Republicans, Please Impeach Obama

There's a contingency of Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives which seeks to impeach President Obama. I hope they succeed. Not because I am anti-Obama or sympathize with them on any conceivable level, but because such an action, if successful, would sound the death knell for the GOP.

With an embarrassingly low approval rating hovering in the mid single-digits, and with the party's overall image, brand and relevance in crisis mode, Republicans would seal their long-term obsolescence with such a self-serving, venomous partisan witch hunt while surely boosting Obama's political standing and currency (read: Bill Clinton).

Impeachment proceedings, legislated as punishment for cases involving High Crimes and Misdemeanors not as debilitating, resource-draining ideological retribution, would unequivocally prove to voters that the GOP's been hijacked by a paralyzed cabal of enraged, sore-losing malcontents whose unprecedented hostility towards the president is a brain-cell-eating disease that's rendered them rationally and intellectually impotent on the major issues confronting the nation such as the economy, employment, immigration, education and the environment.

As former Speaker Newt Gingrich can attest, Republicans would likely spend the next ten to twenty years or more (as these self-proclaimed "revolutionaries" did after Clinton's impeachment) in the political doghouse, watching enviously and regrettably as Democrats build another secular bull-run.

But fortunately for these rabid impeachment-chasers, including Sen. Tom Coburn (OK), Sen. James Inhofe (OK), Rep. Kerry Bentivolio (MI), Rep. Jason Chaffetz (UT) and Sen. Ted Cruz (TX), articles of impeachment, if drafted, would likely never make it through the House, and even if it did, would surely be killed in the Senate.

To be sure, one could argue that, given their unyielding political strategy of polarization and obstructionism, the real treasonous behavior is that which has been perpetrated daily since January 2009 by House and Senate Republicans, who at any and all cost to America, have put party before country as they seek to thwart Obama's agenda and ultimately bring down his presidency.

Boycott Shmoycott

The Republican National Committee voted last week to boycott presidential primary debates held by television networks NBC and CNN if they continue with productions of a Hillary Clinton mini-series and documentary respectively. Yes, the party that gave us what felt like 842 debates in the 2012 primaries has decided to limit its participation this time to Fox News and possibly ABC and CBS.

And why? Because the GOP angrily charges that these productions will be "puff pieces," "extended infomercials" and a "thumb on the scales" in the upcoming 2016 presidential election for which Clinton is the presumed Democratic frontrunner. "Political ads masked as unbiased entertainment," the RNC draft resolution claims.

"We're done putting up with this nonsense," said RNC Chairman Reince Priebus. "There are plenty of other outlets. We'll still reach voters, maybe more voters. But CNN and NBC anchors will just have to watch on their competitors' networks. The media overplayed their hand this time."

Seems Priebus has finally figured out that the GOP stands a better chance of winning elections if it stops its candidates from actually speaking. And considering the last crop of GOP hopefuls, keeping these boneheads out of debates and off of mainstream television screens seems to be making more sense as well.   

But the RNC's position here is puzzling and counter-intuitive. For on thing, the results of the last election demonstrate a dire need by the GOP to expand its reach among voters not contract it. Shrinking its audience to largely Fox News does little to help broaden its base. The party's message (whatever that is) must be heard by more than the rabid conservatives watching Fox if its ever to rebuild its brand and expand its tent.  

Limiting its audience punishes the lesser-known, under-financed candidates who need as much free air-time as possible. What the party would be left with is a select group of elitists who have the visibility, name-recognition and wealth to fuel their own campaigns outside of the debate arena. 

The GOP, ironically, also runs the risk of having its debates themselves viewed as infomercials. Imagine a Republican debate, on Fox, and moderated by the likes of Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh (as the party wants). Who but the red-meat-gorging Foxies would want to watch that softball-filled farce?

Most perplexing is that Priebus is crying foul without even knowing the ultimate content of these productions; programs, mind you, which Clinton herself has said she prefers not be aired. Apparently she doesn't think hours of rehashed Bill/Monica, Hillary/Obama campaign drama (including charges of racist comments by her and Bill), Benghazi and more would amount to a free "infomercial" for her campaign. And she's right. It's reasonable to expect that both productions could dredge up enough semi-dormant Clinton controversy to negatively impact her. So for the RNC to go absolutely RepubliBonkers over programming which it knows little about seems monumentally ill-advised.   

Lastly, the RNC's actions really aren't much of a surprise. For years now, Republicans have attempted to subvert America's democratic election process in any way they can....limiting the public's access to candidates and disenfranchising voters. This strategy runs so counter to what previous elections have taught them. It's become truly fascinating to watch the GOP implode despite all it knows it needs to do to turn around its disastrous fate. Republicans simply can't help themselves.

In the end, Priebus' lame-stream media paranoia serves no purpose other than to fire up an already blazing base. It's an embarrassing waste of time and energy which will yield nothing. If NBC and CNN ultimately sponsor debates and extend invitations to the Republican candidates, you can be sure these media-hungry carnival barkers will take their desired place at the podium.

John McCain is a Liberal?

I was at the gym early this morning and overheard a small group of men and women talking politics in between sets.

"A Hillary/Palin match-up...now that's what I want to see!," one woman excitedly declared, although I got the sense she was simply teasing the others.

"Yeah, she's the real deal," echoed a beefy man in his 50's, clearly quite serious.

Then I heard something that stopped me mid-chin-up.

"I was gonna vote for McCain last time, mainly because of Palin, but changed my mind because he's a liberal," a 40-something guy said.

"Really?," asked the woman. "McCain's a liberal?" Incredulous, I muttered the same question to myself.

"Yup, calls himself a Republican, but he's nothing but a liberal," he said with utter disdain.

And that, my friends, is why the Republican Party as we know it is dead. When its constituents start referring to Sen. John McCain as a liberal you know the GOP bus has officially careened off the cliff.

Let's just visit McCain's record for a second, because perspective and context here is critical. He's a fiscal and military hawk. He voted for the Iraq war, pushed for the surge, and currently seems to want to invade every rogue country in the world. He supports lower taxes for individuals and corporations. He's pro-gun, anti-Obamacare, against gay marriage, is anti-choice and against public funding of abortion-related programs. He's even fairly vague on the subject of immigration. While he supports a two-step process of beefed up border security and overall reforms, it's hard to tell where he truly stands on the actual fate of the nation's 13-million undocumented citizens. And let's not forget he's the Dr. Frankenstein to Sarah Palin's, well, Frankenstein.

Welcome to 2013 Republican politics, where Tea Party crazies rule the day and former conservative icons like Ronald Regan, Bob Dole and Jack Kemp couldn't get themselves elected if they offered to pay for votes. We now live in an age of rabid extremism; a political climate that allows for hard-core, longstanding conservatives like former Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar to be tossed from office for not being conservative enough...and for hard-core conservatives like McCain to be labeled liberal. The GOP's no longer a political party. It's now a cabal led by the likes of Palin, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and other conservakooks.

