Mount Hood

Go and love yourself

By: Conner Williams
Editor-in-Chief

As part of Body Image Awareness Week, the Student Health and Counseling Center partnered with the Health and Wellness Center to help promote self-love and to dispel negative connotations towards one’s body image.

Placed around the HWC were different demonstrations that provided motivational phrases, statistics, and an exhibition in the aerobics room that encouraged individuals to “take a break from the mirror and be good to yourself and your body, regardless of appearance” by covering all of the mirrors in sheets.

As someone that has always struggled with my body image, I found the messages around the HWC to be quite compelling; of course people should be encouraged to feel good about themselves regardless of some arbitrary standard of beauty.

Messages were pasted on the mirrors of the HWC, including ones like “It’s not about what size you wear; it’s about how you wear your size!” and “approximately 7 million girls and women struggle with eating disorders.”

But while this spectacle was well-intended, I personally feel that it had the opposite effect on me.

It seems to me that rather than promoting self-love, this campaign has, in fact, attacked or stigmatized those very people that frequent the building in which the messages are placed. I know I don’t exercise and eat well to try and look beautiful in the eyes of others, and I bet a large majority of the people that exercise at HWC feel the same way.

We do it for us, not for you. People ask me all the time why I want to look a certain way. “Don’t you think that’s too much?” “Ew, that’s gross! Way too much muscle.”

Guess what? I don’t care what you think. I do it for me.

One message reads “Weight does not dictate your health or your worth.” Well, part of that is true. Sure, being overweight doesn’t necessarily mean an individual is unhealthy, but condoning unhealthy lifestyle choices doesn’t seem to be the greatest message to be sending. Another message says “By choosing healthy over skinny, you are choosing self-love over self-judgement.” So, I guess the fact that I actually enjoy eating well and exercising must mean that I don’t love myself, according to that statement. Makes sense.

This is what gets to me about these sorts of campaigns: they attempt to make some people feel better about themselves while simultaneously belittling others simply because they’ve chosen to live healthy lives.

You’re not a bad person, or an ugly person, or an unworthy person just because you don’t fit somebody else’s standard of beauty. Do what you want to do. But at the same time, don’t tell me that my decision to be healthy somehow makes you feel badly about yourself.

I get that the message is to encourage people to feel good about themselves, but I suppose my own message is that it’s also okay to NOT feel good about yourself. If you don’t like the way you look, and you want to do something about it, then more power to you! Stop assuming that just because someone wants to better themselves that they are doing it for someone else. Chances are they’re not, and if they are, they should reevaluate their goals and priorities and realize that the only person that can truly make you happy and feel whole is you.

If you take one thing away from this column, let it be this: mind your own business and don’t tell other people how they should look.

Contact the author at journaleditor@wou.edu or on Twitter @journalEIC

The price of pink

By: Stephanie Blair
Copy Editor

Every time I walk down the toiletries aisle of a store I am bombarded with products that proclaim “FOR MEN” or “Women’s ______.” It took me longer than I care to admit to realize that one costs more than the other.Screen Shot 2016-05-09 at 5.26.27 PM

So, I went searching for prices to demonstrate this inequality. What I found wasn’t super surprising to me: women’s products cost more. Often a non-gendered product was the cheapest, though some would argue that some scents are inherently male or female.

Basically, if y’all don’t want to smell like a particular gender, decide first if it’s worth the extra money. This is college: we’re all poor and no one cares if you smell like “cocoa butter kisses” or “thunderstrike flashfire.”

Products:

Winco generic brand, Laxatives. (Everyone poops, get over it.) I checked, there’s no difference in ingredients!
Non-gendered: $1.94 for 25 (7.8 cents per pill)
Women’s: $3.60 for 30 (12.0 cents per pill)

Speed Stick, Deodorant.
Men’s/default gender: $1.98 ($0.66 per ounce)
“Lady Speed Stick:” $2.15 ($0.91 per ounce)

Bic Pens (on Amazon), blue ink, retractable ballpoint
Ungendered: $7.67 for 12
“BIC for her:” $7.49 for 2

Gilette, Shaving cream.
Standard/Ungendered: $2.69
“Venus”/Women’s: $3.24Screen Shot 2016-05-09 at 5.26.27 PM

What fourth estate?

By: Alvin Wilson
Staff Writer

Thanks largely to the actions of politicians, press freedom is an issue that countries around the world currently face.

In countries such as China and North Korea, both at the bottom of the Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index (WPFI), practicing journalism means repeating what the government wants the press to say.

The WPFI ranks countries based on how free their press is, taking into account anything from journalist killings and kidnappings to laws that prohibit criticizing the government.

America is regarded as a free nation—one in which journalists are treated well and allowed to practice their profession freely. This has been historically true and, to an extent, it still is. But since 2010, the U.S. has dropped from number 20 on the WPFI to number 41. That puts us just behind South Africa and just ahead of Botswana.

Press restrictions are real in America, and they creep up nearly undetected. The way journalists are treated by their country’s politicians can shed light on their country’s press freedoms.

For example, in American political campaigns it is normal for journalists to be confined to a “press corner,” where they are secluded from the candidate and the audience. It’s also not unheard of for journalists covering protests, such as the ones in Ferguson, to be arrested.

Our most renowned politicians, by being complacent with these practices, are facilitating the creation of more press restrictions.

Hillary Clinton received backlash early in her campaign when she roped off reporters during an Independence Day parade. She came under fire again last month when CBS reporter Stan Bush claimed she was using a white noise machine to prevent reporters from hearing her from outside a fundraising event.

Donald Trump has been especially insulting to the press. Here’s a list of some news outlets he has attacked and what he said about them, according to the New York Times:

The Associated Press: “… reporting is terrible and highly inaccurate.” “… always looking for a hit to bring them back to relevancy—ain’t working.” “… has one of the worst reporters in the business.”
Politico: “… considered by many in the world of politics to be the dumbest and most slanted of the political sites.” “… if they were legit, they would be doing far better.”

Univision: “… too much debt and not enough viewers.” “… controlled by the Mexican government?”

You get the point.

