Mount Hood

Cinema jerks beware

By: Ashton Newton
Entertainment Editor

Seeing a movie in the theater is always a fun thing to do. Whether it is a date, a movie you’ve been waiting for or just a night out with friends, going to the movies is almost never a bad idea.

Lately though, people have started viewing the “please silence your cell phone” messages as a suggestion, rather than a requirement. Trying to block phone light from a few rows down with the chair in front of you is more common than it should be.
Movie theater etiquette is slowly disappearing. People are thinking less and less about others’ enjoyment of the film. Going to the movies is not cheap, and people need to take that into account before they read a text or talk to their friend while the movie is playing.

Here are a few tips to maximize your enjoyment and the enjoyment of others during a movie:

Open your candy and shake your popcorn before the movie starts.

When your drink is gone: admit defeat and stop slurping it.

Actually silence your phone, don’t put in on vibrate and be tempted to check it.

If you’re watching a horror movie, don’t laugh when a tense scene is on. It ruins the scene for everyone else.

The person in front of you can most definitely feel your foot on their chair.

Wait until you get in your car to discuss the ending of the movie.
Please don’t bring your baby to the movies.

It’s okay to whisper small comments to the person next to you, but don’t have conversations.

If your kiss is going to last longer than three seconds, do it outside of the theater.

Contact the author at anewton15@wou.edu

The 24/7 schoolweek

By: Kristin Eck
Copy Editor

I never had to turn in assignments or take tests over the weekend when I was in high school. That’s because most high schools weren’t using virtual learning platforms such as Moodle, Blackboard or Desire to Learn. These programs are intended to make the lives of professors and students easier, but in my opinion, they really just complicate our lives unnecessarily.

When I first came to Western, I remember being introduced to Moodle and not really comprehending what it was for. I soon realized that no professor uses Moodle in the same way and that, as a student, you simply have to catch on to their personal preferences. This inconsistency added anxiety and unnecessary stress to my life.

Some professors use Moodle in its entirety: posting homework, quizzes, tests and readings for you to peruse in your spare time. Some professors simply use it to post grades or readings, while others don’t use it at all.

I asked Dr. Keulks, an English literature professor at Western, how he feels about using Moodle.

“My emotions about using Moodle are mixed. Sometimes it doesn’t provide anything more than a web page would, but I’ll admit I don’t use it as dynamically as some profs do. I don’t think it’s necessary to create Moodle shells automatically for every class,” said Keulks.

Moodle shells are created for every class on campus, regardless of whether or not they’re used. He adds that, as a campus, “We’ve done good work … in making Moodle training available for faculty. The Center for Academic Innovation is always available to help, and they’ve rolled out many initiatives. With that said, I wouldn’t say that all faculty, myself included, always follow best practices. As a campus, we’re still adapting to digital environments. I’m sure it’s frustrating for students to confront this learning curve visually.”

Yes, it is frustrating. Not only is this very inconsistent but the very idea of virtual learning platforms, like Moodle, are intrusive to the student’s life. Dr. Keulks added, “I’ve now begun disabling discussion boards on my Moodle shells. I’ve heard too many students argue that being swamped by weekly posting requirements — for multiple classes — works in reverse: instead of more deeply engaging the material, they simply become task-driven.”

Dr. Keulks makes a very good point. I could be eating dinner with my family on Sunday night and have to excuse myself because my professor has a test opening at 6 p.m. When did this become okay? Suddenly professors have the right interrupt our out-of-class activities with annoying tests and deadlines. Not only do I think this is unhealthy, it’s also a violation of student’s privacy.

I personally don’t feel that it’s necessary for professors to know what time their students submit their work. If we have to use programs that require online submission, professors should only see if it is late or on-time. Frankly, if I want to procrastinate on an essay my professor doesn’t need to know that I turned it in at 11:59 p.m. This information is only useful when poking fun at a student and that is not okay.

Virtual learning platforms now provide professors the opportunity to demand twice as much from their students as before. Where are their guidelines? How do we measure this extra work in terms of student health and realistic expectations? Even if professors do have this training available to them, are they taking full advantage of it? I think it’s time that students demand the answers to these questions from their professors and universities.

Senior Ashley Letts, education major, thinks that the biggest problem with using Moodle is that, “Professors not putting grades on it, but not being available to talk about grades either. Other professors don’t use it at all, and just expect you to remember everything. Although one of my profs puts everything on Moodle, and it takes forever to find what I need. It’s confusing and irritating.”

If it’s not obvious by now, I personally dislike Moodle and all other virtual learning platforms. It doesn’t make sense to have these in place without applying some kind of control. We need guidelines. We need accountability. We need consistency.

And finally, If I’m accomplishing twice as much work for one class, then give me twice as many credits for it. If you have ever been discouraged or frustrated with using Moodle, please send me an email so we can do something about it.