Compromise has become a filthy, dirty, stinkin' word. Republicans who attempt to meet Democrats halfway, even a quarter way, are attacked for being caving sellouts of "real" conservative values. Gone is the first rule of negotiating: no one can get everything they want, all the time.

Yes, welcome to modern day Republicanism. A perfect storm of Tea Party furor, ignorance and intolerance. Where candidates can surely get themselves elected on ideological absolutism, rabble-rousing rhetoric and fire and brimstone...but fail to get anything accomplished legislatively because it takes compromise to pass bills in Washington.

To be sure, sanity has left the building. Monomania has taken over. What the party stands for today is a far cry from the days of Reagan, Kemp, Dole, Alan Simpson and other ardent right-wingers who somehow managed to do their jobs and pass bi-partisan legislation. It's no longer the party of small government and low taxes. To be a Republican today, or more so a successful Republican, you have to preach to the lowest common denominator. You must be anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-poor, anti-minority, anti-women, anti-gun-control, anti-environment, anti-education, anti-science and anti-empathy...while, ironically and hypocritically, preaching the gospel of the good Lord.

With 'young turks' like Cruz, Rubio and Paul leading the GOP charge it all but ensures the party's further and deeper slide into irrelevance and ultimate oblivion.  

Maureen Dowd is Wrong About Reince Being Right

In her New York Times op-ed Wednesday columnist Maureen Dowd writes "Reince Priebus says a lot of goofy things, but the chairman of the Republican National Committee has a point." She's referring to Priebus's latest diatribe in which he's accused NBC and CNN of being in the tank for Hillary Clinton, providing her with "puff pieces" and "extended commercials" through their planned mini-series and documentary respectively.

"Hillary tries awkwardly to airbrush her history, but everybody can use some professional help," Dowd continues. "By the time Hollywood is finished, Hillary could be fighting critics with the sexy charm and kickboxing skills of Catwoman."

So Priebus has his panties in a snit because he thinks, as Dowd suggests, that in these productions Clinton will come off looking like a super-human political goddess. But there are those who will argue that the former First Lady, U.S. Senator, Secretary of State and likely 2016 presidential candidate has as much, and maybe more, to lose by the films as she does to gain.

Let's remember one thing: while Hillary is wildly popular with the Democratic base, she's a veritable lightening rod with everyone else. She narrowly won the popular vote against Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic primaries with 48%, and many of the 47% who voted for him can't stand her. Her approval rating has dropped 12% since last year (she's taken hits with men, independents and Republicans) and polls show that she's virtually even in head-to-head match-ups against each of the likely Republican candidates. She's certainly no shoe-in. 

Consider the controversies and scandals Hillary's been a part of, either directly or through her husband and former president Bill Clinton. There's TravelGate, Whitewater and the mystery shrouding White House staffer Vince Foster's death; the infamous "stand by your man" comments during the Monica Lewinsky affair; what some called racially insensitive comments by Bill and Hillary during the '08 campaign; and the Benghazi debacle. None of these moments from Hillary's past would benefit her to be showcased on television, and I suspect she's as pissed off about NBC and CNN's planned programming as Priebus.

While Dowd cites the television movie "Game Change" and how Julianne Moore's Emmy-winning performance cemented Sarah Palin's reputation as a bona fide dumbbell, the bigger point, and contradiction, is that Moore's radiant beauty did little to transform Palin's ignorance into "sexy charm." The movie only held a mirror up to the Wasilla Wonder and she did all the rest.

As for Priebus, he should stop whining like a 12-year-old about what the so-called liberal media does or doesn't do for Hillary Clinton. Let him call Rupert Murdoch and ask Fox Television to make all the movies they want about the Republican candidates. The trouble is, Murdoch's a fantastic businessman. He's not going to invest in films no one will want to see about people no one cares about.

WeinerGate 2.0: The Misadventures of Carlos Danger

He arrogantly used the pseudonym Carlos Danger as he trolled the Internet looking for high-risk, no-actual-sex sexual encounters with college-age women. With a few bold keystrokes and even bolder penis pics, he engaged in uber-graphic erotic chatter that would make a porn star blush. Of course, we're talking about New York City mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner, whose 2011 sexting scandal cost him his Congressional seat, a whole heap of voter respect, and nearly his marriage to Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

In the wake of that scandal he offered a half-hearted, calculating, politically-expedient mea culpa which included the warning that more instances of his online hijinks were likely to surface in the future. What no one expected is that he was referring to the sexting and shlong-selfies he'd continue to send out in the year after his resignation from Congress and after the birth of his son.

Earlier this week a new revelation surfaced that "Carlos" continued lying to voters, his wife and the media by sending out additional sexts and weiner-shots to at least one other young woman for over a year, and as late as last Summer. This time his partner-in-crime was a 22-year-old Indiana woman named Sydney Leathers. Weiner and Leathers. You can't make this stuff up.

In an effort at damage control, and with his saint-like wife by his side, Weiner spoke to reporters Tuesday in a hastily scheduled press conference, complete with all the usual insincerity and duplicity we've come to expect from him, to reaffirm his candidacy, the strength of his marriage, the support from Huma, and that he's a changed man.

"It's in our rear view mirror," Weiner said of his scandalous behavior. But I suspect that this latest episode in WeinerGate is likely to derail his once-promising campaign. Judging from recent polls, which had Weiner comfortably ahead of former front-runner and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, voters seemed inclined to forgive his past indiscretions.

For a bright guy Weiner can't seem to stop making some mind-numbingly dumb decisions. He could've been one of those lucky bastards who, despite a humiliating fall from grace, was afforded a second chance. And he blew it. He misused and abused the public's trust and it's not likely he'll get a third chance. His lack of judgement and utter recklessness makes him unfit for office. There's a morality and integrity deficiency, and voters, especially the old Jewish and Italian kind who comprise a huge part of his Queens and Brooklyn base, can be unforgiving once they've crossed an important threshold. If Mr. Danger can't control the overpowering and dangerous impulses that he's clearly afflicted with then he can't be trusted to run New York City and exercise the kind of judgement and discipline that that monumentally important job requires. As crazy as this sounds, Weiner's actually making Eliot Spitzer seem like a pretty stand-up guy. And that's no easy feat.
 
To be sure, Weiner's candidacy is dead. It's just a short matter of time before he accepts his fate and pulls out (pun intended). The scandal is now dominating his media airtime and voter facetime, and it's become impossible for him to discuss the issues facing New York. Don't be surprised if he doesn't last the weekend...

Wasn't Obama's Racism Speech One of Those "Conversations" Republicans Keep Saying We Need to Have?