When politicians marginalize, demonize, and try to delegitimize journalists who are just doing their jobs, it makes it easier for them to justify restricting press freedoms. When politicians invent new ways to hide things from the press, they’re opening the door for others to do the same.

With political leaders such as ours, where will America’s press freedom rank eight years from now?

Bills, Bills, Bills

By: Brianna Bonham
Photo Editor

After years of debate, a grassroots campaign that advocated for a woman to be added to currency, and a Broadway musical that changed their mind, the United States Treasury Department revealed that Harriet Tubman will soon be featured on the $20 bill to commemorate the upcoming anniversary of the 19th amendment.

For quite a while the Treasury was planning on removing Alexander Hamilton, a Founding Father and creator of the National Bank, from the $10 bill and replacing him with a woman. Shortly after the revolutionary musical Hamilton opened its doors on Broadway, fans were outraged and the Treasury quickly changed their minds (Good call, Treasury).

On April 20, the Treasury announced that instead of removing Hamilton from the $10, they will be replacing Andrew Jackson with Tubman. Not removing, replacing. Yes folks, Harriet Tubman, a lifelong abolitionist will be sharing the bill with Andrew Jackson, a man who was believed to own over 300 slaves in his lifetime.

Do they not see anything wrong with this?

I want to take a moment to celebrate the fact that there is finally a woman being represented on our nation’s currency. The new bills will be put into circulation starting in 2020, the 100th anniversary of the 19th amendment, which gave women the right to vote.

Though Tubman’s history with women’s rights is not huge as she was more of a strong supporter, than she was an activist, she was invited as a guest speaker at the first meeting of the National Association of Colored Women in 1896, and toured New York, Boston, and Washington in support of women’s rights. These initiatives are the reason the bill is coming out on the anniversary of the 19th amendment.

Tubman is more widely known for her involvement with the Underground Railroad, a system of trails and safe houses that brought slaves from the south to free north states and Canada. She returned to the South 19 times to bring over 300 slaves to safety.

Obviously, Tubman is beyond deserving of her upcoming spot on the $20 and it is great to finally see representation from a black woman in our set of whitewashed greenbacks.

Now, don’t get me wrong, the men on our currency have done great things, great enough to get their faces in almost every U.S. citizen’s pockets. They helped form our country after all, even if they weren’t so kind in their social lives. What I’m questioning is the fact that the Treasury wants to put a former slave owner on the same bill as a former slave.

The first thing that comes to my mind is that it’s extremely disrespectful and unnecessary. Jackson has been on the bill for 88 years, and now that people are pushing to make change (such as the grassroots campaign, Women On 20s) others simply cannot let go.

I was sitting in class, waiting for my professor to arrive when I overheard a guy saying that he would be trading in all of his $20s for other bills once Tubman replaced Jackson. He said it was “disrespectful to take off a great President.”

Again, I recognize that Jackson played a great part in forming our country, but keeping him on the bill defeats the purpose of putting Tubman on the bill. She is being put on the bill in recognition of all of the work she did as a liberator and activist, and to keep a man who condoned slavery and everything she was against detracts from the significance of adding her.
It shows to me a lack of respect for Tubman and the work that she did to save slaves throughout her life, and seems almost mocking to leave Jackson to be lurking on the back of the $20.
While serving as President, Jackson showed a strong mistrust for the National Bank, and strongly opposed the use of paper currency. In 1836, he issued a Specie Circular that required land to be purchased with hard money (precious metal) as opposed to soft money (paper).
If he hated paper money so much, why do people want to keep him on it so bad? It seems to me that he wouldn’t want his face imprinted on these bills.
As a woman it is frustrating for me to think of holding one of the new $20s for the first time, reveling in the fact that there is now someone representing the rest of the women in the U.S. on something so widely available as our currency, only to flip it over and have that flame doused by Jackson. Taunting me with his bushy brows, he almost seems to say, “and you ladies almost thought you won.”
Representation is so important and featuring Tubman on the bill goes beyond representing the U.S. women; Tubman represents the black citizens of the U.S.According to the U.S. Census of 2014, there are an estimated 40,379,066 black citizens, an estimated 52.3% of those being women.
With movements such as Black Lives Matter becoming more and more prevalent and gaining publicity in recent years, I believe that Harriet Tubman would be a great opportunity to represent these women, and show change and diversity in our nation.
Tubman fought for equality in our country and adding her to our nation’s currency would bring us one step closer. We should leave Jackson in the 19th century, and celebrate Tubman as the strong, independent leader that she was.

Feels bad man

By: Conner Williams
Editor-in-Chief

There’s a couple things that have caused me to become extra irritated lately (that’s my PC way of saying they piss me off).

There are few things that professors do to piss me off more than those that can’t be bothered to send the class an email that class is cancelled.

No, I assure you, I just love walking the mile from my apartment in the rain to see a stupid note on the door that class in cancelled. Thanks so much. Feel free to take three minutes to send an email notification to your students.

I can’t imagine how outraged I’d be if I commuted from out of town, like a large majority of the students at this school do. Have some common courtesy; you aren’t the only one whose time is valuable.

Next up: motorists. I’m not sure if people haven’t grasped the fact that Monmouth is a college town or not, but newsflash, there’s a university right smack in the middle of town. And that means there are pedestrians everywhere, all the time, at all hours of the day.

I was almost hit the other day because a driver was doing at least 35 in a 20 mph zone. Since many people commute to town for class, cars are often parked along the sides of the roads and make it difficult for pedestrians to see down the road for oncoming traffic barreling down the road.

I really don’t feel like dying, and I’m sure you don’t feel like having a manslaughter conviction on your record, so do everyone a favor and go the damn speed limit, and slow down at intersections.

Contact the author at journaleditor@wou.edu or on Twitter @journalEIC

No More Savages: Modern Ideals vs. Archaic Worldviews in Art

By: Declan Hertel
Entertainment Editor

With a new (pretty dope) film adaptation of Rudyard Kipling’s “The Jungle Book” in theatres, it is time once again to face some difficult questions, presented by our rapidly changing world.

