Yesterday, the Arizona Daily Wildcat ran a comic that was, well ... let's just call it dumb.

I don't feel like republishing it here because looking at it makes my head hurt, but there's a link to it here, for those interested in seeing it.

The problem with the comic is two-fold. For one, it's homophobic, in a way. For another, it's simply not funny. It's like taking a photo of a car-wreck and stapling it to the end of a "Garfield" comic.

People were offended; letters were written, petitions have been circulated—and in response, the Wildcat issued a statement of apology on its website:

The Arizona Daily Wildcat does screw up, and acknowledging its mistakes and oversights is critical to its accountability.

On Tuesday, the Wildcat staff made a serious error in judgment in printing a cartoon that some readers felt was homophobic and inappropriate.

The views of individual staff members do not represent the views of the Wildcat, nor does the Wildcat reflect the views of the UA. However, printing the cartoon was irresponsible to our readers. We apologize.

— The Daily Wildcat staff

This was followed shortly by an apology from the strip's creator, D.C. Parsons:

My name is D.C. Parsons, and I would like to formally apologize to anyone who I may have offended in my comic “etc.” on Tuesday. The comic was not intended to offend. The desired end means of my work is solely humorous.

It was based on an experience from my childhood. My father is a devout conservative from a previous generation, and I believe he was simply distraught from the fact that I had learned (from “The Simpsons”) what homosexuality was at such a young age.

I have always used humor as a coping mechanism, much like society does when addressing social taboos. I do not condone these things; I simply don’t ignore them. I do sincerely apologize and sympathize with anyone who may be offended by my comics (I am often similarly offended by “Ralph and Chuck”), but keep in mind it is only a joke, and what’s worse than a joke is a society that selectively ignores its problems.

— D.C. Parsons,
“etc.” cartoonist for the Daily Wildcat

And, according to the Daily Wildcat, their association with Parsons has been terminated, as made clear in this letter from its editor-in-chief, Kristina Bui:

The Arizona Daily Wildcat is now reviewing its editorial policies and has terminated the employment of the cartoonist as of Wednesday. His views do not represent the views of the Wildcat staff, nor does the Wildcat represent the views of the university.

The “etc.” cartoon in question illustrated a parent threatening their child if he ever came out, and the two characters joke about the threat. We agree with the criticism we’ve met, and we apologize. The comic was not funny.

That, combined with the poorly-handled apology from Parsons, is the problem. The comic wasn't funny; it wasn't satirical; it wasn't clever; and it didn't make a reader really think about the issues behind homophobia and violence.

The Wildcat is in trouble for this — as they well should be. Publishing this comic was a poor decision. But that's part of the process of running a student newspaper: Mistakes are bound to happen, and this is where one learns both the consequences of a poor editorial decision, as well as the proper way to respond to the resulting controversy.

Good luck to Parsons (who I hope has learned that, if you're going to put a joke into an apology, you'd best make damn well sure that it's funny), as well to Bui and the rest of her staff at the Wildcat.

You folks are going to need it.

Writing about food is pretty much as innocent as it gets. Venture out, find things people might like to eat and write about it in a way that is useful. But there's a sleazy side to it that most food writers don't like to bring up.

This dingy side of it concerns restaurants giving free meals to bloggers, writers and just about anyone else who can somehow influence how their eatery is portrayed to the public. This happens under the auspices of "just showing off our new menu" or a so-called "media dinner," which amounts to lavishing people with freebies in the hopes that the place will be mentioned in the future.

I attended two of these events years ago when I first started writing for the Weekly. But after I saw what was going on I was pretty disgusted - it was also hard to watch so-called foodies and their whole pretentious rigamarole, but that's a topic for another day - so I didn't go anymore. Looking back, perhaps it was somewhat ridiculous to pass on all that free food, but it seemed important.

I think it matters. As it is press releases dictate more of what you read than you realize. Businesses, including restaurants, use the press release to offer writers easy stories they have to do very little work on. With many newspapers short on staff, it's become the easiest way to get the word out about what you're doing.

Add to that this meal-for-mention tradition, which is rather inherent to this side of journalism, and one starts to wonder who is more responsible for the content of food stories: The writer or the restaurant. I know it's just food, but readers deserve what is new and interesting, not what some blogger or writer knows about because they bellied up to a free dinner.

