Mount Hood

Ribich ready to take on regionals

DemLegsDoeColor

By: Brianna Bonham
Staff Writer

David Ribich started his sophomore year off strong with high hopes for the racing competitions this cross country season.

Being in the lead in the top 6 of the team, David is very determined to work with his team to get to nationals.

“Our ultimate goal is to get to nationals this year, we’re all very committed to that goal […] We’re committed to do the work it takes,” said Ribich.

Ribich said that he team last year “fell short at regionals” and with regionals being at Western this year, the team and David both feel a lot of pressure to perform. They want to make Western proud.

“When the season rolled around one of the highlights was [at] Sun Dodger where I went 24:38 minutes for 8K. It was a minute PR (personal record) and really set the tone for the rest of the season,” Ribich said.

He has been training to be his best in order to get to the goal of nationals.

Ribich recently set a new PR running a 10K at 32:02 minutes. His personal highlight is getting 4th in conference.

“The race started out like I thought it would,” Ribich said, adding “But we’re only climbing. We’re on the uphill for regionals.”

“For regionals right now, we are sitting in the middle of the pack between all the teams […] We’re in the hunt for it,” said Ribich. During their last race, the team exceeded what they were expecting and are feeling good about their ability to compete at regionals. They were ranked 7th in the conference this year and exceeded expectations.

This summer, he counseled at a running camp and was able to train through the summer and work to better his times. He managed multiple new PRs and is continuing to train.

“I just know that if I have support I can go out there and make everyone proud,” Ribich said. He looks to his family and community to support during races, and with Western being the host for regionals this year, he hopes that the community will come to support as well.

“At some point in the race, everyone is going to get physically tired,” he said. For Ribich, the majority of races are a mental challenge as opposed to a physical challenge. He believes that mental preparation is just as important as physical preparation.

Ribich has been running since 7th grade, he went to a small high school that did not offer soccer past 6th grade, and soccer was his passion. His sister ran cross country which inspired him to begin running as well.

He is in his sophomore year here at Western and is majoring in communication studies with a minor in sports leadership and sports development.

“Professional running is a macro goal for me. My micro goal is to pursue athletics,” Ribich said. Choosing this major/minor allows him to pursue his passion for athletics. He wants to pursue a post collegiate career in running and coaching

“Netflix is definitely a post workout priority […] Right now I’m watching Arrow, The 100, Prison Break and Supernatural,” Ribich added. He also finds time outside of workouts to hike and do outdoor activities.

Ribich and the cross country team hope to see Western supporters at regionals. He looks forward to pursuing cross country the rest of his college and professional career.

A letter from your legislators

By: U.S. Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR)

The following is an open letter written by Oregon Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) concerning their recent education finance bill. The views contained are not necessarily endorsed by the Journal

 

Last month, on campuses across Oregon, students told us that college debt is suffocating opportunity. It’s preventing a move, a job, a car or a house. Debt is stifling ideas for the future before they have a chance to grow. Those students implored us to find real solutions to cut tuition costs and prevent the crushing debt that follows too many college graduates for decades.

In Oregon, the average student graduating with debt owes more than $25,000, and that number only keeps climbing. Nationally, with out-of-pocket tuition costs continuing to fly past inflation – by nearly 24 percent from 1999 to 2011 – students and their families face the brunt of this burden with no end in sight.

The key driver of tuition increases and skyrocketing debt levels is states dramatically cutting their share of funding for public higher education. In fact, researchers at Demos, a policy research organization, found that declining state support was responsible for nearly 80 percent of the rise in tuition costs between 2001 and 2011.

That has certainly been the case in Oregon, where the state’s contribution to the per-student cost of public college has fallen from $5,587 in 2009 to $4,214 in 2014 – a decline of almost 25% in just five years. In the last state legislative session, the state increased higher education funding by almost 20 percent, which is great progress. However, Oregon ranked 45th in the nation in per-student support for public higher education in 2014.

That’s why we introduced legislation to encourage states to put in a bigger share and reinvest their dollars into public colleges and universities. Our bill, the PARTNERSHIPS Act, would provide federal matching funds for states that agree to freeze or reduce the cost of tuition and bring up graduation rates. The bill signals to states and colleges that the federal government wants to be a partner in making college more affordable.

The partnership would work like this: The federal government would send dollars to states if states use those dollars to stop tuition costs from going up, or, better yet, if they use those dollars to bring down tuition costs at public colleges. Under our bill, a school could get up to $1,700 per student each year from the federal government if it meets those conditions.

Even as we work to stop tuition from climbing higher, we know costs are already so high that many feel college is out of reach. So another key piece of the puzzle is ensuring that all kids – starting in junior high and high school – know that they will have the ability to repay their loans.