The problem is this: people have been making art since time immemorial. People have been imbuing that art with their personal worldviews for just as long. Some of those worldviews, while acceptable in their time, are … well, some are examples oScreen Shot 2016-04-25 at 6.49.33 PMf an outdated zeitgeist: relics of their time. Some are especially disgusting by modern standards, and others still were extreme even for their time. But a lot of the art that contains such reprehensible views is really great.

From my own experience: one of my favorite authors is H.P. Lovecraft, whom Stephen King called “the Twentieth Century’s greatest practitioner of the classic horror tale.” I totally agree: his tales of the unfathomable monstrosities that lie just outside of our comprehension bring me running back time and time again.

He was also really, really racist. Lovecraft was anti-immigration, highly xenophobic, and viewed Anglo-Saxon whites as superior (there are some interesting nuances to his racism if one wants to read up on him, like he was actively positive about Jews and Hispanics, but really didn’t like African-Americans or Irish Catholics). “The Shadow Over Innsmouth,” my favorite story of his, has some pretty obvious subtext about the dangers of interracial breeding.

We run into similar problems with Kipling. While I love a lot of his work, it is undeniably steeped in late-19th Century imperialistic attitudes. While Kipling’s relationship with imperialism and Britain is a more complex one than most folks realize (yeah, we all read “The White Man’s Burden” in high school, good job), he did view darker-complexioned folks as generally inferior, and was absolutely for imperialism. But, it remains, he was great. He was massively influential, and I believe that his works still hold up artistically today.

So, what do we do about this stuff? How do we reconcile great art with the not-so-great attitudes beneath it? And if we want to adapt this stuff for a modern audience, how do we address it?

One of the best handlings of this I’ve ever seen came from Warner Bros. releasing a collection of “Tom and Jerry” classics, which features Tom’s owner, Mammy Two Shoes, alongside other Jim Crow caricatures of black people. WB included a disclaimer that said, basically, these depictions were/are/will continue to be wrong, but censorship would be the same as pretending that those prejudices never existed.

But what about new adaptations of these works? Do we ignore the themes? Do we run disclaimers? Do we just not adapt these works anymore?

I don’t know what the answer is. Personally, I’m for a responsibly laissez-faire attitude about it, but a more measured approach could be argued very reasonably. All we can do at this point is discuss and share our thoughts. It begins with accepting that sometimes great art doesn’t impart good ideas, but from there? I don’t know. I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Contact the author at journalentertainment@wou.edu or on Twitter @journalfuntimes

The un-Democratic party

By: Alvin Wilson
Staff Writer

What if I told you your favorite presidential candidate could lose in Oregon’s primary, even if they win by a large margin?

It’s entirely possible, at least in the Democratic primary elections, for a candidate to lose the delegate count while winning the popular vote. This undemocratic phenomenon has happened before, and it will continue to happen so long as the Democratic party continues its use of superdelegates.

In Wyoming, a state that has only 14 pledged delegates, Bernie Sanders won by 12 percentage points. Since the state had such little delegates to divide, Sanders and Clinton split them evenly. Despite this, Sanders lost the state because of Clinton’s support from its superdelegates.

This isn’t a rant about Sanders’ losses, but it is a rant about the Democratic party taking power away from voters.

28 percent of Wyoming’s delegates are superdelegates, meaning 28 percent of the state’s voice is taken from the people and given to party officials.

In Oregon, 13 of the 74 total delegates are superdelegates. In 2008, Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton in Oregon and received 31 delegates to her 21. But if all of Oregon’s superdelegates had supported Clinton instead of Obama, she would have won the delegate count despite losing the popular vote by 18 percent.

The American people are deeply disenfranchised from the current political system, and it doesn’t take much digging to figure out why. At every turn, party officials can change the rules of the game to suit their agendas, and use their power to crush any candidate that goes against the grain.
On Feb. 11, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Committee, admitted to CNN’s Jake Tapper that superdelegates were designed to keep grassroots organizers from winning primaries.

With systems such as the electoral college and superdelegates, it seems as though America’s political parties are trying to silence as many voters as possible—and it’s working.

For a party that gets its name from the word democracy, the Democratic party uses one of the most undemocratic processes possible to nominate its candidate for president.

Campus Voices

By: Jenna Beresheim

Question: How do you feel about gender neutral restrooms?Screen Shot 2016-04-17 at 9.29.34 PM

  1. “I think they’re great – you can use them whenever you want without worrying about a line for a specific gender bathroom.” Jesus Hernandez, junior early
    childhood special education major.
  2. “I like them better because they’re more private.” Mark Drevdhl, first year education major. (*We have already had him in an issue, I believe, so let me know if this is still acceptable or not. Thanks!)
  3. “Genderizing single bathrooms is stupid.” Asia Cohen, junior ASL studies major.
  4. “I don’t even know.” Shelby Keesler, junior pre-interpreting major.
  5. “I think all bathrooms should be gender neutral, everyone has to go to the bathroom – it doesn’t matter which parts you’re using to do so.” Jenesa Ross, senior biology major.
  6. “Great idea. I think we need to be an all-inclusive campus.” Martha Kools, fifth year criminal justice major.

Democrats on the issues

By: Conner Williams
Editor-in- Chief

There’s no doubt that much of the two Democratic candidates’ political rhetoric (and personal antics) are aimed towards younger generations. After Obama’s overwhelming success that was directly related to his use of social media and web analytics that allowed his team to create targeted messages to voters, Sanders and Clinton have developed platforms that largely spread through the use of social media communication. The two have certainly gone to extraordinary lengths to present themselves as relatable to younger generations, but just what do they stand for? Despite many media outlets portraying political figures as celebrities, there’s still the actual policies to focus on. Here are the Democrats on the top five issues, as per their campaign websites.

