Stop with the old sex jokes already
Though I would like to say I was shocked and offended by Ben Lee
Handler’s column (“Head
for a nutritious, meaty meal,” Daily Bruin, Viewpoint,
Oct. 26), to be shocked is to have come across something wildly
provocative and original.
That did not happen here. I read nothing in his article I
hadn’t already heard in my high school locker room.
This, for the Daily Bruin, should be seen as a major concern.
When I read Viewpoint, I’d like to find columns written by
people with an especially insightful perspective that will both
tell me what other sincere, thoughtful students are thinking about
and help me expand my own opinion on important issues. Handler
accomplishes neither.
Space for his column was used to disseminate a comedy routine,
and while showing an advanced talent for word-play, the most
aggravating and egregious flaw of his article was that his ideas
were just a repackaging of an old, vulgar joke. In short, his
article was not offensive ““ just uninteresting.
Handler is clearly a talented writer, and I regret that
it’s clear he put a lot of time into crafting his puns.
It’s also entirely possible that he does actually have
something useful to tell us. Nonetheless, no amount of effort,
potential or linguistic aptitude on his part can justify taking a
tired joke about sperm’s nutritional value and passing it off
as a “viewpoint” worthy of mass production.
Published opinions need not always be profound or about the
world’s most pressing current events, and there is great
value in letting good writers give their thoughts on commonplace
topics (Herb Caen and Dave Berry are two good examples).
Nonetheless, vastly more editorial discretion should be employed
by both writers and editors than was used by Handler and the Daily
Bruin in deciding to publish his article. While it would likely
have been high wit in a far more informal setting (like a locker
room or frat party), given the vulgarity of Handler’s ideas
and the minimal innovation that he applied to an old joke,
it’s gravely disappointing that somehow his article made the
final cut for Friday’s paper.
Chris Correa Fourth-year History
Fellatio column crude, tasteless
I am a student at UCLA and just want to tell you that I found
your article (“Head
for a nutritious, meaty meal,” Daily Bruin, Viewpoint,
Oct. 26) that was filled with sexual innuendos referring to
fellatio and other crude acts totally disgusting and absurd.
It was in poor taste, and not funny. It was clear that you were
trying to be humorous but failed miserably. Ben Lee Handler’s
column was an insult to the entire UCLA community and he should be
ashamed of himself. I will do my best to make sure that he is never
again allowed to write a column like this by complaining to the
editor and calling for his removal.
Ian Ostrof Strifler Second-year
Question Islam as government
Although I appreciate and agree to some extent with Nadia
Kahn’s defense of Islam as a religion of peace, tolerance and
liberation for women, I question if the implementation of Islam as
“a viable form of government” exists at all in this
world. (“True
Islam not oppressive, medieval faith,” Daily Bruin,
Viewpoint, Oct. 29).
Kahn refers to Islamic governments as “more tolerant and
humanitarian than any other political system.” Huh? Al-Talib
(of which Kahn was the editor last year) has in the past featured a
cover drawing of an American flag with a Jewish Star superimposed
over the stars for the fifty states. Is this what the Muslim
students she claims to represent want us to understand about their
view of this country? Is this Kahn’s point about the fine
wisdom an Islamic government would bring all of us Americans? I
wonder.
Fortunately, we live in the United States of America where we do
not need an institutionalized religious body. I understand that not
being Christian in the U.S. is a challenge, but I would hold that
our government is getting more and more accustomed to not favoring
only Christian Americans in policy and dialogue.
In addition, if Islam is such a wonderful governing body, I
would like Kahn to cite one country with an Islamic government that
guarantees equal rights not only for women, but for Christians and
Jews as well. I am hard-pressed to think of one.
Mayim Bialik Second-year grad student
Neuroscience
Anti-gay dispute unfounded
In response to Donte Dollar-Wright’s article “Depiction
of homosexuality unnecessary,” (Daily Bruin, Viewpoint,
Oct. 29) I find myself slamming my Daily Bruin down in anger once
again. I have several issues with his arbitrary choice of points,
but will attempt to address the particularly offensive ones.
