Commentary
Oregon Daily Emerald
Thursday, April 28, 2005
NEWS STAFF
(541)346-5511
|EN SUDICK
EDITOR IN CHIEF
STEVEN R. NEUMAN
MANAGING EDITOR
JARED PABEN
AY1SHA YAMYA
NEWS EDITORS
MEGHANN CUNIFT
PARKER HOWELL
SENIOR NEWS REPORTERS
MORIAH RAUNGIT
AMANDA BOLSINGER
ADAM CHERRY
EMILY SMITH
EVA SYl WESTER
SHELDON TRAVER
NEWS REPORTERS
GUYTON JONES
SPORTS EDITOR
JON ROETMAN
SENIOR SPORTS REPORTER
STEPHEN MILLER
BRIAN SMITH
SPORTS REPORTERS
RYAN NYBURG
PULSE EDITOR
AMY EIGHTY
SENIOR PULSE REPORTER
JOSHUA LINTEREUR
PULSE REPORTER
GAT BALDWIN
PULSE CARTOONIST
A1LEE SUTER
COMMENTARY EDITOR
GABE BRADLEY
ANNEMARIE KNF.PPER
CHUCK SLOTHOWER
JENNIFER MCBRIDE
COLUMNISTS
ASHLEY GRIFFIN
SUPPLEMENT
FREELANCE EDITOR
DANIELLE HICKEY
PHOTO EDITOR
1AUREN WIMER
SENIOR PHOTOGRAPHER
NICOLE BARKER
TIM BOBOSKY
PHOTOGRAPHER
KATE HORTON
ZANERTTT
PART-TIME PHOTOGRAPHERS
BRET FURTWANGLER
GRAPHIC ARTIST
DUSTIN REESE
SENIOR DESIGNER
ELLIOTT ASBURY
WENDY KIEFFER
AMANDA LEE
JONAH SCHROGIN
DESIGNERS
SHADRA BEESLEY
JEANNIE EVERS
COPY CHIEFS
KIMBERLY B1ACKFIELD
JOSH NORRIS
SPORTS COPY EDITORS
GREG BILSIAND
AMBER LINDROS
NEWS COPY EDITORS
JENNY GERWICK
PULSE COPY EDITOR
ADRIENNE NELSON
ONLINE EDITOR
WEBMASTER
(541)346-5511
JUDY RIEDl,
GENERAL MANAGER
KATHYCARBONE
BUSINESS MANAGER
IAUNA DEGIUSTI
RECEPTIONIST
JERED NAGEL
PATRICK SCHMERBER
HOLLY STEIN
JANA SWANSON
ROB WEGNER
CAROLYN ZIMMERMAN
DISTRIBUTION
ADVERTISING
(541)346-3712_
MELISSA GUST
ADVERTISING DIRECTOR
TYLER MACK
SALES MANAGER
MATT BETZ
HERON CAUSCH-DOLEN
MEGAN HAMLIN
KATE HIRONAKA
MAEGAN KASER-LEE
KELLEE KAUFTHEIL
MIA LE1DELMEYER
SHANNON ROGERS
SALES REPRESENTATIVES
CLASSIFIED
(541)3464343
IRINA SHANAMAN
CLASSIFIED MANAGER
KORALYNN BASHAM
ANDO
KATY GAGNON
KER1 SPANGLER
KATIE STRINGER
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING
ASSOCIATES
PRODUCTION
(541) 3464381
MICHELE ROSS
PRODUCTION MANAGER
TARA SLOAN
PRODUCTION COORDINATOR
|EN CRAMLET
KRISTEN DICHARRY
CAMERON GAUT
SABRINA GOWETTE
JONAH SCHROGIN
DESIGNERS
The Oregon Daily Emerald is pub
lished daily Monday through Fri
day dunng 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
WKn®
Have you ever googled yourself?
What about put a picture of yourself on
line? Are you a member of Thefacebook,
Friendster, MySpace or LiveJournal? If
so, you may be a participant in reverse
voyeurism, a conceit-based cultural
trend that is sweeping the nation.
Reverse voyeurism is a term I
thought my friends and I had coined,
but a quick search of the Internet
proved otherwise. The term is used
when a person feels compelled to put
an aspect of his or her life online for
public viewing. This could be as sim
ple as an Internet journal (blog) or as
potentially graphic as a camera in a
room that sends constantly updated
photos or clips to the viewer (a sort of
image blog). There’s no question that
reverse voyeurism is out there; my
quandary is: Why?