Bernie Sanders – berniesanders.comScreen Shot 2016-04-17 at 9.26.59 PM

  1. Income and wealth inequality – closing the gap between the upper and lower economic classes
  2. Tuition and debt free college – ending for-profit student loans and subsidize tuition through taxes on Wall Street speculators
  3. Campaign finance reform – repealing the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling and outlawing Super PACs
  4. Rebuilding infrastructure through increased jobs – investing $1 trillion over 5 years to “modernize our infrastructure”
  5. Higher wages for workers – increasing the minimum wage to $15 per hour nationwide

Hillary Clinton – hillaryclinton.com (issues are listed in alphabetical order on website and may not reflect level of importance)

Screen Shot 2016-04-17 at 9.29.14 PM

  1. Alzheimer’s disease – providing a cure for the disease by 2025
  2. Campaign finance reform – overturning Citizens United, eliminating unaccountable sources of money, and establish a federally-funded system to match small donations
  3. Campus sexual assault – providing support to survivors and increase prevention programs
  4. Climate change and energy – creating jobs in clean energy, install 500 million solar panels, and bringing greenhouse gas emission to 30 percent below the 2005 levels
  5. New College Compact – refinancing current student loans at lower rates, enforce affordable tuition rates, and ensuring no student “has to borrow to pay for tuition, books, or fees to attend a four-year public college in their state.”

Many of the programs proposed by the Democratic candidates have been shunned by those on the right because of their inevitable cost to the taxpayers. Reducing college tuition, addressing greenhouse gas emission standards, and rebuilding the infrastructure do call for a significant investment in the future. And that’s the way we should be thinking of it: as an investment, not a cost. Investing in education, infrastructure, healthcare, and other public-interest programs will benefit huge denominations of people. Economically speaking, building a giant wall will do nothing to improve the American economy, even if Mexico were somehow coerced to pay for it. We need to address large-scale economic issues that affect people all across the country from all denominations and levels of income. The catch, however, is that the Democratic candidates promise that much of the bill for these investments will be footed by those at the top-end of the income spectrum.

Contact the author at journaleditor@wou.edu or on Twitter @journalEIC

My Slightly Diatribic Soapbox

By: Jenna Beresheim

Okay, everyone, today’s topic makes me roll up my sleeves and dust off the old soapbox for a good cause in need of advocating. This hot topic is especially close to my little gendernoncornforming heart, so buckle up, buttercups.

The issue at hand is in regards to people being so uncomfortable with their bodies (and those bodies around them) that god forbid they have to deal with a transgendered* human sharing the same restroom. What is the fear here stemmed from? In my lifetime, I have never seen another human’s bits while using the restroom, and if I have, it was my own fault. The only occurrence I could think of would be accidentally stepping into a stall that was not locked properly, in which we both made mutually shocked faces at one another and apologized in such a stream of syllables that I had no chance to actually see anything besides the whites of their eyes. Nor did I want to see anything, mind you.

Certain states are so uncomfortable with the thought of letting someone pee that they have began to ID individuals at the door. I mean, kudos for creating the completely useless job of a bathroom bouncer. But if you were going to employ someone to check your genitals, why not simply employ someone to keep it safe from the assumed (and completely nonexistent) threats of the Trans* community? Some have even gone so far as to encourage children in schools to rat out Trans* humans using the restroom that does not correlate with their assigned birth gender.

Hold up.

So, instead of letting someone use the restroom like a human being, we are now blocking and even denying, a basic human right. Trust me, transgender* individuals just want to use the bathroom – get in and get out. Just like everyone else. Especially as the gender that said individual identifies with. Imagine being forced into the opposite bathroom of what you identify with – it would be loads of uncomfortable for both parties. You’re a girl now crammed into the guy’s restroom, and vice versa. There would be heated looks, crude comments, and no doubt a shriek or two.

As a human who identifies as genderfluid, my gender fluctuates on the daily and often ranges anywhere from masculine to feminine, and wherever the hell I feel like in between. It’s a nightmare for my wardrobe, but it’s how I feel, and it took me years to develop enough understanding of myself to be okay with that. If I am dressed in masculine attire and identify more along that gender, I typically choose gender neutral restrooms. Even outside of the restroom it can be tough – I have had dressing room attendants inform me that I had picked out male pants (probably because their measurement system is much better, duh) and little old women explain to me how I would look much better in a dress and some makeup.

Thankfully Western is fairly accommodating and the people around me are understanding, but other areas are not so trusting or understanding. I may be a lesbian, but I use the bathroom like everyone else (not to dispel rumors that all LGBT*Q+ individual’s waste is rainbows and sprinkles). And, like everyone else, I use the bathroom just for that. To go to the bathroom, maybe check quaffed hair meticulously like a neurotic parrot, fix clothes, and strut out like I own the place. Sometimes I cut down the steps if I’m in a rush, but note that at no point was I a threat to, or even interacted with, anyone else.

This is exactly the problem. The focus is on a completely nonexistent issue. Sexual predators typically do not choose bathrooms of all places to attack someone, and it is a typical event for people who do not even identify in the specific gender-assigned bathroom to use it in emergency situations. How many times have you seen a girl give up waiting in the line of 20 plus people and just hop into the men’s instead? If we can choose to use whichever one we want to, why can’t the Trans* community have that same choice?

Everyone has to pee, so get over it. There is no statistical evidence regarding all of this “bathroom bill” hubbub. So, go about your business, and only yours, and flush your bias on the way out.

Contact the author at jberesheim11@wou.edu or on Twitter @woujournalnews to share your thoughts and feels

Republicans on the issues

In the overwhelming amount of political rhetoric that occurs, it seems as if the Republican candidates are always talked about in a sarcastic, joking manner. That makes for good headlines and clickbait material, but it often increasingly polarizes the two parties and leads to the apprehension of obtaining information simply based on the fact that the Republican candidates are made out to be so ridiculous. This story focuses on the three Republican candidates’ top five key issues and a short explanation, as per their campaign websites.

