Spike Lee Retracts and Settles

Last week Spike Lee made the mistake of jumping on the retweet bandwagon and sent out the supposed address of George Zimmerman, the man responsible for the death of Trayvon Martin. Much to his chagrin, the address was for an elderly couple whose son's name is George Zimmerman; however, he no longer lives there. The couple was rightly fearful for their safety, as their home became the focus of so much vigilante angst.

Today, Lee's attorneys and Matt Morgan, attorney for David and Elaine McClain, announced a settlement between Lee and the couple. Lee also took the time to personally apologize to the couple and express his sincerest regrets for having retweeted their address to approximately 240,000 followers. Lee also had the foresight to send out tweets addressing the mistake and calling for followers to stand down and leave the couple in peace.

My ultimate hope is that Spike Lee will see the larger problem with what he did. It is not just the retweeting of the wrong address that is at issue. The true issue is the fact that such a prominent figure is calling out for street vigilantes in response to vigilante actions that resulted in the death of a young man. Spike, do you really want to turn us back into a lynch happy society, hell-bent on taking the law into our own hands, no matter the cost to those involved? Think before you tweet. You can cause a lot of damage in 140 characters if caution is not your guide.

Can the Solicitor General Make the Case?

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli made compelling arguments to the Supreme Court on the validity of the Affordable Care Act and its mandate. He sees the ACA as a form of regulation on interstate commerce and therefore it is constitutional. Verrilli is well versed on Constitutional law and when he states his opinion, he bases it on his knowledge, not his personal opinions. Will the Supreme Court agree with this view on the ACA? That answer remains to be seen; however, Americans are going to get an education on just how the Constitution really works, or has been redesigned to work for the government. This will depend on which side of the aisle you stand on.

Look, when it is all said and done, Americans as a whole want some sort of answer to their health care needs. But as individual citizens in a free market system, you cannot get an answer without the government stepping in, because when it is all said and done, when Americans start asking for answers, they are looking to the government to supply them. The irony is that many Americans do not like the answers or solutions they receive, or at least their representatives don’t, and the opinion filters down.

Once again I say, we will not make all Americans happy with the ACA. We will not make all Americans happy by raising taxes and having government paid health care. The reality is that both of these could work, provided everyone stops worrying about pleasing everyone. Our political system is not designed to please all Americans; it actually just divides us and our opinions more.

A Neighborhood Watch is Not a Neighborhood Justice System

George Zimmerman has pulled the nation's focus to questions about what a neighborhood watch truly is. With changes in gun law, crime on the rise and citizens feeling more empowered about taking action, we need to address this issue and make it clear to everyone that a neighborhood watch is just that; a watch. When we allow citizens to feel they can make these decisions on their own, we will begin to revert back to more lawless days.

It is completely understandable that any American wants to protect their home and family. It is obviously understandable that to do that, it is important to monitor what is happening within your neighborhood and increase awareness. By staying aware and communicating with your neighbors, you create a net of people who want to protect each other, through protection of their own. The real problem with a neighborhood watch is when people interpret it too mean neighborhood police.

If you try to handle any situation that happens in your neighborhood, that would normally require a call to the police, you should not be trying to resolve the problem. There are trained professionals who are paid to ensure the safety of citizens. If the situation is an immediate concern, such as imminent harm, that you did not put yourself in the way of, then of course you should be a good samaritan and help. Outside of trying to help someone in harm's way, neighborhood watch members need to be more active on the phone and less justified in taking action.

Why Are We Bothering The Supreme Court With ObamaCare Issues?

You can say what you will about the healthcare reform that has been put forward by President Obama, but wasting money on a 26 state lawsuit is a mockery. This whole debate could go on for years. Why are we having this debate anyway? Honestly, it seems like a situation where everyone wants to have their cake, and eat it as well. I think we all know how that rule works.

As a 43 year-old I can tell you that I have seen the debate over healthcare go on for decades. The irony in this is that we as a “forward-thinking” society have never been able to solve the issues we have, yet there are countries in this world that have it figured out much better than ourselves. There is no way that all Americans can be pleased with ANY healthcare reform; however, if you ask for it for decades and finally get it, don't start finding ways you can shut it down. You aren't helping the rest of the Americans who can find some benefit from its enactment.

