Mount Hood

Share the love

By: Megan Clark 
Campus Life Editor

Polyamory, a romantic relationship involving more than two people, gets a bad rap in most monogamous societies.

Due to a social climate that favors partnerships between only two people, individuals who want to practice polyamory are often stigmatized and shamed.

Like most things that branch away from the norm, polyamory is misunderstood and criticized.

Polyamory is not polygamy, an important distinction to make, as polygamy often conjures up images of fundamentalist compounds on the Canadian border thronging with sister-wives.

Polyamory simply means “many loves,” and involves entering into a relationship with more than one person. People remark on the morality, or lack thereof, of those involved in a polyamorous relationships, saying that it shows lack of commitment and desire for fidelity, which, of course, is untrue.

Possibly due to these misconceptions, polyamory is not overly common, though polyamorous relationships are increasing in popularity.

Some studies, like one done by Dr. Elisabeth Sheff, an educational consultant and the foremost academic expert on polyamory in the United States according to Psychology Today, have shown that polyamorous relationships have few negative impacts on children raised in polyamorous households.

The only harms possibly lie in growing too attached to a partner that might later leave, an issue present even in monogamous relationships, and having to face the societal stigma surrounding such an arrangement.

In addition to the normal issues encountered with monogamous relationships, polyamorous relationships feature many of the same ideals, such as consent, dedication, and, of course, love.

Since polyamory is not based on the perceived ownership of another, it alleviates feelings of jealousy; it is understood that love is shared between multiple people.

Polyamorous relationships allow for varied and greater emotional support.

There are benefits to having multi-partnered relationships that can’t be realized due to the negative attention polyamory receives.

This lifestyle is ultimately beneficial to those involved and harmless to everyone else, yet it is shamed and degraded because it doesn’t follow a certain set of values and norms.

Polyamorous relationships aren’t for everyone, but stigmas against polyamory ultimately restrict how others conduct their personal and romantic lives.

However, according to Tracy Giuliano, a psychologist at Southwestern University in Texas, “the more aware people were of polyamory, the more positive their attitudes were.”

With increased familiarity and awareness comes understanding and the acceptance of healthy lifestyle choices, such as polyamory, that go against the grain.

Musings from a woman on the edge

By: Katrina Penaflor 
Managing Editor

Shia, Shia, Shia. You and your fake-sounding-but-definitely-real last name have done something I so desperately wish I could have been a part of.

For those who aren’t aware, the actor Shia LaBeouf staged a three day long screening of all of his films in reverse chronological order at the Angelika Film Center in New York.

The performance-art project was titled “All My Movies” and gave fans of the actor an opportunity to sit in the theater and watch LaBeouf watch his own films.

Or, I guess audience members could watch the films too, but if it was me in the audience, I would definitely be looking at LaBeouf’s own candid reactions.

There also was a livestream focused entirely on the actor’s face for anyone who couldn’t make it to get a look.

The viewing spanned over three days and started with LaBeouf’s most recent film “Man Down” and ended with his first work “Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind.”

So what was the point in all this?

Is Shia LaBeouf secretly working on some genius scheme to win over all the fans he lost (don’t worry I stuck around) when he went off his rocker and wore a bag over his head that read “I am not famous anymore?”

Or is this an apology for all his outrageous outbursts and decisions? Just to clear the air, yes, I do include him acting in the Indiana Jones reboot in that category that requires apology.

Or is this really some deep, meaningful piece of performance-art that says so much more than we all think it does?

Well, how am I supposed to know? The exact point of this is yet to be made clear, but after the movies finished the actor did say, “I walked out loving myself.”

So perhaps he was just trying to connect again with society, and his fans, and his work.

But one thing I can say for certain is the actor/performance-artist just sat for three days straight and watched all his movies with a bunch of random people filtering in and out of the theatre, and that’s pretty freakin’ awesome.

My one complaint: where was the Disney Channel original movie “Tru Confessions” in this mix? Shia, why did you leave one of my favorite ones out?

To watch the recorded livestream of the actor visit newhive.com/allmymovies.

What’s good?

By: Stephanie Blair 
Photo Editor

Following the attack on Paris, social media seems to be peppered with reminders that there were other attacks around the world on Friday, Nov. 13, 2015.

However, I would like to focus on more immediate safety: safety of our Muslim students on campus.

After the attack of 9/11, hate crimes against Muslims in the U.S. skyrocketed.

In fact, they became five times more common, according to the Washington Post. Even without being violent, non-Muslim Americans, when surveyed, held substantial prejudice against Muslims, regardless of American citizenship.

“These surveys suggest that many Americans do not distinguish between the vast majority of peaceful Muslims and the very small number of Muslims who commit violent acts,” John Sides of the Washington Post wrote.

