4 • T he C lackamas P rint
COMMENTARY
F ebruary II, 2004
America under paranoia
Gadget craze is here to
Fear of terrorism driving country to near witch-hunt stay: Resistance is futile
O pinion E ditor
Benjamin Franklin once said,
“Those who would give up
essential liberty to purchase a tit
tle temporary safety deserve nei
ther liberty nor safety.”
With the advent of the USA
Patriot Act and the Department
of Homeland Security, Franklin’s
worst fears have come true. A
few weeks back, a Massachusetts
woman named Julie Olearcek
became painfully aware of this
when a Christmas • shopping
excursion prompted visits from a
state trooper.
About
a
week
before
Christmas, Olearcek’s 10-year-old
son had put a flight simulation
computer program on his wish
list. Olearcek, a U.S. Air Force
reserve pilot, was glad to see her
son taking interest in flight and
took her son to the local Staples
outlet so he could pick out which
game he wanted.
Upon arrival, her son was dis
appointed to learn that /all the
software involved fighting, not
actual flying of the plane. When
Olearcek asked thp^t:lerk about
this, he angrily informed her that
. what she was doing was against
the law.
Shocked, Olearcek
decided to leave the edgy clerk to
himself.
That evening, she heard a tap
on her sliding-glass door and saw
a flashlight beaming through.
Standing outside Olearcek’s door
was a state trooper wanting to
question her about her inquiry
into buying a flight simulator.
She showed the officer her mili
tary ID and he left after explain
ing that the clerk had called quite
concerned, although flight simu
lators are quite common. What
remains to be seen in this matter
is how the Staples clerk knew
where to send the officer.
It is not just the American
people who have been gripped by
this state of tension; the govern
ing bodies in Washington seem
to have been equally effected.
In the past months, multiple
members of the Green party
have reported that they have
been barred from flights. Art
dealer Doug Stuber, who ran
Ralph Nader’s Green Party presi
dential campaign in North
Carolina in 2000, wrote that he
was pulled out of a boarding line
and grounded after getting into a
friendly political discussion, in
which he loudly voiced his politi
cal views, with two other passen
gers. He was never able to make
his work-related flight to Europe.
Possibly even more absurd is
the singling out of Virgine
Lawinger, a nun in Milwaukee
and an activist with Peace Action.
She and 20 other members of the
Catholic organization were head
ed to Washington to lobby the
Wisconsin congressional delega
tion against U.S. military aid to
the Colombian government.
Her group was pulled aside
and told their names were “on a
list, and that the Transportation
Security
Administration
in
Washington had ordered them to
be kept grounded.
It is not just leftists who have
been victims to this scenario; a
conservative group called “Eagle
Forum”, led by anti-feminist icon
Phyllis Schlafly, said that several
of the group’s members have
been delayed by security to the
point of missing their flights. In
addition, the American Arab
Anti-Discrimination Committee
said it has documented over 80
cases, involving some 200 people,
in which people with Arabic
names have been at the least
delayed, and some were even
grounded from flying.
While the aviation industry is
by far not the only victim of this
kind of paranoia, it seems to be
one of the hardest hit, albeit
understandably.
The events of Sept. 11
brought attention to problems
with the airline industry that had
been known about for years.
While the events of 9/11 were a
wakeup call, we must also be
wary.
There is a fine line
between being safe from terror
ists and letting the fear control
our fives and therefore letting
them win.
Obviously, the American peo
ple must be sure that we are
never again victims to such a
tragedy, but we must also insure
that we do not submit ourselves
to Big Brother in an attempt to
be safe.
-------- Letters to the Editor —
Campus tobacco issues stimulate students' response
I attended the “Ask the
President”
forum
today
(2/4/04). I won’t address all the
very legitimate gripes of the stu
dents and staff in this letter;
however, I will address this one.
Most everyone is very aware of
the problems caused by the
many tobacco addicts here on
campus (both students and
staff).
For example: 1) the second
hand smoke cloud you must pass
through in order to get into build
ings, 2) cigarette butts every
where, even on the ground
around the new $79.90 (I looked it
up) lighthouse butt urns, 3) and,
even though smoking is prohibit
ed inside the buildings, the air-
conditioning still picks up their
smoke through the outside air
intakes and blows it inside anyway.
One solution presented by Bill
Leach, our associate dean of cam
pus services was to build shelter
kiosks so the smokers will have a
place to stand out of the rain.
These would be placed away from
building entrances. He believes
the students could design and
build these to keep costs down.
A good idea, but why spend
more money to pacify the tobacco
addicts? Let’s see, $80 or so for
each butt urn, multiplied by 50?
100? And now a custom wind and
rain protected kiosk for every
building?
Next, it will need air condition
ing and heating because the smok
ers will still not use them because
it’s too cold or hot or they won’t
want to walk over to them.
