Opinion The University Daily Kansan
United States First Amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2010
WWW.KANSAN.COM
Follow Opinion on Twitter.
@kansanopinion
t
PAGE 5A
--a will soon see how dangerous voters can be when they have
To contribute to Free For All, visit Kansan.com or call (785) 864-0500.
I'm positive that if KU didn't blast the air conditioning in the classrooms then they could lower my tuition. Let's try it.
--a will soon see how dangerous voters can be when they have
Ninja, please
--a will soon see how dangerous voters can be when they have
Ohhhh oh ohhwoah. Chiefs are 2-0!!!
--a will soon see how dangerous voters can be when they have
Laugh, kubi, laugh!
--a will soon see how dangerous voters can be when they have
Don't watch 'Mad Men' Jon Hamm went to Mizzou!
--a will soon see how dangerous voters can be when they have
You don't have to come and confess. We lookin for you.
--a will soon see how dangerous voters can be when they have
What do I do with all the sexy lingerie and outfits I bought when I was with my ex!? I liked the nurse one ...
--a will soon see how dangerous voters can be when they have
Who is in charge of picking which FFA's go in the paper?
You always pick the least funniest ones!
Editor's note: Maybe you just have a lame sense of humor
--a will soon see how dangerous voters can be when they have
I love the old adorable man that is in the library every Monday and Wednesday. Gotta love a gray haired comb
This was the second weekend in a row that my roommate was so drunk he pissed in a trashcan.
--a will soon see how dangerous voters can be when they have
--a will soon see how dangerous voters can be when they have
I heard K-state engineers are working on a time machine at Bill Snyder's request.
She totally boofed the baconator.
--a will soon see how dangerous voters can be when they have
2 for 2 while cougar hunting. I got an eye on this sport!
--a will soon see how dangerous voters can be when they have
Fall Break isn't coming quick enough.
--a will soon see how dangerous voters can be when they have
Dear Roomie, Please stop telling me about every guy you sleep with while I'm not there. You're a skank.
--a will soon see how dangerous voters can be when they have
Who's up for some fro-yo?
I'm getting raped in fantasy football this week.
--a will soon see how dangerous voters can be when they have
--a will soon see how dangerous voters can be when they have
I know it's the group study area but I feel like I was just violated with your phone conversation.
--a will soon see how dangerous voters can be when they have
My friend just tagged me in 15 horrible pictures. They are all hilarious. Animal.
Voter anger better aimed at poor economic policy
GOVERNMENT
hate to lose out a lot of anger.
Some are thinking the unthinkable: giving the congressional keys back to corporate America's designated driver, the Republicans.
After decades of financial deregulation spearheaded by Reagan-holics, the barons of Wall Street cannibalized themselves in 2008, nearly causing a fiscal Armageddon.
Wall Street executives have long since rebounded, but many Americans are still struggling to keep their homes and put food on the table because work remains elusive.
One in seven adults receives food stamps. More and more families are calling homeless shelters home; and the number of Americans living under the poverty line is at a 15-year high.
Not to mention, a decade's worth of economic growth disappeared — economically, we're partying like it's 1999.
Americans are angry, and they have a right to be.
It was morally reprehensible when Wall Street executives profited off the bonfire they created with the 401ks of teachers and others in the public sector. Their bonuses made crystal clear how little the super rich care about the rest of us.
Many Americans are desperate, and the deficit-hawks, who pave the road for corporate excess, prey on public fear.
This desperation is playing out on the national and local stage. By sowing seeds of anti-government discontent, neoconservatives hide their ulterior motives. Republicans hope to capitalize on these sentiments by staying out to the way—classic Republicanism.
According to a recent article in The Kansas City Star, (between
Starting the Conversation
These conservative extremists dress up like G.I. Joe, chase Charlie in the woods and share conspiracy theories over smores—conspiracy theories that would make Holden Caulfield blush, such as the government plans to build concentration camps to house citizens and control the population through mass starvation.
BY D.M. SCOTT
dscott@kansan.com
the 2008 and 2009) the number of militias tripled.
Lance Garrison created the Kansas State Militia two years ago. He said their activities, which include performing tracheotomies on pig throats, are harmless. Experts believe the group's paramilitary training is based on the belief that the government is coming to get them.
Republicans and the militias' kissing cousin, the Tea Party, have been banging a similar drum: Our anti-colonial, Kenyan president won't be satisfied until he crushes liberty with his socialist agenda, which includes providing health care to those in need, trying to hold Wall Street barons accountable for the mess they created and eliminating the free ride the richest Americans enjoy through the Bush tax cuts.
