Monday, March 26, 2012


I supposed I'd be remiss in my duties as a blogger if I didn't comment at least a little on the Trayvon Martin case. So here are a few thoughts:
  • I can't stand these made up names like 'Trayvon.' It sounds like a brand name.
  • If you're wondering how someone named George Zimmerman could be hispanic, well his family came from an area where a lot of, er, German immigrants went in the mid 1940's.
  • I can't help shake the sense that all this outrage and instant outcry was prepared and packaged waiting for just such a case and was launched based on the guy's name without seeing him.
  • Where was this outcry when gangs of black youths over and over again have attacked white people specifically crying racial slurs in places like Philadelphia?
  • Zimmerman is apparently a Democrat with blacks in his family. I guess the "he's a filthy klansman" attack is easier with the Democrat connection.
  • I bet you all the money in my pocket (which is empty of all but lint) that in three months, people will say "Trayvon who?"
  • My sympathies go out to Trayvon's family, especially his mother. This must be awful for her in particular.
There's just something so very artificial and desperate about the left's response to this, you can almost see their eyes shifting and a slight blush forming when they talk about it.

*UPDATE: you can't tell me this is not deliberate

Courtesy American Digest. Trayvon was ten in that top picture they're using. He's 17 now.

*UPDATE: Apparently the bottom picture of Trayvon is of another fellow named Trayvon, but the point stays the same: the legacy media is using the top picture almost exclusively, even though they know its dated and unrepresentative of young Mr Martin.


Anonymous said...

As I'm sure you've seen by now, the lower right-hand photo isn't Martin.
If you're interested in media narratives it seems like you'd want to think about that.

Christopher R Taylor said...

Yeah, I left that up anyway because its in place and I don't like deleting stuff I've posted.

But the point still remains: why use a picture from 5-7 years ago? I think we all know the answer to that.

Anonymous said...

If you're interested in bringing the truth to light, adding a correction to a post seems like the easy, right thing to do.
Maybe NBC used an old photograph because they didn't have a newer one, and they don't like deleting stuff they've posted.

Christopher R Taylor said...

I think you misunderstand. I'll put up a correction today as I work on my blog, but I leave things up like that to avoid the usual policy in the legacy media of changing a webpage without any notification, trying to hide mistakes. Not out of some stubbornness as you uncharitably imply.

Anonymous said...

DIdn't mean to imply stubbornness, just making a joke.