Commentary
Oregon Daily Emerald
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Bret Furtwangler | Graphic artist
NEWS STAFF
(541) 346-5511
SHADRA BEESLEY
EDITOR IN CHIEF
GABE BRADLEY
NEWS EDITOR
NICHOLAS WILBUR
NEWS REPORTER
SHAWN MILLER
SPORTS EDITOR
RYAN NYBURG
PULSE EDITOR
AII.EE slater
COMMENTARY EDITOR
TIM BOBOSKY
PHOTO AND ONLINE EDITOR
WENDY KIEFFER
DESIGN EDITOR
IF.NNY GERWICK
COPY CHIEF
BRIT LURIWANGLER
GRAPHIC ARTIST
BUSINESS
(541)346-5511
IUDYRIEDL
GENERAL MANAGER
KATHY CARBONE
BUSINESS MANAGER
ALEX CORBIN
ALAN FULLERTON
RYAN JOHNSON
DISTRIBUTION
ADVERTISING
(541) 346-3712
MELISSA GUST
ADVERTISING DIRECTOR
MIA LEIDELMEYER
SALES MANAGER
KELLEE KAUFTHEIL
STEPHEN MILLER
KATIE STRINGER
CODY WILSON
SALES REPRESENTATIVES
CLASSIFIED
(541) 3464343
TRINA SHANAMAN
CLASSIFIED MANAGER
KORALYNN BASHAM
KATY GAGNON
KERI SPANGLER
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING
ASSOCIATES
PRODUCTION
(541) 3464381
MICHELE ROSS
PRODUCTION MANAGER
KIRA PARK
PRODUCTION COORDINATOR
The Oregon Daily Emerald is pub
lished daily Monday through Fn
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 pnvate property.
Unlawful removal or use of
papers is prosecutable by law.
■ In my opinion
Turned off by television
In terms of art, television is still ca
reening around its recent turn for the
worst. With the help of TiVo, cable,
DVDs and the like, fewer people are
taking the time to look for good, new
shows. It has become an expectation
that what’s on television will be crap,
unless it’s Sunday and you’re a “Des
perate Housewives” fan.
The problem with much of the bad
television today is that it refuses to push
limits. New sitcoms pop up every day,
with the same overweight, foolish man
and a gaggle of gorgeous women sur
rounding his everyday life in the office
or the house. Characters (especially fe
male characters) are allowed no depth
of any kind. The death of the sitcom
had it coming: Modem sitcoms tend to
be nothing more than a safe space for
stereotypes to make television produc
ers a little more money.
Unfortunately, shows that do push
boundaries usually seem to do it in bad
taste. Shows such as “Celebrity Fear
Factor” are unsettling, not because of
an important message or artistic theme,
but because naked women are writhing
about in a vat of tapeworms.
The other reality shows are not much
better. Especially taxing to intelligent
viewers is the stream of reality shows
that are obviously fake. MTV’s “Date
my Mom” features three mothers who
must persuade a young man to go on a
date with their daughter. A simple
premise, but watch one episode and
you’ll understand: There is no way that
these people don’t have a script. Their
speech sounds rehearsed, choppy and
anything but real. Watching this “reali
ty” show is akin to watching a sitcom
with a boring storyline and heart
wrenchingly bad actors. Who’s watch
ing this stuff?
.A_V 'v/
AILEE SLATER
FURTHER FROM PERFECTION
It’s like a car wreck: No one is happy
about what they’re looking at, but peo
ple just have to stare at the awfulness
of it all.
Another great example of poorly
done TV, this time focusing on the
poorest people among us (I’m talking
intelligence) is “elimiDATE,” and net
work shows similar to it. On “elimi
DATE,” it is usually a man going on one
date with four women and eliminating
them one by one as the night goes on.
“elimiDATE” women are always clad in
too much eye makeup and too little fab
ric covering their all-important bodies.
The personality of each person on the
show is hardly distinguishable from the
next; the show is entertaining because
it is gross, but that grossness is
enchanting and unusual in its lack
of subtlety.
“elimiDATE” episodes are a sad re
minder of where much of this country
remains in terms of gender relations.
Women on the show are quick to polar
ize and fulfill either side of the
virgin/whore complex. One girl is al
ways making out with the guy while
another is sitting back and discussing
her predisposition towards innocence.
