Responses to my Traveler articles
Founders were progressive
I tried so hard to come up with an intelligent response to Nick Bahash’s letter to the editor on March 12, “Men have always run government.” At first, I thought it might be some kind of an ill-timed satire. But as I continued to read, I was amazed. How in this modern day someone manages to bring this male-chauvinistic view to the table, and then try to rationalize it, is really something. But justifying the argument by citing our nations’ founding fathers is just plain ignorant. The founding fathers were the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776. At their signing I’m sure the last thing they had on their minds was the oppression of womens’ rights. In fact it was just the opposite. They were patriots, revolutionary men who envisioned a better life for themselves and most of all, their families, including the women that maintained these families while their husbands were off signing declarations and what not. We are a young nation and these men idealized a progressive society, and with that comes a progressive history. Perhaps Mr. Bahash would do well to read past the 1st chapter of his history book in order to understand the nation that we are today.
David Archer
junior
architecture
Nick Bahash a sexist pig
I read Nick Bahash’s letter yesterday and frankly I was astounded at what I read. How could someone living in today’s age still have such a strong viewpoint? Being a feminist studies major here at the U of A, I have learned the struggles that women have had to overcome and still have to overcome in this country. I mean, a woman might actually be our next president. Nick is a sexist pig, and I think that women at the U of A should not just sit back and let people like this use their right to free speech.
Nick Bahash
sophomore
industrial engineering
Nick Bahash should be joking
After realizing that Mr. Bahash probably wasn’t joking in his letter yesterday I felt a need to respond. Yes, Mr. Bahash is right; this “great” country of ours was founded and has subsequently been run by men. But he failed to mention that a lot of these men have been undeniably corrupt and had a negative effect on the world and America. He also seems unable to realize that our country has grown and is still in the process of growing into a nation of equality for ALL-not just rich white men. According to Mr. Bahash our country and ASG should be run by men, because that is “what the founding fathers would have wanted.” If the founding fathers were alive today I doubt that all of them would agree with this statement.
Astonishingly, Mr. Bahash took it upon himself to equate a golf tournament to politics. The men of Augusta National forbid women’s participation in their tournaments most likely because they’re afraid of losing to a woman. Why else would they do this? What is their reasoning behind this archaic rule? Mr. Bahash applauds this discrimination against women stating that the men of Augusta National are “continuing to stand up for what’s right.” What? Discrimination against anyone, whether it’s directed towards a person’s gender, race or sexual preference is WRONG.
Women are just as capable as men in holding the highest positions of power in the United States.
It’s due to people who hold the same viewpoints as Mr. Bahash that women have yet to be given a fair chance at attaining these positions. But luckily times are changing and – hold on to your seat Mr. Bahash – I along with many others believe that the future possibility of a woman being elected as president of the United States is inevitable.
Bahash letter sexist
Nick Bahash’s outrageous letter is an insult to women and his own intelligence. I don’t know what century you think you live in, but let me bring you up to speed.
In case you haven’t looked around yourself lately, women can be and are everywhere men are. In the case of flag football, have you ever thought the “so-called feminists” that made this rule are in fact men that regulate the intramural games? Perhaps it was one of your own who came up this idea. What a shocker that would be!
Personally, I could care less who scores more or less. It is just an intramural game. If you have taken this so personally, maybe you should accept Coach Nutt’s “scholarship” and play football where points matter. Secondly, about the government and your preference for the lack of women, that is disgusting and archaic. Women need to be in politics because they represent the majority of women and fight for our rights. Of course, the founding fathers were men. But, the majority approved slavery also. So, apparently not everything the founding fathers did was golden.
If you want to pick a fight about who should represent the government based on gender, maybe you should pick a fight about a concept that really determines who should represent government: competence and know-how. I’m pretty sure that both genders have these qualities. But, who am I to say? I’m just a woman.
Caroline Talbot
Senior
Marketing
Bahash letter lacks reason
“Oh, and remember, the Founding Fathers were all men.” They were white, too, owned slaves and did quite well for themselves financially. Now feel free to correct me if I misunderstand something here, I’m only a simple college student. Is Mr. Bahash arguing that the only people that should make decisions are rich, white male slave owners? Am I understanding correctly, is he advocating the same kind of preferential treatment that he claims the “feminists” seem to be advocating? If you expect women to want to be treated equally, then you would have to give up some of your special status, too, Mr. Bahash. Ain’t reason grand!?!
