On Trayvon Martin

Please, don’t get me wrong.

Trayvon Martin will not know what happens to Zimmerman;  he is gone from us and facing eternity.  All of the rallying and calls for justice is to suit who?  Those who want to know that a sick racist man cannot get away with killing Trayvon.

Who are the “those”? ‘Those” who are concerned about the Trayvons of this world?

“Lawdy, we are tired of injustice in the Black community!”  Is this true or does worldwide action take place only when Trayvon’s get annihilated by non-Black perps?

“Those” are quite selective in expressing genuine concern for young Black males who are killed for no reason and before their time.

Those that watch the Trayvons just about every day and flip the channel when it is Black-on-Black crime.

Those that have the same kind of animus in their hearts towards the “kinds” of people they don’t like:  homos, thugs, chinks, Puerto-Ricans, right-winged Christians, Arabs, drug addicts, and the list goes on.

“Those” who joke with the Zimmerman-types at work or at the bar.

“Those” protesters, spokespersons, justice-seekers, politicians and folks who want to see justice have every right to use their influence to make sure another Black male hasn’t been killed with a seal of approval from the US justice system.  However, the same activists need to use their same influence to make sure the Trayvons that yet breathe and live will have the benefit of such concern to preserve and guard young Black males, even when it means we have to rally against our own in the Black community. Racism drove Zimmerman. A gang initiation, drugs, and sheer foolishness drives Black folks to cut and kill each other every day.  Let’s put some hoodies on and talk about that.

Nuff said.

Mulloverthis.

Animal Cruelty Vs. Public Safety

Homeowners cannot kill squirrels, raccoons, opossums, wild cats and all kinds of wildlife that vilify our homes, where I live.  We have to hire a wild life service or set humane traps and check them every 24 hours to ensure that if one of these creatures gets caught, they are not cruelly killed.

Yet  according to a Huffington Post report,  Ohio police respond to a bunch of roaming “exotic” animals that escaped an animal farm by shooting them.   Were any efforts made to get experts, animal associations, or wildlife advocates on the scene to try to capture these animals and place them in zoos or other suitable habitats?  I realize a roaming bear or lion is quite dangerous and life-threatening to human beings.  However, shouldn’t these animals have been given the opportunity to be captured before using the kill ’em approach?

Public safety versus animal cruelty is a tough call.  I’m just saying, SMH.

Mulloverthis.

AMY WINEHOUSE DEATH: SHOULD THERE BE CRIMINAL CHARGES?

In a nutshell, MJ died and his exclusive on call live-in physician, Dr. Conrad Murray, aka shoot-him up drug dealer, was charged with involuntary manslaughter. 

Bartenders who serve known alcoholics open their establishments up to liability for any consequent damage alcoholics may cause as a result of their impairment. 

According to Winehouse’s mom, Janis,  who saw her the day before Winehouse succumbed, she  believed that death was inevitable.  According to various news reports, Winehouse purchased heroine, cocaine,  ketamine and the speculative killer, “a bad ecstasy pill” the night before her death, in the midst of a “weeks-long” drinking binge. 

Should people who service known drug abusers be charged with criminal charges upon the untimely deaths-or timely considering their lifestyles-of known abusers when the cause of death is largely attributable to drug use?  Does the fact that some abuse is solely from the use of illicit drugs merit a different rational for dealer culpability?  Should medical doctors who service ill-advised  affluent patients with prescription drugs without a proper medical screening (over the phone) be held liable for lethal drug combination deaths?  Should drug dealers be liable for birth defects/abnormalities in newborn infants born to drug-addicted mothers?

Although many of these tragedies would not take place if  dealers and low-grade legal physicians were not accessible and failed to supply the abusers, we ought to be careful about increasingly transferring guilt and corresponding liability to the middle people.  Grown people who willfully begin a life of drug addiction, manipulate professionals to get their fix, or find themselves addicted to some substance that impairs their physiological abilities and live a life that affects themselves and may cause utter destruction to innocent bystanders, need to be held responsible for their own demise, and any additional damages.  We may mourn and seek to blame others who had a part in the tragedy because the end of death is to difficult to bear in the face of the vulnerability through which we often “see” addicts. What we have to face it the hardest fact:  people will find whatever they want to get whatever they want and their addictions may lead to DEATH.  While the ultimate eradiction of drug addiction should include controlling the availability of good drugs and annihilation of illegal drugs, no one is responsible for anyone else’s life and decisions.

Mulloverthis.

*Mulloverthis notes that in a few circumstances, drug addiction may be “forced” upon addicts, and in these circumstances criminal charges are clearly merited.    

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/us/09jackson.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/24/amy-winehouse-dies-mom-janis_n_907997.html

Arnold Schwarzenegger, The Pimpstress & The Other Child

K.

First of all, we can’t call the other child a “love” child because this child may not be one conceived in love.  Arnold may not have cared about his paramour.  Clearly, she was a fling, but we don’t know that she or his son had a significant place in his heart and life.

What is clear is that the former California governor’s cheating has exposed his wife and entire family to all the rigormoroll in which the pesky press and onlookers love to exacerbate: these types of Osama-is -old-news-and-we-need-something-else-to-obsess-over situations.

