I was taking a gander at the Daily Emerald blogs when I ran across this post by ASUO report Alex Tomchak regarding the new ASUO “sustainability” committee. Tomchak calls “sustainability”

a muzzy term people generally use when they want to say they are in favor of protecting the environment but don’t want to look like hippies.

Well put, though I’d go further and say it’s a word that’s generally used when people want to justify spending other people’s money. The tidbit that really caught my attention, however, was at the very end:

‘Some senators have also said they want the definition of “sustainability” to be more elastic and oblique, rather than confined specifically to the environment.’

How terribly convenient.

Why, it’s almost like these bottom-feeders want to be able to spend money with few of those pesky “rules” and “regulations” getting in their way.

In any case, it seems to me that the Emerald’s readers might be interested in knowing that certain members of their student government (finding out which ones would be a good start) are angling to redefine the word “sustainability” in order to put themselves in a better position to raid student money.

I’d love to see the Emerald do some more reporting on this, letting the student body exactly which of these senators is proposing redefining the word “sustainability” and asking them to justify themselves.

Imagine my surprise when I opened up today’s Daily Emerald, only to find a guest column by one George Beres, Pacifica Forum stalwart and one of Eugene’s more prolific writers of letters-to-the-editor.

For whatever reason, the Emerald saw fit to publish Beres’ latest rant, the somewhat cryptically titled “Fear of subduing conflict discussion“. Evidently unaware of the massive media attention given to protests around the world in response to Israel’s recent “Operation Cast Lead” (including coverage on this very blog and in the printed magazine of the student protest here on campus), Beres starts yammering about how Jews “Zionists” are silencing dissent:

Nothing has been more hotly contested than the policies of the new state of Israel in Palestine. I’ve found it raises a broader question: Can this subject even be discussed? Zionists and Israel sympathizers have said no and silenced such dialogue at some schools, threatening it at the University.

I’ve seen evidence of it – personal experience that suggests a growing pervasiveness of those willing to halt speech to stop such criticism. Much of it has come from the campaign designed by a writer for the New York Post, Daniel Pipes, who encourages students to create an aura of suspicion around anyone who questions Israel’s behavior.

[…]

I interviewed author John Mearsheimer on his book about Israel’s brutality in Palestine. It was at a news conference in the Portland Hilton prior to his public talk there. Not one other reporter attended. Mearsheimer told me he was not surprised, having seen Zionists influence the news media against him, as well as object to his campus appearances.

It’s a Jewish “Zionist” conspiracy, you see. And they’re in the media, orchestrating smear campaigns against their foes.

At the risk of being identified as part of the Jewish “Zionist” conspiracy, let me be the first to publically chastise the Emerald for seeing fit to publish such blatantly anti-Semitic rubbish. And let’s be clear here: what Beres is saying is anti-Semitic. Maintaining that Jews are part of shadowy conspiracies, pulling the strings behind the curtain to control the media and silence critics, and having dual allegiances are classic anti-Semitic tropes.

The Emerald, of course, has every right to publish whatever it pleases, and it’s certainly not for me or anyone else to say that the shouldn’t. One only wonders if their editorial policy would be so open-minded if it were instead a white supremecist talking about Muslims.

In today’s ODE opinion page there is a guest opinion by none other than crazy ol’ George Beres. He is a former member of the Pacifica Forum and firmly believes that we’ve all been brainwashed by an insidious “shadow government.” As you might imagine, his opinions on the Israel/Palestine conflict are nothing short of comedy gold:

College campuses nationwide have become the hottest battleground over the question of freedom of speech. That once would have seemed unlikely because free expression on all issues is a basic precept of higher education […]

Nothing has been more hotly contested than the policies of the new state of Israel in Palestine. I’ve found it raises a broader question: Can this subject even be discussed? Zionists and Israel sympathizers have said no and silenced such dialogue at some schools, threatening it at the University.

I’ve seen evidence of it – personal experience that suggests a growing pervasiveness of those willing to halt speech to stop such criticism.

