Culture

Ahab Begot Jezebel : Discerning Deception and Delusion – Part 2 of 4

AHAB BEGOT JEZEBEL : DISCERNING DECEPTION AND DELUSION – Part 2 of 4   

And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, how long halt ye between two opinions…

and the people answered him not a word – 1 Kings 18: 21

Jezebels are the boots who march to the beat of their Ahabs brokenness. To overthrow Jezebels destructive campaign, one must engage the source from which she draws sustenance, rather than the infidelity of her counterfeit authority. Assault in the natural by wrong words and actions, are impotent against spiritual immorality and deception. A battle in the natural against spiritual forces will have tragic consequences for such ill-advised combatants. All must maintain prescient awareness that Jezebel is first and foremost a spirit as opposed to only a personality.

Jezebel’s embrace of counterfeit authority took flight on the wings of immorality loyal to deception, but now spiritual delusion maintains her purge of the truth. Blinded by the applause of the spiritually deluded, she believes herself to be all-knowing and all-powerful, and her authority to be authentic. Disavowing that she is actually the progeny of Ahab, Jezebel considers Ahab to possess scant potential for accomplishments of note that are not facilitated by her. Ahabs disavow the mutuality of their delusion until the arrow of misadventure penetrates the very gift he sought to surrender to Jezebel.

Jezebels possess unique reptilian qualities, but you can’t kill a Jezebel by simply severing the head of Ahab. Unlike reptiles whose regenerative powers exclude the head, Jezebel is capable of beguiling the spiritually vulnerable into supporting a new titular head she endorses. His given name might be Ahaziah, but his aversion to accountability is even more potent than that of Ahab. Ahaziah functions in even less relational balance with Jezebel than had Ahab. Neither Ahaziah nor his conscripted supporters eschew the delusional ethos of Jezebel or the fatal spiritual consequences of her deception.

Minds blinded by spiritual delusion often manifest what might appear to be spiritual vision, giftedness, and human compassion. Darkness searches out others it can similarly addict to the same elixir of deception. Only hearts that embrace spiritual truth can discern such spiritual delusion. Ones true nature is undeniably revealed by the standard established by the Savior Himself; you shall know them by their fruits. Spiritual diminishment and discord are signatures of deception, whereas spiritual growth and harmony are fruits indicative of commitment to divine truth in operation.

Failure to operate with spiritual discernment exposes every man and woman to the same deception governing Ahab and Jezebel. Whether person or faction, sharing power, providing cooperation, or extending consideration to an Ahab or Jezebel, constitutes spiritual opposition to the Kingdom of God. Though knowledgeable of spiritual truth, immorality advocates aperitifs of deception, where after delusion certifies and facilitates operations in the natural realm that war against the authority of God and His Kingdom. Ahabs and Jezebels know what spirit they operate in, and so must you.

Ahab Begot Jezebel : Immorality Loyal to Deception – Part 1 of 4

AHAB BEGOT JEZEBEL : IMMORALITY LOYAL TO DECEPTION – Part 1 of 4

    So she [Jezebel] wrote letters in Ahab’s name, placed his seal on them, and sent them

to the elders and nobles – 1 Kings 21: 8

Whether natural or spiritual, conception requires a seed and first cause event. There can never be sunrise or sunset absent sunlight and planetary rotation. There can never be progress absent objective and initiative. There can never be choice absent the right and capacity for free election. There can never be accountability absent responsibility and immutable authority. There can never be a Jezebel absent commission and sanction; all Jezebels, no matter their pre-existing potential are foremost the progeny of Ahabs.

While the disastrous impact of classical Jezebels is well chronicled, how Jezebels attain their thrones of misadventure is seldom scrutinized. Ahabs and Jezebels may be the progeny of aberrant emotional and circumstantial conditioning: adolescents unduly influenced by decidedly matriarchal family structures or denied maternal approval and acceptance. While Ahab can ignite the Jezebel potential in an otherwise disinclined women, a couple so predisposed harbors great potential for treachery and betrayal.

