ShareThis Page

Trayvon, Tim & politics

| Saturday, Aug. 24, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

The mothers of Tim McNerney and Trayvon Martin have one thing in common: They continue to grieve over the loss of sons killed in the prime of their lives.

Recent comments by two letter writers, in their insensitivity to this aspect of the tragedies, reveal more about themselves than the issues surrounding the cases.

Kathleen Bollinger (“Obama squirming,” Aug. 11) quite gleefully views Trayvon's death at the hands of George Zimmerman as an opportunity to see President Obama “squirm” over the (unlikely) possibility that the Democrats stand to lose votes from the black and Hispanic communities. In Bollinger's narrow political and intellectual world, it appears all tragic events are seen through this prism.

Writer Pat Condelli (“Justice for McNerney,” Aug. 13) directly and clearly discerns a racial element present and links the two deaths as a broader conflict — Tim being a white “football star” and Trayvon a black “17-year-old punk.” She would have George Zimmerman-like watchdogs guarding all of us in every community, presumably keeping us safe from “them.” As if this type of thinking advances clarity and the amelioration of the problems of crime and violence!

Condelli also attempts to call out President Obama and his failure to be objective enough to publicly decry the violence done to every white person.

Both women receive ready access to the VND Letters forum and seem eager to jump in at a given opportunity to promote their political agendas. But they continue to expose themselves.

They lack the broad-mindedness to see the true complexity of many social issues and the compassion required, sometimes, to just remain silent while other women grieve.

Robert Jedrzejewski


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.