President Frohnmayer sent out this mass email earlier this evening, informing the University community on the progress of the new arena:

Read the rest of this entry »

In the video linked below, CNN is interviewing two university students, one Democrat and one Republican. CNN asks them who they think will take the primary for their respective parties, and are absolutely shocked when the Republican says Ron Paul. However, Miss GOP’s arguments make a lot of sense. Ron Paul really is a true conservative, and the majority of the Republican party has strayed from their traditional values.

The Democrat student, on the other hand, is the epitome of stupid Democrats. She doesn’t answer the question asked, and repeatedly generalizes, saying that “I just want a Democrat in office.” Has the thought ever crossed her mind that many politicians identify with one of the two big parties FOR political, not ideological reasons? Democrats vary from “gun-control, free pot, let all illegal immigrants have citizenship” crazies to moderates that say “we should stay in Iraq but change the course and maintain a strong presence abroad”.

I hope that not all Democrats are as dumb as she is. I know that these are just two people out of millions, but the Republican is clearly more of a thinker in this case, and solidly wins my confidence.

UO Public Relations has begun forwarding a revised statement from President Frohnmayer regarding the Student Insurgent. What follows is directly from a forwarded email:

Dave Frohnmayer has made an addition to his original statement (sent 4/26/06) and we want to make sure that all constituency groups receive the updated statement. You’ll see a double asterisk (**) at the beginning and end of the paragraph that was added.

The student publication, The Insurgent, recently published content of offensive nature in their publication. We have received numerous inquires about the publication and the offensive content. Below is the President’s response to these inquires and a copy of the letter to the editor the President submitted on April 12, to the daily student newspaper, the Oregon Daily Emerald.

Statement/response by President Frohnmayer

Thank you for your note about the student publication, The Insurgent. I share your concern about the offensive nature of the content contained within the publication.

I understand why it may seem as if the University should have prevented publication or should take some action against those responsible for the publication. The Student Insurgent is not owned, controlled or published by the University of Oregon and is funded with student fees. Therefore, the University cannot exercise editorial control over its content.

**Further, neither the University itself, nor the Associated Students of the University of Oregon, can exercise control over content by using a threat of removal of fee support. The U.S. Supreme Court has spoken on this matter. The Rosenberger and Southworth opinions restrict a public university’s ability to make decisions about incidental fee allocations on the basis of the content or viewpoint expressed by a recognized student group. Simply put, neither content nor viewpoint is a lawful basis for denying an allocation of incidental fees to a student group.**

The best response to offensive speech often is more speech. Wednesday, April 12, the daily student newspaper, the Oregon Daily Emerald, published the enclosed letter from me reminding the campus community of the need to engage in responsible civic dialogue. I am strongly opposed to speech that makes individuals feel that they or their beliefs are unwelcome or belittled, and I can assure you I will use all permissible means to respond to publications such as the recent Insurgent.

————

April 12, 2006

To the editor:

We are again called upon to explore the tension between the rights born from the constitutional protection of freedom of speech and the sometimes offensive content protected under this umbrella. I applaud the Emerald’s April 6 editorial calling on the campus media to strive for an educated, civil dialogue concerning significant ideas and current events.

While I am an ardent supporter of free speech, I also have strong beliefs that this freedom should be exercised with maturity and good judgment. Our campus community, including our media, must be part of a civil dialogue that respects the rights and beliefs of our entire campus community even while it questions and challenges some of those beliefs.

As stated thoughtfully in the Emerald’s own editorial, our media should not focus on creating controversy for controversy’s sake, but should instead seek to raise significant societal issues in ways that promote campus debate rather than making individuals feel that they or their beliefs are unwelcome and belittled.

Sincerely,

Dave
Frohnmayer

President

In my opinion Frohnmayer should have cited Southworth (and Rosenberger) when the outrage started to build, not now after it has reached a crescendo. Hell, he should have mentioned it last year when the Commentator faced defunding due to a penis joke.

The Ol’ Dirty has a rather interesting editorial up today decrying the Oregon State Supreme Court’s decision to overturn two sex show laws. It isn’t worth my time to address the Editorial Board’s entire opinion, so instead I’ll focus on the last four paragraphs:

Business managers at clubs argue that those involved in sex shows are consenting adults who deserve their rights to free expression. Yet such a viewpoint ignores the slippery slope from nude dancing to prostitution.