Donald Trump (donaldjtrump.com)
1. Building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico – eliminating illegal immigration
2. Repealing Obamacare – creating a new free-market system that gives affordable care
3. Creating new trade policies with China – making China admit to currency manipulation and eliminating trade tariffs
4. Veteran’s Administration reform – ensuring veterans have benefits they need
5. Tax reform – simpler tax brackets and the elimination of an income tax for some

Ted Cruz (tedcruz.org)
1. Restoring the Constitution – giving power back to the states and limiting the power or the federal government
2. Protecting Second Amendment rights – ensuring that citizens have the right to bear arms
3. Securing the border – ending amnesty and increasing deportations
4. Defending the nation – rebuilding the military, defeating ISIS, and protecting the homeland
5. Standing with Israel – maintaining American-Israeli alliance in the Middle East

John Kasich (johnkasich.com)
1. The Kasich action plan – reducing the size and scope of the federal government
2. Electability – Kasich believes he has the best chance at beating the Democratic nominee
3. Education – leaving standards up to the states and local municipalities rather than the federal government
4. National security – defeating ISIS, strengthening the military, and working with world allies
5. A Conservative approach to better healthcare – repealing Obamacare and “providing better care instead of more care”

These are the issues that our Republican candidates have deemed to be the most pressing as they have been listed on their respective campaign websites. Much of these issues have little to no explanation on how they will be enacted, which I think says something in itself. It is interesting because often politicians tell us what are the most important issues to be focusing on, and then run their campaigns around those issues, rather than the citizens choosing what issues are most important, and then backing a candidate that best reflects those interests. Personally, I do not identify with any of these candidates’ platforms because none of their ideas align with my own; there is no talk about higher education and student loan debt reform, no plan for reducing income inequality or closing the wage gap for women and minorities, and nothing on addressing climate change. Despite my own personal opinions, this column was not meant to sway you to vote red or blue, but rather to show what these candidates have decided are the most important issues facing the United States right now. It’s up to you to decide if you agree with them, or not. Stay tuned for next week’s column from the left side of the aisle.

Contact the author at journaleditor@wou.edu or on Twitter @journalEIC

Know Your Candidates

By: Carly Fister
Designer

As you may or may not be aware, there is a presidential election going on. You probably haven’t heard anything about it. But it is our job to be a well-informed public and elect a leader that won’t have the rest of the world laughing in our faces and is also up to the task of running our country.

Putting the politics aside, there is more to consider than you may think when choosing our next president. Perhaps you know their policy inside and out, but have you thought about the next four years with their stupid face staring back at you? For every press conference, public address, State of the Union, and every other minute thing that we broadcast you are going to watch and listen to them speak. And for some this may be harder than any of us could possibly anticipate.

As I watched a Republican Town Hall in mid-February with a group of coworkers, we began looking at the different hand movements of each candidate. Now, while there are probably some drinking games we could associate with these, I went in a different direction. I spent my Spring Break watching videos of each candidate speaking and singling out their “tick,” so to speak. Below are the fruits of my labor. So, let’s meet the candidates, shall we?

Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer

Ted Cruz can’t seem to stop wandering somewhere over the rainbow. He often will put his palm out in front of him as shown above and moves it across his body to illustrate his point, almost as if drawing the “imagination” rainbow Spongebob Squarepants style. Or maybe that’s just how the Zodiac Killer does things. We’ll never know.

John Kasich

Kasich is still in the race, apparently

I have to admit, I keep forgetting Kasich is still in the race, not having heard much about him, well, ever. And while watching this Ohio Governor speak, it is easy to see why. His movements, and his personality, seem to be very moderate. A gentle open palm facing up and flattened out seems to be his go-to. Not too difficult to watch every speech, but we also have to care what he says. We’ll see if anyone ever does.

Donald Trump

We make good gifs. The BEST gifs, I tell ya.

Everyone knows Donald Trump, and many of us are afraid of him, and that’s the way he likes it. His movements are full of authority with sharp jabs of his hands and waving his arms as he complains about his fellow candidates, the media, and pretty much everything. Oh, and of course, China.

Hillary Clinton

H is for HILLARY, folks

I don’t have the preconceived notions about Hillary Clinton that many voters do since I first knew her as the 2008-election-Hillary. But I will say when watching her it is apparent that Hillary has been coached on how to speak and how to animate herself. Her strange point with her whole hand type of movement that she uses to emphasize random words seemed a little too rehearsed to me (and a touch out of rhythm with what she is saying) and she never looks entirely comfortable with the motions. Maybe this is her attempt at bringing her personality into her campaign and her years of ridicule make her hesitant to commit? It’s hard to tell.

Bernie SandersPut a birb on it

Ahh, Bernie Sanders. I have a soft spot in my heart for this human Birkenstock, as he’s been called. Any 75 year-old man that reminds me of an 18 year-old who would live in a tree to keep it from being cut down just makes me smile, you know? Especially when said person has a heavy Brooklyn accent which is all peace and love. Bernie wants you to take action! And join the revolution! He emphasizes this with a lot of hand waving and sharp, prodding motions and pointing at the audience, calling them to action. Will you answer?

Healthy food on a budget

recipe layout online

 

Caramel Apple Salad
By: Jenna Beresheim
News Editor

Ingredients:
2 Apples
2 Dates
½ Lemon

This salad makes a quick, easy, and healthy snack, or the foundation for a creative creation. It requires two apples (I prefer Granny Smith for the tartness, but any will do), two to four dates (depending on how sweet you want it), and lemon. The lemon is optional, but helps the apples from turning brown and also adds a sour to the sweetness of the dates. I would suggest soaking the dates for a short period of time beforehand to make them easier to cut – and remember to remove the pits as well. A simple slice down the center of the date will do to remove them and splay open the fruit. Dates are a great source of fiber, potassium, and copper, while lemons and apples are both cleansing foods great for detoxifying. This salad takes around 10 minutes to prepare, and can take on different flavor flares depending on what you’re in the mood for – try adding dried coconut for a contrasting texture and more tropical flavor. This snack is also easily adjustable for portions and taste preferences, all while costing under $10.

Lifter's Bowl
By: Conner Williams
Editor-in-Chief

Do you want to gain weight? Lose weight? Or maybe just actually have some food available to you when you have to be on campus for hours at a time so you don’t die? Then look no further!

This recipe isn’t anything flashy; it’s literally chicken, green beans, and rice. Exciting stuff, I know, but it’ll beef you up or lean you out depending on how much and how often you eat it. It’s also super cheap to buy in bulk and prep your food ahead of time, and if you’re like me, you’re a cost-conscious college student. Or maybe not. Kudos to you. If you do it right, each meal comes out to less than $2. If you eat three or four times per day, that’s pretty cheap. I recommend shopping at Costco, since they hands-down have the best deals, and you can buy in major bulk. you’ll also want some tupperware for storage and transportation. I recommend ones that hold at least 16 ounces of food. Now let’s get started.