Republicans are always pushing for national "conversations" about tough subjects like gun control and racism. And with good reason: it's a successful bait-and-switch strategy to keep them from ever having to actually do anything about these hot-button issues.

"What we need is an adult conversation," these empathy-bankrupt conservatives say when a violent monster shoots up a school, or when an over-zealous neighborhood-watch vigilante profiles, stalks and kills a black teenager. "Time for an honest discussion," they suggest with feigned sincerity when outrage and a demand for action comes from the left.

Yes, conservatives just love having conversations, except when it's with a black president talking openly and honestly about the kind of persistent racism in America that results in an unarmed black kid being shot dead by an armed white adult. Then they're not so keen on discussion.

Republicans have expressed anger and disbelief at President Obama over his remarks last Friday during an impromptu White House address on racism and the Trayvon Martin case. Obama spoke passionately about his personal experiences with racial profiling and discrimination in an effort to humanize the struggles black males face in everyday life.

The president's address clearly touched a raw nerve in conservatives, who ratcheted up their toxic rhetoric. Since Friday these rabid right-wingers have accused him of favoring blacks; ignoring black-on-black crime; race-baiting; and threatening the rights of gun owners.

"It is not surprising that the president uses it seems every opportunity he can to try to go after our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms," said Texas Senator Ted Cruz. "I think it is unfortunate that this president and this administration has a consistent disregard for the Bill of Rights." 

"President Obama is now our race-baiter in Chief," Fox News contributor Todd Starnes wrote on Facebook. "His remarks today on the Trayvon Martin tragedy are beyond reprehensible."

"Unfortunately, President Obama is a fraud as a uniter," said former Cincinnati mayor and former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, who is black. "He has been an inconsequential leader of the United -- underscore United States of America."

Fox's Sean Hannity used Obama's own words to wage a reprehensible attack against him, while essentially blaming Martin for his own death because of drug use:

"Now the president's saying Trayvon could've been me 35 years ago," Hannity said on his radio show. "This is a particularly helpful comment. Is that the president admitting that I guess because what, he was part of the Choom Gang and he smoked pot and he did a little blow -- I'm not sure how to interpret because we know that Trayvon had been smoking pot that night."

One conservative commentator on MSNBC's Hardball Friday night outrageously declared that Obama "is not a 'black' president." Well, he actually is, whether or not she or any other in-denial bigot wants to accept it.

Yes, white America, we have a black man in the White House. And he's the President of the United States, not the butler. So when an unarmed black teenager gets blasted in the heart at point-blank range by the deadly bullet of an armed white man's pistol under the most questionable and controversial of circumstances, and the killer is subsequently acquitted, this black president is going to speak out about it. But why is his commentary evidence, as Republicans claim, that "he's not the president of 'all' people?"

Just what do Obama's critics want? Is he supposed to pretend not to be black in order to appease white racists? Is he expected to be "presidential" and speak out when there's a hurricane, a plane crash, a school massacre or a movie-theater shooting, but avoid discussing anything impacting black people? Does discussing issues relating to blacks inherently make him biased or a race-baiter? What exactly does it mean when people demand that he be "the president for 'all' people?" Do blacks not count as people? Are they not a constituency? Is he precluded from being their advocate too because he's black?

Even more infuriating is when these racists who attack Obama claim that they have a more acute understanding of the injustices blacks experience in America and, worse, that blacks' perceptions about race and racism are overstated and outdated. To be sure, only a racist would deny that racism exists.

And look what happens when a black president attempts to have an "adult conversation" about race and racism. Look how quickly those on the right no longer want to talk. Theirs is the party that neither wants to legislate or communicate.

As an aside, when Obama's said "Trayvon could've been me 35 years ago," I wish he'd added the following sentence:"...and how many white Americans see a black boy and their first thought is, 'there goes a future president.'" That would've been a fitting punctuation on the Trayvon tragedy, and the realities that teens like him will continue to face until these empty "conversations" turn into action. 

What Zimmerman's Weight Gain Might Be Telling Us

The murder trial of George Zimmerman in the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin has occupied the public's consciousness and airwaves since the shooting occurred February 26, 2012. But little attention has been focused on the amount of weight Zimmerman has gained since that night. And I believe this conspicuous physiological change demonstrates his guilt.

Zimmerman appears to have added roughly 100 pounds or more, which seems an atypical feat for an allegedly innocent man facing a potential life sentence for killing a kid. The more likely change would've been a significant loss of weigh from having no appetite as he anxiously and fearfully awaited his fate. But to gain that amount of weight Zimmerman's appetite had to have been gargantuan this past year, suggesting that it is a radical manifestation of the guilt and shame that's consumed him since he killed Martin.

Yes, George Zimmerman feels like shit. He killed a kid. A teenager who he knows was innocent. He's not a sociopath. A sociopath feels no guilt. No shame. No remorse. I don't think Zimmerman left his home that night wanting to or thinking he was going to kill someone, especially a child. I genuinely believe he's been tortured by the horrible course of events that turned his Dirty Harry-wannabe act into the tragic, shocking gun-death of a kid holding nothing but a bag of Skittles and an iced-tea. Everything he believes he stood for has been turned on its head. His life is out of control. All because a bullet from that loaded pistol, for which he had an insatiable desire and need to carry, tore through the heart of Trayvon Martin. And so he eats. He eats to dull the insurmountable pain...and the guilt...and the shame. His eating is a product of self-loathing.

Psychologists and those who've personally experienced eating disorders say that people often overeat in an attempt to repress such feelings of guilt and shame...of self-hatred. That extreme weight gain over such a short period of time, as in Zimmerman's case, is a manifestation of these feelings. Has he eaten massive amounts because he hasn't told the truth and is literally burying his lies with food? Like his innate desire to protect his neighborhood--which ended with disastrous results--his overeating is the most basic form of self-care gone horribly wrong. And it's not what one would expect from an allegedly innocent man who truly believes he was justified in the eyes of the law and his God.

Many psychologists also view eating as a sensual act. So it's a little bizarre that someone who's professing innocence, and believes he's being stripped of his basic freedoms, would eat so excessively. There's a reason prisoners go on hunger-strikes. They're denying themselves food as a symbolic act in protest of the injustices cast upon them. The food-as-sensual-reward theory is probably why we don't see any binge-eating strikes.

But in fairness, to give another perspective of Zimmerman's weight gain, psychologists might argue that some people eat simply because they're experiencing high degrees of stress. But they generally attribute that stress to the kind of routine daily pressures and anxieties of work and family--not from killing someone--and from which food is used to self-soothe.

To be sure, the cause of Zimmerman's massive weight gain is speculative at best, as is the belief by many that his reaction to hearing the verdict further suggests his guilt. Wouldn't a truly innocent man have shown some sort of emotional release...a look of relief, a gasp, a sigh, tears or all of the above? Instead, Zimmerman stared straight ahead, motionless and emotionless... without changing his facial expression even one single tick. You could almost hear him thinking to himself..."Holy shit, I got away with it..."

