Trayvon Martin and the Black Man Code

     We all know the story about Trayvon Martin and his death on February 26 at the hands of a White/Hispanic man who was a neighborhood watch leader of some sort. He is claiming self-defense. The teenager was wearing a hoodie (it was raining that night) and was visiting relatives in a gated community (meaning rich neighborhood). He had gone to a nearby convenience store and bought Skittles and a tea and was walking back to the relative's residence when the other man came upon him, confronted him (after calling police to report a suspicious man and ignoring the police "orders
" to not confront him) and for reasons we may never really know, he shot and killed the kid. 
    Here is my thinking. Many of you have heard of "DWB", which stands for Driving While Black. This is where the police stop a Black (usually male, often younger (like under 25)) motorist, especially in a expensive part of town and/or while driving a expensive and/or "flashy" vehicle based on a hunch or a vague tip or less, rather than a  really good reason. I have had it happen to me.
     Mr. Martin was accosted for "WWB", which stands for Walking While Black. Because he was  young Black man, walking in a rich neighborhood (not always), and wearing clothes (in this a hooded sweatshirt, called a "hoodie") that many feel is the preferred clothes worn by thugs, gang members or people up to no good, if you watch movies, the news, or a lot of MTV and/or other music video shows. The shooter also felt justified to use deadly force because he though the kid had a weapon (we think) and also due to certain Florida laws that allegedly allowed such.
    Mr. Martin was unarmed. As of today, multiple, local state and allegedly Federal groups are investigating this tragedy. No arrests have been made. Many tributes have occurred and more will come, some by local folks, some by famous sports teams and even the President has made comments. Why hasn't the shooter been arrested? or even brought in for major questioning? Is this another case where someone gets away with murder because the victim is Black and/or the assailant is White (okay, this guy is half-White)? You make the call.
    Now, what is the Black Man Code? If you are not Black, or in particular a Black man, you have no idea. This is a set of ideas that has been passed from father (or Black male adult or relative) to son and/or young man on the things that a (young) Black man should do when alone or in a group in public, especially in areas where are more folks of other races (especially White) will be around and/or the police, and so on. MSNBC.com did a story about this that I read earlier today. I won't paraphrase from the article, but it was very specific. I don't need to quote from articles, but it is well known that Black  men are targeted as perpetrators more often that any other group, including Black women.
      Some may say that this shooting was justified because of the race of the victim. BS. The shooter may claim that he feared for his life. Okay, but not in this case. This was murder. Nothing more, nothing less. Will the victim's family and all law-abiding citizens get justice? We will see. It is sad to see that things like this can so blatantly occur in 2012, like it did in 1962 or earlier. Let us see if with modern technology will allow justice to happen now, like it rarely did back then. I hope and pray that it does, and the protests and acts to honor this kid continue until this case is done. Hoodie and all.

    UPDATE: Zimmerman was finally charged....with second-degree murder. No indictment, just charged. He turned himself in (shocker!) and was arraigned....and was released  on a $150,000 USD bond(!). Not good, in my opinion. The case will probably not go to trial until maybe next year. Is he guilty? The court case will decide this. Some support Zimmerman (if you read the news, you heard about the funds raised for his defense), but more, in my opinion, support the family of the dead teen. 
Will this case be like the Casey Anthony case in another part of Florida or worse, like the (original) O.J. Simpson trial in California? Will true justice be served?
     Good question. People of color, especially Black men, always have to worry about this, whether they are the accuser or the defendant. That plain sucks. I just hope the prosecutors (and those who support them) do their job well and correctly, and not let the defense weasel out a not guilty verdict on a technicality. The Florida "stand your ground" law will be on trial here, but I feel it doesn't apply. Zimmerman followed and apparently confronted the teen, after the police CLEARLY told him NOT TO. Whether this resulted in a scuffle due to Trayvon Martin attacking George Zimmerman as a result or due to Zimmerman starting it verbally or otherwise which led to Zimmerman using a (was it licensed and/or legal?) gun and killing Martin, allegedly in self-defense is in question. If Martin had lived, we would possibly have both sides to answer such. But we don't. The saying is something like "the dead tell no tales" from the Wild West of the 1800s. Not in 2012. I believe the evidence, if presented (well) by prosecutors WILL tell the story of the last minutes of this teen's life. Have a open mind, and a open heart and be objective, and the truth will come out and will either ultimately set George Zimmerman free or it will put a murderer in jail for a long time (if not for life). We will see. Stay tuned.