I cook about 1.5-2 pounds of chicken per day and eat 4-5 of these per day, excluding breakfast. I weigh out all of my food so I can distribute it evenly, but eyeballing it works too. So, each meal has about 6-7 ounces of chicken in it, bringing in around 45 grams or so of protein. Keep in mind that raw chicken weighs a bit more than cooked because of the loss of retained water and salt. That takes care of our protein. For carbs, I usually stick to rice (brown or white is left up to your preference and goals) because it’s easy to cook and store. I eat about 1 cup of white rice per meal, which is about 40 grams of carbs per meal. I recommend getting a rice cooker/steamer because it will make your life a hell of a lot easier when preparing food, but steaming in a pot on the stove works as well. For veggies, I do green beans because they’re pretty cheap, and all you’ve got to do is toss 2 cups in the microwave for 5 minutes and you’re good to go. For healthy fats, add about 2 tablespoons of virgin olive oil into each meal.

Ingredients for 4 meals:

Chicken breast: 16 ounces – $2 per pound at Costco (buy frozen)

Rice: 4 cups cooked – about $8 for a 25 pound bag at Costco

Green beans: 2 cups – about $1.25 per pound at Costco (buy frozen)

Extra virgin olive oil: 8 tbsp – about $12 for a gallon at Costco (will last forever)

Seasoning – your discretion, but I use stuff with low sodium

Now cook your food. For the chicken, you can toss them in the oven or grill them on the stovetop. I choose the stove because I think it tastes better and cooks faster. Chop the raw meat into cubes first, and it’ll cook in about 8 minutes. Start the rice beforehand, because it’ll take about 20-25 minutes to cook, and the veggies will take about 5 minutes. Once you become a pro, you’ll be able to time it all out.

May the gains be with you!

Contact the author at journaleditor@wou.edu or on Twitter @journalEIC

Musings from a woman on the edge

By: Katrina Penaflor 
Managing Editor

It’s dead week and, yes, I’m completely, 100 percent, totally dead.

The burnout of week 10 has hit me the hardest this year. Maybe it’s because I’m a senior, maybe it’s because I only have one more term left after this, or maybe it’s because the work load for my classes has piled up so high I can’t see past it.

I always thought dead week was the time where classes basically stopped and my only focus was worrying about my upcoming finals the following week.

But sadly, that isn’t the case. I’m still chipping away at a paper due in two days that I have a substantial amount of work left to do, organizing a term’s worth of homework for a 100 level LACC—yes, I am the senior who put these kinds of classes off until the last minute—and struggling to start or even think about any of the things I have to turn in next week, or the tests I have to take.

I can only imagine the struggle of the students who are graduating at the end of this term. By week 10 of spring term I imagine the last thing on my mind will be the homework and projects I need to turn in before graduating.

I understand my column this week is basically me just complaining—okay, it’s totally me just complaining—but sometimes when it comes to school, students just run out of juice.

I can only handle so many eight page papers and class projects. I can only handle so much reading and writing. I have all this to worry about and work on top of that, as well as everything else going on in my life.

Just a week’s more worth of work before spring break. That’s it. Dead week you’ve temporarily killed me again, but I’ll be up and running again at the start of week term.

Countdown to graduation: three more months.

Contact the author at kpenaflor12@wou.edu or on Twitter @journalkatrina

Death by degree

Seniorits2Color

By: Conner Williams
Editor-in-Chief

The disease is spreading at an alarming rate. Nearly 25 percent of all college students have become infected and top-level scientists have yet to develop a cure. Students across the country are exhibiting frightening symptoms, and there doesn’t appear to be any way to treat them.

This terrifying disease is not one that has appeared in the major news headlines; it’s not Ebola or the swine flu, it’s something much more infectious and threatening.

Senioritis.

I know, just seeing the word makes me shudder too. In fact, just writing this very account has caused my symptoms to worsen even more; I’ve had to stop and put my face in my hands in defeat at least a dozen times. That’s right, I am a victim of senioritis, and my case might be one of the worst I’ve seen.

Senioritis causes extreme feelings of laziness, tardiness (and, often times, complete absence altogether), insomnia and/or lethargy, sudden alcohol overconsumption, and a complete lack of motivation. The only thing that keeps these symptoms from keeping one completely incapacitated is the debilitating fear of not receiving his or her degree in time, and even that is becoming less and less of a motivating factor.

In all seriousness though, it’s starting to become a serious problem for me. In a completely honest and conservative estimate, I’ve probably skipped 60 percent of my classes this quarter. Yeah, I get it, I’m a bad student. Whatever. Look, this isn’t a personal shot at my professors (if you’re reading this, know that I think you’re awesome and the work you do is amazing), I just really don’t find much use from going to class. In the increasingly technologically-driven world our educational system thrives in, I don’t see the need to go to class when all materials and information are provided for me online. I simply can’t handle sitting through lectures anymore.

This is something that I think is a major flaw in our education system. To me, there’s a big difference between gaining an education and going to school. I don’t think the two go hand-in-hand. I’ll be completely honest: I despise school. I don’t believe that the traditional classroom setting is an optimal learning environment, at least for me. I don’t learn well by sitting there listening to someone 30 years my senior talking in monotone to me (Bueller … Bueller …). I’ll pass. I’d rather just teach myself the material in the comfort of my own home.

Not to mention the fact that I have to take classes that have absolutely nothing to do with my career just so that I can get a “well-rounded” liberal arts education (aka: keep students in school longer and suck more money out of them), I just dislike going to class. Students have almost zero input for course curricula and are forced to complete arbitrarily important assignments that usually don’t do much for them; it’s simply one going through the motions so that a professor can have something to grade and then assign a subjective value to a student. And, once again, this is not a shot at my instructors; it’s a shot at our education system as a whole.

