Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 22, 2003)
Newsroom: (541) 346-5511 Suite 300, Erb Memorial Union P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403 E-mail: editor@dailyemerald.com Online: www.dailyemerald.com Wednesday, October 22, 2003 Oregon Daily Emerald COMMENTARY Editor in Chief: Brad Schmidt Managing Editor: Jan Tobias Montry Editorial Editor: Travis Willse EDITORIAL Reality shows give viewers sorry reality Ah, the world of reality television. Another year goes by, another network hunts down some of America's, er, less intelligent citizens and exploits their usually grave person ality defects for the masses. Typically, the masses don't im mediately realize that what they are watching is often a sad misrepresentation of — dmmroll — reality. Of course, the subject of criticizing reality shows has it self inched toward the cliche. It's common for the media to brutally question whether Ruben really deserved to be an American Idol, or why Nikki McKibbin, the worst ca tastrophe in music since Hanson, wasn't ditched sooner. Yes, that's about as heavy as it gets. Our reasoning for joining the fray and weighing in on this entertainment phenomenon is the devastating "re ality" that viewers will have to watch reruns of Jessica Simpson making a complete idiot of herself. The season finale for MTVs "Newlyweds: Nick and Jessica" — which features millionaires Jessica "Are buffalo wings made of buffaloes?" Simpson and her new husband, Nick Lachey — aired Tuesday, and all those people who weren't in on the joke will cry because the show's intense drama and exploration of the human pathos will end. That is, until next season. But the show is not unique. E! Entertainment already used the idea of exploiting moronic celebrities when it gave us "The Anna Nicole Show," wherein Anna Nicole Smith slaps a permanent "poor me" look on her face and flounces around the most gaudily decorated house ever constructed. "Newlyweds" has basically the same premise except for a few extremely key details: Jessica Simpson can't do her laundry, she can't take out the trash and she thinks chick ens swim in the sea. But what about "Survivor," the popular reality show that helped spark the craze on major networks? We think after seven seasons the American people are generally convinced you can pretty much live through anything. "Survivor: Pulau Tiga," "The Australian Outback," "Africa," "Marquesas," "Thailand," "The Amazon" and "Pearl Islands." Soon we'U see "Survivor: R. Kelly's House' or "Survivor: Oregon University System," where students brave deep state budget gaps and class cuts while dodging Department of Public Safety vehicles as they attempt to graduate. That would be our reality. Trying not to get voted off a show based solely on how fake you can be as a person, sadly, is not. Possibly the most amazing thing about reality shows, however, is their audience. Basically, the bizarre genre of reality television draws two sorts of nuts: those who laugh and those who dream. The laughers religiously pursue the shows purely for their humor and debate for weeks about just how in the hell the network managed to get anybody more dimwitted than the last show's sorry lot of miscre ants. The dreamers, on the other hand, not only pursue the shows, but fervently incorporate them into every aspect of their lifestyle, constantly hoping that someday, they too might have the opportunity be duped by a plumber. Hence, a new American dream is bom — white picket fences are out, going to an island with dozens of beautiful women and trying to overcome the temptation to cheat on your girlfriend is in. See you next season, Jessica. EDITORIAL POLICY This editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald editorial board. Responses can be sent to letters @dailyemerald.com. Letters to the editor and guest commentaries are encouraged. Letters are limited to 250 words and guest commentaries to 550 words. Authors are limited to one submission per calendar month. Submission must include phone number and address for verification. The Emerald reserves the right to edit for space, grammar and style. one party/d divided This Monday, former first lady Barbara Bush called her son's potential Democratic opponents for the 2004 presidential cam paign a "sorry group" on NBC's "Today" show. Sadly, 1 must agree with her — even if she did spawn the beady-eyed, calculat ing offspring of Lucifer himself. In a poll released in early September, nearly two-thirds of those questioned couldn't name even one individual seek ing the Democratic Party's nomination for president. Now, despite having amassed roughly $95 million in campaign contributions, the nine Democrats vying for their party's nomination still have failed to pique the public's interest. Amazingly, no candidate has been able to separate him-or herself from the others with a positive, powerful message that grips the public. Compared to the widely varying views of these candidates, our cur rent president looks strong and focused — even if he isn't. You don't win elections with smear campaigns. That being said, if you can't beat George W. Bush, you should be officially disbarred from participating in all other life events. The faces of every person ever to lose to Bush at anything should have their pic tures mounted on giant billboards for all the world to see. That grubby little worm wears his frigid, blackened, unbeating