Any given (Sunday)......

   Sports is a crazy, fun, intense and wild thing. Regardless of your sport of choice, regardless of gender, there are always favorites and there are underdogs. Favorites usually win...but not always. Why do underdogs win, especially during championship tournaments? The main reasons are because one team just outplayed and/or out-hustled the other. Sometimes it is a (unfortunate) injury or disqualification of  a key player. Sometimes it is a lucky break going one way or the other. Sometimes...it is a blown call (or non-call) by the referee that affects the final result strongly.
     The old sports saying goes something like this: "On any given (Sunday), one team is going to win and someone is going to lose". This saying  was quoted in the movie, appropriately titled Any Given Sunday with Al Pacino, Jamie Foxx and a lot of famous actors and NFL Hall of Famers (Jim Brown, Lawrence Taylor).  What does this saying really mean? It means that after all of the preparation, practice, travel, trash talk and the rest, two teams (or in individual sports two or more (golf, bowling, etc) players) will meet on the field or court of play. When it is over, one team will win, and one team will loses. No matter how over-matched one team (or player) may be versus the other ON PAPER, there is ALWAYS a chance that the lower-seeded team might actually win...for whatever reasons, like the ones listed above or others.
     That leads me to the NCAA (mens) tournament, known also as March Madness. This year the field has 68 teams (65 last year). This tournament is the ultimate example of "Any given____". As of today, no 1 seed has lost their first game to a 16 seed, but UNC Asheville came damn close to beating a 1 seed versus Syracuse on Thursday. 5 15 seeds have beaten two seeds. Two did it last night. Three of them came from my home state, the Commonwealth of Virginia.
     Last night Norfolk State, out of Norfolk, in their FIRST appearance in this tournament after winning the MEAC conference tournament and hasn't even been one the 320-odd Division I basketball schools for very long, stunned the world and beat Missouri. Missouri played well...they didn't choke or take Norfolk State for granted (despite the Tigers' rep as a team who chokes as a high seed). Norfolk State just played better. They did the little things...and that was enough to get the win.
    Duke plain choked versus Lehigh later on. Duke, despite a short bench and not being the most athletic team around, they should have won. Oops. Bottom line, any team can win on any night versus any other team. Ask VCU about that. Last year, they went from being one of the First Four, and being told by so many that they didn't deserve to be in the NCAA tourney (as a at-large invitee), all the way to the Final Four. Ask those teams that VCU beat whether they belonged or not!
    The playoff systems of most pro sports don't allow for many true underdogs to get into the playoffs to begin with, but every once in a while, they do appear. When they do, beware! Sports is sometimes reflective of life itself, but more often, it is the kind of fun escape we all need once in a while...the kind that doesn't cost a lot or hurt too much...other than sore lungs from yelling or eating too much..lol.

What is up with all of these leaked NSFW photos of famous folk?

