Image provided by: Clackamas Community College; Oregon City, OR
About The Clackamas print. (Oregon City, Oregon) 1989-2019 | View Entire Issue (March 8, 2006)
[Clackamas Print Commentary^ Wednesday, March 8, 2006 itate court clears Measure 37 ntroversial land-use hn is constitutional, says \gon Supreme Court nek Erickson ¡Clackamas Print Tiat does it take to maintain a sense of niinity? It should look like people work aether to from a greater whole. [embers of the community elect leaders [ermine and delegate what’s best for the jn their charge. These leaders control ces, events, businesses and roads. They to control land usage. [easure 37 was passed in November of By October of 2005 it had been halted [arion County. On Feb. 21 of this year Jregon Supreme Court deemed the law htional, which, barring an appeal to a ¡1 court, makes it unstoppable. here are many things that one could m a piece of land. With Measure 37, foments on the local or state level with use laws that forbid certain actions must ■and owners the amount of money they Hd have made with the changes they Bested. Bor example, if someone owned a large ■of land and wanted to subdivide it, mak- Bnew suburb in the community, and the B®nity council didn’t approve it; the Kw mild have to pay them the profit they Bd have made from the subdivision. The communities where this* is a problem - mostly rural - can’t afford to pay off all of these landowners. Such landowners are greedy; they have no respect for their local council’s plans for the community. They should realize that they elected the local gov ernment because they had good plans for their community, and know how to plan for the future accordingly. When a claim is filed, the applicant pays $750 just to have their claim looked at. The Clackamas County officials then have 180 days to review the application, let the community know what’s happening and hold a public hearing before deciding the fate of the claim. All of this is very time consuming. According to a March 2 news story in The Oregonian, “Hearings held by the commissioners became marathon affairs, county staff said - three times a week, more than four hours at a time, 20 claims at a sitting.” Measure 37 is bad for communi ties, bad for citizens, and shows the unfortunate side of humanity. The side that cares more about the dollar than their neighbor, and more about their bank accounts than their own wellbe ing. I foresee a lot more opposition to this measure, and hopefully another judge or group of concerned citizens will put a halt to this incarnation of the downfall of America. 4 T e AT, aam teat . ° e expected ‘Brokeback Mountain’ car sweep comes to ‘ Crash’-ing halt Ciaramella ¡Clackamas Print J Ken Jack Nicholson couldn’t K from raising an eyebrow K he presented the winner for St Picture at Sunday’s Academy Hds; in the months leading K the Oscars, almost every- ■ had been calling “Brokeback Htain” as the winner. Hit when Nicholson spoke into ■¿crophone, it was “Crash,” a K, race-relations flick, which Hd away with the Kst award of the would it be a victory for the gay rights movemerit? I say no. Movies like “Brokeback” can’t be considered victories, even if they win, until they are accepted by the public as movies, not pieces of propaganda - pawns in a larger debate. The real tragedy of “Brokeback Mountain” was not that it was passed over for an Oscar because of a not-so-silent majority of back wards fundamentalists. The trag edy was that a movie centering on gay characters couldn’t stand on V1' Hybe it was all ^nype that killed ^Seback.” Maybe ^■h” was simply [Kter film. Maybe Hteback” got passed ■ecause, oh, I don’t KI it was about GAY MOYS. My rights advocates Hkely (and probably Het) to take the lat- [Hance. Many see it ■¡blow to the gay ■j movement that IHteback” lost - a ■pat America still ^■nature enough to Klc anything more ■fc than “Queer Eye Straight Guy” Hit comes to gay. Hie question must ¡.Rosed, though: if ^■eback Mountain” B Best Picture, ill Clackamas Print I «600 S. Molalla Ave. hon City, OR 97045 P) 657-6958 ex. 2309 II I I B? C lackamas Print is a weekly Rtudent publication and is f^buted every Wednesday except finals week. its own merit, only its perceived agenda. ¿C Of course, “Brokeback Mountain” did win three Oscars, but it was the equivalent of telling a successfill black person he or she was a “credit to their race.” It was a good movie ... for a gay flick There won’t be a victory for the gay rights movement in cin