Is There Any Hope For Egypt?

A little over a week ago Egypt's Army generals, claiming to be executing the will of the people, staged a military coup to overthrow Mohamed Morsi, the country's first Democratically-elected president. Since then, the country has spiraled downward into religious persecution and violence, tearing its fabric into two major factions--the Muslim Brotherhood, many of whose top Islamic leaders have been arrested and jailed, including Morsi, and the secular generals-- which seem headed for a full-scale civil war.

As a result, Egypt's nascent, fragile Democracy is in danger of disappearing and never returning. But what's most troubling is to see the level of support for the military, and the unbridled enthusiasm for its brutal actions this week and last, by tens of millions of Egypt's civilians...most of whom viewed the army as the enemy just one year ago prior to the revolution which ushered in the so-called "Arab Spring." Now they're jubilantly hopping in bed with these bombastic, disingenuous, power-hungry generals in such a naive and misguided manner. Troubling as well is the claim that last week's overthrow was not a military coup.
 
Let's be clear: the generals' decision to send tanks rolling through the streets as they deposed and arrested Morsi and his his top Muslim Brotherhood government leaders is, by definition and by all logic and reason, a military coup. Islamist media outlets have been shut down, the Constitution suspended, and Parliament dissolved.

Egyptians can call it whatever they like to fit their "Revolution 2.0" narrative, but right now Egypt's "Democracy" and "free elections" exist only until the military decides to change that. It's surprising--shocking actually--that many Egyptians are celebrating this coup rather than condemning it while fighting for Morsi's ouster through electoral means. A process where everyone gets to vote on the outcome, not just the dissenters.

Egyptians will have to decide whether they want to live in a true Democracy or amid military rule. Can't have both. This notion of "let's have free elections ...until we don't like the other side that won and then we'll stage a military coup and depose them and arrest all of their top leaders, shut their tv stations, shut Parliament and suspend the Constitution"is disingenuous, dangerous and certainly not in Egypt's best interest long-term. The country is going to be torn apart over this coup, and undoing everything Egyptians fought so hard for in the revolution of 2012. This is exactly the sort of oppressive autocratic rule the people rallied against. And now Egyptians are posing for photos with soldiers? The same military which has choked the country for sixty years? The military is not with the people. It is using the people. It cares only about holding onto its power.

Egypt must strive for a true Democracy, under the rule of law, where its citizens are truly free. A political system where leaders are elected and voted out when the people want change. Where votes, not intimidation, coercion and violence, are the agents of that change. Right now, as perplexing as it is, Egyptians have willingly turned their country back over to the near-fascist rule of brutal military generals who've turned Democracy and progress on its head and rolled the clock back to the Nassar days...

Picking Apart Zimmerman's Hannity Interview

I listened again this past weekend to the full interview accused murderer George Zimmerman gave last July to Fox's Sean Hannity. As I outlined last week in "Critical Points About the Trayvon Martin Case,", there are many reasons to doubt Zimmerman's innocence. The interview with Hannity only reinforces my belief in his obvious guilt.

A snapshot of the various inconsistencies, contradictions, misrepresentations and lies from the interview:

1. Zimmerman claims he was not following Trayvon Martin, the 17-year-old black youth he shot and killed after being allegedly attacked by him. Yet he tells Hannity "I meant that I was going in the same direction as him, to keep an eye on him so that I could tell the police where he was going. I didn't mean that I was actually pursuing him." Call me crazy, but isn't that the definition of "following?"

2. He claims he left his car behind and continued walking (while "not following" Trayvon) because he was unsure of where he was:  "Where I parked my car was the back of townhouses. There was no way to know what the street number was." A neighborhood watch guy in a small development has no idea where he is? Not plausible.

3. He claims Trayvon looked like he was up to no good. Like he was on drugs. "I felt he was suspicious because it was raining. He was in-between houses, cutting in-between houses, and he was walking very leisurely for the weather. I -- it didn't look like he was a resident that went to check their mail and got caught in the rain and was hurrying back home. He didn't look like a fitness fanatic that would train in the rain." What kind of convoluted nonsense is this? Furthermore, it was night time, he saw Martin from a distance, and it was raining. Just exactly why did he appear suspicious, other than simply being a black kid in a hoodie hanging around his dad's apartment. Would he have looked "suspicious" had he been a white kid?

4. At first Zimmerman had said Trayvon was "running" but then changed his story: "Maybe I said running, but he was more...like skipping, going away quickly. But he wasn't running out of fear." Really? Maybe he was running because a strange adult male with a gun was stalking him in a menacing way?

5. He claims he shot Trayvon while he was being beaten and was screaming for his life. But after he shot him he claims he did not know Trayvon was dead until an hour later at the police station. How is it possible that Zimmerman, with Trayvon lying on the ground bleeding from a gunshot wound to the heart, didn't at least do the humane thing and check to see the kid's condition...if he was dead, or in fact still alive and needing help? He just shoots Martin and walks away?

6. After he fired his gun, he claims Trayvon "sat up and he said something to the effect of "you got it" or "you got me". I assumed he meant, OK, you got the gun, I didn't get it. I'm not going to fight anymore. At which point I got out from under him." This is utterly preposterous. Is that really what he believes Trayvon was thinking? Zimmerman said he had "discharged my firearm," so obviously he knew he shot Trayvon. We're supposed to believe this incredibly implausible scenario? 

7. He talks about using words like "punk" to describe Trayvon and recants what he previously told cops and the 911 dispatcher that 'the bad guys always get away.' This suggests anger and a predispostion. The actions of a Dirty Harry wannabe. It suggests that it was he, not Trayvon, who was looking for a confrontation that night.

8. He claims Trayvon repeatedly "slammed" his head into the sidewalk. That he was also punched in the head a dozen times or so. But expert medical testimony showed only "insignificant" injuries. The physiological evidence simply doesn't support this claim.

9. Zimmerman claims he knows when Trayvon first saw his gun: "After we were on the ground, I shimmied with him on top of me, and it made my jacket rise up. He, being on top of me, saw it on my right side." How does he know this? Did Trayvon say something about seeing the gun? A black gun, in a black holster, stuck behind Zimmerman in his back, on a dark rainy night, during a scuffle? And to the claim that there was a struggle for the gun, how come there were no traces of Trayvon's DNA on the gun? To that end, nor was there any Zimmerman DNA under Trayvon's fingernails...casting further doubt on the claims of him receiving such a savage, continued beating and attempts at suffocation. Martin had just a couple of minor scrapes on two of his fingers. Wouldn't he have had more bruising and cuts/abrasions, as well as DNA traces, if he delivered such a beating? 

