The Difference is Intent

This is kind of a followup to my last post. Kind of.

Couple of days ago I defended Betsy Perry for the unlawful and out of proportion hate she was getting for simply saying things about Mexico in her blog. Strangely enough, something similar actually happened in Boston recently with talk radio personality Jay Severin, who "said things about Mexico" during a broadcast and is getting in a little bit of trouble. But the two cases are very different. Perry used sarcasm, exaggeration, and other humorous techniques in her post and was labeled ignorant for it. Jay Severin has also gotten hate for simply saying things, and has been suspended from WTKK-FM radio for his comments. He's also been called racist, and ignorant, and all in all bad person. Here's a bit of what he said:

"So now, in addition to venereal disease and the other leading exports of Mexico - women with mustaches and VD - now we have swine flu."

"It's millions of leeches from a primitive country come here to leech off you and, with it, they are ruining the schools, the hospitals, and a lot of life in America."

Now here comes the dilemma. I support freedom of speech in all of it's forms, whether or not it is the most hateful bullshit ever uttered. I will defend hateful speech. That's bad, I know, but it's necessary. But in the case of Jay over here, I understand why he's been suspended. I understand why people are angry.

People could then say to me, well, dude, why don't you understand why people are angry at Betsy Perry? If you read her blog post (linked in my previous post) you'll get why. The difference is intent. I will not empathize with people who are upset because they've misinterpreted a rather insignificant rant. One that came to no heart-felt conclusions and pushed no agenda.

I understand anger at deliberate hate. At intentional generalization, and close minded words that actually represent the speaker's point of view. What Jay said is what he thought, he can think what he thinks, but he better understand why people are angry. The man can say what he wants, but in the context of his radio program he was showing a great deal of ignorance. He wasn't mocking the hate, he wasn't being satirical, he was simply saying mean things about an entire country.

Now, whether you agree with Mr. Severin or not doesn't really matter. There is nothing wrong with being very anti-illegal immigration, or even anti-Mexico, that is simply Jay's opinion. Where the issue arises is in how he dealt with the presentation of his opinion. He could stand on a soap box, be very preachy and use scary, angry words like "leeches" or "primitives" but he did it on someone's radio station. He shouldn've thought twice. Granted, he had balls, he risked saying something that could be interpreted as very inappropriate, but what he said wasn't entirely necessary. If he had thought twice he would've realized "you know, if I make my claims like that I'll come off as kind of ignorant and dumb and maybe racist. I honestly am very upset at illegal immigrants, and since I'm passionate about this I will be very serious and deliberate in my commentary on the issue."

So, defending Severin has nothing to do with his ideas. Rather, it's his methodology, and WTKK doesn't seem to be forced by some oppressive censoring agenda to get rid of him. He's being punished because WTKK wants to uphold it's image. The company has it's own agenda. If Severin wants to comment on the issues in his own special way, he might have to go to another radio station because obviously WTKK didn't approve of that methodology.

But words are fine, depending on intent. Depending on the anger that's behind them. I don't feel bad by saying "All my Mexican lady friends have moustaches and VD." Because I don't believe it. It's an unreasonable thing to believe. But it's funny to say, because it makes little sense. Severin could probably be really funny, if he wasn't serious. So sorry you got in trouble, Jay, but that's WTKK's choice, and by not being sophisticated enough in your approach it's kinda your bad.

So the difference is intent, right? The difference between Jay and Betsy in their comments about Mexico.

Well, now let's look at the difference between this and this. Recently some Gay-rights activists have expressed concern about the content of the upcoming film by Sacha Baron Cohen, Bruno:

"Several liberal groups claimed this week that Bruno's behaviour and image – he has bleached hair, wears copious amounts of make-up, and appears to strip-wax his legs, buttocks and chest – will actually end up promoting rather than undermining homophobia."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-gay-lobby-doesnt-get-the-bruno-joke-1704817.html

In the movie Cohen embodies the character of a gay Austrian fashion reporter, and through interactions with Americans exposes ignorance and idiocy in the funniest of ways. But apparently some groups think this means people might see Cohen's gay character as a bad person and begin to believe the stereotypes he portrays. With this claim comes the request that the movie should get some kind of warning label:

"Human Rights Campaign, the largest gay lobbying organisation in the US, has even called for filmgoers to be instructed about the "message" they should draw from the film."

Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Comedy, art, literature, creativity does not require a warning label. They're not cigarettes. Simply seeing an individual character embody a stereotype does not generate hate. Intelligent people do not base their interpretations of people on the exaggerated images they see in the media. Obviously, what these activist groups are doing is calling most of America stupid. Alright. They can do that. And maybe all these movie goers are dumb. But if someone doesn't understand Bruno it's not Sacha Baron Cohen's fault.

And of all things, he is not encouraging homophobia! He is not saying gay people are evil and are hurting our freedoms! Considering the fact that one of the main opposing arguments against gay marriage (a stupid argument, honestly) is that legalizing same-sex marriage will infringe on the religious freedoms of citizens, and thus their freedom of speech, an over-zealous gay-rights group moderating film content is more likely to encourage homophobia than Bruno is.

The difference is intent. And the intent can speak for itself. Bruno is not an undercover movement against gay-rights, it has no intention of hurting gay people. Nobody put a warning label on Huckleberry Finn saying "though Twain may appear to fall short in his humanization of Jim and black Americans, this book is trying to attack racism." And banning Huckleberry Finn is so 1885.

"The Concord (Mass.) Public Library committee has decided to exclude Mark Twain's latest book from the library. One member of the committee says that, while he does not wish to call it immoral, he thinks it contains but little humor, and that of a very coarse type. He regards it as the veriest trash. The library and the other members of the committee entertain similar views, characterizing it as rough, coarse, and inelegant, dealing with a series of experiences not elevating, the whole book being more suited to the slums than to intelligent, respectable people." - 1885
http://books.google.com/books?id=fdrBtpSSCisC&pg=RA1-PA116&lpg=RA1-PA116&dq=hemingway+%22huckleberry+finn%22+%22green+hills%22&source=web&ots=BIzUvlS8O2&sig=tFc7B8esmZs6DT0gLwx-0uxRgxY#PRA1-PA119-IA5,M1

Wait, what? Huckleberry Finn was the fifth most frequently challenged book in the 90's? The 1990's? Well. I guess we haven't learned anything.

Most importantly, Bruno hasn't even been released, and people should hold judgment until it actually comes out.

That is all. Simout!

Montezuma's Revenge (On Betsy Perry)

On April 30th Huffington Post blogger Betsy Perry posted a short (what I saw as satirical) rant about the American media's portrayal of Mexico. (you can read it right here)

In short, the blog danced around in Mexican stereotypes, mentioning all the bad news that comes from Mexico: crime lords (whom she jokingly calls "Bandidos"), corrupt police, drug dealers, etc., etc, all in all making the point that, at the moment, Mexico is getting a lot of bad PR. She jokes that "Nowadays the best PR Mexico has is the movie Beverly Hills Chihuahua."

And then she makes an interesting point:

"...can it be we have been looking for just this swine flu excuse to close our borders to Mexico?"

Could this be true? People have advocated closing the border because of swine flue. According to Democratic Representative Eric Massa (N.Y):

"The public needs to be aware of the serious threat of swine flu, and we need to close our borders to Mexico immediately and completely until this is resolved."
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/lawmaker-wants-border-closed-over-swine-flu-2009-04-25.html

Anti-immigration activists have also used swine flu as a reason to close off the States from Mexico. So, interesting- there are a lot of people who strongly dislike Mexico, illegal immigration, and all that Jazz, and swine flu could be, as Perry states, the excuse they've been looking for.

Perry also makes the point that Mexico is losing it's tourists to other destinations, like Miami, and that she wouldn't go to Acapulco these days even if she was paid. And perhaps she's right, Mexico is having a lot of headaches.