Mulloverthis notes a few things since Arnold is the current goose gone wild:

1.  At least the man provided for his child and baby mama.

2.  Refer to number one, above, when feasting on a picture of Arnold’s no-conscience pimpstress.  She obviously took the concept of on the job training out of context, and to another level.

3.  This thingy quells all fairytales that busted women can’t  get a rich, handsome, famous actor and politician for a man, since this homeslice pulled Arnold.  Addendum: … at least when his Democratic royalty wife isn’t around.  Otherwise, back to sweeping the floors and pretend that child isn’t his.

Mulloverthis:  NO ONE involved in this love triangle won.  Shriver should be disappointed because her husband never realized who she really is, or appreciated her value  or his own worth, to risk their lives by Arnold  bumping a housekeeper, unprotected.  Arnold is another man who let his silly lust and male bravado potentially ruin his family and political life.  The mistress is a silly woman who pimped herself as the less than woman that she really is.

My hope is that the resultant child will override the monstrous heap of mess his selfish parents created when they created him and develop a great relationship with his father and other siblings.   The young boy didn’t ask for any of this, and he shouldn’t have to endure any scrutiny for his existence, either.

Mulloverthis.

66 Year Old Gives Birth

The oldest reported British woman to give birth, Elizabeth Adeney, is a brand new mom thanks to In Vitro fertilization. Of course, the new mom has not only the joy of her first child to look forward to, but also the criticisms of yick yackers who feel she is monsterously selfish for having a child at her “old” age.

Although I do not generally think that child-bearing is ideal at 66, again, I ask as I often do, “Who cares?” Adeney has only joined the ranks of an increasing number of senior citizens who raise babies that are their grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. Her baby raising is purposed and intentional, not a result of premature death in the family, or some sort of parental neglect. People Adeney’s age get custody and are entrusted to raise children everyday, and do so heroically.

So who are her critics? Is it the same monsterously selfish people who advocate abortion for convenience? Or, the population of classless candidates-both male and female-who contribute to the “who’s my baby’s daddy” talk show conundrum. Thank God for DNA testing, or so many everyday people who live impulsive hedonistic lives would never know who fathered a child. Certainly, Adeney’s critics cannot be amongst the population of people with terminally ill diseases in advanced stages, such as AIDS, that knowingly bear children with slight chances they will probably not be around to raise them, and often bring them into this world infected (although babies can receive treatment to reverse HIV status). How about all of our babies born on drugs or to mothers who drink and smoke? The wonderful people who have children for complying with the status quo with a firm plan for nannies, boarding schools and plenty of photo ops in-between need not register any critques. Their time would be better spent scheduling an appointment to laugh with their own children. There are certainly too many people in this world that are blaring self-advertisements for irresponsible parents to make this woman a guinea pig.

The only real concern is whether this senior citizen is capable of providing a loving, safe, healthy, reliable home for a baby and in good enough health to do so. Adeney just may outlive some of the young everything-goes, to hell with any type of morality people and smile at this child’s college graduation. She just may give this child the kind of devotion, attention and guidance that will produce a good sound human being. At least we can hope. This of course, can only take place if the powers that be and the hipsters don’t cause the world to end before then.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7612856&page=1

MULLOVERTHIS.

A QUESTION OF PRIVACY IN ADOPTION LAWS

A woman who was raped and gave her daughter up for adoption thirty years ago is suing the state of New Jersey for allegedly assisting the adoptee in finding her. The thirty year old adopted daughter apparently went to her birth mother’s home, and has attempted to contact another birth sibling from her birth mother. The birth mother had been made aware of the adoptee’s request to communicate prior to the unsolicited home visit, and did not respond to the letter the State of New Jersey sent her apprising her of the same. For the full story, here’s the link to the article:

Every now and again, MULLOVERTHIS gets stumped. I had to think about this one for a few seconds, but only a few seconds. After mulling through the emotional components, this is a clear-cut case. The birth mother, if her story is correct, should get a million plus a few extra bucks. Adoption laws are SUPPOSED to work such that someone like the plaintiff can make the decision that she was prepared to live with, albeit thirty years ago. It is unjust to shift the rules now, because some lackadaisical state employees felt like doing whatever they wanted. Had the daughter found her through some ingenuity on her own, or with private people locaters, then we’d have a different story. This woman had a right to close the door to the rape, and the child that came from the rape, without having to face her at her front door thirty years later.

Once NJ pays, and pays dearly, they might impose some personal penalties to the employees that break the law and get caught up in an adoptee’s personal pursuits. Had this adoptee had a “need” that was life-threatening or considerably commensurate, she should have acquired a court order. The adoptee’s need does not outweigh the mother’s need to live in peace and privacy. This mother has absolutely no bond with the grown woman and should not have been jolted into re-visiting a part of her life that I’m sure she wished never happened.

As one who is not pro-life-but anti-murder and anti-disassociated human depravity through murdering pre-born children-this mother made a courageous decision and should teach the state a good old-fashioned lesson: Keep its word.

MULLOVERTHIS