As many as 5,000 lucky students social security numbers made a sexy special appearance when a glitch in a student loan company’s website showed users other peoples information instead of their own for a good seven minutes before they pulled the plug to do damage control for the next 48 hours. The real victim here is, of course, the loan company who’s reputation was damaged by whistle blowers who carelessly sought the acceptance of their peers by pointing out the mistakes that the company probably didn’t even do.
I mean, come on guys, it’s not like social security numbers even do anything. They’re just the bar code imprinted on your spine by the Illuminati at birth, and everybody knows that, so why make the Direct Loan Program feel like the bad guys? It’s the students fault, anyways, for not having enough money to learn things, and then getting all mad because their private information was released, and it’s like come on guys, you signed a user agreement we can accidentally leak this shit all we want brah. The company was also confronted with claims that their site wasn’t “user friendly enough”, but they were told to go to Hell. The rest of the article is pretty super boring and I wouldn’t try reading it, but people were all mad about shit and stuff went down and I think they promised it to never ever do it again, swear on my mother.
I am thinking of dressing as dead Muammar Gaddafi for Halloween. But I want your opinion. Would it be too soon? What about dressing as slutty dead Muammar Gaddafi?
Hi there. My name is Shaggy 2 Dope Utsler and you may know me as a member of multi-platinum rap group Insane Clown Posse. My reason for writing this post is to warn JoAnna Wendel that I will not put up with her nonsense anymore. Wendel is a columnist for the campus newspaper here at the University of Oregon (her work can be viewed here). Her column, simply put, is virulent. It concerns science. I have made my opinions on science known before. They can be viewed in longer form here. To wit: the lies of scientists, all of whom are motherfuckers, are making me increasingly pissed. This means you Wendel. So every time you see fit to make me pissed by spreading your lies, I will publish a refutation of said lies on this blog. It is not enough, but I hope to do a public service in this way. And public service has always been the watchword for the Insane Clown Posse.
On June 6th, Eugene City Councilor Mike Clark proposed a relatively simple idea to the Council: schoolchildren are required to say the Pledge of Allegiance every day in class, so the Eugene City Council should be required to say it at the start of its meetings, too.
What ensued was a month of debate, controversy and notoriety, the likes of which most Eugenians were not prepared for.
Clark’s initial mention of the proposal, which was brought to the council officially on June 20, was met with minor support, but mostly skepticism from his fellow Councilors. The proposal would allow for the recitation of the Pledge at the Council’s regular meetings, where the eight councilmen could recite if they chose, and the audience would have an option to join in if they were so inclined. But those in attendance accused Clark of political posturing.
Clark, who represents north-central Eugene on the council, may run for the North Eugene seat on the Lane County Board of Commissioners next year, [Lane Community College Political Science Professor Steve] Candee said.
“That’s the beauty of what Mike is proposing,” Candee said. “Nobody wants to be against the American flag and apple pie.”
“My suspicion is that (Clark’s pledge idea) is more political than legislative or deliberative,” he said.
The next week, when the idea again came before the council, there were worries about the implications of a mandatory pledge — worries that were stated by Mayor Kitty Piercy. She believed that the pledge would be a divisive measure, making those who chose not to recite seem as though they were not patriotic. So she proposed a compromise.
[Piercy], along with Zelenka, suggested the council recite the pledge at the five meetings each year.
Piercy said she recalled a Lane County Board of Commissioners meeting last year where “an angry crowd” of residents upset with proposed land use regulations along the McKenzie River “took over the meeting and forced the (saying of the) Pledge of Allegiance.”
At last week’s council meeting, Piercy said, a resident “demanded that every patriotic person stand up and take the pledge. And the implication was clear that not saying it was supposed to mean one did not honor our country and our troops.
“We do not have a history of saying the pledge on our City Council,” Piercy said. “But we have all given our oath of office and, in doing so, our allegiance to this nation, state and city.”
And even at the next meeting, most Councilors seemed skeptical. Councilor George Brown even suggested to Clark that he should say the Pledge in ceremony in the privacy of his own home. Clark seemed disappointed.