But the whole blog was merely a rant, an observation, and some questions, quickly thrown out and said. Maybe she doesn't want to go to Mexico. Whatever. No big deal, right? Well apparently I'm wrong. Here are some of the comments made on that entry:

"This article was filled with negativity and ignorance. Not all mexicans are bandidos, and [if you] want to find some bandidos, I suggest watching western movies." inc300

"What I'm trying to say by this is that your article is based on ignorance and xenophobia." Efraim

"How can anyone express this way about a whole nation?" PPGzz

"You little piece of unprofessional mind. Poor woman, you really need to get to know the world a little bit better, travel, learn languages, study and please stop writing!" Daniela Vizcaino

"Betsy may have not realized that she arrogantly CROSSED all HUMAN RESPECT and DIGNITY boundaries by verbally abusing Mexico" LatinAmericano

"Does she really believe that 'Beverly Hills Chihuahua' was filmed in Mexico? Does she really believe that 'Banditos' are Mexican?" emorales

Uh... what? Did we read the same blog? No, no, I'm being serious! Did we read the SAME FUCKING BLOG?! A lot of other comments made sure to say that (and I paraphrase) "hey, I know free speech is good and all, but this is really bad stuff, Miss Perry!!!"

All I can say is What. The. Fuck. People. No where in the article does she say all Mexicans are bandidos. No sane person thinks all Mexicans are bandidos. There is more ignorance in jumping to the conclusion that someone is generalizing than there is in the mocking usage of a stereotype. No part of the article contains the words "Mexico is ____" or "All Mexican People are _____," other than when Perry states that "Mexico is going to get a big time out and spend years on the naughty chair list" if it doesn't take care of some of it's bigger problems.

What happened to the use of humor, satire, sarcasm? What happened to the artist's right to be witty, funny, and exaggerate? What ever happened to the reverence of works like A Modest Proposal, wherein Johnathan Swift suggests that "the impoverished Irish might ease their economic troubles by selling children as food for rich gentlemen and ladies."

Was he serious? No! Does Perry actually "believe that 'Beverly Hills Chihuahua' was filmed in Mexico" as emorales asks? No. Fucking. No.

But people are sensitive about stereotypes. They are. Sometimes using them as a joke can be misinterpreted, because stereotypes and generalizations are sometimes used to oppress verbally. Well, fine, I guess. So Perry in her rant was offensive, but she was far from xenophobic and hating of all Mexican people. I don't know her, but I can most likely say that she probably doesn't hate Mexico, either. But maybe the content was just too extreme for Huffington Post. Maybe you're not supposed to say things like "bandidos" or "Montezuma's Revenge."

Oh wait:

"Karl Rove is one of those legendary mythological creatures: half doughy man-boy, half ratfucker. It's his nature. Once a ratfucker, always a ratfucker... Ratfucking in the private sector. Ratfucking at the mall. Ratfucking in the self-checkout aisle at the grocery store." Bob Cesca

"I am so tired of pink men whose wives double or triple the family income thinking they can spend it without doing a damn thing at home. I am so tired of pink men spouting nonsense on TV. I am so tired of pink men arguing, blathering, bloviating, predicting the future--usually wrongly--and telling women to shut up." Erica Jong

So, it's ok to talk about Karl Rove "ratfucking" and purposefully overuse the possibly offensive term for comedic and emotional effect? And it's ok to generalize about "pink men" being lazy at home, spending all their wives' money, and lying on television- as if all "pink men" were the same?

Well, to be honest, it IS ok. To generalize. Nobody wants to make sure Bob Cesca doesn't think Karl Rove isn't human, he's being sarcastic to make a point about his dissaproval. Erica Jong (hopefully) doesn't hate all white men, no, she used repetitive sentence structure, the reoccuring use of the phrase "I am so tired of pink men," in order to make a point and make her commentary.

None of them were spammed with angry comments. None of them have stopped posting at Huffington Post. And I bet they've gotten a lot less hate mail. And none of them lost their membership on a board because of these posts. At least, I don't think they did. But you know who did?

That "poor woman," Betsy. Because of overwhelming pressure, and the fear that this pointless fucking debacle would be a distraction to Mayor Bloomberg of New York, she stepped down from her post as a member of the Women's Commission.