I think this is the root of my senioritis: a lack of a reason to care. Yes, I know my education is important, and I do take it seriously for the most part. But really, why should I care about half the stuff I’m taught? I’m going to have to be trained to do whatever job I end up with anyways, so what’s the point of learning all of this information that I’m just going to forget over spring break?

I think Peter Gibbons from “Office Space” said it best: “It’s not that I’m lazy, it’s that I just don’t care.” So, I ask you, my faithful readers, why should I care? If you feel the need to berate/celebrate my claims, please contact me.

Contact the author at journaleditor@wou.edu or follow on Twitter @journalEIC

Musings from a woman on the edge

By: Katrina Penaflor
Managing Editor

Leonardo DiCaprio and his beautiful face of perfection finally took home an Oscar.

This was his sixth—yes, non-Leo super fans, sixth—nomination, and after years of being robbed, he finally won.

Please, everyone take a brief moment of silence to appreciate this.

Being an avid lover of all things Leo, I obviously have felt like everything Leonardo DiCaprio has ever been in has deserved an Oscar. Especially in his role of Jordan Belfort in “The Wolf of Wall Street.”

We all saw the scene where his character was so doped out on quaaludes that he couldn’t walk or get down the stairs of the country club. That scene was glorious.

Of course, leading up to the award ceremony there were nothing but jokes about how disappointing it would be for DiCaprio to not win (again) this year. Like, how the Oscar would go to the bear from the movie instead of Leo. But I never lost faith.

As many predicted, his role in “The Revenant” earned him the coveted, gold statue. I mean, the man slept in a dead animal carcass for this movie. How could he not win?

DiCaprio graciously accepted his award to a standing ovation and worked in a few words about global climate change to top it off. His Instagram bio does say he’s an environmentalist, after all.

Also, look for the picture of DiCaprio holding the card that had his name on it. You can see him subtly, maybe on purpose but who’s to know for sure, flipping off the academy.

After the long awaited win, the Internet exploded in memes and GIFs in celebration. I think one of my favorite things I saw was a clip of DiCaprio getting his Oscar engraved. He asked the woman who was working on his statue, “You do this every year?” And she answered, “Yes.” To which DiCaprio added, “I wouldn’t know.”

God bless him.

Contact the author at kpenaflor12@wou.edu or on Twitter @journalkatrina

Obstructionism on both sides of the aisle

By: Conner Williams
Editor-in-Cheif

So, big bad Obama thinks he has the audacity to appoint a justice to the Supreme Court during an election year of all times? Who does he think he is; the President or something? Oh yeah…

As it turns out, the President doesn’t have the option to opt out of appointing a justice to the SCOTUS just because it’s an election year, as many GOP members of the Senate have claimed. Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution states that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the Supreme Court.”

Interesting. Maybe I didn’t read it correctly, but I didn’t see anything that said the President may appoint judges, it said that he or she shall do so. There is also nothing in the Constitution that states the President may not appoint a justice during an election year, either. Which means Obama has to appoint a justice.

But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and a large amount of Senate Republicans, including some presidential hopefuls, have publicly voiced that they will block any nomination that Obama proposes.

Many congressional members on the left side of the aisle have publicly condoned this act of “obstructionist politics,” saying that to block any nomination just for the sake of it is to sacrifice the entire system of checks and balances under which our democracy operates. The situation has led to an escalation of yet another feud between the two parties, and I, for one, am sick of it.

Firstly, the Democrats can stop pointing fingers. Many Senate Democrats refused to confirm any justice appointed by President Bush back in 2007, and Obama himself even voted to filibuster one of Bush’s nominations when he was in the Senate. So, what’s with all the outcry when the Republicans do it this time?

I’m a firm believer that much of the debates stirred up by our elected officials are simply to increasingly polarize the country and dig us deeper into the rigged two-party hole that we have created for ourselves. There is no compromise anymore; it’s all about public demonization over which side is trying to ruin the country more. Since when did our legislative system become a jousting match?

Contact the author at journaleditor@wou.edu or on Twitter @journalEIC

Musings from a woman on the edge

ShiaColor

By: Katrina Penaflor 
Managing Editor

Shia LaBeouf is back at it with his performance art.

Remember his last performance, where he stayed in a theater and watched all his movies with a rotating crowd of fans? Silly question: of course you do.

Well, the newest one “#Elevate,” yes, the hashtag is to stay with the title, is the name of the actor/artist’s latest endeavor. LaBeouf stayed in an elevator on Feb. 19 for 24 hours at Oxford University with two other performers: Nastja Säde Rönkkö and Luke Turner.

It’s there so that visitors were welcomed to enter and exit the elevator to talk, question etc. with the three performance artists. But, really, I’m pretty much 100 percent positive everyone went to talk to just LaBeouf.

Oxford Union’s video description read, “Visitors will be able to join LaBeouf, Rönkkö & Turner inside the elevator during this time, and are invited to address the artists, the debating chamber, and the internet, so that their collective voices may form an extended, expansive, and egalitarian Oxford Union address.”

If I was there I would obviously have asked an endless stream of questions about the show “Even Stevens,” and the movie, and of course if he still talks to Beans. Oh, and how can I forget about my grade school television crush Twitty, LaBeouf’s best friend on the show.

Seriously, where is that guy now?

And what I’m really curious about is how La Beouf comes up with this stuff? Never would I ever consider filming myself in an elevator for twenty-four hours. Because one, I could never stand for that long, and two, my anxieties about who is actually entering the elevator would be through the roof.

What if a crazy person entered the elevator and tried to attack me? Or what if a person tried to carry on a conversation about something super boring, and I was literally bored to death during the 24-hour time period.
Whatever the actor/artist chooses to do next I’ll, of course, have to comment on it because the list of priorities for my column include: ridiculous purchases, stuff I find to be outrageous, and, of course, all things Shia La Beouf.

Contact the author at kpenaflor12@wou.edu or on Twitter @journalkatrina

What motivates you?

By: Conner Williams 
Editor in Chief

“Your competition got stronger and faster today … Did you?”

That omnipresent statement was plastered in huge bold letters on the wall of my high school weight room. It served as a constant reminder that there is always someone out there who works harder than I do. I took the statement as a personal challenge to do my best to put in more effort for each workout than I did for the last one.