“In my heart, I would like to pass my originally intended motion,” he said. “But I recognize that a majority of the council doesn’t agree with me. I also recognize that compromising will likely bring a majority of councilors to agreement.
“I think it’s a good first step toward us being willing to value those in our community who would like to celebrate more traditional things.”
The compromise that Mayor Piercy proposed at the June 13th meeting eventually made its way into law last week, passing by a vote of 6-2. The Pledge will be said at the four meetings closest to “patriotic holidays of Memorial Day, Veterans Day, Flag Day and the Fourth of July.”
But that’s not even the interesting part.
In hearing about the story, Fox News sent a crew down from Seattle to cover the story. And in their coverage, the meeting was characterized completely differently. From the Register-Guard:
By midafternoon, more than 200 e-mails and 140 phone calls had been received at City Hall. Such a response to a City Council decision in such a short period of time is unusual.
City spokeswoman Jan Bohman said 90 percent of the e-mails and 99 percent of the phone calls were from residents outside Oregon.
Bohman said many of the comments were generated by the Fox News reports, which she called misleading.
“We are hearing from people who think we are banning the saying of the Pledge of Allegiance,” Bohman said. “That’s not accurate or even close to the truth.”
Jordan Sekulow, director of policy and international operations for the American Center for Law and Justice, sees the Eugene case as political correctness trumping American values.
“It vindicates all of us who say our Judeo-Christian heritage is under attack,” Sekulow says, “sometimes it’s in the courts, sometimes it’s elected officials and sometimes it’s the media.”
In Eugene, the opposition was less about religion than anti-establishment.
Resident Anita Sullivan summed up a common viewpoint: “So you say I pledge allegiance and right there I don’t care for that language,” Sullivan says. “It sort of means loyalty to your country; well, I feel loyalty to the entire world.”
What did the vote accomplish, really? And what would the harm have been in allowing those who wish to pledge allegiance to the United States of America that right at the beginning of a public, government meeting? One of the main oppositions to saying the Pledge was that Councilors already swore an oath to uphold the Constitution when they took office, as the Register Guard notes:
In the oath of office outlined in the city charter, elected officials “solemnly swear” to support the U.S. and state constitutions and to faithfully perform the duties of their office to the best of their ability. They have the option to conclude the oath with the words “so help me God” or to affirm their intentions “under the pains and penalties of perjury.”
Another is that saying the Pledge of Allegiance at meetings could be a divisive force — potentially, those who choose not to recite it could be deemed anti-American or some other such nonsense. This was Mayor Piercy’s main opposition, and a sentiment that seemed to echo throughout both the Council and the community.
By allowing Councilors and those attending City Council meetings the option to say the Pledge of Allegiance at a public meeting in which government employees are conducting official business would serve to both remind those in attendance and decision-makers why the processes in which we make community decisions are in place (hey, thanks for democracy, America) as well as — and this is arguably a more important point — allow legislators the choice to express their freedom of speech in a forum that is supposed to protect that right for the rest of the community (among doing other things, of course).
In any community with one predominant viewpoint, regardless of attempts from individuals, a pervading idea is generally more highly respected than the ideas of the minority. The best decisions come from discussion of differing viewpoints, from individuals feeling empowered and inspired to express their opinions — even if that opinion is love of flag and love of country.
For example, for the first time since 1911, Oregon actually passed a redistricting bill that was signed by Governor Kitzhaber without major revisions or the need for the task to be handed to the Secretary of State. The bipartisan bill passed overwhelmingly in both the Oregon House and Senate — comprised of 30 Democrats and 30 Republicans, and 16 Democrats and 14 Republicans, respectively.
The conversations that occurred in the creation of what had the potential to be a highly political action actually helped to create a solution that has the ability to benefit all Oregonians. Being able to express opinions and share different beliefs can be beneficial to a society. Cities are birthplaces of innovation precisely for that reason — having your viewpoints challenged is inspiring.
The City of Eugene would do well to keep this in mind when deciding how to organize their meeting proceedings. A city that claims to be so tolerant and accepting of new ideas should probably start being tolerant and accepting of the old ones, too.
