I hope this doesn’t give any of you ideas.

You know your alcoholism has gone too far when you can’t ingest it, but use…er…other methods of increasing your BAC.

Although it is against my better judgment, this must be said: Bottoms up!

Update: he wasn’t addicted to alcohol, oh no. He was addicted to enemas.

For anyone reading this blog who has any lingering desire to see us silenced through defunding, however patently illegal that would be, I just thought I’d bring to your attention this court case:

Gay & Lesbian Students Asso. v. Gohn, 850 F.2d 361 (8th Cir. 1988).

Why this case? Gather round and I’ll tell you. Because this case applied the same First Amendment doctrine that renders unconstitutional any effort to defund the Commentator based on content. And in so doing, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that the Student Senate at the University of Arkansas could not deny funding to the school’s Gay & Lesbian Students Association.

Quoth the court: “When funds are made available, they must be distributed in a viewpoint-neutral manner.” Shall I go on?

The University contended that it was appropriate to deny funding to the GLSA, as they might advocate homosexual sodomy, which was illegal in Arkansas at the time (pre-Lawrence). To which the court said, and this is good stuff here, so listen well:

True, sodomy is illegal in Arkansas. However, the GLSA does not advocate sodomy, and, even if it did, its speech about an illegal activity would still be protected by the First Amendment. People may extol the virtues of arson or even cannibalism. They simply may not commit the acts . . . Conduct may be prohibited or regulated, within broad limits. But government may not discriminate against people because it dislikes their ideas.

Of course, I must emphasize that the Commentator, like the GLSA, has never advocated illegal activities. (Other than underage drinking.) But, like the GLSA, even if we had . . .

Ah, the refreshing ring of directly applicable reasoning. Quiroz, Kieffer, Le, Cortez: any questions?

Considering that “Animal House” has been invoked on the comment boards just this afternoon, I’m a bit surprised that a significant passing in UO history has yet to be noted: John Vernon, the actor who so chillingly portrayed Dean Wormer in the collegiate classic filmed on campus, has shuffled off this mortal coil. He apparently died a half-month ago, but the news hit the wires only this morning.

Fat, drunk and stupid may or may not be the way to go through life, but I think we’re all the richer for having heard this memorable piece of advice.

Give that columnist a cigar. David Jagernauth has put forth the most forceful and clear-eyed Ol’ Dirty critique yet of the campaign against the OC. Witness:

I want to speak directly to my fellow progressives on campus — the ones mounting the attack on the Oregon Commentator. I am beyond disappointed in you. I am downright appalled that you are unable, or unwilling, to see the error of trying to silence a publication for content you don’t like. I am appalled to see you throw around the serious charge of “hate speech” for something so obviously innocuous.

Testify! Jagernauth also directs our attention to a call on the Portland Indymedia site to “Resist Hate Speech at UO.” Ah, no wonder things got unruly . . . Curiously, the posting urged people “to silently show solidarity with people who the Commentator is hurting.” I don’t yet know how to describe the circus that went down last Tuesday, but “silent” is not the first word I’d choose. Jagernauth on the Indymedia post:

Until we have mastered the technology whereby printed words are able to leap off the page and slap you in the face, no story has “directly hurt” anybody. And even so, is “hurt” now the standard for acceptable and unacceptable speech?

I certainly hope not. Speech’s power to “hurt” is one of the most basic reasons it is a right protected by the Constitution: free expression is the most powerful, yet peaceful, tool citizens can wield against their government officials. Criticism is not supposed to make you feel good. The sight of ASUO officials and program leaders wearing buttons reading “The OC hurts me” is truly surreal. Picture George W. Bush wearing a button that reads “The New York Times hurts me,” and you’ll see what I mean.

David Jagernauth, and all the other “liberals” and “progressives” who have rallied to our defense, we salute you. You get it.