10. He told Hannity that prior to the shooting he never heard of Florida's controversial Stand Your Ground law. But that's an outright lie. An instructor who taught a class Zimmerman attended in 2010 testified last week that the law had been discussed in detail in his class.

11. He bizarrely points to a moment while in jail when he was supported by other convicts: "There was one instance when I was in the rec yard by myself and in the window a few inmates got together and just made a sign of strength to me." Are we to be impressed and/or moved by this alleged demonstration of solidarity from a a bunch of incarcerated law-breaking cretins, most likely white supremacists? That Zimmerman would even make this comment is especially insensitive and creepy. 

It's hard to walk away from that Hannity interview thinking anything but that Zimmerman is a cold, callous, highly calculating murderer who claims the entire tragedy was "God's plan;"who doesn't regret carrying a weapon or pursuing Trayvon; and who believes he will be acquitted.  He's a tone-deaf liar who claims that when Hannity first asked him if he would've done anything differently that fateful night he actually said: "When you asked that I thought you were referring to if I would not have talked to the police, if I would have maybe have gotten an attorney, if I wouldn't have taken the CVSA (computer voice stress analysis) and that I stand by, I would not have done anything differently." That's what his initial thoughts were about "doing something differently?" Not that he wouldn't have killed this kid?

A final thought: if Zimmerman is truly innocent, why did he give the interview to the conservative, pro-gun, softball-tossing, white-audienced Hannity and Fox? Why not Brian Williams, or Matt Lauer, or someone objective and qualified to discredit his ridiculous assertions? Or better yet, why do such damage control at all? Wouldn't he have appeared more credible if he'd issued a simple statement such as: "I am innocent of these charges and will not try this case in the court of public opinion but rather in a court of law...where I am confident justice will be served." Getting in bed with Hannity--just as Sarah Palin and other embattled conservatives have done--only serves to demonstrate a probability of guilt and a desire to control the narrative and spin a defense in a warm, friendly setting.

Critical Points in the Trayvon Martin Case

As Yogi Berra once famously said, "It's deja vu all over again." That's precisely the feeling I get about the trial of George Zimmerman, who prosecutors have charged with second-degree murder in the February 26, 2012 death of 17-year-old black youth Trayvon Martin. It's the Johnny Cochran Magic Glove Circus Part 2 and, I fear, with the same ultimate outcome.

There's a few key points that need stressing, as I believe they speak to the heart of this case and why it's painfully clear to anyone with half a brain in their heads that Zimmerman, like O.J. Simpson, appears to be a ruthless, unrepentant killer.

Critical fact #1: Zimmerman was an armed adult, in a car, who was instructed by a 911 dispatcher to stay put and not pursue Martin, an unarmed kid. In his own statement to police the night of the shooting Zimmerman wrote, “The dispatcher told me not to follow the suspect and that an officer was in route.” His attorneys can muddy the waters with all their 'if it don't fit you must acquit'-like bullshit, but this fact renders the claim of self-defense absurd.     

Critical fact #2: The defense can have witness after witness testify that Zimmerman was on his back while a straddling Martin pummeled him. So what? Is that not a likely scenario for a kid who believes its his life that's in danger? That he has reason to believe he's going to die at the hands of a hot-headed Lone Ranger wannabe with a fucking gun? What difference does it make if Martin had him on the ground and was punching him? It's irrelevant unless you believe an armed Zimmerman had the unequivocal right to stalk an unarmed kid and then claim self-defense when the fearful kid defended himself against this nutbag with a gun. If so, then you believe Zimmerman gets to call all the shots: the pursuit, the confrontation, the shooting, the self-defense angle....while Martin gets to call nothing. That he's just a featured extra in Zimmerman's "Dirty Harry" movie.   

Critical fact #3: Just because someone gets into a fight, is losing that fight, and even losing big, doesn't give him the legal justification to use deadly force to protect himself. Imagine a society where every fistfight ended in death just because one of the combatants had a gun and didn't like getting his ass whipped. Even if what his lawyers claim was true--that he was receiving a vicious beating from Martin--Zimmerman, the armed 29-year-old, didn't have the right to kill this unarmed teenager unless he had a reasonable fear that his own life was in danger.

And to that point, one key witness this week, Medical Examiner Valerie Rao, said she reviewed Zimmerman's medical records and photos taken of his injuries at the police station after the fight. "They were not life-threatening. They were very insignificant."  

Which is why it's quite convenient that Zimmerman, whose defense team needs to demonstrate that he had a reasonable fear that he was going to die in order to justify deadly force, claims that Martin told him “You gonna die tonight mother fucker.” I guess the defense team's strategy is to exploit hearsay and scripted dialogue in order to demonstrate what the physical evidence cannot.

Chris Christie to NJ Taxpayers: Screw You!

Gov. Chris Christie on Tuesday proved his detractors right: that his personal political ambitions trump the needs of New Jersey's citizens.

Following the death Monday of his state's U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg, Christie caused ire on both sides of the aisle with his decision to call a special election for October 16--just three weeks before the regular November election--at an estimated cost of $24-million to taxpayers.  A primary will be held August 13.

Christie's hypocrisy is astounding. Less than a month ago he vetoed an early-voting bill saying its $23-million price-tag was too costly. But now he's justifying spending a million more to hold an unnecessary special election. And with good reason. Newark's Democratic Mayor Cory Booker, who's seeking Lautenberg's seat, is extremely popular with blacks and young people, neither of whom tend to appreciably vote in midterm elections. Considering that New Jersey is a solid blue state with 700,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans, Christie's fear is that a November Senate election would energize these groups and alter his plan to win re-election by a huge margin, a result which would materially boost his 2016 presidential cache. To the contrary, a narrow victory would demonstrate vulnerability against Democrats.

Additionally, in December 2009, in response to the question of how he'd replace a United States Senator, NJ's Hypocrite-in-Chief replied "I don't think any responsible governor at this point would call for a special election that would cost $10 million." So by his own words, Christie is now acting irresponsibly. Or even worse, since he's just blown $24-million.

Republicans had wanted Christie to appoint an interim Senator for the remainder of Lautenberg's term--until the November 2014 election--which would've given the placeholder and the GOP almost a year and half as incumbents to raise cash and mount a successful campaign for the regular six-year term. With the U.S. Senate in an unprecedented state of polarization and gridlock, where the Democratic majority has had to count on every single vote (including twice summoning the ailing 89-year-old Lautenberg to Washington) in order to get any measure past Republican opposition, a bankable 18-month red vote would've been invaluable ammunition for conservatives. And given that it's been forty years since the state has elected a Republican Senator, it's easy to understand the GOP leadership's anger and frustration yet again at Christie...who certainly didn't win any points after what they viewed as his bombastic post-Sandy suck-up of President Obama.

