The Real Trayvon Martin Tragedy

One month following the death of Trayvon Martin, it seems less is known about what really happened. As is all too often the case in these scenarios, information surrounding the actual events that took place in Sanford, FL has been manipulated to the point where it is virtually impossible to know what the facts are. Let's take a look at who the players are in this ever-unfolding drama.

Pictured: George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin

First of all, there is George Zimmerman. This man has been vilified, and marches have been staged in protest of his actions. He has maintained his assertion that he is an innocent man, merely acting in self-defense. More on this later.

Second, there's the person who isn't around to tell his side of the story. Trayvon Martin has become a martyr in the eyes of many, but what did he die for? Pictures of a bright-eyed, innocent teen have been all over major television news networks, newspapers, and websites. T-shirts bearing his image are being sold, and his death has sparked a movement... towards what, exactly, I am not sure.

The whole story is a colossal clusterfuck. Nobody knows what really took place, and an endless stream of opportunistic politicians and would-be movement leaders are jumping on the vague narrative and twisting it to suit their agendas. Anti-gun people are loving it. Racists are loving it. Presidential candidates are loving it. There are so many people profiting from the death of this kid, it certainly seems like there are very few people who are actually occupied with, you know, seeking actual justice.

For those who may have forgotten, justice is what happens when all of the facts are researched and some type of fair and reasonable resolution happens. Reactionary cries of "racism!" or "trigger-happy cracker murders innocent black teen!" don't exactly hasten the process. The water has been muddied up, and that is exactly what is profitable. A clear-cut court case doesn't necessarily offer as many opportunities for political or social advancement as a confusing tornado of inflammatory rhetoric.

Pictured: Someone who isn't helping.

So, what really happened? This is a tough question. A better question might be: "What can we know?" 

Well, we know that a kid was killed. 

We know that he was shot to death by a man who was over ten years older and over one hundred pounds heavier than him. 

We know that a 911 dispatcher can be heard clearly saying, "We don't need you to do that," after hearing Zimmerman say that he was following Trayvon.

We know that Zimmerman said the words, "This guy looks like he is up to no good. He is on drugs or something," on the 911 call. 

We know that Rev. Jesse Jackson said that Trayvon Martin (who he referred to as a "martyr") was shot in the back of the head.

We know that the Orlando Sentinel is reporting that Trayvon Martin assaulted George Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman shot him in the chest at close range.

Given what we know, what can we infer from this information?

Well, we can state with absolute confidence that George Zimmerman is a huge idiot. We can't conclusively state that he is a racist, but we can safely say that he is a dumbass. There is a difference between being a generally stupid person (which is what it looks like Zimmerman is) and a specifically stupid person (by which I mean a racist, whose stupidity is focused on a specific belief that black kids in hoodies are universally up to no good). Maybe Zimmerman is a racist. It's hard to say. It would be great if people could zero in on dealing with what they can and do know, instead of spending so much time on speculation. The overwhelming majority of media coverage surrounding this tragic night essentially boils down to speculation, and it reveals the sad truth about this incident, or what I like to call The Real Trayvon Martin Tragedy.

The real tragedy here is the ongoing tragedy. I'm not diminishing the horrific nature of the death of Trayvon Martin, but the events following his death have been truly disgusting. Rather than steer the dialogue following the death of an unarmed teenager in a positive direction, the American media machine has been content to do what it does best: MAKE A LOT OF NOISE. It's stupid and it should be beneath us, but, tragically, it's not. Our culture eats it up. People march, with great seriousness and heavy emotion, but without any real purpose beyond jumping on the bandwagon.

Are there problems with Florida's Stand-Your-Ground law? Yeah, probably. We could be talking about it, if we weren't so busy trying to make a martyr out of a kid who was probably just a victim of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Was George Zimmerman wrong? Yeah, probably. Was he legally wrong? Maybe not. We could be having a productive dialogue about it if people would stop dismissing him as a racist before they fully research the man.