It is easy to hate a larger, all-encompassing community group for the actions of a much smaller sub-set.

However, just as the majority of Christians do not agree with the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church, the majority of Muslims do not agree with the actions of ISIS/ISIL.
According to the Pew Research Center, as of 2015 there are approximately 1.6 billion Muslims in the world.

However, even if you do consider members of ISIS Muslims, that would still mean that 0.000125% of Muslims serve ISIS, based upon the estimated number of ISIS soldiers in an interview with UK newspaper The Independent with by Fuad Hussein, the chief of staff of the Kurdish President Massoud Barzani.

It is important to note that many, including President Barack Obama, do not consider ISIS members to be Muslims.

“We are not at war with Islam,” Obama said at the White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism in February of 2015. “We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.”
America was partly founded on the concept of freedom of religion, the opportunity for religious practice without persecution.

So, with all of the talk of particular governors demanding that we allow exact gun freedom while announcing they will only accept “proven Christian” refugees from Syria, let’s at least demand all of said constitution is honored.

As of Nov. 19, 31 state governors have announced that they oppose letting Syrian refugees into their states. However, states cannot legally refuse to allow refugees in, since the federal government announced in September that the U.S. would be accepting 10,000 of the estimated 70,000 refugees, according to an article from the Washington Post.

Please look out for our Muslim classmates on campus, as these actions weren’t perpetrated in their name.

Why leave the house when you could shop online?

By: Brianna Bonham 
Staff Writer

Black Friday is the chaotic, day-after-Thanksgiving sale that many big name retailers put on. It is thought of as the kick-off to the holiday shopping season, and the day that people everywhere go crazy for BOGO socks at Fred Meyer.

Crowds of people gather at the doors of the big name retailers ready to pounce on any deal they can get their hands on, ready to stop at nothing.

People get trampled, finding parking is almost impossible, and mall security gets serious, but that’s all totally worth it for the towels that are half off at Bed Bath and Beyond, right?

Although some like to experience the violence and the rush of Black Friday shopping, others may prefer to stay in the safety of their homes, or give their money to small businesses in their local area.

Small Business Saturday is the day after Black Friday, and is a great opportunity to support local businesses.

Small Business Saturday is a national event coined and supported by American Express, which encourages shoppers to go out and explore their neighborhood, supporting their community and local entrepreneurs.

Small Business Saturday is a chance for people to support their local businesses that may not have made as much of a profit because of Black Friday being an event mostly done at large retailers.

The day also increases promotion of small businesses to those that may not otherwise shop locally at small businesses.

Cyber Monday is another alternative that is perfect for people who do not want to leave the safety of their own home and face the crowds. Simply open up your laptop, browse through thousands of stellar sales online, and have the products shipped directly to your door.

Amazon offers a huge variety of Cyber Monday deals every year, as well as websites such as Target, Modcloth, and Nordstrom. This is a convenient and fast way to shop as opposed to pushing through people and fighting traffic on Black Friday.

These alternatives are great options for those that love to shop, but want to avoid the messy, busy, Black Friday. Sit back and relax in the comfort of your home while browsing online, or drive through the neighborhood and shop at your local businesses.

Keep it Black FRIDAY

By: Katrina Penaflor 
Managing Editor

I’ll start by saying I have nothing against Black Friday shopping.

I don’t see anything wrong with people crowding into busy stores to find a good deal on electronics, or clothes, or whatever they’re looking for.

Black Friday shopping is great, as long as it stays black Friday, with the emphasis on Friday, as in the day that comes after Thursday.

My problem comes in with how, over recent years, the shopping day has crept its way up to Thursday.

This trend of black Friday shopping starting early has become extremely popular in the retail market, and although there are plenty of stores who are against Thanksgiving as a shopping day, like Nordstrom, H&M, and Costco, there are plenty of places that still support it.

I see Thanksgiving as a day to be grateful, a time to spend with friends and family enjoying a short reprieve from our hectic day-to-day lives, all while enjoying some delicious food.

I don’t see it as a day to leave your regular festivities and shop endlessly for discounted clothes, or, to take the viewpoint of many store’s employees, have to come in to work.

Last year I found myself in that situation.

While holding a retail job, I was scheduled to come in at 4 p.m. on Thanksgiving Day to help deal with the hordes of enthusiastic shoppers. I had to leave my Thanksgiving dinner with family to go to work at a place that I felt had no real need to be open on a holiday.

Yes, there are plenty of places that need to keep their doors open on Thanksgiving, I completely understand that, but I don’t see retail stores as any of those.

The shopping, in my opinion, can wait.

