Mount Hood

Musings from a woman on the edge

By: Katrina Penaflor 
Managing Editor

My excitement for the “Full House” reboot “Fuller House” has completely flown off and disappeared somewhere far, far away.

I just watched the trailer for “Fuller House” and sadly, I’ve grown to be completely underwhelmed, and it left me questioning why I enjoyed the show so much in the first place. Also, no Michelle Tanner (I’ll get to that in a minute).

Shows that I long thought rested away in television heaven seem to be making their way back to our screen. “X-Files,” “Gilmore Girls,” (both of these I have zero complaints about), and, of course, “Fuller House.”

I’m pretty sure this idea reaches to people’s love of nostalgia, and how, for me, letting things you love go can be pretty impossible.

My anticipation for the show has been building ever since I heard about it through John Stamos’ Instagram. And, yes, of course I follow him, and all the people who don’t are severely missing out.

Unfortunately, after seeing the trailer (and if you haven’t seen it just go watch it or accept the fact that this article will make no sense) I have one word to describe it—cheesy.

But then again, “Full House” always did have that cheese-ball factor in the past. Maybe because I watched it when I was younger I didn’t think about it the way I do now.

I’d like to add adorable, yet at times mildly annoying, Michelle (played by Mary-Kate and Ashley Olson) is nowhere to be seen. She was mentioned via a voicemail by her sisters, but that was it.

My disappointment in her absence was a major part in my less than enthusiastic response to the trailer.

Who knows, maybe when I give the actual show a try I’ll take back everything I just said? Also, it arrives on Netflix on my birthday, which—because I’m super odd—always makes me feel really cool.

Get in Formation

BeyonceSuperbowlColor

By: Stephanie Blair 
Copy Editor

For many, Beyoncé was the MVP on Sunday at the Super Bowl. Performing her new single, “Formation,” she took to the field and outshined her fellow half-time performers—side note: does anyone remember who they were? (I was distracted by Queen Bey’s glory.)

However, despite the brilliance of her message, Beyoncé is currently under fire in a debate “about whether it was appropriate for Beyoncé to inject politics into her performance” as the Washington Post phrased it.

Beyoncé and her dancers sported black leather jackets, black berets, and natural hair. This was in a salute to the Black Panther organization and also a tribute to the current Black Lives Matter movement.

Marni Senofonte, Beyoncé’s stylist for the Super Bowl, told Essence magazine that this was a way for her to honor and empower black women.

“The women of the Black Panther Party created a sisterhood and worked right alongside their men fighting police brutality and creating community social programs,” said Senofonte. “That image of women in leadership roles; believing they are a vital part of the struggle is undeniably provocative and served as reference and reality.”

However, not everyone shares this positive view of the performance. Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani said that he felt “it was outrageous that she used it as a platform to attack police officers who are the people who protect her and protect us, and keep us alive.”

There have been vast amounts of debate on this subject on social media. I have a few points of my own.

Beyoncé has been a longtime feminist. From her 2011 hit “Run The World (Girls)” to performing in front of the word “FEMINIST” lit up on her last tour, Queen Bey has never been too subtle about her views of gender equality.

I think this was simply a more specific channel for that same message. When the “Formation” music video was released (before the Super Bowl) Essence magazine described it as a “4:53 second ode to Black-girl-ness.”

So, yeah, there’s some race involved. But, and this is important here, it’s not about you, angry, white men!

So, can it Giuliani. This one is about building up one of the most oppressed demographics: black women, not tearing down the highest paid and least incarcerated.

Democracy at its finest

By: Conner Williams
Editor in Chief

If you were confused by what went on this week at the Iowa Caucus, you’re not alone.

Frankly, the system is completely absurd. Let’s take a look at some of the specifics of what a caucus is and how they work.

First, two states have caucuses in place of the voting systems that the other states have. Those two are Iowa and New Hampshire, the latter of which starts this coming Tuesday, Feb. 9.

Iowa has a multistep process for choosing the delegates that are the ones who actually cast the votes that count towards the candidate for the state. The state had a turnout of 171,508 caucus-goers – the second-highest turnout in history behind the 2008 election – and was divided up into 1,683 precincts, which in total will send 11,065 delegates to the county conventions on March 12. Those 11,065 delegates then get cut down to 1,406 to attend congressional district on April 30 and state conventions on June 18.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton narrowly edged out Bernie Sanders by a margin of less than one-half of a percentage point; Clinton came in at 49.9 percent of the caucus votes (701), while Sanders hauled in 49.6 percent (697). Martin O’Malley took in the remaining eight delegates for the grand total of 1,406 that was mentioned earlier. The split between Sanders and Clinton is reportedly the closest result in the 40 years of the Iowa Caucus.

But what do those numbers actually mean? Well, it’s a bit confusing, so hang in there.
Those figures represent estimates of how many delegates will attend the congressional district and state conventions. The percentage points are actually “state delegate equivalents,” as National Public Radio reported.

Because the split between Clinton and Sanders was so close, the state had to resort to its unusually odd and improbable method of tiebreaking: coin flips.

And you can bet that there was a significant amount of controversy over the coin tosses that were used as tie breakers to award delegates for precincts that had an odd number of delegates – and yes, I know what you’re thinking: our highly advanced democratic system employs coin tosses to decide who wins votes? Yes, yes it does.

NPR gave a fantastic example of a hypothetical situation. Say a precinct has 5 delegates to award. The voters for that precinct are split evenly between Sander and Clinton. If it were a precinct with an even number of delegates, they would be divided up evenly down the middle, with half going to Clinton and half to Sanders. But in a precinct with an odd number of delegates – this one with five, for example – a coin toss is used to decide who gets that last one.

There were reportedly six precincts in which the decision for awarding delegates was so tight that they had to be decided with coin tosses. Six tosses, and Clinton won all of them, which is a one in 64 chance of occurring.

