Former Alaskan Governor and noted G.I.L.F. Sarah Palin

Valor. Greatness. Insight. Intelligence. Integrity. Relevancy.

Today Sarah Palin resigned as governor of Alaska and in her tenure she demonstrated none of those qualities. Yes, as the voice of reason the Commentator lands squarely in the middle of the argument about this woman. Actually I take that back–we probably land outside of these arguments, probably on a couch somewhere smoking weed and watching “Entourage”. Republicans like to argue that this woman is a trailblazer for women’s equality while Democrats like to scoff at whether or not she can “see Russia from her backyard”.

So what’s our opinion about this woman?

Nothing. A big, fat nothing. She’s from a state where bears outnumber humans and quite frankly no one would care about her if she didn’t look like your friend’s hot mom who you just know was totally giving you the eyes. The controversy surrounding Palin is also the only thing propping her up. Therefore people should regard her as what she really is–a nonexistent blip on the radar of American history. (The Civil War, The Declaration of Independance, D-Day, for God’s sake the Teapot Dome Scandal. These are the things to be remembered in American history.)

But what about the fact that she’s a woman, isn’t that something? Actually, no it isn’t. First of all she didn’t do anything for the “first time in American history”.  Last I heard some bald guy was VP. Many “minorities” have been involved in the electoral process before–Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Alan Keyes, Bill Richardson and so on. Just because your invited to the party doesn’t mean you’re going to get let in, and it’s asinine to think that Palin has “made a difference” for women whatsoever in America.

Second, it shouldn’t be a landmark event for a woman to be a VP candidate–it should be a given that women can do and should be appointed to that position. Just because she’s a the first woman doesn’t mean she made a difference–we should all know that women can easily do Presidential and Vice-Presidential jobs just as well as men–Palin’s nomination doesn’t make her fucking Jackie Robinson. Her nomination alone shouldn’t be cause for the celebration of her person–for all we know she was just in the right place at the right time (unlike those wolves she shot from a helicopter). Simply being nominated for something isn’t an accomplishment. Well, you know, unless you’re Heath Ledger and they totally boned you on Best Actor. But I digress.

Last, if you want some truly amazing historical women why don’t you look back at some real Americans? Harriet Beecher Stowe, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Harriet Tubman. If you’re looking at Sarah Palin as a historical figure in women’s rights then you seriously don’t know anything about America. Including her name in the same breath as these women does a great disservice to their memory and their actual accomplishments for women.

But I’m really forgetting something, aren’t I? I forgot about the whole “President” thing. If you’re one of the idiot Republicans backing her 2012 bid or one of the idiot Democrats demonizing it you should seriously give yourself a break. All your efforts, both in glorifying and denouncing Sarah Palin are all for not. Know why?

Because it’s not going to happen.

If you aren’t smart enough to figure out why, then I guess that’s your time and energy to waste isn’t it? But you can’t say I didn’t warn you.

So now she’s out of office. What’s she going to do? Is she going to run in 2012? Is she going to stay at home with her family? Is she going to go on a book signing tour? The answers to all of these questions are for jabbering idiots whose lives revolve around people who don’t matter. Sarah Palin resigning is sort of like one of the Teletubbies being gay; it’s big news for a day but eventually it gets put into perspective and it just becomes another Wednesday.

Sarah Palin will go the way of Sisqo, Lou Bega and Beanie Babies. She will eventually become one of those things you find in your garage only to look back and ask, “Why did I care about these things so much?”

Just wait. You’ll see.

OC Editor-In-Chief Drew Cattermole tries to lure freshmen to the dark side. Note Sudsy all over the ASUO's business, top left.

With IntroDUCKtion in full swing, Drew and I had to think of a way for the Commentator to make a lasting impression on incoming freshmen. What better way to do that than hand out free condoms and The Hate Issue to concerned mothers and brace-faced nubiles? Too lazy to walk around the EMU and take an unmarked table, Drew and I decided that the Commentator was best suited for a place right up front.

So we took the table marked “ASUO”.

We figured it didn’t matter since the ASUO was probably going to be too lazy to show up and no one was there in the first place. Hell, like Drew said yesterday most members of the ASUO are too lazy to even show up for work. We pasted our copy of The Hate Issue right over the ASUO sign and plopped down. I began telling the excited parents of a high school yearbook editor that he should apply for a staff position, and Drew began calling out, “Free Condoms? Oregon Commentator?”

I got several interested parties in our little mag; a few moms and dads actually took our magazine after carefully inspecting the graphic zombie-splattered cover of our latest issue. The my favorite interaction of the day came from a red-headed, retainer-wearing freshman girl.

Girl: Points at the magazine “So what is this?”

OC: “It’s a student-run publication here at the UO. We talk about things like the ASUO, I-FEE, OSPIRG… booze. You know.”

Girl: Points at the condoms “What’s that?”

OC: “That’s for a good time.”

Girl: Grabs one of each “Okay, thanks!”

Eventually some nerds from the ASUO came down and asked us to move. Some blonde potato-on-sticks was a little miffed. Maybe it was because we ran out of condoms. In any case, Drew and I strolled on over to the information table and inquired about a real table of our own.