I always thought that was part of the fun anyway. At least for me it was. I would enjoy Thanksgiving dinner then wake up early the following day and go to stores that normally wouldn’t be open at 5 a.m.

I wish more stores like Costco would take into consideration how staying open on a holiday can affect their employees.

Sure there are plenty of people who chose to leave the house to shop that day, but think about the employees who get an eight hour shift from 4 p.m. to midnight.

If less people were enthusiastic about shopping Thanksgiving day, the majority of the stores would have smaller sales — which could potentially lead to them keeping their doors closed on a holiday in the future.

Black Friday shopping isn’t the problem here. It is black Thursday shopping that I believe has become the bigger issue.

Black Friday

By: Conner Williams 
Editor-in-Chief

Oregon law does not require that overtime pay be provided for individuals that work on Thanksgiving Day, according to the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries.

The discretion is left up to the business of whether or not to provide overtime pay for employees on national holidays.

And since many businesses begin their Black Friday promotional sales early on Thursday, this means that employees are working on Thanksgiving instead of being home with their families.
The bottom line is that if employees are going to be forced to work on a national holiday, they should be compensated additionally.

In Oregon, the rate of overtime pay is one and a half times the base rate of pay, but let’s take it one step further and say that employees working on national holidays should be paid twice their rate of pay.

Now, you may be wondering, “But if people could make twice as much money, wouldn’t they rather go to work instead?”

Not necessarily.

First, let’s assume a scenario in which an individual has a choice to work on a holiday or not. It then becomes a matter of personal preferences.

Economic theory says that people whom make higher wages already are more likely to stay home rather than work for increased wages, since they already make a lot of money in the first place.

That temporary increase in wages from the holiday pay will not affect their overall income as much as it would a person with a lower income.

In contrast, a person with a lower income is more likely to want to go to work if they will receive a higher rate of pay, because it actually got more expensive for them to stay home.

Think of it this way: an individual makes $10 an hour, and they can then make $20 an hour if they work on a holiday. That means that every hour they don’t work loses them $20 instead of $10, so they will be more likely to want to go to work since they already have a low rate of pay.

Dr. John Leadley, an economics professor at WOU, reiterated this notion.

“Sure, somebody might say ‘I’ll work on Thanksgiving and make more money, then [my family and I] will celebrate it another day,’ but it still comes down to preferences,” Leadley said.

But again, this is assuming that someone has the choice of working or not. Many people are forced to work on holidays for their base rate of pay or else they will lose their jobs.

This needs to change.

Politics in the classroom

This editorial is not in response to the teaching practices of any professor at WOU. Since we are nearing a Presidential election, The Journal’s Editorial Team felt it was necessary to address the topic of politics and opinions in the classroom

It is inevitable that one’s own personal beliefs about a subject will come into play during a conversation, even if it happens subconsciously.

We are affected and influenced by our own biases whether we like it or not. The challenge then becomes how we control them in an academic setting, where a neutral stance is best for optimum learning.

In the ideal classroom, students should be exposed to the facts, and then exposed to the techniques to be able to decide for themselves what sort of personal conclusions they wish to draw from them, rather than have a professor tell them what they should or should not believe without explanation of the procedure by which that conclusion was reached.

Now, take into account a professor’s’ opinions in the classroom. Although not facts, it’s important to know that when an opinion is presented, it should always be taken as such. Opinions are merely a piece of information that can be used to expand on a student’s understanding of a subject, but not as something to sway them in a particular direction of correct or incorrect.

The line where opinions and politics blend together in the classroom is tricky. Teachers should be welcome to give students the unbiased facts on candidates, policies, et cetera that lead to a health conversation between students and professors. But it’s important to avoid creating situations where a professor tries to purposely lead students to side with their own political stance.

When a person in power, like a college professor, takes their power and encourages students to believe a certain political opinion, it takes away the student’s right to decide for him or herself.

A classroom is a place to learn, not to be preached at. It’s important for the people facilitating our learning to consider all the different opinions on a subject fairly.

This is why it is so important that the classroom remains a safe setting for opinions, conversation, and debate. In order for students to gain the maximum amount of information from multiple sources and points of view, they must be exposed to different elements. If a professor wishes to share something from a liberal-oriented news source, it would behoove them to also examine a conservative-oriented source.

Students and professors should be welcomed to express opinions, as long as they are willing to hear and understand the opposite point of view. Keeping a classroom safe and neutral is important. Allowing students to be in a place where varied beliefs are welcomed, without the authoritative voice of “you should believe this,” or “you should believe that.”

