Posted on January 24 at 10:35 p.m.Suggest removal

Yeah, and the last student from OU elected to pubic office was John Hammons. I have never actually met anyone who could have possibly been as astoundingly stupid. He made even attending class excruciating with his Glen Beck routine. Since being elected he has run the town into the ground. Being a student doesn't make you a good political canidate. Being competent does.

On

Posted on January 20 at 9:06 p.m.Suggest removal

Mustafa,

All I can say is WOW. Your insanity is hitting new peaks all the time. Please just tell me- is there anything factually incorrect about my previous post? Do you just not trust those devious scientists in lab coats? Or is it the liberally biased science that you hate?

You can argue that Obama is not doing a good job as president. I wouldn't expect you to be able to come up with one, but good arguments can be made on both sides. However, you cannot actually believe that corruption has increased. The 109th Congress was the most unethical group of incompetent degenerates that modern politics has seen in this country. They were in session the least number of days of any congress since WWII and had scandals left and right. Ney, Cunningham, Jefferson, Foley, Delay, Abramoff...the list goes on and on.

You really need to pull your head out of Rupert Murdoch's colon and actually think before you speak. Even that imbecile pledged to make all of his media outlets "carbon-neutral" by 2010 because even he recognizes that his vast wealth doesn't bode well for his heirs if they are all dead.

I am really starting to believe that some people should be forcibly sterilized.

On

Posted on January 19 at 9:19 p.m.Suggest removal

mein kampf isn't a bad piece of writing either...

On

Posted on December 17 at 4:57 p.m.Suggest removal

Rhology

I usually find that you have something of philosophical or intellectual value in what you say...even if I think that it is grossly shortsighted and containing vastly more rationalization than reason.

However, this is the single stupidest thing that you have ever posted...

There is a basic chemical process that occurs when you pump massive amounts of CFCs into the atmosphere.

The ozone layer is made up of O3 molecules. When UV light from the sun passes through them, those molecules are broken down into O2 (regular oxygen) and a free radical O. Normally, the free radical is so unstable by itself, that it immediately bonds back with the O2 to form O3 (ozone) once again.

CFC's that contain chlorine, fluorine, ad carbon are broken down in the atmosphere by radiation. In the process, radical molecules like Cl+O are formed (ClO), and these particles (along with others) end up binding with that radical O that is broken down when UV light passes through the Ozone, thus destroying the Ozone layer.

Now, to complicate matters, as the Ozone layer is broken down, less energy from the sun is reflected back into space, and instead gets all the way to the earth's surface. The earth's surface absorbs the visible light, and emits energy in the form of infrared radiation.

That infrared radiation is absorbed by compounds like CO2, methane, and nitrous, that we pump into the atmosphere with the burning of fossil fuels. Those compounds then re-emit the infrared radiation back towards the earth...heating the lower atmosphere.

This has all kinds of really ugly possible effects including the shutdown of the Thermohaline Circulation in the Northern Atlantic, which could cause a rapid shift into an ice age.

For every action, there is a reaction. Do you really think that pumping all of those chemicals into the atmosphere has no effect?

It is commonly accepted in the worldwide scientific community that global climate change is being affected by humans. What is unclear is how much effect we are actually having, and what we should do about it.

Seriously dude. Read a book. Glen Beck is not a great scientific resource.

On

Posted on December 16 at 7:01 a.m.Suggest removal

Nobody wants him to stay the same. But people don't want to hear excuses either.

""the neighborhood shows higher rates of burglary, assault and other crimes than most other areas in the city."

"“Any time you talk about race as a white male, you’re walking a tightrope"

"as a writer, you’re going to ruffle feathers. And that’s what you did – you ruffled a lot of feathers"

"It was all tongue in cheek"

"it was meant to be hyperbole"

These sound an awful lot like excuses to me.

On

Posted on December 15 at 2:59 p.m.Suggest removal

As I said...I cannot determine the degree to which Kyle is responsible for his own racism. I acknowledge that it is virtually impossible for him to be 100% at fault in that regard.

However, the column written seemingly tries to excuse his actions in several different ways, without ever really acknowledging that he does have a degree of racism and apologizing for it. That, combined with his self-portrayal as a victim of people who were justifiably appalled, is the source of my utter contempt.

On

Posted on December 15 at 3:40 a.m.Suggest removal

The fact that you acknowledged that you baselessly characterized most of the patrons as criminals is icing on the cake. How did you not comprehend that some people could be offended?

I'll let you in on a little secret. Gangsters are self-interested rational actors too. They don't just go around stabbing people without provocation in front of a large group of witnesses. I can tell you that some of the best fried chicken I've ever had has come from some places in seedy areas much worse than OKC, and I've yet to be shanked or shot for enjoying a meal.

At this point, I really don't know what I find more offensive. The ignorance and racism apparent in your first article. Or this self-serving tale that tries to excuse your prejudice by emphasizing that the area is prone to higher crime rates, or claiming that you were using "hyperbole." I cannot believe that you considered this pathetic attempt to cast yourself as the victim in all of this to be a good idea.

The fears you faced were idiotic, and you have clearly grown far less than you believe from this experience. I would advise sticking to your original plan: Crawl into a hole and hope people forget about all of this.

Sadly, it will take a little longer now that you have reignited the embers of indignance still lit from your previous debacle with the gasoline that is this absolute farce of a column.

On

Posted on December 15 at 3:39 a.m.Suggest removal

I will preface the rest of what I am about to say with the following: The quality of writing in this column displays a vast improvement over the previous piece.

That being said your attempt to redeem yourself in this article was a misguided parody of remorse at best...and a whining narcissistic parable that displays a staggering obliviousness to the root source of the outrage felt by the vast majority of your reading audience at worst.

I should qualify my position on this by saying that I do think that political correctness has gone WAY to far in this country. If a person refers to themselves as black...I have no problem called them black. If a doctor can medically refer to a "little person" as a dwarf, than I feel no shame in doing the same...

However, your column displayed a degree of racism that, however prevalent in our society, is absolutely revolting to myself, and clearly many others.

Let me help you...you are a racist. The degree to which you can be held responsible for that is impossible to determine for an outsider. However, the outside world can certainly judge you for it. Especially when you make it public in an manner that makes it blatantly obvious to any person with a basic grasp of the English language.

I realize that you did not use the word "black" or any other specific adjective that would denote the race of the "gangsters." But in feeling the need to express that you are "white and naive," in contrast to the "gangsters" whom you feared would descend upon your "soft suburban underbellies" there is an inevitable inference that logic demands.

Pointing out that the "gangsters" were of a different ethnicity than yourself is not considered a form of "hyperbole."

On

Posted on November 24 at 2:04 p.m.Suggest removal

I hate the phrase "violence never solves anything."

"Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and thoroughly immoral — doctrine that "violence never solves anything" I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms." - Robert A. Heinlein

On