A4
• wednesday, october 20, 2010 • arizona daily wildcat
perspectives
Colin Darland Editor in Chief 520•621•7579 editor@wildcat.arizona.edu
Heather Price-Wright Opinions Editor 520•621•7581 letters@wildcat.arizona.edu
Just a bundle of sticks, bro Johnny McKay
F
Arizona Daily Wildcat
ollowing up on the flamboyant spirit of Coming Out Week, today we shall discuss the hot-button word, “faggot.” This will be a fair and articulate exposé on the nomenclature, a magical journey through time and space, exploring the myriad manifestations and uses of the word in question. Through the careful application of knowledge, history and social folklore, we will finally be able to understand how the Olde English word for measuring bundles of sticks became what Chad is after missing a cup at beer pong. Faggot originated as an English word used to describe different amounts of twigs or short pieces of wood. As a meter refers to length, a faggot relayed the amount of wood that would compile the pile (real fact: a short faggot = 2 by 3 feet sticks, a long faggot = 2 by 4 feet). It eventually morphed into a more general word for a burning pile of sticks, given the usual use one would have for a bundle of twigs (voodoo dolls and Yule goats notwithstanding). Phallic conclusions aside, the eventual evolution from such an innocent connotation to an offensive slang for a gay man is, at best, hazy. After about five minutes of extensive research on the internet, I was able to discern two main schools of theory. The first is that faggots of wood were used commonly in the burning at the stake of heretics in the Inquisition for crimes that frequently included homosexuality. Another theory arises from the fact that the term was used in Britain to denote lower-class individuals, such as students who would perform tasks for more senior ranking classmates (think pledges). This was then somehow applied to anal sex and the role of the “passive” partner. Both are sound theories but are also superfluous, as the main point is that today, faggot is an extremely offensive word to gay people, and yet is somehow also used frequently in social situations. If you have been on campus recently, I am pretty sure (100 percent sure if you have ears) that you have heard the word faggot thrown around by a bro. These ignorant men toss around the word faggot like it’s an integral part of their aerobic respiration, managing to squeeze it into many of their conversations. This is an incredibly offensive word to the gay community. While some people are uncomfortable with the idea of man-on-man action, I’m pretty positive these bros simply lack the intellectual breadth to expand their lexicon, and as such should be forgiven, maybe pitied, for the miniscule number of words they have to choose from. Plus, “Drink that shot, you frivolous simpleton!” just doesn’t have the same ring. The thing is, with such a negative and hateful connotation, the word should have such a social stigma attached to it that makes it unspeakable. Somehow, though, unlike many bigoted slurs (think the infamous n-word), it does not carry a fear of exclusion or painful reckoning for the utterer. Part of the reason for this is the general stereotype of the gay man. No gym rat, who spends most of his waking life chuggin’ Muscle Milk and workin’ out at the gym, is going to fear retribution from a gay person over the word faggot. The erroneous consensus is that all gay people are effeminate, “girly” men who would rather squeal than stand up for their rights. This stereotype grants perceived immunity to any who dare use the word faggot. However, it is due time for the word to be “taken back” by the gay community, and here’s how. The next time “faggot” is uttered nonchalantly by a bro on campus, the Rainbow Police Hit Squad should be activated. This would consist of two “bears” (slang for large hairy gay men) who would materialize out of nowhere and teach the offending speaker a lesson or two. The fear would begin to spread, and soon many people would think twice about carelessly tossing around a word with such hate attached to it. Just as Jewish people lack a cool greeting (my vote is for “What’s spinning my Dreidel?”), gay people lack a formerly bigoted word turned exclusive term of endearment. The process is starting — faggot and dyke are beginning to be used ironically and lovingly in the gay community, but the words’ widespread use as insults among others means its not quite there yet. With a little more insight and social consequence, I think that the result is attainable. Let’s take it back. — Johnny McKay is a media arts senior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
The Daily Wildcat editorial policy
Daily Wildcat staff editorials represent the official opinion of the Daily Wildcat staff, which is determined at staff editorial meetings. Columns, cartoons, online comments and letters to the editors represent the opinions of their author and do not represent the opinion of the Daily Wildcat.
Third-party candidate made debate worthwhile Brett Haupt Arizona Daily Wildcat
S
omewhere between Republican Jesse Kelly’s continuous snide remarks and Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ repeated insistence that she was a product of Southern Arizona schools, I remembered why many of us feel so bitter toward government in general: It seems to be all talk, no results. We learned a few things at Monday night’s Congressional District 8 debate: Giffords is more vulnerable than first expected, Kelly knows how to incite riotous approval with his words and someone should probably put Libertarian candidate Steven Stoltz in a public speaking class. The debate was, at its best, a comedic look into Southern Arizona politics, including Stoltz’s struggle to speak what came to his mind and an indignant moderator, Christopher Conover, interrupting Kelly to tell the audience, “Let’s keep our comments to a minimum.” Throughout the debate, one of the most entertaining features was simply Conover’s irate facial expressions. The debate proved a lively event and, although Giffords and Stoltz seemed a little perturbed by the disturbances, Kelly conversely relished the occasional chaotic moments, cranking up his charismatic smile to full blast, almost as if he wanted a riot to ensue.