Reverse voyeurism seems to be
mostly a product of our current online
generation. We have the skills to use
computers, the Internet, digital cam
eras and the like with minimum diffi
culty. People no longer need personal
Web sites or any knowledge of HTML
code to have a complete personal pres
ence online. We have near-constant ac
cess to the Internet, and many young
people are able to experience uninter
rupted usage for extended periods of
time. The tools are there; the access is
there, and the savvy is there.
Everyone wants to be heard, and us
ing a blog as a personal soapbox is a
very common practice. An urge to
ANNEMARIE KNEPPER
WORKS ON PAPER
politicize and prophesize still seems to
be the genesis of many-a-blog. It's im
portant to note that some causes and
candidates have been aided by ardent
bloggers with large readership bases,
but an even greater number of journals
are directed toward personal lives.
During the aforementioned googling
of my name, I found some guy had writ
ten extensively about his crush on a girl
named AnneMarie (in a state other than
Oregon ... sad face using colon and
parentheses keys). He wrote of how
they met in class, how he had always
liked her and how now that he was un
attached, he was going to ask her out.
Later posts show that he did ask her out,
it went well and he was hoping to “get
some” from her soon. Yet another post
shows that he did indeed.
Now, if I were that AnneMarie, I
would be a little red in the face over my
beau’s candor. Why did he feel that pub
lic forum, in this case a blogging and
.friend networking site, was an appropri
ate place to discuss him and his lady? I
understand that guys talk, but the Inter
net is no locker room. Or is it? Have we
become so comfortable with the Internet
that we no longer feel the need to self
censor our innermost thoughts and most
personal encounters?
I live by the rule that if I wouldn’t
want my grandmother (a very hip
lady) to read it, see it or hear it, I proba
bly shouldn’t be posting it online. Oth
ers, it appears, have no such qualms.
Maybe it’s the ease with which people
can quickly pound out their feelings on
a keyboard. Maybe it’s the quasi
anonymity of the Internet. Maybe it’s
the pressure involved with our speedy
American way of living and the con
stant emphasis on sending and receiv
ing information quickly.
In the end, like most human endeav
ors, reverse voyeurism seems to be
rooted in the intense need to connect
and communicate with others. Instead
of writing an e-mail or, heaven forbid,
a letter (on paper with a pen and a
stamp involved) to one’s friends and
family, a mass blog post gets the mes
sage out quicker and easier than any
other mechanism. No longer simply a
dumping point for unfounded political
rants and bad poetry (okay, it still is,
but also so much more), blogging
seems to have permeated our lives in a
profound way. But is that such a good
thing? For this and answers to all life’s
problems, check out my blog at
www.livejournal.com. Hey, all my
friends are doing it.
annemaneknepper@dailyemerald. com
■ uuest commentary
American obesity is as much a
problem as other "thin" disorders
On Monday April 11, the Oregon
Daily Emerald published a column ti
tled, “Starving for Appearances.” Ailee
Slater’s contention was that America’s
weight control pandemic is nothing
more than a way to tell people how
they need to look, that it masks aware
ness for eating disorders and health
concerns and regresses women back to
a state of objectification.
Is this true? It probably is. Howev
er, the baby should not be thrown out
with the bath water.
The vast majority of Americans, ac
cording to obesityfocused.com, are
overweight (64 percent). About one
third of the country is defined as obese.
Also, while the number one killer
of Americans is not “being fat,” obe
sity is a major contributor to health
problems such as heart disorders,
high blood pressure, diabetes, os
teoarthritis and many others. Losing
weight doesn’t just make one look
better for the aesthetic enjoyment of
others, it also reduces the likelihood
of developing major health problems.
Dropping pounds also does some
thing that most conventional drugs
don’t do: It treats the cause of health
problems instead of merely the symp
toms. But this doesn’t solve the fact
that corporate America’s focus on
weight is still telling women how
to look.
While there is little help that can be
offered, it should be pointed out that
weight issues are not the only socie
tal concern to which women are sub
jected. Women are told what to think
regarding skin care, make-up, hair
care, hair color, changing fashion,
plastic surgery, men and how to get
them and even what type of orgasm
to have. Pick up any standard
women’s magazine, and any number
of these topics will canvas the cover.
Yet, obesity is a problem getting
worse every year, and not just in the
United States. Worldwide, the over
weight people outnumber those that
are malnourished.
Theodore Roosevelt once said, “Do
what you can, with what you have,
where you are.” While it may be
painful to admit, corporate America is
the medium that must be used.
Though commercialism coats the
message, this is a necessary message
all the same. America has a weight
problem and ignoring it will just
make it worse.