Unfortunately it became immediately apparent that the Commentator was not welcome at IntroDUCKtion. A woman named JoAnn asked me what publication I was from. When I replied that I was from the Commentator she said, “Oh… actually we’re all filled up.” When I asked her if she meant for today she said, “No, for all of the IntroDUCKtion sessions.” When I inquired about the currently empty tables down by the ticket office she said rather condescendingly, “Give me your e-mail and I’ll see what I can do.” What a bitch.

So there you have it, kids. The Commentator isn’t wanted here at the University of Oregon. I guess our insight on civil rights, wasteful ASUO spending, asinine student senators and terrible newspaper reporting isn’t what the University wants to tout to it’s incoming debt-slaves. It feels distant. It feels exclusionary. It feels like we don’t belong.

It feels just about right.

Today, at 5:17 PM the summer senate held it’s first senate meeting of the summer. The senate was down a member today as Jessica Jones resigned earlier in the morning. Since the meeting was quick (Thank God, and partially Sen. Gower) I will give a quick roundup of the meeting. 

• The biggest decision of the meeting was the funds request for the upcoming USSA conference. The decision ended up passing 3-2 with Sen. Blanchard (spelling?) abstaining. $2,000 will be allocated  from the ASUO executive spending and surplus fee to cover the cost. 
• Sen. Nick Schultz left the meeting before the vote leading to a disscussion if 5 out of 7 makes a quorum, it did and the discussion lasted five minutes. DRINK!
• Some of the senate has been slacking on office hours during the summer, the requirement is 2 hours a week. 
• ASUO wants to create a “brand name” to get people interested in student politics. Free Sudsy Tank to whoever can come up with the best ASUO brand name slogan. 
• Mecha did not show up for their request.

Dave Frohnmayer wanted to be Oregon’s governor back in 1990. That didn’t happen.

But he has no regrets, and neither should Oregonians. Frohnmayer has charted the state’s direction through the thousands of lives he has influenced. For the past 15 years he has been president of the University of Oregon.

He leaves that job today, entering a well-deserved retirement, although he still will teach a bit at the UO.

Frohnmayer is the first native Oregonian to serve as president of one of the state’s large research universities.

He is a man of considerable personal grace and courage, someone for whom leadership and public service have been a lifelong calling.

Oh, brother. But wait, it goes on:

It’s not hyperbole to describe him as the epitome of an Oregonian. That characterization extends far beyond his passions for the environment and for citizen involvement in our democracy.

As a Medford native, he had his roots in the common sense culture of southern, semi-rural Oregon. He traveled the world, including being a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, but he always come home to Oregon. He held some of the most influential offices in Oregon — as state attorney general, UO law school dean and university president — yet he remained accessible to everyday Oregonians, including keeping his home number listed in the telephone book.

Sadly, Frohnmayer may be one of a vanishing breed. As a politician, he was a moderate Republican, a centrist in a state that increasingly seems dominated by ideological extremes and special interests.

The University of Oregon should continue to prosper under its new president. Richard Lariviere has been executive vice chancellor and provost at the University of Kansas and before that was a dean at the University of Texas — two outstanding public universities.

It can be said that Oregon universities are overachievers, certainly in comparison to the meager financial support they receive from the state. That achievement has been evident at the U of O.

It remains the only Oregon institution in the Association of American Universities, which comprises 62 top public and private research universities in the U.S. and Canada.

The UO conducts more than $100 million a year in federally funded research. The UO Honors College is one of the best bargains in American higher education, and Frohnmayer notes that the UO has the nation’s No. 1 public college of education.

During his tenure, the University of Oregon has grown in enrollment, buildings, fund-raising and stature.

Frohnmayer would have been a good governor — possibly a great one — although he would have faced the same Measure 5-created financial challenges that doomed Democratic Gov. Barbara Roberts to serving only one term.

In the end, Oregonians gained Frohnmayer for 15 years at the helm of the University of Oregon. He was an outstanding president: he is a great Oregonian.

As a proud, nay, almost jingoistic Oregonian, I can’t help but like this editorial a little bit, but really? Can someone in this damn country (besides former president George W. Bush) retire or die without getting apotheosized? I expect this kind of thing from television or blogs or Facebook (FROHN U LIVE IN OUR HEARTS 4 EVR!!!1), but you would think one of the top daily papers in the state could step back and muster the tiniest sliver of perspective.

Listen, I dig the Frohn. He’s a smart guy - smarter and more politically savvy than I’ll ever be. And as a person, he’s genuinely friendly and easy-going. For example, he agreed to do the cover picture for our 25th Anniversary Issue, and I’ve seen him getting his picture taken with students on the patio of Taylor’s.

As president of the UO, he’s done a great job, all things considered, of fundraising and keeping the school competitive. In fact, you couldn’t ask for much better. But you (and by you I mean the Statesman Journal) can’t give him a free pass. In the Recession Issue editorial, I wrote about a few things the incoming administration could change - namely transparency.

If there was one glaring flaw in the Frohn Zone, it was the administration’s tendency towards being heavy-handed and opaque. From dragging its feet on public record requests to flat-out refusing to compromise or even talk to its critics, the UO administration made a point of doing what it wanted, when it wanted and woe to those who got in its way.

