Commentary
Oregon Daily Emerald
Thesday, November 9, 2004
NEWS STAFF
(541)346-5511
IEN SUDICK
EDITOR IN CHIEF
STEVEN R. NEUMAN
MANAGING EDITOR
IARED PABEN
AY1SHA YAHYA
NEWS EDITORS
PARKER HOWELL
SENIOR NEWS REPORTER
MORIAH RAUNCIT
MECHANN CUNIFF
KARA HANSEN
ANTHONY LUCERO
CANELAWOOD
NEWS REPORTERS
CLAYTON (ONES
SPORTS EDITOR
ION ROETMAN
SENIOR SPORTS REPORTER
STEPHEN MILLER
BRIAN SMITH
SPORTS REPORTERS
RYAN NYBURC
PULSE EDITOR
NATASHA CHIUNGERIAN
SENIOR PULSE REPORTER
DAHVI FISCHER
AMY LICHTY
RYAN MURPHY
PULSE REPORTERS
DAVID lAGERNAim I
EDITORIAL EDITOR
JENNIFER MCBRIDE
AILEE SLATER
CHUCK SLOTHOWER
TRAVIS WILLSE
COLUMNISTS
ASHLEY GRIFFIN
SUPPLEMENT
FREELANCE EDITOR
GABE BRADLEY
NEWS FREELANCE EDITOR/
DIRECTOR OF RECRUITMENT
DANIELLE HICKEY
PHOTO EDITOR
LAUREN WIMER
SENIOR PHOTOGRAPHER
TIM BOBOSKY
PHOTOGRAPHER
NICOLE BARKER
PART TIME PHOTOGRAPHER
ERIK BISHOFF
PARTTIME PHOTOGRAPHER
BRET FURTWANCLER
GRAPHICS EDITOR
KIRA PARK
DESIGN EDITOR
ELLIOTT ASBURY
CHARLIE CALDWELL
DUSTIN REESE
BRLANNE SHOL1AN
DESIGNERS
SHADRA BEESLEY
1EANN1E EVERS
COPY CHIEFS
KIMBERLY BLACKF1F.LD
PAULTHOMPSON
SPORTS COPY EDITORS
AMANDA EVRARD
AMBER LINDROS
MEWS COPY EDITORS
LINDSAY BURT
PULSE COPY EDITOR
ADRIENNE NELSON
'INLINE EDITOR
SLADE LEESON
WEBMASTER
BUSINESS
(541)346-5511
JUDY RIEDL
GENERAL MANAGER
KATHY CARBONE
BUSINESS MANAGER
Ri.BECCA CRITCHETT
RECEPTIONIST
NATHAN FOSTER
A1BING CUO
ANDREW LEAHY
JOHN LONG
MALLORY MAHONEY
HOLLY MISTELL
DISTRIBUTION
ADVERTISING
(541)346-3712
MELISSA GUST
ADVERTISING DIRECTOR
TYLER MACK
SALES MANAGER
ALEX AMES
MATT BETZ
HERON CAUSCH-DOLEN
MEGAN HAM UN
KATE HI RON AKA
MAEGAN KASER-LEE
MIA LEIDELMEYER
EMILY PHILBIN
SHANNON ROGERS
SALES REPRESENTATIVES
KELLEE KAUFTHEIL
AD ASSISTANT
CLASSIFIED
(541)346-4343
TRINA SHANAMAN
CLASSIFIED MANAGER
KATY GAGNON
SABRINA GOWETTE
LESUE STRAIGHT
KERI SPANGLER
KATIE STRINGER
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING
ASSOCIATES
PRODUCTION
(541)3464381
MICHELE ROSS
PRODUCTION MANAGER
TARA SLOAN
PRODUCTION COORDINATOR
JEN CRAM LET
KRISTEN DICHARRY
CAMERON CAUT
ANDY HOLLAND
DESIGNERS
The Oregon Daily Emerald is pub
lished daily Monday through Fri
day during the school year by the
Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing
Co. Inc., at the University of Ore
gon, Eugene, Ore. The Emerald
operates independently of the
University with offices in Suite
300 of the Erb Memorial Union.
The Emerald is private property.
Unlawful removal or use of
papers is prosecutable by law.
■ In my opinion
Drowning in politics—get
‘Inside the Whale’
“Progress and reaction have both
turned out to be swindles. Seeming
ly there is nothing left but quietism
— robbing reality of its terrors by
simply submitting to it.” — George
Orwell, “Inside the Whale,” 1940.
If there were ever a week to re
read “Inside the Whale,” it was last
week. George W. Bush won an elec
tion with both the popular vote and
the Electoral College vote. Republi
cans picked up seats in both the
House and Senate (including Senate
minority leader Tom Daschle’s high
ly symbolic seat), and Measures 36
and 37 passed with clear majorities.