Alex Downs
Sophomore
Business
Newest Bahash letter slightly less irritating
Again, I find myself compelled to respond to one of Nick Bahash’s recent letters to the editor. This time, however, I do not completely disagree with him. While most of Nick’s pitiable prose is deeply annoying, his “We are better than you” letter is only mildly so.
As hard as it is to admit, I can more or less see where he is coming from. “Tree huggers,” as Nick would probably call them, may sometimes be snobbish in their love for the environment. Unfortunately, not everyone can drive a Prius, ride a bike to school or commit to memory the entire script of “An Inconvenient Truth.”
That being said, I don’t really believe that Abby Darrah’s simple tips on being a more environmentally responsible citizen are meant to prove that she’s better than anyone. Even as someone on the fence about the reasons and implications of global climate change, I still appreciate her letter about small things that everyone can (and should) do to help keep Fayetteville beautiful. There is nothing wrong with taking a little pride in the environment and taking constructive steps to limit your impact.
Nick, of course, treated Abby’s letter as a personal mandate to not only prove how much it doesn’t apply to him, but also how wonderfully he can satirize it (all this with only an engineering degree!). Some of his letter was funny (washing his hemp pants once a year), but the rest only solidified his pretentious attitude towards anything that might require a little positive thinking or societal contribution.
All in all, I do think Nick’s letter was more interesting than irritating (a much better effort from someone who is usually just the latter). But in this case, his message was clearly overpowered by his painfully obnoxious satire. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to roller-skate to class.
Craig Cox
Senior
Finance and Economics
Bahash is no Swift
Nick Bahash fancies himself a satirist, but I assure you, Jonathan Swift he is not. His letters lack humor, subtlety and an overall grasp of creative writing.
My attack on Bahash’s “jokes” is completely subjective. His comedy stylings just don’t mesh with mine. If the rapier wit of Larry the Cable Guy puts you in stitches, then you are the audience where Bahash will find the most success. Bahash’s political agenda is as subtle as the smell of rotten road kill in a warm elevator. At one point, he references a group of “lazy” workers, which is an obvious reference to his opinion of unionized labor. He then goes on to call the group a union. Really, Nick? Thanks for clearing that up. Your writing is far too subversive for me to grasp.
It is clear Bahash has no idea how to use creative writing to achieve his goals. He turns a phrase like a prostitute turns tricks: crudely and with a sense of regret for all parties involved. He strives for satire, but his choppy sentences and asides make his letter too preachy. I could ignore these flaws if Bahash made a logically sound argument, but he also fails miserably in this respect. In his mind, there is no situation that would necessitate a strike. What happens when the employee goes to the boss and is denied fair wages? The employee has to join a union of disenfranchised ice cream scoopers. The union works to get the wages and benefits they deserve, even if that requires striking. In the brick and mortar business world, not the cotton candy world Bahash paints, some business owners are greedy and don’t have the best interest of their employees at heart.
I hope the Traveler will discontinue the publication of Bahash’s poorly written satire. Better yet, keep publishing it. It gives me a good laugh.
Max Hoover
Senior
Creative Writing
Workers benefit from ability to strike
Thank you, Nick Bahash, for the great Comedy Central moment provided by your letter in the Traveler Monday. We can’t get enough spoofing and passive-aggressive condemnation of the writer’s strike, especially when the Writers’ Guild of America is in the midst of a massive vote this week on whether to accept the proposed agreement by the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers. To poke fun of and delegitimatize the writers’ current struggle is distasteful at best, but to question the very idea of a laborer’s right to strike is alarming. The scenario of the good little worker approaching the boss with a request for better working conditions or more reasonable pay resulting in a happy ending is a fairy tale.
The protection and benefits workers take for granted today were fought and bled for by workers in the past that used (always at great cost and risk) the tool of the strike. To forget or diminish that fact not only displays callous ingratitude for the sacrifices of previous generations, but also recklessly endangers future generations.