Ah, yes. The Zionist entity suppressing free speech. That must be why students at San Francisco State University are calling for the SFSU College Republicans to be punished after they held an anti-Hamas rally.

The Daily Emerald ran an article yesterday with the headline “Oregon celebrates 150th birthday,” but when I read it, I was greeted by this lead:

Walking through the aisles at gift shops, students may become overwhelmed with cards containing pictures of hearts and messages of love. However, students won’t find Hallmark cards depicting working settlers sweating over fields, Native Americans being forced into reservations or freed slaves being banned from Oregon on the front of cards, as Feb. 14 celebrates another important holiday: Oregon’s admission into the union.

What the hell, ODE? Oh, I get it. It’s the ol’ “you can’t celebrate things because they used to be bad” angle. Congratulations on jumping the shark there. Anyways, in honor of Oregon’s sesquicentennial and the ODE’s douchebaggery, I thought I’d list some of the really cool things about Oregon:

• The beaches are public: I know, I know. It’s heresy for me to support public ownership, but it’s not like you can build anything on sand anyways (or so that Jesus guy said). Just south of Florence there is 50 miles of unbroken public beach and dunes. And that’s pretty cool. Thanks, Tom McCall.
• Speaking of which, we had one of the coolest governors ever, Tom McCall. He once said in an interview (no doubt addressing the state of California): “Come visit us again and again. This is a state of excitement. But for heaven’s sake, don’t move here to live.”
• Oregon held the only state-sponsored rock festival in U.S. history in 1970. Thanks again, Tom McCall.
• Oregon drinks more Pabst Blue Ribbon than any other state. And we’re talking pure volume, not per capita.
• Portland has more breweries than any other city on earth. Up yours, Cologne!
• Portland has more strip clubs per capita than any other city in the U.S.
• We have the only ski lodge in North America that is open year-round.
• We have Crater Lake, which is a lake on top of a mountain. That’s pretty cool.
• And let’s not forget the Oregon Vortex!
• We’re not California.

The Emerald reported today that the ASUO is considering cutting the contract for student tickets.

The discussion began when members of the budget committee that administers the ticket purchases asked senators for their suggestions. Sen. Cassandra Gray then asked her colleagues what they thought of “moving this completely off of the contract for the ASUO,” which she said would be fair to students who have no interest in attending Ducks games.

I just want to ask a couple questions and point out some stupidities here.

The question:

I realize that money is tight and blah, blah but when did the Senate think to themselves, “You know taking away free student tickets to football and basketball games won’t backfire at all. We won’t upset a majority of the campus in doing so. In fact, I bet we’ll make people very happy.”

When?

Because there is no way that taking student tickets away won’t blow up in their faces. Now, I realize that they offered some compromises like not offering tickets to pre-term games but Gray’s initial suggestion seems like the least thought out suggestion to ever grace the lips of an ASUO senator.

The killer part of their argument is really that last quote though. It would be fair to students who don’t care about Duck sports, wouldn’t it?

If that’s the logic we’re taking here, I’d like to suggest that we defund the LTD contract, remove all the student unions, also the contract student lawyers, I don’t use the craft center either, LGBQT doesn’t need money because I’m not gay so I don’t need their services. Fortunately, if we use this logic OSPIRG gets the axe too (but other more logical reasons should get them cut anyway).

I wonder what kind of protests, if any, would happen if they actually decided to go through with a full cut.

There isn’t much to be said about Alex Conley’s latest opinion piece in the Emerald that hasn’t been summed-up here, but I figured that it’s my duty as a Commentator staffer to at least point out a few of his more cringe-worthy pronouncements.

Conley, you see, has decided that “that the capitalist ideals to which we hold so firmly, even in our time of hardship, are no longer suitable to a 21st-century United States.” To wit:

When our nation was young, it was known as “the land of opportunity,” a place where, if you worked hard, you would eventually be able to live a prosperous life and find happiness. However idealistic that may have been, today, even if you work your hardest, there’s no guarantee in the least that you will be able to get by, much less prosper.

