Another Cartoon Fakeroversy

I guess that whole deal that some Muslims do with freaking out over cartoons that they find offensive or blasphemous or whatever the heck they want to call it, must work for them. And it must have been noticed by other groups as well. Or at least some Mexicans who are flipping out over "An American cartoonist's rendition of the Mexican flag" which depicts a "...normally a regal-looking eagle at the center of Mexico's flag riddled with bullets and bleeding." Uh-huh. And they've got their tortillas in a wad because why? Because they claim "...it's offensive to taint their national symbol with images of drug violence." Wait. What now?

Correct. According to AOL News, a one Daryl Cagle, who is employed by MSNBC.com (I'm not sure why that's important, but AOL News included it, so I figured that I would, too), drew the cartoon of the flag with the gunned down eagle as a "...reference to the drug wars that have riled Mexico and left more than 28,000 people dead there in less than four years. " That seems like a pretty reasonable visual metaphor to depict. Oh, but not for everyone. No, there are plenty of asshats out there who think that because they don't like something that other people should give a crap. And a lot of people don't. Oh, and by the way, here is the cartoon drawing in question. Behold!

One reader of some sort of a Mexican newspaper called el Universal (I have no idea what that it. It could be like The National Enquirer for all I know. After all, in that picture over there on the left, they have prominently featured a one Rihanna. Who knows what that's all about?), wrote in to say "It is a shame that a patriotic symbol like our flag, which is so beautiful to me, can be mocked by a stupid cartoonist...I think there are many other ways to graphically protest what's happening in our country." Unfortunately, he did not give any suggestions as to what those other ways might perhaps be. And really, the guy shouldn't just single out "stupid cartoonists". It can be mocked by anyone, regardless of intelligence and/or the ability to draw, and it probably has been.

Cagle has a blog which I have perused and found to be most excellent. A sample of his work can be seen on the right. He has several of his political cartoons which feature Mexico and it's impact/relationship on/with the United States. He's definitely right on target. But the fact that he has a blog means that people have easy access to communicate with him. It goes along with the blogging. (You should see some of the emails that people write me. They're not always happy if you can imagine that!) And on this issue, they certainly did. A one Ramon De Leon wrote, "I think your idea of bringing the violence in Mexico to light is excellent. Too bad you butchered it along with the Mexican flag. Laws in Mexico with regards to the use and depiction of the flag are in place to prevent this sort of stuff. Please consider taking it down and issuing an apology to the Mexican American community." Um, are you kidding?

See, laws in Mexico are different than those in the United States. Take your immigration policy, for example. Much, MUCH different. We don't have laws against freedom of speech, even when in regard to the flag. And even if we did, I doubt that those laws would extend to the flags of other nations. I can only hope that Mr. Cagle will not issue an apology. I'm pretty sure he's the kind of guy who isn't going to take it down, but a lot of people find themselves with their back against the wall and are sort of "forced" into apologizing for something that isn't worthy of an apology in the first place.

So, they're upset because someone doesn't respect their flag? Tell you guys what. How about you start respecting anything having to do with America and then we'll talk about your flag? Or, perhaps, do something about your drug violence and then we'll talk about the cartoon. But with over 12 million of your countrymen living illegally in this country and having zero respect for our laws, I'm not going to feel all that bad that you folks are all bent out of shape about this flag cartoon. It didn't get the Muslims anywhere and it isn't going to get you anywhere, so just pipe down. Or draw a cartoon about the American flag if that makes you feel better. I really don't think I care what you do, just stop making it out to be a big deal because it might be a lot of things, but a big deal certainly isn't one of them.

Well, We're Securing SOMEONE'S Borders

In a move that is both difficult to comprehend and understand, the Homeland Security Secretary, a one Janet Napolitano (former governor of Arizona), has agreed that the United States federal government should and will help secure the borders. Of Saudi Arabia. Wait. Of...of...what the what?!

Correct. According to something called World Tribune (dot-com, of course), the very same Janet Napolitano is quoted as saying, "It is a very rough border, very difficult to protect from illegal crossings." Uh-huh. And your point is....? I'm not quite getting it. Well, you know, "So many of our discussions were about how to protect a very tough, geological, topographical border from illegal crossings." These inexplicable remarks were made when she was visiting "the Saudi kingdom" on May 31, 2010. (I don't really know why they didn't just say "Saudi Arabia", so it might not be the same, but I'm guessing that it's pretty darned close.

And according to something called the Middle East Newsline (I'm sure they're reputable) "Officials said Riyad and Washington were expanding cooperation in protecting the kingdom's borders from insurgents and smugglers." Oh, good! Cooperating with another country to help secure some borders. That sounds promising. Wait. I keep forgetting that we're not talking about the US borders here. Silly me. Why would I keep thinking that the federal government would be protecting our own borders first?! What am I thinking?!