Suzanna Hicks
Accounting Department
Walton College of Business
I tried so hard to come up with an intelligent response to Nick Bahash’s letter to the editor on March 12, “Men have always run government.” At first, I thought it might be some kind of an ill-timed satire. But as I continued to read, I was amazed. How in this modern day someone manages to bring this male-chauvinistic view to the table, and then try to rationalize it, is really something. But justifying the argument by citing our nations’ founding fathers is just plain ignorant. The founding fathers were the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776. At their signing I’m sure the last thing they had on their minds was the oppression of womens’ rights. In fact it was just the opposite. They were patriots, revolutionary men who envisioned a better life for themselves and most of all, their families, including the women that maintained these families while their husbands were off signing declarations and what not. We are a young nation and these men idealized a progressive society, and with that comes a progressive history. Perhaps Mr. Bahash would do well to read past the 1st chapter of his history book in order to understand the nation that we are today.
David Archer
junior
architecture
Nick Bahash a sexist pig
I read Nick Bahash’s letter yesterday and frankly I was astounded at what I read. How could someone living in today’s age still have such a strong viewpoint? Being a feminist studies major here at the U of A, I have learned the struggles that women have had to overcome and still have to overcome in this country. I mean, a woman might actually be our next president. Nick is a sexist pig, and I think that women at the U of A should not just sit back and let people like this use their right to free speech.
Nick Bahash
sophomore
industrial engineering
Nick Bahash should be joking
After realizing that Mr. Bahash probably wasn’t joking in his letter yesterday I felt a need to respond. Yes, Mr. Bahash is right; this “great” country of ours was founded and has subsequently been run by men. But he failed to mention that a lot of these men have been undeniably corrupt and had a negative effect on the world and America. He also seems unable to realize that our country has grown and is still in the process of growing into a nation of equality for ALL-not just rich white men. According to Mr. Bahash our country and ASG should be run by men, because that is “what the founding fathers would have wanted.” If the founding fathers were alive today I doubt that all of them would agree with this statement.
Astonishingly, Mr. Bahash took it upon himself to equate a golf tournament to politics. The men of Augusta National forbid women’s participation in their tournaments most likely because they’re afraid of losing to a woman. Why else would they do this? What is their reasoning behind this archaic rule? Mr. Bahash applauds this discrimination against women stating that the men of Augusta National are “continuing to stand up for what’s right.” What? Discrimination against anyone, whether it’s directed towards a person’s gender, race or sexual preference is WRONG.
Women are just as capable as men in holding the highest positions of power in the United States.
It’s due to people who hold the same viewpoints as Mr. Bahash that women have yet to be given a fair chance at attaining these positions. But luckily times are changing and – hold on to your seat Mr. Bahash – I along with many others believe that the future possibility of a woman being elected as president of the United States is inevitable.
Bahash letter sexist
Nick Bahash’s outrageous letter is an insult to women and his own intelligence. I don’t know what century you think you live in, but let me bring you up to speed.
In case you haven’t looked around yourself lately, women can be and are everywhere men are. In the case of flag football, have you ever thought the “so-called feminists” that made this rule are in fact men that regulate the intramural games? Perhaps it was one of your own who came up this idea. What a shocker that would be!
Personally, I could care less who scores more or less. It is just an intramural game. If you have taken this so personally, maybe you should accept Coach Nutt’s “scholarship” and play football where points matter. Secondly, about the government and your preference for the lack of women, that is disgusting and archaic. Women need to be in politics because they represent the majority of women and fight for our rights. Of course, the founding fathers were men. But, the majority approved slavery also. So, apparently not everything the founding fathers did was golden.
If you want to pick a fight about who should represent the government based on gender, maybe you should pick a fight about a concept that really determines who should represent government: competence and know-how. I’m pretty sure that both genders have these qualities. But, who am I to say? I’m just a woman.
Caroline Talbot
Senior
Marketing
Bahash letter lacks reason
“Oh, and remember, the Founding Fathers were all men.” They were white, too, owned slaves and did quite well for themselves financially. Now feel free to correct me if I misunderstand something here, I’m only a simple college student. Is Mr. Bahash arguing that the only people that should make decisions are rich, white male slave owners? Am I understanding correctly, is he advocating the same kind of preferential treatment that he claims the “feminists” seem to be advocating? If you expect women to want to be treated equally, then you would have to give up some of your special status, too, Mr. Bahash. Ain’t reason grand!?!
