Author: R J Adams

The killing of teenager, Trayvon Martin, in Florida last month has been hyped by many in the media as a racial hate crime. It’s hard to understand how the gunman, George Zimmerman, could commit such a crime given that he’s of Cuban origin and brought up in a mixed race household, if news reports are to be believed.

This was no racial hate crime, despite the hysteria of minor celebrities like Al Sharpton. It was cold-blooded murder.

If there was any element of racism connected to this case it was on the part of the Florida police department. They knew Zimmerman as a serial 911 caller, though were apparently unaware he was a self-appointed vigilante with no affiliation to any official Neighborhood Watch group. When Trayvon Martin was killed they made no effort to apprehend Zimmerman, which would undoubtedly not have been the case had Martin been Caucasian.

According to Chris Tutko, the director of the National Neighborhood Watch Program, there are about 22,000 registered watch groups nationwide, and Zimmerman was not part of a registered group — another fact the police were not aware of at the time of the incident.”^[1]

Despite this fact, he is still given the title ‘captain’ of a Neighborhood Watch group in many news reports. If he were in an official group then he should have followed the rules as laid down by the National Neighborhood Watch Program manual:

“It should be emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers, and they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles. They should also be cautioned to alert police or deputies when encountering strange activity. Members should never confront suspicious persons who could be armed and dangerous.”^[1]

Instead, Zimmerman went out that night armed with a 9mm hand gun. He was, according to some, angry at a number of recent burglaries within the gated community. He pursued Trayvon Martin, despite being explicitly told by the police not to do so. He then confronted Martin and shot him.

Whether Trayvon Martin tried to fight off Zimmerman is irrelevant. Even if, unlikely though it is, he got the better of Zimmerman in a fight, Martin was unarmed and therefore not in a position to put Zimmerman’s life at such risk as to condone his use of the firearm.

George Zimmerman dreamed of being a cop. No doubt he acted out that fantasy while he ‘patrolled’ his neighborhood each night, dreaming of how he would react if faced with one of the burglars he longed to apprehend.

Meanwhile, the gun on his hip just itched, and itched, and itched, to be fired.

Trayvon Martin was no burglar. He was just a teenage lad returning home from the local store after nipping out for refreshments during a break in the TV ballgame.

To Zimmerman he neatly fitted a description long carried in his head. Martin was a criminal out to burgle: young, hoodied, black. Zimmerman would apprehend him. Perhaps then he’d get the glory he always sought, maybe even be offered a job on the force.

He went after Martin, cornered him, and made to apprehend him. When Martin resisted, Zimmerman was finally able to scratch that itch.

NOTE: It’s not the policy at Sparrow Chat to convict someone before they’ve been tried in a court of law. Americans love to do it and the media are awash with unofficial ‘hanging judges’ like the evil Nancy Grace. This case is somewhat different. For some strangely unfathomable reason, the killer was never arrested.

If evidence is ever allowed to be revealed in a court of law it may well be that a jury will find George Zimmerman innocent of any crime. There may be factors in this case we are presently not aware of. Until then, we find George Zimmerman innocent of any racist crime, but undoubtedly guilty of deliberately shooting an unarmed boy to death.

If that isn’t murder, we don’t know what is.

^{[1] “FBI, Justice Department to Investigate Killing of Trayvon Martin by Neighborhood Watchman” ABC News, March 19th 2012}

Dear US Christian Person

I would like to reassure you that your religious faith is not under fire from those of us who do not care to share it with you. We who have no religion don’t give a tinker’s cuss what you do, say, or practice, just so long as it doesn’t affect us.

Your ecclesiastical hierarchy want you to believe we are out to get you. It puts us in league with the Devil, against God, you could say – anti-Christ, or, for that matter, anti-Mohammed. Nothing is further from the truth.

Your politicians, who all rush to announce their religiosity with gusto, are quick to seek your vote by sowing the seeds of fear. Fear of religious suppression waiting to ensnare you; fear of a great army of sinful, leftist, degenerates about to engulf you.

You really shouldn’t listen to them. Your religion is as secure in the US today as it has always been.

I only wish the rights of we, the non-religious, were in equally safe hands.

I would like to know why you are hell-bent on forcing your beliefs and ideals on the rest of us? Perhaps you could explain why it’s so important for you to deny us, the non-believers, the scientific benefits from which, by virtue of your religion, you choose to abstain.

It’s simple to understand the motives of those in higher ecclesiastical authority. They wish to ensure the product they sell retains its ready market. Sowing fear, as Edward Bernays would have enthusiastically agreed, is a great way to market certain products: medicines, drugs, religion, etc..

It’s also a terrific means of coining votes, particularly when the politician in question can assure you that, if you vote for him, he’ll immediately make everything right again. Unfortunately, we all know the track record of politicians…

Politicians, bishops, and popes are really very transparent. They have ulterior motives. But what of you – the ‘Christian-in-the-street’, so to speak? Why are you so vociferous in condemning our beliefs, just because they don’t agree with yours?

If you are a woman who gives birth after a brutal, traumatizing, rape because you chose not to take the ‘morning-after’ pills offered by the hospital, or refused to have an abortion, will any of us non-believers stand outside your house with placards denouncing you for your beliefs?