But those were just initial reports from The De Moines Register; the narrative has been updated to say that there were many more coin tosses, and Sanders won “at least half of them.” But that still doesn’t change the fact that we’re using the flip of a coin as part of our democratic system.

Despite the outcry over the situation, the coin tosses were for county delegates, not for the state. There is still a long way to go, and with the way things have happened thus far, who knows what could happen in the coming months.

Musings from a woman on the edge

By: Katrina Penaflor
Managing Editor

Would you spend a million dollars on a picture of a potato? Like, the things fries are made of. Also, there will be nothing else in the picture—it’s just a potato on a black background.

It’s not even held by anyone cool, like David Beckham or John Stamos. It’s. Just. A. Potato.

Well, a European businessman did. He spent just over $1 million on a photograph of a spud.

To have the kind of money to just casually be like, “Oh, I think I need a picture of a potato, hopefully I can find one that fits into my budget of a million dollars.”

The picture was taken by Kevin Abosch, a famous Irish photographer, or at least famous enough to credit such an outrageously high sale.

Abosch has taken pictures of people like Stephen Spielberg and Malala Yousafzai, and his photos average a cost of half a million dollars.

This is what Abosch told the Irish Times about the photograph: “I see commonalities between humans and potatoes that speak to our relationship as individuals within a collective species […] generally, the life of a harvested potato is violent and taken for granted. I use the potato as a proxy for the ontological study of the human experience.”

Well, I do have to give it to Abosch. That’s probably one of the greatest and most emotionally gripping potato descriptions I’ve ever read.

But did it make the picture worth its million-dollar price tag? I think not.

I wonder if I started taking pictures of potatoes, if I could bring in that kind of cash. Hell, I’ll settle for 20 dollars for the picture, or 10, I’m not picky.

And, to the man who bought it, I hope it hangs proudly above some lavish fireplace in your home. I also wonder how many times it will be mistaken for a framed Instagram picture of what you were making for dinner one night.

Slow Your Roll

By: Jenna Beresheim
News Editor

As someone who typically doesn’t let the small mishaps in life ruffle her feathers too much, I must admit there has been an underlying tantrum waiting to turn She-Hulk at the next car that nearly runs me over while I cross the street.

It seems innocent enough at first. You’re walking across the crosswalk, only to see the car slowly encroaching down the street towards your squishy, non-vehicular body. It passes into the intersection without wavering, engine so close you can practically feel the heat radiating from it. Cue the “Jaws” theme.

You’re not about to demean yourself and hurl your frame at the curb like some poor human in “Grand Theft Auto,” yet you feel the car rush past right behind you before you have even finished walking the space deemed “safe.”

Let me get one thing straight. I am someone who walks sidewalks and crosswalks like everything else around me is lava. My friends actually tease me about the Sim-like habits I have ingrained in me. I’m not someone who jaywalks or rushes out in an entitled fashion – don’t worry, those humans have a special rant saved for them too. Instead, I am merely trying to get to class or work, and constantly encounter the same problems.

Sometimes, when the rain descends from the heavens in a weak reenactment of “Carrie,” I find myself having to wait for the impatient driver who either runs the stop sign or eyes me and continues driving. I’m so glad you decided in those few seconds that you were more worthy, you, in your warm, dry car, were more entitled to shaving a millisecond off your ETA than allowing me to scurry into the sanctity of shelter awaiting me at the end of puddle city.

I’m not asking for you to stop a thousand feet away and wait a whole five minutes. I only ask that you stay in your designated area at a stop until I have crossed. Fair enough?

But don’t get me wrong, crossing the street is a two-way … well, street. A partnership. If I am the one who stops to wait for you, I expect the passer to not be on their phone, to at least acknowledge I stopped, and to walk with a purpose. A simple wave or smile will do, and then hurry on your way.

If I intend to cross the street, I typically pause and allow cars that have been waiting for the swarms to clear to go, then make my way. I show my appreciation for them actually waiting their turn, (as they could just as easily turn me to paste under their tires) and move briskly to my destination.

It boils down to being considerate of other human beings. Wait your turn and play nice with the other children, and all will play out. I promise that hitting a student or being the one hit by a car will impact your day far worse than showing up to class a few moments late.

Who I Hate Today

By: Declan Hertel
Entertainment Editor

DeclanColor

This is not going to be a rage-vomit like some of my other pieces. You can put away your hate-ponchos and anger-umbrellas, my children, for you will not be soaked with my vitriol today.

I had an epiphany a few nights ago. I have been using an ad-blocking software since the day I heard that was a thing. Unless airing on a certain February Sunday, nobody likes ads. So downloading a free thing that allowed me to block those suckers was a no-brainer.

I eventually had it turned off on pretty much every website, and most of the ones it remained active on just hadn’t asked me to not use it yet. It’s the right thing to do; these sites rely on ad revenue to keep their services free. As a regular user, I am only hurting myself by blocking their ads.

But the epiphany I had was about the site that I originally downloaded it for: YouTube. YouTube never asked me to turn it off, so I never did. But I wasn’t hurting YouTube by denying the ads, I realized I was hurting the creators.

A lot of folks don’t even think about online video as a viable enterprise, even as creators such as Philip DeFranco and Rooster Teeth have built veritable media empires out of it. It hasn’t yet reached legitimacy, despite it quickly becoming one of our most common ways to get information, not to mention its increasing prevalence as a pastime. But I’ll let you in on a piece of inside knowledge: it ain’t free to make that stuff.

Geoff Ramsey of Rooster Teeth spoke about this on the Off Topic podcast: there’s a weird level of entitlement amongst consumers of internet media, that they’re doing the creators a favor by watching their videos at all. In regards to Pewdiepie, one of the most successful YouTubers ever, they say, “he’s got millions of dollars already and a mansion and whatever.” Ramsey says of this: “Yeah, but you know who doesn’t? My crew.”