Our knee-jerk reactions to troubling issues demonstrate (repeatedly) the widespread lack of emotional maturity in American media culture. Accurate information is not as important as up-to-date information. Rational dialogue is secondary in importance to simply having SOMETHING to say.

Will there be justice for Trayvon? The way things are looking... No. There won't be justice for George Zimmerman, either. The teachable moment is fading fast, and nobody is learning anything because people aren't stopping to ask questions.

Oh, and Geraldo Rivera should be ashamed of himself.

You Can't Handle This Cartoon!

Newspapers have historically rallied against censorship in this country; it’s a shame comic strips haven’t been regarded with the same level of protection. Last week, San Diego’s Union-Tribune decided censorship by omission was the best way to handle controversial cartoons courtesy of Doonesbury. But the U-T wasn’t alone: Several newspapers across the country made a similar judgment call, choosing censorship instead of publishing the comic strip.

For those unfamiliar with the comic, Gary Trudeau has never shied away from any topic, so it should not have come as a surprise to anyone when he decided to take on the recent legislative action regarding women’s health and contraceptive issues in various parts of the United States.

The surprising thing was that many of our nation’s newspapers decided you, the reader, are incapable of making your own assessment of the content of a comic strip, so they just went ahead and removed it from the paper. For the sake of clarification, allow me to emphasize this censorious action was taken not once, but six times, and by several major newspapers.

Ah, the newspapers. Those stalwart champions of free speech and steadfast bastions of First Amendment rights didn’t think their readers could handle a cartoon.

What was so controversial about the cartoons? Personally, I think there is a difference between controversy and relevance, and Trudeau’s comics were certainly timely. People are talking about contraception. It’s (incredibly and sadly) one of the hot-button issues of the current GOP presidential nominee race. Doonesbury went after Texas’ mandatory ultrasound abortion laws last week, because it is a relevant issue. By censoring the comic strip, publishers and editors are suppressing appropriate awareness of an important issue, and they are hiding the truth from their readers. I’m not suggesting the truth will solely be found in a comic strip, but certainly the truth exists somewhere in the middle of the conversation.

When any voice is silenced, it becomes more difficult for people to find out what’s really going on. Most citizens believe news sources have an obligation to present the truth in its most unvarnished, raw and naked form. It’s up to the reader to decide what to do with the information the news source provides. As an opinion columnist, I can appreciate a newspaper’s right to promote opinions and editorials, but nothing should be omitted because of content. The comic strips were not profane or obscene, but merely addressed a topic some people may find uncomfortable.

When people in positions of power begin determining what information is allowed to flow into the collective public consciousness, red flags should be popping up all over the place. Read “1984,” people. I know for some of you it isn’t assigned reading, but read it anyway. George Orwell’s novel was meant to serve as a cautionary tale of a society in which people are mentally enslaved. It wasn’t meant to be an instruction manual to the government or press.

Even if I put aside my mentality as a journalist and student of literature and history, censorship is insulting to me as a consumer. I am smart enough to figure out what my own opinion is about a comic strip, and so are you.

The other angle on this story that must be discussed is the fact that, through censorship and an attempt to deprive readers of the comic strip, publishers drew more public attention to the issue at hand and the comic strip itself than would have been caused if they had just run Doonesbury as usual. I mean, let’s be honest, folks. Nobody reads Doonesbury. If not for the ridiculous attempted censorship of the comic, nobody would be talking about it. I actually went online to find the comics so I could see what all the fuss was about, and I’m sure other people did, too. This marks the first time in the history of the world when people specifically sought out the unrated, unfiltered, “director’s cut” edition of, wait for it, Doonesbury.

This whole issue is ridiculous. The publishers who censored the strip should feel like morons, because that’s what they are. This is what happens when a bunch of wealthy conservatives attempt to silence a guy who is satirically critiquing the legislative decisions of a bunch of other wealthy conservatives. Hopefully, the powers-that-be learned something from this experience. Kudos to all of the curious citizens who were not content with having their media censored, and found a way to view the forbidden comics.

