The hour badly spent

underminer, the k-state collegian is just a fancy blog, absurd liberal myth, all your base are belong to us, monument to democracy, passive-aggressive notes, shut up kansas, too soapboxey, reality has a well-known liberal biasDecember 2, 2008 10:24 am

Bitterness: free democratic elections are not the American way

Shortly after the election, feelings ran high on both sides of the political fence. Some of us were all, "suck on that, red-staters." The others reverted to the same tactics that cost their side the election in the first place. Case and point: freshman Josh Rodrick attempted a call for unity in a letter to the Collegian. But since he could not resist the chance to take a baseless swipe at the president-elect, he comes off as being divisive.

…To say people should unite under one president because it brings change is asking much of a society in which people cannot even respect or agree with their neighbors.

For this American society that voted for a president that flies a flag other than the American flag over his name, where is the unified organization?

The "Obama’s not really American" meme is like a bad neighbor who simply will not trim his encroaching weeds no matter what happens to everyones’ property values. Time and time again, people keep repackaging the old message with shiny new bullshit. There goes the neighborhood.

Our first black president will be the first and definite change, and while he coerced much of the United States to vote for him, we will see come January 2009 how much our nation will change.

There you have it. It’s unthinkable that our first black president would win in a fair, free democratic election. Rather, he "coerced" a majority of the population and the electoral college.

Do not unite under a president; unite together, unite under the American flag and the principles this country was founded on; find some middle ground or cooperation and let your voice be heard.

In making a worthwhile claim, Rodrock resorts to pettiness that undercuts his own message. Neocon doublethink was already rejected by the voters. It insults our intelligence and has no place in a democracy that requires honesty to function. Bitter red-staters should leave the calls for unity to someone who actually means them.

[K-State Collegian]

Comments (0)
playing the race card, the k-state collegian is just a fancy blog, shut up kansas, fuck white supremacy, reality has a well-known liberal bias 1:55 am

Collegian: Obama still not white enough to be American

Perusing the Collegian’s op-ed section is normally the journalistic equivalent of watching your neighbors shoot up heroine. They obviously think they’re having fun now, but just wait. Sadly, one day every year, some wingnut just goes "what the fuck" and overdoes it with something cartoonishly sexist, racist, or homophobic. And just when you think it can’t get any more ridiculous, Mark Erbacher goes and piles on the buffoonery by orders of magnitude. "Obama’s citizenship question could easily be solved." Since when was this a question?

President-elect Barack Hussein Obama has until today to verify that he is in fact a natural-born citizen, according to www.obamacrimes.com, a Web site owned by Philip J. Berg.

Berg has a substantial amount of evidence for his claim that Obama was not born in Honolulu, Hawaii, but rather that he was born in Momboso, Kenya. Berg’s site paid for a full-page ad in the Washington Times on Nov. 17 to lay out the accusation and the grounds for it.

Of course! It was a question because some flyover whacko with a web site says it’s a question. Erbacher goes on to list Berg’s "evidence" against Obama being "American." Don’t bother visiting Berg’s web site, because it will only make you wish you lived in Canada. Or whatever. Go ahead and view it if you want; I don’t care. It’s your life.

If in fact Obama is found to not be a natural-born citizen, the Supreme Court will be forced to invalidate the election and another election will be held.

Erbacher’s column is hands-down the worst thing we’ve read all year, and we just finished Twilight this weekend. This is, in fact, the worst thing we’ve read since the last time the Collegian decided to cynically toss all logic out the window just to see what would happen. Remember that? Remember when Brigitte Brecheisen warned us that Mexicans carry tuberculosis? You were trying to forget? So were we.

We’d be a bit more satisfied if Erbacher at least said what he really meant. The column would look more like this:

President-elect Barack Hussein Obama has until today to verify that he is in fact a white-born citizen, according to www.obamacrimes.com, a Web site owned by Philip J. Berg, some guy who likes to make up shit but could never get his fiction published in Penthouse.

It is clearly stated in clause 3, section I of the U.S. Constitution that "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons [ed. note: negroes!]."

Berg has a substantial amount of evidence for his claim that Obama was not born in Honolulu, Hawaii, but rather that he was born in Momboso, Kenya.

First, Berg claims to have a tape of Obama’s paternal grandmother, Sarah Obama, saying "I was in the delivery room in Kenya when he was born Aug. 4, 1961." If such a tape exists, surely this constitutes iron-clad proof. If Berg claims he has a tape, surely he must really have it.

