Letters to the Editor – October 16, 2012
I challenge that definition!
First of all, I support a person’s right to free speech. I applaud anyone who is willing to speak their mind, regardless of whoever they might offend, even if it is distasteful. However, I feel that the Sun Star’s posting of the Urban Dictionary’s definition of Fairbanks, Alaska was not just distasteful; it was completely uncalled for.
Speaking as a lifelong resident, I found it incredibly offensive that a Fairbanks-based publication would actually publish such an insulting definition of my home town. I tried to take the joke with a salt shaker, to no avail. Just to point of a few of the more insulting comments:
- I don’t appreciate the insinuation that the soldiers stationed here are nothing more than statutory-rape time bombs.
- I don’t appreciate my home being compared to the setting of several Stephen King novels.
- And I especially don’t appreciate the definition of “Fairbanks good.” Many of the events held here are the result of many men and women working hard to put on a good show. But saying that because they can’t compare to what occurs in any other city, they are good in comparison because we are second-class citizens who don’t know any better.
Then, if that weren’t enough; the 2 “definitions” (I’m using that term loosely) are accompanied with a headshot of Sarah Palin: the only person in recorded history to suffer a brain fart after being asked, “What do you read?”
There, that’s my piece.
Re: ‘Angry about Afghanistan’ and ‘My life in college is not like “My Life in College”‘
I am writing in response to both Timothy Bledsoe and Kayla Harrison.
Mr Bledsoe: We are currently caught in a middle eastern quagmire for one reason. Oil. Oil to sustain unsustainable lifestyles and to perpetuate a grossly disproportionate standard of living that citizens of this country have become accustomed to. Our government is absolutely willing to sacrifice American lives to that end. Additionally, war is extremely profitable to the corporations that vet the politicians who we elect.
Ms. Harrison: I have several points to make regarding your letter.
1. Women love douchebags.
2. Women love attention.
3. Women love attention from douchebags.
4. Drunk women really love attention, douchebag status withstanding.
5. Arm chair criticism is useless, and in this case, likely misinformed.
6. If you think that dressing whorish and abusing alcohol deems Ms. Mildred inexperienced in that realm of socialization, maybe you need to spend some more time at the bar. Any bar.
7. In your daily activities across campus, know that every male that interacts with you, or even sees you, is judging you sexually while simultaneously subjugating you to a series of sexually based questions of his own devices and tailored to his personal desires which culminates in and eventually produces one ultimate question. “Would I have sex with her?” Ask any male. If he denies this fact, he is currently formulating a plan to get in your pants. If he does not, he is either gay, has already had sex with you, is uninterested in you or has supreme confidence that his admittance of this fact has no bearing on whether or not he can sleep with you. Welcome to college.
8. Judging by your tone, as you judged Ms. Mildred, it seems to me that you could benefit from a Titanic-esque moment in your life.
9. To suggest that Ms. Mildred has lost pride in her womanhood, especially after recognizing the article’s attempt at humor, is preposterous.
10. I don’t know and I don’t care whether Ms. Mildred will regret her actions or her article, but thoroughly judging and dressing down an individual based on a handful of paragraphs in a college newspaper precludes any form of respect as well. Live and let live.
Legitimizing the no-confidence vote
We are constantly reminded that voting is our sacred duty to our greatest of nation-states. To spurn this duty, to dare to refuse participation, is tantamount to heresy and treason. And after all, why not? This right was hard-fought for, people died and murdered for it, and some of us are still relatively new to this right thanks to Women’s Suffrage and the Civil Rights Movement. We have a choice to make, and to choose nothing is irresponsible and lazy! Unfortunately, it would seem it is our right to choose who would lead us, but not to choose from whom we are allowed to pick. We do not seem to have much power in deciding the pool from which our benevolent leaders are drawn, which leaves us with fewer and poorer options.
Though our system is ostensibly accessible to anyone, we know this is not the case. Our presidential election is a spectacle one must pay to take part in, and the less cash you have to pony up, the less you get to play for. Thus, we are presented a narrow choice between two barely-different warmongers, with third-party voices marginalized by the two-headed Republicrat party. The common argument that one ought to “pick the lesser of two evils” is a cop out to an uncomfortable truth; voting a little bit less against your interests is still against your interests.
When a product or service is bad, we boycott it. When workers are treated poorly, they strike. Refusing to participate in a broken and rigged system is a time-honored human tradition. This is ultimately a question of representation, and if you dare to declare that none are fit to represent you and choose to be led by nobody, you will not be alone.