But for those of us on the fence in this contentious congressional race, the debate was extremely disappointing. Not only did many of the candidates’ answers have little or nothing to do with Southern Arizona, but they were often prefaced with barbs toward the opposing candidates that had little or nothing to do with Congressional District 8 issues. It was clear that Giffords had more substantive and relevant information about what was going on in Southern Arizona. This is no surprise; she is the incumbent and is endowed with more experience. However, Kelly’s inability to address almost anything pertinent to us, the citizens of Southern Arizona, was disturbing. Instead, Kelly chose, for the greater part of the night, to hide behind broad sweeping generalizations against the national Democratic Party, a stance that for the most part was successful in duping many of the audience members into raucous applause. Kelly’s strongest moment was his deferment of questions regarding his father’s business accepting stimulus money, when Kelly is himself completely against stimulus spending. Kelly coolly brushed off the question, saying he was proud of the work the company has done: “Dag gone good work, too.” From that question on, one could see Kelly’s confidence building. That question alone certainly could have ended his chances for a seat in Congress, and he
did well to avert a crisis for his campaign. And then there was Stoltz. The bumbling, stumbling and mumbling Libertarian provided relief for the sometimes-tense atmosphere at the debate. At one point, after being told he had 45 seconds to respond to a question, Stoltz said simply, “I only need five seconds.” And nothing more. Stoltz often answered the questions with a reference to the Constitution, refuting or supporting many of the proposed plans of the other candidates based on whether or not the plan was constitutional. Stoltz was quintessentially bad at putting sentences together, stumbling through many of the questions for several seconds before answering. While he was altogether one of the more unfortunate debaters I have ever witnessed, he was simultaneously so refreshing. The times that Stoltz had the unfortunate opportunity to speak were the only moments when I got the feeling that I wasn’t being spoon-fed bullshit from elephants and donkeys. The almost unprepared nature of Stoltz’s speaking was amazingly liberating from the political garbage spewed from Kelly and Giffords. Stoltz stuck to the Constitution for answers and proved that, like many thirdparty candidates, while he may not have the means to run a successful campaign, he can instill some curiosity into the back of voters’ minds as to why he probably would be better fit to lead than the usual suspects. If you want your vote to count, by all means vote Giffords or Kelly, but if you really want change for the better, it’s time to branch out. Vote Steven Stoltz for Congress. — Brett Haupt is a journalism junior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.
O’Donnell’s platform, personal life at drastic odds Nyles Kendall Arizona Daily Wildcat
D
elaware senatorial candidates Christine O’Donnell (R) and Chris Coons (D) went toe to toe in a nationally televised debate Oct. 12. Unlike her fellow mamma grizzly Sarah Palin, O’Donnell didn’t use folksy catch phrases and compulsive winking to mask her incompetence. Instead, the political lightweight stumbled over the simplest questions and parroted standard Republican talking points. Coons, although far more articulate than his opponent, fell short of expectations as well. The New Castle County executive was condescending and dismissive of O’Donnell at times, frequently prefacing his responses to her statements by saying, “There’s so much to respond to there.” But Coons’ mistakes aside, O’Donnell’s hawkish fiscal conservatism despite the utter disarray of her own personal finances will leave a lasting impression on Delawarean voters this November. O’Donnell decided that her first line of attack would be aimed at Coons’ handling of the New Castle County budget. She pointedly accused the two-term
county executive of leading New Castle to the verge of bankruptcy, an accusation which Coon’s campaign has fervently denied. Moving on to issues of a national scope, O’Donnell claimed the federal deficit was the result of the Democratic Party’s “tax and spend” economic policies. She then rattled off a list of proposed reforms, one of which included cancelling the “unspent” stimulus bill. But of course, staying true to her conservative principles, O’Donnell also railed against welfare recipients, claiming those who receive food stamp are entrenched in a “culture of dependency.” O’Donnell, who had stated earlier that the country could not spend its way to economic recovery, seemingly contradicted her hard-line stance on federal spending when the focus of the debate shifted to foreign policy. O’Donnell scoffed at Coons’ claim that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have contributed to the nation’s debt, contending that a military withdrawal from Afghanistan, a $3 trillion money pit, would embolden terrorists and threaten the nation’s security.
“When we were fighting the Soviets over there in Afghanistan in the ‘80s and ‘90s, we did not finish the job. … If you’re going to make these politically correct statements that it’s costing us too much money, you are threatening the security of our homeland,” O’Donnell said. But clearly, O’Donnell is in no position to berate anyone for his or her money management skills. Earlier this year, the IRS placed a lien against O’Donnell for nearly $12,000 in taxes and penalties from 2005, which she now claims was the result of a “computer error”. She was also sued by Farleigh Dickinson University for $4,823 in unpaid tuition, and in 2008 she defaulted on her mortgage, resulting in a $90,000 judgment. O’Donnell’s reported income was a meager $5,800 between March 2009 and July 2010. She would have been filing for chapter seven bankruptcy today had she not used campaign funds to pay for her personal expenses. Although O’Donnell has said questions about her finances are a distraction and an insult to voters, given her checkered financial history, it’s hard to believe she’ll be able to tackle the nation’s deficit. O’Donnell should get her own financial affairs in order before running on a platform of fiscal responsibility. — Nyles Kendall is a political science junior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat. arizona.edu.
CONTACT US | The Arizona Daily Wildcat accepts original, unpublished letters from all of its readers. •
Email letters to: letters@wildcat.arizona.edu
• Letters should include name, connection to the university (year, major, etc.) and contact information.
•
Snail mail to: 615 N. Park Ave., Tucson, AZ 85719
• Letters should be no longer than 350 words and should refrain from personal attacks.