"Betsy Perry, the Women's Issues Commission member who drew fire for her anti-Mexico essay last week, has resigned, the Bloomberg administration said Tuesday."
NY Daily News

So even the news is calling it an "anti-Mexico essay" and an "anti-Mexico rant." What a sad place we live in. And oh yeah, she volunteered under Mayor Bloomberg. On the Women's Commission. She wasn't part of anything regarding Mexico, immigration, social studies and Mexican Education or anything remotely involving her little rant. But she had an important position as part of "an advisory body to the Mayor on matters impacting the lives of New York City women." (http://www.nyc.gov/html/cwi/html/about/about.shtml)

And people are proud of this.

"The Mexican and Mexican-American communities scored a victory when they sent a clear message to the administration of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg: We will not tolerate being insulted and being called 'bandit swine flu carriers,' as Betsy Perry called us."
http://www.indypressny.org/nycma/voices/372/editorials/editorials/

Well, good job entire Mexican and Mexican-American community (because I'm sure its fine to generalize in this instance and say that all Mexicans and Mexican-Americans are better because of this. All of them. Every single fucking one of them!) you got her to resign. You made one lady, who apparently made a silly mistake of judgement by saying things, to step down from a relatively important position. Bravo. Bravo.

And she never said that Mexicans were all "bandit swine flu carriers." Anything close to that wasn't serious, was sarcasm. Sure, she may have an irrational fear of Mexico because of all the scary news, but whatever. She didn't hurt anyone.

She didn't hurt anyone.

So basically, I'm tired of selective free speech. Free speech being ok only when certain people like it. People had to right to get angry at Betsy. They did. But she should have fought for her right to say what she said. We all have freedom of speech, as long as we fight for it, and I'm sad that Betsy tried to keep things low-key, normal, and safe by stepping down. I'm a little upset she didn't stand up more for herself. But maybe I'm wrong, maybe she didn't have the choice.

Whether she did or not doesn't matter now. All that matters is that if this ever happens to me, I make the choice to stand up for myself, even if it isn't a feasible option. Because if I don't, I'm wrong, and I don't have freedom of speech.

That is all. Simout!

Seal of Dissaproval

PETA. They'll probably be a regular here. For lot's of reasons. But I'll start with something relatively new. Some time this year PETA launched a "campaign" against the Vancouver Winter Olympics called Olympic Shame. Their reason? Because of seal hunting which, according to the wikipedia, kills over 200,000 seals annually. I guess that's fucked up. Seals are cute, right?

I'm not going to have an opinion on the seal clubbing. I'm only going to judge to protests from both sides, especially the idiocy on PETA's part. I repeat: I will not have an opinion on seal hunting. Why? Because I eat veal. I eat dead baby cows. And I love the way it tastes. For me to give a shit I'd be a huge hypocrite. And I try not to be one. I don't wanna look like an asshole, like this guy protesting fur in a leather jacket. (Courtesy of deceiver.com)

So, PETA's tactics have always been a bit... radical. Almost funny in their obsessive use of violence and sex to sell animal rights. When you see their ads and their protests, it's hard to take them seriously. I mean, what the fuck? Being naked, in a shallow pool, in front of a large American flag has nothing to do with fur! PETA must hate our ancestors from thousands of years ago who lived in cold areas like Canada and had to wear fur to keep warm. Those assholes! They shoulda gone naked!

And this new website is nothing new. It's got a style reminiscent of Cooking Mama and Super Chick Sisters. (God, I hate giving them free hits... but the shit can only be mocked) The flash animations used are cartoony, almost as if they were directed towards kids. (like these comics that were handed out to kids) And the manipulation and fear tactics are very obvious. The home page has a video of cute seals with soothing music for the first half, and the second half has cheesy horror music and video of people clubbing and killing seals. Luckily, people aren't as easily swayed by this anymore. At least, I hope that if someone is shown a video consisting of cute kittens and then evil people killing the kittens they aren't completely prone to manipulation.

