In "Absolut Faux Pas," reason Contributing Editor Greg Beato looks through a glass, darkly, at the semiotics of vodka advertising and anxiety about Mexico.
New at Reason
Comments to "New at Reason":
Cesar | April 10, 2008, 4:44pm | #
Ok, this is in all seriousness.The immigration restrictionists say theres a secret plot to take back the southwest for Mexico.
At the same time, the same people ALSO say theres a plot to unite Mexico, Canada, and the United States under one federal government.
Seems like the two are mutually exclusive. Which is it?
Tym | April 10, 2008, 4:45pm | #
Vodka sucks, not taste, give me scotch, bourbon, tequila or dark rum.StupendousMan | April 10, 2008, 4:45pm | #
"But do these angry patriots really believe drunken Mexicans fantasize about owning Salt Lake City?..."If it were such a non-issue in their marketing demographic why would they use it? I'm guessing it is something a respectable portion of the Mexican population thinks about occasionally.
But wasn't that Spanish territory?
They should just run an add in Britain that shows the United States east of the Mississippi as British colonies.
The Whine Commonsewer | April 10, 2008, 4:47pm | #
Swedish vodka company recently purchased by a French conglomerateSounds like the French are just getting even with us for giving them shit about having rear view mirrors in their tanks so they could see how the battle was going.
Personally, I think we should offer both Baja's statehood and federal revenue sharing to entice them to leave Mexico.
Better yet, Let's make Baja the destination de jour for the Free State Project.
Calidore | April 10, 2008, 4:48pm | #
StupendousMan,No, Mexico was an independent nation by the time of the Mexican-American War, etc.
J sub D | April 10, 2008, 4:48pm | #
It's the third largest liquor brand worldwide.Don't leave us hanging. What are numbers one and two
Bingo | April 10, 2008, 4:49pm | #
Contributing Editor Greg Beato is a writer in San Francisco.Paging Casey Sarin!
javier | April 10, 2008, 4:49pm | #
Ultimately, more Mexico would just mean less America; the net result would be fewer illegal immigrants invading the U.S. in search of a better lifeMore mexico just means more of the continent would have been destroyed by socialist nonsense and we would have even more people coming to the US for a better life.
The Whine Commonsewer | April 10, 2008, 4:51pm | #
But wasn't that Spanish territory?I once heard a Mexican national arguing with a Gringo in Cabo and she asserted that:
technically, California is part of Mexico anyway..
I thought to myself, wait, by that logic wouldn't it be that technically Alta California AND Mexico belongs to Spain?
Actually, I was troubled by this conversation, otherwise I liked this chick, she was obviously bright, friendly, outgoing, educated in Mexico and the US, had a great job, but......
The Whine Commonsewer | April 10, 2008, 4:53pm | #
Contributing Editor Greg Beato is a writer in San Francisco.Well, that explains his liberal attitude. After the reconquista, he's still in the US.
x,y | April 10, 2008, 4:55pm | #
The immigration restrictionists say theres a secret plot to take back the southwest for Mexico.I'm not defending the "Save R Jobs" or "Protect R Borders" crowd, but this is a weak argument because it is too vague. Who are "the same people"? Show me the same person or organization making both those claims and then I'll take it seriously.
At the same time, the same people ALSO say theres a plot to unite Mexico, Canada, and the United States under one federal government.
Seems like the two are mutually exclusive. Which is it?
Arhnuld | April 10, 2008, 4:57pm | #
What if we gave them southern california, basically the LA area, think they'd be happy with that?I dont think it would be missed too much...
Episiarch | April 10, 2008, 4:58pm | #
The idea that Mexico could ever actually take anything away from the US is so absurd that I find myself wondering what people are actually upset about in this ad.It's like showing an ad in Canada with everything in the Oregon Country as part of Canada. I mean, come on.
Pre-emptive Candian response: "But we burned down the White House in 1814!"
Cesar | April 10, 2008, 5:00pm | #
x,y,--Michelle Malkin, VDARE, and of course LoneWacko all make both arguments.
So does Lou Dobbs.
Orange Line Special | April 10, 2008, 5:02pm | #
Since Greg Beato didn't offer anything beyond a stock open borders/up with globalism piece, and since he didn't engage his opponents' arguments in an honest fashion, let me help provide some background on the issue.1. A ZogbyPoll in Mexico found that 58% thought the U.S. southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico. That means that a good percentage of those who corrupt hacks are allowing to come here illegally think they're resettling their homeland.
2. Various MexicanAmerican politicians are former members of a racial separatist group whose founding documents advocated that homeland. One of those includes L.A.'s mayor, and another is a U.S. Rep.
3. For examples of literally anti-American sentiments that deny our sovereign right to our territory, here's a Clinton co-chair, and here's a national official with a major group.
4. And, here's one of Reason's new heroes on the issue.
Cesar | April 10, 2008, 5:08pm | #
More fun with comments on LoneWackos site:Its not going to be over until Juan McCain, Jorge Bush, and all the other anti-American traitors to our racial/ethnic heritage are PURGED from the government!
Fed Up! | 04.10.08 - 4:39 pm | #
Orange Line Special | April 10, 2008, 5:08pm | #
Episiarch says: The idea that Mexico could ever actually take anything away from the US is so absurd that I find myself wondering what people are actually upset about in this ad.Obviously, the ancestors of those who run Mexico were quite adept at taking things away from people. And, there are possibilities beyond the southwest becoming an actual part of Mexico. It could also become an autonomous region of some kind. If everyone in CA now decided to become their own state, there's nothing the rest of the U.S. could do about it. And, with a supermajority being MexicanAmerican or Mexican, there's the possibility that that might happen.