Of course there’s a slippery slope from nude dancing to prostitution. But slippery slope arguments don’t hold much weight in my mind, as they can be used to disrepute pretty much any freedom we citizens have. There’s a slippery slope from occasionally drinking alcohol to being an alcoholic, from owning a gun to hunt to owning a gun to kill another person, from using abortion as a means of last resort to using abortion as a regular form of birth control, from driving a car safely to driving a car recklessly. People should have control over their own bodies, even when it means using said bodies for practices the majority finds immoral or disgusting.

In a strip club, dancing on stage garners less money than a lap dance, which garners far less money than a private sex encounter with a John in a motel room. Such monetary earning patterns partially explain how strippers become gradually more comfortable with the idea of prostitution.

And why is that? Because “a private sex encounter” is illegal and thus scarcer. This illegal encounter is far more dangerous for both parties than a legalized and controlled encounter would be. (And, of course, more profitable for the middleman pimps.)

As long as prostitution remains morally objectionable in Oregon, the legality of live sex shows should not be validated by the court. The Oregon Legislature should address this issue by crafting laws that specifically prohibit the exchange of sex for money.

Another worthless, hypocritical argument. Homosexual marriage remains morally objectionable to most Oregonians, if the last ballot measure is any indication. Does that mean it should continue to be illegal? Of course not. Individual rights should trump the right of the moral majority to invade people’s bedrooms and hotel rooms.

The court’s decision to authorize private sex performances is in compliance with neither the values of constitutional framers, nor with the values of most Oregon citizens today.

Since the ODE suddenly values the opinion of the moral majority (and the imagined morals of a bunch of dead politicians) over that of an individual’s rights, one would expect the Editorial Board to soon come out against abortion in red states and assisted suicide and gay marriage nationwide. We’ll see. It’s funny how organizations with no institutional memory change over the years.

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin has announced that city officials are running out of supplies for “rescued” people stuck in the convention center. In the midst of 90+ degree heat and 90+% humidity, the mayor has announced that these people will begin marching a number of miles to where relief will supposedly be.

This directly contradicts what Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff said just moments before, when he announced that FEMA had all the resources they needed and were working furiously to rescue and relieve people.

If so, why haven’t there at least been air drops of water and food to the ceonvention center? Why are there still people stuck in rescue centers in New Orleans? Why is it, when I see images of the convention center, there are never any authorities in sight? The federal response has been pathetic.

From an AP article:

Outside the Convention Center, the sidewalks were packed with people without food, water or medical care, and with no sign of law enforcement. Thousands of storm refugees had been assembling outside for days, waiting for buses that did not come.

At least seven bodies were scattered outside, and hungry people broke through the steel doors to a food service entrance and began pushing out pallets of water and juice and whatever else they could find.

An old man in a chaise lounge lay dead in a grassy median as hungry babies wailed around him. Around the corner, an elderly woman lay dead in her wheelchair, covered with a blanket, and another body lay beside her wrapped in a sheet.

“I don’t treat my dog like that,” 47-year-old Daniel Edwards said as he pointed at the woman in the wheelchair. “I buried my dog.” He added: “You can do everything for other countries but you can’t do nothing for your own people. You can go overseas with the military but you can’t get them down here.”

[…]

Terry Ebbert, head of the city’s emergency operations, warned that the slow evacuation at the Superdome had become an “incredibly explosive situation,” and he bitterly complained that FEMA was not offering enough help.

“This is a national emergency. This is a national disgrace,” he said. “FEMA has been here three days, yet there is no command and control. We can send massive amounts of aid to tsunami victims, but we can’t bail out the city of New Orleans.”

Beyond the incompetence and lack of leadership in FEMA’s efforts, the citizens of New Orleans are under attack from armed thugs roaming the city. Arsonists started a number of fires near the Superdome, and people were shooting at a National Guard helicopter. Meanwhile, the scum who’ve been looting include police officers and other authorities. Disgusting. But it’s been the violence that’s hurt relief efforts the most, as Reuters reports:

Two hospitals were under siege by robbers who used axes, guns and metal pipes to steal pain killers and medicine, according to a pilot flying relief operations into New Orleans.

Power and water were off and supplies were exhausted. Critically ill patients were dying one by one without oxygen, insulin and intravenous fluids, the pilot said.

I’m lucky. My immediate family is now safe and sound in Houston. It’s too early for them to even begin thinking about where they will live now that their homes are either destroyed or under 8+ inches of water. But they are safe and sound, which is more than what can be said for so many of the people in the greater New Orleans area. They need help, and they need it now. They need more boats, more food, more water, and more semi-permanent shelter space immediately.

Also, thanks to Tim and Dan for keeping up with the Katrina blogging while I’ve been traveling.

