Mount Hood

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.

WOU logo

Facebook   Instagram   Twitter  YouTube  LinkedIn  wouTV

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

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

Tools

Campus Maps
Canvas
Find People
Portal
Virtual Tour
WOU Email
Technical Support

Resources

A-Z Index
Accessibility
Academic Calendar
Class Schedule
Jobs at WOU
Partnerships
Student Services

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.