It's not like things like that have happened before in world history, and certainly not in the U.S., right?
J sub D | April 10, 2008, 5:08pm | #
I'm not defending the "Save R Jobs" or "Protect R Borders" crowd, but this is a weak argument because it is too vague. Who are "the same people"? Show me the same person or organization making both those claims and then I'll take it seriously.Obviously, you have not clicked. If you have, then you have not learned.
economist | April 10, 2008, 5:10pm | #
Actually, I think that in the absence of US territorial gains in southwest, there would be more illegal immigrants in the US. It has mostly to do with the instability and economic policies of Mexico, which would presumably be larger in the absence Guadalupe-Hidalgo treaty.Episiarch | April 10, 2008, 5:11pm | #
If everyone in CA now decided to become their own state, there's nothing the rest of the U.S. could do about it.Really? So that whole Civil War thing didn't resolve the secession issue, I guess.
Oh noes the wetbacks are going to super-populate CA and vote to leave the US! And the Feds will let them, presumably? Who again has all the military assets?
J sub D | April 10, 2008, 5:12pm | #
Lonewacko, do you pee your pants when a truck goes by? Do you tremble with fear while crossing the street.Find yourself something real to worry about. There is plenty of horrible stuff out there.
Warren | April 10, 2008, 5:13pm | #
Obviously, you have not clicked. If you have, then you have not learned.Heh, good one.
economist | April 10, 2008, 5:16pm | #
I think we should renegotiate the treaty. For $50,000,000,000 Mexico can have California, Texas, New Mexico (it's got Mexico built right into its name!), Arizona (sorry John McCain), and California. If Felipe Calderon is interested he can support my bid to become dictador supremo de los Estados Unidos.StupendousMan | April 10, 2008, 5:17pm | #
"Oh noes the wetbacks..." etc.The numbers of immigrants from the south has increased dramatically in the past two decades. Has it slowed? I don't know, but the numbers combined with identity politics and ethnic pride garbage doesn't make the idea crazy. Low probability, but not absurd, IMO.
As OLS said, similar things have been known to happen throughout history.
Aresen | April 10, 2008, 5:22pm | #
Episiarch
Episiarch | April 10, 2008, 4:58pm | #
The idea that Mexico could ever actually take anything away from the US is so absurd that I find myself wondering what people are actually upset about in this ad.
It's like showing an ad in Canada with everything in the Oregon Country as part of Canada. I mean, come on.
I'm miffed they didn't. And the Ohio territories ceded in 1818.
RE: Burning down the White House in 1814. How about a bicentennial reenactment? You choose the occupant.
Charles Oliver | April 10, 2008, 5:23pm | #
If the ad ran only in Mexico, why was it in English?dbcooper | April 10, 2008, 5:24pm | #
Absolut is pretty shitty Vodka, but they do commision some pretty good ads. A case in point from Tim and Eric:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p0QtJMKt1s
Orange Line Special | April 10, 2008, 5:27pm | #
Episiarch says: So that whole Civil War thing didn't resolve the secession issue, I guess... Who again has all the military assets?I already had this discussion with another set of useful idiots a couple days ago, that time of the "liberal" variety:
----
[You] might want to check the populations and weaponry involved then and now. Hint: there are at least three times as many *Mexican citizens* in California as there are people in our entire armed forces. There's absolutely no way that we could "re-invade" our own territory without massive losses on our side or their side, depending on how we did it.
---
It's long past time that we recognized "libertarians" as the present-day equivalent of yesterday's CommieSymps and collaborateurs.
Colin | April 10, 2008, 5:27pm | #
I thought the ad was quite witty.Americans' sense of humor (both from the right and the left) seem to be a all-time low.
The Whine Commonsewer | April 10, 2008, 5:28pm | #
I dont think it would be missed too much...Except that 70 Billion flowing from So Cal into the state coffers
OK, that's all the LoneWacko arguing I can handle. It's like arguing with Chewbacca; he grunts and makes noises that make no sense, and you speak back to him in English.
InsertDeceptiveNameHere | April 10, 2008, 5:31pm | #
lolbrownpeoplesuckThe Whine Commonsewer | April 10, 2008, 5:32pm | #
If the ad ran only in Mexico, why was it in English?Toooo-got-dang-shay Mr Oliver. Nicely done.
InsertDeceptiveNameHere | April 10, 2008, 5:33pm | #
theyrecomingtogetusohnoesMikeP | April 10, 2008, 5:44pm | #
If the ad ran only in Mexico, why was it in English?The Reconquista aren't stupid. They recognize that Aztlán will need to be bilingual.
peachy | April 10, 2008, 5:45pm | #
Why would anyone fantasise about owning SLC?By the way, I'm down with a reenactment of the burning of the White House. But only if we get to torch the Canadian houses of parliament again. (Although we might let you go first this time; that seems fair, eh?)
Brandybuck | April 10, 2008, 5:50pm | #
The Mexican-American war started as a result of Texas secceding from Mexico and subsequently joining the US. While there are some legitimate complaints that Polk maneuvered us into that war, it was still Mexico that fired the first shot. There was a very real possibility that the US could have annexed ALL of mexico! Maybe there should be another Absolut ad showing the borders of the US extending down to Chiapas and Yucatan.Yeah, California used to belong to Mexico. GET OVER IT! It belonged to Spain before that, and parts to Russia. And don't forget the Amerindians. If you're going to give the land back to the original owners, you'll have to rustle up some coyotes and jackrabbits to hand the deeds over to.