And that’s what it is. This is a real industry, people. People are trying to make a living producing content for you to watch, for FREE, and all they ask of you is an extra few seconds of your time, an extra few seconds that allows them to do what they love by giving them money to do it. For the love of independent creators everywhere, please: get rid of your ad-blocker.

Musings from a woman on the edge

By: Katrina Penaflor 
Managing Editor

For all the people out there struggling with just about everything in their early 20s, I’m with you.

I’ve often heard the phrase “mid-life crisis” to describe people in their 40s who panic halfway through their life because they’re making a difficult transition into a more serious stage of adulthood.

Well, I’m not in my 40s, although my addiction to Lifetime movies and constantly using the phrase “kids these days” could lead you to believe otherwise, but I do very much believe I’m in the transitional stage of a quarter-life crisis.

Or maybe that’s not even the correct phrase to use here. But I think a lot of students can understand the feeling I’m trying to portray: nearing the end of college where everything tends to get more and more confusing.

I always think, “Wow, I’ve been in college for four years now, I’ve totally got a handle on things.” Wrong. The only thing I have a handle on is a glass of wine after a long week of asking for advice from friends who are succeeding at the whole “being an adult thing” better than I am.

Like, in the office of The Journal the other day our EIC asked if I could call back a person I just spoke to on the phone. He mentioned “*67,” or “*65” or something—see I can’t even remember the right phrase—and I literally had no idea what he meant.

This lead to the questions, could I handle working in an office setting? Do I even want to work in an office in the future? I have no freakin’ clue.

Senior year of college has turned into an endless track of these kinds of questions. So, what is my advice for people suffering a potential quarter-life crisis like I am? I don’t think I have any, because if I did I’d be filtering it into my soul on a daily basis.

I guess the best thing I can say is that no one actually has it all figured out, or ever fully will.

The Mack returns to fight racial injustice

By: Conner Williams 
Editor in Chief

“We take all we want from black culture, but will we show up for black lives?”

The popular Seattle-based rapper/producer-duo Macklemore & Ryan Lewis recently debuted a new track entitled “White Privilege II” that analyzes a variety of different racial issues while simultaneously providing the rapper’s personal narrative on his role in the fight for racial justice.

The song itself is a mix between Macklemore’s inner conflict with himself about his place in the discussion as well as a social outcry for the end of systematic white privilege.

Macklemore admits repeatedly that he has exploited hip-hop to benefit himself, saying lines like, “Fake and so plastic, you’ve heisted the magic (in reference to his 2012 debut album “The Heist”), you’ve taken the drums and the accent you rapped in, your brand of hip-hop it’s so fascist and backwards.”

And while Macklemore is known for creating music that provides a narrative for social justice in many aspects, he questions his motives for doing so repeatedly. The song opens up with the line, “Pulled into the parking lot, parked it, zipped up my parka, joined the procession of marchers, in my head like ‘is this awkward? Should I even be here marching?’”

Macklemore wishes to show solidarity with Black Americans, but he isn’t quite sure how to do so, as his very presence may be seen as hypocritical or unwanted. He condemned his own use of social media to show support for Mike Brown by saying, “You can join the march, protest, scream and shout, get on Twitter hash-tag and seem like you’re down, but they see through it all, people believe you now?”

The rapper received a significant amount of hate when he won the Grammy for album of the year for “The Heist” over Kendrick Lamar’s “Good Kid, M.A.A.D. City” a few years ago. However, Macklemore posted a photo of a screenshot text he sent to Lamar on his Instagram page in which he admitted that Lamar should have won and that he “got robbed.”

Many believe that Macklemore won the Grammy because of his ethnicity, which is not something that the rapper would disagree with based on his reaction to the victory, and it is part of the white privilege that he discusses in his new song.
The prevalence of white privilege in our society rears its ugly head in many ways. For example, the rate of incarceration for black men in the United States is about 1 in 15, while that for white men is about 1 in 106, according to the Center for American Progress. Additionally, the Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that one in three black men can expect to go to prison in their lifetime. The U.S. Sentencing Commission also stated that black men receive prison sentences that are 10 percent longer than those of white men for the same crime.

The third verse of the track consists of a scenario where a woman approaches Macklemore in what sounds like a restaurant. She begins the conversation by saying she knows he’s by himself and that he doesn’t want to be disturbed, but that her kids love his music so much and are always singing, “I’m gonna pop some tags,” and that he is the only hip-hop artists she lets her kids listen to. She praises him for his song “Same Love,” in which he advocates for gay rights. She only lets her kids listen to him because he “gets it,” that “all that negative stuff isn’t cool.” “The b—–s and the hoes and the gangs and the thugs, even the protest outside, so sad and so dumb. If a cop pulls you over, it’s your fault if you run.”

She was referring to a protest in which participants chanted, “Hands up, don’t shoot!” in reference to the killing of Mike Brown when he was shot in August 2014 while he was unarmed. But yes, it was his fault that he was gunned down while he was unarmed. Macklemore shakes his head and puts down his dishes in the background of the conversation.

Macklemore & Ryan Lewis’ new album “This Unruly Mess I’ve Made” is set to release on Feb. 26.

Musings from a woman on the edge

By: Katrina Penaflor 
Managing Editor

When I was sitting down to write my column this week, I had a moment where I thought, hmm… there really isn’t anything I have to sass about this week, how wonderful.

And then I read this article on BuzzFeed titled “15 waters that need to be stopped,” and then I thought, ”yup, this is something I definitely need to sass about.”

Basically, if you haven’t already gathered from the title, the article was talking about ridiculous types of water. When I first saw it, I was thinking “really? There are 15 different types of dumb water? No way.”

But, as usual when it comes to pretentious drinks, I seriously underestimated the absurdities of the water industry. Which is actually a thing.

