There is a blog out there who seems to be commenting on aspects of Berkeley life, even directly linking to my blog, without making any statement of his existence. Interesting. He doesn't even link to me in the side bar. Anyway, he has this to say:

"re: the latest Heuristic Squelch ... not only are some Jews upset, campus feminists are also furious at a terrible joke about rape. Already there are rumblings of trying to call for a yanking of ASUC funds. I believe in free speech, so I don't think I would support that. But I think writers for the Squelch should do the decent thing and choose to apologize to both groups for causing offense. Personally, I can understand the satire in the case of the T-shirts, but I see no satirical merit in the comment regarding rape. It's not funny."

Why do people feel that they can unequivocally say something is funny or not? As far as I know, all you can say is that it's not funny to you. Many things in this Squelch are funny to some, not funny to others. So be it. It's not for the Squelch to decide how the audience will respond to jokes and satire. The joke in the small text is funny. Rape is horrible. Rape is also pervasive and essentially institutionalized in our society. That short joke comments to that fact. The greater issue of complaint, it seems to me, is not over the joke itself but over the mocking nature that the joke has toward Take Back the Night. Could it be construed as offensive? Sure. But as I mentioned before, don't assume that just because you feel you have the moral high ground you can use that to make blanket statements and tell others what is and is not funny.

Regarding apologies. Please note that although I write for the Squelch, my opinion is my own and is in no way meant to reflect the views of the Squelch editorial board. Apologies are made over a mistake. The Squelch did not make a mistake in running what it did this issue (despite what others may think). Every entry was put in intentionally, fully aware of what the possible ramifications and consequences could be. I personally am sorry that certain peoples' feelings and sensibilities were hurt, but I am not sorry for any of the content that was run in this issue, everything had a purpose and a point. Insensitive? Sure. Offensive? Probably. Funny? For many people, it was very funny. So protest the issue. Write angry letters and incoherent letters. Engage the editors in peaceful dialogue. But don't sit and stew and try assert a moral superiority that somehow says that you can dictate what others should feel, because neither you nor anybody else has that right.

Please, enjoy the issue. For those of you who were offended this time, think about how you felt when other groups were satirized besides your own. Did you feel indignant? Did you feel insulted? Probably not. Everybody gets skewered at some point in their lives, it's just the way things are. Calm down, have a drink, and take a minute to actually laugh at yourselves. It's a good thing.

Cheers.

Check these guys out:

Sleepytime Gorilla Museum.

Regarding CalStuff's column on Greek parties, it's strangely appropriate that he writes about the Dean being uninformed from a standpoint that is, by and large, uninformed.

From someone who actually attended the Greek Council at which Dean Kenney spoke, the reaction from the fraternities is not one of appeasement and capitulation to get alcohol back at all costs. The goal is to put IFC and the University on the same page with regard to rules and regulations. It's interesting that CalStuff cites the IFC Social Code, when the IFC Social Code is one written by the IFC, there is an entirely different Social Code that is the University's, one of the big problems being that these two codes don't line up.

The Greek system is annoyed that their autonomy has been undermined without any notice from the University. Despite the University's claim that there has been increased warning, the incredulity from the IFC would indicate that there may perhaps be a communication issue.

Anyway, I'm getting on this committee this summer and hopefully get everybody on the same page.

Bring alcohol back to the fraternities where it belongs.

It was a great day for the Heuristic Squelch today.

At 12:45 or so I arrived at Sproul Crescent to chat with the Squelchers about the events of the day. This was in the midst of the pro-Palestine rally. It soon became apparent at 1:00 that they were mobilizing for a march and that this would inevitably move through Sather Gate, right where we were standing. Rather than move, we asserted our right to be there. The four of us managed to bring the forward march to a complete halt. With megaphone blaring in our faces, we kindly offered the protestors the Squelch. They were declined. One of the folks in front gestured for us to move, I mentioned that we were there first. She got frustrated. It was funny. Eventually we moved to the side, opening up about an 8-foot gap and the march pushed through. An English woman in the march asked me, "Don't you think this is a little trivial right now?" To which I replied, "No more trivial than what you're doing right now ma'am." They kept marching. It was a good day.

I don't like protestors.

Night.

There's some misinformation going about re: Squelch distribution today. So, being as I was there, let me clarify. At around 2:30 two Russian Jewish students came and confronted Squelch editors and staff distributing the issue regarding the offensiveness of part of the content. After some debate, they departed. At 3:00 (when I arrived) the same two returned to request an apology which was (rightly) denied. Another heated debate ensued. Shortly after, a third person arrived to express his disgust. This was one the group began to make vague intimations of violence through aggressive words and gestures. The protestors refused to even read the article in its entirety or listen to any reason, despite numerous attempts at explanation by the staff, including the Jewish members of the staff. Eventually, one of the protestors walked away with two stacks of issues, which were retrieved immediately but not without threats of violence. While there was no physical violence, intimidating tactics and vague intimations of violence were made.

Here's my little spiel. Yes, it's offensive. That's the point. For some reason, we can piss all over Asian people (as shown with the Abercrombie ads) but we can't do it to any other minorities/ethnic groups. This was to draw the point that the Abercrombie shirts were just as fucked up as these shirts. For people who had direct relatives murdered in the Holocaust, I understand how this could have been found particularly offensive. Because it is offensive, however, shows that emotions regarding the Holocaust still run strong and that we will never, ever forget the Holocaust. The article in no way was meant to support or condone anti-Semitism, and, as exemplified but other people's reactions, to read that into the article is a very extreme reading. It is a reading, however, to which they are entitled.

As a descendant of Jews who fled Russia during the pogroms, I think that any canonizing of Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, etc. is incredibly offensive. There are many times that I want to tear the Stalin posters off the walls of Revolutionary Books, for instance. But people have the right to express their views, however offensive it may be to me. I know that my personal feelings do not apply universally.

Prominent members of the Jewish community have expressed their enjoyment of this issue. Some people will be offended by one or several of the things in the issue. So be it. But please try to take things in the proper context and please try to realize that the feelings you feel are not necessarily shared by everyone. Don't read the issue. Fine. Write letters of complaint. Fine. Protest the issue. Fine. Dandy. But don't try to claim a unilateral moral high ground or assume that you speak for everyone. It is not the business of a publication to take into account everyone's feelings who may or may not be hurt by content. The Squelch is a satirical magazine.

Godspeed.

Regarding the new Squelch: All I have to say is please make sure that you have fully considered the satirical points that are being made before coming at us with torches and pitchforks. If you've done that and are still interested in complaining, feel free to email me. But remember, it is satire (and pretty good satire at that).

Godspeed.

Brandon Mills has a very interesting analysis of Tidal Wave II. The question I have, why hasn't the university simply upped it's minimum unit requirement to 14 or 15 units? Also, there are many Cal students who already take 18+ units, how would this affect them? Is money the only issue at hand?