So the website asks people to do several things. First off, obviously, is raise awareness. Fine. Second, donate to PETA to help raise awareness. And thirdly, boycott Canadian maple syrup, which is, to say the least, retarded. PETA says this about the maple syrup:

"Canada produces approximately 85 percent of the world's maple syrup, with the U.S. as its largest consumer, and by buying this Canadian product, you are supporting Canadian cruelty."
https://secure.peta.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=2209

Ok... so it might seem like a good idea to stick it to the Canada Man by refusing to buy their syrup, but as far as I'm concerned seal hunting and syrup making are two completely fucking different industries. If Canada really does produce 85% of the world's maple syrup we can assume it's one of the biggest industries in Canada, thus hiring a lot of people for sales, production, management, farming, etc, etc. So by boycotting something that isn't related to seal hunting, PETA is encouraging people to hurt the Canadian work force. Luckily, since PETA is not too large of a group, their influence will be insignificant and any economic issues they do cause with the boycott will only make them look like the problem.

So I don't agree with PETA's methods. In fact, they're kinda like the KKK (not really, but hear me out): if the KKK supported some candidate or issue, that person or problem would suddenly lose some face. Look stupid. Bigoted. Evil, per se. Same thing with PETA. In fact, their shock based campaigns are probably not helping at all. I feel like the people at PETA have more fun protesting against the cruelty and murder of animals than actually getting results, seeing as they don't mind euthanizing pets themselves. I mean, what could be more fun than posing naked and rolling around in blood naked or hitting plush baby seals? The only thing that would make it more fun is if they beat the stuffed seal toys with baseball bats while naked.

And the stupid thing is, what PETA is doing is unnecessary. People are going through the right channels to stop the seal hunting already. In fact, the members of European parliament recently passed a law banning import of seal products from Canada. Of course, PETA claims that this was because of them:

"Following our campaign in which over 100,000 letters and emails were sent by compassionate PETA supporters... the MEPs have voted in favour of the seals. Well done everybody!"
http://blog.peta.org.uk/2009/major-victory-for-seals-slaughtered-in-canada

But I have a different example. An old example. From nineteen fucking seventy-two. The Marine Mammal Protection Act. Bam.

"MMPA prohibits the taking of marine mammals, and enacts a moratorium on the import, export, and sale of any marine mammal, along with any marine mammal part or product within the United States."

So people with actual influence (ie: the United States Government) have been pressuring Canada to stop this. With relevant boycotts. For over thirty years. And recently more governments are going to do the same thing. So, PETA, step back, and let the big boys take care of this. Anything you do would be minor. The most you could do is hurt Maple Syrup factory workers. I know you don't care about people, but c'mon. Just chill.

I'm not telling you to stop protesting. You gotta find some way to have fun.

But what's also ridiculous is the reaction on the part of Inuit leaders in Canada, who are upset because seal sales are a big part of their economy.

"Nunavut sealers harvest about 35,000 seals per year, with about 10,000 to 11,000 sold on the open market. Seals also provide an essential food source for Inuit in Nunavut communities, said Daniel Shewchuk, the territory's environment minister."
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2009/05/06/inuit-seal-eu-reax.html

I think this is retarded. Retarded. If the world community wants to enforce laws to end cruelty to cute little seals, people shouldn't get all hot and bothered because "how important seals are to [their culture]." They can adapt, can't they? Let's put it this way, if a native population of some country has historically made money selling flesh and skin (how about, human flesh and skin? Like a sex trade?) and this trade is being recognized as wrong and out of hand, that community shouldn't be able to claim cultural right to the trade.

Even if the Inuit are "humane" with the killings, if some people are given special rights to hunt seals, it could be manipulated. Like casinos on Indian Reservations. I know I sound like an asshole, but c'mon.

That is all. Simout!

Ingeo Bioplastics is in the House! Or: how much I hate water bottles.

Old news. Hate me. But it's my first actual post with substance. I missed this tidbit from last September borderline October:

"As part of its Green the Capital program, the House of Representatives has replaced plastic water bottles sold in its cafeterias with compostable bottles."
http://www.greenerdesign.com/news/2008/10/01/corn-based-water-bottles

So a bunch of hippies would probably jump for joy upon hearing that. Oh boy, the government is actually attempting to green shit! (Note: The only green shit I'm familiar with is a byproduct of blue-raspberry sherbert at Baskin Robins) Everything is apparently very awesome once corn plastic products are announced. At least, it seems as though people are excited about little stuff like this. Aren't you a Facebook fan of Ingeo, the corn-based polylactic acid product?