If you believe your body was designed by God to be a ‘baby-factory’ and you produce ten or twelve off-spring in your fertile life, having denied yourself contraception, will we ostracize you for your choice?

How will it change your life if a man is allowed to marry another man, or a woman marry another woman, in a civil ceremony? After all, no-one’s suggesting they should get hitched in a church. Heaven forbid! So, why are you so vehemently opposed to people of the same sex, who love one another, getting married?

Please don’t give that trite response: the Bible forbids it. We don’t believe in your Bible, or Koran. Or, at least, if we do it’s only the part concerning the teachings of Jesus or Mohammed, about love and understanding, caring for others, and turning the other cheek. You know, the bits you tend to ignore.

There are many non-religious people, like myself, who have concerns over ‘late-term’ abortions. In all but the most extreme cases ‘late-term’ abortions are unnecessary. Sadly, in the United States, abortions considered ‘late-term’ i.e. twenty weeks and over, are much more prevalent than in more secular European countries.

The reason is simple: it’s your fault. Your religion’s interference in the affairs of others has made abortion much more difficult to obtain in America; you force young women to feel guilt, and the consequence is tardiness in seeking medical intervention. The freer attitudes in much of Europe – free, that is, from your religious intolerance – allow a woman to make the right decision at a much earlier stage.

Possibly your most hypocritical stance is the one you term, ‘Pro-Life’. With hindsight, I’d freely admit to being quite glad my parents didn’t have me aborted. But hindsight requires retrospective reflection, and retrospective reflection demands conscious memories to reflect on. I never had one conscious memory of the time in my mother’s uterus. I’ve never known one person who has. Have you?

Just how much life has a small bundle of cells one month, or even two, into gestation?

Take a look at the last image in the photograph above. A fetus at two months. It may look vaguely human, but in fact it’s barely half an inch long.

Here’s where your hypocrisy displays itself: you shout and scream and beat your breasts at the thought of an unconscious bundle of cells denied access to the world, yet you applaud with gusto those who did make it onto the planet, as they march off to some infernal foreign war, probably to be blown to pieces, so Halliburton can make more profits for its shareholders.

Please tell me why the life of a young adult is less valuable to you than something this <---> long and weighing under half an ounce?

While on the subject of war, America has had quite a lot of them of late. True Christians, those who cleave to the teachings of Jesus, are supposed to abhor war. Are you a real Christian? Or, have you just hijacked Jesus’s name to add credence to your over-inflated sense of nationalism?

You cheer wildly for your politicians when they make war-talk against another country – for example, Iran – but they talk that way just to persuade you to vote for them. Are you really so easily hoodwinked?

You are, of course, perfectly entitled to your beliefs. America constantly boasts to the rest of the world of its ‘freedoms’. The US Constitution gives legality to your beliefs.

What you choose to ignore, along with your ecclesiastical mentors and numerous right-wing politicians, is that the US Constitution bestows legality on my beliefs also. America is a cosmopolitan nation. Within its borders live people of many faiths, some like myself, with no defined faith at all. Much as you might like it to be so, America is not a ‘Christian’ country. It is not a theocracy. If you could get that fact into your heads, it’s likely you’d feel less threatened.

If you are a Christian person whom Jesus of Nazareth could be proud of, if you love your neighbor, and help the afflicted, feel sympathy for those worse off than yourself, and would willingly give succor to the poor, or, even if you are still trying vainly to attain those attributes, then this letter is not to you. Your values as a Christian are true to your religion.

To the rest of you, I’d really like to hear intelligent, logical, answers to the questions I’ve posted above. Go on, have a go. See if you can actually come up with a sensible argument to the points I’ve outlined. It shouldn’t be difficult. After all, you’ve dedicated your life (and thereafter) to these things. Surely, you must have very good reasons?

And who knows, you might even convert me.

R.S.V.P. (NOTE: Abusive, threatening, or idiotic responses will be deleted).

Greg Smith is a Goldman Sachs executive director and head of the firm’s United States equity derivatives business in Europe, ask the Middle East and Africa.

At least, sovaldi sale he was until today. He just resigned.

He explained why to the New York Times:

Today is my last day at Goldman Sachs. After almost 12 years at the firm — first as a summer intern while at Stanford, pills then in New York for 10 years, and now in London — I believe I have worked here long enough to understand the trajectory of its culture, its people and its identity. And I can honestly say that the environment now is as toxic and destructive as I have ever seen it.

To put the problem in the simplest terms, the interests of the client continue to be sidelined in the way the firm operates and thinks about making money. Goldman Sachs is one of the world’s largest and most important investment banks and it is too integral to global finance to continue to act this way. The firm has veered so far from the place I joined right out of college that I can no longer in good conscience say that I identify with what it stands for.

It might sound surprising to a skeptical public, but culture was always a vital part of Goldman Sachs’s success. It revolved around teamwork, integrity, a spirit of humility, and always doing right by our clients. The culture was the secret sauce that made this place great and allowed us to earn our clients’ trust for 143 years. It wasn’t just about making money; this alone will not sustain a firm for so long. It had something to do with pride and belief in the organization. I am sad to say that I look around today and see virtually no trace of the culture that made me love working for this firm for many years. I no longer have the pride, or the belief…”

^{Read more in the New York Times “Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs” NYT, March 14th 2012}

There used to be one honest man working for Goldman Sachs.