Please contact the author at keck14@mail.wou.edu

Aquaculture to play a key role in global protein production

By: Brian Tesch,
Advertising Manager

With diminishing habitats, decaying fisheries and an increase in demand for Seafood, aquaculture across the globe is poised to play an important role in the future of food supply. It is unlikely that wild capture fisheries will be able to produce any higher yields in the future. In many parts of the world, wild fisheries have been experiencing a sharp decline. Most notable are the Atlantic salmon, a species that once dominated the eastern seaboard with numbers estimated in the hundreds of millions are now around 500,000. Despite ambiguous packaging and with a few minor exceptions, all of today’s Atlantic salmon you will find in your local grocery store was farm raised in an aqglobal_seafood_production-colornoaa-govuaculture facility. While the industry is easily replacing salmon demand, it has a long way to go.

On paper, fish are the most efficient source of animal protein to produce. There are many ways to compare efficiency when it comes to proteins, to simplify, we will look at the feed
conversion ratio. The ratio expresses the amount of feed by weight, to produce a protein by weight. Fish being the most efficient have a 1.2 ratio, meaning it takes 1.2 pounds of feed to produce one pound of fish. Beef and pork have ratios that are 8.7 and 5.9 respectively (taken from NOAA). The reason for its efficiency is directly related to the industry’s biggest challenge. Fish are predators and are built to consume and process more complex forms of proteins and nutrients, unlike cows or pigs. This is great when it comes to efficiency scales and sustainable production of protein, but like most things, there’s a catch. Since fish are predators they must eat other sources of proteins.

Most fishmeal today is produced from the harvest of pelagic fish less desirable for human consumption such as herring or anchovies. This poses a problem because it puts a lot of weight on herring and anchovy populations and it does not completely solve the problem of sustainable fish production. Most of the aquaculture industry is based on converting less desirable fish into more desirable fish. This is a problem because in this process, nutrients and proteins are lost. It’s important to note that populations of anchovy and herring are more likely to decrease than increase, making fish feed another limiting supply on the aquaculture industry.

So while global fishery production is very limited and mostly in decline, Aquaculture has been supplementing the growth in the seafood industry but most of that growth is based on the natural carrying capacity of smaller fish such as anchovies, which is very limited and mostly also in decline. Paired with demand for Seafood increasing as global populations set to reach 9 billion in 2050, the industry has some very limited problems. Continuing of this course, the Aquaculture industry will reach a limit in the amount of feed, therefore fish they can produce.

What is the solution?

Increasing anchovy populations is one way, but done unnaturally is outlawed. People have tried artificially increasing fish populations in the past but most have been labeled as geo-terrorists.

Most notable was Russ George in an attempt to restore fisheries in the Northeast Pacific. He poured 120 tons of iron into the ocean in 2012 in an attempt to artificially bloom algae. Iron being a limiting nutrient for algae in the open ocean. In the next following years, fishing yields quadrupled in the region, but because no scientist was brought on to the experiment, it’s impossible to prove the increase in yields as a direct result of Russ George’s ambitious experiment.

If you can’t increase populations, the only other option is to decrease the reliance of anchovy in fish food. The aquaculture industry all over the world is looking for sustainable protein substitutes for fish feed, and progress is being made. The solution is simple, find alternative food sources to raise fish on. Once the feed becomes sustainable and uses less fish, the aquaculture industry is poised to become the world’s leader in protein production due to its sustainability, efficiently and overall tastiness.

Contact the author at btesch14@wou.edu

Give audiobooks a chance

By: Ashton Newton
Entertainment Editor

The first time I listened to an audiobook was when I had a job that allowed me to listen to music as I worked. Getting bored of hours of music, I decided to listen to Neil Gaiman’s “American Gods” on audiobook, and it took over my life. I found myself listening to it when I was driving, when I was walking, when I was working and even while doing homework. I found it so easy to be productive while thoroughly enjoying this story.audiobooks-color

Despite how busy life can get while in school, there is a lot of leisure time. Whether it is an hour in between classes or a lazy Sunday afternoon, time spent doing almost anything can be enhanced with an audiobook playing.

This is why I think that audiobooks are a college student’s best friend. Not only are audiobooks great, but there are also audiobooks for almost every major text you’d need to read for an English class. It’s a much better experience listening to “The Odyssey” when Sir Ian McKellan is reading it to you while you’re on a run or playing video games. Plus, I’ve found that listening to audiobooks doesn’t take away from reading at all, instead, I don’t zone out or skip long passages, like I have the habit of doing.

Finding audiobooks is extremely easy too. Spotify has a huge library of audiobooks in all genres. There are lots of short stories and novels available to listen to for free. Another good source of free audiobooks is YouTube. You can find almost any classic work there, so it’s a really good place to find books for English classes.

My favorite place to listen is Audible. All you need is an Amazon account and $15 a month and you can get two audiobooks a month. This is a great way to get more recent books. While spending $15 on audiobooks a month is pretty high, you can always cancel the subscription if you think you won’t finish the book in time.