Dollar-Wright describes homosexuality as a “biological
anomaly, a mistake, an irrefutable glitch of nature.” OK,
perhaps we are some freakish aberration from the way things
“ought to be” “¦ what of it? Mistakes in nature
happen all the time, and we do not deny them anything.
Dollar-Wright justifies his claims with the comparison to ethnic
people as “normal homosapiens who can procreate.” My
sister has a wonderful boyfriend who she will wed this spring,
nicely and normally, the way things ought to be … unfortunately
she had cervical cancer when she was 18, had a full hysterectomy
and is incapable of procreating. A friend of mine was born without
fallopian tubes, obviously unable to have children. They are by
Dollar-Wright’s definition, “glitches in nature”
as well. What to do with them? What to do with the millions of
happily married couples who choose not to have children? These damn
contraceptives are getting in the way of God’s will!
Of course Dollar-Wright puts everything right when he likens us
to someone “born with a disability,” claiming that
“it is just plain wrong” to hate us. Thank you so much
for your pity, but no thanks.
I was particularly amused by Dollar-Wright’s little note
about gay people concealing their sexuality in order to procure a
job or compete for a scholarship, then coming out with it once in
the high ranks. “Ethnic minorities” he says, do not
have this “luxury.” Excuse me, but since when is it a
luxury to have to hide who you are? Should I be ashamed of love? He
makes it sound as if I should cower in a closet until I have
achieved all of my hidden agendas! I have no hidden agendas, I do
not want to infiltrate the media with my homosexual presence in
society, and I do not want to lure young impressionable minds into
the depths of my evil ways.
Believe it or not there is no UCLA homosexual recruiting office.
I do not want to hide who I am, and that is quite simply what you
are asking me to do. That is what our military is asking us to do,
that is what our employers and teachers are asking us to do, and
there is no basis for it ““ I will not.
I am glad that the Daily Bruin prints things that you
don’t like in it, and although it occasionally pisses me off,
it is relieving that they print things that I don’t like or I
might not know closed-minded ignoramuses like you still
existed.
I am amazingly proud to be an American, where both you and I are
given such great comforts as rights. The Daily Bruin does not owe
its readers an apology; it should bow its head graciously for doing
its job. Do they need to issue a warning any time we say anything
that may possibly offend anyone? This is a university paper,
you’re a big boy ““ you can handle it. Grow up and get
over yourself.
Shannon Todd Third-year English major
Perng wrong, law discriminatory
In reference to Simon Perng’s column, “Financial
aid is for tuition, not addiction,” (Daily Bruin
Viewpoint, Oct. 30), the argument Perng makes completely ignores
the purpose of the Financial Aid Office’s decision. The fact
remains that the new rules in the Higher Education Act do
discriminate against students who are reliant on financial aid.
If a student receiving financial aid is caught using or
possessing drugs ““ regardless of the degree to which they use
drugs ““ their financial aid is in jeopardy and can be taken
away. The repercussions for a student not receiving financial aid
are far less serious. Their education is not contingent on the
federal aid that is in question. In essence, if you’re not
reliant on state funds for your education, then you’re free
to pursue as many evil “Downey Jr.” activities as you
wish without fearing that your tuition will disappear upon being
caught.
This is a major issue that I feel you very pointedly overlooked
for the sake of Perng’s argument. This act is inherently
discriminatory against students who are unable to pay for their own
education. Why must a student receiving financial aid be more
socially responsible than one who isn’t? Eliminating
financial aid funds and ruining a person’s chance at a higher
education should not be a means of fighting the war on drugs. This
is what the UCLA Financial Aid Office realizes and this is the
issue that the office addresses.
I am equally displeased with the many assumptions made regarding
the nature of a UCLA drug user. Even with financial aid, college is
still an enormous expense. The average financial aid recipient
living on campus still falls well short of the enormous expenses
encountered over a year of higher learning. To assert that it is at
all possible to support a full-fledged drug addiction on the
“dividends” is down right foolish. Perhaps Perng should
investigate the actual fiscal condition of financial aid recipients
rather than relying on a testimonial to help prove his already weak
and inconsistent argument.
The seriousness with which a student treats their education is
determined by their grades, not by their social activities.
Thomas Mawson First-year Undeclared