Moving on:

"Bill Horner, president and CEO of Naturally Iowa, said that controlled tests show that the bottles can compost in less than 30 days in ideal conditions in an industrial composter."

Well, I'm sure that's all fine and dandy and environmental friendly and whatnot, but now for a little bit of the negative: The corn used for these plastics is diverted from the world food supply. But, I mean, we eat the most food already, what's a little bit more? And secondly: the corn plastics require very specialized conditions to biodegrade. So even if the House already has a place to send all their compost that will properly disentigrate this stuff, some bottles are going to "accidentally" end up in trash cans, or recycling. Ingeo can't be recycled, and will not degrade quickly in a land fill, despite Bill Horner's claim that it would (depending on where it landed, apparently). In fact, Ingeo won't even biodegrade in your personal compost. Because I know we all have one. Whatever. To me, all that pocket pool is besides the point.

But what is the point, you ask? Simple.

Instead of banning non-biodegradable bottles from their food courts, the Legislative Branch should stop buying fucking water bottles. I mean, I understand it when some idiot gets finagled into buying the cool Alpine water taste, or the natural God's piss flavor bull shit (or, in this case, the taste of Grand Springs) but a fucking politician? I mean, I thought they were supposed to be smart. Didn't they graduate from college, or something? Like, get grades and shit? 'Cause they're excellent liars. I usually expect liars to be a little smarter, but I guess not.

And apparently these cafeterias sell over 100,000 water bottles annually. Fuck the environment for a second: that's a waste of money. A waste of my money! Even if it is a few cents per tax payer, I want to let it be known that if I'm paying for drinks in the House it better be Cherry Chocolate Dr. Pepper. Water is something we're already paying for. And you'd figure some politicians would get that. If they're thirsty, they should drink from a fountain, or the tap. If there aren't any water fountains, well there are alternatives. Here's my eight step guide to getting water without wasting money on fucking bottled water:

1. When you're about to leave you're nice fancy home, go to the cupboard in your kitchen.
2. No, not that cupboard. To the left one.
3. That's right. Now open it. Look inside.
   
4. See the cups?
5. Grab one.
6. Put it in your satchel.
7. When you're thirsty, go to the bathroom to fill up your cup.
8. No, not like that. With the faucet.

See? It's a fucking piece of cake! And if you did this, you could have Tay Zonday approved drinks in no time. Plus, if you wanna be a real stickler for green shit, have it be Ingeo plastic Dr. Pepper.

That's all. Simout!

EDIT: Forgot to post this, the facts on why tap water is safer and better than bottled.

A Blog

I've long despised. Hated. Darn tootin' looked down upon. With one of those sickly faces of disgust. But I'm douchey enough. Fucking douchey enough. To think that I can write what I think and press a button an' make it like real life. For real.

So to keep up with the times but not tweet like the fuck-holes who tweet (you know who you are. If you don't, check with your PR crew, because someone is sending out tweets to improve your image) I've decided to try out a blog. I wanna see if people are interested enough in my musings. See, there's the title. Musings + Simonet= musingonet. It's fucking clever. Blow me. I deserve a kneeling ovation.

If this picks up, I'll use my own domain. Jack off with the written word under a totally legit url. And maybe make some dough. Y'know, like, real life style. And pay for college. Because that's the point of it all. Paying. And college. Especially when it's expensive. Boom chacalaca.

I read up on all the tips to make a successful blog. But it was bull shit. Kinda, at least. It's the kinda shit that encourages social marketing, and interweb niches of sorts, where people of like interests "gather together" and "form a community." Bull shit. I don't want no part in that fuckery. So this isn't for an interest. This isn't a home base for people who like cooking for furries or anything. This is what I like. This is what I want to say. This is my little world.

But the great thing is that it's open. We'll never be a community, but rather, a dialogue. If you want to. A dialogue between You and Me. So come to disagree, attempt to prove me wrong, or simply to just witness. Because, afterall, I'm just talking to thin air until you come knocking.

So if you've arrived, enjoy the ride!

NOTE: The ride is not eco friendly. To make up for the fact this will all be online I burn a forest daily.

That is all. Simout!