Exactly! I was watching E! Investigates Too young too kill that counted down 15 casees of children killing and there were so many school massacres (they didn’t even mention Colombine) in the list and one after the other people said you don’t expect it to happen in a small quiet little town in the subburbs or whatever. I a sorry but that is a blood pattern that these white kids were able to attain weapons and bring them into the school no problem and kill other white kids.

“When Columbine happened and everyone was still in shock, on Larry King’s show he made a statement “this is not the kind of thing you’d expect to happen outside of say, an inner city neighborhood”. It didn’t floor me that someone would think this, but that he (even an old White man) would be ignorant and bold enough to say it so blatantly. So much of White America does not challenge itself on their racist beliefs, and they won’t even admit they have the luxury of not having to be bothered.”

I am not trying to be a smartass or callous, but why is that “bold” or “ignorant”? Because he said something so controversial so casualyl and felt the need to draw the comparison at all? Because it was a tip to the audience that people simply shrug at inner city crime while they’re shocked by this?

It’s a power thing, though with her youth and dominion, I can’t understand why the interest is there.

Clearly, it is pandering. FOX NEWS-style.

Affirmative action has been good for America and has helped the nation move into the 20th and 21st century.

Webb’s deliberate or ignorant omission of white women being the primary beneficiary of affirmative action shows us why the nation still can’t have a “honest” discussion on race.

they need to understand how society works, and why its beneficial to follow laws rather than to break them; they need to get a feel for the fact that law is there to protect members of a society from rogue elements that would impinge on their freedom to live happily.

whether a child be taken to a facility, or a child be taught by their parent, something certainly should be done. but i think these videos say less about the children than they do about the assumed capability of the parents. obviously the police feel its a good idea to get involved with the African-american kid, but with the white kid, there isn’t any police force on the show (why would there be?) but also the seeming assumed outcome for the white kid is that he wont be getting any slap on the wrist from the cops. (nor did the cop that pulled him over make an appearance on the show, strangely).

the point is in case #1 with the black kid the cops assume the parents dont have the cajones or skill to make do with the situation and make right with the wrong, pass the knowledge down of societies rule and the potential for harm, why the kid literally CANNOT act as he did, given the rules of society enforced by the punishments of it. they would rather he face those punishments in a gritty in your face realism that “the system” can bring; over the ability of those parents of this kid, their ability to make him understand right from wrong; police assume they aren’t capable of the job, and take matters into their own hands, essentially using “the system” as a surrogate parent, given the grandma’s seemingly assumed incompetence.

the white child on the other hand is seen in the arms of his family, with the camera panning to them regularly; these are “good” people who you can laugh with and even adore in a strange way- as the host seems to try to paint the picture. but juxtaposing the two videos, you see two identical children handled in two very different ways, not by their families necessarily, but by the police force, and the media seems to be lapdogs for the authority’s position, readily embracing the assumed … scolding-being-enough for the white child, yet not quite being enough for the black child. its not the child, again, thats being evaluated, but the ability of the parents to cope with this curve ball in their tenure as guardians of this child. the parents are either assumed incapable, or capable, by the law enforcement. the child is getting treatment based on this assumption, and therefore the law isn’t really working the way it should; that is, unbiased, and fair & equal, but more-so very biased, unequal, and just plain ugly.

i call your mexican gardener and raise you a white gay man that is not able to control his emotions and who values possessions over people.

i’m with laprofe63–i wish there were more compassion on all sides.

My brother (white) took a car for a joy ride with his friend when they were 14 — they returned it to where they took it and got caught. The police asked my mom if she wanted them to put him in juvenile detention to teach him a lesson, she said no, it’s just a phase, he’s a good boy at heart, but we will punish him. He was teetering on the ecge of good and bad at the time, and she chose wisely — he became that good boy in the next few years.

Yet, these people are still more afraid of Jamal, Darnell, & Tyrone instead of fearing Parker, Preston, and Tyler. *shakes head*

That aside, I think that if I were a LGBT leader, I would have made ENDA the priority of the movement.

I haven’t seen the film.

Rachel, I have to say that I am somewhat surprised that Cincinnati even has a Pride parade.

This article’s analysis was excellent and I am even more intrigued to see the film. I would encourage folks to read some of the comments brewing over at Colorlines. It seems people have settled into “thank you for highlighting these issues in the broader queer space” vs “don’t go airing dirty laundry/you must be straight so you don’t get it”.

He already has de facto power-over, so I’m left wondering if marriage offers additional “rights”/powers. I get the impression that by marrying her, he’d be neutralizing or restraining her in some formal/established/recognized way— that his de-facto-but-illegitimate power over her would be somehow legitimized, either by convention (ie: that’s just how vamprimony works) or by his (ab)use of the institution. Instead of just pushing her out, it seems like marriage will allow him to essentially imprison her in her own kingdom. IOW, it’ll allow him to override her will somehow, in a way he otherwise couldn’t.

FTR, I don’t see vamp marriage as a flaw in the show or anything; I’m not complaining! I’m just interested, b/c I don’t recall any existing lore about the concept. I wonder if they’ve thought it all the way through and will flesh it out more (ie: written new lore, which is always fun), of it’s just a throwaway thing. It’s fascinating to me. What is the nature of vampire marriage? What’s the functional difference between being a single vamp and a married vamp? And: why should (indeed, how could!) vamp marriage be patriarchal? None of our real-world “reasons” apply to them.

This reminds me of something I’ve observed during my time in mental hospitals. A lot of white people with psychosis/delusions have fears of blacks, Muslims, Jews etc. There are also men with psychosis/delusions who fear women, often for perceived conspiracy. Few if any of these people have ever experienced violence at the hands of POC or women.
Then on the other hand you have POC patients with psychosis/delusions who fear the police or white doctors, and women who fear men. Usually these fears are based on actual abuse. Yet few if any staff members note this distinction.

“The demand for marriage equality is irrelevant to the true queer struggle for equality. What we should be fighting for is the separation of social benefits from an archaic, het institution like marriage.”

exactly how i feel. as a queer woman of color I was planning on avoiding this movie simply because i refuse to financially support images of marginalized communities that hew so closely to kyriarchal norms. these films are a disservice to most queers and in the end only help those whose race and class privilege was already providing a buffer for them from the more extreme forms of marginalization suffered by queers who do not have those privileges. tolerance is a bullsh*t pity bone off the master’s table. what queers require is complete legal acceptance and support, and no less than the decentering of heteronormativity as a dominant paradigm for our culture is required for this.

Yeah, yeah…I’ve heard that is totally wasn’t about gender…that it was well done, blah, blah, blah.

But isn’t it funny that so often lesbians just happen to keep sleeping with men in movies over and over? Gay men don’t just happen to sleep with straight women over and over in movies. Straight men don’t just happen to sleep with gay men in movies over and over. Straight women don’t just happen to sleep with lesbian in movies over and over.

I didn’t feel well disposed towards the film because of that fact already. Now, this brilliant reading on race makes me even less inclined to even see it on cable.

Much as I differ with Camille Paglia on many issues, I agree that apeing the straights is no solution. Yes, we all have our various backgrounds and traditions (even white ones vary considerably) and it’s our birthright to honor them as we wish, but opting for cookiecutter mimcry and assimilation is a cop out that I want no part in.

What I WOULD like to see is more outreach to disadvantage/at risk queer youth, better substance abuse treatment geared towards queer folks, vastly improved legal resources for those who can’t afford it, facilities/options for elderly queers, and asylum assistance for queers at risk of torture, imprisonment, or death in their home countries.