But enough about me. How about more from Janet Napolitano? She made the point that "So many of our discussions were about how to protect a very tough, geological, topographical border from illegal crossings." I'm still a little unclear on why we can't have these discussions about the US borders! Why are we OK with securing every other border except for our own?! Does no one else see the irony in this?!

Oh, no. Of course not. See, "We all share a concern about terrorist activity emanating from Yemen. Actions of the U.S. in Yemen are with the consent, cooperation of the government of Yemen." Oohhh. OK. I got it now. Look, just substitute "Mexico" for "Yemen". That's why this isn't happening here. Mexico doesn't want to secure the borders. They don't want to cooperate. They're too busy with their drug cartels and their corruption to worry about securing the borders. Granted, none of that explains why we, the world's superpower, can't just do it ourselves, but I'm sure there's a reason. I can't imagine what it is, but it's either a reason or just sheer stupidity on the part of Homeland Security. I'm holding out for a reason. See, because if I don't, I'll have to build the wall around my walled off compound at least two feet higher and it's already pretty high. I'm thinking about just going to a dome defense. We are so doomed. And screwed. Totally scroomed.

Why has mainstream media not picked up on this little gem of a story? Why am I reading about this online in something called the World Tribune (no offense, World Tribune)?! Why am I not seeing this on the alphabet networks nightly newscasts? I don't get it! We're willing to spend our time, our resources and quite possibly our lives defending other countries borders, but not our own?! Don't get me wrong. I'm all for stopping the terrorism threat from Yemen from flowing anywhere. That's a good thing. But I can hardly see the logic in being all gung-ho over something like that, but not seeing the need for the same sort of importance and implementation in this country! And not only not seeing the need, but coming out against any sort of attempt by the states, specifically Arizona, to take illegal immigration matters into their own hands!

I don't get it.

FIFA 2010 World Cup Underway

Amid my reading of the final versions of the novellas, and the conceptual art projects, I've taken some time to catch some of the FIFA 2010 World Cup games, which began yesterday with host country South Africa's match against Mexico. To the relief of the South Africans, and perhaps the Mexican fans, the match resulted in a 1-1 tie. Draws in fact have dominated the tournament's first day; in the other opening day match, France and Uruguay finished 0-0. On Day 2, today, South Korea trounced Greece 2-0, while Argentina beat Nigeria 1-0, and nearly scored several more.
The match to catch (and I missed it because I've been at a poetics conference), however, was England vs. the USA. Despite having a team packed with Premier League stars, England could only manage a 1-1 tie, which counts almost as a win for the Americans.  The game started in heart-dropping fashion for the US when English midfield Stephen Gerrard scored only 4 minutes into the contest, based on a defensive lapse, the sort of harbinger of a US debacle to come. Yet the Americans were able to hang on from that point onwards, even surviving a potential injury to their star goalie, Tim Howard, when England forward Emile Heskey slid cleet-first into the Howard's chest, and, in one of the most remarked moments of the tournament thus far, tied things when Clint Dempsey kicked a squibbler towards the English net and goalkeeper Robert Green couldn't hold onto it before it crossed the goal-line. From that point onwards the US team made no significant mistakes, despite being outshot 10-4 and corner-kicked 8-4. A great deal of credit goes to Howard for unflappable play, and to Dempsey and Jozy Altidore, who nearly got another US goal, for penetrating the English defense.

Tomorrow's games should provide some excitement, though I forsee Germany tromping over Australia, and Ghana v. Serbia ending a tie while I predict Slovenia will defeat the unheralded Algerians. The game I'm waiting for is Brazil's opening match, on Tuesday, against North Korea. In tribute to the match, I even wore my Brazil socks yesterday.  Below are a few of the photos from the games that I was able to cull thus far.

South Africa's goalkeeper Itumeleng Khune (R) and defender Aaron Mokoena (C) try to stop Mexico's striker Giovani dos Santos (L) from scoring during their 2010 World Cup group A first round football match on June 11, 2010 at Soccer City stadium in Soweto, suburban Johannesburg. (GABRIEL BOUYS/AFP/Getty Images)

South Africa's midfielder Kagisho Dikgacoi vies with Mexico's striker Giovani dos Santos during their Group A first round 2010 World Cup football match on June 11, 2010 at Soccer City stadium in Soweto, suburban Johannesburg. South Africa and Mexico play in the opening match of the 2010 FIFA World Cup. (PIERRE-PHILIPPE MARCOU/AFP/Getty Images)

France's striker Nicolas Anelka (C) and France's striker Sidney Govou (R) fight for the ball with Uruguay's midfielder Alvaro Pereira during their Group A first round 2010 World Cup football match on June 11, 2010 at Green Point stadium in Cape Town. (FRANCK FIFE/AFP/Getty Images)