To get some idea of the sheer anarchy that is prevalent in New Orleans right now, read this Editor and Publisher piece.

Ailee Slater has a new column in today’s Emerald titled A look at the BRIGHT SIDE. It’s vintage Slater: whiny and incoherent. Granted, this is an improvement over her previous column, which supplemented these qualities with a massive dose of fear mongering. Let’s take a look at each.

The walls are closing in on women begins hilariously enough:

Nation-wide discussion regarding womens rights has taken a recent interest in privacy, and for good reason. Newly appointed Judge John D.
Roberts is seen by many conservatives as the golden ticket to a sweet candy fountain of babies; he could be the vote responsible for overturning Roe V. Wade.

Ahh, the sweet candy fountain of babies. What’s so bad about these pro-lifers anyways? Candy is delicious!

Can the argument be made (as was done in Roe V. Wade) that the Fourth Amendments protection against unreasonable search and seizure is tantamount to the protection of privacy, and therefore the right of a woman to seek abortion?

Unfortunately for Ailee, Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with the Fourth Amendment. Roe v. Wade hinges on interpretations of the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, which delegate rights to the States respectively, or to the people and holds that [n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, respectively. Search and seizure has nothing to do with it.

I have discovered this: These discussions are not about privacy, they are about personal space, and it is time that they were framed (possibly in the Constitution) in such a way.

A right to privacy covers a citizen’s personal space. The pro-life argument is that a fetus also has personal space that should be respected.

Women especially have felt the brunt of Americas personal encroachment; think everything from the Patriot Acts wiretaps to pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control. This sentiment of anger over losing space emerged in myself after a recent experience with two girlfriends.

How in the hell do wiretaps disproportionately affect women? And private businesses, including pharmacies, have the right to not sell products they don’t want to sell. If your pharmacist won’t sell you birth control pills, then take your business somewhere else.

For the first part of our evening, my friends and I sat in the living room with all blinds closed, on account of the large hookah resting atop our coffee table. We always close the shades, but at least a little fear remains. In a perhaps paranoid state, my friends and I got to wondering, what if the federal government had reason to suspect one of us of terrorism? After all, we are three very liberal college students who have signed more than one petition, with a valid name and address. If through an investigation someone came across our big blue hookah, we would be prosecuted in an instant.

You are write in a paper of record that you own a hookah, yet you are afraid of someone finding out that you own one? And you think you’d be prosecuted on terrorism charges as a result?

So we sit with our shades closed; often lamenting the fact that we cant peacefully smoke on our own porch, without the threat of intervention.

If you’re smoking tobacco, then it’s perfectly legal and acceptable to smoke a narghile outside. I’m sorry you can’t smoke pot outside, in public, without possibly being caught. That’s the breaks of smoking something illegal, I’m afraid.

On this night, once it was completely dark and about an hour away from midnight, the three of us decided to walk four blocks to the nearest store and buy fruit.

Unfortunately, the Eugene outdoors after dark did nothing to give us the space we had been craving while trapped inside the living room.

Shadows fell up and down the street, run-down pick-up trucks blocked cool yellow lights.

Yes, the nighttime is dark and oftentimes creates shadows. I apologize on the sun’s behalf. And yes, some people can’t afford to trade in their run-down pickups for modern yuppiemobiles. I apologize on their behalf, too.

As luck would have it, we left the house discussing the possibility of intruders; in a few moments, when a tall male neighbor walked out of his house, the silence between the three of us was cue enough that no one was comfortable with this walk.

Oh my God, what’s going to ha…

But no one said anything, so we walked on.

Phew.

After all, our neighbor probably wasnt a rapist or murderer; at any rate, he didnt try to attack us.

A bold concession. You’re really letting him off too easy here, Ailee.

Just the same, my friends and I hovered toward the middle of the street. We then chose sides to walk on, based on their darkness/bushes ratio. When we reached a busy street, our three sighs of relief were audible.

Until, still jumpy and now walking past a dark field, we heard a male voice shout from the road. Though his words were indiscernible, the hecklers meaning was clear: You cant be a girl and walk at night in shorts.

You didn’t hear what he said, but you know it had to do with wearing shorts? OK.

We ran the rest of the way to the store, hurrying in, shaking. It took me at least a minute to get myself together and pick out a peach.

We were desperate for a safe place. All night, we had been searching for safe space.

Here’s the thing, Ailee: I’m willing to bet that you were perfectly safe at every point during the night. Three college-age women walking together should be safe in all but the most dangerous neighborhoods. You were scared because you and your friends got stoned and started talking about politics. As a consequence of the deadly mixture of THC and an idiotic worldview, you and your friends became extremely paranoid.