Ahab and Jezebel may at times exhibit a form of giftedness exercised for the benefit of others, yet the discontinuity that undergirds both their effort and inaction is disquieting. The attraction entrapping them is neither authentically romantic nor conventionally social, its inspiration derives from premeditated unethicalness, the spirit of immorality. Conflicted worldview, intellectual, and cultural cues are insufficient to either illuminate or dissuade their pernicious addiction to one another. Tragically for those subject to their influence or leadership, Ahab and Jezebel are devout patrons of deception.

Throughout the Eden era, Prophetic age, to more recent contemporary periods, Jezebels have been presumed to be scandalous and self-inspired. In reality, Jezebels are the boots who march to the beat of their Ahab’s brokenness. Ahab’s aversion to accountability gestates in Jezebel a compulsion to assume responsibility for that which she possesses no authority. Blinded by deception, neither appreciates that Ahab can forfeit his authority, but cannot delegate it. Jezebel confiscates counterfeit authority, for which she must become adroit at both beguiling subterfuge (BS) and spiritual deception.

Jezebel exudes an aura of all knowingness and all powerfulness, beguiling those lacking spiritual discernment. Jezebel craves adulation for herself not Ahab. Jezebel: drives Ahab to attain possessions and positions that enhance her personal prestige, subsumes community accomplishments for her personal glorification, and demands financial tribute to nourish her unquenchable appetite for treasure. Jezebel only destroys, while Ahab lashes out in anger to ventilate that his lament cannot comfort.

When mortally wounded in their death chariots or on their death beds, Ahabs experience their last opportunity for clarity and spiritual redress regarding the tragic consequences of their own creation; Jezebel.

The Google God and Facebook Faith

THE GOOGLE GOD AND FACEBOOK FAITH

 Dare to Defriend and Not Know

The Google god is not an archetype, neither does it profess or possess any creative potentiality. The transcendence of the Google god derives from its archival and bridling of big data by the wisdom of referendum; transcendence rises and falls along with the page rank of the petition, called a search in Google theology. Like the torch, kerosene lamp, and light bulb before it, the Google god illuminates, but it is the only one of the four with potential for unintended and unperceived self-deception. While the Google god invites seekers to be omnipresently informed, it can’t prevent the onset of superficial omniscience or vaporous illusions of intellectual omnipotence.

For many, the Google god’s prolific ability to connect the curious with dynamic facts and figures, and to transport knowledge and perception from oblivion to digital presence, is in fact god-like. So prescient is the Google god, discerning how and why seems no more ambitious than simply discerning when and where. Impressed with the Google god’s apparent proficiency, many discount the reality that this digital matchmaker frequently traffics in unsubstantiated and unqualified references. In the absence of cogent inquiry, experience, and vetted source materials, indeterminate references beget errant inference, which beget twins: context free supposition and beguiling subterfuge (BS).

The Google god satisfies the most pernicious itch of the age, instant gratification. With no more than a few keystrokes or smartphone swipes, the Google god is presumed to confer sufficient acuity so as to challenge a bonfire of experience with no more than factoid marinated kindling. Bonfire informed diagnoses by board certified physicians, are often impugned by patients intoxicated by context free web factoids. Nevertheless, the Google god’s standing remains undiminished; instant gratification syndrome derives from the disposition of the seeker, not premeditated technology treachery.

Instant gratification often manifests rudiments of narcissism. Instant gratification narcissism craves presently unattainable personal accomplishment and unmerited relationship fidelity. However, one needn’t commiserate, Facebook Faith considered the ultimate in affirming social agency, is available over-the-keyboard. Facebook Faith allows the offline you, to create and nurture an otherwise unattainable online you. While gods normally do the creating, Facebook Faith also exhibits transcendent god-like power; it allows you to create a virtual autobiographical you, in your own imagined image.

The first fracture in the Facebook Faith continuum occurs when you can no longer ascertain which is the corporeal-synaptic you, the one in front of the screen or the one on the screen. You needn’t worry; by the power of Facebook Faith, you can turn the on screen you, into the you the you in front of the screen prefers, thus eliminating the confusion of who’s who. Facebook Faith clearly evidences pandemic potential; friends beget followers, who beget instagrams, well known side affects of digital narcissism.

Instant gratification narcissism addicts insist on knowing, seeing, acquiring, and being in the now. The addicted can be seen everywhere peering hypnotically into small mobile anti-social electronic prostheses. Instant gratification narcissism inspired by Facebook Faith evidences an incontrovertible progression:

Stage 1: The on screen you deprives the corporeal-synaptic you of informed emotional feedback.