One of the most ridiculous ones was “asparagus water” which was sold at Whole Foods for about $6. Yes, you read that correctly, a 16 ounce bottle of water was $6. Why, you ask? Because it contained four stalks of asparagus. Are you kidding me?!

Because really, if you’re putting these items in your grocery cart just give me the $6 instead—I know I’ll find a better use for it.

Another equally outrageous one was “blk.” or water that was completely black. Why is it black? I looked it up and it’s infused with black fulvic trace minerals, which, according to their website, “are thought to contain an abundance of natural plant sourced nutrients including: natural electrolytes, amino acids, 77 trace minerals, antioxidants, and a pH of 8.0+.”

Just stop with all the “are thought to’s” and lists of ingredients that are used in an attempt to trick people into thinking they need to buy it. Just give me water that doesn’t look like it was filtered through dead bodies.

Seriously, there are so many people in this world struggling to just get clean water to drink and it shocks me to find people who throw their money out the door on overpriced, glammed-out waters because they’re “trendy” or “cute” or whatever the kids are saying on Instagram these days.

Who I Hate Today

By: Declan Hertel
Entertainment Editor

I hate at least one person in every movie theatre.

It might be the stupid teenager who pays a whole $10 to see a movie and then is constantly checking their stupid phone to see what’s going on with their stupid friends in their stupid life and ruining the movie for the rest of us with that tiny screen that glows like the furious sun in the midst of the pristine darkness of a cinema auditorium.

If you have ever checked your phone in a movie theater while the movie was playing, you would have received 40 lashes on the spot if I ran the world (Declan Hertel/Kanye West 2020).

The group I hate less justifiably is old timers. I saw “The Hateful Eight” (review at wou.edu/westernjournal) for the second time last weekend, and the theatre was full of 40+ patrons who were, for the most part, defying my stereotype. But I have almost 200 more words, so buckle up, kiddo.

It’s not them asking about what the character just said: while that is annoying, hearing deteriorates over time, and there is an awful lot of whisper-mumbling in today’s cinema. It’s more them being shocked and appalled at the content on screen, and deciding to stay and keep a half-voiced running commentary throughout the film about how senseless and stupid it all is rather than, you know, leaving (I hear you, economics enthusiasts yelling “sunk cost fallacy,” but you can shut up, nerds).

This happened during “Goodnight Mommy”: an older couple was making flabbergasted comments about the film and how they didn’t get it and weren’t enjoying it, but they stayed for the whole thing.

For butt’s sake, guys. If you’re at the movies, shut up, turn it off, and watch the film. I don’t care who you are or where you’ve been, how old you are or how interesting you currently believe your uninteresting life to be, the rest of us are really quite intent on watching the movie we paid a bunch of money for.

How Practical Games Will Save Our Socializing

By: Declan Hertel
Entertainment Editor

It’s an oft-repeated notion that our generation spends a great deal of time with its nose lit up by the glowing screen of a smartphone, engrossed in some form of social media. Repeated just as often is the idea that we’re becoming an “anti-social” society because all our socializing is facilitated by a divide: you, to your Facebook, to my Facebook, to me.

I believe that while there is a great deal of old time fear-mongering about the downsides of social media, I would find it weirder for there to be absolutely no correlation between high use of social media and decreased interpersonal skills.

So in this time of interpersonal divide, how can we find a new way to foster true human interaction, to get us to communicate face to face with no divide?

Tabletop games.

That’s right. Board games, card games, roleplaying games, the whole bit.

“You want to turn me into some gross nerd, Declan? Well, I’m not doing it!”

Pipe down. I realize that there’s a stigma around board/roleplaying games: that those who play them are—as you, hypothetical dissenter, describe them—gross nerds. But think about video games, the fastest growing form of mass media in the world, and the main interactive experience of our culture. To paraphrase Anthony Burch, the lead writer of Borderlands 2, a video game which passed 13 million copies sold in August of last year, “it’s astounding that video games got the ‘socially-acceptable’ checkmark when board games require you to not be a [creative expletive].”

Kids and adults alike sit in their dark rooms staring at a screen, lobbing homophobic insults, racial slurs, and general horribleness at each other. Maybe it’s okay because nobody really believes in the very real power of cyberbullying, or maybe it’s just kids being kids.

The fact is that it sucks. Hardcore. Don’t get me wrong, I love video games and spend a great deal of time playing them. But the normalcy of abhorrent behavior in player-to-player interaction can’t be ignored.

Board games require you to behave yourself, you savage. You can’t sit around a table with other people and behave poorly toward them. They’ll kick you out and/or won’t invite you back. Roleplaying games require that you work together with all your other players to tell a good story and have a good time. If you don’t, you aren’t going to have a group for very long.

Even in the moments of nigh-bearable tension, you aren’t allowed to fly off the handle and accuse your opponent of sodomy and sodomy-related acts. This is a serious plus.

I’m going to avoid going on a rant about how the (really not good) board games you knew as kids are not the board games of today; about how there is a tremendous amount of money and creative energy fueling a practical-games renaissance; about how there are roleplaying games of all shapes and sizes and types for anyone interested in a little Saturday night improvised escapism. This paragraph was a decent crash course in that stuff.

These games are social activity in a box. Get all the satisfaction of playing a challenging game, while getting all the benefits of real human interaction.

I personally believe that my board and roleplaying games hobby has done me real good. Since playing more of these games, I find it far easier than ever to talk to people, and especially endure high pressure situations. Why? Because in roleplaying games, communication is paramount, so you have to get good at it, and in board games, you learn how to function gracefully under pressure in the presence of others in a low-risk environment.

These sorts of benefits are even backed up by science-type people: recently, a study from the American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, sponsored by the National Library of Medicine, showed that roleplayers to have a greater level of empathy than non-gamers. This makes total sense to me: roleplaying games revolve around a group of people working toward a single goal.
Of course this would foster empathy. Not seeking to understand and work together with your fellows is the number one way to get eaten by a dragon.

