Horror films are ‘just movies’

So Justyn Dillingham doesn’t get horror films – great, fine, whatever – but that’s no reason to write a column insinuating that those of us who DO like horror films are misogynists with deep-seated violence issues. Horror films, whether “”Saw”” or “”Dracula”” or “”Night of the Living Dead,”” are all expressions of fear. In movies, as in fantasies, we exert control over usually frightening situations by making them unreal – they’re just movies, after all. Certainly, some people do take pleasure in the more sadistic and bloody aspects of horror film – but they’re movies. We should be concerned when people start acting on violent and destructive urges, not when people make movies about them. We don’t all have some horrible dark void in us that’s going to instantly turn us into psychopaths the moment we watch “”Touristas.”” Sure, sometimes, movies are about how much a movie can get away with, but, usually, there’s a deeper meaning behind some of these movies if you just take the time to think about it.

Jessica Calderwood
anthropology senior

America needs Stephen Colbert a lot

I am writing in response to “”UA considers Colbert presidency”” (Tuesday). It seems that a lot of people are missing the point as to what Stephen Colbert is about. Some think he’s serious when he says he wants to build a “”freedom dome”” around the country to prevent immigrants from coming, and they probably (hopefully) think he’s crazy. Please, look up “”irony”” in the dictionary. Others think he really should be president. But his run for office is obviously a big joke (he said himself he just wants to mess with people), albeit a meaningful one. It is hilarious to hear John Edwards’ campaign getting hot about Colbert’s South Carolina run: “”as the candidate of Doritos, Colbert’s hands are stained by corporate corruption and nacho cheese.”” (Or were they in on the joke? Who knows these days?)

Then there are those who think it’s lame that “”college kids”” are getting a kick out of this, and that they should instead care about the important issues.

While they understand that the run for president is a joke, they are missing the point. Stephen Colbert has by far the biggest balls of anyone in America. Just watch him at the 2006 White House Correspondents dinner. His routine may not have been funny for the audience, but that’s beside the point. In 20 minutes he laid out everything that was wrong in America, right in front of Bush himself. No one deconstructed the administration’s flawed rhetoric like he did. This was a victory call for all of us in the U.S. appalled by the Bush presidency and the press that let it get away with so much.

On one hand, Stephen Colbert is indeed merely a comedian who is making stuff up and not seriously considering becoming president. But Colbert is speaking more truth through irony than anybody has during the dark ages of the Bush presidency. The press failed during the run-up to the Iraq war. Politeness is not useful when it leads to the deaths of thousands. Through Stephen Colbert’s satire of the “”no-fact zone,”” we are getting back to reality. This is a time when we need the irony and the sarcasm. So it isn’t just about college kids getting a laugh. Stephen Colbert has the potential of revolutionizing the way Americans think about politics, their country and themselves.

Delphine Perrodinphysics doctoral student

Cactus Grill service subpar

As a sophomore living in the residence halls, I often resort to eating lunch or dinner on campus as a result of necessity and convenience. Since moving to a dorm nearer to the Student Union Memorial Center, I have spent many meals at our very own Cactus Grill, due to healthier and more varied food choices than most other food vendors on campus. But after an episode last Wednesday, I am questioning why I eat at Cactus Grill on a regular basis.

To preface this account, I would like to mention that on this day the student body had just re-entered the SUMC after a suspected gas leak. I spent 30 minutes waiting for someone to even start making my food, only to find out that the main ingredients in my meal were depleted. The employee behind the counter was rude and raised his voice at me after I asked what other ingredients I had to choose from. I was so distraught by how this employee treated me that I told him not to make my food at all. I ended up buying another meal, which was made with pure mediocrity. Lastly, in order to buy my food, I had to converse with a cashier who does not greet customers, never smiles and grunts when you offer her any sort of pleasantries.

Bottom line is, I along with many others am sick of paying too much money for food that is subpar and of being helped by people who treat us badly, because we are students and we frequent the closest thing our school has to a cafeteria once, maybe even twice, a day.

Just because there is a monopoly on our food choices here at the UA, that doesn’t mean we have to settle for unfair treatment. Which is why I will not be frequenting Cactus Grill for a long time, if ever again. And I would suggest to the management of Cactus Grill that it takes into consideration the kind of service it is giving to its paying customers.

Megan Befort
pre-nursing sophomore

Intelligent design a religious idea

Okay, I’ll bite. Gravity = the observation that objects with mass attract each other. Gravity is explained in modern physics by the General Theory of Relativity. Evolution = observed changes in organisms over time. Evolution is explained by the theory of Natural Selection. Theories are the best explanations of the observations at the present time and are subject to change. Gravity is a fact. Evolution is a fact. End of story. Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC) described by Michael Behe in his book “”Darwin’s Black Box”” supposes that complex biological structures could not have evolved and, ergo, were designed by some creator. It is merely a reiteration of William Paley’s 1802 watchmaker analogy that was discredited well over a century ago. Kenneth Miller, a Catholic, scientifically dissects and discredits IDC in his book “”Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution.”” There is no debate in scientific communities because IDC is a belief. If Ben Stein wants to protect his right to promote IDC, he should do so under the context of religious freedom rather than free speech.

North Noelck
medicine and public health graduate student