From the "But that's different" department in Tapachula | April 10, 2008, 5:54pm | #
So what would happen if Absolut de Guatemala SA de CV ran an ad showing Chiapas as being part of Mexico?PS: Peachy wins the thread when he asks why anyone would want Salt Lake City.
Franklin Harris | April 10, 2008, 5:54pm | #
Michelle Malkin, VDARE, and of course LoneWacko all make both arguments.I really wish cognitive dissonance made people's heads explode. It would be fun watching these people melt down like a computer that's just lost an argument with Capt. Kirk.
So does Lou Dobbs.
bubba | April 10, 2008, 5:57pm | #
Regardless of the merits of the border argument:If it's ok for me to buy a product because I like an ad, it's also ok for me to decline a product because I don't like an ad.
Travis | April 10, 2008, 6:14pm | #
As far as I'm concerned Mexico can have California.Handicapper | April 10, 2008, 6:21pm | #
Greg Beato-Absolut stupidity!
Why not a map that shows Western Europe, Australia, Canada, Japan, Korea, Israel, Iraq, Mexico, and all of Central America to the Canal Zone- and also parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan- in a advertisement for "Absolut America"?
Or, might that possibly offend some of their customers in one of those countries where Absolut doesn't already sell 1.6 billion shots/yr?
Ska | April 10, 2008, 6:25pm | #
As far as I'm concerned, you can have vodka. I'll take gin over vodka every time.David DeCarlo | April 10, 2008, 6:33pm | #
Mr Beato,Unfortunately you could not be more hopelessly wrong.
Should Absolute sell to the Germans with a 1940's map showing Paris as a part of greater Germany.
The Phillipines as part of Japan's Greater Asian Prosperity Sphere?
Or perhaps a map of the old Soviet Union would be to your liking.
You see, when you write an article you should try thinking first.
BOYCOTT ABSOLUT!
fog | April 10, 2008, 6:40pm | #
It is unpatriotic to fear Mexico. Don't they realize how degrading that is?Kolohe | April 10, 2008, 6:45pm | #
"If everyone in CA now decided to become their own state, there's nothing the rest of the U.S. could do about it."Zombie Lincoln in '08!
Virgil | April 10, 2008, 6:48pm | #
David DeCarlo, you tiresome halfwit, maybe they should just sell ads with a picture of you without your head all the way up your ass, although I'm afraid that scenario is even more implausible than the ads they're actually running.Only an AbsolutParanoidMoron like Lonewacko (and, apparently, you) thinks we're under some legitimate threat from Mexico or Mexican immigrants. And only an AbsolutAhistoricalDipshit thinks this map is remotely comparable to one involving Nazi Germany or the USSR.
You see, when you post at a blog you should try thinking first.
BOYCOTT DUMBASSES!
james b | April 10, 2008, 6:52pm | #
If everyone in CA now decided to become their own state, there's nothing the rest of the U.S. could do about it.If everyone wants to go, why make them stay?
Kolohe | April 10, 2008, 6:52pm | #
"It's not like things like that have happened before in world history, and certainly not in the U.S., right?"You know, I conceed that this is the most cogent argument the restrictionists make, comparing US vs Cherokee,et al. to Mexico vs US.
However, the weakness of this line of reasoning is:
Population wasn't the only thing the manifest density forces had at their disposal. They also had the holy trinity of 'lawyers, guns, and money' I know one would argue on who now has the upper hand on the first two, with ManyLinks, but the third is undeniably a NorteAmericano advantage.
Kolohe | April 10, 2008, 7:09pm | #
[You] might want to check the populations and weaponry involved then and now. Hint: there are at least three times as many *Mexican citizens* in California as there are people in our entire armed forces. There's absolutely no way that we could "re-invade" our own territory without massive losses on our side or their side, depending on how we did it.1st:
(white male) of future confederacy at time of sumter = 2.5 million
size of US army at the time of sumter = 16,000
ratio: 150:1 (which is greater than 3:1)
2nd:
Grant nor Sherman really didn't give a shit about massive losses on either side. I don't see how that trend wouldn't continue.
3rd:
Weaponry then and now:
modern weaponry makes a battle between 'unionists' and 'seperatists' even more uneven.
(but what about Iraq? Iraq has a myriad of factions all trying to kill each other as well as us.
but what about Vietnam? vietnam had foreign backers that we could not go after directly)
"Animals are crapping in our houses, and we're picking it up. Did we lose a war? That's not America. That's not even Mexico!"
The Winter Soldier | April 10, 2008, 7:22pm | #
Ska, you do realize that Gin is basically Vodka with Juniper oil added to alter the tatse, right. And for the idiot who said Vodka has "no" taste, try a GOOD one. Not Stoli or Grey Goose, but a REAL Vodka, like Vincent, or Chopin would be a decent start. YummyFranklin Harris | April 10, 2008, 7:31pm | #
Not Stoli or Grey Goose, but a REAL Vodka, like Vincent, or Chopin would be a decent start.Chopin tastes like potatoes and gives me the worst. hangovers. ever. Meh.
anomdebus | April 10, 2008, 7:41pm | #
The immigration restrictionists say theres a secret plot to take back the southwest for Mexico.Seems, but is not necessarily. If one group, say a group founded in Mexico and transferred partly to the US, is trying to return the Southwest to the control of Mexico. Also, another group, lets use the Bildeburgers since they don't get as much ink as they used to, is trying to unify the three countries in order to take over the world. In this case, you have two plots that are at odds with each other.