Bush will soon have the opportunity
to entrench a long-term conservative
majority on the Supreme Court.
Given that, and the situation in Con
gress, it’s hard to argue with Karl
Rove’s prediction of a long-term Re
publican hegemony.
It’s become increasingly clear that
we live in an age of stark conser
vatism that stretches across the politi
cal, social, sexual and artistic arenas.
Janet Jackson’s nipple caused a big
ger outrage than the Abu Ghraib scan
dal. Whoopi Goldberg got fired by
Slim-Fast for making a sexual pun
based on the president’s surname. Re
tail outlets like Wal-Mart either won’t
sell, or require significant modifica
tion of, controversial works of art.
And the president pushes abstinence
based education that has been proven
ineffective and actually leads to abor
tions that could be prevented by com
prehensive sex education and freely
available contraception.
In the face of all this, one wants to
retreat. To declare “no more,” and
live in a cabin in the woods to sleep,
CHUCK SLOTHOWER
TAKING ISSUE
eat, read and make love. Narcissism
— simple, glorious narcissism — has
never sounded so appealing. I feel
much as I imagine George Orwell
did when he wrote his landmark
1940 essay, “Inside the Whale.” At
the time, the world was still recover
ing from the greatest economic crash
in modern history. Fascism con
trolled much of Europe, and it was
obvious to Orwell that a catastrophic
war stood before him and that he
could do nothing to stop it.
Orwell’s solution to this was to get
“inside the whale,” to become a
willing Jonah swallowed for his own
good. For inside a whale, one cannot
feel the waves. One cannot feel the
cold. One doesn’t know or care
whether the sea is tempestuous or
calm. As Orwell wrote, “The whale’s
belly is simply a womb big enough
for an adult. There you are, in a
dark, cushioned space that exactly
fits you, with yards of blubber be
tween yourself and reality, able to
keep up an attitude of the com
pletest indifference, no matter what
happens.” Sounds good to me. At
least until the midterm elections in
2006.
This marks the 25th year of the
conservative resurgence, which
gained national power with Ronald
Reagan’s victory in 1980. Thus I
don’t understand the middle-aged
pundits who declared the 2004 elec
tion to be the most important of
their lifetimes. Without Reagan,
there would be no Bush. Without
Reagan’s tax cuts, there would be no
Bush tax cuts. Without “Star Wars,”
there would be no missile defense
system. Without Iran-Contra, there
would be no Abu Ghraib. And, of
course, without Reagan’s innumer
able, ingenious deceptions, we
wouldn’t have Bush’s innumerable,
ingenious deceptions.
It’s difficult to see the political
pendulum swinging away
from the right anytime soon.
The population is growing older,
and thus more conservative.
The baby boomers will continue to
dominate politics for at least the
next 20 years, and they’re not inter
ested in the promises of progress;
they’re interested in tax cuts.
They’re not interested in universal
health care; they’re interested in
Janet Jackson’s nipple. So I invite
you, as Orwell did in 1940, to “get
inside the whale — or rather, admit
that you are inside the whale (for
you are, of course). Give yourself
over to the world-process, stop fight
ing against it or pretending that you
control it; simply accept it, endure it,
record it.”
Go play basketball with your
friends. Drive out to Sweet Life Patis
serie and enjoy a slice of cheesecake
and a cup of coffee. Pre-funk like a
champ and then go wild in the Pit
Crew. Whatever you do, don’t think
about politics for a while.
chuckslothower@dailyemerald.com
INBOX
'Moral values' impossible
to comprehensively define
"Moral values" is the big post-elec
tion buzzword but it is meaningless
in this context since everyone votes
according to his or her moral values,
always. Americans simply have no
unified definition of what constitutes
the moral position.
For example, for some people
moral means "no killing innocent fe
tuses”; for other people it means "no
killing innocent Iraqis." For some,
preventing discrimination is the
moral issue; for others it is defining
marriage as heterosexual. For some,
moral means bringing God more visi
bly into the political process; for oth
ers moral means ensuring religious
tolerance by not biasing our politics
toward one specific group.
Even were we all to agree on
which issues were the "moral values"
ones — say, for theoretical example,
preventing abortion - different moral
codes demand different actions. For
some the moral choice would be vot
ing for the man who is “pro-life”; for
others it would mean voting for the
man who is "pro-family planning."
And for still others, who simply
notice that abortion rates went
up significantly under Bush's leader
ship, morality would require voting
for his opponent.
The point is, everyone votes ac
cording to his or her moral values.
