Sunday, October 15, 2017

A White On Whites Challenge

Let’s not kid ourselves here: Anyone that is likely reading this is probably as white as a saltine cracker. This blog is written by a White dude (a border-line, old-White-dude), living in a very dominant White community in a very dominant White state and so if that’s the case, you’re probably White too. That said, this post isn’t for those White folk who reference Blacks (or other minorities) with derogatory/disparaging references, rather it’s for those who find themselves surrounded by such individuals or who have a neutral/say-nothing viewpoint. In essence, this post is especially for all of you Caucasians out there. Nevertheless, any Black folk that accidentally, luckily, or serendipitously stumble on to this, you’re certainly welcome to chime in as well.

So first this: Black lives matter. They really do. They matter as much as the lives of everyone else. And as long as we’re here, BLM does not mean that other lives don’t matter. Rather, in the light of so much injustice to those with darker skin, they matter as much.

That’s the essence of Black Lives Matter in case you missed it. No one ever claimed that it was about “Black lives only matter.” This phrase was coined due to the unjustified and unprosecuted deaths in the Black community carried out by a disproportionate amount of law enforcement officials. Specifically, Black Lives Matter is the response that erupted following the acquittal of George Zimmerman for the murder of Trayvon Martin. Alicia Garza is credited for the phrase in a Facebook post following the news of Zimmerman’s acquittal when she said, “Black people. I love you. I love us. Our lives matter.” From that brief love letter to her own people, one of her friends created the hashtag, and the rest is history.

Further, Black Lives Matter is not only about Blacks, I would argue that it is also a rally cry of all marginalized minorities of color, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

Black lives matter is another way of saying White privilege needs to be reeled in. You don’t have to look too far back in history to find evidence of this—whether it’s armed White dudes taking over a wildlife refuge in Oregon or armed White Nazis and Nationalists marching through the streets of Charlottesville. Anyone who has lived in this country long enough knows that none of that would have unfolded with so few casualties had these groups been African-American or Latino.

As Anglos, it is dire that we not remain neutral or silent—considering ourselves as only spectators in this struggle of social justice. Perhaps we can look to the examples of White NFL players Chris Long (Philadelphia Eagles), Justin Britt (Seattle Seahawks) and Seth DeValve (Cleveland Browns) who have supported, stood next to and kneeled with their Black teammates. In short, we can now factor in these role models of our own as we consider where we stand in this ongoing dialogue—if that’s what it takes.

Consider the words of Seattle Seahawks player Michael Bennett who has chosen to take a knee during the National Anthem this season after experiencing his own taste of racial profiling at the hands of law enforcement in Las Vegas. “It would take a white player to really get things changed. Because when somebody from the other side understands and they step up and they speak up about it. ... it would change the whole conversation. Because when you bring somebody who doesn’t have to be a part of  the conversation making himself vulnerable in front of it, I think when that happens, things will really take a jump.” —Michael Bennett / Seattle Seahawks

And so, here we are at a crossroad where I am asking you to take up my little challenge. You don’t have to take a knee during the National Anthem, march in the streets, or take over a government-run operation.

You see, I have a few of these Black Lives Matter wristbands that are yours to wear if you are up for the challenge. It sounds ominous, doesn’t it? But, you know what? I’ve been wearing mine here in Powell, Wyoming (perhaps the most conservative county in the most conservative state of the nation), and I’m still here. And yes, I’m ashamed to say that I’ve even caught myself considering removing the wristband when I’m about to put myself in a setting that might not be too kind to the message’s reception. Yet, I tell myself, those are the times I must keep it on.

Think of this challenge as you’re own little slice of everyday dissidence, or you’re own little silent protest. Yeah, I know, it’s a little uncomfortable at first, but as the quote says on the banner of this blog, If it’s not at least a bit uncomfortable, it’s probably not real dissidence. Some have stated that they’d rather not be political or controversial when it comes to something like Facebook, and if that’s the case, here’s a way of doing such outside of the Facebook universe. And if you just can’t bring yourself to this challenge, I’ll understand. I’m not going to think any less of you should you not respond, only more respect should you take up the cause.

Should you need inspiration beyond my words, here’s a couple good quotes that might push you over the edge to take up this challenge.

“Speak the truth, even if your voice shakes.” —Maggie Kuhn

“What we allow will continue. What continues will escalate.” —Katherine Fugate.