Pictured: The comic strips the newspapers don't want you to see

Passive/Active

Kony 2012 blew the hell up yesterday. It was the top trending topic on Twitter, on the same day that the Hulk Hogan sex tape was revealed. Amazing.


The Youtube video posted by the folks over at Invisible Children has been viewed 28 million times over the last three days. The movement has certainly gained momentum, and awareness of the Ugandan civil war is at an all-time high. Or is it?


People are talking a lot about Joseph Kony. I even hear Rick Santorum named him as a potential running mate for the upcoming election! Not really. Take it easy, people. Everyone knows that Santorum's VP will be Kirk Cameron. Settle down.


Joseph Kony is bad. He kidnaps kids and makes them fight. He wants to topple the Ugandan government and establish a theocratic dictatorship based on a blend of fundamentalist Christianity and ritualistic tribal practices. He's a crazy, violent, dangerous man and yesterday everyone from George Clooney to Kim Kardashian had something to say about it. 


Diddy tweeted: "Dear Joseph Kony, I'm Gonna help Make you FAMOUS!!!! We will stop YOU #StopKONY ! All 6,OOO,OOO of my followers RT NOW!!! Pls!" 


Rihanna said: "#KONY2012 Spread the word!!! PLEASE go to Invisiblechildren.com Even if its 10 minutes… Trust me, you NEED to know about this! #1LOVE"


Now, awareness is great and stuff, but what are these celebutards and suddenly globally aware Facebook activists expecting to happen? Yeah, let's make Kony famous!!! WOOO!!! That's all fine, but... after he's famous, then what? Do they think Joseph Kony is sitting at home, watching the viral spread of his name online, saying to himself, "If that Youtube video gets liked ONE MORE TIME, I'll turn myself in to the authorities."


No, that would be stupid. He's probably thinking, "What? DIDDY doesn't think I'm cool? SHIT! The last 25 years of my life have been for NOTHING!"
I hate to break this to you, but Diddy and Rhianna do not give two shits about children in Africa. Neither do the millions of Americans who watched a Youtube video and had a sudden pang of empathy, followed by the decision to re-post or like the video, which was then followed by hours of smug, stupid, self-righteous satisfaction.
Want me to prove it? Here.

Which one is Uganda?

You have no damn clue where Uganda is. You couldn't tell me who the president of Uganda is. You have no idea who Yoweri Museveni is. You don't know anything about the Ugandan government, or how corrupt it is, or what the hell would happen if Joseph Kony was arrested. You're an idiot who responds to marketing. All of the people who got orgasmic yesterday over the Kony video are the same jackasses who got all excited about buying Toms. 

Our generation is pathetic when it comes to activism. We don't read. We don't really follow news. There are exceptions, of course. If you were one of the rare people who could actually pick out Uganda on the map, then good for you. I was able to pick out Uganda on the map, too. Like me, you're (maybe) one step less fucked up than the average idiot. We are way too quick to jump on causes without knowing what is really going on. 

My theory is that we do this as a way to make ourselves feel good, and not because we are actually concerned with changing the world in any kind of positive way. I bought a (Product) Red product one time. I felt really good about myself because I was indirectly, passively, lazily "helping" out Africa with... something. AIDS, maybe? I don't even remember. That's the whole point. I had no idea. My choice to spend an extra few dollars on a product because someone said that it was related to helping out someone far away from me was entirely motivated by narcissism and a lack of self-awareness. 

The explosion of Kony awareness over the last few days is no different, in my estimation. Everyone is saying that the guy should be arrested. Yeah, that's a good idea, but what then? Will that stop the war in Uganda? Obviously not. There's no way. How do we know that Kony's second-in-command guy, the one who would take his place if he was gone, isn't ten times worse than Kony himself? Do we know if the arrest of Joseph Kony wouldn't completely destabilize Uganda? This war has been going on for almost THIRTY YEARS. Will arresting one dude really change anything?