Does this paranoia sound familiar? It should.
Underneath, the paranoia and conspiracy theories lies a darker agent. Hanging around the campfire, underneath the camouflage
(I hate to mention the value of stimulus spending, The Kansas Militia might come and get me.)
face paint, sits an alienated Timothy R. McVeigh in the making. And behind Tea Party foot soldiers are their billionaire supporters—Rupert Murdoch and David and Charles Koch—who won't hesitate to sacrifice what's good for the whole to protect what's best for a few.
In an effort to protect their wealth, calculating corporate elites have stolen the political narrative by rallying angry Americans against Obama and his grandma-ating government by shouting "Socialism!" and whispering "Hussein."
These corporate elites are using their foot soldiers to put back in power their real henchmen, the politicians on Capitol Hill whose pockets they line with golf money, so they can obstruct financial reform, unemployment benefits and environmental laws—or anything else that stands in their way of corporate interests.
When Republicans talk about the Big Government's restriction of liberty, whose liberty are they really talking about?
Unless you're in the top two percent, not yours.
This election cycle is not about Socialism. It's not about stopping an out-of-control government. It's about continuing to extricate ourselves out from underneath the economic rubble caused by the greedy executives and their powerful friends on Capitol Hill.
Voters want to beat up on the politicians, but it would be counterproductive to give congressional majority to those who share deregulation philosophies that got us where we are today.
Unfortunately, it's hard to be reasonable when you're mad as hell.
D. M. Scott is a junior from Overland Park in journalism.
LETTER RESPONSE
"Little Scottie" comic as it appeared Tuesday, September 14.
Illustrator and writer respond to accusations of stereotyping
Contrary to what some are suggesting after last Tuesday's "Little Scottie" comic, we are not homophobic bigots with an axe to grind. In fact, we agree that "the heterosexual community often hypersexualizes the queer community in order to vilify them." There is one problem. We are not part of the heterosexual community. We're gay.
Being gay, however, should not compel us to agree with gay or "gay-friendly" organizations any more than being American should compel us to agree with our government. Our freedom to disagree is the very essence of our First Amendment. Some people may view such dissent as disloyalty, but we believe it is not only our right but also our duty to express our dissatisfaction with organizations and institutions.
"Gay-friendly" fraternities are inherently focused on differences. Otherwise, why would they need to exist? Ideally, they shouldn't, but that is not the objective of these groups.
encouraging more division based on sexual orientation rather than less. Many people, including us, simply refuse to allow our sexuality to dictate our identities, either personally or socially.
They instead undermine the pursuit of LGBT equality by
As for the comic itself, we write and draw our comics between four and six weeks before they run in The Kansan. We developed this year's storylines for "Little
ire, not of any specific fraternity but of a general idea. We held up a mirror to something we are critical of, and it seems that a lot of people did not like the reflection they saw. Our characters may
"Being gay, however should not compel us to agree with gay or 'gayfriendly' organizations any more than being American should compel us to agree with our government."
Scottie" in late June and have never consulted any schedule except the KU Football schedule. The timing of the comic was unintentional. We already did a rush-themed comic that ran in The Kansan on July 21, 2010, where more members of the fraternity are shown, many of whom are not "older, hairy and more muscular."
The comic in question is a sat-
not be based on specific people, but they are a reflection of our own experiences and observations.
So, if the language used by our characters is too "unintelligent, unmasculine and immature," maybe it's time for gay students to rethink
their behavior. If we're hypersexualizing gay people, perhaps try not swoon over every attractive straight guy on campus.
To those who disagree, look around. If anyone is perpetuating stereotypes, it's not us.
-Todd Pickrell and Scott Winer illustrate and write, respectively, the "Little Scottie" comic that appears in The Kansan.
SEXUALITY
Friends with benefits can work with clear boundaries
For those who just want sex there are one-night stands. For those who want commitment, trust and sex, there are relationships. And for those who want sex but not without trust, there are friends with benefits.
Friends with benefits, or FWBs, are common among college-age adolescents, according to Michael Castleman from Psychology Today. As a reason for this behavior, he cites the lower sexual experience level among young adults with a desire to experiment.
Having read through many online reader comments on this topic, I noticed that most of them discourage FWBs and cite many examples of (predominantly) girls falling in love and then being crushed when their friend doesn't feel the same. I'm not surprised. Not because FWBs inevitably lead to disaster, but because people don't feel the need to share as much when they're comfortable with a situation, but rather when there are problems.