Calling moral values the unexpected
player, or saying their appearance in
the exit polls gives the president a
clear mandate, is bologna!
Erica Bolliger
Portland, OR
Freedom on lockdown,
discrimination rampant
I believe in rights for all people
and all living things. If you’re like
most Oregonians, and Americans,
you wouldn’t agree with me, so let
me try to persuade you. Nobody in
their right mind would lock their dog
up in a tiny cage for his entire life
would they? No, that would be hor
ribly cruel. Shame on me for putting
the idea in your head. So what do
other people do for the ones who
share my belief? They sell us free
range chickens.
Now, if some wacko put a propo
sition on the ballet that said all
animals have to be locked in cages,
would you vote in favor of it? Of
course you wouldn’t. Even though
you’re smart enough not to pay extra
for free range chickens, you’d still
vote against it because you love your
doggie and locking him in a cage
would take away his freedom. So
you vote to ensure his freedom at the
risk of setting the other animals, in
cluding chickens, free.
Thankfully that proposition
was not on the ballet, so you didn’t
have to make that tough decision.
Farmers can continue to raise free
range chickens and it doesn’t bother
you. It doesn’t affect you. You
don’t have to buy them if you don’t
want to. It was all just a bad dream.
But, wait, it wasn’t just a dream. It
was real. It was on the ballot but it
wasn’t about animals. It was
about people and you voted to take
away the freedom of gay couples.
Why? They’re not proposing to you.
Honoring their marriage wouldn’t
affect you. It may not yet be time for
you to agree to support all living
things, but it is time for you to sup
port all people.
Jacob Werblow
Eugene
■ Editorial
Police study
racial issue;
is profiling
a problem ?
Racial profiling is so rampant in many U.S.
cities that minority drivers joke about being
pulled over by police for a DWB (Driving
While Black). It might be time to add Eugene
to the list. According to a 2002-3 study by the
Eugene Police Department, black drivers were
pulled over at a more frequent rate than white
drivers and black and Latino drivers were
more likely to be searched and arrested than
white drivers.
The fact that minority residents are stopped,
searched and arrested at a greater rate than
white residents comes as no great shock to
communities of color. Anecdotal evidence has
been mounting for years. This study was an
attempt to collect the empirical data necessary
to spark real reform. Unfortunately, the
methodology of the study contains too much
uncertainty and is not nearly broad enough to
determine whether racial profiling is, in fact, a
problem in Eugene.
First, the study was based on incomplete
data: Survey cards were filled out by officers
in only 70 percent of vehicle stops. Many of
the cards that were filled out were incomplete.
Furthermore, the data collected covered only
a two-year period, not long enough to deter
mine a trend.
Second, it is impossible to verify the accu
racy of the collected data. The officers who
may or may not be committing racial profiling
are the ones filling out the cards. It would be
simple for an officer to cover his or her tracks,
since everything on the card is based on the
officer’s perception of race. Furthermore, since
the data is not organized by the name of the
officer involved, at least not the data provided
to the public, it is impossible to know if there
are one or two bad seeds in the department
skewing the data.
inird, any legitimate study of racial
profiling cannot be limited to traffic stops
alone, but must also include interactions
on the street. Much of the harassment, intimi
dation and brutality that communities of
color in other cities experience from the police
occurs outside of the vehicle and is not
documented. Cases like Cortez Jordan’s
(ODE: “Study prompts racial profiling
concerns in EPD,” Nov. 5) need to be incorpo
rated into any further study of the racial
profiling issue.
The Emerald commends the EPD for
this first small step. The results, as inconclu
sive as they are, at least prove that further
study is needed. Why are black and Latino
residents more likely to be stopped for longer
periods of time than white residents? Why do
a greater rate of stops for black and Latino res
idents occur in patrol district five? Why are
black and Latino residents disproportionately
searched when the data shows that they are
no more or less likely to have contraband
than white residents?
We hope the police department works
quickly and efficiently to begin to provide an
swers to these pressing questions.
EDITORIAL BOARD
Jennifer Sudick
Editor in Chief
David Jagemauth
Editorial Editor
Steven R. Neuman
Managing Editor
Gabe Bradley
Freelance Editor
OREGON DAILY EMERALD LETTERS POLICY
Ufleis to toealitor and gjest commentaries are encouraged, and should be sent to letters@dail>emerald.com or submitted at the Oregon Daily Emerald office, EMU Suite 300. Electronic submissions are preferred Letters are limited to 250 wcxds and euest commentary to 550
wrts. Authors are limrted to one submeson per calendar month. Submissions should include phone number and address for verification. The Emerald resenes the ritfit to edit lor space, grammar and style Guest submissions m!SSeSdSn^fJSfld
m