The hour badly spent

Weeks ago, the Collegian’s "You Suck" comic depicted Jesus (yeah, I know this is old; it took my uppers this long to kick in). In panel 2, an old lady asks "What did you really want from humanity?" In panel 2, a swarthy, bearded, long-haired toga-clad Jew replies "That’s easy — all I want is for people to get along. Love ach other and be happy…it’s pretty simple."

Jesus goes on, in panel 3, with "Oh — also, don’t f**k panda bears. I can not stress that enough. Love and happiness, and no panda f**king. That’s all I ever really wanted to get across to people."

Comic portrayals of Jesus are hardly a big deal, and this one is fairly basic and pretty tame, if you ask us. Ask a Christhole, however, and you get a different answer. Ben Balman, a K-State graduate, wrote a letter to the editor.

I am writing in regard to the comic “You Suck” printed in the Collegian on Nov. 13. I was extremely offended by this comic strip when I read the Collegian Thursday morning. I did not find it to be even remotely funny. On the contrary I found it quite obscene.

In fact, I believe it crossed the line to downright blasphemy. Not only did it incorporate vulgar language of the worst kind, which would not be printed in any upstanding newspaper, it defamed Jesus Christ. As someone who proudly professes Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, I was outraged, and not only me, but I know for a fact that many of my friends were deeply offended as well.

I can take a joke, but at some point we must draw the line and I believe that this comic crossed that line - blatantly and unashamedly. I am disappointed and offended beyond words. I expect better discretion by the Collegian staff in the future as far as what is printed. There is so much humor that could be printed that would be far less edgy and controversial — why must we resort to material that is crass, crude and inconsiderate of the faith of the majority of Americans? Is this merely to get a reaction like the one I am now writing?

There are both more appropriate outlets for the brand of so-called “humor” exhibited in this latest comic strip, as well as more appropriate alternatives to print in a campus newspaper. Until this comic strip ceases to be so obscene or ceases to be printed, I will now be removing the entire outer fold of any Collegian I pick up, if I choose to read it at all.

Was Balman for real? Even if he did have a point, he undermined it by making himself look stupid. We especially love the part where he disclaims that he “can take a joke,” then goes on to prove that he, in fact, can not take a joke. As far as "vulgar," since Balman failed to specify what, specifically, he took issue with, we’re going to wildly speculate what he means by "obscene." Which do you think ticked him off more: (1) the use of "f**k," which was redacted as shown, or (2) the blatant heresy that Jesus simply wants us all to get along? You decide! Keep in mind that it’s impossible to argue that Christ is in favor of pandafucking (unless it’s between pandas). We prefer to think that Balman’s biggest problem lies in not touching enough of that sweet, sweet "outer fold" he likes so much. "You Suck" agreed, publishing a very special issue:

"REMOVING THE OUTER FOLD! A new catchphrase craze!"

1. An insult: "Seriously! How did you get so stupid? Did someone remove your outer fold when you were a kid?

2. A threat: "If I ever catch you doing that on my bed again, I’m going to remove your outer fold!"

3. A circumcision euphemism: "…And apparently it also smells good. That’s why I’m glad they removed my outer fold."

Yeah, that wingnut’s letter was a comic gold mine; kudos to Nolan Fabricius and Jeff Brown for taking full advantage. They published another one:

Old lady: "Hey…did you guys hear that you’re blasphemous?"

Slacker (to Jesus): "I didn’t know that you gave your followers the right to go around condemning people."

Zing! At this point, I almost started to feel bad for Ben Balman, but in appointing himself some kind of moral beacon, he asked for it. And fundie humor is like a bottle that never runs dry; you can just reach for it over and over again. So, here’s to hoping that "You Suck" never loses its buzz.

[You Suck@K-State Collegian]

We are all judged by the people we associate with, writes Tim Hadachek. Everything is a continuation of high school.

Barack Obama should not be surprised then when John McCain and Sarah Palin bring up associations from the Democratic nominee’s past. And perhaps unlike your embarrassing roommate, these connections are very pertinent to today’s world.

During the 1960s and ‘70s, at the height of the anti-Vietnam War movement, Bill Ayers was a founding member of the radical group known as the Weather Underground.

Over a period of several years, Ayers and his fellow conspirators conducted various acts of domestic terrorism, the most notable of which were the bombings of the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon.

Fast forward to 1995. Ayers held a reception at his home for a little-known politician, Barack Obama. Later, Ayers and Obama would serve together on boards for two nonprofit organizations.

What’s interesting is that the actual nonprofit work is not as important as forty-year-old crimes committed by one person on the board. Tim Hadachek doesn’t think charity work is important.

Obama, of course, has denounced his backer’s actions, pointing out, correctly, that he was 8 years old when the terrorist acts were taking place. But he certainly knew of Ayers’ past when he worked with him as an adult.

Obama’s supporters have been outraged at what they see as unfair “guilt by association” attacks.

As an Obama supporter, I have no problem with "guilt by association" attacks. That way I can remind you that Charles Keating, a personal friend of John McCain, bribed McCain to avoid punitative measures during the S&L scandal and helped screw taxpayers out of a lot of cash. Why isn’t this being played up?

1. Obama is trying to avoid running a negative campaign, a campaign that relies on mudslinging to distract from things like the economy, foreign policy, etc. This is necessary because:

2. He’s being held to a much higher standard than McCain. When a Republican distorts situations and exercises doublethink to prove an obviously spurious (lol “provocative”) point, nobody’s surprised.

If we want to go the “guilt by association” route, we could also play up the fact that Cindy McCain stole drugs from her own charity and was investigated by the DEA. But Tim Hadachek is willing to overlook that; clearly he doesn’t place much value on nonprofit work anyway.

[Source: K-State Collegian]

Yesterday, Jessica Hensley loftily told us that candidates should address The Issues instead of fighting.

But what issues was she talking about?

I suppose it’s common knowledge that elections in general are full of pointless mudslinging, but Jessica opted not to regale us with any particular recent examples. Those who read the news (which you can’t get from the Collegian, obvs) probably know that Hillary and Obama bared teeth and came out swinging the last time they met, in a nationally publicized debate. Jess didn’t even mention it. Therefore, she also failed to mention what specific mud they were slinging, and whether any of it was valid or not.

Further questions loom. Are there other examples of mudslinging? Who are the worst offenders? From the looks of things, John McCain has run an extremely classy campaign, as always, which is MIRACULOUS, really, when you consider that we pretty much expect Republicans to act like 3rd-grade racist, ladyhating bullies at every opportunity (thank you Giuliani, Tancredo, Huckabee, and Romney for NEVER disappointing).

John Edwards has doled out his share of catty backhanded barbs (I’m thinking of a dig he took at Hillary after hearing about her "crying"). In every instance, however, he has apologized for everything he’s said that was anything less than professional. He has done so immediately. I feel this is a mark of great character on his part.