At the same time, the same people ALSO say theres a plot to unite Mexico, Canada, and the United States under one federal government.
Seems like the two are mutually exclusive.
Both can't happen at the same time and fulfill both ambitions, but then again, I doubt those people actually believe both will or could happen simultaneously, just both could possibly happen.
ps - I am not one of "those people"
Blue | April 10, 2008, 7:46pm | #
Mexican Joke:"It isn't that the Gringos stole half our country that pisses us off, it's that they stole the half with the good roads."
Lonewako, have you ever talked to those immigrants you are so-so afraid of? Heard how every third ad on spanish radio is a class or tape to learn english in three weeks? Why is the vodka ad in english?
Mexico is dying. She looses hundreds of thousands of productive citizens every year and the oligarchs just shrug. Her children are emos and punks and headbangers - getting their culture from the North. The language of the middle class is changing to Spanglish and the indians are learning english before they bother to learn spanish. In fifty years Mexican culture will just be somthing hispanic studies students discuss in US universities. The nation of Mexico will be rotting husk.
Gahan | April 10, 2008, 7:55pm | #
It'll be like when all those immigrants back in the 19th century carved up the eastern seaboard for Ireland and Italy and forced everyone east of the Mississippi to convert to Catholicism. Before you know it, California will be turned upside down and the cities will all have scary Mexican names like Sacramento or San Francisco.Francisco Torres | April 10, 2008, 8:02pm | #
The nation of Mexico will be rotting husk.But we will still have carnitas...
Ali | April 10, 2008, 8:08pm | #
What would an Absolut ad be like in Canada?Kwix | April 10, 2008, 8:10pm | #
Damn LoneWhackjob! How many names do you plan on using this month? Even Gunnels didn't change names as often as you do these days.Well, while the names may change your shit still stinks.
Kwix | April 10, 2008, 8:11pm | #
Ali | April 10, 2008, 8:08pm | #Absolute Hockey! Eh?
What would an Absolut ad be like in Canada?
Gahan | April 10, 2008, 8:13pm | #
By the way, having lived in Mexico for a couple years now (in the north, no less), I can tell you that any complaint about lost territory is more likely to be followed up with a shrug and another sip of Tecate than a rifle raised in the air. The national motto down here is "ni modo" (Which loosely translates as "Oh well" or "What are you gonna do?"), an attitude that has been pretty ingrained ever since the Spanish conquest. Those who fear a Mexican invasion are paranoid nutjobs.I was recently back in California (Monterey area) with my Mexican wife and her friends. As we were driving down Highway 1 through Big Sur, they began to muse about what it would look like if it still belonged to Mexico. The consensus was that there would be a lot more litter and the road would be jammed with motorized taco carts.
J sub D | April 10, 2008, 8:14pm | #
It'll be like when all those immigrants back in the 19th century carved up the eastern seaboard for Ireland and Italy and forced everyone east of the Mississippi to convert to Catholicism. Before you know it, California will be turned upside down and the cities will all have scary Mexican names like Sacramento or San Francisco.Just goes to show how little you know about the papist infiltration of America, the sobordination of our proud Anglo-Saxon culture. Here's two examples to think over you smug bastard:
St Patrick's Day
Pizzarias
What do have to say about that?
Ali | April 10, 2008, 8:15pm | #
Absolute Hockey! Eh?Since Canadians are such nice people, I was thinking may be a map of the US extending across the Canadian midwest. Add that ad to the ad from Mexico, and we're even! Problem solved.
Elemenope | April 10, 2008, 8:25pm | #
What do have to say about that?I like a tall stout and hot calzones?
Ali | April 10, 2008, 8:27pm | #
Another fun question:What would be an Absolut ad that appeals to LoneWack, MM, et al.?
Happy Jack | April 10, 2008, 8:27pm | #
lolbrownpeoplesuckYou've got it wrong. The rule is:
When the subject is melanin, words shall twin.
Gahan | April 10, 2008, 8:35pm | #
"What do have to say about that?"What better way to de-Catholicize St. Patrick's Day than to turn it into a binge-drinking green puke-athon where gays are allowed to march in the parade?
And as for pizzerias, well... my local pizzeria has a condom machine in the restroom. IN YOUR FACE, POPE!
Stephen Smith | April 10, 2008, 8:36pm | #
Apparently, Absolut's ad agency put too much faith in news stories that we gringos are so geographically illiterate we think maps are just promotional posters for globes.I think the real problem is that Absolut didn't put enough faith into the commonly-known fact that gringos can't stand reading other languages and just put the damn thing in Spanish. If they had, photo editors wouldn't have liked it so much and it wouldn't have gained so much traction in the press here.
J sub D | April 10, 2008, 8:50pm | #
What better way to de-Catholicize St. Patrick's Day than to turn it into a binge-drinking green puke-athon where gays are allowed to march in the parade?And as for pizzerias, well... my local pizzeria has a condom machine in the restroom. IN YOUR FACE, POPE!
lol - ★★★★
el WackoSolitario | April 10, 2008, 8:53pm | #
"...gringos can't stand reading other languages and just put the damn thing in Spanish"AyCaramba!! El SupercarreteraNorteamericano!!
Neil | April 10, 2008, 8:59pm | #
Why nothing on our President's speech today?It looks like we're going to strike Iran!
The Global War on Terror marches on.
Nasikabatrachus | April 10, 2008, 9:03pm | #
First Cinco de Mayo, now this! As if celebrating a holiday for a country that doesn't even celebrate it wasn't bad enough, the alcohol companies are re-drawing our maps!Next thing you know, they're going to draw up an El Constitutione that says that gringos like me are forbidden from mowing their own lawns and picking their own strawberries for low wages.
okcawenoL | April 10, 2008, 9:09pm | #
Seems like the two are mutually exclusive. Which is it?x,y...why do you hate America?
prolefeed | April 10, 2008, 9:28pm | #
Why would anyone fantasise about owning SLC?I'm sure there's quite a few people in Utah who would love the state to secede, install Mitt as their new president, and replace the Bill of Rights with the Articles of Faith.
Y. | April 10, 2008, 9:43pm | #
I fear I must disagree with this article. While there's no chance of the American Southwest ever rejoining Mexico, there may be one day a sufficient amount of crazies who may actually try to do this, and it's best to avoid encouraging this attitude in any way.Imagine how many restriction on freedom may happen after events like this.
JB | April 10, 2008, 10:29pm | #
Stick head in sand more please. Have you ever heard of La Raza? These fringe groups do exist...even just one 5 second Google search would show that. Reason editors, please make your writers do at least 5 seconds of work for each article.Still, if it was 'just an ad' why did the US get singled out? It is any surprise that Absolut has no problem redrawing American borders, but stayed away from messing with anyone else's?
The ad is stupid at best. The US, the natives, and Spain in that order have more claim to that land than Mexico. Stupid ads for stupid Mexicans, now there is an ad slogan. Not quite sure how that sells vodka though. And I'm not saying Mexicans are stupid, but those that liked this ad probably are.
This reason writer is a hick and a hack. There are plenty of reasons to be pissed off at this ad that have nothing to do with nativism. By the same logic, the writer is a racist if he doesn't support affirmative action. This is the type of crap I expect to see spewed by Republidemotard bloggers and media; I thought reason actually put more reason into their articles.
The US got singled out because everyone knows we're secure about ourselves and have a sense of humor. Please don't ruin that for all of us.
Exham | April 10, 2008, 11:19pm | #
"The idea that Mexico could ever actually take anything away from the US is so absurd that I find myself wondering what people are actually upset about in this ad.It's like showing an ad in Canada with everything in the Oregon Country as part of Canada. I mean, come on.
Pre-emptive Candian response: "But we burned down the White House in 1814!""
Apparently they also invented time travel, since Canada didn't exist until the 1860's
B.P. | April 10, 2008, 11:29pm | #
"The US got singled out because everyone knows we're secure about ourselves and have a sense of humor. Please don't ruin that for all of us."Which is why the ads were run in.... Mexico City
That's taking pedantry to an extreme, even for H&R. It's true that the first stage of confederation wasn't until 1867, but the terms 'Canada' and 'Canadian' had been in use for many decades prior. At the time of the war, the controlling constitutional document for the region was the Canada Act of 1791 (the formal name is a paragraph in itself), which had established the provinces of Lower Canada (essentially Quebec) and Upper Canada (Ontario.) And indeed, the burning of government buildings in Washington was - to some degree - retaliation for destruction caused during the American attack on York (which is to say Toronto, capital of Upper Canada) the previous year.
j | April 11, 2008, 12:11am | #
You cannot even buy a US-made beer at a bar in TJ, and it's a faux pas to even ask. It's no wonder to me that you cannot buy Swedish or French beverage there either. I wonder if Greg Beato has ever been there.Aresen | April 11, 2008, 12:37am | #
PeachyIf we promise to burn down Washington again, will you please burn down York (Toronto) again?
Isn't that what friends are for?
Exham | April 11, 2008, 1:03am | #
The fact remains that there was no nation-state of Canada, even in concept, Upper and Lower Canada were colonies of Great Britain, it was the British that burned the white house.The Whine Commonsewer | April 11, 2008, 1:13am | #
The problem with the reconquista is that it is impractical. The recent immigrants left Mexico for a reason. The third generations are comfortable, they have good jobs, bitch about how much taxes they pay, and own a couple of rentals they hung onto as they moved up the ladder. There is no percentage for either group, so you're left with the disenchanted college students, who'll ultimately wise up, once they get real jobs and a bun in the oven.The Whine Commonsewer | April 11, 2008, 1:17am | #
Oh, and BTW, I am not the 999,999 visitor (Swear to God!) for the thirteenth time this week. I hope those schmoes are paying big bucks to flash that ad at us, because it sure is annoying and it sure does make the page load for crap.transferring data from Reason ads......
Aresen | April 11, 2008, 1:21am | #
ExhamPicky, picky, picky.
My ancestors were with the first crew.
Do we have a deal or not?
The Whine Commonsewer | April 11, 2008, 1:24am | #
You cannot even buy a US-made beer at a bar in TJ....Maybe not, but you can buy these.
peachy | April 11, 2008, 1:27am | #
Sure is, Aresen. We can probably stretch a point and burn down Ottawa instead if you'd prefer - probably inconvenience more politicians that way. (A capital's a capital, right?)Now, M'sieur Exham, if we want to be really extremely technical, I'm not sure we could say there was a "nation-state" of Canada even in 1867 - the Confederation was a Dominion, still subject at a remove to Westminster. It wasn't until 1931 that the British Parliament was excluded from making legislation for Canada, and not until 1982 - 1982! - that Canada became completely self-governing. I'm going to let you be the one to tell Aresen that Canada wasn't a nation-state before that...