Stage 2: Both you and your on screen friends are overwhelmed creating more endearing versions of your on screen selves.

Stage 3: Disengaging from the screen no longer returns you to the potent presence of your corporeal-synaptic self.

Stage 4: The corporeal-synaptic you craves tactile and emotional contact, but has little inter-personal skill by which to socially engage others.

Facebook Faith leaves the corporeal and digital you in the now but more isolated and emotionally estranged than ever. You are an un-convicted co-conspirator in your own scripted digital autobiography. In this now, dispassionate hook-ups stand in for the tedious thrill of discovery and romance. In this now there is no growth borne on the seas of rejection or impetuous unexplainable embrace.

Evidencing a mutual identity of interests, the Google god and Facebook Faith prophesy a paradise of social and professional connectivity, personal enlightenment, and endless engagement with a variety of new friends and interests. However, in this paradise where intimacy varies in accordance with flexible privacy settings, you’ve somehow and for some reason become praise addicted and easily insulted. Because there are many more digital-incantations than corporeal-synaptic you, your emotional state requires continuous dynamic recalibration; you confuse yourself and others.

The only you that matters possesses an essential essence that can only be touched where the virtuous and immoral you coalesce, the soul. There you may be disconnected yet engaged, informed but disinterested, ungrateful but nevertheless accountable, unapologetically entitled but neither presumptive nor dismissive; here there is no judgment. This is the place where the creator embraces you in love that preserves intimacy, where faith imparts truth and light that enables desire to court conviction, and where true friends summon you to be no more or no less than the one and only you.

Dare to defriend and not know.

 

What the Jurist Saw

WHAT THE JURIST SAW

Recently the Supreme Court adjudicated the constitutionality of a Michigan law prohibiting consideration of race when determining admission to public institutions. While differences and dissension remain venerable prerogatives of the courts, these prerogatives are increasingly under attack by a culture that demands strict allegiance to red or blue orthodoxy. Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas (siding with the majority) and Sonia Sotomayor (joining the minority) saw the merits of Schuette vs. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action quite differently.

The Justice’s backgrounds have much in common to include: economic and social challenges surmounted by strong family values, hard work, and the audacity of self-reliance. Both are pioneers, having provided invaluable stewardship to radical new campus organizations; one helped to found the Black Students Union at Holy Cross, and the other served as co-chair of the Acción Puertorriqueña at Princeton. Both were courageous enough to fall in love and marry partners outside of their ethnic group.

Justices Sotomayor and Thomas know first hand the power and disquiet of access to the privileged sanctums of higher education, where each had to weather the shock of temporarily unpolished verbal fluency. Though graduates of Yale, arguably the most prestigious of Law Schools, both have voiced doubts about its imprimatur with regard to people like them. Initially, Justice Thomas served as an Assistant Attorney General in Missouri, and Justice Sotomayor a NYC Assistant District Attorney.

Though their backgrounds suggest otherwise, their opinions from the bench are usually conflicted. However, their positions on the merits of Michigan’s anti-affirmative action law might have been more similar had the question before the court focused explicitly on public benefit rather than the unstated, prior academic accomplishment. Granting priority admission to publicly supported institutions of higher education to those with superior prior academic accomplishment presumes to actualize highest return on public investment.

It would be absurd to consider an applicants prior academic record as other than a principled barometer of future performance (“merit”); most of whom are also distinguished beyond their demonstrated levels of intellectual accomplishment. Many also consider aversion to racial preferences (artificial denial) a principled position. There are other principled and relevant criteria. Private academic institutions and commercial businesses have reaped demonstrable value by broadly assessing applicants for admission and job candidates respectively. While public initiative purports to facilitate private initiative outcome, like the two Justices, these models in practice have little in common.

It’s difficult to discern best-use policies and practices under the influence of errant context materially altered by time and reformation. Fashioning prudent and actionable policy requires a clear understanding of what disciplines contemporary higher education experiences actually attend and their relationship to return-on-public-investment. Publicly supported education must act responsibly to endow public benefit over personal reward. The perception that current admissions policies reward certain applicants from the pubic coffers absent corresponding impact on public well-being, adds fuel to plaintiff’s rage before the court and energizes defendant’s determination to legally enshrine the practice.