Conley, evidently, has confused the definitions of the words “opportunity” and “entitlement” because at no time in the history of this country has anyone been guaranteed prosperity and happiness. I mean, it’s right there in the Declaration of Independence*: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

But American history isn’t the only subject in which Conley comes up lacking. Take, for instance, this authoritative statement: “The key element in capitalism is the idea that ‘you get what you work for.'” Wait, wait! Don’t tell me! That’s Hayek, right? Von Mises?

The balance of the article consists a sentence or two blaming the current economic crisis on “our vaunted free market” (Do tell…), a rousing call to lock arms and march together toward a better future in which we all help one another, some cookie-cutter stereotypes about living in an “every man for himself” society, and a concluding paragraph prescribing the abandonment of capitalism because “the world has changed” since the beginning of the 20th Century. Or something. And stuff.

For what we are to leave behind capitalism is never quite mentioned; One can only presume that Mr. Conley hasn’t been paying attention to socialist Europe’s own financial problems. To be honest, I’m not sure Conley himself really understands what he’s talking about, beyond a few fuzzy ideas and shopworn stereotypes.

But hey, this is the Ol’ Dirty we’re talking about. Considered ideas on their opinion page aren’t exactly their stock in trade.

* Since I linked to the Declaration of Independence, I might as well link to the Constitution, too. We don’t link to the Constitution enough around here.

In case you missed it, the Daily Emerald issued an editorial yesterday calling for OSPIRG to be defunded:

This week, the ASUO Executive made for the first time in a long time a very clear recommendation on the ongoing saga of OSPIRG and the funding it receives from the ASUO incidental fee that all students pay. It recommended that OSPIRG be completely defunded. The Emerald has called for increased scrutiny of OSPIRG and its use of our student dollars several times in the past. In 2007, the Emerald called for OSPIRG to be defunded, citing transparency and accountability concerns. In light of the proposal by ASUO President Sam Dotters-Katz to end OSPIRG’s contract with the ASUO, we would like to now reiterate this opinion.

See? It’s not just us “crazy conservatives” who don’t like OSPIRG. There are people all across the board who have problems with it, and not just because of its political stances. Yet weepy, outraged OSPIRG supporters try and spin this as some sort of campaign to squash campus activism. For example, here’s part of an overwrought letter in today’s ODE by Jesse Hough:

As I witnessed egos and tempers flair at the ACFC meeting Wednesday night, a deep sadness overcame me. A sadness that felt like the death of a dear friend. That friend isn’t OSPIRG, it is students’ power and voice in the world.

All we’re really asking for is that our student money be spent transparently and effectively.

It seems that the Anti-Smokers group on campus finally has a time-table for getting rid of those dirty, evil smokers, two years. This according to an article in today’s Ol’ Dirty.

The Smoke-Free Task Force recommended to the University administration Monday that the University become a smoke-free area within two years. The University Senate will discuss the report during its March meeting, but the ultimate decision lies with the administration.

The decision lies with an administration that I think could choose to “enforce” this.

Ahh, it’s fun when people want the University to waste money. Instead of having DPS not do anything when crimes and such actually happen on campus now we can have them not do anything when someone smokes on campus.

I don’t remember when the last smoke-in was but I’m thinking another one might need to be called to order.

…but Alex Conley makes it so damn easy. 

It seems somewhat ironic that he’s making the call for rational argumentation considering some of his past editorials that have been brought up here.

Truthfully, I’m all for rational arguments and whatever else Conley thinks that the Obama administration needs to do. Definitely in agreement with Conley on having the iron fist approach. Obama should just not allow comments and inform people to accept his opinion as fact, he is the messiah after all. 

The fact of the matter is, our political process benefits most when people actually talk about the issues and forgo idiotic comments that don’t contribute anything to the discussion. Imagine if you were trying to have a genuine conversation with someone about, say, the stimulus package, and someone else in the room kept chiming in with “I like cheese!” or “Obama’s the next Hitler!” None of that brings anything useful to the table and only serves to annoy those who actually want to talk about the issues.

It’s funny because in the Right-wing hypocrisy column, that is linked to above, Conley basically pulls the “Republicans equals Nazis” card. He might have said that he liked cheese as well, but I imagine he’s lactose-intolerant. 

Oh, Conley, Conley, Conley. Do you not see your own hypocrisy once again portrayed here? Or do you not read your columns before throwing them at your editor?

I never had the pleasure of Shakra but Conley is my generation’s shadow of Shakra (I know Conley can’t compare to Shakra in sheer oddball).

Well, the Oregon Daily Emerald has thrown down the gauntlet:

If it isn’t one thing, it’s another.

Not long after Sam Dotters-Katz’s appointment of Athan Papailiou to the ASUO Senate was rejected, the ASUO president made another controversial Senate appointment: C.J. Ciaramella, editor-in-chief of the Oregon Commentator. Though this appointment was also rejected, this time unanimously, its mere occurrence calls into question the integrity of both related parties.

[…]

We’d like to know how the editor-in-chief of a publication that so concerns itself with ethics and student government, and the relationship (or lack thereof) between the two, can “ethically” apply to work for that very student government and still maintain a commitment to journalistic excellence.

Conflict of interest, anyone?

But the Commentator does not claim to be an objective or unbiased journal, some may argue. It is, after all, a place for commentary, and presents itself as such.

True, but if one gave so much as a cursory glance at an issue of the Commentator or its blog, they will undoubtedly find reporting, discussion and criticism of the ASUO and its actions. The most recent issue’s editorial is a prime example.

[…]

In addition, Ciaramella has attended each of the term’s ASUO Senate meetings as a reporter for the Commentator and has spoken out about senators, the organization and its processes. (The term “stakeholder” comes to mind.)

It hardly needs to be stated that reporting of any kind, no matter how inherently slanted, lacks any sort of credibility when the person in charge of its publication is heavily involved in the events and actions with which it is concerned.

In other words, Ciaramella’s decision to run for ASUO candidacy was disingenuous and unprofessional, and makes claims to journalistic integrity seem like nothing more than mockery.

Additionally, the decision to appoint Ciaramella to the Senate jeopardizes the ASUO Executive’s credibility.

Ciaramella’s application letter was indeed, as Sen. Tyler Scandalios described, flippant, and made clear its author’s lack of seriousness about the responsibilities of the Senate.

Whatever one’s opinions about the seriousness and credibility of the ASUO Senate, the fact is that it deals with students’ money and makes decisions that directly affect students, and, therefore, should not be taken so lightly. For Dotters-Katz to appoint Ciaramella when he was the only applicant to not agree to a job interview, was not recommended by the ASUO hiring committee, and treated the entire process like a joke, is irresponsible and disconcerting.

We would like to applaud the group for rejecting Ciaramella’s appointment. Making student government and its coverage in the media into a circus isn’t funny, even if trained bears are.

And I’d like to applaud the ODE for running this editorial almost a week after the fact. I guess this is the part where I’m supposed to be cowed into shame by the Emerald’s gravitas and finger-wagging, but you know what? Fuck ’em if they can’t take a joke.

The Commentator has been running joke candidates for years. Back in the day, one editor, Tamir Kreigel, was elected to Senate and then resigned by being carried out of the room by clowns. Timothy Dreier ran a retro-McCarthyite campaign for ASUO exec, and two years ago editor Ted Niedermeyer ran on an anti-douchebag platform.

The important thing to remember, though, is we’re not making the student government and its media coverage a circus. It’s already a circus. Everything about it is patently absurd. I mean, we’re talking about a group of college kids managing $11 million in student money. These are people who cry during Senate meetings and spend the rest of the time staring at Facebook.

And yet I’m berated by would-be politicos and would-be journalists for not treating this whole funny farm with absolute seriousness. Say what you will about the Commentator, but at least we recognize that we’re just a bunch of college students.

Of course, I understand that the ODE has to get up on its high horse every now and then and pretend to be Really Serious Journalism. If that’s the way they want to play it, fine (even though the ODE’s ASUO reporter and his editor were in the room yukking it up during my confirmation hearing). But if they thought I was making a mockery of things before, they’re in for a rude surprise. Just you wait.

I’m probably jinxing this but I’m going to go out on a limb and say that today’s (Friday, Jan. 30, 2009) print version of the Ol’ Dirty is actually worth reading in between classes.

The front page has what seems like a record FOUR stories gracing it. I assumed that they only covered 2 max.

Not only that but the lone op-ed piece is good. To preface, I opened it up expecting a diatribe on gays and how wonderful the LGBT is but the piece is decent, other than the crying while watching ‘Milk’ part. Gus van Sant is not that good, but that’s another thing. Anyway, Andrews actually comes across as rational, unlike certain ODE columnists named Conley.

Of course, the sports section is always good, it’s the lone saving grace of the paper. Generally, the sports section is the only thing worth reading. I don’t know how they do it but somehow they keep getting consistently good writers for sports. I lie a little bit here. There was that tool last year who said that the University should get rid of wrestling because he didn’t get it.

Here is the most amazing part about today’s issue of the Emerald.

Not counting the classifieds there are 28 advertisements (including ones for the Emerald) in this issue. Sure it sounds like a lot for an eight page spread but considering that normally the Emerald has 40+ for eight pages that number is astonishing. If you count the classifieds there are 47 ads total.

This means that there are actually words in today’s Emerald. Stories, pictures even. My god.

With the news of the I-fee going down and the Emerald actually producing a readable paper…

It’s a damn good Friday.

This year’s stable of ODE columnist is hardly a dream team, to say the least. On one end of the spectrum are writers like Matt Petryni, who is frequently readable if often conceptually dodgy (though kudos for standing up to OSPIRG). On the other end are the insipid scribblings of Alex Conley, whose columns often come across as clumsy and self-conscious attempts at trolling.

Situated somewhere betwixt the two is Truman Capps, who comes across like that good-natured Mormon kid you knew in high school who really dug marching band and was preternaturally enthusiastic about just about everything. Mr. Capps’ latest piece, “Do your part for America” echoes the suddenly popular calls to “serve the nation” now that President Obama has assumed power (mercifully, Capps avoids the sort of nauseatingly earnest grovelling that has become synonymous with many Obama supporters). Interestingly, he hits a slightly different note than some of the others currently pimping the “national service” idea:

It’s important now that we start pulling our own weight – not because President Obama wants us to, but because it’s what we should have been doing all along. We’ve got to start taking better care of our parks, roads and neighborhoods – our community gives us more than we realize, but its [sic] up to us to keep what we’ve got in good working order. [emphasis added]

What Capps actually seems to be describing (whether he realizes it or not) is not President Obama’s “mandatory volunteerism” so much as a renewed sense of individual responsibility. Even supposing that “President Bush… did not want or need the help of the American public”, as he claims, if we really wanted this “change” in our communities Capps admits that we could’ve been doing something about it all along. You know. If people hadn’t been spending their time whining about the Bush Administration and waiting for Obama and the government to come along and fix everything for them.

This is in stark contrast to “self-ascribed moderate” Alex Conley, who is apparently unaware of individual volunteer opportunities and practically chomping at the bit for the government to mandate service so he can “again be proud to be American.” One suspects this noble sentiment arose ex nihilo on January 20th and will wane the next time a Republican occupies the White House.

But volunteering was a worthy pasttime long before the Patriots of January 20th started bombarding us with schlocky YouTube videos and behavior that would be frankly embarrassing from prepubescent girls who got to meet Miley Cyrus backstage. By contrast, Truman Capps seems to grasp that volunteering is a fundamentally individual decision. It’s also one that loses much of its significance and takes on a new, somewhat more sinister character when mandated by the government.