But if we define 'Canada' simply as a distinct but not necessarily sovereign political entity,
then its existence can very easily be stretched back to the war. And it was their capital whose destruction kicked off all this tit-for-tat we're joking about, even if the tat was executed by the greater entity into which 'Upper' Canada was then subsumed. (This definition will also spare us a barrage of polite Canadian epithets, not to mention the goodwill a present-day burning of 'York' would provide.)
La Vox De Aztlan | April 11, 2008, 2:47am | #
Reconquista is inevitable gringos, I suggest you leave the territories of Mexico North of the Rio Grande, if not you WILL be removed after the our work is complete.1138 | April 11, 2008, 3:29am | #
really believe drunken Mexicans fantasize about owning Salt Lake City?Well, a good number of them are awfully vocal about it (Southern California rathwer than Salt Lake City). If some of you Libertarian ideologues would get your heads out of your asses, you'd know this.
No, it'll never happen, of course, but to pretend there isn't a deeply held feeling amongst the Mexican population here is just ignoring reality.
Ford | April 11, 2008, 3:35am | #
The idea that Mexico could ever actually take anything away from the US is so absurd that I find myself wondering what people are actually upset about in this ad.It's just something that further divides people. The Mexicans in SoCal are some of the most insular immigrants ever to come to our shores, and I'm not even talking about the illegals. Although I know you L's have your rosy open border scenario along with an host of other ridiculous fantasies.
Anything that perpetuates the "such and such part of the US is part of Mexico" is tiresome bullshit and divisive.
Shawn | April 11, 2008, 3:36am | #
And as for pizzerias, well... my local pizzeria has a condom machine in the restroom. IN YOUR FACE, POPE!I thought condoms were supposed to prevent that.
"Cigar Bill" J. Clinton | April 11, 2008, 6:36am | #
I thought condoms were supposed to prevent that.Condoms are for safe sex - blowjobs aren't really sex.
B.J. Clinton
smartass sob | April 11, 2008, 6:47am | #
The company was no longer selling itself as a maker of vodka; it was selling itself as a maker of witty but empty advertising.How about an ad depicting a couple of bums with bottles sticking out of them, accompanied by the phrase: Absolut Assholes ?
Blue | April 11, 2008, 8:43am | #
Yes, those immigrants, after working 12-16 hour days, saving money to buy a truck and house and sending hundreds of dollars a month back to family in Mexico, say to themselves"You know what would make this country great? If we had those corrupt sons-of-bitches in Mexico City running things instead of these corrupt anglo sons-of-bitches. Yeah, they really know how to run a country in Mexico City." /eyeroll/
GinSlinger | April 11, 2008, 9:31am | #
Yeah, Mssr. Viking Moose. I didn't get that either.Isaac Bartram | April 11, 2008, 10:00am | #
If some of you Libertarian ideologues would get your heads out of your asses, you'd know this.Ok, have the dring game rules been revised to require shots of absolut for this thread or can I just take a slug of whatever I have on hand.
Isaac Bartram | April 11, 2008, 10:02am | #
drinking game...dammit.And here I thought nobody would notice that I'd already started.
TallDave | April 11, 2008, 10:22am | #
The immigration restrictionists say theres a secret plot to take back the southwest for Mexico.It's not a secret plot, it's the stated aim of the Aztlan movement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztlan
The name Aztlán was first taken up by a group of Chicano independence activists led by Oscar Zeta Acosta during the Chicano movement of the 1960s and 1970s. They used the name "Aztlán" to refer to the lands of Northern Mexico that were annexed by the United States as a result of the Mexican-American War. Combined with the claim of some historical linguists and anthropologists that the original homeland of the Aztecan peoples was located in the southwestern United states, Aztlán in this sense became a symbol of mestizo activists who believe they have a legal and primordial right to the land.
They may be a harmless lunatic fringe, but they aren't a fantasy or a secret.
R C Dean | April 11, 2008, 10:22am | #
there are at least three times as many *Mexican citizens* in California as there are people in our entire armed forces.I might point out that apparently these Mexicans prefer living in the US. Why would they put up a fight so they can live in Mexico, when they just left there?
rana | April 11, 2008, 10:53am | #
"The name Aztlán was first taken up by a group of Chicano independence activists..."While I studied in Denver I dated a Chicano who was involved with La Raza. I attended some of their gatherings/parties. ALL of them were chicanos, NOT Mexican. Their parents or grandparents were born in Mexico, but they were American- most couldnt even speak Spanish. The funny thing was that these Chicanos wanted desperately to be Mejicanos but the true immigrants from Mexico didn't like them because they couldnt speak Spanish. Mexicans see Chicanos as more gringo than Mexican.
La Raza is pretty radical but harmless. And it is important to point out that its the Chicanos who are calling for el movimiento de Azatlan... not the poeple in Mexico. Gahan has it right: Mexicans simply figure "ni modo".
rana | April 11, 2008, 11:03am | #
And something else,I am a white/blonde latina, which is not typical. When I went to the first La Raza party, I entered a room where there was more than a dozen Chicanos and Chicanas, and the room went completely SILENT (I swear I think the music even stopped playing). EVERYONE turned to stare at who they assumed was a gringa and gave me a dirty look. I stood there for a few seconds and said "well I can see I am not welcomed, pero al menos aprendan a hablar español. Desgraciados"... I left the party immediately. ;)
Radicals can be such assholes.
Mike M. | April 11, 2008, 11:04am | #
The idea that Mexico could ever actually take anything away from the US is so absurd that I find myself wondering what people are actually upset about in this ad.The illegals may not be able to take away American land, but I'll tell you one thing that they can definitely take away: the lives of innocent American citizens.
