A Week in the Life of Gustavo

"Seems to think that if he fails to write, la migra will find him."--OC Weekly More merriment available at ronmaydon@yahoo.com

segunda-feira, julho 15, 2002

The following are comments to some of my articles that were not directly written to me but nevertheless say some funky stuff about me. I did not respond to any of these comments as it would have been out of my league. Let's start with my article exposing La Voz de Aztlan as idiots...

enjoyed your article exposing La Voz de Aztlan! If you didn't know, it's been posted on the LA Indymedia, where La Voz de Aztlan used to post all sorts of hateful stuff a while back. Several people have commented against La Voz de Aztlan, but one person called you a "race traitor" and claims the OC Weekly is run by Jews!

And here are the offending words...

Free the media of Jews
by Not a traitor • Monday July 15, 2002 Mont 02:11 AM

OC weekly is owned by Zionist Leonard Stern and pro Israeli Goldman, Sachs & Co. It is part of the Jew propaganda mill of parent company Village Voice Media. The Cleveland Free Times is owned by VVM, which in addition to The Village Voice, also owns the Nashville Scene, LA Weekly, OC Weekly, City Pages (Minneapolis/St. Paul) and Seattle Weekly.

VVM New Times owns the Cleveland Scene, New Times Los Angeles and other weeklies from coast to coast. All of these rags are Zionist propaganda machines.

VVM attaks Aztlan because Aztlan refuses to support Israeli genocide. By being a pawn of these Jews Gustavo Arellano is is a race traitor.

For the record, Village Voice Media was sold off by Stern Publishing about two years ago. And the New Times has never been affiliated with VVM; in fact, they're our mortal enemies. But try to give facts to people like these, and they'll choke in their own self-indignation. Here's some nice comments from a fellow blogger...

This is way too creepy. Just as I commented on Cienfuegos diatribe against Arellano being paid in "schekles", the very next day, Arellano writes a piece about La Voz de Aztlan. I had no idea. It's just a coincidence, really. I swear. Arellano has me on his "shameless self-promotion list" which is an invaluable source of information, which is how I learned about this article 15 minutes ago. I only wish I had access to the documents that Arellano is privy to as a journalist. The newsroom here at Res Ipsa Loquitur is ecstatic because we know that more people read the Weekly than Voz de Aztlan. Way to go Gustavo! I am buying you a round of banderas (one shot of lime juice, one shot of anejo and one shot of sangrita, representing the colors of the Mexican flag, for my "Anglo" readers) next time I am down there, you lovable, righteous knucklehead. We love you, Gustavo.

Thanks for the love. Now, on to my Jewish Journal piece arguing why Jews must sell Israel to progressive Latinos...

Mr. Arellano is so full of himself in his opinion that he's most likely totally clueless about the arrogance and ignorance he reveals about himself in the article, in which he rambles on and on, and finally winds it up with a threat. How original!

His ignorance: one cannot separate Israel and Judaism. To make a poor, but valid analogy, one would have to separate the pope from Catholicism. Mr. Arrellano obviously has chosen to be ignorant. Here he is, trying to intelligently write about Israel and Latinos, and simly cannot because he doesn't know or desire to know anything about Israel, yet the 'progressive Latinos,' whom he writes about so dispassionately, have "championed the Palestinian cause." He rambles on and on about how we Jews better explain to him the reasons he should prefer Israel to the Palestinians. I ask, "Why?"
Mr. Arellano should at least know that Jewish people never left Israel, he should at least know that the plo Arabs were murdering Jewish children in 1926 in Hebron.

About arrogance: According to Mr. Arellano, most Latinos identify with Palestinians because "they are a people of color." What would he say to the thousands and thousands of Jewish Latinos living in Israel? Mr. Arellano is a racist who talks about, "Invading 'white' conquerors," his point, if he has one, is the implication that people of color do good deeds, white people do bad things. Haven't we heard this nonsense before? Perhaps Mr Arellano will someday understand what Martin Luther King, Jr. meant when he said, "Judge a person by his character, not the color of his skin."

And last but not least: Mr. Arellano and his 'progressives' should at least know that two of the worst horrors in global history came at the hands of movements which began on the far left, communism, which murdered over twenty million people and nazism. If Mr. Arellano and his friends choose to identify with baby-killing, genocidal bombers, what can I say to him?

She so mischaracterized my observations I nearly feel compelled to respond. Everything she accuses me of I speak against in my article. So does the following, more positive response to the same article...

Judaism is color blind..just ask me a jew from Ethiopia..and proud of my skin and my heritage. Praying in the same synagogue are white ashkenazim and dark skinned Jews from yemin.

Those latins you speak of are mostly Indians any how, whose lineage is derived from rapes committed by the Spanish conquerers.. and inquistionors..that is where they get their heritage and hate of Judaism.

This one's also a bit misguided. It's very easy to attribute a perceived inherent anti-Semitic streak amongst Latinos to our rapist Spanish forefathers. But if that were true, it would follow that we'd hate Muslims just as much (if not more so; Ferdinand and Isabella defeated the Moors, after all) and therefore not support the Palestinians either. So I don't buy that argument. Frankly, it's a bit theocentric.

Finally, a comment written to the Weekly regarding my Katy Jurado piece...


To generalize somewhat on Mr. Arellano’s comments, the face-off between Helen Ramirez and Mrs. Will Kane (Grace Kelly) bespeaks of a vast cultural schism. Ramirez commits above all to family loyalty when she asserts that she would defend Will Kane by force of arms if he were her man. But alas, he is no longer her man. For the Latin person, man or woman, the value of family loyalty tends to predominate, if at times to an impractical degree. Which is what makes Latin folks so sexy.

Meanwhile, the Quaker in Grace Kelly’s character asserts an Anglo commitment to broader social consciousness that could ultimately compel the sacrifice of her own husband. Her mind is divided. This clash between the most irreconcilable aspects of the cultures of northern vs. southern Europe, as dramatized so personally, elevates the scene to immortal status. Rarely has the big screen been “graced” by such riveting dialogue between two women.

"Makes Latin folks so sexy"!? Where do I begin with this? As a film nerd myself, I think that this writer is reading too much into the text. I wouldn't argue that the Jurado-Kelly scene (which is one of the great scenes between women in American cinema) bespeaks of a cultural divide but rather one of duty vs. desire. Kelly did not want to join her husband in killing because of her moral convictions but she helped in the end because it was her duty. This isn't specified to a clash between Northern and Southern Europe but rather one of the great thems in American Western literature: the hesitant but ultimately successful killer.

Enough for now. Time to eat...