So, let’s get out the message and let
the consumer decide what it means.
Matt Hansen lives in Eugene
Radio station needs
public affairs talk
Campus radio station KWAX-FM de
serves financial support. I try to give it
within my limits. I also am willing to
tolerate on-the-air fundraising neces
sary to keep it afloat.
Less tolerable is the chatter I heard
one afternoon about how the sta
tion’s format changed years ago to
full-time classical music. It was hard
r
INBOX
to accept the pro-classics comments
(which I share) of the two male voic
es whose on-the-air persona, I feel,
reveals that neither may know nor
care much about classical music. Lis
teners continue to enjoy the music
despite the anachronism of these two
male announcers not in tune with
the classics.
Their recall of times distant past
did remind me of the one area in
which KWAX remains inadequate
today. Its absence of any public af
fairs broadcasting ignores the major
resource it has of faculty specialists
who could comment authoritatively
about global and national develop
ments. The music would be en
hanced, not hurt, by a brief hour dai
ly — or maybe just on weekends —
during which campus experts could
be tapped for valuable insights.
George Beres
Eugene
OREGON DAILY EMERALD LETTERS POUCY
Letters to the editor and guest commentaries are encouraged, and should be sent to letters@daityemerald.com or submitted at the Oregon Daily Emerald office, EMt) Suite 300. Electronic
submissions are preferred. Letters are limited to 250 words, and guest commentaries to 550 words. Authors are limited to one submission per calendar month. Submissions should
include phone number and address for verification The Emerald reserves the nght to edit for space, grammar and style. Guest submissions are published at the discretion of the Emerald
■ Editorial
Iraq 'victory'
plans target
taxpayers,
not terrorists
When the United States made the deci
sion to go into Iraq, there were a few pur
poses of that expedition: remove Saddam
Hussein from power, attempt to rid the
country of weapons of mass destruction and
terrorist action and help set up a democratic
system of government for Iraqi citizens.
More than two years later, Saddam has been
removed from his hole; as for the other U.S.
goals ... well, let’s just say Saddam’s not the
only one with his head in the ground when
it comes to dealing with the nation of Iraq.
It was reported today that terrorist acts
worldwide rose sharply in 2004, and most of
the additions occurred because of insurgents
in Iraq who were angry because of heavy U.S.
presence. Earlier this month, tens of thou
sands of Iraqis gathered to protest the ongo
ing presence of U.S. troops. Although it is im
possible to determine whether terrorist acts
would have risen or decreased had the Unit
ed States never invaded Iraq, the fact remains
that as long as our country stays at the helm of
Iraq, terrorist acts are not likely to recede.
There is no timetable for a reduction of
troops, and U.S. Secretary of Defense Don
ald Rumsfeld has said that “we don’t have
an exit strategy; we have a victory strategy.”
Rumsfeld fails to mention that achieving
this so-called “victory” will take a lot more
than strategy: Rumsfeld and the rest of the
Bush administration are advocating a
victory built on the backs of U.S. soldiers
and taxpayers.
Although soldiers sign a contract upon en
tering the military that determines the amount
of time they will spend working for the armed
forces, the United States has prevented about
14,000 soldiers with expired contracts from
leaving the military. Under the U.S. “stop
loss” program, soldiers who signed a contract
and failed to read the small print are basically
required to continue military duty as long as
the army deems necessary.
If you thought that the draft was a thing
of the past, the stop-loss program will surely
make you think again. Many military fami
lies, upset over the forcible extension of
loved ones’ armed service, continually use
the term “backdoor draft.”
Furthermore, the United States has al
ready spent more than $300 billion to occu
py Iraq. According to the ranking Democrat
on the House Budget Committee, unless
U.S. troops are drastically reduced, a total of
$646 billion will have been spent by 2015.
It’s no secret that our country is currently
experiencing a severe deficit. Rumsfeld’s
hotheaded ideal of victory is funding itself
straight from the pocketbooks of current and
future U.S. taxpayers.
There is no way to erase the past: The Unit
ed States has invaded Iraq, and that is that.
However, the time has come for our country
to develop a new strategy, or at least form
some sort of exit plan that will be beneficial to
the Iraqi people, the U.S. military and the tax
payers of our nation. If we stick around Iraq
long enough to glimpse Rumsfeld’s “victory
strategy," the end result will likely be anything
but victorious, for both nations involved.
EDITORIAL BOARD
Jennifer Sudick Steven R. Neuman
Editor in Chief Managing Editor
Ailee Slater
Commentary Editor
Shadra Beesley
Copy Chief
Adrienne Nelson
Online Editor