A lot of skepticism surrounding audiobooks relates back to boring readers. It’s uncomfortable listening to anyone read a book to you, but if the reader’s voice is monotone and boring, it can be a struggle to listen to. My first audiobook, “American Gods,” was a full cast audiobook, so there were many different voices throughout the book which made it very pleasant to listen to.

I’d recommend finding an audiobook of a book you’ve either already read or that you’re extremely interested in just to get a feel for audiobooks. After listening to “American Gods,” I listened to “Star Wars: Bloodlines” by Claudia Gray, which I got really into because I’m fascinated with the “Star Wars” universe.

Listening to short stories is also great because they don’t have a huge time commitment and they’re easy to balance into everyday actions. Spotify also has lots of free short stories in their library, from classics to horror. They can last anywhere from 10 minutes to an hour, so they’re great to listen to while walking from class to class or at the gym. The best short story audiobook that I’ve listened to is HP Lovecraft’s “Call of Cthulhu,” but it’s a pretty scary one.

Audiobooks are a great way to kill time and keep your mind entertained and sharp. The options of what to listen to are endless with free content all over the Internet. Next time you have a break between classes or a long car ride, consider trying out an audiobook. You might not like it, but if you do, your options are virtually endless on books to listen to.

Contact the author at journalentertainment@wou.edu

Don’t dismiss third parties

By: Burke De Boer
Sports Editor

If you’re like me, one of our two 2016 candidates has offered policies that resonate and you’ve got a horse in the race that is the presidential election. Chances are you’re not like me.

According to Fivethirtyeight, Clinton and Trump are our least popular candidatesscreen-shot-2016-10-25-at-8-42-55-pm ever. Yet many argue that if you don’t vote for their candidate you’re wasting your vote outright. This is, after all, an astonishingly important election. We’re told Trump with nuclear codes will lead to the end of the world, while Clinton’s aggressive stances from Honduras to Russia will lead to World War III, and possibly also the end of the world.

Trevor Noah warns that Trump will go full-dictator and says, “This could be the very last vote you ever get.” Meanwhile, Ann Coulter predicts a Clinton presidency so disastrous that this election will, “determine the survival of western civilization.”

Gosh.

Despisers of Duverger’s law have a way out. All they have to do is waste their vote.

When Gary Johnson ran in 2012, it was the first year that a Libertarian candidate cracked a million votes. He’s definitely getting at least five percent of the popular vote this year.

And that’s what it all comes down to. The third party vote is not actually about electing Gary Johnson or Jill Stein in 2016.

screen-shot-2016-10-25-at-8-43-06-pmFive percent in one election opens Federal Election Commission moneybags the following cycle, entitling a third party to around 10 million dollars of general election financing. For perspective, OpenSecrets.org calculates that the Green Party has raised $3 million this cycle while the Libertarians have pulled $11 million.

The two third parties nearly made it to the debates this year. A strong showing in the election and increased presence going into 2020 could actually get them there.

If a Libertarian or Green Party platform appeals to you, I encourage you to vote for their candidate. To lift a Trump quote, “What have you got to lose?”

The country isn’t going to fall apart just because you cast a ballot for Stein or Johnson in Oregon, a state that will go blue anyway. After all, this is not simply the election where a North Carolina Republican office was firebombed. It’s also the election where, according to Time Magazine, the Democrat Party raised $13,000 to help the Republicans with repairs. It’s an election for a country founded on a government of checks and balances.

If you don’t like your two options in 2016, a third party vote may ensure better options in 2020. At which point we will, again, reassess our country’s policies and direction and again determine our country’s next course.

Contact the author at bdeboer11@mail.wou.edu

The other side of Shkreli

shkreli-not-douchey-colorcbsnews

By: Darien Campo
Designer

The Daraprim price hike scandal was one of the most talked-about stories of 2015, cementing former Turing CEO Martin Shkreli as the “bad boy of big pharma.” Daraprim, a drug used to treat infections in HIV-positive individuals, was purchased by Turing pharmaceuticals in early 2015. In September of the same year, CEO Shkreli increased the market-price of Daraprim from $13.50 a pill to $750 a pill, causing a 5000 percent increase.

The price change was immediately criticized by pharmaceutical companies, running presidential candidates, and all of mainstream media. Through this long campaign of skewering headlines and viral media, Martin Shkreli has come to be known to the public as the new face of greed and the evils of capitalism.

It’s almost embarrassing how quickly everybody (including myself) accepted Shkreli as the bad guy and worked together to lambast him online. Mainstream media and clickbait headlines don’t tell the whole story, and so over the last year Shkreli has taken multiple opportunities to explain and defend his actions as the head of Turing. After taking the time to hear the story from Shkreli’s point of view, I found that my opinion on him did a 180. I’m not here to say that what Shkreli did was right, but if you hate the man, it should be based on fact and not sensationalism.

