[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.