A closer look at the critical disciplines attended by higher education is revealing. Three valuable related disciplines predominate, students learn more, how, and about. Students learn more regarding: specific subjects of interest, subjects in which they previous held no interest, and subjects that add value regardless of their personal interest. Students learn how to: study in a manner best suited to them personally, productively collaboration with others, prioritize time and effort, sacrifice and persevere. Students learn about: making social and professional connections, nurturing and leveraging connections, and integrating and transitioning connections.

Even though the wavelength of illumination can mislead (Darwin’s handicap), the merit and artificial denial arguments remain synergistic in that they are both exceedingly personal. They’ve also proven to be symbiotic. When merit is assessed apart from constructive correlation with all three critical higher education initiatives (more, how, about), it yields a relatively uniform intellectual pool, exacerbating structural denial. Reputable social science investigations both support and refute the notion that a critical mass from all groups adds unique value to educational experiences and outcomes. These conflicted findings likely reflect the confluence of artificial and structural denial (Michigan’s handicap).

Universities offer a range of challenging courses of study, well suited to correspondingly different degrees of intellectual giftedness and personal preparedness. Some argue that universities ought to be reorganized into but two schools-of-study, one for the study of mathematics and physics, and another for all other disciplines – often emerging nations first establish technology focused institutions of higher education to jump-start economic development, demonstrably beneficial to public interests. Predicating all admissions substantially on student applicants applied science aptitude would be brutally and irrationally exclusionary, even though it would be lawful to adopt just such a policy.

California practices a lawful form of macro-differentiated admissions. It places applicants into two merit based intellectual pools; each applicant is then guaranteed admission to either the University of California or California State University systems. What constitutes a best fit varies more broadly and differently than a single branch of preparedness. Though neither system currently differentiates admissions, for example by school-of-study, such an admissions letter might read: “congratulations you’ve been admitted to the School of Social Sciences, and wait-listed for the School of Public Administration; we regret to inform you that your application for admission to the School of Material Sciences has been declined”.

There are other lawful and beneficial approaches to broadening qualified applicant pools and higher return-on-public-investment, without resorting to artificial denial, or structural denial induced by uniform intellectual pools. The most successful American technology firm’s hire candidates from a far broader cross section of graduates than universities recruit applicants from. If the actual challenges faced by students within higher education were better reflected in both admissions criteria and recruitment efforts, merit and public interest outcome would be better aligned and likely more apparent.

Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor have clearly excelled at learning more, how, and about, without which neither could hope to perform, as expected, above the standard. Haggling over whom to invest in apart from cogent assessment of how to best invest imperils formulation of policies suitable to realizing highest public benefit. Nevertheless, review and reconciliation of potentially discordant policies should not be entrusted to well intentioned all seeing Justices, unable to differentiate or resist exigent activism over scrupulous adjudication.

We Can Break Free of Race Grievance Treachery (Part 4 of 4)

RESURRECTING PURPOSE AND MORALITY

“We do not live in the Past, but the Past in Us.”- U. B. Phillips

Choice: America is the most religiously plural, ethnically diverse, and socially mobile culture to arise in recorded history. The group that suffered sacrificially to insure these freedoms for all groups now denies the most precious of these to its own members. Its members must subscribe to a strict political orthodoxy and maintain a relationship with other groups that presuppose their ongoing victimization. All groups must disavow Race Grievance hustlers and advocate abiding respect for personal choice.

Equality: Human’s have both the largest brains and correspondingly broad and divergent interests by which to tax them. These interests are influenced and nurtured by diverse social and cultural imperatives, personal experiences, and talents. It is therefore unfathomable that those sharing similar influences would be expected to possess or pursue the same interests in identical proportions as those sharing different influences. Where influence converges, more often interests converge. Equality reflects ones right to pursue their personal interests, however it is not a measure of their success.

Feminism: Modern feminist dogma presented gender as a social construct. It assured women that despite career conflicts and biological clock issues, the feminist model would lead to more fulfilling relationships, not a battle of the sexes that no one would win. Feminism was particularly discordant for groups operating, often by necessity, in matriarchal models. All must recognize that men and women are equally gifted, talented, and deserving, yet they often possess different inspiration and aspirations. Femininity and masculinity both rock absent prefabricated agendas and limitations.