When asked by reporters about the cost of the special election, Christie, in typical contentious fashion, barked "I don't know what the cost is and I quite frankly don't care."  This comes from the self-proclaimed budget-busting fiscal hawk who's cut $12-million in hospital charity care; $10-million from urban after-school programs; and almost $9-million in college tuition assistance programs. That's $31-million cut from the poor, middle-class and minorities. Democrats, are you listening? If you're smart you'll cram that nifty little "I don't know/I don't care" soundbite into every '16 campaign ad imaginable. The most-effective way to sink a candidate is with his own words.

Feeling the heat, Christie disingenuously explained his decision:

"The issues facing the United States Senate are too critically important and the decisions that need to be dealt with too vital not too have an elected representative making those decisions who was voted on and decided on by the people of this state. These decisions should be made by an elected official who represents the will of voters of New Jersey."

In a much-anticipated announcement Thursday, Christie named Republican state Attorney General Jeff Chiesa to serve as interim Senator. If he was truly so concerned with "the will of voters" he could've appointed another Democrat. So much for the will of the people...

Is the Scandal-Obsessed Republican Party Sounding It's Death Knell?

Imagine a Washington, D.C. where Republicans came to work each day fired up with renewed passion and zeal. A Congress where energized Republicans legislated in bi-partisan fashion on behalf of the American people. Imagine them joining with Democrats to enact meaningful health care, immigration, gun safety, education, environmental and economic measures. In short, imagine them actually doing the job voters sent them to do.

Instead, as it rabidly swirls in an intoxicating vortex of Obama administration scandals, the reinvigorated GOP's using all it's fervency and resources on a desperate effort to fully obstruct government, undermine President Obama and perhaps, in its fanatical extreme, impeach him as well. We have not seen the Republican Party this frothy and excited since Barney Frank retired.

The administration's been fighting accusations of government incompetence, overreach and even corruption as the president defends himself from myriad controversies that have unprecedentedly surfaced simultaneously in a perfect shitstorm. They include the Benghazi terror attack of September 11, 2012; the IRS's targeting of the Tea Party and other conservative tax-exempt organizations; and the seizure by the Justice Department of phone logs of Associated Press reporters. Throw in military sexual abuse cases; GOP filibustering of Obama cabinet appointees; and a pitch for cash to private insurers by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to promote ObamaCare...and the Oval Office has more so than ever become a terribly vexing place for the president.         

To be sure, Republicans resemble greedy, spoiled-rotten kids in a candy store as they attempt to bring down Obama which, as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell boasted three years ago, has been their number-one priority since '08...sparing no amount of time, expense or political cost to the country. There are more Congressional inquiries and investigations than at any time in recent history. There is zero focus on the business of governing, and 100% commitment to doing through partisan witch-hunting what these frustrated, angry losers couldn't do through elections: defeat Obama and Democrats.

It's a very calculated risk the party leadership is taking now, and one which could result in greater obsolescence and irrelevance if it backfires, which it likely will. Which is why House Speaker John Boehner and other key Republicans are reportedly cautioning the party's venomous members against overreaching in its self-serving probes. I suspect Boehner, who already has his eye on the humiliating 9% Republican Congressional approval rating, does not want his legacy to mirror that of late 90's Speaker Newt Gingrich, who was dealt a crushing political blow following the exhaustive, polarizing investigations and impeachment of Bill Clinton.

The GOP's Benghazi Witch Hunt: A Solution in Search of a Problem

The Republican feeding frenzy masquerading as an investigation into the Benghazi, Libya terror attack is nothing more than a shameless witch hunt manufactured to derail Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. Prominent right-wingers are rapaciously devouring this alleged scandal in the hope that it not only tarnishes President Obama's counter-terrorism record but keeps his former Secretary of State out of the Oval Office in four years. The cries of "cover-up" is partisan politics at its worst.

"I think this is, Sean, one of the worst cover-ups, probably in the history of the republic," said Liz Cheney to Fox's Sean Hannity. Let's not ignore the irony in that it is Cheney's father, former vice president Dick Cheney, who prosecuted one of the most ill-conceived, ill-advised, unjust wars in American history. "We are not talking about a policy that went awry here, we are talking about an ambassador and three other Americans who were killed. We are talking about a nation under attack."   

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) wrote an op-ed in The Washington Times last Friday that said Clinton should “never hold high office again.”

 
Karl Rove's American Crossroads has an incendiary television spot charging that the attack occurred "on Hillary Clinton's Watch." 

The over-the-top rhetoric is targeted to Obama as well, with Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) suggesting that the president could be impeached over what he alleged was the “greatest cover-up in American history. People may be starting to use the I-word before too long. Of all the great cover-ups in history — the Pentagon papers, Iran-Contra, Watergate, all the rest of them — this ... is going to go down as most egregious cover-up in American history.” 

And former GOP presidential candidate and talk-show host Mike Huckabee said last week that Obama "will not fill out his full term."

The truth is, the average American likely knows more about Ben Affleck than it does Benghazi. And three years is an awful lot of time in politics. House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), who's heading the probe into the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Embassy, is delusional if he thinks voters will ultimately hold Clinton personally liable for the death of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. For this narrative to play out, and given the tightness of recent elections, it would require a critical amount of Democrats, not just Fox-friendly conservatives, to move the needle from her. Not very likely.   

Leading the charge with Issa is Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz, who's accused Clinton of putting politics before the nation's security needs...saying the country was "misled at every step." Putting politics before security is something Chaffetz knows a lot about. If he really wants to talk about what is misleading, he can start with the fact that it was he and his fellow House Republicans who've critically cut funding for U.S. embassy security since 2010.

 
As the Washington Post's Dana Milbank wrote last fall: "For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department's Worldwide Security Protection program -- well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. ...Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans' proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" -- a charge Republicans rejected."

When pressed by former CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien about whether he pushed for these cuts Chaffetz replied: "Absolutely. Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have…15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”

Which makes Chaffetz's role in the current "investigation" mind-numbingly hypocritical and contemptible. It's an insult to the intelligence of every American and an unconscionable abuse of the political process. 

Not political theater you say? From 2002-2008, when George W. Bush occupied the White House, there were at least ten other terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies, consulates and compounds abroad in which sixty Americans were killed. I don't recall the righteous indignation and outrage from Republicans then.

Most reprehensible is how conservatives since last September have relentlessly attacked Obama during this time of national crisis. This runs counter to how the entire nation, including Democrats, rallied around Bush after the 9-11 attacks. Republicans used Benghazi before the last election for political purposes and are now setting the stage for the next one.

If only the GOP would've conducted such an aggressive investigation into the Bush administration's manufacturing of WMD evidence to justify its craven rush to war in Iraq. If they had, perhaps Bush, Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the war's chief architects, would be in jail. Some perspective is important here: a terrible tragedy, for sure, but four people died in Benghazi. In the Iraq war 4500 American soldiers died, not to mention the tens of thousands of others, including Iraqis, killed or maimed. Yet Washington never witnessed such outrage and a quest for the truth from Republicans, whose disingenuous motives on Benghazi are now utterly transparent.

