Albatross' Perch writes:

Strange... nothing at all in the Daily Cal about a hospitalized sorority girl. What's going on here?

Well, the Daily Cal is never known for reporting all the news that happened. In addition, it was never stated that it was a serious incident. For all anyone knows, it could've been an asthma attack or some other medical condition. I don't see why the Daily Cal would report on it unless it was life-threatening or directly related to alcohol consumption. I have the utmost faith in "Monsieur Z" and take him at his word for what he saw.

I think we should all just be relieved that it wasn't a life-threatening incident.

In other news, for those of you who don't like the direction that some of the classes in the English department are headed, you should drop your major and join the Rhetoric department. Rhetoric is pretty much the art of objectivity, at least as far as I'm concerned. Best department in the school, with Classics a close second.

Education the way it ought to be.

Just so there isn't further confusion.

The Onion was founded at UW Madison in 1988.
The Heuristic Squelch was founded at UC Berkeley in 1991.
The internet has been used for the purpose of mass-dissemination of inofrmation since 1995 or so, and the Onion was one of the first to take of advantage of that new resource.

Both the Onion and the Squelch have been doing fake news-style reporting since their foundings, and both are not that old in terms of college humor publications (just look at the Lampoon or Chapparal). The Squelch has been running Newsflash-type articles long before The Onion was available nationally. The Squelch is no more a rip-off of the Onion then the Onion is a rip-off of the college humor magazines that came before it. Certain humor styles work and have worked for decades, so it carries over into new publications that are formed. It is only because the Onion has moved to national prominence through the web that it now SEEMS like other college publications are derivative.

Do your research.

Cheers.

So, apparently the Dean's committee this summer is going to be made up of only two students, the respective IFC and NPC safety chairs. This is, I think, bullshit. Every fraternity that wants to be represented should be. They don't necessarily need voting rights or anything like that, but the opportunity for debate and discussion should be there. The last thing we need is a committee made up of clueless administrators and Berkeley residents.

How much you wanna bet that Gerry and Joanne will be on this committee?

This is what I've heard, if I'm mistaken please let me know.

Godspeed.

Unverified firsthand information from secret correspondent "Monsieur Z":

thought you guys might be interested in this. tonight
around 1:40, i was walkin home from a gal's house and on the figi corner of the round about, there was an
ambulance picking up a sorority gal that looked pretty dead to me. there
was an invitational that had just offloaded. they
weren't in to big of a hurry, so i guess she was breathin.

Gee, maybe now out-of-house social events will get moratorium-ized too.

More info as it becomes available.

Libelous personal attacks aside, you're definitely on the right track.

A senior member of the Squelch staff (not myself) sent this in. Author's name to be released pending approval.

Witless Blogster Deemed Hilarious by Self

A Berkeley blogmaster known as "The Original Dancing Bear" posted a scathing critique of the latest issue of the Heuristic Squelch in a Saturday update to his satirical "blog" (short for "insignificant weblog") at http://thedancingbear.blogspot.com. The posting followed the familiar "fake news" comedic format popularized by countless other humor sources including The Onion and The Dancing Bear's target, the Squelch. Utilizing every satirical device at his disposal, The Dancing Bear proceeded to systematically eviscerate numerous articles whose lack of humor were deemed worthy of ridicule.

"See, the person I quote about the Starfish piece asks 'How long did it take them to come up with that?' as if it were hard to think of," explained The Dancing Bear proudly, basking in the warm glow of his own smug self-satisfaction. "But I actually don't think it was very hard to think of. See how that works?"

The same tactic was used to mercilessly demolish any perceived comedic value of numerous other pieces. "This other guy calls the joke about Britney Spears' boobs original, but it wasn't original at all," said The Dancing Bear, chuckling heartily to himself. "Do you like how I say one thing while meaning the exact opposite? That's sarcasm. I learned about it yesterday."

Other pieces, dubbed "comic genius," and "brilliant," did not escape The Dancing Bear's unrelenting, even monotonous sarcasm.

Asked how he can condemn the humor of these articles without ever citing specific weaknesses, The Dancing Bear credits his complete failure to comprehend actual satire or absurdism despite purporting to run a satirical weblog.

"Hey, to me, that shirt was just a Jew in an oven," shrugged The Dancing Bear while eating his own shit and pronouncing it delicious. "Don't ask me to connect it in context with the premise of the piece in order to comprehend the satirical critique of Abercrombie & Fitch's flippant abuse of racist Asian stereotypes. I mean, come on, I skipped reading the whole cell phone piece based solely on the title, and for some reason I thought the piece parodying Rachael Klein's treatment of sex as incredibly commonplace was a parody of the state lottery. I mean, it doesn't even make fun of the state lottery. Who would even think that? I'm obviously an idiot."

"A genius clever idiot, that is," added The Dancing Bear.

-The Heuristic Dancing Bear

Zing!

Like I said, if you don't like something, attempt to do it one better.

Dancing Bear responds to my post with an "ironic" flair, quoting myself. I'm sorry if it seemed ambiguous. I was in no way offended by what you wrote. I've got no problem being skewered and satirized, I'd just like to see it done well (this is all in my opinion, of course. There may very well be people that find your particular brand of humor amusing, though I've yet to meet them). If you don't like something, try to change it or fight it. Don't just sit back and armchair quarterback the humor scene, 'cause that's the easy way out. I'd be the first to support the creation of a new humor magazine. I've already backed the new humor/comment magazine Negativity. I say go for it.

In other news, the Squelch crisis with the Ukrainian Jews was more or less peacefully resolved today. Now there's just the TBTN folks who are still offended. Oh, and Rachael Klein. Apparently she wasn't amused by the "Lottery Winning on Tuesday" spoof in the latest issue.

Oh yeah, and elections happened. I managed a respectable 41 votes. Some surprises in the executive seats, primarily Han Hong and Jimmy Bryant winning, as well as in the Senate, where conservatives picked up 2.5 seats, and CalSERVE had a great showing. That's all the comment I'm going to give on the elections.

Night.

Perhaps if The Dancing Bear has such strong opinions about the comedic value of the latest Squelch, he should attempt to write something funnier and turn it in. Any response?

I thought so.

Fuck Krispy Kreme and their undersized, over-priced pastries. I won't even dignify their products by calling them donuts. If you are a true donut connoisseur: if you are one who understands that donuts are cake, raised, old-fashioned, jelly-filled (also known as "bismarcks" for those in the know), and not froofy, frilly-pants-wearing, phallic, oozing, creme-filled pastries, you know that Kingpin is far superior. If you want a fucking eclair, go to a fucking bakery, not a donut-shop. Fight Krispy Kreme hegemony!

Viva la resistance!

That is all.

But if you wanted to bring a Dunkin' Donuts to Berkeley.... Well, hmmmm....

Cullitonholic responds to my statements regarding his comments. He makes the somewhat dubious claim that he was clearly asserting his opinion. A stand-alone statement like "It's not funny," in no way necessarily implies opinion. But that's just a semantic issue, and I take him at his word.

He reasserts the need for an apology, which is interesting. I thought my explanation was pretty clear. Writers SHOULD apologize if something unintentional results in offense. But do you honestly think that what was run could possibly have been run without thinking that some people might be offended? Some people were offended, many others laughed their asses off. Students on this campus take themselves too seriously. Check out the Angry Clam for an example over at Swarthmore of a campus that knows how to have some tongue-in-cheek fun.

Anyway, hopefully no hard feelings over to Cullitonholic. I've added you to my sidebar as well.