Standards: There are any number of products considered to be the class of their industry, some of which can also be directly associated with a particular group; “get theirs it’s the best”. The same can be said of functional and intellectual value added services; “hire them, they know how to handle it”. There are also groups that inspire mistrust and lack of confidence. Being the standard of one area delivers collateral benefits to other areas of endeavor; standards rarely succumb to pricing. No group can prosper without continually striving for standard status.

Civility: While youth should be afforded a right and time of passage, there are boundaries. Superfluous profanity, music containing explicit lyrics, invasive verbal levels, inappropriate public discussions, and confiscation of commercial facilities for other than their intended purpose, are vulgar displays of personal insecurity. Mutual disrespect is not the new civility. Consideration takes both personal confidence and courage.

Spirituality: Morality cannot be discerned by referendum or analysis of the benefits arising from specific human interaction and behavior. All people are endowed with an inalienable moral imperative, resisting and enforcing their strongest and most urgent inclinations. However, morality has two conflicted sources of inspiration, one based on truth, and the other on deception. Discernment is only possible in the light of relationship and revelation with the Creator.

We Can Break Free of Race Grievance Treachery (Part 3 of 4)

HONEST ASSESSMENT IS INEVITABLE

 “Truth crushed to the earth, will rise again”— Martin Luther King Jr.

 Pandemic Crime: Parents, family, and friends suffer unimaginable pain and anguish over the loss of a loved one, especially at the hands of another. One group has a murder rate many times higher than that of all other groups combined. The same group commits all but a small percent of violent interracial crimes and many times more robberies than any other group. As a result of such staggering disparities, virtually all young men in this group evoke apprehension and suffer the embarrassment of otherwise unwarranted suspicion. All Americans (Black, White, Hispanic, Asian…), to include Race Grievance hustlers, profile this group in some manner or another.

Evergreen Excuses: One argument advanced by Race Grievance hustlers to explain why one group is vastly over represented among the criminally incarcerated, suggest it is due to the groups disproportionate drug related arrest and prosecution. This is a baseless argument; eliminating consideration of drug related incarcerations (already dramatically reduced by previous prosecutorial referendums) only nominally reduces the group’s highly disproportionate representation. Nevertheless, such claims actually float race hustler boats; blaming others for a particular groups behavior or circumstances is critical to race hustler’s grievance underwritten strategy.

Exposing Race Hustlers or Accepting Personal Responsibility are considered Treason

Fabricated Integrity: In 1950, three-fourths of one group’s families had two parents, but by 2012 the share had fallen to about one-fourth. Yet today it is not unusual to know men from this group, who have fathered multiple children with multiple women, without having ever materially participated in parenting or financially supporting any of them. These same men (counterfeit “ballers”) expect other men to be complicit in their deception (“the man code”) as they seek to victimize the next woman. No wonder women of this and other groups largely mistrust men, particularly from this group.

Deserted Values: Disingenuous treatment and vastly unqualified partner options, have led more women to embrace the High Bidder relationship model. In this model the opening bid by a male suitor can be as low as a supply of baby formula or help with a past due utility bill, or as high as a pair of Ugg boots or Christian Louboutin pumps. Sadly, many High Bidders, to which men of this group often add an additional “B”: are mothers who live with their mothers, invest unwisely in chic fashion, park their vintage cars around the corner out of view of the Club, and suffer such low emotional self-esteem that indigent sperm donor only baby-daddies are welcome suitors.

Crippled Dreams: Dreams provide covering to encapsulate cores comprised of personal talents, goals, preparation, sacrifice, and persistence; dreams are both essential and fragile. The impersonal nature of today’s android like social media and sexual hookup culture, further diminish beneficial shared values and blur essential precepts underlying relational integrity. No wonder dream sabbaticals and dream hopping have supplanted a discernible sense of purpose and destiny.