heart on his sleeve, yet more than half of Americans still ap prove of his performance But Howard Dean, John Edwards, John Kerry and Dick Gephardt haven't distin guished themselves much from their pulseless adversary. Instead of separating themselves from the twisted worldview of the Republicans, Democrats are playing right into their hands with lame and inef fective character attacks. Not only are these candidates failing themselves, they're letting down the Party and millions of Americans who are just waiting to see some real leadership from their flaky and spineless party. Four of the leading contenders have spent a combined $5.5 million on television advertising in an attempt to sway public opinion. But, judging by a recent USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll, it's not working. The poll shows former Republican and military commander Wesley Clark in the lead with support from 19 percent of the nation's left-leaning public. Following ^ AINT ( YOU A TA/V\6 LITTLE . FELLA?f > Eric Layton Illustrator Joe Bechard Cultural obstetrician closely behind Clark are Dean, Joe Lieber man, Kerry and Gephardt with 13, 12, 10 and 9 percent support respectively. Although their financial capabilities hardly match up to Bush's $83 million of campaign contributions, it shouldn't take record dollar amounts to knock a deranged lunatic out of the highest, most respected office in the world. Of course, if the people really demanded govern ment accountability, we would have al ready driven that degenerate twerp out of the White House with blunt stones and long, sharpened sticks. But jackass Democrats, unlike their ele phant-headed counterparts, are less will ing to work together. While the conserva tive political wing finds more solidarity as it moves farther to the right, Democrats find themselves stranded in an ever-ex panding rift of uncertainty and disarray. With the lack of a clear and definite agen da, those dopey Democrats are taking their followers on a scenic trip to nowhere. Nothing else could explain the conserva tive agenda becoming more exclusive de spite its gains in popularity. - * • -1 Supporters of the Democrats can't de cide on a unified agenda. Because of this, we have a Republican in donkey's cloth ing leading the polls, while Jumpin' Joe Lieberman hops on whatever bandwag on rolls through Washington and Den nis Kucinich sets himself up to be the next scapegoat — a la Ralph Nader — for a potential Democratic failure. None of them knows what's going on in their campaigns; because of this, Americans who are fed up with the direction of cur rent U.S. policy have, essentially, a more limited choice. With the party so divided, Republicans can have their way with the American po litical system and all Democrats will have is an idea of what they won't do when the next time rolls around. Either Democrats need to unite under a specific agenda, or the American public should seriously seek to establish a more representative form of democracy than a two-party system. Contact the columnist at joebechard@dailyemerald.com. His opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Emerald. Tolerate others, don't accept them I am the epitome of what the self-pro claimed tolerant elements of society cannot accept. I am a white heterosexual male who is Christian and anti-abor tion. I am 23 years old and my 20-year old wife is four months pregnant. My friends and family think that I am more conservative than Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich combined. My cultural COMMENTARY paradigm is de - rived from a heritage of pio neers that trekked across the plains to help settle the Western states. My way of life is embodied in my very soul. I make no apologies for my culture, which promotes faith in God and patriotism for my country. I only ask that my culture be tolerated, not accepted. And I reserve the right to ob serve the same policy with regard to oth ers' cultures and belief systems. I believe, as our forefathers taught, that we are all endowed by our Creator with certain un alienable rights, among which are life, lib erty and the pursuit of happiness. Regard less of belief or culture, all humankind deserves this respect. And I have no ambi tion or desire to act otherwise. However, I do not believe that implies we must accept each other's cultures or beliefs. The very act would necessitate relinquish ing a portion of our beliefs. I make this point in reflection of "National Coming Out Day." As human beings, all people regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. de serve respect and tolerance. However, that does not imply acceptance of practices that offend or contradict cultural values. I do not have to accept "alternative" lifestyles as a vi able alternative. Hie very act of accepting homosexuality or lesbianism as a viable al ternative would negate very important and core beliefs of my faith. The act of accepting my theological discourse would negate the belief in "alternative" lifestyles for those that practice them. Just as people of "alternative" and "di verse" lifestyles do not wish laws and soci etal norms that impose undue pressure on their cultural belief system, neither do I. So when "coming out," ensure that you are not demanding acceptance. To do so would be intolerant of my way of life; and that is unacceptable. David Carr is a junior majoring in political science.