When ASUO Programs Finance Committee member Dan Kieffer called the First Amendment an “unjust law” and declared his willingness to defy the Supreme Court of the United States in following his conscience, he unwittingly placed himself in the ranks of a small, sorry cadre on the wrong side of history. Read on and compare.

1832

“John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it.”

-President Andrew Jackson, allegedly reacting to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Worcester v. Georgia, holding state policies of Indian removal from tribal lands unconstitutional. Although the quote is likely apocryphal, Jackson made no effort to enforce the court’s ruling against state persecution of Indian tribes — unsurprising, given Old Hickory’s reputation as an Indian killer.

1954

“A clear abuse of judicial power” that “will bring implications and dangers of the greatest consequence.”

-US Senator Harry F. Byrd, Sr., referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, ordering the desegregation of public schools. Byrd called for “Massive Resistance” to the Court’s decision in his home state of Virginia, orchestrating legislative efforts to thwart and elude the legal obligations established by the Supreme Court.

1957

“Blood would run in the streets.”

-Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus, explaining his decision to deploy the Arkansas National Guard to prevent nine black students from enrolling in a white high school, in defiance of the US Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education.

2005

“I’m unable to say anything viewpoint-neutral at this point . . . If I’m disobeying an unjust law, then I feel justified in doing so, and the Executive can fire me for doing it.”

-PFC member Dan Kieffer, declaring his defiance of the Supreme Court’s decision in Board of Regents v. Southworth, holding that the First Amendment required a viewpoint-neutral mechanism for the allocation of state funding within a designated public forum.

Heres a short break from the PFC fireworks.
The Idaho senate voted yesterday on a gay-marriage bill today that would change the law to only recognize a marriage between a man and a woman. Not surprising, but here is the kicker; it failed. According to all the reports I have heard through the local media, Idaho is the first state where a ban on gay marriage failed.
Now, I dont know if that exactly puts the state of Idaho on the cutting edge of the gay rights movement, but evidence seems to point to that end. I dont know about anyone else, but that scares the hell out of me to think that Idaho is more progressive than the other states in the nation.
The reason it failed is because, I believe, Idaho is quite libertarian, as evidenced by the large number of people in this state that have attempted to secede from the union. The biggest argument against the bill during the debates preceding the vote was the idea that the government shouldnt be passing laws that limit freedom. I also think the people pushing this bill really shot themselves in the foot by drafting a bill that was so strict when it came to the rights of married people. Under this new law, unmarried heterosexual couples would be denied many of the rights they currently enjoy. The people pushing this bill spent the majority of their time whining about the preservation of the family unit. Meanwhile there are a lot of washed-up musicians in the state who, regardless of their moral stance concerning homosexuality, want to get in on their girlfriends life insurance plan. Never mind the large number of people here who honestly dont care who or what their neighbor chooses to mate with. This is Idaho, for Gods sake, there isnt a lot to do around here besides find new and interesting things to fornicate with.
Now, to be fair, I dont think this decision is going to lead to an endless stream of gay couples coming to the state to be married. As far as I know, nobody in the state of Idaho is going to be marrying gay couples anytime soon. But, on the other hand, the fact that the bill failed means that the current law is open to interpretation.
That is all, I just thought I would bring this to the attention to all those people who bad-mouthed Idaho during my time in Eugene. Thats right, Tim, this state might be populated by a bunch of gun-toting rednecks, but they are gun-toting rednecks that respect the rights of the individual.

Our next hearing is scheduled for February 10th, 6 PM in the Ben Linder Room. the Emerald hearing is at 5 so we should probably rally for them, too.

It was totally rude of Mason to refer in that derisive way to our “attempts” at sophomoric humor, as if to imply that we don’t consistently achieve it. We should get buttons made that say “The PFC hurt me.”

Well, I’m not sure what I expected, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t this. That was one of the strangest events I’ve ever witnessed.