Tabletop games, I believe, will make you a better, more socially capable person. What they won’t do is turn you into a gross nerd. The stigma is slowly dying. If we can push it out the window for good and let board and roleplaying games come into their own, I think we’re one step closer to salvaging an increasingly divided culture. So grab some friends and go kill a dragon. You’ll be glad you did.

Cowardly candidates resort to emotional appeals

By: Conner Williams
Editor in Chief

It is very frustrating when our presidential candidates dance their way around questions during debates.

It is even more frustrating when they use a national tragedy as a way to invoke empathy from viewers in order to avoid a question.

During the second Democratic debate, Bernie Sanders called out Hillary Clinton by asking her to justify her campaign donations from large corporations.

Her response?

“I represented New York, and I represented New York on 9/11 when we were attacked. Where were we attacked? We were attacked in downtown Manhattan where Wall Street is. I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild. That was good for New York. It was good for the economy, and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country,” said Clinton.

So not only did she avoid the question completely, but she also claimed that her donations from Wall Street corporations were because she had helped them “rebuild” 14 years previously, in addition to claiming she helped rebuke terrorism. Give me a break.

But Clinton isn’t alone. During the most recent Republican debate, Ted Cruz began to speak of “New York values,” which he refers to as “socially liberal, pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, focused around money and the media.” Cruz began to criticize Trump for flip-flopping his beliefs from years before, and in response, Trump pulled out the get out of jail free card: 9/11 empathy bait.

“When the World Trade Center came down, I saw something that no place on earth could have handled more beautifully, more humanely than New York,” said Trump as Cruz was forced to awkwardly clap alongside the audience.

I, for one, am sick of this emotional pandering. It takes a pretty low person to use a national tragedy to wiggle one’s way out of a logical fallacy in their argument, but, then again, these are our country’s political leaders.

Netflix and kill

By: Conner Williams 
Editor in Chief

If you’ve ever had a run in with the law, I sure hope it wasn’t in the state of Wisconsin, because you’d likely be reading this from a jail cell where you’re stuck for a crime you didn’t commit.

Over the holiday break, Netflix released a documentary show entitled “Making a Murderer” that sparked countless conversations around the web centered on the current state of the criminal justice system.

The documentary, which was filmed over the course of ten years, followed a Wisconsin man named Steven Avery and his experiences with the law enforcement agencies in and surrounding the area of Manitowoc County, Wisconsin.

Avery was convicted of sexual assault, attempted murder, and false imprisonment back in 1985 and served 18 years of his life in prison. That’s a good thing, right?

Well, it would be if he actually committed those crimes. Avery had to wait until technology advanced enough to the point when he could be proven innocent by the presence of DNA from another individual.

So, he was acquitted after spending nearly two decades in prison for a crime he didn’t commit. This didn’t make Steven too happy, and so he sued the department that put him in prison for $36 million. As it so happens, that didn’t make that department too happy either, so what happened next became the inspiration for the widely popular Netflix documentary.

Two years after Avery was released from prison, he found himself back on the radar of his favorite law enforcement officers. This time, however, it was for a crime much more severe: murder.

Teresa Halbach worked for Auto Trader magazine and traveled to Avery’s property on Oct. 31, 2005 to shoot some photos of a van for an assignment.

Her vehicle and charred bone fragments were found on the property about a week later, and you can bet that Steven Avery was the first one the police had their eyes on.

The Manitowoc County district attorney requested that the neighboring authorities from Calumet County lead the investigation to avoid a conflict of interest. Great, that should even things out, no?

Wrong again. During the week long search of Avery’s trailer, authorities found nothing until a few days into the search, conveniently when Manitowoc officials were on scene helping. Yes, the very same department that mistakenly put Avery in prison for two decades was allowed to participate in the investigation.

Coincidentally enough, on the very same day that the Manitowoc officials showed up, a crucial piece of evidence was found “in plain sight” in Avery’s bedroom: the key to Halbach’s vehicle. That was the break investigators needed, and they arrested Avery shortly after. It’s interesting how the most valuable piece of evidence that was “in plain sight” wasn’t found until days into the search, and by a Manitowoc official to boot. What’s the word for that feeling again … Ah, yes: suspicious.

To make things even more interesting, Avery’s learning-disabled nephew, 16-year-old Brendan Dassey was then interrogated by police – Manitowoc County police – at school. Here’s where things get really unethical. Dassey spent multiple hours being interrogated by police investigators with neither a parent nor a lawyer present.

So what did Dassey say? Only exactly what the police needed him to in order to fit the narrative they had chosen to follow.

Dassey confessed to having helped Avery murder, mutilate, and burn the body of Halbach. It’s too bad the confession didn’t actually match up with any of the (nonexistent) evidence in the trailer, but we already know that evidence is an overrated concept to Manitowoc County investigators. What sort of people that are supposed to be the forefront of justice interrogate a learning-disabled minor for hours without a parent present? Cowards, that’s who.

And so ensued the lengthy investigation that eventually landed Avery and Dassey life sentences: Avery without chance for early release, and Dassey with a possible early release date in 2048.
Never mind the overwhelming evidence that basically projects police tampering on the big screen; the court believes they got the right guys.

Never mind the fact that the lead prosecutor in both cases was later fired and publicly embarrassed for having been involved in several sexting scandals when he wrote sexually explicit messages to domestic violence victims. Nothing but the cream of the crop when it comes to Wisconsin criminal justice officials.

The thing that really gets to me about this case though is the amount of media coverage that occurred and how it had a direct impact on the juries. There was basically zero presumption of innocence in either Avery or Dassey’s cases, which led to predetermined biases from the juries and probably directly contributed to the guilty verdicts that were handed down.