In August, we introduced the AFFORD Act, which would give all borrowers that peace of mind. Our bill would make student debt more manageable by ensuring no borrower has to pay more than ten percent of his or her discretionary income on student loan payments. Any unpaid balance after 20 years would be forgiven. Everybody, from baristas to bankers, would be able to afford their student loan payments.

In our country, a higher education is often the ticket to a good-paying job. Making college affordable is not only critical to the future of students, it’s vital for our state. It’s the surest way to grow our economy and the incomes of ordinary Oregonians. We must keep higher education – a central pathway to the middle class – open to all.

Bringing down college costs is going to take effort from students, states and the federal government. But Oregonians have never been afraid of hard work. Our students’ future and our state’s require that we meet this challenge. Working in partnership, we can keep the doors to opportunity open to all Oregonians.

Last month, on campuses across Oregon, students told us that college debt is suffocating opportunity. It’s preventing a move, a job, a car or a house. Debt is stifling ideas for the future before they have a chance to grow. Those students implored us to find real solutions to cut tuition costs and prevent the crushing debt that follows too many college graduates for decades.

In Oregon, the average student graduating with debt owes more than $25,000, and that number only keeps climbing. Nationally, with out-of-pocket tuition costs continuing to fly past inflation – by nearly 24 percent from 1999 to 2011 – students and their families face the brunt of this burden with no end in sight.

The key driver of tuition increases and skyrocketing debt levels is states dramatically cutting their share of funding for public higher education. In fact, researchers at Demos, a policy research organization, found that declining state support was responsible for nearly 80 percent of the rise in tuition costs between 2001 and 2011.

That has certainly been the case in Oregon, where the state’s contribution to the per-student cost of public college has fallen from $5,587 in 2009 to $4,214 in 2014 – a decline of almost 25% in just five years. In the last state legislative session, the state increased higher education funding by almost 20 percent, which is great progress. However, Oregon ranked 45th in the nation in per-student support for public higher education in 2014.

That’s why we introduced legislation to encourage states to put in a bigger share and reinvest their dollars into public colleges and universities. Our bill, the PARTNERSHIPS Act, would provide federal matching funds for states that agree to freeze or reduce the cost of tuition and bring up graduation rates. The bill signals to states and colleges that the federal government wants to be a partner in making college more affordable.

The partnership would work like this: The federal government would send dollars to states if states use those dollars to stop tuition costs from going up, or, better yet, if they use those dollars to bring down tuition costs at public colleges. Under our bill, a school could get up to $1,700 per student each year from the federal government if it meets those conditions.

Even as we work to stop tuition from climbing higher, we know costs are already so high that many feel college is out of reach. So another key piece of the puzzle is ensuring that all kids – starting in junior high and high school – know that they will have the ability to repay their loans.

In August, we introduced the AFFORD Act, which would give all borrowers that peace of mind. Our bill would make student debt more manageable by ensuring no borrower has to pay more than ten percent of his or her discretionary income on student loan payments. Any unpaid balance after 20 years would be forgiven. Everybody, from baristas to bankers, would be able to afford their student loan payments.

In our country, a higher education is often the ticket to a good-paying job. Making college affordable is not only critical to the future of students, it’s vital for our state. It’s the surest way to grow our economy and the incomes of ordinary Oregonians. We must keep higher education – a central pathway to the middle class – open to all.

Bringing down college costs is going to take effort from students, states and the federal government. But Oregonians have never been afraid of hard work. Our students’ future and our state’s require that we meet this challenge. Working in partnership, we can keep the doors to opportunity open to all Oregonians.

Mo’ liquor, mo’ problems

By: From the Desk of The Journal Editorial Team

Last week, the Northwest Grocery Association proposed an initiative for the 2016 Oregon ballot that would change how liquor is sold and regulated in the state.

If approved, the regulation and sale of alcohol would undergo privatization, rather than the current system in which the state monitors licensed liquor stores.

Currently, the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) oversees all regulation of the sale and taxation of liquor sales.

The move to privatize liquor sales is a poor move, and would only result in harm to consumers and to small businesses.

Encourages alcoholism

Look, we get it: privatizing the sale of liquor would make purchasing it much more convenient. There would be no more scrambling to make it into the liquor store 10 minutes before closing on a Saturday night since you could just run into Waremart and buy whatever you need there without the worry of missing the store’s hours.

However, there is a reason that you can’t buy liquor at certain times of the day.

In Oregon, alcohol of any kind cannot be purchased between the hours of 2:30 a.m. and 7 a.m., and liquor stores themselves are even more heavily mandated by the state.

In Oregon, liquor stores are required to be open between 12 p.m. and 6 p.m., but cannot open before 7 a.m., and they cannot close after 10 p.m., according to the OLCC. Stores also have “the option of being open on Sundays and legal holidays with hours of operation varying from store to store.”