Most liberally-oriented people aren’t going to watch The O’Reilly Factor for their political commentary, just as most conservatively-oriented individuals probably aren’t going to tune into The Daily Show for theirs. People tend to seek out information that is going to reinforce what they already believe; they don’t want to hear opinions that conflict with their own. So, it is important to examine multiple viewpoints with different underlying ideologies. It may also be beneficial to view news from neutral sources that are not owned by a politically-affiliated parent corporation, such as Reuters, BBC, or The Real News.

A.L.I.C.E. training throws it all out the window

8XYMJF

By: Conner Williams 
Editor-in-Chief

I like to think that if I were in a situation in which a person wanted to do me bodily harm, my animal brain would take over and I would fight back or run.

In the face of danger, our innate instincts tell us to stand and fight or flee.

We can never really know what type of reaction we will have until that situation happens, and of course I hope that neither I, nor any of you ever have to find out exactly what you would do.

However, A.L.I.C.E. (Alert, Lockdown, Inform, Counter, Evacuate) training teaches people to do just that: trust their instincts in emergency situations.

We have been taught for years that in an active shooter situation, we are supposed to lockdown and hide.

This method has shown to be extremely ineffective over the years, as we have seen that in the large majority of school shootings, those that hide are the ones that get killed.

Part of the A.L.I.C.E. training I attended on Wednesday, Nov. 11 had the audience listen to a 911 call from the Columbine High School shooting.

A teacher at Columbine, Patti Nielson, had hid in the library with some students and had told her students to stay down and hide under the desks. She called 911 and did everything she possibly could to follow her training.

But that was just the problem: her formal training directly contributed to the loss of lives.

During the call, Nielson could be heard telling students to get back under the desks, meaning that they were trying to get up to run and she directed them to stay down.

That is a problem. Those kids’ survival instincts told them to get out of there, but they were told to stay by a person of authority.
But, does the fault really lie on Nielson? Of course not.

She was simply doing exactly what she was trained to do, and she conducted herself perfectly under extremely stressful circumstances.

The really terrible thing is that there were doors all along the back wall of the library that they could have fled out of, but their training told them to stay put and wait for the police.

We need to break away from the traditional lockdown and hide protocol and learn to trust our instincts.

Running away is the best option. Human beings were built to run quickly in long distances; trust yourself and get out as fast as possible in the face of danger.

I generally don’t endorse violence, but in a life-or-death situation with an active shooting/killer, you must do absolutely anything to survive.

Officer Trevor Jackson of Campus Public Safety presented the training session, telling us to use any and everything at our disposal to distract and otherwise disorient the shooter/killer.

Throw your phone at them at then run the other direction. Any sort of disorientation will throw off the shooter’s plan and buy you precious seconds to get away, even mere seconds are crucial.

I sincerely hope that none of us has to find out how finely tuned our survival instincts truly area, but we need to be prepared for the worst.

Always trust your instincts, and do everything you can to get away from the situation.
I highly recommend that you participate in an A.L.I.C.E. training on campus. Upcoming dates can be found on the CPS webpage.

Musings from a woman on the edge

KatrinaColor

By: Katrina Penaflor 
Managing Editor

Drop your pitchforks made out of red Starbucks cups and find a real problem to complain about.

The controversy over Starbucks’ holiday cups is seriously getting out of control.

The argument spurring all this is that the cups, being an ombre of red, are not “holiday enough” and are somehow a war against Christianity in their minimalist approach of decorations and lack of “Merry Christmas.”

Please, overly-opinionated coffee drinkers of the world and self-proclaimed argument starters, stop centering a holiday around a cup that holds coffee.

This controversy is about something that is literally getting tossed into the trash when it’s done being used.
This is why I’m just not understanding all the hate.

So there are no snowflakes printed on it, or there isn’t a “Merry Christmas” sprawled across the cup in beautiful cursive script. I guess that means Christmas is ruined forever.

There’s no hope for any holiday spirit because my cup of coffee was served in a plain red cup.

Will the next debate be against a coffee shop that doesn’t have holiday cups at all? Quick, everyone go boycott a café who uses the same cups all year and clearly lacks holiday spirt.

I don’t care if my coffee cup has holiday pictures printed on it, or if the colors don’t fit the traditional holiday mold of what Christmas cheer should look like.

A coffee cup does not define a religion. A coffee cup does not define holiday spirit.

I don’t believe for one second that Starbucks created these cups as some war on Christianity or to eliminate holiday cheer.

People need to settle down and stop trying to create a problem out of something that’s a non-issue.

So if anyone wants to complain about getting handed a red holiday cup from Starbucks, please take at least five minutes to reassess your life, and be grateful that you can even afford the luxury of having a cup of coffee.

Never say die

By: Katrina Penaflor 
Managing Editor

What to do when you have thousands of movie fans swarming your property begging to see inside your house and get a tour? Block off all the windows with blue tarp.

