Stand Your Ground

There's something really wrong with Florida. Zombies, bath fitter or whatever that drug is called and yet another case that people are saying resembles the Trayvon Martin shooting.

45 year old Michael Dunn was at the convenience store with his girlfriend and asked a car full of teenagers to turn down the volume. Apparently they weren't down with what that jive turkey was gobblin', so that led to an argument between Dunn and 17 year old Jordan Davis who was sitting in the back seat.

Anyway, Dunn allegedly felt threatened and opened fire. Not once, not twice, but about 8 or 9 times before driving away. Davis, who was shot twice, died in the car.

That, my friends, is fucked up. Especially because Dunn is claiming the whole "stand your ground" law, so who knows if anything will happen to this guy.

Now I know what a car full of teenagers can be like. They can be asshats and act all tough and talk back. They're teenagers, what would you expect? That's not to say that they deserved what happened, because they didn't.

All I'm saying is that Dunn, a grown 45 year old man, should know better than to squabble back. If the kids aren't listening, if they're being douchy and disrespectful, don't give them the time of day. You've said your piece, you're the adult -move on. What's more, if he genuinely felt threatened, why didn't he just drive away? He certainly had no trouble driving away after shooting EIGHT OR NINE TIMES.

I'm not going to lie, I'm sure there's more to the story than what's been published thus far. Maybe he really did feel threatened by the kids if one or more of them claimed to have a weapon. Maybe his ego was hurt and Dunn, being a gun collector, whipped his cock out and got a little overexcited.

But the thing that bothers me the most is that the majority of these articles start out by saying who's white and who's black. For all we know this wasn't racially motivated like the Trayvon Martin shooting which had a clear racial bias on the shooters' part. Yes, I understand that the dead kid is black, that the shooter is white and he's saying that he stood his ground, but that's where the similarities seem to end.

Dunn didn't chase this kid down, he didn't continually go out of his way on this mission to "clean the town" of vagrants or whatever. He simply asked if the kids could turn down the volume -something anyone would ask in a public place.

Trayvon was by himself, Jordan had about 4 other people with him.

Trayvon was walking home, minding his own business, Jordan was in the parking lot of a convenience store in a car that was blasting music.

Trayvon was out for skittles and ice tea, Jordan was waiting for his girlfriend to buy wine.

You see how different the story becomes when you decide not to frame the incident according to a racially biased one from several months ago?

Let Them Eat Black-Face Cake!

Sweden is known for many things: IKEA, blonde hair, meatballs and being one of those forward thinking European countries that are just…well…European. You hear next to nothing about Swedes being pricks and dicks, so you can imagine why I was so caught off-guard hearing about the Minister of Culture cutting a cake in the shape of an African chick.

It sounded pretty ridiculous in more ways than one, so I looked into it and after scouring through countless, biased articles, I managed to find some that actually told the story. This led to the conclusion that the stunt was all for the sake of art and raising awareness of clitorectomies.

Yes, it’s far-fetched, but let me give you the facts, though it makes sense to do some research on your own seeing as this event was fairly recent and new information is constantly coming out:

Minister of Culture, Lena Adelsohn Liljeroth (who is a self-professed anti-racist) was invited to a tax-funded party at a modern art gallery to celebrate World Art Day. Makes sense seeing as she’s the Minister of Culture –so far, so good.

This is when Afro-Swedish artist Makoda Aj Linde comes in with a red sponge cake covered in black fondant all in the shape of a woman’s torso –genitalia included. Linde, who was in black-face, cut a hole in the table at the top of the cake, poked his head through and screamed whenever someone cut a piece.

Who cut the first piece? Liljeroth, of course, and she did it in such a way that simulated genital mutilation which is a fairly common practice in various regions in Africa.
 

Interestingly enough, the piece she cut was fed to the artist.

Once the pictures and videos were out, everyone lost their shit, grabbed their pitchforks and stormed the Bastille…or in this case, the internet which is actually a lot more populated than the Bastille was when it was stormed.

Everyone is pointing and wagging their fingers at Liljeroth –and the spokesman for the National Afro-Swedish Association is calling for her resignation.

Now allow me to play Devil’s Advocate...

Liljeroth is a politician. Politicians smile and nod because that’s what they have to do. Being a Minister of Culture, I’m sure there’s a lot of weird shit Liljeroth has to smile and nod to, and I’m sure she was prepping to do the same that day considering it was 

a) World Art Day and 

b) she was invited to a party at a modern art gallery.

We’ve all seen modern art: It’s random shit put together that the artist believes has some deeper meaning, but it’s really some overpriced hipster bullshit that makes no fucking sense. Given that Linde was the person who 

a) made the cake 

b) took advantage of the fact that a politician was there in order to 

c) raise awareness of the practice of clitorectomies in Africa, the act in and of itself could be easily excused as art thus Linde could get away with it.