Most amusing is the fact that, almost al
ways, the women spend the entire date
fighting with one another, eager to
jump upon the prize of an (intoxicated)
“elimiDATE” man. The happy couple at
the end of “elimiDATE” always com
pletes the show with glossy eyes and
slurred speech; looking toward the
camera but not really focusing as they
loudly mumble about their perfect
fit together.
And yet, we watch the show. I know
I do; how can I resist? Reality shows are
the ultimate fairy-tale: They each tell
the story of a perfect and beautiful
maiden, swept off her feet by the rich,
handsome prince. Children grew up
with fairy-tales based on archaic no
tions of gender, and modern reality
shows develop these themes in exactly
the same manner.
Luckily, along with disturbing reality
shows, modern television has also pro
duced a great amount of unusual and
awesome humor. It is a testament to the
intelligence of the average TV-viewer
that “Family Guy” is back in business,
and “Adult Swim” keeps people up all
night with characters such as a Clayma
tion contestant on “Zombie Idol.” Com
edy, especially animated comedy, is
able to both push limits and stay inter
esting, artistic and intelligent. There is
much comfort to be found in the irony
of adult animated shows, for they show
us how comical it truly is to live in our
own rigid world. Gender expectations,
such as those relied upon to create re
ality television, are usually questioned
by intelligent animation. Reality shows
would rather accept and exploit those
rigid expectations.
But, everyone knows that making a
really good comedy is often more diffi
cult than making a really good drama. I
guess modernity can pat itself on the
back for knowing how to be funny
rather than how to be real.
aileeslater@ dailyemerald. com
s
OREGON DAILY EMERALD LETTERS POUCY
Letters to the editor and guest commentaries are encouraged, and should be sent to letters@dailyemerald.com or submitted at the Oregon Daily Emerald office, EMU Suite 300. Electronic
submissions are preferred. Letters are limited to 250 words, and guest commentanes 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
Prescription
law creates
problems,
solves none
Last week, the Oregon House voted on
a law that requires a prescription for any
medicine that contains an ingredient used
to make methamphetamine. Deconges
tants that contain pseudoephedrine are
common in both cold medicine (Sudafed,
etc.) and meth, the latter of which remains
a huge drug problem for Oregon.
As expected, the general public is seri
ously questioning the logic behind this
war on decongestants, and rightly so. Crit
ics of the prescription cold medicine rul
ing cite a reasonable argument: Inconve
niencing nnocent buyers will be the only
tangible result of such a prescription re
quirement. Allergy and cold sufferers will
now have to spend more time and money
to get their medicine. Obtaining a prescrip
tion will take a visit (sometimes multiple)
to the doctor, a hassle, what with schedul
ing conflicts and the waiting room.
Without easily accessible and inexpen
sive cold medicine, allergy and cold suffer
ers will be the ones who feel the brunt of
losing access to decongestants. If families
don’t have health insurance, a trip to the
doctor to get a cold medicine prescription
is impossible; the cold will have to clear
up on its own. Similarly, those who suffer
from severe allergies know that life with
out medicine can be extremely taxing.
Cold and allergy patients in the lowest
economic bracket will have a harder time
preventing sickness, which could eventu
ally develop into a health problem that
they still don’t have the money to treat.
The Oregon House is trying to solve one
problem, but creating a whole host of oth
ers that will soon need their own solutions.
As legislators, the House should hopefully
be able to come up with a better solution
than limiting the public’s access to cold
medicine. There is no empirical evidence
that removing all cold medicine from an
over-the-counter operation has an effect on
meth rates (no other state has tried a
prescription ruling such as that of Oregon).
In fact, Oregon already has laws limiting
possession of cold medicine and requiring
identification for purchase. Obviously, in
order to effectively combat the meth
problem, these lawmakers must aim much
higher, such as at meth users themselves.
Where is this war on drugs that we keep
hearing about? More importantly, what
is our nation’s war on drugs, if America
still needs to keep cold medicine off of
the shelf?
Innocent people who follow the law will
surely be the ones hurt the most: Cold
medicine may be illegal to obtain, but
meth-heads obviously have no problem
with breaking the law. Meth manufactur
ers will continue to break the law, find
cold medicine and make drugs. Innocent
people will not break the law, and in re
turn they will have greater trouble curing
a cold. Well done.
EDITORIAL BOARD
Shadra Beesiey Ailee Slater
Editor in Chief Commentary Editor
Tim Boboksy
Photo and Online Editor