The article goes on to say white experts have called the scanned copy of Obama’s birth certificate that he presented forged. Berg was quoted as saying, "It’s clearly been shucked and jived," which would invalidate the document. If Berg says it’s been altered, the rest of us might as well call it a day. Also, at the time he was born, Hawaiian law allowed for black people to register for the non-hospital short form certificate up to one year after the date of birth.

Thirdly, if Barack Obama did indeed attend segregated school in Indonesia under the name of Barry Soetoro, he would have been required to be a citizen. During this time his citizenship was listed as Indonesian, his religion was listed as Islam, and his father was supposedly Malcolm X. At this time no biracial citizenship was available, and if he had been adopted by his stepfather he would have forfeited his white citizenship. It is a well-known fact that the goal of so-called "biracial" people is  to out-black real blacks, usually through performing advanced urban dance moves and impressive freestyling skillz, and Mr. Hippity Hop has yet to decisively address the nation and disavow his negritude.

Ultimately the issue at hand is the U.S. Constitution, that single document that truly makes this country white. Without it, we as a nation are non-white, but when it is upheld as white as it should be and as our white framers intended it to be, our country is truly white. There are very few requirements for becoming the president of neocons’ United States, but if need be, more grandfather clauses could be added. That’s the American way.

[Source: K-State Collegian]

Comments (0)
people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, you so missed the point, god is extra dead, the k-state collegian is just a fancy blog, we are not amused, shut up kansas, convulsive hand-wringing, too christianey, doucherie, reality has a well-known liberal bias, christholesDecember 1, 2008 2:55 pm

Fundie sets himself up for mockery with tiresome histrionics

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]

Comments (0)
collegianism, the k-state collegian is just a fancy blog, all your base are belong to us, point/counterpoint, journalismism, too soapboxey, reality has a well-known liberal bias 1:03 pm

Bitters lament reality’s liberal bias

After the election, bitter right-wingers like Mark Erbacher were quick to blame everyone for their loss except the obvious: the legacy of their own failed policies. The most obvious target would be manipulation from liberal coastal media elites. Right? Right.

The 2008 election clearly showed that the media lean heavily to the left. Even liberals must admit the mainstream media and its journalists threw objectivity and fairness aside and blatantly took the side of now President-elect Barack Obama.

According to www.telegraph.co.uk, the nonpartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs reported John McCain received substantially more negative news coverage during the campaign. The same article said the Pew Research Center, examining coverage of the last presidential debate, showed Obama’s coverage to be 36 percent positive and 29 percent negative.

Compare this to the staggering numbers of McCain: 57 percent negative to only 14 percent positive. There is some disparity between the parties; 82 percent of Republicans think journalists try to be advocates rather than neutral observers. This coincides with 56 percent of Democrats and 69 percent of unaffiliated voters concurring with their conservative counterparts.

Perhaps Obama’s positive coverage reflected a kind of campaign to which the Right was not accustomed? Perhaps McCain’s negative stories reflected the negativity of his campaign? Perhaps McCain really is the two-faced, hot-tempered scoundrel he seems to be? If you’d like to contemplate a double standard, consider how the media would have handled coverage of a candidate with a known temper problem, a candidate who talked out of both sides of his mouth and constantly went back on his pledges, a candidate that had cheated on his wife and then married into his fortune; now consider how the media would have handled such a candidate if he were black.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs studied 979 election news stories from 33 hours and 40 minutes of airtime from evening newscasts on ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX stations and found stories concerning Obama and Joe Biden recieved 65 percent positive versus 35 percent negative. This was more than double that of John McCain and Sarah Palin, whose numbers were 69 percent negative and only 31 percent positive.

Journalists must remain unbiased in their coverage of the issues. Their job is to objectively report facts so individuals can decide for themselves what they choose to believe

Heh, pretty surprised that he mentioned Fox News. Anyway, it’s about time for a concern near and dear to me: a basic journalism lesson.

According to right-wing gasbags, "objective" journalism occurs when the reporter writes down what one person says, then writes down what another person says, then prints that. By this logic, the substance of a claim does not matter, and it’s not your job to actually go verify the claim; if someone simply makes the claim, you print it. Reporters who actually care about the truth, however, know the difference between journalism and stenography.

Look at what Erbacher reports. Look at the level of doublethink involved in his reasoning. His contention is not specifically with whether any story was biased, but whether a bunch of people believe stories are biased. But how do the people polled even judge bias? What’s their criteria? Just because a story is "favorable" or "unfavorable" doesn’t make bias. It may turn out that historical "facts," or material reportable conditions actually favor one over the other. That’s what a journalist is supposed to report on. "Reality." It’s too bad reality has a well-known liberal bias.

[K-State Collegian]

Comments (0)