There's no question that Obama believed the Benghazi attack was the work of terrorists. In a Rose Garden speech the day after the violence, alongside Clinton, he very pointedly referred to it as "an act of terror."  (For the record, during a visit to Washington Hospital Center on September 13, 2001, just two days after the World Trade Center attacks, Bush described the incident as an "unbelievable act of terror."). 

And in her now infamous, State Department career-ending interview on Meet the Press September 16, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice stated it was the administration's early belief that the Benghazi attack was a "spontaneous reaction" and the the result of a "hateful and offensive video that was widely disseminated throughout the Arab and Muslim world." 

But when pressed further by host David Gregory, she added: "First of all, there’s an FBI investigation which is ongoing.  And we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired...What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding.  They came with heavy weapons which unfortunately are readily available in post revolutionary Libya.  And it escalated into a much more violent episode.  Obviously, that’s-- that’s our best judgment now.  We’ll await the results of the investigation."

Excuse my righteous indignation, but what the fuck is wrong with waiting a couple of weeks for an investigation to more fully flush out the details before a rush to judgement? Especially after the country was  lied into a devastatingly costly 8-year war by Republicans who were so quick to judge and place blame (wrongly, I might add), even in the absence of evidence? Between Obama, Rice, the State Department, the CIA, the FBI and others, no one was denying the role that terrorists played in the Benghazi attack. Rather, the Obama team responsibly chose to reserve drawing conclusions as to the specific who, what, where, when and how of it all until the facts could be determined.   

On September 19, three days after Rice's Sunday morning television appearances, Obama dispatched the head of the National Counterterrorism Center, Matt Olsen, "up to Capitol Hill and specifically said it was an act of terrorism and that extremist elements inside of Libya had been involved in it....Who executes some sort of cover-up or effort to tamp things down for three days? So the whole thing defies logic.” 

Exactly. It defies logic. But what it doesn't defy is reality....which is that Republicans remain angry and frustrated after two bruising elections and a loss of power, and are rabid in their quest to undermine and take down this president and Hillary Clinton at any and all cost, regardless of the toll it takes on America.

The Republican Party is Dead

The United States has a two-term black president. Gay marriage bills are passing all over the country. A majority of voters support sweeping immigration legislation. Organized religion is facing more challenges than ever. And most Americans favor stiffer gun laws and a hands-off abortion policy. Yet the Republican Party appears more racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and religiously fanatical than during the McCarthy era.

The GOP remains stuck in the '50's. They desperately cling to their over-romanticized version of "Mad Men" America, when rich white men ruled the day, when blacks knew their place, Hispanics were household servants, women were barefoot and pregnant, and gays were closeted. A time when it was ok to call a black man "boy," a gay man "fag" and a woman "sweetheart,"...accompanied, of course, by a harmless pinch or slap of the ass.

Despite the country's rapidly shifting demographics and social attitudes--a healthy move towards racial, religious and sexual tolerance--the GOP has boxed itself into a corner. There are patterns they simply cannot break. Ideals they can't divorce from. Rhetoric they can't  stop espousing. They just can't help themselves.

Evidenced by the results of the last couple of elections, the GOP, whose voice has been hijacked and whose platform has been dictated by its extreme right-wing Tea Party fringe, has become totally irrelevant. Yes, through fervent intransigence and obstructionism they've been a potent force for President Obama and Democrats to reckon with, and they've successfully thwarted his ability to carry out his agenda. As Senate Minority Leader proclaimed in 2010, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."  But it's precisely this toxic partisanship and single-mindedness that's losing them elections and making them obsolete in the long-term. They may be winning some battles, but they're most definitely losing the war.

It's not difficult to imagine a few years from now a political landscape controlled by a Democratic dynasty, where the only Republicans left in office come from states and districts where the small minority of folks who voted for them share their ignorant, intolerant 1950's ideals. And when that day comes the party will have "visionaries" such as Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Joe Wilson, Sarah Palin and Todd Akin to thank.

South Carolinians: WTF!!??

A funny thing happened on the way to the polls in South Carolina Tuesday. Voters in what Gallup cites as the sixth most religious state in the country re-elected Republican Mark Sanford, an Episcopalian, to the congressional seat he held from 1995-2001. If you don't follow politics too closely this wouldn't seem unusual. But this was no ordinary election, and no ordinary victory, because Sanford is the disgraced, nearly impeached, former governor of this apparently amnesic and/or hypocritical state.

For a week during June 2009 Sanford disappeared...about as AWOL as National Guardsman George W. Bush in '72 Alabama. Ostensibly hiking the Appalachian Trail, which is what he told his family, staff and security detail, he was incommunicado for days, even failing to call home on Father's Day. But when he was discovered by a reporter at the airport in Atlanta returning to the U.S. from an overseas flight, the story became a national sensation. Hours later he confessed that he'd in fact flown to Argentina to be with his mistress, María Belén Chapur, in what he characterized as a passionate, loving relationship with his "soul mate"...unlike the many other "line crossings" he had engaged in with other women during his 20-year marriage. The affair was a humiliating blow to his wife Jenny and four young children, and a crushing disappointment to voters.

But it apparently wasn't that upsetting to Sanford's very forgiving constituents, who handed him a 10-point victory against Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch, sister of television's political satirist Stephen Colbert, in the state's special election. And there's something very troubling about how quickly his abhorrent, deceitful, selfish behavior has been absolved by the very same people who vehemently attack the morals and ethics of President Obama, a deeply religious, faithful family man who, unlike Sanford, lives his life according to the principles they piously embrace, and who doesn't just talk the talk as do hypocrites like Sanford. What's wrong with this picture?

Judging from the outcome of Tuesday's contest, it seems that Sanford, South Carolina's devout citizens and God herself surely work in very mysterious ways.... (Anthony Weiner and Elliot Spitzer, are you listening?)  

Is America, and Pro Sports, Really Ready for Active Gay Players?

So Jason Collins, the 7-foot NBA center, is gay. His ground-breaking declaration came in a Sports Illustrated article published Monday. And yes, it's 2013 and times have changed, as the jubilation across the country, and among several prominent players, has demonstrated. But once we get past the hoopla and the effusive praise for the pioneering 34-year-old currently with the Washington Wizards, the real question remains: what does his historic coming-out mean for him, the NBA, pro sports and society as a whole?

First let's get the good stuff out of the way. Many of the league's biggest stars, including Kobe Bryant, Dwayne Wade, Steve Nash and Jason Kidd, quickly came out in support of Collins. Social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter were abuzz with viral praise over his courageous decision. Michelle Obama  tweeted "So proud of you Jason Collins! This is a huge step forward for our country. We've got your back!" It's hard to ignore the powerful symbolism behind America's first black First Lady rallying behind the nation's first openly gay, and black, active pro athlete. 