Think about it: these guys’ pictures were all over every media outlet in the country for a significant period of time. What do you think that does to people watching? It makes them think they are already guilty. So much for a fair trial and being innocent until proven guilty.

Distorted data and a plea for continued action

By: Alvin Wilson 
Staff Writer

Tuesday’s State of the Union Address was Obama’s last time to address the nation and Congress in this manner. He is one of just six U.S. presidents who have given a State of the Union Address in their eighth year in office.

The general tone of his final State of the Union Address was that of victory; an attitude of “look at what we’ve accomplished” permeated his speech, and it was clear that he wanted to emphasize the good that he has done.

But the speech wasn’t just a jab at Republicans or a giant pat on the back for himself. He showed regret for what was left unaccomplished and a desire to continue making progress.

Throughout his speech, Obama outlined the actions he believes we need to take to ensure a safe and prosperous future. Not all of what Obama presented during his speech was the truth in full context, but much of it was still grounded in factual data.

Here are some examples of misrepresented facts presented during his address:
Obama claimed that the budget has been cut by nearly three-fourths. According to a USA Today fact check, those numbers are a bit distorted.

Obama included more than $100 billion in increased spending in the calculations. This increase in spending made the deficit appear to shrink, but it’s unfair to say that a bigger budget equals a smaller deficit.

He claimed the U.S. had created more than 14 million new jobs, which is true. But he doesn’t mention the fact that those new jobs are only in the private sector, and it only accounts for jobs created since the job market reached an all-time low in 2010.

Obama, in a humorous manner, mentioned the strength of our country in his address. In response to recent claims that our country has grown weak, or that our military is shrinking while others are growing, he said, “The United States of America is the most powerful country on Earth. Period. It’s not even close.”

He went on to mention that the U.S. spends more on our military than the next eight countries combined.

This number is only partially correct when looking at actual dollars spent on the military.
An April 2015 report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) on military expenditures found that “the U.S. spent $610 billion on defense in 2014, while the next eight nations spent a combined total of $646.4 billion.”

However, in terms of percent of gross domestic product (GDP) spent on military, the U.S. ranks fourth, according to that same report.

“The U.S. spends 3.5 percent of its gross domestic product — which is only the fourth highest of the top 15 countries. Saudi Arabia (10.4 percent), United Arab Emirates (5.4 percent) and Russia (4.5 percent) spend more on the military as a share of GDP than the United States,” according to the same data from the SIPRI.

Obama, in a possible attempt to seem less brutish, wanted to make it clear that America isn’t just respected for its military prowess.

“The world respects us not just for our arsenal; it respects us for our diversity and our openness and the way we respect every faith,” said Obama.

For his last State of the Union Address, Obama chose to take a victory lap. Most of the address was focused on the good things of his presidency, and the rest was interested in the future.

The area that was the most flawed in this address was the presentation of facts. All of his facts came from data available to anyone in the U.S., but much of it was distorted to support the idea that Obama is great — which, to be honest, should be expected of any politician.

His area of success was definitely the emotion and passion he displayed. There were some very powerful things said and many quotable moments for social media. He touched on issues such as immigration, the economy, technological innovation, and climate change, among others. But he also succeeded in setting the tone for politics in the rest of this decade and beyond.

You can see the full transcript of the speech on www.npr.org, or watch the entire speech on the White House YouTube page.

Leg-humping can get you pregnant?

CatsColor

By: Stephanie Blair 
Copy Editor

When I was 13, my mother told me that if a married couple gets a dog, in two years they’ll have a baby. This wasn’t a scientific study she read, just her own observation. She watched all of her twenty-something friends get engaged, married, a dog, a baby – in that order.

So what about people, like me, who don’t want kids? Is there a safer (but still furry) alternative?

The answer: cats.

As the “mother” of two rescues, I can say that the joys of parenthood that are so often described to me by older, female members of my family who strongly believe that I’ll change my mind about kids, are present in the ownership of fur-babies.

I found a tiny, shivering, adorable ball of fluff and bones last May: an abandoned six-week-old kitten. I got to watch her development as she grew from a meek, pocket-sized miracle to a confident, athletic ruler of the house who, all too often, wakes me up at 6 a.m. for food. There is something magical about raising a living being, I’ll given my baby-crazy relatives that, but not having to risk my health to start its life is a big plus.

And let’s be real: I get to put my baby in ridiculous clothes. Tiny cat sweaters are, in fact, as cute as baby shoes.

As if that all weren’t enough, the woes of fur-baby bearing are also much less than those of the naked man-children.

For one thing, kids are expensive. The US Department of Agriculture estimates that the amount it will cost to raise a child born in 2013 to the age of 18, with adjustments made for projected inflation, is over $300,000. And while a raising an animal isn’t free, businessinsider.com used ASPCA data to calculate the cost of owning different pets over their lifetimes, and cats, who live to be about 15 years old on average, cost their owners approximately $7,500.

Not to mention, cats are much more self-reliant than dogs and human babies. The stereotype of spoiled, needy cats is colored heavily by dog-lovers in the movie industry. The reality is that my cat washes herself and goes to the bathroom on her own. My boyfriend’s dog has to be let out and bathed by his owner.

So, in short, if you don’t want to get pregnant and have a baby, but you love companionship that doesn’t hump your leg, go adopt a cat. They’re great.

Musings from a woman on the edge

By: Katrina Penaflor 
managing editor

I’m convinced my Facebook feed is just an increasing pile of things I never want to read about, but continue to look at on a daily basis.

Facebook, in a sense, is like fast food. It sounds so good at first, it’s super convenient, and it’s absolutely amazing when you first start. Then, as time goes on and you consume more of it, like a lot more of it, it sort of makes you sick.

I’ve definitely hit the side of overconsumption where Facebook is making me sick, or maybe I’m just sick of Facebook.

