This country likes making "statements"; the problem is that it isn't exactly clear what that means

 

Yesterday was another excuse for banks and (most) government employees to take a paid day off, and Juneteenth isn’t a recognized holiday to the union I pay dues to. The difference between a “federal,” “state” and “national” holiday is fairly straightforward: federal employees take a day off in first, state employees in the second, and everyone in the third. That means that in 22 states (such as Florida), state and local employees don’t have a "right" to a day off on Juneteenth, and most businesses will be open for business, likely without a Juneteenth sales day. 

I know Juneteenth means something to that black individual I saw hugging random people about having “our day”—as is MLK day—and it certainly has meaning to those who benefit (i.e., a paid day off), but for most other people, it's “why is the library closed today?” and “what’s that?”

I have the DVD of the 2004 mockumentary CSA: The Confederate States of America, which re-imagines history if the Confederacy had won the Civil War and basically ran the whole country on its own terms. Although slavery was starting to become passé, the powers that be just couldn’t get around to abolishing it. Of course in reality it is difficult to see how the "CSA" could have continued with slavery with international pressure from other Western countries; on the other hand, while Mauritania became the last country to “officially” abolish slavery in 1981, “unofficially” slavery is still practiced by the “white” Arab-Berber “elite.”

But at least we can say that Juneteenth is making a “statement” about this country, mainly of the "feelgood" variety, with a slight hint of mendacity. I wonder what “statement” this person was trying to make…

 

…about this:

 

Didn’t this person know what Erich von Daniken would have called that, as he did this:

 

Come on, man, get "educated." The Mayan empire encompassed all of Guatemala, but apparently in this case if a person knows a little they know a lot more than most (even if it is bullshit). This was an attempt at making a "statement" that backfired, at least with me around to see it. Why are you telling people not to purchase a product from Guatemala? Do you want the farmers that grow it to lose their jobs so that they have an excuse to migrate to the U.S., just to prove you have a "social conscious" based on questionable information?

Well, since I’m going a bit far afield here anyways, I want to talk about this website I encountered, which I suppose also makes some sort of “statement” about where our society is today, although I’m not exactly sure what that is:

 

Yeah, that’s right—that Jodi Arias:

 

Amber Heard probably took a few "pointers" from her, with similar "success." Arias is currently serving a life sentence for the murder of Travis Alexander, one hardheaded juror away from death row; I would say that the 27 or 29 stab wounds Arias put inside him was sufficient for the purpose, but putting a bullet in his head was definitedly “overkill.” She claimed during the trial that she was the victim of DV as a matter of convenience and not truth, since her motivation was clearly that of the “spurned lover,” a Hispanic diva who dyed her hair blond to look more “white,” and her actions prior to the murder clearly indicated premeditation and an effort to create an “alibi.”

But anyways, it is apparent that Arias has this crazed idea that she will get out jail soon on appeal and these drawings she’s done have been forwarded to friends who are quite willing to represent her "art" and maintain her website for a commission. Frankly, most people convicted of murder are not permitted to “profit” from their crimes in this way, but Arias might be an exception. Annie Elise’s "10 to Life" channel, which has this interesting video from the files of "truth is stranger than fiction": Taylor Parker aka Evan Rachel Wood on steroids...

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvkIMK67nb0 

 …also provides an update on Arias’ current career ambitions here  1  where we are told that cellmates thought she was a “sociopath” who had an ability to twist reality in a way that could con people much like Elizabeth Holmes did (and continues to try to), which brings up an interesting question in regard to Holmes; it was also noted that Arias was a schemer (like Heard) who received “special treatment” from prison guards and got away with infractions that other inmates would not; it was assumed that she "bribed" prison guards with “favors” of a “sexual” nature, like doing pole dancing without the pole.

I don’t know who would buy Arias’ work; maybe it is true believers in her “innocence,” people who still believe her lies, people who have eccentric tastes, maybe a little into the "macabre," or a few who actually think it has “artistic merit.” I mean, the stuff isn’t horrible, and apparently Arias has a lot of spare time to hone her “craft.” 

But why the hell allow her to expand on her narcissistic egomania, instead of forcing her to spend the rest of her life mulling over why she screwed-up her life by committing a horrible crime she actually thought she would get away with, like sitting on her brain here in the interrogation room in an apparent effort to figure out a new "story" after a detective had unraveled her first one:

 

Of course the only reason why Arias would fantasize about getting out of jail is because society has made a "statement" on who are the victims and who are the perpetrators in society, minus a few "exceptional cases" like this one. This is a society that allows her the delusion that if she believes her lies, then they must be true: it’s the “believe all women” mantra--even if in the end she is the only one still "believing."

Even if in Arias' case where there is no way around the truth that she is a psychopathic killer, the fact that gender activists remain silent about people like her doesn't mean that they don’t support her, it is just that their insistence on promoting a one-sided narrative that portrays men as the sole abusers and women as the sole victims doesn't have room for admitting to those "exceptions." 

After all, we live in a world where once a syndicated newspaper columnist like William Raspberry was filled with self-conscious shame and remorse for being black after a white man, Charles Stuart, claimed that a black man had murdered his 9-month pregnant wife and shot him in a robbery, and feminist columnist Ellen Goodman offered a tortured rationalization justifying her racist rant before all the facts came in—that Stuart, with the help of his brother, staged the robbery and shootings, thinking that blaming a black man would be believed without question (Stuart later committed suicide after this revelation).

But that was then, and today this society has made the "statement" that a person's race is not a relevant factor (unless, of course, the perpetrator is white or Hispanic and the victim is black or Jewish). Thus you can’t even talk about the kidnapping, rape and murder of a 13-year-old Hispanic girl, Hania Aguilar, because even "suggesting" in another person's mind “generalizations” about a certain group the perpetrator is a member of is “racist.” 

"Update": A “tentative” trial date for the accused in the Aguilar case is set for September—nearly five years after the crime, certainly long enough for witnesses to “forget” what they saw or heard.

We are certainly making “statements” about our society, but unlike in most "civilized" countries, what that it is a jumbled mess with competing interpretations of the "truth"; if it “fits” a “narrative,” then run with it like there is no tomorrow—but if it doesn’t, then pretend it never happened.