I would imagine to some extent, Black folk wearing BLM clothing and accessories is practically a necessity or at least, a given. But, it certainly isn’t expected or considered necessary when it comes to those of us with fair skin. However, as I sit here writing this, I’m starting to think that maybe such displays are necessary if we truly believe “all men are created equal.”

Wednesday, October 11, 2017

Curing Mental Illness vs. Gun Laws with Teeth

“This American carnage stops RIGHT HERE, and stops RIGHT NOW.” —Fuckface von Clownstick.
(And the people clapped)

It’s been well over a week, so it would seem now is good time to start talking about gun laws—before another mass shooting shakes the country to its core again. (Never mind the everyday mass shootings that injure and kill only a handful of our fellow citizens.)

As authorities in law, psychology, and other professions sift through the evidence more than a week after the Las Vegas shooting, everyone remains dumbfounded in the case of Stephen Paddock, the Las Vegas shooter. Even those closest to him (family, the gambling and gun-selling communities) are clueless and never had a vibe regarding his character of darkness that he kept from everyone so well. He certainly was an anomaly, but that’s how distant we are to addressing mental illness as a solution to mass murders. Think about it: its been over a week after the Las Vegas massacre, and we still have zilch.

Its odd that those who advocate curing mental illness is the solution to preventing mass killings, have no particulars when it comes to how we get there. It’s just this vague, clouded idea—much like asking for directions to a location and your told, “Yeah, I know the place, but I’ve never seen it, but if you go up the road a distance, I’m sure you’ll find it.”

This seems like a good place/time to ask why gun violence is always linked to mental illness? I think our society has a tendency to make the two synonymous. As to say, gun violence is the result of mental illness and mental illness is the result of gun violence. One thing to keep in mind—based on research—the overwhelming majority of people with mental illnesses are no more violent than the overwhelming majority of people in general.

Simply stated, the mental health discussion to a safer community that carries firearms is nothing more than a smokescreen for the gun advocates of our society. It’s simply a diversion with an impossible solution that keeps as many people away from talking about real solutions. This is a quintessential example of “kicking the can” down the road.

Can you imagine what advances in mental health it will take to reach a point where outward-appearing everyday guys can be found-out before they reach their inward critical mass to do the unthinkable (which has materialized far too many times)? It will be nothing short of placing mind-readers in gun stores, the workplace, and the homes of everyone who is suspect. 

And how far do we go in lumping the various attributes that lead to violence with mental illness? Most agree that things like schizophrenia, bipolar disorders, and major depression can fall under the mental illness umbrella, but what about those with a history of child abuse, binge drinking, or simply being male—because those things are also linked to violence. Then there are those who have experienced resentment, revenge, social isolation, a tendency to externalize blame, a fascination with violent video games, and a passion for weaponry.

The immediate answer to reducing the number of mass murders in America  isn’t in wrestling and sorting out the far-off mysteries and fuzzy-logic of mental illness, but rather in implementing concrete, extensive and tougher gun laws that mirror the requirements of other dangerous operations such as the various levels of licensing in the operation of a vehicle.

When it comes to mental illness warning signs, it seems fair that anyone who has over, x-number of guns (a number agreed upon by a rationale-minded group) and a bunch of ammunition is a candidate for some kind of mental illness screening. And, short of legitimate gun collectors, those who possess vast arsenals of guns and ammo, might this passion be an extension of their army-playing days in their youth. (If that isn’t a form of mental illness, I don’t know what is.)

Should we make drastic improvements in mental health that allow us to identify a mass-murderer before they act, then we can talk about the elimination of gun laws. For starters, if you want to stop mass murders, require every person who has x-number of guns and ammo, or owns an “assault-style, non-hunting” gun to get regular screening.

Getting a driver’s license, a car license, and insurance is a true inconvenience when it comes to driving. However, it doesn’t prevent us from securing our right to drive, it’s just a precautionary to ensure that we can carry out the task without being a great risk to society. And so, owning a gun should be the same kind of inconvenience for anyone wishing to possess a firearm and/or ammunition. Besides, if you're a “good-guy-with-a-gun,” you shouldn’t object to a little inconvenience, right?

Despite all of this, I’m reluctant to believe that if the day should come when we can identify people with mental illness quickly, the NRA-gun lobby will likely still resist anything that prevents people from getting their hands on guns.

For the time being, America has long since disqualified itself when it comes to “greatness” in its tolerance for continuous massacres of its innocent citizens. Any great country would have addressed and solved this problem by now. Australia... now there's a great country. New Zealand... another great country. Japan... yes. Etc.