January 2008 Archives

Don't worry KU fans

| | Comments (1)

ku_bkc_ksu29_t800.jpg
photo from kusports.com


Yes, everyone, I know that it's very upsetting that we lost in Manhattan last night, however I am here to play the role of "Mr. Look at the Brightside." There are several things that we can take away from this loss and most of them are thanks to our purple wearing enemies.

First, we can take a lot of pride in knowing that it took them 25 years to finally make the rivalry legitimate again. I mean how long must we keep walking over them and try not to get bored.

Second, is Manhatten that far away from the world that they are just now getting the Talladega Nights movie with Will Ferrell. I stopped quoting that movie at least a year ago, however I saw two or three signs that read "That just happened." Seriously for one of the most over quoted movies of all time couldn't they have come up with something a little more clever. For example they could have done something like place a picture of Michael Beasly and Bill Walker and pasted them over Ferrell and John C. Reilly's faces with the caption: "Magic Man and El Diablo." I might have been entertained by that.

Third, everyone, since football season, knows how it feels to go out after a big victory and celebrate. Manhattan was crazy last night. Aggieville might not be standing today. Do you know how I know that? No I wasn't there, but Dalonte Hill, a Kansas State assistant coach, decided to inform everyone on the craziness know by going out, partying and then getting himself a DUI. I mean c'mon coach. That sets an absolutely tremendous example for your players. I'll go ahead and say what everyone is thinking: "Probably has Huggins as his mentor." (Hill was an assistant under Huggins at K-State last year.)

Lastly, and this is probably the most complimenting thing aspect of the K-State win. The people at K-State athletics gave us the ultimate pat on the back. They have made a DVD box set of the victory from last night. But wait, that not even the best part. THE BOX SET IS SOLD OUT. I realized I jumped onto the wrong career and hopped in this bandwagon. Coming soon I will release a box set of the previous 24 victories that we have had in Manhattan. Also included in the box set will be a model of the first cell phone that was released the same year as K-State's last victory there.
So cheer up KU fans we can walk away from this with several victories. We are still 24-1 over the last 25 years in Manhattan. We have our advanced culture. We have our responsible and know how to take a victory assistant coaches, and we have the previous 24 years to celebrate.

New Orleans isn't the Only Place to Party!

| | Comments (0)

104375206_0998d729ca.jpg


For decades New Orleans has been the hot spot for Mardi Gras partiers. Every year thousands of people travel to the southern state for some fun before the start of the Lenten season. For many Midwesterners, New Orleans is not the destination of choice for their Mardi Gras celebration. The Soulard Distract in St. Louis, MO is the nation's 2nd biggest destination for Mardi Gras.
The official website for St. Louis's Mardi Gras, Mardigrasinc.com, says that up to hundreds of thousands of people attend each year, depending on the weather. Like New Orleans, Soulard's festivities include fun for all ages. On the Saturday morning before Fat Tuesday there is a parade with floats from surrounding restaurants and companies. After the parade, the streets of Soulard turn into Mardi Gras mayhem. Different companies, such as Budweiser, host party tents every year. The bars in Soulard also have their own Mardi Gras celebrations.
MardiGrasInc.com says that this year's theme is "Let the Games Begin." The floats will all be themed around board games, bar games, even mind games. So if your 21 and feel like going to Mardi Gras but cant afford the plane ticket to New Orleans, consider the 4 1/2 hour drive to the nation's second biggest party spot: St. Louis!

Times are Changing for "Don't Ask Don't Tell" Policy

| | Comments (0)

Joan Darrah, retired captain, and a lesbian, who served in a variety of intelligence billets from 1972 to 2002, kept her sexual orientation secret during her time in the military. The secret took its toll on her after the "Don't Ask Don't Tell policy took effect. Her navy career was rather "stress free" until the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy. When she had to fill out her pre enlistment survey and the question "do you know a gay person, and, if you did, what would you do?" she was physically sick after reading it. She was literally sick of lying to everyone.

President Clinton addressed the issue of gays and lesbians in the military during his presidency; by enforcing the "Don't Ask Don't Tell policy". He believed when he passed the law that no matter what one's sexual preference was it should not determine weather one was able to serve in the military.

Georgia Democrat Sam Nunn successfully headed a group that was able to write into law a ban on openly gay men and lesbians in the military. The only negotiation congress was willing to give Clinton was the exemption of the question asking about one's sexual preference.

So you might be asking ‘why does this matter to me'? Majority of the people serving in the military right now, were recruited from the ages 18-24. And currently if you are an openly gay male or an open lesbian, you are not allowed to serve in the military. Since this is the fiftieth anniversary of the law, many changes to the current law have been discussed. With the upcoming election, the idea of getting rid of the law is prevalent. Joan Darrah believes that with a democrat in office the ban would essentially be dropped. She also says "the younger generation doesn't care at all." So my question to you is: do we care? What is your take on the law as it is right now and the rumors of the upcoming changes/exclusion?

The Full Story:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1707545,00.html


According to the New York Times's website, Montclair State University has recently been involved in a dispute between the student government and the staff of their newspaper, the Montclarion. The arguement arose when student body president, Ron Chicken decided to hold a number of private meetings in which he did not allow any members of the press to attend. In order to protect their right to open meetings, the editor of the Montclarion, Karl de Vries, sought legal advice. De Vries paid for the lawyer with funds from the student newspaper, which in turn angered Chicken. The newspaper had also previously published articles criticizing Chicken's decisions.
Chicken removed all funding from the newspaper, making printing it impossible and loosing thousands of dollars from outside advertising clients. The current arguement is over whether or not Chicken is "censoring" the student newspaper. Are Chicken's actions justified?