I have wondered why the various states who are seeking the Supreme Court's rulings, have not presented a proposal to enact state provisions to ObamaCare. If they 26 states have specific issue with certain mandates within the law, perhaps time could be better spent pooling resources and coming up with compromises geared towards appealing to individual states' rights. Not all 26 states completely agree on what needs to happen within the case and that tells me plenty about where their focus should be. There are citizens in everyone of those states who could benefit from the law, while others will benefit from the lawsuit. It just seems to me that so many more could benefit from a compromise.

Bounty on George Zimmerman Must Be Repealed

The recent bounty declaration by the New Black Panther Party against George Zimmerman must be repealed. This is not, in any way, shape or form, acceptable. This is not how justice is meant to be handled. While we may be seeing a situation where justice is not working in the favor of the victim, it is not a call to hypocritical action.

The major problem with the death of Trayvon Martin is the simple fact that George Zimmerman took the law into his own hands, twisted it into his own brand of justice and carried out a sentence. This is an outrage to Trayvon's family, friends, the local and national public and apparently to the Black Panthers. So my question would be: If you are so outraged by the injustice of this vigilante action by George Zimmerman, why would you condone the same actions by those who share your outrage?

The New Black Panther Party is calling on regular citizens to take action and “apprehend” George Zimmerman for his crime. If you want this done, why are you putting the public in jeopardy of losing their freedoms and rights by chasing this bounty? The Black Panthers should be keeping quiet and carrying out their “bounty” on their own. If you want to be a racial/moral compass for others to follow, the militant attitude will only make you fall short. I can promise that, like me, the Black Panthers find the lynchings of African-Americans in the past to be abhorrent. However, preaching that an “eye for an eye” is suddenly the right approach, when that approach will only lead people to make decisions as bad as Zimmerman did, is irresponsible to say the least.

Dick Cheney is Chastised For Having a Heart?

Let's get one thing straight; I am not a fan of Dick Cheney. His views and position on many issues do not line up with mine. There is nothing wrong with that. It is the way of the world, and definitely the way of politics. However, if anyone in the media questions the actions of a man fighting for his life, provided he does not do anything immoral or illegal, they should be ashamed of themselves.

Multiple media sources have been questioning whether the former Vice-President should have taken the heart transplant that was finally available to him after a 20 month wait. A man who did not push to the front of the line, did not look for black market options or shady tactics to make this happen sooner. How dare these people say the man is too old or too far gone, to step up and take this opportunity. Questioning the man's nobility, when he is facing an early death from a failing heart, is just ludicrous.

The failing of the media is in their own hearts. When ratings become the benchmark for taking a stand on issues, and more importantly, non-issues, you are sacrificing basic human compassion. There is no reason this topic should be discussed. He is just a man trying to survive, the same way any other sufferer of heart failure would. Peddling this inane attitude is deplorable, and the media should be ashamed. I may never have reason to stand behind Dick Cheney's positions; however, I will certainly stand up and say that he has the right to be left alone, when he has found a way to survive.

Geraldo Rivera Justifies Profiling?

Geraldo, really? What is the point in telling the world that you find the death of Trayvon Martin tragic and unnecessary, then have the nerve to say it was because of his outfit choice? You do realize it was raining right? The point to a hoodie is that, in the event of cold weather, or perhaps inclement weather such as, I don't know...rain, the hood can be pulled up for protection. It's almost as ludicrous to say that I should apprehend anyone on a ski slope wearing a ski mask, because they may be about to rob a bank.

This abhorrent profiling of Trayvon Martin is definitely a problem; George Zimmerman's problem. The hoodie is a widely used piece of clothing, worn by millions of people of all races. But to say that African-Americans and Latino parents should dissuade the use by their children gives profilers yet another reason to keep on keeping on. The priority here is all wrong. If the way these kids dress is seen as the issue, the true problem gets swept under the rug.