ema until a movie like “Brokeback Mountain” comes out, and it doesn’t have to “triumph” or “suc ceed” over prejudice. The main problem is our nation’s current mental ity. When many Americans think “gay,” they’re still imagining the biker dude from The Village People. They can’t fathom the idea of homosexual love. It doesn’t compute. You might as well show an episode of “The Real World” to a group of nomadic Bedouins. This mentality is what turned “Brokeback Mountain” into a novelty, parodied by every late night host and Ins brother, rather than a serious drama. It’s what kept everybody talk ing, but not about the acting, plot or cinematography, just a steamy tent scene. Sorry Ang Lee, until America can get its mental posterior into gear and into the 21st century, like most first world countries already have, you’ll just have to wait for that Best Picture award. Illustration by E. E. West Clackamas Print Supreme Court will not hear college case ■ David Stark I [ The Clackamas Print In a shocking move, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from former student journalists at Governors State University, letting stand a lower court ruling that could allow college administrators to censor student publications. The case has been in various levels of the court since January 2001, when a dean blocked the paper from being printed after several stories critical of the university’s administra tion appeared. Patricia Carter, Governors State’s dean of stu dent affairs, told the printing company not to print the news paper, The Innovator, before she reviewed and approved it, according to court documents. The paper, which was found ed in 1971 and supported solely by student fees, hasn’t been published since. In June, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 7-4 that Carter should not be held lia ble for her decision because of “unconstitutional uncertainties,” meaning that the case law was murky enough that she couldn’t be expected to know what was legally permissible. Even worse for the rights granted by the First Amendment is the fact that the appeals court also found that Governors State administrators had a right to E ditor - in -C wef : Ben Maras C opy E ditors : Katie Weinberg, E. E. P roduction A ssistants : Tayo A d A ssistant : Megan Cline S taff W riters : Courtney CXByme, Stalnaker, Adam J. Manley, West Alexander Case, Derek Erickson, Justin Goe, Elizabeth Hitz, Frank Jordan, Mike Kimberling, Megan Koler, Adam J. Manley, Matthew Olson, Joe Piazzisi, Kim Schiewe, Tayo Stalnaker, Kyle Steele, David Stark News E ditor : Katie Wilson C ommentary E ditor : Laura Cameron F eature E ditor : C.J. Ciaramella S ports E ditor : Mike Guidice A&E E ditor : Jadon Triplett P hoto E ditor : Jeff Sorensen A d M anager : Sam Krause Brandon Huddleston P hotographers : Adam J. Manley, Harriet Strothers, Lara Hedbor D epartment A dvisor : Linda Vogt D epartment A ssistant : Pat Lichen regulate the paper’s contents because it was published under the auspices of the university, a ruling that some fear could limit what college students pub lish. The court claimed to have relied in part on a 1988 Supreme Court decision, Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, that allows high school admin istrators to censor student pub lications. The Supreme Court’s denial is a huge loss for student rights and freedom of the campus presses, and could prove to have an intimidating effect on student newspapers. This situation could prove to be even more disastrous for all the other forms of student expression. What happens when students wish to show controversial films, or bring in a potentially offensive speaker? Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier also affects teach ers by limiting what they can or cannot teach. With this ruling in place many teachers may find their classes edited for content. This decision is an all around huge mistake. This new Supreme Court has only a very short time in which to prove what kind of a court it will be, and I, for one, am not impressed by their record so far. One can only hope that they can prove to be a balanced and fair court, as opposed to simply being anoth er weapon for the conservative right to wield. G oals : The C lackamas Print aims to report the news in an honest unbiased, professional maimer. The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the stu dent body, college administration, its faculty or The Print. E-mail comments to chiefed@dackamas. edu.