Or at least that’s what the owner of the legendary Goonies’ house has done.

The house sits in Astoria, Ore., the filming location of the 1985 cult classic “The Goonies.”

The movie is a personal childhood favorite of mine. I recall watching the movie as a kid while chanting the famous phrase “Goonies never say die.”

But unfortunately, the home from the film, and its access for tours and visitors, has taken its last breath.

Over the summer, the owner of the home officially closed the doors for good. Blocking up windows with blue tarps and denying all access to the property.

The sudden closure came from an influx of visitors, nearly a thousand every day, knocking on doors, entering the property, and trying to get a taste of their childhood nostalgia.

It was also the result of the lack of respect show by visitors to the house, many of whom left beer cans and other trash all over the place.

I can understand the owner’s frustrations.

To deal with endless crowds of people every day would feel invasive and exhausting. How could a person wanting to live their normal, day-to-day life keep up?

I also can see the argument behind people who want to view the house and say things like, “the owner chooses to live in the Goonies house, she should welcome visitors!”

However, for the most part she has for years. It’s not that the owner isn’t welcoming, it’s a simple question of how much one person can handle when it comes to crowds of people wanting into their home.

If it were me, I would want to support visitors, but there would have to be consideration for my own privacy and a way to monitor the visitor’s safety, as well as my own.

I think if people want hope for the visitation rights to potentially return in the future, the owner of the house needs to receive support from the city, as well as more respect for her privacy, and acknowledgement that it is a functioning house in addition to being a landmark.

So far, the extent of what the city has done is put up signs indicating private property, and notifications that the Goonies house is closed. There has also been discussion of making the road to the owner’s house, which at the moment is public property, private.

Sure, people can question why this should become the city’s issue, but think about how much of an attraction the Goonies house is. This can be beneficial to Astoria. Thousands of people travel to the Oregon coastal town just to get a look at where the movie was made.

If the city helps to keep visitors away by eliminating all signs that lead to the Goonies house, because there are still quite a few official signs scattered across the town, and they help mark her road as private, maybe this will ease the frustration of the owner.

This could potentially lead to the return of more monitored visits in the future, potentially.

There’s really no way to tell what the future holds, but for now, I think the privacy of the owner needs to be respected.

She welcomed visits in the past, and we can only hope that the option will return in the future.

Never say die.

Off my mind

BenColor

By: Ben Bergerson 
Designer

I’m known around the office as the Timbers fan. And there aren’t many of us in the world of American sports fans. Most of the time I wish more people watched soccer, just so that people could feel the excitement that surrounds the sport during the post-season.

These matches aren’t just thrilling for someone “in the know” with soccer; anyone who watches will find themselves wrapped up in the drama and excitement too.

Take, for example, the Portland Timbers’ road to the playoffs.

The Timbers had come off a long stretch where they just couldn’t score a goal. They were creating chances and were one of the best teams in the league defensively, but they couldn’t convert those chances into actual goals.

The Timbers went into the last three games needing to win and draw at least one each in order to get into the playoffs.

Many in the press said that the Timbers’ goal draught was going to see them miss the playoffs, especially with matches against tough teams like Real Salt Lake and the LA Galaxy.

Then something crazy happened.

Timbers Coach Caleb Porter made one adjustment, and like a breached dam, the goals came flooding in.

On Oct. 18, facing an away game at LA Galaxy, Porter moved Darlington Nagbe up out of the central midfielder role. This allowed him to run the ball deep and combine with other forward moving players, including Fanendo Adi, Diego Chara, and stiker Maxi Urruti.

That night, the Timbers destroyed the reigning MLS Cup champions 5-2, and they have gone on to win every match since, including an insane knockout match versus Sporting Kansas City.

The soccer of the last few weeks would make a fan out of anybody that watched.

I’d argue that the Timbers have a really good chance at making it to the MLS Cup match this year, so when the next match starts on Nov. 22, come join the crazed throngs of fans and find out what soccer’s about.

In the meantime, don’t drown this weekend if you head out of town, it’s supposed to be the end of the world by flood or something.

A letter from your legislators

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mo’ liquor, mo’ problems

By: From the Desk of The Journal Editorial Team

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

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

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

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

Encourages alcoholism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Increase in costs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drives small liquor stores out of business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Musings from a woman on the edge

By: Katrina Penaflor
managing editor

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

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

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

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

That was the top trending story?

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

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

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

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

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

Who I hate today

DeclanColor

By: Declan Hertel
Entertainment Editor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Musings of a woman on the edge

By: Katrina Penaflor

Managing Editor

Let’s talk about how basically, from a retail perspective, Christmas comes before Halloween. And, in all honesty, it is (The Journal does not permit me to use swear words so please insert your favorite one here) ridiculous.