Yes-We-Can has to be Remixed to include more No-We-Won’t

We Can Break Free of Race Grievance Treachery (Part 2 of 4)

WE CAN BREAK FREE OF RACE TREACHERY GRIEVANCE

PART 2 OF 4: THE HEINOUS SIEGE OF THE RACE GRIEVANCE HUSTLERS

“Everybody has asked the question . . . ‘What shall we do with the Negro?’ I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us!” – Frederick Douglass

The Zimmerman case became a race case after it was re-released by the Race Grievance Industry, whose multi-racial race-hustler staff includes media pundits, scavenger politicos, and grievance carpetbaggers. The case was billed as “the new age lynching of a genteel black boy by a rabidly racist white man”, a Race Grievance hustler blockbuster. Never mind Zimmerman is as Hispanic as President Obama is Black, but race hustlers know nothing plays or pays like white on black conflict. The only jurors to have spoken both said “the case was never about race”.

Afterward a Juror said the trial felt to her “like a publicity stunt”

The President was right; Trevon could have been him, a prospect even more likely in cities such as Flint, Detroit, New Orleans, St. Louis, Baltimore, Birmingham, Newark, Oakland, Baton Rouge, Cleveland, Memphis and a host of others to include his hometown of Chicago. In these cities and others like them, such heartbreak abounds. These victims are seldom represented by more than a case-number juxtaposed with the case-numbers of other homicide victims. These victims hold no attraction for attention-addicted and capital-craving Race Grievance hustlers; these victims and their assailants are predominantly black.

In America, race hustling has achieved market status, boasting industry leaders, fast followers, and ample opportunity for all who can hold their noses tightly and long enough. Like hedge funds that bet against products they might own (buying insurance predicated on failure of the underlying securities), Race Grievance hustlers place bets only where they control exacerbation of racial animus and indignation. Like the private trading desk of commercial banks, the Race Grievance hustlers provide benefits to a select few at the expense of the much larger constituency it purports to serve. Tragically, true racial grievances are subsumed in the camouflage and mirage of the capital hustle.

In America, even artificial racial conflict infuses tragedy with staying power like nowhere else in the western world. Race Grievance hustlers provide all communities synthetic opportunities to both brandish and cloak their hate, and ample occasions for certain communities to lament and pay tribute to their abiding sense of guilt. Certain tragedies become race hustler gold mines when marinated in racial animus; like fracking for oil or gas, verdicts for or against offer huge indignation exploitation potential.

Race Hustlers are far more motivated by Celebrity and Capital than Justice or Peace

A powerful weapon wielded by Race Grievance hustlers to hold sway over their willing and unwilling supplicants is unrelentingly enforced silence. Silence is enforced by the fear of cultural death sentences that can’t be appealed, where some are declared Racist and yet others Race Traitors. However, Race hustlers don’t require those who harbor hate or guilt to maintain corresponding political or social allegiance, they consider doing nothing the most valuable contribution a supplicant can make.

Many succumb to this code of silence out of fear that others who also observe the code may be informers in waiting, and after watching resisters and the imprudent cower before Race Grievance hustlers begging for restoration or clemency. Should one be sentenced after a trail by slander, no matter their former stature, the rabid race hustler infantry will declare jihad on the transgressor’s reputation and on those who dare to remain in relationship. As in the Soviet Gulag era, one could suffer the wrath of the race hustler infantry for merely considering an opinion or option different that they espouse.

Race Grievance Hustlers and their Cohorts drive all Americans further from Relationship

Race Grievance hustlers who can foment hate realize much more enduring and broader control (nuclear weapon) than those who can only foment guilt (conventional weapon). Fear of Race Grievance hustlers has been inculcated within the culture and fabric American communities and political movements. Most Race Grievance hustlers are first anointed by media pundits as spokespersons for a particular group or cause. Top tier Race Grievance hustlers are often elected to office on the winds of pundit endorsement. Whether liberal or conservative, neither bothers to respond to constituent demands, instead commanding their emotional, intellectual and ultimately spiritual submission.

Just as derivative-instruments affect and exploit zero sum securities volatility, race hustlers affect and rely on both inwardly and outwardly focused relationship volatility. When inwardly focused constituents develop diminished respect for one another, and when outwardly focused groups see all other groups as rivals. To resist, individuals must first grasp an appreciation of the divinely human and wonderful gift of free will they possess, and then exercise it to begin to form a personal cultural polarity and presence.