But as Ms. Obama knows all too well, while her husband Barack has broken through tremendous racial barriers in becoming the country's first black president, it certainly did little to erase the ugliness of prejudice and racism. In fact, there are those who'd argue that his presidency has fanned the racist flames for many, perhaps as evidenced by the unprecedented partisan gridlock in Washington and by the most blatant disrespect ever shown a sitting U.S. president (see Rep. Joe Wilson's "You Lie!" shout during Obama's September 2009 speech to Congress).

While there indeed were those welcoming the newly minted gay Collins with open arms, ignorance and intolerance surfaced as well. On ESPN, NBA analyst Chris Broussard called homosexuality "an open rebellion to God" and implied that gay people can't be Christians."I'm a Christian. I don't agree with homosexuality. I think it's a sin, as I think all sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is. If you're openly living in unrepentant sin ... that's walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ."        

And Mike Wallace of the NFL's Miami Dolphins tweeted "All these beautiful women in the world and guys wanna mess with other guys."  Wallace's and Broussard's comments--like Karl Malone's ignorant rant in 1992 when Magic Johnson announced he'd contracted H.I.V--differ in definition and motivation, but they echo the common thinking among many Americans.  Wallace and Broussard are just two jerks dumb enough to voice what millions more in the silent minority are no doubt thinking. The truth is, professional sports is but a microcosm of the nation, and the social patterns that exist in society overall will be on display as the Collins story continues to unfold.  

To be sure, religion is going to play a key role as Collins' coming-out takes shape, as players (many of whom pray on court before games) and coaches' (Golden State Warriors coach Mark Jackson is a pastor with his own ministry) personal faith muddies the debate...just as it does outside professional sports. Ignorance, fear and machismo will surely continue to permeate locker rooms. It would be incredibly naive to think that the majority of professional athletes, many of whom come from poor, uneducated, deeply religious and intolerant environments, won't look at Collins' with a jaundiced eye, or believe that he's looking at them with a lascivious one. There's simply way too much nudity in locker rooms for that not to happen. The 'catching Aids from a toilet seat' mentality isn't disappearing simply because Collins decided to come out.

The real test of America's true progress, and the NBA's acceptance, will be in whether Collins, who becomes a free agent July 1, will be suiting up for a team come opening night next season. "If he's not on a team, he's just another guy who did it at the end of his career, and he retired," said Jim Buzinski, co-founder of Outsports, an online site covering gays and sports. 

True Change Requires More Than Belting Out the National Anthem

Let me begin with full disclosure: My wife was brutally murdered in 2006, so I know first-hand what devastating shock and grief feels like. As such, the horrific tragedy in Boston this week conjures up my own profound sense of loss and anger. Besides, my daughter lives there. Perhaps by luck or fate she was thankfully nowhere near the deadly Marathon bombings.

I have nothing but sadness and empathy for the city, its citizens and for the families of those who lost their lives, their limbs, their innocence. That America once again has fallen victim to such reprehensible, violent acts of pure cowardice is yet another painful reminder of our new reality. Like New York, Washington and Pennsylvania in 2001, I suspect Boston, and it's tough, gritty, proud residents, will bounce back strongly and with great patriotic fervor.

I watched the incredible demonstration of such patriotism at Wednesday's Boston Bruins game as 20,000 emotional fans delivered a roaring rendition of our national anthem...sending goosebumps, chills and tears throughout TD Garden and living rooms everywhere. Americans, in time of such great  tragedy, can be truly awe-inspiring in their unity and resolve. But is that enough? Is it enough to belt out the national anthem for a few days and then return to business as usual? Is that the best. most meaningful representation of patriotism we can harness?

It's been four months since the horrific Sandy Hook school massacre and, as shamefully evidenced in the U.S. Senate this week, we're still without any new gun control measures. Furthermore, we live in a country where certain groups still seek to deny rights to minorities, women and gays. Our national anthem stands for freedom. Our Pledge of Allegiance promises with liberty and justice for all. To voice these words should be to believe them.

To be sure, it's terribly easy for any of us to get swept up by emotion, frustration and anger and voice it all through these patriotic verses....and then be done with it. But the real commitment, the real effort, the real showing of empathy and concern for our fellow citizens must come the next day, the day after that, and the days, weeks, months and years that follow. It can't be done in one 90-second chorus. If, as a people, we truly believe in the words behind our national anthem and Pledge, then perhaps, when the game's over, we should do whatever is humanly possibly to protect our citizens from further violence and discrimination by pushing for meaningful legislation and outreach. 

What the Boston Attack Means for America

As of this writing there have been no arrests made, no persons of interest announced by authorities and no terrorist organizations claiming responsibility for Monday's Boston Marathon bombings which killed three people (including an 8-year-old boy) and injured more than 100. The powerful blast left Boylston Street resembling a bloodied, limb-strewn war-zone, and sent shockwaves through this New England city and across the nation. The carnage, even for seasoned first responders, was horrific.

The attack was a stunning surprise. No prior warnings had been received nor had the typical pre-attack  terrorist cell chatter been evident, according to law enforcement and homeland security spokespeople. The two devastating explosions quickly turned the city's annual Patriot's Day celebration into a tainted landscape of shrapnel, fear and death. The city, the marathon and Americans everywhere have been dealt a terrible blow, which brings right back to the surface the chilling events of September 11, 2001.

It's been twelve years since the horrifying 9/11 attacks which killed 3000 in New York City, Washington, DC and Pennsylvania. Since then the country's been lulled into a false sense of security. With no further attacks, the intense fear and anxiety of that period subsided after a few short years, leaving Americans feeling relatively safe and secure. To be sure, Monday's attack in Boston serves as a tragic reminder of our collective vulnerability. It's making us painfully aware of the risks we face in this ugly new world simply by being a runner, a Marathon watcher, a parade-goer... or perhaps by one day being in a grocery store, movie theater, nightclub, sports arena, school, office building, subway or airport when a terrorist--domestic or international--will decide to send a sick, ghastly message.

We now must accept the reality that more bombings are likely. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but in the not-too-distant-future. Those who commit acts of terror don't need much to bring a neighborhood, a city and even the nation to its knees. Will America eventually become like Israel, whose hardened citizens face each day knowing it could very well be their last at the hands of a terrorist and his explosives-filled backpack? While it certainly doesn't lessen the impact of Monday's tragedy, let's hope that it was an isolated, non-political crime committed by a lone-wolf wacko who was off his meds and angry at his former employer. Maybe that will be easier to accept. But it doesn't change our new reality of how some people now vent their hatred and rage. In the end, while it doesn't matter whether it's a Taliban-supported al-Qaeda cell or an unaffiliated malcontent, our ultimate fear and loss of innocence, is just the same.