Why is this ridiculous? Everyone loves Christmas, they say. It’s the most fun holiday to celebrate, they say. No one has a problem with seeing Christmas stuff so early, they say.

Well I say, let me celebrate Halloween and Thanksgiving now, and get all this tempting, wonderful Christmas propaganda away from me—that is until the right time prevails. I will gladly celebrate it then.

Let me make this clear I am not bashing Christmas. I freaking love Christmas.

What upsets me is that I love the other holidays that come before it, like Halloween and Thanksgiving, and I hate seeing them dismissed in the retail markets.

I guess my anger this year started when I was at Costco.

I was minding my own business, looking for the best deal on hummus, and circling around the store eating a dinner sized portion of samples, when I stumbled upon the massive Christmas section.

It was Oct. 9.

Why? Why? Can’t I enter a bulk food distributor and see spooky costumes and decorations for sale without running into polar bear Coca-Cola cans?

Halloween is so much fun to celebrate, and I hate that stores are taking away from the enjoyment of that by pushing other holidays upon us.

I was at Target the other day, and when I was perusing the costumes aisles I found that they stopped short. Half the aisles that were covered in Halloween decorations and candy the week prior, were already cleared out and being stocked with Christmas lights.

It’s not like the store sold out of everything. I actually saw an overflow of decorations, candy etc. in the “designated Halloween aisles.”

It’s simply that Target, much like Costco, could not wait for the start of the Christmas sales.

I see why the stores do it: they want a jump-start on sales. However, I feel like these early Christmas preparations are taking away from the spirit of Halloween and Thanksgiving.

It also makes me think about the craze to start Black Friday shopping on Thanksgiving – a Thursday, might I add – and the sales simply cannot wait for the holiday to be over. But that’s a completely different conversation.

Wouldn’t it be odd if around St. Patrick’s Day we were seeing fireworks displays at grocery stores? I just wish one holiday could be enjoyed at a time before barreling on to the next one.

Not so sweet

Screen Shot 2015-11-01 at 6.56.22 AM

By: Jenna Beresheim
News Editor

As Halloween draws near, and the parties start lining up, there is the typical mad scramble for costumes and candy.

Soon, college students will be partying it up and children will be moving door-to-door in hopes of bagfuls of scrumptious sweets.

Something not so sweet is the tasteless, ignorant, and blatantly disrespectful costumes that line store shelves, or even worse still, are homemade.

Ask anyone and they can come up with at least one example they have seen in stores, created by a fellow partygoer, or even on children as the door opens to pass out treats.

On Oct. 31, the streets may be filled with costumes such as: Little Amigo, Indian Brave, Caitlyn Jenner, Confederate General, Rastafarian, and many more.

Whether it is a longstanding tradition of insensitivity, such as costumes focused on Native American outfits and culture, or a trending topic such as Caitlyn Jenner or the Boston Marathon bombing, it’s still always wrong.

Some individuals may claim these costumes are meant as a joke, but what’s really the joke is the human wearing the outfit.

This goes for costumes involving racial, ethnic, religious, LGBTQ+, cultural, and numerous other topics. It is probably safe to say that anything involving blackface is a no go, as are sugar skulls, despite what many Pinterest populates may think.

Don’t get me wrong, my cautionary tales are not about taking the “fun” out of Halloween.

The fun is in hanging out with friends, having a great time at whatever strikes your fancy on Hallow’s Eve, and being safe while doing it. There are plenty of other costumes to choose from that are sure to get the approval of friends and cultural communities.

Some top trending 2015 ideas for the pop culture pioneers are as follows: #FollowMe Couple, The Tumblr Dress, Minions, Left Shark, Mad Max, Game of Thrones (Shame Bell Lady, anyone?), and even the Margarita Man from Jurassic World.

Of course, these featured costumes cover the comedy aspect of Halloween versus those who go full force with the gore. It’s all about personal preference.

For a great, succinct rundown of the idea behind the culturally sensitive costume movement, more information can be found at the source: Ohio University’s STARS program.
The website features past promotional posters and more information on what Culture not a Costume is all about.

Front runners take a back seat in GOP debate

By: Jack Armstrong
Copy Editor

The third major GOP presidential debate took place on Wednesday, Oct. 28, 2015 at the University of Colorado-Boulder.

The broadcast, hosted by CNBC, lasted the better part of two hours and featured the two current front runners Donald Trump and Dr. Ben Carson, as well as the eight other leading candidates.

This debate was widely labeled as the “economic policy” debate, especially since CNBC is NBC News’ financial outlet, but the discourse only turned briefly to taxes in-between jabs at the media, fellow republican candidates, and democratic opponents.