In fact, Oregonian columnist Steve Duin recently noted the “bizarre, paranoid and problematic culture of secrecy at the University of Oregon.

So why exactly is a crappy student magazine holding the UO administration more accountable than a top daily?

Now it looks like someone is finally going to do something about it.

It was reported in today’s Emerald that my hometown state representative, Kim Thatcher (R-Keizer, St.Paul, Newberg), headed a group of representatives authoring a letter pushing for the OUS to reform it’s concealed carry statues. I’ll spare you the boring details of the letter, but it basically tells the OUS that they better stop making up laws that violate Oregonian’s civil rights.

As Thatcher points out, “… the state law is very clear; we have several legal opinions saying OUS is out of bounds and should not be infringing on the rights of Oregon citizens… “.

Students should be encouraged by this news, as it may be a step towards reversing the current precedent of the OUS’ administrative omnipresence over tuition-payers. Changing the OUS statute concerning concealed carry on campus will narrow the avenue universities can take to repress the rights of students. What students fail to realize that that you exercise the same rights standing in front of Johnson Hall and yammering about Russell Athletics as you do when you legally carry a firearm on campus. The civil rights of free speech and the right to bear arms are should be absolutely impenetrable by exterior forces; especially forces like the OUS which has no legislative (read: law-making) power.

The controversy regarding concealed carry on campus is then effectively legal in nature. The OUS  has made gun-prohibitive statutes part of it’s code, clearly bypassing laws passed by the Oregon State Legislature. Thatcher and her fellow representatives have called into question the legality of such statutes, warning of possible litigation against the OUS from citizens prosecuted for concealed carry on campus.

“As a result of this delayed action, we understand there may be lawsuits under consideration against the University System. We would hate to see protracted litigation which would come at great expense to taxpayers. Instead we remain optimistic that the OUS will modify its policies to bring them in line with state law and look forward to your plan of action. A response would be appreciated by June 30th”

For students, the significance of the letter is clear: the public university system here in Oregon shouldn’t be forcing you to absolve your civil rights as a condition for matriculation.

I’m glad someone’s figured that out.

On Wednesday, June 10, Valdas Anelauskas, a self-described “white separatist” who is involved with Holocaust-denial circles, gave a presentation to a group of sympathizers in Portland, Oregon. The event was sponsored by the Portland 9/11 Truth Alliance, and was initially scheduled to take place at the Laughing Horse Book & Video Collective.

Members of Rose City Antifascists (”Antifa”) —the Portland affiliate of the Anti-Racist Action Network—were among those who contacted Laughing Horse Books about the scheduled event. The Laughing Horse collective canceled the anti-Semitic event within 48 hours of being notified about its true nature. Subsequently the Portland 9/11 Truth Alliance moved Anelauskas’ talk—on the topic of “The Frankfurt School and Cultural Marxism”—to a secondary venue, which was also discovered by Antifa and then persuaded to cancel on the day of the event. Unfortunately, Anelauskas’ talk then went ahead at a third venue, a restaurant obviously booked at the last minute.

Valdas Anelauskas is a “racialist” (read: racist) activist currently based in Eugene, Oregon. This Lithuanian immigrant has assisted the World Anti-Communist League, an organization that supported Latin American death squads and has harbored former Nazi collaborators. Anelauskas is now active in the Pacifica Forum, a Eugene, Oregon organization which hosts Holocaust-denial speakers such as David Irving plus Mark Weber of the Institute for Historical Review. Anelauskas himself claims that the evidence for the Holocaust is “shaky”, that Jewish people are responsible for “Bolshevism”, and that the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion are credible.

Apparently Anelauskas is taking his show on the road! Well, if he thinks he’s going to get any traction in Portland, he and his little 9/11 conspiracy friends are in for a rude surprise. Portlanders don’t tolerate any hint of white-power nonsense, and I can guarantee every one of his “speaking engagements” will be disrupted by anti-fascists and/or SHARPs. (The Portland SHARP cleaned out a neo-nazi infestation in the 90’s using, shall we say, aggressive tactics.)

NCAA Titles

Pre: Seven. Three in cross-country, four in the three-mile.

Rupp: Six. One cross-country, three indoor (3k, 5k and DMR) and two outdoor (5k and 10k).

Records

Pre: Eight collegiate records and one American record in the 5k. Two still stand today (3-mile and 6-mile). Also holds record for fastest drunk tricycle bar lap at The Old Pad.

Rupp: Two collegiate records and American indoor record in the 5k.

Mustache?

Pre: Yes

Rupp: No

Olympic Performances

Pre: ‘72 Munich. 4th in one of the most competitive 5k races ever fielded.

Rupp: ‘08 Beijing. 13th in the 10k. The fastest non-African in the race.

Comparison of Best Times

Pre: Mile (3:54.6), 5k (13:21.87), 10k (did not compete in college. Post-collegiate PR was 27:43.6)

Rupp: Mile (3:57.86), 5k (13:30.49), 10k (27:33.48)

I’d also like to point out that Pre’s win/loss record was absurd. Pre lost only three races his entire collegiate career - one being a second place finish in the NCAA cross-country championship as a freshman. (Can anyone give me a confirmation on this? I can’t find a complete list of Pre’s races on the web.)