The other day I saw this post that was shared thousands of times, and at least five times by people I’m friends with on Facebook that talked about splitting up the lottery winnings. Maybe you’re familiar with it; it said something along the lines that if the 1.3 billion dollars was split evenly among all the people in the U.S. then everyone would get four million dollars.

I don’t even know where to start on addressing this. The math, first of all, couldn’t be more inaccurate. And on a second note, when I read the comments beneath this post I was actually convinced that some people will believe anything they read online.

And this madness of believing 1.3 billion divided by 300 million equals four million has actually become the norm for what I see online.

I’m constantly seeing things that leave me shaking my head and wondering why I’m still reading post from people that I never interact with in real life. The “unfollow” or “unfriend” button is continually getting pressed.

I’m finding that the only good things I see on Facebook are those addicting Tasty videos that show me how to make pizza dips and Oreo stuffed donuts. Or pictures my cousin uploads of his new baby.

So why do I keep logging on and reading what everyone has posted and shared? Why can’t I pull myself away from what some would consider internet garbage?

Maybe food videos and baby pictures are enough to keep me logging back on. Or maybe I’m just stuck with the fear of missing out on something that’s actually important.

Musings from a woman on the edge

By:Katrina Penaflor 
managing editor

Winter break at my parents’ house: a love/hate relationship.

God bless winter break.

God bless the three week reprieve from classes.

God bless sleeping in for a week because I told my other job school lasted a week longer than it actually did so they wouldn’t schedule me.

God bless my mother constantly reminding me it’s my turn to do the dishes. Oh wait…

For everyone, winter break is different. Some people stay in Monmouth, some people travel (the lucky ones), and some people, like me, go back to their parents’ house.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I love going home to my family. I miss them when I’m at school, and I have a great relationship with my parents and siblings.

The only issue in all this is dealing with the change of living on my own to living back under my parents’ roof and abiding by the “their house, their rules concept.”

At my house, here in Monmouth, I literally get to do whatever I want. It’s not like I do anything crazy with this freedom, it’s more just not wearing any pants, never doing my dishes, and leaving my stuff all over the place.

Things I’m sure other students can relate to. And if they say they don’t, they’re probably lying.

But at my parents’ house, it’s like freedom is slowly dialed back. I’m transported back to the days of high school where I have to tell my parents where I’m going, share the television with my little sister Gracie, and have to try not to swear so much (that last one proved to be the most difficult).

But of course there are the upsides, like food. So much wonderful food. It’s just magically always there in the cabinets and fridge (thank you, mom). And getting together with family members that I only see once or twice a year (Uncle David, thank you for hosting Christmas).

So I guess in the grand scheme of things, I really have nothing to complain about. I loved taking a break from school and going home, even if it did mean keeping “f” words that rhyme with duck out of my vocabulary.

As for the winter break “love/hate relationship” I shall just say, “Winter break, I love you.”

What’s the big deal?

By: Conner Williams 
Editor in Chief

Chances are you’ve probably heard about this armed “militia” that has taken over a federal building in Eastern Oregon.

Here’s the scoop: on Saturday, Jan. 2, an estimated 300 protesters paraded through the town of Burns in protest of the prison sentence that was handed down to two Harney County ranchers – Dwight Hammond Jr. and Steven Hammond – when they were convicted of arson for burning federal land.

After the protest, a group of people – to which the mass media is conspicuously labeling a militia – occupied the wildlife refuge for further protest of the Hammonds’ sentence.

The self-proclaimed leader of the “militia” is Ammond Bundy; he is the son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who in recent years was part of an armed standoff with the feds over grazing rights when he refused to pay fees for allowing his cattle to graze on federal lands.

Ammond Bundy has said that the group does not wish to harm anyone, but they would not rule out violence if authorities tried to remove them from the site, according to The Oregonian. Bundy and the rest of the supporters claim they have enough supplies to last years, despite asking for the public’s help via social media on the second day of their so-called occupation.

The thing about this situation that I find the most amusing is the way the mass media places certain terminologies on people based on race and ethnicity.

Let’s face it: if these guys were Muslim-Americans, or basically anyone that isn’t Caucasian, they would be called “terrorists” rather than “militiamen.” These individuals should be labeled for what they really are: domestic terrorists.

Many have claimed that the 2nd Amendment gives them the right to form a militia and protest against a tyrannical government, but the truth is that the government hasn’t actually done anything wrong in this situation.

The Hammonds claimed the land that they burned belonged to them, when it is indeed owned by the Bureau of Land Management. They committed a felony and were sentenced accordingly.

These guys label themselves as patriots, when really all they are is a bunch of sympathizers of people that decided not to pay what are essentially federal taxes.

And while people inside the refuge have not specifically stated what sort of weapons they have (or don’t have), Ammond Bundy himself has posted a video on his Facebook page asking for support from others around the country – support in the form of weaponry.

I personally don’t think there is much to worry about in the form of violence, and that the occupiers will most likely just run out of supplies and be forced to come out and give an embarrassing explanation or excuse.

These people aren’t occupying a major government building; they’re in the visitor center of a wildlife center in the middle of nowhere. Everybody needs to just calm down and stop acting like this is some giant story that needs 24-hour coverage, because it doesn’t. Let them throw their little anti-government tantrum, and then arrest them when they’re done.

Putting lipstick on a pig

By: Stephanie Blair 
Photo Editor

Many brands claim to be “cruelty-free,” with labels that boast “Not tested on animals!” but in reality, they do. Many cosmetic companies, such as L’Oreal, state on their website that “L’Oréal no longer tests any of its products or any of its ingredients on animals, anywhere in the world nor does L’Oréal delegate this task to others. An exception could only be made if regulatory authorities demanded it for safety or regulatory purposes.” So this raises the question: where is animal testing required by law?

China.

