Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 5, 2000)
Thursday Editor in chief: Jack Clifford Managing Editor: Jessica Blanchard Newsroom: (541) 346-5511 Room 300, Erb Memorial Union P.O. box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403 E-mail: ode@oregon.uoregon.edu EDITORIAL EDITOR: MICHAEL J. KLECKNER opededitor@journatist.com PAT PAYNE CAPTAIN SENSIBLE If the large left-wing baka (idiot) population is looking for a colum nist who’s going to agree with its ideas of political change (i.e. pil lage and rapine), look somewhere else. If you’re a right-wing mouthbreather with an IQ smaller than your hat size who thinks of Rush Limbaugh as a role model, I’m not your guy either. Basical ly, here’s the deal. I try to offend every one who deserves it. So here’s my first attempt. Baka (Japn.): (bA-kA) n, adj. 1. A fool or fools. 2. Foolish. 3. A term referring to certain persons on both the extreme political left and some major industrial and political institutions. Remember Seattle? Remember the chaos that erupted when activists and police clashed in the streets? It seems that ever since the “victory” in Seattle in 1999, no protest can be peaceful anymore. Someone has to turn every peaceful march into a battle with the authorities through what is now known as “direct action.” Direct action seems to be a code word for the de struction and disruption of peaceful speech. The right to protest a government’s policies or a company’s beliefs is one of the hallmarks of American society. At times, it is necessary to disobey laws to protect that right. However, what happens when exercising the right to free speech becomes destruc tive to property and overshadows oth er voices? In Seattle, Washington and Prague, the worst part of the baka taking over was that everyone with legitimate protests and concerns was overshad owed and out-shouted by a handful of attention-seekers and media hogs who were only there because the cameras were. For every “Ruckus Society” member out there, there were more people who weren’t being violent. Who remembers their pleas? We only remember the shots of windows being broken by loot ers acting under a political umbrella. The Ruckus Society and its ilk are just the descendants of ’60s baka like Jerry Rubin, whose main claim to fame was that he tried to levitate the Penta gon. With the Ruckus Society and Ru bin, the message is not human rights or saving the rain forest. Direct action is the message. Do you think the Ruckus Society would actually go to Indonesia or Korea to shut down a Nike factory? Do you think they would really go to China to protest human rights abuses? Any chance they’d tie themselves to trees in the Brazilian rain forest? They’d never be heard from again. Much easier to disrupt a meeting of head honchos in this country or Eu rope, where the news cameras are sure to be. Besides, what’s there to loot and smash in Indonesia? The anti-Suharto riots pretty much cleaned Jakarta out. The idiocy surrounding them notwithstanding, the problems and complaints are relevant. In China, po litical prisoners are used to make con sumer products as part of their pe nal servitude. Indonesian fac tories are virtual sweat shops where workers are forced to labor 15 hours a day or more without breaks to make clothing arti cles for American backs. There shouldn’t be an argument that these practices are wrong. Nike, for in stance, should take more control of what their factories are do ing in the far corners of the world. Still, two wrongs don’t make a right. By destroying a Star bucks, you’re putting 10 or more people out of work for anywhere from a week to a month. By clogging streets, you’re keep ing people here in the United States from earning a living. By ri oting, you cast a pali of fear and turn off people like me who see all demonstrators as ri oters, not as people with V. legitimate complaints. Of course, if you’ve read to this point, you’re probably not a demonstrator. Pat Payne is a columnist for the Oregon Daily Emerald. His views do not necessarily represent those of the Emerald. Bryan Dixon Emerald Letters to the editor Yahoo! protesters seeking to be offended As females and University of Oregon students, we would like to respond to the outrage generated by the recent Yahoo! ad campaign. We feel that the letters appearing Monday, Oct. 2 demand a second opinion. First, we regard ourselves as strong-willed, respected women and We do not find these ads offensive either to females or to homosexuals. A mild expression of sexual at traction toward a woman taking her top off is hardly indicative of rape culture; this level of extrapo lation is absurd. The motivation behind rape is power, not sex. If the genders of the names in this particular ad had been switched (i.e. Jon is about to take his shirt off), we doubt anyone would have complained. Why is this type of sexual desire acceptable but the other is not? On another note, cross-dressing is not a strictly homosexual prac tice. Portraying both male and fe male genders is normal for all hu mans: homosexual and heterosexual, male and female. Furthermore, Yahool’s advertise ment does not promote homopho bia by depicting a man who has experimented and rejected cross dressing because it’s uncomfort able. We strongly feel that these ads, intended simply to grab the read er’s attention, have been miscon strued because people have pro jected preconceived prejudices onto them. When one views these ads from an unbiased perspective, there is very little — if any — of fensive content. Instead of seeking to be offended, perhaps the stu dent body should focus its energy on more constructive ways of fur thering equality of all people. M. Suzanne Reynolds R. Lynn Hides Blame squarely on editor There are a few things in Jack Clifford’s Oct. 2 commentary about the Yahoo! ads that are dis turbing to hear from a newspaper editor-in-chief. Apparently the purpose of the ODE is to sell newspapers, not to disseminate information: “The newsroom writes stories ... to fit the space not filled with ads.” Per haps this was an unfortunate phrasing, but I always thought the purpose of a newspaper was to re port news, facilitate the exchange of ideas and enhance our under standing of our world. Later, Mr. Clifford defended the division of the paper into two, de partments that “are careful about the information we share” (read: “don't talk to each other.” it ap pears) by saying “I don’t want any one from the sales department... telling me what stories should run in the newspaper.” This is ridicu lous. Of course the sales folks should not be dictating story con tent, but that is because nothing should dictate story content but the events of the story. However, that does not mean that the editor in-chief should not set advertising policy. Finally, Mr. Clifford accepted responsibility for the Yahoo! ads and almost immediately rejected it: “The buck doesn't stop on my desk, even if it does slow down.” Mr. Clifford, as editor-in-chief, it does indeed stop on your desk. That’s what your title means. You do not make every decision in the newspaper’s production, but you are responsible for setting the poli cies which inform these decisions. Joshua Madden graduate student, CIS Women constantly under attack In response to Brandon Ober lin’s letter to the editor — yes, peo ple DO care, otherwise there wouldn’t have been such an up roar alpopt th$ Y^hqo! ad$! I mean this in the nicest way, but maybe you don’t understand because every second of your life is not subconsciously ruled with the knowledge that you are viewed as a sexual object and nothing more. You don’t have to worry about walking past guys and receiving blatant stares, comments and oth er behavior that makes you feel like a piece of meat. You don’t have to worry about the message your clothing is sending, about walking anywhere alone, about date rape, about group mentality and drunk guys at parties trying to cop a quick feel because their friends will laugh. But women understand this because these thoughts are constant. And we are so used to it, in fact, that we often don’t pay attention to it any more. I didn’t think anything of the Yahoo! ads until someone said something. Then I realized that there was something wrong. It is so common, this treatment of women, that it has become ac ceptable and disregarded at the same time. No one gives it a sec ond thought. But we need to, be cause it makes women feel like crap, to be quite honest. We are good for a hell of a lot more than showing some skin, and it’s about time we were treated with the re spect we deserve. , Lindsey Merrell junior Emerald clarifies position on WISTEC When we wrote on the Autzen/WISTEC parking lot problem last week, we were more confused than we realized. We made a mistake and we simplified the lease issue, which is in no way straight forward. The dilemma is complicated, but that shouldn't diminish the importance of WISTEC continuing to operate. WISTEC serves an incredible purpose in our com munity by providing young people with a direct, hands-on scientific experience. It also hasa program for older girls to act as mentors to younger children, which gives girls confidence and skills in sci ence instruction. The University should support this however possible. And now, for the correction: The $26,000 WISTEC makes every year from the paved lots on their land epresentsap proximately 14 percent of their yearly in come. The clarification: WISTEC does have a lease for the land they; e, but it’s a non exclusive lease for the ed lots in ques tion. This means the ci >wns those lots and according to the o s attorney, the city has the right to make an additional inter-governmental ag *ment with the University (as it has d that allows the University to also use t e lots, so long as WISTEC still has spai remployees and patrons to park. We regret confusing ar ?ady complex issue.
