|
THE
AZWIPE AWARD To the WORST of SDSU's crappus newspaper and the people who make it possible. Graphics by Victor Hernandez. |
|
MONTEZUMA'S REAR-END: The coveted statue (judging from all the crap printed so far) is awarded to those whose work belongs at the bottom, who have added yet another crack to their newspaper's credibility, and who, therefore, deserve to be the butt of this joke. It is glow in the dark and scratch and sniff, providing the recipients with the same smell their work provides us.
|
THE NOMINEES FOR THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 28-OCTOBER 4, 1998 ARE:
JOHN WOODS (Opinion editor)
For wasting 1/4 of the opinion page on a "voicebox" with only 6 paltry answers to an equally paltry question (see September 28, 1998 edition). Oh, yeah, what a great mystery! Who would people cause bodily injury if they could get away with it? Oh, gee, I wonder... could it be ANY FUCKING POPULAR FIGURE THE MEDIA MIGHT CARE TO CONSTANTLY BOMBARD THE PUBLIC WITH? (just look at the answers: Clinton, Starr, Hussein.) Sheesh! Where's that ingenuity, people? Or is your need for randomly filling out space THAT big?
WHOEVER *ANONYMOUSLY* WROTE THE SEPTEMBER 29, EDITORIAL.
Actually, we really got a kick out of the first paragraph: "If freedom of speech has a refuge, then it's in America's colleges and universities." What a riot! We really laughed out loud for a good while. Then we realized it wasn't comedy, but SCIENCE FICTION, and we laughed even more! We ignore who was the idiot who wrote that, but we suggest him/her to click HERE and get a nice dose of reality.
WHOEVER IS IN CHARGE OF THE CLASSIFIED ADS
For not adding new ad categories. Specially when the only ads that seem constant go something like "we'll pay you to pose naked."
CINDY KIM
For doing a good deed for the wrong reasons. In her September 29 opinion column Ms. Kim went on to defend Gay rights, which is fine, but adding the following piece of crap: "I applaud those brave men and women who have gone to great lenghts to protect our country..." Yeah, right, because, as we all know, opening fire on a foreign country to protect the economic interests of some multinational corporation IS THE SAME AS PROTECTING HER COUNTRY. Ah, but of course! Panama, Grenada, even the Persian Gulf... All of them in the name of the "protecting the USA." Sure... and Gays should be allowed to be pawns in that too, right? Perhaps Ms. Kim should consider finding better reasons for her good deeds in the future--unless, of course, she is seriously thinking about becoming a career politician. THEN we could see the origin of her cliche rhetoric.
DAVID HANNA
For his asinine "Boxing is in bad shape" column (September 30th, 1998), where he goes on to bitch and moan about how "ridiculous" boxing has gotten and then comparing it to pro wrestling. Yeah! That's what we want to see: people getting REAL BRAIN DAMAGE! Dave, have you ever cosidered getting professinal help? It's free for students, you know?
(We offer an apology to our readers for actually naming a sports writer here, since they all get the AZWIPE award by default anyway, but sometimes the stupidity we find in print is too much of a temptation for us to pass.)
AND WINNER IS:
THE ENTIRE STAFF OF THE DAILY AZTECNow, if I remember correctly, the UNSIGNED editorials printed in the opinion page supposedly are the view of the PAPER, right? Otherwise they would be SIGNED, somebody would take RESPONSIBILITY for them, and whoever is not in agreement with the content would be NOTED as such, right? Well, parting from this premise we hereby present Montezuma's Rear-end to the entire staff (they ALL make the paper, right?) of the Aztec for printing one of the most hypocrite editorials so far this semester. The editorial in question was printed on the September 30, 1998 edition and it draws the comparison in wages between a college Professor and a pro basketball player. The editorial then goes on to say how unfair this is, etc, etc. Now, this is OK, but the, problem, however, is that just the day BEFORE, September 29, 1998, the sports page of the Aztec featured a story on some SDSU girl who plays valleyball and does professional MODELING--they even printed her picture in the cover of one of those frivolous, superficial "women" magaznies.
What kind of BULLSHIT is this? First it's OK to report that some girl can make --and spend-- a lot of money in modeling, but then the next day they pretend they are VERY concerned about Professors making a shamefully small amount of money by comparison to pro sports players. Aren't models' wages as disgustingly disproportionate as pro-sports players? Isn't modeling a form of DISCRIMINATION, since you have to fall under the stereotype of what superficial people consider "attractive" in order to even stand a chance? Ah, nothing like pretending you're a good guy when you're not, right?
Our congratulations to the editorial board for making such asses of themselves --and their staff-- by printing those two incompatible items in two consecutive days. Either they don't really READ what they print or they just plain don't give a crap. Thanks to this gaffe what could have been a right-on editorial (it IS offensive that Professors make MILLIONS less than sports players and models) turned into grade-A hypocrisy, and dragged the rest of the staff into the sewer with the same shot! See why crediting the whole paper for ONE person's writing is such a BAD idea?
|
|
|
|
|
|