American officials have uncovered what appears to be Osama Bin Laden’s porn stash in his Abbottabad compound, and it’s “fairly extensive” according to Reuters. While the contents of the hard drive haven’t been leaked by Wikileaks / Anonymous yet, an unnamed source told the news organization that the collection consisted mostly of modern, digitally recorded videos. This, despite the fact that he lived devoid of wired Internet and phone connection to the outside world, and relied on flash drives and Internet cafes to send messages (and, apparently, collect porn).
There’s no word yet on where in the house it was found, or which rooms were wired for viewing pleasure, so there are a lot of questions remaining. Was it his personal collection, or a shared spank bank to help quell insurrection and improve morale of the troops? Avi, or Mpeg? What sort of porn is a fundamentalist nutjob in to, anyway? The world may never know / care.
What we do know, is that it’s only a matter of time until someone starts blaming he evil porn that corrupted his mind and drove him to jihad.
On April 17, 2011, the New Yorker‘sFacebook page read, “Jonathan Franzen’s essay on David Foster Wallace and solitude will only be available to our Facebook friends for one more day. Click on the ‘Fans Only’ tab to read.” Such a simple status was met with 67 comments expressing confusion, disappointment, anger and appreciation. Insults were thrown back and forth between Facebook users. Franzen was referred to as some form of “narcissist” on several occasions. Earlier in the week, the New Yorker posted on its blog that readers would have to visit its Facebook page to view Franzen’s piece; “This week only, if you ‘like’ The New Yorker’s Facebook page, you can read Jonathan Franzen’s piece ‘Farther Away,’ about his journey to the island of Masafuera, in the South Pacific, which appears in our current issue.” Just as The New York Times put up a paywall a few weeks earlier the New Yorker had put up a “like-wall” for online readers, and Jonathan Franzen’s story was its trial piece.
Like-walls have unique advantages that are especially helpful in marketing and advertising. First, when a user “likes” a page, all of his friends can see that he is a fan. In addition, once a user has “liked” a page, updates from that page will show up in a user’s newsfeed (a page which displays current and popular “news” from friends, status updates, pictures, videos, comments, re-posted articles, etc.). This means more interaction between the individual user and the page he is a fan of. But it doesn’t end there — when a Facebook user “likes” a page, the page gains access to that user’s information; how much information is dependent on the individual users’ settings. Organizations use this information to collect demographic data and then tailor their material accordingly. In a Neiman Journalism Lab article published on March 8, 2011, Megan Garber wrote, “It’s not just about how many people are liking (and, you know, Liking) your stuff; it’s about who’s liking it — according to age range, gender, location, and language.”
I opened the Eugene Weekly this week to the letters section (as I often do for entertainment) and came across this gem:
HAND JOB IS BETTER
Another case for legalized prostitution in Eugene:
There is more dignity and public service in offering a $5 hand job than being dressed as a national monument and dancing on 7th Avenue to remind us to get our taxes done.
The fuck, people …
Jeff Albertson, Springfield
The art is in the indignation.
I hit the EW website to find the letter and found another hilarious one:
BIRDBRAIN TIMES
Two days ago, I was staring out a window, when a common jay caught my eye. It was painstakingly burying a large peanut in the leaves right outside. Pecking, digging, stacking leaves … just like a squirrel, and all for a peanut.
Maybe birds should be in charge. On a good day we’d get stork-like treatment, on a bad day, a talon thrill ride into the sunset. At least birdbrains would follow predictable, instinctive behavior.
While we humans are slugging it out with ourselves — our instinct to survive apparently lost; our unpredictability growing.
It’s high time to bring on the birdbrains. What have we got to loose? [sic] Everything.
Dan Dubach, Eugene
Legalizing prostitution and handing the city over to birds: clearly the best way to solve our problems.
“I applaud her for … questioning authority and holding power accountable,” Lariviere said.
This is a quote from Emerald reporter Stefan Verbano’s article today. And yeah, I think it is the same Lariviere who’s president of the University of Oregon. The one that hides behind the power of his office to avoid the accountability of face-to-face interviews.
On Wednesday February 16th, 2011, University President Richard Lariviere did an interview with Professor Laufer’s J483: Journalistic Interview class. The Commentator‘s very own Melissa Haskin was in attendance and, like a good reporter, asked him why he has refused to do an interview with the Oregon Commentator.
The conversation:
Melissa Haskin: How come you turned down a face to face interview with the Oregon Commentator? Richard Lariviere: I don’t see that that’s going to be of any use to the university in any way. MH: How so? RL: Well, I make my decisions about how to spend my time on the basis, almost all my time, on the basis of whether or not it’s going to be contributing in some manner to the fundamental mission of the university and that can take a whole range of activities with a whole range of groups, but I have to be able to take the group seriously. MH: And why do you not take the group seriously? Mr. Eddy (another student): Why not the Commentator, why this particular publication? RL: Because when they asked me, I went and looked at their previous issue. Mr. Eddy: And? RL: And it was sophomoric and an embarrassment. MH: How was it an embarrassment when the majority of the articles where academic? For instance, there was a several page article on why we need net neutrality. So, how is that sophomoric? Would you like to see it? RL: You asked me why I didn’t do it, that’s why I didn’t do it.
The audio of the full interview can be downloaded here. The part above occurs around 27:20. (The conversation continues to some ridiculousness, as I will mention in a moment.)
The best part about Lariviere’s explanation of his interview refusal is that there was no warrant. He gave no specific reasons as to why the Commentator is not worth his time. The president of the University of Oregon told a group of students involved in an extracurricular activity that their time was not only worthless, but an embarrassment, and seemingly didn’t think it was important to explain why, or how, or to empower these students in any way.
One problem here is how the Unviersity president is treating student programs. Could you imagine if he were to call any other student group an embarrassment? The LGBTQA? The Women’s Center? I love Jennifer Busby, but she walks around in a giant vagina costume and sings a medley of pop songs on behalf of the ASUO Women’s Center. As compared to the Commentator, is that not sophomoric? (Editor’s note: For the record, in my opinion, neither the vagina costume nor the Commentator is an embarrassment. Just illustrating a point.) If Lariviere had made this sort of comment about almost any other student group, the whole campus would be up in arms.
There are ~24,000 students at the University of Oregon, and only around 1 percent of them are involved with student programs. What business does the University president have demonizing those who care about their collegiate experience enough to try at something, anything?
Additionally, Lariviere is refusing to communicate with a student publication, a very clear way to communicate with the greater student population. (Yes, believe it or not, people actually read the Oregon Commentator.) Later in the interview, when asked how he intended to communicate with students, Lariviere mentioned how he was impressed with the Oregon Daily Emerald, how Higher Education Reporter Stefan Verbano is doing a great job, and how he would be happy to speak with him.
When I talked to Stefan later that evening, he mentioned the fact that he had been trying to interview President Lariviere in person for about a month regarding the Riverfront Research Project, and had that day received this email from UO Media Relations Director Julie Brown:
Hi Stefan,
I checked with the president about talking with you for the Riverfront Research Park story. He’s unavailable and recommended that Rich Linton can provide the administration’s point of view on the project. Rich is traveling quite a bit and would prefer if you contact him by email. You can reach him directly at [email protected].
Let me know if you don’t hear back from him promptly and I will follow up on your behalf.
Thanks,
Julie
Just to point out, this is going from an in-person interview with the president of the university to an email Q & A with the Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies — a significant step down. Stefan came back to Ms. Brown to clarify that he still wished to speak with Lariviere in person, and asked if there was another time he would have time to talk to the Emerald (he also scheduled an interview to talk to VP for Finance and Administration Frances Dyke, just to explain the top part of the email). Brown’s response [emphasis mine]:
Hi Stefan,
I have you scheduled to interview Frances Dyke next Friday, Feb. 25 at 1 p.m. She has up to 30 minutes available in her office.
For the Riverfront Research Park story, the president isn’t available and doesn’t have additional information to provide. Because the RRP is within Rich Linton’s research portfolio, he is the most appropriate source for you from administration.
Thanks,
Julie
First of all, the administration should not be directing traffic for journalists. But the problem, here, is that if the president doesn’t talk to us, he is not accountable to us. President Lariviere’s constant reluctance to be accountable to the body that he was made representative of is nauseating and makes us consider what it is that he is hiding.
This is basically what I wrote to him in my interview request later that day, which I also sent to Senior Assistant to the President Dave Hubin and Vice President of Student Affairs Robin Holmes:
From: Lyzi Diamond To: Richard Lariviere CC: Dave Hubin , Robin Holmes Date: Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 5:10 PM Subject: Oregon Commentator Interview Request
Dear President Lariviere,
I have just spoken with one of my staff writers, Melissa Haskin, about an interview you did with her journalism class this afternoon. She told me that when she asked about you declining an interview with the Oregon Commentator, you called our magazine a “sophomoric publication” that wasn’t worth your time.
As I wrote in my last letter to you, it is my opinion (and, I believe, your opinion) that every student in the University community benefits from being involved in extracurricular activities. I feel it was unprofessional of you to speak about a group of students who are involved in an extracurricular activity in such a flippant manner, especially when that activity has been continuously recognized and funded by the ASUO throughout its decades-long existence.
As I mentioned before, the Oregon Commentator exists to provide an alternative viewpoint to campus politics and discussion, and has done so for nigh on 28 years. Our blog has won multiple awards, and being involved in the magazine has provided amazing opportunities both for current students and OC alumni. To speak of an activity that is so important to so many students in such a negative manner is shocking, especially coming from a university president.
I would like to sit down with you and talk about the state of student affairs in the University of Oregon community. I am available at any time that is convenient for your schedule. We believe an interview with you is definitely worth our time, and that of our readers — and that talking with students should be worth your time, too.
Sincerely,
Lyzi Diamond
Editor-in-Chief, Oregon Commentator
As of 3:00pm on Friday, February 18th, I have heard no response from Hubin, Holmes or Lariviere. As I said in my email, his conduct was incredibly unprofessional, and to speak of a student group in such a manner is abhorrent. It’s outrageous. It should outrage you. Any university administrator that does not even put up the veil of trying to communicate with students is probably not a student administrator you can trust.
Editor’s note: Melissa Haskin will be posting a longer piece on the full range of answers Lariviere gave during his interview in a few days.
Tonight, the UO’s esteemed Public Records Officer Liz Denecke spoke at the ASUO Senate meeting about public records requests and how they relate to the Senate.
As some of you may remember, I submitted a public records request to the ASUO Senate for correspondence over the Senate listserv. That request was referred to Miss Denecke and, according to her testimony at tonight’s meeting, that was the appropriate avenue to take.
At the meeting, Denecke made it clear that the ASUO is an entity of the University, and all public records requests should be forwarded to her. She also expressed that the emails sent between senators discussing the business of the Senate or governance are a part of the public record.
It is with interest, now, that I take you to a recent request that was made for records on the ASUO Senate listserv. The request was not made by me — it was made by Oregon Commentator Editor Emeritus CJ Ciaramella. Below the jump is a series of emails between Ciaramella and Denecke. Read on if government transparency is important to you.
PFC Chair Noah Wolf-Prusan discusses the Student Insurgent's budget appeal during the committee's meeting Monday. The Insurgent's request for additional funds to cover printing expenses was denied. Photo by Rockne Andrew Roll
EUGENE – After an hour-long appeal hearing before the Programs Finance Committee, the Student Insurgent’s appeal request for an additional $2,854 for printing expenses was denied Tuesday night. The Insurgent’s budget for 2011-2012 remains at $17,645 as approved at their initial hearing in January. This budget constitutes a 20.1 percent decrease from current funding levels.
After the group’s presentation, Insurgent Co-Editor Keith Chaloux said “I understand that you guys are sticking up [for], representing the students.” However, Chaloux and the Insurgent’s other presenters explained that the cuts that had been made in the magazine’s publication budget would reduce the number of issues they could distribute to students. Chaloux went on to explain that the Insurgent’s viewpoint was important to students. “They may not know that they need it, but they do.”
PFC Chair Noah Wolf-Prusan reiterated the committee’s concerns over the group’s low fundraising. “Basically, we’re saying you need to fundraise,” Wolf-Prusan said.
A motion to amend the Insurgent’s publication budget to $13,243 was proposed by committee member Katherine DuPont. This amount was lower than the Insurgent’s request of a total of $15,372 for printing expenses but was rejected by the committee. The committee then approved a printing budget of $12,518, which was the same level previously approved by PFC at the Insurgent’s first hearing. The PFC’s final budget will be voted on by the full Senate at their March 2 meeting.
This media digest is dedicated to my sister, whose 20th birthday is today, and to Kathleen O’Fallon, my English professor, to whom I must turn in a paper about the 18th Century novel Charlotte Temple in one hour. It is also dedicated to people who are very excited by milk. My sister doesn’t like milk. I don’t know about Prof. O’Fallon. These four young Latvian men definitely are.
I bring up the subject of milk-related excitement because of the following letter in the Register-Guard from Marcola resident Irene Young, which definitely rivals the young Latvians for strangeness and enthusiasm.
I’m not an expert on milk, but I will support any process that will lead to restoring flavor to that liquid sold under the generic name of “milk.” It’s criminal to me that dairies process and market that tasteless white substance and call it milk. The only local producer that offers anything with a suggestion of milk flavor is Lochmead, but it certainly could improve.
I recently tasted milk from a dairy in New Bern, N.C. I bought it from a large retailer, right off the shelf. It had flavor! Bovine ambrosia! Nectar of the gods! Incredible, sweet, rich milk flavor. Why if I could find anything similar here, I’d buy it.
I suggest that you go to the fridge, pour yourself a glass and see if your milk has flavor. Chances are, it does not. Why not save the calories and take a calcium and vitamin D supplement?
If the recent raw milk debate brings back milk with flavor, I’m all for it.
For other recorded uses of the phrase “bovine ambrosia,” see here.
I don’t know how, but I am in possession of some sort of elaborate magic gourd that is almost entirely flat. There’s a kind of magic pool that hangs completely vertical without spilling on this gourd, and it shows me pictures of incredible things and allows me to make little symbol-ants walk across it; and yet I can never reach them to partake in their delicious protein. Another strange thing: The massive hut I am in is extremely balmy, even though there is no noticeable fire and the world outside the hut is several times as cold as it ever gets back at home in Paleolithic Southeastern Africa.
There are any number of equally strange miracles I have witnessed in my current environment, but I cannot afford to dwell on them at the moment. That is because the magic gourd I have described previously has told me several incredible stories that I must relate to you immediately. You can read about them by dragging your leaf-shape grub over to the fat, blue symbol-ants below and forcing them to mate.
The University of Oregon’s student newspaper is financially solvent again, two professional staff members at the Oregon Daily Emerald said, after years of running in the red.
Thoele was a former Register-Guard reporter and editor who also spent nine years as owner of weekly newspapers in Junction City and Veneta. Measures he has taken to ensure the paper’s solvency include cutting the number of professional staff it pays and hiring more advertising executives.
The most notable measure, though, is the production of a coffee table book to commemorate the UO football team’s season. Emerald business manager Kathy Carbone said the book is nearly sold out.
The new publisher is Ryan Frank, currently an investigative reporter for the Oregonian, and he will begin to take the reins at the UO’s campus paper on Feb. 28, according to a press release sent to Emerald alumni. Frank was Emerald editor while he was a UO student.
The Emerald publisher is in charge of administering the paper’s financial affairs and creating a business plan for its operations.
I realize I shouldn’t be writing this, since I am a former Emerald reporter and editor, and that affiliation overrides my ability to report it to my own standard of independence. But nobody else had written anything here about it as of my logging on, so I had no choice.
Ol’ Dirty photo editor Ivar Vong just put up these neat toys on the ODE blogs. Essentially, they’re visualizations of student fee funding allocations per group for the 2010-11 school year for PFC, DFC and ACFC. (I hear EMU will be up there in a moment.) Infographics are way cool, especially interactive ones. And useful.