Racial and societal profiling has evolved into a matter of course in this country. It is now acceptable to profile anyone that looks like a terrorist, and when you add in wayward comments by prominent media figures, you allow it to pervade every facet of our society. Geraldo, if you want to take a stand against this outrageous crime, take the stand to denounce the profiling that occurred. Let's not hold an innocent victim of over-zealous, self-appointed justice, to account for wearing a hoodie in rainy weather; or else I may have to drop them from my wardrobe, so my NRA-loving neighbors don't make a mistake when I am checking my mail.

Who Cared About Trayvon Martin?

When did Americans stop being good Samaritans? How is it that a young man can be chased through a neighborhood by a man wielding a gun, have some sort of skirmish and wind up being shot, yet no one saw anything until after the fact? Have we become this callous or fearful of the world around us? Safety is important; however, the safety of others should be as important.

Trayvon Martin is dead. There is no way to change that. The question is: Could it have been prevented? Had there been witnesses within sight, would the trigger have been pulled? I wonder if George Zimmerman would have been as full of self-righteous zeal about apprehending Martin if more people had been present. Having taken the law into his own hands, Zimmerman had free reign to handle Martin however he saw fit. Perhaps an audience would have slowed him down a bit.

The beauty of no one taking the initiative to save a life, is that it leaves Zimmerman with the ability to describe the scene and events however he chooses. The only other witness to see anything was handled by Zimmerman. Do I think it was cold-blooded murder? Yes. Do I lay some of the blame for opportunity on the rest of those around the situation? Yes. Practically everyone in this situation failed Trayvon Martin. Unfortunately, Trayvon payed the ultimate price for this lack of humanity on many peoples' parts. Whether he had personal problems in his life, had made bad choices in life or was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, somebody should have cared enough.

Obama Takes No Position On Trayvon Martin Case

When asked about his views on the Trayvon Martin case, President Obama appeared to have a lot to say, yet delivered very little. As the President imparted, he did not want his words to color the investigation that law enforcement officials are undertaking. However, I find this hard to swallow when it was apparent by his demeanor and the tone of his statements, that he has some very firm opinions about this case.

As the President of the United States of America, Obama has a responsibility to take a stand on issues like this. If he does not agree that this is about race, it should be said. However, his comment "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon." gives clear indication that race is in the forefront of his thoughts. I will not jump on the bandwagon and call this a racially motivated act, though I will say that the President has a clear responsibility to take a position, secure the trust of the American people in that position and to guide that thinking to a clear resolution.

If we cannot trust our law enforcement officials to do their job properly just because Obama makes his stance on the issue crystal clear, then why are they in their positions anyway. Law enforcement has a job to do and so does the President. In matters of global issues, the President easily speaks for America and takes a firm stance. This should also be the case in domestic issues.

President Obama, do not hedge your bets by keeping your opinions to yourself, when it was your "firm" beliefs and opinions that got you elected in the first place. If you are outraged, then say so. But do not stand with tight lips and angered demeanor, and offer lip service to America in an effort to not piss anyone off.

George Zimmerman: Redefining "Stand Your Ground"

As the events of the recent shooting of Trayvon Martin unfold, the speculations about profiling, racial motivation and self-defense continue to build and evolve. As I look at the specifics of the investigations that are occurring, I have to wonder if most people are overlooking a basic fact that makes a big difference in this scenario; whether George Zimmerman was in danger, or if he put himself in danger.

After listening to the 911 call that Zimmerman made, it is apparent that he was in no immediate danger at all. During the course of the phone call, against the wishes of the 911 operator, Zimmerman began to pursue Martin. Now I don't know where most of you may be from, but where I come from, that is chasing danger. Let's be realistic here. If Martin flees the scene, for whatever reason, and Zimmerman pursues him, that means Zimmerman has taken the law into his own hands and has now stepped outside of the Stand Your Ground laws. If Martin did turn on Zimmerman at some point in the chase, most likely to defend himself from a pursuer and possible attacker, then Zimmerman put himself into danger. Though I do find it hard to believe that Zimmerman was in much danger since he was carrying a gun.

The true injustice here is, this solidifies the worries of lawmakers about citizens taking liberties with gun ownership. Zimmerman had every right to own that gun. He had a right to carry it. But he does not have the right to chase another person down, create an altercation and then shoot in "self-defense". This is not what the Stand Your Ground legislation was about.