There are very strong arguments to be made for better lighting on streets, self-defense training for both women and men, and the condemnation of assholes who shout mean things from cars. Will you address these in the rest of your article?

Home was not safe because we could be spied on by people who would send us to jail (even if this situation was not probable, it seemed way too close to possible).

While the Patriot Act has introduced some very dangerous anti-privacy measures, you would not have been sent to jail unless there was probable cause that you had committed a crime.

The community was not safe, or ample in space because the threat of violent attack kept the three of us women confined. We huddled together; we only walked on certain streets; we will certainly never take such a trip again, nor wear a certain type of clothing after dark.

You will never walk to the store with two of your friends after dark again?

The threat of male violence is still keeping women confined, and inevitably trapped at home, begging the question of how far our society has come.

The threat of violence from and towards all different people is an everlasting problem that will never be fully overcome but must be fought against. Specifically, male violence against women is a serious problem, but women are not "inevitably trapped at home" once the sun goes down in Eugene.

Besides the threat of violence, womens bodies are also privy to constant encroachment of the surrounding world. Television commercials and programs tell us what to eat and what not to eat. Dont you hate it when your mother bothers you about food? I hate it when my television set, every 30 seconds or so, reminds me about eating and the way that I will look as a result.

Here’s a solution: Don’t watch TV. It isn’t like ABC executives have forced their way into your home and chained you down in front of the television. You have the choice to not watch.

Women everywhere are tired of this capitalist, classist tirade which relies upon someone else looking at my body and my space and telling me what to do with it.

Damn you capitalism! Stop looking at me!

The right to abortion, of course, is of the same logic. Its not just a right to privacy, its a right to have the personal space to do what we women feel is right for ourselves. No government can ever know the situation with a fetus better than the woman carrying that fetus herself; she, and no one else, should have the ultimate decision on her body.

Or, the opposite argument would go, the fetus itself.

The Constitution shouldnt be framed to persecute the guilty, but rather to protect the innocent. It is often easier to find and punish the guilty than it is to find and save the innocent. Im not impressed by what the Patriot Act helps America do, because my friends and I know the statistics on how many women are victims of sexual assault, violent crime and domestic violence. According to current numbers, one of us three has or will experience some form of sexual abuse or assault within her lifetime.

The statistics on sexual abuse and assault are horrifying. More must certainly be done to stop these sorts of violent sexual crimes. But I fail to see what they have to do with the Patriot Act. Did the Patriot Act open the door for molesters and rapists to commit crimes? If anything, the statistics on sexual crimes are an argument for an expansion of government powers in monitoring potentially criminal activity.

Until those statistics change, the government cannot with good conscience eliminate Roe v. Wade; it is time for the misogyny to end. How dare the Supreme Court tell me (and accept as beneficial to the nation) that I am losing my space and my body to the man on the street, the man in my home, and the man in the judges chair.

The man on the street didn’t take your space or body, there wasn’t a man in your home, and I really doubt that Judge Roberts gives a shit that you got high and then decided to buy fruit with your friends. You’re just trying to spread fud.

This week’s Slater article, however, A look at the BRIGHT SIDE has a completely different worldview:

Sometimes, it really does seem like its the end of the world. Iran just announced its plan to ignore nations pleas and restart a nuclear program; 48 percent of the American public thinks that President Bush is an honest man; New York Governor George Pataki (who may seek a presidential nomination in 2008) vetoed a bill to dispense Emergency Contraception without a prescription; and if London can be hit by terrorists, anyone can be hit by terrorists.

Think of it less as the end of the world and more as politics as usual.

Luckily bad news is what regularly hits the headlines of morning papers, and readers are lucky because the world is hardly ever as bad as it seems. Most importantly, forgetting about the pain and sorrow in the world is probably the key element in coming into a future that is happier for all.

Alcohol is the answer. We finally agree on something, Ailee!

To begin with, although countries are steadily mounting weapons of mass destruction against one another, not everyone is resorting to violence in order to be heard. For two days, Cindy Sheehan has stood near the entrance to President Bushs ranch, and says that she will not leave until she can speak one-on-one with George W. Bush about the war in Iraq, where Sheehans son was killed. From a mother to the president of the United States, Sheehan just wants to sit down and have a conversation, explain her position to Bush and try to deduce his reasons for continuing combat in Iraq and persuade him to please reconsider.

Wow, Cindy’s sure showing those countries! Kim Jong-Il take note.

