "the general Welfare." "Welfare" meaning "Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government" (Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828 and is the same definition as when the Constitution was ratified). It does not mean that the government must provide everything for the people as supported by James Madison in Federalist Papers #41: "It has been urged and echoed, that… provide for the common defense or general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction."

Amendment I tells us "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This means national religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; The federal government should not be involved in religion, They cannot tell religious institutions what they can do or what services they provide and Congress will "make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion." Religious organizations are free to practice their religion as they see fit.

Amendment II says that "A well regulated Militia," meaning organized armed forces, "to the security of a free State," to protect one’s home, and one’s local area, and country "the right of the people," the individual, "to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed by the Government." Government cannot prevent individuals from owning arms (guns).

An outline of the responsibilities of each branch, legislative, judicial and executive is found in Articles I-III of the Constitution. No branch, including the executive branch (President) is more important than the other. Each branch has a purpose and a job to do and each is equally important. It is for each branch to fulfill its own duties. It is not the place of one branch to fulfill the job of the other or to take on the jobs of the states. The rest falls, as relayed in Amendment X, to the states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" as clarified by Madison in Federalist Papers #14 and Federalist Papers #39 "...is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects…leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects." 

The federal government has taken over too much, pays for far too many programs that should be left to the state and local governments and to the people. Communities, should they choose to have these types of programs, would have to raise the money and provide the programs, thus taking the burden off the federal government. I guarantee they would also find a way to help the people become more self-sufficient. This would help everyone, including the federal government and their ever increasing debt problem. It is unlikely that the government would pay off the unimaginable debt it has incurred, at least not in my lifetime. Following the Constitution, as was intended, would, put the nation back on the right path.

The Reality of Thomas Jefferson's Spirituality

Thomas Jefferson

Revised and edited 8/17/12

I keep hearing people remark that many of the founding fathers were not Christian and some, Thomas Jefferson in particular, were atheist and that Christianity had no part in the creation of the United States. One only has to read Jefferson's own words to know that he was a Christian who believed in God and followed the teachings of Jesus Christ and to see how he influenced the founding of the nation based on his, and the other founding fathers, Christian beliefs.

Thomas Jefferson’s views were misunderstood or even somewhat disliked during his lifetime, he needed to change his Statute of Virginia for religious freedom in order for it to be passed, yet the Statute of Virginia was one of 3 items (the other two being the author of the Declaration of Independence and Father of the University of Virginia)  put on the epitaph on his tombstone (he did not want his presidency listed on his tombstone) indicating the importance he placed on it. “All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution.” 

Jefferson abhorred the mainstream, organized Christian religions of his day calling them "Romish Follies," and believed "He who follows this steadily need not, I think, be uneasy, although he cannot comprehend the subtleties and mysteries erected on his doctrines by those who, calling themselves his special followers and favorites.” He disagreed with portions of the Bible and creating his own Jefferson Bible entitled The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth. Because he shunned traditional religion and disregarded portions of the Bible is, perhaps, where a common misconception, that he was atheist or not Christian, stems from. But contrary to this belief, Jefferson was an active Christian.

Jefferson made donations to a number of different churches in Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., and Charlottesville and he regularly attended church throughout his life. Evidence supports that he became a religious Unitarian Christian. While Jefferson never joined a specific Unitarian Church, as John Adams did, he was friendly with and frequently enjoyed attending Unitarian services with Unitarian Minister Joseph Priestley. In addition to Adams, Jefferson regularly corresponded with Unitarian church members Thomas Cooper, Jared Sparks, and Benjamin Waterhouse in regards to religion.

Though Jefferson was not a traditional Christian, he believed in and and followed the teachings (though not all, but can you find even one person who follows all the teachings in the Bible?) of Christ “Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus."

He defends being Christian: "To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other.”and that his bible was "proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel.” It is not for me to argue with Thomas Jefferson his beliefs and to evaluate how 'good' a Christian he was, he was a Christian.

Adams and Jefferson

Jefferson and John Adams were friends and it was Adams who persuaded the committee to have Jefferson pen the declaration.  The Declaration of Independence went through many incarnations.  It was determined that a preamble, stating the reasoning for the declaration, was needed and this was penned by John Adams and includes the phrase: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  It is likely throughout the penning process of both the preamble and the Declaration that Jefferson and Adams would have had discussions and it is probable that Jefferson would have influenced Adams famous line of the preamble as Jefferson had stated previously in 1774: “The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.”  Both Adams and Jefferson signed the Declaration showing agreement with the content.  

Jefferson placed high importance on religious freedom most likely because he did not subscribe to the common religious beliefs of his day.  He was a religious man, a Christian, who believed in God and in Christ and believed that government should not interfere in the way one worshipped.  Proof of this lies in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association,“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and State.” Jefferson later reiterated “Religion... a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle and in."  He believed this so fervently that Jefferson convinced James Madison to write the Amendments/Bill of Rights to the Constitution and in particular the First Amendment which states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" to protect religious freedom, not stifle it.