“I think the idea that I represent pharma is insane,” Shkreli stated in a January, 2016 Vice interview. “I don’t like most drug companies, I think most of them do a bad job-I think that I’m different.” He justifies his company’s decision, saying that the price hike only affects large corporations and not innocent users.

“We sell our drugs for a dollar to the government; but we sell our drugs for $750 a pill to Walmart, to Exxon Mobil, to all these big companies, and they pay full price because f— them, why shouldn’t they?” The higher price only applies to larger corporations whom Shkreli deems to be the true super-villains of the pharmaceutical world. Those profits are then used to fund Turing’s research and development division: developing newer, cheaper and safer drugs.

In fact, Shkreli brags that Turing spends more revenue on research and development than any other pharmaceutical company in the country: 60 percent of their revenue, in fact, versus the standard 15 percent. In an interview on CNBC Shkreli revealed that Daraprim is far from perfect and that Turing hopes to replace it with a more efficient drug.

Even after its price hike, Daraprim is one of the cheapest drugs on the market, even though it treats one of the rarest infections around. The illness that Daraprim treats is so rare that Shkreli claims most hospitals will never even need the drug but, just to be safe, Turing offers a smaller, cheaper bottle of the drug that hospitals can use to stock up with.

Shkreli and Turing Pharmaceuticals have done everything they can to make Daraprim one of the most highly available drugs in the country. He claims that most of their stock of the drug is sold off for only one dollar; if somebody can’t find or afford Daraprim, all they have to do is contact Shkreli and he will personally give them a free supply of the drug.

Martin Shkreli does not regret his decision to raise the cost of Daraprim. “If that’s the price I have to pay to find a new medicine for dying kids, I’ll raise it even more.”

“With respect to Daraprim,” lawyer Benjamin Brafman told the press after Shkreli’s infamous congressional hearing, “I think you will see he has saved many many lives with his brilliance.”

Contact the author at dcampo13@wou.edu

Vote local

By: Marshall Guthrie
Guest Contributor

Don’t get sidetracked by the presidential election. If you care about
the cost of your rent and tuition, your access to high speed internet and marijuana policy, then you’d better be prepared to #votelocal. I say this as a Western employee and former city councilor.

It’s easy to think that the presidential election is the only reason to turn up at the polls. There’s no shortage of media coverage when it comes to that embarrassing circus. But the reality is, for students at Western, your lives are much more directly impacted by state and other local elections than by anything any of the presidential candidates can do for or to you. Not only that, marshall-guthrie-colorwou-edubut if you, the students of Western, organize your votes, you could choose the winner of every local election. Yes, every local election.

Let’s start by looking at the state representative position. This is a position that helps decide funding for higher education in Oregon and, therefore, how much your tuition will have to be to cover what the state doesn’t fund. Do you think tuition is too high? Then you’d better #votelocal.

In the last election, Rep. Paul Evans won by less than 800 votes in House District 20, which is where Western is located. There are thousands of students eligible to vote at Western. You can easily determine who represents you when tuition and education funding are determined if you #votelocal.

That same power, the power to use a student voting block to pick your elected officials, is even more true the more local you get. The Monmouth/Independence City Council sets electric and water utility rates, and influences MINET Internet rates. City Council also addresses local marijuana policy and taxes that affect your rent. In the last election, a little over 100 votes would have been enough to sway the results.

The County Commission also levies taxes and policy that affect your rent, among many other things. Things could have been different in the last election with only 11 votes. That’s not a typo, eleven votes. Do you know eleven people who didn’t vote in the last election? If so, you’ve started to clue into why students aren’t taken seriously by many politicians.

You may be wondering how you get informed about local elections; after all, it’s not like there’s a lot of city council coverage on CNN or in your twitter feed (unless you follow @marshallguthrie). Start with a google search; check out local papers like the Itemizer-Observer, Salem Weekly and Statesman Journal, or find the candidates on Facebook. Read the Oregon Voters’ Guide or talk with your friends and professors.

None of this is to say that the Presidential Election doesn’t matter. My opinion is that it has never mattered more than it does this year. But local politics are equally important, and if students get together, you can run this place. Make sure your friends are registered and voting, start conversations around local issues and get informed about the candidates. Heck, maybe even run for office next time. I have; it’s not tough. And your election will be pretty much guaranteed if you can get Western students to vote for you.

Contact the author at marshall@marshallguthrie.com.

Campus Voices

By: Ashton Newton,
Entertainment Editor

Question: Would you go to Mars?