Nevertheless, beware that a simple declaration that you prefer to grant the benefit of due process to all when possible before judging, or daring to exercise your political right be a staffer for a group disapproved by the Race Grievance hustlers assigned to superintend your thoughts and actions, carries the potential that you might be suspended from or declared not to be an authentic member of the group.

We Can Break Free of Race Grievance Treachery (Part 1 of 4)

WE CAN BREAK FREE OF RACE GRIEVANCE TREACHERY

 PART 1 OF 4: COURAGE WHEN FEELINGS AND FACTS REFUSE TO COALESCE

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”- John Adams

The deaths of Oscar Grant and Trevon Martin were heartbreaking for their families and emotionally dismembering for the nation. Grant, a former convicted drug dealer who’d recently been fired from his job, encountered transit police to include officer Johannes Mehserle, after disembarking from public transportation. Martin, a high school student living of late in a new community with his father, encountered George Zimmerman upon returning from a local 7-Eleven store.

The tragic deaths of these young men were precipitated by wholly unnecessary violent confrontations. The circumstances and documentary evidence overwhelmingly establish the deadly malfeasance of officer Johannes Mehserle. Whether one accepts officer Mehserle’s account that he mistakenly drew his Service Revolver rather than his Taser as intended, he was found guilty of involuntary-manslaughter; the transit operator also conceded to its financially liability.

The circumstances and documentary evidence proved considerably less convincing with regard to George Zimmerman’s actions during his encounter with teenager Trevon Martin. Nevertheless, Trevon’s death call laws that allow a person carrying a concealed weapon to effectively execute an unarmed and likely unsuspecting adversary into question. Laws that don’t compel more than a modicum of responsibility to mitigate the use of deadly force are certifiably more barbaric than enlightened.

The Facts didn’t rise to Humane Standards justifying Deadly Force

Media pundits have always expertly sliced and diced (“spin”) the facts until they comport with the passions of the moment or predilections of the season. As always, facts that fail to support specific positions, are first excoriated and then recast, or dismissed as unthinking and out of touch with authentic-reality. Media pundits demand that disagreeable facts, to include eyewitness testimony and incontrovertible forensic evidence, comport by any means necessary with their vision of authentic-reality.

We should all learn from the painful but heroic example set by Zimmerman juror B29 (the only juror of color) during deliberations, who stated, “in our hearts we felt he was guilty…but we had to grab our hearts and put it aside and look at the evidence”. We should also be concerned by the since of inerrancy we feel when tempted to disregard cogent but inconvenient facts. We should all pray for juror B29’s peace of mind.

It takes Courage to embrace Fact and Law over Intuition and Passion

Media pundits are well capable of fomenting righteous indignation, especially when calamity is borne on the wings of ethnic, gender, political, or economic grievance (e.g. Simpson, Peterson, Lewinsky, and Madoff). Media punditry is not dependent on the quality of laws on the books, nor judicial outcome, one way or the other. This is especially true where both racial animus (they’re still accosting members of our group) and indignation (they’re still refusing to exact justice on the assailants) can be brought to bear. In America, animus and indignation arising from conflicts between white people and people of color are perfect storms, summoning legacy issues and agendas on deck.

Some purported facts put forward by media pundits and repeated by many preceding the Zimmerman trial, gave rise to a hurricane of “community” inspired passion (athletes and politicians don hoodies); critical elements were contradicted by trial testimony, both for and against Zimmerman. The flash point of the charges and subsequent case: George Zimmerman was presented by national news organizations making overtly racist statements on a 911 audiotape. This very same audiotape was subsequently confirmed by Newsbusters to have been altered and first aired by NBC.

While NBC fired three people involved in altering the 911 audiotape, it apparently didn’t feel sufficient regret to acknowledge the travesty on air; a lawsuit filed against NBC has yet to be heard in court. State Attorney Prosecutors also withheld incriminating evidence (emails, text, and photos) form the Zimmerman defense team and fired their IT manager who disclosed the redaction; they subsequently faced sanctions in U.S. District Court. Contemporary media pundit culture requires everything to be red or blue, black or white, and facts to be for or against, no matter that facts by their nature are void of allegiance. No matter, the story stopped leading when it stopped bleeding.

Facts must either comport with pundit supposition or face the spin cycle