Black Lives Matter

Look, it's not up for debate. No "buts." Black Lives Matter. I cannot believe it's really necessary to explain that this awareness-driven slogan is not meant to imply "Only Black Lives Matter." That's not what it means at all. To take it as such is, frankly, a weird reaction and I have a few questions for you later. But first, let me be clear. Black Lives Matter means Black Lives Mattter Too.

THIS IS A NATIONAL CRISIS

We're in a crisis right now. That's why the Black Lives Matter was born. Tragically necessary, #BLM is social movement meant to plead with law enforcement to stop their nationwide rampage of randomly murdering people on the street, and in their homes and cars. Coast to coast the unprovoked shooting or beating of a black person was becoming normalized, and some of us were freaking out over how these events, ordinary traffic stops, results in a gun even appearing? One time with a baby in her car seat, even? Thanks to smart phones and Facebook, these events have been chronicled and shared, and it's been plain to see that every single one of these senseless deaths have been situations where a gun wasn't even necessary. Where a conversation would have cleared up any confusion. Trayvon, just a kid, was stalked and killed by some random asshole that isn't even a cop. Just some gun nut with a superiority complex who has since been recorded gloating and signing autographs in his specious glory as "the guy who killed Trayvon." In the local police firing range, Trayvon's photo was made into a target practice poster and nobody understood why that's horrific. There was no gun fired in the case of Mr. Garner, who was tackled by cops for selling cigarettes. Pinned to the ground, crying out "I can't breathe" until he finally asphyxiated and died. I wonder what it's like to be pinned and deprived of air for so long. Horrifying. Out of this climate arose the campaign. It's simple. Three words. Black. Lives. Matter.

Who is wholly against this nationwide cry for mercy? Who protests this peaceful, quiet reminder that no living soul deserves to be targeted just for the happenstance of birth that determines the color of one's skin? Is it you? Is your response an outraged "All Lives Matter!" Did you just tell me "Blue Lives Matter"? I see. Clearly someone needs to explain to you that you're demonstrating a fairly appalling point-of-view right now. When you react to "Black Lives Matter" with "All Lives Matter" or "Blue Lives Matter," that's antagonistic. What you mean is "No, BLUE lives matter!" Or put another way, Blue Lives Matter More. The main problem with your retort, and this cannot be emphasized enough, is that, completely unlike black lives, nobody has ever implied that all lives don't matter. You don't need to SPECIFY that. Of course all lives matter, and I'd also like to know what's wrong with you that you would possibly consider for one moment that I think otherwise? Remind me never to count on you in a crisis. It's not up for debate. No "buts." Black Lives Matter. That is all. ∎

...more of this post

Trigger Warning: Fucking Guns

In the wake of yet another senseless mass shooting, social media has erupted in the expected din, self-righteous advocates on both sides of a hot button issue feverishly posting their little hearts out. It's a futile loudness war fought online with Tweets and memes and platitudes flying high, nobody winning and nobody backing down. Candlelight vigils, thoughts and prayers.

Fuck the candles. Ban the guns.

...more of this post

This Is All I Will Say About Rolling Stone

Rolling Stone magazine put the face of the Boston Marathon bomber on its cover this month. The tension is high, the heated discourse is still underway, and of course fire burns hottest at the center so here in Boston it's a divisive issue. On one side of the divide, outrage.  On the other side, here comes the splainy-face, finger-wagging crowd that likes to pretend intellectual superiority. These are "don't be a crybaby" naysayers rushing to mock and denigrate anyone who said "Hey, maybe don't put this kid on the cover of your magazine for the sake of all that is decent." Yes, everyone understands that magazines need to sell in order to stay afloat. We all get that, and it's still the dumbest argument ever, Mr. Splainyface. Here's the thing, naysayers: being on the cover of Rolling Stone once meant you were a cultural icon on the level of Michael Jackson, Bruce Springsteen, the Beatles. Even Al Gore, for his environmental work. It's kind of a big deal to get the cover, to lots of artists and other dreamers. 

"What does a person have to do to make the cover of Rolling Stone?"

The loudest of the naysayer arguments is "But they put Charles Manson on the cover, it's the same thing." No, the Charles Manson cover was not the same at all. First of all, that was 43 years ago. Can we stipulate to some social progress over the past fifty years?  You want to be back in 1970? I don't. In 1970 my boss would be able to call me honey, slap my ass and tell me to fetch him a sandwich. Your central argument is either total ignorance, or else you're deliberately acting obtuse. Manson instructed the girls and Tex to write in blood on the walls in such a way that the investigators would think black people did it. The motive was to start a race war. Even without the morality shift towards today's less shitty social contract than the one that existed in the 1970s, the Manson cover was still completely different.

Why Manson Was Different

Rolling Stone is primarily an entertainment publication. It would have been weird if Rolling Stone had not covered the story from an entertainment point of view. For one thing, Manson was a would-be musician, and certain psychologists have written think pieces suggesting that his being passed over by the music industry set him on a collision course with "the establishment." Add to that the Beatles' "Helter Skelter," a song that Charles Manson wove into his twisted world view as a message that set him on these bloody crusades. "Helter Skelter" was extremely central to the Manson case, later becoming the title of the most famous book about the case (written by lawyer Vincent Bugliosi) and later made into a movie. Then you factor in the tragic victim-hood in actress Sharon Tate, slaughtered along with her unborn baby, the child of her famous filmmaker husband Roman Polanski. So yes, of course the Manson murders devastated the worldwide entertainment community. And finally, and perhaps most noteworthy, unlike the bomber, that Manson cover photo was not deliberately sexualized like this cover. Here, Rolling Stone didn't use a mug shot. They found an attractive, doe-eyed photo of a confused kid looking like he's just beat out Bruno Mars for the top single this week. Like he has fans, like a rock star.

Madmen as Rock Stars

History is cut with a large, crazy stripe of idolizing madness. Volumes have been written by people a thousand times smarter than me about the dangers of elevating madmen to iconic fame. Manson had fans, and does still, as do many a crazed killer from Jesse James to Machiavelli. Now, maybe Rolling Stone putting the Boston bomber on the cover was deliberate. A statement about radical nationalism, showing that just about any young person can be radicalized like this boy was; or maybe he does have fans. Either way, this is another chapter in that discourse, that's all. Let people talk about it. Let people feel their feelings about it. No amount of your uber-cool eyerolling about the relative relevance of Rolling Stone is going to contribute to the situation, so save the superiority for your blog.

At the end of the day, try to realize that being on the cover of Rolling Stone signifies that you're a rock star. And now, say the most outraged, we bow our heads and wait for the next bored, young rebel who does not even understand the cause, to plan and execute his attempt to go out in a blaze of glory. The question is still "What does a person have to do to make the cover of Rolling Stone," but the new answer is terrifying.∎

...more of this post

I Am So Sorry, Trayvon

That monster saw a black boy walking in his neighborhood, followed, taunted, confronted and shot that boy for no goddamn reason. George Zimmerman should be in jail.

My heart, my soul, my mind all ache for Trayvon, his friends, his family and everyone in America whose expectations were dashed last weekend. George Zimmerman is a predator who hunted and killed a boy just because he thought he could get away with it, and now the law has shocked us all by approving his actions. Justice died that day.

...more of this post