Jefferson was a Christian and his Christianity, although not considered traditional by many, and the Christian beliefs of the people and of the founders is what this nation was built on.  Their Christian values, Jefferson's inparticularly, and their belief and faith in God and the desire for relgious freedom that is seen throughout our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitiution and the Bill of Rights.

Septic Racism

Last week thousands of people descended upon the small town of Sanford, FL with marches and rallies and outcries.  People came from all over to express their outrage at the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.  Streets were closed, parking lots were over capacity and there were people everywhere.

Today I walked the streets of Sanford. The parking lot that was over capacity last week was virtually empty, as were the businesses and sidewalks.  Very few people walked the streets, shops were empty.  Even the 3 hairdressers and 2 nail shops were empty, no customers at all.  The library, which is usually brimming with people and students afterschool was eerily quiet.  Store owners are saying that business is down.  People have been scared away from Sanford.  Sharpton, with his septic racism comes in, creates havoc and in this case leaves a wasteland, all in a days work.

Today most of the people who were patronizing the shops in downtown Sanford are those that live in Sanford and there were very few of them.  Many of those who do not live in Sanford are choosing to stay away.  I spoke with a group of women who were deciding where to eat lunch.  One of them suggested a restaurant in Sanford, the others quickly dismissed the idea because they were fearful of going to Sanford.  “I’m not going down there, it’s not safe” said one of the women and the others agreed.  A shop owner told me that one of his customers called and cancelled an order because he wouldn’t be able to pick it up and he wasn’t going to send his wife or secretary to Sanford.  He said Sharpton was making things dangerous and that he wouldn’t be back to do business until Sharpton was gone for good.

Hollerbach’s Willow Tree Café has become the focus of a channel 13 news story:

Sanford customers canceling reservations to avoid chaos

Owner Theo Hollerbach took to the café’s Facebook page in an attempt to reassure his customers that it is indeed safe for people to patronize his business and also to express dismay at the actions of Sharpton and his call for economic  sanctions and escalation of civil disobedience:

Sharpton has taken his circus traveling.  If his fight is solely with Sanford, why take the show on the road?  What does he hope to gain?  More importantly, why is he not scheduled to come back, especially in the light of recent events?  Last night a 17 year old was shot and an occupied car was riddled with bullets.  A white or silver vehicle was seen leaving the area.  Where is the reward for the capture of those who shot that boy?  Certainly people with knowledge would be more willing to come forward with information for a 10K reward.   

What is the difference between this case and the Trayvon Martin case?  A 17 year old was shot, the Sanford police department is investigating and the shooter(s) have not been arrested.  Why is there no outrage that the police, the same ones who are being criticized by the Sharpton/Jackson camp, have not made an arrest.  Not a word has been uttered from the Sharpton or Jackson or any of those who have spoken in outrage at the shooting of Trayvon Martin by a Hispanic, who was first thought to be white and therefore is now being called a “white Hispanic” so as not to make those who mistakenly called him white look bad.    Could it be that it is not known at this time what the race of the boy who was shot is or the race of his attackers?  Does it make a difference?  It does if you are in the Sharpton/Jackson camp and looking to promote your racist agenda.  Trayvon Martin, especially the picture of him as a child, makes the perfect poster boy for their cause and “white” (oops) Hispanic the (almost) perfect scapegoat.  Unknown 17 year old and unknown shooter(s) won’t work.  They can’t be used to promote their racism war.

Sharpton, Jackson and the like are promoting themselves as victims to gain power.  it’s the poor pitiful me syndrome that even the non-black left is buying into because of presumed inequality and everyone has to be exactly equal at all times even if the inequality is fabricated.  They will say what they need to say to spread their hate and gain support.  Sharpton himself contradicted himself at the NAACP rally on Saturday, in one sentence saying that the police arrested Zimmerman and did not charge him and if they don't charge him soon the time will run out when they can charge him and a short time later stated that Zimmerman was never arrested and that he should be arrested now.  It's as if he's making things up as he goes along, to say what he thinks will sway the audience even if it doesn't make sense or is contradictory.

While the shooting of both Trayvon Martin and the unknown young man are both sad, one was deemed more useful and therefore exploited as an means to an end.  The real tragedy is that people like Sharpton and Jackson continue to use the grief of a family and play upon the sympathies of people for their own selfish reasons.  If it was solely about a boy being shot, then Sharpton would be right back in Sanford claiming outrage at the shooting of the 17 year old boy last night.  The story is really about Sharpton, Jackson and the like and their racist agenda.  As did Hitler did, using the Jews as scapegoats for Germany’s defeat in WWI, Sharpton, Jackson, NAACP  and the New Black Panthers are using the scapegoat George Zimmerman to unite the masses against a common enemy, the whites.  They make it about the Zimmerman who is "white" Hispanic and the white police who aren't doing anything and all the white politicians and the white laws and they are using the face of a dead young man to do it.  These are hate-filled people care only for themselves and their racist agenda.  The whole thing stinks.  Meanwhile, Sanford remains a no-man's land, a victim of Sharpton's septic racism.