Not to mention the fact that Linde commonly uses black-face in his art. Look him up, you’ll see that he paints black-face cats, people, draws it on busts and what have you. It’s his thing.

I’m not saying that it was a good idea for Liljeroth to laugh at the situation, but I will say that the environment and occasion made Linde’s artsy stunt give the impression that it was racially and politically correct.

If anything, Liljeroth is guilty of doing her job. If people are ready to place her neck beneath the blade, they should also be prepared to do the same to Linde, the co-ordinator of the event (because chances are they were aware of what Linde was going to do) as well as the people who looked on, laughed, took pictures and videos and had a slice for themselves.

All the same, I personally think it was a provoking  (albeit disturbing) stunt and just goes to show how ignorant the elite can be since this holds up a mirror showing the pervading ignorance people have in regards to human rights issues.

Regardless, we all know Liljeroth’s reputation isn’t going to recover from this and Linde will be selling his black-face art because bad publicity is good publicity.

At least Liljeroth lasted longer than her predecessor who resigned after 10 days as Minister of Culture.

Dance Like SOCAN's Watching

Now I’ve been doing my research for venues with relative consistency since getting engaged as there have been other things going on, i.e. school, but the thing I keep running into is SOCAN.

At first, I had no idea why these venues were suddenly listing SOCAN fees in their “Rates” section in regards to music. Since when did people have to pay to play some Biggie Smalls and Pachelbel at their weddings? Can’t I just pop in a CD so I can pop my booty in peace?

Apparently not.

SOCAN, short for Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers Canada, wants some of that paper because "music creators are entitled to collect their licence fees". 

Okay. I get it. They created the music and they chose to share it with the world…for a price. Fine, whatever, that’s their livelihood. Pretty annoying since I feel that music belongs to everyone, but since Napster in the 90’s, musicians have become anal about the whole thing so might as well give them their pacifier…I mean money.

But it gets worse. 

Not only do you have to pay the SOCAN fee for playing whatever mish-mash of songs you want at your wedding, but you also have to pay a fee if you, or anyone else at the party, has the audacity to dance to it.

That’s right. You have to pay a fee in order to dance. 

At your own wedding. 

It’s kind of like going to the club, except your family is there, it’s more expensive and there’s less chance that some random drunk guy will grope you at some point in the night…at least when you’re the bride.

But I digress, because honestly, this is some Third Reich shit. 

Dance has existed probably before any distinct, official spoken language ever came into focus. If anything, spoken language evolved from dance, given that non-verbal communication is ingrained in our DNA. Every single living being moves –even plants have demonstrated the ability to turn in whichever direction provides the most sunlight –and yet there is a law that has stamped a price on the natural inclination to dance.

The absurdity of it all genuinely renders me speechless.

Unfortunately, most venues include SOCAN fees in their rental price, so I can’t be all rebellious about it and not pay. Though I’m very much the kind of person who’d probably get arrested (or at the very least fined) at their own wedding, I’d rather it didn’t happen.

It’s one of those getting married things I’m going to have to put up with. Like wearing heels *shudder*.

Beetlejuice at Starbucks

Know why Starbucks’ Strawberries & Creme Frappuccino is that beautiful shade of red? No, it’s not because of the strawberry content. Your thanks must go to the ground up cochineal beetles, or so that they better understand you, it’s best to say gracias since these lovely beetles are of South and Central American origin (just like the people who spend their days in the fields plucking anything that ends up in a Starbucks drink).

Vegetarians and vegans (and anyone who isn’t Bear Grylls) are not happy with the fact that they have spent x amount of dollars on a Starbucks drink with beetle juice in it.

So what does the FDA have to say about it? Apparently, they were aware of this long before anyone else and decided, “Hey, as of early 2011, maybe you should mention that you used a beetle in the ingredients.”

But it turns out that Starbucks isn’t the only one guilty of using cochineal beetles. Apparently these beetles have been used for their pigment for a variety of products such as blush, lipstick, candy, shampoo and other fruit juices with a shade of red. In fact, they’ve been used even before the Spanish invaded in the 15^th century. And once they did, they decided, “Well, we’ve already taken their gold and their land. Might as well take the beetles!” And so began their first tour abroad.

In any case, why make such a big deal out of it now? Because vegetarians and vegans alike aren’t happy with the fact that they consumed insects without realizing it since insects are animals and animals are friends, not food?

Bitch please! People accidentally consume spiders in their sleep without realizing it. You gonna stop sleepin’ ‘cause you gwan eat a spider or two? Fug dat shit! And it doesn’t seem like anyone can avoid using or consuming anything that doesn’t have an animal in it, anyway. 

