Letters to the Editor – October 16, 2012

I challenge that definition!

Dear Editor,

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.

Freddy Fingazz

Re: ‘Angry about Afghanistan’ and ‘My life in college is not like “My Life in College”‘

Dear Editor,

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.

Jon Hochendoner  

Legitimizing the no-confidence vote

Dear Editor,

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.

Forrest Andresen

You may also like...

7 Responses

  1. Annie Bartholomew says:

    I have binders full of douchebags like Jon Hochendoner .

  2. Jon Hochendoner says:

    hahahaha, whoa. I would guess you’re friends with the other judgmental broad. You both need to relax.

  3. Chris Young says:

    No, you really should have just kept quiet.

  4. Kayla Harrison says:

    To Jon: I’m really glad that you read my letter! I wrote it for men like you who believe that Mildred’s behavior is typical of women in my demographic. But I must clarify and address your concerns because much like your misuse of the word ‘subjugating’, your logic is hampered by your lack of experience and, subsequently, your overall understanding of my letter.

    1-4: I’m very sorry that your life experiences have led you to believe these things about women. In social settings, i.e. bars, the douchebags that you are referring to are often the first to approach women and seem to get the most attention from them. This does not mean this type of attention is preferred, but it is often the most prevalent.

    5: Nope. And not only is this particular statement armchair criticism, but you also tell me that I should go to more bars and could use a Titanic moment…pot calling the kettle black? I don’t expect you to have a firm grasp of the implications of your hypocrisy, but know that it makes your paltry attempts at forming a solid argument even more laughable.

    6: Mildred’s expectation that her attire warranted certain responses from men and her continued involvement with a douchebag were what I deemed “inexperienced”. For the record, I’ve been to many bars. I like the Marlin, the pub, and pretty much anywhere that allows me to sit back and enjoy a cold beer with friends. I’ve even been to the bar Mildred described and two-stepped with the best of them!

    7: False. As the only female in my graduating electrical engineering class, 95% of my day is spent exclusively with men, many of whom I consider close friends. I refuse to believe that your over-simplified view of male-female interaction forms the foundation of their opinions of me. In fact, after showing some of them your letter they laughed and called you a tool.

    8: If by Titanic-esque moment you mean watching men of your disposition sink into the North Atlantic while I float on some driftwood to rescue, then yes, I really would enjoy a moment like that.

    9: I’m a fan of humor, even self-deprecating humor, but to do so at the expense of my gender offends me. Especially when it glorifies behavior that makes men like you believe items 1-4.

    10. I don’t believe Mildred should regret her decision because it was obviously a learning experience for her. In regard to your other statement: that’s not what I was going for. Someone who displays their work in a public forum is subject to criticism, so I don’t apologize for judging her so harshly. And if you think my judgement of Mildred was bad, my criticism and opinion of you are far worse. I know her piece was intended to give us all a laugh and a lot of her elaborations were included solely for that purpose, but yours was even funnier only because you obviously feign intelligence and misplaced superiority.

    The intent of my initial letter was to address the broader implications of public intoxication under the circumstances that Mildred introduced. Her experience was a best-case-scenario outcome for the situation she described. Furthermore, there is extensive literature showing that men who believe that this is typical female behavior have higher rates of sexual assault and domestic violence. This makes sense: men who objectify and stereotype women will never treat them with the dignity and respect that they deserve. So, Jon, I hope you seriously reevaluate YOUR role as a male student at this university before making false accusations and blatantly stereotyping a demographic that has obviously spurned you one too many times. U mad??

    To Mildred: your piece on working out at the gym was prime. Keep up the good work!

  5. Kayla Harrison says:

    Haha, this is perfect.

  6. Kayla Harrison says:

    Let the man embarrass himself.

  7. Kayla Harrison says:

    “Broad”? I would expect nothing less from someone responding to my letter like you did…

    As for Annie’s comment: hilarious, politically relevant, and caustic. Yours: unfunny, dramatic, boring.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *