Oregon is the 8th freest state in the union, according to a recent study from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. The study, which ranks New Hampshire and South Dakota tied for #1 and New York #50, ranks states based on their social and personal freedoms, analyzing a number of public policies specific to each of the states and taking care to ensure that fiscal policies are analyzed based on cost to the taxpayer.

Oregon, specifically, is ranked #24 in economic freedom and #1 in personal freedom (believe it or not).

Despite the low taxes, government spending in Oregon remains much too high, resulting in relatively high state debt. Public safety, administration, and environment and housing look particularly ripe for cutting. Gun control laws are a bit better than average. Marijuana possession is decriminalized below a certain level, and there is medical marijuana (cultivation and sale are felonies, though). […]

The state’s cigarette taxes are higher than most, and its smoking bans were recently tightened. Oregon’s spirits tax is the highest in the country and quite extreme (though interestingly, its neighbor, Washington, is the only other state three standard deviations above the national average).

The study also outlines some policy recommendations for Oregon in order to reach an optimum freedom ranking:

1. At the state level, spending on the inspection and regulation bureaucracy, natural resources, and government employees’ retirement is well above national norms. We recommend cutting spending in these areas and reducing public debt.
2. Eliminate occupational licensing for massage therapists, funeral attendants, pest-control workers, elevator installers and repairmen, boilermakers, fishers and related fishing workers, agricultural product graders and sorters, farm-labor contractors, and other
3. Maintain, if not reduce, the minimum wage, even in the face of future inflation.

Oregon’s storied history of high property/income taxes and nonexistent sales taxes probably also contribute to our relative ranking, but from where I’m sitting, we’re doing fairly well. The full study can be downloaded here.

(Hat tip to the Oregonian for pointing us to this study.)

The student fee to fund the new EMU — which was going to charge current students for a building they were never going to get to use — will not be implemented next year. Not until there is a student referendum, anyway.

At a state Board of Higher Education meeting Friday, UO President Richard Lariviere withdrew the controversial proposal before it came up for discussion. Student leaders attended the meeting and were prepared to lobby against the fees, which ultimately would cost students $300 a year.

The money would be used to improve the aging Erb Memorial Union and expand the Student Recreation Center. Together, the projects are expected to cost $161 million, with $112.5 million coming from student fees.

UO student body President Ben Eckstein and other members of next year’s student government objected to the fees because students were not given the chance to vote on them. Some members of the state Board of Higher Education also had expressed reservations.

As a result, the university decided to wait and hold a vote on the fees after students return this fall, said Robin Holmes, the UO’s vice president for student affairs.

This is good news. Unlike the previous ASUO president, this one actually cares what students think. Nominal victory. But the administration, speaking through VP of Student Affairs Robin Holmes, seems to think everything will move forward without a hitch.

Stalling the fee will lose the project around $600,000 — $30 per student for fall term. Holmes is confident that the project will still move forward, however.

“I don’t anticipate this slowing us down,” Holmes said. “It’s okay to do the referendum and show we have student support and more forward with it.”

Our favorite anonymous professor over at UO Matters seems to think that admin agreeing to a referendum means they know the outcome. It’s very possible that students will still have to pay for a building before they can use it, including many who will not be around when it is completed. But at least students are being given a chance to express their opinion officially, and the outcome of a project is contingent on this student support or lack thereof.

Hey guys, tuition is going up. Again. By 9 percent.

The increases would leave the University of Oregon with the highest annual tuition and fees of $8,879. The university estimates that tuition and fees combined with room, board, books, supplies and other costs would put the total price tag for next year at $21,846. For an out-of-state or international student, tuition and fees would triple to $27,700, pushing the annual price to about $40,700.

Oh, so that’s why we have so many Californians on campus.

Still think the status quo is a good idea?

Under the governor’s proposed budget for 2011-13, the Oregon University System is expecting to get about $743 million from the state, $222 million less than it had requested. The proposed tuition increases would raise an additional $60 million next year, bringing the system’s total tuition revenue to $803.6 million for 2011-12.

Oregon needs solutions. Put down your picket signs and start thinking outside the box.

An autopen.

Firstly, why the fuck is there even such a thing as an autopen? As I type this, spell check underlines that word with the squiggly red line of blunder.  According to Frank James of NPR, “It is apparently the first time in U.S. history this has been done.”

Frank Jame’s article cites this part of the Constitution:

“Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it.”

The automatic signature was affixed to a bill extending the Patriot Act. Georgia Representative  Tom Graves of Georgia sent a letter to Obama, asking him to confirm whether he takes the constitution seriously.

…Just kidding, Tom Graves didn’t say that. But he did sort of call him out. This whole happenstance is excruciating political bullshit. Read the article outside, or next to a toilet. There are pictures of the autopens, too. They show six different kinds.

It would seem to me that having such a device would eventually debase, maybe even eliminate the importance of a signature. However, Obama is in Europe and that’s why it was done. He even signed a document authorizing the use of the autopen while abroad. So, I guess I understand that.

But the fucking Patriot Act?

Goddamnit, Obama… Goddamnit.

In a time where young people learn about history through video games and summer blockbusters and blogs are more highly read than books, a significant challenge is presented, not only to teachers who are trying to move students through the education system, but also to parents, politicians and those trying to educate and inform the the next group of young Americans about, among other things, the history of our great nation. In a culture so fragmented and disengaged, it is necessary to change the way we look at education in all forms, but it is arguably most important that young Americans know why there here, what that means, and how it all came to be.

It is likely with this in mind that the Bill of Rights Institute, an nonprofit based out of Arlington, VA that charges itself with educating young people about the United States Constitution, has started a new project: live-blogging the 1787 Philidelphia Convention.

This summer, the Bill of Rights Institute will be blogging the Philadelphia Convention of 1787.

Beginning … May 25 – the date when enough delegates had arrived to give the Convention a quorum – the Bill of Rights Institute’s ”A More Perfect Blog” will give weekly accounts of the key actions and conversations of the Convention.

The project is already underway, starting yesterday with the election of convention leadership, convention rules and the Virginia Plan. You can read the blog here. And please, tell as many young people as possible. It’s oging to be an amazing summer, made only greater by young Americans being informed about their history and the rights and freedoms they are granted because of it.

(Hat tip to Adam Kissel over at FIRE for pointing us to this cool project.)

“I have become a preaching machine!”

Thumping a well-worn blue Bible, Jed Smock – or Brother Jed, as he likes to be called – is one of the new faces generating controversy around the EMU Amphitheater for his confrontational preaching method. Sporting a bowtie, a sweater vest and a blue blazer, Brother Jed addresses individuals in the amphitheater audience and calls out to “wicked” and “promiscuous” students about how to “change their ways and follow Christ.”

A self-admitted “former hippie” who “found Jesus on a hippie commune in Africa,” Brother Jed is usually met with disdain, mockery and impassioned debate from students, groups such as the Alliance of Happy Atheists and random people walking by the amphitheater.

I had a chance to sit down with Brother Jed and talk about his presence on the University of Oregon.

Oregon Commentator: Why did you decide to preach in the University of Oregon amphitheater?
Brother Jed: I mean, you’re not going to get college students to get up and go to church early in the morning. So we need to go to them.
OC: Would you say you’ve made an impact [on campus]?
BJ: Oh, yes. I was just talking to someone who recently started reading the Bible. I get letters on my website, brotherjed.org, letters I’ve received from student over the years. They go something like this: “Dear Brother Jed, Your preaching made me so mad that I started reading the Bible to prove you wrong.” And then they find the faith!
OC: So is provoking people the main way you get your message across? It seems very in-your-face, very uncomfortable.
BJ: Yes, you need to engage the audience. I call it confrontational evangelism. The radical left [in the 1960s] talked of “confrontational politics,” really challenging the establishment. Whether you agree with their position or not, it worked… So yes, I want to stir up controversy and dialogue and debate… all college students are thinking about is mundane. They’re not asking “What is our moral foundation?” They aren’t the true questions, the right questions. They’re just focused on “Oh, I’ve got a test today” and “I hope I get laid tonight.” You’re distracted from God.
OC: Let’s talk a bit about how you became a Christian. You mentioned that you lived on a hippie commune in Africa…?
BJ: Yes, I did. One day a man who was dressed in Arabic attires – you know, a turban, a robe, all that – came preaching Jesus to us on Christmas Day, 1971. And we all laughed at him! But as a historian I had to admit that the Bible has great literary qualities. I mean, I was the son of an English professor and some of the greatest works of literature have been inspired by the Bible. So I thought I should read it for academic and spiritual purposes. I was going to study under the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in India but I thought “Why don’t I study my religion instead?”
OC: So Judaism, Islam and Christianity all recognize Jesus as a prophet.
BJ: Well, the Jews don’t.
OC: Right. But still, all three religions come from the tree of Abraham. Would you say there’s kinship between Jews, Muslims and Christians?
BJ: Islam denies that Jesus died on the cross. The Qur’an says that “God had no son”… so really Islam is an attack on Christianity. They deny Jesus’ sacrifice. We’re different. No, we believe in the Trinity. We believe Jesus is God!
OC: Has being in academia informed how you preach?
BJ: Yes. I remember reading the Bible and wanting to tell the good news to people! But there’s only so much you can do inside a building, so I decided to go outside.
OC: Would you say you appeal to reason in your preaching?
BJ: It’s about preaching but it’s also about teaching. It’s an appeal to man’s conscience, recognizing this party lifestyle and trying to get them thinking about their life. Most students aren’t thinkers, they’re feelers. So I appeal to that emotion.
OC: Let’s talk about Satan. Do you believe in Satan, that there is an evil force out there?
BJ: I do believe in a fallen angel, Lucifer does mean “bringer of light.” He was perfect in all of his. But they found sin in him. So he rally one third of the angels to rebel against God. Now that took a long time, that’s not an overnight thing… I do believe Lucifer became frustrated with God because God governs the universe not by sheer force but by love. And love puts restraints on us all. It’s like our soldiers over in Afghanistan… if we didn’t have this Christian morality, we’d just wipe ‘em all out, get it over with, y’know? [Laughs] But God is about love, so we can’t do that. God is gonna demonstrate that love always wins. The Devil has all this experience in the realms of hate and power, but what looks stronger than Jesus hanging on the cross? Love defeated hate on the cross. Love will defeat evil.
OC: Would you say the devil is on college campuses? How do you reason that?
BJ: I do believe in demonic possession. I don’t think any students are possessed, but the Devil does influence us with temptations.
OC: What kind of temptations?
BJ: The drugs, the alcohol and the sex before marriage… they all make us morally weak. Drugs and alcohol puts our conscience to sleep. And the music! They’re listening to this decadent rock music, or hip-hop and this music is seductive!
OC: Thank you for your time, Brother Jed.

A story on the controversy surrounding Brother Jed will be available in the forthcoming Commentator.

Senate Bill 764, which has made its way through the Oregon Senate and has been referred to the House Business and Labor Committee, allows the OLCC to adopt a new rule: municipalities with over 50,000 residents can, through a petition from a representative, declare alcohol impact areas. As it stands currently, the only municipalities that can petition for an alcohol impact area are those with over 300,000 residents, of which there is only one: Portland.

In September 2010, Portland filed one such petition, which was approved in December. The alcohol impact area in that case included that licensees in portions of downtown and northwest Portland and had many stipulations regarding malt beverages and wine, including that OLCC licensees cannot sell malt beverages of over 5.75% alcohol by volume (ABV) and wine or cider over 14% ABV.

From what I understand, these impact areas are designed to cut down on public intoxication and general disorderly conduct in public places. Eugene has experimented with this before, over in the Whiteaker neighborhood: Commentator contributor Ben Maras has a great post about those over on his blog. On the Whiteaker experiment:

With the Whiteaker experiment last year, three stores were asked to participate by removing high content (8% alcohol by volume) hooch from their shelves, and one agreed to participate on its own.

After 90 days, advocates looked at crime statistics and decided that yes, correlation was as good as causation. They declared it a runaway success, comparing it to similar experiments in Washington that yielded a drop in alcohol related crime – shockingly – where people couldn’t buy their booze of choice.
The response from business owners who rely on these products for much of their revenue has been less than enthusiastic. Of the 43 businesses the OLCC spent months courting to voluntarily join the “alcohol impact zone” only nine were game. This was in part because of the amount of their reported sales that malt liquor and bum wine comprise (30%, according to some), and part in fear that if they complied and other businesses didn’t, they would lose business. The OLCC’s response: Force everyone to comply.

The forward movement of the bill likely has to do with the success of the experiment, which, if passed, would definitely impact Eugene and its 156,185 residents.

The question then comes to, as it often does on the Commentator blog, at what point are we sacrificing our personal choice for a “greater goal” (perceived safety, in this case)? One of the OLCC’s stated goals is to prevent over-saturation in the state by regulating the 143 liquor stores in Oregon (yes, all of them are state-run) and owning/distributing every drop of liquor in the state. But when do post-prohibition policies run their course? When do we trust Americans to make their own decisions?

Depending on the passage of this bill, only time will tell. For now, I’m going to buy a 40 of Mickey’s and enjoy it while I still can.

(P.S. Serious hat tip to the Oregonian for Your Government, which allows Oregonians to keep track of their representatives and the pieces of legislation they sponsor.)

The Oregon Supreme Court ruled today that qualified medical marijuana card holders can also apply for and receive a concealed-carry license. The case goes back to a retired bus driver in Grants Pass, who made the mistake of admitting that she was a cardholder in the state-run medical marijuana program when she went to renew her concealed carry license. Officials branded her as a drug addict and said that her medical treatment program barred her from the right to carry a concealed weapon under federal law. But the Supreme Court of Oregon reminded cleared things up for them.

The ruling issued in Salem, Ore., upheld previous decisions by the Oregon Court of Appeals and circuit court in finding that a federal law barring criminals and drug addicts from buying firearms does not excuse sheriffs from issuing concealed weapons permits to people who hold medical marijuana cards and otherwise qualify.

“We hold that the Federal Gun Control Act does not pre-empt the state’s concealed handgun licensing statute and, therefore, the sheriffs must issue (or renew) the requested licenses,” Chief Justice Paul De Muniz wrote.

In other words: states’ rights, bitches. Labeling law-abiding medical patients as dangerous criminals because their treatment is “wrong” in the eyes of authoritarian lawmakers is not only petty and childish, but also downright dangerous when real criminals come into the picture.

The more innocent people get caught up in the prohibition mentality, the more ambiguous the justification for these laws becomes. If the goal is merely to keep guns out of the hands of violent offenders (who are less likely to follow concealed carry laws anyway), it’d be difficult to find anyone less violent than a stoned medical marijuana patient. Oregon has nearly 40,000 registered marijuana patients, who don’t fit the Cheech and Chong paradigm, and have had their medicine prescribed for any number of reasons. Their rights, as well as the rights of the states to make their own policy on guns, drugs, etc., should trump federal meddling of how things “ought” to be.

The Northwest Indiana Times is reporting that the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that Indiana residents have no right to prevent a police officer from illegally entering their homes.

The official decision can be downloaded here. The decision was by no means unanimous, with two justices believing that the ruling goes against the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

From the article (emphasis mine):

“We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,” [Justice Steven] David said. “We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”

David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system. […]

Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court’s decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

“In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally — that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances,” Rucker said. “I disagree.”

Based on Justice David’s opinion and the court’s subsequent ruling, in order for citizens to protest a decision of a law enforcement official, they must do it through the same system that instigated the transgression. As Americans, our rights should be granted to us, and should it want to take them away, the government must provide a damn good reason. A serious infringement is created in a situation where Hoosiers must defend their rights to privacy within the very system that is trying to take them away. This may be the worst example of nanny-state politicking in place today. Here’s hoping Oregon never decides go down this path.

There is much debate in the state of Oregon about Senate Bill 742, which “Provides that certain students are entitled to exemption from nonresident tuition and fees at state institutions of higher education.” These “certain students” are illegal immigrants and children of illegal immigrants who went to high school or achieved a high school diploma (or the equivalent) in Oregon, and “exemption from nonresident tuition and fees” means in-state tuition.

The legislation has passed the Oregon Senate, making its way to the Oregon House Rules Committee. A public hearing was held this week, where a large group of people came to testify on both sides of the aisle. From the Oregonian:

The hearing drew a packed crowd that spilled into two other hearing rooms and the Capitol hallways, where they could watch it on television. A total of 23 people testified in support of the bill, including Susan Castillo, state superintendent of public instruction; Jim Francesconi, vice president of the State Board of Higher Education; business owners, students and several legislators.

Francesconi said all of the university presidents and the entire state board support the bill. Based on a study of other states with similar laws, university officials project the bill would bring only a handful of illegal students into Oregon universities – about 33 to 39 a year, climbing to about 60 a year by 2016-17. […]

Another 22 people spoke against the bill. They included members of immigration reform groups, retired military men, and many Salem residents. Many of them argued the law would cost the state thousands, even millions, of dollars in lost tuition.

“I’d like to dub this bill the feel-good flop for this session,” said Cynthia Kendall of Salem. “Everyone wants to feel like they are doing something good for the children of illegal aliens. …The Oregon citizen, the Oregon college student and the Oregon taxpayer are getting the shaft.”

There have also been a slew of letters in the Oregon Daily Emerald in support of and in opposition to the bill, including ones written by UO administration and ASUO officials. The first one, co-signed by University President Richard Lariviere and ASUO President-elect Ben Eckstein (yeah, probably the last time that’ll happen), shows strong support for the bill:

Students who would benefit from this legislation are successful and high-achieving students who have inherited circumstances outside of their control. Just as we are working toward a brighter future for Oregon, students who would benefit from SB 742 are working to build on the investment the state has made in them. With affordable access to higher education, they will strengthen Oregon’s communities and contribute to the state’s economy.

ASUO Vice President-elect Katie Taylor also gave her two cents, drawing on her personal experience (which, in my opinion, is fairly unrelated, but so long as it makes her feel good):

As an undergraduate student and incoming vice president of the ASUO, I think it is absurd that a person can live in the state of Oregon practically their entire life and then be charged out-of-state tuition. I myself was not born in Oregon; I became a resident before I attended college and was charged in-state tuition.

As a working-class student, I am thankful that I am able to more easily afford to go to school, and undocumented students that have grown up in Oregon deserve as least this much. Furthermore, I know my college experience is enhanced by the diversity of students who attend my school. We should be working towards finding ways to increase this diversity, not decrease it. So with that, I am calling out to all students and community members to support SB 742 and call our representatives to ask them to do the same.

The only letter in opposition to the bill was written by UO undergraduate Adam Marcus, whose opposition — focused on the financial burden on the state — seems only a tiny bit misguided, but makes a good point:

In what namesake is this a level of equality? The in-state tuition is supported by the taxpayers of this great state, so it essentially boils down to the rest of us to carry the fiscal burden of another classification of students.

And did no one read the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996? It clearly states that “no U.S. state entity will offer benefits to Illegal Aliens not available to all legal residents of the United States.” This means that if there should be an exemption of in-state tuition to this illegal populous, it would have to allow a student-resident of Iowa in for the same price. Call me crazy, but that is a rather big mistake there.

I find this proposition of equality a clouded bias towards a temporary fiscal spike that would end up dragging the Oregon economy even further into recession. The clause of these applicants “demonstrating their intent to be permanently domicile in Oregon” is a conglomeration of fancy words intended to take away from the real issue. Illegal immigrants pay no taxes because they are exempt from the system. Why should we citizens support those who don’t contribute their portion to the society?

He does have a point. In a state with no sales tax — somewhat of an equalizer in determining who is paying taxes compared to Oregon’s current state — those who own property and have higher (taxed) income are paying a greater portion into the state coffers, the situation exists where legal citizens are bankrolling the lives of illegals. The federal DREAM act seems to be facing similar opposition.

Anyone who wants to be a citizen of the United States should be able to become one. Legal immigration should be much easier than it is. But should we really give greater allowances to illegal immigrants that United States citizens? In order to become an Oregon resident and achieve in-state tuition, an American from another state needs to work for a year (taxable income) and establish a home in Oregon. He or she cannot be a full-time student. And even when he or she has achieved this year of working in Oregon, there is no guarantee that he or she can become an Oregon resident for tuition purposes — it’s up to UO Admissions.

Is this legislation fair to the hard-working non-resident UO students who would now not only be footing the bill for in-state residents but also illegal immigrants? I’m going to say no. That’s not tuition equity I can believe in.

Friday’s RG had an interesting Greg Bolt article about the upcoming EMU and Student Rec Center renovations. The Oregon Commentator has covered this issue sporadically throughout the year, but Mr. Bolt has more information on how the project is moving forward, and how it is going to be funded [emphasis added]:

The University of Oregon could soon launch a huge overhaul of student recreation and activities facilities if it can win quick state approval of a $160.5 million plan to expand two key buildings.

The plan, which faces some challenges, would demolish and rebuild a substantial portion of the Erb Memorial Union, the central gathering space on campus for students and student groups. It also would add more than 100,000 square feet to the Student Recreation Center, including adding a two-pool swimming center.

Money for the project — which would get under way next year if approved by the state university system and legislators — would come from several sources, including private donations and funds already set aside for the work. But the largest amount would be raised through bonds backed by a substantial new fee on students, including students who would graduate before ever getting to use the new buildings.

For comparison, the most recent renovations to the Student Recreation Center happened in 1997, and current students are still paying them off, to the tune of $43.25 per term. This fee has been flat since Fall 2009, but was rising before it reached that plateau. It seems that the new fees will have a similar structure:

The work would be financed using $13.5 million the university previously set aside for the project, $35 million in private donations and the rest through bonds repaid with the new student fee. The fee would start at $30 per term in 2011-12, rise to $60 per term in 2012-13 and after that would remain at $100 per term — that’s $300 for an academic year — until the bonds were repaid.

$100 per term? Tack on the aforementioned $43.25 for the 1997 Rec Center renovations, the $45 building fee (for students taking 9 credits or more), $140.75 for the health services fee (regardless of how many credits you’re taking), and the $191 incidental fee, and you’re looking at $520 in fees per term (at least — we all know the incidental fee is going to keep rising no matter what). That’s $1,560 per year in fees, on top of tuition. That’s insane.

Now, the bonds and the subsequent student fee will still have to be approved by the state legislature, and never before has the legislature approved a fee for a building before it was built (for obvious reasons). Leave it to the University of Oregon to try and rock that boat.

What will we be getting for this exorbitant cost to students?

The newer wing of the EMU, built in the 1970s, would be demolished and rebuilt, creating 107,000 square feet of new construction.

With renovation of the older, Ellis Lawrence-designed main building, the EMU would gain a 1,200-seat performance venue, conference facilities, a 300-seat theater, expanded food court, space for 15 student unions and scores of student organizations, a computer lab and other features.

The original plan also included underground parking, but that was eliminated to save money.

[…]

The Student Recreation Center would gain a swimming center with connected lap and leisure pools, double the space for weight and fitness equipment, a three-court gym, expanded indoor jogging track, new racquetball and squash courts, new outdoor synthetic turf fields and more.

I completely understand the reason for the renovation, especially to the EMU, which is to bring more students to their student union. The biggest problem with the union, however, and any EMU board member will tell you this, is that the building is not financially self-sufficient. There are not enough revenue-generating services in the building to sustain itself, so students are subsidizing the cost of the building to the tune of $5,091,532 for 2011-12 (that’s for programs, services and building operations), plus additional funds from elsewhere in the university.

I have yet to see the official renovation plans, so I am unsure as to what exactly the new EMU will entail, but one worthy upgrade would be an actual kitchen (the one currently being used by food services is makeshift). Ideally, the performance venue and theater will create some revenue generation, or at least bring students to the union to make it a central part of campus. (Side note: did you know that the Grateful Dead once played in the EMU Ballroom, as well as many other worthwhile acts including Mudhoney?)

But the elimination of parking was also an interesting choice. And the (in my opinion, ridiculously extravagant) upgrades to the Student Rec Center seem frivolous and unnecessary, especially considering the state of disrepair of many other campus buildings.

Another issue that has not been addressed here is the fact that, from what I’ve heard, student programs will no longer have individual offices once the building is renovated. When I spoke with Vice President of Capital Projects Gregg Lobisser this past fall, he mentioned that the “space for 15 student unions and scores of student organizations” mentioned in the article would mean 15 satellites for student groups, including the Student Sustainability Center, the Multicultural Center, the ASUO and the Women’s Center. Within these satellite spaces, individual student programs would have their own work stations with lockers, but would likely not have their own office spaces.

Additionally, when we spoke, he said there were not yet plans for accommodation of student media services — that is to say, none of these “satellite unions” will be a Student Media Center, or even anything remotely similar.

Granted, the current model does not adequately serve the hundreds of groups that a student union should be able to accomodate. There are over 160 fee-funded student programs and less than half of them have offices, but those who do have offices have had them for a long time and use them to the fullest. Ask a program like the Oregon Voice, who was displaced from its office earlier this year to a much smaller space in The Break. Noah Dewitt, editor-in-chief of the Oregon Voice, said that the new space is much smaller than the previous space, does not have any storage space, is much louder than their previous space (The Break has a multitude of pool and ping-pong tables), and is open subject to The Break’s operating hours rather than the EMU’s operating hours, which means they can’t access their space as frequently. The storage space is likely the biggest issue, because they can’t access their archives themselves — they need someone from EMU Facilities to let them into their own storage.

Some student groups, the Oregon Commentator included, use their spaces for myriad activities — in our example, we hold meetings and work sessions in our office, as well as producing our magazine. I can’t imagine how difficult it would be to undergo production with a Student Insurgent desk five feet away and a Siren workstation five feet behind. It would be near impossible to do what we do under these circumstances.

Again, this all has yet to be approved by the legislature, and frankly, I’m not sure it will. But it’s something to start thinking about now, during the planning stages when large decisions are being made.

The rumor mill says that most members of the EMU Board have signed a letter in support of this student fee. That makes sense — most of them won’t be around when the fee is incurred, so it won’t affect them. But it’s sure as shit going to affect most students on this campus, most of whom will never see the finished products.

Student fees are rising constantly, tuition is skyrocketing out of control, and to charge students who will no longer be around to experience the new buildings is asinine, especially for a building that is going to devalue the experience of being involved in student organizations. Maybe a new EMU theater and a Rec Center swimming pool are going to be awesome, but at the cost to students, it seems like an unworthy investment.

Apparently just learning how to show up on time and do what you’re told isn’t good enough anymore. The front page of today’s Ol’ Dirty featured a story about Oregon House Bill 2732, which would withhold a graduating high school senior’s diploma until they “showed proof of application to college, the U.S. armed forces or into an apprenticeship program.” Sound like complete bullshit? Apparently not enough bullshit for the majority of the Oregon House of Representatives.

The vote was split 33-26. Two thirds of the House Democrats voted for it, and while the Republicans weren’t so keen on it (only one third voted for it).

So in addition to forcing young adults kids to enlist in the military or take on tens of thousands of dollars of debt in hopes of a brighter job market by the time you’ve hit legal drinking age, it will also create a new breed of dropout for students who don’t want to do either, or don’t know yet. That’ll be great for the already-shaky state of the Oregon educational system. But Rep. Tobias Read (D-Beaverton) sees it another way:

“This bill does not intend to tell anyone what the right choice is for them. It merely seeks to prompt consideration of that question,” Read said on the House floor. “Think about the student who intends to work in the family business. Wouldn’t he likely benefit from some accounting or bookkeeping classes at the community college.”

Yes, yes he (or she) would. But does he really think that there’s anyone on the face of the earth who’s thought about that more that the student has? After all, they’ve had a long time to think about it, and by that time probably had to answer to the incessant “So what are you going to do next?” from the family about 470 times. Maybe he knew exactly what he wanted to do at 18, and never spent most of his twenties wondering if what he was doing was really what he should be, (unless everyone else feels that way, too; if so, ignore that last sentence).

Next it moves on to the Democrat-controlled Oregon Senate (60% Democrats / 40% Republicans), where it will likely fester for some time before being passed along party lines and then blocked by the courts.

For those of you in the beer world who keep tabs on the  Brewers Association or the craft beer scene, you may have heard: Goose Island, a craft beer brewery, has just been bought by Anheuser-Busch (newly acquired by InBev).  What this means is that Goose Island beer could turn into the same watered down piss that AB already brews and bottles.  Typically the bigger company will sacrifice good ingredients like real hops, malt and barely to replace it with cost effective extracts and artificial flavors.  Speaking of beer tasting like piss, the Brewmaster  Greg Hall himself brewed his own concoction of beer the other night. Huffington Post reports:

It’s been a real up-and-down couple of weeks for Greg Hall.

The brewmaster at Goose Island announced in late March that he’d be leaving that role, as the Chicago-based craft brewer was bought up by Anheuser-Busch for a hefty $39 million. He’ll be leaving for an undisclosed new project, according to statements at the time.

And last Friday night, Hall celebrated his 45th birthday at Bangers and Lace, a self-described craft beer and sausage bar that Time Out Chicago recently named its Best New Bar.

Unfortunately, according to the Chicago Tribune, the celebration got a bit out of hand. In a conversation with the Tribune on Monday, Hall didn’t deny accusations made by the Bangers staff that he urinated in two beer glasses and left them at the bar.

Looks like someone partied a little too hard.  The intoxicated Brewmaster made his father’s brewery (of 23 years) become known for more than just beer the other night while celebrating his 45th Birthday at Wicker Parks Bangers & Lace.  Folks, this is quite the drunken tale.

Hall unveiled a brew all his own: pissing in two pint glasses. After throwing a few back Hall proceeded to go behind the counter of the bar and proceeded to urinate in two glasses, leaving them on the bar.  At this point Hall probably should have discreetly left, but he had to be escorted from the premises by staff to his car (hopefully he wasn’t driving).

Yes we can all laugh at the silly over-the-top drunken escapades of a man threw one too many back, but there is a bitter note to this story.  What beer lover might not realize is that Hall’s company has just sold out to a corporate giant which has a monopoly on almost half of the beer industry.  As Huffington Post points out though, craft breweries like Goose Island are doing well, but I guess if I was offered that much money I would probably allow myself to be bought too.

John Hall, the head of Goose Island, said that the company was quickly outgrowing its capacities, having to limit production of some of its most popular beers, and that the deal with Anheuser-Busch would help the company continue to expand. “This agreement helps us achieve our goals with an ideal partner who helped fuel our growth, appreciates our products and supports their success,” Hall said, in a statement on the buyout.

Looking at the real numbers, small breweries are popping up all across the country, the BA lists 85 breweries just in Oregon. Understandably Goose Island was growing but as the rest of the HP article points out, small breweries are gaining attention while bigger companies are losing it.

As the Wall Street Journal points out, craft brewing has been an exceptionally solid performer in an otherwise unexceptional beer market in recent years. Craft beer sales were up 11 percent last year, while the broader industry was down one percent.

I do not disagree with smaller breweries expanding, but typically with these sorts of expansions in the beer industry, it leads to a more generic product using lower quality ingredients just to cut costs.  It also moves the flow of money from within a state economy into the wider commercial economy, which results in states losing money to outside sources.  Whether it is sourcing ingredients for the product from farther away or giving jobs to workers who are out-of-state, it hurts the local economy.

When a consumer buys beer from a small or local brewery they are more likely to receive a fresher, higher quality product because the ingredients used in the beer were sourced locally (fresh is good). Sourcing ingredients locally means that brewers are supporting local farmers, creating a co-op effect within the community.  Radical thoughts: local people stimulating local economy by buying products that are made locally.  I am sorry for the locavore commotion train, but the dollar signs make sense.

This installment of Oregon news briefs is all about nanny bills. Special thanks to the Oregon Legislature for plenty of fodder via their vaguely-sexualized obsession with getting involved in other people’s lives.

Despite the fact that we already have anti-littering laws, cops are complaining of a lack of enforcement when it comes to flicking cigarette butts on the ground. Their plan: make a new crime, and classify “unlawful disposal of a tobacco product” as a separate littering offense that would carry a $90 fine. Current laws do cover cigarette butts, but are seldom enforced, possibly because “offensive littering” carries potential jail time, and is sometimes considered too harsh.

(more…)

Student loan debt has outpaced credit card debt and will reach $1 trillion this year. From the New York Times:

Two-thirds of bachelor’s degree recipients graduated with debt in 2008, compared with less than half in 1993. Last year, graduates who took out loans left college with an average of $24,000 in debt.

State support dwindles (both for the university’s budget and in terms of financial aid), tuition goes up, students have more debt. This is the status quo.

We need something bold. We need something new. Maybe next year’s legislative session will have some answers.