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.