With Carson recently surging past Trump in the polls, the chance was there for the doctor to really take control of the race, but both Carson and Trump put in relatively subdued performances compared to the first debate.

The Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman Reince Preibus released a statement after the debates claiming that, “CNBC should be ashamed of how this debate was handled.”

Ted Cruz (R-TX) even went so far as to refer to the debate as “a cage match,” and the heckling raining down from a majority of the 1,200 audience members seemed to agree with him.

Many of the candidates accused CNBC of intentionally derailing the debate with hidden agendas, Cruz saying, “The questions that have been asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media.”

With the bulk of the focus still centering on in-fighting and taking swipes at opponents across the aisle and at the media, what little policy talk that occurred was still vague.

Carly Fiorina suggested that she could cut the entire tax code down to three concise pages, but she was unable to expound on exactly how she planned to achieve this. Similarly, Cruz promised that if he was elected, he would cut the tax code to the point where Americans could file their taxes on a postcard, also with little explanation about how this plan would come to be.

Overall, the end notes for the debate seem to all be ones of confusion and anger. An event that should have seen two clear front runners stretch their leads through clear policy discussion quickly degraded into name calling and finger pointing.

The post-debate polls have yet to show any serious fluctuation, and we are still no closer to knowing who will clinch the GOP nomination in the lead up to November 2016.

Regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum, this debate continued to highlight a problem that permeates our current system of elections.

The talking points were of little consequence, and the focus of the debate shifted from policy and procedure, to personal gain and jabs at the moderators.

Nothing was really discussed, nothing was really clarified, and all we really learned about the candidates is that they don’t like being asked difficult questions – or at least questions that aren’t framed in a pleasing manner.

Hopefully as we approach the one-year mark on the presidential countdown, the field will begin to thin and we will have a better idea of who our choices are without all of the noise and pointless in fighting from both sides.

The next debate is scheduled for Nov. 10, 2015, broadcasting on the Fox Business Network from the Milwaukee Theater in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Let’s paint the town teal

By: Katrina Penaflor 
Managing Editor 

Every year on Oct. 31, millions of children take to the streets dressed as their favorite super heroes, monsters, or fictional characters to celebrate Halloween and go door to door asking for candy.
But what seems like a regular and fun-filled occurrence for most kids can actually pose as a problem many people don’t realize.
The issue lies in the treats being handed out: the candy.

What many children consider to be the best day of the year – because, let’s face it, candy is delicious – can be troublesome as not all kids can enjoy the treats being handed out to trick-or-treaters.

Food allergies can prevent children from being able to ring on all their neighbors’ doorbells and replay Halloween’s famous phrase of “trick or treat.”

Whether it’s a peanut allergy, gluten intolerance, or an inability to incorporate candy into their diet, houses should consider the best way to keep their house trick-or-treat friendly for all kids.

The Food Allergy Research and Education (FARE) organization launched a national campaign in 2014 called the Teal Pumpkin Project, which “raises awareness of food allergies and promotes inclusion of all trick-or-treaters throughout the Halloween season,” according to their website.

The goal is to get households to start giving away non-food treats to trick-or-treaters in hopes of including more children into the holiday. Houses can identify as distributing friendly, non-food treats by placing a painted teal pumpkin outside their home.

The choice of the color teal is to represent food allergy awareness, and has been recognized as such for the last 20 years.

I think the teal pumpkins are a much needed addition to Halloween.

For most of us growing up, Halloween was such a carefree holiday where you ran around your neighborhood and grabbed handfuls of candy from every house. But think about the kids who can’t run door to door because they have a peanut allergy and every other house has a bowl full of Reese’s peanut butter cups or peanut M&M’s.

I was surprised when I brought up the purpose of the Teal Pumpkin Project to friends that the opinions weren’t all positive. Many of the responses were that they thought the project was trying to change Halloween and take away candy, or they thought kids wouldn’t make the choice of a non-food item over candy.

Those opinions are both missing the point of the Teal Pumpkin project.

The point of the project is not to eliminate the inclusion of candy in the holiday; the website actually encourages people to continue passing out the sweets.

FARE is just trying to get people to offer an alternative.

Some of their suggestions include bubbles, Halloween themed rings and jewelry, stickers, or toys. FARE does ask that people are careful with their non-food treats as some can still contain food products or allergens, like modeling clays made with wheat or anything involving latex.

These ideas are simply an alternative. Yes, a majority of the kids who are faced with the option will pick the candy over the toy, but for the kids who can’t pick the candy, they’ll be grateful for the non-food item.