Alex Downs
Sophomore
Business
Newest Bahash letter slightly less irritating
Again, I find myself compelled to respond to one of Nick Bahash’s recent letters to the editor. This time, however, I do not completely disagree with him. While most of Nick’s pitiable prose is deeply annoying, his “We are better than you” letter is only mildly so.
As hard as it is to admit, I can more or less see where he is coming from. “Tree huggers,” as Nick would probably call them, may sometimes be snobbish in their love for the environment. Unfortunately, not everyone can drive a Prius, ride a bike to school or commit to memory the entire script of “An Inconvenient Truth.”
That being said, I don’t really believe that Abby Darrah’s simple tips on being a more environmentally responsible citizen are meant to prove that she’s better than anyone. Even as someone on the fence about the reasons and implications of global climate change, I still appreciate her letter about small things that everyone can (and should) do to help keep Fayetteville beautiful. There is nothing wrong with taking a little pride in the environment and taking constructive steps to limit your impact.
Nick, of course, treated Abby’s letter as a personal mandate to not only prove how much it doesn’t apply to him, but also how wonderfully he can satirize it (all this with only an engineering degree!). Some of his letter was funny (washing his hemp pants once a year), but the rest only solidified his pretentious attitude towards anything that might require a little positive thinking or societal contribution.
All in all, I do think Nick’s letter was more interesting than irritating (a much better effort from someone who is usually just the latter). But in this case, his message was clearly overpowered by his painfully obnoxious satire. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to roller-skate to class.
Craig Cox
Senior
Finance and Economics
Bahash is no Swift
Nick Bahash fancies himself a satirist, but I assure you, Jonathan Swift he is not. His letters lack humor, subtlety and an overall grasp of creative writing.
My attack on Bahash’s “jokes” is completely subjective. His comedy stylings just don’t mesh with mine. If the rapier wit of Larry the Cable Guy puts you in stitches, then you are the audience where Bahash will find the most success. Bahash’s political agenda is as subtle as the smell of rotten road kill in a warm elevator. At one point, he references a group of “lazy” workers, which is an obvious reference to his opinion of unionized labor. He then goes on to call the group a union. Really, Nick? Thanks for clearing that up. Your writing is far too subversive for me to grasp.
It is clear Bahash has no idea how to use creative writing to achieve his goals. He turns a phrase like a prostitute turns tricks: crudely and with a sense of regret for all parties involved. He strives for satire, but his choppy sentences and asides make his letter too preachy. I could ignore these flaws if Bahash made a logically sound argument, but he also fails miserably in this respect. In his mind, there is no situation that would necessitate a strike. What happens when the employee goes to the boss and is denied fair wages? The employee has to join a union of disenfranchised ice cream scoopers. The union works to get the wages and benefits they deserve, even if that requires striking. In the brick and mortar business world, not the cotton candy world Bahash paints, some business owners are greedy and don’t have the best interest of their employees at heart.
I hope the Traveler will discontinue the publication of Bahash’s poorly written satire. Better yet, keep publishing it. It gives me a good laugh.
Max Hoover
Senior
Creative Writing
Workers benefit from ability to strike
Thank you, Nick Bahash, for the great Comedy Central moment provided by your letter in the Traveler Monday. We can’t get enough spoofing and passive-aggressive condemnation of the writer’s strike, especially when the Writers’ Guild of America is in the midst of a massive vote this week on whether to accept the proposed agreement by the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers. To poke fun of and delegitimatize the writers’ current struggle is distasteful at best, but to question the very idea of a laborer’s right to strike is alarming. The scenario of the good little worker approaching the boss with a request for better working conditions or more reasonable pay resulting in a happy ending is a fairy tale.
The protection and benefits workers take for granted today were fought and bled for by workers in the past that used (always at great cost and risk) the tool of the strike. To forget or diminish that fact not only displays callous ingratitude for the sacrifices of previous generations, but also recklessly endangers future generations.
Suzanna Hicks
Accounting Department
Walton College of Business
