If the black Florida teen had shot the white vigilante

... or the killing, for that matter, but thinking of the old frog in the boiling pot metaphor, the whole racism narrative looks to me like which frog broke first, based on whatever character flaws that frog had: For example, racism.

But nobody ever asks who's turning up the put under the frogs, including the Rs or the Ds. We're about to see a ton of self-reinforcing narrative from the both of them. Needless to say, the 2008 experience made me very leery of Ds and "progressive" claims of racism, since there was no good faith behind them at all (even though racism is real and bad, which made their use of it all the worse).

I'd almost go so far as saying that any narrative that doesn't hold the 1% responsible is a distraction, certainly one that scales to the mass media (and I'm perfectly willing to call the 1% a patriarchy because, well, they are....)

Here:

Everybody wants justice for his stupid, shitty death and for his grieving family.

But justice is the thing you go after only after someone has caused harm. Never before.

I'd rather have fucking safety, equality, and a society that functions for everyone than after-the-fact justice. I think Trayvon's parents would rather have him alive and happy and unknown than some martyr for Kids and People of Color who are killed by racists.

Justice doesn't actually fix what it broken. It just gives some measure of relief for the ones left behind.

Which leads me to the phrase Social Justice.

I'm cutting here because I'm not sure I agree with her solution, but justice for Trayvon Martin isn't the same as social justice. Both are necessary, but only one is sufficient...

... is Bonaparte. Check out the letter...