CAPE TOWN, SOUTH AFRICA - JUNE 11: The French team line up ahead of the 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa Group A match between Uruguay and France at Green Point Stadium on June 11, 2010 in Cape Town, South Africa. (Photo by Jamie McDonald/Getty Images)

England's Jamie Carragher (L) fights for the ball with Jozy Altidore of the U.S. during a 2010 World Cup Group C soccer match at Royal Bafokeng stadium in Rustenburg, June 12, 2010. REUTERS/Brian Snyder (SOUTH AFRICA - Tags: SPORT SOCCER WORLD CUP)

U.S. goalkeeper Tim Howard fails to stop a goal by England's Steven Gerrard during a 2010 World Cup Group C soccer match at Royal Bafokeng stadium in Rustenburg, June 12, 2010. REUTERS/Brian Snyder (SOUTH AFRICA - Tags: SPORT SOCCER WORLD CUP)

 Clint Dempsey of the US celebrates after scoring during a 2010 World Cup Group C soccer match against England at Royal Bafokeng stadium in Rustenburg June 12, 2010. REUTERS/Brian Snyder (SOUTH AFRICA - Tags: SPORT SOCCER WORLD CUP)

Monday Round-up

A few blips today: What wonderful news that Mexico City will become the first capital in Latin America (and the third in North America, after Ottawa and Washington, DC?) to ensure marriage equality, with its city assembly's passage of a same-sex marriage bill. The bill passed 39-20, with 5 abstentions. According to this BBC News report, the bill changes "the definition of marriage in the city's civic code - from the union of a man and a woman to 'the free uniting of two people.'"

I meant to post a congratulations to Annise Parker on her victory in the Houston mayoral race a week ago (December 12), but that post vanished into the ether, so let me belatedly do so. Parker becomes the first out lesbian to lead one of the US's top 5 largest cities, and probably among the first to lead a major city in one of the former states of the Confederacy.


Annise Parker, Houston's new mayor (Advocate.com)

Speaking of leadership, Drew Westen, the noted linguist, author of Metaphors We Live By and The Political Brain, and Emory professor, has a devastating article in today's Huffington Post on Obama's lack of leadership, laissez-faire style and content-free politics, and their effects on policies and the Democratic base and independents. (I'll try to write more about this tomorrow.)

Though he may be hands-off when it comes to major issues (the health care reform bill, the global warming/climate change/green technology crisis, the ongoing economic debacle, etc.) or too much of a Bushite (with his own "surge" in Afghanistan, continuation of infinite detentions and the Patriot Act, refusal to prosecute the criminal element that led the US over the last 8 years, etc.), Obama has been very good about appointing Latinos to government posts, many of them Harvardians. He's outpacing both W and his avatar*, Clinton. On the symbolism joint, he's got his act together.


Thomas E. Pérez, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division (mainjustice.com)

In case you were wondering what's in this crapola insurance and pharma-giveaway bill we're all supposed to get behind and believe is the best thing since Medicare or Social Security, McJoan at DailyKos gives a rundown. It's many eggs short of a dozen, no matter how prettily Sheldon Whitehouse and his colleagues try to dress up the carton.

Speaking of Avatar, which I haven't yet seen but am rather curious about, not everyone is rhapsodizing the film. Annalee Newitz at io9 asks, "When will white people stop making movies like 'Avatar'?" Nihilistic Kid offers a funnier but similarly cogent political take. And poet Ruthellen Kocher poses important questions about colonialism and how to discuss this with her youngster when seeing the film.


Sam Worthington as Jake Sully, in Avatar (telegraph.co.uk)

Speaking of colonialism, client states, and warmongering, I keep asking anyone who'll listen: what is really and currently going on in Iraq? On the flight overseas, I came across this New York Times article about black Iraqis. Why hasn't there been more reportage of this? Does the President, a great inspiration to them, know or even care what's going on over there?

I am behind on New Yorkers (by weeks now--this means my graduate fiction students next quarter may not have to read so many of this year's stories), but I enjoyed the snarky piece, "To the MAXXII" (only the audio slideshow's online) on Pritzker Prize-winning artist and architect Zaha Hadid, who's finally seeing her visions realized. Why does the writer keep commenting on her clothes, though? Would this happen to a male (st)architect? Also, Joan Accocella's short commentary on Geoffrey Chaucer-related books and Peter Ackroyd's butchered "translation" of The Canterbury Tales was a highlight. Note to authors: some books do not need to be "updated."

Lastly, it appears that residents of Laredo, Texas, a city of over 250,000 people, will be without a single chain or independent bookstore very soon. Barnes & Noble is closing its "profitable" B. Dalton outlet there, because it's not...bringing in enough money! Disgraceful.