 

 
“billyann-colorYes, because I might meet a Martian and we could have an epic love story and it would be great.”
Billyann Stempel, sophomore, education

 

 

 
“Yes I would like to go to Mars. I’ve always gael-color
een interested in other planets and Mars is one of the possible planets we could go to, so I think it would be kind of cool to check it out and see what I could do.”
Gael Marin-Valdez, senior, exercise science/pre-education

 

 

 

nathalie-bw“No, I’m very terrified of the unknown, I think. It would be a very cool life changing experience but I’d be too afraid to not come back that I wouldn’t.”
Nathalie Olds, senior, communication

 

 

 

 

“No because I don’t really know what’s out there. We can be told what’s in space but it’s not trusted.”
Karissa Torres, sophomore, criminal justice

 

“I actually signed up for the Mars colony program in 2005, unfortunately diabet
es disqualified me. Why, because frankly I’d like to get the hell off this planet and away from everybody.”
Devin Shill, senior, education

katelynn-color

 

“Probaly not because one-the time to get there, two-I have plans for my life and three-I’m not an astronaut.”
Katelynn Van Gelder, sophomore, English

 

Don’t man up

By: Keith Mathew
Photo Editor

Man up. Grow a pair. Be a man. You’re not manly enough. We all hear those phrases said to men. What people do not understand is that these seemingly harmless phrases are destructive in nature and cause many problems in our society.keith-color

As a man, I absolutely detest the use of those phrases as it puts men in a nice little box where people want them. These comments are sexist against men, I even hear women say them. That’s right folks, sexism against men, there’s a new one.

We all hear about sexism against women but many of us overlook the sexism occurring against the other sex. I have seen my fair share of documentaries and articles about how these sexist phrases can cause men to commit crimes that many people associate with that gender.

Men are more violent than other genders because when we say, “man up” to a boy who is crying, they learn they cannot express sadness in that way. Then later in life through the social conditioning of society and media, they learn the only emotion that is expressed by their sex is anger. All these emotions, which become bottled up inside, stew until they morph into toxicity. This leads to the only outburst of emotion men are allowed to show: anger.

The box that society puts men into creates the monsters that commit horrible acts against other people. I have heard of many “fights” that have happened in high school just to show they are not afraid to punch another person “just because they can”. There is no reason for anyone to do that, it is just a feeble attempt to show you’re a “man.”

Just because it’s called the patriarchy, doesn’t mean all men have a better life. The patriarchy oppresses all people, sure it benefits men a lot more but only if you fit this mold they have made for you.

Every human being is different, so we should all treat them as an individual-not a stereotype or a generalization of their gender. In my book if you identify as a man you are a man, no matter what.

Too much pumpkin spice

By: Ashton Newton
Entertainment Editor

It’s fall. Classes are back, the leaves are changing color, and everybody is drinking pumpkin spice flavored coffee drinks. I’ll be honest, I live for this season and I have my fair share of pumpkin spice lattes, but this year pumpkin spice is out of control.

It seems like everyone is trying to hop on the pumpkin spice train. I’ve seen pumpkin spice flavored Oreos, yogurt, cereal and even Hershey’s kisses. In my opinion, the majority of the pumpkin spice flavored food out there right now isn’t good. It just doesn’t capture the same feeling that a pumpkin spice latte gives me.

The whole idea around pumpkin spice has been escalating over the past couple years. Starbucks has grown more aware of its popularity, other coffee places have tried copying it, but this year is too crazy.

Enough is enough. It’s time to draw the line between enjoying pumpkin spice and overdoing it.

I love pumpkin spice; it’s the highlight of my fall. It gets me through early morning classes, warms me up on cold autumn walks, but I want to keep it at that. If pumpkin spice is overdone, I fear that it’ll lose its magic. It won’t be special anymore. Even in the fall season, you have to have moderation. Going to the grocery store and seeing pumpkin spice everything ruins that.

The only thing to do is to just ignore these products, focus on what pumpkin spice has been for me in the past, and not let the name get overdone and ruined. I don’t need to breathe pumpkin spice to enjoy fall. I need to be strong, resist the temptation of things like pumpkin spice Ghirardelli chocolate squares and stay true to what pumpkin spice really is: the best fall drink flavoring out there.

Contact the author at journalentertainment@wou.edu

A new kind of sit-in

By: Burke De Boer
Sports Editor

The NFL preseason ended and games are now serious. The trial-and-error month is forgotten. Except for one moment.

Colin Kaepernick remained seated during the national anthem. I didn’t think much of it at the time, figuring he needed as much sitting practice as he could get. The San Francisco 49ers are a mediocre-to-bad team with Blaine Gabbert their mediocre-to-bad quarterback. This left Colin to fight practice team wanderer, Christian Ponder, for the backup’s seat on the bench.
Ponder had a good preseason too.

I figured Kaepernick wouldn’t throw a pass this year and I haven’t changed my mind. However, his protest will be intrinsic to the sports annals of 2016.

We’ve had a hot summer, folks. Philando Castile was killed by police while trying to show his license and registration. Alton Sterling was pinned to the ground and shot for selling CDs. Terence Crutcher was shot while holding his hands in the air.