Surveys show a different picture. FWB situations don't necessarily lead to a broken friendship or a broken heart. One 2009 survey, published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, has shown that 81 percent of those who have been involved in an FWB said that friendship doesn't have to be over when you stop having sex, while only 62 percent overall say it is possible to remain friends while also having sex.
Friendships that involve sex can be tricky. The lines between friendship, affair and relationship are blurry because feelings of closeness, passion, fun and love are closely related. In this short column, I won't go into the details of how relationships work, but I think it's a mixture of sexual attraction, mutual interests and circumstances that makes a relationship work. A friendship contains at least one of those attributes. When you add sex, you already have two attributes. It's not surprising then that relationships can develop among FWBs in the right circumstances. Those circumstances, however, have to be present in both people.
Yet, FWBs often happen when people want sex and closeness without the constraints and responsibilities of a relationship. Both sides are merely using each other to satisfy their needs, which is OK if both get what they want. However, if one person changes his or her mind and wants something else, you
Let's Talk about Sex
BY CAROLINE BLEDOWSKI
chledowksi@kansan.com
What do I want?
can end up with a broken heart,
a feeling of shame, and maybe a
broken friendship.
If you're thinking about starting a FWB relationship, ask yourself these questions:
If you just want the sex and a little cuddling, FWB can be good for you. But if you're also looking for someone to spend time with instead of being alone, don't do it. Once you start to plan activities that seem like dates, for example having dinner and then going to your place, you blur the lines between your friend and your date.
What is the nature of our friendship?
Who else is involved?
Why are you friends in the first place? And for how long?
If you're not best friends yet, or even close, your stakes are not too high. You still have a chance to develop a closer friendship if a FWB doesn't work out between you. But if you're close friends already, you might never get the same closeness back.
If you're both in the same group of friends, consider that you could hurt more than one person in the end. Be prepared to face your ex-FWB and hang out with him or her after you've ended it. If you think you can't, don't even start anything.
What type of relationships have I been in so far?
If you've only been in short- or long-term relationships before and never in one only meant for sex, maybe you shouldn't try something new with a friend. You're more likely not the type for sex without commitment. If you want to experiment and find out if you could handle it, try someone you can end things with more smoothly.
Bottom line: FWBs can work, but only if both sides know what they're doing. Be aware of the risks and face problems or pain if it comes up. The key is communication (and condoms).
Bledowski is a graduate student from Cracow, Poland, in journalism.
Chatterbox
Responses to the news of the week on Kansan.com
"So kujayhawk wants to give any and all people with more authority than the average civilian full power to disregard the 2nd and 4th amendments to the constitution.
The FBI could easily take guns from the people in the majority - we are registered. But they have to go house to house for everyone else. If done in a blanket sweep it wouldn't have a warrant for each house. Maybe this commu-fascist in training would rather just have martial law declared."
— "metacognition" in response to "Restrictions could cut gun violence" on Sept. 16.
HOW TO SUBMIT A LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Send letters to kansanopdesk@gmail.com. Write **LETTER TO THE EDITOR** in the e-mail subject line.
Length: 300 words
The submission should include the author's name, grade and hometown. Find our full letter to the editor policy online at kansan.com/cletters.
CONTACT US
Alex Garrison, editor
864-4810 or agarrison@kansan.com
Nick Gerik, managing editor 864-4010 or ngerik@kansan.com
Erin Brown, managing editor 864-4810 or ebrown@kansan.com
David Cawthon, kansan.com managing editor
864-4810 or dcwthon@ikansan.com
Jonathan Shorman, opinion editor 864-4924 or jshorman@kansan.com
Emily McCoy. Kansan TV assignment editor
864-4810 or emcccovi@kansan.com
Joe Garvey, business manager
864-4358 or jgarvey@kansan.com
Shauna Blackmon, associate opinion editor
864-4924 or sblackmon@kansan.com
Amy O'Brien, sales manager
864-4477 or aobrien@kansan.com
Malcolm Gibson, general manager and news
adviser
964.7662 or mail to:
Jon Schlitt, sales and marketing adviser
864-7666 or jschlitt@kansan.com
THE EDITORIAL BOARD
THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Members of the KANAL Board are
Nick Gerk, Erin Brown, David
Cawthon, Nick Burke and Shaun
Blackman.