Not to say that I dislike the pursuit of vegetarianism or veganism. In fact I find it rather noble, albeit flawed by the fact that pretty much everything is made from a butchered animal, such as soap, glass, jello, various plastics…the list goes on.

My point here is, why complain about a few crushed beetles in your drink? You’re buying from a multi-million dollar company that overprices their shit to begin with. I can’t see how, out of all things to make a fuss about, it’s some cochineal crimson pigment? But I suppose they want to wash their hands of the dreadful ordeal of having eaten an animal without realizing it.

Here’s to hoping they won’t read the ingredients in their soap.

Dear SlutWalk...

A semantic shift for amelioration doesn't happen by marching in the streets once a year, listing off what you wore when a sexual assault took place and calling yourself a slut. It's a shift that happens over time by

a) word of mouth and;

b) it's application in written form.

In order for that to happen, you have to have a very clear re-definition of the word and that has yet to take place. 

All I'm seeing on your website are possible definitions that are vague and wedged between what a cop said at York University.

PHONY 2012

Joseph Kony has been terrorizing Uganda for decades and now he's terrorizing my Facebook feed. Everytime I log in, someone says something about stopping him, and the first step, apparently, is to watch a 30 minute youtube video. I was surprised that people on Facebook had the attention span to actually watch  a video on youtube that was over 5 minutes that didn't have something to do with cats. So, being my usual curious self, I watched the video just to see what all the hype was about.

The video was heartbreaking, but didn't completely sit well with me. To sum it up, it had clips of the director interviewing his child sponser in Uganda several years ago, pictures of disfigured children, snippets of politicians, video of his wife giving birth to his son and then the director holing up said child in a room with a picture of Kony telling him that he's a bad man and that he -being the good guy- is going to put a stop to Kony and all the bad things that happen in Uganda.

Can you say Messiah Complex?

What's worse is that the director is explaining his purpose behind the video thus: watch, share video, write letters to politicians, put up posters on 420 (assuming you're not too stoned on that day), the States will have a vested interest and not leave Uganda behind.

Hmmm...so the Americans have already sent 100 military peeps into Uganda to help their government find Kony and the LRA, even though Kony isn't in Uganda and hasn't been since about 2005 or 2006? And the LRA have been thinning out ever since? And are more prevalent in OTHER countries?

Seems a tad silly and misleading if you ask me (AND if you bother to do your research instead of believing a 30 minute video on youtube). Anyone who straight out believes that video and follows it wholeheartedly might as well wear a brown shirt and an arm-band with a swastika on it because clearly, that sort of gullible naivete belongs during the Hitler Regime.

But hey -that's just my opinion. If you've done your research and you already know the reasons why supporting the whole KONY 2012 and Invisible Children isn't particularly helpful and you STILL (for some weird reason) dismiss it as a bunch of bull, then at least consider the following:

They want to support American troops going into Uganda to help their military find Kony.

Who is no longer in Uganda.

That's like sending someone to my high school to find me even though I graduated about 6 years ago.

That aside, the Ugandan government and their millitary aren't exactly paragons of virtue. You're talking about soldiers who have been known for such atrocities as mass rape -a sadly common practice not just in Uganda but in most central African countries.

And yet this video is asking that you send American troops to help them out.

Troops that have been known to go into countries with the intent of profiting from that land for their own personal gain. This, as Kipling put it, is the "White Man's Burden". Things like imperialism and colonialism have not stopped and what the Americans have been doing for several decades now is proof of that.

But I digress.

The government of Uganda isn't all that sane. Sure they want Kony which is fair -the guy is pretty crazy- but so is a government that finds homosexuality punishable by life imprisonment and even death. THAT is what you're helping by sending money to Invisible Children. Sadly, most people don't see it because one of the greater things that IS invisible in the video is the fact that less than 1/3 of their budget actually goes to helping children in Africa.

Yes, Africa, the continent. Not just Uganda, even though that's the main focus of the film (which, in essence, isn't the main focus seeing as the focus is on the director telling his child that he's the saviour of Uganda).

And yet, with all this information easily accessible by our own fingertips, thousands of people would readily believe what's put into a 30 minute youtube video. So I suppose it was wrong of me to think that our generation is the kind that has a greater attention span than anticipated if this is as far as we're willing to go. As if pressing a few buttons, printing out a few posters and wearing a bracelet is REALLY going to make a difference.

We're living in a time where change can actually happen if we raise our voice -but we need to know how to use it and when to use it. Let's not raise our voice for the wrong cause. We don't want to be known as the generation that had tons of information available at our fingertips, yet ignored it to blindly follow a manipulative politician hiding behind hipster glasses and a camera.