Protests spread, often turning violent. Five police officers were killed in Dallas.

And the Democratic Party nominated a member of the old guard, whose 1990s party ramped up the War on Drugs. This escalation disproportionately affected blacks who, today, make up 40 percent of the American prison population despite being 13 percent of the general population, according to the U.S. census.

Kaepernick has brought all this summer heat into the football stadium, using his platform to bring attention to a people he feels this country has left behind. For largely the same reasons that Johnny Cash wore black, Colin Kaepernick now sits. Other players have followed suit, raising fists and kneeling.

But football is a conservative institution. Sports generally teach conservative principles from a child’s first youth league. Across the country, kids are brought up from peewee sports to blue collar work or military service.

It is in this spirit that the military has been evoked to condemn players sitting. The flag is very personal to a lot of people who have known or served alongside men and women who died protecting what the American flag represents.

It represents a country founded on the ideals of freedom. Which especially includes the freedom to critique. It is only through free democratic discussion that a country can grow. As anyone who’s played a sport knows, it is only through critique that you improve.

Whether or not you agree with his method, and whether or not you think America is already the greatest country in the world, the fact is America can still be better. The gulf between government and black communities it’s supposed to represent is one more problem that’s going mainstream.

In the hot summer of 2016, it seemed unlikely that Colin Kaepernick as a quarterback would ever be discussed by any sports panel. And then the hot summer went pro. Would Ray Lewis and Shannon Sharpe have discussed life in African-American communities on Fox Sports 1 without Kaepernick’s controversy? Certainly not. But now that discussion has come to America’s conservative institution.

Contact the author at journalsports@wou.edu

Link to attach to “according to the U.S. census” in online publication: http://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/rates.html

A Note from the Editor

By: Stephanie Blair
Editor-in-Chief

As someone who has not only read this publication every week for the last two years, and worked on it for just as long, I can hardly explain the excitement I feel about taking the role of editor-in-chief this year.

As I read over the opening statements of the last three editor-in-chiefs before me, I found myself feeling inadequately prepared to write my own.

Even more daunting is the fact that my mostly new staff and I are coming in at the height of election season, but I trust in our ability to handle the issues facing each student with grace and care.

screen-shot-2016-09-28-at-6-56-59-pmOur staff will strive to produce a paper that balances entertainment and information. The Western Journal aims to provide the truest form of journalism: a clear delivery of the facts without personal or political agenda. Our duty is first and foremost to our readers.

This will be in the forefront of our minds leading up to November, with accusations against ‘The Media’ as a heartless, faceless conglomerate tied to corporations backing specific candidates. The Western Journal is, and will remain, an independent publication. This ensures that we are not obligated to withhold facts in accordance with the desires of a benefactor or, similarly, to produce propaganda.

In the upcoming weeks, there will be opportunities for members of each party to make arguments in our editorial section, but elsewhere we will be delivering the news so that our readers may form their own opinions as well.

When writing about news on campus, our section editors and I will strive to not only to highlight more clubs and organizations in spotlight articles, but also to involve them in our conversations. This, along with the decision to continue “Campus Voices”, is in an effort to publish the voices and opinions of as many students as we can each week.

In the same vein, because this publication is by students for students, it makes sense that the best improvements will be made by our readers. And so, just as I ask our readers to trust us with the responsibility of reporting unbiased information, I ask our readers to write to us, to give us feedback both positive and negative.

For guidelines regarding submissions of letters to the editor, see the masthead on page two.

Contact the author at journaleditor@wou.edu

Vegan

By: Jamal Smith
Sports Editor

Knowing that I was about to embark on one of the most difficult challenges of my life, one week of eating vegan, I decided to head to Fogo de Chao, an all-you-can-eat Brazilian steakhouse in Portland to fill my belly up on a week’s worth of meat.

As I sat at the table devouring mouthfuls of scrumptious prime cuts from beef, chicken, and lamb, I questioned whether I had bit off more than I could chew. Was the next week going to be a complete failure? After a night of drinking, could I avoid Taco Bell, and replace my familiar drunken meal with a vegan burrito or a vegan meatless patty that sat in my freezer?

Deep in thought, I was interrupted by a waiter who came to my table and asked, “Would you like a brandy marinated chicken thigh wrapped in bacon?” Ashamed at my reliance on animal flesh, I nodded in approval, for my mouth was full of prime rib.

To say that I love meat is an understatement. For me, a meal is not complete without some sort of meat. Then there is dairy: ice-cream, butter, milk, yogurt; all important foods in my animal-reliant diet.

By now you may be asking yourself, why then would you put yourself through the torture of eating vegan for a week? The answer is simple: I am appalled at the exploitation of animals for human consumption.

My conundrum started when one of my vegan friends posted a video to her Facebook feed of animals being mistreated in slaughterhouses and it opened up a Pandora’s Box of savagery. After watching other online videos concerning this subject, I felt sick to my stomach. It was then that I decided I would eat vegan for a week.