So Truman Capps gets a gold star sticker today. Check plus.

ODE columnist Truman Capps wants you to “do your part for America“, and by “your part” he obviously means community service (emphasis added):

I had never felt bad about ducking my civic duties before Obama came to town. President Bush clearly did not want or need the help of the American public (as indicated by his unwillingness to consult us on matters of domestic wiretapping or FEMA appointees) and I didn’t want to give it to him. […]

It’s important now that we start pulling our own weight – not because President Obama wants us to, but because it’s what we should have been doing all along. […]

And yes, it’s very convenient that the liberal columnist is changing his views now that the Republican president has been replaced with a Democrat. However, I think this issue is bigger than politics. Hopefully Obama will do what we put him in office to do, but for it to work – and for it to keep working with the next president, regardless of his or her party – we’ve got to do our part, and not just with patriotic bumper stickers.

In case you didn’t catch the message, National Greatness is back! America is no longer the Orwellian, fascist dystopia of the Bush years. Now liberals can proudly listen to schmaltzy pro-America songs and pledge to serve their president. Y’know, the same thing they use to lampoon conservatives for. Jesus, guys, why don’t you just go to a Toby Keith concert and just get it over with?

For more on how everything is different now, check out yesterday’s ODE opinion piece, “Right-wing hypocrisy,” which happens to contain this delightfully hypocritical closing graph:

None of this [complaining] is productive. Acting like a 6-year-old does not accomplish anything except making a fool of oneself. It’s been a week now – the time for grieving is past – and it’s time to accept that the American people want to try it a new way.

Today’s ODE has an article about my upcoming appointment to the ASUO Senate, complete with sexy-time photo. According to the lede, I am a “high-profile conservative” on campus. Also, I am described as “a good guy” by Sen. Lidiana Soto (aw, thanks!), but some Senators did not appreciate my cover letter, which was apparently “flippant.”

There are several comments on the online story, my favorite of which simply says:

BLACK METAL FOR SENATE.
DETH TO NON-BELIEVERS.
CJ FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSE.

SIGNED 800

Speaking of which, If confirmed by Senate, I promise to represent my metalhead constituents to the best of my ability. Hail Satan, etc.

I’m not here to weigh in on the abortion debate but the Emerald is.

Towards the end of this op-ed the Emerald claims that they’re in this for logic and reason and that Obama is basically the end of ideological politics. First point, false. Second point, this entire op-ed seems to be pretty ideological. Just saying.

Now then, my two favorite parts of this article:

No one is pro-abortion – one thing both sides of the aisle can agree on is that it would be better if abortions simply weren’t necessary.

I’m not sure if the Emerald has read any pro-choice literature but there are a lot of people out there who are very much pro-abortion. In my thinking let’s also say that people who are pro-choice are also pro-abortion, you know, that whole having a choice to have an abortion or not thing.

In fact, here’s a guy who is very pro-abortion. I mean the title of the post is, “Why I love abortion.” It doesn’t get more pro than that.

And the second piece of the article that has me scratching my head is this one:

Perhaps most significant, and certainly most appropriate, given today’s date, is Obama’s statement that he will sign the “Freedom of Choice Act.” The bill will write Roe v. Wade and its protections into law and eliminate many abortion restrictions the court has allowed over the years, such as parental notification or consent laws.

I’m okay with this act, although I haven’t read enough of it to understand it all, but the problem I have is with the last seven words of the above paragraph. What is with pro-choice people and their adhoc hatred of parental notification and consent?

Young people under the age of 18 still need parental consent/notification for tattoos and certain kinds of piercings. They also need the same for most medical procedures. So I want to know when pro-choicers decided that a) abortion isn’t a medical procedure and b) that abortion was so high and mighty that it deserves special anti-parental consent/notification loopholes.

Seems to me that the Emerald threw logic and reasoning out the window with these two.