I've posed the question of whether it is ethical to accept these dinners to other people in Tucson's food-writing world, and they disagreed with me. They say it's a perk of the job and attend just about every event that drops into their inbox.

To each their own, but I think it's sleazy. Any thoughts?

This just arrived in my inbox:

My name is Stacie Simonpietri and I am a production researcher with the Travel Channel program, Bizarre Foods with Andrew Zimmern. After such an enjoyable experience filming our “Arizona” episode in 2009, we are looking into producing another episode entitled, “Arizona Desert.” It would be in and around the Tucson area and its environs to the south, focusing on the Sonoran desert, Chihuahuan desert, Superstition mountains, and Gila mountains. I’m interested in hearing your thoughts about the local foodways and culinary scene—anything our host could not miss if we came to the Tucson area.

Got any suggestions? Mine include cholla buds, saguaro fruit, rattlesnake and Jan Brewer, although that last one's a bit on the leathery (and crazy) side.

This story from the Atlantic Wire has the benefit of being both newsy AND terrifying, a practically irresistible combination for those who live on the blogosphere.

A new study connects a lack of sleep to increased obesity and diabetes by showing how sleep deprivation can hurt people on a cellular level. A new study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine this week involved a very small sample size, but the subjects were placed on strict diets and limited to just four and a half hours of sleep a night. After just four nights, the researchers found that their fat cells had developed a decreased sensitivity to insulin, which regulates blood sugar and metabolism. If that insulin resistance persists, it can lead to weight gain, diabetes, and heart disease. Another recent study showed a similar insulin resistance in teenagers who don't sleep enough.

The article goes on to say that, though the sample size is quite small, the study's lead author says that "this is the equivalent of aging someone 10 to 20 years" in four nights.

While I'm skeptical of how true this can be, and of the diet that the subjects were restricted to which I haven't yet found details about, this is a bit eye-opening for someone who has a tendency to swing around 6 hours of sleep.

Guess I'll just have to bring the ol' airplane pillow into the office tomorrow.

The My Big Fat Greek Restaurant at 7265 N. La Cholla Blvd. is closed, according to a sign in the window. The eastside location at 7131 E. Broadway Blvd. remains open.

Brian Metzger, owner of popular local restaurants Jax Kitchen and The Abbey, is holding a dinner next week to help his twin brother's family as they deal with a medical emergency. From a press release:

For more than four years, local restaurateur Brian Metzger has put smiles on the faces of Tucson's foodies, through his award-winning eateries Jax Kitchen and The Abbey. Today, Metzger is asking for the community's help in sharing those smiles with his twin brother, Jay, who is battling a rare and paralyzing neurological disorder.

On October 22, at 6:30 pm, Metzger will host special Jay Day Dinners at both Jax Kitchen and The Abbey to raise money for his twin, who was recently diagnosed with Guillain-Barre Syndrome, leaving him unable to move, speak, and even breathe on his own. While he has begun to shows signs of recovery, the financial burden he faces is acute, as the disorder has rendered his family unable to pay medical and other bills.

The dinners, which will be hosted simultaneously at both restaurants, will include a cocktail party (featuring the special 'Jay-bird cocktail'), a delicious 3-course dinner and special wine selections. All of the food has been donated by U.S. Foods, and each restaurant staff member, from the front of the house to the back, will be volunteering their time that evening. This way, Metzger says, 100 percent of the money raised will be donated to Jay and his family. Metzger will be traveling between each restaurant to introduce Jay via video, and to share stories about him and his beautiful wife and young daughter.

The all-inclusive dinner is $150 per person, and seating is limited. To make reservations to attend the dinner at Jax Kitchen, please call 219-1235. If guests wish to attend the dinner at The Abbey, please call 299-3132.

Heroes and Villains's Cynthia and Eric discuss Tony Stark's less glamorous side in this edition of Talking Comics.

Finally, an Iron Man poor and self-destructive enough for Eric to relate to!

Ultimate Comics: Iron Man #1

Written By: Nathan Edmondson
Illustrated By: Matteo Buffagni
Colored by: Andy Troy
Lettered By: VC's Joe Caramagna
Edited By: Sana Amanat

If you're into the caffeinated lifestyle, this upcoming event is for you.