To prepare for my week of veganism, I stopped by Whole Foods to stock up on vegan delicacies. I plundered various fruits and vegetables, almond milk, meat substitutes, and other items lacking animal byproducts. My normal five minute trip to the grocery store took nearly an hour as I carefully examined the ingredients on the food labels.

The first day of the challenge was by far the most difficult. For breakfast I ate a banana with a bowl of cereal — with of course, almond milk. At lunch I heated up a vegan burrito which was mediocre at best. For dinner, I ate a vegan bagel and a salad medley which I smothered in caesar dressing. It wasn’t until I had half consumed the salad that I realized that the dressing that I liberally poured on the vegetables violated the challenge. I took a mental note of my indiscretion and vowed to be more careful for the remaining six days.

The next three days came and went without any hiccups; however, on the fifth day, in a drunken stupor after a night out celebrating my friend’s birthday, I stopped by Wendy’s. I’m not sure if it was the lack of meat, or if it was from all of the vodka Red Bulls that I had consumed, but their Baconator was to die for. Strike two.

When I awoke the next morning and saw the empty Wendy’s wrappers scattered on my coffee table, I have to admit that I felt a little ashamed. The caesar dressing fiasco was an honest mistake, but indulging in a greasy bacon layered burger was self-sabotage. At that point I could have given up on the challenge, but I already had a few more days left of vegan food, and my momma didn’t raise a quitter, so I decided to continue.

I finished out the challenge strong, and despite the two mess-ups, I would consider my overall results successful. The challenge wasn’t nearly as hard as I had expected; I felt great at the end, and I consumed more fruits and vegetables in a week than I had over the course of the entire year.

My advice for anyone who is thinking about eating vegan is to realize that if you make a mistake, it’s not the end of the world. Just put down the meat and try again.

Contact the author at jsmith15@wou.edu or on Twitter @journalsportWOU

A Final Sendoff

By: Conner Williams
Editorial-in-Chief

What a year it’s been. For you faithful readers who have followed The Journal’s commentary throughout the school year, you know we’ve covered some big topics and made some big changes.

We’ve added in the Humor section, slapped in a weekly crossword, switched to a tabloid-style front page, and given you lots of tasty recipes to get drunk from (you’re welcome).

As we implemented all of these changes, we had one thing in mind: you.

Each decision we’ve made this year has revolved around one question: what can we do to engage and entertain our readers more? We’ve focused on the stories of the characters of Western in our Humans of Western segment, included your opinions in our Campus Voices columns, and given you some brilliantly orchestrated … erm, I mean, predicted, horoscopes to help guide you on your path to astrological righteousness.

I’m quite proud of the progress this newspaper has made; it took countless hours of interviewing, writing, designing, photographing, editing, and cultivating content to bring you a product that we can say we’re proud of, and what I honestly believe has gotten better week in and week out.

And with all of this progress in hindsight, it is with a heavy heart that I write my final column for this publication that has allowed me to express my own opinions and grievances with the world of Western. For those of you that enjoyed my columns, I thank you for your readership, and for those of you that did not, I hope at least that I have made you think about something in a different way or question your own beliefs to some degree.

Because that’s what has always been my goal: to provide validated and credible information that allows the readers to think critically, and to then form their own opinions.

Despite my best efforts, I recognize that I may just be another guy with opinions that hopes to inspire change through written word; a task that is not easily accomplished. I have attempted to sift through the mountains of BS that seep into our everyday news rhetoric, and to create a lens for you to see through said BS.

To quote one of my favorite political analysts/comedians/humanitarians, “The best defense against bullshit is vigilance … So if you smell something, say something.” We miss you Jon Stewart.

So I encourage you, reader, to lift up the gas masks that CNN and Fox News and Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton and all the other professional bullshit dispensers have attempted to slip over your faces.

Question everything. Seek further truth. Do not silently accept a politician’s word as gospel. Follow a page on social media with different views than your own. Do your best to learn something new every day, and challenge others to do the same.

Things will be changing throughout our society soon, and as one that will be graduating in a few weeks, I must admit I’m a bit intimidated. It’s a big, bad world out there, and sometimes running home to mom’s house for a hot meal and a visit with the cat seems like the best thing to do.

But feigning ignorance and submitting to the fear of the possibility of failure will get us nowhere. An important lesson to remember is that we should not be afraid to fail, but even more important is that we should also not be afraid to succeed.

To quote one of my favorite films, “Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring”, “Even the smallest person can change the course of the future.” So get out there and make it happen. Whatever it is that you decide to do, give it your all. Do what makes you happy, and do it for the rest of your life.

As we prepare for commencement, I wish you all the best of luck in your endeavors and hope you may look back on your time at Western with a sense of fondness and pride.

Go Wolves!