So there you go. Prefontaine pretty much comes out on top. And as one of our esteemed commenters pointed out, Pre spent a lot of time drinking beer and generally being a polecat, while Rupp sleeps in an altitude chamber at night. Of course, I don’t want to bag on the kid too much (”Oh, only a paltry six NCAA titles!”), but we can’t quite call him the best to ever don an Oregon jersey. That’s still Pre.

Best of luck to Rupp, though. It was fantastic to see him run, and I hope he tears it up at the international level. Lord knows the U.S. needs a viable 10k threat.

• 2008 Olympian and fastest non-African in the 10,000
• 2009 U.S. champion in the 10k
• Currently holds the American indoor record in the 5,000 and collegiate records in the outdoor 10k (fastest American-born) and indoor 3k
• Three-time consecutive U.S. national team member
• Only person in NCAA history to win the 3k, 5k and distance medley in a championship. If Rupp had entered the 2008 NCAA Indoor Championships as a one-man team, he would have taken 10th.
• Overall, six NCAA distance titles in the 2008-2009 season - first in cross country; first in the indoor 3k, 5k and DMR; and first in the outdoor 5k and 10k.
• Ran anchor leg on the Ducks’ record-breaking 4xmile relay team.
• You might as well throw in a handful of Pac-10 championships, as well as nine time All-American and NCAA Division I Men’s Track Athlete of the year.

Rupp is the most decorated Duck in school history. Of course, this begs the question: Better than Pre? When I get the time and the gumption, I’ll stack them up against each other.

(The ODE also has a list of Rupp’s stats.)

Enjoy

Comments closed because of moron invasion. -ed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEtVRgZ3Szw

[I couldn't get the embed feature to work for some reason. It wouldn't load properly. Click the link instead.]

Note how extremely uncomfortable the interviewer gets when the woman demands that “you people” [Americans] do something about the Iranian government.

Any other revelations you want to take away from it, like her screaming “This is Hitler” or people getting axed at universities. Quite ridiculous.

But never mind all that. The masthead says “a conservative journal of opinion” and, since we’re not getting any of that sweet, sweet, free stimulus money (and since we find the idea of the government bailing out newspapers utterly repugnant– sorry journalism majors), I thought I’d call attention to Cato’s crucial coverage of what’s poised to be a total health-care debacle — one of positively federal proportions. In any case, you can find an informative live-blogged response to the President’s err…  “highly adversarial” appearance on ABC here.

And in case you don’t give two squirts of piss about the de facto socialization of health care in this country, I invite you to instead discuss this article, which seeks to establish whether or not the “FreeCreditReport.com band” is “legit” or not. But I’ll never respect you again.

Since we are on the eve of the NBA draft, I find tonight of particular interest for those sports fans born here in Oregon.

You see, the only thing we have here in Oregon is the Blazers–there’s no baseball team, the soccer is, well… soccer and the only football played in the state is at the respective universities. But the Blazers are so beloved they have sold out more than 60 consecutive games at the Rose Garden. That’s more than LeBron James has with his Cavaliers. Hell, I’m wearing a Brandon Roy shir-sey right now. That’s why tomorrow’s draft will be such an important day for Trailblazers fans everywhere. 6/24/09 will be recorded in Traiblazer history either as a day of glory or as a day of reckoning.

For those of you who haven’t been following the Blazers the past few years, or even the last decade, let me update you on the happenings. 10 years ago we were on the crest of a championship run, but it became increasingly apparent that Scottie Pippen was a mental midget when faced with Phil Jackson’s taunts. Then we got rid of our good players (or they left) and we hired the Rec team from San Quentin penitentiary. The Jailblazers were a bunch of dog-fighting, weed smoking wife-beaters. Now the Blazer’s front office has gathered a formidable crew of young men with great talent and stellar character. The last few years have been a learning experience, and these players have had the growing pains that go hand-in-hand with players’ formative years in the NBA.

So where does that leave the Blazers for the draft tomorrow?

Although always involved with trade rumors because of their talent-stocked young team, the Blazers have chosen to stand pat the last few years instead of trading for a veteran that could tip them over the edge and towards the Larry O’Brien Trophy. Rumors always start to swirl about a “Superstar” coming to Portland–last year it was Vince Carter. Usually what this means is that for giving away young talent we are offered washed-up players in return (Anyone want to talk about T-Mac this year? You know it’s coming). I can only thank the good Lord that Kevin Pritchard never pulls the trigger. But this always leads Blazer fans to the same argument: One side desiring a “veteran” and a “superstar” to guide Brandon Roy and crew while the other complains about no one ever giving any credit to Steve Blake and the other “veterans” on the team.

So what needs to be done?

Unfortunately for Blazer fans, I just don’t know if this year is going to pan out the way we all want it to. Along with Pritchard’s notorious reputation for stockpiling talent for no apparent reason, we seem to be constantly involved in talks that bring people past their prime to Portland instead of at their peak. This is undoubtedly always going to be a short-term solution, and shouldn’t be seen as the saving grace of the franchise. People are always suggesting getting rid of Steve Blake or Travis Outlaw for someone like Steve Nash or, God forbid, Hedo Turkoglu. No one ever seems to want to bring in someone like Danny Granger or Jose Calderon. Why not supplement your roster with more young players who are in the same position as Roy and Aldridge? The Blazers need more players poised for a national breakthrough, not old creaky ones or players that will never pan out.

Additionally, the Blazers need to build a franchise that isn’t about your Chewbaccas and Captain Rikers. It needs to be about the Han Solos and Captain Picards. More importanly, it needs to be about building a franchise that will stay together for the entire run, not one where major players phase in and out. Signing up some dusty veteran with back problems or a bum knee who won’t even be around in 2 years isn’t a way to start off a decade of dominance–it’s the way to make sure it never happens.

I’m really hoping the Blazers pull off something huge this draft–they’ve got enough picks and enough players they don’t need to be able to trade for someone really great for their roster. Yet as a lifelong Blazer fan, I’m used to watching my team get their asses absolutely handed to them whenever they’re about to do something great. Like all Oregonians, I know that if I don’t like the weather here I can just wait five minutes; it’ll change. Similarly, I know that a lot of Oregonians are in the same boat as me when it comes to the Blazers.

But in both cases, I try not to get my hopes up.

Considering my strange love for American football, and my current internship at a sports journalism site, I thought I would share a few thoughts about the NCAA that have become increasingly apparent to me. You may have come to this conclusion long ago yourself but I didn’t start following collegiate sports and its myriad of issues until I became a freshmen. Even then it took a few months.

My conclusion: The NCAA is the United Nations of the collegiate sports world.

I don’t mean this in a good way. I’m talking about the U.N. that has no power (which it doesn’t) and mostly allows for easier (or if you care to argue the other way) diplomatic ties for various countries. The power that the media, fans, and schools ascribe to the NCAA is on the whole ridiculous.

Here’s three points of evidence -

1. The University of Alabama punishment

Recently the NCAA ruled that the University of Alabama football program must vacate 21 wins from the 2005 - 2007 seasons. Alabama is in the process of appealing the sanctions. The sanctions were handed down when Alabama reported that students from various sports programs were allegedly using student benefits they received to profit. Mostly this was a group of student-athletes who were buying textbooks for free and selling them to other students at a reduced price [personally, I think with the way the textbook industry is so monopolized those kids who bought from the athletes probably got a cheaper price. The actions are still unethical but it's kind of a strange Robin Hood situation].

Another southern program, Florida State, is on the chopping block and may also have to vacate wins (their term not mine). This time because allegedly 61 student-athletes cheated on an online music history test.

Officially, this is all good and well. Unofficially, the punishment means nothing. It’s highly doubtful that either Alabama or FSU will actually remove these wins and the statistics from them from their record books. It’s doubtful the SEC or the ACC will actually remove the statistics or wins from their records books.

The only thing that this achieves is to publicly shame the schools, also, officially Bobby Bowden goes down as 11 wins away from beating Joe Paterno for winningest coach in ever. For Bowden the removal of wins is a punishment for Nick Saban over at Alabama it does nothing. He doesn’t lose his job, he doesn’t lose players, and his current players aren’t suffering any consequences (not that they should unless they too are cheating or what-have-you). In fact, if Saban were to leave Alabama for another head coaching position he could probably get one almost wherever he wanted.

No one suffers here.

A U.N. example here would be when the U.N. passes down sanctions or embargoes on various countries. Take Iraq for example. Pre-Gulf War 2 Iraq had been embargoed by the U.N. since 1990. That did not stop the France from trading with the Iraqis during that time period, mostly weapons but food and other goods as well.

And as far as I know the U.S. was still accepting oil, though in limited quantities nothing like our dealings with the Saudis.

Admittedly, some countries acknowledged the embargo and the Iraq economy suffered some (I honestly blame that more on Hussein’s policies than the embargo though). Still, it’s not as if every nation in the U.N. was listening to their own mandates.

Without the power to really enforce their sanctions or back their word up the pieces of paper that the U.N. prints up mean nothing. The same goes with the NCAA.

2. The USC Allegations

After star running back Reggie Bush left USC there were several allegations that his family received items in Southern California well beyond plane trips to see their son play, these items included a house, vehicles for Bush and his family, and money. Essentially it was hinted that Bush was more than paid to go to USC.

The recently resigned basketball coach Tim Floyd came under fire when it was rumored that star recruit O.J. Mayo received $30,000 from an agent (against NCAA regulations). There are also some allegations that Floyd paid money to get Mayo to play for USC.

A couple of things to note about these allegations and the subsequent investigations:

- The investigations have not been concluded and no punishment has been issued to USC or the players mentioned. Floyd resigned this month suddenly and it is suspected that he did so because of the allegations.

- Reggie Bush has been in the NFL since 2006 (where he has under-achieved I might add). The investigations started almost immediately after he left USC and previous to his being drafted by the Saints.

- O.J. Mayo has been in the NBA for one season. He was controversial before he signed with USC but it increased after he left.

In my mind this is very telling. The NCAA has no preventative measures (except losing scholarships, recruiting restrictions) to stop school’s, players, and agents from dealing with one another. Most, I would argue 95%, of punishments that the NCAA gives out are to self-reported schools. The Alabama issue in my above point was self-reported.

A couple years ago Indiana University lost a coach, scholarships, student-athletes, and received restrictions because of a self-reported violation.

This is important to note because the USC allegations weren’t self-reported. The punishments that the NCAA gave to these other schools was nearly immediate without an investigation by the association. With USC there are rumors that most fans and media people believe to be true but neither USC or the NCAA have been forthcoming with their investigation and no punishments have been meted out.

I’d make a U.N. connection here but laziness over takes the author. On to point number three.

3. The BCS Championship Game (Football)

Of all the sports that are recognized by the NCAA football is the only one without a playoff system, the only one. Every other sport has some kind of playoff to determine the champion for that season, lacrosse, golf, basketball with March Madness, baseball World Series in Omaha, etc. They all have a playoff.

Football refuses to do change. Most fans and a good chunk of sports writers continue to blame the NCAA for the lack of playoffs.

Most fans and a good chunk of sports writers would be wrong. The reason that there isn’t a playoff system is because the big six conferences (ACC, Big East, SEC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-10) continually vote against it. Annually there is a conference between the commissioners of each conference and every year one commissioner asks for a playoff and everyone else votes it down.

And it’s not just the commissioners either. Our own Dave Frohnmayer was on a committee of University Presidents for the Nation that also voted down a playoff system.

To be realistic it’s all about the money that schools and conferences bring in because of bowl deals, tv contracts, etc. They believe that a playoff would reduce the amount of money that they make. I don’t believe this and I think it would increase the money, just look at March Madness that thing is a money-machine. Admittedly, there won’t be 64 teams in a football playoff but still.

This one does have a U.N. example.

After the U.S. military had essentially driven the Taliban out of Afghanistan Bush’s administration turned their focus on Iraq. We all know the story. The U.N. sent teams of investigators into Iraq to determine whether or not there were actually WMDs. I won’t go into yay or nay there were or were not. Point is they came back and said no.

The U.S. invaded Iraq anyway to the chagrin of the Security Council and the U.N. as a whole, save England.

The U.S. in this situation is the big six conferences. The U.N. has/had no power to stop the U.S. from going to war with Iraq. Most of the power that the U.N. does have comes from the U.S. anyway, most of the soldiers that work for the U.N. come from the U.S.

In a similar fashion, all the power that the NCAA does have comes from the conferences. If say the WAC, Sun Belt Conference, and the A-10 wanted to hold D-1 mid-major playoffs to determine a champion amongst themselves they could. If the big six wanted to they could as well. The NCAA is a token sanctioning body.

—

You can agree or disagree here but I thought that I’d share my thoughts on how worthless the NCAA is and conversely the U.N.

PETA getting mad at Obama for swatting a fly.

If you ever start thinking that maybe the world is boiling down to just politics and that we’re splitting down party lines everywhere never forget PETA, they’re always around to make sure that you remember terrible PR campaigns and general craziness.

Like this commercial that was, for obvious reasons, banned:

watch?v=SR021-qyLJ8

Just sayin’.

The President is in full-on “grovel” mode, it seems. Martin Peretz has some related thoughts regarding the “Cairo Speech”.

Depending on who you ask this volatile question to, the answer will undoubtedly vary from person to person. Yet this is a question that seems to have a rather shocking answer to those concerned with the Constitutional nature of our government here in America.

I’ve recently had several conversations with proponents of gun control and their answers seem to be rather uniform; proponents of gun control do not believe that owning guns is a civil right. This fact absolutely boggles my mind when considering they do believe that  freedom of speech, freedom of press and the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness are all natural rights.

Unlike my personal fear of not wanting to accidentally shoot myself in the face, proponents of gun control seem to have their argument based in the irrational fear of firearms instead of the legal nature of civil rights. That is to say, they are afraid of the possibility of criminal gun violence. Coupled with the inherent “keep kids safe from guns” argument, “progressives” end up believing they have a rather solid argument against gun control. Why not take away the means for those wanting to commit violent crimes as well as removing “accidental” danger from the irresponsible hands of a child? Or take the weapon out of the hands of a legally carrying, but nervous and trigger happy citizen to prevent accidents? It’s a win-win situation, right?

People seem too quick to forget that the 2nd Amendment is a part of the Constitution we call “The Bill of Rights”–and the weight that label places on the right to bear arms as a civil right. Apparently it is the common assumption among gun control-ers that James Madison and Thomas Jefferson had  the incredible foresight to know what rights Americans would need throughout the history of the nation, with the exception of the right to firearms. Now whether or not you disagree with the Lockean nature of the 2nd Amendment has no relevance–the fact remains that as long as the 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution of the United States, it will remain a civil right.

Unfortunately, the reason that firearms often get overlooked as a civil right is their role in crime. It’s from this margin that gun control proponents bring to the fore their argument: Guns give people an easier means to commit violent crimes against other human beings. Yet the 2nd Amendment doesn’t say anything about the right of people to bear arms and suppress the civil rights of others. Those committing crimes with the assistance of a gun are doing just that, committing a crime. And perpetuating the myth that a civilization devoid of firearms  will inherently be devoid of crime is just that, a myth. Are criminals committing crimes because of their guns, or in addition to them?

If the government were to ban guns, another tool would only present itself  in order to perpetuate those crimes. Would the banning of firearms really make the motivation for crime less persistent? Or would it simply be a roadblock to those driven to commit crimes due to other forces, like poverty?

Before I go any further, let me explain something about myself. I am personally physically afraid of guns. I hadn’t held or fired one until recently, and Guy Simmons can attest to my timid nature (or what he referred to as my “domestication”). I was raised in a suburb and have no experience with guns of any kind.

So why am I wary of the regulation of firearms?

First is its de facto widening of the scope of our government. Historically, giving government more control over what has been legally established  as a “right”  in any country has been a grave choice. This is especially concerning in a country like America where the power of the federal government has skyrocketed out of control both in its jurisdiction over its people and in its relative differing weight amongst its branches. I find myself hard pressed to understand the expropriation of more power to the government.

The second thing that worries me are the pro-gun control people themselves. Their inability to see the fallacy and indeed hypocrisy in their own rhetoric is rather unsettling. The liberal proponents of gun control can often be overheard complaining about the corruption within the government–whether it be Bush, Cheney or any number of legislators. What I just don’t understand is the ability to complain about governmental corruption on one hand, and then promote government control of a civil right on the other.

Trusting the government with civil liberties is not something to be taken lightly, and the idea that the government has the ability to regulate such a thing is absolutely beyond naive–it’s insane. History has never proven that governments have ever had the ability to do so. (Ask anyone from Latin America who was alive in the last century, or anyone from the USSR.)

So why do I believe in the deregulation of guns, especially when I will never own one myself? It really comes down to whether or not I want the civil liberties I do actively use, like my right to free speech, to be repressed. As long as the 2nd Amendment is considered a civil right here in America, which it is, its suppression or brutalization by the federal government can only be seen as an encroachment on our civil rights as a whole.

It may seem far-fetched to some of you liberals out there, but once the suppression of our right to guns happens one has to ask, “What’s next?” You may remember that you (and indeed, I) were asking the same thing when Bush started wire-tapping people and suspended the writ of habeas corpus.

I am therefore afraid of gun control for the simple fact that it has the ability to usher in an era of  suppression concerning the rights so many of us cherish; whether or not you are from the left or from the right, for guns or against them.

I didn’t read the copy before it went out—not that I’m complaining, I enjoy fresh material. Mortis the Pestilent’s hate column on student protests caught my eye. The column grabbed my attention because I’d just reread this article prior to the “I Hate Student Protests” one.

Yes, we’ve known about this issue since January, the article is from then as well, but seeing friends graduate and parents wander around the campus like Japanese tourists (some of whom probably were Japanese tourists) reminded me of what I’ll be facing next spring when I graduate.

And then it got me angry. Not at the University, because well, fuck them as is.

Every single day when you walk by the EMU amphitheater some dim-witted OSPIRG brainwash with a clipboard tries to assault students with the “environmental cause” or the “I hate Bush cause” or my personal favorite “the student cause.”

These priviledged, ignorant “students” will protest the most hopeless causes to death. Darfur, the Russel Athletic Contract, white privilege, racism, whatever.

But when it comes to something that’s close to home, like the University out-right picking the Athletic Department over students, no one said a word except one lonely article in the ODE and a few angry comments under CJ’s post about it.

Beyond being lost in their own rhetoric maybe, just maybe even the goons in the Insurgent could have mustered up some kind of crazy, hippy rage over this. No one has bothered to protest this. Two professors came out against it in the media, Nathan Tublitz and Bill Harbaraugh. The School of Music supported the decision, to be honest, fuck the school of music.

Is it just me or is this not something to get indignant about? It’s one thing to protest Darfur. Most of the kids protesting that will never go to Darfur, will never meet a real African and in all likelihood all they did was buy a t-shirt that sent 10 dollars to the Red Cross and not Darfur. Sure they might not wear Russell Athletics clothes but who cares, they all wear Nike anyway.

This seems, to me, like something for the general student to protest. It might be something that I would take a flyer for. It’s an event that really proves how much the University caters to Athletics over Academics. Myself, I normally don’t care because it’s not really affecting the educational quality of the Univeristy, non-diverse (in all aspects politically, ethnically, whatever) faculty and bureaucratic bullshit affect the quality of education here.

However, this feels like a slap in the face.

Now, the important question, will I protest?

No.

Mostly this is just indignant anger. Mostly the lack of response of by 98% of the UO community has created in my apathy towards protesting for the betterment of those people. If I were to protest it would be for me. To be honest, it’s a little selfish to protest for yourself, make it a little bigger in my head and I might. For now, no.

Much has been made in the comments section of this blog about what the problem actually looks like and what can be done about it, and I think that Anderson does a reasonably good job of crystallizing a few of the major concerns regarding the lack of intellectual diversity in the academy.

He makes clear the results of a lack of intellectual diversity in the academy, and it’s not just that students run the risk of ending up in a classroom with biased instructors. Rather, courses that approach subject matter from a conservative or libertarian perspective simply are not taught. This is due in large part to the fact that many existing faculty are either uninterested or unable to teach such courses, with the outcome that classes in conservative political thought or historical interpretation, etc. have more or less disappeared from curricula. For support he cites Peter Berkowitz, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute, who writes:

To be sure, a political science department may feature a course on American political thought that includes a few papers from “The Federalist” and some chapters from Alexis de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America.”

But most students will hear next to nothing about the conservative tradition in American politics that stretches from John Adams to Theodore Roosevelt to William F. Buckley Jr. to Milton Friedman to Ronald Reagan. This tradition emphasizes moral and intellectual excellence, worries that democratic practices and egalitarian norms will threaten individual liberty, attends to the claims of religion and the role it can play in educating citizens for liberty, and provides both a vigorous defense of free-market capitalism and a powerful critique of capitalism’s relentless overturning of established ways. It also recognized early that communism represented an implacable enemy of freedom.

[...]

While ignoring conservatism, the political theory subfield regularly offers specialized courses in liberal theory and democratic theory; African-American political thought and feminist political theory; the social theory of Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber and the neo-Marxist Frankfurt school; and numerous versions of postmodern political theory.

Berkowitz argues that, far from actively seeking “conservative” scholars during faculty searches, departments should instead look for professors who, regardless of their political background, would be able to convincingly teach a courses about conservative interpretations of history, ideas, politics, etc. to complement the stable of scholars in virtually every humanities or social science department who are fluent in leftish ideas.

This approach would likely have the effect of attracting a more “diverse” group of applicants and nullifies the basis of the argument that only “liberal people apply to liberal schools” (or the even more absurd notion that conservatives are simply too thick to be academics) while at the same time avoiding any sort of political “litmus test” during the hiring process.

While approvingly quoting Berkowitz’s admonition against “affirmative action for conservatives,” Anderson also notes the stultifying results of the left-liberal coccoon in academia:

… within an academic institution, I find myself treated as “conservative” - either to recoil from in faint horror, with a certain advice to students, well, if you take him, you have to know what you’re getting, or with a certain faint institutional pride that we’re broad-minded enough to have someone like him, which is to say, there is nothing an academic institution cannot praise itself for if it tries hard enough. I’ve had conversations - earnest, well-intentioned - that amounted to saying, “We’re so glad you’re our token conservative.”

If a quality education that exposes students to a wide variety of ideas and perspectives is indeed the mission of this institution (and sometimes one wonders…), then it simply isn’t enough to retort “well, go take an economics class” whenever someone complains that conservative ideas are given short shrift in the academy. Students actually need to be able to expose themselves to a truly diverse set of ideas that are taught by people who’re interested in and qualified to teach them, regardless of their political background (I mean, can you imagine what a class at the UO campus on the ideas of Ronald Reagan or William F. Buckley might look like?).

As it stands, students are often presented with the illusion of choice and given the option of taking courses in any number of subjects, a large number of which approach the course material, whatever it may be, with much the same theoretical framework.

That’s not diversity, and telling conservative academics to get out of town and move to Texas doesn’t change that.

With the new federal tobacco bill looming, I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge the memory of that crazy civil liberty, freedom of choice.

We hardly knew ye.

The pending bill will force tobacco companies to bend to even stricter FDA regulation including the banning of flavors, reduction of nicotine and the removal of certain “poisons”.

The most drastic part of the bill will ban color advertisements, which will be replaced by “black-and-white-only text.” Additionally, billboards within 1000 feet of schools will be deemed illegal.

The bill has been aimed at the reduction of teenaged smoking rates. Proponents of the bill say the reasoning behind the banning of flavors is because they are “considered a lure to first-time smokers”. Really? Flavors? If cigarette companies wanted to lure in teen smokers with fancy marketing, they would have put Megan Fox on the box.

The increased taxation and regulation of tobacco has always been a under the thin veil of “for your health” or “for the children” but this new legislation is absolutely ridiculous. It’s simply further evidence of the government taking the place of the parent in a society increasingly willing to have laws passed to prevent their children from doing dangerous things instead of actually teaching them not to do dangerous things. That is until they’re an adult of course, when it’s fully their choice to do so.

What this bill effectively does, then, is squash the right for “of age” adults to make their own choices regarding their tobacco consumption. With increased regulation people won’t be able to enjoy their right to consume a product they have already been well informed  “Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, and May Complicate Pregnancy”.

Maybe legislators have realized that wasting tax dollars on increased police enforcement or programs like D.A.R.E.  doesn’t work and decided that instead of promoting parental guidance they’ve decided to promote the demanding voice of Uncle Sam. Maybe that’s also why they’ve decided to take that choice away from people like you and I to smoke tobacco as we please.

Why does legislation like this pass? Because suppressing our civil liberties is the government’s favorite past-time–hey, who doesn’t want to increase their own scope of power?

So when are they going to start handing out our ration cards? I’ve got a hankerin’ for some black bread and some beets.