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.