Contact the author at cwilliams14@wou.edu or on Twitter @journalEIC

Third party’s the charm

By: Ben Bergerson
Designer

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are not the only options for president this year.

Though you may not know it from how the media represents the race, parties other than the Democrats and Republicans (known as third parties) exist in this country and in the past have had an impact on elections. This year, people with no political party affiliation will represent the biggest voting block at 42 percent of all voters. Democrats represent 29 percent and Republicans represent 26 percent.

These are near historical lows for party affiliation, and the mainstream media has said relatively little about how that affects our party system. With both of the leading candidates for president having extremely low favorability ratings, many people are turning to see what other options are out there.

There are three third parties in the US that have large enough voter registration to get on state ballots. You can check them out below, and see if any fit your political beliefs:

  1. Constitution Party
    If your problem with Donald Trump is that he isn’t conservative enough, look no further than Darrell Castle, the candidate from the CoScreen Shot 2016-05-23 at 7.50.42 PMnstitution Party. Castle is a lawyer and ex-Marine who advocates for the US to withdraw from the UN and NATO. He wants to end the Federal Reserve and is against abortions.

 

 

 

2. Libertarian Party

Though they haven’t selected their nominee, the Libertarians look likely to choose former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson again, havingScreen Shot 2016-05-23 at 7.50.29 PM nominated him in 2012 as well. Johnson is pushing for a balanced national budget, the decriminalization of marijuana, and lowering taxes. As a Libertarian he is conservative on fiscal matters, and more liberal on social matters.

 

3. Green Party

The Greens have also yet to choose their nominee, but their 2012 nominee, Jill Stein, looks Screen Shot 2016-05-23 at 7.50.15 PMlike their probable choice. She made history in the last presidential elections for receiving more votes than any other woman in U.S. history. The Greens’ campaigns focus on environmentalism, participatory democracy, nuclear disarmament, and social justice.

One last note on third parties: Many people have pointed to the 2000 election as an example of the “spoiler effect.” They argue that the Green Party candidate, Ralph Nader, stole votes away from the Democrats, thus “spoiling” the election for Al Gore and handing the presidency to George W. Bush. While this spoiler effect can be a concern for battleground states where a few votes make a big difference, here in Oregon voters have reliably voted Democrat for a few generations. Because of that, Oregonians have the ability to vote for the candidate they align with the most, rather than voting tactically against someone they don’t want. It’s something to remember as we go into what seems will be an extremely bitter political season.

How about we teach people not to rape?

By: Zoe Strickland
Staff Writer

Recently, a lot of my classes have started talking about rape culture. Being a gender studies minor, this isn’t anything new. My classes have specifically been talking about how, when dealing with rape culture, we often teach people how to not get raped instead of teaching other people to just not rape. Buckle up and prepare to listen, because this stuff is serious.

Not trying to solve the problem at the root sounds crazy and completely unreasonable, right? I think so.

Why is it that we teach children to always walk in groups, instead of teaching them about what consent is? Why do we tell girls in college to walk with their keys carefully positioned in between their fingers, instead of teaching people in college that you can’t actually consent to something if you’re under the influence of any drugs or alcohol? Why is it that even after doing all of these studies showing that sex education is important to preventing sexual assault, schools across the country still push abstinence-only education? It’s absurd.

I’ve taken multiple classes on the Western campus wherein rape culture is discussed. I’ve sat through throngs of students in various sexuality and gender classes wherein we’ve talked about how society has uniformly taught women to be afraid of getting raped and has taught men that they should be feared for potentially having the power to rape. In these classes, it goes without saying that every student found the “teach women how not to get raped” method upsetting. So, if so many people find this upsetting, why haven’t we made more strides in fixing it?

A fundamental component of this discussion is believing victims/survivors of sexual assault. I swear, if I have to sit through one more person mentioning how “sometimes people make it up,” I’m going to scream. Look at the statistics: only two to eight percent of reported sexual assaults are ruled out as being false reports. Why are we still doubting the believability of something if 98 percent of reports are true? Why aren’t we seeing how we can help people get through the traumatic event that they’ve just experienced?

These things are serious. Instead of people being afraid to walk around alone because something might happen to them, we need to start teaching personal boundaries and the meaning of consent at a young age. Young people aren’t too young to grasp the basic concept of human decency.

Contact the author at zstrickland14@wou.edu or on Twitter @nwpmagazine.

Go and love yourself

By: Conner Williams
Editor-in-Chief

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The price of pink

By: Stephanie Blair
Copy Editor

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

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

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

Products:

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

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

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

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

What fourth estate?

By: Alvin Wilson
Staff Writer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You get the point.

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

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

Bills, Bills, Bills

By: Brianna Bonham
Photo Editor

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

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

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

Do they not see anything wrong with this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Western Oregon University

Facebook   Instagram   X  YouTube

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

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

Tools

Campus Maps
Canvas
Find People
Portal
WOU Email
Technical Support

Resources

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

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.