ODE Watch: A Fistfull of Stupid

The ODE commentary page is filled with some golden nuggets today (each quote from a different piece):

For someone who describes himself as a “huge fan of the First Amendment,” it seems strange that [Gabe Bradley] would bash those exercising that right, even if he doesn’t agree with it.

I'm pretty sure trespassing isn't covered by the first amendment, champ. Attention-whoring is though, so at least you're fine on that count.

I don’t particularly care for the movie “Schindler’s List.”

This from Gabe Bradley, apparently hoping to replace angry anti-war writers with angry Jewish writers in the ODE's letters section.

This international criticism is merited. The United States is resisting current and future Kyoto regulations. Chief environmental advisor to the president, James Connaughton has expressed his reluctance to agree to any sort of binding treaty, stating U.S. economic development as the main factor behind his reasoning. This line of reasoning is confusing and disheartening. We acknowledge the severe economic repercussions of reducing U.S. emissions, especially as our nation strives to compete with growing powers that lack tough environmental restrictions, such as China. But shouldn’t the president receive environmental advice from someone concerned more about economic factors than global warming?

Uh... yes, he should be very concerned about economic factors. I'm not sure if that the Editorial board worded their piece as they had originally hoped to. Also, it's incredible that the ODE board complains about the US not agreeing to Kyoto while making no mention of specific problems such as exemptions for India and China.

Of course, I'm forgetting the Emerald's fulfillment of mouthpiece duties for Brian Bogart. But Olly's better at quoting him that I am, anyways.

ODE Watch: Bush Invented Cronyism?

From today's ODE editorial:

Alito once wrote in a job application, “I am and always have been a conservative.” Judges are not supposed to have views that put them on either side of the party line. Judges are expected to fairly apply the constitution to real world situations, and political or religious viewpoints should never be a factor in judicial decision making.

I guess this means the ODE is in favor of Ruth Bader Ginsburg stepping down. The Emerald is clearly having difficulty here in differentiating between a political philosophy and a judicial philosophy. Following a conservative judicial philosphy will mean that the justice fairly and consistently interprets the law with only minimal interference from personal political and religious bias.

As I've stated before, there are things that must be asked of Alito in the confirmation hearings due to troubling statements he's made in the past. But to judge him solely on his perceived view of Roe v. Wade and his purported political views is quite silly.

Of course, the sillyness doesn't end there...

Alito is, like Miers, an old friend of President Bush. Alito might have more judicial experience than Miers, but hiring your friends to run the country is still not a good idea. The fact that words such as “cronyism” have entered our lexicon to describe Bush’s recent appointments betrays the foolishness of this move.

Yes, because knowledge and use of the word "cronyism" was clearly rare before the Bush administration. Has anyone on the ODE Editorial board ever read about Tammany Hall, Ulysses S. Grant, or the Ohio Gang?

Life Sucks, HOORAY MOVIES!

Ahh, Ailee Slater. What would we do without your insights? Not since Simone De Bouvier Beauvoir has the world seen such consideration of the void:

In my opinion, the world at large is increasingly null and void, in and of itself. We’re all going to die, be it from Avian bird flu, nuclear weapons, or some form of feisty, stormy air molecules.

{snip}

Let’s talk about art and culture and ways to make humans a little happier.

If life is so dull, drab, and horrible, why waste time with movies at all? So that you can write gems like this, apparently:

You can guess a film is foreign when a quarter into the plot it turns out that the main character has been dead for years.

I'd have guessed the film was foreign because its title is La Mala Educacion, but maybe I'm being too perceptive.

Here's a tip, Ailee: no one will ever love you, and if life is so dreary, it might be nobler to take up arms against ye olde slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

Gabe Bradley on Blogs

Gabe Bradley has yet another silly piece in today's ODE. Behold the Kinsleyesque hubris:

When I write something, I want as many people as possible to read it and hopefully respond. For instance, I wouldn’t continue to write this weekly column if the Emerald didn’t have a wide enough audience to keep a nearly constant stream of hate mail flowing through my inbox.