Cartel Coffee Lab, eXo Roast Co., Sparkroot, Caffe Luce, Yellow Brick Coffee, Adventure Coffee Roasting and Brewd Coffee Lounge have already signed up to participate in the Tucson Coffee Crawl on Saturday, Nov. 10. Each stop will provide something coffee-related - classes, tastings, tours - and, as far as I can tell, it's free.

Check it out on Facebook over here. The website, which is still under construction, is right here.

Rodolfo Acuña, Chicano activist, professor and author of TUSD-banned Occupied America, recently published an essay on the political blog Counter Punch in response to a paper he received by Tucson Unified School District's Augustine Romero, now charged with developing TUSD yet-to-be unveiled multicultural curriculum.

You can read Acuña's essay in it's entirety here, but here's a snippet:

When anything titled a “white paper” comes across my email, I usually ignore it. Why is truth always called “white”? Why not brown, yellow or black? Is it because black is considered negative, i.e., Black Friday, black as sin, Halloween, or death whereas white is the color of god and goodness?

Sowhen I received a paper titled “White Paper: Cultural Responsive Pedagogy,” I only read it because it was authored by Dr. Augustine Romero, the director of Tucson Unified School District's department of student equity. Romero is charged with putting Humpty Dumpty together again—i.e., the Ethnic Studies program that the TUSD school board smashed to bits. (Humpty Dumpty refers to a large canon used during the 17th Century English Civil war).

Romero is a controversial figure and many of his former colleagues refuse to talk to him. They see Romero’s decision to stay in his administrative post with the District as a defection because, according to them, it gives the destruction of Mexican American Studies legitimacy. As proof they point to the pattern common in institutions of higher learning that destroy ethnic studies programs, and then remake them in their own image.

Although informative, the paper came across as an apologia. Romero says that MAS was a highly successful, well-constructed program, not shying away from the fact that it was destroyed at the behest of the Arizona Attorney General and Superintendent of Schools, a decision that was solely based on politics — pedagogy played no role.

Clearly Romero is conflicted.

In reading the paper I found myself agreeing with Romero as to pedagogy; the paper would have been highly appropriate in an academic setting. However, the paper never explains why he absolves the District and joins a corrupt group. Romero says that the District is in the midst of “its second attempt to obtain unitary status in its federal segregation case,” adding that the District does not understand how “to make schools more effective and joyous places for all students.” He concedes that the TUSD destroyed an “effective and special” program.”

What is disturbing is Romero’s lack of context, which is necessary for most professionals to understand what is happening in Tucson. The truth be told, most progressive educators view Romero as a champion and advocate for MAS, a fighter for its integrity. Witness his multiple YouTube presentations.

In what appears to be the most disappointing thing of the Presidential debate season thus far, Slate reports that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have agreed that they should be asked no follow-up questions during tonight's debate.

According to Slate:

[Moderator Candy Crowley]'s assignment—as defined by the commission and the two campaigns—is to take a much more hands-off role than either of the two moderators who came before her. While Lehrer and Raddatz challenged Obama/Romney and Biden/Ryan with varying-degrees of follow-ups, both ultimately were given more or less free rein to ask their questions how they saw fit. Not so for Crowley, who isn't allowed to "rephrase the [audience member's] question or open a new topic ... ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate," according to a memo signed by both camps earlier this month that set the ground rules.

That memo, which was originally obtained by Time magazine (and which you can find here,) outlines these rules as such:

7 (c), IV: "The moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate or otherwise intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits, and invited the candidate comments during the 2 minute response period."
7 (d): "The audience members shall not ask follow-up questions or otherwise participate in the extended discussion, and the audience member's microphone shall be turned off after he or she completes asking the questions."

But Crowley doesn't plan to take this agreement, which doesn't appear to have her name on it anywhere, laying down. Crowley said this on CNN:

"They will call on 'Alice,' and 'Alice' will stand up and ask a question. Both candidates will answer. Then there's time for a follow-up question, facilitating a discussion, whatever you want to call it," Crowley said. "So if Alice asks oranges, and someone answers apples, there's the time to go, 'But Alice asked oranges? What's the answer to that?" Or, 'Well, you say this, but what about that?'"

Crowley also told Politico.com that “we don’t want the candidates to spout talking points. That doesn’t help voters … I’m going to react organically to what’s happening.”

Kudos to you, Candy Crowley. You deserve all the credit in the world for holding the candidates to actually giving responses — let's just see if you can actually make it happen.