Citizens like 19 year old Jamiel Shaw, Jr. of Los Angeles, assassinated in cold blood by an illegal alien gang-banging scumbag for absolutely no reason whatsoever.
frankstallone | April 11, 2008, 11:23am | #
I've never met or heard anyone, including lou dobbs, who was anti-immigration; Anti-illegal immigration yes. Huge difference.MikeP | April 11, 2008, 11:34am | #
I've never met or heard anyone, including lou dobbs, who was anti-immigration; Anti-illegal immigration yes. Huge difference.Can you explain how, in a country full of people who are not anti-immigration, someone manages to pass laws against immigration?
Virgil | April 11, 2008, 11:44am | #
"...but I'll tell you one thing that they can definitely take away: the lives of innocent American citizens."Yes, they're so dramatically different from American citizens in that way. Thank god we _never_ kill each other. Stay strong, Mike M! Your dream of wholesome American purity will only be achieved through your ongoing nativist delusion!
frankstallone | April 11, 2008, 11:44am | #
You're going to have to be more specific b/c I don't know what law you are talking about. Whatever the law is, it must not be doing a very good job since the US has more legal immigration than any country in the world.Mike M. | April 11, 2008, 11:52am | #
Yes, they're so dramatically different from American citizens in that way.I'm sure such blithe, laconic dismissals would be very reassuring to the friends and family of Jamiel Shaw indeed.
MikeP | April 11, 2008, 11:53am | #
You're going to have to be more specific b/c I don't know what law you are talking about.The law that says that immigration visas have quotas and expirations. That is most definitely anti-immigration -- just as a law that dictates some maximum legal quantity of apple pie would be anti-apple pie.
Virgil | April 11, 2008, 11:57am | #
"I'm sure such blithe, laconic dismissals would be very reassuring to the friends and family of Jamiel Shaw indeed."And I'm sure the intellectually dishonest swill you're spewing here is very reassuring to the many honest, decent immigrants who are deemed guilty by association by halfwit nativist shitbags such as yourself.
Mike M. | April 11, 2008, 12:04pm | #
And I'm sure the intellectually dishonest swill you're spewing here is very reassuring to the many honest, decent immigrants who are deemed guilty by association by halfwit nativist shitbags such as yourself.There's absolutely nothing dishonest or false whatsoever about anything I said. Jamiel Shaw was assassinated by someone who wasn't even even supposed to be in this country, for absolutely no reason whatsoever. An entire family's life has been ruined. He should still be alive, in spite of your "who cares" attitude.
And if you can't conduct a debate without having to resort to insults and name-calling, then just go f*ck yourself buddy.
frankstallone | April 11, 2008, 12:11pm | #
I would say that is bullshit - I can't argue w/ apple pie logic. If the system is too difficult for Mexicans, which it probably is, then that needs to change; I just don't think stepping over an invisible line in the desert is the best way to allow a person citizenship.I also find it humorous that the most vocal (non-libertarian) open borders advocates argue that immigration laws are bad for business, i.e. - businesses benefit from exploiting workers, also act as if they are on the cutting edge of human/workers rights. Something just smells fishy too me.
Virgil | April 11, 2008, 12:14pm | #
"There's absolutely nothing dishonest or false whatsoever about anything I said...."The clear implication of your post was that illegal immigrants are coming here and killing American citizens in disproportionate numbers. You know as well as I do that was the intended implication, and if you're denying that you are in fact a blatant bald-faced liar.
You have no interest in having a meaningful, honest debate - your goal with your post was to appeal to emotion in order to smear all illegal immigrants based on a single anecdote. I never even remotely suggested that I have a "who cares" attitude; in fact I care very much that intellectually dishonest nativists such as yourself are called on it at every opportunity.
Ace | April 11, 2008, 12:17pm | #
Can we all agree that an ad showing any other country's borders reconfigured by an old enemy (perhaps not a current one) would cause indignation and anger from that country's people, even their government? (Think France/England/Germany)If so, then why are you surprised that some Americans responded exactly the same way?
My only worry is that libertarianism, as fragile a political movement that it is, only really thrives in the US, where individuality is privileged over the group. Do the massive influx of Mexican immigrants think this way? Will they eventually? It doesn't seem to me that the same cultural pressures exist to encourage/force assimilation.
frankstallone | April 11, 2008, 12:28pm | #
just fyi, Jamiel Shaw was murdered by a criminal illegal alien who had just been released from prison (just 28 hours before the murder)after of course the LA police Dept. failed to notify feds. I'm not in to raids or anything like that - but violent criminal illegal aliens in custody should be deported.Mike M. | April 11, 2008, 12:31pm | #
The clear implication of your post was that illegal immigrants are coming here and killing American citizens in disproportionate numbers. You know as well as I do that was the intended implication, and if you're denying that you are in fact a blatant bald-faced liar.Nobody knows with absolute certainty what the numbers are, since for some reason the government refuses to keep official statistics on crimes committed by illegal aliens. But independent groups have done their own studies, and I've seen ones that show as many as 15% of all homicides in America today are being committed by illegal aliens! If that number is even close to accurate, it is most definitely out of proportion with their numbers. Nobody believes that illegals make up 15% of the population.
But personally, I don't care a whit what the actual numbers are. One is too many in my opinion. And as far as I'm concerned, cities like Los Angeles that have an official policy of providing "sancutary" to illegals have blood on their hands and are partially complicit in the needless murders of innocent Americans like Jamiel Shaw.
Michael | April 11, 2008, 12:33pm | #
You know, if the southwest was part of Mexico, the Mexicans would be sneaking into Oklahoma.Nothing would change.