Weekend Notes

I saw today that President Elect Obama is backing the laid off workers who've staged a sit-in since the beginning of this weekend at the Republic Windows & Doors plant (here) in Chicago. The roughly 300 employees were told on Tuesday that because of financial problems caused by Bank of America's cancelation of a line of credit, they would be let go by the end of the week, which was last Friday; one problem is that they didn't receive severance or benefit pay. The article implies the union is working to resolve the issue, while the owners of the company are engaging in shell games and not responding to media queries about what's going. Local politicians are condemning Bank of America, which is an easy target since it's one of the few remaining banking behemoths, although it's doubtful that such posturing will have any effect. Meanwhile, the protesting workers are wondering when they'll get their pay and what will they do just as the holiday season is rolling around. Any bailout coming for them and the hundreds of thousands now out on the street?

+++

To add insult to injury, the parent company of the newspaper to which I'm linking, the vaunted Chicago Tribune, for decades the Second (now Third) City's leading, conservative paper, is on the knife's edge of bankruptcy. As in, it could come as swiftly as this week. The Tribune Company's owner, Sam Zell, took the company private for about $8 billion, an insane amount even factoring in the portfolio's sterling pieces, the Chicago Cubs, and the major league baseball temple, Wrigley Field, neither of which he can unload right now, and repeated decimating waves at the company's various units, including the Los Angeles Times, Baltimore Sun, and the Tribune paper itself, haven't brought in the fantastical revenue needed to service the debt. As I wrote to some correspondents earlier, "the media entities under Tribune control are like those insects that are devoured from the inside out, leaving the appearance, though sickly, of being alive, while being utterly hollow on the inside." Well, not completely hollow, but they're getting there, and we can certainly thank greed and deregulation, alongside the technological challenges the newspaper industry is facing, for hastening these events. At this rate, the nation's second and third largest cities could find themselves with one less major newspaper by January 1, 2009, if things continue on the track they're on now.

(On yet another point, this grim news about the publishing industry came out last week. As James Schuyler once wrote, another day, another dolor.)

+++

On a completely different note, I found Marc Lacey's New York Times article on the muxe, transgender/gender-queering people and related social matrix in Oaxaca, Mexico, both fascinating and a bit confounding. Confounding because the article proceeds as if, despite the wealth of material on gender and sexuality among indigenous peoples and a great deal of work on global performances of gender and sexuality, and despite the extensive contemporary discourse in gender studies and queer theory, there were little context whatsoever beyond the notion there are gay people, there are straight people, and there are some men who don't exactly fit either category but many of them dress up like women, consider themselves women, assume important roles in their community and are mostly and widely accepted, yet how do we define them according to the very fixed rubric of gay/straight? (Of course the word "lifestyle" has to enter the picture!) Etc. I say this not to criticize Lacey so much as to note that for the umpteenth time I'm registering the vast gulf between how things are discussed within academe and outside it, here in the putative newspaper of record. What might an article that were graspable by most readers yet that took into account contemporary discourse on gender and sexuality look like? How might it read so that anybody could read and engage in and with it, and how might academics, and non-academics open up conversations even more to make this happen?

“Thalía,” who was named princess the night before at a vela, or community celebration, for the muxes, waits for a parade to begin (New York Times, Katie Orlinsky)

+++

I was going to write about how I've been baking bread of late, and how it deepened my appreciation first for anyone who does this regularly, for homemade food and cooking, for the felicities of the Internet as an archive and resource, for the simple and profound joy you can derive from successfully accomplishing a task of this sort, for C's marvelous examples as a cook, for my ancestors who had to do this sort of thing with far less at hand, for the delight of finding another way to be thrifty, for finding a way to take my mind of the mounting stacks of material to be read and my own glacially proceeding writing projects, and for the ending of Raymond Carver's famous story "A Small, Good Thing," which I regularly teach and which, despite its evident exemplary status in the contemporary, American realist canon, still carries a faint whiff of the ridiculous with its suggesting that devouring freshly baked bread might create an affective, emotional and social bridge between a grieving couple, parents who've lost their only son, and a crank of a baker whose isolation has led him to behave in an unconscionable way. But then, I made and baked and ate this bread--C. had already done so a number of times--and I realized that Carver might be on to something. I'm not saying that freshly baked bread is the best offering to patch up a broken friendship or any other sort of inimical situation, but the smell of the bread coming out of the oven, and the taste, with just a little butter, or olive oil, or olive tapenade, is enough to calm even pretty severe personal tensions. Or at least I thought so after this last loaf came out of the oven. It really is delicious. Since I've heard that a few readers enjoyed the mulled wine, I'll post a recipe for the bread soon. I need to try it a few more times to make sure I've got it right, and then I'll post it here. A photo, though, of the penultimate loaf: