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@oregoh.uoregon.edu
EDITORIAL EDITOR: MICHAEL j. KLECKNER opededitor@journalist.com
1
A CAULDRON
IDIOCY
aaron mckenzie
I started writing this column as a tirade
against our “lord protector,” George
W. Bush, and the fact that no one real
ly wants him in office. I quickly real
ized, though, that I was wrong and had
again fallen into those dangerous waters
wherein one confuses Eugene with Reali
ty. We live in a bubble here, and while
very few of us care to acknowledge that
our world is run by a half-wit from Texas,
I daresay a large portion of the country ac
knowledges him without compunction.
The fearsome mindset of Bush and his fol
lowers is actually quite common in these
United States. Bigotry and imbecility in
our politicians seem as popular as ever.
Let’s look at another example. Based on
the abundance of “No on 9” stickers around
Eugene last fall, you might have assumed
that homophobic ignorance was a dying fash
ion. It was reassuring to know that Lon
Mabon and his band of hateful troubadours
would finally meet the resounding flames of
total defeat they so deserve. But then the Ore
gon voters turned out at the polls and sent all
our optimistic delusions hurtling back to
earth. Yes, Measure 9 failed to pass, but the
margin by which voters defeated it (only 52
percent of voters voted “no”) was a sufficient
reminder of the degenerate mindset that per
vades this strange world in which we live.
The insular academic environment in
which we daily find ourselves and the
Bryan Dixon Emerald
strange mix of progressive politics in Eu
gene further augment these rose-colored
glasses. Ignorant idealism is a curious lux
ury afforded to those of us who effectively
sit around and — I’d like to hope — think
all day. It’s a good life, to be sure, but our
beliefs and opinions are rarely challenged
and as a result, we soon begin to project
our ideology on the world as a whole. As I
said, I’m guilty of this, too, which makes
this an exorcism of sorts. I have to keep
reminding myself that our president is a
vicious liar from one of the meanest, ugli
est families in Christendom, a power freak
running amok in the wake of Bill Clin
ton’s hopeless libido. And moreover, a lot
of people like him. It’s hard to fathom, I
know, but it’s true.
Which is why I find it alarming when I
come upon demonstrations here in Eugene
for international issues or against, say, Mea
sure 9. If ever there was a case of preaching
to the choir, this is it. By and large, Eugene
residents have a decent grasp of the issues
facing the world and no protest — least of
all here — is bound to effect much change.
Along with Portland, our town is an anom
aly in Oregon politics. Protests against is
sues such as homophobia ought to be held
in the more rural parts of Oregon, not
downtown Eugene or Pioneer Courthouse
Square. Remember, 48 percent of Oregon
voters voted “yes” on Measure 9 — and I
feel safe in suggesting that most of them
were not from Eugene.
Those of us who live in Eugene, howev
er, have been lulled into the blissful no
tion that, based on what we see here, the
whole of society is attempting to act re
sponsibly toward the environment, is
fighting hatred and bigotry, and is right
fully scorning George W. Bush.
We don’t live in a bio-dome, though,
and to lose sight of the world outside the
city limits of Eugene is dangerous and
wrong. Yes, there are pockets of rosy pro
gressivism in various cities all across the
country. But too many citizens still vote
‘yes’ on Measure 9 or put their faith in the
foul promises of our commander in chief.
We must not be lazy and imagine that the
world is right and true.
If change is really your goal, put your
opinions to the test: Try heading to Burns
for that “No on 9” demonstration or
protest the use of pesticides in.Pendleton.
If nothing else, the viewer response is
sure to be far more interesting than any
thing in Eugene.
Aaron McKenzie is a columnist for the Oregon Daily
Emerald. His views do not necessarily represent
those of the Emerald. He can be reached at awm
ckenzie@yahoo.com.
Reinstate Gore by impeachment
• Guest Commentary
Charles O.
T:
|he only Supreme Court jus
tice impeached to date was
Associate Justice Samuel
JL Chase, who was acquitted by
the House of Representatives on
March 1,1805.
Andrew Johnson, the first of three
presidents impeached, was acquitted
in the Senate by one vote on May 26,
1862. President Clinton was im
peached by the House but not con
victed by the Senate.
Another president, Richard Nixon,
was impeached but resigned August
9,1974, to avoid probable conviction.
Our very democracy may depend
on convincing the House of Represen
tatives to follow the U.S. Constitution
and impeach five justices — Relin
quish O'Connor, Thomas, Scalia and
Kennedy — to answer for their high
crimes and misdemeanors in ruling
that George W. Bush had won the
election.
My research shows that nobody
was impeached in the first 23 years af
ter our Constitution was adopted. The
charges for the first impeachment
were dismissed by the Senate. Only
14 federal officers were impeached in
the next 190 years. Add President
Clinton and one U.S. District Judge
since then for a grand total of 16.
Six of the impeached were found
guilty. One resigned and the proceed
ings were dismissed.
Evidence shows that the five
Supreme Court justices approved ter
minating the Florida vote count be
fore all the legal votes had been count
ed. Their lame explanation is that it
may be unfair, but the “law” required
it and made it “necessary.” That does
not compute! People who buy that ex
planation are either profoundly cor
rupt, easily misled or both.
Leading newspapers are commend
ably sponsoring a further investiga
tion of the many black voters in Flori
da who were intentionally blocked
from voting at the polls.
Suppose a political party hired a
private army to imprison 10,000 Gore
voters, or 100,000 or 10 — whatever
number would mean victory for Bush.
Would a sufficient answer by Bush be:
“You're just too late. You're past the
legal deadline. The Supreme Court
has the last word.”?
No. Not to the United States I
know. Not for long, anyway. Im
peachment allows both sides to offer
evidence and argue the law. If the
House is convinced that impeach
ment is justified, then the senators in
attendance must vote that the
charges are either dismissed or
proved. This is the way the nation
has its day in court to clear the air for
justice and fight against tyranny.
The more I study the U.S. Constitu
tion, the more I honor the intelligence
and devotion of its authors and sup
porters over the many years. Sens.
McCain and Feingold are rightly
saluted for their battle to return poli
cy-making to the Congress. Of course,
as we all realize, such struggles are
never finished.
Most of the men (no women so far)
impeached have been U.S. District
Court judges who, like the U.S. Cir
cuit Court judges and Supreme Court
justices, are appointed for life. Be
cause there are so few impeachments,
the ones filed get a lot of attention and
keep the federal judges aware that
they must continue their “good be
havior” as specified in Article III, Sec
tion 1, of the Constitution if they want
to continue in their justifiably hon
ored positions.
Soon you may hear about a “Com
mittee to Restore Gore.” Tell your
members of Congress.
Charles 0. Porter was a member of Congress
from 1957-1960 and a consultant to the
Kennedy administration in 1961. He has been
practicing law for 32 years and currently
works in Eugene.
Letters to the editor
Focusing on beauty
devalues women’s achievements
This is in response to the Olsen twins column (“Skinny
wolves in trendy clothing,” ODE, May 3). Much of the
women’s movement — dare I say the “F” word (feminism)
— has degenerated into narcissism. Young women now
equate “girl power” with the right to wear sequined cu
lottes.
Can you really blame us? We are living in a culture
where one of the richest, most powerful women of all time
— a talk-show host and literary queen who single-hand
edly built a production empire — has said her biggest ac- *
complishment was losing weight.
A prevailing message is that women can’t be intelligent
and desirable. The smart girls on television are short and
fat with glasses and no dates. The cute girls are popular
and about as deep as toilets.
Yes, our culture is increasingly visual, but women be
hind the camera and computer are best poised to reap its
goodies. Glamorous fantasies touted in Vogue are, sur
prise, just that: fantasies. In reality, we’ll more likely reach
success as a webmaster, not a model.
Margaret Sanger pioneered birth control and liberated
women sexually much more than Madonna has. Rosa
Parks wasn’t invited to all the pre-award parties, but her
effect surpasses Gwyneth.Paltrow’s. As far as I know, So
journer Truth never wore hot pants. In the long run, brains
serve better than sex appeal. Beauty might excite men, but
so does a case of beer.
Privileging physical appearance undermines our
chances for serious historic achievement. Why focus on
shaping our bodies when we can shape'history?
Addie Wagenknecht
junior
multimedia design