Mothers are the talkers; politicians are the fighters, and the world slowly goes to war with itself. Still, the resilience of women such as Cindy Sheehan certainly shines. By all accounts Sheehan would be justified in becoming deeply depressed and living an angry and bitter life. Instead, she is recovering from the death of her son by improving the future for everyone else in a manner that is peaceful and safe for all. Even if governments nationwide havent yet taken such mature steps, it is promising to remember that if everyday people can change the world for the better, we dont have anything to worry about. I can think of at least 10 people in my immediate life who could certainly run Earth (Im sure you can too), and I like the thought that they just might have the chance.

I can’t think of anyone who could run Earth, actually.

Also promising about the future is that many citizens are taking individual steps to make the world a better place. As reported by Newsweek, California has begun creating small communities that are so energy efficient, power bills are reduced the less than half.

what

Houses within these ZEH communities use solar panels to regulate temperature, and host low-energy appliances. Best of all, any excess solar power flows into a grid, which is then tapped into by everyone else in the neighborhood.

Good for them. Excellent. Now who made those solar panels? Corporations. I guess they’re good for something besides just criticizing your body.

Projects such as ZEH communities should be receiving major news headlines, captions that proclaim everything is going to be OK as long as we all just take simple steps to make it so.

These ZEH communities may be commendable, but I’m afraid they aren’t going to end terrorism and solve world hunger.

New York may be readying itself for a chemical weapons attack, but isnt it just as important that Shell gas stations are working with General Motors to provide hydrogen fuel pumps?

Why try to compare them?

I would venture to say that your personal world, like society in general, is a lot better off than you think. In fact, humans have this awesome, evolutionary ability to get over stuff. Your body and mind must be able to recover from fear, loss, disappointment and all sorts of physical harm. Resilience is key to adaptation and therefore successful evolution.

Wait, aren’t you to afraid to leave your home?

Expressing heartbreak is important, but forgetting about the past and looking toward a happier future seems the golden ticket to a better world.

Wait, aren’t golden tickets supposed to be used for baby fountains? I need to get me some of these multi-use golden tickets.

Just imagine an earth wherein all murder because of revenge suddenly ended, and countries eradicated all weapons for the sake of deterrence (so, really, all weapons). Without a strong focus on past violence, no one would want to take such dangerous steps as building nuclear bombs in order to stop the possibility of future violence. Like Cindy Sheehan, maybe we could all move on.

There is much that needs to be fixed about our planet and our society, but that change cannot come until we change ourselves. And what better place to start than optimism? After all, the world is not as bad as it seems.

Well, I can’t disagree with this. But why the sudden sea change, Ailee? One week the entire male population of Eugene is out to assault you and your two friends, and the next week you’re arguing for optimism.

Was the Emerald really worse in years past? I mean, at least Shakra’s articles were hilarious.

[links to the relevant articles weren’t included since the Ol’ Dirty’s site appears to not be working at the moment.]

[Timothy Adds: Links Added Above. ]

Gunther may be rawkin the Germans, but this Italian/French hard rock band is rawkin the rest of Europe.

Im not quite sure how to describe these guys. They have long, stringy, greasy-looking hair. Theyre old. They play something resembling musical notes on instruments; I guess theyre a little like Swedish power-metal outfit Europe filtered through the mind of a role-playing, fantasy-novel-reading thirteen-year-old. Their song The Last Winged Unicorn is indicative of the style, as is Mighty Thunderforce. Apparently theyre really popular in Japan.

My favorite quote from the webpage, attributed to Alex Staropoli: Was July,casually me and Luca,we met the first time during a stage of mental technics. (somehow, we learn to how to get big memory,higher sensibilitys, and full control of our mind).

California Crazies

Tom Hanks doesn’t want Arnold to be CA guv, and neither does Woody Harrelson, whose representative said:

Woody is diametrically opposed to Arnold Schwarzenegger’s political positions … He does not support the candidacy.

How can a liberal be “diametrically” opposed to a pro-choice, gun-controlling, pro-gay marriage candidate? Does this mean Harrelson is hiding a pro-life stance or wishes all types of guns were available to all types of Californians? Probably not, but the rhetoric used down there is going well past absurd. Which leads us to Cybil Sheppard on a Schwarzenneger win:

That would be the worst tragedy in the history of California.

You have to be seriously off your fucking rocker to say something like that. It’s interesting that Tom Vs. The Volcano Hanks would let himself be grouped in with people with no sense of history at all. Politics just brings out the best in people, I suppose.