Full-blown post-mortem to come. For now, a big thank-you to everyone who came out to show support. There were a lot of unexpected heroes last night, but a special mention has to go to Adam Petkun, who showed up with an armload of photocopies of the Southworth decision for the committee and hung tough throughout amid accusations of “ignorance” from Mason.

(Oh, and: “Are you insane?” may lack some of the gravitas of “Have you no decency, sir?” but the resonance was pretty much the same.)

It’s a beginning, not an ending. Updates on the way.

OC Budget Hearing
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1ST, 7:45 PM
EMU ROGUE ROOM

DEFEND THE FIRST AMENDMENT
SHOW UP EARLY, SHOW UP ROWDY

Today seems likely to feature a lot of people talking, if you’ll forgive the Britishism, bollocks. So, for the sake of levity, here are some people talking about bollocks. Well, and Sophocles.

Notable comments:

Please find an excellent historical quote and replace “being a man” (I bet Hemmingway [sic] would be a motherlode) with “having testicles”

leads to

“When once the itch of literature comes over a testicle, nothing can cure it but the scratching of a pen. But if you have not a pen, I suppose you must scratch any way you can.”

and on, ineluctably to

I am but a simple Australian. What is this ‘Culture’ whereof you speak? Can you drink it?

The Internet never ceases to cheer me up.

The ODE had to trim my guest commentary, and the way in which they did it makes me sound like a clown. Also, their headline is stupid. Here is the Whole thing:

In rejecting the Mission Statement of the Oregon Commentator, the PFC demonstrates its complete inability to reason clearly, apply consistent standards or judge groups in a view-point neutral manner. Whats more, the PFC attempts to place itself above the law in deciding what is or is not protected political speech.

Such action, especially in light of the motion to cut all incidental-fee funding to the Oregon Daily Emerald, bespeaks a grave disrespect for the Marketplace of Ideas that is meant to be academia. It seems that the PFC has chosen two groups notoriously critical of the ASUO to de-fund and attempt to silence. Whose fault is it that student leaders wasted student fees to have a big blowout in Bend? Certainly not the Emeralds or the Commentators.

Both publications provide very important coverage of ASUO shenanigans, and try to make the ASUO accountable not only to the 4.6% of the student body who put them in office (4.6% being slightly more than half of 9% which is about the voter turnout in ASUO elections last year), but also to the entirety of the student body. The Emerald does this through often solid reporting and the occasional scathing editorial, while the Commentator provides analysis, in depth reporting and, yes, biting (often callous) humor. Both are vital to the free exchange of ideas and, in their own way, seek to expose the major failings of the ASUO as an institution. Trying to stifle such important media outlets because what they say puts the lie to all of the ASUOs lofty rhetoric is shameful, childish and, moreover, pathetic.

Are the members of the ASUO really so weak that they cannot take a little criticism from the outside? The same sort of behavior from State or Federal government would undoubtedly incense the ASUO minicrats, but the suggestion that they should be held to the same standard of openness and accountability will have the denizens of Suite Four screaming protect the fee faster than you can print a handbill. As limited public figures, members of the ASUO set themselves up to be targets of mocking scrutiny; its unconscionable that they would try to silence their critics for being mean. I guess Barbara Boxer isnt the only one who cries when she cant get her way.

In 2002 the PFC, led by the inclinations of Joe Streckert, tabled the Commentators budget due to the content of the Mission Statement. In the early 1990s the IFC, a predecessor to the PFC, attempted to de-fund the Commentator for unpopular content. Just last year Eddy Morales made the same spurious claim about the Emeralds readership, based on the same meaningless survey. The PFCs habit of abusing the two most important publications on the UO campus must come to an end.

The Commentators budget hearing is February 1st, and I know the forces of censorial darkness will be out in droves. If you think the University should be a place of open debate; that everyone, not just the orthodox politically correct left, should be able to express his or her opinion here; I strongly encourage you to attend and show support. If the PFC is allowed to get away with this, the campus environment will be damaged beyond repair.