For people purchasing multiple bags of candy for trick-or-treaters this year, I encourage them to switch one out for a non-food item. Even something like a packet of glow sticks for a dollar could make a difference by allowing more kids to be able to pick something from your house.

Join the Teal Pumpkin Project and offer trick-or-treaters the choice of the alternative. For more information about the project and FARE organization visit www.foodallergy.org or contact Anna Luke at aluke@foodallergy.org.

Huge Waste of Cash

By: Conner Williams
Editor in Chief 

Weight room: a room where weights are stored and lifted – usually in a vertical fashion – for the intent of building strength and muscle

HWC weight room: a huge building on campus which houses weights that aren’t allowed to be moved or touched for fear of making the slightest bit of noise

While I know this is a hyperbole, it is what it feels like every time I attempt to lift at the HWC.

I don’t claim to be the biggest or the strongest dude around, but I can move around some significantly heavy weights. And when heavy weights are moved around, they have to be set back down once the reps are completed, unless you’re a freak of nature and can just hold onto them forever.

The HWC has a policy that says, “Dropping weights is harmful to the facility, equipment, the lifter and bystanders.”

While the first part of the policy may be true in some circumstances, it isn’t the case when the weights and the floor are both made out of rubber. So, we can take this part of the policy with a grain of salt.

I’m also not sure how dropping weights can hurt the lifter, since the whole point of dropping them is to avoid injury that could result from attempting to awkwardly set the weights down silently.

In fact, it is quite difficult to set down the 100-pound dumbbells after completing a set without making any noise at all. But I suppose the HWC officials would prefer that I tear a pectoral muscle or a rotator cuff ensuring that no noise is generated. There goes the second part of the policy.

Next up: injury to bystanders. Sure, if I toss the weights across the floor right at someone, something bad could happen. But nobody is going to get hurt if nobody is around; I always make sure to create a lot of space for myself when lifting heavy.

It seems to me, then, that the whole point of this policy is to try and limit the amount of noise generated by people that are actually trying to work hard. I’ve been approached numerous times at the HWC and told to make less noise, which is strange, since the last time I checked, the second floor of the HWC is a weight room, not a library. And if the concern is disrupting classes going on in HWC 110, maybe they shouldn’t have built the weight room directly above a classroom, but I suppose that just makes too much sense.

The HWC is one step away from becoming Planet Fitness, in which literal alarms are set off in the gym if someone makes “too much” noise by dropping weights or grunting.

Seriously, alarms go off and then the person that made the noise is asked to leave. Planet Fitness users are also not allowed to lift heavier than a certain amount (another HWC policy) and they are not allowed to do certain power lifts (also a rule at the HWC).

The HWC has platforms specifically designed for these kinds of heavy, compound movements – complete with bumper plates that are made for dropping – but users aren’t permitted to use them for their actual intended purpose for fear of making too much noise.

By now, I’m sure many of you are under the impression that I’m some loud, obnoxious meathead whom purposely goes out of his way to make a scene in attention-seeking behavior.

I may make noise from time to time, but that’s because I genuinely work hard when I lift weights. The body tends to make involuntary noises when under duress, like lifting heavy weights. I don’t groan as loud as possible to try and draw attention to myself, nor do I throw weights around to get everyone to look at me.

Frankly, I couldn’t care less if people approve of how much I lift.

So when employees approach me multiple times during a workout session over the fact that I made any noise by setting the weights down on the ground or letting out a grunt, it frustrates me.

It also irritates me that it seems as if that is the sole responsibility of every employee at the HWC: constantly telling people to be quiet.

That, standing behind the desk, wandering around the gym, and … Well actually, that about covers it. It’s nice to know my student fees are going to good use: paying people to stand around.

I don’t mean to lay this blame at the feet of the student employees themselves; policies start at the top, and it is simply the responsibility of the employees to enforce those policies. They’re just doing their job, and I can’t blame them for the policies that the officials of the HWC chose to conceive.

I signed up at a local gym around April in response to the HWC’s unyielding attempts to keep me quiet at all costs. I have used the HWC several times since then when I didn’t feel like driving to Independence to work out. One thing that I wish I could do is defer my membership at HWC – which costs about $70 per term in IFC fees – and get a refund.

However, the business office told me that this is not possible, since fees are automatically charged and disbursed at the hands of the IFC. I believe this is unfair; students should be able to defer their membership at HWC if they do not wish to use the facilities.

The HWC is a great environment to exercise if one if interested in using some of the nice facilities and equipment that it offers: the rock wall, indoor track, pool, or excessive amount of elliptical trainers. However, it is not a good place to work out if the goal is to actually lift weights. If you want to lift heavy and have the ability to work hard without noise limitations and being harassed, do yourself a favor and go sign up somewhere else in town.