Removing the monopolized regulations on the sale of liquor encourages alcoholism by allowing people to go and purchase hard alcohol with far fewer restrictions. Increasing the ease of access for hard liquor only plays the role of enabler.

Privatizing sales may also increase the chance for traffic collisions, since people then have access to hard alcohol when they otherwise would not. More people buying liquor at later times at night spells disaster for drivers all across the state.

According to a study from the Alcohol Research Group (a program of the Public Health Institute), “the real and potential effects of privatization project that the modification and/or elimination of monopoly status [state regulation] would increase consumption and alcohol-related problems such as assault, motor vehicle accidents and deaths from alcohol-related causes.”

The ARG also claimed that privatizing the liquor market “may result in increased sales to underage and intoxicated patrons.”

Increase in costs

The Tax Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, found that Washington state has the highest average cost of liquor in the country, and that the average price of liquor increased by $8.52 per gallon after privatization.

The Oregonian reported that when sales were privatized in Washington state, the initiative “included taxes aimed at producing as much revenue as the state made when it acted as the state’s sole liquor retailer.”

In the proposed measure for Oregon, however, the decision for how to tax liquor would be left up to the state legislature.

In addition, the ARG noted that prices in Washington state have increased by as much as 15 percent in some areas.

Tina Mulkey, owner of the Independence Liquor Store in Independence, Ore., said that she thinks the state does a good job of regulating the market and controlling the prices.

“I like that the state controls the prices, it takes the havoc off of my shoulders,” Mulkey said. “The state has been doing very well at controlling the regulation of liquor.”

The ARG also noted that replacing the state-controlled system with a private system, combined with a tax plan aimed at achieving the same revenues as before, will result in significantly higher prices to consumers.

Drives small liquor stores out of business

According to an article by the Oregonian, Costco spent more than $20 million on the effort to privatize alcohol sales in Washington state. Now, it controls about 10 percent of the alcohol market in the state.

Advocates for privatization in Oregon claim they want to end the state’s monopoly on alcohol, but privatization simply creates the opportunity for big box grocery stores to take the monopoly over for themselves.

Since the state would no longer have control over the regulation of sales, businesses with high revenue streams – like Costco – could set lower prices to drive other, smaller businesses out.

“[Privatization] will affect my business quite a bit,” Mulkey said. “I do not want [the measure] to pass because what happened up in Washington will happen down here.”

Privatization could also decrease the state’s revenue from alcohol tax.

After Washington state privatized its liquor sales, liquor stores on the Oregon side of the border increased their sales by 30 percent, possibly indicating a decrease in alcohol sales on the Washington side, according to an article from the Washington Post.

Privatization doesn’t decrease prices, increase selection, or provide more convenience. It seems as if the sponsors of the initiative just want privatization for privatization’s sake.

It’s a matter of simple supply and demand: if you increase the price of a product, people are going to buy less of it, or in this case, they will drive somewhere else to go get it, thus reducing the sales in Oregon and losing tax revenue.

This especially hurts small liquor stores: since people are no longer willing to pay the higher prices for liquor, and liquor is the main source of revenue for them, their revenue streams will be severely damaged.

In order for the initiative to get on the ballot next November, sponsors must gain 88,184 signatures to qualify.

Musings from a woman on the edge

By: Katrina Penaflor
managing editor

What even is news anymore? Also, what even is that last sentence I typed? It doesn’t fully sound right, but I feel like it’s the right thing to say—so I’ll say it.

Anyway, what do I mean by my question? Well news, to me, lately is not at all what I would consider to be news.

I was on Facebook (I know, terrible place to start my argument, but this isn’t quite an argument per say, just my “musings”) and the top trending story was about a reality show star wearing rubber sandals.

Rubber sandals are what I would refer to as slides, you know those basic black sandals with a thick strap across the foot.

That was the top trending story?

This is news? If I step outside my house to take out the trash in my Nike slides, is a reporter going to stop me on the street while I’m looking like a hot mess and take my picture?

Well no, that would never happen. And I get this was trending because the woman wearing the shoes is famous, but can people see how ridiculous this is?

Literally almost anything else in the world would have been more of a news story than that.

What about the recent debates? Let’s talk about Oregon job loss. Any cats stuck in a tree—I would even consider this last crazy question as more newsy (I’m making this a word if it isn’t one.)

With the rise of pop culture and the lives of celebrities becoming more important to some than the events of the rest of the world, I feel the term “news” is quickly fading away. Or maybe not quite fading, it’s still fitting its definition of being noteworthy and providing information, but sadly the focus of what people see as important is shifting in a different direction.

Who I hate today

DeclanColor

By: Declan Hertel
Entertainment Editor

“Internet comments are a roiling vat of toxicity and immaturity” is a constantly beaten dead horse that I do not wish to punish any more here.

