Shortly after the distribution of our first Fall issue, The Colonel was inundated with reader responses to the article, “Dining Services Removes Water Faucets from Soda Machines: Ends Campus Outbreak of ‘Profit Cholera.’” Here is a representative example:

From: Cheryl Harper
To: ky.colonel@gmail.com
Date: Sep 21, 2005 12:23 PM
Subject: (no subject)

In response to your Sept.21 article in “The Colonel” , intiltled “Dining Services Removes Water Faucets from Soda Machines”, may I just add a small voice of reason. Is Jane Snow so greedy and inhumaine that she is willling to force students to purchase expensive water that many may not be able to afford, in order to save a few cents. Many studetns are on a budget that does not include several bottles of $2.75 water each day. What’s next ?, turing up the heat in classrooms and taking out water fountians? In these conditions, students will be forced to fill water bottles in restroom sinks, so perhaps Ms. Snow should consider a real “cholera” epidemic, (the bacterial kind). Then will she turn off restroom facilities as well? Perhaps the problem would be better solved if someone just took Ms. Snow’s water away, and put the rest of us out of our misery. Ms. Snow, really!! There is such a thing as a sense of humanity.

UK Student, Cheryl Harper

Dear Cheryl,

We wholeheartedly agree and sincerely hope it doesn’t come to that. Thank you for your feedback and rest assured that we will certainly let campus officials know if and when the restroom facilities are closed down by Campus Dining Services.

Colonel Staff

Despite our ongoing effort to deliver commentary that is both lucid and accessible, we at the Colonel still occasionally receive letters from people who just don’t seem to “get” us. Here is a representative example:

From: Andrew G.
To: ky.colonel@gmail.com
Date: Apr 7, 2005 2:55 PM
Subject: a confused reader

dear colonel staff,

i am completely confused. i dont like the labels television pundits and political strategists like to bombard us with in hopes of defining and categorizing a majority voting base for their cause, but alas, i am a realist and understand the masses are not always ahead of the curve. what i am confused about is the labels in which you define yourself. are you all really a conservative staff? i mean, seriosly? as far as satire goes, you all would be much funnier if you all were a bunch of liberals (and yes it pains me to use the word) than a table full of right wing, god prostitiuting conservatives harping about their cause. and if you are conservative you should change your purpose to propaganda not satire. i laughed hysterically throughout the issue at its absoulute absurdity. if you are truly writing from a seat on the right i implore you, keep writing. so seriously, you can tell me. i apologize if i’m being obtuse but are you really as you say. gulp, conservatives? thanks for your time.

Dear Andrew,

Here at the Colonel, we certainly share your disdain for “labels.” But alas, we too are realists who like to issue banal and meaningless decrees. Consider, for example, this tautology: the masses – i.e. average people – do not lie far away from the center of a bell curve – i.e. the area in a distribution where the masses lie.

But this point is, of course, merely peripheral to your central question. No, you are clearly a man who thinks before he speaks, a conscientious observer who carefully digests things that are put in front of him. You will not be sated by sweets, so we will give you the meat and potatoes. You pose an interesting and very reasonable question: where does the Colonel lie along the ideological spectrum?

Though we sacrifice our integrity as impartial journalists in saying so, the editorial staff of the Colonel will at last admit that our publication is nothing more than a mouthpiece for Republican demagoguery. No, “seriosly,” we are in fact just “a table full of right wing, god prostitiuting conservatives harping about their cause.” Obviously, we misunderstood the concept of “satire” and will henceforth rightfully acknowledge our writing as “propaganda” (and yes it pains me to use the word). We hope that clears things up!

Yours in impenetrable ambiguity,
Colonel Editor

Dear Crusader:

I miss John Ashcroft. Help me! Carl Provo, Utah

Dear Carl:

First, I miss John Ashcroft deeply. Fine patriot, fine American, and a fine Christian. Now don’t get me wrong, Alberto Gonzalez is a very fine conservative man as well, but Ashcroft was the moral crusader we all had been waiting years for. As homage to Mr. Ashcroft, I would recommend that you try to live the “Ashcroft Path” in your daily life. First, I would spend a few hours a day at your local library monitoring what people are checking out. Alert your government immediately of anything that does not appear conservative and or Christian. Pay especially close attention to the periodicals section, where liberals often read their Commie rags. Secondly, this country is full of alcoholics and you could spend some time in liquor stores “accidentally” breaking bottles of sin juice so people cannot purchase them. Finally, you must avoid and discourage other sinful things as dancing, motion pictures, television programs other than the 700 Club, and gambling. Always remember: hate the sin and hate the sinner even more.

The Conservative Crusader

Email to the Editors

Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 09:53:22 -0800 (PST)
From: "Jason Meyer" Add to Address Book
Subject:UK colonel article
To: UK_Colonel@yahoo.com

I have no problem with conservative values and beliefs such as the belief in God and laws against homosexuality, but the article published today with the Colonel did cause a problem for me.

To begin with, I'd appreciate if you would refrain from using the word "conservative" to describe yourself; that word has long since meant one of two things (moderate or traditional), neither of which apply to the author(s) of this article.

Instead, the authors appear to proscribe to a radical, belligerent type of fundamentalism; which, again, is neither traditional nor moderate in any sense. My best description of the political viewpoints expressed in the article is extreme right wing.

Furthermore, it seems that one can maintain a radical point of view in a reasonable and mature way (unpopular views are not wrong views). For example, statements can be backed up with evidence and views can have some rational content to them.

Instead, the authors of this article engaged in a sort of childish temper tantrum, in which views are preached to the masses as if to stir them up into battle. What is the point of referring to political opponents as enemies or Satan? Would you really like to see these people die? Are you really that selfish and immature?

Furthermore, the ridiculous religious viewpoints expressed in the article offend me as a true conservative. To begin with, how can you, an insignificant little twit of a human being, assign God's almighty voice to some particular political viewpoint? If you know anything about true religion, you will keep your mouth shut about what God might have said. When you do claim that God is on your side, as you did in the article, you engage in the most disgusting sort of display, where you pretend as if you are God. Instead of parading yourself as a false deity, why not practice a little conservative humility, as preached in the New Testament? Let the words of God remain unjudged by human weakness.

Another note to show my true concern for you: if you want to have a positive impact on people, why not communicate in a way that can reach any person, instead of just those who already agree with you. I consider myself a political minority as well, but I have recognized that getting angry is not only childish, but also not effective as a means of communication.

Maybe in your next publication, you could consider the following: 1) Radical preaching only aggravates people, never changes their mind or "saves" them, 2) You have no right to speak as if you are God or know what God might say, and 3) Some people, like myself, would like to see a more conservative America but cannot approve of childish ranting and raving.

Thank you for your time,
Jason

Dear Reader,

We are deeply sorry for offending your “true conservative” sensibility. In hindsight, we realize now that our last issue might have unfairly portrayed anti-gay lobbyists as “immature,” “belligerent,” “selfish,” and “childish,” but we assure you such mistakes were completely uncalculated. We apologize for this momentary lapse in our journalist integrity and promise it won’t ever happen again.

Yours in verisimilitude,
Colonel Staff

The content of this paper is Copyright © 2005 by The Colonel and may not be reprinted or retransmitted in whole or in part without the express written consent of the authors. All previously copyrighted creations in this publication are copyrighted to the creators.