I like to think that I work hard in most areas of my life. I do well in school, complete work assignments with professionalism and enthusiasm, and exhaust myself in the gym.

Weightlifting has been a passion, hobby, and lifestyle of mine for a while now, and my hard work has allowed me to progress significantly over the years. And while I work hard, I am occasionally reminded that there are others out there that work way harder than me under circumstances that require extreme mental willpower.

Sometimes I use this as motivation to push myself when I see others who are differently abled than I working harder than me, but lately I have felt a little bit differently.

I feel like I owe it to those that tackle the world through a differently abled experience that I do to push my body and mind to their limits in order to achieve my maximum potential. Without attempting to sound vain, people like me –those that are temporarily abled– have it pretty good, and we owe it to those that are less physically blessed to give our best effort in all of our pursuits.

I used to train with a man that was born with dislocated hips, leaving him basically unable to use his legs for everyday functions. In high school, he was told that he would never be able to bench press 400 pounds. A little more than a decade later, he set a world record by pressing 710 pounds at a bodyweight of 259 pounds. But get this: his legs don’t touch the ground. And anyone that has ever performed the bench press before knows how crucial one’s leg drive is for a successful lift. He did not take no for an answer, and he had to approach it in a personalized way unique to him. I used to think that way – that I needed to prove myself to other people and that I had to show the world that I was capable of athletic greatness – but I think I just grew out of it.

I don’t think like that anymore. I’ve stopped worrying about other people and what they look like, and I no longer constantly compare myself to others. I now focus on myself by doing things day in and day out that help me reach my goals for me. I feel like I owe it to others that are differently abled than I. And when I say that others are not as blessed genetically as I am, I am not implying that they do not have amazing skills and qualities about them that make them extraordinary people in their own way; I am talking in a physical sense of being able to achieve fitness goals. Those that are temporarily abled physically have it easier to accomplish athletic feats than those that are differently abled, which is why I aim to give my best effort whenever I can. I still have a long way to go in order to get where I want to be, but I know that each step forward that I take is for me, and for those that are unable to do so.

And this is not to say that people who do things for others or in spite of others are wrong for using that as their motivating factor; I have simply found more happiness by focusing on myself and doing what makes me happy for me, and not for others.

Despite my renewed attitude of doing things for myself, there is one thing that has always stuck in my mind since the day I heard it: the conversation between Chuckie (Ben Affleck) and Will (Matt Damon) in “Good Will Hunting” towards the end of the movie.
“Oh, come on! Why is it always this, I mean, I f—-in’ owe it to myself to do this? What if I don’t want to?” Will said to Chuckie when he was told that he had something none of their others friends had. Will had a gift, a way out of poverty. He was a genius.
“[…] F— you. You don’t owe it to yourself. You owe it to me. ‘Cause tomorrow I’m gonna wake up and I’ll be fifty and I’ll still be doing this s—. And that’s all right, that’s fine. I mean, you’re sitting on a winning lottery ticket and you’re too much of a p—y to cash it in. And that’s b——t ‘cause I’d do anything to have what you got!” Chuckie exclaims to Will.

That line gets to me every time I see the movie. We all have our own inherent gifts and talents, and there are many others out there that would love to possess what someone else has. That is what I mean when I say that I owe it to other people to give it my best every day.

What’s the deal with churching?

By: Declan Hertel
Entertainment Editor

I have no stance on this. I have no feelings for or against. All I am doing here is stating facts. Facts have no opinion. And these are the facts.

Monmouth has a lot of churches. Like, a lot of churches. At least eight in Monmouth proper, and the number jumps to 14 including Independence, not to mention the couple that are just outside the limits of both cities.

I don’t know what this means. I don’t know what to make of it. In my hometown, we have at least six times as many people as Monmouth, and maybe three churches: the Super-church on top of the hill, the LDS church in the wetlands, and I’m sure there’s another one somewhere in the city limits.

But Monmouth, a town whose already small population drops by about 67 percent during the summer months, has eight.

I’m sure there’s a logical explanation: holdovers from the farmstead days, Monmouth’s convenient middle-of-nowhere location, varying denominations, etc.

But that doesn’t change the fact that there are, like, a ton of churches in Monmouth.

It’s also notable that there are no non-Christian houses of worship in the area. The nearest synagogue is in Salem and the nearest mosque is in Corvallis, not to mention places for the non-Abrahamic faiths. This is probably due to the local demographic breakdown, but even so. Interesting.

Is the concentration of churches a bad thing? No. That’s silly. But is it a good thing?

I don’t know, maybe. I can’t see any positive effects on my Monmouth experience from the high density of churches. But I also can’t see any negative effects. This may be because I am nonreligious and have no real stake in the issue.

But I suppose it’s a good thing for not only the local religious contingency, but also for the population of faithful students trying to find a place to practice their faith while away from home. That’s undoubtedly a good thing.

All that said, I’m still a little bit baffled. Because, guys: Monmouth has a LOT of churches.

Western Oregon University

Facebook  Instagram  YouTube LinkedIn

WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY
345 Monmouth Ave. N.
Monmouth OR 97361

503-838-8000 | 1-877-877-1593

Tools

Bookstore
Campus Maps
Canvas
Find People
Portal
Technical Support
WOU Email
Technical Support

Resources

A-Z Index
Accessibility
Academic Calendar
Class Schedule
Net Price Calculator
Jobs at WOU
News
Explore WOU
Partnerships
Student Services
Freedom of Expression
Immigrant Resources

Western Oregon University’s Land Acknowledgement
Western Oregon University in Monmouth, OR is located within the traditional homelands of the Luckiamute Band of Kalapuya. Following the Willamette Valley Treaty of 1855 (Kalapuya etc. Treaty), Kalapuya people were forcibly removed to reservations in Western Oregon. Today, living descendants of these people are a part of the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Community of Oregon and the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians.

Accessibility    Public Records    Privacy    Student Consumer Information

WOU prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, national or ethnic origin, age, religion, marital status, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression in all programs, activities and employment practices as required by Title IX, other applicable laws, and policies. Retaliation is prohibited by WOU.