Let's suggest for the sake of argument that it would. Let's say that the LRA would collapse and  Uganda would be free. Incidentally, Joseph Kony hasn't been in Uganda for years, but let's pretend that we don't know that, and that the propaganda machine of Invisible Children spreads nothing but accurate, up-to-date information as they construct their narrative. They do mention that Kony isn't in Uganda in the video, very briefly, and this fact was lost in their MTV-style production (as evidenced by the fact that #Uganda was a top trending topic on twitter yesterday).

So, Kony is gone and Uganda belongs to the Ugandan government. Is that better for Uganda? Museveni has been the president of Uganda for a quarter of a century. The Ugandan parliament is notoriously corrupt. The Ugandan Army is guilty of a laundry list of human rights violations, and soldiers have been known to rape and loot with impunity. Oh, and what about the army of brainwashed child soldiers who would suddenly not have a leader? Are we expecting them to just put down their weapons and go hug all of the Americans who generously watched videos on Youtube? I may be too skeptical, but something tells me that the ARMY OF BRAINWASHED CHILD SOLDIERS may be a little confused, and would likely react to the death of their leader in an unpredictable way.

Make no mistake, the LRA is bad. There is no real way to convey just how bad they are. However, it is a horrible mistake to assume that any other political or military force in that region is any better. Also, the LRA isn't really the worst problem that Uganda is facing. Ugandan journalist Angelo Izama, describing the Invisible Children movement, said:

"To call the campaign a misrepresentation is an understatement. While it draws attention to the fact that Kony, indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court in 2005, is still on the loose, its portrayal of his alleged crimes in Northern Uganda are from a bygone era. At the height of the war between especially 1999 and 2004, large hordes of children took refuge on the streets of Gulu town to escape the horrors of abduction and brutal conscription to the ranks of the LRA. Today most of these children are semi-adults. Many are still on the streets unemployed. Gulu has the highest numbers of child prostitutes in Uganda. It also has one of the highest rates of HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis."

All of the rhetoric from Invisible Children does is to enflame Americans in passive activism. It does nothing to solve any real problems. The filmmakers are (probably) good-intentioned, but frighteningly shortsighted and ignorant. That's a best-case scenario. If I was just a little bit more cynical, I would think that they didn't really care about these kids in Uganda, and that all of this creative marketing and posturing amounts to nothing more than an expression of some kind of guilty, "White Man's Burden" mentality. Invisible Children has no clear objective beyond making a lot of noise and drawing a lot of attention... to what? Mostly, it seems like the attention (and a LOT of donation money) pretty much gets funneled back to... Invisible Children.

If you really want to get involved in helping the world, it takes more than a click of your mouse, or watching a video on Youtube. If you honestly think that making noise is the same thing as making a difference, then you need to wake up. Educate yourself, dear reader.


(If you are interested in getting involved with a charitable organization, or finding a cause worth supporting, check out http://www.hrw.org/)

An Eventful Weekend

I haven't posted in a long time, and I've got something to tell you about.

On Monday evening, at San Diego State University, I'm going to be participating in a debate with Jed (Brother Jed) Smock. For those who are not familiar with this man, he is an evangelist who travels all over the country, visiting college campuses and talking (to anyone who will listen to him) about his interpretation of the Bible. He's an interesting character, with polarizing views on several topics. Smock is known for being extremely confident in his beliefs, and he is not afraid to be extremely confrontational in delivering his views on any given topic.

It should be an exciting, thought-provoking event. It's free, and I'll post the exact location tomorrow. I hope you can make it.

In case you were curious, the topic of the debate is: "Is the God of Christianity Real?"

I'll be arguing that currently, the evidence that we have would suggest that he is not, in fact, real.

Again, I sincerely hope to see you there. For those who are reading this from locations outside of San Diego, I will be posting video of the debate shortly after it concludes.