Rather than rip into Chinese consumer law, let me also point out the inherent flaw of saying that a company doesn’t condone animal testing but would do so “if regulatory authorities demanded it.” These companies don’t need to sell in China. Selling in a country that requires animal testing before placing products on the shelves is optional.

I understand that China is a huge market, with its population clocking in at over 1.3 billion. However, by choosing to sell in China while officially stating that they are against animal testing, these companies are stating through actions that profit is more important to the company than ethics.

As a consumer, I feel lied to. If a company is truly against animal testing, why make that choice? The policy becomes a lie to placate the uninformed animal-lover.

A few of the popular brands boasting this tagline are: Avon, Bath and Body Works, Maybelline, L’Oreal, and Axe.

Some other companies boast the same cruelty-free slogan without the Chinese law addendum, and a few specific brands may have started out cruelty-free. However, they are now owned by parent companies who do support animal testing, or do sell in China. So by buying this product that is “cruelty-free” you are giving profit to and helping support the non-cruelty-free parent company.

Some of these brands include: M.A.C. (which is owned by Estee Lauder), Tarte (owned by Kose), Burt’s Bees (owned by Clorox), The Body Shop (owned by L’Oreal), and Urban Decay (also owned by L’Oreal).

While I’ve heard it argued that by only buying from these cruelty-free subsets of this parent company, consumers are showing that the public favors a cruelty-free option. But in reality, as long as these companies are making money, they’re not going to change their testing methods.

Animal testing is quicker and cheaper than the alternatives, such as stem cell usage, but at the cost of torturing innocent lives.

Before I saw the cruelty for myself, I felt that people who said the previous line were exaggerating. After hearing the shrieks of pain from a cosmetic testing bunny, after seeing the aftermath of these experiments, I can definitively say that it is not an overstatement.

To put a bit of perspective on the treatment of these animals, a man in Washington state was sentenced to 80 hours of community service and two years of probation for duct taping shut the mouth of his son. Meanwhile, companies are legally carrying out torturous acts such as “skin and eye irritation tests where chemicals are rubbed onto the shaved skin or dripped into the eyes of restrained rabbits without any pain relief” and “repeated force-feeding studies lasting weeks or months to look for signs of general illness or specific health hazards such as cancer or birth defects” according to humanesociety.org among other horrifying tests.

Animal testing is an ugly thing that many people feel they would rather not know about. The reason, at the heart of it, why people don’t want to talk about it is because they know it’s wrong.

Humans are empathetic creatures, but we’ve evolved into consumers who care more about the prestige of the brand name or the lower cost of the product rather than ethics.

This is not a call for our campus to go vegan; I’ve seen too many “I LOVE BACON” shirts for that. What I am asking is that people stay informed. If you don’t want to support this disgusting system, make sure you don’t.

Ask questions, read up; don’t be satisfied with a vague answer on a company’s webpage.

A little bit of kindness goes a long way

By: Conner Williams
Editor in Chief

I had an interesting start to my winter break. I decided to go and spend some time with one of my good friends whom lives just south of Seattle, as well as my older sister whom is in the same area.

I packed up some stuff to last me about a week and took off early in the morning so as to try and avoid traffic on I-5. It was a particularly nasty rainy Sunday as I made my way up the interstate and into Washington state.

Just as I passed Kelso, my Ford Ranger hit a deep patch of standing water in the middle lane and began to hydroplane. I had experienced the feeling before, so I let off the gas and attempted to slowly steer out of the water.

As I did so, my truck began to turn sideways, eventually coming to the edge of the roadway, where it caught the lip of the grass and forced all of the momentum forward as my truck flipped twice. I landed upright in the center medium between the north and southbound lanes in a squishy patch of deep grass and mud, which probably softened the impact significantly.

My truck was ruined; the entire passenger side was caved in, and I am thankful that I did not have someone with me, for this story would be told with a much more somber tone.

My backpack containing my computer and many of my work and school supplies was thrown from the vehicle, but miraculously, it was all unharmed.

As I came to my senses, I flexed all of my muscles and felt around my body: I was unscathed. Literally, I did not have a scratch on me, nor was anything broken or strained or bruised. I somehow managed to keep my body in a tight position and stop my head from crashing into my window, probably thanks to years of training that have given me a strong neck and torso.

I was able to open my door and get out, at which point I could feel myself going into shock. It’s a strange, uncontrollable human reflex, and I hope none of you reading this ever have to experience it if you haven’t before. The paramedics and police arrived shortly, at which point I refused an ambulance ride due to the fact that I can’t really afford a $1,000 bill for it.

When it all happened, a woman in a Ford F-350 truck had stopped in the emergency lane to check on me.
This was probably one of the kindest, most thoughtful and selfless person I have ever met in my life. After I had dealt with the patrol officer and was given my citation (that was just the cherry on top of an already perfect morning), this woman offered to take me back to town so that I could wait for my parents to come and get me.

She had willingly missed more than half of her church’s service, so I told her that I would be more than happy to wait at her church so that she could be there for at least some of mass.

The people that I met were extremely generous and kind to me; I was greeted with a hot meal, coffee, and given a giant fruit basket to take home. I did all I could to say thank you by moving in about a dozen hay bails that were to be used for a nativity scene.

The woman then took me into town where we waited at a McDonald’s until my parents arrived shortly after.

While this incident was one of the most unfortunate experiences I’ve gone through, I did learn something about the human race. I met one of the most thoughtful people that I had ever known. She could have simply kept driving and said, “That sucks, not my problem,” but she decided to stop and help out someone in need.

I will be forever grateful for her sense of generosity and good nature that day. She made a bad situation a little bit better by showing me some basic compassion, something that if more people gave to one another, we might be living in a better world.

In the future, if I ever see something like that happen or if I come across someone on the side of the road, I will stop and show them the same courtesy that I was shown earlier in my life. A little bit of kindness goes a long way.

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.