How about some futuristic
thinking and not spend any more
money? Follow Nike Campus’
lead and make nur campus a
smoke-free one! I’m sure this will
be met with opposition at first, as
is understandable when you limit
an addicts preferred drug, but
after the initial fussing, a healthier
and cleaner environment will be
had by all, including the smokers.
Building and grounds will save
money, too, because they won’t
have the several million butts to
pick up, urns to empty, eta Not to
mention the cleaner air all of us
can now share.
The president’s response was
something to the effect of “Do
you realize how much money is
related to the tobacco industry?”
My response to that is, “Do
you realize how much money is
related to a class action suit?”
What’s your response?
Craig Lamond,
CCC Student
Parent concerned for future of higher education
I am a concerned taxpayer who
also happened to be working at
Clackamas Community College
during the month of Feb. 2004.
While I was working in a class
room I overheard a meeting of
some of the faculty. The vast
majority of the meeting was
devoted to the use of profanity in
the educational class setting.
These professors rattled on
about their rights and freedom of
speech. But what I heard was eight
or nine little kids so happy that
they got to say dirty words. These
educators listed other schools and
universities as their justification,
but I simply saw people seeing
how naughty they could be They
grinned as they peppered their
comments with denigrating words.
All were proud of their self-right
eousness and over-the-top swear
ing. One even “wondered if I had
a tape recorder.” Thus proving to
me of his own embarrassment or
hint of conscience that what he
was advocating was poor judg
ment and wrong.
High education should not be
the lowest common denominator
of society, but the expansion of
vocabulary and higher thought. I
work in the construction trade
and do hear foul language on a
daily basis, yet is this what the
college strives for? Do we really
want gutter speech to be the goal
we aim for?
One of the professors even
mentioned that the “f-word”
could be used as one of the eight
parts of speech (noun, verb, adjec
tive ... ). However, doesn’t this
dilute and provide little to no use
ful value to speech? I would expect
much more from the educators of
our youth.
Lastly, I am a taxpayer, commu
nity member, and father of three
wonderful boys. I am now in
doubt whether or not my children
or my money will ever attend such
^“fine” school.
Mark A. Douglas,
Concerned Parent
The following ¿r an editorial with the
intent to best represent the opinion of
the the Print staff editors.
With the advent of every new
piece of technology also comes
the invention of a new. way to
misuse it, and the camera phone is
no exception.
It began with digital camera
attachments that could be plugged
into a cell phone made for such,
and small, grainy pictures could be
produced. It has now evolved
into the cameras being built right
into the phone, making it even
more inconspicuous for stalkers
all over America. Now all it takes
to capture any image is a quick
and discrete push of a button on
the phone, and presto—no one is
the wiser.
While some have hailed this
innovation as the next cool gadg
et, others have not greeted it with
open arms, worrying instead
about the possibility of exploita
tion. Imagine the horror of a stu
dent who finds out that the guy in
the comer talking on his phone
was actually taking an embarrass
ing picture of them scratching
their posterior, picking their nose,
or some equally degrading task.
Another scenario: a peeping
Tom (male or female) sneaks a
camera phone into the locker
room, and takes pictures of the
team showering, and can instantly
send them via e-mail or multime
dia message to friends for even
further distribution. This is the
reason campuses have been con
sidering banning camera phones.
What possible good can come
from devices that seemed almost
designed to invade privacy? *
One possible circumstance
that has been brought up by many
is that, armed with a camera
phone, an unprepared civilian can
discreetly capture a crime in
progress, which could later be
used as evidence. Be it an armed
gunman holding up a 7-Eleven
or a corrupt cop macing a peace
ful protestor, one could generally
agree that camera phones could
help ensure justice in these cases.
One concern many students
seem to have is that the cameras
on the phones are of nearly
primitive quality. The majority of
camera phones take pictures con
siderably smaller than one
megapixel. A megapixel is the
unit of measurement used in dig
ital imagery of this sort. One
megapixel has an approximate
resolution of 1,280 x 960, and
can be optimally blown up no
more than 5” x 7” while still
retaining any clarity. Most digital
cameras on the market today are
at least two megapixels, more
commonly three’ or four.
It can be concluded that the
pictures’ taken by these camera
phones leave something to be
desired. Maybe in a few years the
technology will evolve to the
point of a useable camera, but
now it just seems to be more a
way for tech nerds all over the
U.S. to entertain their inner
James Bond.
Are these cameras really
worth all the fuss? At this point,
it does not matter. Pandora’s
Box has been opened; just as it
was with home recording and
file sharing—and stuffing the
genie back in the bottle will not
silence it.
The technology has been
around for years; tiny cameras
will soon become a common toy.
It is just a matter of society learn
ing to work with it, not against it.
Have an idea you want to share with
your fellow students?
E-mail letters to chiefed@clackamas.edu or bring them
on a floppy disk to RR135 by this Friday at 1 p.m.
Please include your name and limit all letters to no
more than 200 words.
Submissions become property of The Clackamas Print and are subject
to editing on the grounds of length, clarity, content and grammar.