But I do think that comment sections (especially pop culture comment sections) provide a breeding ground for a certain type of insufferable human being: the caustic “always critic, never creator.”

If you enjoy not being suicidal, never visit the Internet Movie Database (IMDB) message boards. All that is to be found there is a seemingly endless supply of people who hate the very concept of movies, yet pay actual, real money to complain about them.

They go beyond what Nick Hornby calls the “professional appreciator” in his novel “High Fidelity;” it’s worse than that.

It’s not that these people didn’t like the movie, it’s that someone would DARE to make a movie that wasn’t what they wanted, or God forbid, uses a device they’ve SEEN BEFORE. Nothing is ever good enough: it’s perfect or it’s worthless. And now they have a platform to inflict their opinions on the rest of us.

I am by no means saying that people shouldn’t be allowed to air their grievances (kinda what I’m doing here), but it’s so easy now to satisfy oneself with being angry and useless. And it’s the uselessness that worries me: so many people have an audience to angrily flail at about others’ creativity that they have no reason to create something themselves.

Plus, if you create something, there will be useless and angry people telling you that your art is worthless.

So, to the artists: do what you do. If you have a vision, execute it. Do not compromise or throw out your vision because it doesn’t fit what someone else wants. Forget the naysayers, your voice is worth hearing.

To everyone else: if this made you think “oh God I’ve been so angry and useless,” there is hope for you yet. Go create. If you don’t create, encourage those who do.

If you want to defend your angry and useless tendencies: I can be reached by loudly proclaiming to everyone nearby, “My name is [your name here] and I deserve to be punched in the teeth.”

Oregon posts 5300 job loses in September

By: Conner Williams
 Editor in Chief

The State of Oregon lost 5300 jobs in September, ending 36 consecutive months of job growth, according to a report from the State of Oregon Employment Department.

The decline was a fairly significant step backwards from the gain of 3500 jobs that was seen in August.
The report said that a “loss of more than 5000 jobs in a single month is a rare occurrence during the last six years.”

In September, the unemployment rate for the state rose from 6.1 to 6.2 percent, totaling 119,983 people without jobs in Oregon. However, the rate is down significantly from 6.9 percent in September of 2014.

Oregon added a total of 49,500 jobs during that 12-month period, resulting in a growth rate of 2.9 percent.

According to the report, the job losses were spread across eight industry groups, with four of those eight contributing the most, including:

• Construction: -1800
• Retail trade: -1600
• Professional and business services: -1300
• Leisure and hospitality: -1600

“… It’s too early to tell if the losses are just a blip in the recovery or a signal of a slower growth this autumn,” said Nick Beleiciks, Oregon’s state employment economist.

While many industries did have a decline in jobs, two industries expanded during the month of September:

• Government: +1300
• Healthcare: +800

An article from The Oregonian claimed that the numbers could turn out to be different after more accurate adjustments are made once the complete data becomes available.

Lock it up

By: Jenna Beresheim
News Editor

Jennifer Halley, a fifth year English major, and several neighbors in the area, awoke to the fact that their cars had been broken into and any valuable contents stolen, on Oct. 26, 2015.

“I heard a lot of shuffling and thudding going on in and around my neighbor’s car and storage unit,” recounts Halley, “I assumed it was my neighbor just making a lot of noise, and almost went outside to tell him to be quiet, but I fell asleep instead.”

This break-in had occurred sometime after midnight, and also included the theft of Halley’s bike, along with valuables from the other two vehicles.

Brianna Bonham, first year social science major, was also contacted by Public Safety on a separate account to inform her that the car beside her own had been broken into.

“They told me my car was fine, that there was just a couple pieces of glass on the hood, and that was it,” said Bonham, who was asked by Public Safety to describe both her car and the affected vehicle, as well as if she was aware of the broken window.

Rebecca Chiles, the Director of Campus Public Safety, urges students and Monmouth residents to keep all valuables outside of their vehicles.

“If you don’t want it stolen, don’t leave it in your car,” Chiles reminded, “and don’t forget to register your bikes with us.”

“A lot of students think we’re only open eight to five like the rest of campus,” admits Chiles, “but we are open and available 24/7.”

While Bonham was not personally affected by this event, it still raised awareness to the fact of what could happen.

“It made me a little nervous about my car because they were right next to each other, so I was concerned that it might happen to my car too,” said Bonham.

“This event made me feel violated and really angry,” said Halley, on the other end of the spectrum, “it made me question how safe I feel here.”

Halley’s advice follows the same vein as Chiles’: don’t keep important things in your car. Another important tip is to actually close the windows and lock the car before leaving, and to hide valuables to make the vehicle less tempting.

“Keep your eyes out, and be aware,” Halley said, “you always think ‘it will never happen to me’, and then it does and it sucks.”