Perhaps that’s why I don’t get the appeal of blogs; they’re not something new to me. Publishing my random thoughts for public consumption is my job, the daily grind, so to speak. There are some differences, of course. I don’t get to write my own headlines; I have to write on a certain time frame and follow certain guidelines; I have to ask permission in order to use profanity (shit, piss, damn); also, I have to let other people cut up my words before they see the light of day. In exchange for those restrictions, however, I have access to a much larger audience than is available to the average blogger.

The beauty of blogging is that readers themselves (and not a few liberal newspaper editors) decide which material gets trafficked. Before, opinions were to be found amongst friends and in newspapers, both of which are rather select groups. Now the entire world has the potential of reading an individual's opinions, well-reasoned and researched or not. Readers are no longer limited to Jenny McBride's ramblings, your silly pap, or Ailee Slater's stoned gibberish.

Ol' Dirty Watch: Moral Majority Edition

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.

"We Look Forward To Your Participation In This Experiment In Democracy..."

Heroically undaunted by what happened the last time they tried it - in short, an achin' world was introduced to Aaron Shakra, and never looked back - the ODE is doing this.

Best of luck to them - either it's a marvellous smorgasbord of local journalism, or else the Spew section just got a whole lot easier to write. I'll be tuning in regardless.

Ol' Dirty Watch: Double Dip of Ailee Edition

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 women’s 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 Amendment’s 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 America’s personal encroachment; think everything from the Patriot Act’s 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 can’t 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 wasn’t a rapist or murderer; at any rate, he didn’t 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 heckler’s meaning was clear: You can’t 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, women’s 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. Don’t 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. It’s not just a right to privacy, it’s 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 shouldn’t 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. I’m 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 judge’s 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 it’s 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 Bush’s 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 Sheehan’s 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 haven’t yet taken such mature steps, it is promising to remember that if everyday people can change the world for the better, we don’t have anything to worry about. I can think of at least 10 people in my immediate life who could certainly run Earth (I’m 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 isn’t 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. ]

Ol' Dirty Watch: No Money Edition

Today's edition of the Emerald was an entertaining read. While our own Tyler Graf's transition from editorialist to news reporter is a success (as evidenced by his latest piece,) the humor was to be found in two commentaries. The first is the actual editorial, which argues that the recent Kelo decision will be bad for homeowners. Now while this is obviously the correct position to take, the Ol' Dirty's reasoning is laughably poor:

Although the government is required to compensate home and land owners, applying a value to real estate is never that easy. It takes time, energy and money to evacuate a residence, especially if that residence is home to a large or economically underprivileged family.

This is simply false. While the strain will disproportionately affect low-income familes (particularly since it will be their homes on the chopping block,) it is almost certain that moving an average wealthy family requires more time and money than moving an average low-income family, as greater material possessions generally means greater moving costs.

Furthermore, home-owners choose their residence based on a number of factors, making it so that government money can never completely compensate those citizens. Residents may have purchased a home for its proximity to schools and grocery stores or for its acre of exceedingly fertile land. There is no way to justly compensate the physical and emotional toil put into homes.

This is an odd argument, to say the least. Being able to choose a home on the basis of different variables does not make being compensated for said home impossible. Kelo simply opens the door for eminent domain to be applied to private projects, it does not perscribe how much compensation should be given. Additionally, this argument that Ailee Slater (who is presumably writing the ODE's half-baked editorials over the summer) presents is one against eminent domain in general, not against this particularly ghastly version of it. I would imagine she supports the Interstate highway system, the building of which surely caused massive "physical and emotional toil."

Also, tearing down residential neighborhoods and replacing them with urban sprawl in the form of businesses is harmful to citizens in a number of ways. Land and home owners who retain the rights to their property will have economic developments springing up in their own backyards, where neighbors’ houses used to be. A drop in the value of surrounding homes will likely result when businesses move into what was once private property.

Wow. Just... wow. The entire point of the ruling is that it enables private developers to develop private property where other private property once was. It will still be private property, Ailee. Also, the assertion that businesses entering an area drive down property values is one of the stupidest ideas I've seen printed in the Emerald in weeks. If that were the case, businesses leaving an area would drive up property values... imagine how much homes in inner-city Detroit must be worth! They're all millionaires!

Even more laughably stupid is the guest commentary from "John Steinsvold," which argues that money is evil and should be abolished. It isn't worth shooting down this twit's arguments, so I'll just post my favorite line from it:

A way of life without money demands only that we, as individuals, do the work we love to do.

Personally, I love cleaning bathrooms.

Title Also Applies to the ASUO

Chuck Slothtower talks about "A complicted, expensive, rubric-ridden farce". Of all the things he could finally be recognizing, it is the CIM.

Sure, I have issues with the CIM (Certificate of Initial Mastery). I think it's bullshit, but just as much bullshit as anything else they put upon high schoolers in effort to make education worthwhile. The CIM falls into the same hole as everything else in high school curriculum: some people don't want to go to college, and that is a perfectly acceptable path to choose.

Chuck's argument is right on track, and is a vailant attempt to right the wrongs of one Ailee Slater: "The CIM is a solution in search of a problem. Long ago, teachers invented these things called 'grades'... students who did well enough earned a 'diploma'...An even simpler way to deal with grade inflation would be to grade tougher and make assignments more difficult."

Sure, but that would make things a lot harder for the kids who come to class drunk after lunch. Like I did. Suckers.

Headline A Go-Go

Today's Winner:

Oregon Legislature examines new bills addressing pertinent issues

Next week the Governor is expected to sign some legislation related to Oregon policy, and the state judiciary is planning on hearing some cases involving law.

ODE: Quite Possibly Suffering From A Dissociative Disorder

Why am I blogging about student journalism from 2100 miles away at 3:30am local time? Because I start a night job at 3:30am Wednesday and the only way I'm going to be prepared is staying up all night and sleeping tomorrow afternoon. Stay in school kids, because you might need a job moving boxes one day.

In any case, what I find most interesting is that the Ol Dirty's editorial board has decided to endorse Measure 38 while the columnists all say they'll "Play it SAIF". Now, I live in Texas so it's not like this will affect me one way or the other, but I find it pretty hilarious. I've included money lines from each columnist's bit below the cut.

Chuck Slothower:

It may be Oregon's most corrupt, poorly run state institution. But it would be a shame if Oregon voters let an insurance company tell them how to run their public policy.

You see there, Chuck, the Oregon voters will decide for themselves how to run public policy, that's why there's a vote. SAIF isn't accountable to voters at all, so it's not like they currently have a choice in the matter.

Travis Willse:

But these questions and others, coupled with the benefits of better private competition, prescribe the state's eventual withdrawal from the insurance market. However, the measure's provisions aren't sufficiently specific to convince me that its passage wouldn't do more harm than good during the upcoming years. Vote a (reserved) no on Measure 38.

My first question is just how one votes a "reserved no" on anything. Voting is a binary (trinary if you count not voting at all) there, Trav, so it's not like you can vote "no, but...." I can understand being wary of unintended consequences, but I've yet to see a compelling case for government monopoly over private-sector monopoly or oligopoly.

Jennifer McBride:

SAIF may not be perfect, but it's good for Oregon. Over the past 14 years, workers' compensation rates have not gone up, while prices in other states, such as Washington and California, have. A loss of competitiveness resulting from increasing rates will drive away jobs from Oregon and worsen our state woes.

If rates haven't gone up, but costs clearly have, where does the money come from? That's right, taxes! You see, Jen, in the real world the government has to get its money by squeezing the taxpayers for more, remember Measure 28 from last year? So if SAIF goes, then taxes could go down. That's not likely, but at least they won't have to go up further to subsidize the increasing costs of workers comp (as much of it is medical in nature, we can all agree that the cost of payouts is going up; there's virtually no debate on the current direction of healthcare costs).

Ailee Slater:

Companies such as Measure 38's biggest supporter, Liberty Northwest, have internal problems similar to those of SAIF; yet the difference is that these problems will never be solved by for-profit private insurers.

I can see Miss Slater hasn't yet completed the eight hours of Econ required for the J-school. The thing about a private insurer is that they have incentives to fix exactly the same problems that plague SAIF, as those sorts of problems cause waste and loss of profit. Unlike government, private insurers are accountable to the bottom line. There's no reason to expect that SAIF would be reformed, because the folks running SAIF don't care about inefficiencies, they can always just get a bigger check next biennium. The thing about high-risk employers is an interesting point, I guess, but supposing they do have to pay a higher rate, the tax trade-off mentioned above makes the net effect nebulous at best. Further, "aboloshing inefficient state-run agency leads to unemployment" isn't exactly a likely headline just from, you know, a basic understanding of macroeconomics.

So, because the ODE columnists are such fools, I'd vote yes on 38. Maybe that's a silly way to determine how to vote, but santaria is frowned upon these days and I'm fresh out of midgets to toss.

ODE: AL Fans?

I didn't watch the third debate, I'm decided so it's not like my opinion is going to change at this point. And I don't even really care about todays ODE editorial, except that they mention Sox/Yankees without noting that there was another damn game on too. Astros/Braves might've been the quintessential NL rivalry, but Astros/Cardinals is also classic. Does no one care about the National League? Did anyone else notice that Phil Garner has apparently gone insane? Backe is pitching the game of his life and you pull him after four and two-thirds because...why? Oh nevermind.

ODE: Hobbesians?

Actually, this [mercifully] short editorial isn't really too bad, but the first line struck me:

One of the harmful byproducts of democracy is that the selection of our leaders and lawmakers seems more like a horse race than a thoughtful, well-informed evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of various individuals.

I know I'm just being petty, but ennumerating that this is one harmful byproduct implies that there are others. What are they? Should we be ruled by Philosopher Kings instead? The world may never know.

There's also this little gem from farther down:

It's hard to justify the idea of a government accountable to the people when both candidates act so aloof and arrogant. All people make mistakes. Mature people admit them.

That's classic coming from folks who think those who question them are ignorant and misinformed. Be kind to schizophrenics week indeed.

ODE Website: One Big Feedback Page

Check out the Daily Emerald website. Apparently you can try to post some feedback, but not much else. Our website may not be perfect, but at least it's up almost all of the time.

Screenshot from 1 pm here:

Jesus: Hot or Not?

Emerald columnist Porscha Collette Carey seems to be running out of ideas and this is only her third column. Not only does she resort to writing about something that was in the latest Cosmopolitan, but she also tackles the topic of Jesus and his apparently newfound popularity in America. Undaunted by the fact that this topic was covered ad nauseum around the time 'The Passion' was hitting theaters, Carey uses Jesus t-shirts and Christian pop music as proof of Jesus' popularity among Americans. And I always figured that the religion named after him was enough evidence that Jesus was pretty popular already.

Oh The Humanization!

First talking dinosaurs, now talking cars? I'm sad to say it's all downhill from here for Sullivan. This is his second cartoon and he's already starting to recycle ideas. Unlike another cartoonist, at least he hasn't reached the point of labeling the cars "cars" and drawing somebody holding a newspaper with the headline, "GAS PRICES DROP."

Out With Baggs, In With Sullivan

Okay, so the joke is lame but Aaron Sullivan, the new Ol' Dirty Emerald cartoonist, drew dinosaurs in his first Emerald political cartoon. Dinosaurs, as we all know, are totally awesome. Right? Right???

ODE Updates

An obituary for Michael Joyce, the pre-journalism student killed on June 12 when his bicycle collided with automobile driven by another UO student, is up at the Oregon Daily Emerald Web site.

Also, this is an especially stupid thing for a couple of kids to do. I'll leave it at that.

And we used to sing Shakra la la la la la la la la la te da

This is, simply, a plea to Mr. Ruff to fulfill his duty by fisking Shakra's farewell column. Sure, it'd be two weeks late, but, man, he's reached self-parody! Let's be done with it! Witness:

I could have taken more women's studies classes, taken more African dance and drumming, Japanese literature courses -- I could have taken Urban Farm every term. If only ...

It's uncanny. I used to make jokes that began like this.

Also, Smacks To The Ongoing Genocide In The Sudan

The "Quacks & Smacks" feature has been an endless parade of bizarre segues and comical overreach since its inception, but this:

Smacks to the Saudi Arabian gunmen who killed 22 people in the city of Khobar. As if that wasn't bad enough, they threatened to kill 242 more people they were using as human shields.

followed immediately by this:

Quacks to graduating seniors.

is a juxtaposition that's going to be hard to beat.

This feature has achieved maximal hilarity. There's no way it's going to get any funnier. For the love of God, ODE, bow out while you're ahead.

Shakra & Kobe

Hindsight is 20/20, especially if you're using your third eye to look backwards. What evidence does noted political theorist Aaron Shakra offer us that Condoleezza Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Commission was, in the words of From The Wilderness Publications' Michael Ruppert, "perjury - a felony" based on her denial that the administration had "specific advance knowledge as to the time, place and method of the attacks"?

For example, what about the well-documented insider stock trading throughout seven countries only days prior to the attacks? This might be excusable, but considering the trading involved only corporations -- including United Airlines, American Airlines, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, and Citigroup -- that were severely financially affected by the stocks, the traders may not have known the specifics, but they knew something.

Good Lord. The conspiracy was wider than we ever could have guessed. American Airlines knew, man.

(From The Wilderness Publications may sound like hippies, but they are in fact to be found on the web at http://www.copvcia.com - and if you've read that site before, you'll be rolling your eyes along with me.)

The blood of the nameless will spill and spill and spill for a war started over a perverse fallacy.

For God's sake, give it a rest. Please. I'm not particularly gung-ho about nation-building in the Middle East, and I'm as up in arms about the Abu Ghraib scandal as everyone else - the abuse itself, and also some of the responses to it. (UPDATE: See also here - I know I said no more Reason links, but it's on-topic, honest.) However, I don't understand the psychology of people who seem determined to actively root for the worst possible outcome.

Support For Higher Education Crucial, Avers Student

When you're holding a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. And some of us are more likely than others to end up holding a hammer. Also sprach Chuck Slothower:

Watch out for further solidification of the tax revolt, attacks on public education and abortion rights, militarization and an ever-increasing privatization of government services.

Oh dear. It's going to be one of those pieces where we recklessly conflate five issues.

The value of other commitments to government are less quantifiable, but just as real. Older Americans should keep in mind that their declining support for government harms us all.

Because government involvement makes everything better! (And aren't older Americans, as a group, favorably inclined towards the government where prescription drug benefits are concerned?)

Ah, screw it. Nobody, with the possible exception of Colin (and Tim after three drinks) is arguing against a state subsidy for higher education. However, four years of pieces like this have me wondering if the net value of journalism majors to the nation is really as great as all that.

"Ethics Week" Inevitably Devolves Into Fistfight

Having been Drudged, the ODE gets a link ("Full story, with swooning reviews by audience suckups...") in Hit and Run. (No mention of the ever-so-slightly hysterical editorial, alas.)

The comment thread at the original story is huge and probably worthy of analysis, but I found myself with a crippling migraine after only making it a third of the way through.

If A Picture Is Worth A Thousands Words...

...then why does Emerald cartoonist Steve Baggs use so many? Words that is, not pictures.

Baggs could spend a little more time on his editorial cartoon on Arab reaction to alleged Iraqi prisoner abuse. Maybe he could actually draw something that resembles naked prisoners on the television, rather than just writing the... oh, never mind.