MikeP | April 11, 2008, 12:34pm | #
What you said...My only worry is that libertarianism, as fragile a political movement that it is, only really thrives in the US, where individuality is privileged over the group. Do the massive influx of Mexican immigrants think this way? Will they eventually? It doesn't seem to me that the same cultural pressures exist to encourage/force assimilation.
What your dog heard...
Blah blah blah blah in the US, where individuality is privileged over the group blah blah blah blah cultural pressures exist to encourage/force assimilation.
Virgil | April 11, 2008, 1:47pm | #
"...and I've seen ones that show as many as 15% of all homicides in America today are being committed by illegal aliens!"No one who is even remotely informed and honest thinks that 15% number is worth a shit. It's not the least bit plausible. You probably don't want to go throwing that number around if you want to maintain any shred of credibility with people who actually know something about this.
"But personally, I don't care a whit what the actual numbers are."
And that is exactly why you're not worth listening to. Crime rates of illegal immigrants are obviously extremely relevant to the question of their costs and benefits to American society. But you have no interest in addressing that question; you're only interested in continuing to use a single emotionally charged anecdote to smear all illegal immigrants. All further posts from you will be given all the attention they deserve, which is to say they will be cheerfully ignored.
I look forward to the Absolut advert showing a unified Ireland again.
Mike M. | April 11, 2008, 2:11pm | #
No one who is even remotely informed and honest thinks that 15% number is worth a shit. It's not the least bit plausible. You probably don't want to go throwing that number around if you want to maintain any shred of credibility with people who actually know something about this.Without something to back up your assertion, say another study, your rebuttal is completely worthless to me.
The obvious solution to this problem is for some agency in the government, say the FBI, to give us the official numbers regarding crimes committed by illegal aliens in America. This government keeps statistics on just about everything under the sun through the census, police reports, and other such means.
So why is it that they refuse to give us the official numbers? I don't know for certain, but I sure suspect that it's because they don't want the American people to know just how bad the problem is.
But rest assured, the people in this country are not going to put up with this forever and sit idly by while more and more of our people get killed. We're going to get new laws passed to fight sanctuary and put pressure on employers and the government, and it's already happening in Arizona, Los Angeles, and this battle will continue.
Will from Kansas | April 11, 2008, 2:22pm | #
I don't really appreciate the use of the word "nativist" by the author of this piece.Yes, America was founded by immigrants and will always need immigrants. But America also has some marginal (to say the least) interest in defending its borders.
Mike M. | April 11, 2008, 2:36pm | #
Have no fear, the days of the open-borders folks such as "Virgil" being able to intimidate and silence people through insults and name-calling are rapidly coming to an end, because people are just getting fed up.Malto Dextrin | April 11, 2008, 2:37pm | #
Boycotts and disownment? Nah - too formal.But it is real easy to pick another brand of vodka - there are plenty behind any bar. Vodka is, after all, a cheap commodity product, just one notch up from industrial grade ethanol (aka Everclear).
For fun, I went to Absolut's website and sent them a note with the following link:
The Swedish Empire in 1658
Confederate States of America | April 11, 2008, 3:17pm | #
Absolut could attempt to market its vodka to the south, the French via the Louisiana Territory map, the Spanish via a New Spain map of Mexico.Here is a good illustration...
http://www.nolanchart.com/article3404.html
Exham | April 11, 2008, 5:32pm | #
Note that the Vodka bottle sits on Venezuela, coincidence? I think not! Hugo Chavez shall liberate the Southwest!MikeP | April 11, 2008, 7:26pm | #
Note too that the only people who can drink from the bottle live in Puerto Rico.Being from a semi-autonomous commonwealth, are they natural allies for Aztlán? Are they better allies drunk than sober?
Scooby | April 11, 2008, 8:03pm | #
Without something to back up your assertion, say another study, your rebuttal is completely worthless to me.You didn't actually cite a study, so we can be pretty sure that you just pulled that "15%" number directly from your ass. Find your study, and link to it, or we will just assume that you are the ignorant shit-breath you appear to be.
Meanwhile, I agree with MikeP.
ABC | April 12, 2008, 4:31pm | #
"Ok, this is in all seriousness.The immigration restrictionists say theres a secret plot to take back the southwest for Mexico.
At the same time, the same people ALSO say theres a plot to unite Mexico, Canada, and the United States under one federal government.
Seems like the two are mutually exclusive. Which is it?"
The latter. If had any knowledge about the history of the development of the EU then you'd be a bit more suspicious of NAFTA as well. Unless of course an even more expanded federal state within the realms of an expanding supranational governmental organization are acceptable within your understanding of libertarianism.
This ad campaign was intelligent; the anti-immigration folks gave Absolut a lot of publicity. If anything the ad campaign is more insulting to Mexicans; it reminds them of what they lost.
Craig | April 14, 2008, 1:42pm | #
A Zogby Poll in Mexico found that 58% thought the U.S. southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico.It's been a long time since we took most of the territory following the Mexican-American War, but it's kind of hard to argue with their logic.
I wonder what percent of Poles thought Poland rightfully belonged to Germany in 1942?
Tim | April 21, 2008, 1:24am | #
Why do libertarians favor amnesty? Both the neo-cons under Bush and the democrats are also pro-open borders, it would be nice if a major political party adopted a stance on this issue that the majority of Americans agreed with. I am a libertarian on many issues such as the war on drugs but I think that you are missing the boat here. Also, finding this ad offensive is perfectly reasonable and the silly, juvenile name calling is not needed.