      What the hell is up with all of these celebrities and others somehow having nude or NSFW photos leaked on the Internet 24/7 lately? Yes, I know the paparazzi and others of their ilk (earn a living) work hard to find and publish such things for the rest of us to gawk, gush or do other things to. With that said, what is so great about taking a naughty photo of yourself with your cell phone and sending it to your significant other via Twitter or whatever and find a way to "accidentally" send it to the world? What is it called? Sexting? That is so crazy. I don't do it...never have, never will. But I don't use the camera on my cell phone anyway. Why should I? I have (better quality) digital cameras for that. But I digress.
     True, nearly all A-list actresses have done a movie role where they must be topless (or worse). It seems to be almost a  unwritten "requirement" to do so to win a Oscar, even if she has already had a Oscar-worthy role or two (and for some, even that is usually not enough...more comments on that in another post one day). But Rihanna, Paris Hilton (technically) and other music stars (like Madonna) have had NSFW photos and/or intimate videos "leaked" online or hacked off their phone and/or Twitter account (you can send naked photos on Twitter?). For some, it had made their "career" (Hilton, Kim Kardashian among others). For others, not so much. True, some of these ladies have already bared all in movies and/or videos and/or due to the paparazzi. But still, this has to be upsetting to have private moments all over the Internet for all to see (and/or do whatever with).
    Now, this mess is happening to the men, too. Former Congressman Anthony Weiner, Kanye West, Ray J and Metta World Peace (formerly Ron Artest) of the Lakers come to mind (I feel bad for you, Metta..lol) as guys who have (partially, mostly or totally) shown their male "asset" in a intercepted or leaked photo or video. Men have it lucky in the  mainstream publicity area. Men (for the most part) cannot show their penises (yes I am using the clean and correct name for it, not the d word) on (any) screen. Hence, other than comments from seeing them on the beach in a Speedo (not going there), everything is always covered. Most folk do not really want to see that anyway (that is BS, many women (and some homosexual/bisexual men) would love to see such shown at times in mainstream movies!), but for women, all is good to be shown (breasts is usually no problem), as long as the female genitalia is not shown. That is (another) unfair double standard, in my opinion.
    Is that fair? Not really (that subject is another blog for another time). With all of this said, why do (famous) folk take (or allow others to take) these photos and risk such being sent over the Internet where it can be intercepted and shown to the world? Dumb. Truth be told, the nude human body is a beautiful thing to see and something not to be ashamed of. However, should the public really be seeing intimate photos and videos of celebrities having sex (excluding the usually simulated sex you see in movies and on pay TV)? I think not. I am old school, and if I were a celebrity, I would be mortified if a video or still photo of me performing sex acts with my spouse (and/or whomever if I weren't involved/married) hit the Internet.
    Full disclosure, I have been told by others that I am nicely equipped. Regardless of that, I would not be embarrassed showing my assets (not bragging, just repeating what others have said unsolicited in the past) if such was unavoidable. (Women have it harder, but they should realize that some outfits should not be worn in public, especially if you cannot or choose not to wear underwear with it, no matter what your dress size is!) However, I am also old school on such things (which shows my age, I guess). Bottom line, other than (me being paid well to) being in a movie or play where the role required me to go full monty (yes, I would do it unless my spouse and/or family strongly objected) or I was a true porn star (no comment),  I would not want my "assets" just out there for all to see and...comment on. Not everyone, obviously, feels the same way. I would think that ladies, especially famous ones (actresses, musicians, sports stars and soon) should feel even more strongly about such than I. Why don't they?
    The fact that there isn't more backlash on such says a lot about the world today. I would have been fine without ever photos and/or videos of Kim K., Eve, Rihanna, Christina Hendricks or whomever naked or topless and/or in the throes of sexual passion, or famous men either, for that matter. Unfortunately, in this day and age, unless you choose to (mostly) stop watching TV or use the Internet and/or social media, including blogs like this, avoiding such things is mostly impossible. And I don't think that is a good thing. Call me old. But I know I am not wrong on this...and many of us, male or female, famous or not, young or old, feels the same way, even if he or she cannot or won't admit it..in public.

Peyton Manning released by the Colts

   Peyton Manning is released by the Colts today, March 7, 2012. This is almost as shocking as the neck injuries and surgeries that ultimately cost him the 2011 season. The NFL is all about sports and fun, but it is also a business. The Colts did what they had to do TODAY by releasing Manning. Even if he was healthy and never got hurt (and was not in his mid 30s), the Colts could not seriously hope to compete under a hard salary cap paying one guy, even the leader of the team nearly $36 million dollars (28 million was a bonus, plus nearly $8 million in salary) for ONE season. Sorry.
    This did not have to happen. If the Colts (meaning Irsay and Polian and so on, not really the coach, since on this team, it was not his call) had used more of their money (for free agents) and draft picks (even late round ones) to get a decent backup QB (especially) and RB and so on and got Manning to take a little less money to help re-sign important players on both sides of the ball, this situation would never have happened. True, if that had happened, and Manning had still missed 2011, the Colts may still have had a top-5 pick and drafted a great player for the future (probably not Luck, but maybe even RGIII, for example) and still have Manning to groom and teach and finish his career as a Colt, as it should have been.
   True, Manning could have given a hometown discount (maybe he did?) in his contracts after his rookie deal as a Number One overall pick, but the Colts had to be smart with ALL of their personnel choices and they weren't. Instead the Polian family screwed over a future Hall of Fame quarterback when all he wanted to do was retire as a Colt...again. The difference is, Peyton Manning, if his neck and overall health holds up, can do something to say, "bad call, Colts" where Johnny Unitas didn't have the chance to. Good luck to Peyton wherever he goes (just don't go to a AFC West team, unless it is Oakland...lol). We will see you in Canton soon enough.